Dualisms: The Agons of the Modern World.

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 Comparative Literature Emeritus in the Department of English, and Director of the Gould Center for Humanistic Studies at Claremont's McKenna College. He has previously given us Renaissance Discovery of Time, Cambridge University Press, 1972; Dante Alighieri, Twayne, 1985; Mapping Literary Modernism, Princeton University Press, 1985; Modernism: Challenges and Perspectives, University of Illinois Press, 1986; The Changes of Cain: Violence and the Lost Brother in Cain and Abel Literature, Princeton University Press, 1991; Foundation Sacrifice in Dante's Comedia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994; Dante Alighieri, Updated Edition, G. K. Hall, 1998; numerous professional journal articles; and substantial reviews.

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

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

"Presenting a new typology with a distinctive paradigm of development, Dualisms considers four different encounters from four different centuries: Erasmus and Luther, Voltaire and Rousseau, Turgenev and Dostoevsky, and Sartre and Camus. These four dualisms are important for what they are and what they represent; they are historically specific, psychologically far-reaching, and quite dramatic. They stand out as the major intellectual contests that create the modern era, the agons of our time" (Preface, ix). Quinones consciously inquires into "the nature and function of dualism at the highest level of encounter between pre-eminent figures," hoping by this means to initiate a new analysis of modern models for conceptualizing and interpreting life and literature (Preface, x). He starts with Erasmus and Luther because they open the modern era and its context between radical Protestantism and humanistic philosophy. "It is practically inevitable that the clash between two such as Luther and Erasmus should have occurred, the one requiring such totality of commitment in the exercise of conscience, and the other engaged in the play of consciousness upon the world's multiplicity--Matthew Arnold's 'Hebraism' and 'Hellenism'" (Preface, xi).

To Quinones' pleasant surprise, it seems, the dualisms that follow and form the content of this book all adhere to the same patterns of tension, contrast, and mutuality as that of Erasmus and Luther. Consequently, "Dualisms has the capacity to universalize and intensify the terms of understanding, to bring such outstanding figures into a larger and ever ongoing, still-living intellectual conversation" (Preface, xi). Thus has Quinones defined the motive and purpose, as well as set the structure and course of this weighty work. He gives an extended chapter to each of what he calls the "cross-rivalries": chapter 1, Erasmus and Luther: First and Foremost, a Pattern Established (73 pages); chapter 2, Voltaire and Rousseau: Never a Peace (88 pages); chapter 4, Turgenev and Dostoevsky: 'What Is There in Common?' (89 pages); chapter 5, Sartre and Camus: 'Revolt Changes Camps' (102 pages). Chapter 3 is a 19-page disquisition upon Passages of History: From Mundanity to Philosophy.

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

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

Their story lines, of course, differ, and Quinones teases both out carefully as they intertwine and contrast with one another. Alzire and Lettres philosophiques mark the high point of Voltaire's literary prowess and cultural fame. Thereafter, decline! When Rousseau's star rose brilliantly in response to his enormous and worthy acclaim, upon producing his prize winning Discours, qui a remporte' le prix a' l'Academie de Dujon, (the first Discours), Voltaire complained. He denigrated Rousseau's work as too antinomian and individualistic in ethics and social values, a kind of egalitarian anti-intellectualism. Voltaire crafted his response to Rousseau's first and second discourses in a letter Quinones calls a "classic defense of learning and culture against the appeals of ignorance" (p. 137). In the end, both Rousseau and Voltaire would have had less to say, would have been far less profound in what they said, and would be unremembered today in the way we remember them, had it not been for the cross-rivalry--the definer of both their lives and work.

The same things can be said for Turgenev and Dostoevsky, on the one hand, and Camus and Sartre, on the other. The two Russians were friends who rose to literary fame together, but whose sub-text was a strong antipathy toward each other. There followed careers for both in which reconciliation and intellectual dissent, rise in fame and decline, continued to follow each other in repetitious cycles of rapture and rupture. Both recognized that great literature required great criticism, but each took the other's criticism as a wicked thrust into the vitals, and the other's fame as a danger to the self. While Dostoevsky's work is remarkable self-revealing and philosophically reflective, Turgenev holds his cards close to his chest, focusing on the literal unfolding of his dramatic prose and keeping the reader at the third-person arms-length, so to speak.

