THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO THE SEARCH FOR A VIEW OF THE WHOLE: MODELS OF COMMUNITY IN GOETHE, ELIOT AND MELVILLE A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE DIVISION OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY JOHN U. NEF COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL THOUGHT BY PHILIP BENNETT SUGG CHICAGO, ILLINOIS JUNE 2019
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
THEUNIVERSITYOFCHICAGO
THESEARCHFORAVIEWOFTHEWHOLE:
MODELSOFCOMMUNITYINGOETHE,ELIOTANDMELVILLE
ADISSERTATIONSUBMITTEDTO
THEFACULTYOFTHEDIVISIONOFTHESOCIALSCIENCES
INCANDIDACYFORTHEDEGREEOF
DOCTOROFPHILOSOPHY
JOHNU.NEFCOMMITTEEONSOCIALTHOUGHT
BY
PHILIPBENNETTSUGG
CHICAGO,ILLINOIS
JUNE2019
Formyparents,AnnandKeith
iii
TableofContents
ListofTables..............................................................................................................................................................ivAcknowledgements.................................................................................................................................................vIntroduction.IndividualDevelopmentandIntegrationinNineteenth-CenturyNarrative..................................1Chapter1.WilhelmMeister’sWanderjahre:Vocation,theGuild,andtheSignificanceoftheIndividualLife..........................................................................................................................................................45Chapter2.GeorgeEliot’sVillageHumanismandtheLifeoftheNation............................................................138Chapter3.ClarelandtheCommunityofPilgrims........................................................................................................214Conclusion.CriticismandSocialForms:Commune,Village,Pilgrimage..............................................................304Bibliography...........................................................................................................................................................357
iv
ListofTables
Table1.TopologiesoftheWanderjahre........................................................................................................................64Table2.SpatialHierarchyintheWanderjahre...........................................................................................................81Table3.TemporalityintheWanderjahre.....................................................................................................................86Table4.ComparisonoftheCharactersMakarieandMontan..............................................................................92Table5.OverviewofCommunesintheWanderjahre...........................................................................................132
v
Acknowledgements
Forataskasdifficult,asuncertain,andaslong(inmanysenses!)asadissertationinthe
CommitteeonSocialThought,amerelistofpeopletothankisnotenoughtoconveythe
richcontextofmyday-in,day-outrelianceonothers.Butgivengeneralfatigue,shortnessof
time,andthedifficultyofwritingacknowledgementsworthyofthejourney,Iamafraidthat
theseremarkswilltendtowardanincompletecatalogofnames.Inkeepingwithathemeof
thisproject,letmemakeitclearnowherethatonlyaseriesofcommunities—somefadedin
thepresentandgeographicallydissipatedfromChicago,othersasvitalasthebeginningof
graduateschool—couldhavebroughtmetoasatisfyingresolutionofmytimehere.
MostpeoplewhobeginanyPh.D.attheUniversityofChicagoareadvisedthatitwillbea
longanddifficultproject.Anditisatruismthat,totheextentwehavedistinctexpectations
goingin,fewofusachieveanendtoaresearchdegreethatresembleswhatweforesawat
thebeginning.BeyondthesestatementsIcanonlyspeakformyself.
TheworldhaschangedagreatdealsinceIbeganthisproject.Afellowstudentoncetoldme
thattheexperienceofbeingastudentinSocialThoughtwasliketheplotlineofThomas
Mann’sTheMagicMountain.Togiveabitofbackgroundforthisreference,thenovel,setin
analpineSwisssanitariumintheforebodingyearsleadinguptoWorldWarI,concernsan
impressionableyoungman,HansCastorp,whojourneysupthemountainforwhatshould
beashortvisittoanailingrelative.Buthestays.Andhegetsaneducationsodeepand
vi
open-endedthatheforgetshispriorcommitments--and(almost)hispriorlife.Whenhe
finallyleavesthemountain--atapointintimesodifferentfromthepresentthatitwas
impossibletoevenimagineuntilitarrived--hefindsthathehasachievedsomething,but
alsobeenthrustbackintoahistoricalmomentthat(toputitbothanachronisticallyand
veryoptimistically)doesn’tknowwhattomakeofapersonwithhisskillset!
Muchofthishitsclosetohome.Theworldappearscrazierthanithaseverbeeninmy
lifetime.Itisnot(andprobablyneverwillbe)lookingforSocialThoughtgraduates.But,if
nothingelse,Ihavemademypeacewithallthat.Alotofthingsneedtochangeaboutour
worldintheyearsahead,andIamreadytomakemycontribution.
Formypart--unlikepoorHansCastorp--IamluckyinthatIcanstillthinkbackquiteclearly
tothebeginning,beforemytimeingraduateschool,andhavehopethatthosewhohelped
launchmeintomyPh.D.wouldstillknowwhattomakeofme!We’llseeabouttherestof
theworld.
ThankyoutomytwomostimportantmentorsinmyundergraduateyearsatDuke
University,ThomasFerraroandThomasPfau.IntheintellectualpresencethatImaintain
acrosstherestofmylife,Icanonlyhopetocarryasmuchcharisma,generateasmuch
excitement,andcreateasmanygoodmemoriesforstudentsandpeersasProfessor
Ferraro.Youtaughtmetoseekoutmentorsbasedonalltherightqualities.AndIhave
ThomasPfautothankformakingmeawareoftheCommittee,andforguidingmy
undergraduatethesis.Idon’tknowwhathewouldthinkoftheintellectualthatIhave
vii
becometoday,butIlookforwardtoshowinghim.Hisprolificbodyofworkhasbecomean
evenmoreimportantsourceofinspirationformeingraduateschooland--totheextentwe
arestillinterestedinthesamethings--aconfirmationthatIamontosomethingimportant.
Intheyearsbetweenundergraduateandgraduateschool,thankyoutoMayaMacGuineas,
forgivingmeafascinatingstandpointattheNewAmericaFoundationfromwhichto
observethedysfunctionsoftheAmericanandworldeconomiesduringthefinancialcrises
of2007-2009.AndthankyoutoAnneVorce,whohadthepatiencetoteachmehowan
economistthinks,althoughIhadnosignificantexperiencewith,orcommitmentsto,the
fielduptothatpoint.HerencouragementmeantagreatdealinthedaysIwasdeciding
aboutgraduateschoolasalifepath.AlthoughIdidunderstandituntilmuchlater,mytime
inthethinktankworldofWashington,D.C.wasimportanttrainingofitsownsort,andit
informedmyowncriticalunderstandingofwhatthoseinpowermeanwhentheytalk
aboutpoliticalideals,sociallife,andcommunity.Fromthattime,thankyoumostofallto
MarcGoldwein,forbeingsuchagoodfriendandintellectualpartnertomethatitwasa
verydifficultdecisiontoleave.Yourpragmatism,intelligence,accomplishmentsand
decencywereanimportantearlyexampleofapeermakingrealcontributionstotheworld.
MyexperienceinSocialThoughthasbeenoneofexhilaratingfreedom,dizzying
uncertainty,andincreasinglyaggressiveattemptstoputmyselfonafirmintellectual
footing.Intheearlyyears,Ilearnedfromprofessorswhoseperspectiveswerebothso
powerful,andsodistinct,thatitwasdifficulttoknowwhatIwasbuildingaswhole.These
include,innoparticularorder,RobertPippin,LorraineDaston,WendyDoniger,Glenn
viii
Most,DavidNirenberg,RalphUbl,LauraSlatkin,NathanTarcov,PaulFriedrich,andLeon
Kass.AndofcoursemydissertationcommitteechairsDavidWellberyandHansJoas,about
whomIwillhavemoretosayinamoment.Comparedtothelaterstagesoftheproposal
anddissertation,thesewerefairlystraightforwardyears.ButIwouldnothavegotten
throughthemhadInotfoundpeers,bothwithinandoutsidethedepartment,whobecame
truefriends.ManyofthemhavebynowleftChicago—alossthatIfeeleveryday.For
creatingandfosteringarealcommunity,thankyoutoRobertAbbott,JeremyBell,Erin
Burke,LaurenButlerBergier,AntonBarba-Kay,NoahChafets,JonBaskin,ScottBearDon’t
Walk,JohnEllison,TobiasJoho,GregFreeman,BrickeyLeQuire,TamarMayer,Hannah
Mosher,AgnesMalinowska,JohnPaulRollert,DawnHerraTerry,JasonRosensweig,
MichaelSubialka,JonnyThakkar,LukeParker,AustinWalker,CarlyLane,DrewDixon,Lin
Atnip,PaulCato,PabloGonzalez,DavidGutherz,BenJeffery,ChenxinJiang,JozefMazernik,
JuliaMueller,AndreaRay,JosephSimmons,KonradWeeda,DanielleCharette,andJamie
McCormick.Andthankyoutomycohort,AlexOrwinandAnastasiaArtemyev-Berg,for
givingmeasenseofcontinuityandapeergroup,likeIwaspartofamoreconventional
graduateschool“class.”AndthankyoutoAnneGamboa,departmentaladministrator,for
makingusfeellikesomeonenoticedusonmanydayswhenthecampusandhallsofFoster
werequiet,andwehadonlythesolitudeofourownwork.
Ifthereisapricetobepaidforthefreedomofaninterdisciplinarygraduateprogramlike
SocialThought,thenitisthedifficultyoffindingone’swaybacktoanintellectual
foundationthatmakesthedissertationpossible.Thisisalreadyahugetaskina
conventionalgraduateprogram,andIdon’tbelieveIamoverstatingmycasewhenIsay
ix
thatitisusuallymoredifficultinSocialThought.Inthisveryuncertainendeavor,Ihave,
morethananyothergroup,mypeersintheGermanDepartmenttothank—tothepoint
thatIstillsometimeswonderifIshouldhavebeenajointdegreestudentratherthanjusta
fellowtravellerofthedepartment.Myparticipationinseminars,theGermandissertation
writinggroup,anddepartmentaleventshelpedmestaygroundedenoughtofeellikeI
couldkeepmakingprogress.ManyofyouarealsonolongerinChicago,butIhopewesee
oneanotheragainsomeday.ThankyoutoPeterErickson,StephenHaswellTodd,Andrea
Wald,JoelaJacobs,MimmiWoisnitza,MartinBaeumel,HannahEldridge,Malika
Maskarinec,JakeFraser,MirjamBerg,EthanBlass,DanielBurnfin,DanielCarranza,Emily
Dreyfus,SimonFriedland,JosephHaydt,GregHedin,MatthewJohnson,TamaraKamatovic,
ClemenceKavanaugh,JessicaResvick,AlexSorenson,EllaWilhelm,NoahZeldin,andof
courseAmyStebbins!IamproudtohavemademywayinSocialThought,butIcouldnot
havedoneitwithoutallthegoodexamplesyousetforscholarlylife.Withoutthisgroup,I
wouldnothavehadthesupportorconfidencetodomyownwork.
And,speakingofwork,itisnosecrettothosewhoknowmethatIwanderedfarafieldfrom
thetraditionalitineraryofcompletionforgraduateschool--tothepointthat,whilestill
enrolledasastudent,Ispentseveralyearsworkingfull-timeintheverydifferentworldof
technology,computing,andartificialintelligence.Although,inhindsight,itformeda
strangesabbaticalofsortsformewithingraduateschool,IseenowthatitwasabreakI
badlyneeded:tobereassuredofthevalueofmyownintellectualwork,toseesomeofthe
sameissuesIcaredaboutinactionwithinunfamiliarsituationsofcontemporaryAmerican
life,andtoregaintheconvictionthatIcouldworkwithothersinansweringthedemandsof
x
theday.ThankyoutothoseatNarrativeSciencewhosawsomethinginme,whobrought
meinforwhoIwas,andwhoputtheirreputationonthelinetogivemeachance.Ihave,in
particular,KatieHughesandMauroMujica-ParodiIIItothankhere.Thankyouforhiring
me,andforbeinggenerousaboutallowingmetogowhenIdecidedIhadunfinished
business.ThankyoutoPoojaParthasarathyforherwisdom,forcaringaboutmeasa
person,andforinsistingthatIkeeptherightperspectiveasIbeganafamily.Andthankyou
toCalFreseforbeingatruefriend,andforourwonderfulandwide-rangingconversations
(usuallybeforeeighta.m.!)thatopenedupacontemplativeescapeinaveryfast-pacedand
goal-drivenenvironment.Wemaynowleadverydifferentliveswithdifferentconcerns,but
you,too,madethispossible.Andyouareallmorethanopen-mindedenoughtobeproudof
meandofwhatI’veaccomplishedtoday.
Ioweadebtbeyondexpressiontothosewhohavebeenmymoststeadfastsupportersin
graduateschool.Thankyoutomydissertationcommitteeco-chairs,DavidWellberyand
HansJoas,forsupportingmeandreadingmyworkduringthoseperiodswhenIresembled
atraditionalgraduatestudent;butthankyouevenmoreforyourbeliefinmewhenIdidn’t
looklikeatraditionalgraduatestudent.Yourunwaveringsupportandbeliefinmewas
essentialtomyabilitytocompletethisdissertation.Withoutyourwillingnesstoacceptthe
decisionsImadeinallthings,intellectualandcareer,Iwouldhavelongagodecidedthatit
wasn’tmeanttobe.Andthankyoutomythirdcommitteemember,RosannaWarren,for
steppinginatarelativelylatestageandembracingmyworkinwhateverstateitwas
currentlyin.
xi
Iwouldalsoliketogiveaspecialacknowledgementtothoseingraduateschoolwho
supportedmebutwereunable,becauselifeandcircumstancesintervened,tofinish
themselves.WhenIstarted,Ididnotreallybelievethatlifehappens.Toputitinterms
familiartomydissertation:IbelievedthatIwasanindividual—thatIwasincontrolofmy
ownfate.ButIseenow,inaveryprofoundandheartfeltsense,thatitcouldhavebeenany
ofus.Ihopethateachofyouhasorwill,inyourownway,findrealclosuretoyourtime
here.
ThankyoutoMarcusLampertandJeffreyParkerforbeingmyfriendsinallcircumstances,
andmyroommatesduringsomeofthemostdifficultyears.Thankyoutothoseinother
departmentsandatotheruniversities,foryourfriendshipandcamaraderieduringthis
time.TheseincludeChrisSukhu,DustinGourdin,DanielPhillips,PhillipHenry,Katie
HendricksandMollieMcFee,thoughIhavethesensethatIamforgettingamillionandone
peoplerightnow.SpecialgratitudegoestoRaginiTharoorSrinivasanandBrandonLevin
forbeingmymostunconditionalacademicfriends,anddeeplyinspiringintellectual
partners,fromtheverybeginningofthosefirstyearsatDuke.Ican’twaittoseewhatyou
do.
Thankyoutomyparents,AnnandKeith,forsupportingme,frommydecisiontotakethis
crazyunconventionalroute,allthewaytotheirbeliefthatIcouldfinish—andneededto!
Thankyouforlovingmeandmysiblingsforwhoweare,andfortreatingusaspeople
whoseliveshadtounfoldaccordingtotheirownlogic.Idedicatethisdissertationtoyou,
becausetheworkthatIdohereisaproductofsacrificebymultiplegenerations,whohave
xii
cumulativelymadepossibleatypeofreflectivelifethatisessentialtoanycultureworth
preserving.Ihavebeensoluckytolivethislife,andIwilldomybesttorepayit.InthisI
owethanksaswelltomybrothersandsister,David,ElizabethandAlex,andtomy
extendedfamily—especiallymygrandparentsJohnandElizabeth,EvelynandNorman—
whoalwayslovedandbelievedinme.
Finally,thankyoutomywife,Maeve.Icouldthrowawayeverythingelsefromthistime,
butbecauseImetyou,mylifewouldstillbewhatitreallyistoday.Thankyouforyourlove
fromthatfirstwinterinChicago—verylongagonow,butneverlost.Andthankyoutomy
preciousson,Owen,mygoodluckcharm,whohasgivenmeyetanothernewbeginning.
PhilipSugg
May2019
1
Introduction:
IndividualDevelopmentandIntegrationinNineteenth-CenturyNarrative
Thisisastudyaboutasetofproblemsthatbecameurgentfornarrativefictioninthefirst
decadesofthenineteenthcentury,asthetermsofwhatisnowcalled“realism”were
beginningtofixthemselvesaroundtherequirementsofmiddleclassexistence.Atthesame
momentthatthenovel,initsmanyvariants,createdasetofhistoricalconventionsthat
allowedforabroadlyconvincingdepictionofordinarytimeandeverydaylifeasawhole,its
constitutivefigure,theindividual,provedunabletolivecomfortablywithintherealistic
worldthatnarrativehadcreated.Iwanttoconcentrateonthosecharacterswhoselives
unfoldundertheparticularityofthehistoricalrecordandwithpowersofeffectiveagency
thataredefinitiveofthemodernindividual,butwhodonotachievewhatIwillcalla
positionof“mastery”overtheircircumstances.
ErichAuerbachwritesaboutonearchetypalGermannovelofmiddleclassreality,Goethe’s
WilhelmMeister’sLehrjahre(1795),thatitandothernovelslikeit,“insofarastheydepict
contemporarysocialconditions,”represent“thedestiniesoftheircharactersonasolid
basisofbourgeoisclass-consciousnesswithoutgivingusmuchofanimpressionofthe
underlyingpoliticalandeconomicmovementsoftheperiod,”therebycreatinganarrative
backgroundwhere“timeandplaceareoftenalludedtointhemostgeneralway.”1Goethe’s
1ErichAuerbach,Mimesis:TheRepresentationofRealityinWesternLiterature-NewandExpandedEdition,trans.WillardR.Trask,PrincetonClassics(PrincetonUniversityPress,2013),448,https://books.google.com/books?id=IXEPAAAAQBAJ.
2
solutiontotherealisticbasisofthenovelwouldcometorepresentastereotypically
“inward”Germanapproachtobothartisticrepresentationandpoliticalthinking;inthis
reading,realityprovidesthestabilityfortheworkingsofthesearchingmind,the
unrealizedvisionoftheprivateindividual.
Anexample:thereaderfirstencounterstheyoungWilhelminhispresent-daylife,
enrapturedbyasecretloveaffairwithanactress,Mariane,whomhemetwhileshe
traveledwithheractingtroupethroughhishometown.Theimmediateeffectofthislove
interestistoproduceasenseofpurposiveunitywithinWilhelmabouthisownlife,bothin
itsalready-livedhistoryandinitsunlivedpotential.Inthepast,thismeansalooking-back
tohisearliestmemories,tothecelebratedsceneofthepuppetshowheorganizesasasmall
child;andinthefuture,hislovegiveshimtheresolvetopursueacareerinthetheater.2
Thepuppetshowwasahiddensign.Wilhelmthinksthathis“vocationforthetheaterwas
nowcleartohim,”and–inalocutionthatcuriouslyelidestheagency–“hewasadvancingto
itwithMariana’shandinhis;and,inhiscomfortableprudence,hebeheldinhimselfthe
embryoofagreatactor,–thefuturefounderofthatnationaltheater.”3AlthoughWilhelm
hadnotknownituntilhemether,hispurpose–tobecomeanactor–had“slumberedinthe
innermostcornersofhissoul,”untilit“awoke”and“paintedapictureforhim,”wherein
thequotedpassageofhisprivatethoughtsheimagineshisfuturelikeanawakeningor
calling.Goethe’sparticularformofrealismmakesitpossibleforthenoveltopresentan
2“Whenthefirsttumultofjoyhadpassed,andourfriendbegantolookbackuponhislifeanditsconcerns,everythingappearednewtohim:hisdutiesseemedholier,hisinclinationskeener,hisknowledgeclearer,histalentsstronger,hispurposesmoredecided.”JohannWolfgangvonGoethe,WilhelmMeister’sApprenticeship,ed.andtrans.EricA.Blackall,PrincetonPaperbacks(Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,1995),4
3Ibid.,16–17.
3
individuallife-course,whereitissensibletothinkofbringingtogetherpastandfuture
underasingleprogram,asolutiontotheproblemthatthehistorianJeroldSeigelposes:
“howthedisparateandchangingpartsofalivingindividualcouldallenterintoasingle
whole.”4
IunderstandrealismhereasthebackgroundofwhatmakesWilhelm’svisionofhimself
possible.Weseethetermsofthisrealityintrudinginexplicitform,asintheplausibilityof
institutionalized,nationalGermantheaterwithinthelate-eighteenthcenturypolitical
fragmentationoftheGermanprincipalities.Anditappearsinthemoreimplicitconditions
ofbelievableoutcomesforWilhelmasacharacter:inwhatwewouldtodaycallthe
“socioeconomic”securityofWilhelm’schildhoodthatwouldallowhimtoconceiveofhis
lifeasasetoffutureoptionsthatcouldbebroughttoresolutionthroughavocational
calling.
TheversionofrealismthatIhavepresentedheresuggestsaworldthatmakesitself
availabletoaction,onewhichispopulatedbycharacterswhohaveanaccuratesenseof
theirownagency,andwhomakeplansandtakestepstoaccomplishthemwitha
reasonableexpectationofsuccess.Historycanbeanunrulyforceofdisorder,thisstory
goes,butwhatevertheupheavalsofthepast,letusnowwatchtheactionsofcapable
peopleinthepresent.InFredricJameson’sstudyoftherealistnovel,heidentifiesatension
between“destiny”andwhathecallsthe“eternalpresent.”5Somethinglikeaneternal
presentdescribesWilhelm’sself-understandingofhisconditionatthestartofthenovel;he4JerroldESeigel,TheIdeaoftheSelf:ThoughtandExperienceinWesternEuropeSincetheSeventeenthCentury(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2005),109.
5FredricJameson,TheAntinomiesofRealism(NewYork:Verso,2013),26.
4
isdefinedbyachoicetoenterthetheaterthatwasalwaysthere,waitingtobediscovered,
andneedingonlytheadditionofhisintentionandwilltomakeitreal.Destiny,Jameson
argues,isanexogenousforceof“chronology,”a“tripartitesystemofpast-present-future,”
thatslotstheaspirationsofindividualsintothevagariesofunrelentingchange.6Auerbach
getsatthislatterviewoftherealasdeterminativeforceinhisreadingofapost-Revolution
France,throughStendahl’sLeRougeetleNoir(TheRedandtheBlack)intheaftermathof
“thefirstofthegreatmovementsofmoderntimesinwhichlargemassesofmen
consciouslytookpart”that“gaverisetoamoderntragicrealism.”7Herehistoryisnota
canvasbutanever-shiftingconfigurationoftectonicplates,aneffectontheindividualsuch
that“thesocialbasisuponwhichhelivesisnotconstantforamomentbutisperpetually
changingthroughconvulsionsofthemostvariouskinds.”8
Accordingtothisconceptionofthereal,theindividualplaysaroleinafatewhose
underlyingconditionsescapehim.Thedevelopmentoftheindividualcharacterrepresents
somethinglikeacoming-to-awarenessofthebafflingnatureofhistory,learningto“account
tohimselfforhisreallifeandhisplaceinhumansociety…uponafarwiderpractical
foundationandinafarlargercontextthanbefore.”9Thisrealismtakesakindofaesthetic
delightintheworking-outofhistoryinitsentirety,aformwhichAuerbachseesreaching
itsfullestrealizationintherealismofawriterlikeBalzac,who“notonly,likeStendahl,
placesthehumanbeingswhosedestinyheisseriouslyrelating,intheirpreciselydefined
6Ibid.,25.
7Auerbach,Mimesis,458.
8Ibid.,459.
9Ibid.,459.
5
historicalandsocialsetting,butalsoconceivesthisconnectionasanecessaryone:tohim
everymilieubecomesamoralandphysicalatmospherewhichimpregnatesthelandscape,
thedwelling,furniture,implements,clothing,physique,character,surroundings,ideas
activitiesandthefatesofmen…”10Historybecomesalevelingforcethatsmoothsout
differencesbetweenindividualsundertheweightofcollectivechange.
Theproblemofhowtheelementsofthenovel–theindividual,theevent,thecommunity–
standoutwithinthehistoricalfluxisnotnewtorealism,butitwouldbeaproblemthat,I
wanttosuggest,therealisticnovelhadtosolve,oratleastconceal,onitsownterms.
InhisTheoryoftheNovel(TeoriadelRomanzo,2011,Englishtranslation2017)theliterary
theoristGuidoMazzoniseekstoexplainhowtheordinary,mortalindividual,“bornin
obscurity,”andsubjectto“thecyclicalmovementofnature,”couldbecomethesubjectof
thenovelinthefirstplace.11Likeallrepresentationalsystems,therealisticnovelproduces
itseffectbydistinguishingforegroundfrombackground.Foregroundisthechainofdetails
worthyofbeingcalledoutinexplicitrepresentation,whilebackgroundiseverythingelse
presumedtoexistinordertosupportthisrepresentation.InaclaimindebtedtoAuerbach,
Mazzoniwritesthatamongtheoldestliterarydivisionsisthatbetweenthedivineand
humanworlds.TotheGreeksthestoriesofgodswereprimafacieworthyofpermanent
enshrinement.Thepoetincludesdivineactionintheepicbecauseitexplainstheconditions
underwhichuntoldmortalbeingslivedtheirlives.Storiesaboutthegodsexplainthe
humanworld,nowandforever.
10Ibid.,473.
11GuidoMazzoni,TheoryoftheNovel(Cambridge,Massachusetts:HarvardUniversityPress,2017),22.
6
Buthumanactorsandeventsdonotpresentthepoetwiththesameobviousprincipleof
selection.Theirlocationinaworld-ontologyisbothmeagerandfragile.Thefateofmortals,
makingtheirshortjourneythrougharealmoftransience,isto“seetheirexistence
disappearingintothemassofequivalentlives,unabletoimpressasignoftheirdifference
inthefabricoftheworld,anddestinedtobelostintheinfinitecycleofendlesslysimilar
things.”12
Inthepre-modernsituation,thewriter’ssolutiontothisproblemwastoselecthuman
materialfromlivesincloseproximitytoheroism,nobility,orotherwiseexceptionalsocial
standing.Eveniftheexceptionallifeworthyofremembrancecouldnotbetiedbacktoa
divinesource,itcouldstillparticipateinanelevatedorderthatwascelebratedinmemory
bythegreatnessofitsdeeds(e.g.,AchillesintheIliad)orenshrinedininstitutionswitha
self-memorializingfunction(e.g.,familieswithalineofinstitutionalizednobility).Ifthe
poetwereaskedwhyhebroughttogetherasetofeventsandcharactersintoasingle
narrative,hecouldanswerthattheywereguaranteedbythesameexceptionalontological
status.Theexactmeaningof“exceptional”mightchangebytimeorplace,butthepromise
thattheobjectofrepresentationwaspartofahigherorderofbeingwouldbecomea
preconditionforspeakingatall.Artisticrepresentationwasthereforeanactofdrawing
12ibid.,22.AuerbachmakesacomplementaryclaimabouttherealisticprinciplesofliteratureinRomanantiquity,intheworkthehistorianTacitusandthesatiricalwriterPetronius:“Everythingcommonlyrealistic,everythingpertainingtoeverydaylife,mustnotbetreatedonanylevelexceptthecomic,whichadmitsnoproblematicposing.Asaresulttheboundariesofrealismarenarrow.Andifwetakethewordrealismalittlemoreseriously,weareforcedtoadmitthattherecouldbenoseriousliterarytreatmentofeverydayoccupationsandsocialclasses–merchants,artisans,peasants,slaves–ofeverydayscenesandplaces–home,shop,field,store–ofeverydaycustomsandinstitutions–marriage,children,work,earningaliving–inshort,ofthepeopleanditslife.”Auerbach,Mimesis,31
7
linesbetweenearthlyphenomenaandanothersuperior,coordinatingontologicalcontext.13
Thegods,saints,mortalheroesandotherexceptionalbeingssubjecttopre-moderntextual
representationwereallfiguresdefinedbytheirexceptionalknowledgeandcontrolover
theworld.Theirclaimtorepresentationcamefromtheunderstandingthattheiraction,
whileconcentratedintheirownsubjectivepersonality,nonethelessstoodforsomething
general.Thehumanworldwasdefinedbytheactions,howevercapricious,ofbeingswho
hadpowertodefinerealitybynatureofbeinganexceptiontothestructureofhuman
reality.
Themoderntext,epitomizedintheopen-endedadaptabilityofthenovel,appearedtoleave
behindthequestionofontologicalsignaling.Ifthejustificationofthepre-moderntextwas
tiedtothepowerthatontologicallyexceptionalbeingshadoverthehumanreality,thenthe
most“modernassessment”ofthisproblemisthatitsimplyignored–orevenembraced–the
chaosofthehumansubject.AbouttheearlymodernwriterRabelaisandhisLifeof
GargantuaandofPantagruel,Auerbachwritesabouthisincorporationofchaosintothe
text,that“thebreathinglifeofmenandnaturecallsforthallof[his]love,histhirstfor
knowledgeandhispowerofverbalrepresentation.”Themoderntextdefiestheancient
hesitanceaboutsubjectmatter,believingthatitcanfixsomethingworthknowinginthe
imageofthehuman.Changebecomes“triumphantearthlylife”forAuerbach,whichcalls
13Theearlyliteraryworkdidnotneedtorefertoitscelestialconnections;thislinkwaspresumedinorderfortherepresentationtobepossibleatall.MichelFoucaultdescribesapre-modernmodeofcorrespondentrepresentationinTheOrderofThings:“Theuniversewasfoldedinuponitself:theearthechoingthesky,facesseeingthemselvesreflectedinthestars,andplantsholdingwithintheirstemsthesecretsthatwereofusetoman.”MichelFoucault,TheOrderofThings:AnArchaeologyoftheHumanSciences(NewYork:VintageBooks,1994),17
8
forthRabelais’“realistandsuper-realisticmimesis.”14Thetextthatplayswiththeendless
changeofcircumstancehasnegatedthecenteringpositionformerlyheldbythegods.As
longaseverythingaboveandbelowissubjecttochange,theproblemofrepresentational
justificationcanbeignored.LikeAuerbachwritesofRabelais,“asapartofnature,man
rejoicesinhisbreathinglife,hisbodilyfunctions,andhisintellectualpowers,and,like
nature’sothercreatures,hesuffersnaturaldissolution.”15
SupposingthatweacceptthecharacterizationofRabelais’anti-ontology,thatitcelebrates
theunstableinterplayofbeingsandmatter,Iwanttothinkaboutwhathappenswhena
certainontologicalstabilityisrestoredtothetext,butthequestionofontologicalpriority
hasbeenforgotten.
ThesortoforderthatIwanttoconsiderreflectsamiddle-classsensibilityatthebeginning
ofaEuropeannineteenthcentury.Realismprovidesasmoothsurface,paperingover
ontologicaldifference.Andatthecenterofthisconstructionisapromiseofmasteryover
earthlycircumstances:thattheindividualcanstandapartfromthechaosbecauseithas
beenrenderedknowableandcontrollable.16Auerbachwritesthat“theChristianunityof
thecosmos,andthefiguralpreservationoftheearthlyinthedivinejudgment,ledtoavery
14Auerbach,Mimesis,276.
15Ibid.,276.
16DavidWellberyandThomasHellerwriteintheintroductiontotheireditedcollectionReconstructingIndividualismthat“anessentialaspectoftheindividualistworldviewwasthebeliefthattheobjectivedomainwasavailabletoscientificorlogicalrepresentation,”connecting“liberalindividualism”with“technicalaccomplishment.”InDavidE.WellberyandThomasC.Heller,“Introduction,”inReconstructingIndividualism:Autonomy,Individuality,andtheSelfinWesternThought,ed.DavidE.WellberyandThomasC.Heller(Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress,1986),1–15,6
9
strongconceptoftheindestructiblepermanenceoftheindividual.”17ThesituationIwant
tospeakofkeepstheindividualatitscenter.Thisistheindividual,conceivednotasthe
recipientofagiftatthecenterofadivinelyshapedworld,butthemasterwhobringsthe
cosmostoheelthroughtools,methodsanddistance.FrancoMorettinotesthatthistype
becomesan“abstracthero”byrepresentingthesystemsofcontrolandpowerthathe
extendsoutintotheworld.Thesevaluesincludethoseof“energy,”“self-restraint,”
“intellectualclarity”and“astrongsenseofgoals.”18Thebourgeoisindividualpossessesthe
toolstoturntheworldintoacollectionofproblemssubjecttosolutions.Hisclaimto
exceptionalism,mastery,evenimmortalityisnotpremisedontheexceptionalismofhis
origins,butontheabilitytocreateandlivewithinsystemswitha“value”thatwilloutlast
him.
Bythenineteenthcentury,then,thistypeofrealisticnovelrestsitscredibilityonits
ordinaryrepresentationsofacertaintypeofindividualagent,whatIwanttocallan
“effective”individualconsciousnessthatunderliesthesignificanceofitssmoothand
reliablereality.Ifthemodernnovelupendsthehumanatthecenterofthecosmos,thisis
notbecauseoftheerasureofthehumanfigurefromthepicture,butbecausethevalidityof
therealrestsuponitsfixtureintheimageofaprincipledmachinebuiltbyhuman
capability,anddefinedbywhatisempirical,logical,inprinciplecontrollableandmorally
comprehensiblebyagents.Thatis,becauseitissanctionedbyacertaintypeof
consciousnessofreality.ThisiswhatHusserlwilllatercall“scienceinthedogmatic
17Auerbach,Mimesis,277.
18FrancoMoretti,TheBourgeois:BetweenHistoryandLiterature(London:Verso,2014),16.
10
attitude,”whichresolves“problemsregardingthepossibilityofknowledge”in“an
intrinsicallyuniversalwayinordertothenapplytheattainedsolutionsanddrawthe
consequencesfortheassessmentoftheultimatelyvalidsenseandepistemicvalueofthe
resultsofthedogmaticsciences.”19Thepossibilitiesof“thereal”accordwithapictureofa
worldthatcanbemasteredaccordingtotechnology,organization,andapragmatismborn
fromawillingnesstotreatphenomenaassystematicallyimpersonal.20Butitisthefigureof
theindividual–capable,worldly,consciousofhisownpower–thatmakesthesystematic
viewpossible.
Yettheobjectivityoftherealunderthismodelalsoentailsaproblem.Iftheonlyallowable
realityisthatwhichcanbeobjectified,whichcanbecanunderstoodtooperateaccording
toregularprinciplesthatareindifferenttoanyparticularobserver,thenwhatisthe
significanceoftheindividualinrealisticrepresentation–evenonewhoachieves“mastery”
overa“system?”Toreferbacktomyearlierdiscussionofrepresentation,letmeclaim
explicitlythatinstrumentalformsofmasterydonotentailaheroicposition;indeedthe
individualmaybeabystandertotheoperationofthesystem,butmasteryisatool,which
canbetaughtandwieldedsystematically,withoutregardtothepersonality.21AsRaymond
19EdmundHusserl,IdeasforaPurePhenomenologyandPhenomenologicalPhilosophy.FirstBook.GeneralIntroductiontoPurePhenomenology,trans.DanielO.Dahlstrom(Indianapolis:HackettPublishingCompany,2014),47.
20Onthesignificanceoftheterm“system,”ThomasPfauwritesthat“…themostconspicuousnewtermtoreflecttheaccumulative,impersonalandabstractmodeofknowledgeproductionisthatof‘system,’whicharisestoprominenceinthelaterseventeenthcenturyandundergoesfurtherscrutinyanddifferentiationthroughouttheeighteenthcentury.”InThomasPfau,MindingtheModern:HumanAgency,IntellectualTraditions,andResponsibleKnowledge(NotreDame:UniversityofNotreDamePress,2013),431
21IinvokeasituationlikewhatphilosopheroftechnologyAndrewFeenbergcallsthe“technosystem,”which“strivestobeall-encompassing”withtheresultthat“technicalrelationsconcentratepowerintheimpersonal,distancedsubjectoftechnicalaction.”InAndrewFeenberg,Technosystem:TheSocialLifeofReason(Cambridge,Massachusetts:HarvardUniversityPress,2017),160
11
WilliamswritesinKeywords,hislexicographicinvestigationintothenineteenth-century,
theterm“machine”conjuredup“…anassociationwiththeolder…senseofroutine,
unthinkingactivity–thusactionwithoutconsciousness.”22"Or,asFrancoMorettiwritesin
hishistoryofthefigureofthenineteenth-centurybourgeois,theverysystemsofobjectivity
thatlegitimatedthebourgeoisie’sriseasarulingclass(“whoseconsensuswasbuilton
things–notmen,letaloneprinciples”)wasits“self-effacementasaclass.”23
WhatIhavecalledthe“mastery”positionbringsustoconsiderbourgeoisindividualismas
ageneralconcept.IshouldbrieflynoteherethatIspecificallyemphasize“individualism”as
acommittedphilosophicalpositionoverthemoreneutralterm“individual,”sinceIwantto
pointtoapositionthatassertstheprimacyandimportanceoftheindividualoverother
socialforms–especiallycollectives.24
Thedangertothebourgeoisindividual–andthesituationIwanttoexamineintherealistic
novel–isthatheremainspowerfulonlyifheholdsontohispositionasthecreatoror
maintainerofhissystemofmastery.Butmastery,onceitisinplace,caneasilybecome
invisible.OnewaytotakeWilhelm’sunderstandingofhissituationatthebeginningof
WilhelmMeister’sApprenticeshipisthathehaslostasenseofhisownsocialconditionthat
makesan“aesthetic”posturetowardtheworldlikehisownpossible.FrancoMoretti
22RaymondWilliams,Keywords:AVocabularyofCultureandSociety,Newedition.(NewYork,NY:OxfordUniversityPress,2015),entryfor“machine,”150(emphasisinoriginal)
23Moretti,TheBourgeois,21.
24AfittingdefinitionofhowIunderstandindividualism:“aliberalismthatemphasizestheautonomy,importance,andfreedomoftheindividualinrelationtosocietyandstate.”InGeorgeRitzer,“Definitionof’Individualism’,”inEncyclopediaofSocialTheory,ed.GeorgeRitzer(SAGEPublications,Inc,2005),http://proxy.uchicago.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e000xna&AN=474409&site=ehost-live&scope=site
12
arguesinTheBourgeoisthatthefateofthisclassasawhole(hedrawsprimarilyfrom
Englishsources)wastoloseitscommitmenttotheclear-sightedrationalitythatgaveit
power,substituting“sentimentality”and“fervors”foritsformercoldrealism.25
Bourgeoisindividualismthereforecomestothinkofitselfas“unconditioned”or“free”by
sittingattheheadofasocioculturalsystemthatmastersthecapricesofnature,assertsthe
regularityofsociallife(throughtheexpansionof,e.g.,theeconomicsciences),and
constrainstheunrulinessofthepsychethroughadefinitionofindividualswho“will”the
“ends”whichtheysetoutforthemselves.Thispictureofastableworldthatbecomesa
blankpalateforindividualismcanbethoughtofasaconstructionintwosenses.First,in
thatthismindsetdoesnotthinkofitselfasofferinga‘model’ofnaturalorhuman
phenomena,butsetsthemasthemodel-freebackgroundcondition,astateofnatureforthe
individualtotellthestoryofhisorherownself-generation.Second,inthatitconcealshow
theindividualpositionofmasteryovernatureisadistinctformofagency,oneofmany
possible.Thisistheparadoxofmasteryandtheinstrumentalstancethatformsthe
backgroundformyconsiderationofrealism:thatinaconditionwheremasteryhasbeen
naturalized,theresponsibleagentdisappears.
Asaresult,themasteryperspectiveproducesasanend(control,instrumentalpower)what
itfirstjustifiesasmeans.Thesuccessfulattempttomaketheworldclearer,morerational,
andmorepurposivedoesmaketheworldmoreintelligibleforthepurposesofcontrol,but
alsoreducestheunderstandingofmultiplicityanddifference,neglectingaspeculativemind
thatattendstochoiceandcontingency–questionsaboutwhatcouldhavebeenotherwise.
25SeeMoretti,TheBourgeois,184-85
13
Byemphasizingwhatitcando,whatiswithinitspower,thenarrativeofbourgeois
individualismobscuresthepartsoftheworldthatdonotcontributetoitsmastery,what
mightbe“given”tonodiscernibleend.Andyetitisjustthese“superfluous”conditions,this
“aesthetic”satisfaction,towhichWilhelmMeisterattendsatthebeginningofthe
Apprenticeship,whenhe“foolishly”decidestoendhistraininginthefamilybusinessand
joinatravelingtheatercompany.TheformofrealismthatIwanttoconsiderhasforgotten
itsownbasisand–likeWilhelm–beguntoletitsmindwander.Themasterystancetendsto
erasetheagent’sownsenseofhimself,tomakethehumanseeminessential,thereby
reversingitself.Itbecomesasearchfordependence,forapatternthatconstrains.
Thedisappearanceoftheindividualwithinthestanceofmasterycanbeseeninthelater
eventsoftheGoethe’sApprenticeship,whereWilhelm’schildhoodfriendWernermakesan
archetypalstatementofthisposition,towhichWilhelmreplieswithreasonsaboutwhyhe
wantstojointhetheater.Thestakesofthediscussionabovewillbecomeclearerinthe
narrativeformoftheApprenticeship.Iwanttoconsiderthissceneinsomedetailbecauseit
willeventuallyprovidetheoutlineforthemediatingroleofthecommunityasaresponseto
theproblemofmastery.
ThecharacterWernerisWilhelm’s“practical”counterpartandnaturalfoiltohisambitions:
afriendofsimilarage,classstatusandupbringing,butwithamoreconventionaloutlook
thatisalignedwiththeirfamilies’expectations.Yetheisasenthusiasticallyarticulateabout
theidealsofthiswayoflifeandhisownidentityprojectasWilhelmisaboutthetheater.
Theirexchangeisthusafirstpassatalargerconflictthatwillstillbeleftopenattheendof
14
theLehrjahre.26
Wernerlookswithcompletefaith–indeedwithexcitedanticipation–attheincipientriseof
amanagerially-mindedmerchantclass,alongwithahostofmodernizingtrendsthatare
sweepingtheworld,openingupnewmarkets,andreorganizingoldsocialhierarchies.
Wilhelm,bycontrast,resiststheseconventionalmarkersofsuccess,favoringartisticand
aestheticgoalsthatwillremakehisentirebeing.Thesearegoalswhichheopenlyregards
asmoresubstantiveandrealthanWerner’sown.Wernerwantsmorethanwealthor
status,whichhealreadypossessedatmiddle-classlevelsfrombirthon.Whathehopesfor
isthathisentirecharacterwillbedefinedbyamasteryofthecomingrevolutionin
commerce,technology,politicsandaristocraticprivilege.Wernerdisplaysafascination
withthedynamism,perpetualreinventionandconstantsearchfornoveltycharacteristicof
thisnewway-of-beingintheworld.HisisastyleofindividualismtorivalWilhelm’sown.
Ontheoneside,thereisWilhelm’slionizationofthe“innertruth”ofhisownparticular
artisticcalling.Ontheother,wearepresentedwithWerner’sappetitetoplungehimself
intomarketforcesthatcontinuallyremaketheworld.
WilhelmandWernerstagetheirconflictofvaluesoverapoemthatWilhelmre-discovered
fromhischildhood,anaptdescriptionofWilhelm’spresentsituationentitled“TheYouthat
theCrossroads.”27ForWilhelm,thepoempointstoatrueidentity,ameaningfulselfthatis
obscuredbythedistractionsofcommerceandworldlyinterests.Thoughhefeelsadeep
26CitationstoGoethe’sLehrjahrewillincludeboththeEnglishedition(Goethe,WilhelmMeister’sApprenticeship)andGerman(JohannWolfgangvonGoethe,WilhelmMeistersLehrjahre,ed.ErichTrunz,15.Auflage,vol.7,HamburgerAusgabe,RomaneundNovellen:Band2(München:VerlagC.H.Beck,2002))edition(“HamburgerAusgabe”)
27The“JunglingamScheidewege”,Goethe,WilhelmMeister’sApprenticeship,18(Blackall),37(Trunz)
15
dissatisfactionandrestlessnesswithhiscurrentcircumstances,Wilhelm’sfamilialorigins
(epitomizedforhimbyhisgrandfather’sskillfully-accumulatedartcollection)confirmthe
worthofhisaspirations.Hisfamilialinheritanceofartisticpotentialhas,hebelieves,
skippedagenerationinhisparents,butre-asserteditselfinhim.Wernerishorrifiedby
Wilhelm’sre-discoveryofhischildhoodpoemandadviseshisfriendtoburnit.He
expresseshisshockthatWilhelmcouldplacesomuchstockin“themostunrealthinginthe
world.”28Wernerknowsthatthereisanentireworldofengaging,practicalbusiness
interestsjustwaitingtobetakenupbyambitiousyoungpeoplelikehimselfandhisfriend.
Wilhelmprizesthedepthofartandintellectualworkoverthesuperficialglamorof
commerce,findinginWerner’saspirationsanequallyincomprehensibleideal.29
Werner’sproposedwayoflifeseekstogivehimmasteryoveranincreasinglycapitalized
andcommodifiedworld.Hewantstomakehiswillintoaninstrumentofthehistorical
changesthatheexcitedlyanticipates.Wilhelm,bycontrast,seemslessdirectlyinterestedin
thetrendsofthewiderworld,andmoreconcernedwithattendingtothe“inner”shapeof
hispersonality.Artisticproductionwillbetheactivitybywhichhepursueshis
development,andthemeasureofhissuccesswillbethedegreetowhichartgivesunityto
hisnascentadultpersonality.
Thewayinwhichthetwofriendsframetheirdebatesuggeststhattworecognizably
modernvaluestructureshavebeguntoachieverepresentationthroughtheirpersonalities.
Werneracceptsthattheentireworldisopentothosewhovaluetheworldlikehedoes,
28ibid.,19(Blackall),38(Trunz)
29ibid.,18(Blackall),37(Trunz)
16
becauseitisaworldheldatarationalandcalculativedistance:standardizedbyonenotion
ofvalue–commercialexchange–andthedesireofitsparticipantstoconformthemselvesto
thosedemands.
AsismadeevidentbyWilhelm’saccusationagainstWerner–thathevaluesthe“form”of
thingsovertheir“content”–heprizestheopportunitytoachieveproceduralmastery
throughthesystemofworldcommerce.HeexhortsWilhelmtoconsiderthisnascentway
oforganizingtheworldmorecarefully,andisconfidentthatWilhelm,too,willbeamazed
by“howmanythingscomeinandgoout,”andthathewillsee“thesmallestcommodityin
relationtotradeingeneral.”30Hiscentralmetaphorisabiologicalone:circulation.Trade,
inhisview,isasimportanttosustaintheshapeofthisnewworldasthecirculationof
bloodistothesustainmentofthebody.
Wilhelm,bycontrast,displaysaquasi-romanticunderstandingoftheintrinsicvalueofhis
highestideals,epitomizedbyhisfaithinhimselfandthetelosofhisindividualself-
cultivation.Ashewilldeclarelaterinaletter,hisresponsetoWernerwillbehisownlife,
livedinandthroughthetheater.Hisitinerarywillbethepursuitofdevelopmentinthe
mannerofBildung:“Ihaveanirresistibledesiretoattaintheharmoniousdevelopmentof
mypersonalitysuchaswasdeniedmeatmybirth.”31HedescribesanalmostPlatonic
ascenttowardpersonalperfection,hopingthat“Imaygraduallycometoseegoodinwhat
30ibid.,19(B),38(T),“Wenndusiehst,wievieleMenschenbeschäftigetsind;wenndiesiehst,wosomanchesherkommt,woeshingeht,sowirstduesgewißauchmitVergnügendurchdeineHändegehensehen.DiegeringsteWaresiehstduimZusammenhangemitdemganzenHandel,undebendarumhälstdunichtsfürgering,weilallesdieZirkulationvermehrt,vonwelcherdeinLebenseineNahrungzieht.”
31ibid.,175(B),291(T),“IchhabenuneinmalgeradezujenerharmonischenAusbildungmeinerNatur,diemirmeineGeburtversagt,eineunwiderstehlicheNeigung.”
17
isgood,andbeautyonlyinthetrulybeautiful.”32Wilhelmhasnouseforwhatheregardsas
thetypicalquestionsofthoseinhisownbourgeoisposition.Not,hedeclaresdismissively
“WhatdoIhave?”where“having”andpossessionincludesallthosegoodsthatareincluded
amongtheso-calledintellectualorhumanformsofcapital.AsWilhelmformulatesit,he
doesnotwanttoask“whatinsights,whatknowledge,whatability”hemightacquire.33
Rather,thequestionWilhelmwillanswerismuchsimpler,albeitfarmoreradicallyopen-
ended:whoamI,andhowdoI“become”thatperson?
Werner’sstatementssuggestthathehasembracedarangeofdetached,instrumental
valuesthatCharlesTaylorclassifiesundertheconceptofthe“bufferedself.”34This,Taylor
argues,isthepredominantwayoforderingthemodernWesternsubject,boundupwith
utilitariannotionsofvalue,anddefinedaboveallbythedetachmentofindividualsfrom
theirsurroundings.Inexchangeforthisdetachment,Taylorwrites,comes“asenseof
power,ofcapacity,inbeingabletoorderourworldandourselves.”35Thedetachedsubject
understandshisconditionasaformofprogress,ofbeing“connectedwithreasonand
science,asenseofhavingmadegreatgainsinknowledgeandunderstanding.”36Werner’s
understandingofphenomenaissuchthathehasgreatpurchaseonarangeofthings
outsidehimself.Theworldpresentsitselfasanendlessarrayofproblemswaitingtobe
32Ibid.“DazukömmtmeineNeigungzurDichtkunstundzuallem,wasmitihrinVerbindungsteht,unddasBedürfnis,meinenGeistundGeschmackauszubilden,damitichnachundnachauchbeidemGenuß,denichnichtentbehrenkann,nurdasGutewirklichfürgut,unddasSchönefürschönhalte.”
33Ibid.
34SeeCharlesTaylor,ASecularAge(Cambridge,Mass.:BelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress,2007),Chapter8,“TheMalaisesofModernity.”
35Ibid.,300.
36Ibid.,548.
18
solvedbyskillfulmasters.Histools–ofquantification,accounting,marketknowledge,and
systematicthinking–arewhatpromisetoconferthedistinctivestampofcharacteronhim.
WhatthetheateroffersWilhelmisthechancetomatureandgrowinasettingwhere
artisticcreationandpersonaldevelopmentareoneandthesame.
ThisdebatebetweenWilhelmandWernerseemstocasttheirdisagreementasamatter
mere“choice,”ofpersonalpreferencesamongtwopeoplewhosharemembershipina
newlyascendantmiddleclass.Solongastheirdebateisunderstoodjustintermsoftheir
ownpersonaldevelopment,theirclashofopinionspromisestoreducetolittlemorethan
philosophicalandprivatedifferences.Butevenwithinthetermsofanexchangethatis
predominantlyabouttheirnascentsenseofself,bothmenrevealanunderstandingthat
anycapacityforself-realizationwillbedependentontheconfigurationoftheir
surroundingsandsocialmilieu.
Werner’sidealcommunityisnotdefinedbyaparticularnotionofhowthe“goodlife”might
look,butratherbytheerasureofexclusivegoodsinfavorofperpetualprocess.Thatis,by
thecapacityofthemarketsandexchangetolevelsubstantivedifferencesbetweenvalues.
Thepositivevisionhepresentsoftheindividual–amanoftheworld,someonewhoisat
homebotheverywhereandnowherethroughhistrade–isaccompaniedbyanegative
projectoferasingthebordersandwallsthatdividecommunitiesintodistinctfeudaland
aristocratictitles.Wernercontraststheoldworld,maintainedbyaristocraticeliteswho
receiveincomefromancestrallandholdings,withthenewprerogativeofmenlikehim,
whobuildempiresnotfromterritorybutthroughtheanticipationandmanipulationof
humanneedsanddesiresonmarkets.
19
“Themightyofthisworldhaveseizedtheearthandliveinluxuryandsplendor.Everysmallcornerofthisearthis
alreadytakenpossessionof,everypropertyfirmlyestablished.Officialpositionsdonotbringinmuch
renumeration.Whatotherregularoccupation,whatmorereasonablemeansofaggrandizementistherethan
trade?Theprincesofthisworldcontroltherivers,roadsandharborsandmakegoodprofitsfromwhatgoes
throughthemorpastthem.Whyshouldn’twealsorelishtheopportunityofextractingbyourlaborscustoms
dutiesonthosearticlesmadeindispensablebytherequirementsandcapricesofmenandwomen?”37
ForWerner,truevalueismeasurednotbytradition,butbyitsindependencefromtheold
formsoforganization.Hisenemyispermanence,andhewillbuildthesevaluesintohis
everydaylife.Hewillmakehimselfintofuturitypersonified,perfectlymalleabletothe
inconstantwindsofcommerceandshapedonlytotheproteanneedsofhisbusiness
regimen.Totheextentthatheimaginesahomeandcommunityforhimself,Wernerthinks
intermsofthehousehold,aprivateworlddefinedbybasicandpracticalpossessions,
thingsthatdonotweighhimdownoverthecourseofconstantactivity:
Aboveall:Thereshallbenothingsuperfluousinourhouse!Nottoomuchfurniture,nottoomanyutensils–no
coachandnohorses.Justmoney,whichwewillspendsensiblyindoingwhatwewanttodo.38
WernercontrastshisownvalueswiththoseofWilhelm’sgrandfather,whoamassedanart
collectionofoldmasterworksthroughslowandpainstakingcareoverhislifetime.39This
37Goethe,WilhelmMeister’sApprenticeship,19(B),39(T),“EshabendieGroßendieserWeltsichderErdebemächtiget,sielebeninHerrlichkeitundÜberfluß.DerkleinsteRaumunsersWeltteilsistschoninBesitzgenommen,jederBesitzbefestigt,ÄmterundanderebürgerlicheGeschäftetragenwenigein;wogibtesnunnocheinenrechtmäßigerenErwerb,einebilligereEroberungalsdenHandel?HabendieFürstendieserWeltdieFlüsse,dieWege,dieHäfeninihrerGewaltundnehmenvondem,wasdurch-undvorbeigeht,einenstarkenGewinn:sollenwirnichtmitFreudendieGelegenheitergreifenunddurchunsereTätigkeitauchZollvonjenenArtikelnnehmen,dieteilsdasBedürfnis,teilsderÜbermutdenMenschenunentbehrlichgemachthat?”
38Goethe:1995a,172(B),287(T),“NurnichtsüberflüssigesimHause!nurnichtzuvielMöbeln,Gerätschaften,nurkeineKutscheundPferde!NichtsalsGeld,unddannaufeinevernünftigeWeisejedenTaggetan,wasdirbeliebt.”
20
generationalheirloomhasrootsinthepastaswell.Wilhelm’sfather,forhispart,soldpart
ofittobuyalargerhouse.Wilhelmremembersthecollectionfromhisyouth–itisoneofhis
firstencounterswithart–anditbecomesasourceofmotivationtopursueanartisticlifein
adulthood.Werneroffersthefinalrepudiationofthegrandfather’sjudgment.Possessions
shouldminimizedinfavorofthemostmobileandfungibleassetofall,money.“Forwhat
conceivablejoyisthereindeadcapital?”heasksrhetorically.Wernerwillkeephismoney
initspureandliquidform,alwayssearchingforthenewguiseofamorefavorable
investment.MoneyisaperfectvehiclefortheproteanexistencethatWernerwants,sinceit
representsalways-transformablevalue.
Wernerisathomeintheprincipleofchangeitself.Whathehopestoachieveinhisadult
lifeisamasteryofthecodes–writtenandunwritten–whichdefineaworldthatismoving
towardtotalinterconnection.Thisiswhatwouldberecognizableas“globalization”inour
ownera:borderless,oratleastlessborderedthanbefore.Wernermakesthetermsofthis
interconnectionbetweendifferentcontextsclear:standardization,toservetheneedsof
commerce,communicationandpositivisticends.Hisoptimisticvisionofconnectionevokes
whatthepoliticalphilosopherMichaelSandelcallsthe“proceduralrepublic,”aliberalism
that“seeksnottopromoteanyparticularends,butenablesitscitizenstopursuetheirown
ends,consistentwithasimilarlibertyforall”andmustasaresultnot“presupposeany
39ThisexchangebetweenWernerandWilhelmoccurslaterinthenovel,promptedbythedeathofWilhelm’sfather.WilhelmandWerner’sfinancialandhouseholdaffairsareunitedbecauseWernerismarriedtoWilhelm’ssister.Whilehediscussesthemergingoftheiraffairs,WernercastsaspersionsonthehabitsofWilhelm’sgrandfatherwhoamassedarenownedartcollection.
21
particularconceptionofthegood.”40Littlesurprisethatthis“republic”–markedbyan
indefinitepoliticalandgeographicscope–alignswithwhatexcitesWerner,withits
emphasison(againquotingSandel)universal“fairprocedures”erodingtheentrenched
advantagesofrent-seekingaristocrats,infavoroftalentandambitionlikeWerner
imaginesinhimself.41Wernerisexcitedatthepotentialofthisnewkindof“fair”power,
whichwillsurelyenlargehislifetoanunlimiteddegree.
AndyetWerner,whodisappearsfromthemiddleofthenovel,reappearsnearitsendwith
asurprisingoutcome.Wilhelm’sapprenticeshipendswhenheleavesthetheatertroupefor
theSocietyoftheTower(Turmgesellschaft),onlytohaveanotherchancereunionwith
Werner,whohasbeenbroughtintoassistwiththeappraisalandsaleofestatesownedby
membersofthissecretivegroupofquasi-nobility.UponrecognizingWilhelm,Werner
regardshimwithaguardedhappiness,citingrumorsofWilhelm’sactivitiesinthetheater
fromhisassociates.Wilhelm,forhispart,isshockedbyWerner’sappearance,whichseems
tohaveagedfarmorethantheactualspanoftimeelapsedsincetheirlastmeeting.Heis,
Wilhelmnotes,“muchthinner,”withhisface“sharper,”and“bald,”with“pallidcheeks.”
Wilhelmrateshima“sicklycreaturewithamaniaforwork;”thisisanassessmentwith
whichWernerhimself,uponself-inspection,concurs.YetWerner’sobsessiveeconomism
remainsundiminished.WhileheisimpressedwithWilhelm’sownpolishandvitality,
WernerassureshimthatwhileWilhelmmayhave“squanderedhistime”withthetheater
troupe,hewillstill“becomeamanofpartswhowill,infactisboundto,makehisown
40MichaelSandel,“TheProceduralRepublicandtheUnencumberedSelf,”inCommunitarianismandIndividualism,ed.AvnerDe-Shalit(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1992),13.
41Ibid.,26.
22
fortune.”Wilhelm,inturn,isamusedbythisremark,observingthathisoldfriendcan(still)
onlyregardhimasa“commodity”anda“sourceofspeculation,fromwhichprofitmaybe
gained.”42Werneradmitsthat“ifIhadnotspentmytimeearningamintofmoney,there
wouldn’tbeanythingtosayforme.”Hebearsthephysicalandpsychicimprintofsomeone
whoseselfhasbeencompletelydissipatedwithinanobjectifiedmodeofactivity.
IwanttoviewtheresultofWerner’saspirationsonhimself–thatis,theabstractionofhis
ownvitalityfromhimself–asakindofallegoryofthestakesinnovel’spost-heroic
representationalsystem.Wernermakeshiswayintheworldbyadoptingakindof
layman’snominaliststancetoultimatequestions,throughawillingnesstorevisehis
referents,andbyaresistancetostrongdistinctions.43TorecallthephilosopherGilbert
Ryle’sfamousmetaphorof“thin”and“thick”description,Wernerisapartisanof“thin”
descriptive–thatisover,ostensiblydetachedandobjective–over“thick”description,which
wouldimplyanecessarilysubjectivecomponent.44
Wernerhasrefusedthesignificanceofaplacetostand–otherthantobecoterminouswitha
systematicdescriptionofhiseverydaymiddle-classworlditself.Hencehebecomesthe
personificationoftheparadoxofmastery.Awareofeverythingaroundhiminonlya“thin”
42Goethe,WilhelmMeister’sApprenticeship,306(B),498(T).
43Werner’spositionrepresentsakindofnaivemonismwherebytheentireworldisreducedtoeconomiccauses.
44HeatherLovewritesofRyle’sunderstandingofthindescription:“anunadorned,first-orderaccountofbehavior,onethatcouldberecordedjustaswellbyacameraasbyahumanagent.”HeatherLove,“CloseReadingandThinDescription,”PublicCulture25,no.3(71)(September2013):401–34,doi:10.1215/08992363-2144688,403.Geertzhimselfalignsthindescriptionwithwhathecallsthe“cognitivistfallacy,”whichheidentifiesinaquotefromtheanthropologistStephenTyler:that“mentalphenomena…canbeanalyzedbyformalmethodssimilartothoseofmathematicsandlogic.”InCliffordGeertz,TheInterpretationofCultures:SelectedEssays(NewYork:BasicBooks,1973),12
23
senseofaseriesofproceduralpossibilitiesandstrategiesleadingtoagainorloss(arubric
bywhichhequicklyparsesevenWilhelm’sunorthodoxpath),hehasobscuredthe“thick”
viewofhimselfbeyondthepositioninghehasgainedthroughhiswork.Thisiswhathe
alludestowithhiswearycommentthathewouldbeinvisible(“therewouldn’tbeanything
tosayforme”)withouttheevidenceofhisexistenceleftbyhiscapitalaccumulation.
Wernerisafigureofmasterydisappearingwithinthesystemictotalityofitsownsuccess.
Whatismeanthereistwo-fold.First,thatinthestableontologyoftherealisticnovel,the
individuallosestheuniquenessimpliedbyhissubjectivequalities,orhisstatusasthe
bearerofan“expressive”realitywhichdoesnotalreadyresideinthebackground.Second,
thatrealismthreatensthesignificanceoftheindividualperse.Totheextentthatthe
individualispartofa“systemic”reality,hehasnoregionalorlocalidentity.Insteadheis
radicallylegible,potentiallyrelatedtoeverythingelsewithinthelogicofasystemlike
Werner’sstrategicontologyofspeculativecapital.Undertheburdenofmasteringa
systematicreality,theindividualretreatsintoanabstractformofbeing:arepresentativeof
adeterminedstructural“position,”inoppositiontothe“systemic”viewofthewhole.
Oneofthemoremagisterialstatementsofindividualexpressivealienationthroughworkis
MaxWeber’sProtestantEthic,inwhichhetracesthesecularizationofmonasticasceticism
initsafterlifeoftheindividual’svocationalcalling.Indoingso,heoffersusanexampleof
howanexpressiveimperativewhichissupposedtoglorifyahigherrealitycandisappear
withinthesystemicdemandsof“economic”participationinsociallife.ByWeber’saccount,
adistinctivelyProtestant,religiousregimeofself-disciplinedirectedtowardsthe
transcendentbecomestheimmanentpursuitofrigorousmasteryintheworkplace.
Vocationalsuccessisnotsimplydesiredforitsrewards,butalsoasconfirmationofa
24
religious-ethicalachievementintheeveryday.Butthisindividualimperativetodiscover
one’svocationhas,accordingtoWeber,beenintegratedintotheverylogicofmodern
economies,wherethesearchforavocationalcalling“nowwandersaroundinourlivesas
theghostofpastreligiousbeliefs.”45Werner’sfastidiousdevotiontohisprofession(or,in
Weber’sterms,his“renunciationoftheFaustianmultidimensionalityofthehumanspecies”
thatis“thepreconditionfordoinganythingofvalue”)occursinthereductionofhis
personalityandphysicalitytoarepresentationofhisbalancesheet.46Viewedinthisframe,
Wilhelm’sperceptionthatWernerhasa“maniaforwork”isatellinginterpretationofhis
situation.Wernerstillconceivesofhimselfasengagedinavocationalpursuitdefinedby
calculativemasteryoverhiscircumstances.YetinWeber’stelling,hiscommitmenttohis
workismisplacedinitsself-understanding:Wernerwillnotbecomeanythingthroughhis
work;indeedashisprematureagednessalreadyshows,hewilldisappearwithinit.The
exerciseofagencythatwoulddistinguishtheindividualinaheroiccontextleadsto
diminishmentoftheindividualwithintheobjectiverealitiesofthesystembywhichhe
achievesmastery.
MyclaimaboutthesignificanceoftheindividualisanchoredinwhatIhavecalled,drawing
onCharlesTaylor,anexpressivereality.Thenotionof“expressiveindividualism,”asitis
definedinTaylor’swork,viewstheindividualperspectiveasasourceofspecial
knowledge.47Theexpressivistformofindividualismlookstoaninnersourceforthetruth
45MaxWeber,TheProtestantEthicandtheSpiritofCapitalism,ed.StephenKalberg(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2011),177.
46Ibid.,176.
47SeeCharlesTaylor,SourcesoftheSelf:TheMakingoftheModernIdentity(Cambridge,Massachusetts:HarvardUniversityPress,1989),390.
25
ofthings,becausetheshapeoftheindividualrevealsitselfthroughaprojectofdiscernment
andself-knowledge.48Theexpressivistseeksanelusivetruth,whatTaylorcallsthe“the
innerélan,thevoiceorimpulse.”49Fromthisstandpoint,Taylorwrites,eachhumanlifeis
necessarilyunique,“notjustamatterofcopyinganexternalmodelorcarryingoutan
alreadydeterminateformulation.”50Truthandself-knowledgewithintheexpressivist
modelarereciprocal,relyingonthespiritualboundaryconceptofnature.Iftheindividual
iswillingtorecognizeadifferentsetoftruths,heorshewillcometounderstandthe
commongroundofallparticularsinnature.Individualsareuniqueandparticularintheir
directednesstowardthisnature.Thismakesthemnotmerelysubjective,inthesenseof
beingungroundedbyacommonsource.
ThecommonsourceishowTaylorunderstandsnature,whichformstheinspirationand
knowledgeofadifferentorderaccessiblethroughtheresourcesofinwardness.51Taylor’s
natureoffersakindofliminalspiritualconcept,recognizablysecularinitsavoidanceofany
particularChristiantheology,butalsoretainingasenseofanextraordinaryrealitythat
transcendsthemundane.Thisnatureisnotintelligiblethroughcalculationorobservation,
butrequirespowersofdiscernmentthatareintrinsicallyresistanttosystematization.52
Theexpressivistmodelputstheindividualatitscenterbecauseitistheuniquenessand
48Ibid.,368–75.
49Ibid.,374.
50Ibid.,375.
51“Tohaveapropermoralstancetowardsthenaturalorderistohaveaccesstoone’sinnervoice.”Inibid.,375
52“Andwhatcanstifleitispreciselythedisengagedstanceofcalculatingreason,theviewofnaturefromtheoutside,asamerelyobservedorder.Thefiliationwithearliertheoriesofgraceisevident.Naturestandsasareservoirofgood,ofinnocentdesireorbenevolenceandloveofthegood.”ibid.,370
26
dynamismoftheindividualperson(ifheorsheiscapableofrealizingit)thatmaintainsthe
non-instrumentalperspective.
Acorollaryisthatthetruthofthereal(orwhatseemstrue)mustappealtotheindividual
fromhisparticularstandpoint.AsTaylorwrites,thisspeakstoanoutlookthat“mustspeak
tome,itmustmakesenseintermsofmyspiritualdevelopmentasIunderstandthis.”53In
otherwordsitisdifficulttotreattheindividualquaexpressivistsubjectasamere
abstractionofsomealready-presentprincipleortendency.Expressiveindividualism
speaksfromaparticularstandpointthathastoberevealedthroughtheembedded
consciousnessoftheindividualinthatposition.Thepossibilityofexpressivismpresumes
thedistinctnessandirreducibilityoftheindividualpositioninanaccountofthewhole.The
expressionofperspectivebecomesadistinctmodeofrealitydisclosure.
Iftheexpressivistpositionspeaksfromtheindividualperspective,thenthistypeof
individualdoessofromalocation.Hespeaksnotonlyforhimself,butoutofanidentity
withrecognizableaffiliations.Expressivismreturnstheindividualtoaplaceofprominence
withinsystemicdissipation.WalterBenjaminwritesabouttheepistemologicalsituationof
thenovelrelativetothefigureoftheoralstoryteller.Benjamin’sstoryteller“doesnotaim
toconveythepureessenceofthething,likeinformationorareport.”Insteadthestory
“sinks…intothelifeofthestoryteller,”becominghisownbecausehebearsthemarkersof
theplacefromwherethestoryemerged.54Putdifferently,thestorytellerisunthinkable
53CharlesTaylor,DilemmasandConnections:SelectedEssays(Cambridge:TheBelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress,2014),241.
54WalterBenjamin,“TheStoryteller:ReflectionsontheWorkofNikolaiLeskov,”inIlluminations,ed.HannahArendt,1stSchockenpbk.ed.(NewYork:SchockenBooks,1969),91–92.
27
withoutbeingmarkedbyhiscommunity.Bydistillingthepeopleandcircumstancesthat
createdhispersonality,heputshisowndistinctive,individualmarkuponthestory.55
Benjamin’smemorializingaccountofthestorytellerpointstowhatisatriskintheformof
thenovel:the“birthplaceofthenovelisthesolitaryindividual,”hewrites,“whoisno
longerabletoexpresshimselfbygivingexamplesofhismostimportantconcerns,is
himselfuncounseled,andcannotcounselothers.”56Initsabstractionfromcircumstances,
thenovelisatriskoffallingintomereinformation,incapableofrepresentingacommunity
becauseitsconstructiveprincipleisthatofspeakingtothingsingeneral.
Thestorytellerisafigurewhocoordinatestheelementsofhisculture,whoarrivesathis
owndistinctnessthroughageneralculture.Heisthepersonalitytypeofhisculture,
standingdistinctfromitbecausehehasassembleditselementsintohisownvoice,butalso
ofhiscommunitybecausewhathesayscanonlyberecognizedthroughhisoriginina
locale.Hedoesnotaspiretoauniversalstory,asthenovelmay,butthestoryteller
incorporatesagroupofparticularstoriesintohimselfinwaythatmakesthemintelligible
toanaudienceontheoutside.Thechallengethatthestorytellerposestorealismishowto
makeitscharactersandeventsachievedistinctionamidsttheillusionofthestable
“informational”backgroundoftherealistnovel.
GuidoMazzoniwritesaboutthemiddle-classformofthenovelthatitconcerns“private
individualsimmersedintheproseoftheeveryday”who“becameaclassthatearnedthe
55“Thestorytellertakeswhathetellsfromexperience–hisownorthatreportedbyothers.Andheinturnmakesittheexperienceofthosewhoarelisteningtohistale.”ibid.,87
56Ibid.,87.
28
righttoseriousmimesisandthecapacitytoimposeitsvaluesasabsolute.”57Itisanirony
thatthecardinalbourgeoisvaluesofclarity,precisionandgoal-orientationthatwecitedin
Morettifindthemselvesatissueinthemostflexible,chaoticandopen-endedformoffiction
available:thenovel.AsMazzoniwrites,itismainlydefinedbyitscapacity“totellallsorts
ofstoriesinallsortsofways.”58ThesortofmimesisthatIsubmitforstudyinthisprojectis
therealismoftheBildungsromanattheturnofthenineteenthcentury,aworldappropriate
tothemiddle-classsensibilities,whichWernerandWilhelmmulloveratthebeginningof
theApprenticeship.WernerrepresentsthepaththatwasalsointendedforWilhelm:the
pathofacceptingtheapparentsolidityandtermsofhisworldinserviceofcomprehensible
ends.ItisclarityofWerner’sgoalsthatmakeshimacaptivetothespectralrealitiesof
middle-classlife;hencehisunrepresentabilityacrossthemiddleofthenarrativewhich
takesplacewithinWilhelm’sexpressiveagenda.Wilhelmturnsawayfromtheopenfuture
representedbyWerner,electingtobecomehisownkindofstoryteller,coordinatingthe
culturalpotentialitieshiddenwithinhisexpressiveself.WilhelmdoesnotacceptWerner’s
understandingofanultimaterealitycomposedofmeasurableandstrategicallydefined
entities.Whathehopestocreateinthetheaterisanexpressiverealitythathasnot(yet)
beendisclosed.
WhatWilhelm’spathoffers–andwhatWernerdoesnotsee–isthepossibilityofkeeping
subjectivityatthecenterofhisvisionofthegood.BothWernerandWilhelmrepresenta
formofindividualismthatpresupposestheimportanceoffreedomandautonomyforthe
57Mazzoni,TheoryoftheNovel,226.
58Ibid.,60.
29
individual.ButonlyWilhelm’semphasisonthedevelopmentofhispersonalityputsthat
individualisminserviceofasubjectiveend.Hedisplaysaquasi-romanticunderstandingof
hispersonaldevelopment,epitomizedbyhisfaithintheintrinsic,self-absorbedvalueofhis
owndevelopment.HechartsoutarecognizableitineraryofpersonalBildung,declaring
that“Ihaveanirresistibledesiretoattaintheharmoniousdevelopmentofmypersonality
suchaswasdeniedmeatmybirth.”59Wilhelmhasnouseforwhatheregardsasthetypical
questionsofthoseinhisown,bourgeois,position.Hedismissestheinstrumentalismthat
captivatesWerner:not“whatinsights,whatknowledge,whatability”hemightacquire,but
anascenttowardanessentialunderstandingofthegood.60Iwanttothinkofthechallenge
thatWilhelmposestohimselfasaformulationofexpressiveindividualism.Thatis,howhe
can“become,”whatheis,potentially.
Wilhelmpursuehisgoalsinthetheaterbecauseitiswherethecultivationofpersonalityis
objectifiedinthehumanartform,intheactorhimself.ThisishowhearguestoWernerthat
“being”and“appearing”willbeunited,andtheexpressiveindividualpotentialturnedinto
communallyrecognizableideal.
Wilhelmunderstandsthatthereisaninherentlyaristocraticqualitytohisaspiration,aself-
developmentethicinpursuitofthatmostsubjectiveofqualities,excellence.Asforwhatthis
excellencewillconsistof,hetoutsthe“harmony”ofthepartsofhispersonality,alongwith
ageneraldesireforthe“cultivation”befittingsomeoneofhigherbirth.Butinseveralpages
59Goethe,WilhelmMeister’sApprenticeship,175(B),291(T).
60Wilhelmhopesthat“Imaygraduallycometoseegoodinwhatisgood,andbeautyonlyinthetrulybeautiful.”Original:“DazukömmtmeineNeigungzurDichtkunstundzuallem,wasmitihrinVerbindungsteht,unddasBedürfnis,meinenGeistundGeschmackauszubilden,damitichnachundnachauchbeidemGenuß,denichnichtentbehrenkann,nurdasGutewirklichfürgut,unddasSchönefürschönhalte.”ibid.,175(B),291(T)
30
ofmusingonthetheatricallifethatWilhelmpenstoWerner,whatisquiteapparentisthat
hehaslittleinterestin(orconcreteideaabout)whatthetheateractuallyisanddoesasa
community.Andthiswillbecomethesourceofhisdisillusionmentwiththetheater,the
reasonforseveringofhislinkwiththeoriginalBildungprojectattheendofthe
Apprenticeship.Wilhelm’sactualeducationinthetheater-—culminatingintheroleof
Hamlet—-willdispelanyillusionthatthetheaterisaspaceofidealdevelopmentofthe
personality.Indeed,Wilhelmcomestoabhorthecreativechaosandgenerativedisorderof
thetheater.Heconcludesthathehasmadeaproductivemistake.
WilhelmculminateshismistakeintheLehrjahrewithaleapintosocialindeterminacy,by
hisinductionintoamysterioussecretsociety,theso-called“SocietyoftheTower”
(GesellschaftderTurm),aquasi-aristocraticorganizationwhoseveryrequirementsfor
membershipandreasonforexistenceareneverexplained.Theendingsuggeststhatsome
formofbelongingisindispensabletothetypeofselfhoodthatWilhelmseeks–evenifits
finalformcannotbeunderstoodwithintheframeoftheLehrjahre.Wilhelm’sfeverish
pursuitofself-developmentwillculminateintheepiphanythathehasbeen“playing
himself”thewholetimeinthetheatertroupe.Actingis,forWilhelm,justaplaceholderfor
theexpressiveimperative,andthemysteriousSocietyoftheToweraplaceholderforthe
coordinatingroleofthecommunityintheexpressiveproject.
ThesituationthatIhavesketchedoutattheendoftheLehrjahresuggeststhatWilhelm’s
ambitiousindividualismwasonlybeginningtounderstanditssocialrequirements.Itisnot
simplythattheLehrjahreendswithanunelaboratedrepresentationofitsownsocial
background.HowevermuchWilhelm’sidealof“excellence”asagoalwasembarrassed
withinthetheater,theSocietyoftheTowerretainstheidealofcommunityassuchinthe
31
backgroundofsaidexcellence.TheTower,withitsquasi-aristocratic,genericallyspiritual
andreligioussymbolism(andleadershipbythemysteriousAbbéfigure)suggeststhatit
wasalsoformedtoseekhighergoods.Wilhelmdevotedgreatattentiontohisown
developmentofadistinctivepersonality,buthisenvironsinthetheater—-forallWilhelm’s
goodintentions—-wereill-suitedtothispurpose.BytheendoftheLehrjahre,theSocietyof
theTowermarksouttheproblemthatwillanimatethesecondnovel,theWanderjahre:
whatistheroleofthecommunityinrealizingtheexpressivereality?61
Wilhelmrepresentsanunderstandingofexpressivismthatregardstheindividualsubject
asitscoordinatingcenter.Bildung,asWilhelmrepresentsit,allowsfortherealizationofa
versionofthegoodwhichcouldneverbearticulatedoutsideofitssignificancetoindividual
subjects.ButIproposeareadingoftheApprenticeshipthattakesaforward-lookingview,
examiningaspectsofitsnarrativethatwillbeacceleratedandintensifiedinthesequel,
Journeyman,novel.OnecanreadtheApprenticeshipaschronicleofWilhelm’sgraduation
fromanaivetoanintentionalrelationshiptohiscommunalsetting,andfrommiddle-class
acceptanceofpositivisticvaluestotheTowersociety’sawarenessofitsownconstitution.
Wilhelm’sself-absorbedimperativetoworkonhimselfbecomesanagreementtoworkon
aself-consciouscollectivity.TheApprenticeshipinauguratesasituationthatwillbea
centralconcernoftheWanderjahre:howadeinstrumentalizedvisionoftheindividual’s
significancemustworkthroughthecreationofnewcommunitiesforitsrealization.
61TheWanderjahreisusuallytranslatedintoEnglishasthe“JourneymanYears.”Inatraditionaltradeeducation,thisperiodreferstothetimeinwhichtheapprenticetravelsandworksunderthetutelageofothermastersinmultipleworkshops.
32
ClassicalGermanBildungseekstoproduceacertainidealhumantype,onewhosehighest
achievementisnotthemasteryofanyparticulardomainofknowledgeoractivity,but
ratherthecoordinationbetweendomainsofknowledgeandspecializationintheserviceof
somehigherconceptoforderbetweenthem.TheidealofBildungsuggeststhatthemost
fullyrealizedindividualismmustbringtheindividualintoarelationshipwiththeorienting
logicandvaluesofthecultureasawhole,pushingbackagainstculturaldivisionintowhat
Weberreferredtoas“spheresofvalue,”eachwithitsownarticulatedinternallogic,ideals,
andgoals.62
Moregenerally,IwanttothinkabouttheBildungoftheindividualasthatwhichresiststhe
specialization,institutionalcompartmentalization,andtheconcretizationofrealityintothe
settledtraditionsofrealism.ButBildungisalsoacollectiveculturalachievement,itself
dependentontheinstitutionalizationofculturalresourcesmadeavailablethrougha
persistentcommunity.Itisexactlythroughculturaldeterminationbytradition,theBildung
idealsuggests,thatanoriginal,individualinterventionincultureispossible.63Bildungis
62MaxWeber,“ReligiousRejectionsoftheWorldandTheirDirections,”inFromMaxWeber:EssaysinSociology,ed.C.WrightMillsandHansHeinrichGerth(OxfordUniversityPress,1958),328.
63Cf.Schiller’scanonicalformulationofBildung,whicharticulatesthisthoughtthroughthedependencyofhisindividualdeterminativefaculty(“Formtrieb”)onaninitiallyreceptiveoperation(“Sinnestrieb”):“Hiseducationwillthereforeconsist,firstly,inprocuringforthereceptivefacultythemostmanifoldcontactswiththeworld,and,withinthepurviewoffeeling,intensifyingpassivitytotheutmost;secondly,insecuringforthedeterminitivefacultythehighestdegreeofindependencefromthereceptive,and,withinthepurviewofreason,intensifyingactivitytotheutmost.Whenboththeseaptitudesareconjoined,manwillcombinethegreatestfullnessofexistencewiththehighestautonomyandfreedom,andinsteadoflosinghimselftotheworld,willratherdrawthelatterintohimselfinallitsinfinitudeofphenomena,andsubjectittotheunityofhisreason.”FriedrichSchiller,OntheAestheticEducationofMan,inaSeriesofLetters,ed.ElizabethM.WilkinsonandL.A.Willoughby(ClarendonPress;OxfordUniversityPress,1983),ThirteenthLetter,87.
33
unthinkablewithoutthedynamismofindividualexpressivecreativity,butephemeral
withoutthepossibilityofenshriningthiscreativityinanewtradition.64
Andso,theexpressiverealityoftheindividualwithinthenineteenth-centurynovel,locked
asitiswithinthetemporalandhistoricalboundsofordinaryhumanlife,andsubjectto
whatMazzonicalled“theinfinitecycleofendlesslysimilarthings,”cannotrestonheroic
standardsofsignificance.65Realismwillneithercommititselftoalevelofontological
permanencevestedinatheologicalrealm,noracceptaguaranteefrommodernityofstable,
endlessprogresswithinseculartime.Thecommunityisthereforeavitalmiddletermfor
therepresentativecoherenceofthenineteenth-centuryrealistictradition,becauseit
mediatesbetweenexpressivism’sencouragementofanhistoricallyactive,constructive
individualism(intheKantiansenseofmakingeffectiveuseone’sownpowersofagency)
andtheaccidentsofhistoricalchange.Initsclaimtoacoherentontology,realismmustfind
asocialrealitythatcanbebothconstructedinthepresentand“discovered”inthepast.If
thenovelgivesitselfentirelytoaconstructivemodelofhumanprogress,thenthe
expressivepotentialoftheindividualissubordinatedtorealism’ssystematicobjectivityof
representation.66Andthepastprovidestheguaranteeofanhistoricalprovidenceofsorts,
64ThehistorianReinhartKoselleckarguesthatcommunity’sassimilationofindividualBildungcanbeseenintheevolvingdemandsofworkthroughthedivisionoflabor:“[M]odernBildungthusdistinguishesitselfthroughthefactthatitrecastsreligiouspregivensintothechallengesforthepersonalconductoflife,thatgeneratingtheautonomyofindividuality,itisopenandconnectabletoallconcretesituationsinlife,andthatunderstoodaswork,itistheintegratingelementoftheworldbasedonthedivisionoflabor.”ReinhartKoselleck,“TheAnthropologicalandSemanticStructureofBildung.”inThePracticeofConceptualHistory:TimingHistory,SpacingConcepts(Stanford,Calif:StanfordUniversityPress,2002),170–207,194.
65Mazzoni,TheoryoftheNovel,23.
66Webergivesusanexampleoftheindividual’sdisappearancewithinthestandardsof“objectivity”inhisinfamous“ScienceasaVocation,”wheretheindividualacceptscompleteself-abnegationofthesubjectivepersonalitytoachievethethoroughmasteryofdisciplinaryexpertise.MaxWeber,“ScienceasaVocation,”in
34
thatindividualscanrelyon“gifts”fromtraditionwheretheirresourcesinthepresentfail
them.ThisistheversionofthecommunitythatIwanttoconsiderhere.
Inwhatfollows,Iwillconsiderseveralprecursorstothenovelthatstagethecommunityas
afoilforthedevelopingpowersofindividualagency.Iwanttosuggestthatthe
representationoftheindividual’smeaningfulandgenerativerelationshipwiththe
communityisalong-standingconcernofthenovel.Indeed,abrieflookatsomeofthe
traditionsthatprecededthegenrerevealalong-standingfascinationwiththeinnerlifeand
self-understandingoftheindividual.WhenwecomparethecharacterswithinWilhelm
Meistertosomeofitsfictionalpredecessors,whatdistinguishesitfrom,forexample,
charactersinthepicaresque,epistolary,orBildungsromantraditionisasensethathisown
developmentasanindividualdependsonhisparticularhistoricalandsocialmilieu,and
thattheseelementsare,tosomedegree,withintheindividual’scapacitytochooseand
control.Thefigureoftheindividualemergesontheoutsideasanoutcastorsocially
marginalfigure(thepicaresque)beforebeingconsideredanalternative,privateself
alongsidethepublicpersona(theepistolary)andfinallywiththetraditionofwhichthe
WilhelmMeisternovelsareapart,theBildungsromanandthequestionofintegration.
Forthepicaresquenovel,traditionallydatedtotheanonymouslyauthoredSpanishnovella
TheLifeofLazarillodeTormesandofhisFortunesandAdversities(1554),theindividuallife
emergesatthemargins,inacomiccharacterwithoutawell-definedsocialroleorstanding.
Thepicaresquehero’sexperiencereflectsthefreedomtocontemplateanemergentspace
FromMaxWeber:EssaysinSociology,ed.C.WrightMillsandHansHeinrichGerth(OxfordUniversityPress,1958),129–56
35
oftheeverydayandsecularinthesocialorder.AccordingtoJ.G.Ardila,hisunderstanding
ofhimselfreflectsadivisionbetweenknowledgeoftheworldandhisexperienceofit:
betweenasensethatthereisadivineprovidencethathefindsnoparticularreasonto
question,andhisself-reportedtravails,inwhichhisparticularsurvivalseemstodepend
mostlyonhisownwit,improvisation,andhumortosuffermisfortune.67Hisisalifelived
outsideofanydefinedsocialpatternortraditionandyethe“canmakeoutnothingbeyond
thescopeofthestatusquo.”68Thepicaresquebecomesanindividualbecausethestoryhe
hastotellis,narrativelyspeaking,notbasedonreligiouspatternortradition,butonthe
specificundulationsofalifethatunderstandsitselftobeanagent–albeitananonymous,
sociallyinvisiblelife.Theindividuallifeisacuriosity,anobjectofamusement,butthe
genreisultimatelyconservativebecause,asJuanGarridoArdilawrites,itconcerns“men’s
placeinsocietyandhowtheycametoaccepttheirstatus.”69Thepicaresque’sindividuality
isanaccidentthatbeginsandendswithhim.Itisaliteraryformthathasneitherthepower
northeinclinationtounderstanditselfonanyotherterms.
Ifthepicaresquenovelreflectsacompulsivelyactiveandworldlylife,onewhosevery
materialexigenciescrowdoutsustainedhabitsofreflection,thentheepistolarynovelis,in
somerespects,itsaestheticandpsychologicalopposite.Itisanovelistictypepopulatedby
charactersinpossessionofatleastsomeleisureanddistancefromtheiractions.Asitis
reflectedinrepresentativeexemplarssuchasthenovelsofSamuelRichardson,the67J.G.Ardila,“OriginsandDefinitionofthePicaresqueGenre,”inThePicaresqueNovelinWesternLiterature:FromtheSixteenthCenturytotheNeopicaresque.,ed.J.G.Ardila(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2015),6–8.
68Ibid.,6.
69Ibid.,17.
36
epistolarynoveldepictscharacterswithasubstantialandgrowingawarenessofan
aspiration(ifnotpower)toshapetheirownidentitiesandmaketheirownchoices.70The
eponymousheroesinRichardson’snovelshaveadesiretochangetheirsocialstanding,
transformingwealthandother,lessmaterialvirtuesintopublicrank.Insomecasesthese
social-climbingaspirationsmeetwithsuccess(e.g.,Pamela),whileinotherstheendingis
tragic(e.g.,Clarissa),buttheformalstructuresofthegenre–boundedbythemonological
voiceoftheletter’sauthor–donotallowthecharacters’achievementsanddownfallstobe
representedintheirintersubjective,communalformbyarealisticnarrator.Everythingthat
thereader(andthewriter)learnsintheepistolarynovelisaboutthecontoursoftheself.
Theworldofsociety,eventsandactivityisreportedintheletter,butitsframeisthatofa
solitaryconsciousness,reflectingprimarilyonitselfandtoitselfinprivate.Eventhe
receiveroftheletterismerelyvirtualwhentheletteriscomposed.
Astheplotoftheepistolarynovel,suchasRichardson’sPamelaandClarissa,makesclear,
thegenreisperfectlycapableofdepictingitscharacters’socialpositionandhistorical
circumstances.Theepistolarynoveldepictsthegrowthofself-awarenessandsenseof,as
CharlesTaylorhasputit,the“innerdepths”ofitscharacters,aselfgrowingupin
oppositiontopubliccharacter.Thegenreisdefinedbyitspsychologicalachievements.
Fromthedifferentformalstandpoint,itlacksthefreedomconferredbyarealistic,distant
narrator–whocanraisetheindividual’sstorytothestandpointofthecommunityand
historicalreflection.
70SeeSamuelRichardson,Pamela:Or,VirtueRewarded,OxfordWorld’sClassics(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2008)andSamuelRichardson,Clarissa,or,theHistoryofaYoungLady,Anabridgeded.,BroadviewEditions(Peterborough,Ont.:BroadviewPress,2011)
37
BeforetheBildungsroman,thenovelengagedwiththeindividualasadistinctiveunitby
elidingorreducingthescopeoftheconditionsthatallowedformorecapacious
individualism(s)toemerge.Thepicaresquecharacteronthemarginsofsocietyachieves
hisuniquenessbecauseheis(appearstobe)sociallyinvisibleandthereforefreedfrom
somesocialstrictures.Hedirectsourattentiontoparticularsocialfactswhentheycometo
hisattention,butnothistoricalcircumstances.Andhepersistsinhisimprovisedwayoflife
withoutthebackingtraditions,normsandinstitutionsthatwouldgivesubstancetohis
identity.Similarly,theepistolarycharacterregardshimself(andhisimpliedreader)asthe
onlystableinterlocutor.Hisprimarysubjectishimself,andotherselvesthatare
representedwithsimilardepthinhisletters.Bothgenrescelebrateakindfreedomand
independencefromthenormsofthecommunity,forthebenefitofthecharacterandher
immediatepeersinaprivatesetting.
Boththepicaresqueandtheepistolarygenresdepictcharactersataremovefromtheir
surroundings.Thisisaccompaniedbythecharacters’senseoftheirowndistinctiveness,
andbythesenseofhavingdevelopedspecialpowers(oflanguage,ofself-observation)to
articulatetheircondition.Thisconsciousnessisrepresented,toagreaterorlesserdegree,
inanewvocabularyofinwardness.Theirsocialsurroundingsarepresentandevenrichly
described,butstillstandinoppositiontoanessentialindividualismthatisachievedagainst
theeverydaysocialityandinstitutions.
TheclassicalBildungsromanchangedtheconventionsofrealisticnarrativerepresentation–
andultimatelyofthemodernrealisticnovel.Itinheritsthevocabulariesofinwardness
developedbytheseearlierliterarygenres,butalsoattemptstoarticulateasocialcontext
foritscharacters’achievements.Oneimmediateandobviousdifferencebetweenitand
38
theseearliergenresisthat,intheBildungsroman’shistoricalmomentofanascendant
middleclass,itconfrontsacompetinguniverseofvocabulariesformakingsenseofthe
community.Thesearethecoordinating“values”ofutilitarian,instrumental-bureaucratic,
andscientistic(e.g.,Darwinian)socialprocesses.BythetimeoftheBildungsroman,each
oneofthesesystemspromisestoorganizecollectivelifetoanunlimited,totalizingextent.
AswehaveseenintheexchangebetweenWilhelmandWerner,allpossiblerelationships,
fromthepersonaltotheconfigurationofpoliticallife,arepotentiallydrawnintoitslogic.
If,asIhavealreadyasserted,oneofthemostprofoundquestionsintheageofthe
Bildungsromanisabouthowitscharactersunderstandthescaleandnatureoftheir
relationshiptoanyformcommunity,thenitmustbeclearthatthisproblemappearsinan
oppositionalcontext,simultaneouswithhistoricalforcesthatarerapidlyremakingand
disembeddingthecommunalformsthatalreadyexist.Toputitdifferently,thechallengeof
thesetextsisfortheircharacterstoorganizethemselves(orimagineaformofcollective
organization)thatisneithermerelypersonalnoranimpersonaltotalityinitsrealization.
ThelegacyoftheBildungsromanwasanewformalschemafororganizingthenovelaround
anarrativeofanindividual’sdevelopment.Asagenre,theBildungsromanwasbuiltonthe
possibilitiesandnewchallengesofgivingfictionalformtotheindividuallife.Thistypeof
lifeatthebeginningofthenineteenthcenturypresentsitselfasaproblem,asapotential
identitythatisnotyetrealizedbutmustbeplanned,experimentedwithandactedout.The
genre’sidealexpectationisthattheindividualarrivesatapointofcompletionand
maturity.Theideaofmaturity,ofastableidentity,isaformalfeatureintheBildungsroman.
Itistheclosureandcompletionofthenarrative.
AcrosstheculturalandnationalvariantsoftheBildungsroman,arangeofthematic
39
strategiesdevelopedthatwouldcometodefinethemeaningofclosureandmaturityinthe
fictionalindividuallife.ThepatternestablishedintheGermansettingbytheLehrjahre
suggeststhattheemergenceofindividualismwasexpressiveandcounter-cultural,thatthe
fullestindividualitycameaboutthroughadegreeofescapefromthebroad-based
expectationsofnineteenth-centuryburghersociety.ThatWilhelmendsthestorybyleaving
thetheatercompanyandjoiningasecretsocietyonlysuggeststhattheresolutionwas
incomplete:artisticproductivitywasjustoneamongmanyindividualexpressivepatterns.
