<<

Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons

LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School

2009 Religion and in late nineteenth-century Lisa Irene Moody Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the English Language and Literature Commons

Recommended Citation Moody, Lisa Irene, "Religion and realism in late nineteenth-century American literature" (2009). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 134. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/134

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. RELIGIONANDREALISM INLATENINETEENTHCENTURYAMERICANLITERATURE

ADissertation SubmittedtotheGraduateFacultyofthe LouisianaStateUniversityand AgriculturalandMechanicalCollege inpartialfulfillmentofthe requirementsforthedegreeof DoctorofPhilosophy in TheDepartmentofEnglish by LisaIreneMoody B.A.,UniversityofChicago,1986 M.A.,NorthwesternUniversity,1991 December2009 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Throughouttheprocessofwritingthisdissertation,Ihavebeenguidedbymanyexcellent

facultyandcolleagues,eachofwhomhasaddedsignificantlytothisproject.Firstandforemost,

Iwouldliketoacknowledgethementorshipofmydissertationdirector,J.GeraldKennedy,for

hisexpertguidance,closereadings,andoverallinterestinmygraduatestudies.Dr.Kennedyhas promotedmyworkandheldmetoahighpersonalandacademicstandard,forwhichhehimself

hasproventobeanaptrolemodel.Hisownimpeccablescholarshiphasinspiredmetostriveto producemybestwork,andhisongoinginterestinandencouragementofmyresearchhaskept

memotivated.

IhavealsobeenfortunateinhavingacommitteeofexcellentLouisianaStateUniversity

faculty,somewhohavebeenworkingwithmesincemyGeneralExam,andsomewhohave joinedmyprojectmorerecently,helpingmovetowardmyfinalgoalofcompletingthedoctorate.

Fortheirexpertiseandenthusiasm,IwouldliketothankBoelhower,BrannonCostello,

andJohnR.May.AnyonewhohashadthepleasureofdiningwithDr.BoelhowerattheFaculty

Clubwillappreciatehissagacityandkindnesstograduatestudents.

IthasalsobeenmygreatfortunetohaveSharonHarrisasareaderofmyRebecca

HardingDavischapter.Forthepasttwoyears,shehassupportedmyresearch,reviewedmy

material,andpromotedmyconferencework,providingmewithmanyopportunitiestoshowcase

myDavisscholarship.WithherhelpandthatoftheSocietyfortheStudyofRebeccaHarding

DavisandHerWorld,Ihavebeenfortunatetohavebeenpartofagroupofscholarswhohave

helpedmeininnumerableways.

Withaprojectthatiscrossdisciplinary,theassistanceandinterestofStuartIrvineinthe

DepartmentofPhilosophyandReligiousStudiesandRodgerPayneoftheUniversityofNorth

Carolina,AshevilleandformerlyofLouisianaStateUniversityhaveproventobeinvaluable.

Dr.IrvineservedasmyDean’sRepresentativeatmyGeneralExam,andhehasbeenan

ii enthusiasticsupporterofmywork,andDr.Paynehasbeeneagerandencouragingfromthe momentIfirstapproachedhimforassistance.

Inaddition,IwouldliketothankSharonAronofskyWeltman,DanielNovak,andElsie

MichieforhelpingroundoutmyexpertiseinBritishVictorianLiteratureandforprovidingme withtheincredibleexperienceofattendingtheDickensUniverseinJuly,2008.Allthreeof theseexcellentscholarshavelongacknowledgedtheimportanceofBritishliteraryrealismand

BritishVictorianphilosophytothiscurrentproject.Thesethreefacultymembersarethemost generousandmostencouragingmentorsagraduatestudentcouldhopetohave.

CountlesspeoplehavesupportedmystudiesandmywritingfromthemomentIbegan

graduateschool,andIwouldliketoacknowledgetheirinterestandassistance.Ihavebeen

fortunatetohaveworkedwithandbeenguidedbyKevinCope,PallaviRastogi,Elisabeth

Oliver,EricaAbramsLocklear,MatthewS.Landers,JosephBrown,CarlaBota,IlanaXinos,

andTanjaStampfl.WorthyofparticularthanksisRhondaAmisintheEnglishDepartment,

whosepatience,persistence,andgeneralhelpfulnesshaverescuedmemorethanonceinmy

scholarlypursuits.Imustalsogiveaspecialthankstomyofficemateandbestfriend,Daniel

Mangiavellano,whosesuperbscholarship,wonderfulsenseofhumor,andunconditionalsupport

havehelpedmethroughmanyadarkday.

Finally,Iwouldliketothankmyfamilywhoseloveandunderstandinghasmade

returningtograduateschoolapleasure.Myownparentsandmyinlawshaveprovidedsupport

andencouragement,andIthankthemforthat.Iwouldespeciallyliketothankmytwochildren,

BetsyandAlex,forbeingsoindependentandacceptingofmystudiesandresponsibilities.And

aboveandbeyondall,Ithankmywonderfulhusband,PaulEngeriser,fromthebottomofmy

heart.Hehashelpedmeineverywaypossible.Wantingtomakemyfamilyproudhas

motivatedmebeyondanythingelse,especiallywithallthesacrificestheyhavemadeonmy behalf.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………………………………………………ii ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………..v CHAPTER1.INTRODUCTIONTORELIGIONANDREALISM: “LETCEASETOLIE”………………………………………………1 CHAPTER2.REBECCAHARDINGDAVISANDSENTIMENTALREALISM………….43 CHAPTER3.WILLIAMDEANHOWELLSASWRITERANDCRITIC OFAMERICANLITERARYREALISM…………………………………….107 CHAPTER4.MARKTWAINANDTHEBIBLE: “ISEEITWARN’TNOTHINGBUTADICTIONARY”……..……………..156 CHAPTER5.HAROLDFREDERICANDREALISM: THEDAMNATIONOFRELIGION.…..……………………………….…….205 CHAPTER6.CONCLUSION………………………………………….………………..……259 WORKSCITED…………………………………………………………………………….….267 VITA……………………………………………………………………………………….…..278

iv ABSTRACT

Acriticalapproachtounderstandingtheanalyticalpowerofrealismandits representationalclaimsinthelatenineteenthcenturyistoexaminetherelationshipbetween realismandaculturalconcernthatopposestheverytenetsofrealism,onethat necessarilypervadedallaspectsofclass,gender,nationality,race,sexualorientation,orother classifiablesubsetsofsocietytypicallylinkedwithvariousschoolsofliterarytheory:thesubject ofreligion.Infact,religion,withitsdisembodiedimmaterialism,surelytheantithesisofrealism, representsauniqueculturalproblemthatteststheconceptualbiasesoftherealistmode.One basicissueisthatreligionitselfisanebulousconceptthatresistsneatexplanationinAmerican culture.Onemightaskwhatarethewaysinwhichreligionwasperceived,whetheritbe consideredinrelationtoasystemofethics,law,orreligiouspractices,ormoreabstractly,in relationtospiritualism,idealism,orsupernaturalism?Cansuchametaphysicalconceptevenbe locatedinrealistwritingandhowdorealistwritersmaterializeit,particularlyinrelationtosocial ethics,aninherentconcernofrealistwriting?Changesineconomics,industry,race,and immigrationnecessarilyaffectedthereligiouscultureofAmerica,andrealism,asaliterary mode,shouldbewellsuitedtocapturingsuchsociologicalchanges;nevertheless,religionin realismisintenselyproblematic,particularlysincerealistwriterswerereactingagainstearlier modesofsentimentalandreligiousfiction.Examininghowprominentpractitionersofrealism dealtwiththereligioussubjectwillshedanewunderstandingonthepracticeofliteraryrealism asacriticalmodeandaddresscompetingclaimsoftextualauthorityinrelationtotheBibleand therealisttextinthemediationofsocialethics.

Thisprojectcomprisessixchapters,whichare:1)IntroductiontoReligionandRealism:

“LetFictionCeasetoLie”;2)RebeccaHardingDavisandSentimentalLiteraryRealism;3)

WilliamDeanHowellsasWriterandCriticofAmericanLiteraryRealism;4)MarkTwainand

v theBible:“ISeeItWarn’tNothingbutaDictionary”;5)HaroldFredericandRealism:The

DamnationofReligion;and6)Conclusion.

vi CHAPTER1:INTRODUCTIONTORELIGIONANDREALISM: “LETFICTIONCEASETOLIE”

Realistwritersofthenineteenthcenturygrappledwithamethodofwritingthatpurported

tobebothnewandmoretruthfulthanpreviousmodesofliteraryrepresentation.Thisisa paradoxicalclassificationbecauseitassumestherearedegreesofrealnessortruthfulness,

categoriesthatshouldbeabsolute,andthatsuperiorliteratureisthatwhichcomesclosestto

representingthetangibleworld.Closelyconnectedtothebeliefintherelativesuperiorityof

realistliteratureistheaestheticimplicationthatliteraturehasatransformativecapacityin

relationtosocialbehaviorandethicalpractices.Notsurprisingly,inrealistlingo,onefrequently

findsanattempttoassertsuchliteraryauthoritybysuggestingthatthewriterfunctionsasa

socialscientistlookingfortruismsinculture,whichisreallyanattempttonarrowtheconditions

ofcertaintyregardingthatwhichisknowable.Suchaclaimshiftsthephilosophicalfocusofthe pursuitoftruthandknowledgefromanintuitivegraspoftheidealrealmtotheimmediate physicalworldandtheexperienceofinteractingwiththeworldofobjectsandthings.For

example,whencomparingtheobservationalskillsofthewritertotheexpertiserequiredofthe

naturalscientist,WilliamDeanHowellswrites:“Butletfictionceasetolieaboutlife;letit portraymenandwomenastheyare,actuatedbythemotivesandthepassionsweallknow;letit

leaveoffpaintingdollsandworkingthembyspringsandwires”( Criticism and Fiction 104).In

otherwords,realistwritersbegantobasetheirliteraryauthorityontheassumptionthatwhatthey producedwasmorereal,moretruthful,andmoreauthoritativethantheworkoftheir predecessors,andtheytriedtodevelopliteraryparadigmsthatreinforcedthisideology.Whatwe

areleftwithtodayistheattempttolocatesuchparadigmsinthevarioustextsofthewriterswho

styledthemselvesasrealistsoratleastthosewhopublishedinthesamecompanywiththose

sincelabeledasrealistwriters.

1 Oneelusivesubjectthatrealistwritersmustconfrontinordertoofferaccurate depictionsofnineteenthcenturysocialmoresisthesubjectofreligion.Religioncrosseslinesof wealth,gender,geography,race,andanyotheridentifiablesubsetofhumankind.Inshort, religionisasubjectthatcannotbeavoided,particularlyinamodeofwritingthataimstooffer truthfulandcomprehensiveportraitsofthesesamesocialgroups.Atthesametime,inastyle thatprivilegestangibleobjects,locations,and“things,”metaphysicalsubjectslikereligionoffer inherentresistancetotherealist’spreferenceformaterialityandempiricalexperience.Religious cultureinlatenineteenthcenturyAmericaisacomplicatedissueduetothefluidityand splinteringofthemanyreligioussects;however,likerealism,religionisasubjectthattouches onallaspectsofAmericansociallife,andlikerealism,itisasubjectthathasbothanabstract ideologyaswellasamaterialexpressionwithacertaingapexistingbetweentheelusiveideaof andspecificculturalinstitutionssuchaschurchbuildings,congregations,and influentialministersexertingpoweroversocialpolicies.Muchaswemightasktodaywhat exactlyismeantby“religion,”sorealistwritershadtoaskandanswerthequestionofwhat exactlyismeantbyreligionandhowmightreligionbestberepresentedintextualconstructions.

Whatbeginstohappenisthatdifferentwritersengagewiththereligioussubjectinvastly differentandverydistinctiveways;somedealwithtranscendentnotionsofspiritualityand mysticalconceptsofdivinitywhileothersbegintoexaminereligiouspracticesandtheireffects oncultureandethicalbehavior.Asrealistwritersattempttorepresentthereligioussubjectasa materialpractice,wecanthenexaminethelimitsofliteraryrealisminordertohelpusidentify someofthemoreobscureaspectsoftherealistparadigmtounderstandbetterhowrealism operatesasaculturalinfluence.

Howells’sconceptoftherealisttextofferinganewmethodforviewingapreviously inaccessibleorunidentifiedaspectofsocietysuggeststhatrealismisasmuchaphilosophyabout socialvaluesasitisaliterarystyle.Thisassumptioniscloselyalignedwithrealistrhetoric

2 assessingtheimportanceoffictionininstillingandreinforcingethicalbehavior;however,we arenotleftwithaclearparadigmexplainingwhatitmeanstotheconstructionofarealisttext.

OneimportantreasonforthisisthatHowellshimselfaimedtoworkagainsttheconventionsthat readerswouldrecognizeandassociatewithspecifictypesoftexts.Inherrevisionistcultural study, Writers in Retrospect ,ClaudiaStokeswrites:“Realistsdeploredwhattheybelievedtobe theimitativenessofAmericanfiction,which,theyargued,tookitscueslessfromtheimmediate conditionsoflatecenturyAmericanlifeandculturethanfromtheconventionspopularized decadesbeforeinBritishandContinentalfiction”(28).Stokes’sassertionsuggeststhatrealist writersweretryingtoworkinbothaliteraryandaphilosophicalmanner;theyweretryingto establishanarrativeapproachthatwasdefinedbyitsavoidanceofidentifiableconventions,and theyweretryingtodosobecausetheunderlyinghistoricalimpulsevaluedaliteraturemore directlyrelatedtothematerialconditionsoftheIndustrialAge.Whattheysoughtwasa literaturethatdidnotcueaspecificframeworkbutseemedinsteadtoofferamimeticanalogy betweentheconstructedtextualrealityandthereader’sownexperiencesintheworld.

Realistwritersengagingwithsocialconcernsandculturaldisparitiesbetweenvarious socialgroupsinherithighlyformulaicformsofdiscoursethathavealreadylinkedreligionand ethics,suchassermonicdiscourse,religioustracts,andsentimentalfiction,andthesewriters mustnowengagewiththesediscoursesandthesesubjectsastheyattempttolocatetheirown literaryauthority.Whatdistinguishesrealismfromothertypesofearlierreformfictionandfrom religiousfictionsuchasOrientalorvisionaryliteratureisanintensefocusonaspectsofreligion andreligiouspracticesinrelationtoculturalethicsviapositivism,whichisacritiqueofreligion primarilyasasocialinstitutionwithvaryingdegreesofauthority.Inthisway,thereligious subjectisthecatalystinboththeformationandtheeventualdeclineofAmericanliterary realism.Ultimately,whatwefindisadiscourseaboutauthorityitself,particularlyauthorityin theadministrationofethicsandmorality.Finally,bytheturnofthecentury,webegintosee

3 suchelusivesubjectsasreligionandethicsandeventuallypsychologybegintounderminethe practiceofliteraryrealismbecauseoftheirveryintangibility.Uncertaintyaboutthatwhich cannotbeknownbeginstotroublewriterswhoexaminematerialexperiencetorepresentwhat canbeknownwithcertainty.

Therealistcredocallsforaverisimilitudethatallowsthetextualrepresentationtoserve asananalogyforthereader’sownexperiencewithhisorhersocialworld.Inordertoconstruct thereligioussubjectwithinthefictionalworldofthetext,writersmustconceptualizeabstract notionsofspiritualityandtrytomaketheseabstractionstangible.Todothis,theydrawon variousrepresentationalstrategiessuchassymbolismandallegory,socialdimensionssuchas architectureandreligioushabits,andreadingstrategiesinvolvinghermeneutics.Ononelevel, religionmightbeconstructedastheinstitutionalchurch,whichisnosmallproblemto conceptualizeinarapidlychangingAmericanreligiousculture.Onanotherlevel,religionmust berepresentedmorebroadlyintermsofitsculturalfunctionandultimatepurpose,yetinaway thatacknowledgesitsphenomenologicaldimensions.Whatthismeansisthattheroleandeven thevalueofreligionmustalsobeconceptualizedbyweighingcompetingnotionsofthesalvation ofthesoulversusthesufferingofhumansandtheconditionsimposedonone’sfellowmanthat mightpreventultimatesalvation.Oftenthefirstpremise,thatis,ultimatesalvation,iscalled upontodrawattentiontospecificimmediateconcernsthatwritersperceivetobedangersto societysuggestingacollectiveculpabilityinthesavingofsouls.Forexample,aswriters introduceissuessuchasslavery,alcoholconsumption,andprostitutionasrisksofeternal damnation,theideaofagreatersocialresponsibilitybeginstotakeroot,andeventuallywesee thecentralconcernshiftawayfromsalvationtoexplicitsocialandethicalpracticesandconcerns forsuchacollectiveresponsibility.

Readingreligioninrealismisnoeasytask,foravarietyofreasons.Religiousculturehas changeddramaticallyinthepastcentury,andsomeofthetextualcuesareeasilyoverlookedor

4 evenmisunderstoodintoday’sculture.Thereareimportantinstancesofambiguityinrealist texts,andsuchoversightsbearinvestigating,butidentifyingvaguereferentsshouldnotbe viewedasanattempttocritiquerealismitselfasaliterarysuccessorfailure.Lookingfora consistentsystemofsignifiersthatcanwithstandthetestoftimeisasuretechniqueforlocating flawsinrealism,butsuchscrutinydisplacestheactofreadingrealismontoanoverlysemiotic studythatsimplyproveslanguagesystemsarefluidwhileitignorestherelationshipsbetween otherculturalsystemssuchasreligion,sociology,andscience.Therearedeeperissuesatstake, andhoninginonproblemswiththesubjectofreligionallowsustolearnagreatdealabouthow realistwritersattempttodealwiththeintangiblenatureofreligionandspiritualitywhile simultaneouslytryingtomaintainaphilosophicalstancethatvaluesmateriality.Thesubjectof religionplaysauniqueroleinrealisttexts,particularlyintheconsiderationofhowethical principlesareenactedinlatenineteenthcenturyAmericansociety.Literaryrealismhasa complexfunction;itissimultaneouslyaprocessofviewing,amodeofrepresenting,andanact ofconstructingaimedatproducingadifferentsocialoutcome.InthewordsofEricSundquist:

“Nogenre—ifitcanbecalledagenre—ismoredifficulttodefinethanrealism,andthisis particularlytrueofAmericanrealism”( American Realism vii).Itshouldbeevidentthat differentwritersembracedrealisminverydifferentways,whichSundquistdescribesasaseries ofeclecticresponsesaimedatexposingratherthansubvertingthe“‘real’structures[suchtexts] claimtorepresent”(viii).Recastingrealismasavaluesystemthatisconcernedwith complexitiessuchashowauthorityisexercisedincultureratherthanasastrictlyliterary practiceallowsforaconsiderationofrealisminthecontextofsocialthoughtandcultural response,asopposedtoamoretraditionaldialecticthatexaminesrealisminrelationtoits juxtaposedstylesofandsentimentalismontheoneendandnaturalismand ontheotheralthoughtheseremainusefuldialectics.

5 Realismissostronglyassociatedwiththelatenineteenthcenturythatittendsto representtheage,itselfbecomingaliterarysymbolofindustrialeconomics,labeledbymany criticsasamiddleclassinstitution.Itisimportanttorememberthatanyliteraryformisalways workingeitherintandemwithoragainstalternativeformsofdiscourse.Thesociallyconscious aimofrealistwritingdoesallowacomparisontoothertypesofdiscoursewithasharedethical mission,suchassermonicdiscourseandeducationaldiscourse.Whencriticsevaluaterealism solelyasanarrativestyleoramodeofrepresentation,theylimitthepossibilitiesfor understandingitinrelationtoalargerculturalcontextsuchascompetingclaimstocultural authority.Thislimitationmaybeaninherentflawinthehistoryofliterarycriticismthatignores alternativediscoursesagainstwhichrealistwritersstyledtheirtexts.Moreprecisely,ithas proventobenearlyimpossibletoofferaconsistentparadigmaticdescriptionofrealism,andthe reasonforthisisthatotherimportantexpressionsofliteraryandculturalauthorityare overlookedintheattempt,andpartoftheparadigmofrealismisthedeliberateomissionofwell understoodconventionsrelativetotheseothermodesofdiscoursedealingwithethics.

Scholarsarenowbeginningtoexaminerealisminnewways.Recentworkssuchas

DavidShi’s Facing Facts andPhilipBarrish’s American presentargumentsthat realismisanidealisticsensibilityandacriticalmode,respectively.DavidShiwrites:“A realisticoutlookseepedintoeverycornerandcreviceofintellectualandartisticlifeduringthe secondhalfofthenineteenthcentury”(3).InShi’smodel,arealisticsensibilityisnotsomuch producedasitisitselfanimpetusfortheproductionofvariousformsofexpression.Thisbegs thequestionofitsoriginsalthoughShibelievesidealismwastheimpetusforrealism. 1Shi’s argumentthat,generallyspeaking,ideologybegetsmaterialismisexplicitlyopposedbyNancy

Glazenerwhoreversesthiscauseandeffectsequence,aswewillseebelow.Barrish’sposition islessfocusedontheideaofalargerculturalsensibilitythanisShi’salthoughBarrishdoesview realismasanexpressionofa“paradoxicalrelationship”betweenmanandculture( American

6 Literary Criticism 3).Barrishalignsthisparadoxicalrelationshipwithotherattemptstoassert specificcriticalviewsallhavingtodowithprovidingaccesstothereal.Hewritesthatthevery actofrealistwritingcomprises“auniquedegreeofemotionalandcognitiveintimacywith,yet alsocontrollabledistancefrom...whatevercategoryofexperiencealiteraryworkpositsasthe mostrecalcitrantly real ”(3).Hisexplanationofrealismasacriticalmodeadvancesany discussionofrealismintoadiscussionofsocial,ethical,andtextualauthority,anditallowsusto examinerealismasameansofdiscerninghowrealistwriterstrytolocateandappropriatethe mosttangibleevidenceofsocialauthorityandthewayauthorityoperateswithincultureoreven civilizationitself.Atthesametime,hisargumentissomewhatdismissiveofrealist practitioners’claimstoprovidetruthfulsocialaccessandscrutinybecausehearguesthatsuch claimsofintellectualprestigearetypicaloftherhetoricfoundinnearlyallschoolsofcritical theory.

Arecastingalsoallowsustoexaminerealismacrossseveralliterarystylesandnotsolely inthetraditionalnovel.Aculturalfocusonmaterialevidenceprivilegestheterrestrialrealmof experienceoverthemetaphysicalunknown,andasimilarshiftcanbeseeninthedozensof religiousbiographiesthatappearedinprintbetween1870and1910,manyofwhichemphasize thelifeofJesusasagiveroflawsandethicsasopposedaspiritualJesuswhoistheauthorof salvation. 2EventheforemostadvocateofAmericanrealism,WilliamDeanHowells,engaged

withtheideaofmaterializingJesusin A Traveller from Altruria (1894).Whilemanyscholars

viewHowells’sutopianfictionasadeparturefromhisrealistprinciples,thisimpulsemightmore

aptlybeunderstoodasanattempttoactualizeaspiritualfigureandtoreifythepersonofJesusas

hemightbeunderstoodincontemporarycultureandinrelationtotheethicalchallengesbelieved

tobeuniquetotheIndustrialAge.Inmanyways,Howells’sutopianfictionclearlyembodieshis

realistphilosophy;hewantstotakethenotionofdivinityoutoftheintuitiverealmandexamine

howsuchanotionmightbereceivedorevenconstructedinhisownculture. 3Whilean

7 examinationofotherliteraryformssuchasbiographyisoutsidethescopeofthisproject,itis importanttonotethatseveralwritersoffiction,includingHarrietBeecherStowe,Elizabeth

StuartPhelps,andLewWallace,utilizedthereligiousbiographicalform,whichindicatesthe manywaysinwhichreligionandfictionoverlappedandwereindialoguewitheachotherduring thelatenineteenthcentury.Howells’s A Traveller from Altruria demonstratesthatrealistwriters werealsopreoccupiedwiththisoverlap,andevenHenryJames’scharacterin The American

(1877),ChristopherNewman,canbereadasanattempttoenactaJesusfigureintheguiseofa

modernindustrialist.Newmandemonstrateshisturntheothercheekmodelofethicalbehavior byrefusingtofollowthroughonhisrevengeplanagainsttheOldWorldEuropeanCatholic

Bellegardefamily.Honinginonthesubjectofreligionallowsustoexaminetheseotherforms

ofdiscourse,andexaminingtheinnatetensionbetweentheabstractandthematerialisagood placetobegin.

InadditiontotheallegoricalJesus,theAdamicfigureemergesinAmericanliterary

culture.AclosescrutinyofAmericanrealismrevealsacleartensionbetweenthehumanistic

considerationsinherentinthesocioethicalaspectsofreligiousdiscourse.Inconstructinga positivistmodelofhowreligionmightbestoperateinlatenineteenthcenturyculture,realist

writersfrequentlydrawontheseBiblicalfigurestopresentcompetingideologiesthatarelinked

specificallytoLiberalProtestanthermeneutics.Adam,asanOldTestamentarchetype,offersa primitivemodelofhumankindthatisunfetteredbycreedorculture.Jesus,theNewTestament embodimentofhumanity,representssocialprogressandintuitivespiritualitythatcantranscend

HebraicLawandreinterpretethicsforthegivenage.Writersembedthesefiguresintheirrealist fictionfrequently,suggestingtheextenttowhichrealismborrowsfromreligiousallegory.As wedeconstructspecifictextsandexaminerealismasadiscourse,withvariouswriters respondingtoachangingreligiousculture,wecanseetheextenttowhichreligion,spirituality,

8 andhermeneuticsinformthisnewliterarygenrewithrootsgoingbacktoGermanRomanticism andatensionbetweenHebraismandHellenism.

Itshouldalsobenotedthatthereligioussectsinquestion,particularlytheCalvinist denominationsthatareassociatedwiththeearlierreformliterature,werehardlystablefixturesin nineteenthcenturyAmericanculture,andthattherelationshipbetweenvarioustypesof discoursewasafluidandreciprocalonemakingsomeofthisfictionevenhardertocomprehend giventhechangesthathavecontinuedtooccurinAmericanreligiousculture.HaroldBush pointsoutthatAmericanreligiousculturewasfarfromuniform.Hewrites:“Acommonmistake madebymanyhistoriansofAmericanChristianityistopositthatiteverwasasingular hegemonicsystemofbelief”(36).Acloseexaminationofrealistfictionrevealshowmisleading thislabelcanbewhenappliedtoAmericanchurchculture;thesewritersclearlystruggledin ordertoascertainwhatonedenominationmightofferrelativetoanother.Itcanbedifficultto discerntheunderlyingsignifiersbeneathvaguereligiousandspiritualreferencessimplybecause theculturalassociationshavechangedsincetheinceptionofAmericanrealistliteratureandwere frequentlychangingevenduringitsheydayandcertainlyduringitsdecline.Forinstance,when

EdithWhartondepictsLilyBartlanguidlyeyeingaborrowedprayerbookinher1905 The

House of Mirth (54),theunnamedchurchinquestionmustsurelybeanAnglican(Episcopal) denomination,butWhartondoesnotnamethesectbecausesheapparentlyassumesitwillbe understoodduetoboththeprayerbookreferenceandthewealthyNewYorksocialclassthatis thesubjectofherwork.Againandagaininlatenineteenthcenturyliterature,wecanidentify unnamedchurches,creeds,anddenominationseveninworksthatseemtobeaimingtheir critiquesattheinstitutionalchurch,suchasRebeccaHardingDavis’s“LifeintheIronMills” andHowells’s A Modern Instance .Forthemostpart,criticsseemtoignorethevaguenessand ambiguityofthereligioussubject,orelsetheyconcludethatsuchimprecisionisevidencethat

9 theseareseculartexts,butthenineteenthcenturywasveryfarfrombeingasecularculture,and suchvaguenessunderscoresthatthereligioussubjectwasaproblematiconeforrealistwriters.

Animportantapproachtothestudyofreligionandrealismistoreviewthehistoryof

scholarshiponrealismandtoplacecontemporarycriticismintoacohesivecontext.Thereisno

overallconsensusonwhatexactlyrealismisorhowitshouldbestudied,butrecentscholarship

emphasizesthattherearemanywaystoreadrealism,andthatalloftheseapproachesbringnew

understandingtotheideaofarealistsensibility.EdwinCadywasperhapsthefirsttosuggest

thatanyworkabledefinitionofrealismisgoingtohavetobeopenendedandauthorfocused:

“Atthegameofculturaldefinitions,thepluralistalmostalwayswins....Romancer,realist,and

naturalistareeasiertounderstandaspersons,experiencingandexpressingdifferentsensibilities,

thanaslayfiguresstandingfor‘isms’”( The Light of Common Day 23).Achangeof

classificationmay,infact,beexactlywhatscholarsareseekingbecauserealismasaliterary paradigmhasprovedtobeelusiveandthereforeproblematicbecauseitresistsconsistentstylistic

classification.

Addedtotheproblemofbeingunabletoplacerealisttextsintoneatcategoriesorto

derivetrademarkconventionsthatmarkrealisttexts,isthefactthatwritersthemselveshardly

everadheretoasingleliteraryapproach.ScholarswholabelMarkTwainasrealist,forexample,

mayeasilyoffer The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885)asatrademarkrealisttextbecause

ofTwain’sselectionofan“ordinary”heroprotagonist,hiscritiqueofsocialvaluesregarding

andslavery,andhisinclusionofregionaldialoguecuedtohelpthereaderimaginethe

localdialectofHuck’slanguage.Eventhoughthesesameattributescanbelocatedin A

Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court ,publishedjustfouryearslaterin1889,scholarshave

ahardertimearguingthat Connecticut Yankee isahallmarkrealisttextbecauseofHank

Morgan’stimetravelbacktothesixthcentury.Theconversationthenturnstoexaminingthis

fantasytextforrealisttechniques,shiftingthediscussionofrealismawayfromthetextitselfand

10 backintotherealmofsearchingforsometimesthematic,sometimesparadigmatic,and

sometimesstylisticreaderlycuesthatsignifyanauthor’sengagementwithmaterialismona broaderandmorephilosophicallevel.Inthisvein,scholarswillexaminetextsforspecific valuesthatarecorrelatedwithrealism,suchassocialcritiquesandspecificthemesthatare relatedtotheIndustrialAge.Onemightarguethat A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court is like arealisttextbecauseTwaincritiquesindustrialismbysatirizingitviaaclashingof medievalandmodernsocialandethicalvalues.StrugglingtoplaceTwain’s Connecticut Yankee intothecontextofrealism,GreggCamfieldappliestheblendedlabel“sentimentalrealism”to

Twain’swriting(59)whileRobertPaulLambdiscussestheconfoundingcomplexityofTwain’s realism,butultimatelylabels Connecticut Yankee as“acelebrationandcritiqueofthenineteenth century’scherishednotionofmoralandtechnologicalprogress”(485).Twain’swritingis perhapsparticularlyproblematicforscholarsofrealismwhoseekneatcategorizations,butthe manwho,alongwithCharlesDudleyWarner,coinedthephrase“TheGildedAge”cancertainly notbeshuntedasideinanyseriousanalysisofrealistwriting,norhavescholarseversuggested thatheshouldevenastheystruggletoclassifyhisliterarycontributions. 4Further,whileTwain isonlyoneofseveralauthorswhochallengethetaxonomyofrealism,Twain’sbodyofwork helpsustoviewtheimportanceofreligiontorealism,bothinrealism’sinceptionand, ultimately,initsdemise.

Tothisend,manyscholarsnowembracetheideaofexaminingrealismasacultural phenomenonratherthanastrictlyliteraryoneor,tobemorespecific,ratherthanasstrictlya narrativemode,althoughtheapproachesvarywidelywithsomelookingatrealismasaresponse toindustrialcapitalismwhileothersbelieverealismwasamodeofcriticalthinkingthatwas producedinordertopromoteclasshierarchiesandboundaries.Thisdistinctionposesacause

versuseffectargumentinthedevelopmentofliteraryrealism,withsomecriticssuchasDavid

Shibelievingthattheideologyofrealismresultedintheendproductofrealistfictionwhileother

11 historicistscholarssuchasMichaelDavittBell,AmyKaplan,andNancyGlazenerbelievethat realismitselfwas“produced”inordertomaintainclassstratificationsandtocreateasenseof highandlowcultureinAmericanliterature.

Inallcases,theemphasisontheconceptofproductionshowstheimpactofindustrialism onthestudyofrealism,whichironicallyassumesthatideasthemselvesarematerialproductsof theimaginationandofculture.NancyGlazener,forexample,focusesontheprocessofreading thesevarioustextsthatsheassertswerepublishedundertheumbrellaofrealismattheinstigation ofanelitegroupofmagazinepublishersworkingatwhatshecallsthe Atlantic group magazines.5Glazenerdefinesrealismas“an‘establishment’formduetoitspromotionby

Atlantic groupmagazines”( Reading for Realism 11),andshespecificallyselectsthe Atlantic

groupmagazinesashercriteriabecauseshebelieves“criticswhoaddressrealismasanentity

needtoprovidesomeaccountofitslocations,variations,andmodesofcirculationratherthan

assumingthatithasorhadastable,portable,transhistoricalidentityandfunction”(12).

Glazenerarguesthattheseperiodicalsworkedreciprocallytovalidateeachother’scultural

authority,witheditorsandcolumnistsoftenchangingjobsfromonemagazinetoanotherwithin

thissmallcircleofpublications,resultinginallofthesemagazinesfeaturingtheworkofan

overlappingcircleofwriters(25758).Sheadds:“SinceU.S.literaturewasnotwidelytaughtin

theacademyuntilwellintothetwentiethcentury,inthelatenineteenthcenturythe Atlantic groupmagazineshadgreaterauthorityoverAmericanliteraturethananyotherinstitutiondid”

(5).ThecruxofGlazener’sargumentisheridentificationofthesharedideologyofthe Atlantic

groupmagazinesandherassertionthat,inordertogettheirworkpublished,shortstorywriters

andnovelistshadtoadoptanunderstandingofrealismandtostyletheirworksaccordinglyin

ordertoadheretothepublicationstylesofthesemagazines.

GlazenerfocusesparticularlyontheinfluencetheAtlantic grouppublishershadon

constructingculturalreadinghabits.Againweseethelanguageofindustrialismatwork:ideas

12 areproducedandreadinghabitsaremanufactured.Shewrites:“Itmaycomeasasurprisethat themagazineswereexplicitlyinterestedinformulatingdifferentkindsofreading,notjust differentkindsoftexts”(6).Glazenersuggeststhatrealismmustbeaddressedasareading practicethatwasimposedonAmericanculturebyanelitegroupofeditorswithacommongoal ofpromotingprofessionalauthorshipandreinforcingclassdistinctions:

Atitsbest,thisappropriationofrealismframedthesincereeffortsofapopulationto understandtheconditionsofitsownprivilegeanditsrelationtoothersocialgroups;atits worst,itfraudulentlylegitimatedthatpopulation’scontrolofcultureandthe“monopoly ofhumanity”entailedininstallingone’sownformsofpleasuresasworthyones.(13) Inherargument,Glazenerhistoricizesliteraryrealismbyexaminingaspecifictimeframeanda specifictypeofpublicationvehicle,andshesuggeststhatauthorstailoredtheirrealisttechniques tosuitthepatronageofthesemagazines,allofwhomsharedacommonsocialandliterary philosophy.

Glazener’sargumentisadifficultonetodisputeformanyreasons,buttherearesome

logicalinconsistenciesthatbearconsideration.Althoughmagazinepublishingwasadominant

modeofaccesstopublication,itwasnottheonlyalternative,andinfact,magazinepublishing

reachedfarsmalleraudiencesthandidotherpublicationvehicles.AsCharlesJohanningsmeier

haspointedout,latenineteenthcenturyauthorsutilizedavarietyofvehiclessuchasnewspaper

syndicatesinordertoreachaudiencesofthousands:“syndicatedworks...madeitintothe

handsofanationwide,heterogeneousreadershipoftenexceedingonemillion”(63).SarahOrne

JewettandMaryWilkinsFreeman,bothcategorizedasregionalistsbutalsoarguablyrealists,

usednewspapersyndicationpublication,andMarkTwainpreferredsubscriptionpublicationover

the Atlantic groupmagazines. 6Whenthesewritersselectedalternativemodesofaccessto publishingtheirwork,theydidnotsimplystopwritingworksofrealism,and,inthecaseof

Twain,evenwhenhedidchoosetopublishinamoretraditionalmanner,hevariedhisstyleto includefantasy,satire,andhumor,asdidWilliamDeanHowellswhowrotehistoricalfiction, utopianfiction,anddramaticworks.Johanningsmeiermakesastrongargumentfora 13 reconsiderationoftheaudiencesofregionalfiction,andhisargumenthasimplicationsfor readingrealismaswellsincemanyofthewritersoncelabeled“regionalist”arealsoassignedthe labelof“realist,”suchasSarahOrneJewettandKateChopin. 7Itisalwaysworthconsidering

that,inspiteoftheirprestige,the Atlantic groupmagazinesmayappealtocontemporary anthologistsduetotheirongoingaccessibility,butthatthesemagazineshadalimitedreachin termsofpopularculturecomparedtonewspapersyndications.Itisdifficulttoseparatethe notionofprestigefromtheideaofaudiencesizeandtogaugetherelativeimportanceofeachin literaryhistory,butcertainlyitisimportanttorememberthattheseauthorsthemselveswere marketingexpertswhoweremakingprofessionaldecisionsaboutwhereandhowbesttoplace theirwork.Sometimessuchdecisionsweremotivatedbyeconomicneed,sometimesbyfame, andsometimesbyintangibleartisticidiosyncrasieshavingtodowithreachingspecific readerships.

Evenifwecangetpasttheimplicationthatoneisnota“legitimate”successful professionalwriterunlesshisorherworkappearedinoneofthe Atlantic groupmagazines,there istheadditionalprobleminGlazener’sassumptionthattheactofbecomingaprofessionalwriter or,forthatmatter,aneditor,reliesonasharedsenseofclassidentity. 8Suchaclaimassumes

thatthisnewcollectivitynecessarilysubvertsallotheraspectsofidentityaffiliation,suchas

gender,sexuality,ethnicity,geography,etc.andthatidentityisthensubsumedintoaclassbased

affiliationwithmutualcollectiveinterests.Glazenerbasesherargumentonanassumptionof

economicclassidentificationthatmaynotworkasneatlyforAmericancultureasMarxist

scholarswouldliketoassumebecausesuchdistinctionsarenotfixed,andtheyarenotbasedon

finitefactors.WhatGlazener’stextleavesuswithisanacknowledgmentthatpublication practicescertainlyinfluencedwriterlychoicesinregardtofiction,andtherefore,theynecessarily

influencedreaderlyresponsesalthough,ofcourse,the Atlantic groupeditorswerenotthesole

cultivatorsofreaderlyresponses.Writersofthelatenineteenthcenturyhadtodecidewhat,

14 exactly,realismembodied,andtheyhadtoadmitonsomeleveltoinfusingintotheirfictiona certainamountofwhattheyperceivedtobearealistapproach.Attheveryleast,wemust assumethatwritershadtoenterintoadiscoursewithrealismevenifwritinginoppositiontoit.

Thesalientissueiseachwriter’sstakeinarealistapproach;thisisreallythecruxofthe problem.Inspiteofthefactthatwecanidentifyahandfulofrealistwritersandlabelthemas such,regardlessofwhetherweuseGlazener’smagazinecriterionoranothercriticallitmustest, suchlabelingdoesnotassumethateachwriterapproachedrealisminthesamemanner.

Occasionally,somescholars,suchasGeorgeBecker,HarryLevin,andRenéWallek,have challengedtheideathatrealismevenexistsor“succeeds”asaliterarymodebecausethisterm resistseasyclassificationandbecauseliteraryrealismhaslargerculturalimplicationsoutsideof stylisticcriteria(Pizer5).Forvariousreasons,writersarecastandrecastalternatelyunder variousumbrellatermssuchasregionalism,realism,andnaturalismwithsometimesproblematic overlappingwithsentimentalismandevenromanticism.DonaldPizeraddressestheinherent problemwithsomeoftheselabels,particularlywiththetermsrealismandnaturalism:

[B]othwordsalsohavedistinctivemeaningsinphilosophicaldiscoursethatcan spilloverintoliteraryanalysis,withawkwardconsequences.Forexample,metaphysical andepistemologicalinquiriesintowhatisreal,ortheethicalimplicationsofwhatis natural,canbeusedtounderminealmostanyactofhistoriographyorcriticism.(3) Pizerpointsoutthatsucheffortstodestabilizetheideaofliteraryrealismaregenerallyaimedat ridiculingthepretensionsofwriterswhoaimtoofferliteraryrepresentationsof“thereal.”He labelsthistypecriticalstanceashostile(3)becauseofitsmisguidedaimofattackingthe philosophicalimpossibilityofaconstructedrepresentationoftherealratherthanfocusingonthe textsthemselvesandwhattheyreveal.Pizerconcludesthatinspiteofeffortsofscholarsto discreditrealismandnaturalismasdiscreetliterarystyles,theselabelshavecontinuedtoattaina roughacceptancebycritics,andheassertsthatbothrealismandnaturalismareassociatedwith specifichistoricalperiodsinAmericanliteraryhistory,whichisgenerallythe1870sand1880s forrealismandtheturnofthecenturyfornaturalism(5).Pizerdoesaddacaveatthatthetexts 15 giveneachlabelshareaspecificsetofstylisticconditions,suchas“new,interesting,and roughlysimilar”forrealism(5)andyetheappliesthesamegenerallabeltoworksofnaturalism.

ItisnotcompletelyclearwherePizer’shistoricallabelinggetsusintermsofdefining

realismandnaturalismbecause,asalways,exceptionsspringtomind.RebeccaHardingDavis’s

“LifeintheIronMills,”publishedin1861,fallsoutsideofPizer’stimeframeforrealism,yetthis

workisarguablyoneofthefirstexamplesofrealistwritingforthematicreasonsalone;Davis

tacklesthesubjectoftheWheeling,ironworksandtheoppressionoftheWelsh

workingclass.Sheusesspecificlanguageaimedatdiscreditingromanticnotionsofthe

sufferingsofthepoor,andsheisabsorbedwiththequestionoftherolemoneyplaysincreating

orsolvingsocialproblems.Similarly,StephenCrane’s Maggie: A Girl of the Streets appearedin printin1893,offeringgrittyandgraphicdescriptionsofagirl’sveryshortdescentfromfactory

workerintoprostitution,andscholarscontinuetoarguewhetherthisisaworkofrealismora

seminalworkofnaturalism.Forthatmatter,evenDavis’sworkcontainsvestigesofthe

animalisticimageryusedtodepicthumanbehaviorthatwilllatercometobeassociatedwith

naturalism.Perhapstherealdifficultycategorizingsuchworksistheveryfactthateachlieson

theperipheryofPizer’stimeline,andperhapssuchhistoricistdatingismeanttoencompassonly

themajorityofsuchprototypicalwriting.Inanyevent,Pizer,likeGlazener,aimstolimithis

focusbyofferingasetofcriteria,withabeginningandendingpoint,nottoundermineother

effortstoexamineworksofrealismandnaturalismthatlieoutsidetheseboundsbutratherto

definetheworksheexaminesbyofferinghisownboundariesforinclusion.Inotherwords,he

narrowshisconditionstoaspecificsetofmaterialcircumstances,theevidenceofthetexts,ina

mannerstrikinglysimilartohowrealistwritersnarrowedtheconditionsforcertaintyintheir

attemptstocapturespecificaspectsofsocialinterestintheirowncontemporaryculture.

Pizeraddsanotherveryimportantattributetoourunderstandingoftheaestheticsof

literaryrealism;hepointsoutthatrealistwriterstendedtoviewcivilizationasaprogression,and

16 consequently,theyassertedthatliteraturehadanethicalandtransformativeroleinthe formationofsocialethicsinthemodernagethatwasmoreadvancedthantheliteratureofearlier societies.WhatbegantooccurwasanalignmentbetweentheDarwinianideaofevolutionand theHegelianideaofadvancement,andmanysocialphilosophersappropriatedtheevolutionary modelinordertosuggestthattheirownfieldwassuperiortoallthatcamebeforeitbecauseit hadadvancedasopposedtoadapted.Theadvancementposelendsinstantprestigetoanyideaor philosophybecauseitissoconvenientlydismissiveofwhateverprecededit.Pizermakesavalid distinctionbetweenrealismandnaturalismrelativetoSocialDarwinism,particularlyas naturalistwritersfrequentlyincorporatedintotheirtextsthepossibilitiesofdevolutionand atavismasexplanationsforunsocialbehavior.Suchadistinction,however,focusesononlya singleaspectofthisliterature’ssociologicalconcern,andthereareothersthatwarrantattention, suchastheconflictbetweenmaterialandmetaphysicalconcernsofhumanintellect.This conflictisasmuchaconcernfornaturalismasitisforrealism,andthusitservestolinkthetwo literarystyles,anditalsoprovidesapathwaytomodernism,whichfocusesonthesubjectivity, identity,andthepsychologicalrealitythatthemindperceives.

Oneofthepostmodernistcontributionstocriticaltheorydiscourseisitsattempttobeall

encompassingandallembracinginregardtotheidentityparadigmsthataresocloselyaligned

withvariousschoolsofcriticaltheory.Itistheseidentityparadigmsthatalloweachschoolof

theorytopromotewhatBarrishcallsits“realerthanthou”position( ALR 129).MarxistTheory,

àlaLukácsandJameson,forexample,hasbeenaccusedofprivilegingclassidentityoverother

categories,suchasraceandgender. 9Feministtheorists,suchasJosephineand

MarjoriePryse,havebeenaccusedofprivileginggenderbyartificiallyelevatingtheroleof

womeninregardtocertaintypesofwriting. 10 Historicistcriticism,suchasthatofBrodheadand

Kaplan,hasbeenaccusedofvalidatingclassandgenderhegemonybyacceptingtheviewthat

“writersclassifythemselvesthroughthemodesofrepresentationtheyselect”(Brodhead116).

17 Barrishpointsoutthateachapproachsetsitselfapartandclaimsintellectualauthorityby denigratingwhatevercriticalapproachprecededit,muchasrealistwriterssuchasWilliamDean

HowellsandHenryJamesclaimedtheirwritingwasmorerealthanthe“idealistic”workthat precededitbecauseofitsfocusontheeverydaylifeofthecommonman(Howells Criticism 11) oritsaccesstosomepreviouslyunacknowledgedsocialtruism.Postmodernistcriticismattempts tosootheoverallthesemorenarrowfocusesthataligntextualauthoritywithasinglecultural identity,insteadassertingthat“AllisTrue”(Furst12).Infact,criticslikeLilianFurstand

NancyGlazenerarefarlessinterestedinthecriticalpositionwritersoccupythantheyare interestedinthereaderlyconstructionsofthesetexts;however,thereaderfocusedapproach bringswithitanewsetofproblemsbecauseitrequiresadeterminationofwho,exactly,the readeris. 11 CharlesJohanningsmeier’sinvestigationshaveshownusthatnineteenthcentury printcultureandreadershipsarenotaseasilyreconstructedasoncewasbelieved.Postmodernist scholarshipfocusesprimarilyonauthorsandthesurroundingcultureinwhichtheyconstructed theirtexts.Specifically,acknowledgesthatone can occupymultiplepositions withinculturebybeingbothprivilegedandmarginalizedatthesametime.Becauseidentityis fragmentedandshifting,thepossibilityforrealistwriterstostakeanauthoritativeclaimacross groupsbearsreconsideration.

Thecontemporarypostmodernistcompromiserelabelsrealismas realisms ,andthe criticalconsensusdeemsthatthetermmustbeviewedsubjectivelybytryingtodiscernarealist intentionorexpressionratherthanbylocatingrealistconventions.Suchacompromiseiswell suitedtorealistscholarshipbecauserealismasaliteraryaestheticis“anticonventional”insofar asitcomparestotheromanticandsentimentalmodesthatprecededit.Thiskindofpluralistic rhetoricisfindingfavorwithrecentcriticswhofrequentlyassertthatnosingledefinitionofthe termrealismcanpossiblyelicitaconsensus.PeterBrookswrites:“wediscoverthatanylabel suchas‘realism’isinadequateandthatgreatliteratureispreciselythatwhichunderstandsthis

18 inadequacy”(20).Indiscussinghisauthorfocusedapproach,MichaelDavittBellwrites:“The terms‘realism’and‘naturalism’mattertome,firstofall,then,forthesimplebutimportant reasonthattheyhavebeenusedbygenerationsofAmericanfictionwriters,fromthe1880sto thepresent,todescribewhattheythoughttheyweredoing”( The Problem of American Realism

4). 12 Therealbenefitofthispostmodernistapproachtomultiplerealismsis,asPizerpointsout,

thatcriticshavestoppedevaluatingspecifictextsintermsofgaugingthemasstylisticsuccesses

orfailures.Pizerwrites:“Nolongerisitpossible,inshort,touseamodaldefinitionto

demonstratetheinferiorityofaspecificwork,ortousethecharacteristicsofaspecificworkto

demonstratetheinadequacyofthedefinition”(15).Again,theproblemchallengingscholarsof

realismtodayistheveryissuethatthesewritersthemselveshadtodealwith:howdoesonereify

anabstractionandrenderitintoamaterialformthatconsistentlysignifiestheabstractionwhileit

simultaneouslyadherestotheempiricalconditionsrequiredforcertaintyandinclusion?Itis

fairlyeasytolocatediscrepanciesintherulesofrealismbyfocusingondifferences.Amore

usefulapproachistofocusonsharedchallengestoarealistapproachandthentoscrutinizehow

differentwritersdealwithsimilarsetsofsuchunderlyingculturalandliteraryconditions, particularlythosethatthereligioussubjectimposes.Bydoingso,wecancomparerealist

“responses”or,inotherwords,theresultanttextualconstructions,andwecantrytodetermine howdifferentwritersgrappledwiththeideologyofrealismwhilefacingmetaphysicalchallenges thatseematoddswiththeveryconceptofmaterialism.Inotherwords,asthesewriters ponderedandrefinedtheconditionsforcertainty,howdidthesesocalledrealistwritersdeal withsubjectsthatseemedtoliejustoutsidetheboundariesrealismdemands?Herewehavenot onlytheproblemofstylistictextualconstructionbutaproblemwiththeconstructionofthe subjectitself.

CriticslikeMichaelAneskoalsomaketheargumentthatrealismresistsdefinition becauseitwasmoreofaphilosophicalapproachthanasetofconventionaltechniques.Anesko

19 believesrealismcanbestbeexaminedonacasebycasebasisinordertounderstandeach author’svisionofhowrealismisusedtoassertauthorityinAmericanculture.Hewrites:“[T]he placetobeginiswithourwritersthemselves”(Anesko91),andhefurthersuggeststhatlocating

“slippages”(81)betweenwhateachwritersetouttoaccomplishandwhattheymayhave unintentionallyconstructedisthebestapproachtoreadingrealistfiction.Infact,thisseemsto bethecurrenttheoreticalcompromisewhich,atitsheart,reinstatesthenotionofassessinga writer’sintentioninrelationtothewriter’sculture,acombinationofapostmodernistanda historicistapproach,asthe“realestreal”waytoreadrealism. 13

Thereligioussubjectallowsustoexaminerealisminanewanddistinctwaybyaligning fictionwithshiftingsensibilitiesinAmericanreligiousthoughtandbyexaminingrealismas competingagainstotherdiscoursesofauthority.Asreligiouspracticesbecamemoreintertwined withtheirseculareffectsandresponsibilities,fictionbecameasitewithinwhichtoformulate varioustheoriesabouttheroleofreligioninculturalethics.Notsurprisingly,therhetoricof realismbeginstoparalleltherhetoricofachangingreligiousculture,particularlythedeclineof

Calvinismandtheriseofanideologyofreligiousprimitivism,withbothcallingfora“creedless” anticonventionalism.14 PrimitivismexpandsonPuritanthemesofembracingavernacular

hermeneutictraditionandplacingitsfaithinthecommonpersonwithouttheneedofan

interveningauthority,creed,dogma,ortheologyinordertounderstandtheBible.Further, primitivismsuggestsabeliefthattheBiblecontainsimmutabletruththatisnotsubjectto

historicalorculturalinfluence.HistorianGeorgeMarsdenwrites:“Thisdoctrineofthe

immutabilityoftruthwenthadinhandwithtruth’sperspicuity”(80).YetCalvinism,asitwas practicedinNewEnglandculture,hadbecomeoverlyrigidandtheocraticinordertopreventthe

kindofsplinteringthathadgivenrisetoPuritanisminitiallyandstrictsanctionswereimposedon

dissonantvoices.Marsden,inessence,arguesthatinitsrejectionofCalvinism,nineteenth

centuryAmericanculturereiteratedtheconditionsgivingrisetoPuritanisminitsownincipient

20 stages.InsteadofproducingavernacularBible,readilyavailabletoallhouseholds,suchasthe

1560GenevaBibleorthe1611KingJamesversion,thenineteenthcenturybegantoproducea plethoraofitsownBibleversionsandeditions,includingtheBookofMormonand,asIhave arguedelsewhere,avastarrayofbiographiesofthelifeofJesus.Realism,similarly,seeksto shedearlierdiscoursesofauthorityoraestheticconventionsandseekstolocateperspicuoustruth whilestakingitsauthorityontheconditionofthecommonman,reflectingreligion’sfaithina populisthermeneutic.

Whetherornotwecancategorizerealismasanideologyoraformofliterarycriticism,it isimportanttoidentifyfirsthowrealismemergedinthefieldoffictionandhowitoperated,and thenthisliteraryideamustbeexaminedintandemwithotherimportantculturalchanges.

Indeed,therearemanyavenuestopursueinevaluatingrealistwritinginrelationtootherforms ofculturalexpressiondealingspecificallywiththesubjectofethics.Theareaofutmostinterest tothisstudyistheexaminationofreligiousauthorityasitwasexercisedinnineteenthcentury

Americanculture.Intwoimportantsocialhistories, Faith in Fiction and Beneath the American

Renaissance ,DavidReynoldsexaminestheinterplaybetweenvarioustypesofsocialreform rhetoricandpopularliterature,suchasanecdotalsermonicdiscourse,“tracts,”poetry,andthe

Orientalandvisionaryfictionthatisassociatedwithspecificreligioussectslike

Congregationalism,Presbyterianism,andCatholicism.Reynoldssuggeststhatnineteenth centurysocialreformrhetoricemergingintheformoffiction—anumbrellatermthateventually encompassesrealism—waspurposefullyunderstatedsothattheseauthorscoulddistance themselvesfromnegativeassociationsthataccompaniedcompetingstylesofreformrhetoric, particularlywhathetermsreformliteraturethat“engagedinexploringdarkforcesofthehuman psyche”( Beneath the American Renaissance 55).Thepurposeforsuchdistancinginthenewer rhetoricwas,inpart,toavoidtheaccusationofbeinglabeledastitillating(Reynolds64).

Describingtheeffectofdarkreformliteratureonsubsequentnineteenthcenturywriterswho

21 weretryingtoavoidaccusationsofhavingafascinationwithvice,Reynoldswrites:“Thedark reformersarelargelyresponsiblefortransformingacultureofmoralityintoacultureof ambiguity”(59).Reynolds’scomparisonofreformfictiontoothertypesofrhetoricisan importantonebecauseheassertsthatthenewtypesofambiguoussocialcriticismembodiedin fictioninturngaverisetosubsequentliteraryformssuchasrealism,inwhichthedensityofthe textwasacharacteristicofanewsocioethicalliterarystyle.

Reynolds’ssocialhistories,and Faith in Fiction inparticular,haveimportant

implicationsforexaminingtherelationshipbetweenreligionandrealismbecausethesetwo

subjectsshareamutualconcernwithethicalpractices;therefore,theyarenecessarilyindialogue

witheachother. 15 ReynoldsexaminestheworkofmanywriterssuchasWilliamDeanHowells,

HaroldFredericandMarkTwain,andhesuggeststhatcertaintextsoffera“trenchantappraisal ofmainstreamreligion”( Faith in Fiction 207).Hefurthersuggeststhatthisongoingappraisal playedakeypartintheemergentSocialGospelReformmovementofthe1880sand1890s, whichheexplainsasendorsing“brotherhoodanduniversalprogressunderthedirectionofa fatherlyGodtoestablishthekingdomofheavenonearth”(204).Whileathoroughevaluationof theSocialGospelmovementwouldtakethisprojectinanentirelydifferentdirection,itis importanttonotethismovement’songoingemphasisonmateriality,suggestingthatthecultural desireforrealismisfarfromoverevenasrealismdeclinedasaliterarystyleandnaturalism begantoemerge.Whatthissuggestsisthatevenasrealismbegantolosepopularityasan artisticform,writersdevelopednewstyles,suchasnaturalismandmodernism,throughwhichto enactrealistprinciples.Theunderlyingaesthetic,toreturntoaphrasecoinedbyPhillipBarrish, isaconcernwithpresentinga“realerthanthou”position( American Literary Realism 129)in

ordertoascertainuniversaltruthsaboutculturalandethicalpractices.Barrisharguesthatthis

attempttoassertarealerthanthouclaimtoauthoritycontinuesinliteraryscholarshiptoday. 16

22 Thepairingofreligionandrealismallowsforanewconsiderationofthepracticeof literaryrealismintheGildedAge,particularlyincompetitionwiththepopularnewspaperpress andthereligiouspressthathadalreadycapturedalargesegmentoftheliterarymarket.Atthe sametimethatrealistfictionemerged,religiousfictionalreadyheldaprominentpositionin

Americanprintculture.Itsimpactwassogreatthat,asscholarDavidReynoldswrites,“Popular religiouswriting...hadmorethanenteredthereligiousmainstream.Ithadvirtuallybecomethe mainstream”( Faith in Fiction 211).TwainandWarnercommentonthepopularityofreligious writingin The Gilded Age (1873)whensomelobbyistsdiscusstheadvantageofmarketingbonds

“handsomelyamongthepiouspoor”(256)bycapitalizingonhighcirculationratesofreligious periodicals.Hewrites:

Yourreligiouspaperisbyfarthebestvehicleforathingofthiskind,becausethey’ll ‘lead’yourarticleandputitrightinthemidstofthereadingmatter;andifit’sgotafew Scripturequotationsinit,andsometemperanceplatitudesandabitofgushhereand thereaboutSundaySchools,andasentimentalsnufflenowandthenabout‘God’s preciousones,thehonesthardhandedpoor,’itworksthenationlikeacharm,mydear sir,andneveramansuspectsthatitisanadvertisement;butyoursecularpapersticksyou rightintotheadvertisingcolumnsandofcourseyoudon’ttakeatrick.(25657) Realistwritersofthelatenineteenthcenturyinheritedthisliterarytraditionandtheimplicit socialvaluesenmeshedinreligiousliteratureand,inmanyways,theyhadtoplacetheirown writinginapositionrelativetopiousorsentimentalreligiousfiction.Whereaswritersof religiousfictionhadreliedonacertainamountofculturalstereotyping,suchstereotypesbegan tobemoreandmoreincomprehensiblebythelatenineteenthcentury,inpartbecauseof increasinglyblurredlineswithinreligiousculture,andthisbeginstopresentarealproblemfor realism.

Atthesametime,withinpopularfiction,religiouspracticesmustbegivenamaterial form,oneprovidedbyliteraryrealistsratherthanbytheologians.Inafarlargersense,the appropriationofthereligioussubjectbynovelistshasfictionwritersbecomingthetheologiansof thenineteenthcenturybyusurpingreformdiscourseinthenewlyflourishingprintcultureof

23 newspapersandmagazinesaswellasbookpublishing.Notsurprisingly,ministersand theologiansbegintoappropriatepopularformsofdiscourseinresponse,asinevidentin

Beecher’s Norwood andSheldon’s In His Steps .Theveryactofwritingrealismisanattemptto positionone’sworkwithinculturebecauseitisaclaimtoauthoritythatactsinrelationto

competingdiscourses.Specifically,realistwritersmustpositiontheirtextswithinlargerprint

cultureand,todoso,theymustpositionthereligioussubjectwithincontextofcultural

frameworksparticularlyinrelationtodiscussionsaboutethicsandsocialjustice.

ThefourwriterswhoseworkI’vechosentoincludeinthisstudyarethosewhose engagementwiththereligioussubjectofferssomethinguniquetoanindepthstudyofthe practiceofrealisminthenineteenthcentury.TheseareRebeccaHardingDavis,WilliamDean

Howells,MarkTwain,andHaroldFrederic.Allofthesewritersbelieanyattempttolabel realismasasecularpracticebecauseoftheirextensiveengagementwithreligion.Thefocusand methodologyofthisprojectwillbetoexaminethebodyoffictionofthesefourmajorwriters, supplementedbytheirautobiographicalandphilosophicalwritings,inordertoviewtheway eachgrappledwithsocialethicsinthepracticeofliteraryrealism.Davis,forexample,examines therolethatinstitutionalreligionmightplayinregulatingantisocialbehaviorinanincreasingly industrializedsocietyinherseminalrealistwork,“LifeintheIronMills”(1861).Ontheother hand,in A Modern Instance (1882),WilliamDeanHowells,anadvocateofadoctrineof individualmoralauthority,attemptstonegotiateacompromisebetweenintuitiveconscienceand theinheritedethicaldoctrineofJudaiclaw.Inhislatercriticalwork,Howellsremains ambivalentashemeasuresthe“usevalue”ofinheritedreligionagainstaScottishCommon

Senseapproachtoconscienceandmoralethicswhenhewritesabout“thosewhoareaccustomed toacceptGodfromauthority,andwhohavealwaysbelievedwhattheywerebid(whichisno badthing,perhaps,andseemstosavetime)”(Editor’s Study 16).MarkTwainhonesinonthe hypocrisyofAmericanreligiousculturebyshowinghowtheologyandethicshavebecome

24 disjointed.Particularly,hefocusesontheBibleasanemptysignifierthatoccupiesaphysical spacebutseemstohavelostitsunderlyingauthorityinrelationtoabstractspiritualityand modernmoralityin The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885).Hechallengesevenrealist assumptionsabouttruthandmateriality.Distortingallpreviousconceptionsabouttheroleofthe church,theself,orevenscienceasasourceofauthorityforregulatingethicalactions,Twain extendshisskepticismbeyondthelimitsofreligionandcastsdoubtuponthepossibilityofwords andlanguageprovidingaccesstothereal.Lateinthecentury,HaroldFredericdisplaysasimilar cynicismwhenhesatirizesanincreasinglyskepticalreligiousculturein The Damnation of

Theron Ware (1896).Inthisnovel,heemployseconomiclanguageandfinancialdealingsto describetheAmericanreligiouslandscape,revealingthecynicismwithwhichreligiousvalues havecometobeviewed.Fredericsimultaneouslyrevealsanincreasinglydisillusionedfaithin theindividual’sabilitytoupholdmoralandethicalbeliefsinachanging“urbanized”culture.

Otherwriters,suchasEdithWhartonandHenryJamesalsoalludetoachangingreligiousvista intheirwritingalthoughinamoreincidentalmanner.Theirworknodoubtmeritsconsideration aswell,especiallywhenviewedintandemwiththefourwriterswhoarethefocusofthis dissertation.Whiletherearemanywriterswhocouldbeplacedinthisstudyinrelationto shiftingclaimsofethicalauthoritybyraceorregion,thefocusmustbeonthewritingsofthose whoarenotonlyprominentinthestudyofrealismbutwhoarealsopreoccupiedwiththe challengeofconstructingthereligioussubjecttextuallythroughoutalargeportionoftheir fiction.Thereligioussubjectpreoccupiesalloftheserealistwriters,andtheconnectionbetween religion,ethics,andthesurroundingsocialworldisonethatseemsunavoidableandwillyield importantresultstothestudyofrealism.

Thesefourwriters,RebeccaHardingDavis,WilliamDeanHowells,MarkTwain,and

HaroldFrederic,utilizedverydifferentstrategieswhendealingwiththecomplicatedrelationship betweenreligion,culture,andethics,buteachexhibitsaclearintentionofmovingawayfrom

25 Calvinismanditsassociatedliterature.Thisliteratureincludes,forexample,sermonic discoursesuchasHenryBeecher’s1843 Lectures to Young Men (Jackson39)orthesentimental conversionnovelsuchasSusanWarner’s1851 The Wide, Wide World .TheCalvinistliterary aestheticreliesonwhatGregoryJacksondescribesas“thehermeneuticoffear”( The Word 37).

Jacksonarguesthat“Calvinismhistoricallyusedfearasavitaltoolformoralarmamentagainst theperceivedpowersofevil”(39).Calvinism,hesuggests,istheimpetusformorethanone literaryoffshootinthelatenineteenthcentury.Hedefinesthehomileticnovel,whichemerges outofthisCalvinisttradition,asa“fictionalnarrative[used]tomotivaterealconversions”(30).

Jacksonassertsanimportantargumentthatthehomileticnovelinformsrealistliterature,andthat itoffersaparallelnarrativeofAmericanreligiousexperiencethatsharessomesimilartraitswith therealistnovel.HecitesCharlesSheldon’s1896 In His Steps asaprimeexampleofthisgenre

(158).Althoughreligiousconversionisthebasisofthehomileticnovelandsocialreformisthe purportedbasisoftherealistnovel,Jacksonarguesthathomileticandrealisttextsbothdemand

thatreaders“applydiscursiveenactmentstotheirownlivesthroughimaginativeexercisesfor

structuringeverydayreality”(163).Bothgenresserveasa“calltoarms”forsocial

interventions.

BecauseofaclearmovementawayfromtheCalvinistaesthetic,itistemptingtoapply

theconvenientlabelofLiberalProtestanttothewritersincludedinthisstudy;manyscholars

haveembracedthisumbrellatermfordiscussinglatenineteenthcenturyAmericanreligious

culture.Theinadequacyofthistermbecomesclearwhenwecomparethesociologicalrealism

ofDavisandHowellstothefarmorecynicalrealismofTwainandFredericinrelationtothe

religioussubject.Theformerwritersscrutinizereligiouscultureandrewritetheology,seekinga

modelforthemodernagewhilethelattertwoquestionthesocialandethicalvalueofreligious

culture,andeacheventuallycastsdoubtuponthepossibilityformaterialrepresentationsof

immutabletruthsbecauseofthesubjectivityofhumanunderstanding.Althoughallfourofthese

26 writersmightexhibitcharacteristicsofLiberalProtestantrhetoric,itwouldbemisleadingto assumethattheyadoptsimilarviewstowardAmericanreligiousculture.Justaseachoffersa uniqueportraitoftherealistparadigm,eachalsopresentsdistinctlydifferentconstructionsofthe religioussubjectinrelationtothisstyleofwriting.

Noonecanascertainexactlywhenrealismbeganandended,butoneoftheearliestworks thatblendsachangingviewofrealismwithafocusonmaterialityisRebeccaHardingDavis’s

1861“LifeintheIronMills.”Determinedtoaffixalaterhistoricaldateontheonsetof

Americanrealistwriting,scholarsoftenoverlookDavis’sfictioninrelationtotheseother writers.Theotherwritersincludedinthisstudy,however,wereveryfamiliarwithherwork,and shecertainlyhadaprofoundinfluenceontheideathatmarginalizedsocial,economic,and immigrantgroupswereworthymaterialforliteraryconstructions.ChapterTwowillexaminethe writingofRebeccaHardingDavis,whoisarguablythefirstrealistwriterinAmericanliterary history(Glazener,“ThePracticeandPromotion”30).Davisstrivestofindaculturalstereotype againstwhichtosetherwork.Shewantstodebunkromanticnotionsaboutselfsacrificeand martyrdom,andtodoso,shefocuseshergazeonharsheconomicrealitiesthatshebelievesare glossedoverinliterarydepictionsofwomenandAfricanAmericans.Inheressay,“TheMiddle

AgedWoman,”shewritesofherpreoccupationwithlocating“thegeniusofthecommonplace”

(374).Shespeculatesthatthesubjectofthemiddleagedwomanallowsanartistto“gainaclear ideaoftheconditionofAmericansociety”(375),andshefrequentlymakessuchwomenthe subjectsofherfiction.InDavis’suseofthetypicallingooftherealistwriter,thatis,herfocus

onthecommonplaceandtherealist’sstruggletotypifymaterialrepresentation,andinher

concernforlocatingtruthincultureandinprint,Davisdemonstratesthekindofselfconscious

writingthatnecessarilyplacesheraimintothecontextofrealismalthoughshereadilyadmits

that“realityoppressesussometimes”(“Men’sRights”343).Suchanadmissionunderscores

Davis’sintentiontodirectthereader’sgazetowardunpleasantandotherwiseoverlookedtruths.

27 Davis’smostfamouswork,“LifeintheIronMills,”initiatedtheAmericanreading publicintohervisionofsocialreformthatalignsreligionwithrealism.Throughoutthisstory, sheexaminestherolethatreligionmightplayinanincreasinglyindustrializedsociety.Davis considerstheseconcernsundertheconfinesofanemergingcapitalistsystem,andshecriticizes theexclusivityoftheestablishedchurch.Herstoryissetinaparticularlybrutalwork environment,theWheeling,Virginiaironworks.Shedepictsmanyoftheinjusticesof capitalismthatpreoccupiedKarlMarxandFriedrichEngels.Similarly,herworkdemonstratesa concernwithindividualidentityandapreoccupationwiththeconceptofselfhoodinsociety. 17

Davis,inparticular,examinesthefunctionofinstitutionalreligioninregardtoregulating antisocialbehaviorandthusshapingsocialidentity.SheseeksaformofsocialChristianitythat willministertoallmembersofanurbancommunity.

ThesubjectoftheQuakerswillprovetobeaparticularlyinterestingoneinan examinationofDavis’swork,anditprovidesalinkbetweensentimentalismandheremerging realism.ThesocialbenevolencepracticesoftheQuakersserveasthebasisforDavis’saimin shiftingspiritualconcernsfromaneschatologicalfocustoasociologicalone.Becauseofher

1863marriageinLemuelClarkeDavisandhersubsequentrelationto,shespent manyyearsamongtheQuakersandshebecameintriguedwiththeirhistoryandreligious practices.ShefrequentlycreatesQuakerfiguresinherstoriesandnovelsthatfunctionina

varietyofdifferentways,butmostnotablytointroduceethicalcrisesbetweensociallawand

conscience.Davis,infact,writesanewtheologyforherage,drawingonthepracticesofthe

QuakersinordertoofferamodelofhowChristianityandsocialreformmightbecombinedto

meettheneedsoftheoppressedclasses.Thisisamodelthatwilleventuallycometobe practicedinAmericancultureastheSocialGospelMovement.

While“LifeintheIronMills”offersanearlyexampleofliteraryrealismandDavis’s

viewofhowreligiousreformmightworkinachangingculture,itisimportanttoexamineother

28 earlyDavisworks,suchas“JohnLamar”(1862),“DavidGaunt”(1862), Margret Howth

(1862), and“TheWife’sStory”(1864)aswellasherlaterwriting,including Waiting for the

Verdict (1867) Dallas Galbraith (1868),and A Law Unto Herself (1877).Byexaminingthe scopeofherfiction,bothhershortstoriesandhernovels,hercomprehensivescrutinyof

Americanreligiousculturebecomesevident.Davis’scritiqueofcurrentreformideologies, whichshewritesintoherfiction,requiresthesupplementofherlifewritinginordertocomplete thesatiricaltableauofherownemergingtheology.Again,thequestionaboutthelimitsofrealist writingmustbeposed;towhatextentdoesDavis’srealismallowhertoportraythe“truth”of whatsheseeswhenitemergesasincompletewithoutthebackgroundmaterialthatallowsthe readertointerprethertext?Hersimultaneousembracingofreligion,oratleastofscripture,and herconcernwithverisimilitudeasathemesuggeststhat,forDavis,religionandrealismgohand inhand.Shecannotenvisionsocialreformhappeningwithoutrealistwriting,yetshecannot writehervisionofsocialreformwithoutincludingreligiousreform.ForDavis,thesewere systemsinwhichthereformssheimaginesshouldworkreciprocally,butshespinsawebin whichneitherconceptcanbeclearlyextricatednorclearlyunderstood.Davis’sambiguityand blendingofsentimentalismwithrealismallowsustoidentifyinherworktheinchoateleaning towardanticonventionalismthatwillcometobeassociatedwiththewritingandrealist aestheticsofWilliamDeanHowells.

Inrealism,atvariouspointsintime,weseeadeliberateengagementwiththereligious subjectonthepartofseveralauthors.Atthesametime,inamodeofwritingthatdependson specificityanddetail,thesubjectofreligionitselfresistseasycategorizationbecauseofits numinousnature.Theresultantambiguitycorrespondstoanemergingtypeofsociological rhetoricthatsetsitselfagainstearlierformsofdarkreformrhetoric,asDavidReynoldspoints out.Thisjuxtapositionimmediatelyplacesallreligiousreferenceswithinrealismintoadialogue withothertypesofsocialreformliteratureandtheadministrationofsocialethics.Such

29 reciprocitybetweenreligionandsocialbehaviorisnotadifficultrelationshiptoacceptbecause thealternativewouldbetoexaminereligioninrelationtospiritualnotionsaboutsinand salvation,whichwouldplacethesubjectofreligionevenfurtherfromthematerialrealm.

WriterssuchasHowellsevenbegintoquestionifreligionmightnotbereplacedbyliterature althoughthissuggestiononceagainpositsthequestionofwhatexactlyhemeansbyreligion.

AlthoughHowellsexhibitedseveralviewpointsduringhislongandprodigiouscareer,he neverthelessprovidesaninterestingviewoftherelationshipbetweenliteratureandreligionin

1885atatimewhenhewasfullycommittedtotryingtodeveloparealistparadigm.In ,BostonBrahminBromfieldCoreystatesthisviewofliterature:““All

civilisation[sic]comesthroughliteraturenow,especiallyinourcountry....oncewewere

softened,ifnotpolished,byreligion,butIsuspectthatthepulpitcountsformuchlessnowin

civilising[sic]’”(Howells126).Corey’swordsreflectabeliefthatreligionwieldsacivilizing

influence,andthisbelieflendsitselfnaturallytoHowells’swishforanethicalliterature.Itisnot clearwhetherHowellssuggeststhroughhisfictionalcharacterthatliteraturedoesinfluence socialbehaviorinthewaytheinstitutionalchurchusedtoormerelythatitshouldtakeoverthis function.Forthatmatter,withHowells,itispossiblethatheissimplysatirizingapopular viewpointinthecivilizingcapacityofliteratureandnotnecessarilyhisownbelief.Laterinhis career,hewouldreiteratethattheauthoritativeroleofliteratureintheadministrationofsocial ethicswas,hebelieved,literature’sprimarypurpose.

FollowingDavis’searlyrealistwritingbeginsaperiodwemightdefineastheheydayof realismfromthe1870stothe1880s.Duringthisperiod,asGlazenerpointsout,the Atlantic groupmagazinesactivelypromotedthisnewmodeofwriting,promisingaliteraturethat mirroredreallife.ChapterThreewillexamineWilliamDeanHowellsasthemajorproponentof

Americanrealism.Howellswasontheforefrontinhiseffortstoestablishaparadigmforrealist writingbydrawingonthelanguageofnaturalscienceinordertodistancehimselffrom

30 romanticism.Inthisway,hisrealistideologyisakintoGeorgeEliot’sliteraryrealismwhen

Eliotwrites:“Howlittletherealcharacteristicsoftheworkingclassareknowntothosewhoare outsidethem,howlittletheirnaturalhistoryhasbeenstudied,issufficientlydisclosedbyourart aswellasbyourpoliticalandsocialtheories”(183).Moreimportantly,inhisworkasaneditor andcritic,Howellswasarguablythemostsignificantarbiterofrealistworkspublishedin

America.Howells’sbiographyisalsocriticaltoanydiscussionofhisreligiousviewsashe, himself,representsanamalgamationofseveralprominentreligiousinfluencesinthenineteenth century,includingMethodism,Swedenborgianism,Calvinism,andEpiscopalianism.These influencescanbelocatedinhiswriting,anditbecomesclearthatHowellsisabsorbedand intriguedbychurchhistoryandtheongoingrelevanceoftheinstitutionalchurch.

Inspiteofthesocialvalueheplacesonliterature,Howellsneverfullyadherestoabelief thatreligionisobsoleteinmodernsociety;hecontinuestoexhibitsomedegreeofdoubt.Many ofhisworksrevealhisperplexityoverhowexactlyreligionoperatesincultureandspecifically howreligionoperatesinthedevelopmentofindividualconscienceandselfregulation.

Howells’sbeliefinaculpablecollectivityisperpetuallyunderminedbyhisequalemphasison selfdeterminationandanindividualizedmoralcode,thatis,conscience.Hebeginshis novelisticcareerbysatirizingtheemptinessofwhathetermsinheritedorthodoxy,bywhichhe meansCalvinistpractices,andhelatergoesontoexaminevariousreligiousmovementsfrom

ShakerismtoMethodism.Later,healsotoyswithaformofprimitiveChristianityinhisutopian fiction,andbythetimehewrites The Leatherwood God in1916,heevenbeginstotheorize abouttheprocessbywhichsocietycreatesnewprophetsandcreeds.Throughouthisentire career,Howellsneverexhauststhereligioussubject,andheexaminesitinnewwaysandfrom variouspointsofviewuntilhefinallybeginstoincorporateaspectsofthesupernaturalintosome ofhisshortstorywriting,particularlyafterheisinfluencedbyWilliamJamesandtheriseof

31 psychology,atwhichtimehebeginstocontemplatethemysteriesoftheimpenetrablemind

(Cady147).

Inhisrealistwriting,Howellsmightbestbeclassifiedasacriticandauthorwhoisafraid

ofwhatheseeswhenheexaminesthedeclineoftraditionalCalvinismeventhoughhehimself

didnotgiveseriousthoughttoCalvinistorthodoxyuntilheleftOhio.EdwinCadywrites:

“Howells’sreligiousheritagewascompoundedofastrangesetofradicalviewsalmostall

largelyhereticalfromtheviewpointofChristianorthodoxy.ItwasQuaker,Methodist,Millerite,

Deistic,Swedenborgian,andUtopian”(156).Anadvocateofadoctrineofindividualmoral

authority,emphasizingconscienceoverchurchdoctrine,orCommonSenseethicsovertheology

(Suderman Religion 288),Howellsneverthelessattemptstonegotiateacompromisebetween

individualmoralethicsandtheinheritedethicaldoctrineofJudaiclawexpressedinAmerican

religiouscultureviaPuritanderivedCalvinistcreeds.Attheendof A Modern Instance ,Ben

Halleck,“amanwhohadoncethrownoffallallegiancetocreeds”(Howells450),becomesa

minister,butonewhoisstymiedbyindecisionintryingtodiscernthedifferencebetweenthe

spiritofthelawandtheletterofthelawinhisowninterpretationofscripturalethicsandtheir

applicationtomodernculture.

Howellsdedicatesmuchofhisfictiontoexaminingtheinfluencesofvariousreligious

movementsinbothAmericanfrontierandurbanindustrialculture.Workssuchas A Modern

Instance (1882), The Minister’s Charge (1887), Annie Kilburn (1889), theAltrurianRomances

[whichinclude A Traveler from Altruria , Letters of an Altrurian Traveller ,and Through the Eye

of the Needle (18941908)],and The Leatherwood God (1916)revealHowells’sfascinationwith

therolethatvariousreligiousmovements,fromPresbyterianismandUnitarianismtoShakerism

andEvangelicalMethodism,playedintransformingsocialethicsinarapidlyexpandingand

developingpopulation.InhisexplorationofAmericanreligiousculture,Howellsoffersupan

explanationforthepersistenceoftraditionalCalvinistorthodoxybyrevealingthattheriseof

32 skepticismattheendofthenineteenthcenturybroughtwithitafearofsocialinstability.

Orthodoxy,hesuggests,appearstoeaseguiltbyitsveryinflexibility;itdoesnotchangeoradapt inresponsetomodernsocialdilemmaslikedivorce.WhatwasonceacriticismofCalvinism becomesitssavinggrace.

AreturntoCalvinistorthodoxywasapparentlyaprevalentmoveinlatenineteenth centuryculture.Inoneofhisfamoussermons,thepopularPresbyterianclergyman,Reverend

ThomasDeWittTalmage,providesajustificationforacceptingtheBibleasanunquestionable authoritybysimplydismissingallinconsistenciesaspartofthegreatunknownmysteryofthe universe.Talmage,infact,embracestheambiguityoftheBibleinhissermon“TheReckless

Penknife,”inwhichhestates:“IwouldnotgiveafarthingfortheBibleifIcouldunderstand everythinginit.IwouldknowthattheheightsanddepthsofGod’struthwerenotverygreatif, withmypoorfinitemind,Icouldreacheverything”(49). 18 Talmage’swordsoffersolaceto torturedsoulslikethatofthefictionalBenHalleckforwhomtheweightofdoubthasbecomean unbearableburden.InspiteofHowells’sbeliefthatnaturalscienceandthestudyofmanoffered amethodforpenetratingandrepresenting“truth”aboutmankind,Howellsemployshisrealism asamodeofnegotiatingareconsiderationofwhatheterms“inherited”values,whichcan arguablybereadasCalvinism.Ultimately,Howellsisunabletoviewmanasanindividual capableoflivinginsocietywithoutthesafetynetofsomesortofinstitutionforregulatingmoral behavior.Hisobservationaltechniquebecomesareformparadigmwhenhefashionshisrealism

notaccordingtohisprinciplesofreportingwhatheseesbutratherofshapingwhathewouldlike

tosee,andthus,Howells’sscientificgrasshopperbecomesanidealisticgrasshopperinthefinal productionofhisrealisttext. 19 Howells’sunresolveddepictionsoftheAmericanreligious landscapeultimatelyarereflectedinsomeunresolvedsentimentsaboutliteraryrealism.Inhis laterautobiographicalrenderings,hemakesitclearthathehascometoreconsidertheethical

33 roleoffiction,andhehastroubleresolvingtheconflictbetweentheauthorityofthetextandthe autonomyoftheself.

Howells’sclosefriend,MarkTwain,hadasimilarlylongandprolificcareeralthoughhe deliberatelyavoidedmagazinepublicationandchosetopublishprimarilybysubscriptionsales instead.Alongwiththeseotherwriters,Twainaimedtocaptureakeymomentofcultural transitionwhenAmericanagrarianculturerapidlymodernizedwiththefastpacedgrowthof

Americancities.LikeDavisandHowells,Twaindrawsonhisownexperienceswith institutionalreligionasheexaminesachangingculture.ChapterFourassessesTwain’s contributiontotheongoingdiscoursebetweenreligionandrealisminthelatenineteenthcentury.

Distortingallpreviousconceptionsabouttheroleofthechurch,theself,orevenscienceasa sourceofauthorityforregulatingethicalactions,Twainextendshisskepticismbeyondthelimits ofreligionandcastsdoubtuponthepossibilityofwordsandlanguageprovidingaccesstothe real.InlatenineteenthcenturyAmerica,theformerconfidenceplacedintangibleevidenceof religiousauthoritybegantobeundermined.Realistwritershadtograpplewiththefactthat inheritedsymbolsandinstitutionsofauthoritynolongerseemedrelevanttoarapidlychanging industrialculture.TwainparticularlyhonesinonBiblecultureandvariousencounterswithThe

Word,especiallyinhisownPresbyterianupbringingandtherotememorizationofBibleverses fromhisSundaySchooldays.IntheprocessofpokingfunatthewaysinwhichAmericansread andinterpretedScripture,Twainrevealshisextensiveknowledgeoftheprinthistoryofthe

Bible.

