ut ¿^ v"tzrÅo)c tJ t*Lr -,,tc\ l, -, 1-. , tt t^.f- , ) ltëtFt- ">(.,v)4, e I. la4Y

11"",*"-,^_ "- LJúl , Ny: 2¿\o

Chapter Fifteen

"Men completely wild ináppearanceand way of life:

F3yr, Satyrs, Androgynes, Ichtyophages,Hippopodes, Sciopodes, HimantþoAä,'

[and] Cyclopes,,'

Vanita Seth

In 1533, Charles V ofìSpaìn was informed ofthe imminent ar¡ival at the ports oflilj^'ll:l an<r Laredo,ìf sixty srrips *..yi"s il"'i.iääï'i,i:i;""Jvatradorid \yas in the ti*o", orl*"itiã ;ü;'"ì,ï#i;#ï ;::"ì;li.lilXäthat the crew of one of the shins was ,e"king out ..", ii

".d"r'ï"' ,"pf""irf,:l:::1li^Tllt.p.pulation. rhe much u"un,.a"*ã *ia-"i o"iìi"ìr"ä ^rr,""r "ri|:ìff äií:tii i',äfi Ì'."Ti"ìf,T;I"".^{::::h:::,:":r,ií.i.* *,'o^for the rown itserf. wiih its DoDuìalion il;s;;;;;;;iiiii.",'r0."0,",L';Iå,* ?:':".:r"[.1t;,:i::l-1":r,""0 ¡"¿ei"e, ,.,."¡"i'i,".,"älä, n.,*¡o.Ii:1,1,1!: ft." of meas.,,egàtábles,

""¿ lãäei"Ë, ;;#;ã^#"ää;Jt)::r,f ::*ly;tj,"_¡1,i1",9"i..0ía,;""r'-i,;':-n;iË;ä,'ffi i;ï'"iJ,:"-iïj::entJy lle high hoqes tuerred by ,r-'" pi".p..t'ãiä";;;ä;ïi:i,r, *.r.bitterly disappointed.2

The Amazons, of course. have a.classical lineage but they are in fact amongthe, less _remarkable characie¡s that we encounter in Herodotus, H¡s¡¿¡ip,cHistories.l{e{, trre -.i."1 y;iil ;õ;; ö;#;':ii"i,,':anthropomorphic nature,and human-animal .þybrids. H*i"ã;, e"î""j"Jy ;i;:"ï;,ï:'i::::,äï1.;

388 "Men completely wild in appearance arìd way oflife"Cyclops;3 Homer recounts the activities of giants, siiens, and àisgruntled godsfand Herodotus makes mention of serpents, one-eyed men, troglodytes, and dog-faced men.t But the significance of these non-human beings resides not only inthe fact that they existed, but that they were often identified as agents whosevafious actions complicated or enabled human endeavors. Odysseus' longjoumey back to his native Ithaca is frustrated by the vengeful wrath of Poseidonbut also aided, at crucial moments, by the powerful patronage of Athena. It isnon-humans again---+entaurs to be precise-that rudely disrupt King Peirithous'wedding by their drunken sexual'antics.ó We have Apollo to thank for Orestes'dra¡iratic ¡escue,7 and when attempting unsuccessfrtlly to kindle Pafoclus'.funeral pyre, it is the North and West Wind that respond to Achilles' prayers.8

Similar stories abound in classic and pre-modern texts a¡d are often repro.duced in the works of contemporary scholars, though usually followed byremonstrations at the ignoÌance of a bygone age. In my own retelling of theactivities of the amazons, gods, and monsters, I have been conscientiouslycautious to avoid the language of "belief," "imagination," "mythology;""superstition," and "fable." My câution lies not in any desire to persuade themodem reader of the existence of Amazons, nor do I seek to recuperate th€voice of the subaltem. Rather, I seek in this essay to contribute to the conten-tious scholarly debate conceming the historicity of race by exploring what itmeant for Ancient, Medieval, and Renaissance conceptions of difference whenpre-modem Europeans included among their ranks a vast aÌray ofnon-human otsemi-human actors. What is to be gained in our historical unde¡standing of raceif we resist the Weberian move to read the existence of gods, spir¡ti, nymphs,and mermaids as mythical figures projected upon the world by the humanimagination? What if we recognize such beings as actors that informed,engaged, obstructed, frustrated, and enabled th€ actions of Ancient, Medieval,and Renaissance men and women-loes this permit us to approach the historyof difference differently?

While my stated objective is to trace the history of race+hinking, the fact isthat any dìrect discussion of racial discourse figures only in the final section ofthis paper for it is my argument that race thinking cannot be detached from itsnineteenth-century epistemic moorings. Racial logic, I argue, relied upon the'confluence of three interrelated presumptions: that man was the soleprivileged bearer of knowledge and agency; that the body was aimmutable object; and that this object was knowable, translatable, andfor repÌesentation. lt is precisely the absence of this integrated logicprecìuded the possibility of race thinking in ancient and pre-modem thought.

To write a history of absence does not necessarily involve a history ofnegation. Rather, it involves acknowledging the existence and machinationscountless non-human and semi-human beings who lived among, andcated the lives of, the men and women of Ancient, Medieval, and

lerulness, and lust of the eods ai" . -"'-" qJ vvc¡r¡u¡s,' tne lealousiesing more than rh;;riljä'"iiinterpreted. bv contemporary ;holu;;;supematural, uman weaknesses onto the superhtlman

Vanitå Seú

._=---.-----*Ec

389

::ïiî"åit;Tlii"'i"*llp".:l::.:L.:ugh this means obrises us ro rocare rheracial body within a much i.*¿,- *'"'"" r¡¡rs rl¡cans obllAes us to locate thesuoJectrv¡ty, knowl"¿n","r,"- ^-j^ìet

ol,concems that speak to questions of*r,ïi:Y;"i:y:::c.,""d-.:h-"*;"'r";il,:ìää,i:i"ti__.- -.¡!v¡v¡i¡vo¡ ùrilLus of thê fì^¡t,¡ ¡rù påper ls organized into three s.cy and rntentionali ttr Aî.^"Å^,1-^- lt-l',o* The first section emphasizes theïi:åi#iiix,î*#x.:t:,*;í{*:l#JJïJï:,Tl,iä,j¡ii:ìJj;Medieval, un¿ n nai.raí"e Ëî-* ,¡:u1¡ul¡ra¡r acrors ¡n rhe worlds of Ancienr,

wrnrngs orMichet De ce,-tu,,, v"l' ,1,1:.^t::11d.:*ti"" theorizes, through rhewritings of Michel D. curt""u ùi' .r ¡¡ç Jcçuo(¡ sectlon theorizes. through thetions to our undersr;ñ;ä;lÏ l-"^lli: îld Manin Heidesser, the im-plica-when we confront *ôrli"_..,i?"- l-ïowredge, and rhe body that might fällowwhen. we confront wo¿ãs *¡ir"l'""v'¡vuóc' ¿I¡(¡ rne þody that miqht followKno\rytedge and source ôr v^ri+i^-':llÌ *j privileged as the soleiearer ofS::i:Xl;"ti ::*::1":::{ rilì,:i il'ï'if; :.,ff "ii:.:,l* ïïî,i;reference to the nineteenth ;;;il .,,,",,r, ll rs ¡n rne t¡lird sedion and witheplstemrc condition, r¡r, "."u,-r- "lh1t..l

tum.to the question of race and rheepistemic conditionr tlrar-.n-aijäi'. "¡cL r rurlr ro rne question of r¿ce ancl thewrr¡ a world DonrtårÞ.t u,, -^-ll, articulation, Thus, this paper concludesili:i,,1,Jï'*i:î"ú;;;"ä;ijüö'"ilii,'$ä;iiT-:'éxfl ,:i"ï''"'"îDravidian. tt urgãn'rro*"u.., í.rvç)-rvrungolold' ¡¡egroid' caucasian, andrr rs ro them as weI as orhêr wir,r il.liT:lllrj.,,p*"d anivat of Amazons, andit.is to them as well as

"ilr;; ;iì;,.," .,,",,,-¿r¡r¡crpared anivat ofAma¿6¡5, ¿¡¿

wtse_that I now wieh t^ t,,_ and wonderful creatures_human and othe¡-w¡se-that I now wish to tum.

Monsters, Miracles, and Men' The faburous creatures that roamed. Ancient, Medievar, and Renaissance textsäli:,:å*ü.: #åffîd ff'ü,;îiy:, ;n ur" -*o*. o-i.änä,l'oiö,"r,"r,,,.