JeromeBuckleywritesabouttheEnglishBildungsromanthatitalsodealtwithanother
dilemmaofexpressiveindividualism.Itsconcernwaswiththeindividualwhohadan
unarticulatedsenseofundevelopedinwardness–akindoflatent,undigestedexpressivist
imperative–butwhononethelesshastomeetthepracticalconcernsofintegrationinto
everydaysociety.71
Injustthesetwocases–GermanandBritish–thefunctionofmaturityasadeviceof
narrativeclosureappearstohaveopposingmeanings.IfacharacterlikeWilhelminthe
Apprenticeshipmanagestoachieveareflectivedistancefromhisactionsandsocialmilieu
bythestory’sconclusions,theBritishcasestartswithacharacterwhobeginswiththis
samedistance,whofeelsacertainremovefromsocietythatmustbedealtwithasan
individualproblem.Thiswillhappenthroughthetaskofvocationaldiscernment,marriage,
familyandotherintegrativesocialactions.Intheseandothervariantsofthenineteenth-
centuryBildungsroman,theclosureofthenarrativecomesaboutwhentheindividual
achievesalevelofreconciliationbetweencompetingtensions.Thespecificformofthis71SeeJeromeHamiltonBuckley,SeasonofYouth:TheBildungsromanfromDickenstoGolding(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,1974)
40
resolutionislessimportantthanthefactthatthenarrativeexpectsanddemandsa
resolutionfortheindividualidentityasaconditionofits“success”asagenre.72
FrancoMorettiunderstandstheproblemofresolutionwithinapsychologicaland
therapeuticmodelofintegration.Theacceleration,dynamismandpaceofchangein19th-
centurysocietymadeitnecessarytosearchforaguaranteeoftheirstabilityand
coherence.73Modernity–likethecharactersofthesenovels–isnotaprojectthatis
72Butasthegenre’stwentieth-centurycriticshaveaptlypointedout,theBildungsromannarrativerarelyfulfillsitspromiseofresolution.Whilemorerecentreadingsofthegenre,whichowesomethingtotheturntothe“post-human”inliterarystudies,havefrequentlytakenaimatitshumanisticfoundations,thereisalongerhistoryofquestioningthecoherenceoftheBildungsromannarrativeasinherentlyunresolvableonitsownterms.Ina1996study,theliterarytheoristMarcRedfieldnotesthegenre’sabilitytocapturemoderncriticalinterest“evenwhenthecritic’sagendaandmethodologyopposethoseofhumanistaesthetics”(56).Hegoesontoarguethatthegenre’sexamples,scrutinizedclosely,allfailintheirownloftyhumanistambitionsofindividualself-realization:“Thegenreexpandstoincludeanytextthatcanbefiguredasasubjectproducingitselfinhistory,whichistosayanytextwhatsoever;itsimultaneouslyshrinkstoanelite,high-culturalcoterie–thefiveorsonovels,forinstance,whichGermanstudiesrepeatedlynominatesasBildungsromane–andthen,whenthosenovelsareexaminedmoreclosely,disappearsintothedegreezerodel’ecritureandbecomesamerefiction,discoverableeverywhereonlybecauseitexistsnowhere.”(202)InMarcRedfield,PhantomFormations:AestheticIdeologyandtheBildungsroman(Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1996).JürgenJacobs’magisterial1972studyoftheBildungsroman’slegacyintheGermansettingandacrossworldliteratureendswiththeconclusionthatitisan“unfulfilledgenre”(unerfüllteGattung).JürgenJacobs,WilhelmMeisterUndSeineBrüder;UntersuchungenZumDeutschenBildungsroman(W.Fink,1972),271.Afewdecadeslater,theAmericancriticJeffreySammonsexploredwhathecalledthe“MissingBildungsroman,”arguingthattheidealtypeoftheBildungsromanhadmassivelyeclipseditsrealtextualexamples.Byhisassessment,thegenre’sstatusinthetwentiethcentury(inwhichnovelistsparticipatedself-consciously;seetheworksofHermanHesse)meantthatitsexistencehadequalpartscriticalandliteraryreality.SeeJeffreySammons,“TheMysteryoftheMissingBildungsroman,or:WhatHappenedtoWilhelmMeister’sLegacy?”Genre14,no.2(1981):229–46.AndKurtMaywritesina1957essaythatevenGoethe’sarchetypalApprenticeshipnovelfailstoseeWilhelmliveuptotheclassicaldefinitionofBildung,achargethatwouldseemtobeanticipatedbyGoethe’scomplexdepictionofthequasi-providentialendingintheTurmgesellschaft.SeeKurtMay,“WilhelmMeistersLehrjahre’,EinBildungsroman?”,”DeutscheVierteljahrsschriftFürLiteraturwissenschaftUndGeistesgeschichte31,no.1(1957):1–37.Thesechargesgobacktothebeginningofthegenre’stheorization,carryinganormativedisdainformiddle-classindividualismasanideal.Indeed,oneofthegenre’searlytheorists,WilhelmDilthey,ultimatelydismissedthegenrebecausehefoundrealizationofanidealofindividualismtobesuchafacileandsolipsisticoutcomeforanyformofliterature.ForDilthey,whoappropriatedtheterm“Bildungsroman”fromKarlMorgensternandpopularizeditinthelatenineteenthcentury,theBildungsromantypifiedthetendencyoftheGermanpoliticalactorofthateratoremainencasedinpoliticalandromanticnotionsofBildung–totheexclusionofconcretepoliticalaction.SeeWilhelmDilthey,“DasErlebnisUndDieDichtung,”inZurGeschichteDesDeutschenBildungsromans,ed.Rolf.Selbmann(Darmstadt:WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft,1988),120–22,http://pi.lib.uchicago.edu/1001/cat/bib/921162.
73SeeintroductiontoFrancoMoretti,TheWayoftheWorld:TheBildungsromaninEuropeanCulture(London:Verso,1987).
41
completedatthecollectivelevel,butrathertheopening-upofthepossibilityofcontinual
transformations.Historyisdefinedbyitsinherentunresolvabilityandopen-endedness.But
theindividual,incontrasttosociallife,carrieswithhimatleastahypotheticalmodelof
closurewithintheBildungsroman–thatofintegration.Theparadoxandcentraltensionof
theBildungsromanisthatanarrativeabouttheintegrationoftheindividualintothe
communityhascomeaboutinamodernitydefinedbyunendingchange.AsMorettiargues,
theindividualinternalizessociety’scontradictionsinrepresentativeformwithinthenovel,
becominganarrativesymbolforthethreatenedcontinuityofthesocialbody.“The
Bildungsroman,”Morettiwrites,“abstractsfrom‘real’youthasymbolicone,”ultimately
aimingatthequestionofasociety’scollectiveunity.74Thepromisedachievementofthe
youthfulcharacter’sjourneytomaturityheldoutthepossibilityofasymbolicresolutionof
contradictionswithinthesocialorder.Individualdevelopment,accordingtoMoretti,isnot
abouttheindividual,butabouttheinternalizationofthesocialworldintheindividual.The
conceptofinternalizationcombinestheinner(i.e.,psychological)andouter(i.e.,public)
worlds,incorporatingboththeinfluenceontheindividualfroma(social)“outside,”andthe
capacityoftheindividualto(re-)actcreativelybackonthatsameworld.Thepromisethat
theindividualwillmakeasuccessfulintegrationintosocietyisthepossibilitythat
historicalchangecanstabilizeitselfinthesymboloftheindividuallife.
Theparadigmofintegrationisanimportantmodelforthisproject,buttheexpressive
realityoftheindividualwillinsteadcomefromacombinationofself-directedagency(i.e.,a
resistancetointegration)andamodeofdiscovery;thatis,theappearanceofsocialforms
74Ibid.,5.
42
andpotentialitiesthathavebeenlosttothepresent.Theexpressiveindividualisthe
crosswiseproductofhisethicalpowers(ofwhichthemasteryperspectiveisoneamong
many)andnewformsofagencythatexistoutsideofhim,onlytoberecoveredfromthe
historicalormythicpast.Thecommunityisthesiteofbothpossibilities,whereagencycan
understanditsdefinedscopeandendswithouttheindefinitescalingofthe“mastery”
perspective.IntherealistictextsonwhichIwillconcentrate,thisishowanexpressive
individualismcomestobepairedwithanontologyofpermanence.
TheimportancethatIascribetocommunityacrossthisprojectistiedtothenecessityof
thisaspectofdiscovery.Theindividualmustbeopeneduptocontingency,formsoffate,
andagencythatisfoundorinheritedratherthanself-generated.Thisisthealternativeto
theperspectiveofmastery.Eachchapterofthisprojectwillbetiedtoaformofcommunity
thatenvisionsacommunally-embeddedalternativetothemasteryperspective.
SummaryofChapters
WilhelmMeister’sWanderjahre:Vocation,theGuild,andtheSignificanceoftheIndividual
Life:Thischapterdiscussestheintentional,small-scale,plannedcommunity,which
requirestheassentofeachindividualtoaguidingsetoforientingvalues.Itshistorical
antecedentsarethesmall-scale,personalformsofcommunallifeembodiedbycoloniesand
the19th-centuryutopiancommunitiesofEuropeandtheearlyAmericancolonial
experience.IwillreadthesequeltoGoethe’sLehrjahre,WilhelmMeister’sWanderjahre,
oderdieEntsagenden,asanexplorationofthecommuneasasocialrefugefromthe
disorientationsofaneweconomicandsocialorder.TheWanderjahrerepresentsthe
43
communeasaplacewheretheindividualcangraspthewholeideaofthecommunity
throughthededicationtoacommonpurposerepresentedbyvocationalcommitment.The
Wanderjahreoffersasimplesocialformthatposestheproblemofmembershipand
integrationmostdirectly,sincethecommuneisthegroupthatrequiresitsindividual
membersto“see”theintentionalityoftheirownworkintheimageofthewhole
community.Assuchitformsthebasisoftheexpressiveseparation–andunity–betweenthe
individualandcommunitythatwillbetracedoutacrosstherestoftheproject.
GeorgeEliot’sVillageHumanismandtheLifeoftheNation:Thevillageisthecommunal
formwhosemembersshareasensoryrealityandhavethesamesenseofidealized
historicalorigin.Incontrasttotheintentionalcommune,thescaleandextentofthe
communityisnotchosenbutinherited–atleastinidealterms.Thevillageformsthebasis
forEliot’sunderstandingofEnglandasanation.Thenation’sappealtotheindividual’s
imaginationisnot–asinthevillage–limitedtotheimmediateandtransparentexpressionof
intentionsbetweenitsmembers,butratherbythedemandthatitmakesoneachindividual
(citizen):hisorheridentificationwiththesensoriumofthevillageitself.Thevillagein
Eliot’snovelshasusuallybeenunderstoodasanostalgicthrowback,asanunrealproduct
ofvariousobscuringnostalgiasthatafflictedintellectuals.Rather,Iwillunderstanditasa
revelationofacertainkindofagencyinlightofabstractvirtualizationsoftheEnglish
nationwhich,Iwillargue,wasbasedonthepoliticalandculturalextensionofthevillage
ideal.Thenationalcommunityisadistinct“people,”withaparticularoriginstoryanda
hypotheticalsharedfuture.Thenationcreatesasenseofbelongingthroughitsabilityto
createavirtualizedparticipationinitsoriginstoryandfuturedestiny–tomakeitsinvisible
narrativerealintheeverydayactivitiesofitscitizens.Thisreachesitsgreateststakesin
44
GeorgeEliot’sDanielDeronda,whichdepictsoneindividual’sdiscoveryofamoralcallingto
participateintheprojectofthenation.Itsuggeststhatthenation’sabilitytoinspireasense
ofcommunitymaybelimitedtothelegibilityandultimaterecoverabilityofitspast.A
nationthatisunabletosustainanimaginativeandparticipatoryconnectionbetweenthe
individual’sself-understandinganditscollectiveimagewill,itsuggests,failtosustaina
senseoffuturitythatinspiresbelonging,andfallbackintothenormsandlimitationsof
economisticandimpersonalformsofsocialorder.
Melville’sClarelandtheCommunityofPilgrims:Theconnectingprincipleofthislastformof
communityistheunityofvariousreligiousfaithsagainstthevalueorientationof
materialismandthedetachedscientificstance.Theimpersonalandutilitarianworldorder
offersakindofanti-foundationforagroupofpilgrimsfromvariousfaithtraditionswho
areunitedbythefactthattheimpersonalorderthrowstheirownreligiouscommitments
intodoubt.Mytextforthismodelofcommunity,HermanMelville’smodernepicform
Clarel,hasthemostexplicitlyreligioussetofconcernsinthedissertation.Religious
systemsofvalueformacrucialcommongroundacrossallofmytexts,butreligiousbelief
andpracticeisatthefoundationofClarelbecauseithelpstoclarifywhatisthreatenedby
theimpersonalsocialorder.TheorientingpointofvaluewithinClarelisthefragilityofits
characters’higherreligiousgood(s),asrepresentedintheVictorianfaith-doubtdilemma.
Thepoem,populatedbyadiversesetofpilgrimstotheHolyLandsaroundJerusalem,
depictsacommunitythatformsaroundtheexistentialformofdoubtthatitscharacters’–as
representativesoffaithtypes–holdincommon.Theymaintainhopeforthepromiseofa
newrevelation,whichtheypraywillemergefromamidstitsenigmaticholysitesand
materiallyharshlandscapes,bindingthemtogetherinanewfoundingmomentforbelief.
45
ChapterOne:WilhelmMeister’sWanderjahre:Vocation,theGuild,andtheSignificanceoftheIndividualLife
TheindividualcharacterintheWanderjahreemergesaccordingtoalatent,as-yet
undiscernedpattern.InkeepingwiththemetaphorthatlendsbothGoethe’sWanderjahre
anditspredecessortheirtitles,thenovelsareconstructedaroundthepatternoflifeina
crafteducationandthecraftguild.1TheWanderjahrewillbethe“journeyman”phaseofa
guildapprenticeshipthatitsmaincharacterbeganintheLehrjahre.Butthemedievalcraft
guilds,alreadythreatenedbycapitalisticformsofproductionandinseveredeclinebythe
timeofGoethe’snovel,arenotprimarilypresenttotheWanderjahreasasetofliving
institutions.2Rather,theguilds—andtheirmethodofbuildingfraternityandsociallife
aroundthemasteryofamaterialpraxis—areametaphorfortheorganizationofindividual
facultiesanddevelopmentalpathwaysintocoherentcollectiveunits.
Inthespiritofsmall-scaleassociationamongindependentcraftspeople,the
Wanderjahreisanovelaboutcommunitieswithintimateanddirectrelationships--whatI
callthe“commune”model.WhatismodernabouttheWanderjahreisthatitaspiresto
bringasetofshared,intentionalmaterialpracticesandorientationstoa(higher)goodinto
1InthefollowingdiscussionoftheWanderjahre,IwillusuallyrefertoEnglish-languagetranslationsinthetextwhileprovidingtheGermanoriginalinfootnotesbelow.Pagenumbrslistedare,first,totheEnglishtranslationandsecondtotheGerman.Forbothnovels,thetranslationistakenfromthePrincetonUniversityPresseditionsofGoethe’sSelectedWorks,translatedbyEricA.Blackall(Lehrjahre)andKrishnaWinston(Wanderjahre).Germancitationsare,unlessotherwisenotedtothe1829HamburgerAusgabeeditioneditedbyErichTrunz.2SeeWernerAbelshauser.TheDynamicsofGermanIndustry:Germany’sPathtowardtheNewEconomyandtheAmericanChallenge.BerghahnBooks,2005,pp.33-37andJamesR.FarrArtisansinEurope,1300-1914.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2000.
46
acoherentwayoflife.Thisisthesignificanceofthecommuneasanextendedmetaphor:
societybecomesatypeofguildassociation.Fromahistoricalperspective,itdrawsona
proliferationofintentionalcommunalprojectsacrossthe18thand19thcenturies,realized
intheirgrandestformbytheEuropeanoptiontobeginlife“afresh”inNorthAmerica.3The
intentionalcommunewasoftenbuiltaroundasharedaspirationtoutopia,atranscendent
goodbeyondthelifeoftheeveryday.ButthecommuneoftheWanderjahrecanneitherbe
reducedtoitshistoricalantecedents,nordismissedbyanaspirationtoescapefromthe
demandsofthedayinamessianicutopia.Rather,itisanoldmodelforanewwayofliving
together,atransformedtraditionforaEuropeanmodernitythatwasincreasinglyoriented
aroundindividualsandindividualisms.
I.TheIndividualasPrimarySocialReality,andtheCommuneasCompromiseSocialForm TheWanderjahreofferswhatIhavetermedthecommuneasanidealforthe
organizationofthevariousstylesofmodernindividualismintoacoherentandsharedway
oflife.Itgivesaspecificthematicresonancetoitsindividualismthroughthenarrativeofan
incipientbourgeoisritual:theprocessofdiscerningavocationalpath.IntheGerman
context,themeaningofthevocationalpathishierarchicallystratifiedbetween“higher”and
“lower”frameworks:fromthemostelevatedtheologicalnotionoftheindividual“calling”
3OntheproliferationofintentionalandutopiancommunitiesinNorthAmerica,see,forinstance,MarkHolloway’sHeavensonEarth:UtopianCommunitiesinAmerica1680-1880(2ndedition.DoverPublications,1966andRosabethMossKanter’sCommitmentandCommunity:CommunesandUtopiasinSociologicalPerspective(Firstedition,Cambridge:Harvard,1972).TheWanderjahretakesthebroadestposibleviewofwhatitwouldmeanforacommunitytobeintentionalandmodern,consideringeverythingfromresettlementventurestoisolatedmountainvillagestothepeasantassociationsformedbylargearistocraticlandowners.InGoethe’snovel,thecommuneisaslikelytobefoundinsocialexperimentsinternaltoEuropeasinthecolonialexperimentsofNorthAmerica.
47
(livingandworkinginamonasticorclericalsetting)tothemundane,secularandsocial,
classificationofalllifeactivityintoasociallycomprehensiblearcofvocational
development.4Theideaofvocationisboundupwiththedouble-sidednatureofindividual
belongingintheWanderjahre.Itscharacters(Wilhelmandothers)mustnotonlydiscern
theirparticularvocationalcontributiontotheircommunity.Theyarealsocalledtoidentify
withitsguidingvalues,whichpresumetopromote,organize,andassignultimateworthto
theactivitiesoftheindividuallifewithinthewhole.Toenterintoavocationinthese
communitiesistoidentifywiththestyleofindividualismthatinveststhecommunitywith
itsauthority.Thereforemyapproachentailsaformofmethodologicalindividualism:the
meaningofthewholesocialbodyinthisaccountisdrivenbythequestionofhowasociety
organizesthedevelopmentofitsindividualcharacters.5
Theconceptofvocationlendsanarrativepatterntoanumberofpossible
individualisms(e.g.expressive,utilitarian),buttheparticulartypeofvocationalintegration
4SeeGustafWingren’sLutheronVocation(Philadelphia:MuhlenbergPress,1957)foranoverviewofthereligiousandspiritualhistoricallineageofthevocationideal.OutsideofhisinfamouslypessimisticpsychicinterpretationofvocationinhisProtestantEthic,MaxWeberunderstoodvocation(Beruf)initssecularsensetobearecognizableformofproductiveactivitythatallowedtheindividualtomaintainhisorherplaceinthesocietythroughcontinualparticipationinthelabormarket(seechapter2,EconomyandSociety).Inhisstudyofthesourcesofvocationalidealsinreligiousmysticism,JamesR.Horneoffersacontrastwiththemodernsecularviewofvocationas“discoveryofandassenttoone’sabilities,circumstancesandtendencies”(MysticismandVocation.WilfridLaurierUniv.Press,1996,p.2)Thesenseofajoiningofpartandwhole--betweenemergent,developmentallyrevealedpersonalqualitiesandtheeveryday,practicaldemandsthatsocietymakesonitsmemberstomaintainitself--iskeytomyownoperatingunderstandingofsecularvocationforthisnovel.5ThisstatementalsofunctionsasanexplanationofwhatImeanby“individualism”withinthetermsofmystudy.IsimplytakeitasastartingassumptionthatfortheculturalsettinginwhichtheBildungsromanarose,theindividualisincreasinglytheatomicunitofthesocial,politicalandeconomicimagination.AninquiryintowhatIhavecalled“styles”ofindividualismgoes,therefore,directlytothequestionoftheindividual’scapacities,limitations,andvalue(s)thatgiveitthisfoundationalrecognition.Foramoretheisticstatementofthisposition,see,forinstance,CharlesTaylor’sformulation:“Thesocialordersweliveinarenotgroundedcosmically,priortous,thereasitwere,waitingforustotakeupourallottedplace;rather,societyismadebyindividuals,oratleastforindividuals,andtheirplaceinitshouldreflectthereasonswhytheyjoinedinthefirstplace,orwhyGodappointedthisformofcommonexistenceforthem.”InASecularAge.Cambridge,Mass.:BelknapPress,2007,p.540.
48
intheWanderjahrewillbetheidealofthejourneyman’sadvancementthroughthecraft
guildsystem.WhenIreferinthischaptertotheeducationofa“craftsperson,”the
organizationofacraft“guild,”“apprenticeships”(Lehrjahre),“journeymanyears”
(Wanderjahre),andothersuchtermsofart,Iaminvokingreal,historicalEuropean
economicandsocialstructuresinthemannerofanidealtype.Thisissurelythemost
relevantsenseforthehaphazard,symbolicallyrich“apprenticeships”thatGoethe’s
charactersundertakeacrossbothnovels.Butwhilemyinteresthereinthepatternsofguild
educationismoreidealthanhistoricallyspecific,myunderstandingofthecraftguildasa
groupsettingforindividualpracticeshastwoveryspecificsensesthatdohaveahistorical
basis.
First,theeducationalpathwaysandmaturevocationalpracticesofacraftsperson
aredistinguishedbyasetoftechnicalskillslearnedandpracticedincommon,and
specificallybythepracticeofjointattentiontothesubstantivedemandsoftheirmaterial
objects.Second,thepracticeofacraftisdefinedbyanethicofsharedintentions--a
personal,cooperativerelationshipbetweenitspractitionersduringthephasesofeducation
andmastery--andbysomenotionofexcellenceand“thegood”thatprovidetheguiding
contextfortheirwork.Tobesure,bothcraftworkrequirementsareidealizationsoftheir
actualpractice,evenattheirhighpointsduringtheEuropeanMiddleAges.6Forthe
6ContemporaryhistoricalanalysisofcraftworkandtheguildsysteminEuropehastendedtostudyitsinstitutionalandpoliticalrealities,particularlythewaysinwhichithasprivilegedandexcludedvariousskilledeconomies.Thesesettingsoftendepartedfromitssometime-romanticdepictionasapre-capitalisticfulfillmentoflabor’sidealrequirementsforhumanflourishing.SeeFarr’sabove-mentionedwork(ArtisansinEurope),andGuilds,InnovationandtheEuropeanEconomy,1400–1800(editedS.R.,EpsteinandMaartenPrak.CambridgeUniversityPress,2008).Asaresult,themostdetailedrecentstudiesofthesatisfactionsanduniqueoutcomesofmanualworkhavebeenundertakenbypsychologists(see,forinstance,thecrucialdevelopmentalroleof“jointattention”toobjectsbetweenparentandinfant)andininterdisciplinaryworkofappliedphilosophy.Foranexemplarypieceofthelatter,seeMatthewCrawford’sShopClassasSoulcraft:AnInquiryintotheValueofWork.(NewYork:Penguin,2010).
49
purposesofthisanalysis,themostimportantidealfeatureofcraftworkisitshabitof
linkingthematerialactivitiesofhumanlife(here,understoodas“work”)toasetofhigher
goodsintheworld.Thecommunitydefinesitswayoflifebymaintainingthetension
betweenskilledmateriallaborandtheviewof“thegood”forwhichthisworkis
undertaken.
TheWanderjahreisaboutskilledworkineverymaterialandsensorydomain.This
istrueinsensesbothhighandlow:itisarichpastichepopulated,ontheonehand,with
painters,sculptors,musicians,singersandotheraspirantstohighaestheticachievement
(whatthenovelatonepointcallsthe“free”arts),butalsowithastronomers,geologists,
architects,engineers,builders,miners,weaversandothersuchshapersoftheraw
materialsatcivilization’sdisposaltomeetitseverydayneeds.Thechallengethatthenovel
posesistoeffectatransmutationfromlaborasasensoryprocessto“work”asaformof
insightaboutvalues.Thatis,tomovefromanorientationtoworkthatgrabsthehuman
sensoriumtoahigherethicalandobjectivevantagepointontheseactivities.This,inaway,
describestheWanderjahre’sstartingpoint,arisingasitdoesoutoftheLehrjahre’s
ambivalentending:WilhelmMeisterhas“failed,”inanarrowsense,toachievealife
definedbyphysicalpresenceandbodilycontrolonthetheatricalstage,butonawiderview
ofhisdevelopmentaltrajectory,hisinductionintotheTowerSocietyreflectsanewphase
ofmaturityandinsightbeyondhisparticularaspirations.Thishard-wonperspective
resonatesthroughouttheintensephysicalnaturethelandscapeattheWanderjahre’s
opening:Wilhelmis“overshadowedbyamightycliff”andina“fearsome,significantspot”
50
thatconveysasenseoftheplungingdepthsbelowthemountainheightwhosesteep
pathwayhehasalreadyclimbed.7
Theideathatskilledmanualworkputitspractitionersinaspecialpositionto
acknowledgehigher—evenmystical—goodsishardlywithouttextualandhistorical
grounding.Theapprentice’sentranceintoamedievaltrade—withitsattendantpromiseof
mastery—wasnotjustatechnicaleducation,butinthemostelevatedparlanceoftheguild,
aninductionintotheguild“mysteries”(Latinmysterium,meaning“miracle,”“mystery”).8In
themedievalcontext,theLatinwordmysteriumaroseinconjunctionwithaclosely-related
variant,misterium,whichfirstdesignateda“craft,trade,orskill,”andeventuallythecraft
guilditself.9Bysomeaccounts,misteriumaroseasavariantthroughtheconflationof
mysterium(“mystery”)withministerium(“occupation,”“work”).10Bythefourteenth
century,bothmysteriumandministeriumalsoreferredtoecclesiasticalservices,where
misteriumtookononemoremeaning,thatof“dramaticperformance.”Thespecific
associationiswiththemedieval“mysteryplays”thatdepictedhighpointsinthechurch
liturgy.11
Thecraftguildswerealwayscloselyassociatedwiththesemysteryplays,atfirst
behindthescenes,becausetheyweretheoneswiththerequisiteskilltoconstructthe
7“ImSchatteneinesmächtigenFelsensaßWilhelmangrauser,bedeutenderStelle,wosichdersteileGebirgswegumeineEckeherumschnellnachderTiefewendete.”p.7(Trunz),97(Blackall)8Onguildtrainingas“initiation”intoa“mystery,”seeFarr,34.9PhilipDurkinoffersathoroughdiscussionofthepossibleoriginsofmisteriumduringanunrelatedtechnicaldiscussionintheTheOxfordGuidetoEtymology(OUPOxford,2011),pp.80-8110SeeDurkin(Ibid.)andMichaelFontaine,JohannesBurmeister:AululariaandOtherInversionsofPlautus(LeuvenUniversityPress2015),p.1611KarlYoung,TheDramaoftheMedievalChurch.(Oxford:UniversityPress,1951),v.2,pp.409-10
51
stagesanddesignthesets.Lateron,becauseofthedemandforplaysinthevernacularand
moreelaboratestaging,theguildstookonthewriting,actingandproductionoftheplays
themselves.Inthismanner,the“mysteries”movedoutsideofthechurchconfinesintothe
primaryhandsofthecraftguilds,growinginscaleandcomingintotensionwithchurch
authoritiesfortheirexcesses.12
Theguilds’responsibilityforthemysteryplayswasjustoneofalargerslateof
dutiesandsymbolicritesthattheyundertookasparttheirpracticallabor.Theserituals
forgedthemasasocialbodyandlaidoutahighercontextfortheirwork.Farrwritesthat
participationintheguildritualsmadethema“body,”anda“confraternity,”which“brought
memberstogetherinaspiritualbrotherhood.”13Throughthemysteryplays,theguildstook
auniqueformofcontroloveraheretoforeexclusivechurchfunction:whatwasoncea
participatoryreligiousriteformembersofthecommunityatlargebecomesanactivitythat
helpstoconstitutetheguild’sparticularwayoflife.
Yetthejoiningofindividualmastercraftsmenintoacollectivebrotherhoodthrough
the“mysteries”wasalwaysanidealfraughtwithtensionsbetweentheindividualmasters
andtheirguildcommunities.ItisatensionthatthecommunitiesoftheWanderjahreboth
symbolicallyincorporateandacceleratetovariousimaginativeoutcomes.Theachievement
ofmasteryinthecraftguildcamewiththepromiseofestablishingone’sownindependent
enterprise.Tobeamastermeantpossessingnotonlyahighdegreeoftechnicalskill,but
alsothelegitimacytosetupaworkshopoverwhichthemasterhadearnedtherightof
12Young,pp.421-24.AlthoughthesechangestothemysteryplaytraditionoccurredacrossEurope,DavidMuirwritesthattheirshiftoutsidethechurchwasmostpronouncedinEnglandandGermany.SeehisTheBiblicalDramaofMedievalEurope(Cambridge ;NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1995),pp.26-27.13Farr,424
52
primaryownershipandcontrol.Farrdescribestheindividualowner-operatorartisanas
thecommanderofa“self-containedbusiness,financialindependence,publichonor,a
spouse,andpoliticaladulthood,”therebyembodyingthe“idealofthepatriarchal
household,aunitofproductionandreproductionthatwasassumedtobethemicrocosmof
awell-orderedpolity.”14Thisisthetensionofthemaster’srolewithintheguild.Isthe
master’sstatusprimarilydefinedbytheobligationsofbelongingandleadership,bythe
obligationsofcareandteachingbetweenjuniorandseniormembers,andbyarelationship
betweenthosewhoaredevelopingandthosewhohavedeveloped?Oristhemaster’s
statusprimarilyabouttheachievementofcertainrights:therighttooccupyashareofthe
marketfortheguild’sservicesandreapthepersonalrewardsofitscollectivemonopoly?
Membershipintheguildisthusalwaysinherentlyconflicted:betweentheneedto
contributetothemaintenanceofthegroupanditsmembers,andthedesiretopursuethe
rightsofself-assertionandindependence.
TheWanderjahreimportsthissamepossibilityoftensionintoitscommunities.The
commune—asageneralandidealmodelfortheorganizationofindividualsintomeaningful
collectiveunits--containsthesamebasicethosofcohesionastheguilds.Itisashared
modelofdirectandbodilyengagementwiththeconstitutivematerialforcesofcommunal
life,adirectrelationshipbothbetweentheirmembersandtowardthematerialobjectsof
theirdailysustainment.Theorganizationofthecommune,whichaspirestosimplicityand
asenseofindividualparticipationintheconditionsthatmaintainthewhole,isfirstand
14Farr,88.Indeed,tosecurethisrightofindependenceinacrowdedandmatureEuropeanmarketplace,Farrnotesthattheywerefrequentlywillingtouprootthemselvesfromtheirexistingsocietiesandmoveelsewheretosetupshop(147)--ahistoricaltrendheavilyreflectedinthevariouscommunitiesofemigrantsintheWanderjahre.
53
foremostafulfillmentoftheindividual’sdesiretofeelandenactthemeaningofhisorher
belongingthroughtheday’sactivities.Theindividualbecomesliketheindependent
craftsperson:oneunitthatrecapitulatesthefunctionsofthewhole.
Butthecommuneisnot“naturalized”intheWanderjahre.Itisakindofsecond
nature,chosenandmaintainedbythesharedintentionsofindividualsasasolutiontoan
alreadydisruptivesetofhistoricalprocessesthathavedissolved“traditional”or“natural”
society.ThetensioninthecommunitiesoftheWanderjahreisthereforesomethinglikethe
following:canitsuccessfullyorganizethefullcapabilitiesanddesiresoftheindividualin
serviceofahigherandcollectiveunderstandingof“thegood,”orwilltheindividual
ultimatelyreverttomeasuringhimself,inaquasi-utilitarianfashion,ashisownhighest
good,assertinghisindependenceandultimatevaluewithinanatomizingandimpersonal
economicorderthatultimatelythreatensthecommuneasaparticularwayoflifetout
court?Liketheguild,itsindividualcharactersareperchedbetweenformsofindividualism
thatentailasenseofbelongingtoacommunalversionof“thegood,”andformsof
individualempowermentthatleadtoindependenceandseparationfromthecommunity.
TheWanderjahreunfoldsundermaterialconditionsofwhatW.H.Brufordcalls
“earlycapitalism.”Economicproductionisscatteredbetweencraftlaborsettings
reminiscentoftheguilds,small-scalepiecework(mostlyontextilegoods)undertakenby
ruralpeasantsindomesticsettings,subsistenceagricultureundertakenbymountain
peasants,andhighlyproductivelarge-scaleagricultureownedandoverseenbyamanorial
aristocracy.15Inthetermsofthenovel,themostimportantdifferencebetweenthese
15WalterH.Bruford,TheGermanTraditionofSelf-Cultivation:BildungfromHumboldttoThomasMann.London ;NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1975,pp.94-95.
54
arrangementsandanincipientlaterphaseofcapitalism(whichthenovelbringsintoview
inajust-visiblefuture)isthat,fortheimmediatetimebeing,economicallyproductive
activitycanstillbeintegratedintoa“wayoflife.”Economiccompetitivenesspersistsin
lightofthewholecommunity’shigheraimsandmeaning,suchthatitsmembersareableto
cooperateintheproductionofusefulgoodsandservices.Theirwayoflifehasa
significancethatisconsonantwithitseconomicniche.Firstandforemost,thismeansthat
thematerialconditionsofproductionstillunfoldatascaleandaspeedthataccommodates
humanunderstandingandthehumansensorium.Thenarrowandfocusedmindset
impliedbythedivisionoflaborandtechnicalspecializationhasnotyetreachedapoint
whereproductioncaneasilytakeplaceforitsownsakeratherthanwithinthehorizonof
viewofacommunalwayoflife.ButtheWanderjahreissituatedatahistoricalinflection
point,inwhichthisbalancebetweenindividualsenseandtheconditionsoflaborhasbegun
toshift.Atthecenterofthischangeistheindividualasadynamiceconomicunit.
TobeanindividualinthetermsoftheWanderjahreistohavethefreedomto
participateinacooperativeendeavorandacollectivevisioninsomesense.Butitsdeepand
unresolveddilemmaistheuncertaintyof“thegood”thatisthebasisforthesharedlifeof
theindividual.Thecommuneturnsthematerialconditionsoflaborandeverydaylifeinto
thebasisforthecommunity’sdistinctivehighergoods.Thisbearsananalogical
resemblancetotheorganizationofthecraftguild,whichtreatsitsdistinctivematerial
objects,technicalcapacities,andlaborpatternsnotsimplyas“skills”tobelearnedfor
remuneration,butas“mysteries”thatdefinethebasisforthecommunity.Historically
speaking,unskilledorsemi-skillednon-guildlaborersfrequentlyworkedasassistants
alongsideguildjourneymenormastercraftsmen.Buttheirworkwasmerelabor,outsideof
55
themysteriesanddifferentinkindthantheworkoftheguildmembersevenif—in
practicalterms—itwasoftenimpossibletokeepnon-apprenticeassistantsfromlearning
thetechnicalstepsofcraftproductiontoahighdegreeofproficiency.16Skilledwork
undertakenoutsideoftheguild’ssocialhierarchyandmythologylacked,inprinciple,the
sameintentionalitytowarditsmaterialobjects.Withintheguild,rawmaterialswereasite
ofcollectiveculturaltransmission,sharedmeaning,andjointattentionthroughtheactive
processofmentorship.Outsideoftheguild,thesematerialswereabaresubstance:suitable
toappraisalfortheireventualuse,valuedasameansofremuneration,butcarryingno
othersignificancethantheireventualcommodityfunction.
Asanovelaboutvocation,theWanderjahreshiftsbetweentwocontextsforthe
meaningoftheindividual’sproductivecapacities.Onepossibilityisthatthevocational
developmentoftheindividualcouldunfoldundertheaegisofamystery;thatis,withthe
promisethatindividualactivitywouldbesignificantbeyonditsfunctiontoprovide
materialandeconomicsustainment.Thealternativeistheanalogicalequivalentoflabor
undertakenoutsideoftheguildanditsmysteries,underconditionsofever-expanding,
sociallylevelingcapitalisticproduction.This,withintheimaginaryofthenovel,isan
economistic,proto-utilitariangenericorderingoftheworldintoatomizedindividuals:a
productive,technicallydifferentiatedformoflaborthathasnouseforthe“mysteries”ofits
particularsocialcontext,re-orderingnotonlytherelationshipofindividualstotheirlabor,
butalsoseveringtheconnectionbetweenindividualsandthesocialcontextfortheirlabor.
Thenovelholdsbothofthesepossibilitiesintension.ThehistoricalEuropeanguildwas
constantlypulledbetweenitsmembers’desireforsingularentrepreneurialindependence,16Farr,36
56
andtheobligationsofguildcooperationthatmadetheirwayoflifesociallymeaningful.17
Forthecommune,inturn,thenovelraisesthepossibilitythataformofcommunitythat
giveslegibilitytotheindividual’swayoflifewillberenderedhistoricallysuperfluous,and
thattheindividualwillbecomethefoundationalsocialandhistoricalunit.Thispointtakes
ustoanotherlevelinwhichtheWanderjahreisabookthatis,bothliterallyand
metaphorically,abouttheindividualasaperpetualwanderer.Itisthroughthenotionof
“wandering”—indicatedinthenovel’sverytitle—thatwecanapproachthecrucial
symbolicandmediatingroleofcommunityintheWanderjahre.
Inthetimelineofacrafteducation,the“Wanderjahre”aretraditionallythephasein
whichanaspiringmastercraftsmantravelledbetweendifferentguildsocialstructuresand
contexts,gainingskillfromawidevarietyofmasterswhilelivinganitinerantandunsettled
existence.18Fromthestandpointoftradecraftpedagogy,thebenefitsoftechnicalcross-
pollinationandexposuretodifferentmastershadbenefitsbothforindividualjourneymen
andforthenetworkoftiesacrosstheguildsystem.IntheWanderjahre,whilethebasic
outlineoftheritualisthesame,Wilhelmhas(asyet)nochosenvocation,makingthe
purposeofthisactivityfarlessclear.Hetravelsunderordersfromhisown“guild”(The
TowerSociety),livingalongsidethemembersofvariouscommunitieswithnodefinitetask
17Indeed,Farrsuggeststhatsomemastersweresosuccessfulatachievingexceptionalstatureandinfluenceoutsideoftheirguildsthattheyhelpedcontributetothedeclineoftheentiresystem.SeechapterfiveofhisArtisansinEurope:1300-191418Typically,aparticularguildmarkedbothaspecifictradeandaregionallocation(e.g.,the“NuremburgWeavers’Guild”).Therefore,whenajourneymantravelledacrossawiderareaduringtheitinerantphaseofhistraining,whathehadincommonwithhisvariousdestinationswasnotthefullguildassociation(sincethiswouldimplynotonlyasetofskillsbutacommonlocalaffiliation)butratherjustthetechnicalprerequisitesofhistrade.Thephaseofjourneymantraining,therefore,anticipateslatercapitalism’sisolationof“technique”and“procedure”fromthesocialrootednessofskilledlaborwithinguilds.
57
besidesobservationandreflection,andneverremaininginthesameplaceforaperiod
longerthanthreedays.Throughitall,hecomestomakesenseoftheirnormsand
understandwhatorganizestheirwayoflife.
SinceWilhelm,incontrasttohistradecounterparts,doesnottravelfromone
communitytoanotherinordertolearnadefinitetrade,theoutcomeofhis“journeyman
years”willbemoreesotericandinscrutable:inanodtotheBildungimperative,the
purposeofthewanderersintheTowerSocietyissomethinglikeanattempttoassemblea
betterviewoftheworld’sconnectivetissuesfromtheindefinitefragmentsofparticular
experience.TomakemoreofGoethe’ssymbolicreinventionofthejourneymanritual,we
shouldbrieflydirectourattentiontotheunusualformofWanderjahre,asingularexample
ofwhathasbeencalledthe“Archivroman,”orathe“novelofthearchives.”The
heterogeneityofthenovel’spartshasalreadybeennotedthroughitsdiverserangeof
characters.Yeteventhisfactconveysonlythefaintestsuggestionofthestrangeand
incongruousmakeupofthenovel’sfinal1829edition.19Itisacollectionofaphorisms,
translations,novellas,shortstories,poetry,correspondences,andtechnicalreportsthat
conveyanimpressionofrawmaterialtothereadereveninthefinalproduct.20This
rawnessprojectsitsownaestheticofcontrolledchaos,asifthereader,too,weresubjected19Aspreviouslynoted,GoethereleasedtwoeditionsoftheWanderjahre,thefirstin1821andthesecondin1829.Whilethe1821editionestablishesthebasicnarrativeofthenovelthatremainedunchanged,thedesignationArchivsromanisusuallyonlyappliedtothesecondedition,whichgreatlyexpandsthetext(makingitmorethantwiceaslong),breaksitintothreebooks,andmultipliestherangeofvoices,alternativeperspectives,andexogenoussources.Foranoverviewofthedifferences,seeGerhardNeumann’sandHans-GeorgeDewitz’sGerman-languagecommentarytotheFrankfurterAusgabe(DeutscherKlassikerVerlag,1989)editionofGoethe’scompleteworks(v.10),pp.1273-1306.Thiscriticalversionalsocontainscompleteeditionsofboththe1821and1829novels.20Althoughtheterm“archive”canbefoundatpointsintheWanderjahreitself(perhapsmostnotablyinthetitleoftheaphoristiccoda,“AusMakariensArchiv,”EhrhardBahrclaimsthatthetermdidnotbecomeanimportantoneforWanderjahrecriticismuntilthe1970s.SeehisTheNovelasArchive:theGenesis,Reception,andCriticismofGoethe'sWilhelmMeistersWanderjahre,CamdenHouse,1998,p.12.
58
totheconfusion,open-endednessandmultiplepathwaysthatconfrontWilhelmatthe
outsetofhisjourney.WilhelmMeisterbecomesthecharacterwho“livesin”and“emerges
from”fromhistory’sliteralmanifestation:thearchive,outofwhichbebecomesacharacter.
Heisthenovel’ssymbolfortheoverwhelmingarrayofchoices(i.e.,thenecessitytoselect
fromhistory’scontentsinordertoassembleanynarrative)thatarethemodernbasisof
retrospectiveindividualparticularity.Thustheaspirationattheheartofthetraditional
Bildungsroman--totraceoutalatent“pattern”inalife—isheldintensionwiththe
untameable,indeterminate,overflowingmassofmaterialthatisthisnovel’sinherentform.
Goethewasawarethathewantedtorepresentsomethingaboutthemodernityof
hiscontemporarymomentthatstrainedatthesystematicunderpinningsofthenovelform
itself.HebelievedthattheWanderjahre’sunusualstructureprovidedthereaderwitha
widelatitudetoselectwhatinterestedhimorherfromitsmassofdetails,plots,and
literarymodes—aconditionepitomizedbyhissometime-descriptionofthenovelasan
“aggregate.”21Itsunusualopenness,Goetheimplies,requiredagreater-than-ordinary
exerciseofreaderlyinputandpatternconstruction.22
21Goetheusedtheterm“aggregate”todescribetheoverwhelmingnumberofinterpretivelayersinthenovel(“dasBuchgebesichnurfüreinAggregataus,”letter,Feburary18,1830).Ontheopennessofthebooktoselectionofparticularelements,hewritesthat“EineArbeitwiediese,diesichselbstalskollektivankündiget,indemsiegewissermaßennurzumVerbandderdisparatestenEinzelheitenunternommenzuseinscheint,erlaubt,jafordertmerhalsseineanderedaßjedersichzueignewasihmgemäßist,wasinseinerLagezurBeherzigungaufriefundsichharmonischwohltätigerwiesenmöchte(letter,July7,1829).AlllettersfromtheFrankfurterAusgabe,editedbyHorstFleig.FrankfurtamMain:Dt.Klassiker-Verl,1993..Foradiscussionoftheconceptsofaggregateandarchiveasoppositional,seeMartinBez,GoethesWilhelmMeistersWanderjahre:Aggregat,Archiv,Archivroman.Berlin:DeGruyter,2013.22SeeLorraineDaston’sessay,“ThirdNature,”foragermanediscussionontheconstructionofscientificarchivesinthenineteenthcentury.Thearchive,shewrites,isa“thirdnature,”orarecordofwhatshouldendureandbeconsideredpartofthescientificpast.Assuch,Dastonsuggeststhatitomitstheprincipleofselectionthatmadeanobjectworthyofconsiderationformembershipinthefirstplace.Inasimilarfashion,theunnamededitoroftheWanderjahrewalksatenuouslinebetweenconstructingandselectingfromanarchive.Ontheonehand,thenovelthatheorshe“writes”willbewhatispreserved:akindofdefactoarchiveinitself.Ontheother,theeditorsometimesletslipthatheorsheisselectingfromamuchlargermassofpossiblematerials:asourcewhoseedgeswillforeverbeunknowableandundefinable.SeeScienceinthe
59
ButamajorcomponentoftheWanderjahrethatGoetheomittedinhisrecorded
commentaryonthenovelisitsunnamed“editor,”whoselectsfromwhathehasathis
disposalinthearchive,providestransitionalmaterialbetweentheseselections,and
sometimescommentsslylyonhismaterial.Theeditorisanorganizingconsciousnessthat
resiststhenotionthathistoryisjustachaoticandimpossible-to-summarize“aggregate.”
Thelogicwithinagivenselectionfromthearchiveisinherenttothatselection,butwhat
givesunitytothearchive’svarious,disparatepiecesisthemindandpersonalityofthe
editor.
Theeditoristhevesselthroughwhichdifferentlayersofthepastbecome
simultaneousinthenarrative.Thesignificanceoftheeditoristhatheholdsoutthepromise
ofunitywithinthenarrative:forWilhelmasdevelopmentaltelos,fortherestofits
characters,fortheconnectionswithinandbetweenthetext(s).Theeditorthereby
reinstatesaformofmysteriousorderacrossandwithinthelevelsoftheWanderjahre.Heis
notagod,butheservesasastand-inofsortsforone.Hisintentionsareusuallyuncertain
andalwayshidden,yethisselectionscontainanimpliedreasoningandintentionalitythat
providesaversionofahigheranswertotheinscrutablemutenessofhistory’sarchive.But
theeditor,likeWilhelmandalltheothersintheWanderjahre,isintheendjustanother
fictionalvoiceoftheindividual.Attimeshespeaksforhimself,atothertimesheallowshis
materialstospeakthroughhim,asWilhelmdoesinaparticularlygermaneremarkatthe
beginningofalettertohisfriendLenardo:
Archives:Pasts,Presents,Futures,ed.LorraineDaston,Chicago;London:TheUniversityofChicagoPress,2017,pp.1-17.
60
Everyperson,fromtheearliestmomentsofhislife,finds,firstunconsciously,thenhalfconsciouslyandfinallywhollyso,thatheiscontinuallylimited,restrictedinhisposition;butsincenooneknowsthepurposeandaimofhisexistence,butratherthehandoftheAlmightyconcealsthismystery,hemerelygropesabout,snatchesatwhathecan,letsgoagain,standsstill,moves,hesitates,andrushesahead;thusinahostofwaysarisetheerrorsthatperplexus.23
Wilhelmdescribestheinscrutabilityofhistoricalexistencefortheindividual,but
thearchivaleditorishisownkindofhistoricalactorwhovexeshisreaderswithhis
unknownintentions.Heassemblesatextfromthetheoreticallyinfinitearchiveofthepast,
offeringittothemundertheimpliedassumptionthat,atsomelevel,itwillcohere.
Asfortheindividual,asWilhelmdescribesittohisfriend,hemuststillattemptto
bringtogethertheresourcesthathehasathand,howeverimperfectandlimitedinscope,
trustingthattheyhaveahigherandmoresignificantpattern.Indeed,hesuggests,perhaps
themostimportantwisdomwonbytheindividualisanever-greaterawarenessofthe
shroudofmysterythathangsoverallhisactions(“firstunconsciously,thenhalf
consciously,andthenwhollyso”),andwhichonlybecomesmorecompletethroughhis
immersionineverydaydemands.Anyresolutiontothismysterymustwaitforitsclarifying
momentofretrospectiveevaluation:
Fortunatelyallthesequestionsandhundredsofotheroddonesareansweredbyyourincreasinglyactivewayoflife.Continuewithdirectattentiontothetaskoftheday,andalwaysexaminethepurityofyourheartandthefirmnessofyourspirit.Whenyouthencatchyourbreathinanhourofleisureandhaveroomtocontemplatehighermatters,youwillcertainlyachieveaproperattitudetowardtheSublime,towhichwemustsubmitwithveneration,regardingeveryoccurrencewithreverence,recognizinginitguidancefromabove.”24
Here,neartheendofthenovel,writingtohisfriendLenardo,whoisabouttoleada
colonyofemigrantstobeginanewinNorthAmerica,Wilhelmoffersapictureofwandering
23Wanderjahre,393(Winston),426(Trunz)24Ibid.,394(W),426(T)
61
andthewandererasanunsolvableandessentialcondition.Towanderistomovewithouta
senseofone’sultimatedestination,toattendtoone’slocalandimmediateneeds(as
WilhelmdoesintheWanderjahre)buttodeferthewiderview.Forthejourneyman
craftsman,wanderingmeantaperiodofmoderateasceticism,wherethepleasuresand
ordinaryaspirationsofbourgeoislife—accumulatedsalary,apredictableroutine,long-
termplanningformarriageandothermarkersinthelife-course—weresuspendedinfavor
ofimmersioninthedemandsofcrafttrainingandthepleasuresoffraternalassociation
amongjourneymen.25
Ofcourse,Wilhelm’sletterdoesnotrefertoadefinedperiodoftradeeducation,but
rathertoanexistentialconditioninwhichaviewoflife’swiderhorizonbecomesdifficultto
achievefromamidstthelowlandsoftheeveryday.Thewandererwhoseeksaviewof
“highermatters”iscaughtinabind:Ontheonehand,moveforwardintohistoryand
everydayactivity,wherethishigherperspectiveisneitherachievablenordesirable.Onthe
other,stepoutsideoftheeveryday—perhapsinthemodeloftheSabbathoraholiday—
whereitispossibletoachievetherightattitudeofassurancetothis“guidancefromabove.”
Thenovel’sconditionofwanderingisorganizedliketwosidesofthesamecoin,
whereeachstance,analternationbetweenactivityandstasis,dependsontheother.The
day’sdemandscreatethestructureandthesubstantivebasisfortheindividualglanceback
inreflection.Andtheglanceback,inturn,willbeimbuedwithasensethatthestructure
25SeeEuanCameron’sEarlyModernEurope:AnOxfordHistory(Oxford,2001),pp.59-60,whichdescribeshowthejourneymencomprisedadistinctivecultureofunmarrieditinerantswho“couldattainneitherfullsocialadulthoodnorthepoliticalrightswhichaccompaniedit.”ItisalsoimportanttonotetheparallelswithWilhelm’sownposition.HismarriagetoNatalie,towhomhewasbetrothedattheendoftheLehrjahre,willbe,inthefashionofajourneyman,permanentlydeferred.IntheWanderjahre,instead,sheservesasanimportantmusefordevelopmentallycrucialmomentsinthenovel:whenhesetsoutthetermsofhisWanderjahre(i.e.,hisjourneyman’sorders),andwhenhedescribeshispathtoavocation,theyarebothinletterstoNatalie.
62
thatallthese“everydays”ismediatedbymoresignificantorderingpresence,whichistobe
“submitted”toratherthanunderstood.Theprocesshasnoimpliedteleologyandno
ultimateperspective,achievingsignificancethroughitsstructureofindefinitecontinuation.
OrasWilhelm’scompanionsincetheLehrjahre(thenJarno,nowMontan)offersasan
alternativeformulationwithintheWanderjahre:“Thoughtandaction(DenkenundTun),
actionandthought…thatisthesumofallwisdom.”26
TheWanderjahre,then,elevatestheintentionalconstructionofeverydaylifetothe
highestlevelofimportance.Iftheconditionofindividual-as-wandererimpliesa
disappearanceofthelargerhorizonofmeaningandsignificanceintheindividuallife,then
theproblemofeverydayaction’spreciseregularity,itsorganizationalstratification,andthe
assuranceofitscontinuationrisesuptotakeitsplace.Theconsistentthemewithinthe
Wanderjahreisthatonlythemostardent,thoroughanddeliberate(re-)structuringof
everydaylifewillsubstituteforaviewofthe“higherthings.”Thecommunity--which
impartsacoherentframeworktotheindividual’sactionsthatlieinthepast,andwhich
providesanimmediatesocialbasisforfutureorientation--becomesthewander’slinkinthe
presentbetweenpastandfuture.Itbecomesthelivingprocessofduties,obligations,and
routinesthatgivedailyactionitscoherentstructure.Theintensityandvarietyof
communitiesintheWanderjahretestifiestotheurgencywithwhichGoethe’s
contemporariessoughttofindtheproperconfigurationofthe“day’sdemands.”Inthis
case,theeverydaystructureofthecommunecreatesthefoundationforaviewofWilhelm’s
so-called“highermatters.”
26Wanderjahre,280(W),263(T)
63
IfthereisaresolutiontotheconditionofwanderingintheWanderjahre,thenitisin
thecommuneasapointofsymbolictransformationbetweenthematerialworld—oraview
ofnatureasapracticalcanvasforhumanneeds—andhumanvalues.TheWanderjahre
presentsuswithaseriesofhistoricallyprogressivevariationsofthecommune,inwhich
everydaymaterialactivitypromisestobringanethicaldimensionoflifeintoview.
TheEthicsofIndividualSelf-Definition:LagoMaggioreandWilhelmMeister’sVocationalResolution
Thenovel’smostsuggestivedepictionofthetransformationfrommaterialpresence
toethicallifeisitssymbolicmidpoint(Book2,Chapter7),whereWilhelmtakesa
pilgrimageofsortstothemountain-cladlakeofLagoMaggiore,apoliticalandgeographic
boundaryterritorythatmarksatransitionbetweentheendoftheartisticlifethatWilhelm
pursuedintheLehrjahreandthebeginningofhisvocationaleducationtobecomea
surgeon.Whatheundergoesduringthisinterregnumismorethanapauseforreflectionon
onephaseoflife:itisametaphoricaljourneythroughtheprocessbywhichanuminousbut
unshaped“nature”istransformedintoanactive,productiverealizationofhumanvalues.
ThevisualandsensoryencounterwiththelandscapeiswhatconcretizesWilhelm’s
resolutiontopursuealifeofpracticalserviceinsurgery.Indeed,theLagoMaggiore
episodeintroducesahierarchicalsymbolicsoflandscapewecansummarizewiththe
followingtable,towhichwewillreferthroughouttheremainderofthischapter:
64
Table1:TopologiesoftheWanderjahre
TopologicalStructure
NotableLocales
SymbolicFeatures
Themes
Mountains CliffsLandscape
Topographyallowsforwider
considerations,viewof“whole”
VisibilityContemplationDetachment
Midlands LandedEstatesIndoors
Disappearanceoftopographyfromnarrativedetail,humanaffairsovertakenature
CultureWealthEducation
Lowlands/Underground/Underwater
MinesCavernsLakes
Topographymustbe“read”forburied
truths,esotericknowledge
Originstories“Deep”(pre-historic)timeRootsandcauses
LagoMaggioreisthehomelandofMignon,Wilhelm’sformercompanionfromthe
Lehrjahre.Shewasabruptlytakenfromherhomelandinchildhoodwhenshewas
kidnappedbyabandofmusicians.Later,shediscoveredWilhelmwithinthetheater
troupe,accompaniedhimthroughoutthenovel,anddiedattheendoftheLehrjahre.There,
sherepresentedanembodimentofaninward,unworldly,dreamlikeromanticism.27When
Wilhelmreturnstohertranquilandpicturesquehome,hemeetsacompanionwhowill
27Likethebeginningofthenovel,whenWilhelmhasjustascendedonemountainandispreparingtogooverintothenextvalley,travellingtoLagoMaggioroccursby“passingthroughseveralneighboringmountainrangesuntilthegloriousvalleyopenedbeforehimwherehemeanttoresolvesomanythingsbeforecommencinganewwayoflife.”(Wanderjahre,254[W],227[T]).IntheLehrjahre,welearnedthatMignondidnotleaveLagoMaggioreaccordingtoherownchoice,butthroughbeingkidnappedbyagroupofcircusperformers.Wilhelm'sjourney,then,hasthecharacterofasymbolichomecomingorgestureofmemorializationforMignon,andacoming-to-termswithawayoflifethatpointsallthewaybacktothefirstnovelforhim.
65
serveashisguidethroughtheregion,anunnamedfigurecalledboth“apainter”(Maler)
and“anartist”(Künstler).Thepainter—likemostofthecharactersandfeaturesofthis
singularepisode—demonstratesthetransformationalpowerofattentiontothematerial
object.NatureinLagoMaggiorehasthepowertobebothsymbolicandreal;thatis,botha
refugeoftheimagination(whereMignoncanbereturnedtoatemporarylife)anda
geographicaldatumtowhichGoethe’sownreadersmightrefer.Theartist’sskill—firstat
observingthelandscape,thentranslatingittothecanvas—becomesastunning
demonstrationtoWilhelmofhowanentire,distinctivewayoflife(hereart,painting)has
thecapacitytounfoldthroughtotalattentiontoandengagementwiththeparticularsof
one’smaterialworld.28LagoMaggiorebecomesaplaceofboundarycrossing,where
mundaneandmagical,everydayandfantasyareconstantlyinplaywithoneanother,a
groundforthepowerofnatureasadividerbetweeneverydayappearancesandalevelof
numinousreality.
Mignonisthecharacterwhowalksbothsidesofthisboundary.TheMignonthatthis
painterknowsandsoughtoutinLagoMaggioreisafigureofpoeticaffect,an“image,which
livesinallfeelinghearts”andwhichthepainterseekstocaptureintheactofpainting:to
bring“beforetheeye.”29
MignonshiftsbackandforthbetweenrepresentativeregistersinLagoMaggiore:
betweenthefeaturesofherparticular,“real”selfthatexistedtoWilhelmintheLehrjahre,
28ThenarratorreportsthattheMaler(painter)straddlesboththepoeticandthereal,withaplausiblemixoftherealisticandtheromantic:“likemanysuchinthewideworldandevenmorewhofrequentandhauntthepagesofnovels.”29255(T),“auchdemSinnedesAugeshervorzurufen,”227(W)
66
andherromanticideal.30Thetendencyinmuchofthecommentaryhasbeentotreatheras
aprimarilymedialentity,onewhomayhaveexistedinWilhelm’spast,butisprimarily
presentedintheWanderjahreasartisticobject.31Bycontrast,mycontentionisthatMignon
isamoresyncreticforcewithinLagoMaggiore.Thatis,sheisbothcreatedbytheartistin
heridealformthroughtheartworkandrevealedinherindividualnatureasaparticular
character:onewhoispresentinWilhelm’smemoryand,eventually,totheworldofLago
Maggiore.Thenaturalbeautyofthescene—andtheartist’stalentfortransformingitinto
landscape—allowsfortheparticularityofthecharacter’sidentitytoemergefromher
presenceasromanticsymbol.AsWilhelmandtheartisttravelLagoMaggiorebyboat,
observingthenaturalscenesthatshemighthaveinhabitedduringtheearliestyearsofher
life,Wilhelmsuppliestheartistwiththe“specificfeaturesofheridentity”whilelearning,
increasingly,toappreciatetherevelatorypoweroftheartisticmedium.“Onepicture,”the
narratorsays,“stoodoutfromalltherest”because“itplumbedMignon'scharacter:”
“Amidststarkmountainscenerythegracefulchild,dressedasaboy,standsshining,surroundedbysheercliffs,sprayedbywaterfalls,inthemidstofabanddifficulttodescribe.Ahorrifying,steep,ancientchasmwasperhapsneverdecoratedbyamorecharmingorsignificantcrew.Thecolorful,gypsy-likecompany,atoncecrudeandfantastical,exoticandordinary,toocasualtoinspirefear,toooutlandishtoawakentrust.Sturdypackhorsesplodalong,nowoncorduroyroads,nowonstepshewnoutofrock,loadedwithajumbleofbaggage.Fromitdangleallthemusicalinstrumentswhichareneededforabewitchingconcert,andwhichnowandthenbewitchtheearwithdiscordanttones.Inthemidstofall
30OnevexingchallengewithinLagoMaggioreistodistinguishbetweentheMignonoftheLehrjahreandhere.AsWolfgangAmmerlandwritesabouttheLehrjahreMignon,she“istwenigerundmehralsPerson:sieistvorallemSymbol,”in“WilhelmMeistersMignon-EinOffenbaresRätsel.Name,Gestalt,Symbol,WesenUndWerden.”DeutscheVierteljahrsschriftfürLiteraturwissenschaftundGeistesgeschichte42(1968):89–116.ButitismycontentionthattheMignonoftheWanderjahreplaysonthebifurcationbetweenherstatusascharacter(forWilhelm,whoonceknewher)andherstatusasanaestheticandsymbolicobject.31FranziskaSchößler:DennKunstundLebenbefrüchtigensichhiernichtgegenseitig,”(295)inGoethesLehr-UndWanderjahre:EineKulturgeschichteDerModerne.Tübingen:Francke,2002,p.295.NeumannandDewitzofferamoretwo-sidedunderstandingofMignon’srolefortheWanderjahreintheirFrankfurterAusgabecommentary:“DiesmagauchderGrundsein,warumWilhelmseine“Wallfahrt”zumLagoMaggioreunternimmt,alsVersuchnämlich,eineungelösteSituationseinerVergangenheitdurchdieKunstzubewältigen,”1126(DKV,1989).Mignonisacharacterwhoisbestapproachedthroughaestheticmediation.
67
thisthedearchild,withdrawnintoherself,withoutdefiance,reluctantbutunresisting,ledbutnotdragged.Whocouldhavefailedtoenjoythisremarkable,fullyexecutedpicture?Thegrimdefilewithintherockymasswaspowerfullyrendered,theseriesofblackgorgescuttingthrougheverything,piledtogether,threateningtobaranyexit,wereitnotthataboldlysuspendedbridgesuggestedthepossibilityofestablishingcontactwiththeoutsideworld.Withacleverknackforcreatinganauraoftruth,theartisthadalsoindicatedthemouthofacave,whichonemightimagineasaworkshopwhereNatureproducesgiantcrystalsorthedenofabroodoffabulous,frightfuldragons.”(emphasisadded)32
Mignon'smomentofindividualtrauma(herkidnappingfromherhomeland)is
confirmedanddeepenedthroughbeingsituatedinthelandscape.ThepictureofMignon
“withdrawnintoherself,”incapableofcommunication,isredeemedandspeaksthroughthe
spectator'sappreciationfortheartisticexecution.Theartistbecomesthe“interpreter”
that“discloses”Mignon,depictinganessencethatcontainsboththeparticularandthe
general:Mignonthepersonemergesandspeaksfromwithinherembeddedpresenceinthe
materialityoftheartwork.33
TheactivityofLagoMaggiorevibratesbetweentheindividualandthegeneral,
betweenthematerialityofnaturalobjectsandtheparticularityofMignon’scharacteratthe
momentofhergreatesttrauma.Theepisodeinsists,inaquasi-Platonicgesture,onseeing
32255(Winston),“MittenimrauhenGebirgglänztderanmutigeScheinknabe,vonSturzfelsenumgeben,vonWasserfällenbesprüht,mittenineinerschwerzubeschreibendenHorde.Vielleichtisteinegrauerliche,steileUrgebirg-Schluchtnieanmutigerundbedeutenderstaffiertworden.Diebunte,zigeunerhafteGesellschaft,rohzugleichundphantastisch,seltsamundgemein,zulocker,umFurchteinzuflößen,zuwunderlich,umVertrauenzuerwecken.KräftigeSaumrosseschleppen,baldüberKnüppelwege,baldeingehaueneStufenhinab,einbuntverworrenesGepäck,anwelchemherumdiesämtlichenInstrumenteeinerbetäubendenMusik,schlotterndaufgehängt,dasOhrmitrauhenTönenvonZeitzuZeitbelästigen.ZwischenallemdemdasliebenswürdigeKind,insichgekehrtohneTrutz,unwilligohneWiderstreben,geführt,abernichtgeschleppt.Werhättesichnichtdesmerkwürdigen,ausgeführtenBildesgefreut?KräftigcharakterisiertwardiegrimmigeEngedieserFelsmassen;dieallesdurchschneidendenschwarzenSchluchten,zusammengetürmt,allenAusgangzuhinderndrohend,hättenichteinekühneBrückeaufdieMöglichkeit,mitderübrigenWeltinVerbindungzugelangen,hingedeutet.AuchließderKünstlermitklugdichtendemWahrheitssinneeineHöhlemerklichwerden,diemanalsNaturwerkstattmächtigerKristalleoderalsAufenthalteinerfabelhaftfurchtbarenDrachenbrutansprechenkonnte.”227-228(Trunz) 33“…undindemdieNaturdasoffenbareGeheimnisihrerSchönheitentfaltete,mußtemannachKunstalsderwürdigstenAuslegerinunbezwinglicheSehnsuchtempfinden,”(229,T).“AndwhenNaturedisclosedtheopensecretsofherbeauty,itwasimpossiblenottofeelanunquenchablelongingforartasthemostworthyinterpreter”(256,W).
68
whatisrealintheideal,orinmorespecificterms:onfindingMignonasindividuated
characterthroughheridealization.Inthissenseitsfunctionisthatofanidyllicinterlude,a
modeofrepresentationdefinedbyharmonybetweentheparts,tranquilityofthewhole,
andacyclicalstasisagainstlinearhistoricalprogress.Thediegeticlevelsofthenarrative
interpenetrateonanother:charactersfromanunrelated,interveningnovella(DerMann
vonFunfzigJahren)appearintheepisodeatonepoint,asdoesthefamousZitronenlied
songoftheLehrjahre,asdothefragmentsofanunnnamed“criticalreview”oftheartist’s
workwithinLagoMaggiore.34OncethecharactersareforcedtoleaveLagoMaggiore,the
senseoftimereturns,theypreparefortheirdeparture,andthelandscapeistransformed,
“asifbyastrokeofmagic,”intoa“desolatewaste.”35Onlyattheconclusionoftheaesthetic
andpracticalrevelationsofLagoMaggiorecanWilhelmbegin,inearnest,hisown
vocationaltraining.Inthatscene,Wilhelmcomestoseehowtheessentialbasisofaworld
(here,Mignon’sworld)couldrevealitselfthroughattentiontonature’severydayobjects.
Theartist,byremainingfaithfultohisparticularmethods,meansandends,hasentered
intothematerialsofnatureanddiscloseditshigherpotential.
LagoMaggioreisamazeofsymbolicascentsanddescents:ascentfromnaïve
appreciationofnaturetothe“naturalized”perfectionofthelandscapeform;descentfrom
MignonasartisticsurfacetoMignonascharacterwith“depths;”ascentfromMignon’s
incommunicableromanticinwardnesstoaestheticself-disclosure;descentfromthe
34Onthereviewbythecritic(260,W;235,Trunz),seeNeumannandDewitz’scommentaryintheFrankfurterAusgabe,whichoffersofferseveralpossibleworksofartdepictingLagoMaggiorethatGoethemighthaveobservedwhilecomposingtheWanderjahre,includingthoseofSwisspainterandconfidantJohannHeinrichMeyer,whoalsoservedasareportingsourceofprimaryinformationforotherepisodesinthenovel(includingthesourcesfortheweaver’scolonytobediscussedbelow:notestoFrankfurterAusgabe,1131.35264(W),240(Trunz)
69
landscapeascanvasfortheimaginationtonatureasrawmateriality.Initsdescentfrom
theidyllicmodetotheidentityofaparticularcharacter,itservesasapropaedeutictothe
symbolictransformationsthattakeplacelaterinthenovel.TheWanderjahre’sorientation
willnotbethe“high”perspectiveofartintheidyll,butratherthe“low”perspectiveof
everydayhistoricallife.ReflectingthechangeofconcernfromtheLehrjahretothe
Wanderjahre,thiswillnotbeabookabouttheindividual’sdevelopmenttowardanartistic
ideal,butratheraboutthediscernmentofaworldly,engaged,practicalcalling.Yettheform
ofindividualdevelopmentthatitdepicts,forallitspracticality,isnolesstransformativein
nature.
ThepositionalsignificanceofLagoMaggioreasaninterludewithinthenovelisto
preparethereaderfortheWilhelm’stransitionfromaformofaestheticspiritualismto
materialengagement.Ashewillwriteinaletterthatcomposesimmediatelyafterwardto
hisbetrothed,Natalie,thequasi-fantasticalexperiencewithinLagoMaggiorewasthefinal
stepwithinhistimeasajourneymanintheSocietyoftheTower.Theletterbeginsina
sensewhereLagoMaggioreleftoff:withadiscussionofthe“general”(allgemeine)and
“specific”(besondere)influencesinthelifeoftheindividualthathaveledhimtotakethe
momentousstepintohissurgicalvocation.
II.Saints,Emigrants,Workers:TheCommunitiesoftheWanderjahre
InWilhelm’scase,thememoryofpersonaltraumafromachildhoodfriend’s
drowningbecomesthebasisforaredirectionofhisvocationalpathwayandreorientation
70
ofhisownrelationshiptothecourseofindividualdevelopment.Wilhelmdescribesa
childhoodinan“old,solemntown”which,byhisbriefdescription,wasincreasinglygiven
overtothewalls,barriersandartificialsocialandphysicaldividesbetweencitizensofa
rapidlymodernizingurbanlocale.Consequently,bothyoungandoldinthetownarenow
awareoftheever-growingestrangementbetweentherestorative,pastoralworldoutside
thetown’sgatesandthedisciplined,purposefulregularityoftheireverydaylife.Indeed,
whenWilhelm’sfamily,aftermuchpostponement,finallyagreestomaketheonce-
customaryjourneytothecountrysidetovisitseveralfriends,itisonlyontheconditionthat
theycanreturnwith“punctuality”totheirhomeintownthesameday,asit“seems
impossible”thattheywouldbreaktheirroutineenoughtosleepinanybedbesidestheir
own.36Thus,theeventthatwill,manyyearslaterandinhindsight,becomethebasisfor
Wilhelm’svocationalsenseofpurposeisanaccidentofsorts,takingplaceoutsideofthe
intentionalityoflifeinthetown,andbeyondthecarefullyrationalizedbourgeoisstructures
ofplanninganddecision-makingintowhichWilhelmhasalreadybeensocialized.Thetenor
oftheentireepisodeisthatofarediscoveryof“natural”humanthings:theindulgenceof
thehumansensorium,eroticdesire,andtheappreciationofnaturalbeautyareallatthe
rootofWilhelm’srecollection.Andso,whenthetragicdrowningofachildhoodcompanion
thatdaytearsthecommunityapart,Wilhelmaspirestocommandtheresourcesof
36“Wirineineralten,ernstenStadterzogenenKinderhattendieBegriffevonStraßen,Plätzen,vonMauerngefaßt,sodannauchvonWällen,demGlacisundbenachbartenummauertenGärten.Unsabereinmal,odervielmehrsichselbstinsFreiezuführen,hattenunsereElternlängstmitFreundenaufdemLandeeineimmerfortverschobenePartieverabredet.DringenderendlichzumPfingstfestewardEinladungundVorschlag,denenmannurunterderBedingungsichfügte:allessoeinzuleiten,daßmanzuNachtwiederzuHauseseinkönnte;dennaußerseinemlängstgewohntenBettezuschlafen,schieneineUnmöglichkeit.DieFreudendesTagssoengzukonzentrieren,warfreilichschwer:zweiFreundesolltenbesuchtundihreAnsprücheaufselteneUnterhaltungbefriedigtwerden;indessenhoffteman,mitgroßerPünktlichkeitalleszuerfüllen,”269-70(T),285(W)
71
civilizationtosomedaymakeitwholeagain:itstechnologies,itsmanagementtechniques,
anditshighregardforsaferegulationovereverydaylife.Thechoiceofavocationis
thereforeaformofreturn,onahigherplaneofregardandactivity,tothenaturaland
everydaybasisoftheindividual’ssenseofbelongingintheworld,anaffectivepre-history
oftheforcesthatwillbeorganizedintoavocationalcallingthatpreservesandmaintains
thecommunity.
Wilhelm’sdrownedcompanionisthesonofafishermaninthecountryvillage,older
thanWilhelmandaboy“towhom[he]hadespeciallybeendrawnassoonashehad
appeared.”37TheboyteachesWilhelmanaïveappreciationforthenaturethattheyhaveat
hand:fishingforminnowsinastream,swimminginabrook,admiringinsectsinthegrass,
andbaskinginthesun.Wilhelm’sthrillattheseactivitiesquicklytakesaneroticfocuson
hiscompanionand,inPlatonicsolarfashion,risesfromanadmirationofhumanbeautyto
anintimationoftheideal:“Ithoughtmyeyesweredazzledbyatriplesun,”herecounts,“so
beautifulwasthehumanform,ofwhichIhadneverhadanynotion.”38Afterafewhours
together,herecounts,they“sworeeternalfriendship”under“fierykisses.”39What
precipitatesthedrowningisanassertionofbourgeoissocialrank:becauseitwould“notbe
proper,”thecompanionisnotallowedintothehouseofthemagistratethatWilhelm’s
familyisvisiting.Instead,heisinstructedto“procuresomefinecrabs”forWilhelm’sfamily
totakebacktothecity.Wilhelmisatdinnerwithhisfamilywhenthefriend,accompanied
byafewotherboys,goesdowntothecreektofindthecrabs.Duringthistask,oneofthem37Ibid.,286(W)38“…glaubt'ichmeineAugenvoreinerdreifachenSonnegeblendet:soschönwardiemenschlicheGestalt,vonderichnieeinenBegriffgehabt,”272(T),287(W)39Ibid.,Seeaswellthenotebelowaboutthetransferenceoferoticdesirefrommasculinetofeminineforms.
72
fallsbyaccidentintothedeeppartofthewater,pullingWilhelm’sfriendandtherestofthe
boysintothecreekwithhim,wherefiveofthemdrown.40
ThisformativemomentforWilhelmcanbereadasanawarenessofanewbodily
relationshiptotheworldthroughsensoryawakening,thedevelopmentofanewsubjective
capacitythatinitiallypresentsitselfastheunfoldingofnature’sfullestanddeepest
dimension.41“Ishouldconfessthatinthecourseoflifethatfirstblossomingoftheexternal
worldstruckmeasarevelationofNatureherself,comparedtowhicheverythingelsethat
latertouchesoursensesseemsamerecopy,”WilhelmwritestoNatalie.42Now,looking
backontheprocessfromthestandpointofrelativematurity,heunderstandshisrevelation
thatdayfromthereverse,inwardperspective:“Howwewoulddespair,seeingtheexternal
worldsocold,solifeless,wereitnotthatinourinnerselfsomethinggerminatesthat
transfiguresNatureinquiteanotherway,bygrantingusthecreativepowertobeautify
40Ibid.,288-89(W),275-76(T),AfterWilhelmispartedfromhiscompanionfordinneratthemagistrate’shouseandbeforehelearnsofhisfriend’sdrowning,thesenseofattractionthatwasawakenedforthefisherman’ssongainsanewobjectinthedaughterofthemagistrate.Heandthis“blondegirl”strollwithinthemagistrate’slavishandcarefullycultivatedgarden(amotifofharmonybetweennatureandcivilization,developedindepthinGoethe’snovelElectiveAffinities),wheretheysoon“tookeachother’shandsandwishedfornothingmore.”(287[W],273[T]).Thisbriefdetourfromhisinfatuationwiththemaleformanticipatesatransferenceprocess,wherebyaninitial,naïve-but-socially-transgressiveeroticlongingforthesamesexisgraduallyredirectedtocouplingwiththeoppositesexinthegenerativefamilialstructure.ImmediatelybeforeWilhelmlearnsofhisfriend’sdeath,hedescribesaseemingtensionbetweenthetwoimperatives,andrevealstoNataliethathehadaferventurgeto“freemyspiritoftheimageofthatblondegirl”and“unburdenmyheartofthefeelingsshehadawakened”(288[W],274[T]).41Goethe’sfirstnovel,TheSorrowsofYoungWerther,isalsoanimportantreferencepointfortheromanticconvolutionofsubjectandobjectinthepresentationofnaturalphenomena.42“UndwennichhiernocheineBetrachtunganknüpfe,sodarfichwohlbekennen:daßimLaufedesLebensmirjenesersteAufblühenderAußenweltalsdieeigentlicheOriginalnaturvorkam,gegendieallesübrige,wasunsnachherzudenSinnenkommt,nurKopienzuseinscheinen,diebeiallerAnnäherunganjenesdochdeseigentlichursprünglichenGeistesundSinnesermangeln,”(273-74[T],288[W])
73
ourselvesinher.”43AlthoughWilhelmlackedtheconceptualtoolstoarticulatethis
newfoundawarenessofnatureandhisowninwardenlivenment,inthemomentbeforehe
learnedofhisfriend’sdeath,hereportsthebodilyandaffectivebasisofthesephenomena
toNatalieintheletter:hewas“doubledandredoubled”in“passionatepain”waitingforhis
friendwhowouldneverarrive.Pacingfuriouslybackandforthinthebushesin
anticipation,hedeclaresthat“myheartwasfull,mymouthwasalreadymurmuring,ready
tooverflow.”44Oncehelearnsthathisfriendhasdrowned,heisovercomebyweepingand
sobbing,havingtoberestrainedbyhisfamilybeforeeventuallyrushinginafitofinstinct
intothechurchwhere,alongwiththeotherdeadboys,hisfriend’sbodyislaidout.Finally,
Wilhelmembracesandtoucheseverypartoftheboy’sfaceagainbefore“theytoreme
away.”45
The“tearingaway”thatWilhelmdescribesisanactthatremoveshimnotjustfrom
hisfriendandfromthecountryvillagewherehisfamilyhadsojournedfortheday,but
fromtheentireexperientialramificationoftheevent.Thefamilykeepswiththeiroriginally
intendedscheduleandreturnshome;thereminderofthetragedyisthebasketofcrabs
theytookwiththem,whichthesurvivingboyheldinhishandsasheranbacktoreportthe
fateofhiscompanions.Asthefamilyeyestheminthekitchenwithamuteunease,they
debatewhatshouldbedonewiththem.Anauntwhohearsoftheepisoderetainsa
perversepractical-mindednessinthefaceofthetragedy,suggestingthatthecrabscouldbe
43“Wiemüßtenwirverzweifeln,dasÄußeresokalt,solebloszuerblicken,wennnichtinunsermInnernsichetwasentwickelte,dasaufeineganzandereWeisedieNaturverherrlicht,indemesunsselbstinihrzuverschöneneineschöpferischeKrafterweist,”(274[T],288[W])44Ibid.,“Eswarvoll,derMundlispelteschon,umüberzufließen”45“Manrißmichweg,”(276[T],289[W])
74
giventoapoliticallyinfluentialmemberoftheirtowntosecureagoodwillthatmightlater
beputtosociallybeneficialends.Theyagreeonthisstep,andthecrabsgainameliorative
purposethat,inthefamily’sview,makesupfortheirunfortunateorigin.Fromthispointon
theirdiscussionoftheaffairturnstothepossibilityofpreventingsimilarincidentsinthe
future,andtothesortsofinstitutionsandsocialreformsthatmightpreventsuchatragedy
inthefuture.
Thefamily’searnestattentiontothenecessaryreformsafterthetragedyisa
forerunnertoquestionsofsocialcontrolthatrunthroughallofthecommunitiesinthe
novel.Wilhelm’sfather,welearn,was“oneofthefirstwhowasimpelledbyageneralspirit
ofbenevolencetoextendhisobservationsandhisconcernbeyondhisfamilyandcity.”He
retainedaninterestinsomewell-knownreformmovementsinEuropefromthatperiod:
theconditionsofhospitalcare,thetreatmentofprisoners,andtheminimizationof
widespreadpublicdiseases.Theviewof“civilsociety”(bürgerlicheGesellschaft)thathe
impartstoWilhelmisthatofa“natural”condition(Naturzustand)whichcontains“both
goodandbadaspects”butwhichcouldbemanagedtobeneficialeffect,abovealltosatisfy
theimperativeto“propagategeneralgoodwill,independentofeveryother
consideration.”46
ThegroupofphenomenathatWilhelm’sfatherhasnaturalizedisnotnaturalatall,
butratheraproto-Habermasianversionofthebourgeoispublicsphere,aspaceinwhich
46“ErsahdiebürgerlicheGesellschaft,welcherStaatsformsieauchuntergeordnetwäre,alseinenNaturzustandan,derseinGutesundseinBöseshabe,seinegewöhnlichenLebensläufe,abwechselndreicheundkümmerlicheJahre,nichtwenigerzufälligundunregelmäßigHagelschlag,WasserflutenundBrandschäden;dasGuteseizuergreifenundzunutzen,dasBöseabzuwendenoderzuertragen;nichtsaber,meinteer,seiwünschenswerteralsdieVerbreitungdesallgemeinengutenWillens,unabhängigvonjederandernBedingung.”(278-79[T],291[W])
75
reasonismobilizedbyprivateindividualsinserviceofpublicends.Inthegapbetweenacts
ofGod(likethistragedy)andtheinevitablefactsoflifeanddeath,anewpossibilityof
organizedrationalactionemerges,onethatpermitsagreatdegreeofintentionalhuman
controlovereverydayeventsandthelifecourse.Intermsoftheirimmediaterelevanceto
Wilhelm’sconcernsintheletter,heimpliesthatthesenascentstructuresofpublic
rationalityhadadefiniteanddeleteriouseffectonhisdevelopment;specifically,onhis
capacitytodiscernavocationalpath.TherationalizedorganizationofWilhelm’sbourgeois
worldhas,hesuggests,distancedhimfromtheoriginalbasisofhisvocationalresolution,
whichisrootedinthedirectexperienceofthetragedyitself.
TheyoungWilhelm,whowaswrestedoutofthechurchandawayfromhisfriend’s
bodysoonaftertheincidentoccurred,isbeingtaughttotranslatetheoverwhelming
immediacyoftheeventintoaplanofgeneralizedcollectiveaction.Whatislostistheeffect
oftheeventitself:howitoverwhelmshisbody’sfunctionsofself-controlandself-
possessioninthemoment,intheexperienceofthistrauma.Inthecivilreformsthathis
fatherproposes,thespecifichorrorofthisdeathwillbeallbutimperceptibleinthe
institutionalstructuresthatitinspires.ItwillbeindependentofbothWilhelm’sexperience
andtheparticularitiesofhisfriend’sdrowning--andforthatreasonitwillbeallthemore
effectiveatpreventingunknowableotherslikeit.Helistenseagerlytohisfather’scriticism
oftheattemptsmadetorevivehisfriendandtheotherboysaftertheywerepulledfrom
thewater.Asthisfatherjudges,theeffortswereinadequateandnotinkeepingwith
modernmedicalthinking,goingevensofarastoclaimthepoorcareamountedtoakindof
“murder.”ThisistheintensityoftheproblemtowhichWilhelmtraceshisinterestinwhat
76
hecallsthe“occupationtowhichIhavealwayssecretlybeendrawn.”47Inthatmoment,he
vowed“tomastereverythingthatmightbenecessaryinsuchsituations,aboveallbleeding
andotherthingsofthatsort.”48
Reflectingonwhyhedidnot,then,continuewithhisresolutiontobecomea
surgeonwhenhefirstenteredadulthood,Wilhelmcastshispastcareerinthetheaterasa
kindoferrorindiscernment.Theinabilityofrational,bourgeoisinstitutionstospeaktothe
originalimpetusforhisvocationisatleastpartiallytoblame.Inthemomentofwritingthe
letter,hejudgesthetheatertohavebeenadetourfromhis“true”vocation:
Buthowsoonordinarylifecarriedmeoff.Theneedforfriendshipandlovehadbeenaroused,andIwasalwayslookingforwaystosatisfyit.Meanwhilemysensuality,imaginationandmindwereexcessivelyoccupiedwiththetheater;howfarIwasledandmisled,Imustnotrepeat.49Inlightofthenow-decisiveimportancethatWilhelmattributestohisfriend’sdeath,
hisclaimaboutthelateryearsofhischildhoodisastartlingone:thattheconditionsofhis
“ordinarylife”wereunabletoprovidethe“needforfriendshipandlove”thattheencounter
withthefisherman’ssonopeneduptohim.Thatthevitalfacultiesof“sensuality,
imaginationandmind”firstcameintotheirownoutsideoftherigorsofhiseveryday
community,andwereunabletoattachthemselvestotheirintendedoutletwithinthat
47“dasGeschäft,wozuichimmereinestilleNeigungempfunden,michgarbaldzufügen,michdarinauszubildenwußte.”(294[W],282[T])48291(W),279(T).Thisresolutionhasamajoraspectofforeshadowinginlightofthefinalepisodeinthenovel,whenWilhelmsaveshisownson,Felix,fromdrowningbymeansofthemethoddescribedhere.49AlleinwiebaldnahmmichdergewöhnlicheTagmitsichfort.DasBedürfnisnachFreundschaftundLiebewaraufgeregt,überallschaut'ichmichum,eszubefriedigen.IndessenwardSinnlichkeit,EinbildungskraftundGeistdurchdasTheaterübermäßigbeschäftigt;wieweitichhiergeführtundverführtworden,darfichnichtwiederholen.(279[T],291[W])
77
community.Thathehadnowayofmakingsenseofthebodily,material,affective,and
prosocialbasisofhisownvocationalanddevelopmentalself-understanding—inthe
experienceofthefriend’sdrowningandanunreflectiveresolvetorightanunjustwrong—
accordingtothesatisfactionsandformsofbelongingofferedbyhisordinarylife.50What
onemightreconstructfromhisbriefaccountisthathechosetheartist’slifeinthetheater
becausehethoughthedesiredthetheater’sapparentmodeofrelations(“friendshipand
love”),buthewas“misled”fromtheresolvedendsoftheserelations(i.e.,tohealthe
community),substitutinginsteadthetheater’smeans(“sensuality,imagination,andmind
[Geist]”)thatharmonizedwithhisoriginalresolution.
Thoughnotapparenttohim,Wilhelm’srevelationhasasignificancebeyondhis
narrative.Onecanreadhisinterpretationoftheepisodeasanemergenttheoryof
individualdevelopmentandvocationitself:thattheindividual’sabilitytowalkthe
vocationalpathdependsonthedirectnessoftheconnectionwiththeformativemoment.
FromthestandpointofanindividuallikeWilhelm,vocationwasaprocessofdiscerningthe
truesubjectivepre-historyofhisownidentity,anidentitythatfirst(anderroneously)
presenteditselfasa“natural”factbuthasfinallyfounditseffectiveforminthe
reconstructedpersonalnarrative.Toputitintermsfamiliarfromthisdiscussion:thebody,
thesensoriumandtheaffectivedimensionofindividualexperienceareatthebasisofthe
higherformsofidentityandcommunity.Thecommunitythatmaintainsitscontactwith50RelevanttothisissuearethehistoricalclaimsabouttheWanderjahre,reviewedbyEhrhardBahr,thatWilhelm’schoicetobecomeasurgeon(Wundarzt)wouldhaverepresentedastepdowninsocialstanding(seeBahr,TheNovelasArchive,pp.92-94).ThequestioniswhethertheWundarztcarriedmoreassociationwithcarpentersandothermanualtradesmenthanwiththeothermiddle-classprofessions.Surveyingthecriticaldisagreementonthispoint,BahrconcedesthatwhileWilhelm’strainingwouldhavebeenmarkedlydifferentandlessextensivethanthatofthemodernsurgeon(Chirug),surgerywasnonethelessintheprocessofbecomingauniversitysubject(hecitesGoethe’sownstudiesofanatomyinthe1780s),andthereforewouldhavecarriedamixtureofassociationsforcontemporaryreaders.
78
these“direct”basesofexperiencestandsachanceofunifyingindividualdevelopmentvia
vocationalaspirationwithasenseofcollectivebelongingviatheabilityto“feel”(i.e.,sense
andintuit)thesubstantivefoundationsofthewholecommunity-aclaimintensionwith
Weber’sformulationofvocationasanestrangementoftheselffromitsbodilyand
subjectiveneeds.
Thesignificanceofthisbriefflashback,whichoccursjustbeforeaninterludeof
unspecifiedtimeinwhichWilhelmundergoeshissurgicaltraining,isthatitlaysouta
pathwaytoresolveWilhelm’s“wandering.”Togeneralizethispoint:fromtheperspective
oftheindividualintheWanderjahre,wanderingendswhenitscharactersdiscerna
connectionbetweenpastandpresent.Wanderingbecomesvocationwhentheindividual
makessenseoftherelationshipbetweenforces,realitiesandinfluencesoutsideofhis
controlandafuturethathecanwill.ForWilhelm,thedeathofafriendinhispastbecomes
thefutureaspirationtoheal.Thevocationalidealiswhattranslatestheauthenticrealityof
Wilhelm’spasttraumaintoafocusedandeffectivepatternofactionforthefuture.
III.
Wilhelm’sdiscernmentofavocationalaspirationmidwaythroughtheWanderjahre
isasanarrivalandnewbeginning,onethatwasenabledbytheuniquetensionbetween
structureandopen-endednessintheSocietyoftheTower.
Iwillreadtheremainderofthenovelasastudyofcommuneasamodelforthe
realizationofindividualends—vocationalorotherwise—andoftheforcesandtensions
whichthreatenthisaspiration.TheWanderjahrewillunfoldinadialogictension,between
anidealofvocationlikethatintimatedbyWilhelm,andconditionsofrationalizationthat
79
threatentoenforceanimpoverishedviewofvocationalandindividualsatisfaction:
betweentheformsofthecommunethatattempttomaintainthedirectbasisof
relationships—bothbetweenindividualsandtheirmaterialconcerns—andthehistorical
andeconomicforcesthatthreatentoseparateandatomizeindividuals.TheWanderjahre
presentsasimultaneousviewofseveralcommunalformswithinalargerprocessofgeneral
historicaltransformation,anarrativefromwithin“history’sarchive”ofWestern
modernizationlaidoutsynchronically.
ThemodelofvocationthatIhavepresentedhereoffersanorderingmechanismfor
boththeindividualandthecollective.VocationiswhatalignstheshapeofWilhelm’spast
witharesolutionabouthisfuture,whatcreatesharmonybetweentheheightenedrealityof
hischildhoodfriend’sdeathinthecountrysideandthemundane,disciplinedcharacterof
adultlife.
Thevocationalidealissimultaneouslya“calling”tohigherplaneofontological
realityandaconstraining,narrowingforceonindividualidentity.Indeed,Wilhelm’sre-
discoveryofhismedicalaspirationcontainsboththeseaspects.Ontheonehand,the
decisionrepresentsarecalltoalevelofexperiencewithgreaterpotencythaneverydaylife.
ThiswassymbolicallyindicatedbyWilhelm’sfinalembraceofhisdeadfriend’sbodyinthe
church,andhisbourgeoisfamily’simmediateflightfromthenuminousaftermathofthe
accidentscene.ButfromthelongernarrativeperspectiveoftheLehrjahre,there-
orientationofhisformergrandioseaspirationsinthetheatertoamedicalcareer
representsarecallbacktoeverydayreality,anabandonmentofthehigherwayoflifethat
WilhelmlaidouttoLenardoinhisletters.Fromoneside,medicineisafulfillmentofa
80
higherperspectiveglimpsedintragedy.Ontheother,itisadisappointmentofahigher,
“aesthetic,”perspectiveonreality.Bothpossibilitiesareleftopen,reflectedbythe
relationshipofmanycharacterswithinthenoveltothevocationalideal.
Thestakesofthecommune’ssuccessasanidealprojectarenotultimatelyaboutthe
lossofaccesstohigherlevelsofreality,butratheraboutwhetherarelationshiptothepast,
traditionandhigherrealitieswillbeembodiedincollectivestructuresorconfinedto
individualidentityprojects.Thisclaimcanbemorefullyunderstoodthroughadiscussion
ofaprocessthatisfrequentlydiscussedinrelationtomodernization:theprocessof
secularization.
TheWanderjahredoesnotglimpsedownahistoricalpathwayinwhich
modernizationandsecularization—understoodasaturningawayfrom“higherrealities”--
isinevitable.Instead,itprovidesuswithasetofhistoricallysynchronic“solutions,”in
whichmultipleandhierarchically-relatedlevelsofrealitycanbeinheritedfromthepast.
Thecommuneisthenarrative’scommonsocialformthatallowsforahistoricalprocess—
modernization—toappearinadiversearrayofcollectiveoptionsandpathways.Iwantto
callthesehistoricalpossibilitiessynchronictooneanotherbecausetheWanderjahre
refusestogiveintoahistoricaldeterminismwithrespecttothesecularthatwouldbecome
afrequentdefiningfeatureoftwentieth-centurymodernizationtheories.51Ofgreat
importancetomanyofthesemorerecenttheoriesofmodernizationisasecularization
narrative,orthelossofasacredandreligiousoptionasanorganizingbasisforcollective
51Weber’sownbeliefintheinevitabilityofWesternsecularizationisamajorpointofreferencehere.See,forinstance,PeterBerger’sTheSacredCanopy;ElementsofaSociologicalTheoryofReligion(GardenCity,N.Y.:Doubleday,1967)forarepresentativeexampleofsecularization’s“inevitable”connectiontoprocessesofmodernization.
81
reality.Theinevitabilityofthetiebetweensecularizationandmodernizationisamajor
questionforthenovel’shistoricalmoment.Thecommuneaspirestobea“middleground”
ofsortsbetweenhigherandeverydayrealities.Itsrelationshiptothe“high”and“low”
realitiesfortheremainderofthischaptercanberepresentedinthefollowingschema:
Table2:SpatialHierarchyintheWanderjahre
Sacred/HigherReality
ReciprocalMiddleZone
Low,Ordinary,Everyday
Disappearanceoftemporality
Epiphanic,glimpsesofhigherrealitywithina
heterogenousflux
Mundane,uninterruptedhomogenousduration
Knowledgeofultimatecauses
andends
Knowledgeoforientation,purpose
Knowledgeofmeans,tools,methods
Orderingprinciplesandstructures
Hierarchicalcontext,multiple
pointsofreference
Self-referential,nopointoutside
Inthetermsofthecommune,modernizationrepresentsathreatthatbothrenders
mundaneandabstractstheindividual’smaterial,bodily,andexperientialbasisinthe
community.InWilhelm’smemoryofhisfriend’sdeath,thisexperiencehadbothphysical
andethicalcomponents:physicalbecauseitseparatedhimfromhisownimmediatebodily
relationshiptotheevent,ethicalbecauseitreplacedhisparticularexperientialconnections
withgeneralandimpersonalprinciplesof(practical)action.Butinmoresystematicterms
thatcutacrosstheentirenovel,Iwanttoclaimthatthenovelrepresentsmodernity’s
82
tendencytowardabstractionthroughoneverybroadbutconceptuallydelineablesetof
mechanisms:economicrationality.
Withineachcommunity,theeconomy—andeconomicrelationships—becomea
foundational,quasi-autonomoussystemofabstractvalues,materialincentives,andsocial
pressures.Thisisnottoclaimthattheorganizingpoweroftheeconomicwithinthenovel
ismonolithic.Indeed,itcreatesnewandsometimescontradictorycross-pressures,
simultaneouslyactingasaforceofrenewalanddestabilization,cooperationand
atomization.52Anotherwayofapproachingthere-organizingpoweroftheeconomicisto
claimthatitmakesnonecessaryaccommodationstothecommunity’sparticularformsof
hierarchyandsymbolicordering.LikethenewtermsofbourgeoissocietythatWilhelm
intimatesthroughthedrowningepisode,theeconomicreplacesanimmediateconcernfor
theparticularityanddifferenceofitssituationwithaprincipleofgeneralityand
uniformity.Thisisthetensionthatrunsthroughoutthecommune.
WithinthecommuneoftheWanderjahre,theindependenceofeconomicrationality
opensupanewchainofpossibilitiesandconflicts,allorientedaroundtheintentionality,
personality,anddirectnessofitsmaterialandbodilyrelationships.If,asIhavealready
claimed,thecommuneisnotanaiveprecursortomodernity,butratherapotentialsolution
toitsde-stabilizingpower,thentheaxisofdifferencebetweencommunitiesinthe
Wanderjahrefallsalongthesolutionsbywhichthesecommunitiesincorporatethe52Bytheterm“atomization,”Iintendsomethinglikethesubjectthatphilosophersintheso-called“communitarian”traditionidentifyatthecenteroftheliberaltradition.See,forinstance,CharlesTaylor’sessay,“Atomism,”inCommunitarianismandIndividualism,ed.ShlomoAvineriandAvnerDe-Shalit,pp.29–50(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1992).AsMichaelSandelwritesinacontemporaryAmericancontextthatoneparadoxofliberalismishowitclaimstouniteallcitizens,realandhypothetical,intoasinglecommunity,buttowardnoparticularend.Rather,citizensareasfreeaspossibletochoosetheirownvaluesends.”InMichaelJ.Sandel,LiberalismandtheLimitsofJustice(CambridgeUniversityPress,1998),Introduction,p.i.
83
abstractionsoftheeconomicsphereintotheirwayoflife.Thecommuneisan
accommodationtothedisorderinganddistortingpressuresofeconomicrationality,all
undertakenwithahigherviewofwhatmakesforhumanflourishing.Tochoosethe
communeasawayoflifeistoenterintoasetoftensionsbetweenmaterialandpersonal
immediacyandtheimpersonalityofeconomiclife.