InananalysisofTwain,itisimportanttolookatthelargerbodyofhiswork,beginning withhistravelwritingaccount, The Innocents Abroad, or The New Pilgrim’s Progress(1869),in whichheestablishestheframeworkandrhetoricforhissatiricalexaminationofAmerican religioushabitsthathewillcontinueinhissubsequentfiction.Twain’sfascinationwiththe religioussubjectemergesinhisautobiographyandhisessaysaswell,manyofwhicharenow

34 availableinthecollections and the Three R’s and The Bible According to Mark

Twain .InadditiontoexploringCalvinisticcultureinThe Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1876)and

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885),Twaintoyswithbothrealisttechniquesandthe topicofreligionin A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court (1889).Byhavinghis protagonist,HankMorgan,travelbackintime,Twainisallowedtoconsiderbrieflyarevisionist historyoftheroletheCatholicChurchplayedinmoralethicsbyhavingMorgancontemplatethe efficacyofintroducingmodernreligioustheologyintoapredominantlyCatholicculture. Other importantTwainworksinclude“CaptainStormfield’sVisittoHeaven”(190708),Twain’sself describedsatireofElizabethStuartPhelps’s1868The Gates Ajar 20 (Ramussen61),and No. 44,

The Mysterious Stranger (1969,butwritten18961910),inwhichTwainsuggests“thatthebelief inthetraditionalGodoftheBibleandofAmericanProtestantismmaybeaterrifyingandterrible beliefwithoutwhichmanwouldbeinfinitelybetter”(Suderman Religion 23).Anothertextthat bearsexamininginthecontextofTwain’srealismandtheconceptofindividualethicsis“The

ManthatCorruptedHadleyburg(1900),ataleinwhichTwainsatirizesthestrugglebetween communityethicsandindividualgreedwhenastrangerplacesamonetarytemptationinthe handsofalocalnewspaperman.

Additionally,manyworkshavebeenwrittenaboutTwain’sreligiousviews,suchas

AllisonEnsor’s Mark Twain and the Bible andWilliamPhipps’s Mark Twain’s Religion ,and theseanalyseswillhighlightthecomplexitiesofTwain’sindividualisttheologyattheheightof nineteenthcenturyskepticism.Thewaysinwhichheinfuseshisrealistwritingwithasharp underlyingsatirecastsnewdoubtontheverynatureofrealismasamaterialistmodeand suggeststhatrealismasacognitivemodemeritsfurtherconsideration.Asamaterialistmode, realismofferstoreproduceempiricalrealitythroughtheuseoflanguageandsymbols,which impliesthattruthalreadyexistsbutthatthewriter’staskistorecordormagnifycertainsituations inordertodrawattentiontoanddemandsocialreform.Asacognitivemode,realismbecomes

35 moreaboutsocialvaluesandshiftingawarenessofachangingworld,anditinsiststhat“truth” canbefoundinitssubjectbutitalsoinsiststhatthemanneroflocatingthatsubjectisequally important;itmightbedescribedlessasawayofwritingandmoreasawayofseeing.Whatwe canlocateinalloftheseworksisanexplorationaboutnotonlyhowtruthcanbeconstructedbut howanysocialideaisformulatedandthisbringswithitaconsiderationabouttheverynatureof theconstructionitselfasTwain’sworkshows.

Bytheturnofthecentury,Americanliteraryrealismbegantodecline,butonceagain, sharpdelineationsdonotdistinguishbetweengenres.JustasRebeccaHardingDavisoffersa blendofsentimentalismandearlyrealistverisimilitude―evenarguablynaturalistic themes―HaroldFredericexperimentswidelywithsubjectandstyle.ChapterFivewillexamine

Frederic’sgroundbreakingwork;heisoneofthefewrealistwriterstomakereligionthecentral subjectofhistext.Inhissatiricalnovel, The Damnation of Theron Ware (1896),Frederic undercutstheconventionalconversionnarrativeandmodernizesthereligiousvistabyfinding thattheonlyconsistentAmericanreligiousvalueishypocrisy.Inadditiontosatirizingthe skepticalcultureofthelatenineteenthcentury,Fredericalsodisplaysanincreasinglymaterialist languageinhisdescriptionsoftheAmericanreligiouslandscape.AsEricSundquistremarks,

“TheageofrealisminAmericaistheageofthe romance of money —moneynotinanysimple

sensebutinthecomplexalterationsofhumanvaluethatitbringsintobeingbyitsowncapacities

forreproduction”(19).Theuseoffinanciallanguageinreligiousdescriptionbecomes

increasinglyprevalentbythetime Theron Ware ispublished.ItemergesagaininEdith

Wharton’s The House of Mirth whoseheroineLilyBartenvisionsadreadfulfuturehavingto attendan“expensivechurch”everySunday(54).Fredericoffersadensetextinwhichheplaces

Methodism,Catholicism,andDarwinismsidebysidewithnuancesexploringdichotomies withineachofthesemovements.

36 BythetimewegettoHaroldFrederic,webegintoseetheextenttowhichdoubtsabout the“realness”ofthereligioussubjecthavebeguntoinfluencewriterlyconsiderationsabout materialityandlargercultureandthepossibilitiesforrealisticrepresentationinanyfieldor subject.Aswithallofthewritersincludedinthisstudy,Frederic’smajorrealistnovel, The

Damnation of Theron Ware ,offersanevaluationofmoderncultureandtheroleofreligioninthe formationofethics.Thisclosescrutinyemergesmoreclearlywhenweexaminethisnovelasa developmentofimportantthemeshefirstintroducesinhisearlycareer.In Seth’s Brothers’ Wife

(1887)and The Lawton Girl (1890),setintheMohawkValleyregionofupstateNewYork,

Fredericexploresthesocialmorescomprisingregionalidentity,nottheleastofwhichis institutionalreligionanditsassociatedhabits.WhenhefocusesonMethodismandCatholicism in The Damnation ,hiscritiqueismoreeasilyunderstoodinthecontextofhisironic

constructionsoftheBaptistandEpiscopalchurchesintheseearlierworks.

Finally,inhislaterfiction,Fredericexploresotherforcesofsocialdeterminism,ashe broadenshisculturalconsiderationsbyexaminingadecliningagrarianbasedEuropean aristocracyandabuddingurbancapitalisteconomyinmodernLondon.In Gloria Mundi (1898) and The Market-Place (1898),bothpublishedposthumously,Fredericexploresotherforcesof socialdeterminism,suchasinheritance,bothfinancialandgenetic,andhumankind’sindomitable pursuitofsocialpower.HeconsidersspecificaspectsofaSpencerianmodelofSocial

Darwinism,offeringacynicalviewofhumannatureinrelationtothedevelopmentofethicsand conscience.Thesetwoeconomicnovels,initiallyintendedtobepublishedasonetext,place

Frederic’ssocialideologyfaroutoftherangeoftheSocialGospelmodelDavishadoffered nearlyahalfacenturyearlier.Fredericprovidesnotonlyanearlyglimpseoftheatavismand devolutionthatwillserveasthethemesasnaturalism,buthealsolaysoutthesocioeconomic conditionsthatmightallowustoviewhowtwentiethcenturyfascismandmight

37 emergeinthisurbantableau.ForFrederic,bytheendofhiscareer,religionisyetanotherform ofsocialdeterminismthatencourageshegemonybythosewishingtomaintainclasshierarchies.

Realistwritersthemselvesbegintoquestionthestrengthofreligiousaffiliationsrelative tootherimportantaspectsofsocialidentity.EdithWhartonallowsjustaglimpseofreligious identityincomparisontoeconomicidentityin The House of Mirth andHaroldFredericsatirizes religiousaffiliationsinasimilarmannerin The Damnation of Theron Ware .Fredericalso providesasatiricalviewofhoweasilysomeaffiliationsareassumedandshedinaworldof seductionandgreed.Whencriticsrelegaterealismtoaliterarystyleofmiddleclasssensibilities, otherimportantdistinctionsarealltooeasilyoverlooked.Regionalidentitywasundoubtedlya complicatingfactorintryingtoascertaintheimportanceofreligiousinfluence;inplaceswhere onlyasinglechurchinstitutionwasavailable,isolatedpioneersprobablycaredlittleabout specificsofcreedevenifthatcreedcouldbeadequatelyexplicatedandunderstood,butthis assumptionhasrarelybeenchallengedorexaminedinrelationtorealism.Correspondingly,

Christianityasablankettermisstillfrequentlyrecognizedinrealistliteratureasthebasisfor

Americanculturalethics,andinthecaseofWilliamDeanHowells,hesometimesusesthisterm synonymouslywiththetermdemocracy,evenasitbecomeslessandlessclearwhatexactlyis meantbyChristianityandhowitispracticedinthelatenineteenthcentury.Realismoffersthe sameproblemofovergeneralization,andanyanalysisofitrequiresacasebycaseevaluationin ordertodiscernwhateachwriteroffersinthecreationofthisparadigm.Inhisreviewof

Barrish’s American Literary Realism ,TomQuirkwrites:“Therelationofrealismto‘thereal’ remainsavexedquestion....Whetherrealityissubatomicorsubconscious,metaphysicalor metonymic,hardlymattersforthepracticingrealist”(8889).Ifrealismfailstodeliverthe

“realestrealthing”(Barrish130)inregardtoreligiousdiscourse,itmustbeconsideredthatthe failuremaybeimplicitintheintangibleperceptionofauthorityitself,asthisnotioncanbe

38 located,beginninginlatenineteenthcenturycultureandcontinuingintotwentyfirstcentury culture.

Thequestionofrealism’sfailureorsuccessisnotthefocusofthisproject,butratheritis myaimtoexaminethesocalledparadigmofrealismandtoassesstherolethatthetopicof religionplaysinbringingimportantsocialandethicalproblemstotheforefrontofalarger discussionofrealismasbothacognitiveandacriticalmode.Thepurportedaimofrealismto offerupasocialcritiqueisanimportantaspectofthisconsideration:AmyKaplan,authorof The

Social Construction of American Realism ,elaborates:“Tocalloneselfarealistmeanstomakea claimnotonlyforthecognitivevalueoffictionbutforone’sownculturalauthoritybothto possessanddispenseaccesstothereal”(13).Keepinginmindthefunctionofrealismandits

missionbothtocritiqueandconstructinstitutionsofcultureisimportanttothestudyofhow

religionoperatesintheseworks,whethertoprovidesocialcritiqueorparody,tosupportefforts

ofsocialreform,toexamineitseffectonculture,ortowriteanewtheology,onemoresuitable

fortheGildedAge.Thetopicofreligion,becauseofitsnuminousnature,providesaunique

challengetorealistwritersastheyattempttoreconcilethemetaphysicalaspectsofspirituality,

idealism,andthesupernaturalwithrealistmaterialismanditsprivilegingofthatwhichcanbe

observedandnamedintheexistentialworld.PeterBrookswrites:“Readingthesenovelistswe

areeverdiscoveringwhatitisliketotrytocometotermswiththerealwithintheconstraintsof

language,andhowoneencountersintheprocessthelimitsofrealism,andthelimitsto

representationitself”(20).Therelationshipbetweenthemetaphysicalandthematerialworldis

onethatisfraughtwithcontradiction,andtheaimofthisprojectistotryanddeterminehow

realistwritershavemadetangibletheimmaterialityofreligiousphilosophy.

Thewaysinwhichthepervasivenatureofreligioncrossesvarioussocialdisciplinesand

movements,fromsociologytoscienceandfromphilanthropytoeconomics,suggeststhat

religiousexpression,whetherarchitectural,institutional,ordoctrinal,mightbeviewedasalink

39 orthreadthroughoutnineteenthcenturyculturethatimpactedquestionsofauthorityacross manyfieldsofstudy.Realistwriterstookupthequestionoftheauthorityofthetextandthe embodimentofsocialethics;inordertodoso,theyhadtoconstructreligionasaculturalentity, andthisinturnbecameasourceofreligiousauthorityitself.Inmanyways,itbecamea frighteningexaminationofaculturethatdoesnotfullycomprehendtherolereligionhasor shouldplayintheadministrationofculturalethics.WhenWilliamDeanHowellsofferedupBen

Halleck’shastyreturntotheunimpeachableorthodoxyofHalleck’syouth,hemayhave inadvertentlyforeshadowedamassivereligiousmovementintwentiethcenturyAmerican culture.

Notes 1Shi,infact,believesthatrealismwasaninevitableresultofearlynineteenthcenturyidealism.Hebelievesthata philosophicaldebatestartedinliteraryjournalsbetween“idealists”and“realists”duringthe1850s(10).InPartI, “SettingtheStage,”hedescribesfourtypesofidealism:“genteel,domestic,transcendental,andbrooding”(13), whichallshared“abasicconvictionthatfundamentaltruthrestedintheunseenrealmofideasandspiritorinthe distantpastratherthanintheaccessibleworldoftangiblefactsandcontemporaryexperiences”(13).Accordingto Shi’sargument,wecaninferthatidealismandrealismsharedasimilaraimofrevealingabsolutetruths,butthe criteriaofcertaintyshiftedfromanunseenmetaphysicalrealmtoamaterialistbasisofhumanexperience. 2SeealsoLisaMoody,“TheAmerican‘Lives’ofJesus:TheMalleableFigureofChristasaManofthePeople,” Christianity and Literature 58.2(2009):15784. 3DavidReynoldsassertsthatsuchamovementtoreifyspiritualexperiencepredatesrealism:“Theadaptationof religiontohumanexperiencewasimpelledfirstbytheScottishCommonSensephilosophicmovementandlaterby EnglishandContinentalromanticism.Theformerencouragedearthlyobservationoverabstractlogic,ethical behavioroverexpectancyofgrace;thelatteremphasizedimaginativeintuitionofGodinnatureandtheworthofthe commonman”( Faith in Fiction 4).Thesalientpointhereisthatrealism’semphasisonmaterialityderivesinlarge partfromfiction’sengagementwiththereligioussubject,andinfact,suchanengagementmightbeviewedasan importantimpetusforrealistwriting. 4Twaincoauthoredhis1873 The Gilded Age withCharlesDudleyWarner. 5The Atlantic groupincludes: Monthly , The Critic , The Forum ,The Galaxy, Harper’s Monthly , Lippincott’s , The Nation, The North American Review , Putnam’s Monthly , Scribner’s Magazine , Scribner’s Monthly/The Century (Glazener, Reading for Realism 25766). 6Thereare,nodoubt,importantreasonswhywemightclassifyawriterasaregionalistorarealistoranaturalist, butoftensuchdistinctionsseemtopromotetheideaofaliteraryhierarchy,asinthiscase.Forexample,Fetterley andPrysecriticizeEricSundquistforwhattheycall“miniaturizing”certaintextsbecausehe“upgrades”writerslike RebeccaHardingDavisorSarahOrneJewettfromregionalisttorealistifaspecifictextpassesmuster( Writing Out of Place 53).Oneofthefundamentalproblemswithassigningahierarchicalvaluetoanyformofliterary 40 expressionisthatitrequiresafixedvaluetosupportsuchadistinction.Inliterature,itisdifficulttoassignavalue totheideaofinfluence,prestige,andcirculation,soitmustbeassumedthatsuchclassificationsareascribedafter thefactandhavemeaningprimarilytohelpusclassifysetsoftextsthatcanbereadtogetherinordertounderstand somegreaterpointofculturalorhistoricalinterest,asIhopetodowithmyproject.Tothisend,regardlessof whetherweclassifysomeofthesewritersasregionalistorrealist,thepointisthatthosewhopublishedvia newspapersyndicatesreachedhugereaderships,andthispublicationvehiclewasavailabletowriterswhoalso publishedin The Atlantic group magazines. 7Johanningsmeierwrites:“Thelimitationsoftheprintdistributionsystem,ithasbeenargued,createdstrongclass andculturalboundariesseparatingrural,mostlyfemale,regionalistauthorsandthechieflypoor,ruraldwellerswho providedtheirsubjectmatter,ontheonehand,fromtheurban,chieflymale,magazineeditorswhoprocuredthe fiction,andthemiddleandupperclassurbanreaderswhoconsumerit,ontheother.... “Thisconfigurationofhowauthors,subjects,andaudiencesinteracted,however,isbasedonasomewhat erroneousrepresentationofwhereregionalauthors...publishedtheirworks”(6061). 8AsfarasGlazener’sassertionthattheclaimtoprofessionalauthorshipwasbasedonthedesiretostratifyclass distinctions,therearescholarswhoseesuchaclaimtoprofessionalauthorshipasanattempttounifysocialidentity. ClaudiaStokes,forexamplewrites:“Localandnationalperiodicalsofthe1880sarerepletewithattemptsof Americanwriterstoraisepublicawarenessandtransformthemselvesinthepublicimaginationfromaristocratsto literarylaborersonparwithothermanualworkers”(80).Stokesassertsthatsuchanattempttoassumeaplacein thelaboringclassbypromotingtheideaofintellectualpropertywasaimedatincreasingpublicsupportfor internationalcopyrightlegislationbetween1868and1891(79). 9LindaHutcheonoffersanexampleofthistypeofpostmodernistcritiqueofMarxisttheoryinLindaHutcheonand MarioJ.Valdés,eds., Rethinking Literary History: A Dialogue on Theory (Oxford:OxfordUP,2002). 10 StephanieFooteoffersaglimpseofthiskindofcritiquewhensheasserts:“[T]hepioneeringworkoffeminist criticsalsotendedtoestablishwomenasthemostimportantregionalwritersbecause,inreclaimingtheimplicit derogationofpreviousdefinitionsofthe‘domestic,’or‘feminine’contentofregionalwriting,theyusuallyignored theworkofmiddleclassmalewritersofregionalism”(13).Footeisaddressingregionalism,ofcourse,andnot specificallyrealism,butthecritiqueofthefeministapproachunderscoresBarrish’sobservationthateachnew approachassertsauthoritybystakingitsclaimtobemoreauthoritativethanwhatcamebefore. 11 Furstwrites:“Mymethodisreaderoriented.Idistinguishthisapproachfromareaderresponseone,whichis subjective,whilethereaderorientedmethodisconcernedwiththecognitiveprocesswherebyreadersconstructthe text”(x). 12 SeealsoElizabethAmmons,“ExpandingtheCanonofAmericanRealism,” The Cambridge Companion to American Realism and Naturalism ,ed.DonaldPizer(Cambridge:CambridgeUP,1995)95114. 13 SeealsoGlazener,“ThePracticeandPromotionofLiteraryRealism”3132andFurst97. 14 MichaelDavittBellwrites:“WhatisHowellsianrealism,afterall,butaliethatclaimstobetruthful,aformof literaturethatclaims not tobe‘literary,’adeploymentofstylethatclaimsto avoid ‘style’”( The Problem of American Realism 66). 15 IndiscussingMelville,forexample,Reynoldswrites:“LikeEmersonandWhitman,[he]wasliberatedbypopular embellishmentsofreligiontofindakindofredemptioninthevery process oftruthseekingthroughcreative stylizationandinventivereallotmentofreligioussymbols”( Beneath the American Renaissance 30).Reynolds’s assertionabouttheredemptiveprocessoftruthseekingsuggeststhatsuchamissionmighthaveattractedrealist writersaswell. 16 Barrishwrites:“Guidedbydiverse,oftenconflictingcriticalandpoliticalagendas,recentapproachestoliterature nonethelessasserttheirownintellectualdistinctionandauthoritythroughclaimstohaveanintimate,evena defining,relationtosomebottomlinematerialreality”( American Literary Realism 130). 17 Theoriesofselfhoodandindividualethicalauthorityinanincreasinglysecularworldalsoinspiredthe psychoanalyticalworkofSigmundFreud.LikeDavis,bothMarxandEngelsandFreudspeculatedontheexistence ofcertaindeviantbehaviorswithinasocialsystem,behaviorsofalienationandcriminalactivity,aroundwhich 41 Davis’splotcenters.SeeFriedrichEngels, The Conditions of the Working Class in England ,Trans.W.O. HendersonandW.H.Chaloner,NewYork:MacMillon,1958.SeealsoSigmundFreud, Civilization and Its Discontents .Trans.JamesStrachey,NewYork:W.W.Norton,1961. 18 Talmage’slogichereisafaintechoofthedoctrineofpredestination,whichemphasizesthenotionthatmancan neverfullycomprehendGod’splanforsalvation(Wentz37).Talmageisapplyingthesamelogictohisencounter withscripturaltext,whichhereadsasbeinghandeddowndirectlyfromGodviatheHolySpirit.Notsurprisingly, “Talmagewholeheartedlydenouncedthe[1881]newversion[oftheBible]andurgedhiscongregationtokeeptheir oldBibles”(Szasz20). 19 Admittedly,Iamparaphrasing:In Criticism and Fiction ,Howellscomparesthemissionoftherealisttothe missionofthescientistinapseudoSocraticdialoguebetweenthewriterofyoreandthescientist,showingwhere thesefieldsdiverge,andhenowcallsforanewaimonthewriter’spart.Thewritershouldstopwritingtheideal grasshopper,popularthoughitmayhavebeen,andbegintryingtocapturethe“real”grasshopper,theonethe scientistwouldrecognize.Hewrites:“‘Youmaysaythatit’sartificial.Well,itisartificial;butthenit’sidealtoo; andwhatyouwanttodoiscultivatetheideal.You’llfindthebooksfullofmykindofgrasshopper,andscarcelya traceofyoursinanyofthem’”(11). 20 The Gates Ajar offeredareformistalternativetoCalvinisttheologybylocatingaformofspiritualmaterialismin death,basedontheCreedofthereincarnationalist(O’Connor156).

42 CHAPTER2:REBECCAHARDINGDAVISANDSENTIMENTALREALISM

InthepreviouschapterIsuggestedthatinordertodevelopabroaderunderstandingof

howrealismoperatedinnineteenthcenturyculture,wemustexaminehowvariouswriters

fashionedtheirrealistworksinrelationtothesubjectofreligion.Arguablyoneofthefirst

writersofAmericanrealism,Davis’sworkisapivotalintroductiontomylargerthesisthatthe

religioussubjectisacatalystinboththeformation and thedeclineofAmericanliteraryrealism.

Forthesakeofadefinitionorsetofcriteria,wecanaligntheseworksbyadoptingarealist’s

rhetoricofsearchingfortruthbyfocusingonthecommonplace.Davis,infact,helpsto

constructtherhetoricofrealism,onethatpromisestodisclosehiddentruthsinthereallivesof

“everydaypeople.”ThisisthelanguageRebeccaHardingDavisoffersinherearlyfiction,and

shecontinuestoemploythisrhetoricthroughoutherlongcareer,writingagainstexpected

conventionsofsentimentalismandromanticism.Forthisreason,herworkoffersalookat

realisminitsincipientstage,andallowsustoexaminechangesinDavis’smodelthroughouther

longcareer.Shestyledherselfasarealistinaperiodbeginningsomewhatearlierthanthepost

CivilWardatemostscholarsgenerallydesignateasthebeginningofAmericanliteraryrealism.

Inhertexts,Davislinksreligionandrealisminwaysthatshapeourunderstandingofhow

closelytheirassociateddiscoursessharethecommonaimoftryingtomaterializeabstract

conceptsinordertodealwiththechangingsocialconditionsoflatenineteenthcenturyAmerican

culture.Davis’sworkalsooffersalookattheimportantrelationshipbetweenreligionand

realismbyfocusingonthesharedrhetoricoftruth,unconventionalaesthetics,andabeliefina populisthermeneutic.

JeanPfaelzersuggeststhatAmericanrealismis“anindigenouspoliticalnarrative”(li).

Whetherornotweagreewiththisclaim,itprovidesoneofthemanybenchmarksforexamining

realismbyhoninginonaspecificsubjectandseeingifsuchaclaimholdstrue.ForDavis,I

arguethatthisclaim,infact,workswellforthereligioussubject.Shewritesaboutreligionin

43 manyofheressays,storiesandnovels,andspecifically,shepresentsreligiousidentityasakey component of regionalidentityinawaythatisuniquelyAmericanaswell.Forexample,she writesaboutQuakersandurbanindustrialismin“LifeintheIronMills”(1861),Methodists duringsecessionin“JohnLamar”(1862)and“DavidGaunt”(1862),GermanPietistsandutopia in“TheHarmonists”(1866),DutchReformistsandindenturedservitudein“TheStoryof

Christine,”(1866),MoraviansandWestwardexpansionin“Dolly”(1874), 21 andPresbyterians andEpiscopaliansinrelationtospousalabuse,swindling,imprisonmentandsocialredemptionin

Dallas Galbraith (1868),justtonameafewofher“indigenous”Americanscenes.Davis

appearedtobefascinatedwiththediversityofreligiousidentityinAmerica,andthelargerbody

ofherworkillustratesherattempttoevaluateAmericanreligiousculturebothhistoricallyandin

relationtocontemporarylife.

Myresearchintotherepresentationalclaimsofrealismandthequestionofwhatthe

subjectofreligionoffersintestingthoselimitsinlatenineteenthcenturyAmericabeginswith

Davisbecauseshecapturesakeyhistoricalmomentinanideologicalsplitthathappensalong

religiouslines.ShebeginspublishingonthecuspoftheCivilWar,whichis,ofcourse,an

importantculturalmomentformanyreasons,includingthefactthatitmarksadecisivemove

awayfromCalvinismandtowardLiberalProtestantism. 22 Thisshiftingreligiousaesthetic underwritesmuchofthesocioethicalcritiqueembeddedinDavis’sfiction.Davissidestepsthe conventionsofthesentimentalnovelwithitslaboriousinsistenceonselfsacrificeandrenewalof anestablishedfaith. 23 Instead,sheperpetuatesanalternatemodelofspiritualitythatsubjugates theroleoftheBible,movingawayfromtheCalvinistnotionof Sola Scriptura (theBiblealone), andsheassertstheroleoftheindividual,specificallythedomesticfemale,astheagentofethical andspiritualenlightenment.

DuringthisperiodDavisoffersusastrangelookinakindofdistortedmirrorathowthe samesourceofreligiousauthority,theBible,seemstoservetwoopposingideologies.Bydoing

44 so,sheimmediatelyundercutsBiblicalauthorityasasourceofimmutabletruth,andsheoffers insteadareiterationofQuakertheologythatfavorsvisionaryintuitionforderivingdivine knowledge.Wecanseethisclearlyin“JohnLamar”(1862)whenaMethodistboatmanis shockedtohearthedyingConfederatesoldierLamarrecitethetwentythirdpsalm. 24 Convinced thathisownmissionistoaccomplishthevengeanceoftheLordfortheevilsofslavery,the

MethodistboatmancannotreconcileLamar’swordsandfinalprayerwithhisownbeliefs,andhe simplydismissesLamar’sappropriationofscriptureasmisguided:“Withthedeadfacebefore him,hebenthiseyestotheground,humble,uncertain,—speakingoutoftheignoranceofhis ownweak,humansoul.‘ThedayoftheLordisnigh,’hesaid;‘itisathand;andwhocanabide it?’”(53).UnabletoresolveLamar’sapplicationofscripturewithhisowninterpretation,the boatmansimplyrevertstohisowntheology,dismissingthemomentofcontradiction.Davis,of course,isnotdismissingtheironicmomentofdisconnectedbelief.SheshowshowtheBible’s wordscanbeappropriatedtojustifythesentimentsofbothsidesofthewar,andshechallenges herreaderstoconsiderthelackofauthoritythewordsthemselvesofferrelativetotheensuing action,withbothsidesclaimingthesanctionofProvidence.Shealsoshowshercharactersbeing unabletopuzzletheirwaythroughsuchideologicalproblems.Shepresentsthisconundrumasa problemoftheologyratherthanscripturalinconsistencyormisinterpretation,buthersubsequent workrevealsherongoingconcernwiththelimitsofdivinecertainty.Hertexthereoffersa critiqueofthesurroundingreligiouscultureforwhichsheoffersnoclearsolutionuntillaterin hercareer.Shecontinuestoexaminetherelationshipbetweenreligionandculturethroughout

ReconstructionandpostReconstruction,andshebeginstoderiveherownimplicittheologyin thelatewarandpostwaryears.

InDavis’sstories,shetestsreligiousinheritanceandmoralcodesinlightofthe contemporaneousconditionssheobserves.Justassheshowshowexistingreligiousinstitutions nolongerseemtosuitthemoralchallengesofthemodernage,shesimilarlyrejectspopular

45 literaryconventionsinherexperimentswithsubject,form,andstyle.Heressaysoffer additionalcommentaryontheextenttowhichsheconceivesofreligiouspracticeasakey componentofregionalandnationalidentity.Itisfascinatingtoreadhersometimesambivalent accountsoverthefiftyyearspanofherwritingcareerasshenavigatedherwaythrough changingattitudestowardavarietyofsocialproblems.Forthisreason,itishelpfultoexamine

Davis’swritingduringspecificperiodsinwhichcertainreligiousinterestsseemtoworkinarcs thatincludesimilargroupingsbytheme.IwilldivideDavis’stextsintotwobroadgroups comprisingfirsttextsaboutQuakerism,andsecond,thosedealingwithsectarianism,which includehereventualturntothefigureofChristasanexampleofmoralidealism,ahallmark

LiberalProtestantmove.Davis’sworkdoesnotalwaysdivideneatlyorchronologicallyinto thesecategories―forexample,shewaswritingaboutQuakersatthesametimethatshewas critiquingProtestantsectarianism―butthesegroupingsallowustoseethedevelopmentofmajor themesthatshapedherownemergingpersonaltheology.Hertheologycanbestbedescribedas aformofprimitiveChristianitythatdrawsonideasandbeliefsofvariousProtestant denominations.ThemostinfluentialgroupinherownburgeoningliberalProtestantismarethe

Quakers,butshedrawsonlyselectivelyonideasfromtheSocietyofFriends.Intheend,Davis devisesherownbeliefsystem,butsheleavesherpersonalcreedproblematicallyvagueandmore abstractthanpragmatic,hintingatthetypesofrepresentationalproblemslaterrealistswillface.

WhatisclearistheextenttowhichDavis’schangingbeliefsshapedherliterarystyle,andwe caneasilyseehowrealismallowedhertoexaminehumannatureinallitscomplexities.

Afterhermarriagein1863,DavisrelocatedtoPhiladelphia,amovethatwouldhavea strongimpactonherwriting,particularlyinrelationtothesubjectofreligion.Atthistime,she encounteredanewreligiousculturethatshewouldfrequentlyincorporateintoherfictionandher essays:theQuakers.AlthoughDavishadwrittenaQuakerfigureintoherearlierstory,“Lifein theIronMills”(1861),herexperiencelivinginandheracquaintancewithQuaker

46 abolitionistandfeministLucretiaMottbroughtherintothesocialcircleofthePhiladelphia

Quakers,afarmoreprestigiousandinfluentialgroupthanthemuchmalignedandheavily persecutedEnglishandNewEnglandQuakersofcolonialAmerica.25 Davisbecameintriguedby

thePhiladelphiaQuakers’historyofreligioustoleranceanddiversity,andsheparticularly

admiredtheirownmodelforblendingabstractspiritualbeliefsandmaterialsocialreform practices.Later,shewouldresearchthecolonialhistoryoftheCityofBrotherlyLove

examiningthediversityofreligiouspracticescoexistingthere,andsheevenwroteaseriesof

threeessaysaboutcolonialPhiladelphiathatshepublishedin1876:“OldPhiladelphia,”“Old

LandmarksinPhiladelphia,”and“AGlimpseofPhiladelphia.Herstoriesandessaysfrom1863

to1876reflecttheQuakerinfluenceonherwritingandsocialreformviews.Understandingher

admirationfortheQuakershelpsustodiscernhercritiqueofsomeoftheotherProtestant

churchesthatappearinherfiction.

ForDavis,theQuakersofferedaninterestingsubjectforseveralreasonsthatbecame

closelyalignedwithherrealistaestheticandhervisionforsocialreform.Sheexaminestheir practicesinrelationtoabolition,women’srights,domesticpower,andbenevolence.Inworks

suchas“TheWife’sStory”(1864),“OutoftheSea”(1865),and Waiting for the Verdict (1868), shechallengeswhatsheseesasadeclininginfluenceoftheinstitutionalchurch,andshebeginsa longevaluationofvariousreligiousinfluences.Shebeginstocreateherownsocioreligious manifestothatborrowsheavilyfromthesocialjusticeprinciplesoftheQuakers.Inorderto drawontheirmodelofpracticalChristianity,Davismustfirstreconciletheirspiritualbeliefs withcompetingpopularbeliefsinherownsocialworld.Sheestablishesfairlyclearboundaries separatingthoseaspectsofQuakerismshethinksareusefulincontemporaryculturefromthose thatshethinksareantiquated.AbriefoverviewoftheQuakerreligionwillshowthe complexitiesofDavis’stask.

47 TheQuakersubjectpresentsachallengethatdisplaysanaturaltensionwithDavis’s realistaims:theQuaker,orSocietyofFriends,creedreliesonanuminousbeliefinanintuitive innerlightthatrevealsreligioustruth,whilerealismvaluesthematerialistbasisofempirical experienceasaconditionforcertainty. 26 TheQuakersexhibitafardifferentemphasison subjectivitythanotherProtestantdenominationsembrace,particularlyinanerawhereanew

“Biblealone”approachbegantodominateconservativeoffshootsofAmericanCalvinism.

Therearecomplicatedtheologicalandhermeneuticalissuesatstakethatrequireabrief explanation.Twobasicconceptsarecriticalhere:therelativeimportanceoftheBibleasa sourceofdivineknowledgeandthescripturalhermeneuticsdictatinghowtheBibleshouldbe read.Intheformercase,someProtestantsbelievedtheBiblewas the onlyauthorityrevealing religioustruth( sola scriptura )whileothersbelievedtheBiblewas asourceofreligious knowledgebuttheybelievedthatdivinerevelationcouldbelocatedelsewhereaswell.Inregard tohermeneutics,someProtestantsectsbelievedtheBiblewastranshistoricalandcontained literaltruthswhileotherProtestantsectsbelievedtheBibleneededtobeinterpretedforeachnew ageofcivilizationbecausecivilizationwasprogressiveandsothelessonsoftheBibleneededto beappliedinanewwayforeachgivenage.Withineachconcept,therearevaryingdegreesof importanceplacedonhoweachfunctionsinrelationtotheother.Forexample,MarkNoll believestherewasamajorshiftinAmericanChristianityin1861,adateheidentifiesthroughhis

readingofthemanyreligioustractsthatdemonstratethenew“Biblealone”approachtocertain

sectsofProtestanttheology( America’s God 37071).Coincidentally,Davisbeganpublishing

herworkinthisyearaswell.

Becauseoftheirdifferentemphases,abstractintuitionversusempiricalevidence,thetwo

ideologies,Quakerismandrealism,wouldseemtobeatodds.Nevertheless,thesubjectofthe

QuakersprovedtobeagoodfitwithDavis’sinchoaterealism;althoughit is foundationally

mystical,Quakerismasareligiouspracticeanticipatestherealistwriter’sprivilegingof

48 materialitybecausetheQuakersbelievedthattheinnerlightcouldusedasan“instrumentforthe perfectionofhumansociety”(Wentz80).Infact,inDavis’sdiscussionsofQuakers,sheis carefultofocusonthesecularforceofQuakersocialpractices,signalingherreforminterest,and thuswecanbegintoseehowherreligiousandrealistinterestsbegintoinformeachother. 27

DuringDavis’s“Philadelphiayears,”from18631876,hergeographicalsurroundings

featureprominentlyinherreligiousevaluation.Shedrawsonthephysicalaspectsofthiscityto

illustratehowmaterialitycancapturethemetaphysicalnatureofspecificspiritualbeliefs,and

thusshebeginstoaligntheconcretewiththeabstract.ForDavis,thesocialvalueofQuaker beliefsdisplaysitselfineventhephysicaldimensionsofPhiladelphiaarchitecture.Discussing

Philadelphia’sQuakerrootsin“OldLandmarks,”shewrites,“Herreligionhasnotuttereditself

inmassivepilesofcarvedstoneandstainedglass,butinunpretentious,thoughvastandwell

managedcharities—asylums,hospitalsandtrainingschools”(145).Davisembracesthis physicalevidenceasasignofabenevolentreligiousinstitutionevenasshedisparagesspecific

Quakerpractices,whichsheattributestotheignoranceofanearlierage,suchasexcessive

dedicationtothehabitofplaindress,describedbyDavisas“saddrabpaduasoygowns”(“Old

Philadelphia”875) 28 andactual“quaking”asanexpressionofreligiousfervor.Shewrites:“The mostignorantofPenn’sfollowersweredailyseizedbythespiritandtheirbodiesshaken

(whencetheirnameofQuakers)”(712).Bydistancingherselffromwhatwemightcallphysical manifestationsofspiritualsensibilities,Davissignalsashifttoherowninterestinsecular materialism.

TheQuakeremphasisonperfectionimpliesatheoryofsocialadvancementaswell,a beliefthatsocietycanimprovethroughreligiouspractices.JeanPfaelzerpointsoutthe perfectionparadoxislinkedtoanunderlyingmodelofutopiaanda resistance tosocialforces.

Shewrites:“Utopiaisgenerallypresumedtobeteleological;historyisapredeterminedpassage towardafinitestatewhichmarkstheendofchange,regardlessofhumanwilloractivity”

49 (Utopian Novel 24).Wewillseehowthisideaofperfectionismissomewhatatoddswith

Davis’scallforaprimitivemodelofChristianity,whichseemstobenecessarilyregressive.

DavisreconfiguresQuakertheology,allowinghertoresolvethisdilemmaby“adapting”these practicestosuitthemodernage.Ihavesuggestedthatrealistrhetoricworksinasimilarmanner; itisastyleofwritingthatattemptstobebothprimitiveinthesenseofbeingantiaestheticand anticonventionalinitssearchforuniversaltruthandyetprogressiveinbeingsuitedforthe currentconditionofcivilization.Theperfectionparadoxemergesagainasaconflictinthe writingofHowells,Twain,andFrederic,particularlyinrelationtoreligiousallegory.

Anotherimportanttermtounderstandis“PrimitiveChristianity”becauseQuakerism

itself,arisinginthemidseventeenthcenturyoutofthePuritanRevolution,isaformofanti

doctrinalChristianity,andthatispartofitsappealtoDavis;shespecificallyreferstoQuakersas

“primitiveChristians”(“OldLandmarks”146).Thisclaimoffersadecisivedeparturefromthe

historyoftheestablishedchurch.Mostmodelsofprimitivismaimtoformapurportedly

“creedless”Christianity.PrimitivismattemptstorecaptureapremodernGospelbasedideaof

spiritualitybyfocusingonarelationshipbetweenmanandGodbydiscardingnearly2000years

ofinterveningChurchhistory,creeds,anddoctrine.TheQuaker’sprimitivismisdistinctivein

thattheexternalauthorityofthescripturesissubjugatedtoapositionbelowanintuitive perceptionofTheMaster.AnotheraspectoftheQuaker’sprimitivismistheabsenceofclerical

agencysinceGodwasbelievedtoapproacheveryindividualdirectly. 29 Thisisavery convenientnotionforanemergingwriterwhowishestoinfluencesocialreformpractices.In manyways,thisopportunitytoaddressculturalethicsallowedmanywritersoffictiontousurp theauthorityoncedelegatedprimarilytotheclergybyseizingtheimplicitauthoritythatthe visionarymodeallows.AsWentzpointsout:“TheQuakeremphasisonequalityandthe assumptionthatGodapproacheseachofusdirectlythroughtheinnerlightthatistheChrist withinaresharedbyotherPuritans.ItwastheQuakers,however,whodrewheavilyonthese

50 convictionsandmadethemtheessenceoftheirtradition”(7980).Whatthisallowsforisa theoryofadvancementsuchthateventheBiblecanbesubjecttointerpretationandadaptationto assistinunderstandingitsapplicationtothegivenage.Weseethisideaexpressedrhetoricallyin thephrase“thelivingGod,”apreceptDavisfrequentlyinvokes 30 andintoday’scultureinthe

“WhatwouldJesusdo?”rhetoric. 31 Bythissametoken,newscripturecanbewritteninany givenagethatcanpresumablycarryanauthorityequaltoorevensurpassingtheBible. 32

Scripturemightappearinanyform,eveninaworkoffiction.

InordertogaugetheliteraryimpactofDavis’srelocationtoPhiladelphiainrelationto theQuakers,weneedtoexaminebrieflyherdepictionoftheQuakerfigureinherearlierfiction, mostnotablyin“LifeintheIronMills,”publishedin1861.Davis’sstoryoffersalookathow sentimentalismandrealismcancoexistwithinatext,apairingthatisparticularlyinteresting againstthebackdropofhowDavisherselfrepresents“reality”inthiswork,offeringaviewthe narratordescribesas“horribletoangelsperhaps,butto[thesemen]commonplaceenough”

(“IronMills”4).ThedeliberatejuxtapositionofangelsandthecommonplacesignalsDavis’s aimofshiftingthegazefromeschatologicalconcernstosomethingwithinculturethatshewants toaddress,anditsoonbecomesclearthathertextstrivestodealwiththiscommonplacesubject inadifferentmannerthanpreviousstylesofwritingsuchasvisionaryfictionhaveallowed.

DavidReynoldswrites:“Thesubversionofintellectualdoctrinethroughfictionaltechniqueswas accompaniedbyaturningawayfromtangledmetaphysicalquestionsandanembraceofsuch realaspectsofexperienceasnature,humanfeeling,andvernacularperspective”( Faith in Fiction

197).Daviscuesthereaderthatsheisindeedaskingforavoyeuristicviewintothe“dulllives” ofthiscommonplace.Shewrites:“ThisiswhatIwantyoutodo.Iwantyoutohideyour disgust,takenoheedtoyourcleanclothes,andcomerightdownwithme....Iwantyoutohear thisstory”(Davis4).Davisprojectsasensethatsheispullingherreaderawayfromtheabstract andrightdownintoanearthly,sensualraunchiness,andyetsheasksforthisshiftinthenameof

51 “Christ’scharity”(5).Bydoingso,shepositionsherrequestasoneofspiritualbenevolence.

Atthesametime,theproblematicvaguenesswithwhichDavisrepresentsreligionseemsatodds withtheemergingrealistgenre,whichfindsitsauthenticitythroughtheparticularizationofthe specific.ShedrawsonwhatappearstobeafamiliarrhetoricofChristianactivismbutshe subvertsitatthesametimebyshowinginstitutionalChristianitytobeinadequatefordealing withthemillworkers.

Atfirstglance,Davisseemsalmosttoglossoverthereligiouscritiqueimpliedinthis storybyovergeneralizingtheroleoftheinstitutionalchurchinindustrialculture.Asthestory unfolds,thereareseveralmentionsofachurchalthoughnonearespecificuntilDavisintroduces anunnamedQuakerfigureattheend.Theprotagonist,HughWolfe,hasbecomeanaccessoryto thecrimeoftheft,andheisseekingasolution;ifhespeaksthetruthandnamestheculprit,he willsacrificehisfriendDeborah,amartyrwhohastriedtohelpHughescapehisabysmallife.In amomentofcrisis,when“thechurchbells’tollingpassedbeforehimlikeapanorama”(25),

HughWolfecontemplateswhethertoreturnthestolenmoneyorkeepitandbecomeacriminal himself.Thenarratorrevealsthat“peoplegoingbytochurchsawonlyasicklymillboy watchingthemquietlyatthealley’smouth”(25).Davismentionsthechurchtwiceatthispoint, andyetthespecificdenominationisunnamed,leavinghersocialcriticismfrustratinglyvague.A closerlookatthistroublesomepassagerevealsthatDavis’scritiqueisinfact,verypointedand specific;wemustexamineheraccusationhereinordertounderstandbetterwhattheQuaker solutionattheendoffers.

Davis,anearlyproponentofwhatwilllaterbetermed“socialgospel,”apparentlywishes tocritiquemodernreligionforfailingtoprovidemoralguidanceandpracticalassistancetothose whoneeditmost.Sheattemptstodirectthereadertothesoulofamaninturmoil,aresultofthe industrialatrocitiesofthemechanicalage,byaskingthereadertoassumeacertainamountof collectiveresponsibilityforothersuchlostsouls.Shewrites:“Ionlywanttoshowyouthemote

52 inmybrother’seye:thenyoucanseeclearlytotakeitout”(23). 33 Thenarrator’sreferenceto

theGospelsofMatthewandLukecouchesanaccusationofhypocrisytowardherreadershipas

thepassageinquestionsuggeststhatonemustfirstexamineone’sownlifeforsinbefore

reprovingothersfortheirflaws.Davischallengesherreadertoexaminetherelationship betweenscriptureandtheelitismofmodernreligiouspractices;shechargesboththeminister

andthecongregantswiththeresponsibilityofattendingtoHugh’ssuffering.Davisisnon

specificaboutthechurchshedescribesandyetherintentionsareclearlyaccusatory.Thereader

knowsonlythatHughfollowsthecrowdintothechurch,“asombreGothicpile”(27),andthat

the“speaker”isdescribedas“aChristianreformer[who]hadstudiedtheagethoroughly;his

outlookatmanhadbeenfree,worldwide,allovertime”(27).Davis’snarratorcondemnsthe preacher’sinabilitytopenetrateHughWolfe’sconsciousness:“Hiswordspassedfaroverthe

furnacetender’sgrasp,tonedtosuitanotherclassofculture;theysoundedinhisearsavery pleasantsonginanunknowntongue”(2728). 34 Thenarratorfaultsthespeakerforthefailureto

saveasoulratherthantheprotagonistforfailingtofindsalvation,andtheentirecongregationis

implicatedforitsparticipationinthismoralcrisis.

AsHughWolfeleavesthechurchunassistedandaimless,thereisatensionamong

culture,class,andthis“boy,”thisunshapedsoul.Here,Davis’srhetoricsuggeststhatsalvation

itselfisbecomingacollectiveconcernratherthananindividualone.Atthesametime,the

readersurelystrugglestocomprehendtheambiguousaccusation;isallChristianityfailingasa

sourceofmoralauthorityoristhiscrisissparkedbyacapitalindustrialistculture?Ineithercase,

whydoesDavisintroduceredemptionthroughthefigureoftheQuakerwomanattheend?

Davisimplicatesthechurchinquestionforthemannerinwhichitpanderstothewealthyclasses

andtheeconomicsystemasawhole.

Thereisanotherpieceofthispuzzlethathasonlyrecentlycometolight;Davisscholars

suchasJaniceMilnerLasseterhavebeencombingthearchivesofhermanuscripts,andsuch

53 researchhasyieldedimportantresultsforDavisscholarshipand,moreimportantly,forDavis’s viewsonreligion.Foryearsitseemsthatreadershavesimplyacceptedthatinthispassageof

“IronMills,”DaviscriticizesinstitutionalChristianity,perhapsassumingthatthespecific denominationshescrutinizesdoesnotmattersinceherunderlyinggoalisreformoriented anyway.Anyassumptionofabroadcritique,however,isamistakenoneasLasseter’sarchival researchshows.ShearguesthatinthisstoryDavisiscriticizingtheEvangelicalProtestant denomination,andLassetersuggeststhatshemayhavemodeledthestory’sministeron

AlexanderCampbell,aformerPresbyterianministerwhofoundedthe“DisciplesofChrist”sect ofEvangelicalProtestantism(“TheCensored”181). 35 The“DisciplesofChrist”adherentstried

establishanecumenicalformofprimitiveChristianitybasedonanassumptionthatthe

“individualhasonlytoexaminetheevidenceofScriptureandhisorherownexistencetoarrive

atthepointwhereareasonablecommitmenttothetruthcanbemade”(Wentz213).Likemany

Calvinistderivedcreeds,EvangelicalProtestantism“viewedmaterialismandwealthasalogical

outcomeofasteadyfaith”(Lasseter,“TheCensored”177),anditisclearthatthisisonemore beliefatwhichDavislevelshercriticism.TheDisciplesofChristattemptedtocombine

rationalismwithaliteralreadingoftheNewTestamentthatleftmanysocialquestions

unanswered.Forexample,althoughthechurchwastheoreticallyevangelical,anyformof

institutional evangelicalismwasfoundtobeproblematic:“Theworkofevangelizationand

missionhadtobedonewithoutsocieties.TheNewTestamentproposednosuchinstitutions”

(Wentz217).AlexanderCampbell’s1835 The Christian System, in Reference to the Union of

Christians, and the Restoration of Primitive Christianity wastheinfluentialdoctrineofthis

“creedless”sect,andhealsotaughtDavis’smotherandlivedincloseproximitytoRebecca

HardingDavisformostofherformativeyears.36

Lasseterpointsoutthatinthestory’sfirstpublicationin1861, Atlantic Monthly editor

JamesFieldsexcisedtwoimportantparagraphsfromthepassageoftextinwhichHughWolfe

54 wandersintoachurchatacrisispointinhislife.Lasseteridentifiesthespecifictextandits properplacementinthestoryinherarchivalessay(“TheCensored”176),andshealsoreveals thatthemissingtextexplicitlypresentsHughWolfeasabrotherofChrist:“IfHehadstoodin thechurchthatnight,wouldnotthewretchinthetornshirtthereinthepewhave‘knownthe man’?Hisbrotherfirst.Andthen,unveiledhisGod”(176).TheimplicationisthatWolfe wouldhaverecognizedChristifJesushadstoodbeforehiminthechurchasafellowsuffererbut thatthechurchgoerscannotrecognizethesimilaritytoJesusinWolfeevenashestandsbefore thembecausetheyaretooremovedfromtheconditionofhumansuffering.Davisdoesnotgoso farastosayWolfeisastandinforChrist,butshesubstituteshissituationforthesimilar situationthatthehistoricalJesusfoundhimselfinshortlybeforehiscrucifixion.Wolfe resemblesnottheDivineChristbutthehumanJesus,sonofJoseph:“AsocialPariah,amanof thelowestcaste,thrownupfromamongthem,dyingwiththeirpain”(176).Lasseterexamines boththemissingportionsofDavis’sholographandthechurchsermoninthestory,andshe identifiesspecificelementsthatleadhertoconcludethatDaviswaswritingaboutCampbell’s

DisciplesofChristsect,suchasitsintellectualelitismandthereputationas“achurchwhere capitalistmaterialism,prosperity,andcomplacencyseemtobeChristianvirtues”(182).The identificationoftheProtestantsectwithinthestoryallowsfortwoimportantcomparisonsto emerge,oneinrelationtopopularphilosophicalcultureandoneinrelationtotheQuakers specifically.

Davis,clearlyknowledgeableaboutthepopularphilosophicalandsocialrhetoricofher day,questionstheroleoftheinstitutionalreligioninrelationtovarioussociologicalreform initiatives.LasseterarguesthatWolfepresumablyturnstoGodafterrecentlyhavingheardthe factoryvisitors,May,Mitchell,andKirby,debatingimportantnineteenthcenturysocial, economic,andreligiousphilosophies,suchassocialism,capitalism,Deism,Calvinism,and

Transcendentalism(“TheCensored”181).Lassetersuggeststhatnoneoftheseapproaches

55 offersanypracticalsolutiontoWolfeinhisdesiretochangehisposition,andthathisnextmove towardthechurchillustratesDavis’sintentionofexaminingyetanotherdisappointingvehiclein theadministrationofsocialjustice.Lasseterwrites:

Theholographversionand,lesseffectively,the1865text[withthemissingsection partiallyrestored]targettheEvangelicalProtestantchurchastheprimarysocial institutionwhichhadfailedatwhatshebelievedwasitsmostelementaltask—toallow ‘brotherlylove’toinhereinthechurchandthentosuffuseAmericanculture,thereby eliminatingpoverty.”(175) Lasseter’sdiscoveryhasimportantimplicationsforDavis’sdevelopingcritique,hertheology,

andforrealismitselfasanemergingformofrhetoricbecauseitisinthisstorythatshefirst

activelyalignsrealismwithreligiouscritique.

“LifeintheIronMills”beginsadiscourseinwhichDavisexaminesnumeroustrendsof

culturalthoughtbyhoninginonwhat,specifically,variousphilosophicalandreligious

approacheshavetooffersomeonelikeWolfe,apotentialartistwho“chanced”tobeborninto

thepovertystrickenlifeofaWelshimmigrantworkingclassfamily.OnceDavisrejectsthe popularsociologicalreformmovements,sheturnsherattentiontoProtestantismandsocialized

Christianity.IfwecanacceptthattheunnamedchurchinthestoryisaDisciplesofChrist

EvangelicalChurch,thenwhatemergesisacomparisonoftwoformsofprimitiveChristianity

thatpresentpolarmodelsfordealingwithsocialreform:onepositsthatitis“unchristian”to

interferewithmaterialculturewhiletheother,theQuakers,positsthatChristianitymandates

ministeringtothesocialneedsoftheunderprivileged.Lasseterconcludesthat“allthreeversions

[the1861,the1865,andtheholograph]areconsistentwithahermeneuticexaminationofahost

ofcreedsofferedaspossiblesolutionstothesocialproblemspresentedinallversionsofthe

story”(182).WecanseemoreclearlythatDaviswasnotsomuchsuggestingaturnto

Quakerismasanationalreligion,butrathershewassuggestingthatprimitiveChristianityisnot

creedlessinitspractices,andshewasofferingtheQuaker’sexampleasasuperiormodelinthe

administrationofsocialjustice.HerviewstowardtheQuakerstookmanyturnsandtwistsinher

56 subsequentwriting,but“LifeintheIronMills”offersanimportantfoundationforDavis’s ensuingreligiouscritiqueinwhichshesystematicallyexaminesseveralProtestantsectsinher fictionbutalwaysinrelationtothisinitialcomparisonofQuakerprimitivism.

IhavesuggestedthatFields’seditinghaslargerimplicationsforrealismaswell.It shouldbeclearthat,eveninitsincipientstages,realismengageswiththesubjectofreligionbut

Fieldsandotherspracticedacertainamountofcensorship.Realistwritersoffercritiquesof contemporaryreligiouspracticesandsometimesofnotablechurchleadersintheirexaminations ofmodernculture.Lasseterremindsusthattherewerefinancialinterestsatstakedrivingsome oftheeditingofreligiousrhetoric.Inanyevent,itisevidentthatinorderforrealiststostagea religiouscritique,theyhadtopositionthemselvesandtheirviewssomewhatneutrallyandeven obscurelyintheirnarratives.Otherfactorsmayhavebeenatworkaswellinanticipatingpublic reactiontothissensitivesubject.Forexample,DavidReynoldssuggeststhismovetoward obliquenessisanimportantstrategyrealistwritersemployedtodistantthemselvesfromearlier titillatingdiscoursesofdarkreformrhetoric( Beneath the American Renaissance 64).The

ensuingobscurityofreligiousrhetoriccertainlyrevealsacomplicateddynamic,butthe

relationshipbetweenreligionandrealismisastrongoneand,Iwillargue,areciprocalone.

Davis’sworkoffersatimelyglimpseintothekindsofcritiquesthatservedascatalystsforthe

explorationintoanewtypeoffictionthatvaluesthesamepreferenceformaterialitythat

ProtestantreformwasdemonstratinginitsownreexaminationofpracticalChristianity.

IfweexamineHughWolfe’smoralcrisisin“IronMills”asacomparisonoftwomodels

ofprimitiveChristianity,oneverymodernandonefadingintoantiquity,itiseasytointerpretthe

story’sendingasDavis’sdesiretopreservesomeoftheaestheticsoftherapidlydiminishing

Quakersociety.JeanPfaelzerpointsoutthatQuakerisminthisstoryisstillassociatedwiththe

romantictropeofsentimentalfiction. 37 Shewrites:

Twoendingsmarktheromanticchoicebetweensolipsismandcommitment—one promisessocialrebirththroughQuakerism,acommunityidentifiedwithAbolitionand 57 reform,thesecondoffersthepersistentimageoftheunsatisfiedstatuewhichrefusesto remainhidden,parodyingthesentimentalfigureoftherepressednarratoranddecrying thefrustrationsofDavis’sownlife.( A Reader xx) Whenthephysicallydeformed,sociallyoppressedDeborahlandsinjailfortheft,areform mindedQuakervisitsherandpromisesassistanceinburyingDeborah’ssuicidalfriendHugh

Wolfe.ThestoryendswithDeborah’sreturnwiththeQuakerwomantoarural,premodern landscapethatvaguelyblendsintoanimageofeternity:“Waiting:withhereyesturnedtohills higherandpurerthanthoseonwhichshelives,—dimandfaroffnow,buttobereachedsome day”(Davis,“IronMills”33).WhattheQuakerendingoffersusatthispointisaproblematic turnbacktheclocknotionofreformthroughreligioussalvation,aneschatologicalfocusthatis notasapparentinDavis’ssubsequentwork.ThroughtheQuakertheology,whichshewill modify,sheshiftsherfocuseventuallyfromtheeschatologicaltothesecular,pavingthewayfor progressiveliberalsocialreform.

ThereisonlyabriefmentionofQuakersinawellknownworkofDavis’sshortfiction,

‘TheWife’sStory,”writtenin1864soonafterhermarriageandrelocation.Becauseofthe chronologicalrelationshipofthisworkrelativetothePhiladelphiayears,itisworthexamining hereasatransitionalpieceinDavis’sreligiousdiscourse.Thisstoryinvolvesaclashofmany religiousandculturalbeliefs,fromHesterManning’sConcordTranscendentalismtothe unnamedWesterntheologyofDanielManning,andthesubsequentNewportinfluenceofboth theQuakersandDr.Manning’spreacherson,Robert.AstheManningscontemplatetheirforced relocationduetoafinancialcrisis,Manning’sward,JackyMonchardsuggests,“‘Friendsready waiting.Anddifferentsortoffriendsfromanywehavehere,eh?’”(“TheWife’sStory”113).

JackyisclearlymakingareferencetothelikelihoodofencounteringQuakerFriendsinNewport, butitseemsunlikelythattheManningsareQuakersthemselves,especiallygivenRobert’s

occupation;Quakersdonothaveordainedministeredbutrelyinsteadonthe“innerlight”to

movevariousmemberstospeakduringweeklymeetings.Thestruggletofigureouttheroleof

58 Godisasignificantpartofthisstory’sunfolding.Inthebeginning,Manningessentializesthe roleofGodinWesternthoughtandhisownexceptionalistbeliefswhenheexplains,“‘we

Westernpeoplehavethemassofthiscountry’sappointedworktodo,sowearecontentthatGod shouldunderliethehypotheses.Wewastenostrengthinguessesatthereasonwhy’”(120).

Manningspeaksofhimselfas“the”Westandsuggeststhatall“Westerners”sharethesameset ofculturalandreligiousvalues.Davisappearstoattachacertainamountofnostalgiatothe regionbyconnectingthegeographyofuntamednaturewithacreedlessvisionofhow

Christianityshouldoperate.OncetheManningsareremovedfromtheWest,itseemsinevitable thatsometypeofculturalandspiritualcrisisisimminent.

ThisstoryoffersatwofoldconflictasfirstEastmeetsWestandthenlaterwhenWest meetsEast.ThefirstcrisisfollowstheunionofHettyandDanielManning,andthisperpetuates alargerconflictasthenarrativeshiftsbacktotheEast.JustasManningbeginstorealizethe clashofreligiouscultureswithinhismarriage,Hettyfacesherowncrisisofconsciencethat

DavisdepictsbyelevatingthementalandintellectualanguishHettyexperiencestoalarger theologicalandspiritualcrisisbyhavingherinvoketheideaofaGodgiventalent.Hettycomes toseemusicalabilityandaestheticappreciationasagiftfromGod,andsheagonizesoverthe questionofrejectingsuchagiftwhensheasks,“WasItogiveitunusedbacktoGod”(121).In

Calvinism,theideaofignoringagiftortalenthasreligiousroots;nottofulfillone’spotentialis

toignoreorrejectGod’sgrace,whichrelatesbacktothebeliefthatJesuswasgivenasagiftto

washawaysin,butthegiftmustbe“received.”TospurnagiftfromGodissimilartospurning

Jesusasasavior.Davisusesreligiousrhetorictochallengeherreadersregardingtheroleof

womeninculture;shestrugglestoworkoutasolutioninthistalebyspecificallyinvokinga

traditionalCalvinistbeliefinrelationtocontemporarywoman’ssuffrageissues.

Thefinalreligiousresolutioninthestoryisenactedthroughanelaboratedreamsequence,

atrickDavisplaysonthereader,butonewhichlinksbackpresumablytowhatReynoldscalls

59 Orientalistvisionaryandallegoricalfiction.38 Inthesetypesoftales,displacementorallegoryis usedtoillustratemoralimperatives.Reynoldswrites:“Thereaderandtheprotagonistare... distancedfromperilbytheuseofapanoramiclandscapecontainedinanOrientaldreamvision..

..IntheAmericanallegories,sinisusuallyconvertedintoobjects—rocks,caves,cliffs, gardens—whichcanbesidesteppedbypropermoralchoice”( Faith in Fiction 28).This dangerousprecipicethatReynoldsdescribesis,infact,theexactsettingofHesterManning’s crisis.Shedescribesher“fall”:“Iturnedandcreptslowlyalongtheroadtowherethegrassy streetopenedonthecliffs,andsatdownonthebroadrocks.Icouldseemyhusbandonthe sandswithRobert”(Davis,“TheWife’sStory”130).WhatHettythendescribesasherchoiceto boardthesteamerheadedforNewYorkislaterrevealedtobe“brainfeverandwhatnot”(135) andsheissaved:“itcomestomeyetasagreattruth—thatGodhadletmebebornagain”

(136).39 Davisdoesnotofferadiscernablereligiouscodificationinthisworkasshewillinher

otherstories,probablybecauseDavisisstilltryingtoreconcilesentimentalismwithher

emergingrealistaestheticandchangingculturalvaluesaboutdomesticfemalepower.Shecloses

thestorywithaveryambivalent,conventionalsolutionthatfocusesontheeschatological

implicationsratherthanthesecularimpactofHetty’ssin,butthismaybeoneofthelast

instancesofDavisleavinguswithsuchanevasiveending.Wecanseeherethatarejectionof

sentimentalismisnecessaryinorderforDavistoexplorenewendingsandsocialreform.

Religionandrealismbegintooperateintandemasaresponsetomodernproblems.Thisstory

allowsustoseehowthattransformationdevelops.

ThenextsignificantreadingofQuakersthatDavisoffersisin“OutoftheSea”(1865),

ThisstoryportraysthereformQuakerismthatisassociatedwiththePhiladelphiaQuakers,andit

featurestwosignificantQuakers,onefromPennsylvania,onefromNewJersey.TheNewJersey

Quakerwillbeultimatelykilledoff,butnotbeforeimpartingherwisdomandvaluestoher

modernreplacement.OldMotherPhebeisanimpoverishedfishwife,asocialoutcast,

60 reminiscentoftheoldschoolNewEnglandQuakers,whohasgivenupherassociationwithher illegitimatesoninthehopethathecanattainanewidentityandabetterlifewhileMary

Defourchetisamodernandaffluentbridetobewhorepresentsthediverseandtoleranthistory oftheCityofBrotherlyLove.AswithmanyofDavis’sstories,thequestionofsocialidentity andrevelationoflifehistoryisakeyplotcomponentthatpropelstheactionforward.Welearn almostimmediatelythatMaryis“overthirty,aneagerhumanitarian,[who]hadtaughtthe freedmenatPortRoyal,[and]gonetoGettysburgandAntietamwithsanitarystores”(Davis,

“OutoftheSea”142).Maryexudesconfidence,wisdom,socialjustice,andablendofprivate andpublicdomesticity;nevertheless,herguardian,Dr.Bowlder,believessheisoverlypolished andisinneedofapracticaleducation.Hewrites,“Beforeshebeginsherlifeinearnest,itwould dohergoodtofacesomethingreal.Nothinglikelivingbythesea,andwiththosehomely thoroughbloodQuakers,forbringingpeopletotheirsimplenaturalselves”(141).Thereisso muchimplicationinthisstatementthatitisdifficulttodeconstructit;DavisrepresentstheNew

JerseyQuakersassimple,primitive,pureblooded,andmostimportantly, real .Theyofferthe potentialformore“real”experience,infact,thanMary’sCivilWarservice.Thereisavalue

DaviswantstocapturefromOldPhebe’sQuakerism,butshewantstopreserveitevenwhileshe

rewritestheQuakerstory,blendingoldwithnewinaclearlyAmericannarrative,whichis

signaledbythereferencestotheCivilWarandsubsequentReconstruction.

ThereconciliationofoldandnewtakesplacethroughtheagencyofOldPhebe’sson,

DerrickTrull,nowasuccessfulsurgeonknownasDirkBirkenshead.BirkensheadisMary’s

fiancé,andhisformalacknowledgementofhismotheraftershesaveshislifeincreasesMary’s

loveanddevotiontohim.LikeMary,Birkensheadmustfindawaytoreconcileoldwithnew,

implyingaHegeliandialectictoDavis’smodelofsocialadvancement.AsBirkenshead

contemplateshismother’sface,hetoo,usestherhetoricof“thereal,”whichhelpstoconnect

Davis’sliteraryrealismtohertheologicalprimitivism:“Somethinghomelyandwarmandtrue

61 waswakinginhimtonightthathadbeendeadforyearsandyears;thiswasnomatterof aestheticsortaste,itwasreal, real .Hewonderedifpeoplefeltinthiswaywhohadhomes,or thosesimplefolkwholovedtheLord”(160).Birkenshead’srelationshipwithOldPhebeis alludedtoinreligioustermsasanenactmentof“theIdealMotherandherSon”(158),andsheis describedas“aholywomantypewhichforagessuppliedtotheworldthattendernessandpity whichthechurchhadstrippedfromGod”(158).Davisassertstheideathathumanbeingsarethe essentialagentsofChristiansympathy,andshewantstomaketheideaofhomeandhearthakey componentofhernewtheology.

Clearly,DavisispromotinganideaofprimitiveChristianity,mergingCatholicand

ProtestantstrainsofChristianfaithinto“thechurch.”Inthissection,sheprivilegesamaternal modelofChristianity,whichcaneasilybereadasanassertionofdomesticfemalepower.We seesimilarstrainsofsuchdomesticfeminisminthewritingofHarrietBeecherStowe,butitis notaseasilyalignedwiththerealistaesthetic. 40 ForDavis,wemightinferthatshepromotes religiousprimitivisminanattempttoreduceChristianitytoanunencumberedpursuitofdivine truth,herliteraryrealismtriestooperateinasimilarlyreductivemannerbysheddingcultural aestheticsandliteraryconventionsassociatedwiththesocialthemesshewishestoaddress.

Quakerismhelpshernegotiatethistransitionbecauseitservesasamodelthatsuccessfully blendsthenuminousandthematerialbyconfiguringthesocialworldasanallegoricalrendering ofdivineorder.Thiskindofallegoryoccursfrequentlyinrealism;Davisoffersreductivemodel inwhichthematerialisarudimentaryfigurationofthedivine.Howells,Twain,andFrederic willalsomakeuseofthisreverseimagery.

ThemostsignificantofDavis’sfictionaddressingQuakerismandsocialreformis

Waiting for the Verdict (1868),anovelthatdealsprimarilywithabolitionandReconstruction

andwhichis,perhaps,Davis’ssequeltoStowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin .Inthisworkwesee problemsspecificallyrelatedtocontemporaryAmericancultureforwhichreligioussolutions

62 cannotbefound,evenwithinQuakerism.Infact,theQuakerwomeninthisstoryservemerely asshadowymentorstosomeoftheprotagonistsinthisconvolutedplot.AnnYatesadoptsand reformstheMulattoslaveSap,laterknownasJohnBroderip,whileAbigailBlanchardhelps educateandsocializeRosslynBurley,aformerpeddlerfromthewrongsideofthetracks.This work,morethanany,seemstoaddresstheQuakerquestionforDavis,anditalsoreflectsthe

Philadelphiainfluence,makingthisakeytextforDavis’spairingofQuakersandrealism.

Asfarasprovidingareligiousframework,QuakerismworkswellforDaviswithher interestinhumanrightsbecauseitssocialpracticealreadyembodiedtheantiracistmodelthat

Daviswantedtoseeexpandedtolargersociety.Whatisinterestinghereisthatwhilethereare twoprominentQuaker“Friends”instigatingsocialchange,bothareperipheral,exhibitinga diminishingagencyasthestoryprogresses.OnceSapgrowsup,FriendYatesliterallyinhabits anupstairsroom,advisinghimbutremaining,forthemostpart,outofsight,onlyhalfalive.She functionsasBroderick’sconscienceinmanyways.FriendBlanchardtakesamoreactiverolein

Rosslyn’saffairs,eventothepointoftryingtointerferebetweenRossandhergrandfatherin ordertohelpRosslynmakeabeneficialmarriage;nonetheless,sheisdescribedas“thesolerelic leftusoftheold régime ”( Waiting for the Verdict 132).TheseQuakerfiguresembodybeliefs thathavelosttheirusefulnessinresolvingmoraldilemmas.Upuntilthispoint,Quakerismwas anintegralpartofDavis’sidealofprimitiveChristianity,buthereweseeherbeginningtomove awayfromit.BothBroderipandRosslynmustmoveforwardandconfronttheirowncrisesof consciencewithouttheaidoftheirQuakermentors.TheseQuakerwomenattempttopractice religionwithasociallyconsciousaltruism,buteachisstymiedbyethicalproblemsforwhich neithertheirbeliefsnortheirconsciencesoffereasysolutions.YatesandBlanchardbothattempt to“hide”secretswhich,ifrevealed,worktothedetrimentoftheirwards.Thereisaresultant ambivalenceintheiractionsbecausewhileeachbelievesthereisahigherlawthanthenation’s law,eachneverthelesshastroubleadheringtotheQuakervalueoftruthfulnesswithout

63 subvertingit.Thenewsocialorderrequiresadifferentsystemfordealingwithmoralconditions broughtaboutbyachangingculture.ThefailureofQuakerisminthisstoryimpliesthatthenew

systemmustencompassbothspiritualandculturalchange.

Inthisnovel,religiousvaluesarechallengedduetomoralfailingssuchasprejudice,

dishonesty,andevenexcessivelove,whichleadsAnnYatestolietoJohnBroderip(Sap)by

tellinghimwhatshebelieveshewantstohearratherthanwhatshebelievestobetrueabouthis

abilitytomarry.BroderipisanundiscoveredMulattorepresentinghisidentityasaEuropean

Caucasian.Sheisdeeplytroubledafterhedeparts:

Howcouldshetellhimtonightthathewasnevertohaveaman’sportion,ashenever hadhadachild’s?“Butheneverwill.Loveandmarriagearenotforhim.Heshould submittoGod’swill.”Shecoveredherfacewiththenewspaperandlayquitestillfora longtime;andtheservants,thinkingshewasasleep,gentlyloweredthegas,andlefther. Butshewasonlythinkingoverherlastwords,“WasitGod’swill?Wasit?”(153) Here,again,isafailureofinstitutionalreligionwhenconfrontedwithverymodernproblemsthat

thenewspapersignifies—problemsthatarebasedinprejudiceandhabitratherthanjusticeor

law.AnnYatesisunabletoretainhersteadfasttrustinGod’swillbecauseshebeginstodoubt

thepossibilityofascertainingthatwill.Bythestory’send,Davisexchangestheideaoftryingto

attaindivineperfectionwithamoresecularmodelofsocialjustice.Broderipsuggests,“Howto beaman—that’swhatwewanttoknow—nothowtobeaGod”(414).Davis,atthispoint,

focusesonthesecularaspectsofQuakerpracticesandmaintainsthesocialjusticereformvalues

associatedwithQuakerism,butsherelinquishesthepossibilityofexternalauthorityinrelationto

God.And,infact,inhernextnovel, Dallas Galbriath (1868),theonlyQuakerfigurewesee

turnsouttobeanimposter—adetectiveparadingasavisitingQuakerinordertoearnthetrustof

Manasquanvillagers.

TheQuakersaresingularlysignificanttoDavis’sworkwithrealismbecauseshedraws

mostheavilyonthis“creedless”creedinordertowriteherowntheology,onethatshebelievesis

neededforthepostCivilWarera.Theyarethebasisforherownmodelofprimitive

64 Christianity,butshechangesandupdatesthemodelinordertoadheretotheemergingcultureof

LiberalProgressivism.Weseethismostclearlyinheressay,“AFadedLeafofHistory”(1873) whensheallegorizestheChristchildinthefigureofaQuakerbabywhoreceiveshis nourishmentfromatroupeofsurrogateswhenhisparentstravelfromPortRoyal,Jamaicato

Pennsylvaniaintheyear1698.Inherdepictionofthisbaby,sherelinquisheseventheQuaker beliefsandexpandsherreligiousmodeltoanintuitive“feeling”aboutGod,representedasan allegoricalrebirth:“Butthebaby,whoknewnothingofthejudgmentsormercyofGod,andwho couldneitherpraynorsing,onlyhadlearnedinthesedesperatestraitstogrowstrongandhappy inthetouchofsunandwind,andtoholdoutitsarmstofriendorfoe,slaveorsavage,sureofa welcome,andsocameclosertoGodthananyofthemall”(373).Whatshedoesnotdealwith andwhatsubsequentwriterswillhavetoconfrontisthelackofexternalauthorityinher allegory.Byadvocatingareligioussystemandcorollaryliteraryaestheticbothderivedfrom intuitiveconscience,simplyafeelingaboutGod,theabstractnotionsofjusticeandevensocial activismneedtobeassignedsometypeofvalueandrelativeweightinordertobeexaminedin relationtoempiricalexperience.

WhileDaviswasarrivingattheconclusionthattheinnerlightdoesnotgiveanyclear indicationofGod’sauthority(i.e.thatGoddoesnotnecessarilyapproacheachofusdirectly), shewasalsoconductingacriticalsurveyofseveralotherreligiousmovementsandphilosophical trendswiththeaimofdebunkingthem.ThesestoriescomprisethesecondmajorarcofDavis’s writingwhengroupedbyreligioussubject.Assuggestedearlier,Davis’sefforttoevaluate contemporaryAmericanculturethroughthefilterofProtestantsectarianismbeginswith“Iron

Mills”andherscrutinyoftheDisciplesofChristEvangelicalChurch.Herevaluationcontinues throughoutseveralstories,overlappingwithherinterestinQuakerism.Someofthetitlesthat belonginthissecondgroupare“JohnLamar”(1862)and“DavidGaunt”(1862), Margret Howth

(1862), 41 “TheCaptain’sStory”(1865),“TheHarmonists”(1866),“TheStoryofChristine”

65 (1866), Dallas Galbraith (1868),“TheDoctor’sWife”(1874),and“TheYaresofBlack

Mountain”(1875).Eachofthesestoriesdealswithinstitutionalreligioninverysubtlewaysthat helpusunderstandbettertherelationshipbetweenreligionandrealisminDavis’swriting. 42 In eachstory,Davistacklesproblemsofrepresentationandthesubtletiesoftryingtoascertaintruth inrelationtomaterialityandexternalexpression.Sheexaminesreligiousinheritancethroughits effectonthecurrentpracticesandbehaviorsthatemergeincontemporaryculture,andshe challengesherreaderstoquestiontheongoingrelevanceofcreedssuchasPuritanism,whichshe presentsasahabitratherthanabelief.Alongtheway,Davisrevealsherextensiveknowledgeof thereligiousforcesthathaveshapedseveralregional,ethnic,andracialidentitiesinAmerican society.

RebeccaHardingDaviswasconsumedwiththeideaofsociallyconstructedmodelsof identitynotonlybyracebutbygenderandclassaswell,andshefrequentlyexaminesidentity conflictsthroughareligiouslens.HerwritingoffersseveralinstancesofwhatW.E.B.DuBois wouldlaterterm“doubleconsciousness.”DuBois’stermreferstoanindividualwhomight haveadistinctiveselfperceptionbutwhoissimultaneouslyawareofhowothersseehimorher andsoheorsheinevitablyperformsidentityinacertainexpectedwayduetofactorssuchas race. 43 Daviscreatesinnumerablecharacterswhoarenotwhattheyseemtobebutwhomanage

topasssocialscrutinybyconformingtosocialexpectations.Ingeneral,hercharactersareable

todisguisethemselvessuccessfullyuntiltheirconsciencesgetthebetterofthemandeachis

forcedintoidentifyingwitharace,class,orgroupthatworkstohisorherdetriment.Thismodel

is,ofcourse,slightlydifferentthanDuBois’smodelofdoubleconsciousnesssince,inDavis’s

stories,these“dual”charactersdonotdisplayanyvisiblephysicalcharacteristicsthatwould

markthemasoutsiders.In“OutoftheSea”(1865),DerrickTrull/DirkBirkensheadisforcedto

reconcilehisillegitimacyandpovertywithhisnewlyassumedsocialstandingasaprominent

Philadelphiaphysician.In Waiting for the Verdict (1868),RosslynBurleymustconfrontnot

66 onlyherillegitimacy,butalsoherhybridSouthernplantationrootsandherNorthernmarket hucksterallegiancewhileSap/JohnBroderipattemptstocoveruphismulattobloodandslave identityasheachievessuccessasasurgeonofrenownandfallsinlovewithMargaretConrad,a whitewoman.Later,DallasGalbraithsimilarlyattemptstoreinventhimselfbycoveringuphis criminalpastandreconcilingwithhiswealthyEpiscopalandPresbyteriangrandparentswho appeartohaveirrefragablenotionsaboutwhatconstitutesanhonorablecitizen.Ineachofthese cases,Davis’sprotagonistsfindthemselvesinDuBois’spositionofseeingthemselvesina differentlightthantheyareseenbyotherswhilesimultaneouslyperceivinghowotherswould classifytheminboththeirassumedidentitiesandintheirhiddenones.

ForDavis,inaneraofrapidsocialchange,heightenedbychangingsocialjusticelaws

andrapidshiftingofwealthfromthe1860sonward,thequestionofsocialcollectivityneedsto bereexamined.Davis’sinterestinsuchchangeimpactedherliteraryefforts.DavidShi

suggeststhattheemergenceofliteraryrealismcorrespondedwithadesiretofindmodesof

artisticexpressionthatwouldbestcapturethespiritoftheage.Hewrites:“Anunprecedented

newsocietydemandednewaestheticforms”(98).ForDavis,areexaminationrequirednew

literaryformsbecauseexistingconventionsofromanticismandsentimentalismdidnotallowher

toexploretheissuesofsocialidentitythatshewantedtoseequestionedandchanged.

Romanticismistoocloselyalignedwithsolipsismandsentimentalismistoocloselyalignedwith

eschatologicalsalvationtoofferDavisastyleandformthatreflectherreformgoals.Realism

withitsrhetoricoftruthfulnessandafocusonthe“common”becameherexperimentalstyle

althoughshedidnotmakeacleanbreakawayfromeitherromanticismorsentimentalism.

ThefirsttwostoriesinthisperiodofDavis’swritingworkwellinrelationtoeachother.

Both“JohnLamar”and“DavidGaunt”dealwithsecessionismandabolitionism,andboth

evaluatetheMethodistmovementasasocialforce.“JohnLamar”waspublishedjustfive

monthsbefore“DavidGaunt,”anditworkswellasanintroductiontothelargerandmore

67 elaboratedstorytoldin“DavidGaunt.”Forthisreason,Davis’splotparallelismsin“John

Lamar”meritfurtherreview.AsIdiscussedabove,theideaofdoublemeaningsemergesinthis storyasthetwoopposingsidesofthesecessionistquestionmakethesameclaimtoreligious authoritytojustifytheiractions,echoingthepositionsoftheNorthandtheSouthintheCivil

War.Infact,theentirestorydealswiththeideaofdoublemeanings;thecapturedSoutherner,

Lamar,promiseshisloiteringslaveBenthattheysoonwillfindfreedomonceBenhelpsLamar escape.Inthispromise,Lamarmeanshisownfreedomandfailstorealizetheironythathisown capturehasresultedinhisslave’sliberationandviceversa.ItisonlywhenBencomprehends thatLamar’sliberationportendshisownreturnintoslaverythathedeterminesnottohelpLamar escapeandkillshiminstead.Asecondbutcloselyrelateddoublinginvolvesahymnanda psalm;whileimprisoned,LamarhearsaMethodistabolitionistsingingahymninascenethat willparallelhisownlaterrecitationofthetwentythirdpsalm,whichtheMethodistwill overhear.WhenLamarhearsthehymn,herecognizesitas“anoldfashionedMethodistairthat

[hissister]Floyhadcaughtfromthenegroes”(Davis50).Lamarissurprisedandeven comfortedtorealizethat“It’sthesameGod....Floy’sandtheirs”(50).Hedoesnotinclude himselfinthegroupwhoknowsthissameGod,buthislaterrecitationofthepsalmsuggeststhat perhapsLamarhasjoinedthefoldofbelieversbyreturningtothe“simplefaithhismothertaught him”(52).Davisframesthisstorywithapatternofparallelcircumstances:thepromiseof freedom,thehymnandthepsalm,theroleofGod,Ben’sandLamar’seyescasttothegroundin anactofsimultaneousinwardandoutwardrecognition,andthesexualfantasiesLamarandBen eachhaveaboutFloy.Davisshowshoweverythingweexperiencecanrunintandemto another’sexperienceandyetbesubjecttoperceptionandinterpretation,resultingintwo completelypolarpointsofview.Atthesametime,shedoesn’tnegatethevalueofempirical experienceasnecessarytothedevelopmentofconscience.Sheportraysmoralidentityina causeandeffectrelationshipwithculturalconditioning.Theideaoftheparallelsundercutsthe

68 notionofimmutabledifferenceincreed,faith,orculture;suchdifferencesareallproductionsof thematerialworld.Thecentralproblemthistextintroducesisoneofrecognition,anideathat

Davisfeaturesprominentlyinherfiction.

Daviselaboratesonmanyofthethemesof“JohnLamar”inherlongerwork,“David

Gaunt.”Thisstoryisstrikinglysimilarto“JohnLamar”anditwouldbeeasytoconfusethem, but“DavidGaunt”doesmorethanexaminewhatDavismightcallthemisdirectionsof

Methodism;shebeginstoexaminereligiouscultureasalargerentity.Shelocatesproblemsof authorityinreligioushabitsingeneral,andhertextiscarefullycraftedforthispurpose.This storybeginswithaseriesofreligiousallegoriesdrawnfromJohnBunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress .

Davisasks,“Whatkindofsword,doyouthink,wasthatwhicholdChristianhadinthatfamous

fightwithhisApollyonlongago?”(“DavidGaunt”54).IfwerememberGregoryJackson’s pointthatthereisalinkbetweenliteraryrealismandhomileticnarrative,Davis’sopening

illustratesherintentionofappealingtothereadingpracticesofProtestantaudiences(Jackson,

“WhatWouldJesusDo”645).Jacksonhimselfmakeshispointwithasimilarreferenceto

Bunyan’sallegory:“ForChristiancritics,suchluridcatalogs[ofhumanmisery]ensnaredreaders

inasensualworld(muchasVanityFairtrapsJohnBunyan’swayfaringpilgrim),seducingthem

intoexchangingspiritualrealityfortangiblemateriality,theeternalveritiesoffaithbased

knowledgeforthedisenchanted,deceptiveauthorityofmodernsecularepistemology”(645).

Thismovefromtheallegoricalrealmofperceptiontoamoreimmediatematerialrealmis

exactlytheshiftDavisoffers.Shewrites:“Readingthequainthistory,justnow,Ihaveamindto

tellyouamodernstory”(54).Davisthenoffersanotherseriesofallegoriesdrawnfrom

Pilgrim’s Progress suggestingthisallegoricalframeworkforreadingherstoryabouttheVirginia

hills.Inthisway,shewantstomaterializetheallegory,groundingitinthepresentratherthan

thepastbutappealingneverthelesstoabeliefintimelesstruth.Thelinkbetweenreligious

allegoryandliteraryrealismisafascinatingmoveonDavis’spartbecausesheclearlysetsher

69 workalongsidehomileticnarrativeevenasshedistancesherselffromit.Sheisofferingher realismasanewaestheticwhiledrawingonthissharedsermonicdiscoursethatremindsher audienceofhowtheyareusedtoreceivingmoraltales.Bydoingso,shelaysthegroundwork foranewliteraryformthatpromisestodealwithsuchsubjectsinadifferentmanner.

