Contemporany Reader

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contemporary Critical Theories. A Reader
1. FORM AND STRCTRE
1.1 FORMALISM
1.1.1 Victor Shklovsky: from Art as Technique
Art is thinking in images. This maxim, hich even high!school
stu"ents #arrot, is nevertheless the starting #oint for the eru"ite #hilologist ho
is $eginning to #ut together some kin" of systematic literary theory. The i"ea,
originate" in #art $y %ote$nya, has s#rea". &ithout imagery there is no art, an"
in #articular no #oetry, %ote$nya rites. An" elsehere, %oetry, as ell as
#rose, is first an" foremost a s#ecial ay of thinking an" knoing.
1
'...(
%ote$nyas conclusion, hich can $e formulate" #oetry equals imagery,
gave rise to the hole theory that imagery equals sym$olism, that the
image may serve as the invaria$le #re"icate of various su$)ects. '...( The
conclusion stems #artly from the fact that %ote$nya "i" not "istinguish
$eteen the language of #oetry an" the language of #rose. *onsequently,
he ignore" the fact that there are to as#ects of imagery: imagery as a
#ractical means of thinking, as a means of #lacing o$)ects ithin
categories+ an" imagery as #oetic, as a means of reinforcing an im#ression.
, shall clarify ith an exam#le. , ant to attract the attention of a young
chil" ho is eating $rea" an" $utter an" getting the $utter on her fingers. ,
call, -ey, $utterfingers. This is a figure of s#eech, a clearly #rosaic
tro#e. /o a "ifferent exam#le. The chil" is #laying ith my glasses an"
"ro#s them. , call, -ey, $utterfingers. This figure of s#eech is a #oetic
tro#e. 0,n the first exam#le, $utterfingers is metonymic+ in the secon",
meta#horic ! $ut this is not hat , ant to stress.1
%oetic imagery is a means of creating the strongest #ossi$le im#ression.
As a metho" it is, "e#en"ing u#on its #ur#ose, neither more nor less
effective than other #oetic techniques+ it is neither more nor less effective
than or"inary or negative #arallelism, com#arison, re#etition, $alance"
1
Alexan"er %ote$nya 0'e".( nineteenth!century 2ussian #hilologist an" theorist1, Iz
zapisok po teorii slovesnosti [Notes on the Theory of Langage! 03harkov, 14561, ##.
78, 49.
structure, hy#er$ole, the commonly acce#te" rhetorical figures, an" all
those metho"s hich em#hasi:e the emotional effect of an ex#ression
0inclu"ing or"s or even articulate" soun"s1. '...( %oetic imagery is $ut
one of the "evices of #oetic language.
,f e start to examine the general las of #erce#tion, e see that as
#erce#tion $ecomes ha$itual, it $ecomes automatic. Thus, for exam#le,
all of our ha$its retreat into the area of the unconsciously automatic+ if
one remem$ers the sensations of hol"ing a #en or of s#eaking in a foreign
language for the first time an" com#ares that ith his feeling at
#erforming the action for the ten thousan"th time, he ill agree ith us.
'...(
y;f5<'...( -a$ituali:ation "evours orks, clothes, furniture, ones ife,
an" the fear of ar. '...( An" art exists that one may recover the sensation
of life+ it exists to make one feel things, to make the stone stony. The
#ur#ose of art is to im#art the sensation of things as they are #erceive"
an" not as they are knon. The technique of art is to make o$)ects
unfamiliar, to make forms "ifficult, to increase the "ifficulty an" length
of #erce#tion $ecause the #rocess of #erce#tion is an aesthetic en" in
itself an" must $e #rolonge". Art is a "ay of e#perien$ing the artflness
of an o%&e$t' the o%&e$t is not i(portant. '...(
After e see an o$)ect several times, e $egin to recogni:e it. The
o$)ect is in front of us an" e kno a$out it, $ut e "o not see it ! hence
e cannot say anything significant a$out it. Art removes o$)ects from the
automatism of #erce#tion in several ays. -ere , ant to illustrate a ay
use" re#eate"ly $y =eo Tolstoy, that riter ho '...( seems to #resent
things as if he himself sa them, sa them in their entirety, an" "i" not
alter them.
Tolstoy makes the familiar seem strange $y not naming the familiar
o$)ect. -e "escri$es an o$)ect as if he ere seeing it for the first time, an
event as if it ere ha##ening for the first time. ,n "escri$ing something
he avoi"s the acce#te" names of its #arts an" instea" names
corres#on"ing #arts of other o$)ects. >or exam#le, in Shame, Tolstoy
"efamiliari:es the i"ea of flogging in this ay: to stri# #eo#le ho
have $roken the la, to hurl them to the floor, an" to ra# on their
6
$ottoms ith sitches, an", after a fe lines, to lash a$out on the nake"
$uttocks. Then he remarks:
?ust hy #recisely this stu#i", savage means of causing #ain an" not any
other ! hy not #rick the shoul"ers or any #art of the $o"y ith nee"les,
squee:e the han"s or the feet in a vise, or anything like that@
, a#ologi:e for this harsh exam#le, $ut it is ty#ical for Tolstoys ay of
#ricking the conscience. The familiar act of flogging is ma"e unfamiliar
$oth $y the "escri#tion an" $y the #ro#osal to change its form ithout
changing its nature. Tolstoy uses this technique of "efamiliari:ation
constantly. '...(
/o, having ex#laine" the nature of this technique, let us try to
"etermine the a##roximate limits of its a##lication. , #ersonally feel that
"efamiliari:ation is foun" almost everyhere form is foun". ,n other
or"s, the "ifference $eteen %ote$nyas #oint of vie an" ours is this:
An image is not a #ermanent referent for those muta$le com#lexities of
life hich are reveale" through it+ its #ur#ose is not to make us #erceive
meaning, $ut to create a s#ecial #erce#tion of the o$)ect ! it $reates a
)vision* of the o%&e$t instea+ of serving as a (eans for kno"ing it. '...(
Auite often in literature the sexual act itself is "efamiliari:e"+ for
exam#le, the ,e$a(eron refers to scra#ing out a $arrel, catching
nightingales, gay ool!$eating ork, 0the last is not "evelo#e" in the
#lot1. Befamiliari:ation is often use" in "escri$ing the sexual organs.
A hole series of #lots is $ase" on such a lack of recognition+ for
exam#le, in Afanasyevs Inti(ate Tales the entire story of The Shy
Cistress is $ase" on the fact that an o$)ect is not calle" $y its #ro#er
name ! or, in other or"s, on a game of nonrecognition. So too in
Dnchukovs S#otte" %etticoats, tale no. 6E6, an" also in The Fare an"
the -are from Inti(ate Tales- in hich the $ear an" the hare make a
oun".
Such constructions as the #estle an" the mortar, or Dl" /ick an" the
infernal regions 0,e$a(eron1, are also exam#les of the techniques of
"efamiliari:ation in #sychological #arallelism. -ere, then, , re#eat that the
#erce#tion of "isharmony in a harmonious context is im#ortant in
#arallelism. The #ur#ose of #arallelism, like the general #ur#ose of
imagery, is to transfer the usual #erce#tion of an o$)ect into the s#here of
a ne #erce#tion ! that is, to make a unique semantic mo"ification.
,n stu"ying #oetic s#eech in its #honetic an" lexical structure as ell as
in its characteristic "istri$ution of or"s an" in the characteristic thought
structures com#oun"e" from the or"s, e fin" everyhere the artistic
tra"emark ! that is, e fin" material o$viously create" to remove the
automatism of #erce#tion+ the authors #ur#ose is to create the vision
hich results from that "eautomatise" #erce#tion. A ork is create"
artistically so that its #erce#tion is im#e"e" an" the greatest #ossi$le
effect is #ro"uce" through the sloness of the #erce#tion. As a result of
this lingering, the o$)ect is #erceive" not in its extension in s#ace, $ut, so
to s#eak, in its continuity. Thus #oetic language gives satisfaction.
1.1.E Vla"imir %ro##: from Morphology of the Folktale
2
=et us first of all attem#t to formulate our task. As alrea"y state" in the
foreor", this ork is "e"icate" to the stu"y of fairy tales. The existence
of fairy tales as a s#ecial class is assume" as an essential orking
hy#othesis. Fy Gfairy talesG are meant at #resent those tales classifie" $y
Aarne un"er num$ers 855 to 9<4. This "efinition is artificial, $ut the
occasion ill su$sequently arise to give a more #recise "etermination on
the $asis of resultant conclusions. &e are un"ertaking a com#arison of
the themes of these tales. >or the sake of com#arison e shall se#arate
the com#onent #arts of fairy tales $y s#ecial metho"s+ an" then, e shall
make a com#arison of tales accor"ing to their com#onents. The result
ill $e a mor#hology 0i.e., a "escri#tion of the tale accor"ing to its
com#onent #arts an" the relationshi# of these com#onents to each other
an" to the hole1.
&hat metho" can achieve an accurate "escri#tion of the tale@ =et us
E
Vla"imir %ro##, Morphology of the Folktale 0Hniversity of Texas %ress,
Austin, 14I71, ##. 14!EE.
I
com#are the folloing events:
1. A tsar gives an eagle to a hero. The eagle carries the hero aay to
another king"om.
E. An ol" man gives Sucenko a horse. The horse carries Sucenko aay to
another king"om.
8. A sorcerer gives ,van a little $oat. The $oat takes ,van to another
king"om.
<. A #rincess gives ,van a ring. Joung men a##earing from out of the
ring carry ,van aay into another king"om, an" so forth.
Foth constants an" varia$les are #resent in the #rece"ing instances. The
names of the "ramatis #ersonae change 0as ell as the attri$utes of each1,
$ut neither their actions nor functions change. >rom this e can "ra the
influence that a tale often attri$ute i"entical actions to various #ersonages.
This makes #ossi$le the stu"y of the tale a$$or+ing to the fn$tions of its
+ra(atis personae. '...(
The o$servations cite" may $e $riefly formulate" in the folloing
manner:
1. >unctions of characters serve as sta$le, constant elements in a tale,
in"e#en"ent of ho an" $y hom they are fulfille". They constitute the
fun"amental com#onents of a tale.
E. The num$er of functions knon to the fairy tale is limite".
,f functions are "elineate", a secon" question arises: in hat
classification an" in hat sequence are these functions encountere"@ '...(
The sequence of events has its on las. The short story too has similar
las, as "o organic formations. Theft cannot take #lace $efore the "oor is
force". ,nsofar as the tale is concerne", it has its on entirely #articular
an" s#ecific las. The sequence of elements, as e shall see later on, is
strictly nifor(. >ree"om ithin this sequence is restricte" $y very narro
limits hich can $e exactly formulate". &e thus o$tain the thir" $asic
thesis of this ork, su$)ect to further "evelo#ment an" verification:
The se.en$e of fn$tions is al"ays i+enti$al.
1.1.8 Cikhail Fakhtin: from )The %rehistory of /ovelistic Biscourse
,
'...( >ive "ifferent stylistic a##roaches to novelistic "iscourse may $e
o$serve": 011 the authors #ortions alone in the novel are analy:e", that
is, only "irect or"s of the author more or less correctly isolate" ! an
analysis constructe" in terms of the usual, "irect #oetic metho"s of
re#resentation an" ex#ression 0meta#hors, com#arisons, lexical register,
etc.1+ 0E1 instea" of a stylistic analysis of the novel as an artistic hole,
there is a neutral linguistic "escri#tion of the novelists language+
8
081 in a
given novelists language, elements characteristic of his #articular literary
ten"ency are isolate" 0$e it 2omanticism, /aturalism, ,m#ressionism,
etc.1+
<
0<1 hat is sought in the language of the novel is examine" as an
ex#ression of the in"ivi"ual #ersonality, that is, language is analy:e" as
the in"ivi"ual style of the given novelist+
6
061 the novel is viee" as a
rhetorical genre, an" its "evices are analy:e" from the #oint of vie of
their effectiveness as rhetoric.
I
All these ty#es of stylistic analysis to a greater or lesser "egree are
remote from those #eculiarities that "efine the novel as a genre, an" they
are also remote from the s#ecifis con"itions un"er hich the or" lives
in the novel. They all take a novelists language an" style not as the
language an" style of a novel $ut merely as the ex#ression of a s#ecific
in"ivi"ual artistic #ersonality, or as the style of a #articular literary school
8
Such, for exam#le, is =. Saineans $ook, La Lange +e Ra%elais 0%aris, vol.
1, 14EE+ vol. E, 14E81.
<
Such, for exam#le, is K. =oeschs $ook, ,ie i(pressionistis$he Synta# +er
/on$orts 0/urem$erg, 14141.
6
Df such a ty#e are orks of $y the Vosslerians "evote" to style: e shoul"
mention as es#ecially orthhile the orks of =eo S#it:er on the stylistic of
*harles!=ouis %hili##e, *harles %Lguy an" Carcel %roust, $rought together in
his $ook Stilst+ien 0vol. E, Stilspra$hen, 14E71.
I
V. V. Vinogra"ovs $ook On Artisti$ 0rose 'D xu"o:estvenno) #ro:e(
0Cosco!=eningra", 14851 assumes this #osition.
9
or finally as a #henomenon common to #oetic language in general. The
in"ivi"ual artistic #ersonality of the author, the literary school, the general
characteristics of #oetic language or of the literary language of a #articular
era all serve to conceal from us the genre itself, ith the s#ecific "eman"s
it makes u#on language an" the s#ecific #ossi$ilities it o#ens u# for it. As
a result, in the ma)ority of these orks on the novel, relatively minor
stylistic variations ! hether in"ivi"ual or characteristic of a #articular
school ! have the effect of com#letely covering u# the ma)or stylistic
lines "etermine" $y the "evelo#ment of the novel as a unique genre. An"
all the hile "iscourse in the novel has $een living a life that is "istinctly
its on, a life that is im#ossi$le to un"erstan" from the #oint of vie of
stylistic categories forme" on the $asis of #oetic genres in the narro
sense of that term.
The "ifferences $eteen the novel 0an" certain forms close to it1 an" all
other genres ! poeti$ genres in the narro sense ! are so fun"amental, so
categorical, that all attem#ts to im#ose on the novel the conce#ts an"
norms of poeti$ imagery are "oome" to fail. Although the novel "oes
contain #oetic imagery in the narro sense 0#rimarily in the authors "irect
"iscourse1, it is of secon"ary im#ortance for the novel. &hat is more, this
"irect imagery often acquires in the novel quite s#ecial functions that are
not "irect. -ere, for exam#le, is ho %ushkin characteri:es =enskys
#oetry '1vgeni& Onegin, E. 15, 1!<(:
-e sang love, he as o$e"ient to love,
An" his song as as clear
As the thoughts of a sim#le mai",
As an infants "ream, as the moon'...(.
9
9
These lines an" the folloing citations from 1gene Onegin are taken from
&alter Arn"ts translation 0/e Jork: Button, 14I81, slightly mo"ifie" in #laces
to corres#on" ith Fakhtins remarks a$out #articular or"s use". 'Tr.(
0%ushkins 1gene Onegin, first #u$lishe" in 2ussia in 1781, is a novel in verse.
The fact that it is ritten in verse "oes not, hoever, make it a #oem rather than a
novel in Fakhtins terms.1
0a "evelo#ment of the final com#arison follos1.
The #oetic images 0s#ecifically the meta#horic com#arisons1
re#resenting =enskys song "o not here have any "irect #oetic
significance at all. They cannot $e un"erstoo" as the "irect #oetic images
of %ushkin himself 0although formally, of course, the characteri:ation is
that of the author1. -ere =enskys song is characteri:ing itself, in its
on language, in its on #oetic manner. %ushkins "irect characteri:ation
of =enskys song ! hich e fin" as ell in the novel ! soun"s
com#letely "ifferent 'I. E8, 1(:
Thus he rote gloomily an" langi+ly '...( .
,n the four lines cite" $y us a$ove it is =enskys song itself, his voice,
his #oetic style that soun"s, $ut it is #ermeate" ith the #aro"ic an"
ironic accents of the author+ that is the reason hy it nee" not $e
"istinguishe" from authorial s#eech $y com#ositional or grammatical
means. &hat e have $efore us is in fact an i(age of =enskys song, $ut
not an image in the narro sense+ it is rather a novelisti$ image: the
image of anothers language, in the given instance the image of anothers
#oetic style 0sentimental an" romantic1. The #oetic meta#hors in these
lines 0as an infants "ream, as the moon an" others1 no ay function
here as the pri(ary (eans of representation 0as they oul" function in a
"irect, serious song ritten $y =ensky himself1+ rather they themselves
have here $ecome the o$)ect of re#resentation, or more #recisely of a
re#resentation that is #aro"ie" an" styli:e". This novelistic image of
anothers style 0ith the "irect meta#hors that it incor#orates1 must $e
taken in intonational .otation (arks ithin the system of "irect
authorial s#eech 0#ostulate" $y us here1, that is, taken as if the image
ere #aro"ic an" ironic. &ere e to "iscar" intonational question marks
an" take the use of meta#hors here as the "irect means $y hich the
author re#resents himself, e oul" in so "oing "estroy the novelistic
image 'o%raz( of anothers style, that is, "estroy #recisely that image that
%ushkin, as novelist, constructs here. =enskys re#resente" #oetic s#eech
is very "istant from the "irect or" of the author himself as e have
7
#ostulate" it: =enskys language functions merely as an o%&e$t of
re#resentation 0almost as a material thing1+ the author himself is almost
com#letely outsi"e =enskys language 0it is only his #aro"ic an" ironic
accents that #enetrate this language of another1.
'...(
The image of anothers language an" outlook on the orl",
simultaneously re#resente" an+ re#resenting, is extremely ty#ical of the
novel+ the greatest novelistic images 0for exam#le, the figure of Bon
Auixote1 $elong #recisely to this ty#e. These "escri#tive an" ex#ressive
means that are "irect an" #oetic 0in the narro sense1 retain their "irect
significance hen they are incor#orate" into such a figure, $ut at the same
time they are qualifie" an" externali:e", shon as something
historically relative, "elimite" an" incom#lete ! in the novel they, so to
s#eak, critici:e themselves. '...(
The author re#resents this language, carries on a conversation ith it, an"
the conversation #enetrates into the interior of this language!image an"
"ialogi:es it from ithin. An" all essential novelistic images share this
quality: they are internally "ialogi:e" images ! of the languages, styles,
orl" vies of another 0all of hich are inse#ara$le from their concrete
linguistic an" stylistic em$o"iment1. The reigning theories of #oetic
imagery are com#letely #oerless to analy:e these com#lex internally
"ialogi:e" images of hole languages. '...(
The stylistic structure of 1vgeni& Onegin is ty#ical of all authentic novels.
To a greater or lesser extent, every novel is a "ialogi:e" system ma"e u#
of the images of langauges, styles an" consciousnesses that are concrete
an" inse#ara$le from language. =anguage in the novel not only re#resents,
$ut itself serves as the o$)ect of re#resentation. /ovelistic "iscourse is
alays critici:ing itself.
,n this consists the categorical "istinction $eteen the novel an" all
straight!forar" genres ! the e#ic #oem, the lyric an" the "rama 0strictly
conceive"1. All "irectly "escri#tive an" ex#ressive means at the "is#osal
of these genres, as ell as the genres themselves, $ecome u#on entering
the novel an o$)ect of re#resentation ithin it. Hn"er con"itions of the
novel every "irect or" ! e#ic, lyric, strictly "ramatic ! is to a greater or
lesser "egree ma"e into an o$)ect, the or" itself $ecomes a $oun"e"
'ograni$enni&( image, one that quite often a##ears ri"iculous in this
frame" con"ition.
The $asic tasks for a stylistics in the novel are, therefore: the stu"y of
s#ecific images of languages an" styles+ the organi:ation of these images+
their ty#ology 0for they are extremely "iverse1+ the com$ination of
images of languages ithin the novelistic hole+ the transfers an"
sitchings of languages an" voices+ their "ialogical interrelationshi#s.
The stylistics of "irect genres, of the "irect #oetic or", offer us almost
no hel# in resolving these #ro$lems.
&e s#eak of a s#ecial novelistic "iscourse $ecause it is only in the novel
that "iscourse can reveal all its s#ecific #otential an" achieve its true
"e#th. Fut the novel is com#aratively recent genre. ,n"irect "iscourse,
hoever, the re#resentation of anothers or", anothers language in
intonational quotation marks, as knon in the most ancient times+ e
encounter it in the earliest stages of ver$al culture. &hat is more, long
$efore the a##earance of the novel e fin" a rich orl" of "iverse forms
that transmit, mimic an" re#resent from various vantage #oints anothers
or", anothers s#eech an" language, inclu"ing also the languages of the
"irect genres. These "iverse forms #re#are" the groun" for the novel long
$efore its actual a##earance. /ovelistic "iscourse has a lengthy
#rehistory, going $ack centuries, even thousan"s of years. ,t as forme"
an" mature" in the genres of familiar s#eech foun" in conversational folk
language 0genres that are as yet little stu"ie"1 an" also in certain folkloric
an" lo literary genres. Buring its germination an" early "evelo#ment,
the novelistic or" reflecte" a #rimor"ial struggle $eteen tri$es,
#eo#les, cultures an" languages ! it is still full of echoes of this ancient
struggle. ,n essence this "iscourse alays "evelo#e" on the $oun"ary line
$eteen cultures an" languages. The #rehistory of novelistic "iscourse is
of great interest an" not ithout its on s#ecial "rama.
,n the #rehistory of novelistic "iscourse one may o$serve many
extremely heterogeneous facts at ork. >rom our #oint of vie, hoever,
to of these factors #rove to $e of "ecisive im#ortance: on of these is
laghter, the other polyglossia '(nogo&azy$ie(. The most ancient forms
4
for re#resenting language ere organi:e" $y laughter ! these ere
originally nothing more than the ri"iculing of anothers language an"
anothers "irect "iscourse. %olyglossia an" the interani(ation of
langages associate" ith it elevate" these forms to a ne artistic an"
i"eological level, hich ma"e #ossi$le the genre of the novel.
These to factors in the #rehistory of novelistic "iscourse are the su$)ect
of the #resent article.
,,
Dne of the most ancient an" i"es#rea" forms for re#resenting the "irect
or" of another is paro+y. &hat is "istinctive a$out #aro"y as a form@
Take, for exam#le, the #aro"ic sonnets ith hich ,on 2i#ote $egins.
Although they are im#ecca$ly structure" as sonnets, e coul" never
#ossi$ly assign them to the sonnet genre. ,n ,on 2i#ote they a##ear as
#art of a novel ! $ut even the isolate" #aro"ic sonnet 0outsi"e the novel1
coul" not $e classifie" generically as a sonnet. ,n a #aro"ie" sonnet, the
sonnet form is not a genre at all+ that is, it is not the form of a hole $ut is
rather the o%&e$t of representation: the sonnet here is the hero of the
paro+y. ,n a #aro"y on the sonnet, e must first of all recogni:e a sonnet,
recogni:e its form, its s#ecific style, its manner of seeing, its manner of
selecting from an" evaluating the orl" ! the orl" vie of the sonnet, as
it ere. A #aro"y may re#resent an" ri"icule these "istinctive features of
the sonnet ell or $a"ly, #rofoun"ly or su#erficially. Fut in any case, hat
results is not a sonnet, $ut rather the i(age of a sonnet.
>or the same reasons one coul" not un"er any circumstances assign to the
genres of e#ic #oem the #aro"ic e#ic &ar $eteen the Cice an" the
>rogs
7
. This is an i(age of the 3o(eri$ style. ,t is #recisely style that is
the true hero of the ork. &e oul" have to say the same of Scarrons
7
The 4atra$ho(yo(a$hia, a still extant #aro"y of -omer thought to have $een
ritten a$out 655 F*, $ut ith many later inter#olations. ,t is ho usually
ascri$e" to %igres of -alicarnassus 0$rother!in!la of Causoleus, hose tom$
as one of the seven on"ers of the ancient orl"1. The Margites 0cf. note aa1
has also $een ascri$e" to %igres. 'Tr.(
5irgil travesti
6
. Dne coul" likeise not inclu"e the fifteenth!century
ser(ons &oye#
17
, in the genre of the sermon, or #aro"ic %ater nosters or
Ave Carias in the genre of the #rayer an" so forth.
All these #aro"ies on genres an" generic styles 0languages1 enter the
great an" "iverse orl" of ver$al forms that ri"icule the straightforar",
serious or" in all its generic guises. This orl" is very rich,
consi"era$ly richer than e are accustome" to $elieve. The nature an"
metho"s availa$le for ri"iculing something are highly varie", an" not
exhauste" $y #aro"ying an" travestying in a strict sense. These metho"s
for making fun of the straightforar" or" have as yet receive" little
scholarly attention. Dur general conce#tions of #aro"y an" travesty in
literature ere forme" as a scholarly "isci#line solely $y stu"ying very
late forms of literary #aro"y, forms of the ty#e re#resente" $y Scarrons
1n8i+e travestie, or %latens VerhMngnisvolle Ka$el
11
, that is, the
im#overishe" an" limite" conce#tions of the nature of the #aro"ying an"
travestying or" ere then retroactively a##lie" to the su#remely rich
an" varie" orl" of #aro"y an" travesty in #revious ages.
The im#ortance of #aro"ic!travestying forms in orl" literature is
enormous. Several exam#les follo that $ear itness to their ealth an"
s#ecial significance.
4
This ork, com#rising, com#rising seven $ooks 01I87!1I681, as consi"ere"
the master#iece of %aul Scarron 01I15!1II51 in his "ay. Scarron is no $est
remem$ere" for his #icaresque novel, Le Ro(an $o(i.e 0E vol., 1I61!1I69,
unfinishe", 8
r"
vol. $y other han"s, 1I641. 'Tr.(
15
These ere mock sermons originally given in the churches of me"ieval
>rance as #art of the F9te +es fos+ later they ere ex#elle" from the church an"
$ecame a secular genre in their on right, satires in verse form, often "irecte"
against omen. The humour consiste" in #ious #assages intermingle" ith
ri$al"ry.
11
Die verhngnisvolle Gabel' (1826), a parody of Romani! fae
ragedies" by #$g$s, Graf von %laen&'allerm(nde (1)*6&18+,), -ho
-as !on!erned o re&esablish !lassi!al norms in he fa!e of -ha he sa-
as he e.!esses of he Strmer und Drnger (see his /eneian sonnes
0182,1)2 03r21
15
=et us first take u# the ancient #erio". The literature of eru"ition of late
antiquity ! Aulus Kellius
1E
, %lutarch
18
0in his Moralia1, Cacro$ius
1<
an",
in #articular, Athenaeus
16
! #rovi"e sufficiently rich "ata for )u"ging the
sco#e an" s#ecial character of the #aro"ying an" travestying literature of
ancient times. The commentaries, citations, references an" allusions ma"e
$y these eru"ites a"" su$stantially to the fragmente" an" ran"om
material on the ancient orl"s literature of laughter that has survive".
The orks of such literary scholars as Bietrich
1I
, 2eich
19
, *ornfor"
17
an"
others have #re#are" us for more correct assessment of the role an"
significance of #aro"ic!travestying forms in the ver$al culture of ancient
times.
,t is our conviction that there never as a single strictly straightforar"
genre, no single ty#e of "irect "iscourse ! artistic, rhetorical,
1E
Aulus Kellius 0c. 185!c. 175 AB1, author of the No$tes Atti$ae in tenty
$ooks, a collection of small cha#ters "ealing ith a great variety of to#ics:
literary criticism, the la, grammar, history, etc. -is =atin is remarka$le for its
mixture of classical #urity an" affecte" archaism. 'Tr.(
18
The Moralia of %lutarch 0translate" in fourteen volumes $y >. *. Fa$$it et al.
'14E9!1464( are essays an" "ialogues on a i"e variety of literary, historical an"
ethical to#ics, ith long sections of quotations from the ancient "ramatists. 'Tr.(
1<
Am$rosius Theo"osius Cacro$ius 0a figure variously i"entifie" ith several
Cacro$ii1, author of the Satrnalia, a sym#osium #resente" in the form of a
"ialogue in seven $ooks, "raing heavily on Aulus Kellius 0cf. note f1. 'Tr.(
16
Athenaeus 0fl. E55 AB1, author of ,eipnosophistai 0,o$tors at ,inner, or as
it is sometimes translate", 1#perts on ,ining1. This is a ork of fifteen $ooks
fille" ith all kin"s of miscellaneous information on me"icine, literature, the la,
etc., intermingle" ith anec"otes an" quotations from a large num$er of other
authors, many of hose orks are otherise lost or unknon. 'Tr.(
1I
A. Bietrich, author of 0l$inella: 0o(peyanis$he ;an+%il+er n+ Ro(is$he
Satyrspiele 0=ei#:ig, 17491, a $ook that #laye" a ma)or role in sha#ing some of
Fakhtins early i"eas a$out the role of fools in history. 'Tr.(
19
-ermann 2eich, author of ,er Mi(s 0Ferlin, 14581, a theoretical attem#t to
reconstruct the reasons for the mimes im#ortance in ancient Kreece. 'Tr.(
17
>. C. *ranfor" 0179<!14<81, from hose many orks Fakhtin here has in
min" The Origin of /reek <o(e+y 0=on"on, 141<1. 'Tr.(
#hiloso#hical, religious, or"inary every"ay ! that "i" not have its on
#aro"ying an" travestying "ou$le, its on comic!ironic $ontre=partie.
&hat is more, these #aro"ic "ou$les an" laughing reflections of the "irect
or" ere, in some cases, )ust as sanctione" $y tra"ition an" )ust as
canoni:e" as their elevate" mo"els.
, ill "eal only very $riefly ith the #ro$lem of the so!calle" fourth
"rama, that is, the satyr #lay
14
. ,n most instances this "rama, hich
follos u#on the tragic trilogy, "evelo#e" the same narrative an"
mythological motifs as ha" the trilogy that #rece"e" it. ,t as, therefore,
a #eculiar ty#e of #aro"ic!travestying $ontre=partie to the myth that ha"
)ust receive" a tragic treatment on the stage+ it shoe" the myth in a
"ifferent as#ect.
These #aro"ic!travestying counter!#resentations of lofty national myths
ere )ust as sanctione" an" canonical as their straightforar" tragic
manifestations. All the trage"ians ! %hrynicous
E5
, So#hocles, Nuri#i"es !
ere riters of satyr #lays as ell, an" Aeschylus, the most serious an"
#ious of them all, an initiate into the highest Nleusinian Cysteries, as
consi"ere" $y the Kreeks to $e the greatest master of the satyr #lay. >rom
fragments of Aeschylus satyr #lay The 4one=/atherers*
>1
e see that
this "rama gave a #aro"ic, travestying #icture of the events an" heroes of
the Tro)an &ar, an" #articularly the e#iso"e involving D"ysseus quarrel
ith Achilles an" Biome"es, here a stinking cham$er #ot is thron at
D"ysseus hea".
14
,n ancient Kreece, the tragic "ramas ere normally ritten an" #erforme" in
grou#s of three 0e.g., So#hocles Oe+ips Re#- Oe+ips at <olons an"
Antigone1. The satyr #lay as a ri$al" come"y ith a chorus of satyrs,
#erforme" imme"iately after the tragic trilogy.
E5
%hrynicous, one of the originators of Kreek trage"y. -e as first to
intro"uce the feminine mask, an" as greatly a"mire" $y Aristo#hanes. -is first
victory as in 611 F*. Some of his titles are 0leroniae- Aegyptii- Al$estis-
A$teon+ he rote several other #lays as ell. 'Tr.(
E1
The Ostologoi may have $een #art of a tetralogy ith 0enelope, "eriving its
title from the hungry $eggars in the #alace at ,thaca ho collecte" $ones hurle"
at them $y the suitors. 'Tr.(
11
,t shoul" $e a""e" that the figure of comic D"ysseus, a #aro"ic travesty
of his high e#ic an" tragic image, as one of the most #o#ular figures of
satyr #lays, of ancient Boric farce an" #re!Aristo#hanic come"y, as ell as
of a hole series of minor comic e#ics, #aro"ic s#eeches an" "is#utes in
hich the come"y of ancient times as so rich 0es#ecially in southern ,taly
an" Sicily1. *haracteristic here is that s#ecial role that the motif of
ma"ness #laye" in the figure of comic D"ysseus : D"ysseus, as is ell
knon, "onne" a clons fools ca# 0piles1 an" harnesse" his horse an"
ox to a #lo, #reten"ing to $e ma" in or"er to avoi" #artici#ation in the
ar. ,t as the motif of ma"ness that sitche" the figure of D"ysseus from
the high an" straightforar" #lane to the comic #lane of #aro"y an"
travesty.
EE
Fut the most #o#ular figure of the satyr #lay an" other forms of the
#aro"ic travestying or" as the figure of the comic -ercules. -ercules,
the #oerful an" sim#le servant to the coar"ly, eak an" false king
Nuristheus+ -ercules, ho ha" conquere" "eath in $attle an" ha"
"escen"e" into the nether orl"+ -ercules the monstrous glutton, the
#lay$oy, the "runk an" scra##er, $ut es#ecially -ercules the ma"man !
such ere the motifs that lent a comic as#ect to his image. ,n this comic
as#ect, heroism an" strength are retaine", $ut they are com$ine" ith
laughter an" ith images from the material life of the $o"y.
The figure of the comic -ercules as extremely #o#ular, not only in
Kreece $ut also in 2ome, an" later in Fy:antium 0here it $ecame one of
the central figures in the marionette theatre1. Hntil quite recently this
figure live" on in the Turkish game of sha"o #u##ets. The comic
-ercules is one of the most #rofoun" folk images for a cheerful an" sim#le
heroism, an" ha" an enormous influence on all of orl" literature.
&hen taken together ith such figures as the comic D"ysseus an" the
comic -ercules, the fourth "rama, hich as an in+ispensa%le
conclusion to the tragic trilogy, in"icates that the literary consciousness of
the Kreeks "i" not vie the #aro"ic!travestying reorkings of national
myth as any #articular #rofanation or $las#hemy. ,t is characteristic that
EE
*f. ?. Schmi"t, ?li#es $o(i$s.
the Kreeks ere not at all em$arrasse" to attri$ute the authorshi# of the
#aro"ic ork &ar $eteen the Cice an" the >rogs to -omer himself.
-omer is also cre"ite" ith a comic ork 0a long #oem1 a$out the fool
Margit. >or any an" every straightforar" genre, any an" every "irect
"iscourse ! e#ic, tragic, lyric, #hiloso#hical ! may an" in"ee" must
itself $ecome the o$)ect of re#resentation, the o$)ect of a #aro"ic
travestying mimicry. ,t is as if such mimicry ri#s the or" aay from
its o$)ect, "isunifies the to, shos that a given straightforar" generic
or" ! e#ic or tragic ! is one!si"e", $oun"e", inca#a$le of exhausting
the o$)ect+ the #rocess of #aro"ying forces us to ex#erience those si"es of
the o$)ect that are not otherise inclu"e" in a given genre or a given
style. %aro"ic!travestying literature intro"uces the #ermanent corrective
of laughter, of a critique on the one!si"e" seriousness of the lofty "irect
or", the corrective of reality that is alays richer, more fun"amental
an" most im#ortantly too $ontra+i$tory an+ heteroglot to $e fitte" into a
high an" straightforar" genre. The high genres are monotonic, hile the
fourth "rama an" genres akin to it retain the ancient $inary tone of the
or". Ancient #aro"y as free of any nihilistic "enial. ,t as not, after
all, the heroes ho ere #aro"ie", nor the Tro)an &ar an" its
#artici#ants+ hat as #aro"ie" as only its e#ic heroi:ation+ not
-ercules an" its ex#loits $ut their tragic heroi:ation. The genre itself, the
style, the language are all #ut in cheerfully irreverent quotation marks,
an" they are #erceive" against a $ack"ro# of a contra"ictory reality that
cannot $e confine" ithin their narro frames. The "irect an" serious
or" as reveale", in all its limitations an" insufficiency, only after it
ha" $ecome the laughing image of that or" ! $ut it as $y no means
"iscre"ite" in the #rocess. Thus it "i" not $other the Kreeks to think that
-omer himself rote a #aro"y of -omeric style. '...(
These #aro"ic!travestying forms #re#are" the groun" for the novel in
one very im#ortant, in fact "ecisive, res#ect. They li$erate" the o$)ect
from the #oer of language in hich it ha" $ecome entangle" as if in a
net+ they "estroye" the homogeni:ing #oer of myth over language+ they
free" consciousness from the #oer of the "irect or", "estroye" the
thick alls that ha" im#risone" consciousness ithin its on "iscourse,
1E
ithin its on language. A "istance arose $eteen language an" reality
that as to #rove an" in"is#ensa$le con"ition for authentically realistic
forms of "iscourse.
=inguistic consciousness ! #aro"ying the "irect or", "irect style,
ex#loring its limits, its a$sur" si"es, the face s#ecific to an era !
constitute" itself otsi+e this "irect or" an" outsi"e all its gra#hic an"
ex#ressive means of re#resentation. A ne mo"e "evelo#e" for orking
creatively ith language: the creating artist $egan to look at language from
the outsi"e, ith anothers eyes, from the #oint of vie of a #otentially
"ifferent language an" style. ,t is, after all, #recisely in the light of another
#otential language or style that a given straightforar" style is #aro"ie",
travestie", ri"icule". The creating consciousness stan"s, as it ere, on the
$oun"ary line $eteen languages an" styles. This is, for the creating
consciousness, a highly #eculiar #osition to fin" itself in ith regar" to
language. The ae"ile or rha#so"e ex#erience" himself in his on language,
in his on "iscourse, in an utterly "ifferent ay from the creator of &ar
$eteen the Cice an" the >rogs, or the creators of Margites.
Dne ho creates a "irect or" ! hether e#ic, tragic or lyric ! "eals
only ith the su$)ect hose #raises he sings, or re#resents, or ex#resses,
an" he "oes so in his on language that is #erceive" as the sole an" fully
a"equate tool for reali:ing the or"s "irect, o$)ectivi:e" meaning. '...(
,n his $ook on %lato, &ilamoit:!Coellen"orff rites: Dnly knole"ge
of a language that #ossesses another mo"e of conceiving the orl" can
lea" to the a##ro#riate knole"ge of ones on language'...(.
E8
, "o not
continue the quotation, for it #rimarily concerns the #ro$lem of
un"erstan"ing ones on language in #urely cognitive linguistic terms, an
un"erstan"ing that is reali:e" only in the light of a "ifferent language, one
not ones on+ $ut this situation is no less #ervasive here the literary
imagination is conceiving language in actual artistic #ractice. Coreover, in
the #rocess of literary creation, languages interanimate each other an"
o$)ectify #recisely that si"e of ones on 0an" of the other s1 language
that pertains to its "orl+ vie", its inner form, the axiologically accentuate"
E8
H. &ilamoit:!Coellen"orff, 0laton, vol. 1 0Ferlin, 14E51, #. E45.
system inherent in it. >or the creating literary consciousness, existing in a
fiel" illuminate" $y anothers language, it is not the #honetic system of
its on language that stan"s out, nor is it the "istinctive features of its
on mor#hology nor its on a$stract lexicon ! hat stan"s out is
#recisely that hich makes language concrete an" hich makes its orl"
vie ultimately untranslata$le, that is, #recisely the style of the
langages as a totality. '...(
*losely connecte" ith the #ro$lem of #olyglossia an" inse#ara$le from
it is the #ro$lem of heteroglossia "ithin a language, that is, the #ro$lem
of internal "ifferentiation, the stratification characteristic of any national
language. This #ro$lem is of #rimary im#ortance for un"erstan"ing the
style an" historical "estinies of the mo"ern Nuro#ean novel, that is, the
novel since the seventeenth century. This latecomer reflects, in its
stylistic structure, the struggle $eteen to ten"encies in the languages
of Nuro#ean #eo#les: one a centrali:ing 0unifying1 ten"ency, the other a
"ecentrali:ing ten"ency 0that is, one that stratifies languages1. The novel
senses itself on the $or"er $eteen the com#lete", "ominant literary
language an" the extraliterary languages that kno heteroglossia+ the
novel either serves to further the centrali:ing ten"encies of a ne literary
language in the #rocess of taking sha#e 0ith its grammatical, stylistic
an" i"eological norms1, or ! on the contrary ! the novel fights for the
renovation of an antiquate" literary language, in the interests of those
strata of the national language that have remaine" 0to a greater or lesser
"egree1 outsi"e the centrali:ing an" unifying influence of the artistic an"
i"eological norm esta$lishe" $y the "ominant literary language. The
literary!artistic consciousness of the mo"ern novel, sensing itself on the
$or"er $eteen to languages, one literary, the other extraliterary, each
of hich no knos heteroglossia, also senses itself on the $or"er of
time: it is extraor"inarily sensitive to time in language, it senses times
shifts, the aging an" reneing of language, the #ast an" the future ! an"
all in language. '...(
18
1.1.< N.C. >orster: from Aspe$ts of the Novel
1. ,/T2DBH*TD2J
This i"ea of a #erio" of a "evelo#ment in time, ith its consequent
em#hasis on influences an" schools, ha##ens to $e exactly hat , am
ho#ing to avoi" "uring our $rief survey, an" , $elieve that the author of
/azpa$ho ill $e lenient. Time, all the ay through, is to $e our enemy.
&e are to visuali:e the Nnglish novelists not as floating "on the stream
hich $ears all its sons aay unless they are careful, $ut as seate" together
in a room, a circular room, a sort of Fritish Cuseum rea"ing!room ! all
riting their novels simultaneously. They "o not, as they sit there, think ,
live un"er Aueen Victoria, , un"er Anne, , carry on the tra"ition of
Trolo##e, , am reacting against Al"ous -uxley. The fact that their #ens
are in their han"s is far more vivi" to them. They are half mesmeri:e",
their sorros an" )oys are #ouring out through the ink, they are
a##roximate" $y the act of creation, an" hen %rofessor Dliver Nlton says,
as he "oes, that after 17<9 the novel of #assion as never to $e the same
again, none of them un"erstan"s hat he means. That is to $e our vision
of them ! an im#erfect vision, $ut it is suite" to our #oers, it ill
#reserve us from a serious "anger, the "anger of #seu"o ! scholarshi#.
%seu"o!scholarshi# is, on its goo" si"e, the homage #ai" $y ignorance to
learning.
,t is hen he comes to criticism ! to a )o$ like the #resent ! that he can
$e so #ernicious, $ecause he follos the metho" of a true scholar ithout
having his equi#ment. -e classes $ooks $efore he has un"erstoo" or rea"
them.+ that is his first crime. *lassification $y chronology. Fooks ritten
$efore 17<9, $ooks ritten after it, $ooks ritten after or $efore 17<7. The
novel in the reign of Aueen Anne, the #re!novel, the ur!novel, the novel of
the future. *lassification $y su$)ect matter ! sillier still. The literature of
,nns, $eginning ith To( @ones' the literature of &omens Covement,
$eginning ith Shirley' the literature of Besert ,slan"s, from Ro%inson
<rsoe to The 4le Lagoon' the literature of 2ogues ! "reariest of all,
though the D#en 2oa" runs it #retty close+ the literature of Sussex 0#erha#s
the most "evote" of the -ome *ounties1+ im#ro#er $ooks ! a serious
though "rea"ful $ranch of inquiry, only to $e #ursue" $y #seu"o!scholars
of ri#er years+ novels relatig to in"ustrialism, aviation, chiro#o"y, the
eather.
=iterature is ritten $y geniuses. /ovelists are geniuses. There e are+
no let us classify them. &hich he "oes. Nverything he says may $e
accurate $ut all is useless $ecause he is moving roun" $ooks instea" of
through them, he either has not rea" them or cannot rea" them #ro#erly.
,f the novel "evelo#s, it is not likely to "evelo# on "ifferent lines from
the Fritish *onstitution, or even the &omens Covement@ , say even the
&omens Covement $ecause there ha##ene" to $e a close association
$eteen fiction in Nnglan" an" that movement "uring the nineteenth
century ! a connexion so close that it has misle" some critics into
thinking it an organic connexion. As omen $ettere" their #osition the
novel, they asserte", $ecame $etter too. Auite rong. A mirror "oes not
"evelo# $ecause a historical #ageant #asses in front of it. ,t only "evelo#s
hen it gets a fresh coat of quiksilver ! in other or"s, hen it acquires
ne sensitiveness+ an" the novels success lies in its on sensitiveness,
not in the success of its su$)ect matter. They have entere" a common state
hich it is convenient to call ins#iration, an", having regar" to that state,
e may say that -istory "evelo#s, Art stan"s still.
E. T-N STD2J
Jes ! oh "ear yes ! the novel tells a story. That is the fun"amental
as#ect ithout hich it coul" not exist. That is the highest factor common to
all novels, an" , ish that it as not so, that it coul" $e something "ifferent !
melo"y, or #erce#tion of the truth, not this lo atavistic form.
&e are all like Schehera:a"es hus$an", in that e ant to kno hat
ha##ens next. That is universal an" that is hy the $ack$one of a novel
has to $e a story. Some of us ant to kno nothing else ! there is nothing
in us $ut #rimeval curiosity, an" consequently our other literary
1<
)u"gements are lu"icrous. An" no the story can $e "efine". ,t is a
narrative of events arrange" in their time sequence ! "inner coming after
$reakfast, Tues"ay after Con"ay, "ecay after "eath, an" so on. 2a story,
it can only have one merit: that of making the au"ience ant to kno hat
ha##ens next. An" conversely it can only have one fault: that of making
the au"ience not ant to kno hat ha##ens next. These are the only to
criticisms that can $e ma"e on the story that is a story. ,t is the loest an"
sim#lest of literary organisms. Jet it is the highest factor common to all
the very com#licate" organisms knon as novels.
<. %ND%=N
0continue"1
&e no turn from trans#lantation to acclimati:ation. &e have "iscusse"
hether #eo#le coul" $e taken out of life an" #ut into a $ook, an" conversely
hether they coul" come out of $ooks an" sit "on in this room. The anser
suggeste" as in the negative an" le" to a more vital question: can e, in "aily
life, un"erstan" each other@ To"ay our #ro$lems are more aca"emic. &e are
concerne" ith the characters in their relation to other as#ects of the novel+ to a
#lot, a moral, their fello characters, atmos#here, etc. They ill have to a"a#t
themselves to other requirements of their creator.
,t follos that e shall no longer ex#ect them to coinci"e as a hole ith
"aily life, only to #arallel it.
&e may "ivi"e characters into flat an" roun". >lat characters ere calle"
humorous in the seventeenth century, an" are sometimes calle" ty#es,
an" sometimes caricatures. ,n their #urest form, they are constructe" roun"
a single i"ea or quality: hen there is more than one factor in them, e get
the $eginning of the curve toar"s the roun". The really flat character can
$e ex#resse" in one sentence such as , never ill "esert Cr Cica$er.
Dne great a"vantage of flat characters is that they are easily recogni:e"
henever they come in ! recogni:e" $y the rea"ers emotional eye, not $y
the visual eye hich merely notes the recurrence of a #ro#er name.
A secon" a"vantage is that they are easily remem$ere" $y the rea"er
afterar"s. They remain in his min" as unaltera$le for the reason that they
ere not change" $y circumstances+ they move" through circumstances,
hich gives them in retros#ect a comforting quality, an" #reserves them
hen the $ook that #ro"uce" them may "ecay.
>or e must a"mit that flat #eo#le are not in themselves as $ig
achievements as roun" ones, an" also that they are $est hen they are
comic. A serious or tragic flat character is a#t to $e a $ore. Nach time he
enters crying 2evenge. or Cy heart $lee"s for humanity. or hatever
his formula is, our hearts sink.
The test of a roun" character is hether it is ca#a$le of sur#rising in a
convincing ay. ,f it never sur#rises, it is flat. ,f it "oes not convince, it is
a flat #reten"ing to $e roun". ,t has the incalcula$ility of life a$out it !
life ithin the #ages of a $ook. An" $y using it sometimes alone, more
often in com$ination ith the other kin", the novelist achieves his task of
acclimati:ation, an" harmoni:es the human race ith the other as#ects of
his ork.
/o for the secon" "evice: the #oint of vie from hich the story may
$e tol".
To some critics this is the fun"amental "evice.
The hole intricate question of metho", in the craft of fiction 'says Cr
%ercy =u$$ock(, , take to $e governe" $y the question of the point of
vie" O the question of the relation in hich the narrator stan"s to the
story.
An" his $ook The <raft of Fi$tion examines various #oints of vie ith
genius an" insight. The novelist, he says, can either "escri$e the
characters from outsi"e, as an im#artial or #artial onlooker+ or he can
assume omniscience an" "escri$e them from ithin+ or he can #lace
himself in the #osition of one of them an" affect to $e in the "ark as to
the motives of the rest+ or there are certain interme"iate attitu"es.
Those ho follo him ill lay a sure foun"ation hich , cannot for a
moment #romise. This is a ramshackly survey an" for me the hole
intricate question of metho" resolves itself not into formulae $ut into the
#oer of the riter to $ounce the rea"er into acce#ting hat he says ! a
16
#oer hich Cr =u$$ock a"mits an" a"mires, $ut locates at the e"ge of
the #ro$lem instea" of at the centre. , shoul" #ut it #lum$ in the centre.
=ook ho Bickens $ounces us in 4leak 3ose. *ha#ter 1 of 4leak 3ose
is omniscient. Bickens takes us into the *ourt of *hancery an" ra#i"ly
ex#lains all the #eo#le there. ,n *ha#ter E he is #artially omniscient. &e
still use his eyes, $ut for some unex#laine" reason they $egin to gro
eak: he can ex#lain Sir =eicester Be"lock to us, #art of =a"y Be"lock
$ut not all, an" nothing of Cr Tulkinghorn. ,n *ha#ter 8 he is even more
re#rehensi$le: he goes straight across into the "ramatic metho" an"
inha$its a young la"y, Nsther Summerson, , have a great "eal of "ifficulty
in $eginning to rite my #ortion of these #ages, for , kno , am not
clever, #i#es u# Nsther, an" continues in this strain ith consistency an"
com#etence, so long as she is alloe" to hol" the #en. At any moment the
author of her $eing may snatch it from her, an" run a$out taking notes
himself, leaving her seate" goo"ness knos here, an" em#loye" e "o
not care ho. =ogically, 4leak 3ose is all to #ieces, $ut Bickens $ounces
us, so that e "o not min" the shiftings of the vie ! #oint.
*ritics are more a#t to o$)ect than rea"ers. Pealous for the novels
eminence they are a little too a#t to look out for the #ro$lems that shall $e
#eculiar to it, an" "ifferentiate it from the "rama+ they feel it ought to have
its on technical trou$les $efore it can $e acce#te" as an in"e#en"ent art+
an" since the #ro$lem of a #oint of vie certainly is #eculiar to the novel
they have rather over!stresse" it. , "o not myself think it is so im#ortant as
a #ro#er mixture of characters ! a #ro$lem hich the "ramatist is u#
against also. An" the novelist must $ounce us+ that is im#erative.
1.1.6 &ayne *. Footh: from The Rhetori$ of Fi$tion
24
&hy is it that an e#iso"e Gtol"G $y >iel"ing can strike us more fully
reali:e" than many of the scenes scru#ulously GshonG $y imitators of
E<
&ayne Footh, The Rhetori$ of Fi$tion 0*hicago Hniversity %ress, *hicago,
14I11, ##. E7!4, I<, 95!1, 98!6.
?ames or -emingay @ &hy "oes some authorial commentary ruin the
ork in hich it occurs, hile the #rolonge" commentary of Tristra(
Shan+y can still enthral us @ &hat, after all, "oes an author "o hen he
Gintru"esG to tell us something a$out his story @ Such questions force us to
consi"er closely hat ha##ens hen an author engages a rea"er fully
ith a ork of fiction+ they lea" us to a vie of fictional technique hich
necessarily goes far $eyon" the re"uctions that e have sometimes
acce#te" un"er the conce#t of G#oint of vieG. '...(
Dne cannot restore telling to critical res#ect sim#ly $y )um#ing to its
"efense ! not on this fiel" of $attle. ,ts o##onents oul" have most of
the effective ammunition. Cany novels are seriously flae" $y careless
intrusions. &hat is more, it is easy to #rove that an e#iso"e shon is
more effective than the same e#iso"e tol", so long as e must choose
$eteen to an" only to technical extrems. An", finally, the novelists
an" critics ho have "e#lore" telling have on for fiction the kin" of
stan"ing as a ma)or art form hich, $efore >lau$ert, as generally "enie"
to it, an" they have often shon a seriousness an" "evotion to their art
that in itself carries conviction a$out their "octrines. /othing is gaine" !
in"ee", everything is lost ! if e say to ?ames an" >lau$ert that e
a"mire their ex#eriments in artistic seriousness, $ut that e #refer no to
relax our stan"ar"s a little an" encourage the novelist to go $ack to
concocting hat ?ames calle" Ggreat flui" #u""ingsG. There may $e room,
in the house of fiction, even for formless #u""ings ! to $e rea",
#resuma$ly, in oneGs slack hours or "eclining years. Fut , shoul" not like
to fin" myself "efen"ing them as art an" on the groun" that they are
formless.
Fut are e face" ith such a sim#le an" "isconcerting choice as the
cham#ions of shoing have sometimes claime"@ Boes it, after all, make
sense to set u# to ays of conveying a story, one all goo", the other all
$a"+ one all art an" form, the other all clumsiness an" irrelevancy+ one all
shoing an" ren"ering an" "rama an" o$)ectivity, the other all telling an"
su$)ectivity an" #reaching an" inertness@ Allen Tate seems to think that it
"oes. GThe action,G he says of a #assage from Ma+a(e 4ovary ! an" it is
an excellent #assage ! Gthe action is not state" from the #oint of vie of
1I
the author+ it is ren"ere" in terms of situation an" scene. To have ma"e this
the via$le #ro#erty of the art of fiction as to have virtually ma"e the art
of fiction.G G,t has $een through >lau$ert that the novel has at last caught u#
ith #oetry.G This is "ramatic, challenging ! #erha#s it is even the sort of
ins#iriting #rogram hich might yiel" to a young novelist enough
conviction a$out the im#ortance of hat he is "oing to get it "one. Fut is it
true@
, cannot #rove that it is not ! given TateGs "efinition of GartG an" G#oetry.G
Fut , ho#e to sho that it has $een at $est mislea"ing, an" that the
"istinction on hich it is $ase" is ina"equate, not only in "ealing ith
early fiction like the ,e$a(eron $ut also in "ealing ith yester"ayGs
s$$As +Besti(e.
,t ill $e useful first to look at some of the reason for the i"es#rea"
acce#tance of the "istinction. ,f e are to conclu"e that there as after all
an art of fiction $efore >lau$ert, an" that the art even in the most
im#ersonal fiction "oes not resi"e exclusively in the moments of vivi"
"ramatic ren"ering, hy has there $een such i"es#rea" sus#icion of
everything $ut the ren"ere" scene@ '...(
At this #oint in the mi"!tentieth century e can see, after all, ho easy
it is to rite a story that tells itself, free" of all authorial intrusion, shon
ith a consistent treatment of #oint of vie. Nven untalenten" riters can
$e taught to o$serve this fourth Gunity.G Fut e also kno $y no that in
the #rocess they have not necessarily learne" to rite goo" fiction. ,f they
kno only this, they kno ho to rite fiction that ill look mo"ern !
#erha#s more Gearly mo"ernG than late, $ut still mo"ern. &hat they have yet
to learn, if they kno only this, is the art of choosing hat to "ramati:e
fully an" hat to curtail, hat to summari:e an" hat to heighten. An"
like any art, this one cannot $e learne" from a$stract rules. '...(
As he rites, he 'the author( creates not sim#ly an i"eal, im#ersonal Gman
in generalG $ut an im#lie" version of Ghimself that is "ifferent from the
im#lie" authors e meet in other menGs orks. To some novelists it has
seeme", in"ee", that they ere "iscovering or creating themselves as they
rote. As ?essamyn &est says, it is sometimes Gonly $y riting the story
that the novelist can "iscover ! not his story ! $ut its riter, the official
scri$e, so to s#eak, for that narrative.G &hether e call this im#lie" author
an Gofficial scri$e,G or a"o#t the term recently revive" $y 3athleen
Tillotson ! the authorGs Gsecon" selfG ! it is clear that the #icture the
rea"er gets of this #resence is one of the authorGs most im#ortant effects.
-oever im#ersonal he may try to $e, his rea"er ill inevita$ly construct
a #icture of the official scri$e ho rites in this manner ! an" of course
that official scri$e ill never $e neutral toar" all values. Dur reactions
to his various commitments, secret or overt, ill hel# to "etermine our
res#onse to the ork. The rea"erGs role in this relantionshi# , must save
for cha#ter V. Dur #resent #ro$lem is the intricate relationshi# of the so!
calle" real author ith his various official versions of himself.
&e must say various versions, for regar"less of ho sincere an author
may try to $e, his "ifferent orks ill im#ly "ifferent versions, "ifferent
i"eal com$inations of norms. ?ust as oneGs #ersonal letters im#ly "ifferent
versions of oneself, "e#en"ing on the "iffering relationshi#s ith each
corres#on"ent an" the #ur#ose of each letter, so the riter sets himself
out ith a "ifferent air "e#en"ing on the nee"s of #articular orks. '...(
,t is a curious fact that e have no terms either for this create" Gsecon"
self G or for our relationshi# ith him. /one of our terms for various
as#ects of the narrator is quite accurate, G%ersona,G Gmask,G an" GnarratorG
are sometimes use", $ut they more commonly refer to the s#eaker in the
ork ho is after all only one of the elements create" $y the im#lie"
author an" ho may $e se#arate" from him $y large ironies. G/arratorG is
usually taken to mean the G,G of a ork, $ut the G,G is sel"om if ever
i"entical ith the im#lie" image if the artist.
GTheme,G Gmeaning,G Gsym$olic significance,G Gtheology,G or even
GontologyG ! all these have $een use" to "escri$e" the norms hich the
rea"er must a##rehen" in each ork if is to gras# it a"equately. Such
terms are useful for some #ur#oses, $ut they can $e mislea"ing $ecause
they almost inevita$ly come to seem like #ur#oses for hich the orks
exist. '...(
Dur sense of the im#lie" author inclu"es not only the extracta$le
meanings $ut also the moral an" emotional content of each $it of action
an" suffering of all the characters. ,t inclu"es, in short, the intuitive
19
a##rehension of a com#lete" artistic hole+ the chief value to hich this
im#li" author is committe", regar"less of hat #arty his creator $elongs to
in real life, is that hich is ex#resse" $y the total form.
Three other terms are sometimes use" to name the core of norms an"
choice hich , am calling the im#lie" author. GStyleG is sometimes $roa"ly
use" to cover hatever it is that gives us a sense, from or" to or" an"
line to line, that the author sees more "ee#ly an" )u"ges more #rofoun"ly
than his #resente" characters. Fut, though style is one of our main sources
of insight into the authorGs norms, in carrying such strong overtones of the
merely ver$al the or" style exclu"es our sense of the authorsGs skill in his
choice of character an" e#iso"e an" scene an" i"ea. GToneG is similarly use"
to refer to the im#licit evaluation hich the author manages to convery
$ehin" his ex#licit #resentation, $ut it almost inevita$ly suggests again
something limite" to the merely ver$al+ some as#ects of the im#lie" author
may $e inferre" through tonal variations, $ut his ma)or qualities ill
"e#en" also on the har" facts of action an" character in the tale that is tol".
Similarly, GtechniqueG has at times $een ex#an"e" to cover all "iscerni$le
signs of the authorGs artistry. ,f everyone use" GtechniqueG as Cark Schorer
"oes, covering ith it almost the entire range of choice ma"e $y the
author, then it might very ell serve our #ur#ose. Fut it is usually taken
for a much narroer matter, an" consequently it ill not "o. &e can $e
satisfie" only ith a term that is as $roa" as the ork itself $ut still
ca#a$le of calling attention to that ork as the #ro"uct of a choosing,
evaluating #erson rather than as a self!existing thing. The Gim#lie" authorG
chooses, consciously or unconsciously, hat e rea"+ e infer him as an
i"eal, literary, create" version of the real man+ he is the sum of his on
choices.
,t is only $y "istinguishing $eteen the author an" his im#lie" image that
e can avoi" #ointless an" unverifia$le talk a$out such qualities as
GsincerityG or G seriousnessG in the author. Fecause >or" Ca"ox >or" thinks
of >iel"ing an" Befoe an" Thackeray as the unme"iate" authors of their
novels, he must en" $y con"emning them as insincere, since there is every
reason to $elieve that they rite G#assages of virtuous as#irations that ere
in no ay any as#irations of theirs.G %resuma$ly he is relying on external
evi"ences of >iel"ingGs lack of virtuous as#irations. Fut e have only the
ork as evi"ence for the only kin" of sincerity that concerns us: ,s the
im#lie" author in harmony ith himself ! that is, are his other choices in
harmony ith his ex#licit narrative character@ ,f a narrator ho $y every
trustorthy sign is #resenten" to us as a relia$le s#okesman for the author
#rofesses to $elieve in values hich are never reali:e" in the structure as
a hole, e can then talk of an insincere ork. A great ork esta$lishes
the GsincerityG of its im#lie" author, regar"less of ho grossly the man
ho create" that author may $elie in his other forms of con"uct the
values em$o"ie" in his ork. >or all e kno, the only sincere moments
of his life may have $een live" as he rote his novel. '...(
1.1.I &ayne *. Footh: from Nmotions, Feliefs, an" the 2ea"ers D$)ectivity
Nvery literary ork of any #oer ! hether or not its author com#ose"
it ith his au"ience in min" ! is in fact an ela$orate system of controls
over the rea"ers involvement an" "etachment along varios lines of
interest. The author is limite" only $y the range of human interests. '...(
The values hich interest us, an" hich are thus availa$le for
technical mani#ulation in fiction, may $e roughly "ivi"e" into three
kin"s. 011 ,ntellectual or cognitive: &e have, or can $e ma"e to have,
strong intellectual curiosity a$out the facts, the true inter#retation, the
true reasons, the true origins, the true motives, or the true a$out life itself.
0E1 Aualitative: &e have, or can $e ma"e to have, a strong "esire to see
any #attern or form com#lete", or to ex#erience a further "evelo#ment of
qualities of any kin". &e might call this kin" aesthetic, if to "o so "i"
not suggest that a literary form using this interest as necessarily of more
artistic value than one $ase" on other interests. 081 %ractical: &e have, or
can $e ma"e to have, a strong "esire for the success or failure of those e
love or hate, a"mire or "etest+ or e can $e ma"e to ho#e for or fear a
change in the quality of a character. &e might call this kin" human, if
to "o so "i" not im#ly that 1 an" E ere someho less than human. '...(
&ith this $roa"ene" s#ectrum of interests in min", e shoul" no $e
17
in a somehat more favora$le #osition to consi"er the question of the
authors an" rea"ers $eliefs. Cost contem#orary stu"ents of literature
oul" agree that a riters i"eas have as little to "o ith his artistic talent
as his #ersonal morals. '...( /ot many #eo#le oul" agree ith the vies
of man hel" $y -omer, Bante, Faron *orvo, or N:ra %oun"+ $ut hether
or not e agree ith them shoul" have little to "o ith hether or not e
acce#t or re)ect their art. So rites Caurice Fee$e, e"itor of Mo+ern
Fi$tion St+ies-
>C
ex#ressing once more a #osition that has $een re#eate"
again an" again since the famous claim $y ,.A.2ichar"s that e nee" no
$eliefs, an" in"ee" e must have none, if e are to rea" Ding Lear*.
>E
Dn
the other han", the e"itor of a recent sym#osium on $elief in literature
fin"s common groun" among all the #artici#ants in the conviction that
literature involves assum#tions an" $eliefs an" sym#athies ith hich a
large measure of concurrence is another thing.
E9
The seeming "isagreement here is striking. Fut it is #artly "issolve"
hen e remem$er the "istinction e have ma"e $eteen the real author
an" the im#lie" author, the secon" self create" in the ork. The vies of
man of >aulkner an" N.C.>oster, as they go a$out making their
Stockholm a""resses or riting their essays, are in"ee" of only #eri#heral
value to me as , rea" their novels. Fut the im#lie" author of each novel is
someone ith hose $eliefs on all su$)ects , must largely agree if , am to
en)oy his ork. Df course, the same "istinction must $e ma"e $eteen
myself as rea"er an" the often very "ifferent self ho goes a$out #aying
$ills, re#airing leaky faucets, an" failing in generosity an" is"om. ,t is
only as , rea" that , $ecome the self hose $eliefs must coinci"e ith the
authors. 2egar"less of my real $eliefs an" #ractices, , must su$or"inate
my min" an" heart to the $ook if , am to en)oy it to the full. The author
E6
Summer, 1467, #. 17E.
EI
%oetry an" Feliefs, S$ien$e an+ 0oetry 014EI1, as re#rinte" in 2. &. Stallman
0e".1, <riti.es an+ 1ssays 0/e Jork, 14<41, ##. 8E4!88.
2)
Literature and Belief: English Institute Essay, 1*,), ed2 42 '2 #brams
(5e- 6or7, 1*,8), p2 .2
creates, in short, an image of himself an" another image of his rea"er+ he
makes his rea"er, as he makes his secon" self, an" the most successful
rea"ing is one in hich the create" selves, author an" rea"er, can fin"
com#lete agreement. '...(
This "oes not mean, of course, that *atholics cannot en)oy 0ara+ise
Lost more than they might a secon"!rate *atholic e#ic, or that %rotestants
cannot en)oy The -a$it of %erfection more than they might a secon"!
rate %rotestant hymn. ,t means sim#ly that "ifferences of $elief, even in
the sense of a$stract, s#eculative systems, are alays to some extent
relevant, often seriously ham#ering, an" sometimes fatal. ,magine a
$eautifully ritten trage"y ith a convince" /a:i SS man as hero, his
tragic error consisting of a tem#orary, an" fatal, toying ith $ourgeois
"emocratic i"eals. ,s there any one of us, regar"less of our commitment
to o$)ectivity, ho coul" seriously claim that agreement or "isagreement
ith the authors i"eas in such a ork oul" have nothing to "o ith our
acce#ting or re)ecting his art@
,t is true that some great orks seem to rise a$ove "ifferences of
s#eculative system an" to in rea"ers of all cam#s. Shakes#eare is the
#re!eminent exam#le. '...( Fut this is far from saying that great literature
is com#ati$le ith all $eliefs. Though Shakes#eare seems, hen looke"
at su#erficially, to have no $eliefs, though it is in"ee" im#ossi$le to
extract from the #lays any one coherent #hiloso#hical or religious or
#olitical formulation that ill satisfy all rea"ers, it is not "ifficult to list
innumera$le norms hich e must acce#t if e are to com#rehen"
#articular #lays, an" some of these "o run throughout his orks. ,t is true
that these $eliefs are for the most #art self!evi"ent, even common#lace !
$ut that is #recisely $ecause they are acce#ta$le to most of us. '...(
&e sel"om talk in these terms a$out great literature only $ecause e
take them for grante" or $ecause they seem ol"!fashione". Dnly a
maniac, #resuma$ly, oul" si"e ith Koneril an" 2egan against =ear. ,t
is only hen a ork seems ex#licitly "octrinaire, or hen reasona$le
men can $e in serious "isagreement a$out its values, that the question of
$elief arises for "iscussion. Nven hen it "oes arise, it is often mislea"ing
if e think of $eliefs in terms of s#eculative theories. The great
14
*atholic #r %rotestant orks are not, in their essentials, *atholic or
%rotestant at all. Nven though a *atholic may $e #resume" to "erive
a""itional #leasures an" insights not availa$le to the non!*atholic in
rea"ing Cauriacs Dnot of 5ipers- the #icture it gives of a man ma"e
misera$le through his s#iritual confusion "e#en"s for its effect on values
common to the most vies of mans fate. '...(
The #ro$lem for the rea"er is thus really that of "iscovering hich
values are in a$eyance an" hich are genuinely, though in mo"ern orks
often surre#titiously, at ork. To #ass )u"gement here the author inten"s
neutrality is to misrea". Fut to $e neutral or o$)ective here the author
requires commitment is equally to misrea", though the effect is likely to $e
less o$vious an" may even $e overlooke" exce#t as a feeling of $ore"om.
At the $eginning of the mo"ern #erio", no "ou$t the "anger of "ogmatic
over)u"gement as the greater one. Fut for at least to "eca"es no, , am
convince" far more misrea"ing has resulte" from hat , can only call
"ogmatic neutrality.
1.> T31 N1; <RITI<ISM
1.E.1 *leanth Frooks: from The >ormalist *ritic
E7
-ere are some articles of faith , coul" su$scri$e to:
That literary criticism is a "escri#tion an" an evaluation of its o$)ect.
That the #rimary concern of criticism is ith the #ro$lem of unity ! the
kin" of hole hich the literary ork forms or fails to form, an" the
relation of the various #arts ith each other in $uil"ing u# this hole.
That the formal relations in a ork of literature may inclu"e, $ut
certainly excee", those of logic.
That in a successful ork, form an" content cannot $e se#arate".
That form is meaning.
That literature is ultimately meta#horical an" sym$olic.
That the general an" the universal are not sei:e" u#on $y a$stractions,
$ut got at through the concrete an" the #articular.
E7
2e#rinte" from the Denyon Revie", 18 014611, ##. 9E!71
That literature is not a surrogate for religion.
That, as Allen Tate says, s#ecific moral #ro$lems are the su$)ect
matter of literature, $ut that the #ur#ose of literature is not to #oint a
moral.
That the #rinci#les of criticism "efine the area relevant to literary
criticism+ they "o not constitute a metho" for carrying out literary
criticism.
Such statements as these oul" not, even though carefully ela$orate",
serve any useful #ur#ose here. The intereste" rea"er alrea"y knos the
general nature of the critical #osition a"um$rate" ! or, if he "oes not, he
can fin" it set forth in ritings of mine or of other critics of like
sym#athy. Coreover, a con"ense" restatement of the #osition here oul"
#ro$a$ly $eget as many misun"erstan"ings as have #ast attem#ts to set it
forth. ,t seems much more #rofita$le to use the #resent occasion for
"ealing ith some #ersistent misun"erstan"ings an" o$)ections.
,n the first #lace, to make the #oem or the novel the central concern of
criticism has a##eare" to mean cutting it loose from its author an" from
his life as a man, ith his on #articular ho#es, fears, interests, conflicts,
etc. A criticism so limite" may seem $loo"less an" hollo...
,n the secon" #lace, to em#hasi:e the ork seems to involve severing it
from those ho actually rea" it, an" this severance may seem "rastic an"
therefore "isastrous. After all, literature is ritten to $e rea".
&or"sorthGs #oet as a man s#eaking to men'...( Coreover, if e
neglect the au"ience hich rea"s the ork, inclu"ing that for hich it
as #resuma$ly ritten, the literary historian is #rom#t to #oint out that
the kin" of au"ience that %o#e ha" "i" con"ition the kin" of #oetry that
he rote. The #oem has its roots in history, #ast an" #resent. ,ts #lace in
the historical context sim#ly cannot $e ignore".
, have state" these o$)ections as shar#ly as , can $ecause , am
sym#athetic ith the state of min" hich is #rone to voice them. CanGs
ex#erience is in"ee" a seamless garment, no #art of hich can $e
se#arate" from the rest. Jet if e urge this fact of inse#ara$ility against
the "raing of "istinctions, then there is no #oint in talking a$out
criticism at all. , am assuming that "istinctions are necessary an" useful
E5
an" in"ee" inevita$le.
The formalist critic knos as ell as anyone that #oems an" #lays an"
novels are ritten $y men ! that they "o not someho ha##en ! an" that
they are ritten as ex#ressions of #articular #ersonalities an" are ritten
for all sorts of motives ! for money, from a "esire to ex#ress oneself, for
the sake of a cause, etc. Coreover, the formalist critic knos as ell as
anyone that literary orks are merely #otential until they are rea" ! that
is, that they are recreate" in the min"s of actual rea"ers, ho vary
enormously in their ca#a$ilities, their interests, their #re)u"ices, their
i"eas. Fut the formalist critic is #rimarily concerne" ith the ork itself.
S#eculation on the mental #rocesses of the author takes the critic aay
from the ork into $iogra#hy an" #sychology. There is no reason, of
course, hy he shoul"nGt turn aay into $iogra#hy an" #sychology. Such
ex#lorations are very much orth making. Fut they shoul" not $e
confuse" ith an account of the ork. Such stu"ies "escri$e the #rocess of
com#osition, not the structure of the thing com#ose", an" they may $e
#erforme" quite as vali"ly for the #oor ork as for the goo" one. They
may $e vali"ly #erforme" for any kin" of ex#ression ! non!literary as
ell as literary.
Dn the other han", ex#lorations of the various rea"ings hich the ork
has receive" also takes the critic aay from the ork into #sychology an"
the history of taste. The various im#orts of a given ork may ell $e
orth stu"ying'...(Fut such ork, valua$ly an" necessary as it may $e, is
to $e "istinguishe" from a criticism of the ork itself. The formalist critic,
$ecause he ants to critici:e the ork itself, makes to assum#tions: 011
he assumes that the relevant #art of the authorGs intention is hat he
actually got into his ork+ that is, he assumes that the authorGs intention as
realize+ is the intention that counts, not necessarily hat he as
conscious of trying to "o, or hat he no remem$ers he as then trying
to "o. An" 0E1 the formalist critic assumes an i"eal rea"er: that is, instea"
of focusing on the varying s#ectrum of #ossi$le rea"ings, he attem#ts to
fin" a central #oint of reference from hich he can focus u#on the
structure of the #oem itself.
Fut there is no i"eal rea"er, someone is #rom#t to #oint out, an" he ill
#ro$a$ly #oint out that it is sheer arrogance that allos the critic, ith his
on $lin"si"es an" #re)u"ices, to #ut himself in the #osition of that i"eal
rea"er. There is no i"eal rea"er, of course, an" , su##ose that the
#ractising critic can never $e too often remin"e" of the ga# $eteen his
rea"ing an" the rea"ing of the #oem. Fut for the #ur#ose of focusing
u#on the #oem rather than u#on his on reactions, it is "efensi$le
strategy. >inally, of course, it is the strategy that all critics of hatever
#ersuasion are force" to a"o#t. 0The alternatives are "es#erate: either e
say that one #ersonGs rea"ing is as goo" as anotherGs an" equate those
rea"ings on a $asis of a$solute equality an" thus "eny the #ossi$ility of
any stan"ar" rea"ing. Dr else e take a loest common "enominator of
the various rea"ings that have $een ma"e+ that is, e frankly move from
literary criticism into socio!#sychology. To #ro#ose taking a consensus of
the o#inions of qualifie" rea"ers is sim#ly to s#lit the i"eal rea"er into
a grou# of i"eal rea"ers1. As consequences of the "istinction )ust referre"
to, the formalist critic re)ects to #o#ular tests for literary value. The first
#roves the value of the ork from the authorGs sincerity 0or the intensity
of the authorGs feelings as he com#ose" it1'...( Nrnest -emingayGs
statement in a recent issue of Ti(e maga:ine that he counts his last novel
his $est is of interest for -emingayGs $iogra#hy, $ut most rea"ers of
A$ross the River an+ Into the Trees oul" agree that it #roves nothing at
all a$out the value of the novel ! that in this case the )u"gement is
sim#ly #athetically ine#t. &e "iscount also such tests for #oetry as that
#ro#ose" $y A. N. -ousman ! the $ristling of his $ear" at the rea"ing of
a goo" #oem. The intensity of his reaction has critical significance only
in #ro#ortion as e have alrea"y learne" to trust him as a rea"er. Nven so,
hat it tells us is something a$out -ousman ! nothing "ecisive a$out the
#oem.
,t is unfortunate that this #laying "on of such res#onses seems to "eny
humanity to either riter or rea"er. The critic may en)oy certain orks
very much an" may $e in"ee" intensely move" $y them. , am, an" , have
no em$arrassment in a"mitting the fact: $ut a "etaile" "escri#tion of my
emotional state on rea"ing certain orks has little to "o ith in"icating to
an intereste" rea"er hat the ork is an" ho the #arts of it are relate".
E1
Shoul" all criticism, then, $e self!effacing an" analytic@ , ho#e that the
anser is im#licit in hat , have alrea"y ritten, $ut , shall go on to s#ell
it out. Df course not. That ill "e#en" u#on the occasion an" the
au"ience'...(
, have assigne" the critic a mo"est, though , think an im#ortant, role.
&ith reference to the hel# hich the critic can give to the #ractising artist,
the role is even more mo"est. As a critic, he can give only negative hel#.
=iterature is not ritten $y formula: he can have no formula to offer.
%erha#s he can "o little more than in"icate hether in his o#inion the ork
has succee"e" or faile". -ealthy criticism an" healthy creation "o ten" to
go han" in han". Nverything else $eing equal, the creative artist is $etter
off for $eing in touch ith a vigorous criticism. Fut the other
consi"erations are never equal, the case is alays s#ecial, an" in a given
case the #ro#er a"vice $ol+ $e: quit rea"ing criticism all together, or rea"
#olitical science or history or #hiloso#hy ! or )oin the army, or )oin the
church'...(
A literary ork is a "ocument an" as a "ocument can $e analy:e" in
terms of the forces that have #ro"uce" it, or it may $e mani#ulate" as a
force in its on right. ,t mirrors the #ast, it may influence the future. These
facts it oul" $e futile to "eny, an" , kno of no critic ho "oes "eny
them. Fut the re"uction of a ork of literature to its causes "oes not
constitute literary criticism+ nor "oes an estimate of its effects. Koo"
literature is more than effective rhetoric a##lie" to true i"eas ! even if e
coul" agree u#on a #hiloso#hical yar"stick for measuring the truth of i"eas
an" even of e coul" fin" some ay that transcen"e" nose!counting for
"etermining the effectiveness of the rhetoric.
1.E.8 &. 3. &imsatt an" C. Fear"sley: from The ,ntentional >allacy
!"
GG,ntention, as e shall use the term, corres#on"s to "hat he inten+e+ in
a formula hich more or less ex#licitly has ha" i"e acce#tance. ,n
or"er to )u"ge the #oetGs #erformance, e must kno "hat he inten+e+.*
,ntention is "esign or #lan in the authorGs min". ,ntention has o$vious
affinities for the authorGs attitu"e toar" his ork, the ay he felt, hat
ma"e him rite.
&e $egin our "iscussion ith a series of #ro#ositions summari:e" an"
a$stracte" to a "egree here they seem to us axiomatic.
1. A #oem "oes not come into existence $y acci"ent. The or"s of a
#oem, as %rofessor Stoll has remarke", come out of a hea", not out of a
hat. Jet to insist on the "esigning intellect as a $ase of a #oem is not to
grant the "esign or intention as a stan+ar+ $y hich the critic is to )u"ge
the orth of the #oetGs #erformance.
E. Dne must ask ho a critic ex#ects to get an anser to the question
a$out intention. -o is he to fin" out hat the #oet trie" to "o@ ,f the
#oet succe"e" in "oing it, then the #oem itself shos hat he as trying
to "o. An" if the #oet "i" no succee", then the #oem is not a"equate
evi"ence, an" the critic must go outsi"e the #oem ! for evi"ence of an
intention that "i" not $ecome effective in the #oem. Dnly one $aveat
must $e $orne in min", says an eminent intentionalist in a moment hen
his theory re#u"iates itself, the #oetGs aim must $e )u"ge" at the moment
of the creative act, that is to say, $y the art of the #oem itself.
8. ?u"ging a #oem is like )u"ging a #u""ing or a machine. Dne "eman"s
that it ork. ,t is only $ecause an artifact orks that e infer the
intention of an artificer: A #oem shoul" not mean $ut $e. A #oem can
%e only through its (eaning ! since its me"ium is or"s ! yet it is,
sim#ly is, in the sense that e have no excuse for inquiring hat #art is
inten"e" or meant. %oetry is a feat of style $y hich a com#lex of
2*
%$blished in8 92 :2 9imsa, The Verbal Icon (4eh$en, ;ondon,
1*)<), pp2=&,, 1)&18)2
EE
meaning is han"le" all at once. %oetry succee"s $ecause all or most of
hat is sai" or im#lie" is relevant+ hat is irrevelant has $een exclu"e",
like lum#s from #u""ing an" G$ugsG from machinery. ,n this res#ect #oetry
"iffers from #ractical messages, hich are successful if an" only if e
correctly infer the intention. They are more a$stract than #oetry.
<. The meaning of a #oem may certainly $e a #ersonal one, in the sense
that a #oem ex#resses a #ersonality or state of soul rather than a #hysical
o$)ect like an a##le. Fut even a short lyric #oem is "ramatic, the res#onse
of a s#eaker 0no matter ho a$stractly conceive"1 to a situation 0no matter
ho universali:e"1. &e ought to im#ute the thoughts an" attitu"e of the
#oem imme"iately to the "ramatic speaker- an" if to the author at all, only
$y an act of $iogra#hical inference.
6. There is a sense in hich an author, $y revision, may $etter achieve his
original intention. Fut it is a very a$stract sense. -e inten"e" to rite a
$etter ork, or a $etter ork of a certain kin", an" no has "one it. Fut it
follos that his former concrete intention as not his intention. -eGs the
man e ere in search of, thatGs true, says -ar"yGs rustic consta$le, an"
yet heGs not the man e ere in search of. >or the man e ere in search
of as not the man e ante".
Allusiveness in #oetry is one of several critical issues $y hich e have
illustrate" the more a$stract issue of intentionalism, $ut it may $e for to"ay
the most im#ortant illustration. As a #oetic #ractice allusiveness oul"
a##ear to $e in some recent #oems an extreme corollary of the romantic
intentionalist assum#tion, an" as a critical issue it challenges an" $rings to
light in a s#ecial ay the $asic #remise of intentionalism. The folloing
instance from the #oetry of Nliot may serve to e#itomi:e the #ractical
im#lications of hat e have $een saying. ,n NliotGs =ove Song of ?.
Alfre" %rufrock, toar" the en", occurs the line: , have hear" the
mermai"s singing, each to each, an" this $ears a certain resem$lance to a
line in a Song $y ?ohn Bonne, Teach me to heare Cermai"es singing, so
that for the rea"er acquainte" to a certain "egree ith BonneGs #oetry, the
critical question arises: ,s NliotGs line an allusion to BonneGs@ ,s %rufrock
thinking a$out Bonne@ ,s Nliot thinking a$out Bonne@ &e suggest that
there are to ra"ically "ifferent ays of looking for an anser to this
question. There is 011 the ay of #oetic analysis an" exegesis, hich
inquires hether it makes any sense if Nliot!%rufrock is thinking a$out
Bonne. ,n an earlier #art of the #oem, hen %rufrock asks, &oul" it
have $een orth hile, ... To have squee:e" the universe into a $all, his
or"s take half their sa"ness an" irony from certain energetic an"
#assionate lines of Carvel To -is *oy Cistress. Fut the exegetical
inquirer may on"er hether mermai"s consi"ere" as strange sights 0to
hear them is in BonneGs #oem analogous to getting ith chil" a man"rake
root1 have much to "o ith %rufrockGs mermai"s, hich seem to $e
sym$ols of romance an" "ynamism, an" hich inci"entally have literary
authentication, if they nee" it, in a line of a sonnet $y KLrar" "e /erval.
This metho" of inquiry may lea" to the conclusion that the given
resem$lance $eteen Nliot an" Bonne is ithout significance an" is
$etter not thought of, or the metho" may have the "isa"vantage of
#rovi"ing no certain conclusion. /evertheless, e su$mit that this is the
true an" o$)ective ay of criticism, as contraste" to hat the very
uncertainty of exegesis might tem#t a secon" kin" of critic to un"ertake:
0E1 the ay of $iogra#hical or genetic inquiry, in hich, taking a"vantage
of the fact that Nliot is still alive, an" in the s#irit of a man ho oul"
settle a $et, the critic rites to Nliot an" asks hat he meant, or if he ha"
Bonne in min". &e shall not here eigh the #ro$a$ilities hether Nliot
oul" anser that he meant nothing at all, ha" nothing at all in min" ! a
sufficiently goo" an"er to such a question ! or in an unguar"e"
moment might furnish a clear an", ithin its limit, irrefuta$le anser.
Dur #oint is that such an anser to such an inquiry oul" have nothing to
"o ith the #oem %rufrock + it oul" not $e a critical inquiry. *ritical
inquiries, unlike $ets, are not settle" in this ay. *ritical inquiries are not
settle" $y consulting the oracle.
1.E.< &. 3. &imsatt an" C. Fear"sley: from The Affective >allacy
As the title of this essay invites com#arison ith that of our first, it may
E8
$e relevant ot assert at this #oint that e $elieve ourselves to $e ex#loring
to roa"s hich have seeme" to offer convenient "etours aroun" the
acknole"ge" an" usually feare" o$stacles to o$)ective criticism, $oth of
hich, hoever, have actually le" aay from criticism an" from #oetry.
The ,ntentional >allacy is a confusion $eteen the #oem an" its origins, a
s#ecial case of hat is knon to #hiloso#hers as the Kenetic >allacy. ,t
$egins $y trying to "erive the stan"ar" of criticism from the #sychological
$ases of the #oem an" en"s in $iogra#hy an" relativism. The Affective
>allacy is a confusion $eteen the #oem an" its reslts 0hat it is an"
hat it +oes1, a s#ecial case of e#istemological sce#ticism, though usually
a"vance" as if it ha" stronger claims than the overall forms of sce#ticism.
,t $egins $y trying to "erive the stan"ar" of criticism from the
#sychological effects of the #oem an" en"s in im#ressionism an"
relativism. The outcome of either >allacy, the ,ntentional ot the Affective,
is that the #oem itself, as an o$)ect of s#ecifically critical )u"gement, ten"s
to "isa##ear. '...(
Dne of the most em#hatic #oints in Stevensons system is the "istinction
$eteen hat a or" (eans an" hat it sggests. '...( Although the term
quasi!"e#en"ent emotive meaning is recommen"e" $y Stevenson for a
kin" of emotive meaning hich is con"itional to the cognitive
sggestiveness of a sign, the main "rift of his argument is that emotive
meaning is something noncorrelative to an" in"e#en"ent of "escri#tive 0or
cognitive1 meaning. Thus, emotive meaning is sai" to survive shar#
changes in "escri#tive meaning. An" or"s ith the same "escri#tive
meaning are sai" to have quite "ifferent emotive meanings. =icence
an" li$erty, for exam#le, Stevenson $elieves to have in some contexts the
same "escri#tive meaning, $ut o##osite emotive meanings.
'...( Dr one may cite the or" series in Fenthams classic *atalogue of
Cotives : humanity, goo"ill, #artiality, frugality, #ecuniary interest,
avarice. Dr the other stan"ar" exam#les of emotive insinuation: Animals
seat, men #ers#ire, omen glo. , am firm, thou art o$stinate, he is
#ighea"e". Dr the sentence There shoul" $e a revolution every tenty
years, to hich the ex#erimenter in emotive res#onses attaches no the
name of 3arl Carx an" arouses sus#icion1, no that of Thomas ?efferson
0an" #rovokes a##lause1. '...(
%latos fee"ing an" atering of #assions
85
as an early exam#le of
affective theory, an" Aristotles countertheory of catharsis as another
0ith mo"ern intentionalistic analogues in theories of relief an"
su$limation1. There as also the trans#ort of the au"ience in the 0eri
3ypsos 0matching the great soul of the #oet1, an" this ha" echoes of
#assion or enthusiasm among eighteenth!century =onginians. &e have
ha" more recently the infection theory of Tolstoy 0ith its intentionalistic
analogue in the emotive ex#ressionism of Veron1, the 1infFhlng or
em#athy of =i##s an" relate" #leasure theories, either more or less
ten"ing to the o$)ectification of Santayana: Feauty is #leasure regar"e"
as the quality of a thing. An affinity for these theories is seen in certain
theories of the comic "uring the same era, the relaxation theory of
%en)on, the laughter theory of Cax Nastman. ,n their Fon+ations of
Aestheti$s Dg"en, 2ichar"s, an" &oo"s liste" sixteen ty#es of aesthetic
theory, of hich at least seven may $e "escri$e" as affective. Among
these the theory of Synaesthesis 0Feauty is hat #ro"uces an equili$rium
of a##etencies1 as the one they themselves es#ouse". This as
"evelo#e" at length $y 2ichar"s in his 0rin$iples of Literary <riti$is(.
'...(
An even more a"vance" gra"e of affective theory, that of hallucination,
oul" seem to have #laye" some #art in the neo!classic conviction a$out
the unities of time an" #lace, as given a mo"ifie" continuation of
existence in #hrases of *oleri"ge a$out a illing sus#ension of "is$elief
an" a tem#orary half faith, an" may $e foun" to"ay in some text$ooks.
The hy#notic hy#othesis of N. B. Sny"er might "ou$tless $e invoke" in
its su##ort. At this form of affective theory is the least theoretical in
"etail, has the least content, an" makes the least claim on critical
85
Strictly, a theory not of #oetry $ut of morals, as, to take a curious mo"ern instance,
=ucie Kuillets La 0o8ti$oth8rapie- 1ffi$a$it8s + Fli+e 0o8ti.e 0%aris, 14<I1 is a
theory not of #oetry, $ut of healing. Aristotles catharsis is a true theory of #oetry, that
is, #art of a "efinition of #oetry.
E<
intelligence, so, it is in its most concrete instances not a theory $ut a fiction
or a fact ! of no critical significance. ,n the eighteenth century >iel"ing
conveys a right vie of the hallucinative #oer of "rama in his comic
"escri#tion of %artri"ge seeing Karrick act the ghost scene in -amlet 'in
To( @ones(. D la. Sir....,f , as frightene", , am not the only
#erson....Jou may call me coar" if you ill+ $ut if that little man there
u#on the stage is not frightene", , never sa any man frightene" in my
life. %artri"ge is to"ay foun" #erha#s less often among the so#histicates at
the theatre than among the myria" au"ience of movie an" ra"io. ,t is sai",
an" no "ou$t relia$ly, that "uring &orl" &ar ,, Stefan Schna$el #laye"
/a:i roles in ra"io "ramas so convincingly that he receive" numerous
letters of com#laint, an" in #articular one from a la"y ho sai" she ha"
re#orte" him to Keneral CacArthur.
81
'...( ,f animals coul" rea" #oetry, the affective critic might make
"iscoveries analogous to those of &. F. *annon a$out 4o+ily <hanges in
0ain- 3nger- Fear an+ Rage ! the increase" li$eration of sugar from the
liver, the secretion of a"renalin from the a"renal glan". The affective critic
is to"ay actually a$le, if he ishes, to measure the #sychogalvanic reflex
of #ersons su$)ecte" to a given moving #icture. Fut, as -er$ert ?. Culler
in his S$ien$e an+ <riti$is( #oints out: Stu"ents have sincerely re#orte"
an emotion at the mention of the or" mother, although a galvanometer
in"icate" no $o"ily change hatever. They have also re#orte" no emotions
at the mention of #rostitute, although the galvanometer gave a "efinite
kick. Thomas Cann an" a frien" came out of a movie ee#ing co#iously
! $ut Cann narrates the inci"ent in su##ort of his vie that movies are not
Art. Art is a $ol+ s#here.
8E
The ga# $eteen $eteen various levels of
#sychological ex#erience an" the recognition of value remains i"e, in the
la$oratory or out.
'...( Tennysons Tears, i"le tears, as it "eals ith an emotion hich the
s#eaker at first seems not to un"erstan", might $e thought to $e a s#ecially
81
Ne" Gorker, Q,Q 011 Becem$er 14<81, E7.
8E
He$er "en >ilm, in ,ie For+erng +es Tages 0Ferlin, 14851, 879.
emotive #oem. The last stan:a, says Frooks in his recent analysis,
evokes an intense emotional res#onse from the rea"er. Fut this
statement is not really a #art of Frooks criticism of the #oem ! rather a
itness of his fon"ness for it. The secon" stan:a ! Frooks might have
sai" at an earlier #oint in his analysis ! gives us a momentary vivi"
reali:ation of #ast ha##y ex#eriences, then makes us sa" at their loss.
Fut he says actually : The con)uction of the qualities of sa"ness an"
freshness is reinforce" $y the fact that the same $asic sym$ol ! the light
on the sails of a shi# hull "on ! has $een em#loye" to suggest $oth
qualities. The "istinction $eteen these formulations may seem slight,
an" in the first exam#le hich e furnishe" may $e #ractically
unim#ortant. Jet, the "ifference $eteen translata$le emotive formulas
an" more #sychological an" #sychologically vague ones ! cognitively
untranslata$le ! is theoretically of greatest im#ortance. The "istinction
even hen it is a faint one is at the "ivi"ing #oint $eteen #aths hich
le" to #olar o##osites in criticism, to classical o$)ectivity an" to romantic
rea"er #sychology.
The critic hose formulations lean to the emotive an" the critic hose
formulations lean to the cognitive ill in the long run #ro"uce a vastly
"ifferent sort of criticism.
The more s#ecific the account of the emotion in"uce" $y a #oem, the
more nearly it ill $e an account of the reasons for emotion, the #oem
itself, an" the more relia$le it ill $e as an account of hat the #oem is
likely to in"uce in other ! sufficiently informe" ! rea"ers. ,t ill in fact
su##ly the kin" of information hich ill ena$le rea"ers to res#on" to
the #oem. '...(
'...( %oetry is characteristically a "iscorse a$out $oth emotions an"
o$)ects, or a$out the emotive quality of o$)ects. The emotions correlative
to the o$)ects of #oetry $ecome a #art of the matter "ealt ith ! not
communicate" to the rea"er like an infection or "isease, not inflicte"
mechanically like a $ullet or knife oun", not a"ministere" like a #oison,
not sim#ly ex#resse" as $y ex#letives or grimaces or rhythms, $ut
#resente" in their o$)ects an" contem#late" as a #attern of knole"ge.
E6
%oetry is a ay of fixing emotions or making them more #ermanently
#erce#ti$le hen o$)ects have un"ergone a functional change from culture
to culture, or hen as sim#le facts of history they have lost emotive value
ith the loss of imme"iacy. Though the reasons for emotion in #oetry may
not $e so sim#le as 2uskins no$le groun"s for the no$le emotions, yet a
great "eal of constancy for #oetic o$)ects of emotion ! if e look for
constancy ! may $e trace" through the "rift of human history. The mur"er
of Buncan $y Cac$eth, hether as history of the eleventh century or a
chronicle of the sixteenth, has not ten"e" to $ecome the su$)ect of a
*hristmas carol. ,n Shakes#eares #lay it is an act "ifficult to "u#licate in
all its imme"iate a")uncts of treachery, "eli$eration, an" horror of
conscience. Set in its galaxy of sym$ols ! the hoarse raven, the thickening
light, an" the cro making ing, the $a$e #lucke" from the $reast, the
"agger in the air, the ghost, the $loo"y han"s ! this ancient mur"er has
$ecome an o$)ect of strongly fixe" emotive value. The cor#se of
%olyneices, a far more ancient o$)ect an" #artially conceale" from us $y
the "ifficulties of the Kreek, shos a similar #ersistency in remaining
among the un"erstan"a$le motives of higher "uty. >uneral customs have
change", $ut not the intelligi$ility of the e$ of issues, religious, #olitical,
an" #rivate, oven a$out the cor#se un$urie", unhonore", all
unhalloe". Again, certain o$)ects #artly o$scure" in one age ax into
a##reciation in another, an" #artly through the efforts of the #oet. ,t is not
true that they su""enly arrive out of nothing. The #athos of Shylock, for
exam#le, is not a creation of our time, though a smugly mo"ern
humanitarianism, $ecause it has slogans, may su##ose that this as not felt
$y $y Shakes#eare or Southam#ton ! an" may not #erceive its on "e$t
to Shakes#eare. %oets, says Shelley, are the unacknole"ge" legislators
of the orl". An" it may $e grante" at least that #oets have $een lea"ing
ex#ositors of the las of feeling.
88
'...( The fiel" orker among the Punis or the /avahos fin"s no informant
so informative as the #oet or the mem$er of the tri$e ho can quote its
88
*f. %auhlan, The La"s of Feeling, 156, 115.
myths.
8<
,n short, though cultures have change", #oems remain an"
ex#lain.
1.H STR?<T?RALISM
1.8.1 2oman ?ako$son: from )=inguistics an" %oetics
, have $een aske" for summary remarks a$out #oetics in its relation to
linguistics. %oetics "eals #rimarily ith the question , ;hat (akes a
ver%al (essage a "ork of artI Fecause the main su$)ect of #oetics is the
+ifferentia spe$ifi$a 's#ecific "ifferences( of ver$al art in relation to other
arts an" in relation to other kin"s of ver$al $ehaviour, #oetics is entitle"
to the lea"ing #lace in literary stu"ies.
%oetics "eals ith #ro$lems of ver$al structure, )ust as the analysis of
#ainting is concerne" ith #ictorial structure. Since linguistics is the
glo$al science of ver$al structure, #oetics may $e regar"e" as an integral
#art of linguistics. '...(
Hnfortunately the terminological confusion of literary stu"ies ith
criticism tem#ts the stu"ent of literature to re#lace the "escri#tion of the
intrinsic values of a literary ork $y a su$)ective, censorious ver"ict. The
la$el literary critic a##lie" to an investigator of literature is as erroneous
as grammatical 0or lexical1 critic oul" $e a##lie" to a linguist.
Syntactic an" mor#hologic research cannot $e su##lante" $y a normative
grammar, an" likeise no manifesto, foisting a critics on tastes an"
o#inions on creative literature, may act as su$stitute for an o$)ective
scholarly analysis of ver$al art. This statement is not to $e mistaken for
the quietist #rinci#le of laissez faire+ any ver$al culture involves
#rogrammatic, #lanning, normative en"eavours. Jet hat is a clear!cut
"iscrimination ma"e $eteen #ure an" a##lie" linguistics or $eteen
8<
The anthro#ologist, says Fronisla Calinovski, has the myth!maker at his
el$o, Myth in 0ri(itive 0sy$hology 0/e Jork, 14EI1, 19.
EI
#honetics an" orthoR#y
86
$ut not $eteen literary stu"ies an" criticism. '...(
=anguage must $e investigate" in all the variety of its functions. Fefore
"iscussing the #oetic function e must "efine its #lace among the other
functions of language. An outline of these functions "eman"s a concise
survey of the constitutive factors in any s#eech event, in any act of ver$al
communication. The ABB2NSSN2 sen"s a CNSSAKN to the
ABB2NSSNN. To $e o#erative the message requires a *D/TNQT
referre" to 0referent in another, somehat am$iguous, nomenclature1,
sei:a$le $y the a""ressee, an" either ver$al or ca#a$le of $eing ver$ali:e"+
a *DBN fully, or at least #artially, common to the a""resser an" a""ressee
0or in other or"s, to the enco"er an" "eco"er of the message1+ an",
finally, a *D/TA*T, a #hysical channel an" #sychological connection
$eteen the a""resser an" the a""ressee, ena$ling $oth of them to enter
an" stay in communication. All these factors inaliena$ly involve" in ver$al
communication may $e schemati:e" as follos:
*D/TNQT
ABB2NSSN2 CNSSAKN ABB2NSSNN
*D/TA*T
*DBN
Nach of these factors "etermines a "ifferent function of language.
Although e "istinguish six $asic as#ects of language, e coul", hoever,
har"ly fin" ver$al messages that oul" fulfil only one function. The
"iversity lies not in a mono#oly of some one of these several functions $ut
in a "ifferent hierarchical or"er of functions. The ver$al structure of a
message "e#en"s #rimarily on the #re"ominant function. Fut even though
a set 01instellng1 toar" the referent, an orientation toar" the
*D/TNQT ! $riefly the so!calle" 2N>N2N/T,A=, "enotative,
cognitive function ! is the lea"ing task of numerous messages, the
accessory #artici#ation of the other functions in such messages must $e
taken into account $y the o$servant linguist.
The so!calle" NCDT,VN or ex#ressive function, focuse" on the
86
That #art of grammar hich "eals ith #ronunciation.
ABB2NSSN2, aims a "irect ex#ression of the s#eakers attitu"e toar"
hat he is s#eaking a$out. ,t ten"s to #ro"uce an im#ression of a certain
emotion hether true or feigne"+ therefore, the term emotive, launche"
an" a"vocate" $y Carty 0851 has #rove" to $e #refera$le to emotional.
The #urely emotive stratum in language is #resente" $y the inter)ections.
They "iffer from the means of referential language $oth $y their soun"
#attern 0#eculiar soun" sequences or even soun"s elsehere unusual1 an"
$y their syntactic role 0they are not com#onents $ut equivalents of
sentences1. TtJ TtJ sai" CcKinty : the com#lete utterance of *onan
Boyles character consists in to suction clicks. The emotive function,
lai" $are in the inter)ections, flavors to some extent all our utterances, on
their #honic, grammatical an" lexical level. ,f e analy:e language from
the stan"#oint of the information it carries, e cannot restrict the notion
of information to the cognitive as#ect of language. A man, using
ex#ressive features to in"icate his angry or ironic attitu"e, conveys
ostensi$le information, an" evi"ently this ver$al $ehaviour cannot $e
likene" to such nonsemiotic, nutritive activities as eating gra#efruit
0"es#ite *hatmans $ol" simile1. '...(
A former actor of Stanislavski)s Cosco Theater tol" me ho at his
au"ition he as aske" $y the famous "irector to make forty "ifferent
messages from the #hrase Sego+n&a ve$ero( 0This evening1, $y
"iversifying its ex#ressive tint. -e ma"e a list of some forty emotional
situations, then emitte" the given #hrase in accor"ance ith each of these
situations, hich his au"ience ha" to recogni:e only from the changes in
the soun" sha#e of the same to or"s. '...(
Drientation toar" the ABB2NSSNN, the *D/AT,VN function, fin"s
its #urest grammatical ex#ression in the vocative an" im#erative, hich
syntactically, mor#hologically an" often #honemically "eviate from other
nominal an" ver$al categories. The im#erative sentences car"inally "iffer
from the "eclarative sentences: the latter are an" the former are not lia$le
to a truth test. &hen in D/eills #lay The Fontain, /ano, 0in a fierce
tone of comman"1, says Brink. ! the im#erative cannot $e challenge"
$y the question is it true or not@ hich may $e, hoever, #erfectly ell
aske" after such sentences as one "rank, one ill "rink, one oul"
E9
"rink. ,n contra"iction to the im#erative sentences, the "eclarative
sentences are converti$le into interrogative sentences: "i" one "rink@,
ill one "rink@, oul" one "rink@
The tra"itional mo"el of language as eluci"ate" #articularly $y FShler
0<1 as confine" to these three functions ! emotive, conative an"
referential ! an" the three a#exes of this mo"el ! the first #erson or the
a""resser, the secon" #erson or the a""ressee, an" the thir" #erson
#ro#erly ! someone or something s#oken of. *ertain a""itional ver$al
functions can $e easily inferre" from this tria"ic mo"el. Thus the magic,
incantatory function is chiefly some kin" of conversion of an a$sent or
inanimate thir" #erson into an a""ressee of a conative message. Cay
this sty "ry u#, tf- tf- tf- tf 0=ithuanian s#ell: E7, #. I41. &ater, queen
river, "ay$reak. Sen" grief $eyon" the $lue sea, to the sea!$ottom, like a
grey stone never to rise from the sea!$ottom, may grief never come to
$ur"en the light heart of Ko"s servant, may grief $e remove" an" sink
aay. 0/orth 2ussian incantation: 84, #. E19 f.1. Sun, stan" thou still
u#on Ki$eon+ an" thou, Coon, in the valley of A)!a!lon. An" the sun stoo"
still, an" the moon staye"'...( 0?osh. 15.1E1. &e o$serve, hoever, three
further constitutive factors of ver$al communication an" three
corres#on"ing functions of language.
There are messages #rimarily serving to esta$lish, to #rolong, or to
"iscontinue communication, to check hether the channel orks 0-ello,
"o you hear me@1, to attract the attention of the interlocutor or to confirm
his continue" attention 0Are you listening@ or in Shakes#earian "iction,
=en" me your ears. ! an" on the other en" of the ire Hm!hum.1. This
set for *D/TA*T, or in Calinoskis terms %-AT,* function 0EI1, may
$e "is#laye" $y a #rofuse exchange of rituali:e" formulas, $y entire
"ialogues ith the mere #ur#ort of #rolonging communication. Borothy
%arker
8I
caught eloquent exam#les: &ell, here e are, he sai". -ere e
are, she sai", Arent e@ , shoul" say e ere, he sai", Neyo#. -ere
e are. &ell. she sai". &ell. he sai", ell. The en"eavour to start
8I
American humorist 01748!14I91 an" one of The Ne" Gorker*s most
cele$rate" contri$utors.
an" sustain communication is ty#ical of talking $ir"s+ thus the #hatic
function of language is the only one they share ith human $eings. ,t is
also the first ver$al function acquire" $y infants+ they are #rone to
communicate $efore $eing a$le to sen" or receive informative
communication.
A "istinction has $een ma"e in mo"ern logic $eteen to levels of
language, o$)ect language s#eaking of o$)ects an" metalanguage
s#eaking of language. Fut metalanguage is not only a necessary scientific
tool utili:e" $y logicians an" linguists+ it #lays also an im#ortant role in
our every"ay language. =ike ColiTres ?our"ain ho use" #rose ithout
knoing it, e #ractice metalanguage ithout reali:ing the metalingual
character of our o#erations. &henever the a""resser an"Uor the a""ressee
nee" to check u# hether they use the same co"e, s#eech is focuse" on
the *DBN: it #erforms a CNTA=,/KHA= 0i.e., glossing1 function. ,
"ont follo you ! hat "o you mean@ asks the a""ressee, or in
Shakes#earean "iction, &hat ist thou sayst@ An" the a""resser in
antici#ation of such reca#turing questions inquires: Bo you kno hat ,
mean@ ,magine such an exas#erating "ialogue: The so#homore as
#lucke". Fut hat is pl$ke+@ 0l$ke+ means the same as flnke+.
An" flnke+@ To %e flnke+ is to fail in an e#a(. An" hat is
sopho(ore@ #ersist the interrogator innocent of school voca$ulary. A
sopho(ore is 0or means1 a se$on+ year st+ent. All these equational
sentences convey information merely a$out the lexical co"e of Nnglish+
their function is strictly metalingual. Any #rocess of language learning, in
#articular chil" acquisition of the mother tongue, makes i"e use of such
metalingual o#erations+ an" a#hasia may often $e "efine" as a loss of
a$ility for metalingual o#erations.
&e have $rought u# the six factors involve" in ver$al communication
exce#t the message itself. The set 01instellng1 toar" the CNSSAKN as
such, focus on the message for its on sake, is the %DNT,* function of
language. This function cannot $e #ro"uctively stu"ie" out of touch ith
the general #ro$lems of language, an", on the other han", the scrutiny of
language requires a thorough consi"eration of its #oetic function. Any
attem#t to re"uce the s#here of #oetic function to #oetry or to confine
E7
#oetry to #oetic function oul" $e a "elusive oversim#lification. %oetic
function is not the sole function of ver$al art $ut only its "ominant,
"etermining function, hereas in all other ver$al activities it acts as a
su$si"iary, accessory constituent. This function, $y #romoting the
#al#a$ility of sings, "ee#ens the fun"amental "ichotomy of signs an"
o$)ects. -ence, hen "ealing ith #oetic function, linguistics cannot limit
itself to the fiel" of #oetry.
&hy "o you alays say @oan an+ Margery, yet never Margery an+
@oan@ Bo you #refer ?oan to her tin sister@ /ot at all, it )ust soun"s
smoother. ,n a sequence of to coor"inate names, as far as no rank
#ro$lems interfere, the #rece"ence of the shorter name suits the s#eaker,
unaccounta$ly for him, as a ell!or"ere" sha#e of the message.
A girl use" to talk a$out the horri$le -arry. &hy horri$le@ Fecause ,
hate him. Fut hy not +rea+fl- terri%le- frightfl- +isgsting@ , "ont
kno hy, $ut horri%le fits him $etter. &ithout reali:ing it, she clung to
the #oetic "evice of #aronomasia
89
.
The #olitical slogan , like ,ke
87
Uay layk aykU, succinctly structure",
consists of three monosylla$les an" counts three "i#hthongs UayU, each of
them symmetrically folloe" $y one consonantal #honeme, U.. l .. k .. kU.
The make!u# of the three or"s #resents a variation: no consonantal
#honemes in the first or", to aroun" the "i#hthong in the secon", an"
one final consonant in the thir". A similar "ominant nucleus UayU as
notice" $y -ymes in some of the sonnets of 3eats. Foth cola of the
trisylla$ic formula , likeU ,ke rhyme ith each other, an" the secon" of
the to rhyming or"s is fully inclu"e" in the first one 0echo rhyme1,
UlaykU!UaykU, a #aronomastic image of a feeling hich totally envelo#s its
o$)ect. Foth cola alliterate ith each other, an" the first of the to
alliterating or"s is inclu"e" in the secon": UayU!UaykU, a #aronomastic
image of the loving su$)ect envelo#e" $y the $elove" o$)ect. The
secon"ary, #oetic function of this electional catch #hrase reinforces its
89
The term in tra"itional rhetoric for #laying on or"s ith similar soun"s.
87
,ke as a familiar name for Keneral Bight Bavi" Nisenhoer, %resi"ent of
the Hnite" States 146I!I1. , like ,ke as a #olitical cam#aign slogan.
im#ressiveness an" efficacy.
As e sai", the linguistic stu"y of the #oetic function must overste# the
limits of #oetry, an", on the other han", the linguistic scrutiny of #oetry
cannot limit itself to the #oetic function. The #articularities of "iverse
#oetic genres im#ly a "ifferently ranke" #artici#ation of the other ver$al
functions along ith the "ominant #oetic function. N#ic #oetry, focuse"
on the thir" #erson, strongly involves the referential function of language+
the lyric, oriente" toar" the first #erson, is intimately linke" ith the
emotive function+ #oetry of the secon" #erson is im$ue" ith the
conative function an" is either su##licatory or exhortative, "e#en"ing on
hether the first #erson is su$or"inate" to the secon" one or the secon"
to the first.
/o that our cursory "escri#tion of the six $asic functions of ver$al
communication is more or less com#lete, e may com#lement our
scheme of the fun"amental factors $y a corres#on"ing scheme of the
functions:
2N>N2N/T,A=
NCDT,VN %DNT,* *D/AT,VN
%-AT,*
CNTA=,/KHA=
&hat is the em#irical linguistic criterion of the #oetic function@ ,n
#articular, hat is the in"is#ensa$le feature inherent in any #iece of
#oetry@ To anser this question e must recall the to $asic mo"es of
arrangement use" in ver$al $ehaviour, sele$tion an" $o(%ination. ,f
chil" is the to#ic of the message, the s#eaker selects one among the
extant, more or less similar, nouns like chil", ki", youngster, tot, all of
them equivalent in a certain res#ect, an" then, to comment on this to#ic,
he may select one of the semantically cognate ver$s ! slee#s, "o:es,
no"s, na#s. Foth chosen or"s com$ine in s#eech chain. The selection is
#ro"uce" on the $ase of equivalence, similarity an" "issimilarity,
synonymity an" antonymity, hile the com$ination, the $uil" u# of the
sequence, is $ase" on contiguity. The poeti$ fn$tion pro&e$ts the
prin$iple of e.ivalen$e fro( the a#is of sele$tion into the a#is of
$o(%ination. Nquivalence is #romote" to the constitutive "evice of the
E4
sequence. ,n #oetry one sylla$le is equali:e" ith any other sylla$le of the
same sequence+ or" stress is assume" to equal or" stress, as unstress
equals unstress+ #roso"ic long is matche" ith long, an" short ith short+
or" $oun"ary equals or" $oun"ary, no $oun"ary equals no $oun"ary+
syntactic #ause equals syntactic #ause, no #ause equals no #ause. Sylla$les
are converte" into units of measure, an" so are morae or stresses. '...(
&ithout its to "actylic or"s the com$ination inno$ent $ystan+er
oul" har"ly have $ecome a hackneye" #hrase. The symmetry of the three
"isylla$ic ver$s ith an i"entical initial consonant an" i"entical final
voel a""e" s#len"or to the laconic victory message of *aesar: 5eni-
vi+i- vi$i. ', came, , sa, , conquere". ( '...(
The reiterative figure of soun", hich -o#kins sa to $e the
constitutive #rinci#le of verse, can $e further s#ecifie". Such a figure
alays utili:es at least one 0or more than one1 $inary contrast of a
relatively high an" relatively lo #rominence effecte" $y the "ifferent
sections of the #honemic sequence.
&ithin a sylla$le the more #rominent, nuclear, sylla$ic #art, constituting
the #eak of the sylla$le, is o##ose" to the less #rominent, marginal,
nonsylla$ic #honemes. Any sylla$le contains a sylla$ic #honeme, an" the
interval $eteen to successive sylla$ics is in some languages alays in
others overhelmingly carrie" out $y marginal, nonsylla$ic #honemes. ,n
the so calle" sylla$ic versification the num$er of sylla$ics in a metrically
"elimite" chain 0time series1 is a constant, hereas the #resence of
nonsylla$ic #honeme or cluster $eteen every to sylla$ics of the
metrical chain is a constant only in languages ith an in"is#ensa$le
occurrence of nonsylla$ics $eteen sylla$ics an", furthermore, in those
verse systems here hiatus is #rohi$ite". Another manifestation of a
ten"ency toar" a uniform sylla$ic mo"el is the avoi"ance of close"
sylla$les at the en" of the line, o$serva$le, for instance, in Ser$ian e#ic
songs. The ,talian sylla$ic verse shos a ten"ency to treat a sequence of
voels unse#arate" $y consonantal #honemes as one single metrical
sylla$le 0cf. E1, secs. V,,,!,Q1.
,n some #atterns of versification the sylla$le is the only constant unit of
verse measure, an" a grammatical limit is the only constant line of
"emarcation $eteen measure" sequences, hereas in other #atterns
sylla$les in turn are "ichotomi:e" into more an" less #rominent, an"Uor
to levels of grammatical limits are "istinguishe" in their metrical
function, or" $oun"aries an" syntactic #auses.
Nxce#t the varieties of the so!calle" vers li$re that are $ase" on
con)ugate intonations an" #auses only, any meter uses the sylla$le as a
unit of measure at least in certain sections of the verse. Thus in the #urely
accentual verse 0s#rung rhythm in -o#kins voca$ulary1, the num$er of
sylla$les in the u#$eat 0calle" slack $y -o#kins1 may vary, $ut the
"on$eat 0ictus1 constantly contains one single sylla$le.
,n any accentual verse the contrast $eteen higher an" loer
#rominence is achieve" $y sylla$les un"er stress versus unstresse"
sylla$les. Cost accentual #atterns o#erate #rimarily ith the contrast of
sylla$les ith an" ithout or" stress, $ut some varieties of accentual
verse "eal ith syntactic, #hrasal stresses, those hich &imsatt an"
Fear"sley cite as the ma)or stresses of the ma)or or"s an" hich are
o##ose" as #rominent to sylla$les ithout such ma)or, syntactic stress.
,n the quantitative 0chronemic1 verse, long an" short sylla$les are
mutually o##ose" as more an" less #rominent. This contrast is usually
carrie" out $y sylla$le nuclei, #honemically long an" short. Fut in
metrical #atterns like Ancient Kreek an" Ara$ic, hich equali:e length
$y #osition ith length $y nature, the minimal sylla$les consisting of
a consonantal #honeme an" one mora voel are o##ose" to sylla$les
ith a sur#lus 0a secon" mora or a closing consonant1 as sim#ler an" less
#rominent sylla$les o##ose" to those that are more com#lex an"
#rominent.
The question still remains o#en hether, $esi"es the accentual an" the
chronemic verse, there exists a tonemic ty#e of versification in
languages here "ifferences of sylla$ic intonations are use" to
"istinguish or" meanings 0161. ,n classical *hinese #oetry 081, sylla$les
ith mo"ulations 0in *hinese ts8, "eflecte" tones1 are o##ose" to the
nonmo"ulate" sylla$les 0p* ing, level tones1, $ut a##arently a
chronemic #rinci#le un"erlies this o##osition, as as sus#ecte" $y
%olivanov 08<1 an" keenly inter#rete" $y &ang =i 0<I1+ in the *hinese
85
metrical tra"ition the level tones #rove to $e o##ose" to the "eflecte" tones
as long tonal #eaks of sylla$les to short ones, so that verse is $ase" on the
o##osition of length an" shortness.
?ose#h Kreen$erg $rought to my attention another variety of tonemic
versification ! the verse of Nfik ri""les $ase" on the level feature. ,n the
sam#le cite" $y Simmons 0<E, #. EE71, the query an" the res#onse form
to octosylla$les ith an alike "istri$ution of h0igh1 ! an" l0o1!tone
sylla$ics+ in each hemistich, moreover, the last three of the four sylla$les
#resent an i"entical tonemic #attern: lhhlKhhhlKlhhlKhhhlUU. &hereas
*hinese versification a##ears as a #eculiar variety of the quantitative
verse, the verse of the Nfic ri""les is linke" ith the usual accentual verse
$y an o##osition of the to "egrees of #rominence 0strength or height1 of
the vocal tone. Thus a metrical system of versification can $e $ase" only
on the o##osition of sylla$ic #eaks an" slo#es 0sylla$ic verse1, on the
relative level of the #eaks 0accentual verse1, an" on the relative length of
the sylla$ic #eaks or entire sylla$les 0quantitative verse1. '...(
The verse "esign is em$o"ie" in verse instances. Hsually the free
variation of these instances is "enote" $y the somehat equivocal la$el
rhythm. A variation of verse instan$es ithin a given #oem must $e
strictly "istinguishe" from the varia$le +elivery instan$es. The intention
to "escri$e the verse line as it is actually #erforme" is of lesser use for the
synchronic an" historical analysis of #oetry than it is for the stu"y of its
recitation in the #resent an" the #ast. Ceanhile the truth is sim#le an"
clear: There are many #erformances of the same #oem ! "iffering among
themselves in many ays. A #erformance is an event, $ut the #oem itself,
if there is any #oem, must $e some kin" of en"uring o$)ect. This sage
memento of &imsatt an" Fear"sley $elongs in"ee" to the essentials of
mo"ern metrics. '...(
/o "ou$t, verse is #rimarily a recurrent figure of soun". %rimarily,
alays, $ut never uniquely. Any attem#ts to confine such #oetic
conventions as meter, alliteration, or rhyme to the soun" level are
s#eculative reasonings ithout any em#irical )ustification. The #ro)ection
of the equational #rinci#le into the sequence has a much "ee#er an" i"er
significance. ValLrys vie of #oetry as hesitation $eteen the soun" an"
the sense 0cf. <61 is much more realistic an" scientific than any $ias of
#honetic isolationism. '...(
,n #oetry, not only the #honological sequence, $ut in the same ay any
sequence of semantic units strives to $uil" an" equation. Similarity
su#erim#ose" on contiguity im#arts to #oetry its throughgoing sym$olic,
multi#lex, #olysemantic essence hich is $eautifully suggeste" $y
Koethes Alles VergMngliche ist nur ein Kleichnis 0Anything transient is
$ut a likeness1. Sai" more technically, anything sequent is a simile. ,n
#oetry here similarity is su#erin"uce" u#on contiguity, any metonymy
is slightly meta#horical an" any meta#hor has a metonymical tint.
Am$iguity is an intrinsic, inaliena$le character of any self!focuse"
message, $riefly a corollary feature of #oetry. =et us re#eat ith Nm#son:
The machinations of am$iguity are among the very roots of #oetry 091.
/ot only the message itself $ut also its a""resser an" a""ressee $ecome
am$iguous. Fesi"es the author an" the rea"er, there is the , of the
lyrical hero or of the fictitious storyteller an" the you or thou of the
allege" a""ressee of "ramatic monologues, su##lications an" e#istles. >or
instance, the #oem &restling ?aco$ is a""resse" $y its title hero to the
Saviour an" simultaneously acts as a su$)ective message of the #oet
*harles &esley to his rea"ers. Virtually any #oetic message is a quasi!
quote" "iscourse ith all those #eculiar, intricate #ro$lems hich s#eech
ithin s#eech offers to the linguist.
The su#remacy of #oetic function over referential function "oes not
o$literate the reference $ut makes it am$iguous. The "ou$le!sense"
message fin"s corres#on"ence in a s#lit a""resser, in a s#lit a""ressee,
an" $esi"es in a s#lit reference, as it is cogently ex#ose" in the #ream$les
to fairy tales of various #eo#les, for instance, in the usual exor"ium of the
Ca)orca storytellers: Aixo era y no era 0,t as an" it as not1 041. The
re#etitiveness effecte" $y im#arting the equivalence #rinci#le to the
sequence makes reitera$le not only the constituent sequences of the
#oetic message $ut the hole message as ell. This ca#acity for
reiteration hether imme"iate or "elaye"+ this reification of a #oetic
message an" its constituents, this conversion of a message into an
en"uring thing, in"ee" all this re#resents an inherent an" effective
81
#ro#erty of #oetry. '...(
,n #oetry, any cons#icuous similarity in soun" is evaluate" in res#ect to
similarity an"Uor "issimilarity in meaning. Fut %o#es alliterative #rece#t
to #oets ! the soun" must seem an Ncho of the sense ! has a i"er
a##lication. ,n referential language the connection $eteen signans
'signifier( an" signat( 'signifie"( is overhelmingly $ase" on their
co"ifie" contiguity, hich is often confusingly la$elle" ar$itrariness of
the ver$al sign.
84
The relevance of the soun"!meaning nexus is a sim#le
corollary of the su#er#osition of similarity u#on contiguity. '...(
Text$ooks $elieve in the occurrence of #oems "evoi" of imagery, $ut
actually scarcity in lexical tro#es is counter$alance" $y gorgeous
grammatical tro#es an" figures. The #oetic resources conceale" in the
mor#hological an" syntactic structures of language, $riefly the #oetry of
grammar, an" its literary #ro"uct, the grammar of #oetry, have $een
sel"om knon to critics an" mostly "isregar"e" $y linguists $ut skilfully
mastere" $y creative riters.
The main "ramatic force of Antonys exor"ium to the funeral oration for
*aesar is achieve" $y Shakes#eares #laying on grammatical categories
an" constructions. Cark Antony lam#oons Frutuss s#eech $y changing
the allege" reasons for *aesars assassination into #lain linguistics fictions.
Frutuss accusation of *aesar, as he as am$itious, , sle him,
un"ergoes successive transformations. >irst Antony re"uces it to a mere
quotation hich #uts the res#onsi$ility for the statement on the s#eaker
quote": The no$le Frutus UU -ath tol" you '...(. &hen re#eate", this
reference to Frutus is #ut into o##osition to Antonys on assertions $y an
a"versative $ut an" further "egra"e" $y a concessive yet. The reference
to the allegers honour ceases to )ustify the allegation, hen re#eate" ith
a su$stitution of the merely co#ulative an" instea" of the #revious causal
for, an" hen finally #ut into question through the malicious insertion of
a mo"al sure :
The no$le Frutus
84
An allusion to the linguistic theory of >er"inan" "e Saussure.
-ath tol" you *aesar as am$itious+
>or Frutus is an honoura$le man,
Fut Frutus says he as am$itious,
An" Frutus is an honoura$le man.
Jet Frutus says he as am$itious,
An" Frutus is an honoura$le man.
Jet Frutus says he as am$itious,
An", sure, he is an honoura$le man.
The folloing #oly#toton ! , s#eak '...( Frutus s#oke '...( , am to
s#eak ! #resents the re#eate" allegation as mere re#orte" s#eech instea"
of re#orte" facts. The effect lies, mo"al logic oul" say, in the o$lique
context of the arguments a""uce" hich makes them into un#rova$le
$elief sentences:
, s#eak not to "is#rove hat Frutus so#ke,
Fut here , am to s#eak hat , "o kno.
The most effective "evice of Antonys irony is the (o+s o%li.s
'in"irect metho"( of Frutuss a$stracts change" into a (o+s re$ts
'"irect metho"( to "isclose that these reifie" attri$utes are nothing $ut
linguistic fictions. To Frutuss saying he as am$itious, Antony first
re#lies $y transferring the a")ective from the agent to the action 0Bi" this
in *aesar seem am$itious@1, then $y eliciting the a$stract noun
am$ition an" converting it into a su$)ect of a concrete #assive
construction Am$ition shoul" $e ma"e of sterner stuff an" su$sequently
to a #re"icate noun of an interrogative sentence, &as this am$ition@ !
Frutuss a##eal hear me for my cause is ansere" $y the same noun in
re$to, the hy#ostati:e" su$)ect of an interrogative, active construction:
&hat cause ithhol"s you '...(@ &hile Frutus calls aake your senses,
that you may the $etter )u"ge, the a$stract su$stantive "erive" from
8E
)u"ge $ecomes an a#ostro#hi:e" agent in Antonys re#ort: D )u"gement,
thou art fle" to $rutish $easts'...( ,nci"entally, this a#ostro#he ith its
mur"erous #aronomasia Frutus!$rutish is reminiscent of *aesar #arting
exclamation Nt tu, Frute. %ro#erties an" activities are exhi$ite" in re$to,
hereas their carriers a##ear either in o%li.o 0ithhol"s you, to $rutish
$easts, $ack to me1 or as su$)ect of negative actions 0men have lost, ,
must #ause1:

