Joseph Conrad wrote Nostromo (1904) at the crucial moment that witnessed the clash between the retreating nineteenth and the ensuing twentieth century. The period encompassed the point of no return towards the logical perfection of the Golden Age and ushered the world towards the chaos of modernity with its meaningless war games, power politics, capitalism, colonialism, violence, greed and destruction. With the commencement of the twentieth century, there occurred a radical shift from the “closed, finite, measurable, cause-and-effect universe of the ninetieth century to an open, relativistic, changing, strange universe, which advanced from an evolutionary, developmental model of existence to a system propagating symbolic ways of recreating a sustainable ontological ground” (Loidolt, 2007, 2), as exemplified in the works of Jung, dealing with the concept of universal archetypes, and those of Freud, Marx, Nietzsche, Joyce, Adorno, Benjamin and others, advocating that the forces governing human behavior in any sphere, be it psychology, politics, economy, etc., are hidden and permutable. This shift was instigated by the challenges to the nineteenth century science and its assurance in its capability to explain the universe; rapid industrialization and the consequent displacement of people; “the hypocritical association of Christianity with capitalism and colonialism” (Loidolt, 2007, 2); the growing awareness of different cultures in colonies which had different but well-argued world-views; and important changes in philosophical thought which suggested that “‘reality’ was an internal and changeable, not an externally validated, concept, and that what is considered ‘real’ is based on the desire for power, not on any objective warrant” (Loidolt, 2007, 2). What is more, the period was subject to an increasing sense that culture lost its deportment, that there is “no center, no clarity, that there was a disintegration of values. This “loss of faith in a moral center and moral direction was based on the recognition that the traditional values have, after all, led only to horrid wars and exploitation of other cultures and races” (Loidolt, 2007, 2). Hence, the feeling of the loss of ‘ontological ground’, or, the loss of “confidence that there exists a reliable, knowable ground of value and identity” (Loidolt, 2007, 2), resulted in the fact that the traditional treatment of the concept of history, as a congruent combination of events repeating themselves in a circular nature and fixed in written records, and “a universal process in which all social formations, nations and persons had their appropriate but subordinate role in the development of the totality” (Novack, 2011, 3) vanished. It was superseded by a multiplicity of antinomic modernist histories based on pure discourse or its complete lack, arising in the world governed by the material needs of capitalism.