CRITICAL EXCHANGE # 13:
SPRING 1983
"Literary Change / Critical Change"
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i
General Editor's Preface
JAMES J. SOSNOSKI
Guest Editor's Preface: "Theoretical Writing as a
Kind of Change"
SUSAN MERRITT ELLIOTT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
"A Propaedeutic for Literary Change"
RALPH COHEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
"A Comment on Professor Cohen's 'Propaedeutic for
,
...................
"Literary Change and Literariness"
MICHAEL RIFFATERRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
"Changing the Terms: Identity Crisis in the
Literary Process"
JERRY ALINE FLIEGER
39
"The Generic Basis of Narrative History oE Literary
Change"
JAMES E. FORD.
48
"Genre and the Problem of Character in Literary
Change"
PATRICIA HARKIN
56
Literary Change'"
HAYDENWHITE
................
..................
..................
"Genre and Literary Change"
GREGORY S, JAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . An. .Overview"
.......
Letter to the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"Literary Change in Literary History:
TAKIS POULAKOS
Editorial Assistants
Barbara Biesecker
Takis Poulakos
18
64
74
82
(ZNERAL EDITOR'S PREFACE
James J. Soanoski
C r i t i c a l Exchan e is a j o u r n a l of r e s e a r c h i n progress.
It a t m o b r i d g z t h e gap between t h e moment of c r i t i c a l
a r t i c u l a t i o n and t h e time of i t s p u b l i c a t i o n . Under the ausp i c e s of the S o c i e t y f o r C r i t i c a l Exchange (SCE), s c h o l a r s
a c t i v e l y involved i n r e s e a r c h i n g i s s u e s c e n t r a l t o the development of contemporary l i t e r a r y theory a r e brought t o g e t h e r t o
"exchange" t h e i r views. Within months of the e v e n t , an e d i t e d
r e c o r d of t h e i r colmunal i n q u i r y i s published i n t h e s e pages.
This is t h e f i r s t i s s u e of C r i t i c a l Exchange ( E l . It
i s numbered 13 t o r e f l e c t t h e circumstance t h a t i t continues
SCE Reports, which, i n t h e p a s t , contained the proceedings of
SCE's MLA s e s s i o n . This i s s u e is devoted t o t h e 1982 MLA
It r e p r i n t s P r o f e s s o r Cohen's
s e s s i o n on l i t e r a r y change.
e s s a y and i n c l u d e s the commentaries of P r o f e s s o r s R i f f a t e r r e ,
White, F l i e g e r , Ford, Harkin and Jay. Susan E l l i o t t , Clark
U n i v e r s i t y , s e r v e d a s guest e d i t o r .
-
CEx 14 w i l l p u b l i s h t h e proceeding of "A Symposium w i t h
F r e d r ~ ~ a m e a o nwhich
"
was h e l d i n t h e F a l l of 1982 a t Miami
U n i v e r s i t y i n Oxford, Ohio. It w i l l f e a t u r e J a m s o n ' s "The
Ideology of Space" and w i l l include commentaries on Jameson'a
work. Steve Nimia, Miami U n i v e r s i t y , w i l l be g u e s t e d i t o r of
t h i s issue.
C r i t i c a l Exchan e i s c i r c u l a t e d only among t h e members of
is
orC r i t f c a l Exchange. The Spring i s s u e of
the S
u s u a l l y devoted t o the SCE MLA s e s s i o n . The F a l l i s s u e i s u s u a l l y
devoted t o some o t h e r SCE sponsored event. Any member of SCE is
welcome t o develop a proposal f o r an "exchange"; and, i f i t is
accepted by t h e E d i t o r i a l Board, t o g u e s t e d i t t h e proceedings.
I f you have an i d e a f o r a n "exchange ,"please w r i t e o r c a l l .
Correspondence regarding
should be d i r e c t e d t o :
(513) 523-8574
James J . Sosnoski
General E d i t o r ,
o r 529-2328
The S o c i e t y f o r C r i t i c a l Exchange
P. 0. Box 475
Oxford, Ohio 45056
GUEST EDITOR'S PREFACE:
TREORETICAL WRITING AS A KIND OF CHANCX
Susan Merritt E l l i o t t
Innovative change r e q u i r e s t o l e r a t i o n of u n c e r t a i n t y :
i n o r d e r t o i n i t i a t e change, a s opposed t o p a s s i v e l y allowing
i t t o t a k e p l a c e , one must engage i n a c t i v i t i e s whose outcome
one may not be a b l e t o p r e d i c t . Merely waiting f o r change t o
happen without doing anything oneself t o bring i t about, a s
Vladimir and E s t r a g o n do i n Waiting f o r Godot, r e s u l t s i n
p a i n f u l i n s e c u r i t y and l o s s of s e l f - G f x e i n one's own
p a s t and c u r r e n t p r a c t i c e s - w h i c h has becolde commonplace.
Engaging i n a c t i v i t i e s merely " t o p a s s the time," moreover,
produces no change of s t a t u s : the s t a t u s quo p e r s i s t s , and
we "do n o t move
."
Active p u r s u i t of new modes of thought and t h e w r i t i n g
behaviors cormnunicating them, b u i l t upon the o l d y e t d i f f e r e n t
from them, e n t a i l s taking r i s k s . These r i s k s may seem t o
produce new modes of c e r t a i n t y ; even t h e kind t h a t holds t h a t
nothing i s c e r t a i n can f e e l l i k e a new c e r t a i n t y . Take the
example of the concept of e n t r o p y ; borrowed from physics, i t
has been a p p l i e d t o modes of thought i n o t h e r d i s c i p l i n e s ,
i n c l u d i n g t h a t of l i t e r a r y s t u d i e s . While e n t r o p y i s a meas u r e of u n c e r t a i n t y , a s a c o n a t r u c t i t s e l f , i t s e r v e s some
as a certitude.
Some p r a c t i t i o n e r s of o u r p r o f e s s i o n , more a b l e t o
q u e s t i o n t h e i r own p r a c t i c e s and t o e n j o y the challenge and
e x c i t e m n t g e n e r a t e d by t h e q u e s t i o n i n g and formulating of
answers than o t h e r s who become mired down i n a n x i e t y and
self-doubt when t h e s t a b i l i t y of their systems o f b e l i e f a r e
t h r e a t e n e d , become i n n o v a t o r s , l e a d e r s of o t h e r s w i l l i n g t o
l i s t e n , t o h e a r and t o l e a r n , and perhaps then t o go on t o
become i n n o v a t o r s themselves.
Such an i n n o v a t o r is P r o f e s s o r Ralph Cohen, whose e s s a y
"A Propaedeutic f o r L i t e r a r y Change" i s the f o c u s of t h i s
( f i r s t ) i s s u e of C r i t i c a l Exchange. Ralph Cohen i s the
l e a d i n g spokespereon f o r new d i r e c t i o n s i n l i t e r a r y study.
As e d i t o r of New L i t e r a r y H i s t o r y , he h a s heralded new modes
of thought, b r i n g i n g them t o h i s r e a d e r ' s a t t e n t i o n and t h u s
n u r t u r i n g them.
Each of the e s s a y s w r i t t e n a s reapensea t o P r o f e s s o r Cohen's
paper and a l s o p r e s e n t e d a t the MLA Convention i n Los Angeles,
i n December 1982, i l l u s t r a t e s s e v e r a l of h i s key assumptions
about t h e nature of change, t h e kinds of change, and explanat i o n s of change: (1) " t h a t what is ' l i t e r a r y ' is what a u t h o r s ,
c r i t i c s , t h e o r i s t s have i d e n t i f i e d a t t h e same time o r a t d i f f e r e n t times a s ' l i t e r a r y ; ' " ( 2 ) " t h a t change can be s e e n only a g a i n s t
c o n t i n u i t y ; " (3) t h a t i n o r d e r t o account f o r "the k i n d s of change"
t h a t he proposes t o d i s c u s s , "the term ' t e x t ' w i l l n o t s e r v e , "
and "what i s needed i s t o r e d e f i n e every l i t e r a r y ' t e x t ' a s a
member of a genre;" ( 4 ) t h a t "genre can be understood a s s family
term"; ( 5 ) " t h a t t h e r e e x i s t s no such phenomenon a s ' w r i t i n g '
which e s c a p e s forms of genres;" and (6) t h a t "a theory of l i t e r a r y
change w i l l e x p l a i n t h a t such a s h i f t i n t h e g e n e r i c h i e r a r c h y
and i n t h e r e c o n c e p t u a l i z i n g of genres [seen a s now t a k i n g p l a c e ]
i s a form of r e s i s t a n c e t o and subversion of received assumptions
and p r a c t i c e s of explanation."
The response e s s a y s published i n t h i s i s s u e a l s o i l l u s t r a t e
Cohen's p o i n t t h a t "any attempt t o d i s c u s s change i n a genre
cannot avoid e x p l a n a t o r y models f o r h i s t o r y o r
system
p o l i t i c s o r anthropology, o r some o t h e r f i e l d i n which change
i s a f a c t o r . " For example, Hayden White's e x p l a n a t o r y model-the n a t u r a l family--comes from biology and s o c i a l h i s t o r y ( i n
response t o White, Cohen e x p l a i n s t h a t he himself had the law
i n mind); Michael R i f f a t e r r e t a k e s h i s models from l i n g u i s t i c s
and r e a d i n g theory and poetry; J e r r y Aline F l i e g e r ' s e x p l a n a t o r y
models come from psychoanalysis, Marxism, and l i t e r a r y c r i t i cism; Gregory J a y , James E. Ford, and P a t r i c i a Harkin t a k e
t h e i r models from l i t e r a r y o r c r i t i c a l h i s t o r y and theory.
...
What Cohan w r i t e s about " t h e n a t u r e of l i t e r a r y change ,"
then, can be seen a s applying t o t h e s e e s s a y s too: "The
nature of l i t e r a r y change is t h u s a s t u d y of a l t e r a t i o n s
which can only be understood i n terms of t h e p e r s i s t e n c e of
non-altered elements of frameworks which provide an i d e n t i t y ; "
" l i t e r a r y change i s always connected w i t h o r c h a r a c t e r i z e d
by concepts of knowledge, language, and s t r u c t u r e t h a t
d e f i n e some changes a s v a r i a t i o n s of t h e s e and o t h e r s a s
c o n t r a d i c t i n g , r e j e c t i n g , o r o v e r t u r n i n g them" (my emphases).
"The p e r s i s t e n c e of non-altered elements of frameworks
which provide an i d e n t i t y " a r e n o t , f o r Cohen, t h e r e f o r e ,
iii
s o l e l y t e x t u a l elements b u t a l s o c o n t e x t u a l elements: concept u a l forms e x p r e s s e d i n w r i t i n g and hence themselves members
of genres.