Jou all "i" love him once, not ithout cause+
&hat cause ithhol"s you then to mourn for him@
D )u"gement, thou art fle" to $rutish $easts,
An" men have lost their reason.
The last to lines of Antonys exor"ium "is#lay the ostensi$le
in"e#en"ence of these grammatical metonymies. The stereoty#e" , mourn
for so!an"!so an" the figurative $ut still stereoty#e" so!an"!so is in the
coffin an" my heart is ith him or goes out to him give #lace in
Antonys s#eech to a "aringly reali:e" metonymy+ the tro#e $ecomes a
#art of #oetic reality:
Cy heart is in the coffin there ith *aesar,
An" , must #ause till it come $ack to me. '...(
1.8.E 2oman ?ako$son: from )The meta#horic an" metonymic #oles
40
The varieties of a#hasia are numerous an" "iverse, $ut all of them lie
$eteen the to #olar ty#es )ust "escri$e". Nvery form of a#hasic
"istur$ance consists in some im#airment, more or less severe, either of
the faculty for selection an" su$stitution or for com$ination an"
contexture. The former affliction involves a "eterioration of
metalinguistic o#erations, hile the latter "amages the ca#acity for
maintaining the hierarchy of linguistic units. The relation of similarity is
su##resse" in the former, the relation of contiguity in the latter ty#e of
<5
?ako$sons seminal "iscussion of meta#hor an" metonymy comes at the en"
of a highly technical "iscussion of a#hasia 0i.e., language "isor"er1. -e $egins
$y formulating one of the $asic #rinci#les of Saussurian linguistics, that
language, like all systems of signs, has a tofol" character, involving to
"istinct o#erations, selection an" com$ination. To #ro"uce a sentence like shi#s
crosse" the sea 0the exam#le is not ?ako$son s1, , sele$t the or"s , nee" from
the a##ro#riate sets or #ara"igms of the Nnglish language an" $o(%ine them
accor"ing to the rules of that language. ,f , su$stitute #loughe" for crosse", ,
create a (etaphor $ase" on a si(ilarity $eteen things otherise "ifferent ! the
movements of a shi# through ater an" the movement of a #lough through the
earth. ,f , su$stitute keels for shi#s, , have use" the figure of syne$+o$he
0#art for hole or hole for #art1. ,f , su$stitute "ee# for sea , have use" the
figure of metonymy 0an attri$ute or cause or effect of a thing signifies the
thing1. Accor"ing to ?ako$son, synec"oche is a su$s#ecies of metonymy: $oth
"e#en" on $ontigity in s#aceUtime 0the keel is #art of the shi#, "e#th is a
#ro#erty of the sea1, an" thus corres#on" to the $o(%ination axis of language.
Ceta#hor, in contrast, corres#on"s to the sele$tion axis of language, an"
"e#en"s on similarity $eteen things not normally contiguous. A#hasics ten" to
$e more affecte" in one or other of the selection an" com$ination functions.
Those ho suffer from selection "eficiency or similarity "isor"er are heavily
"e#en"ent on context or contiguity to s#eak, an" make metonymic mistakes,
su$stituting fork for knife, ta$le for lam#, etc. *onversely, #atients
suffering from contexture "eficiency or contiguity "isor"er are una$le to
com$ine or"s into a grammatical sentence, an" make meta#horical mistakes
! s#yglass for microsco#e, or fire for gaslight.
88
a#hasia. Ceta#hor is alien to the similarity "isor"er, an" metonymy to the
contiguity "isor"er.
The "evelo#ment of a "iscourse may take #lace along to "ifferent
semantic lines: one to#ic may lea" to another either through their
similarity or through their contiguity. The meta#horic ay oul" $e the
most a##ro#riate term for the first case an" the metonymic ay for the
secon", since they fin" their most con"ense" ex#ression in meta#hor an"
metonymy res#ectively. ,n a#hasia one or the other of these to #rocesses
is restricte" or totally $locke" ! an effect hich makes the stu"y of
a#hasia #articularly illuminating for the linguist. ,n normal ver$al
$ehaviour $oth #rocesses are continually o#erative, $ut careful o$servation
ill reveal that un"er the influence of a cultural #attern, #ersonality, an"
ver$al style, #reference is given to one of the to #rocesses over the other.
,n a ell!knon #sychological test, chil"ren are confronte" ith some noun an" tol" to
utter the first ver$al res#onse that comes into their hea"s. ,n this ex#eriment to o##osite
linguistic #re"ilections are invaria$ly exhi$ite": the res#onse is inten"e" either as a su$stitute for,
or as a com#lement to the stimulus. ,n the latter case the stimulus an" the res#onse together form
a #ro#er syntactic construction, most usually a sentence. These to o##osite ty#es of reaction
have $een la$ele" su$stitutive an" #re"icative.
To the stimulus ht one res#onse as %rnt ot+ another, is a poor- little
hose. Foth reactions are #re"icative+ $ut the first creates a #urely
narrative context, hile in the secon" there is a "ou$le connection ith the
su$)ect ht: on the one han", a #ositional 0namely, syntactic1 contiguity,
an" on the other a semantic similarity.
The same stimulus #ro"uce" the folloing su$stitutive reactions: the
tautology ht+ the synonyms $a%in an" hovel+ the antonym pala$e, an" the
meta#hors +en an" %rro". The ca#acity of to or"s to re#lace one
another is an instance of #ositional similarity, an" in a""ition, all these
res#onses are linke" to the stimulus $y semantic similarity 0or contrast1.
Cetonymical res#onses to the same stimulus, such as that$h- litter, or
poverty, com$ine an" contrast the #ositional similarity ith semantic
contiguity.
,n mani#ulating these to kin"s of connection 0similarity an" contiguity1
in $oth their as#ects 0#ositional an" semantic1 ! selecting, com$ining, an"
ranking them ! an in"ivi"ual exhi$its his #ersonal style, his ver$al
#re"ilections an" #references.
,n ver$al art the interaction of these to elements is es#ecially
#ronounce". 2ich material for the stu"y of this relationshi# is to $e foun"
in verse #atterns hich require a com#ulsory #arallelism $eteen
a")acent lines, for exam#le in Fi$lical #oetry or in the >innic an", to
some extent, the 2ussian oral tra"itions. This #rovi"es an o$)ective
criterion or hat in the given s#eech community acts as a
corres#on"ence. Since on any ver$al level ! mor#hemic, lexical,
syntactic, an" #hraseological ! either of these to relations 0similarity
an" contiguity1 can a##ear ! an" each in either of to as#ects, an
im#ressive range of #ossi$le configurations is create". Nither of the to
gravitational #oles may #revail. ,n 2ussian lyrical songs, for exam#le,
meta#horic constructions #re"ominate, hile in the heroic e#ics the
metonymic ay is #re#on"erant.
,n #oetry there are various motives hich "etermine the choice $eteen
these alternants. The #rimacy of the meta#horic #rocess in the literary
schools of romanticism an" sym$olism has $een re#eate"ly
acknole"ge", $ut it is still insufficiently reali:e" that it is the
#re"ominance of metonymy hich un"erlies an" actually #re"etermines
the so!calle" realistic tren", hich $elongs to an interme"iary stage
$eteen the "ecline of romanticism an" the rise of sym$olism an" is
o##ose" to $oth. >olloing the #ath of contiguous relationshi#s, the
realist author metonymically "igresses from the #lot to the atmos#here
an" from the characters to the setting in s#ace an" time. -e is fon" of
synec"ochic "etails. ,n the scene of Anna 3areninas suici"e Tolsto)s
artistic attention is focuse" on the heroines han"$ag+ an" in ;ar an+
0ea$e the synec"oches hair on the u##er li# an" $are shoul"ers are
use" $y the same riter to stan" for the female character to hom these
features $elong.
The alternative #re"ominance of one or the other of these to #rocesses
is $y no means confine" to ver$al art. The oscillation occurs in sign
systems other than language
<1
. A salient exam#le from the history of
<1
, venture" a fe sketchy remarks on the metonymical turn in ver$al art
8<
#ainting is the manifestly metonymical orientation of cu$ism, here the
o$)ect is transforme" into a set of synec"oches+ the surrealist #ainters
res#on"e" ith a #atently meta#horical attitu"e. Nver since the
#ro"uctions of B. &. Kriffith, the art of cinema, ith its highly "evelo#e"
ca#acity for changing the angle, #ers#ective, an" focus of shots, has
$roken ith the tra"ition of the theater an" range" an un#rece"ente"
variety of synec"ochic close!u#s an" metonymic set!u#s in general. ,n
such motion #ictures as those of *harlie *ha#lin an" Nisenstein,
<E
these
"evices in turn ere overlaye" $y a novel, meta#horic montage ith its
la# "issolves ! the filmic similes.
<8
The $i#olar structure of langauge 0or other semiotic systems1 an", in
a#hasia, the fixation on one of these #oles to the exclusion of the other
require systematic com#arative stu"y. The retention of either of these
alternatives in the to ty#es of a#hasia must $e confronte" ith the
#re"ominance of the same #ole in certain styles, #ersonal ha$its, current
fashions, etc. A careful analysis an" com#arison of these #henomena ith
the hole syn"rome of the corres#on"ing ty#e of a#hasia is an im#erative
task for )oint research $y ex#erts in #sycho#athology, #sychology,
linguistics, #oetics, an" semiotics, the general science of signs. The
"ichotomy "iscusse" here a##ears to $e of #rimal significance an"
consequence for all ver$al $ehaviour an" for human $ehaviour in
general.
<<
00rosa reali:m u mystectvi, 5aplite, 3harkov, 14E9, /o. E+
2an"$emerkungen :ur 0rosa "es Bichters %asternak, Slavis$he Rn+s$ha,
V,,, 14861, in #ainting 0>uturi:m ,skusstvo, Cosco, Aug. E, 14141, an" in
motion #ictures 0H#a"ek filmu Listi pro (eni a kritik, ,, %rague, 14881, $ut
the crucial #ro$lem of the to #olar #rocesses aaits a "etaile" investigation.
0athor*s noteL
<E
*f. his striking essay Bickens, Kriffith an" &e : S. Nisenstein, Iz%rannye
star 0Cosco, 14651, #. 168 ff.
<8
*f. F. Falas:, Theory of the Fil( 0=on"on, 146E1.
<<
>or the #sychological an" sociological as#ects of this "ichotomy, see
Fatesons vies on #rogressional an" selective integration an" %arsons on
the con)unction "is)unction "ichotomy in chil" "evelo#ment: ?. 2uesch an" K.
To in"icate the #ossi$ilities of the #ro)ecte" com#arative research, e
choose an exam#le from a 2ussian folktale hich em#loys #arallelism as
a comic "evice: Thomas is a $achelor+ ?eremiah is unmarrie" 0Fo(M
#Nlost' 1r&o(a nezenat1. -ere the #re"icates in the to #arallel clauses
are associate" $y similarity: they are in fact synonymous. The su$)ects of
$oth clauses are masculine #ro#er names an" hence mor#hologically
similar, hile on the other han" they "enote to contiguous heroes of the
same tale, create" to #erform i"entical actions an" thus to )ustify the use
of synonymous #airs of #re"icates. A somehat mo"ifie" version of the
same construction occurs in a familiar e""ing song in hich each of the
e""ing guests is a""resse" in turn $y his first name an" #atronymic:
Kle$ is a $achelor+ ,vanovic is unmarrie". &hile $oth #re"icates here
are again synonyms, the relationshi# $eteen the to o$)ects change":
$oth are #ro#er names "enoting the same man an" are normally use"
contiguously as a mo"e of #olite a""ress.
,n the quotation from the folktale, the to #arallel clauses refer to to
se#arate facts, the marital status of Thomas an" the similar status of
?eremiah. ,n the verse from the e""ing song, hoever, the to clauses
are synonymous: they re"un"antly reiterate the celi$acy of the same hero,
s#litting him into to ver$al hy#ostases.
The 2ussian novelist Kle$ ,vanovic Hs#enski) 017<5!145E1 in the last
year of his life suffere" from a mental illness involving a s#eech "isor"er.
-is first name an" #atronymic, Kle$ ,vanovic, tra"itionally com$ine" in
#olite intercourse, for him s#lit into to "istinct names "esignating to
se#arate $eings: Kle$ as en"oe" ith all his virtues, hile ,vanovic,
the same relating a son to his father, $ecame the incarnation of all
Hs#enski)s vices. The linguistic as#ect of this s#lit #ersonality is the
#atients ina$ility to use to sym$ols for the same thing, an" it is thus a
similarity "isor"er. Since the similarity "isor"er is $oun" u# ith the
metonymical $ent, an examination of the literary manner Hs#enski) ha"
Fateson, <o((ni$ation- the So$ial Matri# of 0sy$hiatry 0/e Jork, 14611,
##. 178 ff.+ T. %arsons an" 2. >. Fales, Fa(ily- So$ialization an+ Intera$tion
0ro$ess 0Klencoe, 14661, ##. 114
86
em#loye" as a young riter takes on #articular interest. An" the stu"y of
Anatoli) 3amegulov, ho analy:e" Hs#enski)s style, $ears out our
theoretical ex#ectations. -e shos that Hs#enski) ha" a #articular
#enchant for metonymy, an" es#ecially for synec"oche, an" that he carrie"
it so far that the rea"er is crushe" $y the multi#licity of "etail unloa"e" on
him in a limite" ver$al s#ace, an" is #hysically una$le to gras# the hole,
so that the #ortrait is often lost.
<6
To $e sure, the metonymical style in Hs#enski) is o$viously #rom#te" $y
the #revailing literary canon of his time, late nineteenth!century realism +
$ut the #ersonal stam# of Kle$ ,vanovic ma"e his #en #articularly suita$le
for this artistic tren" in its extreme manifestations an" finally left its mark
u#on the ver$al as#ect of his mental illness.
A com#etition $eteen $oth "evices, metonymic an" meta#horic, is
manifest in any sym$olic #rocess, $e it intra#ersonal or social. Thus in an
inquiry into the structure of "reams, the "ecisive question is hether the
sym$ols an" the tem#oral sequences use" are $ase" on contiguity 0>reu"s
metonymic "is#lacement an" synec"ochic con"ensation1 or on
similarity 0>reu"s i"entification an" sym$olism1.
<I
The #rinci#les
un"erlying magic rites have $een resolve" $y >ra:er into to ty#es:
charms $ase" on the la of similarity an" those foun"e" on association $y
contiguity. The first of these to great $ranches of sym#athetic magic has
$een calle" homeo#athic or imitative, an" the secon", contagious
<6
A. 3amegulov, Stil* /le%a ?spenskogo 0=eningra", 14851, ##. I6, 1<6. Dne
of such "isintegrate" #ortraits cite" in the monogra#h: >rom un"erneath an
ancient stra ca#, ith a $lack s#ot on its visor, #eeke" to $rai"s resem$ling
the tusks of a il" $oar, a chin, gron fat an" #en"ulous, ha" s#rea" "efinitively
over the greasy collar of the calico "icky an" lay in a thick layer on the coarse
collar of the canvas coat, firmly $uttone" at the neck. >rom un"erneath this coat
to the eyes of the o$server #rotru"e" massive han"s ith a ring hich ha" eaten
into the fat finger, a cane ith a co##er to#, a significant $ulge of the stomach,
an" the #resence of very $roa" #ants, almost of muslin quality, in the i"e
$ottoms of hich hi" the toes of the $oots.
<I
S. >reu", ,ie Tra(+etng, 4
th
e". 0Vienna, 14651.
magic.
<9
This $i#artition is in"ee" illuminating. /onetheless, for the
most #art, the question of the to #oles is still neglecte", "es#ite its i"e
sco#e an" im#ortance for the stu"y of any sym$olic $ehavior, es#ecially
ver$al, an" of its im#airments. &hat is the main reason for this neglect@
Similarity in meaning connects the sym$ols of a metalanguage ith the
sym$ols of the language referre" to. Similarity connects a meta#horical
term ith the term for hich it is su$stitute". *onsequently, hen
constructing a metalanguage to inter#ret tro#es, the researcher #ossesses
more homogenous means to han"le meta#hor, hereas metonymy, $ase"
on a "ifferent #rinci#le, easily "efies inter#retation. Therefore nothing
com#ara$le to the rich literature on meta#hor
<7
can $e cite" for the theory
of metonymy. >or the same reason, it is generally reali:e" that
romanticism is closely linke" ith meta#hor, hereas the equally
intimate ties of realism ith metonymy usually remain unnotice". /ot
only the tool of the o$server $ut also the o$)ect of o$servation is
res#onsi$le for the #re#on"erance of meta#hor over metonymy in
scholarshi#. Since #oetry is focuse" u#on the sign, an" #ragmatical #rose
#rimarily u#on the referent, tro#es an" figures ere stu"ie" mainly as
#oetic "evices. The #rinci#le of similarity un"erlies #oetry+ the metrical
#arallelism of lines, or the #honic equivalence of rhyming or"s #rom#ts
the question of semantic similarity an" contrast+ there exist, for instance,
grammatical an" anti!grammatical $ut never agrammatical rhymes.
%rose, on the contrary, is forar"e" essentially $y contiguity. Thus, for
#oetry, meta#hor, an" for #rose, metonymy is the line of least resistance
an", consequently, the stu"y of #oetical tro#es is "irecte" chiefly toar"
meta#hor. The actual $i#olarity has $een artificially re#lace" in these
stu"ies $y an am#utate", uni#olar scheme hich, strikingly enough
coinci"es ith one of the to a#hasic #atterns, namely ith the
contiguity "isor"er.
<9
?. K. >ra:er, The /ol+en 4ogh: A St+y in Magi$ an+ Religion, %art ,, 8
r"
e". 0Vienna, 14651, cha#ter ,,,.
<7
*. >. %. Stutterheim, 3et %egrip (etaphor 0Amster"am, 14<11.
8I
1.8.8 A. ! ?.Kreimas: from Str$tral Se(anti$s
#"
After "efining the folktale as a "is#lay on a tem#oral line of its thirty!one
functions, %ro## raises the question a$out the actants, or the "ramatis
#ersonae, as he calls them. -is conce#tion of the actants is functional: the
characters are "efine", accor"ing to him, $y the GGs#heres of action in
hich they #artici#ate, these s#heres $eing constitute" $y the $un"les of
functions hich are attri$ute" to them '...(
The result is that if the actors can $e esta$lishe" ithin a tale!occurence,
the actants, hich are classifications of actors, can $e esta$lishe" only
from the cor#us of all the tales: an articulation of actors constitutes a
#articular tale' a structure of actants constitutes a genre. The actants
therefore #ossess a metalinguistic status in relation to the actors. They
#resu##ose, $y the ay, a functional analysis ! that is to say, the achieve"
constitution of the s#heres of action.
This "ou$le #roce"ure ! the esta$lishment of the actors $y the
"escri#tion of the functions an" the re"uction of the classifications of
actors to actants of the genre ! allos %ro## to esta$lish a "efinitive
inventory of the actants, hich are:
1. The villain+ E. The "onor 0#rovi"er1+ 8. The hel#er+ <. The sought!for
#erson 0an" her father1+ 6. The "is#atcher+ I. The hero+ 9. the false hero.
This inventory authori:es %ro## to give an actantial "efinition of the
2ussian folktale as a story ith seven characters. '...(
The interest in SouriauGs thought lies in the fact that he has shon that the
actantial inter#retation can $e a##lie" to a kin" of narrative ! theatrical
orks ! quite "ifferent from the folktale an" that his results are
com#ara$le to %ro##Gs. &e fin" here, although ex#resse" "ifferently, the
same "istinction $eteen the events of the story 'l*histoire
8v8ne(entielle! 0hich is for him only a collection of "ramatic su$)ects1
an" the level of the semantic "escri#tion 0hich is ma"e from the
<4
Hniversity of /e$raska %ress, =incoln, 1478. %#. E55!7.
situations, hich can $e "ecom#ose" into the action of actants1. >inally,
e fin" here a limite" inventory of actants 0hich he calls, accor"ing to
tra"itional syntactic terminology, fn$tions1. '...(
SouriauGs inventory is #resente" in the folloing manner:
=ion ..............the oriente" thematic >orce
Sun ............... the 2e#resentative of the ishe"!for Koo", of the
orienting Value
Narth ............. virtual 2eci#ient of that Koo" 0that for hich the =ion is
orking1
Cars .............. the D##onent
=i$ra .............. the Ar$iter, attri$uter of the Koo"
Coon ............. the 2escue, the "ou$ling of one of the #rece"ing forces
&e must not $e "iscourage" $y the energetic an" astrological character
of SouriauGs terminology: it "oes not succe" in concealing reflections that
are not ithout coherence.'... (
The search for hat coul" corres#on", in %ro## an" SouriauGs
intentions, to that secon" actantial category cannot fail to raise some
"ifficulties $ecause of the fraquent syncretic manifestation of actants
0alrea"y encountere" at the level of syntax1, the often notice" #lurality of
to actants #resent un"er the form of a single actor. >or instance, in a
narrative that is only a common love story en"ing in marriage ithout the
#arentsG intervention, the su$)ect is also the receiver, hile the o$)ect is at
the same time the sen"er of love:
3e V Su$)ect W 2eceiver
She V D$)ect W Sen"er
>our actants are there, symmetrical an" inverte", $ut syncreti:e" un"er
the form of to actors. Fut e see also ! Cichel =egran"Gs cou#let sung
in the Hm$rellas of *her$ourg makes the #oint in an im#ressive
syno#sis:
a man, a oman,
an a##le, a "rama
! ith hat ease the "is)unction of the o$)ect an" the sen"er can
#ro"uce a mo"el ith three actants.
89
,n a narrative of the ty#e of The 2est fot the 3oly /rail- on the contrary,
four actants, quite "istinct, are articulate" in to categories:
Su$)ect 3ero
D$)ect 3oly /rail
Sen"er Ko"
2eceiver Mankin+
'...(
,t is much more "ifficult to $e sure of the categorical articulation of the
other actants if only $ecause e lack a syntactic mo"el. To s#heres of
activity, hoever, an", insi"e those, to "istinct kin"s of functions are
recogni:e" ithout "ifficulty.
1. The first kin"s $ring the hel# $y acting in the "irection of the "esire or
$y facilitating communication.
E. The others, on the contrary, create o$stacles $y o##osing either the
reali:ation of the "esire of the "esire or the communication of the o$)ect.
These to $un"les of functions can $e attri$ute" to to "istinct actants
that e ill "esignate un"er the name of
-el#er vs. D##onent
This "istinction corres#on"s rather ell to the "istinction ma"e $y
Souriau, from hom e $orro the term opponent: e #refer the term of
helper intro"uce" $y Kuy Cichau", to SouriauGs Grescue.G ,n %ro##Gs
formulation e fin" that o##onent is #e)oratively calle" villain 0traitor1,
hile helper takes in to characters, the helper an" the +onor Oprovi+erL.
At first sight, this elasticity of analysis may $e sur#rising. '...(
&e can on"er hat corres#on"s, in the mythical universe hose
actantial structure e ant to make ex#licit, to this o##osition $eteen the
hel#er an" the o##onent. At first glance everything takes #lace as if,
$esi"es the #rinci#al #arties in question, there oul" a##ear no in the
"rama #ro)ecte" on an axiological screen actants re#resenting in a
schematic faschion the $enevolent an" malevolent forces in the orl",
incarnations of the guar"ian angel an" the "evil of me"ieval *hristian
"rama. &hat it also striking is the secon"ary character of these to
actants. ,n a little #lay on or"s, e coul" say, thinking of the #artici#ial
form $y hich e "esignate" them 0for exam#le, the o##osing
'opposant(: i.e. the o##onent1, that they are the circumstantial
#artici#ants, an" not the true actants of the "rama 'spe$ta$le(.
%artici#les are in fact only a")ectives hich mo"ify su$stantives in the
same ay that a"ver$s mo"ify ver$s. '...(
&e oul" say that the #ossi$le #articulari:ations of the mo"el shoul"
convey first the relationshi# $eteen the actants su$)ect vs. o$)ect an"
then $e manifeste" as a class of varia$le constitute" $y su##lementary
investments.
Thus, ith great sim#lification, it coul" $e sai" that for a learne"
#hiloso#her of the classical age the relationshi# of "esire oul" $e
s#ecifie", $y a semic investment, as the "esire of knoing, an" the
actants of his "rama of knole"ge oul" $e "istri$ute" more or less in
the folloing manner:
Su$)ect ...................... philosopher
D$)ect ....................... "orl+
Sen"er ...................... /o+
2eceiver .................... (ankin+
D##onent ................... (atter
-el#er ........................ (in+
,n the same ay, Carxist i"eology as ex#resse" $y a militant coul" $e
"istri$ute", thanks to its "esire to hel# man, in a #arallel fashion:
Su$)ect ...................... (an
D$)ect ....................... $lassless so$iety
Sen"er ...................... history
2eceiver ................... (ankin+
D##onent .................. %orgeois $lass
-el#er ....................... "orking $lass
87
1.8.< KLrar" Kenette: from >rontiers of /arrative
$%
&e have here a ne "ivision, of very i"e sco#e, since it "ivi"es into
to #arts of roughly equal im#ortance the hole of hat e no call
literature.
This "ivision corres#on"s more or less to the "istinction #ro#ose" $y
Xmile Fenveniste $eteen narrative 0or story1 an" +is$orse- exce#t that
Fenveniste inclu"es in the category of "iscourse everything that Aristotle
calle" "irect imitation, an" hich actually consists, at least as far as its
ver$al #art is concerne", of "iscourse attri$ute" $y the #oet or narrator to
one of his characters. Fenveniste shos that certain grammatical forms,
like the #ronoun , 0an" its im#licit reference you1, the #ronominal
0certain "emonstratives1, or a"ver$ial in"icators 0like here, no,
yester"ay, to"ay, tomorro, etc.1 an" ! at least in >rench ! certain
tenses of the ver$, like the #resent, the #resent anterior, or the future, are
confine" to "iscourse, hereas narrative in its strict form is marke" $y the
exclusive use of the thir" #erson an" such forms as the aorist 0#ast
"efinite1 an" the #lu#erfect. &hatever the "etails an" variotions from on
i"iom to another, all these "ifferences amount clearly to an o##osition
$eteen the o$)ectivity of narrative an" the su$)ectivity of "iscourse+ $ut it
shoul" $e #ointe" out that such o$)ectivity an" su$)ectivity are "efine" $y
criteria of a strictly, linguistic or"er: su$)ective "iscourse is that in
hich, ex#licitly or not, the #resence of 0or reference to1 I is marke", $ut
this is not "efine" in any other ay exce#t as the #erson ho is s#eaking
this "iscourse, )ust as the #resent, hich is the tense par e#$ellen$e of the
"iscursive mo"e, is not "efine" other than as the moment hen the
"iscourse is $eing s#oken, its use marking the coinci"ence of the event
"escri$e" ith the instance of "iscourse that "escri$es it. *onversely, the
o$)ectivity of narrative is "efine" $y the a$sence of any reference to the
narrator: As a matter of fact, there is then no longer even a narrator, The
events are set forth chronologically, as they occur. /o one s#eaks here+ the
events seem to narrate themselves. '...(
65
,n KLrar" Kenette, Figres of Literary ,is$orse 0Flackell, Dxfor", 147E1,
##. 187!1<8.
,n "iscourse, someone s#eaks, an" his situation in the very act of
s#eaking is the focus of the most im#ortant significations+ in narrative, as
Fenveniste forcefully #uts it, no one speaks- in the sense that at no
moment "o e ask ourselves "ho is speaking- "here- "hen- an" so forth,
in or"er to receive the full signification of the text.
Fut it shoul" $e a""e" at once that these essences of narrative an"
"iscourse so "efine" are almost never to $e foun" in their #ure state in
any text: there is almost alays a certain #ro#ortion of narrative in
"iscourse, a certain amount of "iscourse in narrative. ,n fact, the
symmetry sto#s here, for it is as if $oth ty#es of ex#ression ere very
"ifferently affecte" $y the contamination: the insertion of narrative
elements in the level of "iscourse is not enough to emanci#ate "iscourse,
for they generally remain linke" to the reference $y the s#eaker, ho
remains im#licitly #resent in the $ackgroun", an" ho may intervene
again at any moment ithout this return $eing ex#erience" as an
intrusion. '...(
,t is o$vious that narrative "oes integrate these "iscursive enclaves,
rightly calle" $y Keorges Flint authorial intrusions, as easily as
"iscourse receives the narrative enclaves: narrative inserte" into "iscourse
is transforme" into an element of "iscourse, "iscourse inserte" into
narrative remains "iscourse an" forms a sort of cyst that is very easy to
recogni:e an" to locate. The #urity of narrative, one might say, is more
manifest than that of "iscourse.
Though the reason for this "issymmetry is very sim#le, it in"icates for
us a "ecisive character of narrative: in fact, "iscourse has no #urity to
#reserve, for it is the $roa"est an" most universal natural mo"e of
language, elcoming $y "efinition all other forms+ narrative, on the other
han", is a #articular mo"e, marke", "efine" $y a num$er of exclusions
an" restrictive con"itions 0refusal of the #resent, the first #erson, an" so
forth1. Biscourse can recount ithout ceasing to $e "iscourse, narrative
cannot "iscourse ithout emerging from itself. /or can it a$stain from
it com#letely, hoever, ithout falling into ari"ity an" #overty: this is
hy narrative exists nohere, so to s#eak, in its strict form. The slightest
general o$servation, the slightest a")ective that is 'a( little more than
84
"escri#tive, the most "iscreet com#arison, the most mo"est #erha#s, the
most inoffensive of logical articulations intro"uces into its e$ a ty#e of
s#eech that is alien to it, refractory as it ere. ,n or"er to stu"y the "etail of
these sometimes microsco#ic acci"ents, e oul" nee" innumera$le,
meticulous analyses of texts. Dne of the o$)ects of this stu"y oul" $e to
list an" classify the means $y hich narrative literature 0an" in #articular
the novel1 has trie" to organi:e in an acce#ta$le ay ithin its on le#is-
the "elicate relations maintaine" ithin it $eteen the requirements of
narrative an" the nee"s of "iscourse. '...(
The only moment hen the $alance $eteen narrative an" "iscourse
seems to have $een assume" ith a #erfectly goo" conscience, ithout
either scru#le or ostentation, is o$viously in the nineteenth century, the
classical age of o$)ective narration, from Fal:ac to Tolstoy+ e see, on the
contrary, ho the mo"ern #erio" has stresse" aareness of "ifficulty to the
extent of making certain ty#es of elocution almost #hysically im#ossi$le
for the most luci" an" rigorous of riters. '...(
All the fluctuations of contem#orary fictional riting coul" no "ou$t $e
analy:e" from this #oint of vie, an" #articularly the ten"ency to"ay,
#erha#s the reverse of the earlier one, an" quite overt in a %hilli#e Sollers
or a ?ean Thi$au"eau, for exem#le, to a$sor$ the narrative in the #resent
"iscourse of the riter in the #rocess of riting, in hat Cichel >oucault
calls "iscourse $oun" u# ith the act of riting, contem#orary ith its
unfol"ing an" enclose" ithin it. ,t is as if literature ha" exhauste" or
overfloe" the resources of its re#resentative mo"e an" ante" to fol"
$ack into the in"efinite murmur of its on "iscourse. %erha#s the novel,
after #oetry, is a$out to emerge "efinitively from the age of re#resentation.
%erha#s narrative, in the negative singularity that e have )ust attri$ute" to
it, is alrea"y for us, as art as for -egel, a thing of the past- hich e
must hurry to consi"er as it retreats, $efore it has com#letely "isa##eare"
from our hori:on.
1.8.6 KLrar" Kenette: from Structuralism an" =iterary *riticism
,n a ne cha#ter of La 0ens8e savage- *lau"e =Lvi!Strauss "efines
mythical thought as a kin" of intellectual %ri$olage*.
C1
The nature of
%ri$olage is to make use of materials an" tools that, unlike those of the
engineer, for exam#le, ere not inten"e" for the task in han". '...( Fut
there is another intellectual activity, #eculiar to more "evelo#e" cultures,
to hich this analysis might $e a##lie" almost or" for or": , mean
criticism, more #articularly literary criticism, hich "istinguishes itself
formally from other kin"s of criticism $y the fact that it uses the same
materials ! riting ! as the orks ith hich it is concerne"+ art
criticism or musical criticism are o$viously not ex#resse" in soun" or in
color, $ut literary criticism s#eaks the same language as its o$)ect: it is a
metalanguage, "iscourse u#on a "iscourse.
6E
,t can therefore $e a
metaliterature, that is to say, a literature of hich literature itself is the
im#ose" o$)ect.
68
'...(
'...( ,f the riter questions the universe, the critic questions literature,
that is to say, the universe of signs. Fut hat as a sign for the riter
0the ork1 $ecomes meaning for the critic 0since it is the o$)ect of critical
"iscourse1, an" in another ay hat as meaning for the riter 0his vie
of the orl"1 $ecomes a sign for the critic, as the theme an" sym$ol of a
certain literary nature. '...( ,f such a thing as critical #oetry exists,
therefore, it is in the sense in hich =Lvi!Strauss s#eaks of a #oetry of
%ri$olage* : )ust as the %ri$oler s#eaks through things, the critic s#eaks
! in the full sense, that is to say, s#eaks u# ! through $ooks, an" e ill
#ara#hrase =Lvi!Strauss once more $y saying that ithout ever
com#leting his #ro)ect he alays #uts something of himself into it.
,n this sense, therefore, one can regar" literary criticism as a
structuralist activity + $ut it is not ! as is quite clear ! merely an
im#licit, unreflective structuralism. The question #ose" $y the #resent
orientation of such human sciences as linguistics or anthro#ology is
61
*lau"e =Lvi!Strauss, The Savage Min+ 0*hicago, 14II1, #. 19.
6E
2olan" Farthes, <riti$al 1ssays- #. E67.
68
%aul ValLry, Al$ert Thi$au"et, Novelle reve fran$aise 0?uly 148I1, #. I.
<5
hether criticism is $eing calle" u#on to organi:e its structuralist vocation
ex#licitly in a structural metho". Cy aim here is sim#ly to eluci"ate the
meaning an" sco#e of this question, suggesting the #rinci#al ays in
hich structuralism coul" reach the o$)ect of criticism, an" offer itself to
criticism as a fruitful metho".
=iterature $eing #rimarily a ork of language, an" structuralism, for its
#art, $eing #reeminently a linguistic metho", the most #ro$a$le encounter
shoul" o$viously take #lace on the terrain of linguistic material: soun"s,
forms, or"s, an" sentences constitute the common o$)ect of the linguist
an" the #hilologist to such an extent that it as #ossi$le, in the early
enthusiasm of the 2ussian >ormalist movement, to "efine literature as a
mere "ialect, an" to envisage its stu"y as an annex of general "ialectology.
'...( Fut, like other excesses committe" $y >ormalism, this #articular one
ha" cathartic value: $y tem#orarily ignoring content, the #rovisional
re"uction of literatures literary $eing to its linguistic $eing ma"e it
#ossi$le to revise certain tra"itional verities concerning the truth of
literary "iscourse, an" to stu"y more closely the system of its conventions.
=iterature ha" long enough $een regar"e" as a message ithout a co"e for
it to $ecome necessary to regar"e" it for a time as a co"e ithout a
message.
Structuralist metho" as such is constitute" at the very moment hen
one re"iscovers the message in the co"e, uncovere" $y an analysis of the
immanent structures an" not im#ose" from the outsi"e $y i"eological
#re)u"ices. This moment as not to $e long in coming, for the existence of
the sign, at every level, rests on the connection of form an" meaning. '...(
Feteen #ure >ormalism, hich re"uces literary forms to a soun"
material that is ultimately formless, $ecause nonsignifying, an" tra"itional
realism, hich accor"s to each form an autonomous, su$stantial
ex#ressive value, structural analysis must make it #ossi$le to uncover the
connection that exists $eteen a system of forms an" a system of
meanings, $y re#lacing the search for term!$y!term analogies ith one for
overall homologies. '...(
The structural stu"y of #oetic language an" of the forms of literary
ex#ression in general cannot, in fact, re)ect the analysis of the relations
$eteen co"e an" message. '...( The am$ition of structuralism is not
confine" to counting feet an" to o$serving the re#etitions of #honemes: it
must also attack semantic #henomena hich, as CallarmL shoe" us,
constitute the essence of #oetic language, an" more generally the
#ro$lems of literary semiology. ,n this res#ect one of the neest an"
most fruitful "irections that are no o#ening u# for literary research
ought to $e the structural stu"y of the large unities of "iscourse, $eyon"
the frameork ! hich linguistics in the strict sense cannot cross ! of the
sentence. '...( Dne oul" thus stu"y systems from a much higher level of
generality, such as narrative, "escri#tion, an" the other ma)or forms of
literary ex#ression. There oul" then $e a linguistics of "iscourse that
as a translingisti$s- since the facts of language oul" $e han"le" $y it
in great $ulk, an" often at one remove ! to #ut it sim#ly, a rhetoric,
#erha#s that ne rhetoric hich >rancis %onge once calle" for, an"
hich e still lack.
The structural character of language at every level is sufficiently
acce#te" $y all to"ay for the structuralist a##roach to literary ex#ression
to $e a"o#te" as it ere ithout question. As soon as one a$an"ons the
level of linguistics 0or that $ri"ge thron $eteen linguistics an" literary
history, as =eo S#it:er calle" stu"ies of form an" style1 an" a##roach the
"omain tra"itionally reserve" for criticism, that of content, the
legitimacy of the structural #oint of vie raises very serious questions of
#rinci#le. A priori- of course, structuralism as a metho" is $ase" on the
stu"y of structures herever they occur+ $ut to $egin ith, structures are
not "irectly encountere" o$)ects ! far from it+ they are systems of latent
relations, conceive" rather than #erceive", hich analysis constructs as it
uncovers them, an" hich it runs the risk of inventing hile $elieving
that it is "iscovering them. >urthermore, structuralism is not only a
metho"+ it is also hat Nrnst *assirer calls a general ten"ency of
thought, or as others oul" say 0more cru"ely1 an i"eology, the
#re)u"ice of hich is #recisely to value structures at the ex#ense of
su$stances, an" hich may therefore overestimate their ex#lanatory
value. '...(
A##arently, structuralism ought to $e on its on groun" henever
<1
criticism a$an"ons the search for the con"itions of the existence or the
external "eterminations ! #sychological, social, or other ! of the literary
ork, in or"er to concentrate its attention on that ork itself, regar"e" no
longer as an effect, $ut as an a$solute $eing. ,n this sense, structuralism is
$oun" u# ith the general movement aay from #ositivism, historici:ing
history an" the $iogra#hical illusion, a movement re#resente" in various
ays $y the critical ritings of a %roust, an Nliot, a ValLry, 2ussian
>ormalism, >rench thematic criticism or Anglo!American /e
*riticism. '...( Any analysis that confines itself to a ork ithout
consi"ering its sources or motives oul", therefore, $e im#licitly
structuralist, an" the structural metho" ought to intervene in or"er to give
to this immanent stu"y a sort of rationality of un"erstan"ing that oul"
re#lace the rationality of ex#lanation a$an"one" ith the search of causes.
A somehat s#atial "eterminism of structure oul" thus take over, $ut in a
quite mo"ern s#irit, from the tem#oral "eterminism of genesis, each unit
$eing "efine" in terms of relations, instea" of filiation. Thematic
analysis, then, oul" ten" s#ontaneously to culminate an" to $e teste" in a
structural synthesis in hich the "ifferent themes are grou#e" in net"ork-
in or"er to extract their full meaning from their #lace an" function in the
system of the ork. '...(
Structuralism, then, oul" a##ear to $e a refuge for all immanent
criticism against the "anger of fragmentation that threatens thematic
analysis: the means of reconstituting the unit of a ork, its #rinci#le of
coherence, hat S#it:er calle" its s#iritual ety(on. '...(
'...( Structural criticism is untaine" $y any of the transcen"ent
re"uctions of #sychoanalysis, for exam#le, or Carxist ex#lanation, $ut it
exerts, in its on ay, a sort of internal re"uction, traversing the su$stance
of the ork in or"er to reach its $one!structure: certainly not a su#erficial
examination, $ut a sort of ra"iosco#ic #enetration, an" all the more
external in that it is more #enetrating. '...(
'...( &hat Cerleau!%onty rote of ethnology as a "isci#line can $e
a##lie" to structuralism as a metho" : ,t is not a s#ecialty "efine" $y a
#articular o$)ect, #rimitive societies. ,t is a ay of thinking, the ay
hich im#oses itself hen the o$)ect is "ifferent, an" requires us to
transform ourselves. &e also $ecome the ethnologists of our on society
if e set ourselves at a "istance from it.
Thus the relation that $in"s structuralism an" hermeneutics together
might not $e one of mechanical se#aration an" exclusion, $ut of
com#lementarity: on the su$)ect of the same ork, hermeneutic criticism
might s#eak the language of the resum#tion of meaning an" of internal
recreation, an" structural criticism that of "istant s#eech an" intelligi$le
reconstruction. They oul" thus $ring out com#lementary significations,
an" their "ialogue oul" $e all the more fruitful, on con"ition that one
coul" never s#eak these to languages at once. ,n any case, literary
criticism has no reason to refuse to listen to the ne signification that
structuralism can o$tain from the orks that are a##arently closest an"
most familiar $y "istancing their s#eech+ for one of the most #rofoun"
lessons of mo"ern anthro#ology is that the "istant is also close to us, $y
virtue of its very "istance. . The structuralist i"ea '...( is to follo
literature in its overall evolution, hile making synchronic cuts at various
stages an" com#aring the ta$les one ith another. =iterary evolution then
a##ears in all its richness, hich "erives from the fact that the system
survives hile constantly altering. -ere, again, the 2ussian >ormalists
shoe" the ay $y #aying s#ecial attention to the #henomena of
structural "ynamics, an" $y isolating the notion of $hange of fn$tion.
/oting the #resence or a$sence, in isolation, of a literary form or theme at
a #articular #oint in "iachronic evolution is meaningless until the
synchronic stu"y has shon the function of this element in the system.
An element can remain hile changing function, or on the contrary
"isa##ear hile leaving its function to another. '...(
,n this sense literary history $ecomes the history of a system: it is the
evolution of the functions that is significant, not that of the elements, an"
knole"ge of the synchronic relations necessarily #rece"es that of the
#rocesses.
<E
1.8.I T:vetan To"orov: from Befinition of %oetics
To un"erstan" hat #oetics is, e must start from a general an" of course
a somehat sim#lifie" image of literary stu"ies. ,t is unnecessary to
"escri$e actual schools an" ten"encies+ it ill suffice to recall the #ositions
taken ith regar" to several $asic choices.
,nitially there are to attitu"es to $e "istinguishe": one sees the literary
text itself as a sufficient o$)ect of knole"ge+ the other consi"ers each
in"ivi"ual text as the manifestation of an a$stract structure. 0, hereith
"isregar" $iogra#hical stu"ies, hich are nor literary, as ell as
)ournalistic ritings, hich are not stu"ies.1 These to o#tions are not,
as e shall see, incom#ati$le+ e can even say that they achieve a
necessary com#lementarity+ nonetheless, "e#en"ing on hether e
em#hasi:e one or the other, e can clearly "istinguish $eteen the to
ten"encies.
=et us $egin ith a fe or"s a$out the first attitu"e, for hich the
literary ork is the ultimate an" unique o$)ect, an" hich e shall here
an" henceforth call interpretation. ,nter#retation, hich is sometimes also
calle" e#egesis- $o((entary- e#pli$ation +e te#t- $lose rea+ing- analysis-
or even )ust $riti$is( 0such a list "oes not mean e cannot "istinguish or
even set in o##osition some of the terms1, is "efine", in the sense e give
it here, $y its aim, hich is to na(e the (eaning of the te#t e#a(ine+. This
aim forthith "etermines the i"eal of this attitu"e ! hich is to make the
text itself s#eak+ i.e., it is a fi"elity to the o$)ect, to the other- an"
consequently an effacement of the su$)ect ! as ell as its "rama, hich is
to $e forever inca#a$le of reali:ing the meaning, $ut only a meaning
su$)ect to historical an" #sychological contingencies. This i"eal, this
"rama ill $e mo"ulate" "on through the history of commentary, itself
coextensive ith the history of humanity.
,n effect, it is im#ossi$le to inter#ret a ork, literary or otherise, for
an" in itself, ithout leaving it for a moment, ithout #ro)ecting it
elsehere than u#on itself. Dr rather, this task is #ossi$le, $ut then
"escri#tion is merely a or"!for!or" re#etition of the ork itself. ,t
es#ouses the forms of the ork so closely that the to are i"entical. An",
in a certain sense, every ork constitutes its on $est "escri#tion. '...(
,f interpretation as the generic term for the first ty#e of analysis to
hich e su$mit the literary text, the secon" attitu"e remarke" a$ove can
$e inscri$e" ithin the general context of s$ien$e. Fy using this or",
hich the average literary man "oes not favor, e inten" to refer less to
the "egree of #recision this activity, achieves 0a #recision necessarily
relative1 than to the general #ers#ective chosen $y the analyst: his goal is
no longer the "escri#tion of the #articular ork, the "esignation of its
meaning, $ut the esta$lishment of general las of hich this #articular
text is the #ro"uct.
&ithin this secon" attitu"e, e may "istinguish several varieties, at
first glance very remote from one another. ,n"ee", e fin" here, si"e $y
si"e, #sychological or #sychoanalytic, sociological or ethnological
stu"ies, as ell as those "erive" from #hiloso#hy or from the history of
i"eas. All "eny the autonomous character of the literary ork an" regar"
it as the manifestation of las that are external to it an" that concern the
#syche, or society, or even the human min". The o$)ect of such stu"ies
is to trans#ose the ork into the realm consi"ere" fun"amental: it is a
la$or of "eci#herment an" translation+ the literary ork is the ex#ression
of something, an" the goal of such stu"ies is to reach this something
through the #oetic co"e. Be#en"ing on hether the nature of this o$)ect
to $e reache" is #hiloso#hical, #sychological, sociological, or something
else, the stu"y in question ill $e inscri$e" ithin one of these ty#es of
"iscourse 0one of these sciences1, each of hich #ossesses, of course,
many su$"ivisions. Such an activity is relate" to science insofar as its
o$)ect is no longer the #articular #henomenon $ut the 0#sychological,
sociological, etc.,1 la that the #henomenon illustrates.
0oeti$s $reaks "on the symmetry thus esta$lishe" $eteen
inter#retation an" science in the fiel" of literary stu"ies. ,n
contra"istinction to the inter#retation of #articular orks, it "oes not seek
to name meaning, $ut aims at a knole"ge of the general las that
#resi"e over the $irth of each ork. Fut in contra"istinction of such
sciences as #sychology, sociology, etc., it seeks these las ithin
literature itself. %oetics is therefore an a##roach to literature at once
<8
a$stract an" internal.
,t is not the literary ork itself that is the o$)ect of #oetics: hat #oetics
questions are the #ro#erties of that #articular "iscourse that is literary
"iscourse. Nach ork is therefore regar"e" only as the manifestation of an
a$stract an" general structure, of hich it is $ut one of the #ossi$le
reali:ations. &here$y this science is no longer concerne" ith actual
literature, $ut ith a #ossi$le literature, in other or"s ith that a$stract
#ro#erty that constitutes the singularity of the literal #henomenon:
literariness. The goal of this stu"y is no longer to articulate a #ara#hrase, a
"escri#tive resume of the concrete ork, $ut to #ro#ose a theory of the
structure an" functioning of literary "iscourse, a theory that affor"s a list
of literary #ossi$ilities, so that existing literary orks a##ear as achieve"
#articular cases. The ork ill then $e #ro)ecte" u#on something other
than itself, as in the case of #sychological or sociological criticism+ this
so(ething other ill no longer $e a heterogeneous structure, hoever, $ut
the structure of literary "iscourse itself. The #articular text ill $e only an
instance that allos us to "escri$e the #ro#erties of literature. '...(
The fact that this essay as originally inten"e" for a series of
structuralist stu"ies raises a ne question: hat is structuralisms relation
to #oetics@ The "ifficulty of ansering is #ro#ortional to the #olysemy of
the term structuralism.
Taking this or" in its $roa" acce#tation, all #oetics, an" not merely
one or another of its versions, is structure": since the o$)ect of #oetics is
not the sum of em#irical #henomena 0literary orks1 $ut an a$stract
structure 0literature1. Fut then, the intro"uction of a scientific #oint of vie
into any realm is alays an" alrea"y str$tral.
,f on the other han" this or" "esignates a limite" cor#us of
hy#otheses, one that is historically "etermine" ! there$y re"ucing
language to a system of communication, or social #henomena to the
#ro"ucts of a co"e ! #oetics, as #resente" here, has nothing #articularly
structuralist a$out it. &e might even say that the literary #henomenon an",
consequently, the "iscourse that assumes it 0#oetics1, $y their very
existence, constitutes an o$)ection to certain instrumentalist conce#tions of
language formulate" at the $eginnings of structuralism.
&hich lea"s us to s#ecify the relations $eteen #oetics an"
linguistics. '...( '=(iterature is, in the strongest sense of the term, a
#ro"uct of language. 0CallarmL ha" sai": The $ook, total ex#ansion of
the letter. '...(.1 >or this reason, any knole"ge of language ill $e of
interest to the #oetician. Fut formulate" this ay, the relation unites
#oetics an" linguistics less than it "oes literature an" language: hence
#oetics an" all the sciences of languages. /o, no more than #oetics is
the only science to take literature as its o$)ect is linguistics 0at least as it
exists to"ay1 the unique science of language. ,ts o$)ect is a certain ty#e of
linguistic structure 0#honological, grammatical, semantic1 to the
exclusion of others, hich are stu"ie" in anthro#ology, in #sychoanalysis,
or in #hiloso#hy of language. -ence #oetics might fin" a certain
assistance in each of these sciences, to the "egree that language
constitutes #arts of their o$)ect. ,ts closest relatives ill $e the other
"isci#lines that "eal ith +is$orse = the grou# forming the fiel" of
rhetori$- un"erstoo" in the $roa"est sense as a general science of
"iscourse.
,t is here that #oetics #artici#ates in the general semiotic #rocess that
unites all investigations hose #oint of "e#arture is the sign.
1.8.9 ?onathan *uller: from Str$tralist 0oeti$s
$#
&hen a s#eaker of a language hears a #honetic sequence, he is a$le to
give it meaning $ecause he $rings to the act of communication an
ama:ing re#ertoire of conscious an" unconscious knole"ge. Castery of
the #honological, syntactic an" semantic systems of his language ena$les
him to convert the soun"s into "iscrete units, to recogni:e or"s, an" to
assign a structural "escri#tion an" inter#retation to the resulting sentence,
even though it $e quite ne to him. &ithout this im#licit knole"ge, this
internali:e" grammar, the sequence of soun"s "oes not s#eak to him. &e
6<
2outle"ge Y 3egan %aul, =on"on, 1496, ##. 118!87.
<<
are nevertheless incline" to say that the #honological an" grammatical
structure an" the meaning are properties of the utterance, an" there is no
harm in that ay of s#eaking so long as e remem$er that they are
#ro#erties of the utterance only ith res#ect to a #articular grammar.
Another grammar oul" assign "ifferent #ro#erties to the sequence
0accor"ing to the grammar of a "ifferent language, for exam#le, it oul"
$e nonsense1. To s#eak of the structure of a sentence is necessarily to
im#ly an internali:e" grammar that gives it that structure.
&e also ten" to think of meaning an" structure as #ro#erties of literary
orks, an" from one #oint of vie this is #erfectly correct: hen the
sequence of or"s is treate" as a literary "ork it has these #ro#erties. Fut
that qualification suggests the relevance an" im#ortance of the linguistic
analogy. The ork has structure an" meaning $ecause it is rea" in a
#articular ay, $ecause these #otential #ro#erties, latent in the o$)ect
itself, are actuali:e" $y the theory of "iscourse a##lie" in the act of
rea"ing. -o can one "iscover structure ithout the hel# of a
metho"ological mo"el@ asks Farthes. To rea" a text as literature is not to
make ones min" a ta%la rasa an" a##roach it ithout #reconce#tions+
one must $ring to it an im#licit un"erstan"ing of the o#erations of literary
"iscourse hich tells one hat to look for.
Anyone lacking this knole"ge, anyone holly unacquainte" ith
literature an" unfamiliar ith the conventions $y hich fictions are rea",
oul", for exam#le, $e quite $affle" if #resente" ith a #oem. -is
knole"ge of the language oul" ena$le him to un"erstan" #hrases an"
sentences, $ut he oul" not kno, quite literally, hat to (ake of this
strange concatenation of #hrases. -e oul" $e una$le to rea" it as
literature ! as e say ith em#hasis to those ho oul" use literary
orks for other #ur#oses ! $ecause he lacks the com#lex literary
com#etence hich ena$les others to #rocee". -e has not internali:e" the
grammar of literature hich oul" #ermit him to convert linguistic
sequences into literary structures an" meanings.
,f the analogy seems less than exact it is $ecause in the case of language
it is much more o$vious that un"erstan"ing "e#en"s on mastery of a
system. Fut the time an" energy "evote" to literary training in schools an"
universities in"icate that the un"erstan"ing of literature also "e#en"s on
ex#erience an" mastery. Since literature is a secon"!or"er semiotic
system hich has language as its $asis, a knole"ge of language ill
take one a certain "istance in ones encounter ith literary texts, an" it
may $e "ifficult to s#ecify #recisely here un"erstan"ing comes to
"e#en" on ones su##lementary knole"ge of literature. Fut the
"ifficulty of "raing a line "oes not o$scure the #al#a$le "ifference
$eteen un"erstan"ing the language of a #oem, in the sense that one
coul" #rovi"e a rough translation into another language, an"
un"erstan"ing the #oem. ,f one knos >rench, one can translate
CallarmLs Salut, $ut that translation is not a thematic synthesis ! it is
not hat e oul" or"inarily call un"erstan"ing the #oem ! an" in
or"er to i"entify various levels of coherence an" set them in relation to
one another un"er the syno#tic hea"ing or theme of the literary quest
one must have consi"era$le ex#erience of the conventions for rea"ing
#oetry.
The easiest ay to gras# the im#ortance of these conventions is to take
a #iece of )ournalistic #rose or a sentence from a novel an" set it "on on
the #age as a #oem. The #ro#erties assigne" to the sentence $y a grammar
of Nnglish remain unchange", an" the "ifferent meanings hich the text
acquires cannot therefore $e attri$ute" to ones knole"ge of the
language $ut must $e ascri$e" to the s#ecial conventions for rea"ing
#oetry hich lea" one to look at the language in ne ays, to make
relevant #ro#erties of the language hich ere #reviously unex#loite", to
su$)ect the text to a "ifferent series of inter#retive o#erations. Fut one
can also sho the im#ortance of these conventions $y measuring the
"istance $eteen the language of a #oem an" its critical inter#retation !
a "istance $ri"ge" $y the conventions of rea"ing hich com#rise the
institution of #oetry.
Anyone ho knos Nnglish un"erstan"s the language of Flakes Ah.
Sun!floer :
Ah, Sun!floer, eary of time, U &ho countest the ste#s of the Sun, U
Seeking after that seet gol"en clime U &here the travellers )ourney is
"one: UU &here the Jouth #ine" aay ith "esire, U An" the #ale Virgin
<6
shrou"e" in sno U Arise from their graves, an" as#ire U &here my Sun!
floer ishes to go.
Fut there is some "istance $eteen an un"erstan"ing of the language an"
the thematic statement ith hich a critic conclu"es his "iscussion of the
#oem: Flakes "ialectical thrust at asceticism is more than a"roit. Jou "o
not surmount /ature $y "enying its #rime claim of sexuality. ,nstea" you
fall utterly into the "ull roun" of its cyclic as#irations. -o "oes one
reach this rea"ing@ &hat are the o#erations hich lea" from the text to this
re#resentation of un"erstan"ing@ The #rimary convention is hat might $e
calle" the rule of significance: rea" the #oem as ex#ressing a significant
attitu"e to some #ro$lem concerning man an"Uor his relation to the
universe. The sunfloer is therefore given the value of an em$lem an" the
meta#hors of counting an" seeking are taken not )ust as figurative
in"ications of the floers ten"ency to turn toar"s the sun $ut as
meta#horical o#erators hich make the sunfloer an instance of the
human as#irations com#asse" $y these to lines. The conventions of
meta#horical coherence ! that one shoul" attem#t through semantic
transformations to #ro"uce coherence on the levels of $oth tenor an"
vehicle ! lea" one to o##ose time to eternity an" to make that seet
gol"en clime $oth the sunset hich marks the closure of the "aily
tem#oral cycle an" the eternity of "eath hen the travellers )ourney is
"one. The i"entification of sunset an" "eath is further )ustifie" $y the
convention hich allos one to inscri$e the #oem in a #oetic tra"ition.
Core im#ortant, hoever, is the convention of thematic unity, hich
forces one to give the youth an" virgin of the secon" stan:a a role hich
)ustifies choosing them as exam#les of as#iration+ an" since the semantic
feature they share is a re#ression of sexuality, one must fin" a ay of
integrating that ith the rest of the #oem. '...(
The claims of schools an" universities to offer literary training cannot $e
lightly "ismisse". To $elieve that the hole institution of literary
e"ucation is $ut a gigantic confi"ence trick oul" strain even a "etermine"
cre"ulity, for it is, alas, only too clear that knole"ge of a language an" a
certain ex#erience of the orl" "o not suffice to make someone a
#erce#tive an" com#etent rea"er. That achievement requires acquaintance
ith a range of literature an" in many cases some form of gui"ance. The
time an" effort "evote" to literary e"ucation $y generations of stu"ents
an" teachers creates a strong #resum#tion that there is something to $e
learne", an" teachers "o not hesitate to )u"ge their #u#ils #rogress
toar"s a general literary com#etence. Cost oul" claim, no "ou$t ith
goo" reason, that their examinations are "esigne" not sim#ly to "etermine
hether their stu"ents have rea" various set orks $ut to test their
acquisition of an a$ility. '...(
To assimilate or inter#ret something is to $ring it ithin the mo"es of
or"er hich culture makes availa$le, an" this is usually "one $y talking
a$out it in a mo"e of "iscourse hich a culture takes as natural. This
#rocess goes $y various names in structuralist riting: recu#eration,
naturali:ation, motivation, vraise(%la%lisation. 2ecu#eration stresses
the notion of recovery, of #utting to use. ,t may $e "efine" as the "esire
to leave no chaff, to make everything heat, to let nothing esca#e the
#rocess of assimilation+ it is thus a central com#onent of stu"ies hich
assert the organic unity of the text an" the contri$ution of all its #arts to
its meanings or effects. /aturali:ation em#hasi:es the fact that the
strange or "eviant is $rought ithin a "iscursive or"er an" thus ma"e to
seem natural. Cotivation, hich as the 2ussian formalists term, is
the #rocess of )ustifying items ithin the ork itself $y shoing that they
are not ar$itrary or incoherent $ut quite com#rehensi$le in terms of
functions hich e can name. 5raise(%la%lisation stresses the
im#ortance of cultural mo"els of the vraise(%la%le as sources of meaning
an" coherence.
&hatever one calls the #rocess, it is one of the $asic activities of the
min". &e can, it seems, make anything signify. ,f a com#uter ere
#rogramme" to #ro"uce ran"om sequences of Nnglish sentences e coul"
make sense of the texts it #ro"uce" $y imagining a variety of functions
an" contexts. ,f all else faile", e coul" rea" a sequence of or"s ith no
a##arent or"er as signifying a$sur"ity or chaos an" then, $y giving it an
allegorical relation to the orl", take it as a statement a$out the
incoherence an" a$sur"ity of our on languages. As the exam#le of
Feckett shos, e can alays make the meaningless meaningful $y
<I
#ro"uction of an a##ro#riate context. An" usually our contexts nee" not $e
so extreme. Cuch of 2o$$e!Krillet can $e recu#erate" if e rea" it as the
musings or s#eech of a #athological narrator, an" that frameork gives
critics a hol" so that they can go on to "iscuss the im#lications of the
#articular #athology in question. *ertain "islocations in #oetic texts can $e
rea" as signs of a #ro#hetic or ecstatic state or as in"ications of a
2im$au"ian "LrTglement "e tous les sens. To #lace the text in such
frameorks is to make it legi$le an" intelligi$le. &hen Nliot says that
mo"ern #oetry must $e "ifficult $ecause of the "iscontinuities of mo"ern
culture, hen &illiam *arlos &illiam argues that his varia$le foot is
necessary in a #ost!Ninsteinian orl" here all or"er is questione", hen
-um#ty!Bum#ty tells Alice that slithy means lithe an" slimy, all are
engage" in recu#eration or naturali:ation.
1.8.7 2olan" Farthes: from Textual Analysis: %oes 5al+e(ar
The structural analysis of narrative is at #resent in the course of full
ela$oration. All research in this area has a common scientific origin:
semiology or the science of signification+ $ut alrea"y 0an" this is a goo"
thing1 "ivergences ithin that research are a##earing, accor"ing to the
critical stance each #iece of ork takes ith res#ect to the scientific status
of semiology, or in other or"s, ith res#ect to its on "iscourse. These
"ivergences 0hich are constructive1 can $e $rought together un"er to
$roa" ten"encies: in the first, face" ith all the narratives in the orl", the
analysis seeks to esta$lish a narrative mo"el ! hich is evi"ently formal
! , a structure or grammar of narrative, on the $asis of hich 0once this
mo"el, structure or grammar has $een "iscovere"1 each #articular narrative
ill $e analyse" in terms of "ivergences. ,n the secon" ten"ency, the
narrative is imme"iately su$sume" 0at least hen it len"s itself to $eing
su$sume"1 un"er the notion of text, s#ace, #rocess of meanings at ork,
in short, signifiance 0e shall come $ack to this or" at the en"1, hich
is o$serve" not as a finishe", close" #ro"uct, $ut as a #ro"uction in
#rogress, #lugge" in to other texts, other co"es 0this is the intertextual1,
an" there$y articulate" ith society an" history in ays hich are not
"eterminist $ut citational. &e have then to "istinguish in a certain ay
structural analysis an" textual analysis, ithout here ishing to "eclare
them enemies: structural analysis, strictly s#eaking, is a##lie" a$ove all
to oral narrative 0to myth1+ textual analysis, hich is hat e shall $e
attem#ting to #ractise in the folloing #ages, is a##lie" exclusively to
ritten narrative.
66
Textual analysis "oes not try to "escri$e the structure of a ork+ it is not
a matter of recor"ing a structure, $ut rather of #ro"ucing a mo$ile
structuration of the text 0a structuration hich is "is#lace" from rea"er to
rea"er throughout history1, of staying in the signifying volume of the
ork, in its signifiance. Textual analysis "oes not try to fin" out hat it
is that "etermines the text 0gathers it together as the en"!term of a causal
sequence1, $ut rather ho the text ex#lo"es an" "is#erses. &e are then
going to take a narrative text, an" ere going to rea" it, as sloly as it is
necessary, sto##ing as often as e have to 0$eing at ease is an essential
"imension of our ork1, an" try to locate an" classify ithout rigour, not
all the meanings of the text 0hich oul" $e im#ossi$le $ecause the text
is o#en to infinity: no rea"er, no su$)ect, no science can arrest the text1
$ut the forms an" co"es accor"ing to hich meanings are #ossi$le. &e
are going to locate the avenues of meaning. Dur aim is not to fin" the
meaning, nor even a meaning of the text, an" our ork is not akin to
literary criticism of the hermeneutic ty#e 0hich tries to inter#ret the text
in terms of the truth $elieve" to $e hi""en therein1, as are Carxist or
#sychoanalytical criticism. Dur aim is to manage to conceive, to imagine,
live the #lurality of the text, the o#ening of its signifiance. ,t is clear
then that hat is at stake in our ork is not limite" to the university
treatment of the text 0even if that treatment ere o#enly metho"ological1,
nor even to literature in general+ rather it touches on a theory, a #ractice, a
choice, hich are caught u# in the struggle of men an" signs.
66
, have attem#te" the textual analysis of a hole narrative 0hich coul" not
$e the case here for reasons of s#ace1 in my $ook SKP, Seuil, 1495, 'trans.
2ichar" Ciller, =on"on, *a#e, 1496.(
<9
,n or"er to carry out the textual analysis of a narrative, e shall follo a
certain num$er of o#erating #roce"ures 0let us call them elementary rules
of mani#ulation rather than metho"ological #rinci#les, hich oul" $e too
am$itious a or" an" a$ove all an i"eologically questiona$le one, in so far
as metho" too often #ostulates a #ositivistic result1. &e shall re"uce
these #roce"ures to four $riefly lai" out measures, #referring to let the
theory run along in the analysis of the text itself. >or the moment e shall
say )ust hat is necessary to $egin as quickly as #ossi$le the analysis of
the story e have chosen.
1 &e shall cut u# the text , am #ro#osing for stu"y into contiguous, an"
in general very short, segments 0a sentence, #art of a sentence, at most a
grou# of three or four sentences1+ e shall num$er these fragments starting
from 1 0in a$out ten #ages of text there are 165 segments1. These segments
are units of rea"ing, an" this is hy , have #ro#ose" to call them lexias
6I
. A lexia is o$viously a textual signifier+ $ut as our )o$ here is not to
o$serve signifiers 0our ork is not stylistic1 $ut meanings, the cutting!u#
"oes not nee" to $e theoretically foun"e" 0as e are in a "iscourse, an" not
in langue
69
, e must not ex#ect there to $e an easily!#erceive"
homology $eteen signifier an" signifie"+ e "o not kno ho one
corres#on"s to the other, an" consequently e must $e #re#are" to cut u#
the signifier ithout $eing gui"e" $y the un"erlying cutting!u# of the
signifie"1. All in all the fragmenting of the narrative text into lexias is
#urely em#irical, "ictate" $y the concern of convenience: the lexia is an
ar$itrary #ro"uct, it is sim#ly a segment ithin hich the "istri$ution of
meanings is o$serve"+ it is hat surgeons oul" call an o#erating fiel": the
useful lexia is one here only one, to or three meanings take #lace
0su#er#ose" in the volume of the #iece of text1.
E >or each lexia, e shall o$serve the meanings to hich that lexia gives
rise. Fy meaning, it is clear that e "o not mean the meanings of the
or"s or grou#s of or"s hich "ictionary an" grammar, in short a
6I
>or a tighter analysis of the notion of the lexia, an" moreover of the o#erating
#roce"ures to follo, , am o$lige" to refer to SKP '##. 18 ff(.
69
Biscourse here corres#on"s to parole in Saussures "istinction $eteen
lange an" parole.
knole"ge of the >rench language, oul" $e sufficient to account for.
&e mean the connotations of the lexia, the secon"ary meanings. These
connotation meanings can $e associations 0for exam#le, the #hysical
"escri#tion of a character, s#rea" out over several sentences, may have
only one connote" signifie", the nervousness of that character, even
though the or" "oes not figure at the level of "enotation1+ they can also
$e relations, resulting form a linking of to #oints in the text, hich are
sometimes far a#art, 0an action $egun here can $e com#lete", finishe",
much further on1. Dur lexias ill $e, if , can #ut it like this, the finest
#ossi$le sieves, thanks to hich e shall cream off meanings,
connotations.
8 Dur analysis ill $e #rogressive: e shall cover the length of the text ste# $y ste#, at
least in theory, since for reasons of s#ace e can only give to fragments of analysis here. This
means that e shant $e aiming to #ick out the large 0rhetorical1 $locks of the text+ e shant
construct a #lan of the text an" e shant $e seeking its thematics+ in short, e shant $e
carrying out an ex#lication of the text, unless e give the or" ex#lication its etymological
sense, in so far as e shall $e unfol"ing the text, the foliation of the text. Dur analysis ill
retain the #roce"ure of rea"ing+ only this rea"ing ill $e, in some measure, filme" in slo!
motion. This metho" of #rocee"ing is theoretically im#ortant: it means that e are not aiming
to reconstitute the structure of the text, $ut to follo its structuration, an" that e consi"er the
structuration of the rea"ing to $e more im#ortant than that of com#osition 0a rhetorical,
classical notion1.
< >inally, e shant get un"uly orrie" if in our account e forget
some meanings. >orgetting meanings is in some sense #art of rea"ing: the
im#ortant thing is to sho "e#artures of meaning, not arrivals 0an" is
meaning $asically anything other than a "e#arture@1. &hat foun"s the
text is not an internal, close", accounta$le structure, $ut the outlet of the
text on to other texts, other signs+ hat makes the text is the intertextual.
&e are $eginning to glim#se 0through other sciences1 the fact that
research must little $y little get use" to the con)unction of to i"eas
hich for long time ere thought incom#ati$le: the i"ea of structure an"
the i"ea of com$inational infinity+ the conciliation of these to
#ostulations is force" u#on us no $ecause language, hich e are
getting to kno $etter, is at once infinite an" structure".
, think that these remarks are sufficient for us to $egin the analysis of
<7
the text 0e must alays give in to the im#atience of the text, an" never
forget that hatever the im#eratives of stu"y, the #leasure of the text is our
la1. The text hich has $een chosen is a short narrative $y N"gar %oe, in
Fau"elaires translation: ! The >acts in the *ase of C. Val"emar !
67
.
Cy choice ! at least consciously, for in fact it might $e my unconscious
hich ma"e the choice ! as "ictate" $y to "i"actic consi"erations: ,
nee"e" a very short text so as to $e a$le to master entirely the signifying
surface 0the succession of lexias1, an" one hich as sym$olically very
"ense, so that the text analyse" oul" touch us continuously, $eyon" all
#articularism: ho coul" avoi" $eing touche" $y a text hose "eclare"
su$)ect is "eath@
To $e frank, , ought to a"" this: in analysing the signifiance of a text,
e shall a$stain voluntarily from "ealing ith certain #ro$lems+ e shall
not s#eak of the author, N"gar %oe, nor of the literary history of hich he
is a #art+ e shall not take into account the fact that the analysis ill $e
carrie" out on a translation: e shall take the text as it is, as e rea" it,
ithout $othering a$out hether in a university it oul" $elong to the
stu"ents of Nnglish rather than stu"ents of >rench or #hiloso#hers. This
"oes not necessarily mean that these #ro$lems ill not #ass into our
analysis+ on the contrary, they ill #ass, in the #ro#er sense of the term:
the analysis is a crossing of the text+ these #ro$lems can $e locate" in
terms of cultural quotations, of "e#artures of co"es, not of "eterminations.
A final or", hich is #erha#s one of con)uration, exorcism: the text e
are going to analyse is neither lyrical nor #olitical, it s#eaks neither of love
67
3istoires e#traor+inaires, trans. *harles Fau"elaire, %aris, /.2.>.+ =ivre "e
#oche, 14I4, ##. 8E4!8<6 'The <olle$te+ ;orks, 8 vols. N". T. D. Ca$$ott,
*am$ri"ge, -arvar" Hniversity %ress, 1497, ,,,, 1E88!<8. Tramslators note: The
fact that Farthes is orking on the translation of a text originally in Nnglish
evi"ently causes some extra #ro$lems if translation. /aturally , have use" %oes
text+ the quality of Fau"elaires translation is such that most of Farthess
comments a##ly equally to the original. The nota$le exce#tion to this is the title,
an" Farthes in fact ex#licitly commenrs on this, continuing, hoever, to use the
or" vLritL in the >rench title in su##ort of his analysis. , have s#ecifie" $y
notes in square $rackets herever this might lea" to confusion.
nor society, it s#eaks of "eath. This means that e shall have to lift a
#articular censorshi#: that attache" to the sinister. &e shall "o this,
#ersua"e" that any censorshi# stan"s for all others: s#eaking of "eath
outsi"e all religion lifts at once the religious inter"ict an" the rationalist
one. '...(
Analysis of lexias 1!19
'...(
011 ! The >acts in the *ase of C. Val"emar ! ' ! =a VLritL sur le cas
"e C. Val"emar(
The function of the title has not $een ell stu"ie", at least from a
structural #oint of vie. &hat can $e sai" straight aay is that for
commercial reasons, society, nee"ing to assimilate the text to a #ro"uct, a
commo"ity, has nee" of markers: the function of the title is to mark the
$eginning of the text, that is, to constitute the text as a commo"ity. Nvery
title thus has several simultaneous meanings, inclu"ing at least to: 0i1
hat it says linke" to the contingency of hat follos it+ 0ii1 the
announcement itself that a #iece of literature 0hich means, in fact, a
commo"ity1 is going to follo+ in other or"s, the title alays has a
"ou$le function+ enunciating an" "eictic.
0a1 Announcing a truth involves the sti#ulation of an enigma. The
#osing of the enigma is a result 0at the level of the signifiers1: of the or"
truth 'in the >rench title(+ of the or" case 0that hich is exce#tional,
therefore marke", therefore signifying, an" consequently of hich the
meaning must $e foun"1+ of the "efinite article the 'in the >rench title(
0there is only one truth, all the ork of the text ill, then, $e nee"e" to
#ass through this narro gate1+ of all the cata#horical
64
form im#lie" $y
the title: hat follos ill realise hat is announce", the resolution of
the enigma is alrea"y announce"+ e shoul" note that the Nnglish says: !
The >acts in the *ase '...(!: the signifie" hich %oe is aiming at is of an
64
There is no Nnglish equivalent to this or", $y hich Farthes seems to
mean, ansering or reflecting $ack on itself.
<4
em#irical or"er, that aime" $y the >rench translator 0Fau"elaire1 is
hermeneutic: the truth refers then to the external facts, $ut also #erha#s to
their meaning. -oever, this may $e, e shall co"e this first sense of the
lexia: enigma, #osition 0the enigma is the general name of a co"e, the
#osition is only one term of it1.
0$1 The truth coul" $e s#oken ithout $eing announce", ithout there
$eing a reference to the or" itself. ,f one s#eaks of hat is going to say,
if language is thus "ou$le" into to layers of hich the first in some sense
ca#s the secon", then hat one is "oing is resorting to the use of a
metalanguage. There is then here the #resence of the metalinguistic co"e.
0c1 This metalinguistic announcement has an a#eritive function: it is a
question of hetting the rea"ers a##etite 0a #roce"ure hich is akin to
sus#ense1. The narrative is a commo"ity the #ro#osal of hich is
#rece"e" $y a #atter. This #atter, this a##etiser is a term of the
narrative co"e 0rhetoric of narration1.
0"1 A #ro#er name shoul" alays $e carefully questione", for the #ro#er
name is, if , can #ut it like this, the #rince of signifiers+ its connotations are
rich, social an" sym$olic. ,n the name Val"emar, the folloing to
connotations at least can $e rea": 0i1 #resence of a socio!ethnic co"e: is the
name Kerman@ Slavic@ ,n any case, not Anglo!Saxon+ this little enigma
here im#licitly formulate", ill $e resolve" at num$er 14 0Val"emar is
%olish1+ 0ii1 Val"emar is the valley of the sea + the oceanic a$yss+ the
"e#ths of the sea is a theme "ear to %oe: the gulf refers to hat is tice
outsi"e nature, un"er the aters an" un"er the earth. >rom the #oint of
vie of the analysis there are, then, the traces of to co"es: a socio!ethnic
co"e an" a 0or the1 sym$olic co"e 0e shall return to these co"es a little
later1.
0e1 Saying C0onsieur1 Val"emar is not the same thing as saying
Val"emar. ,n a lot of stories %oe uses sim#le *hristian names 0=igeia,
Nleonora, Corella1. The #resence of the Consieur $rings ith it an effect
of social reality, of the historically real: the hero is socialise", he forms
#art of a "efinite society, in hich he is su##lie" ith a civil title. &e
must therefore note: social co"e. '...(
'...(
At this #oint e reach the moment in the narrative at hich e are
going to take u# the textual analysis again, lexia $y lexia. Feteen
,nterrogation ,,, an" the $eginning of the analysis to follo, an im#ortant
term of the sequence me"ical "eath intervenes: this is the mortification
of C. Val"emar 0151!15E1. Hn"er hy#nosis, C. Val"emar is henceforth
"ea", me"ically s#eaking. &e kno that recently, ith the
trans#lantation of organs, the "iagnosis of "eath has $een calle" into
question: to"ay the evi"ence of electro!ence#halogra#hy is require". ,n
or"er to certify C. Vs "eath, %oe gathers 0in 151 an" 15E1 all the clinical
signs hich in his "ay certifie" scientifically the "eath of a #atient: o#en
rolle"!$lack eyes, cor#se!like skin, extinction hectic s#ots, fall an"
relaxation of the loer )a, $lackene" tongue, a general hi"eousness
hich makes those #resent shrink $ack from the $e" 0here again the
eave of the co"es shoul" $e note": all the me"ical signs are also
elements of horror+ or rather, horror is alays given un"er the ali$i of
science: the scientific co"e an" the sym$olic co"e are actualise" at the
same time, un"eci"a$ly1.
&ith C. Val"emar me"ically "ea", the narrative ought to finish: the
"eath of the hero 0exce#t in cases of religious resurrection1 en"s the story.
The relaunching of the anec"ote 0$eginning ith lexia 1581 a##ears then
at once as a narrative necessity 0to allo the text to continue1 an" a
logical scan"al. This scan"al is that of the su##lement: for there to $e a
su##lement of narrative there ill have to $e a su##lement of life: once
again, the narrative stan"s for life. '...(
01151 -e no sai": ! Jes+ ! no+ ! , have %een slee#ing ! an" no !
no ! I a( +ea+.
>rom the structural #oint of vie, this lexia is sim#le: it is the term
re#ly 0, am "ea"1 to ,nterrogation ,V. -oever, outsi"e the "iegetical
structure 0i.e. the #resence of the lexia in an actional sequence1 the
65
connotation of the or"s 0, am "ea"1 is of inexhausti$le richness.
*ertainly there exist numerous mythical narratives in hich "eath s#eaks+
$ut only to say: , am alive. There is here a true ha#ax
I5
of narrative
grammar, a staging of or"s im#ossi$le as such: , am "ea". =et us attem#t
to unfol" some of these connotations:
0i1 &e have alrea"y extracte" the theme of encroachment 0of life on
"eath1+ encroachment is a #ara"igmatic "isor"er, a "isor"er of meaning+ in
the lifeU"eath of #ara"igm, the $ar is normally rea" as against 0versus1+ it
oul" suffice to rea" it as on for encroachment to take #lace an" the
#ara"igm to $e "estroye". Thats hat ha##ens here+ one of the s#aces
$ites unarrante"ly into the other. The interesting thing here is that the
encroachment occurs at the level of language. The i"ea that, once "ea", the
"ea" man can continue to act is $anal+ it is hat is sai" in the #rover$ the
"ea" man sei:es the living + it is hat is sai" in the great myths of remorse
or of #osthumous vengeance+ it is hat is sai" comically in >ornerets
sally: Beath teaches incorrigi$le #eo#le to live
I1
. Fut here the action of
the "ea" man is a #urely linguistic action+ an", to cron all, this language
serves no #ur#ose, it "oes not a##ear ith a vie to acting on the living, it
says nothing $ut itself, it "esignates itself tautologically. Fefore saying ,
am "ea", the voice says sim#ly , am s#eaking + a little like a
grammatical exam#le hich refers to nothing $ut language+ the
uselessness of hat is #roferre" is #art of the scan"al: it is a matter of
affirming an essence hich is not in its #lace 0the "is#lace" is the very
form of the sym$olic1.
0ii1 Another scan"al of the enunciation is the turning of the meta#horical
into the literal. ,t is in effect $anal to utter the sentence , am "ea". : it is
hat is sai" $y the oman ho has $een sho##ing all afternoon at
%rintem#s, an" ho has gone to her hair"ressers, etc.
IE
The turning of the
I5
3apa# lego(enon is the Kreek term for a or" coine" for a #articular
occasion.
I1
'Qavier >orneret 01754!7<1, #oet. -is Va#eurs, ni vers ni #rose #asse"
unnotice" hen it as #u$lishe" in 1787, $ut as reissue" in 146E $y An"rL
Freton, ho situate" him in the tra"ition of =autrLamont an" Surrealists.(
IE
',n >rench this meta#horical usage corres#on"s to the Nnglish ex#ression ,m
meta#horical into the literal, #recisely for this meta#hor, is im#ossi$le:
the enunciation , am "ea", is literally foreclose" 0hereas , slee#
remaine" literally #ossi$le in the fiel" of hy#notic slee#1. ,t is, then, if
you like, scan"al of language hich is in question.
0iii1 There is also a scan"al at the level of language 0an" no longer at
the level of "iscourse1. ,n the i"eal sum of all the #ossi$le utterances of
language, the link of the first #erson 0,1 an" the attri$ute "ea" is
#recisely the one hich is ra"ically im#ossi$le: it is the em#ty #oint, this
$lin" s#ot of language hich the story comes, very exactly, to occu#y.
&hat is sai" is no other than this im#ossi$ility: the sentence is not
"escri#tive, it is not constative, it "elivers no message other than its on
enunciation. ,n a sense e can say that e have here a #erformative, $ut
such, certainly, that neither Austin nor Fenveniste ha" foreseen it in their
analyses 0let us recall that the #erformative is the mo"e of utterance
accor"ing to hich the utterance refers only to its enunciation: , "eclare
ar + #erformatives are alays, $y force, in the first #erson, otherise
they oul" sli# toar"s the constative: he "eclares ar1+ here, the
unarrante" sentence #erforms an im#ossi$ility
I8
.
0iv1 >rom a strictly semantic #oint of vie, the sentence , am "ea"
asserts to contrary elements at once 0life, "eath1: it is an enantioseme,
$ut is, once again, unique: the signifier ex#resses a signifie" 0"eath1
hich is contra"ictory ith its enunciation. An" yet, e have to go
further still: it is not sim#ly a matter of a sim#le negation, in the
#sychoanalytical sense, , am "ea" meaning in that case , am not "ea",
$ut rather an affirmation!negation: , am "ea" an" not "ea" + this is the
#aroxysm of transgression, the invention of an unhear"!of category: the
true!false, the yes!no, the "eath!life is thought of as a hole hich is
in"ivisi$le, uncom$ina$le, non!"ialectic, for the antithesis im#lies no
thir" term+ it is not a to!face" entity, $ut a term hich is one an" ne.
'...(
"ea" tire". (
I8
'See ?.=.Austin, 0hilosophi$al 0apers, e". ?.D. Hrmson an" K.?. &arnock,
Dxfor", Dxfor" Hniversity %ress, 14I1+ 3o" to ,o Things "ith ;or+s, e".
?.D.Hrmson an" Carina S$isa, Dxfor", Dxfor" Hniversity %ress, 14IE.(
61
Dther commentaries are #ossi$le, nota$ly that of ?acques Berri"a
I<
. ,
have limite" myself to those that can $e "ran from structural analysis,
trying to sho that the unhear"!of sentence , am "ea" is in no ay the
un$elieva$le utterance, $ut much more ra"ically the im#ossi$le
enunciation.
Cetho"ological conclusions
The remarks hich ill serve as conclusion to these fragments of
analysis ill not necessarily $e theoretical+ theory is not a$stract,
s#eculative: the analysis itself, although it as carrie" out on a contingent
text, as alrea"y theoretical, in the sense that it o$serve" 0that as its aim1
a language in the #rocess of formation. That is to say ! or to recall ! that
e have not carrie" out an ex#lanation of the text: e have sim#ly trie" to
gras# the narrative as it as in the #rocess of self!construction 0hich
im#lies at once structure an" movement, system an" infinity1. Dur
structuration "oes not go $eyon" that s#ontaneously accom#lishe" $y
rea"ing. ,n conclu"ing, then, it is not a question of "elivering the
structure of %oes story, an" even less that of all narratives, $ut sim#ly of
returning more freely, an" ith less attachment to the #rogressive
unfol"ing of the text, to the #rinci#al co"es hich e have locate".
The or" co"e itself shoul" not $e taken here in the rigorous, scientific
sense of the term. The co"es are sim#ly associative fiel"s, a su#ra!textual
organi:ation of notations hich im#ose a certain i"ea of structure+ the
instance of the co"e is, for us, essentially cultural: the co"es are certain
ty#es of "L)Z!lu 'alrea"y rea"(, of "L)Z!fait 'alrea"y "one(: the co"e is
the for of this "L)Z, constitutive of all the riting in the orl".
Although all the co"es are in fact cultural, there is yet one, among those
I<
?acques Berri"a, La 5oi# "t le ph8no(ene, %aris, %.H.>., 14I9, ##. I5!1,
'S#eech an" %henomena, trans. Bavi" F. Allison, Nvanston, /orthestern
Hniversity %ress, 1498, ##. 6<!6.(

e have met ith, hich e shall #rivilege $y calling it the $ltral
$o+e: it is the co"e of knole"ge, or rather of human knole"ges, of
#u$lic o#inions, of culture as it is transmitte" $y the $ook, $y e"ucation,
an" in a more general an" "iffuse form, $y the hole of sociality. &e met
several of these cultural co"es 0or general su$!co"es of the general
cultural co"e1: the scientific co"e, hich 0in our story1 is su##orte" at
once $y the #rinci#les of ex#erimentation an" $y the #rinci#les of
me"ical "eontology+ the rhetorical co"e, hich gathers u# all the social
rules of hat is sai": co"e" forms of narrative, co"e" forms of "iscourse
0the announcement, the rLsumL, etc.1+ metalinguistic enunciation
0"iscourse talking a$out itself1 forms #art of this co"e+ the chronological
co"e: "ating, hich seems natural an" o$)ective to us to"ay, is in fact a
highly cultural #ractice ! hich is to $e ex#ecte" since it im#lies a
certain i"eology of time 0historical time is not the same as mythical
time1+ the set of chronological reference!#oints thus constitute a strong
cultural co"e 0a historical ay of cutting u# time for #ur#oses of
"ramatisation, of scientific a##earance, of reality!effect1+ the socio!
historical co"e allos the mo$ilisation in the enunciation, of all the
in$re" knole"ge that e have a$out our time, our society, our country
0the fact of saying C. Val"emar an" not Val"emar, it ill $e
remem$ere", fin"s its #lace here1. &e must not $e orrie" $y the fact
that e can constitute extremely $anal notations into co"e: it is on the
contrary their $anality, their a##arent insignificance that #re"is#oses
them to co"ification, given our "efinition of co"e: a cor#us of rules that
are so orn e take them to $e marks of nature+ $ut if the narrative
"e#arte" from them, it oul" very ra#i"ly $ecome unrea"a$le.
The co"e of communication coul" also $e calle" the co"e of "estination.
*ommunication shoul" $e un"erstoo" in a restricte" sense+ it "oes not
cover the hole of the signification hich is in a text an" still less its
signifiance + it sim#ly "esignates every relationshi# in the text hich is
state" as an a""ress 0this is the case of the #hatic co"e, charge" ith the
accentuation of the relationshi# $eteen narrator an" rea"er1, or as an
exchange 0the narrative is exchange" for truth, for life1. ,n short,
communication shoul" here $e un"erstoo" in an economic sense
6E
0communication, circulation of goo"s1.
The sym$olic fiel" 0here fiel" is less inflexi$le than co"e1 is, to $e
sure, enormous+ the more so in that here e are talking the or" sym$ol
in the most general #ossi$le sense, ithout $eing $othere" $y any of its
usual connotations+ the sense to hich e are referring is close to that of
#sychoanalysis: the sym$ol is $roa"ly that feature of language hich
"is#laces the $o"y an" allos a glim#se of a scene other than that of the
enunciation, such as e think e rea" it+ the sym$olic frameork in %oes
story is evi"ently the transgression of the ta$oo of "eath, the "isor"er of
classification, that Fau"elaire has translate" 0very ell1 $y the
em#iTtement 0encroachment1 of life on "eath 0an" not, $anally, of "eath
on life1+ the su$tlety of the story comes in #art from the fact that the
enunciation seems to come from an asym$olic narrator, ho has taken on
the role of the o$)ective scientist, attache" to the fact alone, a stranger to
the sym$ol 0hich "oes not fail to come $ack in force in the story1.
&hat e have calle" the co"e of actions su##orts the anec"otal
frameork of the narrative+ the actions, or the enunciations hich "enote
them, are organi:e" in sequences+ the sequence has an a##roximate
i"entity 0its contour cannot $e "etermine" rigorously, nor
unchallangea$ly1+ it is )ustifie" in to ays: first $ecause one is le"
s#ontaneously to give it a generic name 0for exam#le a certain num$er of
notations, ill health, "eterioration, agony, the mortification of the $o"y, its
liquefaction, grou# naturally un"er a stereoty#e" i"ea, that of me"ical
"eath1+ an" secon", $ecause the terms of the actional sequence are
interlinke" 0from one to the next, since they follo one another throughout
the narrative1 $y an a##arent logic+ e mean $y that that the logic hich
institutes the actional sequence is very im#ure from a scientific #oint of
vie+ it is only an a##arent logic hich comes not from the las of formal
reasoning, $ut from our ha$its of reasoning an" o$serving: it is an en"oxal,
cultural logic 0it seems logical to us an" hat is more this logic $ecomes
confuse" ith chronology: hat comes after seems to us to $e cause" $y
. Although in narrative they are never #ure, tem#orality an" causality
seem to us to foun" a sort of naturality, intelligi$ility, rea"a$ility for the
anec"ote: for exam#le, they allo us to resume it 0hat the ancients calle"
the argument, a or" hich is at once logical an" narrative1.
Dne last co"e has traverse" our story from its $eginning : that of the
enigma. &e have not ha" the chance to see it at ork, $ecause e have
only analyse" a very small #art of %oes story. The co"e of the enigma
gathers those terms through the stringing!together of hich 0like a
narrative sentence1 an enigma is #ose", an" hich, after some "elays,
make u# the #iquancy of the narrative, the solution unveile". The terms
of the enigmatic 0or hermeneutic1 co"e are ell "ifferentiate": for
exam#le, e have to "istinguish the #ositing of the enigma 0every
notation hose meaning is there is an enigma1 from the formulation of
the enigma 0the question is ex#ose" in its contingency1+ in our story, the
enigma is #ose" in the '>rench( title itself 0the truth is announce", $ut
e "ont yet kno a$out hat question1, formulate" from the start 0the
scientific account of the #ro$lem linke" to the #lanne" ex#eriment1, an"
even, from the very start, "elaye": o$viously it is in the interests of every
narrative to "elay the solution of the enigma it #oses, since that solution
ill toll its "eath!knell as a narrative: the case, un"er the cover of
scientific #recautions. As for the solution of the enigma, it is not here of a
mathematical or"er+ it is in sum the hole narrative hich re#lies to the
question #ose" at the $eginning, the question of the truth 0this truth can
hoever $e con"ense" into to #oints: the #roferring of , am "ea", an"
the su""en liquefation of the "ea" man hen he aakes from hy#nosis1+
the truth here is not the o$)ect of a revelation, $ut of a revulsion.
These are the co"es hich traverse the fragments e have analyse". &e
"eli$erately "ont structure them further, nor "o e try to "istri$ute the
terms ithin each co"e accor"ing to a logical or semiological schema+
this is $ecause for us the co"es are only "e#artures of "L)Z!lu
$eginnings of intertextuality: the fraye" nature of the co"es "oes not
contra"ict structure 0as, it is thought, life, imagination, intuition, "isor"er,
contra"ict system an" rationality1, $ut, on the contrary 0this is the
fun"amental affirmation of textual analysis1 is an integral #art of
structuration. ,t is this fraying of the text hich "istinguishes structure
! the o$)ect of structural analysis, strictly s#eaking ! from structuration
! the o$)ect of the textual analysis e have attem#te" to #ractise here.
68
The textile meta#hor e have )ust use" is not fortuitous. Textual analysis
in"ee" requires us to re#resent the text as a tissue 0this is moreover the
etymological sense1, as a skein of "ifferent voices an" multi#le co"es
hich are at once interoven an" unfinishe". A narrative is not a ta$ular
s#ace, a flat structure, it is a volume, a stereo#hony 0Nisenstein #lace"
great insistence on the counter#oint of his "irections, thus initiating an
i"entity of film an" text1: there is a fiel" of listening for ritten narrative+
the mo"e of #resence of meaning 0exce#t #erha#s for actional sequences1
is not "evelo#ment, $ut ex#losion 'Lclat(: cal for contact,
communication, the #osition of contracts, exchange, flashes 'Lclats( of
references, glimmerings of knole"ge, heavier, more #enetrating $los,
coming from the other scene, that of the sym$olic, a "iscontinuity of
actions hich are attache" to the same sequence $ut in a loose, ceaselessly
interru#te" ay.
All this volume is #ulle" forar" 0toar"s the en" of the narrative1,
thus #rovoking the im#atience of rea"ing, un"er the effect of to structural
"is#ositions: 0a1 "istortion: the terms of a sequence or a co"e are se#arate",
threa"e" ith heterogeneous elements: a sequence seems to have $een
a$an"one" 0for exam#le, the "egra"ation of Val"emars health1, $ut it is
taken u# again further on, sometimes much later+ an ex#ectation is create"+
e can no even "efine the sequence: it is the floating micro!structure
hich constructs not a logical o$)ect, $ut an ex#ectation an" its re#ulsion+
0$1 irreversi$ility: "es#ite the floating character of structuration , in the
classical, rea"a$le narrative 0such as %oes story1, there are to co"es
hich maintain a "irectional or"er+ the actional co"e 0$ase" on a logico!
tem#oral or"er1 an" the co"e of the enigma 0the question is ca##e" $y its
solution1+ an" in this ay an irreversi$ility of narrative is create". ,t is
clearly on this #oint that mo"ern su$version ill o#erate: the avant!gar"e
0to kee# a convenient or"1 attem#ts to make the text thoroughly
reversi$le, to ex#el the logico!tem#oral resi"ue, to attack em#iricism 0the
logic of $ehaviour, the actional co"e1 an" truth 0the co"e of the enigma1.
&e must not, hoever, exaggerate the "istance se#arating the mo"ern
text from the classical narrative. &e have seen, in %oes story, that one
sentence very often refers to to co"es simultaneously, ithout ones
$eing a$le to choose hich is the true one 0for exam#le, the scientific
co"e an" the sym$olic co"e1: hat is s#ecific to the text, once it attains
the quality of a text, is to constrain us to the un"eci"a$ility of the co"es.
,n the name of hat coul" e "eci"e@ ,n the authors name@ Fut the
narrative gives us only an enunciator, a #erformer caught u# in his on
#ro"uction. ,n the name of such an" such criticism@ All are
challengea$le, carrie" off $y history 0hich is not to say that they are
useless: each one #artici#ates, $ut only as one voice, in the texts
volume1. Hn"eci"a$ility is not a eakness, $ut a structural con"ition of
narration: there is not unequivocal "etermination of the enunciation: in an
utterance, several co"es an" several voices are there, ithout #riority.
&riting is #recisely this loss of origin, this loss of motives to the #rofit
of a volume of in"eterminations or over!"eterminations: this volume is,
#recisely, signifiance. &riting 'Lcriture( comes along very #recisely at
the #oint here s#eech sto#s, that is from the moment one can no longer
locate ho is s#eaking an" one sim#ly notes that s#eaking has starte".
1.Q ,1<ONSTR?<TION
1.<.1 ?acques Berri"a: from Structure, Sign, an" %lay in the Biscourse of the -uman
Sciences
&$
I6
%u$lishe" in: -a:ar" A"ams, =eroy Searle 0e"s1, <riti$al Theory sin$e
16EC 0Hniversity %ress of >lori"a, Tallahassee, 147I1, ##. 78!48.
6<
&e nee" to inter#ret inter#retations more than e inter#ret things.
0Contaigne1
%erha#s something has occurre" in the history of the conce#t of structure
that coul" $e calle" an event, if this loa"e" or" "i" not entail a meaning
hich it is #recisely the function of structural ! or structuralist ! thought
to re"uce or to sus#ect. =et us s#eak of an event, nevertheless, an" let us
use quotations marks to serve as a #recaution. &hat oul" this event $e
then@ ,ts exterior form oul" $e that of a rptre an" a re"ou$ling.
,t oul" $e easy enough to sho that the conce#t of structure an" even
the or" structure are ol" as the episte(e ! that is to say, as ol" as
&estern science an" &estern #hiloso#hy ! an" that their roots thrust "ee#
into the soil of or"inary language, into hose "ee#est recesses the
episte(e #lunges in or"er to gather them u# an" to make them #art of itself
in a meta#horical "is#lacement. /evertheless, u# to the event hich , ish
to mark out an" "efine, structure ! or rather the structurality of structure !
although it has $een at ork, has alays $een neutrali:e" or re"uce", an"
this $y a #rocess of giving it a center or of referring it to a #oint of
#resence, a fixe" origin. The function of this center as not only to orient,
$alance, an" organi:e the structure ! one cannot in fact conceive of an
unorgani:e" structure ! $ut a$ove all to make sure that the organi:ing
#rinci#le of the structure oul" limit hat e might call the play of the
structure. Fy orienting an" organi:ing the coherence of the system, the
center of a structure #ermits the #lay of its elements insi"e the total form.
An" even to"ay the notion of a structure lacking any center re#resents the
unthinka$le itself.
/evertheless, the center also closes off the #lay hich it o#ens u# an"
makes #ossi$le. As center, it is the #oint at hich the su$stitution of
contents, elements, or terms is no longer #ossi$le. At the center, the
#ermutation of the transformation of elements 0hich may of course $e
structures enclose" ithin a structure1 is for$i""en. As least this
#ermutation has alays remaine" inter+i$te+ 0an" , am using this or"
"eli$erately1. Thus it has alays $een thought that the center, hich is $y
"efinition unique, constitute" that very thing ithin a structure hich
hile governing the structure, esca#es structurality. This is hy classical
thought concerning structure coul" say that the center is, #ara"oxically,
"ithin the structure an" otsi+e it. The center is at the center of the
totality, an" yet, since the center "oes not $elong to the totality 0is not
#art of the totality1, the totality has its center elsehere. The center is not
the center. The conce#t of centre" structure ! although it re#resents
coherence itself, the con"ition of the episte(e as #hiloso#hy or science !
is contra"ictorily coherent. An" as alays coherence in contra"iction
ex#resses the force of a "esire. The conce#t of centre" structure is in fact
the conce#t of the #lay $ase" on a fun"amental groun", a #lay constitute"
on the $asis of a fun"amental immo$ility an" a reassuring certitu"e,
hich itself is $eyon" the reach of #lay. An" on the $asis of this certitu"e
anxiety can $e mastere", for anxiety is invaria$ly the result of a certain
mo"e of $eing im#licate" in the game, of $eing caught $y the game, of
$eing as it ere at stake in the game from the outset. An" again on the
$asis of hat e call the center 0an" hich, $ecause it can $e either
insi"e or outsi"e, can also in"ifferently $e calle", the origin or en", ar$he
or telos1, re#etitions, su$stitutions, transformations an" #ermutations are
alays taken from a history of meaning 'sens( ! that is, in a or", a
history ! hose origin may alays $e reaakene" or hose en" may
alays $e antici#ate" in the form of #resence. This is hy one #erha#s
coul" say that the movement of any archaelogy, like that of any
eschatology, is an accom#lice of this re"uction of the structurality of
structure an" alays attem#ts to conceive of structure on the $asis of a
full #resence hich is $eyon" #lay.
,f this is so, the entire history of the conce#t of structure, $efore the
ru#ture of hich e are s#eaking, must $e thought of as a series of
su$stitutions of center for center, as a linke" chain of "eterminations of
the center. Successively, an" in a regulate" fashion, the center receives
"ifferent forms or names. The history of meta#hysics, like the history of
the &est, is the history of these meta#hors an" metonymies. ,ts matrix !
if you ill #ar"on me for "emonstrating so little an" for $eing so
elli#tical in or"er to come more quickly to my #rinci#al theme ! is the
"etermination of Feing as presen$e in all senses of this or". ,t coul" $e
66
shon that all the names relate" to fun"amentals, to #rinci#les, or to the
center have alays "esignate" an invaria$le #resence ! ei+os- ar$he- telos-
energeia- osia 0essence, existence, su$stance, su$)ect1 aletheia,
transcen"entality, consciousness, Ko", man an" so forth.
The event , call a ru#ture, the "isru#tion , allu"e" to at the $eginning of
this #a#er, #resuma$ly oul" have come a$out hen the structurality of
structure ha" to $egin to $e thought, that is to say, re#eate", an" this is
hy , sai" that this "isru#tion as re#etition in every sense of the or".
-enceforth, it $ecame necessary to think $oth the la hich someho
governe" the "esire for a center in the constitution of structure, an" the
#rocess of signification hich or"ers the "is#lacements an" su$stitutions
for this la of central #resence ! $ut a central #resence hich has never
$een itself, has alrea"y $een exile" from itself into its on su$stitute. The
su$stitute "oes not su$stitute itself for anything hich has someho
existe" $efore it. -enceforth, it as necessary to $egin thinking that there
as no center, that the center coul" not $e thought in the form of a #resent!
$eing, that the center ha" no natural site, that it as not a fixe" locus $ut a
function, a sort of nonlocus in hich an infinite num$er of sign!
su$stitutions came into #lay. This as the moment hen language inva"e"
the universal #ro$lematic, the moment hen, in the a$sence of a center or
origin, everything $ecame "iscourse ! #rovi"e" e can agree on this or"
! that is to say, a system in hich the central signifie", the original or
transcen"ental signifie", is never a$solutely #resent outsi"e a system of
"ifferences. The a$sence of the transcen"ental signifie" exten"s the
"omain an" the #lay of signification infinitely.
&here an" ho "oes this "ecentering, this thinking the structurality of
structure, occur@ ,t oul" $e somehat naive to refer to an event, a
"octrine, or an author in or"er to "esignate this occurrence. ,t is no "ou$t
#art of the totality of an era, our on, $ut still it has alrea"y $egun to
#roclaim itself an" $egun to "ork. /evertheless, if e ishe" to choose
several names, as in"ications only, an" to recall those authors in hose
"iscourse this occurrence has ke#t most closely to its most ra"ical
formulation, e "ou$tless oul" have to cite the /iet:schean critique of
meta#hysics, the critique of the conce#ts of Feing an" truth, for hich
ere su$stitute" the conce#ts of #lay, inter#retation an" sign 0sign
ithout #resent truth1+ the >reu"ian critique of self!#resence, that is, the
critique of consciousness, of the su$)ect, of self!i"entity or of self!
#roximity or of self!#ossession+ an", more ra"ically, the -ei"eggerean
"estruction of meta#hysics, of onto!theology, of the "etermination of
Feing as #resence. '...(
,n the ork of =vy!Strauss it must $e recogni:e" that the res#ect for
structurality, for the internal originality of the structure, com#els a
neutrali:ation of time an" history. >or exam#le, the a##earance of a ne
structure, of an original system, alays comes a$out ! an" this is the very
con"ition of its structural s#ecificity ! $y a ru#ture ith its #ast, its
origin, an" its cause. Therefore one can "escri$e hat is #eculiar to the
structural organi:ation only $y not taking into account, in the very
moment of this "escri#tion, its #ast con"itions: $y omitting to #osit the
#ro$lem of the translation from one structure to another, $y #utting
history ithin $rackets. ,n this structuralist moment, the conce#ts of
chance an" "iscontinuity are in"is#ensa$le. An" =vy!Strauss "oes in
fact often a##eal to them, for exam#le, as concerns that structure of
structures, language, of hich he says in the ,ntro"uction to the &ork of
Carcel Causs that it coul" only have $een $orn in one fell soo#. '...(
This stan"#oint "oes not #revent =Lvi!Strauss from recogni:ing the
sloness, the #rocess of maturing, the continuous toil of factual
transformations, history 0for exam#le, Ra$e an+ 3istory1. Fut, in
accor"ance ith a gesture hich as also 2ousseaus an" -usserls, he
must set asi"e all the facts at the moment hen he ishes to reca#ture
the s#ecificity of a structure. =ike 2ousseau, he must alays cconceive of
the origin of a ne structure on the mo"el of catastro#he ! an overturning
of nature in nature, a natural interru#tion of the natural sequence, a
setting asi"e of nature.
Fesi"es the tension $eteen #lay an" history, there is also the tension
$eteen #lay an" #resence. %lay is the "isru#tion of #resence. The
#resence of an element is alays a signifying an" su$stitutive reference
inscri$e" in a system of "ifferences an" the movement of a chain. %lay is
alays #lay of a$sence an" #resence, $ut if it is to $e thought ra"ically,
6I
#lay must $e conceive" of $efore the alternative of #resence an" a$sence.
Feing must $e conceive" of as #resence or a$sence on the $asis of the
#ossi$ility of #lay an" not the other ay roun". ,f =vy!Strauss, $etter
than any other, has $rought to light the #lay of re#etition, an" the
re#etition of #lay, one no less #erceives in his ork a sort of ethic of
#resence, an ethic of nostalgia for origins, an ethic of archaic an" natural
innocence, of a #urity of #resence an" of self!#resence in s#eech ! an
ethic, nostalgia, an" even remorse, hich he often #resents as the
motivation of the ethnological #ro)ect hen he moves toar"s the archaic
societies hich are exem#lary societies in his eyes. These texts are ell
knon.
Turne" toar"s the lost or im#ossi$le #resence of the a$sent origin, this
structuralist thematic of $roken imme"iacy is therefore the sa""ene",
negative, nostalgic, guilty, 2ousseauistic si"e of the thinking of #lay
hose other si"e oul" $e the /iet:schean affir(ation, that is the )oyous
affirmation of the #lay of the orl" of signs ithout fault, ithout truth,
an" ithout origin, hich is offere" to an active inter#retation. This
affir(ation then +eter(ines the non$enter other"ise than as loss of the
$enter. An" it #lays ithout security. >or there is a sre #lay: that hich is
limite" to the s%stittion of given an" e#isting, present, #ieces. ,n
a$solute chance, affirmation also surren"ers itself to geneti$
in"etermination, to the se(inal a"venture of the trace.
There are thus to inter#retations of inter#retation, of structure, of sign,
of #lay. The one seeks to "eci#her, "reams of "eci#hering a truth or an
origin hich esca#es #lay an" the or"er of the sign, an" hich lives the
necessity of inter#retation as an exile. The other, hich is no longer turne"
toar"s the origin, affirms #lay an" tries to #ass $eyon" man an"
humanism, the name of man $eing the name of that $eing ho, throughout
the history of meta#hysics or of ontotheology ! in other or"s, throughout
his entire history ! has "reame" of full #resence, the reassuring
foun"ation, the origin an" the en" of #lay. The secon" inter#retation of
inter#retation, to hich /iet:sche #ointe" the ay, "oes not seek in
ethnogra#hy, as =Lvi!Strauss "oes, the ins#iration of a ne humanism
0again citing the ,ntro"uction to the &ork of Carcel Causs1.
There are more than enough in"ications to"ay to suggest e might
#erceive that these to inter#retations of inter#retation ! hich are
a$solutely irreconcila$le even if e live them simultaneously an"
reconcile them in an o$scure economy ! together share the fiel" hich
e call, in such a #ro$lematic fashion, the social sciences.
>or my #art, although these to inter#retations must acknole"ge an"
accentuate their "ifference an" "efine their irre"uci$ility, , "o not $elieve
that to"ay there is any question of $hoosing ! in the first #lace $ecause
here e are in a region 0let us say, #rovisionally, a region of historicity1
here the category of choice seems #articularly trivial+ an" in the secon",
$ecause e must first try to conceive of the common groun", an" the
+iffran$e of this irre"uci$le "ifference. -ere there is a kin" of question,
let us still call it historical, hose $on$eption- for(ation- gestation an"
la%or e are only catching a glim#se of to"ay. , em#loy these or"s, ,
a"mit, ith a glance toar"s the o#erations of chil"$earing ! $ut also
ith a glance toar"s those ho, in a society from hich , "o not
exclu"e myself, turn their eyes aay hen face" $y the as yet
unnamea$le hich is #roclaiming itself an" hich can "o so, as is
necessary henever a $irth is in the offing, only un"er the s#ecies of the
nons#ecies, in the formless, mute, infant, an" terrifying form of
monstrosity.

