Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 December 2017
Writers and critics in the Gilded Age United States frequently debated the relations between literature and science. A common contemporary interpretation of this relationship held that these two ways of knowing and writing were fundamentally opposed and that the advancement of science in American culture came at the expense of literary sensibilities. Nevertheless, and often as an effort to challenge this supposed opposition, many scientists also cultivated reputations as literary figures, and produced or planned diverse works ranging from travel writing and novels to verse drama. Such authors as Clarence King, J. Peter Lesley, Simon Newcomb and Nathaniel Southgate Shaler sustained a hybrid literary–scientific culture in the late nineteenth century. This interdisciplinary cultural zone was fragile and increasingly fractured by around 1900, as the emergence and consolidation of new categories of intellectual labour became increasingly wedded to the images of the “professional author” and the “scientist” as mutually exclusive identities. This article seeks to contribute to recurrent debates about the “two cultures” of literature and science by foregrounding the differentiation of these new forms of professional and intellectual identity as a decisive factor which constrained the possibility of a shared literary–scientific culture by the turn of the twentieth century.
1 McGee, W. J., “Thirst in the Desert,” Atlantic Monthly, 81 (April 1898), 483–88Google Scholar.
2 Ibid., 483, 485.
3 Lawson, Andrew, Downwardly Mobile: The Changing Fortunes of American Realism (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nancy Glazener notes that the genteel literary periodicals typified by the Atlantic in the late nineteenth century “had greater authority over American literature than any other institution did.” Glazener, Nancy, Reading for Realism: The History of a U.S. Literary Institution, 1850–1910 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1997), 5Google Scholar.
4 Clipping from New York Tribune Illustrated Supplement, 17 April 1898, 16; enclosed in Willard D. Johnson to W. J. McGee, 19 April 1898, in William John McGee Papers, Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, Box 7, folder “J–L, 1893–1903.”
5 Snow, C. P., The Two Cultures, rev. edn with Introduction by Collini, Stefan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 4Google Scholar.
6 Sleigh, Charlotte, Literature and Science (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jenkins, Alice, “Beyond Two Cultures: Science, Literature, and Disciplinary Boundaries,” in John, Juliet, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Victorian Literary Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 401–15Google Scholar; Walls, Laura Dassow, “From the Modern to the Ecological: Latour on Walden Pond,” in Goodbody, Axel and Rigby, Katy, eds., Ecocritical Theory: New European Approaches (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2011), 98–110Google Scholar; for examples of recent reporting and commentary on the STEM/humanities divide in US higher education see Charlie Tyson, “Humanities vs. STEM, Redux,” Inside Higher Ed, 18 Aug. 2014, at www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/08/18/new-study-assesses-humanities-impact-credits-earned-not-majors-declared, accessed 26 July 2017; Mary Churchill, “The Science vs. Humanities Divide Is False and Ideologically Driven,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 15 April 2011, at www.chronicle.com/blogs/old-new/the-science-vs-humanities-divide-is-false-and-ideologically-driven/343, accessed 26 July 2017.
7 For a series of reexaminations of Snow's arguments about the “two cultures,” and the wider relations of science and literature, see the varied contributions in Shaffer, Elinor S., ed., The Third Culture: Literature and Science (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Labinger, Jay A. and Collins, Harry, eds., The One Culture? A Conversation about Science (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wai-chee Dimock and Priscilla Wald, eds., Literature and Science: Cultural Forms, Conceptual Exchanges, special issue of American Literature, 74 (Dec. 2002); on the “one-culture” model and its critics see Jenkins, 408–10; David A. Hollinger situates Snow's ideas in the American context in “Science as a Weapon in Kulturkämpfe in the United States during and after World War II,” in Hollinger, , ed., Science, Jews, and Secular Culture: Studies in Mid-Twentieth-Century American Intellectual History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996), 155–74Google Scholar, 165–66.
8 There were prominent interdisciplinary hybrids, such as William James, who operated “at the boundaries” of these structures; yet James was known (and published) primarily as a scientist and philosopher rather than (as in the case of his brother Henry) as a professional author. Bordogna, Francesca, William James at the Boundaries: Philosophy, Science, and the Geography of Knowledge (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2008)Google Scholar.