At t h e end of h i s e s s a y , "The Generic B a s i s of N a r r a t i v e
H i s t o r y of L i t e r a r y Change," James Ford "would even v e n t u r e t o
p r e d i c t t h a t i n s p i t e of t h e i r incommensurate a i m , t h e most
r a d i c a l c o n t e x t u a l i s t w i l l be a b l e t o f i n d much i n the e s s a y
t o a p p r o p r i a t e i n t h e s e r v i c e of such concepts a s impermanence,
d i f f e r e n c e , t r a c i n g s , and i n t e r t e x t u a l i t y . "
While White,
R i f f a t e r r e , Jay, I l i e g e r , and Harkin have found much i n t h e
e s s a y t o a p p r o p r i a t e i n t h e s e r v i c e of such concepts, both
R i f f a t e r r e and F l i e g e r e x p r e s s t h e most concern about what
Cohen may be saying about what is " l i t e r a r y , " d e s p i t e h i s
expressed emphasis t h a t what i s " l i t e r a r y " is s u b j e c t t o t h e
kind of change he d e f i n e s . Their responses i n d i c a t e t h e kind
of " r e s i s t a n c e " and "subversion" of which Cohen speaks w i t h
r e g a r d t o c u r r e n t conceptual changes i n l i t e r a r y theory.
Thus, i n " L i t e r a r y Change and L i t e r a r i n e s s . " R i f f a t e r r e
s t r e s s e s t h e importance of t h e r e a d e r i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n of
t h e l i t e r a r y and t h e f u n c t i o n of i n t e r t e x t u a l i t y i n t h e reading
of l i t e r a t u r e , because he f e e l s t h a t Cohen o m i t s these consid e r a t i o n s . Cohen's p o s i t i o n , i t seems t o me, would r e g a r d
t h e reader a s a s o c i a l convention of l i t e r a t u r e a l s o s u b j e c t
t o change.
I n "Changing t h e Terms: I d e n t i t y C r i s i s i n the L i t e r a r y
Process," F l i e g e r o f t e n t a k e s i s s u e w i t h what s h e p e r c e i v e s
a s Cohen's conservatism, q u i t e o v e r t u r n i n g Ford's p r e d i c t i o n .
Though Cohen e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e s t h a t "change is then a form of
a d a p t a t i o n o r ' r e v o l u t i o n , ' " F l i e g e r argues t h a t from Cohen's
may be construed a s a kind of
"perspective," "change
dismemberment of an ' o r i g i n a l ' corpus, r a t h e r than a process
of a d a p t a t i o n o r growth."
Though Cohen does s a y t h a t
i t i s t h e n a t u r e of l i t e r a r y s t r u c t u r e s t h a t change and pers i s t e n c e a r e present together," Flieger s t i l l perceives a
" b i a s i n f a v o r of t e x t u a l i d e n t i t y " i n h i s p o s i t i o n .
...
".. .
F l i e g e r ' s procedure i s t o look f o r Cohen's assumptions
a s i f they were embedded i n h i s s t a t e m e n t s , t o f e r r e t o u t
what he r e a l l y t h i n k s i s " l i t e r a r y , " r a t h e r t h a n t o t a k e h i s
i n i t i a l d e f i n i t i o n of h i s assumption about what i s " l i t e r a r y "
a t f a c e v a l u e , a s i r o r c a n never s a y what one does i n f a c t
mean. This procedure r e f l e c t s her assumptions about what i s
" l i t e r a r y " (which a r e perhaps based on h e r own f l s ~ m r s i o ni n
psychoanalysis, Marxism, and post-modern l i t e r a t u r e and c r i t i cism).
She t r e a t s Cohen's "Propaedeutic" a s a l i t e r a r y t e x t ,
t r y i n g t o d e f i n e underlying rseanings beneath t h e t e x t , i n t h e
s u b t e x t . As Cohen h a s argued i n "The Statements L i t e r a r y Texts
Do Not Make",
we ought n o t t o f o r g e t t h a t ' s u b t e x t ' i s a
metaphor f o r a n a u t h o r ' s u n s t a t e d , u n w r i t t e n 'text.'
The a c t u a l
s u b t e x t i s w r i t t e n by t h e c r i t i c , who, i n w r i t i n g i t , becomes
himself an author" (New L i t e r a r y History. 13 [19821. p. 381).
". . .
As Cohen p o i n t s o u t i n t h e "Propaedeutic." "explanations
i n l i t e r a r y study a r e always made i n terms of the aims of the
e x p l a i n e r . " F l i e g e r and a l l the o t h e r w r i t e r s r e p r e s e n t e d h e r e ,
i n c l u d i n g myself and Cohen, i l l u s t r a t e t h i s point.
It i s my
guess t h a t most of t h e r e s i s t a n c e t o what Cohen s a y s h a s t o do
with t h i s n o t i o n , which may be perceived by some a s "contextuAnd while Ford has attempted
a l i s t " o r even " s u b j e c t i v i s t . "
t o p r e d i c t what "the most r a d i c a l c o n t e x t u a l i s t " might w r i t e
i n response t o Cohen's e s s a y , I f i n d t h a t t h e responses seem
t o bear o u t Cohen's own p r e d i c t i o n :
"The p u r s u i t of i n q u i r i e s
i n t o l i t e r a r y change
has an element of the u n p r e d i c t a b l e
If we could p r e d i c t what R i f f a t e r r e o r $White o r any
o t h e r w r i t e r r e p r e s e n t e d here would say, we would n o t need
them t o s a y i t , and t h e r e would be no change.
. . . ."
...
Ford r e j e c t s Cohen's "mixed" concept of genre, s a y i n g
".
.
. no work can 'belong' t o more than one genre i f , a s I
b e l i e v e , a s i n g l e (though p o s s i b l y complex) p r i n c i p l e of aubord i n a t i o n i s the essence of a genre."
I n holding t o t h i s " t r a d i t i o n a l " o r "conservative" p o s i t i o n , however. Ford o f f e r s a
response t o Cohen's own a t t t e m p t t o r e d e f i n e genre which i l l u s t r a t e s t h a t the very attempt a t r e d e f i n i t i o n i s an i n s t a n c e of
l i t e r a r y - c r i t i c a l change, one which Ford himself i s r e s i s t i n g
and subverting.
I n the d i s c u s s i o n of the responses t o h i s e s s a y d u r i n g
the MLA s e s s i o n s . P r o f e s s o r Cohen e x p r e s s e d h i s a p p r e c i a t i o n
of Gregory J a y ' s a t t e m p t , i n "Genre and L i t e r a r y Change," t o
examine Cohen'a own previous w r i t i n g s . J a y ' s essay may be seen,
t h e n , a s an i l l u s t r a t i o n of a kind of w r i t t e n response t h a t
follows a f a m i l i a r c r i t i c a l convention, which i s t h e r e f o r e
i d e n t i f i a b l e : namely, surveying p a s t w r i t i n g s i n o r d e r t o
d e f i n e a context f o r the new a d d i t i o n : "The p r o p o s i t i o n s s e t
f o r t h i n t h i s propaedeutic s u m a r i z e and extend the r h e t o r i c a l
view of l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y p r e v i o u s l y a r t i c u l a t e d by Cohen i n h i s
a n a l y s e s of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century poetry."
Jay
both f o l l o w s and d e p a r t s from t h e c r i t i c a l convention by i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e p a s t work of t h e author ( i n t h i s c a s e , Cohen) i n
t h e c o n t e x t of J a y ' s o m p o s t - s t r u c t u r a l i s t i n t e r e s t s :
"Is
i t t o o s p e c u l a t i v e t o read here a c r i t i c a l a l l e g o r y about
l i t e r a r y change and l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y ? " and he examines Cohen's
f o r m u l a t i o n s of c r i t i c a l concepts a s they r e l a t e t o those of
p a s t and p r e s e n t c r i t i c s (e.g., E l i o t , Harold Bloom). For J a y ,
"one v a l w
of r e c e n t c r i t i c i s m h a s been i t s ingenuity i n
d e t e c t i n g the c o n t i n u i t y of r h e t o r i c a l and conceptual s t r u c t u r e s
t h a t a r e t r a n s g e n e r i c " ; he s e e s Cohen's " r h e t o r i c of genres"
a s a i d i n g the " p r o j e c t " of Harx. Freud, Nietzsche ( " t h e i r e l a b o r a t i o n of a mode f o r a n a l y z i n g , and thus transforming, t h e
hidden agenda o r s t r u c t u r e composing a p p a r e n t l y s t a b l e o r natur a l i d e n t i t i e s " ) , w i t h c e r t a i n l i m i t a t i o n s : "it seems l i m i t e d
when appearing t o r e a s s e r t t h e p r i v i l e g e of r e c e i v e d c a t e g o r i e s
o r t o i d e n t i f y a work w i t h any s i n g l e genre."
Cohen, however,
does emphasize t h e mixed modes of any l i t e r a r y work and t h a t
the g e n e r i c i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s a f f e c t e d by the "aims" o r motives
of c r i t i c s , t h e o r i s t s , and o t h e r authors. While I b e l i e v e t h a t
Cohen would agree w i t h Jay t h a t
the i d e n t i t y of a genre"
i s "an ' e x t r a t e x t u a l ' logos produced by the h i s t o r y of d i f f e r ences i t p u r p o r t s t o o r i g i n a t e and govern," h i s own language
does n o t g e n e r a l l y employ t h e same p o s t - s t r u c t u r a l i s t , convent i o n a l l i n g o ( l i n g u i s t i c code). It i s perhaps Cohen'a adherence
t o a d i f f e r e n t language convention t h a t e n a b l e s Ford t o have
some agreement w i t h him, whereas Ford would d e p a r t a t p r e c i s e l y
the j u n c t u r e t h a t Cohen and Jay i n t e r s e c t .
...
". . .
My own p o i n t i s t h a t t h e s e responses t o Cohen's paper
i l l u s t r a t e h i s p o i n t about t h e concepts of l i t e r a r y change:
one can see i n e a c h response "the p e r s i s t e n c e of non-altered
e l e m e n t s of frameworks which provide an identity"--they a r e
hence recognizable forma o r g e n r e s of w r i t t e n response t o a
w r i t t e n paper on a t h e o r e t i c a l i s s u e ; and they are--at t h e
same time--forms of a d a p t a t i o n o r of ' r e v o l u t i o n ' f o r the given
w r i t e r i n response t o what Cohen has s a i d . A s a n e s s a y , none
i s e x a c t l y the same a s anything e l s e t h a t the a u t h o r has w r i t t e n
before, yet there a r e s i m i l a r i t i e s :
i t i s the nature
of l i t e r a r y s t r u c t u r e s t h a t change and p e r s i s t e n c e a r e p r e s e n t
together."
". . .