1.<.< %aul "e Can: from 4lin+ness an+ Insight: 1ssays in The Rhetori$ of <onte(porary
<riti$is(
66
1. >D2C A/B ,/TN/T ,/ T-N ACN2,*A/ /N& *2,T,*,SC
'...( A truly systematic stu"y of the main formalists critics in the Nnglish
language "uring the last thirty years oul" alays reveal a more or less
"eli$erate re)ection of the #rinci#le of intentionality. The result oul" $e
a har"ening of the text into a sheer surface that #revents the stylistic
analysis form #enetrating $eyon" the sensory a##earances to #erceive
II
%u$lishe" $y Hniversity of Cinnesota %ress, Cinnea#olis, 1478. Selections
from ##. EI!7+ 156!I+ 184!<1.
69
this struggle ith meaning of hich all criticism, inclu"ing the criticism
of form shoul" give an account of. >or surfaces also remain conceale"
hen they are $eing artificially se#arate" from the "e#th that su##orts
them. The #artial failure of American formalism, hich has not #ro"uce"
orks of ma)or magnitu"e, is "ue to its lack of aareness of the intentional
structure of the literary form.
Jet this criticism has merits that #revail "es#ite the eakness of its
theoretical foun"ations. The >rench critic, ?ean!%ierre 2ichar", allu"es to
these merits hen he rites "efensively in the intro"uction to his stu"y of
CallarmL that the re#roach 'of "estroying the formal structure of his
ork( ill es#ecially $e ma"e $y Nnglish an" American critics for hom,
as is ell knon, the o$)ective an" architectural reality of #articular orks
is of the utmost im#ortance. ,t is true that American textual inter#retation
an" close rea"ing have #erfecte" techniques that allo for consi"ering
refinement in catching the "etails an" nuances of literary ex#ression. They
stu"y texts as forms, as grou#ings from hich the constitutive #arts
cannot $e isolate" or se#arate". This gives a sense of context that is often
lacking in >rench or in Kerman inter#retations.
Fut are e not confronte" here ith a flagrant contra"iction@ Dn the one
han", e $lame American criticism for consi"ering literary texts as if they
ere natural o$)ects $ut, on the other han", e #raise it for #ossessing a
sense of formal unity that $elongs #recisely to a living an" natural
organism. ,s not this sense of the unity of forms $eing su##orte" $y the
large meta#hor of the analogy $eteen language an" a living organism, a
meta#hor that sha#es a great "eal of nineteenth!century #oetry an"
thought@ Dne coul" even fin" historical confirmation of this affiliation in
the line that links, es#ecially $y ay of ,. A. 2ichar"s an" &hitehea", the
structural formalism of the ne *ritics to the organic imagination so "ear
to *oleri"ge. The intro"uction of the #rinci#le of intentionality oul"
im#eril the organic analogy an" lea" to a loss of the sense of form+ hence
the un"erstan"a$le nee" of the /e *ritics to #rotect their greatest source
of strength. '...(
The am$ivalence rea##ears among mo"ern "isci#les of *oleri"ge, in a
curious "iscre#ancy $eteen their theoretical assum#tions an" their
#ractical results. As it refines its inter#retations more an" more,
American criticism "oes not "iscover a single meaning, $ut a #lurality of
significations that can $e ra"ically o##ose" to each other. ,nstea" of
revealing a continuity affiliate" ith the coherence of the natural orl", it
takes us into a "iscontinuous orl" of reflective irony an" am$iguity.
Almost in s#ite of itself, it #ushes the inter#retative #rocess so far that the
analogy $eteen the organic orl" an" the language of #oetry finally
ex#lo"es. This unitarian criticism finally $ecomes a criticism of
am$iguity, an ironic reflection on the a$sence of the unity it ha"
#ostulate".
Fut from here then "oes the contextual unity, hich the stu"y of texts
reconfirms over an" over again an" to hich American criticism oes its
effectiveness, stem@ ,s it not rather that this unity ! hich is in fact a
semi!circularity ! resi"es not in the #oetic text as such, $ut in the act of
inter#reting this text@ The circle e fin" here an" hich is calle" form
"oes not stem from an analogy $eteen the text an" natural things, $ut
constitutes the hermeneutic circle mentione" $y S#it:er of hich the
history has $een trace" $y Ka"amer in ;ahrheit n+ Metho+e an" hose
ontological significance is at the $asis of -ei"eggerGs treatise Sein n+
Peit.
&hat ha##ene" in American criticism coul" then $e ex#laine" as
follos: $ecause such #atient an" "elicate attention as #ai" to the
rea"ing of forms, the critics #ragmatically entere" into the hermeneutic
circle of inter#retation, mistaking it for the organic circularity of natural
#rocesses. This ha##ene" quite s#ontaneously, for S#it:erGs influence at
the time of the /e *riticism as confine" to a small area, an"
-ei"eggerGs influence as non!existent. '...(
E. T-N 2-NTD2,* D> F=,/B/NSS: ?A*AHNS BN22,BAGS
2NAB,/K D> 2DHSSNAH
'...( All these critics seem curiously "oome" to say something quite
"ifferent form hat they meant to say. Their critical stance ! =uk[css
#ro#heticism, %ouletGs $elief in the #oer of an original $ogito,
67
FlanchotGs claim of meta!CallarmLan im#ersonality ! is "efeate" $y their
on critical results. A #enetrating $ut "ifficult insight into the nature of
literary language ensues. ,t seems, hoever, that this insight coul" only $e
gaine" $ecause the critics ere in the gri# of this #eculiar $lin"ness: their
language coul" gro#e toar"s a certain "egree of insight only $ecause
their metho" remaine" o$livious to the #erce#tion of this insight. The
insight exists only for a rea"er in the #rivilege" #osition of $eing a$le to
o$serve the $lin"ness as a #henomenon in its on right ! the question of
his on $lin"ness $eing one hich he is $y "efinition incom#etent to ask
! an" so $eing a$le to "istinguish $eteen statement an" meaning. -e has
to un"o the ex#licit results of a vision that is a$le to move toar"s the
light only $ecause, $eing alrea"y $lin", it "oes not have to fear the #oer
of this light. Fut this vision is una$le to re#ort correctly hat it has
#erceive" in the course of its )ourney. To rite critically a$out critics thus
$ecomes a ay to reflect on the #ara"oxical effectiveness on a $lin"e"
vision that has to $e rectifie" $y means of insights that it unittingly
#rovi"es. '...(
There are to #ossi$le ex#lanations for Berri"aGs $lin"ness ith regar"
to 2ousseau: either he actually misrea"s 2ousseau, #ossi$ly $ecause he
su$stitutes 2ousseauGs inter#reters for the author himself ! may$e
henever Berri"a rites 2ousseau, e shoul" rea" Staro$inski or
2aymon" or %oulet ! or he "eli$erately misrea"s 2ousseau for the sake
of his on ex#osition an" rhetoric. ,n the first case, Berri"aGs $lin"ness
merely confirms 2ousseauGs foreknole"ge of the misinter#retation of his
ork. ,t oul" $e a classical case of critical $lin"ness, somehat "ifferent
in as#ect $ut not in essence from the #atterne" encountere" in critics such
as =uk[cs, %oulet or Flanchot. Their $lin"ness, it ill $e remem$ere",
consiste" in the affirmation of a metho"ology that coul" $e "econstructe"
in terms of their on fin"ings: %ouletGs self turns out to $e language,
FlanchotGs im#ersonality a meta#hor for self!rea"ing, etc.+ in all these
cases, the metho"ological "ogma is $eing #laye" off against literary
insight, an" this inter#lay $eteen metho"ology an" literature "evelo#s in
turn the highly literary rhetoric of hat coul" $e calle" systematic
criticism. Berri"aGs case is somehat "ifferent: his cha#ter on metho", on
literary inter#retation as "econstruction, is flaless in itself $ut ma"e to
a##ly to the rong o$)ect. There is no nee" to "econstruct 2ousseau+ the
esta$lishe" tra"ition of 2ousseau inter#retation, hoever, stan"s in "ire
nee" of "econstruction. Berri"a foun" himself in the most favora$le of all
critical #ositions: he as "ealing ith an author as clear!sighte" as
language lets him $e ho, for that very reason, is $eing systematically
misrea"+ the authorGs on orks, nely inter#rete", can then $e #laye"
off against the most talente" of his "elu"e" inter#reters or folloers.
/ee"less to say, this ne inter#retation ill, in its turn, $e caught in its
on form of $lin"ness, $ut not ithout having #ro"uce" its on $right
moment of literary insight. Berri"a "i" not choose to a"o#t this #attern:
instea" of having 2ousseau "econstruct his critics, e have Berri"a
"econstructing a #seu"o!2ousseau $y means of insights that coul" have
$een gaine" from the real 2ousseau. The #attern is too interesting not to
$e "eli$erate".
At any rate, the #attern accounts very ell for the slight thematic
"ifference $eteen Berri"aGs story an" 2ousseauGs story. &hereas
2ousseau tells the story of an inexora$le regression, Berri"a rectifies a
recurrent error of )u"gement. -is text, as he #uts it so ell, is the
unmaking of a construct. -oever negative it may soun", "econstruction
im#lies the #ossi$ly of re$uil"ing. Berri"aGs "ialectical energy, es#ecially
in the first half of his $ook, hich "oes not "eal "irectly ith 2ousseau,
clearly gains its momentum from the movement of "econstruction that
takes #lace in the secon" #art, using 2ousseau as a s#arring #artner.
2ousseau #lays for Berri"a somehat the same #art as &agner #lays for
/iet:sche in The 4irth of Trage+y, a text ,e la /ra((atologie resem$les
even more closely than it resem$les the 1ssai sr lBorigine +es langes.
'...(
The critical rea"ing of Berri"aGs critical rea"ing of 2ousseau shos
$lin"ness to $e the necessary correlative of the rhetorical nature of
literary language. &ithin the structure of the system: text!rea"er!critic 0in
hich the critic can $e "efine" as the secon" rea"er or rea"ing1 the
moment of $lin"ness can $e locate" "ifferently. ,f the literary text itself
has areas of $lin"ness, the system can $e $inary+ rea"er an" critic
64
coinci"e in their attem#t to make the unseen visi$le. Dur rea"ing of some
literary critics, in this volume, is a s#ecial, somehat more com#lex case
of this structure: the literary texts are themselves critical $ut $lin"e", an"
the critical rea"ing of the critics tries to "econstruct the $lin"ness. ,t
shoul" $e clear $y no that $lin"ness im#lies no literary value!
)u"gement: =uk[cs, Flanchot, %oulet, an" Berri"a can $e calle" literary
in the full sense of the term, $ecause of their $lin"ness, not in s#ite of it. ,n
the more com#licate" case of the non!$lin"e" author ! as e have claime"
2ousseau to $e ! the system has to $e tria"ic: the $lin"ness is transferre"
from the riter to his first rea"ers, the tra"itional "isci#les or
commentators. These $lin"e" first rea"ers ! they coul" $e re#lace" for the
sake of ex#osition, $y the fiction of a naive rea"er, though the tra"ition is
likely to #rovi"e am#le material ! then nee", in turn, a critical rea"er ho
reverses the tra"ition an" momentarily takes us closer to the original
insight. The existence of a #articularly rich a$errant tra"ition in the case of
the riters ho can legitimately $e calle" the most enlightene", is
therefore no acci"ent, $ut a constitutive #art of all literature, the $asis, in
fact, of literary history. An" since inter#retation is nothing $ut the
#ossi$ility of error, $y claiming that a certain "egree of $lin"ness is #art of
the s#ecificity of all literature e also reaffirm the a$solute "e#en"ence of
the inter#retation on the text an" of the text on the inter#retation. '...(
1.<.6 %aul "e Can: from Semiology an" 2hetoric 014941
TD ?HBKN from various #u$lications, the s#irit of the time is not
$loing in the "irection of formalist an" intrinsic criticism. '...(
&e s#eak as if, ith the #ro$lems of literary form resolve" once an"
forever, an" ith the techniques of structural analysis refine" to near !
#erfection, e coul" no move $eyon" formalism toar"s the questions that
really interest us an" rea#, at last, the fruits of the ascetic concentration on
techniques that #re#are" us for this "ecisive ste#. &ith the internal la an"
or"er of literature ell #olice", e can no confi"ently "evote ourselves to the
foreign affairs, the external #olitics of literature. /ot only "o e feel a$le to "o
so, $ut e oe it to ourselves to take this ste#: our moral conscience oul"
not allo us to "o otherise. Fehin" the assurance that vali" inter#retation is
#ossi$le, $ehin" the recent interest in riting an" rea"ing as #otentially
effective #u$lic s#eech acts, stan"s a highly res#ecta$le moral im#erative that
strives to reconcile the internal, formal, #rivate structures of literary language
ith their external, referential, an" #u$lic effects.'...(
The attraction of reconciliation is the effective $ree"ing ! groun" of
false mo"els an" meta#hors+ it accounts for the meta#horical mo"el of
literature as a kin" of $ox that se#arates an insi"e from an outsi"e, an"
the rea"er an" critic as the #erson ho o#ens the li" in or"er to release in
the o#en hat as secrete" $ut inaccessi$le insi"e. ,t matters little
hether e call the insi"e of the $ox the content or the form, the outsi"e
the meaning or the a##earance. The recurrent "e$ate o##osing intrinsic to
extrinsic criticism stan"s un"er the aegis of an insi"eU outsi"e meta#hor
that is never $eing seriously questione".'...(
Dne of the most striking characteristics of literary semiology as it is
#ractice" to"ay, in >rance an" elsehere, is the use of grammatical
0es#ecially syntactical1 structures con)ointly ith rhetorical structures,
ithout a##arent aareness of a #ossi$le "iscre#ancy $eteen them. ,n
their literary analyses, Farthes, Kenette, To"orov, Kreimas, an" their
"isci#lines all sim#lify an" regress from ?ako$son in letting grammar an"
rhetoric function in #erfect continuity, an" in #assing from grammatical
to rhetorical structures ithout "ifficulty or interru#tion. ,n"ee", as the
stu"y of grammatical structures is refine" in contem#orary theories of
generative, transformational, an" "istri$utive grammar, the stu"y of
tro#es an" of figures 0hich is no the term rhetori$ is use" here, an"
not in the "erive" sense of comment or of eloquence or #ersuasion1
$ecomes a mere extension of grammatical mo"els, a #articular su$set of
syntactical relations.'...(
&ithout engaging the su$stance of the question, it can $e #ointe" out,
ithout having to go $eyon" recent an" American exam#les, an" ithout
calling u#on the strength of an age ! ol" tra"ition, that the continuity here
assume" $eteen grammar an" rhetoric is not $orne out $y theoretical
an" #hiloso#hical s#eculation. 3enneth Furke mentions +efle$tion 0hich
I5
he com#ares structurally to >reu"ian "is#lacement1, "efine" as any slight
$ias or even uninten"e" error, as the rhetorical $asis of language, an"
"eflection is then conceive" as a "ialectical su$version of the consistent
link $eteen sign an" meaning that o#erates ithin grammatical #atterns+
hence Furkes ell ! knon insistence on the "istinction $eteen grammar
an" rhetoric. *harles San"er %eirce, ho, ith /iet:sche an" Saussure,
lai" the #hiloso#hical foun"ation for mo"ern semiology, stresse" the
"istinction $eteen grammar an" rhetoric in his cele$rate" an" so
suggestively unfathoma$le "efinition of the sign. -e insists, as is ell
knon, on the necessary #resence of a thir" element, calle" the
inter#retant, ithin any relationshi# that the sign entertains ith its o$)ect.
The sign is to $e inter#rete" , e are to un"erstan" the i"ea it is to convey,
an" this is so $ecause the sign is not the thing $ut a meaning "erive" from
the thing $y a #rocess here calle" re#resentation that is not sim#ly
generative, i.e., "e#en"ent on a univocal origin. The inter#retation of the
sign is not, for %eirce, a meaning $ut another sign+ it is a rea"ing, not a
"eco"age, an" this rea"ing has, in its turn, to $e inter#rete" into another
sign, an" so on a+ infinit(. '...(
These remarks shoul" in"icate at least the existence an" the "ifficulty of
the question, a "ifficulty hich #uts its concise theoretical ex#osition
$eyon" my #oers. , must retreat therefore into a #ragmatic "iscourse an"
try to illustrate the tension $eteen grammar an" rhetoric in a fe s#ecific
textual exam#les. =et me $egin $y consi"ering hat is #erha#s the most
commonly knon instance of an a##arent sym$iosis $eteen a
grammatical an" a rhetorical structure, the so ! calle" rhetorical question,
in hich the figure is conveye" "irectly $y means of a syntactical "evice. ,
take the first exam#le from the su$ ! literature of the mass me"ia: aske" $y
his ife hether he ants to have his $oling shoes lace" over or lace"
un"er, Archie Funker ansers ith a question: &hats the "ifference@.
Feing a rea"er of su$lime sim#licity, his ife re#lies $y #atiently
ex#laining the "ifference $eteen lacing over an" lacing un"er, hatever
this may $e, $ut #rovokes only ire. &hats the "ifference "i" not ask for
"ifference $ut means instea" , "ont give a "amn hat the "ifference is.
The same grammatical #attern engen"ers to meanings that are mutually
exclusive: the literal meaning asks for the conce#t 0"ifference1 hose
existence is "enie" $y the figurative meaning. As long as e are talking
a$out $oling shoes, the consequences are relatively trivial+ Archie
Funker, ho is a great $eliever in the authority of origins 0as long, of
course, as they are the right origin1 mu""les along in a orl" here
literal an" figurative meanings get in each others ay, though not
ithout "iscomforts. Fut su##ose that it is a +e = $unker rather than a
Funker, an" a "e ! $unker of the arche 0or origin1, an archie Be$unker
such as /iet:sche or ?acques Berri"a for instance, ho asks the question
&hat is the Bifference ! an" e cannot even tell from his grammar
hether he really ants to kno hat "ifference is or is )ust telling us
that e shoul"t even try to fin" out. *onfronte" ith the question of the
"ifference $eteen grammar an" rhetoric, grammar allos us to ask the
question, $ut the sentence $y means of hich e ask it may "eny the
very #ossi$ility of asking. >or hat is the use of asking, , ask, hen e
cannot even authoritatively "eci"e hether a question asks or "oesnt
ask@
The #oint is as follos. A #erfectly clear syntactical #ara"igm 0the
question1 engen"ers a sentence that has at least to meanings, of hich
the one asserts an" the other "enies its on illocutionary mo"e. ,t is not
so that there are sim#ly to meanings, one literal an" the other figural,
an" that e have to "eci"e hich one of these meanings is the right one
in this #articular situation. '...(
=et me #ursue the matter of the rhetorical question through one more
exam#le. Jeatss #oem Among School *hil"ren en"s ith the famous
line: -o can e kno the "ancer from the "ance@ Although there are
some revealing inconsistencies ithin the commentaries, the line is
usually inter#rete" as stating, ith the increase" em#hasis of a rhetorical
"evice, the #otential unity $eteen form an" ex#erience, $eteen creator
an" creation. ,t coul" $e sai" that it "enies the "iscre#ancy $eteen the
sign an" the referent from hich e starte" out. Cany elements in the
imagery an" the "ramatic "evelo#ment of the #oem strengthen this
tra"itional rea"ing+ ithout having to look any further than the
imme"iately #rece"ing lines, one fin"s #oerful an" consecrate" images
I1
of the continuity from #art to hole that makes synec"oche into the most
se"uctive of meta#hors: the organic $eauty of the tree, state" in the #arallel
syntax of a similar rhetorical question, or the convergence, in the "ance, of
erotic "esire ith musical form:
D chestnut ! tree, great ! roote" $lossomer,
Are you the leaf, the $lossom or the $ole@
D $o"y saye" to music, D $rightening glance,
-o can e kno the "ancer from the "ance@
A more exten"e" rea"ing, alays assuming that the final line is to $e
rea" as a rhetorical question, reveals that the thematic an" rhetorical
grammar of the #oem yiel"s a consistent rea"ing that exten"s from the first
line to the last an" that can account for all "etails in the text. ,t is equally
#ossi$le, hoever, to rea" the last line literally rather than figuratively, as
asking ith some urgency the question e aske" earlier ithin the context
of contem#orary criticism: not that sign an" referent are so exquisitely
fitte" to each other that all "ifference $eteen them is at times $lotte" out
$ut, rather, since the to essentially "ifferent elements, sign an" meaning,
are so intricately intertine" in the imagine" #resence that the #oem
a""resses, ho can e #ossi$ly make the "istinctions that oul" shelter us
from the error of i"entifying hat cannot $e i"entifie"@ '...(
&e return to the insi"eU outsi"e mo"el from hich e starte" out an"
hich the #oem #uts into question $y means of a syntactical "evice 0the
question1 ma"e to o#erate on a grammatical as ell as on a rhetorical
level. The cou#le grammarU rhetoric, certainly not a $inary o##osition
since they n no ay exclu"e each other, "isru#ts an" confuses the neat
antithesis of the insi"eU outsi"e #attern. &e can transfer this scheme to the
act of rea"ing an" inter#retation. '...(
Boes the meta#hor of rea"ing really unite outer meaning ith inner
un"erstan"ing, action ith reflection, into one single totality@ The
assertion is #oerfully an" suggestively ma"e in a #assage from %roust
that "escri$es the ex#erience of rea"ing as such a union.'...(
The figure here "ramati:e" is that of meta#hor, an insi"eU outsi"e
corres#on"ence as re#resente" $y the act of rea"ing. The rea"ing scene is
the culmination of a series of actions taking #lace in enclose" s#aces an"
lea"ing u# to the "ark coolness of Carcels room.
, ha" stretche" out on my $e", ith a $ook, in my room hich
sheltere", trem$lingly, its trans#arent an" fragile coolness from the
afternoon sun $ehin" the almost close" $lin"s through hich a glimmer
of "aylight ha" nevertheless manage" to #ush its yello ings,
remaining motionless $eteen the oo" an" the glass, in a corner, #oise"
like a $utterfly. ,t as har"ly light enough to rea", an" the sensation of
the lights s#len"or as given me only $y the noise of *amus'...(
hammering "usty crates+ resoun"ing in the sonorous atmos#here that is
#eculiar to hot eather, they seeme" to s#ark off scarlet stars+ an" also $y
the flies executing their little concert, the cham$er music of summer:
evocative not in the manner of a human tune that, hear" #erchance "uring
the summer, afterar"s remin"s you of it $ut connecte" to summer $y a
more necessary link: $orn from $eautiful "ays, resurrecting only hen
they return, containing some of their essence, it "oes not only aaken
their image in our memory+ it guarantees their return, their actual,
#ersistent, unme"iate" #resence.
The "ark coolness of my room relate" to the full sunlight of the street as
the sha"o relates to the ray of light, that is to say it as )ust as luminous
an" it gave my imagination the total s#ectacle of the summer, hereas
my senses, if , ha" $een on a alk, coul" only have en)oye" it $y
fragments+ it matche" my re#ose hich 0thanks to the a"ventures tol" $y
my $ook an" stirring my tranquility1 su##orte", like the quiet of a
motionless han" in the mi""le of a running $rook the shock an" the
motion of a torrent of activity. 'S"ann*s ;ay- %aris: %leia"e, 146<, %.
78.(
>or our #resent #ur#ose, the most striking as#ect of this #assage is the
)uxta#osition of figural an" metafigural language.'...(
Jet, it takes little #ers#icacity to sho that the text "oes not #ractice
hat it #reaches. A rhetorical rea"ing of the #assage reveals that the
IE
figural #raxis an" the metafigural theory "o not converge an" that the
assertion of the mastery of meta#hor over metonymy oes its #ersuasive
#oer to the use of metonymic structures.'...(
This oul" $ecome clear from an inclusive rea"ing of %rousts novel or
oul" $ecome even more ex#licit in a language ! conscious #hiloso#her
such as /iet:sche ho, as a #hiloso#her, has to $e concerne" ith the
e#istemological consequences of the kin" of rhetorical se"uctions
exem#lifie" $y the %roust #assage. ,t can $e shon that the systematic
critique of the main categories of meta#hysics un"ertaken $y /iet:sche in
his late ork, the critique of the conce#ts of causality, or the su$)ect, of
i"entity, of referential an" reveale" truth, etc., occurs along the same
#attern of "econstruction that as o#erative in %roustGtext+ an" it can also
$e shon that this #attern exactly corres#on"s to /iet:sches "escri#tion,
in texts that #rece"e The ;ill to 0o"er $y more than fifteen years, of the
structure of the main rhetorical tro#es. The key to this critique or
meta#hysics, hich is itself a recurrent gesture throughout the history of
thought, is the rhetorical mo"el of the tro#e or, if one #refers to call it that,
literature. ,t turns out that in these innocent ! looking "i"actic exercise e
are in fact #laying for very si:ea$le stakes.'...(
There seems to $e a "ifference, then, $eteen hat , calle" the
rhetori:ation of grammar 0as in the rhetorical question1 an" the
grammati:ation of rhetoric, as in the rea"ings of the ty#e sketche" out in
the #assage from %roust. The former en"s u# in in"etermination, in a
sus#en"e" uncertainty that as una$le to choose $eteen to mo"es of
rea"ing, hereas the latter seems to reach a truth, al$eit $y the negative
roa" of ex#osing an error, a false #retense. After the rhetorical rea"ing of
the %roust #assage, e can no longer $elieve the assertion ma"e in this
#assage a$out the intrinsic, meta#hysical su#eriority of meta#hor over
metonymy. &e seem to en" u# in a moo" of negative assurance that is
highly #ro"uctive of critical "iscourse.'...(
&e are $ack at our unansere" question: "oes the grammati:ation of
rhetoric en" u# in negative certainty or "oes it, like the rhetori:ation of
grammar, remain sus#en"e" in the ignorance o its on truth or falsehoo"@
To conclu"ing remarks shoul" suffice to anser the question. >irst of
all, it is not true that %rousts text can sim#ly $e re"uce" to the mystifie"
assertion 0the su#eriority of meta#hor over metonymy1 that our rea"ing
"econstructs. The rea"ing is not our rea"ing, since it uses only the
linguistic elements #rovi"e" $y the text itself+ the "istinction $eteen
author an" rea"er is one of the false "istinctions that the rea"ing makes
evi"ent. The "econstruction is not something e have a""e" to the text
$ut it constitute" the text in the first #lace.'...(
%oetic riting is the most a"vance" an" refine" mo"e of
"econstruction+ it may "iffer from critical or "iscursive riting in the
economy of its articulation, $ut not in kin".'...(
The rea"ing reveale" a first #ara"ox: the #assage valori:es meta#hor
as $eing the right literary figure, $ut then #rocee"s to constitute itself $y
means of the e#istemologically incom#ati$le figure of metonymy. The
critical "iscourse reveals the #resence of this "elusion an" affirms it as
the irreversi$le mo"e of its truth. ,t cannot #ause there hoever. >or if e
then ask the o$vious an" sim#le next question, hether the rhetorical
mo"e of the text in question is that of meta#hor or metonymy, it is
im#ossi$le to give an anser. ,n"ivi"ual meta#hors, such as the
chiaroscuro effect or the $utterfly, are shon to $e su$or"inate figures in
a general clause hose syntax is metonymic+ from this #oint of vie, it
seems that the rhetoric is su#erse"e" $y a grammar that "econstructs it.
Fut this metonymic clause has as its su$)ect a voice hose relationshi# to
this clause is again meta#horical. The narrator ho tells us a$out the
im#ossi$ility of meta#hor is himself, or itself, a meta#hor, the meta#hor
of a grammatical syntagm hose meaning is the "enial of meta#hor
state", $y anti#hrasis, as its #riority. An" this su$)ect ! meta#hor is, in its
turn, o#en to the kin" of "econstruction to the secon" "egree, the
rhetorical "econstruction of #sycholinguistics, in hich the more
a"vance" investigations of literature are #resently engage", against
consi"era$le resistance.
&e en" u# therefore, in the case of rhetorical grammati:ation of
semiology, )ust as in the grammatical rhetori:ation of illocutionary
#hrases, in the same state of sus#en"e" ignorance. '...(
=iterature as ell as criticism ! the "ifference $eteen them $eing
I8
"elusive ! is con"emne" 0or #rivilege"1 to $e forever the most rigorous
an", consequently, the most unrelia$le language in terms of hich man
names an" transforms himself.
1.<.I Far$ara ?ohnson: from The >rame of 2eference: %oe, =acan, Berri"a
&'
'...( A literary text that $oth analyses an" shos that it actually has
neither a self nor any neutral metalanguage ith hich to "o the analysing
calls out irresisti$ly for analysis. An" hen that call is ansere" $y to
eminent thinkers hose rea"ings emit an equally #ara"oxical call to
analysis of their on, the resulting tri#tych, in the context of the question
of the act of rea"ing 0literature1, #laces its oul"!$e rea"er in a
vertiginously insecure #osition.
The three texts in question are N"gar Allan %oeGs short story ! The
%urloine" =etter, ?acques =acanGs ! Seminar on The %urloine" =etter,
an" ?acques Berri"aGs rea"ing of =acanGs rea"ing of %oe ! The %urveyor
of Truth 0Le Fa$ter +e la 58rit81. ,n all three texts, it is the act of
analysis that seems to occu#y the centre of the "iscursive stage an" the act
of analysis of the act of analysis that in some ay "isru#ts that centrality,
su$verting the very #ossi$ility of a #osition of analytical mastery. ,n the
resulting asymmetrical, a$ysmal structure, no analysis ! inclu"ing this one
! can intervene ithout transforming an" re#eating other elements in the
sequence, hich is thus not a sta$le sequence, $ut hich nevertheless
#ro"uces some regular effects. ,t is the functioning of this regularity, an"
the structure of these effects, that ill #rovi"e the $asis for the #resent
stu"y.
Any attem#t to "o )ustice to three such com#lex texts is o$viously out
of the question. Fut it is #recisely the nature of such )ustice that is the
question in each of these rea"ings of the act of analysis. The fact that the
I9
%u$lishe" in: 2o$ert Joung 0e"1, ?ntying the Te#t: A 0ost=Str$tralist
Rea+er 02outle"ge Y 3egan %aul, Foston, 1471, ##. EE9!<8.
"e$ate #roliferates aroun" a crime story ! a ro$$ery an" its un"oing !
can har"ly $e an acci"ent. Somehere in each of these texts, the
economy of )ustice cannot $e avoi"e". >or in s#ite of the a$sence of
mastery, there is no lack of effects of #oer.
, shall $egin $y quoting at some length from =acanGs "iscussion of The
%urloine" =etter in or"er to #resent $oth the #lot of %oeGs story an" the
thrust of =acanGs analysis. =acan summari:es as follos:
There are to scenes, the first of hich e shall straightaay "esignate
the #rimal scene, an" $y no means ina"vertently, since the secon" may $e
consi"ere" its re#etition in the very sense e are consi"ering to"ay.
The #rimal scene is thus #erforme", e are tol", in the royal $ou"oir, so
that e sus#ect that the #erson of the highest rank, calle" the exalte"
#ersonage, ho is alone there hen she receives a letter, is the Aueen.
This feeling is confirme" $y the em$arrassment into hich she is #lunge"
$y the entry of the other exalte" #ersonage, of hom e have alrea"y
$een tol" #rior to this account that the knole"ge he might have of the
letter in question oul" )eo#ar"i:e for the la"y nothing less than her
honour an" safety. Any "ou$t that he is in fact the 3ing is #rom#tly
"issi#ate" in the course of the scene hich $egins ith the entry of the
Cinister B'...( At that moment, in fact, the Aueen can "o no $etter than to
#lay on the 3ingGs inattentiveness $y leaving the letter on the ta$le face
"on, a""ress u##ermost. ,t "oes not, hoever, esca#e the CinisterGs
lynx eye, nor "oes he fail to notice the AueenGs "istress an" thus to
fathom her secret. >rom then on everything trans#ires like clockork.
After "ealing in his customary manner ith the $usiness of the "ay, the
CinisterGs "ras from his #ocket a letter similar in a##earance to the one
in his vie, an" having #reten"e" to rea" it, he #laces it next to the other.
A $it more conversation to amuse the royal com#any, hereu#on,
ithout flinching once, he sei:es the em$arrassing letter, making off ith
it, as the Aueen, on hom none of his manoeuvre has $een lost, remains
una$le to intervene for fear of attracting the attention of her royal s#ouse,
close at her si"e at that very moment.
Nverything might then have trans#ire" unseen $y a hy#othetical
I<
s#ectator of an o#eration in hich no$o"y falters, an" hose quotient is
that the Cinister has filche" from the Aueen her letter an" that ! an even
more im#ortant result than the first ! the Aueen knos that he no has it,
an" $y no means innocently.
A remain"er that no analyst ill neglect, traine" as he is to retain
hatever is significant, ithout alays knoing hat to "o ith it: the
letter, a$an"one" $y the Cinister, an" hich the AueenGs han" is no free
to roll into a $all.
Secon" scene: in the CinisterGs office. ,t is in his hotel, an" e kno !
from the account the %refect of %olice has given Bu#in, hose s#ecific
genius for solving enigmas %oe intro"uces here for the secon" time ! that
the #olice, returning there as soon as the CinisterGs ha$itual, nightly
a$sences allo them to, have searche" the hotel an" surroun"ings from to#
to $ottom for the last eighteen months. ,n vain ! although every$o"y can
"e"uce from the situation that the Cinister kee#s the letter ithin reach.
Bu#in calls on the Cinister. The latter receives him ith stu"ie"
nonchalance, affecting in his conversation romantic ennui. Ceanhile,
Bu#in, hom this #retence "oes not "eceive, his eyes #rotecte" $y green
glasses, #rocee"s to ins#ect the #remises. &hen his glance catches a rather
crum#le" #iece of #a#er ! a##arently thrust carelessly in a "ivision of an
ugly #aste$oar" car"!rack, hanging gau"ily from the mi""le of the
mantel#iece ! he alrea"y knos that heGs foun" hat heGs looking for. -is
conviction is reinforce" $y the very "etails hich seem to contra"ict the
"escri#tion he has of the stolen letter, ith the exce#tion of the format
hich remains the same.
&hereu#on he has $ut to ith"ra, after forgetting his snuff$ox on the
ta$le, in or"er to return the folloing "ay to reclaim it ! arme" ith a
facsimile of the letter in its #resent state. As an inci"ent in the street,
#re#are" for the #ro#er moment, "ras the Cinister to the in"o, Bu#in
in turn sei:es the o##ortunity to snatch the letter hile su$stituting the
imitation, an" has only to maintain the a##earances of a normal exit.
-ere as ell all has trans#ire", if not ithout noise, at least ithout all
commotion. The quotient of the o#eration is that the Cinister no longer
has the letter, $ut, far from sus#ecting that Bu#in is the cul#rit ho has
ravishe" it from him, knos nothing of it. Coreover, hat he is left ith
is far from insignificant for hat follos. &e shall return to hat $rought
Bu#in to inscri$e a message on his counterfeit letter. &hatever the case,
the Cinister, hen he tries to make use of it, ill $e a$le to rea" these
or"s, ritten so that he may recogni:e Bu#inGs han": '...( Hn "essein si
funesteU SGil nGest "igne "GAtrLe est "igne "e Thyeste, hose source,
Bu#in tells us, is *rL$illonGs AtrLe .
/ee" e em#hasi:e the similarity of these to sequences@ Jes, for the
resem$lance e have in min" is not a sim#le collection of traits chosen
only in or"er to "elete their "iference. An" it oul" not $e enough to
retain those common traits at the ex#ense of the others for the slightest
truth to result. ,t is rather the intersu$)ectivity in hich the to actions
are motivate" that e ish to $ring into relief, as ell as the three terms
through hich it structures them.
The s#ecial status of these terms results from their corres#on"ing
simultaneously to the three logical moments through hich the "ecision
is #reci#itate" an" the three #laces it assigns to the su$)ects among hom
it constitutes a choice.
That "ecision is reache" in a glanceGs time. >or the manoeuvres hich
follo, hoever stealthily they #rolong it, a"" nothing to that glance, nor
"oes the "eferring of the "ee" in the secon" scene $reak the unity of that
moment.
This glance #resu##ose to others, hich it em$races in its vision of
the $reach left in their fallacious com#lementarity, antici#ating in it the
occasion for larceny affor"e" $y that ex#osure. Thus three moments,
structuring three glances, $orne $y three su$)ects, incarnate" each time $y
"ifferent characters.
The first is a glance that sees nothing: the 3ing an" the #olice.
The secon", a glance hich sees that the first sees nothing an" "elu"es
itself as to the secrecy of hat it hi"es: the Aueen, then the Cinister.
The thir" sees that the first to glances leave hat shoul" $e hi""en
ex#ose" to hoever oul" sei:e it: the Cinister an" finally Bu#in.
,n or"er to gras# in its unity the intersu$)ective com#lex thus "escri$e,
e oul" illingly seek a mo"el in the technique legen"arily attri$ute"
I6
to the ostrich attem#ting to shiel" itself from "anger: for that technique
might ultimately $e qualifie" as #olitical, "ivi"e" as it here is among three
#artners: the secon" $elieving itself invisi$le $ecause the first has its hea"
stuck in the groun", an" all the hile letting the thir" calmly #luck its rear+
e nee" only enrich its #rover$ial "enomination $y a letter, #ro"ucing la
#olitique "e lGautruiche, for the ostrich itself to take on forever a ne
meaning.
Kiven the intersu$)ective mo"ulus of the re#etitive action, it remains to
recogni:e in it a re#etition automatism in the sense that interests us in
>reu"Gs text 'S%=, ##. <1!<(.
I7
Thus, it is neither the character of the in"ivi"ual su$)ects, nor the
contents of the letter, $ut the #osition of the letter ithin the grou# that
"eci"es hat each #erson ill "o next. ,t is the fact that the letter "oes not
function as a unit of meaning 0a signifie"1 $ut as that hich #ro"uces
certain effects 0a signifier1 that lea"s =acan to rea" the story as an
illustration of the truth hich may $e "ran from that moment in >reu"Gs
thought un"er stu"y ! namely, that it is the sym$olic or"er hich is
constitutive for the su$)ect ! $y "emonstrating'...(the "ecisive orientation
hich the su$)ect receives from the itinerary of a signifier 'S%=, #.<5(.
The letter acts like a signifier #recisely to the extent that its function in the
story "oes not require that its meaning $e reveale": the letter as a$le to
#ro"uce its effects "ithin the story: on the actors in the tale, inclu"ing the
narrator, as ell as outsi"e the story: on us, the rea"ers, an" also on its
author, ithout anyoneGs ever $othering to orry a$out hat it (eant.
The %urloine" =etter thus $ecomes for =acan a kin" of allegory of the
signifier.
Berri"aGs critique of =acanGs rea"ing "oes not "is#ute the vali"ity of the
allegorical inter#retation on its on terms, $ut questions rather its im#licit
#resu##ositions an" its mo"us o#eran"i. Berri"a aims its o$)ections at to
kin"s of targets: 011 hat =acan #uts into the letter, an" 0E1 hat =acan
I7
?acques =acan, Seminar on The %urloine" =etter , in Gale Fren$h
St+ies, <7 0149E1, ##. 84!9E.
leaves out of the text.
011 &hat =acan #uts into the letter: &hile asserting that the letterGs
meaning is lacking, =acan, accor"ing to Berri"a, makes this lack into the
meaning of the letter. Fut Berri"a "oes not sto# there: he goes on to
assert that hat =acan means $y that lack is the truth of lack!as!
castration!as!truth: The truth of the #urloine" letter is the truth
itself'...(&hat is veile"Uunveile" in this case is the hole, a non!$eing
0non!Ltant1+ the truth of $eing 0lG\tre1, as non!$eing. Truth is oman as
veile"Uunveile" castration '%T,
I4
##. I5!1(. =acan himself, hoever,
never uses the or" castration in the text of the original seminar. That it
is suggeste" is in"is#uta$le, $ut Berri"a, $y filling in hat =acan left
$lank, is re#eating #recisely the gesture of $lank!filling for hich he is
criticising =acan.
0E1 &hat =acan leaves out of the text: This o$)ection is itself "ou$le: on
the one han", Berri"a criticises =acan for neglecting to consi"er The
%urloine" =etter in connection ith the other to stories in hat Berri"a
calls %oeGs Bu#in Trilogy. An" on the other han", accor"ing to Berri"a,
at the very moment =acan is rea"ing the story as an allegory of the
signifier, he is $eing $lin" to the "isseminating #oer of the signifier in
the text of the allegory, in hat Berri"a calls the scene of riting. To
cut out #art of a textGs frame of reference as though it "i" not exist an" to
re"uce a com#lex textual functioning to a single meaning are serious
$lots in"ee" in the annals of literary criticism. Therefore it is all the more
noticea$le that Berri"aGs on rea"ing of =acanGs text re#eats #recisely the
crimes of hich he accuses it: on the one han", Berri"a makes no
mention of =acanGs long "evelo#ment on the relation $eteen sym$olic
"etermination an" ran"om series. An" on the other han", Berri"a
"ismisses =acanGs style as a mere ornament, veiling, for a time, an
unequivocal message: =acanGs style, moreover, as such that for a long
time it oul" hin"er an" "elay all access to a unique content or a single
unequivocal meaning "etermine" $eyon" the riting itself 0%T, #.<51.
I4
?acques Berri"a, The %urveyor of Truth, in Gale Fren$h St+ies, 6E
014961, ##. 81!118.
II
The fact that Berri"a re#eats the very gestures he is criticising "oes not in
itself invali"ate his criticism of their effects, $ut it "oes ren"er #ro$lematic
his statement con"emning their existence. An" it also illustrates the
transfer of the re#etition com#ulsion from the original text to the scene of
its rea"ing. '...(
This stu"y of the rea"ings of the The %urloine" =etter has thus arrive"
at the #oint here the or" letter no longer has any literality. Fut hat is
a letter that has no literality@
,t seems that the letter can only $e "escri$e" as that hich #oses the
question of its on rhetorical status. ,t moves rhetorically through the to
long, minute stu"ies in hich it is #resume" to $e the literal o$)ect of
analysis, ithout having any literality. ,nstea" of sim#ly $eing ex#laine"
$y those analyses, the rhetoric of the letter #ro$lematises the very
rhetorical mo"e of analytical "iscourse itself.
The letter in the story ! an" in its rea"ings ! acts as a signifier not
$ecause its contents are lacking, $ut $ecause its rhetorical function is not
"e#en"ent on the i"entity of those contents. &hat =acan means $y saying
that the letter cannot $e "ivi"e" is thus not that the #hallus must remain
intact, $ut that the #hallus, the letter, an" the signifier are not su$stances.
The letter cannot $e "ivi"e" $ecause it only functions as a "ivision. ,t is
not something ith an i"entity to itself inaccessi$le to "ismem$erment as
Berri"a inter#rets it+ it is a +ifferen$e. ,t is knon only in its effects. The
signifier is an articulation in a chain, not an i"entifia$le unit. ,t cannot $e
knon in itself $ecause it is ca#a$le of sustaining itself only in a
"is#lacement 0S%=, #.641. ,t is localise", $ut only as the ungeneralisi$le
locus of a "ifferential relationshi#. Berri"a, in fact, enacts this la of the
signifier in the very act of o##osing it:
%erha#s only one letter nee" $e change", may$e even less than a letter in
the ex#ression: missing from its #lace 'manque Z sa #lace (. %erha#s e
nee" only intro"uce a ritten a, i.e. ithout accent, in or"er to $ring out
that if the lack has its #lace 'le manque a sa #lace ( in this atomistic
to#ology of the signifier, that is, if it occu#ies therein a s#ecific #lace of
"efinite contours, the or"er oul" remain un"istur$e" 0%T, #.<<!61.
&hile thus criticising the hy#ostasis of a lack ! the letter as the
su$stance of an a$sence 0hich is not hat =acan is saying1, Berri"a is
illstrating hat =acan is saying a$out $oth the materiality an" the
localisa$ility of the signifier as the (ark of +ifferen$e $y o#erating on the
letter as a material locus of "ifferentiation: $y removing the little signifier
'](, an accent mark that has no meaning in itself.
The letter as a signifier is thus not a thing or the a$sence of a thing, nor
a or" or the a$sence of a or", nor an organ or the a$sence of an organ,
$ut a knot in a structure here or"s, things, an" organs can neither $e
"efina$ly se#arate" nor com#ati$ly com$ine". This is hy the exact
re#resentational #osition of the letter in the CinisterGs a#artment $oth
matters an" "oes not matter. ,t matters to the extent that sexual
anatomical "ifference creates an irre"uci$le "issymmetry to $e accounte"
for in every human su$)ect. Fut it "oes not matter to the extent that the
letter is not hi""en in geometrical s#ace, here the #olice are looking for
it, or in anatomical s#ace, here a literal un"erstan"ing of #sychoanalysis
might look for it. ,t is locate" in a sym$olic structure, a structure that
can only $e #erceive" in its effects an" hose effects are #erceive" as
re#etition. Bu#in fin"s the letter in the sym$olic or"er not $ecause he
knos here to look, $ut $ecause he knos hat to re#eat. Bu#inGs
analysis is the re#etition of the scene that le" to the necessity of
analysis. ,t is not an inter#retation or an insight, $ut an act. An act of
untying the knot in the structure $y means of the re#etition of the act of
tying it. The or" analyse, in fact, etymologically means untie, a
meaning on hich %oe #lays in his #refatory remarks on the nature of
analysis as that moral activity hich "isentangles 0%oe,
95
#.15E1. The
analyst "oes not intervene $y giving meaning, $ut $y effecting a
"Lnouement.
Fut if the act of 0#sycho1 analysis has no i"entity a#art from its status as
a re#etition of the structure it seeks to analyse 0to untie1, then Berri"aGs
95
N"gar Allan %oe, /reat Tales an+ 0oe(s of ... 0/e Jork %ocket Fooks,
14611.
I9
remarks against #sychoanalysis as $eing alays alrea"y mise en a$^me in
the text it stu"ies an" as $eing only ca#a$le of fin"ing itself, are not
o$)ections to #sychoanalysis $ut in fact a #rofoun" insight into its very
essence. %sychoanalysis is in fact itself the #rimal scene it is seeking: it is
the first occurrence of hat has $een re#eating itself in the #atient ithout
ever having occurre". %sychoanalysis is not itself the inter#retation of
re#etition+ it is the re#etition of a trauma of inter#retation ! calle"
castration or #arental coitus or the De"i#us com#lex or even
sexuality. ,t is the traumatic "eferre" inter#retation not of an event, $ut as
an event that never took #lace as such. The #rimal scene is not a scene
$ut an inter#retative infelicity hose result as to situate the inter#reter in
an intolera$le #osition. An" #sychoanalysis is the reconstruction of that
inter#retative infelicity not as its inter#retation $ut as its first an" last act.
%sychoanalysis has content only in so far as it re#eats the "is!content of
hat never took #lace.
,n a ay, , have come $ack to the question of the letterGs "estination an"
of the meaning of the enigmatic last or"s of =acanGs Seminar. The
sen"er, rites =acan, receives from the receiver his on message in
reverse form. Thus it is that hat the #urloine" letter, nay, the letter in
sufferance means is that a letter alays arrives at its "estination 0S%=,
#.9E1. &hat the reversi$ility of the "irection of the letterGs movement
$eteen sen"er an" receiver has no come to stan" for is #recisely the
fact, un"erline" $y Berri"a as if it ere an o$)ection to =acan, that there is
no #osition from hich the letterGs message can $e rea" as an o$)ect: no
neutralisation is #ossi$le, no general #oint of vie 0%T, #.15I1. This is
also #recisely the "iscovery of #sychoanalysis ! that the analyst is
involve" 0through transference1 in the very o$)ect of his analysis.
Nveryone ho has hel" the letter ! or even $ehel" it ! inclu"ing the
narrator, has en"e" u# having the letter a""resse" to him as its "estination.
The rea"er is com#rehen"e" $y the letter: there is no #lace from hich he
can stan" $ack an" o$serve it. /ot that the letterGs meaning is su$)ective
rather than o$)ective, $ut that the letter is #recisely that hich su$verts the
#olarity su$)ectiveUo$)ective, that hich makes su$)ectivity into something
hose #osition in a structure is situate" $y the #assage through it of an
o$)ect. The letterGs "estination is thus herever it is rea", the #lace it
assigns to its rea"er as his on #artiality. ,ts "estination is not a #lace,
"eci"e" a #riori $y the sen"er, $ecause the receiver is the sen"er, an" the
receiver is hoever receives the letter, inclu"ing no$o"y. &hen Berri"a
says that a letter can miss its "estination an" $e "isseminate", he rea"s
"estination as a #lace that #re!exists the letterGs movement. Fut if, as
=acan shos, the letterGs "estination is not its literal a""ressee, nor even
hoever #ossesses it, $ut hoever is #ossesse" $y it, then the very
"isagreement over the meaning of reaching the "estination is an
illustration of the non!o$)ective nature of that "estination. The rhetoric
of Berri"aGs "ifferentiation of his on #oint of vie from =acanGs enacts
that la:
Thanks to castration, the #hallus alays stays in its #lace in the
transcen"ental to#ology e s#oke of earlier. ,t is in"ivisi$le an"
in"estructi$le there, like the letter that takes its #lace. An" that is hy the
intereste" #resu##osition, never #rove", of the letterGs materiality as
in"ivisi$ility as in"is#ensa$le to this restricte" economy, this
circulation of #ro#riety.
The "ifference , am intereste+ in here is that, a formula to $e rea"
hoever one ishes, the lack has no #lace of its on in "issemination
0%T, #.I8+ translation mo"ifie", em#hasis mine1.
The #lay of interest in this ex#ression of "ifference is quite too
interesting not to $e "eli$erate. The o##osition $eteen the #hallus an"
"issemination is not $eteen to theoretical o$)ects $ut $eteen to
intereste" #ositions. An" if sen"er an" receiver are merely the to #oles
of a reversi$le message, then =acanGs su$stitution of "estin for "essein
in *rL$illonGs quotation ! a misquotation that Berri"a fin"s revealing
enough to en" his analysis u#on ! is in fact the quotationGs message. The
sen"er 0"essein1 an" the receiver 0"estin1 of the violence that #asses
$eteen Atreus an" Thyestes are equally su$)ect to the violence the letter
is.
The sentence a letter alays arrives at its "estination can thus either $e
I7
sim#ly #leonastic or variously #ara"oxical: it can mean the only message
, can rea" is the one , sen", herever the letter is, is its "estination +
hen a letter is rea", it rea"s the rea"er + the re#resse" alays returns +
, only exist as a rea"er of the other + the letter has no "estination + an"
e all "ie. ,t is not any of these rea"ings, $ut all of them an" others in
their very incom#ati$ility, that re#eat the letter in its ay of rea"ing the act
of rea"ing. >ar from giving us the SeminarGs final truth, these last or"s,
an" Berri"aGs rea"ings of them, can only enact the im#ossi$ility of any
ultimate analytical metalanguage, the eternal oscillation $eteen
unequivocal un"eci"a$ility an" am$iguous certainty.

1.<.7 2ichar" A. 2an": from Keral"ine
'1
=eaving the fatherGs hall at mi"night, $y a gate that as irone" ithin
an" ithout, an" kneeling in #rayer in a forest, $eneath a huge oak tree,
the la"y *hrista$el hears a lo soun" of moaning. She s#rings to her feet,
listens again, then steals aroun" the tree for a look at the other si"e:
There she sees a "amsel $right U Brest in a silken ro$e of hite, U That
sha"oy in the moonlight shone: U The neck that ma"e that hite ro$e
an, U -er stately neck, an" arms ere $are+ U -er $lue!veine" feet
unsan"alG" ere, U An" i"ely glittere" here an" there U The gems
entangle" in her hair 067!I61.
&hat follos is a taking in: *hrista$el questions this remarka$le figure
0an" ho art thou@, 951, an" takes in the anser 0my sire is of a no$le
line,UAn" my name is Keral"ine 94!751+ takes in as ell the tale of
forci$le ki"na##ing+ an" takes in, finally, the #erson of Keral"ine herself,
into the safety of her fatherGs hall. Dnce there, hoever, she "oes not take
in some a$solutely sus#icious signs, such as Keral"ineGs too $rief sei:ure
of #ain at the threshol" 01E4 ff.1, her refusal to )oin in #rayer 01<1 ff.1, the
angry moan of the mastiff 01<6 ff.1, or the strange flaring of the $ran"
91
%u$lishe" in: 2o$ert Joung, op. $it.- ##. E71!81I.
016I ff.1. ,s it *hrista$elGs turn to $e taken in $y Keral"ine@ ,gnoring
these signs, an" others like them, she "ras closer to her guest, close to
the #oint of lying at her si"e, nake", an" in $e".
There it is that a shock occurs, shocking first of all to Keral"ine 0Ah.
&hat a stricken look as hers. E6I1: *hrista$el, reclining on her el$o
an" atching Keral"ine, takes in something she as never meant to see,
the sight of Keral"ineGs horri$le $osom an" half her si"e 0E6E1. ,n her
closeness, *hrista$el suffers an irreversi$le moment of a$$ra$y,
confirme" $y Keral"ineGs "efiant em$race. '...(
&hat is the im#ort of this em$race@ ,f the shock of accuracy "oes not
#revent the omen from "raing closer still, "oes it not change, at least,
the character of that closeness@ Keral"ine continues ith a s#eech that is
often rea" as a male"iction $ut also serves as a statement of fact:
An" ith lo voice an" "oleful look U These or"s "i" say: U ,n the
touch of this $osom there orketh a s#ell, U &hich is lor" of thy
utterance, *hrista$el. U Thou knoest to!night, an" ilt kno to!morro,
U This mark of my shame, this seal of my sorro+ U Fut vainly thou
arrest, U >or this is alone in U Thy #oer to "eclare, U That in the "im
forest U Thou hear"Gst a lo moaning, U An" foun"Gst a $right la"y,
sur#assingly fair+ U An" "i"st $ring her home ith thee in love an"
charity, U To shiel" her an" shelter her from the "am# air 0EI6!971.
A strange turn: *hrista$el, taking in Keral"ine, "ras so close that she
sees the mark, a sight that is like a "ream, vivi" an" unforgetta$le, $ut
not to $e #ut into or"s, a sight to "ream of, not to tell. 0E681. The
mark is thus a seal in to senses of that or" ! a hallmark or signature,
$ut one that also seals u#, or encry#ts, the fact of its on existence, of
its meaning 0if it has one1 an" its history 0hich is never reveale"1. An"
this seal, $y sight an" $y touch, also seals u# *hrista$el, an" so $ecomes
her seal an" signature as ell. *hrista$el, ho cannot forget the mark,
nor o#enly or articulately "eclare it, must live henceforth as Keral"ine
lives, $earing, even as she "issem$les, the sealing u# of the seal,
concealing the mark of her "ifference, saying one thing an" meaning,
knoing an" $eing something else. '...(
Taking, then, the #oem name" *hrista$el as a me"itation on itself,
I4
ith the figure name" Keral"ine as its on interior mirror!image+ an"
taking the figure name" *hrista$el as one of her rea"ers, #erha#s a na_ve
one, or #erha#s an exem#lary one, hose o#enness to Keral"ine is a kin"
of illing sus#ension of "is$elief+ e $egin to feel that the #oem exten"s a
#articular question to the rea"er: hat is the seal or mark of the #oem
calle" *hrista$el, an" if e shoul" ha##en to see it, oul" e, like the
la"y *hrista$el, also lack the #oer to "eclare it, an" therefore, carry it,
cry#tically, ithin@
,t remains to see the mark, a situation antici#ate" in the secon" #art of the
#oem. There, e encounter to rea"ings of Keral"ine that miss the mark
com#letely: Sir =eolineGs an" Far" FracyGs. '...(
*hrista$el is thus a #oem that $reaks off at the moment of least
communication, ith *hrista$el caught in her s#ell, Sir =eoline enrage" at
her strange $ehaviour, an" Far" Fracy sent off on an erran" he ants to
avoi". *learly this scene of non!communication, "ramatically ren"ere" as
an interaction $eteen various characters, also mimes the con"ition of
Keral"ine, ho is ma"e u# of these "ifferent an" incom#ati$le strata, one
level communicating ith Sir =eoline an" the Far", an" another level, that
of the mark, communicating ith *hrista$el in her trance!like moments
of recollection. An" recalling that Keral"ine is a kin" of #oem, e can see
that the non!communication of the en" of *hrista$el, hich mimes the
con"ition of Keral"ine, reflects the rhetorical con"ition of the text itself:
the #oem tells a story that "oes not communicate ith its on mark or
seal.
Cust e give u# the quest for the seal@
Three issues remain unex#lore". Taken together, they suggest a
#rogramme.
>irst is the matter of closeness: e have not "ran close enough to
*oleri"ge for his mark to sur#rise us. ,n textual terms, e havenGt
sufficiently taken in the system of his tro#es an" their "econstruction. The
$etter #art of this essay must attem#t to "o so.
Secon", in rea"ing the tro#es e must $ear in min" hat they "o not
reveal, namely the mark. They cover u# the mark. Fut this covering u# is
not a resource of the tro#es themselves: if it ere, they coul" also "isclose
the mark. 2ather, the covering u# $elongs to the #oer of the mark itself,
hich can alays efface itself $y taking the form of something else, of
something other than a mark, for exam#le of a story, or of a tro#ological
system.
Thir", this effacement an" "ivulgence of the mark is a kin" of
alternation, or inking movement: *hrista$el hears the story an" recalls
the mark, in alternation. The to movements never take #lace at the same
time. ,n this res#ect, the relation of the mark to story is like the relation of
a sign to its meaning, each to $e focuse" on in turn, $ut not together.
Keral"ine, that is, is structure" in certain res#ects like a sign, an" it is not
an acci"ent that *oleri"ge en"s his #oem ith a me"itation on the sign!
structure:
A little chil", a lim$er elf, U Singing, "ancing to itself, U A fairy thing
ith re" roun" cheeks, U That alays fin"s an" never seeks, U Cakes such
a vision to the sight U As fills a fatherGs eyes ith light+ U An" #leasures
flo in so thick an" fast U H#on his heart, that he at last U Cust nee"s
ex#ress his loveGs excess U &ith or"s of unmeant $itterness 0I6I!I61.
This enigma stan"s in relation to the #oem as a sign stan"s in relation to
its meaning. ,t means the #oem, $ut in a ay that e cannot rationally
analyse. An" the meaning of this meaning is'...( a sign: a father ho
ishes to ex#ress a certain kin" of thought 0loveGs excess1, "oes so $y
means of certain shocking or"s, or"s of unmeant $itterness. ,t is the
$itterness of the or"s that is unmeant, their $itterness $eing use" to
signify love instea" of $itterness. ,f e take the $itter or"s to mean
hat they seem to mean, then e miss their inten"e" meaning. ,f e rea"
the or"s as a tro#e ! as a meta#hor, in hich the $itterness of the or"s
resem$les the $itterness of the feeling ! then e inevita$ly miss the
im#ort of the or"s, an" e also miss, therefore, the $i:arre coinci"ence
of the or"s ith their meaning, a coinci"ence hich is not organise"
like a meta#hor.
Tro#e, sign, an" seal, then: a sequence of #laces to turn to. ,f not in the
form of a #rogress, at least in the form of a )uxta#osition. '...(
95
!. (ROTO )T*EMES
>.1 MGT3 <RITI<ISM
E.1.1 ?ose#h *am#$ell: from The 3ero ;ith A Thosan+ Fa$es
1. T-N CD/DCJT-: T-N -N2D A/B T-N KDB
The stan"ar" #ath of the mythological a"venture of the hero is a
magnification of the formula re#resente" in the rites of #assage:
separation=initiation=retrn: hich might $e name" the nuclear unit of the
monomyth.
A hero ventures forth from the orl" of common "ay into a region of
su#ernatural on"er: fa$ulous forces are there encountere" an" a "ecisive
victory is on: the hero comes $ack from his mysterious a"venture ith
the #oer to $esto $oons on his fello man.
%rometheus ascen"e" to the heavens, stole fire from the go"s, an"
"escen"e". ?ason saile" through the *lashing 2ocks into a sea of marvels,
circumvente" the "ragon that guar"e" the Kol"en >leece, an" returne"
ith the fleece an" the #oer to rest his rightful throne from a usur#er.
Aeneas ent "on into the un"erorl", crosse" the "rea"ful river of the
"ea", thre a so# to the three!hea"e" atch"og *er$erus, an" converse",
at last, ith the sha"e of his "ea" father. All things ere unfol"e" to him:
the "estiny of souls, the "estiny of 2ome, hich he as a$out to foun",
an" in hat ise he might avoi" or en"ure every $ur"en. -e returne"
through the ivory gate to his ork in the orl". '...(
As e soon shall see, hether #resente" in the vast, almost oceanic
images of the Drient, in the vigorous narratives of the Kreeks, or in the
ma)estic legen"s of the Fi$le, the a"venture of the hero normally follos
the #attern of the nuclear unit a$ove "escri$e": a se#aration from the
orl", a #enetration to some source of #oer, an" a life!enhancing return.
The hole of the Drient has $een $lesse" $y the $oon $rought $ack $y
Kautama Fu""ha ! his on"erful teaching of the Koo" =a ! )ust as the
Dcci"ent has $een $y the Becalogue of Coses. The Kreeks referre" fire,
the first su##ort of all human culture, to the orl"!transcen"ing "ee" of
their %rometheus, an" the 2omans the foun"ing of their orl"!su##orting
city to Aeneas, folloing his "e#arture from fallen Troy an" his visit to
the eerie un"erorl" of the "ea". Nveryhere, no matter hat the s#here
of interest 0hether religious, #olitical or #ersonal1, the really creative
acts are re#resente" as those "eriving from some sort of "ying to the
orl"+ an" hat ha##ens in the interval of the heroGs nonentity, so that he
comes $ack as one re$orn, ma"e great an" fille" ith creative #oer,
mankin" is also unanimous in "eclaring. &e shall have only to follo,
therefore, a multitu"e of heroic figures through the classic stages of the
universal a"venture in or"er to see again hat has alays $een reveale".
This ill hel# us to un"erstan" not only the meaning of those images for
contem#orary life, $ut also the singleness of the human s#irit in its
as#irations, #oers, vicissitu"es, an" is"om. '...(
The com#osite hero of the monomyth is a #ersonage of exce#tional
gifts. >requently he is honore" $y his society, frequently unrecogni:e" or
"is"aine". -e an"Uor the orl" in hich he fin"s himself suffers from a
sym$olical "eficiency. ,n fairy tales this may $e as slight as the lack of a
certain gol"en ring, hereas in a#ocaly#tic vision the #hysical an"
s#iritual life of the hole earth can $e re#resente" as fallen, or on the
#oint of falling, into ruin.
Ty#ically, the hero of the fairy tale achieves a "omestic microcosmic
trium#h, an" the hero of a myth a orl"!historical, macrocosmic trium#h.
&hereas the former ! the youngest or "es#ise" chil" ho $ecomes the
master of extraor"inary #oers ! #revails over his #ersonal o##ressors,
the latter $rings $ack from his a"venture the means for the regeneration
of his society as a hole. Tri$al or local heroes, such as the em#eror
-uang Ti, Coses, or the A:tec Te:catli#oca, commit their $oons to a
single folk+ universal heroes ! Cohamme", ?esus, Kautama Fu""ha !
$ring a message for the entire orl".
&hether the hero $e ri"iculous or su$lime, Kreek or $ar$arian, gentile
91
or ?e, his )ourney varies little in essential #lan. %o#ular tales re#resent the
heroic action as #hysical+ the higher religions sho the "ee" to $e moral+
nevertheless, there ill $e foun" astonishingly little variation in the
mor#hology of the a"venture, the character roles involve", the victories
gaine". ,f one or another of the $asic elements of the archety#al #attern is
omitte" from a given fairy tale, legen", ritual or myth, it is $oun" to $e
someho or other im#lie" ! an" the omission itself can s#eak volumes for
the history an" #athology of the exam#le. '...(
The cosmogonic cycle is #resente" ith astonishing consistency in the
sacre" ritings of all the continents an" it gives to the a"venture of the
hero a ne an" interesting turn+ for no it a##ears that the #erilous
)ourney as a la$or not of attainment $ut of reattainment, not "iscovery
$ut re"iscovery. The go"ly #oers sought an" "angerously on are
reveale" to have $een ithin the heart of the hero all the time. -e is the
kingGs son ho has come to kno ho he is an" thereith has entere"
into the exercise of his #ro#er #oer ! Ko"Gs son, ho has learne" to
kno ho much that title means. >rom this #oint of vie the hero is
sym$olical of that "ivine creative an" re"em#tive image hich is hi""en
ithin us all, only aiting to $e knon an" ren"ere" into life.
>or the Dne ho has $ecome many, remains the Dne un"ivi"e", $ut
each #art is all of *hrist, e rea" in the ritings of Saint Symeon the
younger 04<4!15EE A.B.1. , sa -im in my house , the saint goes on.
Among all those every"ay things -e a##eare" unex#ecte"ly an" $ecame
unuttera$ly unite" an" merge" ith me, an" lea#e" over to me ithout
anything in $eteen, as fire to iron, as the light to glass. An" -e ma"e me
like fire an" like light. An" , $ecame that hich , sa $efore an" $ehel"
from afar. , "o not kno ho to relate this miracle to you. '...( , am man
$y nature, an" Ko" $y the grace of Ko".
A com#ara$le vision is "escri$e" in the a#ocry#hal Kos#el of Nve. ,
stoo" on a lofty mountain an" , sa a gigantic man an" another a "arf+
an" , hear" as it ere the voice of thun"er, an" "re nigh for to hear+ an"
-e s#ake unto me an" sai": , am thou an" thou art ,+ an" heresoever thou
mayest $e , am there. ,n all am , scattere", an" hensoever thou illest,
thou gatherest Ce+ an" gathering Ce, thou gatherest Thyself.
The to ! the hero an" his ultimate go", the seeker an" the foun" ! are
thus un"erstoo" as the outsi"e an" the insi"e of a single, self!mirrore"
mystery, hich is i"entical ith the mystery of the manifest orl". The
great "ee" of the su#reme hero is to come to the knole"ge of this unity
in multi#licity an" then to make it knon.
E. T-N 3NJS
'...( The mythological hero, setting forth from his common"ay hut or
castle, is lure", carrie" aay, or else voluntarily #rocee"s, to the
threshol" of a"venture. There he encounters a sha"o #resence that
guar"s the #assage. The hero may "efeat or conciliate this #oer an" go
alive into the king"om of the "ark 0$rother!$attle, "ragon!$attle+ offering,
charm1, or $e slain $y the o##onent an" "escen" in "eath
0"ismem$erment, crucifixion1. Feyon" the threshol", then, the hero
)ourneys through a orl" of unfamiliar yet strangely intimate forces,
some of hich severely threaten him 0tests1, some of hich give magical
hel# 0hel#ers1. &hen he arrives at the na"ir of the mythological roun", he
un"ergoes su#reme or"eal an" gains his rear". The trium#h may $e
re#resente" as the heroGs sexual union ith the go""ess!mother of the
orl" 0sacre" marriage1, his recognition $y the father!creator 0father
atonement1, his on "ivini:ation 0a#otheosis1, or again ! if the #oers
have remaine" unfrien"ly to him ! his theft of the $oon he came to gain
0$ri"e!theft, fire!theft1+ intrinsically it is an ex#ansion of consciousness
an" thereith of $eing 0illumination, transfiguration, free"om1. The final
ork is that of return. ,f the #oers have $lesse" the hero, he no sets
forth un"er their #rotection 0emissary1+ if not, he flees an" is #ursue"
0transformation flight, o$stacle flight1. At the return threshol" the
transcen"ental #oers must remain $ehin"+ the hero re!emerges from the
king"om of "rea" 0return, resurrection1. The $oon that he $rings restores
the orl" 0elixir1.
The changes rung on the sim#le scale of the monomyth "efy
"escri#tion. Cany tales isolate an" greatly enlarge u#on one or to of the
ty#ical elements of the full cycle 0test motif, flight motif, a$"uction of the
$ri"e1, others string a num$er of in"e#en"ent cycles into a single series
9E
0as in the D"yssey1. Biffering characters or e#iso"e can $ecome fuse", or a
single element can re"u#licate itself an" rea##ear un"er many changes.
The outlines of myths an" tales are su$)ect to "amage an" o$scuration.
Archaic traits are generally eliminate" or su$"ue". ,m#orte" materials are
revise" to fit local lan"sca#e, custom, or $elief, an" alays suffer in the
#rocess. >urthermore, in the innumera$le retellings of a tra"itional story,
acci"ental or intentional "islocations are inevita$le. To account for
elements that have $ecome, for one reason or another, meaningless,
secon"ary inter#retations are invente", often ith consi"era$le skill.
E.1.E /orthro# >rye: from The Archety#es of =iterature
'...( ,t is clear that criticism cannot $e systematic unless there is a quality
in literature hich ena$les it to $e so, an or"er of or"s corres#on"ing to
the or"er of nature in the natural sciences. An archety#e shoul" $e not only
a unifying category of criticism, $ut itself a #art of a total form, an" it
lea"s us at once to the question of hat sort of form criticism can see in
literature. Dur survey of critical techniques has taken us as far as literary
history. Total literary history moves from the #rimitive to the
so#histicate", an" here e glim#se the #ossi$ility of seeing literature as a
com#lication of a relatively restricte" an" sim#le grou# of formulas that
can $e stu"ie" in #rimitive culture. ,f so, then the search for archety#es is a
kin" of literary anthro#ology, concerne" ith the ay that literature is
informe" $y #re!literary categories such as ritual, myth an" folktale. &e
next reali:e that the relation $eteen these categories an" literature is $y
no means #urely one of "escent, as e fin" them rea##earing in the
greatest classics ! in fact there seems to $e a general ten"ency on the #art
of great classics to revert to them. This coinci"es ith a feeling that e all
have ha": that the stu"y of me"iocre orks of art, hoever energetic,
o$stinately remains a ran"om an" #eri#heral form of critical ex#erience,
hereas the #rofoun" master#iece seems to "ra us to a #oint at hich e
can see an" enormous num$er of verging #atterns of significance. -ere e
$egin to on"er if e cannot see literature, not only as com#licating
itself in time, $ut as s#rea" out in conce#tual s#ace from some unseen
center.
This in"uctive movement toar"s the archety#e is a #rocess of $acking
u#, as it ere, from the structural analysis, as e $ack u# from a #ainting
if e ant to see com#osition instea" of $rushork. ,n the foregroun" of
the grave!"igger scene in 3a(let, for instance, is an intricate ver$al
texture, ranging from the #uns of the first clon to the +anse (a$a%re of
the Jorick soliloquy, hich e stu"y in the #rinte" text. Dne ste# $ack,
an" e are in the &ilson 3night an" S#urgeon grou# of critics, listening
to the stea"y rain of images of corru#tion an" "ecay. -ere too, as the
sense of the #lace of this scene in the hole #lay $egins to "an on us,
e are in the netork of #sychological relationshi#s hich ere the main
interest of Fra"ley. Fut after all, e say, e are forgetting the genre:
3a(let is a #lay, an" an Nli:a$ethan #lay. So e take another ste# $ack
into the Stoll an" Sha grou# an" see the scene conventionally as #art of
its "ramatic context. Dne ste# more, an" e can $egin to glim#se the
archety#e of the scene, as the heroGs Lie%esto+ an" first unequivocal
"eclaration of his love, his struggle ith =aertes an" the sealing of his
on fate, an" the su""en so$ering of his moo" that marks the transition
to the final scene, all take sha#e aroun" a lea# into an" return from the
grave that has so eir"ly yane" o#en on the stage.
At each stage of un"erstan"ing this scene e are "e#en"ent on a certain
kin" of scholarly organi:ation. &e nee" first an e"itor to clean u# the text
for us, then the rhetorician an" #hilologist, then the literary #sychologist.
&e cannot stu"y the genre ithout the hel# of the literary social
historian, the literary #hiloso#her an" the stu"ent of the history of i"eas,
an" for the archety#e e nee" a literary anthro#ologist. Fut no that e
have got our central #attern of criticism esta$lishe", all these interests are
seen as converging on literary criticism instea" of rece"ing from it into
#sychology an" history an" the rest. ,n #articular, the literary
anthro#ologist ho chases the source of the -amlet legen" from the #re!
Shakes#eare #lay to Saxo, an" from Saxo to nature!myths, is not running
aay from Shakes#eare: he is "raing closer to the archety#al form
98
hich Shakes#eare recreate". A minor result of our ne #ers#ective is that
contra"ictions among critics, an" assertions that this an" not that critical
a##roach is the right one, sho a remarka$le ten"ency to "issolve into
unreality. '...(
2hythm, or recurrent movement, is "ee#ly foun"e" on the natural cycle,
an" everything in nature that e think of as having some analogy ith
orks of art, like the floer or the $ir"Gs song, gros out of a #rofoun"
synchroni:ation $eteen an organism an" the rhythms of its environment,
es#ecially that of the solar year. &ith animals some ex#ressions of
synchroni:ation, like the mating "ances of $ir"s, coul" $e almost calle"
rituals. Fut in human life a ritual seems to $e something of a voluntary
effort 0hence the magical element in it1 to reca#ture a lost ra##ort ith the
natural cycle. A farmer must harvest his cro# at a certain time of year, $ut
$ecause this is involuntary, harvesting itself is not #recisely a ritual. ,t is
the "eli$erate ex#ression of a ill to synchroni:e human an" natural
energies at that time hich #ro"uces the harvest songs, harvest sacrifices
an" harvest folk customs that e call rituals. ,n ritual, then, e may fin"
the origin of narrative, a ritual $eing a tem#oral sequence of acts in hich
the conscious meaning or significance is latent: it can $e seen $y an
o$server, $ut is largely conceale" from the #artici#ators themselves. The
#ull of ritual is toar" #ure narrative, hich, if there coul" $e such a thing,
oul" $e automatic an" unconscious re#etition. &e shoul" notice too the
regular ten"ency of ritual to $ecome encyclo#e"ic. All the im#ortant
recurrences in nature, the "ay, the #hases of the moon, the seasons an"
solstices of the year, the crises of existence from $irth to "eath, get rituals
attache" to them, an" most of the higher religions are equi##e" ith a
"efinitive total $o"y of rituals suggestive, if e may #ut it so, of the entire
range of #otentially significant actions in human life.
%atterns of imagery, on the other han", or fragments of significance, are
oracular in origin, an" "erive from the e#i#hanic moment, the flash of
instantaneous com#rehension ith no "irect reference to time, the
im#ortance of hich is in"icate" $y *assirer in Langage an+ Myth. Fy
the time e get them, in the form of #rover$s, ri""les, comman"ments an"
etiological folktales, there is alrea"y a consi"era$le element of narrative in
them. They too are encyclo#e"ic in ten"ency, $uil"ing u# a total structure
of significance, or "octrine, from ran"om an" em#iric fragments. As )ust
as #ure narrative oul" $e unconscious act, so #ure significance oul"
$e an incommunica$le state of consciousness, for communication $egins
$y constructing narrative.
The myth is the central informing #oer that gives archety#al
significance to the ritual an" archety#al narrative to the oracle. -ence the
myth is the archety#e, though it might $e convenient to say myth only
hen referring to narrative, an" archety#e hen s#eaking of significance.
,n the solar cycle of the "ay, the seasonal cycle of the year, an" the
organic cycle of human life, there is a single #attern of significance, out
of hich myth constructs a central narrative aroun" a figure ho is #artly
the sun, #artly vegetative fertility an" #artly a go" or archety#al human
$eing. The crucial im#ortance of this myth has $een force" on literary
critics $y ?ung an" >ra:er in #articular, $ut the several $ooks no
availa$le on it are not alays systematic in their a##roach, for hich
reason , su##ly the folloing ta$le of its #hases:
1. The "an, s#ring an" $irth #hase. Cyths of the $irth of the hero, of
revival an" resurrection, of creation an" 0$ecause the four #hases are a
cycle1 of the "efeat of the #oers of "arkness, inter an" "eath.
Su$or"inate characters: the father an" the mother. The archety#e of
romance an" of the most "ithyram$ic an" rha#so"ic #oetry.
E. The :enith, summer, an" marriage or trium#h #hase. Cyths of
a#otheosis, of the sacre" marriage, an" of entering into %ara"ise.
Su$or"inate characters: the com#anion an" the $ri"e. The archety#e of
come"y, #astoral an" i"yll.
8. The sunset, autumn an" "eath #hase. Cyths of fall, of the "ying go",
of violent "eath an" sacrifice an" of the isolation of the hero. Su$or"inate
characters: the traitor an" the siren. The archety#e of trage"y an" elegy.
<. The "arkness, inter an" "issolution #hase. Cyths of the trium#h of
these #oers+ myths of floo"s an" the return of chaos, of the "efeat of the
hero, an" K`tter"Mmmerung myths. Su$or"inate characters: the ogre an"
the itch. The archety#e of satire 0see, for instance, the conclusion of
The ,n$ia+1. '...(
9<
&e have i"entifie" the central myth of literature, in its narrative as#ect,
ith the quest myth. /o if e ish to see this central myth as a #attern
of meaning also, e have to start ith the orkings of the su$conscious
here the e#i#hany originates, in other or"s in the "ream. The human
cycle of aking an" "reaming corres#on"s closely to the natural cycle of
light an" "arkness, an" it is #erha#s in this corres#on"ence that all
imaginative life $egins. The corres#on"ence is largely an antithesis: it is in
"aylight that man is really in the #oer of "arkness, a #rey to frustration
an" eakness+ it is in the "arkness of nature that the li$i"o or conquering
heroic self aakes. -ence art, hich %lato calle" a "ream for aakene"
min"s, seems to have as its final cause the resolution of the antithesis, the
mingling of the sun an" the hero, the reali:ing of a orl" in hich the
inner "esire an" the outar" circumstance coinci"e. This is the same goal,
of course, that the attem#t to com$ine human an" natural #oer in ritual
has. The social function of the arts, therefore, seems to $e closely
connecte" ith visuali:ing the goal of ork in human life. So in terms of
significance, the central myth of art must $e the vision of the en" of social
effort, the innocent orl" of fulfille" "esires, the free human society. Dnce
this is un"erstoo", the integral #iece of criticism among the other social
sciences, in inter#reting an" systemati:ing the vision of the artist, ill $e
easier to see. ,t is at this #oint that e can see ho religious conce#tions of
the final cause of human effort are as relevant as any others to criticism.
'...(
&e conclu"e ith a secon" ta$le of contents, in hich e shall attem#t
to set forth the central #attern of the comic an" tragic visions. Dne
essential #rinci#le of archety#al criticism is that the in"ivi"ual an" the
universal forms of an image are i"entical, the reasons $eing too
com#licate" for us )ust no. &e #rocee" accor"ing to the general #lan of
the game of Tenty Auestions, or, if e #refer, of the Kreat *hain of
Feing:
1. ,n the comic vision the h(an orl" is a community, or a hero ho
re#resents the ish!fulfilment of the rea"er. The archety#e of images of
sym#osium, communion, or"er, frien"shi# an" love. ,n the tragic vision
the human orl" is a tyranny or anarchy, or an in"ivi"ual or isolate" man,
the lea"er ith his $ack to his folloers., the $ullying giant of romance,
the "eserte" or $etraye" hero. Carriage or some equivalent
consummation $elongs to the comic vision+ the harlot, itch or other
varieties of ?ungGs terri$le mother $elong to the tragic one. All "ivine,
heroic, angelic or other su#erhuman communities follo the human
#attern.
E. ,n the comic vision the ani(al orl" is a community of "omesticate"
animals, usually a flock of shee#, or a lam$, or one of the gentler $ir"s,
usually a "ove. The archety#e of #astoral images. ,n the tragic vision the
animal orl" is seen in terms of $easts an" $ir"s of #rey, olves,
vultures, ser#ents, "ragons an" the like.
8. ,n the comic vision the vegetal orl" is a gar"en, grove or #ark, or a
tree of life, or a rose or lotus. The archety#e of Arca"ian images, such as
that of CarvellGs green orl" or of Shakes#eareGs forest come"ies. ,n the
tragic vision it is a sinister forest like the one in <o(s or at the o#ening
of the Inferno or a heath or il"erness, or a tree of "eath.
<. ,n the comic vision the (ineral orl" is a city, or one $uil"ing or
tem#le, or one stone, normally a gloing #recious stone ! in fact the
hole comic series, es#ecially the tree, can $e conceive" as luminous or
fiery. The archety#e of geometrical images: the starlit "ome $elongs
here. ,n the tragic vision the mineral orl" is seen in terms of "eserts,
rocks an" ruins, or of sinister geometrical images like the cross.
6. ,n the comic vision the nfor(e+ orl" is a river, tra"itionally
fourfol", hich influence" the religious image of the tem#erate $o"y
ith its four humors. ,n the tragic vision this orl" usually $ecomes the
sea, as the narrative myth of "issolution is so often a floo" myth. The
com$ination of the sea an" $east images gives us the leviathan an"
similar ater!monsters.
D$vious as this ta$le looks, a great variety of #oetic images an" forms
ill $e foun" to fit it. JeatsGs Sailing to Fy:antium, to take a famous
exam#le of the comic vision at ran"om, has the city, the tree, the $ir", the
community of sages, the geometrical gyre an" the "etachment from the
cyclic orl". ,t is, of course, only the general comic or tragic context that
"etermines the inter#retation of any sym$ol: this is o$vious ith
96
relatively neutral archety#es like the islan", hich may $e %ros#eroGs
islan" or *irceGs.
E.1.< =eslie A. >ie"ler: from Archety#e an" Signature: The 2elationshi# of
%oet an" %oem
'...( Dne of the essential functions of a #oet is the assertion an" creation
of a #ersonality, in a #rofoun"er sense than any non!artist can attain. &e
ask of a #oet the "efinition of man, at once #articular an" a$stract, state"
an" acte" out. ,t is im#ossi$le to "ra a line $eteen the ork the #oet
rites an" the ork he lives, $eteen the life he lives an" the life he
rites. An" the agile critic, therefore, must $e #re#are" to move constantly
$ack an" forth $eteen life an" #oem, not in a #ointless circle, $ut in a
meaningful s#iralling toar" the a$solute #oint.
To #ursue this matter further, e ill have to a$an"on at this #oint the
nominalist notion of the #oem as or"s or only or"s. &e have the
$est of excuses, that such terminology gets in the ay of truth. &e ill
not, hoever, return to the ol"er notions of the #oem as a "ocument or
the em$o"iment of an i"ea, for these ol"er conce#tions are equally
inimical to the essential conce#t of the marvellous + an" they have the
further "ifficulty of raising #olitical an" moral criteria of truth as relevant
to orks of art. To re"eem the sense of hat or"s are all the time
#ointing to an" hat cannot $e a"equately ex#laine" $y syntactic analysis
or semantics, , shall s#eak of the #oem as Archety#e an" Signature,
suggesting that the key to analysis is sy(%oli$s+ an" , shall not forget that
the #oetGs life is also ca#a$le of $eing analy:e" in those terms. &e have
$een rather ri"iculously overem#hasi:ing (e+i( as a "ifferentiating
factor+ , take it that e can no safely assume no one ill confuse a life
ith a #oem an" "ell on the elements common to the to, remem$ering
that a #attern of social $ehavior can $e quite as much a sym$ol as a or",
chante" or s#oken or #rinte". ,n "ee" as in or", the #oet com#oses
himself as maker an" mask, in accor"ance ith some contem#oraneous
(ythos of the artist. An" as e all kno, in our "ay, it is even #ossi$le to
$e a riter ithout having ritten anything. &hen e talk therefore of
the im#ortance of the $iogra#hy of the #oet, e "o not mean the
im#ortance of every trivial "etail, $ut of all that goes into making his
#articular life!style, hether he concentrate on recreating himself, like
Shelley, in some o$vious image of the %oet, or, like &allace Stevens, in
some itty anti!mask of the %oet. &ho coul" conten" that even the fa$es
of Shelley an" Stevens are not ty#ical #ro"ucts of their quite "ifferent
kin"s of art.
The or" Archety#e is the more familiar of my terms+ , use it instea"
of the or" myth, hich , have em#loye" in the #ast $ut hich
$ecomes increasingly am$iguous, to mean any of the immemorial
#atterns of res#onse to the human situation in its #ermanent as#ects:
"eath, love, the $iological family, the relationshi# ith the Hnknon,
etc., hether those #atterns $e consi"ere" to resi"e in the ?ungian
*ollective Hnconscious or the %latonic orl" of ,"eas. The archety#e
$elongs to the infra ! or meta!#ersonal, to hat >reu"ians call the i" or
the unconscious+ that is, it $elongs to the *ommunity as its "ee#est, #re!
conscious levels of acce#tance.
, use Signature to mean the sum total of in"ivi"uating factors in a
ork, the sign of the %ersona or %ersonality through hich an Archety#e
is ren"ere", an" hich itself ten"s to $ecome a su$)ect as ell as a means
of the #oem. =iterature, #ro#erly s#eaking, can $e sai" to come into
existence at the moment a Signature is im#ose" u#on the Archety#e. The
#urely archety#al, ithout signature elements, is the myth. %erha#s a #air
of exam#les are in or"er 0ith thanks to Cr. *. S. =eis1. The story of
Fal"ur the Feautiful an" Shakes#eareGs Te(pest "eal ith somehat
similar archety#al material of immersion an" resurrection+ $ut e recall
The Te(pest only in all its s#ecificity: the "iction, meter, #atterns of
imagery, the hear" voice of Shakes#eare 0the Signature as Ceans1+ as
ell as the scarcely motivate" s#eech on #re!marital chastity, the
$reaking of the fictional frame $y the unconventional religious pla+ite
0the Signature as Su$)ect1. &ithout these elements, The Te(pest is
sim#ly not The Te(pest+ $ut 4al+r can $e retol" in any "iction, any
9I
style, )ust as long as faith is ke#t ith the $are #lot ! an" it is itself, for it
is #ure myth. Dther exam#les are #rovi"e" $y certain chil"renGs stories,
retol" an" reillustrate" ithout losing their essential i"entity, hether they
$e folk creations like <in+erella or art #ro"ucts ca#ture" $y the folk
imagination, like SoutheyGs Three 4ears.
,n our on time, e have seen the arts 0first music, then #ainting, last of
all literature1 attem#ting to $ecome #ure, or a$stract ! that is to say,
attem#ting to slough off all remnants of the archety#al in a "rive toar"
$ecoming una"ulterate" Signature. ,t shoul" $e notice" that the theory of
the a$stract art is com#letely mislea"ing in this regar", s#eaking as it "oes
a$out #ure forms, an" mathematics, an" the "isavoal of #ersonality. The
a$stract #ainter, for instance, "oes not, as he sometimes claims, really
#aint #aint, $ut signs his name. So!calle" a$stract art is the ultimate
ex#ression of #ersonality: so that the s#ectator says of a contem#orary
#ainting, not hat one oul" have sai" in the anonymous Ci""le Ages,
ThereGs a Tree of @esse or a <r$ifi#ion. or not even hat is sai" of
2enaissance art, ThereGs a Cichelangelo Last @+ge(ent or a 2a#hael
Ma+onna., $ut quite sim#ly, ThereGs a Con"rian or a ?ackson %ollock..
Analogously, in literature e recogni:e a #oem imme"iately as a
Carianne Coore or an N:ra %oun" long $efore e un"erstan", if ever,
any of its essential meanings.
The theory of realism or naturalism "enie" $oth the Archety#e an" the
Signature, a"vocating, in its extreme forms, that art merely "escri$es
nature or reality in a neutral style, $ase" on the case re#ort of the scientist.
Art hich really achieves such aims $ecomes, of course, something less
than #oetry as , have use" the term here, $ecoming an imitation in the
loest %latonic sense, thrice remove" from the truth. >ortunately, the
great realists consistently $etray their #rinci#les, creating Archety#es an"
sym$ols illy!nilly, though setting them in a Signature "istinguishe" $y
hat ?ames calle" soli"ity of s#ecification. '...(
A #air of caveats are necessary $efore e #rocee". The "istinction
$eteen Archety#e an" Signature, it shoul" $e note", "oes not corres#on"
to the ancient "ichotomy of *ontent an" >orm. Such forms as the
structures of Kreek Trage"y 0$f. Kil$ert Curray1, /e *ome"y an"
%astoral Nlegy are themselves versnkene Archety#es, ca#a$le of $eing
rereali:e" in the great ork of art. 0Nlsehere , have calle" these
structural myths.1
/or "oes the #resent "istinction cut quite the same ay as that $eteen
im#ersonal 0or even non#ersonal1 an" #ersonal. >or the Signature,
hich is roote" in the ego an" su#erego, $elongs, as the tofol" >reu"ian
"ivision im#lies, to the social collectivity as ell as to the in"ivi"ual
riter. The Signature is the )oint #ro"uct of rules an" conventions, of
the ex#ectations of a community an" the i"iosyncratic res#onses of the
in"ivi"ual #oet, ho a""s a #ersonal i"iom or voice to a receive" style.
The "ifference $eteen the communal element in the Signature an" that
in the Archety#e is that the former is $ons$ios ! that is, associate" ith
the su#erego rather than the i". The relevant, archety#al meta#hor oul"
make the #ersonal element the Son, the conscious!communal the >ather
an" the unconscious!communal the Cother 0or the Sister, an image hich
occurs often as a sym$olic eu#hemism for the Cother1 ! in the $iological
Trinity.
,t is not irrelevant that the 2omantic movement, hich com$ine" a
"eli$erate return to the archety#al myth ith a contem#t for the conscious
communal elements in the Signature, ma"e one of the leitmotifs of the
lives of its #oets, as ell as of their #oems, the flight of the Sister from
the threat of ra#e $y the >ather 0ShelleyGs <en$i, for instance1 an" the
com#lementary "es#erate love of Frother an" Sister 0anyhere from
*hateau$rian" an" &or"sorth to Fyron an" Celville1.
Nven the most ortho"ox anti!$iogra#hist is #re#are" to grant the
im#ortance of $iogra#hical information in the n+erstan+ing of certain
ego elements in the Signature ! this is hat the intrinsicist calls the stu"y
of an authorGs i"iosyncratic use of or"s. Fut they "eny vehemently the
#ossi$ility of using $iogra#hical material for the #ur#oses of evalation.
=et us consi"er some exam#les. >or instance, the line in one of ?ohn
BonneGs #oems, A -ymne to Ko" the >ather, hich runs, &hen thou
hast "one, thou hast not "one oul" $e incom#rehensi$le in such a
collection ithout authorGs names as the Thomas an" Fron Rea+ing
0oe(s.
99
A secon" exam#le hich looks much like the first to a su#erficial glance,
$ut hich o#ens u# in quite a "ifferent ay, oul" $e the verse theyGare
$ut M((y, #ossest, from BonneGs =oves Alchymie. =et us consi"er
hether e can sustain the contention that there is a #un on M((y,
hether "eli$erately #lanne" or unconsciously fallen into. *an e rea" the
line as having the to meanings: omen, so fair in the "esiring, turn out to
$e only "rie"!out cor#ses after the having+ an" omen, once #ossesse",
turn out to $e su$stitutes for the Cother, ho is the real en" of our
"esiring@ An analysis of the mere "or+ "oes not take us very far+ e
"iscover that the lall"ort mummy meaning mother is not recor"e" until
1785 in that #recise s#elling, $ut that there are atteste" uses of it in the
form mammy ell $ack into BonneGs #erio" an" that the relate" form
mome goes $ack into Ci""le Nnglish.
&hen e have "iscovere" that ?ohn Bonne "i", in"ee", live in an
es#ecially intimate relationshi# ith his mother throughout her long life
0she actually outlive" her son1+ an" hen e have set the #ossi$le #un in a
context of other literary uses of a mythic situation in hich the long!
"esire" #ossesse" turns into the moment of #ossession into a shrivelle"
hag ho is also a mother 02i"er -aggar"Gs She, -iltonGs Lost 3orizon, an",
most ex#licitly, >lau$ertGs LB+$ation Senti(entaleL, e reali:e that our
original contention is highly #ro$a$le, for it is motivate" $y a tra"itional
version of hat the #sychologists have taught us to call the De"i#us
Archety#e. ,t shoul" $e notice" in #assing that the archety#al critic is
"elivere" from the $on"age of time, s#eaking of confluences rather than
influences, an" fin"ing the ex#lanation of a given ork in things ritten
later as ell as earlier than the original #iece. >olloing the lea" o#ene"
$y )M((y, #ossest, e can move still further toar" an un"erstan"ing
of Bonne, continuing to shuttle $eteen life an" ork ith our ne clue,
an" examining, for instance, BonneGs am$ivalent relations to the great
Cother, the 2oman *hurch, hich his actual mother re#resent not only
meta#horically, $ut in her on allegiance an" "escent. This sort of
analysis hich at once unifies an" o#ens u# 0one coul" "o something
equally #rovocative an" rich, for instance, ith the fact that in to of
CelvilleGs tales shi#s sym$olic of innocence are calle" The @olly 4a$helor
an" The 4a$helorBs ,elight1 is con"emne" in some quarters as failing to
stay close to the actual meaning of the ork itself ! as if the ork ere
a tight little islan" instea" of a focus o#ening on an inexhausti$le totality.
The intrinsicist is com#letely unnerve" $y any reference to the role of
the Archety#e in literature, fearing such references as strategies to restore
the criterion of the marvellous to res#ecta$le currency as a stan"ar"
literary excellence+ for not only is the notion of marvellous #re!
scientific, $ut it is annoyingly immune to close analysis. *ertainly, the
contem#lation of the Archety#e #ushes the critic $eyon" semantics, an"
$eyon" the kin" of analysis that consi"ers it has "one all hen it assures
us 0once again.1 that the #arts an" hole of a #oem cohere. The critic in
#ursuit of the Archety#e fin"s himself involve" in anthro#ology an"
"e#th #sychology 0not $ecause these are /e Kos#els, $ut $ecause they
#rovi"e useful tools1+ an" if he is not too em$arrasse" at fin"ing himself
in such com#any to look a$out him, he "iscovers that he has come u#on a
ay of $in"ing together our fracture" orl", of uniting literature an"
nonliterature "ithot the re+$tion of the poe(.
E.1.6 -er$ert &eisinger: from The Cyth an" 2itual A##roach to
Shakes#earean Trage"y
'...( ,t is my contention that hile the last #lays of Shakes#eare "o
in"ee" carry forar" the tragic #attern esta$lishe" in 3a(let, Othello,
Ding Lear, an" Ma$%eth, they neither heighten nor "ee#en it $ut on the
contrary re)ect an" even "estroy it. ,n fact, , oul" go as far as to argue
that the tragic #attern in the trage"ies themselves is scarcely maintaine"
equally strongly over each of the #lays. >or, on the $asis of a com#arison
$eteen the myth an" ritual #attern as , have "escri$e" it in Trage+y an+
the 0ara+o# of the Fortnate Fall an" the trage"ies, , think that
Shakes#eareGs tragic vision, hich he as a$le to sustain $ut tentatively
in 3a(let, most fully in Othello, $arely in Ding Lear, har"ly at all in
Ma$%eth, faile" him altogether in the last #lays, an" that this failure is
97
manifeste" $y the use of the elements of the myth an" ritual #attern as
mere machinery, virtually in $urlesque fashion, an" not as their informing
an" sustaining s#irit. '...(
,. The myth an" ritual #attern of the ancient /ear Nast, hich is at least
six thousan" years ol", centers in a "ivine king ho as kille" annually
an" ho as re$orn in the #erson of his successor. ,n its later
"evelo#ment, the king as not kille", $ut ent through an annual
sym$olic re$irth or resurrection. Starting out as a magical rite "esigne" to
ensure the success of the cro#s in the climates here the outcome of the
struggle $eteen ater an" "rought meant literally the "ifference $eteen
life an" "eath, the #attern as gra"ually transforme" into a religious ritual,
"esigne" this time to #romote manGs salvation, an" finally $ecame an
ethical conviction, free" no of $oth its magical an" religious ritual
#ractices $ut still retaining in s#irituali:e" an" sym$olic form its ancient
a##eal an" emotional certitu"e. Fecause it $egins ith the nee" to survive,
the #attern never loses its force, for it is concerne" alays ith survival,
hether #hysical or s#iritual. So far as can $e ascertaine" at #resent, the
#attern ha" a "ou$le groth, one along the lines of the ancient civili:ations
of the /ear Nast, the Sumerian, the Ngy#tian, the Fa$ylonian, $oth South
an" /orth, the %alestinian ! first ith the *anaanites, an" then ith the
-e$res ! an" from thence into *hristianity+ the other along the lines of
the islan" civili:ations of the Aegean, from *rete to the mainlan" of
Kreece, from thence to 2ome, an" once more into *hristianity, the to
streams of "evelo#ment floing into each other an" reinforcing
themselves at this crucial )uncture.
Bes#ite the "ifferences $eteen the religions of the ancient /ear Nast
0as, for exam#le, $eteen those of Ngy#t an" Ceso#otamia, an" $eteen
that of the -e$res an" of the others1, nevertheless they all #ossesse"
certain significant features of myth an" ritual in common. These features,
in their turn, stemme" from the common $on" of ritual, characteristic 0in
one form or another1 of all together, though, as , have sai", none #ossesse"
com#letely all the elements, hich varie" in some "egree from religion to
religion. ,n this single, i"eali:e" ritual scheme, the ell!$eing of the
community as secure" $y the regular #erformance of certain ritual
actions in hich the king or his equivalent took the lea"ing role.
Coreover the kingGs im#ortance for the community as incalcula$ly
increase" $y the almost universal conviction that the fortunes of the
community or state an" those of the king ere inextrica$ly intermingle"+
in"ee" one may go as far as to say that on the ell!$eing of the king
"e#en"e" the ell!$eing of the community as a hole.
>rom an analysis of the extant seasonal rituals, #articularly the ne year
festivals, an" from the coronation, initiation, an" #ersonal rituals of the
ancient /ear Nast, it is #ossi$le to make a reconstructe" mo"el of the
$asic ritual form. Nssentially the #attern contains these $asic elements: 1.
the in"is#ensa$le role of the "ivine king+ E. the com$at $eteen the Ko"
an" the o##osing #oer+ 8. the suffering of the Ko"+ <. the "eath of the
Ko"+ 6. the resurrection of the Ko"+ I. the sym$olic recreation of the
myth of creation+ 9. the sacre" marriage+ 7. the trium#hal #rocession+ an"
4. the settling of "estinies. &e must remem$er, hoever, that the "ying!
rising!Ko" theme constitutes $ut one illustration, so to s#eak, of the
greater cycle of $irth, "eath, an" re$irth. The many an" various rites
connecte" ith $irth, ith initiation, ith marriage, an" ith "eath in the
case of the in"ivi"ual, as ell as the rites concerne" ith the #lanting, the
harvesting, the ne year cele$rations, an" ith the installation
ceremonies of the king in the case of the community, all these rites re#eat
each in its on ay the "ee#!roote" an" a$i"ing cycle of "eath an"
re$irth. /ot only "o these rituals sy(%olize the #assage from "eath to life,
from one ay of life to another, $ut they are the actual (eans of
achieving the changeover+ they mark the transition $y hich ! throught
the #rocess of se#aration, regeneration, an" the return on a higher level !
$oth the in"ivi"ual an" the community are assure" their victory over the
forces of chaos hich are there$y ke#t un"er control. '...(
,,. This then, is the myth an" ritual #attern as , un"erstan" it. &hat are
its im#lications for trage"y@ To start ith, , oul" suggest that in the
myth an" ritual #attern e have the see"$e" of trage"y, the stuff of hich
it as ultimately forme". Foth the form an" content of trage"y, its
architecture as ell as its i"eology, closely #arallel the form an" content
of myth an" ritual #attern. Fut having sai" that, , must also say that the
94
myth an" ritual #attern an" trage"y are not the same. Foth share the same
sha#e an" the same intent, $ut they "iffer significantly in the manner of
their creation an" in the metho"s of achieving their #ur#oses. '...(
Trage"y, on the other han", is a creation com#oun"e" of conscious craft
an" conviction. ,f e "escri$e the myth an" ritual #attern as the #assage
from ignorance to un"erstan"ing through suffering mimetically an" at first
han", then e must "escri$e trage"y as the #assage from ignorance to
un"erstan"ing through suffering sym$olically an" at a "istance. To s#eak
of sym$olic meaning is alrea"y to have ma"e the lea# from myth to art. ,n
the myth an" ritual #attern, the "ying!re$orn Ko"!king, the orshi##ers
for hom he suffers, an" the action of his agony are i"entical+ in trage"y,
the tragic #rotagonist un"ergoes his suffering at an aesthetic "istance an"
only vicariously in the min"s of his au"ience. An" for that reason "oes
Aristotle tell us that trage"y is an imitation of an action. Jou #artici#ate in
a ritual $ut you are a s#ectator of a #lay.
Coreover, trage"y reconstitutes the myth an" ritual #attern in terms of its
on nee"s. Df the nine elements hich make u# the myth an" ritual
#attern as , have "escri$e" it, four have $een virtually eliminate" from
trage"y, namely, the actual "eath of the Ko", the sym$olic recreation of
the myth of creation, the sacre" marriage, an" the trium#hal #rocession+
to elements, the in"is#ensa$le role of the "ivine king an" the settling of
"estinies, are retaine" only $y im#lication an" #lay rather am$iguous roles
in trage"y+ hile the remaining three ! com$at, suffering 0ith "eath
su$sume"1, an" resurrection ! no give trage"y its structure an"
su$stance. , have alrea"y note" that one of the characteristics of the myth
an" ritual #attern is its a"a#ta$ility, its a$ility to change sha#e hile
retaining its #otency, an" e shoul" therefore not $e sur#rise" to fin" the
same #rocess at ork in its relation to trage"y. &hat is revealing,
hoever, is the "irection of change, for e fin", first, that the theme of the
settling of "estinies hich is the highest #oint in the myth an" ritual
#attern ! the goal of the struggle, since ithout it the #assion of the Ko"
oul" $e in vain, an" chaos an" "isor"er oul" $e trium#hant ! this
theme, so ela$orately ex#licate" in the ritual #ractices of the ancient /ear
Nast, is no more than im#lie" in trage"y, )ust as the cores#on"ence
$eteen the ell!$eing of the king an" the ell!$eing of the community,
again so "etaile" in ritual, is only sha"oe" forth, as a con"ition to $e
aime" at $ut not to $e achieve" in reality.
Secon", e "iscover that even greater em#hasis is #lace" on the small
moment of "ou$t in trage"y than in the myth an" ritual #attern itself. '...(
An", clearly s#elling out the im#lications of the secon" change ma"e $y
trage"y in the myth an" ritual #attern is the thir", the free"om of choice
of the tragic #rotagonist an" the res#onsi$ility for the consequences of
making that choice. '...(
To sum u#, then, the structure of tragic form, as "erive" from the myth
an" ritual #attern may $e "iagramme" in this ay: the tragic #rotagonist,
in hom is su$sume" the ell!$eing of the #eo#le an" the elfare of the
state, engages in conflict ith a re#resentation of "arkness an" evil+ a
tem#orary "efeat is inflicte" on the tragic #rotagonist, $ut after shame
an" suffering he emerges trium#hant as the sym$ol of the victory of light
an" goo" over "arkness an" evil, a victory sanctifie" $y the covenant of
the settling of "estinies hich reaffirms the ell!$eing of the #eo#le an"
the elfare of the state. ,n the course of the conflict there comes a #oint
here the #rotagonist an" the antagonist a##ear to merge into a single
challenge against the or"er of Ko"+ the evil hich the #rotagonist oul"
not "o, he "oes, an" the goo" hich he oul", he "oes not+ an" in this
moment e are ma"e aare that the real #rotagonist of trage"y is the
or"er of Ko" against hich the tragic hero has re$elle". ,n this manner is
the #ri"e, the #resum#tion hich is in all of us $y virtue of our mixe"
state as man, sym$oli:e" an" reveale", an" it is this hy%ris hich
vicariously #urge" from us $y the suffering of the tragic #rotagonist. -e
commits the foul "ee" hich is #otentially in us, he challenges the or"er
of Ko" hich e oul" $ut "are not, he ex#iates our sin, an" hat e
ha" hitherto felt e ha" $een force" to acce#t e no $elieve of our free
ill, namely, that the or"er of Ko" is )ust an" goo". Therefore is the
tragic #rotagonist vouchsafe" the vision of victory $ut not its attainment.
,,,. Seen from this #oint of vie, 3a(let is a #articularly fascinating
exam#le of the relationshi# $eteen the myth an" ritual #attern an"
trage"y, $ecause it shos ithin the action of the #lay itself the
75
"evelo#ment of Shakes#eareGs aareness of trage"y as a heightene" an"
seculari:e" version of the #attern. -amlet $egins $y crying for revenge
hich is #ersonal an" en"s $y seeking )ustice hich is social. Shakes#eare
"eals ith the #ro$lem of the #lay ! ho shall a son avenge the in)ustice
"one his father@ ! $y #resenting it to us in four "ifferent yet relate" ays
simultaneously, each consistent ithin its #attern of $ehavior, yet each
overla##ing an" #rotru"ing $eyon" the other, like the successive
su#erim#ositions of the same face seen from "ifferent angles in a #ortrait
$y %icasso. >irst, there is -amlet!=aertes ho, inca#a$le of seeking more
than revenge, "ies unchange" an" unfulfille", no $etter nor no orse than
hen he ha" $egun. Then there is -amlet the %rince, caught mi"ay
$eteen revenge an" )ustice, ho #asses from ignorance to un"erstan"ing
$ut too late. Thir", there is -amlet!>ortin$ras ho avenges his fatherGs
rongs $y )oining the arring king"oms into a single nation un"er his a$le
rule. An" finally, containing all these -amlets, is -amlet the 3ing,
i"eali:e" $y his son into the #erfect king hom he must re#lace. >rom this
"ynastic "estiny stems -amletGs am$ivalence toar"s his father: he loves
him for the man he ants to $e himself an" hates him for the 3ing ho
stan"s in the ay of the %rince an" for the father ho stan"s in the ay of
the son. Seeking his fatherGs mur"erer, -amlet fin"s himself. The same
necessity hol"s -al an" -amlet alike, $ut here -al sees a straight line
$eteen his father an" himself ! Jou on it, ore it, ke#t it, gave it me+U
Then #lain an" right must my #ossession $e. 0II 3enry I5. ,V.v.EEE!E81 !
an" is therefore sure of himself in a la$yrinth hose alls are line" ith
trick "oors an" "istorting mirrors: D curse" s#ite,U That ever , as $orn to
set it right.
-amletGs am$ivalence is reflecte" in the fragmentation of his character+
there are as many -amlets as there are scenes in hich he a##ears, an"
each #erson in the #lay sees a "ifferent -amlet $efore him. Fut of the
contra"ictions in his character, to stan" out as the ma)or sym#toms of his
incom#leteness. The first is -amletGs yearning to $e a$le to act, not for the
sake of action alone, $ut rightly, in the clear cause of )ustice+ for hile no
tragic #rotagonist acts more frequently an" more vigorously than -amlet,
he is more an" more #er#lexe" to "iscover that the more he oul" "o goo"
! that is, cleanse Benmark $y avenging his fatherGs "eath ! the more evil
he in fact accom#lishes+ hence his envy of >ortin$rasG a$ility to act
resolutely an" ithout equivocation 0,V.iv.1. Secon", though he is
nominally a *hristian, yet in the moments of shar#est crisis -amlet turns
instea" to the consolations of Stoicism: ,f it $e no, Gtis not to come+ if it
$e not to come, it ill $e no+ if it $e not no, yet it ill come+ the
rea"iness is all. Since no man has aught of hat he leaves, hat isGt to
leave $etimes@ 0V. ii.E81!861. An" it is not enough: his mission succee"s
only $y mischance, his cause is still not un"erstoo", an" ith his "ying
$reath he calls on -oratio, the true Stoic, to tell his story to the
unsatisfie". -amletGs vision is still clou"e" at his "eath ! Things
stan"ing thus unknon + -oratioGs on version of the events is
sur#risingly $ut an a"vertisement for a trage"y $y Seneca 0V. ii. 841!491+
an" there is something too col" an" callous in the ay >ortin$ras
em$races his fortune. ,n short, the myth an" ritual elements have not $een
com#letely assimilate" in the trage"y: the suffering of the tragic
#rotagonist is neither altogether "eserve" nor altogether un"erstoo" $y
him, the re$irth is not quite inevita$le nor necessary, an" the settling of
"estinies in the #erson of >ortin$ras is somehat force" an" mechanical.
The genuine sense of tragic loss is somehat vulgari:e" into regret:
-amlet has $een too!fascinating. '...(
E.1.I Nric Koul": from Mythi$al Intentions in Mo+ern Literatre
<hapter 1. Dn the Nssential in Cyth: ,nter#reting the Archety#e
'...( , ant to em#hasi:e that the mythic, therefore, "oes not an" cannot
"isa##ear in the mo"ern so long as these questions remain. >or reasons
hich shoul" $e clear to the rea"er $y the en" of this stu"y, , "o not
$elieve that e must "ifferentiate shar#ly $eteen some #ristine,
original, an" sacre" myth of origins, hich has someho rece"e" form
our gras#, an" hich e can only #essimistically ho#e to recover, an", on
the other han", myth as semiotic fact. True myth, it is very often sai",
71
even $y such o##osites as Nlia"e an" =Lvy!Strauss, can no longer $e a
reality for civili:e" man. Cy #oint is that mythicity is alive insofar as e
rely on fictions to make sense of our orl", an" in"ee", on the
ina"equacies of language to ex#lain the inex#lica$le. ,nstea" of
"isa##earing, our myths have $ecome more an" more o$sesse", as
literature is too, ith the hermeneutics of ex#ression, ith the linguistic
limits to mythicity itself. The urge to "efine myths continues una$ate" in
the mo"ern, an" even more im#ortant, the "ee# human nee" for myth
#ersists. ,n this ay, e have turne" often to literary myths a$out myth in
or"er to re!create it.
This is a "ifficult #oint to ex#lain, an" , have ha" to resort to the fact that
myth, in or"er to $e mythic, has to create itself, has to $e a self!containe"
system "eriving its ontology from language. The secon" an" thir" cha#ters
of this stu"y ex#lore the Structuralist mo"el for mythGs re#ro"uction in
narrative. , argue that literature an" myth must exist on a continuum, $y
virtue of their function as language: myth ten"s to a literary sense of
narrative form, an" fictions as#ire to the status of myth. The key question
remains not that of the literary use of mythological motifs, $ut the
#ossi$ility that myths can recover the structure of mythic thought an"
ex#ression ! in"ee", that there might $e some kin" of equivalence
$eteen mythic an" fictional narrative. Dnly a theory of fictions, it oul"
seem, can co#e ith the meaning of $oth mythological an" novelistic
#lots. Fut again, , sto# short of offering a #oetics of mythic form, for that
has $een ell "ocumente" $y %ro##, =Lvy!Strauss, an" #erha#s, $y
im#lication, $y To"orov an" 3risteva. 2ather e nee" to concentrate no
on the more s#eculative issue of ho fictional narratives seek to )ustify
their im#ortance $oth in an" out of the history of literary language an"
genre. >or myths an" fictions reveal the #ara"ox of language itself as a
system, "efine" in linguistic terms as $oth sequence 0syntagm1 an"
schemata 0#ara"igm1. &hatever e have to say a$out the meaning of a
text is necessarily #art of this #ara"ox, hich "escri$es the ontological
limits of $oth myth an" literature.
The ork of ?ames ?oyce is a clear exam#le of a conscious flirtation ith
this #ara"ox. ,n 0ortrait, ?lysses an" Finnegans ;ake ! an" #articularly
in his increasingly com#lex em#hasis on e#i#hany an"
transu$stantiation ! e fin" exam#les of ho mythic thought can $e
recovere" in the novel. This is achieve" less $y a sim#le re!use of motifs
from The O+yssey an" other quest mythology than it is $y ?oyceGs clever
entry into the logic of mythological #lotting, hich is carefully
reconstitute" in his riting. %lot transformations ten" to the a$sur" 0hile
#reserving the "ialectical reasoning of the original myth1, an" solutions to
social com#romise are reache" $y rearranging #atterns of ex#erience into
constantly changing sign systems. So myth insists that reality is not static
$ut a changing systematic, an" this is recovera$le in ?oyceGs logic of the
#un, the e#i#hany, an" the multilayere" #lot.
,n"ee", the hole su$)ect of mythicity in the mo"ern strikes me as
shoing itself most cogently in the relationshi# $eteen myth an"
literature. Again, this is not #articularly ne, for Kerman ,"ealism took
this task very seriously. Fut once e have relocate" that interest, the
question remains fresh for us: ,s the create" myth of mo"ern narrative
"ifferent from #rimary myth as e fin" it in archaic or #rimitive!
historical exam#les@ Fecause , argue from the start that it is the nature of
the language that "etermines myth an" not the reverse, the conclusion of
this stu"y is that mythicity is no less mo"ern than it is ancient, that it is
#reserve" in the ga# hich has alays occasione" it, through our
attem#ts sym$olically to re#resent an" give meaning to our #lace in the
orl" through "iscourse. ,nsofar as literature #reserves the fullness of
that intent, then it #reserves mythicity.
Fut one cannot leave the argument there, or else e $ecome locke" into
mere circularity. ,n the en", it is not enough to argue from linguistic
#remises alone an" ex#ect to have s#oken intelligently a$out the mana of
myth, hich has su##ose"ly $een rather more universal than the mana of
literature. , "o ant to examine something e all kno, that ancient
myths survive in the mo"ern ith all their #ro$lematic intensity as they
"eal ith the numinous an" the sacre". The question is ho an" hy.
The hy relates to the argument for the ontological status of myth to $e
foun" in the first #art of this stu"y. The ho is "iscusse" in s#ecific
exam#les "ran from the orks of =arence an" Nliot. ,f myth seeks to
7E
achieve un"erstan"ing, to reach an unconceale" #resence, to recover the
numinous, to locate the universal in the Feingness of $eings, then it must
still co#e ith the /othing of the mo"ern. That remains our intellectual
crisis, hich is hy , $egin $y trying to "efine essentiality an" en" $y
encountering the #ro$lem of mythical intentions in the contrasting
attem#ts of =arence an" Nliot to restore literature to the task of "efining
the a$sence of the holy as an as#ect of literature.
A #ost!Structuralist a##roach to the #ro$lem makes the a$sence cogent
enough. The fascination ith that a$sent element, the semiotic ga#, is
im#licit in our fascination ith structure, even ith the very hermeneutic
intentions of a =arence or an Nliot. &e fin" the attem#t to recover the
numinous in literature in these authorsG $elief in the logocracy of riting,
in the text esta$lishing the "ominance of riting as ex#ression, yet
struggling ith its limitations at the same time. Again, our #ro$lems ith
the sacre" ! as ith any attem#t to "efine essentiality ! are ith the
linguistic. Biscourse alone institutionali:es a#o"ictic ex#erience. So, too,
all the genuinely ontological issues "iscusse" so i"ely in the mo"ern !
the Hn"ergroun" CanGs $ore"om an" s#ite, -ei"eggerGs /othing,
3ierkegaar"Gs irony, ?as#ersG Nncom#assing, an" no Berri"aGs
Beconstruction ! are all issues hich are only "efine" in language an"
a$out language. So it is a##ro#riate that e turn to the language of
literature here the full eight of nihilation, irony, #ara"ox, an"
transformation can $e carrie".
>rom a critical stan"#oint, then, this stu"y is an intro"uction to the course
myth!an"!literature stu"ies might further take along less #essimistic lines
than it has folloe" in the #ast. &e nee" to go $eyon" the ol" o$session
ith the failures of the mo"ern fragmente" sensi$ility to #reserve myth
in our time. There have certainly $een "efen"ers of the lacerate" faith, $ut
e nee" to note too that it is #recisely the fragmentation hich can $e seen
to kee# myth alive. , attem#t to offer fresh rea"ings of ?oyce, =arence,
an" Nliot ith the motive of shoing ho they #er#etuate mythicity. An"
since , am insisting that myth is a function of language an" inter#retation,
it must $e sai" that the su$)ect un"er "iscussion is also the $usiness of
literary criticism. ,t is currently fashiona$le to "eclare that the reach of the
Structuralist enter#rise has far excee"e" his gras#, an" that its attem#t to
seek meaning through netorks, vast an" small, of sym$olic connections
an" "isconnections has neutrali:e" the text. &e are confronte" $y a
theory of the autonomy of structures, an" at the same time, as 2enL
Kirar" has sai", e are force" to fin" a context in hich to stu"y those
structures. ,t is to com$at that #ro$lem that , argue that Structuralism
must $e intimately linke" to inter#retation theory.
, "o not think that one can saturate myth $y "iscovering a formalistic
grammar of it or a s#ecific rhetoric of functions ! here , only scratch the
surface an" offer some i"eas $ase" on #rinci#les language itself
"etermines ! $ut it is #ossi$le to sho, after =Lvy!Strauss, that mythic
narratives "o #erform re#etitively, negatively, transformationally, an" in
allegorical forms. The real task, though, is to kee# alive in any a##roach
to $oth myth an" literature not only the #ro$lems of form, $ut the
ontological issues hich "rive myth an" much mo"ern riting to the
structures they em$o"y. That is hy it is so im#ortant to locate mo"ern
myth an" literature stu"ies in some theory of rea"ing an" riting as ell
as structure. &e have to argue no for the relationshi# $eteen a
structure of the mythic an" its reach, hich ill alays, $y necessity,
excee" its gras#. >or it is the nature of language itself to $e sym$olic, an"
the nature of myth to $e the rhetoric of that intent. '...(
2ea"er, riter, an" language itself are each an a##ro#riate system.
Cythicity, an" in"ee", any other con"ition for narrative ex#erience, is
$orn of the com#etition $eteen the #artici#ants in the inter#retative
event, each caught in a meta#horical orl" seeking sta$ility. Cyths, e
might assume, form #erha#s the most "eman"ing system among
narratives that e have, a #oint hich can $e "efine" in several ays:
tra"itionally in ritual #erformance, hich can $e foun" in i"e!ranging
civili:ations, or else in its #sychological function as either an im#erial
?ungian archety#e or as some version of hat Fruno Fettelheim has
"escri$e" as mythGs ty#ical involvement ith su#erego "eman"s in
conflict ith i"!motivate" action, an" ith the self!#reserving "esires of
the ego. Fut, again, those a##roaches "o not seem to me to get to the
heart of the matter: the (ythi$ity of "iscourse as meta#hor relies on
78
metonymy. Cyth is, after all, an historical consciousness only availa$le in
"iscourse, hich "oes reveal a groing aareness of some literal meaning
in our finitu"e through meta#horical ex#ansion. Fut the im#ortance of
myth in our culture, it oul" seem, is the result of the fact that e have no
o#tion $ut to use meta#hor in or"er to fin" thruth.
That is, any theory of the a##ro#riativeness of myth as a language event
refers to the a##ro#riativeness of language itself, hich in turn has
something to "o ith the ongoing #rocess of transacting meaning in the
$usiness of meta#hor!making an" inter#retation. &e ex#erience a union
an" a cutting from "iscourse at the same time. At $est, all e can "eclare
a$out the ex#erience of inter#retation is that e occu#y a #otential 0an"
not an i"eal1 s#ace in the orl" of language. As o##ose" to the
hy#othetical o$)ectivity of archety#es hich ?ung an" >rye #roclaim, e
fin" instea" that meta#hor "rives us to hat Staro$inski calls the contact
surface, the #lace here inner an" outer actually meet.
So e continue to nee" the archety#e as a "escri#tion of this site, as a
hy#othetical s#ace create" $y the su$)ectGs search for himself as ell as $y
hat lies outsi"e himself, through the tra"ition of language an" its
meanings. As such, it contains not a fixe" reality $ut a #ro#ositional
statement hich ex#eriments ith the literal. The archety#al mo"el is
largely #role#tic. ,t is useful to us less as an o$)ect of $elief, as a fixe",
systematic item, than as a transa$tional fa$t, sloly revealing its form
only in language an" inter#retation. ,t is o$)ective only insofar as it exists
as a semiotic item, lea"ing us to link it to other signs an" to mo"ify our
assum#tions a$out itself an" ourselves. The archety#e is su$)ective in that
it "e#en"s on inter#retation for its on existence. This is not to "eclare an
invi"ious hermeneutic circularity $ut, again, to assert the necessary
a%sen$e of meaning $efore meaning can even $e "iscovere". '...(
So there is no reason to "iscar" the term archety#e as ina##ro#riate. Dn
the contrary, it requires a fresh "efinition. Signs can no retain archety#al
significance for us, in $oth ancient an" mo"ern texts, $ecause they re!enact
continually, through the #lay $eteen metonymy an" meta#hor, the
alternative closing an" i"ening in "iscourse of the ga# $eteen the insi"e
an" the outsi"e. They there$y ins#ire our ratiocination, creative fantasy,
an" a$ove all, our #rocess of inter#reting the orl" as a sign system. To
re#eat my earlier #oint, the archety#e as metonym is the rhetorical "egree
:ero of meta#hor. ,t is alays the structural o#eration of the act of
inter#retation rather than the content of motifs hich lea"s to our sense of
the archety#al an", e ho#e, to a meaning for the unconscious. The
archety#e carries a necessary exteriority hose inter#retative challenge
must $e met ! as metonymy $ecomes meta#hor ! or else e la#se into a
su#erstitious orshi# of the hi""en si"e of its meaning. '...(
>.1 @?N/IAN AR<31TG0AL <RITI<ISM
E.E.1 *arl Kustav ?ung: from Archety#es of the *ollective Hnconscious
The hy#othesis of a collective unconscious $elongs to the class of
i"eas that #eo#le at first fin" strange $ut soon come to #ossess an" use as
familiar conce#tions. This has $een the case ith the conce#t of the
unconscious in general. After the #hiloso#hical i"ea of the unconscious,
in the form #resente" chiefly $y *arus an" von -artmann, ha" gone
"on un"er the overhelming ave of materialism, leaving har"ly a
ri##le $ehin" it, it gra"ually rea##eare" in the scientific "omain of
me"ical #sychology.
At first the conce#t of the unconscious as limite" to "enoting the
state of re#resse" or forgotten contents. Nven ith >reu", ho makes the
unconscious ! at least meta#horically ! take the stage as the acting
su$)ect, it is really nothing $ut the gathering #lace of forgotten an"
re#resse" contents, an" has a functional significance thanks only to these.
>or >reu", accor"ingly, the unconscious is of an exclusively #ersonal
nature, although he as aare of its archaic an" mythological thought!
forms.
A more or less su#erficial layer of the unconscious is un"ou$te"ly
7<
#ersonal. , call it the personal n$ons$ios. Fut this #ersonal unconscious
rests u#on a "ee#er layer, hich "oes not "erive from #ersonal ex#erience
an" is not a #ersonal acquisition $ut is in$orn. This "ee#er layer , call the
$olle$tive n$ons$ios. , have chosen the term collective $ecause this
#art of the unconscious is not in"ivi"ual $ut universal+ in contrast to the
#ersonal #syche, it has contents an" mo"es of $ehaviour that are more or
less the same everyhere an" in all in"ivi"uals. ,t is, in other or"s,
i"entical in all men an" thus constitutes a common #sychic su$strate of a
su#ra#ersonal nature hich is #resent in every one of us.
%sychic existence can $e recogni:e" only $y the #resence of contents
that are $apa%le of $ons$iosness. &e can therefore s#eak of an
unconscious only insofar as e are a$le to "emonstrate its contents. The
contents of the #ersonal unconscious are chiefly the feeling=tone+
$o(ple#es , as they are calle"+ they constitute the #ersonal an" #rivate si"e
of #hychic life. The contents of the collective unconscious, on the other
han", are knon as ar$hetypes. '...(
Archety#e is an ex#lanatory #ara#hrase of the %latonic ei+os. >or our
#ur#oses this term is a##osite an" hel#ful, $ecause it tells us that so far as
the collective unconscious contents are concerne" e are "ealing ith
archaic or ! , oul" say ! #rimor"ial ty#es, that is, ith universal images
that have existe" since the remotest times. The term )repr8sentations
$olle$tives*- use" $y =Lvy!Fruhl to "enote the sym$olic figures in the
#rimitive vie of the orl", coul" easily $e a##lie" to unconscious
contents as ell, since it means #ractically the same thing. %rimitive tri$al
lore is concerne" ith archety#es that have $een mo"ifie" in a s#ecial
ay. They are no longer contents of the unconscious, $ut have alrea"y
$een change" into conscious formulae taught accor"ing to tra"ition,
generally in the form of esoteric teachings. This last is a ty#ical means of
ex#ression for the transmission of collective contents originally "erive"
from the unconscious.
Another ell!knon ex#ression of the archety#es is myth an" fairy tale.
Fut here too e are "ealing ith forms that have receive" a s#ecific stam#
an" have $een han"e" "on through long #erio"s of time. The term
archety#e thus a##lies only in"irectly to the )repr8sentations $olle$tives*-
since it "esignates only those #sychic contents hich have not yet $een
su$mitte" to conscious ela$oration an" are therefore an imme"iate "atum
of #sychic ex#erience. ,n this sense there is a consi"era$le "ifference
$eteen the archety#e an" the historical formula that has evolve".
Ns#ecially on the higher levels of esoteric teaching the archety#es a##ear
in a form that reveals quite unmistaka$ly the critical an" evaluating
influence of conscious ela$oration. Their imme"iate manifestation, as e
encounter it in "reams an" visions, is much more in"ivi"ual, less
un"erstan"a$le, an" more naive than in myths, for exam#le. The
archety#e is essentially an unconscious content that is altere" $y
$ecoming conscious an" $y $eing #erceive", an" it takes its colour from
the in"ivi"ual consciousness in hich it ha##ens to a##ear.
The unconscious is commonly regar"e" as a sort of inca#sulate"
fragment of our most #ersonal an" intimate life ! something like hat the
Fi$le calls the heart an" consi"ers the source of all evil thoughts. ,n the
cham$ers of the heart "ell the icke" $loo"!s#irits, sift anger an"
sensual eakness. This is ho the unconscious looks hen seen from the
conscious si"e. Fut consciousness a##ears to $e essentially an affair of
the cere$rum, hich sees everything se#arately an" in isolation, an"
therefore sees the unconscious in this ay too, regar"ing it outright as (y
unconscious. -ence it is generally $elieve" that anyone ho "escen"s
into the unconscious gets into a suffocating atmos#here of egocentric
su$)ectivity, an" in this $lin" alley is ex#ose" to the attack of all the
ferocious $easts hich the caverns of the #sychic un"erorl" are
su##ose" to har$our.
True, hoever looks into the mirror of the ater ill see first of all his
on face. &hoever goes to himself risks a confrontation ith himself.
The mirror "oes not flatter, it faithfully shos hatever looks into it+
namely, the face e never sho to the orl" $ecause e cover it ith the
persona, the mask of the actor. Fut the mirror lies $ehin" the mask an"
shos the true face.
This confrontation is the first test of courage on the inner ay, a test
sufficient to frighten off most #eo#le, for the meeting ith ourselves
$elongs to the more un#leasant things that can $e avoi"e" so long as e
76
can #ro)ect everything negative into the environment. Fut if e are a$le to
see our on sha"o an" can $ear knoing a$out it, then a small #art of
the #ro$lem has alrea"y $een solve": e have at least $rought u# the
#ersonal unconscious. The sha"o is a living #art of the #ersonality an"
therefore ants to live ith it in some form. ,t cannot $e argue" out of
existence or rationali:e" into harmlessness. This #ro$lem is excee"ingly
"ifficult, $ecause it not only changes the hole man, $ut remin"s him at
the same time of his hel#lessness an" ineffectuality. Strong natures ! or
shoul" one rather call them eak@ ! "o not like to $e remin"e" of this, $ut
#refer to think of themselves as heroes ho are $eyon" goo" an" evil, an"
to cut the Kor"ian knot instea" of untying it. /evertheless, the account has
to $e settle" sooner or later. ,n the en" one has to a"mit that there are
#ro$lems hich one sim#ly cannot solve on ones on resources. Such an
a"mission has the a"vantage of $eing honest, truthful, an" in accor" ith
reality, an" this #re#ares the groun" for a com#ensatory reaction from the
collective unconscious: you are no more incline" to give hee" to a
hel#ful i"ea or intuition, or to notice thoughts hich ha" not $een alloe"
to voice themselves $efore. %erha#s you ill #ay attention to the "reams
that visit you at such moments, or ill reflect on certain inner an" outer
occurrences that take #lace )ust at this time. ,f you have an attitu"e of this
kin", then the hel#ful #oers slum$ering in the "ee#er strata of mans
nature can come aake an" intervene, for hel#lessness an" eakness are
the eternal #ro$lem of mankin". To this #ro$lem there is also an eternal
anser, otherise it oul" have $een all u# ith humanity along ago.
&hen you have "one everything that coul" #ossi$ly $e "one, the only
thing that remains is hat you coul" still "o if only you kne it. Fut ho
much "o e kno of ourselves@ %recious little, to )u"ge $y ex#erience.
-ence there is still a great "eal of room left for the unconscious. %rayer, as
e kno, calls for a very similar attitu"e an" therefore has much the same
effect.
The necessary an" nee"ful reaction from the collective unconscious
ex#resses itself in archety#ally forme" i"eas. The meeting ith oneself is,
at first, the meeting ith ones on sha"o. The sha"o is a tight
#assage, a narro "oor, hose #ainful constriction no one is s#are" ho
goes "on to the "ee# ell. Fut one must learn to kno oneself in or"er
to kno ho one is. >or hat comes after the "oor is, sur#risingly
enough, a $oun"less ex#anse full of un#rece"ente" uncertainty, ith
a##arently no insi"e an" no outsi"e, no a$ove an" no $elo, no here an"
no there, no mine an" no thine, no goo" an" no $a". ,t is the orl" of
ater, here all life floats in sus#ension+ here the realm of the
sym#athetic system, the soul of everything living, $egins+ here , am
in"ivisi$ly this an+ that+ here , ex#erience the other in myself an" the
other!than!myself ex#eriences me. '...(
The anima is not the soul in the "ogmatic sense, not an ani(a
rationalis, hich is a #hiloso#hical conce#tion, $ut a natural archety#e
that satisfactorily sums u# all the statements of the unconscious, of the
#rimitive min", of the history of language an" religion. ,t is a factor in
the #ro#er sense of the or". Can cannot make it+ on the contrary, it is
alays the a #riori element in his moo"s, reactions, im#ulses, an"
hatever else is s#ontaneous in #sychic life. ,t is something that lives of
itself, that makes us live+ it is a life $ehin" consciousness that cannot $e
com#letely integrate" ith it, $ut from hich, on the contrary,
consciousness arises. >or, in the last analysis, #sychic life is for the
greater #art an unconscious life that surroun"s consciousness on all si"es
! a notion that is sufficiently o$vious hen one consi"ers ho much
unconscious #re#aration is nee"e", for instance, to register a sense!
im#ression.
Although it seems as if the hole of our unconscious #sychic life
coul" $e ascri$e" to the anima, she is yet only one archety#e among
many. Therefore, she is not characteristic of the unconscious in its
entirety. She is only one of its as#ects. This is shon $y the very fact of
her femininity. &hat is not!,, not masculine, is most #ro$a$ly feminine,
an" $ecause the not!, is felt as not $elonging to me an" therefore as
outsi"e me, the anima!image is usually #ro)ecte" u#on omen. Nither sex
is inha$ite" $y the o##osite sex u# to a #oint, for, $iologically s#eaking,
it is sim#ly the greater num$er of masculine genes that ti#s the scales in
favour of masculinity. The smaller num$er of feminine genes seems to
form a feminine character, hich usually remains unconscious $ecause of
7I
its su$or"inate #osition.
&ith the archety#e of the anima e enter the realm of go"s, or rather
the realm that meta#hysics has reserve" for itself. Nverything the animal
touches $ecomes numinous ! uncon"itional, "angerous, ta$oo, magical.
She is the ser#ent in the #ara"ise of the harmless man ith goo"
resolutions an" still $etter intentions. She affor"s the most convincing
reasons for not #rying into the unconscious, an occu#ation that oul"
$reak "on our moral inhi$itions an" unleash forces that ha" $etter $een
left unconscious an" un"istur$e". As usual, there is something in hat the
anima says+ for life in itself is not goo" only, it is also $a". Fecause the
anima ants life, she ants $oth goo" an" $a". These categories "o not
exist in the elfin realm. Fo"ily life as ell as #sychic life have the
im#u"ence to get along much $etter ithout conventional morality, an"
they often remain the healthier for it.
The anima $elieves in the kalon kagathon, the $eautiful an" the goo",
a #rimitive conce#tion that ante"ates the "iscovery of the conflict $eteen
aesthetics an" morals. ,t took more than a thousan" years of *hristian
"ifferentiation to make it clear that the goo" is not alays the $eautiful an"
the $eautiful not necessarily goo". The #ara"ox of this marriage of i"eas
trou$le" the ancients as little as it "oes the #rimitives. The anima is
conservative an" clings in the most exas#erating fashion to the ays of
earlier humanity. She likes to a##ear in historic "ress, ith a #re"ilection
for Kreece an" Ngy#t. ,n this connection e oul" mention the classic
anima stories of 2i"er -aggar" an" %ierre Feno^t. '...(
'The "ream un"er "iscussion( ex#resses its meaning in the o#inion an"
voice of a ise magician, ho goes $ack in "irect line to figure of the
me"icine man in #rimitive society. -e is, like the anima, an immortal
"emon that #ierces the chaotic "arknesses of $rute life ith the light of
meaning. -e is the enlightener, the master an" teacher, a #sycho#om#
hose #ersonification even /iet:sche, that $reaker of ta$les, coul" not
esca#e ! for he ha" calle" u# his reincarnation in Parathustra, the lofty
s#irit of an almost -omeric age, as the carrier an" mouth#iece of his on
Bionysian enlightenment an" ecstasy. >or him Ko" as "ea", $ut the
"riving "emon of is"om $ecame as it ere his $o"ily "ou$le. -e himself
says: Then one as change" to to U An" Parathustra #asse" me $y.
Parathustra is more for /iet:sche than a #oetic figure+ he is an
involuntary confession, a testament. /iet:sche too ha" lost his ay in the
"arkness of a life that turne" its $ack u#on Ko" an" *hristianity, an" that
is hy there came to him the revealer an" enlightener, the s#eaking
fountainhea" of his soul. -ere is the source of the hieratic language of
Parathstra, for that is the style of this archety#e.
Co"ern man, in ex#eriencing this archety#e, comes to kno that most
ancient form of thinking as an autonomous activity hose o$)ect he is.
-ermes Trismegistus or the Thoth of -ermetic literature, Dr#heus, the
%oiman"res 0she#her" of men1 an" his near relation the %oimen of
-ermes, are other formulations of the same ex#erience. ,f the name
=ucifer ere not #re)u"ice", it oul" $e a very suita$le one for this
archety#e. Fut , have $een content to call it the ar$hetype of the "ise ol+
(an, or of (eaning. =ike all archety#es it has a #ositive an" a negative
as#ect, though , "o not ant to enter into this here. The rea"er ill fin" a
"etaile" ex#osition of the to!face"ness of the ise ol" man in The
%henomenology of the S#irit in >airytales.
The three archety#es so far "iscusse" ! the sha"o, the anima, an" the
ise ol" man ! are of a kin" that can $e "irectly ex#erience" in
#ersonifie" form. ,n the foregoing , trie" to in"icate the general
#sychological con"itions in hich such an ex#erience arises. Fut hat ,
conveye" ere only a$stract generali:ations. Dne coul", or rather one
shoul", really give a "escri#tion of the #rocess as it occurs in imme"iate
ex#erience. ,n the course of this #rocess the archety#es a##ear as active
#ersonalities in "reams an" fantasies. Fut the #rocess itself involves
another class of archety#es hich one oul" call the ar$hetypes of
transfor(ation. They are not #ersonalities, $ut are ty#ical situations,
#laces, ays an" means, that sym$oli:e the kin" of transformation in
question. =ike the #ersonalities, these archety#es are true an" genuine
sym$ols that cannot $e exhaustively inter#rete", either as signs or as
allegories. They are genuine sym$ols #recisely $ecause they are
am$iguous, full of half!glim#se" meanings, an" in the last resort
inexhausti$le. The groun" #rinci#les, the ar$hai, of the unconscious are
79
in"escri$a$le $ecause of their ealth of reference, although in themselves
recogni:a$le. The "iscriminating intellect naturally kee#s on trying to
esta$lish their singleness of meaning an" thus misses the essential #oint+
for hat e can a$ove all esta$lish as the one thing consistent ith their
nature is their (anifol+ (eaning, their almost limitless ealth of reference,
hich makes any unilateral formulation im#ossi$le. Fesi"es this, they are
in #rinci#le #ara"oxical, )ust as for the alchemists the s#irit as conceive"
as sene# et ivenis si(l* ! an ol" man an" a youth at once.
,f one ants to form a #icture of the sym$olic #rocess, the series of
#ictures foun" in alchemy are goo" exam#les, though the sym$ols they
contain are for the most #art tra"itional "es#ite their often o$scure origin
an" significance. An excellent Nastern exam#le is the Tantric $hakra
system, or the mystical nerve system of *hinese yoga. ,t also seems as if
the set of #ictures in the Tarot car"s ere "istantly "escen"e" from the
archety#es of transformation. '...(
,n all cases of "issociation it is therefore necessary to integrate the
unconscious into consciousnes. This is a synthetic #rocess hich , have
terme" the in"ivi"uation #rocess.
As a matter of fact, this #rocess follos the natural course of life ! a
life in hich the in"ivi"ual $ecomes hat he alays as. Fecause man
has consciousness, a "evelo#ment of this kin" "oes not run very smoothly+
often it is varie" an" "istur$e", $ecause consciousness "eviates again an"
again from its archety#al, instinctual foun"ation an" fin"s itself in
o##osition to it. There then arises the nee" for a synthetis of the to
#ositions. This amounts to #sychothera#y even on the #rimitive level,
here it takes the form of restitution ceremonies. As exam#les , oul"
mention the i"entification of the Australian a$origines ith their ancestors
in the al$heringa #erio", i"entification ith the sons of the sun among
the %ue$los of Taos, the -elios a#otheosis in the ,sis mysteries, an" so on.
Accor"ingly, the thera#eutic metho" of com#lex #sychology consists on
the one han" in making as fully conscious as #ossi$le the constellate"
unconscious contents, an" on the other han" in syntheti:ing them ith
consciousness through the act of recognition. Since, hoever, civili:e"
man #ossesses a high "egree of "issocia$ility an" makes continual use of it
in or"er to avoi" every #ossi$le risk, it is $y no means a foregone
conclusion that recognition ill $e folloe" $y the a##ro#riate action.
Dn the contrary, e have to reckon ith the singular ineffectiveness of
recognition an" must therefore insist on a meaningful a##lication of it.
2ecognition $y itself "oes not as a rule "o this nor "oes it im#ly, as such,
any moral strength. ,n these cases it $ecomes very clear ho much the
cure of neurosis is a moral #ro$lem. '...(
E.E.E *arl Kustav ?ung: from %sychology an" =iterature
The #rofoun" "ifference $eteen the first an" secon" #arts of Fast
marks the "ifference $eteen the #sychological an" the visionary mo"es
of artistic creation. The latter reverses all the con"itions of the former.
The ex#erience that furnishes the material for the artistic is no longer
familiar. ,t is a strange something that "erives its existence from the
hinterlan" of mans min" ! that suggests the a$yss of time se#arating us
from #re!human ages, or evokes a su#er!human orl" of contrasting light
an" "arkness. ,t is a #rimor"ial ex#erience hich sur#asses mans
un"erstan"ing, an" to hich his is in "anger of succum$ing. '...(
The o$scurity as to the sources of the material in visionary creation is
very strange, an" the exact o##osite of hat e fin" in the #sychological
mo"e of creation. &e are even le" to sus#ect that this o$scurity is not
unintentional. &e are naturally incline" to su##ose ! an" >reu"ian
#sychology encourages us to "o so ! that some highly #ersonal
ex#erience un"erlies this grotesque "arkness. '...(
Although a "iscussion of the #oets #ersonality an" #sychic "is#osition
$elongs strictly to the secon" #art of my essay, , cannot avoi" taking u#
in the #resent connection this >reu"ian vie of the visionary ork of art.
>or one thing, it has arouse" consi"era$le attention. An" then it is the
only ell!knon attem#t that has $een ma"e to give a scientific
ex#lanation of the sources of the visionary material or to formulate a
theory of the #sychic #rocesses that un"erlie this curious mo"e of artistic
77
creation. , assume my on vie of the question is not ell knon or
generally un"erstoo". &ith this #reliminary remark, , ill no try to
#resent it $riefly.
,f e insist on "eriving the vision from a #ersonal ex#erience, e must
treat the former as something secon"ary ! as a mere su$stitute for
reality.The result is that e stri# the vision of its #rimor"ial quality an"
take it as nothing $ut a sym#tom. The #regnant chaos then shrinks to the
#ro#ortions of a #sychic "istur$ance. &ith this account of the matter e
feel reassure" an" turn again to our #icture of a ell!or"ere" cosmos.
Since e are #ractical an" reasona$le, e "o not ex#ect the cosmos to $e
#erfect+ e acce#t these unavoi"a$le im#erfections hich e call
a$normalities an" "iseases, an" e take for grante" that the human nature
is not exem#t from them. The frightening revelation of a$ysses that "efy
the human un"erstan"ing is "ismisse" as illusion, an" the #oet is regar"e"
as a victim an" #er#etrator of "ece#tion. Nven to the #oet his #rimor"ial
ex#erience as human Oall too human, to such a "egree that he coul" not
face its meaning $ut ha" to conceal it from himself.
&e shall "o ell, , think, to make fully ex#licit all the im#lications of
that ay of accounting for artistic creation hich consists in re"ucing it to
#ersonal factors. &e shoul" see clearly here it lea"s. The truth is that it
takes us aay from the #sychological stu"y of the ork of art an"
confronts us ith the #sychic "is#osition of the #oet himself. That the
latter #resents an im#ortant #ro$lem is not to $e "enie", $ut the ork of art
is something in its on right, an" may not $e con)ure" aay.The question
of the significance to the #oet of his creative ork ! of his regar"ing it as a
trifle, as a screen, as a source of suffering or an achievement ! "oes not
concern us at the moment, our task $eing to inter#ret the ork of art
#sychologically. >or this un"erstan"ing it is essential that e give serious
consi"eration to the $asic ex#erience that un"erlies it ! namely, to the
vision. &e must take it at least as seriously as e "o the ex#eriences that
un"erlie the #sychological mo"e of artistic creation, an" no one "ou$ts
that they are $oth real an" serious. ,t looks, in"ee", as if the visionary
ex#erience ere something quite a#art from the or"inary lot of man, an"
for this reason e have "ifficulty in $elieving that it is real. ,t has a$out it
an unfortunate suggestion of o$scure meta#hysics an" of occultism, so
that e feel calle" u#on to intervene in the name of a ell!intentione"
reasona$leness. Dur conclusion is that it oul" $e $etter not to take such
things too seriously, lest the orl" revert again to a $enighte"
su#erstition. &e may, of course, have a #re"ilection for the occult+ $ut
or"inarily e "ismiss the visionary ex#erience as the outcome of a rich
fantasy or of a #oetic moo" ! that is to say, as a kin" of #oetic licence
#sychologically un"erstoo". *ertain of the #oets encourage this
inter#retation in or"er to #ut a holesome "istance $eteen themselves
an" their ork. S#itteler, for exam#le, stoutly maintaine" that it as one
an" the same hether the #oet sang of an Dlym#ian S#ring or to the
theme: Cay is here. The truth is that #oets are human $eings, an" that
hat a #oet has to say a$out his ork is often far from $eing the most
illuminating or" on the su$)ect. &hat is require" of us, then, is nothing
less than to "efen" the im#ortance of the visionary ex#erience against the
#oet himself. '...(
>rom the very first $eginnings of human society onar" mans effort
to give his vague intimations a $in"ing form have left their traces.Nven in
the 2ho"esian cliff!"raings of the Dl" Stone Age there a##ears, si"e $y
si"e ith the most ama:ingly life!like re#resentations of animals, an
a$stract #attern ! a "ou$le cross containe" in a circle. This "esign has
turne" u# in every cultural region, more or less, an" e fin" it to"ay not
only in *hristian churches, $ut in Ti$etan monasteries as ell. ,t is the
so!calle" sun!heel, an" as it "ates from a time hen no one ha" thought
of heels as a mechanical "evice it cannot have ha" its source in any
ex#erience of the external orl". ,t is rather a sym$ol that stan"s for a
#sychic ha##ening+ it covers an ex#erience of the inner, an" is no "ou$t
as lifelike a re#resentation as the famous rhinoceros ith the tick!$ir"s
on its $ack. There has never $een a #rimitive culture that "i" not #ossess
a system of secret teaching, an" in many cultures this system is highly
"evelo#e". The mans councils an" the totem!clans #reserve this
teaching a$out hi""en things that lie a#art from mans "aytime existence
! things hich, from #rimeval times, have alays constitute" his most
vital ex#eriences. 3nole"ge a$out them is han"e" on to younger men in
74
the rites of initiation. The mysteries of the Kraeco!2oman orl"
#erforme" the same office, an" the rich mythology of antiquity is a relic of
such ex#eriences in the earliest stages of human "evelo#ment.
,t is therefore to $e ex#ecte" of the #oet that he ill resort to mythology
in or"er to give his ex#erience its most fitting ex#ression. ,t oul" $e a
serious mistake to su##ose that he orks ith materials receive" at
secon"!han". The #rimor"ial ex#erience is the source of his creativeness+
it cannot $e fathome", an" therefore requires mythological imagery to
give it form. ,n itself it offers no or"s or images, for it is a vision seen as
in a glass, "arkly. ,t is merely a "ee# #resentiment that strives to fin"
ex#ression. ,t is like a hirlin" that sei:es everything ithin reach an",
$y carrying it aloft, assumes a visi$le sha#e. Since the #articular
ex#ression can never exhaust the #ossi$ilities of the vision, $ut falls short
of it in richness content, the #oet must have at "is#osal a huge store of
materials if he is to communicate even a fe of his intimations. &hat is
more, he must resort to an imagery that is "ifficult to han"le an" full of
contra"ictions in or"er to ex#ress the eir" #ara"oxicality of his vision.
Bantes #resentiments are clothe" in images that run the gamut of -eaven
an" -ell+ Koethe must $ring in the Flocks$erg an" the infernal regions of
Kreek antiquity+ &agner nee"s the hole $o"y of /or"ic myth+ /iet:sche
returns to the hieratic style an" recreates the legen"ary seer of #rehistoric
times+ Flake invents for himself in"escri$a$le figures, an" S#itteler
$orros ol" names for ne creatures of the imagination. An" no
interme"iate ste# is missing in the hole range from the ineffa$ly su$lime
to the #erversely grotesque.
%sychology can "o nothing toar"s the eluci"ation of this colourful
imagery exce#t $ring together materials for com#arison an" offer a
terminology for its "iscussion. Accor"ing to this terminology, that hich
a##ears in the vision is the collective unconscious. &e mean $y collective
unconscious, a certain #sychic "is#osition sha#e" $y the forces of
here"ity+ from it consciousness has "evelo#e". ,n the #hysical structure of
the $o"y e fin" traces of earlier stages of evolution, an" e may ex#ect
the human #syche also to conform in its make!u# to the la of #hylogeny.
,t is a fact that in ecli#ses of consciousness ! in "reams, narcotic states,
an" cases of insanity ! there come to the surface #sychic #ro"ucts or
contents that sho all the traits of #rimitive levels of #sychic
"evelo#ment. The images themselves are sometimes of such a #rimitive
character that e might su##ose them "erive" from ancient, esoteric
teaching. Cythological themes clothe" in mo"ern "ress also frequently
a##ear. &hat is of #articular im#ortance for the stu"y of literature in
these manifestations of the collective unconscious is that they are
com#ensatory to the conscious attitu"e. This is to say that they can $ring
a one!si"e, a$normal or "angerous state of consciousness into equili$rium
in an a##arently #ur#osive ay. ,n "reams e can see this #rocess very
clearly in its #ositive as#ect. ,n cases of insanity the com#ensatory
#rocess is #erfectly o$vious, $ut takes a negative form. There are #ersons,
for instance, ho have anxiously shut themselves off from all the orl"
only to "iscover one "ay that their most intimate secrets are knon an"
talke" a$out $y everyone. '...(
,t makes no "ifference hether the #oet knos that his ork is
$egotten, gros, an" matures ith him, or hether he su##oses that $y
taking thought he #ro"uces it out of the voi". -is o#inion of the matter
"oes not change the fact that his on ork outgros him as a chil" its
mother. The creative #rocess has feminine quality, an" the creative ork
arises the from unconscious "e#ths ! e might say, from the realms of
mothers. &henever the creative force #re"ominates, human life is rule"
an" moul"e" $y the unconscious as against the active ill, an" the
conscious ego is se#t along on a su$terranean current, $eing nothing
more than a hel#less o$server of events. The ork in #rocess $ecomes
the #oets fate an" "etermines his #sychic "evelo#ment. ,t is not Koethe
ho creates Fast, $ut Fast hich creates Koethe. An" hat is Fast
$ut a sym$ol@ '...(
The secret of artistic creation an" of the effectiveness of art is to $e
foun" in a return to the state of parti$ipation (ysti.e ! to that level of
ex#erience at hich it is man ho lives, an" not the in"ivi"ual, an" at
hich the eal or oe of the single human $eing "oes not count, $ut only
human existence. This is hy every great ork of art is o$)ective an"
im#ersonal, $ut none the less #rofoun"ly moves us each an" all. An" this
45
is also hy the #ersonal life of the #oet cannot $e hel" essential to his art
!$ut at most a hel# or a hin"rance to his creative task. -e may go the ay
of a %hilistine, a goo" citi:en, a neurotic, a fool or a criminal. -is #ersonal
career may $e inevita$le an" interesting, $ut it "oes not ex#lain the #oet.
E.E.8 Cau" Fo"kin: from Archety#al %atterns in %oetry: %sychological
Stu"ies of ,magination
1. A2*-NTJ%A= %ATTN2/S ,/ T2AK,* %DNT2J
'...( ,n an article, Dn the relation of analytical #sychology to #oetic art,
Br. *. K. ?ung has set forth an hy#othesis in regar" to the #sychological
significance of #oetry. The s#ecial emotional significance #ossesse" $y
certain #oems ! a significance going $eyon" any "efinite meaning
conveye" ! he attri$utes to the stirring in the rea"erGs min", ithin or
$eneath his conscious res#onse, of unconscious forces hich he terms
#rimor"ial images, or archety#es. These archety#es he "escri$es as
#sychic resi"ua of num$erless ex#eriences of the same ty#e, ex#eriences
hich have ha##ene" not to the in"ivi"ual, $ut to his ancestors, an" of
hich the results are inherite" in the structure of the $rain, a priori
"eterminants of in"ivi"ual ex#erience.
,t is the aim of the #resent riter to examine this hy#othesis, testing it in
regar" to exam#les here e can $ring together the recor"e" ex#erience
an" reflection of min"s a##roaching the matter from "ifferent stan"#oints.
,t is ho#e" that, in this ay, something may $e "one toar"s enriching the
formulate" theory of the systematic #sychologist through the insight of
more intuitive thinkers, hile at the same time the intuitive thinkerGs
results may receive somehat more exact "efinition. '...(
&e have here an ex#ression, somehat imaginative an" #oetical, of an
ex#erience in #resence of #oetry hich e may su$mit to closer
examination ! an" this in to ays. &e may stu"y the themes that sho
this #ersistence ithin the life of a community or race, an" may com#are
the "ifferent forms hich they assume+ also e may stu"y analytically in
"ifferent in"ivi"uals the inner ex#erience of res#on"ing to such themes.
'...(
E. T-N A2*-NTJ%N D> %A2AB,SN!-ABNS, D2 D> -NAVN/
A/B -N==
'...( -aving thus viee" the com#lete #attern of *oleri"geGs #oem
'D%la Dhan( in relation to that of Cilton '0ara+ise Lost(, e may set
asi"e for examination in another essay the figure that ins#ires the #oetGs
song, an" may return to the question concerning the emotional
significance of those images of mountain!gar"en, of cavern an"
un"ergroun" aters, hich are rought into the #attern of $oth #oems.
&ithin the great #oem of Cilton the engulfe" river a##ears of less
formi"a$le significance than "oes, in *oleri"geGs slighter #oem, the river
that falls in tumult through its measureless caverns. Fut in CiltonGs #oem
$oth the Count of %ara"ise an" the river in its "arksome #assage $elo
have $een, as it ere, "arfe" an" "raine" $y those vast regions $eyon"
them of -eaven an" -ell hich Cilton has fashione" out of that same
original su$stance hich ent to the making of %ara"ise an" the gulfs
$eneath, in ancient tra"ition. =et us glance $ack toar"s the earliest
a##earance in literature of the mountain as a seat of $lesse"ness ith
caverne" "e#ths $elo.
Such an image came to Cilton $y to lines of "escent, through Kreek
an" through -e$re literature. ,n the O+yssey Dlym#us a##ears as the
seat of the Ko"s that stan"eth fast for ever. /ot $y in"s is it shaken, nor
ever et ith rain, nor "oth the sno come nigh thereto, $ut most clear
air is s#rea" a$out it clou"less, an" the hite light floats over it. ,n this
#assage an ancient tra"ition has taken a "efinite aesthetic form to hich
our feeling can res#on". Dlym#us in this as#ect is akin to that Nlysian
#lain, here life is easiest for men. /o sno is there, nor yet great storm
nor any rain+ $ut alays Dcean sen"eth forth the $ree:e of the shrill &est
to $lo cool on men. '...(
So much for a first glance at the image of -eaven an" -ell, as it a##ears
in Kreek tra"ition. The other line of "escent of the image, to Cilton an"
ourselves, is from Semitic sources through -e$re literature. The
imaginative form, says *heyne, taken $y the Semitic conce#tion of the
original go"!likeness of human nature is that $efore the #resent
41
con"ition arose, man "elt near to Ko" in Ko"Gs on mountain home.
&hat #icture have e of this mountain home of Ko"@
Stu"ents of Semitic origins tell us of a #rimitive Fa$ylonian conce#tion
of a mountain, Cashu, coextensive ith the earth ! a vast hollo
structure, erecte" as a G#lace of fertilityG un"er the cano#y of heaven an"
resting on the great G"ee#G . The great "ee# un"er the mountain also
a##ears as the cave un"erneath the earth here the "ea" "ell. ,n the
Fa$ylonian e#ic of Kilgamesh e rea" of the hero coming to this
mountain hose entrance is guar"e" $y Scor#ion!men of terrifying as#ect.
At sunrise an" sunset they kee# guar" over the sun, as he emerges from
the "ee# an" returns to it again. The colossal images of the ancient e#ic
loom $efore us so "im an" remote that e har"ly "are trust ourselves to
the ex#erience they half!communicate. '...(
&hen e turn from the image of the heavenly seat to that of hell, or the
un"erorl", the -e$re influence a##ears less "ominant. Several Fi$lical
#assages in"ee" transmit the image of that "ee# that as foun" $eneath the
hollo mountain of Fa$ylonian myth, #resenting it as the antithesis of the
heavenly height. The mystery of Ko" is high as -eaven an" "ee#er than
-ell 0?o$ xi. 71. '...(
An image of Tartarus $earing an interesting relation to the caverns of
*oleri"geGs #oem is foun" in the mythical #icture of the u##er an" un"er
orl" that a##ears in the 0hae+o of %lato. %lato #ictures the true Narth
lifte" u# fair an" #ure into the ether, hile, #iercing right through the
hole Narth yans the great cavern hereof -omer maketh mention,
saying GAfar off, here "ee#est un"ergroun" the %it is "igge".G ,nto this
cavern all rivers flo an" from it flo out again, an" ithin it the
measureless floo" singeth an" sayeth u# an" "on, an" the air an"
in" surge ith it'...(an" even as the $reath of living creatures is "riven
forth an" "ran in as a stream continually, so there also the in",
singing ith the floo", cometh in an" goeth out, an" causeth terri$le,
mighty tem#ests. Those rivers that encircle the earth #our their aters
$ack into Tartarus as lo "on as ater can fall, even to the earthGs
center. '...(
&hen , questione" my on ex#erience, hy it as that in res#on"ing to
*oleri"geGs line, , coul" not think of A$ora as a %ara"isal mount ! the
associations hich the name gathere" from the "escri#tion #rece"ing it
ere rather of caverns, of su$terranean in"s an" tumult ! an anser
came in the form of a "im memory of some mountain name" $y Cilton
an" associate" ith such fierce in"s.'...(
, oul" venture here again to utili:e something of my on ex#erience,
#resenting it only as an in"ivi"ual mo"e of a##roach to hat may $e truth
of general vali"ity.
,n my ex#erience the lines "escri$ing the fountain force" u#ar" ith
turmoil, as if this earth in fast thick #ants ere $reathing, are closely
linke" ith the #assage in the 0hae+o #icturing the vast cavern here the
measureless floo" sings an" surges, the in" singing ith it like the
$reath of a living creature "ran forth an" in. That this image as
actually o#erative in *oleri"geGs min", "etermining the #icture an"
#hrases of his "ream #oem, e certainly cannot say. ,t may have $een
rather the a#tness of a simile to ex#ress an imaginative s#ectatorGs
res#onse that has $rought into $oth #ictures a reference to the tumultuous
$reathing of the earth. &ithin those travellersG "escri#tions hich =oes
exhi$its as sources of the #hrases of *oleri"geGs #oem, as there also
latent an organic res#onse to the natural #henomenon itnesse", as to an
ex#ression of a living creatureGs force@ &e have, to )u"ge from, in these
"escri#tions, only the strong note of on"er: the inchanting an" ama:ing
crystal fountain, he as astonishe" $y an inex#ressi$le rushing
noise'...(an" tremor of the earth'...(an" sa, ith ama:ement, the floo"s
rushing u#ar" many feet high. &hatever organic res#onse may have
$een #resent ithin the recor"e" ama:ement of the traveller, to
*oleri"ge, sharing it as he rea", some sense of the #assion of a living
thing as evi"ently conveye".
Nlements of organic res#onse hich remain latent an" un"iscovera$le in
our conscious a##rehensions e are no learning to ex#lore $y means of
the analysis of ex#eriences of "reams an" reverie in hich the same
a##rehen"e" o$)ects occur. Some time after , ha" rea", ith a certain
excitement, %latoGs "escri#tion of the singing floo" in Tartarus ! an"
ha" com#are" it ith that other "escri#tion in the myth of Nr 0Rep%li$,
4E
I1<1, of the souls coming to the ghostly #lace here ere to o#en
Couths of the Narth har" $y each other, an" also a$ove, to Couths of the
-eaven ! , ha" a "ream hich a##eare" closely connecte" ith %latoGs
"escri#tion, an" ith the fascination it ha" for me.
,n the "ream , foun" myself alking along the street of a sea!si"e ton.
=ooking $eteen the houses in the "irection of the sea, , sa a vast cavern
mouth hich a##eare" as an o#ening $oth into earth an" sky. , kne that
through it one coul" #ass into all the elements, earth, ater, an" air+ $ut it
as $eing $oar"e" u# almost com#letely. Dnly through some cracks
$eteen the $oar"s, )ets of ater floe". , as sorry a$out the $oar"ing
u#, thinking ho "ull it oul" $e then for me an" all the #eo#le in the
houses.
As , recalle" the "ream of aking, , thought of %latoGs strange mouths of
Narth an" -eaven+ $ut, seeking for more #ersonal associations, , came
u#on a memory from chil"ish "ays of a certain semi!circular grate"
o#ening in a all, through hich a stream floe". Dn the other si"e of the
high all ere #rivate groun"s hich , never visite". The ater a##earing
an" floing through the $ars of the lo curve" o#ening ha" mystery an"
fascination for me+ so that hen e alke" ith the nurse in that "irection
, oul" look forar" to coming to the #lace an" $e "isa##ointe" if e
turne" $ack short of it. Another s#ot , recalle" as equally exciting to visit
in those "ays as the lock on a certain canal, here , coul" atch the
runnels of ater that force" a ay $eteen the #lanks of the sluice!gates,
)ust as "i" the ater in my "ream.
As , recall those early memories in relation to the "ream!images, , seem
to recogni:e the note of feeling that unites them ith my a##rehension of
%latoGs image, an" also ith that of *oleri"ge. ,t is a $roo"ing on"er at
the aterGs movement, an" sym#athy ith it as ith a thing alive. , "o not
kno hether if , un"erent a >reu"ian analysis the "aily re#eate"
#ressures of the analystGs ex#ectations oul" ena$le me to #ro"uce in
relation to these memories further associations connecte" ith the human
$o"y, its functions an" secretions, that may have $een latent ithin the
chil"ish on"er. ,f such ere #resent , cannot $y my metho" of inquiry
recover them. &hat , "o seem to recover is the note of a on"er more
naive an" unquestioning ! a consciousness more utterly surren"ere" to its
o$)ect ! than any a##rehension of my a"ult consciousness coul" $e. ,n
the trance of the infantile memory as revive" $y the "ream, , seem to
share ith the floing ater a kin" of su$!human life ! a life of
elemental feeling, from hich, the "ream seems to say, the higher
sociali:e" life must not $e com#letely shut off, or it turns "ull an" ari".
The hy#othesis suggeste", then, $y my ex#erience is that the magic, or
fascination, hich a rea"er may feel in such a "escri#tion as that of the
fountain of *oleri"ge, "e#en"s, at least in #art, u#on the #resence, ithin
his a##rehension of the lines, of a factor of feeling of a more #rimitive
character than #ertains to or"inary a"ult consciousness. , have s#oken of
this feeling as an organic res#onse. The chil" in #resence of the moving
ater "oes not so much think, in terms of sociali:e" consciousness, as
feel the reaction of her on $o"y, a reaction involving no "ou$t an
immature sexuality, concerning hich >reu"ian researches have taught us
something, $ut involving also other elements, $oth of instinctual
character, an" of tensions an" stresses share" ith $eings $elo the
animal level. This factor of organic feeling, hich invites our scientific
curiosity to carry its analysis farther, shoul" $e i"entifia$le, , think, $y
any rea"er ho ha" the a#titu"e $oth for "ee# an" full res#onse to #oetry,
an" for analysing that res#onse. '...(
The same reflections a##ly to the consi"eration of the cavern image.
Nxamining my on res#onse to the cavern image as it occurs in
*oleri"geGs #oem, , think a com#lex of reminiscence, inclu"ing memories
of "am# "ark cellars an" of a "ee# ell, regar"e" ith fearful interest in
chil"hoo"+ also, fuse" ith these, images of caverns an" un"ergroun"
castle!vaults, go$lin!tenante", hich , gathere" from an a$sor$e" rea"ing
of fairy!tales. These memories inclu"e no recogni:a$le trace of reference
to the om$. ,f, hoever, e acce#t the vie that the earliest conscious
a##rehensions are con"itione" $y yet earlier res#onses of the organism !
unconscious #rehensions, in &hitehea"Gs #hrase, inherite" $y later
conscious occasions ! e have a means for conceiving ho the earliest
ex#eriences of the infant in relation to the motherGs $o"y, es#ecially the
violent a"venture of $irth, may hel# to "etermine the first conscious
48
reactions to "ark enclose" #laces, an" may contri$ute #sycho!
#hysiological echoes to "reams an" to the #lay of fancies.
=et us no revie the results that have so far emerge" from the
"iscussion.
&e have note" in the #oem of D%la Dhan an image!#attern of
mountain!gar"en an" mountain!"e#ths, of aters rising an" falling, hich
e have seen also in 0ara+ise Lost, an" have folloe" $ack in Kreek an"
-e$re literature. &hen e examine the ex#erience communicate" $y
#oetry an" myth shoing this image!#attern, e may, it is suggeste",
"iscern a corres#on"ing #attern of emotion. *hangeful an" su$tly
interrelate" as these #atterns of emotion an" imagery are foun" to $e, yet
the image of the atere" gar"en an" the mountain height sho some
#ersistent affinity ith the "esire an" imaginative en)oyment of su#reme
ell!$eing, or "ivine $liss, hile the cavern "e#ths a##ears as the
o$)ectification of an imaginative fear ! an ex#erience of fascination it may
$e, in hich the #ain of fear is lost in the relief of ex#ression+ in other
instances the horror of loss an" frustration sym$oli:e" $y "e#th, "arkness
an" enclosing alls soun"s its intrinsic note of #ain even through the
o##osing gain an" trium#h that #oetic ex#ression achieves.
As in the #rece"ing essay e trace" a #attern of rising an" sinking
vitality, a forar" urge an" $ackar" sing of life, reflecte" in an imagery
"e#loye" in time ! an imagery in hich in"s an" aters #laye" their #art
! so no e fin" an emotional #attern of somehat similar character
#resente" statically, in imagery of fixe" s#atial relation ! the mountain
stan"ing high in storm an" sunlight, the cavern unchanging, "ark, $elo,
aters hose movement only em#hasi:es these stea"fast relations of
height an" "e#th. '...(

