Análisis de los elementos disponibles en el suelo

Bakhtin, Mikhail. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin, ed. Michael Holquist, trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981.

Barton, Ruth. “Just before Nature: The Purposes of Science and the Purposes of

Popularisation in Some English Popular Science Journals of the 1860s,” Annals of Science 55 (1998), 1-33.

Baym, Nina. American Women of Letters and the Nineteenth-Century Sciences. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2002.

Bazerman, Charles. “Systems of Genres and the Enactment of Social Intentions,” in Genre and the New Rhetoric, ed. Aviva Freedman and Peter Medway. London: Taylor & Francis, 1994. 79-101.

Beer, Gillian. Darwin’s Plots: Evolutionary Narrative in Darwin, George Eliot and

Nineteenth-Century Fiction. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Bowler, Peter J. The Non-Darwinian Revolution: Reinterpreting a Historical Myth.

Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988.

Burke, Kenneth. Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966.

Coe, Richard, Lorelei Lingard, and Tatiana Teslenko. “Genre as Action, Strategy, and Difference: An Introduction,” in The Rhetoric and Ideology of Genre: Strategies for Stability and Change, ed. Richard Coe, Lorelei Lingard, and Tatiana Teslenko. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2002. 1-10.

Cohen, Monica. “From Home to Homeland: The Bohemian in Daniel Deronda.” Studies in the Novel 30.3 (1998), 324-54.

Cunningham, Anthony. The Heart of What Matters: The Role for Literature in Moral Philosophy. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001.

Dawson, Gowan. “The Cornhill Magazine and Shilling Monthlies in Mid-Victorian Britain,” in Science in the Nineteenth-Century Periodical: Reading the Magazine of Nature, ed. Geoffrey Cantor et al. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 123-50. ---, Richard Noakes, and Jonathan R. Topham. “Introduction” to Science in the Nineteenth-

Century Periodical: Reading the Magazine of Nature, ed. Geoffrey Cantor et al. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 1-35.

30

Evolution in the British Periodical Press, 1859-1872. Göteborg, Sweden: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1958.

Fahnestock, Jeanne. Rhetorical Figures in Science. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Foucault, Michel. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. Trans. and Ed. R. D. Laing. New York: Vintage Books, 1973.

Franklin, J. Jeffrey. “Memory as the Nexus of Identity, Empire, and Evolution in George Eliot’s Middlemarch and H. Rider Haggard’s She.” Cahiers Victoriens et

Edouardiens 53 (2001), 141-69.

Freedman, Aviva, and Peter Medway. “Locating Genre Studies: Antecedents and Prospects.” Genre and New Rhetoric, ed. Aviva Freedman and Peter Medway. London: Taylor & Francis, 1994. 1-22.

Gates, Barbara T. “Introduction: Why Victorian Natural History?” Victorian Literature and Culture 35 (2007), 539-49.

---. Kindred Nature: Victorian and Edwardian Women Embrace the Living World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.

--- and Anne B. Shteir, eds., Natural Eloquence: Women Reinscribe Science.Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1997.

Gliserman, Susan. “Early Victorian Science Writers and Tennyson’s In Memoriam: A Study in Cultural Exchange: Part I,” Victorian Studies 18.3 (1975), 277-308.

---. “Early Victorian Science Writers and Tennyson’s In Memoriam: A Study in Cultural Exchange: Part II,” Victorian Studies 18.3 (1975), 437-59.

Graver, Suzanne. George Eliot and Community: A Study in Social Theory and Fictional Form. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.

Green, Melanie C., and Timothy C. Brock, “The Role of Transportation in the Persuasiveness of Public Narratives,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79 (2000), 701- 21.

Gross, Alan G. “The Origin of Species: Evolutionary Taxonomy as an Example of the Rhetoric of Science.” in The Rhetorical Turn: Invention and Persuasion in the Conduct of Inquiry, ed. Herbert W. Simons. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990. 91-115.