;,îTï,ï;ff :iü *tfu :*i:tii,T:fii.füif,,,!:T"lî"".,'"""ffi ilgwitches, and *.i"rii."ô¡r¡r'i"i' "lls- 'lcluded within ^its

¡anks tailed humans,

ffi rur,.i*;gt j;¡';*i:,::"*!"',ifJiîì:ï'î,.-,ï:îi"n*fl:justifies the ";r"";t;;;" #;';"it -e9uivalent

whereas Richa¡d Bemheimerrerenins to b",h ih;';i;r"i;Tä# Itl"l"n"-to the Latin si/va (wild), thus

U},il'*.nx'*'ffi il:f :ilii'",iÏ.äL',ïî'i.}""'iilî*"y'f+:*";f lÈil.,""f :r"åiiííí:i:[T"tï"îi"'li1.xi1,*'"0.,*¡.drawn tó this ngr.Ë àïiñ. ïrrî¡Tusron'

contemporary scholars have been

çÏi'i¡i,:':',îînffi ti,;i"*g,"",','#ï[{ä*i:,ffi ;î,l":}åi

'*:ä.rt"r'i*{";":1;*+¡""*ru*.;;:l#*ilft "t}.tir

39O "Men completely wild in appearance and way oflife',Such modem efforts ro account for human ,.irrationality,, th.rough appeal tosecrlar reason are not confined to the studies of the distantiasi. inåeed, to be acard-carrying member of modemity demands rejectiirg'ãr'

'i'.riion.t unyattrjbution of agency to non-human aitors. It is ttris missiõnary ,"uì ofrno¿.unity that has received sustaincd criticism from poscoloniaiihËoiisis who have

1"1.:e-.1 lT efforts of conremporary postcoionial elites to excise the godstrom.the explanatory tropes offered by their own subaltem classes. Indeedl theSubaltem Studios Collective embarkeã on a project some twenry-nul yuu., ugo19 "t"uj".u

space within modern historical nanatives for the conceptuai vocabir-lary of the subaltem-a vocabulary that often evokes the goãs ãs-.ources ofinspiration,. including in those incidents of rebellion again-st feuãal lords orcolonial .administrators. As Gyan prakash, one of the-editors of SuboltrrnSlud¡es, has argued, the purpose of such an exercise was to retrieve subaltemaccounts of their own agency from under the weight of such .,rationâlist,

lxPlanatory jarllr]ves as thar provided by Marxist, nationalist, or colonialdrscourse.'' Shahid Amin's work on the 1922 Chauri Chaura upriiing in NorthIndia is a case.. in point. Efforts to account for why residents oi Ctlairi C¡auralTi.l""li* rwenry-rhree policemen varied depending on the politilal sympa.thìes-ot the colonial and indigenous elite. yet, while argumónts raged as'towhether the sorrce of the instigation lay with class oppr.rion, orientãl d.rpot_ism, or anti-coloniar nationalist fervor, át reast one ofitr" u."ountr-tt at offe¡edby the villagers themselves who maintained that their actions were inspired bydivíne visions and promises of a future utopia-were summarilv iismissed asthe supeÌstit¡ous ranting ofan uneducated peàsantry.t6

Efforts to retrieve the explanatory nanatives óf subaltem actors have takenon a tÙrther tum in the work of Dipesh Chakrabarty (also an editor of theSubaltern .Studies series). It is Chakrãbarty,s contention, as articuì;ted in hisP.rovin.cializing Europe, that in attempting to account for túe gods in reference toth€ subaltem, the human subject continues to remain pivoäl to the nanativewhen, in fact, in the subaltems'own costnology, the'gods themselves haveagency. [n other words, while well-meaning in hér effons to recognize the godsas. a_feature of the peasant cosmology, the postcolonial scholar- inadvertãntlyprivileges the human subject from whose imagination the gods are said toemanate. And yet in a number of subaltem nanatives it is, after all, the gods thatincite them to rebel-the gods are not simply a feature oîpeasant consciousnessand. actionithey inform, motivate, limiq þrohibit, and màdiate human agency.Gods, in other words, are no less protagonists in the world of men than thehuman subjects they gòvern.r7

Whereas _Chakabarty seeks to introduce gods into modem historical dis:courses that have only ever permitted human actors, Timothy Mitcheìl hassoùght to incorporate nature as an active principle. Mitchell nanæes what wouldôtherwise be a familiar history-that of Égypt's invásion by Cerman and Italian

Vanita Serh 391

forces-fiom the radically different perspective of a distinctly non-humanforce-rhe parasitic Anoihete" go.^lbio"' ,n;.;"i,;. -Fil"ìtå beginning.yj::*'lj;;:",:.îj",J.*,"- i::lo** t^r" *it¡ìi'*r,i"r, ìiî nurnun,,u¡..,,,

¡!,"1öiïii "ffijä:üåf.ii,åiii"iï,iä,i,i îåi;,il,iïif ïi¿;aî:nected th-rough, the invasion of the parasitic mïsquito. rr," 'ru.."r.'är ,ni, non.human. invasion reried upon chemicalry ***,j;;;;; ;;irjuåìiä" r.,,.*.,that allowed greater opportunitio r"i tt. n rq"üîî't.iä.i'i**_o .iextensive man-made rransDort svsrems perminea it to travJ;;;;;"; orhenyiseimpossible and gave it u.i"r, tä huran, already weakened by'iãoJ snortages.Nature, in Mirchen's accounr, is ""t .iriiv-å äil;#;;#rcrion tharcontributes or inhibits human áøency,. it. ir.i i** i" i,r.itïn -lniJgrar pu.r ofthis. srory. And it is this ,,o iut tuiit.t"lt ,".t, to'¡r",. ¡nio"iiïuuaito"ullogic ofthe social sciences.r8

The significance ofthis scholarship lies in its efforts to question and dìsruptthe presumed centrality of the human subject as rf,. fo"u.'oi ug"niy and thebearer of truth. rnspired bv such efforts, r.';irüt".irì"ãìäi¡iuiT"it *orr¿ oigods and human-hybrids rheir rishtfut ¡tace ", ;;;;;;;;-;;dir.i"r. *ere.oin the world ofmen. I do so, ho;ever, not in order to,.retrieve,, lost voices froma distant past, bur in the hopes of demonstrrtiru ti"t " ïãrr¿ "iîåì..,"^ ,"0gods.could not accommodate a worrd of ,"".r] Áoå lr ì-ri ,i*iil *"* "correlation betw-eeÌ the presence of-monsters and the absence of race, then thisrs suggestive of the fact that anv þi5¡sry of *.i"i tñinïi"g ¡r, ,jr" a U. "history of Man, a history of Man á, suu.¡"* *iü, ii,ì."""öäNgi,ir, .r,¡.body as object.

Thus, when confronted with the bewildering anay of gods, human hybrids,and anthropomorphìc narure rhat co_exisred in tïe *;ld-o?ì;; a'icËnt creeks,we.must acknowledge h{o unse*ling, inrenetated f".ir;;;;,';i;;r'hi, is a wortdwithjn which the boundaries between humans, gods, and nature are porous andlli-' :y rwo, that where gods, wird ,;;;;il;;ãnì iä'ä.,ä,,n" n",unsubJect was not the sole source ofagency, and nature was notìaãu"a¿ to urnut"object.. what is srriking about the quasihu*un, ,emit umun'"ürai",¡.ti* otthe wild man is that the verv exóessiveness "f hi, ;h;;ì;J';iibutes (thecentaur's equine body, the cytlops, single "v", ìrr"^iiã"iî .î."r'rir", o, $r"hermaphrodite's dual sex) is often the soui". oi¡ì. un"i* ' - - ''"' "

,_. . 9f.our:: ir^may be argued that the *o.l¿ of noåeiihoutd not be co apsedrnto the wortd of Aristorle. After a , dian,t rhe escapaàes-"iü. äãàr"ì" o¿*"yand rheogony meet with satirical deri.ion in tt "

*ãiL, ãrï*ip"riui".; *urn,t ttProtagoras who privileged man as the ,""."i" "iäìi i,r"gi;"åiaiiii.ro¿otr.express skepricism ar storìes of one-eyed tribesmen; anã'iinì,îîrir,ou. *r,osought to attribute natural (as opposed to divine) c.r;., ;; ;;;";;i ;;nomena?,,rhe fact is rhat, parricularly ¿iri"e ,¡. ,i*ií;üai; fìfi'liiiuri"r. ,¡"

Such modem efforts to acoount for human ,,irrationality" through. appeal dlsecular reason are not confined to the studies of the distant past. Indeed; io be acard-carrying member of modemity demands rejecting as inational anyattribution of agency to non-human acto¡s. It is this missionary zeal of moder.niry that has received sustained criticism Íiom postcolonial theorists who havechallenged the efforts of contemporary postcolonial elites to excise the godsfrom the explanatory tropes offered by their own subaltem classes. Indeed, theSubaltern Studies Collective embarked on a p¡oject some twenty-five yoars agoto create a space within modem historical naffatives for the conceptual vocabu-lary of the subaltem-a vocabulary that often evokes the gods as sources ofinspiration, including in those incidents of rebellion against feudal lords or

discourse.'' Shahid Amin's work on the 1922 Chauri Chaura uprising in NorthIndia is a case in point. Efforts to account for why residents of Chauri Chaurabumed alive twenty-three policemen varied depending on the political sympa.thies of the colonial and indigenous elite. Yet, while arguments raged as towhether the source of the instigation lay with class oppression, orient;l despot.

