) :,

'tI
,

-$-
WilliamE, Cain
The NortonAnthology
MARYJEWETTGAISER PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH AND AMERICAN STUDIES
WELLESLEY COLLEGE
of Theory and Criticism
LaurieA. Finke
PROFESSOR OF WOMEN'SAND GENDER STUDIES
KENYON COLLEGE
BarbaraE.Johnson
PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH AND COMPARATIVE LITERATURE
FREDHIC WERTHAM PROFESSOR OF lAW AND PSYCHIATRY IN SOCIETY
VincentB. Leitch, General Editor
II
PROFESSOR AND PAUL AND CAROL DAUBE SUTTON CHAIR IN ENGLISH
HARVARD UNIVERSITY I
1
t OF OKLAHOMA
JohnMcGowan
"
PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH AND COMPARATIVE LITERATURE
,
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, CHAPELHILL

!

JeffreyJ.Williams
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OFENGLISH
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI
Copyright 2001 byW. W. Norton& Company,Inc.
All rightsreserved.
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica.
FirstEdition.
Sincethispagecannotlegiblyaccommodateall thecopyrightnotices,pages2553-2559
constituteanextensionofthecopyrightpage.
Thetextofthisbookis composedin Fairfield Medium
with thedisplaysetin BernhardModem.
CompositionbyBinghamtonValleyComposition.
ManufacturingbyR. R. Donnelley& Sons.
Editor: PeterSimon
Manuscript Editor: AliceFalk
Assistant Editor: IsobelEvans
Associate Managing Editor: MarianJohnson
Production Manager: DianeO'Connor
Caver and Text Design: AntoninaKrass
Permissions Manager: NancyRodwan
Art Research: Neil RyderHoos
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
TheNortonanthologyoftheoryandcriticism/VincentB.lLeitch,generaleditor.
p. cm.
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
ISBN0-393-97429-4
1. Criticism. 2. Literature-Historyandcriticism. I. Leitch,VincentB., Date
PN86.N67 2001
801'.95--<1c21
00-048057
W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.,.500 FifthAvenue, NewYork, NY 10110
www.wwnorton.com
W. W. Norton& CompanyLtd., CastleHouse, 75/76WellsStreet,LondonWIT3QT
13141516
1316 I LANGSTON HUGHES
not praise it. The whitepeople did not buy it. Most ofthe
who didread"Cane"hateit. Theyareafraidofit. Although the.
itgoodreviews thepublic remainedindifferent. Yet (excepting
DuBois)8 "Cane" contains the finest prosewritten by a Negroin:
Andlike thesingingofRobeson,9itis truly racial.
ButinSpiteoftheNordicizedNegrointelligentsiaandthe
White editorswe have an honestAmerican Negroliterature
NowIawait theriseoftheNegro theater. Ourfolk mUSic,
world-widefame, offersitselftothegeniusofthegreat
Negrocomposerwhois tocome.AndwithinthenextdecadeI
the work ofa grOwing schoo,! ofcolored artists who paint and
beautyofdarkfacesandcreatewithnewtechniquetheexpreSSions
own soul-world. And the Negro dancers who will dancelike
singers who will continue to carryoursongs to all who
with us inevengreaternumberstomorrow.
Most ofmy own poems are racial in theme and treatment,
thelifeIknow.InmanyofthemItrytograspandholdSomeofthe
and rhythms ofjazz. Iam sincere as Ilrnow how to bein these
yet afterevery reading I answerquestions like these from my
Do you think Negroes should always write about Negroes? I
wouldn'treadSOme ofyourpoemstoWhite folks. HowdoYou.find
interestinginaplacelike a cabaret?Whydo you writeabout
You aren'tblackWhatmakesyou dosomanyjazzpoems?
ButjazztomeisoneofthejnherentexpressionsofNegrolifein
theeternaltom-tombeatingintheNegrosoul-thetom-tomof
wearinessinawhiteworld, aworld ofsUbwaytrains, andwork,
the tom-tom ofjoy and laughter, and pain swallowed in a smile.
Philadelphiaclubwomanisashamed to say thatherracecreated
doesnotlikemetowriteaboutit. Theold subconscious"Whiteis
through hermind. Years ofstudyunderWhite teachers, a.lifetime
books, pictures, andpapers, andwhite manners, morals, and
dards madeherdislike thespirituals.Andnowsheturnsup her
and allits manifestations-likewisealmosteverythingelse distinctly,
Shedoesn'tcarefortheWinold ReisslportraitsofNegroesbecause
"too Negro."Shedoes notwanta'truepictureofherselffrom
wants the artist to flatter her, to make the White world believe.
Negroes are assmugand as nearwhitein.soul as shewants to be..
my mind,itis thedutyoftheyoungerNegroartist, ifheacceptsany
at all from outSiders, to change through theforce ofhis art that
pering"Iwantto be white,"hiddenintheaspirationsofhispeople,
shouldIwant to be white?Iama Negro-andbeautiful!"
SoIam ashamedfor theblackpoetwhosays, "I wantto bea poeti;
Negropo.et," asthoughhis own racial world Were notas interes
other world. I am ashamed, too, for the colored artist who runs
paintingofNegro faces tothe paintingofsunsets after the manner
8. w. E. s:DU nOIS (1868-1963),AfricanAmeri-
can historian, socio!ogistt poJitical activist, and
L German-born. painter (J886-1
author; the foremost black intellectual and
, known for his portraits ofNative
academicofthelirsthalfofthetwentiethcentury.
African Amer.icans. He Contrihut
9. PaulRobeson (J898-1976),AfricanAmerican
toAlain Locke'spathbreaking,
stageactor,singerr andpoliticalactivist.
ogy ne New Negra(J 925). ,,"
GEOHGES POULET I 1317
becausehefears thestrangeun-Whitenessofhisownfeatures.
be free to choose what he does, certainly; butheinustalso
to do whathemightchoose.
ofNegrojazzbandsandthebellOWingvoiceofBessieSmith2
penetratetheclosedearsofthecolorednear-intellectualsuntil
'arid perhaps understand. Let Paul Robeson singingWater Boy,
, Fisher
3
writingaboutthestreetsofHarlem, andJeanToomer
of Georgia in his hands, and Aaron Douglas
4
drawing
fantasiescausethesmugNegromiddleclass toturnfromtheir
tspectable, ordinary books andpapers to catch.a glimmer oftheir
WeyoungerNegroartistswhocreatenowintendtoexpressour
ElI,:dark-skinned selves without fear or shame. If white peopleare
care glad. If they are not, itdoesn't matter. We know we are
ugly too. Thetom-tom criesand the tom-tornlaughs. Ifcol-
'arepleasedweareglad. Iftheyarenot, theirdispleasuredoesn't
We build ourtemples for tomorrow, strongas we lrnow how,
on top ofthemountain,freewIthinourselves.
; American singer (ca. 1894-1937), 4. African American artist and educator (1899-
EmpressoftheBlues." 1979),themostsignificantvisualartistoftheHar-
I shortstorywriterandphysi- lem Renaissance. Douglas studied with Winold
associated with the Harlem Reiss, and his work was included in Locke'sNew
Negro.