White c o n s i d e r s Cohen's e s s a y i n the c o n t e x t of "an
o l d e r humanistic t r a d i t i o n " whose concern was "human beings
i n t h e course of t h e i r s e l f - r e a l i z a t i o n s , " a p e r s o n a l i z a t i o n
He performs a metahistoriof l i t e r a r y - h i s t o r i c a l " e n t i t i e s . "
c a l a n a l y s i s of Cohen's l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y and, hence, extends
h i s already e s t a b l i s h e d approach t o a new subject. R i f f a t e r r e
continues h i s p u r s u i t of the "reader" and t h e " i n t e r t e x t , "
while pursuing now a l s o " l i t e r a r i n e s s " i n response t o Cohen's
s t a t e d p o s i t i o n . F l i e g e r ' s conjunction of psychoanalysis,
Hardsm, and deconstructionism expresses a new conservatism
of her own. Jay surveys the previous w r i t i n g s of Cohen while
adapting an old c r i t i c a l convention t o a newer c r i t i c a l thinking.
Ford considers a p a s t debate between l i t e r a r y c r i t i c s a s a framework f o r placing Cohen's c u r r e n t viewpoint--finding a "generic
b a s i s " f o r i t i n h i s own procedures while he addresses Cohen's
concept of genre. Harkin examines the change i n a l i t e r a r y
convention ("the ingenue conventions of t h e eighteenth-century
e p i s t o l a r y novel") used by three n o v e l i s t s (Richardson. S c o t t ,
and Burney) a s an i n s t a n c e of l i t e r a r y change.
".. .
P a t r i c i a Harkin ends her essay "Genre and the Problem of
Character i n L i t e r a r y Change" by saying,
i t i s not c l e a r
t o me t h a t Mr. White's c o n s t r u c t i o n [ t h a t a new genre i s a
" r e f l e c t i o n " of the changing codes of h i s t o r y w r i t i n g ] 'miscons t r u e s ' the r e l a t i o n between language and genre, a s Cohen charges,
by refusing t o take i n t o account the f a c t t h a t ' i e n r e s a r e c o n s t i t u t e d by l i n g u i s t i c codes t h a t a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t i n t h e i r implicaI would suggest t o her t h a t Cohen may be arguing t h a t
tions.'"
the "implications" of " l i n g u i s t i c codes" a r e " i n c o n s i s t e n t " because a u t h o r s , c r i t i c s , t h e o r i s t s who use the codes f o r w r i t i n g
and o t h e r i n t e r p r e t i v e a c t i v i t i e s a r e not consistent--that t h e i r
p r a c t i c e s change even a s they s t a y the sarae. (This may be seen
through the kind of examination t h a t Jay does with Cohen'a own
w r i t i n g s ; one could do the same with the w r i t i n g s of White and
Riffaterre.)
Their i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the l i n g u i s t i c codes a r e
o f f e r e d i n these c o n s t a n t l y changing, c o n s t a n t l y staying-the-sat=
l i n g u i s t i c codes:
i t i s the n a t u r e of l i t e r a r y s t r u c tures"--and these would include l i n g u i s t i c codes themselves-" t h a t change and p e r s i s t e n c e a r e present together"; "moreover ,"
Cohen argues. "the reading by s c h o l a r s of any p a s t work involves
the imposition of t h e i r own l i n g u i s t i c code upon one of the past."
".. .
Thus, while Harkin examines the l i t e r a r y convention of t h e
ingenue a s used i n the eighteenth-century e p i s t o l a r y novel ( a
genre t h a t post-ighteenth-century
w r i t e r s have named), her
reading of the novels imposes h e r own ( c u r r e n t ) l i n g u i s t i c code
upon t h a t of the p a s t n o v e l i s t . In t h i s way, her code involves
terms from Hayden White t h a t cannot be s a i d t o have been c u r r e n t
vii
i n eighteenth-century w r i t i n g ( o r thinking) and t h e r e f o r e
change the i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h e convention of t h e ingenue even
a s she obaervee its c o n t i n u i t i e s (such a s the ending i n marr i a g e s e n a b l i n g a new s o c i a l order).
That is t o say, her
observations about the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the changes i n t h i s .
p a r t i c u l a r eighteenth-century l i t e r a r y convention (which a t
t h a t time was n o t considered a convention i n t h e aame way a s
i t i s now) a r e p o t e n t i a l l y revolutionary: through her c u r r e n t
examination of i t i n the framework of a t h e o r e t i c a l i n q u i r y ,
the convention ( p a r t of a l i n g u i s t i c code) changes even a s i t
p e r s i s t s . L i t e r a r y ingenues can never appear t h e aame a s they
could before h e r s c r u t i n y of them i n t h i s context.
But what has changed i s not the convention o r even t h e
p r a c t i c e of a convention; what has changed f a her (and now
o u r ) concept of t h e convention. As Hayden White observes i n
Metahistory, which Harkin d e f i n e s a s i n part an examination
of "the tendency of Enlightenment h i s t o r i a n s t o ' i r o n i z e ' h i s the very claim t o have d i s t i n g u i s h e d a
t o r y writing":
p a s t from a p r e s e n t world, implies a conception of the form t h a t
knowledge of t h e present world a l s o must take, i n s o f a r a s i t i s
continuous with t h a t p a s t world. Commitment t o a p a r t i c u l a r form
of knowledge predetermines the kinds of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s one can
make about the present world, the k i n d s of knowledge one can
have of i t , and hence the kinds of p r o j e c t s one can legitimatel y conceive f o r changing t h a t present o r f o r maintaining i t i n
i t s present form i n d e f i n i t e l y " ("Introduction," Metahistor
[Baltimore : The Johns Hopkins University Press.)lZ&,
Given one's own present commitment o r lack of cormeitment t o the
" p a r t i c u l a r form of knowledge" expressed i n t h i s statement by
White, one may o r nay not be able t o accept i t and t o apply i t
t o one's own work. Comitisents may change too.
". . .
However f a r t h e w r i t e r has been able t o progress a f t e r
reading and t h i n k i n g and w r i t i n g about Cohen's p o s i t i o n i s
(1) a measure of how much t h a t w r i t e r has learned from t h e
e s s a y and, ( 2 ) a measure of the h e u r i s t i c =of
the e s s a y
a s a kind of w r i t i n g . The value of Cohen's "Propaedeutic"
i s i n the i n t e r a c t i o n between i t and i t s readers: ultimately.
i n the responses t o rhe paper (and the responses t o the responses
.); i n i t s having helped i t s readers t o experience a change i n t h e i r own consciousness of h i s s u b j e c t , and.
f i n a l l y , i n h i s having been the stimulus of t h e i r g r e a t e r
understanding.
..
viii
Writing has t h i s p o w r t o a f f e c t people's minds, t o a l t e r
t h e i r p o i n t s of view. But while their minds t o some degree
change, t o some degree they a l s o s t a y t h e same: p e r s i s t e n c e
and change together. Changing people's minds--their way of
seeing--is a process. Revolutions--and a l l human revolutiona
a r e conceptual i n nature--take tin. Thcy r e q u i r e both pers i s t e n c e and the v i l l i n g n e s s t o change. And, t o vary the
a l l ~ s i o n , ~ is
r e motive t o t h i s apparent madness of our
t h e o r e t i c a l p u r s u i t s : ue want t h i n g s t o g e t b e t t e r , however
much we may want t h i n g s t o s t a y the sane. While ve aay say
we welcome change, we a l s o may f e a r i t .
Department of English
Clark University
A PROPMUIUTIC FOR LIT&&ARYCRANGZ
Ralph Cohen
I wish i n t h i s s h o r t paper t o touch on t h r e e aspects
of l i t e r a r y change: (1) t h e nature of change; ( 2 ) the
kinds of change; ( 3 ) explanations of change. I do not wish
t o debate the meanings of t h e term " l i t e r a r y , " and I s h a l l ,
t h e r e f o r e , assume t h a t what is " l i t e r a r y " i s what authors,
c r i t i c s , t h e o r i s t s have i d e n t i f i e d a t t h e same time or a t
d i f f e r e n t times a s " l i t e r a r y . " The f a c t t h a t such authorit i e s may disagree about t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of " l i t e r a r y " w i l l
i n no way a f f e c t t h e i n q u i r y I propose. My aim i s t o o f f e r
a propaedeutic f o r a study of l i t e r a r y change.
I.
The Nature of L i t e r a r y Change
Any d i s c u s s i o n of l i t e r a r y change implies t h a t there
i s a s t a b l e e n t i t y which can be d i v i s i b l e i n t o p a r t s . If
a p a r t of t h i s e n t i t y changes, the g e s t a l t can s t i l l be
recognized; there remains a c o n t i n u i t y which i s necessary
f o r change t o t a k e place. Change i s opposed t o t h e concept
of changelessness on the one hand and d i f f e r e n t n e s s on the
other. Changelessness undergoes no a l t e r a t i o n s of i t s
parts.
M f f e r e n t n e s s (and t h i s a p p l i e s t o a t l e a s t two
e v e n t s , s i t u a t i o n s , t e x t s , e t c . ) r e f e r s t o u n r e l a t e d instances. Robert Nisbet p u t s i t t h i s way: "Change i s a
succession of d i f f e r e n c e s i n time i n a p e r s i s t i n g i d e n t i t y . " l
And he goes on t o say t h a t "only when the succession of
d i f f e r e n c e s i n time may be seen t o r e l a t e t o some o b j e c t ,
e n t i t y o r being t h e i d e n t i t y of which p e r s i s t s through a l l
the successive d i f f e r e n c e s , can change be aaid t o have
occurred."2 Niebet i s r e f e r r i n g t o s o c i a l change, and
d i f f e r e n c e s i n time a r e necessary f o r change i n s o c i e t y t o
take place. But i f , f o r example, one discusses changes i n
the meaning of t h e word "wit" i n the Essay on C r i t i c i s m , t h e
idea of time i s of t r i v i a l importance: change of meaning
here i s not governed by time but by context. D i f f e r e n t
c o n t e x t s , d i f f e r e n t meanings. This s t e e r s us a t once t o
f u r t h e r discriminations. Semantic change need n o t imply
change of concept. In f a c t , i t i n d i c a t e s the v a r i a t i o n s
t h a t f a l l within the range of a s i n g l e word. It i s q u i t e
another case t o consider period change o r s t y l e change i n
which concepts undergo a l t e r a t i o n d e s p i t e t h e c o n t i n u i t y
t h a t p e r s i s t s among p a r t s o r elements of a p e r i o d o r a
To r e l a t e l i t e r a r y change t o concepts of thought
"style."
and f e e l i n g o r t o forms of a u t h o r i a l and r e a d e r consciousness
is t o r e a l i z e t h a t l i t e r a r y change is connected w i t h l a r g e r
frameworks of change i n n a t u r e and i n man. Change is one
of t h e ways i n which we d e s c r i b e n a t u r a l e v e n t s : a s e e d
"becomes" a s e e d l i n g , a c a t e r p i l l a r "becomes" a b u t t e r f l y ;
water "becomes" (changes i n t o ) steam. 'Ihese a r e changes of
shape w i t h underlying i d e n t i t i e s . I n t h e f i r s t two examples,
we have a progress i n which t h e change i s seen t o be i n h e r e n t
i n t h e seed o r i n t h e s t a g e s of growth. I n t h e t h i r d , the
transformation r e t a i n s t h e same chemical p r o p e r t i e s though
t h e s e have turned from l i q u i d t o gas. Thus, t h e s t u d y of
change i n a l l t h e s e c a s e s involves frameworks from botany o r
entomology o r chemistry.