AsIhavealreadysuggested,theregimeofproto-utilitarian,impersonaleconomic
rationalityhasfeaturesthatcanbegeneralizedacrossthenovel:
1) Erasureofinternalandexternalsocialboundaries.Economicrationality
pushesagainsttheboundariesandorderingprinciplesofcollectivelife.Its
logicfundamentallyreshapesthenatureoftheindividual,whocan
functionasan“economicactor”irrespectiveofhispeersandhissocial
context--andontheoreticallyunlimitedscale.Socialbarrierstofully
realizedeconomicrationalityaretemporaryandpracticalinnaturerather
thansystematic.“Thesocial”inallitsdiversityandfundamental
differencebecomes,ineffect,ahomogenousbodywiththesame
underlyingmechanisms.Aparticularlyvividhistoricalrealizationofthis
problemintheWanderjahrethatIwilldiscussisthequestionof
automationandmachinelabor,wherethepractitionersoftextile
handcraftsfaceachoicebetweenleavingtheircommunitiestoembrace
automatedmachineproductionorremaininginthematthecostoftheir
veryeconomicandexistentialviability.
84
2) Materialdisengagement.Thebasisforeducationinthecraftsystemisa
sharedorientationtoitsmaterialsandamimeticacculturationtothe
bodilypracticesthatcontrolthem.Theat-handpresenceofthecraftas
materialpraxisisthebasisofitsessentialmutuality.Economicrationality,
bycontrast,discouragestheactor’sinvolvementwithhismaterialobjects,
effacingthesocialandexperientiallimitationsthatkeepitsmaterialbasis
intheforeground.Thiswillbecomeapparentduringthenovel’sepisode
withtheweavers.
3) Lossofpersonalinvolvement.Attheleveloftheindividualperson,
economicrationalitydisarticulatesvocationalpracticefromtechnical
mastery.Insteadthetechnical(i.e.,individualmasteryofone’stoolsand
materials)becomesthepredominantorderingmechanism.The
developmentoftheindividualis,instead,orderedaround“skill”rather
than“excellence.”Theabilitytowieldandmastertechnological
complexityreachesouttodefinetherelationshipsbetweenindividuals
bothwithinandoutsidethecommunity.Relationshipsbecome
conceivableonanunlimited,mundane,economicplane,whereall
individualsbecomeidenticalinprinciplequaeconomicactors.
4) Erasureofhierarchyanddifferencebetween“high”and“low.”Inguild
parlance,the“mystery”isremovedfromthesiteofeverydayproductive
life.IntermsofWilhelm’s“forgetfulness”abouthisauthenticcalltoa
surgicalvocation,theindividualintheeconomicspheredevelopswithout
referenceto“higher”or“moreauthentic”valuesoutsideoftheeveryday.
85
Theoveralleffectofthisformofeconomicrationality(andofthetheoretical
totalizationoftheeconomicsphere)istoactasadestabilizingforceonthecommune’s
distinctivewayoflife.ThecommuneinstantiatedintheWanderjahre,withitsdirectand
personalformsofsolidarity,isinasensethenegativeorganizationalimageofaneconomic
individualismthatatomizesallofitsparticipantsintofoundationalunits.Buteventhe
communeisstill,atitscore,anindividualisticsolutiontotheproblemofcommunal
organizationinmodernity;itisbasedontheself-sufficiencyoftheindividual,andona
homologybetweenpart(person)andwhole(society).Thesignificanceof“theeconomic”
asadistinctandparticularmodeofactivityisthatitgivesustheWanderjahre’sversionofa
modernizationprocess.IshouldunderscorethattheWanderjahrepresentsuswithaform
ofmodernizationthatisnotanecessaryandinexorableteleologyof“modernprogress,”
butratheranentireworldofvaluesandorganizationalstrategiesalternativetothe
commune.Intheimaginaryofthenovel,aworldbuiltaroundeconomicrationalityandan
economically-orientedsocialimaginaryisnottheinevitableoutcomeofsomekindof
historicalprocess.Instead,itisamodelwhosecentralcharacteristicistoappearinthe
formofaconceptualandsocialinevitability.Thecommuneisanalternativetothefuture’s
statusasinevitablechangethatwipesawaytheformsofthepast.
Fromasociologicalperspective,thecommuneisaninstitutionthatdeniesthe
certaintyofeconomicmodernization.AsIhavesofarsuggested,theheartoftheeconomic
istoactasatotalizingforcethatremakeseverythingaroundit.Economiclogicrefusesto
allowfortheco-existenceofalternatives.First,itdeniesthecommunity’sfidelitytopast
andtradition,andseconditexistsontheplaneoftheeveryday,refusing“higher”
86
ontologicalrealities(i.e.,sacred)thatstandinoppositiontoitsderacinatingand
ontologicallylevelingorientation.
Ifthecommuneistobeanalternativetothemodelofmodernizationasinexorable
“progress,”thenitmustconstructadifferentrelationshipbetweenpast,present,and
future.Throughthecommune,avisionofthefutureaschangethatnecessarilywipesaway
the“errors”or“primitiveforms”pastbecomes,instead,asocialmodelforaworking-outof
theharmoniesbetweenpastandfuture.Asisintroducedinthetablebelow,thecommune
promisestoestablishapointofreconciliationbetweenmodernityandtradition:
Table3:TemporalityintheWanderjahre
Past Present(Commune) Future
Dominancebycaretakermentality,whatisrealis“whathasalwaysbeen”
Individualinvestedintheshape,futureof
communityHistoryhas
identifiablelogic,purpose
DemandsunlimitedindividualflexibilitySocietyareflectionofotherprocesses
NoclearseparationbetweenhigherandlowerrealitiesEverydayactivityinfusedbyhigherpurposes,forces,
symbols
Individualconnectsmaterialeverydaywithultimatepurposes
Senseofeffectiveandsatisfyingaction
Impersonalorderdominatedby
everydaydemandsVacillatebetween
bruteconcretenessofutilitariangoalsand
inscrutableabstractionoffinalpurposes(“use”)
Individualinheritsaprojectbeyondmemory,
understanding
Individualrenewsthesocialcontract
throughunderstanding,assent,
participation
Purposeofsocietyistoreproduceitself
Thecommunerefusesamovementacrossthespectrumofmodernityfrom“past”to
“future,”toaccedetothestandardmodernizationnarrationinwhichthemodernis
87
identifiedwiththesecularandthelossofhigherdimensionstoreality.Thesynchronyof
differentwaysoflifewithinthenovelisarefusaltoaccedetotheinevitablyofanyone
historicalpathway,evenasitmanagestosupplyseveraldifferentstoriesabouthowthese
tensionsplaythemselvesout.Secularizationwouldimplyamovementfromlefttoright
alongbothcontinuumsrepresentedabove,abreakingofthemiddlegroundbetweenthe
temporalrealmsofpastandfuturity,andofthe“doublearrow”thatmakesthemreciprocal
tooneanotherwithinthecommuneasawayoflife.Historyhasthepossibilityofbecoming
aprogressivemovement“forward”—oranostalgiaforandmovement“back”intothepast.”
Intheformercase,asacredandhigherrealityisdiscredited,replacedbymodesof
everydaylife:bythepermanentforgettingofarelationsandobligationstotraditionanda
pastinfavoroftheeconomicorder’sperpetualself-churnandself-remaking.Inthelatter,
thepresentdaybecomesamemorializationprojectofsorts,astateofreactionary
resistanceanda“war”withthefuturethatplaysitselfoutinthere-establishmentofoneor
anotherversionofwhatis“past.”TheWanderjahrecontainsboththesevisions--
progressiveandreactionary--ofsocialorganization.
Thecommuneisthesocialformthatattemptstostabilizefidelitytothepastwitha
progressiverelationshipofmovementintothefuture.Thenovelstillrepresentshistory’s
destabilizingeffects.Theyarecontainedinthepressuresthatthreatentocollapseitasa
viablemediatingpointbetweenindividualandcollectivemodesoflife.Theidealformof
thecommunesuppliesthesocialcontextthatallowsfortheindividualtobemorethana
realizationofaparticularformofindividualism.Withoutthecommuneasamediating
socialform,everydayrealitycontinuestocontainthepossibilityofhigherdimensions,and
theindividualcontinuestolooktothepastwithinaneconomicorder.Butthepointisthat
88
theseactivitieshavebecomeessentiallyindividualandidiosyncraticinnature,aprivate
andindividual“choice”or“internalstance”ratherthanasocialpossibilitywithapublic,
sharedreality.Inotherwords,theybecomeboundupinthequestionofvocationaland
individualself-constitution.Thefailureofthecommuneasamodelmeansabreakdownof
thetensionbetweenhigherandlowerorders—betweentraditionandfuturity—into
individualformsofintegrationbetweenhighandlow.
WhatIwillcallthe“individualsolution”istheothersideofthevocationalideal:
vocation,notasaformofintegrationor,inWeberianterms,submissiontoasetofpublic
andinstitutionaldemands,butvocationasaresolutionofpubliccontradictionsatthelevel
ofindividualpersonalityandprivatelife.Wilhelm’svocationalchoiceofsurgeryinthe
Wanderjahre,spurredasitisbyaprivate—almosttherapeutic—assimilationofthepast
traumaofhischildhoodfriend’sdeathintohismatureadultpersonality,laysoutboth
elementsofthisdilemma.Bybecomingasurgeon,hesubmitshimselftoaregimeof
training,ahabitoflifeoncehistrainingiscomplete,andfinallytheobligationtoregularly
practicehissurgicalskillsintheserviceofthepublicgood.Butbytheendofthenovel,it
willbethisfinalstep—thediscoveryofapublicinwhoseserviceheshouldact—that
Wilhelmdischargesinacuriousandatypicalfashion.Otherthantheactofsavinghisson’s
life,wehavenoindicationthatWilhelmwilleverpracticesurgeryinrelationtoany
particularcommunity.Hissurgicalvocationexpressesthesymbolicandpsychological
integrationofhishigheraspirationsandexperiencesintohiseverydayhabits,butthe
achievementremainsprimarilyontheindividuallevel,withoutapublictorecognizeand
receiveitsbenefit.53
53Seethenovel’sfinalchapter:Book3,Chapter18.
89
TherewillbemoretosayabouttheresolutionofWilhelm’sownvocational
situationlateron,butfornowIwillbrieflydrawattentiontotwoothercharactersthat
representanindividualsolutiontotheproblemposedbythecommune.Theinstitutionof
thecommuneisanattempttostabilizeasetofspecifichistoricalphenomenathatIhave
identified(e.g.,rationalizationundertheexclusivebannerofeconomiclife)andbroadly
groupedundertheterm“modernization.”Withrespecttothepossibilitythataviewof
higherrealitieswouldbelostineverydaypubliclife,modernizationintheWanderjahreis
accompaniedanddefinedbyitsownprocessofsecularization.54Withrespecttothe
privilegingoffutureoverpastandprogressoverstasis,modernizationinthisnovel
becomesthetermforanoverallsetofforcesthatbreakdowntheharmony,balance,and
proportionalityofthecommune.Butthecommune,asIhaveemphasized,isforemosta
collectivesolutiontoaproblematicallyatomisticindividualism.Thereremainsthe
possibility—indeed,arguablytheprobabilitybythenovel’send—thatthesolutiontothis
atomismisfoundnotatthecollectivelevel,butatthelevelofindividualcharacters:that
thesenseofwholenesscreatedbythecommunewillproveunsustainable.Underthose
conditions,theindividualcharacterremainshisorherownsolutiontotheabsenceof
widercollectiveunities.Thequestionof“harmony”or“integration”becomesaquestionof
thepersonality,confinedtotheextraordinaryorexceptionalindividual.Thecharactersof
MontanandMakarie,whorepresent,respectively,alowandhighperspectiveonthe
integrationofthedifferentlevelsofreality,areexceptionalcharactersofthistype.
54Thisisnotageneraltheoreticalclaimabouttherelationshipbetweenmodernizationandsecularization,butratherasetofparticularobservationsabouttheshrinkingscopeofreligiouslifewithintheWanderjahre
90
Fromthesymbolic“low”side,Montanisanexpertintheartsofminingwhocomes
torepresent—inalmostalchemicalfashion—atransformationofthebrutematerialityof
thesubterraneanworldintoahigherplaneofvalues.55Oneofasmallnumberofcharacters
theGoethecarriedoverfromtheLehrjare,hehastakenonanewname(formerlyJarno)
andprofession:theoristandpractitionerofpracticalgeology.WhenWilhelmmeetshim
unexpectedlyatthebeginningoftheWanderjahre,roaminginsolitaryfashionamongthe
cragsofthehighmountains,Montanhasbecomeanadvocateforandrepresentativeofan
esotericknowledgewonfromprimitiveindividualisolation.56Theearth,heclaims,gives
upitssecretsonlytothosewhodevotethemselvesentirelyto“reclusive”individualstudy
inthefield.Ontheonehand,Montanappearstoembraceanethosofmodernspecialist
knowledge:“Liberalitymerelyestablishesthecontextwithinwhichthespecialistworks,”
hegrufflyinformsWilhelmwhenheexpresseshopethathissonFelixwillreceiveawider
education.ButMontan’sformofspecializationisunorthodox—andcanbedistinguished
fromthealienationsofWeberianvocation—becausehisformofspecializationgivesa
senseofthewholethroughthedepthsoftheparticular:“Torestrictoneselftoacraftisthe
bestthing,”headvisesWilhelm.Tothemostdedicatedspecialist,“ifhedoesonehedoes
all,or,tobelessparadoxical,intheonethinghedoesproperly,heseesthelikenessofall
55Indeed,Montan’scharacterbearsworthwhilecomparisontoGeorgiusAgricola,the“father”ofmodernscientificminingtechniques.Inthebeginningofhissixteenth-centurytreatiseontheminingarts,Deremetallica,Agricolabeginswithaquasi-utilitariancriticismofthealchemicaltraditionforengaginginelaboratedeceptionsofthepublicthatfailedtoproduceanythinguseful.Agricola,bycontrast,claimsthecontemporaryminerastherightfulsuccessortothealchemicaltradition.Theminerclaimsnomysticalaspirations:heisapragmatictechnicianwhomastersaslateofartsandsciencesinordertopossessthematerialsofthesubterraneanworld.SeethePrefaceandChapter1ofDeReMetallica,translatedfromfirstLatineditionof1556byHerbertHooverandLouHenryHoover.NewYork:Dover,1950.56Montan:“Iwantedtoavoidpeople.Thereisnothingtobedoneforthem,andtheykeepusfromdoinganythingforourselves.”(115[W[).Andlater:“eachofusknowswhatheknowsonlyforhimself,andhemustkeepitsecret.”(280,[W]).
91
thatisdoneproperly.”Byexpandingtheviewfromaparticularstandpointintoaviewof
thewhole,thecharacterMontanrepresentsthepossibilityofareconciliationbetweenthe
single-mindednessofarationalized,technologicalculture(“hismindwasfilledwithmining
projectsandtherequisiteknowledgeandskills”57)andahierarchicalordertoreality.
IfMontancomestorepresentanunderlyingunitytotheworldthatheapprehends
throughstudyingthefundamentaldifferencesbetweenitsparts,thenMakarie,theother
sideofthissymboliccharacterpair,isthefigurewhoachievesanunderstandingofthe
particularsofhumanexistencethroughawideandencompassingsenseofthewhole.
Spatiallyandsymbolically,Montanissubmergedintheearth,whileMakarieisacosmic,
superlunaryfigurewhopossesses—innatelyandfrombirth—anunderstandingofthe
movementofcelestialbodies:58
Ifwearetoassumethatbeings,insofarastheyarecorporeal,strive
towardthecenter,whileinsofarastheyarespiritual,theystrivetowardtheperiphery,thenourfriendbelongsamongthemostspiritual.Sheseemsbornonlytofreeherselffromtheterrestrial,inordertopenetratethenearestandfarthestrealmsofexistence.59Makarierepresentsanaristocraticorderthatisbothinheritedandearned.The
nobleoriginsofherbirthareconfirmedandenlargedbythepurposefulnessofher5739(T),119(B)58Hercondition,describedbythenarrator:“Makariestandsinarelationshiptooursolarsystemthatonehardlydarestoexpress.Notonlydoessheharborit,andseeitinhermind,inhersoul,inherimagination;sheconstitutesapartofit,asitwere.Sheseesherselfdrawnalonginthoseheavenlycircles,butinherownparticularway;sincechildhoodshehasmovedaroundthesun,and,tobespecific,ashasnowbecomeclear,inaspiralcourse,movingever-fartherfromthecenterandcirclingtowardtheouterregions.”(449[T],410[B])Sheretainsanastronomeramongherassociates,anaturalscientistwhoatfirstdoubtsherextraordinaryclaimtointuitivescientificknowledge,butwhoeventuallyjoinsherinpursuingahigherknowledgethroughknowledgeofthestars.HetellsWilhelm:“Mypurposeistobringallmembersofanoblefamilytogetheragain.Mywayismarkedout.Iamtoinvestigatewhatkeepsnoblesoulsapart,andtoremovebarriersofwhateversorttheybe.”(119-120[T].178[B])59449(T),410(B)
92
activities:toserveasserenemanagerofhumanaffairs,tocataloghumanwisdominher
ownexpansivearchivecontainedwithinthebook,andfinallytorepresent,throughher
owncharacter,thecapacityoftheindividualtosenseandmoveoutward,towardever-
higherplanesofawareness.60Ataminimum,hercelestialorientationmarksoutherasa
personalitywithanawarenessofforcesandhigherconcernsoutsideofeverydayhuman
affairs.Whileherbehaviordisplaysnodefinablereligiousorientation,hercertaintyabout
theexistenceofaworldoutsideofthemundanehumanplane—andherbeliefthatsheis,
silentlyandinternally,journeyingoutwardintothiscelestialrealm,gaininganever-wider
perspectiveonthehuman—makesheraplaceholderforauniquereligiosityinthenovel.
Table4:ComparisonoftheCharactersMakarieandMontan
NotableSymbols
SymbolicFeatures
Themes
Makarie StarsMathematicsAstronomy
SociallyengagedAdvancedage
Height/ascentWisdomTheoreticalknowledge
Montan MiningGeologyEarthscience
SociallyisolatedIndeterminatemiddleage
Depth/descentPractical/technicalknowledge
Together,MontanandMakariemaintainthepossibilitiescontainedintheindividual
outsideofthecommune.Thatis,ifthecommuneisnolongercapableoforganizingitself
amongahierarchyofpossiblerealities,thentheseotherrealitiesmoveinward,totheform
andpersonalityoftheindividualcharacter.Thisistheindividualasatomicbuildingblock60Inthesecond,1829,editionoftheWanderjahre,GoethehadthenarratorselectfromsectionsofMakarie’sarchivetomarkanaphoristicinterludeafterthenovel’ssecondandlastbooks.
93
fromwhichthecommuneisimagined,andtowhich—inthefigureandfateWilhelmas
perpetualwanderer—thenovelholdsoutthepotentialtoreturn.Atthispoint,weshould
turntoasystematicexaminationofthreecommunitieswithintheWanderjahre--mountain
primitivism,emigrants,andweavers—toviewtheunfoldingofthecommuneassocialand
individualform.
IV.Saints,Emigrants,Workers:TheCommunitiesoftheWanderjahre
Thefirstepisodeinthenovelisaparablethatrevealsthecommuneinitsideal
form:itspromiseasawayoflife--anditschallengesandperils.Thecommuneisasecond-
orderre-creationofanidealformofcommunity.Thegeneralformofthecommuneisbuilt
around,first,theindividual’spsychologicalidentificationwith(andassentto)hisorher
wayoflifeand,second,asenseofhierarchicalpatterningtocollectivelifethatrelatesitto
thehighestandmostsacredvaluesofthecommunity.
SaintJosephtheSecond
Forthefirstfigure,“St.JosephII,”theproperworkofthecommuneistonegotiatea
relationshiptohigherthingsfromwithinthepsychologicalandsocialmaterialsofthe
present.ThroughSt.Joseph,thiscommunity’smostprominentmember,themountain
communeaspirestocloseagapbetweentheidealformofitspastandtraditionsandthe
94
historicalchangesthatcreatedistancefromthem.Inthissense,St.JosephtheSecondand
hismountaincommunityrevealacommunethatisessentiallyrestorativeand
reconstructive.Hisidentityandwayoflifecannotacceptthatthecommunerebuilds
somethingthatishistoricallyinaccessible,iffornootherreasonthanbecauseitis
necessarilylocatedwithinhistory.Byseekingtore-createthepastandlivewithinit,to
accessitdirectlythrough,inthiscase,anactofsincerebutquasi-parodicimitation,St.
Josephtakestheidealofthecommunetoanalmostparodicextreme.Theaspirationto
maintainarelationshipwithpast-nessisacentraltendencyofthecommune,butits
realizationinJosephbecomesakindofreductioadabsurdum.Inthemountaincommune,
thenovelinoculatesitselfagainstconfusionwithanidealisticescapefromhistory,
revealingitsformandpurposetobereconciliationwiththeforcesofhistoricalchange.
TheintroductionfindsWilhelmoutwalkingwithhissonFelixinthemountains.
Standingatthetopofacliff,lookingoutatthesunhittingthetreetopsandthepaththat
willleadthemdownward,Wilhelmseesasightthatstunshim:amanandhisfamilyonthe
approachingpath,ridingadonkey,anddressedingarbthatmakesthemappearasifthey
hadsteppedstraightfromthebiblicaltales.Wilhelm,hewrites,“foundtheFlightinto
Egypt,whichhehadsooftenseenpainted,herebeforehisveryeyes.”61Thisself-styled“St.
JosephII”is,toputitsimply,amaninthecostumeofthepaststandinginthepresent.On
Wilhelm’sfirst,dumbfoundedappraisal,St.Josephappearstobethe“secondcoming”of
thebiblicalsaint.Alongwithhiswifeandchildren,heridesadonkey,wearsrough,simple
garbandcarriesmundane,butsymbolicallysignificantitems(i.e.,“alargebundleofreeds,619(T),99(W)
95
asiftheywerepalmfronds”)thatallowWilhelmtoseenotjustthecharacterhimself,but
toseethroughandinhimtothepaintingsandhistoricalChristianiconographyofJoseph--
wifeofMaryandearthlyfatherofJesus.Thisnew“SaintJosephtheSecond,”ashestyles
himself,useshisimageandappearancetoreachtowardahigherrealitythat—forhim—
cantakeaneverydayform.Hisstrangecharacterisaniconofdirectidentificationwiththe
past,andliteralre-enlivenmentofasacredsource.
Afterrecoveringfromhisshock,Wilhelmrealizesthatheisnotspeakingtoa
characterinapainting,buttoaflesh-and-bloodhusbandandwifeandtheirchildren,allof
whomareembarkedonacustomarytaskofcarryingcharitablegoodsbetweenmountain
communities.This“rareapparition”will,Wilhelmlearns,projectasenseofserene
confidenceaboutthemeaningandpurposeofhismountainsurroundings,afirmnessand
confidenceinhisidentity.62St.Joseph’sfirstwordstoWilhelm—“Whyhaveyoustopped?
Donotblocktheway!”—suggestjustthissenseofunquestionablepurposeandtotal
immersioninhiswayoflife.This“way,”asWilhelmgraduallydiscoversthroughhearingSt.
Josephrecountthestoryofhisoriginandwayoflifeinthemountains,isapaththat
submergeshiminanimmediateidentificationwiththehighestsourcesofsacred
significanceavailabletohim.St.Josephrepresentsanimmediate,tactileandintuitive
relationshiptothesehigherandsacredthings.Asacharacterwhoidentifieswithwhatis
higherandsacreddowntotheverydetailsofhisappearance,hereflectsonprocessesof
secularizationbyreachingoutsideofthem.Thecommuneaspirestoplaceitsinhabitantsin
arelationshiptothesacred,butJosephtakesthisastepfurther,aspiringtolivewithinthe
sacredformshimself.628(T),98,(W)
96
Joseph’sintimatebodilyandsensoryidentificationwiththeobjectsthatformhis
identityis,fromonestandpoint,adepictionofthecommune’sidealprocessofindividual
development.Hissenseofhimselfisdrivenbyaninnatefascinationwithacycleof
paintingsaboutthelifeofSt.Joseph.IntheLehrjahreWilhelmrecountsanaïveand
automaticearlychildhoodfascinationwiththepaintingsofhisgrandfather’sart.Ina
similarfashion,Josephisdrawntoaestheticobjectsthatsuggestakindofnuminoushigher
realitythatsimultaneouslymaintaintheirfunctionaseveryday,at-handobjects.Thus,from
theverybeginning,theepisodeunfoldsinamodeofparallelismbetweenJosephand
Wilhelm.63
Joseph,Wilhelmlearns,wasthesonofafamilyofcaretakersforanoldmonasteryin
themountains.Oncethesiteofpilgrimages,byJoseph'stimeithadlongfalleninto
disrepairandbecomethepropertyofa“secularprince.”InthestoryhetellsWilhelm,the
earliestinterestinhislifeishisfascinationwithacycleofoldanddustypicturesalonga
wallinthechapel.“Noonecouldreallyinterpretthemforme,”hesays.Fortheyoung
Joseph,itwas“enoughtoknowthatthesaintwhoselifetheydepictedwasmypatronsaint,
andIrejoicedinhimasIwouldanuncle.”Inhiscommentaryontheepisode,ErichTrunz
pointstothedistinctivenessofJoseph’srelationshipwithart.64Ontheonehand,Josephthe
SecondexhibitsanintenserelationshiptothebiblicaltraditionandthelifeofaSaint.On63ThereaderlearnsaboutthedetailsofSt.Joseph’slifethroughlettersthatWilhelmwritestohisbetrothedNatalie.ThesenseofintuitivekinshipthatWilhelmreportswithSt.Josephisatestamenttothesimilaritiesbetweentheirtwosituations.Attheendoftheepisode,welearnthatWilhelmwastheonewhorecordeditinalettertothewomanwithwhomhewillbeengagedthroughouttheentirenovel,Natalie.ThefirstthingWilhelmsaysinhislettertoNatalieisthat“ifthewordsarenotexactlyhis,ifhereandthereIhaveexpressedmyownsentimentsashis,thatisonlynatural,giventheaffinityIfeelforhim.”WithoutWilhelm’spositionaswanderer,lookinginfromtheoutside,therewouldneverhavebeenaSt.JosephtheSecondnarrativeatall.64InTrunz’sview,thecentralissuesraisedbySt.Josephisthe“formationofthepersonthroughart,”(FormungdesMenschendurchdieKunst).InnotestoWanderjahre,559
97
theotherhand,asJaneBrownnotes,Joseph’senthusiasmforpaintingsofthesaintisnotto
beconfusedwithreligiousdevotion.65ForJoseph,theimageofthesainthasasmuchin
commonwithaportraitofacherishedfamilypatriarchasitdoeswithaniconicportraitof
areligiousfigure.Thepaintingsareavisualbiographyofakindof“ancestor”toJoseph
thatareripeforhisimitation:headoptsadonkeyforhisridesthroughthemountains,
wearsantiquateddress,andisapprenticedintothecarpentrytradesothathewill
eventuallybeabletorestorethechapel.Itisalltooeasytopointtothetemporarilydistant
originsofJoseph’srolemodel,wheninfactthebiblicalsaintisoneofthemostprominent
andaccessiblemodelspresenttohimintheeveryday.66
Inaliteralsense,then,Joseph’sBildungandmature“vocation”weretheproductofa
Bild,thepictureofthebiblicalworldofasaint.ThestoryofSt.JosephtheSecondgivesusa
generalmodelofhowthecommuneguidestheindividualintoasenseofidentificationand
belongingwithsurroundingsandactivities.Hiswayoflifeisappropriatetoahighly
individualistic,intentionalself-fashioning.WhatJosephcametounderstandduringhis
idiosyncraticchildhoodand“apprenticeship”wasthatheneededaworldthatresponded
tohisimmediatesenses:whathecouldseeandtouchinhisyouth(thepaintingsand
65JaneBrown:“Itis,inotherwords,thepictureswhichJoseph'sliferesembles;theyarehismodelmorethanthesainthimself,”fromGoethe’sCyclicalNarratives,DieUnterhaltungenDeutscherAusgewandertenandWilhelmMeistersWanderjahre.ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,1975,p.3466TheprecisenatureofJoseph’srelationshiptothepastisoneofthemostdebatedaspectsofthecommentariesonthisscene.JaneBrownarguesthatweshouldbemoreconcernedwiththemeaningofSt.Joseph’slifestyleforhisowntimeandplacethanbecaughtupinthedetailsofhowheunderstandsthebiblicalnarrative.St.Joseph“isimitation…”shewrites,“notforthepurposesofsatireorcorrection,butfortheenrichmentofthereader'svisionofthepresent...theproblemofrealizingthepastinthepresentremainsthebasicconcernofthenovel.”(37)HansVagetreadsSt.Josephinlightoftheimpendingwave(s)ofindustrializationthatareamajorpartoftheWanderjahrenarrative,andtakesSt.Josephtobethefirst“warningsignal”againsttheprojecttoenacta“falserestoration”ofalostpast(159).See“JohannWolfgangGoethe:WilhelmMeistersWanderjahre,”inRomaneundErzählungenzwischenRomantikundRealismus:neueInterpretationen.Stuttgart:Reclam,1983.
98
chapel),andacircleofexistenceboundedbywhereonlyhisfeetcancarryhim.Therefore
Joseph’sdiscoveryofhis“identity,”whichatfirstappearstobeaneccentricitythatisolates
andsetshimapartfromtheworld,revealsitselftobethemostconsistentandunrelenting
contactwithhissurroundings--andthuswiththegeneralprincipleofthecommune.
St.JosephII’simitationofthebiblicalJosephrepresentstheimportanceof
immediacyandindividual,intentionalassentforthecommuneformoverall.Heprovides
onethemostparadigmaticstatementstothiseffectforWilhelmbywayofexplanation
abouthisownwayoflife.Whatismostfavorableabouthisowncommunity,Josephsays,is
itspreservationofhumansentimentandconcernforone’sfellowcitizeninthecommune:
“Onthewholethereissomethingmorehumaneaboutlifeinthemountainsthaninthe
flatlands,”hetellsWilhelm,“theinhabitantsareclosertooneanother.”Closeness
preservestheself’ssenseofintegrity,preventingitfromself-alienationandbringingitinto
aproductiveharmonywithothers:
“Eachpersonmustrelymoreuponhimself,mustlearntodependonhisownhands,hisownfeet.Workman,courier,porter—allarecombinedinoneperson;everyoneisalsoclosertohisneighbor,seeshimmoreoften,andisengagedwithhiminamorecommonventure.”67
The“commonventure”istheessentialformoflifeinthemountaincommunity.The
formofcommunitythatJosephhaswithhisneighborsisanimmediateandspontaneous
one—drawnfromandrespondingtothehumanneedsthatappearinfrontofthemthrough
simpleactsofcharityandcooperation.
St.Josephhasachievedanintenselyself-directedfocusthatcomesatthecostofa
retreatfromanycontextoutsideoftheconditionsofhisown(self-)making.Althoughhe67“DerArbeiter,derBote,derLastträger,allevereinigensichineinerPerson;auchstehtjederdemandernnäher,begegnetihmöfterundlebtmitihmineinemgemeinsamenTreiben”,18(T),105(W)
99
firstappearstobeakindofharmlesslunaticincostumewhomissesthepointofbiblical
pietybyapingtheappearanceofareligiousicon,heisnotsimplylivinginafantasyworld
ofhisownmaking.Bytheendoftheepisode,ithasbecomeapparentthatJoseph’sidentity
isalsoaproductofthematerial,everydayinfluencesofchildhoodandearlyadultlife.
Whatbeginsasastudyofthemanandhowhestandsoutfromhissurroundingsbecomes
aninquiryintofeaturesofthecommunitythatproducedhim.IfSt.Josephisan
extraordinaryindividual,thenbytheendofhisstoryitbecomesclearthatthisisnot
becausehesethimselfexcessivelyapart,butratherbecauseheintensifiestheethosof
communitythatprizestheadequacyoftheindividual’spowerstotheself-directedproject
ofanidentitycraftedoutofhisimmediatesurroundings.TheparadoxofthemodernSt.
JosephisthatthebiblicalJosephcharacter,whichwouldotherwisebeasacredanddistant
icon,becomes,throughthepaintingsintheruinedchapel,anintimatecomponentofhis
childhood.ForJoseph,ofallpeople,thepaintingsparticipateinbothageneralorderofthe
sacredandofprincipleofhisownspecificindividuation.InthematuritythatJoseph
presentstoWilhelminhisadulthood,hepresentsaseamlessnessofidentificationbetween
individualandsurroundingsthatmasksanintenseintentionalityandidiosyncrasy.His
identitypresentsaseamlessnessthatwouldnotbepossibleoutsideofhisintentionalway
oflifewithinthecommunity.
Joseph’sstoryisaportraitofromanticnostalgiaforabygoneageoftraditional
religiosity,buttheinfluenceofthepasttothepresent--frombiblicalarchetypetothis
“second”St.Joseph—goesinanotherdirectionaswell.Hisstoryis,equally,astoryabout
howthebiblicalcharacter,JosephearthlyfatherofJesus,isre-imaginedthroughthe
intentionandindividualityofhiseccentricmoderncounterpart.TheSt.JosephtheSecond
100
storyoffersusaportraitofhowthebiblicalJosephcametobea“solution”forthisvery
moderncharacter,andwhatformthissolutiontook.Inappearanceheresembleshisholy
model,butSt.JosephtheSecond’suseofthebiblicalidentityhasadifferentanddistinct
meaningforthemountaincommunityinwhichhechoosestolive.
Ultimately,thelimitationsofSt.Josephasanidealtypeforthecommuneare
revealedbyhismoralandaestheticself-enclosure.ThemeaningofSt.Joseph’slifeinthe
mountainsisthathiscommunitywillextendonlyasfarashisownsentiments.Thiscircle
ofhiscommunityisboundbyhisfamilyandtheworkstheyperforminnearbylocales.His
eventualwifeandtheirchildrenbecomepartofhisownidentityintheirappearanceand
wayoflife.Theyperformactsofsimplecharitywithintheirowncommunity,butventure
nofurtherafield.Joseph’slifeoperatesonacyclicalmodelinwhichthedevelopmentofan
identitybringshimintoastableorbitaroundhisorigins.Wifeandchildrenareafurther
developmentofanexistingpattern,whichwasdeterminedbyJoseph’sfascinationwiththe
lifeofthesaintfromhisearliestyouth.ButJosephachievedhisstabilityofidentityagainst
achaoticoutsideworldthatherejects,andwhichischieflyrepresentedbythewarsand
unrestthatbringhiswifetohim.Byrestrictinghiswayoflifetowhatiswithinthe
immediatekenofhisheadandheart,Joseph’scommunallifebecomesapermanentprotest
againstthepoliticalandhistoricalunrestbeyondthebordersofhissenseand
understanding.
YetthereissomethingmisleadingaboutJoseph'sdescriptionofthejack-of-all-
tradesinthemountaincommunity--”workman,courier,porter”--inthatwhilehepurports
todescribewhateverypersondoesinmountainlife,heismostdirectlydescribingthe
appealofhisownwayoflife.Joseph'sdescriptionofthemountainpeoples'communal
101
unityisalsoadescriptionofhispersonalunitywithhimself.Intheidealformofthe
commune,theunityoftheselfisthebasisfortheunityofthecommunity.Thissecond
Josephhashisrelationshipswithothersthroughtherelationshiphehaswithhimself.
WilhelmnotesthisfortunatepositioninalettertoNatalie:“Wheneveningcomes,hecan
accompanyhisfamilyprocessionthroughtheoldcloistergate;heisinseparablefromhis
beloved,fromhisdearones.”68
ThenarrativeofJoseph’sdevelopmentrevealsatendencytoself-enclosureand
flightfromanuncontrolledoutside.Hewithdrawsfromdestabilizingmaterialandpolitical
circumstancesontheborderofhiscommunity.Thesearethedestructiveeffectsofwarthat
bringhiswifetohim.Hepresentshimselfasoneisolatedeccentricindividual,butthereis
alsoalinkbetweenhisimitativeidentityandhishistoricalposition.Josephmetthewoman
whowouldbecomehiswifewhileoutdeliveringwares.Themountainregionwherehe
livesisontheedgeofaconflictzone:“...war,orratheritsconsequences,haddrawnnear
ourregion.”69Hiswifecametohimthroughtheviolentconflictsonthecommunity's
borders.Joseph’swifeispregnantbyanotherman(herfirsthusband,whohasjustdiedin
theconflictssurroundingthecommune)whenhefirstmeetsher,andJosephwilltakethis
childintohisfamily.Thischildisaremnantofthatboisterousworldoutsidethemountain
borders,analienelementthat,likeeverythingelseinSt.Joseph’sworld,mustbeclothedin
thegarbofbiblicaltimes.
68“Daßeraberglücklichgenugist,nebendemTiereherzugehen,dasdiedoppeltschöneBürdeträgt,daßermitseinemFamilienzugabendsindasalteKlostertoreindringenkann,daßerunzertrennlichvonseinerGeliebten,vondenSeinigenist,darüberdarfichihnwohlimstillenbeneiden”112(Winston),28(Trunz).The“envy”thatWilhelmexpressestowardJosephspeakstoalevelofsimilaritytotheirtwocharacters.69,108(Winston),22(Trunz)
102
ThedevelopmentofhisowninwardnaturethusleadsJosephtoapreternatural
concernwithsurroundingsandappearances.“Inward”identityandoutwardappearance
become,inJoseph’sworld,adirectreflectionsofoneanother.Josephcannotmakesenseof
therupturesandunrestfromthe“outside,”aplacewherewarimposesitselfonunwilling
participants(likeSt.Joseph’swife)andwheretheonlyconsistentprincipleischangeand
growth.70ItisnoaccidentthatJoseph’swifecomesfromthisoutsideworld--andthatshe
carriesachildwhoisnotJoseph’sown.Joseph’slife,withitsnaturalcyclesandreturnto
theorigins,lacksagenerativepotentialthroughitsdisengagementfromtheprogressive
forcesofhistoricalchangethathaveroiledtheborderofthecommunityandbroughthis
wifetohim.
St.Joseph’sfinallimitationisthatheultimatelyseekstoimitatewhatis
sacred,asignificantstructuralandsymbolicdifferencethatheconfirmsinhisfinal
statementtoWilhelm.Heandhisfamily,hesays,“preserveasapleasantcustomthe
outwardappearance,uponwhichwehappenedbychance,andwhichcorrespondssowell
toourinnerinclinations.”Thesacredgarb—whichSt.Josephtookonfromits“ruined”
religioussourceinanoldandabandonedCatholicchapel--thusbecomesakindofsecular
narrative,inwhichtheattempttoestablishamoredirectrelationshipwithahigherreality
collapsesthesenseofitsontologicalandmetaphysicaldistinctiveness,revealingSt.Joseph
tobeaparadigmofsecularizationforthenovel.Whathehasultimatelyreclaimedfromthe
70Indeed,St.JosephIIframeshismarriagetohiswifeintermsoftheessentialnatureofchangeforeverydaylife:“Lifebelongstotheliving,andhewholivesmustbepreparedtochange.”Hisclaimabouttheinevitabilityofchangeiscomplicatedandironizedbythecyclicalityofhisownlife,andthecyclicalseasonalmetaphorhegivesforchange’sinevitability:“Oneseestheblossomsfadeandtheleavesfall,butonealsoseesfruitripenandnewbudsswell”(111[W],27[B]).
103
sacredsourcematerialofthechapelpaintingsisawayoflifeandamoralcode:“thevirtues
ofthatidealimageoffidelityandpuritywerepracticedbyus.”71
ThemodernSt.Josephenvisionsawayoflifeinwhichthecommunity’shighest,
mostsacredtraditions—itsreligiousstories,figuresandiconography—aredirectly
availabletotheindividualasawayoflife.HeexplainsandjustifiesthechoiceofJosephas
aninspirationforthiswayoflifenotintermsofhissacredcharacter,butratherthrougha
storyofpersonalinclinationandnaturalsympathy:Itiscrucialthat“noonecouldexplain”
thecycleofJosephpaintingstohim,thathegravitatedtothemwithoutinstruction,based
onlyontheirinherentappealtohim.Hefoundthediscardedpaintings,hehadan
unarticulated(perhapsinarticulable)fascinationwiththem,andhemodeledhisown
characteruponthem.Thepointisthathelikedthemandhefoundthemadmirable,andthis
wasjustificationenoughtoattachhisownlife,identityandvocationtothem.Theroleof
doctrineandsacredteachingaboutthemeaningofSt.JosephwithintheChristiantradition
isminimizedinfavoroftheeffectithasonJosephhimself.
Attentionmustalsobegiventotheparticularaptnessofthebiblicaloriginal--
Joseph,earthlyfatherofChrist—toSt.Joseph’smodernproject.Josephisafittingvesselfor
theseambitionsbecauseheistheonewhoprovidesconceptualandmaterialstabilization
tothemiracleofChrist’sbirth.Byanchoringtheeventinthemundanesocialformofthe
nuclearfamily,Josephbecomesafigureheadwhogivescovertothemiraculouseventofthe
virginbirthandaGod-made-flesh.Thehistoricaleventbecomesamiraclethatemphasizes
thedistancebetweenanall-powerful,inscrutableGodandhishumansubjects.Andthe
biblicalrecordofChrist’slifeislargelyarecordofthemiraclesheperformsbeforehisfinal,71Ibid.
104
mostmiraculousact:thatoftriumphingoverdeath.ButthebiblicalJoseph—husbandtoa
womanwhodoesnotneedhimtobebiologicallygenerative,and“father”toagodwhois
all-powerfulandself-generating—isafigurewhostabilizesChrist’ssacred,universal
impossibilityinthesocialstructuresofthefamilyandhisparticularcommunity.72St.
JosephII’sgreatestparallelwiththebiblicalSt.Josephistoperformasimilar,stabilizing
function:althoughheisanacknowledgedeccentricwithinhisowncommunity,the
strangenessofhisgarbandhisappearancemaskamorefundamentalconformitytothe
formoflifeinhiscommunity.Likeitsothermembers,heselectsausefultrade(carpentry),
whichhearrivesatindependentlythroughexaminingthepaintingsintheruinedchapel,
andhelivesalifeofmutualityandinformalcooperation,onethathewstowhathecallsthe
“closeness”betweenmembersthathediscernsinthecommunewayoflifeandthe
imperativeofearthlycharitythatisthemostprominentlessonhederivesfromhis
Christiansources.
St.JosephtheSecond’swayoflifeallowshimtobefaithfultothehigherthingsthat
looktowardthepast,arecyclicalintheirtemporalstructure,andpromotestabilityand
predictabilitywithinanunpredictable,chaoticandsocialorder.TheencounterwithSt.
JosephII,whichisrecountedinaletterfromWilhelm,isdividedbetweencuriosityatthe
impossiblestrangenessofJoseph’straditionalismandenvyathiscompletesenseofunity
andidentificationwithhisfamilyandsurroundings.Josephshowshowtheindividualcan
haveanintentional,materialinvolvementwithatradition,anabidingpast,andasacred
order.
72Forexample,JesusisborninthehumblecircumstancesofastablebecauseofJoseph’sparticularcommunalidentity,becausehehadtobegobacktoBethlehemtobecountedamongothersubjectsruledbyHerod(seeLuke2:1)
105
TheEmigrantColonies
InthecharacterofSt.JosephII,thecommuneisprojectedintoanaturalizedpre-
modernpast,pluckedfromtheinstabilityofhistoryandheldupastheveryidealofstasis
withinupheaval.TherestofthecommunitieswithintheWanderjahrewillmakeitclear
thatthecommuneisinfactasecondnature,asocialengineeringproject,andananswerto
theproblemoffreedomposedbynewneedsofindividuals.
AworthwhilecontrastcasetoJoseph’sexistenceinthemountainsisabandof
emigrantsthat,overthecourseofthenovel,refinetheirpracticalmeansandtheir
principlesinpreparationforalifeofself-imposedexile.LikeJoseph,theyaresupremely
dedicatedtotheself-sufficiencyandinternalcoherenceoftheircommunallife,butthe
reasonforthisself-sufficiencycouldnotbeamorestarkcontrastwithJoseph.St.Joseph
resistsanindividuallifeofwanderingthroughdedicationtoimitationandacyclicalreturn
towhathasalreadybeen.Theemigrants,bycontrast,fashionawayoflifeoutofthe
endlesspromiseofchangeandhistoricaltransformation.Theirhorizonwillbethe(re-)
occurrenceofwhatisendlesslynovelandunfamiliar,andtheimperativetoconstantly
transformthemselves—bothindividualandcollective—inresponsetodemandsdefinedby
afuturemadeupofunimaginable,endlesschange.
Theleader,architectandindividualarchetypeoftheemigrants’wayoflifeis
Lenardo,afriendofWilhelm’swhowilleventuallyleavehisbirthoriginsbehindinthe
intentionalorderofthecolonialproject.IfthecourseofJoseph’sentirelifeandvocational
dedicationisdefinedbyastableorbitaroundhisoriginsandtheintentionalityofhisreturn
106
tothesourceofhislife,thenLenardo,bycontrast,isthenovel’smostfullyrealized
wanderer,definedlargelybyrestless,perpetualtravel.Heisasearchingandscheming
figure,whoembracestheprojectofidentityconstructionandself-inventiontolivein
synchronywiththeperpetualchurnofformsandvalueswithinhistoricalchange.Indeed,
hisentirepersonaisconnectedtothereversalofsettlednorms.Biographicallyspeaking,he
isacharacterdefinedbymovementanditinerancy,theperpetuallydissatisfiedsonofa
landedaristocraticfamily:oftenmentionedbyothersinabsentia,andpresenttothe
narrativemainlythroughhisirregularcorrespondencewithWilhelm.Lenardo’smost
importantsymbolicconnectionwithWilhelmisthroughtheAbbéandhisshadownetwork
ofassociatesintheSocietyoftheTower.UnderLenardo’svisionaryleadership,this
Turmgesellscaftbecomesthespiritualandphilosophicalcoreofthecolonialproject.What
wasoriginallyasecretorderdedicatedtotherevivalofanaristocraticidealwillbecome,by
theendoftheWanderjahre,thefoundationforabourgeoisidealofacolonydedicatedto
practicaladaptationandproteangrowth.AndLenardowillbecomeitssupreme
representative.
TheidealthatdefinesLenardoand,eventually,hiscoloniesistheconceptofuseand
usefulness.Lenardoisthecharacterwhothinks,aboveall,aboutthe“usefulness”ofhis
knowledgeandactivities,andwhowilleventuallydistillthecriteriaformembershipinthe
bandofimmigrantsintoone(apparently)simpleimperative:tobe“useful”tothegroup.
GiventhetermsinwhichIhavediscussedeconomicvaluesinthisinquiry,itmaybe
temptingtodistillwhatLenardomeansby“theuseful”intoaquestionofutilityand
economicefficiency.Butthatconceptofuse-valueswouldbenomoredescriptiveofthis
community’svaluesthanareductionofSt.Joseph’spersonatomerecopyingandmimicry.
107
Nowthatwehaveintroducedasecond,paradigmaticcommunalfiguretoourdiscussion,
wecanintroduceLenardoinaninitiallycomparativemodewithJoseph.LikeJoseph’s
explanationtoWilhelmabouthiswayoflifeinthemountains,Lenardohasaself-reported
storyabouthisoriginsthatheintroducestoWilhelminaletter:
Amongtheearliestofmyabilities,whichcircumstancesdevelopedlittlebylittle,wasespeciallyacertainbentforthetechnical,whichwasdailynourishedbytheimpatiencepeoplefeelinthecountryduringlargebuildingprojects,andevenmorewithsmallalterations,installations,whims,whentheymustdowithoutonetradeafteranotherandwouldsoonerpushforwardincompetentlyandsloppilyontheirownthanslowdownlikeamaster.Fortunatelytherewasajack-of-all-tradeswhousedtoroamaroundourlocalityand,becausehemadeoutbestwithme,preferredhelpingmemorethananyoftheneighbors.Hesetupalatheforme,whichheusedonvisits,moreforhisownpurposesthanformyinstruction.Iacquiredthecarpenter’stools,andmytasteforsuchworkwasintensifiedandquickenedbytheconvictionwidelyexpressedatthetimethatnoonecouldventureintolifeunlesshehadsomehandicrafthemightfallbackoninanemergency.Myenthusiasmreceivedtheapprovalofmytutors,sinceitaccordedwiththeirownprinciples.Icanhardlyrememberplaying,forallmyfreehoursweredevotedtobuildingandmakingthings.Intruth,ImayboastthatevenasaboyIspurredasmith,bymydemands,tolearnlocksmithing,casting,andclockmaking.73Lenardo’sdistinctiveidentityemergesoutoftheshapelessandunfocused
accumulationofcommonplaceactivities.Heisalsodrawntothe“jack-of-all-trades,”the
figuredrivenbyunrelentingnecessitytoachieveacertainpracticalcommandoverthe
activitiesandobjectspresentedbyday-to-daylife.Hetakesupcarpentry,notbecauseit
wouldbeanidealprofession(asinJoseph’scase),butbecauseitmightprovenecessaryto
hissurvivalinanundefinedsetoffutureconditions:“noonecouldventureintolifeunless
hehadsomehandicrafthemightfallbackoninanemergency.”Andwhileheadmitsto
having“tutors,”whopresumablyguidedhimaccordingtosomesetofpedagogical
73331(W),336-37(T)
108
principlesorgoals,hedeniesthatanyofhisactivitiesweremeanttobeeducational.
Educationwouldrequirebothteacherandstudenttosetoutonajointpath,toatleast
implicitlyagreeonamodelorparadigmforwhyandinwhatmoldtheindividualpupilis
beingshaped,anidealaboutwhatitwouldmeantoachievemasteryoverasetofsubjects
andpracticesleadingtowardadulthood.Indeed,Lenardopresentshisownearlyactivities
asacontrasttoaneducationalmodelthatthischapterhaselaboratedundertheguild
apprenticeshipmodel.
Hismodelofeducationwillbeopposedtowhathecalls“building”and“making
things.”Instead,heseekstoaccumulatehaphazardtradeandskill-basedknowledge,a
knowledgethatisgoodenoughforthemomentinwhichitisapplied.Indeed,the
knowledgethatwilldefinehimisagood-enoughcollectionoftechnicalskillslearnedoutof
theexigenciesandinterestsofthemoment:thehandymanwhoteacheshimtousethe
lathe“moreforhisownpurposes”thanforLenardo’s.Theblacksmithwhoseknowledgeof
other,ancillarytrades--locksmithing,castingandclockmaking—issufficientforLenardo’s
temporarypurposes.
Initstotality,Lenardo’seducationhastwoessentialqualities:first,thatitis
“technical,”ordedicatedtotheproductionofsomematerialendorpurpose,andsecond,
thatitismeasuredbyitsworthasabasisofaction.Lenardodrawsonnospecificmodelfor
thisorientation.InthissamelettertoWilhelm,Lenardowritesthathe“hadtocreate”his
“owntools”inordertopursuehiseducation.Itmustbebroughtintobeingfromexisting,
ill-suitedpurposes.Amongalready-extantinstitutionsandsocialmodels,hecomplains
aboutcraftspeoplewho“confusemeansandends”andwould“ratherspendtimeon
preparationsandarrangements”thanon“seriouslyapplyingthemselvestoexecution.”His
109
greatadvantagewillbethathedoeswhereothersmerelythinkandplan,abiasforactive
pursuitthatculminatesintheconstructionofanewparkinanearbylocale.Theessential
similarityanddifferencewithJoseph’scasecanbediscernedinLenardo’sself-reliant,
relentlesslyresults-focusedwayoflife.
Joseph,wewillrecall,isalsoafiguredefinedbyimprovisationalbricolage.He
praiseslifeinthemountains:“Eachpersonmustrelymoreuponhimself,mustlearnto
dependonhisownhands,hisownfeet,”and“Worker,courier,porter—allarecombinedin
oneperson.”TheidealformoftheindividuallifeforSt.Josephistheonethatexpresses
itselfintheadequacyofthebody’smanualcapacitiestoitsneeds.Lenardo,too,writesthat
“Iwaslessfavorablydisposedtowardmachinerythantowardsimplehandiwork,where
strengthandfeelingoperateinunison.”Hecontinues:
“HenceIwashappiesttolingerinisolatedvillages,whosespecialconditionsmadethemthehomeofsomespecialtypeofwork.Thatsortofthinggiveseachcommunityaspecialindividuality,giveseveryfamilyorgroupoffamiliesadistinctivecharacter;peoplelivewithaclearsenseofthelivingwhole.”74WhenLenardoclaimsthatthesevillagesaresetapartbya“distinctivecharacter”
and“individuality”thatmarksitofffromitssurroundings,heis,ineffect,offeringaperfect
descriptionofJoseph,whoseoutwardeccentricitybelieshowhehasbecomeamemberof
thecomunityquadistinctandexceptionalmodeoflife.ThebiblicalcharacterthatJoseph
playsisjustthisspecialsortofsolutiontotheproblemofhowtolive.Josephencloses
himselfinthecleanlinesofalegendarypast,inabiblicalstoryforwhichthesimplicityof
thecommuneprovidesamoderncanvas.Theessentialsimilaritybetweenthedevelopment
ofJosephandLenardoisthattheybothseektopracticewaysoflifethatareoutsideoftheir74337(T),332(W)
110
immediateken.Eachwasstruckbystrangeandunusualformsoflifefromanearlyage,and
eachsoughttointegratethatstrangenessintotheirpracticalbeing.Thedifferenceisthat
theessentiallyinterpretivenatureofthepracticalquestionforJoseph—“noonecouldtell
mewhatitmeant”—becomesinstead,forLenardo,aquestionofmechanicalassemblyand
engineeringskill.Insteadof“whatdoesitmean,”Lenardoasks:“howdoIdoit?”
Butwhatis“useful”inagivenmomentisnotastablequestionthatcaneasilybe
relatedtothepast—indeed,itseemsabovealltojustifyaperpetualdeparturefromthe
past--butacontingentfactthatemergesfromhistoryanddisappearsbackintoit.Thisis
thedifferencebetweenaworldorientedaroundanexemplaryideal(i.e.,Joseph’sworld),
andonestitchedtogetherfromanunlimitedsetofpriormodelsthatbecomefuture
improvisations.Lenardo,ineffect,becomesawriter,sketcher,andproto-ethnographer,
someonewho“recordseverything,”becausehehas“aviewtofutureuse.”WhileJoseph
writestoWilhelm,hetravelsthroughcommunitieslikethatwhichJosephinhabits,
“investigatingtheconditionofthemountaindwellersandtakingintoourbandtheuseful
onesdisposedtoemigrate.”75IntheWanderjahre,themountainsareaplacewherelife
becomessimpler,wheretheessentialquestionsareconcentratedagainstaclearerviewof
theopensky.76Liketheethnographerorjournalist,however,Lenardohasnointentionof
becomingapartofthesecommunities.Theirvalueisthathe—andthey—standapart,that
theyaresystemswhoseessentialorganizationisopentorationalpenetrationand
75Ibid.76Recalltheroleofthe“wildhayers”inthelandscapesofLagoMaggiore,whoclimbtothetopsofalpineregionsinsearchofthechoicesthay,tossingitdowntothedevelopedandfertileflatlandsbelow.Wilhelmbeginsthestoryhighinthemountainswithaviewoffar-awayhorizons,intheregionwhereJosephmakeshishome(SeetheopeningtoBook1).
111
examinationbythecarefulobserver.Lenardowilltakewhatheneedsandcanusefrom
thesesystemsforhisownpurposes,andnomore.
Lenardo’scredoofusefulness,then,isnotsomuchasysteminitselfasitisameans
oforganizingothersystems.Whatisimportantisnotwhatthesystemsareusefulfor,but
rathertheactofobserving,catalogingandorderingthemthatallowsthemtobemadeuse
of.Hiscolonyofemigrantsremainsdeeplyconcernedwiththedynamicsofconfiguration
andreconfiguration,afocusonbuildingthesolidfoundationofanas-yetundetermined
futurethanwithreachingaheightorpinnacle.Insteadofanessentialsetofvalues,it
substitutesapragmaticsofefficientandeffectiveaction.Insteadof“why,”aquestionthatit
cannotapproachdirectly,Lenardoasks“how.”Asthearchitectandspokespersonforthis
organizationofthecommunity,headmitsthathisownwayoflifeisinessencethatofa
scavengerandaskilledrepurposer.Inthenovel’slastbook,heturnshisindividual
penchantforre-assembly—anengineer’smindsetappliedtothesocialworld--tothe
questionofhowtobuildanewsociety.
ForLenardo,thesocialworldislikenedtoakindofphysicaledifice,afactthatis
reflectedintheorganizationofartsandcraftsforhisEuropean“colony.”77Hecomparesthe
requirementsforsociallifeinthecolonytotherolesandskillsrequiredtobuildasturdy
structure:“Letustakethesecraftsintheorderinwhichtheyerectabuildingandprepareit
foroccupancy,”Lenardodeclares.Inhisregardofthefinearts(whatwouldnow,in
contemporarylife,becalled“highculture”)hedismissivelydeclaresthat“thebeststatue
stillstandsonitsfeetwiththeworst,”andthusshouldonlybejudgedonthisfunctional
77Theplanforthecoloniesunfoldsintwobranches:aNorthAmericanemigrationprojectthatwillbeoverseenbyLenardohimself,andan“internal“emigrationplannedonaplotoflandbyanassociateofLenardo’sandhisaristocraticbackersintheSocietyoftheTower.(Book3,Chapters11and12)
112
basis.Art,poetry,andmusicarealldeclaredtobeakindofsuperfluousluxury,technically
“free”practiceswhichhavetheirpleasingaspects,butwhichhavenofixedandabsolute
lawsofconstructionthatwouldallowthemtoberationalizedintothebasisforsociallife.
Insteadofsculptors,Lenardowants“stonecutters,”who,alongwiththeothercraft
practitionersofthe“rigorous”arts(i.e.,crafts),“squareoffthefoundationsand
cornerstones.”Lenardowantstoholdontotheguildstructure—“thestagesofapprentice,
journeyman,andmastermustbeadheredtoasstrictlyaspossible”—becauseofthe
concretenessofitsobjects,whileleavingbehindthepurposeandcontextoftheguild’s
work.Indeed,Lenardoexplicitlydisavowsthattheguildsystemisanythingotherthana
wayofproducingusefulcraftsmen.Theguildstructure,hedeclares,shallprovidenoview
intothewhole:“Eachshouldbeenlightenedaccordingtohiscapacitiesandpurposes,”and
“noindividualcanachievecompleteclarity.”78
Likeothercommunesinthenovel,Lenardo’swillbeorganizedaccordingtobodily
practiceandintentionalcommitment.Butratherthancyclicalstability,thisorganization
reflectsanessentialconcernwithfuturityandexpansion.Thebodyoftheemigrantisnot
primarilydistinguishedbybeingtrainedforanyspecifictask,butratherforitsreadinessto
engageinconstant,peripateticmovementandresettlement.Thecommonbasisforall
legitimatevocationandindividualidentityisthatitrequiresitspractitionertotravel:
acrosslandandsea,byfootandboat.ThedefinitionofthetrueemigrantinLenardo’ssense
isthathehasnoplacetocallhome.79Lenardo’sargumentisexplicitlyaimedatoverturning
78368(W),390(T)79“Legitimate”meansthoseprofessionsthat—inthesamespiritasrecruitmentofthemountaindwellers—Lenardoviewsaspotentialcontributorstothemissionoftheemigrants.Amongotherprofessions,hementionsartisans,merchants,artists,soldiers,politicians,andteachers.(SeeBk.3,Ch.9)
113
themajorcategoriesofcommunalandindividualidentity.Befittingagroupofemigrants,
place(“soil,”Land)becomestheverythingthat—aboveallelse—mustbeleftbehind.
Lenardo’sreversal:not“whereIamwelloffismyfatherland,”but“whereIamusefulismy
fatherland.”80Inthecolonies,theguidingvalueofusefulnessistiedtothewillingnessto
moveintonewterritories.AndwhileLenardoappliessomehistoricalcontextforwhyan
individualandapeoplewouldbegiventoleavetheirnativeland(e.g.,overpopulation,
adventure,materialgain),theultimatepointistoengenderacertainframeofmindand
principleofactionthroughthismovement.
Likecraftsmen,Lenardoreferstohisbandofemigrantsasa“guild,”butinstark
contrasttotheliteralguildtrades,thebodilyandmaterialpracticesofhisemigrantsare
explicitlydisembeddedfromanyobjectswithparticularandimmutablefeatures.81Rather,
theobjectofattentionisthelanditself.Thepointisnottocomeintoarelationshipwith
one’splacebuttocreatedistancefromit,toseparatetheindividualfromadependenceon
spatiallocation—andthesocialentanglementsthatcomewithit.82Theactivityofthetrue
wandererwhobecomesanemigrantistoengageinthesetofpracticesthatplacehimat
homewithinalifeofpermanentdisconnectionfromstablethings.Theonlycertaintythat
thewandererrequiresistheexpectationofanecessaryandendlessprocessof
readjustment.WhatLenardocalls“neitheradoctrinenoraprinciple,”butamaximoflife
itself,”isthedreamofbuildingasocietyonthisprinciple,asocietywhoseindividual
80365(W),386(T):“Womir’swohlgehrt,istmeinVaterland!”and“Woichnütze,istmeinVaterland”81368(W),390(T).82“Havewenotseenthenortheastmovingtowardthesouthwest,onepeopledrivinganotherbeforeit,withpatternsofauthorityandlandownershiputterlyoverwhelmed?”365(W),386(T)
114
membersarethecollectiveembodimentofthedreamtobe“freefromalllastingexternal
relations.”83Thewholeisalwaysdependentontheindividual’sparticipation,alwaysready
tobedestroyedsothatitcanbetterrecreateitself.
Thebasisoftheemigrant’scommunityistherejectionofassociationasaninherited
andnaturalproperty.Thatis,thecommunityisnotsomethingthatonehasasaresultof
birth,butastatusthatisearnedandcontinuouslyre-affirmed.Communityemergesinthe
formofaquasi-spontaneousfeatureoftheindividual’srelationshiptotheworldas
permanentwanderer.“Leteachstrivetobeusefultohimselfandtoothersinallways,”
Lenardodeclares.Theemigrantmust“seekconsistency,notincircumstancesbutwithin
himself…[He]willeducateandorganizehimselftobeathomeanywhere.”84Thisisthe
refusaltoacceptthegivennessofthecommunity,theinsistenceontakingtheindividualas
anatomicunitdefinedmorebyhisactivecontributionthanhispassivereceiptofcollective
values.Thecommunityisjustanemergentbyproductofindividualeffort.Theindividual
can(indeed,must)beusefultothecommunitybecausethecommunityisstillalwaysbeing
broughtintobeing,aresultoftherelianceofitsmembersupononeanotherintheir
usefulness.Onlythecommunityitselfisnotaproductofintentionaldevotion,butrathera
byproductoftherightindividualcommitments,abandofadaptablepeoplewhohave
adoptedtherightrelationshipofusefulnesstooneanother.85Again,Lenardoprovidesa
83TheEuropeancolonyisdistinguishedbythefactthatitdiscards(touseCliffordGeertz’sterm)the“thickness”oflong-accumulatedtrailofsettledEuropeancustomsandsocialsystems.OneofLenardo’sassociateswhowillleadthiscolonydeclaresthatitisEurope’sdeephistoryandtangleof,habits,customs,settleddispositions,andbordersthathavepreventeditfromalteringitself.TheEuropeancolonywelcomeshistoryasacleansingforcethatwipesawaythesesettledfoundations(seeBook3,Chapter12).84368(W),390(T)85Ibid.
115
physical,constructivemetaphorbetweenthecommunity’sindividualparts:“Allusefulmen
shouldstandinrelationtooneanother,asthebuilderlookstothearchitect,andthelatter
tothemasonandthecarpenter.”
Inaccordancewithanotionofcommunityasaspontaneous,emergentproperty,the
idealsofjustice,morality,andvirtueintheNorthAmericancolonyareconcernedprimarily
withproto-libertariancoordinationandnon-interferencebetweenitsindividualmembers.
86AformofChristianityispracticed,inorderto“teachourchildren,fromyouthon,about
thegreatbenefitsithasbroughtus.”87“Ourmoralteachings,”Lenardodeclares,are
“entirelyseparate”fromreligionand“purelypragmatic,encapsulatedinthismaxim:
“moderationwherethereischoice,industrywherethereisnecessity.Leteveryoneput
thesewordstouseinhislifeinhisownway…”
Themembersofsocietycomeintoarelationshipwithoneanotherinthesensethat
theyareallpartsofthesamemetaphoricalbuilding,eachplayingapartinholdingupthe
whole.“Societyremainsthecapableman’shighestneed,”Lenardodeclares.Buthemeans
thisinthesensethat“thebuilderlookstothearchitect,andthelattertothemasonandthe
carpenter.”Thepoliticsofthecolonywillbeaformofanti-politics;thecorrectanswerto
questionsofjusticeandrightaredecidedthroughakindofsocialmeasurement,byrefined
techniquesofcarefulconstructionratherthanongoingprocessesofdeliberation.Indeed,
Lenardo’sultimateaspirationistoleavebehindthequestionofthesocialentirely,marking
86Inasocietythatisconcernedaboveallwithcoordinatingaboutmeansratherthandeliberatingaboutends,themanagementoftimeisamongthemostparamountvirtues.Thecolonycontainsclocksthatregimentthedayswork,“whichallmarkthequarterhourswithbothhandsandtime,”378-79(W),405(T)87AsLenardolaysout,the“originandhistory”ofChristianityareconsideredlessimportant,onlytaughtinadulthood,ifatall.Thisismuchlikethe“PedagogicalProvince”thatWilhelmvisits,andwhichservesasanothermajorsourceofemigrantstothecolonialproject.(Book2,Chapter1)
116
valueproblemsassettledonceandforallintheactofbeginninganew:“Theabiding
principleisthatwetaketheadvantagesofcivilizationwithus,andleaveitsevilsbehind.”
ThisisLenardo’sview:historyreducedtoasetofpracticalbest-fitproblemsbetweenthe
availabletools(historicalformsinthepast)andanunlimitedhorizonoffutureconditions.
Byreducingandabstractingoutthemoral,political,andexistentialdreadcreatedby
historicalupheavals,thedisorientingqualityofhistoryisreducedtothelevelofa
managementproblem.
NeartheconclusionofLenardo’svisionaryspeechabouttheorganizationofthe
emigrants’guild,hemakesashortbutradicalclaimaboutthepreparationofeach
individualemigrantfortheventureonwhichheorsheisabouttoembark.Inprinciple,he
argues,“noindividualcanachievecompleteclarity”aboutmattersofultimatesignificance.
Rather,inthisnewtypeofsocietytheyareabouttobringintobeing,hearguesthateachis
alreadypreparedtouprootthemselvesfromtheirhomelandandcommittothenew
venturebecause“oursociety…isbasedontheprinciplethateachshouldbeenlightened
accordingtohiscapacitiesandpurposes.”88Inexchangeforabandoninganycommitment
toknowledgethatwouldtranscendimmediate,pragmaticsocialpurposes,theindividual
receivesthemostflexiblepossibleconnectiontothewhole:dowhatisuseful,andyouwill
alwaysbelong.Tobelongfullytothewholeandreceiveitsunconditionalsupport,the
individualneedonlyanswertowhatisrequiredofhimatanypossiblemoment.
Ironically,theprinciplethatpromisestheindividualwillalwaysbeamemberofthe
collectiveisderivedfromtheconstitutionoftheindividuallife.Lenardoagain:“aman,we
say,mustlearntothinkofhimselffreefromexternalrelations.Hemustseekconsistency,88368(W),390(T)
117
notincircumstancesbutwithinhimself.”Butinadeepersense,theindividualrenounces
anydependenceonconditionsoutsideofhimselfbecausethecolonydeniesthatthose
conditionshaveanypatternofhistoricalsignificance,besidestheimperativetoadaptto
newcircumstances.“Wemayviewourselvesasinvolvedinaworldconfederation,”
Lenardodeclares,becausehisprincipleofbelongingisequallyapplicableanywhere.
Historicalcircumstancesarereducedtothelevelofmereaccidentalproperties,whichare
themselvescancelledoutbytheoveralladaptabilityofthegroup:“Wehavenooneamong
uswhocannotusefullypracticehisprofessionatanymoment.”89Theprincipleofthe
emigrantputshimorherathomeanywhere,andforthatreasonitcanformthebasisofa
universalismwithinthevicissitudesofanyparticularhistoricalmoment.
Lenardowantstore-groundsociallifeonthebasisofitsessentialneeds.The
standardof“use”becomesanopportunitytoweighwhatismerelypleasingandinessential
againsttheoneessentialthing:toorganizearoundtheneedsandsurvivalofthewhole.The
purposeofthecolonyistobeginlifeoncemore,withonlytheseessentialthings.The
unforgivingnaturalstateoftheworldrevealsthatpoliticalandsocialdecision-makingare
justonemoreinessentialthing.Thecolony’sprinciplesarenolongerpoliticalor
theologicaljudgmentsthatmustbedefendedonprincipledgrounds,butratherexceptional
actsundertakenagainstthenecessityofmerciless“natural”conditions.Insteadofa
politics,ananti-politicaleconomismjustifiedbyscarcityandneed.Insteadofahigher
ordertotheworldthatgroundstheeveryday,theprecarityoftheeverydayrendershigher
thingssuperfluous.Andinsteadofaprocessofhistoricalchangethatwouldthreatenthe
89369(W),391(T)
118
distinctnessofawayoflife,changebecomesastimulusthatsetsindividualandcollective
lifeonitsproperusefulbasis.
Thecolonytreatshistoricalchangeasaproblemofmeans(howdoI/weadapt?)
ratherthanends(whatisthebasisonwhichweareadapting?).Changewillthreaten
nothingessentialfortheemigrants.Itmerelylaysthegroundworkforawayoflifebuilt
aroundmaterialandtechnicalrequirements.
ThecolonyofemigrantsisthemostradicaltypeofcommuneintheWanderjahre,an
answertotheproblemthathistoricalchangeposestosettledvaluesanddistinctwaysof
life.Thecolonyrecognizesthattheindividualisfundamentallyindependentfromthe
community,withavoluntaryrelationshiptoit.Thecommunitywillthereforebegrounded
onthecontingentrelationshipbetweenindividualpartandsocialwhole.Lenardo
recognizesthatthereisnolongeranythingessentialabouttheindividual’sconnectionto
anyparticularwayoflife.Thepolarityofdependenceisthereforereversed.Societymay,as
Lenardosays,“remainacapableman’shighestneed,”butnowtheindividualhasbecome
theunitbywhichsocietywillbeconstructed.Communitieswillbeformedanddissolvedon
thebasisoftheindividualdecisiontoenterintoassociationwithoneanother.Inthis,the
basisofthecolonyhasthesameessentialstructureastheothercommunities(Joseph,the
Weavers)inthenovel.
Fortheemigrants,theacceptableformoflifeistheonethatwillinglybreakswith
anyandallintact,inheritedtraditions.Theessenceoftheemigrantisthatheorshe
voluntarilytakesonthetypeofsocialdisembeddingthat—inrealhistoricalterms--was
alreadyunderwayinthenineteenthcenturyasaresultofinstabilityinEuropeancollective
structures,eventsthatGoethehimselfwitnessedoverthecourseofhislife:changestothe
119
modeofproduction,theoutbreakofwar,andthedestructionofsettledsocialpatterns.90In
thisrespect,theemigrantrepresentsonemomentousforkinachoiceframeworkthatthe
Wanderjahrelaysout:eithertheindividualembracestheeffectsofhistoricalchange,orhe
seeksaspaceofsocialrefugeandrefusestoaccedetoitsmovements.Theemigrantwillbe
theformer,theonewhomastershistoricalchangebyrenouncinghisorherdependenceon
moribundsocialstructuresandfixedtraditionsofthepast.Thelatterpossibility—a
collectivepatternoflifethatmakesbothindividualandcommunityresilientinthefaceof
historicalchange—isthetopiconwhichthefinalsectionofthischapterwillconcentrate.
Thisisthealternativerepresentedbythecommunityofweavers.
Atthisstage,weshouldmomentarilystepbackfromourstudyofthespecific
communitiesandattendtotheformofindividualismthathasstructuredthischapter.This
studyis,atitsbase,anattempttogiveasystematicaccountoftheindividualasa
theoreticallyseparableunitofactionandanalysiswithinthenovel.IntheWanderjahre,the
individualisabeingwhopossessesbothconceptualandsocio-historicalindependence
fromthenovel’ssocialforms.Iofferthispropositionfirstandprimarilyasaformal
analyticalprinciple.Thisallowsustogiveadegreeofordertoanovelthat,throughits
“archival”structure,presentsitselfinahighlydisorderedfashion.Wecanenforcealogicon
thenovel’ssurfaceappearanceoffragmentationifweframetheWanderjahreasaproto-
ethnographicaccountofthe“wanderings”ofitsmanycharacters:primarily,theitinerant
trajectoryofitsmaincharacter,Wilhelm,butalsohismanyotherassociates(e.g.,Lenardo,
90See,forinstance,Goethe’sUnterhaltungendeutscherAusgewanderten(ConversationsofGermanRefugees),whichhecomposedin1795whilesimultaneouslyatworkontheLehrjahre.
120
Montan,Makarie)alongtheway.Tobeinapositiontoobserveandcreateanethnographic
account,tohavethedistancefromthesourcesofauthorityandobligationinanygiven
communitytodistillitsworkingsandessentialfeatures,alreadypresumesadegreeof
independentfunctionalitybetweentheindividualandsociallife.Whetherornotthe
individualisanobserveroraparticipantinagivenformofcommunity,thelogicof
individualself-constitutionhasruledthroughoutmydiscussionofthenovel.Toputthis
pointdifferently,theWanderjahrewouldhavebeenimpossibletowritewithoutatypeof
characterwhopossessesadegreeofself-actualizingpossibilityquaindividual,distinctand
separatedfromanyfixedgroupidentitythatheorshemightcarrysimultaneously.While
Wilhelm,Lenardo,andotherswanderinanoutofthemanycommunitiesinthenovelto
learnsomethingaboutaspecificwayoflife,theirobservationsare,onamorefundamental
level,aboutaninternaldialoguethattheyhavewiththemselves.Thisdialogueconcerns
theirdevelopmentasindividuals,aboutwhotheyhavebeenandwillbecomeasfully
realizedselves.Thesystematicdevelopmentoftheindividualwithinthenovelprovidesa
logicofunityandstructuretoitsotherwiseepisodicpresentation.
TheWanderjahremustpresentadisorganized,disconnected,stitched-together
appearancebecauseitsnovelisticstructureisbaseduponthepropositionthatthe
individualandhisorhersocialcontextarenolongerinhistoricalalignmentwithone
another.Byfragmentingintoanewkindofnovel,itreflectsthefactthatEuropeansocial
lifehasbecomeincreasinglyunstable,andthatthesenseofafixedgrounduponwhichthe
individualstandsisnolongeravailable.Thenovel’sfictional“editor”isoneconfirmation
thatthisnewhistoricalconditionrequiresanequallynewsetofformalinnovations.
Insteadofa“natural”or“realistic”presentationofaseamlesslyinterconnectedsocial
121
reality,theeditorconfirmsthatwhatweareabouttoreadistheproductofasetof
individuallychosencriteria,standardsinternaltohisownuniverseofconcernsthatare
nevermadetransparenttothereader.Andso,whilemyanalysishasbeenprimarily
focusedupontheanalyticalpowerthatanotionofindividualismgivesusovertheformal
interconnectionsofthenovel,Ihavealsorelieduponasetofhistoricalclaimsthatlend
textureandcredibilitytomyformalclaim.Thehistoricalclaimexpressesanessential
condition:theexperienceoftheindividualismarkedbyaninvoluntaryhistoricalrupture
betweenpartandwhole,bytheindividual’sdisquietingdiscoverythatheorshehasbeen
disembeddedfromfixedsocialcontextsandobligations,tossedouttofindanotherwayof
living.
Mystudybeginswithaclaimabouttheindividual’sdisconnectionfromsocial
context,butitisdrivenbyaconcernforhowthisdividemightbebridgedand,asitwere,
“healed.”ToborrowwordsfromLenardo,“societyremainsthecapableman’shighest
need.”WithintheWanderjahre,thelossoftheindividual’sconnectiontothecommunity
presentsitselfasaproblemthatissolvablethroughhumaninsight.Itwillrequirethe
reorganizationofcommunallifearoundanewversionoftheindividual.Itscharactersmay
notbeableto“return”toacollectivelifecharacterizedbyindividualharmonywiththe
whole,buttheywill,perhaps,beabletomobilizethemselvesintocollectivestructuresbuilt
forthesortofindividualismthatisnowinextricablefromtheirsenseofself.Thisishowwe
arrivedattheconceptofvocationandthemetaphorofmembershipinaguildofskilled
craftsmen.Vocationlinkstheproblemsofself-constitution(forWilhelm:whatisthe
activitythatisdefinitiveofmyessentialself?)andsocialobligation(whatactivitybrings
meintoarelationshipwithothers?).IntheWanderjahre,anotionofvocationiswhat
122
allowshighlyidiosyncratic,otherwiseindividualisticcharacterstoenterintoarelationship
withoneanother.Byansweringtoboththeessentialquestionsofself-definitionandsocial
obligation,thevocationalsearchexpressestheriftthathasarisenbetweenindividualand
community,andsuggestsastrategythroughwhichthisriftmightbemitigated.
Theguild—anditsapprenticeshipsystem—arethehistoricalmodelforthis
vocationalideal.Initsidealform,thecraftguildrepresentsabalancebetweenindividual
self-sufficiencyandsocialobligation.Asametaphorforsociallifeingeneral,theguild
suggeststhatsociallifeshouldbemarked,first,bybodilyengagementwiththematerially
sustainingfunctionsofthecommunityand,second,byacommitmenttoritualsthat
reinforcethecommitmentoftheindividualconsciencetothefunctionofthesocialwhole.
Thisisthespecificmodelthatthecommuneattemptstorealizeacrossabroadrangeof
socialcontextsandsituations.IneachofthethreespecifictextualexamplesthatIhave
chosen(St.Joseph’sretreatintothearchaicstabilityofmountainprimitivism,thecolonists’
enterprisingandfuture-orientedadventurism,theweavers’searchforaharmonious
balancebetweenstabilityandeconomy),communityoperationalizesaversionofthe
vocationalidealforitsownpurposes,toforgeasenseofindividualidentificationwiththe
whole.Vocationwillbethemodelthatbendstheindividualbacktowardcollectivelife,and
thecommuneattemptstoforgea“secondnature”ofsocialpurposes,obligationsandduties
that,bydefault,nolongerpresentthemselvestotheindividualinanaturalizedform.
Aconceptofnature—“first”nature,”“second”nature,ornatureotherwise
imagined—isimplicitinthisargument.Eachcommunitydefinesboththeindividualand
collectivestructures,eitherinharmonywithorinoppositiontoaconceptofa“natural”
good.ForJoseph,thisnaturalgoodistheweightofthepast,agiving-intothemesmerizing
123
powerofatraditionthatisassolidandapparentasthesimplematerialrequirementsofhis
lifeinthemountains.Theemigrantsdefinethemselvesinoppositiontonature,asthe
epitomeoftheanti-natural,aconstructivistunderstandingofthegood.Theirgoodisan
eminentlyhumancreation,aninfinitelyproteanunfoldingofself-definedendsthatare
alwaysmorepowerfulandlife-affirmingthananythingthathasalreadybeengiventothem
bypastgenerations.Andfinally,fortheweavers—towhomwenowturn—thegoodof
natureisamediatingforce,aninheritancefromthepast,butalsoaguidetoanuncertain
historicalfuture.A“natural”goodiswhatcanbereliedupontoprovidethebalance
betweenthedemandsofthehistoricalmomentandthepermanentfeaturesoftheir
communityasawayoflife.
DynamicTraditions:TheWeavers’Commune
Theweaversareacommunityofproto-capitalistictextileworkersthatLenardo
encountersduringhistravelstodiscoverandrecruit“useful”membersforhisemigrant
band.WilhelmislatergivenajournalofLenardo’sobservationsaboutthetimehespent
withthem,piecesofwhichthenovel’seditorselectsfromthearchivetoincludeinthe
primarynarrative.Lenardo’sjournalsrecountseveraldaysspentincloseinterchangewith
theweavers,whereheisguidedthrougheverystepoftheproductionprocessandgivenan
overviewoftheirprinciplesandthesignificanceoftheirwayoflifebyhismysteriousguide
Susanna.91
91WhileLenardo’sostensiblemotiveforvisitingthecolonyisobservationoftheirwayoflifeandrecruitmentof“useful”members,heinfacthasafarmorepersonalstakeinthevisit.WilhelmhadpreviouslygivenLenardowordduringhisowntravelsthataromanticinterestofLenardo’s,Nachodine,hadbeenlocated.
124
WhatLenardofindsandrecordsisaPietistreligiouscommunitybuiltaroundone
particularhistoricalstageoftextileproduction:apiecework,home-andfamily-based,
intensivelyhandwork-driven,deeplycooperativeandprosocialformoflabor.Theweavers’
modeofproductionreceivesdivinesanctionthroughitsgroundingintheirreligious
beliefs,aswellastheblessingofnaturethroughthefamilyastheunitofproduction.
Lenardovisitsthecommunityatamomentinwhichamoreadvancedstageofcapitalistic
productionandanunrelentinglogicofefficiencyandautomationarebeginningtocast
doubtonthecommunity’sveryviabilityasawayoflife,aproblemthatwillbecomean
overwhelmingtopicofangstfortheweaversbytheendofLenardo’stimethere.
Theessentialaspectoftheweavingcolonyisthatithas,forthemoment,createda
wayoflifethatintegratesthesocialandconceptualdemandsofthereligiouscommunity
withaparticularsetofmarketforces.Theirroleintheproductionprocessistotransform
cottonthathasjustbeenharvestedintofinishedfabrics.Therawmaterials,receivedby
meansofacrudesupplychainofportersanddonkeys,areworkeduponbytheweaversin
successivestagesuntiltheyarereadyformarket,atwhichpointthefinishedgoodsare
placedonboatsandleavetheweavers’possessionforever,exchangedinamonetary
economyforotherusefulgoodsandservices.Bothmetaphoricallyandliterally,the
weaversdonotliveashighinthemountainsasJoseph,whoaspirestoprovideforhimself,
end-to-end,inastateofmaterialandideologicalindependencefromhistoricalforces.Nor
aretheyasventuresomeandasadaptableasthecolonyofemigrantsinthelowlands,
NachodinewasamemberofatenantfarmingfamilyexpelledfromLenardo’suncle’sestateoveranunpaiddebt.Originallynick-namedthe“Nut-BrownMaid”whenshelivedonhisuncle’sestates,Lenardograduallycomestotherealizationthathisguidewithintheweavers’colony,“Susanna”isinfactthelong-lost“Nut-BrownMaiden.”
125
wherethearrangementofsocietyandtheindividual’sviewoftheworldarecompletely
subjectedtothedemandsofproductiveeconomicactivity.Rather,theweavers’colonyisa
boldwageronamiddleground,afaiththatthecorrectwayoflivingintheworldwill
unlockadeeper,harmoniouslockstepwiththelogicofhistoricalchange.Ifevenhistorical
changehassomenaturalconstants,ultimatelymovingaccordingtotheworkingsofa
benevolent,divinehand,thentherightorganizationallowsthecommunetolivein
synchronizationwithboththebenevolenthandofchangeandthelawsofdivineconstancy.
Theweavershavediscoveredawayoflifethataffirmsnotonlytheirhigherpurposes,but
theeverydayorganizationoftheirmaterial,productiveexistence.Intheirhistorical
moment,theyseemtohavearrivedataformofeconomicproductivitythataffirmsthe
organizationofthecommuneanditsreligiouswayoflife.
InthetimethatLenardospendswiththeweavers,whatstrikeshimisthesenseof
purposewithinthecommunity,theconfidencethattheireverydaylifemanifestsbotha
higher(religious)purposeandacodeforeverydaylife.Theweavers’colony,accordingto
Lenardo’sobservations,isaplacewhere“simplehandiwork”ispracticed,andwhere
“strengthandfeelingoperateinunison.”92Thewiderpurposeandsocialsignificanceof
theirworkisapparentateverystageoftheweavingprocess,andinhowLenardo
representstheminhisjournals:allmannerofquotidiandetailsabouttheproductionofthe
yarn,fromthetransportandreceiptofrawmaterialstoexhaustivetechnicalprocessofthe
spinningtoitssaleatmarket,testifytothefactthatthisformofproductionisopento
92Wanderjahre,332(Winston),337(Trunz)
126
immediatehumanrecognitionandunderstanding.93Nottheeffacementofproductive
activitybyawideningscaleofeconomicproduction,buttheconnectionofthebodyand
senseofhumancontextfortheprocessoflabor.
TheweavingthatLenardodescribesisafamilyoperationconductedattheunitof
thehousehold.Parentsandchildrenparticipateintheworktogether—indeed,itishow
thetradeisnormallyinstructed.Thustheproductivecommunityarisesfromthebondsof
naturalcommunity.Lenardoobservesfamiliesworkingincooperativeunits,each
contributingwhatheorsheisabletointheproductionprocessaccordingtoageand
positioninthefamily.Authoritycomesfromthefamilialroles:patriarchs,matriarchs,
oldestsiblings,andsoforth.94Theweaversrejectanexcessivedivisionoflabor,choosing
insteadaformofskilledcraftworklearnedthroughtheinheritedbondsofapprenticeship
withinthefamily.Therearedistinctroleswithintheweavingprocessesasthemembersof
thefamilymatureandgrow,butnottothepointthattherelationshipsbetweenindividual
workersareshornfromtheirfamilialcontext.Itisawayoflifeorganizedaroundastable
setofnaturalunities:family,thesenseofbeautyandtranquilityprovidedbythe
93Majorportionsofthedescriptionoftheweavingprocess,whichwasonlyincludedinthenovel’ssecondedition,wereincludedverbatimfromfirsthanddescriptionsoftheseprocessesthatGoetherequestedfromhisfriendJohannHeinrichMeyerwhileMeyerwastravellingthroughSwitzerland.SeeTrunz’scommentaryon649,Bahr4-5.ThepassagesfromMeyerarenotablenotjustfortheirfrequency(seeBk.3,Ch.5)butinthedepthoftheirdetail.Thetransparencyofspecificworkprocesseswasessentialtounderstandingtheirwayoflife,animportantcontrastwiththeinscrutabilityofthemachineproductionthatcomestothreatentheweavers.94Certainworkinthespinningprocess,Lenardonotes,isbestsuitedtothosewithaparticularpersonalitytype(e.g.,“calm,carefulindividuals”),whileotherworksuitsthosewithaparticularframeorbodilyinclination.Eventheseeminglyunrelatedritualsofcourtshipandromancehaveaparttoplay.Abouttheprocessof“sizingandfanning”thespoolsofyarn,Lenardowritesthatitis“usuallylefttotheyoungpeoplewhoarebeingtrainedfortheweavers’trade,orintheleisureofawintereveningabrotherorloverperformsthisservicefortheprettyweaver,ortheselastatleastpreparethebobbinswithaweftthread.”(340,[W],350[T])
127
surroundingmountains,andproductivecommercialinterchangewiththeoutsideworld.
Toenterintoitis,asLenardosees,tobeenvelopedbyaconcentriccircleofstableunities:
“Ahouseholdbasedonpiety,enlivenedandsustainedbyindustryandorder,nottoorestricted,nottoobroad,thebestpossiblematchofdutiesandabilitiestostrengths.She[Nachodine,theNut-BrownMaid,Susanna]isthecenterofagroupofmanualworkersinthepurest,mostoriginalsense;heredweltrestraintandfar-reachingeffectiveness,cautionandmoderation,innocenceanddiligence.”95
Theindividualwithintheweavers’colonyisnotexpectedtosearchforthespecific
vocationalactivitysuitedtohisorheraspirationsorabilities.Vocationisanoutcomeof
choosingthecommunityratherthanthetermforenteringintoit.Theindividual
relationshipwiththedivinehasthesamestructureastheindividual’sassenttotherole
assignedtohimorherbythecommunity:choosethiscommunity,andanaturalpathway
appears,boundedbytheintimatedependencieswithinthefamilyandthecommune.
Vocation,therefore,followsfromarediscoveryofnatureinthissetting.Theindividualwho
optsintothecommunitywillalwayshaveaplacewithinthenaturalorderthatthe
communityreveals.Whattheweaversachieveisanalignmentbetweenaconditionof
generalexpressiveindividualismandtheindividualisticnatureoftheirreligiosity.Ifthe
individualchoosestoenterintoadirectrelationshipwithGodinthespiritofthePietists,
thenheorshewillfindaplaceamongtheweavers.Anunsettledindividualismisgivena
placethroughthebasicchoicestructureofthereligion:choosearelationshipwithGod,and
aplaceinthecommunityfollows.
AlthoughLenardogivesnospecificdoctrinalortheologicaldetailaboutthe
particularreligioustenetsofthecommunity,theessentialchoicethatitposestothe
95341(W),351(T)
128
individualistoaccepttheguidanceofahigherpowerasitsorganizingforce.Indeed,the
memberofthecommunitywhogivesvoicetothegreatestdoubtaboutitsfounding
principles,Lenardo’sguideSusanna,istheexceptionthatprovestherule.Herskeptical
distanceallowshertoarticulatenotonlyitsfoundingprinciples,butalsotoseeclearlythe
existentialthreattothecommunityposedbymachineautomation.Thosewhoarefully
immersedinthedailylifeofthecommunearehypnotizedbyitsrhythms,gainingnosuch
clarity.Forthatreasonamongothers,theyarevulnerabletothemachine-basedproduction
revolution.
AsSusannatestifies,thesenseofimmediateunitythatmakestheweaversintoa
communityisalsowhatblindsthemtothenearlyinexorablehistoricalforcesatworkin
machine-basedtextileproduction.Thoughherpredictionsaboutthefuturearedire--even
apocalyptic--shealsosuggeststhatsheandtherestofhercommunityfeelparalyzedinthe
faceoftechnologicalrevolution.Thereisnoprincipleofinternaldynamismthatwould
leadthecommunitytorespondandadaptinresponsetothisupheaval.
Nachodinecallstheissueofmachineproductiona“businessmatter”(Handelssorge),
butitisabusinessquestionwithanexistentialurgency.Itisanissue“notofconcernfor
themoment;no,fortheentirefuture.”Shedescribestheproblemsintermsthatevokethe
demonicpaceandspeedofproductioninFaust’scolony,therevolutionizingeffectofthe
machinesisalmostdemonic,aforceofnature--”rollingonlikeastorm”untilit“strikes.”96
Likeanattackfromanenemyexternaltothecommunity,technologicalinnovationrisesup
fromtheoutsideandattacks.
96396(W),429(T)
129
Lenardoneverwritesthefinaloutcomefortheweavers,leavingbehindboththeir
wayoflifeandthepossibilityofapermanentreunionwithSusanna.Butwhattheincipient
ageofmachineproductionmakesclearisthattheweaversarenotorganizedaccordingto
principlesthatwouldallowthemtotransitiontoanewformofproduction.Theirwayof
liferequiresaspecificsetofmaterialconditionsandlaborrelationshipsinorderto
prosper.Inthisrespect,itsessentialcontrastwiththecoloniesbecomesclear.Theunityof
thecolonistsisanunlimited-scale,artificialsolidarity.Societyitselfbecomesaconstruction
project,amachinethatcreatesa“second”naturebyrenouncingadependenceonany
foundationalviewofnature.Theunitythatthecolonistsprizeisdeliberatelyartificial—
“use”iswhateverthegroupdefinesittobe—andtherebyitsownsolidarityregardlessof
conditions.TodrawonArthurLovejoy’sconcept,forthecoloniststhereisnogreatchainof
being,onlysuccessivelynewconstructiverelationshipswithinsocietythattheyestablish
forthemselves.
Theweavers’areineffectualinthefaceofanexistentialthreattotheircommunity,
thedifferencebetweenaconditionofnaturaldependenceandaconstructivist,artificial
notionofcommunityhelpstoframe.Inthismomentofdeepforebodingfortheweavers,
natureturnsfromnurturingforcetoanisolatingwilderness.Inthefaceofthemachineage,
thecommunitynolongermanifestsabenevolentandprovidingnature.Ithasbecomea
temporaryshelterfromalargerstorm.It,too,willfalterandbereplaced,inSusanna’s
telling,bya“primevalsolitude”(“uralteEinsamkeit”)thatliesbeneaththeactivityofany
particularwayoflife.Nature--”durchJahrhundertebelebtundbevölkert”—willbelefttoits
ownendsonceagain.97
97396(W),430(T)
130
“Icannotblameanyoneforthinkingofhimselffirst,”Susannasaysaboutthe
possibilitythatanyonepersoncouldadoptthemoreadvancedmethodsand“ruinusall.”
Laborhasbecomecompetitive,andtheindividualchoosesbetweencooperationandan
initiativethatbecomesantagonistictothewhole.ButevenSusanna,oneofthemostclear-
eyedandresourcefulmembersofthegroup,“wouldconsidermyselfdespicableifIwereto
plunderthesegoodpeopleandseethemfinallywanderoutintotheworld,poorand
helpless.”Therestofcommunityknowstheyareintrouble,but“noonedecidesonany
helpfulsteps.”Theycanonly“thinkandtalk,”exchangingmutualassurancesthathaveno
purchaseontheactionrequiredtomobilizeformachineproduction.Formost,the
connectiontotheunityofselfandcommunityintheexistingmodelisgreaterthanthe
forceofurgencytouproottheveryfoundationoftheirlabor.
Thehesitationshownbythemembersofweavingcolonyinthefaceofobvious
doomsuggeststheunfitnessoftheirwayoflifeforfullyindividualisticeconomic
relationships.Withouttheirconsent,theyaretransitioningtoanadversarial,proto-
capitalisticsystem,wherethedifferencebetweenindividualproducersismeasurednotin
termsofanaturalandfluidrelationshipbetweenrolesintheprocessofproduction,butin
alife-and-deathstruggleagainsttheother.Onlythosewhomobilizequicklyand
aggressivelytoacquireproductioncapacityonamassscalewillsurviveandcontinuetobe
mastersoftheirownfate.Thealternativetotheweaver’scommunity--toastableexisting
withinfixedculturalforms--iswandering.”Andsoonerorlatertheymustwander”
Nachodinelaments98Wanderingisnolongeratemporaryexperimentorpassageinto
98“Undwandernmüssensiefrühoderspat,”430(Trunz)
131
maturity,asitappearedtoWilhelmbeforehebeganhissurgicaltraining,butapermanent
wayoflife.Thosewhowillconverttomachineproductionbecomefounderswithintheir
owncommunities,effectivelyuprootingthemselvesfromitsexistingformsandinventinga
newonethatreplacesit.99
Thesameeconomicprocessesthatorganizedthecommunityaroundthefamilyasa
productiveunitnowthreatenstorelegatethoseproductiveunitstoabsoluteobsolesence.
Soonerorlater,thecommunitywillbedissolved,andwandering--whichbeganfor
Wilhelm,Lenardoandothersasaprovisionalstatusbeforeenteringintotheboundaries
andexpectationsofaparticularcommunity—becomeshistory’sbackgroundcondition,a
statusquothatthatliesbehindallotherfixedandsettledunities.
Thefinalconditionfortheindividualistobeturnedtowardorawayfromthe
community.100Thesettledunitiesandachievementsofeachcommunitydonotdisappear
entirely,buttheyareprimarilycarriedandrealizedindifferentwaysbyexceptional
individualcharactersinsteadofcollectiveprojects.