E.E.< Al$ert Kel#i: from Nmily Bickinson an" the Beerslayer: the Bilemma
of the &oman %oet in America
'...( ,n the Bickinson canon the #oem that has cause" commentators the
most consternation over the years is Cy =ife ha" stoo" ! a =oa"e"
Kun!. ,t figures #rominently an" frequently in After /reat 0ain, ?ohn
*o"ys >reu"ian $iogra#hy of Bickinson, an" more recently 2o$ert
&eis$uch #refaces his ex#lication in 1(ily ,i$kinson*s 0oetry ith the
remark that it is the single most "ifficult #oem Bickinson rote, a
ri""le to $e solve". The #oem requires our close attention an", if
#ossi$le, our unri""ling, $ecause it is a #oerful sym$olic enactment of
the #sychological "ilemma facing the intelligent an" aare oman, an"
#articularly the oman artist, in #atriarchal America. -ere is the full text
of the #oem, num$er 96< in ?ohnson variorum e"ition, ithout, for the
moment, the variants in the manuscri#t:
Cy life ha" stoo" ! a =oa"e" Kun ! U ,n *orners ! till a Bay U The
Dner #asse" ! i"entifie" ! U An" carrie" Ce aay ! UU An" no &e
roam in Sovreign &oo"s ! U An" no &e hunt the Boe ! U An" every
time , s#eak for -im ! U The Countains straight re#ly ! UU An" "o ,
smile, such cor"ial light U H#on the Valley glo ! U ,t is as a Vesuvian
face U -a" let its #leasure through ! UU An" hen at /ight ! Dur goo"
Bay "one ! U , guar" Cy Casters -ea" ! U Tis $etter than the Ni"er!
Bucks U Bee# %illo ! to have share" ! UU To foe of -is ! ,m "ea"ly
foe ! U /one stir the secon" time ! U Dn hom , lay a Jello Nye ! U Dr
an em#hatic Thum$ ! UU Though , than -e ! may longer live U -e longer
must ! than , ! U >or , have $ut the #oer to kill, U &ithout ! the #oer
to "ie !
Bes#ite the narrative manner, it is no more #eo#le" than the rest of
Bickinsons #oems, hich almost never have more than to figures: the
s#eaker an" another, often an anonymous male figure suggestive of a
lover or of Ko" or of $oth. So here: , an" Cy Caster. the Dner of
my life. Fiogra#hers have trie" to sift the evi"ence to i"entify the man
in the central "rama of the #oetry. Three "raft! letters from the late
1765s an" early 17I5s, confessing in overrought language her
#assionate love for the Caster an" her #ain at his re)ection, might seem
to corro$orate the factual $asis for the relationshi# examine" in this
#oem, #ro$a$ly ritten in 17I8. -oever, as , have argue" elsehere,
4<
the fact that $iogra#hers have $een le" to "ifferent can"i"ates, ith the
fragmentary evi"ence #ointing in several "irections inconclusively, has
"ee#ene" my conviction that he is not a real human $eing hom
Bickinson kne an" love" an" lost an" renounce", $ut a #sychological
#resence or factor in her inner life. /or "oes the i"entification of him
ith ?esus or ith Ko" satisfactorily ex#lain many of the #oems, inclu"ing
the #oem un"er "iscussion here. , have come, therefore, to see him as an
image sym$olic of certain as#ects of her on #ersonality, qualities an"
nee"s an" #otentialities hich have $een i"entifie" culturally an"
#sychologically ith the masculine, an" hich she consequently #erceive"
an" ex#erience" as masculine.
*arl ?ung calle" this masculine as#ect of the omans #syche her
animus, corres#on"ing to the #ostulation of an anima as the feminine
as#ect of the mans #syche. The anima or animus, first felt as the
"istur$ing #resence of the other in ones self, thus hol"s the key to
fulfilment an" can ena$le the man or the oman to suffer through the
initial crisis of alienation an" conflict to assimilate the other into an
integrate" i"entity. ,n the struggle toar" holeness the animus an" the
anima come to me"iate the hole range of ex#erience for the oman an"
the man: her an" his connection ith nature an" sexuality on the one han"
an" ith s#irit on the other. /o on"er that the animus an" the anima
a##ear in "reams, myths, fantasies, an" orks of art as figures at once
human an" "ivine, as lover an" go". Such a #resence is Nmily Bickinsons
Caster an" Dner in the #oem.
-oever, for omen in a society like ours, hich enforces the
su$)ection of omen in certain assigne" roles, the #rocess of groth an"
integration $ecomes es#ecially fraught ith #ainful risks an" tra#s an"
am$ivalences. /evertheless, here, as in many #oems, Bickinson sees the
chance for fulfilment in her relationshi# to the animus figure, in"ee", in
her i"entification ith him. Till he came, her life ha" knon only inertia,
stan"ing neglecte" in tight #laces, caught at the right angles of alls: not
)ust a corner, the first lines of the #oem tell us, $ut corners, as though
herever she stoo" as there$y a constricte" #lace. Fut all the time she
kne that she as something other an" more. %ara"oxically, she attaine"
her #rerogatives through su$mission to the internali:e" masculine
#rinci#le. ,n the or"s of the #oem, the release of her #oer "e#en"e" on
her $eing carrie" aay ! ra#t, ra#e" ! $y her Dner an" Caster.
Coreover, $y further turns of the #ara"ox, a surren"er of omanhoo"
transforme" her into a #hallic ea#on, an" in return his recognition an"
a"o#tion i"entifie" her.
/o e can $egin to see hy the serious fantasy of this #oem makes
her animus a hunter an" oo"sman. &ith instinctive rightness,
Bickinsons imagination gras#s her situation in terms of the ma)or myth
of the American ex#erience. The #ioneer on the frontier is the version of
the universal hero myth in"igenuos to our s#ecific historical
circumstances, an" it remains to"ay, even in our in"ustrial society, the
mythic mainstay of American in"ivi"ualism. The #ioneer claims his
manhoo" $y measuring himself against the unfathome", unfathoma$le
immensity of his elemental orl", hose otherness he ex#eriences at
times as the inhuman, at times as the feminine, at times as the "ivine !
most often as all three at once. -is link ith lan"sca#e, therefore, is a
#assage into the unknon in his on #syche, the mystery of his
unconscious. >or the man, the anima is the essential #oint of connection
ith oman an" ith "eity.
Fut all too easily, sometimes all too unittingly, connection ! hich
shoul" move to union ! can gra"ually fall into com#etition, then
contention an" conflict. The man ho reaches out to /ature to engage his
$asic #hysical an" s#iritual nee"s fin"s himself reaching out ith the
han"s of the #re"ator to #ossess an" su$"ue, to make /ature serve his
on en"s. >rom the #oint of vie of /ature, then, or of oman or of the
values of the feminine #rinci#le, the #ioneer myth can assume a
"evastating an" tragic significance, as our history has re#eate"ly
"emonstrate". >orsaking the institutional structures of #atriarchal culture,
the oo"sman goes out alone, or almost alone, to test hether his min"
an" ill are ca#a$le of outitting the lures an" iles of /ature, her "ark
chil"ren an" il" creatures. ,f he can vanquish her ! Cother /ature,
Virgin =an" ! then he can assume or resume his #lace in society an", as
$oon, exact his share of the s#oils of /ature an" the service of those,
46
inclu"ing omen an" the "ark!skinne" #eo#les, $eneath him in the
esta$lishe" or"er.
,n #sychosexual terms, therefore, the #ioneers struggle against the
il"erness can $e seen, from this vie#oint, to enact the su$)ugation of the
feminine #rinci#le, hose "ark mysteries are essential to the reali:ation of
#ersonal an" social i"entity $ut, for that reason, threaten masculine
#rerogatives in a #atriarchical or"ering of in"ivi"ual an" social life. The
hero fights to esta$lish his ego!i"entity an" assure the linear transmission
of the culture that sustains his ego!i"entity, an" he "oes so $y maintaining
himself against the encroachment of the Kreat Cother. -er rhythm is the
roun" of /ature, an" her sovereignty is "estructive to the in"e#en"ent
in"ivi"ual $ecause the continuity of the roun" requires that she "evour her
chil"ren an" a$sor$ their lives an" consciousness $ack into her teeming
om$, season after season, generation after generation. So the #ioneer
ho may first have venture" into the oo"s to "iscover the otherness
hich is the clue to i"entity may in the en" fin" himself maneuvering
against the feminine #oers, ea#on in han", ith min" an" ill as his
ultimate ea#ons for self!#reservation. /o longer seeker or lover, he
a"vances as the aggressor, mur"erer, ra#ist. '...(
4I
+. SB,ECT-.-T/ -N CR-T-C-SM
H.1 0SG<3OANALGTI<AL A00ROA<31S
8.1.1 Sigmun" >reu": from The 1ssentials of 0sy$ho=Analysis
+.1.1.1 From 0On Dreams1 21"%13
'...( A goo" #ro#ortion of hat e have learnt a$out con"ensation in
"reams may $e summari:e" in this formula: each element in the content of
a "ream is over"etermine" $y material in the "ream!thoughts+ it is not
"erive" from a single element in the "ream!thoughts, $ut may $e trace"
$ack to a hole num$er. These elements nee" not necessarily $e closely
$e relate" to each other in the "ream!thoughts themselves+ they may
$elong to the most i"ely se#arate" regions of the fa$ric of those
thoughts. A "ream!element is, in the strictest sense of the or", the
re#resentative of all this "is#arate material in the content of the "ream.
Fut analysis reveals yet another si"e of the com#licate" relation $eteen
the content of the "ream an" the "ream!thoughts. ?ust as connections lea"
from each element of the "ream to several "ream!thoughts, so as a rule a
single "ream!thought is re#resente" $y more than one "ream!element+ the
threa"s of association "o not sim#ly converge from the "ream!thoughts to
the "ream!content, they cross an" interave ith each other many times
over in the course of their )ourney.
*on"ensation, together ith the transformation of thoughts into
situations 0"ramati:ation1, is the most im#ortant an" #eculiar
characteristic of the "ream!ork. So far, hoever, nothing has trans#ire"
as to any (otive necessitating this com#ression of the material.
,n the case of the com#licate" an" confuse" "reams ith hich e are
no concerne", con"ensation an" "ramati:ation alone are not enough to
account for the hole of the im#ression that e gain of the "issimilarity
$eteen the content of the "ream an" the "ream!thoughts. &e have
evi"ence of the o#eration of a thir" factor, an" this evi"ence "eserves
careful sifting.
>irst an" foremost, hen $y means of analysis e have arrive" at a
knole"ge of the "ream!thoughts, e o$serve that the manifest "ream!
content "eals ith quite "ifferent material from the latent thoughts. This,
to $e sure, is no more than an a##earance, for e fin" ultimately that the
hole of the "ream!content is "erive" from the "ream!thoughts, an" that
almost all the "ream!thoughts are re#resente" in the "ream!content.
/evertheless, something of the "istinction still remains. &hat stan"s out
$ol"ly an" clearly in the "ream as its essential content must, after
analysis, $e satisfie" ith #laying an extremely su$or"inate role among
the "ream!thoughts+ an" hat, on the evi"ence of our feelings, can claim
to $e the most #rominent among the "ream!thoughts is either not #resent
at all as i"eational material in the content of the "ream or is only remotely
allu"e" to in some o$scure region of it. &e may #ut it in this ay: in the
$orse of the +rea(="ork the psy$hi$al intensity passes over fro( the
thoghts an+ i+eas to "hi$h it properly %elongs on to others "hi$h in or
&+ge(ent have no $lai( to any s$h e(phasis . /o other #rocess
contri$utes so much to concealing the meaning of a "ream an" to making
the connection $eteen the "ream!content an" the "ream!thoughts
unrecogni:a$le. ,n the course of this #rocess, hich , shall "escri$e as
"ream!"is#lacement, the #sychical intensity, significance or affective
#otentiality of the thoughts is, as e further fin", transforme" into
sensory vivi"ness. &e assume as a matter of course that the most "istinct
element in the manifest content of a "ream is the most im#ortant one+ $ut
in fact 'oing to the "is#lacement that has occurre"( it is often an
in+istin$t element hich turns out to $e the most "irect "erivative of the
essential "ream!thought.
&hat , have calle" "ream!"is#lacement might equally $e "escri$e" 'in
/iet:sches #hrase( as a transvaluation of #sychical values. , shall not
have given an exhaustive estimate of this #henomenon, hoever, unless ,
a"" that this ork of "is#lacement or transvaluation is #erforme" to a
very varying "egree in "ifferent "reams. There are "reams hich come
49
a$out almost ithout any "is#lacement. These are the ones hich make
sense an" are intelligi$le, such, for instance, as those hich e have
recogni:e" as un"isguise" ishful "reams. Dn the other han", there are
"reams in hich not a single #iece of the "ream!thoughts has retaine" its
on #sychical value, or in hich everything that is essential in the "ream!
thoughts has $een re#lace" $y somehing trivial. An" e can fin" a
com#lete series of transitional cases $eteen these to extremes. The
more o$scure an" confuse" a "ream a##ears to $e, the greater the share in
its construction hich may $e attri$ute" to the factor of "is#lacement. '...(
+.1.1.! From 0Beyond The (leas4re (rinciple1 21"!%3
'...( Strictly s#eaking it is incorrect to talk of the "ominance of the
#leasure #rinci#le over the course of mental #rocesses. ,f such a
"ominance existe", the immense ma)ority of our mental #rocesses oul"
have to $e accom#anie" $y leasure or to lea" to #leasure, hereas
universal ex#erience com#letely contra"icts any such conclusion. The
most that can $e sai", therefore, is that there exists in the min" a strong
ten+en$y toar"s the #leasure #rinci#le, $ut that that ten"ency is o##ose"
$y certain other forces or circumstances, so that the final outcome cannot
alays $e in harmony ith the ten"ency toar"s #leasure. &e may
com#are hat >echner '...( remarks on a similar #oint: Since hoever a
ten"ency toar"s an aim "oes not im#ly that the aim is attaine", an" since
in general the aim is attaina$le only $y a##roximations....
,f e turn no to the question of hat circumstances are a$le to #revent
the #leasure #rinci#le from $eing carrie" into effect, e fin" ourselves
once more on secure an" ell!tro""en groun" an", in framing our anser,
e have at our "is#osal a rich fun" of analytic ex#erience.
The first exam#le of the #leasure #rinci#le $eing inhi$ite" in this ay
is a familiar one hich occurs ith regularity. &e kno that the #leasure
#rinci#le is #ro#er to a pri(ary metho" of orking on the #art of the
mental a##aratus, $ut that, from the #oint of vie of the self!#reservation
of the organism among the "ifficulties of the external orl", it is from the
very outset inefficient an" even highly "angerous. Hn"er the influence of
the egos instincts of self!#reservation, the #leasure #rinci#le is re#lace"
$y the reality prin$iple. This latter #rinci#le "oes not a$an"on the
intention of ultimately o$taining #leasure, $ut it nevertheless "eman"s
an" carries into effect the #ost#onement of satisfaction, the a$an"onment
of a num$er of #ossi$ilities of gaining satisfaction an" the tem#orary
toleration of un#leasure as a ste# on the long in"irect roa" to #leasure.
The #leasure #rinci#le long #ersists, hoever, as a matter of orking
em#loye" $y the sexual instincts, hich are so har" to e"ucate, an",
starting from those instincts, or in the ego itself, it often succe"s in
overcoming the reality #rinci#le, to the "etriment of the organism as a
hole.
There can $e no "ou$t, hoever, that the re#lacement of the #leasure
#rinci#le $y the reality #rinci#le can only $e ma"e res#onsi$le for a small
num$er, an" $y no means the most intense, of un#leasura$le ex#eriences.
Another occasion of the release of un#leasure, hich occurs ith no less
regularity, is to $e foun" in the conflicts an" "issensions that take #lace in
the mental a##aratus hile the ego is #assing through its "evelo#ment
into more highly com#osite organisations. Almost all the energy ith
hich all the a##aratus is fille" arises from its innate instinctual im#ulses.
Fut these are not alloe" to reach the same #hases of "evelo#ment. ,n the
course of things it ha##ens again an" again that in"ivi"ual instincts or
#arts of instincts turn out to $e incom#ati$le in their aims or "eman"s
ith the remaining ones, hich are a$le to com$ine into the inclusive
unity of the ego. The former are then s#lit off from this unity $y the
#rocess of re#ression, hel" $ack at loer levels of #sychical "evelo#ment
an" cut off, to $egin ith, from the #ossi$ility of satisfaction. ,f they
succee" su$sequently, as can so easily ha##en ith re#resse" sexual
instincts, in struggling through, $y roun" #aths, to a "irect or to a
su$stitutive satisfaction, that event, hich oul" in other cases have $een
an o##ortunity for #leasure, is felt $y the ego as un#leasure. As a
consequence of the ol" conflict hich en"e" in re#ression, a ne $reach
has occurre" in the #leasure #rinci#le at the very time hen certain
instincts ere en"eavouring, in accor"ance ith the #rinci#le, to o$tain
fresh #leasure. '...(
=et us su##ose, then, that all the organic instincts are conservative, are
47
acquire" historically an" ten" toar"s the restoration of an earlier state of
things. ,t follos that the #henomena of organic "evelo#ment must $e
attri$ute" to external "istur$ing an" "iverting influences. The elementary
living entity oul" from its very $eginning have ha" no ish to change+ if
con"itions remaine" the same, it oul" "o no more than constantly re#eat
the same course of life. ,n the last resort, hat has left its mark on the
"evelo#ment of organisms must $e the history of the earth e live in an"
of its relation to the sun. Nvery mo"ification hich is thus im#ose" u#on
the course of the organisms life is acce#te" $y the conservative organic
instincts an" store" u# for further re#etition. Those instincts are therefore
$oun" to give a "ece#tive a##earance of $eing forces ten"ing toar"s
change an" #rogress, hilst in fact they are merely seeking to reach an
ancient goal $y #aths alike ol" an" ne. Coreover it is #ossi$le to s#ecify
this final goal of all organic striving. ,t oul" $e in contra"iction to the
conservative nature of the instincts if the goal of life ere a state of things
hich ha" never yet $een attaine". Dn the contrary, it must $e an ol+ state
of things, an initial state from hich the living entity has at one time or
other "e#arte" an" to hich it is striving to return $y the circuitous #aths
along hich its "evelo#ment lea"s. ,f e are to take it as a truth that
knos no exce#tion that everything living "ies for internal reasons !
$ecomes inorganic once again ! then e shall $e com#elle" to say that
the ai( of all life is +eath an", looking $ackar"s, that inani(ate things
e#iste+ %efore living ones.
The attri$utes of life ere at some time evoke" in inanimate matter $y
the action of a force of hose nature e can form no conce#tion. ,t may
#erha#s have $een a #rocess similar in ty#e to that hich later cause" the
"evelo#ment of consciousness in a #articular stratum of living matter. The
tension hich then arose in hat ha" hitherto $een an inanimate su$stance
en"eavoure" to cancel itself out. ,n this ay the first instinct came into
$eing: the instinct to return to the inanimate state. ,t as still an easy
matter at that time for a living su$stance to "ie+ the course of its life as
#ro$a$ly a $rief one, hose "irection as "etermine" $y the chemical
structure of the young life. >or a long time, #erha#s, living su$stance as
thus $eing constantly create" afresh an" easily "ying, till "ecisive external
influences altere" in such a ay as to o$lige the still surviving su$stance
to "iverge ever more i"ely from its original course of life an" to make
ever more com#licate" +etors $efore reaching its aim of "eath. These
circuitous #aths to "eath, faithfully ke#t to $y the conservative instincts,
oul" thus #resent us to!"ay ith the #icture of the #henomena of life. ,f
e firmly maintain the exclusively conservative nature of instincts, e
cannot arrive at any other notions as to the origin an" aim of life. '...(
The life instincts have so much more contact ith our internal
#erce#tion ! emerging as $reakers of the #eace an" constantly #ro"ucing
tensions hose release is felt as #leasure ! hile the "eath instincts seem
to "o their ork uno$trusively. The #leasure #rinci#le seems actually to
serve the "eath instincts. ,t is true that it kee#s atch u#on stimuli from
ithout, hich are regar"e" as "angers $y $oth kin"s of instincts+ $ut it is
more es#ecially on guar" against increases of stimulation from ithin,
hich oul" make the task of living more "ifficult.
+.1.1.+ From 0The E5o and the -d1 21"!+3
'...( The hole su$)ect, hoever, is so com#licate" that it ill $e
necessary to go into it in greater "etail. The intricacy of the #ro$lem is
"ue to to factors: the triangular character of the De"i#us situation an"
the constitutional $isexuality of each in"ivi"ual.
,n its sim#lifie" form the case of a male chil" may $e "escri$e" as
follos. At a very early age the little $oy "evelo#s an o$)ect!cathexis for
his mother, hich originally relate" to the mothers $reast an" is the
#rototy#e of an o$)ect!choice on the anaclitic mo"el+ the $oy "eals ith
his father $y i"entifying himself ith him. >or a time these to
relationshi#s #rocee" si"e $y si"e, until the $oys sexual ishes in regar"
to his mother $ecome more intense an" his father is #erceive" as an
o$stacle to them+ from this the De"i#us com#lex originates. -is
i"entification ith his father then takes on a hostile colouring an"
changes into a ish to get ri" of his father in or"er to take his #lace ith
his mother. -enceforar" his relation to his father is am$ivalent+ it seems
as if the am$ivalence inherent in the i"entification from the $eginning
ha" $ecome manifest. An am$ivalent attitu"e to his father an" an o$)ect!
44
relation of a solely affectionate kin" to his mother make u# the content of
the sim#le #ositive De"i#us com#lex in a $oy.
Along ith the "emolition of the De"i#us com#lex, the $oys o$)ect!
cathexis of his mother must $e given u#. ,ts #lace may $e fille" $y one of
to things: either an i"entification ith his mother or an intensification of
his i"entification ith his father. &e are accustome" to regar" the latter
outcome as the more normal+ it #ermits the affectionate relation to the
mother to $e in a measure retaine". ,n this ay the "issolution of the
De"i#us com#lex oul" consoli"ate the masculinity in a $oys character.
,n a #recisely analogous ay, the outcome of the De"i#us attitu"e in a
little girl may $e an intensification of her i"entification ith her mother 0or
the setting u# of such an i"entification for the first time 1 ! a result hich
ill fix the chil"s feminine character.
These i"entifications are not hat e shoul" have ex#ecte" 'from the
#revious account(, since they "o not intro"uce the a$an"one" o$)ect into
the ego+ $ut this alternative outcome may also occur, an" is easier to
o$serve in girls than in $oys. Analysis very often shos that a little girl,
after she has ha" to relinquish her father as a love!o$)ect, ill $ring her
masculinity into #rominence an" i"entify herself ith her father 0that is,
ith the o$)ect hich has $een lost 1, instea" of ith her mother. This ill
clearly "e#en" on hether the masculinity in her "is#osition ! hatever
that may consist in ! is strong enough. '...(
+.1.1.# From 0The Dissection o6 the (sychical (ersonality1 21"++3
Nver since, un"er the #oerful im#ression of this clinical #icture, ,
forme" the i"ea that the se#aration of the o$serving agency from the rest
of the ego might $e a regular feature of the egos structure, that i"ea has
never left me, an" , as "riven to investigate the further characteristics
an" connections of the agency hich as thus se#arate" off. The next ste#
is quickly taken. The content of the "elusions of $eing o$serve" alrea"y
suggests that the o$serving is only a #re#aration for )u"ging an" #unishing,
an" e accor"ingly guess that another function of this agency must $e
hat e call our conscience. There is scarcely anything else in us that e
so regularly se#arate from our ego an" so easily set over against it as
#recisely our conscience. , feel an inclination to "o something that , think
ill give me #leasure, $ut , a$an"on it on the groun" that my conscience
"oes not allo it. Dr , have let myself $e #ersua"e" $y too great an
ex#ectation of #leasure into "oing something to hich the voice of
conscience has o$)ecte" an" after the "ee" my conscience #unishes me
ith "istressing re#roaches an" causes me to feel remorse for the "ee". ,
might sim#ly say that the s#ecial agency hich , am $eginning to
"istinguish in the ego is conscience. Fut it is more #ru"ent to kee# the
agency as something in"e#en"ent an" to su##ose that conscience is one
of its functions an" that self!o$servation, hich is an essential
#reliminary to the )u"ging activity of conscience, is another of them. An"
since hen e recogni:e that something has a se#arate existence e give
it a name of its on, from this time forar" , ill "escri$e this agency in
the ego as the )sper=ego*. '...(
-ar"ly have e familiari:e" ourselves ih the i"ea of a su#er!ego like
this hich en)oys a certain "egree of autonomy, follos its on
intentions an" is in"e#en"ent of the ego for its su##ly of energy, than a
clinical #icture forces itself on our notice hich thros a striking light on
the severity of this agency an" in"ee" its cruelty, an" on its changing
relations to the ego. , am thinking of the con"ition of melancholia, or,
more #recisely, of melancholic attacks, hich you too ill have hear"
#lenty a$out, even if you are not #sychiatrists. The most striking feature
of this illness, of hose causation an" mechanism e kno much too
little, is the ay in hich the su#er!ego ! conscience, you may call it,
quietly ! treats the ego. &hile a melancholic can, like other #eo#le, sho
a greater or lesser "egree of severity to himself in his healthy #erio"s,
"uring a melancholic attack his su#er!ego $ecomes over!severe, a$uses
the #oor ego, humiliates it an" ill!treats it, threatens it ith the "irest
#unishments, re#roaches it for actions in the remotest #ast hich ha"
$een taken lightly at the time ! as though it ha" s#ent the hole interval
in collecting accusations an" ha" only $een aiting for its #resent access
of strength in or"er to $ring them u# an" make a con"emnatory
)u"gement on their $asis. The su##er!ego a##lies the strictest moral
stan"ar" to the hel#less ego hich is at its mercy+ in general it re#resents
155
the claims of morality, an" e reali:e all at once that our moral sense of
guilt is the ex#ression of the tension $eteen the ego an" the su#er!ego. ,t
is a most remarka$le ex#erience to see morality, hich is su##ose" to have
$een given us $y Ko" an" thus "ee#ly im#lante" in us, functioning 'in
these #atients( as a #erio"ic #henomenon. >or after a certain num$er of
months the hole moral fuss is over, the criticism of the su#er!ego is
silent, the ego is reha$ilitate" an" again en)oys all the rights of man till the
next attack. ,n some forms of the "isease, in"ee", something of a contrary
sort occurs in the intervals+ the ego fin"s itself in a $lissful state of
intoxication, it cele$rates a trium#h, as though the su#er!ego ha" lost all its
strength or ha" melte" into the ego+ an" this li$erate", manic ego #ermits
itself a truly uninhi$ite" satisfaction of all its a##etites. -ere are
ha##enings rich in unsolve" ri""les. '...(
,n face of the "ou$t hether the ego an" the su#er!ego are themselves
unconscious or merely #ro"uce unconscious effects, e have, for goo"
reasons, "eci"e" in favour of the former #ossi$ility. An" it is in"ee" the
case that large #ortions of the ego an" su#er!ego can remain unconscious
an" are normaly unconscious. That is to say, the in"ivi"ual knos nothing
of their contents an" it requires an ex#en"iture of effort to make them
unconscious. ,t is a fact that ego an" conscious, re#resse" an" unconscious
"o not coinci"e. &e feel a nee" to make a fun"amental revision of our
attitu"e to the #ro$lem of conscious!unconscious. At first e are incline"
greatly to re"uce the value of the criterion of $eing conscious since it has
shon itself so untrustorthy. Fut e shoul" $e "oing it an in)ustice. As
may $e sai" of our life, it is not orth much, $ut it is all e have. &ithout
the illumination thron $y the quality of consciousness, e shoul" $e lost
in the o$scurity of "e#th #sychology+ $ut e must attem#t to fin" our
$earings afresh. '...(
Hnluckily the ork of #sycho!analysis has foun" itself com#elle" to use
the or" unconscious in yet another, thir", sense, an" this may, to $e
sure, have le" to confusion. Hn"er the ne an" #oerful im#ression of
there $eing an extensive an" im#ortant fiel" of mental life hich is
normaly ith"ran from the egos knole"ge so that the #rocesses
occurring in it have to $e regar"e" as unconscious in the truly "ynamic
sense, e have come to un"erstan" the term unconscious in a
to#ogra#hical or systematic sense as ell+ e have come to s#eak of a
system of the #reconscious an" a system of the unconscious, of a
conflict $eteen the ego an" the system ?$s., an" have use" the or"
more an" more to "enote a mental #rovince rather than a quality of hat
is mental. The "iscovery, actually an inconvenient one, that #ortions of
the ego an" su#er!ego as ell are unconscious in the "ynamic sense,
o#erates at this #oint as a relief ! it makes #ossi$le the removal of a
com#lication. &e #erceive that e have no right to name the mental
region that is foreign to the ego the system ?$s., since the characteristic
of $eing unconscious is not restricte" to it. Very ell+ e ill no longer
use the term unconscious in the systematic sense an" e ill give hat
e have hitherto so "escri$e" a $etter name an" one no longer o#en to
misun"erstan"ing. >olloing a ver$al usage of /iet:sches an" taking u#
a suggestion $y Keorg Kro""eck '...(, e ill in future call it i". This
im#ersonal #ronoun seems #articularly ell suite" for ex#ressing the
main characteristic of this #rovince of the min" ! the fact of its $eing
alien to the ego. The su#er!ego, the ego an" the i" ! these, then, are the
three realms, regions, #rovinces, into hich e "ivi"e an in"ivi"uals
mental a##aratus, an" ith the mutual relations of hich e shall $e
concerne" in hat follos. '...(
'The i"( is the "ark, inaccessi$le #art of our #ersonality+ hat little e
kno of it e have learnt from our stu"y of the "ream!ork an" of the
construction of neurotic sym#toms, an" most of that is of a negative
character an" can $e "escri$e" only as a contrast to the ego. &e a##roach
the i" ith analogies: e call it a chaos, a caul"ron full of seething
excitations. &e #icture it as $eing o#en at its en" to somatic influences,
an" as there taking u# into itself instinctual nee"s hich fin" their
#sychical ex#ression in it, $ut e cannot say in hat su$stratum. ,t is
fille" ith energy reaching it from the instincts, $ut it has no
organi:ation, #ro"uces no collective ill, $ut only a striving to $ring
a$out the satisfaction of the instinctual nee"s su$)ect to the o$servance of
the #leasure #rinci#le. The logical las of thought "o not a##ly in the i",
an" this is true a$ove all of the la of contra"iction. *ontrary im#ulses
151
exist si"e $y si"e, ithout cancelling each other out or "iminishing each
other: at the most they may converge to form com#romises un"er the
"ominating economic #ressure toar"s the "ischarge of energy. There is
nothing in the i" that coul" $e com#are" ith negation+ an" e #erceive
ith sur#rise an exce#tion to the #hiloso#hical theorem that s#ace an"
time are necessary forms of our mental acts. There is nothing in the i" that
corres#on"s to the i"ea of time+ there is no recognition of the #assage of
time, an" ! a thing that is most remarka$le an" aaits consi"eration in
#hiloso#hical thought ! no alteration in its mental #rocesses is #ro"uce"
$y the #assage of time. &ishful im#ulses hich have never $een #asse"
$eyon" the i", $ut im#ressions, too, hich have $een sunk into the i" $y
re#ression, are virtually immortal+ after the #assage of "eca"es they
$ehave as though they ha" )ust occurre". They can only $e recogni:e" as
$elonging to the #ast, can only lose their im#ortance an" $e "e#rive" of
their cathexis of energy, hen they have $een ma"e conscious $y the ork
of analysis, an" it is on this that the thera#eutic effect of analytic treatment
rests to no small extent. '...(
&e can $est arrive at the characteristic of the actual ego, in so far as it
can $e "istinguishe" from the i" an" the su#er!ego, $y examining its
relation to the outermost su#erficial #ortion of the mental a##aratus, hich
e "escri$e as the system '#erce#tual!conscious(. This system is turne"
toar"s the external orl", it is the me"ium for the #erce#tions arising
thence, an" "uring its functioning the #henomenon of consciousness arises
in it. ,t is the sense!organ of the entire a##aratus+ moreover it is rece#tive
not only to excitation from outsi"e $ut also to those arising from the
interior of the min". &e nee" scarcely look for a )ustification of the vie
that the ego is that #ortion of the i" hich as mo"ifie" $y the #roximity
an" influence of the external orl", hich is a"a#te" for the rece#tion of
stimuli an" as a #rotective shiel" against stimuli, com#ara$le to the
cortical layer $y hich a small #iece of living su$stance is surroun"e".
The relation to the external orl" has $ecome the "ecisive factor for the
ego+ it has taken on the task of re#resenting the external orl" to the i" !
fortunately for the i", hich coul" not esca#e "estruction if, in its $lin"
efforts for the satisfaction of its instincts, it "isregar"e" that su#reme
external #oer. ,n accom#lishing this function, the ego must o$serve the
external orl", must lay "on an accurate #icture of it in the memory!
traces of its #erce#tions, an" $y its exercise of the function of reality!
testing must #ut asi"e hatever in this #icture of the external orl" is an
a""ition "erive" from internal sources of excitation. The ego controls the
a##roaches to motility un"er the i"s or"ers+ $ut $eteen a nee" an" an
action it has inter#ose" a #ost#onement in the form of the activity of
thought, "uring hich it makes use of the mnemic resi"ues of ex#erience.
,n that ay it has "ethrone" the #leasure #rinci#le hich "ominates the
course of events in the i" ithout any restriction an" has re#lace" it $y
the reality #rinci#le, hich #romises more certainty an" greater success.
The relation to time, hich is so har" to "escri$e, is also intro"uce"
into the ego $y the #erce#tual system+ it can scarcely $e "ou$te" that the
mo"e of o#eration of that system is hat #rovi"es the origin of the i"ea
of time. Fut hat "istinguishes the ego from the i" quite es#ecially is a
ten"ency to synthesis in its contents, to a com$ination an" unification in
its mental #rocesses hich are totally lacking in the i". &hen #resently
e come to "eal ith the instincts in mental life e shall, , ho#e, succee"
in tracing this essential characteristic of the ego $ack to its sources. ,t
alone #ro"uces the high "egree of organi:ation hich the ego nee"s for
its $est achievements. The ego "evelo#s from #erceiving the instincts to
controlling them+ $ut this last is only achieve" $y the '#sychical(
re#resentative of the instinct $eing allotte" its #ro#er #lace in a
consi"era$le assem$lage, $y its $eing taken u# into a coherent context.
To a"o#t a #o#ular mo"e of s#eaking, e might say that the ego stan"s
for reason an" goo" sense hile the i" stan"s for the untame" #assions.
So far e have alloe" ourselves to $e im#resse" $y the merits an"
ca#a$ilities of the ego+ it is no time to consi"er the other si"e as ell.
The ego is after all only a #ortion of the i", a #ortion that has $een
ex#e"iently mo"ifie" $y the #roximity of the external orl" ith its
threat of "anger. >rom a "ynamic #oint of vie it is eak, it has
$orroe" its energies from the i", an" e are not entirely ithout insight
into the metho"s ! e might call them "o"ges ! $y hich it extracts
further amounts of energy from the i". Dne such metho", for instance, is
15E
$y i"entifying itself ith actual or a$an"one" o$)ects. The o$)ect!cathexes
s#ring from the instinctual "eman"s of the i". The ego has in the first
instance to take note of them. Fut $y i"entifying itself ith the o$)ect it
recommen"s itself to the i" in #lace of the o$)ect an" seeks to "ivert the
i"s li$i"o on to itself. &e have alrea"y seen that in the course of its life
the ego takes into itself a large num$er of #reci#itates like this of former
o$)ect!cathexes. The ego must on the hole carry out the i"s intentions, it
fulfils its task $y fin"ing out the circumstances in hich those intentions
can $est $e achieve". The egos relation to the i" might $e com#are" ith
that of a ri"er to its horse. The horse su##lies the locomotive energy, hile
the ri"er has the #rivilege of "eci"ing on the goal an" of gui"ing the
#oerful animals movement. Fut only too often there arises $eteen the
ego an" the i" the not #recisely i"eal situation of the ri"er $eing o$lige" to
gui"e the horse along the #ath $y hich it itself ants to go.
There is one #ortion of the i" from hich the ego has se#arate" itself $y
resistances "ue to re#ression. Fut the re#ression is not carrie" over into the
i": the re#resse" merges into the remain"er of the i".
&e are arne" $y a #rover$ against serving to masters at the same
time. The #oor ego has things even orse: it serves three severe masters
an" "oes hat it can to $ring their claims an" "eman"s into harmony ith
one another. These claims are alays "ivergent an" often seem
incom#ati$le. /o on"er that the ego so often fails in its task. ,ts three
tyrannical masters are the external orl", the su#er!ego an" the i". &hen
e follo the egos efforts to satisfy them simultaneously ! or rather, to
o$ey them simultaneously ! e cannot feel any regret at having
#ersonifie" this ego an" having set it u# as a se#arate organism. ,t feels
hemme" in on three si"es, threatene" $y three kin"s of "anger, to hich, if
it is har" #resse", it reacts $y generating anxiety. '...(
8.1.8 ?acques =acan: from The Cirror Stage As >ormative of the >unction
of the , As 2eveale" in %sychoanalytic Nx#erience
The chil", at an age hen he is for a time, hoever short, out"one $y
the chim#an:ee in instrumental intelligence, can nevertheless alrea"y
recogni:e as such his on image in a mirror. This recognition is in"icate"
in the illuminative mimicry of the Aha=1rle%nis, hich 3`hler sees as the
ex#ression of situational a##erce#tion, an essential stage of the act of
intelligence.
This act, far from exhausting itself, as in the case of the monkey, once
the image has $een mastere" an" foun" em#ty, imme"iately re$oun"s in
the case of the chil" in a series of gestures in hich he ex#eriences in
#lay the relation $eteen the movements assume" in the image an" the
reflecte" environment, an" $eteen this virtual com#lex an" the reality it
re"u#licates ! the chil"s on $o"y, an" the #ersons an" things, aroun"
him.
This event can take #lace, as e have knon since Fal"in, from the
age of six months, an" its re#etition has often ma"e me reflect u#on the
startling s#ectacle of the infant in front of the mirror. Hna$le as yet to
alk, or even to stan" u#, an" hel" tightly as he is $y some su##ort,
human or artificial 0hat, in >rance, e call a trotte=%8%81, he
nevertheless overcomes, in a flutter of )u$ilant activity, the o$structions
of his su##ort an", fixing his attitu"e in a slightly leaning!forar"
#osition, in or"er to hol" it in his ga:e, $rings $ack an instantaneous
as#ect of the image.
&e have only to un"erstan" the mirror stage as an i+entifi$ation, in the
full sense that analysis gives to the term: namely, the transformation that
takes #lace in the su$)ect hen he assumes an image ! hose
#re"estination to this #hase!effect is sufficiently in"icate" $y the use, in
analytic theory, of the ancient term i(ago.
This )u$ilant assum#tion of his s#ecular image $y the chil" at the infans
stage, still sunk in his motor inca#acity an" nursling "e#en"ence, oul"
seem to exhi$it in an exem#lary situation the sym$olic matrix in hich
the I is #reci#itate" in a #rimor"ial form, $efore it is o$)ectifie" in the
158
"ialectic of i"entification ith the other, an" $efore language restores to it,
in the universal, its function as su$)ect.
This form oul" have to $e calle" the ,"eal!,, if e ishe" to
incor#orate it into our usual register, in the sense that it ill also $e the
source of secon"ary i"entifications, un"er hich term , oul" #lace the
functions of li$i"inal normali:ation. Fut the im#ortant #oint is that this
form situates the agency of the ego, $efore its social "etermination, in a
fictional "irection, hich ill alays remain irre"uci$le for the in"ivi"ual
alone, or rather, hich ill only re)oin the coming!into!$eing 0le +evenir1
of the su$)ect asym#totically, hatever the success of the "ialectical
syntheses $y hich he must resolve as , his "iscor"ance ith his on
reality. '...(
This hy , have sought in the #resent hy#othesis, groun"e" in a
con)unction of o$)ective "ata, the gui"ing gri" for a (etho+ of sy(%oli$
re+$tion.
,t esta$lishes in the +efen$es of the ego a genetic or"er, in accor"ance
ith the ish formulate" $y Ciss Anna >reu", in the first #art of her great
ork, an" situates 0as against a frequently ex#resse" #re)u"ice1 hysterical
re#ression an" its returns at a more archaic stage than o$sessional
inversion an" its isolating #rocesses, an" the latter in turn as #reliminary to
#aranoic alienation, hich "ates from the "eflection of the s#ecular , into
the social ,.
This moment in hich the mirror!stage comes to an en" inaugurates, $y
the i"entification ith the i(ago of the counter#art an" the "rama of
#rimor"ial )ealousy 0so ell $rought out $y the school of *harlotte FShler
in the #henomenon of infantile transitivis(1, the "ialectic that ill
henceforth link the , to socially ela$orate" situations.
,t is this moment that "ecisively ti#s the hole of human knole"ge into
me"iati:ation through the "esire of the other, constitutes its o$)ects in an
a$stract equivalence $y the co!o#eration of others, an" turns the , into that
a##aratus for hich every instinctual thrust constitutes a "anger, even
though it shoul" corres#on" to a natural maturation ! the very
normali:ation of this maturation $eing henceforth "e#en"ent, in man, on a
cultural me"iation as exem#lifie", in the case of sexual o$)ect, $y the
De"i#us com#lex.
,n the light of this conce#tion, the term #rimary narcissism, $y hich
analytic "octrine "esignates the li$i"inal investment characteristic of that
moment, reveals in those ho invente" it the most #rofoun" aareness of
semantic latencies. Fut it also thros light on the "ynamic o##osition
$eteen this li$i"o an" the sexual li$i"o, hich the first analysts trie" to
"efine hen they invoke" "estructive an", in"ee", "eath instincts, in
or"er to ex#lain the evi"ent connection $eteen the narcissistic li$i"o
an" the alienating function of the ,, the aggressivity it releases in any
relation to the other, even in a relation involving the most Samaritan of
ai".
,n fact, they ere encountering that existential negativity hose reality
is so vigorously #roclaime" $y the contem#orary #hiloso#hy of $eing an"
nothingness.
Fut unfortunately that #hiloso#hy gras#s negativity only ithin the
limits of a self!sufficiency of consciousness, hich, as one of its
#remises, links to the (8$onnaissan$es that constitute the ego, the
illusion of autonomy to hich it entrusts itself. This flight of fancy, for
all that it "ras, to an unusual extent, on $orroings from #sychoanalytic
ex#erience, culminates in the #retention of #rovi"ing an existential
#sychoanalysis.
At the culmination of the historical effort of a society to refuse to
recogni:e that it has any function other than the utilitarian one, an" in the
anxiety of the in"ivi"ual confronting the concentrational form of the
social $on" that seems to arise to cron this effort, existentialism must $e
)u"ge" $y the ex#lanations it gives of the su$)ective im#asses that have
in"ee" resulte" from it+ a free"om that is never more authentic than hen
it is ithin the alls of a #rison+ a "eman" for commitment, ex#ressing
the im#otence of a #ure consciousness to master any situation+ a
voyeuristic!sa"istic i"eali:ation of the sexual relation+ a #ersonality that
reali:es itself only in suici"e+ a consciousness of the other that can $e
satisfie" only $y -egelian mur"er.
These #ro#ositions are o##ose" $y all our ex#erience, in so far as it
teaches us not to regar" the ego as centere" on the per$eption=
15<
$ons$iosness syste(, or as organi:e" $y the reality #rinci#le ! a
#rinci#le that is the ex#ression of a scientific #re)u"ice most hostile to the
"ialectic of knole"ge. Dur ex#erience shos that e shoul" start instea"
from the fn$tion of (8$onnaissan$e that characteri:es the ego in all its
structures, so marke"ly articulate" $y Ciss Anna >reu". >or, if the
5erneinng re#resents the #atent form of that function, its effects ill, for
the most #art, remain latent, so long as they are not illuminate" $y some
light reflecte" on to the level of fatality, hich is here the i" manifests
itself.
&e can thus un"erstan" the inertia characteristic of the formations of the
,, an" fin" there the most extensive "efinition of neurosis ! )ust as the
ca#tation of the su$)ect $y the situation gives us the most general formula
of ma"ness, not only the ma"ness that lies $ehin" the alls of asylums, $ut
also the ma"ness that "eafens the orl" ith its soun" an" fury.
The sufferings of neurosis an" #sychosis are for us a schooling in the
#assions of the soul, )ust as the $eam of the #sychoanalytic scales, hen
e calculate the tilt of its threat to entire communities, #rovi"es us ith an
in"ication of the "ea"ening of the #assions in society.
At this )unction of nature an" culture, so #ersistently examine" $y
mo"ern anthro#ology, #sychoanalysis alone recogni:es this knot of
imaginary servitu"e that love must alays un"o again, or sever.
>or such a task, e #lace no trust in altruistic feeling, e ho lay $are
the aggressivity that un"erlies the activity of the #hilanthro#ist, the
i"ealist, the #e"agogue, an" even the reformer.
,n the recourse of su$)ect to su$)ect that e #reserve, #sychoanalysis
may accom#any the #atient to the ecstatic limit of the Tho art that*- in
hich is reveale" to him the ci#her of his mortal "estiny, $ut it is not in
our mere #oer as #ractitioners to $ring him to that #oint here the real
)ourney $egins.
8.1.< ?acques =acan: from The Agency of the =etter in the Hnconscious or
2eason since >reu"

A. The Ceaning of the =etter
As my title suggests, $eyon" this s#eech, hat the #sychoanalytic
ex#erience "iscovers in the unconscious is the hole structure of
language. Thus from the outset , have alerte" informe" min"s to the
extent to hich the notion that the unconscious is merely the seat of the
instincts ill have to $e rethought.
Fut ho are e to take this letter here@ Auite sim#ly, literally.
Fy letter , "esignate the material su##ort that concrete "iscourse
$orros from language.
This sim#le "efinition assumes that language is not to $e confuse" ith
the various #sychical an" somatic functions that serve it in the s#eaking
su$)ect ! #rimarily $ecause language an" its structure exist #rior to the
moment at hich each su$)ect at a certain #oint in his mental
"evelo#ment makes his entry into it.
=et us note, then, that a#hasias, although cause" $y #urely anatomical
lesions in the cere$ral a##aratus that su##lies the mental centre for these
functions, #rove, on the hole, to "istri$ute their "eficits $eteen the to
si"es of the signifying effect of hat e call here the letter in the
creation of signification. A #oint that ill $e clarifie" later. '...(
, shall "esignate as metonymy, then, the one si"e 0versant1 of the
effective fiel" constitute" $y the signifier, so that meaning can emerge
there.
The other si"e is (etaphor. =et us imme"iately fin" an illustration+
Auillets "ictionary seeme" an a##ro#riate #lace to fin" a sam#le that
oul" not seem to $e chosen for my on #ur#oses, an" , "i"nt have to
go any further than the ell knon line of Victor -ugo: -is sheaf as
neither miserly nor U s#iteful..., un"er hich as#ect , #resente" meta#hor
in my seminar on the #sychoses.
,t shoul" $e sai" that mo"ern #oetry an" es#ecially the Surrealist school
have taken us a long ay in this "irection $y shoing that any
con)unction of to signifiers oul" $e equally sufficient to constitute a
156
meta#hor, exce#t for the a""itional requirement of the greatest #ossi$le
"is#arity of the images signifie", nee"e" for the #ro"uction of the #oetic
s#ark, or in other or"s for meta#horic creation to take #lace.
,t is true this ra"ical #osition is $ase" on the ex#eriment knon as
automatic riting, hich oul" not have $een attem#te" if its #ioneers
oul" not have $een reassure" $y the >reu"ian "iscovery. Fut it remains a
confuse" #osition $ecause the "octrine $ehin" it is false.
The creative s#ark of the meta#hor "oes not s#ring from the #resentation
of to images, that is, of to signifiers equally actuali:e". ,t flashes
$eteen to signifiers one of hich has taken the #lace of the other in the
signifying chain, the occulte" signifier remaining #resent through its
0metonymic1 connection ith the rest of the chain.
One "or+ for another: that is the formula for the meta#hor an" if you are
a #oet you ill #ro"uce for your on "elight a continuos stream, a
"a::ling tissue of meta#hor. ,f the result is the sort of intoxication of the
"ialogue that ?ean Tar"ieu rote un"er this title, that is only $ecause he
as giving us a "emonstration of the ra"ical su#erfluousness of all
signification in a #erfectly convincing re#resentation of $ourgeois come"y.
,t is o$vious that in the line of -ugo cite" a$ove, not the slightest s#ark
of light s#rings from the #ro#osition that the sheaf as neither miserly nor
s#iteful, for the reason that there is no question of the sheafs having either
the merit or "emerit of these attri$utes, since the attri$utes, like the sheaf,
$elong to Foo:, ho exercises the former in "is#osing of the latter an"
ithout informing the latter of his sentiments in the case.
,f, hoever, his sheaf "oes refer us to Foo:, an" this is in"ee" the case, it
is $ecause it has re#lace" him in the signifying chain at the very #lace
here he as to $e exalte" $y the see#ing aay of gree" an" s#ite. Fut
no Foo: himself has $een se#t aay $y the sheaf, an" hurle" into the
outer "arkness here gree" an" s#ite har$our him in the hollo of their
negation.
Fut once his sheaf has thus usur#e" his #lace, Foo: can no longer return
there+ the slen"er threa" of the little or" his that $in"s him to it is only
one more o$stacle to his return in that it links him to the notion of
#ossession that retains him at the heart of gree" an" s#ite. So his
generosity, affirme" in the #assage, is yet re"uce" to less than nothing $y
the munificence of the sheaf hich, coming from nature, knos neither
our reserve nor our re)ections, an" even in its accumulation remains
#ro"igal $y our stan"ar"s.
Fut if in this #rofusion the giver has "isa##eare" along ith his gift, it is
only in or"er to rise again in hat surroun"s the figure of s#eech in hich
he as annihilate". >or it is the figure of the $urgeoning of fecun"ity, an"
it is this that announces the sur#rise that the #oem cele$rates, namely, the
#romise that the ol" man ill receive in the sacre" context of his
accession to #aternity.
So, it is $eteen the signifier in the form of the #ro#er name of a man
an" the signifier that meta#horically a$olishes him that the #oetic s#ark is
#ro"uce", an" it is in this case all the more effective in reali:ing the
signification of #aternity in that it re#ro"uces the mythical event in terms
of hich >reu" reconstructe" the #rogress, in the unconscious of all men,
of the #aternal mystery.
Co"ern meta#hor has the same structure. So the line Love is a pe%%le
laghing in the snlight , recreates love in a "imension that seems to me
most tena$le in the face of its imminent la#se into the mirage of
narcissistic altruism.
&e see, then, that meta#hor occurs at the #recise #oint at hich sense
emerge" from non!sense, that is, at that frontier hich, as >reu"
"iscovere", hen crosse" the other ay #ro"uces the or" that in >rench
is the or" par e#$ellen$e, the or" that is sim#ly the signifier esprit* +
it is at this frontier that e reali:e that man "efies his very "estiny hen
he "eri"es the signifier.
Fut to come $ack to our su$)ect, hat "oes man fin" in metonymy if
not the #oer to circumvent the o$stacles of social censure @ Boes not
this form, hich gives its fiel" a truth in its very o##ression, manifest a
certain servitu"e inherent in its #resentation @
Dne may rea" ith #rofit a $ook $y =eo Strauss, from the lan" that
tra"itionally offers asylum to those ho choose free"om, in hich the
author reflects on the relation $eteen the art of riting an" #ersecution.
Fy #ushing to its limits the sort of connaturality that links this art to that
15I
con"ition, he lets us glim#se a certain something hich in this matter
im#oses its form, in the effect of the truth on "esire.
Fut havent e felt for some time no that, having folloe" the ays
of the letter in search of >reu"ian truth, e are getting very arm in"ee",
that it is $urning all a$out us @
Df course, as it is sai", the letter killeth hile the s#irit giveth life. &e
cant hel# $ut agree, having ha" to #ay homage elsehere to a no$le
victim of the error of seeking the s#irit in the letter+ $ut e shoul" also like
to kno ho the s#irit coul" live ithout the letter. Nven so, the
#retentions of the s#irit oul" remain unassaila$le if the letter ha" not
shon us that it #ro"uces all the effects of truth in man ithout involving
the s#irit at all.
,t is none other than >reu" ho ha" this revelation, an" he calle" his
"iscovery the unconscious.
'...(
F. The =etter, Feing an" the Dther
,s hat thinks in my #lace, then, another ,@ Boes >reu"s "iscovery
re#resent the confirmation, on the level of #sychological ex#erience, of
Canicheism@
,n fact, there is no confusion on this #oint: hat >reu"s researches le" us
to is not a fe more or less curious cases of s#lit #ersonality. Nven at the
heroic e#och , have $een "escri$ing, hen, like the animals in the fairy
stories, sexuality talke", the "emonic atmos#here that such an orientation
might have given rise to never materiali:e".
The en" that >reu"s "iscovery #ro#oses for man as "efine" $y him at
the a#ex of his thought in these moving terms: ;o es "ar- soll I$h "er+en.
, must come to the #lace here that as.
This is one of reintegration an" harmony, , coul" even say of
reconciliation 05ersRhnngL.
Fut if e ignore the selfs ra"ical ex!centricity to itself ith hich man
is confronte", in other or"s, the truth "iscovere" $y >reu", e shall
falsify $oth the or"er an" metho"s of #sychoanalytic me"iation+ e shall
make of it nothing more than the com#romise o#eration that it has, in
effect, $ecome, namely, )ust hat the letter as ell as the s#irit of >reu"s
ork most re#u"iates. >or since he constantly invoke" the notion of
com#romise as su##orting all the miseries that his analysis is su##ose" to
assuage, e can say that any recourse to com#romise, ex#licit or im#licit,
ill necessarily "isorient #sychoanalytic action an" #lunge it into
"arkness.
Fut neither "oes it suffice to associate oneself ith the moralistic
tartufferies of our time or to $e forever s#outing something a$out the
total #ersonality in or"er to have sai" something articulate a$out the
#ossi$ility of me"iation.
The ra"ical heteronomy that >reu"s "iscovery shos ga#ing ithin
man can never again $e covere" over ithout hatever is use" to hi"e it
$eing #rofoun"ly "ishonest.
&ho, then, is this other to hom , am more attache" than to myself,
since, at the heart of my assent to my on i"entity it is still he ho
agitates me@
-is #resence can $e un"erstoo" only at a secon" "egree of otherness,
hich alrea"y #laces him in the #osition of me"iating $eteen me an"
the "ou$le of myself, as it ere ith my counter#art.
,f , have sai" that the unconscious is the "iscourse of the Dther 0ith a
ca#ital D1, it is in or"er to in"icate the $eyon" in hich the recognition of
"esire is $oun" u# ith the "esire for recognition.
,n other or"s this other is the other that even my lie invokes as a
guarantor of the truth in hich it su$sists.
Fy hich e can also see that it is ith the a##earance of language the
"imension of truth emerges.
%rior to this #oint, e can recogni:e in the #sychological relation, hich
can $e easily isolate" in the o$servation of animal $ehaviour, the
existence of su$)ects, not $y means of some #ro)ective mirage, the
#hantom of hich a certain ty#e of #sychologist "elights in hacking to
#ieces, $ut sim#ly on account of the manifeste" #resence of inter!
su$)ectivity. ,n the animal hi""en in his lookout, in the ell!lai" tra# of
certain others, in the feint $y hich an a##arent straggler lea"s a #re"ator
aay from the flock, something more emerges than in the fascinating
"is#lay of mating or com$at ritual. Jet there is nothing even there that
159
transcen"s the function of lure in the service of a nee", or hich affirms a
#resence in that $eyon"!the!veil here the hole of /ature can $e
questione" a$out its "esign.
>or there even to $e a question 0an" e kno that it is one that >reu"
himself #ose" in Feyon" the %leasure %rinci#le1, there must $e language.
>or , can lure my a"versary $y means of a movement contrary to my
actual #lan of $attle, an" this movement ill have its "eceiving effect only
in so far as , #ro"uce it in reality an" for my a"versary.
Fut in the #ro#ositions ith hich , o#en #eace negotiations ith him,
hat my negotiations #ro#ose to him is situate" in a thir" locus hich is
neither my s#eech nor my interlocutor.
This locus is none other than the locus of signifying convention, of the
sort reveale" in the come"y of the sa" #laint of the ?e to his crony: &hy
"o you tell me you are going to *raco so ,ll $elieve you are going to
=vov, hen you really are going to *raco@
Df course the flock!movement , )ust s#oke of coul" $e un"erstoo" in the
conventional context of game!strategy, here it is a rule that , "eceive my
a"versary, $ut in that case my success is evaluate" ithin the connotation
of $etrayal, that is to say, in relation to the Dther ho is the guarantor of
Koo" >aith.
-ere the #ro$lems are of an or"er the heteronomy of hich is com#letely
misconstrue" 0(8$onne1 if re"uce" to an aareness of others, or
hatever e choose to call it. >or the existence of the other having once
u#on a time reache" the ears of the Ci"as of #sychoanalysis through the
#artition that se#arates him from the secret meetings of the
#henomenologists, the nes is no $eing his#ere" through the ree"s:
Ci"as, 3ing Ci"as, is the other of his #atient. -e himself has sai" it. '...(
&hen , s#eak of -ei"egger, or rather hen , translate him, , at least
make the effort to leave the s#eech he #roffers us its sovereign
significance.
,f , s#eak of $eing an" the letter, if , "istinguish the other an" the Dther,
it is $ecause >reu" shos me that they are the terms to hich must $e
referre" the effects of resistance an" transference against hich, in the
tenty years , have engage" in hat e all call after him the im#ossi$le
#ractice of #sychoanalysis, , have "one unequal $attle. An" it is also
$ecause , must hel# others not to lose their ay there.
,t is to #revent the fiel" of hich they are the inheritors from $ecoming
$arren, an" for that reason to make it un"erstoo" that if the sym#tom is a
meta#hor, it is not a meta#hor to say so, any more than to say that mans
"esire is a metonymy. >or the sym#tom is a meta#hor hether one likes it
or not, as "esire is a metonymy, hoever funny #eo#le may fin" the i"ea.
>inally, if , am to rouse you to in"ignation over the fact that, after so
many centuries of religious hy#ocrisy an" #hiloso#hical $rava"o, nothing
has yet $een vali"ly articulate" as to hat links meta#hor to the question
of $eing an" metonymy to its lack, there must $e an o$)ect there to
anser to that in"ignation $oth as its instigator an" its victim: the o$)ect
is humanistic man an" the cre"it, ho#elessly affirme", hich he has
"ran over his intentions.
8.1.9 -arol" Floom: from %oetry, 2evisionism, an" 2e#ression
?aques Berri"a asks a central question in his essay on >reu" an" the
Scene of &riting &hat is a text, an" hat must the #syche $e if it can
$e re#resente" $y a text@ Cy narroer concern ith #oetry #rom#ts the
contrary question: &hat is a #syche, an" hat must a text $e if it can $e
re#resente" $y a #syche@ Foth Berri"as question an" my on require
ex#loration of three terms: #syche, text, re#resente".
%syche is ultimately from the ,n"o!Nuro#ean root %hes- meaning to
$reath, an" #ossi$ly as imitative in its origins. Text goes $ack, to the
root teks- meaning to eave, an" also to fa$ricate. 2e#resent has its
root es: to $e. Cy question thus can can $e re#hrase": &hat is a $reath,
an" hat must a eaving or a fa$rication $e so as to come into $eing
again as a $reath@
,n the context of #ost!Nnlightenment #oetry, a $reath is at once a
"or+- an" a stan$e for uttering that or", a or" an" a stance of one*s
o"n. ,n this context, a eaving or a fa$rication is hat e call a #oem,
an" its function is to re#resent, to $ring $ack into $eing again, as
157
in"ivi"ual stance an" or". The #oem, as text, is re#resente" or secon"e"
$y hat #sychoanalysis calls the #syche. Fut the text is rhetoric, an" a
#ersuasive system of tro#es can $e carrie" into $eing again only $y another
system of tro#es. 2hetoric can $e secon"e" only $y rhetoric, for all that
rhetoric can inten+ is more rhetoric. ,f a text an" a #syche can $e
re#resente" $y one another, this can $e "one only $ecause each is a
"e#arture from #ro#er meaning. >iguration turns out to $e our only link
$eteen $reathing an" making.
The strong or" an" stance issue only form a strict ill, a ill that
"ares the error of rea"ing all of reality as a text, an" all #rior texts as
o#ening for its on totali:ing an" unique inter#retations. Strong #oets
#resent themselves as looking for truth in the "orl+- searching in reality
an" in tra"ition, $ut such a stance, as /iet:sche sai", remains un"er the
mastery of "esire, of instinctual "rives. So, in effect, the strong #oet ants
#leasure an" not truth: he ants hat /iet:sche name" as the $elief in
truth an" the #leasura$le effects on this $elief. /o strong #oet can a"mit
that /iet:sche as accurate in this insight, an" no critic nee" fear that any
strong #oet ill acce#t an" so $e hurt $y "emystification. '...(
A #oetic text, as , inter#ret it, is not a gathering of signs on a #age,
$ut is a #sychic $attlefiel" u#on hich authentic forces struggle for the
only victory orth inning, the "ivinating trium#h over o$livion, or as
Cilton sang it:
Attir" ith Stars, e shall for ever sit,
Trium#hing over Beath, an" *hance, an" thee D Time.
>e notions are more "ifficult to "is#el than the commonsensical one
that a #oetic text is self!containe", that is has an ascertaina$le meaning
ithout reference to other #oetic texts. Something in nearly every rea"er
ants to say: 3ere is a #oem an" there is a meaning, an" , am reasona$ly
certain that the to can $e $rought together. Hnfortunately, #oems are not
things $ut only or"s that refer to other or"s, an" so on, an" those or"s
refer to still other language. Any #oem is an inter!#oem, an" any rea"ing
of a #oem is an inter!rea"ing. A #oem is not riting, $ut re"riting, an"
though a strong #oem is a fresh start, such a start is a starting!again.
,n some sense, literary criticism has knon alays this reliance of
texts u#on text, $ut the knon change" 0or shoul" have change"1 after
Vico, ho uncovere" the genuine scan"al of #oetic origins, in the
com#lex "efensive tro#e or tro#ing "efense he calle" "ivination. '...(
=anguage for Vico, #articularly #oetic language, is alays an"
necessarily a revision of #revious language. Vico, so far as , kno,
inaugurate" a crucial insight that most critics still refuse to assimilate,
hich is that every #oet is $elate", that every #oem is an instance of hat
>reu" calle" Na$htrahli$hkeit or retroactive meaningfulness. Any #oet
0meaning even -omer, if e coul" kno enough a$out his #recursors1 is
in the #osition #f $eing after the Nvent, in terms of literary language.
-is art is necessarily an aftering- ans so at $est he strives for a selection,
through re#ression, out of the traces of the language of #oetry+ that is, he
re#resses mis#rision, or creative misrea"ing, $ut no matter ho strong a
mis#rision, it cannot achieve an autonomy of meaning, or a meaning flly
#resent, that is, free from all literary context. Nven the strongest #oet
must take u# his stance "ithin literary language. ,f he stan"s otsi+e it,
then he cannot $egin to rite #oetry. The caveman ho trace" the outline
of an animal u#on the rock alays retrace" a #recursors outline. '...(
'...( Vicos insight is that #oetry is $orn of our ignorance of causes,
an" e can exten" Vico $y o$serving that if any #oet knos too ell
hat causes his #oem, then he cannot rite it, or at least ill rite it
$a"ly. -e must re#ress the causes, inclu"ing the #recursor!#oems, $ut
such forgetting '...( itself is s con"ition of a #articular exaggeration of
style or hy#er$olical figuration that tra"ition has calle" the Su$lime. '...(
'...( A strong #oem "oes not for(late #oetic facts any more than
strong rea"ing or criticism formulates them, for a strong rea"ing is the
only #oetic fact, the only revenge against time that en"ures, that is
successful in canoni:ing one text as o##ose" to a rival text.
There is no textual authority ithout an act of im#osition, a
"eclaration of #ro#erty that is ma"e figuratively rather than #ro#erly or
literally. >or the ultimate question a strong rea"ing asks of a #oem is:
&hy@ &hy shoul" it have $een ritten@ &hy must e rea" it, out of all
154
of the too many other #oems availa$le@ &ho "oes the #oet think he is,
anyay@ &hy is his #oem@
Fy "efining #oetic strength as usur#ation or im#osition, , am offen"ing
against civility, against the social conventions of literary scholarshi# an"
criticism. Fut #oetry, hen it as#ires to strength, is necessarily a
com#etitive mo"e, in"ee" an o$sessive mo"e, $ecause #oetic strength
involves a self!re#resentation that is reache" only through tres#ass, though
crossing a "aemonic threshol". '...(
'...( Since #oetry, unlike the ?eish religion, "oes not go $ack to a truly
"ivine origin, #oetry is alays at ork i(agining its o"n origin- or telling
a #ersuasive lie a$out itself, to itself. %oetic strength ensues hen such
lying #ersua"es the rea"er that his on origin has $een reimagine" $y the
#oem. %ersuasion, in a #oem, is the ork of rhetoric, an" again Vico is the
$est of gui"es, for he calls #oetic logic, or hat , oul" call #oetic
mis#rision. '...( Vicos #rofun"ity as a #hiloso#her of rhetoric, $eyon" all
others ancient vies tro#es as "efenses. '...(
Vico is asking a crucial question, hich coul" $e inter#rete"
re"uctively as, &hat is a #oetic image, or hat is a rhetorical tro#e, or
hat is a #sychic "efense@ Vicos anser can $e rea" as a formula: #oetic
image, tro#e, "efense are all forms of a ratio $eteen human ignorance
making things out of itself, an" human self!i"entification moving to
transform us into the things e have ma"e. &hen the human ignorance is
the tres#ass of a #oetic re#ression of anteriority, an" the transforming
movement is a ne #oem, then the ratio measures a reriting or an act of
revision. '...(
'...( >or a strong #oet in #articular, rhetoric is also hat /iet:scche sa
it as $eing, a mo"e of inter#retation that is the ills revulsion against
time, the ills revenge, its vin"ication against the necessity of #assing
aay. %ragmatically, a tro#es revenge is against an earlier tro#e, )ust as
"efenses ten" to $ecome o#erations against one another. &e can "efine a
strong #oet as one ho il not tolerate or"s that intervene $eteen him
an" the &or", or #recursors stan"ing $eteen him an" the Cuse. '...(
The hy#er$ole or intensifie" exaggeration that such $oun"lessness
"eman"s exact a #sychic #rice. To exaggerate etymologically means to
#ile u#, to hea#, an" the function of the Su$lime is to hea# us, as Co$y
Bick makes Aha$ cry out -e hea#s me. %recisely here , locate the
"ifference $eteen the strong #oets an" >reu", since hat >reu" calls
re#ression, is in the greater #oets, the imagination of a *ounter!
Su$lime. Fy attem#ting to sho the #oetic ascen"ancy of re#ression
over su$limation , inten" no revision of the >reu"ian tro#e of the
Hnconscious, $ut rather , "eny the usefulness of the Hnconscious, as
o##ose" to re#ression, as a literary term. '...(
'...( To say that a #oems true su$)ect is its re#ression of the #recursor
#oem is not to say that the later #oem re"uces to the #rocess of that
re#ression. Dn a strict >reu"ian vie, a goo" #oem is a su$limation, an"
not a re#ression. =ike any ork of su$stitution that re#laces the
gratification of #rohi$ite" instincts, the #oem, as viee" $y the
>reu"ians, may contain antithetical effects $ut not uninten"e" or
counterinten"e" effects. ,n the >reu"ian valori:ation of su$limation, the
survival of those effects oul" $e flas in the #oem. Fut #oems are
actually stronger hen their counterinten"e" effects $attle most
incessantly against their overt intentions.
,magination, as Vico un"erstoo" an" >reu" "i" not, is the faculty of
self!#reservation an" so the #ro#er use of >reu", for the literary critic, is
not so to a##ly >reu" 0or even revise >reu"1 as to arrive at an De"i#al
inter#retation of #oetic history. , fin" such to $e the usual
misun"erstan"ing that my on ork #rovokes. ,n stu"ying #oetry e are
not stu"ying the min", nor the Hnconscious, even if there is an
unconscious. &e are stu"ying a kin" of la$or that has its on latent
#rinci#les, #rinci#les that can $e uncovere" an" then taught
systematically. '...(
%oems are not #syches, nor things, nor are they renea$le archety#es
in a ver$al universe, nor are they architectonic units of $alance" stresses.
They are "efensive #rocesses in constant change, hich is to say that
#oems themselves are a$ts of rea+ing. A #oem is, as Thomas >rosch
says, a fierce, #role#tic "e$ate "ith itself- as ell as ith #recursor
#oems. Dr, a #oem is a "ance of su$stitutions, a constant $reaking!of!the!
vessels, as one limitation un"oes a re#resentation, only to $e restitute" in
115
its turn $y a fresh re#resentation. Nvery strong #oem, at least since
%etrarch, has knon im#licitly hat /iet:sche taught us to kno
ex#licitly: that there is only inter#retation, an" that every inter#retation
ansers an earlier inter#retation, an" then must yiel" to a later one.
8.1.7 Killes Beleu:e an" >elix Kuattari: from Anti=Oe+ips: <apitalis( an+
0sy$hoanalysis
+.1.7.1 From 0The 8hole and -ts (arts1
&hen the $reak $eteen >reu" an" ?ung is "iscusse", the mo"est an"
#ractical #oint of "isagreement that marke" the $eginning of their
"ifferences is too often forgotten: ?ung remarke" that in the #rocess of
transference the #sychoanalyst frequently a##eare" in the guise of a "evil,
a go", or a sorcerer, an" that the roles he assume" in the #atients eyes
ent far $eyon" any sort of #arental images. They eventually came to a
total #arting of the ays, yet ?ungs initial reservation as a telling one.
The same remark hol"s true of chil"rens games. A chil" never confines
himself to #laying house, to #laying only at $eing "a""y!an"!mommy. -e
also #lays at $eing a magician, a co$oy, a co# or a ro$$er, a train, a little
car. The train is not necessarily "a""y, nor is the train station necessarily
mommy. The #ro$lem has to "o not ith the sexual nature of "esiring!
machines, $ut ith the family nature of this sexuality. A"mitte"ly, once
the chil" has gron u#, he fin"s himself "ee#ly involve" in social relations
that are no longer familial relations. Fut since these relations su##ose"ly
come into $eing at a later stage in life, there are only to #ossi$le ays in
hich this can $e ex#laine": it must $e grante" either that sexuality is
su$limate" or neutrali:e" in an" through social 0an+ meta#hysical1
relations, in the form of an analytic afterar" + or else that these relations
$ring into #lay a non!sexual energy, for hich sexuality has merely serve"
as the sym$ol of an anagogical $eyon".
,t as their "isagreement on this #articular #oint that eventually ma"e the
$reak $eteen >reu" an" ?ung irreconcila$le. Jet at the same time the to
of them continue" to share the $elief that the li$i"o cannot invest a social
or meta#hysical fiel" ithout some sort of me"itation. This is not the
case, hoever. =et us consi"er a chil" at #lay, or a chil" craling a$out
ex#loring the various rooms of the house he lives in. -e looks intently at
an electrical outlet, he moves his $o"y a$out like a machine, he uses one
of his legs as though it ere an oar, he goes into the kitchen, into the
stu"y, he runs toy cars $ack an" forth. ,t is o$vious that his #arents are
#resent all this time, an" that the chil" oul" have nothing ere it not for
them. Fut that is not the real matter at issue. The matter at issue is to fin"
out hether everything he touches is ex#erience" as a re#resentative of
his #arents. Nver since $irth his cri$, his mothers $reast, her ni##le, his
$oel movements are "esiring!machines connecte" to #arts of his $o"y.
,t seems to us self!contra"ictory to maintain, on the one han", that the
chil" lives among #artial o$)ects, an" that on the other han" he conceives
of these #artial o$)ects as $eing his #arents, or even "ifferent #arts of his
#arents $o"ies. Strictly s#eaking, it is not true that a $a$y ex#eriences
his mothers $reast as a se#arate #art of her $o"y. ,t exists, rather, as a
#art of a "esiring!machine connecte" to the $a$ys mouth, an" is
ex#erience" as an o$)ect #rovi"ing a non!#ersonal flo of milk, $e it
co#ious or scanty. A "esiring!machine an" a #artial o$)ect "o not
re#resent anything. A #artial o$)ect is not re#resentative, even though it
a"mitte"ly serves as a $asis of relations an" as a means of assigning
agents a #lace an" a function+ $ut these agents are not #ersons, any more
than these relations are inter!su$)ective. They are relations of #ro"uction
as such, an" agents of #ro"uction an" anti!#ro"uction. 2ay Fra"$ury
"emonstrates this very ell hen he "escri$es the nursery as a #lace
here "esiring!#ro"uction an" grou# fantasy occur, as a #lace here the
only connection is that $eteen #artial o$)ects an" agents. The small
chil" lives ith his family aroun" the clock+ $ut ithin the $osom of his
family, an" from the very first "ays of his life, he imme"iately $egins
having an ama:ing non!familial ex#erience that #sychoanalysis has
com#letely faile" to take into account. '...(
,s it #ossi$le that, $y taking the #ath that it has, #sychoanalysis is
reviving an age!ol" ten"ency to hum$le us, to "emean us, an" to make us
111
feel guilty@ >oucault has note" that the relationshi# $eteen ma"ness an"
the family can $e trace" $ack in large #art to a "evelo#ment that affecte"
the hole of $ourgeois society in the nineteenth century: the family as
entruste" ith functions that $ecame the measuring ro" of the
res#onsi$ility of its mem$ers an" their #ossi$le guilt. ,nsofar as
#sychoanalysis cloaks insanity in the mantle of a #arental com#lex, an"
regar"s the #atterns of self!#unishment resulting from De"i#us as a
confession of guilt, its theories are not at all ra"ical or innovative. Dn the
contrary: it is $o(pleting the task %egn %y nineteenth=$entry psy$hology,
namely, to "evelo# a morali:e", familial "iscourse of mental #athology,
linking ma"ness to the half!real, half!imaginary "ialectic of the >amily,
"eci#hering ithin it the unen"ing attem#t to mur"er the father, the "ull
thu" of instincts hammering at the soli"ity of the family as an institution
an" at its most archaic sym$ols. -ence, instea" of #artici#ating in an
un"ertaking that ill $ring a$out genuine li$eration, #sychoanalysis is
taking #art in the ork of $ourgeois re#ression at its most far!reaching
level, that is to say, kee#ing Nuro#ean humanity harnesse" to the yoke of
"a""y!mommy an" (aking no effort to +o a"ay "ith this pro%le( on$e
an+ for all. '...(
+.1.7.! From 0(sychoanalysis and Capitalism1
The schi:oanalytic argument is sim#le: "esire is a machine, a synthesis of
machines, a machinic arrangement ! "esiring!machines. The or"er of
"esire is the or"er of pro+$tion+ all #ro"uction is at once "esiring!
#ro"uction an" social #ro"uction. &e therefore re#roach #sychoanalysis
for having stifle" this or"er of #ro"uction, for having shunte" it into
representation. >ar from shoing the $ol"ness of #sychoanalysis, this i"ea
of unconscious re#resentation marks from the outset its $ankru#tcy or its
a$negation: an unconscious that no longer #ro"uces, $ut is content to
%elieve. The unconscious $elieves in De"i#us, it $elieves in castration, in
the la. ,t is "ou$tless true that the #sychoanalyst oul" $e the first to say
that, everything consi"ere", $elief is not an act of the unconscious+ it is
alays the #reconscious that $elieves. Shoul"nt it even $e sai" that it is
the #sychoanalyst ho $elieves ! the #sychoanalyst in each of us@ &oul"
$elief then $e an effect on the conscious material that the unconscious
re#resentation exerts from a "istance@ Fut inversely, ho or hat
re"uce" the unconscious to this state of re#resentation, if not first of all a
system of $eliefs #ut in the #lace of #ro"uctions@ ,n reality, social
#ro"uction $ecomes alienate" in allege"ly autonomous $eliefs at the
same time that "esiring!#ro"uction $ecomes entice" into allege"ly
unconscious re#resentations. An" as e have seen, it is the same agency
! the family ! that #erforms this "ou$le o#eration, "istorting an"
"isfiguring social "esiring!#ro"uction, lea"ing it into an im#asse.
Thus the link $eteen representation=%elief an" the family is not
acci"ental+ it is of the essence of re#resentation to $e a familial
re#resentation. Fut #ro"uction is not there$y su##resse", it continues to
rum$le, to thro$ $eneath the re#resentative agency 0instan$e
repr8sentative1 that suffocates it, an" that it in return can make resonate
to the $reaking #oint. Thus in or"er to kee# an effective gri# on the :ones
of #ro"uction, re#resentation must inflate itself ith all the #oer of
myth an" trage"y, it must give a (ythi$ an+ tragi$ presentation of the
family ! an" a familial #resentation of myth an" trage"y. Jet arent myth
an" trage"y, too, #ro"uctions!forms of #ro"uction@ *ertainly not+ they
are #ro"uction only hen $rought into connection ith real social
#ro"uction, real "esiring!#ro"uction. Dtherise they are i"eological
forms, hich have taken the #lace of the units of #ro"uction. ;ho
%elieves in all this ! De"i#us, castration, etc.@ The Kreeks@ Then the
Kreeks "i" not #ro"uce in the same ay they $elieve"@ The -ellenists@
Bo the -ellenists $elieve that the Kreeks #ro"uce" accor"ing to their
$eliefs@ This is true at least of the nineteenth!century -ellenists, a$out
hom Nngels sai": you" think they really $elieve" in all that ! in myth,
in trage"y. ,s it the unconscious that re#resents itself through De"i#us
an" castration@ Dr is it the #sychoanalyst ! the #sychoanalyst in us all,
ho re#resents the unconscious in this ay@ >or never has Nngelss
remark regaine" so much meaning: you" think the #sychoanalysts really
$elieve" in all this ! in myth, in trage"y. 0They go on $elieving, hereas
the -ellenists have long since sto##e".1
The Schre$er case again a##lies: Schre$ers father invente" an"
11E
fa$ricate" astonishing little machines, sa"istico!#aranoiac machines ! for
exam#le hea" stra#s ith a metallic shank an" leather $an"s, for restrictive
use on chil"ren, for making them straighten u# an" $ehave. These
machines #lay no role hatever in the >reu"ian analysis. %erha#s it oul"
have $een more "ifficult to crush the entire socio#olitical content of
Schre$ers "elirium if these "esiring!machines of the father ha" $een taken
into account, as ell as their o$vious #artici#ation in a #e"agogical social
machine in general. >or the real question is this: of course the father acts
on the chil"s unconscious ! $ut "oes he act as a hea" of a family in an
ex#ressive familial transmission, or rather as the agent of a machine, in a
machinic information or communication@ Schre$ers "esiring!machines
communicate ith those of his father+ $ut it is in this very ay that they
are from early chil"hoo" the li$i"inal investment of a social fiel". In this
fiel+ the father has a role only as an agent of pro+$tion an+ anti=
pro+$tion. >reu", on the contrary, chooses the first #ath: it is not the
father ho in"icates the action of machines, $ut )ust the o##osite+
thereafter there is no longer even any reason for consi"ering machines,
hether as "esiring!machines or as social machines. ,n return, the father
ill $e inflate" ith all the forces of myth an" religion an" ith
#hylogenesis, so as to ensure that the little familial re#resentation has the
a##earance of $eing coextensive ith the fiel" of "elirium. The #ro"uction
cou#le ! the "esiring!machines an" the social fiel" ! gives ay to a
re#resentative cou#le of an entirely "ifferent nature: family!myth. Dnce
again, have you ever seen a chil" at #lay: ho he alrea"y #o#ulates the
technical social machines ith his on "esiring!machines, 5 sexuality !
hile the father or mother remains in the $ackgroun", from hom the
chil" $orros #arts an" gears accor"ing to his nee", an" ho are there as
agents of transmission, rece#tion, an" interce#tion: kin"ly agents of
#ro"uction or sus#icious agents of anti!#ro"uction. '...(
The am$iguity of #sychoanalysis in relation to myth or trage"y has the
folloing ex#lanation: #sychoanalysis un"oes them as o$)ective
re#resentations, an" "iscovers in them the figures of a su$)ective universal
li$i"o+ $ut it reanimates them, an" #romotes them as su$)ective
re#resentations that exten" the mythic an" tragic contents to infinity.
%sychoanalysis "oes treat myth an" trage"y, $ut it treats them as the
"reams an" fantasies of #rivate man, 3o(o fa(ilia ! an" in fact "ream
an" fantasy are to myth an" trage"y as #rivate #ro#erty is to #u$lic
#ro#erty. &hat acts in myth an" trage"y at the level of o$)ective elements
is therefore re!a##ro#riate" an" raise" to a higher level $y
#sychoanalysis, $ut as an unconscious "imension of su$)ective
re#resentation 0myth as humanitys +rea(1. &hat acts as an o$)ective
an" #u$lic element ! the Narth, the Bes#ot ! is no taken u# again, $ut
as the ex#ression of a su$)ective an" #rivate reterritoriali:ation: De"i#us
is the fallen "es#ot ! $anishe", "eterritoriali:e" ! $ut a
reterritoriali:ation is engineere", using the De"i#us com#lex conceive"
of as the "a""y!mommy!me of to"ays everyman. %sychoanalysis an" the
De"i#us com#lex gather u# all $eliefs, all that has ever $een $elieve" $y
humanity, $ut only in or"er to raise it to the con"ition of a +enial that
#reserves $elief ithout $elieving in it 0its only a "ream: the strictest
#iety to"ay asks for nothing more1. &hence this "ou$le im#ression, that
#sychoanalysis is o##ose" to mythology no less than to mythologists, $ut
at the same time exten"s myth an" trage"y to the "imensions of the
su$)ective universal: if De"i#us himself has no com#lex, the De"i#us
com#lex has no De"i#us, )ust as narcissism has no /arcissus. Such is the
am$ivalence that traverses #sychoanalysis, an" that exten"s $eyon" the
s#ecific #ro$lem of myth an" trage"y: ith one han" #sychoanalysis
un"oes the system of o$)ective re#resentations 0myth, trage"y1 for the
$enefit of su$)ective essence conceive" as "esiring!#ro"uction, hile
ith the other han" it reverses this #ro"uction in a system of su$)ective
re#resentations 0"ream an" fantasy, ith myth an" trage"y #osite" as
their "evelo#ments or #ro)ections1. ,mages, nothing $ut images. &hat is
left in the en" is an intimate familial theatre, the theatre of #rivate man,
hich is no longer either "esiring!#ro"uction or o$)ective re#resentation.
The unconscious as a stage. A hole theatre #ut in the #lace of
#ro"uction, a theatre that "isfigures this #ro"uction even more than coul"
trage"y an" myth hen re"uce" to their meager ancient resources.
Cyth, trage"y, "ream, an" fantasy ! an" myth an" trage"y reinter#rete"
in terms of "ream an" fantasy ! are the re#resentative series that
118
#sychoanalysis su$stitutes for the line of #ro"uction: social an" "esiring!
#ro"uction. A theatre series, instea" of #ro"uction series. '...(
H.> 031NOM1NOLO/I<AL <RITI<ISM
8.E.E Keorges %oulet: from The Self an" Dther *ritical in *onsciousness
*ritical consciousness relies, $y "efinition, on the thinking of another +
it fin"s its nourishment an" its su$stance only therein. '...(
'...( Nach literary ork, of no matter hat kin", im#lies, for the riter,
an act of self!"iscovery. &riting "oes not mean sim#ly to allo an
unsteme" rush of thoughts to flo onto the #a#er+ riting means rather to
construe oneself as the su$)ect of these thoughts. , think means first an"
foremost: , reveal myself as the su$)ect of that hich , think. The
thought that flos through me, like a ra#i" stream that rushes #ast its
$anks ithout $eing soake" in, moistens an" refreshes the alays vital
foun"ations of my $eing. , am a s#ectator of the #henomena that take #lace
in me. Cy aakene" thought, hether frail or #oerful, luci" or murky,
never fully coinci"es ith that hich is thought. Cy thought is a
se#arateness+ it #eaches the key.
, cannot say exactly hen , came to the conviction that literature as a
hole "e#en"s on this kin" of fact. , rea" the #hiloso#hers+ a$ove all those
ho ha" thought more than others a$out the significance of the $ogito.
/early all of mo"ern #hiloso#hy, from Contaigne to -usserl, seeme" to
me to $egin ith a reflection hich ha" its roots in the function of
consciousness. '...( Nach literary text, hether essay, novel, or #oem, ha" a
#oint of "e#arture+ each organi:e" language gre out of an original
moment of aareness, a")uste" itself then accor"ing to the successive
#oints it su$sequently touche" u#on. ,n this realm there as no $asic
"ifference $eteen literary an" #hiloso#hical texts. All literature as
#hiloso#hy for me, each #hiloso#hy as literature. /o matter hat sort of
text , rea", at the instant , $egan to sense the effect of a conce#t in it, ,
foun" the same origin in almost each line an" the same course running
from this source.
-o coul" , have faile" to recogni:e the significance of this
"iscovery. The ork alays $egan ith an act of aareness, an" the
critical interest hich selecte" the ork as an o$)ect of consi"eration
#osite" the same $eginning. , as no longer of the o#inion that the riter
su$)ects himself to the unor"ere" flo of his s#iritual life. -e seeme" to
me no to $e characteri:e" therein that he attacke" his #ro$lem each
moment ane, as if he ere $eginning again from :ero. An", in turn, the
literary critic also $egan at :ero, ith the com#lete "enial of his self.
Thus it coul" vali"ly $e sai" that if the riter creates initially his on
$ogito- the critic fin"s his #oint of "e#arture in the $ogito of another. This
alien $ogito oul" then, regar"less of its origin, $ecome a #art of the
innermost $eing of the one ho re#ro"uce" it. ,t as a kin" of $orroe"
aareness. ,n a""ition, the critic oul" fin" it #ossi$le ith this
#roce"ure to "ra a num$er of conclusions from this #oint of "e#arture.
The $ogito oul" reveal itself not only as a #rimary ex#erience $ut also,
in an involute" form, as a #rinci#le of multi#le "evelo#ments hich
arrange" themselves ithin a time line. The critic oul" only have to
follo this line. ,t oul" #oint him on his course. Nverything oul"
follo in an intelligi$le an" logical manner from the first , think, , am.
This "iscovery as of the greatest im#ortance for me: criticism is the
mimetic "u#lication of a conce#tual action. ,t "oes not "e#en" on an
ar$itrary notion. To ex#erience ane in ones on min" the $ogito of a
riter or a #hiloso#her means to re"iscover the manner of thinking an"
feeling, means to see ho this thinking an" feeling originate an" assume
form an" hat o$stacles they encounter. ,t means also to re"iscover the
#ur#ose of a life hich takes sha#e out of the ex#erience of the in"ivi"ual
consciousness.
An" that means, also, the simultaneous recognition of the or"er in
11<
hich thoughts succee" one another. They a##ear one after the other, at
times in harmony ith each other, at times not, "e#en"ing u#on the
fluctuations of a reflection hich seems to evolve anarchically $ut hich,
in reality, o$eys the #lay of "ialectic #oers hich $elong to the original
$ogito. The s#iritual orl" thus or"ere" $y the riter must $ecome, in
turn, the s#iritual or"er of the critic. '...( The coherence of the literary text
$ecomes the coherence of the critical text hich a##ro#riates an"
trans#oses the literary text. '...(
, "eci"e" to com#ile systematically all the variations of the $ogito
hich , coul" fin" in my authors. This "ecision affor"e" that hich u# to
this #oint ha" threatene" to remain chaotic ! a form. , ha" almost "rone"
in the floo" of human thoughts. /o matter hat manner of thoughts they
ere or in hich s#iritual #lace , ha" $een ex#ose" to them, they ha"
a##eare" to my as a confusion of currents hose "ifferences , coul" not
note. The #roce"ure through hich , no ascen"e" to the self!ex#erience
of a certain author alloe" me to sei:e the moment in hich the originality
of a conce#t reali:e" itself in its mental act, an" to measure the
significance of the frameork in hich this conce#t as to "evelo#. To
arrive at this aareness of the self, hich is affor"e" to each human $eing
in a certain ay at s#ecial moments, meant to reach a certain kin" of
original thought hich gave me the key to everything hich folloe". ,n
every case, the act of consciousness as fun"amental. &ith each ne
conce#tion of himself, he ho ex#erience" it confirme" his on
#ermanence. Nven more: it oul" intro"uce the formal #rinci#le on hich
the entire sequence "e#en"e". Fecause of this, , as tem#te" to call the
ex#erience of consciousness of the self a categorical act. '...( Thus the
$ogito oul" never $e equal to an isolate" event. The aareness of self
oul" $e simultaneously an aareness of the orl". The manner in hich
it oul" o#erate, the s#ecific angle of vision through hich it oul" arrive
at a recognition of its o$)ect, oul" ex#ress itself in such a manner that it
oul" encom#ass, either imme"iately or at the en" of a long #rocess, the
entire universe. >or hoever #erceive" himself in an original ay oul"
#erceive simultaneously an original universe. '...(
Nverything as thus contingent on the original $ogito: a $ogito hich
as consequently taken u# again an" continually renee", $ut hich
oul" remain true to its original a##earance throughout all reneals.
&hoever "iscovers the $ogito of an author fulfills the task of the critic
more than half ay. *ritical aareness can start only at that #oint.
There remaine", hoever, a final #ro$lem to solve. The first an" most
#ressing "uty of a literary critic as the re"iscovery of the $ogito of an
author. Fut ho as this $ogito to $e re"iscovere" @. '...( To consi"er a
$ogito as a #ossi$le o$)ect of research is to misun"erstan" its essence. ,t
means to make a kin" of thing out of a #ure su$)ect. The unusual as#ect
of the ex#erience of consciousness consists #recisely therein: that it
cannot $e regar"e" externally as a mere su##lement of thought. ,t is,
rather, the inner self of the consciousness, the I that confirms itself as I-
regar"less of the attri$utes hich it ha##ens to have.
Thus a $ogito as for me an act hich oul" $e ex#erience" only
inar"ly. ,t esca#es the min" unless the min" has succee"e" in
i"entifying itself ith the #oer of #erce#tion #erceiving itself. An"
since the s#ecific task of the critic consiste" #recisely in com#rehen"ing
this #rocess of self!cognition in the stu"ie" ork, the critic coul" not
achieve that com#rehension hen he "i" not, in turn, #erforme" the act
thus reveale" to him. ,n other or"s, the critical act require" of the critic
the same inner activity as the act of self!aareness #erforme" $y the
examine" author. An i"entical I ha" to o#erate ithin the author an" the
critic.
To "iscover the $ogito of riters it is necessary, therefore, to go $ack
an" reconstruct, ithin the same con"itions, an" almost the same terms,
the $ogito hich each one of them ha" ex#erience". '...( There coul" $e
no criticism ithout this initial act through hich critical thought enters
ithin the thought critici:e" an" tem#orarily esta$lishes itself there as the
cognitive su$)ect.
To conclu"e. All of the categorical #rinci#les mentione" here are
linke". They all stan" in relation to each other, an" they all relate to the
same act of consciousness. Together they re#resent the "evelo#ment of a
thought #rocess "irecte" toar"s its o$)ects, hich im$ue it ith their
form an" their foun"ation, $ase" on its relationshi# ith the external
116
orl". -oever, this thinking is $orn in loneliness, often in the state of
fear hich isolation "etermines+ it is a sim#le consi"eration of the self, a
still un"ifferentiate" ex#erience of the aareness of self. =iterary criticism
must "irect itself a$ove all toar"s this initial I- to this first a##erce#tion
of self. ,f, in the #rocess, it follos all the variations of consciousness, of
un"erstan"ing an" of the reconstruction of the universe in the stu"ie"
author, criticism must nonetheless lay stress a$ove all on the first
encounter of self ith its on $eing: all criticism is first an" foremost a
criticism of consciousness.
8.E.8 2oman ,ngar"en: from Some N#istemological %ro$lems in the
*ognition of the Aesthetic *oncreti:ation of the =iterary &ork of Art
,n the cognition of the aesthetic concreti:ation of a literary ork of art
e are concerne" in the first #lace ith "iscovering hat aesthetic value is
constitute" an" a##ears in it. Fut that is not the main concern of this
cognition. ,t is $asically only an em#irical #re#aration for the real task
hich e must #erform. This consists of an un"erstan"ing, $ase" on "irect
ex#erience, of the nature of the ontic
9E
connection among the aesthetically
valua$le qualities a##earing in the concreti:ation: hether they only
ha##en to a##ear together in the concreti:ation, hether they are #erha#s
interconnecte" an" $len"e" in a #eculiar ay ithout sacrificing their
s#ecific "istinctness, or hether they a##ear together necessarily. ,n the
secon" #lace, e are concerne" ith un"erstan"ing the mo"e of ontic
connection $eteen the set of aesthetically valua$le qualities an" the
in"ivi"ual qualitatively "etermine" aesthetic value hich may a##ear. This
un"erstan"ing teaches us a$out the structure of the literary aesthetic o$)ect
! an" $y structure e mean the kin" of ontic connection among the
a$ove!mentione" value!$earing factors of the o$)ect. &e cannot achieve
this un"erstan"ing ithout also having the qualitative factors hich enter
9E
Dntic: concerne" ith the essence or $eing of entities. ,ngar"en $elieves the literary
ork has three ontic as#ects: 0i1 intentional, creative acts $y a human consciousness+
0ii1 the concrete material of a text, i.e. the marks on the #age+ 0iii1 i"eal conce#ts or
i"eas.
into the connection. Thus it is not a #urely intuitive act, $ut rather a
"eci"e"ly intellectual one. ,t exhi$its the necessity of the inner structure
of the aesthetic o$)ect un"er consi"eration or else the lack of such a
necessity, hence its greater or lesser contingency. ,n #articular, it can
consist in the un"erstan"ing that the value "oes not a##ear $ut is not
sufficiently foun"e" in the aesthetically valua$le qualities hich are
#resent. The a##earance of the value must thus have a $asis outsi"e the
aesthetic o$)ect, hich makes its o$)ectivity at least questiona$le.
&ith regar" to the cognition of an aesthetic concreti:ation e must
further ex#lain to hat extent the aesthetically valua$le qualities
manifeste" in the o$)ect are foun"e" in the artistic values of the ork of
art itself or necessarily arise form factors hich the rea"er #ro)ects to fill
out certain #laces of in"eterminacy in harmony ith the ork. ,n this
ay e gain insight into the necessary or contingent structure of the
literary aesthetic o$)ect un"er investigation, even into its foun"ations in
the ork of art itself. The "emonstration of the necessary ontic
interconnections among all the elements un"er consi"eration here reveals
a ne s#ecific value factor in the aesthetic o$)ect: the valua$le nature of
the necessary formal unity foun"e" in the in"ivi"ual character of the
material factors. An" this is the o#timum that can $e achieve" in the area
of aesthetic o$)ect. The aesthetic o$)ect is then a reali:ation of the
content of a #articular i"ea hich the artist must someho have ha" in
min". Fut he also ha" to invent the means for the reali:ation of his
content+ that is he ha" to create the corres#on"ing ork of art. >or note
that the i"ea in question is not the i"ea of the ork of art $ut only the i"ea
of the #eculiar ontic interconnection $eteen the relevant value quality
an" the set of aesthetically valua$le qualities hich coexists ith it in
harmonious unity. '...(
The cognition of the aesthetic concreti:ation of a literary ork of art
"oes not en" ith the imme"iate, intuitive a##rehension of the
concreti:ation. ,t also involves fixing the results of the cognition in a set
of )u"gements an" corres#on"ing conce#ts. The #ossi$ility of literary
scholarshi# as a "isci#line hich oul" also set itself the task of stu"ying
aesthetic concreti:ations "e#en"s on the extent to hich this fixing in
11I
)u"gements an" conce#ts can succee". , shoul" like to mention here )ust a
fe of the e#istemological #ro$lems hich arise in the context. '...(
Nvery literary ork of art is an intersu$)ective o$)ect in its schematic
structure. ,t is o#en to question, hoever, hether the same may $e
asserte" of aesthetic concreti:ations. The "ou$ts relating to the
concreti:ations arise mainly from the fact that, $esi"es the ork itself, a
series of #urely su$)ective, in"ivi"ual factors influence the formation of a
given literary ork. The formation of a concreti:ation of, say Koethes
;erther or Shakes#eares 3a(let "e#en"s #rimarily on a num$er of
external circumstances un"er hich the rea"ing is #erforme", as ell s on
the state of the rea"er himself. These factors are quite varia$le, are
in"e#en"ent of the ork of art $eing rea" an" of one another, an" cannot
$e #re"icte" in their con)unctions. Thus the "ifferences among in"ivi"ual
concreti:ations of the same ork are quite multifarious an", in general,
un#re"icta$le. ,t ill ha##en only very rarely that to concreti:ations of
the same ork, forme" $y "ifferent rea"ers, ill $e com#letely alike in all
features hich are crucial for the formation of the aesthetic value. '...(
'...( ,f, "es#ite several attem#ts, e are una$le to guess a #eculiar
quality hich, accor"ing to another #ersons re#ort, a##ears in the
concreti:ation he has constitute", then all e can "o is take cogni:ance of
the fact that there is something in the other #ersons concreti:ation of the
ork of art hich is out of our reach. Then e can try to ex#erience an" to
concreti:e the ork of art aesthetically in a ne ay. %erha#s then e ill
cogni:e that quality hich e "i" not recogni:e at first or a harmony
hich coul" then make communication ith the other rea"er #ossi$le. Fut
here e are certainly at the limit of hat e can investigate in common
ith others. &ithout all these attem#ts at refining the cognition of literary
aesthetic o$)ects an" overcoming the linguistic "ifficulties, hoever, e
are not )ustifie" in "eclaring a #riori, as is often "one, that scientific
mastery of this kin" is im#ossi$le. The fact that this "isci#line has certain
limits, hich, $y the ay, can $e exten"e", "oes not mean that it has no
vali"ity. '...(
&ithin the limits of the com#etence of literary scholarshi# there thus
remain the in"ivi"ual literary orks of art as schematic entities an" the
common 0general1 attri$utes an" structures of the concreti:ations, an"
es#ecially of the aesthetic concreti:ations, of these orks. At the limits of
the s#here of investigation are the in"ivi"ual features of the in"ivi"ual
aesthetic concreti:ations, an" it might $e aske" hether these "o not go
$eyon" these limits an" shoul" not #erha#s $e turne" over to literary
criticism. Fut the solution of this #ro$lem oul" require a general
"iscussion a$out the o$)ect, the task, an" the metho"s of literary
scholarshi# an" other forms of knole"ge a$out literature, hich inclu"e
#hiloso#hy of literature, criticism, an" #oetics. Such a "iscussion goes
$eyon" the sco#e of this $ook.
This result seems, hoever, to $e threatene" $y a "anger e must no
"iscuss. ?u"gements that a##ear to $e contra"ictory are often ma"e a$out
the same literary ork of art, in "aily life as ell as in scholarly
investigation, es#ecially hen it is a question of so!calle" value
)u"gements or evaluations. To the extent that this reflects a shortcoming
of the in"ivi"ual investigator or arises from an acci"ental "efect in the
results achieve", it is something hich occurs in all sciences, even the
exact sciences, an" hich furnishes no reason for "es#ising the science
in hich it occurs. '...( ,n the case of literary scholarshi#, hoever, this
fact is ex#loite" as a reason to #ass scornful )u"gement on any kin" of
knole"ge a$out literature or any other art+ this is es#ecially common
among mathematicians an" natural scientists 0scientists in the narro
sense of the or"1. The $elief is that these errors an" contra"ictions are
necessary in such a fiel" an" cannot $e remove". ,s this really the case@
The existence of errors an" contra"ictions must $e rea"ily acknole"ge".
&e oul" also have to agree that it oul" )eo#ar"i:e the scientific nature
of such research if conflicting or even genuinely contra"ictory
)u"gements ere necessary in the fiel" of literary stu"y. Fut it is "ou$tful
that they are necessary, an", it seems to me, no one has yet #rove" that
they are. There are, hoever, certain a##arent reasons for conclu"ing that
such a necessity exists. To "ate, there has not $een a clear aareness of
the "ifference $eteen a literary ork of art an" its concreti:ations, nor
has the nee" for such a "istinction $een reali:e". ,nstea" of strictly
se#arating to $asic ty#es of literary )u"gements, those a$out the
119
literary ork of art itself an" those a$out its concreti:ations, the #ractice
has $een to treat all these )u"gements 0an" ver"icts1 as if they all a##lie" to
the ork of art 0ith no consi"eration of hat the term might mean1. ,t
seems to me that, after the intro"uction of our "istinctions, the theoretical
"ifficulties "isa##ear. /either conflict nor contra"iction occurs hen to
)u"gements a$out to "ifferent concreti:ations of the same ork say
something "ifferent a$out corres#on"ing factors of the to
concreti:ations. The concreti:ations may very ell "iffer on this #oint.
The fact that such )u"gements "o not agree "oes not constitute a
shortcoming in literary stu"y. Df course, that is true only hen the #oint of
"ifference $eteen the )u"gements consists in a factor or attri$ute of the
concreti:ation hich "oes not $elong to the ork itself $ut to
su##lementation of the ork $y the ne factors or elements of the
concreti:ations. ,f, hoever, e have to )u"gements hich "iffere" ith
reference to a factor of the schematic structure of the ork of art itself,
then e oul" have a real conflict or contra"iction, hich nevertheless
can, in #rinci#le, $e remove" through further investigation. The a"missi$le
"ivergence among true )u"gements a$out "ifferent concreti:ations of the
same ork of art is not a "efect in the stu"y of literature. Dur conce#tion
of the literary ork of art accounts for its #ossi$ility. '...(
,t is a "ifferent situation, hoever, hen to value )u"gements ascri$e
"ifferent artistic values to the same literary ork of art. Then e must
sus#ect that at least one of them is false an" results from an inexact
analysis of the ork of art an" the #ossi$ilities of its aesthetic
concreti:ations. Fut then e "o have the #ossi$ility of removing the
conflict $eteen the )u"gements $y means of a ne an" more exact
analysis of the ork of art an" its artistic excellence, so that this case
#resents no theoretical "anger for literary scholarshi#, although it can
sometimes $e very "ifficult to fin" the $asis of the error an" form a correct
ver"ict concerning the artistic value of the ork. '...( An" the reason
evaluations of the ork of art in res#ect of its artistic values often "iffer
greatly an" lea" to long controversies may lie in the very fact that e can
never take all #ossi$le concreti:ations into account $ut must restrict
ourselves to some ty#ical concreti:ations, hich are easier to survey. ,f the
ork of art in question has an a$un"ance of various #ossi$le
concreti:ations, an" if the concreti:ations a"mit values of a high
or"erhich "iffer from one another, then the controversy concerning the
artistic value of the ork ill last a long time, an" #erha#s it ill not $e
#ossi$le to resolve it in a single cultural e#och. Fut this "oes not s#eak
against the scientific character of the evaluation of the literary orks of
art+ it is rather sim#ly a consequence of the essential structure of the
literary ork of art itself an" of its life in various cultural e#ochs, an" a
consequence of the relatively narro limits of the literary scholar, ho is
often una$le to see $eyon" the hori:on of his on cultural e#och. Fut that
shoul" not tem#t us into ske#ticism a$out literary scholarshi#+ rather, it
shoul" s#ur us on to further investigation.
8.E.6 Keoffrey -artman: from ;or+s"orth*s 0oetry 1STS=1T1Q
2etros#ect 1491
&hat , "i", $asically, as to "escri$e &or"sorths consciousness of
consciousness. Nverything else ! #sychology, e#istemology, religious
i"eas, #olitics ! as su$or"inate". ,f that is #henomennological
#roce"ure, so $e it. , "i" not, hoever, su##ort any s#ecial 0-egelian,
?ungian, etc.1 theory of #ersonal i"entity of human an" historical
"evelo#ment. Though sometimes a""ucing analogies from other riters, ,
trie" to "escri$e things strictly as they a##eare" to the #oet, hile
raising the question as to hy he so carefully res#ecte" their mo"es of
a##earance. The anser given $y &or"sorth as that he ha" ma"e
hen young a #rovi"ential error: then it as alrea"y consciousness that
as a##earing, not sim#ly things+ an" the $lin"ness hich cause" the
groing s#irit to feel not its on $ur"en $ut that of natural o$)ects 0they
lay u#on his min" like su$stances an" #er#lexe" the $o"ily sense1
initiate" a quest!romance in #ursuit of the creation, one hich gave the
$oys imagination time to naturali:e itself, to "irect its great $ut uncertain
#oers toar" the things of this orl".
117
,n short, , folloe" &or"sorths self!inter#retations as closely as
#ossi$le. , sa him trace certain sensory fixations, es#ecially an o$session
ith #lace. -aunte" $y the i"ea of the secret or sacre" s#ot on hich
nature seeme" to converge, he re"iscovere" the religious 0an" romance1
motif of numinous #laces. Cy analysis of ho, an" ith hat "ifficulty,
&or"sorths s#irit "etache" itself from #lace an" raise" itself to the
larger, more generous i"ea of nature shoe" that the notion of s#ots of
time as still in"e$te" to that of s#irit of #lace. %oetic genius, in
&or"sorth, never quite free" itself of the genius loci, an" in attem#ting
to res#ect these nature!involve" e#i#hanies he relive" on the very groun"
of his senses the religious struggle $eteen -ellenic 0fixe" an" "efinite1
an" -e$raic 0in"efinite, anti!anthro#omor#hic1 re#resentations of the
"ivine.
'...( &hat move" me most, #erha#s, as the #oets exce#tional o#eness
to $oth visionary feelings an" an anxious self!scrutiny of %uritan
#ro#ortions. They go together an" are "ifficult to se#arate. -is "istrust of
#ure imagination ! of extasy ! is not unlike Br. ?ohnsons. Cargaret an"
the Solitarys ife 0in The 1#$rsion1 un$in" themselves from earth+ an"
Nmily in The &hite Boe of 2ylstone is also in "anger of losing contact
hen the "ivine animal $rings her $ack. A soul has to renaturali:e itself.
&hat other #oet has such honest, akar" reflections on the "ifficulty of
$in"ing imagi$nation to nature or orl" ! such hus$an"ing of the curious
links that el" self, or self an" orl", toghether ! con)oine" ith great,
as if contrary #assages of visionary #oetry ol"!style in hich excess of
imagination trium#hs an" renes the #oets fear of a#ocaly#tical
"issolution@ This ex#ose"ness of a min", toghether ith its search for
garments 00rel+e V. E<1 ! for me"iations "ran from self!ex#erience !
as the $ur"en of my $ook.
, "i" not neglect the historical milieu, $ut neither "i" , offer it as an
ex#lanation. ,n a strange ay the violence in >rance as ell as the sloer
trauma of in"ustriali:ation coinci"e" ith &or"sorths inner sense of
irre#ara$le change: they fore$o"e" a cosmic oun"ing of /ature ! of
natural rhythms, of organic groth ! hich reinforce" his fear of an
a#ocaly#tic rate of change an" nature!loss. The last ten years have ma"e us
more sensitive to &or"sorths anxiety for nature. A#ocaly#se is not
ha$ita$le. Jet , "i" not achieve, or seek, a single transvaluing insight
thaat might "erive from &or"sorth a systematic vie of human
"evelo#ment. , remaine" more intereste" in error ! in the #rocess an"
#articulars of hat the evolving min" thinks of as an emergence from
error ! than in the #oets antici#ation of mo"ern fin"ings. ,n some sense
e(ergen$e itself, our unstea"y groth into self!consciousness, $ecame
the su$)ect. '...(
At several #oints in the $ook , a##roache" a general theory linking
ver$al figures an" structures of consciousness. Fut , manage" to eva"e
my on insight an" to remain ith &or"sorth instea" of translating
him into "ecisive mo"ernisms. There is, surely, a relation $eteen the
over"etermine" or centroverte" character of the om#halos an" that of the
sym$ol. The flight from these charge" #laces of "iscourse or imagination
! through "ou$lings, circlings, the generation of #ersonae, meta#horical
transference, an" syntactical "istri$ution ! suggests a vital schi:o#hrenia
or "ecentering ex#ressive of so much in #ersonal groth. ,t is like
moving aay from #arental or i"olatrous fixation toar" the cultivation
of a love that is more than #ointe"ly sexual, orthe overcoming of eye
conce#ts that $lock sense ex#erience. There is a line of "escent to $e
esta$lishe" $eteen lyrical narratives like The Thorn, hich converge
so strongly an" frustratingly on an ocular center e are never sure of 0has
a crime $een committe" there, or is the crime an illusion to stimulate
cru"e imaginations@1, an" lyrical movies like Antonionis 4lo"=p an"
2esnaiss Last Gear at Marien%a+. The center they converge on is an
a$sence+ the "arkness they illumine has no heart.
Take &or"sorths lightest mystery story, Strange fits of #assion.
*an e "iscern its #oetics@
114
Strange fits of #assion have ,
knon:
An" , ill "are to tell,
Fut in the =overs ear alone,
&hat once to me $efel.
&hen she , love" looke" every
"ay
>resh as a rose in ?une,
, to her cottage $ent my ay,
Feneath an evening moon.
H#on the moon , fixe" my eye,
All over the i"e lea+
&ith quickening #ace my horse
"re nigh
Those #aths so "ear to me.
An" no e reache" the
orchar"!#lot+
An", as e clim$e" the hill,
The sinking moon to =ucys cot
*ame near, an" nearer still.
,n one of those seet "reams ,
sle#t,
3in" /atures gentlest $oon.
An" all the hile my eyes , ke#t
Dn the "escen"ing moon.
Cy horse move" on+ hoof after
hoof
-e raise", an" never sto##e":
&hen "on $ehin" the cottage
roof,
At once, the $right moon
"ro##e".
&hat fon" an" ayar" thoughts ill sli"e
,nto a =overs hea".
D mercy. to myself , crie",
,f =ucy shoul" $e "ea".
The lyric has more error 0anticlimax, illusion, mismatching of event an"
meaning1 than $enter. The action is no too slo an" no too fast, no
overstate" 0first stan:a1 an" un"erstate" 0last stan:a1. A ayar"
comment on ayfaring, it o#ens on a $alla" note of high a"venture yet
from that #ers#ective that almost #lotless story is an anticlimax. A or"
like fits is equally unsettle", not quite at home in its vernacular sense, nor
quite refera$le to its archaic #rovenance 0faict a fact V act V section of a
$alla" or romance1. The ri"er too is strangely "is#lace". ,s he man #lus
horse, or $ecalme" knight from 2omance@ -e is certainly not the
conventional -ots#ur of $alla" tra"ition, an" his night ri"e has a touch of
#aro"y. ,nstea" of s#arking hooves an" a charge" message, a gentle
"istracta$le trot. All is error in this #oem: the lovers min" an"ers.
Dr "oes it@ ,t is not over!antici#ating, taking the moon as its mark, so
that it is alrea"y here it ishe" to $e ! ith the $elove", an" $eyon" a
changea$le, su$lunar orl"@ So that it is, after all, haste ri""en like a
$alla" hero s@
Such strong antici#ation or omening ! call it ftring ! is $oth
ex#resse" an" limite" $y &or"sorths #oetics of error. ,n moo", style
an" su$)ect, his #oems are a "efense against ecstasy of this kin". Ncstasy,
in hich the soul goes out of the $o"y, $ecomes or"inary an" almost
funny 0a fit1. &e sense the #sycho#athology of every"ay life as teh
ri"er a##roaches an invisi$le $oun"ary, the #oint at hich he ill go
through into another orl". -e never "oes+ hen he akes from his
trance or "ream, he is very much in this orl", an" e "o not kno
here his min" has $een. The crash ! the moment #ro#er of "iscovery !
is lea#e" or avoi"e". The #oem serves from this center or hovers
$eteen natural events an" the intimation of an ecstatic s#here ! )ust as
the moon itself is a $or"erer, se#arating starry an" mortal orl"s.
The #oets, e kno, antici#ate" >reu", $ut "e#th analysis ill not
ex#lain this #oem anymore than romance "oes. ,t is ith $oth an" ith
neither. ,ts figurative life is not a "is#lace" life, $ut the very movement of
imaginations eccentric #ath. Fecause imagination lea#s over time,
$ecause a star almost halts the traveler 0his consciousness of the ay1, the
narrative movement stalls an" ten"s to colla#se almost as soon as $egun.
This means, structurally, that the #oems mi""le ! the narrative #ro#er !
$arely kee#s $eginning an" en" a#art as they converge. ,n A slum$er "i"
my s#irit seal 0here the slum$er corres#on"s to the trance of the
Strange fits1 this convergence has alrea"y taken #lace, leaving only to
stan:as as #oles of the vanishe" narrative, an" the center a $lank.
*an e at least i"entify the #oles@ They are relate", clearly, to
1E5
imagination an" nature, to romance an" realism. Jet, they veer,
converge or cross. Jou fall, in &or"sorth, from the a$yss of i"eality
0stan:a one of A slum$er1 to the a$yss of tem#orality 0stan:a to1, or
viceversa. Jou never remain in nature or in imagination. =et us say, then,
that the lover of Strange fits ri"es into the #oem out of 2omance. -e is
still a##arale" like the chil" of the Kreat D"e, ith an aura not #urely of
this orl". An" let us a"mit that ere he to ri"e out of the #oem it oul"
$e into trauma. Fut losing his ay he remains in the #oem that me"iates
the #oles.
H.H R1A,1R=R1S0ONS1 <RITI<ISM
8.8.1 -ans 2o$ert ?auss: from =iterary -istory As a *hallenge to =iterary
Theory
Thesis 1. A reneal of literary history "eman"s the removal of the
#re)u"ices of historical o$)ectivism an" the groun"ing of the tra"itional
aesthetics of #ro"uction an" re#resentation in an aesthetics of rece#tion
an" influence. The historicity of literature rests not on an organi:ation of
literary facts that is esta$lishe" post fest(, $ut rather on the #rece"ing
ex#erience of the literary ork $y its rea"ers.
2. K. *ollingoo"s #ostulate, #ose" in his critique of the #revailing
i"eology of o$)ectivity in history ! -istory is nothing $ut the re!
enactment of #ast thought in the historians min" ! is even more vali" for
literary history. >or the #ositivistic vie of history as the o$)ective
"escri#tion of a series of events in an isolate" #ast neglects the artistic
character as ell as the s#ecific historicity of literature. A literary ork is
not an o$)ect that stan"s $y itself an" that offers the same vie to each
rea"er in each #erio". ,t is not a monument that monologically reveals its
timeless essence. ,t is much more like an orchestration that strikes ever
ne resonances among its rea"ers an" that frees the text from the material
of the or"s an" $rings it to a contem#orary existence: or"s that must,
at the same time that they s#eak to him, create an interlocutor ca#a$le of
un"erstan"ing them. This "ialogical character of the literary ork also
esta$lishes hy #hilological un"erstan"ing can exist only in a #er#etual
confrontation ith the text, an" cannot $e alloe" to $e re"uce" to a
knole"ge of facts. %hilological un"erstan"ing alays remains relate" to
inter#retation that must set as its goal, along ith learning a$out the
o$)ect, the reflection on an" "escri#tion of the com#letion of this
knole"ge as a moment of ne un"erstan"ing. '...(
The 0er$eval of *hrLtien "e Troyes, as a literary event, is not
historical in the same sense as, for exam#le, the Thir" *rusa"e, hich
as occurring at a$out the same time. ,t is not a fact that coul" $e
ex#laine" as cause" $y a series of situational #recon"itions an" motives,
$y the intent of a historical action as it can $e reconstructe", an" $y the
necessary an" secon"ary consequences of this "ee". The historical
context in hich a literary ork a##ears is not a factical, in"e#en"ent
series of events that exists a#art from an o$server. 0er$eval $ecomes a
literary event only for its rea"er, ho rea"s this last ork of *hrLtien
ith a memory of his earlier orks an" ho recogni:es its in"ivi"uality
in com#arison ith these an" other orks that he alrea"y knos, so that
he gains a ne criterion for evaluating future orks. ,n contrast to a
#olitical event, a literary event has no unavoi"a$le consequences
su$sisting on their on that no succee"ing generation can ever esca#e. A
literary event can continue to have an effect only if those ho come after
it still or once again res#on" to it ! if there are rea"ers ho again
a##ro#riate the #ast ork or authors ho ant to imitate ,out"o, or refute
it. The coherence of literature as an event is #rimarily me"iate" in the
hori:on of ex#ectations of the literary ex#erience of contem#orary an"
later rea"ers, critics, an" authors. &hether it is #ossi$le to com#rehen"
an" re#resent the history of literature in its unique historicity "e#en"s on
hether this hori:on of ex#ectations can $e o$)ectifie".
Thesis E. The analysis of the literary ex#erience of the rea"er avoi"s
the threatening #itfalls of #sychology if it "escri$es the rece#tion an" the
influence of a ork ithin the o$)ectifia$le system of ex#ectations that
arises for each ork in the historical moment of its a##earance, from a
1E1
#re!un"erstan"ing of the genre, from the form an" themes of alrea"y
familiar orks, an" from the o##osition $eteen #oetic an" #ractical
language. '...(
A literary ork, even hen it a##ears to $e ne, "oes not #resent itself
as something a$solutely ne in an informational vacuum, $ut #re"is#oses
its au"ience to a very s#ecific kin" of rece#tion $y announcements, overt
an" covert signals, familiar characteristics, or im#licit allusions. ,t
aakens memories of that hich as alrea"y rea", $rings the rea"er to a
s#ecific emotional attitu"e, an" ith its $eginning arouses ex#ectations for
the mi""le an" en", hich can then $e maintaine" intact or altere",
reoriente", or even fulfille" ironically in the course of the rea"ing
accor"ing to s#ecific rules of the genre or ty#e of text. The #sychic #rocess
in the rece#tion of a text is, in the #rimary hori:on of aesthetic ex#erience,
$y no means only an ar$itrary series of merely su$)ective im#ressions, $ut
rather the carrying out of s#ecific instructions in a #rocess of "irecte"
#erce#tion, hich can $e com#rehen"e" accor"ing to its constitutive
motivations an" triggering signals, an" hich also can $e "escri$e" $y a
textual linguistics. '...(
A corres#on"ing #rocess of the continuous esta$lishing an" altering of
hori:ons also "etermines the relationshi# of the in"ivi"ual text to the
succession of texts that forms the genre. The ne text evokes for the
rea"er 0listener1 the hori:on of ex#ectations an" rules familiar from earlier
texts, hich are then varie", correcte", altere", or even )ust re#ro"uce".
Variation an" correction "etermine the sco#e, hereas alteration an"
re#ro"uction "etermine the $or"ers of a genre!structure. The inter#retative
rece#tion of a text alays #resu##oses the context of ex#erience of
aesthetic #erce#tion: the question of the su$)ectivity of the inter#retation
an" of the taste of "ifferent rea"ers or level of rea"ers can $e aske"
meaningfully only hen one has first clarifie" hich transsu$)ective
hori:on of un"erstan"ing con"itions the influence of the text. '...(
Thesis 8. 2econstructe" in this ay, the hori:on of ex#ectations of a
ork allos one to "etermine its artistic character $y the kin" an" the
"egree of its influence on a #resu##ose" au"ience. ,f one characteri:es as
aesthetic "istance the "is#arity $eteen the given hori:on of ex#ectations
an" the a##earance of a ne ork, hose rece#tion can result in a
change of hori:ons through negation of familiar ex#eriences or through
raising nely articulate" ex#eriences to the level of consciousness, then
this aesthetic "istance can $e o$)ectifie" historically along the s#ectrum
of the au"iences reactions an" criticisms )u"gement 0s#ontaneous
success, re)ection or shock, scattere" a##roval, gra"ual or $elate"
un"erstan"ing1.
The ay in hich a literary ork, at the historical moment of its
a##earance, satisfies, sur#asses, "issa##oints, or refutes the ex#ectations
of its first au"ience o$viously #rovi"es a criterion for the "etermination
of its aesthetic value. The "istance $eteen the hori:on of ex#ectations
an" the ork, $eteen the familiarity of #revious aesthetic ex#erience
an" the hori:ontal change "eman"e" $y the rece#tion of the ne ork,
"etermines the artistic character of a literary ork, accor"ing to an
aesthetics of rece#tion: to the "egree that this "istance "ecreases, an" no
turn toar" the hori:on of yet!unknon ex#erience is "eman"e" of the
receiving consciousness, the closer the ork comes to the s#here of
culinary or entertainment art '?nterhaltngsknst(. This latter ork can
$e characteri:e" $y an aesthetic of rece#tion as not "eman"ing any
hori:ontal change, $ut rather as #recisely fulfilling the ex#ectations
#rescri$e" $y a ruling stan"ar" of taste, in that it satisfies the "esire for
the re#ro"uction of the familiarly $eautiful+ confirms familiar sentiments+
sanctions ishful notions+ makes unusual ex#eriences en)oya$le as
sensations + or even raises moral #ro$lems $ut only to solve them in an
e"ifying manner as #re"eci"e" questions. ,f, conversely, the artistic
character of a ork is to $e measure" $y the aesthetic "istance ith
hich it o##oses the ex#ectations of its first au"ience, then it follos that
this "istance, at first ex#erience" as a #leasing or alienating ne
#ers#ective, can "isa##ear for later rea"ers, to the extent that the original
negativity of the ork has $ecome self!evi"ent an" has itself entere" into
the hori:on of future aesthetic ex#erience, as a henceforth familiar
ex#ectation. The classical character of the so!calle" masterorks
es#ecially $elongs to this secon" hori:ontal change+ their $eautiful form
that has $ecome self!evi"ent, an" their seemingly unquestiona$le eternal
1EE
meaning $ring them, accor"ing to an aesthetic of rece#tion, "angerously
close to the irresisti$ly convincing an" en)oya$le culinary art, so that it
requires a s#ecial effort to rea" them against the grain of the accustome"
ex#erience to catch sight of their artistic character once again. '...(
Thesis <. The reconstruction of the hori:on of ex#ectations, in the face of
hich a ork as create" an" receive" in the #ast, ena$les one on the
other han" to #ose questions that the text gave an anser to, an" there$y to
"iscover ho the contem#orary rea"er coul" have viee" an" un"erstoo"
the ork. This a##roach corrects the mostly unrecogni:e" norms of a
classicist or mo"erni:ing un"erstan"ing of art, an" avoi"s the circular
recourse to a general s#irit of the age. ,t $rings to vie the hermeneutic
"ifference $eteen the former an" the current un"erstan"ing of a ork+ it
raises to consciousness the history of its rece#tion, hich me"iates $oth
#ositions+ an" it there$y calls into question as a #latoni:ing "ogma of
#hilological meta#hysics the a##arently self!evi"ent claims that in the
literary text, literature 'Bichtung( is eternally #resent, an" that its o$)ective
meaning, "etermine" once an" for all, is at all times imme"iately
accessi$le to the inter#reter. '...(
8.8.8 Stanley >ish: from =iterature in the 2ea"er: Affective Stylistics
'...( Hn"erlying these to analyses is a metho", rather sim#le in conce#t,
$ut com#lex 0or at least com#licate"1 in execution. The conce#t is sim#ly
the rigorous an" "isintereste" asking of the question, hat "oes this or",
#hrase, sentence, #aragra#h, cha#ter, novel, #lay, #oem, +o@+ an" the
execution involves an analysis of the "evelo#ing res#onses of the rea"er in
relation to the or"s as they succee" one another in time. Nvery or" in
this statement $ears a s#ecial em#hasis. The analysis must $e of the
"evelo#ing res#onses to "istinguish it from the atomism of much stylistic
criticism. A rea"erGs res#onse to the fifth or" in a line or sentence is to a
large extent the #ro"uct of his res#onses to or"s one, to three, an" four.
An" $y res#onse, , inten" more than the range of feelings 0hat &imsatt
an" Fear"sley call the #urely affective re#orts1. The category of
res#onse inclu"es any an" all of the activities #rovoke" $y a string of
or"s: the #ro)ection of syntactical an"Uor lexical #ro$a$ilities+ their
su$sequent occurrence or non!occurrence+ attitu"es toar"s #ersons, or
things, or i"eas referre" to+ the reversal or questioning of those attitu"es+
an" much more. D$viously, this im#oses a great $ur"en on the analyst
ho in his o$servations on any one moment in the rea"ing ex#erience
must take into account all that has ha##ene" 0in the rea"erGs min"1 at
#revious moments, each of hich as in its turn su$)ect to the
accumulating #ressures of its #re"ecessors. 0-e must also take into
account influences an" #ressures #re"ating the actual rea"ing ex#erience
! questions of genre, history, etc. ! questions e shall consi"er later.1 All
of this is inclu"e" in the #hrase in time. The $asis of the metho" is a
consi"eration of the te(poral flo of the rea"ing ex#erience, an" it is
assume" that the rea"er res#on"s in terms of that flo an" not to the
hole utterance. That is, in an utterance of any length, there is a #oint at
hich the rea"er has taken in only the first or", an" then the secon",
an" then the thir", an" so on, an" the re#ort of hat ha##ens to the rea"er
is alays a re#ort of hat has ha##ene" to that point. 0The re#ort
inclu"es the rea"erGs set toar"s future ex#eriences, $ut not those
ex#eriences.1 '...(
The results 0, ill later call them a"vantages1 of this metho" is are
fairly, though not exhaustively, re#resente" in my to exam#les.
Nssentially hat the metho" "oes is slo" +o"n the rea"ing ex#erience so
that events one "oes not notice in normal time, $ut hich "o occur, are
$rought $efore our analytical attentions. ,t is as if a slo!motion camera
ith an automatic sto# action effect ere recor"ing our linguistic
ex#eriences an" #resenting them to us for vieing. Df course the value of
such a #roce"ure is #re"icate" on the i"ea of (eaning as an event,
something that is ha##ening $eteen the or"s an" in the rea"erGs min",
something not visi$le to the nake" eye, $ut hich can $e ma"e visi$le 0or
at least #al#a$le1 $y the regular intro"uction of a searching question
0hat "oes this "o@1. ,t is more usual to assume that meaning is a
function of the utterance, an" to equate it ith the information given 0the
1E8
message1 or the attitu"e ex#resse". That is, the com#onents of an utterance
are consi"ere" either in relation to each other or to a state of affairs in the
outsi"e orl", or to the state of min" of the s#eaker!author. ,n any an" all
of these variations, meaning is locate" 0#resume" to $e em$e""e"1 in the
utterance, an" the a##rehension of meaning is an act of extraction. ,n
short, there is little sense of #rocess an" even less of the rea"erGs
actuali:ing #artici#ation in that #rocess. '...(
The Affective >allacy >allacy
,n the #rece"ing #ages , have argue" the case for a metho" of analysis
hich focuses on the rea"er rather than on the artifact, an" in hat remains
of this essay , oul" like to consi"er some of the more o$vious o$)ections
to that metho". The chief o$)ection, of course, is that affective criticism
lea"s one aay from the thing itself in all its soli"ity to the inchoate
im#ressions of a varia$le an" various rea"er. This argument has several
"imensions to it, an" ill require a multi"imensional anser.
>irst, the charge of im#ressionism has $een ansere", , ho#e, $y some of
my sam#le analyses. ,f anything, the "iscriminations require" an" yiel"e"
$y the metho" are too fine for even the most analytical of tastes. This is in
large #art $ecause in the category of res#onse , inclu"e not only tears,
#rickles, an" other #sychological sym#toms, $ut all the #recise mental
o#erations involve" in rea"ing, inclu"ing the formulation of com#lete
thoughts, the #erforming 0an" regretting1 of acts of )u"gement, the
folloing an" making of logical sequences+ an" also $ecause my
insistence on the cumulative #ressures of the rea"ing ex#erience #uts
restrictions on the #ossi$le res#onses to a or" or #hrase.
The larger o$)ection remains. Nven if the rea"erGs res#onses can $e
"escri$e" ith some #recision, hy $other ith them, since the more
#al#a$le o$)ectivity of the text is imme"iately availa$le 0the #oem itself,
as an o$)ect of s#ecifically critical )u"gement, ten"s to "isa##ear.1. Cy
re#ly to this is sim#le. The o$)ectivity of the text is an illusion, an"
moreover, a "angerous illusion, $ecause it is so #hysically convincing. The
illusion is one of self!sufficiency an" com#leteness. A line of #rint or a
#age or a $ook is so o$viously there ! it can $e han"le", #hotogra#he", or
#ut aay ! that it seems to $e the sole re#ository of hatever value an"
meaning e associate ith it. 0, ish the #ronoun coul" $e avoi"e", $ut
in a ay it makes my #oint.1 This is, of course, the uns#oken assum#tion
$ehin" the or" content. The line or #age or $ook $ontains !
everything.
The great merit 0from this #oint of vie1 of kinetic art is that it forces
you to $e aare of it as a changing o$)ect ! an" therefore no o$)ect at
all ! an" also to $e aare of yourself as corres#on"ingly changing.
3inetic art "oes not len" itself to a static inter#retation $ecause it refuses
to stay still an" "oesnGt let you stay still either. ,n its o#eration it makes
inesca#a$le the actuali:ing role of the o$server. =iterature is a kinetic art,
$ut the #hysical form it assumes #revents us from seeing its essential
nature, even though e so ex#erience it. The availa$ility of a $ook to the
han", its #resence on a shelf, its listing in a li$rary catalogue ! all of
these encourage us to think of it as a stationary o$)ect. Someho hen
e #ut a $ook "on, e forget that hile e ere rea"ing, it as
moving 0#ages turning, lines rece"ing into the #ast1 an" forget too that
"e ere moving ith it. '...(
8.8.< Stanley >ish: from ,nter#reting the 5arior(
The *ase for 2ea"er!2es#onse Analysis
'...( CiltonGs tentieth sonnet ! =arence of virtuous father virtuous
son ! has $een the su$)ect of relatively little commentary. ,n it the #oet
invites a frien" to )oin him in some "istinctly -oratian #leasures ! a neat
re#ast intermixe" ith conversation, ine, an" song+ a res#ite from
la$our all the more en)oya$le $ecause outsi"e the earth is fro:en an" the
"ay sullen. The only controversy the sonnet has ins#ire" concerns its final
to lines:
'...( -e ho of those "elights can )u"ge, an" s#are U To inter#ose them
oft, is not unise.
The focus of the controversy is the or" s#are, for hich to rea"ings
1E<
have $een #ro#ose": leave time for an" refrain from. D$viously the #oint
is crucial if one is to resolve the sense of the lines. ,n one rea"ing those
"elights are $eing recommen"e" ! he ho can leave time for them is not
unise+ in the other, they are the su$)ect of a arning ! he ho knos
hen to refrain from them is not unise. The #ro#onents of the to
inter#retations cite as evi"ence $oth Nnglish an" =atin syntax, various
sources an" analogues, CiltonGs knon attitu"es as they are foun" in his
other ritings, an" the unam$iguously ex#resse" sentiments of the
folloing sonnet on the same question. '...(
,f it "oes nothing else, this curious antici#ates a #oint , shall make in a
fe moments: evi"ence $rought to $ear in the course of formalist analyses
! that is, analyses generate" $y the assum#tion that meaning is em$e""e"
in the artifact ! ill alays #oint in as many "irections as there are
inter#reters+ that is, not only ill it #rove something, it ill #rove
anything.
,t oul" a##ear then that e are $ack at square one, ith a controversy
that cannot $e settle" $ecause the evi"ence is inconclusive. Fut hat if
that controversy is itself regar"e" as evi"ence, not of an am$iguity that
must $e remove", $ut of an am$iguity that rea"ers have alays
ex#erience"@ &hat, in other or"s, if for the question hat "oes Gs#areG
mean@ e su$stitute the question hat "oes the fact that the meaning of
Gs#areG has alays $een an issue mean@ The a"vantage of this question is
that it can $e ansere". ,n"ee" it has alrea"y $een ansere" $y the rea"ers
ho are cite" in the 5arior( <o((entary. &hat these rea"ers "e$ate is
the )u"gement the #oem makes on the "elights of recreation+ hat the
"e$ate in"icates is that the )u"gement is $lurre" $y a ver$ that can $e ma"e
to #artici#ate in contra"ictory rea"ings. 0Thus the im#ortant thing a$out
the evi"ence surveye" in the 5arior( is not ho it is marshalle", $ut that
it coul" $e marshalle" at all, $ecause it then $ecomes evi"ence of the equal
availa$ility of $oth inter#retations.1 ,n other or"s, the lines first generate
a #ressure for )u"gement ! he ho of those "elights can )u"ge ! an" then
"ecline to "eliver it+ the #ressure, hoever, still exists, an" it is transferre"
from the or"s on the #age to the rea"er 0the rea"er is he ho1, ho
comes aay from the #oem not ith a statement, $ut ith a res#onsi$ility,
the res#onsi$ility of "eci"ing hen an" ho often ! if at all ! to in"ulge
in those "elights 0they remain "elights in either case1. This transferring
of res#onsi$ility from the text to its rea"ers is hat the lines ask us to "o
! it is the essence of their ex#erience ! an" in my terms it is therefore
hat the lines (ean. ,t is a meaning the 5arior( critics attest to even as
they resist it, for hat they are la$ouring so mightily to "o $y fixing the
sense of the lines is to give the res#onsi$ility $ack. The text, hoever,
ill not acce#t it an" remains "etermine"ly evasive, even in its last to
or"s, not unise. ,n their #osition these or"s confirm the
im#ossi$ility of extracting form the #oem a moral formula, for the
assertion 0certainly too strong a or"1 they com#lete is of the form, -e
ho "oes such an" such, of him it cannot $e sai" that he is unise + $ut
of course neither can it $e sai" that he is ise. Thus hat Fush correctly
terms the "efensive not unise o#erates to #revent us from attaching
the la$el ise to any action, inclu"ing either of the actions ! leaving
time for or refraining from ! re#resente" $y the am$iguity of s#are. /ot
only is the #ressure of )u"gement taken off the #oem, it is taken off the
activity the #oem at first #reten"e" to )u"ge. The issue is finally not the
moral status of those "elights ! they $ecome in seventeenth!century
terms things in"ifferent ! $ut on the goo" or $a" uses to hich they can
$e #ut $y rea"ers ho are left, as Cilton alays leaves them, to choose
an" manage $y themselves.'...(