9 There are abundant illuminating studies of the influence of science on literary culture, but they focus predominantly on established literary figures’ engagement with science, rather than established scientists’ engagements with literature. See, for example, Martin, Ronald E., American Literature and the Universe of Force (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1981)Google Scholar; Cummings, Sherwood, Mark Twain and Science: Adventures of a Mind (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1988)Google Scholar; the essays in Scholnick, Robert J., ed., American Literature and Science (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1992)Google Scholar; Shi, David E., Facing Facts: Realism in American Thought and Culture, 1850–1920 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Wilson, Eric, Romantic Turbulence: Chaos, Ecology, and American Space (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Baym, Nina, American Women of Letters and the Nineteenth-Century Sciences: Styles of Affiliation (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2002)Google Scholar; Walls, Laura Dassow, Emerson's Life in Science: The Culture of Truth (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003)Google Scholar.
10 Leland, Charles Godfrey, Sunshine in Thought (New York: Putnam, 1863; first published 1862), 146–47Google Scholar; Shi, 66–70.
11 Leland, 142.
12 On Darwin's scientific and religious impact see Numbers, Ronald L., Darwinism Comes to America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998)Google Scholar; on Darwin's influence on literary and intellectual life, particularly in New England, see Fuller, Randall, The Book That Changed America: How Darwin's Theory of Evolution Ignited a Nation (New York: Viking, 2017)Google Scholar; on the impact of Darwin's work on scientists’ cultural authority, especially in Britain, see Dawson, Gowan and Lightman, Bernard, eds., Victorian Scientific Naturalism: Community, Identity, Continuity (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2014)Google Scholar.
13 Darwin confessed in an autobiographical sketch, not written for publication, “I cannot endure to read a line of poetry,” and that his once-beloved Shakespeare had become “so intolerably dull that it nauseated me,” although he still found many novels “a wonderful relief and pleasure.” Darwin, Charles, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Darwin, Francis, Volume I (London: John Murray, 1887), 100–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for an early twentieth-century challenge to the idea that scientific work corrupted Darwin's aesthetic sensibilities, authored by a British-born American scientist, see Titchener, Edward Bradford, “Poetry and Science: The Case of Charles Darwin,” Popular Science Monthly 74 (Jan. 1909), 43–47Google Scholar.
14 Matthew Arnold, “Literature and Science,” Nineteenth Century, 12 (Aug. 1882), 216–30, 228.
15 The zoologist Theodore Gill noted of Arnold's lecture, “There is much in these utterances of Mr. Arnold which can be re-echoed by the man of science.” Gill, Theodore, “Culture and Science,” American Naturalist, 22 (June 1888), 481–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 487; see also Butler, Leslie, Critical Americans: Victorian Intellectuals and Transatlantic Liberal Reform (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2007), 165–71Google Scholar.
16 Thomas Wentworth Higginson, “A World Outside of Science” (1892), in Higginson, , Book and Heart: Essays on Literature and Life (New York: Harper & Bros., 1897), 28–40Google Scholar, 30.
17 On women's contributions to science and their exclusion from public prominence and professional identities see Rossiter, Margaret W., Women Scientists in America: Struggles and Strategies to 1940 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982)Google Scholar; Baym; and Keeney, Elizabeth, The Botanizers: Amateur Scientists in Nineteenth-Century America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992)Google Scholar. On the persistence of the “man of science” as a self-designation see Lucier, Paul, “The Professional and the Scientist in Nineteenth-Century America,” Isis, 100 (Dec. 2009), 699–732CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
18 Higginson, “A World Outside of Science,” 37.
19 The paradigm of “professionalization” has long been invoked to explain the broader transformation of American society and culture over the course of the nineteenth century, and particularly in the decades following the Civil War: Bledstein, Burton J., The Culture of Professionalism: The Middle Class and the Development of Higher Education in America (New York: Norton, 1976)Google Scholar; Geison, Gerald L., Professions and Professional Ideologies in America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1983)Google Scholar; Haber, Samuel, The Quest for Authority and Honor in the American Professions, 1750–1900 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991)Google Scholar.
20 Robert J. Scholnick, “Permeable Boundaries: Literature and Science in America,” in Scholnick, American Literature and Science, 1–17, 1, 3.
21 Ibid., 1; on the emergence of the “scientist” as a category of social identification by the 1840s see also Shi, Facing Facts, 66; this can be contrasted with the more persuasive argument made in Lucier.
22 For a classic account see Daniels, George H., “The Process of Professionalization in American Science: The Emergent Period, 1820–1860,” Isis, 58 (Summer 1967), 150–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
23 Lucier, 705; interpretations of the connections between literary and scientific professionalism are rare, but for one influential example see Fyfe, Aileen, “Conscientious Workmen or Booksellers’ Hacks? The Professional Identities of Science Writers in the Mid-Nineteenth Century,” Isis, 96 (June 2005), 192–223CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
24 As Alice Jenkins has observed of the recent historiography of science, “changes in the dominant narrative … mean that scientific professionalization is not now usually considered to have been so broad or intentional as was previously thought.” Jenkins, “Beyond Two Cultures,” 408.