GEORGES POULET
1902-1991
muchofhislonganddistinguishedcareer,thephenomenologicalliterary
Pouletdevoted himselftopatientandreverentialstudyofthevarious
! consciousness in the historyofFrenchliterature. For
cdticismhas beenvariouslytermed"criticismof "con-
consciousness,"and"genetic.criticism,"anygiven workofliteratureis
averbalmedium, as it is forformalistcriticslikeCLEANTH BROOKS,but
ofa distinct form ofhumanconsciousness. Followinginthe
rationalism, Pouletlabels this form thecogito, whichhecharacterizesas
living source ofliterature and the spiritual centerof.an author's
ofwritings.Asaresult,readingforPouletbecomesanintimate,meditative
I with the cogito. The reader selflesslyand passively relives the mental
the author, achievinga coincidenceofminds that mingles traditionally
subjectandobject; Jheirinteranimationis amainfeature ofmodernphe-
enologiealphilosophy.
in Chenee, Belgium, Poulet studied at the University.of Liege, where he
hisdoctoratein 192.7. Hefirst,drewinternationalattentionafterWorldWar
a prominent member ofthe so-called Geneva School, a respected group of
ImenoJogicalliterary critics thatincludedsuchnotablefigures as Marcel Ray-
AlbertBeguin,JeanRousset,JeanStarobinski,andJean-PierreRichard.Poulet
histeaching.careerattheUniversityofEdinburgh;helaterbecameaprofessor
1926
.1.:.)10
tiEORGES POULET
in 1952 atJohns Hopkins University, a base from which his books
influenced U.s.'theory and criticism-especiallythe work ofhis
]. Hillis Miller, an ardent disciple ofPoulet's during the 1950s
groundbreaking texts The Disappearance of God (1963) andPoets of
extended Poulet'sapproach.It was Hillis Milletwhofamouslycha
gram of Geneva School criticism as the "consciousness of the
another, the transpositionofthemental universeof anauthorinto
ofthecritic's mind." In 1958Pouletreturned to Europe, teaching
versityofZurich andcompleting his careerin Franceat the University
earnednumerous honorarydegrees, awards, andprizes forhiswork.
Poulet'smosthiglllyregardedachievementis thefour-volume work
icism Studies in Human Time (I 949-68),whichexplores thedistinctive
ofconsciousness and selfhood in the various writings ofselected
spanning the Renaissance to themodern period. Throughout this
attempts to examine all available examples ofa particular
whether published or not; he thus considers letters, marginalia,
essays, andfragmentary oraborted texts, as well as literaryworks in
Pouletbelievedthatacriticmayfindapageofadiscardednotebooktobe
as a finished poem in expressing or revealing an author's consciousness,
text canreveal deep-seatedpsychicpatterns,constants, orpreoCcUpations.
inclusive approach, which ambitiously embraces the totality ofan author's
sharplydistinguished the mid-twentieth-century workofPouletfrom his
contemporaries,theNewCritics, who concentratedonindividual texts.
formalists, suchasJOHN CROWE RANSOM andCleanthBrooks, Were
pied with analyzing single, isolatedpoems anddiscovering the unique
poeticlanguage, Poulet'sfocuson theoeuvrestrucksome U.S. criticsasa
fresh air. It both broadened the scope and the field ofopportunities
literarystudiesandimplicitJyquestionedtheformalistconceptionoftextan
tinctionbetweenliteraryandnonliterarytexts.
Publishedin thefirst issue ofthejournalNew Literary History in 1969,
"PhenomenologyofReading," Our seiection, offers a Succinct programma!
mentofhis critical approach. In the keyfirst section ofthe essay, Poulet
thepeculiarnatureofbooks, distingUishingthemfrom otherobjects,such
machines,vases, andstatues, byapplyingonemaincriterion:thedegreeto
objectinquestionallows thereader to accessorenCOuntertheconsciousnesl
object's maker. As he sees it, anobjectsuchas a sewingmachinedoes
induce subjectiveinterest, for it presentsmerelyan opaque,flat, lifeless
contrast,objectssuchas a statueoravasesuggestanihtriguing,mysterious
withwhichonemighthavearelationship,promptingonetolookcloselyand
forapossible entrancetoitssecretchamber; but, in theend, nosuch
befound. Thus theyremain isolated andclosed,preservingthedistinction
object andsubject, inside andoutside,andharringanykind ofdeep, oersoMI
templativeengagementwith theconsciousnessofitsartificer.
A book, however,.is not a dosed object like the others. During the
reading, the reader becomes aware ofa rational being emerging out
Ideally, thebarriersbetweenthereaderandthebookfallaWay, eroding
betweensubjectand objectand permittinganastonishingcommunion
consciousnessofthereaderandthatoftheauthor. Pouletsees thereaderas
Eying 'vithapureform oftheauthor's consciousnessthatcanmanifestitself
an author's works. (hediSCOurages standardbiographicalCriticism). Such
tion cantakedifferentforms andpOSsess differentintensities, as Pouletmakeseli
in thesecondsectionofhisessay, whereheofferscasestudies.Inthisregard,
,vasan unacknowledged pioneer ofreader-rE:!sponse criticism. Forhim, the
becomesapassiveintuitivereceptaclefortheconsciousnessoftheauthorand
ies an interior universe ofmental entities (i.e., images,. ideas, and words).
GEORGES POULET / 1319
are objects, Pouletagrees, butthey are subjectified objects,for they
mindofthereaderfor theircontinuedexistence.Theprocessofread-
Jlomentarily replaces thelifeless external objects and forms ofbooks with
objects of the author. Consequently the reader, dispossessed,
hethoughtsoftheauthor, enactingawondrous mergingwith thepres-
wholly otherand unique. At thesame time, thestyle ofthe critic
fashionveersawayfromanalyticalimpartialitytowardliterarylyricism,
Hillis Millerlabeled thiscriticism"literatureaboutliterature."
ofreading and criticism, as might be expected, have drawn a
criticisms. Inthe 19505someformalistschargedPouletwithblurringthe
,between vario!ls written artifacts and underminingthegeneric conven-
uniqueinternaldesigns thatare key elementsindeterminingthevalueof
Morepointedattacksappearedinthe1960sand1970s,promptedby
structuralism,poststructuralism,anddeconstruction,whichdefinedthem-
opposition to phenomenology: they explicitly forsook consciousness and
intentionfortextualityandintertextuality.Onechargecommonatthistime
poulet neglected therhetorical and self-constitutivenatureof"language,"
merelyasanunproblematictransparentanddisposablemediumthatallows
some kind ofprelinguistic,subjectivesenseofimmediacyandplenitude(a
brandedas"psychologism").ManyfaultedPouletfor tendingtoviewread-
a passive process, giving up on criticaljudgmentand ideological critiqueas
_anl.ecting theextent towhich thereaderactively constructs the messageof
fills in significanttextualgapsandblanks.
United States, the signs ofthis changingattitude toward Pouletandphe-
criticism becameapparentin 1966atthe celebratedJohnsHopkins
conference "Languages ofCriticism and Sciences ofMan." Pouletpre-
early version of"Phenomenology of Reading'" titled "Criticism and the
ofInteriority,"buttherisingstarsoftheconferencewereTZVETANTODO-
BARTHES, JACQUES LACAN, andJACQUES DERRIDA, allvariously.associ-
structuralismandpoststructuralism;indeed,theconferenceiscreditedwith
these schools of thought to the American academy. Poulet appeared
nextto suchtheorists, anincongruitymademoreobviouswhenthecon-
proceedingswerelaterpublishedunderthetitleThe Controversy
Butfor nearlyaquarterofa century, PouletinspiredFrench andAmerican
critics, creating unforgettable portraits ofhis authors' souls. Still today his
oftheexperienceofreadingis oneofthe mostmovingeverpenned.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
',polleC[ea editionofPoulet'sworksexists. Englishtranslationsofindividualbooks
dates ofpublicationgiven first) includeStudies in Human Time (1949;
first volume ofPoulel's magnum opus (which also provides the multi-
workwith its overall title); The Interior Distance (I952; 1959), thesecond
ofStudies in Human Time; Metamorphoses of the Circle (1961; 1966);Prous-
(I977); Who Was Baudelaire? (I%9; 1969); Exploding Poetry:
I Rimbaud (I980; 1984). MajorFrenchworks unavailablein English(l.re
depart (1964), the thirdvolume ofStudies in Human Time; Trois essais
mytholollie romantique (I 966);Les Chemins actuels de la critique (1967);Mes'lfre
(1968), the fourth volume ofStudies in HU1na11 Time; La Conscience
69); Entre moi et mai: Essais critiques sur la conscience de soi (1977);and
indeterminee (3 vols., 1985-90).Arevealingcollectionoflettersbetween
and Marcel Raymond exists in French, titled Correspondence: 1950-1977,
by PierreGrotzer(198I).
