Feldman 1 Between the Man and Beast: Reactions to Evolutionary Science in Alfred, Lord Tennyson’s Idylls of the King and T. H. White’s The Once and Future King A Thesis Submitted to The Faculty of the School of Communications In Candidacy for the Degree of Master of Arts in English By Mary Feldman November 13, 2013 Feldman 2 Liberty University School of Communication Master of Arts in English Thesis Chair Date Dr. Paul Muller, Ph. D. First Reader Date Dr. Carl Curtis, Ph. D. Second Reader Date Dr. Mark Harris, Ph. D. Feldman 3 For my husband and best friend, Jonathan Feldman. Thank you for supporting my academic endeavors and encouraging me daily. Special thanks to my parents for their prayers and help throughout my academic career. Thanks to those who invested hours into helping me present this argument. Your dedication and skill were appreciated every step of the way. Feldman 4 Table of Contents Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………..5 Chapter Two: The Evolution of Evolution……………………………………….………………13 Chapter Three: Science, Faith, and Doubt in In Memoriam.............................................................28 Chapter Four: Rebuilding Arthurian Legend in Idylls of the King…………………………………43 Chapter Five: Darwinian Optimism in The Once and Future King……………………………..…76 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………..108 Works Cited……………………………………………………………………………..…..110 Feldman 5 Introduction Before I examine the relationship between Tennyson’s and White’s retellings of the Arthurian legends and Darwin’s scientific theories, I must first establish the seemingly tenuous connection between fantastic literature and science. The two have always shared a symbiotic relationship, both inspiring and influencing the other. Science, like fantastic literature, is inherently concerned with the universal values of the society that performs or produces it: “At the heart of a culture’s science,” writes Robert M. Young, “we find a culture’s values. Both are irreducibly anthropomorphic and social” (125). While literature can be used as a testing ground for the moral and philosophical implications of scientific discoveries, those discoveries are often delicately linked to the literary impulse of their day, in part because science lends itself so naturally to such connections. Morton notes both the “mythopoeic capacities” of biologists in Darwin’s time and the “imaginative suggestiveness of issues within biology” (5), illuminating another relationship between science and imagination: science sparks the imagination, while human imagination colors how we interpret scientific discoveries. In his book Unweaving the Rainbow, evolutionist Richard Dawkins argues that scientific understanding of our material universe has always been partly responsible for the lofty themes, archetypes, and scope of vision involved in producing great literature. In his opinion, “[s]cientists transform the way we think about the larger universe. They assist the imagination back to the hot birth of time and forward to the eternal cold, or, in Keats’s words, to ‘spring direct towards the galaxy’” (16). Dawkins also claims that the scientific and literary impulses are fundamentally the same, rooted in wonder and curiosity. The science of origins, in particular, has the power to stimulate the thinker’s imagination, as it seeks to answer the fundamental philosophical questions of where we came from but leaves the matters of why we are here and Feldman 6 where we are going entirely up to imaginative speculation.1 Mary Midgley claims that evolutionary science is perhaps the defining ideological presence in literature after Darwin: “Evolution is the creation-myth of our age. By telling us our origins it shapes our views of what we are. It influences not just our thought, but our feelings and actions too, in a way which goes far beyond its official function as a biological theory. In calling it a myth, I am not of course saying that it is a false story. I mean that it has great symbolic power, which is independent of its truth” (154).2 Midgley’s observation applies regardless of whether evolutionary theory is true: as myth, if not as science, it is powerful and therefore real. Michael Page, along with Midgley, calls the Darwinian account of evolution “one of the central myths of modernity,” identifying it as truth and yet myth in that it explains our origins and everyday experience (3).3 Evolutionary theory has always maintained a special connection with the literary imagination: it both feeds imaginative thought and feeds off of it. In Darwin’s Plots, Gillian Beer explains how Darwin’s theory spoke to the literary and fantastic sensibilities of his day: Evolutionary theory brings together two imaginative elements implicit in much nineteenth-century thinking and creativity. One was the fascination with growth expressed also in Natürphilosophie and in Bildungsroman. The other was the concept of transformation. The intellectual interest in märchen, fairy-tale, and myth, which increased as the century went on, was fuelled by these preoccupations, while its methodology was indebted to evolutionary patterns of argument. (97) Beer here recognizes the symbiotic relationship between Victorian literature and evolutionary science: Darwin’s theory gained quick popularity because it resonated with his nineteenth- century audience, and in return, an accepting public led to further research into evolutionary science beyond Darwin’s contributions. Beer’s claim that Darwinian science inspired research 1 See Paul M. Shafer on evolutionary theory and the philosophical imagination. For Shafer, evolution as a premise widens the boundaries of imagination because within its context “we are free to construct a self-image and a social worldview as we see fit” (91-92). 