NotetotheReader
Thereadershouldnotethatallemphasesinquotationsareoriginalunless otherwisestated.Conversely,allellipsesinquotationshavebeenadded unlessotherwisestated.
ThisstudyfocusesprimarilyonthewritingsofAlbertEinstein, D.H.Lawrence,andVirginiaWoolf.Unlessotherwisestated,thefollowingeditionsoftheirworksareusedthroughout.
AlbertEinstein
TheCollectedPapersofAlbertEinstein.EnglishTranslation,ed.John Stacheletal.,trans.AnnaBecketal.,tobecompletedin c.30vols (Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1987– ).
D.H.Lawrence
ThevastmajorityofmyquotationsfromLawrence’stextsfallwithinthe definitionsoffairdealingandfairuse.However,extractsfrom Aaron’sRod, Kangaroo, PsychoanalysisandtheUnconsciousandFantasiaoftheUnconscious,and ThePoems arereproducedbypermissionofPaperLionLtdand theEstateofFriedaLawrenceRavagli.
Aaron’sRod,ed.MaraKalnins(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,1988)©theEstateofFriedaLawrenceRavagli1988.
TheFox,TheCaptain’sDoll,TheLadybird,ed.DieterMehl (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1992).
Kangaroo,ed.BruceSteele(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1994)©theEstateofFriedaLawrenceRavagli1994.
LadyChatterley’sLoverandAProposof ‘LadyChatterley'sLover’,ed. MichaelSquires(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1993).
TheLettersofD.H.Lawrence,ed.JamesT.Boultonetal.(8vols, Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1979–2000).
MrNoon,ed.LindethVasey(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,1984).
ThePlumedSerpent,ed.L.D.Clark(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,1987).
ThePoems,ed.ChristopherPollnitz,tobecompletedin3vols (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2013– )©theEstateof FriedaLawrenceRavagli,2013.
ThePrussianOfficerandOtherStories,ed.JohnWorthen(Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress,1983).
PsychoanalysisandtheUnconsciousandFantasiaoftheUnconscious,ed.Bruce Steele(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2004)©theEstateof FriedaLawrenceRavagli2004.
TheRainbow,ed.MarkKinkead-Weekes(Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress,1989).
ReflectionsontheDeathofaPorcupineandOtherEssays,ed.Michael Herbert(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1988).
SonsandLovers,ed.HelenBaronandCarlBaron(Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress,1992).
StudyofThomasHardyandOtherEssays,ed.BruceSteele(Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress,1985).
TheTrespasser,ed.ElizabethMansfield(Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress,1981).
TheWhitePeacock,ed.AndrewRobertson(Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress,1983).
WomeninLove,ed.DavidFarmer,LindethVasey,andJohnWorthen (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1987).
VirginiaWoolf
IwouldliketorecordmythankstotheSocietyofAuthorsastheLiterary RepresentativeoftheEstateofVirginiaWoolf.
BetweentheActs,ed.StellaMcNichol(London:Penguin,1992).
TheCompleteShorterFictionofVirginiaWoolf,ed.SusanDick(2nd edn,SanDiego,Calif.:Harcourt,1989).
TheDiaryofVirginiaWoolf,ed.AnneOlivierBellandAndrew McNeillie(5vols,London:HogarthPress,1977–84).
TheEssaysofVirginiaWoolf,ed.AndrewMcNeillie(vols1–4)andStuart N.Clarke(vols5and6)(London:HogarthPress,1986–2011).
Jacob’sRoom,ed.SueRoe(London:Penguin,1992).
TheLettersofVirginiaWoolf,ed.NigelNicolsonandJoanne Trautmann(6vols,London:HogarthPress,1975–80).
MomentsofBeing:AutobiographicalWritings,ed.JeanneSchulkind (rev.edn,London:Pimlico,2002).
MrsDalloway,ed.StellaMcNichol(London:Penguin,1992).
NightandDay,ed.JuliaBriggs(London:Penguin,1992).
Orlando:ABiography,ed.BrendaLyons(London:Penguin,1993).
ARoomofOne’sOwn/ThreeGuineas,ed.MichèleBarrett(London: Penguin,1993).
TotheLighthouse,ed.StellaMcNichol(London:Penguin,1992).
TheVoyageOut,ed.JaneWheare(London:Penguin,1992).
TheWaves,ed.KateFlint(London:Penguin,1992).
TheYears,ed.JeriJohnson(London:Penguin,1998).
TheBalancingActofLiteratureandScience
Inhis ‘LondonLetter,September1921’ T.S.Eliotdiscussedtheinfluence ofbiologyon ‘theimaginationofnon-scientificpeople’ duringtheeighteenthandnineteenthcenturies,explainingthat ‘Darwinistherepresentativeofthoseyears,asNewtonoftheseventeenth,andEinsteinperhaps ofours’ . 1 Thisshifttowardsphysics,andinparticulartheso-called ‘ new physics’ associatedwiththe figureofAlbertEinstein,haslongformedthe focusofstudiesoftherelationshipbetweenliteratureandscienceinthe earlytwentiethcentury.Einstein’srolewithinhiscontemporaryculture hasbeenseenastwofold: ‘ muse ’ for ‘thecontemporaryrevolutionsoccurringinart,music,theater,andliterature’ withwhichhisworkhad ‘ strong resonances ’,and ‘mythic figure,representingboththelightanddarkaspects ofscienceinsociety’ . 2
Thevastmajorityofstudiesofthemodernistperiodnowmention Einsteinatleastinpassing,whiletheOxfordWorld’sClassicseditionsof modernistworksoftenincludethepublicationdatesofhistwotheoriesof relativityinthe ‘HistoricalandCulturalBackground’ columnoftheir authorchronologies.Inthefrequentabsenceofanydetailedexplanation oranalysisofthesepassingreferences,itisoftendifficulttoascertain whetherEinsteinisbeinginvokedasadirectinfluenceonmodernist literarytextsoraspartofabroaderculturalzeitgeist.Forexample,Dennis Bohnenkamp,inanunashamedlygeneralizedstatement,claims, ‘Allof Modernistliteraturereflectssomeassociationwiththerelativistmythology’,conceding,assomethingofanafterthought, ‘thoughsomegenres dosomoreovertlythanothers’ . 3 Incontrast,studieslikeThomasVargish
1 T.S.Eliot, TheAnnotatedWasteLandwithEliot’sContemporaryProse,ed.Lawrence Rainey(2ndedn,NewHaven,Conn.:YaleUniversityPress,2006),191.
