V
INTERTEXTUALITIES
Wharton, Hemingway, Ecclesiastes, and the Modernist Impulse
DUSTIN FAULSTICK
When Edith Whartonâs adviser at Scribnerâs, William Crary Brownell, tried to include an epigraph from Ecclesiastes at the beginning of Whartonâs 1905 novel The House of Mirth, the author responded by âdrawing an inexorable blue line through the textâ (Letters 94). Her fear, as she indicates in her letter to Brownell, was that she âmight surely be suspected of plagiarizing from Mrs. Margaret Sangsterâs beautiful volume, âFive Days with Godââ (94), a pious text devoted to religious duty. âSeriously,â she explained of her title borrowed from the biblical Ecclesiastes, âI think the title explains itself amply as the tale progressesâ (94). Ernest Hemingway does include an epigraph from Ecclesiastes to accompany his Ecclesiastes-titled 1926 novel The Sun Also Rises, but few readers of this Lost Generation novel full of drinking, sexuality, and bullfighting would accuse the young Hemingway of plagiarizing a pious religious text. A casual reader might consider any biblical reference as an indication of moralizing, but for readers familiar with Ecclesiastes, the book is less likely to convey this association. In fact, the interpretation history of Ecclesiastes includes endorsements from such notable skeptics as Voltaire, Volney, and Arthur Schopenhauer. John Franklin Genung, in his 1904 commentary on Ecclesiastes, claims, âOne never hears of the skeptics rejecting this book. It seems rather to warm and nourish themâ (Words of Koheleth 3). Likewise, Samuel Coxâs 1903 commentary acknowledges, âFrom Schopenhauer downward, this Book is constantly cited by them as if it confirmed the conclusion for which they contend, [Agnes] Taubert even going so far as to find âa catechism of pessimismâ in itâ (4â5).1
Beyond being the beloved scripture of the skeptics, Ecclesiastes enjoyed widespread popularity in the early twentieth century. Cox sees the book as primary among Christian readers as well: âfew books were, or are, more popular than the book Ecclesiastes. [. . .] Brief as the Book is, I am disposed to think it is better known among us than any other of the Old Testament Books except Genesis, the Psalter, and the prophecies of Isaiahâ (289). Genung sees the views of its main authorâthe Preacher, or Qoheleth2âas âeminently timelyâ (Words of Koheleth 159), and, in 1906, William Forbush calls Ecclesiastes âthe most modern book in the Bibleâ (3). In his 1919 commentary A Gentle Cynic, Morris Jastrow identifies the bookâs twofold appeal for early twentieth-century readers: âThe book is not only intensely human, it is also remarkably modern in its spiritâ (8).
Ecclesiastesâ modernity rests largely on its compatibility with contemporary science and philosophy. Darwin, Freud, and Nietzsche had recently established a climate at odds with much of the Bible, but markedly consistent with Ecclesiastes. Although most of the Bible claims a superior role for humans, Qoheleth agrees with Darwin and Freud that humans âthemselves are beastsâ (3:18). And while Ecclesiastes doesnât share Nietzscheâs proclamation of the death of God, it is largely compatible with that proclamation because it focuses less on Godâs imminence than does much of the Bible and concludes that life is foundationally meaningless. From the bookâs second verseââvanity of vanities; all is vanityâ (1:2)âQoheleth rejects inherent meaning. âVanityâ or the Hebrew hebel appears thirty-seven times in the book, and, in addition to the King James Versionâs translation of hebel as âvanity,â it also gives the sense of emptiness, uselessness, worthlessness, âephemerality,â âmeaninglessness,â and âabsurdityâ; most literally, in Hebrew hebel means âvapor or breathâ (W. Brown 21â22). The phrase âvanity of vanities, all is vanity,â is repeated, before a short epilogue, as Qohelethâs final observation in verse 12:8. By framing his narrative with vanity, Qoheleth acknowledges that all of his claims stem from and exist in a world of hebel, or meaninglessness.
Furthermore, by challenging the conventional Old Testament deed-consequence wisdom formula, Ecclesiastes privileges real-life experiences over abstract theological dogma. The book of Proverbs, for example, promises Godâs reward for good actions and punishment for bad ones. Ecclesiastes, however, recognizes that life doesnât work so predictably: sometimes âthere [are] just men, unto whom it happeneth according to the work of the wicked; [and] there [are] wicked men, to whom it happeneth according to the work of the righteousâ (8:14). Freely challenging the infallibility of traditional wisdom, Qoheleth concludes that the only thing we can know for certain about God is that God encourages people to eat, drink, and work well in a loving community: âGo thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works. [. . .] Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanityâ (9:7, 9). Although many Christian readers move away from this conclusion, almost all recognize the general outline of Ecclesiastes as expressed in Alan McNeileâs 1904 commentary: âSince the work of the Deity is inscrutable from beginning to end, and no one has any idea of what the future contains, or whether after this life there is any future for man at all, [. . . t]he only course open to him is to make the most of the presentâ (20). Featuring even this well-known carpe-diem phrasing, Paul Haupt, in 1894, states simply, âThe chief maxim of Ecclesiastes is: There is nothing better than to eat and drink and be merryâ (245; Hauptâs emphasis).
If Wharton hoped to avoid a pious allusion in her novelâs title, she chose wisely. And yet, as Hemingway would later do in The Sun Also Rises, she chose to title The House of Mirth after Ecclesiastes, whichâdespite its secular characteristicsâis still a canonized biblical book. Both Wharton and Hemingway were fascinated by religion, but wanted a more demanding, complex, and realistic experience than the religion offered to them in childhood. Wharton biographer Hermione Lee shows that Wharton adopted a position of âskeptical agnosticismâ but not one of atheism (62), and Larry Grimes charts what he calls âHemingwayâs peculiar religious odyssey. He does not turn to atheism when Protestantism fails him, [but instead] converts to Catholicism and continues to attend mass and say prayers until his deathâ (3). Wharton, too, developed an interest away from her inherited Protestantism and toward Catholicism. Lee reveals, âMany of Whartonâs friends supposed that she might be thinking of convertingâ (714). Although Wharton doesnât convert and Hemingwayâs multiple divorces complicate his Catholicism, both authorsâ lifelong religious journeys meaningfully influenced their literary imaginations. Carol Singley claims readers âcan no more separate [Whartonâs] religious and philosophical perspectives from her fiction than one can divorce T. S. Eliotâs Christianity from his poetryâ (xi). Similarly, Grimes sees Hemingwayâs own seeking after religion reflected in several of his protagonists, and H. R. Stoneback insists that Hemingwayâs Catholicism âis everywhere in his work, which is fundamentally religious and profoundly Catholic from the earliest good work to the lastâ (122).
Whartonâs and Hemingwayâs interest in Ecclesiastes and in Catholicism seems to have stemmed from a similar impulse, one especially relevant in light of Catholic Modernism. Before defining a literary or an aesthetic movement, modernism in the twentieth century referred to a liberal movement within the Catholic Church. Though they disliked the labelâin part because modernism was condemned in 1907...