colonial administrators. As Gyan Prakash, one of the editors of SubaltertlStudies, has argued, the purpose of such an exercise was to retrieveaccounts of their own agency from under the weight of suchexplanatory nanatives as that provided by Marxist, nationalist, or coloni¡:^-^.---- i5

390 "Men completely wild in appearance and way of life"

ism, or anti-colonial nationalist fervor, at least one of the accounts-that

the superstitious ranting ofan uneducated peasantry.16Efforts to retrieve the explanatory nanatives of subaltern acto$ have

agency. In other words, while well-meaning in her efforts to recognize the godSas a feature of the peasant cosmology, the postcolonial scholar inadvertently

by the villagers themselves who maintained that their actions were inspired by.divine visions and promises of a future utopia-were summarily dismissed as

on a further tum in the work of Dipesh Chakrabârty (also an editor of thpSubaltern Strdies series). It is Chakrabarty,s contention, as articulated in hisProvincializing Europ¿, that in attempting to àccount for the gods in reference tothe subaltern, the human subject continues to remain pivotal to the nafiativ€when, in fact, in the subaltems'own cosmology, the gods themselves have

as a feature of the peasant cosmology, the postcolonial schoìar inadvertentlyprivileges the human subject from whose iñagination the gods are said iiJemanate. And yet in a number of subaltern narrat¡ves it is, after all, the gods thàlincite them to rebel*the gods are not simply a feature ofpeasant consciousnessand action; they inform, motivâte, limit, prohibit, and mediate human agency-Gods, in other words, are no less pÌotagonists in the world of men thanhuman subjects they govem.rT

Whereas Chakrabarty seeks to introduce gods into modem historicalcourses that have only ever permitted human actors, Timothy Mitchellsought to incorporate nature as an active principle. Mitchell narates whatotherwise be a familiar history-that of Egypt's invasion by German and

Vanita Seth 39i

rr" ;::"ït"î'i:iä'"Jiiå:ti'r:'Ïol:l::1,i, efforrs to quesrion and disruptbearer of trurh. r"rpüåã uî.".r,iËu.n TbJ.t:t as the locus of agency and thegods and human-hi;.ãr"idil;::1t' I wish to restore to the an-cieni world ofin the wortd of mei.-i;; ;:;";iiil' place as.conscious conspirarors ensaseda djstant pasr, uut in^ti. il#î;t::'j:' in order to 'Tetrieve"'lost uoiccs-frãmgods couid nãr u"iori"äåi"'ìïllTon:nutint that a world of monsrers andconelation b"n";;i,;;;;;;:io "l races.And if I am right ro draw ars suggestrve of rhe fact ,¡u, unu

tJ-?nt"tt-and.the absence ofiace, rhen thishistor/orMan, .;l;ö;i'fiui i,|i:l:rv.or.:acial thinking has alsã to be abody as object. '" 5uþJect with lhe cor¡esponding sratus of the

forces-ûom the radically differrrorce-the D¡rrAsÌtic ,4h^^t -t- 3nt_- perspective of a distinctly non-humanfi ff;ff ,":::iJi:-"-y{:üt:li:)üridi,:'*i'':1ilî""î-*,îlMitchell proceeds ,o *.uí"'ã'lo,n"i"¡u'øs ¡I¡osqulto from this heginning,erusrve desire to be rhe sote ",","^|'^T.,îj"^*-ithin

which rhe human subject;ielusive desire to U. tfr. *1" -proi;;"'"l *,' \'"¡rnrn whtch the human subject;scu¡rrvatton, and chemicat ",J,,",,:.:oTrl^,.,

a,stlry of war, dam building, foodcultivation, un¿ "hmi.uip.ãiuJiå"":^' "' a story ol war' dam building, food

nected throush, the invasion r,r" lj:::,::1l-!ttu'* ¡v' but also intercon-llill l!yh, the.invasion oi tiì parasitic

Hru*_;:l j::t"ll6*:Tr{if l:åäåi'ili;Ili,'ilÌåilliä#t;that allowed gr.ur". oppo*iiii."-:¡¡l ùaru¡dtss water and irrization sçþgrn65exlensrve man_mâde r,h.ñ^* -..^.^]:, ,h. mosquito to breed..-A network ofiåi"åiå:iffi ï:::i*r::ry":o;ã,Ë;ffi ,å;i::l;,*.T."i31Í,llimpossible and gave ir ,;;;;;;áî'^ "'"''req ¡t Io travel distances ôthenvis'Nature, in uit"î.u;s

-

*äi.,r-,:,r*i":,:lj:.idl weakened by food shortasesNature, in Mitciell's aa'a-"*r."i.'""'""" ór¡caqy weakened bv food s|¡e¡¿gs5,

con*rbutes or inhìbirs h,,*". ;_^-::t,.:imply a resource o; obsrrucrion that;ii:',:i:'^ïJïlï'ï,ll l* tqil*,,.'l",yiiJ:;"i::ïi i";.;#Ut¡lllì"'lîï.,ilj,jï ji ''i' 'i"! ìiãi iliti':'i.'.'"'*i ö 'Ï::"1; 'ï"'ïii:jr'.1i":ilogic ofthe social ,"i"n."rI

Thus, when cônfionted with the beranrnropomorphic nahrrc rhqr "^ "",:19:!-ry anay.of g-ods, human hybrids,and anthropomorphl. nutur. itäi

we musr acknowledn" ,*., ,,"..*,,T.llr.rÍ in_the world of the ancienr C¡eeks,we.must acknowledge two unsettlir Y'v¡ru u/ ¡rrc anclent u¡eeks,w¡mrn which the boùnrta,i".

^-,...^lgj lll"""lu,.d fads: one, thar this is a worldwith.in which th. b"inã;.;ï;;¡Ë,, ¡r¡rc¡rerareo ra*s: one, thar rh¡s is a world

rruld; and two. that wr,o,^ ^^r^ ...ll1n"unq gods, and nature are po¡ous andfluid; and nvo, t¡at wrlãe'e;îruç¡r ¡ru¡Iraüs' goos' and nature are no¡ous andsubJecr was not rhe o,.'tê .^,,;^- ^. ^]l-1ttn' and humans co-existed ìhe humansubject was not th" .ol" sori"e-;'f ;'* -*' ¿lrru r¡umans co-existed the humanobJect. what is strikin.. "h^,* -r^ illil: and nature was not reduced to a mureåbj"i;,IH,',,:i'åî"..1':::i h:-ffiii,;il,i:'åï lfjJï.:#,..""îJ:"",iiî*,:lÍ yl i,,t¡"t ir," ""ï"ã,¿:lii*,üli;iiìi;:ll,îå',:,nijr*i:Íi:ill i*yr:iËä:"ï":i':'i'iili :î.:i","',::ï, Îi:"''äiï:Í::",;i::ll":r j::4:ü:"ï:;: jËii':l!"åii. Of course it may be argued th;- '-** * tr¡ù ¿¡Ë'cl¡cv'

¡nro ¿he wor¡d of Aristotle ¡+", "ttr Tåworld of Homer should not be collapsedåiÏìii,l;li"ï lilai¿n,trr e escapaae,;i;;; ;;ff""å;::äand Theogony meetwim sai¡lì.rli.'-LlÏn ' u¡c escapaoes ot tlle gods in oarssey

rroraaoras who nriwirêo-¡ *-- -^.il:'on In the works ofXenophanes; wasn't itProtagoras *¡o p.¡u¡1"À.J,nuï rrre works ol xenoÞhanes wasn't itexpress skebticism ,, "r^,;- ^. ^-^th!

measure of all things; àidn't úerodotL¡sexpress skepticism at sto.ies oron ur ar¡ mlnqs: dldn'l HerodotLrssought to attribure n,n*., ,.. ^--^^l ,"yed,.tribesm en; and iin;t it Aristotle whosoughl to attribute n"r*"¡ i;;;;;;" "tçu rt¡uçsmeni and ¡sn't it Aristot¡e wholhe tact is rhar. ô,Éi^,,r".h, ..r:._,,_e1 r_1 divinl) causes ro natural phenomena?,nThe fact is,r,ut, puni"urà.i-ãüü ;il, ïï; iff .:i:Jiäï, :!iäi::i:

existonce of human-hybrids and divine intervention was openly being contestedamong some ancient Greek writers.2o And yet, while duly acknowlodging thesignificance of such heterogeneity, we should be cautious not to repeat theanachronism we are trying to avoid by reading in fifth-century Athens theprecursor of mo<iem Europe. E. R. Dodds, for example, has argued that for allthe apparent contempt mounted against tales of divine intervention, faith in suchpossibilities continu;d to preiaii in ancient Greek thought.2r Similarly, PaulVeyne, in his work Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths?, answers with acategorical "yes," arguing that the often passionate rejection of mytbs by^-someancienl writers was itself indicative of how pervasive such myths were." lt isnote\ryorthy that \ryhile skeptical of the powers of sacrifice and prayer to ingr^ati-

ate the goás, Plato neverthìless found ii necessary to defend théir existence.2s Inthe context of ancient medicine, G. E. R, Lloyd qualifies our enthusiasm for theseemingly "rational" tum represented by the HiPpocratic corpus when he notesthat the concerted effort of Hippocratic practitioners to deride those they dubbedas charlåtans was itselftestimony to the continued authority wielded by purifiersand temple priests-the very people who incorporated the gods and magic intotheir medical treatments. "Temple medicine," Lloyd argues, "not only continuedto flourish but actually expanded, after the fiftì century BC."za And finally, inthe face of Aristotle's muchlauded prívileging of the natural over the divine,Georges Canguilhelm offers a cautionary reminder that when it came to thefunctions of the body,

[fìor Aristotle, all movement depends on a primal unmoved mover. All move'ment in nature harìgs, by rcspiration 8nd by imitation, upon a supernatural act.ln the most perfcct teffestrial animal, the human being, thcre is a soul whichenters the embryo from the outside, and which derives from the divine ether,thc soul of the siars.2t

Clearly, if man had attained a privileged status in Greek cosmology he was

neveftheless still woven into the cosmic wholeness of the world-he was not a

subject distinct and separated off from the morally ordered universe he inhab'ited.