2 AlanJ.FriedmanandCarolC.Donley, EinsteinasMythandMuse (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress,1985),20.
3 DennisBohnenkamp, ‘Post-EinsteinianPhysicsandLiterature:TowardaNewPoetics’ , Mosaic 22(3)(Summer1989),26.
andDeloMook’ s InsideModernism haveattemptedtoconstructanew theoryofmodernismbyfocusingonsomeofthekeyfeaturesofEinstein’ s theoriesofrelativityasbothpartofandformativeofearlytwentiethcenturyculture.4
Morerecently,aseriesofdetailedcriticalstudieshavesoughttoprovide in-depthandspecificanalysesofEinstein’simpactoncontemporaryculture.Suchstudiestendtofocusontheboominpopularsciencefollowing theannouncementoftheproofofEinstein’sgeneraltheoryofrelativityat theJointEclipseMeetingoftheRoyalSocietyandtheRoyalAstronomical SocietyinNovember1919,anannouncementwhichwaswidelycovered inthepress.Thus,instudieslikeMichaelWhitworth’ s Einstein’sWake andKatyPrice’ s LovingFasterthanLight,1919becomesthepivotalyearin whichEinstein’sfameandreputation,alongwiththoseofhisscientific theories,becamebothwidespreadandassured.5
Thesignificanceofthischronologycannoteasilybedenied:there was a boominthepublicationofpopularsciencebooksandarticlesafter1919, andEinstein did becomeaworldwidecelebrityfollowingtheNovember meeting.6 AsStanleyGoldberghasstated, ‘Before1919almostnoone outsideofphysicsknewofAlbertEinstein.After1919almostnoonedid notknowofhim.’7 However,therepeatedandalmostexclusivefocuson November1919hasgrantedthisdateanexaggeratedprominencewhich hasinmanywaysremoveditfromitscontemporarycontext. TheTimes’ s ‘RevolutioninScience’ headline,whichappearedthedayaftertheJoint EclipseMeeting,hasbeenquotedparticularlyfrequentlyinorderto suggestasuddenandcompletebreak,achangeofparadigmwhichhad animmediateimpactnation-andworldwide.8 However,AlistairSponsel hasshownthat ‘theeclipseexperimentswereafamiliartopicbyNovember 1919’,withthe ‘RevolutioninScience’ articleinfactservingas ‘the culminationofaseriesofevermorein-depthpiecesin TheTimes about
4 ThomasVargishandDeloE.Mook, InsideModernism:RelativityTheory,Cubism, Narrative (NewHaven,Conn.:YaleUniversityPress,1999).
5 MichaelH.Whitworth, Einstein’sWake:Relativity,Metaphor,andModernistLiterature (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2001);KatyPrice, LovingFasterthanLight:Romanceand ReadersinEinstein’sUniverse (Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2012).
6 Onthepopularscienceboom,seeMichaelWhitworth, ‘TheClothboundUniverse: PopularPhysicsBooks,1919–39’ , PublishingHistory 40(1996),53–82.
7 StanleyGoldberg, UnderstandingRelativity:OriginandImpactofaScientificRevolution (Oxford:ClarendonPress,1984),309.
8 [PeterChalmersMitchell,] ‘RevolutioninScience’ , TheTimes,7Nov.1919,12. ImogenClarkeidentifiesMitchellastheauthorofthisarticle,althoughalmostcertainlynot ofitsheadline,in ‘NegotiatingProgress:Promoting “Modern” PhysicsinBritain, 1900–1940’ (PhDthesis,UniversityofManchester,2012),109and110.
theeclipseexpeditionsandtheforthcomingresults’ . 9 Moreover,while therewasindeedaboominpopularscienceafter1919,PeterBowlerhas shownthattherewasasimilar ‘surgeofpublication’ priortotheFirst WorldWar.10
Whenweturntotheliteratureoftheperiod,wealso findthatthefocus ontheyearsafter1919hashadsomethingofadistortingeffect.Whileitis truethatEinstein’snameandtheoriesonlyreallybecamepartofthe culturalcurrencyafter1919,anexplorationofearlierliteraryworksreveals somesurprisingsimilaritiesandparallelswithsomeoftheconceptsfor whichEinsteinisstillfamoustoday.Thequestionsastowhyandhowthis cametobethecase,andtheextenttowhichEinsteiniansciencecanbe saidtohavehadadirectinfluenceonearlytwentieth-centuryliterary works,providethefocusforthisstudy.