Hillis Miller has published two influential assessments ofPoulet's work, "The
School: TheCriticismofMarcel Raymond, Albert B(!guin, Georges Poulet,
J <-v J \.71:::0RGES POULET
Jean Rousset, Jean-Pierre Richard, andJeanStarobinski" (1966) and
Paris: The Recent Work ofGeorges Poulet" (1970), which adds
theoretical sections to an earlieressay, ''The Literary Criticism of
(I 963).(MilIer'sessayshavebeenconvenientlycollectedinhis
1991.) Sarah N. Lawall's Critics of Consciousness: The EXistential
erature (1968).offersanoverviewoftheGenevaSchool,provi
on each ofits majorfigures, including Poulet, while.Paul de
Insight: Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism (1971)
citedcritiqueofPouletfrom theperspectiveofdeconstruction. Roben
Phenomenology and Literature: An Introduction (1977)presentsacritical
theGeneva Schoolas awhole, helpfullylocatingitwithin thelarger
nomenological theoryand criticism. An influential leftist critique
poundedinFrankLentricchia'sAfter the New Criticism (1980).For
byde Man, Miller, andothers,see"HommageaGeorgesPoulet,"
Notes 97.5 (J982). AbibliographyofPoulet'swork can befound in
(listedabove).
PhenomenologyofHeading
AtthebeginningofMallarme'sl ul'lfinishedStory,Igitur, thereisthe
tiol'l ofanemptyroom, inthemiddle ofwhich, ona table thereis .
book. This Seems to. me the situation ofevery book, until someonf'
andbeginsto readit. Bo.oks areobjects. Ol'latable,Ol'l bookshelves,
Windows, theywaitfor someOl'le to comeanddeliverthemfrom their
riality,from theirimmobility. WhenIsee themOl'l display, Ilookat
Iwould atanimalsfor sale, keptil'l little cages, al'ld so obviously
a buyer. is no dOUbting it"""-animals do know that
depends on a humal'l intervention, thanksto which they will be
from the shame ofbeing treated as objectS. Isn't the same true of
Madeofpaperandink, theylie wherethey!lreput,untilthemomel'l .
.oneshowsaninterestinthem.They,\ait.Aretheyawarethatana.ctof
mightsuddel'llytransform theirexistence?Theyappearto belitupwith
hope. Read me, theyseem to say. I find ithard to resist theirappeal.
booksarenotjustobjectsamongothers.
Thisfeeling theygive me-Jsometimeshaveitwith otherobjects. I
it, forexample, with vases and statues. 1t wouldI'leveroccur tome
arounda sewingmachineOr tolookatthe undersideofaplate, Iam
satisfiedwith the face theypresel'llto me. But statues'make me
circlearoundthem,vase'smakemewantto turntheminmyhal'lds. .!Woi
why..Isn't it because they me the musiol'l, that'there is somethin
themwhich,from adifferentangle,I mightbeahletosee?Neithervase
statue seems fully by the perimeter ofits surfaces.
additiontoits surfacesit musthaveal'lil'lterior.. Whatthisinteriormight
thatiswhatintriguesmeandmakesmecirclearoul'ld them,as though
il'lgfortheentranceto asecretchamber.Butthereisnosuchentral'lce
for the mouth'of 'thevase, which is nota true entrancesince itgives
access to a little space to putflowers il'l). So the vase and the statue
, ,
L STEPHANE MALLARMtl{IS42_1S98), Frenchpoot.
PHENOMENOLOGY OF READING / 1321
oblige me to remail'l outside.We.can have1'l0 truerapport-
oful'leasil'less.
statuesandvases. Ihopebooksarenotlikethem.Buyavase,
putitOl'l your tableoryourmal'ltel, al'ld, afterawhile, itwill
bemadeapartofyourhousehold.Butitwill be1'l0 lessavase,
theotherhand,takeabook,andyouwillfinditoffering,opening
this openness ofthebookwhich Ifind so moving. Abookis not
contours,is notwalled-upasinafortress. Itasksnothingbetter
outsideitself,ortoletyou existin it. Inshort,theextraordil'lary
caseofabookis thefallil'lgawayofthebarriersbetweenyou al'ld
;aredl'lSideit;itisinsideyou;thereisnolongereitheroutsideorinside.
initialphenomenonproducedwheneverItakeupabook,al'ld
it. At theprecisemomentthat1see, surgingoutoftheobject
beforeme,aquantityofsignificatiol'lswhichmy mil'ldgrasps, I
what I hold.in my hands is no 10l'lger justan object, or even
thing. Iamawareofarationalbeing, ofaconsciousness;the
ofal'lother, 1'l0 differel'ltfrom theol'le Iautomaticallyassume
humanbeil'lgIencounter,exceptthatin thiscasethecOl'lsciousl'less
me, welcomesme,lets melookdeepinsideitself,andevel'lallows
ul'lheard-ofIicel'lse, tothil'lkwhatitthinksal'ldfeel whatitfeels.
1 say. Ul'lheard-of, first, is thedisappearanceofthe"object."
thebookIheldil'l my hands? Itis stillthere, andatthesametime
inolonger,itis I'lowhere.Thatobjectwhollyobject,thatthil'lgmade
as thereare thil'lgs made ofmetal orporcelail'le, thatobjectis 1'l0
.atleastitisasifit1'l0 longerexisted,aslongasIreadthebook.For
is nolOl'lger a materialreality. It has becomea series ofwords, of
ideas which il'l their tum begil'l to exist. Al'ld where is this new
Surely not il'l the paper object.Nor, surely, in external space.
onlyoneplaceleftfor thisnewexistence: myil'lnermostself .
has this comeabout? By whatmeal'lS, through whoseintercessiol'l?
Ihaveopenedmyown mil'ld socompletelytowhatis usuallyshut
it? Idonot know. I knowonlythat, while readil'lg, Iperceive il'l my
numberofsignificatiol'lswhichhavemadethemselvesathomethere.
theyarestillobjects:images, ideas,words,objectsofmythought.
from this poil'lt ofview, there is al'l el'lormous difference. For the
like.thevase, orlike thestatue,was al'l objectamongothers,residing
external world: theworldwhichobjectsordinarilyinhabitexclUSively
own societyoreach.Ol'l its own, in 1'l0needofbeil'lgthoughtbymy
whereas il'l this interior world where, like fish il'l an aquarium,
images al'ld ideas disport themselves, thesemental el'ltities, in order
need the shelterwhich I provide: they are dependel'lt onmy con-
depel'ldel'lce is atonce a disadval'ltage al'ld al'l advantage. As I have
itis theprivilegeof exteriorobjectstodispensewithal'lyinter-
'tereilcefromthemind.Alltheyaskistobeletalol'le.Theymal'lagebythem-
.Butthesameis surelynottrueofinteriorobjects. Bydefil'litiol'lthey
condemnedto changetheirvery I'lature, condemnedto lose theirmate-
.Theybecomeimages, ideas, words, thatis tosaypurelymentalel'lti-
.In sum, il'l orderto exist as mel'ltal objects, theymustrelinquish their
xistenceas realobjects.