Aftertheopeningallegory,Davisfollowsupwithyetanotherrhetoricalquestionposedto thereaderaimedatchallengingculturalconditioning.Sheasks:“Howwideisyourown‘sacred soil’?―thecreed,government,bitoftruth,otherhumanheart,self,perhaps,towhichyoursoul rootsitselfvitally”(5556).Davis,infact,offersherealistofmisdirections,andthenshe backtracksabitinordertohowtheexperienceandprejudicesofseveralcharactersledtotragic outcomes.Intheend,shewillresolveacrisisoffaithbyofferinganexampleofreligious primitivisminDodeScofield,thestory’sheroine.Dode’sprimitivismisclearlyareplacement

forthecreedsandpracticesthatcurrentlyexistinthisworld.Thisstoryallowsustoviewthe

complexitiesofreligiousaffiliationandpoliticalbeliefs;JoeScofieldandDavidGauntare

Methodistsandbothdrawontheirreligiontoexplaintheiractions—Joeforsupportingthe

ConfederacyandGauntforjoiningtheUnion.Generally,Methodismwasassociatedwith

Abolitionism,buttherewasaschismpriortotheCivilWarresultinginatleastthreedifferent branchesofMethodism:theNorth,theSouth,andtheAfricanMethodistEpiscopalChurch.44

TheactionshiftsbetweenScofield,theConfederatefather,Dode/Theodora,hisdaughter,David

Gaunt,anitinerantMethodistpreacher(convertedfromanunnamedCalvinistdenomination)

whoisalsoawouldbesuitorandeventualUnionist,andfinally,DouglasPalmer,whoisDode’s

trueloveandwhowasthebestfriendofDode’sdeceasedbrother,George,whodiedat

Manassas.PalmerisaUnionistandthusanideologicalandpoliticalenemyoftheScofields.

DodehasrejectedPalmerontheadviceofGauntbecauseheisaninfidel:“Gaunttoldherto

nightthattolovehimwastoturnherbackonthecross,tobeatraitortothatbloodonCalvary.

Wasit?”(69).ItisneverquiteclearwhethertheobjectiontoPalmerispersonalorpolitical,and

70 theclearsuggestionisthatbothaspectsareirrevocablylinkeduntilGauntjoinsforceswith

Palmer,allowingforakindofsynthesis.

DavisclearlyindicatesthatDode’sreligiondiffersfromthosearoundher,andsheoffers itasamodelofvisionaryspirituality.Dode’sfathercannotexplainhercreedtoGauntotherthan tosay,“Shegetsherreligionquiet”(58).Sheexhibits“passionfits”ofreligiousfervor(57)that canbevisiblyobservedbythosearoundher,buttheseareinternal,upliftingmomentsof transcendentreflection.Dode’sactionsexemplifyhowspiritualityismeanttopropelusforward.

Thedetaileddescriptionsofthebeliefsandpracticesofalltheothercharactersaremeanttoshow asenseofmisdirection,butDode’s“quiet”religion,highlysubjective,allowshertofathom moralactionasifbyinstinct.Likethebabyfrom“AFadedLeafofHistory,”Dodepossessesa simple,unalteredfaith:“Herreligionwasnotours.PeoplebuildtheirfaithonChrist,asa rock,—afactitiousaid.ShefoundHiminherlife,longago,whenshewasachild,andhersoul grewoutofhim.HewasalivingJesustoher,notadeadone.Thatwaswhyshehadahealthy soul”(6869).WhenDavistalksaboutthe“livingJesus,”itisnotyetclearexactlywhatshe means.Thisisamystical,intuitiveconnectiontotheDivine,anditcarrieswithittheQuaker beliefintheinnerlight,asimilarideatotheHolyGhostwithatranshistoricalagencytodirect theactionsofaperson.Thepersonthenservesasalivingembodimentoftheirfaith.Dode’s religiononlysteersherwrongwhenshesuppressesherowndesiresandtakesdirectionfrom

Gaunt,himselfaconvertedCalvinistmisledby“Creed”(62).

Ironically,itisPalmer,theinfidel,whosetsDodebackonthepathofherprimitivismby suggestingthatsalvationiscollectiveandthatDodeneedstoemulateJesusratherthanisolate herselffromsin.Hesays:“TheselfishcareofyourownsoulthatGaunttaughtyouisalie:his narrowheavenisalie:myGodinspireslove,otheraims.WhatistheoldtaleofJesus?―thatHe puthishandsonthevilestbeforeHeblestthem?SoletHimcometome,―throughloving hands”(75).Dodestrugglesbetweenherintuitivebeliefandherreligiouseducation,butshehas

71 toworkoutherdifficultiesinherownmindandconscience.Thisisareligiousmodelinonly thevaguestofsenses;Davisdoesnotspecifyhowitcanbeduplicatedbyothers,butthereisa clearsensethatdomesticfelicityisatstake.Dode,infact,cannotfullyrealizeherspirituality untilshebeginstoviewitasanexpressionofherloveforPalmer.Herjourneysearchingforhis woundedbodybecomesanallegoryforherspiritualjourneyandherownroleasasaviorof collectivesouls.Thenarratorwrites:“ItoldyouthegirlthoughtherHelperwasalive,andvery near.Shedidtonight.ShethoughtHewasbesideheronthislonesomeroad,andknewshe wouldbesafe.ShefeltasifshecouldtakeholdofHisveryhand”(94). 45 Thestoryendswith herreunionandmarriagetoPalmer,performedbyDavidGaunt,whoheadsoutWestasan itinerantpreacher,finallyfindingredemptionthroughtherealizationofhisownsinfulness.

Palmerhimselfneverhastherequisiteconversionexperiencetypicalinsentimentalism,but

Dodeperceivesheiscomingclosertoitthroughherownagency:“Hehascomenow;stopsto lookinhiswife’sface....Thereisnonewlookinhereyeshelovessowelltoseeasthatwhich tellsherMasterisnearher.Sometimesshethinkshetoo―Butsheknowsthat‘accordingtoher faithitshallbeuntoher’”(102103).Thispassage’sshiftingpronounscreatesasensethatDode andPalmerarebecomingspirituallyunifiedintheirbeliefs.Dode’svisionaryperformance providesspectralevidencethatallowsPalmertostrengthenhisownbelief.

IfPalmer’spossibleconversionwasthemainfocusofthestory,itwouldbefairlyeasyto passitoffasatraditionalexampleofsentimentalfiction.Thestory,infact,readilyseemsto

followthisestablishedframework,but,asDavisherselfsuggested,thisisamodernstory,andso

wearecuedtolookforexceptionstothesentimentalconventions.Weseethishappenwhen

Doderealizesherpowerthroughherinsistenceonheruniquespirituality,andsheassertsher

subjectivitythroughthisclaimtorighteousness.Sherefusestosubjugatehersenseofself

identitytogreatersalvation,andshedoesnotprivilegePalmer’ssalvationoverherown.Instead,

Dodeusesherbeliefinsalvationtoassertherdomesticidentityasapowerfulculturalforce.Itis

72 throughspecificdeparturesfromthesentimentaltraditionthatwecanexaminetheparallel betweenDavis’sChristianprimitivismmodelandheremergingrealism.

WealsobegintoseeDavis’ssocioeconomicconcernsengagingwithpragmatic materialism,butitwouldbeproblematictoapplythetermseculartoherworkbecausethe subjectofreligionincentraltoherlargerinterestincollectiveculturalnorms.Shedealsvery purposelywiththereligioussubject,andsheoffersaseminalexampleofachangingliberal

ProtestantideologythatbeginstomarryChristianethicswithsocialreformspecificallythrough fiction.Theunderlyingproblembecomesyetanotheroneofdefinition:tryingtodefinethe meaningofChristianityinlatenineteenthcenturyAmericaischallenginginpartbecausewriters suchasDavisareintheprocessofrenegotiatingtheologyandBiblicalhermeneutics, undercuttinganyeasyunderstandingofwhattheymeanbythisterm.Justaspostmodern scholarsallowthattherearemultiple“realisms,” 46 wemustsimilarlyacknowledgethatthereare multiple“Christianities.”

Contemporaryreadersmayhavetroubletryingtounderstandanddefinenineteenth centuryreligiousculturebecauseit was inastateofflux,andfacilelabelssuchasChristian,

Protestant,orevenliberalProtestantareofteneasilyappliedwithlittleacknowledgementofthe inadequaciesofsuchconflatedlabels.WhileitistruethatnineteenthcenturyAmericawas predominantlyProtestant,asopposedtoCatholic,Jewish,Muslim,Hindu,Buddhist,orother,the termProtestantimpliesanencompassingallegianceonlyinrelation to thoseotherreligions.It alsopresentsadeceptiveunitybecausesignificantdifferencesexistwithinProtestantism,many ofwhichwillemergeclearlyinanexaminationofDavis’sfiction.Nineteenthcenturyrealists wereapparentlywellawareofthesedifferences.Davis,inparticular,dedicatesmuchofher fictiontodepictingvarioustypesofreligiousfigureswhoembodythebeliefsandpracticesof specificProtestantdenominationsthatshewishestocritique,suchasEvangelicalProtestantism,

Presbyterianism,orMethodism.Inananalysisofnineteenthcenturyreligiousculture,George

73 ThomascommentsontheriseofrevivalismandProtestantsectarianism:“Iofferthe interpretationthatreligiousmovementsarticulateanewmoralorderandthateachattemptsto haveitsversionofthatorderdominatethemoralpoliticaluniverse”(2).Davisapparently agreedthatsectarianismplayedaprominentroleinthenegotiationofsocialethics,andshe evaluatedseveralreligiousorganizationsinrelationtotheproblemsofherage.Sherevealsher familiaritywiththehermeneutics,theology,andsocialpracticesthatareassociatedwitha numberofProtestantsects,andsheisinterestedinunravelinghowsocialactionresultsfrom religiousidentity,beginning,ofcourse,withtheCivilWar.Scholarswhoapplythelabel

“Christianethics”toDavis’ssocialviewsarenotexaminingthespecificityofherprosecarefully enough;sheisnotlookingtoChristianityasasolutionbutratherwithinittocritiqueits practices.

Davisalsooffersacomplexlookathowreligiousidentityisacentralcomponentof

regionalidentity.Shechallengesherreaderstoimaginethekindsofconflictsthatresultwhen

characterswithdifferinginterpretationsoftheologyandscriptureencountereachotherandtryto

makeethicaldecisionsbasedontheirinheritedcreeds.Sheoffersaviewofethicaland philosophicalproblemsthatarespecificallyrelevanttomodernculturesuchaspostCivilWar

socialidentityforliberatedAfricanAmericansandtheroleofwomenasbreadwinnersofthe

family.MostreaderstodaywhoarefamiliarwithDavis’sworktendtoread“LifeintheIron

Mills”(1861)solelybecauseofDavis’srevolutionarylookattheeconomicdeprivationcaused bythehorrorsofindustrialism,butallofDavis’sstoriesexamineequallyrelevant“modern” problems,andthelargerbodyofherworkreflectsherintensescrutinyofinstitutionalreligionin

relationtothoseproblems.

OnceDavisdepartsfromexpectedsentimentalconventionssuchasselfsacrificeandthe

renewalofanestablishedfaith,shetakesoneotherveryboldstepthatshowshowveryfarshe

hasdepartedfromsentimentalfiction.Withherhighlyintuitivemodelofmysticalspiritualism,

74 Davisalsoundercutstheauthorityofscripture,oncetheincontrovertiblesourceofreligious authority.In“DavidGaunt,”theBibleemergesnotasasacrediconbutasuperfluousone followingtheFirstBattleofBullRun.DavissubtlysuggeststhattheBiblehaslostitsauthority asanethicalguideoncetheUnitedStatesbeginstodivideagainstitselfina“moraldivorce”

(56).WhentheUnionistPalmerandaNewYorkreporternamedNabbesmeet in a church to

discussarmyrecruitment,Nabbessearchesforascrapofpaperonwhichtowritehisstory:“He

toreoutaflyleaffromthebigBible,andjotteddownnotesofthemeeting”(78).TheBiblehere

functionsasapad,andDavisdeliberatelyalignsitwiththepopularnewspaperpress.In

thisscene,thissomewhatshockingscenewherethereportercavalierlypullspagesfromthe

Bible,theScripturehasnolargerauthorityotherthanitsconvenienceatatimewhenitisneeded

andnotforthesacredpowerthatwasonceinvestedinitbutforthepopulardisseminationof

informationinstead.Insidethechurch,theAmericanflagnowhangingoverthepulpitillustrates

theattempttosanctiondivinelythenation’spoliticalfuture.

Thisturntothepopularpressisnotsurprisinggiventheriseofjournalisticprintculture

atthistime.Thisriseisconnectedtobothpoliticalandreligioussubjects.Infact,itwasthrough

suchjournalsthatsermonicdiscoursewasdisseminatedtolargeaudiences,creatingacultureof

celebritypreachers.DavidReynoldswritesthatpopularpreacherssuchasHenryWardBeecher,

ThomasDeWittTalmage,andDwightL.Moody,allskilledorators,hadall“acceleratedthe pressoverpulpitmovement”( Faith in Fiction 210).Davisprovidesherreaderswithasharp foreshadowingoftheeffecttheCivilWarwillhaveonapublicwhowouldincreasinglyrelyon newspaperjournalsforrealisticdepictionsofeverydayeventsjustastheseeventsbecomealot moregruesome.Inthisbriefvignette,theBibleistransformedintothepopularpress,andwesee threecompetingdiscourses:Scripture,newspaper,andDavis’sowntemplateforrealistfiction.

TheBiblescenebetweenPalmerandNabbesrepeatsinthetextwhenGauntparallelsthis sameactionbygoingintothepulpitofasecthehadfalleninto“bymistake”(82),andhe,too,

75 opensuptheflyleafofaBible.Wesee,onceagain,thattheBiblefiguresasamaterialartifact ratherthanasourceofspiritualtruth.Infact,theBibleinvokesasenseofdiseasebecause

Gauntdoesnotquiteknowwhattodowithit.Hereadsamessagewrittenearlierbythe marginallyliterateScofield:“TomyDearfriend,DavidGaunt.May,1860.theLordbe

BetwienmeeAndthee.J.Scofield.” 47 Ashorttimelater,Gaunt,theMethodistminister,who hasnowenlistedintheAbolitionistcause,receiveshisfirsttask:heistokillScofield.TheBible inscription,additivescriptureinthissense,doesnotpreventhimfrombreakingoneoftheTen

Commandmentsbecausehebelievesheiscalledtoactondivineauthority.Gaunttriestopuzzle hiswaythroughhisdeterminationtoactintheinterestsoffreedom,buthecannotreconcilethe

Bible,neithertheprintedscripturenorthehandwrittenmessage,withhiscurrentbeliefs.Davis writes:“ButaFacewasbeforehim,white,thorncrowned,bentwatchfulovertheworld.Hewas sentofJesus.Todowhat?Preachpeacebymurder?WhatsaidhisMaster?”(86).Gauntseeks todiscovertheethicsofJesus,buthecannotsolvehismoderndilemmawithadirect interpretationoftheScriptureheholdsinhishands.Baffled,Gauntcarriesouthisassignedtask withtheBiblebuttonedinsidehiscoat.TheBibleiswithhim,butitsutilityisindoubt.

Asthestoryends,herededicateshimselftoGodbyservinginaWesternhospital;itisa chancetorewritethenation’shistory,leavingtheproblemsofNorthandSouthbehind.Heonce againturnstotheBibleforcomfort,anditisnotthetraditionalscripturehereads,butScofield’s inscription.ThesearethewordsthathelpGauntmakesenseofhisownactions.Herespondsto thewords,saying:“Letitbetruewhatyouhavewrit,―‘The Lord bebetweenmeandthee,’ forever”(103).Gaunt’sfinalreflectionparallelstheharmonybetweenDodeandPalmer,who wereonceseparatedbytheirdoctrinaldifferences;itisnotthecreedorthescripturethathas madeGod“real”butinsteaditisthepeoplewhohaveactedasagentsofdivineauthority,serving asconduitsbetweenthenaturalandthesupernatural.WhenDavisearlierusedtheexpression

“livingGod,”shewaslocatingGodnotintheBibleorthechurchbutwithinotherpeopleand

76 theirabilitytorecognizehumansuffering.Theintuitivesearchforknowledgeappears antitheticaltothetenetsofrealism,whichemphasizesexperienceandobservation,butLiberal

Protestantismandrealismsharetheshifttohumanagencyinmattersofconscience.

TheimportanceoftheBibleasasourceofknowledgeaboutGodleadsverynaturallyto thefoundationofrealism.Withaphilosophicalpresuppositionthatfundamentalrealityexists andawaitsdetection,theBiblemustbeevaluatedasasourceofmaterialevidencethatrelatesto somelargernotionofeternalTruth.Surelyrealismattemptstooperateinasimilarmannerby manifestinganotionofalargertruthwithintheconfinesofthematerialtext.Thewordsand phrasesoftheBibleworktheirwayintorealisttextsrepeatedly,implicitlyacknowledgingthe importanceoftheBibleinAmericanculture.HowvariousrealistspositiontheBiblewithintheir textsdifferswidely,ofcourse,butthescripturesexistinthematerialworldandtheyexistinthe textualreflectionsofthematerialworld,eitherasmaterialobjectsorreferentiallythrough allusion.ByexamininghowtheBiblefunctionsorisperceived,wecandeducesomeofthese theologicalandhermeneuticalimplicationsthatallowustoidentifyhowreligionoperatesasa culturalforce.DavisdoesnotfullydismisstheBible’sauthority;itexistswithinthetextasan importantsymbol,butsheviewsitinanironiclightandsubjugatesittoapositionbelow intuitivemorality,amovethatcontinuestoreflecttheQuakerinfluenceonDavis’sprimitivism.

InDavis’snextmajorstory, Margret Howth ,shecontinuestoexaminesocialproblemsin lightofreligiousandphilosophicalsolutions.Ironically,thetitlecharacterisprobablytheleast interestinginthisportraitofafactorytownin,andshedoesnotevenfeatureprominently inDavis’sopeninglines.Onceagain,Davisbeginshertextwithrhetoricexpressingherdesire tolinksocialchangetoliteraryformbyofferingsomethingnewanddifferenttoherreadership.

Inopeninglinesthatresemblethoseof“LifeintheIronMills,”sheinvitesthereadertobecome aspectatortothesqualorofeverydaylife.Shewrites:

Mystoryisverycrudeandhomely...―onlyaroughsketchofoneortwoofthose peoplewhomyouseeeveryday,andcall‘dregs’sometimes,―adull,plainbitofprose.. 77 ..Iexpectyoutocallitstaleandplebian,forIknowtheglimpsesoflifeitpleasesyou besttofind;idyls[sic]delicatelytinted;passionveinedhearts,cutbareforcuriouseyes; propheticutterances,concreteandclear....Youwantsomething,infact,toliftyouout ofthistobaccostainedcommonplace....Iwantyoutodigintothiscommonplace,this vulgarAmericanlife,andseewhatisinit.SometimesIthinkithasanewandawful significancethatwedonotsee.(6) Thenoveltyofthisstory,Davismakesclear,isthesubjectitselfbecauseshewillfocusonthe dregsofthecommonplaceinanewandunexpectedway.Sheentersthenarrativewiththe promisetorevealnewtruthsaboutanexistingmateriality,andthiswewillrecognizeisthepose oftheliteraryrealistfromDavisthroughtoHowellsatleast.Thisstoryalsoseemstoexistona boundarybetweensentimentalismandrealism,asJeanPfaelzerobserves:“Thetensionbetween realismandsentimentinthenovelmarksDavis’sdefinitionofsocialresponsibilityasactive participationinasympatheticcommunity”( Parlor Radical 58).Davistoyswithsentimentalism,

infact,byhavingDr.KnowlestrytoappealtoMargret’ssentimentalsideinordertoenlisther

helpindevelopingautopiancommunity.Margretresistshissentimentalappeal,andsherefuses

toletKnowlesbeaninterveningvoiceofGod’sauthority.Thisisascenethatwillbear

examiningafterabrieflookatsomeofDavis’sdescriptionsofthereligiousinfluencesatworkin

thisfactorytown.

Davisfacestheproblemeveryrealistmustfaceintryingtopresentsomethingnewas

somethingthatis“morereal”thanthatwhichprecedesit.Thenewentitymustbepresentedin

contrasttowhatthereaderexpectstofindinthesurroundingvisualorder.MuchasDavis

attemptstojoltherreaderbypreparinghimorherfortheunexpectedcommonplacesubjectof

Margret Howth ,shealsopresentsherreligiousmodelincontrasttotheavailableoptionsin

existingculture.InadiscussionaboutthelegacyofBritishrealism,NancyArmstrongmakesan

interestingassertionabouttherepresentationofculturalstereotypes,whichsheclaimsarean

importantpartofthevisualorderofbothphotographyandrealistwriting:“Culturalstereotypes

arereal,notbecausetheyrefertorealbodies,butbecausetheyallowustoidentifyandclassify bodies,includingourown,asimageobjectswithaplaceandnamewithinastillexpanding 78 visualorder”(31).Davis,infact,offersacomprehensivedepictionofreligiousand philosophicalculture,showingpointsofintersectionthatshapethesocialconsciousnessoffour distinctivemalecharacters:Margret’sblindfather,Mr.Howth,herrejectedsuitor,Stephen

Holmes,thefactoryowner/socialreformer,Knowles,andthefamilyslave/servant,Joel.Eachof thesemen—culturalstereotypesall—mightbetermedarepresentativeman,employing

Emerson’sterminology,andeachrevealssomeaspectofanexistingsocialreformalternative thatDavisbelievesfallsshort.Intheend,itwillbetheMulattohucksterLoiswhooffersan exampleofreligiousprimitivismthatallofthesefiguresmustadoptinordertofinda progressivesolutiontothepersonalandpoliticalproblemsofthetown.

Thefirstoftypicalfigures,oldMr.Howth,offersafairlysimplisticechoofanantiquated theologicalorphilosophicalorder.HowthisaQuixotictypewho“wastouchedbythepictureof thefaroldchivalry,deadlongago”(Davis, Margret Howth 32).Herepresentsafading medievalism:“Honour!Ithink,Calvinistthoughhewas,thatwordwashisreligion.Menhave hadworse”(34).Calvinismandmedievalvalorseemanoddpairing,almostasthoughDavis weretryingtokilltwobirdswithonestone;inanyevent,wearetoacceptthatHowthisagood maninspiteofhisCalvinism.ThefailingHowthiskeptalivebyhiswifeanddaughterasthey secretlyselloffthepossessionshecannolongersee.Thisisanironicstatementonmateriality aswellsinceHowthbelieveshisbelovedobjectstobestillpresentintheroomsimplybecause hehasnoreasonnottobelieveintheircontinuedexistence.Thisissurelyatongueincheek commentaryonhisbeliefsystemasawhole.Withlittletooccupyhisdaytimehours,Howth rejuvenateseveryeveningwhenKnowlesarrivestochallengehimintodefendinghisantiquated views.Knowles’svisitskeephim“inastateofboyishexcitementduringthelongidledays, lookingforwardtothisnightlybattle”(36).Howthdoesnotoccupyaroledirectlydrivingthe story’splot,butratherheexistsperipherallyasasymbolofthesurroundingsociopoliticalworld.

Thatis,heisaculturalstereotype.

79 IncontrasttoHowth,StephenHolmesrepresentsamorerecenttrendofAmericanself

reliance,butheoffersanotherexampleofafadingorderthatDavis’swishestoseereplacedwith

aformofsocialChristianitythatshouldderivefromdomesticharmony.Throughoutthestory,

differentcharactersdescribeHolmes’sviews,buthehimselfspeakslittleuntilhearriveson

Margret’sdoorstepattheend.Initially,Pike,theplantmanagerdescribesHolmesasasortof

Everyman,suggestinghispotentialtomasterthenaturalworld:“Adammusthavebeensome

suchmanashe,whentheLordgavehim‘dominionoverthefishofthesea,andoverthefowlof

theair’”(80).InPike’sdescription,Holmeshasaprimalroleasthefatherofallhumans,

exemplifyingauniqueconnectiontothenaturalworld.TheAdamfigurestandsincontrastto

theJesusfigureinlatenineteenthcenturyrealism,andwewillseeDavispresentthisidealof primitivemanlaterin Dallas Galbraith .In Margret Howth ,HolmesmightbeginasanAdam

figure,butheisnotsoeasilyunderstoodasthenovelprogresses. Forexample,laterinthestory,

thisOldTestamentimageofHolmesisreplacedbytheGermanromanticismassociatedwith

EmersonianTranscendentalism.KnowlesaccusesHolmesoffollowing 48 inthebelief that“thetrueShechinahisman”(112). 49 TheHebrewterm“Shechinah”looselytranslatesto whereGoddwells.Holmes’sroleinthestoryseemstobetosaveMargretfromtheclutchesof

Knowles,andtodrivetheplottowardaspiritualsynthesisinwhichlovecanbecitedasthe perfectexpressionofChristianbelief.WhenHolmesandMargreteventuallyreconcile,the narratordescribesthiseventinreligiousterms:“Downthereinthefarmwindowtwohuman heartshadgiventhejoyaname;thehopethrobbedintobeing;theheartstouchingeachother beatinaslow,fullchordofloveaspureinGod’seyesasthesongtheangelssang,andassurea promiseoftheChristthatistocome.Foreverandever,—notevendeathwouldpartthem”

(240).Onceagainaswith“DavidGaunt,”DavislocateshermodelofChristianidealisminthe actionsandexampleofdomesticblissandconjugallove.Itisneverclearhowthismodelworks tosolvesocialproblems,butsheneverthelessidentifiesacorrespondencebetweentheprivate

80 andthepublicapparentlybelievingthatfelicitycannotexistoutsideofthehomeunlessitisfirst achievedinsidethehome.

MuchhasbeenwrittenaboutthecharacterofDr.Knowles,byfarthemostcomplexand

interestingfigureinthestory.HisbenevolenceemergesinhisdailyvisitstoMr.Howthandin

hissecuringajobforthenearlydestituteMargret,aswellasinhisownambitionofforminga

communallivingexperimentforthepovertystrickenoutcastsintown.Inspiteofhisaltruistic

machinations,Knowlesoperatesasmisguidedandevendownrightominousfromthestart.Inan

earlyscene,afarmeroffersanexampleofcommonsenseanalysiswhenhederidesKnowles’s planfor“anewArcadia”(84).QuotingFrancisBacon,thefarmerlaunchesoffintoadiatribe

againstKnowles’sselfdelusion:

There’stwowaysfor’emtoend.Ifthey’remadeoutofthetopofsociety,theygetso refined,soidealized,thateveryparticlefliesoffonitsownspecialpathtothesun,and theCommunity’sbroke;andifthey’remadeofthelowermud,theykeepgoingdown, downtogether,—theylivetoeatanddrink,andmakethemselvesasnearthebrutesas theycan....I’veseenit....It’s facts ,Sir;andfacts,asLordBaconsays,‘arethebasis ofeverysoundspeculation.’(84) AdoctorchimesinthatnosuchexperimentcanbefoundintheBible,andtheparsondryly

correctshim:“‘One,Ibelieve’”(84),meaningtheworkofJesus.Onceagain,Davisexhibitsher

cogencyinpresentingthekindofrhetoricthataBaconianphilosopherwouldutter.George

MarsdenexplainstherelationshipbetweenthisapproachandProtestantevangelicalpractices.

Hewrites:

Whileitisofcoursetruethatmanyotherintellectualandreligioustraditionsalsoaffected theoutlookofnineteenthcenturyAmericanevangelicalism,CommonSense Baconianismconditionedthesetraditionsinthesenseofgivingthemtheirexactshape. TheinductivescientificbentofthisoutlookgavemanyAmericanevangelicalsastrong intellectualdispositiontolookforhardfactsthatcouldreadilybeclassified.Viewing theologyasanexactscience,theytendedtoassumethatGodwouldrevealhimselfin termsthatcouldbegivenverydefiniteandprecisemeanings.(90) Inotherwords,theevangelicalscouldsatisfythemselveswithacircularargument,believingthat

GodhelpsthosewhohelpthemselvesbecausetheevidenceofDivineprovidencewould

eventuallyemergeifthatwaswhatGodintendedtohappen.Marsdenclarifiesthisbelief: 81 “SpecificallytheCommonSenseapproachsaidthatallnormalpeoplewereendowedbytheir

Creatorwithvariousfacultiesthatproducedbeliefsonwhichtheymustrely”(83).IfHolmes offersanexampleofEmersonianselfreliance,thefarmeroffershereaCommonSensemodelof selfreliance.Atthesametime,althoughhereliesondeductivereasoningtosupporthis argument,thefarmerseizestheauthoritythatreligiousjustificationallowstoexpresshis suspicionaboutinterferingonthenaturalorder.

TherearemanyothercomplexitiestoKnowles’scharacter.HeisHawthornesque,as

JeanPfaelzerhasnoted( Parlor Radical 63),closelyresemblingtheequallyambitious

Hollingsworthof The Blithedale Romance .KnowlesisdeterminedtoenlistMargret’saidin forminghiscommunity.Heviewsreligionasapositivist,believingthatChristiansympathywill beausefultoolinreformingthestricken.HetellsHolmes:“Ihavedestined[Margret]forthis workalways:shehaslatentpowerofsympathyandendurance,suchascanbringtheChristian teachinghometothesewretches”(Davis, Margret Howth 188).Theambivalentnarratordoes notseemtoknowwhethertocondemnKnowles,describedas“anintolerantfanatic,ofcourse”

(179),ortodefendhim.Thenarratoradmits:“Butthetruthhedidknowwassoterriblyrealto him,therewassuchsick,throbbingpityinhisheartformenwhosuffered”(179).Knowles,in fact,issoambitiousthateventhoughhehimselfisanonbeliever,hebelievesinthehumanityof

Jesusandfeelsitisaworthymodeltoemulate(188).Moreimportantly,heseestheutilityof thismodelasameanstoanend.HeemploysMargret’sChristianityagainstherinanattemptto persuadehertojoinhiscrusade.Usingscripturalrhetoric,hesays:“Godcallsyou.Hewaitsfor youanswer.SweartomethatyouwillhelpHispeople.Giveupfatherandmotherandlove, andgodownasChristdid.HelpmetogivelibertyandtruthandJesus’slovetothesewretches onthebrinkofhell.Livewiththem,raisethemwithyou”(155). 50 MargretresistsKnowles’s

manipulations,refusingtolethimserveasanagencyofChristianauthority.Sheinsistson

definingherownfaith,andshebelievesherownsubjectivedesireforlovewillberealized:“I

82 thinkHeheardmyprayer.IthinkHewillanswerit.Hewasaman,andlovedaswedo”(157).

Ironically,bothKnowlesandMargretbasetheirbeliefsonthehumanityofJesusinthewaythey wouldliketoseereligionenactedintheworld.DavisspecificallyrejectstheCalvinistGodof

Providenceforaneverpresent,interveningJesuswhowillalwaysadvancethepowerof domesticfeminismasabenevolentsocialforce.

Thereisonelastsignificantsocialinfluenceatworkinthestoryandthatisthereligion theslaveJoelpractices.InDavis’swriting,whichcontainsanabundanceofsubtlecommentary, itisofteneasytooverlookthedegreetowhichsheofferssignificantvignettesofthemany culturalforcesshapingtheactionofthestory.Inanalmostunnoticedscene,thenarrator describestheslaveJoelresidinginthebarnwhilethinkingoverasermonaboutwishingtosweep slaveholdersfromtheland.Davisrevealsherastuteobservationsofcontemporaryslaves’ religiouspreferenceswhenshediscussesthespiritualleaningsofJoelandhischurch.Referring tothewishtoeradicateslaveholders,Daviswrites:

[That]renderingofChristiandoctrinewassorelishedbyJoel,andtheotherleading membersofMr.Clinche’schurch,thattheyhintedtohimitmightbeaswelltocontinue choosinghistextsfromMosesandtheProphetsuntiltheexcitementofthedaywasover. TheNewTestamentwas,—well,—hardlysuitedfortheemergency;didnot,somehow, chimeinwiththelessonofthehour.(86) 51 ThissectionillustratesperfectlyMarkNoll’sassertionthattheuniquehermeneuticsofslavesin

AmericatendedtowardanOldTestamentnotionofjustice.Nollclaims:“Onlyrecentlyhave historians,searchingfortheantebellumblackreligiousconsciousnessingeneral,castlighton theslaves’useofScriptureinparticular.Theyfoundthattheslavesdiscriminatedbetweenthe

BiblewhichtheirmasterspresentedandtheBibletheyfoundforthemselves”(“TheImage”48).

Headds:“ThenarrativesoftheOldTestamentinparticularlentslaveuseoftheBibleitsspecial socialdimension....Forslaves,thefigureofMosesassumedaspecialimportanceastheone whomGodraiseduptofreehispeople”(4950).DavispurposefullyincludesJoel’sreligious preferencesinhercritiqueofAmericanreligiousandphilosophicalcultureforseveralreasons

83 thatsupportherownemergingpreferenceforaprimitiveChristianity.Foronething,sheonce againundercutsthesacrednessofscriptureasasourceoftranscendentorderbyshowinghow subjectivelytheBiblewasreadwithinthevarioussects.ForDavis,theBibleistooeasily appropriatedasameanstoanendwhenreadtosupportthelargerpoliticalpositionofthe institutionalchurch.Secondly,Davisallowsherreaderstounderstandbetterwhatisatstakeif thesocialproblemsofthedayareignored;thereisalwaystheloomingthreatofsocialunrestand achancethatanotherrepresentativegroupmighttakeupthemightysword.

Inthisstory,synthesishappensthroughtheagencyofthecrippledLoiswhoisneither blacknorwhite,butmulatto.Asimplemarkethucksterwhohassufferedattheinjusticesof industrialism,thericketsriddenLoishappilydriveshercartfromhousetohousespreading

Christiancharitywherevershegoes.Loismaybeanintendedrepresentationofadying sentimentaltradition—sheis,infact,dying.Loishasinhaleddangerousfactoryfumesduring herdaringrescueofStephenHolmesfollowingherownfather’sactofarson.Loishasasimple, childlikefaiththatisnotdependentontheBibleorachurch,butisrealizedsimplythroughher beliefandabilitytoallegorizethefigureofJesus:“Sosheknew,too,theMasterinwhomshe believed,sawHimineverythingthatlived,morerealthanallbeside....SoitwasthatHetook partinherhumbledailylife,andbecamemorerealtoherdaybyday”(Davis, Margret Howth

9495).Inonesense,Loisasthequintessentialsentimentalistmustdie;thisisthetraditionthat

Daviswishestoreplacewithamorerelevantandrealisticliteraturethatengageswiththe problemsofthemodernage.Atthesametime,Loisactsasaunifyingforcebecauseofher accessibilitytoalllevelsofthisdiversesocialgroup.Inthisway,heractionsaresocially progressivebecauseshebreaksthroughbarriersofeconomicclass,gender,andsocialstatus.

Lois’ssimple“universalsympathy”(266)isadoptedbyall,HolmesandMargretreconcile,

Knowlesisfinanciallybrokenandthereforeunabletofoundhismisguidedsocialistcommunity, andtheslaveJoeldiscoversoilrightintheHowths’ownbackyard,assuringwealthand

84 prosperityforall.Criticshaveadifficulttimeacceptingthealltooconvenientprosperityatthe

closeofthestorybecauseJamesFieldsaskedDavistoalterthestory.Themanuscriptnolonger

exists,soreaderscannotknowwithcertaintyhowdifferentlytheoriginaltalehadbeenwritten.

ScholarscanonlyspeculateontheextenttowhichDaviswassatisfiedwiththerewrittenending,

andsothestorysurvivesforposterityasablendofthesentimentalandrealistgenreswiththe

requisitehappyendingofsentimentalism.52

Inthenextthreestoriesofreligiousscrutiny,Davisexaminessomeofthemoremarginal

undercurrentsinAmericanreligiousculture:utopianism,Dutchreformism,andeven

spiritualism.Herstoryaboutautopiansociety,“TheHarmonists”(1866)isaworkofhistorical

fiction,anditfeaturesthesameDr.Knowles(wepresume)whoappearedearlierin Margret

Howth .53 Followingthis,shepublished“TheStoryofChristine”(1866),anothersemihistorical workdetailingtheexistenceofindenturedservitudeafterslaverywasoutlawedinPennsylvania.

Finally,inthe“TheCaptainStory”(1866),sheoffersupatheoryaboutspiritualism,apracticein whichmediumsclaimtobeabletocontactthedead.Shewillreturntothissubjectbrieflyin A

Law Unto Herself (1877),buthercynicalviewsonthesubjectareveryexplicitinthisearlier shortstory.Itisworthnoting,onceagain,thatDavistacklesthereligioussubjectinauniquely

Americanwaybyshowinganaggregateculturalconsciousnessresultingfromthemovementand travelofindividualsinandoutofthesesmallerideologicalcommunities.Theintersecting historiesofseeminglyisolatedgeographiccommunitiesaffectanemergingsenseofnational identitythatabsorbselementsofthesesometimescompetingideologies.Shedealswith occurrencesthatarepartofthedevelopmentofAmerica,suchasutopianism,slavery,andthe spiritualmovement,andsheillustratestheabundanceofreligiousidealismthatplayedsocrucial aroleinthenation’shistory.

Thefirstofthesethreestories,“TheHarmonists,”allowsustoexploreaninteresting perspectiveonDavis’s“realism”inrelationtothehistoricalnovel,butfirstwemustexamine

85 howitfunctionsasaculturalcritique.“TheHarmonists”isastorywithinastory,toldbya fictionalnarrator,ZackHumphreys,whorecountsavisittotheRappitecommunityknownas

“Economy”inPennsylvania.HumphreysisaccompaniedbyhissocialistfriendDr,Knowles andAnthony,Knowles’sfouryearoldson.ItisKnowleswhotalksHumphreysintovisitingto thenearbycommunesothattheymaydevotethemselves“withtheseloftyenthusiaststoalifeof purity,celebacy[sic],meditation,―[andbecome]helpfulandlovingtothegreatHumanity”

(Davis,“TheHarmonists”169).Initially,themenformafavorableimpressionofafairytale existenceastheyapproachEconomy,amillennialcommune,whichappearsas:“somequaint

Germanvillagebroughthitherinanenchantedsleep,anddroppeddownintheNewWorld”

(171).Oncethemenactuallyenterthecommunity,theyarequicklydisillusioned,and,asthe storyunfolds,onedisappointmentisheapedontopofanother.Althoughthey’vemaintained theircelibacy,theRappiteshavelosttheirpurity.Theinhabitantsseemtoarrangetheirdays aroundmultiplemealtimes,signalinganoverzealousattentiontotheflesh.Theyhavebecome disillusionedthatthepromisedsecondcomingofChristdidnothappen,andtheyareleftina permanentstateofsuspensionwaitingforanapocalypsethatwillnotarrive.OldChristina explainsthistothevisitors:“FatherRappsaytheworldshallendinfiveyearswhenwecomein dersociety,denIshallseemeinshieldsagain.ButIwait,andithafnotyetend”(175). 54

Historically,theRappitewasoneofseveralfailedcommunalsocietiesthatneverrealizedthe millennialpromiseofitsfounders’prophesies.Allegorically,thevillagerepresentsthe unfulfilledpromiseofasocietythatoutlivesitsrigidcreed.

EvenasEconomyexistsinaseeminglytimelesspastoralism,thevillagehas,infact, enteredtheIndustrialAge.Thevisitorsdiscoverthatthecommunityhasprosperedand industrializedtoanevengreaterextentthantheoutsideworld:“Wehavesteammills, distilleries,carryonmanufacturesofwool,silk,andcotton.Exclusiveofourstocks,ourannual profit,clearofexpense,isovertwohundredthousanddollars”(177).Thevisitorsareshockedto

86 findthatratherthanbeinggreetedaswelcomeideologues,eachwouldfirsthavetoprovehis financialmeritbeforebeingadmittedintoEconomy.Knowlessumsupthesituation:“Why, theseArcadians,sir,havemadeagodoftheirstomachs,andsuchofthemashaveescapedthat spendtheirlivesinamassingdollarafterdollartohoardintheircommonchest”(178).Themen decidetodepart,andwelearnlaterfromZackHumphreysthateventuallytheHarmonistswould abandonindustryaltogetheruponthediscoveryofoilontheirland.Inthisstory,Davisdepictsa senseoftheinevitabilityofindustrializationamongtheHarmonists,whocannotseemtostop accruingwealth;thevillageexistsinastrangetimewarpthatshowsmarketcapitalism permeatingapremodernagrarianculture,whichsuggestsaparallelwithDavis’sviewoflarger

Americansociety.

Inwriting“TheHarmonists,”Davisdisplaysherwillingnesstoexperimentwithgenrein

ordertopublishherwork.Shefirstconceivedofthisstoryasa“sketch”andsubmitteditto

JamesFields,editorof The Atlantic .FieldswasinterestedinthesubjectoftheGermanPietists, buthewantedafictionalizedaccountratherthanasketch,andthussherewroteheraccountinto

anarrative(Harris12829).Thisstory’sdevelopmentofthisstoryremindsusoftheimportant

roleoftheeditorinrelationtoliteraryaestheticsasNancyGlazenerhaspointedoutin Reading for Realism .CriticsoftenblameFieldsfortherevisedsentimentalismof Margret Howth ,buthe

exercisedancomparableinfluenceonmanyofDavis’ssubmissionsto The Atlantic ,andhedid

notconsistentlysteerherwritinginasentimentaldirectionasthisexampledemonstrates(nordid

heconsistentlysteeritinarealistdirectionasGlazenerhasasserted).55

Davis’sabilitytofictionalizehistoricaleventsprovidesuswithyetanotherinsightinto howherrealismoperates.Morethanonce―bothin“TheHarmonists”andin“AFadedLeafof

History”―Davistakesanessayversionofahistoricaleventandfictionalizesitinordertomake knownsomelargertruthabouttheconditionofhumankind.Animportantaspectofrealismis therelationshipbetweentheabstractandtheconcrete,andherimpositionofnarrativeinthecase

87 of“TheHarmonists”illustratesrealism’sperformativeaesthetic.Bycreatingcharacterswho drawonthereader’sempathy,therealistwriteradoptsatheoryofhistoryinwhichfictionplays akeyroleinmakingthatevent“real.”RichardWalshelaboratesonhowreaderlyperception reliesonthisactofvicariousappropriation:“Whatweunderstand,feel,andvaluemaybe ultimatelygroundedintheabstractandthegeneral,butitisnotingeneraltermsthatwe experienceunderstanding,feeling,orvaluingit.Fictionenablesustogothroughthatprocessfor thesakeofexperience”(120).Davis’shistoricalandculturalsubjectsallowustoviewreligious cultureshapingspecifichistoricaleventsandcommunities,andwecangeneralizeherassessment ofthepastinordertoapplythesamelessontothepresent.Thisassumptionallowsfortwo importantobservationsaboutDavis’srealism;clearly,itoperatesontheallegoricallevelaswe sawin“DavidGaunt,”andhereweseeaperformativeaspectinrelationtofictionalizinghistory.

Inthisway,thereadercanimaginativelyexperiencetheunfoldingofhistorymuchlikethe viewingofafilmallows.

OtherscholarshavenotedDavis’simportantcontributiontoculturaldiscoursebymaking theconnectionbetweenthehistoricalandphilosophicaltrendsandthespecifically“modern” subjectsDavisdepictsinherstories.NanAlbinskinotesthatutopianfiction,inparticular, attractedseveralfemalewriters,andshesuggeststhissubjectallowedwriterssuchasDavisthe opportunitytogroundtheirsocialviewsinanideologicalrealminordertoshapefuture discourseson“topicssuchasmarriage,motherhood,sexualautonomy,thesexualdivisionof labor,politicalparticipationofwomen,andreligiousdoctrineasitinfluenceswomen’slives”

(341).Albinskiwrites:“Suchfictionalportrayalsofutopianvisionsfornewsocialarrangements suggestsaprocessbywhichfeministauthorsappropriatedandadaptedtheideologicaldebatesof theirdaytofeministpurpose”(340).Davis’sinterestinGermanPietismandherinclusionof

Christina,“anolddriedupwoman[whoclaspsthefouryearoldTonytoher]shriveledbreast”

(Davis,“TheHarmonists”174)illustratesDavis’sabilitytolinkreligiousideologywithgender

88 identityinnineteenthcenturyculture.WithDavis’sbeliefthatthedomesticmarriedfemalewas theperfectexpressionofaChristcenteredprimitivism,thecelibatecommunalpracticesofthe

Rappitesofferedanexemplarysubjectforintroducingherlargerideologyofconservative domesticfeminism.

Thisstory,whichbeganasasketch,showsDavis’sabilitytoembracerealismasasocio historicalaesthetic,fluidlyshiftingherwritingstylefromreportinganddescribingto fictionalizinginordertorepackageherideology.Glazenerhassuggestedthatliteraryrealism wasproducedtopromotemiddleclasshegemony,andFields’sinfluenceinthiscaseseemsto supportthatsuggestion,butitisalsoclearthatwritersofthelatenineteenthcenturyconceivedof realismaspossessingahistoricalaestheticthatprivilegednarrativeformworkingintandemwith thissociologicalagenda.Davis’seasyrenderingofhersubjectsfromoneliterarymodeto anotherrevealsherclearaimtogivevoicetoherownpersonalsociologicalviews.InDavis’s case,herreligiouscritiquesallowhertoshiftfluidlybetweensubjectsinordertojustifythese views.Itisdifficulttomakeanyeasyclaimsabouttheproductionofrealism,however,when

Davissofrequentlyalternatesbetweennarrativeandexpositionthroughouthercareerwithno clearpreferenceforoneformovertheother.Aninterestingrelationshipdoesseemtoexist betweengenreandsociologyinrelationtothedomesticfeministmodelthatlendscredenceto

Glazener’sclaim.

Shortlyfollowing“TheHarmonists,”Davispublished“TheStoryofChristine”in

Peterson’s Magazine .Liketheearlierstory,thisonealsodealswiththesubjectofwoman’s

sexuality,andlikeChristinaoftheRappitesociety,thisChristine’sstorydealswiththe powerlesspositionofafemaleinregardtoherownsexuality.Thenarratorreveals:“Itisnearly

acenturyago,thistimeofwhichwewrite;deedsweredonehabituallythen,andmadelegalin

thisgoodcityofBrotherlyLove,whichthejustandmercifulgrandchildrenofgoodoldQuakers

wouldhardlycredittheirancestors”(Davis,“TheStoryofChristine”19).Davisisreferringto

89 indenturedservitude. 56 Christine’sstoryistoldfirstbyachildnarrator,atwelveyearoldgirl,

whospendstimewithChristineandwhosefamilyisindirectlyresponsibleforChristine’s

subjugationandongoingpositionasasocialpariah.Christinehadbeenkidnappedbyaspurned

lover,presumablyraped, 57 andlatersoldintoindenturedservitude,andshewasultimately purchasedbythelategrandfatherofthelittlegirlnarrator.Wefindoutlaterthattoescapeher bondage,ChristinehadrunoffwithasurgeonnamedPetrelliwhocaredforherontheshipand livedwithhimoutofwedlockuntilheabandonedherinNewOrleans,afterwhichsheslowly foundherwaybacktotheHubbardfamilyinScottsville.Thesecondpartofthestoryistoldby thesamenarrator,butnowthelittlegirlhasgrownupandunderstandstheeventsinamore maturemanner.SherefusestoparticipateinChristine’songoingostracism,andsheonceagain spendsherdaysasacompaniontothepariah.

ItdoesnotseemtobeacoincidencethatDavisofferstwosuchfemalecharactersinthis storyandin“TheHarmonists”withnotonlyasimilarname,butanamethatcontainsa feminizedversionof“Christ.”ThisisastrongcuetoexaminethesestoriesforDavis’semerging modelofprimitiveChristianity,inwhichthedomesticfemalefeaturesprominently.Thesocial isolationandoppressionofthesetwofemalecharactersmakeastrongparallelwiththesuffering ofChrist,andDavisdrawsattentiontothiskindofparallelrepeatedlyinherrealisttexts beginningwithHughWolfe’ssufferingin“IronMills.”

AquickoverviewofChristine’sbackgroundhelpscompletethisallegorylinkinghuman sufferingtothefigureofJesus.InthelittlevillageofScottsville,Pennsylvania,thetitle characterisreferredtoas“DutchChristine”andthelittlegirlfirstobservesherasan“old

Hollander,stiff,lean,andangular,[sitting]inacertaincornerofabackpewintheoldBaptist churchathome”(Davis,“OldChristine”181).ThelittlegirlnarratormentionsChristine’s

“Dutchness”repeatedlyinthetale;nearlyeverytimeshereferencesChristine,hernationalityis mentioned.Forthelittlegirl,Christine’sDutchnessisirrevocablylinkedwithherspiritual

90 beliefs.Ofcourse,Christine’sreligiousinheritanceisamixedone,andwecanonlymake assumptionsaboutherarrayofconvictionsandpracticesbasedonthecircuitousrouteofher fromHollandtoPennsylvania,toNewOrleans,andfinallybacktoPennsylvaniaagain.The littlegirlreveals:“hersimplestoriesofHolland,andofthesaintsandtheirdealingswiththelow

Dutch—forshehadbeenaRomanCatholiclongago;andgoodBaptistasshewasnow,shehad comeoutofthatdarkwoodwithsomeglitteringcobwebsofsuperstitionhangingabouther,very beautiful,andsurelynotharmful”(183).HernamingoftheBaptistchurchonceagainreveals

Davis’sdisdainfortheevangelicalChristiansectswhoabandondoctrinetoestablishamore primitiverelationshiptoChristbutthenfollowelitepracticesthatfailtorecognizefellow sufferersasmoderndayexamplesofthehumanfigureofJesus.Shecritiquedthismodelin

“IronMills,”andsheseemstobecritiquingtheevangelicalBaptistsinScottsdaleforfollowing thesamerestrictivetenetsevenwhentheythemselvesareculpableforthesufferingofthe scapegoatChristine.ThisJesusallegorybecomesincreasinglyevidentwhenthelittlegirl narratorreturnsafteralongabsencetofindChristinecompletelyostracizedbythetownbecause shehasbeendiagnosedwithAsiaticleprosy(195)andisnowconsideredtobebothphysicallyas wellasmorallyunclean.LiketheChristinaoftheHarmonistcommune,thisChristineisina constantstateofwaiting,theformerfortheapocalypse,andthelatterforherowndeath.Both areforcedtoliveoutakindoflivingdeathisolatedfromathriving,changingcultureand contactswiththeoutsideworld.

Inherfinalstoryinthisset,“TheCaptain’sStory,”Davisgivesusataleofratiocination, inwhichthreepsychicsarecalledintohelpexplainthemysteriousdisappearanceofJosephC.

Wylie,ariverhand.Inthisstory,Davisinvestigatesthespiritualistmovement.Wentzdescribes thisbelief:“Spiritualismisatermoftenusedtorefertothosebeliefsandpracticesassociated withthepurposeofestablishingcommunicationwiththespiritsofthedead”(39).Inoneway, spiritualismistheoppositeofrealism;whereasrealismengageswiththematerialinorderto

91 makeabstractideasunderstoodinaconcretemanner,spiritualism“tendstodenysignificant valuetooutwardorformalexpressions”(Wentz39).Itisanextremelyinternalizedformof religiouspracticeinwhichmaterialityistranscended.Oddlyenough,althoughDavisembracesa kindofQuakerorintuitiveknowledgeofGod,sheisentirelycynicalaboutthe possibilityforspiritualcontactwiththemetaphysicalworld.

Inthisstory,theCaptainnarratesthestrangeevents,andheleadsthereaderthrough visitstothreemediumsandpuzzlesoverthedifferingexplanationsofWylie’sdisappearance.

Heexplains:“Thematterpuzzledme.Idid not believethespiritsofthedeadhadanythingtodo withit....[Atthesametime]Ididnotbelieve[medium]Luskwasanimposter.Ithought,as everyimpartial,cool,observermust,thattherewassomething—notcharlatanism—inthis matter,andIthink,intheend,Igotthekeytoit”(199).Thecaptainconcludesthatthe spiritualists,evenwhensincere,simply“read”theroomandvoicethehopesandthoughtsof theirclients.Hestates:“Inthiscase,asineveryotherofwhichIhavebecomecognizant,the mediumshaveonlyputintoshapethethoughtsofthosewhoquestionthem”(207).Inthisview, spiritualistscannottranscendthephysicalworldbutrather,liketherealist,theyprovide languagetogiveshapetoabstractthoughts.Inmanyways,Davis’scriticismofspiritualismis thesameashercriticismofscripturalinterpretation;shebelievesthattheagent,thatis,the interpreter,simplyreiteratessomethingthatisalreadybelieved.JustastheBiblewasquotedas justificationbyboththeabolitionistsaswellasthesecessionists,so,too,dothespiritualists reiteratethebeliefsoftheiraudiences.

ThelastfewworksinwhichDavisskewersexistingProtestantsectarianismand dismissesCalvinismaltogetherare Dallas Galbraith (1868),“TheDoctor’sWife”(1874),and

“TheYaresofBlackMountain”(1875).Inthesewritings,Davisdealswithwestwardexpansion andEastCoastregionalism,discardingvariousformsofProtestantismandexploringamore ecumenicalmodel.Thefirstworkisarevisioniststory,withDallasGalbraithreturningtothe

92 smallcoastaltownofManasquanandreformingthemistakenvillagerswhomisjudgedhim.

ReligioushypocrisyprevailsinDallas Galbraith .Inthisstoryaboutmovementandidentity,

Davisexaminessubjectivitythroughthelensofreligiousaffiliation.Davisframesthisstory withinthecontextofhercritiqueofProtestantism.Thestoryopensinthealmostutopiansetting ofthecoastalManasquan,“acuriouslyoldtime,forgottenvillage”(Davis, Dallas Galbraith 6) thatseemstohaveexistedinatimewarpuntilDallasarrives,bringingwithhimtheoutside problemsofthemodernworld.Hispastcatchesupwithhim,andnowfacingforgerychargesin

Manasquan,Dallasturnstotheobscure“Father”Kimball,whosereligiousaffiliationDavisdoes notname.HistitlesoundsAnglican,butmostlikelyheisaBaptist,giventhereligiousleanings ofthevillage. 58 FatherKimball’sadvicetoGalbraithrevealsstrongCalvinistundertones.He advisesGalbraithtobepatientand“trustintheLord.Hewilldeliveryouifyouareoneofhis children”(34).Helaterwarns:“TheLordhasitinhiscare.Thatis,ifyouareoneofhis children.Everyhairofyourheadisnumbered.Butifyou’veneverbeenconverted,yourgood intentionsandworksarebutasfilthyrags,inHissight”(35).Withthisshakypromiseoflimited grace,Galbraithknowsheissunk,andeventuallyhelandsinjailforthecrimehedidnot commit.Manasquan’sreligiouspracticesofferlittlesolacetotheproblemsoftheurbaninner citythataccompanyDallaswhenhearrivesinthisvillage.

Davis’sreligiousscrutinycontinuesinthenextmajorsectionofthenovelwhenDallas laterjourneyswesttoseekouthisestrangedGalbraithrelativeswholivein“arigidPresbyterian community”intheOhioValley(Davis, Dallas Galbraith 40).Dallasarrivestofindahousehold ofmixedeconomicstatusandreligiousaffiliation.Hisgrandfatherhaslittlewealthandfollows thepracticesoftheAnglicanChurch,alongwithhisadoptedwardHonora(Nora)Dundas,who arguesstronglyinfavoroftheThirtyNineArticlesofFaith(Davis141).59 Hiswealthy

grandmotherisaPresbyterianwhopracticessocialbenevolencemainlyasameansofexercising poweroverthecommunitybuthaslittleuseforthereligiousbeliefsthatinformthetown.The

93 storyisshapedbyaseriesofencountersthathighlightaclashingafaithsandtheimpactofsuch beliefsonthecharacters.OftheGalbraithhousehold,wefindoutthatHonoraandheruncle

(Mr.Galbraith)are:

BigotedEpiscopalians;[who]fastedrigorously,wenttochurchthroughrainorsnow,to thegreatspiritualsatisfactionofMadamGalbraith,who,pooroldheathen!Hadnotbeen therebutonceintwoyears,andthenhadscandalizedthecongregationbylecturingthe rector,ontheporch,abouthisdrowsysermon,untilbothsheandhewereinapassion. (89) Themajorconflictbetweencharacters(andfaiths)occurs,asinManasquan,whenDallasarrives withhisownparticularburdensthatchallengethebeliefsoftheisolatedcommunity.A disguisedDallas’sarrivalteststheChristiancharityofhisundisclosedrelatives.Althoughhis

Galbraithidentityisnotknown,herevealshiscriminalpastasheattemptstoselltheartworkhe paintedwhileinjail.Viewinghimasunclean,hisfamilyspurnshim.Theysendhimawaywith

onlyahesitanthandshakebyHonoraandadelicategraspofthehandofhisgrandfather,who perhapshasrecognizedhim.

Dallas’sarrivalprovidesfodderforadiscussionoftheologybetweenhisManasquan

friend,Lizzy,nowahousekeeperfortheGalbraithfamily,andHonora,theyoungward.Honora

revealsthehypocrisybehindherseeminglygenerousactinshakingthehandofthecriminal.

Sheexplains:“‘ItisourdutyasChristianstoholdoutahelpinghandandspeakencouraging

wordstothatclassofpeople,buttoconsortwiththemandmakethemcompanions!—Itisto

touchpitchandtobedefiled’”(106).Lizzy,theBaptist,arguesback:“‘Youforgetyour

Master’swork,’rising,‘Hemadefriendsofpublicansandsinners’”(106).Honoradisagrees

withherbelievingherfemininepurityitselfisatrisk:“‘Thatisadifferentmatter....Hecould

notbetaintedbycontact,butawomanlikemeoryou,Elizabeth,shouldkeepherselfpureand

apart.TheChurch’sministerswerelefttopreachHisgospel’”(106).Theconflictbetween

thesetwowomenisnotoneofbeliefsomuchashowthosebeliefsarepracticedinculture.Both

seemtorecognizeintheotherasharedChristiansensibility,butLizzyembodiesthekindof

94 ChristiansocialismDaviswouldliketoseepracticed;however,muchasshedoeswith

Quakerism,sherepresentsLizzyasbelongingtoanantiquatedsystem.Sheselectivelypreserves

Lizzy’ssentimentalbeliefsbysynthesizingthemwithmoderncultureandtheempowered domesticfemale,Honora,whoisnottheNewWomanbuttheTrueWomanoflatenineteenth centuryculture.

TheothersignificantencounterwheretwofaithsystemscollideoccurswhenDallas becomesageologistandheexplainstoHonorahissystemforderivingknowledgeofthenatural

world.Dallas’sassociationwiththenaturalworldpositionshimasanAdamicfigure,whichhis

encounterwithHonoraillustrates.SheasksifhecanreadthehistoryoftheCreationwrittenon

therocksasshewould[read]intheBible.Heanswersthathecanreadit“moreplainlyhere

thanelsewhere”(86).Itisnotquiteclearthathemeans“elsewhere”tobetheBible;hemight perhapsmeancomparedtoothergeologicalformations,butthepassage’sobscurityundercuts

Biblicalauthorityinrelationtothenaturalworld,anditpositionsDallasasaprimitiveromantic figurewhoismorecomfortableoutofdoorsthanin.Hedistanceshimselffromeducationand creed,feelingmostathomeamongtheelements.DallasandHonorapartwaysalthoughhewill laterstrikeitrichandtakeonthecareofseveralorphanboys.Inhisfosteringoftheseboys,he exhibitsahighlypersonaltheology.Hepracticesalimitedformofsocialbenevolence,quickly decidingtoprovideforthematerialneedsoftheboysbutentruststheirsoulstothecareofMr.

Rattlin,theselfdescribed“Protestant”preacher.Planningtodepartforthe(further)West,

Dallassays,“Therearesomechildren—threeorfour:Itookthemayearagototrytomake decentmenandwomenofthem.Baptist,MethodistorCatholic—theycansettlethatmatterfor themselveswhenthey’reolder,butmyplanwastogivethemahome:toletthemseeamotherin herhomeandhearofChrist”(169).Here,againweseeacallforanecumenicalChristianity,but

Dallasasksthatitbeadministeredonafarm,bythehandsofthisitinerantpreacherwhohas rearedseveralchildrenofhisownandwhoseeducationoftheboyswillbebalancedwiththe

95 samemodelofdomesticfeminismDavisexhibitsinherotherfiction.Ironically,Dallasis willingtosharehissalaryfortheupkeepandeducationofthechildrenbuthehimselfis unwillingtoadministerhandsonservice,inanoddechoofHonora’shandsoffChristian benevolence.Nowhemayclaimthathisownhandsarealreadytaintedduetohispast,butthe pointofthenovelisthatsuchsocialstigmasshouldbeshed,sohisfailuretofollowthroughon hispersonalcommitmenttotheseorphansissomewhatcontradictorytotheemerging

ChristologyofDavis.

Infact,DavispresentsDallasasakindofseekerwhotriestolocateacreedthat exemplifieshisownbeliefs.Againandagain,hedecidesthatinstitutionalreligionimposestoo muchdogmathathecannotalignwiththeChristfigurethatexistsinhisownimagination.Later,

Dallastriestopuzzlethroughhisreligiousconfusionwithhisgrandfather.Hesays:“Butherein

Society,asyoucallit—ChristianSociety—amanisweighedandmeasuredandmarked,and,it seemstome,bynarrowscales,sir,narrowscales....Andifhehasmadeaslipinhisyouth... thereis nohopeforhim....ThereisnoChristamongusnowadaystolookbelowthehard luckorbelowtheguilt”(19091).Dallasreasonshiswaythroughsystemaftersystem,evenone ofpuresocialbenevolence,aforerunneroftheSocialGospelmovement,butitisnotuntilhe findsawaytoreconcilethenaturalworldwithhissocialonethathefindsresolutionthat providesaccesstothesupernatural.Notsurprisingly,thiscannothappenuntilhefirstfinds domesticblisswithHonora.Dallaseventuallyhashisepiphanyashewalksthroughthewoods atsunset:

Forthefirsttime,Dallassawtheorderbeneaththelifeofthelarvae,ofthesnowthat killedit,ofthesummerthatcalleditintobeing.TheoldJewishaccountofthecreation hadalwaysbeentohimachild’sfablebesidethestorywrittenontherocks.Buttoday heseemedtocatchaglimpseofaninfinitetruththatunderlaidthesegropingsafterGod oftheworld’searlierdays,aswellastheclearerinsightoflatertime—aneternalRight, ofwhichtheorderanddisorderoftheworldwerebutchanceglimpsesthatcametous. (211)

96 Dallas’sideaoftheologyisverysimilartotheQuakercreedanditisallaboutintuitive perceptionanddirectcommunicationwithGod,toafargreaterextentthanthroughtheBibleasa

sourceofDivineauthority.Somewhatsurprisingly,itisirrevocablylinkedtochance,allowing

foraconnectiontoDarwinismaswell.Dallas’smodelisnotanewtheology;infact,itisa

reiterationoftheQuaker“creed”adjustedtofitthemodernnotionoftheselfexceptthat,unlike

Dallas,theQuakersemphasizedcommunalworshipandcomingtogetherinasharedphysical

space.Thisrevisedmodelisnotthesolipsismofthetranscendentalistseither,althoughitdoes

comeclosetothat.Rather,thisisakindofunionbetweeninnerandouterspace,combiningthe

scientificauthorityofgeologicalobservation,ruralspace,andinteriorcontemplation.Unlike

transcendentalism,whichdidnotreallyrequireleavingthearmchair,Dallas’stheologyrequiresa physicalexteriorspaceinwhichto“find”God.

Davis’sreligioussolutioninthisstoryisnotwithoutitsproblems.Hesymbolizesan

AdamlikeinnocencebutheseeksaChristlikehumanism,anditisnotclearhowDavisintends

toreconcilethesetwodisparaterepresentations.Althoughtheyoungorphans,wearetold,

“learn,daybyday,...anawfulreverenceforGod,outsideofallthecreedsofthechurches”

(240),thereaderisleftwithoutaworkingmodelexplaininghow,exactly,toachievesuchanon

sectarianideology.Weidentifythecallforabstractempathythatisderivedfrommaterial

experience,butthisremainsundefinedandhugelyproblematicasaworkingmodelbecauseitis

dependentonchance,asDavisherselfpointsout.

Sohowdoestherealistreconciletheneedforanabstractidealismthatisdependenton

thematerialcircumstancessurroundingone’sfortunes?Davispresentsrealismitselfasakindof

solution.Sheoffersupthetextasabetweenthematerialandtheabstract;nevertheless,

onehastoquestiontheauthorityoftherealistwritertoserveasthenavigator.Davisand

HowellstakegreatpainstodefendtheirabilitytogobackandforthbetweenNorthandSouthfor

theformerandtheWestandtheEastforthelatter.Aseachevaluatestheinstitutionalchurch,

97 eachtriestopromotealiteraryauthoritytoshapeculturalethics.Butwecanalsodiscerna foreshadowingoftheproblemseachisgoingtoencounterbecausedivinity,religion,spirituality, andGodcannotbeappropriatedinmeasurablewaysifallsocialauthoritysurroundingsuch conceptsisremoved;theybecomeincreasinglyintangible.Theargumentsimplyreliesonthe reader’sabilitytointuittruespiritualityinfalliblyasifsuchabstractionswillbecomeselfevident truths.

ThecomplexityofDavis’sintuitivemodelemergesinthenexttwostoriesinthisset.In thesetexts,weseeDavisanchorheremergingmodelofprimitivismintwospecificareas:the figureofChristandthepurityofunfetteredbelief.IntheverybriefaccountofMrs.Dodein

“TheDoctor’sWife”(1874),Davispresentstheperfectexampleofdomesticfelicity.Dr.

Noyes’swifecontinuesthepretextofherdailylifeevenaftershesecretlyfindsoutherillnessis terminal.Wearetold:

Mrs.Dodedidnotchangeherhabitsintheleast.Shehadneverbeenaconstantchurch goer,noramemberofanycharitablesociety,andshedidnotbecomeonenow.Itwas rememberedafterwardsthatsheremainedoutlongerinthemorningsonherrounds amongthepoor,andthatshehadaprintwhichwasinherchamber,rehung,sothatshe couldseeitwhenshefirstwokeinthemorning.(ItwastheHeadcrownedwiththorns).” (72) Mrs.Dode’sspiritualityissointernalthatitrequiresonlyonematerialreminder,andthatisjust asmallprintwiththeimageofJesus.Davissuggeststhatpracticalbenevolencemimetically representingaccountsofJesusoffersarelevantmodelfortheage.Shemayimplythatsuch knowledgeofJesuscomesfromtheGospels,butshedoesnotstatesodirectly.Shesubstitutesa simpleimageforBiblicaltext.

Infact,DavisbecomesincreasinglyobscureinhertreatmentofBiblicalauthority comparedtohermoredistinctallusionsofherearlierwriting.In“TheYaresofBlack

Mountain”(1875),Davistakesherreaderonajourneydeeperanddeeperintowhere the“strangetribe”oftheYarefamilylivesdeepinNorthCarolina.Theirlocationissoremote that“civilizationstopshere”(Davis,“TheYares”292).TheYaresaresoprimitive,infact,that 98 themotherhasread“littlebeyondhercookerybookandherBible”(Davis301).Thehumorous juxtapositionoftheBiblealongacookbookpositionsthescripturesstrangelyinthetext.Onthe onehand,theBiblecanbeviewedasasymboloffaithsoelementalthatitaccompaniesthebasic impulsefornutrition.Ontheotherhand,shedismissestheBibleashavinglittlemore importancethatarecipebook,againremindingusofDavis’sviewthattheBibleitselfcarries littleinherentauthority.

Onceagainin“TheYaresofBlackMountain,”thereconciliationbetweenthenaturaland thesupernaturalrequirestheopenspacetoconvenewithGodassuggestedin Dallas Galbraith .

TheYares’sonlyvisitor,Mrs.Derby,ourguide,findsherfaithonBlackMountain.Shereflects,

“ItwasasifGodhadtakenherintooneofthesecretplaceswhereHedweltapart”(Davis302).

Thisseemslikeasmallstatement,butitisquiterevelatory;theideaofGoddwellingapart

insteadofamongismoreofaCalvinistperspectiveandMrs.Derbyis,infact,aNortherner.In

otherstories,DavishascharacterswhobelievetheSonortheSaviorlivesbesidethem.She

capturesthesesmalldetailsthatreflectvaryingreligiousbeliefs.Inthisstory,sheonceagain

unitesdisconnectedexperienceswithspiritualityandattemptsakindofsynthesis.Shecertainly

doesnotsuggestthatcivilizationcanreturntotheprimordialstateoftheisolatedYares;infact,

sheshowsthateventheYarescouldnotescapetheinevitabilityoftheCivilWar(304),butshe

triestopreservethepurityofafaiththathasbeenallowedtoexistwithouttheinstitutional

churchtotaintit.

Davis’sproblemswithspecificsourcesofobjectiveauthorityhaveobviousimplications

fortherealistwriteraswell;ifthereisnocertaintyintraditionalauthoritysuchasscriptureand

humanbeingsarenotreliableconduitsbetweenthenaturalandthespiritualworld,sheneeds

sometypeofreliablevehicleforillustratingherideology.Shebeginstoexaminetruthasan

internalprocess,butshecontinuestojustifythisprocessusingareligiousrhetoric.She

continuestoemployherrealismasameansofexposingthetruth,assheseesit,butshewill

99 makeonemoreclassicliberalProtestantturn;sheturnstothefigureofJesus,bothDivineand human,asabridgebetweenthehumanconditionandthesupernaturalworld.RichardFox writes:“ThemalleablefigureofJesushelpedAmericanProtestantsofallstripesmoveintothe moderneratogether”( Jesus in America 156).Davis’scritiqueofexistingProtestantpractices allowshertoemploytheJesusfigureaspartofherprimitivism.Wecanseethatfirstsherejects existingcreedsanddogma,butshestillneedsawaytoreconcileconsciencewithactionandthis problememergesagainandagaininherwriting.Sheneveroffersamodelthatsuccessfully resolvesthisproblem.

ItisinherlaterfictionthatDavisbeginstostrengthenthedomesticfemalefigureasa benevolentsocialforcebyshowinghowsuchwomencanachieveapurityofdivinediscernment.

Davisherselfneverseemsquiteclearonwhatshebelievesaboutsalvation:isitindividualorisit collective?Whatisthemodelthatallowsustoknow?Earlyinhersocialreformworksshe seemedtobemovinginonedirectionbuthereweseeherpullingbackfromcollectivesocial consciousnessaswellbysuggestingthatnoneofuscanreallyknowwithcertaintywhatisbest forothers.Thekeyphrasehereisknowledgewithcertainty;realismtriestooperateaspractice thatallowscertaintyeveninsmalldoses,butbytheendofthenineteenthcenturythenotionof certaintyitselfcomesintoquestionagain.

Asreligiousthinkerswereseekingtobalancedemocraticprinciplesofsubjectivityand collectivitywhilestilladheringtoa“unitedwestand,dividedwefall”principle,popular literaturerespondedwithasimilaraestheticoftryingtonegotiatetheprivilegingofindividual developmentwithasenseofcollectivestrengthandunity.Withinfiction,differentscenariosare elaborated,challengingreaderstothinkabouttheideaofsocialresponsibility,initiallyinrelation totheideaofsalvationbutlaterinregardtomaterialcultureandsecularlife.Realism, particularly,isconcernedwiththisideaofhowcollectiveidentityworks,andinthisway,its anticonventionalposesignalsashiftawayfromromanticandsentimentaltropesfoundinearlier

100 fiction.Theselattertwostylestendtofocusonsubjectivity,imaginedalternatelyaseitheran expressionorsuppressionofindividualegoism.Broadlyspeaking,whileromanticliterature examinestheroleoftheindividualinrelationtonatureandsentimentalliteraturesuppressesthe selfinthegreaterinterestofthesalvationofthesoul,realistliteraturefocusesonhowsociety constructstheindividual.Itbeginstoaskitsreaderstomakesociologicalchangesinorderto removeobstaclesfromanincreasinglyvaluedconceptionofselfhood,butthisisanewnotionof selfawarenessthatexistsinrelationtoalargercollectivitycomprisingother“selves.”Therein liestheinherentparadoxofrealism,whichasksforbothsubjectiveandcollectiveidentitytobe givenequalweight:theselfcannotfindfulfillmentunlesssocietyenablesittodoso.Evenmore specifically,realistwriterssuchasDavisbegintochallengemodesofcollectiveidentityby askingforanacknowledgementthatcollectivityoftensubsumessubjectivityandforcespeople intostaticpositions;AfricanAmericansaresubjugatedtoapositionbelowCaucasianstothe extentthateventheeliminationoftheinstitutionofslaverycannotremovethatbarrier.Realist writersbegintoreflectontheideathattheselargercategorizationsareboundbyartificialsocial constructs,andthus,withinrealism,weseeachallengetoculturalstereotypes,testingtheir truthfulnesstoallowcivilizationtomakeprogress.

Ultimately,withthebacklashoffundamentalismandtheriseofpsychologybytheendof thecentury,materialistrealismbeginstoloseitsclaimtoauthority.Naturalism,aliteraryform thatpairsromanticismwithatavismanddevolution,emergesmorestronglyalongwiththeonset ofmodernism,withitsemphasisonsubjectiverealitiesthataredependentonindividual perceptionratherthanobservablephenomena.ButIamgettingaheadofmyselfbyfocusingon endingsratherthanbeginnings,andDavis’sworkisseminalinthepairingofreligionand realism.WhatwemusttakeawayfromthisexampleistheideathattheQuakersoffera compromiseforDavisthatallowshertocombineanabstractnotionofintuitiveChristian spiritualitywithastrongculturalreformvisionthatcanbeobservedandexplicatedandrewritten

101 intoanewtheology.Inherwriting,weseesimilaritiestoMarxismandSocialDarwinismand anemergingSocialGospelideologythroughacloseexaminationoftheQuakersubject.

UnderstandingwhereDavisstandsinthedevelopmentofrealismasaliteraryaestheticwill undoubtedlychangethewaywethinkofrealistwriting.Shewasclearlywritinginresponseto herreligiousenvironment,andshewasseekingamodeofwritingthatwouldaddressthe problemsandconcernsofthemodernworldinawaythatexistingtropesdidnotallow.Davis’s workwastremendouslyinfluential,particularlywithhergroundbreaking1861 Atlantic story

“LifeintheIronMills”whichintroducednotonlyanewkindofsubjecttotheliteraryworldbut anewstyleofwritingaboutthatsubject.Onceweidentifytheunderlyingreligiousrhetoricand philosophicalideologiespromptingDavistorespondbydevelopingherownrealistaesthetic,we canthenbegintocontemplatesubsequentrealistwriterswithinthissametypeofdiscourse.My focushasbeenmainlyonProtestantismbecausethatwasDavis’sfocus,butthiskindof engagementwiththereligioussubjectpresumablypervadesrealisminamuchmore encompassingmanner.Thisisanareaofinfluencethathasbeenverymuchoverlooked, particularlyinregardtorealism.Daviswasfarfromaloneinherconcernabouttherelationship ofreligionandculturalinregardtoethics;wewillseehowWilliamDeanHowellswas tremendouslyabsorbedinasimilarexamination.BothDavisandHowellswereambivalent aboutwhichaspectsofreligiontheywishedtohonorandacknowledgeandwhichtheywishedto criticize.Literaryrealismallowedthemtoexaminethesedynamicsinawaythateachdeemed verymodern.

Notes 21 ForasocioeconomichistoryoftheMoravians,seeKatherineCartéEngel, Religion and Profit: Moravians in Early America (Philadelphia,UofPennP,2009). 22 ItisdifficulttoofferanallencompassingdefinitionofLiberalProtestantism,sincethisisanaestheticthatcan occurwithinanydenominationofProtestantism,butitisageneraltrendawayfromdoctrineandtowardasocially consciousorganizedfaith.Ingeneral,therhetoricincludesaprogressivehistoricalmodel,suggestingthateachnew agerequiresanewfaithoratleastanewsetofparametersforpracticingthatfaith.ThefigureofJesusmaybe viewedasdivine,human,orboth,butthespiritualfoundationofLiberalProtestantismturnstotheethicalexample

102 ofJesusandattemptstotranslatethoseethicsforthecurrentage.ThecommoncatchphrasesignalingLiberal ProtestantismisWWJD?(WhatWouldJesusDo?). 23 ForexampleCatharineMariaSedgwick’s A New England Tale (1822),SusanWarner’s The Wide, Wide World (1850),orHarrietBeecherStowe’s The Pearl of Orr’s Island (1862),acontemporaryandcompetingdiscourse. 24 “ThoughIwalkthroughthevalleyoftheshadowofdeath,Iwillfearnoevil:forThouarewithme”(Davis,“John Lamar”52). 25 Notinsignificantly,MottisaPhiladelphiaQuakerofNewEnglandbirth,representingablendedidentitythat wouldhaveappealedtoDavis.Daviscallsher,“oneofthemostremarkablewomanthatthiscountryhasever produced....[M]uchofherpowercamefromthefactthatshewasoneofthemostwomanlyofwomen.Shehad pityandtendernessenoughinherheartforthemotherofmankind”(“APeculiarPeople”111112). 26 “ThemostimpressivedevelopmentofthedoctrineoftheinnerlightwasprovidedbyaScottishQuaker theologiannamedRobertBarclay.His ,publishedinEnglishin1678,makesthecasefortheinnerlight againstanyexternalauthority,includingtheBible”(Wentz80). 27 ItisimportanttointerjecthereareminderthatDavis’spreferenceforQuakertheologycarrieswithita hermeneuticalapproachthatshewillhavetoworkoutinherrealisttext.TheBiblealoneapproachisonemodelof primitivismthatstandsinoppositiontoDavis’smodelofQuakerprimitivism,whichisexplainedbelow,butthis notionbyitselfdoesnotrestrictwhethertheBiblemustbereadliterallyorinterpretedanewbyeachgenerationofa changingculture.Davis’spreferencefortheQuaker’sintuitivemodelsuggestsnotonlythatshewasinterestedin interpretive hermeneuticsofscripture,asopposedtotheliteralhermeneuticspositedbymostCalvinistcreedsatthis time,butalsothatherintuitivemodelisspecificallyarejectionof sola scriptura althoughitshouldnotbetaken necessarilyasarejectionoftheBibleitself. 28 In Waiting for the Verdict ,FriendBlanchardvicariouslyenjoysRosslynBurley’svanity:“TheOldQuaker’s carnalnaturehadrebelledagainstherownbrownandgrayclothesallherlife,andittookaviciousdelight,now,in Ross’sfresh,hightintedbeautyanddress”(Davis162).ThenineteenthcenturyderisionforQuakergarb,which Daviselsewherelabelsas“drabhued[and]phlegmatic”(“AGlimpseofPhiladelphia”30)andequatedwithleading a“drabcoloredlife”(“AGlimpse”33),canalsobefoundinHallowell’shistoryofNewEnglandQuakers.He writes:“TheQuakergarbanddirectnessofspeech,oncegrandprotestsagainstextravaganceindressandtheflattery bestoweduponwealthandrank,losttheiroriginalsignificance;andthebroadbrimmedhat,thepeculiarbonnet,the thouandthee,becamethesectarianbadge,andtoooftenindicatedthebigotryofthechildrenintheirworshipofthe fathers”(22). 29 RichardHallowellexplains:“ThisdoctrineofInwardLightwasthecornerstoneofQuakerism.Itinflicteda mortalwoundonpriestcraft.IfGoddwellsinthesoulofman,heisausurperwhodarestoassumetobeman’s spiritualguide.Amerescholasticeducationcannotqualifymanforthetrueministry.AsreligionisfromGod,only suchasareinspiredbyhimcanteachreligion.Churchtithes,anordainedandpaidministry,wereabominationsin thesightofFox.Hefoundthekingdomofheavenwithinhim”(19). 30 See,forexample,Davis’sdescriptionofDodeScofield’sChristology:“HewasalivingJesustoher,notadead one.Thatwaswhyshehadahealthysoul”(“DavidGaunt”6869). 31 RichardFoxtracesthehistoryoftheWWJDmovementbacktoCharlesSheldon’s1896 In His Steps ( Jesus in America 279),andhecitesseveralinstancesillustratingthepervasivenessofthisrhetorictoday. 32 PaulGutjahrpointsoutthatthenineteenthcenturyembracedanincreasinglyblurredboundarybetweensacred andseculartexts.Heofferstheplethoraofreligiousbiographieswrittenduringthisperiodasevidenceofsuch blurredboundaries,andheadds:“JosephSmithJr.’s The Book of Mormon wasperhapsthemostaudacious renderingofChrist’slifetoappearinthenineteenthcentury.Itfollowedthetraditionof[Paul]Wright’s[ The New and Complete Life of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ ]—blurringthesacredandcommonthrough rhetorical,binding,andillustrativepractices”(151).Wright’sbookwasfirstpublishedin1785andfirstavailablein Americain1803(Gutjahr150). 33 SeeMatthew7:5andLuke6:42.BothGospelsoffernearlyidenticalverbiageforthispassage. 103 34 DavisisnonspecificandyetalmostaccusatoryinhersubtleallusiontotheNewTestamentpassages1Cor.13:1 and1Cor.14:2;herwordsimplythecomplicityofreligionincapitalisticoppressionofthepoorlaboringclass. 35 AccordingtoWentz,the“DisciplesofChrist”wasformedbybothAlexanderCampbellandhisfatherThomas Campbell(215),butWentzdoessaythatitwasAlexander“whobecamethemorearticulatearchitectofthe movement”(215). 36 Lasseterwrites:“Davis’smotherhadlived,asachild,inCampbell’shomeasapayingpupilintheschoolhe taughtthere.CampbelllivedinnorthernVirginia(notyetWestVirginia)as[RebeccaHarding]Davisdid;healso livedinWashington,Pennsylvania,wheresheattendedfemaleSeminary”(“TheCensored”181). 37 See,forexample,CatharineMariaSedgwick, A New England Tale, or, Sketches of New England Character and Manners (1822;NewYork:OxfordUP,1995). 38 ThisepisodecanarguablyevenbereadasQuakermysticism. 39 Harrisreadsthedreamsequenceas“Davis’srecurrentsymbolfortranscendentalism”(111),andHetty’sConcord upbringingcertainlylendscredencetothatinterpretation.Thedreamlikemysticismoftranscendentalismshares commongroundwiththemysticismoforientalfiction,sothesereadingsarenotmutuallyexclusive.Additionally, Swedenborgianmysticismisanotherculturalforceatworkwithintranscendentalism.Themainpointtounderstand inthispassageistheprivilegingofintuitionoverobjectiveexperience. 40 ForadiscussionofStowe’sfeministhermeneuticsinboth Women in Sacred History (1873)and Footsteps of the Master ,seeEileenRazzariElrod,“‘ExactlylikeMyFather’:FeministHermeneuticsinHarrietBeecherStowe’s NonFiction,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 63.4(1995):695719. 41 Margret Howth wasfirstpublishedas“AStoryofToday”inthe Atlantic Monthly (Oct.Dec.1861),butthe editionIamcitingisbasedonthe1862TicknorandFieldspublication. 42 Thislistisnotcomprehensiverelativetothegeneralsubjectofreligion.Forexample,in A Law Unto Herself (1877),DavisincludesacritiqueofvariousformsofinstitutionalChristiancharity.ThelistofworksIhave includedinthisprojectarelimitedtothosethatrevealsomethingaboutreligioninrelationtoDavis’srealist aesthetic. 43 DuBoisdefinesthistermin The Souls of Black Folk (1903):“Oneeverfeelshistwoness—anAmerican,aNegro; twosouls,twothoughts,twounreconciledstrivings;twowarringidealsinonebody,whosedoggedstrengthalone keepsitfrombeingtornasunder”(quotedinVincentLeitch,ed., The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism (NewYork:Norton,2001)298. 44 SeeBucke39andalsoRussellRicheyandKennethRowe,eds.,Rethinking Methodist History: A Bicentennial Historical Consultation (Nashville:Kingswood,1985).(Note:aconferencepublication.) 45 DavisseemstobealludingtoPsalm23:4inDode’swalkdownthedark,desertedroad. 46 SeeBowron269. 47 Scofield’spoorgrammarandspellingisindicativeofatypicalMethodistonAmericansoil,boththecongregants andthepreachers(Bucke305).MethodismwasspreadbyitinerantpreacherslikeGaunt,ofwhomlittleeducation andnoformaltrainingwasrequired.AllthatwasrequiredwasthewillingnesstosharetheGoodNewsofthe Gospels.Infact,thiswasoneofPalmer’scriticismsofGaunt:“DouglasPalmerusedtosaythatallGauntneededto makehimasoundChristianwaseducationandfreshmeat”(Davis62).Scofield’sinscriptionrepresentshis marginalliteracypresumablydevelopedsolelyforthepurposeofbeingabletoreadtheBible. 48 NovalisisthepseudonymforGeorgPhilippFriedrichFreiherrvonHarenbery(17721801),aGermanRomantic philosopherwhostudiedthewritingsofJohannFichte(17621814),anotherGermanRomanticphilosopher. 49 ThereissomescholarlydisagreementastothephilosophicalfoundationsofbothStephenHolmesandDr. Knowles.JeanFaganYellinwrites:“InStephenHolmes,HardingdramatizesthedebasementoftheEmersonian doctrineofselfreliance.HolmesattemptstopracticetheideasaboutselfdevelopmentvoicedbytheGerman 104 philosopherFichte.ButHolmeslacksnotabstractliberty,butconcretecash”(281).Elsewhere,JeanPfaelzer attributesthesamephilosophicalunderpinningstoKnowles:“KnowlesisafolloweroftheFrenchutopiansocialists Fourier(17721827)andSaintSimon(17601825)andoftheGermanromanticandfounderof‘absoluteidealism,’ JohannGottleibFichte(17621814),whoseworksDavisprobablyreadwithherbrother,Wilson,astudentof Europeanromanticism”( Parlor Radical 67).SharonHarriscitesadirectquotationfromDavisinwhichsherefers toHolmes’scharacteras“thedevelopmentincommonvulgarlifeoftheFichtianphilosophyanditseffectsonthe selfmademan,asIviewit”(Harris62,quotedfromJamesT.Fields, Yesterdays with Authors ,NewYorkAMS, 1970). 50 In The Blithedale Romance ,HollingsworthmakesanearlyidenticalappealtoCoverdale:“Itoffersyou(whatyou havetoldme,overandoveragain,thatyoumostneed)apurposeinlife,worthyoftheextremistself devotion,―worthyofmartyrdom,shouldGodsoorderit!Inthisview,Ipresentittoyou.Youcangreatlybenefit mankind.Yourpeculiarfaculties,asIshalldirectthem,arecapableofbeingsowroughtinthisenterprisethatnot oneofthemneedlieidle”(Hawthorne84). 51 NotonlywasslaveryadivisiveissueinthehistoryoftheMethodistchurch,butAbolitionandReconstruction affectedchurchsplinteringaswell.TheirhistoryincludestheformationofMethodistcongregationsaimedatblack membership,withblackleadership.Buckewrites:“TheculturalandsocialimportanceoftheindependentNegro churchesisnotalwaysunderstood.Thecreationofthesechurcheswasoneofthemostimportantconsequencesof emancipationandReconstruction.Acontemporaryhistorianwrites:‘Itmeantreligiousfreedomfortheblacksfor thefirsttimeintheirhistoryandopeneduptoNegroleadershipatleastonefieldofsocialendeavor.Tothisdaynot eventhemostreactionarySouthernwhitechallengestherightoftheNegrotodeterminehisownreligious concepts’”(Bucke287).(ThehistorianquotedisFrancisButlerSimkins, A History of the South (NewYork:Alfred A.Knopf,1959)307.) 52 Thereareseveralsourcesavailablediscussingtheeditorialandprinthistoryofthisstory.See,forexample, Paelzer, Parlor Radical 5475andYellin28694andHarris6171. 53 Thereisnothinginthetextitselfdirectlystatingthatthisisthesamecharacterinbothstories.Onceagain, scholarsofferdifferinginterpretations;SharonHarrisidentifies“TheHarmonists”characteras“Dr.Knowles,who firstappearedin Margret Howth [andwho]reappearsin“TheHarmonists;”itisthecommunistideologyofKnowles withwhichDavisisnowconcerned”(129).PfaelzeridentifiesKnowlesasmerely“thenamesakeoftheutopian socialistin Margret Howth ”( Parlor Radical 128).Thegeographicalsettingofthetwostoriessuggeststhatthisis thesamecharacterbecause,likeKnowles,theRappitesmovedfromIndianatoPennsylvania.TheRappitesfirst settledinPennsylvaniafrom18041814,andthenprofitedbysellingtheirlandtoMennonites.Theynextresettled inIndianafrom18141824,namingbothofthesecommunities“Harmony.”Finally,theRappitesreturnedto Pennsylvaniafrom1824,remainingthereuntiltheyformallydissolvedin1906,namingthislastsettlement “Economy,”thenameofthetowndepictedin“TheHarmonists.” Margret Howth issetinIndianawhichstrongly suggestsDaviswaspurposefullyestablishingcontinuitybetweenthetwotextsbydrawingonthegeographichistory oftheRappites. 54 Christinamightbereferringtoeither2Samuel22:3orEphesians6:16.Botherpassagesrefertofaithasashield toovercomeevilandachievesalvation. 55 “IarguethatAmericanrealismwasan‘establishment’formduetoitspromotionby Atlantic groupmagazines” (Glazener11). 56 Pfaelzerexplains:“Alwaysaprecisehistorian,Davisplacesthestoryinatime‘nearlyacenturyago’whenthe systemofindenturedservitudeenjoyedabriefrebirthinPennsylvania.Largelandholderswhoownedslaves become[sic]desperateforcheaplaborwhentheywereforcedtocomplywithPennsylvania’sGradualAbolitionAct of1780,thefirstantislaverystatuteintheUnitedStates”( Parlor Radical 136). 57 Therapeincidentisimpliedratherthanstated.WhenHubbardandPetrellivisitChristine,sheisina“half idiotic”state,showingfearofherkidnapperJanVelt,andshecastshereyesdownwardonhersoiledandfoullinen, expressinghershame(Davis,“TheStoryofChristine”192). 58 TheonlyrealcluetoFatherKimball’saffiliationisthatLizzy,Dallas’sonlyfriendinManasquan,islaterrevealed tobeaBaptist,butthisisnotrevealeduntilChapterVII.GiventhecareDavishastakentodepictManasquanas exhibitingaclosedsystemofreligiouspractice,itseemslikelythatfatherKimballmustbeaBaptistaswell. 105 59 Establishedin1563,theThirtyNineArticlesofFaithcontainthecreedoftheChurchofEngland.