Inordertoavoidsomeofthedangersinherentinanexaggerated emphasisontheyear1919,mypointofdepartureisinsteadtheinitial emergenceofsomeofEinstein’skeyideasin1905,ayearwhichhaslong beenregardedaspivotalinthedevelopmentofphysicsandasEinstein’ s personal annusmirabilis,andwhichhasevenbeendescribedastheyear inwhichthetwentiethcenturybegan.11 ItwasinthisyearthatEinstein, thenanunknownpatentexaminerinBern,publishedthreepapersinthe seventeenthvolumeofthe AnnalenderPhysik: ‘OnaHeuristicPointof ViewConcerningtheProductionandTransformationofLight’,which usedMaxPlanck’s1900theoryofquantainordertosolveanexperimentallyobserveddifficultywiththewavetheoryoflight; ‘OntheMovementof SmallParticlesSuspendedinStationaryLiquidsRequiredbytheMolecularKineticTheoryofHeat’,whichproposedatheoryandaformulawithwhich toexplainBrownianmotion;and ‘OntheElectrodynamicsofMoving Bodies’,betterknownasthespecialtheoryofrelativity.Theyear1905is usedinwhatfollowsnottomarkadramaticbreakoraparadigmshift,ashas beensuggestedbycriticswhofocuson1919,butrathertoprovidethe frameworkforanexplorationwhichwillconsiderbothearlierandlater ideas,andtheiracceptanceinscientificcirclesaswellasinpopularculture. UnlikeotherstudiesofmodernistliteratureinrelationtoEinstein,then, ModernistPhysics seekstocombineanapproachwhichisnotlimitedtoa focuson1919andtheyearsfollowingitwithonewhichwillenablea
9 AlistairSponsel, ‘Constructinga “RevolutioninScience”:TheCampaigntoPromote aFavourableReceptionforthe1919SolarEclipseExperiments’ , BritishJournalforthe HistoryofScience 35(4)(Dec.2002),444.
10 PeterJ.Bowler, ScienceforAll:ThePopularizationofScienceinEarlyTwentiethCenturyBritain (Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2009),87.
11 SeeJonathanBate, ‘WordsinaQuantumWorld:HowCambridgePhysicsLed WilliamEmpsontoRefuse “Either/Or”’ , TimesLiterarySupplement 4919(25July1997),15.
detailedanalysisofthesimilaritiesbetweenideaswhichwereappearingin literatureandscience,aswellasotherareasofculture,intheearlyyearsof thetwentiethcentury.Itthusseekstocombineanassessmentofthedirect influenceofEinstein’sscientificideasonmodernistliterarytextswithan explorationoftheplaceofbothwithinthecontemporaryculturalcontext.
Theideathat ‘scienceandliteraturearenotaboveorapartfromtheir culturebutembeddedwithinit’ isnowwellestablished.12 Variouscritics havedrawnattentiontotherelevanceofthismodeltotheemergenceof radicalnewwaysofthinkingacrosscultureintheearlytwentiethcentury: N.KatherineHayleshasdescribed ‘arevolutioninworldview’ , ‘aCopernicanrevolution’,whileWalterIsaacsonhighlightedthisperiodasonein which ‘analignmentofforcescausesashiftinhumanoutlook’ . 13 In addition,VargishandMookhavedescribedmodernismitselfas ‘inherentlysubdisciplinaryortransdisciplinaryinitsoperation’,addingthat ‘ to defineit,toidentifyit,andtounderstanditrequiresamultidisciplinary approach’ . 14 D.H.Lawrencealsoseemstohavebeenawareofsomewider contemporaryculturalchange,aswewillseeinPartII:in Fantasiaofthe Unconscious (1922)hewrote, ‘ThelatestcrazeisMrEinstein’sRelativity theory.Curiousthateverybodycatches fireatthewordRelativity.There mustbesomethinginthemeresuggestion,whichwehavebeenwaiting for’ (190).
Theacceptanceoftheculturalembeddednessofbothliteratureand sciencemeansthatthedisciplineofliteratureandsciencenolonger requiresjustification.However,asignificantquestionremainsconcerning howweshouldgoaboutdoingliteratureandscience,andinanswering thistherehavetraditionallybeentwoapproaches.The firstisthatof focusingondirectinfluence,anapproachwhichtendstoforeground scienceastheprimarydisciplinewithliteratureseeming,inJohnLimon’ s words, ‘merelytobefollowinggratefullyalonginitswake’ . 15 Whereas earlystudiesinthe fieldofliteratureandscience,likeMarjorieHope Nicolson’s1946text NewtonDemandstheMuse,tendedtofollowsucha model,therecognitionthatscience,likeliterature,is ‘alwaysalready culturalandcannotbeotherwise’ hashighlightedtheinadequacyofsuch
12 N.KatherineHayles, ‘Introduction:ComplexDynamicsinLiteratureandScience’ , inHayles(ed.), ChaosandOrder:ComplexDynamicsinLiteratureandScience (Chicago: UniversityofChicagoPress,1991),30.
13 N.KatherineHayles, TheCosmicWeb:ScientificFieldModelsandLiteraryStrategiesin theTwentiethCentury (Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,1984),15;WalterIsaacson, Einstein:HisLifeandUniverse (London:Simon&Schuster,2007),279.
14 VargishandMook, InsideModernism,4.
15 JohnLimon, ThePlaceofFictionintheTimeofScience:ADisciplinaryHistoryof AmericanWriting (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1990),11.
automaticprecedence.16 Nevertheless,thereisanongoingbiaswithin studiesinliteratureandsciencewhichleadstomorefrequentandmore detaileddiscussionsoftheinfluenceofscienceonliteratureratherthanvice versa.17 Inaddition,thereisatendencytotalkofthe ‘influence ’ ofscience onliterature,whileliteratureissaidtohave ‘anticipated’ laterdevelopments inscience:thusWhitworthstatesthatVirginiaWoolf ‘haddevelopedmany aspectsofherownwave/particlemodeloftheselfinanticipationofthe physicists’ . 18 Thereisaninequalityhere,ahierarchywhichstillgrants scienceaspecialplacewithinculturetakenasawhole.
