Subject
Dieter Zimmer on Boyd, Alexander thread
From
Date
Body
RE: the Boyd, Alexander threadEDITOR'S NOTE. Dieter Zimmer, the leading German Nabokov specialist, has published extensively on VN's scientific interests. His "Guide to Nabokov's Butterflies and Moths 2001" is a fundamental work while his book "Nabokovs Berlin" (Berlin: Nicolai, 2001) is a marvellous collection of photographs and texts from VN's years there. For further information, see www.d-e-zimmer.de
-------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Dieter E. Zimmer
To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 12:21 PM
Subject: Boyd, Alexander thread
I wouldn't be so sure that Nabokov would never have come round to a Darwinian point of view. Arguing that Darwin was a more dangerous enemy to him than Freud is belittling Nabokov. He certainly would never have agreed with Freudianism. But Darwin, after all, did not spout nonsense. I recognize it is unlikely Nabokov would ever have made his peace with natural selection. But, on the other hand, he very much wanted to be a good scientist, and he was one. It probably is no accident that he never published his Addendum #2 to "Dar" ("Father's Butterflies"). If he had done so in the early 1940s when he began his entomological work at the MCZ, none of his colleagues would have taken him seriously as a scientist. Everybody knows he rested his argument against natural selection on mimicry. Contrary to what most believe, however, he never went deep into mimicry as a scientific problem, citing very few actual cases and frankly inventing some to prove his point. So his position was shaky, and who knows what would have happened if there had been evidence around to topple it.
Dieter E. Zimmer
Berlin, August 31, 2002
mail@d-e-zimmer.de
-------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Dieter E. Zimmer
To: Vladimir Nabokov Forum
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 12:21 PM
Subject: Boyd, Alexander thread
I wouldn't be so sure that Nabokov would never have come round to a Darwinian point of view. Arguing that Darwin was a more dangerous enemy to him than Freud is belittling Nabokov. He certainly would never have agreed with Freudianism. But Darwin, after all, did not spout nonsense. I recognize it is unlikely Nabokov would ever have made his peace with natural selection. But, on the other hand, he very much wanted to be a good scientist, and he was one. It probably is no accident that he never published his Addendum #2 to "Dar" ("Father's Butterflies"). If he had done so in the early 1940s when he began his entomological work at the MCZ, none of his colleagues would have taken him seriously as a scientist. Everybody knows he rested his argument against natural selection on mimicry. Contrary to what most believe, however, he never went deep into mimicry as a scientific problem, citing very few actual cases and frankly inventing some to prove his point. So his position was shaky, and who knows what would have happened if there had been evidence around to topple it.
Dieter E. Zimmer
Berlin, August 31, 2002
mail@d-e-zimmer.de