2 See Robert Segal. 4-5, on his definition of myth as story. This definition functions independently of truth value. 3 Page views Mary Shelley’s fictional Frankenstein myth and the true Darwin myth as nearly equally important in defining our modern relation of science to literature (4). Feldman 7 into fairy tales and myths and even affected the way this research was performed indicates one of the earliest of many influences that Darwin would have upon fantasy literature. This close connection between Darwinian theory and fantastic literature exists in part because they both deal in universal archetypes. Beer points out that these archetypes are not limited to the realm of science; she sees in Darwinian evolution the same archetypal ideas as ancient myths: Darwinian theory calls on many of these mythic elements and challenges others by inversion. For example, there is an ‘umgekehrte Erhabene’ or ‘inverted sublime’ in Darwin’s treatment of ‘divine marriage’ and ‘hero-ancestry, fall and flood’. Instead of descent from a lofty deity his mythic history shows the difficult ascent from swamp, from an unknown progenitor, but asserts the nobility of this story. It was possible in evolutionary theory to trace a new form of quest myth, and to transpose the paradise garden from the past to present: the past consisted of a few simple forms, the present is burgeoning and various. (106) Beer continues, [Darwin] offers a new creation myth which challenges the idea of the fall, and makes the tree of life and the tree of knowledge one, and central to meaning. Moreover, his representation of natural order sways between an optimistic and a pessimistic interpretation: it gives room to both comic and tragic vision. (107) For Beer, evolutionary theory contains within itself the seeds of great literature: the quest, the hero, the comic, and the tragic; thus, it naturally inspires and is inspired by imaginative literature. Whether scientific discoveries are made through archetypal intuition or whether we trace mythic archetypes in science after the fact because of our predisposition to find these archetypes is a chicken-or-the-egg conundrum. A sufficient conclusion would be that the worlds of science and myth are inextricably connected by an ideological current which flows both ways. Feldman 8 The idea that myth, or fantasy, holds power independently of its truth value, as Midgley asserts, is fundamental to the argument for the value of fantasy literature4—an argument worth making before any serious study of the impact of a dubious scientific theory upon fantasy literature gets well underway. In “Rambler 4,” Samuel Johnson ridicules the “lilies,” “roses,” saytrs,” and “dryads,” in which a writer may “employ giants to snatch away a lady from the nuptial rites” and “knights to bring her back from captivity” (56). Johnson insists that the superior literary works, which he terms “the comedy of romance,” “are such as exhibit life in its true state, diversified only by accidents that daily happen in the world, and influenced by passions and qualities which are really to be found in conversing with mankind” (56). Johnson’s Enlightenment attitude towards the fantastic is still alive today; although fantastic literature enjoys immense popularity, it is often written off as escapism or pure entertainment. While Johnson’s condescension towards the fantastic can be explained by Enlightenment preoccupation with science and empiricism, current views towards fantastic literature are additionally shaped by postmodern cynicism. Crane points out that “the problems of the modern world which have spawned naturalistic, deterministic, and fatalistic literature seem to overshadow anything fantasy could possibly deal with. Fantasy seems now a retreat from the problems of the world (which, in part, it is) rather than being, as it was in Swift’s day, a confrontation of them” (35).5 Crane’s sentiment is echoed in our present culture’s affectionate disparagement of those labeled “geeks” 4 For the purpose of this study, I define fantasy literature as that set outside the bounds of probability or possibility in real life. This definition would include both science fiction and fantasy, the difference being that science fiction generally strives to establish plausibility within its own context while fantasy is less concerned with the factual plausibility of plot elements. See Edward James and Farah Mendlesohn ‘s Cambridge Companion to Fantasy Literature for an explanation of Coleridge’s distinction between fancy and imagination. Whereas, for Coleridge, fancy deals with the recollection, or memory, of what is known, imagination deals in entirely new creations (9). I define pure fantasy literature as imaginative rather than fanciful. 