106

CHAPTER3:WILLIAMDEANHOWELLSASWRITERANDCRITIC OFAMERICANLITERARYREALISM WilliamDeanHowellsisarguablythemostsignificantarbiterofAmericanliterary realism.ForHowells,realismwassomethingmorethananartisticform;itwasacrossbetween socialscienceandliteraryendeavor.Howellsbelievedthattobeofvalue,literaturehadtobe usefulandtobeofuse,literaturehadtobereal.Byreal,Howellsmeantthattherepresentational worldofthetexthadtomirrortheanteriorworldoutsideofthetext,andthattherepresentation ofcharacters,landscapes,ethics,andmoraldilemmashadtoappearobservabletothereader.

Howellsbelievedmimeticrepresentationofferedthereaderamodelforexaminingatextin relationtopracticalexperienceorexistentialvalue,and,inparticular,hereliedonthereligious subjectinordertoallegorizeanddemonstratemattersofsocialjustice.Howellsusesthisuse valueofthetexttomakeahierarchicaldistinctionbetweenmereentertainingfictionandlofty illuminatingliterature( Editor’s Study 74).Hefrequentlycontrastedhisrealistideologywith earlynineteenthcenturysentimentalliteratureorwhathetermedromanticistliterature,andit wasagainstthatearlierformofwritingthathewasreactingashestruggledtoconstructnew literaryformsthatweremeaningfulandsignificantinhiscontemporaryworld.Literatureitself becomesacomponentofaformulaforthedevelopmentofasystemofculturalethicsand,inhis earlycareer,heevensuggeststhatliteraturemightreplacesermonicdiscourseintheformationof suchethics.Additionally,forHowells,literatureisnecessarilypoliticalbecausehehimself frequentlymakessymbioticconnectionsbetweenethics,religion,anddemocracyinhisfiction.

Howellsapproachesthereligioussubjectinavarietyofways.Hedepictsseveral symbolicfiguresofministerssuchasReverendSewellin The Minister’s Charge; or, the

Apprenticeship of Lemuel Barker ortheunnamedministerin A Traveler from Altruria, who seemtoreflecthisowndisillusionmentwithhowinstitutionalreligionhadcometobepracticed

107 aftertheCivilWar.Heimplicatesthesefiguresforbeingoutoftouchwiththechangingmoral andethicaldilemmasthatthemodernageimposes,suchasabifurcatedclasssystemandthe creationofawealthy,urbanelitewholacktheeducationandmoralfoundationtomaintainthe independenceandequalitythatthepostbellumyearspromised.Healsoincludescharactersthat areassociatedwithparticulardenominationsandsectsashescrutinizeswhatvariouscreedshave toofferinarapidlychangingcapitalisteconomy.Inparticular,Howellsbeginstoquestionthe roleoftheselfandtheroleofsocietyinidentityformationandinthedevelopmentofasocial conscience,andheexaminestheroleoftheinstitutionalchurchinrelationtomoralbehavior.He offersakeyword,“complicity,”asasynthesisofinternalandexternalidentityinwhichthe needsoftheindividualandtheneedsofsocietyasawholecanbegintomerge.Howells suggeststhatdifferentdegreesofselfawarenessaffectourunderstandingofatext,andhisaim seemstobetoallegorizecollectivesocietyinthefigureoftheselfsuchthatdutyisunderstoodin termsofdesire.

Thecomplicitythemepervadeshiswriting,anditisakeycomponenttounderstanding

Howells’sincorporationofdifferentphilosophiesintohissocialmodel.Inhisapproachto literatureHowellsoffersexamplesofSwedenborgianviewsoftheusevalueofthetext,andhe laterbeginstoexamineutopianscenariosofhowdifferentsolutions,includingsocialism,might bepracticed.WhetherweviewHowells’swritingintermsofreflectionorprojectionofthe anteriorworld,hisrelianceonallegoryremainsalinkforhimtorenderabstractnotionsofsocial justiceintoanempiricalmodelforhisreader.Throughhisuseofreligiousallegoryinparticular, wecanidentifyimportantliteraryinfluencessuchasMatthewArnoldandHeinrichHeine.Inhis laterfiction,heevenbeginstoexaminehowsocietyitselfconstructsculturalinstitutionsashis textsbegintoexplorethepsychologicalworkingsofthehumanmind.Inordertounderstand

Howellsasanadvocateofrealism,itisusefultoexaminehowthereligioussubjectinformshis modelforthesynthesisofself,culture,andsociety.

108 ItshouldbeclearthatHowellswasbynomeanssinglemindedinhisapproachtofiction despitehiswidelyacknowledgedadvocacyofrealism.Infact,overhislongandprodigious career,Howellsexperimentedoftenwithform,scope,andtopic.Althoughsomescholarstryto designateHowellsasemblematicofanineteenthcenturymiddleclasshegemonythathascome tobeassociatedwithrealism,heis,infact,quitedifficulttocategorizeduetohispropensityto embraceliteraryandsocialchangethroughouthislongcareer. 60 Howellsbeganhiscareerasa poet,becameabiographerandplaywright,workedasaneditor,publisher,andcritic,and emergedfinallyasafictionwriter,experimentingwithboththenovelandtheshortstoryform.

FromhisMidwestupbringingtohisBostonrelocation,Howellshimselfrepresentedthelandto bigcitymovementthatheportrayedin The Minister’s Charge; or, The Apprenticeship of Lemuel

Barker (1887).LemuelBarker,liketheDryfoossistersin A Hazard of New Fortunes (1890),is aruraltransplantwhoresistsbeingessentializedbytheurbaneliteintoasociallyinferiorrural joke.Thesecharacters,LemuelBarkerandChristineDryfoos,perplextheirmorepolished benefactors,theministerSewellandtheartistBeaton,becausetheydonotactinthemannerthey areexpectedto,andtheyrefusetoseethemselvestheywayotherswishtoseethem. 61

Howellsincludessomekeyscenesinthesetextsthatpointtodisparitiesbetweenhow

varioussocialclassescategorizeeachotherbymisleadingsignifiersofsocialandeconomic

standing.Forexample,incontemplatingChristine’sdebutataNewYorksocietyeventin A

Harzard of New Fortunes ,Beatonmarvelsatheraplombandhercomplacencyaboutherrelative

socialposition.Howellswrites:“[T]hegirl’sattitudeunderthesocialhonordoneherinterested

him.Hewassureshehadneverbeeninsuchgoodcompanybefore,buthecouldseethatshe

wasnottheleastaffectedbytheexperience....[S]heseemedtofeelherequalitywiththemall”

(A Hazard of New Fortunes 235).Beatonisstruckbytherealizationthatitisnotsolely

Christine’swealthbutratherherviewofherselfallowshertoovercomewhat,tohim,shouldbe asocialdisadvantage,andhebeginstoseetheflimsinessofsocialstasiswhensubjectivityis

109 broughtintoplay.Howellsdwellsrepeatedlyontheactofoutwardseeingjuxtaposedagainst

ironicselfknowledge,satirizingthetendencyofindividualstofictionalizeandromanticizethe

surroundinganteriorworld.Bydoingso,Howellsemphasizesthattherealistapproachisitself

anactofseeingandfictionalizinganelusivesubject,andthusheestablishesearlyonhis

awarenessofthetensionbetweenmaterialistsymbolismandanintangiblesubjectivitythat

resistsneatcategorization.Howellsdevelopsthistensionevenmorepronouncedlyinhis presentationofreligion,addingakeyparadoxtothelimitsofrealistmaterialismthatmany criticsignore:anabstractconceptlurksbeneaththeallegoricaltextualrepresentation.This abstractionseemstodemandsometypeofsocialvaluebeassignedtoitalongwithitsmimetic representationinthesamewaythat,forHowells,onetypeoffictionhasahigher“value”than anothersuchthatthegenreofthetextcorrespondstothatnotionofitsworth.Inthecaseof religion,Howellstriestoascertaintheunderlyingquestionofvaluebylookingattherole institutionalreligionplaysintheformationofsocialethics.Hetriestolocatetheusevalueof religioushabitsjustasheevaluatestheusevalueoffiction.

Howellsisacomplicatedfiguretodissectinrelationtohisownreligiousbackground.

HerepresentsanamalgamationofbothconservativeandliberalProtestantideologies.Scholars persistinassigningHowellsafairlystaticmiddleclasssocialidentityperhapsbecauseofhis influentialpowerasaneditorandcritic,butsuchanassignationoverlooksthemanyfluctuations inHowells’slifeandcareerthatmakehimdifficulttocategorize.BorninOhio,hewaslargely selfeducated,helivedinEuropeduringtheCivilWar,andhetaughthimselfseverallanguages, includingSpanish,Italian,German,Russian,andFrench.Between1865and1881,Howells movedatleastfourtimestodifferentlocationsinNewYorkandCambridge,MA.Bythetime

Howellsturnedfromeditingtofictionwritingashisprimarycareerin1881,hewasalmost perpetuallyonthemove,a“traveler,”toborrowaHowellsianterm.Inspiteofanarrow tendencyonthepartofcriticstolabelHowellsasamiddleclasswriterandcriticwithlimited

110 accesstotheworldbeyondNewEnglandlimits,Howellswassomewhatamorphousinhissocial andeconomicstandingthroughouthislife,andhemaintainedlongtermrelationshipsand correspondenceswithnotonlyhisfamilybutwithgenerationsofwriterswhosecareershe helpedtoestablish.Hewasacomplexcharacterlivinginacomplexagewheresocial boundarieswereeverchanging,particularlyasvastfortunesweremadeandlost.Heoften examinesthefluidityofmodernsocietyasathematicconcerninhisfiction,andthissame fluidityemergesinhisinclusionofreligioninhisfiction.

Althoughmostwidelyidentifiedasarealist,inhislatercareerHowellsalsowrote utopianfictioninhisthree Altrurian Romances (18941908)andevenaworkofhistorical fiction, The Leatherwood God (1916).Hewaseagertotacklecontemporarysocialandethical dilemmas,whichhebelievedtobeuniquetotheindustrialage,writingaboutissuesranging fromdivorcein A Modern Instance (1882)tolaboruniondisputesin A Hazard of New Fortunes

(1890),andheconsideredthedirectionofsocialchangeandsocialvaluesinrelationtothose dilemmas.HewroteaboutreligiousmovementsasvariedasShakerismin The Undiscovered

Country (1880), A Parting and a Meeting (1896), The Day of Their Wedding 1896) and The

Vacation of the Kelwyns (1920)andMethodismin The Leatherwood God ,andevenafictional religioussect,theRixonites,in“ADifficultCase”(1900).Howells’stopicsincludesocial concernssuchasmarriage,innercitylivingconditions,economicallydecliningrurallandscapes, poverty,andevenparanormalexperiencesinhisTurkishRoomTales(190116).Realismasa literaryformiscloselyalignedwithempiricismandthesocialandeconomicconditionsofthe latenineteenthcentury.Howells’spreoccupationwithreligionandspiritualityindicatesthatfor him,realistwritingwasnotboundtotheterrestrialworld,butratheritinvolvedasymbiotic relationshipbetweenthingsthatcanbeexperiencedandknowledgethatcanonlybeintuited.

AsarepresentativeofthesocialandgeographicmobilitythatmarkedtheAmerican culturalmovementsduringthenineteenthcentury,WilliamDeanHowellsalsostandsataunique

111 crosssectionofchangingreligiousexperiencesandbeliefs.Inhisliterature,hefrequently contemplatesspecificaspectsoftheAmericanreligiouslandscape,allowinghisreadersto examinetheinterplaybetweenreligionandrealisminregardtosocialethicsintherealisttext.

Mostparticularly,Howellsappearstoadvanceadoctrineofethicaldeterminismthatreliesonan ideologyofindividualconscienceandselfknowledgeforasenseofmoralrightnessand wrongness.Atthesametime,hefrequentlyaddressestheriskimplicitinelevatingthe importanceoftheindividualabovetheneedsofsocialcollectivity.Evenwhilehetriesto advanceanargumentforcommonsensereasoningcombinedwithintuitiveconscience,he simultaneouslyoffersaviewthatsocialdutyrequiresaformofaltruismthatnecessarilyrequires selfsacrifice.Heexpectshisreaderstodeducethatindividualhappinesscanneverbeobtained ifsocietyisharmedbyselfishaction.TocomprehendfullythetensionthatmarksHowells’s ambivalenceabouttherolereligionplaysinthisdualisticmodelofethics,wemustexaminea fewofhistrademarkphilosophicalnotions.

Specifically,Howellselaboratesonphilosophyofacollectivesocialethicsthatcanbe bestsummedupwithoneword:complicity.ComplicitytoHowellsmeantthatallclassesof societyareinextricablyconnected,andthatthefatethataffectsanyclassbefallsthemall.Thisis aprogressivemodelofcivilizationinwhichhumankindcanselfconsciouslydetermineitsown advancement.Inthe Editor’s Study (February,1886),hewrites:“noclassofAmericansistobe polishedalone,butthatweareallboundtogether,highandlow,forbarbarismorcivilization”

(7).HowellsscholarPaulPetrieelaboratesontheideaofHowellsiancomplicityasbeinga largelyunconsciousstate.Petriewrites:“Howellsdevelopedtheideaof‘complicity’toexpress theinescapableideaofethicalinterdependence,whichin[Howells’s]viewbindsallpeopleto eachotherthroughwebsofinfluenceofwhichtheyremainlargelyignorant”(xvii).Petrie’s distinctionaboutthegeneralobliviousnessofsocialbondssuggeststhatHowells’srealistaimis todrawattentiontotheinterconnectednessofallsocialbeings,whyiswhy,forHowells,

112 literatureitselfhaswhatPetrietermsa“socialethicalduty”(2).Theethicalresponsibilityof literature(asopposedtotheentertainmentvalueoffiction)isaconceptthatHowellsdiscussesat lengthin The Editor’s Study .Forexample,inApril,1887,hewrites:“[W]ecannotconceiveofa literaryselfrespectinthesedayscompatiblewiththeoldtradeofmakebelieve,withthe productionofthekindoffictionwhichistoomuchhonoredbyclassificationwithcardplaying

andhorseracing”(75).ThesocialresponsibilityofthewriterisanimportantconceptthatIwill

returntoagaininadiscussionofHowells’sSwedenborgianupbringing.Theideaoftheuse

valueofartisticcreationisonethatcanbedirectlytracedtoSwedenborg’sphilosophical

writings,revealingyetanotherpointofintersectionbetweenreligionandrealismforHowells.

Howellsreturnstothenotionofcomplicityrepeatedlyinhisfiction,andhespeculateson

theeffectthatafailuretoacknowledgemutualdependencemightportend.Forexample,the

nearlyidenticalspeechesoftheReverendSewellin The Minister’s Charge andtheattorney

EustaceAthertonin A Modern Instance expandonthesubjectofcomplicity,particularlyin

relationtoademocraticsociety.Sewellstatesthebasicpremiseofcomplicity:“Noman...

sinnedorsufferedtohimselfalone;hiserrorandhispaindarkenedandafflictedmenwhohad

neverheardofhisname”( The Minister’s Charge 309).Sewell’sspeechisarepetitionof

Howells’searlier1886 Editor’s Study claim,butinhisfiction,Howellsmovesfromdiscussing

classorsocialeffectsofinterconnectednesstoanexplicitlyreligiouslanguageinvolvingsinand,

implicitly,salvationdrawingonsermonicdiscourse.LikeSewell,Athertonstatestheviewthat

complicityisconnectednotonlytodemocraticvaluesbutinfacttoChristianvalues:“‘We’reall boundtogether.Noonesinsorsufferstohimselfinacivilizedstate,orreligiousstate—it’sthe

samething.Everylinkinthechainfeelstheeffectsoftheviolencemoreorlessintimately.We

riseandfalltogetherinChristiansociety’”(Howells, A Modern Instance 418).Inhisuseofthe

weborchainmetaphor,HowellsappearstobeusingthetermsdemocraticandChristian

interchangeably,revealinganundercurrentofexceptionalisminAmericancultureinwhichthe

113 Americanpoliticalideologyisdivinelysanctioned.ForHowellsthen,asuccessfuldemocracy equalsanapplicationofwhatheterms“Christianvalues,”andheappearstobeseekinga synthesisoftheseideologiessothatmorallawscanbeabstractedfromJudeoChristian principlesinamannerthatisfluidratherthanfixedinAmericanculturealthoughheneverstates

specificallyhowthismightoccur.Ultimately,Howellsbeginstoquestioniftheproblemswithin

democracythatheobservescanbeattributedtofailingsinChristianvaluesastheyarepracticed

inlatenineteenthcenturyAmerica.Inthisway,Howellsconstructsapositivistexaminationof

thereligioussubjectinordertoevaluatetheutilityofmodernreligiouspractices.

ManyscholarshavenoticedthecloseconnectionbetweenHowells’ssocialmodel,his

religiousrhetoric,andthewayinwhichhereliesonChristianitytoexemplifyasystemof

“civilized”behavior.Forexample,MichaelAneskonotesthepresenceofthetermcomplicityin

whathecallsHowells’snovelisticvocabulary,andhecorrelatestheimportanceofthistermwith

Howells’spresentationofasystemofsocialethicsinwhichtheactofwritingservestoelevate

thealtruisticvaluesthatHowellsassociateswithcivilization.Complicity,Aneskonotes,is“not

merelysociologicalbuttheologicalinitsovertones”( Letters, , Lives 196).Anesko

dedicatesanentirechaptertodocumentingthethematicprominenceoftheterm“complicity”in

Howells’sfiction,citingworkssuchas The Minister’s Charge (1887), April Hopes (1888), Annie

Kilburn (1889),and A Hazard of New Fortunes (1890).Unfortunately,Aneskodoesnot

elaborateonHowells’suseofcomplicityasatheologicalconcept—hemerelyacknowledgesit—

andthisisanassociationthatbearsfurtherconsideration.Howells’sconnectionbetween

sociologyandtheologyistrulyatthecenterofanydiscussionofreligionandrealisminhis

writingbecausethisintersectionchallengeshismaterialistmissionasarealistwriter.Itwould beanoversimplificationtoaccepttheideaofcomplicityasstandinginforthetermreligionin

Howells’stexts,butitcertainlybearsfurtherscrutinyinlightofthewayHowellsrepresentsthe

metaphysicalvalueofspiritualityinrelationtohiscollectiveidealofidentity.Hepromotes

114 complicityintermsofsinandsalvationsuggestingthatsocietyequalsanenactmentofthe

“kingdomofheavenonearth.”ForHowells,then,aprogressivesocietymustworktoward mimeticallymodelingitselfontheconceptofanafterlife.FortheagnosticHowells,thisnotion issomewhatparadoxical,butheclearlyiswillingtodrawonscripturalrhetoricinorderto

“convert”hisreaderstotheimportanceofhissocioethicalmodel.

Howellsiancomplicityrevealsakeyparadoxinhisrealistphilosophybecausehis insistentinsertionofthisconceptpointstothediscrepancybetweentheactofseeingandtheact ofimaginingtheanteriorworld.Infact,Howellsrepeatshisthemantraofcomplicitysooften thatitbeginstopresentaninterestingdilemmaforHowells’srealistaim,whichheclaimsisto reflectsociety,orspecifically,“toportraymenandwomenastheyactuallyare,actuatedbythe motivesandthepassionsinthemeasureweallknow”( Editor’s Study 81).AsHowells continuestorepresentnotwhatheobservesbutwhathewouldlikehisreadertobelieve,hefaces theinherentchallengeofanyrealistwriter;isthegoaltomirrortheanteriorworldandstimulate socialchangeoristhemissiontoconstructthesocialworldthatonewouldliketosee?Andis thelatterutopianconstructiontrulydistinctfromthe“makebelieve”thatHowellscriticizesin romanticism(75)?Thedilemmabetweenreflectiveandutopianrepresentationemerges continuallyinHowells’sliteraturetosuchanextentthatitisnoteasytodiscernwhetherhisaim iscriticalscrutinyoraprescriptiveremodelingofAmericandemocracy.Evenmore interestingly,Howellsfrequentlylocatesthisrealistconundrumintandemwiththereligious subject,suggestingthatreligiousvaluesexistattheveryleastinanimportantperipheralrole evenassocietychanges.Inotherwords,forHowells,thereligioussubjectallowsforsometype ofresolutionbetweentheactofseeingandtheactofimaginingbecausethemannerinwhich religionoperatesreliesonthesametypeofallegoricalrepresentationthatrealismrequiresofits reader.Forthisreason,thereligiousfiguresinHowells’stextsreflectAmericanculturalethics

115 evenasheindictsthemfornotadvancingsocialchangeinamannerbeneficialtoallclassesof society.

Howellsseeksakindofsociologicalconversionsimilartothespiritualconversionthat

religiousallegorycommands.Clearly,hebelievesthattherealisttextcansucceedwheremodern

religiousculturefallsshort.Inordertoestablishhowheattributesalimitedsocialvalueto

figuresofreligiousauthority,oneonlyhastorecalltheGreekchorusofsidelinedreligious

figuresthatareeverpresentinHowellsianfiction.TheseincludecharacterssuchasDavid

Sewellinboth The Minister’s Charge and The Rise of Silas Lapham (1885),wholectureson

complicityandneedlessromanticselfsacrificeyetfrustratinglyfindshimselfunabletoeffectthe

kindofsocialchangehewouldliketoseebecauseheisfrustratedateveryturnbyhislackof

understandingofhisruralacquaintances.Hecannotovercomehisownsubjectivity.Sewell’s positionasaministerallowshimtomoveamongthelowerclasses,yetheisunabletoshedhis preconceivednotionsofhowtheseindividualsthinkandactbecauseheviewsthemasstatic

fixtures.LemuelBarker,forexample,isdescribedasa“granitebowlder[sic]”fromWilloughby

Pastures( The Minister’s Charge 98).AnothersuchstymiedministerisJuliusW.Peckin Annie

Kilburn (1889),aflawedexampleofnewlight“Orthodoxy,”whichisHowells’stermforeither

CongregationalismorPresbyterianism. 62 InofferingadvicetotheUnitarianAnnieKilburn,Peck criticizesthetown’sbenevolentSocialUnionprojectforitssociallyexclusivepremisethat assumesthetown’supperclasscitizensknowwhatisbestforthetown’seconomicallydeprived

(683).Peckfindshimselfatanideologicalcrossroads,unabletoactasheidentifiesclass strugglesbecauseheremainsunabletoimagineaneffectivewaytocrosssocialbarriers.Peck’s flawishisinabilitytoforgearelationshipbetweenthepoliticalandthepersonal.Everysolution hepracticesseemstodomoreharmthangood,alienatinghimfromhiscongregation.Howells satirizesPeck’spoliticalconcernsbyemphasizinghisprivateneglectofthewellbeingofhis owndaughter,Idella,showinghimtobeideologicallyoutofsyncwiththeenactmentofhis

116 beliefs.GivenHowells’sownstruggleswithhisanorecticdaughterWinny,onecannothelpbut

wonderifsuchacriticismisn’tselfreproachful.

Howells’scritiqueofreligiousleadersisnotlimitedtothosebelongingsolelytotheso

calledOrthodoxsect.Otherfiguresincludepurposefullyvagueindividualswhoareharderto

classify,suchasClarenceEwbert,the“Rixonite”ministerin“ADifficultCase”(1900)who

strugglestoexplainimmortalitytoatheistRansomHilbrookandexhaustshisownspiritinthe process,andtheevenvaguerunnamedministerin A Traveller from Altruria ,whoreclinesonthe

frontporchoftheNewHampshireresortalongwiththeequallyvagueandunnamedbanker,

lawyer,professor,doctor,andmanufacturer. WhenchallengedbytheAltruriantravelerabout

theexclusivityofhischurch,theministeruneasilyadmitsthatalthoughhewishestherewere

morebrotherlinessbetweentherichandpoor,therearenoworkingclasspeopleinhis

congregation( A Traveller from Altruria 126).Hisisacongregationthatdependsonthe

financialsupportofitsmembers.ItisclearthatHowellslinkssocialethicstoreligiousvaluesin

hisconstructionoftheanteriorworldandtoeconomicsaswell,andhereturnstothispairingof

religionandrealismagainandagaininhiswriting.Whileeagertoengagereligiousfiguresin

hissociologicalconsiderations,Howellspresentsthesefiguresasstymiedbydifferencesbetween

ideologyandaction,unabletoserveasconduitsbetweendifferingsocialclasseswhentheyare

financiallydependentonthebenevolenceofthewealthierclasses,andthusthereligiousworld

takesonthevaluesoflatenineteenthcenturycapitalismwhilethechurchitselfperpetuatesclass

division.Howells’sviewofcomplicity,alwayssocloselyalignedwiththesereligiousleaders,

ishistermforametaphysicalconceptofdivinejusticethatheneverfullyreconcileswith

materialityinregardtoreligiousbelieforpractice.ForHowells,complicityexistsyetitis

largelyunseen.ToaddresscomplicityinhisfictionmeansthatHowellstriesbothtomirrorand

toconstructthisconcepttextuallybydirectinghisreader’sgazeatavaluehebelievesisalready presentbutsimplyunacknowledged.

117 InananalysisofAmericanrealism,PhillipBarrishsuggeststhatrealistwritinghadthe aimofdirectingattentionatmarginalizedgroupsinparticularalthoughhecontendsthatHowells proffered“realisttasteasawayfor some middleandupperclassreaderstoclaimcultural superiorityover other middleandupperclassreaders”(17).Barrishmakesacomplicated claim;ontheonehand,regardlessofwhetherornotwecantrulyacceptHowellsasemblematic ofanarguablyamorphous“middleclass,”BarrishviewsHowellsandotherrealistwritersas reinforcinghegemonybyusingtheirrealistclaimsasameanstoestablishculturalauthorityfor theirsocialviews.Atthesametime,thepremiseofthisclaimtoculturalauthorityrests specificallyondirectingattentiontothesharedfateoflowersocialclassessuchastheruraland workingclasses.Infact,Barrishspecificallyemploystherealistlingoofdirectingthegazewhen hewrites:“Asagenre,realistwritingstrovetomovetheoverlookedintomainstreamview”(10).

IfoneacceptsPhillipBarrish’sassertionthatrealismisaclaimtointellectualorculturalprestige

(10),Howells’ssatireofreligiousleadersmightbearguedasaglimpseofacriticwhocaptures

himselflookingathissurroundingsocialworldandseestheironyofhisownclaimtoprestige.

Heisasstymiedashisfictionalministers.Howellsaddressesthecomplicatedrelationship betweenobservationandmemoryconstructionin Years of My Youth whenhewrites,“[Aman’s]

environmenthasbecomehislife,andhishopeofarecognizableselfportraitmustlieinhisfrank

acceptanceoftheconditionthathecanmakehimselftrulyseenchieflyinwhatheremembersto

haveseenofhisenvironment”(57).ForHowells,whetherwritingbiographically,historically,

orfictionally,hefrequentlyacknowledgesthatintheactofseeing,adisparityexistsbetween

whatonewishestoseeandwhatcanbeseenbyothers.Barrish’sassertionthatrealism’saim

strivestobringtheoverlookedintoviewmightbeadjustedslightlyforHowellswhosefocusis

ontheactoflookingitself.Howellsianrealismchallengestheveryprocessoffictionalization

andthewayinwhichtherealiststrivestoreconciledisparitiesbetweenideology,observation,

118 memory,andconstruction.Howellsforceshisreadertoexaminehisorherownsubjectivity; thischallengeemergesinthewayhesatirizeshisownselfconsciousgaze.

Howellswasawareoftheironyofthelimitedabilityofsocalledreformerstosee themselvesandthosearoundthemwithanyobjectivedetachment.Inhistexts,Howellstoys withtheprospectofgazing,particularlyinrelationtocriticalobjectivity,notonlywithhis religiousfiguresbutalsowithreformfiguresingeneral.Inhisshortstory,“TheCritical

Bookstore”(1913),Howellsarticulatestheimpossibilityofanycritictodeterminepublictaste, emphasizingagapbetweenthepersonalandthepolitical.Hewritesaboutcompetingclaimsof themarket,readerexpectations,authorselfcriticism,andpublishingworldlogistics.Whathe acknowledgesisthatthelargestappealofanybookisthepublic’swillingnesstorecognizeitself caughtintheactofgazingatsocietyorcaughtintheactofreadingwhich,toHowells,should ideologicallybeoneandthesame.WhenbookstoreownerandselfappointedcriticFrederick

Erlcortdesignshisidealbookstoreinwhichhewillpreviewthestockforaguaranteedquality, hetoyswithMargaretGreen’ssuggestiontohangseveralmirrorsofanyshape.Margaret explainsthebenefit:“‘Peopleliketoseethemselvesinaglassofanyshape.Andwhen,’

Margaretadded,inaburstofcandor,‘awomanlooksupandseesherselfwithabookinher hand,shewillfeelsointellectualshewillneverputitdown.Shewillbuyit,’”( Selected Short

Stories 206).Margaret’ssuggestionrecognizesthatitistheactofselfconsciousgazingandthe resultantrecognitionthatmarketsabook’sappeal,farmorethanthecritic’sinclusionofatext onapreselectedlistofGreatBooks.

Howellsdoesnotleveltheaccusationofhegemonytowardmodernreformmovements

thatHaroldFredericlaterwillinhisfiction,buthedoessatirizethepublic’svanity.He

understandsthatamarketexistsifawritercancapitalizeontheimagethatapublicwishestosee

ofitself,andthisassociationperhapshelpstoexplainhisalignmentofcomplicitywithsermonic

discourseofsinandsalvation.Theunderlyingironyof“TheCriticalBookstore”plotaimsat

119 gaugingwhatthepublicdemandsversuswhatservesitsgreaterinterests.Erlcortthecritic ultimatelybecomesoverburdenedwithtryingtodecideiftherelativegoodqualitiesofabook outweighitsbadaspects.Hedesiresanabsolutemodel,andheisunabletoderiveaformulafor acostbenefitanalysisthatisnotentirelynegatedbysubjectivity.Hequestions,“WhoamIthat

Ishouldsetupforacriticalbookstorekeeper?WhatistheRepublicofLetters,anyway?A vast,benevolent,generousdemocracy,whereonemayhavewhatonelikes,oracoldoligarchy whereoneiscompelledtotakewhatisgoodforhim?Isitarestrictedcitizenship,witha minorityrepresentation,orisituniversalsuffrage?”(217).Erlcort’scomparisonoftheliterary markettoAmericandemocracyexpandsintoanallegoryoftheentireSpencerianmodelof naturalselectionwithinSocialDarwinismwhenhefinallyconcludes:“Lettherebenoartificial selection,nosurvivalofthefittestbymainforce”(218).Foracriticwhoseentireauthority purportedlyderivesfromhissocalledimpositionofmiddleclassvaluesonthereadingpublic,

Howellsrevealshisdeepdiscomfortwiththeroleofanycritictoimposeartificialstandardson thetastesandchoicesofothers.Hedoes,however,wishthepublictoacknowledgethecultural impactofliteratureandtoaccepttheinterplaybetweenthewayreadersseethemselvesseeing thetextandthewaytheyseethemselvesseeingtheworldoutsideofthetext.Howellsian realismspecificallytargetssubjectivityandhypocrisyandthefinelinethatseparatesthetwo.

ItisinhisdialecticalcomparisonsthatHowellsexaminesdisparitiesbetweengroup identityandsocialbenevolence,suggestingwithoutshowingvariouspossibilitiesforsynthesis, particularlywhendealingwiththesubjectofreligion.Howellsstrivesforanarrativepresence thatisneitherinonecampnortheotherbutseekstooccupyatextualandculturalpositionofin betweennessacrossclass.Itisanimpossibleclaim,ofcourse,becauseasBarrishargues,each criticalortheoreticalschooloperateswiththesameclaimtoprestigethatisbasedoninsider accesstoamarginalizedgroup,sothatMarxisttheoristsmightclaimthatHowellscouldnot occupyoneclasswhileidentifyingwiththeinterestsofanother,inspiteofthefactthatHowells

120 changedhisclassfromthatofabluecollarcompositorwhoworkswithhishandstoawhite collarjournalistwhomightmoveamongthesocialeliteinacommunity( Years of My Youth

149).Simultaneously,feministtheorycouldarguethatHowells,asuccessfulwhitemaleauthor, couldnotmakeaculturalclaimtothesharedexperienceofanineteenthcenturyuneducated dependentfemalewriter,eventhoughhisownsisteroccupiedthatveryposition.Theconflict thatexistsbetweensubjectivityandcollectivityinregardtoclassidentityremainatoddsinany schooloftheory.Asascholar,onecanonlyconcludewithhistoricistssuchasMichaelDavitt

BellthatitislessimportanttoexaminewhatrealistslikeHowellscouldnotdothanitisto examinewhattheythoughttheyweredoing( American Realism 4),andperhapsthebest evidenceHowellsoffersaretheepisodesofdisparitywhereoneviewcannotquitematchupwith another.Whatisatstakeinrelationtorealismisthelargerquestionofidentity,andtheproblem withhowtherealistwriterconceivesofitandrepresentsitallegoricallyormimetically.The conflict,atleastforHowells,isinhisvacillationbetweenthevalueheplacesonsubjectivityand thevalueheplacesoncollectivity,onceagainsettingupadialecticthatrequiressomesortof synthesis.

WhenHowellswritesaboutreligioussystemsinhisculture,hesetsuppairingsthatallow himtopresentpointsofresistancebetweenoldandnewvaluesasheperceivesthemduringthe

GildedAge.HetriestocapturemomentsoftransitionbetweenCalvinistnotionsofHebraicLaw andLiberalProtestantpreferencesforanintuitivemodelofmorality.Theseissuesofresistance emergewhenindividualconscienceopposesthedemandsofthecollectivereligiouswhole.The workthatbesthighlightsthereligioussubjectinallitscreedinalconfusionis A Modern Instance

(1882),Howells’snovelaboutdivorceanditsmoralramifications.Inthiswork,Howellssetsup theplotbyshowingthesocialinheritanceandslowdeclineofCalvinistvaluesinasmallrural

Americantown.ThisworkbeginsinthefictionaltownofEquity,Maine,whichismodeledafter

Fryeburg,Maine(Goodman138),asmallinlandvillageaboutfiftymilesnorthwestofPortland.

121 Equityisinastateofflux,withseveralcompetingchurchesvyingformembership,particularly amongtheyoungertownspeople.ThecontrastisrealizedthrougholdSquireGaylord,anatheist, andtheyoungnewcomer,BartleyHubbard.Gaylord,alawyer,servesasasymboloflawand vengeancewithvaluesleftoverfromPuritandays.Heoverseesanemptyritualofjusticewith nounderlyingreligiousfoundationforhissystemofethicsotherthanthatwhichhasbeen handeddownthroughtowntraditionofJudaicLaw.Thedistinctionhereisthatheexemplifiesa practiceratherthanabelief.Wearetoldthat“ForliberalChristianityhehadnothingbut contempt...andhemaintainedthesuperiorityoftheoldPuritanicdisciplineagainst[church sociables]withafervorwhichnothingbutitsreestablishmentcouldhaveabated”( A Modern

Instance 323).Gaylord’sreligiousbeliefshavelosttheirunderlyingauthorityalthoughheis

wellversedinscripture,frequentlyquotingittoexposewhatheconsiderstobethehypocrisyof

“latitudinarianinterpretations”ofreligiousbeliefs(32).Gaylord’sambivalencetowardthe

institutionsofreligionpositionshimasanatheisticfigurewithastrongsenseofabsoluteright

andwrong,someonewhoenactshisprincipleswithunrelentingdecisiveness.Heiscaughtina

stateofinbetweenness,belongingneithertothepastnortothepresentreligiousorderinEquity, buthecarrieswithhimapuritanicalinheritanceofthesocialvaluesthatareslowlyceasingto

operateinthetown.Howells’sdoublesidedcriticismshowshisownambivalencetowardthis

fadingorder.WhileHowellsexposesthelackofsubstanceunderlyinginheritedPuritanderived beliefsandpractices,heneverthelessisequallycriticalofthevaluesandpracticesheobserves

replacingsuchantiquatedbeliefs.

IncontrasttoGaylord’sHebraismisamorecontemporaryLiberalProtestantethicthat

arisesinthemultitudeofchurchesthatattempttoappealtothenewgenerationinEquity.The

narratorcynicallyopinesthat“Religiontherehadlargelyceasedtobeafactofspiritual

experienceandthevisiblechurchhadflourishedonconditionofprovidingforthesocialneedsof

thecommunity.Itwaspracticallyheldthatthesalvationofone’ssoulmustnotbemadetoo

122 depressing,ortheyoungpeoplewouldhavenothingtodowithit”(24).BartleyHubbardflitsin andoutofthisarrayofNewLightalternatives.IncontrasttoGaylordwhovisitsnochurch,

BartleyHubbardvisitsthemallonarotatingschedulebutbelongstonone.Forhim,religionisa matterofsocialadvantage,andBartleyenjoysfiscalfreedombydistributinghisvisitsliberally betweenthevariouscongregationsforthesolepurposeofbeingseeninallwithoutoffering financialsupporttoany.Thisstrategyultimatelybackfireswhenhedecidestoleavetown; whereasBartleyfeelscomfortablyremovedfromreligiousobligationorcommitment,eachsect believesitselfentitledtoapieceofBartleyHubbard’srapidlydiminishingpurse,andeach presentshimwithafeeuponhisimpendingdeparture.Itisclear,however,thatBartleyviews thepotentialsufferingforhisfailuretojoinanyonespecificchurchtobematerialratherthan spiritual:“eachofthechurcheshadsentinalittleaccountforpewrentforthepasteighteen months:hehadalwaysbelievedhimselfdeadheadedatchurch”(122).Thefinancialaccounting ofthechurchshowsthatmodernreligioninEquityisbothasocialritualandasimultaneous

“measure”ofone’sfinancialandmoralworth.Administeringtothefinancialinterestsofthe churchbecomesasymbolofparticipation,andsothedollarbecomesasymboloffaith.Bartley

Hubbardfleestownwithoutpayinganyrestitutionwhatsoever,andthelackoffinancial commitmentallowshimtocontinuealonghiswaywithoutanyfurthersenseofobligationtohis spiritualpractices.OncehereachesBoston,thequestionofinstitutionalreligionbecomesmoot forBartleyHubbard.Hehaslearnedthecostofreligion.

HowellscriticizesEquity’ssystemofreligionforitsoverlymaterialisticadministration.

Inexaminingboththepastandthepresent,Howells,infact,identifiesthatthekeyproblemin

Equityisitslackofspirituality;religionexistsbutisnotmetaphysicalenough.Equityhas reduceditsreligioushabitstovengeance,socialgatherings,andpewfees,alternatively,mere vestigesofaoncesubstantialfaith.Thisseemsanoddproblemforamaterialistwriteras

Howellsstyledhimself.Thekeyquestionishowherepresentsherenotonlyaconceptof

123 metaphysicalbeliefbutalsoadecliningmetaphysicality,anoxymoronrequiringtextual representation.Hetriestoexaminetheaftereffectsoftheabsenceofanonmaterialpresence, whichsurelymustbeaconundrumforarealistwriter.Howellscanonlyconstructatextual representationbyshowingtheeffectthatsuchaninsubstantialpracticerendersonsocialethics andmoralbehavior.HeexaminesthevengeanceofGaylordandthelackofasufficiently developedconscienceinHubbard,andherepresentstheeffectallegoricallyinthedownfallof

MarciaGaylord,whohastilyabandonshermoralcodebyelopingtoBostonwithBartley

Hubbard.Sheisatonceaproductofbothherhollowheritageandherculturalsurroundingsas sheinteractswiththesevacuousfiguresandislefttofacetheconsequenceswhenHubbard ultimatelydesertsher,andherfatherurgeshertoavengethedesertion.

Thesetwomen,GaylordandHubbard,exemplifythesocialandreligiousproblemsin A

Modern Instance ,butthetensionbetweenthemisbynomeansthesolefocusofHowells’s religiousconsiderationinthenovel.WhenthenarrativeshiftstoBoston,institutionalreligion againintervenesinthestoryeventhoughBartleyhascompletedhisspiritualcontemplationonce heleavestownbothindebtanddebtfreedependinguponone’sperspective.InBoston,Howells againsetsupacontrastbetween“inherited”religiousvalues,thepresumablyPuritanderived religionoftheolderHallecks,possiblyCongregationalist,andamorecontemporaryalternative beingpracticedbyyoungpeople,inthiscase,the“outspokenUnitarianism”ofOliveandBen

Halleck(218).Howellsfrequentlysetsuphiscomparisonsacrosstwogenerations,typically linkingtheoldergenerationtoPuritanvaluesandtheyoungeronetosignificantbutequally problematicalternativesto“orthodoxy.”Otherexamplesofoldergeneration“inherited

Orthodox”practitionersincludePersisLaphamin The Rise of Silas Lapham (1885)andIsabel

Marchin A Hazard of New Fortunes (1890).

LikeRebeccaHardingDavis,Howellslocatesculturalstereotypeswithinthereligious landscapeinordertoexamineattitudestowardshiftingculturalconcernsastheworld

124 modernizes.Hecanthendepicthischaractersactingeitherinaccordancewithoragainstthese denominationalbiases.Hispurposeindepictingsuchstereotypesiseasilyunderstoodinthe contextofhiscrossgenerationalantagonismandsynthesis.Hejuxtaposestwogenerationsin ordertoillustratethetensionsbetweenthetwovaluesystems;presumablytheensuing generationwillofferaresolution,preservingwhatworkswellintheantiquatedsystemand mergingitwithsomenewinsightthenewersystemmightofferindealingwithcontemporary challenges.Typically,therearetwopointsofresistanceinhismodel;first,theindividualmust challengehiscreedinthetraditionofsentimentalfiction,asBenHalleckdoes,andsecond,all opposingcreedsmustenterintoadialoguewitheachother,collidingandultimatelyreconciling inrelationtothemodernethicaldilemma.Inotherwords,likemanylatenineteenthcentury writers,Howellswritesanewtheologybydrawingonorrejectingvariousaspectsofthe institutionalchurchthatsurroundshim.Asisoftenthecasewithotherrealistwriters,his critiquesrarelypointtowardspecificsolutions.Thisis,perhaps,oneofthemostconfusing aspectsofreadingrealism;thewriterseldomoffersarevolutionarycredobutinsteadmerely seeksacauseandeffectargumentforexaminingsocialchange.Wemighttrytodistinguish betweenadescriptivecritiqueandaprescriptiveoneandHowellsdemonstrateshowbothaspects areatworkwithinrealism.Heexaminesthepastforitimpactonthepresent,andwecanread hiscrossgenerationalmodelasanallegoryforaHegelianmodelofsynthesis.

Howellstypicallyshiftshistextualattentiontothesubsequentgenerationproddingthe readertowardsometypeofideologicalresolution.Thisisapositivistmoveinwhichtheeffect ofthereligiousactionisfarmoreimportantthantheideologyofthecreed.In A Modern

Instance ,hedirectsthereader’sattentiontotheyoungestgenerationwhenhehighlightsFlavia’s baptismasemblematicofherinheritanceofMarciaandBartleyHubbard’sconfusedreligio

ethicalvalues.Inthisscene,hecontrastsMarciaGaylord’ssuperficialitywitholdMrs.

Halleck’straditionalism;thebaptismofFlaviarepresentsasynthesisofvaluesoratleastthe

125 suggestionfortheneedofsucharesolution.Hemerelyaskshisreadertocontemplatehowthe nextmovemightbestbemadeandtoconsidertheconsequencesofwhatmighthappenifchange doesnotoccur:marriagesandresultingchildrenarethetextualequivalentoflongtermsocial consequences.

Clearly,in A Modern Instance ,Howellsconsidersthechurch’sroleasavoiceofmoral

authority,yethisspecificshapingoftheroleofchurchandreligionremainsunclearduetothe

incompletecontrastheoffers.InascenewhereMarciaGaylordconsidersbaptizingFlavia,the

readermightbeabletoreadtheintendedsatire;Marcia’sinabilitytodifferentiateamong

churchesandchurchcreeds,yettorelyontheseinstitutionsformoralguidance,demonstratesa

largerconfusionaboutwhatconstitutesmoralbehavioringeneral.Thealienationbetween

individualandreligiousmoralauthorityisrealizedthroughMarcia’semphasisonbaptism—here

aritualwithoutsubstance—butthefinalresolutionofthisvignetteisneverfullyrealized.She

attends“church”andobserves,“‘Ithinkit’sbesttobelongtosomechurch,’”( Modern Instance

247).WhenBenHallecksuggests,“‘Isupposeyouwouldwanttobelieveinthecreedofthe

church,’”shereplies,“‘Idon’tknowthatIshouldbeparticular’”(248).Marciabelievesthatany

churchwillservethesamepurpose,andperhapsHowellsdoesaswell.Heseemstoendorsethis positionevenashesatirizesit,inmyview.Marcia’sassumptionemphasizesherbeliefthatitis

theactofpracticingreligionthatdevelopsconscienceandethics.Thisconsiderationisareversal

ofSquireGaylord’sactofpracticinglawwithoutreligion;Marciawantstopracticereligion

withoutlaw.HaroldFredericwilllaterestablishthissameconflictbetweenHebraismand

Hellenismin The Damnation of Theron Ware (1896),andHowellswillreturntoitaswellin A

Traveller From Altruria (1894),aswewillseebelow.

Marcia’svaguespiritualintentionresolvesitselfinhersubsequentdecisiontojointhe

CalvinistchurchinwhichBenHalleckwasraised.UnliketheGaylords,theHalleckspracticed

theirreligionwithbeliefandsincerity:“Theywereoffaithfulstock,andtheyhadbeentrueto

126 theirtraditionsineveryway.Oneofthesewasconstancytotheorthodoxreligiousbeliefin whichtheiryoungheartshadunited”( Modern Instance 204).Inthispassage,Howellssuggests thateventheHalleckshaveoutgrowntheirfaithoratleastthatthemodernworldhas,buttheir faithfuladherencetoitspracticehasrewardedthemwithapeaceofminddirectlylinkedtotheir beliefs.WhatHowellspresentsastheHallecks’habitualreligiouspracticeresultsintheir rearingoffspringwhoexemplifyahighdegreeofindividualconscience,andMarciabelievesshe canmimicthemandachievethesameeffectwithherdaughter.Mrs.Halleck,Ben’smother, instructsMarciathatinordertojoinherchurch,MarciamustfirstbelieveintheBibleand further,shemusthaveaSavior(251).MarciadecidestojointhisvaguelyChristianchurch, presumablyCongregationalist,towhichsheattributesBenHalleck’sfinesenseofvalues.She decidestochristenFlaviabecause“‘Onemusn’tbelefttoofree’”(253).Marcia’sdecisionto chooseaspecificchurchselectedsimplybecauseofitsmoralinfluenceratherthanitscreedis problematicforthereaderbecause,apartfromthevagueChristianreference,Howellsdoesnot providethespecificsofdenomination.Heleavesthereaderwithanambiguouscritiqueofthe establishedchurchanditsrelevanceinthelatterhalfofthenineteenthcentury.Nonetheless,he isclearlyambivalentaboutabandoningthisfadinginstitution.

Howellsdisplaysasimilarlysatiricalviewofchurchspectatorshipinhisotherworksas well.Suchexamplesrevealhiscynicismwithhowchurchbuildingscanoccupyaphysicalspace yetsimultaneouslyserveassymbolsofakindofemptyspacemuchasmuseumartifactsserveas symbolsthatpointtoancientcivilizations.Hedepictschurchesthatdrawpeoplein voyeuristicallywithoutdrawingtheminspiritually.Forexample,whenBasilandIsabelMarch wanderintotheGothic“GraceChurch”whilehousehuntinginNewYorkCity,theyfind themselves“RaptfarfromNewYork,ifnotfromearth,intherichdimnessofthepaintedlight”

(A Hazard of New Fortunes 47).Howells’soxymoronicpairingofrichdimnessandpainted

lightinthischurchwithitsunnamedcreedundercutsthe“solemnecstasy”oftheMarches’

127 sojourn.Basilbringsthemdowntoearthbycomparingtheirchurchtourismtoavisittothe

ViennaCaféforbreakfastasboth“gratifyonlyanaestheticsense”(47).Suchdiminished religiousexperiencesreplacethenotionofspiritualecstasywithaesthetics,suggestingthatthe formerhasahigherculturalvaluethanthelatter,muchinthesamewayHowellssuggeststhat morallyupliftingethicalliteratureissuperiortomereentertainingfiction.Thevaguesatireof religiousexperienceisaproblemonefindsinAmericanrealistwriting;writerslikeRebecca

HardingDavisandWilliamDeanHowellsclearlyaimtocritiquethepresentorderofreligious institutions,andbothsuggestthatthe“church”couldbedoingmoretoeasehumansuffering,but neitherwillexplicatehowsuchauthoritymightfunctionorwhoshouldmediateitorevenhowto drawthesufferinglowerclassesintochurch,whetherornottheyshouldwanttogo.

ThepassagedepictingMarcia’schurchselectionhighlightsHowells’sambivalenceabout theroleoftheinstitutionalchurch.Hebothembracesanddeniestheimportanceofdoctrinal distinctionsinhisrefusaltospecifytherelationshipbetweencreedandpracticeinthe developmentofsocialethics.Whatisthechurchthat“succeeds”inHowells’sopinion?Isit,in fact,Congregationalist?CoulditbePresbyterian?IsitBaptist?MightitevenbeEpiscopal?

WhatisthechurchthatBenHalleckreturnstointheend,seekingrefugeinhis“inherited belief?”( Modern Instance 450),whenheexemplifiesthesameblindacceptancethatHowells

suggests“seemstosavetime”( Editor’s Study 16).Howellsappearsatfirsttobecritiquing

Unitarianism,theadoptedreligionofOliveandBenHalleck,whichHallecklaterrejectsinfavor

oftheambiguousChristianoption.ThiscritiqueisconfusinginpartbecauseUnitarianisminnot

necessarilynonChristian,particularlyinthenineteenthcentury;somecriticsequate

UnitarianismwithDeism,butUnitarianismencompassesChristianityaswellasother

monotheisticreligions.Further,somewouldarguethatliberalUnitarianismisacreedlesssect,

whichwouldpresumablyhaveappealedtoHowellsifheintendstodownplaytheimportanceof

doctrine.IsHowellspromotingaparticularChristianchurchasanecessarycomponentofmoral

128 authority,orishecritiquingnineteenthcenturyAmerica’srelianceonwhatheviewsasan increasinglyvagueandlargelysymbolicinstitution?Intheend,heseemstoreturntotheroleof individualbelief;itisnotcreedordoctrinethatHowellsemphasizesbutthewayinwhichthe individualinteractswiththeinstitutionsofreligiouspracticethatallowonetodevelopa conscience.Simplyput,hesuggeststhatethicsderivefromhabit,andhabitderivesfromJudeo

Christianlaw.Howellsmakesitclear,however,thatheequatesasocalledChristianconscience withethicalbehaviorwhenheclaimsaChristiansocietyandademocracyareoneandthesame.

HedoesnotseemtolookbeyondthepracticeofChristianityeventhoughhewillnotlookwithin iteither.Howellsneverfullyexplainshisunderstandingofthereciprocalrelationshipbetween institutionalreligionanditseffectonconscienceandmorals;nevertheless,heconstructsthis conflictinseveralofhistexts,leavingitalwaysunresolved.

Howell’s A Modern Instance beginstohoneinontheindividualastherightfullegislator

ofmoralauthority,aconceptbetterknownasindividualdeterminism.Howellsdoesnotclearly

advocateforonedoctrineoveranother,butratherhiswritingreflectsthepreoccupationwith

authorityprevalentatthistime.Mostparticularly,asT.J.JacksonLearsremarks,“Thecenterof

moralitywastheautonomousindividual,whoseonlymoralmasterwashimself”(12).Theidea

ofexercisingauthoritysolelythroughconscienceandrationalthoughtisarticulatedin A Modern

Instance asBenHalleckstrugglestoresolvehisamorousfeelingsforMarciaHubbard:“Hehad

mistakenpeaceforthatexhaustionofspiritwhichcomestoamaninbattlinghisown

conscience;hehadfanciedhisstruggleover,andhewastolearnnowthatitsanguishhadjust begun”(Howells399).BenHalleckisneverabletoresolvehisconscience,evenafterMarcia’s

divorcedhusbandBartleyisfounddead,becauseBen’sattractiontoMarciaistaintedwitha

senseofshamebecausehisfeelingsoriginatedwhenMarciawashappilymarried.Ben’slawyer

friendAthertonsumsupthedilemma:“‘[I]tisn’taquestionofmererightandwrong,ofgross blackandwhite—therearedegrees,thereareshades;theremightberedemptionforanothersort

129 ofmaninsuchamarriage;butforHallecktherecouldonlybeloss—deterioration’”(453).

Atherton’sobservationhighlightsthefactthatitisHalleck’sindividualconsciencethatstymies himratherthananindependentorchurchbaseddoctrineofmoralauthority.Halleckisunableto separatehisprivateactionsfromtheirsocialramifications;heistheembodimentofcomplicity.

Howells’suseoftheterm“deterioration”signalshisconcernthatsocietyitselfwilldecayor devolvewithoutacollectivenotionofmorality.Atthesametime,noabsolutevalueexistsnor doesasetofcriteriahelpdeterminerightnessorwrongness;Halleckvacillatesirresolutely betweendesireanddutyandevenhisethicalperceptionofjusticecannotresolvethistension.

Halleck’sselfstruggleillustratestheshiftingconceptofselfhoodandidentityso dominantinrealismandinnineteenthcenturycultureatlarge.EricSundquistmakesthe observationthat:“Theselfbecomesan image ofthereal,andtherealbecomesanadvertisement ofandfortheself”(11).Knowledgeandtruthbecomeinexorablylinkedtoanindividual’s perceptionoftheworld.Therisingsenseofintellectualcontemplationbegantoreplacean externallyfocusedsenseofmoralauthorityhandeddownthroughPuritanism.Learsattributes thisshifttothereligioussplinteringevidentduringthisperiod:“Protestantandliberalideology corrodedhabitsofdeferencetoexternalauthority,replacedthemwithaninternalizedmoralityof selfcontrol,andenshrinedtheautonomousindividualwhoseonlymasterwashimself”(220).

WhileLearsattributestherisingconceptionofselfautonomytoreligioussplintering,hemayin factbeconfusingcausationwithcorrelation.Itisclearthatthetraditionalroleofmoralauthority associatedwithreligionandcommunityischangingintoamodelofindividualdeterminism,but theonetooneassociationofcauseandeffectcannotbecomfortablyassumed.Therewereother culturalinfluencesstillinplay,suchastheremnantsofSwedenborgianism,whichemphasized thatsalvationisachoiceandeveryindividualcontrolshisowndestiny,theexactoppositeofthe

Puritandoctrineofpredestination.In Years of My Youth (1916),Howellswrites:“[I]nthe philosophyofSwedenborg...eventhosewhoendedinhellchoseittheirportionbecausethey

130 werehappiestinit”(19).Asimilarfocusonindividualauthoritycanbeseeninthebeginnings ofSocialDarwinism,whichadoptstheSpenceriannotionofsurvivalofthefittestandappliesit tosociety,suggestingthatselfinterestratherthanaltruismequalssocialadvancebecausesociety willcleanseitselfoftheunfit.Howells’sdifficultywithsocialethicsisthathemustreconcile theimportanceheallocatestoindividualconsciencewiththecollectiveidentitysuggestedinhis notionofcomplicity.Ideally,forHowells,theselfmetonymicallyrepresentssocietyatlarge.

TherearesomekeyconceptsintheteachingsofthephilosopherEmanuelSwedenborg

(borninStockholmin1688)thatbearexamininginrelationtoWilliamDeanHowells’s upbringing.WhileLearsmakesaconvincingargumentthatimportantsocialandethicaltrends emergedfromProtestantreformmovements,similarandinfluentialphilosophicalteachingsarise alsointheChurchoftheNewJerusalem,whichwasfoundeduponthewritingsofEmanuel

Swedenborg.Although,asanadult,Howellsmovedawayfromhisfather’sSwedenborgian practices,hedoesrecallhisearlycommitmenttothissectanditsinfluenceonhisreligious

views.Hewrites:“Ihadbeenreceivedwiththreeorfourbrothersandsistersintothe

SwedenborgiancommunionbyapassingNewChurchminister”( Years of My Youth 22).Ralph

WaldoEmersondiscussestheseprinciplesinhis1855writing,“Swedenborg;or,TheMystic”

(Representative Men 89141).Asindicatedabove,Swedenborg’sChristianteachings

emphasizedtheroleofindividualautonomyinchoosingthepathtosalvation.Inresponseto

Lears,onecouldarguethatSwedenborg’semphasisonindividualdeterminismandsocialduty

waslatergeneralizedtoamodelforsocialethicsandaltruism,bothinEmerson’swritingand

arguablyinthewritingofHenryJames,WilliamDeanHowells,andSarahOrneJewett;allthree

wererealistsinfluencedbytheteachingsofSwedenborg.

Severalscholars,beginningwithEdwinCady,haveexaminedHowells’swritingfor

evidenceofSwedenborg’steachings,believingthatHowells’srenunciationofhisreligious

upbringingwasfarfromdecisive.HowellsbiographerRodneyOlsenexplainstheimpactofthis

131 theologyonHowells’sethicalviews:“Withitsantisacramentalandethicalemphasis,

Swedenborgianismmirroredtheseculartendencytosubstituteselfcontrolforreligiousauthority andtounderstandthemoralpurposeassocialutility.ThecentralSwedenborgianterm, usefulness ,increasinglyreplaced righteousness inthevocabularyoftheaspiringmiddleclass”

(Dancing in Chains 19).InHowells’sconceptofcomplicity,onecaneasilyidentifyasimilar philosophythatSwedenborgadvocatesinhisdoctrineofuses,inwhichheemphasizesthe

obligationoftheindividualtoexercisebeneficialinfluenceonlargerculture. 63 Infact,inan essayonSwedenborgwrittenbyHowells’sfather,W.C.Howellswrites:“‘Ourinevitableduties insomewayrelatetoothers;andevenwhatwedoforourselves,ifrightlydone[,]isforothers’”

(Olsen18).TheteachingsofSwedenborg,particularlytheemphasisHowells’sownfather placesonindividualbenevolence,arefrequentlyreflectedinHowells’sfictionwhenhe emphasizeshismodelofsocialinterconnectedness,whichherenamesascomplicity.Earlyinhis writing,hecastscertainfiguresintohisfictiontolectureontheideaofcomplicity,suchas

EustaceAthertonin A Modern Instance andReverendSewellin The Minister’s Charge ,buthe eventuallyformulatesagrandermodelforsocialethicsinwhichhemarriestheideaof complicityandChristianity,andhepresentsthismodelofaltruisminhisChristlikeAltrurian traveler,AristidesHomos.

OlsenisnottheonlyHowellsscholarwhofindsacrediblelinkbetweenHowells’s

Swedenborgianbackgroundandhisfiction.PaulPetrie,inevaluatingOlsen’swork,arguesthat thereisalinkbetweenSwedenborgianismandHowells’sentirerealistphilosophy.Petrie’s focusisontryingtounderstandHowells’ssocialviewsastheimpetusforhisliteraryphilosophy.

Petrieselects The Editor’s Study ashissourcetextbecausehefindsittobeafarmore comprehensiveguidetoHowells’scriticalviewsthatthemorefrequentlycited Criticism and

Fiction (1891),whichHowellscompiledbyexcerptingpassagesfromhis Editor’s Study columns.Tothisend,Petrieexamines The Editor’s Study withitsencompassingliterary

132 contextsastheprimarymanifestoofHowells’sliterarytheory.ForPetrie,theroleofreligion andspecificallySwedenborgianteachingsarepivotalinfluencesinthedevelopmentofHowells’s largersocialevaluation.Petriewrites:“Howellswasdriventoconceptualizetheliterary vocation,andhenceliteratureitself,notonlyasarespectableandpotentiallylucrativechoiceof professionbutalsoasapubliclyusefulcommunalenterprise”(17).WhilemanyHowells scholarsfocusonHowells’spurportedmissiontoinfluencethepublictaste(Crowley26), scholarslikeOlsenandPetriearebeginningtostudytheunderlyingmoralandethicalphilosophy ofHowells’sliteraryapproach.Hewasnot,forexample,tryingtoinstillbettertastetocorrect

Americancrassness,butratherhewastryingtoadvancealiteraryphilosophythatemphasized theimportanceofthewriter’sresponsibilitytowardadvancingsocialconsciousness,andclearly hebelievedinthetransformativecapacityofthetext.WhenHowellswrites:“Wearesaying whatourexperienceofliteratureandoflifehaspersuadedusisthetruth”( Editor’s Study 34),he iscriticizingwhathefelttobeirresponsiblewritingthatrepresentedAmericancultureasbeing ideal.Herelegatessuchwritingtotherealmofromanticism.Hewasfearfulofthepossibility thatsuchliteraturewouldremainasalegacyofAmericanculture,aculturethathebelievedit falselydepictedbecausewritersglossedoversomeoftheharsheraspectsofnationalhistory.He writes:“Itisonlynowandthen,whensomedarkshadowofourshamefulpastappears,thatwe canbelievetherewaseveratragicelementinourprosperity”(41).WhatHowellswantedwasa literaturethatshowedtheeffectoftheflawedideologyofdemocracyasitcametobepracticed inthenineteenthcenturyIndustrialAgeandareconsiderationoftheidealsofdemocracy.Inhis utopianfiction,Howellsfluctuatesbetweenattackingcurrentdemocraticpracticewithitsclass disparityandadvocatingthealternativeofsocialism,whichheultimatelydepictsasanerasureof individualidentity,asanexaminationof A Traveller from Altruria willdemonstrate.

Intheusevalueofthetext,wemightcompareHowells’ssociallyconsciousrealism,a termhefoundtobe“neversatisfactoryinregardtoanyschoolofwriters”( Editor’s Study 39),

133 andliteraryMarxism.WhileMarxistcriticsexamineliteratureforitscapacitytoinfluence socialrevolutionbystimulatingchangeinthelowerclasses,OlsenandPetrieadvanceasimilar argumentthatHowellsvaluedsocialpurposeinliteratureaswell,butheenvisionedchange tricklingdownfromthemiddleandupperclassestoraisethelevelofcollectivesocial consciousness.ThisisnotquiteBarrish’smodelofsynthesizingonlythemiddleandupper classesintoalargercollectivitywhileessentiallykeepingthelowerclassesmarginalized,but ratheritisamodelforalargersynthesis,seekingtounifylowerandupperclassesintoa classlesscollectivity.Bothschoolsoftheory,realism—whatBarrishlabelsmateriality—and

Marxism,assumethatliteraturecanproducesomesortofadvanceorwhatHegelmightcalla

“higherperfection”(644),andthusbothareessentiallyHegelianinnature.ByHegelian,Imean thatthereisaninherentsynthesisbetweenanoldandneworder,resultingintheproductionofa newsocialstagethatrepresentsanimprovement.In“LecturesonFineArt”(18351838),Hegel writes:“Foritisonlyamongcivilizedpeoplethatalterationoffigure,behaviour,andeverysort andmodeofexternalexpressionproceedsfromspiritualdevelopment”(640).Howellsworried thatbothreadersandwriterswhofailedtocredittheeffectthatliteratureproducedonsocial valueswouldthemselvesbecomplicitinperpetuatingthemyththatdemocracyinAmericanwas asuccessfulideology.WhenHowellsappearstobeinvitingAmericanauthorsto“concern themselveswiththemoresmilingaspectsoflife,”( Editor’s Study 41)heis,infact,criticizing boththeAmericanpublicandAmericanwritersforextendingandacceptingthisoptimistic pretenseand,bydoingso,neglectingthe“sinandsufferingandshame[that]theremustalways beintheworld”(41).HowellsofferstheexampleofDostoyevsky’sfictionwithitssympathy

andpowerasexemplifyingwhatethicalwritersmightproduce(40).Heelevatesthestatusof

threeRussianwriters,FyodorDostoyevsky,IvanTurgenev,andLeoTolstoi,becausehelocates

intheirsimilarstylesacapacitytoinfluencesocialreform.Howellssuggeststhatthebest possibledescriptionfortheirliteraryofficeishumanism(39)becauseofthewaythesewriters

134 examinedsocialconditionsandofferedcrediblemotivationsforhumanbehaviorintheirtexts.

Hebelievesliteraryhumanismoutranksevenrealisminitsusefulnesstothedevelopmentof socialethics.

InHowells’spraiseofthesewriters,heoffersacleardialectic;althoughthegenreof realismreliesonwriter’sabilitytorepresentculturalstereotypesinordertoreflectsomething recognizableintheanteriorworld,Howellsianrealismaimstoshowhowindividualsactagainst culturalnorms.Theensuingsocialtensioncreatesthecentralconflictsinhistexts.Therealist’s underlyingpremiseisthatresistanceforcesnewhumanisticconsiderations,andthatsuch knowledgedriveschange,orwhatIhavetermedassynthesis.Howellsconstructsthereligious subjectasacornerstoneofhissociologicalmodelbyallottingprominentpositionstoreligious figuresandinstitutions.Hetiesreligiontospecificsegmentsofclassandculture.His subsequentfocusonhumanismamongtheRussianwritersallowsforanewconsiderationofhow heenvisionshisreadershipinternalizingtherealmofreligiousconcernsinrelationtotheactions andmotivationsofindividualsassubjectsofresistance.Inhislaterfiction,Howellsmovesaway fromsimplyplacingreligiousfiguresintohissocialconstructionstoconsideringhowsociety itselfconstructsfiguresofreligiousauthority.Heexaminesthisquestioninmodesofwriting thatseematypicaltohisearlierrealistmilieuandbegintoreflecthisinterestinhumanism,which hedefinesasthestudyofhowmanbehavesinrelationtosociety.Hebeginstofocuslesson whatestablishedreligionofferstoasocietyandmoreonhowpeopleconstructreligionandfor whatpurpose.Inotherwords,hisrhetoricreflectsamoveawayfromaneschatological relationshipbetweenreligionandculturetoamoreutilitarianexaminationofreligionasan institutionitself.

Howells’searlyandlatewritingaredistinctlydifferent;inhislateryearshebeginsto experimentmorefreelywithform,includinghistorical,utopian,andpsychologicalfictionthat evenincludesparanormalexperience.ItisnotclearthatHowellsviewedsuchwritingasa

135 departurefromhisrealistprinciples;indeed,therearemanylinksandthreadswhichsuggestthat theseliteraryexperimentsweremerelyextensionsofhimpracticinghisrealistphilosophyacross avarietyofsubjects.Foronething,hecontinuestoemphasizetheideaofcomplicitywhich,for

Howells,wasaseminalaspectofhissocialphilosophy.Herevisits“complicity”inhisutopian fiction.In The Altrurian Romances (18941908),forexample,Howellsconstructsallegorical scenariosinwhichthereadercanimaginedifferentsocialsolutionsbeingcarriedout.These allegoriescenteronaChristliketraveler,AristidesHomos,whovisitsupstateNewYorkin ordertoviewthegreatAmericandemocracyinpractice.Reynoldswrites:“WilliamDean

Howells’s A Traveller from Altruria (1894)andMilfordW.Howards’s If Christ Came to

Congress (1894)usedthedeviceofJesus’sreappearancetoexposepoliticalcorruptionand commercialexploitationofAmericancities”( Faith in Fiction 203).Howells,infact,is

examiningAmericandemocracyasawhole,inbothruralandurbansettings. 64 Onthesurface,it isdifficulttoreconcileanallegoricalworkofutopianfictionwiththeconceptofrealistwriting, butinfact,itistherealist’sinsistenceontheneedforcorporealitythatallowsforthislink.The materialsubjectismerelyanallegoryforamoreabstractconcern.Byconstructingamodern dayfigureofChrist,Howellstriestoreconcileaspiritualconceptofconscienceandauthority withthetextualpracticeofmirroringtheanteriorworldofthereader.HowellsplacestheChrist figureintoarealworldrenderingoflatenineteenthcenturycultureinordertoallowhis readershiptocontemplatehowahistoricalmodelofChristianitymightbeenactedinthemodern world.Severalwriterspopularizedthistrendintheliteratureofthisperiod;examplesinclude notonlytheaforementionedworkofMilfordW.Howard,butalsoCharlesSheldon’s In His

Steps (1986)andWilliamStead’ssociologicaltreatise If Christ Came to Chicago (1895). 65 The

figureofJesusbeccameemblematicforthevoiceofindividualconscienceinamysticalmodel

ofintuitivejustice.ThisisnotthePuritanGodwaitingtojudgebutratheraninternalized presencetryingtoguideone’sactions.

136 Inordertofictionalizethewayinwhichconscienceworksonsocialaction,in A

Traveller from Altruria ,HowellscreatesaphysicalembodimentofChrist,AristidesHomos,a beingwhocaninteractwithinHowells’scontemporarysocialworld.Homosisafigurewho representsbothconscienceandamodelofChristianethicsinpractice.Howellsisnot necessarilyadvocatingasystemofChristianethicsderivedfromorthodoxProtestantism;infact, itshouldbefairlyclearbynowhowproblematicHowellsfound“Orthodoxy.”Rather,heseems tobechallenginghisreaderstoconsiderwhetherornotthesystemofethicsatworkinAmerica couldvalidlybeconsideredChristian.Inotherwords,heisrewritingtheologyatleastinavery rudimentarywaybyinvokingaprimitivistcreed. 66 Onemightquestion,isthisrealism?For

Howells,theactofmaterializingabstractprinciples,ethics,andconscienceviathecharacterof

HomosreliesontherealistprivilegingofcorporealitybecausetointuitJesusotherwiserelieson

atypeofmysticismthatfallsintothesphereofmetaphysics.TodealwiththeconceptofJesus

asanuminouspresenceasRebeccaHardingDavisdoeswouldplaceHowells’swritinginthe

realmofsentimentalismorromanticism.Ontheotherhand,theconstructionofaromantic

figure,onewithhumantraitsandcharacteristics,reliesontherealistactofemblematizing,which

inturn,allowsHowellstoconstructareligiousallegorywithoutviolatinghisownrealist principles.HethusconstructsHomosasamaterialallegoryofJesusjustasDarwinusesa

telescopeasamaterialallegorytodemonstratethecomplexityoftheeye. 67 Thiskindoftextual

representationmightbereadasablendingofsentimentalfiction’srelianceonallegoryto

demonstratereligious“truths”withascientificapproachtodemonstrationmodeledinDarwin’s

The Origin of Species (1859).

Howells’sAltrurianversionofJesusisabizarremixtureofseveralideologies,onceagain

exhibitingtheambivalenceHowellsfeltaboutthereciprocitybetweenidentity,sociology,and

theinstitutionalchurch.AristidesHomos 68 isobviouslyaChristliketraveler,buthealsoseems

torepresentafigureofGreekperfection,placinghimintherealmofNeoclassicism.Homosis

137 aninhabitantofafaroffislandcalledAltruria,andheinhabitsaselfdescribed“Hellenic” communalsociety( A Traveller from Altruria 32),whichis“strictlyChristian,anddatesbackto

noearlierperiodthanthatofthefirstChristiancommuneafterChrist”(32).Homosneverstates

exactlyhowAltruria’sutopianprinciplesarederivedorauthorized,buttheimplicationisthat

theyarescripturebased,derivedthroughaliteralbuttimelessinterpretationofNewTestament

teachings.ThefigureofHomosrequiresabitofdeconstructioninordertoreconcilethe

classicalassociationwiththeGreekswiththeNewTestamentfigureoftheMessiah.The

contrastsetupbetweenHellenicandHebraicvaluesisimplied,buttounderstandthedistinction,

onemustunravelaliterarytrailbeginningwithMatthewArnold,andleadingbacktotheworkof philosopherandpoetHeinrichHeine.

HowellswascertainlyfamiliarwiththewritingofMatthewArnold,and,withMark

Twain,heattendedArnold’slectureinHartfordin1883( Literary Friends and Acquaintance

27273).69 Arnold,awellknownVictoriansocialcriticandreformer,wroteseveralessayson thesubjectofreligion,onthecontributionofHeine,andonHellenicandHebraicvalues,tracing theseideasbacktotheEnlightenment.Expressingapositivistviewthatembracesreligionasa socialsystemthatcanbeexaminedforitseffectonsociety,inthe“SweetnessandLight”chapter ofhis1869 Culture and Anarchy ,Arnoldexpressesanevolutionaryviewofreligionas“the greatestandmostimportantoftheeffortsbywhichthehumanracehasmanifesteditsimpulseto perfectitself”(47).ReligionforArnoldisamechanismofsocialadvance.Further,Arnoldsees humanperfectionasaninternalcondition,notanexternalone(47).Liketherealists,however,

Arnoldbelievesthat“Perfection,ascultureperceivesit,isnotpossiblewhiletheindividual remainsisolated”(48).Arnoldbelievesthatcultureis,infact,dependentonthesameshared collectivitythatHowellslikestocallcomplicity.

Arnold’spositivistapproachtoreligiousexperienceservesasafoundationfor understandinghisessayontheGermanromanticpoetandphilosopher,HeinrichHeine,apoet

138 Howellsreadandresearchedthroughouthisentirelife. 70 JeffreySammonswrites:“[Heine’s]

[American]admirerwasWilliamDeanHowells,wholearnedGermantoreadHeine

andfeltliberatedbyhim”(211).Inalaterchapterof Culture and Anarchy ,entitled“Hebraism

andHellenism,”ArnoldexpoundsoftheviewsofHeinrichHeine,apivotalinfluencein

Howells’sphilosophicalandliteraryviews. 71 ReferencingHeine,Arnolddiscussestwomajor

distinctionsincontemporaryreligiousthought,onederivedfromHellenismandonefrom

Hebraism.Thekeydistinction,hewrites,isbetweenclarityofmaterialperception,or,inother

words,thetruthfulvisionoftherealist’smantraandexternalreligiouspractice,orwhatmightbe

termedinheritedbelief.Arnoldwrites:“TheuppermostideawithHellenismistoseethingsas

theyreallyare;theuppermostideawithHebraismisconductandobedience”(“Hebraismand

Hellenism”131).ThetermHellenismlooselycorrespondstoChristianityandNewTestament

teachingsviaEnlightenmentNeoclassicismwhereasthetermHebraismcorrespondstoJudaism

andOldTestamentteachingsoflawandobedience.Heine,himselfaGermanJew,representsa

hybridofHellenismandHebraism.

Itis,infact,Homos’sassociationwith“Hellenism”thatallowshimtobereadasa

Christlikefigure.Further,theassociationwithHellenismalsoallowsHomostobereadasanti

PuritanandprimitivisticinrelationtoChristiantheology.EchoingMarciaGaylord’sdesireto baptizeFlaviawithoutparticularitytocreed( A Modern Instance ),Homosstates,“Wehave severalformsofritual,butnoformofcreed”( A Traveller from Altruria 169).Inotherwords,

Homosistryingtohaveitbothways;hewantstodemonstratethatAltruriapracticessocial religion,buthewantstoremovehisreligionfromanarrowdefinitionofhowthatreligionshould bepracticed.ThisiswherehisselfidentificationasHellenicbecomesimportantininterpreting whatHowellsistryingtoestablish.AccordingtoArnold,Puritanismwasareactionagainstthe

“greatreawakening”ofHellenicprinciplesoftheRenaissance(“HebraismandHellenism”141), andhecallsforarejectionofPuritanismandarenewalof“thatirresistiblereturnofhumanityto

139 natureandtoseeingthingsastheyare”(141). 72 Infact,Arnoldprescribestheveryformulathat

Howellsenactsin A Traveller from Altruria bysuggestingareturntoaformofprimitive

Christianitythatemphasizesdeductivereasoningoverchurchbasedcreed,butonethatironically

insistsonthematerialevidenceoftheritualsasameasureofreligiousexpression.Homosstates:

“‘[W]ewantacluetosomesoundorderandauthority.Thiswecanonlygetbygoingbackupon

theactualinstinctsandforceswhichruleourlife,seeingthemastheyreallyare,connectingthem

withotherinstinctsandforces,andenlargingourwholeviewandruleoflife’”( A Traveller from

Altruria 144).ArnoldwritestheformulaforexaminingChristianityasaprimitivesystem;that

is,ArnoldsuggestsitispossibletoformulateacreedlessChristianitythroughthewordsand principlesdirectlyinterpretedbytheindividualfromscripturewithouttheinterveningauthority

ofachurchinstitution,andthenonemayapplythosederivedprimitivistprinciplestocurrent

societytomeasuretheshortcomingsofthestatusquo.Thisis,infact,theverymodelHowells positsinhisAltrurianromances,yetheshowsittobeimpossiblebecauseherepresentsideal

identityascollectiveratherthanindividualsothatconflictsbetweenwhattheselfdesiresand

whatsocietyrequiresareerased.Howellscanaddressthesetwoopposingmodelsofidentityina philosophicalmannerbyinvokingprimitiveChristianity,butheneverpresentsaformulafor

mergingselfcenteredsubjectivitywiththedemandsofanaltruisticcollectivity.Thisproblem

willbebetterunderstoodafteracloserexaminationofHomos’sideology.