Hn"oing the *ase for 2ea"er!2es#onse Analysis
N"itorial #ractices like these are only the most o$vious manifestations
of the assum#tions to hich , stan" o##ose": the assum#tion that there is
a sense, that it is em$e""e" or enco"e" in the text, an" that it can $e taken
in at a single glance. These assum#tions are, in or"er, #ositivist, holistic,
an" s#atial, an" to have them is to $e committe" $oth to a goal an" to a
#roce"ure. The goal is to settle on a meaning, an" the #roce"ure involves
first ste##ing $ack from the text, an" then #utting together or otherise
calculating the "iscrete units of significance it contains. Cy quarrel ith
this #roce"ure 0an" ith the assum#tions that generate it1 is that in the
course of folloing it through, the rea"erGs activities are at once ignore"
1E6
an" "evalue". They are ignore" $ecause the text is taken to $e self!
sufficient ! everything is in it ! an" they are "evalue" $ecause hen they
are thought of at all, they are thought of as the "is#osa$le machinery of
extraction. ,n the #roce"ures , oul" urge, the rea"erGs activities are at the
center of attention, here they are regar"e", not as lea"ing to meaning, $ut
as having meaning. The meaning they have is a consequence of their not
$eing em#ty+ for they inclu"e the making an" revising of assum#tions, the
ren"ering an" regretting of )u"gements, the coming to an" a$an"oning of
conclusions, the giving an" ith"raing of a##roval, the s#ecifying of
causes, the asking of questions, the su##lying of ansers, the solving of
#u::les. ,n a or", these activities are inter#retive ! rather than $eing
#reliminary to questions of value they are at every moment settling an"
resettling questions of value ! an" $ecause they are inter#retive, a
"escri#tion of them ill also $e, an" ithout any a""itional ste#s, an
inter#retation, not after the fact, $ut of the fact 0of ex#eriencing1. ,t ill $e
a "escri#tion of a moving fiel" of concerns, at once holly #resent 0not
aiting for meaning, $ut constituting meaning1 an" continually in the act
of reconstituting itself. '...(
This, then, is my thesis: that the form of the rea"erGs ex#erience, formal
units, an" the structure of intention are one, that they come into vie
simultaneously, an" that therefore the questions of #riority an"
in"e#en"ence "o not arise. &hat "oes arise is another question: hat
#ro"uces the(@ That is, if intention, form, an" the sha#e of the rea"erGs
ex#erinece are sim#ly "ifferent ays of referring to 0"ifferent #ers#ectives
on1 the same inter#retive act, hat is that act an inter#retation of@ , cannot
anser that question, $ut neither, , oul" claim, can anyone else, although
formalists try to anser it $y #ointing to #atterns an" claiming that they
are availa$le in"e#en"ently of 0#rior to1 inter#retation. These #atterns vary
accor"ing to the #roce"ures that yiel" them: they may $e statistical
0num$er of to!sylla$le or"s #er hun"re" or"s1, grammatical 0ratio of
#assive to active constructions, or of right!$ranching to left!$ranching
sentences, or of anything else1+ $ut hatever they are , oul" argue that
they "o not lie innocently in the orl" $ut are themselves constitute" $y an
inter#retive act, even if, as is often the case, that act is unacknole"ge".
Df course, this is as true of my analyses as it is of anyone elseGs. ,n the
exam#les offere" here , a##ro#riate the notion line en"ing an" treat it as
a fact of nature+ an" one might conclu"e that as a fact it is res#onsi$le for
the rea"ing ex#erience , "escri$e. The truth , think is exactly the reverse:
line en"ings exist $y virtue of #erce#tual strategies rather than the other
ay roun". -istorically, the strategy that e kno as rea"ing 0or
hearing1 #oetry has inclu"e" #aying attention to the line as a unit, $ut it
is #recisely that attention hich has ma"e the line as a unit 0either of #rint
or of aural "uration1 availa$le. A rea"er so #ractise" in #aying that
attention that he regar"s the line as a $rute fact rather than as a
convention ill have a great "eal of "ifficulty ith concrete #oetry+ if he
overcomes that "ifficulty it ill not $e $ecause he has learnt to ignore the
line as a unit $ut $ecause he ill have acquire" a ne set of inter#retive
strategies 0the strategies constitutive of concrete #oetry rea"ing1 in the
context of hich the line as a unit no longer exists. ,n short, hat is
notice" is hat has $een (a+e noticea$le, not $y a clear an" un"istorting
glass, $ut $y an inter#retive strategy. '...(
,nter#retive *ommunities
Fut hy shoul" this ever ha##en@ &hy shoul" to or more rea"ers ever
agree, an" hy shoul" regular, that is, ha$itual, "ifferences in a career of
a single rea"er ever occur@ &hat is the ex#lanation on the one han" of the
sta$ility of inter#retation 0at least among certain grou#s at certain times1
an" on the other of the or"erly variety of inter#retation if it is not the
sta$ility an" variety of texts@ The anser to all of these questions is to $e
foun" in a notion that has $een im#licit in my argument, the notion of
interpretive $o((nities. ,nter#retive communities are ma"e u# of those
ho share inter#retive strategies not for rea"ing 0in the conventional
sense1 $ut for riting texts, for constituting their #ro#erties an" assigning
their intentions. ,n other or"s these strategies exist #rior to the act of
rea"ing an" therefore "etermine the sha#e of hat is rea" rather than, as
is usually assume", the other ay aroun". ,f it is an article of faith in a
#articular community that there are a variety of texts, its mem$ers ill
$oast a re#ertoire of strategies for making them. An" if a community
1EI
$elieves in the existence of only one text, then the single strategy its
mem$ers em#loy ill $e forever riting it. The first community ill
accuse the mem$ers of the secon" of $eing re"ucive, an" they in turn ill
call their accusers su#erficial. The assum#tion in each community ill $e
that the other is not correctly #erceiving the true text, $ut the truth ill $e
that each #erceives the text 0or texts1 its inter#retive strategies "eman" an"
call into $eing. This, then, is the ex#lanation $oth for the sta$ility of
inter#retation among "ifferent rea"ers 0they $elong to the same
community1 an" for the regularity ith hich a single rea"er ill em#loy
"ifferent inter#retive strategies an" thus make "ifferent texts 0he $elongs
to "ifferent communities1. ,t also ex#lains hy there are "isagreements
an" hy they can $e "e$ate" in a #rinci#le" ay: not $ecause of a sta$ility
in texts, $ut $ecause of a sta$ility in the makeu# of inter#retive
communities an" therefore in the o##osing #ositions they make #ossi$le.
Df course this sta$ility is alays tem#orary 0unlike the longe" for an"
timeless sta$ility of the text1. ,nter#retive communities gro larger an"
"ecline, an" in"ivi"uals move from one to another+ thus hile the
alignments are not #ermanent, they are alays there, #rovi"ing )ust enough
sta$ility for the inter#retive $attles to go on, an" )ust enough shift an"
sli##age to assure that they ill never $e settle". The notion of inter#retive
communities thus stan"s $eteen an im#ossi$le i"eal an" the fear hich
lea"s so many to maintain it. The i"eal is of #erfect agreement an" it
oul" require texts to have a status in"e#en"ent of inter#retation.. The fear
is of inter#retive anarchy, $ut it oul" only $e reali:e" if inter#retation
0text making1 ere com#letely ran"om. ,t is the fragile $ut real
consoli"ation of inter#retive communities that allos us to talk to one
another, $ut ith no ho#e or fear of ever $eing a$le to sto#.
,n other or"s inter#retive communities are no more sta$le than texts
$ecause inter#retive strategies are not natural or universal, $ut learne".
This "oes not mean that there is a #oint at hich an in"ivi"ual has not yet
learne" any. The a$ility to inter#ret is not acquire"+ it is constitutive of
$eing human. &hat is acquire" are the ays of inter#reting an" those same
ays can also $e forgotten or su##lante" or com#licate" or "ro##e" from
favor 0no one rea"s that ay anymore1. &hen any of these things
ha##ens, there is a corres#on"ing change in texts, not $ecause they are
$eing rea" "ifferently, $ut $ecause they are $eing ritten "ifferently.
The only sta$ility, then, inheres in the fact 0at least in my mo"el1 that
inter#retive strategies are $eing "e#loye", an" this means that
communication is a much more chancy affair than e are accustome" to
think it. >or there are no fixe" texts, $ut only inter#retive strategies
making them+ an" if inter#retive strategies are not natural, $ut learne"
0an" therefore unavaila$le to a finite "escri#tion1, hat is it that utterers
0s#eakers, authors, critics, me, you1 "o@ ,n the ol" mo"el utterers are in
the $usiness of han"ing over rea"y ma"e or #refa$ricate" meanings.
These meanings are sai" to $e enco"e", an" the co"e is assume" to $e in
the orl" in"e#en"ently of the in"ivi"uals ho are o$lige" to attach
themselves to it 0if they "o not they run the "anger of $eing "eclare"
"eviant1. ,n my mo"el, hoever, meanings are not extracte" $ut ma"e
an" ma"e not $y enco"e" forms $ut $y inter#retive strategies that call
forms into $eing. ,t follos that hat utterers "o is give hearers an"
s#eakers the o##ortunity to make meanings 0an" texts1 $y inviting them
to #ut into execution a set of strategies. ,t is #resume" that the invitation
ill $e recogni:e", an" that #resum#tion rests on a #ro)ection on the #art
of a s#eaker or author of the moves he oul" make if confronte" $y the
soun"s or marks he is uttering or setting "on.
,t oul" seem at first that this account of things sim#ly reintro"uces the
ol" o$)ection+ for isnGt this an a"mission that there is after all a formal
enco"ing, not #erha#s of meanings, $ut of the "irections for making
them, for executing inter#retive strategies@ The anser is that they ill
only %e "irections to those ho alrea"y have the inter#retive strategies in
the first #lace. 2ather than #ro"ucing inter#retive acts, they are the
#ro"uct of one. An author ha:ar"s his #ro)ection, not $ecause of
something in the marks, $ut $ecause of something he assumes to $e in
his rea"er. The very existence of the marks is a function of an
inter#retive community, for they ill $e recogni:e" 0that is, ma"e1 only
$y its mem$ers. Those outsi"e that community ill $e "e#loying a
"ifferent set of inter#retive strategies 0inter#retation cannot $e ithhel"1
an" ill therefore $e making "ifferent marks.
1E9
So once again , have ma"e the text "isa##ear, $ut unfortunately the
#ro$lems "o not "isa##ear ith it. ,f everyone is continually executing
inter#retive strategies an" in the act of constituting texts, intentions,
s#eakers, an" authors, ho can any of us kno hether or not he is a
mem$er of the same inter#retive community as any other of us@ The
anser is that he canGt, since any evi"ence $rought forar" to su##ort the
claim oul" itself $e an inter#retation 0es#ecially if the other ere an
author long "ea"1. The only #roof of mem$ershi# is felloshi#, the no"
of recognition from someone in the same community, someone ho says
to you hat neither of us coul" ever #rove to a thir" #arty: e kno. ,
say it to you no, knoing full ell that you ill agree ith me 0that is,
un"erstan"1 only if you alrea"y agree ith me.
1E7
#. *-STOR/9 -DEOLO:/
Q.1 N1O=MARUIST A00ROA<31S
<.1.1 &alter Fen)amin: from The Author As %ro"ucer
98
Jou ill remem$er ho %lato, in his #ro)ect for a 2e#u$lic, "eals ith
riters. ,n the interests of the community, he "enies them the right to
"ell therein. %lato ha" a high o#inion of the #oer of literature. Fut he
thought it harmful an" su#erfluous ! in a perfe$t community, $e it
un"erstoo". Since %lato, the question of the riters right to exist gas not
often $een raise" ith the same em#hasis+ to"ay, hoever, it arises once
more. Df course it only sel"om arises in this for(. Fut all of you are more
or less conversant ith it in a "ifferent form, that of the question of the
riters autonomy: his free"om to rite )ust hat he #leases. Jou are not
incline" to grant him this autonomy. Jou $elieve that the #resent social
situation forces him to "eci"e in hose service he ishes to #lace his
activity. The $ourgeois of entertainment literature "oes not acknole"ge
this choice. Jou #rove to him that, ithout a"mitting it, he is orking in
the service of certain class interests. A #rogressive ty#e of riter "oes not
acknole"ge this choice. -is "ecision is ma"e u#on the $asis of the class
struggle: he #laces himself on the si"e of the #roletariat. An" thats the en"
of his autonomy. -e "irects his activity toar"s hat ill $e useful to the
#roletariat in the class struggle. This is usually calle" #ursuing a ten"ency,
or commitment.
'...( , ho#e to $e a$le to sho you that the conce#t of commitment, in
the #erfunctory form in hich it generally occurs in the "e$ate , have )ust
mentione", is a totally ina"equate instrument of #olitical literary criticism.
98
A""ress "elivere" at the ,nstitute for the Stu"y of >ascism, %aris, on E9 A#ril
148<
, shoul" like to "emonstrate to you that the ten"ency of a ork of
literature can $e #olitically correct only if it is also correct in the literary
sense. That means that the ten"ency hich is #olitically correct inclu"es a
literary ten"ency. An" let me a"" at once: this literary ten"ency, hich is
im#licitly or ex#licitly inclu"e" in every correct #olitical ten"ency, this
an" nothing else makes u# the quality of a ork. ,t is $ecause of this that
the correct #olitical ten"ency of a ork exten"s also to its literary quality:
$ecause a #olitical ten"ency hich is correct com#rises a literary
ten"ency hich is correct.
'...( Social relations, as e kno, are "etermine" $y #ro"uction
relations. An" hen materialist criticism a##roache" a ork, it use" to
ask hat as the #osition of that ork via=V=vis the social #ro"uction
relations of its times. This is an im#ortant question. Fut also a very
"ifficult one. '...( Fefore , ask: hat is a orks #osition vis=V=vis the
#ro"uction relations of its time, , shoul" like to ask: hat is its #osition
"ithin them@ This question concerns the function of a ork ithin the
literary #ro"uction relations of its time. ,n other or"s, it is "irectly
concerne" ith literary te$hni.e.
Fy mentioning technique , have name" the conce#t hich makes
literary #ro"ucts accessi$le to imme"iate social, an" therefore materialist,
analysis. At the same time, the conce#t of technique re#resents the
"ialectical starting!#oint from hich the sterile "ichotomy of form an"
content can $e surmounte".
'...( ,f, then, e ere entitle" earlier on to say that the correct #olitical
ten"ency of a ork inclu"es its literary quality $ecause it inclu"es its
literary ten"ency, e can no affirm more #recisely that this literary
ten"ency may consist in a #rogressive "evelo#ment of literary technique,
or in a regressive one.
'...( An" so e come $ack to the thesis e #ro#ose" at the $eginning:
the #lace of the intellectual in the class struggle can only $e "etermine",
or $etter still chosen, on the $asis of his #osition ithin the #ro"uction
#rocess.
'...( -ere , shoul" like to confine myself to #ointing out the "ecisive
"ifference $eteen merely su##lying a #ro"uction a##aratus an"
1E4
changing it. , shoul" like to #reface my remarks on the /e D$)ectivity
9<
ith the #ro#osition that to su##ly a #ro"uction a##aratus ithout trying,
ithin the limits of the #ossi$le, to change it, is a highly "is#uta$le activity
even hen the material su##lie" a##ears to $e of a revolutionary nature.
>or e are confronte" ith the fact ! of hich there has $een no shortage
of #roof in Kermany over the last "eca"e ! that the $ourgeois a##aratus of
#ro"uction an" #u$lication is ca#a$le of assimilating, in"ee" of
#ro#agating, an astonishing amount of revolutionary themes ithout ever
seriously #utting into question its on continue" existence or that of the
class hich ons it. ,n any case this remains true so long as it is su##lie"
$y hacks, al$eit revolutionary hacks. An" , "efine a hack as a man ho
refuses as a matter of #rinci#le to im#rove the #ro"uction a##aratus an" so
#rise it aay form the ruling class for the $enefit of Socialism. , further
maintain that an a##recia$le #art of so!calle" left!ing literature ha" no
other social function than that of continually extracting ne effects or
sensations from this situation for the #u$lics entertainment. &hich $rings
me to the /e D$)ectivity. ,t launche" the fashion for re#ortage. =et us
ask ourselves hose interests ere a"vance" $y this technique.
>or greater clarity let me concentrate on #hotogra#hic re#ortage.
&hatever a##lies to it is transfera$le to the literary form. Foth oe their
extraor"inary "evelo#ment to #u$lication techniques ! ra"io an" illustrate"
#ress. =et us think $ack to Ba"aism. The revolutionary strength of
Ba"aism lay in testing art for its authenticity. Jou ma"e still!lifes out of
tickets, s#ools of cotton, cigarette stu$s, an" mixe" them ith #ictorial
elements. Jou #ut a frame roun" the hole thing. An" in this ay you sai"
to the #u$lic: look, your #icture frame "estroys time+ the smallest authentic
fragment of every"ay life says more than #ainting. '...(
Fut no let us follo the su$sequent "evelo#ment of #hotogra#hy.
&hat "o e see@ ,t has $ecome more an" more su$tle, more an" more
mo"ern, an" the result is that it is no inca#a$le of #hotogra#hing a
tenement or a ru$$ish!hea# ithout transfiguring it. /ot to mention a river
9<
'N".( ,ie nee Sa$hli$hkeit: A #ost!ex#ressionist artistic movement of the
mi"!14E5s in Kermany that inclu"e" such figures as Keorge Kros:.
"am or an electric ca$le factory: in front of these, #hotogra#hy can only
say, -o $eautiful. '...(
,t has succee"e" in turning a$)ect #overty itself, $y han"ling it in a
mo"ish, technically #erfect ay, into an o$)ect of en)oyment. >or it is an
economic function of #hotogra#hy to su##ly the masses, $y mo"ish
#rocessing, ith matter hich #reviously elu"e" mass consum#tion !
S#ring, famous #eo#le, foreign countries ! then one of its #olitical
functions is to renovate the orl" as it is from the insi"e, i.e. $y mo"ish
techniques.
-ere e have an extreme exam#le of hat it means to su##ly a
#ro"uction a##aratus ithout changing it. *hanging it oul" have meant
$ringing "on one of the $arriers, surmounting one of the contra"ictions
hich inhi$it the #ro"uctive ca#acity of the intelligentsia. &hat e must
"eman" from the #hotogra#her is the a$ility to #ut such a ca#tion $eneath
his #icture as ill rescue it from the ravages of mo"ishness an" confer
u#on it a revolutionary use value.
'...( Turning to the /e D$)ectivity as a literary movement, , must go
a ste# further an" say that it has turne" the strggle against (isery into an
o$)ect of consum#tion. ,n many cases, in"ee", its #olitical significance
has $een limite" to converting revolutionary reflexes, in so far as these
occurre" ithin the $ourgeoisie, into themes of entertainment an"
amusement hich can $e fitte" ithout much "ifficulty into the ca$aret
life of a large city. The characteristic feature of this literature is the ay it
transforms #olitical struggle so that it ceases to $e a com#elling motive
for "ecision an" $ecomes an o$)ect of comforta$le contem#lation+ it
ceases to $e a means of #ro"uction an" $ecomes an article of
consum#tion'...(.
'...( *ommitment is a necessary, $ut never a sufficient, con"ition for a
riters ork acquiring an organi:ing function. >or this to ha##en it is
also necessary for the riter to have a teachers attitu"e. An" to"ay this is
more than ever an essential "eman". A "riter "ho +oes not tea$h other
"riters tea$hes no%o+y. The crucial #oint, therefore, is that a riters
#ro"uction must have the character of a mo"el: it must $e a$le to instruct
other riters in their #ro"uction, an", secon"ly, it must $e a$le to #lace
185
an im#rove" a##aratus at their "is#osal. This a##aratus ill $e the $etter,
the more consumers it $rings in contact ith the #ro"uction #rocess ! in
short, the more rea"ers or s#ectators it turns into colla$orators. &e alrea"y
#osses a mo"el of this kin", of hich, hoever, , cannot s#eak here in any
"etail. ,t is Frechts e#ic theatre.
'...( N#ic theatre "oes not re#ro"uce con"itions+ rather, it "iscloses, it
uncovers them. The uncovering of the con"itions is effecte" $y
interru#ting the "ramatic #rocess+ $ut such interru#tion "oes not act as a
stimulant+ it has an organi:ing function. ,t $rings the action to a stan"still
in mi"!course an" there$y com#els the s#ectator to take u# a #osition
toar"s the action, an" the actor to take u# a #osition toar"s his #art. =et
me give an exam#le to sho ho Frecht, in his selection an" treatment of
gestures, sim#ly uses the metho" of montage ! hich is so essential to
ra"io an" film!in such a ay that it ceases to $e a mo"ish technique an"
$ecomes a human event. %icture to yourself a family ro: the ife is )ust
a$out to #ick u# a $ron:e statuette an" hurl it at the "aughter+ the father is
o#ening a in"o to call for hel#. At this moment a stranger enters. The
#rocess is interru#te"+ hat $ecomes a##arent in its #lace is the con"ition
no ex#ose" $efore the strangers vie: "istur$e" faces, o#en in"o, a
"evastate" interior. There exists, hoever, a vie#oint from hich even
the more normal scenes of #resent!"ay life "o not look so very "ifferent
from this. That is the vie#oint of the e#ic "ramatist.
-e o##oses the "ramatic la$oratory to the finishe" ork of art. -e goes
$ack, in a ne ay, to the theatres greatest an" most ancient o##ortunity:
the o##ortunity to ex#ose the #resent. '...(
Jou may have notice" that the reflections hose conclusions e are
no nearing make only one "eman" on the riter: the "eman" to think- to
reflect u#on his #osition in the #ro"uction #rocess. &e can $e sure that
such thinking, in the "riters "ho (atter = that is to say the $est technicians
in their #articular $ranches of the tra"e ! ill sooner or later lea" them to
confirm very so$erly their soli"arity ith the #roletariat.
<.1.E &alter Fen)amin: from The &ork of Art in the Age of Cechanical
2e#ro"uction
'...( The #resence of the original is the #rerequisite of the conce#t of
authenticity. *hemical analyses of the #atina of a $ron:e can hel# to
esta$lish this, as "oes the #roof that a given manuscri#t of the Ci""le
Ages stems from an archive of the fifteenth century. The hole s#here of
authenticity is outsi"e technical ! an", of course, not only technical !
re#ro"uci$ility '...(
The situations into hich the #ro"uct of mechanical re#ro"uction can $e
$rought may not touch the actual ork of art, yet the quality of its #resence is
alays "e#reciate". This hol"s not only for the art ork $ut also, for instance,
for a lan"sca#e hich #asses in revie $efore the s#ectator in a movie. ,n the
case of the art o$)ect, a most sensitive nucleus ! namely, its authenticity ! is
interfere" ith hereas no natural o$)ect is vulnera$le on that score. The
authenticity of a thing is the essence of all that is transmissi$le from its
$eginning, ranging from its su$stantive "uration to its testimony to the history
hich it has ex#erience". Since the historical testimony rests on the
authenticity, the former, too, is )eo#ar"i:e" $y re#ro"uction hen su$stantive
"uration ceases to matter. An" hat is really )eo#ar"i:e" hen the historical
testimony is affecte" is the authority of the o$)ect.
Dne might su$sume the eliminate" element in the term aura an" go on
to say: that hich ithers in the age of mechanical re#ro"uction is the
aura of the ork of art. This is a sym#tomatic #rocess hose
significance #oints $eyon" the realm of art. Dne might generali:e $y
saying: the technique of re#ro"uction "etaches the re#ro"uce" o$)ect
from the "omain of tra"ition. Fy making many re#ro"uctions it
su$stitutes a #lurality of co#ies for a unique existence. An" in #ermitting
the re#ro"uction to meet the $ehol"er or listener in his on #articular
situation, it reactivates the o$)ect re#ro"uce". These to #rocesses lea" to
a tremen"ous shattering of tra"ition hich is the o$verse of the
contem#orary crisis an" reneal of mankin". Foth #rocesses are
intimately connecte" hich the contem#orary mass movements. Their
most #oerful agent is the film. ,ts social significance, #articularly in its
181
most #ositive form, is inconceiva$le ithout its "estructive, cathartic
as#ect, that is the liqui"ation of the tra"itional value of the cultural
heritage. '...(
The conce#t of aura hich as #ro#ose" a$ove ith reference to
historical o$)ects may usefully $e illustrate" ith reference to the aura of
natural ones. &e "efine the aura of the latter as the unique #henomenon of
a "istance, hoever close it may $e. ,f, hile resting on a summer
afternoon, you follo ith your eyes a mountain range on the hori:on or a
$ranch hich casts its sha"o over you, you ex#erience the aura of those
mountains, of the $ranch. This image makes it easy to com#rehen" the
social $ases of the contem#orary "ecay of the aura. ,t rests on to
circumstances, $oth of hich are relate" to the increasing significance of
the masses in contem#orary life. /amely, the "esire of contem#orary
masses to $ring things closer s#atially an" humanly, hich is )ust as
ar"ent as their $ent toar" overcoming the uniqueness of very reality $y
acce#ting its re#ro"uction. '...(
The uniqueness of a ork of art is inse#ara$le from its $eing im$e""e" in
the fa$ric of tra"ition. This tra"ition itself is thoroughly alive an"
extremely changea$le. An ancient statue of Venus, for exam#le, stoo" in a
"ifferent tra"itional context ith the Kreeks, ho ma"e it an o$)ect of
veneration, than ith the clerics of the Ci""le Ages, ho viee" it as an
ominous i"ol. Foth of them, hoever, ere equally confronte" ith its
uniqueness, that is, its aura. Driginally the contextual integration of art in
tra"ition foun" its ex#ression in the cult. &e kno that the earliest art
orks originate" in the service of a ritual ! first the magical, then the
religious kin". ,t is significant that the existence of the ork of art ith
reference to its aura is never entirely se#arate" from its ritual function. ,n
other or"s, the unique value of the authentic ork of art has its $asis in
ritual, the location of its original use value. This ritualistic $asis, hoever
remote, is still recogni:a$le as seculari:e" ritual even in the most #rofane
forms of the cult of $eauty. The secular cult of $eauty, "evelo#e" "uring
the 2enaissance an" #revailing for three centuries, clearly shoe" that
ritualistic $asis in its "ecline an" the first "ee# crisis hich $efell it. &ith
the a"vent of the first truly revolutionary means of re#ro"uction,
#hotogra#hy, simultaneously ith the rise of socialism, art sense" the
a##roaching crisis hich has $ecome evi"ent a century later. At the time,
art reacte" ith the "octrine of l* art por l* art- that is, ith a theology
of art. This gave rise to hat might $e calle" a negative theology in the
form of the i"ea of #ure art, hich not only "enie" any social function
of art $ut also any categori:ing $y su$)ect matter. 0,n #oetry, CallarmL
as the first to take this #osition.1
An analysis of art in the age of mechanical re#ro"uction must "o )ustice
to these relationshi#s, for they lea" us to an all!im#ortant insight: for the
first time in orl" history, mechanical re#ro"uction emanci#ates the
ork of art from its #arasitical "e#en"ence on ritual. To an ever greater
"egree the ork of art re#ro"uce" $ecomes the ork of art "esigne" for
re#ro"uci$ility. >rom a #hotogra#hic negative, for exam#le, one can
make any num$er of #rints+ to ask for the authentic #rint makes no
sense. Fut the instant the criterion of authenticity ceases to $e a##lica$le
to artistic #ro"uction, the total function of art is reverse". ,nstea" of $eing
$ase" on ritual, it $egins to $e $ase" on another #ractice ! #olitics. '...(
<.1.8 Terry Nagleton: from <riti$is( an+ I+eology
'...( ,n hat sense is it correct to maintain that i+eology, rather than
history- is the o$)ect of the text@ Dr, to #ose the question slightly
"ifferently: ,n hat sense, if any, "o elements of the historically real
enter the text @ Keorg =uk[cs, in his St+ies in 1ropean Realis(,
argues that Fal:acs greatness lies in the fact that the inexora$le
veracity of his art "rives him to transcen" his reactionary i"eology an"
#erceive the real historical issues at stake. ,"eology, here, clearly
signifies a false consciousness hich $locks true historical #erce#tion,
a screen inter#ose" $eteen men an" their history. As such, it is a
sim#listic notion: it fails to gras# i"eology as an inherently com#lex
formation hich, $y inserting in"ivi"uals into history in a variety of
ays, allos of multi#le kin"s an" "egrees of access to that history. ,t
18E
fails, in fact, to gras# the truth that some i"eologies, an" levels of
i"eology, are more false than others. ,"eology is not )ust the $a" "ream of
the infrastructure: in +efor(atively #ro"ucing the real, it nevertheless
carries elements of reality ithin itself. Fut it is not enough, therefore, to
mo"ify the image of screen to that of filter, as though i"eology ere a
mesh through hich elements of the real coul" sli#. Any such
interventionist mo"el of i"eology hol"s out the #ossi$ility of looking
$ehin" the o$struction to o$serve reality+ $ut in the ca#italist mo"e of
#ro"uction, hat is there to $e o$serve" is certainly not the real. The real
is $y necessity em#irically im#erce#ti$le, concealing itself in the
#henomenal categories 0commo"ity, age!relation, exchange!value an" so
on1 it offers s#ontaneously for ins#ection. ,"eology, rather, so #ro"uces
an" constructs the real as to cast the sha"o of its a$sence over the
#erce#tion of its #resence. ,t is not merely that certain as#ects of the real
are illuminate" an" others o$scure"+ it is rather that the #resence of the
real is a #resence constitute" $y its a$sences, an" vi$e versa. '...(
-istory, then, certainly enters the text, not least the historical text+ $ut
it enters it #recisely as i+eology, as a #resence "etermine" an" "istorte" $y
its measura$le a$sences. This is not to say that real history is #resent in the
text $ut in "isguise" form, so that the task of the critic is then to rench
the mask from its face. ,t is rather that history is #resent in the text in the
form of a +o%le=a%sen$e. The text takes as its o$)ect, not the real, $ut
certain significations $y hich the real lives itself ! significations hich
are themselves the #ro"uct of its #artial a$olition. &ithin the text itself,
then, i"eology $ecomes a "ominant structure, "etermining the character
an" "is#osition of certain #seu"o!real constituents. This inversion, as it
ere, of the real historical #rocess, here$y in the text itself i"eology
seems to "etermine the historically real rather than vi$e versa, is itself
naturally "etermine" in the last instance $y history itself. -istory, one
might say, is the lti(ate signifier of literature, as it is the ultimate
signifie". >or hat else in the en" coul" $e the source an" o$)ect of any
signifying #ractice $ut the real social formation hich #rovi"es its material
matrix @ '...(
The literary ork a##ears free ! self!#ro"ucing an" self!"etermining !
$ecause it is unconstraine" $y the necessity to re#ro"uce any #articular
real + $ut this free"om sim#ly conceals its more fun"amental
"etermination $y the constituents of its i"eological matrix. ,f it seems true
that at the level of the texts #seu"o!real ! its imaginary figures an"
events ! anything can ha##en, this is $y no means true of its i"eological
organisation+ an" it is #recisely $ecause that is not true that the free!
heeling contingency of its #seu"o!real is equally illusory. The #seu"o!
real of the literary text is the #ro"uct of the i"eologically saturate"
"eman"s of its mo"es of re#resentation.
-istory, then, o#erates u#on the text $y an i"eological "etermination
hich ithin the text itself #rivileges i"eology as a "ominant structure
"etermining its on imaginary or #seu"o history. This #seu"o or
textual real is not relate" to the historical real as an imaginary
trans#osition of it. 2ather than imaginatively trans#osing the real, the
literary ork is the #ro"uction of certain #ro"uce" re#resentations of the
real into an imaginary o$)ect. ,f it "istantiates history, it is not $ecause it
transmutes it to fantasy, shifting from one ontological gear to another, $ut
$ecause the significations it orks into fiction are alrea"y re#resentations
of reality rather than reality itself. The text is a tissue of meanings,
#erce#tions an" res#onses hich inhere in the first #lace in that
imaginary #ro"uction of the real hich is i"eology. The textual real is
relate" to the historical real, not as an imaginary trans#osition of it, $ut as
the #ro"uct of certain signifying #ractices hose source an" referent is, in
the last instance, history itself. '...(
<.1.6 Terry Nagleton: from Mar#is( an+ Literary <riti$is( 0149I1
Carxist criticism is not merely a sociology of literature, concerne"
ith ho novels get #u$lishe" an" hether they mention the orking
class. ,ts aim is to e#plain the literary ork more fully+ an" this means a
sensitive attention to its forms, styles an" meanings. Fut it also means
gras#ing those forms, styles an" meanings as the #ro"ucts of a #articular
188
history. The #ainter -enri Catisse once remarke" that all art $ears the
im#rint of its historical e#och, $ut that great art is that in hich this
im#rint is most "ee#ly marke". Cost stu"ents of literature are taught
otherise: the greatest art is that hich timelessly transcen"s its historical
con"itions. Carxist criticism has much to say on this issue, $ut the
historical analysis of literature "i" not of course $egin ith Carxism.
Cany thinkers $efore Carx ha" trie" to account for literary orks in terms
of the history hich #ro"uce" them+ an" one of these, the Kerman i"ealist
#hiloso#her K.&.>. -egel, ha" a #rofoun" influence on Carxs on
aesthetic thought. The originality of Carxist criticism, then, lies not on its
historical a##roach to literature, $ut on its revolutionary un"erstan"ing of
history itself.
Fase an" Su#erstructure
,t is not the consciousness of men that "etermines their $eing, $ut on the
contrary, their social $eing that "etermines their consciousness.
The social relations $eteen men, in other or"s, are $oun" u# ith the
ay they #ro"uce the material life. *ertain #ro"uctive forces ! say, the
organisation of la$or in the mi""le ages ! involve the social relations of
villein to lor" e kno as feu"alism. At a larger stage, the "evelo#ment of
ne mo"es of #ro"uctive organisation is $ase" on a change" set of social
relations ! this time $eteen the ca#italist class ho on those means of
#ro"uction, an" #roletarian class hose la$or ! #oer the ca#italist $uys
for #rofit. Taken together, these forces an" relations of #ro"uction form
hat Carx calls the economic structure of society, or hat is more
commonly knon $y Carxism as the economic $ase or infrastructure.
>rom these economic $ase, in every #erio", emerges a su#erstructure !
certain forms of la an" #olitics, a certain kin" of state, hose essential
function is to legitimate the #oer of the social class hich ons the
means of economic #ro"uction. Fut the su#erstructure contains more than
this: it also consists of certain "efinite forms of social consciousness
0#olitical, religious, ethical, aesthetic an" so on1, hich is hat Carxism
"esignates as i"eology. The function of i"eology, also, is to legitimate the
#oer of the ruling class in society+ in the last analysis, the "ominant
i"eas of society are the i"eas of its ruling class. Art, than, is for Carxism
#art of the su#erstructure of society. ,t is 0ith qualifications e shall
make later1 #art of societys i"eology ! an element in that com#lex
structure of social #erce#tion hich ensures that the situation in hich
one social class has #oer over the others is either seen $y most mem$ers
of the society as natural, or not seen at all. To un"erstan" literature,
then, means un"erstan"ing the total social #rocess of hich it is #art. As
the 2ussian Carxist critic Keorgy %lekhanov #ut it: The social mentality
of an age is con"itione" $y that ages social relations. This is nohere
quite as evi"ent as in the history of art an" literature. =iterary orks are
not mysteriously ins#ire", or ex#lica$le sim#ly in terms of their authors
#sychology .They are forms of #erce#tion, #articular ays of seeing the
orl" +an" as such they have a relation to that "ominant ay of seeing
the orl" hich is the social mentality or i"eology of an age. That
i"eology, in turn, is the #ro"uct of the concrete social relations into hich
men enter at a #articular time an" #lace+ it is the ay those class !
relations are ex#erience", legitimi:e" an" #er#etuate"+ they are
constraine" into them $y material necessity ! $y the nature an" stage of
"evelo#ment of their mo"e of economic #ro"uction.
To un"erstan" Ding Lear- The ,n$ia+ or ?lysses is therefore to "o
more than inter#ret their sym$olism, stu"y their literary history an" a""
footnotes a$out sociological facts hich enter into them. ,t is first of all
to un"erstan" the com#lex, in"irect relations $eteen those orks an"
the i"eological orl"s they inha$it ! relations hich emerge not )ust in
themes, an" #reoccu#ations, $ut in style, rhythm, image, quality an"
0as e shall see later1 for(. Fut e "o not un"erstan" i"eology either
unless e gras# the #art it #lays in the society as a hole ! ho it consists
of a "efinite, historically relative structure of #erce#tion hich un"er#ins
the #oer of a #articular social class. This is not an easy task, since an
i"eology is never a sim#le reflection of a ruling classs i"eas+ on the
contrary, it is alays a com#lex #henomenon, hich may incor#orate
conflicting, even contra"ictory vies, of the orl". To un"erstan" an
i"eology, e must analyse the #recise relations $eteen "ifferent classes
18<
in a society+ an" to "o that means gras#ing here those classes stan" in
relation to the mo"e of #ro"uction.
All this may seem a tall or"er to the stu"ent of literature ho thought
he as merely require" to "iscuss #lot an" characteri:ation. ,t may seem a
confusion of literary criticism ith "isci#lines like #olitics an" economics
hich ought to $e ke#t se#arate. Fut it is, nonetheless, essential for the
fullest ex#lanation of any ork of literature. Take, for exam#le, the great
%laci"o Kulf scene in *onra"s Nostro(o. To evaluate the fine artistic
force of this e#iso"e, as Becou" an" /ostromo are isolate" in utter
"arkness on the sloly sinking lighter, involves us in su$tly #lacing the
scene ithin the imaginative vision of the novel as a hole. The ra"ical
#essimism of that vision 0an" to gras# it fully e must, of course, relate
Nostro(o to the rest of *onra"s fiction1 cannot sim#ly $e accounte" for
in terms of #sychological factors in *onra" himself+ for in"ivi"ual
#sychology is also a social #ro"uct. The #essimism of *onra"s orl"
vie is rather a unique transformation into art of i"eological #essimism
rife in his #erio" ! a sense of history as futile an" cyclical, of in"ivi"uals as
im#enetra$le an" solitary, of human values as relativistic an" irrational,
hich marks a "rastic crisis in the i"eology of &estern $ourgeois class to
hich *onra" allie" himself. There ere goo" reasons for that i"eological
crisis, in the history of im#erialistic ca#italism throughout this #erio".
*onra" "i" not, of course, merely anonymously reflect that history in his
fiction+ every riter is in"ivi"ually #lace" in society, res#on"ing to a
general history from his on #articular stan"#oint, making sense of it in
his on concrete terms. Fut it is not "ifficult to see ho *onra"s #ersonal
stan"ing , as an aristocratic %olish exile "ee#ly committe" to Nnglish
conservatism, intensifie" for him the crisis of Nnglish $ourgeois i"eology.
,t is also #ossi$le to see in these terms hy that scene in the %laci"o
Kulf shoul" $e artistically fine. To rite ell is more than a matter of
style + it also means having at ones "is#osal an i"eological #ers#ective
hich can #enetrate to the realistic of mens ex#erience in a certain
situation. This is certainly hat the %laci"o Kulf scene "oes+ an" it can "o
it, not )ust $ecause its authors ha##ens to have an excellent #rose ! style,
$ut $ecause his historical situation allo him access to such insights.
&hether those insights are in #olitical terms #rogressive or
reactionary 0*onra"s are certainly the latter1 is not the #oint ! any more
than it is to the #oint that most of the agree" ma)or riters of the
tentieth century ! Jeats, Nliot, %oun", =arence ! are #olitical
conservatives ho each ha" truck ith fascism. Carxist criticism, rather
than a#ologising for the fact, ex#lains it ! sees that, in the a$sence of
genuinely revolutionary art, only a ra"ical conservatism, hostile like
Carxism to the ithere" values of li$eral $ourgeois society, coul"
#ro"uce the most significant literature.
=iterature an" Su#erstructure
,t oul" $e a mistake to im#ly that Carxist criticism moves
mechanically from text to i"eology to social relations to #ro"uctive
forces. ,t is concerne", rather, ith the nity of these levels of society.
=iterature may $e #art of the su#erstructure, $ut it is not merely the
#assive reflection of the economic $ase. Nngels makes this clear, in a
letter to ?ose#h Floch in 1745:
Accor"ing to the materialistic conce#tion of history, the "etermining
element in history is lti(ately the #ro"uction an" re#ro"uction in real
life. Core than this neither Carx nor , have ever Asserte". ,f therefore
some$o"y tists this into the statement that the economic element is the
only "etermining one, he transforms it into a meaningless, a$stract an"
a$sur" #hrase. The economic situation is the $asis, $ut the various
elements of the su#erstructure ! #olitical forms of the class struggle an"
its consequences, constitutions esta$lishe" $y the victorious class after a
successful $attle, etc. ! forms of la ! an" then even the reflexes of all
these actual struggles in the $rains of the com$atants: #olitical, legal, an"
#hiloso#hical theories, religious i"eas an" their further "evelo#ment into
systems of "ogma ! also exercise their influence u#on the course of the
historical struggles an" in many cases #re#on"erate in "etermining their
for(.
186
Nngels ants to "eny that there is any mechanical, one ! to ! one
corres#on"ence $eteen $ase an" su#erstructure+ elements of the
su#erstructure constantly react $ack u#on an" influence the economic
$ase. The materialist theory of history "enies that art can in itself change
the course of history+ $ut it insists that art can $e an active element in such
change. ,n"ee", hen Carx came to consi"er the relation $eteen $ase
an" su#erstructure, it as art hich he selecte" as an instance of the
com#lexity an" in"irectness of that relationshi#:
,n the case of the arts, it is ell knon that certain #erio"s of their
floering are out of all #ro#ortion to the general "evelo#ment of society,
hence also to the material foun"ation, the skeletal structure, as it ere, of
its organisation. >or exam#le, the Kreeks com#are"to the mo"erns or also
Shakes#eare. ,t is even recognise" that certain forms of art, e.g. the e#ic,
can no longer $e #ro"uce" in their orl" e#och ! making, classical stature
as soon as the #ro"uction of art, as such, $egins+ that is, that certain
significant forms ithin the realm of the arts are #ossi$le only at an
un"evelo#e" stage of artistic "evelo#ment. ,f this is the case ith the
relation $eteen "ifferent kin"s of art ithin the realm of art, it is alrea"y
less #u::ling that it is the case in the relation of the entire realm to the
general "evelo#ment of society. The "ifficulty consists only in the general
formulation of these contra"ictions. As soon as they have $een s#ecifie",
they are alrea"y clarifie".
'...(
To questions, then, emerge from Carxs formulations in the
/rn+risse. The first concerns the relation $eteen $ase an"
su#erstructure + the secon" concerns our on relation in the #resent ith
#ast art. To take the secon" question first: ho can it $e that e mo"erns
still fin" aesthetic a##eal in the cultural #ro"ucts of the #ast, vastly
"ifferent societies@ ,n a sense, the anser Carx gives is not "ifferent from
the anser to the question: -o is it that e mo"erns still res#on" to the
ex#loits of, say, S#artacus@ &e res#on" to S#artacus or Kreek scul#ture
$ecause our on history links us to those ancient societies+ e fin" in
them an un"evelo#e" #hase of the forces hich con"ition us. Coreover,
e fin" in those ancient societies a #rimitive image of measure $eteen
man an" /ature hich ca#italist society necessarily "estroys, an" hich
socialist society can re#ro"uce at an incom#ara$ly higher level. &e
ought, in other or"s, to think of history in i"er terms than our on
contem#orary history. To ask ho Bickens relates to history is not )ust to
ask ho he relates to Victorian Nnglan", for that society as itself the
#ro"uct of a long history hich inclu"es men like Shakes#eare an"
Cilton. ,t is a curiously narroe" vie of history hich "efines it merely
as the contem#orary moment an" relegates all else to the universal.
Dne anser to the #ro$lem of #ast an" #resent is suggeste" $y Fertolt
Frecht, ho argues that e nee" to "evelo# the historical sense'...( into a
real sensual "elight. &hen our theatres #erform #lays of other #erio"s
they like to annihilate "istance, fill in the ga#, gloss over the "ifferences.
Fut hat comes then of our "elight in com#arison, in "istance, in
"issimilarity ! hich is at the same time a "elight in hat is close an"
#ro#er to ourselves@
The other #ro$lem #ose" $y the /rn+risse is the relation $eteen
$ase an" su#erstructure. Carx is clear that these to as#ects of society "o
not form a sy((etri$al relationshi#, "ancing a harmonious minuet han"!
in!han" throughout history. Nach element of a societys su#erstructure !
art, la, #olitics, religion ! has its on tem#o of "evelo#ment, its on
internal evolution, hich is not re"uci$le to a mere ex#ression of the
class struggle or the state of the economy. Art, as Trotsky comments, has
a very high "egree of autonomy + it is not tie" in any sim#le one!to!one
ay to the mo"e of #ro"uction. An" yet Carxism claims too that, in the
last analysis, art is "etermine" $y that mo"e of #ro"uction. -o are e to
ex#lain this a##arent "iscre#ancy@
=et us take a concrete literary exam#le. A vulgar Carxist case a$out
T.S.Nliots The ;aste Lan+ might $e that the #oem is "irectly "etermine"
$y i"eological an" economic factors ! $y the s#iritual em#tiness an"
exhaustion of $ourgeois i"eology hich s#rings from that crisis of
ca#italist im#erialism knon as the >irst &orl" &ar. This is to ex#lain
the #oem as an imme"iate reflection of those con"itions+ $ut it clearly
18I
fails to take into account a hole series of levels hich me"iate
$eteen the text itself an" ca#italist economy. ,t says nothing, for instance,
a$out the social situation of Nliot himself ! a riter living an am$iguous
relationshi# ith Nnglish society, as an aristocratic American ex#atriate
ho $ecame a glorifie" *ity clerk an" yet i"entifie" "ee#ly ith the
conservative ! tra"itionalist, rather than $ourgeois ! commercialist,
elements of Nnglish i"eology. ,t says nothing a$out that i"eologys more
general forms ! nothing of its structure, content, internal com#lexity, an"
ho all these are #ro"uce" $y the extremely com#lex class ! relations of
Nnglish society at the time. ,t is silent a$out the form an" language of The
;aste Lan+ O a$out hy Nliot, "es#ite his extreme #olitical conservatism,
as an avant = gar+e #oet ho selecte" certain #rogressive ex#erimental
techniques from the history of literary forms availa$le to him, an" on hat
i"eological $asis he "i" this. &e learn nothing from this a##roach a$out
the social con"itions hich gave rise at the time to certain forms of
s#irituality, #art ! *hristian, #art ! Fu""hist, hich the #oem "ras on+
or of hat role a certain kin" of $ourgeois anthro#ology 0>raser1 an"
$ourgeois #hiloso#hy 0>.-.Fra"leys i"ealism1 use" $y the #oem fulfille"
in the i"eological formation of the #erio". &e are unilluminate" a$out
Nliots social #osition as an artist, #art of a self ! consciously eru"ite,
ex#erimental elite ith #articular mo"es of #u$lication 0the small #ress,
the little maga:ine1 at their "is#osal+ or a$out the kin" of au"ience hich
that im#lie", an" its effect on the #oems styles an" "evices. &e remain
ignorant a$out the relation $eteen the #oem an" the aesthetic theories
associate" ith it ! of hat role that aesthetic #lays in the i"eology of the
time, an" ho it sha#es the construction of the #oem itself.
Any com#lete un"erstan"ing of The ;aste Lan+ oul" nee" to take
these 0an" other1 factors into account. ,t is not a matter of re+$ing the
#oem to the state of contem#orary ca#italism+ $ut neither it is a matter of
intro"ucing so many )u"icious com#lications that anything as cru"e as
ca#italism may to all inten"s an" #ur#oses $e forgotten. Dn the contrary:
all the elements , have enumerate" 0the authors class ! #osition,
i"eological forms an" their relation to literary forms, s#irituality an"
#hiloso#hy, techniques of literary #ro"uction, aesthetic theory1 are "irectly
relevant to the $aseU su#erstructure mo"el. &hat Carxist criticism looks
for is the unique $on&n$tre of elements hich e kno as The ;aste
Lan+. /o one of these elements can $e conflate" ith another: each has
its on relative in"e#en"ence. The ;aste Lan+ can in"ee" $e ex#laine"
as a #oem hich s#rings from a crisis of $ourgeois i"eology, $ut it has no
sim#le corres#on"ence ith that crisis or ith the #olitical an" economic
con"itions hich #ro"uce" it. 0As a
#oem, it "oes not of course kno" itself as a #ro"uct of a #articular
i"eological crisis, for if it "i" it oul" cease to exist. ,t nee"s to translate
that crisis into universal terms ! to gras# it as #art of an unchanging
human con"ition, share" alike $y ancient Ngy#tians an" mo"ern man.1
The ;aste Lan+*s relation to the real history of its time, then, is highly
(e+iate+' an" in this it is like all orks of art.
<.1.I Terry Nagleton: from The 2ise of Nnglish
TD S%NA3 D> =,TN2ATH2N A/B ,BND=DKJ as to se#arate
#henomena hich can $e interrelate" is, as , ho#e to have shon, in one
sense quite unnecessary. =iterature, in the meaning of the or" e have
inherite", is an i"eology. ,t has the most intimate relations to questions of
social #oer. Fut if the rea"er is still unconvince", the narrative of hat
ha##ene" to literature in the later nineteenth century might #rove a little
more #ersuasive.
,f one ere aske" to #rovi"e a single ex#lanation for the groth of
Nnglish stu"ies in the later nineteenth century, one coul" "o orse than
re#ly: the failure of religion. Fy the mi"!Victorian #erio", this
tra"itionally relia$le, immensely #oerful i"eological form as in "ee#
trou$le. ,t as no longer inning the hearts an" min"s of the masses, an"
un"er the tin im#acts of scientific "iscovery an" social change its
#revious unquestione" "ominance as in "anger of eva#orating. This as
#articularly orrying for the Victorian ruling class, $ecause religion is
for all kin"s of reasons an extremely effective form of i"eological
189
control. =ike all successful i"eologies, it orks much less $y ex#licit
conce#ts of formulate" "octrines than $y image, sym$ol, ha$it, ritual, an"
mythology. ,t is affective an" ex#eriential, entining itself ith the
"ee#est unconscious roots of the human su$)ect+ an" any social i"eology
hich is una$le to engage ith such a "ee#!seate" a!rational fears an"
nee"s, as T. S. Nliot kne, is unlikely to survive very long. 2eligion,
moreover, is ca#a$le of o#erating at every social level: if there is a
"octrinal inflection of it for the intellectual elite, there is also a #ietistic
$ran" of it for the masses. ,t #rovi"es an excellent social cement,
encom#assing #ious #easant, enlightene" mi""le!class li$eral an"
theological intellectual in a single organi:ation. ,ts i"eological #oer lies
in its ca#acity to materiali:e $eliefs as #ractices: religion is the sharing of
the chalice an" the $lessing of the harvest, not )ust a$stract argument a$out
consu$stantiation or hy#er"ulia. ,ts ultimate truths, like those me"iate" $y
the literary sym$ol, are conveniently close" to rational "emonstration, an"
thus a$solute in their claims. >inally religion, at least in its Victorian
forms, is a 0a$ifying influence, fostering meekness, self!sacrifice, an" the
contem#lative inner life. ,t is no on"er that the Victorian ruling class
looke" on the threatene" "issolution of this i"eological "iscourse ith
something less than equanimity.
>ortunately, hoever, another, remarka$ly similar "iscourse lay to han":
Nnglish literature. Keorge Kor"on, early #rofessor of Nnglish literature at
Dxfor", commente" in his inaugural lecture that Nnglan" is sick, an" ...
Nnglish literature must save it. The *hurches 0as , un"erstan"1 having
faile", an" social reme"ies $eing slo, Nnglish literature has no a tri#le
function: still , su##ose, to "elight an" instruct us, $ut also, an" a$ove all,
to save our souls an" heal the State.
1
Kor"ons or"s ere s#oken in our
on century, $ut they fin" a resonance everyhere in Victorian Nnglan".
,t is a striking thought that ha" it not $een for this "ramatic crisis in mi"!
nineteenth!century i"eology, e might not to"ay have such a #lentiful
su##ly of ?ane Austen case$ooks an" $luffers gui"es to %oun". As
religion #rogressively ceases to #rovi"e the social cement, affective
values an" $asic mythologies $y hich a socially tur$ulent class!society
can $e el"e" together, Nnglish is constructe" as a su$)ect to carry this
i"eological $ur"en from the Victorian #erio" onar". The key figure here
is Catthe Arnol", alays #reternaturally sensitive to the nee"s of his
social class, an" engagingly can"i" a$out $eing so. The urgent social
nee", as Arnol" recogni:es, is to -elleni:e or cultivate the #hilistine
mi""le class, ho have #rove" una$le to un"er#in their #olitical an"
economic #oer ith a suita$ly rich an" su$tle i"eology. This can $e
"one $y transfusing into them something of the tra"itional style of the
aristocracy, ho as Arnol" shre"ly #erceives are ceasing to $e the
"ominant class in Nnglan", $ut ho have something of the i"eological
hereithal to len" a han" to their mi""le!class masters. State!
esta$lishe" schools, $y linking the mi""le class to the $est culture of
their nation, ill confer on them a greatness an" a no$le s#irit, hich
the tone of these classes is not of itself at #resent a"equate to im#art.
E

The true $eauty of this maneuver, hoever, lies in the effect it ill have
in controlling an" incor#orating the orking class:
,t is of itself a serious calamity for a nation that its tone of feeling an"
gran"eur of s#irit shoul" $e loere" or "ulle". Fut the calamity a##ears
far more serious still hen e consi"er that the mi""le classes, remaining
as they are no, ith their narro, harsh, unintelligent, an" unattractive
s#irit an" culture, ill almost certainly fail to moul" or assimilate the
masses $elo them, hose sym#athies are at the #resent moment actually
i"er an" more li$eral than theirs. They arrive, these masses, eager to
enter into #ossession of the orl", to gain a more vivi" sense of their on
life an" activity. ,n this their irre#ressi$le "evelo#ment, their natural
e"ucators an" initiators are those imme"iately a$ove them, the mi""le
classes. ,f these classes cannot in their sym#athy or give them their
"irection, society is in "anger of falling into anarchy.
8

Arnol" is refreshingly unhy#ocritical: there is no fee$le #retence that
the e"ucation of the orking class is to $e con"ucte" chiefly for their
on $enefit, or that his concern ith their s#iritual con"ition is, in one of
his most cherishe" terms, in the least "isintereste". ,n the even more
"isarmingly can"i" or"s of a tentieth!century #ro#onent of this vie:
187
Beny to orking!class chil"ren any common share in the immaterial, an"
#resently they ill gro into the men ho "eman" ith menaces a
communism of the material.
<
,f the masses are not thron a fe novels,
they may react $y throing u# a fe $arrica"es.
=iterature as in several ays a suita$le can"i"ate for this i"eological
entre#rise. As a li$eral, humani:ing #ursuit, it coul" #rovi"e a #otent
anti"ote to #olitical $igotry an" i"eological extremism. Since literature, as
e kno, "eals in universal human values rather than in such historical
trivia as civil ars, the o##ression of omen, or the "is#ossession of the
Nnglish #easantry, it coul" serve to #lace in cosmic #ers#ective the #etty
"eman"s of orking #eo#le for "ecent living con"itions or greater control
over their on lives, an" might even ith luck come to ren"er them
o$livious of such issues in their high!min"e" contem#lation of eternal
truths an" $euties. Nnglish, as a Victorian han"$ook for teachers #ut it,
hel#s to #romote sym#athy an" fello feeling among all classes + another
Victorian riter s#eaks of literature as o#ening a serene an" luminous
region of truth here all may meet an" ex#atiate in common, a$ove the
smoke an" stir, the "in an" the turmoil of mans loer life of care an"
$usiness an" "e$ate.
6
=iterature oul" rehearse the masses in the ha$its of
#luralistic thought an" feeling, #ersua"ing them to acknole"ge that more
than one #oint of vie#oint than theirs existe" ! namely, that of their
masters. ,t oul" communicate to them the moral riches of $ourgeois
civili:ation, im#ress u#on them a reverence for mi""le!class achievements,
an", since rea"ing is an essentially solitary, contem#lative activity, cur$ in
them any "isru#tive ten"ency to collective #olitical action. ,t oul" give
them a #ri"e in their national language an" literature: if scanty e"ucation
an" extensive hours of la$or #revente" them #ersonally from #ro"ucing a
literary master#iece, they coul" take #leasure in the thought that others of
their on kin" ! Nnglish #eo#le ! ha" "one so. The #eo#le, accor"ing to a
stu"y of Nnglish literature ritten in 1741, nee" #olitical culture,
instruction, that is to say, in hat #ertains to their relation to the State, to
their "uties as citi:ens+ an" they nee" also to $e im#resse" sentimentally
$y having the #resentation in legen" an" history of heroic an" #atriotic
exam#les $rought vivi"ly an" attractively $efore them.
I
All of this,
moreover, coul" $e achieve" ithout the the cost an" la$or of teaching
them the classics: Nnglish literature as ritten in their on language,
an" so as conveniently availa$le to them.
=ike religion, literature orks #rimarely $y emotion an" ex#erience,
an" so as a"mira$ly ell!fitte" to carry through the i"eological task
hich religion left off. ,n"ee" $y our time literature has $ecome
effectively i"entical ith the o##osite of analytical thought an"
conce#tual enquiry: hereas scientists, #hiloso#hers, an" #olitical
theorists are sa""le" ith these "ra$ly "iscursive #ursuits, stu"ents of
literature occu#y the more #ri:e" territory of feeling an" ex#erience.
&hose ex#erience an" hat kin"s of feeling, is a "ifferent question.
=iterature from Arnol" onar" is the enemy of i"eological "ogma, an
attitu"e hich might have come as a sur#rise to Bante, Cilton, an" %o#e+
the truth or falsity of $eliefs such as that $lacks are inferior to hites is
less im#ortant than hat it feels like to ex#erience them. Arnol" himself
ha" $eliefs, of course, though like every$o"y else he regar"e" his on
$eliefs as reasone" #ositions rather than i"eological "ogmas. Nven so, it
as not the $usiness of literature to communicate such $eliefs "irectly !
to argue o#enly, for exam#le, that #rivate #ro#erty is the $ulark of
li$erty. ,nstea", literature shoul" convey ti(eless truths, thus "istracting
the masses from their imme"iate commitments, nurturing in them a s#irit
of tolerance an" generosity, an" so ensuring the survival of #rivate
#ro#erty. ?ust as Arnol" attem#te" in Literatre an+ ,og(a an" /o+ an+
the 4i%le to "issolve aay the em$arrassingly "octrinal $its of
*hristianity into #oetically suggestive sonorities, so the #ill of mi""le!
class i"eology as to $e seetene" $y the sugar of literature.
There as another sense in hich the ex#eriential nature of literature
as i"eologically convenient. >or ex#erience is not only the homelan"
of i"eology, the #lace here it takes roots most effectively+ it is also in
literary form a kin" of vicarious self!fulfillment. ,f you "o not have the
money an" leisure to visit the >ar Nast, exce#t #erha#s as a sol"ier in the
#ay of Fritish im#erialism, then you can alays ex#erience it at secon"
han" $y rea"ing *onra" or 3i#ling. ,n"ee", accor"ing to some literary
theories this is even more real than strolling aroun" Fangkok. The
184
actually im#overishe" ex#erience of the mass of #eo#le, an
im#overishment $re" $y their social con"itions, can $e su##lemente" $y
literature: instea" of orking to change such con"itions 0hich Arnol", to
his cre"it, "i" more thoroughly than almost any of those ho sought to
inherit his mantle1, you can vicariously fulfill someones "esire for a fuller
life $y han"ing them 0ri+e an+ 0re&+i$e.
,t is significant, then, that Nnglish as a aca"emic su$)ect as first
institutionali:e" not in the universities, $ut in the Cechanics ,nstitutes,
orking mens colleges, an" extension lecturing circuits.
9
Nnglish as
literally the #oor mans classics ! a ay of #rovi"ing a cea#ish li$eral
e"uaction for those $eyon" the charme" circles of #u$lic school an"
Dx$ri"ge. >rom the outset, in the ork of Nnglish #ioneers like >. B.
Caurice an" *harles 3ingsley, the em#hasis as on soli"arity $eteen the
social classes, the cultivation of larger sym#athies, the instillation of
national #ri"e, an" the transmission of moral values. This last concern !
still the "istincitve hallmark of literary stu"ies in Nnglan", an" a frequent
source of $emusement to intellectuals from other cultures ! as an
essential #art of the i"eological #ro)ect+ in"ee" the rise of Nnglish is
more or less concomitant ith an historic shift in the very meaning of the
term moral, of hich Arnol", -enry ?ames, an" >. 2. =eavis are the
ma)or critical ex#onents. Corality is no longer to $e gras#e" as a
formulate" co"e or ex#licit ethical system: it is a rather a sensitive
#reoccu#ation ith the hole quality of life itself, ith the o$lique,
nuance" #articulars of human ex#erience. Somehat re#hrase", this can $e
taken as meaning that the ol" religious i"eologies have lost their force, an"
that a more su$tle communication of moral values, one hich orks $y
"ramatic enactment rather than re$ar$ative a$straction, is thus in or"er.
Since such values are nohere more vivi"ly "ramati:e" than in literature,
$rought home to felt ex#erience ith all the unquestiona$le reality of a
$lo on the hea", literature $ecomes more than )ust a han"mai"en of
moral i"eology: it is moral i"eology for the mo"ern age, as the ork of >.
2. =eavis as most gra#hically to evince.
The orking class as not the only o##resse" layer of Victorian society
at hom Nnglish as s#ecifically $eame". Nnglish literature, reflecte" a
2oyal *ommission itness in 1799, might $e consi"ere" a suita$le
su$)ect for omen ... an" the secon" ! an" thir"!rate men ho '...(
$ecome schoolmasters.
7
The softening an" humani:ing effects of
Nnglish, terms recurrenly use" $y its early #ro#onents are ithin the
existing i"eological stereoty#es of gen"er clearly feminine. The rise of
Nnglish in Nnglan" ran #arallel to the gra"ual, gru"ging a"mission of
omen to the institutions of higher e"ucation+ an" since Nnglish as an
untaxing sort of an affair, concerne" ith the finer feelings rather than
ith the more virile to#ics of $ona fi"e aca"emic "isci#lines, it seeme"
a convenient sort of nonsu$)ect to #alm off on the la"ies, ho ere in
any case exclu"e" from science an" the #rofessions. Sir Arthur Aiuller
*ouch, first #rofessor of Nnglish at *am$ri"ge Hniversity, oul" o#en
ith the or" Kentlemen lectures a""resse" to a hall fille" ith
omen. Though mo"ern male lecturers may have change" their manners,
the i"eological con"itions hich make Nnglish a #o#ular university
su$)ect for omen to rea" have not.
,f Nnglish ha" its feminine as#ect, hoever, it also aquire" a masculine
one as the century "re on. The era of the aca"emic esta$lishment of
Nnglish is also the era of high im#erialism in Nnglan". As Fritish
ca#italism $ecame thratene" an" #rogressively outstri##e" $y its younger
Kerman an" American rivals, the squali", un"ignifie" scram$le of too
much ca#ital chasing too fe overseas territories, hich as to culminate
in 141< in the first im#erialist orl" ar, create" the urgent nee" for a
sense of national mission an" i"entity. &hat as at stake in Nnglish
stu"ies as less Nnglish literatre than 1nglish literature: our great
national #oets Shakes#eare an" Cilton, the sense of an organic
national tra"ition an" i"entity to hich ne recruits coul" $e a"mitte" $y
the stu"y of humane letters. The re#orts of e"ucational $o"ies an" official
enquieries into the teaching of Nnglish, in this #erio" an" in the early
tentieth century, are stren ith nostalgic $ack!references to the
organic community of Nli:a$ethan Nnglan" in hich no$les an"
groun"lings foun" a common meeting!#lace in the Shakes#earian theater,
an" hich might still $e reinvente" to"ay. ,t is no acci"ent that the author
of one of the most influential government re#orts in this area, The
1<5
Tea$hing of 1nglish in 1nglan+ 014E11, as none other than Sir -enry
/e$olt, minor )ingoist #oet an" #er#etrator of the immortal line %lay u#.
#lay u#. an" #lay the game. *hris Fal"ick has #ointe" to the im#ortance
of a"mission of Nnglish literature to the civil service examinations in the
Victorian #erio": arme" ith this conveniently #ackage" version of their
cultural treasures, the servants of Fritish ,m#erialism coul" sally forth
overseas secure in a sense of their national i"entity, an" a$le to "is#lay that
cultural su#eriority to their envying colonial #eo#les.
4