Whiletheideaofinfluenceisclearlyadifficultonetoapproachinan unbiasedmanner,thereactionagainstinfluencestudieswithinthe fieldof literatureandsciencehasperhapsgonetoofar:VargishandMookdescribe causallinkagesas ‘lessinterestingandmoresuperficialthanthecommon valuesthat findcontemporaneousexpressionindisparate fields’—aformulationwhichismorelimitingthanitmightinitiallyappear.19 There are casesinwhichinfluencecanbeshowntobethemostappropriateterm, andifwedecidetoignoreordiscountitwhenthisprovestobethecase, weareindangeroffalsifyingtheideaswhichweareconsideringasmuch asifweoveremphasizeit.Inthisstudy,then,ideasofinfluencewillindeed playapart,butonlywheresuchideasareofdefiniterelevance:thusinPart IIwewillseehowEinstein’stheoriesofrelativity atleast influencedthe wayinwhich,orratherthelanguagewithwhich,Lawrencewroteabout humanrelationshipsin FantasiaoftheUnconscious.Thepointis,ofcourse, thatwhenwedo findourselvesdiscussingdirectinfluence,wemustnot unquestioninglyascribeeverythingthatcanbeconceivedto fitwithinitto astraightforwardcause-and-effectmodel.
Theoppositeapproachtothatofafocusondirectinfluenceisthe zeitgeistmodel,whichconsidersthewiderculturalatmosphereofa particularperiodandthewaysinwhichideascoincideacrossdisciplines. Whilesuchamodelcanbehelpfulintermsofthinkingoftheideasthat were ‘intheair’ atacertaintime,itremainsanabstractandundefinable termandonewhichfrequentlyinvolvesaseriesofriskyovergeneralizations.Inaddition,Whitworthhasstressedthatthegeneralizedzeitgeist
16 MarjorieHopeNicolson, NewtonDemandstheMuse:Newton’ s ‘Opticks’ andtheEighteenthCenturyPoets (Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1946);N.KatherineHayles, ‘TurbulenceinLiteratureandScience:QuestionsofInfluence ’,inRobertJ.Scholnick(ed.), AmericanLiteratureandScience (Lexington:UniversityPressofKentucky,1992),245.
17 ThemostnotableexceptiontothisruleisGillianBeer’sseminalwork Darwin’sPlots: EvolutionaryNarrativeinDarwin,GeorgeEliotandNineteenth-CenturyFiction (3rdedn, Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2009).
18 Whitworth, Einstein’sWake,162. 19 VargishandMook, InsideModernism,5.
‘neverinformedtheworkofanyindividual’,whileRandallStevensonhas highlightedthecircularnatureofsuchamodelwhichrendersit ‘closeto tautology’ . 20
Usingthemorerecentconceptoftheculturallyembeddednatureof science,literature,andallotherdisciplines,variouscriticshaveattemptedto refinethezeitgeistmodelinordertomakeitmorepracticalandmaterial. ThusHayleshasdiscussedtheideaofaculturalmatrix,explainingthat ‘both literatureandscienceareculturalproducts,atonceexpressingandhelping toformtheculturalmatrixfromwhichtheyemerge’;thisideaofmutuality isclearlyavaluableonewhentryingtoovercomeboththetraditional hierarchicalmodelofinfluenceandtheabstractnotionofthezeitgeist.21 SanfordSchwartzhasalsoemployedamatrixmodelinordertoinvestigate therelationshipbetweenmodernistliteratureandphilosophy,explaining thatthisapproachallowedhimto ‘situateanimportantliterarymovement initsintellectualcontext’ . 22 Itisworthnotingthat,whenitcomestostudies withinthedisciplineofliteratureandscience,thematrixmodelhasthe advantageofbeing,oratleastsounding,scientific.
Hayleshasanalysedindetailtheideathat ‘Differentdisciplinesare drawntosimilarproblemsbecausetheconcernsunderlyingthemare highlychargedwithinaprevailingculturalcontext’ . 23 Thelogicbehind, andusefulnessof,thismodelareclear,situatingboththequestionsasked andtheanswersprovidedbyvariousdifferentdisciplineswithinawider culturalcontextwhichalldisciplinesshare.However,itisalsoclearthatwe needtobecautiousifselectingthisasourmodelofchoiceforamultidisciplinarystudyofthiskind:ifourconceptofthebroaderculturalmatrix becomestoobroad,wemay findourselvesheadingbacktowardsamore generalized,lesspracticalzeitgeistmodel.Weneedtoconsiderhowwecan setaboutformulatingausefulandpracticalculturalmatrixforaparticular historicalmoment:ifsuchamatrix,tobecomplete,needstoincludeevery partofthecontemporaryculture,howcanweensurethatthecultural matrixproducedbysuchawide-ranging and,indeed,impossible survey remainsrelevantandspecificenoughtoaidusinouranalysisofaparticular literarytextorscientificdiscovery?
20 Whitworth, Einstein’sWake,19;RandallStevenson, ModernistFiction (rev.edn, London:PrenticeHall,1998),12.
21 N.KatherineHayles, ‘InformationorNoise?EconomyofExplanationinBarthes’ s S/Z andShannon’sInformationTheory’,inGeorgeLevine(ed.), OneCulture:Essaysin ScienceandLiterature (Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress,1987),120.
22 SanfordSchwartz, TheMatrixofModernism:Pound,Eliot,andEarlyTwentiethCenturyThought (Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1985),4.