Homos’sphilosophicalandreligiousviewsarereallyquitecomplicated,inpartbecause

theyareideologicallyantagonistic.HerepresentshimselfasaHellenicfigureàlaHeineand

Arnoldinhisinsistenceonmaterialcriteriaforaccessingtherealevenwhilehesimultaneously

offersanEnlightenmentfocusondeductivereasoning,whichfavorsintuitiveknowledgeover

observationalpractices.Nevertheless,heremainsasymbolofHowells’sambivalenceaboutthe

dangerofabandoningtheHebraicvaluesofconductandobedience,thesocalledpuritan

“inheritedorthodoxy”socloselyalignedwithJudeoChristianlaw.Forexample,Homosstates:

140 “‘Welookatthelifeofmanratherthantheprofessionforproofthatheisareligiousman’”( A

Traveller from Altruria 169).Andby“religiousman,”Homosoffersupthephrase,“atrue followerofChrist,whosedoctrineweseektomakeourlife”(169).Thedualdesirebothtoseek andtorejectdoctrineisinherentinallprimitivemodelsofChristianity,anditisprobablythe singlemostimportantcauseoflatenineteenthcenturyreligiousambiguity.WhatHomos suggestsisthatitistheveryevidenceofaman’sexpressionofconductandobedience—thatis,

Hebraism—thatproveshisadherencetothesesocalledChristianprinciples—thatis,

Hellenism—thatcannotbelaiddowninaparticularcreed.

Howells’sAltruriarepresentstheconundrumoftherealistwriterwhotriestomirror realitybutislimitedbythetaskofassigningnotonlyanemblematicrepresentationtothe metaphysicalbutwhomustalsocontextualizeasociologicaldemandtoassignthatemblema valueandtoshowarelationshipbetweenconceptandvalue.Thereisnotangibleexpressionfor examiningAltrurianperfectionbecauseitcannotbedeterminedbyfactsorobjectsbutratheritis formedbyaunitybetweenbehaviorandcreed.GoingbacktoHeine’sterms,itistheunityof

HebraismandHellenismthatmarksthesuccessfulutopiaofAltruria.Allpotentialobstacles havebeenremovedinthecreationofthis“kingdomofheavenonearth”( A Traveller from

Altruria 17071):thereisnoeconomicneed,nodistinctionbetweenclassormaterialaffluence oroutwardappearance,nodisease,nowar,noabilitytobedifferentthanone’sneighborand apparentlynotevenadesiretobedifferentthanone’sneighbor.Thisis,infact,acomplete denialofselfhood.Andtheevidenceofsuccessisnotbasedonthematerialworldatallbutin one’sstrictadherencetothe“creedless”creed.Homosstates:“Ouridealisnotrights,but duties”(175).SuchanadmissionistheverybasisofHebraism,inArnold’sinterpretationofit asconductandobedience.Howells’sutopianmodelofheavenonearthisinherentlyparadoxical becausetheremovalofthematerialdifferencesbetweenmenisanecessarypreconditionfor materializingsuchakingdom,andthisidearequiresakindofequalitythatevenasocialist

141 modelcannotprovidebecauseitrequiresaneternalguaranteeofanabsenceofadesiretobe different.Thisisnotmerelyamodelforregulatingbehavior,butratheritisamodelfor regulatingdesire,ametaphysicalconceptthatcannotbemeasuredorgaugedinrealistterms.

Tosomeextent,Howellsanticipatestheproblemsofthekingdomofheavenonearthby addressingthesamedangerthateveryenactmentofsuchakingdommustface.Thekingdom mustexistinisolationinordertoavoidtheconflictsattributedtotheIndustrialAge,suchasthe desiretoaccumulatewealthbyembracingmechanicalprogress.O’Connorexplainsthisconflict inhisdiscussionofcomparativesectsthattriedtoestablishsimilarkingdoms.Hewrites:

“When,asinthecasesoftheMennonites,Amish,andShakers,sectariandoctrinesinhibitthe processesofaccomodation[sic]orassimilation,thesectmusteitherisolateitselforface extinction”(231). 73 Infact,O’ConnorstipulatesthesameconditionDarwinoffersin The Origin of Species asanecessaryconditionforevolution,whichisisolation.Darwinwrites:“Isolation, bycheckingimmigrationandconsequentlycompetition,willgivetimeforanynewvarietytobe slowlyimproved”(121).Homos’slandofAltruriaisasuccessfulutopiabecauseofitsisolation; thereisnofearofinvasionorconcernoveraforcibleconquest,andthusthereisnothreattothe island’sideologicalsocialismeversincethe“Evolution”(Howells169).Itisalandthathas evolved,anditnowexistsatitspinnaclewithoutanythreatofdevolution.AsPfaelzerpoints out,utopianismcarrieswithitthesuggestionthatthereisasocialDarwinisticprogression resultinginanendoftime,oraperiodofperfectionthatmightberealizedonearth.Shewrites:

“Lackingchange,utopiasseemtomarktheendofhistory”( Utopian Novel 17).Thisnotionis strikinglysimilartothereligiousrhetoricofthenineteenthcenturyemphasizing“God’s

KingdomhereonEarth.” 74 Howellscapitalizesonsuchreligiousrhetorictopresenta sociologicalmodelofaperfectcommunity,andheemploysevolutionaryconceptstodoso.

Howells’scombinationofreligious,social,andscientificrhetoricdemonstrateshisliterary considerationofcontemporaneousnotionsofhumanperfection.Afourthandimportant

142 considerationinhismodelishispoliticalconcern;byhavingtheAltruriantravelervisit

America,Howellsonceagaininsistsonthepoliticalramificationsofhissocioethicalmodel.

Thenotionofutopianismandutopiansocietiesinthenineteenthcenturymarksa significantreligiousmovementcalledmillennialismthatassumesmankindisinakindofwaiting periodbetweenthesecondcomingofChristandJudgmentDay,andthatsocietymusttryto attainamodelthatcomesasclosetoperfectionascanbeachievedonearthinordertoprepare forHeaven.Inthissense,itisapocalyptic.Conversely,utopianismcanalsobemarkedasa secularmovementthatdisregardsbiblicalrevelationaltogetherandpositsthatsocietycan regulateitsownevolutionintoahigherstateofperfection.Severalutopianmodelsemergedin thenineteenthcenturyattemptingsuchaparadoxicalexistencethatsoughttoenactand exemplifyamodelofperfectionwhilesimultaneouslyattemptingtoisolatethemselvesfrom negativesocialinfluences. 75 Thisnotionisparadoxicalbecauseittriestobebothevangelical

andisolationistasHowells’sAltrurianislandsuggests.TheAltruriantravelerevangelizeseven

ashepreventstheoutsideworldfromincorporatingitselfintothesocialworldofAltruria.In

Spencerianterms,Altruriatriestoevolvewithouttheabilitytoadaptbecauseithasreachedthe

endofevolution.Altrurianperfectionequalstheendoftheindividual,anditrepresentsa

crossroadsofboththereligiousandthesociologicalmodelsofutopianism.

Fromareligiousstandpoint,SocialDarwinismpresentsaproblemforspiritualistsaswell

asformaterialists.TheargumentissimplythatifJesusisdivine,thenhisspiritualitysupersedes

theprocessofevolution.Inotherwords,ifperfectionexistsoutsideoftheterrestrialrealm,then realismcannotcapturetheessenceofspiritualperfection;thus,perfectioncanbeattainedonlyin theafterlifeifatall.Ontheotherhand,ifJesusishumanbutnotdivine,thenitisimpossibleto seehimasemblematicofhumanperfectionbecauseheexistedtwothousandyearsago,andthus mankindmusthaveevolvedtowardahigherstatesincethen.Christiantheologyoftensettlesthe questionbyconcedingthatJesusisbothhumananddivine,andheisthereforenecessarily

143 separatefromalllawsgoverninghumanprogress.Problematically,todenytheimportanceof

Jesusaltogether,eitherthedivineincarnationorthehistoricalone,wouldrequirean acknowledgmentthattheBible,theprimarysourceofsocialandreligiousauthorityinthe

Westernworldisnot,infact,thematerialevidenceofthesuperiorityofaChristiansociety.Of course,itisimportanttorememberthatthisisSpencerianevolution,whichassumesamodelof progression,asopposedtoDarwinianevolution,whichassumesamodelofadaptationwithout assigningahierarchicalvaluetoevolvedspecies.

ForHowells,theevolutionarymodelisfurthercomplicatedbyhisinsistenceonspeaking oforthodoxreligionasaninheritedvalue,usingatermthatwilllatercometobeassociatedwith geneticsasopposedtosocialconditioning,thewayheseemstointend.In The Minister’s

Charge ,intheReverendSewell’scomplicityspeech,Howellsdoespresentspiritualbeliefasa functionofmen’simaginations,imposingaprogressivemodelonthedevelopmentofreligious thoughtthatisdirectlyrelatedtothedevelopmentofmankind.ViewingthefigureofJesus allegorically,Sewellstates:“‘Thegospel─Christ─God,sofarasmenhadimaginedhim─was butalesson,atype,awitnessfromeverlastingtoeverlastingofthespiritualunityofman.As wegrewingrace,inhumanity,incivilization,ourrecognitionofthistruthwouldbetransfigured fromadutytoaprivilege,ajoy,aheavenlyrapture’”( The Minister’s Charge 309).Inthis speech,Howellsmarriesseveralconceptsofspirituality;heallowsfortheperceptionofGodto beanevolvingmysticalpresencethatreflectsmankind’sprogress,andhemergesthatideawith theSwedenborgianemphasisonsubstitutingdutyforsacrifice.Hestillmustreconcilethis notionofGodwithwhathelocatesasthefailingsoftheIndustrialAge,andhedoessobya returntoChristianprimitivism,usingthiscriterioninordertolocateshortcomingsinthepractice ofAmericandemocracy.HowellsposesthequestionofwhatwouldJesusbelikeifhecouldbe intuitedsimultaneouslyinthepastandthepresent;nevertheless,Howells’sJesuscanexistasa functionofthemodernimagination.Inshort,AristidesHomosisanevolvedfigureofJesus,

144 adaptedandreturnedtoaddressthechallengesoftheIndustrialAge.ThisisthefigureofJesus

HowellsoffersintheguiseoftheAltruriantravelerwiththeplayon“traveler”again representingthemetaphysicalasamaterialallegory.

TheemblematicfigureofChristasconsciencemarksanimportantshiftinrealismthat insistsonthehumanityofJesusratherthanthedivinityofChrist,andthusitisamovethatgives shapetothespiritualrenderingofasocialGodthatishighlyindividualized.Nineteenthcentury

AmericanculturebegantotakenewlibertiesinimaginingJesusasareflectionoftheself.It helpstorecallthemotherofthefallensoldierintheunnamedwarinHowells’ssubsequentstory,

“Editha”(1905).Mrs.Gearsonisgratefulhersondiedinbattlewithacleanconsciencebefore committingtheactofkillinganyopposingsoldiersintheunnamedwarofthestory’splot.She seestheallofthefightingmenasequalvictims,inharm’swaysimply“‘becausetheyhadtobe there,poorwretches’”( Selected Short Stories 167).InaccusingEdithaofforcingherson

Georgeintoanimpossibleethicaldilemma,killorbekilled,Mrs.Gearsoncriesout,“‘Ithank myGodhedidn’tlivetodoit.IthankmyGodtheykilledhimfirst,andthatheain’tlivin’with theirbloodonhishands’”(167).ShedoesnotshareherreligiousbeliefsorevenherGodwith

Editha,butrathersheperceivesGodinaninternalizedandverypersonalway,andshereiterates herclaimwiththerepetitionofthepossessivepronoun,“ my God.”ThebattlebetweenEditha andMrs.Gearsonisnotabattleovercreedorscripturalinterpretation,butratheritisabattle overtheconceptofGoditself.Editha’sGodofprovidencebattlesMrs.Gearson’sGodof conscience.GeorgeGearsonsumsupthedifferencewhenhereferencesthecontrastbetween

Edita’s“pocketProvidence”andhisownconceptofamoredistantdeity(159).Howells’gives formtothedisparitybyshowingtheenactmentofthetwobeliefsfacingoffinaculturalcrisis thatpresumablyreflectsthe1898SpanishAmericanWarasamarkerseparatingtwodistinct spiritualconstructions. 76 Howells’sstorysuggeststhatthatthedevastationofwaronAmerican cultureforcedaquestioningoftheroleofGodandprovidencethatseveredreligiousbeliefs

145 aboutthenatureofGod,leadingtoahighlyindividualizedperceptionofahigherbeing.The ethicsofsoldieringareinterpretedinvastlydifferentwaysdependingonhowtheindividual reconcilesdivinesanctionwithactsofwar.Howellspresentsanironicreversalofgenerations inthisstory,atypicalforhisfiction,inwhichtheyoungergenerationisherealignedwiththe puritanGodandtheoldergenerationisalignedwiththeGodasconscienceconstruction.Itisan interestingreversalandonethatisnotseenotherwiseinHowells’sfictionalreligiousvista.

TheimaginingofJesusintolatenineteenthcenturycultureisanattemptataresolutionof multipleconceptionsofperfection.WritersreimagineJesusashemightappearinmodern culture.Theyintuitandreconstitutehissocialmodelandessenceofperfectiontosuitthe modernagebutoftensimplyignorethetroublesomeimplicationsrelatedtoreligionand evolution.RichardLewisexplainstheparadoxwithintheperfectionmodelthatwriters allegorizevariouslythroughthefiguresofbothJesusandAdam.Hewrites:“Here,and occasionallylater,Imustdistinguishbetweenthenotionofprogresstowardperfectionandthe notionofprimitiveAdamicperfection.Bothideaswerecurrent,andtheyoverlappedand intertwined.Onthewhole,however,wemaysettlefortheparadoxthatthemoreintensethe beliefinprogresstowardperfection,themoreitstimulatedabeliefinapresentprimal perfection”(Lewis5).Thisevasiveincarnationalismappearedinbothreligiousrhetoricaswell asfictionduringthesecondhalfofthenineteenthcentury.Inadditiontotheaforementioned worksoffictionandsociologicaltreatises,severalbiographiesofJesusappeared,manywithan emphasisonhowJesuswouldaddressthesocialandethicalproblemsoftheIndustrialAgewith problematicsupernaturalaspectsofthegospelssimplyignored.UntilMarkTwain,noone attemptedanytypeofbiographyofAdam, 77 butthetensionbetweenprogressiveperfectionand primalperfectionisclearlyevident.

TherelationshipbetweenthesevariousdiscoursesonthelifeofJesusseemsindisputable.

Whetherawritertookahistorical,mythical,allegorical,ortheologicalapproach,some

146 applicationofdeductivereasoningoccursinorderforawritertodiscussJesusideologically.

HistorianPatrickAllittcreditsthemodernJesusrhetorictoHenryWardBeecher,whowrotethe

1871 The Life of Jesus, the Christ .Allittwrites:

BeecherestablishedoneofthetechniquesthathavepersistedintheJesusliteratureever since.IfJesusdidsomethingofwhichtheauthorapproves,heiscitedasanauthorityfor doinglikewise.ButifJesusdidtheoppositeofwhattheauthorrequires,anargument aboutchangedsocialcontextcanalwaysexplainawaythedifficulty:Jesus would have actedthiswayhadhebeenalivenow.(134) HowellsoffersanemblematicJesusfigurein A Traveller from Altruria thatembracestheprotean

natureofthemoderndayJesusrhetoric.Bydoingso,Howellscanpresenthisownunique

constructionofamoderndayJesus,andhecanunitehiscreationwithhisownindividualviewof

howmoderntheologyshouldwork.Hesettlestheliterarydemandsofrealismbybringing

Homos,nowacorporealfigure,intothepresentagefromanisolatedisland,makingacredible pseudoscientificclaimofthediscoveryofalostcivilizationallowinghimtoshedthe problematichistoryofPuritanismthathedoesnotwishtoaddressinhisnewtheology.

Howells’sdeparturefromreportingwhathesees( Editor’s Study 81)towhatheimagines astheidealseemstoembraceanapocalypticphilosophy.Inhispresentationofthevisiting idealistHomos,HowellssuggeststhatthesecondcomingofChristisathand,andthatitistime toevaluatethepresentstateofsocialreadinessforJudgmentDay.Howells’smodelofsalvation iscollectiveratherthanindividual,andthereforehismodelrequiresthatsocietymustfunctionas aunifiedwhole.Homos’svisitisclearlyanevaluationofAmerica’sfulfillmentofits democraticideology.IsHowellsofferingavisionofreligiousreformorpresentingamaterial modelthathewouldliketoseeenacted?Perhapsheenvisionsabitofbothofthesepossibilities.

Athirdconsiderationisthatheiswritingneither;heisimplementingakindoftheological allegory,onethatmightbefoundinreligiousfiction,butheisreplacingthespiritualmodelwith asociologicalonethatisintendedtochallengeorhisreaderratherthanonethatoffers anytangiblesolutionwhatsoever.

147 ItisconsistentwithHowells’sliteraryphilosophytobelievethathemightsimplybe challenginghisreadertoexaminesocialdilemmaswithoutofferingaclearcutvisionofreform.

Infact,theAltruriantravelerhasbeencriticizedforhisevasionsorrefusalstoofferalternatives totheproblemsheencountersinupstateNewYork.PfaelzerpointsoutthatHowellsdealswith socialismsomewhatambivalently,castingdoubtuponthepossibilitythathetrulyexpectedtosee anenactmentofsocialismasaviablesocialsolution.Pfaelzerwrites:“Throughoutthestory,

HomoshintsatAltruriansolutionstotheproblemsofcasteandclass,buthewithholdsdetailsof thepolitical,social,andeconomicinstitutionsofhisutopianisland—perhapsappropriatelyfor

Howells,whowasambivalentaboutsocialismandunclearabouthowsocialchangemightsafely occur”( Utopian Novel 60).TheAltruriantraveleroffersageneralbutdimviewofasocialist revolution,suggestingthatchangehappensfromthebottomup,butHowells’sviewof complicitysuggeststhattheauthoristryingtodosomethingotherthansparkagrassroots rebellionofsocialreform.Heisperhapstryingtoforcethereaderintoimaginingtheconditions underwhichsuchachangemightoccur,anotherpositivistmoveandonethattapsintothe hegemonicdesiretoavoidradicalsocialchange.Hetriestoshowhisreaderhowtheconditions thatmightsparksocialrevolutionalreadyexist.Bydoingso,heforceshisreadertocontemplate theideaofcomplicitynotfromanempatheticstandpoint,amethodhetriesinhisearlierfiction, butfromastandpointofthethreatofsocialunrest.Heofferstwoalternatives,thefirstbeingthat

changecantrickledownfromtheupperandmiddleclassesoutofasharedsenseofhumanity,

andthesecondbeingthatchangecanhappenfromthebottomup,viarevolutionorsocial

anarchy.Howells’sutopianfictionallowshimtoexplorethecomplicityproblemfromyet

anotherangle.

AfterHowellsfinishedwithutopianfiction,hechangedhisliterarydirectionyetagainto

focusonahistoricaleventhehadfirstreadaboutin1871in The Ohio Valley Historical Series ,

whichhereviewedforthe Atlantic (Goodman418). The Leatherwood God (1916),Howells’s

148 workofhistoricalfiction,focusesonanotherJesuslikefigure,onewithacharismaticability andromanticcharmwhoislaudedasaprophetasyounggirlsswoonoverhim.Inthisnew construction,Howellsmakesasignificantmoveinhisconsiderationofspirituality.Whereas

AristidesHomosmightbereadasamoderndayJesusasHowellsinterpretshim,the

LeatherwoodGodisaJesuslikefigureintheregardofthepioneersintheearlynineteenth centuryOhioTerritorysettlementofLeatherwoodCreek.Thestoryisbasedinthe1820s,andit capturesakeymomentofreligioustransitionwhentheitinerantMethodistpreachersengagedin arigorouscampaigninconjunctionwithAmerica’swestwardexpansion,competingandwinning popularityoverCalvinistsectsbroughtoutwestfromNewEngland.

LikeErnestRenan’s1863constructionofJesusasamanwhowaselevatedtoagodly

statusbyhisconverts( La Vie de Jésu ), 78 HowellspresentsthesimilarsituationofJosephC.

Dylks,theMethodistcampmeetingrevivalist,asonewhosepopularityincreasestothepoint

wheremiraclesaredemandedofhim.ThestoryclimaxeswhenDylksisexpectedtoturna

homespunclothintoaseamlessraiment,andinsteadheincitesariot. 79 Thecrowdturnsonhim,

forcinghimtofleeintothewoodsandwanderinthewildernessuntilhedarestoemergefor

help.HowellsimplicitlycomparesthebiblicalfigureofJesustothecampmeetingrevivalistsin

ordertoshowthattheattributionofgodlinessisafunctionofpeople’sneedtobelieveandofthe participationofacharismaticprophetwhocomestobelievehisownpublicity.WhenDylks approachestheironicbutwiseSquireBrailleforhelp,Dylksexplainshowtheconverts’beliefs havevalidatedhisownacceptanceofhimselfasaprophet.Dylksexplains:

Theirfaithputsfaithinyou.Iftheybelievewhatyousay,yousaytoyourselfthatthere mustbesometruthinit.Ifyoukeeptellingthemyou’reJesusChrist,there’snothingto proveyouain’t,andifyoutellthemyou’reGod,whoeversawGod,andwhocandeny it?Youcan’tdenyityourself─.( The Leatherwood God 173) ThesquireacceptsDylks’slogic,andhecompareshimtoalltheprophetsoftheOldTestament andto“Mahomet”himself(17374).Intheend,BraillecomestobelievethatDylksisatleastin partavictimofhisownprideratherthanaconfidenceman,andhehelpshimmakehiswayout 149 oftownsafelywithhissomeofhisloyalfollowers,andtheyleavetoinhabittheNewJerusalem, whichiscertainlyanironicreferencetotheSwedenborgianChurchofHowells’syouth.

Inonefellswoop,Howellsdiscreditstheentirehistoryoftheprophetsoftheworld,even thoughhealsosuggeststhattheideaoftruthitselfisamereconstructofthehumanintellect, meaningthattruthfulknowledgeofanyclaimtodivinitycanneverbefullycreditedor discreditedbyeitherhistoricalorsupernaturalproofs.Insteadoftryingtoproveordisprove perceptionsofthesupernatural,Howellsonceagainimplementshisdeterministicmodelfor examiningthewaysocietyassignsdivinestatustocharismaticleaders.Thehistoricalnovel givesHowellsanopportunitytoexamineanactualeventtowhichheassignsarational explanation.Onceagainborrowingtheallegoryofreligiousfiction,Howellssuggestsan explanationaboutsocialspiritualitythatcanbegeneralizedtoChristianityand,infact,toall worldreligions.Ironically,theimplicitquestioningaboutknowledgeandtruthinthematerial worldseemstoslidebyalmostunnoticedbyHowells,butwhatdoesemergeisanincreasingly cynicalviewabouttheroleofreligioninsociety,particularlytheoutlyingruralareasthathehad previouslyrepresentedinhisfictionasbeingpuritan.TheshiftoflocationfromNewEnglandto theWestallowsHowellstoexaminetheroleMethodism,withitscampfirerevivals,playedina developingnation.Thepositivistmodelfocusingonsystemsofreligionandtheirculturaleffects allowsfortheongoinglinktoHowells’sconcernwithsocialethics,soprevalentinhisrealist writings.Whatemergesin The Leatherwood God istheassumptionthatusingmaterialitytoget atuniversaltruthsisfarlessimportanttoHowellsthanisexaminingbehaviortolearnsomething abouthowsocietyconstructsandacceptsevidenceofsupernaturalconceptsandhowit materializesthosesuppositions.ThroughoutthebodyofHowells’sfiction,hecreatesa discourseoncomparativereligion,andheultimatelyderivesamodelforthesocialconstruction ofreligiousbeliefsandpracticesthatcanbeappliedtoanyage.HisreferencestoOldTestament prophets,NewTestamentteachings,Mohammed,andMethodistrevivalistssuggestthatHowells

150 isdealingwithmorethanfourthousandyearsofreligioushistory,notjustChristianityanymore, andheseekstounifyreligiousbehaviorbyofferingaframeworkforexaminingtheadventof prophets.

InspiteofHowells’scynicismaboutrevivalismandbyextension,allreligion,hedoes notseemtovieworganizedreligionasbeingharmfulorwithoutpurpose.Notonlydoeshe recognizethatpeoplefindbeliefbecausetheywantto,heapparentlyconcludesthatreligion playsaroleinsocialethicsthatcannotbereplacedbyliterature.Suchasadmissionundercuts theauthorityofhisrealistphilosophy,whichinmanywayshadsuggestedthatfictionratherthan religionhadcometoserveintheadministrationofsocialethics.Atleast,thatwashisbeliefin theearlierpartofhiscareer.In The Rise of Silas Lapham ,BostonBrahminBromfieldCorey statesthisviewofliterature:““Allcivilisation[sic]comesthroughliteraturenow,especiallyin ourcountry....onceweweresoftened,ifnotpolished,byreligion,butIsuspectthatthepulpits countsformuchlessnowincivilising[sic]’”(126).Evidenceforasignificantreversalofthis earlierpositionappearsinHowells’slaterbiographicalwriting, Years of My Youth , publishedin thesameyearas The Leatherwood God .Herecallsacriticismof A Modern Instance ,byafriend whosuggestedethicalquestionsshouldbestbelefttothechurchratherthantakenupbywriters offiction.Hewrites:

Ithoughthewaswrong,butIamnotsurethatIsostrenuouslythinksonow;fictionhas totellataleaswellastoevolveamoral,andeitherthecharacterortheprinciplemust sufferinthatadjustmentwhichlifealonecaneffectivelymanage.Idonotsayideally manage,formanyoftheadjustmentsoflifeseemtomecruelandmistaken.Ifitisin thesecasesthatreligioncanbestintervene,Isupposemyoldfriendwasright.( Years of My Youth 160) Inthisreflection,Howellsimpliesthatreligionprovidesatypeofbalanceoradministrationof divinejusticethatcannotbeadequatelyunderstoodinlifeexperience.ReturningtoHowells’s notionofcomplicity,whatmightbeinferredisthathecontinuestobelievethatreligionplaysa peripheralsocialroleinbringingtolightasenseofinterconnectednessandpurposethatmightbe

151 otherwiseunseen.And,onceagain,hedoesnotstateexactlyhowreligionmightadministeror aidthisunderstanding,buthecontinuestoinsistonitsretentionasasourceofethicalauthority.

Thequestionofreligionandrealismbecomesincreasinglydifficulttoexaminein

Howells’slaterworksbecauseheseemstohavebecomesomewhatdisenchantedwiththerealist modeitselfandhowitshouldoperateinrelationtoethics.Hewastryingtomaintaina marketplacepresence,andhehadahardertimegettinghisworkspublished,butevenwhen embracingnewliteraryformssuchastheutopianworksandthehistoricalfiction,Howells continuestoexaminethesamethemesthatrepeatedlyemergeinhisworksofrealism.What loomsmostlargelyishiscontinuedambivalenceabouttheroleofinstitutionalizedreligionand hisowncynicismaboutthepotentialforreligioustruthtobemerelyamisguidednotionofa dissatisfiedpopulationdesperateforsomenewbelief.Atthesametime,Howellscontinuesto placereligioninhisfictionalworld,andhecontinuestocarveoutaplaceforreligioninthe administrationofsocialethicsandthedevelopmentofconscience.Likemanynineteenth centurywriters,Howells’stextsincorporatescriptureandscripturalallusionsillustratinghow entrenchedheisinBiblecultureandrhetoric,butheneverreconcilesorevenclarifieshis hermeneuticswithatheologicalmodel,unlikeDavis.

Inmanyways,HowellspreparesusforTwain’scynicismbyquestioningthereligious institutionsofhisage.TwainpicksupthisthreadinhisownscrutinyofAmericanreligious culture,butTwainbeginstoexaminetheBibleitselfasaskepticalguidetomoderncivilization, andhefrequentlysituatestheBibleasaperipheralaccoutrementofmodernreligiouspractices.

IfHowellsbeginsbyattackingtheinstitutionsofculture,Twaincontinuesbyexaminingthe waysinwhichculturalsignifiersinadequatelyrepresentideologicalbeliefs.Howellsfocuseson collectivesociety,withtheJesusfigureastheexemplarofaprogressivecivilization.Twain,on theotherhand,shiftshisfocusbacktohumankinditselfbyexaminingtheprimitiveidealofthe

Adamfigure,movingawayfromChristianityaltogether.Asignificantchangeoccursduringthis

152 process;whereasDavisandHowellsusethesubjectofreligion,andspecificallyChristianity,to

constructasociologicalrealism,Twainemploysthesubjectofreligioninordertocastdoubton

theveryideathatwordsandsymbolscaneverprovideaccesstoanabsolutenotionofwhatis

real.Twain’sfictiontakesaturntowardmodernismandtheideaofmultiplesubjectivitiesofthe

mind,whileHowellswaspreoccupiedwithbringingsubjectivityandcollectivityintounity.

Muchlater,HaroldFrederic,anadmirerofHowellsianrealism,takesanaturalisticturnwhenhe beginstoexamineforcesofscientificandculturaldeterminismotherthanreligion.Davisand

Howellsofferaveryoptimistickindofrealismthatexemplifiesanotionthatcivilizationis progressingandthatselfunderstandingcanaidthatprogression,whileTwainandFrederic

returntoamoreromanticemphasisonman’sprimitivenatureasamajorsociological

determinant.Allfourofthesewritersexaminereligionintermsofallegoryand,bydoingsoall

makecriticalconnectionstothesimilaritybetweenhowreligionoperatesandhowrealism

operatesintheactofreducingmetaphysicalabstractionsintomaterialrepresentations.Twain

goesevenfurtherthanHowells;hedoesnotmerelyconstructnewallegories,butratherhe

examinesreligioussymbolsthatalreadyexistintheworldandshowshowimpossibleitisto projecttheallegorybackwardstowardssomelargernotionofuniversalknowledge.ForTwain,

thefailureoftheallegorybecomesafailureofcertainty,andhisdoubtturnstodisbelief.

Howellsrevealsasimilarstrugglewithdoubtanddisbelief,buthisambivalenceabout

abandoningbeliefemergesrepeatedlyinhisrefusaltoabandonreligiousorthodoxy.Heretains

somedegreeoffaithintheinstitutionsofreligiontoimpactonthedevelopmentofindividual

conscienceand,byextension,collectiveethics.

Notes 60 See,forexample,PhillipBarrish,whowrites:“UnderstandingHowells’sprofferofrealisttasteasawayfor some middleandupperclassreaderstoclaimculturalsuperiorityover other middleandupperclassreadersmayhelp, first,tomediatebetweentwoseeminglyincompatiblecriticalaccountsofHowells’sculturalandpolitical significance”( American Literary Realism 17).SeealsoAmyKaplan89and2123. 153 61 SeealsoHowells( The Minister’s Charge 2528).

62 In Literary Friends and Acquaintances ,Howellsadmitsthathehadnotheardoftheterm“Orthodoxy”before meetingwithOliverWendellHolmesin1860.ItisclearonlyfromthisonepassagethatOrthodoxymostlikely referstoNewEnglandCongregationalistsandnotPresbyterians:“HehadtoexplainOrthodoxytome,andthenI couldconfesstooneCongregationalChurchinColumbus”(43).Howellsrecallsdiscussingseveralotherreligious sectswithHolmes,includingUnitarianism,Universalistism,Swedenborgianism,andEpiscopalianism. 63 JosephineDonovanprovidesexcerptsfromSwedenborgianteachingsonthedoctrineofusesinherarticle“Jewett andSwedenborg”(73334).Donovancitestwomainsources,whichareSigSynnestvedt, The Essential Swedenborg: Basic Religious Teachings of Emmanuel Swedenborg (1970;rpt.NewYork:SwedenborgFoundation, 1984),4950andTheophilusParsons, The Infinite and the Finite (Boston:RobertsBrothers,1872),155. 64 The Altrurian Romances haveaconfusingpublicationhistorysincesomeofthe“letters”oftheAltruriantraveler werepublishedin Cosmopolitan Magazine only,butnotinthebookformofthe1894 A Traveller from Altruria . Apparently,thelastsixofthemagazinelettersbecamethePartI(twentysevenchapters)ofthe1907 Through the Eye of the Needle (Kirkxi).WhenReynoldsreferstoHowells’sattackonthecityin A Traveller from Altruria ,heis presumablyreferringtothecontentoftheselastsixletters,whichdescribeAristidesHomos’sdeparturefromrural NewHampshiretovisithisnewacquaintancesinNewYorkCity.Originally,thisportionof Through the Eye of the Needle waspartofthe A Traveller from Altruria duringtheNovember1893throughSeptember1894serialized publicationin Cosmopolitan Magazine . 65 TheconstructionofsuchmoderndayJesusrhetoriccontinuestodayasRichardWightmanFox’s Jesus in America illustrates.HeincludesaphotographofanadvertisementfortheEvangelicalEnvironmentalNetwork employingtheanachronisticheading,“WhatWouldJesusDrive?(Fig.34).”Thisadvertisementranin2002. 66 ThetermprimitivistherereferstotheideaofearlyChristianityratherthanapreChristianprimitivism.As RebeccaHardingDavisdidinherconstructionofthereligioussubject,Howellsisattemptingtoisolateanotionof Christianityfromthehistoricaldevelopmentoftheinstitutionalchurch.JohnMaymakesadistinctionbetween “primitivereligion”and“JudeoChristianhope”thattiesthesetwomodelstoanunderstandingofhistory.Inlight ofMay’sdistinction,Davis’sandHowells’smodelsofprimitiveChristianitywouldbebetterlabeledJudeo Christianhope.Hewrites:“TheJudaeoChristian[sic]normiseschatologicalexpectation,theprojectedvisionof faith.Primitivereligionthereforerenewsthepresentonthebasisofthepast,whereasJudaeoChristianhopeis basedontheexpectationoffuturefulfillment.Theformerconceptionoftimeisclearlycyclicandclosed,thelatter linearandopen”(24).Clearly,inthecaseofAristidesHomos,timeislinearandopenascivilizationworkstowards itsownevolution. 67 Darwinwrites:“Maywenotbelievethatalivingopticalinstrument[thatis,theeye]mightthusbeformedas superiortooneofglass,astheworksoftheCreatoraretothoseofman?”(145).Darwinturnsthelogicofhis antagoniststohisadvantagethroughacombinationofallegoryandmaterialism.Howellsappearstobeusinga similarrhetoricalstrategyinhispresentationofHomos. 68 AristidesispresumablyanallusiontoAristidestheAthenian,asecondcenturyGreekChristianwhoauthoredthe Apology of Aristides .Hismanuscriptwaspublishedinthelatenineteenthcentury.(Therewasalsoafifthcentury B.C.AthenianmilitaryandpoliticalleadercalledAristidestheJust.)Homos,meaning“man,”isasubtlewayof emphasizingthehumanityofHowells’sChristfigureasopposedtohisdivinity. 69 Ironically,becauseofhisvisittoTwain,HowellsreportshewasnotathometoreceiveArnold’sletterof introductionwhenArnoldfirstarrivedinBoston( Literary Friends and Acquaintance 272). 70 HowellswritesabouthisadmirationforHeineseveraltimesinhisautobiographicalaccounts.Forexamples,see My Literary Passions (189)and Literary Friends and Acquaintance (8). 71 JeffreyGrossmancallsMatthewArnold“oneofHeine’smostimportantpromotersinEnglish”(197). 72 Inthe1957,ReinholdNiebuhrreworkedseveralofArnold’sideasintoanessayentitled“TwoSourcesofWestern Culture.”InthisessayheelaboratesonhisownviewsiftheHellenicandtheHebraic,whichhebelievesrepresent orderandfreedom,respectively(18).NiebuhrbelievesthatWesternCulturerequiresabalanceofHellenismand

154 Hebraism:“Inshort,therealmofmeaninghasdimensionsofbothorderandfreedom,andeverycultureseekstodo justicetothesetwodimensions”(1819). 73 SeealsoMandelker:“Utopiansectsholdadual,contradictorycommitmenttobothevangelismandutopia.The worldisapropersphereofutopianactivityandmustbemadeconsistentwithanidealimage,yetitmustalsobe heldatadistancesafeenoughtopreventcontamination.Theutopianresponsetotheworldisthisfraughtwith ambivalence”(135). 74 SeeCharlesHowardHopkins,“God’sKingdomand‘OurCountry,’” The Rise of the Social Gospel in American Protestantism 1865-1915 ,(NewHaven:YaleUP,1940)98117. 75 Theseutopiancommunitiesinclude,forexample,theShakers,theOneidamovement,theMormons,theSeventh DayAdventists,andevensocalledsecularcommunallivingexperimentssuchasthe1841transcendentalBrook Farmexperiment,madefamousbyNathanielHawthorne’s1852 The Blithedale Romance ,andthe184344 transcendentalFruitlandscommunallivingarrangementofthefamousAlcotts,thesubjectofL.M.Alcott’s Transcendental Wild Oats (1874).HowellshasaconnectiontotheOneidaMovementthroughhiswife,Elinor MeadHowells,whosematernalunclewasJohnNoyes.In1848,JohnNoyesfoundedthisreligiouscommunemost famousforitsdoctrineofperfectionanditscomplexopenmarriagepolicy(Goodman623). 76 Itshouldbepointedoutthatscholarsdisagreeabouttheunnamedwarinthisstory.RuthBardoncitesreadingsby EverettCarterin1954andWilliamFreein1966whoarguethatHowellsiswritingabouttheSpanishAmerican War,butshealsocitestheworkofJohnCrowleyin1975and1989,whosuggeststhatHowells“symbolically recallstheCivilWar”(Bardon15152).HebaseshisargumentonHowells’sautobiography Years of My Youth ,and hefurtherarguesthat“Howells’sguiltaboutsittingouttheCivilWarmotivatedconsiderablepartsofhisfiction (Bardon152).Thereisnourgentneedtodeterminethespecificwarthatisthesubjectofthisstory,butinthestory, GeorgeGearsonclearlyrecallstoEdithathathisfatherhadservedandlostanarmintheCivilWar(Bardon163), indicatingthatthestoryisdealingwiththemorerecentwar.Atthesametime,myreadingofthereligiousconflict inmanywayssupportsCrowley’ssuggestionofa“symbolic”CivilWarreading.ItseemsclearthatHowells wantedtomakeaconnectionbetweenthetwowarsandtothepoliticalandreligiousrhetoricrelatedtotheprowar andantiwarpositions.Inthissubtleway,heremindshisreadersthat“thecurrentphrasesofthenewspapers” (Howells, Selected Short Stories 157)containrhetoricthathasbeencirculatedbeforeinAmericanhistory. 77 In The Bible According to Mark Twain: Writings on Heaven, Eden, and the Flood ,theeditorsinclude“Extracts fromAdam’sDiary.” 78 RenanpresentsaJesuswhobecameincreasinglyfanaticashe“yieldedtotheideasthatwerecurrentinhisown time”(161). 79 TherearetwoBiblicalpassagestowhichHowellscouldbealluding:intheOldTestament,thepassageisinPsalm 22:1819,andtherelatedNewTestamentpassageisinJohn19:2324.TheNewTestamentpassagedetailsthe eventssurroundingthecrucifixionofJesusandacontestbysoldiersforhisseamlessrobe( chiton ),anditis frequentlycitedasevidencethatJesusfulfilledtheprophesiesoftheOldTestament.

155 CHAPTER4:MARKTWAINANDTHEBIBLE: “ISEEITWARN’TNOTHINGBUTADICTIONARY” Formorethanfiftyyears,Twainconductedadiscourseaboutthereligioussubjectinan

erawhentheAmericanreligiouslandscapewaschangingdramatically.Inmanyways,religion

ismorethanapervasivesubjectforhim;itistheverythefoundationofhiswriting.Hewrites

aboutitinavarietyofgenres,suchastravelogues,satire,realism,fantasy,andautobiography.

TheonlythingthatcanbeconcludedwithanycertaintyisthatTwainwasambivalentabout

religionandthat,inhiscritiqueofAmericanreligiousculture,heprojectedhisambivalence particularlyontoanengagementwithscripturefromarealist’sperspective.Historically,there

areatleastthreedistinct“stages”ofTwain’sworkthatrelatetolargerculture:hisearlyrejection

ofPresbyterianism,hissubsequentcynicismregardingBiblecultureinAmerica,andfinally,a

resolutioninhislateryearsinwhichhebeginstoreconcilehisCalvinistupbringingwithhis personalandhighlysubjectivehermeneutics.Ultimately,IhopetodemonstratethatTwain

invokesrealistwritingasawayofconductingareligiousdiscourseandthat,throughaclose

examinationofthissubject,realismitselfcanbebetterunderstoodinthecontextofnineteenth

centuryliteraryculture.Duringthenineteenthcentury,withthereligiousvistacontinually

shifting,theattempttolocatesomethingthatmightbeknownwithcertainty,thatis,something

real ,canbeseenasbotharhetoricalstrategyandaphilosophicaloneinthemannerinwhich

realistwritersexamineethicsviathismodeofwriting.

InanydiscussionofTwainandtheBible,therearetwokeytermsthatrequiresome

definitionandasetofparameters:religionandrealism.Byreligion,Ireiterateacriticalviewof

HaroldBushwho,inturn,invokesWilliamJames,byofferingabroaddefinitionthatthisterm

meanssimplytherepresentationofbeliefsthatoriginate“inresponsetodirectexperienceofthe

sacredandthespiritual”(Bush15).Specifically,inthecontextofTwain’swriting,thisterm

includesBiblereadinghabits,thedevelopmentofethicsandmorals,theapplicationofwhathe

156 terms“themoralsense”whendealingwithcontemporarysocialproblems, 80 andfinally,theidea

ofanafterlife.Twainalsodiscussesinstitutionalreligion,primarilyPresbyterianism,buthis

theologymovesinadistinctdirectionthatsomehavetermedLiberalProtestantbecauseof

Twain’srejectionofanorthodoxCalvinistdoctrine.ItistruethatTwain’ssystemofbeliefs

comprisesacomplicatedtheologicalamalgamationthatincludessomeelementsofLiberal

Protestantism,suchasaprimitivistyearningforapredoctrinalstateofspirituality,butthatterm

alonedoesnotsuffice,ashistextsreveal.Instead,Twainseemstowaverbetweenthe

hermeneuticsofLiberalProtestantism,theHebraismembeddedinCalvinism,andevena

scientificsecularism.Thesevariouscomponentsarenoteasilyseparatedinhiswriting,buthis

fascinationwithreligionclearlyemergesasacentralconcerninhisrealistwriting.Ihaveargued

earlierthatreligionservedasacatalystintheformationofrealism,andIbelievewhatwecan

concludefromTwain’swritingisthatreligionalsoservesasacatalystinthedeclineofrealist

writing.Twain’sattempttocapturethereligioussubjectunderscorestheimpossibilityof

concreterepresentationsofabstractsubjects,whichsignalsthelimitsofrealism.

Whenpossible,IaimtoavoidallencompassingtermssuchasChristianandeven

Protestantbecausethesetermsglossoverimportantdenominationalandsectariandifferences thatrealisttextsdepict.Infact,itisonlybyfocusingonsomeoftheseimportantdifferencesthat therelationshipbetweenreligionandrealismcanbeunderstood.Thelatterterm,realism,also requiresasetofparameters,buttheseare,admittedly,looseparametersbecause,likereligion,it hasbothanabstractandaconcretedimension.Simplyput,realismhasbothaphilosophical ideology,whichisempiricism,andamaterialexpression,whichistherealisttext.Byrealist texts,IrefertothedominantmodeofAmericanliteraryworkshistoricizedtotheperiodbetween

1861andtheturnofthecentury.Foraworkingdefinition,thisincludestextsinwhichthe writersofferparticularizationofnaminganddetailing,homogenoustime, 81 andafocuson ordinaryprotagonistsasacritiqueofcontemporarycultureinordertoexaminesocialethics.I

157 readilyacknowledgethatthetermrealismgenerallyencompassesawidevarietyofdefinitions, soIacceptthepostmodernterm“realisms”offeredbycontemporaryscholarssuchasRichard

Lehan,PeterBrooks,MichaelDavittBell,andElizabethAmmonsthatwerediscussedinthe introductorychapterofthiswork. 82 Thevalueoftheterm“realisms”isthatwecanexaminethe differentwaysinwhichlatenineteenthcenturyAmericanwritersconceivedofrealism,andwe candiscovernewswaysofviewingtheirtextsasadiscourse.Infact,wemayidentifyatleast threedifferentlevelsofdiscourse:authortoculture,authortoauthor,andauthortoself,meaning thateachauthormightberespondingtohisorherownliterarycanonorpersonalreligious intuitionsanduncertainties.

Mylargeraimistoexaminethefluidrelationshipbetweenreligionandrealism,i.e. authortoculture,inordertoacknowledgethereciprocitythroughwhicheachinformedtheother duringthelatenineteenthcentury.Implicitinthisclaimistheneedtoexaminethedifferent stylesinwhichvariouswritersthemselvesconceivedofrealismasaliteraryaestheticinan ongoingefforttoestablishasatisfactorysetofparametersforthemanyrealisms.Evenmore importantthanunderstandingwhatrealistwritersbelievedtheyweredoingwiththisgenreisthe needtoclarify how theywereconductingthisdiscourse.LilianFurstpointsoutthatone

commoncharacteristicofrealismisanimplicitagreementbetweenauthorandreaderthatthe

textcanbeimaginedasamimeticrepresentationoftheexteriorworld.Shewrites:“Therealand

thefictivearereciprocallypermeable....Onlythroughawillingandconsciousparticipationin

realism’sperformativepretensecanreadersbegintounderstanditsgames”(Furst115).The

materialistbasisofrealismrequiresthewritertoemployatypeofsymbolismthatcreates

verisimilitudeforthereader.Thatis,thewritermustlocateculturalsignifiersthatlinkthe

exteriorworldoutsideofthetext,meaningthesocialworlditclaimstorepresent,tothe

imaginaryworldthatthetextevokes,meaningthereader’sperception.Thereadermustidentify

thesymbolandknowhowtoapplyitindeconstructingthetext.Thereligioussubjectworks

158 wellasasignifierwithintherealisttextbecauseitoffersaduallevelofrepresentation,both abstractideologyandconcreteculturalpractices,thatallowsbothwritersandreadersmakethe leapfromtheexternalrealityoflivedexperiencetothevicariousrealityofthetext.Thesubject itselfismimeticandoperatesinasimilarmannertorealism.

AdiscussionofTwain’sfictionmustbeginwiththeworkthatshapedhisliterary aestheticaroundthereligioussubject.Inhistravelogue, Innocents Abroad, or The New

Pilgrim’s Progress (1869),TwainbeginsanearlydiscourseonPresbyterianismthathewilltake upagainin The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1876)and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn

(1884).ByinvokingtheJohnBunyan’spopularallegory,hesignalshisintentionofplacingthis textintoadiscoursewithCalvinism.Forthisreason, Innocents Abroad isaseminalworkfor

examiningTwain’sapproachtoreligion,anditalsomarksanimportantpopularrhetoricalshift

forTwainfromdealingwiththistopicinabroad,worldlymannertofocusingspecificallyon

religioninAmericancultureasanimportantfacetinshapingnationalidentity.Beginninginthis

text,andlaterthroughoutthewidescopeofhiswritingcareer,hediscussesCatholicism,Islam,

Presbyterianism,andeventhebroadsectarianismoflatenineteenthcenturyAmericanculture.A

harshcriticofCatholicism,hereturnsagainandagaintoexaminehisCalvinistroots,critiquing

institutionalreligionevenwhilegrudginglyconcludingthatitisalmostaculturalimperative.By

theendofthistravelogue,Twainhasconstructedaviewofreligionthatseemsuniquely

American.HeworkshiswaythroughEuropeandAsia,comparingreligiousidentityand

religiouspracticestomoderndayAmericanProtestantism.Heusesthebroadterm“Christian”

intheearlypartofhistext,butbythetimehereachestheHolyLand,hebecomesmoreand

morespecificaboutdenominationalismandAmericanculture.Webegintoseetheinadequacies

oftheallencompassing“Christian”label;itdoesnotsufficientlydescribethecomplex

subjectivityofAmericanreligiousculture.

159 Therearethreemainreligionsthatcontrasteachotherin The Innocents Abroad :

Catholicism,Islam,whichTwainreferstoas“Mohammedism”(51)or“Islamism”(446),and

Christianity,aproblematicmonikerthatbothincludesandexcludesCatholicismdependingon itscontext.ChristianissometimesasynonymforProtestantism,andforthisreason,itrequiresa bitofdeconstructioninrealistliterature.Twain’snarrator,apilgrimvoyeur,occupiesaunique positioninthistextasbeing“aChristian”andyetnotidentifyinghimselfwithanyparticular

Christiandenomination.Hetriestoestablishaneutralobjectivityinordertoreportontheworld aroundhim.Todoso,heusesmanylabelsforJesus:BlessedSaviourwhileinItaly(202),and laterMaster(348),Saviour(357),theYoungChild(364),Christ(436),andJesus(379).He chooseseachmonikercarefully,andhecontextualizeseachusage;BlessedSaviourisreserved forItalyandtheInquisitionwhileJesusistheyoungmanofNazarethwhohaslongsince forgottensiblings:“WhogivesathoughttothesistersofJesusatall?”(379).Thenarrator’suse ofthemultiplesynonymsforJesus,eachuniquelyassignedtoemphasizeeitherhisdivinityor thehumanitywithinspecificcontexts,positionshimasanexpertwhilehesimultaneously refrainsfromrevealinganaffiliationwithaspecificProtestantdenomination.Hemaintainsthis neutralstancethroughoutmostofthenarrativeuntilhisarrivalattheHolyLandforcesan admissionthatthehistoricrealityoftheHolyLandisatoddswithhisabstractdeism,andhe cannoteasilyreconcilethegeographicandnuminousdimensionsofhisreligiousexperiences.

InamomentofepiphanyintheHolyLand,thenarratoradmitsthathisownfaithis challengedbytherepetitiveremindersallthroughouthisjourneythattangibleevidencesof religioushistorydonotlogicallycorrelatetohisnotionofspirituality.InPalestine— contemporaryIsrael—hecontraststhesubjectiveempiricismofdenominationalisminthe

“searchforevidences”(388)withtheabstractnotionofspiritualitywhenhewrites:

Itseemscuriousenoughtoustobestandingongroundthatwasonceactuallypressedby thefeetoftheSaviour.Thesituationissuggestiveofarealityandatangibilitythat seemsatvariancewiththevaguenessandmysteryandghostlinessthatonenaturally

160 attachestothecharacterofagod....Icannotcomprehendthis;thegodsofmy understandinghavealwaysbeenhiddenincloudsandveryfaraway.(357) Withthisadmissionabouttheslippagebetweenexperienceandimagination,heimplicitly acknowledgesthatthereexistmanifoldnotionsoftheChristiandeity,complicatingtheattempt toreconciletherealwiththeabstract.

Infact,bytheendofthetext,Twainbeginstospeakveryspecificallyabout

Presbyterianism,notingthesubjectivitythatreligiousidentityimposesonthetraveler.He concludesthattravelersvisittheMiddleEast“seekingevidencesinsupportoftheirparticular creed”(388).HesuggeststhatPresbyteriansfindaPresbyterianPalestinebecause“theyhad madeuptheirmindstofindnoother”(388).HementionsBaptists,Catholics,Methodists,and

Episcopalians.Here,thenarratorsuggeststhattheonlywaytheconcreteandtheabstractcanbe reconciledwithoutdiminishingone’sfaithisthroughsubjectivity.Subjectivitymediatesthe discrepancythatexistsbetweenaninteriorandanexteriorreality. 83 OnemustviewtheHoly

Landthroughthelensofdenominationalisminordertoreconcilethedisparity;realityisformed whenimaginationshapesthesearchforevidenceandreconcileswhatonefindswithwhatone expects.Bydoingso,Twainrevealstheextremeimportanceheplacesonsubjectivityand perception,twoissuesthatwillprovetobecrucialtohisrealistaestheticandthewaysinwhich hewilllaterplaywithmaterialemblemsofreligiousculture.WhenTwainlaterwritesabout suchobjectsoffaith,namely,theBible,inAmericanreligiousculture,itisthisdisparitybetween signifierandsignifiedthathehighlights.

TwainalsomentionsJudaismin Innocents Abroad ,butthisreligionoccupieslittleofthe

text’sdiscourse;mainly,thenarratormakesoffhandcomparisonsofthetreatmentofJewish peopleinvariouscountriesandpartsoftheworld.84 Heoffersanimaginarydescriptionof

America’streatmentofitsJewishinhabitantsasifviewedbyaRomantourist:

Jews,there,aretreatedjustlikehumanbeings,insteadofdogs.Theycanworkatany businesstheyplease;theycansellbrandnewgoodsiftheywantto;theycankeepdrug stores;theycanpracticemedicineamongChristians; 85 theycanevenshakehandswith 161 Christiansiftheychoose;theycanassociatewiththem,justthesameasonehuman beingdoeswithanotherhumanbeing....[A]tthisveryday,inthiscuriouscountry,a Jewisallowedtovote,holdoffice,yea,getuponarostruminthepublicstreettospeak aboutthegovernmentifthegovernmentdon’tsuithim!”(197) Ultimately,heholdsAmericaupastheonlyplacehehasvisitedwhereJewishpeopleenjoytrue equality.Heusesthebroadterm“Christians”buthemeans“Americans”anditisnotclear exactlywhichAmericansheincludesinthisgeneralizationotherthannonJewishones.Such comparisonsillustrateTwain’sbeliefthatreligioustoleranceisamarkofanenlightened civilizationalthoughhehimselfissomewhatcriticalofinstitutionalreligionasaculturalforce.

Thisnarrator,infact,haslittleornotoleranceforeitherCatholicsorMuslims.

InhisdismissalofCatholicismandIslam,Twainpresentsacomplicatedportraitof religiousidentitythatispartpolitical,parteconomic,andpartsociological.Hefrequentlyhones inonmanifestsymbolsoffaithasameansofcriticizinganddismissingtheculturalvalueof specificreligiousdenominations.Forexample,althoughhepraisesCatholicsfortheir preservationoftheHolyLand,hesimultaneouslycriticizesCatholicismforitsostentatious displaysofreligiousgrandeurthroughoutEurope—its“profusionofcostlyandelaborate sepulcherornamentation”(171)—andthereligion’sfetishizingofrelics:“Wefindapieceofthe truecrossineveryoldchurchwegointo”(116).OfCatholicsinIsrael,hewrites:“Whenever theyferretoutalostlocalitymadeholybysomeScripturalevent,theystraightwaybuilda massive—almostimperishable—churchthere”(401).Clearly,theCatholicChurchhasplayeda fundamentalroleinthepreservationofChristianbeliefs,bothspirituallyandphysicallyby literallybuildingthearchitectureofthesesharedphysicalspaces.Atthesametime,Twainhasa dimviewofthehistoryoftheCatholicChurch.Specifically,hederidestheInquisition:“They didalltheycouldtopersuade[thebarbarians]toloveandhonor[theBlessedRedeemer]—first bytwistingtheirthumbsoutofjointwithascrew;thenbynippingtheirfleshwithpincers—red hotones,becausetheyarethemostcomfortableincoldweather;thenbyskinningthemalivea little,andfinallybyroastingtheminpublic”(202).LookingaroundItaly,heconcludesthat“the 162 vastarrayofwonderfulchurchedifices”wasaccomplishedbystarving“halfhercitizens”for fifteenhundredyears(188).Twaintakesapositivistapproachwhenevaluatingreligion,andhe seemstosuggestthattheageofCatholicismhasreacheditsutilitarianend,suggestingthatanew institutionwillaccompanyanewage.

TwaindidnotderideonlyCatholicismfollowinghisvisittotheHolyLand;later,the

Innocents Abroad narratoroffersasimilardismissalofIslam.Onceagain,associatingreligious identitywithitsarchitecturalsymbols,hedescribes“Moslemhouses”as“darkasheavy,andas comfortlessassomanytombs”(305)andbydoingso,hesubstitutesreligiousidentityfor national,cultural,orevengeographicidentity.Thiskindofsubstitutionissomewhatjarring;one wouldnot,forexample,expecttohearaNewEnglandcolonialstylehomedescribedasa

“Calvinisthouse”althoughitwaslikelytohavebeenbuiltandinhabitedbyPuritans,butfor

Twain,culturalartifactsandarchitectureareinvestedwiththeideologyofthosewhopreserve andinhabitthem.Here,theassociationofthe“Moslem”religionwiththehouseasatomb foreshadowsthenarrator’sconvictionthatthisreligionisdeclining.Hecommentslaterthathe willnotbeunhappytoseeitvanish.OfJerusalem,hewrites:“TheMoslemswatchtheGolden

Gatewithajealouseye,andananxiousone,fortheyhaveanhonoredtraditionthatwhenitfalls,

Islamismwillfall,andwithittheOttomanEmpire.Itdidnotgrievemeanytonoticethatthe oldgatewasgettingalittleshaky”(446).Twain’smetonymyemergesasaliteraryexperiment whenhetoyswithdifferentformsoffigurativerepresentation.Here,heexaminesreligious identityinrelationtoarchitecturalobjects.Later,whenhewritesaboutAmericanculture,he willofferadifferentsetofsymbols,andhewilllocateatextualobjectthatserveshim exceedinglywell:theBible.However,hewillnotlightuponthissymboluntilhefinisheshis scrutinyofOldWorldreligion.

Twain’spositiononCatholicismisunequivocal;hedespisesitasbothasocialinstitution andamoralforce.OfCatholicismheasserts:“Sheistodayonevastmuseumofmagnificence

163 andmisery”(188).HecomparesCatholicismtoAmericanProtestantreligiouspracticesandin theprocessintroducesanewrhetoric:“AllthechurchesinanordinaryAmericancityput togethercouldhardlybuythejeweledfripperyinoneofher[Italy’s]hundredCathedrals”(188).

Twain’scomparisonofOldWorldreligiontoAmericanProtestantismallowshimtotransition fromnonfictiontofictionand,inparticular,realism.Broadlyspeaking,hisviewsonCatholicism remainfairlystaticwhilehisviewsonAmericanreligionshiftcontinuallythroughouthis lifetime,anditisthelattersubjectthatwilloccupyaprominentpositioninhissubsequentwork.

Thetwoworksthat,asaset,bookendTwain’searlyviewsonCatholicismin Innocents

Abroad alsoresembleeachotherinstyleandideology;theseworksofferthecontextforviewing

Twain’srealismasadeparturefromtheEuropeanromanticismembeddedinCatholicism althoughhedoesreturntoavisionarymodeinboth.Theseare A Connecticut Yankee in King

Arthur’s Court ,publishedin1889and No. 44: The Mysterious Stranger ,whichwaspublished posthumouslyin1969,butwrittenbetween18961910. 86 Hestructuresbothtextsashistorical flashbackstoearlierperiodswhensocietywasunderthedominationoftheCatholicChurch:

Connecticut Yankee issetinsixthcenturyEnglandwhentheKnightsoftheRoundTable mythicallycrusadedonbehalfoftheRomanCatholicChurchwhile No. 44: The Mysterious

Stranger issetinEseldorf,meaningAssvilleorDonkeytown,inthelatesixteenthcentury

Austria.BothworksillustratetheinfluenceofThomasCarlyle’s Sartor Resartus (183334),or

theTailorRetailored,asTwain’slanguagereflects.While Sartor Resartus examinesafictional textbytheGermanProfessorDiogenesTeufelsdröckh,whosenametranslatestoDevil’sShit,

Eseldorfisvisitedbyamysteriousstrangerwhoidentifieshimselfasnumberfortyfour,New

Series864,962(Twain, No. 44 33)andwhoappearstobeSatanhimself.WhenTeufelsdröckh

advisesthereaderto“Closethy Byron ;openthy Goethe ”(Carlyle146),Carlylesignalstheend ofRomanticismandthebeginningofaVictoriansensibilitybysuggestingthatitistimefor societytomovebeyondthe“SatanicPoetry”(115)oftheRomantics. 87 Indoingso,helinks

164 literarygenretoideologyinaHegelianmodelofprogressivehistory,anideainwhichartisan expressionofitsage. 88 Inasimilarmanner,Twainsignalsanaestheticshiftbydebunkingthe

romanticmythofwhathetermsthe“AgeofFaith”(No. 44 3)andconstructinghisownrealist

styleforthe“GildedAge.”

Twainoffersapositivistpositionofhistoryneartheendofhiscareerwhenhewrites A

Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court in1889.Inthisnovel,theprotagonistHankMorgan

suggeststhattherealdangeroftheCatholicChurchistheamountofpowerithasamassed.He

imaginesthepossibilityofusurpingthehistoryoftheCatholicChurchbyintroducing

Protestantismabouttencenturiesearly.Hebelieveshecanadvancethecourseofcivilizationby

alteringreligiouspractices.Hesays,“IwasafraidofaunitedChurch;ittakesamightypower,

themightiestconceivable,andthenwhenitbyandbygetsintoselfishhands,asitisalways boundtodo,itmeansdeathtohumanliberty,andparalysistohumanthought”(Twain,

Connecticut Yankee 50).Onceagain,Twain’swritingreflectstheCarlylianinfluencewhen

Hankstateshisownviewofinstitutionalreligionbyinvokingtheclothinganalogy.Hesays:“A

manisonlyathisbestmorally,whenheisequippedwiththereligiousgarmentwhosecolorand

shapeandsizenicelyaccommodatethemselvestothespiritualcomplexion,angularities,and

statureoftheindividualwhowearsit”(50).Therearemanysimilarpassagesin Sartor Resartus

discussingthemannerinwhichpeople“cloak”themselvesinreligiousideology:“Church

clothesarefirstspunandwovenbySociety;outwardreligionoriginatesbySociety,Society becomespossiblebyReligion”(Carlyle163).Carlylesuggeststhatsocietycreatesinstitutional

religionandsubsequentlycreatesmaterialsymbolsofthatsystemwhileTwainsuggeststhat

moraldevelopmentisdependentonanindividualequippinghimselfwiththemetaphorical

garmentsofhisownsubjectivebeliefsandthereligionofhischoice.WhileCarlylefocuseson

collectiveidentity,Twainadaptstheanalogytoserveasanexpressionofsubjectivity.

165 A Connecticut Yankee’s Hankbelievesthatreligionservesasabenevolentforceaslong asitcanbecontained,buthestillbelievesthatmanchooseshisreligiousgarmentandtherefore operatesasanautonomousforce.BythetimeTwainwrites Pudd’nhead Wilson in1894,hewill begintoseeidentityitselfasanartificialsocialconstruct,andhewillattempttodebunkthemyth ofracialidentity.In Connecticut Yankee , Hank’sideologyreflectshisCommonSenseviewsby

evaluatingreligioninpragmaticterms:

We must haveareligion—itgoeswithoutsaying—butmyideais,tohaveitcutupinto fortyfreesects,sothattheywillpoliceeachother,ashadbeenthecaseintheUnited Statesinmytime.Concentrationofpowerinapoliticalmachineisbad;andan EstablishedChurchisonlyapoliticalmachine;itwasinventedforthat;itwasnursed, cradled,preservedforthat;itisanenemytohumanliberty,anddoesnogoodwhichit couldnotbetterdoinasplitupandscatteredcondition.(8990) WhatwehavehereisnotonlyabitofaspoofofthedemocraticreligiouscultureofAmerica,but

also,infact,acelebrationofit.ItistheverydiversityoftheAmericanreligiousvistathat

maintainsthesystemofchecksandbalancesthatisthefoundationofAmericangovernment.

Twaindoesnotobjecttotheregulationofmoralbehaviorbyachurch;infact,heseemstoview

itasnecessary.Whatheobjectstoisconcentratingthatpowertooheavilyinanationalchurch.

HankMorganmustultimatelyacceptthefactthattheCatholicChurchwillneverrelinquishits politicalandsocialpower,atleastnotinthecenturyHankwishestoreform.Whenthechurch putstheentirecountryunderanInterdict,Hank’s“beautifulcivilization”is“snuffedout”(235).

Religiousideologyandsocialhistoryareirrevocablylinked.

TherealsimilarityofTwain’stwoCatholicfantasytalesistheviewheoffersofthe

absolutecontrolthechurchexercisesoverthemindsofthepeople.Thissociologicaldomination

hindersintellectualdevelopmentbutreinforcesthesocialhierarchy.AugustFeldner, No. 44,

The Mysterious Stranger apprentice,describeshisidyllicchildhoodinEseldorfjustbeforeSatan

arrives:

Eseldorfwasaparadiseforusboys.Wewerenotovermuchpesteredwithschooling. MainlyweweretrainedtobegoodChristians;toreveretheVirgin,theChurch,andthe saintsaboveeverything....Beyondthesematterswewerenotrequiredtoknowmuch; 166 and,infact,notallowedto.Knowledgewasnotgoodforthecommonpeople,andcould makethemdiscontentedwiththelotwhichGodhadappointedforthem,andGodwould notendurediscontentmentwithHisplans.(4) In No. 44, The Mysterious Stranger Twainlevelshiscriticismatthecultureofignorancehe believestheCatholicChurchperpetuatesasameansofsocialcontrol.Hecynicallylabelsthe settingofthisstoryasthe“AgeofFaith”(3),butitisclearthatthesimplefaithofthe townspeoplecannotwithstandthedangerofindependentcontemplation.Faithandpeacecan abideonlyaslongasEseldorfcanmaintainthestatusquo.Twain’spointisthatevenina simplesystemofadheringtoasingleestablishedchurch,thereisnolonglastingpotentialfor faithtobesustained;religiouspracticeisnecessarilyreducedtoapowerplayforsocialcontrol.

Bothtexts, Connecticut Yankee and No. 44, The Mysterious Stranger ,endsimilarlyina dreamlikestateinwhichcharacterslosetheabilitytodistinguishbetweensleepandwakefulness ordistortionandreality.TwainhasagreatdealofdifficultydispensingwiththeCatholic

ChurchinhisEuropeanbasedwriting.Attheendof Connecticut Yankee ,allhecandois validatethepoweroftheCatholicChurchwithitsInterdictandtheelectrocutionofthetwenty fivethousandknights.TheapocalypticendingreplacesHank’sdreamofasocialevolution.The narrationrevertstoClarence,Hank’shelper,andthisstory,like No. 44, The Mysterious

Stranger ,endsinanincoherentdreaminwhichHankcannolongerdistinguishbetween imaginationandreality.Hedescribes“dreamsthatwereasrealasreality”(Twain, Connecticut

Yankee 257).Thesupernatural44tellsAugustFeldnerthat“ Nothing exists;allisadream”

(Twain, No. 44 186),andAugust’sCatholicfaithisreplacedwithnihilism.Twain’sownliterary experimentillustratesthattheEstablishedChurchremainsaproblemforhimaswell.Heisable tocriticizetheexcessivepoweroftheCatholicChurchdialecticallybycomparingthe centralizationofpowerandthegrandeurofitsphysicalpresencetothefarmoredemocraticand unassumingstyleofreligiouspracticesinAmericancultureintheearlynineteenthcentury.The rhetoricalshifthelpsrevealthatTwainisfarlessinterestedinPresbyterianismthanheisin

167 ProtestantsectarianismasawholeinAmericansociety,buthewillusePresbyterianismasa basisforcritiquingnineteenthcenturyreligiouspractices,presumablyinordertoreshapethem.

StanleyBrodwindescribesthedreamsceneas“epistemologicalconfusion”(61),andhe

suggeststhatthissceneimpactsthestyleofTwain’srealism.Hewrites:“Thestructureand

languageofthenovelconfirmthetruththatcontradictionliesattheheartoftheontologically

‘real,’andthatapprehendingthis...leadstoadialecticalvisionofGodandhistory,tragicand

comicbyturns.Itisanovelof theological realism ”(61).BrodwinpointsoutthatHanknot

onlywandersbetweenhistoricalperiods,buthewanders“betweentwotheologicalforces”(63).

Thetermtheologicalrealismisaninterestingonebecauseitillustratestheimportanceofreligion

asaculturalforce,anditallowsustounderstandhowtheserealistwritersenteredintoa

discourseoftherealsimplybyengagingwiththereligioussubject.Forexample,in Connecticut

Yankee ,TwainseemstosuggestthatthesuperstitiousmysticismoftheRomanCatholicChurch

inthemedievalworldhasacertaininevitability.Bydoingso,heseemstohaveconcludedthat

democraticProtestantismisjustasinevitablylinkedtotheIndustrialAgeoflatenineteenth

centuryAmericanculture.AcloseexaminationoftheTwain’sliteraryaestheticin No. 44, The

Mysterious Stranger and Connecticut Yankee similarlyrevealsthatwhileTwainreliesonthe

visionarytaletodiscussCatholicism,heexperimentswiththeconventionsofrealisminorderto

discussAmericanProtestantism.Specifically,hebeginstofocusonwhatLilianFurstcallsthe

“closeandcrediblepresent”(77),meaningagenerationorsobeforethepresent,andhe

identifiesimportantculturalsymbolsthatallowthereadertoviewthetextmimetically.

AsTwainbeginstofocusonfiction,oneparticularaspectemergesrelativetothesubject

ofreligion,andthatishisengagementwithscriptureasameansofundercuttingrealism’s privilegingofmaterialemblems.Justashehonedinontheelaboratecathedralsandubiquitous

remnantsofthetruecrossasmaterialsymbolsofEuropeanCatholicismin The Innocents

Abroad ,inhissubsequentfiction,TwainpresentstheBibleasasignifierofAmericanCalvinism.

168 Infact,TwaintakesaveryplayfulapproachtoexaminingtheBibleinawidevarietyofuses and,ineachinstance,aconnectioncanbemadetothesurroundingreligiousculturethatis contemporaneoustothetext.GreggCamfieldwrites:“Whetherbysecretlydenouncingitor publiclyteasingitsdevotees,MarkTwainwas,likehiscontemporaries,steepedinthestoriesand languageoftheBible,andhiscontinuousreference,whileusuallycouchedinirony,showshow thoroughlytheBibleshapedhisconsciousnesswheneverheconfrontedthespiritual,ethical,or scientificquestionsofhisday”( Oxford Companion53).TwainbeginstoexaminetheBibleas anobjectinculturethatemergesinsurprisingwaysbutrarelyasasacredartifactinvestedwith numinousrevelations.

Twain’sinterestintheBibleiswelldocumented,anditisnotsurprisingthatthistome makessuchaprominentappearanceinsomanyofhisworksbecauseitclearlyoccupiedan importantroleinhisownreligiousexperiences.Hehadextensiveexpertiseinscriptureand hermeneutics,approachedfirstthroughthelensofhisfamily’sPresbyterianismandrevisited laterthroughhisownpersonalstudyofcompetingworldreligiousmovements.Althoughhe frequentlypokesfunatAmerica’sdependenceontheBibleasanemblemofabsolutetruth,

TwainhimselfwasdrawntotheBibleandwasquiteknowledgeableaboutthetranslationhistory andprintcultureoftheGoodBook.HehadalargecollectionofBibles:“Eventually[Twain’s] librarycontainedthirtytwodifferentcopiesoftheBibleoroftheNewTestament,someof whichcontainedhismarginalia”(Phipps221).Healsocollectedsupplementaryinterpretive texts,includingT.W.Doane’s1882 Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions and

RufusNoyes’s Views on Religion (Phipps247).TheBiblealsoheldasentimentalplacein

Twain’slife.WilliamPhippswrites:“Significantly,whenhewasdealingwithfamily inheritancemattersin1904,theonlythingthathadbelongedtohismotherthathewantedto keepwasherillustratedfamilyBible”(221).Thoughtoutedbymanyasacynicalagnostic,

TwainwasambivalentaboutandendlesslyfascinatedbyAmericanreligiousculture.Bible

169 readinghabitsemergeasadiscursivesiteforhimtoexamineAmericanreligiouspracticesin relationtolatenineteenthcenturysocioethicalproblems.

InThe Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1876),TwainprovidesaglimpseintotheSunday schoolmonotonyofhisownchildhoodinHannibal,Missouriinthe1840s.Tom’sworldis boundbyreligioushabits,fromSundaytoSundayasTomsitscontemplatinglifeinrelationto thestiffconfinesofthePresbyterianChurch.Twaininvokestheimageofthephysicalchurch structureitselftoemphasizehowstrictlytheritualtakesholdoffamilylife:“Breakfastover,

AuntPollyhadfamilyworship;itbeganwithaprayerbuiltfromthegroundupofsolidcourses ofscripturalquotations,weldedtogetherwithathickmortaroforiginality;andfromthesummit ofthisshedeliveredagrimchapteroftheMosaicLaw,asfromSinai”( Tom Sawyer 24).

BeginningwiththisearlymorningrepastandTom’sbestchurchattire,Sundaysareturnedover completelytoreligiousobservation,andthroughTom,Twaindepictsthepainstakingboredomof ahighlyritualizedCalvinistculture:“Sabbathschoolhourswerefromninetohalfpastten;and thenchurchservice”(27).TomdragshimselfunwillinglyoutthedoortoSundayschool,“a placethatTomhatedwithhiswholeheart”(27).ForTom,Sundayschoolsoonbecomesasite wherehecanpracticethewheelinganddealingwithwhichhenegotiateshislife.ForTwain,the religioussubjectbecomesasitewherehecandebunkthehomileticnovel’sthemeofromantic conversionbyreversingthefocusfromeschatologicalconcernstomoreimmediateones.

Ashewilldothroughouthiscareer,in Tom Sawyer TwaindiscussestheBibleina highlymaterializedmanner,translatingBiblereadinghabitsintovariousscenariosof“value”as theIndustrialAgeinAmericatakeshold.WearetoldofTom’seconomyashedealswiththe necessityoflearningtherequisitescriptureforSundayschoolrecitations:“Tombentallhis energiestothememorizingoffiveverses;andhechosepartoftheSermonontheMount, becausehecouldfindnoversesthatwereshorter”(24).Thispassageshowsthematerialityof theBiblefirstcomingintoplay—theshorter,thebetter.ThereisafrugalapproachtotheBible

170 inrelationtoitsinconvenientintrusionontheschoolboy’slimitedfreetime.Beginningwith hisshortverses,Tomsoon“tradesup”onceasystemofexchangeisenactedatSundayschool.

Here,Tomnegotiatesfora“yallertickets”(27)awardedforthememorizationofBibleverses.

Tomtradesa“pieceoflickrishandafishhook”(27)foroneofthecovetedtickets.He negotiatesforticketsofallcolor,increasinghisnetworthbeforeenteringthechurch:

Tenblueticketsequalled[sic]aredone,andcouldbeexchangedforit;tenredtickets equalledayellowone;fortenyellowticketsthesuperintendentgaveaveryplainbound Bible(worthfortycentsinthoseeasytimes)tothepupil.Howmanyofmyreaders wouldhavetheindustryandapplicationtomemorizetwothousandverses,evenfora DoréBible? 89 AndyetMaryhadacquiredtwoBiblesinthisway;itwasthepatientwork oftwoyears:andaboyofGermanparentagehadwonfourorfive.Heoncerecitedthree thousandverseswithoutstopping,butthestrainuponhismentalfacultieswastoogreat, andhewaslittlebetterthananidiotfromthatdayforth.(28) TwainherelaunchesacritiqueofAmericanreligiousbehaviorby“overmaterializing”theBible.

Weseethecapitalistinfluenceonreligiousbehavior,whereBibleownershipistherewardof assemblylinememorizationbyrotelearning.TheBible’s“worth,”apartfromfortycents,is equaltotwothousandverses,butthesystemitselfisunderminedbyTom’sWallStreetlike wheelinganddealingfortheyellow,red,andbluetickets.AndtheDoréBibleispresumably worthmorethan2,000versesbecauseitsmarketcostsurpassestheplainlyboundbible.In

Twain’ssystem,itshouldrequiremore“work”toearnthemoreornatevolume.Atthesame time,thevacuousmemorizationnumbsthemindandrenderseventhemostindustriousmuteand stultified.InTwain’swords,twothousandsheavesofscripturemustbe“warehoused”(33).If theSundayschooldrudgeryreflectsthecurrentstateofCalvinism,Twain’sexampleofthe productionofidiotsrevealshisdenouncementofreligiouspracticesinHannibalduringhis childhood.

Twain’sdepictionoftheSundayschoolscripturalrelayoffersmorethanacritiqueof

Calvinism;infact,heoffersacommentaryonspecificBiblereadinghabitsthatshifted significantlyjustasCalvinismwasrapidlylosingitsfootholdasthedominantAmerican religiousideology.ThechangesinBiblereadinghabitsweredirectlyrelatedtothe 171 modernizationofprintcultureinAmerica.TheBiblebecamemuchmoreeasilyavailableand, asTwainpointsout,easilyaffordable.ColleenMcDannellassertsthattheprintprocessof stereotypingmadeBibleproductioneasierandmoreaccuratebeginningintheearlynineteenth century(69).Shortlythereafter,newlyformedBiblesocietieseffectedawidespreaddistribution ofthesenew,cheapereditions:“Itwasnotenoughforeachhomeorchurchtohaveacopyofthe scriptures.ThegoalofBiblesocietieswasforeachindividualtoownhisorherownBible”(71).

InTom’sSundayschool,clearlytheaimistoensurethateachchildobtainsanindividualcopy ofscripture,reflectingthislargermovement.AlthoughtheBiblewasalwaysaccessible,it becomesmoreplentifulasaculturalartifactduringthisperiod.Meanwhile,theveryeffortthat madetheBiblemoreaccessiblediminisheditsrarityandvaluewhilesimultaneouslychanging

Biblereadinghabitsfromcommunalandfamilyeventstofarmoreprivateencounterswith scripture.Inshort,thesocialcontroloverscripturalexegesisbegantodiminishduringthis period.Guidedreadingsbecameindividualinterpolations.

AnotherimportantresultoftheplethoraofnewBibleeditionsthatsaturatedthemarket wastheresultantneedfor“marketing”theBible.McDannellarguesthatthesentimentalization oftheFamilyBiblewasreplacedbythecommodificationofthisartifactaspublisherscompeted forsales.Ratherthanupholdatraditionalstancestressingtheimportanceofsacredscriptures, sucheffortsundercutauthorityoftheGoodBook.Shewrites:“Biblepublishersrealizedthatif theyweretosellBibles,theywouldneedtocounterthenotionthatBiblesonlycontainedeternal truthsoftheOldandNewTestaments.AnunchangingBibleneverbecameobsoleteand thereforeneverneededtobereplaced”(87).Inotherwords,amarkethadtobecreatedforthese neweditions,andpublishersneededtocapitalizeondoubtsovertheauthenticityofthetextin ordertosellmorecopies.

InAmericanBibleculture,theideaofanauthoritative,unchangingtextisunderminedby suchmarketingefforts.Instead,itisthevery“differentness”oftheBiblethatallowsvarious

172 publisherstodistinguishtheirproducts.SomeBibleseditionsweredesignedtoinclude

supplementarymaterial,suchasmaps,commentary,andillustrations,whileothereditions

appealedtolavishVictorianaestheticswithexpensivecovers,bindings,andartwork.AsIwill

discussbelow,thedifferencebetweeneditionswasnotmerelycosmetic;later,therewillbe

controversyovertranslationsaswell,butthemultiplicityofavailableeditionsemergedfirstin

relationtosupplementaryorextrascripturalenhancement,andlater,thetextitselfbeganto

change.

PaulGutjahrdiscussesthecollectingimpulsethatcametobeassociatedwithBible

ownershipinaconsumerdrivenculture.Acquisitionofreligiousartifacts,heargues,propagates

themarketforScripture.Hewrites:“ThebindingsandillustrationshelpedcreateBiblesthat

werepurchasedforreasonsasidefromthewordstheycontained.Bindingsincreasinglybecame

toolstomarklevelsofgentilityandsocialstatus”(177).WhatMcDannellandGutjahr

emphasizeisthatseveralchangesinmarketcultureresultedinthemorethan2,000Bible

editionsthatwereavailabletoconsumersby1880(Gutjahr3).NearlyeveryAmericanwho

attendedareligiousinstitutionreceivedanindividualcopyoftheBible,readinghabitschanged

fromacollectivetoaprivateencounterwithScripture,publishershadtodifferentiateeditionsby

underminingtheideaofasinglesacredtext,andthetextitselfbecamerecognizablebyits physicalappearanceandvalueaddedinserts,resultinginabrandnameBiblementality.

WhenTwainanachronisticallyaskshisreadersin1876whattheywouldbewillingtodo evenforaDoréBible( Tom Sawyer 28),heisindeedtoyingwiththeassociatedvalueofthe brandnameBibleinrelationtomanifestreligiouspracticesinthelatenineteenthcentury.He tunesintotheveryideathatcertaineditionswillbemoresoughtafterthanothers,andhemakes acruciallinkbetweenCalvinism,consumerism,andthetechnologicalrevolutionthathas modernizedtheprintingpress.HimselfacollectorofBibles,heisteasingAmericansaboutthe aestheticsofBibleacquisitionandwhatitimplies.TheBiblebecomesincreasinglyaccessible

173 evenasitisironicallylosingitsauthenticityasasourceofdivinerevelationbecauseitisso frequentlysubjecttochange.AstheBibleseeminglybecomeslessreal,orlessverifiablyrealat anyrate,realistwriterstakeuptheirpenstryingtoascertainexactlywhatinculturecanbe understoodwithcertaintyandhowabstractconceptsmightbestbeconveyedviathewritten word. 90 WhenHowellsfamouslyarguesthatliteraturewasthenewreligion( Silas Lapham 126),

heindirectlyimpliesthatrealistliteratureiscompetingwiththeBibleintryingtobridgethe

relationshipbetweenspiritualbeliefsandasystemofethics.Whatrealistwritershaveinherited,

however,isanincreasinglyskepticalpublicthathaslearnedthatalltextsarenowsubjectto

doubt.In Tom Sawyer ,Twainsuggeststhatbibleversesareknownbutnotwellunderstood;they arereadandreiterated,buthecallsintoquestionwhatthetexthastoofferinrelationtohowitis bothtaughtandread.WhatbeginsperhapsasacritiqueofCalvinismprecipitatesabroad

inquiryintoallliterarypracticesthatemergesdirectlyfromBiblehermeneuticsandreading

habitsassociatedwithit.

Thereisoneotherscenein Tom Sawyer thatbearsexamininginrelationtoTwain’s

rejectionoftheCalvinistethos.ThissceneallowsreaderstoglimpsebeyondtheBibleitselfas

anexpressionofachangingreligiousculture;here,Twainexpandshisfocustomaterialityitself

asaliterarytrope.FollowingTom’sSundayschoollessonistheadditionaltediumofsitting

throughthechurchsermon.Onceagain,Twaindescribesthescenewithananalogyofvalue;the

abstractvalueofthepreacher’swordsare,liketheBible,givenaconcretemeasurementina

systemofexchange:“Tomcountedthenumberofpagesofthesermon;afterchurchhealways

knewhadmanypagestherehadbeen,butheseldomknewanythingelseaboutthediscourse”

(Tom Sawyer 38).Tomobservesthesermon,buthedoesnotlistentoit.Thesermonitself becomesatangibleobjectintheroominakindofplayonmaterialitythatTwainwilloften

employinhissubsequentwriting.WeclearlygaintheunderstandingthattheBiblecomprises

merely“verses”whilethesermoncomprisesmerelypages,andabstractpossibilitiesarenow

174 repeatedlyboundbytheirmaterialformsandtheinteractionswiththoseformsinAmerican religiousculture.

ItsoonbecomesevidentwhythesermonfailstoholdTom’sattention.Inadescription reminiscentofHenryDavidThoreau’s Walden ,anotherdeparturefromCalvinismdiscussed below,Tom’sattentionisdrawntoacompetingdiscourse,whichisthebuzzingofafly. Ashe

“counts”thesermonandwaitsimpatientlyforanopportunetime,helongstocapturetheerrant

fly:“Butwiththeclosingsentencehishandbegantocurveandstealforward;andtheinstantthe

‘Amen’wasout,theflywasaprisonerofwar.Hisauntdetectedtheact,andmadehimletitgo”

(38).Minuteslater,Tomremembersapinchbughehasbroughtwithhim.Soon,notonlyTom butseveralofhisfellowcongregantsallowtheirattentiontowanderfromtheminister’s

expositiontothecompetingentomologicalspectacle.Afteraquickandpainfulpinching,Tom

watchesinchagrinasthebeetleescapesandiscarriedoutonthebackofadog.“TomSawyer

wenthomequitecheerful,thinkingtohimselfthattherewassomesatisfactionaboutdivine

servicewhentherewasabitofvarietyinit.Hehadbutonemarringthought;hewaswillingthat

thedogshouldplaywithhispinchbug,buthedidnotthinkitwasuprightinhimtocarryitoff”

(40).Themorallessonisdubious,butTomatleastfindsrelieffromthemonotonyoftheSunday

service,andTwainaptlyforecaststhe“variety”thattheconcurrentevangelicalrevivalsofthe

SecondGreatAwakeningoffertoapublicthathasbecomeboredwithitsPuritaninheritance.

