• The Critical Force of Cosmopolitanism in the Age of Revolution
• Len Von Morzé (bio)

After Martinette de Beauvais has begun to describe her international education, the heroine of Charles Brockden Brown's Ormond (1799) asks her how a young woman could have learned so many languages and seen so many exotic places. Before launching into a long account of her adventures, Martinette draws a striking contrast between her early education and Constantia's: "You grew and flourished, like a pale Mimosa, in the spot where destiny had planted you. Thank my stars, I am somewhat better than a vegetable. Necessity, it is true, and not choice, set me in motion, but I am not sorry for the consequences" (Brown 146). While Martinette's insulting comparison of Constantia to a plant may suggest a simple contrast between global circulation and a vegetative state, her choice of the mimosa complicates the picture. From his reading of an oft-reprinted passage in Erasmus Darwin's Loves of the Plants, Brown would have known that mimosas are not in fact immobile; they move when touched—one might [End Page 259] say by necessity rather than choice (Darwin 30–31). Darwin's account of the mimosa as both prudishly averse to foreign hands and alluringly foreign itself (an Ottoman "bride" no less) further complicates the plant's rich figuration of both xenophobia and exoticism. To the extent that Constantia feels both planted and mobile, she will be torn between her friendship with the Anglo-American Sophia and her new friend, the polyglot Martinette. Thanks to Kwame Anthony Appiah we have a positive designation for the position Martinette invites Constantia to inhabit—"rooted cosmopolitanism"—though for Brown the relationship between a fondness for one's homeland on the one hand, and openness to the wider world on the other, is an either/or (transatlantic Anglo-American filiopiety or cosmopolitanism?) rather than a both/and, a binary that can be resolved only at the end of Constantia's knife.

For literary historians, cosmopolitanism might seem to be purely a descriptor of cultural mobility, but as Appiah usefully reminds us, this concept (unlike hybridity) cannot be entirely separated from an ethical dimension. What is a cosmopolitan ethics in early America? It is not, at least in the three books under review, as simple as an attitude of simple broad-mindedness, a capacity to entertain the both/and. To enjoy such liberality in the Atlantic world seems here the privilege of a white male elite who, making their selfhood on their own terms, can stand aloof from ascriptive identities—an Enlightenment optimism that Appiah's ethics in many ways replicates.¹ Perhaps counterintuitively, cosmopolitanism emerges in these studies as a way of describing a worldview whose starting point is privation rather than plenitude. While eighteenth-century cosmopolitans are generally imagined as white men whose wealth allowed them to step above narrow national prejudices, the first two books instead admirably draw attention to figures who represented themselves as cosmopolitans yet were denied full belonging within their respective nations. The third book, meanwhile, finds the critical force of cosmopolitanism in the early United States, in particular, in its negative relation to the privileges of wealth, the unfettered freedom of movement of people or goods enabled by participation in the British Empire. Seen in this way, critical American cosmopolitanism is directed against modernity: against the footloose traveler, the Lemuel Gulliver indulging his "man of the world" fantasies, or the global consumers of that unbounded market described by the Spectator [End Page 260] in number 69 of Addison and Steele's series. Instead most of the Atlantic cosmopolitans studied in these books circulate, like Martinette, of necessity rather than of their own free will, or are forced to move in search of bread like Constantia. This itinerancy seems to produce new epistemological standpoints from which to participate in global conversations and to engage...

• 革命时代世界主义的批判力量
• Len VonMorzé（生物）

在马丁内特·德波瓦（Martinette de Beauvais）开始描述她的国际教育之后，查尔斯·布罗克登·布朗（Charles Brockden Brown）的奥蒙德（Ormond）的女主人公（1799）问她一个年轻女子怎么会学这么多语言，看了那么多异国情调的地方。在详细介绍她的冒险经历之前，马丁内特（Martinette）在她的早期教育与康斯坦丁（Constantiia）之间形成了鲜明的对比：“您像苍白的含羞草一样在命运孕育的地方成长和繁荣。感谢我的星星，我好一些了必然，这是事实，而非选择，这使我动起来，但我对后果不感到遗憾”（布朗146）。虽然马丁内特（Martinette）对康斯坦西亚（Constantia）与植物的侮辱性对比可能暗示了全球循环与植物生长状态之间的简单对比，但她对含羞草的选择使情况变得更加复杂。从他阅读《伊拉斯mus斯·达尔文的植物之爱》中经常重印的段落中读到，布朗会知道含羞草实际上并不是固定的。它们在被触摸时会移动-一个可能[End Page 259]说的是必要性，而不是选择性（达尔文30–31）。达尔文对含羞草的描述既审慎地反对外来手，又引诱外国人（至少是奥斯曼帝国的“新娘”），这使该植物对仇外心理和异国情调的丰富形象更加复杂。在某种程度上，康斯坦西亚既感觉到种植又动静，她将在与盎格鲁-美国人索菲娅的友谊和她的新朋友多语种马提内特之间陷入困境。多亏了夸梅·安东尼·阿皮亚（Kwame Anthony Appiah），我们对马丁内特邀请君士坦丁堡居住的位置给予了肯定的称呼，即“根深蒂固的世界主义”。尽管对于布朗来说，一方面是对自己祖国的爱好与另一方面对更广阔世界的开放之间的关系，both和and，只能在Constantia刀端处解析的二进制文件。

对于文学史学家而言，世界主义似乎纯粹是文化流动性的描述，但是正如阿皮亚有用地提醒我们的那样，这一概念（与混合性不同）不能与道德层面完全分开。在美国早期，什么是大都会伦理？至少在所审查的三本书中，它并没有像简单而宽泛的态度那样简单，既具有娱乐性又具有娱乐性的能力。享受大西洋世界的这种自由似乎在这里是白人男性精英的特权，他们凭自己的生活自以为是，可以与描述性身分背道而驰，这是开明的乐观主义，阿皮亚的道德在许多方面都可以复制。^1个也许与直觉相反，世界主义作为这些世界观的一种描述方式出现了，这种世界观的出发点是贫穷而不是宽裕。虽然通常将十八世纪的世界主义者想象成白人，他们的财富使他们能够超越狭national的国家偏见，但前两本书反而令人钦佩地吸引了关注那些以自己的身份代表世界主义者但被拒绝在各自国家内完全归属的人。同时，第三本书发现了世界主义在美国早期的关键力量，特别是它与财富特权，参与大英帝国所带来的自由的人或物自由流动的消极关系。通过这种方式可以看出，批判性的美国世界主义是针对现代性的：[第260页结束]，是Addison和Steele系列的第69期。取而代之的是，像马丁内特（Martinette）一样，在这些书中学习的大多数大西洋大都会主义者都是必需品，而不是他们自己的自由意志，或者被迫像君士坦丁堡那样去寻找面包。这种迭代似乎产生了新的认识论立场，从这些观点可以参与全球对话并参与...