What all these works testiry to is the fact that ìvhile the existence of human-hybrids or personified nature hâd become a site of contestation in sixth-centuryCreece, this by no means resulted in the lvholesale rejection of the gods from

'!92 "Men completcly wild in appearancc and way of life"

Classical thought. ln other words, within the heterogeneity of ancientliterature there existed a space for the intermingling ensemble of non-humansemi-human actots.

But what I say of the Classical world is no less true of the MedievalRenaissance. If the Christian God jealously defends His singularity andrefuses to engage in the follies of men, He is no less interventionist when

Pretematural occurrences toa, "ì- -'- ""'""J¡v¡¡s or nature N.)l ônly were

portents orprodigìe.. i; ilfï"i|T.m:n than miracles, thev often signifiedent, the pretematural was the work of God_

Vanita Seth3Sl

ü+iÈi"tr,å,iruì$i,îffi:iî å",1 n:'i1 I ^":g::d un iverse, di vin e,y:ii",,Tij tr"1,,#1xîïtl,*r:,{x Ë:.rr;ii ""itrf i,:1"ï:::ï,i,;i:.",iil1 :ii:#3:li,Ju r;,,:.r*lir ,i; hirîi j{,i:::;::î:ii:ä:f, :Íwas circumscribed Uv rt e int",i-¡"liii.i: li:.:'*u] rlgfcape. Human agency

rererence to the pas, i,h;ï;;jiïijï'',i"i]]li:j.,d this was rrue nor onry jnï,t'ir ï ji'*ååï::*,:lg":'iriiiiil,]j,.,":!if lå'Í"'å'åiï.ïiilî:llii#ru;ï*u*ximr,::iäJl¡!iËi;å1ixilåniîï,;iå,:,1#äi::lr,:ïlîiiîj_iï::i,l;i{:i,iöå:ff ,,trf ily,",:i f,i.*:,"îijappearance.of God, unæls, oi sãini" in ¿¡"umr.r,

ffi; 'nm f"*":Jf;".¡*ff äi pu,r, *æ, rhere was. r,¿"¿i"uurji:iäi:î¡ft_åJ:ff:,LT:ïlííì.11.Ë, " ;i_ff:"..,,ff ï,îåi,î,u",Í1",",1ö'åffi ,iif åfiï:ff r**åT"-j'"l:.:',,iix,î:äi:iidî*",:iJlî",i;å::ri:åä":åt*f''.,i"ïiïr ¡i:äiü!iüi:H!iï:i jï tlTnHî?ff :;;ïïiåî Jiï;¡;"år.j;.J1if :ri:i'iiiiiïf, iî'iîï: fl tïi:ffJäiiå'ï';i,ïj ;',*,jjt**j*i,1'.:"::lìi,ffìi, i'#ìi:ï":iL:ïj:::ilililï i::i$itx,n:1i*l ïr ;j:i:irïi,ïi,;ïìi:,fi,"ït^ïi,Yl'lË¡',*r*'3;:',";;1¡.:ì^d"",il"'i',ì'li'ålooi3:ffå'l;ffi î:thing?"2E

grear a creator constirures ,r," "ri*"" "r,"årlr.iiiJi. Whereas Augusl.ine was will.nating. from ,¡" rilliåîcïä. irriT9^tl

t1utu""-nuture in all its va¡iery as erna-iz€d rhe narural I" i"ãräräi"iT Aquinas, Dasron poinrs ou(, reconccprual_

g:::r,",,"lmgtu"nillï:[#*TîiË!ïffi ,ff ".:,j,ït,å jTrecognized,h"

"""-;;ñr"l;;';;J^::::,*d complex classiricatory system rhar

in conrrast t" th. {;;;ì;;i;Ttms thro^ugh multipre sites. As óaston nores,

g¡r*$,'p;g-*,ç*;4eUçU:.ir*iiffiing of nature,s "pp.;;;í;;;î:X1Îto

humân agencv-the artificiar consist-into a tabte), dá'ñ.in;;'rffi'llfn'oning bv man (the oak r¡ee rransformeda..F-tr,. .ró"iuturi ;ffi:iil:::gl'ting human sins (bestiaiif, sodomy,

i:*'i#i:;rî,:i}.:,"'m!:f ú,".:ËI'liirr'',i*'".**,;dead, and wu ,ine on ,,i"...,;,:.rTlT,:l ,,h. Red Sea, the resunecrion ot thedead,.and walking on *;;.1"8;"ii"'ur tne Ked sea, the resuneuion ofrhe

m:,:,i1,,:*rlï, :i*:::.,üiìüåffJ j5Jå,1"j,.Fd,idemarcatid, eq"í".r ìiri.ijîr,"lntltl'T*' occurrences *.." ,uL¡v so clearrythe suspension of ""r..'i¡în,,'il: i:-T- t distinguish miracles Íïo'm marvets,Pretematurat o..rrr"n.". ;# :':t-:Te.lTions of nature Not onty were

"Men completcly wild in appcarance and way oflife"a sign of his disþleasure. Comets, rain of blood, monstrous births, seasonalanomalies such as snow in summer-all such events could be an omen deliveredto mân by God.30 But preternatural occuÍences could also be attÌibuted to thcdevious work of demons, the action of angels, human sorcery, or the lvork ofnature itself. lncluded in the pretematurai were ,,figured stones, pehiryingsprings, the occult virtue of plants, and minerals and myriad other áeviaiionlfrom the ordinary course of tfiings."3r Thus, interpreting the preternatural andidenti$ing its rightful source was no small concem. Witchcraft trials, forexample, hinged afound the question of agency-was a sudden, inexplicableillness that befelì an individual the work of rh€ devil, the sorcery of a witch, ajudgment from Cod, or the function ofnature?32

Within this complex configuration what is singularly apparent is that Me-dieval and Renaissance thought attributed to nature volition and malleability thatwould ultimately be denied it in the nineteenth cenrury. The complex (and ior usmodems, unfamiliar) configuration of the natural and non-natural, not tomention the existence of hybrid human/animal populations, is suggestive of thelack of fixity, permanency, and passivity attributed to nature. As Lycosthenesmakes clear:

We do not condemn natural explanations and we greatly respect astrology too.But we know that nature ¡s God's minister in matters both favorable anã unfa-vorable, and that th¡ough her agency, he a¡ds the pious and punishcs the impi.ous, according to their d¡fferent condit¡ons.rr

What is significant is that natu¡e was capable of infinite variery (monstrousspecies), could be transgressed (monstrous individuals), had volition (as thehand-maiden of God), or could, in some instances, be altogether suspended (asin the case of miracles), Given that nature was neither mute nor immutable itshould not surprise us that the body in Medieval and Renaissance literature wasattributed a malleability and opacity that rendered its boundaries porous andfluid.

Caroline Bynum's work on the Medieval church is instructive in this regardfor the rich allegorical imagery ofthe period relied upon gendered attributes thatdid not necessarily correspond to sexed distinctions.3a Thus, Anselm of Cantér-bury (ca. ll09) appealed to Jesus_as a matenal figure-',But you, Jesus, goodlord, are you not also a mother?"35-while Aelred Rievaulx 1câ, t t6Z) wal notalone in ascribing to Jesus the capacity for nursing whèn he urged that ourSaviors' naked breasts vvill feed you with the milk of sweetness to consoleyou."36 That feminine imagery coúld be appropriated and applied to Jesus (aswe¡l as abbots and bishops) suggests the fluid nature ofgendered imagery in theMiddle Ages. Indeed, if Jesus was often represented in feminine garb from thetwelfrh to the fourteenth centuries, in the Carolingian period, Bynum argues, it

| . . Whereas the two-sex modeÌçrgnreenth century (and "on,¡nu".