5 Swift used fantasy to confront current political and social issues of his day; however, there is a profound difference between Swift’s use of fantastic elements and true fantasy, to which Johnson refers; I address this distinction on page 3. Feldman 9 and “nerds” who prefer fantasy worlds of fiction or gaming to real-life pursuits like work, socialization, and family. However, in an age of science and of cynicism, the fantasy genre is expanding as never before, rapidly spreading from small pockets of subculture to the mainstream. Tondro explains that “the literature of the fantastic is a robust and unkillable beast; like the serpent, it sheds its skin periodically to be reborn in a more youthful form” (2), and the plethora of fantastic and supernatural films, novels, games, and television shows produced by our age competes with the volume of pseudo-science and scientific research we generate. This is not entirely due to our wish to escape the problems of the current world, but due in part to fantasy’s unique potential as a ground for solving those problems. Fantasy is a notoriously difficult literary term to define6; a statement from Darko Suvin may help to illuminate what I mean by the term. Suvin writes that “the first . . . paradox of fantasy . . . is that it begins where deep belief in supernatural values disappears” (217). Suvin would not consider Milton’s Paradise Lost or Spenser’s The Faerie Queen to be fantasy literature, for instance, because they are based upon non-universal value systems which the author and intended audience hold to be true. Pure fantasy literature, rather than reinforcing metaphysical values which the reader actually believes in, draws him into a world governed by values which, the reader and author have tacitly agreed, are a product of the author’s imagination.7 This contract of disbelief between author and reader renders true fantasy literature an ideal playground for the materialist because it does not require true belief in anything supernatural. Thus, fantasy literature provides a safe setting in which the “problems of the world,” such as the implications of evolutionary science, may be explored. Realistic, as well 6 James and Mendlesohn admit that “Fantasy literature has proven tremendously difficult to pin down” and offer the general consensus among scholars of the genre that it involves “the construction of the impossible” (1). 7 Universal values, such as love, altruism, and hatred, are still found in pure fantasy. However, the presence of an external structured value system, such as Christian theology, stands in the way of this contract of disbelief between author and reader, rendering a work less than pure fantasy. Feldman 10 as fantastic, literature may also be used to conduct theoretical experiments; Peter Allan Dale writes that George Eliot thought of her novels as “‘experiments in life’ that repeatedly test the positivist proposition that there is something in our ‘central structure’ that tends to altruism” (Baker and Womack 86). However, fantasy literature lends itself especially well to such experimentation because it offers a laboratory where theories about the human condition can be tested and proven within a hypothetical and controlled fictional setting without the constraints of trying to achieve realism. In fact, according to Jake LaJeunesse, T. H. White uses literature in this way, putting his ideas about humanity (based on his understanding of science) to the test in order to establish their workability. LaJeunesse claims that “the Once and Future King and The Book of Merlyn should be viewed as a literary science experiment in which White attempts to engage the subject of war with the intent of producing a real-world solution” (23). This aspect of the close relationship between science and literature, in which literature is used as a testing ground for the implications of science, will be the foundation of my study of both Tennyson’s and White’s works: both men appropriate the Arthurian legend as a laboratory in which to test the implications of evolutionary science. The Arthurian legend lends itself particularly well to an exploration of scientific ideas. Its timeless and universal quality allows it to speak to each passing generation in an immediate and powerful way. According to Archibald and Putter, a priest around the year 1200 predicted that the Arthurian legend would serve as “food for storytellers till the end of time” (1), and to this day, storytellers continue to feast upon it. One reason for this timelessness is that the Arthurian legend fits the previous description of pure fantasy literature, carrying within itself its own value system. This value system is largely a part of the artistic creation of the Arthurian world; while it