Ibringthethreeprimaryformsofthecommunetogetheroncemoreinthisformto
clarifytheparticulartensionIhaveidentified.Ontheonehand,thecommuneinthe
Wanderjahredescribesastandardformofsmall-scalecommunallife.Ontheother,it
99Beforeherfiancédied,NachodineconsideredemigratingtoNorthAmericawithhim,wherethemoreprimitivetypeofweavingpracticedbythecommunewouldstillbeviable.Butinhercurrentstate,anassistantofherswhoproposesmarriagewantstostayandtransitiontomachineproduction.Anotherambitiousmemberofanearbycommunethreatenstodothesame.100Goethemadenumerouseditorialchoicesinthesecond1829editionofthenovelthataffirmedtheimportanceofthewandererwithinthenovel.Bookstwoandthreeofthe1829editionconcludewithaseriesofaphorisms,“ReflectionsintheSpiritofWanderers:Art,Science,Nature”and“FromMakarie’sArchive.”
132
expressesaprogressionofsuccessiveforms,endingwiththe“modernizations”ofthe
colony:
Table5:OverviewofCommunesintheWanderjahre
CommuneNotableSymbolsandCharacters
FormalFeatures
Themes
MountainRustics
Ruinedchapel(caretakerrelationship)Lilystalk(“purity”)-Carpentry(“biblical”vocation)Huntsman(craftknowledge)SaintJosephII(imitation)
RecordedtoWilhelm’sfiancéeinlettersCommunityrestatespriorculturalandreligiousforms
AdequacyofsubsistenceCharitybetweenmembersInformalcooperationCommunalself-sufficiency
ColonialEmigrants
Wanderer/WanderingLenardoMontan
Detailsselectedaccordingtoarchivist’sdiscretionCommunityacollectionofthe“right”kindof(useful)individuals
Worldscale(“Weltfrömmigkeit)Use-valueFlexibilityFunctionalrelationships
WeavingCommune
HandworkSpinning/refinementof“raw”materialsNachodine(“Nut-BrownMaiden”)
Recordedfor“research”purposesbyLenardoinjournals,ethnographicaccountsCommunityanaggregateofprivatestructures(family)
Wholeisgraspablebysenses,intellectAssenttoprinciplesofwholebyprivateconscience“Natural”productivityBalance,harmony
133
AlthoughLenardodoesnotwriteaboutthefateoftheweavers’commune,inreal
historicalterms,therecouldbenodoubtevenforGoethe’sowntimeabouttheimmanent
ruinofcommunesliketheirs.Thebreakupofthiscommunityrepresentsadefeatforafew
notablecharacters(e.g.,Nachodine,whomLenardoentrustsasanassistanttoMakarie),as
wellasthedestructionofaparticularwayoflife,butwithintheWanderjahre’ssymbolic
topology,thebreakupoftheweavers’communesuggeststhatoneentiremodeof
communalorganizationisindoubt:thecommunitythatmediatesbetweenanindefinite
pastandanunlimitedfuture.Instead(herewelooktothecolonialproject)itwinnows
downtheopen-endednessofthefutureintoafixedstructure.Theimminentbreakdownof
theweavers’communeis,first,aretreatfromtheclaimthatthepasthasonthepresent;
second,itisabreakageofthelinkbetweenthemultiplesimultaneousrealitiesofthe
community.Thatis,thecommunityisneitherorganizedaroundahigherrealitythat
residesoutsideoftheeveryday(e.g.,Josephinthemountains),norisitstructuredwith
referencetoamiddlezonebetweenthehigherandeverydayworlds(e.g.,theweavers).
Instead,thefuturehorizon—thehorizonbeyondthearchive—belongstocommunitiesthat
areorganizedprimarilywithrespecttothemundane,everyday“worlds,”likethoseofthe
colonythatpersistinthralltotheeveryday.Thedrawofthecolonyisthatitcanstateits
purposes—forboththeindividualandthesocialwhole—insimpleterms:tobeuseful,and
toseekoutthingsuseful.Asweanticipatedinanearliermomentofthischapter,bytracing
thisprocess,wehaveidentifiedonepossibilityofasecularizationnarrativeinternaltothe
symbolicworldoftheWanderjahreitself.
134
Ishouldreiterateonceagainatthismomentthatmyreadingofasecularization
narrativewithintheWanderjahredoesnotascribeanyteleologicalorontological
determinismwithinthetextitself.Rather,whattheWanderjahreseekstodoistotraceout
theindividual’sbroaderexperienceofmultiplelevelsofreality,aswellasaprocessby
whichtheselevelsarecircumscribedandeventuallywrittenoutfromcollectivestructures.
Inshort,whilethenoveltracesthereorganizationofcollectivelifearoundan
everydayrealitythatisperpetuallyturnedtowardthefuture,onanotherlevel,itisanovel
abouttheindividualaswandererwithrespecttothisprocess:abouttheindividual’s
unsteadyandnon-linearrelationshiptoaprocessofsecularizationthateffacestheselevels
ofreality.Ifthesecularrepresentsanincreasinglynarrowsliceofawiderhorizonof
possibility,thentheindividualbecomesatleastapartialoutsidetotheactivitiesof
collectivelife,aremaindercontainingotherpossibilitiesoutsideofthesocial.The
wanderercontainstheorientationsthatpredominantformsofcollectivelife,withalltheir
boundariesandfunctionalspecificity,cannolongerintegrate.Theinwardnessand
freedomoftheindividualbecomesastorehouseofalternativerealitieswithrespecttothe
socialorder,andonedimensionoftheWanderjahrewillmapoutthesecapacities.
Theguildbuildsavocationalstructurethatallowsforthemultiplelevelsofreality
(astheyhavebeendefinedinthischapter)tobeunified.First,itsworktakesplaceinview
ofhigherforcesandpowers,theso-called“guildmysteries”thatremainoutofviewexcept
intimesofritualexception.Second,itprovidestheinstitutionalstructureforasubstantive
past,animmemorialtraditiontowhichthelaborsofthecurrentgenerationhavethe
relationshipofcaretakerandinheritor.Theanchoringpracticeofthesefeaturesisthe
materialityofguildlabor,thesetofbodilyandtechnicalpracticesthatforgeacollectivelife
135
throughsharedattentiononobjectsoflabor.TheWanderjahremapsthelogicoftheguild
ontothecommunityitself.Thecommuneaspirestorecreatetheguildstructureatthelevel
oftheentirecommunity;aflexibleformofcollectivelifethataccountsforbothhigherand
mundaneworlds;amixoftraditionandforwardmovementthatanchorstheindividualin
anenduringsocialreality.Intheoppositionbetweenwhatishigherandlower,whatisin
thepastandwhatisinthefuture,thecommunecontainsanimplicitnotionofabalanced
whole—abalancethatisinformedbytheneedsoftheindividual.ButtheWanderjahrealso
raisesthepossibilitythatanybalanceisessentiallyillusory,thatthelineofplot
developmentendingwiththecolonyprojectalsorevealsatendentious“modernization”
direction(inapejorativesense)withinhistory.Thecolony---atthesametimeboth
stultifyinglyconcrete(“societyisfunctional,abuilding”)andmeaninglesslyabstract
(“societyiswhatis‘useful’”)—offersupaversionofhistoryinwhichthepromiseofthe
vocationalpathtoasenseofthewholeisessentiallylost.Withinthecolony,vocation
becomesfunctionalassimilation;tobelongisneithermorenorlessthantofulfilla
particular,circumscribedfunction.
Accordingly,theindividualcarrieswithinhimselfthepromiseofvocational
fulfillmentevenasthesocialcontextfortheexerciseofvocationbecomesever-more
attenuated.IftheWanderjahrehasaresolutionratherthanamereending,thenitistobe
foundatthelevelofthefateandpersonalityofitsindividualcharacters.Wehavealready
beenintroducedbymeansofanalogytoatriadofcharacterswhosefeaturesmapontothe
levelsofrealitywithinthecommune.From“low”to“high,”respectively,thecharactersof
Montan,MakarieandWilhelmremainembodimentsofawholethatisnolonger
representablewithinanyspecificformofcommunityitself.Thisisastrangefeatureofthe
136
Wanderjahreinitsfinalsections:thepersonalityoftheindividualbecomesamicrocosmof
whattheentirecommunitynolongercontains.Theindividualdoesnotreachtowardan
idealthatexceedshim;rather,heorsheisanidealsuperimposedagainstanincreasingly
flattenedeverydayworld.Forthisreason,anovelthathasbeen,forthebulkofitsduration,
anethnographiccatalogofcommunalformsandsituationswillbe,byitsconclusion,a
catalogofeccentricindividualoutliers.Thenovelendswithanincompatibilitybetween
individualsatisfactionandcommunallife.Orrather,theinabilityofthevocationalidealto
achievesatisfactioninacommunalsetting.Indeed,thereisaperversereversalofsortsthat
thevocationalidealeffectsinthenovel’sconclusion:thecharacterwhoisthefullest
embodimentofarichvocationalideal(Wilhelm)willcontinuetobeseparatedfromthe
communalformsthenovelhascataloged.Vocation,whichwassupposedtobethe
conditionofintegrationintothecommunity,becomesthetermsbywhichtheindividual
exceedsandremainsoutsideofit.InthecharacterofWilhelm,thevocationalidealis
fulfilledinaconditionofseparationfromthecommunity.
Wilhelmisthesubjectofthenovel’sbrieffinalchapter,anepisodethatprovidesa
measureofsymbolicclosuretothevocationalquestion.Heisstill--forlackofanycontrary
indications—awanderer,havingchosennottoaffiliatewiththecoloniesoranyofthe
othercommunitiesthroughwhichhetravelled.Aferrypassengeronariverthatcutsits
waythroughasteepgorge,heisstartledoutofadmirationfortheviewbyamanon
horsebackwho,makinghiswayalongatreacherouspathway,suddenlyfallswithhishorse
intotheriverwhentheearthonthesteeppathcollapses.Whenthedrowningand
unconsciouspersonishoistedontotheboat,Wilhelmuseshismedicaltrainingtorevive
him,onlynoticingwithshockafterhehassuccessfullyfinishedhisworkthatthemanisin
137
facthisownson,Felix.TheonlyexampleofWilhelm’smedicaltraininginactionwillbethis
episode,undertakeninserviceofafamilymember.Wilhelm’svocationalpurposehascome
fullcircle:aresolutionthatbeganoutofapersonalloss(thedeathofhisfriendinthe
countryside)ispaidbackbythepersonallysignificantactofsavinghisson’slife.Thusthe
workthatWilhelmundertakeswithhistrainingwillnotbeanactofgeneralgoodwill,
exercisedwithoutdiscriminationonapublicbodyinthemundaneeveryday,butratheran
extraordinaryheroicact,madesignificantbecauseoftheprivaterelationshipbetween
practitionerandbeneficiary.InWilhelm,vocationretainsitspersonalquality,andthisfinal
episodeconfirmsanelementofseparationbetweenWilhelmandthepatternsoflifeinthe
community.
138
ChapterTwo:
GeorgeEliot’sVillageHumanismandtheLifeoftheNation
Bythelatterhalfofhercareerasanovelist,GeorgeEliothadarrivedatadilemmathat
couldonlyberesolvedthrougharisktoherhumanisticprinciples,adifficultythatwentto
thefoundationofwhatsheunderstoodtobethepurposeoffictionitself.Thischapterwill
considertheproblemsthatEliotrepresentedwhen,asawriterofnostalgicEnglishcountry
life,shesubjectedherprovincialnoveltothedemandsofauniversalizingChristian
humanism.ThisclaimshouldbeunderstoodwithinEliot’sfundamentallyethicalapproach
tothenovel,andwhatsheunderstoodastheendofrealism:torepresenttheindividual
conscienceinaction.Eliotdidnottaketheindividualtobeafirstprincipleofsociallife;
insteadsheunderstoodtheindividualtobethebearerofcapacities(e.g.,“sympathy”)that
definedthe“web”ofrelationships(touseMiddlemarch’sfamousmetaphor)thatwere
constitutiveofcommunityintheprovincialsetting.ForEliottheindividualwouldbethe
subjectiveexpressionofherhumanisticideals,butherhumanismwouldonlyreachitsfull
expression–andhaveitssignificanceappreciatedbyhercontemporaries–withintheform
ofcommunitythatIhavecalled“thevillage.”
ThepreviouschapterexaminedGoethe’suseofwhatIcalled“thecommune,”wherethe
termsofmembershiparedefinedbythestructureoftheinnercalling;theindividualis
boundtothecommunitybyhissenseofvocationalduty.Thevillage,bycontrast,isa
collectivewhosemostimportantfeatureisitsmembers’sharedsensorium—thatis,their
commonmaterialreferencesthatmakeupaneverydayreality.“Thereisnosenseofease
139
liketheeasewefeltinthosesceneswherewewereborn,whereobjectsbecamedeartous
beforewehadknownthelaborofchoice,”thenarratordeclaresatthebeginningofTheMill
ontheFloss.1Eliot’snovelswilloftenunderstandthevillageform,andtheconcomitant
formofindividualitythatitcultivatesintermsofatheoreticalprior,asahypothetical
startingpointthatisinaccessibletothepresent.Ifthecommuneisaformofutopian
communitydrivenbythecalltoconscienceandcommonactioninspiredbythevocational
ideal,thenthevillageismotivatedbyanostalgiaforthepast,whenanimaginarycollective
lifegathersaroundasinglesetofmaterialfeaturesthataredefinitiveofbothgroupand
individualidentity.2FromthisdescriptionitshouldbeinferredthatIdonotdescribethe
villageasahistoricalconstruct,butasatechniqueforcreatingaparticulartypeofillusion.
InEliot’scasethisisaformofrealismabouttheindividualcapacityforsympathy.The
villagesofHayslope(AdamBede),St.Ogg’s(MillontheFloss)andMiddlemarch,tocitejust
afewexamples,describeaworldwheredetailisrevealedbytheexchangeofsympathy,by
areferencethroughcommonobjects.IdescribehowEliotusesthevillageasacontrolling
figuretounderstandtheforcesofsocialdisaggregation.Thisdisaggregation,shewould
show,ledtoanabstractionofthesympatheticrelationshipsthatwereintegraltoher
humanism.
1GeorgeEliot,TheMillontheFloss,ed.GordonS.Haight,OxfordWorld’sClassics(Oxford,NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2008),151.
2ThearchitecturalhistorianGregStevensondefinesthevillageasthesmallestformofcommunitythatstillcontainsspacesharedincommon:“Todayavillageisunderstoodasacollectionofbuildings(usuallyatleast20)thatislargerthanahamlet,yetsmallerthanatown,andwhichcontainsatleastonecommunalorpublicbuilding.Thisismostcommonlytheparishchurch,thoughitcanbeachapel,school,publichouse,shop,post-office,smithyormill.Villagerswillsharecommunalresourcessuchasaccessroads,awatersupply,andusuallyaplaceofworship.”GregStephenson,“WhatIsaVillage?”(BBC,2006)
140
InthischapterIwillarguethatEliot’shumanisticaspirationswereconfirmedinher
representationofthevillage,butforcedtocometotermswithawideningofthescaleof
sociallifeintheformofthenation.Thevillageiswherethehumanisticpotentialof
sympathyisfullydefined.Itisthecommunitywheretheindividualisrealizedinhisorher
mosthumaneform.Butitisalsoephemeral.AsEliot’sprovincialnovelssuggest,itisvisible
onlyinthereconstructionsofretrospectivenostalgia.Intheabsenceofasharedmaterial
basisforlife,Eliotsawthepossibilitythatthesocialfoundationwouldblendintoan
enervatingformofmaterialism,wherethebasisofsociallifewouldbesubordinatedto
economic,bureaucratic,andinstitutionalstructures.Eliotwoulddevelopaninterestinthe
nationasamediatingcommunalform,betweentheimpossibilityofthevillageandthe
unlimitedcosmopolitanismthatshereadintobothpresentandfuture.Idevelopthis
argumentthroughaninterpretationofEliot’snovelofchangeintheEnglishcountryside,
TheMillonTheFloss(1860),wherethebreakdownofrelationshipsiscapturedbythe
disintegrationoftheTulliverfamilyattheirancestralmill.
Havingestablishedtheconceptualcategoriesandaestheticfeaturesofthevillageand
sympathyinMill,IthenreadtheparallelstorylinesofEliot’ssweepinglastnovel,Daniel
Deronda,asanexplorationoftwopathsthatshethoughtnationalismmighttake.Thefirst
isrepresentedbythenovel’s“English”subplot,inthemarriageandgrowthtomaturityof
theyoungupper-classwomanGwendolynHarleth,andthesecondbythenovel’sso-called
“Jewish”subplot,thatofthearistocraticDanielDeronda,hisdiscoveryandadoptionofhis
Jewishparentage.ThisisDanielDeronda’ssurprisingconclusion:themaincharactercomes
intoasenseofpurposeandmaturitythroughhisidentificationwiththestructuresof
historicaldescentrevealedbyhistrueparentage.Eliot’sphilosemitismpresentsadifferent
141
basisforthenation,andindoingsosuggestsherturningawayfromtheEnglishmodelof
sharedimagination.
I.
Eliot’snovelsdepictarurallifewhereindividualactionwasdiffusedintothemakeupofthe
socialworlditself.Thevillageiswheretheindividualisnottakentobeanagentwith
decision-makingpowers,butaparticipatoryforceinacommunitydefinedbyanaesthetic
ofcooperationandmutuality.Thevillagewassupposedtorepresentasocialethicrealized
initsmostcompleteform,butindoingsoitsacrificedthedevelopmentoftheindividual’s
capacitytojudgeinmattersofconscience.Thevillagediffusesconscienceinfavorofa
static,naturalizedsocialorder.Asothercriticshaveargued,thechoicetopresentan
idealizedharmonyofcountrylifeputEliotatriskofareactionarysocialorganicism,where
hernovelshavebeenaccusedofconstructinganahistorical,quietistruralfalsehood.3Itis
quitefairtocriticizeEliotfora“moral”approachtofictionthatshieldedherfroman
interestinmaterialismsorstructuralanalysis,butIwanttoarguethatthehistorical
unrealityoftheruralvillagewasdedicatedtotheproblemofsympatheticinclusionand
socialbenevolence.Inherlatework,thiswasaproblemthatsheexploitedtogreateffect:if
theindividualisnotembeddedwithinacommunitythatinspiresanimmediate
identificationwithasetofcomprehensibleends,then,byEliot’spsychologicalapproachto
realism,itfollowedthatthedirectionofthelife-coursemustsomehowbedevelopedfrom
within,throughtheindividualdevelopmentofcorrectjudgmentsandethicalcapacitiesthat3Foranimportantcritiquealongthisline,seeDanielCottom,SocialFigures:GeorgeEliot,SocialHistoryandLiteraryRepresentation,TheoryandHistoryofLiterature,v.44(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1987)
142
reconstitutetheendssuppliedbythecommunity–realorimaginary.Thevillagebecomesa
shadowversionforwhattheindividualcouldorwouldachieveinitsabsence;impossible
becauseitbearsnoresemblancetothehistoricalsituationinEngland,butnecessary
becauseitpresentsanintelligiblemodeloftherelationshipbetweenindividualandthe
community.
ItisinthecontextofasystemicemphasisonindividualismthatIwanttoconsiderEliot’s
Christianhumanism.Eliotunderstoodthatsociallifewouldbecomeincreasingly
dominatedbyamodelthatascribedastill-uncertainsetofrightsandpowerstothe
individual.Evenasshebecamesteepedinasocialscienceofherowntimethattreatedthe
individualasanatomicsocialunit,sheunderstoodtheeverydayindividualtobeanunreal
andaspirationalfantasy.Butunliketheimpossibilityofthevillage,individualismcouldbe
practiced,inculcatedasexpectationandpracticedintheanarchical,“real”historicallife
thatEliotobservedaroundher.4Theindividualactcouldbespontaneous,historically
indifferenttothepastinamannerthatanycommunitynevercould.Withoutsystematic
guidanceforindividualconduct,theindividualwouldberequiredtothinkandact
systematically.
Eliotunderstoodthatindividualswerenotessentiallydifferentthantheyhadbeenpriorto
thischange.Individualismrequiredthedevelopmentofcapacitiesthathadcomeabout
historically,cultivatedwithinsystemsandforhistoricalreasonsthathadlosttheirholdon
thepresent.ThiswasthepromiseofChristianityforEliot:asystematicwayofthinkingthat
4Forinstance,Eliot’scautiousexchangeswithFredericHarrisonandtheEnglishpositivisttradition.SeeTerenceR.Wright,TheReligionofHumanity:TheImpactofComteanPositivismonVictorianBritain(Cambridge[Cambridgeshire];NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1986),ChapterFive.
143
wasbothhistoricallytrue,butinitshumanisticform,decontextualized,freetobecomea
spontaneousprincipleofaction.Eliotbelievedthatahumanisticprincipleofactionhadthe
capacitytointernalizewhathadotherwisebeenanexternalprincipleofsocial
construction.Thatistosay,whatdefinedthevillageasacommunityhadtobecomepartof
theindividualconscience.Humanismhadtobecomethespiritualizedexpressionofa
communityleftbehind,ahistoricalcircumstancegivenendlesslifeasthebasisfor
individualism.
Thequestionposedbythischapter,then,iswhyEliotwasnotabletofollowthroughonthe
promiseofherownhumanism.Christianityinitssecular,humanizedformwassupposedto
makeanindividualwithanethicforallcircumstances.Instead,whatweseeinEliot’slate
workisaturnbacktoaformofcommunitycommittedtoitsownhistoricallyspecificpast.
WhatmustbeexplainediswhyEliotturnedawayfromherrelianceonsympathetic
imaginationinthepresent,theorganicethicofthevillage,andthe“virtualization”ofvillage
principlesonanationalscale.Instead–asintheJewishsubplotofDanielDeronda–the
communitywouldbebasedonaspecificcommitmenttoitsownexclusivehistoricalpast,
extendedintothefoundingofthenation.ThefinalentryinEliot’scareerasanovelist
becomesacontestforthefuture:betweenmoralcapacitiesandmoralcommunities.And
herfinalnovelDanielDerondadecidesinfavorofthelatter.
Letusfurtherdevelopthisproblembywayofanolddilemmaconcerninghermostfamous
novel,Middlemarch.Itssubtitle,“AProvincialNovel,”hasledcriticstodisagreeaboutthe
extenttowhichherportraitofcountrylifeelidedtheforcesofhistoricalchangethatroiled
144
England.5Wasthecountry,forEliot,amystifying,sociallyneutralizingescapefromthe
“real”Englandrepresentedby,say,anindustrializingManchesterorBirmingham(where
Marxhaddonehisresearch),orwasEliotsimplytakingadifferentviewofthesesame
forces?6
Eliotsethernovelsinthecountrybecauseitallowedforadegreeofescapefrom
contingenthistoricalforcesthatrendsociallifeintoopposinginterestsandforces.7Both
heressaysandhernovelscontaintheideathattherewassomethingromanticallyessential
aboutcountrylife,thatitwasconstitutivefortheproperdevelopmentofhumanpotential.
InTheMillontheFloss,shetellsthestoryoftheyoungMaggieandTomTulliver,beforeand
aftertheirfamily’sfinancialmisfortunesdislodgethemfromtheirancestralhomestead
nexttothefictionalRiverFloss:“One’sdelightinanelderberrybushoverhangingthe
confusedleafageofahedgerowbank”is“anentirelyjustifiablepreference”to“anyofthose
severelyregulatedmindswhoarefreefromtheweaknessofanyattachmentthatdoesnot
restonademonstrablesuperiorityofqualities.”8Thecountrysideprovidesanaesthetic
educationthatmaybeimperfectlyformed,butitisnotdesignedorimposed.Bythis
5ForaconciseoverviewofhowthechangesinlaborrelationswithintheEnglishcountrysidepresagedEngland’soverallindustrialization,seechapter5,“TheAgrarianOriginsofCapitalism,”inEllenMeiksinsWood,TheOriginofCapitalism:ALongerView,[New,revisedandexpandededition].(London;NewYork:Verso,2017).
6SeeTerryEagleton’scanonicalcritiqueofEliot’ssupposedahistoricalrepresentationofthecountrysideTerryEagleton,“IdeologyandLiteraryForm,”NewLeftReviewI,no.90(1975):81–109.ForamorerecentdefenseofEliot’sincorporationofhistoryintoMiddlemarch,seeHenryStaten,“IsMiddlemarchAhistorical?”PMLA115,no.5(2000):991–1005,http://www.jstor.org/stable/463266.ThevariousanswerstoEliot’sinterestinarealistichistorytendstoturnonadiagnosisofEliot’sundeniablyconservativetendencies.
7Eliot(1819-1880)andMarx(1818-1883)werealmostexactcontemporaries.Whilethereisreasontobelieveshewouldhavebeenfamiliarwithsomeofhismostwell-knownwork(hisCommunistManifestowaspublishedinEnglandin1850),shenevermentionedhiminanyofherpapersorletters.
8Eliot,TheMillontheFloss,152.
145
argument,thecountrywassuperiorbecauseitsvaluessimplypresentedthemselves,free
ofthestricturesofhumanintentionality.Sofarweareinwell-traveledcriticalterritory,
reviewingEliot’sdebttoaromantictraditionthatledhertofrequentlyidentifywithan
organicconceptionofsociety.9Fromherearlyintellectuallifeasanessayistandreviewer
intohercareerasanovelist,thecountryservedasanalternativemodeofhuman
organization,opposedtotheeconomicandpoliticalmachinationsthroughwhichthe
Englishsocietyagonisticallymadeitself–politically,deliberatively–intoamodernnation
andempire.
Thedeliberativeinstitutionsofthecity(law,markets,civiclife)contrastwithEliot’s
depictionofthecountryasazoneofimmediateself-identitybetweenthepart(e.g.,the
individual,theclass)andthewhole(i.e.,theprovincialvillage).Withintheorganicvillage
thepartsofhumansocietyaredistinctbutknowtheirrelationshiptothewhole
intrinsically,byvirtueoftheirconformitywithadeeper,“natural”orderonwhichthey
haveaprerationaldependence.10AsRaymondWilliamshasobserved,thereisan
ideologicalfunctiontothelandscapeinEliot,whichdependsontheaesthetic
harmonizationofconflictualandcontingentlyhistoricalsocialrelationships.11Williamsis
9Inoneofhermost-citedessays,“TheNaturalHistoryofGermanLife”(1856),EliotsignalsherownapprovalofacertainorganicconstitutionofsocietythroughasurveyoftheworkofGermanproto-sociologistWilhelmRiehl:“ThenatureofEuropeanmenhasitsrootsintertwinedwiththepast,andcanonlybedevelopedbyallowingthoserootstoremainundisturbedwhiletheprocessofdevelopmentisgoingonuntilthatperfectripenessoftheseedwhichcarrieswithitalifeindependentoftheroot,”inGeorgeEliot,“TheNaturalHistoryofGermanLife,”inEssays,ed.ThomasPinney(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,n.d.),288.
10OrganicsocialrelationshipsarethebasisforwhatIhavecalledthe“village”modelofsocietyinEliot’snovels.
11Williams:“AnotherwayofputtingthiswouldbetosaythatthoughGeorgeEliotrestorestherealinhabitantsofruralEnglandtotheirplacesinwhathadbeenasociallyselectivelandscape,shedoesnotgetmuchfurtherthanrestoringthemasalandscape”(emphasisinoriginal).InRaymondWilliams,TheCountryandtheCity,1stOxfordUniversityPresspbk.(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1975),168
146
surelyrightabouttheeffectsoftheagrariansetting,wherenaturaloutgrowthsandhuman
purposesseemtoexisttosupportandjustifyoneanother.Thisisexactlywhatcanbe
detectedinthedetachedbutstill-familiartoneofthenarratorwithinMiddlemarch.12
Without(yet)fullyconfrontingtheneutralizationofsocialdifferencepresentedbyEliot’s
organicism,wecancommentontheepistemologicalandethicalimplicationsofthevillage.
FortheinhabitantofthetownMiddlemarch,theirlocaleisalegible,spontaneously
knowableplace.Thetown’scompactnessasasocialunitprojectsthroughthefamiliarityof
itslandscape:“Littledetailsgaveeachfieldaparticularphysiognomy,”writesthenarrator
ofMiddlemarch,“deartotheeyesthathavelookedonthemfromchildhood.”13Thefield,a
siteofcommercialextractionformarketvalueaccordingtotheparticularpowerdynamics
ofthecountryside,becomesatimelessartifactwhenitisjoinedtotheorganicbodyofthe
community.
The“past”thatEliotcreatesinherfiction–a“recentpast”thatwouldhavebeenwithin
memoryofherreadingaudience,butfarenoughinhindsighttoallowforthesenseofbreak
withthepresent–isapastwhoseoutlinesarealreadyknownthroughthedesiresofher
readers,withadeliberatelymanufacturedfamiliarityandsimplifiedsocialrelations.14The
elementsofcountrylife(especiallytheWordsworthianpresentationoftheagrarian
12See,forexample,inasingleparagraphofMiddlemarch,themutualityofnaturalandhumanborders(“thegraygateandfencesagainstthedepthsoftheborderingwood;”)theuseofnaturalmetaphorsforhumanstructures(“strayhovel,itsold,oldthatchfullofmossyhillsandvalleys”)theresponsivenessofnaturetohumanneed(“thegreatoakshadowingabareplaceinmid-pasture;”)andvice-versa(“thesuddenslopeoftheoldmarl-pit,”usedtoobtainclayandsiltforbuilding,makes“aredbackgroundfortheburdock”plant).InGeorgeEliot,Middlemarch,ModernLibraryedition(NewYork:ModernLibrary,1994),98
13Ibid.,98.
14SeeFredC.Thomson,“TheThemeofAlienationinSilasMarner,”Nineteenth-CenturyFiction20,no.1(1965):77,http://www.jstor.org/stable/2932493.
147
workingclasses)areunderstoodtohaveadifferentrelationshiptotheirownpast,what
Eliotcallstheir“incarnatehistory.”15
Asamatterofrepresentation,Eliot’sprovincialnovelscontainsalocalistepistemology:to
knowathingistobecloseenoughtoittohaveseenitdevelopthroughpersonal
experience,tohaveafirsthandknowledgeofitspast,andtohavetheknowledgethatit
aroseaccordingtolawsofnature.16AsMiddlemarchmakesclearinthefailureofitsmost
ambitiousandmodernscientificsystematizer,theyoungdoctorTertiusLydgate,therecan
benoknowledgeofthingsingeneral,onlyofwhatiscloseathandtotheobserver.The
organicfunctionsofthevillage,foralltheirapparentabilitytoresolvingintractablesocial
differences,canonlyfunctionthroughthelimitationimposedbyborders.Thatis,astrict
delineationoftheknowable“inside”andthedifferent“outside”thatimplicatesitsobserver
inthecommunityitself.ThevillageofMiddlemarchmustcontainitsspecificinhabitants
andphysicalmakeup,evenasitiscanonizedwithinthenovelasavillagearchetype.
Eliotbelievedthatthesystematicapproachtounderstandingacommunitywaswrong
becauseitwassecondorder.Whatholdsthevillagetogethercanbefoundinhermost
famousandoftenobscuringmoral-philosophicalconcept:“sympathy.”Eliotexplainsinher
“GermanLife”essaythat“appealsfoundedongeneralizationsandstatisticsrequirea
15Eliot,“Essays,”n.d.,288.
16FromheressayTheNaturalHistoryofGermanLife(1856):“ThenatureofEuropeanmenhasitsrootsintertwinedwiththepast,andcanonlybedevelopedbyallowingthoserootstoremainundisturbedwhiletheprocessofdevelopmentisgoingonuntilthatperfectripenessoftheseedwhichcarrieswithitalifeindependentoftheroot.”Inibid.,288.HerpraiseforWilhelmRiehlisdirectedatthefactthathetookanempirical,earlyethnographicapproachtothepeasantclassesofEurope:approachingthemnotasidealtypes,butasobjectsofstudywithindetailedfieldwork.
148
sympathyready-made,amoralsentimentalreadyinactivity.”17Thisclaimcanbetaken
twoways.First,thescientificoutsider,forwhomthecommunityoperatesthrough
discerniblesociallaws,takestheoutcomeofthepeasants’sympatheticidentificationwith
oneanotherandmakesitintoa(falsely)generallaw.Asaresultthescientificobserversees
neitherthetrueessenceofthepeasants’relationship,northelimitationsofthe“law”inthe
localcontextofthevillage.Andconversely,fromtheinside,theinhabitantofthevillagewill
notrespondtoappealsfoundedondisinterestedrationality;tocommunicatewithinthe
villageistospeakaboutobjectsalreadyknown,thingswithwhichtheinhabitantshavea
relationship,i.e.,a“sympathetic”understanding.18
Thevillager’scognitivestyleisbasedonanunderstandingofthelimitsofreason.The
villagerknowstheworldthroughsympatheticidentification,byreferringallquestions
backtotheinvolvementofone’sownself.19Eliot’schoicetosethermostimportanthalf-
dozennovelsinthecountryside,then,couldbetakenasaclaimaboutaparticularly
valuableformofknowledge:itisanattempttogeneralizethevillage’sintrinsicallylocal
wayofknowing.Againin“GermanLife”shewrites:“Artisthenearestthingtolife;itisa17Ibid.,270.
18EliotcitesanexamplefromRiehlin“GermanLife”aboutthereactionofpeasantpopulationstopoliticalreformscomparedtothereactionsofthe“educatedtownsman:”“Theverypracticalviewsofthepeasantswithregardtothedemandsofthepeoplewereinamusingcontrastwiththeabstracttheorizingoftheeducatedtownsmen.ThepeasantcontinuallywithheldallStatepaymentsuntilhesawhowmatterswouldturnout,andwasdisposedtoreckonupthesolidbenefit,intheformoflandormoney,thatmightcometohimfromthechangesobtained.Whilethetownsmanwasheatinghisbrainsaboutrepresentationonthebroadestbasis,thepeasantaskediftherelationbetweentenantandlandlordwouldcontinueasbefore,andwhethertheremovalofthe“feudalobligations”meantthatthefarmershouldbecomeowneroftheland!"Inibid.,284.
19“Eliotshowshowthestanceofdetachedanalysisunderminestheindividual’smoralcharacterandresponsiveness,andalsoproducesfalseformsofknowledge.TheidealofparticipantobservationinRiehlisthenpresentedbyEliotasasolutiontoboththemoralandepistemologicalconsequencesofthisdangerousdetachment.”InAmandaAnderson,ThePowersofDistance:CosmopolitanismandtheCultivationofDetachment(Princeton[N.J].:PrincetonUniversityPress,2001),12
149
modeofamplifyingexperienceandextendingourcontactwithourfellow-menbeyondthe
boundsofourpersonallot.”20Thenovelbecomesthebestexampleoftheproperlimitsof
knowledge.ThereisanimplicitrealismtoEliot’sformulation:thenovelisakindofsystem
forknowingthingsastheyreallyare,totheextentthatthesamesympatheticrelationship
internaltothesituationalsoanimatesthesystemofrepresentationintherealisticnovel.
Thenovelbecomesaparadoxofsocialrepresentation:thevillage’sorganiccomposition,
withaconstitutionthatisresistanttobeingknownfromtheoutside,becomescapableof
representationinthenovelform.
II.
Ifthebreakdownofthevillage–theerosionofrelationshipsonasympatheticbasis–wasa
developmentthatEliotanticipatedonseveralfronts,Ishouldalsopresenttheclaimthat
Eliotnotonlyrecognizedanabstractive,systematizing,scale-expandingtendency,shealso
promoteditinherownway:inauniversalizingprojectrepresentedbyherdisillusionment
withtraditionalChristianity,andsubsequentlyinherspiritualrehabilitationasa“Christian
humanist.”
InJanuaryof1842,whenshewas22,Eliotmadethefirstpublicdeclarationofaprivate
spiritualcrisisbyrefusingtoattendchurchwithherfather.21Althoughshewould
eventuallyreturntoworshiponoccasionsinthefuture,thesignificanceoftheincidentis
reflectedinlettersthatspeaktoEliot’scommitmenttowhatsheunderstoodasthepurpose
20Eliot,“Essays,”n.d.,271.
21LetterbyRobertEvans,2January,1842.InGeorgeEliot,TheGeorgeEliotLetters,Yaleedition,vols.1(1836-1851)(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1954),124
150
ofChristianity,alongsideherrejectionofitsexclusiverewardsforadherentstoChristian
doctrine:“Icanrejoiceinallthejoysofhumanity,”shewritesinthesamemonthwhenshe
stoppedgoingtochurch,“inallthatservestoelevateandpurifyfeelingandaction.”But
“notwillIquarrelwiththemillionwho,Iampersuaded,arewithmeinintentionthough
ourdialectdiffer.”22Eliotwasbeginningtofallawayfromthedialectofherbirth
Anglicanismtowardamoregeneralrevelationoftheaffinitybetweenversionsofthe
divine.Thequestionthatpresenteditself–asitdidtomanyfreethinkersofEliot’sera–was
thenatureofthe“generaltruth”thatcouldbeextractedfromChristianity’sexclusive
claims.
WhatEliotarrivedatinherlettersboreafundamental,morethanrhetorical,resemblance
tothelanguageofsympathywehavereviewedabove:“agreementbetweenintellects
seemsunattainable,andweturntothetruthoffeelingastheonlyuniversalbondof
union.”23Theproblemofthegeneralreligioustruthpitsthelimitsofreasonagainstthe
translatabilityofthesympatheticbond.Asinthevillage,“true”knowledgeexistsoutsideof
systematicunderstanding.Wherethefunctionofsympathyinhumanisticpracticediffers
fromtheorganicconstitutionofthevillagebysympathyisthis:humanistsympathy
(Christianorotherwise)hasacapacityforunlimitedtranslation.Thesympatheticaspectof
Christianitymadeitsparticulartruthaccessibletoalmostanyperson.Itcontained
universalwisdomabouttheconnectionbetweenpeoplesofallreligioustraditions.Eliot22LetterbyGeorgeEliot,28January1842.Inibid.,125.SeealsothisletterbyEliot(2February1842)amonthlater:“Iregardthesewritingsashistoriesconsistingofmingledtruthsandfiction,andwhileIadmireandcherishmuchofwhatIbelievetohavebeenthemoralteachingofJesushimself,IconsiderthesystemofdoctrinesbuiltuponthefactsofhislifeanddrawnastoastoitsmaterialsfromJewishnotionstobethemostdishonourabletoGodandmostperniciousinitsinfluenceonindividualandsocialunhappiness.”
23LetterbyGeorgeEliot,9October1843.Inibid.,162
151
wouldgoontodevelopthisideaagainstthespiritualterritorialismofevangelicalreligion.
This,fromanessayadecadelaterthatwascriticaloftheprominentEnglishevangelical
preacherJohnCumming:
ButDr.Cumming’sGodistheveryoppositeofallthis:heisaGodwhoinsteadofsharingandaidingourhuman
sympathies,isdirectlyincollisionwiththem;whoinsteadofstrengtheningthebondbetweenmanandman,by
encouragingthesensethattheyarebothaliketheobjectsofHisloveandcare,thrustshimselfbetweenthemand
forbidsthemtofeelforeachotherexceptastheyhaverelationtoHim.24
WhatEliotunderstandsbytruereligionistheverybasisforcommunication
(“strengtheningthebondbetweenmanandman”)andsociallife.Cumming’sviolationis
notjustwrongonethicalgrounds,becauseitencouragesindividualstoturnagainstone
another:italsocontainsasubstantiveerrorinitsrefusaltoacknowledgetheontological
onenessatthebasisofreligioustraditions,afactthatEliotoftenanthropomorphizedinthe
patrilinealdescriptionoftheChristianfatherandsharedspiritualinheritance.25
Christianity’struthwasunthinkableoutsideofthespecifichistoricalandtheologicalpath
thatittooktoachieveits“mature”form,butnowthatthatformhadtakenshape,the
specifichistoricalformationcouldbe,moreorless,leftbehind.Bymeansofitsparticular
andexclusionaryhistory,Christianityhadyieldedgenerallessons.
Theseyouthfulformulationsofanti-religionwereofcoursenotoriginaltoEliot,butfew
youngintellectualsofEliot’spersuasionwouldcontributeasmuchtotheirdevelopment
24GeorgeEliot,“EvangelicalTeaching:Dr.Cumming,”inEssays,ed.ThomasPinney(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1855),188.
25Inaletterfrom28January1842:“IfullyparticipateinthebeliefthatonlyheavenhereorhereafteristobefoundinconformitywiththewilloftheSupreme;acontinualaimingattheattainmentofthatperfectideal,thetrueLogosthatdwellsinthebosomoftheOneFather.”Eliot,TheGeorgeEliotLetters,125
152
andspread.Justafewyearslater,herearlyconvictionswouldresultinastill-authoritative
1846translationofDavidFriedrichStrauss’infamousDasLebenJesu.26Theprolonged
encounterwithStraussfurthershapedEliot’shumanismasitdepartedfromChristianity.
Strauss’devastatinglycontroversial“insight”aboutChristianitywasthatitcouldbeboth
literallyfalse,inthesenseofgettingthedetailsofthehistoricalJesusfactuallywrong,while
alsobeingtrueonahigher,“mythical”ground.TheliteraltruthofChristianity,Strauss
asserted,reliedontheBible’sunreliableaccountofsupernaturaleventsandmiracles
duringthelifeofChrist,culminatinginaskepticalreviewoftheaccountsofmiracles
surroundingChrist’sresurrectionandascenttoheaven.Strauss’devastatingcatalogofthe
inconsistenciesinthehistoricalevidencemeant,inhisview,thatthe“historical”Jesushad
tofall.27
Asaresult,EliotreadinStrauss,anewrelationshiphadopenedupbetweenthetraditional,
“naive”believer(myterm)inreligiousrevelation,andthecriticalbelieverwhoretainsan
interestinreligionforitsmythologicaltruth.Thenaivebelieverlivesinaseparate
epistemologicalplane,wherebeliefexistsonthebasisoffaithalone.Criticismhasnothing
tosaytothebelieverwhobelievesoutoffaith,whilethecriticalbelievercanacceptthe
essentialtruthofChristianityonthebasisofahigher,“philosophic”admiration.28Religion
couldbe“true”forthecriticalunderstandingatthelevelofauniversalessence(an“idea”)
26TheLifeofJesus,published1835inGermany,translatedbyEliottoEnglishin1846.
27SeeHansFrei,TheEclipseofBiblicalNarrative:AStudyinEighteenthandNineteenthCenturyHermeneutics,Reviseded.edition(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1980),233-44foranexcellentoverviewofthehistoricalreceptionandtheologicalsignificanceofStrauss’work.
28DavidFriedrichStrauss,TheLifeofJesusCriticallyExamined,ed.PeterC.Hodgson,trans.GeorgeEliot,LivesofJesusSeries(Ramsey,NJ:SiglerPress,1994),757–58.
153
thatappearsinahistoricallyappropriategarbaccordingtotheepistemological
requirementsforunderstandingbyaspecificculture.29
Strausshimselfwouldattempttounifythegapheopensbetweenfaithandknowledge.In
thelastsectionofTheLifeofJesus,hearguesthatthehistoricalpastcanbesubjectedto
historical-criticalscrutiny,harvestedforphilosophicalinsight–andthehuskofitspast
thrownaway.Strauss’finaldeclarationthatcriticismmust“re-establishdogmaticallythat
whichhasbeendestroyedcritically”representedadouble-sidedswordforEliot.Onone
sidehe“saves”Christianitybydecouplingitstruthorfalsityfromthehistoricaltruthofthe
Apostles’accounts.Ontheother,heraisestheproblem(whichhisanti-foundationalcritical
methodisnotpreparedtoconfront)ofhowthe“idea”ofChristianity’spastcanbe
reconciledwiththeneedsofthepresent(outsideofdogma).
ButEliot’sinterestinthesacredstatusofthetextwastiedtoamoregermanequestionfor
herowncommitments:howtomakesenseofthedifferencebetweenspecifichistorical
truthsandgeneraltruthswithinanethicsofthepresentthatsoughttocultivatea
widespreadformofhumanisticconcern.WhetherornotanintellectuallikeEliotchoseto
discardthedivinenatureofreligiousrevelationentirely,Strauss’shistorico-critical
approachtobiblicalanalysismadeitfarmoreplausibletoconsiderthehistoricityofatext
thatclaimedtospeaktimelessly,separatingtheelementsthatwerenarrowlyconstrained
bycircumstancesfromthe“general”religiousphenomenonthatraiseditselfabovethe
29Ibid.,197.
154
meannnessoftimeandplace.“Noeducatedpersoncandispensewithsomeknowledgeof
theevidence,”Eliotdeclared,onwhichsacredtextswerebased.30
TheformoftheproblemthatwouldtroubleEliotwasthis:byattemptingtosaveatradition
fromwhatEliotwouldcallthe“extremeheterodoxy”ofhistoricism,theinterpreterputs
tremendouspressureonthemechanismthatsiftsthe“general”truthfromtheparticular.31
Tobesure,Eliotwasconfrontedbyinnumerablephilosophicalandhermeneutic
approachestothisproblem,perhapsthemostsignificantbeingtheprogressiverevelation
ofaHegelianismthatinformedStrausshimself.32ButEliotwantedtounderstandthe
problemsynchronically,asaquestionaboutthelevelofmoralimprovementthat
individualsmightachieveinherowntimeasaresultofacumulativegeneralsynthesisof
historicallyrevealedtruths.Eliot’sassimilationofthehistoricalproblemwastherefore
fundamentallyethical,amatterofthecapacitiesforindividualsympathyforone’sfellow.33
Whatwasatstakeinthedifferencebetweenanevanescenthistoricalmanifestationofan
30GeorgeEliot,“IntroductiontoGenesis,”inEssays,ed.ThomasPinney(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1856),255–60,258.OnestrandofthisproblemwouldcrystallizeintotheVictorianformulationofwhatcametobeknownasthe“faith-and-doubt”problematic,whichwillbeconsideredingreaterdepthinthenextchapteronHermanMelville’slongpoem,Clarel
31Ibid.,257.
32EliotlaidouttheHegelianapproachina1856essayonthehistorical-criticalapproachtotheinterpretationofGenesis,whichshecalleda“mildheterodoxy,whichallowsthepresenceofmythicalandlegendaryelementsintheHebrewrecords,andrenouncestheideathattheyarefrombeginningtoendinfallible,butstillregardsthemasthemediumofaspecialrevelation,astheshellthatheldakernelofpeculiarlyDivinetruth,bywhichamonotheisticfaithwaspreserved,andthewaypreparedfortheChristiandispensation.”Inibid.,257
33See,forexample,AvromFleishman’scharacterizationofherinterestinFeuerbach(whoshewouldalsotranslate):“Shecannothaveagreedwitheverythinginthebook,assheclaimed,”but“WhereshewasundoubtedlyinsympathywithFeuerbachistheethicalimplicationofhisidea:‘Theotherismythou,–therelationbeingreciprocal…Inanother,Ifirsthavetheconsciousnessofhumanity;throughhimIfirstlearn,Ifirstfeel,thatIamaman:inmyloveforhimitiscleartomethathebelongstomeandItohim,thatwetwocannotbewithouteachother,thatonlycommunityconstituteshumanity.’”AvromFleishman,GeorgeEliot’sIntellectualLife(Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress,2010),75
155
ideaandtheappearanceof“general”knowledgewasthepossibilitythattheethicalconcern
wouldrunupagainstahardlimit,aborderfortheconscienceofsomekind.Ihave
deliberatelyframedtheproblemintheseparticularrhetoricaltermsbecauseIwantto
suggestthatitwasexactlythequestionofa“border”betweentheindividualandthemoral
communitythatledEliottoconsiderthenationasacarrierforhumanisticideals.And,I
wanttoargue,itwouldbetheparticularcompromisethatEliotacceptedintheformofthe
nationthatwouldthreatenhergeneralhumanisminherlatework.
Thequestionofnationalconstructioncontainsaparallelconceptualdifficultytothe
problemofageneralhumanisticdoctrine.Itwasapparenteveninthenineteenthcentury
thattheconceptofthe“nation”hastoneutralizevariousformsofhistoricaldifference
acrosslocalitiesintoaconstructedformofgenerality.Thisconstructednessofthenation
didnot,forEliot,detractfromitsmorallydurableelements.Forexample,thebureaucratic
aspectofthestatethatEliotviewed,inGermanLife,asessentiallysecondarytosympathetic
concernbetweencitizensofthesamenation.34LiketheproblemconfrontingEliotthe
humanist,the“oneness”oftheaccountreliesonboththemanifestationofparticular
historicalandmaterial“facts”thatareresistanttosynthesisandontheunifyingresources
ofa(collective)capacityofimagination.35
34ThephilosopherErnestGellnerarguesfortheimportanceofinstitutionalstructurestonationhood,notingtheneedfor“politicallycentralizedunits,and”amoral-politicalclimateinwhichsuchcentralizedunitsaretakenforgrantedandaretreatedasnormative,"asa“necessarythoughbynomeanssufficientcondition”fornationstooccur.SeeErnestGellner,NationsandNationalism,2nded.,NewPerspectivesonthePast(Ithaca,N.Y.:CornellUniversityPress,2008),4.
35Forinstance,thelatetwentieth-centurytheoristofnationalismBenedictAndersonmakesacaseforthenationasaconstructionthatisalmostentirelyreliantonimaginativecapacity,notingthecontradictionbetweenthe“objectivemodernity’ofnationsversustheir”subjectiveantiquityintheeyesofnationalists,"andthe“politicalpowerofnationalismsversustheirphilosophicalpovertyandevenincoherence.”InBenedictR.
156
Inbothessaysandherlatenovels,Eliotprovidesevidencethatsheheldtwothoughtsin
tension:thatthenationrepresentedaunifyingimaginativeleapbeyondthehistorical
circumstancesofanyparticularlocale,andthatitwasaculturalformthatwasaesthetically
equippedtobeacarrierforsomeofthenovelist’shighesthumanisticaspirations.36An
accelerationofinterestandhopeplacedinthenationtowardtheendofEliot’slifecanbe
foundinherlastpublishedwork,theunconventional,ramblingun-EliotianmonologueThe
ImpressionsofTheophrastusSuch.Inthattextshewritesthat“thereisoftennomore
immediatehopeorresource”than“thatofstrivingafterfullernationalexcellence,which
mustconsistinthemouldingofmoreexcellentindividualnatives.”Eliotsuggeststhisis
bothanempiricalandnormativefactofEuropeanhistory.Thenationisahistorical
formationthatisboth“impossibletoarrest”andthesourceof“healthysentiment”thatis
“worthyofalleffort.”37ThishasledtotheclaimamonginterpretersofEliotthat,toward
theendofhercareer,sheabandonedordeferredtheuniversalistgoalsofherChristian
humanisminfavorofthenationasavehicleforawiderhumanconcern.38
Anderson,ImaginedCommunities:ReflectionsontheOriginandSpreadofNationalism,Revisededition.(London:Verso,2016),13
36ThisaccountwillprimarilyconsiderDanielDerondaandTheImpressionsofTheophrastusSuch,buttheconstructionofthenationwasalsoanimportantprinciplebehindtheanalysisofculturein“TheNaturalHistoryofGermanLife.”
37GeorgeEliot,ImpressionsofTheophrastusSuch(NewYork:Harper&Bros.,1879),227–28.
38Forinstance,BernardSemmelwritesinGeorgeEliotandthePoliticsofNationalInheritancethat“inhermaturethinking…EliothadbecomeconvincedthattheGesellschaftvaluesofindividualismandcosmopolitanismthatprevailedinBritishliberalcircleswouldimpairbothfamilyaffectionandsocialcohesion.Onlyanation,asocietythatshesawasbasedonfilialsentiment,perceivednationalkinship,andcommonhistoricaltraditions…couldprovidearealisticfoundationforcommunalsolidarity…Anymoreambitiousascentfromegoismtoharmoniousidentificationwithallofmanking,shecametobelieve,couldnotbemanageduntilaverylongtimeintothefuture.”InBernardSemmel,GeorgeEliotandthePoliticsofNationalInheritance(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1994),6.WithrespecttotheJewishcommunitiesthatwouldbecentraltoDanielDeronda,AlanArkushwritesthat“shehadarrived,intellectually,atapositionthatreconciledherhighestimationofthemoralefficacyofnationalconsciousnesswithherprognosticationof
157
ThischapterrejectsanaccountofEliot’snationalismthatunderstandsittobeasubstitute
forherhumanisticambitions.Rather,Iwanttounderstandthenationasadevelopmentof
theproblemofhistorythatisinternaltoherhumanism.AsIhavestatedabove,wecan
understandEliot’shumanismastheaspirationthatanhistorically-particulartruthwould
becomegenerallyavailabletoagivenpeople–ormultiplepeoples–regardlessoftheir
closenessordistancefromthatrevelation’soriginalhistoricalprovenance.InthischapterI
takethenationasoneofEliot’smostimportantexamplesofthegeneralizationofan
historically-specifictruth.39
Whatwasatstakeinthenationashumanisticcommunitywillbeseenthroughareadingof
twocompetingversionsofnationalinheritanceinEliot.Thisstudybeginsfromadefinition
ofnationalitywiththeEnglishvillageforminTheMillontheFloss,andendswiththe
comparisonbetweenEnglishandJewishnationalityinherDanielDeronda.Wewillseethat
Eliot’sEngland,asthe“villagenation”(myterm),isconstructedontheprinciplesof
imaginativeidentificationandsympathyinsmall-scalevillagelife.Millistheparadigmatic
accountofthisformofcommunityinitsromanticforminEngland–andofthesymbolic
downfallofthatform.HerlaternovelDanielDerondarepresentsanattempttoexplorethe
compositionofEnglishnationalityoncethevillagehasbeencalledintoquestion.Thisis
accomplishedthroughthenovel’scomparativepresentation.Derondacontainstwonations
constructedondifferentprinciplesandatdifferentpointsofdevelopment.Thefirstcaseof
itseventualreplacementbyoneoranotherformofcosmopolitanism”InAllanArkush,“RelativizingNationalism:TheRoleofKlesmerinGeorgeEliot’s"DanielDeronda",”JewishSocialStudies3,no.3(1997):61–73,http://www.jstor.org/stable/4467504,69
39Thisunderstandingisinkeepingwithaconstructivistaccountofthenation,wherehistoricallyrealizednationsexceedallcultural,institutionalandgeographicantecedents.SeeAnderson,ImaginedCommunitiesandGellner,NationsandNationalism
158
Englandisunderstoodtobematureandrealizedinpoliticalactuality.Thenovelimplies
thatEnglishnationality,initsmaturity,flirtswithdecadence.
ThecomparativecaseisrepresentedbyEliot’sintensivelate-careerinterestinJewish
culture,andherrepresentationoftheJewishpeoplesasasecondcommunityalongsideand
withinEngland.EliotunderstoodtheJewishcommunityasanunrealizednationinherown
time,anhistoricalfactthatgaveherampleroomtospeculateaboutthepathfromdiasporic
Jewishlifetoafuturenation.Derondathereforeoffersanalternativebasisfornationality–
andtheconditionsforthesuccessofanationmoregenerally.Thedifferencebetweenthe
EnglishandJewishformsofnationalityturnsonwhatIwillcalltheimportanceofa
“traceablepast.”TheEnglishvillage-to-nationhistoricalmovement,assheunderstoodit,
reliedonpreservationofsympatheticattachmentsevenasthesmall-scalecommunallife
thatproducedthoseattachmentswitheredaway.AsaresulttheEnglishnationrequiredan
imaginativeextensionofapastconditiontowhichpresent-dayEnglandhadadistant
connection.England,sheimplied,had(orwouldsoon)losetheabilitytotraceitsownpast
fromthestandpointofitsindustrialized,cosmopolitanpresent.InthecaseoftheJewish
peoples,bycontrast,thepastremainedenlivenedandimaginativelypresent,despitethe
effectsofgeographicdispersionandhistoricaloppression.Thebestexampleofthisisthe
titlecharacterofthenovel,DanielDeronda,forwhomthebestattemptsbyfamilyand
circumstancetoconcealhisJewishheritagewillprovidentiallyrevealthatpast.This
chapterexploreshowEliotdepictedtheerosionoftheEnglishnation’s“traceable”
character,inparticularwhenitiscomparedtothetraceabilityofthepastinafigurelike
DanielDeronda.
159
Iwillmakethisargumentthroughdetailedreadingsoftwonovels.First,IwillreadTheMill
ontheFloss(1860)asherpiecethatmostfullyconstructsthecategoriesofthefirst
possibilityrepresentedbytheEnglishcase,thenationasimaginativeconstruction.In
addition,IwillarguethatMillchartstheriseofa“materialist”basistocommunityasarival
thatthreatenstoovertaketheroleoftheimaginationasthebasisfortheconstructionof
thenation.Mill,Iwanttoargue,sketchesoutthebasisfortheimaginativenationinits
organicmodelofthevillagecommunity,andindoingsobringsanalternativeintorelief:a
materialismthroughwhichrelationswiththecommunitybecomeabstractedinto
“systems”ingeneral–obscuringtheorganic,experientialbasisofthevillage.40
TurningtoDanielDeronda(1876),Iwillarguethatitstwo-partstructure–an“English”
subplotanda“Jewish”subplotwoventogether–reflectsamatureunderstandingofthetwo
alternativesofnationhood.Derondaposesaproblemaboutwhichversionofnationhoodto
acceptagainstthewidercosmopolitanismofaEuropeanelite.IwillarguethatDeronda
resolvesitselfinthedirectoftheJewishsubplot,infavorofaninterpretationofJewish
nationalityandtheJewishhistoricalconditionwherebythesympatheticactofimagination
intheEnglishcaseproveslessdurablethanthecommitmentsfosteredbythenovel’s
Jewishcharacters.Judaismbecomesanational“Other”thatEliotcanconstrueasmore
favorable–andmoreessentiallya“nation”–thanthesituationofEngland.Withinthelarger
frameworkofEliot’shumanism,thisrepresentsatrade-offawayfromhistory’santi-
40Eliot’saversiontoabstractionwaswell-markedinhercriticalessaysintheyearsleadinguptohernovelisticcareer.Thisfroman1868essayonforminart:“Abstractwords&phraseswhichhaveanexcellentgenealogyareapttolivealittletoomuchontheirreputation&evensinkintodangerousimpostorsthatshouldbemadetoshowhowtheygettheirliving.”GeorgeEliot,“NotesonForminArt,”inEssays,ed.ThomasPinney(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1963),431–36,432
160
materalist,“generaltendency,”anemphasisontheparticularhistoricalcircumstancesofa
givenpeopleoverthegeneraltruthsthattheymightbequeathtoatheoryofhistoryand
humanisticinsight.
Eliot’sfictionaloeuvrecanbedividedbetweenthosenovelsthatareprimarilynegotiations
ofthetermsofgroupmembershipwithinprovinciallife,andthosethatconcerntheefforts
ofindividualstonavigatewhatIwillcallopen-ended,“cosmopolitan”situations.41Among
theformergroup,totakeanexamplelikeAdamBede,IwanttomakeclearwhyIamcalling
thisaprovincialnovel:thenarrativebuildsonasetofstablecharacterroles(clergy,gentry,
laborers)whoseimpetusforactioniseasilyapparent:anunmarriedwomanisboth
desirousofandeligibletobemarried,andthecourtshipinvolvessuitorsfromvarious
elementsofsociety.Theboundarybetweenprovinciallife“inside”thenarrativeandlife
outsidecanbeseen(asisoftenthecasewithEliot’snovels)throughtheplotdeviceofthe
maincharacters’exilefromthecommunity.Butthenovelconcludeswithanewsituation
(marriage,death,departure)thatwasalreadyrecognizableasapossibilityfromtheoutset.
Insummary,thedramaoftheprovincialnovelispremisedonthereorganizationofasetof
knownculturalpositions.42
Bycontrast,inacosmopolitannovellikeEliot’sRomola,thenarrativeisstillcenteredona41Myuseoftheterm“cosmopolitan”hereismeantinasenselikethatusedbyKwameAnthonyAppiah,whereeachindividualnecessarilypossessesareferencepointinsomeformofprovinciality–“ahomeofone’sown,withitsownculturalparticularities”–butispositionedinamannerthatisinevitablyledintoevaluativejudgmentsaboutotherwaysoflife(provincialities)thatarenotone’sown,“[takes]pleasurefromthepresenceofother,differentplacesthatarehometoother,differentpeople.”SeeKwameAnthonyAppiah,“CosmopolitanPatriots,”CriticalInquiry23,no.3(1997):617–39,http://www.jstor.org/stable/1344038,618
42SeeGillianBeeronMiddlemarch:“Sequenceandanalogyenrichoursenseofthekinshipofhumanlotsevenwhiletheyregisterwhatconstrictsanddetermines.”InGillianBeer,Darwin’sPlots:EvolutionaryNarrativeinDarwin,GeorgeEliotandNineteenth-CenturyFiction,3rded.(Cambridge;NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2009),https://catalog.lib.uchicago.edu/vufind/Record/8209631,170
161
single“culture”(thehappeningsoffifteenth-centuryFlorence),butitconcernsthe
movementsandreconfigurationsofmultipledistinctculturesthatexistinamorecoequal
peerrelationship.DanielDeronda,withitsmanysubplotsanddividedcommunities,
containselementsofthelatter.
ButneitherMillnorDerondaarecompletelyidentifiablewitheithertheprovincialorthe
cosmopolitanoption,becausetheclosednatureofprovincialsocietyinEliot’ssenseis
unimaginableexceptasanidealstateofretreatfromcosmopolitandisruption.Eliotcame
totheunderstandingfromStraussandFeuerbachthateachperiodofhistoryincludedself-
containedelementsparticulartoagivenculture’sunderstanding,evenastheseself-
containedelementsrevealedageneraltruthavailablefromthebenefitofchronological
hindsight.IfananalogycanbemadebetweenEliot’shistoricalstudytoherfictional
productions,theparticulardetailsoftheprovincearesowell-establishedbecausethereis
animplicit,coordinating“outside”(theanalogueofhistoricalguidance)thatisnot
knowable.Eliotsooftenmakesreferencetoanoutsideintheprovinces(e.g.,thedeusex
machinaofMill)toironiciseitwithcosmopolitansymbols.
Eliot’sprovincialzonesarealsolackinginself-consciousness.Thesemicro-culturesdonot
havewell-definedprogramsforrepresentingthemselvestothemselvesasadistinctwayof
life.Butfromthestandpointofthenation,asuperveningperspectiveofameta-culturethat
coordinatesmultipleprovincialitiesintoa“whole,”theyareonlyrepresentations.
Historicallyspeaking,intheVictoriandecades,asindustrialandmodernizingforcesgained
poweroverEngland’snationalculture,theinterestinrepresentingEnglishprovincialand
162
aristocratictraditionsreachedanewformofmania.43InTheCountryandtheCity,
RaymondWilliamsobservesthatonlysomenineteenth-centuryEnglishcommunitieswere
“knowable”intheiridiosyncraticdistinctiveindividuality,whileinothers“rural
inhabitants”areknownthroughready-at-handmarkersofferedbyprovinciallife.44
Traditionalcultureobscuresitsanimatingmechanismstonon-participants,whilenational
cultureofferscoordinatingstrategiesthatcombineandcoordinatetraditions.
Theprovincialzonestandsinanuncertainrelationshiptothenationalculturewhich
subtendsit.OrganicismisatthecenterofEliot’sconservativepoliticalcommitmentsthat
appearinbothhercriticismandinfictionalimageslikethe“web”ofMiddlemarch.45She
resurrectsthefictionalpersonaofFelixHoltinan1868essayforBlackwood’sMagazine,
afterthepassageofthesecondReformBillenfranchisedmostofthemaleEnglishworking
class,bringingtheconstitutionoftheEnglishpolitytoanewcrossroads:“societystands
beforeuslikethatwonderfulpieceoflife,thehumanbody,withallitsvariousparts
dependingononeanother,andwithaterribleliabilitytogetwrongbecauseofthatdelicate
dependence.”46Eliot’sparticularinvocationoftheorganicbodyappearstohaveprovided
43ArnoMeyer,quotedbyFrancoMorettiinTheBourgeois:“Thoughdevotedto‘creativedestructionintheeconomicsphere’,concludesArnoMayer,whenthenewmenenteredthesphereofculturetheybecame‘enthusiasticchampionsoftraditionalarchitecture,statuary,painting…envelopingtheirexploitsandthemselveswithhistoricalscreens.’”InFrancoMoretti,TheBourgeois:BetweenHistoryandLiterature,Paperbackedition.(London:Verso,2014),pp.114.
44Williams,TheCountryandtheCity,168.
45seeEagleton,“IdeologyandLiteraryForm.”’scanonicalcritiqueofEliot’sorganiccollectivism.
46GeorgeEliot,“AddresstoWorkingMen,byFelixHolt,”inEssays,ed.ThomasPinney(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1868),420.
163
theconceptualtools,inwhichthenation’srespectivelimbscohereintoasinglenational
body.47
Eliot’suseoftheorganicmetaphorsuggestedthatthenationalbodyhungtogetherthrough
anintrinsicnecessity.Barringabnormalpathology,itpreserveditsowndistinctnessby
meansofasustainablebalancebetweentheself-assertionofitsinwardforcesandthe
pressuresofitsenvironment.48Politicalinterventionrunsthesameriskasinterruptionofa
biologicalprocess,whereanerrorwithrespecttothepartsmeansthepotentialcollapseof
thewhole.49Theorganicpolity,then,isbothlikeandunlikeamechanism:likebecauseits
operationsareunderstoodthroughthemodeloflawfuldefinition,buttotallyunlikeother
mechanicalsystemsinthatthemakeupofthesystemcannotbesurfacedinexplicitly
systematicprinciples.
III.
TheMillontheFloss(hereafter,Mill)depictsacommunityinwhichthepastisnothistorical
difference,thatistosay,thebasisforacontinuous,linearsetofchanges,butratheraform
ofcyclicalidentificationofthepresentwiththepast.50Iwillreadthesettingofthemillby
47TheorganicmetaphorwaspresentinEliot’slifefromsourcesclosetoherlikepartnerGeorgeHenryLewes,aswellasatopicofcombinedinterestbetweenthediverging,increasinglyspecializedculturesofscienceandhumanisticinquiry.SeeLewes’mostimportantworkonscientificconceptoforganicunity,GeorgeHenryLewes,ThePhysiologyofCommonLife.(NewYork,D.AppletonandCompany,1860)
48“…theresultofanearlyequalstrugglebetweeninnerconstitution&theouterplayofforces.”InEliot,“Essays,”1963,434.
49“WhatIamstrivingtokeepinourmindsisthecare,theprecaution,withwhichweshouldgoaboutmakingthingsbetter,sothatthepublicordermaynotbedestroyed,sothatnofatalshockmaybegiventothissocietyofours,thislivingbodyinwhichourlivesareboundup.”InEliot,“FelixHolt.”,422.
50Hereafter,Mill.Unlessotherwisenoted,allcitationstothetextreferencethefollowingedition:Eliot,TheMillontheFloss.
164
thefictionalRiverFloss–andtheexperienceoftheTulliverfamilybythatmill–asEliot’s
depictionofanideal:thevillagemodelofcommunity,anditssubsequentdissolution.The
basisofsympathyinMillisthecommunity’ssenseofitsownpast,whichthenovelshows
tobeslippingawayamidstanascendantfinancializedcapitalism.Inplaceofindividual
sympatheticidentificationwithone’speersinthevillage,MillchartsaregimeofwhatIcall
“strategic”or“abstract”values.Thisreadingwillserveasabackgroundforanimaginative
identificationbetweenindividualsthatwillbeatissueagaininDeronda.
Thevillageparticipantmayunderstandherselftohavearelationshiptothepast,butthe
pastnolongersuppliesajustificationforpresentorfuture.Historicalnostalgiaisnota
conservativechoicebutacondition,aclimateofmoodthatsitsatopthepresent.The
ideologicalbasisforthevillageremainsunchanged,evenasnewformsofactionbecome
comprehensibleforindividuals.Millshowsthecontradictionsofindividualactioninthe
village,whenthisactionisunderstoodasstrategicimperative.InEliot’scontemporary
moment,thebourgeoiscommunalethicisneithergenerative(thatis,itdoesnotproduce
actioninanymeaningfulsense)normoral(i.e.,actorscannotspeakaboutmoralends).
Whenformsofmoraljudgmentarecodifiedratherthanpersonalized,theindividualloses
theabilitytodecideaboutaction.Insteadtheindividualmustactonthebasisofasocial
code.Millbecomesachronicleofthewayinwhichsociallifeofthecommunitybecomesan
abstraction.Indeedtheindividualtakesactionbytreatingthesocialasanotherstatic
elementinastrategicplan.Withoutacommunally-sanctionedpurposeforaction,the
internalizationofaprincipleofactionbecomesthebasisfortheincomprehensibilityofthe
individualtothecommunity.Thevillagelingersinthefigureoftheindividualconscience.
165
Ratherthanthroughcollectivelife,theindividualactsagainstordespiteit,toachievean
endagainstwhichthecommunityisjustanotherobject.
Millpreservestheorganic,localistvillagetothereaderasmood,asasenseofpresencethat
canneitherbeusednordiscarded.Consciencebecomescollectiveresidue,andbackward-
lookingloss(i.e.,nostalgia)isMill’sprincipleofrealism.Themostenduringdilemmaof
Mill,whichDerondawilltakeup,isthestubbornpersistenceoftheprinciplesofthevillage,
anidealizedpast,asthebasisfornationalexperience.Derondadecideswhattodowiththis
persistentelementofthepast.51Thenationinitsorganicaspectisnotvisiblebutintuited.
Whatisvisibleisprocess,afluxoftransformation,graspednotforwhatitis,butforwhatit
isalwaysintheprocessofbecoming.
EliotbeganMillsoonafterbecomingawidespreadcommercialsuccessonthebasisofher
firstfullnovelAdamBede.Millwaswidelyconsideredthegreatestnovelisticachievement
inherfirstperiodofwriting.Thenovelisaboutonefamily,theTullivers,andtracksthe
childhoodandearlyadulthoodofbrotherandsisterinthatfamily,MaggieandTom.The
siblingsgrowupinnear-idyllicanticipationofafuturemuchlikethepresent,inthe
countrysidewheretheirfatherownsandrunsamillonthefictionalriverFloss,passed
downtohimfromseveralgenerationspast.MaggieandTom’sdefactochildhoodends
abruptlyintheirteens,whentheirfatherfoolishlysuesoneofhiswealthierandmore
sophisticatedneighbors,Wakem,inaboundarydispute,isdefeatedincourt,andhastopay
forhislossesbysellingoffthemillandmostoftherestofhisproperty.Thefamily
51The“vitalconnectionwiththepast”mustinEnglandbe“recall[ed]byaneffortofmemoryandreflection,”Eliotwrites:“Protestantismandcommerce…havemodernizedthefaceofthelandandtheaspectsofsocietyinafargreaterdegreethaninanycontinentalcountry.”Eliot,“Essays,”n.d,288
166
patriarchisforcedintomenialwageemploymentinserviceofhisneighbor,andsoonafter
suffersadebilitatingstrokefromthestressoftheepisode.Theactionofthemainnarrative
explorestheconsequencesofthislossforthefamily.
Tom,thoughstillonlysixteen,eventuallymanagestoapprenticehimselfatanaccounting
andmanagementfirminwhichhisuncleisapartner.Obsessedbytheloss,thesonTomis
drivento“riseintheworld,”toclearhisfamily’sdebtsandrestoretheirreputation.52
Maggie,mostlyconfinedtoarepetitivedomesticexistencewithherstrickenfatherand
despondentmother,revivesanearlierfriendshipshehadwiththeneighborWakem’sson,
Philip,thatsoonbecomesaromanticinterest.
MaggieandPhilipbecomeestrangedwhenTomdiscoversandforbidstherelationship.
Fromthispointon,thedivergingpathsofMaggieandTomtellthestoryofMaggie’sscorn
andTom’soutwardlyrisingfortunesintheworld:Tomsucceedsinbusinessandpaysback
thedebtsjustbeforetheirfatherdies,laterrepurchasingthemillandtakingupresidence
therealone.MaggiecutsoffcontactwithPhiliponTom’sdemand,butwilllaterreceivethe
attentionofayoungwealthylocalheir,StephenGuest,inheritorofthefortuneofan
importantaccountingfirm.StephenisPhilip’sbestfriendandthesoon-to-befiancéof
Maggie’scousinandfriend,Lucy.StephentriestoproposeclandestinemarriagetoMaggie,
butsherefusesongroundsofloyaltytoPhilipandLucy.Despiteherrefusal,Maggiestill
receivesthemajorityofpublicblameforthescandalofherrelationshipwithStephen,
leadingtoherostracism.ThisincludesherbrotherTom,whodisownsherongroundsthat
shebroughtdisreputetothefamilyreputationhesoughttorestore.Thenarrativeis
52Eliot,TheMillontheFloss,492.
167
“resolved”abruptlywhenatremendousfloodhitsthecountrysideandMaggie
commandeersarowboat,returningtotheancestralmilltorescueherbrotherTom,
whereuponbrotherandsisterarebothkilledbyafloatingpieceofunmooredindustrial
machineryfromthenearbywharf.
ThebiographicalbasisforMillwasEliot’sownchildhoodintheWestMidlandsofEngland.
Maggie’sdifficultymeetingherconservativefamily’sexpectationswereareflectionof
Eliot’sownprecociousness.Eliot’sconnectiontothescenesandsituationsdescribedinthe
novelcanbereadintotheinvolvementoftheunnamednarrator,whospeaksasifshewere
involvedintheaction,recountingascenefromhazymemories.53ThepastnessofMillisa
nostalgiaevokedforaneraapproximatelythirtyyearspriortothenovel’swriting.Millwill
beastudyofthecollectiveinertiaofmemory,howtheinabilitytorelatetothefuture–or
evenconceiveofaconnectionbetweenpastandfuture–leadstoacollapseofbasic
categoriesinthesocialimaginary.Maggiedespairsneartheendofthenovelthat“ifthe
pastisnottobindus,wherecandutylie?”Indeed,IwillarguethatMaggie’scondition
revealsherdiagnosistobecorrect.Thesiblingshavenoothermodelofthelifecourseon
whichtorelyotherthanamemoryoftheirpast,howevertheyunderstandit.Andyetitis
justthispastthathasbecomemostimplausible,mostdreamlike–asinthenovel’sopening.
Intheabsenceofafuturethatislikethepast,herappealtoconscience,hermoralclaim,is
disastrous.Theveryexerciseofindividualjudgmentaboutdutyandhonoristhesourceof
Maggie’sostracism.
53"Irememberthoselargedippingwillows.Irememberthestonebridge,"thedeclares,puttinghereyesinplaceofMaggie’ssight.ibid.,7.
168
Inthefirstsceneofthenovel,thenarratordescribesthemillandRiverFloss.Themill
participatesinanaestheticofauthenticity,wherethesignificanceoftheriverforthe
narrativeisrelatedtoitspresence.ThereisastylisticmanneraboutMillthatexpectsits
readerstobethenarrator’sdirectpeers,asifthescenesshedescribesinthenovelwere
notfictionbutamemorythatsheandherreadersalreadyshareincommon.54Millmakes
itsappealtoarealexperienceoftheEnglishpastthatisgeneralizedintoanaesthetic:
“[H]eavenknowswherethatstrivingmightleadus,”thenarratordeclaresaboutadult
experience,ifpeoplewerenotattachedto“oldinferiorthings”with“deepimmovableroots
inmemory.”ThecorrelateofthememoryisacommonsetofplantsintheEnglish
landscape:the“elderberrybush”and“hedgerowbank”thatspursrecollection.55Itwould
beplausibletoviewthisconstructionistmoveonthepartofthenarratorassuffocatingly
specificinitshistoricallocation,asifthethetext’srangeofpossiblereaderswerelimitedto
onlythefictionalcharacterswhoalreadyinhabitthefictionaltownofSt.Ogg’s.56
Butthenarrator’semphasisisoninferencefromexperience.Themindismostformed,
mostdependent,onthesimplestelementsofbackgroundexperience.Whatthenarrator
callsthe“inferiorthings”are,intheepistemologyofMill,bestknownbecausetheyare
closestathand.ThenarratorbeginsthenovelwithadescriptionoftherushingRiverFloss
thatsurroundstheTulliverfamilymill,whereitisdescribednotingeographicaltermsbut
54AsinthisstatementbythenarratoraboutMaggieandTom’schildhood:“Thereisnosenseofeaseliketheeasewefeltinthosesceneswherewewereborn,whereobjectsbecamedeartousbeforewehadknownthelaborofchoice,andwheretheouterworldseemedanextensionofourpersonality.”Inibid.,151(emphasisadded).
55Ibid.,152.
56Forexample,thenarratorbeginsthestorywithnointroductiontoitsprinciplecharacters:“BeforeIdozedoff,IwasgoingtotellyouwhatMr.andMrs.Tulliverweretalkingabout.”ibid.,9.
169
asaninteriorlocation.Themillisavillage-in-miniature,wheretheriveritselfformsthe
boundaryoftheknownworld,“likeagreatcurtainofsound,shuttingoneoutfromthe
worldbeyond.”57
Thefamilyrelationshipwiththemillandsurroundingsisanalogoustothegapbetween
villageandanoutside.Thisiswhythenarratormustdescribeasifshewerethere.Theonly
modeofunderstandinginthevillageisaninvolvement,asifsheweremovingalongthe
riverinanalmostphenomenologicalmodebeforeassumingthetraditionalspectator
positionofnarrator:“Itistime,too,formetoleaveoffrestingmyarmsonthecoldstoneof
thisbridge…”58
ThenarratorbeginsfromaninvolvedpositioninMillbecausethenovelwillfinallytrace
theimplausibilityofthisposition.TheTulliverfamilyexperiencesashift:froma
communitybuiltoninvolvedparticipationtoonecomposedofstrategicadversaries.
Relationshipsarenolongerdefinedbytheconcretionsofthe“elderberrybush”orthe
“hedgerowbank”,but(asweseeintheconflictbetweenTulliverandhissavvierneighbor)
bythecapacitytoabstractfromspecificrealitiestothesymbolicsofthesituation.
TheactionbeginswiththeelderMr.Tulliverfacingadilemma:hisfamily’sinheritanceof
generations(“ahundredyearsandbetter!”)haslostmostofitsusefulsupplyofwaterfrom
theRiverFloss,whichhasbeendivertedbyanewneighborwhopurchasedthelandasan
investment.59TheTulliverclaimtoawayoflifeisbasedontheapparentstabilityofthis
57Ibid.,8.
58Ibid.,8.
59Ibid.,155.
170
naturalorder,whoseactualdependenceontechnologicalpowerandlegalimprimaturis
revealedbyanewneighborbackedbytheevolvingneedsofspeculativecapital.Inthe
organiccommunitythesocialorderiscoincidentwiththenaturalorder.Fortheold
neighbors,“nobodyeverheardof…meddlingwiththeRiver”60Butthenewowner,Pivart,
entersthescenewell-capitalizedandadvisedbytheshrewdbusinessinterestsofthe
lawyerWakem,whohasimplicitlyreinterpretedtherelationshipbetweenlandownersasa
legalpush-and-pull.Tulliverunderstandstheincursionintheological,demonicterms.
Wakemrepresents“theparticularembodimentoftheevilprinciplenowexciting
Mr.Tulliver’sdeterminedresistance,”amorallybedrockcategoryintowhichtherecanbe
nofurtherunderstanding.
Tulliveris,ofcourse,mistakenabouttheinscrutable,almostManicheancharacterizationof
hisfoe.ToTulliver,thethreattothemillisthethreattoanentireworldandwayoflife,
whileWakemmerelyseesaparticularadvantageinalargerschemaofinterestsand
probabilities.Wakemrepresentsadisinterested,“cold”stanceonTulliver’sinvolvement
withthesituation.Tulliverhasonlyhiscircumscribedexperienceasaproudand
independentyeomanfarmertodrawupon.Butthepervasivesignificanceofthisepisodeis
thatitdemonstrateshowTullivernowviewshissurroundingsandcommunity:asan
adversarialspacewhoseobjectsaretoolstogainastrategicadvantage.Tulliverispoorly
suitedtoacompetitivemindsetwithhisneighbor,whosestrategicacumenheattributesto
asuperioreducation.Thisleadstoadisastrousdecisionabouthisson.
60Ibid.,155.
171
WhatTulliverdisparaginglycallsthe“trickso’thesefellows”arewhatheintendshissonto
learn.61Tulliverconsultswithanotheracquaintanceofhis,Riley,whogiveshimthepoor
advice–outofadesiretoseemhelpful–tosendhissontobetutoredbyanAnglican
clergymanintheclassics.Tulliverhopestocreateashrewdpostureofmindthatcould
counterthelegalandfinancialstratagemsofthelawyerWakem,adesireatdrasticodds
withtheclassicaleducationfitfortheclergy.HeispoorlyadvisedbyhisfriendRiley,who
likehimunderstandsonlyagapbetweentheentirelyexperientialeducationtheyhavehad
asfarmers,andthevariousformsofabstractionrepresentedbyboththeclergyman’sand
thelawyer’sknowledge.
Rileyintendshisadvicetobegestural,anaffirmationofsocialsolidaritythatiscompleted
throughtheactofgiving.62Tulliver,however,“invests”inaneducationtoprovidehisson
withtheintellectualdefensesagainstforcesthatthreatentheirwayoflife.63Tulliversenses
thathenolongerliveswithinthesameethicthatguidedhislifeupuntilthispoint,butheis
alsounabletofullyreorienthimself.Thecategorymistakeisadefiningfeatureofthe
Tulliverfamily.Thereisatragicaspecttotheactionthatthenarratorgrasps:actionthat
wouldbecomprehensiblewithinthereciprocityofvillagelifetakesadifferentcastinthe
competitiveenvironment.Tulliverbelievescompletelyinthelifeofthemill,andhis
61“ButIshouldlikeTomtobeabitofascholard[sic],soashemightbeuptothetrickso’thesefellowsastalkfineandwritewithaflourish.It’dbeahelptomewi’theselawsuitsandarbitrations,andthings.”ibid.,9
62“Consider,too,thatallthepleasantlittledimideasandcomplacencies–ofstandingwellwithTimpson,ofdispensingadvicewhenhewasaskedforit,ofimpressinghisfriendTulliverwithadditionalrespect,ofsayingsomething,andsayingitemphatically,withotherinappreciablyminuteingredientsthatwentalongwiththewarmhearthandthebrandy-and-watertomakeupMr.Riley’sconsciousnessonthisoccasion–wouldhavebeenamereblank.”ibid.,27
63“Butthen,youknow,it’saninvestment;Tom’seddication’ullbesomuchcapitaltohim.”Eliot:2008aa,71
172
commitmenttoeducationisonlyinstrumental.Butinthefather’signorance,heintroduces
hissontoadifferentsetofintrinsicvalues.Theclergyman’seducationalregimehasno
effectonTom,anditwillsoonbeforgotteninthewakeofhisfamily’sruin.Atthatpoint,
whenTomishandedanunofficialapprenticeshipathisUncleDean’sholdingcompany,his
trueeducationbegins.
TheelderTulliver’stragicmisunderstandingofhissituationbecomesthecatalystthat
launcheshimfully–butwithoutpreparation–intoadifferentorderofrelationality.Thiscan
alsobeseeninthedecisionthatTullivermakeswithrespecttofinancialmanagement.He
hasincurredadebttohiswealthiersister-in-law,mostlytosupporthisownimpoverished
sisterandhermanychildren.Thedebtbecomesasourceoftension,aleverforordinary
bickeringbetweenthehouseholds.ButthenTullivermakesadisastrousdecision.Toassert
hisindependencefromthesister-in-law,Tullivertakesoutamortgagefromthebankto
provehecanrepayher,movinghim“ontothebooks,”fromasystemofdebtsguaranteed
bythehereditaryrelationshipwithhiswife’skin,toabanklienagainsthisproperty.
HoweverdissatisfiedTullivermaybeabouthisdebts,theywereformerlyaproductofthe
embedded,informalnetworkofkinrelationships.64Tulliverhassethimselfupfordisaster
whenhisboundarydisputewithhisneighborsetsofftheprocessesofformallitigation.
AfterlosinghissuitwithWakem,hehasnoliquidassetswithwhichtopayhismortgage.
64Thenarrator’sexplanationofthesituation:“…andwhenMrs.TulliverbecameratherpressingtoknowhowhewouldraiseitwithoutmortgagingtheMillandthehousewhichhesaidheneverwouldmortgage,sincenowadayspeoplewerenonesoreadytolendmoneywithoutsecurity,Mr.Tulliver,gettingwarm,declaredthatMissGleggmightdoasshelikedaboutcallinginhermoney–heshouldpayitin,whetherornot.Hewasnotgoingtobebeholdentohiswife’ssisters.Whenamanhadmarriedintoafamilywheretherewasawholelitterofwomen,hemighthaveplentytoputupwithifhechose.ButMr.Tulliverdidnotchoose”ibid.75-76
173
Themill,overwhichwewouldhavehadfulllegalpossessionhadthedebtexistedmerely
amongfamilymembers,isnowexposed–andlost–ascollateral.
Tulliver’sactionisonlycomprehensiblewithinanhonorculturewherestatusisconferred
byposition:thepositionofindependent,yeomanfarmer.Independenceimpliesadegreeof
respectwhichiscompromisedbythedebt.Butevenastheconnectionisstressed,the
meaningofTulliver’srelationshiptohissister-in-lawisstabilizedbytheirsocial
relationship.Regardlessofthedebt’sstatus,andwhetheritisrepayed,Tulliverislikelyto
remaininasecurepositionwithrespecttothiswife’sfamily.Thematerialdebtis
immaterialtotherelationship.Tulliverunderstandshimselftobemakingastatement
againsthissister-in-lawwhichwillnotthreatenhisunderlyingindependence.Butin
changingsourceofthedebt,Tulliverunintentionallyshiftshimselfintoadifferentsystem
ofrelationships:fromasystemwherehispositioniscertainandfixed,toonewhere
positionisanaccidentaloutcomeofwin-and-losscalculationsonabalancesheet.Thatis,
hisindependencedependsontheresultofassetsmeasuredagainstdebts.Thiscalculation
eventuallyfailshim.65
Tulliver’sowneconomicallypointlessgesturemakesanotablecontrastwiththevictoryby
Wakem,whoprojectsanalmostcompleteindifferencetotheconceptofrevenge,and
perceivesfurthermaterialadvantagetoallowingTullivertoremainonhisancestral
propertyasarenter.Tulliver’sidentity,bycontrast,dependsonafragilewhole.Hemustbe
thesole,unimpeachableownerofDorlcotteMill.Thelossofthisindependentstatusis
65See“WasEdwardTullivermadebankrupt?Ananalysisofhisfinancialdownfall,”inDermotColeman,GeorgeEliotandMoney:Economics,EthicsandLiterature,CambridgeStudiesinNineteenth-CenturyLiteratureandCulture;(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2014),AppendixB.
174
shattering,theendoflife’scomprehensiblehorizon.Wakem,bycontrast,hasasenseof
positionbasedonacontinuousstreamofcapitaltransactions,anyoneofwhichisminor,
butwhichtallyuptoacollectivesignificance.66
ThemostprofoundsymboloftheTulliverfamily’sstumbleacrossanewboundaryisthe
father’sinstructiontohissonTom:tomutilatethefamilyBiblewithaninscriptionabout
thevendettaagainstWakem.ThefamilyBible,whosemeaningisfixedinthetheological
order,istiedtothemill,whichnolongerhasthesignificanceitoncedidfortheTullivers.
Divineandseculartimehadacertainunityinthelocationofthemillitself,whichhasnow
passedon.“Iwishevilmaybefallhim.Writethat,”Tulliversays,directinghissontothe
coverpage,therebyconferringpermanentstatusonwhatwillprovetobeatemporary
loss.67TheelderTulliverunderstoodhisconditiontobepermanent,givenfromatime
beforememory,andsoachangeinconditionisnotacontingency(asWakemwould
understandit),butachangeinthebalanceofcosmicpowers,theworkofthedevil.The
inscriptionintheBibleconfirmsthatthefamilywasneverpositionedtounderstandits
condition.Tulliver’sunderstandingoftimeisatanend.Whatistransmittedtothesonisa
requestforrevengethatrepresentstherestorationofanorderthathasvanished.
MilldepictsatypeofknowledgethatstayswiththeTullivers,evenastheirintuitive
identificationwiththeirsurroundingsisreplacedbycalculativevalues.Thenarrator
carriesoutadualrole:thatofactingoutembeddedknowledge(asinthescene-setting
66ThisispartofTulliver’sconfusionaboutWakem’smodusoperandi.TulliverbelievesthatWakempossessesaneducationwhichinstructshisoperation,ademonicprinciplefromwhichheisbarredfromparticipating.InsteaditappearsthatWakemoperatesbybeingrelentlesslyopportunistic,byhavingnofixedopinionaboutanythingoutsideofitsqualitiesformoneymaking.
67Eliot,TheMillontheFloss,267.
175
gesturebytheriver),andreflectingontheusesandpurposesofthatknowledge.Inthe
former,hemaintainsanawarenessthatthevillageisnotagroupofparticipantsseparate
fromspaceandplace,butembeddedinthoselocations.Herethenarratorisinvolvedwith
thecharactersatthelevelofhumaneconcern.Inthelatter,thenarratorachievesadistance
fromthecommunity,exercisingajudgmentthatreflectsontheirerrorsandlimitations.
Thenovelwillcontinuetoreflecttheperspectiveofthevillagewhileshowingthatitno
longerhasanintersubjectivepurchaseonthatsituation:thatwhatIhavecalled“embedded
reason”initsphenomenologicalformofthevillagebecomesamerelyprivateconcernand
privatejudgment.IntheeventsthatcausethedownfalloftheTulliverfamily,wediscover
thatthesocialorderisruledbyanethicsofabstraction.
ThesiblingsMaggieandTominherittheirfather’sunderstandingofthefamily’sposition:
theyaretiedtothemillandeverythingthatitrepresents.Butwheretheydifferisintheir
abilitytoabstractfromtheirsymbolicrelationshipanddevelopapictureoftheirsituation.
Tulliverhasno“general”pictureoftheworld,onlyonebasedonanunderstandingofhis
position.Hischildrenpossessageneralmoralitycreatedonthebasisofaprivateviewof
theworld.Tulliver’sprivateandpublicviewarefused,evenasthe“public”onwhichhis
viewdependshasdisappeared.Hischildrenloseaccesstothepublicworldwhentheir
fatherfails,developinganinternaloppositiontoit.WhereastheelderTulliverappealedto
apublicviewofthesituationthatdidnotexist,hischildrenunderstandthatthepublic
mustbeavirtualcreation,fromconscience.WhereasMr.Tulliverexhibitsaninternalsense
oforderthatisresponsivetoapublicreality,hischildrenMaggieandTomunderstandthat
theinnerlifeoftheindividualissomethingoppositional,thatitshouldbeusedagainstthe
socialorder.Tulliverexpectsthesocialordertoprovidehimapublicrecognitionthatno
176
longerexists–indeed,apublicnolongerexistsinsensethatheunderstands.Hisstrokeand
breakdowncanbeunderstoodastheincomprehensionofsymbolicdislocationfromthe
mill:“Iwantedtodieintheoldplace,whereIwasbornandwheremyfatherwasborn.”68
Aftertheir“downfall,”TomandMaggiedisengagefromtheirpriorlifeinshame.Maggie,in
theaftermathofherparentssellingthemilltoWakem,measuresherlifeinemptytimeasa
caretakerforherparents:“Herlotwasbeginningtohaveastill,sadmontony,whichthrew
hermorethaneveronherinwardself.”Confinedtothehomeandalifeofcaringforher
fatherandmother,bothofwhomarerenderednearlyinsensiblebytheirmisfortune,
Maggiehasonlyanendlesssameness:“Shecouldmakedream-worldsofherown–butno
dreamworldwouldsatisfyhernow.”Shedevelopsapenchantforself-satisfyingreligious
tractsinthePietistworksofThomasàKempis.Inreligiousinwardness,shefinds“insight,
strengthandconquest,tobewonbymeansentirelywithinherownsoul.”Learningtolook
atherlifeasan“insignificantpartofadivinelyguidedwhole,”sherefershersufferingtoa
highernecessitythatbecomesan“unquestionedmessage.”
Tom,forhispart,leaveshisill-suitedschoolingwithhisLatintutoratsixteen,and
apprenticeshimselfattoaninvestmentandgeneralmanagementfirmwherehisUncle
Deaneisapartner.69FromtheactivitiesreportedinMill,themainactivityofDeane’sfirm
seemstobethatofaholdingcompanyforvariousinvestments.Theactionsthatittakes
includethebuyingandsellingofreal-estateassets,andspeculationoneconomictrendsin
68Ibid.,267.
69“Atsixteen,themindthathasthestrongestaffinityforfactcannotescapeillusionandself-flattery;andTom,insketchinghisfuture,hadnootherguideinarranginghisfactsthanthesuggestionsofhisownbraveself-reliance.”ibid.,225
177
thestockmarkets.Tom,obsessedbyhisfamily’slossoffacethatismadematerialintheir
lossofthemill,showshisworthinhisuncle’sfirm,andpaysbackthedebtsshortlybefore
hisfatherdies.Laterhewillbuybackthemillandtakeupresidencethere,alone.ButTom
willnotreturntothemilltorestorehisfather’slife.Thatis,toworkthemillandenacta
pastlifeinthepresent.Insteadheseeksmerelytobeinthemill,tooccupyitasaformof
memorial.70
Perhapsanevengreaterrepresentativeoftheconnectionbetweenpresentandpastinthe
villageisMaggie,whobecomesconflictedbecauseshesitsbetweentwodifferentregimes
ofrelationshipbetweenpastandpresent.FouryearsbeforethepublicationofMill,Eliot
publishedashortstudyofSophocles’Antigone,theGreekfigurewhochoosestohonorher
deadbrotherPolyniceswithburial,evenasthelawsofthecitysetdownbyKingCreon
forbidit.ThereisnoevidencethatEliothadconsultedHegel’scanonicalinterpretationof
theplay,butshe,too,readsitthroughconflictingnormsforwhichtherecanbeno
satisfactoryresolution.InviewofEliot’sreadingofAntigone,Maggie’ssituationmakesan
illustrativecontrast.WhenAntigoneiscaughtbetweenthetwocodes,shechoosestoobey
thelawoffamilyobligationandburyherbrother.TheGreekswouldnothaveunderstood
Antigone’schoiceintermsofconscience,butEliot’sanachronisticmodernreading
understandshertohaveexercisedafacultyofinternaljudgmentovertheexternalcodeof
conduct.71
70“Itwasmyfather’sdyingwishthatIshouldtryandgetitbackagainwheneverIcould;itwasinhisfamilyforfivegenerations.Ipromisedmyfather;andbesidesthat,I’mattachedtotheplace.Ishallneverlikeanyothersowell.”ibid.,398.
71“ThestrugglebetweenAntigoneandCreonrepresentsthatstrugglebetweenelementaltendenciesandestablishedlawsbywhichtheouterlifeofmanisgraduallyandpainfullybeingbroughtintoharmonywith
178
Maggie,forherpart,candecideonnodefiniteobligationtothepresent.ButwhereMaggie
differsfromAntigoneisthatthebondsofconscienceentaildoingnothing.Thescandalthat
ensueshappenssimplybybeingseeninpublicwithPhilipWakem,therepresentativeof
herfamily’sdisgrace,orStephenGuest,whopursuesherwhilebeingengagedtoMaggie’s
sisterLucy.Maggiewillnotgoforwardwitheitherengagement.Thechoicetomarryeither
PhilipWakemorStephenwouldhavehadacomprehensiblepublicmeaningwithitsown
trainofconsequence.Thatis,herlifewouldhave“playedout”accordingtothetraditional
dutiesofbeingawife.Butherobligationstothe“past,”asunrealizableastheyare
persuasive,trapherinaHamlet-likecycleofdeliberation.Shedoesnothingbecauseany
decisiveactofloyalty(toTom,toPhilipWakem,toStephenGuest)wouldentailabetrayal
tooneaspectofherpast.Theethicalbondofconscience,herprivatereasons,are
convincingtoher(andtothereaderthroughtheintercessionofthenarrator)but
paralyzinginthefaceofapublic.72
Maggie’sstanceisaprincipledonebasedonconscience.Butthechoicetodonothingand
simplyinhabitingthatinternalityinvitespublicdisaster.FromMaggie’sperspective,her
hesitationplacesherinthespaceofreasonswheretheoutcomeisethical.Itbecomesthe
weighingofobligationsandthechoosingofherfamily.Whensheispredictablysubjected
tothegossipandpublicjudgmentofSt.Ogg’s,thereisnoprivateequivalentforwhichshe
couldgivereasons.Thenarratorrehabilitatesthespaceofreasonedconscience,bringingit
hisinwardneeds.”GeorgeEliot,“TheAntigoneandItsMoral,”inEssays,ed.ThomasPinney(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1856)
72“Andachoiceofwhat?OGod!…HerlifewithStephen[Guest]couldhavenosacredness;shemustforeversinkandwandervaguely,drivenbyuncertainimpulse;forshehadletgotheclueoflife,–thatcluewhichonceinthefar-offyearsheryoungneedhadclutchedsostrongly.”Eliot,TheMillontheFloss,471.