23 N.KatherineHayles, ChaosBound:OrderlyDisorderinContemporaryLiteratureand Science (Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,1990),xi.
Inanattempttomaketheconceptoftheculturalmatrixlessunwieldy, Hayles,followedbyWhitworth,developedtheimageofthe ‘fieldof force’ . 24 Haylessuggeststhatsuchamodelrendersnotionsofcausality ‘obsolete’,butWhitworth,byfocusingonthe ‘heterogeneous,discontinuousmedium’ throughwhichsucha fieldwouldbepropagated,seems toprovideagreatersenseofbalancebetweentheculturalandinfluence modelswhichwehavebeendiscussing.25 Theadditionofadiscontinuous mediumhereaddsanextraelementofspecificityandpracticalitytothe fieldmodel,makingitofmoreobviousrelevancetostudiesofthiskindby avoidingtheinevitablehazinessofthezeitgeist.Atthesametime,theidea oftracing ‘thematerialpathsthroughwhichtheideascouldhavebeen transmitted’ throughthismediumenablestheconceptofinfluenceto makeareappearance,dependingonthekindofpaththatisbeingtraced foranyspecificconcept.26 However,theintroductionofsuchamedium inordertomakeanexisting,butnotperfect,modelfunctionmayremind usofthenineteenth-centuryobsessivesearchfortheetherthroughwhich lightwasbelievedtotravel aquesttowhichEinsteinhimselfputanend inhis1905specialrelativitypaperwhenhestatedthattheintroductionof suchamediumwas ‘ superfluous ’ (ii,141).Wemaythuswanttothink carefullybeforeadoptinganymodelofamedium,nomatterhow ‘heterogeneous ’ or ‘discontinuous’,withinstudiesofthiskind.27
Theproblemthatweseemtobereturningtorepeatedlyhere,then,is oneofbalance:wehavetwoopposingmodels,eachconsistingofclear advantagesanddisadvantages,andwemustattempttosteeracourse betweenwhatStephenWeiningerhascalled ‘theScyllaofsimplistic causalityandtheCharybdisofrandomhappenstance’;thatis,between therestrictiveideaofinfluenceontheonehandandthesomewhathazy conceptofthezeitgeist orthemorepracticalmodelofthecultural matrix ontheother.28 Itcouldbearguedthatthedisciplineofliterature andscienceisexcessivelydividedbetweenthesetwomodels,having
24 Whitworth, Einstein’sWake,18.
25 Hayles, CosmicWeb,22;Whitworth, Einstein’sWake,18.
26 Whitworth, Einstein’sWake,18.
27 AliceJenkinshasrecentlydiscussedsomeoftheseissues,whichlieattheheartof currentworkonliteratureandscience,throughreferencetoEinstein’sowndiscomfortwith whathecalled ‘spookyactionsatadistance’ : ‘SpookyHistoricistActionataDistance’ , plenarydeliveredattheEighthAnnualConferenceoftheBritishSocietyforLiteratureand Science,CardiffUniversity,12Apr.2013.SeeEinsteintoMaxBorn,3Mar.1947,in The Born–EinsteinLetters:Friendship,PoliticsandPhysicsinUncertainTimes.Correspondence betweenAlbertEinsteinandMaxandHedwigBornfrom1916to1955withCommentariesby MaxBorn,trans.IreneBorn(newedn,Basingstoke:Macmillan,2005),155.
28 StephenJ.Weininger, ‘Introduction:TheEvolutionofLiteratureandScienceasa Discipline’,inFrederickAmrine(ed.), LiteratureandScienceasModesofExpression (Dordrecht:KluwerAcademic,1989),xix.
movedovertheyearsfromanexclusivefocusontheformertoasimilarly exaggeratedfocusonthelatter;whatisinfactneededisacombinationof (orratherabalancebetween)thetwo.AlanFriedmanandCarolDonley attemptedsuchabalancein EinsteinasMythandMuse,acknowledging that ‘bothcausalrelationshipsandparallels(notcausallyrelated)exist betweenthenewliteratureandthenewscience’ . 29 However,itisclearthat theirultimatefocusisonthewaysinwhich ‘philosophersandartistswere encouragedtoassimilatesimilarrevolutionaryviewsintotheirowndisciplines’ following thedevelopmentsinscienceforwhichEinsteinbecame thesymbol,afocuswhichisnotsurprisinggiventhetitleoftheirbook.30
Theaimofthepresentstudyistoprovideamodelwhichbalances directlinesofinfluencewithaculturalmatrixor fieldofforce.Sucha balancedmodeliscapturedinGillianBeer’ssuggestionthat ‘waysof viewingtheworldarenotconstructedseparatelybyscientistsandpoets; theysharethemoment’sdiscourse.’31 InmakingthisstatementBeerwas commentingonthesimilaritiesbetweenpassagesfromWoolf ’ s TheWaves (1931)andA.S.Eddington’ s TheNatureofthePhysicalWorld (1928),but in Darwin’sPlots Beeremphasizedthesignificantextenttowhichlanguage wasitselfsharedbyscientistsandnon-scientistsinthenineteenthcentury: Inthemid-nineteenthcentury,scientistsstillsharedacommonlanguage withothereducatedreadersandwritersoftheirtime.Thereisnothing hermeticorexclusiveinthewritingofLyellorDarwin.Togetherwith otherscientificwriters...theysharedaliterary,non-mathematicaldiscourse whichwasreadilyavailabletoreaderswithoutascientifictraining.Their textscouldbereadverymuchasliterarytexts.32
This ‘commonlanguage’ facilitatedthemovementofideasbetween disciplinestotheextentthatsuchdisciplinaryboundariesseemunjustified here.TedBenton,however,hastakenissuewiththisassessment,suggestingthatthenineteenth-centuryreaderwouldnothavebeen ‘impervious togenre ’ or ‘insensitivetothedifferencebetweenthecommunicationofa scientificdiscoveryandaworkof fiction’ . 33 BentonhasalsocriticizedBeer’ s closefocusonsharedlanguageandmetaphor,suggestingthatscientistsmay havedrawnonothertexts ‘forpurposesandaccordingtodiscursiveconstraintswhichderivedfromspecificdisciplinaryrequirements’,andasking
