Dualisms: The Agons of the Modern World. (2024)

DUALISMS: THE AGONS OF THE MODERN WORLD, Richard J. Quinones.Toronto and London: University Press, 2007. Pp. 451 + xvi. Cloth, npi.Reviewed by J. Harold Ellens.

Ricardo J. Quinones is the notable Professor of ComparativeLiterature Emeritus in the Department of English, and Director of theGould Center for Humanistic Studies at Claremont's McKenna College.He has previously given us Renaissance Discovery of Time, CambridgeUniversity Press, 1972; Dante Alighieri, Twayne, 1985; Mapping LiteraryModernism, Princeton University Press, 1985; Modernism: Challenges andPerspectives, University of Illinois Press, 1986; The Changes of Cain:Violence and the Lost Brother in Cain and Abel Literature, PrincetonUniversity Press, 1991; Foundation Sacrifice in Dante's Comedia,University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994; Dante Alighieri, UpdatedEdition, G. K. Hall, 1998; numerous professional journal articles; andsubstantial reviews.

Now he offers us, perhaps, the most profound of all his erudite publications, Dualisms: The Agons of the Modern World. This is a weightyvolume about the telling tensions in life and literature that describethe creative contrasts and persistent polarities pervasively present inevery aspect of existence. Agon means struggle, contest, playing to wina game, and Quinones declaims, as his jacket declares, "Dualism isa motif that runs through literature of all genres and historicalcontexts, inspiring argumentation at the highest level and showing theformation of ideas in association as a creative exchange. It arises withspecial pertinence in Western literature since the Renaissance andReformation." David M. Hertz of Indiana University observed that"This is the field of Comparative Literature as it should have beenall along, and hopefully as it could be in the future" (cover).

Quinones begins his book with a quote from Martin Luther's TheRighteousness of God, that warns us we are all either Esauites ofJacobites, and as one ideology triumphs, from its very heart will springup contesting notions; "thus always Cain or Abel, Esau orJacob." That aptly sets the theme and course for this remarkablevaluable volume. It has Preface, Introduction, five substantialchapters, and an Epilogue. The endpapers include a worthy index of 350entries, a sturdy bibliography of the 360 cited works, and 32 pages ofendnotes. The University of Toronto has packaged this fine volume in amost attractive and professional style. It is an absolutely lovely bookto see, hold, fondle, smell, read, and cherish! How did we do without itfor so long?

"Presenting a new typology with a distinctive paradigm ofdevelopment, Dualisms considers four different encounters from fourdifferent centuries: Erasmus and Luther, Voltaire and Rousseau, Turgenevand Dostoevsky, and Sartre and Camus. These four dualisms are importantfor what they are and what they represent; they are historicallyspecific, psychologically far-reaching, and quite dramatic. They standout as the major intellectual contests that create the modern era, theagons of our time" (Preface, ix). Quinones consciously inquiresinto "the nature and function of dualism at the highest level ofencounter between pre-eminent figures," hoping by this means toinitiate a new analysis of modern models for conceptualizing andinterpreting life and literature (Preface, x). He starts with Erasmusand Luther because they open the modern era and its context betweenradical Protestantism and humanistic philosophy. "It is practicallyinevitable that the clash between two such as Luther and Erasmus shouldhave occurred, the one requiring such totality of commitment in theexercise of conscience, and the other engaged in the play ofconsciousness upon the world's multiplicity--Matthew Arnold's'Hebraism' and 'Hellenism'" (Preface, xi).

To Quinones' pleasant surprise, it seems, the dualisms thatfollow and form the content of this book all adhere to the same patternsof tension, contrast, and mutuality as that of Erasmus and Luther.Consequently, "Dualisms has the capacity to universalize andintensify the terms of understanding, to bring such outstanding figuresinto a larger and ever ongoing, still-living intellectualconversation" (Preface, xi). Thus has Quinones defined the motiveand purpose, as well as set the structure and course of this weightywork. He gives an extended chapter to each of what he calls the"cross-rivalries": chapter 1, Erasmus and Luther: First andForemost, a Pattern Established (73 pages); chapter 2, Voltaire andRousseau: Never a Peace (88 pages); chapter 4, Turgenev and Dostoevsky:'What Is There in Common?' (89 pages); chapter 5, Sartre andCamus: 'Revolt Changes Camps' (102 pages). Chapter 3 is a19-page disquisition upon Passages of History: From Mundanity toPhilosophy.