25 See the classic interpretation of Charvat, William, The Profession of Authorship in America, 1800–1870: The Papers of William Charvat, ed. Bruccoli, Matthew J. (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1968)Google Scholar, which has been compellingly revised by Jackson, Leon, The Business of Letters: Authorial Economics in Antebellum America (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2008)Google Scholar, see esp. 3–4 and chapter 1 passim; see also Ann Fabian, “Amateur Authorship,” in Scott E. Casper, Jeffrey D. Groves, Stephen W. Nissenbaum, and Michael Winship, eds., The Industrial Book, 1840–1880, Volume III of Hall, David D., ed., A History of the Book in America, 5 vols. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press and American Antiquarian Society, 2007), 407–15Google Scholar; Wilson, Christopher P., The Labor of Words: Literary Professionalism in the Progressive Era (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1985)Google Scholar.
26 Howells, William Dean, “The Man of Letters as a Man of Business,” Scribner's, 14 (Oct. 1893), 429–45Google Scholar; Lichtenstein, Nelson, “Authorial Professionalism and the Literary Marketplace, 1885–1900,” American Studies, 19, 1 (1978), 35–53Google Scholar, 45, 48–49, interprets Howells's essay as bridging conceptions of literary authors as “gentleman amateurs” and “the hearty acceptance of commercialism by the new professionals.” See also Kaplan, Amy, The Social Construction of American Realism (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988), 43Google Scholar.
27 Howells, 429, 431.
28 Many critical studies of literary realism and naturalism in this period highlight its relation to the construction of middle-class identity: Kaplan; Glazener, Reading for Realism; and Lawson, Downwardly Mobile.
29 See, for example, Howells's dismissal of “the graceless and inappreciative public” which favours “practical” over “literary” content. Howells, 436.
30 Lichtenstein, 48; see also Wilson, The Labor of Words.
31 Norris, Frank, “The Responsibilities of the Novelist,” in Norris, The Responsibilities of the Novelist, And Other Literary Essays (New York: Greenwood, 1968; first published 1903), 3–12Google Scholar, 3–4.
32 Howells, 445; Janice A. Radway, “Learned and Literary Print Cultures in an Age of Professionalization and Diversification,” in Carl F. Kaestle and Janice A. Radway, eds., Print in Motion: The Expansion of Publishing and Reading in the United States, 1880–1940, Volume IV of Hall, , A History of the Book in America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press and American Antiquarian Society, 2009), 197–233Google Scholar, 209, 212; see also Brodhead, Richard H., Cultures of Letters: Scenes of Reading and Writing in Nineteenth-Century America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 9Google Scholar, on “a distinctive demarcated high-literary culture” which emerged “in the 1860s and after.”
33 Radway, 214, 198–99; see also Barrish, Phillip, American Literary Realism, Critical Theory, and Intellectual Prestige, 1880–1995 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
34 Brodhead, 10–11.
35 [Henry James,] review of Hours of Exercise in the Alps by John Tyndall, Atlantic Monthly, 28 (Nov. 1871), 634–36, 634.
36 Daston, Lorraine and Galison, Peter, Objectivity (New York: Zone, 2007), 55–113Google Scholar.
37 “Expression, sentiment, truth to nature, are essential,” Ruskin asserted in the first volume of Modern Painters, in The Works of John Ruskin, ed. Cook, E. T. and Wedderburn, Alexander, Volume III (London: George Allen, 1903), 204Google Scholar; on Ruskin's influence and the wider contexts of aesthetic discourse see Butler, Critical Americans.
38 Ruskin, John, The Elements of Drawing, in The Works of John Ruskin, Volume XV (London, George Allen, 1904), 13Google Scholar.
39 [James,] review of Hours of Exercise, 635.
40 Ibid.
41 Freedman, Jonathan, Professions of Taste: Henry James, British Aestheticism, and Commodity Culture (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990)Google Scholar.
42 Wilkins, Thurman, Clarence King: A Biography (New York: Macmillan, 1958)Google Scholar; Wilkins's biography remains valuable, but more recent interpretations of King in wider social and cultural contexts are Sachs, Aaron, The Humboldt Current: A European Explorer and His American Disciples (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007)Google Scholar; Sandweiss, Martha A., Passing Strange: A Gilded Age Tale of Love and Deception across the Color Line (London: Penguin, 2009)Google Scholar.
43 King quoted in Sachs, 204.
44 [Clarence Cook,] “Association for the Advancement of Truth in Art,” New Path, 1 (May 1863), 11–12, 11.