179
toacomprehensiblepictureforthereader,butforMaggiesheisruined.Maggie’sruinand
ostracismisMill’smostimportantdepictionofadebttothepastthatcannotbedischarged.
Asignificantsubtextofthenarrator’svoiceinMillisspentsketchingouttheunrealityof
thepast,akindofromanticfantasythatbecomesevenmorealluringasitbecomesmore
unthinkable–andmoreimpossibletoincorporateintothepresent.
Millattemptstoconveythepastofthevillageasmood,asanundischargeabledebtand
perpetualweightthathangsinthepresent.Severalinterstitialelements,writtenfromthe
perspectiveofthenarrator,showhowMillconstructsthevillagepast.Thepastwillhave
thestatusofmyth,differentinkindthanthepresent.Thenarratorcontraststhesqualid
everydaylocales–liketheoneinwhichMaggieandTomlive–toaromanticalternative.73
Thepastisnotasourceofinspirationorhopeforthefuture,butanexampleofaresource
thatislackingforthepresent.Thepastisnotevengeographicallyclose.Thenarrator,
signalingthatthisisastateofmindmorethananobservation,stacksthedeckwithan
almostcomicalpointofcomparisontothepresent:theruinedcastlesthatshehasseenon
thebanksoftheGermanRhine.“ThereforeitisthattheseRhinecastlesfillmewithasense
ofpoetry,”writesthenarratorwithanironicnostalgia:“theybelongtothegrandhistoric
lifeofhumanity,andraiseupformethevisionofanepoch.”74
Measuredbytheimpossiblestandardofaromanticidyll,thepresentthatthenarrator
describesinthemodern-daySt.Oggsregistersasaninversionofvalue.Whatispresentis
everythingthatismosttawdry,cheap,andunworthy.Thisformofnostalgiaisacommon
73“Thatwasatimeofcolour,whenthesunlightfellonglancingsteelandfloatingbanners.”
74Ibid.,271.
180
movefortheEliotiannarrator.Itcanbeseeninthewell-knownopeningtoAdamBede:
“Leisureisgone—gonewherethespinning-wheelsaregone,andthepack-horses,andthe
slowwaggons,andthepedlars,whobroughtbargainstothedooronsunnyafternoons.”75
Theethicaldisjunctthatthispassagesetsup,betweenpresent(“technology,speed,
rationality”)andpast(“slowness,”“leisure,”“contemplation”)shouldnotbereadasan
actualdiagnosisofthatpast,butassignalthatweareexitingarealisticsettingand
triggeringanostalgicmode.Thenarratormixesplatitudeswithwhichitwouldbedifficult
todisagree–alludingtothegeneralfallennessoftheworld–whilealsosignalinghis
questionablejudgment.Thisisthepossibilitythatthenarrator’sentirenostalgiamaybe
mistaken:“forhadhenotkeptuphischaracterbygoingtochurchontheSunday
afternoons?”76Suchanobviouslydubiousstatementpreparesforthenarrator’s
admonitiontothereader:“Donotbesevereuponhim,andjudgehimbyourmodern
standard!”77Thepastissuperiortothepresentbecauseitbringsthedissatisfactionsofthe
presentintorelief(“Evenidlenessiseagernow—eagerforamusement;pronetoexcursion-
trains”),butitshouldalsobeanindicationthatwehaveexitedthemodeofdescriptive
realism.
ThiscommunityetchedinthepastisthevillageformtowhichTomandMaggieunderstand
themselvestoberesponsible.Romancereplacesthecomprehensiblepastwithsomething
standingforahigherprinciple.AswithMaggie’sandTom’srelationshiptotheirown75GeorgeEliot,AdamBede,ed.CarolMartin(Oxford:NewYork:ClarendonPress;OxfordUniversityPress,2001),164.
76“Evenidlenessiseagernow—eagerforamusement;pronetoexcursion-trains,artmuseums,periodicalliterature.”ibid.,165
77Ibid.,165.
181
childhoodatthemill,thenarratorconveysaromanticperspectivethatcanfindnousefor
thepresent.78Thisformofsentimentalismturnsawayfromanawarenessofitsown
constructions,understandingthemastheoutgrowthofsomethingpregivenand
transparent,orarediscoverednature.InSt.Ogg,wheretheactioninMillisset,awareness
ofthehistoricalpasthasfallenintojustthiskindofsentimentalism.Thenarratordeclares
it“oneofthoseold,oldtownswhichimpressoneasacontinuationandoutgrowthof
nature,asmuchasthenestsofthebower-birdsorthewindinggalleriesofthewhite
ants.”79Thisacquiescencetoromanticisminthenarratorcontrastswiththepresent’s
conditionofforgetfulness,thepointedabsenceofhistoryfromtheconsciousnessofthe
townspeople.AndthehistoryofSt.Ogg,itsimplicationinnewregimesofeconomiclifeand
abstraction,isnotpresenttothemodern-daytownspeople.St.Ogginitspresentformis
simply“whatis.”80
Thenarratorcanonlybreakthemundane,totalizingillusionofthepresentbya
problematicreturntomythichistory,withthedeclarationthat“theshadowoftheSaxon
hero-kingstillwalkstherefitfully”–asignalthatthiswillbeatypeofhistorywithwhichthe
presenthasmadeadecisivebreak.81InthisvoicethenarratorexplainshowSt.Ogg’s
receiveditsnameduringanepochwithnomemorialsinanarrow-mindedpresent,when
theNormanferrymanSt.OggbroughtawomanandherchildacrosstheRiverFlossduring78Thepresentis“irradiatedbynosublimeprinciples,noromanticvisions,noactive,self-renouncingfaith.”Eliot,TheMillontheFloss,p.272.
79Ibid.,p115.
80Thetownis“wheretheblackshipsunladethemselvesoftheirburthensfromthefarnorth,andcarryaway,inexchange,thepreciousinlandproducts,thewell-crushedcheeseandthesoftfleeceswhichmyrefinedreadershavedoubtlessbecomeacquaintedwiththroughthemediumofthebestclassicpastorals.”ibid.,115
81Ibid.,116.
182
aflood,animatedbyasentimentthat,thenarratorsuggests,wouldbeforeigntothe
presentevenasthetownofSt.Oggcarriesthenameofthoseevents:“Iwillcarrythee
across…itisenoughthatthyheartneedsit.”82Fromheremythichistoryturnstoprevious
erasofseculartime.Morerecenttraumashavealsobeenforgotten.83Finally,forcontrast,
wearegivenasnippetofconsciousnessofanauntoftheTulliver’s,thearch-philistine
Mrs.Glegg.Herattachment,weareshown,ismostlytoclasssignifiers,confirmingthe
narrator’sconclusionthatthepastisunabletotouchthepresentinitscurrentstate.84
Thepastismythicorigin,towhichcontemporariesofSt.Ogghavenoconnectionexceptas
fantasticalmyth.Thepastisalsothememoryoftrials,ofwhichthey,thecurrentresidents
ofSt.Ogg,arehappytoberid.Thepresent,inturn,isahomogeneouspresent,inwhichthe
occurrenceofdecisivehistoricaleventsseemsimpossibletoimagine.Thenarratortestifies
totheevacuationofanythingrelatedtopublicspirit,regardedasawasteoftime“liableto
makeoneinsolvent.”85
Millendswithconflictbetweenvalues:ononeside,thepersistenceofalocalist,organic
ethic.Ontheother,theethicsofabstraction.MaggieandTomTulliverbothinheritthe
organicethicsoftheirmotherandfather:Tomthroughhiscommitmenttohonoringhis
father’spublicstatureeveninruin,andMaggiethroughherattemptstoremainfaithfulto
82Ibid.,116.
83“Butthetownknewworsetroubleseventhanthefloods…wherefirstPuritansthankedGodforthebloodoftheLoyalists,andthenLoyaliststhankedGodforthebloodofthePuritans.Manyhonestcitizenslostalltheirpossessionsforconscience’sakeinthosetimes,andwentforthbeggaredfromtheirnativetown.”ibid.,117.
84ThemindofSt.Ogg’sdidnotlookextensivelybeforeorafter.Itinheritedalongpastwithoutthinkingofit,andhadnoeyesforthespiritsthatwalkthestreets."ibid.,118
85Ibid.,118.
183
theweboffamilialcommitmentsandprivatefriendshipsfromherearlyyears.Buttheir
immersionintheperformanceoftheethicsoflocalism,aseachshowssignsofaromantic
unworldliness,survivesthechangeintheirfamily’smaterialcircumstances.Material
exigenciesforcethemtogrowupunderaregimeofabstractvalues:Tommovesintoa
financializedworld,andMaggiewithdrawsintospiritualism.Andthesignificanceoftheir
old,localistties–whatIhavecalledtheir“organic”individualism–risesupagainandleads
tothenovel’stragicoutcome.
NeitherTomnorMaggiecanresistreturningtothemill,whichwillbecomethesiteofboth
theirdeaths.IfMillcanbecastasatragedyinthemoldofAntigone,thenitstagesaconflict
ofvaluesbetweenappearancesanddepth.Ascharactersdefinedbytheiractions,each
siblingadoptsanewregime,butasindividualswith“depth”theycontinuetheirorganic
orientation.TheirlossofmaterialindependencemeansthatMaggieandTomareforcedto
actoutawayoflifeaccordingtoabstractedvalues.ThiscanbeseeninTom’spursuitof
“respectability,”andMaggie’sdeclineofmarriage.Butthisobligationcreatesamore
fundamentallackofaction,sincethenormalcourseoflifestopsforthemboth.Tom,having
fulfilledhis“greatestdesire”byreacquiringthemill,retreatsintosolitude.Maggierefuses
heroffersofmarriage,livingasanoutcastwithanotherfamilynearthemill.Theirorganic
orientationrendersthemstaticcharacters,grownchildrenwhocanliveinabstractsociety
byreflectingitsvalues,butwhocannotparticipateinshapingthem.Thattheirdeathoccurs
uponMaggie’s“returnhome”torescueTominthefloodisadetailthatshouldnotbe
missed.Atthelevelofpersonality,theystilllivewithintheorganicvaluesofthevillage.As
paradigmsofthesubject,MaggieandTomrevealtheindelibilityoftheorganicsensibility
attheleveloftheindividual.ButtheresolutionofMillcanbereadasareconciliationof
184
appearanceandreality:naturewipesawayaworldthatthereorganizationofthevillage
hadalreadyrenderedirrelevant.
Mill’stragicendingaffirmsthecentralityofanorganicethicsevenasthesevalues
disappearfromviabilitywithinthenovel.InMillthecommunityisreorganizedaccording
tothevaluesofabstractionwhiletheindividual,representedinMaggieandTom,livesin
thebubbleoforganic,villagelocalism.Thedeconstruction–andultimatelydestruction–of
theTulliverfamilyrevealsitsunsuitabilitytoanascendantregimeofeconomic,abstracted
relations.ThemechanismsofallegiancethatwouldbindtheTulliverstooneanother,
internally,asafamilyunit,havebeendissolved.Thethreeremainingmembers–mother,
sister,brother–live(anddie)apartfromoneanother.Anequaldiagnosisappliestothe
externalsocialcomprehensibilityoftheirwayoflife:thecommunitynolongerrecognizes
thefunctionofthemill,inwhichTomliveslikeahistoricalpreservationevenasitno
longercontainsaneconomicpurpose.MaggieandTom’sphysicaldestructionintheflood
upontheirreunionisonlyanemphaticmaterialconfirmationoftheirirrevocable
separationfromboththeircommunityandthedirectionofEnglishmodernity.
IV.
AswemovefromTheMillontheFloss(1860)toDanielDeronda(1876),weshiftnotjustto
theendofEliot’scareerasanovelist,butalsoacrossarangeofexperimentsincontent,
themeandsettingboundedbyherrealisticpractice.86BetweenMill’santiquated,nostalgic
86Herlastnovel,theexperimentalmonologueTheImpressionsofTheophrastusSuch(relevanttoourdiscussionofnationalisminDeronda)wouldbepublishedin1879,notlongbeforeherdeathinDecember1880.
185
localismandDanielDeronda’saristocratic,moderncosmopolitanism(Derondawouldbe
heronlynovelsetamonghercontemporaries),sheventuredintohistoricalfictionwith
Romola(1863),setintheItalianRenaissance,andlaborunrestwithinthecountrysidein
FelixHolt,theRadical(1866),andfinallyhergreatnoveloftheEnglishprovinciallife
Middlemarch(1872).HerartisticchoicesintheinterimbetweenMillandDerondasuggesta
searchforculturalmodelsostensiblyfarfromherown(e.g.,theculturalupheavalsof15th-
centuryItaly)alongsidearecurringconcernwiththespecificallyEnglishproblemofthe
provincialcommunity:e.g.,Middlemarch.
GiventheseforksinEliot’scareerbetweenwhatisrecognizablyEnglishandwhatisnot,
thebifurcatedplotstructureofDanielDerondarepresentsafittingsynthesis.Onesubplot
concernsthegrowthtoadulthoodofayoungEnglishwoman,GwendolynHarleth,
descendedfromacolonialfortunethatherfamilylosesafterabadinvestment.Thisevent
leadshertomarryintothefamilyofanEnglisharistocrat,HenleighGrandcourt.The
secondconcernsayoungEnglishgentlemanoftheleisureclasses,DanielDeronda,who
developsarelationshipwiththeJewishpopulationofLondonaftersavingayoungJewish
singerfromdrowningonthebanksoftheThames.Thelivesofbothcharacterstakeanew
coursewhenDaniel,whowasadopted,meetshisbirthmotheranddiscoversthatheis
Jewishhimself.
Whathavebeencalledthe“English”and“Jewish”subplotsofthenovelhavesomething
morefundamentalincommon.Thisistheentranceofathird,mediatingtermintoMill’s
dynamicbetweenorganicindividualismandtheabstractcommunity:thequestionofthe
nation,andwhatnationhoodshouldmeanasaformofmediationbetweentheindividual
186
andanincreasinglycosmopolitanEurope.IfMillconcernedthefateofcharacterswithina
communitydefinedbyasmall-scale,localistethicwhomustcometotermswiththe
breakdownoftheirowncommunalnormsbycosmopolitanizingforces(e.g.,financial
abstraction,industrialization),thenDerondacomesatthesameproblemfromthereverse
angle:howindividualsinalreadycosmopolitancircumstances(aristocrats,theculturally
mobilecolonialbourgeoisie)cometoarealizationoftheirlocationinmaterialand
historicalparticularity.
AsIhaveargued,Milldevelopsapsychologyoftheindividualinwhichthetiesofmaterial,
sensoryfamiliarityareessentialtotheconstitutionofthesubjectingeneral.Deronda
carriesoverthissenseoftheimportanceoflocalfamiliarity,ofthecentralityoforganic
principlestotheconstitutionofindividuals,alongadifferentaxisthanTheMillontheFloss.
ForDanielDeronda,thequestionthatbringstogetherthetwohalvesofthenovel,that
makesitstwomaincharactersDanielDerondaandGwendolynHarlethparticipantsinone
plot,isthequestionoftheproperobjectofobligationandduty.Danielsaysinoneoftheir
meetingsthat“itisthecurseofyourlife–forgiveme–ofsomanylives,thatallpassionis
spentinthatnarrowround,forwantofideasandsympathiestomakealargerhomeforit,”
anadmonitiondeliveredwithaconfidencethatbelieshisownuncertaintybeforethe
unexpecteddiscoveryofhisownJewishparentage.87WhenGwendolynisforcedtodeal
withthesenseofdislocationafterherhusbanddrownsinaboatingaccident,shewillbe
broughttoamoreirresoluteconsiderationofthesamequestions.
87G.Eliot,DanielDeronda,ed.GrahamHandley,OxfordWorld’sClassics(OxfordUniversityPress,n.d.),387,https://books.google.com/books?id=OKkEAQAAIAAJ.
187
InmyreadingofDanielDerondaIwillpursuethefollowinglinesofargument:first,Iwill
explainthecharacterizationofDerondaasa“cosmopolitan”novel.Iunderstand
cosmopolitanisminrelationtotheethicsofabstractionthatwereoutlinedinMill.
Deronda’sproblemofcosmopolitanisminheritstheabstractivedynamicofEliot’sChristian
humanism.ForEliot,herhumanismentailedasenseoffundamentalobligationtoone’s
fellowhumanbeingfroma“standpointless”position:acohesionbetweenindividualsthat
doesnotdependonasharedandpre-existinghistory.Theethicsofabstractioncomeinto
effectintheabsenceofastrongattachmentstoanyparticularcommunity.Deronda
portraysagenerationofEnglishelitethathavelosttheirattachmentstotheoldaristocratic
hierarchyofvalue,butnot(yet)fullyinstalledanequivalentnewregimeofbourgeois
valuesinitsplace.Intheabsenceofcommunalidentification,abstractionresultsina
rootlessandinwardromanticism:inDanielandGwendolyn,theindividualismarkedbya
roving,objectlessdrivetowardinspirationandpurposethatisunlikelytofixitselfinany
particularformofcommitment.
Second,Derondawillattempttofindawayoutoftheethicsofabstractionthatbecame
ascendantinMill.Whatissoughtisaplaceforanintelligiblemodelofcosmopolitan
individualism,splittingthedifferencebetweenthedislocationsofEnglishcolonial
modernityandthenarrownessoftheprovincialidentityrepresentedinMill.Thisisthe
ideaofthenation,whichDerondadevelopedintwocompetingformsthatwouldcontribute
tooneofthemostnotableaspectsofthebook:itsphilosemitism.88Thenovelforgesa
88AllanArkushwritesthat“ifG.E.Lessing’sNathantheWisecanbeclassifiedasthemostphilosemiticliterarymasterpiecepublishedintheeighteenthcentury,GeorgeEliot’sDanielDerondaholdsthebestclaimtosuchdistinctioninthenineteenth.”Arkush,“RelativizingNationalism.”,61
188
comparisonbetweentheEnglishversionofnationhoodandaprospectiveJewishnation,
depictingaJewishpeoplemakingupadefactonationwithinanEnglishnationdejure.But
thenovel’sconclusion–inDaniel’sdeparturefromEnglandtofoundaJewishstate–suggests
thatEliotfoundapossibilityofrenewalintheJewishmodelofnationhoodthatwaslacking
forEngland.Danieldiscoversthathedoesnotjusthaveasympatheticidentificationwith
theJewishpeopleina“cultural”sense,butthatheis,infact,boundtoaJewishcommunity
throughhishiddenparentage.ItisthislatterfactthatallowsDanieltomovefromanethics
ofabstractiontoanethicofsympathyinhisacceptanceoftheJewishprojectofnationhood
andexitfromEngland.
Finally,IwillarguethatEliot’sembraceoftheJewishmodelofthenation,while
satisfactoryintermsoftheproblemsetoutinDanielDeronda,suggeststhatEliothadrun
intodifficultiesinherlargerhumanisticaspirations:toabstractChristianethicsfromtheir
source.Eliot’shumanism,asIhaveargued,entailstheexpansionofanhistoricallyspecific
localethictoa(hypothetically)universalscope.Aversionofthisprocessmusthappenin
someformifEnglandistobecomeanation.England,intheimaginaryofhernovels,is
basedonavillageethic.Andlocalvillageethicsmustbeexpandedintoanationalethic.
WhenMillandDerondaaretakeninparallel,Englandisshowntobeanationwithstrong
ethicalattachmentsattheprovinciallevel,butnoprocessthatwillreliablyturnapeople
imaginativelyrootedinthevillageintoawidernation.
Eliotuncoversapersistentdifficultyinthematterofvirtuallyexpandingtheprovincial
villageintoameaningfulnationalcommunity.England’srulingclasses,Eliotsuggests,are
indifferent,unawareorunabletogenerateanyobjectofinspirationthatwouldforma
189
senseofdutyequivalenttowhatDanieldiscoversinhisJewishidentity.Forallits
particularoptimism,then,Derondasuggeststhatneithertheorganicvillage,whichforEliot
istheformofcommunityidenticalwithEngland,norChristianity,whichinEliot’sview
formedthebasisforadistinctivelyEnglishformofethics,hadaviableplaceinamodernity
definedbycosmopolitanism.89
DanielDerondaopensinacasino,asymbolicmicrocosmofthecosmopolitanculturethat
willbethewidersettingofthenovel.ItisthesitewhereDanielfirstmeetsandnotices
Gwendolyn,andthepointofreferenceinthepresentfromthewhichtherestofthestory
willbetold,firstflashingbackandthenmovingforward.Thisveryfirstsceneofthenovel
iswhatthenarratoroffersasa“beginning,”because,asshenotesinthefirstline,“mencan
donothingwithoutthemake-believeofabeginning.”Thiswillbeaspiritualratherthan
chronologicalstartingpointforthenovel.Thecasinooffersaworthentrypointinto
Deronda’spresentationofcosmopolitanismasbothconditionandproblem.
WhenDanielDerondaenterstheroom,Gwendolynisanotablesightinherveryfigure:a
woman,aloneandengagedinavidgambling.Forthattimeitwasanunusualsight,placing
herattheheadofthetableinfullviewofalltheotherpatrons,some“fiftyorsixtypersons”
gatheredaroundonecornerinafictionalGermanresorttown.Thenarratornotesthe
conspicuouscosmopolitanismofthepatrons:“LivonianandSpanish,Graeco-Italianand
miscellaneousGerman,EnglisharistocraticandEnglishplebeian.”Thegamblinghouseis
markedbyanervousenergy:“Herewasastrikingadmissionofhumanequality,”the
89Thisisalsotrueofherfinalnovel,TheImpressionsofTheophrastusSuch,whichIwillvisitbriefly.
190
narratornoteswithsomeirony.Foralltheirdifferenceinappearance,thepatronsofthe
casinoaresubjecttothelevelingforcesofcalculationandutilitarianself-interest.
Thedetailsofthecasinoarepresentedlikethoseofanallegory,aboutacultureunsureof
itsownvaluesanditsownends.Indeed,thebehaviordescribedinthecasinosceneislessa
descriptionofthevalues,motivations,orgoalsoftheindividualsdescribedthananaccount
oftheirdeferment,ofhowthequestionofself-intereststripsawaythepurposive
dimensionoftheindividual.Forallthedifferencesbetweenthecharactersintheroom,
theirequalityisborneoutbytheirsimilarityofaffect,afocusedintensitythatremovesany
senseofparticularbackgroundorhistoricallyconditioneddifference.
Allthatseparatestheplayersfromoneanotheristheoutcomeof“thegame.”Itisasceneof
“dull,gas-poisonedabsorption,”ruledbydissimulationandcalculateddetachmentofthe
socialactorsinquestion.Thescenesuggestsanabsenceofmutuality;success,butwith
minimalsenseofsignificance.Boredomexistsamidstgreat(monetary)stakes:“acertain
uniformnegativenessofexpressionwhichhadtheeffectofamask—-asiftheyhadall
eatenofsomerootthatforthetimecompelledthebrainsofeachtothesamenarrow
monotonyofaction.”
ThissceneinDerondacapturestheregimeofabstractionthatwasjustcomingintoviewin
Mill.Abstractionmeans,first,thelossofaviewoftheindividualorigin.Theindividual
representssomething,butisnotfromsomethingorsomewhere.Allidentitiesarepartofa
singularpicture.Thisisthestandpointfromnowhererepresentedbytheethicsof
abstraction.Second,inthecaseofDanielandGwendolyn,theethicsofabstraction
191
representtheavoidanceofotherquestions.Thenovelimpliesthatthisisthestateof
cosmopolitanEurope,oratleastEuropeinitselite,aristocraticform.
Whenitwasfirstpublished,DanielDerondawasderidedfortheapparentincongruity
betweenitstwoplotlines.ManyEnglishcriticswereimpressedbyGwendolynHarcourt,
callingherEliot’smostimpressivelyrealizedfemalecharacter,but–reflectingthe
mainstreamanti-Semitismofthetime–wereconfusedandevenrepulsedbytheJewish
narrative.DanielandGwendolyn,whoseverydifferentlivesareunitedforawhileby
circumstancesandaneedforaconfidant,willbecastinseparatedirections,withDaniel
leavingunderthevaguepretensetohelpfoundaJewishhomelandandGwendolyn
declaringthat“Iwilllive,”inspiteofhereventualmisfortunesandindefinitefuture
prospects.
Inthecasino,calculativeabstractionbecomesthemethodforsocialexchange.Whatmakes
itpossibleforthesediversefacesofEuropetoappearandrelatetooneanotherinthesame
roomisthecommonbasisofthegamebeingplayed.Indeed,astheslowly-emerging
backstoryofDanielandGwendolynmakesclearbytheendofthisscene,the“game”of
wagering,winningandlosingisintendedtoserveasaformofescape.Ifthecasinooffersa
macroscopicviewofhowtherulesofabstractiongovernawholesociety,thenDanieland
Gwendolynofferapictureoftheintegrativesituationbetweenindividualandwhole.
Abstractioncreatesarelationshipbetweensocialactors,butIwillarguethattheviewof
DanielandGwendolyn’sindividualsituationprovidesapictureofmembershipwithout
participation,thatwhatIhavecalled“abstract”individualismimposesminimal
requirementsofmembershiponDanielandGwendolyn,allowingthemtodischargetheir
192
membershipwithoutinvolvingthemasagents.Thatis,thetermsinwhichtheyunderstand
themselvestobeaparticipantinthecommunityarenotthoseunderwhichtheyactually
participate.
GwendolynHarcourtistheeldestdaughterofafamilywithWestIndiancolonialwealth.
Whensheisaroundtwenty-one,herstepfather’sdeathandthedwindlingofthefamily’s
fortuneforceGwendolyn,hermother,andsiblingstomovenearheruncle,therectorina
ruralEnglishparish.Whenherfamilylosestherestofitsfortuneinfurtherbad
investments,sheisforcedtochoosebetweenbecomingagovernessand—-inan
improbableeventof“good”fortune-—marriagetoawealthylandedaristocraticscion,
HenleighGrandcourt,who,despiteGwendolyn’snewarrivalintopoverty,developsan
interestinherforreasonsofhisown.AlthoughGwendolyndoesnotparticularlylikehim,
sheeventuallyacceptshismarriageofferoutofduty,securingherownfutureandthatof
hermotherandsiblings.
Atthenovel’sopeningGwendolynistheprideofherfamily,dotedonbyhermother,and
consideredoneofthemostdesirableprospectsformarriageamongherpeers.Thisthe
rootofwhatIwanttocallherabstractpersonality.Shehasasenseofhavingbeenmarked
forsomethingmoremomentousthantheexpectedoutcometoherlife:marriageand
submissiontodomesticresponsibility.Thisevenif,inherlimitedexperienceandprospects
asaleisuredwoman,shecannotimaginewhatthatwouldbe.Hersenseofbeingmeantfor
somethingmoreisbothasourceofmoraldistortionandblindness.Gwendolynis
accustomedtobeing“waitedonbymother,sisters,governessandmaids,asifshehadbeen
aprincessinexile”–andtherootofaretreatintoromantic,unspeakablefantasiesthat
193
allowhertoavoidthethoughtofmarriageinfavoroffantastical“dramasinwhichshe
imaginedherselfaheroine.”90
Thesurface-levelcharacterizationofGwendolynasthe“spoiled”child(thetitleofanearly
chapterinthenovel)beliesherambivalentsenseofagency.Whilesheisabsolutelycertain
ofhersocialstandinginasenseofherstructuralpositionwithintheEnglishclasssystem,
herstatusassocialobjectwithinthesocialdeterminationofmarriagehastheeffectof
stuntinghersenseofherselfasanagent.91Theresultisthedenialofherfate,theretreat
intofantasy,andthecasualindifferencetoothers,becauseGwendolynissomeonefor
whomheractionsdonot,inanypragmaticsense,matter.92Gwendolyn’sunarticulated
absorptionofherownstatusleadstoalossofpurposeoutsideofamusement.Ofher
internallife,thenarratortellsusthatsheprojectsan“inbornenergyofegoisticdesire,and
herpowerofinspiringfearastowhatshemightsayordo.”93
DanielDerondaistheadoptedsonofawealthyLondonnobleman,HugoMallinger.Daniel’s
birthoriginsarehiddenfromhimbyhisadoptivefather,andbecomethesourceofa
lifelongunease.Thisparalyzeshiminearlylife,butalsocreatesthecircumstancesthrough
whichhediscovershisbirthparentage.Thiswillbecomethesourceofavision–thedream90Eliot,DanielDeronda,18.
91JohnRignallattributesthesplitinGwendolyn’sawarenessbetweenunmistakableoutcomeandfantasytotheresultofherunconsciousentrapmentinaDarwiniansystemofsexselection:“ThroughGwendolen,Eliotrevealstheillusionofchoice:Gwendolenbelievessheisfreetomakeherownsexualselection,butherexperiencereveals,crushingly,heractualpowerlessness.”JohnRignall,ed.,OxfordReader’sCompaniontoGeorgeEliot(Oxford;NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2000),entryto“Darwininsm”(accessedelectronically).
92Gwendolyn’spredicamentrecallsalinefromMillexchangedbetweenthesiblings,whereTommocksMaggiebyaskingwhyshedoesnotactonanyofhersentiments:“becauseyouareaman,andcandothingsintheworld,”277.
93Eliot,DanielDeronda,43,53.
194
ofJewishstatehood–thatwillbecomeDaniel’sadoptedcauseandvocation.Heiswidely
believedtobeMallinger’sillegitimateson,buttherealstoryofDaniel’spastonlystartsto
unlockitselfwhenhestopsayoungJewishgirl,MirahLapidoth,fromdrowingherselfin
theThamesinLondon.ShewasborninLondonandspentherearlylifethere,beforebeing
kidnappedbyherfatherandbroughttotheUnitedStatestoworkintheaterasasinger,
andfleeingwhenherfathertriedtosellherintoprostitution.Danielresolvestohelpher
findabrotherthatshehasreturnedtoLondontosearchfor.Intheprocess,heimmerses
himselfinthesearchacrossLondon’sJewishcommunity,becomingfascinatedbyJewish
religionandcultureaftermeetingayoung,dyingJewishmysticcallinghimself“Mordecai.”
MordecairegalesDanielwithhisZionistaspirationsofaJewishstate,andDanielbecomes
increasinglytakenbyMordecai’sdream.HistiestotheJewishcommunityexpandfrom
there.DanieldiscoversthatMordecaiisMirah’ssought-afterbrother,Ezra,andthen,upon
receivingaletterfromhisbirthmotherthatsheisdyinginLisbon,Danieldiscoversthathe,
himself,isJewish.
IfGwendolyn’sabstractindividualismisdefinedbyasenseoflistlesssuperioritybrought
onbyalackofpowerrelativetoherstatusasagent,thenDanielDeronda’sabstractionis
broughtonbyanexcessofpossibility,byanindecisionbroughtonbyaninvoluntarystatus
ofbeingfreedfromloyalties.
Danieldoesnotknowwhohisbirthparentsareandfeelsunabletoask,ashesuspectsthat
heistheillegitimatesonofhisadoptedfather,theBaronHugoMalinger.Nothavingapast
isasourceofshameand,thenarrativesuggests,rootlessness.“Therehadsprungupinhim
ameditativeyearningafterwideknowledge,”writesthenarrator.Indecisionleadshimto
195
shyawayfromprizesorconspicuousrecognition,for“Success,”thedescriptionsays,is“a
sortofbeginningthaturgedcompletion.”Havingbeeninformedbyhisadoptivefatherthat
hestandstoreceiveamodestinheritancefortherestofhislife,Danielisparalyzedby
restlessexplorationandcontemplation.94
Privilegedcircumstancesbreedasympathyandconcernforeverythingbuthimself,
becausehehasnofirmbasisonwhichtoorganizehisabilitiesorambitions.“Therewas
hardlyadelicacyoffeelingthisladwasnotcapableof,”thenarratortellsus.Butnoremark
bettercapturesthesourceofhisabstractionthanthenarrator’sknowingassessmentthat
hewas“questioningwhetheritwereworthwhiletotakepartinthebattleoftheworld,”
butthatthisquestioningwassustainedby“threeorfivepercentoncapitalwhich
somebodyelsehasbattledfor.”ThesourceofDaniel’sfreedomisareturnonafungible
assetsonamarket,representednotintheoldEnglisharistocracy’sreceiptofrentsand
incomepaidonagriculturalproduction,butintheabilityoffinancializationtoturna
bundleofassetsintoawealthgeneratingmachine.95ThesuperfluousnessofDaniel’saction
tohisownsourceofmaterialsustainmentisafittingcounterpointtothelackofknowledge
thathehasabouthisfamilialhistory.Asasocialelitewhosepositionismaintainedbythe
abstractmechanismofthemarkets,Daniel’sownsenseofhimselfasanagentisnoless
ungroundedthanGwendolyn’s,evenifhisgendermakeshimarepresentativeofsocial
power.Hisreluctancetousethatpowerforanydefinitecourseofactionsuggestsacertain
94“Helongednowtohavethesortofapprenticeshiptolifewhichwouldnotshapehimtoodefinitely,androbhimofthechoicethatmightcomefromafreegrowth.”ibid.,153
95SeeColeman,GeorgeEliotandMoney,Chapter8,“ThePoliticsofWealth:NewLiberalismandthePathologiesofEconomicIndividualism.”
196
sharedconditionwithher.ThestatusoftheyoungEnglishmanandEnglishwoman,the
novelsuggests,isthatofapointless,automaticexpectation,cuttingofftheindividual’s
accesstohisownsubjectivitybeforeitdevelops.Inresponsetotheethicsofabstraction,
bothDanielandGwendolynhaveadoptedaversionofself-negation,aninculcatedbadfaith
thatobscurestheirownfreedomtothemselves.
TheseportraitsofDanielandGwendoylnexplainhowtheethicsofabstractionare
differentlyinflectedbytheirindividualsituation.Thelaterdivergenceintheirfatewillturn
thenovel’stwohalvesintoasetofcompetingmodelsaboutwhatthenationcanandshould
be.DanielDerondaisanexperimentalcaseinthisregard,achievingadegreeofsubjective
purposivenessbyhismovementfromonenationalcommunity–theEnglish–tohis
adventitious(oronemightclaimprovidential)reunionwiththeJewishcommunityofhis
birth.Ashedeclaresatthenovel’send,Daniel’sdecisiontosubordinatehisEnglishidentity
toanewidentitycenteredinhisJewishbirthisdrivenbythedesiretopursuethe
nationalisticprojectofZionism.Danieldeclaresthat“theideathatIampossessedwithis
thatofrestoringapoliticalexistencetomypeople,makingthemanationagain,givingthem
anationalcenter,suchastheEnglishhave,thoughtheytooarescatteredoverthefaceof
theglobe.”96Butthechoiceitselfisrootedinamorefundamentaldifferencebetweenthe
EnglishandJewishversionsofthe“nation”thatthebookcontains.
ThenovelsuggeststhattheEnglishnation,forallitsgeographicandpoliticalreality,lacks
anunderstandingofitsowncenterofgravity.Asatotality,thenovelsuggests,itfailsto
assemblethematerials,ritualsandpracticesthatcreateasenseofobligationinthe
96Eliot,DanielDeronda,688.
197
individualtothenation.AsanotheryoungaristocraticwomanandpeerofGwendolyn,
CatherineArrowpoint,saystoherparentswhenshechoosestopursueanartisticcareer,
marryingoutsideofacceptableclassandraciallinestotheJewishmusicianJuliasKlesmer:
“IwillnotgiveupthehappinessofmylifetoideasthatIdon’tbelieveinandcustomsIhave
norespectfor.”97Indeed,thegreatvirtueoftheEnglishnationisshowntobeitsflexibility
andopennesstoself-contradiction,todifferencefromitself.“IwanttobeanEnglishman,
butIwanttounderstandotherpointsofview,”DanieltellshisadoptedEnglishfather
abouthisplansforeducationbeforehisrevelation.98
ThenovelportraysEnglandasacreationrootedinimaginationratherthanmateriality,
wheretheformittakesisdependentonthecapabilitiesoftheindividualmembersofthe
nationalproject.ThereisnothingsocompellingaboutEnglishnationhoodinitselfthat
forcesacertainallegianceorcourseofactiononitsmembers.Thenovel’sunusual(for
Eliot)focusonan“elite”strataofEnglishlifecanbeseenasanattempttoanalyzeEngland
initsmostgeneralized,representativeform,throughtheavatarsofEnglishnessatthe
nationallevel.Englandisaplayofoppositesinthenovel,encompassingallofwhatare
essentially“villain”characterslikeGwendolyn’shusbandHarleighGrandcourt,apostatesto
aristocraticdutysuchastheabove-mentionedCatherineArrowpoint,andputative
membersoftheoldaristocratictraditionssuchasDaniel’sadoptedfatherHugoMallinger.
England,thenovelsuggests,dependsonacollectionofindividual,electiveleapsof
“sympathy”thatfosterthecontinuation–ordissipation–ofEnglishnationhood.
97Ibid.,210.
98Ibid.,155.
198
TheversionofJudaismandtheJewishnationalityinDeronda–suchasitisconstituted
throughEliot’sownresearchintheyearsbeforeshecomposedthenovel–represents
Jewishnationalityasaphenomenonthatismateriallyandinstitutionallydispersed,while
nonethelessbeing“essentially”unified.IshouldnotefromtheoutsetthatEliot’streatment
ofJudaism,whileunusuallycandidandsympatheticforitstime,shouldbeunderstood
withinanineteenthcenturyinterestinthehistoricalandanthropologicaloriginof
Europeanpeoples,aswellasthroughthelensofanidealizeddemographic“other”that
givesthenovelanoutsidepositiontocritiqueEnglishnationhood.Eliot’sunderstandingof
Judaism,inbothitshistoricalandcontemporaryforms,wasofherownmakingandforher
ownpurposes.99Eliot’sportrayaloftheJewishcommunitiesofLondonsuggestsa
competingmodelofnationaldeterminationbyhistoricalparticularity.
Englandischaracterizedbyliberationfromtheobligationtoitsownhistoricalstructures,
byitsapparentlackofessentialdeterminingfactorsofitsmembers,andbyanopenness
bothtoprovincialinwardnessandthecosmopolitanaspiration.Jewishnationality,by
contrast,isshowntohaveaforceofhistoricalreassembly:theabilitytomaintainits
cohesionthroughaconsistentreferralbacktoitsspecifichistoricalpastbyitspresent
members.InDerondathiscanbeseeninthereturnofitsdiasporiclostmembersbackto
serviceinthenation(e.g.,DanielDerondaandMirahLapidoth)whiledispensingakindof
cosmicpunishmentonthose,likeDaniel’smotherandMirah’sfather,whodeliberately
strayfromthedutiesofstewardshipandcharitytowardtheirpeers.
99SeeAmandaAnderson,“GeorgeEliotandtheJewishQuestion,”TheYaleJournalofCriticism10,no.1(1997):39–61,http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/yale_journal_of_criticism/v010/10.1anderson.htmlandSaleelNurbhaiandK.M.Newton,GeorgeEliot,Judaism,andtheNovels:JewishMythandMysticism(Houndmills,Basingstoke,Hampshire:Palgrave,2002).
199
InDerondathispastnessmanifestsintheprovidentialforcesthatleadthetitlecharacter
backtohisoriginal(Jewish)parentage.Therecanbelittledoubtthatthisphenomenonwas
animportantsourceoffascinationand,perhaps,envyforEliotinthefinalphaseofher
careerasasnovelist.ThisabouttheJewishpeoplefromherlastpublishedwork,The
ImpressionsofTheophrastusSuch:
Onthewhole,oneofthemostremarkablephenomenainthehistoryofthisscatteredpeople,madeforages“a
scornandahissing,”is,thatafterbeingsubjectedtothisprocess,whichmighthavebeenexpectedtobeinevery
sensedeterioratingandvitiating,theyhavecomeoutofit(inanyestimatewhichallowsfornumericalproportion)
rivalingthenationsofallEuropeancountriesinhealthinessandbeautyofphysique,inpracticalability,inscientific
andartisticaptitude,andinsomeformsofethicalvalue.100
JewishnationalityrepresentsaparadoxforEliot,inthatitsveryenvironmentaland
materialprecarityseemstoaffirmtheexistenceofanunseen,deeperunityanddrive-to-
cohere.Byvirtueofitshistoricalspecificity,Eliotsuggests,theJewishnationinheritsthe
principleofitsownconsistency.ThereforeIwanttosuggestthattheJewishnationcanbe
takenasanimportantexampleforEliot’sownbroaderhumanisticproject.Theapparent
resilienceofJewishpeoplestodissolutionthroughhistoricaltraumaandaccidentsuggests
therelianceonamorefundamentalrootednessinahistorical“truth,”onethatallowsthe
Jewishpeopletopersistwithinanenduringprincipleoflife.
ForEliot,whosoughttocultivateaformofhumanisticcommonconcerntiedtoChristianity
thatwasbothliberatedfromitshistoricalstructureswhilestillremainingessentially
compelledbythosesamestructures,Jewishnationalitywasaparallelphenomenonof
100Eliot,ImpressionsofTheophrastusSuch,222–23.
200
sorts.Thenation,whichwouldbebuiltontopofbutalsonecessarilyexceeditshistorical
basis,wasanalogoustotheChristianhumanist’smovementfromfirst(historical)
appearancetoageneralprinciple.AswiththeaspirationthatEnglandcouldbetheorganic
expansionofthevillage,andMordecai’shopethattheJewishnationcanresisttheeroding
forcesofassimilationanddiaspora,thenationrepresentsavirtualkinshipwherenone
existsthroughexperience.ThequestionthatEliotmustansweriswhetherherhumanism
looksmorelikethatoftheEnglishnation,whereexcellencewillbearareandoccasional
achievementbyindividuals,orthatofanascentJewishnation:apersistentformthat
resiststheredefinitionbyindividualswhilealsorepresentingthefulfillmentofindividual
aspiration.
Danielisfirstintroducedtothereaderinhisearlymaturity,beforetheeventsofthenovel
begininearnest,“fallenintoameditativenumbness”and“glidingfartherandfartherfrom
thatlifeofpracticallyenergeticsentimentwhichhewouldhaveproclaimed(ifhehadbeen
inclinedtoproclaimanything)tobethebestofalllife,andforhimselftheonlywayworth
living.”101Daniel’sadoptedfather,abaronandholderofnumerousestates,seeksto
encouragehissonbut,reflectinghisownwell-balancedeaseandlackofurgency,canoffer
noadviceofconsequence.“Whatdoyouintendmetobe?”Danielasks,andreceivesthe
answerfromMallingerthatheistochoose“whateveryourinclinationleadsyouto,my
boy.”[Eliot:1876aa,149]Mallingercontinues:“whatIwishyoutogetisapassportinlife,”
makingaqualifiedrecommendationofuniversitystudytohim,butultimately
recommendingacareerinlawandpolitics,ongroundsthat“wewantalittledisinterested
101Eliot,DanielDeronda,308.
201
culturetomakeheadagainstcottonandcapital,especiallyintheHouse.”Thenagain,he
declares,“ifyouhaveanyturnforbeingaDon,Isaynothingagainstit.”Finally,Mallinger’s
indifferencebetweenperfectly“good”optionsistemperedwithassurancethatDaniel
“neednottakeupanythingagainstthegrain,”thathewillhavea“bachelor’sincome”and
“considerhimselfsecureforseven-hundred-a-year.”102ButforDaniel,freedfromthe
compulsionofpecuniaryupkeep,itisincorrecttoseehissenseofbeinginthemiddle
betweenallthingsasablessing.Alongsidehisfreedomfromwantthereisanimplied
desireforself-determination.Saysthenarrator:“manyofuscomplainthathalfour
birthrightissharpduty.Danielwasmoreinclinedtocomplainthathewasrobbedofthis
half.”
AlthoughDanielbeginsthenoveltooinarticulatetounderstandwhytheproblemofhis
past–hisparentage–mightbeconnectedtoquestionoffutureaction,heregardsthisanswer
tothequestionasifitwereareligioussecret,arcaneknowledgewhosepurposecannotbe
knowninadvance:“thewordsFatherandMotherhadthealtar-fireinthem;andthe
thoughtofallclosestrelationsofournatureheldstillsomethinginthemysticpowerwhich
hadmadehisneckandearsburninboyhood.”103Inthemostgeneralsenseitcanbesaid
thatDanielhasnodefinitecapacitytotakeaactionbutapredispositiontosympathyin
Eliot’ssense,anindiscriminatetendencytoidentifywiththeconditionofothers,duty
renderedlatentbyanexcessoffreedom.Indeed,rightuptothemomentthatheseesMirah
Lapidothandpreventsherfromdrowningherself,Danielenjoystheopennessof
102Ibid.,150.
103Ibid.,402.
202
possibility,“occupiedchieflywithuncertaintiesabouthisowncourse;butthose
uncertainties,beingmuchattheirleisure,werewonttohavesuchwide-sweeping
connectionswithalllifeandhistory.”104
IfDanielisaportraitofpotentiallyhonorablemotiveandintention,butwithoutobjectto
whichitcanbeapplied,thenhispeerandGwendolyn’seventualhusband,Harleigh
Grandcourt,willbehisantithesis.HeislikeDanielinthathelacksforsocialdirectionor
duty,butdifferentinthatheseemstoseekouttheannihilationofanyidealsassuch.
Daniel’seventualchoicetobecomea“socialcaptain”oftheJewishnationalcausemakes
himintosomethingofagauzyromantichero.Grandcourt,bycomparison,isaromantic
villainfigure,representedbyaninternallifethatonlyservestorevealthedetailsofhis
schemes.ComparedtoDaniel,wholooksforanentirelydifferentorderofpurposethanthe
variouslinesofdevelopmentavailabletoanaristocrat,Grandcourtreactstohis
determinationbyclassstatusandmaterialposition–wealthyheir,eligiblebachelor–witha
kindofnihilisticdisgust.
DrawntoGwendolynbyaperceptionofaspiritedness,likeaprizetobewonandtamed,he
understandshimselftohavenothingtoofferoutsideofhisclassandmaterialrank,and
seesnoactionworthtakinginexcessofthesenakedadvantagesthathepresentstosuitors.
OfhismarriagetoGwendolyn,“hehadwonherbytherankandluxurieshehadtogiveher,
andtheseshehadgot:hehadfulfilledhissideofthecontract.”105Hetreatsthequestionof
marriageasagame,andprojectsanindifferencetotheconsequencesofamaterially
104Ibid.,160.
105Ibid.,573.
203
unwisemarriagetoGwendolyn,whohasnopropertyorgreatrankofherown.And
Gwendolyn,forherpart,willregardhimasanobstacletobeovercomeforlaterplansthat
donotincludedeterminationbyahusband.Herobservation,that“aftermarriageshe
wouldprobablybeabletomanagehimthoroughly,”provesdisastrouslywrongwhenthe
marriagebecomesastruggleforcontrol.106Intheabsenceofsignificancethatcanbe
impartedtotheunion(Grandcourt)andnecessity(Gwendolyn),theabsenceofpurposeis
transformedintoresentment,asGwendolyn,usedtomakinguseofothers,findsherself
madeuseofinalife“carriedonwithouttheluxuryofsympatheticfeeling.”107
InhermarriageGwendolynarrivesatastatewhere“shehadaworld-nauseauponher,and
sawnoreasonallthroughherlifewhysheshouldwishtolive.”Grandcourt,forhispart,has
“noimaginationofanythinginherbutwhataffectedthegratificationofhisownwill”108
Gwendolyn’sinstinctofnegationcomesfullcirclewiththatofdominationbyGrandcourt.
Asaresult,whatIhavecalledtheconditionofEnglishnessrevealsitselftobeasortof
creativityatthrowingawaythepossibilitiesoffreedom,varyingbythe“quality”ofthe
individualaspiration,butlimitedbythetypeofinspirationavailable.Thelackofa
constructiveprojectbecomesapanoplyofturning-inward,the“delicacyoffeeling”andthe
“well-bredsilence”ofGwendolynandGrandcourt.109The“Englishhalf”ofthenovelis
encasedinakindofpurposelesspresent,whichisonlymadebearablebymeansofironic
106Ibid.,115.
107Ibid.,364.
108ibid.,231(firstquotation),474(secondquotation)
109ibid.,142(firstquotation),575(secondquotation)
204
detachment.Thejoiningofthe“Jewishhalf”ofthenovelwiththeEnglishhalf,throughthe
boundarycharacterofDaniel,representstheeruptionofakindofactioninthenovel’s
moribundsurface.
DanielconfrontsaneworderofconsequenceafterhismeetingwithMirah.WhenDaniel
seesherfromhisownboatintheThames,shehasalreadyfailedtofindherbrotherand
motherandhasresolvedtodrownherself.AnactthatDanielviewsasacrimegainsamore
profoundcontextinMirah’sact:“Ithoughtitwasnotwicked.Deathandlifeareonebefore
theEternal.”Thesignificanceofherdeathtoherselfrecedesinthefaceofmythichistory:
“ThenIthoughtofmypeople,howtheyhadbeendrivenfromlandtolandandafflicted,
andmultitudeshaddiedofmiseryintheirwandering–wasIthefirst?”110Mirah’slifeisnot
simplyindividuallifebutcollectivelife.Whatshecallsher“command”toliveisDaniel’s
unforeseenactatthemomentsheintendstodrownherself.Mordecai,Mirah’ssought-after
brotherthatDanielwillmeetinthecomingweeksinLondon’sJewishquarter,willtellhim
whentheyarestandingonabridgeovertheThamesthat“Ihavealwayslovedthis
bridge…[I]tisameeting-placeforthespiritualmessengers.”111Thenarratorsuggeststhat
MordecaiknowsDerondaishiskinsmanevenbeforeDanieltravelstomeethisbirth
motherinGenoaandlearnhistrueancestry.Mordecaispeaksinaprolepticfashionabout
thefulfillmentofhisZionistambitionstoDaniel,asifhiswayofapprehendingtheworld
alreadymakeshimprivytosuchknowledge.“Youwillbemylife,”Mordecaisays:
110Ibid.,189.
111Ibid.,423.
205
“…itwillbeplantedafresh;itwillgrow.Youshalltaketheinheritance;ithasbeengatheringforages.The
generationsarecrowdingonmynarrowlifeasabridge:whathasbeenandwhatistobearemeetingthere;and
thebridgeisbreaking.”112
ButifthediscoveryofDaniel’sJudaismisonlyaconfirmationofMordecai’splans,the
revelationisutterlyessentialtothesenseofpurposethatinfusesDeronda.Mordecai
alreadyunderstandsDerondatobetheonewhowillinherithisspiritualaspirationsafter
hisbodilydeath,butthetaskisbeyondDaniel’ssenseofpersonaldutyasthesituationthen
stands.DanieldeclarestoMordecaithatIam“notofyourrace,”receivingbackMordecai’s
crypticbutunshakenresponsethat“itcan’tbetrue.”OnlywhenheconfirmsMordecai’s
suspicionisDanielabletounderstandtheirlinkinspiritualterms.Thespiritualclaimthat
Mordecai’svisionhasonDanielcomesaftertheknowledgeoftheircommonheritage.Itis
exactlybecauseoftheirsharedmembershipinasinglehistoricalpeoplethatheisableto
takethe“inheritance”fromMordecai,i.e.the“bridge”that“hasbeengatheringfor
generations.”ToputitinEliot’sterms,Daniel’ssympathywithMordecaicanonlyfollow
fromasharedmaterialitystretchingintotheimmemorialpast.
Daniel’ssituationisresolvedthroughthedeusexmachinaofhisrevealedpast.The
revelationabouthispastsuggeststhatthecapturethatMordecaihasonhisimagination
aloneisnotenough.113Daniel’stenuousclaimonEnglishnessthathismothershattersis
reassembledsothataclaimisplacedonhimbyhisJewishness.
112Ibid.,429.
113AtthispointinthenarrativeDerondahasalreadybeguntostudyHebrewwithMordecai,spendingmanyofhisdaysintheJewishquarterofLondon.
206
ThereversalundergonebyDanielbearscomparisontohisco-protagonist,Gwendolyn,in
hertwomostdevastatingscenesofthenovel:whenherhusbandGrandcourtdrownsinher
presence,andwhenDanieltellsherheisJewishandwillleavetogo“totheEast.”
Afterherhusband’sdrowning,Gwendolynconfideshersenseofguiltandresponsibilityin
Deronda.Shewasabystandertotheevent,andherhusbandquicklyfellbeneaththe
surfacebeforeshecouldthrowhimalifeline.Butdespiteher“innocence”inalegalor
strictlymoralsenseofthedeed,GwendolynisatpainstoconvinceDerondathatshebears
someguiltforherhusband’sdeathamidsttheirmiserablemarriage.“Isawmywish
outsideme,”shetellsDaniel,convincedthatshehadwishedherhusband’sdisappearance
sostronglythatshewassomehowcomplicitinhisfate.114Danieltakestherouteof
reassurance,pointingoutthedifferencebetweenmoralintentionandmoraloutcome,
between“themomentarymurderouswill”and“thecourseofevents.”Butindoingsohe
missesthegrowthofsympatheticinvolvementinGwendolyn’spowersofconscience.
ThechangebroughtonbytheeventinGwendolynisofakindofpowerofimagination,of
feelingimplicatedinherhusband’sdeathjustbecauseofthenature(ordearthof)her
sympatheticconnectionwithhim.Gwendolynreinterpretsaninvisiblepower,whichcan
bedismissedas“mere”emotion,asthebasisfortherelationshipitself.Incontrastto
Daniel,forwhomthematerialconnectionundergirdsthereachofsympathy,Gwendolyn’s
imaginativeleaptranscendseventhelackofamaterialcause.Sheunderstandswhatwas
mostessentialabouttheirrelationshipasthesympatheticconnection,andintheaftermath
ofhisdeath,repentsatthestateofher“momentarymurderouswill”toseekforgiveness.
114Ibid.,596.
207
TheactofprivatemoralimaginationthatstrikesGwendolynisgivenmoredramaticform
attheendofthenovel,whenDanieltellsherheisJewish,thatheismarryingthesinger
MirahLapidoth(theJewishwomanhehadstoppedfromdrowningintheThames),and
thattheirfriendshipwillend,andthatheisleavingLondonandEnglandentirely.“Theidea
thatIampossessedwithisthatofrestoringapoliticalexistencetomypeople,makingthem
anationagain,givingthemanationalcenter,suchastheEnglishhave,”Danieltells
Gwendolynaboutthetaskthat“presentsitselftomeasaduty.”115Gwendolyn’s
understandingofthisrevelationismultifaceted:shockattheclarificationofDaniel’spast,
regretthattheimplicitprospectofmarriagebetweenthemisgone,andfinallyasenseof
aweatthescopeofDaniel’sambition.Itwas“thesortofcrisiswhichwasatthismoment
beginninginGwendolen’ssmalllife,”of“beingdislodgedfromhersupremacyinherown
world”and“gettingasensethatherhorizonwasbutadippingonwardofanexistence.”116
AtthatmomentGwendolynhasvisionsof“thegreatmovementsoftheworld,”andthinks
ofwarsandcatastrophesinherowntimeforwhichshehadheretoforefeltnopossible
connectiontoherownlimitedindividualexistence.117
Gwendolyn’ssenseofultimateinsignificanceisanambivalentrecognitionofherown
potentialconnectiontohersurroundings,tothewayinwhichsheandherenvironmentare,
atwhateverdistance,co-constitutiveofoneanother.ButincomparisontoDerondaandhis
founder’smission,Gwendolyn,byvirtueofhergenderandpositioninlife,willremainat115Ibid.,688.
116Ibid.,688.
117Thispointstandsincontrasttothenarrator’sownassessmentatthenovel’sbeginning:“Couldtherebeaslenderer,moreinsignificantthreadinhumanhistorythanthisconsciousnessofagirl,busywithhersmallinferencesofthewayinwhichshecouldmakeherlifepleasant?”ibid.,102.
208
thelevelofmoralandsympatheticinsight,withnobasistobringtheinsightintoactivelife.
Asaresult,Gwendolyn’sassessmentofhersituationattheendofthenovelis
fundamentallyprivate:“Ishalllive.Ishallbebetter.”Thesympatheticrevelationthat
markshernewmaturityhasnograndproject.Onamoremundanelevel,ithasnoactive,
communaloccasionbywhichtomarkandexpanditself.
Bythenovel’send,bothDanielandGwendolyngainasenseoftheirpositionwithrespect
toanintuitivewhole,orsomethinglikeacosmiclocation.Butadifferenceopensup
betweenthemwithrespecttothekindoflifethatseemspossiblewithinthecommunity.
Thenationshapesahorizonofoutcomesforitsmembers,formingakindofsecular
accountoffateinEliot’snovel.Eliothaslongbeennotedforaprovidentialfunctioninher
novels,andthefunctionofprovidencereachesperhapsitspeakinDanielDeronda.118Here,
providenceconfirmstheworking-outofhistoricalprocesseswhich,forDaniel,havebeen
raisedtothelevelofindividualconsciousness.
118Daniel’smeetingwithMirah,hisencounterofMordecai,andhismother’sletterallhavetheirprovidentialdimension.SeePeterNew,“Chance,ProvidenceandDestinyinGeorgeEliot’sFiction,”English:JournaloftheEnglishAssociation34,no.150(1985):191–208,https://academic.oup.com/english/article-abstract/34/150/191/530760?redirectedFrom=PDF.Thisfactisfurtherconfirmedbythereverseofprovidence,byakindofcosmicpunishmentsignifiedbyDeronda’smother.AreveredbutdyingoperasingerbythetimeDerondameetsher,shetellshimthatshegavehimuptoadoptiontoDeronda’sadoptedfatherHugoMallinger,withwhomshehadanaffair,toescapetheobligationsofmotherhoodforherownambitions.Nowsheunderstandsherfatalsickness–andhersonDeronda’senthusiasticembraceofhisJewishness–asapunishmentwhichshemustdoherbesttocorrect:“Ifmyactswerewrong—ifitisGodwhoisexactingfrommethatIshoulddeliverupwhatIwithheld—whoispunishingmebecauseIdeceivedmyfatheranddidnotwarnhimthatIshouldcontradicthistrust—well,Ihavetoldeverything.”Eliot,DanielDeronda,567.Inthetermsofthenovel,Daniel’smotherhasbeenforcedtochoosebetweentheclaimsofindividualismandthoseofthenation.Thatsheisclearlyatragicfigure,caughtbetweentwoirreconcilablenorms,doesnothingtolessenthesenseinwhichherchoiceisakindofseparationfromthesourceofhervitality.Deronda’smother,unliketheEnglish,hasapeoplewheresheislocated,andasaresultbecomes,inAllanArkush’sassessment,the“mostgraphicillustrationofthedamagethatcanresultfromtooabruptadesertionofone’sancestralways.”Arkush,“RelativizingNationalism.”,65
209
DanielhasdevelopedadifferentrelationshiptohisownpastthanhehadasanEnglishman,
andindoingsohasreconfiguredhispossiblefuture.Daniel’sfuturewillcontainformsof
activityradicallydifferentfromthosethathisadoptivefather,theEnglishBaronHugo
Mallinger,couldenvision“befitting”apersonofhisclassandstatureintheEnglishelite.
HugoMallinger’sunderstandingoftheroleoftheEnglishgentlemanemphasizesits
passivityandforegonestatus,aqualitywhichreachesitsdecadentextremeintheexample
ofhisheirandGwendolyn’sformerhusband,HenleighMallingerGrandcourt:inhiscruelty
bornoutofboredom,andinhissensethatalloflifeisagame.
Bycontrast,inDaniel’stransitionfromhisadoptedpasttohisbirthrightpast,hehasgained
notonlyataskworthyofhisindefinite,yetgrandambition–thefoundingofaJewishstate–
butasenseofparticipatoryagencyinhisreal-and-livingcommunity.Weshouldreferwhat
DanielhasinheritedattheendofDerondatotheconditionoftheTulliversiblingsnearthe
endofMill.Thosesiblingshaveapastwhichforestallstheiragency;to“be”aTulliveratthe
endofMillissimplytoreturntotheirinactivehomestead:toanemptytime,toanopen-
endedwaitingforthepasttoturnintothepresent.Fromthisperspectivetheirdeathcan
beseenmoreasaconfirmationofanunderlyingstatusofbeingstrandedinthepast,rather
thanareversaloffortune.Maggiewillrebuffonepossiblefutureforherself,thesuitor
PhilipGuest,withtheobjectionthat“itwouldrendmeawayfromallthatmypastlifehas
madedeartome.”119Maggiereceivesapastwhoseweightshecannotanticipate,which
crushesthepossibilityofanactivelife.TheforceofthepastintheEnglishvillageisan
arrestingpresence,againstwhichanyspecificformofpresentactivitythreatenstobecome
119Eliot,TheMillontheFloss,478.
210
inadequate.Ifthevillagewas“supposed”todisappearintheEnglishtransitiontoamature
nationallife,Millinsteadshowsitspersistenceinphantasmaticform.
Viewedacrossthetexts,boththeEnglishvillageandthefracturedconditionofthe
Jewishnesscontainanessentialelementofcommitmenttoalostpast.Butwhat
distinguishesthemisthemannerinwhichthispastissummonedinthepresent:more
specifically,whetheritcoheresintohonorableactionorelevatesintoaunrealizable
fantasy.FortheTulliversinMill,weseetheoutlinesofafantasybegintotakeshape,
anchoredinthehonorablebutirrecoverablerelationshipsofvillagelife.Theimperativeto
obeywhatMaggieTullivercallsthe“thedivinevoicewithinus–forthesakeofbeingtrueto
allthemotivesthatsanctifyourlives”ispronetoerrorandthelimitationsoftheindividual
inthehistoricalpresent.120Thiscanbeseeninthenarrator’sdimviewofthetownof
St.Oggasawhole.ButiftheTulliversrepresenttherootsoftheEnglishnationinan
honorableand,atsomeindefinitestage,historicallyspecificversionofsmall-scale,
communalEnglishvillagelife,thenDerondarevealstheconsequencesforEnglandof
severaladditionalgenerationsofremovefromthevillage.Whatwasimperfectbutwithin
thepurviewofculturalmemoryforMill,has,inEliot’schoicetosetDerondainher
contemporarymoment(1876),becomeamuchmorerecognizable,moreethicallydubious
formoffantasy.ThiscanbeseenwhenwecomparethesituationofDanielandGwendolyn
attheendofthenovel.
120Ibid.,477.
211
DanieltellsGwendolynabouthisplanstogo“totheEast”inancestrallandsoftheJewish
people,toseeabout“makingthemanationagain.”121Heimaginesthiswillbean“ideal
task,”a“socialcaptainship”that“wouldcometomeasaduty”ratherthan“bestrivenforas
apersonalprize.”122Theidealismofthesestatementsisreadilyapparent,butItakethemin
referencetothemodeofrelationshipsinDaniel’sidealcommunity.Heaspirestoaformof
mutualitywhich,thenovelclaimsbyimplication,cannotbefoundintheEnglandofhis
time.ThemutualitythatDanielaspirestocontainsaresonanceofthevillage.Nota
competitiveenvironment,butastrivingtowardthesameendsincommon.Yetthis
differencemustbeemphasized:whatDanielhasfoundisamodeofactioninwhichthese
idealscanrealizedintheindividuallife.Hisdisappearancefromthesceneatthenovel’s
end,toanunrepresentedoutside,suggeststhathenowinhabitsadifferentplaneofaction
thanitsothercharacters.
Daniel’sactivelifeattheendofthenovelbearscontrastingwithGwendolyn’slastwords
oncesheis“freed.”Thatis,freebothfromanobligationtoherdomineeringhusband
Grandcourtafterthisdeath,andfromanyexpectationofafuturewithDeronda.“Ishalllive.
Ishallbebetter,”shetellshermother.123AndthisinalettertoDerondaontheoccasionof
hisweddingtoMirah:“Itisbetter–itshallbebetterwithmebecauseIhaveknownyou.”124
Gwendolynhasshedthevestigesofafantasticalinnerlifethatmarkedheratthenovel’s
121Eliot,DanielDeronda,688.
122Ibid.,642.
123Ibid.,692.
124Ibid.,695.
212
beginning,evenifherepiphanyinthescenewhereDanielrevealedhispasttoherretains
tracesofgrandiosity.125
Gwendolyn’sparticulargenderedandsociallyprescribedhelplessnessattheendof
DerondacontainsobviousparallelswithMaggieTulliver’slimitationsattheendofMill.But
Ialsowanttounderstanditinmoregenerallysymbolicterms,representingthecondition
ofEnglishnationallifethatDanielleavesbehind.Gwendolyn’ssenseofbeingremoved
fromherownconfinedworld,ofbeinglocatedinaethicallysignificantuniverseofwhich
sheisamerepart,hasnodefinitepossibilityoftranslationintoacommunalfieldofaction.
Gwendolynisalone,withlittlehintofpublicorprivateresponsibility.Thisstatecanbe
seenintheformulationofherfinalwordstoDeronda–andtoherself–inanimperative
futuretense:“Ishalllive.Ishallbebetter.”ItakeherasrepresentativeofEliot’sown
aspirationsforanethicallysignificanthumanisminEngland,whichhasbecomeaformof
individualresolutionthathaslostthesenseoftheobjectonwhichtoexerciseitswill.
Thereisanironyintherelativepositionofthesetwonationsatthenovel’sconclusionthat
wouldnothavebeenlostonitsmostastutereaders:Englandremainedanation–indeed,an125ThetextofGwendolyn’sepiphany:“TheworldseemedgettinglargerroundpoorGwendolen,andshemoresolitaryandhelplessinthemidst.ThethoughtthathemightcomebackaftergoingtotheEast,sankbeforethebewilderingvisionofthesewild-stretchingpurposesinwhichshefeltherselfreducedtoamerespeck.Therecomesaterriblemomenttomanysoulswhenthegreatmovementsoftheworld,thelargerdestiniesofmankind,whichhavelainaloofinnewspapersandotherneglectedreading,enterlikeanearthquakeintotheirownlives–wheretheslowurgencyofgrowinggenerationsturnsintothetreadofaninvadingarmyorthedireclashofcivilwar,andgrayfathersknownothingtoseekforbutthecorpsesoftheirbloomingsons,andgirlsforgetallvanitytomakelintandbandageswhichmayservefortheshatteredlimbsoftheirbetrothedhusbands.ThenitisasiftheInvisiblePowerthathadbeentheobjectoflip-worshipandlip-resignationbecamevisible,accordingtotheimageryoftheHebrewpoet,makingtheflameshischariot,andridingonthewingsofthewind,tillthemountainssmokeandtheplainsshudderundertherollingfieryvisitations.Oftenthegoodcauseseemstolieprostrateunderthethunderofunrelentingforce,themartyrslivereviled,theydie,andnoangelisseenholdingforththecrownandthepalmbranch.ThenitisthatthesubmissionofthesoultotheHighestistested,andevenintheeyesoffrivolitylifelooksoutfromthesceneofhumanstrugglewiththeawfulfaceofduty,andareligionshowsitselfwhichissomethingelsethanaprivateconsolation.”ibid.,688
213
empire–dejure,whiletheJewishstatestillwaitedforitsfounderandfounding.Andyetin
MillandDerondathestateofEnglandasacommunityismerelyaspirational,encasedthe
imaginativeleapmadebyGwendolyn–whiletheincipientJewishnationhasalready
realizeditselfintheactivitiesofDaniel’snewlife.Thistakesusbacktotheproblemthat
hadmotivatedEliot’sintellectualjourneyinthefirstplace:thedivisionbetweenhistorical
circumstanceandethicalprinciplethatwasthebasisforEliot’shumanism.
214
ChapterThree:
ClarelandtheCommunityofPilgrims
Theterm“community”has,withinthisproject,actedasaconceptualplaceholderbetween
twopositions.Thefirstisanindividualsubjectposition,whichthetextenactsthroughthe
conventionsofanepistemologicallydetached,“internal”perspectiveonevents.Onecan
pointhereofthefigureoftheBildungsroman,whetherWilhelmMeisterintheWanderjahre
orGwendolynHarlethinDanielDeronda.Thisistheindividualwho,throughthe
techniquesofrealisticinteriornarration,comestostandapartfromthe“thesocial”asa
backgroundconditionofthetext.Thisbackgroundisthesecondposition,apolethat
stands,atleastintheoreticalterms,againsttheindividualinitsconstructionofaregular,
everydayreality,separatefromtheindividualexperience–whichhasinthetextsof
previouschaptersbeenstabilizedthroughtheconventionsofrealism.
Withinthismodel,theinternalperspectivecanbecommunicated,becausetheindividualis
notjustasubjectiveoccurrence;rather,thearrivalatthepossibilityoftheindividualisalso
ahistoricalachievement.Inaddition,certainbasicstandardsofrepresentationare
enforcedontheeverydayitself.Forexample,inthenineteenth-centuryrealistictext,the
narrativeactionisgenerallyconfinedtosecularhistory,individualsobeymortallimitson
theiroccupationoftimeandspace,andmenandwomenseekoutprivatelyrealizedforms
ofhappinesslikemarriageandwhatwenowcall“self-actualization.”1Theseconventions
allowfortheplausibilityofanynumberofnineteenth-centurygenresoffictionthat,intheir1SeeGuidoMazzoni,TheoryoftheNovel(Cambridge,Massachusetts:HarvardUniversityPress,2017),255–57.
215
aggregate,makeuptheproteantraditionthatdesignatesthe“novel.”Ofparticular
relevancetothisaccounthasbeenthepicaresque,theepistolarynovel,andthe
Bildungsromanwhich,Ihaveclaimed,allconstructthefigureoftheindividualarounda
processofdevelopment.Onecouldunderstandagreatdealofthestructuraltensionatthe
heartoftheindividual’sdevelopmentwithinthenovelsofthisprojectbyconsideringthe
“objectivebackground”ofrealism–i.e.,timeandexperience–againstthevagariesand
uncertainoutcomesoftheindividuallifecourse.Thatis,thetext’srealisticworldisdefined
byanynumberofregularitiesthatmovetheindividualinexorablytowarddeathand
historicalobscurity;nonetheless,theindividual,asthenovel’ssubject,isanopen-ended
project.
Thedramaofthedevelopmentalnovelisthattheindividualdoesnotunderstandwhathe
orsheisfor,whattheproperlimitsofprivatehappinessshouldbe,andwhetherheorshe
livesin“heroic”circumstancesor,asinHegel’ssarcasticassessment,iscertainto“marry
andbecomeaPhilistinelikeeverybodyelse.”2WhatIcallthe“community”is,tocontinue
withtheHegelianformulation,adynamicarrangementwherebytheindividualand
backgroundconditionsthatformthe“real”withinthenovelareworkedthroughone
anothertoafinalformwithinnarrativetime.
Thecommunityascommune,asIcallitinGoethe’sWanderjahre,isafittingsettingforthe
realizationofvocationalideals,andthecommunityasvillage,asIcallitinEliot,isanidyllic
settingwhereindividualsrelatewithinanorganicwebofaffinities.Inatensionwiththese
individualideals,bothnovelscontainmultipleversionsoftherealthatIhave,atdifferent2GeorgWilhelmFriedrichHegel,Aesthetics:LecturesonFineArt(Volume2),trans.ThomasMalcolmKnox,vol.2(Oxford:Clarendon,1998),593.
216
points,interpretedasakindofmanagerialrationality(WerneroftheWilhelmMeister’s
Lehrjahre),technologicalutopianism(thecolonyprojectsoftheWanderjahre)and
cosmopolitanabstraction(GeorgeEliot’sdiagnosisofnineteenth-centuryEurope).Totake
oneexample,IhaveinterpretedGoethe’sWanderjahreasatextthatseekstomakesenseof
avocationalindividualidealwithinthetermsofarealitythatresistsjustthisvarietyof
strongindividualism.
Butinallcasesofthisproject,Ihavearguedthatthecommunity–asmediatorbetweenpart
(individual)andwhole(“thereal”)–becomesanimaginativeconstructionofanhistorical
illusion,anaspirationexactlybecauseitdidnot(orcouldnot)existinanyhistorical
setting.ThedramathatItracedinbothtextswasdrivenbytheproductionofthecommune
andvillagethroughanuncertainhypothetical,asapossibilityonitswaytoutopian
realization.Indoingso,thecommunitybecameatelosthatmediatesbetweenthe
individualandthetotalityof“theworld”outsideofthecommunity.Theprojectof
individualdevelopmenthasdefiniteendsrepresentedbytheneedsofthecommunityitself.
Thecommunityisthepracticalbasisofareliableandsettledeverydayworld.Itrepresents
closurefortheindividualprojectofdevelopment,whatFrancoMoretticalls,inTheWayof
theWorld,theprojectof“socialization”wherebytheindividual“internalizes”thesocial
worldinthecreationofastableindividualidentity.3Butthecommunitycanoften–perhaps
moreofteninthetextsofthisproject–failasasourceofstability,leadingtoabreakdownof
thesettledstructuresofrepresentationinthetext.InTheMillontheFloss,thereliabilityof
3FrancoMoretti,TheWayoftheWorld:TheBildungsromaninEuropeanCulture(London:Verso,1987),15–16.
217
everydaylifeisupendedfortheyoungMaggieTulliverwhensheventuresfarfromher
homeattheMill.Thishappensfirstasachild,whensherunsawayfromhome,“tothe
gypsies,”andfindsherselfradicallydecenteredbyacultureontheperipheryofherown.
Second,asayoungunmarriedwoman,whenMaggieandhersuitorStephenGuestare
pulledawayfromthesimplicityoflifeintheirvillagebyaboatinthecurrentoftheRiver
Floss.Maggie’sreputationasanunmarriedwomanisruined,andshelivestheremainderof
herlifeonthemarginsofpubliclife,inthememoryofherchildhoodbythemill.Maggie
returnstotheoriginalbasisofhercommunityinagestureofsymbolicpermanenceatthe
novel’send,whenshediesatthemillduringafloodthatkillsMaggieandherbrotherTom.
Millisatextthatadvancesthroughabreakdownofthedevelopmentaltrajectoryofan
individuallife.Thenovelworksthroughadramatic,stagedwithdrawalofthecommunal
structuresestablishedinitsearlychapters,bytakingapartthedirectrelationshipsthat
defineprovinciallife.Amodeoflifewhichisdevelopmentalwhenorientedtoalikely
futurebecomes,fortheindividualwithafixedorientationtothepast,aninertand
cripplingromanticnostalgia.Putdifferently,when“whatisreal”becomesidenticalwith
Mill’sromanticsubtext,thedevelopmentalviewoftheindividualwithinthenovelbecomes
untenable.ThesiblingsMaggieandTomexistintheromanticisolationoftheirown
subjectivity,againstamodernitydefinedbyitsstructureswhichwillnotadmitthem.Mill
showsthecommunity,abridgebetweenindividualsubjectivityandthesestructures,
breakingdownwithdisastrousresults.WithinMill,adynamicindividualismtypicalofthe
realisticBildungsromanbecomesthestaticfigureofhopelessromanticinwardnessand
socialestrangement.
RealismpapersoverthecontradictionsthatcomeintoviewinMill.Forexample,the
218
problemoflivinginthepresentwhileremainingconnectedtothepast,andtheproblemof
reliableknowledgeofparticulars(ifwecandescribeMill’sepistemologyinthisway)versus
thepowerconferredby(financial,legal,social)abstractions.
Inthisfinalextendedreading,Iwanttolooktoatextwhichisbothorientedtoacertain
kindofindividualdevelopment–thatofthespiritual“breakthrough”or“epiphany”
characteristicofreligiousbelief–whilerejectingtheverypossibilityofindividual
development.Forthisreason,thisfinalchaptermovesfromareadingofanoveltopoetry:
HermanMelville’sobscureandenigmaticlongpoemClarel(1876).Whereastherealistic
novelsIhavereadsofareachcontaindevelopmentalassumptionsabouttheirindividual
characters,Clarelaspirestoaconstructionofcharacterthatisclosertoastatic
representationofolderpoeticforms.Ihaveinmindheretheepic,asIwillarguethatClarel
itselfisanexampleofwhatFrancoMoretticallsthe“modernepic.”4ButMelville’sClarel
alsocontainsthesamepotentialofinwardnesspresentinthenovelsofthisproject,while
removingtheexpectationofindividualdevelopmental“resolution”withinadistinct
communalform.ThecommunitythatexistsinClareltakestheformofthepilgrimage,a
communitydedicatedtotheindividualrepetitionofthefoundingmomentofatradition.
Pilgrimage,asitisdepictedinClarel,istherepetitionofacollectivetraditionforthe
revelatorybenefitoftheindividual.The“community”existstoputtheindividualina
positionwithrespecttothefoundingmomentofa(religious)tradition.
4SeeFrancoMoretti,ModernEpic:TheWorld-SystemfromGoethetoGarcíaMárquez(London;NewYork:Verso,1996)
219
Ichooseashiftingenreandformforthisfinalchapterbecauseitembodiesaparticular
tensioninitspoeticconstruction,whichunderlinesandheightenstheproblematicofmy
earliertexts.Melville’sClarelisatextsteepedinanindividualismwithrespecttohowone
decidesaboutthenatureofthedivine.ForClarel,religiousquestionsrequiretheindividual
character’sacceptanceofGod.AsthenarratorofClarelintonesinthemiddleofthedesert:
“But,toredeemus,shallwesay/Thatfaith,undying,doesbutrange,/Castingtheskin–the
creed.”5Religioustraditionsthemselvesarethe“skin”forthedefinitivereligiousaction:the
achievementoffaithitself.Andthepilgrimage,inturn,isajourneythroughClarelthat
containsitsownkindofontologicalbackground:a“real”definedbyamateriallyinert
world,indifferenttothecharactersisolatedfromtheirrespectivefaithcommunitiesand
strippedoftheirculturaldefenses.
WhatIwillcallthedual“epic”and“lyric”aspectsofthepoemisaversionoftheopposition
betweenindividualandbackgroundrealitythatIhaverelieduponacrossthisentire
project.IwilluseClareltoexploreathematicconundrumatthecenterofthisproject:that
oftherelationshipbetweenindividualandworldwhenthecommunitytakestheformofa
facilitatorforthisunmediatedrelationship.Thatistosay,apilgrimage.
Togiveabriefoverviewofthework:Clarelisalongpoemaboutayoung,American
seminarystudentwhomakesapilgrimagetoJerusalem,onlytofindshortlyafterhearrives
thathehasdoubtabouthisfaiththathecannotshake.Hislossofbelieffirstmanifestsitself
inhisflataffectwhenhetakesinthesightsofJerusalem.ThestudentarrivesintheHoly
53.5,84-86.Allcitationstothetextinthischapterarebypart,cantoandlinenumber.InHermanMelville,Clarel:APoemandPilgrimageintheHolyLand,Northwestern-Newberryed.,vol.12,Melville,Herman,1819-1891.Works.1968;V.12(Evanston:Chicago:NorthwesternUniversityPress;NewberryLibrary,1991).
220
Landsalone.Graduallyhenoticesthemyriadothercultures,faithsandtraditionson
raucousdisplay.Clarelconcludesthatsomanyofthefacesbetraythesame“blankness”
thatstruckhimuponarrival.DoubtisindividualizedinthecharacterofClarel,but
generalizedbytheindifferentsilenceofthesettingtowardfaith.
Bytheendofthepoem’sfirstpart,Clareljoinsareligiouslydiverseandlooselyassociated
bandofseekersonaten-daypilgrimageacrossdifferentsitesintherestoftheHolyLands.
Eachofthesubsequentthreepartsissituatedwithinageographicalsectionofthisjourney.
PartTwo,“TheWilderness,”isathree-daywalkthattakesthewanderersawayfrom
Jerusalemtotheeast,acrosstheJudeandesertandtothebanksoftheDeadSea.Then,in
thethirdpart(eveningofthefourthday)“MarSaba,”theyreachtheGreekOrthodox
monasterybythatname,southwestoftheDeadSeaintheKedronvalley.There,the
travelersspendthenextseveraldaysobservingandparticipatinginreligiousritualsand
talkingamongstthemselves,leavingonthemorningoftheseventhday.Thelastthreedays
ofthejourneytakethepartyfurtherwesttoBethlehem,wheretheycontemplatethesites
associatedwithJesus’birthandlife.6ThepoemfinallyconcludesbackinJerusalemonthe
eveofcelebrationsforEasterSunday,wherethestudentClarellearns,tohisshock,thatthe
womantowhomhebecamebetrothedinJerusalemshortlybeforehisdeparture,Ruth,has
died.Atitsconclusion,thepoemarrivesatanimplicitcomparisonbetweenthe
celebrationsthatmemorializetheChristianmiracleofChrist’sresurrectionandthe
irrevocabilityofRuth’sdeathandClarel’sloss.
6ForamoredetailedschematicbreakdownofClarel’schronology,seepage709intheNorthwestern-NewberrycriticaleditionofClarel.
221
AsMelvilleadmittedwhenthepoemwaspublishedtoimmediateobscurityin1876,this
wasadifficult,ungainly,thoroughlyagainst-the-currentbookonalmosteverylevel.Evenif
itdrewonhiseclecticandeccentriceyefortransmutinghisowntravelsintofiction–which
inanearliereraofliteraryproductivitycreatedanenthusiasticaudienceforhiswork–
Clarel’s18,000linesoftorturedbutunrelentingiambictetrameterwereas,Melvillehimself
correctlyassessedinalettertooneofhisfewadmirersatthislatestageofhiscareer,
“eminentlysuitedforunpopularity.”7This,alongwithanoverallcriticalambivalenceabout
Melville’sturnawayfromfictionandhisembraceofanunconventionalpoeticstyle,helps
toaccountforthepastandcurrentobscurityofthework.
Tosummarizeitsprovenance,then,Melville’sClarelisanoriginalAmericancontributionto
amostlyBritishbodyoftexts,abouttheambivalencesandcontradictionsofreligiousfaith
duringatimeofrapidEuropeanscientific,technological,andsocialprogress.Theproblems
raisedbelongtotheVictoriantraditionofliterature,philosophyandartknownasthe“faith
anddoubt”tradition.8Byadoptingtheproblemoffaithanddoubtasitscentraldilemma,
Melville’sClarelispartofgenrewhichexemplifiesthebifurcationbetweenindividualand
world.Theindividualacceptsaneither-orpropositionwithrespecttothedivine,as
someonewhoeither“believes”or“doubts.”ThiscanbeseenwithrespecttoMelville
himself,inajournalentrythatNathanielHawthornewritesabouthimfrom1856.Hewas
7InHermanMelvilleandHarrisonHayford.TheWritingsofHermanMelville:Correspondence.Evanston,Illinois:NorthwesternUniversityPress,1993,p.483.
8Foranoverviewofthethematicfeaturesintheso-called“FaithandDoubt”traditioninVictorianLiterature,seetheentrybythisnameintheBroadviewAnthologyofBritishLiterature,Volume5,p.XLVIII.ForadiscussionoftherelationshipofMelville’sworktotheFaith-Doubttradition,seeVincentKennyinHermanMelville’sClarel:aSpiritualAutobiography.Hamden,Connecticut:ArchonBooks,1973,pp.34-45
222
someone,Hawthornewrites,who“canneitherbelieve,norbecomfortableinhisunbelief.”9
Theformofthefaith-doubtconundrumasIunderstanditisthatthis“ultimate”question–
tobelieveornotbelieve–becomesaprerogativeofthespecific,historicallysituated
individual.Thisproblemcanbefoundaswellineachofmypriorchapters:inWilhelm
Meister’sphysicaladaptationofhisbodytothedemandsofhissurgicalpractice,
exemplifiedinarchetypaltermsbythenovel’sinvocationoftheindividualprogression
throughthecraftguild.Anditcanbeseeninthesharedsensoriumofeverydaymateriality
forthevillagersinGeorgeEliot’snovels.Inbothcasesthephysicalityoftheindividual,the
connectionbetweenindividualbodiesandplaces,isessentialtounderstandingthe
mechanicsofthecommunity.
Buthere,Iwanttounderstandtheproblemoftheindividual’ssituated,embeddedposition
intermsofClarel’sfaith-and-doubtthematic.AswiththeconditionthatHawthornepoints
toinMelvillehimself,“faithanddoubt,”asaproblemconfrontedbyindividuals,compresses
acollectivetraditionintoanactof“decision”fromafiniteandlimitedperspective.Thatis,
theindividualistaskedwithadecisionaboutultimatequestionsfromhisorherparticular
historicalstandpointwithrespecttothosequestions.Both“faith”and“doubt”encouragea
modelofreligiouspractice,anassentmodeledonaviewofthesubjectasaconfident
decision-maker.Theresult,Iwillargue,isthedropping-outofasupportforindividualfaith
inthelifeofacommunity.Thishastheconsequenceofpryingapartthegapbetween
individualandthebackgroundofthereal–thatis,betweenthespecificconcernsoffinite
individualsandtheabstractionsof“ultimate”questions.Thefailureofthepilgrimageto9SeeNathanielHawthorne,PassagesfromtheAmericanNote-BooksofNathanielHawthorne(ScholarlyPress,1970),http://hdl.handle.net/2027/pst.000030347168,journalentrydatedNovember20,1856
223
yieldadefinitivevisionofeither“God”oranultimategoodis,Iwillargue,afeatureofits
relianceontheindividualinhisorherdecision-makingcapacityaboutultimatequestions.
Thereforethefaith-doubtproblematicrevealstheconsequenceofatextwithoutthe
mediationofacommunity.Clareldepictsagroupofpilgrims,pulledawayfromthesupport
oftheircommunities,thrownupontheirownfragilityassubjectsindoubtaboutultimate
questions.
ChapterSchematic
Inthischapter,IwillfirstexaminehowthepoeticsofClarelbothbuildontherealistic
paradigmsofmypreviouschaptersandfurtherdeveloptheproblemofthedistinction
betweenindividualandworld.ThepoemcanbeanalyticallyseparatedintowhatIcalla
“lyric”subjectandan“epic”structure,wherethelyricrepresentstheculturallyembedded,
historicallyparticularindividualandthe“epic”formsanontologicaltotalitythatresiststhe
functionsofindividualagency.Iwillhighlightoneimpersonaltotalitythatdominatesthe
poem’simaginary:thatofaDarwinian,scientificmaterialismthathauntsthepilgrims
entrappedinthecycleofdoubt.
Second,Iwillarguethatthepoemexemplifiesitslyric-and-epicconstructioninthe
dilemmaof“faithanddoubt.”Thepoem’smonologicalpresentationunfoldswithinthe
psychologicaltypologyofindecision.Underthepoem’sparticularadoptionofthisthematic,
theindividualiscaughtinaneither/orproblematic:eithercompleteidentificationwitha
structuralultimate–thatis,“faith”asthecompleteidentificationwitharealitybeyondthe
individualken–or“doubt,”asapermanentdistancingwithrespecttoultimatequestions.In
itsstark,all-or-nothingframingoftheindividual’srelationshiptothedivine,itdepicts
224
characterscaughtinthedilemmaofchoice,whoeithergivetheirassenttoametaphysical
questionaboutwhichtheeverydayworldissilent,orareradicallyisolatedbytheirfailure
toaccepttheintimationsofadivinepresence.ForClarelthepilgrimis,intheend,aloneto
decideabouthisdoubts,andtheprecarityoffaithcreatestheconditionfortherecognition
oftheabsenceofacommunityinwhichthesequestionscouldbeworkedout.Butthe
absenceofadurableformofcommunityamongthepilgrimsalsoraisestheconditionfor
thepossibilityofanewformofrelationshipbetweenthepilgrims.Thesearethetwoforks
exploredbythetext:thepoem’sexplorationoftheabsenceofacommunalresolutionfor
the“faith-and-doubt”question,andthebirthofanewtypeofcollectivereligiouslife.Itis
thesepossibilitiesthatIwillworkoutintheremainderofthechapter.
Onthequestionoftheabsenceofcommunity,whichIwillcoverinthethirdsectionofthis
chapter,thepoemdepictscharacterswhocannotmediatetheirexperienceofanultimate
reality.Theyofferastarkpictureoftheindividualindirectconflictwiththepoem’sepic
structures.Theindividualdoubter,wanderinginthedesertbetweenthechaoticpictureof
Jerusalem(Part1)andtheserenityofreligiousritualintheMarSabaMonastery(Part3),is
broughttohisfullestinstantiationinafigureIcall,borrowingfromWalterBezanson,the
“monomaniac.”Themonomaniacisafigurewhoidentifieshissubjectivitycompletelywith
whatheunderstandstobeanultimatereality.Heseekstoclosethedistancecompletely
withthisultimate.Assuchheisanambivalentfigure,whovacillatesbetweenepiphanic
deliveranceandnihilisticself-destruction.Assuch,thissectionrepresentsaninvestigation
intotheprogressionofwhatIcallthepoem’sscientific-materialistontologicalbackground,
leadingtothefigureofthemonomaniac.Inreadingthissubtext,wefindthenegationofthe
individualintheabsenceoftheintermediatingelementofcommunallife.
225
Inthemonomaniac,thefigureoftheindividualmeetstheabsolute,withoutthemediation
ofinstitutions,ritualsandthepossibilityofobjectificationinsociallife.Idevelopareading
ofthemonomaniac’simportancetothetextbywayoftwoimportantcharacters:first,the
ship’shelmsmanAgath(“TheTimoneer”),whotellsastoryaboutashipwreckinan
unnamedplacefaraway.Throughthebreakdownofrelationshipsontheshipthatleadsto
thedisaster(ofwhichtheTimoneerwastheonlysurvivor),theTimoneer’sunderstanding
isinvadedbysuperstition,intimationsofmalevolentforce,anddespair.FortheTimoneer,
whatunderliestheregularityoftheeverydayischaos.Ireadhimasacharacterwhoargues
fortheirreduciblenecessityofindividualpattern-makingandassociationaboutthewhole.
Inthefaceofdisasterandtheabsenceofanswers,theTimoneerwillturntoany
explanation–evenonethatacceptsthetotalityofevil–tomakegeneralsenseofhisworld.
Histurnpreparesforareadingofasecond,evenmorefanatical,monomaniacfigure:the
politicalradicalandfailedrevolutionaryMortmain,whoconfrontsthefailureofhis
revolutionarypoliticalaspirationsbyturningtonihilism.InMortmain’sdeath,the
doubter’sestrangementfromthedivinepresencereachesadramaticandstructurallow
point.Asafigureforwhomreintegrationintoanycommunityprovesimpossible,Mortmain
representsakindoflogicalconclusionofindividualseparationfrommeaning-making
structures.Atthispoint,havingmadesenseoftheindividualfigurerepresentedby
MortmainandtheTimoneer,wearepreparedtoconsiderthetext’spositivevisionof
communityintheactivitiesofritual.
Thefourthandfinalpartofthischapterconcernstheformsofcommunitythatariseamong
thepilgrimsinClarel.Iexaminetherelationshipbetweenthespecific,historicallifeofthe
individualandabackgroundconditionthatflickersbetweenintimationsofthedivineanda
226
skepticalmaterialism.Thepoemstagesaprogressionofrituals,whichIunderstandinthe
broadestsenseasarepeatablepatternoflife.Thetext’sframingexampleofritualisthe
pilgrimage,recreatingtheoriginalinsightofareligioustraditionforthepilgrim.Theritual
isanattemptbythepilgrimstocodifyanddiscoveranorganizedpatternthatdefinestheir
relationshiptoabsolutes.Tounpacktheritual,Iwilltraceaprogressionofcharacters,from
adesertmonkascetic,toZionistsettlers,tofinallytherecreationofthemostimportant
miraclesintheChristianmythology:firstinthepilgrims’visittoJesus’birthplacein
Bethlehem,andsecondinClarel’sreturntoJerusalemontheeveofEasterSunday.Ineach
ritual,thetaskistomakesenseofthespecificsituationoftheindividual,andinhisorher
determinationbyculturalmilieu,choice,chance,andfate.Theritual,Iargue,offersa
pathwaybywhichalloftheseelementscanbebroughttogetherinacomprehensible
patternthatforestallstheinflexiblepositionsof“faithanddoubt.”Inlieuofadecision,the
ritualpromisesaformativeandsustainableactofparticipationinareligioustradition.But
thefinalresolutionoftheritualinClarel,Iwillargue,displaysanambivalencebetween
absorptionintheobjectofritualandtheinescapabledoubtthattheritualmustassuagefor
thepilgrim.Intheend,forthestudentClarel,theritualrevealsaninabilitytomakesenseof
thedivinefromhisparticular,situatedreality.ThemiracleofChrist’sdeathand
resurrectionduringEasterSundayisnotadequatetomakesenseofhisownsenseoflossat
theconclusion.IreadClarel’sexperienceofpersonalloss,inthedeathofhisfiancéeRuth,
asarestatementofthedilemmathatmotivatesthepoem’sfaith-and-doubtproblematic:
ClarelisMelville’smostemphaticstatementoftheindividualattempttomakesenseof
somethingbeyondhimselfinthefaceofhisowninsuperablelimitations.
RealismandClarel’sPoeticAspects
227
MyargumentisthatClarelcontains“lyric”and“epic”dimensionsofconstructioncontaina
framingwhichmakessenseoftheparticularconundrumthatfacestheindividualpilgrim.
Thisclaimshouldbesituatedwithinthischapter’sdeparturefromthegenreformsthat
havedominatedtheprojectsofar.ThemakeupofClarelasapoem–oratleast,the
argumentIwanttomakeforthepurposesofthisproject–dependsontheconvictionthatit
decouplestheelementsofindividualandcollectivevoicethatwerecombinedinmy
previouschapters.Thetoolsandeffectsofthenovel–realismandnarrative,tonamejusta
few–mustbereconsideredifwearetosensiblyrelateClarel’spresentationoftheindividual
tothoseofthepreviouschapters.Ithereforebeginthissectionwithareviewofrealism’s
functioninthisproject,thenmovetoadiscussionofClarel’scombinationofthelyricand
epicmodes.Finally,Iwillofferseveralclosereadingsofthepoem’suseofplaceandspace
toarguethatthelyricandepicaspectsofthepoemariseinadialecticalfashionfromone
another.
ThefunctionofthecommunityasanidealinGoetheandEliotwastomediatetheprocesses
ofindividualdevelopment.Despiteitsdissimilarityfromtheothertextsofthisproject,
Clarel,whichissometimesclassedintheuneasycategorythatFrancoMorettihascalledthe
“modernepic,”presentsanimportantcounterpointtothetextsthatIhavepresentedinthe
previouschapters.10Poetry,Iwanttosuggest,laysbaresomeofthecontradictory
tendenciesthatwerecentraltotherealisticeffectinmyso-called“novelof
10SeeMoretti,ModernEpic
228
individualism.”11TheworkcontainswhatIwanttocalla“lyric”voice,whichIunderstand
astheproblemofthesituated,historicallyspecificindividual.Thisindividualliveswithin
totalizingstructuresappropriatetotheepic,presentedinthepoemasthescientificpicture
ofreality.Mylargerprojectreliesheavilyontheassumptionsbehindtherealisticnovel,
motivatedbyaclaimabouthistoricalrepresentationinnineteenth-centurynarrative
fiction.Ihavereservedtheterm“realism”herewithasfewcommitmentsaspossible,
intendingonlytodesignatethosegroupoftextswhoseprimarymodeisnarrativeand
developmental;thatis,wheretheindividualinternalizesnormsaccordingtoa
developmentaltrajectory.