Consider t h e problem of i d e n t i t y and form change i n
mythological s t o r i e s . Zeus, b r a , and o t h e r Greek gods and
goddesses a r e c o n s t a n t l y changing shape. Such form change.
whatever i t s aim, i s governed by a consciousness of the
god's power and t h e god's knowledge t h a t whether he becomes
a b i r d o r a b e a s t , he can r e t u r n t o h i s o r i g i n a l form. I n
o t h e r words, t h e language, s o u l , o r s p i r i t r e t a i n s an i d e n t i t y .
I n l i t e r a r y t e x t s , t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s of shape t h a t r e t a i n
e can s e e t h i s c l e a r l y i n Apuleius'
i d e n t i t y a r e common. W
s t o r y w r i t t e n i n t h e second c e n t u r y A.D. of Luciua who i s
transformed i n t o an a s s though he c o n t i n u e s t o t h i n k i n t h e
language of a human being: "though I was no longer Lucius,
and t o a l l appearances a complete a s s , a mere b e a s t of
burden. I s t i l l r e t a i n e d my mental f a c u l t i e s . " 3 Or c o n s i d e r
the famous twentieth-century s t o r y which begins "As Gregor
Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself
Gregor's shape
transformed i n h i s bed i n t o a g i a n t insect."4
has changed but he continues t o t h i n k i n human language and
t o be concerned about h i s human a f f a i r s .
My p o i n t is t h a t change can be seen only a g a i n s t c o n t i n u i t y . and i n l i t e r a r y study, c o n t i n u i t y can be s t u d i e d only
a g a i n s t o r i n c o n t r a s t t o change. The reason f o r t h i s is
t h a t e a c h l i t e r a r y t e x t i s always d i f f e r e n t from a l l o t h e r s
--no m a t t e r how s l i g h t the d i f f e r e n c e . However, t h e term
" t e x t " w i l l not s e r v e me i n accounting f o r t h e k i n d s of change
t h a t I propose t o d i s c u s s . What i s needed i s t o r e d e f i n e
every l i t e r a r y " t e x t " a s a member of a genre. I n doing s o ,
i t is p o s s i b l e t o f i n d t h a t e v e r y t e x t i n c l u d e s some elements
from i t s g e n e r i c p a s t and o t h e r s t h a t r e l a t e t o i t s synchronic
p r e s e n t . Every t e x t t h u s c a n be understood a s multi-dimens i o n a l , possessing elements which c o n s t i t u t e i t a s a member
of one o r more g e n r e s and which r e l a t e i t t o o t h e r t e x t s i n
d i f f e r e n t genres.
I r e a l i z e t h a t numerous contemporary c r i t i c s and t h e o r i s t s
c o n s i d e r received g e n e r i c c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s d i s c r e d i t e d , and I
share t h e i r opinion. But I f i n d no need t o i d e n t i f y genre
w i t h such r e c e i v e d c a t e g o r i e s (those t h a t Maria C o r t i i d e n t i f i e s ) a s " a b s t r a c t , atemporal," d i d a c t i c , o r t h o s e t h a t a r e
" h i s t o r i c , d i a c h r o n i c , inductive."S Maria C o r t i ' s s e m i o t i c
approach i s t o r e l a t e genres t o the "universe of senders and
a d d r e s s e e s " and t o concern h e r s e l f w i t h the problems of the
transformation of genres. Other t h e o r i s t s , l i k e Tzvetan
Todorov and Michel Bakhtin have a l s o redefined "genre" without
a c c e p t i n g the o l d e r and d e f u n c t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . After a l l ,
terms l i k e " t r a c e ," "discourse ," "absence" have been r e d e f i n e d ,
and t h e r e i s no reason t o assume t h a t genre need be excluded
from t h i s process, e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e , a s a c r i t i c a l formulation,
i t makes a c c e s s i b l e an under8 tanding of l i t e r a r y change.
I n t h i s new s e n s e , genre can be understood a s a family
term, c o n s t i t u t e d by elements o r p a r t s such a s m e t e r , charact e r , t y p e s of r h e t o r i c , and d i s c o u r s e t o produce c e r t a i n
e f f e c t s . These elements can, of c o u r s e , appear i n d i f f e r e n t
genres, each genre being i d e n t i f i e d by the n a t u r e of t h e i r
combination and t h e e f f e c t s produced.
It i s not s u r p r i s i n g
t h a t genres d i f f e r i n comprehensiveness and s c a l e . A proverb
can be p a r t of a tragedy o r comedy o r a book of proverbs; a
tragedy t h a t i s considered a performance genre by one c r i t i c
may be considered a poem by another. The Pentateuch may be
considered a s a c r e d n a r r a t i v e a t one time and a s e c u l a r
n a r r a t i v e a t a n o t h e r . My p o i n t i s t h a t "writing" i s i d e n t i f i e d i n g e n e r i c terms and t h a t t h e r e e x i s t s no s u c h phenomenon a s "writing" which e s c a p e s form o r genres. T h i s i n no
way i s meant t o imply t h a t a t e x t belongs only t o one genre.
The Essay on C r i t i c i s m , e.g., i s obviously both a d i d a c t i c
poem and a c r i t i c a l t e x t . Even an a u t h o r may recognize t h a t
h i s t e x t can be i n t e r p r e t e d a s belonging t o more t h a n one
genre. Henry F i e l d i n g c a l l s Joseph Andrews "a comic romance ,"
which he d e f i n e s a s a "comic e p i c poem i n prose; d i f f e r i n g
from comedy, a s t h e s e r i o u s e p i c from tragedy: i t s a c t i o n
being more kxtended and comprehensive; containing a much
l a r g e r c i r c l e of i n c i d e n t s , and i n t r o d u c i n g a g r e a t e r
v a r i e t y of characters."b
Relying on e p i c , comedy, and
romance, t h i s d e f i n i t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h a t f o r F i e l d i n g t h e
work possessed elements from a l l t h r e e g e n r e s t h a t were
combined i n i m i t a t i o n of Don Quixote.
Without proceeding t o s theory of g e n r e , i t may be
a p p r o p r i a t e t o n o t e t h a t because genre h a s some c o n t i n u i t y
of elements and e f f e c t s , i t provides a b a s i s f o r l o c a t i n g
which elements have been changed o r added o r omitted. The
term "genre" i n d i c a t e s t h e kind of changes i t can d e a l
with. The term h a s i t s source i n t h e L a t i n "genus," which
r e f e r s t o "kind" o r " s o r t " o r "species" o r "class."
Its
r o o t terms a r e "genere," "gignere"--to beget and ( i n t h e
p a s s i v e ) t o be born. "Genre" can r e f e r t o a member of a
c l a s s o r a whole c l a s s ; i t can r e f e r t o how a c l a s s i s
c o n s t i t u t e d ( t h e v a r i e d members); i t c a n r e f e r t o a changing
p r o c e s s , o r t o t h e members of a c l a s s a s d e f i n i t e and
It h a s t h e same r o o t s a s "gender"
unchanging, a product.
and, i n being r e l a t e d t o gender, i n d i c a t e s the n a t u r a l i s t i c
d i s t i n c t i o n s t h a t a r e implied. Genres have many elements
i n common but they do have d i s t i n c t ends t h a t change accordi n g t o the h i s t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n .
I f we c o n s i d e r the kind of changes t h a t a r e g e n e r i c .
we note changes w i t h i n a genre and changes between genres.
Maria C o r t i pute i t t h i s way: "A genre may be transformed
by i t s e l f from t h e i n s i d e by a change i n t h e f u n c t i o n of
one of i t s c o n s t i t u t i v e elements, following which t h e t r a i t s
t h a t a r e secondary i n one e r a become primary i n a n o t h e r ;
the genre reproduces l i k e a microsystem those f u n c t i o n a l
v a r i a t i o n s t h a t g e n e r a t e t h e very movement of l i t e r a t u r e "
and a g a i n "a genre i s a l s o transformed by changes i n o t h e r
genres i n the l i t e r a r y system, which means t h a t t h e r e cannot
be a h i s t o r y of a genre i n i s o l a t i o n ; on t h e c o n t r a r y , e v e r y
phenomenon of c o r r e l a t i o n and i n f l u e n c e must be considered."l
Any attempt t o d i s c u s s change i n a genre system, however,
cannot avoid e x p l a n a t o r y models from h i s t o r y o r p o l i t i c s o r
anthropology o r some o t h e r f i e l d i n which change i s a f a c t o r .
But t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r of l i t e r a t u r e complicates t h e uses
of any model. In any period t h e r e a r e t e x t s from t h e p a s t
t h a t a r e t r e a t e d a a p r e s e n t and l i v i n g worka, t h e r e a r e
genres t h a t have been d i s r e g a r d e d o r a r e minimally p r a c t i c e d ,
and t h e r e a r e g e n r e s t h a t a r e dominant and those t h a t a r e
considered minor o r s h o r t forms. Those t h a t a r e p a r t of
t h e l i v i n g l i t e r a t u r e form a hierarchy. The concepts t h a t
govern such a h i e r a r c h y w i l l e x p l a i n both the n a t u r e of t h e
h i e r a r c h y and t h e values a t t r i b u t e d t o it. Thus, every t e x t
i s an i n t e r s e c t i o n of a t l e a s t two systems: a d i a c h r o n i c
g e n e r i c system and a synchronic, h i e r a r c h i c a l one.
Such systems a r e c o n s t r u c t e d by c r i t i c s t o e x p l a i n
c o n t i n u i t i e s and d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s i n r e l a t i n g p a r t i c u l a r works
o r groups of worka t o t h e k i n d s of changes t h a t a r e p o s i t e d .
Are changes made consciously by a u t h o r s o r formulated by
c r i t i c s ? To p u t t h e q u e s t i o n i n t h i s way i s t o pose a
s e p a r a t i o n t h a t need n o t be honored. Since e v e r y t e x t
s h a r e s elements w i t h o t h e r s and i n t r o d u c e s new elements, t h e
i s s u e of change i s not p r o p e r l y d i s c r i m i n a t e d by such d i f f e r ences. Changes may be no more than v a r i a t i o n s of underlying
period concepts of o r g a n i z a t i o n , philosophy, o r language.
and t h e r e is no n e c e s s a r y r e l a t i o n between a new genre and a
new concept. A new genre such a s t h e novel i n t h e e i g h t e e n t h
c e n t u r y may conform t o t h e concepts underlying t h e received
genres, may, i n d e e d , be no more than a v a r i a t i o n of them.