Ifwecontextualizethetwoinstancesoftheinsectstotwomemorableexamplesfrom

Thoreau’s1854 Walden , or Life in the Woods ,Twain’ssatirebecomeseasiertospot.Recalling

Thoreau’sassertionthat“Beitlifeordeath,wecraveonlyreality”(71),Thoreauprovidesa strikinglysimilaraccountofamosquito“makingitsinvisibleandunimaginabletour”(64).

UnlikeTom,Thoreaudoesnotviewtheinsectasadiversionfromsacredabstractions,but insteadhelikensthemosquito’sjourneytoHomer’saccountoftheIliadandtheOdyssey(64) andstilllaterhedescribesanepicbattlebetweenaredant“Achilles”andablackant(155).For

175 Thoreau,evenaninsectistranscendental,andthegreatideasoftheUniverserecuragainand again;theyarepreservedinwords,buttheyarealsoabletobederivedthroughcloseobservation ofthenaturalworld. 91 Thoreau’smaterialismisaconduittothemetaphysicalrealmashe locatesanewtropeformakinghisinheritedCalvinismtangibleandrelevant.Tomfindsonly starkreliefandabitofvarietythatdistractsfromthegruelingrequirementsofhisSundayto

Sundayregimen.Tomisfarlessinterestedineschatologicalsalvationandmeaningthanheis groundedinthehereandnow.Inbothofthesewritings,ashiftoccursthatrepresentsa departurefromtheholdCalvinistpracticeshavehadontheseminalimaginationofdeveloping minds,butThoreauprojectsourimaginationsoutwardtothenotionofuniversaltruthswhile

Twaingroundsourattentioninthephysicalremindersofmoreearthlyconcerns.Heoffersa differentkindofredirectionthanThoreaudoes,andTwainwillrepeatthisplaywithmateriality inhissubsequentrealistworksinvariousways.ForTwain,materialityitselffunctionsasa literarytrope.

Throughouthisfiction,Twainnotonlyalludestobibleverses,buthetoyswiththe materialityoftheBibleitself,examininghowthistomesignifiesAmericanreadinghabitsin relationtoachangingprintcultureandamarketeconomy.Storiessuchas“TheStolenWhite

Elephant”(1882)revealTwain’sfamiliaritywiththeprinthistoryoftheBible.Indescribingthe missingelephant’spropensitytoconsumescripture,Twain’scharactersdiscussphysical differencesbetweenthe“ordinaryoctavo”editionandthefamilyillustratedDoréBible(“Stolen”

31).Thedetectiveaskshishaplessvictimquestionafterquestiontryingtoascertainexactlyhow muchscripturetheelephantwasabletoswallow.Hetriestoderiveaformulafirstbasedon weight:“No,youdonotgetmyidea.Irefertobulk.TheordinaryOctavoBibleweighsabout twopoundsandahalf,whilethegreatquartowiththeillustrationsweighstenortwelve.How manyDoréBibleswouldheeatatameal?”(30).Afteradiscussionofthedifferentsizesand weightsofBibleeditions,thedifferencebetweeneditionsissettledinfinancialtermsasTwain

176 satirizescompetingargumentsabouthighercriticismbyofferinganewmethodforsettlingsuch theologicaldisputesinacapitalistculture:“Well,putitindollarsandcents,then.Wemustget atitsomehow.TheDorécostsahundreddollarsacopy,Russianleather,beveled”(31). Twain

“overmaterializes”thenatureofloftyscripturebyfocusingonitsphysicalweightratherthanits philosophicalweightiness.Biblereadingisimplicitlycomparedtotheelephant’sactof

digestingBibles,andthevalueoftheBiblebecomesintimatelyconnectedtoitsmarketablecost,

substitutingametaphysicalconceptwithitscapitalistequivalent.

Throughouthisliterarycareer,Twainalludestoscriptureaswellashermeneuticsinboth

subtleandovertways.TheimportanceofscripturetoTwain’sfictionisindisputable,andhis

inclusionofithascapturedscholars’attentionfordecades,asscholarafterscholarhasattempted

toquantifysuchreferences.Phippssummarizes:“AlanGribbenfoundallusionsinMT’swritings

tomorethanfourhundredbiblicalpassages,139totheGospelsandalmostasmanytothe

Pentateuch.TheyaredrawnfrommorethanhalfthebooksofbothTestaments.PhilipWilliams

guessesthattherearemorethanathousandallusionstotheBiblealtogether,havingfound108in

The Gilded Age alone”(24849).92 WhatisclearisthatTwainbecomesincreasinglydirectinhis

appropriationofscripture,notonlybyrewritingitbutalsobyexaminingtheBibleitselfasa

misleadingsymbolofdivineknowledgeorasasourceofethicalauthority.

Twaintoyswithmanyabstractnotionsofauthorityandconscience,andheintersperses

thiskindofplaythroughouthiscritiqueofreligion.Inhishumorousdepictionsofboth

conscienceand“theMoralsense,”heattemptstolocatethenexusofmoralityinaculturewith

verylittlesuccess.Thiskindofcontemplationofsocioethicalbehavioriscommonconcernof

realistwriters,anditoftenemergesatacriticaljuncturewheninstitutionalreligionengageswith

individualconscience,resultingwithafeelingofdissatisfactionarisingfromtheconflict betweenwhatonehasbeentaughtandwhatonedesirestodo.In“TheFactsConcerningthe

RecentCarnivalofCrimeinConnecticut”(1876),Twaindepictsaprotagonistwhoisableto

177 confronthisveryownconscience,whichheissurprisedtoseeisbut“ashriveled,shabby dwarf”(9).Infact,theprotagonistwantstoconfronthisconsciencenottoresolveamoral questionbutinsteadtobadgerhimforsuppressinghisdeviantdesiresandcausinghimtobe dissatisfiedwithhimselfbecauseofthemoralcodesimposedbyhisPresbyterianupbringing.

HiscrisisisinstigatedbytheimminentarrivalofhisAuntMary,theexecutorofhismoral inheritance.Confrontinghisconscience,hesays,“‘Curseyou,Ihavewishedahundredtimes thatyouweretangible,andthatIcouldgetmyhandsonyourthroatonce!’”(1314).What ensuesisabattleofthewillsbetweennarratorandconsciencewithavictorywhenthenarrator finallykillshisconsciencebytossingitintothefire.Justashedrivesawayhisconscience,the narratorsimilarlydrivesoffAuntMarywithhistaunts:“‘Youbeholdbeforeyouamanwhose lifeconflictisdone,whosesoulisatpeace,amanwhoseheartisdeadtosorrow...;aman without a conscience !”(24).Thecongruentimageryoftheheart’sdeathandthesoul’speaceis somewhatstartlinginamanwho,accordingtohisreligiousfoundation,willnowbedamnedfor allofeternity.Reportingthatheisnowabletocommitarson,swindling,andthemurderof tramps,thismanbelieveshimselftobeatpeacebecauseofthereleasefromhismoralrestraint;it isnotGodwhodamnshimbutrathersociety.AlthoughFreudwouldnotpublish“TheEgoand theId”until1923,Twainclearlydepictstheobstaclethatawellhonedconscienceprovidesto thelatentdesiresoftheunfetteredpsyche.Religiondoesnotprovidesolacetothenarrator;it ruinshislife.Inhiscounterconversion,heisreleasedandthussaved.Twain’splayonthe manifestationofmoralsandcustompresentsconscienceitselfasaburdenintheformofthe taunting,hinderingdwarf.Hereversestheconversionexperiencebysavinghissubjectinthe immediatemomentratherthanpromisingtherewardofeternalgrace.Therealquestionthetext raisesisaboutthetradeoff;withoutmetaphysicalcertainty,istheterrestrialshiftworththerisk?

If Tom Sawyer and“CarnivalofCrime”offerexamplesofTwain’smovementawayfrom

Presbyterianism, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884)mightbeviewedasalarger

178 examinationofdifferentenactmentsofAmericanreligiouspractices.Onceagain,Twain concentrateshisattentionondifferentmethodsofobservationandexperienceinrelationtothe symbolicrepresentationsthatmakereligion real .ThistalerevealsTwain’sfascinationwith objects,clues,observations,andrevelations.AsTomQuirkpointsout,thisnovelisabout misdirection:“Thetwoprincipalplotdevices,itturnsout,arefalseleads”(“TheRealism”149).

HuckneverhadanyneedtorunawayfromhisPapbecausePap,itturnsout,wasalreadydead, andJimisrunningawaylongafterhehasbeensetfree.Inasceneattheendof Huck Finn ,

Huckobserveshowmisleadingmaterialcluescanbeinderivinginformationabouttheunseen world,inthiscase,theworldwhereJimishiding:“Itshowshowabodycanseeanddon’tseeat thesametime”(Twain, Huckleberry Finn 234).Huck’sworldisfullofmaterialclues,suchas theGoodBook,thatdonotprovideclearguidancefortheintangiblerealmofethics,conscience, orsalvationbecause,likeallsymbols,theBibleexistsasanartifactthatcanbebothseenand unseenatthesametimebecauseofthemanywaysinwhichtheithascometobeunderstood. 93

Aswehaveseenwith“TheStolenWhiteElephant,”oftentheBibleasamaterialartifact ratherthanspecificversesthereincapturesTwain’sinterest.In Huckleberry Finn ,Twaintakes

everyopportunitytomockthesymbolsassociatedwithmoralandethicalbehaviorandtoshow

howasymbolofauthoritycaneasilybeunderminedassoonasitassumesanewfunctionin

culture.Like Tom Sawyer , thisstoryissetinthe1840s,butTwain’scynicismregardingbiblical

authorityismuchmoreindicativeoflate19 th centuryculture.Twainaptlydemonstratesthe

German“highercriticism”historicalviewoftheBible’sdiminishingroleasaliteralsourceof

authorityinthemanywaysheplayswiththeappearanceoftheBibleinthisnovel.Themany

substitutionsofbiblicalauthoritythatoccurwithinthetextpointtoashiftingculturalemphasis

inthewayknowledgeisinscribedandpreserved.

InHuck’sfirstimpressionoftheGrangerfordhome,henoticesrightawayamakeshift

librarythatrepresentsfairlyaccuratelythemoralandreligioustextslikelytobefoundina

179 typicalAmericanhome.Huckobservesseveralitemsondisplay:“Therewassomebookstoo, piledupperfectlyexact,oneachcornerofthetable.OnewasabigfamilyBible,fullofpictures.

Onewas‘Pilgrim’sProgress,’aboutamanthatlefthisfamilyitdidn’tsaywhy.Iread considerableinitnowandthen.Thestatementswasinteresting,buttough”(103). 94 Such paragraphsregistertheBible’sdiminishedroleasmerelyanimportantsourceoftruthbutno

longerasacredreligiousandmoraltext;HuckleberryFinnplacestheBiblebesidethesevarious

enactmentsoftheBiblethatillustrateapplicationsofthesacredtext,eachperfectlybalancedand

“piledupperfectlyexact.” 95 Thecarefulsenseofproportionassignedtothebooksemphasizes thedownwardcourseoftheBible’sethicalauthority.Clearly,thisisnotahomethatpractices sola scriptura (theBiblealone),nordoestheBibleelicitasenseofreverencerelativetothese

othertexts.

FollowingHuck’sintroductiontotheGrangerfordhome,weseeTwaintoyingwiththe physicalpresenceoftheBible,muchashehaddonein“TheStolenWhiteElephant.”Inone

scene,theBibleservesmerelyasameansoftransportingsecretlovenotesbetweenwarring

families,theGrangerfordsandtheShepherdsons.WhenHuckissenttolocateSophia

Grangerford’sforgottenBible,hebecomessuspicious:“SaysItomyselfsomething’sup—it

ain’tnaturalforagirltobeinsuchasweataboutaTestament;soIgiveitashake,andoutdrops

alittlepieceofpaperwith‘ Half-past two ’wroteonitwithapencil”(113).Here’sagood exampleofthenarratorlocatingrealismwithinthetextandrevealingacriticalflawwith realism’sassumptionsoftheactofmirroringthesocialworld;theactofobservationemphasizes theroleofsubjectivity.Itisanemotionaldiscrepancythatrevealsthemisplacedauthorityof

Sophia’sBible,anditrequiresaspecificabilitytoreadthesignssurroundingtheobject.Huck believesit“ain’tnatural”thatMissSophiawouldbesofranticaboutalostbookofscripture.

Hisexperiencetellshimtheanxietysherevealsisdisproportionate.Sensingherreactionis“not real,”heviewstheBibleonlyasasymbolofsubterfuge.Justlikethepilgrimsin The Innocents

180 Abroad ,Huckbeginshissearchforevidencebyemployingthesubjectivityofhisownreligious experienceasalensforviewingtheworld,or,inthiscase,examiningtheBible.

HereweseetheBiblecausingakindofanxietybecausethehiddenmessageintheBible isnotwhatitissupposedtobe.HucksuspiciouslysearchestheBibleinanewmanner,and,sure enough,hefinds“added”scripture,whichisthesecretrendezvousnote.Responding sentimentallyandremainingsilentaboutthesecretBiblenote,Huck’sactionleadstoanethical crisiswhenafeudisreignitedbetweenthewarringfamilies,andhisfriendBuckGrangerfordis killed.Huckbeginstocontemplatehisactions,andhefeelsuneasyabouthisownroleinthe apocalypticoutcomeattheGrangerfordhome. ThisdramasetsthestageforwhatNorrisYates labelsthe“counterconversion”ofHuckleberryFinn,alatersceneinwhichHuckonceagain choosestoremainsilentandtearsuphisownnotebetrayingJim’slocationtoMissWatson.

ThiscounterconversionoccurslaterinthenovelatapointatwhichHuckrejectseschatological concernsaboutsalvationanddecidesinsteadtofollowhisconscienceashehelpsJimremain free.InHuck’sownwords:“‘Allright,thenI’llgo tohell’”(217). Thesubtleimplicationsof thisfirstpassagerelateverywelltolargerculture’sexaminationoftheauthorityoftheBibleand theinclusionorexclusionofspecificgospels.Highercriticismandnewtranslationsundercutthe

Bibleateveryturn,causingananxietyaboutthenatureofTruthitselfthatrealistwritingbegins toreflect.96 Thelaterpassage,thecounterconversion,revealstheemphasisonconscienceand

selfknowledgeoverlawand/orscriptureasanethicalguide.Theindividualbecomesan

autonomousmoralagent.

Alaterscene,withoutdirectlyimpugningtheBible,replacesitwithothersymbolsof

knowledge.WhenHuckiscaughtinalieabouthisreligiousexperienceasa“valley”tothe

duke,thebookHucklayshishandontosweartohishonestyisadictionary:“Iseeitwarn’t

nothingbutadictionary,soIlaidmyhandonitandsaidit”(177).Twainisprobablymakinga

covertreferencetoan1880BibleeditionissuedbyGately&Companythatincluded“Dr.

181 WilliamSmith’sStandardBibleDictionary,”whichwasalsocalledthe“HouseholdDictionary oftheBible”(Gutjahr8083). 97 Adirectreferencewouldbeanachronistictothesettingofthe

novel,butthesubstitutionseemsindicativeofTwain’splayonmodernBibleeditionsinother

writingssuchas Tom Sawyer and“StolenWhiteElephant.”Thedictionarystandsinforthe

Bibleandoffersinsteadabookthathasanothertypeofculturalauthority;itistheultimatebooks

of“facts”buteverywordinitoffersonlyasociallyconstructedmeaningmakingitasmutableas

theBiblehasbecome.ThedictionaryBibleseemstounderscoreHuck’sinaccurateinformation

whilegettingtrippedupinhisextensivewebofliesabouthissocialstatusandhischurchgoing behaviorswhilesittingasrequired“bylaw”inthe“familypew”ofoneoftheseventeen

sometimespreachersofanAnglicanChurchin“seabathhaven”oflandlockedSheffield,

England(Twain, Huckleberry Finn 17477).ThemultiplicityofHuck’scollectionofstories andyarnsparallelsthedictionary’scollectionofwordsanddefinitions;bothcollectionsare shiftingandfallible.Ironically,Huckcanrecognizethesubstitutescripturewhilethosewho surroundhimcannotevenastheyclaimtorelyontheBibleasatoascertainaman’s integrity.TheBibleispresentandtangible,butitexistsasaniconthatisbothseenandunseen becauseofthesubstitutionofthedictionaryeditionandbecauseofthemultiplewaysinwhichit isviewedinthisexchange.

Twain’srealismtoyswiththeveryconstructionofwords,meaning,andauthoritywithin cultureandwiththewayinwhichthosewordsareretoldwithvaryingdegreesofaccuracy.In fact,theBiblebeginstohavetwofunctionsinthisscene.Ontheonehand,thesacrednessofthe

BibleissomewhatpreservedasHuckfeelscomfortablewiththedictionarysimplybecauseitis notanactualBible.Atthesametime,theeasysubstitutionunderscoresthedwindlingauthority oftheBibleasonetextiscarelesslyexchangedforanother,muchasthebooksonthe

Grangerfordtablearepiledupperfectlyexact.ForHuck,theBibleitselfisinvestedwith truthfulness,butforhiswitnesses,itisHuck’s word thatshouldbesacred.Thereisan

182 underlyingconflictbetween The Word andHuck’swordthatcannotbereconciledinthisscene, reiteratingthecomplicatedsubjectobjectrelationshipbetweenknowledgeandtruththatTwain firstsuggestedin Innocents Abroad .

Twain’sportraitofthediminishingauthorityofbiblicaltextfindsitsparallelinlate nineteenthcenturyreligiousculturewhenmostProtestantdenominationsreplacedtheKing

JamesBiblewithan1881revision,causingahugeuproar(Szasz1921).Infact,thisrevision causedyetanotherroundofsplinteringwithinProtestantismbecausesomesectsrefusedto acknowledgetheauthorityofthenewBibletranslationclaimingthattheKingJamestranslation wasdivinelysanctionedviatheinspirationoftheHolyGhost(20).Updatedtranslations between1881and1905,whichchangedthelanguageofcertainNewTestamentpassages,caused furtherdissensionamongevangelicalProtestantsectsastothelegitimacyofboththenew translationsandtheformerlyacceptedones.HaroldBushwrites:“Thusthenewversionofthe

Biblethatemergedin1881wassymbolicofanentirelynewwayofreadingandthinkingabout theBiblethatwasemergingatjustaboutthesametime”(119).Twain’scuttingsatireofthe

Bibleaptlyengageswithandpresumablyinfluencesthecontroversyoverscripturalauthorityin relationtotheamorphousnatureoflanguagestudyintheGildedAge.

Inhislaterworks,Twainbeginstoworktowardaresolutionofhishermeneuticsand personaltheology.Instoriessuchas“TheManThatCorruptedHadleyburg”(1899),Twain himselfactuallyrewritesNewTestamentscripturebychangingtheLord’sPrayergivenin

Matthew6:13from“Leadusnotintotemptation”to“Leadusintotemptation.”Inhisalteration ofTheLord’sPrayer,takenfromtheSermonontheMount,Twaincomfortablymeddleswith whatwasonceheldtobeasacredtext.HereinstatesamoreHebraicversionofaGodwhotests humankindratherthanaGodwhomodelsperfectionbyremovingalltemptationthatcouldlead tosin.Infact,duringthisera,Biblicaltextbecomesincreasinglysubjecttoalteration,aswe haveseen,butTwain’sadaptationhereismoreareflectionofhisdisillusionmentwithhow

183 ChristianityhascometobepracticedthroughbothCalvinistprinciplesandsubsequentliberal

Protestantismratherthanacommentaryontranslationaccuracy.InHadleyburg,the townspeopleatfirstpridethemselvesontheirreputationoflivinginan“incorruptibletown”

(Twain75).Thecharactersmustacknowledgethatthetown’smottoreflects“an artificial honesty ”becausetheirintegrityisuntested(86).Whattheylearnisthatthecitizensareas“weak aswaterwhentemptationcomes”(86),andtheybegintowelcomethechallengetotheirmoral fiberthatresistingoutsideforcesrepresents.ThissmallchangetoTheLord’sPrayerrepresents alargerviewintoTwain’semerginghermeneutics.LettinggoofhisPresbyterianism,healso discardsthePuritansocialconventionsthatstringentlyregulatesocialcontroltosuchanextent thatalltemptationisremovedfromthehumancondition.Nevertheless,hebeginstoreinstatethe

CalvinistpreferencefortheOldTestamentGodofLawandotherOldTestamentfigureseven whilehemovesawayfrominheritedCalvinistprinciplesandpractices.

Twainsomewhatinadvertentlyseemstoofferacompromisetolatenineteenthcentury religiousculture.LiberalProtestantismrevealedastrongbenttowardNewTestamentteachings withthefigureofJesusheldupastheepitomeofhumanperfection,presumablyinadeliberate moveawayfromtheCalvinistobsessionwithHebraicGodofLaw.Twain,ontheotherhand, locatesanemphasisonhumanity in theOldTestament—andlaterthroughthefigureofAdam— thatoffersanewwayofembracingtheseancientscripturesfortheirarchetypalrelevanceto humankindandtheconditionofnineteenthcenturyAmericanculture.ItisintheOldTestament thatTwainlocatesauniversalnotionaboutthehumanconditionthatseemsapplicabletothe modernage.

MarkTwain’sfascinationwiththefigureofAdamiswelldocumented.AlisonEnsor describesAdamas“theBiblicalcharacterhewastousemorethananyotherinhisfutureworks”

(5).HaroldBushdiscusses“MarkTwain’sAmericanAdam”inhisbook Mark Twain: The

Spiritual Crisis of His Age ,andherecountsTwain’s“preposterousschemetoerectamemorialto

184 Adam”inElmira,NewYork(205).Thepurportedgoalofthiswellorganizedeffortwassothat

Adamwouldnotbeforgottenonearth,andthepossibilityofdozensofElmirantouristsflocking toUpstateNewYorkto“Kodak”AdamwasirresistibletoTwain.BushconcludesthatAdamis simultaneouslythemetaphorforalostfaithandchangingscientificculture,andhepointsout thatthisfigurewasinvokedindifferentwaysbyCalvinistsofthenineteenthcentury. 98 Bush writes:“AdamcanoftenstandsimultaneouslyforbothCalvinistreligionandforprogressive

Americancivilreligion,forstasisanduniformityorforidealisminthefaceofanemerging realism”(Bush216). ForTwain,hebelievesAdamoffers“atropeoffarreachingand

multipliedlevelsofsignification”(216)representing,ultimately,a“longingforasystemof

faith”(218)thatiscredibleinlatenineteenthcenturyDarwinisticculture.Inordertoestablisha connectionbetweenspiritualityandhumanity,anemblemmustbeinvoked.

Twain’sfocusonAdamisverylogicalchoicerelativetothemorepopularspiritual emblemformankind,Jesus.Bythelatenineteenthcentury,Jesuswasapopularrhetoricalfigure inmodernreligiousdiscourse.DozensoflivesofJesusbiographiesappearedonthemarket,and socialscientistsfrequentlyinvokedthisfigureasamodelhumanitarianwhentryingtofigureout therelevanceoftheScripturestotheproblemsofanindustrialculture. 99 ButtheJesusrhetoricis

complicatedandfraughtwithcontradiction,especiallyinamaterialistmodel.Forexample,

evolutionistsfindthefigureofJesustobesomewhatcomplicatedbecausewhetherunderstoodas

divineorhuman,Jesusrepresentsperfection;heistherolemodelofasinlesslife.Theideaof perfectionisproblematicinanevolutionaryschema.InaDarwinianmodel,evolutionrepresents

adaptationbutnotprogress,sotheideaofaperfectbeingdoesnotallowforthepossibilityof

adaptation.InaSpencerianmodel,evolutionisprogressive.Ifunderstoodinadivinecontext,

Jesusrepresentsaspiritualconnectiontoeternitywhosemeaningmustbeextrapolatedanewfor

eachgivenage.Inthismodel,Jesusistranshistoricalandcannotbeunderstoodinamaterialist

modelandthereforemustbeintuitedratherthanexperiencedorunderstood.Ifunderstoodasa

185 modelofhumanperfection,thenevolution—atleastinaSpencerianmodel—makesnosense; howcanmankind“progress”whenperfectionwasachievedtwothousandyearsago?Andif societyhasindeed“progressed,”whatmightthefigureofJesus,perfectperhapsinhisownage, offertothemodernworldthathasadvancedforcenturiesbeyondhismoralteachings?Michael

RuseandEdwardWilsondiscusstheimpactofHerbertSpencer’sinterpretationofDarwinian evolutionasamodelforsocialevolution.Theywrite:“Attemptstolinkevolutionandethics firstsprangupinthemiddleofthelastcentury,aspeopleturnedtoalternativefoundationsin responsetowhattheyperceivedasthecollapseofChristianity”(RuseandWilson507).Aliberal

ProtestantsolutionembracestheSpencerianmodelandtriestocombine,somewhatillogically, themysticalconceptionofaneverpresentJesuswiththematerialrealityofanadvancing civilization.T.J.JacksonLearsexplains: “DiscardingCalvinisticseverity,[liberalProtestants] formulatedaChristcenteredevolutionarycreedwhichmarriedspiritualtomaterialprogressand preacheduniversalsalvation”(23).Twain’spositionontheprogressivemodelremains

unresolved,buthebeginstoquestionnotonlythereliabilityofthesubjectobjectrelationto

materialsymbolsbuttheideaofsubjectivityinrelationtohowidentityisproducedwithin

culture.ThefigureofAdamservesasacriticallinkbetweenauniversalconditionofmankind,a premodernsymbol,andascientificage. 100 Withnopretextofdivinity,Twain’sAdamisbotha challengetoDarwinistsandafigureemblematicofhumanitythatoverridesthedivinenatureof

Jesusinitsapplicationtomodernculture.

WhileBusharguesconvincinglythatTwain’sAdamisacomplex,multifacetedmetaphor forafarreachingreligiousdebate,theAdamcharacteralsoseemstoofferafinaldivisionof spiritualityandsecularismforTwain.Itis,ofcourse,abiblicalsecularism,butin Adam’s Diary

(1892),heseemsconcludedecisivelythattherealityoflivedexperienceisabetteralternativeto theinfinitepromiseofsublimereward.Inthisjournal,fallennessandlovearelinked,andthusit isAdam’shumanitythatTwainassociateswiththemodernage.InAdam’sreflection,hewrites:

186 “Afteralltheseyears,IseethatIwasmistakenaboutEveinthebeginning;itisbettertolive outsidethegardenwithherthaninsideitwithouther.AtfirstIthoughtshetalkedtoomuch;but nowIseeIshouldbesorrytohavethatvoicefallsilentandpassoutofmylife”( Twain,

“Extracts”16).Inthispoignantpassage,Adamconcludesthateventhesacrificeofan everlastingEdenisworthafiniteamountoftimeoutsideofthegarden.Here,theemphasisis notonlyonthetangiblenatureoflivedexperience,butthereisalsoastrongforeshadowingof modernistthinkingthatemerges.Happinessisdependentonthesubjectivityofexperienceasit canbecomprehended.Again,thereisanimpositionoflimitsandparametersthatdefinesthe realismofthatexperience;itisfiniteandnotinfinite,anditmustberealizedinthehereand now.Thisissurelytheturnthatmodernismwillofferwhensubjectivityisprojectedinwardasa psychologicalperceptionofexperienceandpotential.Inotherwords,experienceisrealonlyas itcanbeperceived.WithoutEvetotempthimtosinandcatapulthimfromthegarden,Adam canonlyexistinanendlessstateofuncomprehendedgrace.Twainseemstofindlittlevaluein thiscondition,andinthisway,heexpresseslittleinterestineschatology.

Whenexaminedclosely,realisttextsactivelyengagewiththereligioussubject, particularlyscripture,inanefforttoexaminethereciprocityofthematerialandthespiritualin relationtoethicsandsocialconscienceintheIndustrialAge.Realismitselfiscloselydefinedby theideaofparametersandlimitsasvariouswritersseektounderstandhowtomaketangible abstractnotionsoftruthandknowledgewithoutstretchingthelimitsofcredibility.Byoffering manifestationsofabstractnotionssuchashiscaricatureofconscience,ashedoesin“ACarnival ofCrime,”Twainshowsthatcertaintyofknowledgeisitselfanunattainableconditionregardless ofthe“object,”whetherabstractlikeconscienceorconcreteliketheBible.Suchdoubtisa definitemovementtowardsmodernism.In The Education of Henry Adams ,Adams,likeTwain, laysthegroundworkformodernismbyviewingtruthasamultifacetedconditionthatis dependentonsubjectivityandcircumstance.InChapter15,Darwinism(18671868), Adams

187 discussestheemergingfieldofpsychologyandtheobsessiveneedfor"truth."Hewrites:"The maniaforhandlingallsidesofeveryquestion,lookingintoeverywindow,andopeningevery door,was,asBluebeardjudiciouslypointedouttohiswives,fataltotheirpracticalusefulnessin society.Onecouldnotstoptochasedoubtsasiftheywererabbits"(Adams181).Atfirst,in realistliterature,itappearsthattheverysearchfortruthisaneverendingquestasiftheonly obstacletotruthistheprocessofdiscoverywithitsinfinitepossibilities,butwhathappensnext isthatthereliabilityofthemind,meaningperceptionitself,beginstobesuspect.Onewondersif anythingcanbeknownwithcertaintywhentheconduittoallknowledge—themind—is unreliable.

Therearetwopathsthatemerge;oneistoabandonthequestforguaranteedtruthand reinstateaquestforbelief,whiletheotheristoholdallknowledgeassusceptibletodoubt.In short,whatemergesisabattlebetweenfaithandcynicism,andbothAdamsandTwainshowthat theseproclivitiesarenotmutuallyexclusive.InanunusualdefenseofBluebeard,Adamsrelates thisquoteaboutthefutilityofchasingdowneverydoubtspecificallytoscientificdevelopment andchangingsocialvalues.Healsowritesthathewas"thefirstinaninfiniteseriestodiscover andadmittohimselfthathedidnotreallycarewhethertruthwas,orwasnot,true.Hedidnot evencarethatitshouldbeprovedtrue,unlesstheprocesswerenewandamusing.Hewasa

Darwinianforfun"(181).Bythissametoken,beliefcanbeasenjoyableasdoubt.Bothnotions canbeembracedwithequalcynicism.Uponhisdiscoveryof“Adam’stomb,”Twainwrites:

“ThatAdamwasformedofdirtprocuredinthisveryspotisamplyprovenbythefactthatno manhaseverbeenabletoprovethatthedirtwas not procuredherewhereofhewasmade”

(Twain, Innocents Abroad 430). 101 Thenarratorpokesfunatpopularreligiousdiscoursein

whichsomethingcanbebelievedaslongasitpassesthetestofreasonandcannotbedisproved.

WithTwain,aswithHenryAdams,thepleasureofuncertaintybecomessynonymouswith

modernism,andtheliteraturebeginstopokefunatthewaysinwhichknowledgeisinscribed

188 andpreservedastheageofsciencereplacestheageoffaith.Infact,welaterlearnin“Adam’s

Diary”thatTwain’sliteraryAdamlikeHenryAdamsisalsoa“Darwinianforfun.”Ashe observesthenaturalworld,hesoonlearnsthat“Perplexityaugmentsinsteadofdiminishing”

(Twain,“Extracts”13).Heconductsexperiments,decriessimplebeliefs,andtoilsawayon

Sundays,butheultimatelyconcludesthatlivedexperienceisfarmorecomprehendiblethanthe

Gardenparadise.ThefallfromGracewasworthit,heconcludes,ifonlytocomprehendthe pleasuresofthemoment.

Twain’slatecareerwritingisnotedforitscynicism.Heneverfoundawaytoreinstate thequestforbeliefalthoughhecontinuedtobefascinatedwiththeideaofthisearlierera.In

1896,hepublished Joan of Arc ,inwhichhetakesonefinalcomprehensivelookatEuropean

Catholicism.Reviewingthiswork,WilliamDeanHowellscapturestheinherentconcernofthe textwhenhewrites:“Whatcanwesayinthisageofscience,thatwillexplainawaythemiracle oftheageoffaith?”( My Mark Twain 133).AsTwainabandonshispursuittoexplain adequatelythelost“ageoffaith,”heturnsagaintoascrutinyofAmericanreligiouspractices.

DavidReynoldsviewsTwain’slaterwritingasaresponsetoCalvinistfiction,andheclassifies himunderthelabelofunderthelabelof“debunkingandextending”( Faith in Fiction 207208) earlierreligiousfiction.Specifically,hereferstoTwain’sparodyofpopularreligiousliterature insuchworksas“CaptainStormfield’sVisittoHeaven”andhis“sourrewritingofscriptures”

(207)in“ExtractsofMethuselah’sDiary”(1876)and“TheDiaryofAdamandEve.”Hewrites:

“Stormfieldfindstheterrestrialheavenaplaceofmonotonousroutine,annoyingcrowds,and infrequentappearancesbyBiblicalfigures.Yetanotherthemeofreligiousnovelists,redemptive visitationbydivineagents,wasdarkenedin The Mysterious Stranger (1916),inwhichMark

Twaincarriedthedemonicvisionarymodetoaportrayalofchaosandmoralrelativism”(207

208). 102 Thesetwolatterliterarycontributions,“Stormfield”and Mysterious Stranger are difficulttoaccessandonereasonforthatisthatbythetimesomeofhislaterstorieswere

189 published,Twainhadbeenrewritingandrevisingsomeofthesepiecesfordecades.

“Stormfield”mayhavebeenelaboratedonasaparodyofElizabethStuartPhelps’s1868 The

Gates Ajar atonepoint,butTwainbegan“Stormfield”justbeforePhelps’sworkwaspublished,

sothestorymustbeconsideredassomethingotherthansimpleparody. 103 Like No. 44, The

Mysterious Stranger ,ithasacomplicatedbibliographicalhistory.Asaresult,thefinalpieceis morelikeapatchworkquiltthatwassewntogetherfromfourgenerations’discardedfabric.

Someoftheselaterpublications,infact,arethebestexamplesofhowTwainincorporateda changingreligiousvistaintohisliterature,andtheyareworthyofdeconstructionforthatreason.

Itissoonevidentthattherealistlabelbecomesincreasinglyproblematicasmimesisissubverted andthedimensionsoftimeandspaceceasetoexist.

Modernismhonesinoneventheactofcomprehensionandforcesthesubjecttoaskif

comprehensioncanbetrustedtobereliable.Theideaofrealityitselfbeginstofragment

resultinginthedangerousimplicationthatnothingisreal.RogerLundinwrites:“Inthewakeof

Darwin,languageincreasinglyappearedtobenotasymbolunitingself,nature,andGod,buta

signoftheimpassabledividebetweenconsciousnessandthenaturalworld”(105).Inthislight,

“CaptainStormfield’sVisittoHeaven”mightbereadasamodernistworknotonlybecauseof

itsdigressivecompositionbutalsoforitspreoccupationwiththeuncertaintyofallknowledge

andexperience.Onceagain,theproblematicissueofsubjectivityemerges.Here,the“searchfor

evidences”suggestedin Innocents Abroad doesnotattempttoreconciletangibleartifactswith abstractbeliefs.Instead,theissueofcertaintybecomesincreasinglyproblematicasthe foundationofthebeliefsisattacked.Thepremiseofthestorychallengesthenotionofrealism withamultilayeredlevelofreportageofthestory’sevents.Itistoldasatalewithinatale:itis afictionalsecondhandaccountofStormfield’sdreamofavisittothe“OtherWorld,”yetthe narratorreportsthatStormfield“believedthatthevisitwasanactualexperience”(Twain139).

Withthisconstruction,Twainpresentsatwosidedinterpretationaboutthepossibilityofwhether

190 ornotthestorymightbeacceptedasadreamoranactualexperience.Thestructureofthestory itselfalsoaddstothesurrealexperienceofthedream,posingthecriticalquestionofwhatmakes anexperience“real.”ThestoryopenswiththenewlydeadStormfieldjourneyingtoHeaven,but byitsthirdchapter,theeventsleapforwardbyaboutthirtyyears,indicatinghowfarHeavenis

fromEarth.Heavenissofaraway,infact,andsoimmensethatStormfieldhastroublefinding

theentrancegateandheendsup“billionsofleaguesfromtherightone(153).Whenhetriesto

explainwhathe’slookingfor,hisvocabularyisnotadequatetoconveyhisproperproximityto

Heaven,andtheclosesthecancomeistostartnamingtheplanetsinhis“astronomicalsystem”

(152).Twainplayswiththetextualdimensionsoftime,space,language,consciousness,and perceptioninthisstorytosuchanextentthateverytoolforgaugingtruthbecomessuspect.

Infact,inhislateryears,Twainbeginstoexperiencevividdreamsofhisowninwhich hebelieveshislovedonesarephysicallypresentintheroom.In1905,hedescribesadreamin whichhislatewifeLivyappearstoreassurehimthatthesorrowshehasexperiencedattheloss ofhislovedoneswereonlydreams.Hewrites:“Theconvictionflamedthroughmethatour lamenteddisasterwasadream,andthisareality”(Neider195).Twaincontinuesontodescribe hisconfusionoverdiscerningbetweendreamsandrealitywhenheawoke.Twainbiographer

FredKaplanwritesthatTwain’sreadingofWilliamJames’s Principles of Psychology alongwith hisowndreamencounterswithlovedonesforceTwaintoquestiontherolethatthesubjectivity ofthemindplaysinrelationtounderstandingwhatisreal.Kaplanwrites:“Morethanever before,hewasredefiningthetermsofrealismforlifeandforfiction.Dreamlifelentitselfto

anotherkindoffiction.Mythandfablecouldconveyideasandsituationsbeforewhichrealism

faltered”(FredKaplan541).Twain’sexperienceswithdreamaccountsimpacthisfictioninhis

lateryearsashereviseshismanuscriptsof Captain Stormfield and The Mysterious Stranger .

Thevisionarymodeallowshimtoexaminethefunctionofthemindintheprocessofinterpreting

191 howthephysicalworldoperatesinrelationtoboththemetaphysicalworldandtheinteriorityof theminditself.Hebeginstobelievemetaphysicalityisitselfafabricationoftheimagination.

Thepurposeofthestoryseemstobetotakeoneverypossiblepreconceivedideaabout

Heavenandexposeitasamyth,but,infact,thestorydealswithabroadseriescultural stereotypesthatrelatetoreligiouscustomsandhaveverylittletodowiththeafterlife.Instead, thestorychallengesthefoundationsofknowledgerelativetoaworldofexperience.Eachnew encounterintroducesanethicaldilemmathatStormfieldmustaddressfromreligiontodoctrine torace.ThesethreeimmediatechallengesjarthereaderbysignalingTwain’s“debunking” rhetoricalpose.UnlikePhelps’svisionofHeavenwhereHeavenisreassuringlywhateverone wantsittobeaslongasnothingcanbedirectlycontradictedbyScripture,Stormfield’sHeaven isnothingthatheexpectedittobebecausehispreconceptionsdonotallowhimtoreason throughthemanyproblemsheencounters.TwainbeginsbyshowingStormfield’sencounter withaJewishmanonhisjourneyfromEarthtoHeaven.Stormfieldreports:“Itwasagreat improvement,havingcompany.Iwasbornsociable,andnevercouldstandsolitude.Iwas trainedtoaprejudiceagainstJews—Christiansalwaysare,youknow—butsuchofitasIhad wasinmyhead,therewasn’tanyinmyheart”(Twain142).Rightawayherewehaveanotion ofprejudiceexistingeitherintheheadorintheheart,suggestingthattherearetwokindsof prejudice,onewhichisconditioned(believedbutnotfeltinherently)andamoredeepseated kindthatismorepermanentlyrootedinthe“heart”ofman.Thefirstkindisevidentlymore curablethanthesecond.Stormfieldlooselylabelshimselfasa“Christian,”alabelwhich,asthe storyunfolds,provesonceagaintohavemultiplelevelsofsignificationjustasthetermdidyears earlierin Innocents Abroad .

ThetravelersStormfieldencountersonhisspiritualjourneychallengehisChristian identitybyshakingthefoundationofhisbeliefs.BelievingheisheadedforHell,Stormfield entersintoanethicaldebatewithhimselfaboutwhetherornotitwouldbeakindnesstohisnew

192 companion,Solomon,toinformhimthattheymustbothbeheadedforHell.Afterabrief misunderstanding,StormfieldrealizesheismisjudgingSolomonandconcludesthat“Tomy mindtherewasthestuffinhimforaChristian”(143).Next,Stormfieldencounterstwobest friendswhodiedbysuicideafteronetrickedtheotherwithapracticaljokethathadgonewrong.

Thescenariosuggeststhatchoiceisanimportantfactorintheconceptofsinsincesuicidewould precludeadmissiontoheaven.GeorgeBaileyhadbeenledtobelievethathisgirlfriendCandace

MillerwasinlovewithTomWilson,butitwasWilsonplayingapracticaljoke(145).Next,

Stormfieldencounters“anigger”onhisjourney.Stormfieldbeginstolosehispatiencewith someofthe“pickups”hemeetsalongthewaybecause“deadpeoplearepeople,justthesame, andtheybringtheirhabitswiththem,whichisnatural”(146).Themenbegintodebateonthe natureofspiritualitywhentheyaretempedbytobacco,but,because“thereisnoatmospherein space”(146),theycannotgetamatchtolight.Eachnewsituationhighlightsthepotentialforan earthlysinaccordingtoStormfield’stheologyandcarrieswithitthesuggestionthatunderthese assumptions,noonwouldmakeitintoHeaven,andeveniftheydo,theyareunlikelytofindany realpeace.Surprisingly,StormfieldrealizesthatheisnotonajourneytoHellandthatperhaps hehasmisunderstoodtheprerequisitesforadmissiontoHeaven.Hefinallyconcludes,“Ibegin toseethataman’sgottobeinhisownheaventobehappy”(155).Allofthesescenariosare justawarmupactforsomeoftheensuingdoctrinalchallengeswithwhichTwainwilltorment hisreaders.Stormfield’sHeavenbeginstolookmoreandmorelikeEarth.

Finally,thestoryshiftstoStormfield’sinitiationandtourofheavenwithahostofparties andeventscelebratingfamousprophets,bothancientandmodern.Stormfieldandhisnew companion,Sandy,havealongdiscussionaboutclassandhumanpotential.UnlikeEarth, however,Heavenapparentlyfavorsnewangelsfortheirpotentialratherthantheiractual achievements,withasympathyfactorcountingtowardone’scircumstancesofbirthandsocial positionaslimitingdisadvantagesthatcanbediscountedinHeaven.Theydiscussthefamous

193 Brooklynpreacher,Talmage,whohadexpressedawishto“flinghisarmsaroundAbraham,

Isaac,andJacob,andkissthemandweeponthem”(166).Sandyreveals,“Thosearekindand gentleoldJews,buttheyain’tanyfonderofkissingtheemotionalhighlightsofBrooklynthan yoube”(166).ReinforcingStormfield’sconclusionaboutthesubjective“reality”ofheaven,

Sandyconcludes,“WhentheDeitybuildsaheaven,itisbuiltright,andonaliberalplan”(167).

Intheend,Heavenpreparestowelcomeitsnewestcelebrity,the“tailorBillings,fromTennesee” whowrotepoetrybutcouldnotgetitpublished”(170).InHeaven,thetailorisasimportantas

HomerandShakespeare,andhewillreceiveagrandwelcominginspiteofhislowrankon

Earth.Thetailor’sheavenlyentitlementisreallyaCalvinistconceptsuggestingpredestination orforeordination.Ifoneissavedbasedonpotentialratherthanearthlyendeavor,thenlifeitself isimmaterialaslongasonecanmaintainapure intention .Thepoet’sunpublishedwordsdonot differentiatehischancesforasuccessfulentranceintoHeaven.Here,onecanbeawriter,apoet, evenacelebrity,withneitherlanguagenortext.Thereisaninherentandintangiblepuritythat somehowpavestheway,but,asinCalvinism,nomaterialevidenceexiststhatcanprove irrevocablywhatDivineintentionmaybe.AlthoughTwainwasnodoubtsatirizingthe difficultiesofpublishing,heisdistinguishingbetweentheprivateandthepubliclifeofawriter.

Theunderlyingquestionheposesisatwhatleveldowordsandlanguagebegintoserveas materialevidenceoftheintentionofthesoul?Atthesametime,thesuggestionofacollective socialculpabilityforlimitingaman’spotentialisantitheticaltotheAmericanCalvinistidealofa selfmademan.Hisvindicationofthetailorpoetisreallyquiteproblematicforsomeonewhois tryingtolocateanynotionoftruththroughtheuseoflanguage.Thismodelmakesitimpossible toaccessthe real viathetextbecausethereissomethingevenmorerealjustbeyondthelimitsof thetext.

SandypresentsaHeaventhatoffersarevisionisthistorythatcorrectsnotonlytheological prejudicesbutimperialistassumptionsaswell.Infact,Stormfield’svisionofHeavencannotbe

194 sustainedasSandy’smathematicalproofillustrates.Thediscussionturnstothenumberofdark skinnedpeopleinheavenwhosepresenceisasurprisetoStormfield.“‘Sandy,InoticethatI hardlyeverseeawhiteangel;whereIrunacrossonewhiteangel,Istrikeasmanyasahundred millioncoppercoloredones—peoplethatcan’tspeakEnglish.Howisthat?’”(174).Sandy replies,“‘Yousee,Americawasoccupiedabillionyearsandmore,byInjunsandAztecs,and thatsortoffolks,beforewhitemaneversethisfootinit’”(174).Sandyproceedstogivea complicatedmathematicalexplanationofthemathematicalprobabilityoffindinga“white”man intheAmericancornerofheaveninordertoshowtheunlikelihoodofthisexpectation.Thetale justbeginstounravelasallsubjectsareusedupandsimplysetasidewithnoremaining conjecturelefttosatirize.Thereareactuallyseveralendingstothistaleandseveralother

“visits”toHeaven—thoseofSimonWheelerandSamJones—butthereis,ofcourse,no resolution;everyscenariofailstoholduptointellectualscrutiny,butnootheraccesstoasystem ofknowledgecanbesubstituted.Withhishighlyoffensivepreachingandexhorting,theTexan

SamJonesendsupcausingamassexodusfromHeavenandfindshimselfwith“theplaceallto himself”(Twain,“ASingularEpisode”202).HefindshimselfinaHeavenwherenooneelse wouldpossiblydesiretobe.Twain’sfinalattemptatHeavendepictsonlyaverysolitarystateof tremendousuncertainty.

ScholarshavespentdecadestryingtounderstandTwain’scomplicatedtheology.Asa correctivetoearlierscholarshipthattendedtoviewTwainasanembitteredcynic,morerecent scholars,beginningfirstwithWilliamPelloweandcontinuingwithJohnHaysandWilliam

Phipps,havecometoviewTwaininamoremultifacetedlight.ThesescholarsviewTwain’s ambivalencetowardChristianitynotasarejectionofmainstreamAmericanreligiousthoughtbut asanemblemofthechangingliberalProtestantaestheticthatdisplacedCalvinistdogmabythe midtolatenineteenthcentury.Twain,however,standsapartfromtheliberalProtestant movementinmanyways,particularlyinhisemphasisonthearchetypalvalueofOldTestament

195 Scripture.Inthisway,healsohintsatthefundamentalistaestheticthatwillfollowintheearly twentiethcentury.AsHayspointsout,“Clemensmerelyfollowedchronologicallythe developmentofAmericanreligiousthoughtuptoandthroughhisowntime”(12). 104 Aclose examinationofTwain’sfictionsupportsthatclaim,butitisinhisultimatecompromise,thatis, hisreturntotheOldTestament,thatTwainfindshisresolution.JustasAdamandEveoccupya stateofseparationfromthedivine,Twainbeginstocorrelatehisownalienationfromthedivine asbeingarchetypalofamodernreligioussensibility.HeneverreturnstohisCalvinist principles—hesatirizesmanyofsuchbeliefs—buthedoesfindawaytomaketheBiblerelevant

againinthewayhelocates“realism”withinScripturebyfocusingonthefigureofAdam.This

isanimportantshiftawayfromtheliberalProtestantpreferenceforthemoremysticalfigureof

Jesusalthough,likeotherliberalProtestants,Twainseemstobeseekingaprimitivefaiththat

longsforapredoctrinalstate.

Intheend,TwainseemstopreferanimmediatepostEdenstatetothealternativeofa

literaryEden.Hedoesnotembracetheutopianliteraturethatemergedattheendofthe

nineteenthcenturysuchasWilliamDeanHowells’s Altrurian Romances (18941908)orEdward

Bellamy’s Looking Backward (1888).Utopianliteraturedrewonatranshistoricalrecreationof

aChristlikefigure,whichTwainavoids,anditassumesthatmankindisprogressingtoward perfectionoranendofhistory. 105 Twain’sfallenEdenisclearlyisapreChristianstate,whichis whytheliberalProtestantlabelissoproblematicforTwain.SusanJacobysuggestsabetterlabel forTwainisfreethinker(189).Shedefinesthistermbroadlyencompassingbothatheistsand deists.Shewrites:“OftendefinedasatotalabsenceoffaithinGod,freethoughtcanbebetter understoodasrunningthegamutfromthetrulyantireligious...tothosewhoadheredtoa private,unconventionalfaithreveringsomeformofGodorProvidencebutatoddswith orthodoxreligiousauthority”(4).Inshort,TwaindiffersfrommostliberalProtestantsby avoidingthephilosophicaldebateaboutwhethertoviewJesusasafigureofdivineorhuman

196 perfection,butheneverrejectsthepositivistnotionthatreligioncanplayacivilizingrole.

Instead,hereliesonthearchetypeofAdamtoopenadiscourseontheproblemshebelievesare

uniquetothenineteenthcentury,whicharespecificallyscientific,capitalist,andindustrialist

concerns.Indoingso,hecueshispreoccupationwithhumanityratherthanspiritualityashe

seeksuniversalknowledgeabouttheconditionofmankind.

ThereligioussubjectisnotlimitedtotheroleoftheBibleinrelationtotherealisttext;

however,hermeneuticscallingintoquestiontheinfallibilityof“TheWord”inevitablyprojects

doubtontothereliabilityofalltexts.Inthissense,religionfirstpavesthewayforliterary

realismasanempiricalexaminationoftruthinAmericancultureasrealistwritersusurp

discoursesofauthoritythathadbeenstronglyassociatedwiththereligioussubject.These

discoursesincludenotonlytheBibleitselfbutotherdiscoursesrelatedtoscripturalteachings,

suchassermons,tracts,andhomileticnovels.Twain’sworkispivotaltothisprocess.These

textualpassagesrevealhisplayonthematerialnatureofthetextashesubordinatesthesemantic

contentoftheBible.Ultimately,however,itismaterialitythatissetasideasnewliteraryforms

suchasnaturalismandmodernismemergebytheturnofthecentury.

Twainisadifficultrealist;thereisnogettingaroundthatfact.Heexperimentswithform

andstyle,andhesatirizespopularliteraryformsevenasheembracesthem.Likeother prominentrealists,hedoesnothaveasingleunifiedvisionofhowtherealisttextshouldoperate, buthedoesallowustoexaminerealismasanexpressionofcultureandasavehiclefor

addressingthekindsofculturalchangeshewouldliketoexamineandinfluence.Hisinterestin

thereligioussubjectisindisputable,butwhatemergesuponareviewistheimportanceofform

andstyleintandemwiththissubjectforTwain.Whencynical,heresortstofantasyframeworks, projectingbothbackintimeandevenoutoftimeinordertoridiculetheprejudicesofthe

modernworldinavastcomparisontothepossibilitiesofuniversaltruth.Atothertimes,aswith

Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn ,Twainnarrowshisfocusandlocateshisfictioninthe“credibleand

197 closepresent”(Furst77).Helocatesculturalsignifiersthatallowthereadertoimaginethe textualworldasresemblingeitherthepresentortheimmediatepast,butthenheinstantly undercutsthosesignifiersbyusingtheminunexpectedways.Heplaysonhisreader’sabilityto recognizesymbolssuchastheBible,buthealsochallengeshisreader’sexpertiseandexperience withtheBibletoforceanacknowledgementthatmimesisishardlypossibleinAmerican religiousculture.Nothingisquiteasitseems.HefollowswhatHenryAdamsterms“amania forhandlingallsidesofeveryquestion”(Adams181),butbydoingso,histextsbegintospinout ofcontrolbecauseinsteadofthelimitlesspossibilitiesofLilianFurst’s“AllisTrue,”Twain revealsthatnoneofthiscouldpossiblybetrue.Afterquestioningmaterialculture,hethen challengeswordsandlanguageasadequatesignifiers,andfinallyhechallengesthenotionthat manhimselfisanadequateinterpreterofknowledge.

Atthesametime,Twainneverquitelosesfaithinmankind;hereinstatesAdamasan emblematicfigurefornineteenthcenturyman.ItistheveryfallennessofhumankindthatTwain celebrates.Histextsofferadiscursiveciteforexploringthatcompletelackofcertaintythat

AdamhadtoconfrontwhenexpelledfromEden.Thereisacertainnaivetéinearlyrealism—a beliefthatthetruthmightbeascertained—butbyTwain’slaterwriting,theexpulsionfromEden seemsinevitable.Oncethevacuousnessoftextualrepresentationisexposed,thereisnoturning back.Naturalismemerges,offeringanalternateviewofculturaldeterminism,atavism,and primitivismasonealternativeexplanationforsocialpower,andmodernismsimultaneously emerges,offeringaviewthatperhapsthehumanminditselflimitsthequestforcertainty.

Towardtheendofhislife,TwainstillreiteratestheCalvinistnotionthathumanbeingshave littleornodeterminismintheirownfate,andthattheraceissubjecttooutsideforces.Inaletter tohisclosefriendtheReverendJosephTwichellin1904,hewrites:“IwishIcouldremember thatitisunjustanddishonorabletoputblameuponthehumanraceforanyofitsacts.Foritdid notmakeitself,itdidnotmakeitsnature,itismerelyamachine,itismovedwhollybyoutside

198 influences....[Its]Maker,...solely,isresponsible”(Neider193).Twain’sironicmetaphor depictingmanasmachinerevealshisfinalmovementtowardadeterminismthatmerges

Calvinismandnaturalismbyidentifyinghumankindashelplessinrelationtoitsownfinal destiny.ItisadefinitivestepawayfromHowells’searlieroptimismthatthehumanracemight aidinitsownsocialevolution.

Ifwehistoricizefundamentalism,bothinitsPuritanformandinthemodernday

understandingoftheterm,Ibelieveitisnoaccidentthatitbookendsrealismasaphilosophical

andliterarymovement.Realismwasasearchforanempiricalunderstandingoftheuniverse,

andtwopathsdivergedfollowingtherealistpostCalvinistaesthetic;secularism,withascientific

searchforknowledge,andfundamentalismwithitscompleteabandonmentofcertainty.This

abandonmentoffersaclaimtoitsownkindofsocialandliterarypower,whichisachallengeto believeinreligiousdoctrinewithoutanyspecificunderstandingofwhatthatbeliefmightimply.

WeseethisillustratedinWilliamDeanHowells’s A Modern Instance .Howells’scharacter,Ben

Halleck,resolveshiscrisisoffaithbysuchareturntofundamentalism:

Hefreelygrantedthathehadnotreasonedbacktohisoldfaith;hehadfledtoitastoa cityofrefuge.Hisunbeliefhadbeenhelped,andhenolongersufferedhimselftodoubt; hedidnotaskifthetruthwashereorthere,anymore;heonlyknewthathecouldnot finditforhimself,andherestedinhisinheritedbelief.Heacceptedeverything;ifhe tookonejotortittleawayfromtheBook,thecurseofdoubtwasonhim.(450) Halleck’sreturntoorthodoxyisbornofoutafrustrationwithhisowninabilitytodetermine

absolutemoralimperatives.Heabandonsintuitionandreasoningandturnsbackaversionof

JudeoChristianlawasmitigatedthroughthechurchofhisyouth.Fundamentalismisaquasi

returntotheCalvinistideathathumanbeingsareincapableofunderstandingthespiritualworld.

Inthisschema,theBiblereemergesasasacredtext,butinAmericanculture,thequestionsof

textualauthorityhaveyettobeaddressed.

TwainnevermakesthereturntofundamentalismthatHowellsforecasts,buthedoes

maketheinextricablelinkbetweenAmericanreligionandtherealisttext.Heexaminesthe

199 majorreligiousshiftsinAmericancultureoverafiftyyearperiodthatbothbeganandended withLiberalProtestantreformrhetoric.Hereflectstheseshifts,heforecaststhem,andheshapes them.Hefindsthestylesandrhetoricaltoolstoshapethereligiousdiscourseinliterature.He experimentswithformmorethanheadherestoit,andyetheisstilllabeledarealistbytoday’s scholars.Inpart,Twainearnsthislabelasadebunker,whichsurelybecomesanadjective closelyassociatedwiththerealistaesthetic,butitisalsohisuseofculturalsignifiersthatallow ustoapplythislabel.Twain’stexts,eventhosesetinHeaven,allowthereadertoimaginethe textualworldasresemblingtheexteriorworld.Inthisway,materialityceasestobethedefining factoroftherealisttext.AsGregoryJacksonsuggests,itistheallegoricalrenderingofthetext thatallowsthereadertorecreateit.Realismthenbecomesanallegoryforthereal;itistheidea thatthereadercan“apply”thelessonofthetexttotheworldofthereader’sownexperience.It isacalltoarmsforsocialchangeratherthanapromiseofultimatereward.Realismoffersthe hopeofanimmediatereturnforachangeoverwhichthereaderhasagency.Twaincomesto doubtthatagency,andhebeginstoconsiderspecifictypesofadeterministicmodel.Harold

FredericcloselyechoesthisturninTwain’swork,butFrederic’sconcernislessuniversalthan

Twain’s,andhenarrowshisfocustosocialandscientificdeterminism,slowlyeliminatingthe religiousrhetoricthathisearlyfictionfirstembraces.Twain’sfinalviewbecomesmythicand archetypicalwhileFrederichonesinonthesocialconditionsofhumankindandhowaperson operateswithincultureratherthanacrossculture.

Notes 80 See“CaptainStormfield’sVisittoHeaven”(184)foradiscussionofthetwentyeight“MoralQualities”of mankind.PaineandDunekaalsoincludeasectionon“MoralSense”intheirrewrittenversionof“TheMysterious Stranger”thatistakenfromthe“Eseldorf”versionofTwain’smanuscripts(Tuckey10).Note:thisversionisalso titled“TheChronicleofYoungSatan”(Kahnxiii).

200 81 GregoryJacksonemploysthisterminhisexplanationofrealism( The Word 150),butLilianFurstoffersamore thoroughdiscussionofthetechniquesthatrealistwritersemploy“tomakereadersbelievethattheactiontakesplace inacredibleandclosepresent”(77).Furstsuggeststhatsuchtemporalmarkersserve“asoneofthesustaining conventions”ofthisgenre(81). 82 Infact,themultiplicityofthistermmustalsobeconsideredinrelationtononliteraryimpulsessuchasart,music, andphilosophy,asBernardBowronarguesin1951,whenhewrites:“oneisstronglytemptedtotalknotabout AmericanrealismbutaboutAmericanrealisms”(269). 83 RobertBellahdefinesthesubjectobjectrelationshipassymbolicrealism:“Hererealityisseentoresidenotjustin theobjectbutinthesubjectandparticularlyintherelationbetweensubjectandobject.Thecanonsofempirical scienceapplyprimarilytosymbolswhichattempttoexpressthenatureofobjects,buttherearenonobjectivesymbls whichexpressthefeelings,values,andhopesofsubjects,orwhichorganizeandregulatetheflowofinteraction betweensubjectsandobjects,orwhichattempttosumupthewholesubjectobjectcomplex”(93). 84 InTangier,forexample,henotes:“HerearefivethousandJewsinbluegaberdines[sic],sashesabouttheirwaists, slippersupontheirfeet....Theirnosesareallhooked,andhookedalike.Theyallresembleoneanothersomuch thatonecouldalmostbelievetheywereofthesamefamily....Theirwomanareallplumpandpretty,anddosmile uponaChristianinawaywhichisinthelastdegreecomforting”( Innocents Abroad 4950).Later,movingaway fromasociopoliticaldiscussionofJewishidentity,hefocusesonthetraditionoftheWanderingJewinJerusalem, notingthatevidenceofthisdoomedwandererwhorefusedrefugetoJesuswasinscribedontheChurchoftheHoly Sepulcherasrecentlyas1860(440).Twain’sfinalcommenton“Israel’sreligion”isthat“itcontainednopromise ofahereafter”(485),anoversightwhichhesatiricallynotesstandsinmarkedcontrastto“enlightenedreligionwith futureeternalrewardsandpunishmentinit”(485).TwainisreferringnottoChristianitybuttoEgypt.Heiswriting anantiprogressionmodelbypointingoutthatmanyofthe“advances”ofWesterncivilizationexistedinEgypt thousandsofyearsago.TheseseveralbutfleetingcomparisonsoftheJewishpeopleculturebycultureseemtooffer acommentaryoncivilization;backwardscivilizationsstereotypetheJewishpeopleanddiscriminateagainstthem, asseeninthebluerobesinTangier,while“enlightened”civilizationsdidnotpersecutetheJews.Twainnever finishestheimplicitcomparisoninrelationtotheJewishJesus,butthepoliticalaspectofreligiousidentityemerges inrelationtoalargerdiscussionofChristianityandcivilization. 85 Here,again,wehavetheproblematicmoniker“Christian”beinginvoked.Doesthenarratormeantoimplythat all ChristiansinAmericatreatallmembersoftheJewishfaithwithequaltolerance?Twainseemstobeusingthe term“Christian”asasynonymfor“American”anditishelpfultoseethislabelasaparticularunfoldinginalarger rhetoricaldevelopmentofAmericanreligiousculture. 86 Therearemultipleversionsof“TheMysteriousStranger”inprint.Twainwroteatleastthreeversionsofthestory between18961910,andherevisedtheseseveraltimes.AfterTwain’sdeathin1910,thestoryremained unpublisheduntil1916whenbiographerA.B.Paine“discovered”themanuscripts.PaineandFrederickDuneka actuallyfoundseveralversionsofthestory,andtheyeditedandrewroteseveralpassagesbeforepublishingthestory in1916.Criticscontinuetoexaminethestorytodayanddebatethequestionofintentionandauthenticity,butthe PaineeditionhasbeendiscreditedasaTwainmanuscriptbecauseofthenewtextaddedbyPaineandDuneka (Rasmussen329andReissxiii).In1963,JohnS.Tuckeydiscoveredthefabrication,andheidentifiedatleastthree holographicversionsandseveralothermanuscriptsandfragments(14).Tuckeypublishedhisfindingsin1963,and helaterpublishedTwain’smanuscriptin1969withthetitle No. 44, The Mysterious Stranger .Forthisreason,any editionbasedonacopytextpriortothe1969versionismostlikelytobetheunauthorizedPaineandDuneka version,whichcontinuestoremaininprint,incorrectlyidentifiedwithTwainasthesoleauthor.Contemporary scholarsdistinguishbetweenthetwoversionsbyreferringtoPaine’sversionas The Mysterious Stranger and Tuckey’sversionas No. 44, The Mysterious Stranger .SeealsoKahn(8).RobertHirstpointoutsthatPaineand DunekabasedtheirversionontheearliestratherthanthelatestofTwain’sStrangermanuscripts:“Theytook extraordinarylibertieswithwhatMarkTwainhadwritten.Theydeletedfullyonefourthoftheauthor’swords;they wroteintothestorythecharacterofanastrologer,whodidnotevenappearinthemanuscript....And,sincethe ‘Chronicle’versionwasincomplete,theyappropriatedtheconcludingchapterMarkTwainhadwrittenforhislatest andlongestversion,‘No.44,TheMysteriousStranger.’...Theeditorssaidnothingabouttheiralterations,andthe factswerenotknowneventoscholarsfamiliarwiththemanuscriptsuntilJohnS.Tuckeypublished Mark Twain and Little Satan in1963”(198).Ironically,TwainhimselfpredictedPaine’sdownfallwhendiscussingPaine’s enjoymentofsomeofhislatermanuscriptsduringthetimetheyspenttogetheratTwain’shouse,Stormfield,inhis finaldays.Ina1909lettertohisfriendBetsyWallace,hewrites:“Paineisgoingtobedamnedoneofthesedays,I suppose”(Neider315).BecausethestoryoffersanexaminationintoTwain’slaterviewsonCatholicism,itis 201 valuableasacomparisonto The Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court and Innocents Abroad .Atthesame time,aswithmanyofTwain’slaterstories,itisdifficulttoascertainwhichpassagesoftextreflectTwain’sviewsat specific“stages”ofhisliteraryandreligiousaesthetics.Inmyanalysis,I’vechosentofocusonthephilosophical viewsthatseemtoworkintandemwith Connecticut Yankee withoutplacingagreatdealofemphasisonTwain’s theologybutfocusinginsteadonTwain’sconsistencyinrelationtoCatholicismandhisexperimentationof visionaryliteraryformsinconnectionwithCatholicism. 87 ThomasJenkinswritesthatromanticismisacelebrationofthe“passionateandprimitive.Thisromanticvisionof historyinvolvedrediscoveringlost,originalcapacitiesinhumanbeings.Historywasnotprogressive.Thehuman racewasnotbecomingmorecapablewiththedevelopmentofcivilization.Rationalityandgentilityrepressedits nativeinstincts.Torecoverthese,peoplehadtorestoreinthemselvesancientimaginativecapacities”(80). 88 Hegelwrites:“Foritisonlyamongcivilizedpeoplethatalterationoffigure,behaviour,andeverysortandmode ofexternalexpressionproceedsfromspiritualdevelopment”(640).Hegelgoesontoanalyzedifferentstagesofart inordertoderive“thedoctrineofthe forms of art ”(640).Theseformsincludeameresearchforportrayal,classical art,andfinallyromanticart(64063).Inthenineteenthcentury,thelogicalextensionoftheHegelianviewof progressivehistorycorrelatestoSocialDarwinisminwhichabstractconceptssuchasart,includingliterature,and societyevolveandmovetowardsperfection.Byexaminingrealismasanexpressionofacorrespondingspiritual ageasTwaindoes,heplaceshisownaestheticintoaHegeliandiscourse.ForadiscussiononHegelandrealism, seeBrown23338. 89 TwainisspeakinganachronisticallytohislatecenturyreaderssincetheDoréillustrationsdidnotappearuntilthe 1860s.“TheworkofoneengraverbecamealmostsynonymouswithfamilyBibles.TheartofFrenchillustrator GustaveDoré(182332)firstappearedinanexpensiveEnglishBiblein1866.Throughoutthelatenineteenth century,Doré’sengravingsdrewthereaderintoafairytalelandofmightypharaohs,seductivewomen,andpowerful redeemers”(McDannell93). 90 Here,IarguethatscripturalhermeneuticsandBiblereadingpracticescastdoubtontheauthorityofalltextsto depictanabsolutenotionofunchangingtruth.SuzyAngerrelatesscripturalhermeneuticstotherecenthistoryof literarycriticism.SheisolatesvariousapproachestoascertainingtruthinBiblereading,andshefollowsthelineof changingliterarypracticesinthemannerinwhichtextsareread.Shewrites:“Recognitionofthehistoricityof Scriptureresultedintwobroadtrendsinhermeneuticmethodology.Thefirst,influencedbyGermanRomantic hermeneutics,concludedthatthebiblicalnarrativesmustbeunderstoodinthecontextofthetimetheywerewritten. SinceScriptureisarecordoftheconsciousnessofthattime,onemustseektoputoneselfintheplaceoftheoriginal writer.Biblicalmeaningisfixedinthepastandisreconstructedthroughhistoricalandphilologicalcriticism.A secondmethodofreconcilingthetextwithhistoryheldthat,althoughthereis(inpractice)someultimatelyfixed thingbehindScripture(thatis,God’smessage),thetext,inordertopreservethatmessage,mustconstantly transform,becomesomethingnew.Meaningcanonlybeunfoldedhistorically”(24). 91 Thoreau’sTranscendentalismcanbestbefoundinthefollowingstatement:“Menesteemtruthremote,intheoutskirtsof thesystem,behindthefartheststar,beforeAdamandafterthelastman.Ineternitythereisindeedsomethingtrueand sublime.Butallthesetimesandplacesarenowandhere.Godhimselfculminatesinthepresentmoment,andwillneverbe moredivineinthelapseofalltheages.Andweareenabledtoapprehendatallwhatissublimeandnobleonlybythe perpetualinstillinganddrenchingoftherealitythatsurroundsus”(70). 92 SeealsoAlanGribben, Mark Twain’s Library .Twovolumeswithcontinuouspagination.(Boston:Hall,1980)63 andPhilipWilliams, The Biblical View of History (AnnArbor,MI:UniversityMicrofilms,1964)111. 93 HaroldBushattributesthisincreasingskepticismtotheverymannerinwhichtheBibleitselfcametobereadand interpretedinthenineteenthcentury.Hewrites:“Aboveall,thespiritualcrisisofTwain’seralargelyderivedfrom acrisisintheunderstandingoftheBible,especiallyasanauthoritativesourceoftruth....[The]oldwaysof knowingtruthwerenotjustbeingchallengedbytheintellectuals;theywerecrumblingbeforetheeyesofregular folksaswell.Itwasindeedbecominga‘NewBible’”(122). 94 “Anotherwas‘Friendship’sOffering,’fullofbeautifulstuffandpoetry;butIdidn’treadthepoetry.Anotherwas HenryClay’sSpeeches,andanotherwasDr.Gunn’sFamilyMedicine,whichtoldyouallaboutwhattodoifabody wassickordead.TherewasaHymnBook,andalotofotherbooks”(103104).

202 95 TwainisalsopokingfunattheAmericanprivilegingof Pilgrim’s Progress (1678)byalludingtotheimmense popularityofBunyan’sreligiousallegory.GregoryJacksonwrites:“ Pilgrim’s Progress caughtonandmaintained popularityincolonialAmericabecauseitanticipatedtheinadequacyoftheprovidentialtypetoalignfullywithlived experience.Asan ur templateofhomileticforms,thestoryofChristian’spilgrimagebecameauniversalone awaitingtheoverlayofpersonaldetails”( The Word 115). 96 MarshallBrownmakesthepointthatrealismasaliterarymovementaroseinresponsetoanxietiesabout conceptualizingtheideaofthereal:“realismdevelopedintoacentralissueinmidcenturypreciselybecausethe conceptionofrealityhadbecomeincreasinglyproblematic”(227).Heelaboratesontheideaofrepresentingreality asatextualproblemthatarosespecificallyinthenovel.Hewrites:“Hegelcalledourattentiontotheprevalenceand functionofsuchinversionsandreversalsinthenineteenthcenturynovelatmomentswhenromanticillusionis unmaskedandwhenrealisticjudgmentisabouttobecomepossible”(23738). 97 Therewere,infact,aplethoraofBibledictionariesavailableduringthiseraalthoughDr.WilliamSmith’swas oneofthebetterknowneditions.Someoftheothersinclude: The Westminster Bible Dictionary (Philadelphia: PresbyterianBoardofPublication,1880), A Dictionary of the Bible (Philadelphia:AmericanSundaySchoolUnion, 1880), The Handy Bible Cyclopedia and Bible Reader’s Assistant (NewYork:Hurst,1880s),aswellasseveralother editionsofDr.Smith’sBibleDictionaryissuedbyvariouspublishers.

98 ThomasCarlylealsoinvokesthefigureofAdaminhischapterentitled“Adamitism”in Sartor Resartus pointing outthatAdamexisted“inastateofNakedness”(47).Inthissense,inhisunclothedstate,Adamrepresentsapre doctrinalpuritythatnotonlypredatesChristianitybutJudaismaswell. 99 Someofthebiographiesinclude:FredericWilliamFarrar’s The Life of Christ (1874),HenryWardBeecher’s The Life of Jesus, the Christ (1871),ElizabethStuartPhelps’s The Story of Jesus, the Christ: An Interpretation (1897). OtherpopularJesusliteratureincludes:LewWallace’s Ben Hur: A Story of the Christ (1880),WilliamStead’s If Christ Came to Chicago (1893),CharlesSheldon’s In His Steps (1896). 100 Inhisbriefturntoscientificsecularism,Twainillustrateshisexpertiseinscientificdevelopmentssuchas fingerprintingandothermoderntechnologicaldevelopments,suchasthetelephonesandelectricityofConnecticut Yankee .Onceagain,heengageswithanimportantculturalshiftinreligiousrhetoricevenashechallengesit.Jon Robertswrites:“[Therewasatransferof]culturalauthorityandprestigefromtheologytoscience,[leadingto]the impoverishmentofthereligiousvisionoftheworld”(xv).MarkTwain,however,willlaterunderminethereliance onscienceasasolemeansofprovidingaccesstotherealwhenhesimultaneouslybothemploysanddismisses scienceasameansoflegitimizingraceidentity.In Pudd’nhead Wilson (1894),Twain’sscientificdiscoursealltoo aptlydemonstratesthatusingraceidentityasameansofpredictingbehaviormustbeunderstoodasasocialeffect ratherthanabiologicalone.AtthemurdertrialofLuigiCappelo,whenthefingerprintpantagraphisusedtoreveal thatTomDriscollandValetdeChambre,theslavesonofRoxie,wereswitchedasinfants(Twain Pudd’nead 137 - 38),Twainshowshowreinstatingbiologicalinheritancecannotundotwentyfiveyearsofasociallyproduced identity:“Therealheirsuddenlyfoundhimselfrichandfree,butinmostembarrassingsituation.Hecouldneither readnorwrite,andhisspeechwasthebasestdialectofthenegroquarter.Hisgait,hisattitude,hisgestures,his bearing,hislaugh—allwerevulgaranduncouth;hismannerswerethemannersofaslave”( Pudd’nhead 140). WhileHowellswantstherealisttoconstructarecognizableworld,ascientificone,Twaindemonstratesthatthe realist’saimisasflawedasthescientist’smissionwhendealingwiththecomplexityofhumanbehavior.Thefield ofscientificstudycannotbeviewedas“morereal”thatthesociologicalapproach,justasthelanguageoftheBible cannotbeunderstoodasmoreauthoritativethanthewordsofthedictionary.Withinrealism,differentdiscoursesof authorityaretriedandconsidered,butbytheendofTwain’scareer,histextsbegintoreflecthisdisillusionment withthepossibilityforanykindofcertaintyorsystematicapproachtotruth. 101 TwainseemstobepokingfunattheuseofanalogyinreligiousdiscourseasinButler’s Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed, to the Constitution and the Course of Nature (1736).AccordingtoButler,presumption amountstonearlyacertainty.Butler’sanalogieswerepopularinnineteenthcenturyAmericanreligiousdiscourse, andElizabethStuartPhelpsdrewonButler’stextin The Gates Ajar (1868). 102 ReynoldsisobviouslyreferringtothePaineandDunekarewrittenversionof The Mysterious Stranger ,buthis pointaboutthevisionarymodeisapplicabletothe1969versionofthestoryaswellgiventhatthepassageoftextin questionappearsinbothversionsofthestory.

203 103 Althoughpublishedin190708,BaetzholdandMcCulloughrecountthelonghistoryofthisstory,showingthat Twainbeganwritingitin1868andthatmostofthemajorworkforthestorywasdonefrom187881(131).The editedcollection, The Bible According to Mark Twain ,includesthree“Stormfield”passagesfromdifferentstagesof thestory’srevision.SeeAppendix5(299305). 104 Infact,Pellowehadmadethissamepointin1945whenhewrote:“[Twain’s]spiritualitineraryisalsothemirror ofhisnation’slife”(xi). 105 ThomasJenkinsassertsthatutopianwriterssuchasBellamywereamajorinfluenceonsocialgospelideology,a doctrinethatmarriedliberalProtestantChristianitywithsocialreform.OfBellamy,hewrites:“[he]absorbed evolutionandindustrialismintoavisionofhistoricalprogressunifyingallofhumanity”(160).Forfurther discussionofTwainandSocialGospelIdeology,seeBush(12660).

204

CHAPTER5:HAROLDFREDERICANDREALISM: THEDAMNATIONOFRELIGION IntheAmericanliterarycanon,HaroldFredericisbestknownforhisrealistnovel The

Damnation of Theron Ware (1896).AlthoughFredericpublishedfourteennovels,two posthumously,andamultitudeofshortstories,essays,andjournalisticreports,hisnovelabout

anAmericanMethodistpreacherstandsoutasatestimonytohisexpertiseintheconventionsof

Americanliteraryrealism. 106 In The Damnation , Fredericutilizessomeofthecommon strategiesofrealistwriters:aconcernfordetailandverisimilitude,arealisticsettingdrawnfrom hisownchildhoodexperience—inFrederic’scase,Utica,NewYork 107 —andaprotagonistwho

insistsonhisownenlightenmentwithanunderlyingconcernforexposingthehypocrisiesof

Americanculturallifeinorderthatsomelargertruthmaybeknown.Liketheotherrealist

writersincludedinthisstudy,FredericexhibitsapreoccupationwithAmericanreligiousculture,

andhepresentsreligionasafluidinstitutionthatshiftsandreinventsitselfinresponsetomodern

culture.Inotherwords,likerealismitself,religionisbothaculturalforceandacultural

responsesimultaneously.Fredericsuggeststhat,bythelatenineteenthcentury,religionasa

socialinstitutionhaslostitsunderlyingauthority,andheexaminesseveralreasonsforthat

decline,suchasmodernization,economics,andSocialDarwinism.Unlikehispredecessors,

Fredericshowslittleinterestinexploringreligiousreformorreplacinginstitutionalreligionwith

competingsocialideologies;instead,heoffersaglimpseintoaculturewhereallformsofsocial benevolencearesuspectbecauseofthefallibilityofhumankinditself.Further,inhis

examinationofupstateNewYorkandthesocialforcesmodernizingthefictionaltownof

Octavius,Fredericoffersanexampleoflatecenturyrealismthatstronglysuggeststhe

impendingriseofnaturalisminAmericanliteraryculture.Frederic’snodtowardnaturalism

meritsfurtherscrutiny,particularlyinhislaterfiction,butitisFrederic’spreoccupationwiththe

205 religioussubjectthatfirstlaysthegroundworkforhisinterestinsocialandculturalchangein theGildedAge.

AswillhappenwithMarkTwain,thereligiousrhetoricinFrederic’srealismvacillates betweentwoconventionalarchetypesthatrealistwritersoftenemploy:theChristfigureandthe

Adamfigure.Inonesense,Fredericreducesthiscompetingsymbolismtoasimpleaesthetic strugglebetweenHellenismandHebraism,and,infact,withthisframework,Frederic,like

HowellsandTwain,placeshisfictionintoalargerdiscoursethatHeinrichHeinebeganand

MatthewArnoldcontinued. 108 TheoppositionofHellenismandHebraismemergesnotonlyin

The Damnation of Theron Ware (1896)butagainin Gloria Mundi (1898)and The Market-Place

(1898)whenFredericrevisitsthisthemeviatheJewishcharactersheincludes.Fredericparodies

thisaestheticopposition,andhesuggeststhatsocialforceandpowermanifestthemselvesin

differentformsatdifferentculturalperiods,butthatpower,ultimately,liesinman’sstrugglefor

dominanceoverhisfellowmanandtheneedtoestablishculturalhegemony.Theunderlying

debatesuggeststhatHellenismandHebraismarethetwomainforcesinwesternculturethat

humankindembracesasameansofmaintainingasystemofsocialethics.ReinholdNiebuhr

looselydefinesHellenismasindividualfreedomandHebraismassocialorder(1819).Thefirst

concept,Hellenism,reliesonintuitiveconscienceandatranscendentnotionofjusticewhilethe

second,Hebraism,evokesanirrevocablelawashandeddownthroughtheages.Fredericoffers

manyvariationsofthisoppositionasheexaminesmoderndayenactmentsofbothdimensions.

JohnLyonsnotesFrederic’scomicaltwistonArnold’sdichotomy:“Whathedoesistotake[it]

andtwistitsothatferventHebraicmonotheismbecomesheartlessexperimentalscience[inthe

modelofDr.Ledsmarin The Damnation of Theron Ware ],andtheglorythatwasGreece becomesthefrivolitiesofthe Yellow Book era”(11). 109 Inhisnovels,hepresentsthesetwo

cultural“forces”inasatiricalmannerwithcharacterssuchas The Damnation’s CeliaMadden

206 claimingtobea“Greek”withoutbeingabletoexplainwhatthetermmeans,butmostly meaningthatshewantstoleadherlifebywhimwithoutcensorship.

BeforeconsideringFrederic’sprominentfocusonMethodism,inparticular,inthe developmentofthisaestheticdiscoursein The Damnation of Theron Ware ,itisimportantto comparethissubjecttohispreviousglimpsesintoAmericanreligiouslifeinhisotherearly worksofregionalfictionalsosetinupstateNewYork.Severalimportantideasemergein relationtoinstitutionalreligionintheseearlyworks,ideaswhichhelaterexpandsinhis subsequentfiction.First,religionbecomesencapsulatedintoaregionalnostalgia,sothatassoon astheoperationofasmalltownchurchcanbedescribedorunderstood,thismanifestationfades fromeverydaypractice,splinteringfromitself.ReligionintheAmericanrealistnovelisalways aportraitofwhatwasratherthanwhatis.Theconflictexistsbecausetheinstitutionhas divergedfromitsformerincarnation.Frederic,infact,repeatedlyemphasizesthatreligionin agrarianculturewasfarfromstable,anditwasoftenthesiteofapowerplaywithintheregion.

Second,thereareseveral“conditions”thatinfluencehowinstitutionalreligionoperatesin

America,whichincludecompetingreligionsandotherimportantsocialideologiesandeven significantshiftsinpopulationandtheensuingclassstrugglesthatareencodedinthisperpetual splintering.Inrealistliterature,wefindthechurchrepeatedlymeasuredasasocialyardstickand itisusuallyfoundtobeinadequate.Third,eveninruralandseeminglyisolatedOctavius,ethics, finances,andreligionbegintoenterintoadialogueasreligionitselfadoptsthefinancial languageofvalue,worth,andexchangeinsuchawaythattheologyitselfbecomesirrevocably linkedwiththeIndustrialAge.Thefunctionofthechurchbeginstobereevaluatedforitssocial utility,suchasameansofpolicingthecrowd,buttheinherentpowerstrugglesalsorevealan ongoingproblemwithachurch’sneedtopoliceitself.

Inalargersense,Fredericallowsustoseereligionoperatingasametaphorforrealism itselfwithitsfocusonexposinglargerandpreviouslyunknowntruthsinitsdemandfora

207 comparisonbetweenthepresentmomentandtheculturalconditionsimmediatelyprecedingthat moment.Asimilarkindofrhetoriclinksthesetwosubjectstosuchanextentthatitbecomes impossibletoseparatetheaimsofrealismfromtheaimsofreligiousandreformdiscourse.By embracingthereligioussubject,Frederic,likesomanyofthesewriters,allowsustoreadrealism throughthereligiouslens―thatis,symbolically,hermeneutically,andmetaphorically.Realism itselfbecomesanallegoricalmode,butitfunctionsasareverseallegoryinwhichlarger,more universalthemesarereducedintothesmallerandmorecontainableworldofexperience.The subjectofreligion,whichforFredericatfirstgivesaccesstoruralculture,expandsintoaliterary aesthetic,andFrederic’searlywritingoffersamultifacetedopportunitytoexaminethat connection.