“Realism”registersthemeaningfulnessoftherepresentationofsociallife.Itoffersan
aestheticcommitment–howeverattenuated–toapictureofsociallifethatcanbe
meaningfullyreflectedwithfictionalmodels,evenasitisundercutbyitsownformal
choicesandideologicaldependencies.AsFredricJamesonwritesinTheAntinomiesof
Realism,realismhasaninherentlyconservativetendencyinmattersofaestheticsifnotalso
politics.Itpresentsitsreaderswithanobjectthatissimplygiven,asifitwerethe“thing
itself.”Whatisrealtherebyassumes“aconvictionastothemassiveweightandresistance
ofthepresent”and“anaestheticneedtoavoiddeepstructuralsocialchangeassuch.”12The
individualthatemergeswithintherealisticnineteenth-centurytraditioncreatesan
inherenttension.If,asJamesonmaintains,theimportanceoftheindividualispartofa
“thoroughgoingrevolutioninthesocialorderitself,”thenitwould“disqualifythose
11See“Introduction”tothiswork(Chapter1)
12FredricJameson,TheAntinomiesofRealism(NewYork:Verso,2013),145.
229
materialsofthepresentwhicharethebuildingblocksofnarrativerealism.”13Itake
Jamesontomeanthat,ifrealismoffersaninterpretivemodeloffictionasaformof
history’sreproduction,thensomeattentionmustbepaidtotheaspectsoffictionalization,
totheprocessesbywhichtheindividualcouldcometoberecognizedintheformof
realisticdepiction.
ButClarel,initsquixoticappealtoepicconventions,anti-modernpresentation,and
relentlessdespondence,canbesaidtoconcerntheabsenceofindividualdynamism,the
fixationoftheindividualsubjectwithinpositionsoffaithanddoubt–andaseparationfrom
“ultimate”metaphysicalquestions.Clarelisatextwithnomiddlefactor.Or,thebreakdown
ofamediationbetweentheindividualandwhatitpresentsasacosmicwholedefinedbya
Darwinian,materialistscientificrationality.Melville’stextthereforeoffersadifferentangle
ofanalysisforthisproject–bymeansofthenegativeexample.Itsnarrative,aboutagroup
ofpilgrimsjourneyingacrosstheholysitesofJerusalemandPalestine,offersan
explorationofthedisappearanceofthecommunity.ForMelvillethatdisappearancetakes
theformoftheindividual’sabsolutesubjectiontoadisenchantedversionofthecosmos.
ThephilosopherErnestGellnerwritesaboutaversionofthemodern,scientificcosmosthat
“washomogeneous,subjecttosystematic,indiscriminatelaws,andopentointerminable
exploration,offeredendlesspossibilitiesofnewcombinationsofmeanswithnofirmprior
expectationsandlimits:nopossibilitieswouldbebarred,andintheendnothingbut
evidencewoulddecidehowthingswere,andhowtheycouldbecombinedtosecure
13Ibid.,145.
230
desiredeffects.”14Indeed,Clarelisatextaboutaworldbrokenupintopiecesofevidence
thatmustbeinterpretedbytheindividualsubject,abouttheinabilityofworld-structures
definedbytheirregularitytoprovideevidenceofadivinepresence.
Thetextisa“religiouspoem,”asithasoftenbeencalled,inthetraditionoftheVictorian
“faith-and-doubt”model,inwhichtheindividualisstrandedbetweenreligious
commitmentsthatcanneitherbeembracednorrelinquished.Forthemaincharacter,
Clarel,andmanyoftheirfellowpilgrims,thepoemisaboutbeing“stranded”intheposition
ofdoubt,oflivingwithadoubtthatnosimpleintimationofadivinepresencecanconfirm.
Thepoemstagesthede-dynamizationofthedialoguebetweenindividualandthe
perceptionofultimatestructures.Whatisatstakeisthelossofthismiddleposition.This,I
willargue,intensifiesthedilemmaoftheindividualagent:theonewhothinksandacts
fromaparticular,embeddedposition.Theabsenceofcommunityrepresentsaninabilityto
formadialoguebetweenindividualandwhole.Thepoemconfrontsthisphenomenon
throughintractabledialoguebetweenitscharacters.Clareldocumentstheirultimate
turninginward,theirabandonmentofarelianceoncollectiveanswersandtraditionsin
favoroftheindividual’sperspective.
Tobeginwithasimplecontrastthatintroducesthedifferencebetweenlyricandepicin
Clarel:ifthelyriccreatesaworldthroughpersuasionaboutthefirst-personperspective,
theepicexaltswhatisfamiliar.Theepichastheformofconviction,whilelyrichasto
produceit.Butinrepresentingareligionasamonolith,asaworldinheritanceheldin
14ErnestGellner,NationsandNationalism,2nded.,NewPerspectivesonthePast(Ithaca,N.Y.:CornellUniversityPress,2008),22.
231
common,thepoemembodiestheepicaspiration,ormoreaccuratelythe“modernepic”in
thesensedescribedbyFrancoMoretti.15Thegenericexpectationoftheepicisthatofa
storytellingforminwhichtheactionisalreadyunderstood.Eventsmayresistthe
completionofadifficultaction,butnotthesignificanceofthatact.16Odysseusistestedin
hisreturnhome,butthereisnoquestionthathemustleaveCirce’sislandanddoso.By
contrast,themodernepicputsthesignificanceoftheactinquestionwhilenonetheless
retainingtheobligationtoact.Butthisobligationdoesnotprovideforthatact’s
intelligibility,onlythenecessityoftakingaction.Theintelligibleactimpliesaresponseby
theworldthatmeetsexpectation,thatcanbeassimilatedintostandardsofwhatis,say,
difficultorworthyornecessary.Bythismodelitispossibletodo“right”and“wrong”by
thestandard.TheworldofClarelretainsanepiccharacterbyitsinsistentreflectiononthe
importanceofwhatisright,butthestakesof“right”are,inasense,muchhigherthanin
traditionalepic,wheretheproblemsareessentiallyethical,abouthonorandduty.Clarel’s
questionabout“whatisright”isprimarilyaquestionabouttheunderlyingrealityofthings,
theirorganizationinserviceofreligiousultimates.
Clarelisapoemthattakesplaceinwhatismostobviouslydescribedasareligioussetting,
aboutagroupofcharactersonareligiouspilgrimage,allofwhomareconcernedinone
wayoranotherwithmakingsenseofasetofreligiousproblems.Religion,forClarel
providesa“universal”theme:thepilgrimage,inMelville’sunderstandingandexperience,
wasaproject-in-commonacrossmultipleworld-historicalreligioustraditions.ButClarel
15Moretti,ModernEpic.
16SeeHegel,Aesthetics1044-45andN.Frye,AnatomyofCriticism:FourEssays,PrincetonPaperbacks(PrincetonUniversityPress,2000),https://books.google.com/books?id=\_4h2jwEACAAJ318-20
232
resiststheepicformthroughitspsychologicalpresentationoftheindividual.Itplaysonthe
implausibilityofauniversalsetting(e.g.,theHolyLandsofJerusalemandPalestine:thesite
originof“worldreligions”)andthefailureofuniversalsastheparadigmaticproblemtobe
confrontedbytheindividualreligiousadherent.17Clarelwascomposedatamomentof
interestincross-culturalcomparisonofsacredtextsthatwouldleadtotheformulationof
the“worldreligions”asaneventinhistory,aunifyingapproachtotheheterogeneous
transcendentalelementsofvariouscultureswhicharguablycreatedtheconceptofreligion
assuch.WhilethereremainsuncertaintyaboutthedepthofMelville’sfamiliaritywiththe
growthofcomparativereligionasascholarlypractice,heparticipatedinanewwaveof
interchangebetweencolonialcenterandperipherythatwasbroughtonbythe
intensificationofglobaltravellines.18
Theindividual’sinabilitytodecideonanyparticularversionofthetheseultimates,what
thenarratornamesthe“complexpassion,”turnstheproblemofthenatureofreligionintoa
repetitionofindividualactionswhichcannotmakeprogressonitsquestionsbecauseit
cannotapproachthem.Clarel’sversionofGodisasilentone.Hecannotsupplytheanswers,
onlytheinterlocutorposition.19Thetraditionalepicshoulddisplayacertainincapabilityof
interrogatingitsunderlyingidealsofrightandwrong;todothiswouldunderminethe
17IdrawonFrancoMoretti’sdesignationofthefeaturesofthe“modernepic,”invokingaculturaltotalitywhichisunderminedby“adiscrepancybetweenthetotalizingwilloftheepicandthesubdividedrealityofthemodernworld.”MelvillesetClarelinalocalethatisattheoriginofacertainversionof“Western”history,butwhatstartlesthestudentClarelaboutthislocale,thewide-open“blankness”oftheHolyLands,isrepresentedinthetextareasuresignthatitisjustanotherelementthatparticipatesinhistoricaltime.SeeMoretti,ModernEpic,5
18AsIhavealreadymentioned,ajourneytoJerusalemanditssurroundingsin1857formedthebasisofMelville’sfirsthandknowledgeandnoteswhenhebeganhiscompositionofClarelseveraldecadeslater.
19“Deemvainthepromisenow,andyet/Invokehimwhoreturnsnocall”Melville,Clarel,1.3,190-91
233
significanceofaction.Melville’sworkcanforthisreasonbeconsideredanegativeimageof
thetraditionalepic.Inthetraditionalepic,thedramaticreversalsanduncertaintiesof
eventsconformtoamorefundamentalordersanctionedbytheepicreality:thisisthe
burdenofthehero,theinevitabilityofdeath,thereturnhome,andsoforth.Clarel,by
contrast,producesasenseofdisorderthroughtheindividualcharacter’suneaseagainst
thesuspiciouslysmoothandresolvedsurfaceofreality:throughthepersistenceof
intractablequestionswhichhavebeendismissedbyscienceandpositivisticculture.
ThusthecharacterinClarelis“individualized”inthefaceofthenecessaryself-generation
oftheHolyLand’s“blankness.”20Apropertyoftheworldisinternalizedasafunctionof
character;certaintyisnotpossible,andyetthequestionof“whattobelieve”persists.From
thisperspectiveClarelappearstostageamodernconsciousnessinsideofapremodern
expectationinherenttothepilgrim’sjourneyofconfirmationatthesource.This
descriptioncouldalsobetakenasaversionoftheconditionofmodernity,inwhichcase
Clarelcreatesthemodernreligiousproblematicof“faith”and“doubt”outofitsown
categoriesoforderanddisorder.
IhavealreadyclaimedthatClareldoesawaywithadevelopmentalperspectivethatwas
implicitinthetextsofmypreviouschapters.Thedisappearanceofthisperspective
characterizestheindividualastheformalrepresentativeofwhatisanti-systematicand
particular.Individualknowledgeisrepresentedbybeingembedded,bycomingfroma
particularstandpoint.Thisisthecharacterasagent,forwhomtherealmustberelatedtoa
20Clarel’sfirstsightofJerusalem:“LiketheicebastionsroundthePole,�/Thyblank,blanktowers,Jerusalem!”1.1,60-61
234
situation:toasetofcircumstances–biography,history,tribalmembership–thatintheir
totalitydescribehimasarepresentativeofatradition.Theperspectiveoftheindividualis
incapableoftheoreticalknowledgeaboutthewhole,andforthatreasoncontainsa
necessarilyincompletefactor.Theabilitytorepresenttheindividualasparticular
standpointimpliesthatthearticulationofhispositionisacontingentpartofthesystematic
descriptionofaworld.Thecharacter’sstandpointisopposedtotherepresentationofthe
whole.Theepicdimensionofthetextobligatesthedepictionofconvincingstructures,
wheretheepicisthedepictionofthewholeoftherealfromtheperspectiveofnowhere.
Thepoem’savoidanceofthedevelopmentalperspectiveallowsformultiplepossible
resolutionsofthetension.First,thereisthepossibilitythatthe“modern”individual
permanentlyeschewsmetaphysicalconcerns.Theindividual“leavesbehind”theparticular
standpointinapostureliketheacceptanceofdisenchantment.Thatis,theindividual
acceptsaprinciplewherebytheexperienceofphenomenabecomes“evidence”ofa
controlling,systematicreality.Aworldorderthatappearsintheformofevidencesubmits
tothecontrollingorganizationofasystemofascientific-materialistorevolutionarynature.
Theindividualaccepts,orratherlookspast,hisstatusasfragmentofanoverallpresenceor
absence.Thisstancerepresentsakindofdisenchantment,anacceptanceofakindof
absurdityoftheindividualperspective.21Thesecondpossibilityisthestubbornnessofthe
significanceoftheindividualview:theembedded,necessarilyincompletestandpoint
representedbytheindividualremainsessentialtoan“aporetic”(i.e.,always,necessarily
21Iwanttoconnectthispossibilityofworld-as-evidencetotheproblemofdisenchantment,asarticulatedbyMaxWeber(“Entzauberung”),andgivenonecontemporaryformulationintheworkofthephilosopherCharlesTaylor.SeeMaxWeber,TheSociologyofReligion(Boston:BeaconPress,1993)andCharlesTaylor,ASecularAge(Cambridge,Mass.:BelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress,2007)
235
problematicandincomplete)perspective.Thispossibilityisrepresentedinthemeaningof
theterm“pilgrim”itself:etymologicallyspeaking,theonewhoisnecessarily“stranger”to
theworldthatheorsheinhabits.22Thepresenceofascientific-materialistperspectivein
thetextonlyraisestheurgencyofthequestionofanindividual’s“escape,”ofareleasefrom
thestructuresofthepresent.
Ifthelyrichastraditionallybeenaformthatdeliberatesonthesituationofthespeaker,
thenMelville’slyricalvoiceismarkedbytheawarenessofitsownself-dependence,bythe
necessityofaconstructivistapproachtothemodernpredicament.Theindividualpilgrims
areseparatedfromtheworldoftraditionandmembershipinagivenreligious
“community.”As“doubters”alongwithClarel,theybecomethinkinganddiscriminating
judgesofreligioussigns:fromreligiousmembersofatraditiontodecision-makerontraces
leftbyapossibledivine.Melville’slyricforegroundsthebreakdownofthereligious
institutions,signsandstructuresofenchantment(foremostthestructureofthepilgrimage
itself)sothatitcanbememorializedbytheindividualspeaker.
Myuseofthetermlyricaccepts,fromtheoutset,theprotean,slipperynatureoftheterm.
Giventhisproject’semphasisontheindividualvoice,ofgreatestrelevancetothisanalysis
arethoseclaimsincloseassociationwithromantic-eratheorizationofthelyric:thatit
presentsadirectaddressbetweenspeakerandaudience,thatitaimstodescribean
22TheOxfordEnglishdictionarytracestheetymologyofthemodern“pilgrim”throughamixofborrowingfromtheMiddleFrenchpelerin(“stranger,alien”)andtheLatinpelegrinus(“foreigner,onefromabroad”).Entryfor“pilgrim”inOxfordUniversityPress,ed.,“TheOxfordEnglishDictionary.”(Oxford:NewYork:ClarendonPress;OxfordUniversityPress,1989),http://dictionary.oed.com/.
236
experiencewithminimalintercessionbypoeticdeviceorartifice,andthatitrepresentsthe
voiceofindividualagainstacollectivedemand.23
Thepoemparticipatesinthelyricaltraditionbydepictingthesituationofthedisillusioned,
butdogged,religiouspilgrim:visitortotheoriginofatradition,whoseekstowitnessa
sacredtradition’sentranceintotheworld.Inthissensethepilgrim’sjourneyisoneof
confirmation,aprocessof,asonecommentatordescribesthepilgrimage,a“personalquest
formeaningthatstrengthensanexistingidentity.”24Thearchetypalpilgrim-journeyseeks
outanoriginary(religious)truthalreadyestablished,yetstillavailableinsomeformatits
source.Thisisthetraditionalpurposeofthepilgrimage.25ButClarelreversesthis
expectationbyturningthepilgrimintoacarrierofdoubt,whoseeksconfirmationthrough
reversalbyjudgment,dialogueorrevelation.Regardlessofthemeans,thepilgriminClarel
seeksafundamentaltransformationofperspectivethatwouldreconfigurethemeaningof
thejourney,fromdoubttoconfirmation.ThepositionofthespeakerinClarelbecomesa
kindofactioninitself,wheredoubtmustbringsomethingconjecturedintobeing.The
pilgrimdoesnotapproachthesiteof“pure”religiousrevelationseekingtoexperience.
Indeed,whatisstrikingaboutClarelisthatreligiousvision,inthesenseofthemystical
experienceorwitnessingofthemiracle,ispointedlyabsent.Ratherthepilgrimageitselfis23SeeHeatherDubrow,“LyricForms,”inTheLyricTheoryReader:ACriticalAnthology,ed.VirginiaWalkerJacksonandYopiePrins(JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,2014),114–27,114-115
24MatthewT.Loveland,“Pilgrimage,ReligiousInstitutions,andtheConstructionofOrthodoxy,”SociologyofReligion69,no.3(2008):320,http://www.jstor.org/stable/20453230.
25SeeVictorTurner,“TheCenterOutThere:Pilgrim’sGoal,”HistoryofReligions12,no.3(1973):191–230,http://www.jstor.org/stable/1062024onthetraditionalstructureofthepilgrimagejourney.BezansonwritesthatwhenMelvilledrewonhisownjournalsandjourneysforthecompositionofClarel,hebeganby“passingupanydirecttreatmentoftheweekshehadspentinGreece,Turkey,EgyptandItaly,”instead“usingtheancientpatternofapilgrimage.”InWalterBezanson,“HistoricalandCriticalNotetoClarel,”inClarel(NorthwesternUniversityPress,1991),531
237
anactionthatseekstoestablish.OntheoldestwidelyknownGreeklyrics,thetheorist
JonathanCullerwritesthattheyconsistofaritualizedspeechwhichisperformed,
“sometimesdeemedofdivineorigin,”andwiththeintentionto“producetruth.”26
Cullerwritesthatthearchaiclyricspeakercouldbeasingeratanevent(e.g.,wedding),an
officialpraisingthegods,alamenterforonewhohasdied,oraspeakerofpraiseforahero.
Thelyriccontains“acontextofritualforegroundthequestionofthepoem’sownritualistic
characterasspellorchant,confirmedbyvariousformsofrepetition.”27Ineachcasethe
lyricpresumesadirectaddressfromaparticular,situatedstandpoint,sinceitconstructs
theimpressionthatanactualspeakerliesbehindthecontents(whatCullercallsan
“enunciativeapparatus”)whoisinapositiontosaysomethingauthoritativeaboutthe
natureofwhatisunderdiscussion28Cullerwritesthatthelyric“attemptstobeitselfan
eventratherthantherepresentationofanevent”and“assertionsorjudgmentsthatarenot
relativizedtoaparticularspeakerorfictionalsituationbutofferedastruthsaboutthe
world.”29Thelyricdoesnotknowthetruth,butpurportstoputitselfinwhatIwanttocall
atruthpositionbydrawingitselfclosetoboththeeventinquestionandsourcesof
authority.ThespeakerinClarelhaspersonalauthority,basedontheexperienceofthe
eventsthemselves.Atcertainmoments,andattimesdrawingonthisauthority,characters
mayargueandpressapoint.Butthesubjectmatteristhesameinallcases.
26JonathanD.Culler,TheoryoftheLyric(Cambridge,Massachusetts:HarvardUniversityPress,2015),49.
27ibid.,16
28Ibid.,34.
29Ibid.,35.
238
InthelyricalmodeofClarelthereislittlespaceforanarrator,foragapbetweenthe
conditionbeingaddressedandthediegeticworldbeingshown.Thethoughtattacksthe
speaker;narrationoftenintroducesorframeslinesspokenbycharacter,butindoingsoit
bleedsintothem,reducingtheabstractionbetweenthepresumptivespeakerandthe
situation,bymakingthespeakerappeartospeak“at”thesituation.ThisiswhatCullercalls
turningthepastintoan“occurrenceinthelyricpresent.”30Finally,thelyricisagenre
definedbytheelevationofitssubjectmatter,whatCullercallsa“deliberatelyhyperbolic
quality,”whichappearstobeaformofspiritualizedenchantment:to“remaketheuniverse
asaworld,givingaspiritualdimensiontomatter.”31
Iwanttoclaimaboutthelyricthatitisasituationaldevice,depictingspeechfromwithin
thepositionoftribalmembership,traditionalaffiliation,personalhistory,andassociated
rituals.32Tospeakoftheindividualinthissituationistoaddressapresencethatisonly
isolableinavirtualsense.AsWalterBezansonhaspointedout,Melville’s“typological”
approachtocharacterinClarelensuresthatnocharacterstandsforthemselves,thatthey
arerepresentativeofasetofdefinableworldviews,ifnotaspecificculturalgroup.33The
lyricrepresentsthespeakerasthehypotheticalindividualwhocanonlyspeakfroma
positionofcompromisebythesituation.Cullerhighlightsthe“complexityofthe
30Ibid.,37.
31Ibid.,38.
32SusanSontag:“Theearliestexperienceofartmusthavebeenthatitwasincantatory,magical;artwasaninstrumentofritual.”SusanSontag,“AgainstInterpretation,”inAgainstInterpretationandOtherEssays(Picador,1966)
33ForBezanson’sinterpretationofthesetypologiesseeBezanson,“HistoricalandCriticalNotetoClarel.”,613-635
239
enunciativeapparatus”that,while“articulatedinthefirstperson,”is“anythingbuta
straightforwardstatementbyaspeaker.”34
Toexpandonthedifferencebetweenlyricandepicperspectives,Ireadthefunctionofthe
lyricandepicmodeswithinClarel’suseofplace.Thepurposeofthisclosereadingisto
demonstratehowquestionsofindividualpositionalandimpersonalstructurearise
dialecticallyfromoneanother:that,forexample,onecannotmakesenseofthephysical
miseryimposedbythedesertwithoutthepilgrim’sspiritualreasonforenteringthat
desert,andthatthelandscapewillalwayseludetheindividual’sattempttomakeitserve
humanneedsandwants.ThelandscapesofClarelarebothimmovablefromtheindividual
subjectperspectivebut,intheirimmovability,revealnewformsofsubjectivity.Having
understoodthewaysinwhichsubjectandstructureareopposedtooneanotherinClarel,
wewillbepreparedtoconsiderthecentralformsofsubjectivity–“believer”and“doubter”–
inthepoemitself.
WeshouldfirstdistinguishbetweenClarel’suseofplace,notedfortheintegrationofa
humanpresence(asinJerusalem,themonasteryatMarSaba)andspaces,whichoppose
thehuman–asinthedesert.Togiveoneexampleofhowthesefunctionsopposeone
another,Clareldepictstheindividualcharacterdiminishedbytheoverwhelmingtotalityof
thedesert(space),thenre-enteringtheMarSabamonasterytoparticipateinChristian
ritesofmonasticworship.Thefirststarkdifferencebetweenthetwotermsoccursinthe
approachingpilgrim’sexperienceofspaceoutsideJerusalem(“Romanceofmountains!,”35)
34Culler,TheoryoftheLyric,16.
351.1,47
240
andtheinscrutabilityofthecity’sphysicalpresence(“Thyblank,blanktowers,
Jerusalem!”36)thatsetsupareversal:thehumanfullnessofJerusalem’schaotic,streets
overflowingwiththesuggestivecrowd(“Theseliketidestogetherclash/Andquestionof
theirpurportraise.”37)andtheinscrutableMountOlivetloomingabove.
Attheendofthepoem’sfirstpart,asthebandofpilgrimspreparestodepartfrom
Jerusalem,Clareltakesnoteof“Themountainmild,thewranglingcrew”in“contrast”with
oneanother.[1.44,27]ThepilgrimsareattheedgeofJerusalem,stillinviewofMount
Olivet,which“tease[s]thesense”with“vagueunrest”and“unconfirmedsignificance.”[1.44,
29-31]Theambiguousappearanceofthemountaincontrastswiththeresolveofthe
charactersonthevergeoftheirpilgrimageoutsidethecitywalls.
Inthedialoguebetweenindividualandstructure,thesandsofthedesertbotheraseand
intensifythemeaningoftheindividualbyimposingtheirmateriality.ThemonasteryatMar
Sababecomesthesiteofthereconstitutionoftheindividualinthefiguresliketheascetic
andthemonk.Thehumanconstructionofplaceintheformofthemonasteryexistsatthe
edgeofthedesert’scapacitytoobscure,acapacityforrepressionofthehumanthat
paradoxicallyaffirmsthegenerativecapabilitiesoftheembeddedindividual:“Mansprang
fromdeserts:atthetouch/Ofgriefortrialovermuch,/Ondesertshefallsbackatneed.”38
Inthedeserttheindividual’srelationshiptospacedevelopswithoutthemundaneforcesof
maintenanceandcontinuationthatallowforpermanenthumansettlement.Herethe
361.1,61
371.6,12-13
382.16,106-8
241
humanretreatstoeraseitselfandbeginanew.Thenarratorsuggeststhatthedesert
outsideofJerusalemcontainsa“pure”emptinessforwhichNorthAmerica(Melville
presumablyintendsthewoodedEastwithwhichhewasmostfamiliar)hasnodirect
comparison,sincetheAmericanwildernesscanbebenttosettlementandagriculture.39
Wildernessdoesnotcarryahumanhistory;nocivilizationcanclaimit,andyetitadmits
entranceonuncertaintermstothepilgrims.Fortheindividualitbothlacksthesocial
processesofintegrationbywhichtheindividualcouldclaimto“beapart”ofnature,butis
alsoopentotheevidenceprovidedbytheindividualfaculties.Asaresultdesertisnotthe
siteofcooperativeinterpretation,butofexperience.Asthepoemsuggestsbyitsreference
toJohntheBaptist,tomakesenseofitonemustenterwithoutintentionality,preparedto
receiveavisionandwitnesstheimpossible.40Thewildernesserasescertaintythroughthe
absenceoffamiliarhumanthings,bypresentingmaterialityonitsownterms.Indoingsoit
mixesfamiliarintellectualcategories;itcanbeaplacewhereDarwin,figureofscientific
disenchantment,drawsontheromanticismofShelly:
Darwinquotes
FromShelley,thatforeverfloats
Overalldesertplacesknown,
Mysteriousdoubt–anawfulone.
Hequotes,adoptsit.Isittrue?
Letinstinctvouch;letpoetry
39Thepilgrimsnotethe“thecontrastoftheirvernalhomes–/Field,orchard,andtheharvestcheer.”3.5,29-30
40AllusiontoMark1.6:“Buttopureheartsityieldsnofear;/AndJohn,hefoundwildhoneyhere.”2.11,95-96
242
Scienceandinstincthereagree,
Fortruthrequiresstrongretinue.[2.11,13-20]
Inunsettledplaces,“instinct”will“vouch”forotherhumanachievements,renderingthe
rationalandintuitivemindequaltooneanother.Thedesertstripsawaytheromantic
interpretationofnaturethroughtheintensityofitsmaterialisticpresentationtothesenses
(“scienceandinstinctagree”),butalsoevadesreductiontothescientificandthematerial.It
hasthepowertooppressthepilgrimsasinvolvedobservers.The“doubt”itimposes
overwhelmstheadequacyofeventhescientificexplanation.Intheduststormsandscenes
ofdistantpeaks(Mt.Sinai)obscuredbydesertwinds,thedesertmarksthelimitwhere
knowledgeofplaceisobscured.41Thedesertmarkswhatcanbeassimilatedintohuman
categoriesandwhatliesbeyond.Thisisthepointatwhichemptinesscanbebroughtinto
civilization,wheredialecticalinterchangebetweencollapsesthedifferencebetween
categories.42Ifemptyspaceisthespacewheredevelopmentmeetsitsopposite,itisalso
theplacewhereconceptsandparadigmssmashintooneanother.Emptyspaceisunified,
havingnoneedofanoppositetobalanceit,buttheoppositionbetweennatureandthe
humanbecomesthebasisofallotheropposites.Emptinesscanstillrepresentastrong
division,thespacebetween‘self’and‘other.’
Theunsettledplacebecomesazoneofpotentiallyradicalsacrednessthroughitsexclusion
ofthehuman.AswithaSyrianmonk-asceticthatthegroupwilllatermeet,thedesertis
blank,opentothepossibilityofbeingfilledwitha“pure”subjectivityoftheintensely
41“Yonderonthehorizon,red/Withstorm,seetherethecaravan”2.11,44-45
42“ScienceandFaith,cantheseunite?”3.5,64
243
concentratingobserver.Itformsastepforthepilgrimswhomustmakessenseoftheirown
traditionsbypassingthroughtheirtotalexclusioninthedesert.Thewildernessrevealsthe
absoluteconsistencyofmatter,theessentialdifferencebetweenintimationsofthe
immaterialandoftheearth.Inresistingthehuman,thedesertrevealsthepresenceofa
radicalotherwhichcanbefilledwithdivinity,aswhenthenarratorcitesepisodesof
lightningstrikesinantiquity:“menhereadorethisground/Whichdoomhathsmitten.”43
Initspotentialtodestroythehumanbodythedesertintimatessomethingmore-than-
material.
Theepicisnormallyassociatedwithapictureoftheworldinwhichthethematerialand
immaterialcontainresonancesofeachother.AsHegelwritesinhisLecturesonAesthetics
abouttheepic:
Thewholecomprisesboththereligiousconsciousness,springingfromallthedepthsofhumanspirit,andalso
concreteexistence,politicalanddomesticliferightdowntothedetailsofexternalexistence,humanneedsand
meansfortheirsatisfaction;andepicanimatesthiswholebydevelopingitinclosecontactwithindividuals,
becausewhatisuniversalandsubstantiveenterspoetryonlyasthelivingpresenceofthespirit.44
Thetraditionalepicportraysthetotalityofmaterialandspiritualconcerns“inclose
contact”withtheindividual.Thisisneither,asinthelyric,theindividualasanagent
responsibleforconstructionofa“picture”oftheworld;nor,asinthemodernepic,the
mechanisticindifferenceoftheworldtotheindividual.Intheepictraditionallyconceived,
thereisnogapbetweenworldandindividual,inwhichaconstructivistaccountof
432.11,87-88
44Hegel,Aesthetics,2:1044.
244
individualsubjectivitycouldarise.ButtheexperienceofplaceinClarelchangesthis
configuration.Wildernessremainsclosetothepilgrimwhilestandingapart,makingthe
subjectawareofhisownmaterialitythroughtheminimizationofhisownsubjective
importance.Clareldependsonasenseofarelationshipbetweenwhatisinsideandoutside
thehuman,anditmaintainsthissenseinthedichotomybetweenplace(settlement)and
space(wilderness).Thecommunityofdoubtersknowsthatthematerialityofspaceis
opposedtothem,thatitmustbeapproachedinworship,reverenceandmysteryrather
thanlivedinasahome.Thepilgrimwhohaslivedthroughtheerasureoftheindividualin
theindifferenttotalityofthedeserthasarrived,throughthewilderness,atarevised
understandingofthehuman.
Attheendofthejourneythroughthedesert,thepilgrimssighttheMarSabamonastery,
situatedalongsideacliff:“AnchoredinseasofNitria’ssand,/Thedesertconventofthe
Copt–”45Thespiritualexceptionalismofthemonasterydependsonitsclosenesstoempty
space:“Noaerolitecanmorecommand/Thesenseofdeaddetachment,dropped�/All
solitaryfromthesky.”46Themonasteryachievesatagroupleveltheextraordinary
individual’swithdrawalfromthepublicparticipation,thepreconditionofspiritual
reflection:“Sabaabidestheloneliest:/Saba,thatwithaneagle’stheft/Seizethand
dwellethinthecleft.”47Residinginemptyspaceisananimalact,theattempttoberaise
one’sconsciousnessthroughloweringoneselfintheorderofcreation.Themonklivesand
movesamongthisdesert,whosepurposeistomakethemawareofdeath:453.9,7-8
463.9,9-11
473.9,36-38
245
Butupanddown,fromgrottoshrine,
Alongthegorge,hardbythebrink
Filethegownedmonksinevenline,
Andnevershrink!
Withlitanyordirgetheywend
Wherenatureasintravaildwells;48
Theheightenedawarenessofthemonkswalkingclosetodeathalongthecliffisessentialto
theconstructionofthemonastery.Theopennessofspaceisthememoryoftime
compressedbeneaththeshallowhumanhumanlayerofsettlement,beneaththe
technospherewithitsdistractions:“Fullfifteenhundredyearshavewound/Sincecenobite
firstharboredhere”49Thedescriptioncontinues:
Whatmemorieselder?Faranddeep
Whatductsandchamberedwellsandwalls
Andmanydeepsubstructionsbe
Whichsowithdoubtandgloomagree,
Toquestiononeisbornealong—
BasedthesetheRight?subservedtheWrong?50
Humansettlementisthebasisforhistory,butalsothesitewherethedeeptimeofspace
confrontsthefragilityofmemoryinplace.Thelandscapealwaysincludesthesediments,
themultipleordersoftime.OutsideofMarSabathepilgrimsmeetageologist,Margoth,
483.9,44-49
493.9,62-63
501.16,6-12
246
emblemofspirituallycontemptuousscientificmaterialism.Thegeologist’sstudyofdeep
timewithinthesedimentchallengesthepossibilityofanhistoricallyrevealed
transcendence:“Thebonesofmen,deemedmartyrscrowned,/Tofossilsturninmountain
near;”51Materialityholdsontotheaspirationsofthehuman,butinitsownform.
PlaceinClarel(asinJerusalem)representsthetransformationoftimeintothevisible
culturalformsofthecity.Theemptymaterialityofspace(asinthedesert)worksaccording
toitsownlaws.Space,directlyconfrontedinthedesert,isthebestsymbolofresistanceto
thesettledcategorizationofinhabitedzonesinthecity.Inthissensetheembraceof
materialismbyascientificcharacterlikeMargothisbothbewilderingandrevealing:to
embraceunconditionalmaterialityistoacceptthewaysofanotherorderhostiletothe
humanone,toacceptthehomelessnessitentails.AcharacterlikethegeologistMargoth,a
contemptuousdisbeliever,isnotmoreknowledgeable,onlymoreindifferenttothe
questionsraisedforadoubterlikethestudentClarel.ThepoemClarelsuggeststhatthe
geologisthasafalseallyinhismaterialism.Thedoubtingpilgrimsrepresentacommunity
awarethatitdoesnothavetheknowledgeofessences–anawarenesswhichMargothdoes
nothave.Thegeologisthaslostasenseofspaceandtimeas“Other,”asaforceinwhichhe
isnotathome.ThisiswhatClarelrealizeswhenhisfirstviewofJerusalemclattersinto
disillusionment.52Doubtbecomesasaconditionthroughwhichthesubjectcomestoargue
withhimselfaboutthequestionsthatthegeologistignores.
513.9,64-65
52“Romanceofmountains!”becomes“Whatchangethenearapproachcouldlend.”“And,atthelast,aloftforgoal,/LiketheicebastionsroundthePole,�/Thyblank,blanktowers,Jerusalem!”1.1,59-61
247
Community(i.e.,place)beginswherethedesertends.Theemptinessofthedesertisnot
simplyalack,butthepresenceofanorderthatimpairsthehumancapabilitytosee.Empty
spacehasasupernaturalqualitytoit,analternativeordermarkedbya“terror”where
“neverdidshepherddaretodraw.”Tobeemptyisnotnaturalbutsupernatural:“Ofone,
someghostorgodaustere–/Hermitunknown,dreadmountaineer–.”53Desertsaresimply
acollectionofearth,theimmovabilityofplaceinitsmostmanifestform.Thisiswhythe
narratorcitesthepyramids,“Cheops’indissolublepile,”asanotablehumanstructure.[2.11,
61]Drawnfromthesandandclayofthedesert,theygiveformtothematerialityoftheir
surroundings.Thedesertresiststheattempttogiveitpermanentshape,hencethe
monumentalityoftheEgyptianachievement:theimpositionofformonbareclayandsand
atamonumentalscale.Whathumanshavecreatedcanalwaysbeturnedbacktotheearth.
Totakefromitandlivewithinit(asthetextcitesJohntheBaptist)isanachievementwon
byindividualswithextraordinarypowersofvision.Butthecollectiveprojectofcivilization
endsinthedesert.Thedesertrepresentsthedefeatofexpectation,wheredoubtcanstill
live.
ThehostilityofbarematerialitythatClarelfindsonhisapproachtoJerusalemthroughthe
desert(e.g.,“stonystrait,”the“scorchofnoon,”“Afric’sfierysands”)isnotaconclusionin
itself,butarecognitionthatconvictionisnowconfrontedwithindifference,atoddswith
themoralcosmossoughtbythepilgrim.54Thisbringsustothethematicoffaithanddoubt.
Inthepsychologicaldynamicsofplace,Ihavetracedthecontoursofaspiritually-intoned
532.11,53-54
541.1,53;1.1,56
248
subjectivity(thelyric)andasenseofmaterialitythatoverwhelmstheindividual(theepic).
Thefigureofdoubtcanbeseeninthepilgrim’salways-presentsenseofisolationagainst
thelandscape,butthepossibilityoffaithexistsintheliminalpossibilityofreversalthrough
vision,inthefiguresofepiphanicrevelationcitedbythetext:Mosesandtheburningbush,
JohntheBaptist,andfinallythecharacterNehemiahfromthegroupofpilgrimswhowillbe
discussedmorefullybelow.Thereforethedesertisazoneofbothdesolationand
extraordinaryspiritualclarity.
Theall-or-nothingqualitytoplaceinClarel,thepossibilityofbarematerialityreversedinto
revelation,isanampleintroductiontotheconditionoffaithanddoubtinthepoem.Doubt
isalsoapreconditionforaformofindividualisminClarel,wheretheinteriorcontoursof
theindividualresultfromthesubject’sabilitytobedividedagainsthimself.Ifbelief
concernsthesubject’sintuitiveidentificationbetweensubjectandobject,thendoubt
providesevidencethat“subject”and“world”canbesplitbydoubt,whichallowsthe
subjecttofallatoddswithitselfovertheimportoftheevidence.Mypurposeinthenext
section,then,istoelucidatethetermsofthefaith-and-doubtdilemma.Clarelispoised,on
theonehand,betweenthepotentialenlargementofthedistancebetweensubjectand
worldbytheproblemofdoubt,andontheother,bythepossibilityoftheovercomingof
distancebetweenthesetwobyamediatingterm.
TheFunctionofFaithandDoubtinClarel
Clareltreatsthefaithanddoubtproblemasanarticulationoftheindividual’sdistancefrom
atotality,asdefinedbyamaterialistedifice.Butwemustfirstexplainwhatismeantby
both“faith”and“doubt.”First,Iwillarguethatthispsychologicaldefinitionofcharacterin
249
Clareldistinguishesitsrepresentationofthepilgrim’sindividualismfromthe
developmentalpsychologyondisplayinmypreviouschapters.Clarel’sarchetypal
characteristhedoubtingpilgrim,anddoubtisnotaproblemtobeovercome,buta
permanentconditionofindividualsubjects.Thedilemmaentailedbythecouplingofthese
twopositionsisthattheystandopposedtooneanother,withlittleapparentpossibilityof
exchange.Tothedoubtingcharacter,faithappearstobeanimpossibility.Thebelieveris
“exoticized,”insomecasesthroughanOrientalistaestheticofaprimitivepastthatadheres
tofaith,andamodernitythatmovesawayfromit.ThiswillbeseeninareadingofClarel’s
firstexperienceofthecrowd,amongthepilgrimsandcitizensofJerusalem.
Inshowingthatdoubtentailsthearticulationofaconditionratherthanaworking-through
toaconclusion,Clarelturnsthepilgrim’stemporarydistancefromthereligioussource,
whichintheclassicalstructureofpilgrimageshoulddisappearinthemomentof
experienceofthereligioussource,intoawayofindividualizingthesubject,of
distinguishinghimthroughtheparticularcontoursofhisorherdoubt.Atthispointweare
preparedtoconsiderthetworesolutionsofthefaithanddoubtdilemmathatcoalesce
acrossthetext:eitherthehardeningofthisconditionintopermanency,orawayout
throughmediationbetweenpartandwhole.
WhatClarelcalled,uponobservingthemassedcrowdsinJerusalem,the“intersympathyof
creeds”ispresentedasacross-culturalcondition,inwhichspiritualcontentofindividual
lifebecomesaformofindividualself-expressionaboutthedistancefromcosmic
structures.[1.5,209]Clarelexplorestherelationshipbetweenindividualandworldthrough
theVictorianliterarytropeof“faithanddoubt.”
250
Clarel’sstructureoffaithanddoubtdescribesthenecessityofamiddletermtonegotiate
betweenindividualanduniversal.Thismiddleterm,somethinglikeaspaceofbeing
togetherinasetofsharedritualsthatproducesarelationshiptouniversals,iswhatis
missingandsoughtafteracrossthecourseofthepoem.Initsabsence,theperspectiveof
thepoemoneithertheunresolvableinternalityoftheindividualdoubterorthestructures
ofmateriality,objectivityandabstraction.
Thedoubteristheonewhoremainscapturedbytheunresolvabilityofcontradiction,
individuatedbytherealizationthatheis“implicated”instructureswithoutasenseof
involvementinthem.Thebeliever,bycontrast,maintainssightoftheuniversalwithinher
individualpositionofcontradiction;thestandpointisthesourceoftheidentificationwith
universals.
Ihavesketchedthebifurcationofthenarrativebetweentheembeddedindividualanda
viewofthewholeinthetextsofpriorchapters.Theindividualinpriorchaptersisalsoan
agentwhocontainsvariousformsofmaterialimplication.Heorshehasan“interest”inthe
surroundings.Thisisthecharacterwhopursuesthematerialdemandsofavocationwithin
thecommune(Goethe),orisconstitutedbyanorganicformofawarenesswithinthevillage
(G.Eliot).Ontheotherpole,ofmaximalabstractionfromindividualconcerns,thereisa
notionofawhole,ofauniversalizationoftheagentialqualitiesthatmakeuptheindividual.
InGoethe’sWilhelmMeister’sWanderjahre,theuniversalizationofindividualvocationis
representedbythemovementsoftheemigrant,whocommitstothecommunityinservice
totheinnerdemandsofwork.InEliot’sDeronda,theindividualisuniversalizedwithinthe
nation,whichvirtualizesthematerialclosenessandcomraderyofthevillage.Butinthe
twoexamplesjustcitedthereisathirdterm,anintermediarybetweenthesituated
251
materialityoftheindividualagentandauniversal“other.”ThisthirdtermiswhatIhave
definedasthe“community”:inGoethe’Wanderjahrethecommune,inEliot’sDerondathe
village,andinMelville’scaseofClarelwhatIcallthecommunityasabsence.
Inmyfirsttwotexts,thereisarealisticeffectthatmakesthecommunityacomprehensive,
contextualworldfortheindividual.Thiscreatesaspecificworldbetweentheindividual
andtheworld-at-large.Therealiswhatcreatestheregularityofthecommunity,what
causesittooperateaccordingtonecessarylawsthatallowforaccurateindividual
judgment.55Ifrealismisasetofformaldevicesthatenablethecommunitytoactasa
“thick”textualobject–onewithabasisfortheactiontoplayout–thenClarelmakesan
unusualentrytothisargument.
ButasIhavealreadyargued,Clareldepartsfromrealisticconvention:astheconstruction
ofanaturalizedpresent,asthefunctionofthelifeundertherulesofthe“everyday.”Clarel
doesnotpresenttheeverydaysituation,buttheworking-outoftheindividualinan
historicallyexceptionallocation(JerusalemandPalestine)andinsituationsofextremity
(i.e.,lossoffaith).Ifrealismimpliestheestablishmentofaprocess,ofaregularitythat
convincesthereaderthatthisishowtheworld(community)reallyis,thenthe
representationalvaluesof“faithanddoubt”areclosertoastaticpicture,wherethetwo55Forexample,seeTerenceWrightonEliot’sdebttopositivismasamodelforindividualjudgmentaboutthelawsofcommunity,specificallytheirnegativeillustrationinTheMillontheFloss’fictionalvillageofSt.Ogg’s:“ButGeorgeEliotfrequentlyusessomeofthesynonymsComteenumeratedfortheword‘positive:’real,exact,precise.Manyofhercharactersarejudgedbytheirfailuretorecognisetheoperationsofthelawofconsequences,thatcertainactionsleadtoinevitableresults.Theirbeliefinprovidenceisseenasabaptizedformofegoismandtheirresorttomysticismasanabandonmentof‘real’phenomenaopentoobservationandverification.ThemindofSt.Ogg’s,forexample,iswellbelowthepositivestage.”MypreviouschapterarguesthatwhileMilldepictsthefailureofthevillageasaformofcommunity,itnonethelessoutlinestheethicalprinciplesofthevillagenegatively,throughthatfailure.InTerenceR.Wright,TheReligionofHumanity:TheImpactofComteanPositivismonVictorianBritain(Cambridge[Cambridgeshire];NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1986),181.
252
positionsfaceoneanother,withoutthedevelopmentalbridgeprovidedby(togiveone
example)therealisticBildungsroman.Thosewithfaithareunabletocommunicate
“reasons”tothedoubter,whilethedoubterlookswithenvyataconditionfromwhichheis
permanentlyexiled.Faithanddoubtcanthereforebeseenasacompetitionbetween
typologicalcharacterpositions.Itscharactersdonotmovethrougharealisticworld
definedbyaprocessofmaturation,butratherruminateandexpandtheinternalityoftheir
own“believing”or“doubting”position.Faithanddoubtaremorelikepermanent
psychologicalbinaries,fixedinthearticulationofpsychologicalpossibilities.
Clarelworksthroughanoppositionbetweenthesepsychologicaloptions.Thebeliever,the
characterwith“faith,”functionsasrepresentativeofatradition,spanningthecontradiction
betweenidealandembeddedrealityoftheindividualasmemberofatradition.The
believerissecureinaworldofmetaphysics,ofidealexplanationsforappearances.The
doubteristhepsychologicaltypewhocannolongeracceptevidenceasself-evident.The
doubtingindividualisnolongeraparticipantwithinatradition,empoweredbythemere
factofmembershipinagivenreligious“community,”butanautonomouslyself-
constructed,thinkinganddiscriminatingjudgeofreligioussigns;notreligiousadherent,
butdecision-makerabouttracesleftbyapossibledivine.
Thestaticoppositionbetweenfaithanddoubtopposestheessentialmonismoftherealistic
text,whichdynamizesacontradiction(faithanddoubtisjustoneexample)througha
developmentalresolution.56Arealisticdepictionofthefaith-doubtdilemmawouldleadto
aresolutionofdoubtitself,inthe“arrival”atfaith.IntheLehrjahre,WilhelmMeistermay
56SeethediscussionofFredricJameson’sTheAntinomiesofRealism,above.
253
nothavesecuredacareerinthetheater,buthecanlookbackoneventsofhistimeinthe
theaterwiththesatisfactionof“inward”maturation,thathehasachievedanew“outlook”
and,howeverunintentionally,theprojectofpersonalcultivationthatheconceivedofmore
superficiallyatthenovel’sbeginning.Onlyretrospectivelycanheunderstandthathis
developmentalprojectalwayshadthecharacterofinwardness.Hisburgherfateistobe
“noble”inspiritratherthan–ashefirststyledhimself–inappearances,asbefitsthe
aristocratandthetheatricalworld.Clarelmakesprogrammatictheprojectofindividual
“inner”developmentthathadonlyjustcomeintoviewforWilhelmMeister,butitrefuses
therealisticresolutiontotheproblemintheformofindividualdevelopment.Insteadof
innerresolutionitgivessomethinglikeanethicalposture,substitutinghopeforfaith.
Clareloffersnoimmediateresolutionbetweenthesetwopositions.Byusingitsfaith-doubt
problematictoforeclosethepossibilityofarealisticpresentation,Iwanttoarguethatthe
poemmaximizesthedistancebetweentheindividualanduniversalposition.Asaresultof
thereplacementofarealisticaestheticswithoneoftypesanduniversals,whatislostisthe
intermediatingstructureofthecommunityinwhichindividualdevelopmentisworkedout.
Clarelstagestheunresponsivenessofthecommunityintheaskingofitsultimatequestions.
Withoutthereconcilingpracticesofthecommunity,doubtisthefinalpositionofthe
individualensnaredbycontradiction.Clarelremovesthefunctionof“thereal”asamedium
throughwhichindividualactionandjudgmentbecomeseffectivewithincontradiction.The
communityisthespaceinwhichindividualactionbecomeseffective.Faithanddoubtisa
stand-inforthepermanentstateofcontradictionfacingtheindividualintheabsenceofa
basisincommunity.
254
WhatIclaiminthischapter–thetotalerosionofcommunityasamiddletermbetween
individualandworld–wouldappeartogoagainstoneofthecentralfeaturesofthetext’s
“intersympathyofcreeds.”Withinthemechanicsofthepoemthisbecomesanexchangeof
dialoguebetweentheindividualpilgrimsrepresentingdistinctreligioustraditions.Butthe
searchforacommonbasisbetweenreligioustraditionsrevealsitsdouble-edgedcharacter.
ItisaprojectthatvacillatesbetweenwhatIwanttocalla“metaphysical”searchfor
intrinsicsimilaritiesbetweenreligioustraditions,andanundermining,scientific
“explanation”oftraditionthatdismissesitasobject.Clarel’ssearchforuniversalsdisplays
theaspirationforanewreligiouscommunitydefinedbypracticesheldincommon–an
optionwhichthepilgrimsdemonstrateinthedialogicalnatureoftheirjourney–andthe
deflationofreligionthroughitssubsumptioninpracticesofevidenceandexplanation.The
viewoftheuniversalraisesboththepossibilityofthefoundingofanewcommunityonthe
basisofthatuniversal(thisisoneinterpretationofClarel’s“intersympathyofcreeds”),and
theannihilationofcommunityonareligiousbasisthroughscientificskepticism.The
universalismofsciencesuggeststheerosionofspecificcommunitiesinfavoroftheir
assimilationintologicallyassimilablestructures,whiletheuniversalismoftheprojectof
intersympathyrepresentedbythepilgrimscreatesanewbasisforacollectivefromthe
standpointoftheindividualinaparticulartradition.Theindividualbecomespartofa
particularculturaltradition,becausetheindividualalwaystakesaparticularstandpoint.
Therecanbeno“thingsingeneral”fromthestandpointofthecharacterinClarel,only
evidenceaboutwhichtheindividualdecides.
AsClareldemonstrateswhenheseesthemasseddiversityofthecrowd,madestrangeand
anonymizedbyitsotherness,doubtisthepreconditionforbecomingaparticular
255
individual.Thosewhodoubtemergefromthenarrativetohavetheirownvoice.Tobelieve
istobepartofatypological“compulsion”toworship,the“intersympathyofcreeds”that
makesupthebackgroundofthereligiouscrowd,particularlyinthepartsofthepoemthat
takeplacewithinJerusalem.
Bycontrast,thesituationofthedoubteristhatofbeinglockedintointernalmonologueor
driventoconversationwithoneanother.Ineithercasetheproblemistheinspirationof
conviction,toreachapointatwhichitwouldbepossibletodecide.Thedoubterisata
distancefromsomethingtranscendentandimmanent,butnonethelessrefusestoletitgo.
Doubtisaconditionthatleadstheindividualtoseekevidence,toengageinanopen-ended
argumentonone’sowntermsabouttheconstitutionoftheworld,tobelievethatit
containssomethingthatputsoneatease.Thisistheironicnatureofthepilgrimagein
Clarel,ajourneyundertakennottoseethefoundingobjectsofconvictionbuttobe
convinced.Inamodeofdoubtthepilgrimagebecomesaventureintotheplausibilityof
completingthepilgrimage,ofcertifyingthereligioustradition.
IwanttobrieflyreadthescenesofthecrowdasClarelexperiencesthemuponfirstarriving
inJerusalem.Thefaith-and-doubtproblematicappearsinthecontrastthatappears
betweenthe“faith”ofthecrowdandClarel’sincipient,crushingdoubtabouthisown
beliefs.
OnhisfirstdayinthecityofJerusalem,abroodingClarelvisitstheChurchoftheHoly
Sepulchre,traditionally(though,bythehistoricalrecord,doubtfully)thesitethatcontains
bothChrist’splaceofcrucifixionandhistombofresurrection.InthemarketofJerusalem,
faithanddoubtarepresentedinOrientalistterms.Westernstudent,earnestbutserious
andgraduatedtoan“adult”responsibilitytodiscerntheworldinitstrueform,is
256
confrontedby“simplernature[s]”whosecivilizationaldevelopmenthasnotyettakenthem
tothesamepointofmaturity.
Immediatelyuponenteringthechurch,Clarelisstruckbythepresenceof“strangers:”
“Strangerswerethere,ofeachdegree,/FromAsianshores,withislandmen.”57The
experienceimmediatelydisorientsClarel’sexpectations,disruptingtheexperienceofthe
holythroughtheconfrontationwithculturaldifference.Becauseofthedark,thecandlelight
andthelackofventilation,heisin“smokeBefogged,”likea“heatandcell”that“seemto
choke.”58“Faith”isidenticalwithnaiveté,whichispossibleforthe“simplenature”ofthe
racialandgeographicalOther.Theotherdoesnotpossess“meanirreverence,”Clarelnow
correctshimself,butthebehaviorofonewhois“free,”bywhichhemeansnotplaguedby
“Europe’sgrievingdoubt.”
FromhereClarel’sliteralandimaginativeeyesweepsacrossthemanycultures
representedinthecity.Hesees,ina“vision,”communitiesofMuslims,themselvesdiverse
inorigin(“ConvergingsfromLevantineshores”59),broughttogetherbythesignificanceof
theircityfortheirsharedfaith(“Allah,towardwhoseprophet’surn/AndHolyCity,fond
theyturn/Asforthinpilgrimagetheyfare”60),religiousadherentsfromIndiapassing
throughthecrossroadsofJerusalem(“Thetawnypeasants—humanwave/Whichrolls
overIndiayearbyyear”61),andfinallyAsianpeoples(“CrossingtheHimalayanmound,/
571.5,14-15
581.5,31-32
591.5,199,154
601.5,159-61
611.5,188-89
257
Tokneelatshrineorrelicso/OfBudha,theMongolianFo”62).Thisnoisypanoply,which
compressestheoverwhelmingconfrontationwiththearchetypalstrangerthatmakesupso
muchofClarel’sexperienceinJerusalem,finallyfadesawayfromClarel’sinnereye,leaving
himwithquestionsaboutmotivationandthesourceofallinspiration.Heasks:“What
profound/Impulsionmakesthesetribestorange?.”63FaithisaquestionforClarelthatis
answeredinthemomentbytheculturalOther,intheir“impulsions”ofthemyriadthat
shieldthemfromdoubt.Heidentifiesan“intersympathy”betweenthegroups:
Nowfirsthemarks,nowawedheheeds
Theinter-sympathyofcreeds,
Alienorhostiletho’theyseem—
Exaltedthoughtorgrovelingdream.64
Clarel’swonderisdirectednotatanyparticularuniversalisticreligiousprincipletheyhold
incommon,butratherthis“impulsion”-—fromhisowndoubt,increasinglyunbelievable—
-thatbringsthemtoJerusalem.Fromadistancetheirapparentabsenceofdoubtseemsto
bothunitethemandseparatethemfromClarel.
Tobesecureinfaith,asClarelviewsit,istohavepermissiontoparticipateinthefullnessof
humanbehavior,butnottospeak.Doubtmovestounderstandtherealityofone’s
condition.Thosewhodonotknowtheydoubtarenolesscutofffromthesourceofthe
divine,like“children”playinginawalledzonewithoutfullknowledgeofself.Thechild
turnsoutwardtoacelebrationoftheworld,whiletheonewhodoubtsturnsinward,and
621.5,203-04
631.5,205-06
641.5,208-11
258
thenarrationoftheselfbegins.AfterClarel’swalkinthetombthenarratoraddressesthe
readerdirectly:
Thou,
Lesssensitive,yethaplyversed
Ineverythingabove,below—
Inallbutthydeephumanheart;
Thyselfperchancemaystnervousstart
Atthineownfancy’sfinalrange65
The“finalrange”isthelossoffaithintheorderofappearances,afallingawayofconviction
abouttheworld’sorder,somethingwhichhappenstothesubject:“Buthowofsomewhich
stilldeplore/Yetsharethedoubt?”66Celio,anothertouristwithinJerusalemfromthe
West,mirrorsClarel’sconditioninadarkfashion,committingsuicideafewcantoslater:
Thisworldcleanfailsme:stillIyearn.
Methenitsurelydoesconcern
Someotherworldtofind.Butwhere?
Increed?Idonotfinditthere.
Thatsaid,andistheempriseo’er?
Negation,istherenothingmore?
Thissidethedarkandhollowbound67
651.3,153-57
661.3,164-65
671.12,98-103
259
Doubtbecomesaconditionthatformsthesubject.Doubtisamoodfarbeyondtheposingof
anyspecifictheologicalproblem,whichbothensnaresthesubjectandmakesitpossibleto
speak.Self-knowledgeofthisdoubtbecomesapreconditionforspeakingatallinthepoem
(the“simplenatures”thatClarelnoteshavenovoiceinClarel),anddoubtisthe
preconditionofknowledge.Todoubtone’ssurroundingsisthebeginningofde-divinizing
theworld,makingitflatandwithouttheauraoftheholy.SoonafterexitingtheChurchof
theHolySepulchre,Clarelcomesuponagroupof“GreekMatrons”whogreethimlikea
pilgrimwhosejourneyhasendedinfulfillment,askingwithnoapparentirony:“Homedo
thypilgrimreveriesstray?/Artthoutoo,wearyoftheway?”68Clarel,inturn,seesthem
fromacrossagulf,repeatingthephrasethatappearedbefore“simplenature”
Forhowmightbreak
Uponthosesimplenaturestrue,
Thecomplexpassion?mighttheyview
Theapprehensiontempesttossed,
Thespiritingulfofdizzyingfablelost?69
The“complexpassion”isabreakwithwhatcamebefore,thelossofanarrativethat
broughtresolutioninthefigureofthebeliever.Thisproducesthedoubter,the“complex”
character,wholosestouchwiththestories(“fable”)thatguidetheconclusionofthe
pilgrimage.Thefailureoftheoriginalmissionofthepilgrimageisthebeginningof
awarenessabouttheuniversalityofdoubt.
681.5,214-15
691.6,214-221
260
Theearlystageofsimpledichotomy,betweenan“advanced”doubtanda“simple”faith,
willbedismantledbytheuniversalityoftheconditionthatthestudentClarelfirst
describes,andrepresentedthroughadiversityofreligioustraditions,inanextraordinary
eclecticism.TheNorthwestern-NewberryCriticaleditionofthenovellistsoverthirty
significantcharactersinitsindex,representingsectsofwhatwewouldnowcallthe
‘Abrahamic’religions,moreobscuresyncretictraditionsthatMelvillehadencountered
(e.g.,Druze),andwhatMelvilleappearedtoviewassecular“substitutes”forreligion:
politicalrevolutionaries,radicalcynics,wealth-hoardingMammonfigures,unreconstructed
militants,andothersecularfanaticisms.Tocallthesestaticcharacters“types,”astheearly
ClarelinterpreterWalterBezansondoes,iscorrect,sincecharacterdoescorrespondwitha
certaintypologicalsymbolism:charactersareparticularizedinamodernsensebythe
representationoftheirindividualsubjectivitywithinthepoem,butalsostandinforthe
variousfaithsandculturesthatMelvilleimaginedtogetherintheHolyLands.But
Bezanson’sclaimthatthecharactersare“types”mustbecontextualizedwithinapoetic
registerdefinedbythearticulationofwhatClarelcallsthe“complexmood,”meaningthe
conditionofdoubtthatmustbe“livedin”and“livedwith”ratherthan“workedon”through
individualattentionandinitiative.Byuniversalizingthe(primarilyProtestant)structureof
faithanddoubt,ClarelresiststhetraditionalpilgrimagestructureoftheHolyLands
whereby–asonesourcewritesofthenineteenth-centurypilgrimage–“eachtraveler’s
individualresponsetotheHolyLandwasdeterminedchieflybyhisorherreligious
affiliation.”70
70DoronBarandKobiCohen-Hattab,“ANewKindofPilgrimage:TheModernTouristPilgrimofNineteenth-CenturyandEarlyTwentieth-CenturyPalestine,”MiddleEasternStudies39,no.2(2003):138,
261
Clarelascribesparticularcapabilitiestothesubjectthroughfaithanddoubt.Thebelieving
personalityiscapableofimmediateidentificationwithanon-empiricalpresence,of
“feeling”and“knowing”atruththatisnotgenerallyavailable.Thedifferencebetween
believerandnon-believeriscapturedinalater,ArcadianvisionthatClarelhasintheMar
Sabamonastery(“Franklyrovedthegodswithmen/Ingracioustalkandgolden”71)andin
inClarel’scontrastingvisionofaworldatoddswithitself:“Suchcounternaturesin
mankind–/Mole,bird,notmoreunlikewefind:/Instinctsadverse,norlesshowtrue/
Eachtoitself.Whatclew,whatclew?”72
Beliefisthecapacitytohaveanimmediateintuitionforwhatisextraordinaryoreven
impossible.Whatisimpossiblerequiresadefinition,whichthepoemsuppliesin
remarkablymodern,rational-scientificterms.Thedescriptionofthematerialist-atheist
geologistMargothbyanotherpilgrimsummarizestheviewpoint:“Sterile,andwithsterility
/Self-satisfied.”73Thebelieverknowsinlightofanontologicalorderthatallowscience
withoutknowledge:“Muchasalight-shipkeeperpines/Midshoalsimmense,where
drearyshines/Hislamp,wetossbeneaththeray�/OfScience’beacon.Thistotrim/Is
nowman’sbarrenoffice.”74Thebelieveriscapableofanidentificationwithhis
surroundingsthatresistsdeductive,propositionalknowledge,whichcaninitselfnever
producesufficientclosuretocertifybelief.Wemightsaythatthebelieverhasknowledge
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4284295.
713.20,17-18
723.2,39-42
732.20,73-74
742.21,98-102
262
despiteevidence,sinceevidenceiswhatcanbegatheredandpresentedinalways-limited,
discursiveterms.
Thediscursivebackgroundofthepoempresentstheoreticalknowledgeasamaster,
orientingcode,withtheuseofevidence(inanempiricalsense)asitsstructuring
epistemology.Thebelieversitsinanuneasypositionwithrespecttoevidence.AsBarbara
HerrnsteinSmithwrites,evidenceformsan“autonomouslyresistantobject”which“duly
corrects”perceptionlikeaphysicalbarrier,inthemannerofa“brick”ora“rock.”75If
subjectivityintherealisticnovelimpliesacertaincapacitytomakesenseoftheworld’s
structuresandmovethroughthemwithaccuracyandcare,thenthebelievingsubjectin
Clarelviolatestheseconventions.Asaconsequenceofrefusingtoengageinarguments
withevidence,thebelieverappearsasacharacterlessindividuatedthanthedoubter.The
believerisneverfullyindividualbecauseheisstillidentifiedwithatradition,asClarel
notestohimselfinthefriarstendingtotheChurchoftheHolySepulchre:“Tradition…Here
rules—traditionoldandbroad./Transfixedinsitesthedrama’sshown—/Eachgivenspot
assigned;”76Thebelieverappearsintheguiseofthecrowd,apartofthe“TribesandSects,”
asitisputinthesixthcantoofthefirstpart:“Theseliketotidestogetherdash/And
questionoftheirpurportraise.”Infailingtodoubt,thebelieverappearsasaformof
evidencetothedoubter.77
75BarbaraHerrnsteinSmith,“BeliefandResistance:ASymmetricalAccount,”inQuestionsofEvidence:Proof,PracticeandPersuasionAcrosstheDisciplines(UniversityofChicagoPress,1991),139.
761.3,84-86
771.6,12-13
263
ThroughthisreadingofthecrowdscenesinClarel,Ihaveattemptedtodrawoutthe
particularcontoursofthebelievinganddoubtingsubject.Ihavearguedthatthedoubteris
asubjectentangledinanunendingskeinofskepticism,ofgivingreasonsforthings,of
evidentiaryrequirementswithnoobviousescape.Andthebelieverisrepresentedas
differentinkindwithrespecttohisownsubjectivity,asifhewereanindividualwith
anotherorderofcognitivefaculties.Clarelcreatesadramatictensionthroughthe
invisibilityandillusorynatureofthisapparentdifference:thebelieverisimpossibly
different,andyethemovesalongsidethepilgrim.Havingshownthatthepoemcastfaith
anddoubtinaparticularopposition,Iwanttoconsiderhowittracestheunfoldinglogicof
doubt.
MaterialismandNature
SofarIhaveargued,inreadingsofClarel’suseofplaceandthecrowd,thatthepoem
establishesdoubtasaformofindividualismconstitutedbythesubject’sestrangement
fromasenseoftotalityorwhole.ThisiswhatIhavecalledthematerialisticedificeofthe
poem,butmoreworkmustbedonetounderstandwhatthismaterialismentails:thatis,
howatheoreticalconstructisworkedintotheinternalityofClarel’scharactersandthe
consequenceofthatinternalization.Ihavealreadyarguedthatamaterialistontologycan
bereadinthepoem’slandscapes.Fromthetext’srepresentationofsubjective
phenomenology,placeinClarellargelyrepelstheattemptoftheindividualtoidentifywith
it.Doubtisbroughtintoreliefbyitsexclusionfromnature,byJerusalemandthedesert’s
refusaltoconfirmordenyitssuspicions.Butthereisasecondleveltothisproblemthat
mustnowberaisedifwearetofollowClarel’sfullexplorationoftheconsequencesof
264
doubt.Clarelisadialogicalpoem,andmaterialismisrepresentedinascientificworldview
debatedbythepilgrims.Science,inthesesituations,isrepresentedasboththeready-at-
handanswertoquestionsofdoubtatthesametimeasitisinadequatetothequestions
beingasked.Inlieuofadequateanswers,Clareldepictsthenecessityofidentificationwith
thewholeinsomeform.
Theresultofanattempttomakesenseofthematerialisttotalityintheabsenceofa
traditionleadstothepossibilityofakindofnihilisminthepoem.Thiscanbeseenintwo
stories.First,intheTimoneer’sstorytoldintheMarSabamonastery,thetotalityreverts,in
theabsenceofguidance,toadivisionbetweengoodandevil.Thatis,theblanknessofthe
desertturnsnatureintoamalignantpresence,thedisenchantedspaceofdemonsand
omens.Second,intheso-called“monomaniac”(WalterBezanson’sterm)figureofthefailed
revolutionaryMortmain,materialblanknessbecomestheimpossibilityofindividualsense-
makingandtheannihilationoftheindividualsubjectposition.
WebeginwithoneofmanydiscussionsofscientificrationalityinClareltogetaportraitof
howthepilgrimsunderstandtheirowntoolsofsense-making.WhatorderClareldoes
establishshouldbeconsideredwithinitsrelationshiptomodelsofscientifictotality.My
intentionbynamingClarelasa“scientific”epichasmultiplesenseswhichneedtobe
disentangled.Ascientific“worldview”isbothabackgroundconditionofthepresentationof
theHolyLandsasaworld(ClareldeclaresuponenteringJerusalem:“nowisheir/To
nature’sinfluxofcontrol”78)andatopicofdialogicalreflectionbetweencharacters.Thefelt
disorderofClarel’sworldmustbeseenintermsofthedisenchantmentsofscience.Thisis
781.1,66-69
265
thesensethattheeverydayhasbeenrendered“logical”or“sensible”butpurposeless,asin
theexchangebetweentwomembersofthepilgrimage,theAmericanRolfeandAnglican
priestDerwent:
CriedRolfe;“foroneIsparedefiance
Withsuchakangarooofscience.”
“Yes;qualifythough,”Derwentsaid,
“Forsciencehashereaglestoo.”
HeremusefullyRolfehungthehead;
Thenlifted:“Eagles?ay;butfew.
Andsearchweintheira-rieslone
Whatfindwe,pray?perchance,abone.”
“Averycheerfulpointofview!”
“’Tisasonetakesit.Notunknown
ThateveninPhysicsmuchlatelore
ButdrudgesafterPlato’stheme;
Orsupplements–butlittlemore–
SomeHindoo’sspeculativedream
Ofthousandyearsago.And,own,
Darwinisbuthisgrandsire’sson.”79
Rolfeintendssomethinglikescience’slackofabilitytoinspire(“Whatfindwe,pray?
perchance,abone”)whilestilladmittingthatitistheendtowardwhichhumanityhas
“progressed,”insomethinglikeaworld-historicalsense(“inPhysics…drudgesafterPlato’s
theme”).ThepriestDerwent,whomaintainsanoptimisticattitudetowardtheconflict
792.21,10-25
266
betweenscienceandpremodernmetaphysics(e.g.,Plato),admitsthatthattheformerleads
tothelatter(“butdrudgesafterPlato’stheme”).DerwentthereforeanswersRolfe’s
objection,thatscience’sproceduralismleavesitspirituallybarren,withaclaimaboutthe
historicalunityofpremodernmetaphysicsandmodernscience.Thepictureoftheworldas
scientificobjectisbothathemeandamoodthatpervadesthepoem.Thehierarchical
transparencyofvaluesinthetraditionalepicisleveledinthemodernepictothe
equivalencyofsigns,intheircollapsingofthesubjectiveandtheobjectiveperspective.As
thecharacterCeliosayswhilewalkinginJerusalem:“Thenaturallawmenletprevail;/
Thenreasondisallowedthestate/Ofinstinct’svariancewithfate.”80
Science’sdisenchantmentmustalsobesituatedwithinasetofexpectationsaboutthe
characterofthe“HolyLands.”Melvillehimselfexperiencedtheconfusionand
disappointmentofthedevoutpilgrimencounteringtheirreverentchaosofJerusalemfor
thefirsttime,awell-documentedpartofthepopularnineteenth-centurytraveloguefor
Jerusalemandsurroundings.81Butthisreactiontakesonaparticularcastofthedeus
absconditusinClarel,madevisibleinthedisconcertingindifferenceoftheHolyLandtothe
studentClarelwhenheenters.WhatstrikesClareluponhisfirstsightingJerusalemisnot
theirrelevanceofaGodreplacedbyscience,butthepalpabilityofGod’sabsence.The
characterCelio,anotherstudentwhomClarelmeetsbriefly,andwhowillcommitsuicidein
801.13,57-59
81ForMelville’sjournalsduringthisperiod,seetheentriesfromthe3rd-26thofJanuary1857,73-95inHermanMelvilleetal.,Journals,NorthwesternNewberryed,TheWritingsofHermanMelville,v.15(Evanston:Chicago:NorthwesternUniversityPress;NewberryLibrary,1989).ForaquantitativestudyonthereactionofthetypicalpilgrimtothisareaseeN.Collins-KreinerandN.Kliot,“PilgrimageTourismintheHolyLand:TheBehaviouralCharacteristicsofChristianPilgrims,”GeoJournal50,no.1(2000):55–67,http://www.jstor.org/stable/41147449,61-62.
267
adarkforeshadowingofClarel’sownimpendinglossofRuth,articulatesthis“negative
condition”inawalkthroughtheoldcityofJerusalem:
Thisworldcleanfailsme:stillIyearn.
Methenitsurelydoesconcern
Someotherworldtofind.Butwhere?
Increed?Idonotfinditthere.
Thatsaid,andistheempriseo’er?
Negation,istherenothingmore?
Thissidethedarkandhollowbound
Liestherenounexploredrichground?
Someotherworld:well,there’stheNew—
Ah,joylessandironictoo!82
Celio’sreactionto“failure”ofthepilgrimagemustfirstpassthroughtheexperienceofthis
lossasanegativecondition.Theworldviewofthemodern(readingthe“New”world)is
onlyavailableinthepassagethroughthenegativeexperienceofGodasabsence(“Some
otherworld:well,there’stheNew–”).
Morettirelatesthemodernepictotheriseofthebureaucraticstate,wherethetotalityof
experienceisnolonger“livingandinseparablefromindividuality,”buttheindividualmust
“confine”itselfto“obeying”forcesoutsideofit;to“masteritsownenergies,andkeepto
whatisprescribed.”83Inhisviewtheindividualstillparticipatesinatotalizingcultural
form.Butthetotalityhaschangedinnature,de-divinized(onepresumes)inlinewith
821.12,97-106
83Moretti,ModernEpic,12.
268
projectsofscientificandtechnocraticmanagement.Theindividualparticipatesinatotality
thathaslostitsaura.
Melvilleoffersacompetingmodeloftheepic,notbyloweringtheimageoftotalitybutby
equatingittoeverydayprocesses:bydisenchantingit,reducingittoforces,definedand
masteredbyscience,whichareindifferenttotheobserver.Thisisthebasisofmyclaim
thattheindividualparticipatesinscientificstructureswithoutbeingpartofthem.84
Aprocessofdisenchantmentthatwehavealreadydiscussedtakesplaceinthedescription
oflandscape(thewildernessoutsideofJerusalemandthemonasteryofMarSaba),which
actsatadistancethatpromisesharmwithoutunderstanding.Thisofarockslide:“They
closed.Andcamearush,aroar–/Aloof,butgrowingmoreandmore,/Nearerand
nearer.”85Thelawsofnaturearenottherestorativepresencedefinedbyanearlier
generationofromantics,butaforcethatobeyslawfulpatterns,betterunderstoodfroma
distancethancloseathand.Liketheviewofthecrashingrocksavailabletothepilgrim
visitors,thescientifictotalitysuggeststhata“force”existsthatis,bydefinition,blindtothe
standpointoftheindividual.Theindividualisanoptionalpresenceinthescientificmodel.
Theschoolsofblue-fishyearsdesert
Oursoundsandshores–buttheyrevert;84TheconditionthatIwanttorelatetoClarel’sscientificcastcanalsobeseenintheso-called“problemofevil.”Forexample,WilliamPotterwritesthat“where,Rolfewonders,doestheChristianvisionofaheavenof‘indemnifyinggood’originateinaworldsoobviouslyoverrunbyevil,andhowcanthelifeprescribedbyChristhopetosurviveinsuchaworld?Thisquestion,whichMelvillehadexploredindetailinPierreandTheConfidenceManandwhichalsowasamajorconcernforDostoevsky,isrepeatedlyvoiced–explicitlyandimplicitly–inClarel.WeseedepictedsymbolicallyinCelio’sbitteroutcry,Nehemiah’ssimplefaith,Nathan’sconfusedspiritualodyssey,andDerwent’s‘easyskim’notonlyuntemperedhearts,butalsotheimperfectandutterlyimpracticalissuesofChrist’steachingsintheirrespectiveencounterswiththerealworld.”WilliamPotter,Melville’sClarelandtheIntersympathyofCreeds(Kent,Ohio:KentStateUniversityPress,2004),99
852.39,127-29
269
Theshipreturnsonherlongtack:
ThebonesofTheseusarebroughtback:
Acometshallresumeitspath
Thoughthreemillenniumsgo.Butfaith?�Ah,Nehemiah–and,Derwent,thou!
’Twasdusttodust:whatisitnow
Andhere?Islifeindeedadream?86
Theimplacableregularityoftheanimal(“schoolsofblue-fish”)andcosmic(“Acomet”)
forcesarepartofalarger,durablemechanismthatformsacontrastwiththefragilityof
faith:gonelike“dust,”theentiretyofhumanexperiencerenderedlessreal(“Andhere?Is
lifeindeedadream?”).Againstthemechanicalregularityofthecelestialbodies,faith–the
presenceofthedivine–provesfragile,capableofpermanentloss.
Ihaveclaimedabovethat“scientism”–thatis,scienceasasourceoftruthandvalue–is
wovenintothedialogicalassumptionsofthecoregroupofpilgrimtravelers.Theproblem
ofscientismcanbeseeninthewaythatthepilgrimsconflatescience’sinstrumentalvalue
withitstruthvalue.Scienceoffersaseductivewayoutnature’sinabilitytospeak,albeitone
thatthemostprominentpilgrimsofClarelfindinadequateoruninspiring.Butthefullest
consequenceofthedoubter’sinabilitytomakesenseofnature’ssilencecanonlybefound
incharacterswhoarealreadyonthemarginsoftheotherpilgrims,whoappeartobe
beyondinclusionineventhefragileandtemporarycommunitiesofpilgrimage.Thefirstof
theseisAgath,the“Timoneer”(ship’shelmsman)whotellsastoryofhissurvivaland
disillusionmentafterashipwreck.
863.14,110-118
270
TheTimoneer’sstoryarguesforthepersistenceofindividualspeculationaboutthewhole
inthefaceofitsblankness.TheTimoneercomesatnature’smaterialindifferencenot
theoretically(aswithsomeotherpilgrims),butbyvirtueofhisexperienceinvoyages
acrosstheworld,culminatinginthevisionofevilhehasastheonlysurvivorofa
shipwreck.ThisisapremonitionthatislaterconfirmedduringavisittoseeDarwin’sgiant
tortoisesintheGalapagosIslands.TheTimoneerreflectsMelville’sownbiographyand
travels,aswellashismostfamousnovelMobyDick.ButwhileMobyDickconcernsalong
voyageamidstaworkingcommunityofsailors,theTimoneertellsusonlyofruinattheend
ofhisjourney.Ireadhisstoryasanargumentforthenecessityofmakingsenseofan
apparentlyindifferentuniverse,evenatthecostofturningtherelationshipbetweengood
andevilonitshead.Inhisstruggletomakesenseofacatastrophe,herecountsanother
journeytotheGalapagosIslandsmadefamousbyDarwin.WhatDarwinunderstoodasan
indifferentmaterialprocessbecomes,intheeyesoftheTimoneer,aconfirmationof
nature’soppositiontohumanflourishing.Hisinsistenceonreadingadeterminatemeaning
inthesignsleftbynaturepreparesustounderstandperhapsthefullestmonomaniacal
figureinthepoem,Mortmain.
ThenarratordescribestheTimoneerasonewhohasthe“Dumbpatienceofmereanimal,/
Whichbettermayabidelife’sfate/Thancomprehend.”87Hetellsastoryasthepilotofa
“nearmutinuous”crewsailingfromEgypttoVenice,carryingastowawaywhohasslipped
anillicitcargoofswordsandcannonsontotheship,ironicallynamedthe“PeaceofGod.”88
874.3,106-8
883.12,79
271
Astheshipencountersastorm,theTimoneerstrugglestoturnitawayfromtherocksthat
willeventuallydestroyit,drowningeveryoneexceptforhim.Thecauseheassignstothe
actionissomewherebetweenphysicalexplanationandahintatthegeneralmoraldisorder
oftheworldrepresentedbythecargomeanttospreaddeath(forexample,thecannons:
“shippedofftobesoldandsmelted/Andintonewartillerymelted”89).Theexplicabilityof
thedisasterisrepresentedinthecompass,which,theTimoneerimplies,wascausedtospin
wildlybythesmuggledweaponswhichsatdirectlybeneathitinthecargohold:“Iheard
theclatteringofblades/ShakenwithintheMoor’sstrongbox/Incabinunderneaththe
needle.”90Theshipgoesdownaccompaniedbysignsoftheoracular,thepresenceofthree
birdscawingabovehim:“Howscreamedthosethreebirdsroundthemast”astheship
crashesagainsttherocks."91Thusthestorypitscauseofdisasteragainstsignsofdisaster,a
thingwhichissignifiedbyahigherpoweragainstanaccidentofnaturecausedbythe
malfunctionofthecompass.
TheTimoneerseemstounderstandthedisasterprimarilyintermsofomens,thevisible
signsofdisorderatamorallevel.Hisweaponswerenotjustanothercargo,buthavemoral
andphysicalimport.“I’mfarfromsuperstitious,see;/Butarmsinsheaf,somehowthey
troubleme.”92TheTimoneeristornbetweentormentoverthemoralconsiderationofhis
actions,anddismayoverthepresenceofamorecomprehensivereality.Tounderstandthe
worldintermsofmaterialpresenceistoberackedbyitsfailures.TheTimoneer’sposition
893.12,84-85
903.12,113-15
913.12,115
923.12129-30
272
isanexemplarofdisbelief.Theclosingdownofdoubtintodisbeliefistheturning-away
fromamoraluniverse,towardtotalmaterialism,wheretheformtakenbypresenceisthe
workingofthescientificlawidenticalwithnature.Thesenseofsinpresentinthe
Timoneer’sstoryappearsastherantofunbridgeableconviction:the“Wahabee”he
smuggledaboardtheship“dealtinbladesthatpoisonedwere,/Ablacklieutenantof
Lucifer.”93
Althoughheisconvincedofapresencebeyondthenaturalthatcausedhiscalamity,heis
unabletoarticulateanykindofreligiousvision,onlytheconversesignsofmalevolenceleft
intheirplace.Hismodeofstorytellingisthearticulationoftheomen,andofapresence
thattheTimoneercannotfullyinterprethimselfyetcannotletgo.
Thesignofthedivinebecomesanominouspresencethatrunstheshipaground.The
Timoneer’sstorypicksupandcontinuesintheGalapagosislands,wherethemalignancyis
revealednottobeanyformofspecialintercessionintheworldatlarge,butratherthe
backgroundcondition.
ThealternativetodoubtfortheTimoneerisnotbeliefbutadiabolical,
anthropomorphizingmaterialism.Ifmaterialworldisnotasetofsignstobeinterpreted,
theconsequenceisnottheinabilitytointerpret,buttheomen’simpositiononthe
storytellerintheformofentitiesandforces.TheTimoneerconveystheimportoftheomen
inafinalstoryabouthisunderstandingofthetortoisesoftheGalapagosIslandsmade
famousbyDarwin.Atthecenterofthe“terracedorchard’smysteries”isthetortoise,whose
slowmovement,encasedinthedeadgranitemateriality(like,theTimoneernotes,atomb
933.12,125-26
273
hecarrieswithhim)makehimaformofinert-but-livingofmatter.Thetortoiseislife’s
materialitytakentoitsextreme:“Dullasthejarinvaultedtombs/Whenurnsareshifted.
Withamaze/Intothedimretreatsyegaze./Lo,’tisthemonstroustortoisedrear!”94
Thetortoise’slonglifeisnotagiftbutaburden,asentenceofimprisonmentinwhichto
mulloverhisbarrenmateriality.Hesuggeststhatnaturalselectionisaforceofpunishment
whichstripslifeofitsensouledaspectsinordertobinditmorecloselywithitsmaterial
environment.Thegianttortoise’sinheritedsuitabilitytoitsenvironmentisconstruedasa
kindoffallennessfromahigherform:“Asoultransformed–forearneddisgrace/Degraded,
andfromhigherrace./Yewatchhim–himsowoe-begone:/Searching,hecreepswith
laboringneck,”95TheTimoneer’simpressionmightbeastudyinoppositestothatof
Darwin.Incontrast,Darwin’swondermentovertheattributionofnature’scomplexityto
mechanicalforcesattimetakesonakindofawe.96
944.3,59-62
954.3,73-76
96Forinstance,seetheendingtoDarwin’sOriginoftheSpecies:“Itisinterestingtocontemplateanentangledbank,clothedwithmanyplantsofmanykinds,withbirdssingingonthebushes,withvariousinsectsflittingabout,andwithwormscrawlingthroughthedampearth,andtoreflectthattheseelaboratelyconstructedforms,sodifferentfromeachother,anddependentoneachotherinsocomplexamanner,haveallbeenproducedbylawsactingaroundus.Theselaws,takeninthelargestsense,beingGrowthwithReproduction;Inheritancewhichisalmostimpliedbyreproduction;Variabilityfromtheindirectanddirectactionoftheexternalconditionsoflife,andfromuseanddisuse;aRatioofIncreasesohighastoleadtoaStruggleforLife,andasaconsequencetoNaturalSelection,entailingDivergenceofCharacterandtheExtinctionofless-improvedforms.Thus,fromthewarofnature,fromfamineanddeath,themostexaltedobjectwhichwearecapableofconceiving,namely,theproductionofthehigheranimals,directlyfollows.Thereisgrandeurinthisviewoflife,withitsseveralpowers,havingbeenoriginallybreathedintoafewformsorintoone;andthat,whilstthisplanethasgonecyclingonaccordingtothefixedlawofgravity,fromsosimpleabeginningendlessformsmostbeautifulandmostwonderfulhavebeen,andarebeing,evolved.”CharlesDarwin,Darwin:Texts&Commentary,ed.PhilipAppleman,3rded.,NortonCriticalEd.(NewYork:Norton,2001),174
274
FortheTimoneer,theworlddisenchantedbytheimportofmaterialismreduceslifetothat
oftheturtlewhoexpires“Afterahundredyearsofpain/Andpilgrimageheretoandfro.”97
IntheGalapagosislandstheTimoneerfindstheominousfootprintofmalignancyinthe
shellofagianttortoise,thesymbolofthematterformthatencasesalllife.Forthe
Timoneermatterwillbethesignofabsence,theweightthatdriveslifebacktoasenseofits
owndeadmaterialism.
IntheTimoneerthedivinemanifestsitselfinoracularsignsofevil:thespinningcompass,
thebirdsabovetheshipmast,theunknowingstareofthegianttortoise.Naturecollapses
intoanunrelentingsuccessionofsuggestiveshadows.Disbeliefisnotatheism–theabsence
ofbelief–butasinkingintothephantasmagoricsignsthatriseupthroughthisunchecked
materiality.Notskepticismgenerally,butanattackbywhatismostunknowninthepattern
ofthewhole.Thescientificmaterialisthasabeinglikethatoftheturtle,thecalamityoflife
miredinpurephysicality.EvidenceofthedivinefailstheTimoneerbybecomingits
reverse,bytheomenwhichiscoincidentwiththephysicalworldandtherefore
coterminouswiththemechanisticorderofnaturalselection.
TheTimoneerdisplaystheconsequenceofthedisjunctbetweensubjectivityand
materialism,andbetweenfaithanddoubt.Withoutthetoolsoranabilitytomediatewith
thedivine,theTimoneerreversestheunknownintoakindofevil.Butthedistinction
betweenhisownsubjectivityandthislargeredificeofevilremainsinplace.TheTimoneer
cannotidentifywithatotalitythathetakestobehostile.
974.3,87-88
275
InthefigureIreadnext,IdrawonWalterBezanson’snoteaboutthepersistentofthe
“monomaniac”inClarel.Bezansonnotesthateachofthetext’sfourpartscontainsome
versionofthischaracter.Iunderstandthemonomaniacasafigurewho,bywayofthe
denialoftheinescapabilityofdoubt,identifiescompletelywithoneofthebackground
ontologiesofthetext.Herepresentstheextensionof–andlogicalconclusionto–the
Timoneer’sdilemma.Notwithdrawalfrommalignancyintohisownsenseofinadequacy,
butanattempttoidentifycompletelywithit,toerasedoubtthroughcancellinghisown
doubt.Themonomaniac’ssenseofunitywiththecrueltyofthematerialisticworldis
eventuallyrevealedtobeafailure,afatalisticabandonmentontheprerogativesofwhatit
wouldmeantobeanindividual,ofself-responsibilityandtherequirementtoactwithin
uncertainty.Thiscanbeseenintheexampleofthefailedrevolutionary,Mortmain,whose
self-annihilatingidentificationwithapervasivemalignancyinthebackgroundoftheworld
leadshimtohanghimselfoutsideofthemonasteryofMarSaba.
ThesonofSwedisharistocrats,Mortmainwasaradicalparticipantinthefailedrevolution
of1848inFrance,whichledtotheascensionofLouisBonaparteandtheestablishmentof
theSecondFrenchEmpire.AttherootofMortmain’slifeandpersonalityisanattemptto
makesenseofthecollectivefailureofthepoliticaltoprovideanescapefromhissenseof
failure.
ThespeakerMortmainattemptstomakeargumentswithmatteritself,aswhenheis
lookingatthebrightnessofMarsbynightwhilestandingbytheDeadSea.Thestarsetsoff
reasoningaboutaprocess:“Itisthestar/CalledWormwood.Someheartsdieinthrall/Of
276
waterswhichyonstarmakesgall,”Mortmaindeclares,turninghisviewdownwardstothe
saltywaterathisfeet.98Adisjunctarisesbetweenthepalpablesterilityofaseachoked
withsaltandthevaguenessoftheevilatwhichhegestures,thoseunnamed“malefactors”
whoare“guiltyofsinsscarcescoredascrimes/Inanystatuteknown,orcode–.”
Nonethelesstheseacongealstheimmaterialevilspreadacrosstheentireearth,those“sins
refined,crimesofthespirit,”creatinga“doomwellimposed…Insomegod’sreign,some
godlongfled.”Theseaisthe“gaseouspuffofmineralbreadth/Mephitical,”asignof“sins
therebeinscrutable/Unutterable.”99
ThereasonforMortmain’ssenseoffailureisallthemorecentraltothepoembecausehis
politicalaspirationswereonadifferentplanethanthecrippled,crypticmysticismthathe
tradesinnow.Mortmain’saspirationsarelikenedtoareversedEdenicreligiousvision:
Peaceandgoodwillwashisacclaim–
Ifnotinwords,yetintheaim:
Peace,peaceonearth:thatnotehethrilled,
Butscarceinwaythecherubstrilled
ToBethlehemandtheshepherdband.100
Mortmainsoughtthesameendthatwillcompletethepilgrim’sjourney:Bethlehem,orthe
openinguptotheworld’snewparadise.LikesomanyofthecharactersacrossMelville’s
oeuvre,Mortmainisthecharacterpossessedbythepossibilityofthesuccessofavisionjust
beyondhisabilitytograspit:982.36,22-24
992.36,83-84
1002.5,32-36
277
>Europewasinadecadedim:
Uponthefuture’stremblingrim
Thecomethovered.Hisaleague
Offrankdebateandcloseintrigue:
Plot,proselyte,appeal,denounce
Conspirator,pamphleteer,atonce,
Andprophet.Wearandtearandjar
Hemetwithcoffeeandcigar:
Thesekeptawakethemanandmood
Anddream.ThatuncreatedGood
Hesought,whoseabsenceisthecause
OfcreedsandAtheists,mobsandlaws.101
AlthoughthepoemgivesusonlyageneralaccountofhowMortmainparticipatedin
revolution,Mortmain,the“conspirator”and“pamphleteer,”standsinfortherevolutionary
spirititself.Wearepresentedwithsomeonewhoworkswithaconvictionthatthe
“uncreatedGood”couldnonethelessbebroughtintobeingthroughtheviolentoverthrow
oftheexistingorder.
Atonetime,thenarratorimplies,Mortmainhadaconvictionaboutanultimategoodthat
wasasdoggedandunshakeableashisconvictionabouttheomnipresenceofevilinthe
desert:(“Wearandtearandjar/Hemetwithcoffeeandcigar”).Thefailureofthese
convictionswhichseemedsoassuredforhimispresumablytiedtotherealizationthathe
1012.5,40-51
278
cannotescapetheworldlyimperfectionsofthehumanbeings.Whatamountedtoakindof
politicaltheologyforMortmainturnsouttobeanunrealizedgoodthatcanonlydrawupon
theresourcesofthehuman:
Thevain,foolhardy,worthless,blind,
WithJudases,arenothingloath
Toclasppledgedhandsandtaketheoath
Ofaim,thewhich,ifjust,demands
Stronghearts,browsdeep,andpriestlyhands.102
TheresultisthatMortmainturnstodespairabouttheomnipresenceofevil.Hissituationis
theproblemofassigningmaterialitytotheimmaterialevidenceofGod’sabsence.
Mortmain’sdoubtisnotapositivelongingforGodbutahankeringforamaterialbyproduct
ofGod’snegativity,asignofhisabsenceasapresence.Godisabsentbecause,inthe
materialworldhecandiscern,theworsepartisdominant.Thelyrichasbroughtthatworse
partintobeing,givenitobjectivityinthe“Mephitical”saltywatersoftheDeadSea.
Mortmain’slinesaredeliverednotinmannerofconvictionbutasappeal:“Inthedust/Of
wisdomsittheedown,andrust.”103Mortmainreversesthefunctionofcertainty:toknowis
nottobeabletoactbutto“rust”intheimpossibilityofeffectiveaction.Thevoiceofthe
individual,intheachievementofcertainty,wipesouttheindividualasauthorityandturns
tothestructuresthatoppressit.Themonomaniacshowsthecommunityofbeliefand
doubtasaspacepronetoreversals.Still,to“believe”ratherthantodoubtis,regardlessof
outcome,tofixtheworldinacertainimageandachieveaplacetostand.Toknow,as1022.5,55-59
1032.4,113-14
279
Mortmaindoes,thatexistenceiscomposed,“atbottom,”byanevilsubstrateisstillan
achievement.Negativeknowledge(cynicism)becomesanendinitself.Weshouldcontrast
Mortmain’spositionwiththatofthedoubter,whoexpressestheindividual’sdistancefrom
systematicaccounts,acceptingthenecessityofarticulatingone’sownstandpointwith
respecttoquestionsaboutthedivine.Butthemonomaniacpursuesarelationshipwiththe
systematiccharacteroftheworld,identifyingwithawholethatheperceivestobeevil.The
monomaniacerasestheindividualstandpoint,acceptingtheoutcomeregardlessof
whetheriterasesthehumanstandpoint.Indoingso,Mortmaincollapsestheindividualand
structuralviewofhissituation,identifyingcompletelywithanimpersonalmalignancythat
becomesthesubstanceofhisworld.
ThemonomaniacMortmain’stotalidentificationwithaninscrutableforcebeyondhisken
istheexceptionthatprovesthedistancebetweenindividualcharactersandthe
indifferenceofthewhole.This“blankness,”asClarelobservesaboutJerusalem,isa
backgroundconditionthatseparatesindividualsubjectivityfromthegrandstructuresof
thetext.
Theindividual’sseparationfromthesestructuresofClarel(e.g.,theholysites,the
landscape,thereligioustraditionsthemselves)isrealizedinintheabsenceof(orinability
toparticipatein)thereligiouscommunityprovidedbythepilgrimage.Inthiswaytheband
ofpilgrimsbecomesaplaceholderforcommunity,arunningdialogueabouttheabsenceof
thetraditionsonwhichtheyhadpreviouslyrelied.Asthemonomaniacdemonstratesatthe
costofhisownself-destruction,theindividualisdependentonhisownpsychological
resourcestoidentifywithasenseofthewhole.ThisishowIunderstanddoubtwithinthe
text.Andthepossibilityofbelief,inturn,becomesanachievementoftheindividual,nota
280
participationinatraditionbutanactofinsight.ThisiswhatIwillargueshortlyinthecase
oftheSyrianMonk.ThebelievingindividualinClarelachievessomethingindividualthat
cannotbemadeprogrammatic,codified,orritualized.Inmattersofbelief,Iwillargue,
Clarelreliesonthemysticalmodeofthereligiousinnovator.Thebelieverseesbeyondthe
world’ssurfacebyaninexplicableactofinsightthatisbothtoosimpleandtooprofound
forthedoubter.Intheconditionofdoubt,questionsofevidencealwaysleadtonew
questions.Thedoubter,then,isconstitutedbyhissenseofseparationfromthepossibility
ofknowingthedivine,bythemonotonyofevidenceandanswersthathardensexperience
intoa“worldview,”ofwhichthemonomaniaclikeMortmainrepresentstheextreme
position.Clarel’snarrativewilltracetheindividual’sattempttofindawayoutofthis
individualsubjectposition,toidentifyandcreatecommunityaroundthestructuresthat
repelindividualmembership.