On t h e o t h e r hand, i t i s p o s s i b l e f o r Wordsworth c o r r e c t l y
t o c l a i m t h a t h i e r e j e c t i o n of eighteenth-century p o e t i c
language and t h e concepts of m o d i f i c a t i o n and epistemology
underlying them l e a d s t o s new kind of p o e t i c language and
a r t i s t i c vision.
The consciousness of change may apply t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l w r i t e r , b u t t h e d e s c r i p t i o n s of beginnings and endings
of p e r i o d s o r movements a r e formulated a f t e r t h e f a c t by
c r i t i c s and s c h o l a r s . These a r e f i c t i o n s t h a t depend on
the c r i t i c ' s view of what t e x t s c o n s t i t u t e a p e r i o d and why
he wishes t o d i v i d e ongoing time i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r manner.
I s h a l l r e t u r n t o t h e s e problems i n my d i s c u s s i o n of the
e x p l a n a t i o n s of change, b u t i t i s necessary t o n o t e here
t h a t t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r s s e l e c t e d f o r change--as , f o r example,
changing a t t i t u d e s t o women.or the changing r o l e of the
father--can be derived from d i s c i p l i n e s o t h e r t h a n l i t e r a t u r e .
I n t h i s a p s e , some i n q u i r i e s i n t o change r e s u l t from knowledge of change developed i n o t h e r a r e a s such a s psychoanalysis o r l i n g u i s t i c s o r history.
The p u r s u i t of i n q u i r i e s
i n t o l i t e r a r y change, t h e r e f o r e , has an element of the
u n p r e d i c t a b l e , and, indeed, t h e m u l t i p l i c i t y of i n s t a n c e s
t h a t would be considered l i t e r a r y changes have y e t t o be
charted.
Since change i n e v i t a b l y i n v o l v e s a r e l a t i o n w i t h c o ~ t i nuity, i t w i l l follow t h a t d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s w i l l e n t a i l the
p e r s i s t e n c e of some l a r g e r e n t i t y . I f t h e r e i s a change i n
the d i c t i o n of p o e t r y , what p e r s i s t s i s t h e r e l a t i o n of
d i c t i o n t o thought o r t o p o e t i c s t r u c t u r e o r t o a speaker.
I f a p a r t i c u l a r genre l i k e t h e sonnet is n o t w r i t t e n o v e r
a period of time, what p e r s i s t s i s t h e r e l a t i o n of t h i s
omission t o a p o e t i c h i e r a r c h y o r t o t h e l y r i c poems t h a t
a r e w r i t t e n . And i f a period e n d s and a new period begins.
what p e r s i s t s is a hypothesis ( o r a t h e o r y ) about t h e process
of p e r i o d i z a t i o n o r about t h e p e r s i s t e n c e of some elements
o r the d i s c o n t i n u i t y of o t h e r s from one p e r i o d t o another.
The n a t u r e of l i t e r a r y change i s t h u s a s t u d y of a l t e r a t i o n s which can only be understood i n terms of t h e p e r s i s tence of n o n a l t e r e d elements of frameworks t h a t provide an
i d e n t i t y . L i t e r a r y change i s always connected with o r
c h a r a c t e r i z e d by concepts of knowledge, language, and s t r u c t u r e t h a t d e f i n e some changes a s v a r i a t i o n s of these and
o t h e r s a s c o n t r a d i c t i n g , r e j e c t i n g , o r o v e r t u r n i n g them.
Change i s then a form of a d a p t a t i o n o r of "revolution."
But
i t i s t h e n a t u r e of l i t e r a r y s t r u c t u r e s t h a t change and perThe
k
i
n
d
s
of
r
e
f
a
t
i
o
n
s
bes i s t e n c e a r e p r e s e n t together.
tween them account f o r the kinds of changes c r i t i c s i d e n t i f y .
11.
Kinds of Change
The kinds of change mentioned by c r i t i c s a r e s o v a r i e d
t h a t i t seems d i f f i c u l t t o organize them i n t o coherent
groups. Indeed, d i s c u s s i o n s of change occur i n almost a l l
t e x t s although t h e r e seems l i t t l e t h e o r e t i c a l awareness of
the problems involved.
I s h a l l focus on changes w i t h i n a
t e x t (an i n s t a n c e of a g e n r e ) , changes t h a t apply t o groups
of t e x t s ( w i t h i n one o r more g e n r e s ) , and changes t h a t a r e
the r e s u l t of t h e impact of n o n - l i t e r a r y i n s t i t u t i o n s and
a c t i o n s upon l i t e r a r y t e x t s .
Within a s i n g l e t e x t we note the changes t h a t t a k e
place i n i t s production.
This can involve a s t u d y of work
s h e e t s o r r e v i s i o n s i n which t h e changes a r e examined i n
terms of c e r t a i n p e r s i s t e n t elements. Such study may s e r v e
t o r e v e a l t h e a d a p t a t i o n s a p p r o p r i a t e t o support o r supplement o r expand concepts governing a genre. Or i t may i n d i c a t e t h e network of elements from d i f f e r e n t genres w i t h
which a work is being connected. Whether i n work s h e e t s o r
i n p r i n t , the r e v i s i o n s w i l l be seen a s t r i v i a l , a s adapted
t o r e c e i v e d concepta, o r a s r e s i s t a n t t o them.
I n t h i s r e s p e c t a g e n e r i c theory w i l l make i t necessary
t o provide a r e v i s i o n a r y vocabulary of g e n e r i c change. I f
s a t i r e s t h a t a r e exemplary a r e seen by Dryden a s h e r o i c
poems, t h i s conceptual change i s the r e s u l t of r e d e f i n i n g
s a t i r e by i n c l u d i n g h e r o i c elements i n it. When Meyer
Abrams d e s c r i b e s t h e " g r e a t e r Romantic l y r i c " a s a development of the g e o r g i c d e s c r i p t i v e poem, he must provide a
s e r i e s of r e v i s i o n a r y o r developmental procedures t h a t can
"transform" one k i n d of poem i n t o another. And t h i s must
be a m a t t e r of t h e r a t i o of change t o p e r s i s t e n c e of elements.
The k i n d of change t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l t e x t undergoes can
involve t h e placement of a sermon, f o r example, i n t o the
t e x t of a novel--as i n T r i s t r a m Shsndy. The i n s e r t i o n of
whole becomes a p a r t
one genre i n t o a n o t h e r -the
i m p l i e s the comprehensiveness of genres and may i n d i c a t e
the n a t u r e of a g e n e r i c h i e r a r c h y . But can one genre be
transformed i n t o a n o t h e r ? Can a sonnet be transformed i n t o
the g r e a t e r Romantic l y r i c ? Does t h e e p i c become transformed
i n t o t h e novel?
The t r a n s f o r m a t i o n image i n botany o r chemistry presupposes t h a t change i s e i t h e r an e v o l u t i o n of an i d e n t i t y o r
the r e t e n t i o n of an i d e n t i t y i n d i f f e r e n t form. I n order
t o e x p l a i n l i t e r a r y transformation a s a change, f o r example,
the c r i t i c needs t o argue t h a t the g r e a t e r Romantic l y r i c
i s i n h e r e n t i n t h e georgic d e s c r i p t i v e poem o r t h a t i t is a
member of the same family of genres.
It might be p o s s i b l e
t o a r g u e , f o r example, t h a t t h e t e n - l i n e s t a n z a t h a t Keats
developed f o r h i s odes is a v a r i a n t of t h e sonnet form-a q u a t r a i n and a s e s t e t i n s t e a d of two q u a t r a i n s and a
s e s t e t . But then one would have t o argue t h a t t h e sonnet
and Keata's odes compose a family t h a t d i s p l a c e s r a t h e r
than transforms t h e georgic d e s c r i p t i v e poem. Whatever
s i m i l a r i t i e s of imagery o r r h e t o r i c a l procedures t h e genres
s h a r e , t h e s e a r e connections, not e v o l u t i o n a r y d e v e l o p m n t s .
that
such
upon
dies
Among the k i n d s of changes i n l i t e r a t u r e a r e those
involve parody o r burlesque of noncomic genres. In
conversions t h e r e may be an o p p o s i t i o n o r an a t t a c k
t h e values a t t r i b u t e d t o the o r i g i n a l t e x t . But paroo f t e n aim t o draw a t t e n t i o n t o t h e values of t h e o r i -
g i n a l by i n d i c a t i n g t h e p l e a s u r e s t h a t can be taken i n i t .
This i s o f t e n t h e c a s e w i t h b a l l a d parodies.
I have suggested t h a t genre s t u d y seems t o ae t h e most
adequate procedure f o r d i s c u s s i n g change, but many of my
c o l l e a g e s p r e f e r t o c o n s i d e r t e x t s a s composed of words o r
s e n t e n c e s and c o n s i d e r g e n r e s a s u n i t s r e s u l t i n g from t h e s e
i n i t i a l combinations. f o r such c r i t i c s l i t e r a r y change
becomes a consequence of changes i n a l i n g u i s t i c code.
Hayden White, basing h i s d i s c u s s i o n of change i n l i t e r a r y
h i s t o r y upon Roman Jakobson's s i x f o l d model of t h e l i t e r a r y
f i e l d , remarks t h a t changes i n t h e l i n g u i s t i c code " w i l l i n
t u r n be r e f l e c t e d i n changes both i n t h e c o g n i t i v e content
of l i t e r a r y works ( t h e messages) and t h e modes of c o n t a c t
( g e n r e s ) i n which messages a r e t r a n s m i t t e d and received."8
In t h i s view t h e changes i n language determine t h e kind of
g e n r e s most a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e changed messages: I n a
given period and place i n h i s t o r y , t h e system of encodation
and decodation permits t h e transmission of c e r t a i n kinds of
messages regarding one c o n t e x t and n o t o t h e r s ; and i t w i l l
favor those genres adequate t o t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of c o n t a c t s
between d i f f e r e n t p o i n t s i n t h e whole communication system
represented by language i n general. S i g n i f i c a n t p e r i o d s of
l i t e r a r y change w i l l t h u s be s i g n a l e d by changes i n t h e
l i n g u i s t i c code; changes i n t h e code w i l l i n t u r n be ref l e c t e d i n changes i n both t h e c o g n i t i v e content of l i t e r a r y works ( t h e messages) and t h e modes of c o n t a c t ( g e n r e s )
i n which messages a r e t r a n s m i t t e d and received. Changes
i n t h e code, f i n a l l y , can be conceived t o be r e f l e c t i v e of
changes i n t h e h i s t o r i c o - n a t u r a l c o n t e x t i n which a given
language game i s being played.
Now t h i s i s an important h y p o t h e s i s regarding t h e
r e l a t i o n of "language* t o genre. And i t begins w i t h t h e
assumption t h a t s i n c e language i s a l i t e r a r y component
shared by "the c o n t e x t , t h e audience, t h e a r t i s t , and t h e
work a l i k e , " any s t a t e m e n t s about l i t e r a r y change must be
r e l a t e d t o "the more g e n e r a l f i e l d of l i n g u i s t i c t r a n s f o r mation."9 What we have h e r e i s t h e c l a i m t h a t l i t e r a r y
t e x t s a r e read i n language and w r i t t e n i n language and t h a t
t h e system of i n c o d a t i o n and decodation d e f i n e t h e transmiss i o n o r p r o h i b i t i o n of messages.