Onthe onehand, this is causefor regret. As SOon as Ireplace'
perception ofreality by the words ofa book, I deliver myself,
andfoot to theomnipotenceoffiction. Isayfarewell to whatis,
feign beliefinwhatisnot.Isurrqundmyself withfictitious _
the prey oflanguage. There is no escaping this tal<e-over.
rounds mewithits unreality.
On the otherhand, the transmutation through language of
fictional equivalent has undeniable advantages. The universe
infinitely more elastic than the world ofObjective reality. It
any lise; ityields with little resistance to the importU:rlities of
Moreover..:....andof aUitsbenefitsIfindthisthemOstappealing_thi
universeconstitutedby language notseemradicallyoPPOsed
who thinksit.DOUbtlessWhatIglimpsethrough.thewordsare
notdivestedofan appearance ofobjectivity. Buttheydo not
anatureotherthanmymindwhich thinks them. TheyareobJects;,
jectified objects. In short, since everything has become part of
thanks to the intervention oflanguage, theopposition between
and its Objects has been conSiderably attenuated. And thus the
advantage j)fliteratureis that1 ampersuadedbyit thatIaD? freed
Usualsenseofincompatibilitybetweenmyconsciousnessandits
This is the remilrkable transformation wrought in me through
reading. No'tonlydoesit causethephysicalobjectsaroundmeto
includingthe very book1am reading, butit those
witha Congeriesofmentalobjectsipcloserapport with myOWn
ness.Andyettheveryintimacyinwhich Inowlive With myobjects
topresentmewithnewproblems. Themostcuriousoftheseis the
Iamsomeonewho happensto have asobjectsofhisOwn thought,
whicharepartof abook Iamreading,andwhicharethereforethe
ofanother. Theyare the thoughts ofanother, andyet it is I who
SUbject. Thesituationis evenmoreastonishingthan theonenoted
am thinking the thoughts ofanother. Ofcourse, there would be no
forastonishmentifIwere thinkingit as the thoughtofanother. ButI
it as myveryown. Ordinarilythere is theI which thinks, which
itself(when it takes its bearings) in thoughts which mayhave
elsewhere butwhich it takes uponitselfas its ownin themomentit
th'm.1'hi,i,how we mu'ttak, Did"ot'" d'd'''"on"M" pen""
mes catins"("My thoughtsaremy whores"). Thatis, theysleep with
bodywithout ceaSing to belong to theirauthor. Now, in the'present.
things arequitedifferent. Becauseofthestrangeinvasionofmy
thethoughtsof another,Iamaselfwhoisgrantedtheexperience
Co"ign to him. l'm th,,ubj"tofthOugh" oth",th. my.
Myconsciousnessbehavesas thoughitWere theconsciousnessof n
Thismerits reflection. In a certain sense1must recognize that no
really belongs to me. Ideas belong to no one"Theypass from one
anotheras coins pass from hand tohand. Consequently, nothing
more misleading than the to define a consciousness by the
which it utters or entertains. But Whatever these ideas may be,
strong the tie which binds them to theirsource, however transitory
J
2. DenisDiderot (
17
13-1784),Frenchauthorandencyclopedist.
PHENOMENOLOGYOFREADING / 1323
in myownmind, so longas IentertainthemIassertmyselfas
ideas; Iam thesubjectiveprincipleforwhomtheideasserve
.._..lgas thepredications.Furthermore,thissubjectiveprinciple
be conceived as a predication, as somethingwhich is dis-
to. It is Iwhothink,whocontemplate,whoam engagedin
.. short,itis nevera HEbutan 1.
happens when Ireadabook?Am Ithen the subjectofaseries
which are notmy predications?Thatis impossible, perhaps
Uon in terms. Ifeel sure thatas soonas Ithinksomething,
becomesin someindefinablewaymyown.WhateverIthink
my mental world. And yet here I am thinking a thoughtwhich
belongs to another mentalworld, which is beingthought in me
,ough Idid notexist.Alreadythenotionisinconceivableandseems
so ifI reflect that, since every thought must have a subject to
thought which is alien to me and yet inme, mustalso have in
which is alien to me. It all happens, then, as though reading
actbywhichathoughtmanaged tobestowitselfwithinmewith a
notmyself.WheneverIread, Imentallypronouncean1, andyetthe
Jpronounceisnotmyself.Thisis trueevenwhentheheroofanovel
inthethirdperson,andevenwhenthereisnoheroandnothing
or propositions: for as lioon as something is presented as
therehas to bea thinkingsubjectwithwhom, at leastfor thetime
'dentify,forgettingmyself, alienatedfrom myself. HJE estunautre."
3 AnotherI,whohasreplaced myown, andwhowillcontinue
as longas Iread. Readingisjustthat: awayofgivingwaynptonly
ofalien words, images, ideas, but also to very alien principle
themand sheltersthem.
is indeed hard to explain, even to conceive, and yet,
"admitted,itexplainsto mewhatmightotherwiseseemevenmoreinex-
Forhow could I explain, withoutsuchtake-over ofmyinnermost
being, the astonishingfacilitywith which I notonlyunderstand
feel whatIread. WhenI read asI ought, i.e., withoutmentalres-
withoutanydesiretopreservemyindependenceofjudgment,and
total commitment required of any reader, my comprehension
intuitive and anyfeeling proposed to me is immediatelyassumed
Inotherwords, thekind ofcomprehensioninquestionhereis nota
from theunknowntotheknown,fromthestrangetothefamiliar,
outside to inside. It might rather be called a phenomenon by which
objects rise up from the depths of consciousness into the.light of
On the other hand-and without contradiction-reading
somethingresemblingtheappeweptionIhaveofmyself, theactipn
IgraspstraightwaywhatIthinkasbeingthoughtbyasubject(who,
case,is notI).WhateversortofalienationImayendure,readingdoes
interpretmy activityas subject.
then, is the actin which thesubjectiveprinciplewhich I callI,
in sucha way that I nolonger have theright, strictlyspeaking,
::,;to;consideritas my1. I am onloanto another, and this otherthinks,feels,
and acts within me. The phenomenonappears in its mostobvious
ArthurRimbaud (1854':'1891),Frenchpoet. "JEestun autre": Iis an other(French).
15"::"1 ! (JEORGES POULET
and even naivest form in the sort ofspell brought aboutby
kinds ofreading, such as thrillers, ofwhichI say"It grippedme,".
important to.note that this ofmyselfbyanothertakes
onlyon thelevel ofobjective.thought, thatis with regardto
tions, ideaswhich readingaffords me, butalsoonthelevel of
jectivity. When I am absorbed in reading, a second self takes
which thinks and feels for me. Withdrawninsome recess'of
then silentlywitness this dispossession? Do I derive from it
or, on the contrary, akind ofanguish? Howeverthatmaybe,
holds thecenterofthestage, andthequestionwhichimposes
Iamabsolutelyobligedto askmyself,isthis:"Whois theusurper
pies theforefront? Whatis thismindwhoall alonebyhimselfilk,
sciousnessandwho,whenI sayI, is indeedthatI?"