Eveninhisfirstnovel,Frederic’salignmentofrealismandreligionemergesasacentral concern. Seth’s Brother’s Wife (1887)immediatelyinvokestheBiblebecauseintheBookof

Genesis,SethisthesonofaonehundredandthirtyyearoldAdam(5:3),whomheclosely

resembles,andhewasbornafterhisbrotherAbel’sdeathasareplacementforhim(4:25).

AlthoughinAmericanculturewemustacknowledgethefrequencyofgivennamesofbiblical

origin,Frederic’stitlesuggestsanunderlyingconcernwiththeAdammyth,whichhereinforces bythefurtherreferencetotheword“brother”inthenovel’stitleandthestory’sthemeoftracing

theAmericanexperiencefromfarmdisplacementtourbandevelopmentjustasAdamandEve

aredisplacedfromEden.Asthenovelopens,Frederichintsattheideaofanewmyth,ora

revisedmyth,invokingthestoryofAdamandtheFall.ThisexpectationisfulfilledwhenSeth

facesthetemptationofbyhisbrother’swife,the“wickedwoman”Isabel.Thelayeredtitle

subtlyemphasizestheveryideaofreplacementssuggestedinGenesis.

In Seth’s Brother’s Wife ,Fredericdoesnotdevelopthereligiousallegoryasfullyashe

willinhislaterworks,buthedoesintroducethepoliticsoftheologyasastruggleforpowerin

agrarianculture.Thebookbeginsdeceptivelyasaworkofregionalism,withservantsgossiping

208 inanativedialectaboutthefamilydynamics.Later,whenthenarrativefocusshiftsfromrural

ThessalytometropolitanTecumseh,theproblemsandchallengesofthefamilybecome correspondinglymorecomplexinvolvingpolitics,finances,andcrime.Anditisworthbearing inmindthatTecumsehwasalsothenameofafictionaltowninIndianainWilliamDean

Howells’s1882 A Modern Instance ,whereitwassimilarlythesiteofadistinctivelymodern socialcrisisinvolvingthequestionofdivorce.Here,itisasmallcityinupstateNewYork,but itsnamecarrieswithitcomplicatedconnotations:TecumsehisthenameoftheShawneeIndian chiefwhotriedtorepelahordeofpioneersintheWarof1812, 110 anditisalsothemiddlename ofWilliamTecumsehSherman—himselfnamedfortheShawneechief—whowasaUnion generalintheCivilWar.Theuseofsuchanamerepresentstheconflictofbothwestward expansionandthestrifeoftheCivilWar.Thepoliticalelectioninthebookinvolvestwoother townscalledSodomandTyre.Frederic’suseofBiblicalandnationalsymbolismhintsathis intentiontolinkhissubjecttothelargerprojectofrealism.Heappearstobewritingaboutthe region,initially,but,aswithpresumablyallworksofregionalism,theauthor’slimited geographyshouldnotbetakentomeanheiswritingasubjectwitharestrictedscope.Hewrites thehistoryoftheregionintothehistoryofthenation,andTecumsehcarrieswithitaheavy burdenofpasteventsthatcontinuetoimpactthenarrativepresent.Theologygetscaughtupin thistransition.

TheinitialconflictinthebookoccursbetweentheFairchildandtheRichardsonfamilies.

Fredericfocusesonsubjectofthefamilyfeudonlyinitially,almostasaconventionofthebook’s regionalflavor.AtthefuneralofCicelyFairchild(oftheRichardsonfamily),Seth’sAunt

SabrinainstructstheEpiscopalminister,Mr.Turner,thatheisonlythereundertheexpresslast wishesofthedeadwoman,andthattheFairchildsareBaptists.Wherethemarriagehad apparentlyunifiedthetwofamilies,thefuneralnowdividesthemagain.SheinvitestheBaptist minister,ReverendStephenBunce,toattendtothefuneralaswellandtopresideoverthe

209 ceremony.Thesetwogentlemenencountereachotherinahumoroussceneinthechapter entitled“TheFuneral.”Mr.Turnerappearsfordinnerandevenheseemsbaffledathisown presence.Isabel,Seth’sbrother’swife,noteshisineffectuality,perceivinghimas“the

EpiscopalianministerofThessaly,amiddleaged,softsortofman,withshorthairsosmoothand furrythatshewasconsciousofanimpulsetostrokeitwithasealskin,andlittlesidewhiskers whichremindedherofababybrush”(Frederic, Seth’s Brother’s Wife 36).Mr.Turner,illat ease,isequallypuzzledbyhisthreetinedsteelforkandthesuperfluouspresenceofMr.Stephen

Bunce,theotherclergymanpresentathistable.Buncesays,“‘WeallknowthattheMotherin

Israelwhohasdepartedwasformerlyofyourcommunion,andifshewantedtohaveyouhere, sir,atherfuneral,whywellandgood.Buttherestofthissorrowin’family,sir,thisstricken household,airBaptists’”(38).Bunce’swordsacknowledgeaninternalpowerstrugglewithin thefamilyoverwhichSabrinahasseizedcontrol.

EvenasFredericdepictsthebattleoftheclergymen,hesimilarlydepictsacultural tensionbetweenthehighbrowEpiscopalcongregantsandthelowbrowBaptistsenactedthrough thereactionstotheflatwareusedforthemeal:“IfquietMr.Turnerwasillatease,theRev.

Stephenwascertainlynot.HebestrodethesituationlikeamodernColossus.Theshapeofhis forkdidnotworryhim,sinceheuseditonlyasahumbleandlowlyadjuncttohisknife.The presenceofMr.Turnertoo,neitherpuzzlednorpainedhim”(36).Turnerisoutofplaceamong thesefarmfolk,buttheBaptistBuncecomfortablyshovelshisfooddownwithlittleconcernfor cutlery.Here,Fredericdrawsonsectariandifferencestodistinguishbetweenthestereotypesof theregion.HewilldothisagainlaterwhenhecreatesaMethodistministerin The Damnation of

Theron Ware ,whomustreadabooktolearnhowtoproperlycareforhishandsandfingernails, juxtaposedagainstaCatholicpriestwhoemploysaservantandwearsasilkdressinggown.He codifieshisrhetoricwithaclasstensionandculturalstereotypingthathisreaderpresumably recognized.Inthisfirstnovel,Fredericbeginsanevaluationofreligionbydenominationthat

210 helpshimtoconstructtheregionandthenlater,largersociety,asheconsiderstheroleof religiousindoctrinationinAmericanculturallife.

AsuncomfortableasthedinnerandservicemaybewiththeEpiscopalianandBaptist contingentsstrugglingfordominance,thearrivalofthechoirfurthercomplicatesthescene:“The singerscame.Theywerefromthevillage,belongingtotheCongregationalchurchthere,andit wasunderstoodthattheycameoutoflikingforJohnFairchild”(42).Clearly,althoughthearea isnotdenselypopulated,thereareanumberofreligiousalternativesshapingthetown,from

AnglicantoPuritan 111 toevangelical.Eachfactionofthefamilyisdeterminedtohavehisorher

denominationrepresentedatthefuneral.Duringtheformalritual,Buncebeginstoemergeasthe

victor.ThefuneralbeginswiththeBaptistminister’sprayerandeulogy:“Whathesaidwas

largelynonsense,fromanypointofview,butthevoicewasthatofthebornexhorter,deep,

cleartoned,melodious,thereseemedtobeastopinit,asinanorgan,whichatpatheticparts

gaveforthatremulous,weepingsound,andwhenthiscame,notadryeyecouldbefound.He

wasoverfondofusingthiseffect”(43).Atthispoint,spectacleclearlywinsthegame,and

Turner,whoofferslittlepromiseinthewayoforatory,seemstobeawareofhisown

diminishingposition.EveryoneisconfusedbythelackofparticipationbytheEpiscopalian

clergyman,butwhenasked,hereplies,“‘Iofficiateatthegrave’”(44).Ironically,theEpiscopal

riteseemstoreceiveitsownkindofburialinthisscene,andSabrina’svictorywithinthefamily

seemssecure.TheBaptistshavewonthisfeud,andin The Lawton Girl ,Fredericwilldispense

withtheThessalyEpiscopalChurchaltogetherasaforceofspiritualorsocialsalvationinthe

town.

AlthoughtheevangelicalbranchoftheFairchildfamilyseemstodominatethefuneral,

theirreligiouspreference,whichseemstobebroughtoutmoreforconveniencethanrelevance,is

merelypartofalargerpowerplay.Inthenextchapter,forexample,Sabrinapresidesinher borrowedmourner’sdresswithherbonnetandspectaclessittingonatablenexttothe

211 “unnoticedBible”(Frederic, Seth’s Brother’s Wife 47).Inspiteofthestrugglethatwasplayed outintheparlor,religionismerelyatoolofbattleratherthananideologicalconcerninandof itselfjustlikeSabrina’scostume:“Themourningdress,borrowedfortheoccasionfroma neighbor,wascutinsomodernafashion,contrastedwiththevenerablemaiden’shabitual garments,thatitgavehersparefigurealmostafantasticair”(47).LikeSabrina’sgarment,the familyborrowsreligionanddonsitonfortheoccasionlikethemourner’sdress,whilethey otherwiseneglectitliketheunnoticedBible.

Thecontrastbetweenthehabitualandtheborrowedreligioushabits,orthetraditionaland themodern,isparalleledinthepowerstrugglethatemergesatthefuneralbetweenthe

EpiscopalianandtheBaptistministersandtheCongregationalchoir.Allare“borrowed”forthe day,andnothingquiteseemstofitintheexpectedmanner,butsomeformofmodernization underwritesthescene.Again,theironicplacementoftheBibleasanaccoutrementoftheritual deflatesitsformerlyprominentroleinAmericanreligiousculture.The“unnoticedBible,” whosestatusappearstobeonlyslightlyhigherthanthatoftheborroweddressbutonparwith themourningbonnetcoveredincrape,highlightstheironyofthesectarianismor denominationalismbecauseBibleitselfissodisassociatedfromthebattlebetweenthevarious creeds.IfweseethissceneassettingthestageforFrederic’sexaminationofthemoreprimitive

Methodismincomparisontotheseotherdenominations,wecanrecognizeacritiqueofAmerican religiousculturesimilartothatwhichRebeccaHardingDavishadattempted.Webegintosee thatnothingquite“fits”anymoreinanyofthesereligiousmodels.

Unfortunately,in Seth’s Brother’s Wife ,thereligiousbattle,aswiththefamilyfeud,is moreorlessdroppedaftertheseearlychapters.PerhapstoFredericthesedenominational disputesarethebattlesoftheregionratherthanofthenationbecausewhenSethdepartsfor

Tecumseh,Fredericintroducesapoliticalbattlethatexploresthelargermechanismsofsociety, thatis,thefutilityofbattlingthepoliticalmachineanditsensuingsocialcorruption.Inany

212 event,hecertainlywritesinatongueincheekmannerashestagesthebattleofthesplintering

ProtestantsectsinthelivingroomoftheFairchildfamilyhome,andthisstruggleforpower recursinthepoliticalstrugglesthatfollow.Infact,Fredericusesreligion,location,and characterizationascohesivedeviceslinking The Lawton Girl (1890)to Seth’s Brother’s Wife .112

Theplotof The Lawton Girl reversesthepremiseof Seth’s Brother’s Wife ,withtheruinedJess

LawtonreturningtoThessalytotrytoreclaimherlifeunderthementorshipofAliceFairchild,

Seth’swife.AustinBriggsnotesthatthetwonovelsshareacommonthemeofself

disillusionment.Hewrites:“In Seth’s Brother’s Wife and The Lawton Girl ,althoughhis

ostensiblesubjectremainedthestrugglebetweengoodandbad,hisrealconcernwasconsistent

andapparent:theillusionsofthosewhothinkthemselvesthereformersoftheworld”(Briggs

98).AlthoughFredericfocusesonlybrieflyontheinstitutionalchurchinthissecondnovel,he

onceagaindrawsattentionontheineffectualactionsoftheTurnerfamily,suggestingthatthe

churchfailstomeettheneedsofthetown.

Thehypocrisyofsmalltownreformersisthemainfocusof The Lawton Girl andeven

JessLawtonprovestobeunredeemableassherepeatsherfollyattheendofthestoryby

sacrificingherselfforHoraceBoyceinanefforttopreventhisincarceration.Briggsinterprets

thenovelasasatiricalexaminationofhumanfoibles.Hewrites:“Toread The Lawton Girl simplyasarealisticrenderingofsmalltownlifeistooverlookthemoreimpressive :Frederic’swryandgoodnaturedexposureofthecomiccontrastbetweenthegrand rolesthatpeopleplanforthemselvesandtherolestheyactuallyplay”(Briggs 96).Briggs’s analysiscapturestheironyofthenovelinwhichthepatternofthescoundrelisreenactedinthe smalltownofThessalywithallofhisfemalevictimsinsistingonprotectinghimratherthan holdinghimaccountableforhiscrimes.Itreadswellasanallegoryfordomesticviolenceinthis waybyexaminingthewaythesewomendevelopakindofdependencyontheirabuser.The novelendswithaconventionalsentimentaltropeoftheselfsacrificingfemalewhorisksherown

213 healthinordertoredeemtheman.Thisisafarcryfrom The Market-Place (1899)inwhichthe centralmanipulator,JoelThorpe,“getsaway”withhisactionsthroughhisowncunningand stealth.In The Lawton Girl ,thewomenofthetownrefuseeveryopportunitytoexactjustice

againsttheirresidentrogue,HoraceBoyce.

ThechurchinThessalyistheEpiscopalcongregationofthesameMr.Turnerwhofirst appearedin Seth’s Brother’s Wife .Here,thechurchplaysaveryminorroleintheethicaland

spiritualshapingofThessaly,andalmostnoroleatallinJessLawton’ssearchforredemption.

WhenformerprostituteJess,thehookerwiththeheartofgold,returnstoopenamillinaryshop,

sheisapparentlysosuccessfulthatsheisabletosupportherself,hersister,andherillegitimate

childwhoboardswithadistantfamily.Jessalsoprovideshershiftlessfatherwithpocketmoney

whileshesimultaneouslyshesponsorsacharityresthomewiththeadditionalassistanceofKate

Minster,awealthyheiress.Therestinghomeopensitsdoorstofactorygirlsprovidingthatthey

are“goodgirls”whoseektooccupytheirhourswiththesafesocietyofother“goodgirls”with

whomtheygathertosocializeandknitinthedangerouseveninghours.Jess’shomecomingis

filteredthroughthelensoftheparableoftheProdigalSon,andthenarratorforeshadowsthe

unhappyreceptionshereceivesfromhersiblings:

TheparableoftheProdigalSonhaslongbeenjustlyregardedasamodelofterseand compactnarrative;butmoderncommentatorsoftheanalyticalsorthaveaquarrelwith theabruptnessofitsending.Theywouldhavelikedtolearnwhatthegoodstayathome sonsaidanddidafterhisfatherhadforasecondtimeexplainedthesituationtohim.... DidhedeceivethereturnedProdigal,forexample,intobelievinginthefraternal welcome?(Frederic, Lawton Girl 73) ItisclearthatJess’sreturnfulfillsthe“modern”analysisoftheProdigal’sreturnwhenJess’s siblingsallbutshunheruponlearningthatshedidnotreturnwithatrunkfulloffashionable dresses.ThanksgivingisabittercelebrationforJess,andshemovesoutofthefamilyhometo setuphermillinaryshop.

IncontrasttothedismalLawtonThanksgiving,thewealthyMinsterscelebratean uncomfortablylavishholidayunderthewatchfuleyeoftheirnewlyhiredBritishbutlerwhose 214 overlysolicitousattendancenearlyruinsthecelebration.Thesepragmaticindustrialistswould ratherselecttheirowndrumsticksfromtheturkeyplatter,andtheysoondismissthebutlerfrom theroom.DinnerconversationattheMinsterhomefocusesontheEpiscopalianchurchandthe attendanceofthetown.ThisconversationrevealsthevacuousnessoftheroleofThessaly’s churchinrelationtohabit,tradition,andsocialethics.Mrs.Minster,thewealthywidow,isin thehabitofgoingtochurch,butsheattendsasamatterofdutyratherthanfaithandtofillupher otherwiseuninspiredhours:

ShewenttotheEpiscopalchurchregularly,althoughsheneitherprofessednorfeltany particulardevotiontoreligiousidealsortenets.Shegaveofhersubstancegenerously, thoughnotprofusely,toallproperlyorganizedandcertifiedcharities,butdidnotlook aboutfor,oroftenrecognizewhentheycameherway,subjectsforprivatebenefaction... .Whenshedidnotknowwhatelsetodo,sheordinarilytookanap.(59) Mrs.Minstercarefullycontainsherreligioushabittoacarefullyproportioneditemonhersocial schedule.IncontrasttoMrs.MinsterisherlongtimefriendMissTabithaWilcox,who“satin oneofthemostprominentpewsoftheEpiscopalchurch,andherprescriptiverighttobe presidentoftheDorcasMitesocietyhadnotbeenquestionednowthesedozenyears”(60).113

Mrs.Minsterattendschurchfornoparticularreasonotherthanthatshehasalwaysdoneso,

whileTabithaattendsforsocialprestigeandasenseofcivicresponsibility.Tabithawishesthat

Thessaly’sfavoriteson,HoraceBoyce,wouldtakeaninterestinchurchaffairsinorderthathe

might“rentapew,andsetanexampletoyoungmeninthatway”(67).InTabitha’seyes,atown

leadermustlinkethicalactionstochurchattendance,emphasizingherbeliefthatthechurch

offersapolicingroleintheethicalactionsofthetownspeople.Ironically,Tabithaisunaware

thatMr.Boyce’sexamplewouldleadtotheruiningofwomen’svirtue,thefatheringof

illegitimatechildren,andtheswindlingofhisclients.Thechurchisimplicatedincoveringup

hiscrimessimplybyhisabilitytouseitasacloakandasameanstobolsterhisreputation.

215 KateMinsteroffersathirdapproachtoreligionincontrasttothepatternsofhabitor duty.Shebelievestheroleofthereformerliesoutsideofthechurch,andshepresentsthecentral argumentofthenovelinregardtothematteroftheutilityofinstitutionalreligion.Shestates:

Itisworthwhiletohaveanoccasionalgoodmanorwomanaltogetheroutsidethe Church.Theypreventthoseontheinsidefromgettingtooconceitedabouttheirown virtues.Therewouldbenolivingwiththeparsonsandthedeaconsandtherestifyou couldn’tsaytothemnowandthen:“See,youhaven’tamonopolyongoodness.Hereare peoplejustashonestandgenerousandstraightforwardasyouareyourselves,whoget alongwithoutanyalterorarkwhatever.”(67) Here,insteadofrelyingonthechurchmerelytokeepthepeopleincheck,Katewantstokeepthe churchitselfincheck.Shetakesacynicalattitudetowardit,locatingapompouspaternalismin itsexclusivity.HercynicismisupheldwhenMissTabithalaterrevealsherownobservationsof thehypocrisythatreignssupremeinThessaly’schurch.InasubsequentdiscussionofJess

Lawton’sdesiretochangeherways,TabithanotesthatJesshasattemptedtofindher redemption,atleastinpart,throughthechurch.Tabithasays,“Cometothinkofit,shehasbeen tochurchtwicenow,twoSundaysrunning.AndMrs.Turnerspoketoherinthevestibule, seeingthatshewasastrangerandneatlydressed,anddidn’tdreamwhoshewas;andshetold meshewasneversomortifiedinherlifeaswhenshefoundoutafterward.Aclergyman’swife hastobe so particular,youknow”(169).Tabitha’swordsunderscoretheironyofMrs.Turner’s refusingtohelpaprostitute,makingthepointthattheaimsoftheTurner’sministrydonot parallelthegospelsinrelationtotheactionsofJesuswhenhereachesouttoMaryMagdalene.

Here,Fredericpresumablycondemnsthischurchforitselitistpractices.Fredericincludesthese littlevignettesofhowthechurchoperatesintheregionpresumablytoexplorethepossibilitythat theinstitutionalchurchmightplayamediatingroleinbringingaboutthekindofreformJess seeks,bothforherselfandforthefactorygirlswhomshehopestosavefromfollowinginher ownfootsteps.HislaterinterestinMethodismrepresentsaturntowardamoreprimitivistcreed, anditisnotsurprisingthathewillcompareittoCatholicismin The Damnation of Theron Ware giventhatheneatlydispenseswiththeAnglicanChurchin The Lawton Girl . 216 Intheend,effectivesocialreformemergesas The Lawton Girl’s centralconcern:

ReubenTracy’sideaforaMen’sSocialClubseeminglyparallelsJessLawton’sRestingHome

forGirls.Atfirst,HoraceBoyceovertakesTracy’svisionandreplacesitwithhisownreform

initiative,whichcomprisesimprovedcookingatrailwaystops,porterstocarryone’sluggage,

thedrinkingoflightbeersandwinesinsteadofwhiskey, 114 improvedarchitecture,and“apenal lawagainstthosebeastlysulphurmatcheswiththeblackheads”(11213).Tracyhimselfatfirst envisionsasocialclub,theThessalyCitizen’sClub,wheretheleadersandprominentbusiness men—whomBoycecalls“atoncethemostprogressiveandmostconservativeinThessaly

(150)—determinehowbesttopolicesocialreformandmunicipalimprovement,but,intheend,

Tracyturnstheclubovertothe“unemployedartisansofThessaly”(358)inorderthattheymay findemploymentduringthefactorylockout.Theclubwillalternatelyfunctionasareading room,coffeehouse,andsoupkitchen,asneeded(38687).Whentheunemployedartisansand factoryworkersfindwork,theclubwillthenrevertbacktothe“citizens”ofThessalysothatthe clubmayfunctionona“businessbasis”asoriginallyintended(387).Themultipleandshifting aimsofthesocialclubemphasizethelackofsubstanceinbothTracy’sandBoyce’svisionsfor reform.

Tracy’sslightlymoredemocraticnotionofreformexistsoutsidethechurchintheveinof

KateMinster’sdescription,whileHoraceBoyce’sautocraticreformisassociatedwithTabitha’s moretraditionalmodelofmediatingaltruismbycentralizingpowerintheinstitutionalchurch.

Theironyofthenovelisthatbotharedoomedfromtheonset.Boycereportsonwhyheand

Tracydonotgetalongverywell,andheoffersthemodelofthechurchtoencapsulatetheir ideologicaldifferences:

Iaskedhimonedaywhatchurchhe’drecommendmetojoin;ofcourseIwasastranger, andexplainedtohimthatwhatIwantedwasnottomakeanymistake,buttogetintothe churchwheretherewouldbethemostrespectablepeoplewhowouldbeofusetome;and whatdoyouthinkhesaid?Hewasactuallymad!Hesaidhe’dratherhavegivenmea hundreddollarsthanhadmeaskhimthatquestion;andafterthathewasverycool,and sowasI,andwe’veneverhadmuchtosaytoeachothersincethen.(120) 217 ForBoyce,thechurchisaboutculturalstatus,andherealizesitsvastpotentialformakingsocial andeconomiccontacts,whileTracydistanceshimselffrominstitutionalreligion,andheexplores insteadvariousmodelsofbenevolencewithnoclearnotionofhowtoenacthisvision.

Intheend,thefailureoftheThessalyCitizen’sClubagainfindsitsparallelinJess

Lawton’sabandonedRestingHomeasclasswarsandeconomictensionsdisruptthereform initiatives.ThefactorygirlsshuntheretreatduetoKateMinster’ssponsorship,blamingherfor thetown’seconomicwoes.Kate,forherpart,feelsdisillusionedwiththelackofappreciationby thetown’sunfortunatecitizens:“Herownclassfeeling,too,subtlypromptedhertodismisswith contemptthethoughtofthesethickfingered,uncouthfactorygirlswhowererejectingherwell meantbounty”(397).Boyce’sselfservingsearchforahouseofworshipandKate’shalf heartedaltruisticimpulserevealtheextentofFrederic’scynicismaboutthepossibilityfor effectivereformeitherinsideoroutsidethechurch.EvenTracy’slimitedvisionofconstructing atemporarysoupkitchenthatwillrevertbacktothetown’srealcitizensoncethecrisishas passedsupportsBriggs’sobservationaboutFrederic’ssatire.Fredericfollowsthesocalled

conventionsofrealismwithhisattentiontodetailandhisexposureofthetown’ssocial

hypocrisy,butthenovelisclearlycomicalratherthanreformorientedasgoodintentions

repeatedlyfail,keepingthestatusquoofthetownintact.

Ultimately,likeTwain,Fredericofferslittlehopeforthepossibilityoftheadvancement

ofcivilization,believinginsteadthathumankindismostlikelytorepeatandreiterateitsown patternsofsociologicalselfinterestandevenresorttodecayordecline.Inthisnovel,however,

heclearlycontemplatestheideaofhumanprogresswithoutquiterejectingit.Thoughtsofthe pastinvokenostalgia,butthepresentisnotnecessarilycondemnedasaformofdecaysomuch

asviewedasinevitableresultofthelostabolitionistideologythatonceunitedthetown’s philosophers.Inshort,Thessalyissimplyinsearchofanewideology.ModernThessaly

comparesunfavorablytoitsprecedinggoldenera,whichwasdisruptedorpossiblycompletedby 218 theCivilWar.Anabandonedseminary,onceasiteofintellectualenlightenment,standsasa forgottensymbolofthetown’sformerprestige.Thenarratorstates:“Isupposethatinthis modernThessaly,withitsfactoriesandmills,itssemiforeignsaloons,itslongstreetsof uniformlyuglycottagedwellings,thereweremanyhundredsofadultswhohadnoideawhether theoncefamousThessalyseminarywasstillopenornot”(144).Intheantebellumperiod,the narratorrecalls,“Therewasmaintainedeachwinteralecturecourse,whichwasable,notso muchbymoneyasbytheweightandcharacterofitshabitualpatrons,toenrichitsannuallists withsuchnamesasEmerson,Burritt,Phillips,Curtis,andBeecher”(145).Thelackof agreementregardingthecurrentreforminitiativesillustratestheintellectualdiscordinthetown thatiscenterednowonclassandeconomicstatus.Fredericexaminesexistingsocialinstitutions andfindstheminadequatetotheethicalandspiritualdemandsofthemodernage,andheeven hintsattheideaofatavismthatwillemergemorestronglyinhislaterfiction.

ThenovelendswithtwosignificantvignettesthatrevealFrederic’sinterestintryingto discerntherelationshipbetweentheOldWorldandtheNewWorldintheformationofmodern

Americanculture;heoffersTracy’sreflectionontheearlyalcoholicdeathoftheyoungStephen

Minster,Kate’sbrother,andKate’stheoryofhowMrs.Minster’sOldWorldcharacterhasled hertobedupedbyHoraceBoyce.BothsituationsdescribeaformofdecaythatFrederic associatesnotwiththenewworkingclassinvadingthetownbutwiththereigningupperclass anditsEuropeanroots.First,whenReubenTracycontemplatesapictureofthedeadheir,

StephenMinster,Jr.,histhoughtsreflectwhathasbecomethenatureversusnurturequestionof humandevelopment:“TherewasnovisiblereasonwhyStephenMinster’ssonshouldnothave beencleverandstrong,afitmasterofthepartcreatedforhimbyhisfather.Theremustbesome blight,somemysteriouscurseuponhereditaryricheshereinAmerica”(265).Reuben contemplatesanotionthatinheritanceleadstoalifeofvacuity,aCalvinistnotionthatAndrew

CarnegiefamouslyexpoundsintheGospelofWealth(1899). 115 Onlylater,in Gloria Mundi ,

219 doesFrederichimselfmorefullyexploretheideaofactualdecayinamorescientificmanner thatreflectshisturntowardnaturalism,butinmanyofhisnovelshesuggeststhatboredomleads tounhappiness.Significantly,Kate’ssummaryofhermother’scharacterrecallsthenature versusnurturedebate.Indiscussinghermother’sstubbornnessandhowithasledhermotherto financialruin,shestates:“‘That’sMammaallover....Isn’titwonderfulhowthoseoldrace typesreappear,eveninourday?SheisasDutchasanyladyinHaarlemthatFranzHalsever painted.Hermindworkssideways,likeacrab’”(386).Tracy’sreflectiononStephenMinster’s financialinheritancecursecontrastsKate’ssuggestionofageneticinheritance;bothtypesof inheritanceconnotesocialdecay,butitisnotyetclearonwhichsideofthedebateFredericwill emerge.HeseemstobemockingtheOldWorldancestryofColonialAmericaratherthan targetingtheinfluxofimmigrantsandfactoryworkerswhoarechangingthecompositionof

Thessaly.Inthisnovel,hereiteratespopularsociologicaltheoriesanddebates,butalsointhe mannerofhismentorHowells,hedoesnotnecessarilypreachaspecificreform:hisproject appearstoaimatdebunkingratherthanreplacingaspecificsocialreformagenda.

Inhisearlywriting,Fredericconstructsaselfconsciousrealismthatexploresthecultural andintellectualthemesthathebelievedwereexertinganimportantinfluenceoverbothruraland urbanAmericanculturalaesthetics.Throughouthisliterarycareer,infact,heexperimented widelywithgenre.StantonGarnerdividesFrederic’snovelsandshortstoriesintolarger groupingsthatincludetheMohawkValleyliterature,CivilWarmaterials,aRevolutionaryWar grouping,andthenaEuropean/economicgrouping.Garneralsopointsoutsomelittleknown medievalIrishfolktalesthataroseoutofFrederic’sinterestintheIrishimmigrantsinhis hometownofUtica,NewYork. 116 The Damnation of Theron Ware isthelastoftheMohawk

Valleyliterature,and,inGarner’sview,itdisplaysthecharacteristicsofbothrealismand romanceFredericinstillsinhislargerbodyofwork.Garneralsoseesthisworkaspivotalin

220 illustratingFrederic’sshiftinginterestfrommattersoftheregiontoalargerscopeofnational andeventuallyinternationalliterature.

Garnerisnottheonlyreadertonotethesignificanceof The Damnation of Theron Ware

asapivotalworkinFrederic’srepertoire. Intheintroductiontothisnovel,EverettCarterwrites thatFredericwasplacinghisworkintodialoguewithhisliterarypredecessors,andmostnotably withWilliamDeanHowells.Carterwritesthat“Fredericconsideredhimselfadiscipleofthis acknowledgeddeanofAmericanrealism”(xii) 117 andbelievesthatFredericadoptsaHowellsian

approachbutthenchangesthisformulatoreinstateamythologicaldimensiontorealism:he

writes:“ThetechniqueofFrederic,then,wasoneofthelandmarksinthechangefromamethod

whichunobtrusivelyusedsymbolsandallusionstoreinforcethelogical,natural,surfaceofthe

narrative,toa‘symbolism’whichinsistsuponitselfastheembodimentofafable’sotherwise

obscuresignificance”(xxiv).Thisemphasisonallegoryappearstobeacommonargumentfor promotingaspecificworkofrealism;Carterimpliesthatearlierworksplaceahighervalueon

verisimilitudewhereasthisworkaimsforacombinationofaccuracyandmythological

significance,makingit,then,moresophisticatedthantheworkofHowells.Carter’sassumption

reinforcesacriticalpositionthatrealismworksasamirrorratherthananallegory,whichcreates

aproblemwithtextualhermeneutics.Toviewrealismasamirrorrequiresaliteralhermeneutics

whereasrealistwritersrepeatedlyconfrontthechallengeofhermeneuticswithintheframework

oftherealisttext,asinHowells’s A Modern Instance whenBenHalleckstrugglesto comprehendhowtoadapthissystemofethicstothemodernage.

Oncewebegintoviewrealismthroughthelensofreligion,itshouldbecomeclearthat realismitselfalwaysworksallegorically,evenHowellsianrealism.Thetextservesasamaterial allegoryforsomeabstractideologicalconcept.EvenCharlesDarwinintryingtoexplainthe complexitiesofthehumaneye,reliedonthe“reverse”allegorybyusingamaterialobjectto illustratethecomplexandnearlyincomprehensibleprocessofevolutionaryselectionthat

221 allowedthelensoftheeyetoevolve.Darwinwrites,“Itisscarcelypossibletoavoidcomparing theeyetoatelescope.Weknowthatthisinstrumenthasbeenperfectedbythelongcontinued effortsofthehighesthumanintellects;andwecannaturallyinferthattheeyehasbeenformed byasomewhatanalogousprocess”(145).InDarwin’sfamousanalogy,hetelescopeisa materialallegoryforthecomplicatedandabstractfunctionofthehumaneye.Heposesthe question:“HaveweanyrighttoassumethattheCreatorworksbyintellectualpowerslikethose ofman?”(145).WhenDarwinasksthisrhetoricalquestion,heindicatesthatheisusinga reductiveanalogyinordertomakeanabstractionmoreeasilyunderstood,butheexpectsthe readertobeabletoreversethelogicbyimaginativelyturningtheempiricalexamplebackinto abstraction.ThemannerinwhichrealistwriterssuchasFrederic,Howells,andDavis constructedthereligioussubjectintheirtextsreliesonananalogythroughwhichwecan deconstructtheontologicalsignificanceofthereligioussymbolism.Theemphasisthesewriters placeonverisimilitudeispartofatechniquetolendcredencetotheideathattheunderlying abstractionsofthetextsarereliablytrue,butwemustlearntoreadtherepresentationasboth expansiveandreductiveatthesametime.ToinvokeDarwin’sexample,realismallowsusto lookthroughthewrongendofthetelescopeinordertoseewhatremainsintheimagewhen everythingisreduced.

The Damnation of Theron Ware’s paradoxicalsettingofabackwardssmalltowndealing

withaninfluxofimmigrantsandtechnologyillustratesFrederic’sinterestindepictingan

importantintersectionbetweenthepastandthepresent.Havingestablishedtheconditions

leadingtothedemiseofsmalltownethicsinhisearliernovels,Frederichereturnstowarda

moremodernscenarioasiftocaptureakeymomentofculturalchangeinIndustrialAmerica.

GeorgeJohnsonwritesthatthenovelwas“writteninthe1890’s,apivotalperiodinAmerican

culturewhenanagrarianmythologywascontestingthehardfactsofindustryandurbanization”

(361).In The Damnation ,FredericdepictsasocialworldinwhichthesmalltownofOctaviusis

222 rapidlymodernizingnotonlytechnologicallybutsociologically.Anumberofcontemporary intellectualmovementssuchasDarwinism,GermanHighCriticism,andNewWomanfeminism eachbringtobearspecificsocialandscientificideologiesthatcollidewiththepuritanorthodoxy thathasreignedsupremeinOctavius.Johnsonwrites:“Thebookopensinthe‘modern’ communityofTecumseh,presentedwithsomeauthorialironyandconsiderableelegiacfeeling foramore‘heroic’past”(367).ThesettingthenshiftstoOctaviusasiftotravelbackintimeto that“heroic”pastthatJohnsondescribes.Methodistsupholdtheircreedbyfollowing

The Discipline ,aWesleyansupplementtoscripturethatinterpretshowtoapplybiblicallawto

everydaylife.Unfortunately,theserulescannoteasilyexplainhowtoincorporatetechnological

advances,suchasthepossibilityofridingastreetcartochurch,amovethatrequires

transportationoperatorstoworkonSundays,whichviolatesthepreceptsof The Discipline but

increasesoverallchurchattendance.Thisutilitariandilemmaposesaqualityversusquantity

analysisinrelationtothesalvationofsouls.Intheend,thetrusteesdeterminethateventheact

ofridingthestreetcarswilldamntheverysoulstheywishtosave,andOctaviansareleft

adheringrigidlytothelawaslaidoutin The Discipline whilesubsequentconflictsarise.

FredericdoesnotdirectlyimpugntheBible,buthedoessoindirectlybyshowingthe incongruityof The Discipline inthisrapidlychangingcommunity.Again,thequestionof hermeneuticsarises:ifthetextmustbereinterpretedforeachnewgeneration,cananotionof transhistoricaltruthbesafelyascertained?Thetownspeoplebattlefortheauthoritytointerpret

HebraicLawintomodernethics.StephanieFootewrites:“Themembersofthecongregation participateinthesameconflictedstagingofwhatisprimitiveandwhatisnovel.Althoughthe

Methodistsareinsulatedfromthetown’smoderndevelopments—goingsofarastoshunthe streetcarsbecausetheyrunonSundays—theirtrusteesareimplacablecapitalists”(60).Inhis depictionofthisideologicalclash,Fredericdrawsontheologyandhermeneuticstoillustrate differentwaysinwhichthemodernizationofthetownhasimpactedinstitutionalreligionand

223 viceverse.InFrederic’swriting,andparticularlyinthisnovel,hehonesinonorganized religionastheprimaryculturalinstitutionthatoperatesasasourceofpowerandsocialcontrolin bothruralandurbansettings.

AlthoughmanyreadershavenotedtheintricateportraitofAmericanMethodismthat

Fredericdepictsinthelatenineteenthcentury,fewreadersseemtohavenoticedthatMethodism, inthisnovel,isfarfromstable.Itissounstable,infact,thatitisnotclearwhat,exactly,

Methodismis:itremainsintangible.Religioninregionalandrealistfictionoffersanelusive subjectbecauseitisalwaysatoddswithitselfasifreligiouscultureisinsearchfor verisimilitude.Theperpetualsplinteringwithinandacrossdenominationsuggestsanongoing searchforanewerandmoretruthfulexpressionofholiness.Thenovelopenswithaconflict withinMethodismbetweenliberalandconservativesects,andthatconflictplaysoutinvarious settingsthroughoutthenovel.Forexample,MethodisminthesmalltownofOctaviusclearly looksdifferentthanMethodismaspracticedelsewhere,suchasthefictionalTecumseh,atown

FredericmentionsinallthreeofhisupstateNewYorknovels.Therearevastdifferences betweentheNewMethodists,theFreeMethodists,andtheMethodistEpiscopalseventhough, strictlyspeaking,allareoperatingasWesleyanMethodists.WhenTheronarrivesinOctavius,

BrotherPierceinformshim”“‘Weain’thadnotroublewiththeFreeMethodistshere...just becausewekepttotheoldpaths,an’seekforsalvationinthegoodoldway....Why,theysay somefolksaregoin’roundnowpreachin’thatourgrandfathersareallmonkeys’”(Frederic,

Damnation 30). 118 Inthisnovel,Methodismbecomesthesiteuponwhichmanycompeting ideologiesbattleforculturalcontrol.TheconversationaboutsectarianismbetweenTheronWare andthetrusteessummarizesseveralcompetingformsofchurchpolity,fromthemoveawayfrom anepiscopatetoanindividualchurchbased(i.e.congregationalstyle)creed,throughtothe risingapplicationofDarwinisminsociologicalandreligiousrhetoric.Fredericdemonstrates

224 thattheinstabilityofMethodismcorrespondstoalargerpowerplaywithinAmericanreligious culture.

FrederichimselfwasnotaMethodistandsoheconductedextensiveresearchinorderto presenthissubjectaccurately. 119 Onewonders:whyMethodism?WhydoesFrederichoneinon thisspecificdenominationforhisportraitofAmericanrurallife?Onereasonmaybethat

Methodismwas,infact,arisingreligionduringthisera,replacingtheCalvinistPresbyterianism andCongregationalism.TheopeningsceneofthebookattheNadahmaConferencehasthe

Tecumsehcongregationhopingto“acquire”TheronWareastheirnewministerbecauseofhis superiororatoryskills,aclearnecessityinalandwherethereisnonationalreligionor mandatorytithe.TheywanthiminordertohavetheedgeonthePresbyterianchurchintown:

Forahandsomeandexpensivechurchbuildinglikethis,andwithsuchamodernandgo aheadcongregation,itwassimplyavitalnecessitytosecureanattractiveandfashionable preacher.TheyhadheldtheirownagainstthePresbyteriansthesepastfewyearsonlyby themoststrenuousefforts,andunderthedepressingdisadvantageofaministerwho preacheddrearyoutofdatesermons,andwholackedeventhemostrudimentarysenseof socialdistinctions.(7) TheTecumsehcoterieclearlywantstoreplaceaministerwhocannotmodernize;hissermonsare

“outofdate”andheapparentlydoesnotrealizetheimportanceofcultivatingrelationshipswith thewealthyinorderto“grow”thechurch.Thisdeeplyironicdesireforamorefinanciallysavvy clergyman,onewhocanmarketthechurch,demonstratestheextenttowhichthechurchoperates asabusinessinthiscapitalisteconomy.PooreconomichabitsprovetobeTheron’sdownfall.

TecumsehdoesnotacquireTheronWare,ofcourse,andhefindshimselfintheless cosmopolitanOctavius,punishedbecauseofhislackofhouseholdfrugalityinhisprevious post. 120 Yet,strangely,inspiteofFrederic’sresearchintotheMethodistEpiscopalChurch,

OctavianMethodismreadslikePuritanism:Theron’swifeAliceevenreferstoitasaPuritan practice(14).Footenotes:“ThetextparodiesthisbrandofMethodismaspracticedby

AmericanswhoseemedtohaveemergedfromtheageofPuritanism”(60).SowhileTecumseh

isbattlingthePresbyteriansformembership,Methodismisbattlingitselffromtowntotownas 225 BrotherPiercepointsouttoReverendWarewhenhebragsthat:“Weain’tgonetraipsingafter strangegods,likesomepeoplethatcallthemselvesMethodistsinotherplaces”(29).Thisbattle isbeingfoughtontwofronts,acrossandwithindenominationboundaries,butbythe1890s,

MethodismwasgrowingbyleapsandboundswhiletheCalvinistdenominationswerestruggling toretaintheirdominanceofotherProtestantdenominations.Methodism,inwhateverformit wasbeingpracticed,wasflourishinginAmericanculture,andsoitplaysaprominentroleinthe latenineteenthcentury’schangingreligiouslandscape.

AnotherexplanationforFrederic’schoicemaybethatMethodismis,inmanyways,a

malleableinstitution,anditisthatreputationthatmakesitaninterestingsubjectfortherealist

writer.WalterBenjaminwrites:“Some[historians]stressedMethodism’smediatingtheology,

whichsavedthegospelfrombeingwreckedbetweentheScyllaof‘oldtheological predestinarianism’andtheCharybdisofUnitarianrationalismandtheUniversalist

sentimentality”(31819).AsBenjaminpointsout,theoristscanconstructMethodismina

numberofways,andFrederic’smultifacetedmodelillustrateshisownunderstandingofthis

denomination’sflexiblepractices.HeoffersseveralviewsintothesplinteringMethodismof

nineteenthcenturyAmericaand,bydoingso,heoffersalargerglimpseintothefragmentationof

AmericanProtestantismasawholeduringthiserashowinghowdividedthenationhadbecome.

Therealist’saimofdiscerningwhatcanbeknownwithcertaintythroughempiricalobservations

oftheworldmeetsitschallengeinreligionbecauseevenwithinasingledenomination,itis

impossibletodeterminewhatitmeanstobeaMethodistasFredericillustrates.

Inliterarystudies,theprevailingtendencyistodealwiththecomplicatednatureof

denominationalismbysimplylabelingeverythingas“Protestant”oreven“Christian”without

tryingtodiscernthedistinctionthatwriterslikeFredericweretryingtomake.GreggCamfield pointsoutthatthereisasubtexttothetermChristianitythatmadesubtledistinctionsincreed

andhermeneuticshugelyimportanttothedevelopingpoliticalideologyofAmericanculture.He

226 tracesthatsubtextthroughthesentimentalliterarytradition,butheneverthelessarguesthatit appearsinallpopularliteraryformsinthenineteenthcentury.Hewrites:

CalvinismcameunderattackintheUnitedStatesinpartbecausethedoctrineof predestinationviolatedaliberalsenseofhumandignity;withoutfreechoicetoearn redemption,Christianityseemedcrabbedanddogmatic.Amoreexpansivesenseof humanchoicemilitatedforasentimentalversionofChristianity,oneinwhichChristian nurtureprovidedaframeworkformoralfreedom.Notsurprisingly,then,mostpolitical crusadesofthelatenineteenthcenturywerealsoreligiouscrusades,atfirstworkingto undercuttheharshnessofCalvinism,thenusingthesuccessfulbattleagainstCalvinismto attackthenewpoliticalconservatismanddeterminismoftheSocialDarwinists. (“Sentimental”60) Camfieldassertsthatregardlessofgenre,Americanwritersassumedthattheiraudienceswere

wellacquaintedwiththetheologicaldistinctionsbetweenCalvinismandliberalChristianity.He

citesMaryE.WilkinsFreeman’s1886story“AConflictEnded”asanexampleofadoctrinal

disputebetweentheCalvinistsandtheArminians.Hewrites:“Freemanassumesheraudience

willknowthehistoryofChristianityoverthepreceding50years”(Camfield,“Sentimental”61).

InthecaseofHaroldFrederic,itisclearthathescrutinizesthereligioushabitsandbeliefsof

variousdenominationsandsectswithinthosedenominationscarefully.Hefiltershisnovel

throughthelensofMethodismbecauseitrepresentsanimportantideologicalshiftthathe

associateswiththeethicalcrisesofthemodernmoment.

ThroughhiscontrastbetweentherigidMethodismofOctaviusandMethodismasitis practicedelsewhere,suchasinTecumsehorinTheron’spreviousministryinTyre,Frederic

offersaspecificvignetteofAmericanreligiouscultureinwhichtheethicsofsocialcontrol

encompasseverythingfromsexualpoliticstoconsumerism.TheronWareisdeniedthe

TecumsehpositionbecausehisoverspendinginTyreculminatedinadebtofovereighthundred

dollars(Frederic, Damnation 21),sowhenhearrivesinOctavius,hebeginstoassesshisnew postintermsofdollarsandvalue.Thisshifttowardsacapitalisticsensibilitywillemergemore

stronglyasthenovelunfolds,butFrederictiesitspecificallytotheageofcapitalism,asthe

languageoffaithassumesaneconomicdimensioninOctavius.

227 In Myths America Lives By ,RichardHughessummarizestheearlyhistoryof

ProtestantisminAmericaandhesuggestsanincreasingsenseofnationalismisthecauseofthe changesthatoccurinthenineteenthcentury.LikeFrederic,Hughesmakesnoteofthegrowing popularityofMethodism,whichrepresentsthemostsignificantdivisionwithinAmerican

Protestantism.ThemajordistinctioninMethodismisthebreakingawayfromtheCalvinist influencethatcharacterizestheearlierPuritans:

[D]uringtheRevolutionaryperiodandintothenineteenthcentury,themajorityof AmericanswhoclaimedtheChristianfaithwereCalvinistsofonestripeoranother. RomanCatholicswerestilladistinctminority.TheAnglicanChurch—ortheChurchof England—stillthrived,especiallyintheSouth,buthadlostconsiderablecredibility, especiallysincesomanyAmericansassociatedthatchurchwithBritain,notwith America.Methodism—adistinctlynonCalvinistfaith—wasgrowingbyleapsand boundsandwouldsoontaketheAmericanfrontierbystorm.(Hughes68) Hughes’ssummaryprovidesafairlyclearoverviewofthescopeofmajorchurchdivisionsand thegeneralsenseofgeographythataccompaniedthesplits.Again,MethodistsrejectedCalvinist notionsofpredestinationandlimitedgrace(Wentz154),andtheMethodistsbelievedin individualautonomyinthematterofsalvation.

Frederic’scomplicatedpictureofadogmaticMethodisminOctaviusdepictsareligious institutionthatmimicstheverydenominationsitseekstoreplace.Inthisway,Octavian

Methodismfunctionsallegoricallyforthisprocessofsplinteringthatoccurredmorelargelyin theAmericanreligiouslandscape.Fredericexamineshowitwillholduptosomeofthe challengesthatmoderncultureandcompetingsocialphilosophiespresent.Similarly,realism itselfisanallegoryforthereal.AsCamfieldpointsout,“Nofictionalaccountofrealitycanbe anythingbutaradicalabstraction”(56).Therealisttext,likethereligiousallegory,is continuallytryingtocapturethatelusivemomentwhensomethingisdepictedinoppositionto whatitusedtobeinordertolocatesomenotionofuniversaltruththatcanbeappliedtoour knowledgeandexperienceofthematerialworld.Thelayereduseofliteraryallusionin The

Damnation of Theron Ware highlightsthecomplexityoftryingtoreadreligioninworksof

228 realism.Eveninaworkasspecificaboutplaceandreligionas Theron Ware ,thelargercontext

ofsocialandreligiousthoughtneedstobeexaminedinordertodiscernhowthewritercodifies

histext.Fredericchallengesbothskepticismandconversionbyundercuttingeveryauthority

figureinhisfictionallandscapewhileclearlysatirizingTheronfortheeasewithwhichhe

discardshisowninheritedreligion.ThedirectuseofmodernsymbolsinOctavius,thestreetcars

thatrunonSunday,themodernelectricdoorbellofFatherForbes,andtheNewYorkCitysetting

ofthenovel’sclimax,stronglyassociatestheworkwiththesamestruggleseensorepeatedlyin

nineteenthcenturyAmericanrealism,andthatisthesimplicityoftheruralidealjuxtaposed

againstthepressuresandemergingeconomicfocusofthemodern,urbantableau.

Religionandrealismalsoshareadependenceonanalogyaspartoftheimaginative processtoconvertitssubject.Thesuccessoftheconversiondependsonthecredibilityofthe

imaginativerepresentation.Forexample,inthecampmeetingscenein The Damnation ,Frederic examinestheallegoricalexperienceofthecampfirerevivaltoinvokethepossibilityof descendingtoHell.WhenTheronWareleavesthecampfiremeetingandencountersthe

Catholicpicnichappeninginanotherfield,heandFatherForbesdiscussthedifferencesbetween thetwospectacles.WarenotesthatMethodismwasfirstbolsteredby“thecholerayearof1832”

(Frederic, The Damnation 246)becausethiscrisisbroughtpeoplefacetofacewiththeprospect oftheirownmortality.Hedescribestheconversionprocessofthatexperience,whichthecamp meetingstrytoduplicate.Hestates:“‘Eventothisdayourmostsuccessfulrevivalists,those whoworkconversionswholesalewherevertheygo,doitmorebyfrightfulpicturesofhellfire surroundingthesinner’sdeathbedthananythingelse.Youcouldhearthesamethingatour campmeetingtonight,ifyouwerethere’”(246).FatherForbesconcurswithTherononthis point.Hestates:“‘Thereseemtohavebeenthemosttremendouschangesinracesand civilizationsandreligions,stretchingovermanythousandsofyears,yetnothingisinfactaltered verymuch.Wherereligionsareconcerned,thehumanracearestillverymuchlikesavagesina

229 dangerouswoodinthedark,tellingoneanotherghoststoriesaroundacampfire’”(Frederic

247).Inthissense,Methodismseemstoworkassynecdochewithinthetext,standinginforthe largersplinteringofAmericanProtestantismandsectarianism,butitalsoworksmimetically uponitssubject,thereligiousconvert,muchasrealismworksanalogicallyuponthereader.To renderasuccessfulconversion,therhetoricmustachieveverisimilitude.Theron’sderision regardingtheconversionexperienceironicallyparallelshisowncounterconversioninwhichthe truthsheoncebelievednolongerseemcredible.

Theron’scounterconversionfromfaithtodisbeliefplayswiththeconventionsofthe sentimentalconversionnovel.HebeginstoreadRenan,Sayce,Budge,Smith,andLenormant

(130),andhebeginstoquestionhisownfaith.

Then,littlebylittle,itdawneduponhimthattherewasaconnectedstoryinallthis;and suddenlyhecameuponit,outintheopen,asitwere.Itwasthestoryofhowadeeply devoutyoungman,trainedfromhisearliestboyhoodforthesacredoffice,anddesiring passionatelynothingbuttobeworthyofit,cametoapointwhere,atinfinitecostofpain tohimselfandofanguishtothosedearesttohim,heandtodeclarethathecouldno longerbelieveatallinrevealedreligion.(130) ElmerSudermanarguesthatFrederic’s The Damnation of Theron Ware derivesitscultural authoritybysubvertingtheconversionsituationfoundinworkssuchasCharlesSheldon’s In His

Steps :“HaroldFrederictookacommonplacesituationinthelifeandliteratureofhistime...

andbytransformingandinvertingtheconventiongaveliterarylifetoordinarilystereotyped

charactersandplot”(Suderman,“TheDamnation”61).Heexplainsthecomplicatedlayeringof parodywhenhedescribestheconventionthatFredericwasacknowledging:

Theskeptic[ofasentimentalreligiousnovel]...mustbeayoungmanbetweentwenty fiveandthirtyyearsold....HemustcomefromaChristianhome,andhave recollectionsofaprayingmother,nowdead.HavingstrayedfromtheChristianpath,he hasbecomeskepticaloforatleastindifferenttoreligion.HereadsRenan,hasheardof Ingersoll,andbelievesinevolution.(62) Suderman’ssynopsisofthetypicalprotagonistintheconversionconventiondemonstratesthat

whileFredericisemployingrealism,specificallyaregionalrealism,toparodyatypeof

sentimentalreligiousworkbyinvertingit,thesentimentalreligiousnovel,like In His Steps ,in 230 turn,reliesoncontrastingitselfwithbiographicalworkdepictingthehistoricallifeofJesus.

Sheldon’smodelshowsaministerintuitingamysticaltranshistoricalallegoryofJesusby imaginativelyrecreatingbiblicalethicsinposingthequestion“WhatwouldJesusdo?”In theory,theMethodistrelianceon The Discipline followsthismodelofreinterpretingscriptural ethicsinmoderncircumstances,butFredericonceagaininvertsthesituationbyconnectingthe transcendentmodelwiththeHebraismembeddedinpuritanorthodoxy.

GregoryJacksonnotesthatrealismworksinthesameallegoricalmannerastherevivalist conversionprocessthatTheronWarenoteswithhisderisionofhellfire.Bothmodesrelyonthe subject’simaginativeabilitytorealizetheallegoryasamaterialpossibility.Jacksonwrites:

“Therealistnovelistthustendstoworkbyselectingrepresentativecasestorevealasocialtruth, todescribeparticularsinordertorevealthetruthaboutthewhole”( The Word 13).Ifthe experienceofreadingthenoveloffersacrediblesenseofthereader’ssubjectiveexperience,then themessageofthetextbecomesarealizableconsequencetothereader.Hewrites:“Inthis sense,boththerealistandhomileticnovelbespeaknotastruggletobe‘realerthanthou,’but merelytobereal enough ”(13).Jacksonbelievesthatthehomileticprocessarisingoutof sermonicdiscourseisacommonlinkbetweenthereligiousconversionexperienceoftherevivals andtherepresentationofrealitythattherealistwriterconstructs.Therealnessoftheallegory correlatestothestrengthoftheconversion,andtheallegoricaldiscoursederivesfromthe homileticformofsermonicdiscourse.

Infact,thequestionofhermeneuticsiscentraltothenovel;itariseswhenWareexpresses hisdesiretosupplementhisincomewithwhatJacksoncallsa“parabiblical”text.Waresoon realizesthatreadingandexplicatingscriptureisfarmorecomplicatedthanhehadanticipated becauseofthemanydifferentcriticalapproachestoitsinterpretation.Followingapopulartrend,

Waredecidestowriteacontemporarycommentaryonapassageofscripture:“Latterlyhisfancy hadbeenstimulatedbyreadinganaccountoftheprofitswhichCanonFarrarhadderivedfrom

231 his‘LifeofChrist.’Ifsuchabookcouldcommandsuchabewilderingmultitudeofreaders,

Theronfeltthatthereoughttobeachanceforhim”(Frederic, Damnation 40). 121 Wareismore

interestedinthecommercialpotentialofhispublicationthanthetheologicalneedforscriptural

exegesis,but,finally,hedecidestorevisittheBookofGenesis:“Hehadnot,itistrue,goneto

thelengthofseriouslyconsideringwhatshouldbethesubjectofhisbook.Thathadnotseemed

tomattermuch,solongasitwasscriptural....ThebookshouldbeaboutAbraham!”(40).

ThisreviewofadifficultOldTestamentpassageisacommonmovebyliberaltheologians

seekingtoreconcileOldTestamentscriptureswithNewTestamentteachings.Therationaleis

thatChristianitywillbestrengthenedifthetwopartsoftheBiblecanbebroughtintoalignment

sothatChristianitycanbevalidatedbyshowinghowthelifeofJesusmeetsthe“conditions”of

theMessiahaslaidoutintheOldTestament.OnceWarebeginshisprojectaboutthisOld

Testamentfigure,Abraham,wholinksJudaism,Christianity,andIslam,heencountersacrisisof

confidenceinhisownlackofexpertiseregardingtheHebrewBible.

ForTheronWare,whatbeginsasawhimendsupshakinghisfaithandleadshimona journeyofselfdoubt.HeturnstoFatherForbesforadvice,andForbesandLedsmar

subsequentlyindoctrinateWareintothetheoriesofGermanHighCriticism.Inshortorder,Ware

losesthefoundationofallhethoughtwastruewhenhisliteralhermeneuticsfailhim.Hehad believedtheBiblicalmaterialtobesorealthathehadfailedtoreadthetextasallegory.Forbes

andLedsmarexplainthehermeneuticofreadingeponyms.FatherForbessays:“‘Ifearthatyou

aretakingourfriendAbrahamtooliterally....Modernresearch,youknowquitewipeshimout

ofexistenceasanindividual.Theword“Abram”ismerelyaneponym,—itmeans“exalted

father.”...Abramisnotapersonatall:heisatribe,asect,aclan’”(72).Theronisshockedby

thistheoryandasksifitissomethingnew.Infact,asForbespointsout,theseideasarenotnew

atall,goingbacknearlyfifteenhundredyearstoSaintAugustine(72).Theronislearning

somethingquiteold;itissimplynewtohim.Infact,everythingheencountersfromCelia

232 Madden,FatherForbes,andDr.Ledsmar–thenewhedonism,thenewscience,andthenew theology—areallactuallyquiteold,asBriggspointsout:“Dr.Ledsmar’sonebookisan anthropologicalhistoryofserpentworship,andheistheforemostauthorityonAssyriologyin theUnitedStates.Celia,whensheisnotplayingHypatia,wantstobeaGreekpagan”(128).

FatherForbespointsoutthatknowledgeandtruthshouldnotbeconfusedasoneandthesame:

“‘Theearthwasjustasroundinthedayswhenpeoplesupposedittobeflat,asitisnow.Sothe truthremainsalwaysthetruth,eventhoughyougiveitachartertotenhundredthousand separatenumskullstoexamineitbythelightoftheirprivatejudgment’”(73).FatherForbesis nottryingtoteachWarethetruth,buthedoestrytoteachhimnewhermeneutics,andhe continuesontodiscuss“thisChristmythofours”(74),showinghimhowtoapplythese hermeneuticstotheNewTestamentaswellastheOld.Wareisshockedbythenotionofreading religioninthismanner,buthefeelspleasureaswell.Heisunawarethathisspectatorsviewhim asanallegoricalsubject.Tothem,heisaruraltype,theembodimentofinnocence,buthefails toacknowledgehisroleproperly.

Ware’sproblemswiththeBibleunderscorelargerproblemsoftextualauthorityin relationtohermeneutics.WithinthenovelandspecificallywithinthereadingoftheBible,codes ofrepresentationrepeatedlyfailwithnoclearalternativesforsubstitutinganewunderstanding ofknowledgeforWare’sformermethod;hebecomesincreasinglyawareoftheinadequacyof hisownexegeses.Oncegroundedinhisfaith,Warelosesthesecurityoftheonlysacred documentthathassupportedhisbeliefsonceheexaminestheBibleandrealizeshedoesnot reallyknowhowtoreadorinterpretitbeyondtheconfinesofhissermonicdiscourse.Foote writes:“WheneventhefiguresintheBiblebegintoassumeovertonesofforeignness,Theron loseshissenseofhimself,ofhisownplaceandpositioninrelationtotextsheoncethoughofas inviolableandsacred.HisbeliefthatAbrahamisa‘real’manandnotatypeworksinthetextas asymptomofhisunfamiliaritywithcodesofrepresentationasawhole”(62).Whenheturnsto

233 FatherForbes,Warelearnsthatthereareothermethodsofreadingtexts,andthoseother methodschangehisliteralhermeneutictoanallegoricalone.ThisturnforcesTherontoconfront thenotionthatallhethoughtwastruecannolongerbeassumedtobetrue.Hebeginstoseehis faithasmerelyasystem,buthefindsnoreplacementsystemthatseemsanytruertohim.He examinesCatholicism,butevenFatherForbesseeshisownfaithinaPositivisticlight.

Asabriefaside,weshouldalsonotethattherewasadualitywithinCatholicismin

Octaviusaswell.TheCatholicChurchcontainsasocialclasssystemthat,inOctavius,Father

Forbescontrols.ThetrusteesscornfullyattacktheCatholicchurchesintown,linkingthemto theinfluxofimmigrants:“‘TheplaceisjestoverrunwithIrish,’BrotherPiercebeganagain.

‘They’vegottwoCatholicChurchesherenowtoourone....[T]heyain’tChristiansatall.

They’reidolaters,that’swhattheyare!’”(31).AsPiercepointsout,thetermChristianbecomes highlysubjective,representingacontestedfaithratherthanasharedone.Thefactthatthereare twoCatholicChurchesinthetownofOctaviusfurthersuggeststhedividedviewtoward

CatholicisminAmericancultureatthistime.Onetheonehand,thereistheelitistEuropean

CatholicismwithaminoritypresenceinAmerica,akindofEnlightenmentintellectualaesthetic thatFatherForbesrepresents,while,ontheotherhand,thereistheemerginggrowthofthelow

CatholicChurchaccompanyingthefluxofimmigrantsthattheOctavianIrishfactoryworkers represent.FatherForbesarguesthatthesuccessoftheCatholicchurchliesinits“onesizefits all”approach;throughpriestsandscholars,Bibleinterpretationandtheologycanbetranslated intoapracticalmodelforthemasses.Oehlschlaegerwrites:“AsDr.Ledsmarexplains,the

CatholicChurchrepresentsa[modelof]unqualifiedacceptance.WhereasProtestantchurches excludethesinner,‘there’snoproblemtotheCatholicChurch.Everythingthat’sin,stay’sin.’

Virtuedoesnotinhereintheparishionersbutispartofthechurch”(251).Eitherway,Forbes believestheinstitutionalchurchisnecessaryinordertooverseesocialethics.Hesays:“‘What youmustseeisthattheremustalwaysbeachurch.Ifonedidnotexist,itwouldbenecessaryto

234 inventit.Itisneeded,firstandforemost,asapoliceforce.Itisneeded,secondly,sotospeak, asafireinsurance’”(Frederic,Damnation 250).ForForbes,theologyandtheinstitutionofthe

churchdonotneedtobeparticularlyconsistent,solongasthechurchmeetstheneedsof

contemporaryculture.Inthisway,heparallelsSisterSoulsbywhobelieves,“‘AChurchislike

everythingelse....It’sgottohaveaboss,ahead,anauthorityofsomesort’”(174).Forbes

andSoulsbyarepragmatists,andeachseesorganizedreligionasanintegralpartofmoraland

ethicaldevelopment,buttheunderlyingproblemwithauthorityemergesineachofthesemodels,

asTheronwilldiscover.BythetimeFredericwrites Gloria Mundi ,hissatireofthesocalled bosses,heads,andauthoritiesbecomesquitecutting.

TounderstandthereligiouscompositioninAmericancultureduringthelatenineteenth century,itisimperativetounderstandthatvastchangeandsplinteringwasubiquitousinevery denomination.Thepowerstruggleplaysoutthroughtherepresentationsofinstitutionalreligion.

Again,thebattlehastwofronts:withinthecreedandacrosscreeds.BothMethodismand

CatholicismincreasedtheirnumberssignificantlybythelatenineteenthcenturyasCalvinist denominationsdeclined,butthereweresocioeconomicandclassstruggleswithinthese denominationsasFrederic’sdepictionacknowledges.FatherForbespredictsthattheCatholic churchwillbecomethedominantinstitutionalchurchinAmerica—hecallsitthe“Churchof

America”(248)—andhespecificallycreditsitssuccesstothe“lagerdrinkingIrishman”(248).

Again,Frederic’ssatireofMatthewArnoldshouldnotbemissedhere.JohnLyonscomments ontheparallelbetweenArnold’sanalysisofCelticlanguagesandFatherForbes’sspeechonthis newAmericantypeinwhichhe“imaginestheminglingoftheCeltandtheSaxonthroughthe agencyofbeer[turning]Arnold’shighseriousnessintolowcomedy”(13).Thedeliberate juxtapositionofCatholicismagainstMethodismallowsFrederictoexamineeachalternativeasa

systemofsocietalandethicalcontrolforintegratingandmanagingsocialchange:hechallenges

hisreaderstoconsiderwhichsystemoffersgreateradvantagetothechangingAmerican

235 landscape.Hepokesfunatcontemporarysocialphilosophyevenwhilehechallengeshisreader toconsidervariousenactmentsofHebraismandHellenismincontemporaryculture.

Methodism,freefromtheconstraintsofCalvinistorthodoxy,alsoprovidesalinktothe

Adamarchetypebecauseofitsfocusonreligiousprimitivismwithitsmysticfocusthatattempts toshedthefettersofcreed.ThisvariationoftheAdamstorywillprovetobearecurringtheme inFrederic’swriting,whichheexaminesin The Damnation of Theron Ware , Gloria Mundi ,122 and The Market-Place .R.W.B.LewispointsoutthattheAdamfigurewasafrequentliterary tropeevenbeforetheriseofrealismspecificallybecausethestoryinGenesiswasuniquely suitedtotheideaofaNewWorldandthechancetobeginanewstoryofcivilization.Hewrites:

“Acenturyago,theimagecontrivedtoembodythemostfruitfulcontemporaryideaswasthatof theauthenticAmericanasafigureofheroicinnocenceandvastpotentialities,poisedatthestart ofanewhistory”(Lewis1).Hiscallsthischaracterization“anemergentAmericanmyth”and insiststhatthereexistsadialoguethatis“acollectiveaffair”(4).Lewiscitesseveralvariations ofthismythinthepublicationsofearlynineteenthcenturywritersandphilosopherssuchas

Holmes,Whitman,HenryJames,HoraceBushnell,Copper,Hawthorne,Melville,etc.Hetraces theAdamicmyththroughoutseveraldecades,andhelinksitssurroundingrhetoricto transcendentalistssuchasEmersonandThoreauand“thelongNewEnglandpreachingtradition”

(21).LewiscapturesaninterestingtransitioninAmericanreligiouscultureduringwhich

CalvinismdeclinedandfirstUnitarianismandlaterProtestantreformmovementsbeganto supplantCongregationalismasthemainstreamAmericanchurchinstitutions.Atthesametime, theOldTestamentinfluenceofCalvinismremainsencapsulatedwithintheAdamdiscourse,and

LewisarguesthattheAdammythandtheAmericanexperiencearewellsuitedaseachdrawson theideaofanewhistoryofhumankind.Hewrites:“TheAmericanmythsawlifeandhistoryas justbeginning.Itdescribedtheworldasstartingupagainunderfreshinitiative,inadivinely

grantedsecondchanceforthehumanrace,afterthefirstchancehadbeensodisastrously

236 fumbledinthedarkeningOldWorld”(Lewis5).TheronWareemergesasamoderndayAdam whosedownfallreflectswhatCartersummarizesasintellectualAmerica’sfallfrominnocence intoknowledge(xvii).FredericspecificallydepictstheAdammyththroughthetheologyof

Methodismtochallengethenotionofacreedlesscreed.Withorwithoutarestrictivetheology, mankindisdestinedtorepeatitsownactions.

WhereastheBiblicaltitleof Seth’s Brother’s Wife subtlyalludestoSethasanAdamic figure,TheronWare’sresemblancetoAdamisalittlemoreindirect.Hisinitialinnocenceand subsequentfallsuggesttheAdamicallegory,asdothenumerousreferencestoserpentsinthe novel. 123 FredericalsotoyswithanEvefigureinthesestoriescompletewiththegardenimagery

moreclearlyreminiscentofanEdenicsettingandafallfromgrace,insuchcharactersasAlice

Warein The Damnation andEdithCressagein The Market-Place .Bothwomen,frustratedby theirmarriages,trytoreviveabandonedgardensintheirownbackyards.Alice’sgarden becomestaintedwithherpotentialinfidelityanditshrivels,whileEdithCressagesimply becomesboredassheattemptstosublimatehersexualdesiresintoaflourishinglandscape.

Severalscholarshavenotedthestory’smythicalallegory,includingGeorgeJohnson,whocalls

Ware“anAdamicAmerican”(367),andStantonGarner,whocallshim“ayoungAmerican

Adam”(137).AustinBriggsalsopointsoutthat“appropriately,TecumsehislocatedinAdams

County”(114).TherealissueofTheron’s“fall”revolvesaroundthequestionofwhetherhewas everaninnocentatall.HeisaproblematicAdambecausehefallseasilyandabandonshis beliefsandmoralcodewithoutabackwardglance,butperhapsthatisFrederic’spoint.Ware’s ignorancesustainshisinnocenceonlyuntilhediscoversnewideasandchallengestohisfaith, bothsexualandintellectual.Hehasnobasisforsustaininghisbeliefs;hewasinnocentonly becauseheknewnootherwaytobe.Wareembraceshisfall,andhewelcomeshismoreworldly perspective,butasGarnerpointsout,hedoesn’tbecomemoreenlightenedsomuchasmore bawdyasheallowshimself“todescendfromthefreshnessofinnocenceandofloyaltytohis

237 creedandhismarriagetothebarkeeperlevelofmeansuspicionandintentions”(137).Inthis modelweseethefundamentaltragedyoftheAdammyth:thefallisinevitableand unpreventable.Toidentifyone’sowninnocencenecessarilyimpliestheimpossibilityof retrievingthatlostinnocence,andagain,thatstatemaynotbeoneofinnocencesomuchas ignorance.Thesenseofdiscoveryandlossareoneandthesame.Therefollowsasenseof nostalgiathatcompeteswithanimmediatedesiretoknowmore.TheAdammythisnotasmuch aboutthelossofinnocenceasitisabouttheacknowledgmentofatemptationthatcannever againbedenied.

Intheregionalmodel,thatideaofacknowledgementplaysoutinthestoryaswell.Celia

MaddenadmitstoTheronthatshe,FatherForbes,andDr.Ledsmarhad“acquired”himforhis

innocence;onceitislost,heisofnofurtherinteresttothem.Shestates:“‘Welikedyou,asI

havesaid,becauseyouwereunsophisticatedanddelightfullyfreshandnatural.Somehowwe

tookitforgrantedyouwouldstayso’”(Frederic,Damnation 331).StephanieFootepointsout

thatTheronWaredefiesexpectationsasaregionalfigurefromthebeginningofthenovelby

failingtobe“acquired.”Footewrites:“Thewordacquisition highlightsaproblemwithin

regionalismasawhole.Thelyricaldesireforaninnocenceofcharacterandexperienceisclear

inCelia’sinitialdesireforTheron”(689).TecumsehcouldnotacquireTheron,norcanCelia becausewhateachwishestoacquireisdifferentfromtheelusiveversionWarepresentstothem.

Herefusestoremainstablebutchangesimmediatelyfromwhattheywishhimtobe.For

Tecumseh,Theronisaproblematicoratorbecausehebringswithhimadisreputablehistoryfor

fiscalmanagement,sotheyaredeniedtheirfashionableexhorterbecauseofhisequally

fashionablematerialism.ForCelia,Theroncannotbeacquiredwithoutbetrayingtheknowledge

hehasgainedfromhisexposuretoherandhercompatriots.Theycannotpossesshisinnocence

withouthisacquiringtheircynicism.Footewrites:“Itisperhapsthegreattragedyofthisnovel

thatTheronprovestobearegionalfigurewhodoesnotrecognizehimselfassuchandwhowill

238 notbestillinthecuriocabinetofthisgenre”(59).Foote’spointisthattheobjectinsistsonhis ownsubjectivity.Sheadds:“Hecommitstheunpardonablesinofpastoralregionalism:he attemptstomodernizehimselfasheisbeingobserved”(59).Thisselfawarenessisthetragedy oftheAdamicmythaswell:thefallisaccompaniedbytheinstantawarenessthatdesirecannot beundone.Thesubjectnolongerwishestobewithoutit:thisAdamisnottheobjectof depravity,butratherheinsistsonhisownsubjectivity.AsanAmericanallegory,the implicationsarenumerous:theWestcannotbeuncivilized,thecitycannotbeunbuilt, knowledgecannotbeunlearned,andmancannolongerinhabitthegardenbecausethetragedyis thathenolongerwantsto.Heisforeverfallen;thereisnoprogressorpossibilityforarewritten historybecausethestateofinnocencecannotbemaintainedassoonasitisunderstoodtobea stateofinnocence.

WhatismostsignificantabouttheAdamreferenceisFrederic’sdeparturefromtheChrist figurethatDavisandHowellsofferintheirrealistfiction. 124 TheallegoricalAdamsuggestsa

manunfetteredfromcivilizationandtheology,withaonetoonecorrespondencebetweenman

andGodwhiletheChristfiguremoretypicallyaccompaniesthenotionofprogressivemanand

intuitiveconsciencethattranscendsthelawasitishandeddownintheOldTestament.Inone

sense,itisadifferenceofhermeneuticswithlargerimplicationsabouthowtoreadandapply

textualauthoritytothequestionofethics.Here,thequestionofHebraismversusHellenism

againemerges.TherearemanyexamplesinthenovelofHebraismandHellenism,butthis

dichotomyisnotsomuchabsoluteasmeasuredbydegrees.Forexample,JohnLyonsreads

CeliaMaddenasanexampleofHellenism,andindeedsheidentifiesherselfas“Greek”andshe

espousesArnoldwhenshestates:“‘Idividepeopleintotwoclasses,youknow,—Greeksand

Jews.Onceyougetholdofthatprinciple,allotherdivisionsandclassifications,suchasbyrace

orlanguageornationality,seempurefoolishness”(200).Wesoonlearn,however,thatCelia’s

HellenismisassubjectiveastheMethodist’ssectarianism:sheincorporatesitintohernotionof

239 ChristianityviaCatholicism,andshefindsherCatholicismasmalleableastheMethodistsinthe novelfindtheircreed.Shesays:“‘TheCatholicreligionismyjug.IputintoitthethingsIlike.

Theywerealltherelongago,thousandsofyearsago.TheJewsthrewthemout;wewillput thembackagain’”(265). 125 Thismalleabilitypermeatesthetext:SisterSoulsbyalsoformulates

herownreligion,asdoesFatherForbes,andevenAlice.LyonspointsoutthatCeliacannoteven

explicateherownsubjectiveHellenism,andhedrawsattentiontoapassageinthetextwhere

Celiaisunabletodefineherownnotionofthe“Greekidea”exceptinthevaguestoftermssuch

as“lotsofthings”and“soon,”finallysettlingon“Absolutefreedomfrommoralbugbears,for

onething”(208).Inshort,LyonsdescribesCeliaas“Hellenismgonetoseed”(10).Inone

sense,nearlyallthefiguresinthetextofferexamplesofHellenisminthewayeachfeelsfreeto

intuitthereligiousmodelratherthanbyfollowingtheimpliedlawofHebraism.IfHellenism

offersawaytoadaptreligioustheologytothemodernagebyintuitingabstractideasofdivinity,

Fredericillustratestheverydangeritrepresents;itissohighlysubjectivethatitcannotbe

representedinanyconcretemanner.Hellenismgonetoseedispureabstractionasitis

incrementallyrepresentedinthetext,culminatinginCelia’sClassicalChristianCatholicism.

TheHebraicfiguresinthenovelalsoexistbydegree.ForLyons,ifCeliaisHellenism

gonetoseed,LedsmarrepresentsHebraismgonetoseed(10),buthealsoacknowledgesa

“cartoonversionofHebraism”inthetrusteeLorenPierce(10).Hewrites:“[Pierce]willhaveno

othergodsbeforehim,andsoisopposedtochurchchoirs,fancyladies’hats,andknowsthat

geologygivesnocluestotheageoftheearth”(10).Pierce’spuritanicaldogmaallowshimto

impose The Discipline oneveryactivitythatdeviatesfromhisrigidinterpretationofhisfaith beginningwithhisinsistencethatAliceremovetherosesfromherbonnetandWareremovethe word“epitome”fromhissermonbecauseitisnotplainspokenasthelawdictates(Frederic,

Damnation 37).Fromthebeginning,FredericalsobringsthequestionofJudaismintoplay althoughhedoesnotpresentJudaismandHebraismassynonyms.InFrederic’sfiction,Jewish

240 identityisalwayspresentedintermsofraceratherthantheology.ForBridgetBennett,an importantlinktoHebraismexistsbetweenthevariouswaysFredericdepictsJewishcharactersin hisnovels,especiallythelaternovels.Shewrites:“Likeallhispassions,hisinterestinJudaism spillsoverintohisfiction—The Damnation of Theron Ware , Gloria Mundi and The Market-

Place contain,respectivelyreferencestoHebraism,AngloJewishcharacters,and[ananti

Semitic]protagonist”(121).CarrieBramenalsopointsouttheantiSemiticthemeofnotonly

Frederic’slaternovels,butinthelessthansubtleimplicationin The Damnation thatthemoney

lendertrustee,LeviGorringeisJewishaswell.ShenotesAlice’sadvicetoTheronbeforehis

meetingwiththetrusteeswhenAliceadvisesherhusbandnottoletthetrustees“jew”himdown

(Frederic, Damnation 25).BramenbelievesGorringe’scharacterizationisanexampleof

“otherness”inthenovel,andshecitesseveralexamplesofwherethelanguagepointstohis

occupation(lawyerwhoworksasamoneylender),andhis“dusky”and“Arabian”aspectas

wellasWare’ssuspicionsaboutGorringe’sorigins(Bramen73).Gorringeiscertainlyastrange

characterinthenovel,andheisintimatelyconnectedtothehypocrisyofWare’ssexual

awakeningwithCeliaasitisparalleledinAlice’sencounterswithGorringe.Therearemany

suchparallelswithinthenovelwithpatternsoftwoandpatternsofthree(threetrustees,three

femalecharacters,theCeliaMadden,FatherForbesandDr.Ledsmartriangle).TheHellenism

versusHebraismdichotomyoffersabasisforevaluatinghowtoplaceeachofthesefiguresinthe philosophicalsubtextofArnold,butclearly,Fredericishavingfuninstillingvariousfigureswith

thisaestheticoppositionmainlytoundercuttheseriousnessofit.If,asCeliaMaddensuggests,

thereareonlytwotypesofpeople,partoftheenjoymentofthenovelisinviewingthesevarious

charactersthroughthisclassification.

Atthesametime,Gorringedoesnotexhibitthelinktoorthodoxythattheother

Hebraisticfiguresdo.Instead,heoffersalinktotheworldoffinanceandcapitalismthat becomessostronglyassociatedwiththereligiousrhetoricofthetext.Inmanyways,thenovel

241 depictsthecommodificationofethicsandreligioninOctavius.Fromtheverybeginning,

Theronmustlearntoadoptthelanguageofcapitalisminhisdealingswiththetrusteesastheir discussiondegeneratesintoanegotiationofinterestrates,salary,andsidewalkrepaircosts. 126

Thetrusteesrefusetolowertheirinterestrates,quotingtheDisciplineforjustification:“‘You knowhowstrongtheDisciplinelaysitdownthatwemustbeboundtotheletterinour agreements.Thatbein’so,weseenitinthelightofdutynottochangewhatwe’dsetourhands to”(Frederic, Damnation 34).Theronisabletoreturntothesamelogicinhisrefusaltocuthis salaryorpayforarepairthatprecededhisarrivalinOctavius.Hehasmasteredtheapplication ofmaterialistandcapitalistlogic.ThemeasureofsuccessofTheron’sministrywillrestonhis abilitytoraiserevenuetofreethechurchfromitsdebt.

Financiallanguageslowlyreplacesthelanguageoffaith,whichTheronWareexhibitsby adoptingthemodernindustrialconceptofvalueintohisethicallife.Itisonlywhenadollar amountisassignedtoAlice’sgardenthatWarebeginstobelieveshehascommittedadultery, andthenhergardensoonshrivels.Again,thetwoinstancesofinfidelityworkintandeminthe novel:TheronacceptsCeliaMadden’sgiftofapianoforAlice,andheseesCelia’scheckbookas apotentialsourceofliberationfromhisnowstiflinglife.WhenheescapestheMethodistcamp meetingandencountersCeliaattheCatholicpicnic,hebeginstoequatehislibertywithher wallet:“Shehadkissedhim,andshewasveryrich.Thethingsgraduallylinkedthemselves beforehiseyes”(271).Thealmightydollar,whichissoliberatingtoTheron,isstiflingand

restrictivetoAlice.Shortlyafterthepicnic,Theronoverhearstwoladiesdiscussingthe“sinful

waste”ofAlice’snewgarden.Heisshockedtolearnshehasplanted“fiftydollars’worthof

dahlias”(274).TheronhasgivenlittlethoughttoGorringe’sgiftstoAliceuntiladollaramount

isattached:“Itwasnogooddeceivinghimselfanylonger:ofcoursetheseweretheplantsthat

Gorringehadspenthismoneyupon,allabouthim”(274).OnceTheronbecomesobsessedwith

thenotionofAlice’spotentialinfidelity,hernewEdensymbolicallydies:“Thegayetyandcolor

242 ofthegardenweregone,andintheirplacewasshabbyanddishevelled[sic]ruin....Helooked abouthim,surveyingthehavocthefrosthadwroughtamongtheflowers,andsmiled”(292).In fact,ineithergiftscenario,AliceisimplicatedinTheron’sfallbecausethepianowasagiftfor herasmuchasGorringe’sdonatedflowersare.Eitherway,sheistherecipientofthemoneythat becomesassociatedwithsin.ThefinanciallanguagethatFredericweavesthroughoutthenovel fromTheron’sinitialdebt,thesidewalkrepairs,thedebtraiserSoulsby,thegarden,thepiano, andthecheckbookculminateinCelia’saccusationthatWarehasbeenadisappointing acquisition:hedidnotretainhisvalue.Theron’softheeconomiclanguageofthenovel colorshisentireviewofreligionandsociety;itisinextricablylinkedtohisfall.Presumably, thisnew“system”replacestheoldone,andFrederic’ssubsequentnovelscontinuehis examinationofvarioussocialandeconomicsystemsthatreplacetheantiquatedoneofTheron

Ware’ssimplefaith.

The Damnation of Theron Ware isFrederic’slastcomprehensiveexaminationof

Americanreligiousculture,anditconcludeshisMohawkValleygroupingofupstateNewYork regionalfiction.Frederic’slasttwonovels, Gloria Mundi and The Market-Place werepublished posthumously.TheselatterworksdealwithadecliningEuropeanaristocracyandaburgeoning urbancapitalisminturnofthecenturyLondon,and,liketheNewYorkfiction,Frederic connectssomeofthecharacterssuchasChristianTowersandEdithCressagetextuallyand geographicallyallowingustoreadthenovelsasathematicset.Thesefinaltwotextsalso includesignificantsocialcommentaryonlatenineteenthcenturyantiSemitismwhenFrederic delvesintoeconomicandculturalstereotypingofmoneylendingandusury,creating sympatheticJewishcharactersinthe Gloria Mundi andavariciouseconomichustlerswhoget theircomeuppancein The Market-Place .Inbothcases,Frederic’sturntowardnaturalism emerges,andhebeginstoexaminevarioustypesofsocialforcesinwhichmanexercisespower overhisfellowman.Briggswrites:“Standingattheendofthenineteenthcentury,Frederic

243 looksbackuponnearlyonehundredyearsofpowergarneredinthenameofprogress,and, turningtothecenturyahead,heasksjustwhatthatpowerimplies”(200).Hedoesnotoffera socialistsolutionasUptonSinclairwilllaterinThe Jungle (1906),buthedoesexaminethe socioeconomicalconditionsthatcouldaseasilyleadtosocialismorfascism.