,t took rather long for Nnglish, a su$)ect fit for omen, orkers, an"
those ishing to im#ress the natives, to #enetrate the $astions of ruling!
class #oer in Dxfor" an" *am$ri"ge. Nnglish as an u#start, amateurish
affair as aca"emic su$)ects ent, har"ly a$le to com#ete on equal terms
ith the rigors of Kreats or #hilology+ since every Nnglish gentleman rea"
his on literature in his s#are time anyay, hat as the #oint of
su$mitting it to systematic stu"y@ >ierce rearguar" actions ere fought $y
$oth ancient universities against this "istressingly "ilettante su$)ect: the
"efinition of an aca"emic su$)ect as hat coul" $e examine", an" since
Nnglish as no more than i"le gossi# a$out literary taste it as "ifficult to
kno ho to make it un#leasant enough to qualify as a #ro#er aca"emic
#ursuit. This, it might $e sai", is one of the fe #ro$lems associate" ith
the stu"y of Nnglish hich have since $een effectively resolve". The
frivolous contem#t for his su$)ect "is#laye" $y the first really literary
Dxfor" #rofessor, Sir &alter 2aleigh, has to $e $elieve".
15
2aleigh hel" his
#ost in the years lea"ing u# to the >irst &orl" &ar+ an" his relief at the
out$reak of the ar, an event hich alloe" him to a$an"on the feminine
vagaries of literature an" #ut his #en to something more manly ! ar
#ro#agan"a ! is #al#a$le in his riting. The only ay in hich Nnglish
seeme" likely to )ustify its existence in the ancient universities as $y
systematically mistaking itself for the classics+ $ut the classicists ere
har"ly keen to have this #athetic #aro"y of themselves aroun".
,f the first im#erialist orl" ar more or less #ut #ai" to Sir &alter
2aleigh, #rovi"ing him ith an heroic i"entity more confortingly in line
ith that of his Nli:a$ethan namesake, it also signale" the final victory of
Nnglish stu"ies at Dxfor" an" *am$ri"ge. Dne of the most strenuous
antagonists of Nnglish ! #hilology ! as colosely $oun" u# ith
Kermanic influence+ an" since Nnglan" ha##ene" to $e #assing through a
ma)or ar ith Kermany, it as #ossi$le to smear classical #hilology as
a form of #on"erous Teutonic nonsense ith hich no self!res#ecting
Nnglishman shoul" $e caught associating.
11
Nnglan"s victory over
Kermany meant a reneal of national #ri"e, an u#surge of #atriotism
hich coul" only ai" Nnglishs cause+ $ut at the same time the "ee#
trauma of the ar, its almost intolera$le questioning of every #reviously
hel" cultural asum#tion, gave rise to a s#iritual hungering, as one
contem#orary commentator "escri$e" it, for hich #oetry seeme" to
#rovi"e an anser. ,t is a chastening thought that e oe the university
stu"y of Nnglish, in #art at least, to a meaningless massacre. The Kreat
ar, ith its carnage of ruling!class rhetoric, #ut #ai" to some of the
more stri"ent forms of chauvinism on hich Nnglish ha" #reviously
thrive": there coul" $e fe more &alter 2aleigh after &ilfre" Den.
b
Nnglish =iterature ro"e to #oer on the $ack of artime nationalism+ $ut
it also re#resente" a search for s#iritual solutions on the #art of an
Nnglish ruling class hose sense of i"entity ha" $een #rofoun"ly shaken,
hose #syche as inera"ica$ly scarre" $y the horrors it ha" en"ure".
=iterature oul" $e at once solace an" reaffirmation, a familiar groun"
on hich Nnglishmen coul" regrou# $oth to ex#lore, an" to fin" some
alternative to, the nightmare of history.
<.1.7 >re"ric ?ameson: from The #olitics of theory: ,"eological #ositions in
the #ostmo"ernism "e$ate
The #ro$lem of #ostmo"ernism ! ho its fun"amental characteristics
are to $e "escri$e", hether it even exists in the first #lace, hether the
very $on$ept is of any use, or is, on the contrary, a mystification ! this
#ro$lem is at one an" the same time a aesthetic an" a #olitical one. The
various #ositions hich can logically $e taken on it, hatever terms they
are couche" in, can alays $e shon to articulate visions of history, in
1<1
hich the evaluation of the social moment in hich e live to"ay is the
o$)ect of an essentially #olitical affirmation or re#u"iation. ,n"ee", the
very ena$ling #remise of the "e$ate turns on an initial, strategic
#resu##osition a$out our social system: to grant some historic originality
to a #ostmo"ernist culture is also im#licitly to affirm some ra"ical
structural moments of the ca#italism from hich it emerge".
The various logical #ossi$ilities, hoever, are necessarily linke" ith the
taking of a #osition on that other issue inscri$e" in the very "esignation
#ostmo"erinsm itself, namely, the evaluation of hat must no $e calle"
high or classical mo"ernism itself. ,n"ee", hen e make some initial
inventory of the varie" cultural artifacts that might $e #lausi$ly
characteri:e" as #ostmo"ern, the tem#tation is strong to seek the family
resem$lance of such heterogeneous styles an" #ro"ucts, not in
themselves, $ut in some common high mo"ernist im#ulse an" aesthetic
against hich they all, in one ay or another, stan" in reaction.
The seemingly irre"uci$le variety of the #ostmo"ern can $e o$serve"
fully as #ro$lematically ithin the in"ivi"ual me"ia 0of arts1 as $eteen
them: hat affinities, $esi"es some overall generational reaction, to
esta$lish $eteen the ela$orate false sentences an" syntactic mimesis of
?ohn Ash$ery an" the much sim#ler talk #oetry that $egan to emerge in the
early 14I5s in #rotest against the /e *ritical aesthetic of com#lex, ironic
style@ Foth register, no "ou$t, $ut in very "ifferent ays in"ee", the
institutionali:ation of high mo"ernism in this same #erio", the shift from
an o##ositional to a hegemonic #osition of the classics of mo"ernism, the
latters conquest of the university, the museum, the art gallery netork an"
the foun"ations, the assimilation, in other or"s, of the various high
mo"ernisms, into the canon an" the su$sequent attenuation of everything
in them felt $y our gran"#arents to $e shocking, scan"alous, ugly,
"issonant, immoral an" antisocial. 'c(
,n narrative #ro#er, the "ominant conce#tion of a "issolution of linear
narrative, a re#u"iation of re#resentation, an" a revolutionary $reak ith
the 0re#ressive1 i"eology of storytelling generally "oes not seem a"equate
to enca#sulate such very "ifferent ork as that of Furroughs, $ut also of
%ynchon an" ,smael 2ee"+ of Feckett, $ut also of the >rench novea
ro(an an" its on sequels, an" of the non!fiction novel as ell, an" the
/e /arrative. Ceanhile, a significantly "istinct aesthetic has seeme"
to emerge $oth in commercial film an" in the novel ith the #ro"uction
of hat may $e calle" nostalgia art 0or la (o+e r8tro1.
Fut it is evi"ently architecture hich is the #rivilege" terrain of struggle
of #ostmo"ernism an" the most strategic fiel" in hich this conce#t has
$een "e$ate" an" its consequences ex#lore". /ohere else has the "eath
of mo"ernism $een felt so intensely, or #ronounce" more stri"ently+
nohere else have the theoretical an" #ractical stakes $een articulate"
more #rogrammatically. Df a $urgeoning literature on the su$)ect, 2o$ert
Venturis Learning fro( Las 5egas 014911, a series of "iscussions $y
*hristo#her ?encks, an" %ier %aolo %ortoghesis Fiennale #resentation,
After Mo+ern Ar$hite$tre, may $e cite" as usefully illuminating the
central issues in the attack on the architectural high mo"ernism of the
,nternational Style 0=e *or$usier, &right, Cies1: namely, the $ankru#tcy
of the monumental 0$uil"ings hich, as Venturi #uts it, are really
s$lptres1, the failure of its #roto#olitical or Hto#ian #rogram 0the
transformation of all social life $y ay of the transformation of s#ace1, its
elitism inclu"ing the authoritarianism of the charismatic lea"er, an"
finally its virtual "estruction of the ol"er city fa$ric $y a #roliferation of
glass $oxes an" of high rises that, "is)oining themselves from their
imme"iate contexts, turn these last into the "egra"e" #u$lic s#ace of an
ur$an no!man s!lan". 'c(
Dn the hole, four general #ositions on #ostmo"ernism may $e
"isengage" from the variety of recent #ronouncements on the su$)ect+ yet
even this relatively neat scheme of $o(%inatoire is further com#licate"
$y ones im#ression that each of these #ossi$ilities is susce#ti$le of either
a #olitically #rogressive or a #olitically reactionary ex#ression 0s#eaking
no from a Carxist or more generally left #ers#ective1.
Dne can, for exam#le, salute the arrival of #ostmo"ernism from an
essentially anti!mo"ernist stan"#oint.
96
A somehat earlier generation of
96
The folloing analysis "oes not seem to me a##lica$le to the ork of the
%on+ary t"o grou#, ho early on a##ro#riate" the term #ostmo"ernism in the
1<E
theorists 0most nota$ly ,ha$ -assan1 seems alrea"y to have "one
something like this hen they "ealt ith the #ostmo"ernist aesthetic in
terms of a more #ro#erly #oststructuralist thematics 0the Tel .el attack on
i"eology of re#resentation, the -ei"eggerian or Berri"ean en" of &estern
meta#hysics1: here hat is often not yet calle" #ostmo"ernism 0see the
Hto#ian #ro#hecy at the en" of >oucaults The Or+er of Things1 is salute"
as the coming of a hole ne ay of thinking an" $eing in the orl". Fut
since -assans cele$ration also inclu"es a num$er of more extreme
monuments of high mo"ernism 0?oyce, CallarmL1, this oul" $e a
relatively more am$iguous stance, ere it not for the accom#anying
cele$ration of a ne information high technology hich marks the affinity
$eteen such evocations an" the #olitical thesis of a #ro#erly
postin+strial so$iety.
All of hich is largely "isam$iguate" in Tom &olfes Fro( 4ahas to
Or 3ose, an otherise un"istinguishe" $ook re#ort on the recent
architectural "e$ates $y a riter hose on /e ?ournalism itself
constitutes one of the varieties of #ostmo"ernism. 'c(
These #ositions ! anti!mo"ern, #re!#ostmo"ern ! then fin" their o##osite
num$er an" structural inversion in a grou# of counter!statements hose
aim is to "iscre"it the sho""iness an" irres#onsi$ility of the #ostmo"ern in
general $y ay of a reaffirmation of the authentic im#ulse of a high
mo"ernist tra"ition still consi"ere" to $e alive an" vital. -ilton 3ramers
tin manifestoes in the inaugural issue of his ne )ournal, The Ne"
<riterion, articulate these vies ith force, contrasting the moral
res#onsi$ility of the master#ieces an" monuments of classical
mo"ernism ith the fun"amental irres#onsi$ility an" su#erficiality of a
#ostmo"ernism associate" ith cam# an" ith the facetiousness of
hich the &olfe style is a ri#e an" o$vious exam#le.
&hat is more #ara"oxical is that #olitically &olfe an" 3ramer have
much in common+ an" there oul" seem to $e a certain inconsistency in
the ay in hich 3ramer must seek to era"icate from the high
seriousness of the classics of the mo"ern their fun"amentally anti!mi""le!
rather "ifferent sense of a critique of esta$lishment mo"ernist thought.
class stance an" the #roto#olitical #assion hich informs the re#u"iation,
$y great mo"ernists, of Victorian ta$oos an" family life, of
commo"ification an" of the increasing as#hyxiation of a "esacrali:ing
ca#italism, from ,$sen to =arence, from Van Kogh to ?ackson %ollock.
3ramers ingenious attem#t to assimilate this ostensi$ly anti!$ourgeois
stance of the great mo"ernists to a loyal o##osition secretly nourishe",
$y ay of foun"ation an" grants, the $ourgeoisie itself ! hile the most
unconvincing in"ee" ! is surely itself ena$le" $y the contra"ictions of the
cultural #olitics of mo"ernism #ro#er, hose negations "e#en" on the
#ersistence of hat they re#u"iate an" entertain ! hen they "o not, very
rarely in"ee" 0as in Frecht1, attain some genuine #olitical self!
consciousness ! a sym$olic relationshi# ith ca#ital.
,t is, hoever, easier to un"erstan" 3ramers move here hen the
#olitical #ro)ect of The Ne" <riterion is clarifie": for the mission of the
)ournal is clearly to era"icate the 14I5s an" hat remains of that legacy,
to consign that hole #erio" to the kin" of o$livion hich the 1465s ere
a$le to "evise for the 1485s or the 14E5s for the rich #olitical culture of
the #re!&orl"!&ar!, era. The Ne" <riterion therefore inscri$es itself in
the effort, on!going an" at ork everyhere to"ay, to construct some
ne conservative cultural counter!revolution, hose terms range from
the aesthetic to the ultimate "efence of the family an" of religion. 'c(
,t ill not $e sur#rising, in the light of hat has $een shon for an
earlier set of #ositions on mo"ernism an" #ostmo"ernism, that in s#ite of
the o#enly conservative i"eology of this secon" evaluation of the
contem#orary cultural scene, the latter can also $e a##ro#riate" for hat
is surely a far more #rogressive line on the su$)ect. &e are in"e$te" to
?Srgen -a$ermas
9I
for this "ramatic reversal an" rearticulation of hat
remains the affirmation of su#reme value of the Co"ern an" the
re#u"iation of the theory, as ell as the #ractice, of #ostmo"ernism. >or
-a$ermas, hoever, the vice of #ostmo"ernism consists very centrally in
its #olitically reactionary function, as the attem#t everyhere to "iscre"it
9I
See his Co"ernity ! An ,ncom#lete %ro)ect, in -al >oster, e"., The Anti=
Aestheti$ 0%ort Tonsen", &ashington: Fay %ress, 14781, ##. 8!16.
1<8
a mo"ernist im#ulse -a$ermas himself associates ith the $ourgeois
Nnlightenment an" ith the latters still universali:ing an" Hto#ian s#irit.
&ith A"orno himself, -a$ermas seeks to rescue an" to recommemorate
hat $oth see as the essentially negative, critical an" Hto#ian #oer of the
great high mo"ernisms. 'c(
Foth of the #revious #ositions ! antimo"ernU#re#ostmo"ern , an"
#remo"ernUanti#ostmo"ern ! are characteri:e" $y an acce#tance of the
ne term hich is tantamount to an agreement on the fun"amental nature
of some "ecisive $reak $eteen the mo"ern an" the #ostmo"ern
moments, hoever these last are evaluate". There remain, hoever, to
final logical #ossi$ilities, $oth of hich "e#en" on the re#u"iation of any
conce#tion of such a historical $reak an" hich therefore, im#licitly or
ex#licitly, call into question the usefulness of the very category of
#ostmo"ernism. As for the orks associate" ith the latter, they ill then
$e assimilate" $ack into classical mo"ernism #ro#er, so that the
#ostmo"ern $ecomes little more than the form taken $y the authentically
mo"ern in our on #erio", an" a mere "ialectical intensification of the ol"
mo"ernist im#ulse toar"s innovation. 'c(
The to final #ositions on the su$)ect thus logically #rove to $e a
#ositive an" negative assessment res#ectively of a #ostmo"ernism no
assimilate" $ack into the high mo"ernist tra"ition. ?ean!>randois =yotar"
99
thus #ro#oses that his on vital commitment to the ne an" the emergent,
to a contem#orary or #ostcontem#orary cultural #ro"uction no i"ely
characteri:e" as #ostmo"ern, $e gras#e" as #art an" #arcel of a
reaffirmation of the authentic ol"er higher mo"ernisms very much in
A"ornos s#irit. The ingenious tist or serve in his on #ro#osal
involves the #ro#osition that something calle" #ostmo"ernism "oes not
follo" high mo"ernism #ro#er, as the latters aste #ro"uct, $ut rather
very #recisely pre$e+es an" #re#ares it, so that the contem#orary
#ostmo"ernisms all aroun" us may $e seen as the #romise of the return an"
99
See Ansering the Auestions: &hat is %ostmo"ernism@ in ?.!>. =yotar",
The 0ost(o+ern <on+ition 0Cinnea#olis: Hniversity of Cinnesota %ress, 147<1,
##. 91!7E+ the $ook itself focuses #rimarily on science an" e#istemology rather
than on culture.
the reinvention, the trium#hant rea##earance, of some ne high
mo"ernism en"oe" ith all its ol"er #oer an" ith fresh life. This is a
#ro#hetic stance, hose analyses turn on the anti!re#resentational thrust
of mo"ernism an" #ostmo"ernism+ =yotar"s aesthetic #ositions,
hoever, cannot $e a"equately evaluate" in aesthetic terms, since hat
informs them is an essentially social an" #olitical conce#tion of a ne
social system $eyon" classical ca#italism 0our ol" frien", #ostin"ustrial
society1: the vision of a regenerate" mo"ernism is in that sense
inse#ara$le from a certain #ro#hetic faith in the #ossi$ilities an" the
#romise of the ne society itself in full emergence.
The negative inversion of this #osition ill then clearly involve an
i"eological re#u"iation of mo"ernism of a ty#e hich might conceiva$ly
range from =uk[cs ol"er analysis of mo"ernist forms as the re#lication
of the reification of ca#italist social life all the ay to some of the more
articulate" critiques of high mo"ernisms of the #resent "ay. &hat
"istinguishe" this final #osition from the antimo"ernisms outline" a$ove
is, hoever, that it "oes not s#eak from the security of an affirmation of
some ne #ostmo"ernist culture, $ut rather sees even the latter itself as a
mere "egeneration of the alrea"y stigmati:e" im#ulses in high
mo"ernism #ro#er. This #articular #osition, #erha#s the $leakest of all
an" the most im#laca$ly negative, can $e vivi"ly confronte" in the orks
of the Venetian architecture historian Canfre"o Tafuri, hose extensive
analyses constitute a #oerful in"ictment of hat e have terme" the
#roto#olitical im#ulses in high mo"ernism 0the Hto#ian su$stitution of
cultural #olitics for #olitics #ro#er, the vocation to transform the orl" $y
transforming its forms, s#ace or language1. 'c(
Fut a genuinely historical an" "ialectical analysis of such #henomena !
#articularly hen it is a matter of a #resent of time an" of history in
hich e ourselves exist an" struggle ! cannot affor" the im#overishe"
luxury of such a$solute morali:ing )u"gements: the "ialectic is $eyon"
goo" an" evil in the sense of some easy taking of si"es, hence the
glacial an" inhuman s#irit of its historical vision 0something that alrea"y
"istur$e" contem#oraries a$out -egels original system1. The #oint is
that e are "ithin the culture of #ostmo"ernism to the #oint here its
1<<
facile re#u"iation is as im#ossi$le as any equally facile cele$ration of it is
com#lacent an" corru#t. ,"eological )u"gement on #ostmo"ernism to"ay
necessarily im#lies, one oul" think, a )u"gement on ourselves as ell as
on the artifacts in question+ nor can an entire historical #erio", such as our
on, $e gras#e" in any a"equate ay $y mean of glo$al moral )u"gements
or their somehat "egra"e" equivalent, #o#!#sychological "iagnosis 0such
as those of =aschs <ltre of Nar$issis(1. Dn the classical Carxian vie,
the see"s of the future alrea"y exist ithin the #resent an" must $e
conce#tually "isengage" from it, $oth through analysis an" though
#olitical #raxis 0the orkers of the %aris *ommune, Carx once remarke"
in a striking #hrase, have no i+eals to realize + they merely sought to
"isengage emergent forms of ne social relations from the ol"er ca#italist
social relations in hich the former ha" alrea"y $egun to stir1. ,n #lace of
the tem#tation either to "enounce the com#lacencies of #ostmo"ernism as
some final sym#tom of "eca"ence, or to salute the ne forms as the
har$ingers of a ne technological an" technocratic Hto#ia, it seems more
a##ro#riate to assess the ne cultural #ro"uction ithin the orking
hy#othesis of a general mo"ification of culture itself ithin the social
restructuration of late ca#italism as a system. 'c(
&hat can at least $e a"mitte" is the more universal #resence of this
#articular feature, hich a##ears more unam$iguously in the other arts as
an effacement of the ol"er "istinction $eteen high an" so!calle" mass
culture, a "istinction on hich mo"ernism "e#en"e" for its s#ecificity, its
Hto#ian function consisting at least in #art in the securing of a realm of
authentic ex#erience over against the surroun"ing environment of
#hilistinism, of schlock an" kitsch, of commo"ification an" of 2ea"ers
Bigest culture. ,n"ee", it can $e argue" that the emergence of high
mo"ernism is itself contem#oraneous ith the first great ex#ansion of a
recogni:a$le mass culture 0Pola may $e taken as the marker for the last
coexistence of the art novel an" the $estseller to $e ithin the single text1.
,t is no this constitutive "ifferentiation hich seems on the #oint of
"isa##earing: e have alrea"y mentione" the ay in hich, in music, after
Schon$ergm an" even after *age, the to antithetical tra"itions of the
classical an" the #o#ular once again $egin to merge. ,n a more general
ay, it seems clear that the artists of the #ostmo"ern #erio" have $een
fascinate" #recisely $y the hole ne o$)ect orl", not merely of the
=as Vegas stri#, $ut also of the late sho an" the gra"e!F -ollyoo"
film, of so!calle" #araliterature ith its air#ort #a#er$ack categories of
the gothic an" the romance, the #o#ular $iogra#hy, the mur"er mystery
an" the science!fiction or fantasy novel 0in such a ay that the ol"er
generic categories "iscre"ite" $y mo"ernism seem on the #oint of living
an unex#ecte" rea##earance1. ,n the visual arts, the reneal of
#hotogra#hy as a significant me"ium in its on right, an" also as the
#lane of su$stance in #o# art or #hotorealism is a crucial sym#tom of
the same #rocess. At any rate, it $ecomes minimally o$vious that the
neer artists no longer quote the materials, the fragments an" motifs, of
a mass or #o#ular culture, as ?oyce 0an" >lau$ert1 $egan to "o, or Cahler+
they someho incor#orate them to the #oint here many of our critical
an" evaluative categories 0foun"e" #recisely on the ra"ical "ifferentiation
of mo"ernist an" mass culture1 no longer seem functional.
Fut if this is the case, then it seems at least #ossi$le that hat ears the
mask an" makes the gestures of #o#ulism in the various #ostmo"ernist
a#ologias an" manifestoes is in reality a mere reflex an" sym#tom of a
0to $e sure momentuous1 cultural mutation, in hich hat use" to $e
stigmati:e" as mass or commercial culture is no receive" into the
#recincts of a ne an" enlarge" cultural realm. ,n any case, one oul"
ex#ect a term "ran from the ty#ology of #olitical i"eologies to un"ergo
$asic semantic rea")ustments hen its initial referent 0that %o#ular!front
class coalition of orkers, #easants an" #etty $ourgeois generally calle"
the #eo#le1 has "isa##eare".
%erha#s, hoever, this is not so ne a story after all: one remem$ers,
in"ee", >reu"s "elight at "iscovering an o$scure tri$al culture, hich
alone among the multitu"inous tra"itions of "ream!analysis on the earth
ha" manage" to hit on the notion that all "reams ha" hi""en sexual
meanings ! exce#t for sexual "reams, hich meant something else. So
also it oul" seem in the #ostmo"ernist "e$ate, an" the "e#olitici:e"
$ureaucratic society to hich it corres#on"s, here all seemingly cultural
#ositions turn out to $e sym$olic forms of #olitical morali:ing, exce#t for
1<6
the single overtly #olitical note, hich suggests a sli##age from #olitics
$ack into culture again. , have the feeling that the only a"equate ay out
of this vicious circle, $esi"es #raxis itself, is a historical an" "ialectical
vie hich seeks to gras# the #resent as -istory.
<.1.4 >re"eric ?ameson: from Dn ,nter#retation: =iterature As a Socially
Sym$olic Act
This $ook ill argue the #riority of the #olitical inter#retation of literary
texts. ,t conceives of the #olitical #ers#ective not as some su##lementary
metho", not as an o#tional auxiliary to other inter#retive metho"s, current
to"ay ! the #sychoanalytic or the myth!critical, the stylistic, the ethical, the
structural ! $ut rather as the a$solute hori:on of all rea"ing an"all
inter#retation.
This is evi"ently a much more extreme #osition than the mo"est claim,
surely acce#ta$le to everyone, that certain texts have social an" historical!
sometimes even #olitical!resonance. Tra"itional literary history has, of
course, never #rohi$ite" the investigation of such to#ics as the >lorentine
#olitical $ackgroun" in Bante, Ciltons relationshi# to the schismatics, or
,rish historical allusions in ?oyce. , oul" argue, hoever, that such
information ! even here it is not recontaine", as it is in most instances, $y
an i"ealistic conce#tion of the history of i"eas ! "oes not yiel"
inter#retation as such, $ut rather at $est its 0in"is#ensa$le1 #recon"itions.
To"ay this #ro#erly antiquarian relationshi# to the cultural #ast has a
"ialectical counter#art hich is ultimately no more satisfactory+ , mean the
ten"ency of much contem#orary theory to rerite selecte" texts from the
#ast in terms of its on aesthetic an", in #articular, in terms of a mo"ernist
0or more #ro#erly #ostmo"ernist1 conce#tion of language.
This unacce#ta$le o#tion, or i"eological "ou$le $in", $eteen
antiquarianism an" mo"erni:ing relevance or #ro)ection "emonstrates
that the ol" "ilemmas of historicism ! an" in #articular, the question of the
claims of monuments from "istant an" even archaic moments of the
cultural #ast on a culturally "ifferent #resent ! "o not go aay )ust
$ecause e choose to ignore them. Dur #resu##osition, in the analyses
that follo, ill $e that only a genuine #hiloso#hy of history is ca#a$le of
res#ecting the s#ecificity an" ra"ical "ifference of the social an" cultural
#ast hile "isclosing the soli"arity of its #olemics an" #assions, its
forms, structures, ex#eriences, an" struggles, ith those of the #resent
"ay. '...(
Cy #osition here is that only Carxism offers a #hiloso#hically
coherent an" i"eologically com#elling resolution to the "ilemma of
historicism evoke" a$ove. Dnly Carxism can give us an a"equate
account of the essential (ystery of the cultural #ast, hich, like Tiresias
"rinking the $loo", is momentarily returne" to life an" armth an"
alloe" once more to s#eak, an" to "eliver its long!forgotten message in
surroun"ings utterly alien to it. This mystery can $e reenacte" only if the
human a"venture is one+ only thus ! an" not through the ho$$ies of
antiquarianism or the #ro)ections of the mo"ernists ! can e glim#se the
vital claims u#on us of such long!"ea" issues as the seasonal alternation
of the economy of a #rimitive tri$e, the #assionate "is#utes a$out the
nature of the Trinity, the conflicting mo"els of the polis of the universal
Nm#ire, or, a##arently closer to us in time, the "usty #arliamentary an"
)ournalistic #olemics of the nineteenth!century nation states. These
matters can recover their original urgency for us only if they are retol"
ithin the unity of a single great collective story+ only if, in hoever
"isguise" an" sym$olic a form, they are seen as sharing a single
fun"amental theme ! for Carxism, the collective struggle to rest a realm
of >ree"om from a realm of /ecessity+ only if they are gras#e" as vital
e#iso"es in a single vast unfinishe" #lot: The history of all hitherto
existing society is the history of class struggles: freeman an" slave,
#atrician an" #le$eian, lor" an" serf, guil"!master an" )ourneyman ! in a
or", o##ressor an" o##resse" ! an" stoo" in constant o##osition to one
another, carrie" on an uninterru#te", no hi""en, no o#en fight, a fight
that each time en"e", either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at
1<I
large or in the common ruin of the conten"ing classes.
97
,t is in "etecting
the traces of that uninterru#te" narrative, in restoring to the surface of the
text the re#resse" an" $urie" reality of this fun"amental history, that the
"octrine of a #olitical unconscious fin"s its function an" its necessity.
>rom this #ers#ective the convenient orking "istinction $eteen
cultural texts that are social an" #olitical an" those that are not $ecomes
something orse than an error: namely, a sym#tom an" the reinforcement
of the reification an" #rivati:ation of contem#orary life. '...( To imagine
that, sheltere" from the omni#resence of history an" the im#laca$le
influence of the social, there alrea"y exists a realm of free"om ! hether it
$e that of the microsco#ic ex#erience ith or"s in a text or the ecstasies
an" intensities of the various #rivate religions ! is only to strengthen the
gri# of /ecessity over all such $lin" :ones in hich the in"ivi"ual su$)ect
seeks refuge, in #ursuit of a #urely in"ivi"ual, a merely #sychological,
#ro)ect of salvation. The only effective li$eration from such constrain
$egins ith the recognition that there is nothing that is not social an"
historical ! in"ee", that everything is in the last analysis #olitical.
The assertion of a #olitical unconscious #ro#oses that e un"ertake )ust
such a final analysis an" ex#lore the multi#le #aths that lea" to the
unmasking of cultural artifacts as socially sym$olic acts. ,t #ro)ects a rival
hermeneutic to those alrea"y enumerate"+ $ut it "oes so, as e shall see,
not so much $y re#u"iating their fin"ings as $y arguing its ultimate
#hiloso#hical an" metho"ological #riority over more s#eciali:e"
inter#retive co"es hose insights are strategically limite" as much $y their
on situational origins as $y the narro or local ays in hich they
construe or construct their o$)ects of stu"y.
Still, to "escri$e the rea"ings an" analyses containe" in the #resent
ork as so many interpretations- to #resent them as so many exhi$its in
the construction of a ne her(eneti$- is alrea"y to announce a hole
#olemic #rogram, hich must necessarily come to terms ith a critical an"
theoretical climate variously hostile to these slogans. ,t is, for instance,
97
3arl Carx an" >rie"erich Nngels, The *ommunist Canifesto, in 3arl Carx, On
Revoltion- e". An" trans. S. 3. %a"over 0/e Jork, 14911, #. 71.
increasingly clear that hermeneutic or inter#retive activity has $ecome
one of the $asic #olemic targets of contem#orary #ost!structuralism in
>rance, hich ! #oerfully $uttresse" $y the authority of /iet:sche ! has
ten"e" to i"entify such o#erations ith historicism, an" in #articular ith
the "ialectic an" its valori:ation of a$sence an" the negative, its assertion
of the necessity an" #riority of totali:ing thought. , ill agree ith this
i"entification, ith this "escri#tion of the i"eological affinities an"
im#lications of the i"eal of the inter#retive of hermeneutic act+ $ut , ill
argue that the critique is mis#lace". '...(
'...( =eaving asi"e for the moment the #ossi$ility of any genuinely
immanent criticism, e ill assume that a criticism hich asks the
question &hat "oes it mean@ constitutes something like an allegorical
o#eration in hich a text is systematically re"ritten in terms of some
fun"amental master co"e or ultimately "etermining instance. Dn this
vie, all inter#retation in the narroer sense "eman"s the forci$le or
im#erce#ti$le transformation of a given text into an allegory of its
#articular master co"e or transcen"ental signifie" : the "iscre"it into
hich inter#retation has fallen is thus at one ith the "isre#ute visite" on
allegory itself.
Jet to see inter#retation this ay is to acquire the instruments $y
hich e can force a given inter#retive #ractice to stan" an" yiel" u# its
name, to $lurt out its master co"e an" there$y reveal its meta#hysical an"
i"eological un"er#innings. ,t shoul" not, in the #resent intellectual
atmos#here, $e necessary la$oriously to argue the #osition that every
form of #ractice, inclu"ing the literary!critical kin", im#lies an"
#resu##oses a form of theory+ that em#iricism, the mirage of an utterly
nontheoretical #ractice, is a contra"iction in terms+ that even the most
formali:ing kin"s of literary or textual analysis carry a theoretical charge
hose "enial unmasks it as i"eological. '...( , ill here go much further
than this, an" argue that even the most innocently formali:ing rea"ings of
the /e *riticism have as their essential an" ultimate function the
#ro#agation of this #articular vie of hat history is. ,n"ee", no orking
mo"el of the functioning of language, the nature of communication or of
the s#eech act, an" the "ynamics of formal an" stylistic change is
1<9
conceiva$le hich "oes not im#ly a hole #hiloso#hy of history. '...(
,nter#retation #ro#er!hat e have calle" strong reriting, of ethical
co"es, hich all in one ay or another #ro)ect various notions of the unity
an" the coherence of consciousness ! alays #resu##oses, if not a
conce#tion of the unconscious itself, then at least a mechanism of
mystification or re#ression in terms of hich it oul" make sense to seek
a latent meaning $ehin" a manifest one, or to rerite the surface categories
of a text in the stronger language of a more fun"amental inter#retive co"e.
This is #erha#s the #lace to anser the o$)ection of the or"inary rea"er,
hen confronte" ith ela$orate an" ingenious inter#retations, that the text
means )ust hat it says. Hnfortunately, no society has ever $een quite so
mystifie" in quite so many ays as our on, saturate" as it is ith
message an" information, the very vehicles of mystification 0language, as
Talleyran" #ut it, having $een given s in or"er to conceal our thoughts1. ,f
everything ere trans#arent, then no i"eology oul" $e #ossi$le, an" no
"omination either: evi"ently that is not our case. Fut a$ove an" $eyon" the
sheer fact of mystification, e must #oint to the su##lementary #ro$lem
involve" in the stu"y of cultural an" literary texts, or in other or"s,
essentially, of narratives: for even if "iscursive language ere to $e taken
literally, there is alays, an" constitutively, a #ro$lem a$out the meaning
of narrative as such+ an" the #ro$lem a$out the assessment an" su$sequent
formulation of the meaning of this or that narrative is the hermeneutic
question, hich leaves as "ee#ly involve" in our #resent inquiry as e
ere hen the o$)ection as raise". '...(
'...( The ty#e of inter#retation here #ro#ose" is more satisfactorily
gras#e" as the reriting of the literary text in such a ay that the latter
may itself $e seen as the reriting or restructuration of a #rior historical or
i"eological s%te#t- it $eing alays un"erstoo" that the su$text is not
imme"iately #resent as such, not some commonsense external reality, nor
even the conventional narrative of history manuals, $ut rather must itself
alays $e 0re1constructe" after the fact. The literary or aesthetic act
therefore alays entertains some active relationshi# ith the 2eal: yet in
or"er to "o so, it cannot sim#ly allo reality to #ersevere inertly in its
on $eing, outsi"e the text an" at "istance. ,t must rather "ra the 2eal
into its on texture, an" the ultimate #ara"oxes an" false #ro$lems of
linguistics, an" most nota$ly of semantics, are to $e trace" $ack to this
#rocess, here$y language manages to carry the 2eal ithin itself as its
on intrinsic or immanent su$text. ,nsofar, in other or"s, as sym$olic
action ! hat Furke ill ma# as "ream, #rayer, or chart
94
! is a ay
of "oing something to the orl", to that "egree hat e are calling
orl" must inhere ithin it, as the content it has to take u# into itself in
or"er to su$mit it to the transformation of form. The sym$olic cat
therefore $egins $y generating an" #ro"ucing its on context in the same
moment of emergence in hich it ste#s $ack from it, taking its measure
ith a vie toar" its on #ro)ects of transformation. The hole
#ara"ox of hat e have here calle" the su$text may $e summe" u# in
this, that the literary ork or cultural o$)ect, as though for the first time,
$rings into $eing that very situation to hich it is also, at one an" the
same time, a reaction. ,t articulates its on situation an" textuali:es it,
there$y encouraging an" #er#etuating the illusion that the situation itself
"i" not exist $efore it, that there is nothing $ut a text, that there never as
any extra ! or con!textual reality $efore the text itself generate" it in the
form of a mirage. Dne "oes not have to argue the reality of history:
necessity, like Br ?ohnsons stone, "oes that for us. That history !
Althussers a$sent cause, =acans 2eal ! is not a text, for is
fun"amentally non!narrative an" nonre#resentational+ hat can $e a""e",
hoever, is the #roviso that history is inaccessi$le to us exce#t in textual
form, or in other or"s, that it can $e a##roache" only $y ay of #rior
0re1textuali:ation. Thus, to insist on either of the to inse#ara$le yet
incommensura$le "imensions of the sym$olic act ithout the other: to
overem#hasi:e the active ay in hich the text reorgani:es its su$text 0in
or"er, #resuma$ly, to reach the trium#hant conclusion that the referent
)*
:enneh >$r7e, The hiloso!hy of Literary "orm (>er7eley, ?alif2,
1*)+), pp2 ,&6@ and see my Aymboli! Bnferen!e@ or, :enneh >$r7e and
Bdeologi!al #nalysis", #ritical In$uiry, = (1*)8), pp2 ,<)&2+2
1<7
"oes not exist1+ or on the other han" to stress the imaginary status of the
sym$olic act so com#letely as to reify its social groun", no no longer
un"erstoo" as a su$text $ut merely as some inert given that the text
#assively or fantasmatically reflects ! to overstress either of these
functions of the sym$olic act at the ex#ense of the other is surely to
#ro"uce sheer i"eology, hether it $e, as in the first alternative, the
i"eology of structuralism, or, in the secon", that of vulgar materialism. '...(
-istory is therefore the ex#erience of /ecessity, an" it is this alone
hich can forestall its themati:ation or reification as a mere o$)ect of
re#resentation or as one master co"e among many others. /ecessity is not
in that sense a ty#e of content, $ut rather the inexora$le for( of events+ it
is therefore a narrative category in the enlarge" sense of some #ro#erly
narrative #olitical unconscious hich has $een argue" here, a
retextuali:ation of -istory hich "oes not #ro#ose the latter as some ne
re#resentation or vision, some ne content, $ut as the formal effects of
hat Althusser, folloing S#ino:a, calls an a$sent cause. *onceive" in
this sense, -istory is hat hurts , it is hat refuses "esire an" sets
inexora$le limits to in"ivi"ual as ell as collective #raxis, hich it ruses
turn into grisly an" ironic reversals of their overt intention. Fut this
-istory can $e a##rehen"e" only through its effects, an" never "irectly as
some reifie" force. This is in"ee" the ultimate sense in hich -istory as
groun" an" untranscen"a$le hori:on nee"s #articular theoretical
)ustification: e may $e sure that its alienating necessities ill not forget
us, hoever much e might #refer to ignore them.
<.1.15 2aymon" &illiams: from Bominant, 2esi"ual, an" Nmergent
The com#lexity of a culture is to $e foun" not only in its varia$le
#rocesses an" their social "efinitions ! tra"itions, institutions, an"
formations ! $ut also in the "ynamic interrelations, at every #oint in the
#rocess, of historically varie" an" varia$le elements. ,n hat , have calle"
e#ochal analysis, a cultural #rocess is sei:e" as a cultural system, ith
"eterminate "ominant features: feu"al culture or $ourgeois culture or a
transition from one to the other. This em#hasis on "ominant an"
"efinitive lineaments an" features is im#ortant an" often, in #ractice,
effective. Fut it often ha##ens that its metho"ology is #reserve" for the
very "ifferent function of historical analysis, in hich a sense of
movement ithin hat is or"inarily a$stracte" as a system is crucially
necessary, es#ecially if it is to connect ith the future as ell as ith the
#ast. ,n authentic historical analysis it is necessary at every #oint to
recogni:e the com#lex interrelations $eteen movements an" ten"encies
$oth ithin an" $eyon" a s#ecific an" effective "ominance. ,t is
necessary to examine ho these relate to the hole cultural #rocess
rather than only to the selecte" an" a$stracte" "ominant system. Thus
$ourgeois culture is a significant generali:ing "escri#tion an"
hy#othesis, ex#resse" ithin e#ochal analysis $y fun"amental
com#arison ith feu"al culture or socialist culture. -oever, as a
"escri#tion of cultural #rocess, over four or five centuries an" in scores of
"ifferent societies, it requires imme"iate historical an" internally
com#arative "ifferentiation. Coreover, even if this is acknole"ge" or
#ractically carrie" out, the e#ochal "efinition can exert its #ressure as a
static ty#e against hich all real cultural #rocess is measure", either to
sho stages or variations of the ty#e 0hich is still historical
analysis1, or, at its orst, to select su##orting an" exclu"e marginal or
inci"ental or secon"ary evi"ence.
Such errors are avoi"a$le if, hile retaining the e#ochal hy#othesis,
e can fin" terms hich recogni:e not only stages an" variations $ut
the internal "ynamic relations of any actual #rocess. &e have certainly
still to s#eak of the "ominant an" the effective, an" in these senses of
the hegemonic. Fut e fin" that e have also to s#eak, an" in"ee" ith
further "ifferentiation of each, of the resi"ual an" the emergent, hich
in any real #rocess, an" at every moment in the #rocess, are significant
$oth in themselves an" in hat they reveal of the characteristics of the
"ominant.
Fy resi"ual , mean something "ifferent from the archaic, though in
#ractice these are often very "ifficult to "istinguish. Any culture inclu"es
1<4
availa$le elements of its #ast, $ut their #lace in the contem#orary cultural
#rocess is #rofoun"ly varia$le. , oul" call the archaic that hich is
holly recogni:e" as an element of the #ast, to $e o$serve", to $e
examine", or even on occasion to $e consciously revive", in a
"eli$erately s#eciali:ing ay. &hat , mean $y the resi"ual is very
"ifferent. The resi"ual, $y "efinition, has $een effectively forme" in the
#ast, $ut it is still active in the cultural #rocess, not only an" often not at all
as an element of the #ast, $ut as an effective element of the #resent. Thus
certain ex#eriences, meanings, an" values hich cannot $e ex#resse" or
su$stantially verifie" in terms of the "ominant culture, are nevertheless
live" an" #ractise" on the $asis of the resi"ue ! cultural as ell as social !
of some #revious social an" cultural institution or formation. ,t is crucial to
"istinguish this as#ect of the resi"ual, hich may have an alternative or
even o##ositional relation to the "ominant culture, from that active
manifestation of the resi"ual 0this $eing its "istinction from the archaic1
hich has $een holly or largely incor#orate" into the "ominant culture.
'...(
A resi"ual cultural element is usually at some "istance from the
effective "ominant culture, $ut some #art of it, some version of it ! an"
es#ecially if the resi"ue is from some area of the #ast ! ill in most cases
have ha" to $e incor#orate" if the effective "ominant culture is to make
sense in these areas. Coreover, at certain #oints the "ominant culture
cannot allo too much resi"ual ex#erience an" #ractice outsi"e itself, at
least ithout risk. ,t is in the incor#oration of the actively resi"ual ! $y
reinter#retation, "ilution, #ro)ection, "iscriminating inclusion an"
exclusion ! that the ork of the selective tra"ition is es#ecially evi"ent.
This is very nota$le in the case of versions of the literary tra"ition,
#assing through selective versions of the character of literature to
connecting an" incor#orate" "efinitions of hat literature no is an"
shoul" $e. This is one among several crucial areas, since it is in some
alternative or even o##ositional versions of hat literature is 0has Feen1
an" hat literary ex#erience 0an" in one common "erivation other
significant ex#erience1 is an" must $e, that, against the #ressures of
incor#oration, actively resi"ual meanings an" values are sustaine".
Fy emergent , mean, first, that ne meanings an" values, ne
#ractices, ne relationshi#s an" kin"s of relationshi# are continually
$eing create". Fut it is exce#tionally "ifficult "istinguish $eteen those
hich are really elements of some ne #hase of the "ominant culture
0an" in this sense s#ecies!s#ecific1 an" those hich are su$stantially
alternative or o##ositional to it+ emergent in the strict sense, rather than
merely novel. Since e are alays consi"ering relations ithin a cultural
#rocess, "efinitions of the emergent, as of the resi"ual, can $e ma"e only
in relation to a full sense of the "ominant. Jet the social location of the
resi"ual is alays easier to un"erstan", since a large #art of it 0though not
all1 relates to earlier social formations an" #hases of the cultural #rocess,
in hich certain real meanings an" values hich ere create" in actual
societies an" actual situations in the #ast, an" hich still seem to have
significance $ecause they re#resent areas of human ex#erience,
as#iration, an" achievement hich the "ominant culture neglects,
un"ervalues, o##oses, re#resses, or even cannot recogni:e.
The case of the emergent is ra"ically "ifferent. ,t is true that in the
structure of any actual society, an" es#ecially in its class structure, there
is alays a social $asis for elements of the cultural #rocess that are
alternative or o##ositional to the "ominant elements. Dne kin" of $asis
has $een valua$ly "escri$e" in the central $o"y of Carxist theory: The
formation of a ne class, the coming to consciousness of a ne class, the
#rocess, the 0often uneven1 emergence of elements of a ne cultural
formation. Thus the emergence of the orking class as a class as
imme"iately evi"ent 0for exam#le, in nineteenth!century Nnglan"1 in the
cultural #rocess. Fut there as extreme unevenness of contri$ution in
"ifferent #arts of the #rocess. The making of ne social values an"
institutions far out#ace" the making of strictly cultural institutions, hile
s#ecific cultural contri$utions, though significant, ere less vigorous an"
autonomous than either general or institutional innovation. A ne class is
alays a source of emergent cultural #ractice, $ut hile it is still, as a
class, relatively su$or"inate, this is alays likely to $e uneven an" is
certain to $e incom#lete. >or ne #ractice is not, of course, an isolate"
#rocess. To the "egree that it emerges, an" es#ecially to the "egree that it
165
is o##ositional rather than alternative, the #rocess of attem#te"
incor#oration significantly $egins. '...( The #rocess of emergence, in such
con"itions, is then a constantly re#eate", an alays renea$le move
$eyon" a #hase of #ractical incor#oration: usually ma"e much more
"ifficult $y the fact that much incor#oration looks like recognition,
acknole"gement an" thus a form of a$$eptan$e. ,n this com#lex #rocess
there is in"ee" regular confusion $eteen the locally resi"ual 0as a form of
resistance to incor#oration1 an" the generally emergent.
*ultural emergence in relation to the emergence an" groing strength
of a class is then alays of ma)or im#ortance, an" alays com#lex. This
recognition is very "ifficult, theoretically, though the #ractical evi"ence is
a$un"ant. &hat has really to $e sai", as a ay of "efining im#ortant
elements of $oth the resi"ual an" the emergent, an" as a ay of
un"erstan"ing the character of the "ominant, is that no (o+e of pro+$tion
an+ therefore no +o(inant so$ial or+er an+ therefore no +o(inant $ltre
ever in reality in$l+es or e#hasts all h(an pra$ti$e- h(an energy- an+
h(an intention. This is not merely a negative #ro#osition, alloing us to
account for significant things hich ha##en outsi"e or against the
"ominant mo"e. Dn the contrary it is a fact a$out the mo"es of
"omination, that they select from an" consequently exclu"e the full range
of human #ractice. &hat they exclu"e may often $e seen as the #ersonal or
the #rivate, or as the natural or even the meta#hysical. ,n"ee" it is usually
in one or other of these terms that the exclu"e" area is ex#resse", since
hat the "ominant has effectively sei:e" is in"ee" the ruling "efinition of
the social.
,t is this sei:ure that has es#ecially to $e resiste". >or there is alays,
though in varying "egrees, #ractical consciousness, in s#ecific
relationshi#s, s#ecific skills, s#ecific #erce#tions, that is unquestiona$ly
social an" that a s#ecifically "ominant social or"er neglects, exclu"es,
re#resses, or sim#ly fails to recogni:e. A "istinctive an" com#arative
feature of any "ominant social or"er is ho far it reaches into the hole
range of #ractices an" ex#eriences in an attem#t at incor#oration. There
can $e areas of ex#erience it is illing to ignore or "is#ense ith: to assign
as #rivate or to s#eciali:e as aesthetic or to generali:e as natural.
Coreover, as a social or"er changes, in terms of its on "evelo#ing
nee"s, these relations are varia$le. Thus in a"vance" ca#italism, $ecause
of changes in the character of la$our, in the social character of
communications, an" in the social character of "ecision!making, the
"ominant culture reaches much further than ever $efore in ca#italist
society into hitherto reserve" or resigne" areas of ex#erience an"
#ractice an" meaning. The area of effective #enetration of the "ominant
or"er into the hole social an" cultural #rocess is thus no significantly
greater. This in turn makes the #ro$lem of emergence es#ecially acute,
an" narros the ga# $eteen alternative an" o##ositional elements. The
alternative, es#ecially in areas that im#inge on significant areas of the
"ominant, is often seen as o##ositional an", $y #ressure, often converte"
into it. Jet even here there can $e s#heres of #ractice an" meaning hich,
almost $y "efinition from its on limite" character, or in its #rofoun"
"eformation, the "ominant culture is una$le in any real terms to
recogni:e. Nlements of emergence may in"ee" $e incor#orate", $ut )ust
as often the incor#orate" forms are merely facsimiles of the genuinely
emergent cultural #ractice. Any significant emergence, $eyon" or against
a "ominant mo"e, is very "ifficult un"er these con"itions+ in itself an" in
its re#eate" confusion ith the facsimiles an" novelties of the
incor#orate" #hase. Jet, in our on #erio" as in others, the fact of
emergent cultural #ractice is still un"enia$le, an" together ith the fact of
actively #ractice is a necessary com#lication of the oul"!$e "ominant
culture.
Q.> MI<31L FO?<A?LT: 0O;1R AN, ,IS<O?RS1
<.E.1 >rie"rich /iet:sche: from The ;ill to 0o"er
<71 01778!17771
Against #ositivism, hich halts at #henomena ! There are only fa$ts* !
161
, oul" say: /o, facts is #recisely hat there is not, only inter#retations.
&e cannot esta$lish any fact in itself : #erha#s it is folly to ant to "o
such a thing.
Nverything is su$)ective, you say+ $ut even this is inter#retation. The
su$)ect is not something given, it is something a""e" an" invente" an"
#ro)ecte" $ehin" hat there is. ! >inally, is it necessary to #osit an
inter#reter $ehin" the inter#retation@ Nven this is invention, hy#othesis.
,n so far as the or" knole"ge has any meaning, the orl" is
knoa$le+ $ut it is interpreta%le otherise, it has no meaning $ehin" it,
$ut countless meanings. ! %ers#ectivism.
,t is our nee"s that inter#ret the orl"+ our "rives an" their >or an"
Against. Nvery "rive is a kin" of lust to rule+ each one has its #ers#ective
that it oul" like to com#el all the other "rives to acce#t as a norm. '...(
I55 01776!177I1
/o limit to the ays in hich the orl" can $e inter#rete"+ every
inter#retation a sym#tom of groth or of "ecline.
,nertia nee"s unity 0monism1+ #lurality of inter#retations a sign of
strength. /ot to "esire to "e#rive the orl" of its "istur$ing an" enigmatic
character. '...(
I5< 01776!177I1
,nter#retation, the intro"uction of meaning ! not ex#lanation 0in most
cases a ne inter#retation over an ol" inter#retation that has $ecome
incom#rehensi$le, that is no itself only a sign1. There are no facts,
everything is in flux, incom#rehensi$le, elusive+ hat is relatively most
en"uring is ! our o#inions.
I56 0S%2,/K!>A== 17791
The ascertaining of truth an" untruth, the ascertaining of facts in
general, is fun"amentally "ifferent from forming, sha#ing, overcoming,
illing, such as is of the essence of #hiloso#hy. To intro"uce a meaning !
this task still remains to $e "one, assuming there is no meaning yet. Thus it
is ith soun"s, $ut also ith the fate of #eo#les: they are ca#a$le of the
most "ifferent inter#retations an" "irection toar" "ifferent goals.
Dn a yet higher level is to posit a goal an" moul" facts accor"ing to it+
that is, active inter#retation an" not merely conce#tual translation.
I5I 01776!177I1
Hltimately, man fin"s in things nothing $ut hat he himself has
im#orte" into them: the fin"ing is calle" science, the im#orting ! art,
religion, love, #ri"e. Nven if this shoul" $e a #iece of chil"ishness, one
shoul" carry on ith $oth an" $e ell "is#ose" toar" $oth ! some
shoul" fin"+ others ! "e others. ! shoul" im#ort.
<.E.E C. >oucault: from &hy Stu"y %oer@ The Auestion of the Su$)ect
'...( , oul" like to say, first of all, hat has $een the goal of my ork
"uring the last tenty years. ,t has not $een to analyse the #henomena of
#oer, nor to ela$orate the foun"ations of such an analysis.
Cy o$)ective, instea", has $een to create a history of "ifferent mo"es $y
hich, in our culture, human $eings are ma"e su$)ects. Cy ork has
"ealt ith three mo"es of o$)ectification hich transform human $eings
into su$)ects.
The first is the mo"es of inquiry hich try to give themselves the status
of sciences+ for exam#le, the o$)ectivi:ing of the s#eaking su$)ect in
gra((aire generale, #hilology, an" linguistics. Dr again, in this first
mo"e, the o$)ectivi:ing of the #ro"uctive su$)ect, the su$)ect ho
la$ours, in the analysis of ealth an" of economics. Dr, a thir" exam#le,
the o$)ectivi:ing of the sheer fact of $eing alive in natural history or
$iology.
,n the secon" #art of my ork, , have stu"ie" the o$)ectivi:ing of the
su$)ect in hat , shall call "ivi"ing #ractices. The su$)ect is either
"ivi"e" insi"e himself or "ivi"e" from others. This #rocess o$)ectivi:es
him. Nxam#les are the ma" an" the sane, the sick an" the healthy, the
criminals an" the goo" $oys.
16E
>inally, , have sought to stu"y ! it is my current ork ! the ay a human
$eing turns himself into a su$)ect. >or exam#le, , have chosen the "omain
of sexuality ! ho men have learne" to recogni:e themselves as su$)ects
of sexuality.
Thus, it is not #oer $ut the su$)ect hich is the general theme of my
research.
,t is true that , $ecame quite involve" ith the question of #oer. ,t soon
a##eare" to me that, hile the human su$)ect is #lace" in relations of
#ro"uction an" of signification, he is equally #lace" in #oer relations
hich are very com#lex. /o, it seeme" to me that economic history an"
theory #rovi"e" a goo" instrument of relations of #ro"uction an" that
linguistics an" semiotics offere" instruments for stu"ying relations of
signification+ $ut for #oer relations e ha" no tools of stu"y. &e ha"
recourse only to ays of thinking a$out #oer $ase" on legal mo"els, that
is: &hat legitimates #oer@ Dr, e ha" recourse to ays of thinking a$out
#oer $ase" on institutional mo"els, that is: &hat is the state@
,t as therefore necessary to ex#an" the "imensions of a "efinition of
#oer if one ante" to use this "efinition in stu"ying the o$)ectivi:ing of
the su$)ect.
Bo e nee" a theory of #oer@ Since a theory assumes a #rior
o$)ectification, it cannot $e asserte" as a $asis for analytical ork. Fut this
analytical ork cannot #rocee" ithout an ongoing conce#tuali:ation. An"
this conce#tuali:ation im#lies critical thought ! a constant checking.
The first thing to check is hat , shall call the conce#tual nee"s. , mean
that the conce#tuali:ation shoul" not $e foun"e" on a theory of the o$)ect
! the conce#tuali:e" o$)ect is not the single criterion of a goo"
conce#tuali:ation. &e have to kno the historical con"itions hich
motivate our conce#tuali:ation. &e nee" a historical aareness of our
#resent circumstance.
The secon" thing to check is the ty#e of reality ith hich e are
"ealing.
A riter in a ell!knon >rench nes#a#er once ex#resse" his sur#rise:
&hy is the notion of #oer raise" $y so many #eo#le to"ay@ ,s it such an
im#ortant su$)ect@ ,s it so in"e#en"ent that it can $e "iscusse" ithout
taking into account other #ro$lems@
This riters sur#rise ama:es me. , feel ske#tical a$out the assum#tion
that this question has $een raise" for the first time in the tentieth
century. Anyay, for us it is not only a theoretical question $ut a #art of
our ex#erience. ," like to mention only to #athological forms ! those
to "iseases of #oer ! fascism an" Stalinism. Dne of the numerous
reasons hy they are, for us, so #u::ling is that in s#ite of their historical
uniqueness they are not quite original. They use" an" exten"e"
mechanisms alrea"y #resent in most other societies. Core than that: in
s#ite of their on internal ma"ness, they use" to a large extent the i"eas
an" the "evices of our #olitical rationality.
&hat e nee" is a ne economy of #oer relations ! the orl"
economy $eing use" in its theoretical an" #ractical sense. To #ut it in
other or"s: since 3ant, the role of #hiloso#hy is to #revent reason from
going $eyon" the limits of hat is given in ex#erience+ $ut from the same
moment ! that is, since the "evelo#ement of the mo"ern state an" the
#olitical management of society ! the role of #hiloso#hy is also to kee#
atch over the excessive #oers of #olitical rationality, hich is a rather
high ex#ectation.
Nvery$o"y is aare of such $anal facts. Fut the fact that theyre $anal
"oes not mean they "ont exist. &hat e have to "o ith $anal facts is to
"iscover ! or try to "iscover ! hich s#ecific an" #erha#s original
#ro$lem is connecte" ith them.
The relationshi# $eteen rationali:ation an" excesses of #olitical #oer
is evi"ent. An" e shoul" not nee" to ait for $ureaucracy or
concentration cam#s to recogni:e the existence of such relations. Fut the
#ro$lem is: &hat to "o ith such an evi"ent fact@
Shall e try reason@ To my min", nothing oul" $e more sterile. >irst,
$ecause the fiel" has nothing to "o ith ith guilt or innocence. Secon",
$ecause it is senseless to refer to reason as the contrary entity to non!
reason. =ast, $ecause such a trial oul" tra# us into #laying the ar$itrary
an" $oring #art of either the rationalist or the irrationalist.
Shall e investigate this kin" of rationalism hich seems to $e s#ecific
to our mo"ern culture an" hich originates in AfklWrng@ , think that
168
as the a##roach of some of the mem$ers of the >rankfurt School. Cy
#ur#ose, hoever, is not to start a "iscussion of their orks, although they
are most im#ortant an" valua$le. 2ather, , oul" suggest another ay of
investigating the links $eteen rationali:ation an" #oer.
,t may $e ise not to take as a hole the rationali:ation of society or of
culture $ut to analy:e such a #rocess in several fiel"s, each ith reference
to a fun"amental ex#erience: ma"ness, illness, "eath, crime, sexuality, an"
so forth.
, think that the or" rationali:ation is "angerous. &hat e have to "o
is analy:e s#ecific rationalities rather than alays invoke the #rogress of
rationali:ation in general.
Nven if the AfklWrng has $een a very im#ortant #hase in our history
an" in the "evelo#ment of #olitical technology, , think e have to refer to
much more remote #rocesses if e ant to un"erstan" ho e have $een
tra##e" in our on history.
, oul" like to suggest another ay to go further toar" a ne economy
of #oer relations, a ay hich is more em#irical, more "irectly relate" to
our #resent situation, an" hich im#lies more relations $eteen theory an"
#ractice. ,t consists of taking the forms of resistance against "ifferent
forms of #oer as a starting #oint. To use another meta#hor, it consists of
using this resistance as a chemical catalyst so as to $ring to light #oer
relations, locate their #osition, an" fin" out their #oint of a##lication an"
the metho"s use". 2ather than analy:ing #oer from the #oint of vie of
its internal rationality, it consists of analy:ing #oer relations through the
antagonism of strategies.
>or exam#le, to fin" out hat our society means $y sanity, #erha#s e
shoul" investigate hat is ha##ening in the fiel" of insanity.
An" hat e mean $y legality in the fiel" of illegality.
An", in or"er to un"erstan" hat #oer relations are a$out, #erha#s e
shoul" investigate the forms of resistance an" attem#ts ma"e to "issociate
these relations.
As a starting #oint, let us take a series of o##ositions hich have
"evelo#e" over the last fe years: o#osition to the #oer of men over
omen, of #arents over chil"ren, of #sychiatry over the mentally ill, of
me"icine over the #o#ulation, of a"ministration over the ays #eo#le
live. '...(
The mo"ern &estern state has integrate" in a ne #olitical sha#e an ol"
#oer technique hich originate" in *hristian institutions. &e can call
this #oer technique the #astoral #oer.
>irst of all, a fe or"s a$out this #astoral #oer.
,t has often $een sai" that *hristianity $rought into $eing a co"e of
ethics fun"amentally "ifferent from that of the ancient orl". =ess
em#hasis is usually #lace" on the fact that it #ro#ose" an" s#rea" ne
#oer relations throughout the ancient orl".
*hristianity is the only religion hich has organi:e" itself as a church.
An" as such, it #ostulates in #rinci#le that certain in"ivi"uals can, $y
their religious quality, serve others not as #rinces, magistrates, #ro#hets,
fortune!tellers, $enefactors, e"ucationalists, an" so on $ut as #astors.
-oever, this or" "esignates a very s#ecial form of #oer.
1. ,t is a form of #oer hose ultimate aim is to asure in"ivi"ual
salvation in the next orl".
E. %astoral #oer is not merely a form of #oer hich comman"s+ it
must also $e #re#are" to sacrifice itself for the life an" salvation of the
flock. Therefore, it is "ifferent from royal #oer, hich "eman"s a
sacrifice from its su$)ects to save the throne.
8. ,t is a form of #oer hich "oes not look after )ust the hole
community $ut each in"ivi"ual in #articular, "uring his entire life.
<. >inally, this form of #oer cannot $e exerci:e" ithout knoing the
insi"e of #eo#les min"s, ithout ex#loring their souls, ithout making
them reveal their innermost secrets. ,t im#lies a knole"ge of the
conscience an" an a$ility to "irect it.
This form of #oer is salvation oriente" 0as o##ose" to #olitical #oer1.
,t is o$lative 0as o##ose" to the #rinci#le of sovereignity1+ it is
in"ivi"uali:ing 0as o##ose" to legal #oer1+ it is coextensive an"
continuous ith life+ it is linke" ith a #ro"uction of truth ! the truth of
the in"ivi"ual himself.
Fut all this is #art of history, you ill say+ the #astorate has, if not
"isa##eare", at least lost the main #art of its efficiency.
16<
This is true, $ut , think e shoul" "istinguish $eteen to as#ects of
#astoral #oer ! $eteen the ecclesiastical institutionali:ation, hich has
cease" or at least lost its vitality since the eighteenth century, an" its
function, hich has s#rea" an" multi#lie" outsi"e the ecclesiastical
institution.
An im#ortant #henomenon took #lace aroun" the eighteenth century ! it
as a ne "istri$ution, a ne organi:ation of this kin" of in"ivi"uali:ing
#oer.
, "ont think that e shoul" consi"er the mo"ern state as an entity
hich has "evelo#e" a$ove in"ivi"uals, ignoring hat they are an" even
their existence, $ut, on the contrary, as a very so#histicate" structure, in
hich in"ivi"uals can $e integrate", un"er one con"ition: that this
in"ivi"uality oul" $e sha#e" in a ne form an" su$mitte" to a set of very
s#ecific #atterns.
,n a ay, e can see the state as a mo"ern matrix of in"ivi"uali:ation or
a ne form of #astoral #oer. '...(
<.E.8 C. >oucault: from -o ,s %oer Nxerci:e"@
&hat constitutes the s#ecific nature of #oer@
The exercise of #oer is not sim#ly a relationshi# $eteen #artners,
in"ivi"ual or collective+ it is a ay in hich certain actions mo"ify others.
&hich is to say, of course, that something calle" %oer, ith or ithout a
ca#ital letter, hich assume" to exist universally in a concentrate" or
"iffuse" form, "oes not exist. %oer exists only hen it is #ut into action,
even if, of course, it is integrate" into a "is#arate fiel" of #ossi$ilities
$rought to $ear u#on #ermanent structures. This also means that #oer is
not a function of consent. ,n itself it is not a renunciation of free"om, a
transference of rights, the #oer of each an" all "elegate" to a fe 0 hich
"oes not #revent the #ossi$ility that consent may $e a con"ition for the
existence or the maintenance of #oer1+ the relationshi# of #oer can $e
the result of a #rior or #ermanent consent, $ut it is not $y nature the
manifestation of a consensus.
,s this to say that one must seek the character #ro#er to #oer relations
in the violence hich must have $een its #rimitive form, its #ermanent
secret, an" its last resource, that hich in the final analysis a##ears as its
real nature hen it is force" to thro asi"e its mask an" to sho itself as
it really is@ ,n effect, hat "efines a relationshi# of #oer is that it is a
mo"e of action hich "oes not act "irectly an" imme"iately on others.
,nstea", it acts u#on their actions: an action u#on an action, on existing
actions or on those hich may arise in the #resent of the future, a
relationshi# of violence acts u#on a $o"y or u#on things+ it forces, it
$en"s, it $reaks on the heel, it "estroys, or it closes the "oor on all
#ossi$ilities. ,ts o##osite #ole can only $e #assivity, an" if it comes u#
against any resistance, it has no other o#tion $ut to try to minimi:e it. Dn
the other han", a #oer relationshi# can only $e articulate" on this $asis
of to elements hich are each in"is#ensa$le if it is really to $e a #oer
relationshi#: that the other 0the one over hom #oer is exercise" 1 $e
thoroughly recogni:e" an" maintaine" to the very en" as a #erson ho
acts+ an" that, face" ith a relationshi# of #oer, a hole fiel" of
res#onses, reactions, results, an" #ossi$le inventions may o#en
u#.D$viously the $ringing into #lay of #oer relations "oes not exclu"e
the use of violence any more than it "oes the o$taining of consent+ no
"ou$t the exercise of #oer can never "o ithout one or the other, often
$oth at the same time. Fut even though consensus an" violence are the
instruments or the results, they "o not constitute the #rinci#le or the $asic
nature of #oer. The exercise of #oer can #ro"uce as much acce#tance
as may $e ishe" for: it can #ile u# the "ea" an" shelter itself $ehin"
hatever threats it can imagine. ,n itself the exercise of #oer is not
violence+ nor is it a consent hich, im#licitly, is renea$le. ,t is total
structure of actions $rought to $ear u#on #ossi$le actions+ it incites, it
in"uces, it se"uces, it makes easier or more "ifficult+ in the extreme it
constrains or for$i"s a$solutely+ it is nevertheless alays a ay of acting
u#on an acting su$)ect or acting su$)ects $y virtue of their acting or $eing
ca#a$le of action. A set of actions u#on other actions.%erha#s the
equivocal nature of the term con"uct is one of the $est ai"s for coming
166
to terms ith the s#ecificity of #oer relations. >or to con"uct is at the
same time to lea" others 0accor"ing to mechanisms of coercion hich
are, to varying "egrees, strict1 an" a ay of $ehaving ithin a more or less
o#en fiel" of #ossi$ilities. The exercise of #oer consists in gui"ing the
#ossi$ility of con"uct an" #utting in or"er the #ossi$le outcome. Fasically
#oer is less a confrontation $eteen to a"versaries or the linking of one
to the other than a question of government. This or" must $e alloe" the
very $roa" meaning hich it ha" in the sixteenth century. Kovernment
"i" not refer only to #olitical structures or to the management of states+
rather, it "esignate" the ay in hich the con"uct of in"ivi"uals or of
grou#s might $e "irecte": the government of chil"ren, of souls, of
communities, of families, of the sick. ,t "i" not only cover the legitimately
constitute" forms of #olitical or economic su$)ection $ut also mo"es of
action, more or less consi"ere" or calculate", hich ere "estine" to act
u#on the #ossi$ilities of action of other #eo#le. To govern, in this sense, is
to structure the #ossi$le fiel" of action of others. The relationshi# #ro#er to
#oer oul" not, therefore, $e sought on the si"e of violence or of
struggle, nor on that of voluntary linking 0all of hich can, at $est, only $e
the instruments of #oer1, $ut rather in the area of the singular mo"e of
action, neither arlike nor )uri"ical, hich is government.
&hen one "efines the exercise of #oer as a mo"e of action u#on the
actions of others, hen one characteri:es these actions $y the government
of men $y other men ! in the $roa"est sense of the term ! one inclu"es an
im#ortant element: free"om. %oer is exerci:e" only over free su$)ects,
an" only insofar as they are free. Fy this e mean in"ivi"ual or collective
su$)ects ho are face" ith a fiel" of #ossi$ilities in hich several ays
of $ehaving, several reactions an" "iverse com#ortments, may $e realise".
&here the "etermining factors saturate the hole, there is no relationshi#
of #oer+ slavery is not a #oer relationshi# hen man is in chains. 0,n
this case it is a question of a #hysical relationshi# of constraint.1
*onsequently, there is no face!to!face confrontation of #oer an"
free"om, hich are mutually exclusive 0free"om "isa##ears everyhere
#oer is exercise"1, $ut a much more com#licate" inter#lay. ,n this game
free"om may ell a##ear as the con"ition for the exercise of #oer 0at the
same time its #recon"ition, since free"om must exist for #oer to $e
exerte", an" also its #ermanent su##ort, since ithout the #ossi$ility of
recalcitrance, #oer oul" $e equivalent to a #hysical "etermination1.
'...(
<.E.< Cichel >oucault: from The Or+er of Things:An Ar$haeology of the
3(an S$ien$es
*ha#. 15: T-N -HCA/ S*,N/*NS
'...( There is forme" the theme of a #ure theory of language hich
oul" #rovi"e the ethnology an" the #sychoanalysis thus conceive" ith
their formal mo"el. There oul" thus $e a "isci#line that coul" cover in a
single movement $oth the "imension of ethnology that relates the human
sciences to the #ositivities in hich they are frame" an" the "imension of
#sychoanalysis that relates the knole"ge of man to the finitu"e that
gives it its foun"ation. ,n linguistics, one oul" have a science #erfectly
foun"e" in the or"er of #ositivities exterior to man 0since it is a question
of #ure language1, hich, after traversing the hole s#ace of the human
sciences, oul" encounter the question of finitu"e 0 since it is through
languge, an" ithin it, that thought is a$le to think: so that it is in itself a
#ositivity ith the value of a fun"amental 1. A$ove ethnology an"
#sychoanalysis, or, more exactly, interoven ith them, a thir" counter!
science oul" a##ear to traverse, animate, an" "istur$ the hole
constitute" fiel" of the human sciences+ an" $y overfloing it $oth on the
si"e of #ositivities an" on that of finitu"e, it oul" form the most general
contestation of that fiel". =ike the to other counter!sciences, it oul"
make visi$le, in a "iscursive mo"e, the frontier!forms of the human
sciences+ like them, it oul" situate its ex#erience in those enlightene"
an" "angerous regions here the knole"ge of man acts out, in the form
of the unconscious an" of historicity, its relation ith hat ren"ers them
#ossi$le. ,n ex#osing it, these three counter!sciences threaten the very
thing that ma"e it #ossi$ile for man to $e knon. Thus e see the "estiny
of man $eing s#un $efore our very eyes, $ut $eing s#un $ackar"s+ it is
16I
$eing le" $ack, $y those strange $o$$ins, to the forms of its $irth, to the
homelan" that ma"e it #ossi$ile. An" is that not one ay of $ringing a$out
its en"@ >or linguistics no more s#eak of man himself than "o
#sychoanalysis an" ethnology. ,t may $e sai" that, in #laying this role,
linguistics is "oing no more than resuming the functions that ha" once
$een those of $iology or of economics, hen, in the nineteenth an" early
tetienth centuries, an attem#t as ma"e to unify the human sciences
un"er conce#ts $orroe" from $iology or economics. Fut linguistics may
have a much more fun"amental role. An" for several reasons. >irst,
$ecause it #ermits ! or in any case strives to ren"er #osi$le ! the
structuration of contents themselves+ it is therefore not a theoretical
reorking of knole"ge acquire" elsehere, the inter#retation of an
alrea"y accom#lishe" rea"ing of #henomena+ it "oes not offer a linguistic
version of the facts o$serve" in the human sciences, it is rather the
#rinci#le of a #rimary "eci#herment: to a ga:e forearme" $y linguistics,
things attain to existence only in so far as they are a$le to form the
elements of a signifying system. =inguistic analysis is more a #erce#tion
than an ex#lanation: that is, it is constitutive of its very o$)ect. Coreover,
e fin" that $y means of this emergence of structure 0as an invaria$le
relation ithin a totality of elements1 the relation of the human sciences to
mathematics has $een o#ene" u# once more, an" in a holly ne
"imension+ it is no longer a matter of knoing hether one can quantify
results, or hether human $ehaviour is susce#ti$le of $eing intro"uce"
into the fiel" of a measura$le #ro$a$ility+ the question that arises is that of
knoing hether it is #ossi$le ithout a #lay on or"s to em#loy the
notion of structure, or at least hether it is the same structure that is
referre" to in mathematics an" in the human sciences: a question that is
central if one ishes to kno the #ossi$ilities an" rights, the con"itions
an" limitations, of a )ustifie" formali:ation+ it ill $e seen that the relation
of the sciences of man to the axis of the formal an" a priori "isci#lines ! a
relation that ha" not $een essential till then, an" as long as the attem#t as
ma"e to i"entify it ith the right to measure ! returns to life an" #erha#s
$ecomes fun"amental no that ithin the s#ace of the human sciences
there emerges their relation $oth to the em#irical #ositivity of language
an" to the analytic of finitu"e+ the three axes hich "efine the volume
#ro#er to the sciences of man thus $ecome visi$le, an" almost
simultaneously so, in the questions they #ose. =astly, as a result of the
im#ortance of linguistics an" of its a##lication to the knole"ge of man,
the question of the $eing of language, hich, as e have seen, is so
intimately linke" ith the fun"amental #ro$lems of our culture, rea##ears
in all its enigmatic insistence. &ith the continually exten"e" use of
linguistic categories, it is a question of groing im#ortance, since e
must henceforth ask ourselves hat language must $e in or"er to
structure in this ay hat is nevertheless not in itself either or" or
"iscourse, an" in or"er to articulate itself on the #ure forms of
knole"ge. Fy a much longer an" much more unex#ecte" #ath, e are
le" $ack to the #lace that /iet:sche an" CallarmL sign#oste" hen the
first aske": &ho s#eaks@, an" the secon" sa his glittering anser in the
&or" itself. The question to hat language is in its $eing is once more of
the greatest urgency.
At this #oint, here the question of language arises again ith such
heavy over!"etermination, an" here it seems to lay siege on every si"e
to the figure of man 0that figure hich ha" once taken the #lace of
*lassical Biscourse1, contem#orary culture is struggling to create an
im#ortant #art of its #resent, an" #erha#s of its future. Dn the one han",
su""enly very near to all this em#irical "omains, questions arise hich
$efore ha" seeme" very "istant from them: these questions concern a
general formali:ation of thought an" knole"ge+ an" at a time hen they
ere still thought to $e "e"icate" solely to the relation $eteen logic an"
mathematics, they su""enly o#en u# the #ossi$ility, an" the task, of
#urifying the ol" em#irical reason $y constituting formal languages, an"
of a##lying a secon" critique of #ure reason on the $asis of ne forms of
the mathematical a priori. -oever, at the other extremity of our culture,
the question of language is entruste" to that form of s#eech hich has no
"ou$t never cease" to #ose it, $ut hich is no, for the first time, #osing
it to itself. That literature in our "ay is fascinate" $y the $eing of
language is neither the sign of an imminent en" nor #roof of a
ra"icali:ation: it is a #henomenon hose necessity has its roots in a vast
169
configuration in hich the hole structure of our thought an" our
knole"ge is trace". Fut if the question of formal languages gives
#rominence to the #ossi$ility or im#ossi$ility of structuring #ositive
contents, a literature "e"icate" to language gives #rominence, in all their
em#irical vivacity, to the fun"amental forms of finitu"e. >rom ithin
language ex#erience" an" traverse" as language, in the #lay of its
#ossi$ilities exten"e" to their furthest #oint, hat emerges is that man has
come to an en", an" that, $y reaching the summit of all #ossi$le s#eech,
he arrives not at the very heart of himself $ut at the $rink of that hich
limits him+ in that region here "eath #rols, here thought is
extinguishe", here the #romise of the origin intermina$ly rece"es. ,t as
inevita$le that this ne mo"e of $eing of literature shoul" have $een
reveale" in orks like those of Artau" or 2oussel ! an" $y men like them+
in Artau"s ork, language, having $een re)ecte" as "iscourse an" re!
a##rehen"e" in the #lastic violence of the shock, is referre" $ack to the
cry, to the torture" $o"y, to the materiality of thought, to the flesh+ in
2oussels ork, language, having $een re"uce" to #o"er $y a
systematically fa$ricate" chance, recounts intermina$ly the re#etition of
"eath an" the enigma of "ivi"e" origins. An" as if this ex#eriencing of the
forms of finitu"e in language ere insu##orta$le, or ina"equate 0#erha#s
its very ina"equacy as insu##orta$le1, it is ithin ma"ness that it
manifeste" itself ! the figure of finitu"e thus #osing itself in language 0as
that hich unveils itself ithin it1, $ut also $efore it, #rece"ing it, as that
formless, mute, unsignifying region here language can fin" its free"om.
An" it is in"ee" in this s#ace thus reveale" that literature, first ith
surrealism 0though still in a very much "isguise" form1, then, more an"
more #urely, ith 3afka, Fataille, an" Flanchot, #osite" itself as
ex#erience": as ex#erience of "eath 0an" in the element of "eath1, of
unthinka$le thought 0an" in its inaccessi$le #resence1, of re#etition 0of
original innoncence, alays there at the nearest an" yet alays the most
"istant limit of language1+ as ex#erience of finitu"e 0tra##e" in the o#ening
an" the tyranny of that finitu"e1.
,t is clear that this return of language is not a su""en interru#tion in our
culture+ it is not the irru#tive "iscovery of some long!$urie" evi"ence+ it
"oes not in"icate a fol"ing $ack of thought u#on itself, in the movement
$y hich it emanci#ates itself from all content, or a narcissism occurring
ithin a literature freeing itself at last from hat it has to say in or"er to
s#eak henceforth only a$out the fact that it is language stri##e" nake". ,t
is, in fact, the strict unfol"ing of &estern culture in accor"ance ith the
necessity it im#ose" u#on itself at the $eginning of the nineteenth
century. ,t oul" $e false to see in this general in"ication of our
ex#erience, hich may $e terme" formalism, the sign of a "rying u#, of
a rarefaction of thought losing its ca#acity for re!a##rehen"ing the
#lenitu"e of contents+ it oul" $e no less false to #lace it from the outset
u#on the hori:on of some ne thought or ne knole"ge. ,t is ithin the
very tight!knit, very coherent outlines of the mo"ern episte(e that this
contem#orary ex#erience foun" its #osi$ility+ it is even that episte(e
hich, $y its logic, gave rise to such an ex#erience, constitute" it through
an" through, an" ma"e it im#ossi$le for it not to exist. &hat occurre" at
the time of 2icar"o, *uvier, an" Fo##, the form of knole"ge that as
esta$lishe" ith the a##earance of economics, $iology, an" #hilology, the
thought of finitu"e lai" "on $y the 3antian critique as #hiloso#hys task
! all that still forms the imme"iate s#ace of our reflection. &e think in
that area.
An" yet the im#ression of fulfilment an" of en", the muffle" feeling that
carries an" animates our thought, an" #erha#s lulls it to slee# ith the
facility of its #romises, an" makes us $elieve that something ne is a$out
to $egin, something e glim#se only as a thin line of light lo on the
hori:on ! that feeling an" that im#ression are #erha#s not ill foun"e". ,t
ill $e sai" that they exist, that they have never cease" to $e formulate"
over an" over again since the early nineteenth century+ it ill $e sai" that
-`l"erlin, -egel, >euer$ach, an" Carx all felt this certainty that in them
a thought an" #erha#s a culture ere coming to a close, an" that from the
"e#ths of a "istance, hich as #erha#s not invinci$le, another as
a##roaching ! in the "im light of "an, in the $rilliance of noon, or in the
"issention of the falling "ay. Fut this close, this #erilous imminence
hose #romise e fear to"ay, hose "anger e elcome, is #ro$a$ly
not of the same or"er. Then, the task en)oine" u#on thought $y that
167
annunciation as to esta$lish for man a sta$le so)ourn u#on this earth from
hich the go"s ha" turne" aay or vanishe". ,n our "ay, an" once again
/iet:sche in"icate" the turning!#oint from a long ay off, it is not so
much the a$sence or the "eath of Ko" that is affirme" as the "eath of man
0that narro, im#erce#ti$le "is#lacement, that recession in the form of
i"entity, hich are the reason hy mans finitu"e has $ecome his en"1+ it
$ecomes a##arent, then, that the "eath of Ko" an" the last man are
engage" in a contest ith more than roun": is it not the last man ho
announces that he has kille" Ko", thus situating his language, his thought,
his laughter in the s#ace of that alrea"y "ea" Ko", yet #ositing himself also
as he ho has kille" Ko" an" hose existence inclu"es the free"om an"
the "ecision of that mur"er@ Thus, the last man is at the same time ol"er
an" yet younger than the "eath of Ko"+ since he has kille" Ko", it is he
himself ho must anser for his on finitu"e+ $ut since it is in the "eath
of Ko" that he s#eaks, thinks, an" exists, his mur"er itself is "oome" to
"ie+ ne go"s, the same go"s, are alrea"y selling the future Dcean+ man
ill "isa##ear. 2ather than the "eath of Ko" ! or, rather, in the ake of
that "eath an" in a #rofoun" correlation ith it ! hat /iet:sches thought
heral"s is the en" of his mur"erer+ it is the ex#losion of mans face in
laughter, an" the return of masks+ it is the scattering of the #rofoun"
stream of time $y hich he felt himself carrie" along an" hose #ressure
he sus#ecte" in the very $eing of things+ it is the i"entity of the 2eturn of
the Same ith the a$solute "is#ersion of man. Throughout the nineteenth
century, the en" of #hiloso#hy an" the #romise of an a##roaching culture
ere no "ou$t one an" the same thing as the thought of finitu"e an" the
a##earance of man in the fiel" of knole"ge+ in our "ay, the fact that
#hiloso#hy is still ! an" again ! in the #rocess of coming to an en", an"
the fact that in it #erha#s, though even more outsi"e an" against it, in
literature as ell as in formal reflection, the question of language is $eing
#ose", #rove no "ou$t that man is in the #rocess of "isa##earing.
>or the entire mo"ern episte(e ! that hich as forme" toar"s the en"
of the eighteenth century an" still serves as the #ositive groun" of our
knole"ge, that hich constitute" mans #articular mo"e of $eing an" the
#ossi$ility of knoing him em#irically ! that entire episte(e as $oun"
u# ith the "isa##earance of Biscourse an" its featureless reign, ith the
shift of language toar"s o$)ectivity, an" ith its rea##earance in
multi#le form. ,f this same language is no emerging ith greater an"
greater insistence in a unity that e ought to think $ut cannot as yet "o
so, is this not the sign that the hole of this configuration is no a$out to
to##le, an" that man is in the #rocess of #erishing as the $eing of
language continues to shine ever $righter u#on our hori:on@ Since man
as constitute" at a time hen language as "oome" to "is#ersion, ill
he not $e "is#erse" at a time hen language regains its unity@ An" if that
ere true, oul" it not $e an error ! #rofoun" error, since it coul" hi"e
from us hat shoul" no $e thought ! to inter#ret our actual ex#erience
as an a##lication of the forms of language to the human or"er@ Dught e
not rather to give u# thinking of man, or, to $e more strict, to think of this
"isa##earance of man ! an" the groun" of #ossi$ility of all the sciences
of man ! as closely as #ossi$le in correlation ith our concern ith
language@ Dught e not to a"mit that, since language is here once more,
man ill return to that serene non!existence in hich he as formerly
maintaine" $y the im#erious unity of Biscourse@ Can ha" $een a figure
occurring $eteen to mo"es of language+ or, rather, he as constitute"
only hen language, having $een situate" ithin re#resentation an", as it
ere, "issolve" in it, free" itself from that situation at the cost of its on
fragmentation: man com#ose" his on figure in the interstices of that
fragmente" language. Df course, these are no affirmations+ they are at
most questions to hich it is not #ossi$le to re#ly+ they must $e left in
sus#ense, here they #ose themselves, only ith the knole"ge that the
#ossi$ility of #osing them may ell o#en the ay to a future thought.
Dne thing in any case is certain: man is neither the ol"est nor the most
constant #ro$lem that has $een #ose" for human knole"ge. Taking a
relatively short chronological sam#le ithin a restricte" geogra#hical
area ! Nuro#ean culture since the sixteenth century ! one can $e certain
that man is a recent invention ithin it. ,t is not aroun" him an" his
secrets that knole"ge #role" for so long in the "arkness. ,n fact,
among all the mutations that have affecte" the knole"ge of things an"
164
their or"er, the knole"ge of i"entities, "ifferences, characters,
equivalences, or"s ! in short, in the mi"st of all the e#iso"es of that
#rofoun" history of the Sa(e ! only one, that hich $egan a century an" a
half ago an" is no #erha#s "raing to a close, has ma"e it #ossi$le for
the figure of man to a##ear. An" that a##earance as not the li$eration of
an ol" anxiety, the transition into luminous consciousness of an age!ol"
concern, the entry into o$)ectivity of something that has long remaine"
tra##e" ithin $eliefs an" #hiloso#hies: it as the effect of a change in the
fun"amental arrangements of knole"ge. As the archaeology of our
thought easily shos, man is an invention of recent "ate. An" one #erha#s
nearing its en".
,f those arrangements ere to "isa##ear as they a##eare", if some event
of hich e can at the moment "o no more than sense the possi%ility !
ithout knoing either hat its form ill $e or hat it #romises ! ere to
cause them to crum$le, as the groun" of *lassical thought "i", at the en"
of the eighteenth century, then one can certainly ager that man oul" $e
erase", like a face "ran in san" at the e"ge of the sea.
<.E.6 Cichel >oucault: from ,is$ipline an+ 0nish: The 4irth of the 0rison
'...( 2usche an" 3irchheimers great ork, 0nish(ent an+ So$ial
Str$tres, #rovi"es a great num$er of essential reference #oints. &e must
first ri" ourselves of the illusion that #enalty is a$ove all 0if not
exclusively1 a means of re"ucing crime an" that, in this role, accor"ing to
the social forms, the #olitical system or $eliefs, it may $e severe or lenient,
ten" toar"s ex#iation of o$taining re"ress, toar"s the #ursuit of
in"ivi"uals or the attri$ution of collective res#onsi$ility. &e must analy:e
rather the concrete systems of #unishment, stu"y them as social
#henomena that cannot $e accounte" for $y the )uri"ical structure of the
society alone, nor $y its fun"amental ethical choices+ e must situate them
in their fiel" of o#eration, in hich the #unishment of crime is not the sole
element+ e must sho that #unitive measures are not sim#ly negative
mechanisms that make it #ossi$le to re#ress, to #revent, to exclu"e, to
eliminate+ $ut that they are linke" to a hole series of #ositive an" useful
effects hich is their task to su##ort 0an", in this sense, although legal
#unishment is carrie" out in or"er to #unish offences, one might say that
the "efinition of offences an" their #rosecution are carrie" out in turn in
or"er to maintain the #unitive mechanisms an" their functions1. >rom this
#oint of vie, 2usche an" 3irchheimer relate the "ifferent systems of
#unishment ith the systems of #ro"uction ithin hich they o#erate:
thus, in a slave economy, #unitive mechanisms serve to #rovi"e an
a""itional la$our force O an" to constitute a $o"y of civil slaves in
a""ition to those #rovi"e" $y ar or tra"ing+ ith feu"alism, at a time
hen money an" #ro"uction ere still at an early stage of "evelo#ment,
e fin" a su""en increase in cor#oral #unishments O the $o"y $eing in
most cases the only #ro#erty accessi$le+ the #enitentiary 0the -e#ital
KLnLral, the S#inhuis or 2as#huis1, force" la$or an" the #rison factory
a##ear ith the "evelo#ment of the mercantile economy. Fut the
in"ustrial system requires a free market in la$our an", in the nineteenth
century, the role of force" la$our in the mechanisms of #unishment
"iminishes accor"ingly an" corrective "etention takes its #lace. There
are no "ou$t a num$er of o$servations to $e ma"e a$out such a strict
correlation.
Fut e can surely acce#t the general #ro#osition that, in our societies,
the systems of #unishment are to $e situate" in a certain #olitical
economy of the $o"y: even if they "o not make use of violent or $loo"y
#unishment, even hen they use lenient metho"s involving
confinement or correction, it is alays the $o"y that is at issue O the $o"y
an" its forces, their utility an" their "ocility, their "istri$ution an" their
su$mission. ,t is certainly legitimate to rite a history of #unishment
against the $ackgroun" of moral i"eas or legal structures. Fut can one
rite such a history against the $ackgroun" of a history of $o"ies, hen
such systems of #unishment claim to have only the secret souls of
criminals as their o$)ective@
-istorians long ago $egan to rite the history of the $o"y. They have
stu"ie" the history of the $o"y in the fiel" of historical "emogra#hy or
1I5
#athology+ they have consi"ere" it as the seat of nee"s an" a##etites, as the
locus of #hysiological #rocesses an" meta$olisms, as a target for the attacks of
germs or viruses+ they have shon to hat extent historical #rocesses ere
involve" in hat might seem to $e the #urely $iological $ase of existence+ an"
hat #lace shoul" $e given in the history of society to $iological events such
as the circulation of $acilli, or the extension of the life!s#an 0cf. =e 2oy!
=a"urie1. Fut the $o"y is also "irecte" involve" in a #olitical fiel"+ #oer
relations have an imme"iate hol" u#on it+ they invest it, mark it, train it, torture
it, force it to carry out tasks, to #erform ceremonies, to emit signs. This #olitical
investment of the $o"y is $oun" u#, in accor"ance ith com#lex reci#rocal
relations, ith its economic use+ it is largely as a force of #ro"uction that the
$o"y is investe" ith relations of #oer an" "omination+ $ut, on the other han",
its constitution as a la$our #oer is #ossi$le only if it is caught u# in a system
of su$)ection 0in hich nee" is also a #olitical instrument meticulously
#re#are", calculate" an" use"1+ the $o"y $ecomes a useful force only if it is a
$oth a #ro"uctive $o"y an" a su$)ecte" $o"y. This su$)ection is not only
attaine" $y the instruments of violence an" i"eology+ it can also $e "irect,
#hysical, #itting force against force, $earing on material elements, an" yet
ithout involving violence+ it may $e calculate", organi:e", technically thought
out+ it may $e su$tle, make use neither of ea#ons nor of terror an" yet remain
of a #hysical or"er. That is to say, there may $e a knole"ge of the $o"y that
is not exactly the science of its functioning, an" a mastery of its forces that is
more than the a$ility to conquer them: this knole"ge an" this mastery
constitute hat might $e calle" the #olitical technology of the $o"y. Df course,
this technology is "iffuse, rarely formulate" in continuous, systematic
"iscourse+ it is often ma"e u# of $its an" #ieces+ it im#lements a "is#arate set of
tools or metho"s. ,n s#ite of the coherence of its results, it is generally no more
than a multiform instrumentation. Coreover, it cannot $e locali:e" in a
#articular ty#e of institution or state a##aratus. >or they have recourse to it+ they
use, select or im#ose certain of its metho"s. Fut, in its mechanisms an" effects,
it is situate" at a quite "ifferent level. &hat the a##aratuses an" institutions
o#erate is, in a sense, a micro!#hysics of #oer, hose fiel" of vali"ity is
situate" in a sense $eteen these great functionings an" the $o"ies themselves
ith their materiality an" their forces.
/o, the stu"y of this micro!#hysics #resu##oses that the #oer
exercise" on the $o"y is conceive" not as a #ro#erty, $ut as a strategy,
that its effects of "omination are attri$ute" not to a##ro#riation, $ut to
"is#ositions, manoeuvres, tactics, techniques, functionings+ that one
shoul" "eci#her in it a netork of relations, constantly in tension, in
activity, rather than a #rivilege that one might #ossess+ that one shoul"
take as its mo"el a #er#etual $attle rather than a contract regulating a
transaction or the conquest of a territory. ,n short this #oer is exercise"
rather than #ossesse"+ it is not the #rivilege, acquire" or #reserve", of
the "ominant class, $ut the overall effect of its strategic #ositions O an
effect that is manifeste" an" sometimes exten"e" $y the #osition of those
ho are "ominate". >urthermore, this #oer is not exercise" sim#ly as an
o$ligation or a #rohi$ition on those ho "o not have it + it invests them,
it is transmitte" $y them an" through them+ it exerts #ressure u#on them,
)ust as they themselves, in their struggle against it, resist the gri# it has on
them. This means that these relations go right "on into the "e#ths of
society, that they are not locali:e" in the relations $eteen the state an"
its citi:ens or on the frontier $eteen classes an" that they "o not merely
re#ro"uce, at the level of in"ivi"uals, $o"ies, gestures an" $ehaviour, the
general form of the la or government+ that, although there is continuity,
0they are in"ee" articulate" on this form through a hole series of
com#lex mechanisms1, there is neither analogy nor homology, $ut a
s#ecificity of mechanism an" mo"ality. =astly, they are not univocal+
they "efine innumera$le #oints of confrontation, focuses of insta$ility,
each of hich has its on risks of conflict, of struggles an" of an at least
tem#orary inversion of the #oer relations. The overthro of these
micro!#oers "oes not, then, o$ey the la of all or nothing+ it is not
acquire" once an" for all $y a ne control of the a##aratuses nor $y a
ne functioning or a "estruction of the institutions+ on the other han",
none of its locali:e" e#iso"es may $e inscri$e" in history exce#t $y the
effects that it in"uces on the entire netork in hich it is caught u#.
%erha#s, too, e shoul" a$an"on a hole tra"ition that allos us to
imagine that knole"ge can exist only here the #oer relations are
sus#en"e" an" that knole"ge can "evelo# only outsi"e its in)unctions,
1I1
its "eman"s an" its interests. %erha#s e shoul" a$an"on the $elief that
#oer makes ma" an" that, $y the same token, the renunciation of #oer
is one of the con"itions of knole"ge. &e shoul" a"mit rather that #oer
#ro"uces knole"ge 0an" not sim#ly $y encouraging it $ecause it serves
#oer or $y a##lying it $ecause it is useful1+ that #oer an" knole"ge
"irectly im#ly one another+ that there is no #oer relation ithout the
correlative constitution of a fiel" of knole"ge, nor any knole"ge that
"oes not #resu##ose an" constitute at the same time #oer relations. These
#oer!knole"ge relations are to $e analyse", therefore, not on the $asis
of a su$)ect of knole"ge ho is or is not free in relation to the #oer
system, $ut, on the contrary, the su$)ect ho knos, the o$)ects to $e
knon an" the mo"alities of knole"ge must $e regar"e" as so many
effects of these fun"amental im#lications of #oer!knole"ge an" their
historical transformations. ,n short, it is not the activity of the su$)ect of
knole"ge that #ro"uces a cor#us of knole"ge, useful or resistant to
#oer, $ut #oer!knole"ge, the #rocesses an" struggles that traverse it
an" of hich it is ma"e u#, that "etermines the forms an" #ossi$le
"omains of knole"ge.
To analyse the #olitical investment of the $o"y an" the micro!#hysics of
#oer #resu##oses, therefore, that one a$an"ons O here #oer is
concerne" O the violence O i"eology o##osition, the meta#hor of #ro#erty,
the mo"el of the contract or of conquest+ that O here knole"ge is
concerne" O one a$an"ons the o##osition $eteen hat is intereste" an"
hat is "isintereste", the mo"el of knole"ge an" the #rimacy of the
su$)ect. Forroing a or" from %etty an" its contem#oraries, $ut giving it
a "ifferent meaning from the one current in the seventeenth century, one
might imagine a #olitical anatomy. This oul" not $e the stu"y of a state
in terms of a $o"y 0ith its elements, its resources an" its forces1, nor
oul" it $e the stu"y of the $o"y an" its surroun"ings in terms of a small
state. Dne oul" $e concerne" ith the $o"y #olitic, as a set of material
elements an" techniques that serve as ea#ons, relays, communication
routes an" su##orts for the #oer an" knole"ge relations that invest
human $o"ies an" su$)ugate them $y turning them into o$)ects of
knole"ge.
,t is a question of situating the techniques of #unishment O hether they
sei:e the $o"y in the ritual of #u$lic torture an" execution or hether
they are a""resse" to the soul O in the history of this $o"y #olitic+ of
consi"ering #enal #ractices less as a consequence of legal theories than as
a cha#ter of #olitical anatomy.
3antoroit: gives a remarka$le analysis of The 3ings Fo"y + a
"ou$le $o"y accor"ing to the )uri"ical theology of the Ci""le Ages, since
it involves not only the transitory element that is $orn an" "ies, $ut
another that remains unchange" $y time an" is maintaine" as the #hysical
yet intangi$le su##ort of the king"om+ aroun" this "uality, hich as
originally close to the *hristological mo"el, are organi:e" an
iconogra#hy, a #olitical theory of monarchy, legal mechanisms that
"istinguish $eteen as ell as link the #erson of the king an" the
"eman"s of the *ron, an" a hole ritual that reaches its height in the
coronation, the funeral an" the ceremonies of su$mission. At the
o##osite #ole one might imagine #lacing the $o"y of the con"emne"
man+ he, too, has his legal status+ he gives rise to his on ceremonial an"
he calls forth a hole theoretical "iscourse, not in or"er to groun" the
sur#lus #oer #ossesse" $y the #erson of the sovereign, $ut in or"er to
co"e the lack of #oer ith hich those su$)ecte" to #unishment are
marke". ,n the "arkest region of the #olitical fiel" the con"emne" man
re#resents the symmetrical, inverte" figure of the king. &e shoul"
analyse hat might $e calle", in homage to 3antoroit:, the least $o"y
of the con"emne" man.
,f the sur#lus #oer #ossesse" $y the king gives rise to the "u#lication
of his $o"y, has not the sur#lus #oer exercise" on the su$)ecte" $o"y of
the con"emne" man given rise to another ty#e of "u#lication@ That of a
non!cor#oral, a soul, as Ca$ly calle" it. The history of this micro!
#hysics of the #unitive #oer oul" then $e a genealogy or an element
in a genealogy of the mo"ern soul. 2ather than seeing this soul as the
reactivate" remnants of an i"eology, one oul" see it as the #resent
correlative of a certain technology of #oer over the $o"y. ,t oul" $e
rong to say that the soul is an illusion, or an i"eological effect. Dn the
contrary, it exists, it has a reality, it is #ro"uce" #ermanently aroun", on,
1IE
ithin the $o"y $y the functioning of a #oer that is exercise" on those
#unishe" O an", in a more general ay, on those one su#ervises, trains an"
corrects, over ma"men, chil"ren at home or at school, over coloni:e", over
those ho are stuck at a machine an" su#ervise" for the rest of their lives.
This is the historical reality of this soul, hich, unlike the soul re#resente"
$y *hristian theology, is not $orn in sin an" su$)ect to #unishment, $ut is
$orn rather out of metho"s of #unishment, su#ervision an" constraint. This
real, non!cor#oral soul is not a su$stance+ it is the element in hich are
articulate" the effects of a certain ty#e of #oer an" the reference of a
certain ty#e of knole"ge, the machinery $y hich the #oer relations
give rise to a #ossi$le cor#us of knole"ge, an" knole"ge exten"s an"
reinforces the effects of this #oer. Dn this reality!reference, various
conce#ts have $een constructe" an" "omains of analysis carve" out:
#syche, su$)ectivity, #ersonality, consciousness, etc.+ on it have $een $uilt
scientific techniques an" "iscourses, an" the moral claims of humanism.
Fut let there $e no misun"erstan"ing: it is not that a real man, the o$)ect of
knole"ge, #hiloso#hical reflection or technical intervention, has $een
su$stitute" for the soul, the illusion of the theologians. The man "escri$e"
for us, hom e are invite" to free, is alrea"y in himself the effect of a
su$)ection much more #rofoun" than himself. A soul inha$its him an"
$rings him to existence, hich is itself a factor in the mastery that #oer
exercises over the $o"y. The soul is the effect an" instrument of a #olitical
anatomy+ the soul is the #rison of the $o"y. '...(
Q.H T31 N1; 3ISTORI<ISM
<.8.1 Ste#hen Kreen$latt: from Shakespearean Negotiations: The <ir$lation
Of So$ial 1nergy in Renaissan$e 1nglan+
T-N *,2*H=AT,D/ D> SD*,A= N/N2KJ
, $egan ith the "esire to s#eak ith the "ea".
This "esire is a familiar, if unvoice", motive in literary stu"ies, a motive
organi:e", #rofessionali:e", $urie" $eneath thick layers of $ureaucratic
"ecorum: literature #rofessors are salarie", mi""le!class shamans. ,f ,
never $elieve" that the "ea" coul" hear me, an" if , kne that the "ea"
coul" not s#eak, , as nonetheless certain that , coul" recreate a
conversation ith them. Nven hen , came to un"erstan" that in my most
intense moments of straining to listen all , coul" hear as my on voice,
even then , "i" not a$an"on my "esire. ,t as true that , coul" hear only
my on voice, $ut my on voice as the voice of the "ea", for the "ea"
ha" contrive" to leave textual traces of themselves, an" those traces make
themselves hear" in the voices of the living. Cany of the traces have little
resonance, though every one, even the most trivial or te"ious, contains
some fragment of lost life+ others seem uncannily full of the ill to $e
hear". ,t is #ara"oxical, of course, to seek the living ill of the "ea" in
fictions, in #laces here there as no live $o"ily $eing to $egin ith. Fut
those ho love literature ten" to fin" more intensity in simulations !Oin
the formal, self!conscious miming of life O than in any of the other
textual traces left $y the "ea", for simulations are un"ertaken in full
aareness of the a$sence of life they contrive to re#resent, an" hence
they may skillfully antici#ate an" com#ensate for the vanishing of the
actual life that has em#oere" them. *onventional in my tastes, , foun"
the most satisfying intensity of all in Shakes#eare.
, ante" to kno ho Shakes#eare manage" to achieve such intensity,
for , thought that the more , un"erstoo" this achievement, the more ,
coul" hear an" un"erstan" the s#eech of the "ea".
The question then as ho "i" so much life get into the textual traces@
Shakes#eares #lays, it seeme", ha" #reci#itate" out of a su$lime
confrontation $eteen a total artist an" a totali:ing society. Fy a total
artist , mean one ho, through training, resourcefulness, an" talent, is at
the moment of creation com#lete unto himself+ $y a totali:ing society ,
mean one that #osits an occult netork linking all human, natural, an"
cosmic #oers an" that claims on $ehalf of its ruling elite a #rivilege"
#lace in this netork. Such a society generates vivi" "reams of access to
the linke" #oers an" vests control of this access in a religious an" state
$ureaucracy at hose #innacle is the sym$olic figure of the monarch. The
1I8
result of this confrontation $eteen total artist an" totali:ing society as a
set of unique, inexhausti$le, an" su#remely #oerful orks of art.
,n the $ook , have ritten something of this initial conce#tion survives,
$ut it has $een com#licate" $y several turns in my thinking that , ha" not
foreseen. , can summari:e those turns $y remarking that , came to have
"ou$ts a$out to things: total artist an" totali:ing society.
, "i" not, to $e sure, "ou$t that the #lays attri$ute" to Shakes#eare ere
in large #art ritten $y the su#remely gifte" alumnus of the Stratfor"
grammar school. /or "i" , cease to $elieve that 2enaissance society as
totali:ing in intention. Fut , gre incessantly uneasy ith the monolithic
entities that my ork ha" #osite". /o in"ivi"ual, not even the most
$rilliant, seeme" com#lete unto himself O my on stu"y of 2enaissance
self!fashioning ha" alrea"y #ersua"e" me of this O an" Nli:a$ethan an"
?aco$ean visions of hi""en unity seeme" like anxious rhetorical attem#ts
to conceal cracks, conflicts an" "isarray. , ha" trie" to organi:e the mixe"
motives of Tu"or an" Stuart culture un"er the ru$ric po"er, $ut that term
im#lie" a structural unity an" sta$ility of comman" $elie" $y much of
hat , actually kne a$out the exercise of authority an" force in the
#erio".
,f it as im#ortant to s#eak of #oer in relation to 2enaissance literature
O not only as the o$)ect $ut as the ena$ling con"ition of re#resentation
itself O it as equally im#ortant to resist the integration of all images an"
ex#ressions into a single master "iscourse. >or if 2enaissance riters
themselves often echoe" the "esire of #rinces an" #relates for )ust such a
"iscourse, $rilliant critical an" theoretical ork in recent years $y a large
an" "iverse grou# of scholars ha" "emonstrate" that this "esire as itself
constructe" out of conflicting an" ill!sorte" motives. Nven those literary
texts that sought most ar"ently to s#eak for a monolithic #oer coul" $e
shon to $e the sites of institutional an" i"eological contestation.
Fut hat "oes it mean to #ull $ack from a notion of artistic
com#leteness, on the one han", an" totali:ing #oer, on the other@ ,t can
mean a return to the text itself as the central o$)ect of our attention. To
s#eak of such a return has a salutary ring O there are "ays hen , long to
recover the close!graine" formalism of my on literary training O $ut the
referent of the #hrase the text itself is $y no means clear. ,n"ee" in the
case of Shakes#eare 0an" of the "rama more generally1, there has
#ro$a$ly never $een a time since the early eighteenth century hen there
as less confi"ence in the text. /ot only has a ne generation of textual
historians un"ermine" the notion that a skille" e"itorial eaving of folio
an" quarto rea"ings ill give us an authentic recor" of Shakes#eares
original intentions, $ut theatre historians have challenge" the hole
notion of the text as the central, sta$le locus of theatrical meaning. There
are textual traces O a $eil"ering mass of them O $ut it is im#ossi$le to
take the text itself as the #erfect, unsu$stituta$le freestan"ing container
of all of its meanings.
The textual analyses , as traine" to "o ha" as their goal the
i"entification an" cele$ration of a numinous literary authority, hether
that authority as ultimately locate" in the mysterious genius of an artist
or in the mysterious #erfection of a text hose intuitions an" conce#ts
can never $e ex#resse" in other terms. The great attraction of this
authority is that it a##ears to $in" an" fix the energies e #ri:e, to
i"entify a sta$le an" #ermanent source of literary #oer, to offer an
esca#e from share" contingency.
This #ro)ect, en"lessly re#eate", re#eate"ly fails for one reason: there is
no esca#e from contingency.
All the same, e "o ex#erience unmistaka$le #leasure an" interest in
the literary traces of the "ea", an" , return to the question ho it is
#ossi$le for those traces to convey lost life. Dver the #ast several
generations this question has $een a""resse" #rinci#ally $y close rea"ing
of the textual traces, an" , $elieve that sustaine", scru#ulous attention to
formal an" linguistic "esign ill remain at the center of literary teaching
an" stu"ying. Fut in the essays that follo , #ro#ose something "ifferent:
to look less at the #resume" centre of the literary "omain than at its
$or"ers, to try to track hat can only $e glim#se", as it ere, at the
margins of the text. The cost of this shift in attention ill $e the
satisfying illusion of a hole rea"ing, the im#ression conveye" $y
#oerful critics that ha" they $ut orl" enough an" time, they coul"
illuminate every corner of the text an" knit together into a unifie"
1I<
inter#retative vision all of their "iscrete #erce#tions. Cy vision is
necessarily more fragmentary, $ut , ho#e to offer a com#ensatory
satisfaction: insight into the half!hi""en cultural transactions through
hich great orks of art are em#oere". '...(
, have terme" this general enter#rise O stu"y of the collective making of
"istinct cultural #ractices an" inquiry into the relations among these
#ractices O a #oetics of culture. >or me the inquiry is $oun" u# ith a
s#ecific interest in 2enaissance mo"es of aesthetic em#oerment: , ant
to kno ho cultural o$)ects, ex#ressions an" #ractices O here, #rinci#ally
#lays $y Shakes#eare an" the stage on hich they first a##eare" O
acquire" com#elling force. Nnglish literary theorists in the #erio" nee"e" a
ne or" for that force, a or" to "escri$e the a$ility of language, in
%uttenhams #hrase, to cause a stir to the min" + "raing on the Kreek
rhetorical tra"ition, they calle" it energia. This is the origin in our
language of the term energy, a term , #ro#ose e use, #rovi"e" that e
un"erstan" that its origins lie in rhetoric rather than #hysics an" that its
significance is social an" historical. &e ex#erience ithin ourselves, $ut
its contem#orary existence "e#en"s u#on an irregular chain of historical
transactions that lea" $ack to the late sixteenth an" early seventeenth
centuries. Boes this mean that the aesthetic #oer of a #lay like Ding Lear
is a "irect transmission from Shakes#eares time to our on@ *ertainly
not. That #lay an" the circumstances in hich it as originally em$e""e"
have $een continuously, often ra"ically, refigure". Fut these refigurations
"o not cancel history, locking us into a #er#etual #resent+ on the contrary,
they are signs of the inesca#a$ility of a historical #rocess, a structure"
negotiation an" exchange, alrea"y evi"ent in the initial moments of
em#oerment. That there is no "irect, unme"iate" link $eteen ourselves
an" Shakes#eares #lays "oes not mean that there is no link at all. The
life that literary orks seem to #ossess long after $oth the "eath of the
author an" the "eath of the culture for hich the author rote is the
historical consequence, hoever transforme" an" refashione", of the social
energy initially enco"e" in those orks.
Fut hat is social energy @ The term im#lies something measura$le, yet
, cannot #rovi"e a convenient an" relia$le formula for isolating a single,
sta$le quantum for examination. &e i"entify energia only in"irectly, $y
its effects: it is manifeste" in the ca#acity of certain ver$al, aural an"
visual traces to #ro"uce, sha#e, an" organi:e collective #hysical an"
mental ex#eriences. -ence it is associate" ith re#eata$le forms of
#leasure an" interest, ith the ca#acity to arouse "isquiet, #ain, fear, the
$eating of the heart, #ity, laughter, tension, relief, on"er. ,n its aesthetic
mo"es, social energy must have a minimal #re"icta$ility O enough to
make sim#le re#etitions #ossi$le O an" a minimal range: enough to reach
out $eyon" a single creator or consumer to some community, hoever
constricte". Dccasionally, an" e are generally intereste" in these
occasions, the #re"icta$ility an" range ill $e far greater: large num$ers
of men an" omen of "ifferent social classes an" "ivergent $eliefs ill
$e in"uce" to ex#lo"e ith laughter or ee# or ex#erience a com#lex
$len" of anxiety an" exaltation. Coreover, the aesthetic forms of social
energy are usually characteri:e" $y a minimal a"a#ta$ility O enough to
ena$le them to survive at least some of the constant changes in social
circumstance an" cultural value that make or"inary utterances
evanescent. &hereas most collective ex#ressions move" from their
original setting to a ne #lace or time are "ea" on arrival, the social
energy enco"e" in certain orks of art continues to generate the illusion
of life for centuries. , ant to un"erstan" the negotiations through hich
orks of art o$tain an" am#lify such #oerful energy.
,f one longs, as , "o, to reconstruct these negotiations, one "reams of
fin"ing an originary moment, a moment in hich the master han" sha#es
the concentrate" social energy into the su$lime aesthetic o$)ect. Fut the
quest is fruitless, for there is no originary moment, no #ure act of
untrammelle" creation. ,n #lace of a $la:ing genesis, one $egins to
glim#se something that seems at first far less s#ectacular: a su$tle,
elusive set of exchanges, a netork of tra"es an" tra"e!offs, a )ostling of
com#eting re#resentations, a negotiation $eteen )oint!stock com#anies.
Kra"ually, these com#lex, ceaseless $orroings an" len"ings have come
to seem to me more im#ortant, more #oignant even, than the e#i#hany for
hich , ha" ho#e". '...(
1I6
<.8.E -ay"en &hite: from Tropi$s of ,is$orse
The -istorical Text as =iterary Artifact
There is one #ro$lem that neither #hiloso#hers nor historians have looke"
at very seriously an" to hich literary theorists have given only #assing
attention. This question has to "o ith the status of the historical narrative
consi"ere" #urely as a ver$al artifact #ur#orting to $e a mo"el of structures
an" #rocesses long #ast an" therefore not su$)ect to either ex#erimental or
o$servational controls. This is not to say that historians an" #hiloso#hers
of histroy have faile" to take notice of the essentially #rovisional an"
contingent nature of historical re#resentations an" of their susce#ti$ility to
infinite revision in the light of ne evi"ence for more so#histicate"
conce#tuali:ations of #ro$lems. Dne of the marks of a goo" #rofessional
historian is the consistency ith hich he remin"s his rea"er of the #urely
#rovisional nature of his characteri:ation of events, agents, an" agencies
foun" in the alays incom#lete historical recor". /or is it to say that
literary theorists have never stuu"ie" the structure of historical narratives.
Fut in general there has $een a reluctance to consi"er historical narratives
as hat they most manifestly are: ver$al fictions, the contents of hich are
as much invente+ as fon+ an" the forms of hich have more in common
ith their counter#arts in literature than they have ith those in the
sciences.
/o, it is o$vious that this conflation of mythic an" historical
consciousness ill offen" some historians an" "istur$ those literary
theorists hose conce#tion of literature #resu##oses a ra"ical o##osition
of history to fiction or of fact to fancy. As /orthro# >rye has remarke",
,n a sense the historical is the o##osite of the mythical, an" to tell the
historian that hat gives sha#e to his $ook is a myth oul" soun" to him
vaguely insulting. Jet >rye himself grants that hen a historians
scheme gets to a certain #oint of com#rehensiveness it $ecomes mythical
in sha#e, an" so a##roaches the #oetic in its structure. -e even s#eaks of
"ifferent kin"s of historical myths: 2omantic myths $ase" on a quest or
#ilgrimage to a *ity of Ko" or classless society + *omic myths of
#rogress through evolution or revolution + Tragic myths of "ecline an"
fall, like the orks of Ki$$on an" S#engler + an" ,ronic myths of
recurrence or casual catastro#he. Fut >rye a##ears to $elieve that these
myths are o#erative only in such victims of might $e calle" the #oetic
fallacy as -egel, Carx, /iet:sche, S#engler, Toyn$ee, an" Sartre O
histroians hose fascination ith the constructive ca#acity of human
thought has "ea"ene" their res#onsi$ility to the foun" "ata. The
histroian orks in"uctively, he says, collecting his facts an" trying to
avoi" any informing #atterns exce#t those he sees, or is honestly
convince" he sees, in the facts themselves. -e "oes not ork from a
unifying form as the #oet "oes, $ut toar" it+ an" it therefore follos
that the historian, like any riter of "iscoursive #rose, is to $e )u"ge" $y
the truts of hat he says, or $y the a"equacy of his ver$al re#ro"uction of
his external mo"el, hether that the external mo"el $e the actions of #ast
men or the historians on thought a$out such actions.
&hat >rye says is true enough as a statement of the i+eal that has
ins#ire" historical riting since the time of the Kreeks, $ut that i"eal
#resu##oses an o##osition $eteen myth an" history that is as
#ro$lematic as it is venera$le. ,t serves >ryes #ur#oses very ell since it
#ermits him to locate the s#ecifically fictive in the s#ace $eteen the
to conce#ts of the mythic an" the historical. As rea"ers of >ryes
Anato(y of <riti$is( ill remem$er, >rye conceives fictions to consist in
#art of su$limates of archety#al myths!structures. These structures have
$een "is#lace" to the interior of ver$al artifacts in such a ay as to serve
as their latent meanings. The fun"amental meanings of all fiction, their
thematic content, consists, in >ryes vie, of the #re!generic #lot!
structures or (ythoi "erive" from the cor#ora of *lassical an" ?u"aeo!
*hristian religious literature. Accor"ing to this theory, e un"erstan"
"hy a #articular story as turne" out as it has hen e have i"entifie"
the archety#al myth, or #regeneric #lot structure of hich the story is an
exem#lification. An" e see the #oint of a story hen e have
i"entifie" its theme 0>ryes translation of +ianoia1, hich makes of it a
#ara$le or illustrative fa$le. Nvery ork of literature, >rye insists, has
1II
$oth a fictional an" a thematic as#ect, $ut as e move from fictional
#ro)ections toar" the overt articulation of theme, the riting ten"s to
take on the as#ect of "irect a""ress or straight "iscursive riting an"
cease's( to $e literature. An" in >ryes vie, as e have seen, history 0or
at least #ro#er history1 $elongs to the category of "iscursive riting, so
that hen the fictional elements O or mythic #lot structure O is o%viosly
#resent in it, it ceseases to $e history altogether an" $ecomes a $astar"
genre, #ro"uct of unholy, though not unnatural, union $eteen history an"
#oetry.
Jet, , oul" argue, histories gain #art of their ex#lanatory effect $y their
success in making stories out of (ere chronicles+ an" stories in turn are
ma"e out of chronicles $yu an o#eration hich , have elsehere calle"
em#lotment. An" $y em#lotment , mean sim#ly the enco"ation of the
facts containe" in the chronicle as com#onents of s#ecific kin+s of #lot
structures, in #recisely the ay that >rye has suggeste" is the case ith
fictions in general.
The late 2. K. *ollingoo" insiste" that the historian as a$ove all a
story teller an" suggeste" that historical sensi$ility as manifeste" in the
ca#acity to make a #lasi$le story out of a congeries of facts hich in
their un#rocesse" form, ma"e no sense at all. ,n their efforts to make sense
of the historical recor", hich is fragmentary an" alays incom#lete,
historians have to make use of hat *ollingoo" calle" the constructive
imagination, hich tol" the historian O as it tells the com#etent "etective
O hat must have $een the case, given the availa$le evi"ence an" the
formal #ro#erties it "is#laye" to the consciousness ca#a$le of #utting the
right question to it. This constructive imagination functions in much the
same ay that 3ant su##ose" the a priori imagination functions hen it
tells us that even though it cannot #erceive $oth si"es of a ta$leto#
simultaneously, e can $e certain it has t"o si"es if it has one, $ecause the
very conce#t of one si+e entails at least one other. *ollingoo" suggeste"
that historians come to their evi"ence en"oe" ith a sense of the
possi%le forms that "ifferent kin"s of recogni:a$ly human situations $an
take. -e calle" this sense the nose for the story containe" in the
evi"ence or for the true story that as $urie" in or hi""en $ehin" the
a##arent story. An" he conclu"e" that historians #rovi"e #lausi$le
ex#lanations for $o"ies of historcal evi"ence hen they succee" in
"iscovering a story or com#lex of stories im#licitely containe" ithin
them.
'...( /o, if any of this is #lausi$le as a characteri:ation of the
ex#lanatory effect of historical narrative, it tells us someting im#ortant
a$out the (i(eti$ as#ect of historical narratives. ,t is generally
maintaine" O as >rye sai" O that a history is a ver$al mo"el of a set of
events external to the min" of the historian. Fut it is rong to think of a
history as a mo"el similar to a scale mo"el of an air#lane or shi#, a ma#,
or a #hotogra#h. >or e can check the a"equacy of this latter kin" of
mo"el $y going an" looking at the original an", $y a##lying the
necessary rules of translation, seing in hat res#ect the mo"el has
actually succee"e" in re#ro"ucing as#ects of the original. Fut historical
structures an" #rocesses are not like these originals+ e cannot go an"
look at them in or"er to see if the historian has a"equately re#ro"uce"
them in his narrative. /or shoul" e ant to, even if e coul"+ for after
all it as the very strangeness of the original as it a##eare" in the
"ocuments that ins#ire" the historians efforts to make a mo"el of it in
the first #lace. ,f the historian only "i" that for us, e shoul" $e in the
same situation as the #atient hose analyst merely tol" him, on the $asis
of intervies ith his #arents, si$lings, an" chil"hoo" frien"s, hat the
true facts of the #atients early life ere. &e oul" have no reason to
think that anything at all have $een e#plaine+ to us.
This is hat lea"s me to thimk that historical narratives are not only
mo"els of #ast events an" #rocesses, $ut also meta#horical statements
hich suggest a relation of similitu"e $eteen such events an" #rocesses
an" the story ty#es that e conventionally use to en"o the events of our
lives ith cultural sanctione" meanings. Viee" in a #urely formal ay,
a historical narrative is not only a repro+$tion the events re#orte" in it,
$ut also $o(ple# of sy(%ols hich gives us "irections for fin"ing an i$on
of the structure sof those events in our literary tra"ition.
, am here, of course, invoking the "istinctions $eteen sign, sym$ol,
an" icon hich *. S. %eirce "evelo#e" in his #hiloso#hy of language. ,
1I9
think that these "istinctions ill hel# us to un"erstan" hat is realistic in
all #utatively realistic re#resentations of the orl" an" hat is realistic in
all manifestly realistic ones. They hel# us, in short, to anser the question,
&hat are historical re#resentations representations of@ ,t seems to me that
e must say of histories hat >rye seems to think history is true only of
#oetry or #hiloso#hies of history, namely that, consi"ere" as a system of
signs, the historical narrative #oints in to "irections simultaneously:
to"ar+ the events "escri$e" in the narrative an" to"ar+ the story ty#e or
mythos hich the historian has chosen to serve as the icon of the structure
of the events. The narrative itself is not the icon+ hat it "oes is +es$ri%e
events in the historical recor" in such a ays as to inform the rea"er "hat
to take as an i$on of the events so as to ren"er them familiar to him. The
historical narrative thus me"iate" $eteen the events re#orte" in it on the
one si"e an" #regenric #lot structures conventionally use" in our culture to
en"o unfamiliar events an" situations ith meanings, on the other.'...(
Fut the #resume" concretness an" accessi$ility of historical milieux, this
contexts of the texts that literary scholars stu"y, are themselves #ro"ucts of
the fictive ca#a$ility of the historians ho have stu"ie" those contexts.
The historical "ocuments are not as o#aque than the texts stu"ie" $y the
literary critic. /or is the orl" those "ocuments figure more accessi$le.
The one is no more given than the other. ,n fact, the o#aqueness of the
orl" figure" in historical "ocuments is, if anything, increase" $y the
#ro"uction of historical narratives. Nach ne historical ork only a""s to
the num$er of #ossi$le texts that have to $e inter#rete" if a full an"
accurate #icture of a given historical milieu is to $e faithfully "rane".
The relationshi# $eteen the #ast to $e analyse" an" historical orks
#ro"uce" $y analysis of "ocuments is #ara"oxical+ the (ore e kno
a$out the #ast, the more "iffucult it isto generali:e a$out it.
Fut if the increase in our knole"ge of the #ast makes it more "ifficult to
generali:e a$out it, it shoul" make it easier for us to generali:e a$out the
forms in hich that knole"ge is transmitte" to us. Dur knole"ge of the
#ast may increase incrementally, $ut our un"erstan"ing of it "oes not. /or
"oes our un"erstan"ing of the #ast #rogress $y the kin" of revolutionary
$reakthroughs that e associate ith the "evelo#ment of the #hysical
sciences. =ike literature, history #rogresses $y the #ro"uction of classics,
the nature of hich is such that they cannot $e "isconfirme" or negate",
in the ay that the #rinci#al conce#tion schemata of the sciences are.
An" it is their non"isconfirma$ility that testifies to the essentially literary
nature of historical classics. There is something in historical master#iece
that cannot $e negate", an" this nonnegata$le element is its form, the
form hich is its fiction. '...(
,t is this me"iative function that #ermits us to s#eak of a historical
narrative as an exten"e" meta#hor. As a sym$olic structure, the historical
narrative "oes not repro+$e the events it "escri$es+ it tells us in hat
"irection to think a$out the events an" charges our thought a$out the
events ith "ifferent emotional valences. The historical narrative "oes
not i(age the things it in"icates+ it $alls to (in+ images of the things it
imitates, in the same ay that a meta#hor "oes. &hen a given concourse
of events is em#lote" as a trage"y, this sim#ly means that the historian
has so "escri$e" the events as to re(in+ s of that form of fiction hich
e associate ith the conce#t tragic. %ro#erly un"erstoo", histories
ought never to $e rea" as unam$iguous signs of the events they re#ort,
$ut rather as sym$olic structures, exten"e" meta#hors, that liken the
events re#orte" in them to some form hich e have alrea"y $ecome
familiar in out literary culture.
%erha#s , shoul" in"icate $riefly hat is meant $y the sy(%oli$ an"
i$oni$ as#ects of a meta#hor. The hackneye" #hrase Cy love, a rose is
not, o$viously, inten"e" to $e un"erstoo" as suggesting that the love" one
is a$tally a rose. ,t is not even meant to suggest that the love" one has
the s#ecific attri$utes of a rose ! that is to say, that the love" one is re",
yello, orange, or $lack, is a #lant, has thorns, nee"s sunlight, shoul" $e
s#raye" regularly ith insectici"s, an" so on. ,t is meant to $e un"erstoo"
as in"icating that the $elove" shares the .alities hich the rose has
come to sy(%olize in the customary linguistic usages of &estern culture.
That is to say, consi"ere" as a message, the meta#hor gives "irections for
fin"ing an entity that ill evoke the images associate" "ith love+ ones
an+ roses alike in our culture. The meta#hor "oes not i(age the thing it
seeks to characteri:e, it gives +ire$tions for fin"ing the set of images that
1I7
are inten"e" to $e associate" ith that thing. ,t functions as a sym$ol,
rather than as a sign: hich is to say that it "oes not give us either a
+es$ription or an i$on of the thing it re#resents, $ut tells s hat images to
look for in our culturally enco"e" ex#erience in or"er to "etermine ho e
shol+ feel a$out the thing re#resente".
So too for historical narratives. They succee" in en"oing sets of #ast
events ith meanings, over an" a$ove hatever com#rehension they
#rovi"e $y a##eal to #utative causal las, $y ex#loiting the meta#horical
similarities $eteen sets of real events an" the conventional structures of
our fictions. Fy the very constitution of a st of events in such a ay as to
make a com#rehensi$le story out of them, the historian charges those
events ith the sym$olic significance of a com#rehensi$le #lot structure.
-istorians may not like to think of their orks as translations of fact into
fictions+ $ut this is one of the effects of their orks. Fy suggesting
alternative em#lotments of a given sequence of historical events, historians
#rovi"e historical events ith all of the #ossi$le meanings ith hich the
literary art of their culture is ca#a$le of en"oing them. The real "is#ute
$eteen the #ro#er historian an" the #hiloso#her of history has to "o ith
the latters insistence that events can $e em#lote" in one an" only one
story form. -istory!riting thrives on the "iscovery of all the #ossi$le #lot
structures that might $e invoke" to en"o sets of events ith "ifferent
meanings. An" our un"erstan"ing of the #ast increases #recisely in the
"egree to hich e succee" in "ertermining ho far that #ast conforms to
the strategies of sense!making that are containe" in their #urest forms in
literary art. '...(
The im#lication is that historians $onstitte their su$)ects as #ossi$le
o$)ects of narrative re#resentation $y the very language they use to
+es$ri%e them. An" if thsi is the case, it means that a "ifferent kin"s of
historical inter#retations that e have of the same set of events, such as the
>rench 2evolution as inter#rete" $y Cichelet, Tocqueville, Taine, an"
others, are little more than #ro)ections of the linguistic #rotocols that these
historians use" to pre O figure that set of events #rior to riting their
narratives of it. ,t is only a hy#othesis, $ut it seems #ossi$le that the
conviction of the historian that he has foun" the form of his narrative in
the events themselves, rather than im#ose" it u#on them, in the ay the
#oet "oes, is a result of a certain lack of linguistic self!consciousness
hich o$scures the extent to hich "escri#tions of events alrea+y
constitute inter#retations of their nature. As thus envisage", the
"ifference $eteen Cichelets an" Tocquevilles accounts of the
2evolution "oes not resi"e only in the fact that the former em#lotte"
history in the mo"ality of a 2omance an" the latter his in the mo"ality of
Trage"y+ it resi"es as ell in the tro#ological mo"e O meta#horical an"
metonymic, res#ectively O ith each $rought to his a##rehension of the
facts as they a##eare" in the "ocuments.
, "o not have the s#ace to try to "emonstrate the #lausi$ility of this
hy#othesis, hich is the informing #rinci#le of my $ook Metahistory. Fut
, ho#e that this essay may serve to suggest an a##roach to the stu"y of
such "iscursive #rose forms as historiogra#hy, an a##roach that is as ol"
as the stu"y of rhetoric an" as ne as mo"ern linguistics. Such a stu"y
oul" #rocee" along the lines lai" out $y 2oman ?ako$son in a #a#er
entitle" =inguistics an" %oetics, in hich he characteri:e" the
"ifference $eteen 2omantic #oetry an" the various forms of nineteenth!
century 2ealistic #rose as resi"ing in the essentially meta#horical nature
of the former an" the essentially metonymical nature of the latter. , think
that his characteri:ation of the "ifference $eteen #oetry an" #rose is too
narro, $ecause it #resu##oses that com#lex macrostructural narratives
such as the novel are little more than #ro)ections of the selective 0i.e.,
#honemic1 axis of all s#eech acts. %oetry, an" es#ecially 2omantic
#oetry, is then characteri:e" $y ?ako$son as a #ro)ection of the
com$inatory 0i.e., mor#hemic1 axis of language. Such a $inary theory
#ushes the analyst toar" a "ualistic o##osition $eteen #oetry an" #rose
hich a##ears to rule out the #ossi$ility of a metonymical #oetry an" a
meta#horical #rose. Fut the fruitfulness of ?oako$sons theory lies in its
suggestion that the various forms of $oth #oetry an" #rose, all of hich
have their counter#arts in narrative in general an" therefore in
historiogra#hy too, can $e characteri:e" in terms of the "ominant tro#e
hich serves as the #ara"igm, #rovi"e" $y language itself, of all
significant relationshi#s conveive" to exist in the orl" $y anyone
1I4
ishing to re#resent those relationshi#s in language. '...(
>or exam#le, let us su##ose that a set of ex#eriences comes to us as a
grotesque, i.e., as unclassifie" an" unclassifia$le. Dur #ro$lem is to
i"entify the mo"ality of the relationshi#s that $in" the "iscerni$le elements
of the formless totality together in such a ay as to make of it a hole of
some sort. ,f e stress the similarities among the elements, e are orking
in the mo"e of meta#hor+ if e stress the "ifferences among them, e are
orking in the mo"e of metonymy. Df course, in or"er to make sense of
any set of ex#eriences, e must o$viously i"entify $oth the #arts of a thing
that a##ear ot make it u# an" the nature of the share" as#ects of the #arts
that make them i"entifia$le as a totality. This im#lies that all original
characteri:ations of anything must utili:e %oth meta#hor an" metonymy in
or"er to fix it as something a$out hich e can meaningfully "iscourse.
,n the case of historiogra#hy, the attem#ts of commentators to make
sense of the >rench 2evolution are instructive. Furke "eco"es the events
of the 2evolution hich his contem#oraries ex#erience" as a grotesque $y
recor"ing it in the mo"e of irony+ Cichelet reco"es these events in the
mo"e of synech"oche+ Tocqueville reco"es them in the mo"e of
metonymy. ,n each case, hoever, the movement from co"e to reco"e is
narratively "escri$e", i.e., lai" out on a time line in such a ay as to make
the inter#retation of the events that ma"e u# the 2evolution a kin" of
"rama that e can recogni:e Satirical, 2omantic, an" Tragic, res#ectively.
This "rama can $e folloe" $y the rea"er of the narrative in such a ay as
to $e ex#erience" as a #rogressive revelation of hat the tre nature of the
events consists of. The revelation is not ex#erience", hoever, as a
restructuring of #erce#tion so much as an illumination of a fiel" of
occurance. Fut actually hat has ha##ene" is that a set of events originally
enco"e" in one ay is sim#ly $eing "eco"e" $y $eing reco"e" in another.
The events themselves are not su$stantially change" from one account to
another. That is to say, the "ata that are to $e analy:e" are not significantly
"ifferent in the "ifferent accounts. &hat is "ifferent are the mo"alities of
their relationshi#s.'...(
<.8.8 ?onathan Bollimore an" Alan Sinfiel": from -istory an" ,"eology:
The ,nstance of 3enry 5
'...( %erha#s the most fun"amental error in 'the( accounts of the role of
i"eology is falsely to unify history an"Uor the in"ivi"ual human su$)ect.
,n one, history is i"entifie" $y a teleological #rinci#le conferring
meaningful or"er 0Tillyar"1, in another $y the inverse of this ! 3otts
im#laca$le roller. An" San"erss em#hasis on moral or su$)ective
integrity im#lies a "ifferent though relate" notion of unity: an ex#erience
of su$)ective autonomy, of an essential self uncontaminate" $y the
corru#tion of orl"ly #rocess+ in"ivi"ual integrity im#lies in the
etymology of $oth or"s an i"eal unity: the un"ivi"e", the integral.
Theories a$out the ultimate unity of $oth history an" the human su$)ect
"erive of course from a estern #hiloso#hical tra"ition here, moreover,
they have usually im#lie" each other: the universal $eing seen as
manifeste" through in"ivi"ual essences hich in turn #resu##ose
universals. Dften unaares, i"ealist literary criticism has orke" ithin
or in the sha"o of this tra"ition, as can $e seen for exam#le in its
insistence that the universal truths of great literature are em$o"ie" in
coherent an" consistent characters.
The alternative to this is not to $ecome fixate" on this negation !
universal chaos an" su$)ective fragmentation ! $ut rather to un"erstan"
history an" the human su$)ect in terms of social an" #olitical #rocess.
*rucial for such an un"erstan"ing is a materialist account of i"eology.
,"eology is com#ose" of those $eliefs, #ractices an" institutions hich
ork to legitimate the social or"er ! es#ecially $y the #rocess of
re#resenting sectional or class interests as universal ones. This #rocess
#resu##oses that there are others, su$or"inate classes, ho far from
sharing the interests of the "ominant class are in fact $eing ex#loite" $y
that class. This is one reason hy the "ominant ten" not only to s#eak
for su$or"inate classes $ut actively to re#ress them as ell. This
re#ression o#erates coercively $ut also i"eologically 0the to are in
195
#ractice inse#ara$le1. So for exam#le at the same time that the Nli:a$ethan
ruling fraction claime" to lea" an" s#eak for all, it #ersecute" those ho
"i" not fit in it, even $laming them for the social insta$ility hich
originate" in its on #olicies. This is an instance of a #rocess of
"is#lacement crucial then 0an" since1 in the formation of "ominant
i"entities ! class, cultural, racial an" sexual.
,"eology is not )ust a set of i"eas, it is material #ractice, oven into the
fa$ric of every"ay life. At the same time, the "ominant i"eology is reali:e"
s#ecifically through the institutions of e"ucation, the family, the la,
religion, )ournalism an" culture. ,n the Nli:a$ethan state all these
institutions orke" to achieve i"eological unity ! not alays successfully,
for conflicts an" contra"ictions remaine" visi$le at all levels, even ithin
the "ominant class fraction an" its institutions. The theatre as monitore"
closely $y the state ! $oth com#anies an" #lays ha" to $e license" ! an"
yet its institutional #osition as com#lex. Dn the one han", it as
sometimes summone" to #erform at *ourt an" such may seem a "irect
extension of royal #oer '...(+ on the other han", it as the mo"e of
cultural #ro"uction in hich market forces ere strongest, an" such as it
as es#ecially ex#ose" to the influence of su$or"inate an" emergent
classes. &e shoul" not, therefore, ex#ect any straightforar" relationshi#
$eteen #lays an" i"eology: on the contrary, it is even likely that the
to#ics hich engage" riters an" au"iences alike ere those here
i"eology as un"er strain. &e ill take as an instance for stu"y 3enry 5,
an" it ill a##ear that even in this #lay, hich is often assume" to $e the
one here Shakes#eare is closest to state #ro#agan"a, the construction of
i"eology is com#lex ! even as it consoli"ates, it $etrays inherent
insta$ility.
The #rinci#al strategy of i"eology is to legitimate inequality an"
ex#loitation $y re#resenting the social or"er hich #er#etuates these
things as immuta$le an" unaltera$le ! as "ecree" $y Ko" or sim#ly
natural. Since the Nli:a$ethan #erio" the i"eological a##eal to Ko" has
ten"e" to give ay to the equally #oerful a##eal to the natural. Fut in the
earlier #erio" $oth ere crucial: the las of "egree an" or"er inferre" from
nature ere further construe" as having $een #ut there $y Ko". Dne
religious vision re#resente" ultimate reality in terms of unity an" stasis:
human en"eavour, governe" $y the las of change an" occu#ying the
material "omain, is ever tharte" in its as#iration, ever haunte" $y its
loss of an a$solute hich can only $e regaine" in transcen"ence, the
move through "eath to eternal rest, to an ultimate unity inse#ara$le from
a full stasis, hen no more <hange shall $e an" all rest eternally
0S#enser, The Faerie 2eene, V,,, ii1. This meta#hysical vision has its
#olitical uses, es#ecially hen ai"ing the #rocess of su$)ection $y
encouraging renunciation of the material orl" an" a "isregar" of its
social as#ects such that o##ression is ex#erience" as a fate rather than an
altera$le con"ition. %rotestantism ten"e" to encourage engagement in the
orl" rather than ith"raal from it+ most of The Faerie 2eene is a$out
the urgent questing of knights an" la"ies. The theological un"er#inning
of this activist religion as the "octrine of callings: Ko" $estos his gift
u#on us '...( that they might $e em#loye" in his service an" to his glory,
an" that in this life. This "octrine legitimate" the ex#ansive assertiveness
of a social or"er hich as $ringing much of Fritain un"er centrali:e"
control, coloni:ing #arts of the /e &orl" an" tra"ing vigorously ith
most of the Dl", an" hich as to ex#erience revolutionary changes. At
the same time, acquiescence in an un)ust social or"er 0like that
encourage" $y a fatalistic meta#hysic of stasis1 seeme" to $e effecte",
though less securely, $y an insistence that hatsoever any man
enter#riseth or "oth, either must kee# himself ithin the com#ass, limits
or #recincts thereof '...(. This i"eology as none the less meta#hysical.
Such an activist i"eology is o$viously a##ro#riate for the legitimation
of arfare, an" so e fin" it offere" $y the Arch$isho# of *anter$ury in
3enry 5 ! as the Narl of Nssex set off for ,relan" in 1644 =ancelot
An"rees assure" the Aueen in a sermon that it as a ar sanctifie"
'...(. ,n the honey$ees s#eech human en"eavour is not "enigrate" $ut
harnesse" in an imaginary unity quite "ifferent from that affor"e" $y
stasis: So may a thousan" actions, once afoot, U Nn" in one #ur#ose 0,.
ii. E11!1E1. =ike so many #olitical i"eologies, this one shares something
essential ith the overtly religious meta#hysic it a##ears to re#lace,
namely a teleological ex#lanation of its on image of legitimate #oer !
191
that is, an ex#lanation hich is )ustifie" through the assertion that such
#oer "erives from an inherent natural an" human or"er enco"e" $y Ko".
Thus the one #ur#ose "erives from an or"er roote" in a rule of nature
0,. ii. 1771, itself a manifestation of heavenly creation, Ko"s regulative
structuring of the universe. &hat this inherent structure guarantees a$ove
all is, #re"icta$ly, o$e"ience: Therefore "oth heaven "ivi"e U The state of
man in "ivers functions, U Setting en"eavour in continual motion+ U To
hich is fixe", as an aim or $utt, U D$e"ience. 0,. ii. 178!91
An" hat in turn un"er#ins o$e"ience is the i"ea of ones )o$ or calling !
in effect ones $ee!like fn$tion ! as folloing naturally from a Ko"!given
i"entity: sol"iers, arme" in their stings, U Cake $oot u#on the summers
velvet $u"s+ U &hich #illage they ith merry march $ring home U To the
tent!royal of their em#eror. 0,. ii. 148!I1
The activist i"eology thus "is#laces the em#hasis on stasis yet remains
thoroughly meta#hysical none the less. Core generally: in this #erio",
#erha#s more than any since, e can see a secular a##ro#riation of
theological categories to the extent that it may $e argue" that 2eformation
theology actually contri$ute" to seculari:ation '...(+ nevertheless it as an
a##ro#riation hich "e#en"e" u#on continuities, the most im#ortant of
hich, in i"eological legitimation, is this a##eal to teleology.
/ot only the )ustification of the ar $ut, more s#ecifically, the heroic
re#resentation of -enry, orks in such terms. -is is a #oer roote" in
nature ! $loo", lineage an" $ree"ing: The $loo" an" courage that
renone" them U 2uns in your veins 0,. ii. 117!141 ! $ut also "eriving
ultimately from Ko"s la as it is enco"e" in nature an", $y extension,
society: >rance $elongs to him $y gift of heaven, U Fy la of nature an"
of nations 0,,. iv. 94!751. *onversely the >rench kings #oer is construe"
in terms of $orro" glories, custom an" mettle '...( $re" out 0,,. iv.
94, 78+ ,,,. v. E41. &ith this theory of legitimate versus illegitimate #oer
the res#onsi$ility for aggression is "is#lace" onto its victims. Thus "oes
ar fin" its rationale, in)ustice its )ustification.
There are to levels of "istur$ance in the state an" the i"eology hich
legitimates it: contra"iction an" conflict. *ontra"iction is the more
fun"amental, in the sense of $eing intrinsic to the social #rocess as a hole
! hen for exam#le the "ominant or"er negates hat it nee"s or, more
generally, in #er#etuating itself #ro"uces also its on negation. Thus, for
exam#le, in the seventeenth century monarchy legitimates itself in terms
of religious attitu"es hich themselves come to affor" a )ustification for
o##osition to monarchy. &e shall $e o$serving contra"iction mainly as it
manifests itself in the attem#ts of i"eology to contain it. *onflict occurs
$eteen o##ose" interests, either as a state of "isequili$rium or as active
struggle+ it occurs along the structural fault lines #ro"uce" $y
contra"ictions. ,"eology has alays $een challenge", not least $y the
ex#loite" themselves, ho have resiste" its o##ressive construction of
them an" its mystification of their "isa"vantage" social #osition. Dne
concern of a materialist criticism is ith the history of such resistance,
ith the attem#t to recover the voices an" cultures of the re#resse" an"
marginali:e" in history an" riting. Coreover, i"eology is "esta$ili:e"
not only from $elo, $ut $y antagonisms ithin an" among the "ominant
class or class fraction 0high, as o##ose" to #o#ular, literature ill often
manifest this kin" of "esta$ili:ation1. &hereas i"ealist literary criticism
has ten"e" to em#hasi:e the transcen"ence of conflict an" contra"iction,
materialist criticism seeks to stay ith them, anting to un"erstan" them
$etter.
,"eologies hich re#resent society as a s#urious unity must of necessity
also efface conflict an" contra"iction. -o successful they are in
achieving this "e#en"s on a range of com#lex an" interrelate" factors,
only a fe of hich e have s#ace to i"entify here. Dne such ill $e the
relative strength of emergent, su$or"inate an" o##ositional elements
ithin society. '...( The en"less #rocess of contest an" negotiation
$eteen these elements an" the "ominant culture is often overlooke" in
the use of some structuralist #ers#ectives ithin cultural analysis.
Dne other factor hich militates against the success of i"eological
misre#resentation involves a contra"iction fun"amental to i"eology itself
0an" this ill #rove s#ecially relevant to 3enry 51: the more i"eology
0necessarily1 engages ith the conflict an" contra"iction hich it is its
raison +* 9tre to occlu"e, the more it $ecomes susce#ti$le to
incor#orating them ithin itself. ,t faces the contra"ictory situation
19E
here$y to silent "issent one must first give it a voice, to misre#resent it
one must first #resent it.
These factors make for an inconsistency an" in"eterminacy in the
re#resentation of i"eological harmony in riting: the "ivergencies have to
$e inclu"e" if the insistence on unity is to have any #urchase, yet at the
same time their inclusion invites sce#tical interrogation of the i"eological
a##earance of unity, of the effacements of actual conflict. There may $e no
ay of resolving hether one, or hich one, of these ten"encies 0unity
versus "ivergencies1 overri"es the other in a #articular #lay, $ut in a sense
it "oes not matter: there is here an in"eterminacy hich alerts us to the
com#lex $ut alays significant #rocess of theatrical re#resentation an",
through that, of #olitical an" social #rocess. '...(
Q.Q F1MINIST <ON<1RNS AN, A00ROA<31S
<.<.1 Simone Be Feauvoir: from The Se$on+ Se#
'...( ,f her functioning as a female is not enough to "efine oman, if e
"ecline also to ex#lain her through the eternal feminine, an" if
nevertheless e a"mit, #rovisionally, that omen "o exist, then e must
face the question: hat is a oman@
To state the question is, to me, to suggest, at once, a #reliminary anser.
The fact that , ask it is in itself significant. A man oul" never set out to
rite a $ook on the #eculiar situation of the human male. Fut if , ish to
"efine myself, , must first of all say: , am a oman + on this truth must
$e $ase" all further "iscussion. A man never $egins $y #resenting himself
as an in"ivi"ual of a certain sex+ it goes ithout saying that he is a man.
The terms (as$line an" fe(inine are use" symmetrically only as a matter
of form, as on legal #a#ers. ,n actuality the relation of the to sexes is not
quite like that of to electrical #oles, for man re#resents $oth the #ositive
an" the neutral, as is in"icate" $y the common use of (an to "esignate
human $eings in general+ hereas oman re#resents only the negative,
"efine" $y limiting criteria, ithout reci#rocity. ,n the mi"st of an a$stract
"iscussion it is vexing to hear a man say: Jou think thus an" so $ecause
you are a oman + $ut , kno that my only "efence is to re#ly: , think
thus an" so $ecause it is true, there$y removing my su$)ective self from
the argument. ,t oul" $e out of the question to re#ly: An" you think the
contrary $ecause you are a man, for it is un"erstoo" that the fact of $eing
a man is no #eculiarity. A man is in the right in $eing a man+ it is the
oman ho is in the rong. ,t amounts to this: )ust as for the ancients
there as an a$solute ith reference to hich the o$lique as "efine", so
there is an a$solute human ty#e, the masculine. &oman has ovaries, a
uterus: these #eculiarities im#rison her in her su$)ectivity, circumscri$e
her ithin the limits of her on nature. ,t is often sai" that she thinks
ith her glan"s. Can su#er$ly ignores the fact that his anatomy also
inclu"es glan"s, such as the testicles, an" that they secrete hormones. -e
thinks of his $o"y as a "irect an" normal connection ith the orl",
hich he $elieves he a##rehen"s o$)ectively, hereas he regar"s the
$o"y of oman as a hin"rance, a #rison, eighe" "on $y everything
#eculiar to it. The female is a female $y virtue of a certain la$k of
qualities, sai" Aristotle+ e shoul" regar" the female nature as afflicte"
ith a natural "efectiveness. An" St. Thomas for his #art #ronounce"
oman to $e an im#erfect man, an inci"ental $eing. This is
sym$oli:e" in Kenesis here Nve is "e#icte" as ma"e from hat Fossuet
calle" a su#ernumerary $one of A"am.
Thus humanity is male an" man "efines oman not in herself $ut as
relative to him+ she is not regar"e" as an autonomous $eing. Cichelet
rites: &oman, the relative $eing... An" Fen"a is most #ositive in his
Rapport +* ?riel: The $o"y of man makes sense in itself quite a#art
from that of oman, hereas the latter seems anting in significance $y
itself... Can can think of himself ithout oman. She cannot think of
herself ithout man. An" she is sim#ly hat man "ecrees+ thus she is
calle" the sex, $y hich is meant that she a##ears essentially to the
male as a sexual $eing. >or him she is sex ! a$solute sex, no less. She is
"efine" an" "ifferentiate" ith reference to man an" not he ith
reference to her+ she is the inci"ental, the inessential as o##ose" to the
essential. -e is the Su$)ect, he is the A$solute ! she is the Dther. '...(
198
Fut omen "o not say &e, exce#t at some congress of feminists or
similar formal "emonstration+ men say omen, an" omen use the same
or" in referring to themselves. They "o not authentically assume a
su$)ective attitu"e. The #roletarians have accom#lishe" the revolution in
2ussia, the /egroes in -aiti, the ,n"o!*hinese are $attling for it in ,n"o!
*hina+ $ut the omens effort has never $een anything more than a
sym$olic agitation. They have gaine" only hat men have $een illing to
grant+ they have taken nothing, they have only receive".
The reason for this is that omen lack concrete means for organi:ing
themselves into a unit hich can stan" face to face ith the correlative
unit. They have no #ast, no history, no religion of their on+ an" they have
no such soli"arity of ork an" interest as that of the #roletariat. They are
not even #romiscuously her"e" together in the ay that creates community
feeling among the American /egroes, the ghetto ?es, the orkers of
Saint!Benis, or the factory han"s of 2enault. They live "is#erse" among
the males, attache" through resi"ence, houseork, economic con"ition,
an" social stan"ing to certain men ! fathers or hus$an"s ! more firmly
than they are to other omen. ,f they $elong to the $ourgeoisie, they feel
soli"arity ith men of that class, not ith #roletarian omen+ if they are
hite, their allegiance is to hite men, not to /egro omen. The
#roletariat can #ro#ose to massacre the ruling class, an" a sufficiently
fanatical ?e or /egro might "ream of getting sole #ossession of the
atomic $om$ an" making humanity holly ?eish or $lack+ $ut oman
cannot even "ream of exterminating the males. The $on" that unites her to
her o##ressors is not com#ara$le to any other. The "ivision of the sexes is
a $iological fact, not an event in human history. '...(
=egislators, #riests, #hiloso#hers, riters an" scientists have striven to
sho that the su$or"inate #osition of oman is ille" in heaven an"
a"vantageous on earth. The religions invente" $y men reflect this ish for
"omination. ,n the legen"s of Nve an" %an"ora men have taken u# arms
against omen. They have ma"e use of #hiloso#hy an" theology, as the
quotations from Aristotle an" St. Thomas have shon. Since ancient times
satirists an" moralists have "elighte" in shoing u# the eaknesses of
omen. &e are familiar ith the savage in"ictments hurle" against
omen throughout >rench literature. Contherlant, for exam#le, follos
the tra"ition of ?ean "e Ceung, though ith less gusto. This hostility may
at times $e ell foun"e", often it is gratuitous+ $ut in truth it more or less
successfully conceals a "esire for self!)ustification. '...(
&ith still more reason e can count on the fingers of one han" the
omen ho have traverse" the given in search of its secret "imension:
Nmily FrontR has questione" "eath, Virginia &oolf life, an" 3atherine
Cansfiel" ! not very often ! every "ay contingence an" suffering. /o
oman rote The Trial- Mo%y ,i$k- ?lysses- or Seven 0illars of ;is+o(.
&omen "o not contest the human situation, $ecause they have har"ly
$egun to assume it. This ex#lains hy their orks for the most #art lack
meta#hysical resonances an" also anger+ they "o not take the orl"
inci"entally, they "o not ask it questions, they "o not ex#ose its
contra"ictions: they take it as it is too seriously. ,t shoul" $e sai" that the
ma)ority of men have the same limitations+ it is hen e com#are the
oman of achievement ith the fe rare male artists ho "eserve to $e
calle" great men that she seems me"iocre. ,t is not a s#ecial "estiny that
limits her: e can rea"ily com#rehen" hy it has not $een vouchsafe"
her ! an" may not $e vouchsafe" her for some time ! to attain to the
loftiest summits.
Art, literature, #hiloso#hy, are attem#ts to foun" the orl" ane on a
human li$erty: that of the in"ivi"ual creator+ to entertain such a
#retension, one must first unequivocally assume the status of a $eing ho
has li$erty. The restrictions that e"ucation an" custom im#ose on oman
no limit her gras# on the universe+ hen the struggle to fin" ones #lace
in this orl" is too ar"uous, there can $e no question of getting aay
from it. /o, one must first emerge from it into a sovereign solitu"e if
one ants to try to regain a gras# u#on it: hat oman nee"s first of all
is to un"ertake, in anguish an" #ri"e, her a##renticeshi# in a$an"onment
an" transcen"ence: that is, in li$erty. '...(
19<
<.<.E ?ulia 3risteva: from &omens Time
The terror of #oer or the #oer of terrorism
>irst in socialist countries 0such as the HSS2 an" *hina1 an" increasingly
in &estern "emocracies, un"er #ressure from feminist movements, omen
are $eing #romote" to lea"ershi# #ositions in government, in"ustry, an"
culture. ,nequalities, "evalori:ations, un"erestimations, even #ersecution
of omen at this level continue to hol" say in vain. The struggle against
them is a struggle against archaisms. The cause has nonetheless $een
un"erstoo", the #rinci#le has $een acce#te". &hat remains is to $reak
"on the resistance to change. ,n this sense, this struggle, hile still one of
the main concerns of the ne generation, is not, strictly s#eaking, its
#ro$lem. ,n relationshi# to po"er- its #ro$lem might rather $e summari:e"
as follos: &hat ha##ens hen omen come into #oer an" i"entify ith
it@ &hat ha##ens hen, on the contrary, they refuse #oer an" create a
#arallel society, a counter#oer hich then takes on as#ects ranging from
a clu$ of i"eas to a grou# of terrorist comman"os@
The assum#tion $y omen of executive, in"ustrial, an" cultural #oer
has not, u# to the #resent time, ra"ically change" the nature of this #oer.
This can $e clearly seen in the Nast, here omen #romote" to "ecision!
making #ositions su""enly o$tain the economic as ell as the narcissistic
a"vantages refuse" them for thousan"s of years an" $ecome the #illars of
the existing governments, guar"ians of the status quo, the most :ealous
#rotectors of the esta$lishe" or"er. This i"entification $y omen ith the
very #oer structures #reviously consi"ere" as frustrating, o##ressive, or
inaccessi$le has often $een use" in mo"ern times $y totalitarian regimes:
the Kerman /ational!Socialists an" the *hilean )unta are exam#les of this.
The fact that this is a #aranoi" ty#e of counterinvestment in an initially
"enie" sym$olic or"er can #erha#s ex#lain this trou$ling #henomenon+ $ut
an ex#lanation "oes not #revent its massive #ro#agation aroun" the glo$e,
#erha#s in less "ramatic forms than the totalitarian ones mentione" a$ove,
$ut all moving toar" levelling, sta$ili:ation, conformist, at the cost of
crushing exce#tions, ex#eriments, chance occurrences.
Some ill regret that the rise of a li$ertarian movement such as
feminism en"s, in some of its as#ects, in the consoli"ation of
conformism+ others ill re)oice an" #rofit from this fact. Nlectoral
cam#aigns, the very life of #olitical #arties, continue to $et on this latter
ten"ency. Nx#erience #roves that too quickly even the #rotest or
innovative initiatives on the #art of omen inhale" $y #oer systems
0hen they "o not su$mit to them right off1 are soon cre"ite" to the
systems account+ an" that the long!aaite" "emocrati:ation of
institutions as a result of the entry of omen most often comes "on to
fa$ricating a fe chiefs among them. The "ifficulty #resente" $y this
logic of integrating the secon" sex into a value system ex#erience" as
foreign an" therefore counterinveste" is ho to avoi" the centrali:ation
of #oer, ho to "etach omen from it, an" ho then to #rocee",
through their critical, "ifferential, an" autonomous interventions, to
ren"er "ecision!making institutions more flexi$le.
Then there are the more ra"ical feminist currents hich, refusing
homologation to any role of i"entification ith existing #oer no matter
hat the #oer may $e, make of the secon" sex a $onter = so$iety. A
female society is then constitute" as a sort of alter ego of the official
society, in hich all real or fantasi:e" #ossi$ilities for &oissan$e take
refuge. Against the sociosym$olic contract, $oth sacrificial an"
frustrating, this countersociety is imagine" as harmonious, ithout
#rohi$itions, free an" fulfilling. ,n our mo"ern societies hich have no
hereafter or, at least, hich are caught u# in a transcen"ency either
re"uce" to this si"e of the orl" 0%rotestantism1 or crum$ling
0*atholicism an" its current challenges1, the countersociety remains the
only refuge for fulfillment since it is #recisely an a!to#ia, a #lace outsi"e
the la, uto#ias floo"gate.
As ith any society, the countersociety is $ase" on the ex#ulsion of an
exclu"e" element, a sca#egoat charge" ith the evil of hich the
community "uly constitute" can then #urge itself+ a #urge hich ill
finally exonerate that community of any future in or"er to fen" off
criticism O in the foreign, in ca#ital alone, in the other religion, in the
other sex. Boes not feminism $ecome a kin" of inverte" sexism hen this
196
logic is folloe" to its conclusion@ The various forms of marginalism O
accor"ing to sex, age, religion, or i"eology O re#resent in the mo"ern
orl" this refuge for &oissan$e- a sort of laici:e" transcen"ence. Fut ith
omen, an" insofar as the num$er of those feeling concerne" $y this
#ro$lem has increase", although in less s#ectacular forms than a fe years
ago, the #ro$lem of the countersociety is $ecoming massive: ,t occu#ies no
more an" no less than half of the sky.
,t has, therefore, $ecome clear, $ecause of the #articular ra"icali:ation of
the secon" generation, that these #rotest movements, inclu"ing feminism,
are not initially li$ertarian movements hich only later, through internal
"eviations or external chance mani#ulations, fall $ack into the ol" ruts of
the initially com$ate" archety#es. 2ather, the very logic of counter#oer
an" of countersociety necessarily generates, $y its very structure, its
essence as a simulacrum of the com$ate" society or of #oer. ,n this sense
an" from a vie#oint un"ou$te"ly too -egelian, mo"ern feminism has
only $een $ut a moment in the intermina$le #rocess of coming to
consciousness a$out the im#laca$le violence 0se#aration, castration, etc.1
hich constitutes any sym$olic contract.
Thus the i"entification ith #oer in or"er to consoli"ate it or the
constitution of a fetishist counter#oer O restorer of the crises of the self
an" #rovi"er of a &oissan$e hich is alays alrea"y a transgression O
seem to $e the to social forms hich the face!off $eteen the ne
generation of omen an" the social contract can take. That one also fin"s
the #ro$lem of terrorism there is structurally relate".
The large num$er of omen in terrorist grou#s 0%alestinian comman"os,
the Faa"er!Ceinhoff Kang, 2e" Friga"es, etc.1 has alrea"y $een #ointe"
out, either violently or #ru"ently accor"ing to the source of information.
The ex#loitation of omen is still too great an" the tra"itional #re)u"ices
against them too violent for one to $e a$le to envision this #henomenon
ith sufficient "istance. ,t can, hoever, $e sai" from no on that this is
the inevita$le #ro"uct of hat e have calle" a "enial of the
sociosym$olic contract an" its counterinvestment as the only means of
self!"efense in the struggle to safeguar" an i"entity. This #aranoi"!ty#e
mechanism is at the $ase of any #olitical involvement. ,t may #ro"uce
"ifferent civili:ing attitu"es in the sense that these attitu"es allo a more
or less flexi$le rea$sor#tion of violence an" "eath. Fut hen a su$)ect is
too $rutally exclu"e" from this sociosym$olic stratum+ hen, for
exam#le, a oman feels her affective life as a oman or her con"ition as
a social $eing too $rutally ignore" $y existing "iscourse or #oer 0from
her family to social institutions1+ she may, $y counterinvesting the
violence she has en"ure", make of herself a #ossesse" agent of this
violence in or"er to com$at hat as ex#erience" as frustration O ith
arms hich may seem "is#ro#ortional, $ut hich are not so in
com#arison ith the su$)ective or more #recisely narcissistic suffering
from hich they originate. /ecessarily o##ose" to the $ourgeois
"emocratic regimes in #oer, this terrorist violence offers as a #rogram
of li$eration an or"er hich is even more o##ressive, more sacrificial
than those it com$ats. Strangely enough, it is not against totalitarian
regimes that these terrorist grou#s ith omen #artici#ants unleash
themselves $ut, rather, against li$eral systems, hose essence is, of
course ex#loitative $ut hose ex#an"ing "emocratic legality guarantees
relative tolerance. Nach time, the mo$ili:ation takes #lace in the name of
a nation, of an o##resse" grou#, of a human essence imagine" as goo"
an" soun"+ in the name, then, of a kin" of fantasy of archaic fulfillment
hich an ar$itrary, a$stract, an" thus even $a" an" ultimately
"iscriminatory or"er has come to "isru#t. &hile that or"er is accuse" of
$eing o##ressive, is it not actually $eing re#roache" ith $eing too eak,
ith not measuring u# to this #ure an" goo", $ut henceforth lost,
su$stance@ Anthro#ology has shon that the social or"er is sacrificial,
$ut sacrifice or"ers violence, $in"s it, tames it. 2efusal of the social or"er
ex#oses one to the risk that the so!calle" goo" su$stance, once it is
unchaine", ill ex#lo"e, ithout cur$s, ithout la or right, to $ecome
an a$solute ar$itrariness. '...(
,n sum, all of these consi"erations O her eternal "e$t to the oman!
mother O make a oman more vulnera$le ithin the sym$olic or"er,
more fragile hen she suffers ithin it, more virulent hen she #rotects
herself from it. ,f the archety#e of the $elief in a goo" an" #ure
su$stance, that of uto#ias, is the $elief in the omni#otence of an archaic,
19I
full, total, englo$ing mother ith no frustration, no se#aration, ith no
$reak!#ro"ucing sym$olism 0ith no castration, in other or"s1, then it
$ecomes evi"ent that e ill never $e a$le to "efuse the violences
mo$ili:e" through the counterinvestment necessary to carrying out this
#hantasm, unless one challenges #recisely this myth of the archaic mother.
,t is in this ay that e can un"erstan" the arnings against the recent
invasion of the omens movements $y #aranoia, as in =acans scan"alous
sentence There is no such thing as &oman. ,n"ee", she "oes not exist
ith a ca#ital &, #ossessor of some mythical unity ! a su#reme #oer,
on hich is $ase" the terror of #oer an" terrorism as the "esire for
#oer. Fut hat an un$elieva$le force for su$version in the mo"ern
orl". An", at the same time, hat #laying ith fire.
*reatures an" creatresses
'...( %regnancy seems to $e ex#erience" as the ra"ical or"eal of the
s#litting of the su$)ect: re"ou$ling u# of the $o"y, se#aration an"
coexistence of the self an" of an other, of nature an" consciousness, of
#hysiology an" s#eech. This fun"amental challenge to i"entity is then
accom#anie" $y a fantasy of totality O narcissistic com#leteness O a sort of
institute", sociali:e", natural #sychosis. The arrival of the chil", on the
other han", lea"s the mother into the la$yrinths of an ex#erience that,
ithout the chil", she oul" only rarely encounter: love for an other. /ot
for herself, nor for an i"entical $eing, an" still less for another #erson ith
hom , fuse 0love or sexual #assion1. Fut the slo, "ifficult, an"
"elightful a##renticeshi# in attentiveness, gentleness, forgetting oneself.
The a$ility to succee" in this #ath ithout masochism an" ithout
annihilating ones affective, intellectual, an" #rofessional #ersonality O
such oul" seem to $e the stakes to $e on through guiltless maternity. ,t
then $ecomes a creation in the strong sense of the term. >or this moment,
uto#ian@
Dn the other han", it is in the as#iration toar" artistic an", in #articular,
literary creation that omans "esire for affirmation no manifests itself.
&hy literature@
,s it $ecause, face" ith social norms, literature reveals a certain
knole"ge an" sometimes the truth itself a$out an otherise re#resse",
nocturnal, secret, an" unconscious universe@ Fecause it thus re"ou$les
the social contract $y ex#osing the unsai", the uncanny@ An" $ecause it
makes a game, a s#ace of fantasy ari" #leasure, out of the a$stract an"
frustrating or"er of social signs, the or"s of every"ay communication@
>lau$ert sai", Ca"ame Fovary, cest moi. To"ay many omen
imagine, >lau$ert, cest moi. This i"entification ith the #otency of the
imaginary is not only an i"entification, an imaginary #otency 0a fetish, a
$elief in the maternal #enis maintaine" at all costs1, as a far too normative
vie of the social an" sym$olic relationshi# oul" have it. This
i"entification also $ears itness to omens "esire to lift the eight of
hat is sacrificial in the social contract from their shoul"ers, to nourish
our societies ith a more flexi$le an" free "iscourse, one a$le to name
hat has thus far never $een an o$)ect of circulation in the community:
the enigmas of the $o"y, the "reams, secret )oys, shames, hatre"s of the
secon" sex.
,t is un"erstan"a$le from this that omens riting has lately attracte"
the maximum attention of $oth s#ecialists an" the me"ia. The #itfalls
encountere" along the ay, hoever, are not to $e minimi:e": >or
exam#le, "oes one not rea" there a relentless $elittling of male riters
hose $ooks, nevertheless, often serve as mo"els for countless
#ro"uctions $y omen@ Thanks to the feminist la$el, "oes one not sell
numerous orks hose naive hining or market!#lace romanticism
oul" otherise have $een re)ecte" as anachronistic@ An" "oes one not
fin" the #en of many a female riter $eing "evote" to #hantasmic attacks
against =anguage an" Sign as the ultimate su##orts of #hallocratic #oer,
in the name of a semi!a#honic cor#orality hose truth can only $e foun"
in that hich is gestural or tonal @
An" yet, no matter ho "u$ious the results of these recent #ro"uctions
$y omen, the sym#tom is there O omen are riting, an" the air is
heavy ith ex#ectation: &hat ill they rite that is ne@
Another generation is another s#ace
'...( To restrict myself here to a #ersonal level, as relate" to the question
199
of omen, , see arising, un"er the cover of a relative in"ifference toar"
the militance of the first an" secon" generations, an attitu"e of retreat from
sexism 0male as ell as female1 an", gra"ually, from any kin" of
anthro#omor#hism. The fact that this might quickly $ecome another form
of s#iritualism turning its $ack on social #ro$lems, or else a form of
re#ression rea"y to su##ort all status quos, shoul" not hi"e the ra"icalness
of the #rocess. This #rocess coul" $e summari:e" as an interiorization of
the fon+ing separation of the so$iosy(%oli$ $ontra$t- as an intro"uction
of its cutting e"ge into the very interior of every i"entity hether
su$)ective, sexual, i"eological, or so forth. This in such a ay that the
ha$itual an" increasingly ex#licit attem#t to fa$ricate a sca#egoat victim as
foun"ress of a society or a countersociety may $e re#lace" $y the analysis
of the #otentialities of vi$ti(Ke#e$tioner hich characteri:e each i"entity,
each su$)ect, each sex.
&hat "iscourse, if not that of a religion, oul" $e a$le to su##ort this
a"venture hich surfaces as a real #ossi$ility, after $oth the achievements
an" the im#asses of the #resent i"eological reorkings, in hich feminism
has #artici#ate"@ ,t seems to me that the role of hat is usually calle"
aesthetic #ractices must increase not only to counter$alance the storage
an" uniformity of information $y #resent!"ay mass me"ia, "ata!$ank
systems, an", in #articular, mo"ern communications technology, $ut also
to "emystify the i"entity of the sym$olic $on" itself, to "emystify,
therefore, the $o((nity of language as a universal an" unifying tool, one
hich totali:es an" equali:es. ,n or"er to $ring out O along ith the
singlarity of each #erson an", even more, along ith the multi#licity of
every #ersons #ossi$le i"entifications 0ith atoms, e.g., stretching from
the family to the stars1 O the relativity of hisKher sy(%oli$ as "ell as
%iologi$al e#isten$e- accor"ing to the variation in hisUher s#ecific sym$olic
ca#acities. An" in or"er to em#hasi:e the responsi%ility hich all ill
imme"iately face of #utting this flui"ity into #lay against the threats of
"eath hich are unavoi"a$le henever an insi"e an" an outsi"e, a self an"
an other, one grou# an" another, are constitute". At this level of
interiori:ation ith its social as ell as in"ivi"ual stakes, hat , have
calle" aesthetic #ractices are un"ou$te"ly nothing other than the mo"ern
re#ly to the eternal question of morality. At least, this is ho e might
un"erstan" an ethics hich, conscious of the fact that its or"er is
sacrificial, reserves #art of the $ur"en for each of its a"herents, therefore
"eclaring them guilty hile imme"iately affor"ing them the #ossi$ility
for &oissan$e- for various #ro"uctions, for a life ma"e u# of $oth
challenges an" "ifferences.
S#ino:as question can $e taken u# again here: Are omen su$)ect to
ethics@ ,f not to that ethics "efine" $y classical #hiloso#hy O in
relationshi# to hich the u#s an" "ons of feminist generations seem
"angerously #recarious O are omen not alrea"y #artici#ating in the ra#i"
"ismantling that our age is ex#eriencing at various levels 0from ars to
"rugs to artificial insemination1 an" hich #oses the +e(an+ for a ne
ethics@ The anser to S#ino:as question can $e affirmative only at the
cost of consi"ering feminism as $ut a (o(ent in the thought of that
anthro#omor#hic i"entity hich currently $locks the hori:on of the
"iscursive an" scientific a"venture of our s#ecies.
<.<.8 -LlTne *ixous: from The =augh of the Ce"usa
, rite this as a oman, toar" omen. &hen , say oman, ,m
s#eaking of oman in her inevita$le struggle against conventional man+
an" of a universal oman su$)ect ho must $ring omen to their senses
an" to their meaning in history. Fut first it must sai" that in s#ite of the
enormity of the re#ression that has ke#t them in the "ark ! that "ark
hich #eo#le have $een trying to make them acce#t as their attri$ute !
there is, at this time, no general oman, no one ty#ical oman. &hat
they have in $o((on , ill say. Fut hat strikes me is the infinite
richness of their in"ivi"ual constitutions: you cant talk a$out a female
sexuality, uniform, homogeneous, classifia$le into co"es ! any more than
you can talk a$out one unconscious resem$ling another. &omens
imaginary is inexhausti$le, like music, #ainting, riting: their stream of
#hantasms is incre"i$le.
197
, have $een ama:e" more than once $y a "escri#tion a oman gave me
of a orl" all her on hich she ha" $een secretly haunting since early
chil"hoo". A orl" of searching, the ela$oration of a knole"ge, on the
$asis of a systematic ex#erimentation ith the $o"ily functions, a
#assionate an" #recise interrogation of her erotogeneity. This #ractice,
extraor"inarily rich an" inventive, in #articular as concern mastur$ation, is
#rolonge" or accom#anie" $y a #ro"uction of forms, a verita$le aesthetic
activity, each stage of ru#ture inscri$ing a resonant vision, a com#osition,
something $eautiful. Feauty ill no longer $e for$i""en.
, ishe" that that oman oul" rite an" #roclain this unique em#ire so
that other omen, other unacknole"ge" sovereigns, might exclaim: ,,
too, overflo+ my "esires have invente" ne "esires, my $o"y knos
unhear"!of songs. Time an" again ,, too, have felt so full of luminous
torrents that , coul" $urst ! $urst ith forms much more $eautiful than
those hich are #ut u# in frames an" sol" for a stinking fortune. An" ,,
too, sai" nothing, shoe" nothing+ , "i"nt o#en my mouth, , "i"nt re#aint
my half of the orl". '...(
, rite oman: oman must rite oman. An" man, man. So only an
o$lique consi"eration ill $e foun" here of man+ its u# to him to say here his
masculinity an" femininity are at: this ill concern us once men have o#ene"
their eyes an" seen themselves clearly. '...(
/early the entire history of riting is confoun"e" ith the history of
reason, of hich it is at once the effect, the su##ort, an" one of the
#rivilege" ali$is. ,t has $een one ith the #hallocentric tra"ition. ,t is
in"ee" that same self!a"miring, self!stimulating, self!congratulatory
#hallocentrism. '...(
,t is im#ossi$le to +efine a feminine #ractice of riting, an" this is an
im#ossi$ility that ill remain, for this #ractice can never $e theori:e",
enclose", co"e" ! hich "oesnt mean that it "oesnt exist. Fut it ill
alays sur#ass the "iscourse that regulates the #hallocentric system+ it
"oes an" ill take #lace in areas other than those su$or"inate" to
#hiloso#hico!theoretical "omination. ,t ill $e conceive" of only $y
su$)ects ho are $reakers of automatisms, $y #eri#heral figures that no
authority can ever su$)ugate.
Almost everything is yet to $e ritten $y omen a$out femininity:
a$out their sexuality, that is, its infinite an" mo$ile com#lexity, a$out
their erotici:ation, su""en turn!ons of a certain miniscule!immense area
of their $o"ies+ not a$out "estiny, $ut a$out the a"venture of such an"
such a "rive, a$out tri#s, crossing, tru"ges, a$ru#t an" gra"ual
aakenings, "iscoveries of a :one at one time timorous an" soon to $e
forthright. A omans $o"y ith its thousan" an" one threshol"s of
ar"our ! once, $y smashing yokes an" censors, she lets it articulate the
#rofusion of meaning that run through it in every "irection ! ill make
the ol" single!groove" mother tongue rever$erate ith more than one
language.
&eve $een turne" aay from our $o"ies, shamefully taught to ignore
them, to strike them ith that stu#i" sexual mo"esty+ eve $een ma"e
victims of the ol" fools game: each one ill love the other sex. ,ll give
you your $o"y an" youll give me mine. Fut ho are the men ho give
omen the $o"y that omen $lin"ly yiel" to them@ &hy so fe texts@
Fecause so fe oman have as yet on $ack their $o"y. &omen must
rite through their $o"ies, they must invent the im#regna$le language
that ill reck #artitions, classes, an" rhetorics, regulations an" co"es,
they must su$merge, cut through, get $eyon" the ultimate reserve!
"iscourse, inclu"ing the one that laughs at the very i"ea of #ronouncing
the or" silence, the one that aiming for the im#ossi$le, sto#s short
$efore the or" im#ossi$le an" rites it as the en".
<.<.< Nlaine Shoalter: from Toar"s a >eminist %oetics
>eminist criticism can $e "ivi"e" into to "istinct varieties. The first
ty#e is concerne" ith "o(an as rea+er = ith oman as the consumer
of male!#ro"uce" literature, an" ith the ay in hich the hy#othesis of
a female rea"er changes our a##rehension of a given text, aakening us
to the significance of its sexual co"es. , shall call this kin" of analysis the
fe(inist $riti.e- an" like other kin"s of critique it is a historically
194
groun"e" inquiry hich #ro$es the i"eological assum#tions of literary
#henomena. ,ts su$)ects inclu"e the images an" stereoty#es of omen in
literature, the omissions an" misconce#tions a$out omen in criticism,
an" the fissures in male!constructe" literary history. ,t is also concerne"
ith the ex#loitation an" mani#ulation of the female au"ience, es#ecially
in #o#ular culture an" film+ an" ith the analysis of oman!as!sign in
semiotic systems. The secon" ty#e of feminist criticism is concerne" ith
"o(an as "riter = ith oman as the #ro"ucer of textual meaning, ith
the history, themes, genres an" structures of literature $y omen. ,ts
su$)ects inclu"e the #sycho"ynamics of female creativity+ linguistics an"
the #ro$lem of a female language+ the tra)ectory of the in"ivi"ual or
collective female literary career+ literary history+ an", of course, stu"ies of
#articular riters an" orks. /o term exists in Nnglish for such a
s#ecielise" "iscourse, an" so , have a"a#te" the >rench term la
gyno$riti.e: )gyno$riti$s* 0although the significance of the male
#seu"onym in the history of omens riting also suggeste" the term
georgics1.
The feminist critique is essentially #olitical an" #olemical, ith
theoretical affiliations to Carxist sociology an" aesthetics+ gynocritics is
more self!containe" an" ex#erimental, ith connections to other mo"es of
ne feminist research. '...(
As e see in this analysis, one of the #ro$lems of the feminist critique
is that it is male!oriente". ,f e stu"y stereoty#es of omen, the sexism of
male critics, an" the limite" roles omen #lay in literary history, e are
not learning hat omen have felt an" ex#erience", $ut only hat men
have thought omen shoul" $e. ,n some fiel"s of s#ecialisation, this may
require a long a##renticeshi# to the male theoretician, hether he $e
Althusser, Farthes, Cacherey or =acan+ an" then an a##lication of the
theory of signs or myths or the unconscious to male texts or films. The
tem#oral an" intellectual investment one makes in such a #rocess increases
resistance to questioning it, an" to seing its historical an" i"eological
$oun"aries. The critique also has a ten"ency to naturalise omens
victimisation, $y making it the inevita$le an" o$sessive to#ic of
"iscussion. '...(
,n contrast to this angry or loving fixation on male literature, the
#rogramme of gynocritics is to construct a female frameork for the
analysis of omens literature, to "evelo# ne mo"els $ase" on the stu"y
of female ex#erience, rather than to a"a#t male mo"els an" theories.
Kynocritics $egins at the #oint hen e free ourselves from the linear
a$solutes of male literary history, sto# trying to fit omen $eteen the
lines of the male tra"ition, an" focus instea" on the nearly visi$le orl"
of female culture.
'...( Fefore e can even $egin to ask ho the literature of omen
oul" $e "ifferent an" s#ecial, e nee" to reconstruct its #ast, to
re"iscover the scores of omen novelists, #oets an" "ramatists hose
ork has $een o$scure" $y time, an" to esta$lish the continuity of the
female tra"ition. '...( As e recreate the chain of riters in this tra"ition,
the #atterns of influence an" res#onse from one generation to the next,
e can also $egin to challenge the #erio"icity of ortho"ox literary
history, an" its enshrine" canons of achievement. ,t is $ecause e have
stu"ie" omen riters in isolation that e have never gras#e" the
connections $eteen them. &hen e go $eyon" Austen, the Frontes an"
Nliot, say, to look at a hun"re" an" fifty or more of their sister novelists,
e can see #atterns an" #hases in the evolution of a female tra"ition
hich corres#on" to the "evelo#mental #hases of any su$cultural art. ,n
my $ook on Nnglish omen riters, A Literatre of their O"n- , have
calle" these the >eminine, >eminist an" >emale stages. Buring the
>eminine #hases, "ating from a$out 17<5 to 1775, omen rote in an
effort to equal the intellectual achievements of the male culture, an"
internalise" its assum#tions a$out female nature. The "istinguishing sign
of this #erio" is the male #seu"onym, intro"uce" in Nnglan" in the 17<5s,
an" a national characteristic of Nnglish omen riters. '...( The feminist
content of feminine art is ty#ically o$lique, "is#lace", ironic an"
su$versive+ one has to rea" it $eteen the lines, in the misse"
#ossi$ilities of the text.
,n the >eminist #hase, from a$out 1775 to 14E5, or the inning of the
vote, omen are historically ena$le" to re)ect the accommo"ating
#ostures of femininity an" to use literature to "ramatise the or"eals of
175
ronge" omanhoo". '...(
,n the >emale #hase, ongoing since 14E5, omen re)ect $oth imitation
an" #rotest ! to forms of "e#en"ency ! an" turn instea" to female
ex#erience as the source of an autonomous art, exten"ing the feminist
analysis of culture to the forms an" techniques of literature.
2e#resentatives of the formal >emale Aesthetic, such as Borothy
2ichar"son an" Virginia &oolf, $egin to think in terms of male an"
female sentences, an" "ivi"e their ork into masculine )ournalism an"
feminine fictions, re"efining an" sexualising external an" internal
ex#erience. '...(
,n trying to account for these com#lex #ermutations of the female
tra"ition, feminist criticism has trie" a variety of theoretical a##roaches.
The most natural "irection for feminist criticism to take has $een the
revision, an" even the su$version of relate" i"eologies, es#ecially Carxist
aesthetics an" structuralism, altering their voca$ularies an" metho"s to
inclu"e the varia$le of gen"er. , $elieve, hoever, that this thrifty feminine
making!"o is ultimately unsatisfactory. >eminist criticism cannot go
aroun" forever in mens ill!fitting han"!me!"ons, the Annie -all of
Nnglish stu"ies+ $ut must, as ?ohn Stuart Cill rote a$out omens
literature in 17I4, emanci#ate itself from the influences of acce#te"
mo"els, an" gui"e itself $y its on im#ulses
75
! as, , think, gynocritics is
$eginning to "o. This is not to "eny the necessity of using the terminology
an" techniques of our #rofession. Fut hen e consi"er the historical
con"itions in hich critical i"eologies are #ro"uce", e see hy feminist
a"a#tations seem to have reache" an im#asse. '...(
The ne sciences of the text $ase" on linguistics, com#uters, genetic
structuralism, "econstructionism, neo!formalism an" "eformalism,
affective stylistics an" #sychoaesthetics, have offere" literary critics the
o##ortunity to "emonstrate that the ork they "o is mainly an" aggressive
as nuclear #hysics ! not intuitive ex#ressive an" feminine, $ut strenuous,
rigorous, im#ersonal an" virile. ,n a shrinking )o$ market, these ne levels
of #rofessionalism also function as "iscriminators $eteen the marketa$le
75
?. S. Cill, The S%&e$tion of ;o(en 0=on"on, 17I41, #. 188.
an" marginal lecturer. =iterary science, in its manic generation of
"ifficult terminology, its esta$lishment of seminars an" institutes of #ost!
gra"uate stu"y, creates an Llite cor#s of s#ecialists ho s#en" more an"
more time mastering the theory, less an" less time rea"ing the $ooks. &e
are moving toar" a to!tiere" system of higher an" loer criticism,
the higher concerne" ith the scientific #ro$lems of form an" structure,
the loer concerne" ith the humanistic #ro$lems of content an"
inter#retation. An" these levels, it seems to me, are no taking on su$tle
gen"er i"entities, an" assuming a sexual #olarity ! hermeneutics an"
hismeneutics. ,ronically, the existence of a ne criticism #ractise" $y
omen has ma"e it even more #ossi$le for structuralism an" Carxism to
strive, -enchar"!like, for systems of formal o$ligation an" "etermination.
>eminist ritings in these mo"es, such as -LlTne *ixous an" the omen
contri$utors to ,ia$riti$s- risk $eing allote" the sym$olic ghettoes of the
s#ecial issue or the $ack of the $ook for their essays.
,t is not $ecause the exchange $eteen feminism, Carxism an"
structuralism has hitherto $een so one!si"e", hoever, that , think
attem#ts at syntheses have so far $een unsuccessful. &hile scientific
criticism struggles to #urge itself of the su$)ective, feminist criticism is
illing to assert 0in the title of a recent anthology1 The Athority of
1#perien$e.
T1
The ex#erience of oman can easily "isa##ear, $ecome
mute, invali" an" invisi$le, lost in the "iagrams of the structuralist or the
class conflict of the Carxists. Nx#erience is not emotion+ e must #rotest
no as in the nineteenth century against the equation of the feminine ith
the irrational. Fut e must also recognise that the questions e most
nee" to ask go $eyon" those that science can anser. &e must seek the
re#resse" message of omen in history, in anthro#ology, in #sychology,
an" in ourselves, $efore e can locate the feminine not!sai", in the
manner of %ierre Cacherey, $y #ro$ing the fissures of the female text.
Thus the current theoretical im#asse in feminist criticism, , $elieve, is
more than a #ro$lem of fin"ing exacting "efinitions an" a suita$le
71
=ee N"ar"s an" Arlyn Biamon" 0e"s.1, The Athority of 1#perien$e 0Amherst,
Cass., 14991.
171
terminology, or theori:ing in the mi"st of a struggle. ,t comes from our
on "ivi"e" consciousness, the s#lit in each of us. &e are $oth the
"aughters of the male tra"ition, of our teachers, our #rofessors, our
"isertation a"visers an" our #u$lishers ! a tra"ition hich asks us to $e
rational, marginal an" grateful+ an" sisters in a ne omens movement
hich engen"ers another kin" of aareness an" commitment, hich
"eman"s that e renounce the #seu"o!success of token omanhoo", an"
the ironic masks of aca"emic "e$ate. -o much easier, ho less lonely it
is, not to aaken ! to continue to $e critics an" teachers of male literature,
anthro#ologists of male culture, an" #sychologists of male literary
res#onse, claiming all the hile to $e universal. Jet e cannot ill
ourselves to go $ack to slee#. As omen scholars in the 1495s e have
$een given a great o##ortunity, a great intellectual challenge. The
anatomy, the rhetoric, the #oetics, the history, aait our riting. '...(
The task of feminist critics is to fin" a ne language, a ne ay of
rea"ing that can integrate our intelligence an" our ex#erience, our reason
an" our suffering, our sce#ticism an" our vision. This enter#rise shoul" not
$e confine" to omen+ , invite *riticus, %oeticus an" %lutarchus to share it
ith us. Dne thing is certain: feminist criticism is not visiting. ,t is here to
stay, an" e must make it a #ermanent home.
<.<.6 Nlaine Shoalter: from 2e#resenting D#helia: &omen, Ca"ness, an"
the 2es#onsi$ilities of >eminist *riticism 014761
AS A SD2T of a come ! on, , announce" that , oul" s#eak to"ay a$out
that #iece of $ait name" D#helia, an" ,ll $e as goo" as my or". These
are the or"s hich $egin the #sychoanalytic seminar on 3a(let
#resente" in %aris in 1464 $y ?acques =acan. Fut "es#ite his #romising
come ! on, =acan as not as goo" as his or". -e goes on for some <1
#ages to s#eak a$out -amlet, an" hen he "oes mention D#helia, she is
merely hat =acan calls the o$)ect D#helia ! that is, the o$)ect of
-amlets male "esire. The etymology of D#helia, =acan asserts, is D !
#hallus, an" her role in the "rama can only $e to function as the
exteriori:e" figuration of hat =acan #re"icta$ly an", in vie of his on
early ork ith #sychotic omen, "isa##ointingly suggests is the #hallus
as transcen"ental signifier.
1
To #lay such a #art o$viously makes D#helia
essential, as =acan a"mits+ $ut only $ecause, in his or"s, she is linke"
forever, for centuries, to the figure of -amlet.
'...( Jet hen feminist criticism allos D#helia to u#stage hamlet, it
also $rings to the foregroun" the issues in an ongoing theoretical "e$ate
a$out the cultural links $eteen femininity, female sexuality, insanity,
an" re#resentation.
'...( >eminist critics have offere" a variety of res#onses to these
questions. Some have maintaine" that e shoul" re#resent D#helia as a
layer re#resents a client, that e shoul" $ecome her -oratia, in this
harsh orl" re#orting her cause aright to the unsatisfie".
'...( ,f e turn from American to >rench feminist theory, D#helia might
confirm the im#ossi$ility of re#resenting the feminine in #atriarchal
"iscourse as other than ma"ness, incoherence, flui"ity, or silence. ,n
>rench theoretical criticism, the feminine or &oman is that hich
esca#es re#resentation in #atriarchal language an" sym$olism+ it remains
on the si"e of negativity, a$sence, an" lack. ,n com#arison to -amlet,
D#helia is certainly a creature of lack. , think nothing, my lor", she tells
him in the mousetra# scene, an" he cruelly tists her or"s:
3a(let: Thats a fair thought to lie $eteen mai"s legs.
Ophelia: &hat is, my lor"@
3a(let: /othing.
0,,,.ii.119!141
,n Nli:a$ethan slang, nothing as a term for the female genitalia, as
M$h A+o A%ot Nothing. To -amlet, then, nothing is hat lies
$eteen mai"s legs, for, in the male visual system of re#resentation an"
"esire, omens sexual organs, in the or"s of the >rench #sychoanalyst
=uce ,rigaray, re#resent the horror of having nothing to see.
6
&hen
D#helia is ma", Kertru"e says that her -er s#eech is nothing, mere
17E
unsha#e" use. D#helias s#eech thus re#resents the horror of having
nothing to say in the #u$lic terms "efine" $y the court. Be#rive" of
thought, sexuality, language, D#helias story $ecomes the Story of D ! the
:ero, the em#ty circle or mystery of feminine "ifference, the ci#her of
female sexuality to $e "eci#here" $y feminist inter#retation.
I
A thir" a##roach oul" $e to rea" D#helias story as the female su$text
of the trage"y, the re#resse" story of -amlet. ,n this rea"ing, D#helia
re#resents the strong emotions that the Nli:a$ethans as ell as the
>reu"ians thought omanish an" unmanly. &hen =aertes ee#s for his
"ea" sister he says of his tears that &hen these are gone,UThe oman ill
$e out ! that is to say, that the feminine an" shameful of his nature ill $e
#urge". Accor"ing to Bavi" =everen:, in an im#ortant essay calle" The
&oman in 3a(let- -amlets "isgust at the feminine #assivity in himself
is translate" into violent revulsion against omen, an" into his $rutal
$ehavior toar"s D#helia. D#helias suici"e, =everen: argues, then
$ecomes a microcosm of the male orl"s $anishment of the female,
$ecause oman re#resents everything "enie" $y reasona$le men.
9
'...( &hile all of these a##roaches have much to recommen" them, each
also #resents critical #ro$lems. To li$erate D#helia from the text, or to
make her its tragic center, is to re!a##ro#riate her for our en"s+ to "issolve
her into a female sym$olism of a$sence is to en"orse our on marginality+
to make her -amlets anima is to re"uce her to a meta#hor of male
ex#erience. , oul" like to #ro#ose instea" that D#helia +oes have a story
of her on that feminist criticism can tell+ it is neither her life story, nor
her love story, nor =acans story, $ut rather the history of her
re#resentation. This essay tries to $ring together some of the categories of
>rench feminist thought a$out the feminine ith the em#irical energies
of American historical an" critical research: to yoke >rench theory an"
Jankee knoho.
Tracing the iconogra#hy of D#helia in Nnglish an" >rench #ainting,
#hotogra#hy, #sychiatry, an" literature, as ell as in theatrical #ro"uction,
, ill $e shoing first of all the re#resentational $on"s $eteen female
insanity an" female sexuality. Secon"ly, , ant to "emonstrate the to !
ay transaction $eteen #sychiatric theory an" cultural re#resentation. As
one me"ical historian has o$serve", e coul" #rovi"e a manual of female
insanity $y chronicling the illustrations of D#helia+ this is so $ecause the
illustrations of D#helia have #laye" a ma)or role in the theoretical
construction of female insanity.
4
>inally, , ant to suggest that the
feminist revision of D#helia comes as much from the actresss free"om
as from the critics inter#retation.
15
&hen Shakes#eares heroines $egan
to $e #laye" $y omen instea" of $oys, the #resence of the female $o"y
an" female voice, quite a#art from "etails of inter#retation, create" ne
meanings an" su$versive tensions in these roles, an" #erha#s most
im#ortantly ith D#helia. =ooking at D#helias history on an" off the
stage, , ill #oint out the contest $eteen male an" female
re#resentations of D#helia, cycles of critical re#ression an" feminist
reclamation of hich contem#orary feminist criticism is only the most
recent #hase. Fy $eginning ith these "ata from cultural history, instea"
of moving from the gri" of literary theory, , ho#e to conclu"e ith a
fuller sense of the res#onsi$ilities of feminist criticism, as ell as a ne
#ers#ective on D#helia.
'...( &hereas for -amlet ma"ness is meta#hysical, linke" ith culture,
for D#helia it is a #ro"uct of the female $o"y an" female nature, #erha#s
that natures #urest form. Dn the Nli:a$ethan stage, the conventions of
female insanity ere shar#ly "efine". D#helia "resse" in hite, "ecks
herself ith fantastical garlan"s of il" floers, an" enters, accor"ing
to the stage "irections of the Fa" Auarto, "istracte" #laying on a lute
ith her hair "on singing. -er s#eeches are marke" $y extravagant
meta#hors, lyrical free associations, an" ex#losive sexual imagery.
1E
She sings istful an" $a"y $alla"s, an" en"s her life $y "roning.
'...( ,n Nli:a$ethan an" ?aco$ean "rama, the stage "irection that a
oman enters ith "ishevelle" hair in"icates that she might either $e
ma" or the victim of a ra#e+ the "isor"ere" hair, her offense against
"ecorum, suggests sensuality in each case.
1<
'...( Broning too as associate" ith the feminine, ith female
flui"ity as o##ose" to masculine ari"ity. ,n his "iscussion of the
D#helias com#lex, the #henomenologist Kaston Fachelar" traces the
sym$olic connections $eteen omen, ater, an" "eath. Broning, he
178
suggests, $ecomes the truly feminine "eath in the "ramas of literature an"
life, one hich is a $eautiful immersion an" su$mersion in the female
element. &ater is the #rofoun" an" organic sym$ol of the liqui" oman
hose eyes are so easily "rone" in tears, as her $o"y is the re#ository of
$loo", amniotic flui" an" milk.
'...( *linically s#eaking, D#helias $ehavior an" a##earance are
characteristic of the mala"y the Nli:a$ethans oul" have "iagnose" as
female love ! melancholy, or erotomania. >rom a$out 1675, melancholy
ha" $ecome a fashiona$le "isease among young men, es#ecially in
=on"on, an" -amlet himself is a #rototy#e of the melancholy hero. Jet the
e#i"emic of melancholy associate" ith intellectual an" imaginative
genius curiously $y#asse" omen. &omens melancholy as seen
instea" as $iological, an" emotional in origins.
19
'...( The su$versive or violent #ossi$ilities of the ma" scene ere nearly
eliminate", hoever, on the eighteenth ! century stage. =ate Augustan
stereoty#es of female love ! melancholy ere sentimentali:e" versions
hich minimi:e" the force of female sexuality, an" ma"e female insanity a
#retty stimulant to male sensi$ility. Actresses such as Crs. =essingham in
199E, an" Cary Folton in 1711, #laye" D#helia in this "ecorous style,
relying on the familiar images of the hite "ress, loose hair, an" il"
floers to convey a #olite feminine "istraction, highly suita$le for #ictorial
re#ro"uction, an" a##ro#riate for Samuel ?ohnsons "escri#tion of D#helia
as young, $eautiful, harmless, an" #ious.
'...( Fut hereas the Augustan res#onse to ma"ness as a "enial, the
romantic res#onse as an em$race.
E5
The figure of the ma"oman
#ermeates romantic literature, from the gothic novelists to &or"sorth ans
Scott in such texts as The Thorn an" The 3eart of Mi+lothian- here she
stan"s for sexual victimi:ation, $ereavement, an" thrilling emotional
extremity.
'...( ,n the Shakes#earean theater, D#helias romantic revival $egan in
>rance rather than Nnglan". &hen *harles 3em$le ma"e his %aris "e$ut as
-amlet ith an Nnglish trou#e in 17E9, his D#helia as a young ,rish
ingenue name" -arriet Smithson use" her extensive comman" of mime to
"e#ict in #recise gesture the state of D#helias confuse" min".
E1
,n the
ma" scene, she entere" in a long $lack veil, suggesting the stan"ar"
imagery of female sexual mystery in the gothic novel, ith scattere"
$e"lamish is#s of stra in her hair.
'...( &hereas the romantic -amlet, in *oleri"ges famous "ictum, thinks
too much, has an over$alance of the contem#lative faculty an" an
overactive intellect, the romantic D#helia is a girl ho feels too much,
ho "rons in feeling. The romantic critics seem to have felt that the less
sai" a$out D#helia the $etter+ the #oint as to look at her.
'...( Smithsons #erformance is $est reca#ture" in a series of #ictures
"one $y Belacroix from 1785 to 1765, hich sho a strong romantic
interest in the relation of female sexuality an" insanity.
E6
The most
innovative an" influential of Belacroixs lithogra#hs is La Morte +*
Ophelie of 17<8, the first of three stu"ies. ,ts sensual languor, ith
D#helia half ! sus#en"e" in the stream as her "ress sli#s from her $o"y,
antici#ate" the fascination ith the erotic trance of the hysteric as it
oul" $e stu"ie" $y ?ean!Cartin *harcot an" his stu"ents, inclu"ing
?anet an" >reu".
'...( &hile Cillaiss D#helia is sensuous siren as ell as victim, the
artist rather than the su$)ect "ominates the scene. The "ivision of s#ace
$eteen D#helia an" the natural "etails Cillais ha" so #ainstakingly
#ursue" re"uces her to one more visual o$)ect+ an" the #ainting has such
a har" surface, strangely flattene" #ers#ective, an" $rilliant light that it
seems cruelly in"ifferent to the omans "eath. '...(
These %re ! 2a#haelite images ere #art of a ne an" intricate traffic