45 Anonymous, “Science in Its Relations to Art,” New Path, 2 (Nov. 1865), 169–72, 171; Anonymous, , “Science in Its Relations to Art [Concluded],” New Path, 2 (Dec. 1865), 185–88Google Scholar, 186, 187.
46 King, Clarence, First Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1880), 4Google Scholar.
47 Wilkins, 61.
48 King, quoted in Sachs, 204.
49 King, Clarence, Mountaineering in the Sierra Nevada (Boston: Osgood and Co., 1872)Google Scholar.
50 Limits to the fusion of scientific and literary forms of writing were already evident, however. King also published more technical observations on the expeditions’ findings separately, in the leading specialist scientific journal in the US: “On the Discovery of Actual Glaciers in the Mountains of the Pacific Slope,” American Journal of Science, 3rd series, 1 (March 1871), 157–67.
51 King, Clarence, “Active Glaciers within the United States,” Atlantic Monthly, 27 (March 1871), 371–77Google Scholar.
52 King, Clarence, “Mountaineering in the Sierra Nevada, Part I: The Range,” Atlantic Monthly, 27 (May 1871), 602–13Google Scholar, 604.
53 [James,] review of Hours of Exercise,” 636.
54 King, Clarence, “Kaweah's Run,” Atlantic Monthly, 28 (Oct. 1871), 396–405Google Scholar, 397.
55 Ibid., 397–405.
56 King, Clarence, “Wayside Pikes,” Atlantic Monthly, 28 (Nov. 1871), 564–77Google Scholar, 572.
57 Ibid., 571.
58 King, Clarence, Systematic Geology, in Report of the Geological Exploration of the Fortieth Parallel, Volume I, ed. King, (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1878)Google Scholar; Wilkins, Clarence King, 206.
59 Quoted in Wilkins, 139.
60 [Henry Adams,] review of Mountaineering in the Sierra Nevada, North American Review, 114 (April 1872), 445–48Google Scholar, 445.
61 As Wilkins notes, even before the publication of his Atlantic articles King “found himself cast as a … harbinger of the literary nova that blazed in the West,” and he attended the Saturday Club in the company of the likes of Theodore Parker, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. Wilkins, 140.
62 Sandweiss, Passing Strange, 111; Harte also published a late story featuring a geologist who betrayed his scientific commitment to impartiality for personal profit as a mining consultant, which could well have been influenced by King's tales of unscrupulous scientific consultants. Harte, Bret, “The Passing of Enriquez,” Century, 56 (June 1898), 230–47Google Scholar.
63 Howells, William Dean, “Meetings with Clarence King,” in Hague, James D., ed., Clarence King Memoirs: The Helmet of Mambrino (New York: Putnam, 1904), 133–56Google Scholar, 153.
64 Raymond W. Rossiter, “Biographical Notice,” in Hague, 303–74, 353.
65 Ibid., 353; Sandweiss, 251–52.
66 King, Clarence, “The Helmet of Mambrino,” Century, 32 (May 1886), 154–64Google Scholar, 154.
67 Ibid., 158.
68 Clarence King to James T. Gardiner, 15 Feb. 1873, quoted in Wilkins, 174–75, King's emphasis.
69 King to Adams, 25 Sept. 1889, quoted in ibid., 324.
70 William Dean Howells, “Meetings with Clarence King,” 141.
71 Samuel Franklin Emmons, “Clarence King: Geologist,” in Hague, 253–94, 290–91.
72 Howells, “Meetings with Clarence King,” 141.
73 Quoted in Sandweiss, 232, King's emphasis; John Hay, finding King “in delicious vein” in London, enthused to Adams that “he ought to write his novel now.” John Hay to Henry Adams, 25 Aug. 1887, in Hay, John, Letters of John Hay and Extracts from Diary, Volume II (New York: Gordian Press, 1969), 131Google Scholar.
74 Quoted in Sandweiss, 232.
75 Lucier, Paul, Scientists & Swindlers: Consulting on Coal and Oil in Antebellum America, 1820–1890 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008)Google Scholar.
76 J. P. Lesley to James Freeman Clarke, 3 Nov. 1850, in Ames, Margaret, ed., Life and Letters of J. Peter and Susan Lesley, 2 vols. (New York: Putnam's, 1909), Volume I, 234Google Scholar.
77 J. P. Lesley, “Frank,” undated MS., J. P. Lesley Papers, American Philosophical Society Library, Philadelphia (hereafter Lesley Papers), 3–7.
