and deeds necessary for heroes whonwould conquer the globe, spreading thensuperficial marks of British culture beforenthem; on the other, literature wasncontent to contemplate the nature ofnhuman emotion close at home by thensafe confines of the fireside.nEach of these realms of experiencencan clearly profit from the scrutinizingnimagination of the man of letters, yetnunfortunately only the domestic storynof the sister became respectable for thenserious novelist. The brother’s tale wasnrelegated to the area of low entertainment,nadventure not being consideredna worthy subject for fiction. And thenacademy in typically pious fashion reinforcednthis judgment—wishing tonavoid the moral ambiguities involvednin action and empire. Thus, no reallynbrilliant man of letters came forward tonintimately explore from the inside thendramatic moral tensions facing the mannof empire.nJTrofessor Green’s campaign here isnnot, of course, to legitimize empire;nrather, he wishes to explore the sensibilitynthat led to empire so as to reintegratenour literary understanding of itsnunderlying motives with our factualnknowledge of its physical accomplishments.nThe adventure story, he tells us,nis a key economic and political artifactnfor understanding the rise of Britainnand subsequently America because itnembodied the values of the modernnworld system and thus helped to forgenthe myth and ideology which movednmen into action in the interests of thenexpanding merchant class. As Greenndescribes it:n”The system developed an ideology innwhich freedom and morality werenthe main values; freedom and moralitynin religion meaning Protestantism;nin commerce meaning capitalistnenterprise; in politics meaning a gentrynrepublic or constitutional monarchy.nThis ideology was anti-imperialist;nthe system worked by means unlikenthose of the old military, centralized,ntax-gathering empires, their toweringnstructures crowned by some divinizednemperor who blazed forth glory. Thennew empire was, or felt like, a communitynof freely competing equals,nand called itself a nonempire to drawnattention to that difference. Its meansnand values flourished in the corenstates, and their gospel was taken tonthe periphery and beyond, in all confidencenthat they could take rootnthere, by an act of will. When they didnnot take root, that was attributed tona failure of will.”nWithin this system were competingncastes. The course of empire and of thenadventure story meant the triumph ofnthe values of the merchant caste overnthose of the military caste, yet thenprice of this victory was the hiddenndependence of the merchant on the soldier,nan uneasy alliance that remainsnto this day.nWithin this economic and politicalnframework. Green provides a genrenanalysis of the adventure story basednon the approaches of the French structuralistncritics. The obvious elementsnof this genre fail to surprise us: a seriesnof events in settings removed from andomestic civilized environment; a challengento the central character or heronwho successfully meets all odds displayingnthe virtues of courage, fortitude,ncunning and strength; a showplace fornthe tools and techniques of the modernnworld system. All this cooked up tonrecruit the young into their own possiblendaring deeds to expand the empire,nor at least to serve as propaganda fornemigration. But beneath this simplenfacade lie the very complex and contradictorynmotives that are still with us.nThe paradox of capitalist adventurenis best captured in the image of thenPuritan who, in dedicating himself tonthe religious life, learned the ways ofndisciplined time and space which innturn held the keys to greater worldlynpower and success. And so we witnessnthe ongoing display of values and goodsnbeing turned into their opposites. Thentrade in textiles supported the trade innintoxicants and explosives. The primi­nnntive savage was granted salvation onlynto be debased into a state of servitude.nIn making the world safe for civilizationnmen had to go off alone and abandonncivilization. And in the process thenmerchant ends up sounding like a pirate,nspeaking for similar rapacious values.nIn making possessions central to life,nmen learned a new emotion, the anxietynof security.nThese gross excesses, which undercutnthe manifest virtues and successes ofnthe modern world system, were responsiblenfor the rejection of thenadventure tale in respectable literaryncircles and the consequent inward turnnof narrative characteristic of the storiesnof the sisters. As Green traces this irreparablenbreach:n”The serious writers, reacting againstnwhat they hated in their civilization,ncould indirectly attack it in the courtshipnnovel, while more clearly assertingnthe caste values they shared withntheir audience. They created a literaturenof largely silent resistance. Thenadventure novel, on the other hand,ndid not protest. This is the source ofnthe distinction, serious vs. nonserious:nthough of course individualnwriters had to give a literary validitynto the distinction, by the imaginativeneffort they put into the domesticnnovel.”nThe issues of empire, of course, wouldnnot go away. Yet the culture’s capacitynto deal with them constructively wasngreatly weakened when the adventurennarrative was left in the hands of thensecond-rate writer.nThe tension between these two worldsnbegun as early as the rivalry betweennDefoe and Swift. Defoe, for one, participatednin the affairs of the marketplace;nhe was a man of his times, ablento rebound from bankruptcy, loyal tonthe king, and a staunch supporter ofn”England-as-a-whole.” But despite hisntalents, unlike Swift, Defoe was a journalist,nnot a man of letters. For Swiftnstood apart, an overseeing commentatornon the rush of folly below. Yet, ironically,nin the battle between these antag-nMay/June 1980n