Such a h y p o t h e s i s seems t o me t o misconstrue t h e r e l a t i o n between language and genre. Although genres a r e
language s t r u c t u r e s , they a r e n o t r e d u c i b l e t o language n o r
a r e they merely r e f l e c t i o n s of changes i n the language code.
Because every t e x t is an i n s t a n c e of a genre ( a t l e a s t one),
genre a s a s t r u c t u r e always i n c l u d e s f e a t u r e s t h a t have
c o n t i n u i t y w i t h t h e past--whether t h e s e a r e compositional
o r m e t r i c a l o r thematic, etc.--and
f e a t u r e s t h a t a r e innov a t i v e . Genre by t h i s d e f i n i t i o n i s c o n s t i t u t e d by l i n g u i s t i c codes t h a t a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t i n t h e i r i m p l i c a t i o n s ;
moreover, t h e r e a d i n g by s c h o l a r s of any past work involves
the imposition of t h e i r own l i n g u i s t i c code upon one of
the past.
But i n a n o t h e r s e n s e , such a view of change overlooks
the c o n t r o l a l i t e r a r y genre e x e r c i s e s upon the codes approp r i a t e t o i t a t any h i s t o r i c a l moment. The primacy of
tragedy and comedy o r of k i n d s of l y r i c poetry a l t e r s the
conception of t h e codes a p p r o p r i a t e t o each genre. The
choice of genre becomes not a l i n g u s i t i c a c t but a s o c i a l
one which determines t h e ' l i n g u i s t i c .
I f one t a k e s a b a l l a d
l i k e "The Ballad of Jane Shore" and converts i t i n t o a
t r a g e d y , the h i s t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n of t h e genre d i c t a t e s
t h a t t h e c h a r a c t e r s w i l l have t o be e l e v a t e d and t h e subj e c t r e l a t e d t o a f f a i r s of s t a t e . When a novel i s converted
i n t o a f i l m , i t i s s e l f - e v i d e n t t h a t t h e v i s u a l imagery
w i l l d i c t a t e the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of v e r b a l transformation.
Consider one o t h e r v a l u a b l e a n a l y s i s of l i t e r a r y
change, t h a t of Michael R i f f a t e r r e . He f i n d s t h a t language
forms a d e s c r i p t i v e system " b u i l t of nouns, a d j e c t i v e s ,
ready-made sentences--cliches; s t e r e o t y p e d f i g u r e s , arranged
around a k e r n e l word t h a t f i t s a mental model of t h e r e a l i t y
r e p r e s e n t e d by t h a t word."lO
Such systems f u n c t i o n d i f f e r e n t l y i n d i f f e r e n t genres and a t d i f f e r e n t times.
Now
Michael R i f f a t e r r e wishes t o s t r e s s t h e language system
c u r r e n t a t a p a r t i c u l a r time, and, indeed, he w i s e l y urges
t h a t i t s value i n c o n t r i b u t i n g t o a more adequate s t u d y of
h i s t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s and change: " S t y l e a n a l y s i s should
c o n t r i b u t e t o thematology i n f u t u r e by i n c l u d i n g a l l descript i v e systems i n t h e s e c o a p i l a t i o n s arranged according t o t y p e ,
i n d i c a t i n g t h e i r g e n e r i c and c h r o n o l o g i c a l d i s t r i b u t i o n . " l l
Such a hypothesis of d e s c r i p t i v e systems i s t r a n s g e n e r i c .
It may be found i n whatever genres a r e c u r r e n t a t a p a r t i c u l a r
time. But can we accept t h i s v e r s i o n of c o n t i n u i t y and
change of a d e s c r i p t i v e system w i t h i n a genre w i t h o u t knowing
its r o l e i n the s t r u c t u r e of genre? Do such systems a r i s e
e x c l u s i v e of t h e genres i n which they a r e found i n o t d s r t o
f i t some a b s t r a c t mental model of r e a l i t y ? Does i t not seem
more l i k e l y t h a t such systems would a r i s e c u l t u r a l l y aa
e x t r a p o l a t i o n s from g e n e r i c explanations? Thet such systems
e x i s t a s a b s t r a c t i o n s providing only some s i m i l a r i t i e s i n
any spec1f i c i n s t a n c e ?
I n order t o describe t h e kinds of changes t h a t e x i s t
among groups of genres, the c r i t i c must p o s i t such a b s t r a c t
e n t i t i e s a s n o m s , epistemes , periods, i n d i v i d u a l and perf ad
" s t y l e s , " "modes of writing." e t c . With regard t o change,
these groupings imply a systematic approaah t o l i t e r a r y
study; they aim t o l o c a t e s i m i l a r i t i e s among d i v e r s e i n d i v i dual t e x t s and t o e x p l a i n t h e changes that--as a group-(Of course, t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t e x t s
such t e x t s undergo.
a s " l i t e r a r y " o r " l i t e r a t u r e " belongs with i n q u i r i e s about
changes governing the nature of l i t e r a r y study. )
I f we wish t o d i s c u s s changes among "norms" o r "periods."
i t w i l l be apparent t h a t the d e f i n i t i o n of what these are
must precede any a n a l y s i s of change p e r t i n e n t t o t h e m . When
Mukarovsky defined a norm "as a p u b l i c l y acknowledged goal
with respect t o which value i s perceived a s e x i s t i n g independently of an i n d i v i d u a l and h i s s u b j e c t i v e decisiona,"l:!
he r e l i e d on a "so-called c o l l e c t i v e awareness."l3
Re
r e a l i z e d there a r e not only competing norms, but t h a t norms
a r e c o n s t a n t l y being undermined. The r e l a t i o n between norm
c o n t i n u i t y and d i s c o n t i n u i t y become t o o e l u s i v e t o pursue
and thus the beginnings and endings of norms. t h e numbers
and kinds of works and elements involved become r e s i s t a n t
t o systematization. A much simpler procedure f o r d e a l i n g
with norm change is o f f e r e d by Thomas Kuhn, the h i s t o r i a n
of science. Ik t r a c k s t h e beginning and ending of a scient i f i c paradigm by r e f e r r i n g t o comaon i n s t i t u t i o n a l procedures used i n educating s c i e n t i s t s , t o a p r a c t i c a l i n s t i t u t i m a l "norm."
Any a p p l i c a t i o n of Kuhnian "normal science" t o l i t e r a r y
study has t o s u b s t i t u t e concepts of g e n e r i c e x p e c t a t i o n s O r
common problem-eolving f o r i n s t i t u t i o n a l p r a c t i c e . But
because, i n l i t e r a r y study. these a r e always m l t i p l e , the
notion of a u n i f i e d "norm" s e e m unusable. ks f o r m u l t i p l e
norms, these seem t o pose p r o b l e m about t h e i r discontinuance.
Periods no l e s s than n o m s a r e c r i t i c a l a b s t r a c t i o n s
o r f i c t i o n s , and any a t t e s p t t o e x p l a i n period change must
do s o within a framework of p e r s i s t e n c e between periods.
Dws a period c o n s i s t of " l i t e r a r y " t e x t s w r i t t e n within a
p a r t i c u l a r time span o r of l i t e r a r y t e x t s a v a i l a b l e i n a
time span o r of those t h a t w r i t e r s and readers f i n d valuable?
In any time p e r i o d t h e r e a r e t e x t s composed i n e a r l i e r times;
a r e these t o be considered p a r t of t h e "period"? It i s
d i f f i c u l t t o avoid t h e view t h a t t e x t s which form part of a
canon r e g a r d l e s s of when they were composed do indeed form
p a r t of a period. This means t h a t a period i s multi-temporal
a s w e l l a s multi-dimensional; the l i t e r a r y t e x t s of a period
s o understood w i l l then be governed by concepts of d i f f e r e n t
chronological time. A change of period w i l l t h u s have t o
make reference t o d i f f e r e n t r a t e s of change and t o d i f f e r e n t
r e l a t i o n s among genres.
Because c r i t i c s introduce period change i n order t o
e x p l a i n large-scale o r revolutionary changes, o r changes of
l i t e r a r y h i e r a r c h i e s , they tend t o neglect the c o n t i n u i t i e s .
The s t r a t e g y i s understandable, but it cannot l e a d t o an
adequate study of conceptual change. Some l i t e r a r y u n i t
l i k e genre is necessary t o include c o n t i n u i t y i n any discuss i o n of change. Debates over the l e n g t h of time of periods
o r over the e x i s t e n c e of periods--whether there i s an Age
of S e n s i b i l i t y o r whether i t is no more than t h e concluding
t h i r t y years of a neo-classical period o r whether we have
e n t e r e d a post-modern period following mode5nism o r are i n
the concluding phase of modernism--are misplaced because such
determinations a r e not p a r t of any theory of change, only ad
hoc claims f o r evidence t h a t i s s l a n t e d t o support one's
hypothesis. They a r e f i c t i o n s t h a t function t o e x p l a i n
p a r t i c u l a r changes; they do not e x p l a i n the need, function,
and aim of such changes.
When d i s c u s s i o n s of periods a r e displaced by discussions
of receptions of l i t e r a r y t e x t s , types of change becolae
primary. But even i f we a t t r i b u t e "receptions" t o c r i t i c s
who e x p r e s s t h e i r views i n w r i t i n g ( i n c o n t r a s t t o readers
about whom the c r i t i c can only s p e c u l a t e ) , t h e usefulness of
such reception depends on t h e kinds of explanations offered.
111.
Explanations of Change
Although I have divided my d i s c u s s i o n i n t o "the nature
of change, " "the kinds of change," and "explanations of
to
change," I have done s o merely f o r s t r a t e g i c purposes:
q e n d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s of the question of l i t e r a r y change.