In his first chapter (Introduction), Quinones follows Luther andErasmus through their life stories of struggle for authenticity, acclaimand freedom, controversy and quandary, demonstrating how the existenceof each gave meaning, purpose, identity, and, indeed, existence to theother. They stood against each other, they needed each other, they rosetogether, and fell together. It was the vital and fatal nature of theirdualism and the dualism of history and culture. Erasmus thought we couldchange the world by evolution, and Luther believed we could change theworld by revolution without losing a sense of balance. Depending uponthe cultural moment and the human travail of that moment, sometimesErasmus appeals to us and at other times Luther. If gas prices get muchhigher it will be Luther for a while. Americans are getting angry andimpatient.

Rousseau said he hated Voltaire, who was too much a clevergentleman to respond in the same blunt style. When Voltaire died on 30May 1778, Rousseau grieved. Asked why, he said that his life had beeninextricably entwined with Voltaire, whose Alzire had made him weepparoxysms of tears, and whose Lettres philosophiques shaped his"lifelong dedication to intellectual endeavor at the mostuncompromising level" (99). The dualism was unresolvable andundissolvable. Rousseau died five weeks after his former mentor andrival, so their commemorative dates are always celebrated together.

Their story lines, of course, differ, and Quinones teases both outcarefully as they intertwine and contrast with one another. Alzire andLettres philosophiques mark the high point of Voltaire's literaryprowess and cultural fame. Thereafter, decline! When Rousseau'sstar rose brilliantly in response to his enormous and worthy acclaim,upon producing his prize winning Discours, qui a remporte' le prixa' l'Academie de Dujon, (the first Discours), Voltairecomplained. He denigrated Rousseau's work as too antinomian andindividualistic in ethics and social values, a kind of egalitariananti-intellectualism. Voltaire crafted his response to Rousseau'sfirst and second discourses in a letter Quinones calls a "classicdefense of learning and culture against the appeals of ignorance"(p. 137). In the end, both Rousseau and Voltaire would have had less tosay, would have been far less profound in what they said, and would beunremembered today in the way we remember them, had it not been for thecross-rivalry--the definer of both their lives and work.

The same things can be said for Turgenev and Dostoevsky, on the onehand, and Camus and Sartre, on the other. The two Russians were friendswho rose to literary fame together, but whose sub-text was a strongantipathy toward each other. There followed careers for both in whichreconciliation and intellectual dissent, rise in fame and decline,continued to follow each other in repetitious cycles of rapture andrupture. Both recognized that great literature required great criticism,but each took the other's criticism as a wicked thrust into thevitals, and the other's fame as a danger to the self. WhileDostoevsky's work is remarkable self-revealing and philosophicallyreflective, Turgenev holds his cards close to his chest, focusing on theliteral unfolding of his dramatic prose and keeping the reader at thethird-person arms-length, so to speak.

The lives of these two Russians were as deep and mysterious as wefind their challenging, psychologizing literary works today. Quinonesobserves, "It is in the character of their writing that theirdifferences are told. Despite their different masks, they bear similarreflections, similar traits, and similar contests, as do theirpredecessors in the fields of dualisms. Turgenev's novels--slender,exquisite, meticulously observed and composed, and alwaysself-contained--did have broader repercussions in their day and createdstorms of controversy. But always there is ambivalence and finallyacquiescence, acquiescence to a sense of passingness, which whiledescriptive of his class is amplified in his own personal reflections.Despite his advocacy of civilization and its accomplishments, he fallsvictim to the nothingness to which allencompassing Nature seems to haveconsigned humankind. Transformative, generative, Dostoevsky's worksseem to exceed their bounds, as he follows to their end the thoughtsthat have pursued him. Rather than confined, he seems stretched betweenGod and the devil, as were Luther and Rousseau. He speaks urgently offirst days and final things. And yet he seems to take possession ofbeing, as if God ... would not commit him to nothingness. In thisenormous struggle, civilization's markers are too slender, toofragile. A faith and a commitment are required, and these twoperspectives constitute the story of the tensions experienced by thepsyche of the West" (p. 293).