$eteen images of omen an" ma"ness in late nineteenth ! century literature,
#sychiatry, "rama, an" art. >irst of all, su#erinten"ents of Victorian lunatic
asylums ere also enthusiasts of Shakes#eare, ho turne" to his "ramas for
mo"els of mental a$erration that coul" $e a##lie" to their clinical #ractice. The
case stu"y of D#helia as one that seeme" #articularly useful as an account of
hysteria or mental $reak"on in a"olescence, a #erio" of insta$ility hich the
Victorians regar"e" as risky for omens mental health.
17<
'...( An" here the omen themselves "i" not illingly thro
themselves into D#helia ! like #ostures, asylum su#erinten"ents, arme" ith the
ne technology of #hotogra#hy, im#ose" the costume, gesture, #ro#s, an"
ex#ression of D#helia u#on them. ,n Nnglan", the camera as intro"uce" to
asylum ork in the 1765s $y Br -ugh &elch Biamon", ho #hotogra#he" his
female #atients at the Surrey Asylum an" at Fethlem. Biamon" as heavily
influence" $y literary an" visual mo"els in his #osing of the female su$)ects.
-is #ictures of ma"omen, #ose" in #rayer, or "ecke" ith D#helia ! like
garlan"s, ere co#ie" for Victorian consum#tion as touche" ! u# lithogra#hs in
#rofessional )ournals.
85
'...( Fut if the Victorian ma"oman looks mutely out from mens
#ictures, an" acts a #art men ha" stage" an" "irecte", she is very "ifferently
re#resente" in the feminist revision of D#helia initiate" $y nely #oerful an"
res#ecta$le Victorian actresses, an" $y omen critics of Shakes#eare. ,n their
efforts to "efen" D#helia, they invent a story for her "ran from their on
ex#eriences, grievances, an" "esires.
'...( Dn the Victorian stage, it as Nllen Terry, "aring an" unconventional
in her on life, ho le" the ay in acting D#helia in feminist terms as a
consistent #sychological stu"y in sexual intimi"ation, a girl terrifie" of her
father, of her lover, an" of life itself.
'...( -er #oetic an" intellectual #erformance also ins#ire" other actresses
to re$el against the conventions of invisi$ility an" negation associate" ith the
#art.
'...( Terry as the first to challenge the tra"ition of D#helias "ressing in
em$lematic hite. >or the >rench #oets, such as 2im$au", -ugo, Cusset,
Callarme an" =aforgue, hitness as #art of D#helias essential sym$olism+
they call her $lanche D#helia an" com#are her to a lily, a clou" or a sno. Jet
hiteness also ma"e her a trans#arency, an a$sence that took on the colors of
-amlets moo"s, an" that, for the sym$olists like Callarme, ma"e her a $lank
#age to $e ritten over or on $y the male imagination. Although ,rving as
a$le to #revent Terry from earing $lack in the ma" scene, exclaiming Cy
Ko", Ca"am, there must $e only one $lack figure in this #lay, an" thats
-amlet. 0,rving, of course, as #laying -amlet1, nonetheless actresses such as
Kertru"e Nliot, -elen Cau"e, /ora "e Silva, an" in 2usia Vera
3omisar)evskaya, gra"ually on the right to intensify D#helias #resence $y
clothing her in hamlets $lack.
8<
'...( The >reu"ian inter#retation of 3a(let concentrate" on the hero, $ut
also ha" much to "o ith the re!sexuali:ation of D#helia. As early as 1455,
>reu" ha" trace" -amlets irresolution to an De"i#us com#lex, an" Nrnest
?ones, his lea"ing Fritish "isci#le, "evelo#e" this vie, influencing the
#erformances of ?ohn Kielgu" an" Alec Kuinness in the 1485s. ,n his final
version of the stu"y, 3a(let an+ Oe+ips- #u$lishe" in 14<4, ?ones argue"
that D#helia shoul" $e unmistaka$ly sensual, as she sel"om is on stage. She
may $e innocent an" "ocile, $ut she is very aare of her $o"y.
87
,n the theater an" in criticism, this >reu"ian e"ict has #ro"uce" such
extreme rea"ings as that Shakes#eare inten"s us to see D#helia as a loose
oman, an" that she has $een slee#ing ith hamlet. 2e$ecca &est has argue"
that D#helia as not a correct an" timi" virgin of exquisite sensi$ilities, a
vie she attri$utes to the #o#ularity of the Cillais #ainting+ $ut rather a
"isre#uta$le young oman.
84
'...( Since the 14I5s, the >reu"ian re#resentation of D#helia has $een
su##lemente" $y an anti#sychiatry that re#resents D#helias ma"ness in more
contem#orary terms. ,n contrast to the #sychoanalytic re#resentation of
D#helias sexual unconscious that connecte" her essential feminity to >reu"s
essay on female sexuality an" hysteria, her ma"ness is no in me"ical an"
$iochemical terms, as schi:o#hrenia. This is so in #art $ecause the
schi:o#hrenic oman has $ecome the cultural icon of "ualistic femininity in
the mi" ! tentieth century as the erotomaniac as in the seventeenth an" the
hysteric in the nineteenth. ,t might also $e trace" to the ork of 2.B.=aing on
female schi:o#hrenia in the 14I5s. =aing argue" that schi:o#hrenia as an
intelligi$le res#onse to the ex#erience of invali"ation ithin the family
netork, es#ecially to the conflicting emotional messages an" mystifying
"ou$le $in"s ex#erience" $y "aughters. D#helia, he note" in The ,ivi+e+ Self-
is an em#ty s#ace. ,n her ma"ness there is no one there'...( There is no
integral selfhoo" ex#resse" through her actions or utterances.
,ncom#rehensi$le statements are sai" $y nothing. She has alrea"y "ie". There
is no only a vacuum here there as once a #erson.
<8
'...( Fut since the 1495s too e have ha" a feminist "iscourse hich has
176
offere" a ne #ers#ective on D#helias ma"ness as #rotest an" re$ellion. >or
many feminist theorists, the ma"oman is a heroine, a #oerful figure ho
re$els against the family an" the social or"er+ an" the hysteric ho refuses to
s#eak the language of the #atriarchal or"er, ho s#eaks otherise, is a sister.
<6
<6
,n terms of effect on the theater, the most ra"ical a##lication of these i"eas
as #ro$a$ly reali:e" in Celissa Currays agit#ro# #lay Ophelia- ritten in
1494 for the Nnglish omens theater grou# -ermone ,m$alance. ,n this
$lank verse retelling of the -amlet story, D#helia $ecomes a les$ian an" runs
off ith a oman servant to )oin a guerilla commune.
<I
&hen feminist criticism chooses to "eal ith re#resentation, rather than
ith omens riting, it must aim for a maximum inter"isci#linary
contextualism, in hich the com#lexity of attitu"es toar"s the feminine can $e
analy:e" in their fullest cultural an" historical frame. The alternation of strong
an" eak D#helias on the stage, virginal an" se"uctive D#helias in art,
ina"equate or o##resse" D#helias in criticism, tells us ho these
re#resentations have overfloe" the text, an" ho they have reflecte" the
i"eological character of their times, eru#ting as "e$ates $eteen "ominant an"
feminist vies in #erio"s of gen"er crisis an" re"efinition. The re#resentation
of D#helia changes in"e#en"ently of theories of the meaning of the #lay or the
%rince, for it "e#en"s on attitu"es toar"s omen an" ma"ness. The "ecorous
an" #ious D#helia of the Augustan age an" the #ostmo"ern schi:o#hrenic
heroine ho might have ste##e" from the #ages of =aing can $e "erive" from
the same figure+ they are $oth contra"ictory an" com#lementary images of
female sexuality in hich ma"ness seems to act as the sitching ! #oint, the
conce#t hich allos the co!existence of $oth si"es of the re#resentation.
<9
There is no true D#helia for hom feminist criticism must unam$iguously
s#eak, $ut #erha#s only a cu$ist D#helia of multi#le #ers#ectives, more than the
sum of all her #arts.
Fut in ex#osing the i"eology of re#resentation, feminist critics have also
the res#onsi$ility to acknele"ge an" to examine the $oun"aries of our on
i"eological #ositions as #ro"ucts of our gen"er an" our time. A "egree of
humility in an age of critical hu$ris can $e our greatest strength, for it is $y
occu#ying this #osition of historical self ! consciousness in $oth feminism an"
criticism that e maintain our cre"i$ility in re#resenting D#helia, an" that
unlike =acan, hen e #romise to s#eak a$out her, e make goo" our or".
<.<.I San"ra C. Kil$ert: from =iterary %aternity
Though many of these riters use the meta#hor of literary #aternity in
"ifferent ays an" for "ifferent #ur#oses, all seem overhelmingly to
agree that a literary text is not only s#eech quite literally em$o"ie", $ut
also #oer mysteriously ma"e manifest, ma"e flesh. ,n #atriarchal
&estern culture, therefore, the texts author is a father, a #rogenitor, a
#rocreator, an aesthetic #atriarch hose #en is an instrument of
generative #oer like his #enis. Core, his #ens #oer, like his #eniss
#oer, is not )ust the a$ility to generate life $ut the #oer to create a
#osterity to hich he lays claim, as, in Sai"s #ara#hrase of %artri"ge, an
increaser an" thus a foun"er. ,n this res#ect, the #en is truly mightier
than its #hallic counter#art, the sor", an" in #atriarchy more resonantly
sexual. /ot only "oes the riter res#on" to his muses quasi!sexual
excitation ith an out#ouring of the aesthetic energy -o#kins calle" the
fine "elight that fathers thought 0in a #oem of that title1 O a "elight
#oure" seminally from #en to #age O $ut as the author of an en"uring text
the riter engages the attention of the future in exactly the same ay that
a king 0or father1 ons the homage of the #resent. /o sor"!iel"ing
general coul" rule so long or #ossess so vast a king"om.
>inally, the fact that such a notion of onershi# or #ossession is
em$e""e" in the meta#hor of #aternity lea"s to yet another im#lication of
this com#lex meta#hor. >or if the authorUfather is oner of his text an" of
his rea"ers attention, he is also, of course, onerU#ossessor of the
su$)ects of his text, that is to say of those figures, scenes an" events O
those $rain chil"ren O he has $oth incarnate" in $lack an" hite an"
$oun" in cloth or leather. Thus, $ecause he is an athor- a man of
letters is simultaneously, like his "ivine counter#art, a father, a master or
ruler, an" an oner: the s#iritual ty#e of a #atriarch, as e un"erstan"
that term in &estern society.
17I
&here "oes such an im#licitly or ex#licitly #atriarchal theory of
literature leave literary omen@ ,f the #en is a meta#horical #enis, ith
hat organ can females generate texts@ The question may seem frivolous,
$ut, as my e#igra#h from Anais /in in"icates, $oth the #atriarchal etiology
that "efines a solitary >ather Ko" as the only creator of all things, an" the
male meta#hors of literary creation that "e#en" u#on such an etiology
have long confuse" literary omen O rea"ers an" riters alike. >or hat
if such a #rou"ly masculine cosmic Author is the sole legitimate mo"el for
all earthly authors@ Dr orse, hat if the male generative #oer is not )ust
the only legitimate #oer $ut the only #oer there is@ That literary
theoreticians from Aristotle to -o#kins seeme" to $elieve this as so no
"ou$t #revente" many omen from ever attem#ting the #en O to use
Anne >inchs #hrase O an" cause" enormous anxiety in generations of
those omen ho ere #resum#tuous enough to "are such an attem#t.
?ane Austens Anne Nlliot un"erstates the case hen she "ecorously
o$serves, toar" the en" of 0ersasion- that men have ha" every
a"vantage of us in telling their story. N"ucation has $een theirs in so much
higher a "egree+ the #en has $een in their han"s. >or, as Anne >inchs
com#laint suggests, the #en has $een "efine" as not )ust acci"entally $ut
essentially a male tool, an", therefore, not only ina##ro#riate $ut actually
alien to omen. =acking Austens "emure irony, >inchs #assionate
#rotest goes almost as far toar" the center of the meta#hor of literary
#aternity as -o#kinss letter to *anon Bixon. /ot only is a oman that
attem#ts the #en an intrusive an" #resum#tuous *reature, she is
a$solutely unre"eema$le: no virtue can outeigh the fault of her
#resum#tion $ecause she has grotesquely crosse" $oun"aries "ictate" $y
/ature. '...(
*ommentators on female su$or"ination from >reu" an" -orney to "e
Feauvoir, &olfgang =e"erer, an", most recently, Borothy Binnerstein,
have of course ex#lore" other as#ects of the relationshi# $eteen the sexes
that also lea" men to ant figuratively to kill omen. &hat -orney
calle" male "rea" of the female is a #henomenon to hich =e"erer has
"evote" a long an" scholarly $ook. Nla$orating on "e Feauvoirs assertion
that as mother of life omans first lie, her first treason 'seems to $e( that
of life itself O life hich, though clothe" in the most attractive forms, is
alays infeste" $y the ferments of age an" "eath, =e"erer remarks u#on
omans on ten"ency to, in effect, kill herself into art in or"er to
a##eal to man :
>rom the %aleolithic on, e have evi"ence that oman, through careful
coiffure, through a"ornment an" makeu#, trie" to stress the eternal ty#e
rather than the mortal self. Such makeu#, in Africa or ?a#an, may reach
the, to us, somehat estranging "egree of a lifeless mask O an" yet that is
#recisely the #ur#ose of it: here nothing is lifelike, nothing s#eaks of
"eath.
>or yet another reason, then, it is no on"er that omen have
historically hesitate" to attem#t the #en. Authore" $y a male Ko" an" $y
a go"like male, kille" into a #erfect image of herself, the oman
riters self!contem#lation may $e sai" to have $egun ith a searching
glance into the mirror of the male!inscri$e" literary text. There she oul"
see at first only those eternal lineaments fixe" on her like a mask to
conceal her "rea"ful an" $loo"y link to nature. Fut looking long enough,
looking har" enough, she oul" see O like Cary Nli:a$eth *oleri"ge
ga:ing at the other si"e of the mirror O an enrage" an" re$ellious
#risoner: herself. '...(
%assages from the orks of several other omen riters suggest one
significant ay in hich the female artist can $ring this secret self to the
surface of her on life: against the tra"itional generative authority of the
#enU#enis, the literary oman can set the conce#tual energy of her on
female sexuality. Though our #atriarchal culture has ten"e" to
sentimentali:e an" thus triviali:e the matriarchal #oer that, in the vie
of the nineteenth!century Kerman thinker ?. ?. Fachofen, once "ominate"
most human societies, a sur#rising num$er of literary omen seem to
have consciously or unconsciously fantasi:e" the re$irth of such #oer.
>rom *hristina 2ossetti, ho "reame" of a uto#ian Cother *ountry, to
A"rienne 2ich, hose Of ;o(an 4orn is 0among other things1 a
meta#horical attem#t to ma# such a lan", omen riters have almost
179
instinctively struggle" to associate their on life!giving sexual energy
ith their art, o##osing $oth to the "ea"ly force of the sor"like
#enU#enis.
,n *harlotte Frontes The 0rofessor- for instance, the young
#oetUseamstress >rances -enri cele$rates the return of love an" li$erty
after a long interlu"e of grief an" failure $y reciting Ciltons invocation
to that heavenly muse, ho on the secret to# of Dre$ or Sinai ha" taught
the -e$re she#her" ho in the om$ of chaos, the conce#tion of a orl"
ha" originate" an" ri#ene". Though, as Virginia &oolf once suggeste",
the author of 0ara+ise Lost as the first of the masculinists in his
misogynistic contem#t for Nve, the Cother of Cankin", Fronte
"rastically revises his imagery, "e!em#hasi:ing the generative #oer of
the #atriarchal Author an" stressing the #oerful om$ of the matriarchal
muse. Core "irectly, in Shirley she has her e#onymous heroine insist that
Cilton never sa Nve: it as his cook that he sa. ,n fact, she "eclares,
the first oman as never, like Ciltons Nve, half "oll, half angel an"
alays #otential fien". 2ather, she as a #oerful Titan, a oman hose
%romethean creative energy gave $irth to the "aring hich coul" conten"
ith Dmni#otence: the strength hich coul" $ear a thousan" years of
$on"age... the unexhauste" life an" uncorru#te" excellence, sisters to
immortality, hich ... coul" conceive an" $ring forth a Cessiah. *learly
such a female Author oul" have maternal #oers equal to the #aternal
energies of any male Titan.
Cary Shelleys fictionalise" Authors ,ntro"uction to The Last Man is
$ase" on a similarly revisionary myth of female sexual energy, a covertly
feminist %ara$le of the *ave hich im#licitly refutes %lato, Cilton, an"
the meta#hor of literary #aternity. ,n 1717, Shelley $egins, she an" a
frien" visite" hat as sai" to $e the gloomy cavern of the *umaean
Si$yl. Nntering a mysterious, almost inaccessi$le cham$er, they foun"
#iles of leaves, fragments of $ark, an" a hite filmy su$stance resem$ling
the inner #art of the green hoo" hich shelters the grain of the unri#e
,n"ian corn. At first, Shelley confesses, she an" her male com#anion
0%ercy Shelley1 ere $affle" $y this "iscovery, $ut At length, my frien"...
exclaime" This is the Si$yls cave+ these are si$ylline leaves. -er
account continues as follos:
)Dn examination, e foun" that all the leaves, $ark an" other su$stances
ere trace" ith ritten characters. &hat a##eare" to us more
astonishing, as that these ritings ere ex#resse" in various languages:
some unknon to my com#anion... some... in mo"ern "ialects.... &e
coul" make out little $y the "im light, $ut they seeme" to contain
#ro#hecies, "etaile" relations of events $ut lately #asse"+ names... an"
often exclamations of exultation or oe... ere trace" on their thin scant
#ages.... &e ma"e a hasty selection of such of the leaves, hose riting
one at least of us coul" un"erstan", an" then... $a"e a"ieu to the "im
hy#aethric cavern.... Since that #erio"... , have $een em#loye" in
"eci#hering these sacre" remains.... , #resent the #u$lic ith my latest
"iscoveries in the slight Si$ylline #ages. Scattere" an" unconnecte" as
they ere, , have $een o$lige" to... mo"el the ork into a consistent
form. Fut the main su$stance rests on the "ivine intuitions hich the
*umaean "amsel o$taine" from heaven.
Nvery feature of this cave )ourney is significant, es#ecially for the
female critic 0or riter1 ho seeks alternatives to the masculinist
meta#hor of literary #aternity.
,t is o$viously im#ortant, to $egin ith, that the cave is a female s#ace,
an" O more im#ortant O a s#ace inha$ite" not $y fettere" #risoners 0as the
famous cave in %latos Rep%li$ as1 $ut $y a free female hiero#hant, the
lost Si$yl, a #ro#hetess ho inscri$e" her "ivine intuitions on ten"er
leaves an" fragments of "elicate $ark. >or Cary Shelley, therefore, it is
intimately connecte" ith $oth her on artistic authority an" her on
#oer of self!creation. '...(
The quest for creative energy enacte" $y *harlotte Fronte an" Cary
Shelley in the #assages , have quote" here has $een of consuming
im#ortance 0for o$vious reasons1 to many other omen riters. Nmily
Bickinson, for instance, sought hat *hristina 2ossetti calle" a Cother
*ountry all her life, an" she alays envisione" such a country as a lan"
of #rimor"ial #oer. ,n"ee", though Bickinsons famous Cy =ife ha"
177
stoo" O a =oa"e" Kun seems to "efine sexualUcreative energies in terms of
a "estructive, #hallic mechanism, it is im#ortant to remem$er that this
almost theatrically reticent literary oman alays associate" a##arently
male guns ith #rofoun" female volcanoes an" mountains. Thus her
#hallic "escri#tion of #oetic s#eech in Cy =ife ha" stoo" is $alance" $y
a characteri:ation of the 0female1 volcano as The Solemn O Torri" O
Sym$ol O U The li#s that never lie O. An" in one of her lesser knon
#oems of the 17I5s she formulate" a matriarchal cree" of omanly
creativity that must surely have given her the strength to sustain her on
art through all the "ou$ts an" "ifficulties of her reclusive life:
Seet Countains O Je tell Ce no lie O U /ever "eny Ce O /ever fly O U
Those same unvarying Nyes U Turn on Ce O hen , fail O or feign, U Dr
take the 2oyal names in vain O U Their far O slo O Violet Ka:e O U Cy
Strong Ca"onnas O *herish still O U The &ayar" /un O $eneath the -ill
O U &hose service O is to Jou O U -er latest &orshi# O &hen the Bay U
>a"es from the >irmament aay O U To lift -er Fros on Jou O
Dne of Bickinsons most #erce#tive a"mirers, the feminist #oet A"rienne
2ich, has more recently turne" to the same imagery of matriarchal #oer
in hat is #lainly a similar attem#t to confute that meta#hor of literary
#aternity hich, as Anais /in rote, has confuse" so many omen in
our society. Jour mother "ea" an" you un$orn, she rites in The Cirror
,n &hich To Are Seen As Dne, "escri$ing the situation of the female
artist, your to han"s 'gras#( your hea", "raing it "on against the
$la"e of life U your nerves the nerves of a mi"ife U learning her tra"e.
<.<.7 =illian S. 2o$inson: from Treason Dur Text >eminist *hallenges to the
=iterary *anon
The lofty seat of canoni:e" $ar"s 0%ollok, 17E91
AS &,T- CA/J DT-N2 restrictive institutions, e are har"ly aare
of it until e come into conflict ith it+ the elements of the literary canon
are sim#ly a$sor$e" $y the a##rentice scholar an" critic in the normal
course of gra"uate e"ucation, ithout anyones ever seeming to inculcate
or "efen" them. A##eal, ere any necessary, oul" $e to the other
meaning of canon, that is to esta$lishe" stan"ar"s of )u"gement an" of
taste. /ot that either "efinition is #resente" as rigi" an" immuta$le ! far
from it, for lectures in literary history are full of ry references to a
$enighte" though har"ly "istant #ast hen, say, the meta#hysical #oets
ere insufficiently a##reciate" or Vachel =in"say as the most mo"ern
#oet recogni:e" in American literature. &hence the acknole"gment of a
su$)ective "imension, sometimes generali:e" as sensi$ility, to the
category of taste. See#ing mo"ifications in the canon are sai" to occur
$ecause of changes in collective sensi$ility, $ut in"ivi"ual a"missions
an" elevations from minor to ma)or status ten" to $e achieve" $y
successful critical #romotion, hich is to say, "emonstration that a
#articular author "oes meet generally acce#te" criteria of excellence.
The results, moreover, are nohere co"ifie": they are neither set "on
in a single #lace, nor are they a$solutely uniform. '...(
>or more than a "eca"e no, feminist scholars have $een #rotesting the
a##arently systematic neglect of omens ex#erience in the literary
canon, neglect that takes the form of "istorting an" misrea"ing the fe
recogni:e" female riters an" exclu"ing the others. Coreover, the
argument runs, the #re"ominantly male authors in the canon shos us the
female character an" relations $eteen the sexes in a ay that $oth
reflects an" contri$utes to sexist i"eology ! an as#ect of these classic
orks a$out hich the critical tra"ition remaine" silent for generations.
'...(
S$he as all the "orl+e hathe $onfir(e+ an+ agree+ pon- that it is
athenti.e an+ $anoni$al. OT. ;ilson- 1CCHL
'...( D$viously, no challenge is #resente" to the #articular notions of
literary quality, timelessness, universality, an" other qualities that
174
constitute the rationale for canonicity. The un"erlying argument, rather, is
that consistency, fi"elity to those values, requires recognition of at least
the fe $est an" $est!knon omen riters. Nqually o$viously, this
a##roach "oes not call the notion of the canon itself into question.
;e a$kno"le+ge it <anonlike- %t not <anoni$all. O4ishop 4arlo"-
1E71L
Cany feminist critics re)ect the metho" of case!$y!case "emonstration.
The holesale consignment of omens concerns an" #ro"uctions to a
grim area $oun"e" $y triviality an" o$scurity cannot $e com#ensate" for
$y tokenism. True equality can $e attaine", they argue, only $y o#ening u#
the canon to a much larger num$er of female voices. This is an en"eavor
that eventually $rings $asic aesthetic questions to the fore.
,nitially, hoever, the "eman" for i"er re#resentation of female authors
is su$stantiate" $y an extraor"inary effort of intellectual rea##ro#riation.
The emergence of feminist literary stu"y has $een characteri:e", at the
$ase, $y scholarshi# "evote" to the "iscovery, re#u$lication, an"
rea##raisal of lost or un"ervalue" riters an" their ork. >rom 2e$ecca
-ar"ing Bavis an" 3ate *ho#in through /ora /eale -urston an" Cina
=oy to Ceri"el =eSueur an" 2e$ecca &est, re#utations have $een re$orn
or rema"e an" a female countercanon has come into $eing, out of
com#onents that ere largely unavaila$le even a "o:en years ago.
1

,n a""ition to constituting a feminist alternative to the male!"ominate"
tra"ition, these authors also have a claim to re#resentation in the canon.
>rom this #ers#ective, the ork of recovery itself makes one sort of #rima
facie case, giving the lie to the assum#tion, here it has existe", that asi"e
from a fe names that are househol" or"s ! "ifferentially a##reciate",
$ut certainly ell knon ! there sim#ly has not $een much serious
literature $y omen. Fefore any aesthetic arguments have $een a"vance"
either for or against the a"mission of such orks to the general canon, the
ne literary canon, the ne literary scholarshi# on omen has
"emonstrate" that the #ool of #otential a##licants is far larger than anyone
has hitherto sus#ecte".
;ol+ Agstine- if he hel+ all the %ooks to have an e.al right to
$anoni$ity ... have preferre+ so(e to othersI O;. Fitzgeral+- trans. ;hitaker-
1TQ6L
Fut the aesthetic issues cannot $e forestalle" for very long. &e nee" to
un"erstan" hether the claim is $eing ma"e that many of the nely
recovere" or vali"ate" texts $y omen meet existing criteria or, on the
other han", that those criteria themselves intrinsically exclu"e or ten" to
exclu"e omen an" hence shoul" $e mo"ifie" or re#lace". ,f this #olarity
is not, in fact, a##lica$le to the #rocess, hat are the groun"s for
#resenting a large num$er of ne female can"i"ates for 0as it ere1
canoni:ation@
The #ro$lem is e#itomi:e" in /ina Fayms intro"uction to her stu"y of
American omens fiction $eteen 17E5 an" 1795:
2eexamination of this fiction may ell sho it to lack the esthetic,
intellectual, an" moral com#lexity an" artistry that e "eman" of great
literature. , confess frankly that, although , have foun" much to interest
me in these $ooks, , have not unearthe" a forgotten ?ane Austen or
Keorge Nliot or hit u#on the one novel that , oul" #ro#ose to set
alongsi"e The S$arlet Letter. Jet, , cannot avoi" the $elief that #urely
literary criteria, as they have $een em#loye" to i"entify the $est
American orks, have inevita$ly ha" a $ias in favor of things male ! in
favor of, say, a haling shi#, rather than a seing circle as a sym$ol of
the human community ... &hile not claiming any literary greatness for
any of the novels ... in this stu"y, , oul" like at least to $egin to correct
such a $ias $y taking their content seriously. An" it is time, #erha#s !
though this task lies outsi"e my sco#e here ! to reexamine the groun"s
u#on hich certain halloe" American classics have $een calle" great.
E

'...( The effect is #luralist, at $est, an" the e#istemological assum#tions
un"erlying the search for a more fully re#resentative literature are strictly
em#iricist: $y inclu"ing the #ers#ective of omen 0ho are, after all,
145
half!the!#o#ulation1, e ill kno more a$out the culture as it actually
as. /o one suggests that there might $e something in this literature itself
that challenges the values an" even the vali"ity of the #reviously all!male
tra"ition. There is no reason hy the canon nee" s#eak ith one voice or
as one man on the fun"amental questions of human ex#erience. ,n"ee",
even as an elite hite male voice, it can har"ly $e sai" to "o so. '...(
After all, hen e turn from the construction of #antheons, hich have
no pres$ri%e+ num$er of #laces, to the construction of course sylla$i, then
something "oes have to $e eliminate" each time something else is a""e",
an" here i"eologies, aesthetic an" extra!aesthetic, "o necessarily come into
#lay. ,s the canon an" hence the sylla$us $ase" on it to $e regar"e" as the
com#en"ium of excellence or as the recor" of cultural history@ >or there
comes a #oint hen the #ro#onent of making the canon recogni:e the
achievement of $oth sexes has to #ut u# or shut u#+ either a given oman
riter is goo" enough to re#lace some male riter on the #rescri$e"
rea"ing list or she is not. ,f she is not, then either she shoul" re#lace him
anyay, in the name of telling the truth a$out the culture, or she shoul"
not, in the 0unexamine"1 name of excellence. This is the "e$ate that ill
have to $e engage" an" that has so far $een $roache" only in the most
inclusionary of terms. ,t is ironic that in American literature, here
attacks on the male tra"ition have $een most $itter an" the reclamation of
omen riters so s#ectacular, the a##eal has still $een only to #luralism,
generosity, an" guilt. ,t is #o#ulism ithout the #olitics of #o#ulism. '...(
A $heaper "ay of <anon=(aking in a $orner O4a#ter- 1EH6L
'...( %ermission may have given the contem#orary critic to a##roach a
i"e range of texts, transcen"ing an" even ignoring the tra"itional canon.
Fut in a context here the groun" of struggle ! highly conteste",
moreover ! concerns N"ith &hartons a"vancement to somehat more
ma)or status, fun"amental assum#tions have change" very little. *an
-athornes "!!!!" mo$ of scri$$ling omen really $e inva"ing the
realms so long sanctifie" $y -athorne himself an" his $rother genuises@
,s this hat feminist criticism or even feminist cultural history means@ ,s it
! to a##ly some outmo"e" an" "ece#tively sim#le categories ! a goo"
"evelo#ment or a $a" one@ ,f these questions have not $een raise", it is
$ecause omens literature an" the female tra"ition ten" to $e evoke" as
an autonomous cultural ex#erience, not im#inging on the rest of literary
history.
;is+o(e n+er a ragge+ $oate is sel+o(e $anoni$all. O<rosse- 1E7HL
&hether "ealing ith #o#ular genres or high art, commentary on the
female tra"ition usually has $een $ase" on ork that as #u$lishe" at
some time an" as #ro"uce" $y #rofessional riters. Fut feminist
scholarshi# has also #ushe" $ack the $oun"aries of literature in other
"irections, consi"ering a i"e range of forms an" styles in hich
omens riting ! es#ecially that of omen ho "i" not #erceive
themselves as riters ! a##ears. ,n this ay, omens letters, "iaries,
)ournals, auto$iogra#hies, oral histories, an" #rivate #oetry have come
un"er critical scrutiny as evi"ence of omens consciousness an+
e#pression.
Kenerally s#eaking, feminist criticism has $een quite o#en to such
material, recogni:ing that the very con"itions that gave many omen the
im#etus to rite ma"e it im#ossi$le for their culture to "efine them as
riters. This acce#tance has ex#an"e" our sense of #ossi$le forms an"
voices, $ut it has not challenge" our receive" sense of a##ro#riate style.
&hat it ammounts to is that if a oman riting in isolation an" ith no
#u$lic au"ience in vie nonetheless has goo" ! that is, canonical
mo"els, e are im#resse" ith the strength of her text hen she a##lies
hat she has assimilate" a$out riting to her on ex#eriences as a
oman. ,f hoever, her literary mo"els ere chosen from the same
#o#ular literature that some critics are no $eginning to recogni:e as #art
of the female tra"ition, then she has not got hol" of an ex#ressive
instrument that em#oers her. '...(
Dnce again, the arena is the female tra"ition itself. ,f e are thinking in
terms of canon formation, it is the alternative canon. Hntil the aesthetic
arguments can $e fully orke" out in the feminist context, it ill $e
141
im#ossi$le to argue, in the general market#lace of literary i"eas, that the
novels of -enry ?ames ought to give #lace ! a little #lace, even in the
name of Alice ?ames, much less the Seamer on Cens Hn"erear, little
more than a form of reverse "iscrimination ! a conce#t to hich some of
them are alrea"y overly attache". ,t is u# to the feminist scholars, hen e
"etermine that this is in"ee" the right course to #ursue, to "emonstrate that
such an inclusion oul" constitute a genuinely affirmative action for all of
us.
The "evelo#ment of feminist literary criticism an" scholarshi# has
alrea"y #rocee"e" through a num$er of i"entifia$le stages. ,ts #ace is more
reminiscent of the survey course than of the slo #rocesses of canon
formation an" revision, an" it has $een more successful in "efining an"
sticking to its on intellectual turf, the female countercanon, than in
gaining general canonical recognition for N"ith &harton, >anny >ern, or
the female "iarists of the &estar" Nx#ansion. ,n one sense, the more
coherent our sense of the female tra"ition is, the stronger ill $e our
eventual case. Jet, the longer e ait, the more conforta$le the omens
literature ghetto ! se#arate, a##arently autonomous, an" far from equal !
may $egin to feel.
At the same time, , $elieve the challenge cannot come only $y means of
the #atent value of the ork of omen. &e must #ursue the question
certain of us have raise" an" retreate" from as to the eternal verity of the
receive" stan"ar"s of greatness or even goo"ness. An", hile not
a$an"oning our nefoun" female tra"ition, e have to return to
confrontation ith the canon, examining it as a source of i"eas, themes,
motifs, an" myths a$out the to sexes. The #oint in so "oing is not to la$el
an" hence "ismiss even the most sexist literary calssics, $ut to ena$le all of
us to a##rehen" them, finally, in all their human "imensions.
Q.C 1T3NO=<RITI<ISM
<.6.1 N"ar" Sai": from *risis 'in orientalism(
,t may a##ear strange to s#eak a$out something or someone as hol"ing
a te#tal attitu"e, $ut a stu"ent of literature ill un"erstan" the #hrase
more easily if he ill recall the kin" of vie attacke" $y Voltaire in
<an+i+e, or even the attitu"e to reality satiri:e" $y *ervantes in ,on
2i#ote. &hat seems unexce#tiona$le goo" sense to these riters is that
it is a fallacy to assume that the sarming, un#re"icta$le, an"
#ro$lematic mess in hich human $eings live can $e un"erstoo" on the
$asis of hat $ooks ! texts ! say+ to a##ly hat one learns out of a $ook
literally to reality is to risk folly or ruin. Dne oul" no more think of
using A(a+is of /al
T>
to un"erstan" sixteenth!century 0or #resent "ay1
S#ain than one oul" use the Fi$le to un"erstan", say, the -ouse of
*ommons. Fut clearly #eo#le have trie" an" "o try to use texts in so
sim#le!min"e" a ay, for otherise <an+i+e an" ,on 2i#ote oul" not
still have the a##eal for rea"ers that they "o to"ay. ,t seems a common
human failing to #refer the schematic authority of a text to the
"isorientations of "irect encounters ith the human. Fut is this failing
constantly #resent, or are there circumstances that, more than others,
make the textual attitu"e likely to #revail@ 'c(
A text #ur#orting to contain knole"ge a$out something actual, an"
arising out of circumstances similar to the ones , have )ust "escri$e", is
not easily "ismisse". Nx#ertise is attri$ute" to it. The authority of
aca"emics, institutions, an" governments can accrue to it, surroun"ing it
ith still greater #restige than its #ractical successes arrant. Cost
im#ortant, such texts can $reate not only knole"ge $ut also the very
reality they a##ear to "escri$e. ,n time such knole"ge an" reality
#ro"uce a tra"ition, or hat Cichel >oucault calls a "iscourse, hose
material #resence or eight, not the originality of a given author, is really
res#onsi$le for the texts #ro"uce" out of it. This kin" of text is com#ose"
out of those #re!existing units of information "e#osite" $y >lau$ert in the
7E
A S#anish romance of uncertain origin, first #rinte" in the sixteenth century.
14E
catalogue of i+8es reXes
TH
.
,n the light of all this, consi"er /a#oleon an" =esse#s
7<
. Nverything they
kne, more or less, a$out the Drient, came from $ooks ritten in the
tra"ition of Drientalism, #lace" in its li$rary of i+8es reXes+ for them the
Drient, like the fierce lion, as something to $e encountere" an" "ealt ith
to a certain extent %e$ase the texts ma"e that Drient #ossi$le. Such an
Drient as silent, availa$le to Nuro#e for the reali:ation of #ro)ects that
involve" $ut ere never "irectly res#onsi$le to the native inha$itants, an"
una$le to resist the #ro)ects, images, or mere "escri#tions "evise" for it.
Narlier , calle" such a relation $eteen &estern riting 0an" its
consequences1 an" Driental silence the result of an" the sign of the &ests
great cultural strength, its ill to #oer over the Drient. Fut there is
another si"e to the strength, a si"e hose existence "e#en"s on the
#ressures of the Drientalist tra"ition an" its textual attitu"e to the Drient+
this si"e lives its on life, as $ooks a$out fierce lions ill "o until lions
can talk $ack. The #ers#ective rarely "ran on /a#oleon an" "e =esse#s !
to take to among the many #ro)ectors ho hatche" #lans for the Drient !
is the one that sees them carrying on in the "imensionless silence of the
Drients mainly $ecause the "iscourse of Drientalism, over an" a$ove the
Drients #oerlessness to "o anything a$out them, suffuse" their activity
ith meaning, intelligi$ility, an" reality. The "iscourse of Drientalism an"
hat ma"e it #ossi$le ! in /a#oleons case, a &est far more #oerful
militarily than the Drient ! gave them Drientals ho coul" $e "escri$e" in
such orks as the ,es$ription +e l* 1gypte an" an Drient that coul" $e cut
across as "e =esse#s cut across Sue:. Coreover, Drientalism gave them
their success ! at least from their #oint of vie, hich ha" nothing to "o
ith that of the Driental. 'c(
78
The *atalogue or Bictionary of 2eceive" ,"eas is an ironic a##en"ix to
Kustave >alu$erts novel 4ovar+ et 08$$het, #u$lishe" #osthumously in 1771.
7<
/a#oleon Fona#arte le" a military ex#e"ition to Ngy#t in 1947 an" initiate"
an aca"emic stu"y of that country hose fin"ings ere #u$lishe" in tenty!three
volumes $eteen 1754 an" 17E7 un"er the title ,es$ription +e l* 1gypte.
>er"inan" "e =esse#s 01756!4<1 as a >rench "i#lomat an" engineer ho
"esigne" an" su#ervise" the construction of the Sue: canal in 1764!I4.
Jet ! an" here e must $e very clear ! Drientalism overro"e the
Drient. As a system of thought a$out the Drient. ,t alays rose from the
s#ecifically human "etail to the general transhuman one+ an o$servation
a$out a tenth!century Ara$ #oet multi#lie" itself into a #olicy toar"s
0an" a$out1 the Driental mentality in Ngy#t, ,raq or Ara$ia. Similarly a
verse from the 3oran oul" $e consi"ere" the $est evi"ence of an
inera"ica$le Cuslim sensuality. Drientalism assume" an unchanging
Drient, a$solutely "ifferent 0the reasons change from e#och to e#och1
from the &est. An" Drientalism, in its #ost!eighteenth century form,
coul" never revise itself. All this makes *romer an" Falfour, as o$servers
an" a"ministrators of the Drient, inevita$le.
The closeness $eteen #olitics an" Drientalism, or, to #ut it more
circums#ectly, the great likelihoo" that i"eas a$out the Drient "ran
from Drientalism can $e #ut to #olitical use, is an im#ortant yet
extremely sensitive truth. ,t raises questions a$out the #re"is#osition
toar"s innocence or guilt, scholarly "isinterest or #ressure!grou#
com#licity, in such fiel"s as $lack or omens stu"ies. ,t necessarily
#rovokes unrest in ones conscience a$out cultural, racial, or historical
generali:ations, their uses, value, "egree of o$)ectivity, an" fun"amental
intent. Core than anything else, the #olitical an" cultural circumstances
in hich &estern Drientalism has flourishe" "ra attention to the
"e$ase" #osition of Drient or Driental as an o$)ect of stu"y. *an any
other than a #olitical master!slave relation #ro"uce the Drientali:e"
Drient #erfectly characteri:e" $y Anar A$"el Calek@
a1 Dn the level of the position of the pro%le(, an" the #ro$lematicc the
Drient an" Drientals 'are consi"ere" $y Drientalism( as an o$)ect of
stu"y, stam#e" ith an otherness ! as all that is "ifferent, hether it $e
su$)ect or o$)ect ! $ut of a constitutive otherness, of an essentialist
characterc. This o$)ect of stu"y ill $e, as is customary, #assive, non!
#artici#ating, en"oe" ith a historical su$)ectivity, a$ove all, non!
active, non!autonomous, non!sovereign ith regar" to itself: the only
Drient or Driental or su$)ect hich coul" $e a"mitte", at the extreme
limit, is the alienate" $eing, #hiloso#hically, that is, other than itself in
148
relationshi# to itself, #ose", un"erstoo", "efine" ! an" acte" ! $y others.
$1 Dn the level of the the(ati$, 'the Drientalists( a"o#t an" essentialist
conce#tion of the countries, nations an" #eo#les of the Drient un"er stu"y,
a conce#tion hich ex#resses itself through a characteri:e" ethnist
ty#ology c an" ill soon #rocee" ith it toar" racism.
Accor"ing to the tra"itional orientalists, an essence shoul" exist !
sometimes even clearly "escri$e" in meta#hysical terms ! hich
constitutes the inaliena$le an" common $asis of all the $eings consi"ere"+
this essence is $oth historical, since it goes $ack to the "an of history,
an" fun"amentally a!historical, since it transfixes the $eing, the o$)ect of
stu"y, ithin its inaliena$le an" non!evolutive s#ecificity, instea" of
"efining it as all other $eings, states, nations, #eo#les, an" cultures ! as a
#ro"uct, a resultant of the vection of the forces o#erating in the fiel" of
historical evolution.
Thus one en"s ith a ty#ology ! $ase" on a real s#ecificity, $ut "etache"
from history, an", consequently, conceive" as $eing intangi$le, essential !
hich makes of the stu"ie" o$)ect another $eing ith regar" to hom the
stu"ying su$)ect is transcen"ent+ e ill have a homo Sinicus, a homo
Ara$icus 0an" hy not a homo Aegy#ticus, etc.1, a homo Africanus, the
man ! the normal man, it is un"erstoo" ! $eing the Nuro#ean man of the
historical #erio", that is, since Kreek antiquity. Dne sees ho much, from
the eighteenth to the tentieth century, the hegemonism
76
of #ossessing
minorities, unveile" $y Carx an" Nngels, an" the anthro#ocentrism
"ismantle" $y >reu" are accom#anie" $y euro#ocentrism in the area of
human an" social sciences, an" more #articularly in those in "irect
relationshi# ith non!Nuro#ean #eo#les
7I
.
'c( >rom the outset, then, Drientalism carrie" forar" to traits: 011 a
nely foun" scientific self!consciousness $ase" on the linguistic
76
The conce#t of hegemony ! cultural or i"eological "omination of the
ma)ority $y a minority that is acce#te" as natural $y $oth grou#s ! "erives from
the ,talian Carxist Antonio Kramsci 01741!14891.
7I
Anar A$"el Calek, Drientalism in *risis, ,iogenes << 0&inter 14I81:
159!157.
im#ortance of the Drient to Nuro#e, an" 0E1 a #roclivity to "ivi"e,
su$"ivi"e, an" re"ivi"e its su$)ect matter ithout ever changing its min"
a$out the Drient as $eing alays the same, unchanging, uniform an"
ra"ically #eculiar o$)ect.
>rie"rich Schlegel, ho learne" his Sanskrit in %aris, illustrates these
traits together. Although $y the time he #u$lishe" his Y%er +ie Spra$he
n+ ;eisheit +er In+ier 'On the Langage an+ ;is+o( of In+ia( in 1757
Schlegel ha" #ractically renounce" his Drientalism, he still hel" that
Sanskrit an" %ersian on the one han" an"%Kreek an" Kerman on the
other ha" more affinities ith each other than ith the Semitic, *hinese,
American or African languages. Coreover, the ,n"o!Nuro#ean family
as artistically sim#le an" satisfactory in a ay the Semitic, for one, as
not. Such a$stractions as this "i" not trou$le Schlegel, for hom nations,
races, min"s an" #eo#les as things one coul" talk a$out #assionately ! in
the ever!narroing #ers#ective of #o#ulism first a"um$rate" $y -er"er !
hel" a lifelong fascination. Jet nohere "oes Schlegel talk a$out the
living, contem#orary Drient. &hen he sai" in 1755, ,t is in the Drient
that e must search for the highest 2omanticism, he meant the Drient of
the Sakntala, the Pen"!Avesta, an" the H#anisha"s
79
. As for the
Semites, hose language as agglutinative, unaesthetic an" mechanical,
they ere "ifferent, inferior, $ackar". Schlegels lectures on language
an" on life, history, an" literature are full of these "iscriminations, hich
he ma"e ithout the slightest qualification. -e$re, he sai", as ma"e
for #ro#hetic utterance an" "ivination+ the Cuslims, hoever, es#ouse" a
"a" em#ty Theism, a merely negative Hnitarian faith.
77

79
Sakntala is a Sanskrit verse "rama $y the ,n"ian fifth century #oet
3ali"asa. The Pen"!Avesta is the scri#ture of Poroastrianism. The H#anisha"s
$elong to -in"u scri#ture.
77
>rie"rich Schlegel, Y%er +ie Spra$he n+ ;eisheit +er In+ier: 1in 4eitrag
zr 4egrn+ng +er Altert(stn+e 0-ei"el$erg: Cohr Y Pimmer, 17571, ##.
<<!64+ Schlegel, 0hilosophie +er /es$hi$hte: In a$htzen 5orlesngen gehalten
z ;ien i( @ahre 1T>T, e". ?ean!?acques Anstett, vol 4 of Dritis$he Frie+ri$h
S$hlegel = Asga%e, e". Nrnest Fehler 0Cunich: >er"inan" Sch`ningh, 14911, #.
E96.
14<
Cuch of the racism in Schlegels strictures u#on the Semites an" other
lo Drientals as i"ely "iffuse" in Nuro#ean culture. Fut nohere
else, unless it $e later in the nineteenth century among Barinian
anthro#ologists an" #hrenologists, as it ma"e the $asis of a scientific
su$)ect matter as it as in com#arative linguistics or #hilology. =anguage
an" race seeme" inextrica$ly tie", an" the goo" Drient as invaria$ly a
classical #erio" somehere in a long!gone ,n"ia, hereas the $a" Drient
lingere" in #resent!"ay Asia, #arts of /orth Africa, an" ,slam everyhere.
Aryans ere confine" to Nuro#e an" the ancient Drient, as =Lon
%oliakov has shon 0ithout once remarking, hoever, that Semites
ere not only the ?es $ut the Cuslims as ell
74
1, the Aryan myth
"ominate" historical an" cultural anthro#ology at the ex#ense of the
lesser #eo#les.
The official intellectual genealogy of Drientalism oul" certainly inclu"e
Ko$ineau, 2enan, -um$ol"t, Steinthal, Furnouf, 2emusat, %almer, &eil,
Bo:y, Cuir, to mention a fe famous names almost at ran"om from the
nineteents century. ,t oul" also inclu"e the "iffusive ca#acity of learne"
societies: the SociLtL asiatique, foun"e" in 17EE+ the 2oyal Asiatic
Society, foun"e" in 17E8+ the American Driental Society, foun"e" in 17<E+
an" so on. Fut it might #erforce neglect the great contri$ution of
imaginative an" travel literature, hich strengthene" the "ivisions
esta$lishe" $y Drientalists $eteen the various geogra#hical, tem#oral,
an" racial "e#artments of the Drient. Such neglect oul" $e incorrect,
since for the ,slamic Drient this literature is es#ecially rich an" makes a
significant contri$ution to $uil"ing the Drientalist "iscourse. ,t inclu"e
ork $y Koethe, -ugo, =amartine, *hateau$rian", 3inglake, /erval,
>lau$ert, =ane, Furton, Scott, Fyron, Vigny, Bisraeli, Keorge Nliot,
Kautier. =ater, in the late nineteenth an" early tentieth centuries, e
coul" a"" Boughty, FarrLs, =oti, T. N. =arence, >orster. All these riters
give a $ol"er outline to Bisraelis great Asiatic mystery. ,n this enter#rise
there is consi"era$le su##ort not only from the unearthing of "ea" Driental
74
=Lon %oliakov, The Aryan Myth: A 3istory of Ra$ist an+ Nationalist I+eas in
1rope, trans. N"mun" -oar" 0/e Jork: Fasic Fooks, 149<1.
civili:ations 0$y Nuro#ean excavators1 in Ceso#otamia, Ngy#t, Syria an"
Turkey, $ut also from ma)or geogra#hical surveys "one all through the
Drient. 'c(
&ith "isenchantment an" a generali:e" ! not to say schi:o#hrenic !
vie of the Driental, there is usually another #eculiarity. Fecause it is
ma"e into a general o$)ect, the hole Drient can $e ma"e to serve as an
illustration of a #articular form of eccentricity. Although the in"ivi"ual
Driental cannot shake or "istur$ the general categories that make sense of
his o""ness, his o""ness can nevertheless $e en)oye" for its on sake.
-ere, for exam#le, is >lau$ert "escri$ing the s#ectacle of the Drient:
To amuse the cro", Cohamme" Alis )ester took a oman in a *airo
$a:aar one "ay, set her on the counter of a sho#, an" cou#le" ith her
#u$licly hile the sho#kee#er calmly smoke" his #i#e.
Dn the roa" from *airo to Shu$ra some time ago a young fello ha"
himself #u$licly $uggere" $y a large monkey ! as in the story a$ove, to
create a goo" o#inion a$out himself an" make #eo#le laugh.
A mara$out "ie" a hile ago ! an i"iot ! ho ha" no longer #asse" as a
saint marke" $y Ko"+ all the Coslem omen came to see him an"
mastur$ate" him ! in the en" he "ie" of exhaustion ! from morning to
night it as a #er#etual )acking!offc.
2i+ +i$is 'hat say you@( of the folloing fact: some time ago a
santon 0ascetic #riest1 use" to alk through the streets of *airo
com#letely nake" exce#t for a ca# on his hea" an" another on his #rick.
To #iss he oul" "off the #rick!ca#, an" sterile omen ho ante"
chil"ren oul" run u#, #ut themselves un"er the #ara$ola of his urine an"
ru$ themselves ith it.
45
>lau$ert frankly acknole"ges that this is a grotesquerie of a s#ecial
kin". All the ol" comic $usiness ! $y hich >lau$ert meant the ell!
45
Fla%ert i 1gypt: A Sensi%ility on Tor, trans. an" e". >rancis Steegmuller
0Foston: =ittle, Fron Y *o., 14981, ##. <<!6. See Kustave >lau$ert,
<orrespon+en$e, e". ?ean Fruneau 0%aris: Kallimar", 14981, ,:6<E.
146
knon conventions of the cu"gele" slave c the coarse trafficker in
omen c the thieving merchant ! acquire a ne, fresh c genuine an"
charming meaning in the Drient. This meaning cannot $e re#ro"uce"+ it
can only $e en)oye" on the s#ot an" $rought $ack very a##roximately.
The Drient is "at$he+, since its almost 0$ut never quite1 offensive
$ehaviour issues out a reservoir of infinite #eculiarity+ the Nuro#ean,
hose sensi$ility tours the Drient, is a atcher, never involve", alays
"etache", alays rea"y for ne exam#les of hat the ,es$ription +e l*
1gypte calle" $i:arre )ouissamce. The Drient $ecomes a living ta$leau of
queerness. 'c(
As a )u"ge of the Drient, the mo"ern Drientalist "oes not, as he $elieves
an" even says, stan" a#art from it o$)ectively. -is human "etachment,
hose sign is the a$sence of sym#athy covere" $y #rofessional
knole"ge, is eighte" heavily ith all the ortho"ox attitu"es,
#ers#ectives an" moo"s of Drientalism that , have $een "escri$ing. -is
Drient is not the Drient as it is, $ut the Drient as it has $een Drientali:e".
An un$roken arc of knole"ge an" #oer connects the Nuro#ean or
&estern statesman an" the &estern Drientalists+ it forms the rim of the
stage containing the Drient. Fy the en" of &orl" &ar , $oth Africa an" the
Drient forme" not so much an intellectual s#ectacle for the &est as a
#rivilege" terrain for it. The sco#e of Drientalism exactly matche" the
sco#e of em#ire, an" it as this a$solute unanimity $eteen the to that
#rovoke" the only crisis in the history of &estern thought a$out an"
"ealings ith the Drient. An" this crisis continues no.
Feginning in the tenties an" from one en" of the Thir" &orl" to the
other, the res#onse to em#ire an" im#erialism has $een "ialectical. Fy the
time of the Fan"ung conference in 1466
41
the entire Drient ha" gaine" its
#olitical in"e#en"ence from the &estern em#ires an" confronte" a ne
configuration of im#erial #oers, the Hnite" States an" the Soviet Hnion.
Hna$le to recogni:e its Drient in the ne Thir" &orl", Drientalism no
41
At this conference, hel" in Fan"ung, ,n"onesia, tenty!nine nations of Africa
an" Asia 0inclu"ing *ommunist *hina1 #lanne" economic an" cultural co!
o#eration, an" o##ose" colonialism.
face" a challenging an" #olitically arme" Drient. To alternatives
o#ene" $efore Drientalism. Dne as to carry on as if nothing ha"
ha##ene". The secon" as to a"a#t the ol" ays to the ne. Fut to the
Drientalist, ho $elieves the Drient never changes, the ne is sim#ly the
ol" $etraye" $y the ne, misun"erstan"ing +is=Orientals 0e can #ermit
#ermit ourselves the neologism1. A thir", revisionist alternative, to
"is#ense ith Drientalism altogether, as consi"ere" $y only a tiny
minority.
Dne in"ex of the crisis, accor"ing to A$"el Calek, as not sim#ly that
national li$eration movements in the ex!colonial Drient orke" havoc
ith Drientalist conce#tions of #assive, fatalistic su$)ect races + there
as in a""ition the fact that s#ecialists an" the #u$lic at large $ecame
aare of the time!lag, not only $eteen orientalist science an" the
material un"er stu"y, $ut also ! an" this as "etermining ! $eteen the
conce#tions, the metho"s an" the instruments of ork in the human an"
social sciences an" those of orientalism.
4E
The Drientalists ! from 2enan
to Kol":iher to Cac"onal" to von Krune$aum, Ki$$ an" Fernar" =eis
!sa ,slam, for exam#le, as a cultural synthesis 0the #hrase is %. C.
-olt s1 that coul" $e stu"ie" a#art from economics, sociology, an"
#olitics of the ,slamic #eo#les. >or Drientalism, ,slam ha" a meaning
hich, if one ere to look for its most succinct formulation, coul" $e
foun" in 2enans first treatise: in or"er $est to $e un"erstoo" ,slam ha" to
$e re"uce" to tent an" tri$e. The im#act of colonialism, of orl"ly
circumstances, of historical "evelo#ment: all these ere to Drientalists as
flies to anton $oys, kille" ! or "isregar"e" ! for their s#ort, never taken
seriously enough to com#licate the essential ,slam. 'c(
The #resent crisis "ramati:es the "is#arity $eteen texts an" reality. Jet
in this stu"y of Drientalism , ish not only to ex#ose the sources of
Drientalisms vies $ut also to reflect on its im#ortance, for the
contem#orary intellectual rightly feels that to ignore a #art of the orl"
no "emonstra$ly encroaching u#on him is to avoi" reality. -umanists
have too often confine" their attention to "e#artmentali:e" to#ics of
4E
A$"el Calek, Drientalism in *risis, #. 11E.
14I
research. They have neither atche" nor learne" from "isci#lines like
Drientalism hose unremitting am$ition as to master all of the orl",
not some easily "elimite" #art of it such as an author or a collection of
texts. -oever, along ith such aca"emic security!$lankets as history,
literature or the humanities, an" "es#ite its overarching as#irations,
Drientalism is involve" in orl"ly, historical circumstances hich it has
trie" to conceal $ehin" an often #om#ous scientism an" a##eals to
rationalism. The contem#orary intellectual can learn from Drientalism
ho, on the one han", either to limit or to enlarge realistically the sco#e of
his "isci#lines claims, an" on the other, to see the human groun" 0the
foul!rag!an"!$one sho# of the heart, Jeats calle" it1 in hich texts,
visions, metho"s, an" "isci#lines $egin, gro, thrive, an" "egenerate. To
investigate Drientalism is also to #ro#ose intellectual ays for han"ling
the metho"ological #ro$lems that history has $rought forar", so to s#eak,
in its su$)ect matter, the Drient. Fut $efore that e must virtually see the
humanistic values that Drientalism, $y its sco#e, ex#eriences, an"
structures, has all $ut eliminate".
<.6.E N"ar" &. Sai": from The %olitics of 3nole"ge
'...( At the heart of the im#erial cultural entre#rise , analy:e" in
Orientalis( an" also in my ne $ook, as a #olitics of i"entity. That
#olitics has nee"e" to assume, in"ee" nee"e" firmly to $elieve, that hat
as true for Drientals or Africans as not hoever true a$out or for
Nuro#eans. &hen a >rench or Kerman scholar trie" to i"entify the main
characteristics of, for instance, the *hinese min", the ork as only #artly
inten"e" to "o that+ it as also inten"e" to sho ho "ifferent the *hinese
min" as from the &estern min".
Such constructe" things ! they have only an elusive reality ! as the
*hinese min" or the Kreek s#irit have alays $een ith us+ they are at the
source of a great "eal that goes into the making of in"ivi"ual cultures,
nations, tra"itions, an" #eo#les. Fut in the mo"ern orl" consi"era$ly
greater attention has generally $een given to such i"entities than as ever
given in early historical #erio"s, hen the orl" as larger, more
amor#hous, less glo$ali:e". To"ay a fantastic em#hasis is #lace" u#on a
#olitics of national i"entity, an" to a very great "egree, this em#hasis is
the result of the im#erial ex#erience. >or hen the great mo"ern &estern
im#erial ex#ansion took #lace all across the orl", $eginning in the late
eigtheenth century, it accentuate" the interaction $eteen the i"entity of
the >rench or the Nnglish an" that of the coloni:e" native #eo#les. An"
this mostly antagonistic interaction gave rise to a se#aration $eteen
#eo#le as mem$ers of homogenous races an" exclusive nations that as
an" still is one of the characteristics of hat can $e calle" the
e#istemology of im#erialism. At its core is the su#remely stu$$orn thesis
that everyone is #rinci#ally an" irre"uci$ly a mem$er of some race or
category, an" that race or category cannot ever $e assimilate" to or
acce#te" $y others!exce#t as itself. Thus came into $eing such invente"
essences as the Driental or Nnglishness, as >renchness, Africaness, or
American exce#tionalism, as if each of those ha" a %latonic i"ea $ehin" it
that guarantee" it as #ure an" unchanging from the $eginning to the en"
of time.
Dne #ro"uct of this "octrine is nationalism, a su$)ect so immense that ,
can treat it only very #artially here. &hat interests in the #olitics of
i"entity that informe" im#erialism in its glo$al #hase is that )ust as
natives ere consi"ere" to $elong to a "ifferent category ! racial or
geogra#hical ! from that of the &estern hite man, it also $ecame true
that in the great anti!im#erialist revolt re#resente" $y "ecoloni:ation this
same category as mo$ili:e" aroun", an" forme" the resisting i"entity
of, the revolutionaries. This as the case everyhere in the Thir" &orl".
,ts most cele$rate" instance is the conce#t of n8grit+e as "evelo#e"
intelectually an" #oetically $y AimL *Lsaire, =eo#ol" Senghor, an", in
Nnglish,&.N.F.BuFois. ,f $laks ha" once $een stigmati:e" an" given
inferior status to hites, then it has since $ecome necessary not to "eny
$lackness, an" not to as#ire to hiteness, $ut to acce#t an" cele$rate
$lackness, to give it the "ignity of #oetic as ell as meta#hysical status.
Thus, n8grit+e aquire" #ositive Feing here $efore it ha" $een a mark
149
of "egra"ation an" of inferiority. Cuch the same revaluation of the native
#articularity occurre" in ,n"ia, in many #arts of the ,slamic orl", *hina,
?a#an, ,n"onesia, an" the %hili##ines, here the "enie" or re#resse" native
essence emerge" as the focus of, an" even the $asis for nationalist
recovery.
'...( ,nattentive or careless rea"ers of >rant: >anon, generally consi"ere"
one of the to or three most eloquent a#ostles of anti!im#erialist
resistance, ten" to forget his marke" sus#icions of unchecke" nationalism.
So hile it is a##ro#riate to "ra attention to the early cha#ters on
violence in The ;ret$he+ of the 1arth- it shoul" $e notice" that in
su$sequent cha#ters he is shar#ly critical of hat he calle" the #itfalls of
national consciousness. -e clearly meant this to $e a #ara"ox. An" for the
reason that hile nationalism is a necessary s#ur to revolt against the
coloni:er, national consciousness must $e imme"iately transforme" into
hat he calls social consciousness, )ust as soon as the ith"raal of the
coloni:er has $een accom#lishe".
'...( At $ottom, hat >anon offers most com#ellingly is a critique of the
se#aratism an" the mock autonomy achieve" $y a #ure #olitics of i"entity
that has laste" too long an" $een ma"e to serve in situations here it has
$ecome sim#ly ina"equate. &hat invaria$ly ha##ens at the level of
knole"ge is that signs an" sym$ols of free"om an" status are taken for
the reality: you ant to $e name" an" consi"ere" for the sake of $eing
name" an" consi"ere". ,n effect this really means that )ust to $e an
in"e#en"ent #ostcolonial Ara$, or $lack, or ,n"onesian is not a #rogram,
nor a #rocess, nor a vision. ,t is no more than a convenient starting #oint
from hich the real ork, the har" ork, might $egin.
'...( This has #rove" a "isastruous #rocess, hether for #ostcolonials,
force" to exist in a marginal an" "e#en"ent #lace totally outsi"e the
circuits of orl" #oer, or for #oerful societies, hose trium#halism an"
im#erious ilfullness have "one so much to "evastate an" "esta$ili:e the
orl". &hat has $een at issue $eteen ,raq an" the Hnite" States is
#recisely such a logic of exterminism an" "is#lacement, as une"ifying as it
is un#ro"uctive. ,t is risky, , kno, to move from the realm of
inter#reation to the realm of orl" #olitics, $ut it seems to me true that the
relationshi# $eteen them is a real one, an" the light that one realm can
she" on the other is quite illuminating. ,n any case, the #olitics of
knole"ge that is $ase" #rinci#ally on the affirmation of i"entity is very
similar, is in"ee" "irectly relate" to, the unreconstructe" nationalism that
has gui"e" so many #ostcolonial states to"ay. ,t asserts a sort of
se#aratism that ishes only to "ra attention to itself+ consequently it
neglects the integration of the earne" an" achieve" consciousness of self
ithin the ren"e:!vous of victory. Dn the national an" on the
intellectual level the #ro$lems are very similar.
=et me return therefore to one of the intellectual "e$ates that has $een
central to the humanities in the #ast "eca"e, an" hich un"erlies the
e#iso"e ith hich , $egan. The ferment in minority, su$altern, feminist,
an" #ostcolonial consciousness has resulte" in so many salutary
achievements in the curricular an" theoretical a##roach to the stu"y of
the humanities as quite literally to have #ro"uce" a *o#ernican revolution
in all tra"itional fiel"s of inquiry. Nurocentrism has $een challenge"
"efinitevely+ most scholars an" stu"ents in the contem#orary American
aca"emy are no aare, as they ere never aare $efore, that society
an" culture have $een the heterogenous #ro"uct of heterogenous #eo#le
in an enormous variety of cultures, tra"itions, an" situations. /o longer
"oes T. S. Nliots i"ea of the great &estern master#ieces en"uring
together in a constantly re"ifining #attern of monuments have its ol"
authority+ nor "o the sorts of #atterns eluci"ate" ith such memora$le
$rilliance in formative orks like Mi(esis or The Anato(y of <riti$is(
have the same cogency for to"ays stu"ent or theorist as they "i" even
quite recently.
b