Thereisanimmediateanswertothisquestion,perhapstooeasy
This I who thinks inmewhenI reada book, is theI oftheone
thebook.WhenIreadBaudelaireorRacine,4itisreallyBaudelaire
who thinks,.feels, allows himselftobereadwithin me. Thus a
onlyabook,itis themeansbywhichanauthoractuallypreserves
his feelings, his modesofdreamingandliving. It is his meansof
identityfrom death.Suchaninterpretationofreadingis notfalse.
to justify what is commonly called the biographical explication
texts. Indeed everyword ofliterature is impregnatedwith the
onewho wroteit.As hemakes us read.it, heawakensin us the
what he thought or felt. To understand a literarywork, then, is to
individual who wrote it reveal himselfto us in us. Itis not the
whichexplicates thework, butrathertheworkwhichsometimes
tounderstandthebiography.
. But biographicalinterpretation is in.partfalseand misleading. It
thatthereis ananalogybetweentheworksofanauthorandthe
ofhislife. Theworks may beseenas anincomplete translation
Andfurther, thereis aneven moresignificantanalogyamongall
ofa single author..Eachof:theworks, however, while I am reading
iomeits own,life.Thesubjectwhois revealed to methroughmy
itisnotthe.author,eitherin thedisorderedtotalityofhisouter
orintheaggregate, betterorganizedand concentratedtotality,whichii-:
one ofhis writings.Yet the subject whichpresides over theworkcan
onlyinthework. Tobesure, nothingis unimportantfor understandi!
work,andamassofbiographical,bibliographical,textual,and
informationisindispensabletome.Andyetthisknowledgedoesnot
with theinternal knowledge ofthe work. Whatevermay be thesum
information,I acquire onBaudelaire or Racine,inwhatever degree
macyI maylivewiththeirgenius,IamawarethaUhiscontribution
doesnotsufficeto illuminatefor meinits.owninnermeaning,inits
perfection,andinthesubjective principlewhich animatesit, the
workof BaudelaireorRacine thereadingofwhich nowabsorbs me. At
momentwhat matters to meis to live, from theinside,ina certain
with thework and theworkalone. It could hardly be otherwise.
externaltotheworkcouldpossiblysq,are.the claimwhich
worknowexerts onme. Itis therewithinme,notto sendme back,
4, JeanRacine(1639-1699), Frenchdramatist.CHARLES BAUDElAIRE (1821-1867), Frenchpoet.
PHENOMENOLOGY OF READING I 1325
nortohisotherwritings,butonthecontrarytokeepmy
onitself.It istheworkwhichtracesinmetheverybound-
which thisconsciousnesswill defineitself. It is theworkwhich
aseriesofmentalobjectsandcreatesinmeanetworkofwords,
for the time being, there will be no room for other mental
for otherwords. And itis the work, finally, which, notsatisfied
defining the contentofmyconsciousness, takesholdofit,appro-
andmakes ofit thatI which, from oneendofmy readingto the
over the unfoldingofthe work, ofthe single workwhichI
work forms the temporary mental substance which fills my
;anditismoreoverthatconsciousness,theI-subject,thecon-
ofwhat is, revealing itselfwithin the interior ofthe
is the characteristic condition of every workwhich I summon
byplacingmyconsciousnessatitsdisposal. Igiveitnot
_ butawarenessofexistence.AndsoIoughtnottohesitateto
so longas itis animatedbythisvitalinbreathinginspiredby
dfreading,aworkofliteraturebecomes(attheexpenseofthereader
lifeitsuspends)asortofhumanbeing,thatitisamindconscious
andconstitutingitselfin meas thesubjectofitsownobjects.
II
livesitsownlifewithinme;in acertainsense,itthinksitself, and
itselfameaningwithinme.
Hr",noedisplacementofmyselfbytheworkdeserves to beexamined
;',wo thinksitselfinme,does thismeanthat,duringacompleteloss
rK
on my part, a.nother thinking entity invades me, taking
ofmy unconsciousness in order to thinkitselfwithoutmy being
think it? Obviously not. The annexation of my consciousness by
(theotherwhichis thework) innowayimpliesthatIamthevictim
deprivation of.consciousness. Everythinghappens, on the contrary,
.ugh, from themoment1becomeapreytowhatIread,Ibegintoshare
myconsciousnesswiththisbeingwhomIhavetriedtodefineand
theconscioussubjectensconcedat theheartofthework. HeandI,
havingacommonconsciousness.Doubtless,withinthiscommunity
thepartsplayedbyeachofus are notofequalimportance.The
!{l10.U5Iless inherent in the work is active and potent; itoccupies the
it is clearly related to its awn world, to objects which are its
Inopposition, Imyself, although conscious ofwhatever itmay be
of, Iplayamuch more humble role, contentto recordpassively
isgoinginme.Alagtakesplace,asortofschizoiddistinctionbetween
feel andwhattheotherfeels; a confusedawarenesscifdelay, so that
seems first to thinkby itself, and then to inform me whatit has
ThusIoftenhave theimpression,whilereading,ofsimplywitness-
whichatthesametimeconcernsandyetdoesnotconcernme.
nrr",,,kes acertainfeelingofsurprisewithinme. Iama consciousness
by an existence which is not mine, butwhich I experience as
it weremine.
astonished consciousness is in fact the consciousness ofthe critic:
1326 / GEORGES POULET
theconsciousnessofa beingwhois allowedto apprehendasits
happening in the conSciousness ofanotherbeing. Aware ofa
disclosingafeelingofidentity, butofidentitywithindifference,
sciousnessdoes notnecessarilyimplythe total disappearanceof
mind in the mind to be criticized. From the partial and hesitan
mationofJacques Riviere
5
to theexalted,digressiveandtriumphan
hnation ofCharles Du Bos,6 criticism can pass through a wh
nLlanceswhichwewouldbewelladvisedtostudy.ThatiswhatI
to do. By discovering the various forms of identification
identification to be found in recentcritical writing in French
shallbeableperhapstogive a betteraccountofthevariationsof
relationship-betweencriticizingsubjectandcriticiZedobject-is
Letmetakeafirst example. In thecaSe ofthefirstcritic Ishall
this fUSion oftwo consciousnesses is barely suggested. It is an
movementofthemindtowardanobjectwhichremainshidden.
theperfectidentification oftwo conscipusnesses, each sees itself
in theother,inthisinstancethecriticalconsciousnesscan,atbest;
but to draw closer to a reality which must remain forever veiled.
attemptituses the only mediators available to it in this quest,
senses.ArIdsincesight,themostintellectualofthefivesenses,
particl):lllr case to come up against a basic opacity, the critical
approachitsgoalblindly, throughthetactileexplorationofsurfaces,
agropingexplorationofthematerialworldwhichseparatesthe
from its object. Thus, despite theimmenseefforton thepartof
thetic intelligence to lower itselfto a level where it can, however
makesomeprogressinitsquesttowardtheconsciousnessofthe
enterprise is destined to failure. Onesenses that the unfortunat
condemned never to fulfill adequately his role as reader. He
puzzles, he questions awkwardly a language which heis condemned
to read with ease; orrather, in trying to read the language, he
whichenableshim totranslatebutafraction ofthetext.
ThiscriticisJacquesRiviere.
And yetit is from this failure that a mllch latercriticwill derive'
successfulmethodofapproachinga text. Withthislatercritic,as
ere, thewhole project begins with an attemptatidentification on
basiclevel. Butthismostprimitivelevelistheoneinwhichthere
mindtomind, acurrentwhichhasonlytobefollowed. ToidentifY
workmeanshere,forthecritic, toundergothesameexperiences,
with themostelementary. Onthe level of indistinctthought, of
emotions, images, andobsessionsofpreconsciouslife, itispossible
critic to repeat, within himself, that life ofwhich the work
version, inexhaustibly revealing and suggestive. And yetsuch an
could not take place, in a domain so hardto define, without
powerfulauxiliary. This auxiliaryis language. Thereisnocritical
tion which is notprepared,realized, andincarnated through the
language. The deepest sentient life, hidden in the recesses of
thoughts, could never be truly transposed, save for themediation
.