29 FriedmanandDonley, MythandMuse,84.
30 Ibid.1.
31 GillianBeer, OpenFields:ScienceinCulturalEncounter (Oxford:ClarendonPress, 1996),171.
32 Beer, Darwin’sPlots,4.
33 TedBenton, ‘Science,IdeologyandCulture:Malthusand TheOriginofSpecies’,in DavidAmigoniandJeffWallace(eds), CharlesDarwin’ s ‘TheOriginofSpecies’:NewInterdisciplinaryEssays (Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress,1995),72.
whethertherolesofmetaphorinscienceandliteraturecanreallybesaidto beidentical.34 Meanwhile,Whitworthhasargued, ‘Itisnotenoughtosay thatscientistsandartistsshareacommonlinguisticsystem’,pointingout that ‘thequestionbecomesmoredifficultwhenwedealwithmathematical physics,bothinthenineteenthandtwentiethcenturies’ 35
Benton’sandWhitworth’sarevalidpoints,butwhenweturntothe quotationfrom OpenFields wecanseethatitreferstomorethanjusta commonlanguage: ‘waysofviewingtheworld arenotconstructedseparately byscientistsandpoets;theysharethemoment’sdiscourse’ (myemphasis). Herethediscoursethatisshareddoesnotconsistsolelyoflinguisticterms, butofwaysofseeingtheworld;ofwaysofviewingtheworldratherthanjust waysofdescribingit.EddingtonandWoolfarecomparablenotjustbecause theybothtalkaboutthresholds,doorways,andanabsenceofsolidityin similarterms,butbecausetheyareboth thinking inthisway,engagingwith similarproblemsbecause,inHayles’swords, ‘theconcernsunderlyingthem arehighlychargedwithinaprevailingculturalcontext’ . 36 Similarly,in Darwin’sPlots thesharedlanguagecanbeseenasafacilitator,amanifestation,andawayofanalysingasharingthatgoesdeeperthanthistothevery ideasthatareinquestion.Beerexplains: ‘Becauseoftheshareddiscoursenot only ideas butmetaphors,myths,andnarrativepatternscouldmoverapidly andfreelytoandfrobetweenscientistsandnon-scientists’;thesuggestion hereisthattheideasthemselveswouldstillhavebeensharedwhetherornot thediscoursewas,andthatthesharingofacommonlanguageaddedan extradimensiontoasharingwhichwasalreadytakingplace.37
Theconceptof ‘shareddiscourse’ mayappeartotakeusbacktowards anolderzeitgeistmodel,thelimitationsofwhichwehavealreadyconsidered.YetitseemstomethatBeer’sterminologyprovidesawayin whichtoachievethatbalancebetweeninfluenceandculturalmatrix which,Ihaveargued,liesattheheartofthestudyofliteratureandscience. Sharingcanbeactiveorpassive,intentionaloraccidental;itcaninvolve words,structures,orideas,orevenjustthoseunderlying ‘ concerns ’ of whichHaylesspeaksandwhichBeerelsewherecalls ‘thecommonanxietiesofthetime’ . 38 Theideaofshareddiscoursethusallowsustothink about both directinfluencebetweenliteratureandscience and abroader culturalsettingforbothdisciplines.Italsoallowsustoconsiderboththe ideasthemselvesandthehumanagents,bothscientistsandwriters,who dothesharing,thusenablingustoreflectonthewaysinwhichideas
34 Ibid. 35 Whitworth, Einstein’sWake,17.
36 Hayles, ChaosBound,xi. 37 Beer, Darwin’sPlots,5.
38 GillianBeer, ‘DiscoursesoftheIsland’,inFrederickAmrine(ed.), Literatureand ScienceasModesofExpression (Dordrecht:KluwerAcademic,1989),18.
actuallyexistandcirculatewithinaparticularculturalcontext.Afocuson specificideascanleadtothetemptationtoignoretheirhumanagents:for example,GeorgeLevinehaswrittenofVictoriangradualismas ‘anideathat poppedupingeology(onaNewtonianmodel),foughtitswayintobiology, andwasthegroundworkofnineteenth-century “realism”’ 39 Whilethis approachenablesustorecognize ‘howdeeplyostensibly “disciplinary” ideas areembeddedinthewholeculture’,theabsenceofhumanagentsleavesus withanotherinsubstantialandunrepresentativemodel.40 Incontrast,my focushereisnotjustonsharedideas,butonthewaysinwhichtheywere shared,used,anddevelopedwithintheirearlytwentieth-centurycontextby bothscientistsandliterarywriters.