Harris, Randy A. Introduction to Landmark Essays in the Rhetoric of Science, ed. Randy A. Harris. Mahwah, NJ: Hermagoras Press, 1997. xi-xlv.

31

Henson, Louise. “History, Science and Social Change: Elizabeth Gaskell’s ‘Evolutionary’ Narratives.” Gaskell Society Journal 17 (2003), 12-33.

Herrick, James A. The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction. Boston: Pearson, 2009.

Holquist, Michael. Introduction to The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981. xv-xxxiii.

Knapp, Peter. “Disembodied Voices: The Problem of Context and Form in Theories of Genre,” in The Rhetoric and Ideology of Genre: Strategies for Stability and Change, ed. Richard Coe, Lorelei Lingard, and Tatiana Teslenko. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2002. 275-96.

Kucich, John. “Scientific Ascendancy,” in A Companion to the Victorian Novel, ed. Patrick Brantlinger and William B. Thesing. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002. 119-36.

Levine, George. Darwin and the Novelists: Patterns of Science in Victorian Fiction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988.

---. Dying to Know: Scientific Epistemology and Narrative in Victorian England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002.

---. Realism, Ethics and Secularism: Essays on Victorian Literature and Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Livingstone, Paisley. Literary Knowledge: Humanistic Inquiry and the Philosophy of Science. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988.

Lyne, John. “Rhetoric and Scientific Communities,” in Rhetoric and Community: Studies in Unity and Fragmentation, ed. Michael J. Hogan. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1998. 272-73.

Medway, Peter. “Fuzzy Genres and Community Identities: The Case of Architecture Students’ Sketchbooks,” in The Rhetoric and Ideology of Genre: Strategies for Stability and Change, ed. Richard Coe, Lorelei Lingard, and Tatiana Teslenko. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2002. 123-53.

Miller, Carolyn R. “Genre as Social Action.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 70 (1984), 151-67. Neely, Katherine A. “Woman as Mediatrix: Women as Writers on Science and Technology

in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries.” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 35.4 (1992), 208-16.

32

Phillips, Patricia. The Scientific Lady: A Social History of Woman's Scientific Interests. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990.

Prelli, Lawrence J. “The Rhetorical Construction of the Scientific Ethos.” Landmark Essays in the Rhetoric of Science, ed. Randy A. Harris. Mahwah, NJ: Hermagoras Press, 1997. 87-106.

Russell, David R. “The Kind-ness of Genre: An Activity Theory Analysis of High School Teachers’ Perception of Genre in Portfolio Assessment across the Curriculum,” in The Rhetoric and Ideology of Genre: Strategies for Stability and Change, ed. Richard Coe, Lorelei Lingard, and Tatiana Teslenko. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2002. 225- 42.

Schryer, Catherine F. “Genre and Power: A Chronotopic Analysis,” in The Rhetoric and Ideology of Genre: Strategies for Stability and Change, ed. Richard Coe, Lorelei Lingard, and Tatiana Teslenko. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2002. 73-102.

Shattock, Joanne and Michael Wolff, eds. The Victorian Periodical Press: Samplings and Soundings. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982.

Sheffield, Suzanne Le-May. Revealing New Worlds: Three Victorian Women Naturalists. New York: Routledge, 2001.

Shuttleworth, Sally. George Eliot and Nineteenth-Century Science: The Make-Believe of a Beginning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Stevenson, Lionel. Darwin among the Poets. New York: Russell & Russell, 1932.

Teggart, Frederick J. Theory and Processes of History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1941.

Watts, Ruth. Women in Science: A Social and Cultural History. New York: Routledge, 2007. White, Hayden. The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical

Representation. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987.

Wilson, Leonard G. “Science by Candlelight,” in The Mind and Art of Victorian England, ed. Josef L. Altholz. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1976. 94-106.

Wynne, Deborah. The Sensation Novel and the Victorian Family Magazine. New York: Palgrave, 2001.