,.o-f. -'ht body that was to emefge in the late

incommensurabiri,i;;; ;ffi;;:]:l:-o,". o*n times) presumes Jpon a radicarone-sex ro¿.¡ fitãt iu-**iittiiiülll |tt*t:".male and female änatomy, rhe

i:î'ff i'T.',:y";Lî;i:ï,,::,,;::ili""újlliiînii:î,äff ïj"ïfftñîffi '¡*üî:i"î1,_'""¡;iï:tïf,¡*åiï,j:i,ff

,,, ji^, jfåi,"#r.fj, .une ol the more famous cal

m"lru j;i*î,.i#i*tlir*::jd,lä:,lidiïït"lü:ï,",.flïîgenitalia and,h" r;; .ä'";:'Jumped over a. ditch at which'n¡s¡*1 ,.,h.

å'.öil: ,J,y*i ff 'å"[*:]ff""¡1"jf äl'r,]li; lîJ,åå,iJi'""Í,'li

'¿fl$-iiiîi;',iif,i,,i,4flçg¿",;,îffi :r;T.:åff il:

ffiìilffi ;îiïïl*{i',i :ü""'"" or a deep-seated sense or interioritv'

;;îtîöfr äåhîHffiï*it+'#$#i,åîîîÏ,ïïffi

Vanih Scrh 395

iåìrjå'rö"åi,i#tJ:H['åiJirgin Mary donning a beard and beins

,n,"""irl"T1i,11a rigid conelation benveen eendered aftrih¡,r-" .*r ^-- ,

L.q;;;ö;".:',:;"i äi::"i' ;: J:ïl ll.iarrv expricabre bt ;ü"ïi::women.haJe ,h" ,u|;;;;ftrilï'1:-vtutt it had been a òommonprace ihat

"T::.r il, :* ild;;;.il' ffi }Jïi . :fi:ï.,:l n,i:m, mil1,'"ä

trg+gtr'ffi*unü$fiffitr','"#d**-t"åtrfr î,*l#dtffi

"Men completely wild in appcarancc and way oflife"ooìl9otion of afif ibutes-lines, curves, volumes (scars, features, clothing, shoesize, and so on!-that could bé held up against anyone who claimed the nameand property of Martin Guene,"42 The body as a locus of identity-fixed andstable-did not, Greenblan argues, figure large in the Renaissance imagination.

To staie l¡ìy ãlgument blùntly: For ail the commentary the body generated,fot all the fascination it provoked, Ancient, Medieval, and Renaissance writerscould not presume upon stable identities and rigid corporeally based typologíesin part because they could not presume stable and fixed bodies. My intention isnot to collapse these distinct historical periods into an undifferentiâted whole,but rather to point to the fact that in very different ways, Ancient, Medieval, andRenaissance thought conceptualized the body as an active agent that was wont todeff common expectation:. rüe have gods who can change form; centaurs whothreaten to rape mortal women; old hags \Ìho can, through nagic, transform ¡ntobeautifirl young virgins; miraculous sex cha¡rges; sâints being torlured and yetoblivious to pain . , . the body may haver{ince the Greeks, been identified withnature, but nature was a iorce, an agent to be reckoned with.a3

It is questionable, therefore, whether Medieval and Renaissance thoughtcould have appealed to discrete, corporally organized racial categories. I haveargued elsewhere that in a world where wild men and monsters exist, there is noconceptual space for race.aa Such variations as we identify with race weresimply peripheral and largely insigníficant when God's 'Creation was somagnificently diverse as to allow for a vast anay of human-animal hybrids. Buteven if we cede this point in deference to scholars who recognize in modernracial prejudice a pre-modem órigin, what remains largely uncontroversial is thefact thât nineteenth-century racism was historically distinctive from any pre-modern articulation. This is soJ ho\rever, not simply bcçause in its latterincamation race came to be associated with science. While it is true thataccording race with scientifrc legitimacy was a novel feature of the nineteenthcentury, this begs the question ofhow the body frrst came to be represented as astable, transparent, immutable, and passive object-an object available toscientific scrutiny

World as Pictuie

The historical literature I have appealed to is suggestive ofthe fact that nine-teenth-century representations of the body as transparent, measurable, andimmutable would have been wholly unfamiliar to Ancient, Medieval, andRenaissance thought. But if the examples I have provided testiry to the fluidityof Ancient, Medieval, and Renaissance conceptions of the body, they do not inthemselves account for why these historical periods could recognize in the bodysuch transformative and eclectic possibilities. To pursue this question necessi-

tates identifring that which the w venitâ seth

3e7

:::*'träffi i;ä*.rl,iiilil'ïïf ;:ixî,"n"'ï"x',1'"f ,tîjå ü:

**ffi+*ii**,lo--fu#ffi-äË$,ff .*[+s#.,îï".ïf.:;'i:ï["]iï.,1,J,ii,tî:i*,,rå:ir[

jf #:{i,1{å;B"HËir*r:r"e*#rr*,å1ru;r*i,;In a historical context within ì

Ïî','fl.ï;;ïiï:ru,,,.;¡1,¿ii*i'",,*#ìïïîtrilîi-P¡;d.';"îT;conceptual grias unililäï:i:.:Ï. necessarilv to be anicutated throLigi

*$***'*s*tf s*,'mh:*t'.it,:x

mrupmffi",,:',åïïffi ,ïffiffi i.fl þitrtrff ffi ;}J

19â "Men completely wild in appearance and way oflife"may have lost his innocence but he gained his Reason-the superstition ofeaíier times had given way to the recognition that magic, spirits, wild men,gods, and angels were products of the human imaginatiõn. This, aiier a , hadalvays been the case. But it was modem man who finally bequeathed to himselfthat which he.had earlier bequeathed.to the supematural: agency, volition,meaning, knowledge, order, and Reason.as

Yet as histoficist as Weber's evocation of lleltanschauung appeared to be,it vas Heidegger who forced us to r€cognize that the very idåå of lleltan_sc),øuung had to be histor¡cally intenogited. It was not that each bistoricalperiod had it own worldview but, rather, the conceptualization of the world-as_picture was itself the product of modemity.ae The world as picture was a worldconstitut€d througt representation; it presumed u way of being, living, andordering the world that necessitated a distinction betweln the hurian subject asobserver and a mute, passive world ofobjects:

Hence world picturc when understood essentially, does nor mean â Dicture ofthe world but the world conceived and grasped as picture. What is, in its en_tirety, is now taken in such a way that it first is in being and only is in being tothe extent that it is set up by man, who represents and sets fdrth.5o

Representing.the world-as-picture required man becoming ,,the primary andonly real subiectum," and simultaneously necessitated i radjcailv differentrelationship to "that which is as such";rl man now conceptualizes ,,thãt which isas such" as objects independent of himself, as representations constituted by himin ¡eference to himself. For Heidegger, such a modern distinction \¡,as necessar-ily absent in Ancient, Medieval, and Renaissance times. ln other words, whileWeber might be right to argue that a divinely ordained, purpose-orienteduniverse was the distinctive feature ofan enchanted age, tre impìiciìly privilegedthat which he recognized to be absent: a modem epistemoiogy wherein iheworld could be rendered an object (a picture) only from the vaniage point thatelevated the human subject to an obseruer, as he who both was ,.in" ihe worldwhile simultaneously able to extract himself from it.52

For this very reason the language of lepresentation when applied to An-cient, Medieval, and Renaissance thought becomes problematic. 1o search forAncient, Medieval, and Renaissance representations of the body is necessarilyfiaùght, for to evoke the language of representation presumes upon a subjectrepresenting and a world available to being represented. It presumes upon asubjeclobject distinction, a world that recognízes ..man" as an ontolägicalcategory.

Man as Subject was not an ontological possibility in Ancient, Medieval, andRenaissance thought. This becomes evident when we register thtee features ofAncient, Medieval, and Renaissance thought that have thus far been only

Vanira Seth

;*i:ti] and diffuselv sestured to throush the histories of rh" b"dy r h;:

ffiffiffiffimfimfi'lt*+*,-*ru

. .lt is, finally, within this weh ,

nçfy,.,,.*t*,"#fi itåi,,'f i*#_Unir',,**l;:1îr"#

frHufi*ffi*m*fiffiiffiiljåid#åî:r:¿ry1çU*,mç*llU+îi*,,,***,*t

Mute, Immuf able, and Measurable:Race and the Nineteenth ¿;;ö

ffd#:J*'lti+'fff *ïîj'i:#iÏ:i";il'xi*;i#,*.nî,i;T:i#

4C0 "Men completely wild in appearance and way of life"thJ-ninotçe¡th century was targely confined to circus freak shows and the pagesoffiction, Bamum & Bailey Circus is an example ofthe former, Frankenstein'smonster the most famous example of the latter. But one of the most revealinglate eighteenth-century evocations of the monstrous comes not from the novel oithe ex¡ibition but from an unlikely, scholarly source. I refer to T. R. Malthus'An Essay on the Princíple of Pop.ulation, 1797.