ElementsofRitualinClarel
Inthischapter,Ihavesofarexaminedtheoppositionthatdefinesthethematicsofthe
poem(lyricandepic),thepsychologicalstructureofthepoem’sindividualpsychology
(“faithanddoubt”),andaninterpretationoftheindividual’sstrugglewithdoubtin
extremis,withouttheinfluenceofaspacebetweenthelimitedstandpointoftheindividual
andtheremotenessofadivinepresence.Clarel’sdepictionofadeusabsconditustakesthe
formoftheindividual,lefttohisownresources,notadequatetoanswerthequestions
whichare,bynecessityandwithoutexplanation,thrustuponhim.Inthislastsection,Iwill
arguethatthepoemalsoconsidersaredemptivepossibility,andthatitventurestoanswer
howtheproblemofmediationbetweenindividualandworldmightbeansweredforthe
281
historicalmomentinwhichClarel’spilgrimsencounterit.Ifapossiblesolution–asithas
beenthroughoutthisproject–isaneworrevitalizedformofcommunity,myclaimisthat
Clarelrepresentsthecommunitybroughttogetherthroughthebondsofritual,whichI
understandhereinthebroadsenseofanactionthatbecodifiedandrepeatedinserviceof
atradition.RitualinClarelcomesinmanyforms:asspecificasariteofpilgrimage,anact
performedinthemonasteryofMarSaba,orthecelebrationsofEasterSundaywithwhich
thepoemconcludes.SeveralfiguresinthelatterpartofClarelestablishthetermsbywhich
ritualisdevelopedacrossthepoem.
First,IwillreadthefigureoftheSyrianmonk-ascetic,encounteredattheendofthe
pilgrims’timeinthedesert,asanexampleofaritualthatsetsthetermsoftheproblem
withinthefaith-and-doubtpsychology.Heisacharacterwhohasamysticalexperienceof
thedivineinthedesert,buttheexperiencefailsinthatitisincommunicabletotheother
pilgrims.Theproblemwithritualthatheintroducesishowtheritualmakesitselfinto
somethingrecognizable.Thatis,howcantheritualbecomeaconcretizedpresenceinthe
worldwithoutbeingdrawnintotheblanknessofmaterialism.AfterthemonkIreadthe
storyofNathan(fatherofClarel’seventualfiancéRuth),asanexampleofhowcommunity
canbeconstructedaroundtheperformanceofamyth,howthedesiretoliveoutamyth
acrossthelife-course–asNathandoesbybecomeaZionistsettleroutsideofJerusalem–
constitutesakindofritual.ThefinalproblemconnectedtoritualthatIwillconsideristhe
problemofthemiracle,representedbythepilgrims’bafflementduringtheirvisittothe
sitesofChrist’sbirth,andtheeventsofEasterWeekbackinJerusalem.
282
TheSyrianmonkisanasceticmetbytheAmericanpilgrimsClarel,RolfeandVine.The
comeuphimsittingonamountain,solitary“inalonerecline”and“ofaspectthin/From
vigilswhichinfastbegin.”104Themonk-ascetictestifiestoamysticalreligiousexperience
indesert.Themonk’stestimonyismarkedbyitssimultaneousconvictionandinabilityto
communicateitself.Itisunderstoodthathisstoryis“vision”drivenbyhisisolationand
extraordinarystateofmind.Intellingthegroup“OfSatan”and“TheSaviour”which“lay
thereatmyfeet”heturnstheascetic’sextraordinarysubjectivityintoaformofpublic
evidence.Theasceticrevealsthegapbetweenthetwo:
Ofold.Isatmedowntobrood
Withinthatruin;and–myheart
Unwaveringlytosetapart
InmeditationuponHim105
Themonkreturnsfromthewildernesswithastoryaboutthegodsthatdefies
interpretabilitybyhisaudience.OneoftheAmericanpilgrims,Rolfe,declaresthat“Surely,
notallwe’veheard:/Peace–solace–wasinendconferred?–.”106Theascetics’storyisa
visionreceived,thetestamentofsomethingnewandoriginal.Theasceticisnotinfull
possessionofthetruthsheclaimsbecausetheycometohiminparadoxesandriddles
whichdemandananswer:“Thou’ltfindhowthought’sextremesagree,–/Theforethought
clinehedbyafterthought,/Thefirstlingbyfinality.–”107Agapopensupbetweenstoryteller
1042.18,9-10
10569-72
1062.18,151-52
1072.18,142-44
283
(themonk)andaudience(thepilgrims).Thestorytellerisonewholivesindoubt,satisfied
byeventheenigmaticanswerbecauseitistheproductofhisexperience.Thestorytelleris
persuadedbyhisownsignsthatrepresenthisownstory.Thedifferenceisbetweenwhatis
knowableintheexperienceofthespeaker,andwhatcanberepresented.Thiskindof
oracularstorytellerhasaccesstothe“thinginitself”behindthesigns:“TheSaviousthere–
theImpandHe:/FairshowedtheFiend–foulenemy;/Butah,theOtherpaleanddim:/I
sawbutastheshadeofHim.”108Theconditionofdoubtcreatesaradicalsubjectivity,where
knowingisdependentonthetelling.Storyinitsclassicalformisincantationtothemuse-
god,whichparticipatesinaspecialorderoftruthsimplybybeingtold.Butstoriesaboutthe
godsinClarelrevealtheirordinarystatus,theirdependenceonevidence,andhencetheir
radicalundecidability.
TheSyrianMonk’sevidenceforhisexperienceisthecharacterheplays,thedemonstration
ofhisserenityandconviction:“Andskywardpatientheappealed,/Raisinghiseyes./First
tothepilgrims’waitingview/Theirvirginalvioletofhue.”109ThustheSyrianMonkis
forcedintotheroleofanactor,andcandolittlemorethanhaveatheatricaleffectonhis
audience,whosereactionsmixbetweendismayattheindeterminacyandhopefulness.The
monk’sroleasstorytellerfallssomewherebetweenarhetoricalfunctionofinspiring
convictionthroughargumentandbeinganobjectofconvictionhimself.
Themoregeneralproblemstagedinthissceneisthatevidenceisunderstoodintermsof
argumentstodispeldoubt,whilewhatissoughtisaconvictionforfaith.Whatisgivenis
1082.18,79-82
1092.18,147-50
284
somethinglikeanaccountoffaith,evenaswhatthepilgrimsseekissomethinglike
experientialdemonstration.Thepossibilityoftheerasureofdoubtmustanswertothe
resolutionofanopenstatus.Butthemonkprovidesanexperientialnotionoffaiththatthe
partyrelatestoasobserver.Thecommunicationofthevisionfails;insteadwhatwehaveis
itsevaluation.WhatthemonkprovidesinthecloseofhisaddressisarebuketoRolfe’s
requestforananswer.Themysticalexperiencerequiresuncertaintytoretainitsstatus.
Whatisadequatetofaithfromthemonk’spositiondoesnottaketheformofananswer.In
thecloseofhisaddresstothegrouptheMonkprovidessomethingofarebuketoRolfe’s
requestforananswer:“Contentthee:inconclusioncaught/Thou’ltfindhowthought’s
extremesagree,–/Theforethoughtclinchedbyafterthought,/Thefirstlingbyfinality.’–”110
Thedoubtingpilgrimsbecomeagroupagainstthebelievingbyaninabilitytoaccepthis
demonstrationofknowledge.
TheSyrianMonkliveswithinthepracticeofconviction,notrehearsingthereasonsfor
beliefbutlivingasetofpracticesinsupportofwhatisalready,immediatelyknownfrom
hisinvolvedpositionasthesuffererinthedesert.Byactingoutanimmediaterelationship
todivinity,themonkrepudiatesthepossibilityofarguingabouttheimmanentnatureof
thisdivinity.Thewayoftheasceticandthemystic–thebeliever–isbeyondlogos,a
paradoxicalvisionthataffirmsthereasonforbelief.Hisreligiositytakestheformofa
performanceofareligionratherthananidentificationwithareligiousact.Hedisplaysa
formofinnerconvictionthatcannotgiverationalreasonsforitself.Nothinginthe
1102.18,141-44
285
structureoftheeventcanrevealthetruthofthemonk’sreligiousexperience;itisattested
tothroughthecharacterofthemonkhimself.
Thepilgrimisdefinedbythecentralcontradictionofhisstatusaspilgrim.Astheonewho
attendsthesiteofareligiousrevelationinordertowitnessitfirsthand,thepilgrim
revitalizesfortheindividualwhathasalreadybeenaffirmedincollectivememory.The
lyricisbisectedbyananalogouscontradiction.Ontheonehanditiscompromisedbythe
“enunciativeapparatus”(Culler),theentiretyofthesituationfromwhichspeechis
possible.Ontheotheritseekstocreatesomethingoriginal,toperformakindofcaptureof
aneventwhichdoesnotjustrepeatinthemannerofritual,butproducesomethingoriginal
bythepilgrim’sreaction.Thelyricspeakerstandsinapositionbetweenthestabilityof
traditionandsomethinglikewhatHabermascallsthe“lifeworld,”wherethebackground
conditionsoflifearemadeready-at-handforassimilationintoself-reflectiveconditionsof
culture.111
Clarel’spilgrimdoesnot,ofcourse,enactthepassageofknowledgefromlifeworldto
culturalcertainty,butworkswithinanincongruitythathassomeparallels:betweenthe
HolyLandaslivedexperience,andasfixedculturalobject.Thepoem’suseofdoubtis,in
poeticterms,theinabilityofthespeakertobeidentifiedwiththeactsofpilgrimage.Tothe
extentthatthereistheemergenceofsomethinglikeanindividual“voice”inClarel,itcanbe
tracedtothedifferencebetweenthesubstantivemeaningofthesites,theritualof
111Habermas:“Fromaperspectiveturnedtowardsthesituation,thelifeworldappearsasareservoiroftaken-for-granteds,ofunshakenconvictionsthatparticipantsincommunicationdrawuponincooperativeprocessesofinterpretation.Singleelements,specifictaken-for-granteds,arehowever,mobilizedintheformofconsensualandyetproblematizedknowledgeonlywhentheybecomerelevanttothesituation.”JürgenHabermas,TheTheoryofCommunicativeAction:LifeworldandSystem:ACritiqueofFunctionalistReason,trans.ThomasMcCarthy,vols.Volume,Two(BeaconPress,1987),124
286
pilgrimage,andthe“internality”ofthespeaker.Thespeakeriscaughtinadilemma:to
acceptthemeaningoftheritualasitispresented–thebeginningofwhatIhavecalleda
“dialogue”–ortheendofthesubject’simplicationinthesurroundinganditsreplacement
bytheopen-endedplayoftheoreticalknowledge.
ThedifficultyfacedbytheSyrianmonkisthathisexperienceisincommunicable.The
ritualsoftheasceticaresupposedtostandforthemselves.ThepoweroftheSyrianmonkis
thatheisrequiredneithertounderstandthetruthtowhichheattests,norarticulateit.
Performanceoftheritualsofasceticismissufficient.Andwhilehisritualisanindividual
actwhichcancommandrespectfromtheotherpilgrims,Iwanttoalsoseeitasamodelfor
theparticipatory,collectiveformsofritualwhichappearlaterinthenovel.Thefigureof
Nathan,whosettlestheareasoutsideoftheHolyLands,isonesuchexample.
NorthropFryedescribesthemythas“unaffectedbycanonsofplausibleadaptationto
familiarexperience,”whichcantherebyinform“theimitationofactionsnearoratthe
conceivablelimitsofdesire.”112Bystagingwhatisnear-impossibleorimplausiblein
present-dayterms,mythputsdistancebetweenitscharactersandaudience,making
storytellingdependentonthefantasticnatureofthecharactersthemselves.Butthe
structureofmythcanalsobeacalltoaction,aculturalformthatcontinuallyreturnsthe
individualtoacollectivepattern.IwillarguethatClarelunderstandsmythasakindof
participatoryritualthroughwhichtheindividualcitizencomesintoarelationshipwitha
givenculture.IwanttoreviewanexampleinClarelofthisindividualparticipation,where
theordinary,secularindividualbecomesthe“proof”ofthestructure,thecertifyingelement
112Frye,AnatomyofCriticism,136.
287
thatimpartssignificancetotheentirestorythroughthenecessaryarticulationofa
particularstandpointwithinthemythology.
ClarelwillmeetthepivotalcharacterNathan,fathertoRuth,whorepresentsakindof
Beatrice-likefigure,abeaconofspiritualpurityforhimattheendofthedoubt-ladensteps
ofhispilgrimage.Nathanhimself,anAmericanwhohaschosentoliveasettler’slifeoutside
ofthewallsofJerusalem,isafigurewhoseidentityandgroupidentificationevolvesasa
formofthesettlermythology.
NathanbeginslifeasamemberoftheNewEnglandestablishmentclass,thenmoveseastto
thethen-frontierofIllinoisbeforefinallybecomingaJewishconvert,movinghisfamily
outsideJerusalemasaZionistsettler.Nathan’sstoryisthatofanidentitythatchangesto
persistwithinthemythoflifelivedagainstthehostilityofnature:“Nathanhadsprungfrom
worthystock—/Austere,ascetical,butfree,/Whichhewedtheirwayfromsea-beatrock/
Whereverwoodsandwinterbe.”113NathanliveswithinthemythoftheAmericanfrontier,
ofmovementandtheexpansionwithoutlimits,“emigrantswhichinlandbore.”114Nathan’s
storyastoldbythenarratorisoneofperpetualdistancingfromthepastinserviceofa
renewalofthefrontierimperative.115Thecantoabouthislife,thelongestinthepoem,tells
astoryoftheperfectionofhumansettlement’sfalling-awayfromitsattunementwith
nature,searchinginnewplaces:“Thegloomhereofgrimhemlockwoods/Breedingthe
witchcraft-spellmalign;”FromtheearlysettlementsoftheNewEnglandwoodstothe
1131.17,1-4
1141.17,10
115“Butshallthechildrenallbeschooled/Byhapwhichtheirforefathersruled?”1.17,7-8
288
agriculturalparadiseoftheIllinoisplains(“Infine/ToIllinois—aturfdivine/Ofpromise,
howauspiciousspread”116).
Nathantellsofhisrevelationofnature’smalignancy(“nature”beingsomethinglikethe
conditionsoflifeinyeomansubsistenceagriculture),emergingfromhisnaivefaithinits
suitabilitytohumanhappiness.Heunderstandsnature’sambivalencetohumanpurposes
whenheglimpsestheskullofadeadNativeAmerican.117AfteranuncleiskilledinaNew
Englandrockslide(“Ourmother,Earth:thefoundedrocks/Unstableprove:theSlide!the
Slide!”118),Nathan’slossoffaithinnatureseemstobetiedtotheunderstandingthatitis
notindifferenttothehuman,that,aswiththeTimoneer,itgivesitsownhintsof
malignancy.
Atthispointhetellsofasuccessionofconversionexperiences,fromdiscoveringadeistic
tractofThomasPaine’swritingsonaneighbor’swindowsill,toaturnwithpantheist
thoughtreminiscentofthetranscendentalists,andfinallytoaconversiontoZionist
Judaism.Thefrontiermythisastoryaboutgoingbacktothebeginningofcreationand
resettinghumanity’srelationshipwithnature–andwithittosociety.Theparticipantinthe
frontiermythengages,Rousseau-like,intheprojectofbenignparticipationinanature
uncorruptedbythesocialabstractionsthatpoisonthehumanrelationshipnature,the
divine,andsocietyitself.IntheformthatittakesforNathan’scharacter,itwillbeastoryof
goingbacktothesourceoftradition,tothe“pure”experienceoflivingagainstthe
1161.17,35-37
117“vasevinedroundandbeautiful�/Withflowers;felt,withbatedbreath/Thefloralrevelryoverdeath.”1.17,70-72
1181.17,88-89
289
wilderness,whichhisownunsettleduneasecannottouch.Nathan’seventualturnto
Zionismshouldbeseenthroughthisfrontierhistory.ThechancemeetingwithaJewish
woman,anditsattendantpossibilityofmarriage,becomesapossibilityforhimtorebuild
hisrelationshiptobothnatureandGod:
"Ofcrumblingfaith;forrear-wardshows
FarbehindRomeandLutherwhat?
ThecragofSinai.Herethenplant
Thyselfsecure:’tisadamant.119
Nathan’sstoryintersectswiththedynamicsoffaithanddoubt,wheredoubtseekstoplant
itselfinahistoricalhappening–theJewishreligionattherootofabroadertradition–thatis
beyondquestioning.ButNathan’sstoryisfinallyabouthisrelationshipwithhistory,
findinghecannotsimply“be”Jewish,butmustgofurtherandliveitoutinthemythologyof
Judaism:“HavingtakenthustheHebrewbent,/Mightnotabideinactiveso.”120HisJudaism
isan“emptyform”forwhich“nervousenergiesfindvent,”leadinghimtouproothisfamily
andliveinJerusalem.121Nathanliveshisreligionincontradiction;doubtaboutsecurityofa
traditionrequiresanactiverelationshiptohisfaith.Thecontingencyandsecurityofhis
religiousbeliefsrequiresthatheresidefullywithinthemasanactivity.Heinterpretsa
traditionalphrasefromPassover,“NextyearinJerusalem,”asaliteralcalltoreturn.Yethis
“return”totheJerusalem,thenarratorimplies(andthenarrativeshows),willbea
propheticfulfillmentofhisinitialfatalism(“AndFate,whichfromherambushsprings/
1191.17,222-25
1201.17,261-62
1211.17,263,265
290
Anddragstheloiterersoonorlate”122)adeeperorderwhichleadstohisdeathatthehands
ofotherArabsettlers.
NathanarrivesinJerusalemthroughasuccessionofconversionsandrecommitments.His
biographyisacontinuationofthefrontiermyth,althoughthe“people”towhichhe
commitsundergocontinualchange.Thiswillbeacommitmentnotalongethnicor
hereditarygrounds,buttoastyleofcontendingforawayoflife.Nathanenactsaperpetual
frontierstory.Nathan’sstoryissubjective,personalandindividualinhiscompulsiveneed
toliveoutarelationshiptohisuneasyfaith–butalsoonlypossibleintheactof(re-
)constructingthecommunity.Hisdedicationtothemythologyofthefrontierbeganin
Americabutisnowtransferredtoadifferentwilderness.123Hismembershipwasnotan
inheritancebutanelectiveactwhichcanbewilledacrosscontext.Thestoryofacharacter
becomesthestoryofhisseparationfromanyparticularcommunitybutalsothenecessity
ofmembership.Thegroupisnotaninheritancebutadedicationtoaparticularwayoflife
thatischosen,responsivetoafeltneed.Thegroupisthesettinginwhichthehostilitytoa
wayoflifewillbefacedandbeatenback.Communitybecomesastrugglethatmemorializes
Eden.Thecommunityisbuiltaroundthecontradictionsofasharedcondition,inthiscase
theunrealizedawarenessoftheprelapsarianharmonybetweensurroundingsandwayof
life.
Mythbecomestheblueprintfortheindividuallifewhichislivedoutinasetofcommunities
withthesameconvictionsaboutnature’sprovisionforhumanlife.Thereisarelationship1221.17,341-42
123“Hittites—foespestilenttoGod/HisfathersoldthoseIndiansdeemed:/NathantheArabshereesteemed�/Thesame—slavesmeritingtherod,”1.17,313-16
291
betweenNathan’suneasewiththeunderlyingbenevolenceoftheworldandhis
compulsiontoliveinoneoranotherfrontier.TheAmericanparticipatesinafrontiermyth
ofever-westwardmovement,insearchofthenewEden,asherealizesthathiscurrent
gardencontainstracesofthehuman.Doubtaboutthenatureoftheworldisthereasonfor
awayoflife.Nathanrevealstheultimatelogicofthefrontiermythwhenhemovesfrom
“newworld”to‘oldworld;’theAmericanstyleoflifewasnotthebasisforthecommunity;
insteaditwastheconvictionthatthegroundtheystoodonahada‘virgin’character,that
naturewelcomedandwouldprovideforthesettler.Nathan’sconfidenceinnature’s
cooperationisrevealedtobeatheologicalassumptionwhichisshakenandthenturnedto
asearchforreligiousinnovation,endingwiththe‘returntosource’representedby
Judaism.Hischoicetolivealifeofstruggleagainstmaraudersinthedesertisa
literalizationoftheproblem:thateachindividualindividuallivesinawildernessof
convictionalone.Doubtbecomesamovementwithoutend,toconfrontthesourceof
existentialuncertaintyinitsobjectifiedform.124Nathan,thenarratortellsus,containsan
“inveteratezeal.”125Nathan’sformofcommunity,“alone”againsthostilepeoplesonthe
perpetualfrontierofculturesintheoldworld,representstheisolationsofdoubt.Tobe
Jewishisnottoliveaspartofacommunitybuttoliveclosesttothesource,stillalone.
Collectivestory(myth)islivedoutthroughthetravailsofindividualstory.Nathan’sstoryis
aspiritualautobiography,forwhichtheindividualstandsalonetoaccount.Thestory
becomesazoneforthesuspensionofdoubt,awatchforsignsofstructureaboveor
alongsidethehuman.124“ThereturnofJudahtoherprime…Herewasanobject:Upanddo!”1.17,267,269
1251.17,335
292
Nathan’sstoryportraysaprovidentialforceintheworldthatisimmanentinthepatternof
lifeitself:inthereturntothestruggleagainstnatureintheforestsofIllinoisand,
eventually,thecauseofZionism.ButinthefigureoftheSyrianmonk,providenceis
reducedtotheimmanenttestimonyofthemonk’spersonalityitself.Theprovidentialforce
isperspectivizedthroughisembodimentinthemonk,andthereforeforcedfromthe
world.126
Nathan’sexampleisthatofanambivalentvisionofthedivineturnedtoapatternof
communalliving.Itbecomesapparentthroughthetellingofhisstorythathisreligiosityis
foundedintheprovidentialaspectoftheAmericanfrontiermyth.Thesettlerperseveres
againstahostilenaturethroughGod’sbenevolence.Nature’sapparentindifferencetothe
humanprojectbecomesthebasisformutualcooperationinthewilderness.Nathan
exemplifiesthispromiseinhisrelentlesspursuitofahostileenvironment,through
continuallyrededicatinghimself,acrosshislifetime,toever-moreradicalvisionsof
settlement,endingwithhisarrivalathishistoricalandspiritualsourceofChristianityby
convertingtoJudaism,andworkingtowardthere-foundingofZion.Thepossibilityof
126MaxWeberonChristianity’sradicaldivorcebetweenaprovidentialdimensionandtheworld:“Beliefintheprovidenceistheconsistentrationalizationofmagicaldivination,towhichitisrelated,andwhichforthatveryreasonitseekstodevalueascompletelyaspossible,asamatterofprinciple.Nootherviewofthereligiousrelationshipcouldpossiblybeasradicallyopposedtoallmagic,bothintheoryandinpractice,asthisbeliefinprovidencewhichwasdominantinthegreattheisticreligionsofAsiaMinorandtheOccident.Noothersoemphaticallyaffirmsthenatureofthedivinetobeanessentiallydynamicactivitymanifestedingod’spersonal,providentialruleovertheworld.Moreover,thereisnoviewofthereligiousrelationshipwhichholdssuchfirmviewsregardingGod’sfreelydistributedgraceandthehumancreature’sneedofit,regardingthetremendousdistancebetweengodandallhiscreatures,andconsequentlyregardingthereprehensibilityofany‘deificationofcreatures’asasacrilegeagainstthesovereigngod.Fortheveryreasonthatthisreligionprovidesnorationalsolutiontotheproblemoftheodicy,itconcealsthegreatesttensionsbetweentheworldandgod,betweentheactuallyexistentandtheideal.”Weber,TheSociologyofReligion,144
293
survivalonharshgroundisonlypossiblethroughmutualityandcooperationina
community.
Iwanttounderstandthefinalscenesofthepoem,inBethlehemandJerusalem,asasearch
forthetermsofparticipationinthefoundingritualsofChristianity:firstinavisittoChrist’s
traditionalbirthplaceinBethlehem,theninClarel’sdiscoveryofhisfiancéeRuth’sdeath
amidsttheEasterWeekcelebrationsinJerusalem.Thefinaltestoftheritual–whetherit
canmakesenseofaparticularcrisisofRuth’sdeathforthestudentClarel–isrevealedinits
inadequacy.TheEasterstoryofresurrectionisbothironicizedandoflittlesolacetoClarel
amidsthisownloss.Clarel’ssenseofthecontingencyandindifferenceofnatureremains.
Thisfinalsection,then,considersthestatusofmiracletobeofcrucialsignificancetothe
problemfacingthepilgrims:canaritualofapproachandencounterwiththefounding
miraclesofatraditionfreethemfromtheirsenseofentrapmentintheexistingorder?
WhenthepilgrimsvisitthetraditionalsiteofChrist’sbirthinBethlehem,theyareaskedto
cometotermswiththesignsofmiracle,askingwhatremainsofthesitetodaytomarkthe
entranceofsomethingnewintotheworld–thisasthepilgrimageisnearingitsendon
EasternSunday.Inthepoem’slastcantos,thesignificanceofthemiracleofChrist’sbirth
andresurrectionismeasuredagainstthetragedyexperiencedbyClarel,intheviolent
deathofClarel’sbetrothedRuth.Clarel’sdoubtisconcentratedintheabsenceofpossible
redemptionofherdeath,inthegapbetweenthepromiseofresurrectionandthelossof
Ruthintheseculartimethatendsthepoem.ThetragedyofRuth’sdeath,andClarel’sloss,
revealsthegapbetweentheoccurrenceofthemiracleandthepresenceofmiracletothe
pilgrims.
294
Amiracleisahappeningbeyondwhatisreasonabletoexpect.Butevenmiracles,inorder
toberecognizedasmiracles,requireadegreeofassentbythebeliever.Theycaneven,
withinanexpandedviewofevents,beexpected.Butthemiracleisanoccurrencethatmust
berecognizedonitsownterms,whetherornottheyconformwiththesenseofwhatis
possible.Buttherecanbenomiraclewithoutanexpansionoftheworld’smanifestorderin
whichthemiraclehasapart.Themiracleissuper-natural,inthatitcouldnotoccurby
ordinarymeans,oraccordingtotheorderlyflowofevents.Thereforethemiracleisonly
possiblethroughacrossing-togetheroftwoontologicalorders,anintercessionofthe
divineorthemerelyextraordinary.127Therecognitionofthemiracle,therefore,requires
theabilitytoconceiveoftheextraordinarywithinthetermsofeveryday,seculartime.128
ThedoubterinClarelisunabletobeconvincedthattheextraordinaryexists,butisinthe
positionofseekingoutconfirmationthatisanalogoustowhatthemiracleprovides:proof
oftheextraordinarywhichwillentailachangeofconditioninthedoubter.
Wecanunderstanddoubtastheparticipant’slackofinvolvementinthephenomenon
doubted.IntheCartesianexperiment,wheredoubtconcernsbeingandnon-being,what
cannotbedoubtedistheaspectofselfclosesttothatsamesubject,thefactthatitisthe
“thinkingthing”thatraisesdoubt.WhatdistinguishesthemiracleinClarelisnotits
127Thetheologicalunderstandingofmiracleis,forthepurposesofthisdiscussion(andinkeepingwithMelville’sprimaryreferents),primarilyChristian.MiraclesinClarelarethosephenomenanotinkeepingwiththematerialisticregimeofexplanation.
128LorraineDastonwritesthat“AugustinetreatedmiracleswithinanAristotelianframeworkthatmadenatureconsiderablymoreorderlyandautonomousthatAugustine’sprofusionofmarvels,ordinaryandextraordinary,hadallowed.Dividingcausesintoahigherandlowerorder,AquinascontendedthatGod’smiraclestransgressedonlythoseofthelowerorder,whichexistbyGod’swill,notbynecessity.”InLorraineDaston,“MarvelousFactsandMiraculousEvidenceinEarlyModernEurope,”inQuestionsofEvidence:Proof,PracticeandPersuasionAcrosstheDisciplines(UniversityofChicagoPress,1991),246
295
plausibility,butthatitismarkedbytheeffectithasonthesubject.LiketheSyrianMonk,
thecharacterwhoknowsamiracletobetruehasadifferentcodeofbehavior:lessself-
conscious,moresilent,lessperturbedbywhatisstrangeoroutsideofexperience.Byitself
theseaspectsdonotconstituteadifferentkindofsubjectivity,buttheydoentailadifferent
formofbelonging.Thebelieverhasadifferentpotentialityasasubject.Fortheindividual
believeranactionisthepracticeofthebelief,implicitlyreferredbacktoit.Thedoubter
whocannotdecideaboutthenatureofthemiracleexistswithastateofdialogue,of
question-posingandquestion-answering.Doubtersinherittheburdenoflogosinthesense
ofgivinganaccountofsomethingprovisional.
Thedoubterremainstrappedinacycleofarticulationaboutthatdoubt;tobelieveisto
reachapointofinarticulaterest.Thecommunityofdoubtersismarkedbythosewhoask
questionsandacquireevidence.Thedoubterisunabletoaffirmthetransformationofthe
worldrepresentedbythemiracle.ForClarelthemiracleisnotarevelationaboutthe
natureofthings,butaclarificationabouttheconditionofthesubject.129Theonewhohas
assentedtoamiracle,theoverturningoftheexistingorder,isparadoxicallytheonewho
mustasknomorequestionsaboutthenatureoftheworld.Toknowthatamiracleis
possibleistoknowtheunderlyingrealityofthings,belowtheirsurfacepresentation.
InBethlehem,thepoem’sfinalpart,whatthenarratordescribesasa“Tuscanmonk,”ofthe
Franciscanorderleadsthegroupofpilgrimsthroughthetraditionalsitesofthenativity.
129Dastonagain:“YettheirverypreoccupationwithexplainingwhymiraclescouldnolongerbeexpecteddroveProtestanttheologianstodevelopanewviewofmiraclesasevidence:ifmiracleswereproofs,howandwhatdidtheyprove?Manymedievalmiracleswereprobative,certifyingthesanctityofpersonsandtheauthenticityofrelics.Manyothers,however,presupposedandconfirmedfaithratherthancompellingit.”ibid.,265
296
Thenarratorcharacterizesthemonkbyguessingathisreasonsforspendingtimeinthe
church.Hismannerismsshow“Theslumberingofavividspark”(4.13,31),andhismotives
seemunusuallyearnest.130Thisisthefirstconcernofthegroupuponmeetinghim
(“Hereon,they,pacing,muse–”4.13,39).Theexperienceofthetempleischanneled
throughtheback-and-forthjudgingofreactionbetweenpilgrimsandtheirguide.Toput
thissituationinslightlydifferentterms,thetempleisoverlaidwithitshistorical
consequence.
Thepilgrims’senseofspaceisreflectednotjustinthissite’ssignificanteventinthepast,or
intheirownexperienceofthetemplenow.Rather,theyexperienceitthroughthe
movementfrompasttopresent.Thepeasants“[think]ofBaldwin,pastkingofJerusalem”
and“TheMangerinitslowremove/Wherelay,athousandyearsbefore,/TheChildof
awfulworshiping”131Then,agapopensupinthetouroftheshrine.Thisisthedivide
betweenthegravityoftheeventsbegunbyChrist’sbirth,andthehumaninterchange
betweentheobservers.TheAnglicanpriestDerwentcommentson“Theclashingofthe
EastandWest,”(85)andan“Oddsenseofincongruity”(86)andconsidersmakingajoketo
themonk.YetDerwentrefrains,offeringthisexplanation:“Butno:I’llcurbtheProtestant/
Andmoderninme–atleasthere.”Themonk,inturn,seemstointuitDerwent’smoodeven
withoutthejoke:“Somelittletrace,/TheTuscanfromhisaspectcaught”(96-98)andleads
thegroupdowntothetraditionalsiteofthenativity.Thenativityiscaughtinagap
betweentheexpectedandactualappearance.Thepilgrimsexpectsimplicity,nottheregal
adornmentofjewelsappropriatetoasecularking:130“Wasthisyouthself-given/Infrankoblationuntoheaven?/Orwhatinducementmightdisarm/ThisIsaacwhentooyoungtoknow?”4.13,35-38
1314.13,72-75,78-80
297
This,thistheStablemeanandpoor?
Notingtheirlooks,towardsurprise,
TheItalian:"’Tisincrustedo’er
Withmarbles,sothatnowone’seyes
Meetnotthenaturalwall.132
ThegroupissurprisedattheappearanceofChrist’sbirthplace:whycanthestablenot
standonitsown?Thegroupalsofindsthemselvesinacave,adetailfromthe“real”nativity
theyhadnotknown.Again,theirguidecorrectstheirimpression:“Yes,cavesofoldtouse
wereput/Forcattle,andwithgateswereshut.”133Thisraisesthequestionofwhythe
chamberwasnotkeptinitsoriginalform,whyitneedtobecoveredinpreciousmetals.
Thenatureofthemiracleissuchthatitisbeingperformedthroughthepageantryof
preciousmetals;decorationadornsthesimplicityoftheoriginal.Asthepilgrimsstudythe
monk,itissuggestedthattheyseea“fervor,”whichpointstounfulfillment:
Hewarmed.Ah,fervorboughttoodear:
Thefingersclutchingropeandcross;
Lifetoointense;thecheekaustere
Deepeninginhollow,wasteandloss.
Theymarkedhim;andatheartsomeknew
Inklingstheylovednottopursue.
ThepilgrimRolfemusesontheresemblancebetweenthemonkandSaintFrancis:“In
vigils,ferventprayersandtrances,/Agoniesandself-consumings–/Renewestthouthe
1324.13,125-29
1334.13,131-32
298
youngSaintFrancis?”134Themonk’sreligiousfigure,asoneanxioustobelieve,suggests
thathisfervorcouldgoinseveraldirections,torenewalorexhaustion.Derwent,by
contrast,imaginesthathisanxiousquestioningwillsubside:"“’Tisdoubtlessthepoorboy’s
firstyear/InBethlehem;timewillabate/Thisnovice-ardor;yes,sedate/He’llgrow,
adapthimtothesphere.”
Impressivewasitheretonote
Thoseherdsmenintheshaggycoat:
Impressive,yetpartookofdream;
Ittouchedthepilgrims,asmightseem135
Thepriestpointstoagroupofsimply-dressedshepherdsworshipingnearby.Heclaims
thattheycametoescapepersecutionelsewhere,towhichtheirvisibleinjuriestestify.The
guideseestheirpresenceintheholysiteasevidenceofGod’striumph:“Themanger
markedthemforhisown;ButChristredeemsthem.”136Butwearegiventhereactionof
Ungar,ex-Confederatesoldier,“visiblytheredbloodshot�/Intohisthin-skinnedscar.”137
Ungar’sdoubtreboundsagainstthe“image”offaithpresentedbytheshepherds,theimage
that“partookofdream.”Ascharacterstheshepherdsare“types,”atypologicalcharacter
thatthemonkmakestheimageoffaithforthepilgrims.Otherbeingsinthechurchhave
becomeaformofevidence,andthepilgrimthemarkortestofthe“success”oftheevidence
presented.Aboveallelsethemonkseekstopleasehistourgroup,toseetheirreactions
1344.13,176-78
1354.13,243-46
1364.13,220-21
1374.13,225-26
299
reflectedbackathimlikeasatisfiedbeliever:“likeamaidinthelillyofyouth/Tocozen
menoffoolishlooks.”138
Themonkexudesan“innocent,”naivefaith,stillbelievingitcanescapefromdoubt.
Derwentoffersakindofcounselattheend,that“Signori,here,believe�/Wherenightand
day,whileagesrun/Faithintheselampsburnsonandon.”139Thepossibilityofacertain
kindofbeliefisconcretizedinthesite.Historyandadmiration,theposeofreverence,
replacesafaithcanbeactualizedintheindividual.Faithis“outthere,”inobjects.The
deckingofthebirthcaveisanunintendedreflectionoffaith’sobjectivalform.Faithasthe
objectinthesubject-objectbinary.Thegroupacceptsthelavishadornmentsonwhatwasa
simplestable:“TheadornmentofthesacredUrn./Impressivewasitheretonote.”140
IntheChurchoftheNativitythemiraclebecomesanobject,albeitonewhichmustbe
workedoninordertobeseeninitsproperform.Theobjectsinthechurchare
choreographedtobebothmorethantheyare(inanticipationoftheirworld-historical
Christianimport)andshownintheirsimple,“natural”form,inlinewiththehumilityfrom
whichthepilgrimsexpectChristianitytohaveoriginated.Themiracleholdsoutthe
possibilitythatdoubtwillbeexhausted,orratherthatfreedomfromdoubtispossible.It
promisestofreethepilgrimfromtheirexpectations,andassuchitisconstructedasatest,
amarkerofcharacterdispositionwhichsegmentstheattendeesatthechurchintopossible
positions.Firstthereisthebelieverforwhom,liketheshepherds,anacceptanceofthe
miracleobjectmarksthemassimple,undividedconsciousness.Second,theguide,theone1384.13,246,49
1394.13,251-53
1404.13,242-43
300
inchargeof‘showing’or‘displaying.’Andthirdthedoubter,whoexercisesacritical,
discriminatingintelligenceonthemiracle.Thesiteofthemiracleistheinflectionpointfor
adecisionaboutthedivine,wherethesubjectmustdecidebetweenpresenceandabsence.
Adecisionmustoccurbecausethemiracleisregardedasonlyhalfwayinthepast.The
pilgrimsofClareltreatthemiracleasaneventthatoughttoshowsigns,oratleasthave
implications,forthepresent.AfterthevisittotheChurchoftheNativitythecelebrationsof
EasterWeekbeginbackinJerusalem.OnapproachtothewallsofJerusalemtheparty
stumblesuponaburialandClarel,withasenseofpremonition,uncoversthebodyto
discoverthatitisRuth,daughterofNathan,towhomhebecameengagedimmediately
beforeleavingonthepilgrimage.Ruth’sgravediggerstellClarelthat,alongwithher
mother,shehasdiedof“grief”whenherfatherwaskilledbyArabsettlersoutsidethewalls
ofJerusalem.Clarel’ssenseoftotalabsenceafterRuth’sdeath,ofwaitingin“emptytime,”
occursalongsidetheculminationrepresentedbythemiracleofresurrectionduringEaster
Week.
Clarel’sgriefafterRuth’sdeathisadarkreversaloftheintervalbetweenChrist’sdeathon
thecrossandresurrection.Hissenseofexpectationthereafterbecomesanemptytimein
whichhemustnonethelesspersist:“Daypassed;andpassedasecondone,/Athird–
fourth–fifth;andboundhesate/Infilmofsorrowwithoutmoan–.”141Thenarrator
answersthequestion:“Whylingershe”so:“Askgrief,loveask–fidelity/Indogthatbythe
courseabides/Ofshepherdfallen–abides,abides.”142Clarelreceivesaresurrectionof
1414.32,1-3
1424.32,20-22
301
sorts,inavisionthatappearstohimofthepilgrimsandhangers-onwhohavediedoverthe
courseofthepoem:“Illusionofgrief’swakefuldoom:/Thedeadwalked.There,amidthe
train,”143VisionsofthedeaddonotoffercomforttoClarel,butemphasizethegapbetween
livinganddead:“ButRuth–ah,howestrangedinface!/Heknewherbynoearthlygrace:
�/Normighthereachtoherinplace.”144
Thecanto“Easter”openswithbitterinvocationofthemiracle:“BUTONTHETHIRDDAY
CHRISTAROSE,”itstates.145Thenarratorinvokesthesignificanceoftheholiday.The
studentClareldoesnotperceivethemiracleintermsofits“highersignificance,”butrather
withreferencetohisownspecificperson.Resurrectionisexactlywhatappearstobemost
inaccessibletoClarel,theindividualcharacter.Henotesthe“Thehallelujahafterpain,”
(4.33,21)which“Stillthroughtheageshasrehearsed/ThatBest,theoutcomeofthe
Worst.”146
Beliefismarkedbyparticipationintheritual.ForClarelatthisstagetherecanbeno
answertohisquestionofdoubtwithoutananswerforRuth’sdeath:“Themaidenup;
Christisarisen:�/ButRuth,mayRuthsobursttheprison?”147Thequestioncouldimply
concernforsalvation,butmoredirectlyconcernsClarel’simmediateloss.Beliefinthe
miracleoftheEasterresurrectionexistsalongsideClarel’sirreversiblelossofRuth.
1434.32,86-87
1444.32,99-101
1454.33,1
1464.33,23-24
1474.33,65-66
302
Atthisconclusionofthepoem,then,Clarelleavesitsreaderswithabittercontrast:the
failureofthepersonalperspective(Clarel’sloss)ontheritual,amidstthe“success”ofthe
collectiveEasterritualcelebratingChrist’sdeathandresurrection.BysuccessImeanthe
abilitytoreturntheindividualtoanawarenessofthesourceorpurposethatjustifiesthe
ritual.Inthesymbolicregisterofthepoem,thereshouldbelittlesurprisethatthe“simple”
crowdofbelievers,whoinhabitedtheopeningscenesinJerusalem,returntoprominence
onEaster.Acceptanceofthesignificanceoftheritualisforthoseofadifferentnaturethan
Clarel.Ihaveadvancedanargumentinthischapterthatthepilgrimagerepresentsavery
specificformofcommunity,aminimumcollectivestructurethroughwhichtheindividual
confrontsaculturaltotalityrepresentedbyreligiouspractice.ThepilgrimageinClarel
representsakindoflogicalextremetothisend,bywhichtheindividualconfrontsthe
community’slackofrelationshipwiththewhole.ForClarelthecosmosissilent:doubtis
thefinalritualthroughwhichthecommunityasksquestionsofthedivine.
ThattherewouldbenoresolutiontoClarel’s(andthegroup’s)doubtattheendofthe
poemcouldhavebeenforeseenbyitsstructure.Butthespecificcharacterofthelossthat
Clarelexperiencesatthepoem’sendoughttobeunderstoodinthetermswehave
established.Thepoem’s“epic”characterwasfirstpresentedinthecontrastbetween
matterandspirit.Thatis,betweentheappearanceoftheHolyLandstoClarelandothers,
contrastedwiththerichnessofthetraditionthatanimatesthepilgrimtoundertakethe
pilgrimage.WhatwasepicinClarel(orasIhaveargued,whatgaveitamodernepic
character)wasaremoteorinaccessiblesetofculturalstructuresfortheindividualpilgrim.
Buthoweversilentthevoiceofgodsformostofthispoem,therewasstillthepossibilityof
hisspeakingtoanintact,mundane,everydaylifeinhabitedbythepilgrims.Thestudent
303
Clarel’swillingnesstofindapartner(Ruth),andcommittomarriageamidsthisowndoubt,
speakstoanassumedintegrityandcontinuityoftheeverydaystructureoflife.Itassumesa
certainlevelofbackgroundconfidencethatsecularlifewillpersist.
Thisistheconsolationof“faithanddoubt:”thattheeverydaygoesondespitethedoubt.
SuchareadingofthepoemmakesMelville’schoiceofconclusionallthemoredevastating,
anapparentconfirmationofthe“badomens”glimpsedbytheTimoneer.InRuth’sdeath.
theinstabilityoftheologicalquestionsspillsoverintotheeveryday,threateningtheclosure
ofboththe“higher”andeverydayviewoftheindividuallife-course.Theritual,asadevice
thatbringsthesehigherrealitiesdowntotemporarymanifestationintheeveryday,is
calledtoaccountforeventsinseculartimeforwhichitwasnevermeanttoprovide
answers.Clarel’sdoubtaboutthedivinereachesitsmostdirepointnotwithrespectto
thesehigherquestions,butinthecommunity’sabsencewithinthemostinevitableof
everydaypossibilities:thedeathoftheindividual.
304
Conclusion:
CriticismandSocialForms:Commune,Village,Pilgrimage
Thisprojecthasdependedontheuseofcommunalformswhoseunifyingthematicfunction
withineachchapterhavesometimesexceededmywillingnesstoexhaustthemascritical
objects.Iwillnowgiveamorecarefulexplanationforthisdecision.
ToborrowRaymondWilliams’formulationofarelatedproblemfromTheCountryandthe
City,thegeneralformsofcommunitythatIuseinthisproject(e.g.,“commune,”“village,”
and“pilgrimage”)are“knowable”inasensethatismoretypologicalthanhistorically
specific.1Forinstance,whenIdiscussthecommonbasisofthe“village”asacommunityin
GeorgeEliot’snovels,Iconsiderhowthecountrysidebecameanimportantnineteenth-
centurymarkeroftasteandstatusforVictorianEngland’sincreasinglyurban,and
industrialized,bourgeoisrulingclasses.2Butthereisaclearsense–inthiscaseandacross
theproject–inwhichIamnotinterestedinbeinglimitedbythehistoricallyspecificEnglish
villageasamediatoroftensionsbetweenindustrialandaristocraticVictorianideals.
Instead,IarguethatGeorgeEliot’sworkoffersusanEnglishexampleofthevillagethat
revealsaformofagency–whatIcall“organicindividualism”–thatrecursbroadlyacrossthe
realistictradition.Butitshouldalsobeapparentthat,ifwecomparethesituationsofthese
texts,somethinglikevillageorganicindividualismappearsinshadowformthroughoutthe
project.Therelationshipbetweenthesedifferentformsofcommunity,andthewayin
whichtheyappearinaspectssimultaneouslyacrossmytexts,providesaccesstothis
1SeeRaymondWilliams,TheCountryandtheCity(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1975),Chapter16.
2SeeFrancoMoretti,TheBourgeois:BetweenHistoryandLiterature(London:Verso,2014),113-14
305
project’sunifyingproblem.Theindividualcharacter,whichweinitiallydefinedina
paradigmof“buffered”masterythatdetachestheindividualfromthebackground
conditionsofreality,is“re-implicated”inthesesameconditionsthroughparticipationina
formofcommunity.
WhenWilhelmmeetsthestrange,anachronisticfigureofSaintJosephtheSecondhighup
inthemountains,Josephoffersasagedefenseofaquasi-villageideal:“Onthewhole,there
issomethingmorehumaneaboutlifeinthemountainsthanintheflatlands,”hesays.“The
inhabitantsareclosertooneanotherand,ifyouwill,alsofartherapart.”Thisisbecause
“eachpersonmustrelymoreonhimself,”his“ownhands”and“ownfeet,”whilealso
remaining“closertohisneighbor,”becausehe“seeshimmoreoften”andis“engagedina
commonventure.”3Hedescribesthevillagewherehemakeshishome,andhisownformof
organicindividualism,fosteredbyacommunitythatholdsasetofimmediatelyavailable
sensereferentsincommon:thisiswhatJosephcantouchwithhis“hands”and“feet.”
St.Joseph’ssenseofcallingleadshimtorecreatetheBiblicallifeofJosephoutofthe
materialsofhisownlife,andtoliveitintheroughgrainofthevillage–apatternthatrecurs
intheWanderjahre.Theindividual’spursuitofavocationrequiresattentiontotheright
materials,andkeepingthosematerialsathand.ForEliot,thevillagecreatesthesensory
conditionsforarealismthatresiststhedetachedstanceofmastery.WhatIcalledorganic
individualisminthechapteronGeorgeEliot’snovelsisalsopresentinJoseph’scommunity
oftheWanderjahre,becauseJoseph’sworldrequirestheagent’scompletecommitmenttoa
3JohannWolfgangvonGoethe,WilhelmMeister’sJourneymanYears,or,theRenunciants,ed.JaneK.Brown,trans.KrishnaWinston,Goethe’sCollectedWorks,PrincetonPaperbacks(Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,1995),105.
306
practicalinvolvementinhissurroundings.Thereshouldbelittlesurpriseatthis
coincidence,sinceitshouldnowbeapparentthatbothvocationalandorganic
individualismareastyleofindividualattachmenttoone’ssurroundings,astrategyfor
refusingthestanceofmastery.
AttheendofMiddlemarch,DorotheaBrooke,distraughtoverherrelationshipwithWill
LadislawandhisentanglementinthedistressedmarriageofRosamondVincyandTertius
Lydgate,looksoutofherwindowafterasleeplessnight,andseesinanordinarysceneof
countrylifethatsheispartoftheordinaryvillagelifeofMiddlemarch:
Sheopenedhercurtains,andlookedouttowardsthebitofroadthatlayinview,withfieldsbeyondoutsidethe
entrance-gates.Ontheroadtherewasamanwithabundleonhisbackandawomancarryingherbaby;inthe
fieldshecouldseefiguresmoving—perhapstheshepherdwithhisdog.Faroffinthebendingskywasthepearly
light;andshefeltthelargenessoftheworldandthemanifoldwakingsofmentolaborandendurance.Shewasa
partofthatinvoluntary,palpitatinglife,andcouldneitherlookoutonitfromherluxuriousshelterasamere
spectator,norhidehereyesinselfishcomplaining.4
Despitethedivisionbetweenobserverandobservedinthewindowthroughwhich
Dorotheaviewstheordinarylandscape,thesceneemphasizesDorothea’sinvolvedposition
withwhatshesees:thesymbolicresonanceofitsanonymouscharactersbearingthe
burdenoflabor;childrearing;thebiblicalfigureoftheshepherd;theinvocationofacosmic
dimensioninherviewofthestarsand,finally,asenseoftheinfiniteopeningofthesky.All
returnherdispersedpersonalconcernstothehere-and-nowtotheordinarylifeinfrontof
her.Andthedidacticintrusionofthenarratorinthefinalsentence(“shewasapartofthat
4GeorgeEliot,Middlemarch,ModernLibraryedition(NewYork:ModernLibrary,1994),751.
307
involuntary,palpitating,life…”)sanctionswhattheaestheticsofDorothea’sviewhad
alreadyshown:thatmoralconcerniscompelledbytheverypossibilityofDorotheahaving
thisview.Thebackgroundmaterialofthevillage,whatmakesitlegibletothereaderasa
communityinwhichanindividuallifelikeDorothea’splaysout,isthetransformationof
observerandobservedintocoequalparticipantsinthevillage.
ButthisscenefromMiddlemarchalsoresemblestheviewoftherurallifethatRaymond
Williamscritiquesasaconcealmentofthefullmaterialandsocialbasisofcommunallife:
that“acountrycommunity,mosttypicallyavillage,isanepitomeofdirectrelationships:of
face-to-facecontactsinwhichwecanfindandvaluetherealsubstanceofpersonal
relationships.”5Apoliticallyskepticalcriticalperspectivereassertstheimportanceofthe
windowthatkeepsDorotheafrombeingoutinthefield.Theydonotmeeteachother“face-
to-face,”howeversheimaginesit.Shemaybelearningnottostandapartfromthewider
villageaccordingtoherethicalprinciples,butonthematerialbasisofherlifesheisquite
detachedfromthescene.CitingEliotasoneexampleofthisproblem,Williamsdescribes
thegeneralcase:that“ruralinhabitants”likethoseoutsideDorothea’swindow(i.e.,
peasants)becomea“chorus”or“ballad-element”withinthenovel,morelikeanelementof
thelandscapeitself,present“asthemselves”onlyin“externallyformulatedattitudesand
ideas”asinDorothea’sbeneficentsunrisevision.6
5Williams,TheCountryandtheCity,165.
6Ibid.,168.SeealsohisCultureandSocietyconcerningEliot:“Yetitisafactthatwhenshetouches,asshechoosestotouch,thelivesandtheproblemsofworkingpeople,herpersonalobservationandconclusionsurrender,virtuallywithoutafight,tothegeneralstructureoffeelingaboutthesematterswhichwasthecommonpropertyofhergeneration,andwhichshewasatoncetoohesitanttotranscend,andtoointelligenttoraiseintoanylivelyembodiment.”InRaymondWilliams’CultureandSociety:1780-1950.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.1983,109.
308
Nowwehavearrivedatadilemma.Williamsissurelyrightaboutthecircumscribedworld
ofDorothea’sviewthroughthewindow,whichappearstoconnectDorotheawithagreater
wholeinavisionofvillagecommunitas.7Thevillageis–allatonce–aromantictrope,
culturalmemory,aspiration,andaconcealingcliché.Butstill,thepictureoutsideof
Dorothea’swindowdoeshaveanefficaciousethicalpower,forher,withinthelimited,elite
socialboundariesthatWilliamsdescribes.Asthenarratortellsthereadernext,“whatshe
wouldresolvetodothatdaydidnotyetseemquiteclear,butsomethingthatshecould
achievestirredheraswithanapproachingmurmurwhichwouldsoongather
distinctness.”8Laterthatday,asaresultofherresolve,Dorotheawillgothehouseofthe
troubledcoupleandhelpthemmediatetheirfeud,befriendingRosamondsothatshedoes
notviewDorotheaasarivalforTertiusLydgate’saffections.
Williams’criticismreorientsustothetwopolesofthisproject.Ontheoneside,various
individualisms,andthepossibilityofindividualagencywithanadequateself-conception
andabilitytoworkitselfoutinsociallife.Ontheother,theneedforthewholeofsociallife
tohaveacredibleintegrity,andthesubmissionoftheindividualtothenecessarily
circumscribedformsofagencyavailabletoanyorganizedsocioculturalbody.InDorothea’s
statusasmoralactorwearepresentedwithacredible,ethicalindividualagency.In
Williams’criticism,weseethecalltoattendtotherealbasisofthecommunity.
Ihavearguedthattheappearanceof“community”asanissuefortherealistnovelwasan
attempttoresistthestanceofinstrumentalmasterywhichwasinherenttorealismitself.
7SeeChapter3,“LiminalityandCommunitas,”inVictorTurner,TheRitualProcess:StructureandAnti-Structure(AldinePublishing,1969)
8Eliot,Middlemarch,751.
309
Thisisbecauserealismcreatesabackgroundstabilitysothatasetofparticulars(e.g.,
individuals)canrealizeasenseoftheirownfreedom,buttheverysocial,institutional,and
culturalprecursorsofthatstabilitythreatentolimitornegatethemostcredibleformsof
agency.Apictureof“thereal”liketheonewehaveexaminedhere,bywhichthenovel
presentsDorothea’sviewtothereader,becomesasmoothsurfacethroughthewindow,
andthepictureitframesbecomesakindofillusion.Theillusionofcommunity,this
argumentgoes,makescertainformsofagencyavailabletoDorotheawhilelimitingher(and
our)viewofthefullnessofbothotherindividualsandthestructureofrelationshipsasa
whole.Theseotherindividuals,howeveranonymousandtypologicalascharacters,are
nonethelessagentsinanidealsense,inthelife-worldsandsystemsbywhichtheyforma
partofacommunity.ThecredibilityofacertainepiphanyforDorotheacomesatthecostof
fixingthecommunityunderherownoptimistic,necessarilylimited,view.Tochangeher
ownlifeandthoseofhercloseacquaintances,thedepthandtextureofthelivesofothersin
thevillagemustbeturnedto“inspiration,”toanillusionthatisusefultotheher–butgoes
nofurther.
AssumingweacceptthatDorothea’sobservationrevealsafailuretograspthefulltruthof
hersituationfromtheinvolved–andindividual–perspective,Iwanttosuggestthatherlack
ofawarenessisaripetargetforacertaincriticalviewofhersituation.NowIwantto
suggestthreewaysofthinkingaboutthecriticalviewofDorothea’slimitations.
First,thatDorotheabelievesakindof‘noblelie,’whichexaggerateshersenseofconnection
tohersurroundings;shesacrifices“trueknowledge”ofhersurroundingsforacertainstate
ofmind,sothatshecanexerciseamorelimitedformoffellow-feeling.Second,that
Dorothealacksaself-criticalcapacity;thatthereisagapbetweenwhatweknowabouther
310
situationandherownfuzzyintuitionsofunitywithhervillage.Third,thatthenarratorof
Dorothea’sviewcommitsthefallacyofspiritualizingherexperience,fallingintoan
affective“solution”totheproblemofunderstandinghervillagefromthewindow.Putting
allthreequestionstogether,Iwanttousethistextualepisodeasathoughtexperiment
aboutthevalueofmycommunalformstothisproject.
WecanunderstandDorotheatobesteepedinamodern“noblelie,”towhichEliot’s
aestheticizationofvillagelifeisvulnerable,ascriticslikeTerryEagletonhavepointedout.9
ThepurposeofPlato’soriginalnoblelieinTheRepublicwastofixacertainconfigurationof
thesocialattheexpenseofthefreedomofitsindividualparticipants.10Fromthelowestto
thehighest-rankedindividual,Socrateswouldinstillthesameideology:thatsocialposition
springsfromtheindividual’saffinitywiththepreciousearthmetals–gold,silverand
bronze–ratherthanasasocialconstructionbyactiveparticipantsinaculture.11Whilethe
noblelieseekstoensurethatindividualsonlyexerciseanarrowlycircumscribedformof
agency(thatappropriatetotheircitizenshipclass),therulesoftheillusioncanbebrokenif
anindividualisjudgedtohavebeenbornintothewrongcategoryofcitizenship.12Thusa
constructivistlie,which(Socratesargues)hasacertainusefulnessfororganizingsociety,
becomesalimitationontheindividual.Theformsofavailableagencyhavenobearingon
9SeeTerryEagleton,“IdeologyandLiteraryForm,”NewLeftReviewI,no.90(1975):81–109
10Plato,TheRepublicofPlato,ed.andtrans.AlanBloom,Secondedition(NewYork:BasicBooks,1991),414b–415d,93–95.
11“I’llattempttopersuadefirsttherulers,andthesoldiers,thentherestofthecity,thattherearingandeducationwegavethemwerelikedreams;theyonlythoughttheywereundergoingallthatwashappeningtothem,while,intruth,atthattimetheywereundertheearthwithin,beingfashionedandrearedthemselves,andtheirarmsandothertoolsbeingcrafted.”ibid.,414d-e,94
12Ibid.,415b–c.
311
Plato’snoblelie;thelieexiststolimittheeffectiveexerciseofjusttheseavailableagencies.
IfweextendtheexampletoDorothea,theoccupantofasocialpositionwiththepossibility
ofawidelatitudeforethicalagency,wecanobservethatshemakesuseofthesocialliethat
RaymondWilliamsdescribes:toseekoutherownformof“thegood.”ThePlatoniclie
requiresabeliefinstratifiedsocialdifference,whileDorothea’slieispremisedonan
illusionofdemocraticegalitarianism:onlybyfailingtoseeherimplicationintheformsof
exclusionoutsideherwindow,byseeingothersaslikeher,issheabletorecallhermoral
powerstotheirpropersphereofexercise.Moralityisagencyexercisedonhersocialpeers:
thoselikeher,howeverdefined.Butbothlies–Dorothea’sandPlato’s–havetheeffectof
intensifyingcertainformsofindividualactionattheexpenseofapictureofthewhole.The
nobleliemayobscuretheimmediatetruthaboutthewhole,butitis(supposedtobe)in
serviceofamoreprofoundwhole:thatoftheorganizationofPlato’sRepublic,which
totalizesthevisionofthegood.Buttheformsofdominationandcontingencythatmake
Dorothea’ssocialvisionpossibleoffernosuchguaranteeofacoherentwhole.Sociallife,in
itspoliticalexclusions,economiccontingencies,andmanifestinjustices,iscontingencyall
thewaydown–totheadvantageofsomeonelikeDorotheawhoenjoystheprivilegeof
observingothersthroughthewindow.
AnothersalientdifferencebetweenPlato’s“lie”andDorothea’sisthatDorotheahasno
metaphysicalcommitmentsequivalenttothoseofPlato(the“soft”metaphysicalregister
invokedbythenightskyareanechoofthatabsence),makingiteasiertodismissherself-
understoodunitywithhersurroundingsasan“ideological”formation.ButwhilePlatohas
ametaphysical“good”inviewaroundwhichhiscityisorganized,thelie–letuscallitthe
312
theideologyofhisrepublic–hastheentirelyinstrumentalpurposeofsocialcontrol13
Plato’scitizenacceptsthetheparticularformofagencythatitentails(e.g.,thatofa
craftsman);whichistosaythatPlato’scitizendoesnotbecomeanindividualinthemodern
senseofsomeonewithadegreeofdistancefromthedemandsofsociallife.Thisishowa
lie,backedbyastrongvisionofthegood,canhavenoethicalvalueforitsparticipants,
whilethelieinMiddlemarch,thatwecanbestaccountforinthesubstratumofDorothea’s
ownmateriallyconditionedunconscious,doeshaveanethicalforce.
Dorothea’slieallowshertoachieveagentialeffectiveness,atthecostofhervisionofthe
wholebeingabletopass“critical”scrutiny.14
Americanliterarycriticismforthetwentiethcenturyonwardhasgenerallycaredmore
aboutthelatterthantheformer.Thatistosay,whentheliteraryanalystchoosesbetween
makingsenseofthe“structures”thatlimittheeffectofDorothea’smoralvision,and
evaluatingherpaththroughthenovelasamoralagent,thecritiqueofstructurecertainly
getsmoretraction.Dorotheaisvulnerabletoatraditionalstructuralcritiqueofher
positionrelativetothepeasantssheviewsthroughthewindow,becausethecriticisina
positiontoseewhatsheisnot.TotheextentthatwecanreconstructDorotheaasthe
representationofanintentionalmindinthispassage,thesourceofhermoralagency–her
13ThisfactwouldexplainwhySocrates’considerationofthenoblelieendsnotwithadiscussionofitstruthvalue,butwithstrategiesforfinding“somedeviceforpersuadingthemofthistale.”ibid.,415c
14Iuse“ethics”hereinthebroadsenseofthevalue-consideringcapacitythatmakeshumanbeingsintoagentsinconcretesituations.ToquoteRogerCrisp,Imeanthe“systemsofvalueandcustominstantiatedinthelivesofparticulargroupsofhumanbeings.”Thisisdistinguishedfromthemorenarrowpurviewofmorality,anditsconcernwithsubsetsofquestionsaroundrightandwrong.RogerCrisp,“EthicsandMeta-Ethics”(Taylor;Francis,1998)
313
beliefthatsheisconnectedtotheothersinthispictureasshebelieves–istheweakness
thatthestructuralcriticidentifies.
ThisbringsustothesecondcriticismIlaidoutabove:thatweoughttoapplygreater
scrutinytoherepiphanicidentificationwiththevillagers.Theimpulsetoreconcilewith
anotherwomaninasimilarposition,RosamondVincy,bearslittlerelationtoanypossible
identificationwiththepeasantsoutsidethewindow.ThelinesconfirmingDorothea’ssense
ofidentificationwiththepeasantsisreportedinthefreeindirectstyle:“Shewaspartof
thatinvoluntary,palpitatinglife,andcouldneitherlookoutonitfromherluxuriousshelter
asamerespectator,norhidehereyesinselfishcomplaining.”Thesentenceonly
unambiguouslyshowsitselfasaproductofDorothea’smind.Thereaderislefttoinferthis
connectionbythecommentarythesentenceoffersonthejust-observedscene,andbyher
resolvetotakeactionconsistentwiththesentimentofcommonpurposethatitestablishes.
Thesentence,therefore,floatsonaplanebetweenDorotheaandthenarrator.Thenarrator
cannotclaimitismeremoralcommentaryonthescene,andyetwecannotsimplygive
creditfortheinsighttoDorothea,either.15Thesentencealsocontainsacontradictory
sentiment:thatDorotheaisboth“partof”thepeasants’life(insomefundamentalethical
15DorittCohnwritesaboutthefreeindirectmonologuethatthis“equivocation”isessentialtoitseffect:“Andthisequivocationinturncreatesthecharacteristicindeterminatenessofthenarratedmonologue’srelationshiptothelanguageofconsciousness,suspendingitbetweentheimmediacyofquotationandthemediationofnarration.Accordingly,itsfunctionfluctuateswhenitisfoundintheimmediatevicinityoftheothertechniques:whenitbordersonpsycho-narration,ittakesonamoremonologicalqualityandcreatestheimpressionofrenderingthoughtsexplicitlyformulatedinthefiguralmind;whichitbordersonspokenorsilentdiscourse,ittakesonamorenarratorialqualityandcreatestheimpressionthatthenarratorisformulatinghischaracter’sinarticulatefeelings.”TheframingofDorothea’ssituationappearsclosertothelatter.Atminimumthemostplausiblereadingofthesceneisthathersenseofunitywiththepeopleoutsidethewindowhasaninarticulatecomponent,onlyplausibleasageneraldescriptioninadditiontoamoralinjunctiontoherself.DorittCohn,“TransparentMinds:NarrativeModesforPresentingConsciousnessinFiction,”inTheoryoftheNovel:AHistoricalApproach,ed.MickaelMcKeon(Baltimore,MD:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,2000),493–514,497
314
sense)andseparatedfromit(bythewindow),“lookingout”fromher“luxuriousshelter.”
Thedifferencebetweenthelatterandtheformercreatesaninternaldramathatleadsto
themoralaccusation.
Tobeinvolvedwhilekeepingadistancemeansthatoneisinerror,thatonehasmadea
mistakeaboutwhattheviewofastructureimpliesaboutthemakeupofthatsame
structure.Dorotheaispartofthescene,subjecttoacriticalevaluationthatthenovelcould
notpossiblyanticipate.Buttheideologyitcontainscannotchangethefactthatthe
sentencetakestheformofamoralaccusation.Thedisembodied,indirectvoicethatspeaks
herecomesfromthebackgroundofDorothea’slife,akindofethicalaurasurroundingher
situation:youarepartofthisscene,yetyouholdyourselfback.Theinsightofidentification
occursalongsidetherealizationofthefailuretoact.ThemoralresolvethatDorothea
achievesiscontainedintheformofanaccusationagainstsomeoneinherposition.
TheaccusationleveledbywhatIhavecalledtheethicalauraofthesceneisthatsheinfact
standsapart,apointmaderhetoricallywithtwonegations:shewas“neither…aspectator,”
“nor”abletostopin“selfishcomplaining”(emphasisadded)–astatementwhichcontains
theimplicationthatshedoesbothinhermomentofindecision.Andyettheidentification
withthevillagepersistsandstrengthensherresolve.ThisbringsustothethirdviewpointI
wanttoconsider:thatDorothea’ssenseofunitywithhersurroundingshappensonthe
levelofaspiritualpull,a‘mood’orasortofsoft,indefinitespiritualismevokedbythe
aestheticsofhersituation.
Ifthescenecontainsforcesofbothdistinction-making,ofsettingouthowDorotheais
differentfromwhatcomesabove,italsocontainsanimpulsetounify.Theevidenceofthis
315
unitytakestheformofaninsightwiththeaestheticsandconventionsofepiphany:Theold,
organicmetaphorsrecur(“involuntary,palpitatinglife”),andtheindefinitedistancetothe
skyseemstoreachbacktothepeasants(“faroffinthebendingsky”)whoareneartoher
ontheroadoutsideherwindow.Thedifferencebetweenhumanactionandacceptanceof
fateiselidedbyashelteringnature.16Eloquenceappealsonthebasisoftotalities.What
LaurenBerlantcallsthe“dissipatedsubjectivity”ofanaffectivesituationmakessenseof
Dorothea’sconnectiontothescene.17Noparticularentity,force,orstructureisresponsible
forthissituation;itemergesfromtheelementsviewedasatotalitythatisclosetoan
aesthetic.HersituationmapsontowhatLaurenBerlantcallsan“impasse”inthepresent,a
“stretchoftimeinwhichonemovesaroundwithasensethattheworldisatonceintensely
presentandenigmatic,suchthattheactivityoflivingdemandsbothawandering
absorptiveawarenessandahypervigilancethatcollectsmaterialthatmighthelptoclarify
things.”18The‘spiritual’dimensionofthissceneisthepresumptionthatDorothea,the
narrator,andthereadercanallarriveatthesameconclusionsthroughattentiontoan
emergentphenomenon.
IneachofthewaysthatIhaveunderstoodDorothea’srelationshiptohervillage–asnoble
lie,asself-criticism,andasspiritualexperience–RaymondWilliams’criticismcannotbe
dismissed.ForWilliamsthetextualself-interpretationofascenelikethisone–that
Dorotheacouldidentifywiththevillagersbecausesheunderstandstheirplight–accepts,in
principle,thatDorotheacouldimaginativelycrossbarriersofclassandsocialposition.16“…shefeltthelargenessoftheworldandthemanifoldwakingsofmentolaborandendurance.”
17LaurenGailBerlant,CruelOptimism(Durham:DukeUniversityPress,2011),9.
18Ibid.,4.
316
Williams,acommittedMarxist,wouldregardwhatIcallthesocialformofthevillageasjust
aprecritical,idealsocialtype:ahazyabstractionthatmakesanactofOther-effacing
identificationwiththepeasantspossible,despitetheirdifferencesinmaterial,socialand
institutionalposition.Wecanthinkoftheaforementioned“noblelie”astheideologythat
makesDorothea’sactofidentificationsociallyefficacious,whichrefractsitfromthe
anonymousfiguresofthelaborerandthewomanwithachildtotheindividualizedfacesof
RosamondVincyandTertiusLydgate.19Thetextisnotinapositiontoofferthiskindof
critique,tounderstanddifferencesinthematerialbasisofsociallife.Insteaditdisplaysan
urgency,rootedinEliot’sethicalapproachtowriting,toturntheepiphanyatthewindow
intoasituationofaction.Theaccusatoryspiritofthecritic,hisreductiontostructural
differencebetweencharacter(Dorothea)andOther(peasants),isoutsideofthetext’s
earnestorientationtoactionrepresentedinDorothea.Finally,thecritic’stendencytosplit
apartdifferencesisresistedbythepresentationofallthefiguresasa‘unity,’intheformof
spiritualepiphany.
Eliot’svillageinMiddlemarchmakesacertainkindofactionpossibleforDorothea.Itleans
towardapictureofethicalclarity.AsWilliamswrites,thisisasimplificationofsocial
relationsthatmakestheworldlegibleforselectiveaction.ThealternativethatIwantto
developinoppositiontoWilliamsleansonthedouble-sidednatureofthisclaim:thatthe
actofidentificationperformedbyDorotheainthetextbothconcealshersocialworldin
19WilliamswritesabouttheknowablecommunityinJaneAustenthatitis“outstandinglyface-to-face,”andthatmeaningofone’sneighbor(notetheBiblicalresonanceofthe“neighbor”)is“notthepeoplewhoareactuallylivingnearby”butthepeople“whocanbevisited”(asDorotheawillvisitRosamondandTertiuslaterthatday).Tostatethepointmoredirectly,the“knowablecommunity”isa“networkofpropertiedhousesandfamilies.”Williams,TheCountryandtheCity,166
317
imageofthevillage,andmakesapossibilityopenup.Theunitysheexperienceswiththe
villagemakesherintoanagentthatshewasnotbefore.Williamsoffersusadetached,
diagnosticperspective,withintheboundsofwhatPaulRicoeurfamouslytermedthe
“hermeneuticsofsuspicion,”whosepurposeistoseeasituationmoreclearly,tobreak
downtheviewer’sconfidenceabouttheconstructionofascene.20Thequestionisstillhow
weoughttohandlethiscontingent,historicalobjectlikethevillage,whichwecanbe“seen
into”and“takenapart”throughWilliams’critical,materialistperspective.Andyetthe
potentialofthevillageisnotexhaustedbyWilliams’perspective,becauseweareforcedto
weighthevalueofthenewsituationthatthevillagehascreatedoverthevalueofwhathas
beenobscured.
WhatIwanttoexploreoverthefollowingpagesistheproblemofmakingsenseofthe
individualasanethicalactorwithinaliterary-criticalproject,becausethisisthe
foundationalquestionraisedbymysimplecommunalforms:commune,village,and
pilgrimage.Iwillconsiderthisproblemthroughtwodistinct,butrelateddialectics.First,
thatofBildungagainstwhatIcallthe“curatorial”perspective.Andsecond,thevantage
pointofaspecialistversusthatofageneralist.Theresultofthisdiscussionwillprovideus
afullerviewofhowmyuseofthesecommunalformsopensuptheagencyoftheindividual
withinthenovel.
I.
20PaulRicoeur,FreudandPhilosophy:AnEssayonInterpretation,TerryLectures(YaleUniversityPress,1970).
318
Iwanttofirstconsidertwopositions,ortwowaysofimagininghowacriticmightmake
senseofasocialformationlikethatofthevillage.Thefirstreturnstotheintellectual
traditionofBildungthathasfiguredacrossthisproject.Itistheideathatthecriticshould
discoverorproduceanewculturalformationthroughthetext.Thesecondisthatthecritic
shouldconsolidatethefeaturesofanexistingconsensusofsomekind;thisconsensuscan
beorganizedonthebasisofaclaimtospecialskills,likeamethodortypeofanalysis.Itcan
alsobefoundedonthebasisofaparticularaffinityforone’schosenobject,an
understandingofitssocialorpoliticalsignificance.Icallthisthe“curator”perspective.
TheBildungperspectiveseesthecriticastheproducerofanoriginalintellectualmodel,the
authorofanewculturalobjectthroughacreativeact;thecuratorunderstandsthecriticas
thebearerofaparticularperspectiveprovidedbyacontemporaryposition.Icallthisa
“curator”becausetheidealtypeofthiscriticismconsistsoftheapplicationofatoolkitof
methodsanddisciplinaryknowledge,ratherthanBildung’semphasisoninterstitial
connectionbetweendisparatetools,frameworks,anddisciplines.TheBildungpositioncan
beprovisionallyidentifiedwithadiachronicrelationshiptocultureasaresource.The
critic,motivatedbytheconcernsofBildung,wantstoknowabouttheconfigurationof
largerbodiesofknowledge,howunlikeelementsarealike;thiswithlessattentionpaidto
theirhistoricalposition.TheBildungposition(inkeepingwithitssomewhatapolitical
rootsintheGermanEnlightenment),becauseitis“openandconnectabletoallconcrete
situationsinlife,”asReinhartKoselleckwrites,“producestiesbetweenheterogeneous
factors.”21Thecuratorpositionisprimarilyconcernedwiththeapplicationofhistorical
21ReinhartKoselleck,“TheAnthropologicalandSemanticStructureofBildung.”inThePracticeofConceptualHistory:TimingHistory,SpacingConcepts(Stanford,Calif:StanfordUniversityPress,2002),194.
319
knowledge,withtheversionof“thereal”appropriatetothecontemporary.Thecurator
takesamoreactivestance,startingfromthepositionthatwewanttorecognizeaspectsof
ourexistingknowledgeinatext,andthattheauthormustincorporatehisown
commitmentsandworldlyinvolvementstoresisttheeffectproducedbytheauthor.
AsRitaFelskiwritesinCritiqueandPostcritiqueaboutanideal-typecriticwhoapproaches
myformulationofthecurator,itsbaselinepresumptionaboutthetextisthatit“helpsto
naturalizeorlendideologicalsupporttoreal-worldinstitutionsandpracticesduetoshared
genealogiesandunderlyingconceptualstructures.”22Thejobofthecuratoristhereforeto
uncoverthesehiddencommitments.Thecuratorcarriesthesensethatwehavealready
developedthemethodsthatweneedtounderstandourcriticalobjects,butthatthis
knowledgemustbeappliedintherightway.Thecuratorpositionismoreeasilybroughtto
theconvictionthatcriticismisorientedtoaction,thatitoughttotakeapositionwith
respecttopragmatics.ThecriticofBildungismoreinterestedindiscoveringconceptual
possibilitiesthathavegoneunremarkedinexistingmaterial.Theresourcesofthepastare
unpredictable,alwaysthreateningtoeruptintothepresent,whilethecuratorbringsa
stablebodyofknowledgetobearonnewobjects.
WecanobserveatensionbetweentheBildungandthecuratorialperspectivewithinthe
textsofthisproject,astheyattempttocometotermswithwhatthevillageoughttobeasa
socialform.
GeorgeEliotunderstandsthepastasaforcethatworkssilentlyonthethepresent.
“Traditional”life,thatistosaythelifeoftheruralclassesmoredistantfromtheprocesses
22RitaFelskiandElizabethS.Anker,eds.,CritiqueandPostcritique(DukeUniversityPress,2017),6.
320
ofrationalizationatworkinurbanlife,issubjecttosedimentarypotentialscontainedinits
ownpast,whichitcanneitherunderstandnorcontrol.23Herconservatismcarriesatouch
oftheBildungorientation.Thepastcanbecomethebasisforsomethingnew;notanobject
wecanunderstandinthepresent,butaforcethat,ifwelistenandallowit,willreveal
somethingnew.Thisiswhy,accordingtoEliot,theartistisinthebestpositionto
understandthemeaningoftradition:becausesheispreparedtoreceiveamessagefromthe
past,ratherthanshapingittoherownendswiththecapacityforsympathy.
Ireadthistension,betweenreceptiveandconstructivetendencies,intothethevillagein
TheMillontheFloss,wheretheTulliverfamilyisledtoruinwhentheyexpecttheforcesof
thepasttocarrythem,likethecurrentoftheriver,intoafuturethattheytrusttoprovide.
Theirfateisevidenceofthetragicsideofarelianceonthepastasacreativeresource,and
thesourceofanambiguityinthetext’sethicofconservatism.Isthefinancializationofthe
countryside,itsinvisibletransformationintoabstractcapitalbeneaththeTulliver’svery
feet,apotentialinheritedfromthepast,orisit(asEliotseemstohaveheld)ayokingofthe
pasttosystemsofabstractjudgment,tothemethodsandtechnologieswhichcanclaimto
have“superseded”thenaivetéofthevillage?
InthisrespecttheviewofthepastinaworklikeMillalsocontainsacurator’sperspective.
Thecuratortakesboththevillage(howeverimperfectlyconceived)andthefinancialization
ofthecountrysideasequallycontingenthistoricallyphenomena.Thelifeofyeoman’s
independencelivedbytheTulliversgavethepreconditionsfordesirableformsofhuman23Eliot:“ThenatureofEuropeanmenhasitsrootsintertwinedwiththepast,andcanonlybedevelopedbyallowingthoserootstoremainundisturbedwhiletheprocessofdevelopmentisgoingonuntilthatperfectripenessoftheseedwhichcarrieswithitalifeindependentoftheroot.”GeorgeEliot,“TheNaturalHistoryofGermanLife,”inEssays,ed.ThomasPinney(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1856),288.
321
agency:formutuality,cooperation,genuinemoralconcernandsolidarity.Thecurator
recognizesthevillagethroughthecapacitiesthatitmadepossible,andreadsthe
financializationofthecountrysideasaprocessthatrendersthevillageanimpossibility.To
summarize,wetaketheperspectiveofBildungwhenweunderstandEliottobe
representingapastthathasalatentexistenceinthepresent,whenweseeherimagining
howthelossofthevillagehasobscuredatypeofofagencythatisstillpotentially
available–e.g.,toengageinsympatheticcooperationwithothers.TheBildungorientation
understandsthevillageasapossibleworldinthepresent.
Butwetakethepositionofcuratorwhenweunderstandthevillageasapast–perhapsan
illusory,idyllic,never-existentpast–thatthrowslightonoursituationinthepresent.The
curator’sperspectiveisalsocapableoftakingthevillage(oraspectsofthevillage)asa
desideratum,butherethevillageservestocritiquethefallennessofthepresent,toprovide
reliefforwhathasbeenlossinthemovementfromGemeinschafttoGesellschaft.The
curatorviewsthelossofthevillageformofcommunityastheoutcomeofatragichistorical
processforwhichtherearenoobviousalternatives(oratleastnotwithinthetoolsofthe
critic),whileBildungtakesitforacalltoreimaginethepresent,toopenupoursenseof
contingencythatthepresentcouldstillbeotherwise.
InGoethe’sWanderjahrethevillageisanactofcreation,aresistancetothecircumstances
ofhistorythatconstrainindividualchoiceinthepresent.Thesettinginthearchiveisan
ambivalentbackgroundtothenovel.Ontheonehanditsuggestsadocumentary
verisimilitude,storingallevidenceofthepastregardlessofitssignificance.Ontheother,
makinguseofitsmaterialrequiresaprincipleofselection,ofchoosingwhatismost
322
relevanttotheneedsofthepresent.ThevillageappearsintheWanderjahreinthesenseof
small,close-cooperatingcommunitieswithadirectrelationshiptothematerialbyproducts
oftheirsustainment.ButIhavecalleditsdistinctiveformofcommunitythecommune
becauseofitsfixationonthepresent.Thecommunedependsonindividualwillsactingin
concert.Thecommuneisnotbuiltonaninheritancefromthepast,butonthesensethatits
membersmusttakecontrolofthepresent,mustorganizeitaroundtheintegrityoftheir
ownprinciples.
Thecolonyofweavers,aPietistreligiouscommune,organizestheircommunityaroundthe
divisionoflaborthatsuitsboththeirworkandtheirreligiouscalling.Thisdivinely
sanctioneddivisionoflaboriswhatisthreatenedbythe(historically)inevitablegrowthof
automationintextileproduction.Asthetextsuggests–andthehistoricalrecordwould
confirm–theweaversarejustifiedinexpectingthefullerasureoftheircommunity.The
weaversareareanaggressivestatementofindividualself-assertionandfreedomwith
respecttothepresent,awillfulindifferencetohistoricalconditions.Thecuratorlooksto
Goethe’sexchangewithJohannHeinrichMeyerduringhistravelsthroughSwissweaving
communitiesthatwerealreadyatechnicalandsocialanachronism.Theyarerecordedin
theWanderjahreasiftheyarelivingarchaeologicalspecimens,theimplausibilityoftheir
wayoflifemakingthemrepresentativesofawayoforganizingthecommunitythatis
unavailableinthepresent.Thecurator’sviewdominatesinthismode:todocumentand
showwhytheircommunityishistoricallyimpossibleaccordingtotheteleologyofhistory
asitispresentlyunderstood.
323
Butwhiletheimplausibilityoftheweaverscanexplaintheirrelevancetothenarrativeasa
markeroftheouterlimitsforthecommuneasaformoflife,thewidersweepofthe
WanderjahrealsocontainsaBildungassumptioninthesenseoforganizingthechaosofthe
archiveintoaform.“Wearehappytoextractfromeverylesson,fromeverytradition,what
canproperlybeextracted,”saystheleaderofthePedagogicalProvincetoWilhelmwhenhe
visitswithhisson,Felix,“foronlyinthatwaycantheconceptofwhatissignificantdevelop
inyoungpeople.”24ThepurposeofthePedagogicalProvinceistoriflethroughhistory,
freelyandgratuitously,creatingthestudentwhoanswerstheneedsofthepresent.This
present,wefindout,willbethesocietyofemigrants,whoimaginethefutureasavillage,of
sorts,butfoundedonlyontechnicalproblem-solvingand“practical”needs–aworldthatis
yokedtoapresentthatdestroysthepastthroughacceleratingchange.Thepresentist
perspectiveofBildungalsomakessenseofthestrangenessofSt.Josephatthebeginningof
thebook.WhatstrikesWilhelmaboutJoseph,modernrecreationofthelikenessofa2,000
year-oldmythicalfigure,isthereadinesswithwhichheminesthepastinserviceofthe
present,hisindifferenceinappropriatingasacredtraditionforthemundaneneedsofthe
present.Inhisgratuitous,naiveandfree-spiritedmixingofpastandpresent,St.Josephisa
figureofBildung.
Finally,thearchiveitselfentersthetext,inthecollectionofhundredsofaphorismsthat
GoetheandEckermanninsertedintothemidpointandendingofthenovel’s1829second
edition.25Inthemultiplepathsthatcanbetracedthroughthis“archive”ofaphorisms,we
24Goethe,WilhelmMeister’sJourneymanYears,or,theRenunciants,209(Blackall).
25“BetrachtungenimSinneDerWanderer:KunstEthisches,Natur”and“AusMakariensArchiv”
324
findadirectchallengetothecurator’sperspective,whichwouldassigntothemaspecific
hermeneuticoutcomeorhistoricaltendency.TheBildung-orientedcriticwillhavemore
successchoosingapaththroughthearchiveinacreativefashion,asanexpressionof
subjectiveinterestthatthecriticmustclaimashisown.TheconcernsofBildungemerge
whenevertheneedarisestoreexamineahistoricalartifact(realorillusory),toputitto
use,ortodiscoverhowitcouldbeusefultothepresent.Thecuratorseekstocontrolthe
past,toshowhowitassimilatesintothesettledtruthsofthepresent.Incontrast,a
perspectivedrivenbyBildungtakesthepresentasanopportunityfordeparturefromthese
truths,andcanbeseenwhenevertheneedarisestoreconfigurethepresent.Thecurator
whorevisitsthepastencounterstheBildungimperativetodosomethingwiththepast,the
difficultyofallowingittolieinertwithoutbeingremadeforpresentneeds.
WhentheBritishhistorianFredericSeebohm,writingin1883,publishedhisseminal
economichistoryofthemedievalEnglishvillageanditsrelationshiptomanorialserfdom,
hebeginshisaccountbycontendingwiththevillageasamodelofunity.Themulticolored
stripsofland,endearedtothetheEnglishimaginationbyWilliamLangland’sPiers
Plowman,willhavetheirvisualharmonydispelledfromsocialcohesion.Theyarenota
visualproofoftheunityofthecommunityimpliedinLangland’saccount,butachaoticmix
ofownershipandrights,“intermixed,anditmightalmostbesaidentangledtogether,as
thoughsomeoneblindfoldhadthrownthemaboutonallsidesofhim.”Seebohm
continues:
“Whatwas‘thefairefeldfuloffolke,’inwhichthepoetsaw‘worchyngandwandryng,’some‘puttenmettothe
plow,’whilstothers,‘insettyngandinsowyngswonkenfulharde’?AmodernEnglishfieldshutinbyhedgeswould
325
notsuitthevisionintheleast.Itwasclearlyenoughtheopenfieldintowhichallthevillagersturnedoutonthe
brightspringmorning,andoverwhichtheywouldbescattered,someworkingandsomelookingon.”26
Thisisthevillage,understoodasmodelofforaromanticnineteenth-centuryeyelike
GeorgeEliot’s,builtaroundaprincipleofcooperativelaborbyfreeassociation.Seebohm,
withthecarefularchivalandhistoricaleyeofthecurator,willsituateitinhistoricaltime
andgeographicspacealongsideitsfeudalcounterpart,themanor,whereheconcludesthat
theso-calledfreevillagerwasmorelikelytheenserfed“villein,”workingthelandunder
manorialbondagetoalord.Incontrasttotheidealvillage,whereeconomiclifeis
subordinatedtotheplanningofcommunalself-determination,underthemanoritbecomes
crushingnecessity,submissiontoamorepowerfulwill.27Seebohm’sreconstruction
reversesLangland’svisionfromaneverydaytoanideal:therewasneveratimeof
communitas,offreeindividualsworkinginopenfieldstowarditsownneeds.28
Animaginarypastthatwasused(byEliotetal)tobringthefracturesofthenineteenth
centurycommunityintofocusisrevealedasafantasyunderSeebohm’scriticalscrutiny.
ThecuratoranticipatesthelaterenclosureandcaptureoftheEnglishcountrysideby
powerfulinterestsineventhepremodernstructureofmedievalvillages.Thevillageasan
26FredericSeebohm,TheEnglishVillageCommunityExaminedinItsRelationstotheManorialandTribalSystemsandtotheCommonorOpenFieldSystemofHusbandryanEssayinEconomicHistory,Thirdedition(London:Longmans,Green,;Co.,1884),18,http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/MOML?af=RN&ae=F102116798&srchtp=a&ste=14&locID=chic_rbw.
27“Surelythereistooshortanintervalleftunaccountedfortoallowofgreateconomicchanges—toadmitofthedegeneracyofanoriginalfreevillagecommunityofawidelyspreadinstitution,intoacommunityinserfdom.”ibid.,179
28“Atthispoint,aswehaveseen,theinternalevidenceoftheopen-fieldsystem,attheearliestdateatwhichitarises,comestoouraid,showingthatasageneralruleitwastheshell,notofhouseholdcommunitiesoftribesmendoingtheirownploughingliketheWelshtribesmenbyco-aration,butofserfsdoingtheploughingunderanover-lordship.”ibid.,419
326
idealofcommunalself-determinationcannotsurvivethehistoricalreviewofthecurator.
Andyetalatergenerationofearlytwentieth-centuryBritishhistorianswouldrevivethe
idealofthevillage,initsrealandidealform,againstthe“inevitable”feudaltyrannyofthe
manor.PaulVinogradoff’s1904GrowthoftheManortakesthevillageforaregulativeideal
thatbringstogetherruralheterogeneouscommunitiesaroundthe“themultifarious
communalisticincidentsofrurallife.”Thevillageexists,notbythe“organizingpowerof
thelandlord,”butbythe“requirementsofagriculturalsettlement”itself.29Thevillage,
therefore,persistedasanidealalongsideitsmembers.
Thoughinfringedinitshistoricalrealization,itistheplaceholderfortheaspirationto
“ensuretheattainmentofcommonaimsandtheprotectionofcommoninterests.”A
Bildungperspectivecanbefoundintheassertionthatthecommunityneverabsolvesits
idealversionofitself,andneverlosessightofself-regulationinpotentialform.Little
surprisethatVinogradoffarrivesataqualifiedorganicisminhisjudgmentonthevillage.
Hewritesthat“thefabricofthevillagecommunity…issubstantiallyorganic,”and“itgrows,
andisnotbasedonagreement,peoplecannotaccedetoitorrecedefromitwithoutbeing
admitted,bysomenaturalprocess,birth,marriage,adoption,totheunionofholdings,and,
theoretically,itistheholdingsintheirunconsciousandunwillingcombinationwhichform
thegroupanddefineitsaims.”30
ThirtyyearsafterSeebohmandVinogradoff,anotherBritishhistorian,H.S.Bennett,begins
hisLifeontheEnglishManor:AStudyofPeasantConditions,1150-1400(1937)witha
29PaulVinogradoff,TheGrowthoftheManor.,ReprintsofEconomicClassics(NewYork,A.M.Kelley,1968),85.
30Ibid.,325.
327
fictional“idealpicture”ofadayinvillagelife.Thisisbecausethenecessaryworkofthe
historian,withits“scrutiny,assemblyandarrangementofinnumerabledocumentsand
piecesofevidence,”is“apttodiverthimfromwhatmanywillholdtobehischiefduty–to
seelifesteadilyandseeitwhole,andtopresentthisvisiontohisreaders.”31Thetitlethat
Bennettgivestothisprologue,“fairefeldfuloffolke,”isfromPiersPlowman:thesameline
oftheworkthatSeebohmhadcriticizedasanobscuringidealizationin1883.
ThetemptationfromtheBildungperspectiveistobringthepasttowardanideal;the
Bildungcriticmixes,skipsandignoresasneeded.Thecuratorcorrectstheexcessesof
Bildungbybringingthefrankperspectiveofeverydaylifetobearonaromanticand
selectiveculturalmemory.Bildungusesthepasttoattempttoremakethepresent,untilthe
curatorialperspectivepointsouttheviolencethatBildungdoestothepast.Thesetwo
perspectivesappearinseparablefromoneanother:thecuratorbringsasenseofthepast
backtothepresent,butdoesitthroughtheillusionscreatedbyBildung.Withoutanotion
thatthepastisreconfigurablethroughBildung,itwouldnothavetheimportancethatit
does.
TheBritishartcriticandthenovelistJohnBergerleftEnglandwithhisfamilyin1962,to
pursuealifestyleresemblingamodern-dayromanticidyllintheFrenchcountryside.Living
amongFrenchpeasantsandlearningaboutpeasantlifethroughthem,hememorializedthe
experienceinatrilogyofnovels,IntotheirLabors.Intheintroductiontothefirstbookhe
notesabasicdichotomyintheworldviewofhispeasantneighbors.Thepeasant,Berger
31HenryStanleyBennett,LifeontheEnglishManor:AStudyofPeasantConditions,1150-1400,CambridgeStudiesinMedievalLifeandThought(NewYork:Macmillan,1937),3.
328
notes,comesfroma“cultureofsurvival.Hepersistsontheuncontrolledmarginsofsociety
byadaptingtorelentlesschange,and”envisagesthefutureasaseriesofrepeatedactsfor
survival.“32Andyethisveryintenseexposuretotheforcesofhistoricalchangemeanthat
heisfiercelyconservative,evenreactionary,resistanttodisruptionstohiswayoflifeand
weddedtoa”traditionhandeddownbyinstructions,exampleandcommentary."33
Whatdefinesthepeasantwayoflife,viewedasatradition,isthefactthatthepeasant
endures–despitethepresenceofinstitutionalpowersthatthreatentoerasehim.The
peasantisanhistoricalremainderthatlookstothepastforproofofthepossibilityofhis
ownexistence.Butheremainsintenselyrootedinthepragmatismofthehere-and-nowto
ensurehesurvivesintothefuture.Thepastistheinspirationforhiscreativity.Thathehas
enduredisevidencethathecanendure.Andthisiswhyhisattentionwhichmustbe
focusedononlytheobjectsheseesandfeelsinfrontofhiminthepresent.AsBerger
writes,“apeasant’singenuitymakeshimopentochange,hisimaginationdemands
continuity.”34Thepeasantexperienceshiscooperativeandhistoricallysingularwayoflife
byconcentratinghisattentionontheactofsurvival.Todothisthepeasantmustlook
outsideofhiscommunity,makinghimselfintotheultimategeneralistbecauseheknows
thatallspecializedwaysoflife–whatBergercalls“work”asopposedto“survival”–are
boundtopassawayovertime.
32JohnBerger,“PigEarth”(VintageInternational,1979),xix.
33Ibid.,xviii.
34Ibid.,xxii.
329
TheorientationofBildungcreatesaprovisionalversionofthepastthatprovidesthe
structureforalater,curatorialperspective.Likethepeasant’swayoflifethatJohnBerger
describes,Bildungcombineselementsoftheenvironmenttowardaneedinthepresent.
TheBildungperspectiveisaninherentlygeneralistorientation,willingtorepurpose
existingdisciplinesandnarrowtracksofknowledgeinsearchofanoverallview.Thecritic
orientedtoBildungsees,inthepilgrimsofClarel,theneedfortheindividualtorevisitthe
foundingmythsofareligioustradition,tomakethepastone’sownoutofthematerialsof
thepresent.Itunderstandsthatthepersistenceofanimageoftheselfmustrevisitthese
questionsfornewneeds.Thisperspectivecoalescesaroundhumancapacitiesandanimage
ofthehuman;itisatitsweakestwhenithastosearchforstructuralorspecifically
disciplinaryexplanationsforitsexplanandum.Thecuratorpositionseekstoarrangeand
categorizethesesamematerialsinserviceofaspecificallydefinedpositionofassessment.
Itseesinthecommonconditionofthepilgrims–thatis,doubt–acomparativeapproachto
religion,applyingaProtestant,belief-basedstructuretoageneralmodelofreligion.Itcan
explainthetext’sdivorceofspiritualfrommaterialwithinaframeworkofsecularization
thatexplainsourownpresent.Wenoticeitseffectivenessbestwhenitlinksdisparate
concernsintoasystematicexplanation(e.g.,ontherelationshipbetweenreligionand
scienceinthetext),weakestwhentaskedwithfoundationalinterrogativequestions,e.g.,
whyisreligiousdoubtaconcern,andtowhatendisthepilgrimagebeingconducted?
Toputthedifferencecrudely,Bildungcriticismisatitsstrongestonquestionsdefinedby
theirbreadth,andthecuratorisstrongestwhenthetaskrequiresdepthofspecialist
knowledge.ThisiswhatIwillconsidernext:theproblemofthegeneralistandspecialist
orientationasitrelatestomycriticism.
330
II.
Anorganizingmetaphorforthisprojecthasbeentheimportanceoftheindividualviewof
thewhole–andwithitthelimitationsofaparticularstandpoint.Theindividualexists
within,butalsoagainst,thecommunitythroughavarietyofactivities:throughintegration
asachallengeandatrial(TheMillontheFloss,DanielDeronda),throughtheconstructionof
newcommunities(WilhelmMeistersWanderjahre),andastheproducerofatensionwitha
totalizingvision(Clarel).Ineachoftheseactivities,andineachoftheseworks,Ihaveat
pointsunderstoodtheindividualperspectiveasaresponsetotheabstractions
representingthewhole:economiccalculus,scientificmodels,andbiologicalmetaphors,to
nameafew.Theindividualisimportantbecauseanexpressiverealitycannotbe
representedinanyotherwaythanthroughaperspective.35Theindividualtherefore
representsapositionthatrestoressubjectivitytoarealisttext’s“objectivity,”threatening
toobscuretheviewfromtheindividualposition.