5. French critic(1886-1925),editoroftheinflu_
entia]journalLll Nouvelle ReVile
6. Frenchcritic(J882- I939),associated
journalLa NOlwe11e Revue
PHENOMENOLOGY OF READING / 1327
fLwhole series ofequivalences to arise. To c1escribe this phe-
.,s ittakes place in the criticism I am speakingofnow, I canno
Qo[!tentwiththeusualdistinctionsbetweenthesignifier(signifiant)
fled{signifier for whatwoulditmeanheretosaythatthelan-
criticsignifies the language ofthe literarywork? Thereis not
similitude, Words have attaineda veritablepowerofrecrea-
area sortofmaterialentity, solid and three-dimensional, thanks
. lifeofthesensesis reborn,findinginanetworkofverbal
thevery.conditionsnecessaryforitsreplication.Inotherwords,
of.qiticism herededicatesitselfto thebusinessofmimicking
,tneapperceptualworld oftheauthor. Strangelyenough,thelan-
this sort ofmimetic criticism becomes even more tangible, more
theauthor'sown;thepoetryofthecriticbecomesmore"poetic"
..._ers. This verbal mimesis, consciouslyexaggerated, is in noway
does it tendatall toward thepastiche.And yet it can reachits
insofaras thatobjectis deeplyenmeshedin, almostconfounded
matter.Thisformofcriticismisthusabletoprovideanadmi-
ofthevitalsubstratumwhichunderliesall thought,andyet
incapableofattainingandexpressingthoughtitself. This criticism
Mpedandhinderedbythelanguagewhichitemploys; helped,inso-
languageallows ittoexpress thesensuouslifeinitsoriginalstate,
is,stjIIalmostimpossibleto,distinguishbetweensubjectandobject;
hindered, too, because this l;lnguage, too congealed and opaque,
;lenditselfto analysis, andbecausethesubjectivitywhichitevokes
is as thoughforevermiredinitsobjects.Andsotheactivityof
"_ thiscase.is somehowincomplete,inspiteoUtsremarkablesuc-
lentification relative to objects is accomplished almost too well:
LO, subjectivityit isbarelysketched.
then, is thecriticismofJean-PierreRichard.
s
'
,extremeform,in theabolitionofanysubjectwhatsoever, thiscriti-
. to extractfrom a literary work a certain condensed matter, a
essence.
what, then, would be a criticism whichwould be thereverse which
lu;;abolish the object and extract from the texts their most subjective
Ints?
,.conceivesucha criticism, Imustleaptotheoppositeextreme. Iimag-
criticallanguagewhichwo.uld attemptdeliberatelytostriptheliterary
ofanythingconcrete.Insl):chacriticismitwouldbetheartfulaim
ofeverysentence,ofevery.metaphor, ofeveryword, toreduce
nothingnessofabstractiontheimagesoftherealworldreflected
If literature,bydefinition,isalreadyatransportationofthereal
untealityofverbalcpnception, thenthecriticalactin thiscasewill
a transposition ofthis transposition; thus taising to the second
"de-realization"ofbeingthroughlanguage. Inthisway, themind
maximumdistancebetweenits thoughtandwhatis.Thankstothis
and to the.consequent dematerialization ofevery object thus
owed to the Swiss linguist FER- meaning).
DE SAUSSURE (1857-1913), who divided 8. French critic (b. 1922), a member of the
intoSignified (themeaningconveyed)and GenevaSchoo\.
(the sound or symbol that conveys that,
1328 J GEORGES POl/LET
pushed to the vanishing pOint, the universe represented in this,
seems notso much theequivalentoftheperceivableworld, orof
representation,as ratheritsimagecrystallizedthroughaprocess
intellectualization. Here criticism is no longermimesis; itis the
ofallliteraryformstothesamelevelof insignificance.Inshort,
thisattemptedannihilationofliteratureby thecriticalact?
save a consciousness ceaselessly confronting the hollowness
objects, which yield withoutresistance, andan absolutely tran""".
guage, which, by coatingall objects with thesameclearglaze,
("likeleavesseenfarbeneaththeice")appearto beinfinitelyfar
thelanguageofthis criticism playsaroleexactlyopposite to the
hasinJean-PierreRichard's criticism. Itdoes indeedbringabout
cationofcriticalthoughtwiththementalworldrevealedbythe
butitbringsitaboutattheexpenseoftheworkEverythingis..
bythedominionofaconsciousnessdetachedfromanyobject,a
consciousness,functioningallalone, somewherein thevoid.
Is thereanyneed tosaythatthis hyper-criticismis thecritical
MauriceBIanchot?9
Ihavefounditusefultocomparethecriticism ofRichardtothe
ofBlanchot. Ilearnfrom thisconfrontationthatthecritic'slinguisL!'"
ratuscan,justas he chooses, bringhim closerto theworkunder
ation, or can remove him from it indefinitely. If he so wishes,
approximate very closely the work in question,thanks to a verbal
whichtransposesintothecritic'slanguagethesensuousthemesof
Orelse hecanmakelanguageapurecrystallizingagent, anabsolute
lucence, which, suffering no opacity to exist between.subject and
promotestheexerciseofthecognitivepoweronthepartofthesubjecL:
at the same time accentuating in the object those charae
emphasizeitsinfinitedistancefrom thesubject.Inthefirstofthetwo
criticismachieves a remarkablecomplicity, butatthe riskoflosingits
imumlucidity; in thesecondcase,itresults in themostcomplete
tion; the maximum lUcidity thereby achieved only confirms a
insteadofaunion. .
Thus criticismseems to oscillatebetween twopossibilities: a union
outcomprehension, andacomprehensionwithoutunion. Imay
completely with what I am reading that I lose consciousness not
myself, butalsoofthatotherconsciousnesswhichlives within the
proximityblindsmebyblockingmyprospect. ButImay, onthe
separate myself so completely from what I am contemplating
thoughtthusremovedtoadistanceassumestheaspectofabeingwith
Imay neverestablishanyrelationshipwhatsoever. Ineithercase, the
readinghas delivered mefrom egocentricity: another'sthoughtinhabus
orhauntsme, butin thefirst case I lose myselfin thatalien world,
theotherwekeepourdistanceand,refusetoidentify.Extremecloseness
extremedetachmenthave thenthesameregrettableeffectofmaking
shortofthetotalcriticalact:thatis tosay, theexplorationofthat
interrelationshipwhich, through thenlediationofreadingandof
is establishedto ourmutualsatisfactionbetweentheworkreadand
9, Frenchwriterand critic(b. 1907),associatedwithpostwarphenomeilOlogicalcriticism.