33

Communicative Interaction,” in The Rhetoric and Ideology of Genre: Strategies for Stability and Change, ed. Richard Coe, Lorelei Lingard, and Tatiana Teslenko. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2002. 103-21.

Yeo, Richard. Science in the Public Sphere: Natural Knowledge in British Culture 1800- 1860. Aldershot, VT: Ashgate, 2001.

Young, Robert M. “Natural Theology, Victorian Periodicals, and the Fragmentation of a Common Context,” in Darwin’s Metaphor: Nature’s Place in Victorian Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. 126-63.

Zappen, James P. “Scientific Rhetoric in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries: Herbert Spencer, Thomas H. Huxley, and John Dewey,” in Textual Dynamics of the Professions: Historical and Contemporary Studies of Writing in Professional Communities, ed. Charles Bazerman and James Paradis. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991. 145-67.

Zimmerman, Virginia. Excavating Victorians. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2008.

Chapter 1:

“Shifting the Center: Mary Shelley’s Cuvierian Revolutions in Nature and Time”

One of the most prominent scientific paradigms of the early nineteenth century was formulated by Georges Cuvier. Cuvier is often at best a footnote in modern histories of biology, but he first established numerous profoundly influential theories: that species go extinct, that fossils are a valid way to study previous lifeforms, that various parts of an organism are correlated, that animals are fitted to their ecological niches, and that geological time is not consistent with human time, and in fact occasionally consists of violent breaks with previously steady states. He brought enormous prestige to the European scientific endeavor and in many ways founded the field of paleontology. Cuvier’s ideas radically affected cultural views, but such influence is rarely traced in any depth, particularly in literary studies. This chapter undertakes an examination of the topoi, or common rhetorical themes or lines of argument, that Cuvier either initiated or popularized through his Discours préliminaire (1812) and British Romantic writers’ conversations about and developments of such topoi, focusing on Mary Shelley’s third novel, The Last Man (1826). Although Lord Byron’s Cain has probably been discussed in relationship to Cuvier’s ideas more than any other piece of British literature, as I argue, Mary Shelley’s The Last Man is in fact the most extended and nuanced treatment of the most popular geological theory in British

35

In The Last Man, Shelley uses many of Cuvier’s topoi—such as fragmentary evidence, disaster, anti-anthropocentricism, and the contrast between human and global time—as heuristics: she fictionalizes these topoi to interrogate their validity and to apply them to new contexts. But Shelley also tackles issues that Cuvier avoids in his Discours; she applies her insights to human culture and to the future, whereas Cuvier looks at the natural world and the past. In the Discours, Cuvier discusses competing geological systems and uses comparative historiography to date the most recent natural revolution, avoiding

considerations of how his ideas might apply to broader cultural concerns. In The Last Man, Mary Shelley devotes quite a bit of time to considering what a Cuvierian natural revolution would mean for the individual human psyche as well as for communities and societies.

Mary Shelley’s project of considering the implications of Cuvier’s topoi for

contemporaneous British society is underscored by her narrative structure in The Last Man, as she layers time periods upon one another—the narrative is presented as a nineteenth- century translation of a rediscovered ancient Greek text about a late twenty-first century series of events—casting the novel in the mode of prolepsis. Prolepsis is a rhetorical figure of anticipation, even of speculation.81 That is, Shelley represents a future state as though it has already come to pass through Lionel’s narrative, though of course no pandemic or geological revolution threatening the species with extinction has in fact occurred.82 Shelley clearly invokes Cuvier’s model for history—steady states interrupted unexpectedly by violent

upheavals—showing that until catastrophe strikes, social problems (including class, race, and nationalistic conflicts) as well as human nature (particularly male and female types and

81 _{Bradshaw, 169.}

36

relationship dynamics) do not change in any significant way.83 Shelley seems here to ponder the purpose of Cuvier’s studies of the past: they fail to provide insight into the present and the future, and so, breaking with the antiquarian model for knowledge building that Cuvier proposes for himself, she instead proposes a more relativistic and personal—even if

objectively flawed—literary approach to understanding civilization.84