BoththecriticaltechniquesoftheaforementionedBildungandthoseofthecuratorcanbe
understoodintheirexpressivefunctionforindividuals:Bildung,bymakinghistory
35CharlesTaylor,fromwhommyconceptof“expressiveindividualism”drawsmost,writesonthedifferencebetweenexpressionismandscientificobjectivity:“Theexpressivistanthropologythussharplybreakswiththemodernscientificobjectificationofnature,atleastasfarashumannatureisconcerned…Inseeinghumanlifeasanexpression,itrejectsthedichotomyofmeaningagainstbeing;itdealsoncemoreintheAristoteliancoinoffinalcausesandholisticconcepts.Butinanotherrespectitisquintessentiallymodern,foritincorporatestheideaofself-definingsubjectivity.Therealizationofhisessenceisasubject’sself-realization;sothatwhathedefineshimselfinrelationtoisnotanidealororderbeyond,butrathersomethingwhichunfoldsfromhimself,ishisownrealization,andisfirstmadedeterminateinthatrealization.”InCharlesTaylor,Hegel(Cambridge[England];NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1975),17-18.Atleastonthematteroftextualaesthetics,IgoastepfartherthanTaylorandwanttoarguethatforindividualexpressivism,asitisrepresentedinthefictionaltext,asubjectiveversionofthesubject’sexpressiverealitybecomesapartofthenovel’srealistontology.Humannatureandgeneralnaturearenotsoneatlyseparableintheontologyoffiction,andespeciallyinrealism.
331
productiveandcreative,andthecuratorbymakingthepastcomprehensibleaccordingto
thenormsofthepresent.ButthepotentialofBildungthatfirstdistinguishesitselfthrough
itsnovelty,throughnon-instrumentality,canalsoberestrictedandlimitedtosocially
determinantends.AnexampleofthiscanbefoundinReinhartKoselleck’sintroductory
essayonBildung,wherehenotestheconcept’shistoryasaqualificationandsorting
mechanismfortheGermancivilservice.Aculturalidealbecomes,inonerealizedform,a
restrictiveprofessionalcredentialthat“createdcareerpathsandcareerorganizations
throughwhichBildungwasconvertedintoformaleducationtosuchanextentthatclass-
specificprivilegesorthoseofnewcorporategroupscouldbederivedfromit.”36An
exampleofthesocialdeterminismofthecuratorialperspectivecanbeseenin
contemporarycrisesofpubliclegitimacywithrespecttospecializedscientificknowledge,
wheretheapplicationofestablishedscientificmethodstogeologichistoryin
anthropogenicclimatechangeleadstoadirectconflictbetweenspecializedscientific
“truths”andabroad-basedsocialcommitmenttoeconomicgrowth.Heretheriskisthat
scientificmethodsareforcedintothepoliticallyacceptablepositionofbeingabstract,
provisional,andtheoretical–withouttheproportionaltensionthatincorporatestheir
conclusionsintootherculturalpractices.37
Yetanotherexample,whichgetsusfurtherintothecontradictionsofthisproblem,canbe
seenfromGeorgeEliot’sintellectuallife:intheattemptsofFredericHarrisonandthe
36Koselleck,“TheAnthropologicalandSemanticStructureofBildung.”172.
37See,forinstance,thephilosopherofscienceBrunoLatour’srecenteffortstoelevatethesocialprestigeofscientificinstitutionsontheclimatechangeissue:BrunoLatour,“DowntoEarth:PoliticsintheNewClimaticRegime”(Cambridge,UK;Medford,MA:PolityPress,2018)
332
traditionofnineteenth-centuryEnglishpositivismtopersuadehertoinserta
programmaticallypositivist“message”intoherwork.ForHarrisonandhisComtean
“ReligionofHumanity,”thespecificsuccessesofscienceweretobetranslatedintoa
generalmethodforthehierarchyofknowledgeandtheorderingofsociety.Thisversionof
positivismwasacollectionofspecializations(i.e.,scientificproto-disciplines)thatsought
tomakeitselfgeneral,torepurposemethodsintendedtoorganizeadistinctpurviewof
specializedknowledge(acurationfunction)intoacoordinatedtotalpositivist“method”
thatobviatedthesubjectivepositiononreality,anoperationthatlooksmorelikea
mechanicalreplacementfortheBildungorientation.BernardSemmeldescribesEliot’s
objectiontoasuggestionbyHarrisonthatsheincorporatepositivistic“principles”intoher
nextnovel.Thedisagreementturnsonthedifferencebetweenthedefiniteendssetforthby
scienceandtheaestheticwholethatsheheldtobethedomainoffiction.Hisdescriptionof
herreplyismostlytakenfromherletters:
GeorgeEliotrepliedwithpleasuretoHarrison’spraiseofFelixHolt,butnotedthe“tremendouslydifficult
problem”ofaccomplishingtheworkhehadoutlined.Shehadconceivedhertaskasawritertobethatofmaking
‘certainideasthoroughlyincarnate’asifthesehadbeendiscovered‘intheflesh’oflivingbeingsandnotas
intellectualabstractions.Arthadtodealwithlife‘initshighestcomplexity,’andthusitwas‘thehighestofall
reaching.’Ifwritingmovedfrom‘thepicture’ofthesecomplexitiesto‘thediagram’ofautopia,‘itceasestobe
purelyaesthetic’and‘becomesthemostoffensiveofallteaching.’’Itwouldnotnecessarilybeoffensivetoset
forth‘avowedUtopias,’butsuchabookwouldbescientific,notaesthetic,incharacter.Itcouldnot‘workonthe
emotions,’or‘flash’conviction’by‘arousedsympathy.’38
38InBernardSemmel,GeorgeEliotandthePoliticsofNationalInheritance(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1994),60.ForamorethoroughreviewofEliot’srelationshiptotheEnglishpositivists,seethechaptersonGeorgeEliotinTerenceR.Wright,TheReligionofHumanity:TheImpactofComteanPositivismonVictorianBritain(Cambridge[Cambridgeshire];NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1986),andthediscussionof
333
Everymodeofcriticism(e.g.,Bildung,curation)iscaughtbetweentherestrictionofits
methodstospecializedknowledgeanditsapplicationtocultureingeneral.Andasthe
positivismofEliot’seramakesclear,thesetwopossibilitiesdonotnecessarilymoveina
singledirection.Methodswithgreatpowerbuttightdisciplinaryboundariescanbe
spurredtoageneralperspective–aswiththesuccessesofnineteenth-centuryscience
turnedtopositivisticends.Andageneralperspectiveonaculture,asEliot’snovelssurely
soughttobe,alwaysrisksthetemptationtosubmititsbroadviewtoadefiniteand
specializedend,asHarrisonurgedEliottodowitha“positivistnovel.”
Bothmovementscommittheerrorofignoringthespecificityoftheirownposition:the
generalistforgetsthatheradvantagecomesfromtheavoidanceofa“goal”or“end”forthe
panoramashecreates,andthespecialistforgetsthatshesubordinatesotherviews
(specializedandgeneral)toherown.39Thuswearriveatimplicitconflictbetweengeneral
andspecializedperspectiveswithintheseworks,towhichIproposetosubmitthesocial
formsinthisproject(e.g.,commune,utopia,village,pilgrimage)forafurtherlevelof
consideration.
OneofthefewcharacterstocontinuefromWilhelmMeistersApprenticeship–novelof
Bildung–intothenarrativeofWilhelmMeistersJourneymanYears–novelofprofessional
EliotandFredericHarrison’srelationshipinMarthaS.Vogeler,FredericHarrison:TheVocationsofaPositivist(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1984).
39Koselleckarguesthatitcanbedifficulttoascertainwhetheramethodistrulygeneralorspecializedbeforeconsideringits“transformative”effectonotherwaysofknowing:“Everyindividualfieldofknowledgethatdifferentiatesandestablishesitselfmustcontainexplanationsforotherfieldsofknowledgewithinitself.Thetestcaseforaspecializedmethodisstillwhetheritiscompatiblewithrelatedfieldsofknowledge,orwhetherithasatransformingeffectonallneighboringfields.”InKoselleck,“TheAnthropologicalandSemanticStructureofBildung.”,196.Thespecialistwhosubordinatesotherformsofknowledgetoherownthereforeperformsanactofsurreptitiousgeneralism.
334
specialization–isthatofMontan(formerlyJarno),Wilhelm’soldcompanionfromthe
theatercompany.AtthebeginningofthenovelWilhelm,stillinthemountainswithhisson
FelixaftertheencounterwithSt.Joseph,findsthathisformercolleaguehasbecomea
geologist,roamingforrocksamplesamongthehillsandespousingthevirtuesofcomplete
dedicationtohiscraft.Montanpresentsthefirstgenuineworldviewofspecializationinthe
novel,establishinganearlycontrastwithWilhelm’sgeneraliststatusas“wanderer,”and
withthepragmaticimprovisationsofSt.Joseph’ssubsistencewayoflife.Montantellshis
companionthatwhile“liberaleducation”maystillbedesirableasapreparation,it“merely
establishesthecontextwithwhichthespecialistcanworkeffectively,sinceonlythatgives
himadequatespace.”40Montanisanotherrepresentativeofthestanceofmasterythatwas
introducedatthebeginningofthisproject.InasenseMontanbecomesarenewed,
sophisticatedandchallengingrepresentativeofWerner’spositionintheApprenticeship.
Weliveintheageofthespecialist,Montanimplies,becausehedoesandaccomplisheswhile
thegeneralistmerelyconsidersorsetsthescene(“establishesthecontext”)forthe
specialist’swork.
ButunlikeWerner,Montanclaimstobemorethanjustaninstrumentalist:thespecialist,he
claims,disclosesadeeperontologyavailableonlytohiscarefuldevelopmentofthemastery
perspective:“torestrictoneselftoacraftisthebestthing”foranexpertlikeMontan,
because“intheonethinghedoesproperly,heseesthelikenessofthatthisdone
properly.”41Totheextentthatthereisageneraliststandpoint,itarisesthroughan
40Goethe,WilhelmMeister’sJourneymanYears,or,theRenunciants,118(emphasisadded).
41Ibid.,118.
335
unspecifiedhomologybetweendifferentspecialties.Whetherthissymmetryismaterialist
innatureorentailsamoremetaphysicalsetofclaimsisnevermadeentirelyclearby
Montanorthetext.Heisafigurewhohoversbetweentheinstrumentalscientific
knowledgenecessaryforthenewcolonyprojectandthepremodernaffinityforan
enchantedscienceofthecosmos,asrepresentedinhisownesotericpronouncementsand
hissymboliccounterpartMakarie’sastrologicalmysticism.Butitshouldbenotedthat
Montanisultimatelyascientistinthemodernsense,andthathedemonstrateshisfinal
worththroughwhathecontributesmateriallytothecolony.Montanreversethepriority
between“liberaleducation”andthescientificaccomplishmentthroughanintegrationinto
thenew,morepositivisticendsoftheemigrants’colony–fromwhichthereis(asintended)
noofficialgeneralperspective.ThisismorethancanbesaidforWilhelm,whostillcarriesa
hintofthegeneralistinhiswanderingsuptothenovel’sconcludingscene,andwho
remainsunresolvedinthematterofcommunalintegration.42Thechallengeremainsfor
generalismtoproveitsworthinaspaceofsociallydemonstrable,valuableaccomplishment
byspecialists.
Itshouldbeclearfromwhathasalreadybeenstatedsofarthatthesocialformsatthe
centerofthisproject(commune,village,pilgrimage)allbearadegreeofcontrarianaffinity
forthestandpointofgeneralism.Butwhathasnotbeenfullyexplored,andwhatwillbe
elucidatedbyafurtherdiscussionofthegeneralistandspecialistperspectiveswithinmy
project,iswhatthegeneralistresistsinthethedrivetospecialization.Iwillargueinwhat
followsthatthegeneralistorientationofthesesocialformsmaintainsaspaceforethical
42Thatis,Wilhelmchoosestobeamemberofnodefinitecommunityatthenovel’send.
336
capacitythatthespecialisthaslost–ordelegatedtootherspecializations.Thesimplesocial
formsanchoringeachchapterofmyprojectrepresentanattempttoasserttheimportance
ofanindividual,situated,positionalperspectivethatmaintainsitsprimarilygeneralist
character.Thisistheinsistenceoftheindividualperspectiveonmaintainingitsexpressive
potentialinthefaceofitsreductiontospecializedor“structural”effects.
First,IwillofferadefinitionofhowIintendtheterms“generalist”and“specialist.”Iwant
toconsiderthewaysinwhichthisoppositionoccursasathematicandformalproblem
withinmytexts,butalsohowaconsiderationoftheseproblemsinformsthecritical
approachtounderstanding,whatsortsofquestionsandpossibilitiesinthetextthatthe
generalistperspectiveopensup.
Iusetheterm“specialist”intwoimportantsenses.First,asaclaimtoknowledgewhich
requiresparticularandexclusivetraining,usuallyrecognizableintermsofmethodsor
toolsthatthepractitionercanbesaidtopossessasaresultoftraining.Second,intermsofa
claimtohaveachievedanexplanatorypoweroverone’sobjectsofstudy,takingvarious
formsincludingcausalexplanation,thepowerofinstrumentalcontrol,and–thislastsense
ismostrelevanttoliterarystudy–systematicknowledgeofthecontrolling“structures”
withinahermeneuticallysuitableobject,i.e.,atext.Theword“structure”hereimpliesa
varietyofdifferentcodes,fromaformalanalysisofsemiotics,linguisticpatterns,orpoetic
meters,toaestheticelementsofatextwhichcanberigorouslyanalyzed,totheparsingofa
textforsystematicideologicaldeterminationsthatcharacterizesNorthAmerican“Critical
Theory.”AsinMontan’spowerfuldismissalofa“liberaleducation,”thespecialistcanclaim
toworktowardculturallydesirableendsthroughtheskillsthatheorshedevelops.Ina
democracythespecialistcanactonbehalfof(whatheperceivestobe)democraticends,
337
butthelinkbetweenthedemocraticwholeandthespecialistrestsfinallyonhislegitimacy
tothepublic,onthelegibilitytothepublicspherecreatedbythesuccess,powerand
controlofspecialistknowledge.
Ifthespecialistrestsonthesocialproofprovidedbyhistoolsandprofessional
certifications,generalistknowledgereliesonthepowerofitsownfigure,onthesocial
weightcarriedbytheexceptionalindividualforthecultureatlarge.Generalistsrelymost
directlyonthenotionthattheyaregatekeepingandtastemakingfigures,andthattheyare
sociallyrecognizedasasignificantsubject.Oneoftheclassicnineteenth-centuryexamples
ofthisfunctioncanbeseeninMatthewArnold’sCultureandAnarchy,where“culture”isa
subsetofthe“best”learning–sometimesproducedbyspecialists–whichisthensiftedby
extraordinaryindividualsforthebenefit(“sweetnessandlight”)ofhumanityingeneral.43
Whereasthespecialistarmshimselfwithtoolsandmethods,thegeneralistiscloserto
being“naked”of(recognizable)theoriesandtools,morereliantonthefelturgencyofa
humanizingfunctionoftheintellectualwhichisnotperformedbyotherbranchesof
knowledge.
GeraldGraffwritesinhisclassichistoryofhumanisticspecialization,ProfessingLiterature,
thatgeneralistscholarsinthepre-professionalizedhumanities“tendedtodispensewith
elaboratepedagogicaltheoriesandmethodsintheeffort,astheysawit,toletthegreat
43“Thegreatmenofculturearethosewhohavehadapassionfordiffusing,formakingprevail,forcarryingfromoneendofsocietytotheother,thebestknowledge,thebestideasoftheirtime;whohavelabouredtodivestknowledgeofallthatwasharsh,uncouth,difficult,abstract,professional,exclusive;tohumaniseit,tomakeitefficientoutsidethecliqueofthecultivatedandlearned,yetstillremainingthebestknowledgeandthoughtofthetime,andatruesource,therefore,ofsweetnessandlight.”MatthewArnold,CultureandAnarchy(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2006),53,emphasisinoriginal.
338
masterpiecesofliteratureteachthemselves.”44Or,puttingthepointmorecontroversially,
GraffcitesRenéWellek’sassessmentofthegeneralistasthe“individualwhowasunableto
makehisideasfeltinstitutionally.”Generalism,then,couldsometimesalignwith
overlookedschoolsormethodsofspecialisttraining,butinpracticecametoclashwith
otherinstitutionalizedspecialistsoverthequestionofhumanist’s“culturalleadership”ina
moreArnoldiansense.45InthesituationGraffdescribes,thegeneralistdevelopsanaccount
ofhisinstitutionalhomelessnessthatexplainsitintermsofsomecentral,humanistic
functionthatthespecializationsinpoweroverlook.Insofarasthegeneralistisaspecialist
himself,heclaimstoattendtoacentralhumanisticdutytowhichallspecializationsare
ultimatelyobligated.46
HerewemovecloseronceagaintoMontan’sposition:thatinthemodernera,thegeneralist
isalways,tosomedegree,implicatedfirstinaspecialistdiscourseoridentity,outofwhich
the“general”perspectivearises.47
44GeraldGraff,ProfessingLiterature:AnInstitutionalHistory(TheUniversityofChicagoPress,2007),86.
45Ibid.,81.
46Forasalientexampleofthisdynamicininstitutionalizedliterarycriticism,seeFrankLentricchia’scharacterizationoftheoppositionbetweenthe“aesthetics”ofNewCriticismandthehopeforahumanisticreorientationinthegenerationthatfollowed:“Thegreathopeforliterarycriticsin1957,whenthehegemonyoftheNewCriticismwasbreaking,wasthatthemusewouldbedemystifiedanddemocratizedandthatyoungercriticswouldsomehowlinkuppoetrywiththeworldagainas,inCliveBell’scontemptuousformalistphrasing,theybroughtartdownfromthe‘superbpeaksofaestheticexaltationtothesnugfoothillsofwarmhumanity’–totheplacewheretheforbiddensubjectsofhistory,intentionandculturaldynamicscouldbetakenuponceagain.”InFrankLentricchia,AftertheNewCriticism(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1980),7.
47AlsoofrelevancetothisproblemisGramsci’sconceptualizationoftheintellectual,particularlythe“organicintellectual,”whoarisesoutoftheuniquematerialconditionsofclassconflict,givinghisgroup“aconsciousnessofitsownfunctionintheeconomicsphere.”SeeAntonioGramsci,PrisonNotebooks,ed.JosephA.Buttigieg,trans.AntonioCallari,EuropeanPerspectives(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1992),Volume2,note49(“Theintellectuals”),99.Gramscirepresentsaversionofgeneralismthatarisesthroughtheindividual’suniquehistoricalpositioning,ratherthanasaresultofspecializeddiscourses.Theintellectualisforemostrepresentativeofageneralexperienceofreality.
339
Butthisroutetogeneralismdoesnotfullydescribetheworkdonebythesimplecommunal
formsstudiedinthisproject.IwanttoarguethatMontan’sreorientationtospecialization
betterdescribesahistoricalpredicamentbywhichthevariouscommunalforms
representedintheseworks(commune,village,pilgrimage,etc.)becamenecessaryexactly
becausetheyareunrealandidealconstructions:toserveasrepresentationsofan
alternativehistoricalandsocialrealitywhichhadbeenobscured.Onecouldevenargue
thatMontan’sroutetogeneralityputshimatriskofaenlightenedamateurism,ratherthan
generalism,sincethespecialistwhomakesaclaimtogeneralknowledgedrawsonhis
specializedprofessionalaccomplishmentandcredibility,butnospecifictoolsorknowledge
withrespecttothegeneral.Hencethechargeofamateurism,whichturnsonaquestionof
whethergeneralismisaspecialcapacityofknowledge.48TheArnoldiangeneralistappears
toinvokeacapacityormodeofgeneralismwhichisdistinctfromanyparticular
specialization.Thistypeofgeneralismisnottheresultofgeneralgoodwillfromthepublic
earnedbyhisspecialistaccolades,butaspecificaccomplishmentinitself.
Tostepbackforamoment:fromatheoretical,moral,experiential,historicaland
sociologicalperspective,Iwanttoreiteratethatthereareclearproblemswiththe
Arnoldianformofgeneralisminitself,questionsofauthoritythatarejusthintedatbythe
tendencyGrafffindsinArnoldandotherstoretreatto“catchphrases”and“abstractions”
48Thetwoareoftenequatedwithoneanother,includinginthetwocollectionsofaphorismsintheWanderjahre.Forarecent,trenchantdiscussionoftherelationshipbetweenamateurism,generalism,andspecializationseeSaikatMajumdar,“TheCriticasAmateur,”NewLiteraryHistory48,no.1(2017):1–25.See,forinstance,hisdiscussionofthedifferencebetweenthecritic(amateur,generalist)andthescholar(specialist):“Thescholarisdefinedbyhiscommitmenttohisarchiveofstudy.Hissubjectivesenseofselfissubordinatedto(thoughnoteffacedby)thiscommitment.Thecritic,ontheotherhand,celebratesandforegroundshissubjectivity;thearchive,inhiscase,issubordinatedtotheself,throughwhichitisprocessedandpresented,theverypersonalcolorofthatrefractionremainingthemostcherishedelementoftheprocess”(7).
340
(e.g.,“sweetnessandlight’)whenpushedtojustifytheirclaimstogeneralknowledge.49But
thisiswhythespecificpresentationofthegeneralbythetextsinthisproject–intheaform
ofcommunityforsignalinganagentialorsubjectivecapacity–mustbeinsistedupon.The
communitybecomesthesettingforanindividual,expressiverealitywithageneral
character.
JürgenHabermasnotestheuniquestatusoftheknowledgeclaimmadebythehuman
sciences,whichdevelopedfromwhatwereonce”specializedprofessionalknowledge."For
“thehumanistictraditionofpoetics,”onefindsalineagein“historicalnarrativesand
theoriesoflanguageandliterature;”and“thenewsciencesofthestateandsociety
developedoutoftheclassicaldoctrinesofpoliticsandeconomics.”50Butwhatconstitutes
theuniquenessofthesedisciplines’knowledgeclaimisthatmethodsthatwereonce
“professionalpractices”arenowusedforthestudyofgeneral,pretheoreticalhuman
realitiesnegotiatedthroughaprocessofsymbolicreciprocityandeverydaytaken-for-
grantedsinthesocialworld(roughly:“thelifeworld”).AsHabermaswrites,a
“methodologicallyguidedcuriosityisnowdirectedtocomparingandanalysingthediverse
culturalformsoflife,which,althoughaccessibleonlyfromtheparticipantperspective,are
usedassourcesofdatafromtheobserverperspectiveandareprocessedintohistorical,
culturalorsocialfacts.”51Sothestudyof“socialfacts”mustbetiedbacktotheparticipation
oftheindividual,tothespecialist’simplicationinaneverydayrealitythatwillalwaysresist
49Graff,ProfessingLiterature,253.
50JürgenHabermas,“FromWorldviewstotheLifeworld,”inPostmetaphysicalThinkingII,trans.CiaranCronin(Cambridge:PolityPress,2017),19.
51Ibid.,20(emphasisinoriginal).
341
completetheoreticaldetermination.Thehumanistorsocialscientistcanneverclaimjust
relianceontheirownspecialistobjectivitybecause,insofarasheorshepracticesthe
humansciences,heisalsoimplicatedinthis“general”perspective.The“everyday
experiencesandpractices”whichmakeupthislifeworldarethebasisforbothspecialized
disciplinaryknowledgeandthebasisforanygeneralperspective.52Itisinthelattersense
thatIunderstandthesignificanceofageneralizedperspectivewithinthesimplesocial
formsofthecommune,village,andsoforth.Thisopen-endedrealityiswhatGuidoMazzoni
calledtheuniquerepresentationalcapacityofthenovelitself.Thatis,itsabilityto
provision“theschematathatenabledthestoriesofindividualsinhabitingtheimmanence
tobecomenarratable.”53Thesimplesocialformsofmytextsformtherepresentational
schemaforanindividualexpressiveaspirationtowardthegeneral.
Thecriticismrepresentedinthisprojecthasbeenpulledbetweenspecialistandgeneralist
imperatives,betweeninsightsandconclusionsthataredrawnfromidentifiable,and
privilegedsourcesofknowledge(specialism),whatmightbecalledthe“wisdomtraditions”
ofuncertainprovenance(generalism).Thepurposeoftheabovediscussionwasto
acknowledgetheback-and-forthofthesetwoimperativeswithinmyunderstandingofthe
particularsocialformsthatIhavechosen.Torepeatoneexample:withoutaviewofthe
villageasa“generalist”concern,therecouldbenoaccountingforitshistoricaldurability
andattractionacrossavarietyofcontexts.Butwithoutthespecialist’scriticalhesitations,
theideaofthevillageoverwhelmshistoricalandanthropologicallimitationsoftheconcept.
52Ibid.,21.
53GuidoMazzoni,TheoryoftheNovel(Cambridge,Massachusetts:HarvardUniversityPress,2017),146.
342
Inowwanttoconsidermythreemostimportantsocialforms–commune,villageand
pilgrimage–fromthestandpointofbothgeneralistandspecialist.
ThesocialformofthecommuneinGoethe’sWanderjahreisacollectionofindividuals
describedbywhatCharlesTaylorcalls“innerdepths,”withthepossibilityofarticulatingan
innerlife,becausethecommuneisasocietywhosevoluntarymembershipstructure
impliestheintentionalassentofitsmembers–throughvocationaldedication.Thecommune
isasocialforminwhichtheconstitutionofitsindividualmemberscontainsamotivational
similaritytothemakeupofthewhole:bothpart(member)andwhole(thecommune)are
intentionallydirected:forsomething,symbolicallypointingtoadefiniteidealorendof
somekind.Thecommuneisautopianideal.Itsactuallyexistingformisalwaysdirectedata
moreperfectformofitself,andinthissenseitcanneverfullyexistinactuality.Forthe
individualthenecessaryincompletiontakestheformofthevocationalideal,wherethe
imperfectionoftheeverydayisinhabitedthroughtheoriginalmomentof“calling”toa
higherthingoutsidemundanereality,inkeepingwiththeideal’sreligiousheritage54
Thecommune’sutopiandimensionisdedicatedtoawayoflifethataspiresbeyondits
historicalcontingency.Nottheaccidentalway,ortherightgovernmentforthissituation,
butagovernmentthatisrightingeneral,onthebasisofaprincipledstancetowardthe54RobertBennedescribestheChristianvocationasitwasdefinedintheworkofMartinLuther(mostlyfromTheFreedomofaChristian)intermsof,first,its“verticalrelationships”betweenthehumanandGod,and,second,its“horizontalrelationships,”ortheobligationtobe“dutifulservantofall.”Thevocationalidealwasgroundedintheverticalrelationship,butwhatgavetheChristianvocationitsdistinctiveworldlyimportancewasitsorientationonthehorizontalplane:“[T]heChristianissimultaneouslybeforeGodandinrelationtohisfellowhumans.ThereisnospatialdemarcationofthereignofGodwithHisgospelandthatwithHislaw.Christiansareattheintersectionofbothplanes.Theycannotescapethemnorcollapsethemintoone.”SeeRobertBenne,“MartinLutherontheVocationsoftheChristian,”ed.JohnBarton,OxfordResearchEncyclopedias(http://religion.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-363:OxfordUniversityPress,2016)(accessedelectronically).ForaclassicstudyofLuther’sconceptofvocation,seeGustafWingren,LutheronVocation(Philadelphia:MuhlenbergPress,1957).
343
realitiesofpracticallife.Theindividualisjoinedtothecommunethroughanintentionthat
mayexceedtherealizedformofthecommunity,butwhichheorsheexpressesinitsideal
formthroughparticipationincommunallife.Buttheintentionalstructureofboththe
commune’spartsandwholecreatesacontradiction.Theindividualparticipatesinthe
communebecauseitseverydayactivitiespointtowardageneraltruth,becausethe
communityisaboutmorethanthedescriptionofitseverydayactivities55Butthe
commune,initsvisionofutopia,alsocoordinatesitsparts(i.e.,itsmembers)inserviceofa
visionofthewhole.The“whole”envisionedbythemakeupofthecommuneitselfcancome
intoconflictwiththegeneralformofthetruthsoughtbytheindividual.Anotherwayof
puttingthisisthattheutopianvision,initspursuitofatotalizingvision,risks
subordinatingtheindividualtoaspecializedfunction,toan“instrument”ofthefinalvision.
Abriefexamplefromthehistoryofutopianthinkinglendscolortothisdilemma.Thomas
More’soriginalUtopia(1516)describesanexhaustiveaestheticbalance,withaprescribed
numberofcitizenspercity,perdwelling,perunitofresidentialspaceandperfamily.56A
communitydevotedtotheeliminationofearly-modernillswhichledtotheshorteningand
degradationofeverydaylifecouldbecomeasthemostcompleteformoffunctionalization
oftheindividuallife.Harmoniousbalancebecomesakindoftotalitarianism.Thisincludes
theprescriptionofwork,travel,familystructure,diet,commerce,religionandmanyother
categoriesofhumanendeavor–allinserviceofaperfectedwhole.Theperfectionofthe55ThisismostdirectlyseenintheWanderjahre’sdepictionofthePietistweavingcommunities,whoareunabletomobilizeforachangeintheirhandwork-drivenwayoflifeinpartbecauseitisnotjustaneconomicform,butalsoanexemplificationofsomethinginarticulablyhigher.Theonlymembersofthecommunitywhoareabletoreactandfleetheweavers’situationarethose(includingthe“Nut-BrownMaiden”)whohavelosttheirreligiousfaith.
56ThomasMore,Utopia,9781107568730(CambridgeUniversityPress,2016),56–58.
344
individualisimpliedintheformofthewhole,solongastheindividualseeshisownsense
ofthegoodexpressedinhisfunctionalexpressionofthewhole.Takeninitsmostextreme
form,More’sUtopiacausestheindividualtovanishinaspecializedfunctionnotunlikethe
birthrightsortingconductedbyPlato’s“noblelie”withintheRepublic.ForPlato,thevision
ofthewholeiseverything;eventheexaltedphilosopher-kingcontainsnoneofthe
expressivepotentialofamodernindividual.Eventhisphilosopher-kingplayshispart.It
canbeobjectedthatMore’sUtopia,onthehistoricalprecipicebetweenamodernand
premodernformofindividualism,isequallyirrelevanttotherelationshipbetween
memberandsocietyincommuneslikethoseofGoethe’sWanderjahre.Butthetension
betweenspecializationasaconditionofindividualmembership,andhisorhergeneral
relationshiptothecommune,iswhatwhatanimatesthevisionofthecolonyproject.“The
whole”herebecomesacommunityoftechnicalspecialists,workingtoconstructagrand
mechanism.Werner’srefrainfromtheApprenticeship–thatthereshallbe“nothing
superfluous”inhisabsolutelyorganizedfuture–isechoedinLenardo’scrytohisbandof
emigrants:“WhereIamusefulismyfatherland.”57
Thespecterofamechanisticcoordinationofspecialtieshashauntedtheconstructive
principlesofthecommunefromitsbeginnings.Utopiaturnstodystopiawhenmembership
becomesaformofmechanicalnecessity,whentheactofassentbyitsmembersisreplaced
bytheapplicabilityofspecialistknowledgetotheessentialfunctionsofthecommunity.58
57Goethe,WilhelmMeister’sJourneymanYears,or,theRenunciants,365(B),emphasisadded
58ThenarratorofThomasCarlyle’shistoryofmedievalEurope,PastandPresent,likensthemechanismtothestatusofanimals.Theculturethatbuildsitselfaroundmachinesisnobetterthanthis,theworksuggests.“Yourcotton-spinningandthrice-miraculousmechanism,whatisthistoo,byitself,butalargerkindofAnimalism?Spiderscanspin,Beaverscanbuildandshowcontrivance;theAntlays-upaccumulationof
345
Eliot’sVictoriancontemporariesdevotedsubstantialconsiderationtothisconcern.Inhis
1890utopianfiction,NewsfromNowhere,AlfredMorrisdescribesacommuneformed
aroundtheanti-machine,tothepointthattheformationofanygovernmentalbody
becomesakindofmachinethatistyrannicalinprinciple.59Morris’fictionarrivesata
communitywithsuchtremendouscapacityforinformalconsensusthatitsownpoliticsand
formsofgovernmentwasteawayfromcollectivememoryoutofdisuse.60Herethe
resistancetospecializationtakestheformofapoliticalde-differentiation,ofakindof
returntoacommunalstateofnaturebeforepolitics.Generalismisconstruedintermsof
democraticparticipation,bytherenunciationofpoliticalhierarchiesforallitsmembers.
Thebasisofthecommunityisnotthefulfillmentofmutuallysupportivetasks(asinthe
Wanderjahre’stechnocraticcolonies),buttheperformanceofpoliticallife.
Withinthecommune,theresistancetospecializationmustnonethelessprovideforthe
specificformoflaborimpliedbythevocationalideal.Tobeofservicetoone’sneighbor
underthevocationalidealimpliesaparticularsacrificeofthe“general”personalityin
serviceofthegreatergood.Inthelargestsense,theWilhelmMeisternovelsgrapplewith
thisproblemthroughtheextendedmetaphoroftheguildofcraftspeople(discussedat
capital,andhas,foraughtIknow,aBankofAntland.Ifthereisnosoulinmanhigherthanallthat,diditreachtosailingonthecloud-rackandspinningsea-sand;thenIsay,manisbutananimal,amorecunningkindofbrute:hehasnosoul,butonlyasuccedaneumforsalt.”ThomasCarlyle,PastandPresent,People’sEd.NewYork1871-74.V.14(Chapman;Hall,1872),https://books.google.com/books?id=JF1AAAAAYAAJ,190.
59Ofthepreviousgovernmentoneofthecharactersintheutopiawrites:“Thegovernmentitselfwasbutthenecessaryresultofthecareless,aimlesstyrannyofthetimes;itwasbutthemachineryoftyranny.Nowtyrannyhascometoanend,andwenolongerneedsuchmachinery;wecouldnotpossiblyuseitsincewearefree.Thereforeinyoursenseofthewordwehavenogovernment.”InWilliamMorris,NewsfromNowhere,or,anEpochofRest:BeingSomeChaptersfromaUtopianRomance(Cambridge[England]:CambridgeUniversityPress,1995),http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/3261/pg3261.txt,81.
60Ibid.,91.
346
lengthinChapterTwo).Viewedasacommune,theguildisunifiedbythecrafttowhichall
ofitsmembersaredevoted,butinternallydifferentiatedbythegradationsofskilland
seniority:apprentice,journeyman,master,andsoforth.Itsmembersdevotethemselvesto
thesamegeneral“mystery”atthebasisoftheircraft.61Theaestheticthatunitestheguildis
thatofcontinualascentormovementtowardmastery.Yetmastery,fortheguild,avoids
becominganexclusiveperspectivesolongasthementorshipfunctionoftheguildisheldin
view.ThiscanbedistinguishedfromWernerorMontan,whothinkoftheiractivitiesfrom
theperspectiveofagoal,thatis,whatmasterywilldeliver(instrumentally)onceitis
achieved.ForafigurelikeMontan,masteryleadstoapursuitofmoreprofitable
application.Montanleavesthehillsandmountainswherehelearnedhiscraftinpursuitof
greaterapplicationswiththecolony.ForWilhelmtheascenttowardmasteryisnever
complete.Hiswanderingscontinue,andthetitleofjourneymanpersists.Inthe
metaphoricalregimeofthecraftguild,then,thegeneralperspectiveisthatwhichtakesa
viewofthetaskperformed(i.e.,thecraftitself).
Specialisttechniquecanneverescapeitsobligationsinasocialworld.Fromthemodern
perspectiveembodiedinAdamSmith,thisself-sustainingfocuswasthesourceofthe
problemwithcraftguilds:thattheyattendedtotheneeds,interestsandstructureoftheir
internalmembershipoverthepracticeoftheirspecializedcraftforthegeneralgood.Smith
representsaviewofthebenefitsofspecializationturnedtowardapublic,ofanatural
“market”goodthatariseswhenindividualactorseschewgeneralismasadistinct
61Seethefirstsectionofmysecondchapter,ontheWanderjahre,foradiscussionoftraditionalEuropeanguildstructuresandthe“guildmysteries.”
347
perspective.62
Thespecialist,then,representsaparadoxforacommunityorientedtogeneralformofthe
good.Intheindividual’slimitedcapacityasspecialist,hepromisestobecomea“bitplayer,”
whocanbearrangedtowardthehighergoodrepresentedbytheentirecommunity.Thatis,
hecanplayafunctionalpartinacommunitydividedbythedivisionoflabor.Thehigher
challenge,posedintheendbyWilhelm’slastingambivalencetowardthecommunitiesof
theWanderjahre,isthatthecommunemustalsointegrateitsindividualmemberswithinits
generalform.ThisiswheretheformofthecommunefailsWilhelm,thenovel’sfinalfigure
ofgeneralism.
Ontheformofthecommuneorutopia,weareleftwiththisconclusion:thatwhilethe
communecontainsavieworaestheticofthewholebyvirtueofitsaspectasadesigned
artifact,itsubordinatesitsindividualmemberstothisvision.Forevidence,wemightrefer
toLenardo’selaborateschematicsofcolonylifeintheWanderjahre,ortheelaborate
geometricandnumerologicalbalanceofMore’sUtopia.Thecommuneisadreamconceived
fromageneralistperspective,butitdemandsanindividualspecialistview–limitedinits
purposes,intentions,anddevelopment–torealizeitself.ThisaccountsforChapterTwo’s
conclusioninmyreadingoftheWanderjahre.Thecommunitycontainsanintentionality,
repeatedintheindividualaccordingtothedemandsofvocation,whichdivides,criticizes
anddissectsitsparts.Thecommunerepresentsanimplicitcritiqueofthedisordersoutside
itsborder,butimplicittothiscriticismistheimpositionoforderagainstchaos,thedivision
ofrealityintoparticularlevels,compartmentsandhierarchiessuchthatitcanbecontrolled
62AdamSmith,TheWealthofNations,PenguinClassics(London:VikingPenguin,1986),BookI,ChapterX,whereheattackstheprerogativesof“corporations”(i.e.,guilds).
348
inthevisionofawhole.TheWanderjahrerepresentsageneralismatthelevelofintention,
thatisaconcernwithuncoveringwhatisgeneralatthelevelofaspiration,buttheviewit
providesofthewholedependsontheindividual’sinductionintoalimitedandspecialized
wayoflife.
Thedefiningfeaturethatwehaveidentifiedinthecommune–itsintentionality–requiresits
members’assenttoacommonvisionofthewhole.Thisprovidesuswithabeginningto
introduceournextsocialform,thevillage.Thevillageisasocialzonewiththepremisethat
noactofintentionalagreementisnecessarytoformthecommunity.Acrossthevillage
communitiesthatwehaveinvestigatedinthisproject–theWanderjahre(St.Joseph),much
ofEliot’soeuvre,theZionistsettlementoftheAmericanNathaninClarel–theescapefrom
intentionalitytakestheformofanagreed-uponversionofthepast,ofmaterialobjectsheld
incommon,andofacommonsocialunit.Thenuclearfamily,kinshipnetworks,andthe
guildcanallbeconsideredvillagesaccordingtothisaspect.Themostarchetypalformof
thevillagethatappearsinthisprojectisthatoftheprovincialfarmersofthefictional
St.Ogg’s,inhalfofGeorgeEliot’sMillontheFloss:“Irememberthoselargedippingwillows.
Irememberthestonebridge,”saysthenarratoraboutasettingwhichhaslongsince
passedintomemory.Inthecommunethethingsheldincommonareagreeduponbymeans
oftheintellectualfaculties.Inthevillagetheyarediffusedintotheverymakeupofthe
community;eachmemberofthevillagecanclaimthesameinheritanceintheirrelationship
tothewhole.ThehistorianoftheEnglishvillageformFredericSeebohm,whowehave
quotedabove,notesthatvillagelifewasbothbroughtintobeingandcontestedonits
patchworksystemoffields,wheretheday’slaboroccurredinacooperativefashion,and
theexclusiveclaimsofownershipweremoderatedbythecopiousintermixingofplotsin
349
thesamearea.63Knowledgeofthevillagewasavailabletoallinthisscenewhich,as
Seebohmnotes,createdthehistoricalbasisfortheEnglishvillageimaginaryinaworklike
PiersPlowman.TheEnglishvillagecomesintobeingwhenitsmemberscanpointtothe
samematerialobjectsthatmakeuptheirsharedwayoflife.
Itisforthesereasonsthatinthevillage,unlikethecommune,therecanbenodivisionof
laborthatdemandstruespecialization.By“divisionoflabor,”Imeananorganizationof
societyinwhichindividualattentionisdividedbetweenasmanyseparateobjectsas
possible.64Thevillagedoesnothavespecialistsbecausethatwouldmeanonlysomehave
accesstoworkthatinformsthewhole.Forthemembersofavillage,whateverdifferencein
capacityorpreferencebetweenindividuals,workmustdrawsitssignificancefromthe
sameobjects.
Thevillageisthreatenedwhensomemembersofthecommunityformarelationshipto
differentobjectsthantheirpeers,orwhentheydevelopadifferentrelationshiptothesame
objects.BothscenarioscanbefoundinGeorgeEliot’sdepictionofthevillage.Avillageof
thefirstkind,whenmembersofthecommunitydevelopanattachmenttodifferentobjects,
canbefoundattherootoftheTulliverfamily’sconflictwiththeircommunity.Their
63OfthescatteringofownershipSeebohmdescribesthescenethus:“Itisthefactthatneitherthestripsnorthefurlongsrepresentedacompleteholdingorproperty,butthattheseveralholdingsweremadeupofamultitudeofstripsscatteredaboutonallsidesofthetownship,oneinthisfurlongandanotherinthat,intermixed,anditmightalmostbesaidentangledtogether,asthoughsomeoneblindfoldhadthrownthemaboutonallsidesofhim.”Seebohm,TheEnglishVillageCommunityExaminedinItsRelationstotheManorialandTribalSystemsandtotheCommonorOpenFieldSystemofHusbandryanEssayinEconomicHistory,7
64ThispointrecallsaremarkthatReinhartKoselleckmakesaboutBildung:that“modernBildung…isopenandconnectabletoallconcretesituationsinlife,andthatunderstoodaswork,itistheintegratingelementoftheworldbasedonthedivisionoflabor.”Ifwecanspeakoftheintegrativefunctionofthevillage,ittoodependsonadrivetoconcretionthatdefeatsallpossibleabstractions.Thisconcretionneedn’tbeanobject,butitmustbespecificenough(asintheexistenceofafamiliallineage)thatitssignificanceisindisputablebyallrelevantactors.
350
neighborschangefromworkingfarmerstorent-seekersandfinancialspeculators;theriver
andlandthattheTulliversknowbyintuitionisofindifferentvaluetothesenew
personages,forwhomobjectsnearandfarareofthesamekind.Butwecanalsosaythat
thiscentralconflictinMillhasanaspectofthesecondbreakdownofthevillage,a
differentialrelationshiptothesameobject,sincethecraftylawyerwhowilleventuallywin
theTulliverlandseesthesamelandasaresourcewithvalue.Hiscalculativeabstractions
diminishandflattentheobjectsthattheTulliverfamilyknowsthroughdirectexperience.
ThegreatestandmostimportantabstractionIconsideredinmychapteronEliotwasthat
oftheshiftfromvillagetonation,wherethequestionishowthecommunitybothchanges
itsobjectsofreference,andhowthisobjectchangesqualitatively,tobeingadifferent
objectinkind.Iftheobjectsheldincommonforvillageareplainlyavailableto
understandingandcommunication,themysteryofthenationisthatitsprincipleofunityis
neverpreciselysetout.ForEliotthenationrepresentsakindofspiritualsuccessortothe
village,sincethatwayoflifeisrepresentedinhernovelsasunavailable.Thedifficultythat
theybothinherit,however,isthatofperspectivalism.Whatbecomesaprofoundconcernin
DanielDerondaisalreadypresentinMill:thevillagedependsonthesameviewofthe
whole,yetthemeansofagreementbetweenindividuals,thequestionofwhethertheyall
actuallylookingatthesameobject,isneverentirelyestablished.Thereisalwaysatension
betweenahypotheticalsetofgoodsheldincommon,andacollectionofindividual
perspectivesonthisgood.
Inhisclassictwentieth-centuryanthropologicalstudyofapseudonymoussmall
communityinWales,RonaldFrankenberg’sVillageontheBorder(1957)makesthe–
perhapsunsurprising–observationthatnotwomembersofthisvillagecanarticulatethe
351
sameunderstandingofthevillage:itsboundaries,faultlines,membershiprequirements,
history,andessentialfeatures:
Eachseeshimselfasthecentreofagroupofkindredandfriendswhowillcometohisaid,orwhohaveother
obligationstohimandclaimsonhim.Notwovillagersarethecentreofthesamegroupandthegroups
surroundingeachoverlapandintermesh.Thisisamajorfactoringivingthevillageitscohesion.Thevery
characteristicsthatunitesomedivideotherswithinthegroupofPentrepeople.65
Theunpredictablenatureoftheindividual’sparticularviewforcesthevillagerstoagreeon
itscommonbasis.Totheextentthatthevillageexists,noonecanpossessitentirely.
Commonobjectsarethestartofaconversation.“Wecansummarizethecommunitylifeof
Pentrediwaithbysayingthatitisthedailysocialinteractionofanumberofindividuals
livingintheareawhichcentresontheactualvillage,”Frankenbergwrites.66Thevillageis
setofconcentriccirclesofself-identificationemanatingfromtheindividual.Thedifference
oftheseconfigurationsfromonevillagertoanotheriswhatcreatesthepossibilityof
identificationwiththewhole,sincetheindividualmustcometoinhabitthesecircles
throughaworking-outofhisorherownposition.Commonalityisnegotiatedonthebasis
ofatrustandimplicitunderstandingthatthevillagersaccordtooneanother,akindofpre-
rationalbeliefthattheyinhabitasharedplace.Thevillagerthereforecomestoaspecific
relationshipwiththegeneralconceptofthevillage.
ThevillagersofPentrediwaithlearntoseebothsamenessanddifference.“Proximity,sex,
closefamily,broadkinship,religiousaffiliationandWelshnessarealltieswhichunite
65RonaldFrankenberg,VillageontheBorder;aSocialStudyofReligion,PoliticsandFootballinaNorthWalesCommunity.(London,Cohen&West,1957),64.
66Ibid.,44.
352
villagerswitheachother,”hewrites,butofcourse,“notallvillagersareunitedbyallthese
ties.”67Frankenbergdocumentshowabasicformofobjectivityconfirmtheirmembership
inthesamevillage:commongeographiclocation.Butthisbasiccommonalityalsobecomes
thesourceof“violentconflict”whenabelovedvalley,thebirthplaceofseveralwell-known
Welshpoets,isthreatenedwithpartialfloodingbyahydro-electriccivilworksproject.68
Thepotentialfordissolutionofthevillageasawayoflifeisgreatestwhenhistory
threatenstoobjectifysomeaspectofaunitythatisotherwisesymbolicandalways-in-
process.Oncethevalleyisflooded,thespaceofnegotiationoverasharedmeaningis
replacedbyvictoryforsomevillagers,alossforothers,andirreversiblechangeforall.
Whentheconcretephysicalfootprintofthevillageisfloodedunderwater,negotiationover
thevillageendsbecauseacommonobjecthasdisappeared.Thustheeventsthat
FrankenbergrecountsinthePentrediwaith’shistorythatputitatgreatestriskoffracture
arethosethatthreatentoimposeasettledobjectivityonthevillage,whichmake
communicativenegotiationaboutitsmeaningmoredifficult.Amongthegreatestofthese
thatFrankenbergmentionsisthedisappearanceofthevillage’slocaleconomicbase,
requiringthevillagerstolookoutsidetheirborderforaliving.
Butwhatisoutsideis,bysheervirtueofbeingrecognized,nevermerelyoutside;the
village’sconnectionswiththisoutsidewill,withtime,scrambleitssharedobjectsof
reference.Forinstance,roadsthatledoneplacewithinthevillagearenowunderstoodby
thepaththeyprovidetoanoutsideworld.Workthatwasonceachanceforthevillagersto
67Ibid.,64.
68Ibid.,28.
353
concentrateonsharedlandscapebecomes,instead,anoccasionfortheinterminglingofthe
settledrealityofthevillagewithculturalparadigmsthatthevillagerslearnsecondhand.69
Thesepre-rationalobjectsarethebasisforvillagelifetoarisewithinashared,
intersubjectivecontext.Whenthesignificanceoftheseobjectsbecomesdeterminedbyan
outsiderationalitywhichsettlestheconversation,thevillageceasestobe.Eachvillager
seeksageneralunderstandingofhisorhercommonlife,butwhenthevillageisreducedto
aseriesofspecializedfunctionsinalargereconomy,theindividual’sorientationtothe
generalityofthevillagelosesitsrelevanceandefficacyinthepresent.
Thevillagetreatstheindividualperspectiveasifitwereanauthoritativeviewofthe
communityitself.Eachindividualhasequalandcompleteaccesstothewhole.The
commune,inturn,requirestheindividualtoservetheneedsofthewhole,whichare
representedasgeneral.Whateachhasincommonisanassumptionthatthewholeiswhat
iselusiveandrequiresdefinition,thattheindividualisbutashardofaperspectiveuntilhe
orsheachievessystematicconnectionwiththislargerrepresentation.Theindividualisin
thebestpositiontomakesenseofaparticularreality,buthelacksacertaincapacityof
synthesis.AsintheguildmodeloftheWilhelmMeisternovels,thecommunityprovidesa
structure,suchthatthereisanassuranceofawiderview,whichemergesthroughthe
organizationofanindividualactivity;individualvocationisthepathwayofbehavioral
normsthatproducesarelationshiptothewhole.Inthevillage,apictureofthewhole69“Thevillagersstillresidetogetherintheircompactnuclearsettlement,butmanynolongerworkinthevalleyalongsidetheirfellow-villagers.Theroads,builttotakePentrediwaith’sproductstoawidermarket,nowservetotakethemanofthevillagetotheirdailyworkoutsidethevalleyand,ifnotrightoutsideWales,outsideWelsh-speakingareas.ThequarriesbroughtPentrediwaithmenintodailycontactwithmenfromMelin,andPentrenesaf,andothervillagesandhamletswithinthevalley.Nowtheyworkaslabourersonbuildingsitesandashandsinfactories,sidebysidenotonlywithpeopleofthevalley,butwithEnglishmen,Irishmen,andevenPolesdrawnfromawideareaofNorthWalesandShropshire.”ibid.,10
354
emergesthroughanactofconversation,everydaycoordination,andendlessimprovisation.
Forbothvillageandcommune,specializationantagonizesthegeneralorientationofthe
community.Forthecommune,thespecialist’snarrowviewdestroysthebalanceofits
parts.Andthespecialistcannottakeseriouslythevillager’samateurism,thefactthathisor
hernaiveviewisincontrolofwhatthevillageisandshouldbe.Butthelastformof
communityIwillreview,thatofthepilgrimage,hasauseforacertainkindof
specialization,ifweunderstandspecializationasanecessary,intentionallimitation.Thisis
thepilgrim’sneedtoseeaculturaltraditionforhimself,fromhisnecessarilyamateurish
view.Andthelimitationsofthespecialisthavesomethingincommonwithafigurefrom
thebeginningofthisproject,thewanderer(orthetermusedbytheJourneymanYears,the
Renunciant).
Pilgrimage,takenasaformofcommunity,restorestheparticularperspectivethatislost
throughanexcessofgeneralism.IhaveseenthepilgriminClarelasafigurewhorestores
theparticulartoformsofexperiencewithanexcessofgeneralabstraction.Thepilgrim
feelsacompulsiontoencounteratraditionforhimself,torelocateinhimselfwhatlivesin
theedificeofatradition.Inabroadersense,acrossallmytexts,weseeakindofpilgrimage
beingmadewheneverthereisaninsistenceonbringingtherealityofasituationbackto
theparticularityoftheindividual.Thedistinctionbetweenthegeneralistandthespecialist
takesamodifiedformatthispoint:generalknowledgeiswhatcanbeknownindirectly,by
virtueofexercisinganintellectualorethicalagency.Ageneralistviewarisesthrough
practicalreasonintheWilhelmMeister’sWanderjahre,ethicalinculcationintheMillonthe
Floss,andtheoreticaldistancinginClarel.Aswehavenotedabove,whatisgeneralis
severalstepsremovedfromtheindividual–createdthroughorganizationratherthan
355
immediatelyperceived.Specializationbecomesthe“embedded,”phenomenologicalreality
thatisuniquetotheindividualperspective.
Forinstance,intheideologicalbackgroundofClarel,theintellectualsituationtowhichthe
poemreacts,IcharttheinfluenceofwhatIcall“scientism,”oranorientationtoscientific
inquiryandconclusionasthehighestformoftruthandvalue.Thepoempresentsthe
pilgrimasafigurewhowhoinsistsontheprimacyofaquixotic,potentiallytragic
existentialquestionagainstamaterialisticredefinitionoftheworldbyscience.Thepilgrim
inClarelassertsthatthesetoolsofgeneralandtheoreticalmeaning-makingmustbemade
availabletohim,broughtbacktotheirusebyindividuals.Totakethetermsofthepoem,on
thequestionof“faithanddoubt,”therecanbenoanswerthatoverlookstheindividual’s
capacitytobelieveinthedivine.ThisisbecausetheworldofClarelisawashinacertain
kindofgeneralism.Experiencebecomesidenticalwiththetheoreticalpicture.Butwecan
tracearejectionofthegeneralthatmotivatesthepilgrimagebackacrossmostofthemajor
textsofthisproject:tothefinancializationofthecountrysideinMill,DanielDeronda’s
rejectionofhisinheritedEuropeancosmopolitanismandadoptionofhisbirthright
Judaism,andfinallythevowofrenunciationanditinerantobservationthatWilhelm
Meisteragreesto–andneverfullyleavesbehind–intheJourneymanYears.Thislastexample
ofthewandererbringsustoanaffinitybetweentheconcernsraisedatthebeginningof
thisproject,andthoseattheend.Goethe’sfigureofthewandererprefiguresthepilgrimin
Melville.Likethepilgrim,thewandererundertakestomaketheindividualexperiencethe
measureofeverything.Goethe’swandereristhe“renunciant,”theonewhoabjuresthe
higherperspectiveofthewholeintheperformanceofhisdailyduty.Ifsomeformsof
communitywithinthisprojecthavevalorizedaviewofthegeneral,thisproceedsfromthe
356
assumptionthattheindividualhasnochoicebuttosubmittospecializedlimitation;thatis,
to“renounce”thewholeinanegativesense.Butthepilgrimagerethinksandreversesthe
meaningofthespecialist.To“specialize”inthissenseisnottoturnawayfromwhatis
importantintheviewofthewhole,buttoattendtothedetailsthattheindividualisbest
suitedtocomprehend.Forthepilgrimwholimitshisviewtomaterialshecanconfirmfor
himself,akindofindividualismemerges,definednotbyspecialistmastery,butaccording
tothewholeofwhatcanbeknownanddonewithinthelimitsofhistradition.
357
Bibliography
Abelshauser,Werner.TheDynamicsofGermanIndustry:Germany’sPathTowardtheNewEconomyandtheAmericanChallenge.BerghahnBooks,2005.
Adam,Ian.“TheStructureofRealismsinAdamBede.”Nineteenth-CenturyFiction30,no.2(1975):127–49.
Agricola,Georgius.DeReMetallica.TranslatedbyHerbertClarkHooverandLouHenryHoover.NewYork:DoverPublications,1950.
Altenbockum,Jaspervon.WilhelmHeinrichRiehl1823-1897:SozialwissenschaftZwischenKulturgeschichteUndEthnographie.Köln:Böhlau,1994.
Ammerland,Wolfgang.“WilhelmMeistersMignon-EinOffenbaresRätsel.Name,Gestalt,Symbol,WesenUndWerden.”InDeutscheVierteljahrsschriftFürLiteraturwissenschaftUndGeistesgeschichte,89–116.42,1968.
Anderson,Amanda.“GeorgeEliotandtheJewishQuestion.”TheYaleJournalofCriticism10,no.1(1997):39–61.
———.ThePowersofDistance:CosmopolitanismandtheCultivationofDetachment.Princeton[N.J].:PrincetonUniversityPress,2001.
Anderson,BenedictR.ImaginedCommunities:ReflectionsontheOriginandSpreadofNationalism.Revisededition.London:Verso,2016.
Anderson,RobertT.,andGallatinAnderson.“TheIndirectSocialStructureofEuropeanVillageCommunities.”AmericanAnthropologist64(1962):1016–27.
Ankersmit,FrankR.“WhyRealism?AuerbachontheRepresentationofReality.”PoeticsToday20,no.1(1999):53–75.
Appiah,KwameAnthony.“CosmopolitanPatriots.”CriticalInquiry23,no.3(1997):617–39.
Ardila,J.G.“OriginsandDefinitionofthePicaresqueGenre.”InThePicaresqueNovelinWesternLiterature:FromtheSixteenthCenturytotheNeopicaresque.,editedbyJ.G.Ardila.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2015.
Arkush,Allan.“RelativizingNationalism:TheRoleofKlesmerinGeorgeEliot’s"DanielDeronda".”JewishSocialStudies3,no.3(1997):61–73.
Armstrong,Nancy.“TheFictionofBourgeoisMoralityandtheParadoxofIndividualism.”InTheNovel:Volume2,FormsandThemes,editedbyFrancoMoretti.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2006.
Arnold,Matthew.CultureandAnarchy.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2006.
Auden,WH.“VocationandSociety.”SwarthmoreCollegePhiBetaKappaAddress,1943.
358
Auerbach,Erich.“Figura.”InScenesfromtheDramaofEuropeanLiterature,v.9:11–76.TheoryandHistoryofLiterature.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1984.
———.Mimesis:TheRepresentationofRealityinWesternLiterature-NewandExpandedEdition.TranslatedbyWillardR.Trask.PrincetonClassics.PrincetonUniversityPress,2013.
———.Time,History,andLiterature:SelectedEssaysofErichAuerbach.EditedbyJaneO.Newman.Princeton,NewJersey:PrincetonUniversityPress,2014.
Bahr,Ehrhard.TheNovelasArchive:TheGenesis,Reception,andCriticismofGoethe’sWilhelmMeistersWanderjahre.Columbia,SC:CamdenHouse,1998.
Baker,William.“TheKabbalah,Mordecai,andGeorgeEliot’sReligionofHumanity.”TheYearbookofEnglishStudies3(1973):216–21.
Bar,Doron,andKobiCohen-Hattab.“ANewKindofPilgrimage:TheModernTouristPilgrimofNineteenth-CenturyandEarlyTwentieth-CenturyPalestine.”MiddleEasternStudies39,no.2(2003):131–48.
Beer,Gillian.Darwin’sPlots:EvolutionaryNarrativeinDarwin,GeorgeEliotandNineteenth-CenturyFiction.3rded.Cambridge;NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2009.
Bell,CatherineM.RitualTheory,RitualPractice.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2009.
Benjamin,Walter.“TheStoryteller:ReflectionsontheWorkofNikolaiLeskov.”InIlluminations,editedbyHannahArendt,83–110.NewYork:SchockenBooks,1969.
Benne,Robert.“MartinLutherontheVocationsoftheChristian.”EditedbyJohnBarton.OxfordResearchEncyclopedias(accessedelectronically).OxfordUniversityPress,2016.
Bennett,HenryStanley.LifeontheEnglishManor:AStudyofPeasantConditions,1150-1400.CambridgeStudiesinMedievalLifeandThought.NewYork:Macmillan,1937.
Berger,John.“PigEarth.”VintageInternational,1979.
Berlant,LaurenGail.CruelOptimism.Durham:DukeUniversityPress,2011.
Bez,Martin.GoethesWilhelmMeistersWanderjahre:Aggregat,Archiv,Archivroman.Berlin:DeGruyter,2013.
Bezanson,Walter.“HistoricalandCriticalNotetoClarel.”InClarel.NorthwesternUniversityPress,1991.
Bezanson,WalterE.“Melville’sClarel:TheComplexPassion.”ELH21,no.2(1954):146–59.
Birmingham,David.Switzerland:AVillageHistory.NewYork:St.Martin’sPress,2000.
Blake,Kathleen.“BetweenEconomiesin"theMillontheFloss":LoansVersusGifts,or,AuditingMr.Tulliver’sAccounts.”VictorianLiteratureandCulture33,no.1(2005):219–37.
359
Bonaparte,Felicia.TheTriptychandtheCross:TheCentralMythsofGeorgeEliot’sPoeticImagination.Brighton,UK:HarvesterPress,1979.
Bradford,William.OfPlymouthPlantation.EditedbyHarveyWish.CapricornGiants.NewYork:CapricornBooks,1962.
Brilmyer,S.Pearl.“‘TheNaturalHistoryofMyInwardSelf’:SensingCharacterinGeorgeEliot’sImpressionsofTheophrastusSuch.”PMLA129,no.1(2014):35–51.
Brodwin,Stanley.“HermanMelville’sClarel:AnExistentialGospel.”PMLA86,no.3(1971):375–87.
Brown,K.Jane.Goethe’sCyclicalNarratives,DieUnterhaltungenDeutscherAusgewandertenandWilhelmMeistersWanderjahre.ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,1975.
Bruford,WalterHorace.TheGermanTraditionofSelf-Cultivation:BildungfromHumboldttoThomasMann.London:CambridgeUniversityPress,1975.
Buckley,JeromeHamilton.SeasonofYouth:TheBildungsromanfromDickenstoGolding.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,1974.
Buell,Lawrence.“MelvillethePoet.”InTheCambridgeCompaniontoHermanMelville,editedbyRobertS.Levine,135–56.Cambridge,U.K.:CambridgeUniversityPress,1998.
Cameron,Euan.EarlyModernEurope:AnOxfordHistory.OUPOxford,2001.
Carlyle,Thomas.OnHeroes,Hero-Worship,andtheHeroicinHistory.EditedbyDavidR.SorensenandBrentE.Kinser.RethinkingtheWesternTradition.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,2013.
———.PastandPresent.London:Chapman&Hall,1872.
Carpenter,MaryWilson.GeorgeEliotandtheLandscapeofTime:NarrativeFormandProtestantApocalypticHistory.StudiesinReligion.ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,1986.
Carroll,David.GeorgeEliotandtheConflictofInterpretations:AReadingoftheNovels.Cambridge;NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1992.
Chapman,Raymond.TheSenseofthePastinVictorianLiterature.NewYork:St.Martin’sPress,1986.
Cohen,AnthonyP.SelfConsciousness:AnAlternativeAnthropologyofIdentity.London;NewYork:Routledge,1994.
Cohn,Doritt.“TransparentMinds:NarrativeModesforPresentingConsciousnessinFiction.”InTheoryoftheNovel:AHistoricalApproach,editedbyMickaelMcKeon,493–514.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,2000.
360
Coleman,Dermot.GeorgeEliotandMoney:Economics,EthicsandLiterature.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2014.
Collins-Kreiner,N.,andN.Kliot.“PilgrimageTourismintheHolyLand:TheBehaviouralCharacteristicsofChristianPilgrims.”GeoJournal50,no.1(2000):55–67.
Coser,LewisA.GreedyInstitutions:PatternsofUndividedCommitment.NewYork:FreePress,1974.
Cottom,Daniel.SocialFigures:GeorgeEliot,SocialHistoryandLiteraryRepresentation.TheoryandHistoryofLiterature,v.44.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1987.
Crawford,MatthewB.ShopClassasSoulcraft:AnInquiryintotheValueofWork.NewYork:PenguinBooks,2010.
Culler,JonathanD.TheoryoftheLyric.Cambridge,Massachusetts:HarvardUniversityPress,2015.
Darwin,Charles.Darwin:Texts&Commentary.EditedbyPhilipAppleman.3rded.NortonCriticalEd.NewYork:Norton,2001.
Daston,Lorraine.“MarvelousFactsandMiraculousEvidenceinEarlyModernEurope.”InQuestionsofEvidence:Proof,PracticeandPersuasionAcrosstheDisciplines.UniversityofChicagoPress,1991.
———.“ThirdNature.”InScienceintheArchives:Pasts,Presents,Futures,editedbyLorraineDaston.Chicago;London:TheUniversityofChicagoPress,2017.
Daston,Lorraine,andPeterGalison.“TheImageofObjectivity.”Representations,no.40(1992):81–128.
Davis,Michael.GeorgeEliotandNineteenth-CenturyPsychology:ExploringtheUnmappedCountry.TheNineteenthCenturySeries.Aldershot,England:Ashgate,2006.
Delbanco,Andrew.Melville:HisWorldandWork.1sted.NewYork:Knopf,2005.
Dettlaff,ShirleyM.“"CounterNaturesinMakind":HebraismandHellenisminClarel.”InMelville’sEvermovingDawn:CentennialEssays,editedbyJohnBryantandRobert.Milder.Kent,Ohio:KentStateUniversityPress,1997.
Dilthey,Wilhelm.“DasErlebnisUndDieDichtung.”InZurGeschichteDesDeutschenBildungsromans,editedbyRolf.Selbmann,120–22.Darmstadt:WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft,1988.
Dimock,Wai-chee.EmpireforLiberty:MelvilleandthePoeticsofIndividualism.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,1989.
Dubrow,Heather.“LyricForms.”InTheLyricTheoryReader:ACriticalAnthology,editedbyVirginiaWalkerJacksonandYopiePrins,114–27.JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,2014.
361
Durkin,Philip.TheOxfordGuidetoEtymology.OUPOxford,2011.
Dworkin,Ronald.“LiberalCommunity.”InCommunitarianismandIndividualism,editedbyAvnerDe-Shalit,205–23.OxfordReadingsinPoliticsandGovernment.OxfordEngland;NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1992.
Eagleton,Terry.TheFunctionofCriticism.London;NewYork:Verso,2005.
———.“IdeologyandLiteraryForm.”NewLeftReviewI,no.90(1975):81–109.
Eliot,George.AdamBede.EditedbyCarolMartin.Oxford:NewYork:ClarendonPress;OxfordUniversityPress,2001.
———.“AddresstoWorkingMen,byFelixHolt.”InEssays,editedbyThomasPinney.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1868.
———.DanielDeronda.EditedbyGrahamHandley.OxfordWorld’sClassics.OxfordUniversityPress,1984.
———.“EvangelicalTeaching:Dr.Cumming.”InEssays,editedbyThomasPinney.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1855.
———.ImpressionsofTheophrastusSuch.NewYork:Harper&Bros.,1879.
———.“IntroductiontoGenesis.”InEssays,editedbyThomasPinney,255–60.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1856.
———.Middlemarch.ModernLibraryedition.NewYork:ModernLibrary,1994.
———.“NotesonForminArt.”InEssays,editedbyThomasPinney,431–36.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1963.
———.ScenesofClericalLife.EditedbyThomasA.Noble.Oxford,1985.
———.“Servants’Logic.”InEssays,editedbyThomasPinney.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1865.
———.“SillyNovelsbyLadyNovelists.”InEssays,editedbyThomasPinney.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1856.
———.“TheAntigoneandItsMoral.”InEssays,editedbyThomasPinney.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1856.
———.TheGeorgeEliotLetters.Yaleedition.Vols.1(1836-1851).NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1954.
———.TheMillontheFloss.EditedbyGordonS.Haight.OxfordWorld’sClassics.Oxford,NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2008.
———.“TheMoralityofWilhelmMeister.”InEssays,editedbyThomasPinney,143–47.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1855.
362
———.“TheNaturalHistoryofGermanLife.”InEssays,editedbyThomasPinney.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1856.
———.“TheProgressoftheIntellect.”InEssays,editedbyThomasPinney.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1963.
———.“WorldinessandOther-Worldliness:ThePoetYoung.”InEssays,editedbyThomasPinney.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1857.
Ellis,Lorna.AppearingtoDiminish:FemaleDevelopmentandtheBritishBildungsroman,1750-1850.Lewisburg[Pa.]:BucknellUniversityPress,1999.
Engelstein,Stefani.“TheAllureofWholeness:TheEighteenth-CenturyOrganismandtheSame-SexMarriageDebate.”CriticalInquiry39,no.4(2013):754–76.
Epstein,S.R.,andMaartenPrak.Guilds,InnovationandtheEuropeanEconomy,1400–1800.CambridgeUniversityPress,2008.
Ermarth,ElizabethDeeds.“GeorgeEliot’sConceptionofSympathy.”Nineteenth-CenturyFiction40,no.1(1985):23–42.
Esty,JoshuaD.“Nationhood,Adulthood,andtheRupturesof"Bildung":ArrestingDevelopmentin"theMillontheFloss".”Narrative4,no.2(1996):142–60.
Faggen,Robert.“MelvillethePoet.”InTheCambridgeCompaniontoAmericanPoets,2015.
Farr,JamesR.ArtisansinEurope,1300-1914.CambridgeUniversityPress,2000.
Feenberg,Andrew.Technosystem:TheSocialLifeofReason.Cambridge,Massachusetts:HarvardUniversityPress,2017.
Felski,Rita.TheLimitsofCritique.UniversityofChicagoPress,2015.
Felski,Rita,andElizabethS.Anker,eds.CritiqueandPostcritique.DukeUniversityPress,2017.
Feuerbach,Ludwig.TheEssenceofChristianity.Buffalo:PrometheusBooks,1989.
Fleishman,Avrom.GeorgeEliot’sIntellectualLife.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress,2010.
Flint,Kate.“GeorgeEliotandGender.”InTheCambridgeCompaniontoGeorgeEliot,editedbyGeorgeLevine,159–80.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2001.
Fludernik,Monika.“EliotandNarrative.”InACompaniontoGeorgeEliot.Wiley,2013.
Fontaine,Michael.JoannesBurmeister:AululariaandOtherInversionsofPlautus.LeuvenUniversityPress,2015.
Foster,ElizabethS.“MelvilleandGeology.”AmericanLiterature17,no.1(1945):50–65.
363
Foucault,Michel.TheOrderofThings:AnArchaeologyoftheHumanSciences.NewYork:VintageBooks,1994.
Fraiman,Susan.“TheMillontheFloss,theCritics,andtheBildungsroman.”PMLA108,no.1(January1993):136–50.
———.UnbecomingWomen:BritishWomenWritersandtheNovelofDevelopment.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1993.
Franchot,Jenny.“Melville’sTravellingGod.”InTheCambridgeCompaniontoHermanMelville,editedbyRobertS.Levine,157–85.Cambridge,U.K.:CambridgeUniversityPress,1998.
Frankenberg,Ronald.VillageontheBorder;aSocialStudyofReligion,PoliticsandFootballinaNorthWalesCommunity.London:Cohen&West,1957.
Franklin,H.Bruce.TheWakeoftheGods;Melville’sMythology.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1963.
Freadman,Richard.Eliot,James,andtheFictionalSelf:AStudyinCharacterandNarration.NewYork:St.Martin’sPress,1986.
Frei,Hans.TheEclipseofBiblicalNarrative:AStudyinEighteenthandNineteenthCenturyHermeneutics.Revisededition.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1980.
Frye,N.AnatomyofCriticism:FourEssays.PrincetonPaperbacks.PrincetonUniversityPress,2000.
Frye,Northrop.TheSecularScripture:AStudyoftheStructureofRomance.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,1976.
Garner,Stanton.TheCivilWarWorldofHermanMelville.Lawrence,Kan.:UniversityPressofKansas,1993.
Geertz,Clifford.TheInterpretationofCultures:SelectedEssays.NewYork:BasicBooks,1973.
Gellner,Ernest.NationsandNationalism.2nded.NewPerspectivesonthePast.Ithaca,N.Y.:CornellUniversityPress,2008.
Goethe,JohannWolfgangvon.“DieLetztenJahre.TeilIi:VomDomburgerAufenthalt1828BisZumTode.”EditedbyHorstFleig.FrankfurtamMain:DeutscherKlassikerVerlag,1993.
———.“TheSorrowsofYoungWerther.”InTheSorrowsofYoungWerther;ElectiveAffinities;Novella,editedbyDavidWellbery,296.PrincetonPaperbacks.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,1995.
———.UnterhaltungenDeutscherAusgewanderten(ConversationsofGermanRefugees).EditedbyJaneK.Brown.TranslatedbyKrishnaWinston.Goethe’sCollectedWorks.PrincetonPaperbacks.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,1995.
364
———.WilhelmMeister’sApprenticeship.EditedandtranslatedbyEricA.Blackall.PrincetonPaperbacks.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,1995.
———.WilhelmMeister’sJourneymanYears,or,theRenunciants.EditedbyJaneK.Brown.TranslatedbyKrishnaWinston.Goethe’sCollectedWorks.PrincetonPaperbacks.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,1995.
———.WilhelmMeistersLehrjahre.EditedbyErichTrunz.15.Auflage.Vol.7.HamburgerAusgabe,RomaneundNovellen:Band2.München:C.H.Beck,2002.
———.WilhelmMeistersWanderjahre.EditedbyGerhardNeumannandHans-GeorgDewitz.FrankfurterAusgabe.Vol.10.FrankfurtamMain:DeutscherKlassikerVerlag,1989.
Goldman,Stan.Melville’sProtestTheism:TheHiddenandSilentGodinClarel.DeKalb:NorthernIllinoisUniversityPress,1993.
Gomme,GeorgeLaurence.TheVillageCommunity:WithSpecialReferencetotheOriginandFormofItsSurvivalsinBritain.Chilworth,1890.
Graff,Gerald.ProfessingLiterature:AnInstitutionalHistory.TheUniversityofChicagoPress,2007.
Gramsci,Antonio.PrisonNotebooks.EditedbyJosephA.Buttigieg.TranslatedbyAntonioCallari.EuropeanPerspectives.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1992.
Graver,Suzanne.GeorgeEliotandCommunity:AStudyinSocialTheoryandFictionalForm.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1984.
Greif,Mark.TheAgeoftheCrisisofMan:ThoughtandFictioninAmerica,1933-1973.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2015.
Grenberg,BruceL.SomeOtherWorldtoFind:QuestandNegationintheWorksofHermanMelville.Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress,1989.
Guth,Barbara.“Philip:TheTragedyof"theMillontheFloss".”StudiesintheNovel15,no.4(1983):356–63.
Habermas,Jürgen.“FromWorldviewstotheLifeworld.”InPostmetaphysicalThinkingII,translatedbyCiaranCronin.Cambridge:PolityPress,2017.
———.TheTheoryofCommunicativeAction:LifeworldandSystem:ACritiqueofFunctionalistReason.TranslatedbyThomasMcCarthy.Volume,Two.BeaconPress,1987.
Hawthorne,Nathaniel.PassagesfromtheAmericanNote-BooksofNathanielHawthorne.ScholarlyPress,1970.
Hegel,GeorgWilhelmFriedrich.Aesthetics:LecturesonFineArt.TranslatedbyThomasMalcolmKnox.Vol.2.Oxford:Clarendon,1998.
365
Helsinger,ElizabethK.RuralScenesandNationalRepresentation:Britain,1815-1850.LiteratureinHistory(Princeton,N.j.).Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1997.
Henberg,M.C.“GeorgeEliot’sMoralRealism.”PhilosophyandLiterature3,no.1(1979):20–38.
Henry,Nancy.GeorgeEliotandtheBritishEmpire.CambridgeStudiesinNineteenth-CenturyLiteratureandCulture.Cambridge;NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002.
Henry,Nancy,andCannonSchmitt.VictorianInvestmentsNewPerspectivesonFinanceandCulture.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,2009.
Hilton,Obenzinger.“HermanMelvilleReturnstoJerusalem.”TheJerusalemQuarterly.43(2010):31.
Hirsch,Marianne.“’TheNovelofFormationasGenre:BetweenGreatExpectationsandLostIllusions’.”Genre12,no.3(1979):293–311.
Hobson,ChristopherZ.“TheRadicalismof"FelixHolt":GeorgeEliotandthePioneersofLabor.”VictorianLiteratureandCulture26,no.1(1998):19–39.
Holloway,Mark.HeavensonEarth:UtopianCommunitiesinAmerica1680-1880.2ndedition.DoverPublications,Inc.,1966.
Horne,JamesR.MysticismandVocation.WilfridLaurierUniversityPress,1996.
Horowitz,Evan.“GeorgeEliot:TheConservative.”VictorianStudies49,no.1(2006):7–32.
Hughes,Kathryn.GeorgeEliot:TheLastVictorian.NewYork:FarrarStrausGiroux,1998.
Husserl,Edmund.IdeasforaPurePhenomenologyandPhenomenologicalPhilosophy.FirstBook.GeneralIntroductiontoPurePhenomenology.TranslatedbyDanielO.Dahlstrom.Indianapolis:HackettPublishingCompany,2014.
Jacobs,Jürgen.WilhelmMeisterUndSeineBrüder;UntersuchungenZumDeutschenBildungsroman.W.Fink,1972.
Jaeger,Michael.FaustsKolonie:GoethesKritischePhänomenologieDerModerne.Würzburg:Königshausen&Neumann,2004.
———.WanderersVerstummen,GoethesSchweigen,FaustsTragödie,Oder,DieGrosseTransformationDerWelt.Würzburg:Königshausen&Neumann,2014.
Jameson,Fredric.TheAntinomiesofRealism.NewYork:Verso,2013.
Johnson,Edgar,SamuelI.Mintz,AliceChandler,andChristopherMulvey,eds.FromSmolletttoJames:StudiesintheNovelandOtherEssaysPresentedtoEdgarJohnson.Charlottesville,VA:UniversityPressofVirginia,1981.
Jonik,Michael.“CharacterandtheSpaceofClarel.”Leviathan13,no.3(2011):67–84.
366
Joseph,Gerhard.“TheAntigoneasCulturalTouchstone:MatthewArnold,Hegel,GeorgeEliot,VirginiaWoolf,andMargaretDrabble.”PMLA96,no.1(1981):22–35.
Kanter,RosabethMoss.CommitmentandCommunity:CommunesandUtopiasinSociologicalPerspective.Firstedition.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1972.
Kelley,Wyn.“AgathandtheEphemeralTextinMelville’sClarel.”Leviathan13,no.3(2011):49–62.
Kenny,VincentS.HermanMelville’sClarel;aSpiritualAutobiography.Hamden,Conn.:ArchonBooks,1973.
Knapp,JosephG.TorturedSynthesis;theMeaningofMelville’sClarel.NewYork:PhilosophicalLibrary,1971.
Knoepflmacher,UlrichC.GeorgeEliot’sEarlyNovels;theLimitsofRealism.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1968.
Koselleck,Reinhart.“TheAnthropologicalandSemanticStructureofBildung.”InThePracticeofConceptualHistory:TimingHistory,SpacingConcepts,170–207.Stanford,Calif:StanfordUniversityPress,2002.
Lane,Christopher.TheAgeofDoubt:TracingtheRootsofOurReligiousUncertainty.YaleUniversityPress,2011.
Latour,Bruno.“DowntoEarth:PoliticsintheNewClimaticRegime.”Cambridge,UK;Medford,MA:PolityPress,2018.
Leavis,F.R.“The"GreatBooks”andaLiberalEducation:MustAllFreeMenReadThem—orBeSlaves?”InTheCriticasAnti-Philosopher:Essays&Papers.UniversityofGeorgiaPress,1953.
———.TheGreatTradition;GeorgeEliot,HenryJames,JosephConrad.NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress,1964.
Legassie,Shayne.TheMedievalInventionofTravel.UniversityofChicagoPress,2017.
Lentricchia,Frank.AftertheNewCriticism.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1980.
Lesjak,Carolyn.“AModernOdyssey:Realism,theMasses,andNationalisminGeorgeEliot’s"FelixHolt".”NOVEL:AForumonFiction30,no.1(1996):78–97.
Levine,Caroline.Forms:Whole,Rhythm,Hierarchy,Network.Princeton;Oxford:PrincetonUniversityPress,2015.
Levine,George.“GeorgeEliot’sHypothesisofReality.”Nineteenth-CenturyFiction35,no.1(June1980):1–28.
Levine,GeorgeLewis.DarwinandtheNovelists:PatternsofScienceinVictorianFiction.UniversityofChicagoPressed.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1991.
367
———.TheRealisticImagination:EnglishFictionfromFrankensteintoLadyChatterley.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1981.
Lewes,GeorgeHenry.ThePhysiologyofCommonLife.NewYork,D.Appleton;Company,1860.
Liu,Alan.Wordsworth,theSenseofHistory.Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress,1989.
Love,Heather.“CloseReadingandThinDescription.”PublicCulture25,no.3(71)(September2013):401–34.
Loveland,MatthewT.“Pilgrimage,ReligiousInstitutions,andtheConstructionofOrthodoxy.”SociologyofReligion69,no.3(2008):317–34.
Lukács,György.GoetheandHisAge:AMajorCriticalRevaluationofGermany’sGreatPoet.TranslatedbyRobertAnchor.NewYork:Grosset&Dunlap,1969.
Majumdar,Saikat.“TheCriticasAmateur.”NewLiteraryHistory48,no.1(2017):1–25.
May,Kurt.“WilhelmMeistersLehrjahre’,EinBildungsroman?”.”DeutscheVierteljahrsschriftFürLiteraturwissenschaftUndGeistesgeschichte31,no.1(1957):1–37.
Mazzoni,Guido.TheoryoftheNovel.Cambridge,Massachusetts:HarvardUniversityPress,2017.
McCloskey,DeirdreN.BourgeoisDignity:WhyEconomicsCan’tExplaintheModernWorld.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2010.
McGeachie,James.“DarwinandGeorgeEliot:PlottingandOrganicism.”HistoryofScience23,no.2(June1985):187–200.
McKeon,Michael.TheOriginsoftheEnglishNovel,1600-1740.15thanniversaryedition.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,2002.
———,ed.TheoryoftheNovel:AHistoricalApproach.Baltimor:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,2000.
Melville,Herman.“Clarel:APoemandPilgrimageintheHolyLand.”EditedbyHarrisonHayfordetal.Evanston:NorthwesternUniversityPress,1991.
———.Journals.EditedbyHowardC.HorsfordandLynnHorth.NorthwesternNewberryEditionofTheWritingsofHermanMelville,v.15.Evanston:NorthwesternUniversityPress,1989.
———.Moby-Dick,or,theWhale.EditedbyHershelParkerHayfordandG.ThomasTanselle.Vol.6.TheWritingsofHermanMelville.Evanston:NorthwesternUniversityPress,1968.
———.“PublishedPoems:Battle-Pieces;JohnMarr;Timoleon.”EditedbyRobertCharlesRyanandHershel.Parker.Evanston:NorthwesternUniversityPress,2009.
368
———.Tales,Poems,andOtherWritings.EditedbyJohnBryant.ModernLibrary,2001.
Mill,JohnStuart.Utilitarianism.2nded.Indianapolis:HackettPub.,2001.
Montefiore,SimonSebag.Jerusalem:TheBiography.Weidenfeld,2011.
More,Thomas.Utopia.9781107568730.CambridgeUniversityPress,2016.
Moretti,Franco.ModernEpic:TheWorld-SystemfromGoethetoGarcíaMárquez.London;NewYork:Verso,1996.
———.TheBourgeois:BetweenHistoryandLiterature.London:Verso,2014.
———,ed.TheNovel.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2006.
———.TheWayoftheWorld:TheBildungsromaninEuropeanCulture.London:Verso,1987.
Morris,William.NewsfromNowhere,or,anEpochofRest:BeingSomeChaptersfromaUtopianRomance.Cambridge[England]:CambridgeUniversityPress,1995.
Muir,LynetteR.TheBiblicalDramaofMedievalEurope.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1995.
New,Peter.“Chance,ProvidenceandDestinyinGeorgeEliot’sFiction.”English:JournaloftheEnglishAssociation34,no.150(1985):191–208.
Newton,K.M.“GeorgeEliotandRacism:HowShouldOneRead’theModernHep!Hep!Hep!’?”TheModernLanguageReview103,no.3(2008):654–65.
North,Joseph.LiteraryCriticism:AConcisePoliticalHistory.Cambridge,Massachusetts:HarvardUniversityPress,2017.
Nurbhai,Saleel,andK.M.Newton.GeorgeEliot,Judaism,andtheNovels:JewishMythandMysticism.Houndmills:Palgrave,2002.
Obenzinger,Hilton.AmericanPalestine:Melville,Twain,andtheHolyLandMania.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,1999.
O’Neill,Michael.“RomanticRe-AppropriationsoftheEpic.”InTheCambridgeCompaniontotheEpic,editedbyCatherineBates.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2010.
Otis,Laura.“TheWebsofMiddlemarch.”InNetworking:CommunicatingwithBodiesandMachinesintheNineteenthCentury.UniversityofMichiganPress,2001.
Paris,BernardJ.“GeorgeEliot’sReligionofHumanity.”ELH29,no.4(1962):418–43.
———.“TheOthernessofGeorgeEliot.”JournalofModernLiterature1,no.2(1970):272–77.
369
Parker,Hershel.HermanMelville:ABiography.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1996.
Patrick,J.Max,ed.TheQuestforUtopia:AnAnthologyofImaginarySocieties.NewYork:H.Schuman,1952.
Paxton,NancyL.GeorgeEliotandHerbertSpencer:Feminism,Evolutionism,andtheReconstructionofGender.PrincetonUniversityPress,2014.
Pfau,Thomas.MindingtheModern:HumanAgency,IntellectualTraditions,andResponsibleKnowledge.NotreDame:UniversityofNotreDamePress,2013.
———.“VarietiesofNonpropositionalKnowledge:Image–Attention–Action.”InJudgmentandAction:FragmentsTowardaHistory,editedbyVivasvanSoniandThomasPfau.Evanston:NorthwesternUniversityPress,2018.
Plato.TheRepublicofPlato.EditedandtranslatedbyAlanBloom.Secondedition.NewYork:BasicBooks,1991.
Potter,William.Melville’sClarelandtheIntersympathyofCreeds.Kent,Ohio:KentStateUniversityPress,2004.
Qualls,BarryV.TheSecularPilgrimsofVictorianFiction:TheNovelasBookofLife.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1982.
Rackham,Oliver.TheHistoryoftheCountryside.W&N,2000.
———.Woodlands.WilliamCollins,2015.
Redfield,Marc.PhantomFormations:AestheticIdeologyandtheBildungsroman.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1996.
Richards,I.A.PracticalCriticism:AStudyofLiteraryJudgment.HarcourtBrace&Co.,1929.
Richardson,Samuel.Clarissa,or,theHistoryofaYoungLady.Anabridgeded.BroadviewEditions.Peterborough,Ont.:BroadviewPress,2011.
———.Pamela:Or,VirtueRewarded.OxfordWorld’sClassics.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2008.
Ricoeur,Paul.FreudandPhilosophy:AnEssayonInterpretation.TerryLectures.YaleUniversityPress,1970.
Riehl,WilhelmHeinrich.DieBürgerlicheGesellschaft.Secondedition.Stuttgart:J.G.Cotta,1854.
———.LandUndLeute.Secondedition.Stuttgart:J.G.Cotta,1855.
Rignall,John,ed.OxfordReader’sCompaniontoGeorgeEliot.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2000.
370
Riley,Peter.“UrbanandMetricalFormsinClarel.”InMelvilleasPoet,63–86,2013.
Ritzer,George.“Definitionof’Individualism’.”InEncyclopediaofSocialTheory,editedbyGeorgeRitzer.SAGEPublications,Inc,2005.
Rorty,AmelieOksenberg,ed.TheIdentitiesofPersons.UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1976.
Rosenthal,Bernard.“HermanMelville’sWanderingJews.”InPuritanInfluencesinAmericanLiterature,editedbyEmoryElliott,Vol.65.IllinoisStudiesinLanguageandLiterature;Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress,1979.
Sammons,Jeffrey.“TheMysteryoftheMissingBildungsroman,or:WhatHappenedtoWilhelmMeister’sLegacy?”Genre14,no.2(1981):229–46.
Sandel,Michael.LiberalismandtheLimitsofJustice.CambridgeUniversityPress,1998.
———.“TheProceduralRepublicandtheUnencumberedSelf.”InCommunitarianismandIndividualism,editedbyAvnerDe-Shalit,12–28.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1992.
Schiller,Friedrich.OntheAestheticEducationofMan,inaSeriesofLetters.EditedbyElizabethM.WilkinsonandL.A.Willoughby.ClarendonPress;OxfordUniversityPress,1983.
Schössler,Franziska.GoethesLehr-UndWanderjahre:EineKulturgeschichteDerModerne.Tübingen:Francke,2002.
Schweitzer,PeterP.,ed.DividendsofKinship:MeaningsandUsesofSocialRelatedness.London:Routledge,2000.
Scott,JamesF.“GeorgeEliot,Positivism,andtheSocialVisionof"Middlemarch".”VictorianStudies16,no.1(1972):59–76.
Sedgwick,WilliamEllery.HermanMelville;theTragedyofMind.EditedbySarahCabotSedgwick.Cambridge,Mass.,HarvardUniversityPress,1944.
Seebohm,Frederic.TheEnglishVillageCommunityExaminedinItsRelationstotheManorialandTribalSystemsandtotheCommonorOpenFieldSystemofHusbandryanEssayinEconomicHistory.Thirdedition.London:Longmans,Green,;Co.,1884.
Seigel,JerroldE.TheIdeaoftheSelf:ThoughtandExperienceinWesternEuropeSincetheSeventeenthCentury.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2005.
Semmel,Bernard.GeorgeEliotandthePoliticsofNationalInheritance.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1994.
Shaffer,ElinorS."KublaKhan"andtheFallofJerusalem:TheMythologicalSchoolinBiblicalCriticismandSecularLiterature,1770-1880.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress,1975.
371
Shawcross,JohnT.“’TooIntellectualaPoetEvertoBePopular’:HermanMelvilleandtheMiltonicDimensionofClarel.”Leviathan4,no.1(2002):71–90.
Sherrill,RowlandA.ThePropheticMelville:Experience,Transcendence,andTragedy.Athens:UniversityofGeorgiaPress,1979.
Short,BryanC.“FormasVisioninHermanMelville’sClarel.”AmericanLiterature50,no.4(1979):553–69.
Shurr,William.TheMysteryofIniquityMelvilleasPoet,1857-1891.Lexington:TheUniversityPressofKentucky,1972.
Shuttleworth,Sally.GeorgeEliotandNineteenth-CenturyScience:TheMake-BelieveofaBeginning.Cambridge[Cambridgeshire];NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1984.
Smith,Adam.TheWealthofNations.PenguinClassics.London:VikingPenguin,1986.
Smith,BarbaraHerrnstein.“BeliefandResistance:ASymmetricalAccount.”InQuestionsofEvidence:Proof,PracticeandPersuasionAcrosstheDisciplines.UniversityofChicagoPress,1991.
Solnit,Rebecca.Wanderlust:AHistoryofWalking.NewYork:Viking,2000.
Sontag,Susan.“AgainstInterpretation.”InAgainstInterpretationandOtherEssays.Picador,1966.
Spitzer,Leo.“ClassicalandChristianIdeasofWorldHarmony:ProlegomenatoanInterpretationoftheWord"Stimmung":PartI.”Traditio2(1944):409–64.
Squires,Michael.“AdamBedeandtheLocusAmoenus.”StudiesinEnglishLiterature,1500-190013,no.4(1973):670–76.
Srinivas,MysoreNarasimhachar.TheRememberedVillage.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1976.
Staten,Henry.“IsMiddlemarchAhistorical?”PMLA115,no.5(2000):991–1005.
Stein,WilliamBysshe.ThePoetryofMelville’sLateYears;Time,History,Myth,andReligion.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1970.
Stephenson,Greg.“WhatIsaVillage?”BBC,2006.
Stewart,Susan.“GenresofWork:TheFolktaleand"SilasMarner".”NewLiteraryHistory34,no.3(2003):513–33.
Strauss,DavidFriedrich.TheLifeofJesusCriticallyExamined.EditedbyPeterC.Hodgson.TranslatedbyGeorgeEliot.LivesofJesusSeries.Ramsey,NJ:SiglerPress,1994.
Swann,Brian.“MiddlemarchandMyth.”Nineteenth-CenturyFiction28,no.2(1973):210–14.
372
Taylor,Charles.ASecularAge.Cambridge,Mass.:BelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress,2007.
———.DilemmasandConnections:SelectedEssays.Cambridge:TheBelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress,2014.
———.Hegel.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1975.
———.SourcesoftheSelf:TheMakingoftheModernIdentity.Cambridge,Massachusetts:HarvardUniversityPress,1989.
Thomson,FredC.“TheThemeofAlienationinSilasMarner.”Nineteenth-CenturyFiction20,no.1(1965):69–84.
Turner,Victor.“TheCenterOutThere:Pilgrim’sGoal.”HistoryofReligions12,no.3(1973):191–230.
———.TheRitualProcess:StructureandAnti-Structure.AldinePublishing,1969.
Vaget,HansRudolf.“JohannWolfgangGoethe:WilhelmMeistersWanderjahre(1829).”InRomaneUndErzählungenZwischenRomantikUndRealismus:NeueInterpretationen,editedbyPaulMichaelLützeler.Stuttgart:Reclam,1983.
Vermeulen,HanF.BeforeBoas:TheGenesisofEthnographyandEthnologyintheGermanEnlightenment.CriticalStudiesintheHistoryofAnthropology.Lincoln,NE:UniversityofNebraskaPress,2015.
Vinogradoff,Paul.TheGrowthoftheManor.ReprintsofEconomicClassics.NewYork,A.M.Kelley,1968.
Vogeler,MarthaS.FredericHarrison:TheVocationsofaPositivist.Oxford:ClarendonPress,1984.
Waller,PhilipJ.Town,City,andNation:England,1850-1914.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1983.
Warner,W.Lloyd.“SocialAnthropologyandtheModernCommunity.”AmericanJournalofSociology46,no.6(May1941):785–96.
Warren,RobertPenn.“MelvillethePoet.”TheKenyonReview8,no.2(1946):208–23.
Weber,Eugen.PeasantsintoFrenchmen:TheModernizationofRuralFrance,1870-1914.Stanford,California:StanfordUniversityPress,1976.
Weber,Max.“ReligiousRejectionsoftheWorldandTheirDirections.”InFromMaxWeber:EssaysinSociology,editedbyC.WrightMillsandHansHeinrichGerth.OxfordUniversityPress,1958.
———.“ScienceasaVocation.”InFromMaxWeber:EssaysinSociology,editedbyC.WrightMillsandHansHeinrichGerth,129–56.OxfordUniversityPress,1958.
373
———.TheProtestantEthicandtheSpiritofCapitalism.EditedbyStephenKalberg.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2011.
———.TheSociologyofReligion.Boston:BeaconPress,1993.
White,Hayden.Metahistory:TheHistoricalImaginationinNineteenth-CenturyEurope.JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1975.
Wild,Trevor.VillageEngland:ASocialHistoryoftheCountryside.InternationalLibraryofHistoricalStudies.I.B.Tauris,2004.
Willburn,Sarah.“PossessedIndividualisminGeorgeEliot’s"DanielDeronda".”VictorianLiteratureandCulture34,no.1(2006):271–89.
Williams,Raymond.CultureandSociety,1780-1950.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1983.
———.Keywords:AVocabularyofCultureandSociety.Newedition.NewYork,NY:OxfordUniversityPress,2015.
———.TheCountryandtheCity.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1975.
Wingren,Gustaf.LutheronVocation.Philadelphia:MuhlenbergPress,1957.
Wohlfarth,MarcE.“DanielDerondaandthePoliticsofNationalism.”Nineteenth-CenturyLiterature53,no.2(September1998):188–210.
Wood,EllenMeiksins.TheOriginofCapitalism:ALongerView.London:Verso,2017.
Wordsworth,William,andSamuelTaylorColeridge.LyricalBallads1798and1800.BroadviewEditions.Peterborough,Ontario:BroadviewPress,2008.
Wright,Nathalia.“ASourceforMelville’sClarel:DeanStanley’sSinaiandPalestine.”ModernLanguageNotes62,no.2(1947):110–16.
Wright,TerenceR.TheReligionofHumanity:TheImpactofComteanPositivismonVictorianBritain.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1986.
Yothers,Brian.SacredUncertainty:ReligiousDifferenceandtheShapeofMelville’sCareer.Evanston:NorthwesternUniversityPress,2015.
Young,Karl.TheDramaoftheMedievalChurch.Vol.2.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1951.
Related Documents