It is apparent t h a t I have n o t h e s i t a t e d t o c r o s s boundaries
and move among t h e t h r e e a r e a s d e s p i t e my emphasis on a
p a r t i c u l a r one. Description and explanation a r e obviously
intertwlned even though Uichel Foucault i n The Order of
reThings, f o r example, t r i e s t o keep them s e p a r a t e
s i s t methodological explanations i n the e m p i r i c a l sciences:
The r o l e of instruments, techniques, i n s t i t u t i o n s .
e v e n t s , i d e o l o g i e s , and i n t e r e g t s i s very much i n
evidence; but one does not know how an a r t i c u l a t i o n
s o complex and s o diverse i n composition s c t u a l l y
operates. It seemed t o me t h a t i t would not be
prudent f o r the moment t o force a s o l u t i o n I f e l t
incapable, I admit, of o f f e r i n g : the t r a d i t i o n a l
e x p l a n a t i o n s - - s p i r i t of t h e ti-, t e c h n o l o g i c a l o r
s o c i a l changes, influences of various kinds--struck
me f o r the most p a r t a s being more magica1,than
e f f e c t i v e . I n t h i s work, then. I l e f t the problem,
of causes t o one s i d e ; I chose i n s t e a d t o confine
myself t o d e s c r i b i n g the transformations themselves.
thinking t h a t t h i s would be an indispensable s t e p
i f , one day, a theory of g c i e n t i f i c change and
epistemological c a u s a l i t y was t o be constructed.14
He exaggerates h i s modesty, but h i s reference t o " s p i r i t
of the time, technological o r s o c i a l changes, i n f l u e n c e s of
various kinds" seems t o be q u i t e d i s t a n t from o t h e r contemporary
explanations of l i t e r a r y change. These e x p l a n a t i o n s begin
with concepts of a l i t e r a r y t e x t : a t e x t which is a multidimensional system w i l l i n e v i t a b l y possess some elements t h a t
a r e changing more r a p i d l y than o t h e r s . In f a c t , t h e changes
w i l l be recognized only i n t e r m of c o n t i n u i t i e s . Different
r a t e s of change w i l l , of course, a l s o apply t o membership i n
a hierarchy of genres. I have offezed a s an explanation of
t h i s the notion t h a t every l i t e r a r y t e x t i s i n e v i t a b l y
d i f f e r e n t from any o t h e r i n t h e same genre. Let re add here
t h a t these d i f f e r e n c e s operate within a s e r i e s of temporary
posrribilities.
So t o o , technological o r s o c i a l changes need not be
disregarded. The c l o s i n g of t h e a t e r s c e r t a i n l y provides a
reason f o r not w r i t i n g dramas, j u s t a s the i n s i s t e n c e by
government on t h e w r i t i n g of " s o c i a l realism" t h r e a t e n s
punishment t o t h o s e who d i s r e g a r d t h i s policy. Such s o c i a l
p r e s s u r e s , a t t h e very l e a s t , e x p l a i n the neglect of c e r t a i n
kinds of w r i t i n g even i f they do not e x p l a i n t h o s e t h a t a r e
written.
But t h e notion of "explanation" is st i s s u e here,
f o r i f Foucault conceives of explanation i n t e r n s of causes,
he w i l l expect r e l a t i o n s t h a t h i s t o r i a n s w i l l r a r e l y be a b l e
t o provide. Explanations i n l i t e r a r y study a r e always made
i n terms of the aims of the explainer. To ask why a genre
l i k e the novel was introduced i n the eighteenth century i s t o
take f o r granted t h a t the novel is a genre and t h a t i t s
novelty is a chance occurrence o r t h e r e s u l t of a s e r i e s of
w r i t i n g s t h a t a r e i n t e r t e x t u a l with it. The term "introduct i o n , " t h e r e f o r e , conceals w i t h i n i t evolutionary o r developmental c a t e g o r i e s which involve r a t i o s of c o n t i n u i t y and
change o r randomness o r both.
A t which p o i n t i s the "cause" t o be discovered? Does it
not imply an o r i g i n a t i n g moment when the p a r t i c u l a r o r i g i n a t i n g
work i s not y e t i d e n t i f i e d ? I s i t Robinson Crusoe o r
Flanders o r Panela or Joseph Andrews? If the c r i t i c puts
aside the notion of "cause" and s u b s t i t u t e s probable reasoning
o r reason giving, he w i l l introduce reasons about generic
d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s , about the r e l a t i o n of such d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s
t o s o c i a l a t t i t u d e s , about t h e r e l a t i o n of t h i s genre t o a
synchronic system, about t h e s h i f t s i n function of the elements
t h a t compose the genre.
S o c i o l o g i s t s and a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s who d i s c u s s s o c i a l
change tend t o use three explanatory procedures: evolution.
r e v o l u t i o n , and randomness. Social change thus is the r e s u l t
of c e r t a i n developmental o r evolutionary procedures. Evolution
need not mean a movement from a lower t o a higher stage but
t o a s e r i e s of successive s t a g e s not unlike the c h a r t i n g of
i n d i v i d u a l growth by E r i k Erikson. Such developments are
connected t o p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e s and t h e kinds of
changes a r e i d e n t i f i e d a s a d a p t a t i o n s o r adjustments. Those
changes which r e s u l t i n reorganizations of the s t r u c t u r e a r e
revolutionary changes. As f o r randomness, i t i s a n attempt
t o leave open t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n s of unexpected pressures-whether l e g a l , m i l i t a r y , etc.--upon
the s t r u c t u r e .
Explanations of l i t e r a r y change a r e o f t e n r e l a t e d t o and
sometimes dependent upon moral, s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l , and
psychological concepts. The most elementary procedure here
is t o make l i t e r a t u r e r e f l e c t i v e of such changes: a s o c i a l
o r p o l i t i c a l change i s p o s i t e d and l i t e r a t u r e Is claimed t o
mirror it. More s o p h i s t i c a t e d c r i t i c s g r a n t t h a t l i t e r a r y
language c o n s t i t u t e s its world and they recognisa t h a t what
they have t o e x p l a i n is a change i n t h e manner ef l i t e r a r y
construction. One of t h e ways i n which t h i s i s done i s t o
argue t h a t changes i n the e x t e r n a l world r e s u l t i n changes i n
the psyche. Thus l i t e r a r y t e x t s by r e v e a l i n g changes i n
consciousness r e v e a l changes i n tha e x t e r n a l world. This l a
F r e d r i c Jameson'g proeedure:
An o b j e c t i v e fragmentation of the so-called
o u t s i d e world is matched arrd a c w p e n i e d by 6
fragmentation of the psyche which r e i n f o r c e s i t s
e f f e c t s . Such f r a g l l a n t s t i o a , r g i f l c a t i o n , but
a l s o production, of new semi-autonomous o b j e c t s
and a c t i v i t i e s , is c l e a r l y the. e b j e c t i v e precondition f o r the emergence of genres such a#
landscape, i n which the viewing of an otherwise
( o r a t l e a s t a t r a d i t i o n a l l y ) meaningless' object-nature without people--comes t o seem a s e l f justifying activity.15
The c o r r e l a t i o n is not merely r e f l e c t i v e , f o r i t involves
the production "of new semi-autonomous o b j e c t s and a c t i v i t i e s . "
But the d i f f i c u l t y with t h i s type of explanation is t h a t by
i n s i s t i n g OR r e i f i c a t i o n and fragmentation, i t becomes the
procedure i t describes. It n e g l e c t s the r e l a t i o n of c o n t i n u i t y and the concepts t h a t u n d e r l i e i t s o t h a t the r e l a t i o n
of landscape poetry t o p a s t o r a l and georgic forms from
which i t comes i s suppressed o r overlooked. And the r o l e
of nature a s place a s well a s the connection of place t o
property and p o l i t i c s i s misconstrued.
Since changes a r e of d i f f e r e n t kind*, i t i s obvious
t h a t explanations of then w i l l be of d i f f e r e n t kinds. I
mean by t h i s t h a t although a l l explanations w i l l have t o
r e f e r t o evidence t o support t h e i r claims and w i l l need t o
s p e c i f y the changes t o which they r e f e r , some changes a r e
d i r e c t l y s o c i a l while o t h e r s a r e only remotely so. Some
l i t e r a r y change i s the r e s u l t of imposing censorship where
none previously e x i s t e d , o r the imposition of an index o r a
canon t h a t undergoes change a s a r e s u l t of i n s t i t u t i o n a l
decisions. So, too, the vocabulary of l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m
becomes s o c i a l a t one time and s c i e n t i f i c st another. The
s o c i a l vocabulary of "refinement" and "decorum" and "correctness"
is c l e a r l y r e l s t e d t o s o c i a l behavior, t h a t of " s c i e n t i f i c , , "
"evolutionary," o r "developmental" much l e s s so.
What do explanations of l i t e r a r y change explain7 Any
explanation w i l l describe t h e kind of change t h a t has taken
place and w i l l o f f e r some h i s t o r i c a l c l u e s f o r i t . But no
explanation by a modern c r i t i c of a p a s t change avoids d i s t o r t i o n . What we can do i s t o c o n t r o l t h e d i s t o r t i o n by introducing g e n e r i c elements s t i p u l a t e d by o t h e r s from e a r l i e r times.
Such c o n t i n u i t i e s a r e not s o much fused horizons a s they a r e
p o s s i b i l i t i e s from which choices a r e made. But h i s t o r y i s
sometilaes t r e a t e d a s though an element of past w r i t i n g i s
always e s s e n t i a l l y the same, and the d i f f e r e n c e s i n t i m e a r e
t r i v i a l . When Paul de Man argues t h a t the language of c r i t i cism and l i t e r a t u r e i s permanently "unreliable"--"the most
u n r e l i a b l e language i n which men names and modifies himself "he s t r e s s e s the c o n t i n u i t y , t h e p e r s i s t e n t f u n c t i o n of language
I f we wish t o e x p l a i n l i t e r a r y change, can we avoid t h e
changing a t t i t u d e s toward p o e t i c language7 And, of course,
i t w i l l be remarked, can we avoid the changing a t t i t u d e s
toward genre. A theory of l i t e r a r y change should be able t o
e x p l a i n such changes, but what i s needed f o r such an explanat i o n is a u n i t of a n a l y s i s t h a t w i l l permit a l l such i n q u i r i e s .
I think t h a t genre a s I have been using i t can s e r v e such a
purpose. And i t can serve because a genre i s a s o c i a l a s
well a s l i t e r a r y u n i t ; thus i t is s u b j e c t t o the a c c u l t u r a t i n g
processes of language and of symbolic behavior.
I f we accept
the view t h a t any example of a genre i s a combination of
elements, then o n l y some of these undergo change; f o r ,
otherwise, how would i t s t i l l r e t a i n membership i n a c l a s s 7
Therefore, we can argue t h a t every l i t e r a r y t e x t i s c o n s t i t u t e d
by elements t h a t a r e i n o p p o s i t i o n o r tension because they
a r e i d e n t i f i e d , a t the very l e a s t , w i t h d i f f e r e n t time schemes
and t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n of diachronic and synchronic systems.
This phenomenon makes c l e a r why beginnings and endings
of periods can only be t e n t a t i v e and uncertain.
I n fact. the
more extensive t h e change t o be explained, the more useful a
system which w i l l c o n t r o l t h e explanation. It is always
tempting t o p o s i t an e s s e n t i a l c o n t i n u i t y such a s t h e oedipal
c o n f l i c t between s t r o n g poets of d i f f e r e n t times while
a i n i d z i n g o r iguoring other explanatory procedures, But i f
i t i s granted t h a t genre e x e r c i s e s c o n t r o l i n c o n s t i t u t i n g a
t e x t , no explanation can neglect i t s function.
The t h e o r i e s of l i t e r a r y changes t h a t I have been
discussing f a l l within the group of r e l a t e d genres c e l l e d
l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y , l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m , o r l i t e r a r y theory.