In thc famous Leiccstcrshirc breed of shcep, the object is to prôcure them ìyithsmall heads and small legs. Proceeding upon thcse breeding maxims, it is evi-dent that we might go on till thc heads and legs were cvanescent quaùtities; butthis is so palpable m absurdity that \rye may be quite sure that tht premises ârenot just, and that there really is a limit, though we cannot see it, oi say exactlyÌvhere it is . . . , I should not scruple to assert, that were the breeding to con-tinue for ever, the hcads and legs of these shcep would never be so smãll as thehead and legs ofa rat.53

The purpose of Malthus' evocatiòn of the monstÍous was to open to ridicule theutopian philosophies of the late eighteenth century that held dear to the hope thatnature-be it human, animal, or plant-was malleable to human conectiòn andthus posed little impediment to social progress. For Malthus, the humanpropensity to reproduce in a world of limited resources offered startlingevidence to the contrary. Malthus ¡dentified a direct conelatíon betweenpopulation gfowth and future sca¡city, arguing, against the grain of prevailingtheories, that large populations, far from being a sign of the health oi the civilbody, actually promised a futur€ of scarce resources, increased poverty, greatereconomic disparity, and social and political turmoil.. Rather than gazíng into afuture of utopiân possibilities, Malthus offered a much grimmer prophecy ofsocial decline.

But if the immediate purpose ofMalthus'reference to the Leicester sheepwas to ¡idicule utopian philosophy, iu larger significance lies in its value as asignpost marking a radical break from pre-modem understandings of the body.Residing at the core of Malthus' argument are two central contentions: thatnature in general, and the human body in particular, are essentially untranscend-able, immutable objects (their desires and demands cânnot be neutralized by theagency of man); and, further, that this very intransigence and resistance tohuman malleability accords the body a pivotal role in shaping human institutionsand social anangements (insurmountable, they must be constantly attended to).

It is this dual logic that Catherine Gallagher identifies as the novel elementof Malthus' work, for by "making rhe body absolutely problematic . . . [Mal-thus] helps place it in the very centre of social djscou¡se."5a The monstrous innineteenth-century thought is not lhe unnatural, grotesque -body but humancorporeality as such-at once deeply problematic and for that very reasoncompletely valorized:

Vanita Seth 4ol

fö',iî:?!"ï,ïï:ïiÍ,îi.'5":."jiJï*t; ::::iï,:1ï prob,emaric For a

ü¿,r{1iTi:i:'"*.15il;:$å*xill,mî,,if l,1ï!,:,#ln

' :'""iä,"1i:åjlliillllirlîi"î:3f-.*gl ,,n,t was borh producrive on andconstematión f", tñrhäïï:"::_Tnt't the inractable bódy was a source of

rgf:trf jjlf ü$iî'i'",ffi ;"j:lr:,iå'fl.il;frïf::î{."*excess and ""lmài,'u..åå.i';iÏ?:::'is

made possible once nature, in att its

ixl.l;,"'::.::;.liiÏ,gffx'"'",,""'',xüüiîË"#iN, ln an age celebrated for its s,

*t'"ïi.f ; jîÏ* j:;;i,trt,f#T,i",_"î:iüJj.,ïî,¿.;l;ïi*î¿ï:î',Mxr**{"r:;fi*:djixirjffi h'[,,ti;fTlË;t*:îffi

".",f ",Hi.,iï,,::"J:,{."j"rili;1,m"æ*;si,t, tü aú iy t;;-;';;ffi ;ää:t .iå:Tminorogist, sexorogist, and eihnoro-

,H,,**ffi*{*,ffi,ffi$ffi".."ff;,:ì TiI ;jJli'ì,'å,'"?:;y,';"ft fü,#:,:; Ëj,:"tr",H#ffiîÌ:Tlír,*å*jå",.T""T:$,T::ä:1,:iåff 1.,,: giï1".i:,,""..,in**n n:;-Ì:::J"iï:iii.ï,Jåi1i:îî1,:'f J,il'"^"rírï:,,.'.i1,,"..fi :**

q2 "Men completely w¡ld in appearance and way of life,,

deformity of the femâle sex and the savagery of the Negroid race.Je lt was thissame^privileging of the body as hxed anã intransigent ihat inspired J. C, Nottlld c: \ G.liddon.to pen rheir infamous publicatioi, ryp", o¡ íiàäira, wnere,aner. detend-lng ethnology ,,as a science which itrvestigates the mental andphysical differences of mankind," they prôùeeded to deiend the inferiority ofnon-Caucasian races. And. it is the samè faith in the measurable, transpârentimmutability of the body that underscored the countless essays by'Jãhn Craw-furd detailing the "very wide.^disparity" in intellectual and morai developmentthât d€marcated racial types.ôo Finally, if Charles Darwin,s theory of naturalselection was to complicate debates conceming the immutability oí the humanbody, his.ultimare conclusion appeared to diffe; liftle from that áf his predeces_sors, for he argued, in Descent of Man, that ,,[t]here is . . . no doubt that thevarlous races, when carefully compared and measured, differ from each other.,,6l

Innumerable other examples can be mobilized from the archives oftne nine-teenth century that all teJtiry to the same fact: that race_thinking was angutgrowth of a mor€ profound and foundational epistemic logic thãt locate!identity in the immuable, passive intransigenr. ðf bodl.r. -fo, iu.. to ¡.possible, man had first to be posited as the sóle bearer of knowledge, a subjectwho imposed meaning upon a world that was available for, ináeed onlyknowabÌe through, representation. Race is the offspring of a world constituted asa picture.

Conclusion

Bertillon once bemoaned the fact,lhat while there have existed from timeimmemorial, under the name of Hippolog,, special marks for the precisedescription of the shape and color of the horse, there has never existed until thepj:ìgn|i.9Ì ro far as we know, a methodical rreatise on human descripìion."62While Bertillon regarded the absence of such a treatise .,astonishing,,, the self_evident necessity_ and, indeed, possibility of such a work only apieared self_€v¡dent and possible whh the close of the eighreenth century. Wträt had fi¡st tobe presumed \ryas a particular rendering Jf th" body as mute, immutable,measurable, and thus, valuable-available as an object pâssively reóeptive to theinvestigations of a knowing subject.

_ It was precisely this logic that was absent from Ancient, Medieval, andRenaissance thought. Instead, we encounter human-hybrids and jealous gods,malicious demons and divine angels, wandering wombs and lactating mónks,hermaphrodítes and contested identities, nàture,i wondrous feats and unnaturaltransgressions, pretematural marvels and supematural miracles. The fact is that,for all the diffe¡ences that distinguish Ancient, Medieval, and Rena¡ssancethought, neither antiquity nor the pre-modern aêcorded man the ontological

Vanira Serh 4g3

:liï $iii'"ï'i.äï ðjå,1î,,î1",,.r., as rhe excrusive bearer or meaning,indced nature ¡i."ñ, Ji*,lrJO,l..men,

monsters, demons, witches. ghortr, unîamDlrrons. wirhin rhi. ^.-.r^^_,1f1:ld, enabled, and obstrucied humanindeed what _;; ;o*ä,äïäöïoi,iüì::i:illi piä;,1,å,år,,J,r?,rù.î1¡âcral caregories_caucasian, Mongolo¡a, N.gio¡¿,-pr*iJ; . .,,:",,,

Notes

- l. cornelíus Gcmma, professor ofmed¡cing quoted from a r575 treatise in Lorraine;'i:ilJå,-,i!!T" .,ri:'[ ;Tåå'í'i":", ø". o,à,, o¡ Ñ àà,ì.'i¡iääìN.* vo,r,

or an eartier vcrsion ofthis essav to thank peter Euben f,or his close crirìcal reading

H","ou.t s-"e rou;;;;::filbiì;#]:';årî'iïr!:'" Diego, New york, and London:

. !J"ä:í¡:t'fliï:Jï'[ïi::'î"::iòd's,work"'ro¡ Hesiod, man and animars aremvthical beings," and';;;;il;t;ï::^:1ch. other' .but also in relation to divine and

;rgr*f+1;fl*i*ri'i,r*m*iÏüfl fl *:',î:iffl996i

H"'odotut, Histoiies, George Rawlinson, trans. (London, England: wordsworth,6. Homer, //¡ad 2l .3 I 0-0 15.

B. Homer, iad 23.i3t _2i0.9. Rudolf Winkower. .,Marvels ol rl: Eas_t:.1 Srudy in rhe H jsrory of Monsters..Journa! o!.th.e t4/arburg and Courtauti tnst¡tute S |942): 162... . 10. Richard Be¡nheime\ W¡td Meuniversity eres, ìsiij

7. Euripides, O¡erres, John peck and Frd Un¡versirv pre(. tao<\ rank Nisetich, trans. (Ncw york and OxlordtOxford University pr"rr, j99;;

I '"i""rr,älåÍií.i3{::.,\*:,rl:y:g ,G.ti,:, g^?,t. r Bcrrisford, trans. (Ann

;j:#"*Tfl iîiî'5l5trull¡::liffi :"å'"*i2^',i^^i,.i)Pinsburg press, tg72), 3-3g.

with¡n' eds e¿*ar¿ ouJiev ;; i;:,.::' Îi-'::¡('sv or an ¡dea' " in The tt/itdrrg Press, 1972).3-3f,

vr!¡er 4'u rv¡axlml¡llan Novak (London: Un¡versity of

il'#:w;;#:l,jï,"åî;!ö#!il;!,1;;::t4Gnt2\irr;i',iiJlll*,ïl*""""'""lliS_"1;F""iäiiä,åi'"lÍj;,"u øphy,,sociat rext',)"'i"'i!,ìl;:l;,i;i::::Ìi::i!l*"it1t,¿il:löiifi::ü:ì#!,!*:;'ir*llake ofsubaltern Stu¿,¿" fC¡i""noliiÌ'""' t! ' / r'tolla ons oJ Moderkiv: Ii:16. shâhirt Á,niñ â.,--, .,-, , nrvers¡ty of Chicago prcss,2002):3_19

,f;iålil,å'flH;3 "''' ou "" niiì å i''ui ̂i)ìi".1,[Jï"'i' #?"i il;.'".versiry ofCalifornia press, 1995) Uni.