The lives of these two Russians were as deep and mysterious as we find their challenging, psychologizing literary works today. Quinones observes, "It is in the character of their writing that their differences are told. Despite their different masks, they bear similar reflections, similar traits, and similar contests, as do their predecessors in the fields of dualisms. Turgenev's novels--slender, exquisite, meticulously observed and composed, and always self-contained--did have broader repercussions in their day and created storms of controversy. But always there is ambivalence and finally acquiescence, acquiescence to a sense of passingness, which while descriptive of his class is amplified in his own personal reflections. Despite his advocacy of civilization and its accomplishments, he falls victim to the nothingness to which allencompassing Nature seems to have consigned humankind. Transformative, generative, Dostoevsky's works seem to exceed their bounds, as he follows to their end the thoughts that have pursued him. Rather than confined, he seems stretched between God and the devil, as were Luther and Rousseau. He speaks urgently of first days and final things. And yet he seems to take possession of being, as if God ... would not commit him to nothingness. In this enormous struggle, civilization's markers are too slender, too fragile. A faith and a commitment are required, and these two perspectives constitute the story of the tensions experienced by the psyche of the West" (p. 293).

The intense initial friendship between the older Sartre and the younger Camus was almost psychologically incestuous, and that intimacy was 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 proposed similar violent revolution in France to establish a new world order. Sartre argued for an evolutionary approach to the establishment of Marxism in France, a process he saw already well underway. Sartre feared that Camus' youthful anti-Stalinism would not only fail but would be counterproductive, setting back or even destroying Sartre's hard won political power and prestige in the post-WWII renovation of France. In the August issue the feud was brought to its most furious flames by Camus' defensive-aggressive attack on Sartre, Sartre's response, and the brutal evaluation of both by Francis Jeanson.

The dualism between them boiled along for a decade, moving back and forth from feud to rapprochement and back again in agonizing cycle, while they shared lovers, exchanged lovers, repudiated lovers--and each other. They wanted to love each other while they hated each other; they wanted to hate each other while they admired each other. The subtext was the story of the rise and fall of Marxist political theory in France. In the end, the drama twists around to the point that Camus argues for moderation and culture building, while Sartre sees his Marxist ambitions failing, the cause failing, and his fame in decline. In desperation he opts for violence and the destruction of the political and social structures of France in favor of some ill-defined utopian ideology he never seemed quite able to describe. Camus, always the pragmatist, defined his ideology in terms of a very practical morality and ethics which he sees as do-able down on the ground where the real action was.

Quinones closes his book profoundly by insisting that "It belongs to our situation that opposing voices should question the springs of belief.... Against the fervent convictions may be set the derisions of scepticism, or the culture of mundanity. The ally of these counter forces is time, their tonic reduced expectations, a capacity to abide within the limits of human existence ... that enthusiasms are ephemeral and ... fugitive.... these more modest sceptics are convinced that when the dust settles a consolidation will take place and in the length 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 the dualisms of life as the tension between idealism and realism; Coleridge for his understanding that dualisms arise out of philosophical perspectives, and Carducci for his claim that the tensions of dualism are simply inherent to nature. Coleridge thought that true dualisms do not persist by virtue of influence or imitation but by genuine tensions and force of thought within distinct and different historical epochs. They are lodged and find their beings in the issues of a particular time and thus are truly nonimitative (p. 199).

There is virtually nothing to criticize in the content and style of this volume, about which it is impossible to express too much praise. Gillespie of Stanford says Quinones stands for depth and breadth and excels himself in Dualisms, "a book that speaks eloquently and clearly to both the humanities and social sciences." Charles Johnson of the University of Washington seconds the motion. "Masterfully conceived and executed, Dualisms is a triumph of creative scholarship that restores integrity to the humanities, which for too long have been mired in mediocrity and diminished by ideology.... Quinones brings insight and drama to the social and personal complexities of debate and discourse ... renews our hope for the direction of humanist studies." Patrick Henry of Whitman College summarizes, "Quinones stresses the importance of the dialogical and shows convincingly how antagonistic pairs form the intellectual struggle of their epoch, how the brutal confrontation between the authors involved allowed each to understand more fully the nature of their thought, and how the earlier dualisms remain alive and influence the next pair. This is intellectual history, philosophy, theology, and literary criticism at its finest" (cover).

Rodney L . Bassett, Editor