78 Lesley, “Frank,” 11.
79 Ibid.
80 J. P. Lesley to Charles Leland, 31 Dec. 1861, Lesley Papers.
81 J. P. Lesley to Catherine Robbins, 5 March 1873, in Ames, Volume II, 108.
82 J. P. Lesley to Mary Ames, 14 Nov. 1886, in Ames, Volume II, 345.
83 J. P. Lesley to Charles and Mary Ames, May 24, 1891, in Ames, Volume II, 412; J. P. Lesley to Susan Inches Lesley, 16 Sept. 1892, in Ames, Volume II, 420.
84 Further discussion of these themes can be found in Vandome, Robin, “Nineteenth-Century American Science and the Decline of Letters,” in Bernier, Celeste-Marie, Newman, Judie, and Pethers, Matthew, eds., The Edinburgh Companion to Nineteenth-Century American Letters and Letter-Writing (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2016), 89–102Google Scholar.
85 Glazener, Reading for Realism, 43.
86 King, Clarence, “The Education of the Future,” Forum, 13 (March 1892), 20–33Google Scholar, 21; in presenting his case for the “world outside of science,” Higginson cited King's article: Higginson, “A World Outside of Science,” 33.
87 King, “The Education of the Future,” 28.
88 Leland, Sunshine in Thought, 147.
89 Thayer, W. R., “The Scientific Method in Fiction,” Open Court, 26 June 1890, 2347–2350Google Scholar.
90 T. C. Chamberlin, “The Influence of Science on Literature,” undated MS., Papers of Thomas Chrowder Chamberlin (1843–1928), Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library, Addenda: Box 8, Folder I, 2–3, 9–10.
91 For wide-ranging discussions of this phenomenon see the essays in Anderson, Amanda and Valente, Joseph, eds., Disciplinarity at the Fin de Siècle (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002)Google Scholar.
92 On the relatively belated development of science fiction in American literature see Westfahl, Gary, “The Mightiest Machine: The Development of American Science Fiction from the 1920s to the 1960s,” in Canavan, Gerry and Link, Eric Carl, eds., The Cambridge Companion to American Science Fiction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 17–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; on the significance of Bellamy see Patai, Daphne, ed., Looking Backward, 1988–1888: Essays on Edward Bellamy (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1988)Google Scholar; on Arrowsmith see Hollinger, David A., “The Unity of Knowledge and the Diversity of Knowers: Science as an Agent of Cultural Integration in the United States between the Two World Wars,” Pacific Historical Review, 80 (May 2011), 211–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 223–25.
93 Newcomb, Simon, “The Coming Total Eclipse of the Sun: What Astronomers Hope to Learn from This Eclipse,” McClure's Magazine, 15 (Jan. 1900), 45–53Google Scholar; Newcomb, , “The End of the World,” McClure's Magazine, 21 (May 1903), 3–14Google Scholar.
94 Moyer, Albert E., A Scientist's Voice in American Culture: Simon Newcomb and the Rhetoric of Scientific Method (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Newcomb's endorsement of professional values in science is also evident in Newcomb, Simon, “Science and the Government,” North American Review, 170 (May 1900), 666–78Google Scholar, and Newcomb, , “The Organization of Scientific Research,” North American Review, 182 (Jan. 1906), 32–43Google Scholar.
95 Newcomb, Simon, His Wisdom, The Defender (New York: Harper, 1900)Google Scholar.
96 Ibid., 314–16.
97 Ibid., 109, 46.
98 William Morton Payne, “Recent Fiction,” The Dial, 16 Dec. 1900, 499; see also “Literary Notes,” New York Evangelist, 28 June 1900, 16; “Mr. Newcomb's Romance,” Literary World, 1 Nov. 1900, 221–22.
99 Quoted in Pauly, Philip J., Biologists and the Promise of American Life: From Meriwether Lewis to Alfred Kinsey (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000), 108CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
100 Shaler, Nathaniel Southgate, Elizabeth of England: A Dramatic Romance in Five Parts, Volume I, The Coronation (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1903), viGoogle Scholar.
101 Ibid., v.
102 Ibid., vi.
103 Ibid., 13.
104 Ibid., ix.
105 Ibid., xiv–xv.
106 Ibid., xi. Shaler also had a collection of poetry published posthumously, which he had planned to have published before his death. Shaler, Nathaniel Southgate, From Old Fields: Poems of the Civil War (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1906)Google Scholar.
107 Boynton, H. W., “A Novel Experiment in Poetry,” Atlantic Monthly, 93 (Feb. 1904), 275–76Google Scholar, 275.
108 Howells, “Meetings with Clarence King,” 154.