The intense initial friendship between the older Sartre and theyounger Camus was almost psychologically incestuous, and that intimacywas ruptured over a book review. Sartre reviewed Camus'L'homme revolte' in the May 1952 issue of Les temps modernes.Camus had just come through the Algerian ordeal heroically and proposedsimilar violent revolution in France to establish a new world order.Sartre argued for an evolutionary approach to the establishment ofMarxism in France, a process he saw already well underway. Sartre fearedthat Camus' youthful anti-Stalinism would not only fail but wouldbe counterproductive, setting back or even destroying Sartre's hardwon political power and prestige in the post-WWII renovation of France.In the August issue the feud was brought to its most furious flames byCamus' defensive-aggressive attack on Sartre, Sartre'sresponse, and the brutal evaluation of both by Francis Jeanson.

The dualism between them boiled along for a decade, moving back andforth from feud to rapprochement and back again in agonizing cycle,while they shared lovers, exchanged lovers, repudiated lovers--and eachother. They wanted to love each other while they hated each other; theywanted to hate each other while they admired each other. The subtext wasthe story of the rise and fall of Marxist political theory in France. Inthe end, the drama twists around to the point that Camus argues formoderation and culture building, while Sartre sees his Marxist ambitionsfailing, the cause failing, and his fame in decline. In desperation heopts for violence and the destruction of the political and socialstructures of France in favor of some ill-defined utopian ideology henever seemed quite able to describe. Camus, always the pragmatist,defined his ideology in terms of a very practical morality and ethicswhich he sees as do-able down on the ground where the real action was.

Quinones closes his book profoundly by insisting that "Itbelongs to our situation that opposing voices should question thesprings of belief.... Against the fervent convictions may be set thederisions of scepticism, or the culture of mundanity. The ally of thesecounter forces is time, their tonic reduced expectations, a capacity toabide within the limits of human existence ... that enthusiasms areephemeral and ... fugitive.... these more modest sceptics are convincedthat when the dust settles a consolidation will take place and in thelength of historical time reasonableness will enjoy its own restoration(p. 398).

 Whatever their differences, the figures of a dualism represent the lived reality of mutual involvement. They represent in practice the intersubjectivity for which philosophers have sought to provide an intellectual foundation ... they all were determined to find the means to live their lives anew. In their entanglements they all espoused various versions of freedom. This is why they were at the forefront of debate in their times ... distinguished at their base from fascism or any radical fanaticism. This should remind us that above all what we finding genuine dualisms is a noble engagement .... They are guardians of culture or diagnosticians of its discontents, but across their squared-off antagonism a parity is achieved by means of differences as well as an uncommon clarification of what it is that divides them. By upholding their different manners of thinking true, in-depth and honest public debate takes place. Rational discussion is elevated by means of their intense and highly personalized grappling. This is surely the lesson Dualisms bears for our time" (p. 400).

Quinones appreciates Schiller for his interpretation of thedualisms of life as the tension between idealism and realism; Coleridgefor his understanding that dualisms arise out of philosophicalperspectives, and Carducci for his claim that the tensions of dualismare simply inherent to nature. Coleridge thought that true dualisms donot persist by virtue of influence or imitation but by genuine tensionsand force of thought within distinct and different historical epochs.They are lodged and find their beings in the issues of a particular timeand thus are truly nonimitative (p. 199).

There is virtually nothing to criticize in the content and style ofthis volume, about which it is impossible to express too much praise.Gillespie of Stanford says Quinones stands for depth and breadth andexcels himself in Dualisms, "a book that speaks eloquently andclearly to both the humanities and social sciences." CharlesJohnson of the University of Washington seconds the motion."Masterfully conceived and executed, Dualisms is a triumph ofcreative scholarship that restores integrity to the humanities, whichfor too long have been mired in mediocrity and diminished byideology.... Quinones brings insight and drama to the social andpersonal complexities of debate and discourse ... renews our hope forthe direction of humanist studies." Patrick Henry of WhitmanCollege summarizes, "Quinones stresses the importance of thedialogical and shows convincingly how antagonistic pairs form theintellectual struggle of their epoch, how the brutal confrontationbetween the authors involved allowed each to understand more fully thenature of their thought, and how the earlier dualisms remain alive andinfluence the next pair. This is intellectual history, philosophy,theology, and literary criticism at its finest" (cover).

Rodney L . Bassett, Editor