4M "Mcn completely wild in appearance and way oflife,,

. 17. Dipesh Chakrøb$ty, provtncìqlizìng Europe (princeton, N.J.:princeton Unive¡-sìty Prcss, 2000), 72-l 13.18. Timothy Mitchell, Rule of Experts (Berkcley, Los Angeles and London: Univcr_sity ofCalifornia Press), l9-55.

^ l?^!rwin Schrödingcr, Narure and the ereeL.s (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1954),27,67.72; Hcrodorus, ¡f¿,sro¡Íes I t t 6], 2iS; LtoyOl S"tr;:";,;_íi.. 30 c,.!-l Ltoyd, Mag¡c, Reoson and Èxpeiíence lCamUiicge: òìmuriàge uniucr.sity Press, 1979), t3-14.. 2lt E: R. Dodós, The Greet<s and the lrrational (Borkeley and Los Angeles, Univer_sity of Califomia Press, 1959).

22, Paul Vcyne, Did the Grcek Believe ínîhe¡r Myths?, paula \Mising, trans, (Chi.cago

,and London: Univcrsiry of Chicago prcss, l ggg).23. Plato,.The Laws (New york; penguin CIæsics, I975), 408_44?.24. Lloyd, Magic,57,

. ^25. Canguilhrlm quoted in Shigehisa Ku riyam4 The Expressiveness of the Body ond

the Divergence ofGreek and Chinese Medicøa(New york: 2onc noots, úSej, t+ó.26, Daston and Park, llonders,50.27. Daston and Park. llonders,52-56.

. 28. Augustine quoted in Lorraine Dasron, ,,Marvelous Facts and Miraculous Evi-dence in Early.Modeingvrope," Crítical Inqalry lg (Autumn, l99l): 95.29 Lonaine Daston, ,,The Nature ofNature ¡n Early Moderí Europe,,, Configura"/rorr 16 (1988): 154-t58.

30. Daston and Park, ll/onders,50,31. Daston, "The Nanrrc ofNature,', 155.32. Dastor¡, "The Nature ofNature," I5g,33, Quoted ¡n Daston andpark, llonders,lg3.

_ 31.^PInlT, tus øs Mother (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of CaliforniaPress, 1982), I l0- 169.

35. Byîl]m, Jesus as Mo¡her, l14,36, Byîrum, Jesus as M other, 123,3'1. ByîU/.l¡., Jesus as Mothe\ l3g,

._.38.Laqüeur,"Orgasm,GeneratìonandthepoliticsofReproductiveBiology,,,inlfieMaking of úe Modèrn Body, cds. Catherine Gallaghcr and îhomas Laqucur-iBerkeleyand Los Angeles: Univeßity of Califomia prcss, l9g?),2., 39..Quorcd-in-Thomas Laqueur, .,Orgasm, Generation and the polirics of Reproduc.

tive Biology," 13. Sce also Ambrois e paté, On Monsters and Marvels,1573, and Janis L.Pallistcrj, t¡ans, (Chicago and Londonr Universiry of Chicago tress, l9Bá¡, st_l:, forother such stories.

_, 40,_Stephen Crcenblart, ,'psychoanalys¡s and Renaissance Culture," in LireraryTheory/Renaissance fe¡ß, Palr¡cia parker and Davis euint, eds. (Baltimori and London:Johns Hopkins University Press, 19g6), 2lO-224.

41. Greenblatt, "Psychoanalysis," 215.42. Greenblart, "Psychoanalysis," 216.43. For cxample, when Zeus transformed into a bull and took away Europa, Scc also

ll._,::ll"yJn",3n".pted ro rape-the women ofLûpith during rhc weiding oi their king,Per¡thous. See Home¡ Odyssey 2l.3ll-32i. Cf, Bernheimer, lytld Meh-in the MiddleAge\, 33-39: Thomas Lacqueur, Makíng Sex (Cambridge, Mass.; Harvard University

Vanira Serh A0S

;:ä'r'ii-?

"rä,:ååÏline

walker Blnum, Fragnt ent,riok and Redenpfrbl¡ (New york;

. 44. Vanita Seth, ..Diffe¡ence unßr.," pParaltax 29 (2003\: 75-87.'ith

a Differcncc: wild Men, oods and other Prolrgo-

.",åi,ji:Ï:i;?ï1,ï'iriåî (;'¡*s "f nxto,t" rom conrev, trans (N€w york;46. De Ceneau, ntriting ofH;story,138. Emphasis in orieinal

,,, îl å:#,f:;,:;_Jl#;i *i;;' ;"ì;,å'ffi ;. iläif f, r c o d,s and Demon,, .

Llll ru;i",yr f:ä'# ̂ tiú: ::,;." Ë!"ilí "Y:''J: ":{ :: î i:!:f :,:;'li;';,:::;4& Max Weber, From Mù I,ty",k, o"f"; ú;;;;!,; ;í:,íïi). þ.,Íi,I;Ji,ft[Iål:,î; î,1.*,11 {iil"1}",îvicarion', and ..potitics æ Vocarion.,. Sec ari rc""ôr, .r[ã w"r*"oìi".rä*n0,,, ,r.49. ',Thc world picture does not changc from an earlicr one, but rathe¡, the facl úat

f,":i*;.ff:iä_'í,jd,;1ffirt*ly:änïr*liå*:r#ñîr50. Heidegge¡ puesr ioh Cóncerning Technotog, t2g_30.5l . Heide99e\ Ouestion Concerning T¿chnotog, I2g,. 52. My reading ofWeber and H"r,rËgg"l i;-hñù,"ã"io my conversations with San.Jay Seth as wcll as his own workEducyio2o{ rndø (D"ïi.,ïi,o"iåìoiT,'Äi-iffiJ.lïjíi#jrfi;l^ rhe *estern

"",*ll;lnå,ili',TJlb*trå?"1íJi"J;î;wiiäii,ii,iìì;:.äilicu,.u,,os", ì,,.*

_. )4. catherine Gallaehcr, ..The Bo-dy. V*r", ,f,.,öãJrf Body in the works of¿::ìifr"-åÏiìärio"ffln#3n:*t' n rY u,*'ìg-îi ã""',i)"ii' n"a,. "¿,.university of Cafüor"t;ïr.r::ïöî.8t|:"eur (Berkelev' l'os Anseles, and London:

)). Ua¡tagher,-The Body Vcrsus the Soc¡al Body,,,90.- )o. Lorlbroso's study is a classic,exr.pfe Sei'Cerar" Lombroso and Gugliclmoiå,ä;fíäli L##ii;:!;^i:ii1;. o'i *" u *,oit ol,,,î,,*,î1n",; u,n". 5T Honoré de Balz¿c's nou",, ;:'^119 'Loldon:

Duke university Press' 2004)

,l;""'"irilir;iËiît ji"*,;i,jlÉ":e:ii;il"'lJi['ii'""iåîål'.:::'å',i"l1iil;,y:I -!^,*,;., ì:i;;;"s-;^v";î;",;:"';Yl';i:Ttr;,)î,!'"'ii)''Jl,;i,';,?i.:;i,iij,Híffi"('.',üii:"t-ir[.îìl;'**"îH]î'¡tv piess, zorjIr''üanr.v árí.,,'å'ø,,¡"",i,'e

" J,ld,il:l*iräi i: i:::i;:;,i:"'l¿hi jü¿:ffi ij:::ï ïîål;;*,!".ît;

__ . 59, Sander L. Gilman, Dillerence,unrvcrsity Press, l98i).76.10s. ond Pathologt (lthaca, N Y, and London: comell

u,r,if;ì;i t"::iift,ä?1,11î1'"'o*tion orthe Races orM an;' *ansact¡ons orthe

406 "Men complctely w¡ld in appearance and way ofllfe,,

- 61. Charlcs Darwin, The Detcent of Ma4 Vol. t, l8?l (New york: p, F.Son,1974),224.62. Quoted in Cole, Suspect !(lekt¡ties,37.