PHENOMENOLOGY OF READING J 1329
''extremeproximityandextremeseparationeachhavegravedisadvan-
yet theyhave theirprivileges as well. Sensuous thoughtis privi-
move atonceto theheartoftheworkandtoshareitsownlife;clear
.Drivileged to conferonits objectsthe highestdegreeofintelligi-
sorts ofinsight are here distinguishable andmutuallyexclusive:
penetration by the senses and penetration by the reflective con-
Now ratherthancontrastingthese twoforms ofcriticalactivity,
notbe some way, Iwonder, notofpracticingthemsimultane-
wouldbeimpossible, butatleastofcombiningthemthrougha
reciprocationandalternation?
this perhaps the method used today by Jean Starobinski?' For
itwouldnotbedifficulttofindinhisworkanumberoftextswhich
toMauriceBlanchot.LikeBlanchothedisplaysexceptionallucid-
an acuteawareness ofdistance. And yet hedoes notquiteabandon
to'Blanchot'shabitualpessimism.Onthecontrary,heseemsinclined
even at times to a pleasantutopianism. Starobinski'sintellect
is analogous to thatofRousseau,
2
yearningforanimmediate
ofall beings toeachotherwhichwouldenablethemto under-
otherinanecstatichappiness. Fromthispointofview, isnotthe
criticism precisely represented by thefete citadine (streetcelebra-
champetre (rusticfeast)? There is amilieu ora momentin the
,.__ whicheveryonecommunicateswitheveryone else, inwhich hearts
enlikebooks.Onamoremodestscale,doesn'tthesamephenomenon
inreading? Does not one being open its innermost self? Is not the
enchanted by this opening? In the criticism ofStarobinskiwe
crystalline tempoofmusic, thatpuredelightinunderstand-
perfect sympathy between an intelligence which enters and that
whichwelcomesit.
momentsofharmony, thereis nolongeranyexclusion,noinside
ContrarytoBlanchot'sbelief,perfecttranslucencedoesnotresult
o;:paIGtUon. On the contrary, with Starobinski, all is perfect agreement,
the pleasure ofunderstandingand ofbeing understood. More-
suchpleasure, howeverintellectualitmaybe,is nothereexclusivelya
ofthemind. Fortherelationshipestablishedonthislevel between
and critic is not a relationship between pure minds. It is rather
incarnatebeings, andtheparticularitiesoftheirphysicalexistence
not obstacles to understanding, butrathera complex ofsupple-
signs, a veritable language which must be deciphered and which
mutual comprehension. Thus for Starobinski,asmuchphysician
thereisareadingofbodies whichislikenedtothereadingof minds.
'otofthesamenature,nordoes.itbringtheintelligencetobearonthe
'area of human knowledge. But for the'critic who practices it, this
provides theopportunityforareciprocatingexchangebetweendif-
types oflearningwhich have, perhaps,differentdegrees oftranspar-
iarobinski's criticism, then, displays great flexibility. Rising at times to
heights ofmetaphysics, itdoes notdisdain the farthestreaches ofthe
critic (b. 1920),psychiatrist,historianof 2. Jean.Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), Swiss-
and memberoftheGenevaSchool. born Frenchphilosopherand author.
&. '-'VL..l:."l;".
subconScious. Itis.sometimes>intimate, sometimesdetached;
thedegrees ofidentification and.nonjdentification. Butitsfinal
seems.,to consist In a,Sort ofwithdrawal, contradistinctionWit'
aCcord. Afteran initialintimacyWith theobjectunderstudy,.
has finally todetachitself, to move on, butthis timein;solitude.
seethis,withdrawalas a failure ofsympathybutratheras away
theencumbrances.oftooprolongeqa life in common.Above all
an acute need toestablish bearings",to adopt thejudicious
assess thefruits ofproximitybyexaminingthemata distance.
binski's criticism always ends Withaview from afar, orrather
forwhilemOvingawayithasalsomovedimperceptiblytOward
(surplombante)' position. Does this mean thatStarobinski's
Blanchot's is doomed to endinaphilosophyofseparation?
mustbeconceded,anditis nocoincidencethatStarobinski
cialcarethe themesofmelancholyandnostalgia. HisCriticism"
dudeswith a doublefareweU. Butthisfarewell is exchanged.by
whohave begunbyJivingtogether;andtheoneleftbehind
illuminatedbythatCriticalintellectwhichmoveson.
ThesolefaultwithwhichImightreproach.suchcriticismisthe
easewith whichitpenetrateswhatitilluminates.
BydintofseeinginliterarywOI:ksonlYthe thoughtswhich
Starobinski'scriticismsomehowpassesthrough theiriEorms, not
them, itis true, butwithoutpausing on the way. Under.its
wo.rks lose theiropacity,theirsolidity,theirobjectivedimenSion;
palacewallswhfch becometransparentincertainfairytales.An
that the ideal actofcriticism mustseize (andreproduce) that q
tionship betweenanobject anda mindwhichis thework itself"
theactofcriticism succeed when it suppresses one ofthe (polar)
this relationship?,
Mysearchmustcontinue, then, fora,criticism in which this
subsists.. Could it perhaps be the criticism ofMarcelRaymond
Rousset?3 Raymond:s criticismaI:ways:recognizes thepresenceofa
reality, both mentaland formal. Itstrives to comprehend almost
neouslyaninner.experien.ceandaperfectedform. Ontheonehand,
allowshimself-to beabsorhe.dWithsuchcompleteself-forgetful
thoughtofanother.Buttheother;s thou,ghtisgraspednotatits
at'itsmostobscure,atitsdoudiestpoint"atthepointatwhichitis
to beingamereself-awarenessscarcelyperce,ived by thebeingwhich
tainsit;and.whichyettotheeyesofthecriticseemsthesoleme.ans
e
bywhichg canpenetratewithintheprecinctsofthealien mind.
But Raymond's anotheraspect;,which is precis"",
reverseoEthis,confusedidentificationofthecritic'sthoughtwiththe
criticized,It isthen thereflective,contemplationofaformalreality
theworkitself. Theworkstandsbefore thecritical asa
object, which is in fact an enigma, an external thing existing in
with.which thereis nopossibilityofidentificationnor,ofinnetknowle(
ThusRaymondperceivessometimes asubject, sometimesan _
subjectis puremind: it is asheerindefinablepresence, analmost
". '. ....

3. Raymond(189.7-1981)and Rousset(b. 1910), bothSwisscriticsandmembersofIhe,Geneva
PHENOMENOLOGY OF READING I 1331
j byveryyirtue,ofitsabseneeof,form,it becomespossible
tmind to penetrate. The.work, on .the contrary, exists only
form,butthisdefinitionlimitsit,enclosesitwithinitsown
same-timeconstrainingthemindwhichstudiesittoremain
,that,ifon,theonehandthecriticalthoughtofRaymond
selfwithinanundefinedsubjectivity, ontheotherittendsto
.before an impenetrableobjectivity.
to submit his own subjectivity to thatofanother, and
in the obscurest depths ofeverymentalentity, the
islesswellequippedtopenetratethe,obstaclepresented
",surfaceofthe,works. He thenfinds himselfmarkingtime,
Circlesaroundthe'work, as aroundthe,vaseorthestatuemen-
I Does Raymond then establish an insurmountable partition
tworealities-subjective, objective-::cunified though theymay
No,indeed,.atleastnotinhis bestessays, sinceinthem,by
itiveapprehensionofthe text andparticipation by the critic.in
(e in the,poet'suseoflanguage, thereappearssomekindof
objectiveaspectsoftheworkandthe:undefinedsubjectivity
it.Alinknotto beconfusedwithapurerelationofidentity.
oftheformal aspectsoftheworkbecomessomehowananae
by meansofwhichitbecomespossiblefor thecritic to go,
beyond the formal aspects.it presents. Nevertheless this
presentedbyRaymondasadialecticalprocess.Theusual
hismethodofcriticismisone.ofplenitude,andevenofa
ilenitude. Acertainfulness ofexperience detectedinthe'poetand
mind of.the critic, is connected bythelatterwith a certain
form;'butwhy thisisso, andhowitdoesbecomeso, is never
Hained.
.Jtthen togoonestepfurther?Thisis whatis attemptedby
aformerstudent.ofRaymond andperhapshis.closestfriend.