ModernistPhysics,then,usestheconceptofshareddiscourseinorderto exploresomeoftheideas,anxieties,andlanguagethatliterature,physics, andthewiderculturesharedintheearlytwentiethcentury.UsingEinstein’ s 1905paperstoframeandstructurethediscussion,Ianalysebothapparently directlinesofinfluenceandsomeoftheassumptionsthatwerewidely sharedwithinthecultureoftheperiod.ThisinclusionofwhatWhitworth calls ‘athirdelement’ meansthat(asthisIntroductionhassuggestedis necessary)referencewillbemadetootherdisciplinesandotherkeyintellectual figuresoftheperiodwhererelevant.41 ThusinPartIII,various theoriesofcrowdpsychologyappearinrelationtolatenineteenth-andearly twentieth-centurydiscussionsofmolecularmovement,whileWilliam James,who,accordingtoFriedmanandDonley, ‘hadanticipatedmany ofthenewmetaphysicalpositionsofmodernphysics’,becomesparticularly significantinPartsIandII,notleastbecauseofmyquestioningofthe ‘anticipation’ ofscientificideas.42 Thisbroadeningofourfocustoinclude thewiderculturalsettingwillhelpustoavoidthecreationofanew ‘privilegedpair’ ofliteratureandscience,againstwhichBeerhascautioned, enablingusto ‘re-immersetheminthemultiplicityofforcesthatgenerate thespecifictext,theparticulardiscoveryandwhich firetheindividual imagination’ . 43
Inordertotracethesharingofparticularideasacrossdisciplinesduring theearlytwentiethcentury,andtoconsiderspecifichumanagentsofsuch sharing,myfocushereisontwomodernistauthorsinparticular:Virginia
39 GeorgeLevine, DarwinandtheNovelists:PatternsofScienceinVictorianFiction (Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1988),5.
40 Ibid.
41 MichaelHiltonWhitworth, ‘PhysicsandtheLiteraryCommunity,1905–1939’ (DPhilthesis,StAnne’sCollege,Oxford,1994),27.
42 FriedmanandDonley, MythandMuse,96.
43 GillianBeer, ‘ScienceandLiterature’,inR.C.Olbyetal.(eds), CompaniontotheHistory ofModernScience (London:Routledge,1990),792.
WoolfandD.H.Lawrence.Thesewriters,althoughbynomeansalonein theiruseofandparallelswithcontemporaryscientificideas,provide particularlyinteresting,becausecomplex,examplesofthemodernist attitudetowardsscience.BothWoolfandLawrencehavetraditionally beenseenaspossessingnegativeviewsofscience,acriticalresponsewhich continuestoinfluencereaders’ approachestothesewritersdespitethefact that,overtheyears,therelationshipofeachwiththescienceoftheirday hascometobeseenasmorecomplicated.Recentstudieshaverecognized thedifferent,morepositiverolethatmodernsciences,andinparticular theso-called ‘newphysics’,playedforeachwriter;butmoreworkis neededhereinorderfullytointegratetheirresponsestocontemporary sciencewiththeirresponsestotheircontemporarycontextsmoregenerally considered.44 WoolfandLawrencebothreadaboutthedevelopments associatedwiththenewphysics,andbothseemtohaveassimilatedinto theirliteraryworkscertainideasfromtheirreading, findingthatthe directioninwhichsciencewasmovingduringthisperiodreflectedin somewaythedirectionoftheirownthoughts.Thusinselectingthesetwo writersweareabletoexploretwo figureswhowere,toacertainextentat least,opentonewscientificideasandwillingtoengagewiththem,but whoserelationshipswithscienceasawholeweremorecomplex,more problematic,andmoredifficulttodefine.
Thefollowinganalysisisdividedintothreeparts,eachofwhichdeals withonespecificideaapproachedthroughthefocalframeworkofoneof AlbertEinstein’s1905papersandinrelationtoatleastoneofmyfocal writers.However,WoolfandLawrencewillbeconsiderednotsimplyas passivereceiversofvariouschangesindiscourseandcontext,butratheras activeusersandtransformersof,aswellascontributorsto,particular contemporaryideas.AlthoughEinstein’sthree1905papersaredistinct andareconsideredseparatelyhere,theideaswhichtheyaddresshavebeen shownbyvarioushistoriansofsciencetocontain ‘overlappingthemes’ . 45 Allthree,accordingtoGeraldHolton, ‘aroseinfactfromthesamegeneral problem,namely,the fluctuationsinthepressureofradiation’ . 46 Similarly,theconceptsandtextsdiscussedinthethreepartsofthisstudycan
44 ChristinaAlt,forexample,haswrittenofWoolf ’sviewof ‘themodernsciences, economicentomologyincluded,aspotentiallytransformative,havingthecapacitytooverthrowthedogmatismofnotonlytheoldscientificorderbutalsoestablishedsocialconventionsandhierarchies’ : VirginiaWoolfandtheStudyofNature (Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress,2010),138.Aswewillsee,thesamecouldcertainlybesaidofLawrence.
45 ArthurI.Miller, AlbertEinstein’sSpecialTheoryofRelativity:Emergence(1905)andEarly Interpretation(1905–1911) (Reading,Mass.:Addison-Wesley,1981),137.
46 GeraldHolton, ThematicOriginsofScientificThought:KeplertoEinstein (rev.edn, Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1988),192.
beseentooverlap,andtheattentivereaderwill findthatcertainliterary quotationsappearinmorethanoneofitsparts.