Bibliographyeti1,,!h"ht9 ?"n¡ -Y:tophor- ond Memory. Berkeley and Los Angeles:

unrverstty press, 1995.Arcin€gas, Cermán. Americq in Europe-Hírtory of the New llorld in Reve¡se.Gabriela Arciniega and R. Victoria A¡ana, San bicgo, New io.t, ilï;;;";

Univeriiry Prcss, 1988.

court Brace Jovanov¡ch publishcrs, 19g6,Bart4 Roger. Wìld Men in th¿ Looktng G/a,rs. TÌans. Carl. T. Ber¡isford. AnnMichigan Unive¡siry press, 1994.Bcrnheimer, Richard. t/Í/d Men in the Middte Ages, Cambridge, Mass,;

Universiry Press, 1952.Bynum, Caroline Walket, Frøgnentatìon and Redenption New york: Zonc199r.

;;-. -. Jesus as Motåer. Berkcley and Los Angeles: University ofcaliforniâ, 1982.unai(raba¡fy, ijrpesh. .,Habítations^ of Modernity: Essays in the Wake of Suba

,ltadte.r. Chicago: University ofCÍricago presi, 2002.'

-,.

Províncializikg Europe. pùnceton: princeton Universiry press, 2000.Çolc. Simo¡ A. Suspect ldentítíes. Carnbridgc, Mæs., and Lonãon; HãrvardPress,2002.

Crawfurd, John. On thc Classification of the Races of Maf¡. Ttqnsact¡ons oÍ thelogical Society I (l86l); 3j4-378.Darwlï;f;harles, The Dcrcent of Man. Vot. l, l87t. Ne\ry yorki p. F. Co ier ând

Daston, Lorraino. "The Nature of Nature in Early Modern Et tope.,, Conlìguratio^t 16(1988): I49- 172.Daston, Lorraine, and Katherino park, ,,Marvelous Facts end Miraculous Evidencc iiEarly-Modcrn Europe." Critícal Inquiry lg (Autumn, f99l): 93_1i4._ .lfo,nleJs -an! the Order ofNoturà, t t 50-1750,ñew,iork: Zone Books, 1998. ..de certeau, M¡chel. The ltriting o/ Hßtory. Trans. Tom Conley, New yo¡k: Columbia

Dodds, E. R. The Greeþ¿ qnd the lrrqtiondl. Bcrkeley and Los Angeles: University oiCalifom¡a Prcss, 1959,Euripides. Ore.ç/eJ. T¡ans, John peck and Frank Nisetich, New york and Oxford: Oxfo¡d.Un¡versity Press, 1995.Oallaghor, Catherine. ,,The Body Versus the Social Body in the Works of Thomas

Y."]lq:,lnd, H.no. Y."yhew.. ln ?l¡¿ Maklng o! the Àiodern Body, eãìteA by Catl.er¡ne Gallagher and Thomas Laqueur, g3_106. Berkelcy, Los Angeles and London:Califomia University press, l9g?.Gilman, Sander L, Dillerence and pathology, Ilhaca and London: Comell UniversityP¡ess, 1985.

Vanita Seth

Stephen. "Psychoanalysis and Rçnaissance Culture.,, ln3î:,2!I:i1,':,"*: IeÍ1, eqr_ód by patricia prn., *¿ o^* q"¡;i,

40'l

Literury120-224,Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University press, 19f6.

.r::r;^rJt:,:y:":l 31d. tþ- yleaniù o¡ expreisøn ìn Nineteenth-cehtury,, .,Cuhure. Catîbridgc: Cambridgc UniversityÞrcss, Z'OOr.Hetdegg€.r, MaÍin. Z¡e euesrion Concernitg Technologt and Other ¿rJ4lr, .lians... William Lovin. New york: Haçer, t9?7.Herodotus, ¡/rrrorler. Trans. Georgc Rawlinson. London, England: Wordsworth, I996.Homer.. t¿e Essentia! liad. Trãns. Stantey L"rb;r;;.'Ì;i"";;äìir,"i"ä., s*t.tt. Publishing, 2000.Jack,*lan, "Physiognomy, phrenology and Characterization in the Novels of Charlotte., Btonte." Eronte Society Transaliions 15 (1910):377_91.Kontos, Alkis. "The World Disenchaoted and the lieturn of Gods and Demons.,, In fl¡¿Barbarism of Reason, Mar Weber and the rwittght "f th" Erti;ìríriir)',

"ou"a qAshcr Ho¡owitz and Terry Matey,223-247. roro'ntol's"fuJ;. ã"î iáiåä", ur¡"*,sity ofToronto press. 1994.

Schrödinger, Ef9tin, Nature and the Greeþ"s. Cambridget Cambridgc University press,1954.

Scth,- Sanjay, ,!aóJÞc I Lessons. The W-esterk Educatioh o/ 1ndla. Durham, N.C., andLondon: Duke University press. 2007,Seth,

-Vanita. "Difference with a Difference; Wild Men, Gods and Other protagon¡sts.,,

Parallax 29 (2003): 7 S-87 .Vcyne, Paul. Díd the Greeks Believe In The,ir^Myths? Trans, paula Wising. Chicago ÂndLondon: University ofChicago press, ¡9gg.

Kuriyam4 Shigehisa. Thi Expressiveness of the Bidy ond the Divergence of Greek and. Chinese Metlicine, New Vork: Zone Books, 199ó.Lacqucur,.Thomas. Ma*r'ng Sex. Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard University press. I990.

-,

vrgasm, ueneration and the pol¡tics of Reproductive B iology.,, InThe Making!^!!:^,!:!-':: !"!,edited by carherine curiugr,., "nãîÀo,#, iäq,"u,, r.¿r

, , t'erKetey and Los Angclcs: University ofCaliforn¡a press, l9gZ.Lloyd, c. E. R. Mag¡c, Reason dnd Exoerience. Camb dge: Cambridge University prcss.t919.

-,

Science, Folklore and ldeologt. Cambridge: Cambridge Univcrsity press, 198j,totll::o: Cesarc. and Guglielmo Finero. C¡iminal Wohan. the proslitute and lhelrormat womarr, l rans. Nichole Hafut Rafter and Mary Gibson. Durham, N.C., andLondon; Duke University press, 2004.Malthus,

-T. R. An Essay on the pr¡nciple of popxlation, 1797. Cambridge, Ncw york,,.. and Melbourne: Cambridge Univcrsiry press, 1992.M¡tchcll,

^Timothy. Rure of Experts. nertêley, Los Angeres, and. London: university ofCalifomia Press, 2002.

Pa¡é,_Ambroise. On Monsters and Marvets,l5:3, Trans. Janis L. pa¡lister. Chicago and_. London: Universiry ofChicago press, I982.Plato. Tl¡e ¿aÌrr. Nêw York: penguin Classics, 1975,40g.447.Prakash, Gyan. "Post-colonial Criticism and Indian Historiograph y,,, Socìat Text 3l(1992): 383-408. .

4(8 "Men completely wild in appearance and way of life,,White, Hayden. "The Forms of Wildncss: Archaeology of an ldea.,, ln The Wild Mon

Í,1r,1t Ítl*j.y Fd*ard Dudtey and Maximiuiin Novak, 3_ta. eiusuurgr, renn.:untversity ol pittsburgh press. 1973.\trittkower, Rudoll ,.MaÌv;ls of the East; A Study in the H¡srory of Monsters,,, Jo!¡r¿¿ofthe llarburg and Courtauld Institute 5 (Ig+Z¡, tSO_Ol.

Chapter Sixteen

Suppliant Women and the Dehocratic State:White Men Saving Brown Women

. f¡om Brown Men

Vicroria lVohl

Strang€ly,-the foreigner lives within us: he [rrc] is r]re hid-. den face ofour identity

Julia Kristev4 S¡r¿¡g ers to Our¡elves

At a time when the traditional nation-state is unde¡ inc¡eæed pressure both fromwithoùt (âs its boundaries are red¡awn by the forces of globátizatiOn) ana tionlwithin (by the conftictins claims of i¿"iti y p.iirl"i, ñ" rärää'á"^o.rr,iistate.faces the.challenge of rearticularing it" .oT";;'ur';" ;i,n;;i;; .ornrnr-nity." But white the pressures. may ¡" ""*, ,t" ,irï"ct", årä'ii6,eäi"uru.¡onâre ase-old; the wesþm stare has ¿¡u,¿ys ;r":nrrjìiråÈìñ",rgü ii"'¿in"rrn."from a c_ultural Other. Iß discursive representation ofrhat Other trâces the limitsof its political representation and thus ãutlines the bound¿ri", ãi. ir, "ì*r"o u"Ay.That sketch mây never vield a fi¡ishedL picture_for a fully coherent andinregrated civic body is an unattainable. (il ;*;"*;H 'såy'irnleri.uur.¡

poliricâl fantasy-but the Droceßs.of nutionui-utt"rity .n"i^irr"ääntu,ionurpolitics are viøl to -the

evolving self_defi"itio" oiti;;;;;;;"t. ;iå',"i'rne subrtue ol my essay is an-.obvious nod to Gâyatri Spiuuit imponantessay, "can rhe Subalrern Soeak?',, which trreorizes'tie iãrpä* 'i",.rpruybetween porirical and discuriive ,ópr.r.ni^t"i'*'ii-",h;' ,.ì;;ii;'i"**" .