An" yet the great contest a$out the canon continues. The success of
Allan Flooms The <losing of the A(eri$an Min+- the su$sequent
#u$lication of such orks as Alvin 3ernans The ,eath of Literatre- an"
2oger 3im$alls Tenre+ Ra+i$als as ell as the rather #osthumous
energies "is#laye" in )ournals like The A(eri$an S$holar 0no a
neoconservative maga:ine1, The Ne" <riterion- an" <o((entary ! all
this suggests that the ork "one $y those of us ho have trie" to i"en
the area of aareness in the stu"y of culture is scarcely finishe" or
147
secure. Fut our #oint, in my o#inion, cannot $e sim#ly an" o$"urately to
reafirm the #aramount im#ortance of formerly su##resse" or silence"
forms of knole"ge an" leave it at that, nor can it $e to surroun" ourselves
ith the sanctimonious #iety of historical or cultural victimhoo" as a ay
of making our intellectual #resence felt. Such strategies are oefully
insufficient. The hole effort to "econsecrate Nourocentrism cannot $e
inter#rete", least of all $y those ho #artici#ate in the enter#rise, as an
effort to su##lant Nurocentrism ith, for instance, Afrocentric or
,slamocentric a##roaches. Dn its on, ethic #articularity "oes not #rovi"e
for intellectual #rocess ! quite the contrary. At first, you ill recall, it as
a question, for some, of a""ing ?ane Austen to the canon of male &estern
riters in humanities courses+ then it $ecame a matter of "is#lacing the
entire canon of American riters like -athorne an" Nmerson ith $est
selling riters of the same #erio" like -arriet Feecher Stoe an" Susan
&arner. Fut after that the logic of "is#alcement $ecame even more
attenuate", an" the mere names of #olitically vali"ate" living riters
$ecame more im#ortant than anything a$out them or their orks.
, su$mit that these clamorous "ismissals an" soo#ing assertions are in
fact caricatural re"uctions of hat the great revisionary gestures of
feminism, su$altern or $lack stu"ies, an" anti!im#erialist resistance
originally inten"e". >or such gestures it as never a matter of re#lacing
one set of authorities an" "ogmas ith another, nor of su$stituting one
center for another. ,t as alays a matter of o#ening an" #artici#ating in a
central stran" of intellectual an" cultural effort an" of shoing hat ha"
alays $een, though in"iscerni$ly, a #art of it, like the ork of omen, or
of $lacks an" servants ! $ut hich ha" $een either "enie" or "erogate".
'...( 3anafanis novella $elongs to the genre of immigrant literature
contri$ute" to $y an estima$le num$er of #ostar riters ! 2ush"ie,
/ai#aul, Ferger, 3un"era, an" others. Fut it is also a #oignant me"itation
on the %alestinian fate, an" of course eerily #rescient a$out %alestinians in
the current Kulf crisis.
1
An" yet it oul" "o the su$)ect of the ork an" its
literary merit an extraor"inary "isservice ere e to confine to the
category of national allegory, to see in it only a mirroring of the actual
#light of %alestinians in exile. 3anafanis ork is literature connecte" $irth
to its s#ecific historical an" cultural situations as ell as to a hole orl"
of other literatures an" formal articulations, hich the attentive rea"er
summons to min" as the inter#retation #rocee"s.
The #oint , am trying to make can $e summe" u# in the useful notion of
orl"liness. Fy linking orks to each other e $ring them out of the
neglect an" secon"ariness to hich for all kin"s of #olitical an"
i"eological reasons they ha" #revious+y $een con"emne". &hat , am
talking a$out therefore is the o##osite of se#artism, an" also the reverse
of exclusivism. ,t is only through the scrutiny of these orks as literature,
as style, as #leasure an" illumination, that they can $e $rought in, so to
s#eak, an" ke#t in. Dtherise they ill $e regar"e" only as informative
etnogra#hic s#ecimens, suita$le for the limite" attention of ex#erts an"
area s#ecialists. ;orl+liness is therefore the restoration to such orks an"
inter#retations of their #lace in the glo$al setting, a restoration that can
only $e accom#lishe" $y an a##reciation not of some tiny, "efensively
constitute" corner of the orl", $ut of the large, many!in"oe" house
of human culture as a hole.
,t seems to me a$solutely essential that e engage ith cultural orks
in this un#rovincial, intereste" manner hile maintaining a strong sense
of the contest for forms an" values hich any "ecent cultural ork
em$o"ies, reali:es, an" contains. A great "eal of recent theoretical
s#eculation has #ro#ose" that orks of literature are com#letely
"etermine" as such $y their situation, an" that rea"ers themselves are
totally "etermine" in their res#onses $y their res#ective cultural
situations, to a #oint here no value, no rea"ing, no inter#retation can $e
anything other than the merest reflection of some imme"iate interest. All
rea"ings an" all riting are re"uce" to an assume" histroical emanation.
-ere the in"eterminacy of "econstructive rea"ing, the airy insouciance of
#ostaxiological criticism, the casual re"uctiveness of some 0$ut $y no
means all1 i"eological schools are #rinci#ally at fault. &hile it is true to
say that $ecause a text is the #ro"uct of an unreca#tura$le #ast, an" the
contem#orary criticism can to some extent affor" a neutral
"isengagement or o##ose" #ers#ective im#ossi$le for the text in its on
time, there is no reason to take the further ste# an" exem#t the inter#reter
144
from any moral, #olitical, cultural, or #sychological commitments. All of
these remain at #lay. The attem#t to rea" a text in its fullest an" most
integrative context commits the rea"er to #ositions that are e"ucative,
humane, an" engage", #ositions that "e#en" on training an" taste an" not
sim#ly on a technologi:e" #rofessionalism, or on the tiresome #layfulness
of #ostmo"ern criticism, ith its re#eate" "isclaimers of anything $ut
local games an" #astiches. Bes#ite =yotar" an" his acolytes, e are still in
the era of large narratives, of horren"ous cultural clashes, an" of
a##allingly "estructive ar ! as itness the recent conflagration in the
Kulf ! an" to say that e are against theory, or $eyon" literature, is to $e
$lin" an" trivial.
, am not arguing that every inter#retaive act is equivalent to a gesture
either for or against life. -o coul" anyone "efen" or attack so cru"ely
general a #osition@ , am saying that once e grant intellectual ork the
right to exist in a relatively "isengage" atmos#here, an" allo it a status
that isnt "isqualifie" $y #artisanshi#, e ought then to reconsi"er the ties
$eteen the text an" the orl" in a serious an" uncoercive ay. >ar from
re#u"iating the great a"vances ma"e hen Nurocentrism an" #atriarchy
$egan to $e "emystifie", e shoul" consoli"ate these a"vances, using them
so as to reach a $etter un"erstan"ing of the "egree to hich literature an"
artistic genius $elong to an" are some #art of the orl" here all of us also
"o other kin"s of ork.
This i"er a##lication of the i"eas ,ve $een "iscussing cannot even $e
attem#te" if e sim#ly re#eat a fe names or refer to a han"ful of
a##rove" texts ritualistically or sanctimoniously. Victimhoo", alas, "oes
not guarantee or necessarily ena$le an enhance" sense of humanity. To
testify to a history of o##ression is necessary, $ut it is not sufficient unless
that history is re"irecte" into intellectual #rocess an" universali:e" to
inclu"e all sufferers. Jet too often testimony to o##ression $ecomes only a
)ustification for further cruelty an" inhumanity, or for high soun"ing cant
an" merely correct attitu"es. , have in min", for instance, not only the
antagonists mentione" at the $eginning of this essay $ut also the
extraor"inary $ehaviour of an Nlie &iesel ho has refuse" to translate the
lessons of his on #ast into consistent criticism of ,srael for "oing hat it
has "one an" is "oing right no to %alestinians.
So, hile it is not necessary to regar" every rea"ing or inter#retation of
a text as the moral equivalent of a ar or a #olitical crisis, it "oes seem to
me to $e im#ortant to un"erline the fact that hatever else they are,
orks of literature are not merely texts. They are in fact "ifferently
constitute" an" have "ifferent values, they aim to "o "ifferent things,
exist in "ifferent genres, an" so on. Dne of the greatest #leasures for
those ho rea" an" stu"y literature is the "iscovery of long!stan"ing
norms in hich all cultures knon to me concur: such things as style an"
#erformance, the existence of goo" as ell as lesser riters, an" the
exercise of #reference. &hat has $een most unacce#ta$le "uring the
many harangues on $oth si"es of the so!calle" &estern canon "e$ate is
that so many of the com$atants have ears of tin, an" are una$le to
"istinguish $eteen goo" riting an" #olitically correct attitu"es, as if a
fifth!rate #am#hlet an" a great novel have more or less the same
significance. &ho $enefits from leveling attacks on the canon@ *ertainly
not the "isa"vantage" #erson or class hose history, if you $other to rea"
it at all, is full of evi"ence that #o#ular resistance to in)ustice has alays
"erive" immense $enefits from literature an" culture in general, an" very
fe from invi"ious "istinctions ma"e $eteen ruling!class an"
su$servient cultures. After all, the crucial lesson of *. =. 2. ?amess
4la$k @a$o%ins- or of N. %. Thom#sons Making of the 1nglish ;orking
<alss 0ith its remin"er of ho im#ortant Shakes#eare as to
nineteenth!century ra"ical culture1, is that great antiauthoritarian
u#risings ma"e their earliest a"vances, not $y "enying the humanitarian
an" universalist claims of the general "ominant culture, $ut $y attacking
the a"herents of that culture for failing to u#hol" their on "eclare"
stan"ar"s, for failing to exten" them to all, as o##ose" to a small fraction,
of humanity. Toussaints = Duverture is the #erfect exam#le of a "on!
tro""en slave hose struggle to free himself an" his #eo#le as informe"
$y the i"eas of 2ousseau an" Cira$eau.
Although , risk oversim#lification, it is #ro$a$ly correct to say yhat it
"oes not finally matter "ho rote hat, $ut rather ho" a ork is ritten
an" ho" it is rea". The i"ea that $ecause %lato an" Aristotle are male an"
E55
the #ro"ucts of a slave socity they shoul" $e "isqalifie" from receiving
contem#orary attention is as limite" an i"ea as suggesting that only their
ork, $ecause it as a""resse" to an" a$out elites, shoul" $e rea" to"ay.
Carginality an" homelessness are not, in my o#inion, to $e glorie" in+ they
are to $e $rought to an en", so that more, an" not feer, #eo#le can en)oy
the $enefits of hat has for centuries $een "enie" the victims of race,
class, or gen"er.
<.6.8 N"ar" &. Sai": from The %ro$lem of Textuality
The #ages that follo ork through to #oerful, contem#orary ays
of consi"ering, "escri$ing, analy:ing, an" "ealing theoretically ith the
#ro$lem of textuality, a manifestly central #ro$lem for anyone concerne"
ith criticism an" theory. These ays ! ith only the slightest allusion
to %rousts ays inten"e" ! are >oucaults an" Berri"as. Cy analysis of
these to theories is #art of an attem#t to characteri:e an exem#lary
critical consciousness as situate" $eteen, an" ultimately refusing $oth,
the hegemony of the "ominant culture an" hat , call the sovereignty of
systematic metho". Coreover, , ill argue that for $oth these critics,
critical ork is a cognitive activity, a ay of "iscovery, not $y any means
a #urely contem#lative activity+ in"ee", , ill go so far as to say that in our
#resent circumstances criticism is an a"versary, or o##ositional activity.
>inally ! an" , am "e#ressingly aare that these #refatory comments are
far too schematic ! , ill "iscuss Berri"as (ise en a%y(e an" >oucaults
(ise en +is$ors
1
as ty#ifying the contrast $eteen a criticism claiming
that il n* y a pas +* hors te#te an" one "iscussing textuality as having to "o
ith a #lurality of texts, an" ith history, #oer, knole"ge an" society.
>ar from me"iating or reconciling these vivi"ly contrasting theses a$out
textuality, hose #rotagonists serve me as $ut to instances of a very i"e
theoretical "ivergence #olari:ing contem#orary criticism, my #osition uses
$oth in hat it is on $est interest since $oth strike me as in"is#ensa$le to
any cogent critical #osition.
Berri"a an" >oucault are o##ose" to each other on a num$er of
groun"s, an" #erha#s the one s#ecially single" out in >oucaults attack on
Berri"a ! that Berri"a is concerne" only ith rea"ing a text an" that a
text is nothing more than the traces foun" here $y the rea"er ! oul" $e
the a##ro#riate one to $egin ith here.
E
Accor"ing to >oucault, if the text
is im#ortant for Berri"a $ecause its real situation is literary an a$ysmally
textual element, l* e$ritre en a%i(e ith hich 0Berri"a says in =a
"ou$le sLance1 criticism so far has $een una$le really to "eal,
8
then for
>oucault the text is im#ortant $ecause it inha$its an element of #oer
0povoirL ith a "ecisive claim on actuality, even though that #oer is
invisi$le or im#lie". Berri"as criticism therefore moves us into the text,
>oucaults in an" ot of it.
Jet neither >oucault nor Berri"a oul" "eny that hat unites them !
more, even, than the avoe"ly revisionist an" revolutionary character of
their criticism as theory, #erformance, an" #e"agogy ! is their attem#t to
(ake visi%le hat is customarily invisi$le in a text, namely, the various
mysteries, the rules, an" the #lay of its textuality. '...( To say that the
texts textual intention an" integrity are invisi$le is to say that the text
hi"es something, that the text im#lies, #erha#s also states, em$o"ies,
re#resents, $ut +oes not i((e+iately +is$lose something. At $ottom, this
is a gnostic "octrine of the text to hich, in quite "ifferent ays, >oucault
an" Berri"a $oth assent.
>oucaults hole enter#rise has taken it for a fact, hoever, that if the
text hi"es something, or if something a$out the text is invisi%le- these
things can $e reveale+ an" share+- al$eit in some other form, mainly
$ecause the text is #art of a netork of #oer hose textual form is a
#ur#oseful o$scuring of #oer $eneath 0or in1 textuality an" knole"ge
0savoirL. Therefore the countervailing #oer of criticism is to $ring the
text to a certain visi$ility. '...( Berri"a orks more in the s#irit of a kin"
of negative theology. The more he gras#s textuality for itself, the greater
the "etail of hat is not there for him+ '...( , consi"er his key terms,
)+iss8(ination*- )sppl8(ent*- )phar(akos*- )tra$e*- )(ar.e*- an" the
like, to $e not only terms "escri$ing la "issimulation "e la texture $ut
also quasitheological terms ruling an" o#erating the textual "omain his
E51
ork has o#ene".
,n $oth cases, nevertheless, the critic challenges the culture an" its
a##arently sovereign #oers of intellectual activity, hich e may call
system or metho", hen in "ealing ith texts these #oers as#ire to the
con"ition of science. The challenge is "elivere" in characteristically large
gestures of "ifferentiation: Berri"a refers everyhere to &estern
meta#hysics an" thought, >oucault in his earlier ork to various #erio"s,
e#ochs, epist8(As- that is, those totalities hich $uil" the "ominant culture
into its controlling, incor#orating, an" "iscriminating institutions. Nach
ay, >oucaults an" Berri"as, attem#ts not only to +efine these
challenge" entities $ut also in some #ersistent fashion to +e+efine them, to
attack the sta$ility, authority, #resence, #oer of their rule, to "issolve
them if at all #ossi$le. >or $oth riters, their ork is meant to re#lace the
tyranny an" the fiction of "irect referen$e = to hat Berri"a calls presen$e-
or the transcen"ental signifie" ! ith the rigor an" #ractice of textuality
mastere" on its on highly eccentric groun" in Berri"aGs case, an" in
>oucaults, in its highly #rotracte" en"uring, systemati:e", an" sustaine"
#ersistence. Be"efinition an" antireferentiality are Berri"a an" >oucaults
common res#onse to the positivist ethos hich they $oth a$hor. Dn the
other han" $oth have constantly a##eale" to em#iricism an" to the
nuance" #ers#ectivism they seem to have "erive" form /iet:sche. '...(
The significance of Berri"as #osition is that in his ork he has raise"
those questions uniquely #ertinent to riting an" to textuality that ten" to
$e ignore" or su$limate" in metacommentary on texts. The very
elusiveness of texts, an" the ten"ency to see them homogeneously either as
functions of, or as #arasitic on, some schematic #hiloso#hy or system on
hich they are "e#en"ent 0as illustrations, exem#lifications, ex#ressions1:
these are the things at hich Berri"as consi"era$le "e"efinitional energies
are "irecte". ,n a""ition he has "evelo#e" a #articularly alert an"
influential rea"ing metho". Jet his ork em$o"ies an extremely
#ronounce" self!limitation, an ascesis of a very inhi$iting an" cri##ling
sort. ,n it Berri"a has chosen the luci"ity of the un"eci"a$le in a text, so to
s#eak, over the i+entifia%le po"er of a text+ as he once sai", to o#t for the
sterile luci"ity of the #erformative +o%le s$Ane in texts is #erha#s to
neglect the im#lemente", effective #oer of textual state(ent.
<
Berri"as
ork thus has not alays $een in a #osition to accommo"ate "escri#tive
information of the kin" giving &estern meta#hysics an" &estern
culturea more than re#etitively allusive meaning+ neither has it $een
intereste" systematically an" "irectly in "issolving the ethnocentrism of
hich on occasion it has s#oken ith no$le clarity+ neither has it
"eman"e" from its "isci#les any $in"ing engagement on matters
#ertaining to "iscovery an" knole"ge, free"om, o##ression, or in)ustice.
>or if everything in a text is alays o#en equally to sus#icion an" to
affirmation, then the "ifferences $eteen one class interest an" another,
or $eteen o##ressor an" o##resse", one "iscourse an" another, one
i"eology an" another are virtual in ! $ut never crucial to making "ecisions
a$out ! the finally reconciling element of textuality. '...(
>or >oucault, as much as for Berri"a, textuality is a more varia$le an"
interesting category than the somehat lifeless one im#ose" on it $y the
canoni:ing rituals of tra"itional literary criticism. Nver since the
$eginning of his career >oucault has $een intereste" in texts as an
integral, an" not merely an accessory, #art of the social #rocesses of
"ifferentiation, exclusion, incor#oration, an" rule. '...( The conflict in
each text $eteen its author an" the "iscourse of hich, for various
social, e#istemological, an" #olitical reasons, he is a #art is central for
>oucaults textual theory. >ar from agreeing ith Berri"as contention
that &estern culture has valori:e" s#eech over riting, >oucaults #ro)ect
is to sho #recisely the o##osite, at least since the 2enaissance, an" to
sho also that riting is no #rivate exercise of a free scri#tive ill $ut
rather the activation of an immensely com#lex tissue of forces for hich
a text is a #lace among other #laces 0inclu"ing the $o"y1 here the
strategies of control in society are con"uce". '...(
>oucaults most interesting an" #ro$lematic histori$al an"
#hiloso#hical thesis is that "iscourse, as ell as the text, %e$a(e
invisi$le, that "iscourse %egan to "issem$le an" a##ear merely to $e
riting or texts, that "iscourse hi" the systematic rules of its formation
an" its concrete affiliations ith #oer, not at some #oint in time, $ut as
an event in the history of culture generally, an" of knole"ge
E5E
#articularly. '...(
'...( &hereas Berri"as theory of textuality $rings criticism to $ear
u#on a signifier free" from any o$ligation to a transcen"ental signifie",
>oucaults theories move criticism from a consi"eration of the signifier to
a "escri#tion of the signifiers pla$e- a #lace rarely innocent,
"imensionless, or ithout the affirmative authority of "iscursive "isci#line.
,n other or"s, >oucault is concerne" ith "escri$ing the force $y hich
the signifier o$$pies a #lace, so in Srveiller et pnir he can sho ho
#enal "iscourse in its turn as a$le to assign felons to their #laces in the
structural, a"ministrative, #sychological, an" moral economy of the
#risons #ano#tical architecture.
/o the value of such a strictly historical vie of the signifier in the
text is not only that it is historical. ,ts greatest value is that it aakens
criticism to the recognition that a signifier occu#ying a #lace, signifying in
#lace is = rather than represents = an act of ill ith ascertaina$le #olitical
an" intellectual consequences an" an act fulfilling a strategic "esire to
a"minister an" com#rehen" a vast an" +etaile+ fiel" of material. The
nonrecognition of this act of ill is hat one fin"s the "econstructor not
recogni:ing, there$y "enying or overlooking it. Thus $y virtue of
>oucaults criticism e are a$le to un"erstan" culture as a $o"y of
"isci#lines having the effective force of knole"ge linke" systematically,
$ut $y no means imme"iately, to #oer.
>oucaults lesson is that hile in one sense he $o(ple(ents Berri"as
ork, in another he takes a ste# in a ne "irection. '...( >or >oucault here
there is knole"ge an" "iscourse, there must criticism also $e, to reveal
the exact #laces ! an" "is#lacements ! of the text, there$y to see the text as
a #rocess signifying an effective historical ill to %e present- an effective
"esire to %e a text an" to $e a position taken.
&hile severe" consciously form cultural hegemony, this sort of
criticism is a meaningful activity "ithin the culture. ,t releases one form
the $arriers im#ose" formalistically on one $y "e#artments, $y "isci#lines,
or $y mori$un" tra"itions of scholarshi# an" o#ens u# the #ossi$ility of an
aggressive stu"y of the realities of "iscourse, hich at least since the
eighteenth century has rule" the #ro"uction of texts. Jet "es#ite the
extraor"inary or"liness of this ork, >oucault takes a curiously #assive
an" sterile vie not so much of the uses of #oer $ut of ho an" hy
#oer is gaine", use", an" hel" onto. This is the most "angerous
consequence of "isagreement ith Carxism, an" its result is the least
convincing as#ect of his ork. '...(
'...( &hat one misses in >oucault therefore is something resem$ling
Kramscis analyses of hege(ony- historical $locks, ensem$les of
relationshi#s "one from the #ers#ective of an engage" #olitical orker
for hom the fascinate" "escri#tion of exercise" #oer is never a
su$stitute for trying to change #oer relationshi#s ithin society. '...(
, can conclu"e on a more #ositive ! if somehat summary ! note. ,
have $een im#lying that criticism is, or ought to $e, a cognitive activity,
an" that it is a form of knole"ge. , no fin" myself saying that if, as
>oucault has trie" to sho, all knole"ge is contentious, then criticism,
as activity an" knole"ge, is or ought to $e contentious, too. Cy interest
is to reinvest critical "iscourse ith something more than contem#lative
effort or an a##reciative technical rea"ing metho" for texts an"
un"eci"a$le o$)ects. '...(
*riticism cannot assume that its #rovince is merely the text, nor even
the great literary text. ,t must see itself, as ell as other "iscourse,
inha$iting a much conteste" cultural s#ace in hich hat has counte" in
the continuity an" transmission of knole"ge has $een the signifier as an
event that has left lasting traces u#on the human su$)ect. Dnce e take
that vie, then literature as an isolate" #a""ock in the $roa" cultural fiel"
"isa##ears, an" ith it too the harmless rhetoric of self!"elighting
humanism. ,nstea" e ill $e a$le, , think, to rea" an" rite ith a sense
of the greater stake in historical an" #olitical effectiveness that literary, as
ell as all other, texts have ha".
NOTES
'2eorganise" an" renum$ere" from the original(
'N".( Mise en a%y(e is a term in heral"ry meaning a shiel" hich has
E58
in its center 0a$yme1 a smaller image of the same shiel", an" so, $y
im#lication, a" infinitum, ith ever smaller an" smaller shiel"s rece"ing
toar" the central #oint. ?. -illis Ciller, Stevens 2ock an" *riticism as
*ure, /eorgia Revie"- 85 0149I1, #. 11. >or >oucaults theory of
"iscourse see his The Dr"er of Biscourse, in ?ntying the Te#t- e". 2o$ert
Joung, ##. <7!97.
Cichel >oucaults attack on Berri"a is to $e foun" in an a##en"ix to the
later version of Folie et +8raison: 3istoire +e la folie V l* age $lassi.e
0%aris, 149E1, ##. 678!I58. 'N".( This is availa$le in Nnglish as Cy Fo"y,
This %a#er, This >ire, in O#for+ Literary Revie"- < 014941, ##. 4!E7.1
?aques Berri"a, La ,isse(ination 0%aris, 14IE1, #. E49.
, have referre" to this, citing Berri"a, in 2oa"s Taken an" /ot Taken in
*ontem#orary *riticism, <onte(porary <riti$is(- 19 0149I1, #. 88<.
<.6.< N"ar" &. Sai": from Secular *riticism
=iterary criticism is #ractice" to"ay in four ma)or forms. Dne is the
#ractical criticism to $e foun" in $ook revieing an" literary )ournalism.
Secon" is aca"emic literary history, hich is a "escen"ant of such
nineteenth!century s#ecialties as classical scholarshi#, #hilology, an"
cultural history. Thir" is literary a##reciation an" inter#retation,
#rinci#ally aca"emic $ut, unlike the other to, not confine" to
#rofessionals an" regularly a##earing authors. A##reciation is hat is
taught an" #erforme" $y teachers of literature in the university an" its
$eneficiaries in a literal sense are all those millions of #eo#le ho have
learne" in a classroom ho to rea" a #oem, ho to en)oy the com#lexity
of a meta#hysical conceit, ho to think of literature an" figurative
language as having characteristics that are unique an" not re"uci$le to a
sim#le moral or #olitical message. An" the fourth form is literary theory, a
relatively ne su$)ect. ,t a##eare" as an eye!catching to#ic for aca"emic
an" #o#ular "iscussion in the Hnite" States later than it "i" in Nuro#e:
#eo#le like &alter Fen)amin an" the young Keorg =ukacs, for instance,
"i" their theoretical ork in the early years of this century, an" they
rote in a knon, if not universally unconteste", i"iom. American
literary theory, "es#ite the #ioneering stu"ies of 3enneth Furke ell
$efore &orl" &ar To, came of age only in the 1495s, an" that $ecause
of an o$serva$ly "eli$erate attention to #rior Nuro#ean mo"els
0structuralism, semiotics, "econstruction1....
/o the #revailing situation of criticism is such that the four forms
re#resent in each instance s#eciali:ation 0although literary theory is a $it
eccentric1 an" a very #recise "ivision of intellectual la$our. Coreover, it
is su##ose" that literature an" the humanities exist generally ithin the
culture 0our culture, as it is sometimes knon1, that the culture is
enno$le" an" vali"ate" $y them, an" yet that in the version of culture
inculcate" $y #rofessional humanists an" literary critics, the a##rove"
#ractice of high culture is marginal to the serious #olitical concerns of
society.
This has given rise to a cult of #rofessional ex#ertise hose effect in
general is #ernicious. >or the intellectual class, ex#ertise has usually $een
a service ren"ere", an" sol", to the central authority of society. This is the
trahison +es $ler$s of hich ?ulien Fen"a s#oke in the 14E5s. Nx#ertise
in foreign affairs, for exam#le, has usually meant legitimi:ation of the
con"uct of foreign #olicy an", hat is more to the #oint, a sustaine"
investment in revali"ating the role of ex#erts in foreign affairs. The same
sort of thing is true of literary critics an" #rofessional humanists, exce#t
that their ex#ertise is $ase" u#on noninterference in hat Vico gran"ly
calls the orl" of nations $ut hich #rosaically might )ust as ell $e
calle" the orl". &e tell our stu"ents an" our general constituency that
e "efen" the classics, the virtues of a li$eral e"ucation, an" the #recious
#leasures of literature even as e also sho ourselves to $e silent
0#erha#s incom#etent1 a$out the historical an" social orl" in hich all
these things take #lace. '...(
>rom $eing a $ol" interventionary movement across lines of
s#eciali:ation, American literary theory of the late seventies ha" retreate"
into the la$yrinth of textuality, "ragging along ith it the most recent
a#ostles of Nuro#ean revolutionary textuality O Berri"a an" >oucault O
E5<
hose trans!Atlantic canoni:ation an" "omestication they themselves
seeme" sa"ly enough to $e encouraging. ,t is not too much to say that
American or even Nuro#ean literary theory no ex#licitly acce#ts the
#rinci#le of noninterference, an" that its #eculiar mo"e of a##ro#riating its
su$)ect matter 0to use Althussers formula1 is not to a##ro#riate anything
that is orl"ly, circumstantial, or socially contaminate". Textuality is the
somehat mystical an" "isinfecte" su$)ect matter of literary theory.
Textuality has therefore $ecome the exact antithesis an" "is#lacement of
hat might $e calle" history. Textuality is consi"ere" to take #lace, yes,
$ut $y the same token it "oes not take #lace anyhere or anytime in
#articular. ,t is #ro"uce", $ut $y no one an" at no time. ,t can $e rea" an"
inter#rete", although rea"ing an" inter#reting are routinely un"erstoo" to
occur in the form of misrea"ing an" misinter#reting. The list of exam#les
coul" $e exten"e" in"efinitely, $ut the #oint oul" remain the same. As it
is #ractice" in the American aca"emy to"ay, literary theory has for the
most #art isolate" textuality from the circumstances, the events, the
#hysical senses that ma"e it #ossi$le an" ren"er it intelligi$le as the result
of human ork.
Nven if e acce#t 0as in the main , "o1 the arguments #ut forar" $y
-ay"en &hite O that there is no ay to get #ast texts in or"er to a##rehen"
real history "irectly O it is still #ossi$le to say that such a claim nee" not
also eliminate interest in the events an" the circumstances entaile" $y an"
ex#resse" in the texts themselves. Those events an" circumstances are
textual too 0nearly all of *onra"s tales an" novels #resent us ith a
situation O say a grou# of frien"s sitting on a shi#s "eck listening to a
story O giving rise to the narrative that forms the text1, an" much that goes
on in texts allu"es to them, affiliates itself "irectly to them. Cy #osition is
that texts are orl"ly, to some "egree they are events, an", even hen they
a##ear to "eny it, they are nevertheless a #art of the social orl", human
life, an" of course the historical moments in hich they are locate" an"
inter#rete".
=iterary theory, hether of the =eft or of the 2ight, has turne" its $ack
on these things. This can $e consi"ere", , think, the trium#h of the ethic of
#rofessionalism. Fut it is no acci"ent that the emergence of so narroly
"efine" a #hiloso#hy of #ure textuality an" critical noninterference has
coinci"e" ith the ascen"ancy of 2eaganism, or for that matter ith a
ne col" ar, increase" militarism an" "efense s#en"ing, an" a massive
turn to the right on matters touching the economy, social services, an"
organi:e" la$our. ,n having given u# the orl" entirely for the a#orias
an" unthinka$le #ara"oxes of a text, contem#orary criticism has retreate"
from its constituency, the citi:ens of mo"ern society, ho have $een left
to the han"s of free market forces, multinational cor#orations, the
mani#ulations of consumer a##etites. A #recious )argon has gron u#,
an" its formi"a$le com#lexities o$scure the social realities that, strange
though it may seem, encourage a scholarshi# of mo"es of excellence
very far from "aily life in the age of "eclining American #oer.
*riticism can no longer coo#erate in or #reten" to ignore this enter#rise.
,t is not #racticing criticism either to vali"ate the status quo or to )oin u#
ith a #riestly caste of acolytes an" "ogmatic meta#hysicians. Nach essay
in this $ook affirms the connection $eteen texts an" the existential
actualities of human life, #olitics, societies, an" events. The realities of
#oer an" authority O as ell as the resistances offere" $y men, omen,
an" social movements to institutions, authorities, an" ortho"oxies O are
the realities that make texts #ossi$le, that "eliver them to their rea"ers,
that solicit the attention of critics. , #ro#ose that these realities are hat
shoul" $e taken account of $y criticism an" the critical consciousness.
,t shoul" $e evi"ent $y no that this sort of criticism can only $e
#ractice" outsi"e an" $eyon" the consensus ruling the art to"ay in the
four acce#te" forms , mentione" earlier. Jet if this is the function of
criticism at the #resent time, to $e $eteen the "ominant culture an" the
totali:ing forms of critical systems, then there is some comfort in
recalling that this has also $een the "estiny of critical consciousness in
the recent #ast. '...(
Nver since Nliot, an" after him 2ichar"s an" =eavis, there has $een an
almost unanimously hel" vie that it is the "uty of humanistic scholars in
our culture to "evote themselves to the stu"y of the great monuments of
literature. &hy@ So that they may $e #asse" on to younger stu"ents, ho
in turn $ecome mem$ers, $y affiliation an" formation, of the com#any of
E56
e"ucate" in"ivi"uals. Thus e fin" the university ex#erience more or less
officially consecrating the #act $eteen a canon of orks, a $an" of
initiate instructors, a grou# of younger affiliates+ in a socially vali"ate"
manner all this re#ro"uces the filiative "isci#line su##ose"ly transcen"e"
$y the e"ucational #rocess. This has almost alays $een the case
historically ithin hat might $e calle" the cloistral orl" of the
tra"itional &estern, an" certainly of the Nastern, university. Fut e are
no, , think, in a #erio" of orl" history hen for the first time the
com#ensatory affiliative relationshi#s inter#rete" "uring the aca"emic
course of stu"y in the &estern university actually exclu"e more than they
inclu"e. , mean quite sim#ly that, for the first time in mo"ern history, the
hole im#osing e"ifice of humanistic knole"ge resting on the classics of
Nuro#ean letters, an" ith it the scholarly "isci#line inculcate" formally
into stu"ents in &estern universities through the forms familiar to us all,
re#resents only a fraction of the real human relationshi#s an" interactions
no taking #lace in the orl". *ertainly Auer$ach as among the last
great re#resentatives of those ho $elieve" that Nuro#ean culture coul" $e
viee" coherently an" im#ortantly as unquestiona$ly central to human
history. There are a$un"ant reasons for Auer$achs vie $eing no longer
tena$le, not the least of hich is the "iminishing acquiescence an"
"eference accor"e" to hat has $een calle" the /ato#olitan orl" long
"ominating #eri#heral regions like Africa, Asia, an" =atin America. /e
cultures, ne societies, an" emerging visions of social, #olitical, an"
aesthetic or"er no lay claim to the humanists attention, ith an
insistence that cannot long $e "enie".
Fut for #erfectly un"erstan"a$le reasons they are "enie". &hen our
stu"ents are taught such things as the humanities they are almost alays
taught that these classic texts em$o"y, ex#ress, re#resent hat is $est in
our, that is, the only, tra"ition. Coreover they are taught that such fiel"s as
the humanities an" such su$fiel"s as literature exist in a relatively neutral
#olitical element, that they are to $e a##reciate" an" venerate", that they
"efine the limits of hat is acce#ta$le, a##ro#riate, an" legitimate so far as
culture is concerne". ,n other or"s, the affiliative or"er so #resente"
surre#titiously "u#licates the close" an" tightly knit family structure that
secures generational hierarchical relationshi#s to one another. Affiliation
then $ecomes in effect a literal form of re=presentation- $y hich hat is
ours is goo", an" therefore "eserves incor#oration an" inclusion in our
#rogrammes of humanistic stu"y, an" hat is not ours in this ultimately
#rovincial sense is sim#ly left out. An" out of this re#resentation come
the systems from /orthro# >ryes to >oucaults, hich claim the #oer
to sho ho things ork, once an" for all, totally an" #re"ictively. ,t
shoul" go ithout saying that this ne affiliative structure an" its
systems of thought more or less "irectly re#ro"uce the skeleton of family
authority su##ose"ly left $ehin" hen the family as left $ehin". The
curricular structures hol"ing Nuro#ean literature "e#artments make that
#erfectly o$vious: the great texts, as ell as the great teachers an" the
great theories, have an authority that com#els res#ectful attention not so
much $y virtue of their content $ut $ecause they are either ol" or they
have #oer, they have $een han"e" on in time or seem to have no time,
an" they have tra"itionally $een revere", as #riests, scientists, or efficient
$ureaucrats have taught.
,t may seem o"", $ut it is true, that in such matters as culture an"
scholarshi# , am often in reasona$le sym#athy ith conservative
attitu"es, an" hat , might o$)ect to in hat , have $een "escri$ing "oes
not have much to "o ith the activity of conserving the #ast, or ith
rea"ing great literature, or ith "oing serious an" #erha#s even utterly
conservative scholarshi# as such. , have no great #ro$lem ith those
things. &hat , am critici:ing is to #articular assum#tions. There is first
the almost unconsciously hel" i"eological assum#tion that the
Nurocentric mo"el for the humanities actually re#resents a natural an"
#ro#er su$)ect matter for the humanistic scholar. ,ts authority comes not
only from the ortho"ox canon of literary monuments han"e" "on
through the generations, $ut also from the ay this continuity re#ro"uces
the filial continuity of the chain of $iological #rocreation. &hat e then
have is a su$stitution of one sort of or"er for another, in the #rocess of
hich everything that is nonhumanistic an" nonliterary an" non!
Nuro#ean is "e#osite" outsi"e the structure. ,f e consi"er for a minute
that most of the orl" to"ay is non!Nuro#ean, that transactions ithin
E5I
hat the H/NS*DUCcFri"e 2e#ort calls the orl" information or"er are
therefore not literary, an" that the social sciences an" the me"ia 0to name
only to mo"es of cultural #ro"uction in ascen"ancy to"ay over the
classically "efine" humanities1 "ominate the "iffusion of knole"ge in
ays that are scarcely imagina$le to the tra"itional humanistic scholar,
then e ill have some i"ea of ho ostrichlike an" retrogra"e assertions
a$out Nurocentric humanities really are. The #rocess of re#resentation, $y
hich filiation is re#ro"uce" in the affiliative structure an" ma"e to stan"
for hat $elongs to us 0as e in turn $elong to the family of our languages
an" tra"itions1, reinforces the knon at the ex#ense of the knoa$le.
Secon" is the assum#tion that the #rinci#al relationshi#s in the stu"y of
literature O those , have i"entifie" as $ase" on re#resentation O ought to
o$literate the traces of other relationshi#s ithin literary structures that are
$ase" #rinci#ally u#on acquisition an" a##ro#riation. This is the great
lesson of 2aymon" &illiams The <ontry an+ the <ity. -is
extraor"inarily illuminating "iscussion there of the seventeenth!century
Nnglish country!house #oems "oes not concentrate on hat those #oems
re#resent, $ut on hat they are as the result of conteste" social an"
#olitical relationshi#s. Bescri#tions of the rural mansion, for exam#le, "o
not at $ottom entail only hat is to $e a"mire" $y ay of harmony, re#ose,
an" $eauty+ they shoul" also entail for the mo"ern rea"er hat in fact has
$een exclu"e" from the #oems, the la$or that create" the mansions, the
social #rocesses of hich they are the culmination, the "is#ossessions an"
theft they actually signifie". Although he "oes not come out an" say it,
&illiams $ook is a remarka$le attem#t at a "islo"gement of the very ethos
of system, hich has reifie" relationshi#s an" stri##e" them of their social
"ensity. &hat he tries to #ut in its #lace is the great "ialectic of acquisition
an" re#resentation, $y hich even realism O as it is manifest in ?ane
Austens novels O has gaine" its "ura$le status as the result of contests
involving money an" #oer. &illiams teaches us to rea" in a "ifferent ay
an" to remem$er that for every #oem or novel in the canon there is a social
fact $eing requisitione" for the #age, a human life engage", a class
su##resse" or elevate" O none of hich can $e accounte" for in the
frameork rigi"ly maintaine" $y the #rocesses of re#resentation an"
affiliation "oing a$ove!groun" ork for the conservation of filiation. An"
for every critical system grin"ing on there are events, heterogeneous an"
unortho"ox social configurations, human $eings an" texts "is#uting the
#ossi$ility of a sovereign metho"ology of system.
Nverything , have sai" is an extra#olation from the ver$al echo e hear
$eteen the or"s filiation an" affiliation. ,n a certain sense, hat ,
have $een trying to sho is that, as it has "evelo#e" through the art an"
critical theories #ro"uce" in com#lex ays $y mo"ernism, filiation gives
$irth to affiliation. Affiliation $ecomes a form of re#resenting the filiative
#rocesses to $e foun" in nature, although affiliation takes vali"ate"
non$iological social an" cultural forms. To alternatives #ro#ose
themselves for the contem#orary critic. Dne is organic com#licity ith
the #attern , have "escri$e". The critic ena$les, in"ee" transacts, the
transfer of legitimacy from filiation to affiliation+ literally a mi"ife, the
critic encourages reverence for the humanities an" for the "ominant
culture serve" $y those humanities. This kee#s relationshi#s ithin the
narro circle of hat is natural, a##ro#riate, an" vali" for us, an"
thereafter exclu"es the non!literary, the non!Nuro#ean, an" a$ove all the
#olitical "imension in hich all literature, all texts, can $e foun". ,t also
gives rise to a critical system or theory hose tem#tation for the critic is
that it resolves all the #ro$lems that culture gives rise to. As ?ohn >ekete
has sai", this ex#resses the mo"ern "isaffection for reality, $ut
#rogressively incor#orates an" assimilates it ithin the categories of
#revailing social 0an" cultural1 rationality. This en"os it ith a "ou$le
a##eal, an" the ex#an"ing sco#e of the theory, corres#on"ing to the
ex#an"ing mo"e of the #ro"uction an" re#ro"uction of social life, gives it
authority as a ma)or i"eology. '...(

E59
<.6.6 -enry =ouis Kates, ?r.: from The Signifying Monkey 014771
The Tro#e of the Talking Fook
,
T-N =,TN2ATH2N of the slave, #u$lishe" in Nnglish $eteen 19I5 an"
17I6, is the most o$vious site to excavate the origins of the Afro!
American literary tra"ition. &hether our "efinition of tra+ition is $ase" on
the rather narro lines of race or nationality of authors, u#on share"
themes an" narrate" stances, or u#on re#eate" an" revise" tro#es, it is to
the literature of the $lack slave that the critic must turn to i"entify the
$eginning of the Afro!American literary tra"ition.
The literature of the slave is an ironic #hrase, at the very least, an" is an
oxymoron at its most literal level of meaning. =iterature, as Samuel
?ohnson use" the term, "enote" an aquaintance ith letters or $ooks,
accor"ing to the O#for+ 1nglish ,i$tionary. ,t also connote" #olite or
humane learning an" literary culture. &hile it is self!evi"ent that the ex!
slave ho manage" 0as >re"erick Bouglas #ut it1 to steal some learning
from his or her master an" the masters texts, as $ent on "emonstrating to
a ske#tical #u$lic an acquaintance ith letters or $ooks, e cannot
honestly conclu"e that slave literature as meant to exem#lify either #olite
or humane learning or the #resence in the author of literary culture. ,n"ee",
it is more accurate to argue that the literature of the slave consiste" of texts
that re#resent im#olite learning an" that these texts collectively raile"
against the ar$itrary an" inhumane learning hich masters foiste" u#on
slaves to reinforce a #erverse fiction of the natural or"er of things. The
slave, $y "efinition, #ossesse" at most a liminal ststus ithin the human
community. To rea" an" to rite as to transgress this ne$ulous realm of
liminality. The slaves texts, then, coul" not $e taken as s#ecimens of a
$lack literary culture. 2ather, the texts of the slave coul" only $e rea" as
testimony of "efilement: the slaves representation an" reversal of the
master a attem#t to transform a human $eing into a commo"ity, an" the
slaves simultaneous ver$al itness of the #ossession of a humanity share"
in common ith Nuro#eans. The chiasmus, #erha#s the most commonly
use" rhetorical figure in the slave narratives an" throughout su$sequent
$lack literature, is figure" in the $lack vernacular tra"ition $y tro#es of
the crossroa"s, that liminal s#ace here Nsu resi"es. The slave rote not
#rimarily to "emonstrate humane letters, $ut to "emonstrate his or her
on mem$ershi# in the human community.
'...( ?ust as there are remarka$ly fe literary tra"itions hose first
centurys existence is "etermine" $y texts create" $y slaves, so too are
there fe tra"itions that claim such an a##arent unity from a fun"amental
#olitical con"ition re#resente" for over to hun"re" years in such
strikingly similar #atterns an" "etails.
'...( Share" mo"es of figuration result only hen riters rea" each
others texts an" sei:e u#on to#oi an" tro#es to revise in their on texts.
This form of revision is a #rocess of groun"ing an" has serve" to create
curious formal lines of continuity $eteen the texts that together
com#rise the share" texts of $lackness, the "iscrete cha#ters of hich
scholars are still esta$lishing.
&hat seems clear u#on rea"ing the texts create" $y $lack riters in
Nnglish or the critical texts that res#on"e" to these $lack ritings is that
the #ro"uction of literature as taken to $e the central arena in hich
#ersons of African "escent coul", or coul" not, esta$lish an" re"efine
their status ithin the human community. Flack #eo#le, the evi"ence
suggests, ha" to re#resent themselves as s#eaking su$)ects $efore they
coul" even $egin to "estroy their status as o$)ects, as commo"ities,
ithin &estern culture. ,n a""ition to all of the myria" reasons for hich
human $eings rite $ooks, this #articular reason seems to have $een
#aramount for the $lack slave. At least since 1I55, Nuro#eans ha"
on"ere" alou" hether or not the African s#ecies of men, as they
most commonly #ut it, coul" ever create formal literature, coul" ever
master the arts an" sciences. ,f they coul", then, the argument ran, the
African variety of humanity an" the Nuro#ean variety ere
fun"amentally relate". ,f not, then it seeme" clear that the African as
"estine" $y nature to $e a slave.
'...( &hat remaine" constant as that $lack #eo#le coul" $ecome
s#eaking su$)ects only $y inscri$ing their voices in the ritten or". ,f
this matter of recor"ing an authentic $lack voice in the text of &estern
E57
letters as of i"es#rea" concern in the eighteenth century, then ho "i"
it affect the #ro"uction of $lack texts, if in"ee" it affecte" them at all@ '...(
The most salient in"ication that this i"ea informe" the riting of $lack
texts is foun" in a to#os that a##ears in five $lack texts #u$lishe" in
Nnglish $y 1716. This to#os assume" such a central #lace in the $lack use
of figurative language that e can call it a tro#e. ,t is the tro#e of the
Talking Fook, hich first occure" in 1995 slave narrative an" as then
revise" in other slave narratives #u$lishe" in 1976, 1979, 1974, an" 1716.
'...(
The tro#e of the Talking Fook is the ur!tro#e of the Anglo!African
tra"ition. Fakhtins meta#hor of "ou$le!voice" "iscourse, figure" most
literally in re#resentational scul#tures of Nsu an" im#lie" in the Signifying
Conkeys function as the rhetoric of a vernacular literature, comes to $ear
in $alck texts through the tro#e of the Talking Fook. ,n the slave narratives
"iscusse" in this cha#ter, making the hite ritten text s#eak ith a $lack
voice is the initial mo"e of inscri#tion of the meta#hor of the "ou$le!
voice". '...(
The ex#lication of the tro#e of the talking Fook ena$les us to itness the
extent of intertextuality an" #resu##osition at ork in the first "iscrete
#erio" in Afro!American literary history. Fut it also reveals, rather
sur#risingly, that the curious tension $eteen the $lack vernacular an" the
literate hite text, $eteen the s#oken an" the ritten or", $eteen the
oral an" the #rinte" forms of literary "iscourse, has $een themati:e" in
$lack letters at least since slaves an" ex!slaves met the challenge of the
Nnlightenment to their humanity $y literally riting themselves into $eing
through carefully crafte" re#resentation in language of the $lack self.
'...( The tro#e of the Talking Fook $ecame the first re#eate" an" revise"
tro#e of the tra"ition, the first tro#e to $e Signifie" u#on. The #ara"ox of
re#resenting, of containing someho, the oral ithin the ritten, #recisely
hen oral $lack culture as transforming itself into a ritten culture,
#rove" to $e of sufficient concern for five of the earliest $lack
auto$iogra#hers to re#eat the same figure of the the Talking Fook that fails
to s#eak, a##ro#riating the figure accor"ingly ith em$ellishe" rhetorical
"ifferences.
,,
The first text in hich the tro#e of the Talking Fook a##ears is ?ames
Al$ert Hkasa Kronnoiosas first e"ition of A /arrative of the Cost
2emarka$le %articulars in the =ife of ?ames Al$ert Hkasa
Kronniosa, An African %rince, As 2elate" $y -imself. Kronniosa a
narrative of enslavement an" "elivery ha" $y 1711 $een #u$lishe" in
seven e"itions, inclu"ing American e"itions of in 199< an" 1715 an" a
Bu$lin e"ition in 1945. ,n 17<5 another e"ition as #u$lishe"
simultaneously in =on"on, Canchester, an" Klasgo. ,t is this e"ition to
hich , refer.
2ea"ing an" riting ere of signal im#ort to the sha#ing of
Kronnoisas text, as #resences an" a$sences refigure" throughout his
tenty!four!#age narrative. &hile the 1995 e"ition says in its su$title that
Kronniosa relate" his tale himself, the 199< e"ition re#rinte" at
/e#ort, 2ho"e ,slan", claims that his narrative as ritten $y
himself. &hen referre" to in e"itions su$sequent to 17<5, relate" or
"ictate" re#lace ritten $y himself. ,t is the narrators concern ith
literacy that is of most interest to our argument here.
'...( Kronniosas i"entification of himself in his narratives title as an
African %rince hel#s to ex#lain the significance of this rhetorical gesture.
Kronniosa, $y re#resenting himself as a #rince, im#licitly tie" his
narrative to the literary tra"ition of the /o$le Savage an" to its
su$genre, the /o$le /egro.
Kronniosa, in other or"s, re#resents himself as not mere common
/egro slave, $ut as one nurture", in"ulge", an" traine" in the manner of
royalty everyhere. >ace" ith hat must have seeme" a "eafening
silence in $lack literary antece"ents, Kronniosa turne" to the fictions of
the /o$le Savage to groun" his text ithin a tra"ition. '...(
Dne of the ironies of re#resentation of the /o$le savage is that he or she
is ren"ere" no$le through a series of contrasts ith his or her $lack
countrymen. Dronooko $ears aquiline features, has manage" through
some miraculous #rocess to straighten his kinky hair, an" s#eaks >rench
fluently, among other languages. Dronooko, in other or"s, looks like a
E54
Nuro#ean, s#eaks like a Nuro#ean, an" thinks an" acts like a Nuro#ean !
or, more #ro#erly, like a Nuro#ean king. Hnlike the conventions of
re#resenting most other /o$le savage #rotagonists, then, Dronooko an"
his fello $lack #rinces!in!$on"age are ma"e no$le $y a "issimilarity ith
their native countrymen. -e is the exce#tion, an" not in any ay the rule.
Several Africans gaine" notoriety in eighteen!century Nnglan" an" >rance
$y claiming royal lineage, even atten"ing #erformances of Oronooko on
stage, ee#ing lou"ly as they ere carrie" from the theatre.
Kronniosa sei:e" u#on this convention of /o$le Savage literature, $ut
ith a critical "ifference. To groun" himself in the tra"ition of Funyan,
Kronniosa figures his sense of of "ifference as the only #erson in his
gran"fathers king"om ho un"erstoo", from my infancy, that some
great Can of %oer ... resi"e" a$ove the sun, moon an" stars, the o$)ects
of our 'African( orshi#. Kronniosas salient sign of "ifference in his
inherent knole"ge that there existe" one go", rather than the many
orshi##e" $y all an" sun"ry in the 3ing"om of Paara. '...(
,f Kronnisa, like *ali$an, first learne" the masters tongue to curse an"
sear, he quikly men"e" his ays. ,n"ee", almost from the $eginning of
his ca#ture, Kronniosa seems to have $een "etermine" to allo nothing
to came $eteen his "esire to kno the name of the *hristian Ko" an" its
fulfillment. Kronniosa re#resents this "esire ithin an exten"e" #assage
in hich he uses the tro#e of the Talking Fook. -e first "escri$es his
#leasure at "isregar"ing the #rinci#al material sign of his African heritage,
an extensive gol" chain hich must have $een remarka$ly valua$le,
)u"ging $y its "escri#tion:

&hen , left my "ear mother, , ha" a large quantity of gol" a$out me, as
is the custom of our country. ,t as ma"e into rings, an" they ere
linke" into one another, an" forme" into a kin+ of $hain- an" so #ut
roun" my neck, an" arms, an" legs, an" a large #iece hanging at one ear,
almost in the sha#e of a #ear. , foun" all this trou$lesome, an" as gla"
hen my ne master 'a Butch ca#tain of a shi#( took it from me. , as
no ashe", an" clothe" in the Butch or Nnglish manner.
Kronniosa a"mits to $eing gla" hen his royal chain, a chain of gol"
that signifie" his cultural heritage, as remove" from him, to $e re#lace",
after a #rover$ial if secular $a#tism $y ater, ith the Butch or Nnglish
clothing of a shi#s cre. That hich signifie" his African #ast, a
verita$le signifying chain, Kronniosa eagerly a$an"ons, )ust as he longs
to a$an"on the language that his Nuro#ean ca#tors "i" not un"erstan".
Kronniosa signifying gol" chain is an ironic #refigurement of Frother
Tar#s link to his cultural heritage, a #rison gang, in Invisi%le Man. &hen
Tar# tells Nllisons narrator that his chain ha" a hole lot of signifying
ra##e" u# in it an" that it might hel# you remem$er hat ere really
fighting against, e not only recall Kronniosa illingness to relinquish
his signifying chain, $ut e also $egin to un"erstan" hy. Kronniosa
has a$solutely no "esire to remem$er hat ere really fighting against.
As Tar# continues, such a signifying chain signifies a hea# more than
the o##osition $eteen yes an" no that it connotes, on a first lvel of
meaning, for the esca#e" #risoner. These significations are hat
Kronniosa seeks to forget.
,f Kronniosa illingly a$an"ons his signifying chain of gol", then he
is also illing to "iscar" that chain of signifiers that com#rise" hatever
African "iscourse he use" to greet his Butch enslavers. -e re#resents this
"esire in the $lack tra"itions first use of the tro#e of the Talking Fook,
hich follos the unchaining ceremony in the same #aragra#h:

'Cy master( use" to rea" #rayers in #u$lic to the shi#s cre every
Sa$$ath "ay+ an" hen , first sa him rea", , as never so sur#rise" in
my life, as hen , sa the $ook talk to my master, for , thought it "i", as
, o$serve" him to look u#on it, an" move his li#s. , ishe" it oul" "o
so ith me. As soon as my master ha" "one rea"ing, , folloe" him to
the #lace here he #ut the $ook, $eing mightly "elighte" ith it, an"
hen no$o"y sa me, , o#ene" it, an" #ut my ear "on close u#on it, in
great ho#es that it oul" soon say something to me+ $ut , as very sorry,
an" greatly "isa##ointe", hen , foun" that it oul" not s#eak. This
thought imme"iately #resente" itself to me, that every $o"y an" every
thing "es#ise" me $ecause , as $lack .
E15
&hat can e say of this com#elling anec"ote@ The $ook ha" no voice for
Kronniosa+ it sim#ly refuse" to s#eak to him, or ith him. >or
Kronniosa, the $ook ! or, #erha#s , shoul" say, the very conce#t of
$ook ! constitute" a silent #rimary text, a text hoever, in hich the
$lack man foun" no echo of his on voice. The silent $ook "i" not reflect
or acknole"ge the $lack #resence $efore it. The $ooks rather "eafening
silence renames the receive" tra"ition in Nuro#ean letters that the mask of
$lackness orn $y Kronniosa an" his countrymen as a tro#e of
a$sence. '...(
,,,
The Narrative of the Lor+*s ;on+erfl ,ealings "ith @ohn Marrant- A
4la$k is not #ro#erly a slave narrative, though it is usually "escri$e" as
such. 2ather, it is an ,n"ian ca#tivity tale, a genre that as extraor"inarily
#o#ular in the eighteenth century. '...(
&hat is so striking a$out Carrants Signifyin'g( revision of
Kronniosas tro#e is that he inverts Kronniosa o##osition of $lackness
an" the silence of the text. 2ather, in this king"om of the *herokee, it is
only the $lack man ho can make the text s#eak. The kings "aughter,
re#resenting the *herokee #eo#le, says ith much sorro that the $ook
oul" not s#eak to her. Carrants ca#acity to make the text s#eak lea"s
"irectly to his secon" con"emnation for $eing a itch. Dnly $y making the
=or" himself a##ear, most lovely an" glorious, "oes Carrant esca#e the
sentence of "eath. ,f in Kronniosas tro#e voice #resu##oses a hite or
assimilate" face, in Carrants text voice #resu##oses $oth a $lack face an"
an even more luminous #resence, the #resence of Ko" himself. This scene,
e shall see, is refigure" in ?ohn ?eas revision of the tro#e of the Talking
Fook.
,f Carrant Signifies u#on Kronniosa $y su$stituting the o##ositions of
$lackU*herokee an" *hristianUnon!*hristian for $lack illiterate
AfricanUhite literate Nuro#ean, hat has $ecome of Kronniosas
signifying chain@ Carrant "oes not "isa##oint us+ the chain is inverte" as
ell, although it is still ma"e of gol". An", like Kronniosa, Carrant $y
contiguity in his narration associates the gol"en chain ith his on
mastery of language, the *herokee language. Carrants figure of the
gol"en chain "oes not a##ear until the #enultimate sentence in the to!
an"!one!half!#age #aragra#h in hich the talking Fook e#iso"e occurs.
,n this sentence, Carrant informs us that it is the *herokee king ho
ons the gol" chains an" $racelets, an" as e might sus#ect, it is ?ohn
Carrant, literate $lack man from another orl" ho has the #oer over
the king to comman" them him to #ut them on, or to take them off, like a
chil" : The 3ing oul" take off his gol"en garments, his chain an"
$racelets, like a chil", if , o$)ecte" to them an" lay them asi"e. ,t is
Carrant, master of the text an" its #resences, of its voice an" letters, ho,
for reasons never state" in this text, can force the king to lay his gol"en
chain asi"e, like Kronniosa, ho eagerly lays his gol"en chain asi"e
in his first attem#t to she" his African i"entity. '...(
>or all of his a##arent #iety, then, Carrant seems to have $een
concerne" to use the text of his sole #re"ecessor in the Anglo!African
tra"ition as a mo"el to $e revise". Carrants revision inaugurates the
$lack tra"ition of Nnglish literature, not $eacuse he as its first author
$ut $ecause he as the tra"itions first revisionist. Cy i"ea of tra"ition, in
#art, turns u#on this "efinition of texts rea" $y an author an" then
Signifie" u#on in some formal ay, as an im#licit commentary on
grou"ing an" on satisfactory mo"es of re#resentation ! in this instance, a
mo"e of re#resentation of the $lack #ious #ilgrim ho "escen"s into a
chaotic il"erness of sin, is ca#ture", suffers through several rather
un$elieva$le trails of faith, then emerges hole an" cleanse" an" "evout.
Fut of hat sort is Carrants mo"e of Signifyin0g1 u#on Kronniosas
Narrative@ Carrants revision is an excellent exam#le of ca##ing,
hich is the $lack vernacular equivalent of metale#sis. Carrant is
ca##ing u#on Kronniosas tro#e $ecause his revision seeks to reverse
the receive" tro#e $y "is#lacement an" su$stitution. All of the key terms
of Kronniosas tro#e are #resent in Carrants revision, $ut the original
#attern has $een rearrange" significantly. '...(
E11
,V
'...( 2egar"less of hat Atahual#a might have sai", 2ycauts 1I77
translation coul" have $een *ugoanos source, an" Carrants, since they
$oth rea" Nnglish, unlike Kronniosa. *ugoano, hoever, as familiar
ith Carrants revision an" seems to have "eci"e" to use the original
version as a ay of ste##ing aroun" Carrant. &hat seems clear from this
is that, as early in the Anglo!African tra"ition as 1979, $lack texts ere
alrea"y mulatto texts, ith com#lex "ou$le, or to!tone", literary
heritages. The s#lit $eteen influence of form an" influence of content,
hich , have suggeste" is the im#ort of 2al#h Nllisons statements a$out
his on literary ancestry, oul" seem to have o$taine" as early as 1979.
V,
The final revision of the tro#e of the Talking Fook is that of ?ohn ?ea. ?ea
revises the tro#e extensively in his auto$iogra#hy, The Life- 3istory- an+
?nparallele+ Sfferings of @ohn @ea. ?ea en)oys a rare "istinction in the
Anglo!African tra"ition: he is one of the fe, if not the only $lack #oet
$efore this century ho #u$lishe" $oth an auto$iogra#hy an" a ork of
imaginative literature. '...(
?ea intro"uces to ma)or revisions of the slave narrative structure that he
receive" from the eighteenth century. These inclu"e the visual
re#resentations of the texts su$)ect, hich #refaces his text, an" the tro#e
of the Talking Fook. As Nquiano ha" "one tenty!six years $efore him,
?ea #refaces his text ith his on image, $ut an image re#resente" $oth in
#ro#hile an" silhouette. ?eas re#resentation of himself in sha"os "ras
attention #rimarely to his African features, es#ecially to his Fantu nose,
thick li#s, an" his ,$o forehea", unlike the engravings of %hillis
&heatley an" Nquiano, hich call attention to the assimilate" #resence of
a su$)ect ho is Anglo!African, a hy$ri" thir" term meant to me"iate
$eteen the o##osites signifie" $y African an" Anglo!Saxon. ?eas
choice of re#resentation of himself, hile common among other %rotestant
ministers ho #u$lishe" auto$iogra#hies contem#oraneous ith ?eas, is
the negative, if you ill, of the #ositive image selecte" $y &heatley an"
Nquiano. ?ea reverses the convention of self!#resentation $y em#loying the
silhouette to un"erscore a literal $lackness of the su$)ect re#resente" as
$lack u#on $lack.
Fut even more curious for the #ur#ose of this cha#ter is ?eas revision
of the tro#e of the Talking Fook, hich he also seeks to make literal. '...(
?ea reverses the semantic associations of slave an" chains, making
his con"ition the meta#hor of the human con"ition. ,t is clear early on in
his text, that this *hristian life of a slave $ears a relationshi# to other
lives as the #arts stan"s for the hole. ?ea, as , ho#e to sho, has much in
min" in his revisions of the contents of the tro#e of the Talking Fook.
=et us $e clear a$out ?eas chain: hile nominally free" $y the las of
/e Jork $ecause he as $a#ti:e" an" $ecause he coul" give a
satisfactory account of hat he kne of the ork of =or" on his soul, it
as not until he "emonstrate" his a$ility to rea" the first cha#ter of the
Kos#el of ?ohn, very ell an" "istinct as ?ea tells us tice, that his
rights to li$erty ere confirme" $y the magistrates of /e Jork
$ecause he ha" $een taught of Ko". ?ea, in other or"s, literally rea"s
his ay out of slavery, )ust as ?o$ Fen Solomon in 1981 ha" literally
ritten his ay out of $on"age. &hereas Kronniosa, Carrant,
*ugoano, an" Nquiano ha" re#resente" a truly cultural or meta#hysical
manumission through the transference affor"e" $y the tro#e of the
Talking Fook, ?ea, on the surface at least, erases this receive" tro#e $y
literali:ing it to a "egree that most narrators oul" not "ream of
attem#ting $efore ?eas usage an" es#ecially afterar".
?ea attem#ts to groun" his re#resentation of this miracle $y carefully
selecting concrete "etails of the event to share ith his rea"ers. -e names
the text that the angel teaches him to rea"+ he a""s that the event occurs
)ust $efore "an, $eing a$out four o clock in the morning, an" that the
entire rea"ing lesson unfol"e" in a$out fifteen minutes. ?ea also gives
his rea"ers a fairly #recise account of events that le" to the angels
a##earence, an" of actions imme"iately $efore an" after this su#ernatural
visitation. >inally, he tells us three times that his request of Ko" an"
Ko"s gift in return as to rea", un"erstan", an" s#eak the language
of this cha#ter of the Fi$le in $oth the Nnglish an" Butch languages.
?eas "esire, satisfie" $y "ivine intervention hen all merely mortal
E1E
avenues ha" $een close" off $y the evils of slavery, as for a $ilingual
facility ith the text of Ko", a facility that he is a$le to "emonstrate u#on
"eman" of the ske#tical. ,t is the mastery of the text of Ko", alone of all
other texts, hich lea"s "irectly to his legal manumission.
,t is not an ar$itrary text that the angel 0or Ko"1 selects for the $lack
slaves mastery. 2ather, it is the Kos#el of ?ohn. =et us recall its o#ening
verse: ,n the $eginning as the &or", an" the &or" as ith Ko", an"
the &or" as Ko". ?eas mastery of rea"ing is centere" u#on the
curious sentence of the /e Testament hich ex#licitely concerns the
nature of the &or", u#on the logos, s#eech or the or"s as reason. An"
let us recall the first cha#ters final verse: An" he saith unto him, Verily,
verily, , say unto you, -ereafter ye shall see heaven o#en, an" the angels
of Kos ascen"ing an" "escen"ing u#on the Son of man. ?ea takes these
framing verses of this ma)or text an" re#resents its on"ers in the most
literal manner #ossi$le, $y having heaven o#en an" angel $oth "escen"
an" then ascen", $ut also literally "ramati:ing the texts first verse, that
the &or" is the $egnning, an" is ith Ko" in the $eginning, an" in"ee"
as Ko". Dnly Ko", e#ito#e an" kee#er of the &or" can satisfy the
illiterate slaves "esire to kno this &or", in the Nnglish an" Butch
languages, $ecause all human agencies are close" off to him $y slavery.
Ko"!in!the!text, then emerges from the text, an" rear"s his servants
unusual #lea ith its fulfillment at its most literal level. &hile e, his
rea"ers, fin" ?eas account of his literacy training to $e allegorical at $est,
he "oes not seek to em#hasi:e the event as figurative+ on the contrary, $y
making it one more element in his linear narration 0al$eit a crucial one1,
an" $y re#resenting it as the the event that lea"s "irectly to his attainment
of legal li$erty, ?ea "isregar"s the strategies of revision "ran u#on $y
*ugoano an" Nquiano 0$oth of hom call attention to its figurative
#ro#erties, as e have seen1 an" attem#ts to re#resent the several literal
an" figurative elements of the receive" tro#e as if they all ha##ene". This
is hat , mean hen , say that ?ea literali:es the tro#e, that he erases its
figurative #ro#erties $y ex#an"ing its com#acte" "enotations an"
connotations into a five!#age account of the event that transforms his life
in a most fun"amental ay.
'...( After ?eas revision, or erasure as , am thinking of it, the tro#e of
the Talking Fook "isa##ears from the other slave narratives #u$lishe" in
the nineteenth century. /o longer is this sign of the #resence of literacy,
an" all that this sign connotes in the life of the $lack slave, availa$le for
revision after ?ea has erase" its figurative #ro#erties $y its turn to the
su#ernatural. 2ather, the tro#e of the Talking Fook no must $e
"is#lace" in a secon"!or"er revision in hich the a$sence an" #resence of
the s#eaking voice is refigure" as the a$sence an" #resence of the ritten
voice. ?eas scene of instruction, or mi"night "ream of instruction 0"i" it
actually ha##en, he on"ers alou" as his rea"ers on"er, or as it only
a "ream@1, re#resents the "ream of free"om as the "ream of literacy, a
"ream reli:e" as if $y a miracle of literacy. '...(
The tro#e of the Talking Fook is not a tro#e of the #resence of voice at
all, $ut of its a$sence. To s#eak of a silent voice is to s#eak in an
oxymoron. There is no such thing as a silent voice. >urthermore, as ?uliet
Citchell has #ut the matter, there is something untena$le a$out the
attem#t to re#resent hat is not there, to re#resent hat is (issing or
a$sent. Kiven that this is hat these five $lack authors are seeking to "o,
e are )ustifie" in on"ering alou" if the sort of su$)ectivity that they
seek can $e reali:e" through a #rocess that is so very ironic from the
outset. ,n"ee", ho can the $lack su$)ect #osit a full an" sufficient self in
a language in hich $lackness is a sign of a$sence@
The mo"es of revision of one tro#e that are charte" in this cha#ter, a
tro#e fun"amental to the slave narratives in one form or another $eteen
1995 an" 17I6, attest to the sort of share", if altere", #atterns of
re#resentation that serve to "efine a literary tra"ition. Dne coul" easily
rite an account of the sha#ing of the Afro!American tra"ition, from
Friton -ammons 19I5 narrative to Alice &alkers The <olor 0rple,
sim#ly $y ex#licating the figures use" to re#resent the search of the $lack
su$)ect for a textual voice.
E18
<.6.I -enry =ouis Kates, ?r.: from Fro( the Seen to the Tol+
*anon!>ormation, =iterary -istory, an" the Afro!American Tra"ition
T-N &NSTN2/ *2,T,*A= T2AB,T,D/ has a canon, as the &estern
literary tra"ition "oes, , once thought it our most im#ortant geature to
(aster the canon of criticism, to i(itate an" apply it, $ut , no $elieve
that e must turn to the $lack tra"ition itself to "evelo# theories of
criticism in"igenous to our literatures. Alice &alkers revision of 2e$ecca
*ox ?acksons #ara$le of hite inter#retation 0ritten in 178I1 makes the
#oint most tellingly. ?ackson, a Shaker el"ress an" $lack visionary,
claime" like ?ohn ?ea to have $een taught to rea" $y the =or". She rites
in her auto$iogra#hy that she "reame" a hite man came to her house to
teach her ho to interpret an" un"erstan" the or" of Ko", no that Ko"
ha" taught her to rea":
A hite man took me $y my right han" an" le" me on the north si"e of
the room, here sat a square ta$le. Dn it lay a $ook o#en. An" he sai" to
me: Thou shall $e instructe" in this $ook, from Kenesis to 2evelations.
An" then he took me to the est si"e, here stoo" a ta$le. An" it looke"
like the first. An" sai", Jea, thou shall $e instructe" from the $eginning
of creation to the en" of time. An" then he took me to the east si"e of the
room also, here stoo" a ta$le an" a $ook like the to first, an" sai", ,
ill instruct thee!yea, thou shall $e instructe" from the $eginning of all
things to the en" of all things. Jea, thou shall $e ell instructe". , ill
instruct.
An" then , aoke, an" , sa him as #lain as , "i" in my "ream. An" after
that he taught me "aily. An" hen , oul" $e rea"ing an" come to a har"
or", , oul" see him stan"ing $y my si"e an" he oul" teach me the
or" right. An" often, hen , oul" $e in me"itation an" looking into
things hich as har" to un"erstan", , oul" fin" him $y me, teaching
an" giving me un"erstan"ing. An" oh, his la$or an" care hich he ha"
ith me often cause" me to ee# $itterly, hen , oul" see my great
ignorance an" the great trou$le he ha" to make me un"erstan" eternal
things. >or , as so $urie" in the "e#th of the tra"ition of my forefathers,
that it "i"nt seem as if , never coul" $e "ug u#.
,n res#onse to ?acksons relation of inter#retative in"enture to a hite
man, &alker, in The <olor 0rple- recor"s an exchange $eteen *elie
an" Shug a$out turning aay from the ol" hite man hich soon turns
into a conversation a$out the elimination of man as a me"iator $eteen
a oman an" everything :

Still, it is like Shug say, you have to git man off your eye$all $efore
you can see anything a tall.
Can corru#t everything, say Shug. -e on your $ox of grits, in your
hea", an" all over the ra"io. -e try to make you think he everyhere.
Soon, as you think he everyhere, you think he Ko". Fut he ain t.
&henever you trying to #ray, an" man #lot himself on the other en" of
it, tell him to git lost, say Shug.
*elie an" Shug omni#resent man, of course, echoes the $lack
tra"itions synec"oche for the hite #oer structure, the man.
>or non!&estern, so!calle" noncanonical critics, getting the man off
your eye$all means using the most so#histicate" critical theories an"
metho"s availa$le to rea##ro#riate an" re"efine our on colonial
"iscourses. &e must use these theories an" metho"s insofar as they are
relevant to the stu"y of our on literatures. The "anger in "oing so,
hoever, is $est #ut $y Anthony A##iah in his "efinition of hat he calls
the /ai#aul fallacy :
,t is not necesary to sho that African literature is fun"amentally the
same as Nuro#ean literature in or"er to sho that it can $e treate" ith
the same tools+ ... nor shoul" en"orse a more sinister line... : the
#ostcolonial legacy hich requires us to sho that African literature is
orthy of stu"y #recisely 0$ut only1 $ecause it is fun"amentally the same
E1<
as Nuro#ean literature.
&e (st not, A##iah conclu"es, ask the rea"er to un"erstan" Africa $y
em$e""ing it in Nuro#ean culture 0#. 1<I1.
&e must , $elieve, analy:e the ays in hich riting relates to race, ho
attitu"es toar" racial "ifferences generate an" structure literary texts $y
us an+ a$out us. &e must "etermine ho critical metho"s can effectively
"isclose the traces of ethnic "ifferences in literature.
Fut e must also un"erstan" ho certain forms of "ifference an" the
languages ,e em#loy to "efine those su##ose" "ifferences not only
reinforce each other $ut ten" to create an" maintain each other. Similarly,
an" as im#ortant, e must analy:e the language of contem#orary criticism
itself, recogni:ing es#ecially that hermeneutic systems are not universal,
color!$lin", a#olitical, or neutral. &hereas some critics on"er alou", as
A##iah notes, hether or not a structuralist #oietics is ina##lica$le in
Africa $ecause structuralism is Nuro#ean 0#. 1<61, the concern of the
Thir" &orl" critic shoul" #ro#erly $e to un"erstan" the i"eological su$text
hich any critical theory reflects an" em$o"ies, an" the relation hich this
su$text $ears to the #ro"uction of meaning. /o critical theory ! $e it
Carxist, feminist, #oststructuralist, 3ame /krumahs consciencism, or
hatever ! esca#es the s#ecificity of value an" i"eology, no matter ho
me"iate" these may $e. To attem#t to a##ro#riate our on "iscourses $y
using &estern critical theory uncritically is to su$stitute one mo"e of
neocolonialism for another. '...(
&e must re"efine theory itself from ithin our $lack cultures, refusing
to grant the racist #remise that theory is something that hite #eo#le "o, so
that e are "oome" to immitate our hite colleagues, like reverse $lack
minstrel critics "one u# in hiteface. &e are all heirs to critical theory, $ut
e $lack critics are heirs as ell to the $lack vernacular tra"ition. Dur task
no is to invent an" em#loy our on critical theory, to assume our on
#ro#ositions, an" to stan" ith the aca"emy as #olitically res#onsi$le an"
res#onsive #arts of a social an" culturtal African American hole. '...(
As "econstruction an" other #oststructuralisms, or even an aracial
Carxism an" other articles of faith in Nuro!?u"aic thought, exhaust
themselves in a self!ille" racial never!never lan" in hich e see no
true reflections of our $lac faces an" hear no echoes of our $lack voices,
let us ! at long last ! master the canon of critical tra"itions an" languages
of Africa an" Afro!America. Nven as e continue to reach out to others
in the critical canon, let us $e confi"ent in our on $lack tra"itions an" in
their com#elling strength to sustain systems of critical thought that are as
yet "ormant an" unex#licate". &e must, in the truest sense, turn inar"
even as e turn outar" to re"efine each institution in this #rofession !
the Nnglish ,nstitute, the C=A, the School of *riticism ! in our on
images. &e must not succum$, as "i" Alexan"er *rummell, to the tragic
lure of hite #oer, the mistake of acce#ting the em#oering language
of hite criticism as universal or as our on language, the mistake of
confusing the ena$ling mask of theory ith our on $lack faces. Nach of
us has, in some literal or figurative manner, $oar"e" a shi# an" saile" to a
meta#horical *am$ri"ge, seeking to master the masters tools, an" to
outit this racist master $y com#ensating for a su##ose" lack. ,n my on
instance, $eing quite literal!min"e", , $ooke" #assage some fourteen
years ago on the AN ,,. An" much of my early orks reflects my "esire
to outit the master $y trying to s#eak his language as fluently as he.
/o, e must, at last, "on the em#oering mask of $lackness an" talk
that talk, the language of $lack "ifference. &hile it is true that e must,
as BuFois sai" so long ago, kno an" test the #oer of the ca$alistic
letters of the hite man, e must also kno an" test the "ark secrets of a
$lack an" hermetic "iscursive universe that aaits its "isclosure through
the $lack arts of inter#retation. >or the future of theory an" of literary
enter#rise in general, in the remin"er of this century, is $lack, in"ee".
-o "oes this matter of the $lack canon of criticism affect our attem#ts
to "efine canon0s1 of $lack literature@ , $elieve, first of all, that until e
free ourselves of the notion that e are )ust Americans, as Nllison migh
#ut it, an" that hat is goo" an" #ro#er for Americanists is goo" an"
#ro#er for Afro!Americanists, e shall remain in"enture" servants to
hite masters, female an" male, an" to the &estern tra"ition, yiel"ing the
most fun"amental right that any tra"ition #osseses, an" that is the right to
E16
"efine itself, its on terms for or"er, its very on #resu##ositions. ,f e
recall the etymology of the or" theory from the Kreek theoria- e can
un"erstan" hy the #ro"uction of the $lack text ! s#ecific theory is
essential to our attem#ts to form $lack canons: theoria, as &la" Ko":ich
#oints out in his intro"uction to %aul "e Cans The Resistan$e to Theory-
is a #u$lic, institutional act of certification hich assumes the authority to
effect the #assage from the seen to the tol", an" #rovi"es the $asis for
#u$lic "iscourse. Theory, then, is ! like rhetoric ! a form of cognition
mo"ele" u#on 0#u$lic1 utterance rather than u#on 0#rivate1 #erce#tion.
&hen e min"lessly $orro another tra"itions theory, e un"ermine this
#assage from the seen to the tol" ! from hat e see to ho e tell it !
this $asis for our on $lack #u$lic "iscourse, this relation $eteen
cognition an" utterance. '...(
-ere, then e see the to #oles of $lack canon!formation, esta$lishe"
firmly $y 17<4: ,s $lack #oetry racial in theme, or is $lack #oetry any
sort of #oetry ritten $y $lack #eo#le@
, have $een thinking a$out these strains in $lack canon!formation
$ecause a grou# of us are e"iting still another anthology, hich ill
constitute still another attem#t at canon!formation.
&. &. /orton ill $e #u$lishing the Norton Anthology of Afro=A(eri$an
Literatre. The e"iting of this anthology has $een a great "ream of mine
for a long time. , am very excite" a$out this #ro)ect. , think that , am most
excite" a$out the fact that e ill have at our "is#osal the means to e"it an
anthology hich ill "efine a canon of Afro!American literature for
instructors an" stu"ents at any institution hich "esires to teach a course in
Afro!American literature. Dnce our anthology is #u$lishe", no one ill
ever again $e a$le to use the unavaila$ility of $lack texts as an excuse not
to teach our literature. A ell!markete" anthology ! #articularly a /orton
anthology ! functions in the aca"emy to $reate a tra"ition, as ell as to
"efine an" #reserve it. A /orton anthology o#ens u# a literary tra"ition as
sim#ly as o#ening the cover of a carefully e"ite" an" am#le $ook.
, am not unaare of the #olitics an" ironies of canon!formation. The
canon that e "efine ill $e our canon, one #ossi$le set of selections
among several #ossi$le sets of selections. ,n #art to $e as eclectic an" as
"emocratically re#resentative as #ossi$le, most other e"itors of $lack
anthologies have trie" to inclu"e as many authors an" selections
0es#ecially excer#ts1 as #ossi$le, in or"er to #reserve an" resurrect
tra"ition. , call this the Sears 2oe$uck a##roach, the "ream $ook of
$lack literature.
&e have all $enefite" from this a##roach. ,n"ee", many of our authors
have only manage" to survive $ecause an enter#rising e"itor as
"etermine" to marshall as much evi"ence as he or she coul" to sho that
the $lack literary tra"ition existe". &hile e must $e "ee#ly a##reciative
of that a##roach an" its results, our task ill $e a "ifferent one. Dne task
ill $e to $ring together the essential texts of the canon, the crucially
central authors, those hom e feel to $e in"is#ensa$le to an
un"erstan"ing of the sha#e, an" sha#ing, of the tra"ition. A canon is the
essence of the tra"ition: the connection $eteen the texts of the canon
reveals the tra"itions inherent, or veile", logic, its internal rationale.
/one of us are naive enough to $elieve that the canonical is self!
evi"ent, a$solute, or natural. Scholars make canons. 3eenly aare of this
! an" quite frankly, aare of my on $iases ! , have attem#te" to $ring
together as #erio" e"itors a grou# of scholar!critics, each of hom
com$ines great ex#ertise in her or his #erio" ith her or his on
a##roach to the teaching an" analy:ing of Afro!American literature. ,
have attem#te" in other or"s, to $ring together scholars hose notions
of the $lack canon might not necessarily agree ith my on, or ith each
other. , have trie" to $ring together a "ifferent array of i"eological,
metho"ological, an" theoretical #ers#ectives, so that e together might
#ro"uce an anthology hich most fully re#resents the various "efinitions
of hat it means to tea$h that tra"ition.
, can say that my on $iases toar" canon!formation are to stress the
formal relationshi# that o$tains among texts in the $lack tra"ition !
relations of revision, echo, call an" res#onse, anti#hony, hat have you !
an" to stress the vernacular roots of the tra"ition, contra Alexan"er
*rummell. Accor"ingly, let me a"" that our anthology ill inclu"e a
ma)or innovation in anthology #ro"uction. Fecause of the strong oral an"
E1I
vernacular $ase of so much of our literature, e shall inclu"e a cassette
ta#e along ith our anthology. This means that each #erio" ill inclu"e
$oth the #rinte" an" s#oken text of oral an" musical selections of $lack
vernacular culture: sermons, $lues, s#irituals, 2 Y F, #oets rea"ing their
on "ialect #oems, s#eeches, an" other #erformances. ,magine having
Fessie Smith an" Fillie -oli"ay singing the $lues, =angston -ughes
rea"ing The /egro S#eaks of 2ivers, Sterling Fron rea"ing Ca
2ainey, ?ames &el"on ?ohnson The *reation, *. =. >ranklin The
Sermon of the Bry Fones, Cartin s#eaking , -ave a Bream, Sonia
Sanche: Talking in the Tongues ! the list of #ossi$ilities is en"less, an"
exhilarating. So much of our literature seems "ea" on the #age hen
com#are" to its #erformance. ,ncor#orating #erformance an" the $lack an"
human voice into our anthology, e ill change fun"amentally not only
the ay that our literature is taught $ut the ay in hich any literary
tra"ition is ever conceive".
E19
$. ANT-)RELAT-.-SM9 ANT-)ANT-)FONDAT-ONAL-SM;
TRAD-T-ONAL-ST RES(ONSES
6.E -arol" Floom: from The ;estern <anon
$.!.1 0(re6ace and (rel4de1
&ith most of these tenty!six riters, , have trie" to confront
greatness "irectly: to ask hat makes the author an" the orks canonical.
The anser, more often than not, has turne" out to $e strangeness, a mo"e
of originality that either cannot $e assimilate", or that so assimilates us
that e cease to see it as strange. &alter %ater "efine" 2omanticism as
a""ing strangeness to $eauty, $ut , think he characteri:e" all canonical
riting rather than the 2omantics as such. The cycle of achievement goes
from the ,ivine <o(e+y to 1n+ga(e, from strangeness to strangeness.
&hen you rea" a canonical ork for a first time you encounter a stranger,
an uncanny startlement rather than a fulfillment of ex#ectations. 2ea"
freshly, all that The ,ivine <o(e+y, 0ara+ise Lost- Fast 0art T"o- 3a+&i
Mra+- 0eer /ynt- ?lysses- an" <anto general have in common is their
uncanniness, their a$ility to make you feel strange at home.
Shakes#eare, the largest riter e ever ill kno, frequently gives
the o##osite im#ression: of making us at home out of "oors, foreign,
a$roa". -is #oers of assimilation an" of contamination are unique an"
constitute a #er#etual challenge to universal #erformance an" to criticism.
, fin" it a$sur" an" regretta$le that the current criticism of Shakes#eare !
cultural materialist 0/eo!Carxist1+ /e -istoricist 0>oucault1+
>eminist ! has a$an"one" the quest from his aesthetic su#remacy an"
orks at re"ucing him to the social energies of the Nnglish 2enaissance,
as though there ere no authentic "ifference in aesthetic merit $eteen the
creator of =ear, -amlet, ,ago, >alstaff an" his "isci#les such as ?ohn
&e$ster an" Thomas Ci""leton. The $est living Nnglish critic, Sir >rank
3ermo"e, in his famous For(s of Attention 014761 has issue" the clearest
arning , kno a$out the fate of the canon, that is to say, in the first
#lace, the fate of Shakes#eare:
*anons, hich negate the "istinction $eteen knole"ge an" o#inion,
hich are instruments of survival $uilt to $e time!#roof, are of course
"econstructi$le+ if #eo#le think there shoul" not $e such things, they may
very ell fin" the means to "estroy them. Their "efense cannot any
longer $e un"ertaken $y central institutional #oer+ they cannot any
longer $e com#ulsory, though it is har" to see ho the normal o#eration
of learne" institutions, inclu"ing recruitment, can manage ithout them.
The means to "estroy canons, as 3ermo"e in"icates, are very
much at han", an" the #rocess is no quite a"vance". , am not
concerne", as this $ook re#eate"ly makes clear, ith the current "e$ate
$eteen the right!ing "efen"ers of the *anon, ho ish to #reserve it
for its su##ose" 0an" nonexistent1 moral values, an" the aca"emic!
)ournalistic netork , have "u$$e" the School of 2esentment, ho ish
to overthro the *anon in or"er to a"vance their su##ose" 0an"
nonexistent1 #rograms for social change. , ho#e that the $ook "oes not
turn out to $e an elegy for the &estern *anon, an" that #erha#s at some
#oint there ill $e a reversal, an" the ra$$lement of lemmings ill cease
to hurl themselves off the cliffs. '...(
*anonical strangeness can exist ithout the shock of such
au"acity, $ut the tang of originality must alays hover in an inaugural
as#ect of any ork that incontesta$ly ins the agon ith tra"ition an"
)oins the *anon. Dur e"ucational institutions are thronge" these "ays $y
i"ealistic resenters ho "enounce com#etition in literature as in life, $ut
the aesthetic an" the agonistic are one, accor"ing to all the ancient
Kreeks, an" to Furckhar"t an" /iet:sche, ho recovere" the truth. &hat
-omer teaches is a #oetics of conflict, a lesson first learne" $y his rival
-esio". All of %lato, as the critic =onginus sa, is in the #hiloso#herGs
incessant conflict ith -omer, ho is exile" from The Rep%li$, $ut in
vain, since -omer an" not %lato remaine" the school$ook of the Kreeks.
E17
BanteGs ,ivine <o(e+y, accor"ing to Stefan Keorge, as the $ook an"
school of the ages, though that as more true for #oets than for anyone
else an" is #ro#erly assigne" to Shakes#eareGs #lays, as ill $e shon
throughout this $ook.
*ontem#orary riters "o not like to $e tol" that they must com#ete
ith Shakes#eare an" Bante, an" yet that struggle as ?oyceGs #rovocation
to greatness, to an eminence share" only $y Feckett , %roust, an" 3afka
among mo"ern &estern authors. The fun"amental archety#e for literary
achievement ill alays $e %in"ar, ho cele$rates the im#licit sense the
quasi!"ivine victories over every #ossi$le com#etitor. Bante, Cilton , an"
&or"sorth re#eat %in"arGs key meta#hor of racing to in the #alm, hich
is a secular immortality strangely at o""s ith any #ious i"ealism.
,"ealism, concerning hich one struggles not to $e ironic, is no the
fashion in our schools an" colleges, here all aesthetic an" most
intellectual stan"ar"s are $eing a$an"one" in the name of social harmony
an" the reme"ying of historical in)ustice. %ragmatically, the ex#ansion of
the *anon has meant the "estruction of the *anon, since hat is $eing
taught inclu"es $y no means the $est riters, ho ha##en to $e omen,
African, -is#anic, or Asian, $ut rather the riters ho offer little $ut the
resentment they have "evelo#e" as #art of their sense of i"entity. There is
no strangeness an" no originality in such resentment+ even if there ere,
they oul" not suffice to create heirs of the Jahist an" -omer, Bante
an" Shakes#eare, *ervantes an" ?oyce.
As the formulator of a critical conce#t , once name" the anxiety of
influence, , have en)oye" the School of 2esentmentGs re#eate" insistence
that such a notion a##lies only to Bea" &hite Nuro#ean Cales, an" not to
omen an" to hat e quaintly term multiculturalists. Thus, feminist
cheerlea"ers #roclaim that omen riters lovingly coo#erate ith one
another as quilt makers, hile African!American an" *hicano literary
activists go even further in asserting their free"om from any anguish of
contamination hatsoever: each of them is A"am early in the morning.
They kno no time hen they ere not as they are no+ self!create", self!
$egot, their #uissance is their on. As assertions $y #oets, #layrights,
an" #rose fiction riters, these are healthy an" un"erstan"a$le, hoever
self!"elu"e". Fut as "eclarations $y su##ose" literary critics, such
o#timistic #ronouncements are neither true nor interesting an" go against
$oth human nature an" the nature of imaginative literature. There can $e
no strong, canonical riting ithout the #rocess of literary influence, a
#rocess vexing to un"ergo an" "ifficult to un"erstan". '...(
The $ur"en of influence has to $e $orne, if significant originality
is to $e achieve" an" reachieve" ithin the ealth of &estern literary
tra"ition. Tra"ition is not only a han"ing!"on or #rocess of $enign
transmission+ it is also a conflict $eteen #ast genius an" #resent
as#iration, in hich the #ri:e is literary survival or canonical inclusion.
That conflict cannot $e settle" $y social concerns, or $y the )u"gment of
any #articular generation of im#atient i"ealists, or $y Carxists
#roclaiming , =et the "ea" $ury the "ea", or $y so#hists ho attem#t to
su$stitute the li$rary for the *anon an" the archive for the "iscerning
s#irit. %oems, stories, novels, #lays come into $eing as a res#onse to #rior
#oems, stories, novels an" #lays, an" that res#onse "e#en"s u#on acts of
rea"ing an" inter#retation $y the later riters, acts that are i"entical ith
the ne orks.
These rea"ings of #recursor ritings are necessarily "efensive in
#art+ if they ere a##reciative only, fresh creations oul" $e stifle", an"
not for #sychological reasons alone. The issue is not De"i#al rivalry $ut
the very nature of strong, original literary imaginings: figurative language
an" its vicissitu"es. >resh meta#hor, or inventive tro#ing, alays
involves a "e#arture from #revious meta#hor, an" that "e#arture "e#en"s
u#on at least #artial turning aay from or re)ection of #rior figuration.
Shakes#eare em#loys Carloe as a starting #oint, an" such early
Shakes#earean hero!villains as Aaron the Coor in Tits An+roni$s an"
2ichar" ,,, are rather too close to Fara$as, CarloeGs ?e of Calta.
&hen Shakes#eare creates Shylock, his ?e of Venice, the meta#horical
$asis of the farcical villainGs s#eech is ra"ically altere", an" Shylock is a
strong misrea"ing or creative misinter#retation of Fara$as, hereas
Aaron the Coor is something closer to a re#etition of Fara$as,
#articularly at the level of figurative language. Fy the time that
Shakes#eare rites Othello, all trace of Carloe is gone: the self!
E14
"elighting villainy of ,ago is cognitively far su$tler an" light years more
refine" imagistically than the self!congratulatory excesses of the exu$erant
Fara$as. ,agoGs relation to Fara$as is one in hich Shakes#eareGs creative
misrea"ing of his #recursor Carloe has trium#he" holly. Shakes#eare
is a unique case in hich the forerunner is invaria$ly "arfe". Ri$har+ III
manifests an anxiety of influence in regar" to The @e" of Malta an"
Ta(%rlaine, $ut Shakes#eare as still fin"ing his ay. &ith the a"vent
of >alstaff in 3enry I5- 0art One the fin"ing as com#lete, an" Carloe
$ecame only the ay not to go, on the stage as in life. '...(
, feel quite alone these "ays in "efen"ing the autonomy of the
aesthetic, $ut its $est "efense is the ex#erience of rea"ing Ding Lear an"
then seeing the #lay ell #erforme". Ding Lear "oes not "erive from a
crisis in #hiloso#hy, nor can its #oer $e ex#laine" aay as a
mystification someho #romote" $y $ourgeois institutions. ,t is a mark of
the "egeneracy of literary stu"y that one is consi"ere" an eccentric for
hol"ing that the literary is not "e#en"ent u#on the #hiloso#hical, an" that
the aesthetic is irre"uci$le to i"eology or to meta#hysics. Aesthetic
criticism returns us to the autonomy of imaginative literature an" the
sovereignty of the solitary soul, the rea"er not as a #erson in society $ut as
the "ee# self, our ultimate inar"ness. That "e#th of inar"ness in a
strong riter constitutes the strength that ar"s off the massive eight of
#ast achievement, lest every originality $e crushe" $efore it $ecomes
manifest. Kreat riting is alays reriting or revisionism an" is foun"e"
u#on a rea"ing that clears s#ace for the self, or that so orks as to reo#en
ol" orks to our fresh sufferings. The originals are not original, $ut that
Nmersonian irony yiel"s to the Nmersonian #ragmatism that the inventor
knos ho" to $orro.
The anxiety of influence cri##les eaker talents $ut stimulates
canonical genius. &hat intimately allies the three most vi$rant American
novelists of the *haotic Age ! -emingay, >it:geral", an" >aulkner ! is
that all of them emerge from ?ose#h *onra"Gs influence $ut tem#er it
cunningly $y mingling *onra" ith an American #recursor ! Cark Tain
for -emingay, -enry ?ames for >it:geral", -erman Celville for
>aulkner. Something of the same cunning a##ears in T. S. NliotGs fusion of
&hitman an" Tennyson, an" N:ra %oun"Gs $len" of &hitman an"
Froning, as again in -art *raneGs "eflection of Nliot $y another turn
toar" &hitman. Strong riters "o not choose their #rime #recursors+
they are chosen for them, $ut they have the it to transform the
forerunners into com#osite an" therefore #artly imaginary $eings. '...(
*anon is #rimarily manifeste" as the anxiety of influence that
forms an" malforms each ne riter that as#ires to #ermanence.
=iterature is not merely language+ it is also the ill to figuration, the
motive for meta#hor that /iet:sche once "efine" as the "esire to $e
"ifferent, the "esire to $e elsehere. This #artly means to $e "ifferent
from oneself, $ut #rimarily, , think, to $e "ifferent from the meta#hors
an" images of the contingent orks that are oneGs heritage: the "esire to
rite greatly is the "esire to $e elsehere, is a time an" #lace of oneGs
on, in an originality that must com#oun" ith inheritance, ith the
anxiety of influence.
$.!.! 0An Ele5y 6or the Canon1
Driginally the *anon meant the choice of $ooks in our teaching
institutions, an" "es#ite the recent #olitics of multiculturalism, the
*anonGs true question remains: &hat shall the in"ivi"ual ho still "esires
to rea" attem#t to rea", this late in history@ '...(
2evieing $a" $ooks, &. -. Au"en once remarke", is $a" for the
character. =ike all gifte" moralists, Au"en i"eali:e" "es#ite himself, an"
he shoul" have survive" into the #resent age, herein the ne
commissars tell us that rea"ing goo" $ooks is $a" for the character,
hich is #ro$a$ly true. 2ea"ing the very $est riters ! let us say -omer,
Bante, Shakes#eare, Tolstoy ! is not going to make us $etter citi:ens. Art
is #erfectly useless, accor"ing to the su$lime Dscar &il"e, ho as right
a$out everything. -e also tol" us that all $a" #oetry is sincere. -a" , the
#oer to "o so, , oul" comman" that these or"s $e engrave" a$ove
every gate at every university, so that each stu"ent might #on"er the
s#len"or of the insight. '...(
*ultural criticism is another "ismal social science, $ut literary
criticism, as an art, alays as an" alays ill $e an elitist #henomenon.
EE5
,t as a mistake to $elieve that literary criticism coul" $ecome a $asis for
"emocratic e"ucation or for societal im#rovement. &hen our Nnglish an"
other literature "e#artments shrink to the "imensions of our current
*lassics "e#artments, ce"ing their grosser functions to the legions of
*ultural Stu"ies, e ill #erha#s $e a$le to return to the stu"y of the
inesca#a$le, to Shakes#eare an" his fe #eers, ho after all, invente" all
of us. '...(
&hat interests me is the flight from the aesthetic among so many in
my #rofession, some of hom at least $egan ith the a$ility to ex#erience
aesthetic value. ,n >reu", flight is the meta#hor for re#ression, for
unconscious yet #ur#oseful forgetting. The #ur#ose is clear enough in my
#rofessionGs flight: to assuage "is#lace" guilt. '...( Dur legions ho have
"eserte" re#resent a stran" in our tra"itions that has alays $een in flight
from the aesthetic: %latonic moralism an" Aristotelian social science. The
attack on #oetry either exiles it for $eing "estructive of social ell!$eing
or allos it sufferance if it ill assume the ork of social catharsis un"er
the $anners of the ne multiculturalism. Feneath the surfaces of aca"emic
Carxism, >eminism, an" /e -istoricism, the ancient #olemic of
%latonism an" the equally archaic Aristotelian social me"icine continue to
course on. , su##ose that the conflict $eteen these strains an" the alays
$eleaguere" su##orters of the aesthetic can never en". &e are losing no,
an" "ou$tless e ill go on losing, an" there is sorro in that, $ecause
many of the $est stu"ents ill a$an"on us for other "isci#lines an"
#rofessions, an a$an"onment alrea"y ell un"er ay. '...(
*urtius, ever alert to the fortune of canonical meta#hors, has an
excursus u#on %oetry as %er#etuation that traces the origin of the
eternity of #oetic fame to the Ilia+ an" $eyon" to -oraceGs O+es, here e
are assure" that it is the CuseGs eloquence an" affection that allo the hero
never to "ie. ?ako$ Furckhar"t, in a cha#ter on literary fame that *urtius
quotes, o$serves that Bante, the ,talian 2enaissance #oet!#hilologist, ha"
the most intense consciousness that he is a "istri$utor of fame an" in"ee"
of immortality, a consciousness that *urtius locates among the =atin
#oets of >rance as early as 1155. Fut at some #oint this consciousness as
linke" to the i"ea of a secular canonicity, so that not the hero $eing
cele$rate" $ut the cele$ration itself as haile" as immortal. The secular
canon, ith the or" meaning a catalog of a##rove" authors, "oes not
actually $egin until the mi""le of the eighteenth century, "uring the
literary #erio" of Sensi$ility, Sentimentality, an" the Su$lime. The O+es
of &illiam *ollins trace the Su$lime canon through Cilton an" are
among the earliest #oems in Nnglish ritten to #ro#oun" a secular
tra"ition of canonicity. '...(
Dne illuminating theory of canon is #resente" $y Alastair
>oler in his Din+s of Literatre 0147E1. ,n a cha#ter on -ierarchies of
Kenres an" *anons of =iterature, >oler remarks that changes in
literary taste can often $e referre" to revaluation of genres that the
canonical orks re#resent. ,n each era, some genres are regar"e" as
more canonical than others. ,n the early "eca"es of our time, the
American #rose romance as exalte" as a genre, hich hel#e" to
esta$lish >aulkner, -emingay, an" >it:geral" as our "ominant
tentieth!century riters of #rose fiction, fit successors to -athorne,
Celville, Cark Tain, an" the as#ect of -enry ?ames that trium#he" in
The /ol+en 4o"l an" The ;ings of the ,ove. '...(
The historical novel seems to have $een #ermanently "evalue".
Kore Vi"al once sai" to me, ith $itter eloquence, that his outs#oken
sexual orientation ha" "enie" him canonical status. &hat seems likelier is
that Vi"alGs $est fictions 0exce#t for the su$limely outrageous Myra
4re$kenri+ge1 are "istinguishe" historical novels ! Lin$oln- 4rr, an"
several more ! an" this su$genre is no longer availa$le for canoni:ation,
hich hel#s to account for the morose fate of /orman CailerGs
exu$erantly inventive An$ient 1venings, a marvelous anatomy of
hum$uggery an" $um$uggery that coul" not survive its #lacement in the
ancient Ngy#t of The 4ook of the ,ea+. -istory riting an" narrative
fiction have come a#art, an" our sensi$ilities seem no longer a$le to
accommo"ate them to one another. '...(
Aesthetic value is $y "efinition engen"ere" $y an interaction
$eteen artists, an influencing that is alays an inter#retation. The
free"om to $e an artist, or a critic, necessarily rises out of social conflict.
Fut the source or origin of the free"om to #erceive, hile har"ly
EE1
irrelevant to aesthetic value, is not i"entical ith it. There is alays guilt
in achieve" in"ivi"uality+ it is a version of the guilt of $eing a survivor an"
is not #ro"uctive of aesthetic value. '...(
The o#eners!u# of the *anon an" the tra"itionalists "o not "isagree
much on here the su#remacy is to $e foun": in Shakes#eare. Shakes#eare
is the secular canon, or even the secular scri#ture+ forerunners an" legatees
alike are "efine" $y him alone for canonical #ur#oses. This is the "ilemma
that confronts #artisans of resentment: either they must "eny Shakes#eareGs
unique eminence 0a #ainful an" "ifficult matter1 or they must sho hy
an" ho history an" class struggle #ro"uce" )ust those as#ects of his #lays
that have generate" his centrality in the &estern *anon.
-ere they confront insurmounta$le "ifficulty in Shakes#eareGs most
i"iosyncratic strength: he is alays ahea" of you, conce#tually an"
imagistically, hoever an" henever you are. -e ren"ers you
anachronistic $ecause he $ontains you+ you cannot su$sume him. Jou
cannot illuminate him ith a ne "octrine, $e it Carxism or >reu"ianism
or Bemanian linguistic ske#ticism. ,nstea", he ill illuminate the "octrine,
not $y #refiguration $ut $y #ostfiguration as it ere: all of >reu" that
matters most is there in Shakes#eare alrea"y, ith a #ersuasive critique of
>reu" $esi"es. The >reu"ian ma# of the min" is Shakes#eareGs+ >reu"
seems only to have #rosifie" it. Dr, to vary my #oint, a Shakes#earean
rea"ing of >reu" illuminates an" overhelms the text of >reu"+ a >reu"ian
rea"ing of Shakes#eare re"uces Shakes#eare, or oul" if e coul" $ear a
re"uction that crosses the line into a$sur"ities of loss. <oriolans is a far
more #oerful rea"ing of CarxGs 1ighteenth 4r(aire of Lois Napoleon
than any Carxist rea"ing of <oriolans coul" ho#e to $e.
Shakes#eareGs eminence is, , am certain, the rock u#on hich the
School of 2esentment must at last foun"er. -o can they have it $oth
ays@ ,f it is ar$itrary that Shakes#eare centers the *anon, then they nee"
to sho hy the "ominant social class selecte" him rather than, say, Fen
?onson, for that ar$itrary role. Dr if history an" not the ruling circles
exalte" Shakes#eare, hat as it in Shakes#eare that so ca#tivate" the
mighty Bemiurge, economic an" social history@ *learly this line of inquiry
$egins to $or"er on the fantastic+ ho much sim#ler to a"mit that there is a
.alitative "ifference, a "ifference in kin", $eteen Shakes#eare an"
every other riter, even *haucer, even Tolstoy, or hoever. Driginality
is the great scan"al that resentment cannot accommo"ate, an"
Shakes#eare remains the most original riter e ill ever kno. '...(
&e #ossess the *anon $ecause e are mortal an" also rather
$elate". There is only so much time, an" time must have a sto#, hile
there is more to rea" than there ever as $efore. >rom the Jahist an"
-omer to >reu", 3afka, an" Feckett is a )ourney of nearly three
millennia. Since that voyage goes #ast har$ors as infinite as Bante,
*haucer, Contaigne, Shakes#eare, an" Tolstoy, all of hom am#ly
com#ensate a lifetimeGs rerea"ings, e are in the #ragmatic "ilemma of
exclu"ing something else each time e rea" or rerea" extensively. Dne
ancient test for the canonical remains fiercely vali": unless it "eman"s
rerea"ing, the ork "oes not qualify. The inevita$le analogue is the erotic
one. ,f you are Bon Kiovanni an" =e#orello kee#s the list, one $rief
encounter ill suffice. '...(
*atholic "istinctions $eteen "ivine immortality an" human
fame, firmly foun"e" u#on a "ogmatic theology, remains fairly #recise
until the a"vent of Bante, ho regar"e" himself as a #ro#het an" so
im#licitly gave his ,ivine <o(e+y the status of a ne Scri#ture. Bante
#ragmatically voi"e" the "istinction $eteen secular an" sacre" canon
formation, a "istinction that has never quite returne", hich is yet another
reason for our vexe" sense of #oer an" authority. '...(
Kertru"e Stein maintaine" that one rote for oneself an" for
strangers, a su#er$ recognition that , oul" exten" into a #arallel
a#othegm: one rea"s for oneself an" for strangers. The &estern *anon
"oes not exist in or"er to augment #reexisting societal elites. ,t is there to
$e rea" $y you an" $y strangers, so that you an" those you ill never
meet can encounter authentic aesthetic #oer an" the authority of hat
Fau"elaire 0an" Nrich Auer$ach after him1 calle" aesthetic "ignity. Dne
of the inelucta$le stigmata of the canonical is aesthetic "ignity, hich is
not to $e hire". '...(
%lato ho#e" that $y $anishing the #oet, he oul" also $anish the
tyrant. Fanishing Shakes#eare, or rather re"ucing him to his contexts,
EEE
ill not ri" us of our tyrants. ,n any case, e cannot ri" ourselves of
Shakes#eare, or of the *anon that he centers. Shakes#earean as e like to
forget, largely invente" us+ if you a"" the rest of the *anon, then
Shakes#eare an" the *anon holly invente" us. Nmerson, in
Representative Men, got this exactly right: Shakes#eare is as much out of
the category of eminent authors, as he is out of the cro". -e is
inconceiva$ly ise+ the others, conceiva$ly. A goo" rea"er can, in a sort,
nestle into %latoGs $rain, an" think from thence+ $ut not into Shakes#eareGs.
&e are still out of "oors. >or executive faculty, for creation, Shakes#eare
is unique. '...(
&ithout the *anon, e cease to think. Jou may i"eali:e en"lessly
a$out re#lacing aesthetic stan"ar"s ith ethnocentrism an" gen"er
consi"erations, an" your social aims may in"ee" $e a"mira$le. Jet only
strength can )oin itself to strength, as /iet:sche #er#etually testifie".
6.8 -arol" Floom: from Floom an" Boom
-arol" Floom rites in The &estern *anon that he ho#es his $ook "oes
not turn out to $e an elegy. Jet Floom, I<, Sterling %rofessor of
-umanities at Jale an" Ferg %rofessor of Nnglish at /e Jork
Hniversity, no "ou$ts that literary stu"ies ill survive. The elegiac tone
cree#s into $oth his $ook an" his conversation ! only to chase" off $y his
in"ignation. '...(
Boes literature have a social function@
, am very unha##y ith current attem#ts throughout the universities of
the &estern orl" $y a grou# , have calle" the school of resentment to
#ut arts, an" literature in #articular, in the service of social change. The
utility of literature is to teach us not ho to talk to others, $ut ho to talk
to ourselves.An" the function of the critic is to make one aare $oth of the
sorros an" of the very occasional an" rather #erilous glories of hat it
means to $e con"emne" to talk to oneself. A #ro#er use of Shakes#eare
an" Bante an" Tolstoy an" *ervantes an" the other riters of the very
highest or"er is to teach us $oth to fill out an" to tem#er that conversation
ith ourselves.
&hat "oes this school of resentment resent@
=iterature. They resent "ifficulty. An" , su##ose they resent the
"isci#line to hich they a##arently a##rentice" themselves, only to
"iscover that they resente" it more than they su##orte" it. ,f they really
$elieve that their function is to a""ress the a"mitte"ly terri$le #light of
#eo#le ho are tra##e" in the inner cities of America, ho are tra##e" in
the ero"e" astelan"s of our "ecaying farm $elt an" elsehere, they
shoul"nt $e teaching literature. They ought to $ecome social an"
#olitical an" economic activists an" "evote their lives to serving the
#oor. They shoul" strive to $etter the con"ition of those ho are in"ee"
insulte" $y the horri$le inequities of our a$omina$le, system. Fut the
truth is that they coul" not care lees. , am one the fe #rofessors from
Jale from a orking!class $ackgroun". An" , $elieve that , can smell a
hy#ocrite in these matters from a consi"era$le "istance.
&ho are these hy#ocrites@
They are #seu"o!Carxists, #seu"o!feminists, atery "isci#les of
>oucault an" other >rench theorists. An" they are trans#arently at ork
#ro#agating themselves in our universties, making sure that only those
ho hol" their #recise vie receive a##ointments an" a"vancement. ,
oul" say that there is no future for literary stu"ies as such in the Hnite"
States. ,ncreasingly, those stu"ies are $eing taken over $y the astonishing
gar$age calle" cultural criticism. At /JH , am surroun"e" $y
#rofessors of hi#!ho#. At Jale, , am surroun"e" $y #rofessors far more
intereste" in various articles on the com#ost hea# of so!calle" #o#ular
culture than in %roust or Shakes#eare or Tolstoy. , am aare that , am
fighting a rear!guar" action, an" that the ar is over an" e have lost.
&hat ill re#lace the canon@
%artly the sta#les of #o#ular culture, an" #artly, to use that "rea"ful
#hrase, #oliticaly correct orks. A "ear frien" ho teaches Nnglish at
the Hniversity of *hicago tol" me ith great gusto ho she ha" le" the
EE8
fight to re#lace the stories of Nrnest -emingay ith the orks of the
*hicano!American riter Kary Soto in her intro"uctory course on
literature. /o -emingay, at his very $est, is )ust a$out as goo" as
*hekhov or ?oyce ! that is to say, a$out as goo" as a short!story riter can
$e. &hile Kary Soto coul"nt rite his ay out of a #a#er $ag. &hen ,
tol" her this, she re#lie" that she an" , coul" go home an" rea" hatever
e ante" to at night. , fin" her attitu"e a kin" of social fascism, as if
esthetic consi"erations ere all right for us, $ut are not #ro#er for all
stu"ents. , fin" that outrageous.
6.6 N. B. -irsch ?r.: from >aulty #ers#ectives
The main intellectual 0an" emotional1 sanction for "ogmatic ske#ticism
in #resent!"ay literary theory is its assum#tion that all knole"ge is
relative. This cognitive atheism, as , call it, is $ase" mainly on the i"ea
that every$o"y sees literature from his on angle of vision, an" res#on"s
emotionally to literature through his on system of values an"
associations. ,n"ivi"uali:e" in this ay, cognitive atheism is
straightforar" su$)ectivism. Fut other closely relate" forms in literary
theory an" #ractice are cultural relativism, historical relativism, an"
metho"ological relativism. All exhi$it the same structure+ all of them make
truth an" reality relative to a s#iritual #ers#ective. That this "octrine of
critical relativity shoul" itself $e the single "octrine exem#t from an
otherise universal ske#ticism rarely strikes its a"herents as a "amaging
inconsistency, or even a curious #ara"ox. Tough!min"e" cognitive atheism
usually ten"s to $e an emotional given rather than a "evelo#e" system. Fut
if mere inconsistency is no $ar to "ogmatic ske#ticism in literary theory,
one might ho#e nonetheless for a conversion to agnosticism if it coul" $e
shon that the "octrine of cognitive relativity is $ase" on #remises that are
em#irically rong.
,. The meta#hor of #ers#ective
&or"s concerning the changing a##earances of an o$)ect, hen it is
seen from "ifferent #oints in s#ace, came to the lexical scene rather late
in mo"ern Nuro#ean languages. %ers#ective!or"s are not foun" at all in
the lexicon of ancient Kreece an" 2ome. The Drient as a##arently more
#recocious. Nvi"ence from the actual #ractice of early *hinese #ainters
shos that they un"erstoo" systematically the "istorte" a##earance of
o$)ect hen viee" $y monocular vision from a single location in s#ace.
Fut in the &est, the las of #ers#ective, hich is to say the systematic
"istortions of s#atially locate" vision, ere not un"erstoo" until the
fifteenth century, the #erio" hen #ainters orke" out the #rinci#les for
re#resenting monocular #ers#ectives on to!"imensional surfaces. 'c(
,t has taken &estern culture an even longer time to "iscover the
s#iritual analogues to #ers#ective!effects as re#resente" in such
meta#hors as vie"point 0176I1, stan+point 0178I1, (ental perspe$tive
017<11, an" attit+e 017891, the "ates in #arentheses re#resenting the first
occasion of such figurative usage recor"e" in the Ne" 1nglish
,i$tionary. ,f 2enaissance #ainters require" the $a(era os$ra, the
Victorians, in making their s#iritual analogue, a##arently require" 3ant
48
.
To assume that ones on sense of reality is "istorte" $y ones s#iritual
location, on the analogy of monocular vision, require" the *o#ernican
revolution of the 3antian #hiloso#hy.
Fut the im#lie" relativism in that analogue is a su#reme irony, since the
#ur#ose of the critical #hiloso#hy as to "efen" the vali"ity an"
48
The inference that 3ants #hiloso#hy lay $ehin" this conce#tion is further
su##orte" $y the suggestive fact that S. T. *oleri"ge, one of the first
Nnglishmen to rea" 3ant, as also the first author recor"e" in the N1, to use
the #hrase #oint of vie as a s#iritual meta#hor. Dn the other han", Bavi"
-ume shoe" himself to $e a #roto!3antian in ays $eyon" those recogni:e"
$y 3ant, in the folloing use of the #hrase, not recor"e" in the N1,: Nvery
ork of art in or"er to #ro"uce its "ue effects on the min", must $e surveye" in
a certain #oint of vie, an" cannot $e fully relishe" $y #ersons hose situation,
real or imaginary, is not conforma$le to that hich is require" $y the
#erformance 0Df the Stan"ar" of Taste, 19691.
EE<
universality of knole"ge, not its "e#en"ence on a s#iritual #ers#ective. ,t
is not only an irony, it is a total vulgari:ation of the great 3antian insight.
This cha#ter is a sketch of some of these vulgari:ations in the "omain of
hermeneutic theory, an" an argument against their uncritical an" facile
a##lication.
,,. The #ers#ective of history: three relativistic fallacies
,t as chiefly -er"er
4<
in the late eighteenth century ho challenge" the
assum#tion that the #ers#ective of human nature is essentially the same in
all times an" #laces. -er"ers contrary vie of history has $een calle"
historicism $y Ceinecke
46
, ho )u"ges it to $e one of the greatest
revolutions that &estern thought has ex#erience".
4I
Hn"ou$te"ly
Ceinecke is right. An" one effect of this revolution as to intro"uce the
meta#hor of #ers#ective into the "omain of historical "escri#tion. /ot until
historians $egan to assume that mens #ers#ectives are essentially "ifferent
in "ifferent eras "i" they $egin to rite monogra#hs on the 2omantic
Peitgeist or the Ce"ieval Cin". ,n various "egrees of so#histication, such
#ers#ectival conce#ts are no the sta#le of literary history.
Accor"ing to Ceinecke, the chief feature of historicism is the re#lacing
of a generali:ing mo"e of thinking a$out human #henomena ith an
in"ivi"uali:ing mo"e of thinking. Fut Ceineckes "escri#tion is only
#artly accurate for mo"ern historicism 0or cultural #ers#ectivism1 in its
uncritical forms. =iterary history often stresses the in"ivi"uality of a
#erio" ithout #lacing a corres#on"ent stress on "iscor"ant in"ivi"ualities
ithin a #erio". An" this is o"", since those ho un"erstan" the sameness
of in"ivi"uals ithin a #erio" "o not very often #erceive sameness among
in"ivi"uals across "ifferent #erio"s. Ceinecke is himself an historian, a
"istinguishe" one, ho avoi"s this inconsistency. -istory of any sort,
inclu"ing literary history, he asserts, oul" $e im#ossi$le on the
4<
?ohann Kottfrie" von -er"er 019<<!17581, Kerman #hiloso#her, #oet an"
critic. Author of Otlines of The 0hilosophy of Man0197<!411.
46
>rie"rich Ceinecke 017IE!146<1, Kerman historian.
4I
>. Ceinecke, ,ie 1ntstehng +es 3istoris(s 0Cunich, 14<91.
assum#tion that mans #ers#ective changes ra"ically in history+ an" it
oul" $e em#ty if it assume" that human nature remaine" everyhere
the same. Hncritical "ogma in either "irection "eserves to $e calle" a
fallacy. ,t is not, of course, a logical fallacy, only an offence against
ex#erience an" common sense.
The first historical fallacy on my list of three , call the fallacy of the
inscruta$le #ast, since un"er it, one regar"s #ersons of the #ast in the ay
Nnglishmen in novels use" to regar" inscruta$le Drientals. =iterary
historians of this style infer from the #ast a state of min" so "ifferent
from our on that its texts can $e un"erstoo" only $y an initiate" fe,
from hom an act of historical sym#athy is require" to un"erstan" a
"istant era that seems to $e #o#ulate" $y $eings ho might have come
from Cars. 'c( Theorists like Ka"amer
49
, for instance, or like Farthes,
rightly o$)ect to the cultural narcosis in"uce" $y such reconstructions of
the #ast.
47
Fut as an anti"ote they recommen" that e vitali:e the
inscruta$le texts of the #ast $y "istorting them to our on #ers#ective. ,n
other or"s, they acce#t the fallacy of the inscruta$le #ast as the #remise
on hich they $ase their ske#tical counter#ro#osal. ,t is far $etter to
"istort the #ast in an interesting an" relevant ay than to "istort an"
"ea"en it un"er the #retense of historical reconstruction. 'c(
Cy secon" fallacy of historicism is the fallacy of the homogeneous #ast.
D$viously, it is often accom#anie" $y the fallacy of the inscruta$le #ast,
as in the case of Snell, ho seems to assert that all the Kreeks of -omers
"ay lacke" a conce#t of a unifie" human self. Hn"er this fallacy,
every$o"y ho com#ose" texts in the Nli:a$ethan age, or the 2omantic
Age, or the %ericlean Age share" in each case a common #ers#ective
im#ose" $y their share" culture. =iterary historians ho rite on this
#remise are content to a##ly it in the folloing sort of syllogism:
Ce"ieval Can $elieve" in alchemy.
*haucer as a Ce"ieval Can.
49
-ans!Keorg Ka"amer, Kerman #hiloso#her, author of Trth an+ Metho+
014I51.
47
-. K. Ka"amer, ;ahrheit n+ Metho+e 0TS$ingen, 14I51, es#. #. E45!8E<,
an" 2olan" Farthes, Sr Ra$ine 0%aris 14I51.
EE6
*haucer $elieve" in alchemy. 'c(
>inally my thir" historicistic fallacy. ,t is the one , ish chiefly to
ex#ose. ,t no lurks $ehin" many a critical $ush. ,t is the fallacy of the
homogeneous #resent!"ay #ers#ective. Dnly $y acce#ting this a""itional
fallacy, for exam#le, can Ka"amer offer an alternative to Snell. >or hen
Ka"amer attacks the "ea"ness of #reten"e" historical reconstruction, he
assumes a #resent that has its on #eculiar "ea"ness. To hom, for
instance, is historical reconstruction "ea"@ &hy, to the homogenous us.
?an 3ott
44
invites us to meet Shakes#eare, our contem#orary. 2olan"
Farthes invites us to meet our contem#orary, 2acine, to make him
s#eak to us. Fut this homogeneity in our #resent #ers#ective is a
construction as artificial as any of the "es#ise" reconstructions of the
#ast. ,t is entirely false to -er"ers genial insight into the great
multifariousness of human!$eing, $oth #ast an" #resent ! the original
insight of historicism in hich all its later fallacies are groun"e".
,n such later theories, then, -er"ers insight into the in"ivi"uality of men
an" cultures has $een vulgari:e". A com#lementary insight $y his
contem#orary Vico has $een re#u"iate". Nrich Auer$ach has #hrase"
Vicos i"ea as follos: The entire "evelo#ment of human history as ma"e
$y men is #otentially containe" in the human min", an" may, therefore, $y
a #rocess of research an" re!evocation $e un"erstoo" $y men.
155
To say
ith -er"er that men an" cultures are often very "ifferent from one
another is not to "eny that a man can un"erstan" someone ith a
#ers#ective very "ifferent from his on. Vicos conce#tion, later
ela$orate" $y Bilthey
151
, as that men share a common #otential to $e
other than they are
15E
. The "istance $eteen one culture an" another may
not in every instance $e $ri"gea$le, $ut the same is true $eteen #ersons
44
?an 3ott is a %olish emigrL critic an" theatrical #ro"ucer, author of
Shakespeare Or <onte(porary 014I<1.
155
Nrich Auer$ach, Vico an" Aesthetic -istoricism, in S$enes fro( the ,ra(a
of 1ropean Literatre 0/e Jork, 14641.
151
&ilhelm Bilthey 01788!14111, Kerman #hiloso#her an" social scientist.
15E
&. Bilthey, Perglie+en+e n+ 4es$hre%en+e 0sy$hologie, vol. 6 in
Kesammelete Schriften, 7 vols. 0Ferlin, 14E1!811.
ho inha$it the same culture. *ultural #ers#ectivism, of the sort , have
$een attacking, forgets that the "istance $eteen one historical #erio" an"
another is a very small ste# in com#arison to the huge meta#hysical ga#
e must lea# to un"erstan" the #ers#ective of another #erson in any time
or #lace.
,,,. &hat is an a##roach@
Biltheys #sychological mo"el for our #otential a$ility to un"erstan" the
#ast is #ersuasive an" $alance". Fut Bilthey himself "i" not alays
manage to #reserve this $alance in his ritings. ,t is mainly to him that
e oe the or" ;eltans$hang, that is, the s#iritual #ers#ective of a
#erson or a culture. ,n the "omain of literary criticism, the critics
;eltans$hang is sometimes calle" his a##roach, a term first use" in
this #ers#ectival sense in the tentieth century. The critics inter#retation
of literature "e#en"s on his a##roach. &hat the scholar "iscovers
"e#en"s on his a##roach. The term im#lies a metho"ological
#rs#ectivism.
Bilthey tells the story of a nightmare that visite" him sometime after he
ha" $egun to use the term ;eltans$hang. As a guest in a frien"s
house, he ha" seen assigne" a $e" near a re#ro"uction of 2a#haels
S$hool of Athens, an" as he sle#t he "reamt that the #icture ha" come to
life. All the famous thinkers of antiquity $egan to rearrange themselves in
grou# accor"ing to their ;eltans$hangen. Sloly into the "ream
com#osition came later thinkers: 3ant, Schiller, *arlyle, 2anke, Kui:ot !
each of hom as "ran to one of the grou#s that ha" forme" aroun"
%lato or -eraclitus or Archime"es. &an"ering $ack an" forth among the
grou#s ere other thinkers ho trie" to me"iate $eteen them, $ut
ithout success. ,n fact, the grou#s only move" farther an" farther a#art,
until they coul" communicate only among themselves. The thinkers ha"
$ecome isolate" in their se#arate a##roaches to reality. Then Bilthey
aoke from his "ream, hich he inter#rete" as follos: /o man can see
any reality stea"ily an" see it hole. Nach a##roach is #artial an"
incommensurate ith other a##roaches. To contem#late all the as#ects
EEI
in their totality is "enie" to us
158
. Fut in his aking state there as for
Bilthey a consolation: each a##roach may $e #artial an" confine", $ut each
"oes "isclose its on #articular element f truth.
The history of literary criticism an" scholarshi# yiel"s its on version of
Biltheys nightmare. 'c(
Dccasionally this im#asse $rings to some$o"ys min" the #ara$le a$out
the $lin" men an" the ele#hant ! the Anglo!Saxon version of Biltheys
nightmare. The $lin" man at the tail thinks the ele#hant is a snake, $ut the
$lin" man at a leg thinks the ele#hant is a tree. Fut the #ara$le itself is far
more rational an" comforting than the inference it is su##ose" to su##ort
in literary criticism. An intelligent an" energetic $lin" man coul"
conceiva$ly move a$out an" touch "ifferent #arts of the creature an"
conclu"e that he as touching an ele#hant. Fut the or" a##roach
im#lies a "ifferent version of the story in hich such a resolution oul" $e
im#ossi$le. 'c(
,V The #ara"oxes of %ers#ectivism
'c( A vali" inter#retation if one that re#resents an authentic reali:ation
of meaning through ones on #ers#ective, or through that of ones time
an" culture. The #ractical aim of #ers#ectivism can $e ex#resse" in
#ositive terms as an attem#t to re#lace the meaningless criterion of
correctness ith the #resuma$ly meaningful criterion of authenticity. 'c(
Fut hat, after all, is a #ers#ective@ The meta#hor is s#atial an" visual,
hile the matter at han" is neither. ,f e ere require" momentarily to
a$an"on the meta#hor in favour of more "escri#tive terms, e oul" $e
force" to the reali:ation that the visual meta#hor refers to 3ants
*o#ernican revolution in #hiloso#hy. %ers#ectivism is a version of the
3antian insight that mans ex#erience is #reaccomo"ate" to his categories
of ex#erience. The contri$ution to mo"ern thought of Bilthey an" others
as in exten"ing the 3antian insight $eyon" the a$stract, universal realms
158
&. Bilthey The Bream, in &. 3lu$ack, ;ilhel( ,ilthey*s 0hilosophy of
3istory, ##. 158!4.
of science an" mathematics into their richer, more com#lex "omains of
cultural ex#erience. *onscious of his "e$t to 3ant, Bilthey conceive" his
theoretical ork on inter#retation as #art of a larger #rogram hich he
calle" the *ritique of -istorical 2eason.
'c( 3ant #ostulate" a universal structure in human su$)ectivity hich
constitutes ex#erience, an" hich there$y guarantees the #ossi$ility of
scientific knole"ge. Bilthey an" others #ostulate" that, $eyon" this
universal su$)ectivity, there exists a cultural su$)ectivity, structure" $y
further categories hich are analogously constitutive of all cultural
ex#erience. Since Bilthey an" his fello theorists ere intimately aare
that, un"er this conce#tion, ver$al meaning is entirely relative to cultural
su$)ectivity, it may $e instructive to ask more #articularly ho they
manage" to esche the ske#tical conclusions of Biltheys nightmare.
The #ro$lem is certainly a grave one. ,f all inter#retation is constitute"
$y the inter#reters on cultural categories, ho can he #ossi$ly
un"erstan" meanings that are constitute" $y "ifferent cultural categories@
Biltheys anser as straightforar" an" #erfectly ithin the s#onsoring
3antian tra"ition. &e can un"erstan" culturally alien meanings $ecause
e are a$le to a"o#t culturally alien categories. A"mitte"ly, e can
un"erstan" 2acine only through those alien categories that are
constitutive of his meaning ! only through his #ers#ective. Jet e $an
a"o#t his categories+ for cultural su$)ectivity is not an e#istemological
ultimate, com#ara$le to 3ants universal system of categories. *ultural
su$)ectivity is not innate, $ut acquire"+ it "erives from a #otential, #resent
in every man, that is ca#a$le of s#onsoring an in"efinite num$er of
culturally con"itione" categorial systems. ,t is ithin the ca#acity of
every in"ivi"ual to imagine himself other than he is, to reali:e in himself
another human or cultural #ossi$ility. 'c(
The ske#tical #ers#ectivist "oes $etter, therefore, if he retreats to the
more a"equate #remises of the 3antian argument. This is his most
#oerful line of "efense, an" from it he can argue quite correctly that my
$uil"ing can $e quite "ifferent from my frien"s even if e tra"e #laces
an" vie it from a an i"entical #hysical #ers#ective. Cy $uil"ing is not a
mere #hysical given $ut an o$)ect constitute" $y my on s#ecial
EE9
categorial system. Fy the same token, every inter#retation of ver$al
meaning is constitute" $y the categories through hich it is construe".
Jet, for everyone ho looks at it, a $uil"ing stan"s there as an o$)ect of
some sort. Ver$al meaning is not an o$)ect like that. As a construction
from a mute text, meaning has existence only in consciousness. A#art from
the categories through hich it is construe", meaning can have no
existence at all. This, then, is the secon" an" more im#ortant #ara"ox of
#ers#ectivism. Fy an extension of the great 3antian insight on hich it is
ultimately $ase", inter#retive #ers#ectivism argues for the constitutive
nature of cultural categories. ,n its "ee#est significance therefore,
#ers#ectivism im#lies that ver$al meaning exists only $y virtue of the
#ers#ective hich gives it existence. An" this com#els the conclusion that
ver$al meaning can exist only from one #ers#ective. Again, un"er this
secon" #ara"ox, #ers#ectivism once more has to re#u"iate its na_ve
ske#tical conclusions. /o longer ca it su##ose that a meaning a##ears
"ifferently from "ifferent #ers#ectives, $ut is com#elle" to conce"e the
a$solute im#ossi$ility of vieing (eaning from "ifferent #ers#ectives.
,t is an evasion at $est to argue that the inter#reters alien #ers#ective
"istorts meaning, for it is im#ossi$le to "istort something that cannot even
exist $y means of an alien #ers#ective. The ra"ical #ers#ectivists are not
ra"ical enough $y half. &hen, for instance, -.K. Ka"amer s#eaks of a
fusion of #ers#ectives, a 3orizontvers$h(elzng, he overlooks the #ara"ox
that this interme"iate #ers#ective can no longer #ossess the meaning it
#reten"s to carry into the contem#orary orl". Df course, the or"s of a
text can $e res#oken from a ne #ers#ective an" a ne meaning
formulate". Df course, as some critics insist, the rea"er can $ecome a self!
imagining author. Fut a text cannot $e interprete+ from a #ers#ective
"ifferent from the original authors. meaning is un"erstoo" from the
#ers#ective that len"s existence to the meaning. Any other #roce"ure is not
inter#retation $ut authorshi#.
Nvery act of inter#retation involves, therefore, at least to #ers#ectives,
that of the author an" that of the inter#reter. The #ers#ectives are
entertaine" $oth at once, as in normal $inocular vision. >ar from $eing an
extraor"inary or illusory fear, this entertaining of to #ers#ectives at once
is the groun" of all human intercourse, an" a universal fact of s#eech
hich the linguists have calle" the "ou$ling of #ersonality
15<
. &hen e
s#eak or inter#ret s#eech, e are never tra##e" in a single matrix of
s#iritual categories+ e are never merely listeners or merely s#eakers+ e
are $oth at once. 2ea"ers of this essay ! em#hatically those ho are
"isagreeing ith my argument ! are here an" no #racticing $oth
inter#retation an" criticism, are entertaining to #ers#ectives at once.
>or, my meaning exists an" is construe" only from my #ers#ective, hile
the simultaneous criticism of that meaning im#lies a "ifferent
#ers#ective. The em#irical actuality of this "ou$le #ers#ective, universal
in ver$al intercourse, calls in "ou$t a $asic #remise of hermeneutical
relativism an", ith it, most of the #resently fashiona$le forms of
cognitive atheism.
15<
*h. Falley, Lingisti.e g8n8rale at ligisti.e franXaise 0Fern, 14<<1, #.
89. See also %. >. Strason, ,ntention an" *onvention in S#eech Acts,
0hilosophi$al Revie" 98 014I<1: <84!I5.
EE7

Contemporany Reader

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Contemporany Reader

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

TABLE OF CONTENTS

These %re ! 2a#haelite images ere #art of a ne an" intricate traffic

S-ar putea să vă placă și