Thetitleofthefirstofthesetwonovels, Gloria Mundi ,isaLatinphrasethattranslatesto

“thegloryoftheworld.” 127 ThestoryfocusesontheFrenchbornEnglishman,Christian

Towers,whoinheritstheDukedomofGlastonburyandanancestralhome,Caermere,fromhis latefather’sestrangedfamily.AsChristianjourneystoEnglandtoclaimhisinheritance,he encountersvariousaspectsofBritishsocietyandsocialphilosophy,includingfeudalism, aristocracy,socialism,democracy,antiSemitism,andtheNewWomanideology.Christian ultimatelymeldsthesevarious“systems”butwithlittleclearresolutionofhisownsocial philosophy.Intheend,hereclaimshisinheritedpositionintheBritisharistocracy,buthe promiseshimselfto“reign”overhiskingdomwithamodernsensibility.Mainly,heintends primarilytoavoidthepomposityofhisancestors.Theironyofthenovelisthatinhissearchto beunique,Christianmerelyreiteratesthetraditionalroleenjoyedbyhisclass;hereturnsto

Caermerebutwiththevagueintentionofremodelingittoletinmorelight.

Therearetwobriefcommentariesontheroleofinstitutionalreligioninthenovel:the

firstcomesfromChristian’skinsmanEmanuel,whoisJewishbybirthbutAnglicizedinhis

upbringingandthesecondcomesfromChristianwhowasraisedCatholicbutadoptsthe

AnglicanChurchasaconditionofhisinheritance.BothEmanuelandChristianseesome positivetraitsinthenationalchurch,butneitherviewsitastheprimaryinstitutionforthe

developmentandregulationofsocialethics.Instead,eachseestheroleofthechurchas

complementarytothemaintenanceofothersocialinstitutions;thechurchisameanstoanend.

ForEmanuel,thecuratesinhisutopiancommunityfunctionmerelytohelphimpolicethe

communityandmaintainthetenetsofhissocialphilosophy.ForChristian,thechurchisa

244 historicalarchivethatpreservesculturaltraditionsthroughritualandartifacts.Inshort,both menviewthechurchasausefulaidinmaintainingculturalhegemony.Athisgrandfather’s funeral,Christianfinallyawakenstoanunderstandingoffamilyhistory,andhebeginsto comprehendthesocialpoweroftheBritisharistocracy.Theinterestingaspectofthesetwo vignettesofthechurchisthatonemodelservestheneedsofthelowerworkingclasseswhilethe otherattendstotheupperechelonoftheEuropeanclasssystem.Bothallowtheinstitutional churcharoleincontemporaryculture,butitsfunctionisverymuchassociatedwithsocio economicclass.InFrederic’sdepictionofit,thenationalchurchexiststomaintainthestatus quo.

Frederic’sassociationofsocialclasswithreligioninthenovelisnotsurprisinggivenhis

focusonBritishsocietyattheturnofthecentury.Infact,thenovelitselfmayhaveamuch

largerscopeinrelationtoBritishhistory.EditorLarryBromleyreadsthetextasamythicquest

thatservesasanallegoryforEuropeancivilization.Hewrites:

Christian,aCatholic,iscomparedtoahalfbrotherwhoneverappearsinthebook, Salvatore,aProtestant.BothbrotherssetoutfromFrance,butSalvatortravelsto America,wherehebecomesaFreemasonandasocialistliberal;symbolically,Christian’s journeysuggeststheNormanconquest,andSalvator’sthecolonizationoftheNew World.Indeed,therearemanysuchmetaphoricalconnectionstoEnglandandherpastin thenovel.Caermereitselfisallegoricallysignificant:liketheBritishIslesasawhole,it isinvulnerableonthreesidesandapproachableonlyfromaneasilydefendedfourthside; liketheempireitrepresents,CaermereanditsenvironscontainsallthestrataofEnglish society.(Bromley346) Evenso,BromleybelievesthatFrederic’squestmotiffadesfromthetextaftertheopening

chapters,andheseestheallegorylosestrengthasthefocusofthenovelshifts.Infact,itmaybe

thatFredericbeginswiththenodtoEuropeanhistoryinanattemptto“place”modernsocial philosophyintoasidebysideperspectivewithEurope’searlieragetoargueforcausality.By

doingso,heestablishesarelationshipbetweenthepastandthepresentatwhathelocatesasa

keymomentofsocialtransition,muchashedidwithMethodisminOctaviuswiththepuritan

versusliberalencounterwithinthecreed.

245 Withinthenovel,FredericsuggeststhatwhiletheAnglicanChurchistiedtosignificant

socialandpoliticalideologies,itsprimaryfunctionisasasocialforceratherthanaspiritualone.

In Gloria Mundi ,hedoesnotevendepicttheChurchofEnglandinrelationtotheologyor

hermeneutics,butratherheexaminesitsutilityasaforcetomaintainculturalhegemony.For

example,EmanuelbelievestheageoffeudalismwasthegoldenageofEuropeancivilization,

andhehasattemptedtocreatewhatThomasO’Donnellcalls“apseudosocialUtopiathatis

actuallyfeudalindesign”(121).Inhismodel,heenvisionsthechurchfunctioninginthemanner

ofalaborguild,andhereformsittoresembletheRomanCatholicChurchofcenturiespast.

EmanueltreatsChristianhospitably,andheattemptstoindoctrinatehimintothetenetsofthe

“System,”whichisaRuskinianattemptatsocialbenevolencewithinwhichthefundamental purposeseemstobetomaintainthestatusquoofaclassbasedagrarianlife.

Implicitinthismodelisanassumptionthatthehumanraceiscapableofmanagingits

own“progress”iftheupperechelonscancontainthethreatofunrest.Inthisway,agradual

socialprogressionpreventsaradicalrevolutionevenifthat“advancement”requiresrevisitingan

earlierera.EmanuelevenexplainshismodelusingascientificschemarelyingonaDarwinian premisethatevolutionisgenealogical.EmanuelusesananalogyoftheroadmuchasDarwin

explainstheideaofdivergenceviabranchesin The Origin of Species (1859). 128 Quotingsocial philosophyinpassagesthatappeartobegenerallyliftedfromJohnRuskin’s Unto This Last

(1860) 129 andcloselyrelatedtotheArtsandCraftsmovementassociatedwithWilliamMorris,

Emanuel“sawclearlythatmankindcouldrightitselfonlybyretracingitssteps,andgoingback tothesceneofitsmistakenchoiceofroads”(Frederic, Gloria Mundi 12930). 130 Emanuelwants toreturntoaperiodbeforeaspecificvariationoccurredinhumansociety,andlikeadomestic breeder,hewantstoselectthevariantshewillpreserveinhissociety.OnEmanuel’ssixvillage estate,hehasmanagedtoreformtheChurchofEngland:“Eachvillagehadasmallchurch edificeofitsown,quaintlytoweredandbeautifulinform,andeachpossessingorsimulating

246 skillfullythegracesofantiquityaswell”(13031).Emanueldescribestherolehiscelibate curatesperformin“theSystem.”Hesays:

Idon’tsupposeyouknowmuchabouttheChurchofEngland.Well,itdriveswithan extremelylooserein.Youcandoalmostanythingyoulikeinsideit,ifyougoaboutthe ideadecorously.Ididn’tevenhavethetroublewiththeBishopwhichmighthavebeen expected.Theseyoungmen—mycurates,wemaycallthem—haveamongthemselvesa kindofguildorfraternity...;theyarequiteagreeduponanirreducibleminimumof dogmatictheology,andanartisticelaborationoftheritual,and,aboveall,uponanactive life/consecratedtogoodworks....Withouttheirconstantandverycapableoversight, theSystemwouldhaveagoodmanyraggededges,I’mafraid....Theyespeciallywatch thedevelopmentofthechildren,andmakecarefulnotesoftheirqualitiesandcapacities. Theyselectthefewwhoaretobefullyeducatedfromthemasswhichistobetaughtonly toreadanddosums.(13233) InEmanuel’ssystem,thecelibatecuratescomprisesimplyanotherformofguild,andtheir primaryfunctionistoknowthefamiliesandespeciallytheyoungchildrensothateach

individualwithinthevillagemaybecarefullysortedaccordingtohisorhermostpromising

function.Hehaslittleinterestintheologyatallandinfactallbuteliminatesitfromhismodel.

Theclergyarethesocialpolice,andtheyareabletoserveinthisroleinlargepartbecausethey

donothaveanycompetinginterestsintheacquisitionoflandorproperty.

ThefatalflawinEmanuel’ssystemisthathealoneisthesoleguardianifitsideology.

Hecanfindnooneelsetosharehisvisionandtakeovertheownershiporit.Christianaffronts

EmanuelbyaskinghimiftheSystemisnotmerelyaformofsocialism(140).Anyresemblance

tosocialismismerelysuperficialbecausetheultimateironyoftheSystemisthatEmanuelhas,

infact,managedtoreproduceafeudalismthathasprimarilybenefitedhimself.Hestates:“‘In

theeyesofthelaw,itisallmine,andfromthatpointofviewIamarichermanthanIwasbefore

thesystembegan....Itakeenoughtobenefitasbefitsmystation;eachoftheothershas

enoughtomaintain his station,comfortablyandhonorably’”(140).Emanuel’sinsistenceon

maintainingasystemofsocialclassrevealshisantisocialistphilosophythathehopeshis

reformedchurchwillhelphimmaintain.Thewomeninthenovelleveltwocriticismsatthis

System.HiswifeKathleenpointsoutthatthereisnoroomforadvancingtheinterestsofwomen

247 init(145),andChristian’sNewWomanparamour,FrancesBailey,pointsoutthatthemain triumphofthesystemisitsculturalhegemonythatbenefitstheupperclasses.Shestates:

“‘Whenyouconsiderit,whathashedone?Merelydiscovered,bytremendouslaborandenergy, thesmoothestpossibleworkingarrangementofthesocialsystemwhichhisclassregardsasbest foritself,andhenceforallmankindthesystemwhichexaltsachosenfew,andkeepsalltherest insubjection’”(235).SheacknowledgesthatEmanueldoesnotpretendtobeworkingforsocial progresssomuchasreactingtocurrentsocioeconomicconditionsbytaking“alongstep backward”(236).Shefaultshisnarrowvisionas“aJewishlimitation”(235),whichironically overlooksEmanuel’sinclusionoftheChurchofEnglandinhisutopiancommunity.Frederic presentstwodifferentviewsofdeterminismhere:Emanueloffersamodelofcultural determinismwhileFrancesBaileyhintsatgeneticdeterminismandtheroleofrace.Thisisthe dichotomythatlinksthesefinaltwonovels,anditreplacestheearlierdichotomyofHebraism versusHellenismasFredericexaminestheinfluencesofsocialandscientificdeterminismmuch moreclearlythanhedidin The Lawton Girl whenhefirstalludedtosocialversusgenetic

inheritance.

IforganizedreligionisreducedtoasocialpoliceforceforEmanuel,forChristianit

servesprimarilyasspectacle.Thephysicaldimensionsofthechurcharchitecturepressupon

himtheinheritedsocialdimensionsofthechurchasanhistoricalarchive:“Theinterioroftheold

church—dim,cool,cloistral—waslargerthanChristianhadassumedfromitsouteraspect”

(289).ItisnottheserviceorritualitselfthatmovesChristian,butratherthehistory

encapsulatedinthechurch:“ThroughthereadingofthePsalmandtheEpistle,hegavebutthe

mostvagrantattentiontotheirwords.Thepriestsreadbadly,foronething;thewhining

artificialityoftheirelocutionannoyedandrepelledhim”(289).Christianmakesadirectparallel betweentheinstitutionofthechurchandtheinstitutionofthemonarchy:“TheburialofaDuke

ofGlastonburyhadnothingtodowithpersonalqualitiesorreputation.Itwaslikethepassing

248 awayofamonarch.Peoplewhocarednothingfortheindividualwerestirredandappealedto bythevicissitudesofaninstitution”(289).Christianrealizesthatthechurchritualupholdsthe powerofthatpositionbyincorporatingitsgrandeurintothefuneralprocessionandthenby trainingthelowerclassestoparticipateintheritualisticobservation,therebyreinforcingthe

Duke’ssocialposition.Ironically,asisthecasewithEmanuel,Christiandeterminestouphold theinstitutionfromwhichhepersonallywillrealizethegreatestgain.Assoonasthechurch institutionisassociatedwiththatgain,hecomprehendsitsutility.Hehasadeeplypassionate conversiontothesocialutilityoftheChurchofEngland:“Therewasasenseoftransfigurationin thespectacle.ThepurplemantlehadbecomeimperialTyriantohiseyes—andsomethingwhich wasalmosttenderness,almostreverence,yearnedwithinhimtowardthatsilent,encasedfigure hiddenbeneathit.Themystic,omnipotenttieofbloodgrippedhisheart”(291).Christian’snew viewthechurchisstrikinglysimilartoEmanuel’s.Heappreciatestheartifactsandthereverent attendancethatarepreservedinthechurchevenasthewordsandceremonyrepelhim.Thereis astrangeambivalenceinhowthechurchoperatesasaculturalforce.And,infact,itisthe

“force”thatdrawsChristian:“Yes,eveninthisProtestantreligiontowhichhehadpassively becomecommitted,forcewastherealideal!”(290).Christian’sreligiousawakeningismerely anacknowledgementthathewantstoalignhimselfwithitspower.

Aswith The Damnation of Theron Ware ,theissueofraceunderscoresthequestionof classandpowerinthisnovel.OnonesideofthefamilyaretheJewishcousins.Thisline includesLordJuliusandhissonEmanuel,whomFrancesBaileyinsistsoncalling“theJews.”In fact,theyturnouttobevultureswhoinfusemoneyintothedukedomandthenholditforransom atexorbitantusuries,butthen,inexplicably,theyforgivealldebtsattheendofthenovel, convenientlyendingtheirholdoverChristianTowers.LordJulius’swillingnesstomarry outsideoftheBritisharistocracyandhissubsequentinfusionofwealthintothefamilycoffersis associatedwithhispurenessofblood,unlikethe“strangebloodoftheTorrs”(91).Yet,heis

249 thereafterreferredtoasoneof“theJews.”Hiswifeisfrom“anoldfamilyintheNetherlands,

Jewishinracebutnowforsomegenerationsestrangedfromthesynagogue,andreputedtobe extraordinarilywealthy”(105).Inotherwords,theyareJewswhoarenot“tooJewish”andtheir socialstatusinLondonisunproblematicbecause“SmartLondonrarelysawLadyJuliussaveat adistance”(106).Inanyevent,thisbranchofthefamilywilldieoutwithEmanuelbecausehe andhiswifeIrishwifeKathleenhavebeenunabletoproducechildren.Anotherlineofthe familyistheaforementionedstrangebloodedTorrs,theBritisharistocracywhorepresentan atavisticinbreedingthathasproducedfewworthyheirsforthedukedomuntiltheFrenchborn

ChristianTowersisdiscovered.InalengthydiscussionaboutChristian’smother’smaiden name,Coppinger,KathleensurmisesthathismothermusthavebeenfromCountyCork,Ireland, andshededucesthatChristianmusthaveCelticancestry.Ashedidin The Damnation ,Frederic seemstoenjoytoyingwiththeideaofCelticnobilityincontrastwithaJewishracialstock.The questionofancestryfeaturesprominentlyinthenovel,anditpointstoFrederic’sturntoward naturalism.Hebeginstoexplorethequestionofsociologicalandbiologicalinfluence,andthe institutionsofculturebegintoserveasinstrumentsofpowerthroughwhicheachmanpromotes hisowninterests.

InFrederic’sfinalnovel, The Market-Place ,JoelThorpe’ssinglemindednessisthe

drivingforceinhiscapitalistscheme,andreligionisalmostnonexistentinthistextexceptasit

appearsinconnectionwiththeideaofaJewishrace.Thorpe,oneofthemostinterestingof

Frederic’sprotagonists,isaruggedlyindividualisticselfmademan.Heis,however,asBennett

observes,“aprotagonistwhosemostloathsomecharacteristicishisviolentantiSemitism”(121).

HavingbeendefraudedbyagroupofprimarilyJewishstockbrokerswhohaveattemptedto

undercutthepriceofhiscompanystock,Thorpeembarksonaschemetobankruptwhatappears

tobeeachandeveryJewheencounters.ThorpeisreminiscentofanOldTestamentGodof

revengewhoinflictshiswrathonaracethathebelievesdishonoredhim:“Hecannotdivorcethe

250 ideaofsuccessfromthatofrevenge:Hedesiresafortune,yes,butattheexpenseoftheKaffir

Jews,onwhomhiswrathconcentratesbecausetheyrepresentthelastmeninalongsequence whohaveseemedtoleadhimononlytodisappointhimlater”(Blackall391).Astrangeproduct ofmoderncapitalism,hebringsaNewWorldprimitivismbacktoanOldWorldmarketplace.

JeanBlackallwrites:[A]psychologicalproductoftwoworlds,theoldandthenew...[he]isa typeoffinancialbuccaneer,whosecommercialprowessisattendedbymoralambiguities”(388).

Throughoutthenovel,Thorperealizesthatitisnotsomuchmoneythatdriveshimbutthe unadulteratedpleasurehefeelsfromexercisingpoweroverhisfellowman.Hesays:“Thething todoistomakeupyourmindcarefullywhatitisthatyouwant,andtoputallyourpowerand resolutionintogettingit—andtherestiseasyenough.Idon’tthinkthere’sanythingbeyonda strongman’sreach,ifheonlybelievesenoughinhimself”(Frederic, Market-Place 171).The imageofreachingandgraspinginassociationwiththearmandthehandrecurthroughoutthe text,withThorpeinscribingaman’sphysicalanatomywithracistcharacteristicsonceheopenly admitstohisantiSemitism.

ThecomplementtoThorpe’spowerishisfocusedcruelty.Thebooktakesonnaturalistic tonesashetargetsthe“Jews”whoattemptedtobankrupthim.Hetakeseverysteppossibleto preventthemfromdeclaringbankruptcy,whichwouldofferthemprotectionfrommaking additionalrestitutiontohim.Mainlyhebleedseachonedrysystematicallyuntileachdepletes hisfortuneandThorpehaspocketedit.Hisrationaleisthelawofthejungle;hebelievesthatnot oneofthefourteenmenheintendstoimpoverishcamebythemoneyanydifferentlythanhe himselfhascomebyit:

Notoneofthosefellowseverearnedasinglesovereignofthatmoney.They’vetakenthe wholeofitfromothers,andtheseotherstookitfromothersstill,andsoonalmost indefinitely....Well—moneylikethatbelongstothosewhoareinpossessionofit,only solongastheyarestrongenoughtoholdontoit.Whensomeonestrongerstillcomes along,hetakesitfromthem.Theydon’tcomplain:theydon’tcryandsayit’scruel. Theyknowit’stheruleofthegame.(205)

251 Hethentakeshisphilosophytoaraciallevelbyhoninginonthephysicalattributesofhis

Jewishfoes,inscribingtheJewishanatomywithaphysiologicalweaknessthatmimicswhathe believesisaninferiorityofcharacterasdeterminedbyrace.Heexamineshisownbulkyfistand comparesittothehandsofhisenemies.Hedescribesitas“‘thekindofhand...thatbreaksthe

Jewinthelongrun,ifthere’sonlygritenoughbehindit.IusedtowatchthoseJews’hands,a yearago,whenIwasdiningandwiningthem.They’reallthinandwiryandfullofveins.Their fingersareneverstill;theytwistroundandkeepstirringlikealobster’sfeelers.Butthereain’t anyrealstrengthin’em”(205).Heembedsasurvivalofthefittestrhetoricintoeconomicbattle withhismetonymicuseofthefisttodemonstratehisoverallphysicalsuperiority.

AsanexampleofatwentiethcenturyAdam,Thorpeisaformidablefigure.Heisboth primitiveandmodern,andhedisplayslittledesiretoreturntothecomfortableinnocenceofthe garden.Thorpehimselfinitiallymistakeshismotivation.Cashinginhislaststock,hemuses

“Fruitionwasfinallycomplete:thelastwinnowingofthegreatharvesthadbeenaddedtothe pile.Positivelynothingremainedbutforhimtoenterandenjoy”(319).Hehimselfbelieveshe desiresaplaceintheupperechelonofBritishsociety,buthesoonrealizeshismistake.Garner writes:“Thorpeis,atleast,amovingobject,alivingorganism,setagainstthebackgroundof decayanddefeatin Gloria Mundi .Whenhewinshisfortune,hisfirstimpulseistobuywithhis pursethestationandtheprivilegethathehasbeendeniedbyinheritance”(139).OnceThorpe attainshisgoal,hisestate,andhistitledbride,hesoonrealizesthatheisfarfromsatisfied,and

LadyEdithCressage,hisEve,findslittlefulfillmentineitherthedomesticated,refinedThorpe

orhertimespentincultivatingflowersfortheircountryestate.Whenconfronted,sheadmitsher

dissatisfaction:“‘Iamattractedbyabig,bold,strongpirate,letussay,butassoonashehas

carriedmeoff—thatisthephraseforit—thenhestraightwayrenouncescrimeandbecomesa

lawabiding,peacefulcitizen.Mybuccaneertransformshimself,undermyveryeyes,intoan

alderman!’”(27475).Shemakesitclearthatherlifehasbeenaboutthethrillofthechaseas

252 well.Shenolongerwishestodenythetemptationandreturntothesafetythatherformer positionaslandedgentryoffers.ThestoryendswithherobservationaboutThorpethat“‘the reallyimportantthingisthatheshouldpursuesomeobject—haveinviewsomethingthatheis determinedtomaster.Withoutthat,heisnotcontented—notathisbest’”(401).And symbolically,sheyieldshertitleandassumeshermarriedname.Alice’sgardenin The

Damnation perishedinspiteofherbestefforts,butEdithCressageeagerlydepartshers.Forher, thefallenAdamisfarmoreappealingthanthecomfortablecompanionwhoinhabitshercountry estate.Intheend,FredericundercutseventheAdammythbyshowingthatmanisnotonly destinedtofallbutthathedesiresthelifeoutsidethegardenandwillinglyseeksit.

IfpowerisThorpe’stemptation,hedemonstratesthathewillgotoanylengthstoattain it.Ifculturaldeterminismfactorsintohisinnatedrive,thenthesocioeconomicconditionsofthe latenineteenthcenturyforecastadimfuturebecauseThorpe’spowerisatitsmostdangerousin thecapitalistmarketandspecificallyintheriseofthemoderncity.Itisnotmoneythatdrives

Thorpe,ashisbriefsojourntothecountryreveals;heisdestinedtoreturntotheurbantableau becauseitistherethanhecanchannelhisdriveforsocialpower.LutherLuetdkewrites:“Like

SisterSoulsby,apridefulandunfeelingmanipulatorofpeople,Thorpeisanominouspresageof modernfascism:demagogic,antiSemitic,totalitarian,willingtopurchaseauthorityby dispensingphilanthropytothemasses”(98).LikeSoulsby,Thorpeseestheinstitutionsof cultureasinstrumentsthroughwhichhecanexercisepowerwhetherforpurportedgoodor purportedevil.Forhim,thereislittledistinctionbetweenthetwo.WhereasSisterSoulsby presentsacomicfigureofAmericanpragmatismandpracticalgrit,Thorpewasteslittletime makinganypretenceorjustificationforhisactions.Heheadsrightbacktothecityand determinestoconcentratehiseffortsonmasteringtheworkingclass:“Hisold,dormant,formless lustforpowerstirredagaininhispulses.Whatotherphaseofpowercarriedwithitsuch rewards,suchgratitudes,suchhumblesubservienceonallsidesasfarastheeyecouldreach—as

253 thatexercisedbytheintelligentlymunificentphilanthropist?”(Frederic, The Market-Place 383).

Thorpedoesnotevenmakeapretenseofaltruisminhisphilanthropicplans.Hedesiresonlyto

“makehimselfmasterofthetown”(384).Inasense,Thorpedoesnotneedreligiontomanagea

relationshipwithadeitybecauseheseeshimselfasgodlike.Heonlyrequiresavehiclethrough

whichtoexercisehispower.

TherearetwoimportantaspectsofFrederic’swritingthatstronglyforeshadowthe

impendingriseofliterarynaturalism:thesearehisuseofallegoryandhisexaminationof

naturalisticthemessuchasatavismandtheanimalisticinstinctsthatlieoutsideofsocialcontrol.

SomeofFrederic’scontemporaries,suchasFrankNorrisandDreiser,willlater

elaborateonthesethemesandmakethemmorecentralconcernsintheirwriting,but,evenin

someofFrederic’searlierworkssuchas Seth’s Brother’s Wife (1887)and The Lawton Girl

(1890),hiscynicismabouthumannatureclearlyemergesandhebeginstoexaminevarious

theoriesofdeterminismsuchasgeneticinheritanceoreconomicconditions. 131 Further,although

theuseofallegoryitselfdoesnotseparatetherealisticelementsofFrederic’swritingfromthe

romanticelements,hisfrequentuseoftheAdammythemphasizesareligiouslensthatfocuses

ontheideaofprimalman.Fredericintroducesthisallegoryinhiswritingmostfamouslyin The

Damnation of Theron Ware inruralupstateNewYork,andherevisitsitagainin The Market-

Place (1898)inurbanLondonwithitseconomicsettingreflectingtheconcernsofthefinancial world.Increasingly,Fredericexplorestheideaofanunderlyingsocialdecay,andheexamines severalcausesforthatdecaythatincludedevolutionandman’sownprimalnatureitself.Garner describesJoelStormontThorpeasanewaristocratwhofeedsoffoftheolder,“moribund” society:“Heisabrilliantlyconceivedcharacter,seeminglytorpid,heavy,singleofpurpose, ruthless,andaportfolioofpsychologicalcomplexesandbrutelusts.HeisanEnglishman,but hebelongssolittletoanysingleculturethatheissometimesmistakenforanAmerican.Thorpe isThorpe,astheworldwilllearn”(Garner128).Hedemonstrateswhatunfetteredpowercan

254 achievebothinanaturalisticenvironmentinMexicowherehesupposedlyhestakedhisrubber plantationclaimandevenwithinthepresumablyconstrainedworldofmoderndayLondon.

UnlikeHoraceBoycewhosurviveshisschemesonlybecauseofthefoolishbenevolenceofthe womenhecheatsanddefrauds,Thorpesurvivesbecausehecontinuallyoutsmartsandout schemesthosewhotrytounderminehim.Boyceistheweakmalevestigeofsentimentalfiction,

TheronWareistheflounderingfoolwhosearchesforknowledgebutsettlesforlust,butThorpe istheconsciencelessindividualwhosesheercunninganddeterminationallowhimtojustifyany actionthatsuitshispurpose.UnlikeBoyceandWare,Thorpehaslittletimefortheinstitutional churchotherthantobrieflyentertainanimageofhimselfinasquire’spewasheconsidershow besttochannelhispower(Frederic, The Market-Place 321).

Frederic’sconcernwithreligionbeliesthenotionofsocialprogress.Heexamines

religionasaninstitution,buthepayslittleattentiontotheologyandscantnoticetotheroleofthe

Bibleinthechurch.Itfeaturesmostprominentlyin The Damnation of Theron Ware ,where charactersfrequentlyquoteandreferenceBibleverses,particularlySisterSoulsbywhen discussingherownhighlysubjectivetheology. Inhisfinalnovels,setinEngland,Frederic mentionsonlytheChurchofEngland,whichisnotsurprising,andhepresentsitasavague influencethatfunctionsmainlytopreservethesocialclasssystemparticularlyintherural regions.Throughouthisfiction,Frederic’sfocusreturnsagainandagaintotheAdamarchetype asafundamentaldepictionofman’sfallennature.Itisasifhepullsthecomplicatedlayersof moderntheologyawaybitbybituntilheuncoverstheprimitivepowerthatseemstopredate monotheism.Ifwecanlocatewheretwentiethcenturyfascismandsocialismmightemerge fromtheconditionsFredericlaysout,wecanjustaseasilydeterminehowfundamentalismmight emergefromthesesameashes.In The Damnation ,thetrusteeLorenPierceissodogmaticthat hecannotvaryoneiotafromhisinterpretationofThe Disciplinebecausehehassolittlefaithin thenatureofmankindthathedistrustsanyliberalorintuitivemodeltowardconscienceand

255 ethics.In The Market-Place ,thefigureofJoelThorpearisesasiftojustifyPierce’sdistrust, representingtheunfetteredquestforpowerandanOldTestamentconceptionofvengeance.

TherearemanydifferentwaysinwhichFredericrepresentsreligiontextually:hepresentsa discourseofhabits,architecture,ethics,law,andevensermonicrhetoricinSisterSoulsby’s speeches.HealsorepresentsreligionallegoricallyandsymbolicallyviatheAdamarchetypeand thefuneralsin Seth’s Brother’s Wife and Gloria Mundi ,buttherecurringassociationoffunerals withtheinstitutionalchurchseemstellinginFrederic’svisionoftwentiethcenturylife.He seemstowritereligionoutofhisrealismashemovesintoamorenaturalisticsensibility.In clearcontrasttoRebeccaHardingDavis,whoseemedtofindinreligionthethemesthat propelledherfictionforward,Fredericmovesbeyondthereligioussubjectbyceremonially buryingitandbiddingitfarewell.

Notes 106 LilianFurstoffersabroadtemplateforrealistfiction:“[R]ealismisinvestedwithitsownaestheticandstylistic conventions:thesecomprisenotonlychronology,particularityofcircumstance,everydaysubject matter,andontologicalrestrictiontokindsofbeingsbelongingtotheactualworld,butalsotheshapingand patterningofthesematerialsthroughwebsofanalogiesandcontrastsdesignedtorevealthesignificanceofthe experiencesportrayed”(23). 107 “TheopeningchapterdescribesactioninwhatisnowUtica’sCentralMethodistChurch.Followingarescenesin whichUticanswillrecognizeasSt.John’sChurchandrectoryonBleeckerStreet.Andthelong,climacticscene describesbothaMethodistmeetingatTrentonAssemblyParkandanIrishCatholicpicnicatnearbyDowner’s Grove,nearTrentonFalls”(Bergman51). 108 Inthetwentiethcentury,ReinholdNiebuhralsoentersthisdiscourseinhisessay“TwoSourcesofWestern Culture”(1957). 109 The Yellow Book wasaquarterlyperiodicalpublishedfrom18941897.SeeMarkSamuelsLasner, The Yellow Book: A Checklist and Index (London:TheEighteenNineteenSociety,1998). 110 HewasagreatunifierofMidwesterntribes,anadvocateofNativeAmericansolidarity. 111 Although,generallyspeaking,theterm“congregational”referstoatypeofchurchpolity,Wentzwritesthat “ThosescholarswhocharacterizeAmericaasaPuritannationwouldalmostcertainlybeforcedtorelyheavilyon theroleoftheCongregationalismtoenhancetheircase.Congregationalismemergedindirectlineageoutofthe Puritanmovement”(70). 112 TheFairchildsandtheTurnersappearinbothofthesenovels,linkingthestoriesgeographicallyandtemporally.

256 113 DorcasSocietiesarechurchbasedorganizationsthatcollectanddonateclothingtothepoor.Thereferenceto Tabitha(Dorcas)isfromActs9:36.Tabitha’srighttopresideoverthesocietypresumablyderivesfromhername, whichalsotranslatestoDorcas. 114 In The Dangerous Classes of New York ,CharlesLoringBracemakesanearlyidenticalappealwhenhediscusses thepossibilityofproducing“lightwines”(69),whichmightsatisfythepassionforalcoholwithoutdangerofpublic misrule. 115 Carnegiediscussesinheritanceonpages1214,andhegrantsonlythatamanshouldprovide“forthewifeand daughtersmoderatesourcesofincome”(13)and“verymoderateallowances...forthesons...;foritisnolonger questionablethatgreatsumsbequeathedoftenworkmorefortheinjurythanthegoodoftherecipients”(1314). 116 Garnerwrites:“Inthisalloyofrealismandromancethroughwhichhewasenabledtowritesimultaneouslyof socialmattersandoftheirmoralimplications,Fredericachievedauniquesuccess.Havingdoneso,hepausedto writeaseriesoffourmedievalIrishtalesthat,thoughadmirable,areofftoonesideofthemainstreamofhis development.Theyarebeautifullycrafted,atributetotheIrishandtotheIrelandthathehadcometolovesincehe hadfirstbecomeacquaintedwiththeIrishcauseonUtica,andsinceperhapsnomorethanadozenlivingpersons haveeverreadthemallIwilllisttheirnameshere:‘ThePathofMurtogh,’‘TheTruceoftheBishop,’‘Inthe ShadowofGabriel,’and‘TheWooingofTiege.’Finework,asIhavesaid,butdonewiththelefthand”(137).See also(12931). 117 HaroldFredericcorrespondedwithWilliamDeanHowellsonlyonafewoccasions,buthewasclearlyanardent admirer.In1885,hewrotetoHowells,passingalongacomplimentheoverheardabout The Rise of Silas Lapham . Hewrites:“SothatwhenI do hearjusticedonebyEnglishmentothechiefofAmericannovelistsIamtooproud andgladtokeepittomyself”(Fortenberryetal58).In1897,hewrotetoHamlinGarlandabouthiswishtoknow Howells’sopinionof The Damnation of Theron Ware .Hewrote,“Heneverwouldtellme.Allthesame,I’ma Howellsmantotheendofthewar”(455).Fortenberrywrites:“FredericneverlearnedHowells’sopinionofhis greatestnovel,thoughafterhisdeathHowellspraiseditandreferredtoitasoneofhisfavoritebooks”(455)in Munsey’s Magazine in1897(503). 118 TheorganizationoftheFreeMethodistChurchin1860isdetailedinBenjamin355.ItwasaprimitiveMethodist movementattemptingtomaintainthepreceptsofearlyMethodism,suchasCampMeetings,LoveFeasts,and unadorned,nondegreedministersandclergy.AsBrotherPiercepointsout,theOctavianMethodistshavebeenable toresistsplinteringofffromtheMethodistEpiscopalChurchmainlybyoperatingasFreeMethodistswithout formallyseveringties. 119 Inasourcearticlefor The Damnation of Theron Ware ,RobertWoodwardquotesastatementbyFredericin whichhedetailshisextensiveresearchwhenwritingthenovel:“‘Isetmyselfthetaskofknowingeverythingthey [thecharacters]knew.Asallfourofthemhappenedtobespecialistsindifferentprofessions,thetaskasbeen tremendous....IhavehadtoteachmyselfallthedetailsofaMethodistminister’swork,obligation,anddaily routine,andallthemachineryofhischurch’”(Woodward46). 120 TheronandAliceWareendtheirfirstyearofmarriagealmosteighthundreddollarsindebt(Frederic21).They scrimpandsavetopayofftheirdebt,butitisthroughthegenerosityof“anelderlyandimportantcitizenofTyre,by nameofAbramBeekman”thatthedebtiswipedclean(23).Beekmanalsoappearsin Seth Brother’s Wife .After Ware’sthirdyearinTyre,thedebtispaid,andheandAliceleaveTyrewithasavingsofoveronehundreddollars. 121 FredericWilliamFarrar’s Life of Christ appearedin1874.Severalprominenttheologiansandpopularwriters publishedparabiblicaltextsandlivesofJesusbiographiesinthenineteenthcentury,beginningwithDavidFriedrich Strauss’s1835 Das Leban Jesu .Thisworkspawnedseveralothers,includingErnestRenan’s1863 La Vie de Jésu , HenryWardBeecher’s1871 The Life of Jesus, the Christ ,ThomasDeWittTalmage’s1894 Talmage’s Life of Christ ,andElizabethStuartPhelps’s1897 The Story of Jesus, the Christ: An Interpretation ,tonameafew.Farrar wasanAnglicanminister,andhisreligiousbiographyistheonlynonCalvinistoneinthisgroup.Methodismarose outoftheAnglicanChurch,soWare’sfamiliaritywithFarrar’sbestsellingtextislogical.SeealsoLisaMoody, “TheAmerican‘Lives’ofJesus:TheMalleableFigureofChristasaManofthePeople,” Christianity and Literature 58.2(2009):15784. 122 Theallusionin Gloria Mundi isintheopeningline:“Themeetingofthemanandthewoman—itistothisthat everystoryintheworldgoesbackforitsbeginning”(Frederic1).

257 123 LutherLuedkenotesseveralreferencestoSisterSoulsbyandserpents,andhewrites:“Neitherdovenorsheep, SisterSoulsbyexpressesinmoderndresstheancientlegacyofserpentismwhichbecameembodiedinthestoryof theFallofAdamandEve”(94).Withinthenovel,Dr.Ledsmaralsorenameshislizard.Hepicksitupandsays: “‘Yournameisn’tJohnnyanymore.It’stheRev.TheronWare’”(Frederic,Damnation 233). 124 SeealsoSuderman,“JesusasaCharacterintheAmericanReligiousNovel:18701900.Sudermancategorizes Jesusasamythologicalarchetypeembodyingexternalpatternsofexistence.Sudermanalsoarguesthatthereare threepossiblesettingsthataccompanythecharacterofJesusinAmericanfiction.Theseare:areturntoearthina contemporarysetting,ahistorical/Biblicalsetting,andaheavenlyafterlife(101104). 125 CeliacreditstheGermanphilosopherArthurShopenhauer(17881860)forthisphilosophy(Frederic, The Damnation 265). 126 Bramenprovidesthehistoricalcontextforthesidewalkdiscussion:Uticawassomewhatuniqueinmaking individualhomeownersresponsiblefortheirownpiecesofsidewalk,acontroversyFredericcapturedwhenthe trusteesconfrontWarewiththerepairbill.Thequestionofownershipoftherectoryandthechurchparallelsthe largerquestionofownershipofpublicversusprivatepropertyincivicpractices(72). 127 ItisverylikelyareferencetotheLatinreligiousphrase sic transit Gloria mundi ,whichtranslatesliterallyto “thuspassesthegloryoftheworld”andmorelooselyto“allthingsarefleeting.”Thereligiousimplicationisthat Christ(thegloryoftheworld)livedforonlyashorttime.Thereisa1418workbyThomasàKempis, The Imitation of Christ ,thatoffersthephrase O quam cito transit gloria mundi withasimilarmeaning.Inanyevent,thephrase recursinBritishpopularculture,anditisstillincommonusetoday.AustinBriggsidentifiesthetitleasan “evocationofEcclesiastes”(200). 128 Darwinwrites:“Onlythosevariationswhichareinsomewayprofitablewillbepreservedornaturallyselected” (127).Later,DarwinusesasimilaranalogytoEmanuel’sroadswhenhediscussesevolutionintermsofbranches (153).Darwinalsodiscussestheideaofthenaturalsystembeing“genealogicalinarrangement”(155),anidea whichEmanuel’s“earliertime”alsoimplies. 129 Forexample,in“TheRootsofHonour”in Unto This Last , Ruskindescribestheidealrelationshipbetweena workmanandhismasterintermsoffeudalism.Hewrites:“Again:inhisofficeasgovernorofthemenemployed byhim,themerchantormanufacturerisinvestedwithadistinctlypaternalauthorityandresponsibility.Inmost cases,ayouthenteringacommercialestablishmentiswithdrawnaltogetherfromhishomeinfluence;hismaster mustbecomehisfather”(15253).Ruskinbelievesthatmodernpoliticaleconomistsmistakenlyassumethatthe interestsofthemasterandservantareantagonistictoeachother(141),andthisassumptionresultsinlaborstrikes. 130 EmanueldescribesfeudalEnglandastheageofhumancharacter(Frederic, Gloria Mundi 129):“Itwastheage ofthecathedrals,andoftheBookofKells,ofthegreatmendicantorders,ofthesaintlyandknightlyideas.Itwasin itsfloweringtimethatcraftsmanshipattainteditshighestpoint,andthegreatartisanguilds,proudoftheirtalents andafraidofnothingbutthereproachofworkilldone,gavetheworlditsmostmagnificentpossessionsamongthe appliedarts”(129).Note:ThebookofKellsisalavishlyilluminatedmedievalmanuscriptcontainingthefour gospels. 131 Forexample,in The Lawton Girl ,ReubenTracyenjoysrereadingCarlyle’searlyessays(Frederic101),which presumablyinfluencehissocialbenevolenceplansforthetown.Inhislaterfiction,theEuropean/economicnovels, FredericincludesaCarlyliantheoryaboutthevalueofwork,whichseemstocomefromCarlyle’sessay“Labour”in Past and Present (1843):“InIdlenessalonethereisperpetualdespair.”Clearly,Fredericcontemplateseconomic determinismasanunderlyinginfluenceonmodernindustrialcultureandasanalternativetonaturaldeterminism theoriessuchasatavism.

258 CHAPTER6:CONCLUSION

Thereligioussubjectiscentraltothestudyofrealism,itseemstome,andyetverylittle

workhasbeendoneinexaminingtherelationshipbetweenreligionandrealism.Thisabsenceof

criticalscrutinyispuzzlingconsideringhowimportantreligiouscultureisinthelatenineteenth

century(inanyageofAmerica,forthatmatter),andconsideringthatrealism,attheveryleast,

canbeviewedasanexaminationofcontemporaryculturalconditionsspecificallyrelatedtothe

IndustrialAge.Thisomissionoflinkingreligionandrealismhasbeennoticedbyrecentscholars

suchasDavidReynolds( Faith in Fiction )andGregoryJackson( The Word and Its Witness )both ofwhomassertthatexaminingfiction’sengagementwithreligiousculturewillshednewlighton ourunderstandingofrealismasaliterarymodethatrespondsspecificallytoachangingreligious vista.Jacksonwrites:“Whatcriticsofliteraryrealismhavemissedistheextenttowhichits narrativestrategieshaveemergedfromthemucholder—yetstilldynamic—traditionof homileticrealism”(“WhatWouldJesusDo?”645).Jacksonattributesthenarrativestrategiesof bothsecularrealismandreligiousrealismto“older[Protestant]sermonicandreligious pedagogicaltraditions”(643).Hearguesthatalloftheseliteraryformsledtotheformationof theSocialGospelmovementbydemandinganactiveresponse.Helinksthisreformcallto“the hermeneuticofreligiousallegory[because]homileticreaders...learnedtocollaboratewith charactersthroughactsofidentification,tofindintypeslifelongrolemodels”(657),andhesees realisttextsworkingsimilarlydemandingaparticipatorysocialresponse.ForJackson,thereisa fundamentallinkbetweenreligionandrealismintheareaofethics,andthislinkhasimportant ramificationsforthestudyofrealismaspopularnovelistsnegotiateapositionofinfluencein mattersofsocialreform,apositiononcelargelyallocatedtotheclergy.

Inthisstudy,IhavetakenaFoucaultianapproachtoexaminingwhatMichelFoucault labelsthe“manifestdiscourse”ofanera.Bythishemeansanexaminationofwhatadocument doesnotsayrelativetothattowhichitisbeingcompared.Here,inthecaseofreligion,our

259 subjectprovidesapatternonceitisplacedincontextofotherformsofdiscourse,otherformsof fiction,andthelargerscopeofawriter’swork.Manylevelsofcomparisonallowustoconstruct thissubject,followitsdiscourse,anduseitasabenchmarktoexaminethelimitsofrealist representation.Foucaultarguesthatastudyofcontinuitiesanddiscontinuitiesinthe transmissionofculturalknowledge—andheincludesthetextinthistransmission—isuseful becauseitallowsustoexaminetheprocessofpatternformation(5).Hewritesthatinthehistory of“thought,ofknowledge,ofphilosophy,ofliterature”(6)itisnotthedocumentbutthe

“reconstitution”ofthedocumentthatshapesknowledgebothofourpresentandofthepast.

Specifically,inthiskindofcomparisonofthereligioussubject,patternsofhermeneutics, archetype,andallegoryemergeasimportantcohesivelinksinAmericanrealism.Oncewe identifythesecategories,wecanseethattheyrecurrepeatedlythroughoutthesecondhalfofthe nineteenthcenturyaspartofalargerculturaldiscussionofsocioethicalidentityandbehavior centeredonthereligioussubject.Thesepatternsandthemesunderscoremyhypothesisthat religionisacatalystinboththeformationanddeclineofAmericanliteraryrealism.

Thesecategories,whichincludeBiblereadinghabits,particularlyfollowingtheadventof theGermanHighCriticism,thepopulardebateofHebraismversusHellenismàlaHeinrich

HeineandMatthewArnold,andtherecurringfiguresofAdamandJesus,allowustolocatean importantdiscoursewithinlatenineteenthcenturyrealism.AsSuzyAngerhaspointedout, scripturalhermeneuticshaveimpactedcriticaltextualreadinghabitsandledtothesignificant changesintherecenthistoryofliterarycriticism.Withinrealism,thesesamescriptural hermeneuticsandBiblereadingpracticescastdoubtontheauthorityofalltextstodepictan absolutenotionofunchangingtruth.Writersbegintoexaminereligiouscultureandits associatedhabitsinordertoderivehowethicalbehaviorwillbeshapedintheIndustrialAge.

Thisdiscourseonreligiouscultureandmoralitycontributedsignificantlytoanexplorationof otherforcesofculturaldeterminismthatisbothscientificandsociologicalinitsscope.

260 WithinAmericanreligiousculture,specifically,onefindsakindofdemocratic administrationoftheestablishedchurchofdenominationandsect,whichseemstohavefostered thebeliefthatorganizedreligionprovidesasystemofchecksandbalancesinAmericancultural ethicsinthesamewaythattheConstitutionwasintendedtodo.ThefamousPresbyterianorator,

ThomasDeWittTalmage,espousesthistraditionintheAmericanreligiouslandscape,evenas hecallsforareformthatwouldendsuchsectarianism.Hewrites:

Thedifferentdenominationswereintended,byholyrivalry,andhonestcompetition,to keepeachotherawake.IfonedenominationofChristiansshouldgarblethewordof God,therewouldbehundredstocryoutagainstthesacrilege.Whileeachdenomination ofChristiansoughttopreachallthedoctrinesoftheBible,Ireallythinkitisthemission ofeachdenominationmoreemphaticallytopreachsomeonedoctrine.Forinstance,I thinkitisthemissionoftheCalvinistChurchtopresentthecompletesovereigntyof God;ortheArminianChurchtopresentman’sfreeagency;oftheEpiscopalChurchto showtheimportanceoforderandsolemnceremony;oftheBaptistChurchtoshowthe importanceofordinances;oftheCongregationalChurchtoshowtheindividual responsibilityofitsmembers;oftheMethodisttoshowwhatholyenthusiasmandgood heartycongregationalsingingcanaccomplish.(“Bigotry”344) Talmage’swordsrevealthatreligiousdenominationsencapsulatedspecificstereotypesin

Americanculture,andwhenwereadaboutsuchdenominationsinrealistfiction,wemust understandtheintensescrutinythesetextsofferregardinghowreligionshouldoperatein

Americanculture.Withthisevaluation,writersbegintowageabattleforauthority,bothin relationtotheauthorityofthetextandintheconceptionofanabstractDeity.Davis,Howells,

Twain,andFredericallreflectadistinctlypostCalvinistrhetoricintheirtexts,butthewaysin whicheachdealswiththereligioussubjectdiffersgreatly.Thesevaryingreligiousconstructions revealdiverseconceptionsabouthowreligionoperatesandtheydisplaythechallengesthese writersfacedintryingtogivetangiblerepresentationsofabstractideologies.

InspiteofasharedLiberalProtestantphilosophy,thereare,however,manydifferences inthemannerinwhicheachofthesewritersconceivedofanddiscussedthereligioussubjectthat haveimportantramificationsforourunderstandingofrealism.WhereasDavisandHowells seemintentonestablishingasociologicaltextcallingforasympatheticcollectiveidentity,

261 TwainandFrederictakeafarmorecynicalstancethatmovesintoamodernistsubjectivityby theturnofthecentury.DavisandevenHowellsexamineaLiberalProtestantSocialGospel ideology,whichhonesinontheideaofestablishingthekingdomofheavenhereonEarthand supportsthenotionofaprogressivecivilization.Wedonotseethatdegreeofoptimisminthe writingofTwainandFrederic.DuringTwain’sfiftyyeardiscourseonreligionandethics,we canseehisfinaldeparturefromtherealisttextcorrelatingwithhisacknowledgementofthe impossibilityofamaterialisticunderstandingofabstractspirituality.Twainparticularlyfocuses onthesubjectiveunderstandingofthemindandtheimpossibilityofcertaintythroughempirical observation.Heseekstolocatesomethingfundamentalinhumankindthatmightbeareliable indicatorofman’sprimalnature,buthehaslittlefaithintheabilitytoconceptualizeandreify suchanotionofimmutabletruth.Intheend,heacknowledgesthepossibilitythatallknowledge isnomorecertainthanthatwhichthemindmightimagineasifinadream.ForFrederic, especially,apositivistapproachemerges,butunlikeearlierrealistssuchasGeorgeEliot,hesees littlepromisethatthechurchwillfunctionasabenevolentinstitution;heseesitasaninstrument ofpower.Fredericbeginstoexamineculturalforcesotherthanreligion,suchasSocial

Darwinism,whichheincorporatesintohisfinaltwonovels.Hiswritingbeginstodisplay hallmarksofnaturalism,ashepresentsthemesofatavismanddevolution.Hisearlydeathmeant thathehadjustbeguntoexplorethesethemeswithoutofferinganyfinalresolutiononthe religioussubject.Thereturntonaturalism,however,bookendsthefiftyyearexaminationof realismthatthisstudyoffersandprovidesacohesivelinkbacktoDavis’sseminalrealism.

Essentially,IarguethatDavismovesfromsentimentalismintorealismwithsome naturalisticconsiderationsabouttheprimalnatureofhumankind.Sheusesreligionasameans toanendwithinherrealism,embeddingreligionintherealisttext.Sheresolveshernaturalistic undertonesbysubstitutingabeliefthathumankindcanmanageitsownsocialprogression, advancingcivilizationifanethicalframeworkcanbeconstructed.Howellselaboratesonthis

262 idea,enlargingittotheHellenismversusHebraismmodelasheconsidersvarioussocial alternativesandtheroleofreligioninAmericancultureintheformationofethics.Howellsis ambivalent,butheestablishesarelationshipbetweenreligionandculturewithoutresolvingit.

TwainoperatesinasimilarmannerinthewayhewishestoseeCalvinismreplacedasasocio ethicalforce,buthisrealismmovesintoamodernisticaestheticratherthananaturalisticone.He focusesmoreonthecomplexitiesofthehumanmindthanthecomplexitiesofhumannature, givingapsychologicalsubjectivitytohischaracterizations.Fredericcapturesthelossof religiousauthorityandmoveshisrealisminthedirectionofnaturalism,ultimatelyseemingto concludethatreligionisameanstoanendasasourceofculturaldeterminismandclass stratification.Hedisplaysastronginterestininstitutionalreligion,particularlyin The

Damnation of Theron Ware ,inwhichhemakesreligionhiscentralsubject,buthisreligious considerationomitsanydiscussionofanabstractdeityoraconcernforsalvationthatwasso prevalentearlierinthecentury.TwainandFredericbothconsidertheconceptsofforceandevil, butFredericseestheseasfoiblesofhumannaturewhereasTwainstillworkswithevil allegorically,neverlosinghisCalvinistroots:SatanisstillSatan;Satanisnevermankinditself.

Forarealistwriterdrawingonaprimitivistmodel,Davis’ssystemhasaproblemof representation.ThereisnoviablemethodforexaminingprimitiveChristianperfectionbecause itisformedbyaunitybetweenbehaviorandcreed,whichbecomesintenselyproblematicwhen callingforaformofreligionthatis“creedless.”Further,suchaunitybecomeshighly individualizedtosuchanextentthatitisdifficulttodevelopitasageneralsocialmodelwithout fallingbackonthenecessityofwritingdoctrine,andthatis,infact,whathappensagainand againinAmericanculture.Anymovementthatformsasaprotestfacestheinevitableoutcome ofmaintainingthevaluesthatspawnedit;anynewlyformingsectmustfacethedualchallenge ofevangelizingandsettingboundariesforpreservation,butAmerica’sfluidcultureprohibitsthe possibilityforanystablemodelofethicaladministrationthatexistswithoutacreed.Aswelearn

263 fromHowells’sAltrurianTraveler,whatthesewritersseekisamethodforregulatingdesireina modelofcollectiveconsciousnesssothatchangecanbemanaged.

Ifweweretoexaminerealismonaliterarytimeline,Davis’sworkisintheformational stagesofbreakingawayfromCalvinistpracticesbywritingagainstsomeoftheliterary conventionsassociatedwithCalvinism,suchassentimentalfiction,butclearly,wecanseethe beginningofalargerproblemofrepresentationthatcreatessomeseriousproblemsfor subsequentrealists.TheproteannatureofLiberalProtestantismbeginstoloseitsauthoritywhen challengedbythematerialrequirementsofliteraryrealismtothepointthatrealismitselfbegins toloseitsauthorityunlessparametersareestablishedtomaintainitasaconvention.Muchas

Protestantismbifurcatesandsplinters,realismdoesaswell,tothepointthatauthorityitself becomesproblematic.Thereisno“Christianity”butratherthereareChristianities,no

Protestantism,butProtestantisms,andnorealism,butrealisms.

WithinDavis’sstorieswecanseethattherearemanyversionsofcertainty.Sheturnsto individualconscienceasaformofresolutionasdoesHowells.BothDavisandHowellsstop shortofbecomingcynicalasopposedtoFrederic,Twain,andevenWharton.DavisandHowells continuetobelievethataltruismandegoismcancoexistifagreatersenseofcollective consciousnessunitestheselftosociety.BothechoasensethatCalvinismhasfailedtounite thesetwoentitiesbutneitherisquitecomfortableembracingtheLiberalProtestantmodelfully becausetheyseeinstitutionalreligionasmoreofasocialperformancethanatruesourceof knowledge.

Asthedegreeofcomfortwithaneedforcertaintyregardingtruthandknowledgebegins todecrease,sodoesliteraryrealismaswellbecauseonceagainanewformofwritingisneeded thatembracesdifferenttypesofsocialauthority,suchasthescientificdeterminismthat naturalismexpressesorinternalsubjectivitythatisthelocusofmodernism.Itisfairtosaythat, onsomelevel,eachofthesewritersexperiencesadegreeofdisillusionmentwiththe“masses”as

264 well.Marx’ssocialismandtheChristianSocialGospelmovementbothennoblethe underprivilegedwithacertaindegreeofworthiness.SocialDarwinismassuresusthatthe worthywillrisetothetoptierofsociety.Atsomepoint,bothassumptionslosetheirmomentum andthenotionofsalvationandeschatologicalconcernsreemergeandfundamentalismfindsa newfootholdinAmericanculture.Howellsalreadyforeshadowedthisin A Modern Instance anditnowcomestopassasLiberalProtestantreformbeginstodecline.Itisworthnotingthat noreligioustrendinAmericancultureevergoesaway;itsimplygetsabsorbedinemerging milieus.QuakerismandSwedenborgianmysticismarestillverymuchinplayasisLiberal

Protestantism.Peoplestillwearbraceletsasking“WhatWouldJesusDo?”ratherthan“What

DIDJesusDo?”indicatingthathermeneuticaldebatesoftranshistoricalethicsversusstrict interpretationsofJudeoChristianLawstillexistintoday’sculture.

Bothin“DavidGaunt”and Margret Howth ,Davisinvokesamodelofprimitive

Christianity,whichisnotwithoutcontradiction.Itisapredoctrinalmodelofspiritualbeliefs

thatseekstofindlessonsintheBiblethatcanbeappliedtothemodernworldevenwhiletheso

calledliteralauthorityoftheBiblediminishes.Itisacontradictorymodelbecauseitrelieson

theverytextitseekstoreplace.Inlargerculture,skepticismregardingBiblicaltext,suchas

GermanHighCriticism,implicatesalltextsbyextension,andthusrealismbecomesanaesthetic

ofskepticismevenwithitssubtleutopianundertonescallingforaprogressivesocialorder.We

caneasilyidentifythatrealismcontainsthisinherentcontradictionfromtheonset,whichis, perhaps,whydefiningtheparametersofrealismhasproventobesodifficult.Thetextservesas

anallegoryfortherealevenasitsystematicallyundercutstheideathatlocatingsuchrealnessis possible.Itisagenrethat,likeprimitivism,resistsadoctrineordogma,andthusitisdefinedby whatitis not ,suchassermonicdiscourse,reformtracts,orarticlesoffaithinthecaseof primitivismandtheromance,thesentimentaldomesticnovel,orhomileticfictioninthecaseof realism.

265 Thereciprocityofreligionandrealismisasubjectthatwarrantsfurtherstudy.Many otherwritershavecontributedtothisdiscourse,suchastheaforementionedHenryJamesand

EdithWharton,ofcourse.Inparticular,otherlatecenturywriterssuchasStephenCrane,Frank

Norris,HenryBlakeFuller,TheodoreDreiserandUptonSinclairofferabodyoffictionthat bearsexamininginrelationtothisdiscourseonhermeneutics,HebraismversusHellenism,and thearchetypesandallegoricalfiguresofJesusandAdam.Asimilarstudymightbedoneof

Britishliteraryrealism,beginningwithGeorgeEliot,andcontinuingwithAnthonyTrollope,

GeorgeMeredith,andSamuelButler.Eliot,infact,conductsasimilarscrutinytothatofDavis inherexaminationofinstitutionalreligionbydenominationinsomeofherearlywriting, Scenes of Clerical Life (1858),andthetitlecharacterof Adam Bede (1859)mustsurelybeplacedinto thisdiscourseofAdamicfigures.TheongoinginfluenceofBritishVictorianphilosophy, specificallythewritingsofThomasCarlyleandMatthewArnold,inAmericanliteraryrealism, revealtheextenttowhichthisdiscourseisaninternationalone,andacknowledgingthis connectionallowsustoreconsiderrealismnotonlywithinAmericanprintculturebutina transatlanticstudy.

266 WORKSCITED Ackerman,KennethD. Boss Tweed: The Rise and Fall of the Corrupt Pol Who Conceived the Soul of Modern New York. NewYork:Carroll&GrafAvalon,2005. Adams,Henry. The Education of Henry Adams .Ed.EdwardChalfantandConradEdickWright. Boston:MassachusettsHistoricalSociety,2007. Allitt,Patrick.“TheAmericanChrist.” American Heritage 39:7(1988):128138. Anger,Suzy. Victorian Interpretation .Ithaca:CornellUP,2005. Anesko,Michael. Letters, Fictions, and Lives: and .New York:OxfordUP,1997. Armstrong,Nancy. Fiction in the Age of Photography: The Legacy of British Realism . Cambridge:HarvardUP,1999. Arnold,Matthew. Culture and Anarchy .Ed.J.DoverWilson.Cambridge:CambridgeUP,1994. .“HeinrichHeine.” Essays in Criticism .NewYork:A.L.Burt,1902.11542. Baetzhold,HowardG.,andJosephB.McCullough,eds. The Bible According to Mark Twain: Irreverent Writings on Eden, Heaven, and the Flood by America’s Master Satirist .New York:Simon&SchusterTouchstone,1996. Bardon,Ruth,ed. Selected Short Stories of William Dean Howells .Athens:OhioUP,1997. Barrish,Phillip. American Literary Realism, Critical Theory, and Intellectual Prestige, 1880- 1995. Cambridge:CambridgeUP,2001. Bell,MichaelDavitt. Culture, Genre, and Literary Vocation: Selected Essays on American Literature .Chicago:UofChicagoP,2001. . The Problem of American Realism: Studies in the Cultural History of a Literary Idea. Chicago:UofChicagoP,1993. Bellah,Robert.“ChristianityandSymbolicRealism.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 9.2(1970):8996. Benjamin,Walter.“TheMethodistEpiscopalChurchinthePostwarEra.”Ed. Bucke,Emory,et al., The History of American Methodism .Vol.1NewYork:Abingdon:1964.3vols.315 91. Bennett,Bridget. The Damnation of Harold Frederic: His Lives and Work .Syracuse:Syracuse UP,1997. Bergman,Frank,ed. Upstate Literature: Essays in Memory of Thomas O’Donnell .Syracuse: SyracuseUP,1985. 267 Blackall,JeanFrantz.“PerspectivesonHaroldFrederic’sMarketPlace.” PMLA 86.3(1971): 388405. Bowron,BernardR.“RealisminAmerica.” Comparative Literature 3.3(1951):26885. Brace,CharlesLoring. The Dangerous Classes of New York and Twenty Years’ Work Among Them .NewYork:Wynkoop:1872. Bramen,CarrieTirado.“TheAmericanizationofTheronWare.” Novel: A Forum on Fiction 31.1 (1997):6386. Briggs,Austin. The Novels of Harold Frederic .Ithaca:CornellUP,1969. Brodhead,RichardH. Cultures of Letters: Scenes of Reading and Writing in Nineteenth- Century America. Chicago:UofChicagoP,1993. Brodwin,Stanley.“WanderingBetweenTwoGods:TheologicalRealisminMarkTwain’sA ConnecticutYankee.” Studies in the Literary Imagination 16.2(1983):5782. Bromley,Larry.Ed.“AHistoryoftheText.”Afterword. Gloria Mundi .ByHaroldFrederic. Lincoln:UofNebraskaP,1986.34570. Brooks,Peter. Realist Vision .NewHaven:Yale,2005. Brown,Marshall.“TheLogicofRealism:AHegelianApproach.” Publication of the Modern Language Association 96.2(1981):22441. Bush,HaroldK. Mark Twain and the Spiritual Crisis of His Age .Tuscaloosa:UofP, 2007. Cady,EdwinH.Introduction. The Light of Common Day: Realism in American Fiction . Bloomington:UofIndianaP:1971. Camfield,Gregg. The Oxford Companion to Mark Twain .NewYork:Oxford,2003.

.“TheSentimentalandDomesticTraditions,18651900.” The Blackwell Companion to American Fiction 1865-1914 .Ed.RobertPaulLambandG.R.Thompson. NewYork:Blackwell,2005.5376. Carlyle,Thomas. Sartor Resartus .(183334).Eds.KerryMcSweeneyandPeterSabor.Oxford: OxfordUP,1999. Carnegie,Andrew. The Gospel of Wealth .(1889).Bedford:Applewood,1998. Carter,Everett.Introduction.The Damnation of Theron Ware .ByHaroldFrederic.Cambridge: BelknapHarvardUP,1960.xviixviv. Conwell,Russell. Acres of Diamonds .Philadelphia:TempleUP,2002. Crowley,JohnW. The Dean of American Letters: The Late Career of William Dean Howells . 268 Amherst:UofMassachusettsP,1999. Darwin,Charles. The Origin of Species in Darwin .Ed.PhilipAppleman.NewYork:Norton, 2001. Davis,RebeccaHarding.“BostonintheSixties.” Writing Cultural Autobiography .Ed.Janice MilnerLasseterandSharonM.Harris.Nashville:VanderbiltUP,2001.3652. .“TheCaptain’sStory.”1866.N.p.:Kessinger,[2005]. . Dallas Galbraith .Philadelphia:Lippincott,1868.N.p.:Kessinger,[2007]. .“DavidGaunt.”1862. A Rebecca Harding Davis Reader .Pfaelzer54103. .“TheDoctor’sWife.”1874. Silhouettes of American Life. NewYork:Scribner’s1892.67 73. .“Dolly.”1874. A Rebecca Harding Davis Reader .Pfaelzer28791. .“AFadedLeafofHistory.”1873. A Rebecca Harding Davis Reader .Pfaelzer36273. . Frances Waldeaux .NewYork:Harper,1897. .“AGlimpseofPhiladelphia.” Lippincott’s 18(July1876):2738. .“TheHarmonists.”1866.A Rebecca Harding Davis Reader .Pfaelzer166180. .“JohnLamar.”1862. A Rebecca Harding Davis Reader .Pfaelzer3553. . A Law Unto Herself .Philadelphia:Lippincott,1877. .“LifeintheIronMills.”1861. A Rebecca Harding Davis Reader .Pfaelzer334. . Margret Howth .NewYork:FeministPress,1990. .“Men’sRights.” A Rebecca Harding Davis Reader: “Life in the Iron-Mills,” Selected Fiction, and Essays .Ed.JeanPfaelzer.Pittsburgh:UofPittsburghP,1995.34361. .“TheMiddleAgedWoman.”1875. A Rebecca Harding Davis Reader .Pfaelzer37479. .“OldLandmarksinPhiladelphia.” Scribner’s Monthly 12.2(June1876):14567. .“OldPhiladelphia.” Harper’s New Monthly Magazine 53(AprilMay1876):70521,86882. .“APeculiarPeople.” Rebecca Harding Davis: Writing Cultural Autobiography .Ed.Janice MilnerLasseterandSharonM.Harris.Nashville:VanderbiltUP,2001.97112. .“UndistinguishedAmericans.”1906. A Rebecca Harding Davis Reader .Pfaelzer45861. . A Rebecca Harding Davis Reader: “Life in the Iron-Mills,” Selected Fiction, and Essays . 269 Ed.JeanPfaelzer.Pittsburgh:UofPittsburghP,1995. . Rebecca Harding Davis: Writing Cultural Autobiography .Ed.JaniceMilnerLasseterand SharonM.Harris.Nashville:VanderbiltUP,2001. . Waiting for the Verdict .1867.Ed.DonaldDingledine.Albany:NCUP,1995. .“TheWife’sStory.” A Rebecca Harding Davis Reader .Pfaelzer11238. .“TheYaresofBlackMountain.”1875. A Rebecca Harding Davis Reader .Pfaelzer3292 309. Doane,ThomasW. Bible Myths and Parallels in Other Religions .NewYork:Commonwealth, 1882. Donovan,Josephine.“JewettandSwedenborg.” American Literature .65.4(1993):73150. Eichelberger,ClaytonL. Published Comment on William Dean Howells through 1920: A Research Bibliography .Boston:Hall,1976. Eliot,George.“TheNaturalHistoryofGermanLife:Riehl.”1856. Essays and Leaves from a Note-Book .Ed.CharlesLeeLewes.NewYork:Lovell,1884.182227. Ensor,Allison. Mark Twain & the Bible .Lexington:UofKentuckyP,1969. Fetterley,Judith,andMarjoriePryse. Writing Out of Place: Regionalism, Women, and American Literary Culture .Urbana:UofIllinoisP,2003. Foote,Stephanie. Regional Fictions: Culture and Identity in Nineteenth-Century American Literature .Madison,UofWisconsinP,2001. Fortenberry,GeorgeE.,StantonGarner,andRobertH.Woodward. The Correspondence of Harold Frederic .FortWorth,TexasChristianUP,1977. Foucault,Michel. The Archeology of Knowledge .Trans.A.M.SheridanSmith.NewYork: Pantheon,1972. Fox,RichardWightman.“TheCultureofLiberalProtestantProgressivism,18751925.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 23.3(1993):63960. . Jesus in America: Personal Savior, Cultural Hero, National Obsession .SanFrancisco: Harper,2004. Frederic,Harold. The Damnation of Theron Ware .1896.Cambridge:BelknapHarvardUP, 1960. . Gloria Mundi .1898.Ed.LarryBromley.Lincoln:UofNebraskaP,1986. . The Lawton Girl .1890.NewYork:Greenwood,1969.Vol.4of The Major Works of Harold Frederic .5vols. 270 . The Market-Place .1898.NewYorkStokes,1899. . Seth’s Brother’s Wife: A Study of Life in the Greater New York .1887.NewYork:Scribner’s, 1887. Furst,LilianR. All is True: The Claims and Strategies of Realist Fiction. Durham:DukeUP, 1995. Garner,Stanton. Harold Frederic .Minneapolis:UofMinnesotaP,1969. Geismer,Maxwell,ed. Mark Twain and the Three R’s: Race, Religion, Revolution, and Related Matters .Indianapolis:BobbsMerrill,1973. Glazener,Nancy.“ThePracticeandPromotionofAmericanLiteraryRealism.” A Companion to American Fiction 1865-1914 .Ed.RobertPaulLambandG.R.Thompson.Malden,MA: Blackwell,2005.1634. . Reading for Realism: The History of a U. S. Institution, 1850-1910 .Durham:DukeUP,1997. Goodman,Susan,andCarlDawson. William Dean Howells: A Writer’s Life .Berkeley: UofCaliforniaP,2005. Grossman,Jeffrey.“PicturesofTravel:HeineinAmerica.” German Culture in Nineteenth- Century America: Reception, Adaptation, Transformation .Ed.LynnTatlockandMatt Erlin.Rochester:CamdenHouse,2005.183210. Gutjahr,PaulG. An American Bible: A History of the Good Book in the , 1777- 1880 .Stanford:StanfordUP,1999. Hallowell,Richard.“TheQuakersinNewEngland.”Philadelphia:Merrihew,1870. Hamilton,Kristie. America’s Sketchbook: The Cultural Life of a Nineteenth-Century Literary Genre .Athens:OhioUP,1998. Harris,SharonM. Rebecca Harding Davis and American Realism .Philadelphia:Uof PennsylvaniaP,1991. Hawthorne,Nathaniel. The Blithedale Romance .1852.Mineola:Dover,2003. Hays,JohnQ. Mark Twain and Religion: A Mirror of American Eclecticism .NewYork:Lang, 1989. Hegel,GeorgWilhelmFriedrich.“LecturesonFineArt.”183538. Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism .Ed.VincentB.Leitch,etal.NewYork:Norton,2001.63644. Heine,Heinrich. The Romantic School and Other Essays .Ed.JostHermandandRobertHolub. NewYork:Continuum,1985.

271 Hirst,RobertH.ANoteontheText.1982. No. 44, The Mysterious Stranger .ByMarkTwain. Berkeley:UofCaliforniaP,1982,1969.19798. Hopkins,Charles. The Rise of Social Gospel in American Protestantism 1865-1915 .NewHaven: YaleUP,1940. Howells,WilliamDean. Criticism and Fiction .1891.Cambridge,MA:WalkerdeBerry,1962. . Annie Kilburn .1889. William Dean Howells Novels 1886-1888 .NewYork:Libraryof America,1989.641865. . Editor’s Study .Ed.JamesW.Simpson.Troy:Whitston,1983. . A Hazard of New Fortunes .1890.NewYork:Signet,1965. . The Leatherwood God .1916.NewYork:AMS,1970. . Letters from an Altrurian Traveler .The Altrurian Romances .Ed.EdwinCady.Bloomington: IndianaUP,1968.185263. . Literary Friends and Acquaintance: A Personal Retrospect of American Authorship .1900. Ed.DavidF.HiattandEdwinH.Cady.Bloomington:IndianaUP,1968. . The Minister’s Charge, or The Apprenticeship of Lemuel Barker .1887. William Dean Howells Novels 1886-1888 .NewYork:LibraryofAmerica,1989.1312. . A Modern Instance .1882.NewYork:Penguin,1988. . My Literary Passions .1895.St.ClairShores,MI:Scholarly,1970. . My Mark Twain: Reminiscences and Criticisms .1910.BatonRouge:LouisianaStateUP, 1967. . The Rise of Silas Lapham .NewYork:Holt,1964. . Selected Short Stories of William Dean Howells .Ed.RuthBardon.Athens:OhioUP,1997. . Through the Eye of the Needle .1907.The Altrurian Romances .Ed.EdwinCady. Bloomington:IndianaUP,1968.265442. . A Traveler from Altruria .1894.The Altrurian Romances .Ed.EdwinCady.Bloomington: IndianaUP,1968.5179. . Years of My Youth and Three Essays .Bloomington,IN:IndianaUP,1975. Hughes,RichardT. Myths America Lives By .Urbana:UofIllinoisP,2003. Jackson,GregoryS.“‘WhatWouldJesusDo?’:PracticalChristianity,SocialGospelRealism, andHomileticNovel.” PMLA 121.3(2006):64161. 272 . The Word and Its Witness: The Spiritualization of American Realism .”Chicago:Uof ChicagoP,2009. Jacoby,Susan. Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism .NewYork:Metropolitan Books,2004. Jenkins,ThomasE. The Character of God: Recovering the Lost Literary Power of American Protestantism .NewYork:OxfordUP,1997. Johanningsmeier,Charles.“SarahOrneJewettandMaryE.Wilkins(Freeman):TwoShrewd BusinesswomeninSearchofNewMarkets.” The New England Quarterly 70.1(1997): 5782. Johnson,George:“HaroldFrederic’sYoungGoodmanWare:TheAmbiguitiesofaRealist Romance.” Modern Fiction Studies .8(1963):361374. Kahn,ShalomJ. Mark Twain’s The Mysterious Stranger: A Study of the Manuscript Texts . Columbia:UofMissouriP,1978. Kaplan,Amy. The Social Construction of American Realism .Chicago:UofChicagoP,1988. Kaplan,Fred. The Singular Mark Twain; A Biography .NewYork:Doubleday,2003. Kirk,ClaraandRudolfKirk.Introduction. The Altrurian Romances .ByWilliamDeanHowells. Ed.EdwinCady.Bloomington,IN:IndianaUP,1968.xixxxiv. Lamb,RobertPaul.“AmericaCanBreakYourHeart:OntheSignificanceofMarkTwain.” The Blackwell Companion to American Fiction 1865-1914 .Ed.RobertPaulLambandG.R. Thompson.NewYork:Blackwell,2005.46898. Lamb,RobertPaulandG.R.Thompson,eds. A Companion to American Fiction 1865-1914 . Malden,MA:Blackwell,2005. Lasseter,JaniceMilner.“TheCensoredandUncensoredLiteraryLivesof Life in the Iron-Mills .” Legacy 20.1&2(2003):17590. Lears,T.J.Jackson. No Place of Grace: Antimodernism and the Transformation of American Culture 1880-1920 .NewYork:Pantheon,1981. Lehan,Richard. Realism and Naturalism: The Novel in an Age of Transition .Madison,Uof WisconsinP,2005. Lewis,R.W.B. The American Adam: Innocence, Tragedy, and Tradition in the Nineteenth Century .Chicago:UofChicagoP,1968. Luedtke,Luther.“HaroldFrederic’sSatanicSoulsby:InterpretationandSources.” Nineteenth- Century Fiction 30.1(1975):82104. Lundin,Roger. From Nature to Experience: The American Search for Cultural Authority . Lanham:Rowman&Littlefield,2005. 273 Lundin,Roger,ed. Disciplining Hermeneutics: Interpretation in Christian Perspective .Grand Rapids:Eerdmans,1997. Lynch,DenisTilden. “Boss” Tweed: The Story of a Grim Generation .NewYork:Boniand Liveright,1927. Lyons,JohnO.“Hebraism,Hellenism,andHaroldFrederic’s Theron Ware .” The Arnoldian 6.2 (1979):715. Mandelker,IraL. Religion, Society, and Utopia in Nineteenth-Century America .Amherst:Uof MassachusettsP,1984. Marsden,George.“EveryoneOne’sOwnInterpreter?TheBible,Science,andAuthorityinMid NineteenthCenturyAmerica.” The Bible in America: Essays in Cultural History .Ed. NathanHatchandMarkNoll.NewYork:OxfordUP,1982.79100. May,JohnR. Toward a New Earth: Apocalypse in the American Novel .NotreDame:uofNotre DameP,1972. McDannell,Colleen. Material Christianity: Religion and Popular Culture in America .New Haven:YaleUP,1995. Neider,Charles,ed. The Selected Letter of Mark Twain .NewYork:Harper&Row,1982. Niebuhr,Reinhold.“TwoSourcesofWesternCulture.”1957. A Reinhold Niebuhr Reader: Selected Essays, Articles, & Book Reviews .Philadelphia:Trinity,1992. Noll,Mark. America’s God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln .Oxford:OxfordUP, 2002. .“TheImageoftheUnitedStatesasaBiblicalNation,17761865.” The Bible in America: Essays in Cultural History .Ed.NathanO.HatchandMarkA.Noll.NewYork:Oxford UP,1982.3958. O’Connor,Leo. Religion in the American Novel: The Search for Belief, 1860-1920 .Lanham: UPofAmerica,1984. O’Donnell,ThomasF. A Bibliography of Writings by and about Harold Frederic .Boston:G.K. Hall,1975. O’Donnell,ThomasF.andHoytC.Franchere. Harold Frederic .NewYork:Twayne,1961. Oehlschlaeger,Fritz.“ Passion, Authority, and Faith in TheDamnationofTheronWare.” American Literature 58.2(1986):238255. Olsen,Rodney. Dancing in Chains: The Youth of William Dean Howells .NewYork:NewYork UP,1991. 274 Petrie,PaulR. Conscience and Purpose: Fiction and Social Consciousness in Howells, Jewett, Chesnutt, and Cather .Tuscaloosa:UofAlabamaP,2005. Pfaelzer,Jean. Parlor Radical: Rebecca Harding Davis and the Origins of American .Pittsburgh:UofPittsburghP,1996. . The Utopian Novel in America, 1886-1896: The Politics of Form .Pittsburgh:Uof PittsburghP,1984. Pfaelzer,Jean,ed. A Rebecca Harding Davis Reader: “Life in the Iron-Mills,” Selected Fiction, and Essays .Pittsburgh:UofPittsburghP,1995. Pellowe,WilliamC.S. Mark Twain, Pilgrim from Hannibal .NewYork:Hobson,1945. Phipps,WilliamE. Mark Twain’s Religion .Macon:MercerUP,2003. Pizer,Donald. The Cambridge Companion to American Realism and Naturalism .Cambridge: CambridgeUP,1995. Quirk,Tom.“TheRealismof Adventures of Huckleberry Finn .” The Cambridge Companion to American Realism and Naturalism .Ed.DonaldPizer.Cambridge:CambridgeUP,1995. 13853. .Rev.of American Literary Realism: Critical Theory and Intellectual Prestige, 1880-1995 ,byPhillipBarrish. American Literary Realism 34.1(2001):8689. Rasmussen,R.Kent. Mark Twain A to Z: The Essential Reference to his Life and Writings .New York:FactsonFile,1995. Reiss,Edmund.Introduction.1962. The Mysterious Stranger and Other Stories .ByMarkTwain. NewYork:SignetNewAmericanLibrary,2004.viixv. Renan,Ernest. The Life of Jesus .1863.Buffalo:PrometheusBooks,1991. Reynolds,David. Beneath the American Renaissance .NewYork:Knopf,1988. . Faith in Fiction: The Emergence of Religious Literature in America .Cambridge:Harvard UP,1981 Roberts,Jon. Darwinism and the Divine in America: Protestant Intellectuals and Organic Evolution, 1859-1900 .Madison:UofWisconsinP,1988. Ruse,Michael,andEdwardO.Wilson.“TheEvolutionofEthics.”1985. Darwin .Ed.Philip Appleman.NewYork:Norton,2001.50711. Ruskin,John.“RootsofHonour.”1860. John Ruskin Selected Writings .Ed.DinahBirch. Oxford:OxfordUP,2004.14053. Sammons,JeffreyL.“RetroactiveDissimilation:LouisUntermeyer,the‘AmericanHeine.’” German Culture in Nineteenth-Century America: Reception, Adaptation, Transformation . 275 Ed.LynnTatlockandMattErlin.Rochester:CamdenHouse,2005.21131. Sheldon,CharlesM. In His Steps .Nashville:ThomasNelson,1999. Shi,David. Facing Facts: Realism in American Thought and Culture, 1850-1920 .NewYork: OxfordUP,1995. Simpson,LewisP. The Man of Letters in New England and the South: Essays on the History of the Literary Vocation in America .BatonRouge:LouisianaStateUP,1973. Stokes,Claudia. Writers in Retrospect: The Rise of American Literary History, 1875-1910 . ChapelHill:UofNorthCarolinaP,2006. Suderman,ElmerF.“CriticismsoftheProtestantChurchintheAmericanNovel:18701900.” Midcontinent American Studies 5.1(1964):1723. .“TheDamnationofTheronWareasaCriticismofAmericanReligiousThought.” Huntington Library Quarterly 33(1969):6175. .“JesusasaCharacterintheAmericanReligiousNovel:18701900.” Discourse: A Review of the Liberal Arts 9(1966):10115. . Religion in the American Novel: 1870-1900 .Diss.UKansas,1962. Sundquist,Eric,ed. American Realism: New Essays .Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUP,1982. Szasz,FerencMorton. The Divided Mind of American Protestant America, 1880-1930 . Tuscaloosa:Uof AlabamaP,1982. Talmage,T.DeWitt.“Bigotry.” Sermons .1872.Wakefield:Nicholson,n.d.33948. .“TheRecklessPenknife.” Sermons .1872.Wakefield:Nicholson,n.d.4152. Thomas,George. Revivalism and Cultural Change: Christianity, Nation Building, and the Market in the Nineteenth-Century United States .Chicago:UofChicagoP,1989. Thoreau,HenryDavid. Walden, or Life in the Woods .1854.NewYork:NewAmerican LibrarySignet,1980. Tuckey,JohnS. Mark Twain and Little Satan: The Writing of The Mysterious Stranger .West Lafayette,PurdueUP,1963. Twain,Mark. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn .1885.NewYork:BarnesandNobles,2003. . The Adventures of Tom Sawyer .1876.NewYork:KnopfEveryman’sLibrary,1991. .“CaptainStormfield’sVisittoHeaven.”1909,written18691909.Baetzholdand McCullough13988. . A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court .1889.Ed.AllisonEnsor.NewYork:Norton, 276 1982. .“ExtractsfromAdam’sDiary.”1904,written1892.BaetzholdandMcCullough816. .“TheFactsConcerningtheRecentCarnivalofCrimeinConnecticut.”1876. The Mysterious Stranger and Other Stories .NewYork:NewAmericanLibrarySignet,2004.825. . The Innocents Abroad, or The New Pilgrim’s Progress.1869.NewYork:Heritage,1962. .“TheManThatCorruptedHadleyburg”1899. The Mysterious Stranger and Other Stories . NewYork:NewAmericanLibrarySignet,2004.75124. . Mark Twain and the Three R’s: Race, Religion, Revolution—and Related Matters .Ed. MaxwellGeismer.Indianapolis:BobbsMerrill,1973. . No. 44, The Mysterious Stranger .1969,written18961910.Berkeley:UofCaliforniaP, 1982. .“ASingularEpisode:TheReceptionofReverendSamJonesinHeaven.”1970,writtenin 1891.BaetzholdandMcCullough198202. .“TheStolenWhiteElephant.”1882. The Mysterious Stranger and Other Stories .NewYork: NewAmericanLibrarySignet,2004.2647. . The Tragedy of Pudd’nhead Wilson and Those Extraordinary Twins .1894.NewYork: BarnesandNoble,2005. Walsh,Richard.“FictionalityandMimesis:BetweenNarrativityandFictionalWorlds.” Narrative 11.1(2003):110121. Wentz,Richard. Religion in the New World: The Shaping of Religious Traditions in the United States .Minneapolis:Fortress,1990. Weiman,Robert.“Realism,Ideology,andtheNovelinNorthAmerica(18861896):Changing PerspectivesintheWorkofMarkTwain,WilliamDeanHowells,andHenryJames.” Boundary 17.1(1990):189210. Wharton,Edith. The House of Mirth .NewYork:Bantam,1984. Woodward,RobertH.“SomeSourcesforHaroldFrederic’sTheDamnationofTheronWare.” American Literature 33.1(1961):4651. Yates,Norris.“The‘CounterConversion’ofHuckleberryFinn.” American Literature 32.1 (1960):110. Yellin,JeanFagan.Afterward. Margret Howth .ByRebeccaHardingDavis.NewYork: FeministPress,1990.271302.

277 VITA

LisaMoodygrewupinFitchburg,Massachusetts.In1986,shegraduatedfromthe

UniversityofChicagowithaBachelorofArtsdegreeinbehavioralscience.Lisacompletedher

MasterofArtsdegreeinEnglishatNorthwesternUniversityin1991.SherelocatedtoLouisiana in2003,andshebeganherdoctoralstudiesatLouisianaStateUniversityin2004.Betweenthe yearsof2004and2008,shewasawardedaBoardofRegentsFellowshipbythestateof

Louisiana.Lisa’sscholarlyinterestsincludenineteenthcenturyAmericanliterature,nineteenth centuryBritishliterature,andreligiousphilosophyasitrelatestoliterarystudies.Lisaearned herdoctoraldegreeinDecember,2009.

278