1:ledicates himselftothetaskofdiscemingthestructureofaworkas
depthofanexperience.Onlywhatessentiallymatterstohiinjsto
a connection between the objective reality ofthe work and the
whichgivesitshape;Aworkis.,notexplainedforhim,asfor
uralists,by-theexclusive.interdependenceoftheebjectiveelements
(!:omposeit.Hedoesnotseeinitafortuitous.combination,interpreted
'i as ifjtwere anapriori organization.Thereisnotinhiseyes.any
f-the workwithoutaprincipleofsystematizationwhichoperatesiri
withthatworkandwhichisevenincludedinit; Inshort,thereis
withoutacenterwhichis thespider. Ontheotherhand,itis
[questionofgoingfrom theworktothe,psychologyoftheauthor,butof
" within the.sphereofthework, from theobjective elementssys-
arranged,to acertainpowerof-organization,inherentin.thework
thelattershowed itselfto be.anintentional;consciousnessdeter-
its.arrangementsandsolvingits problems. SothaLitwould,scarcely
oftermstosaythatitspeaks,bymeansofitsstructuralelements,
language, thankstowhichitdisclosesitselfandmeansnothing
.Such,thenisthecriticalenterprise.ofJeanRousset.Itsetsitselfto
bjectiveelementsoftheworkinordertoaWiin,beyondthem,areal-
norobjective,Writtendown howeverinforms andexpressing
1332 I GEORGES POULIn
itselfbymeansofthem.Thustheunderstandingofformsmustnot
merelyto therecordingoftheirobjectiveaspects.As F cmon
o 4
from thepointofviewofarthistory, thereis a"lifeofforms"
onlyinthehistoricdevelopmentwhichtheydisplayfrom
withineachsinglework,inthemovementbywhichformstend
times to stabilize and become,static, and sometimes to change
another.Thusthetwo contradictoryforces which arealways at
literarywriting, thewill tostabilityandtheproteanimpulse,help
ceive by theirinterplayhowmuchforms aredependentonwhat
called a shaping power which determines them, replaces them
scendsthem.Theteachingof Raymondfinds thenitsmostsatisfying
in thecriticalmethodofJeanRousset,amethodwhichleadsthe
thecontinuouslychangingfrontiersofform towhatis beyondform.
It is fitting then to conclude this inquiryhere, since ithas
goal, namelyto desCribe, relyingona series ofmoreorlessadequate
pIes, acriticalmethodhavingasguidingprincipletherelation
ject and object. Yet there remains One last In order to
theinterrelationship between subjectandobject, which is the
all creativeworkandoftheunderstandingofit, twoways, atleast
cally, areopened,oneleadingfrom theobjects tothesubject,the
theSubjecttotheobjects.ThuswehaveseenRaymondandRousset,
perception oftheobjective structuresofaliterarywork, striveto
subjectiveprinciplewhich upholdsit. But,inso dOing, theyseem to.
nizetheprecedenceofthesubjectOveritsobjects.WhatRaymondand
set are searching for in the objective and formal aspects ofthe
somethingwhichisprevioustotheworkandonwhichthework
its very existence. So that the method which leads from the object
subject does not differradically at bottom from the one which leads-
subjecttoobject,sinceit doesreallyconsistingoingfromSubjectto
through theobject. Yet thereis theriskofoverlookingan important
Theaimofcriticismis notachievedmerelybytheunderstandingof
playedbythesubjectinitsinterrelationwithobjects.Whenreadinga
work, thereis amomentwhenitseemstomethattheSubjectpresent
workdisengagesitselffromall thatsurroundsit,andstandsalone.Had
once.theintuitionofthis,whenviSitingtheScuoladeSanRoccoin
oneofthehighestsummitsofart,wherethereareassembledsomany
ingsofthesamepainter,Tintoretto?6Whenlookingatall thesemasterple
broughttheretogetherandrevealingsomanifestlytheirunityof inspirati
IhadsuddenlytheimpreSSion ofhavingreachedthe. commonessence
entin all the works ofa greatmaster, an essence which I was not
.perceive,except.whenemptyingmymindofalltheparticularimages
by the artist. I became aware ofa SUbjective power at work in aU
pictures, and yet never so clearly understood by my mind as when I
forgottenall theirparticularfigurations.
Onemayaskoneself: Whatis this subjectleftstandingin isolation
all examination ofa literary work? Is it the individual genius ofthe
4. Henri FodUon (1881-1943), French art and
culturalhistorial);hetheorizedtheevolutionofatt
English Romantic poet and critic; the
fo
l1lls
in Vie desformes (Life of Forms, 1934).
.hereis to his theoryof imaginati!)n.
5. SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE (1772-1834),
6. Jacopo Robusti (1518-1594), Italian
knownasTintoretto.
JEAN-PAUL SARTRE I J333
inhis work, yet having an invisible life independent ofthe
it, asValery7 thinks, ananonymousand abstractconsciousness
in its aloofness, over the operations ofall more concrete con-
Whateverit may be, I am constrained to acknowledge that all
activitypresentin a literarywork is not entirelyexplainedby its
forms andobjectswithin thework. Thereis intheworka
_ profoundly engaged in objective forms; and there is, at
forsakingallforms, asubjectwhichrevealsitselftoitself{and
Jtstranscendenceoverall whichis reflectedinit. At thispoint,no
any longerexpress it, no structurecanany longer define it; it is
in its ineffability and in its fundamental indeterminacy. Such is
'hereasonwhy thecritic,inhiselucidationofworks, is hauntedby
tendenceofmind. Itseems thenthatcriticism, inordertoaccom-
in this effort ofdetachmentfrom itself, needs toannihilate,
momentarilytoforget, theobjectiveelementsofthework, andto
to theapprehensionofa subjectivitywithoutobjectivity.
(1871-1945),Frenchpoet,critic,and essayist.
JEAN-PAUL SARTRE
1905-1980
Sartre was an eminent Frenchphilosopher, novelist, and dramatistwho
literarycriticismandbiography,includingbookson thenineteenth- and
FrenchwritersCHARLES BAUDELAIRE, GustaveFlaubert,STEPHANE
JeanGenet.Duringhislifetime,hebecameknownworldwideforhis
ofexistentialism,whichfocusedon thehumanexperienceoffreedom
,ponsibilityin a godless universe. ForSartre, "existence is priorto essence":
world and humanna.ture.possess.no nxed meaning, human beings are
for their own choices and actions. The experience ofliterature, Sartre
eciselytheexperienceofthisfreedom,anexperiencethatdraws together
readerintothecollaborative, future-orientedprojectofhumanexistence,
alwaysina stateofbecoming.
,n.inParis,Sartrewasraisedbyhismotherandhisgrandfather,bisfatherhaving
i,year after his birth. As a young man, hewas educatedat theelite Louis-Ie-
preparatoryschoolandtheLycee HenriIV. Laterhe trainedinphilosophyat
it)l(\ prestigiousEcoleNormaleSuperieure,receivinghispostgraduatedegreein1929.
time he met his famous intellectual associate and lifelong companion,the
existential philosopherSIMONE DE BEAUVOIR. Until the outbreakofWorld
.in 1939, Sartre taughtphilosophyat various secondaryschools. From 1940
I hewas aprisonerofwarin Germany,andafterbeingreleased hejoinedthe
Resistance;until1944heworked as ajoumalistfortheliberationofFrance,
subversive undergroundpublications. Philosophically, Sartre'sexperienceof
ledhimto adeeperappreciationofhumanfreedom andresponsibility.Polit-
,itledhimtoaMarxistposition.SoonafterthewarSartreandBeauvoirfounded
prestigious journal Les Temps MQdernes, which continues to be ari important
periodicalinFrance.
1969