PartIexploresWoolf ’swritingsinrelationtoEinstein’sfoundational workondualityandcomplementarity,emphasizingtheplaceofboth Woolf ’swritingsandEinstein’sworkwithinabroaderculturalmovement. ByfocusingcloselyonWoolf ’sconjunctions,Iarguethatshecanusefully beconsideredacomplementary,ratherthanadualistic,writer.PartII providesadetailedanalysisofLawrence’ssuggestionin Fantasiaofthe Unconscious that ‘weareinsadneedofatheoryofhumanrelativity’ (72), arguingfortherelevanceofsuchatheorytoLawrence’sextensivewritings aboutinterpersonalrelationships,boththosethatpre-date Fantasia and thosethatfollowit,viaclosescrutinyofhispronounsandsentencestructure inparticular.IalsoseekheretoestablishtheextentofEinstein’sinfluence onLawrence’srelativisticideasgivenLawrence’sengagementwith,and combinationof,bothscientificrelativityandphilosophicalrelativism. ThefocusonWoolfandLawrencerespectivelyinPartsIandIIisnot designedtoexcludeotherwritersautomatically,butrathertoprovideaclear focusfortheexplorationsofferedhere.Incontrast,PartIIItreatsboth authorstogetheralongsideanumberofothersignificantmodernistwriters, includingJosephConrad,T.S.Eliot,andJamesJoyce.PartIIIarguesfor therelevanceofEinstein’sworkonBrownianmotiontoearlytwentiethcenturydiscussionsoftherelationshipbetweentheindividualandthemass, consideringalsomolecularmovementmoregenerally,crowdpsychology, andmassurbanization.
InmyConclusion,Iconsideranumberofevaluativecriteriaand questionswhichhavebeenproposedbyvariousliteratureandscience scholars.WhileIdonotwishtopre-emptthatdiscussionhere,acomment onthestructureofthisstudyis,perhaps,desirable:asWhitworthhas asked, ‘Whyisyourpaperorbookstructuredasitis,andwhatfactors influenceditsstructure?’47 Eachofthepartswhichfollowsconsistsoftwo chapters,althoughIhavesoughtinPartsIandIItoavoidwhatHayleshas calledthe ‘characteristicpattern’ ofstudiesinliteratureandscience: ‘First somescientifictheoryorresultisexplained;thenparallelsaredrawn(or constructed)betweenitandliterarytexts;thentheauthorsaysineffect Q.E.D.,andthepaperis finished.’48 PartsIandIIarenot,then,divided intoonescientificandoneliterarychapter,asthisisapatternwhichtendsto prioritizescienceoverliteratureandtosuggestacaseofdirectinfluencefrom theformerontothelatter,aswellas,inWhitworth’swords, ‘distort[ing]
47 Whitworth, ‘PhysicsandtheLiteraryCommunity’,5.
48 Hayles, ‘ComplexDynamics’,19.
thehistoricalpatternofevents’ . 49 Instead,eachofmytwochaptersinthe firsttwopartsattemptsmoreofa ‘multidisciplinaryapproach’,asproposed byVargishandMook.50 PartsIandIIthuseachpivotaroundaspecific chronologicalmoment:PartIcentreson1925,theyearofthepublicationof LouisdeBroglie’sdoctoralthesisonwave-particleduality;andPartIIon 1921,theyearinwhichLawrenceread ‘asimplebookonEinstein’ s Relativity’ whilewriting Fantasia. 51 Thischronologicalsplitisdesignedto facilitateboththediscussionofandthedistinctionbetweendirectinfluence andwhatIhavebeencallingthediscourseofthemoment:byfocusing first ontheliterarytextsthatappeared before the firstpopularaccountsofthe scientificideasinquestion,andonlythenturningtotheliterarytextsthat appeared after thescientificideascouldfeasiblyhavebeenknownbythat particularauthor,theintentionistohighlightthoseaspectsoftheearlier literarytextswhichwouldbeascribedtoinfluenceiftheyappearedinlater texts,butwhichareinfactmorelikelytobeduetosomebroadercultural context,nomatterhowhardthatmaybetodefine.However,whilethis chronologicalsplitfacilitatestheexplorationofthedifferencebetweendirect influenceandculturalcontext,italsoimpliesamoredramaticchronological dividethanwasreallythecase.Myaimiscertainlynottoreplacethe traditionaldivideof1919withnewdivisionsin1925and1921,butrather tousethesedatestoemphasizethatthecriticalrelianceon1919hasbeen exaggerated.Meanwhile,PartIIIreturnstothe ‘characteristicpattern’ of scientificchapterfollowedbyliterarychapterbecausethescientificand psychologicalideasdiscussedherewere,forthemostpart,availablein popularformbeforeanyoftheliterarytextswerewritten,unlikethose ideasconsideredinthe firsttwoparts.
Onefurtherdifferencebetweenthisstudyandpreviousresearchinthis areaisworthhighlighting:unlikemanycriticsworkingonthelinks betweenthenewphysicsandmodernistliterature,Ihavechosentoread Einstein’spapersthemselvesaswellas,ratherthanjust,contemporary popularizationsthereof.Thismayseemover-zealous:Iamcertainlynot proposingthateitherWoolforLawrencereadthesepapers,noreventhat
49 Whitworth, ‘PhysicsandtheLiteraryCommunity’,5.
50 VargishandMook, InsideModernism,4.Thisstructureisdesignedtointegratethe scientificandliterarymaterialwhich,inthethesisversionofthismonograph,wasseparatedin partsIandIIusingathree-chapter ‘sandwich’ modelinwhichthescientificideasformedthe filling:RachelCrossland, ‘SharingtheMoment’sDiscourse:VirginiaWoolf,D.H.Lawrence andAlbertEinsteinintheEarlyTwentiethCentury’ (DPhilthesis,StJohn’sCollege,Oxford, 2010);onthesandwichmodel,see27–30.ItisworthnotingthatthestructureofVargishand Mook’ s InsideModernism itselfsuggestsamodelofinfluenceeventhough,aswehaveseen, theyrepeatedlyclaimthatsuchamodeldoesnotinterestthem:seetheircuriouslycircular argumentregardingtheplaceofrelativitywithintheirstudy(7).
51 LawrencetoS.S.Koteliansky,4June1921, Letters,iv,23.