Those c r i t i c s who f i n d only differences of degree--and not
always these--between the languages of c r i t i c i s m and poetry
i n s i s t on the f i c t i v e constructs of both. For t h e m , explanat i o n i s inevitably about themselves because a l i t e r a r y genre
I f one argues t h a t
theory i s as self-reflexive a s poetry.
a l l writing i s genre bound, then a theory of change w i l l
deal not only with the nature and kinds of change but with
the explanatory functions of each genre.
Theory and c r i t i c i s m a r e important today i n the hierarchy
of genres because they function a s explanations of other
genres and of themselves i n a society i n which o r a l i t y is
competing with writing. A t such a period i n the h i s t o r y of
c u l t u r e , e f f o r t s a r e made t o consider explanation a s forms of
pleasure and a s instances of f i c t i v e construction. Thus,
h i s t o r i c a l , c r i t i c a l , and t h e o r e t i c a l genres a r e seen as
being reconstituted by t h e i r own processes of explanation.
And the boundaries t h a t separated these genres from those
t h a t were t r s d i t i o n a l l y constituted a s f i c t i o n s a r e i n process
of erosion. A theory of l i t e r a r y change w i l l explain t h a t
sucb a s h i f t i n the generic hierarchy and i n the reconcept u a l i z i n g of genres is a form of eesistance t o and subversion
of received assumptions and p r a c t i c e s ef explattation. But
not a l l a r e subverted, and I have suggested t h a t generic
procedures may well lead us t o the consciousness of l i t e r a r y
change t h a t we seek.
1. "Introduction: The Problem of S o c i a l Change," Social
Change, ed. R. Nisbet (New York: Harper & Row, 1971.
3.
Apuleius, Ths Transformations of Lucius Otherwise Known
~ r a (G
Nevork:
~ a r r a r
72.
a s The Golden G , tr. Robert
---Strauss and Giroux, 1951). p.
4. F. Kafka, "The Metamorphosis," The Basic Kafka, introd.
E. Heller (New York: Pocket ~ o o k s , T 7 = . 7
5. Maria Corti, An Introduction to Literary Semiotics, t r .
H. Bogat and A. ~ ~ d e l b a u(Bloomington:
m
University of
Indiana Press, 1978). p. 115.
6 . "Author's Preface t o Jose h Andrews," Joseph Andrews and
Shamela, ed. Martin B a t t e d c B o s t o n : Houghton Mifflin.
m p . 7.
7.
C o r t i , pp. 133, 134.
8. "The Problem of Change i n L i t e r a r y History,"
Historp, 7 (Autumn 1975). 107.
New Literary
10. "The S t y l i s t i c Approach t o Literary History,"
History, 2 (Autumn 1970). 40.
New
Literary
12. Jan Mukarovsky, Aesthetic Function, Norm and Value, tr.
Mark E. Suino (Ann Arbor: ~nive-f
E U e h i E , m ) , p. 25.
14. "Foreword t o the English Edition." The Order of Things.
t r . anon. (New York: Pantheon Books, 1 9 x q , p . i = .
15. The P o l i t i c a l Unconscious (Ithaca:
ere
.32-9s.s
Cornell University
A COMMENT ON PROFESSOR COHBN'S
"PROPAEDEUTIC FOR LITeRARY CHANGE"
Hayden White
I n h i s i n t r o d u c t i o n t o the f i r s t i s s u e of % L i t e r a r y
H i s t o r y , P r o f e s s o r Cohen i n d i c a t e d one p r i n c i p l e on which he
and h i s c o l l e a g u e s on t h e E d i t o r i a l Board agreed, namely,
"the need t o reexamine t h e n a t u r e , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , and t e a c h i n g
of l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y , e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e f a c e of the c u r r e n t
r e j e c t i o n of h i s t o r y e i t h e r a s guide t o o r knowledge of t h e
His c u r r e n t e s s a y , on which we have been asked t o
present."
comment, i s another of h i s many c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h i s process
of reexamination. Here h i s aim, a s I s e e i t , i s t o e s t a b l i s h
the n e c e s s i t y of a concept of change adequate t o a proper
Just
a p p r e c i a t i o n and s t u d y of l i t e r a t u r e ' s " h i s t o r i c a l i t y . "
beyond t h e c o n f i n e s of h i s r e f l e c t i o n s on "A Propaedeutic f o r
L i t e r a r y Change." I d i s c e r n t h e o u t l i n e s of the q u e s t i o n :
how i s l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y p o s s i b l e ? Professor Cohen's answer
t o h i s question--or a t l e a s t p a r t of it--is t h a t l i t e r a r y
h i s t o r y i s p o s s i b l e only on t h e c o n d i t i o n t h a t a proper n o t i o n
of t h e kind of changes t h a t l i t e r a t u r e undergoe's be brought
t o t h e s t u d y of i t .
P r o f e s s o r Cohen e x p l i c i t l y eschews t h e t a s k of d e f i n i n g
the nature of " l i t e r a t u r e " i t s e l f , but he obviously b e l i e v e s
t h a t , whatever e l s e i t may c o n s i s t o f , l i t e r a t u r e must a l s o
bb conceived t o c o n s i s t of the k i n d s of e n t i t i e s t h a t undergo
The burden of h i s
s p e c i f i c a l l y " h i s t o r i c a l " procesaes.
c r i t i c i s m of the t h e o r i e s of l i t e r a r y change mentioned i n
P a r t I1 of h i s e s s a y i s t h a t they a l l d e p r i v e l i t e r a t u r e of
i t s h i s t o r i c a l i t y , i n one way o r another. This means, among
o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t they deprive l i t e r a r y e n t i t i e s of t h e i r
i d e n t i t i e s , and they do t h i s by d i s s o l v i n g t h e s e i d e n t i t i e s
i n o r reducing them t o f u n c t i o n s of o t h e r , n o n - l i t e r a r y
procesaes o r s t r u c t u r e s considered t o be more fundauental o r
determinative: such a s l i n g u i s t i c "codes" (White). "mental
models" ( R i f f a t e r r e ) , "noras" (Mukarovsky). o r soaaething l i k e
He does not deny
t h e "paradigms" of Thomas Kuhn (pp. 10-11).
t h a t e a c h of t h e s e approaches t o the s t u d y of l i t e r a r y change
may very w e l l i l l u m i n a t e c e r t a i n a s p e c t s of t h e c a r e e r o r
c o n t e x t of " l i t e r a t u r e " i n one o r another of its "periods."
But t h e s e approaches a l l obscure e i t h e r t h a t c o n t i n u i t y - i n d i f f e r e n c e o r t h a t d i f f e r e n c e - i n - c o n t i n u i t y without which t h e
kinds of changea he wishes t o a s c r i b e t o l i t e r a t u r e cannot be
apprehended. Considered a s what he c a l l s t h e o r e t i c a l
" f i c t i o n s , " such conceptions of l i t e r a r y change may very
w e l l , a s he p u t s i t , " f u n c t i o n t o e x p l a i n p a r t i c u l a r changea"
i n t h e l i t e r a r y f i e l d . kt, by h i s l i g h t s , they cannot
" e x p l a i n t h e need, f u n c t i o n , and aim of such changes" (p. 1'1).
And t h i s because they l a c k a p r i n c i p l e by which t o i d e n t i f y
the i d e n t i t i e s of l i t e r a r y e n t i t i e s themselves.
His c r i t i c i s m s of the k i n d s of e x p l a n a t i o n s t h a t l i t e r a r y
t h e o r i s t s such a s Jameson, Bloom, and Foucault have advanced
t o account f o r l i t e r a r y change d e r i v e from the p r i n c i p l e
s t a t e d i n the middle of P a r t I11 of h i s essay: "Since changes
a r e of d i f f e r e n t k i n d s , i t i s obvious t h a t e x p l a n a t i o n s of
them w i l l be of d i f f e r e n t k i n d s " (p. 14). He s a y s " w i l l be."
but I read the sentence t o s t i p u l a t e "must be."
For i t i s
not t o any s p e c i f i c e x p l a n a t i o n o r explanatory procedure t h a t
he o b j e c t s , but r a t h e r t o any tendency t o regard a l l of the
kinds of changes we can perceive a s o c c u r r i n g i n t h e l i t e r a r y
f i e l d a s e f f e c t s o f a s i n g l e kind of c a u s a l o~echanism, agency,
o r f o r c e . Thus, h i s o b j e c t i o n t o Foucault i s t h a t he seems
t o be looking f o r a c a u s a l e x p l a n a t i o n of a kind t h a t " h i s t o r i a n s w i l l r a r e l y be a b l e t o provide" (p. 13). P r o f e s s o r
Cohen g r a n t s t h a t we
o f t e n find e x t r i n s i c causes as well
a s e x t r a - l i t e r a r y "reasons" why c e r t a i n kinds of changes
occurred i n a g i v e n period of l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y , b u t h i s p o i n t
i s t h a t while "some changes a r e d i r e c t l y s o c i a l ,
others
a r e o n l y remotely so" (p. 14). This i s why, presumably, t h e
best t h a t can be hoped f o r i n any s e a r c h f o r an e x p l a n a t i o n
of changea i n l i t e r a r y s t r u c t u r e s and processes i s only "some
h i s t o r i c a l c l u e s " t o why they occurred when, where. and i n
the ways they d i d (p. 15). We cannot provide c a u s a l e x p l a n a t i o n s
of the e n t i t i e s i n h a b i t i n g t h e f i e l d of l i t e r a t u r e , because
t h e s e e n t i t i e s - - a t whatever l e v e l of g e n e r a l i t y o r complexity
we encounter them--possess i d e n t i t i e s .
Which i s another way
of s a y i n g t h a t they a r e n e i t h e r p a r t i c u l a r s (each of which i s
d i f f e r e n t from e v e r y o t h e r ) nor u n i v e r s a l s (and t h e r e f o r e
changeless), b u t r a t h e r products of mixtures of u n i v e r s a l s
and p a r t i c u l a r s - - i n much t h e way t h a t c e r t a i n paradigmatic
" c h a r a c t e r s " of l i t e r a t u r e , such a s Hamlet, F a u s t , o r Huck
Finn, must be construed i f we a r e t o account f o r t h e i r
" i n d i v i d u a l i t y . " Professor Cohen e x t e n d s t h i s n o s o f
i n d i v i d u a l i t y t o cover a l l o f t h e kinds of e n t i t i e s t h a t he
conceives t o populate the f i e l d of l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y :
texts.
corpora, s t y l e s , p e r i o d s , t r a d i t i o n s , and s o on. This i s
can
...
not t o s a y t h a t he anthropomorphizes t h e s e e n t i t i e s , b u t he
does come c l o s e t o p e r s o n a l i z i n g them. For the k i n d s of
changes t h a t he a s c r i b e s t o them resemble more than anything
e l s e t h e k i n d s of changes t h a t an o l & r humanistic t r a d i t i o n
a s c r i b e d t o human beings i n t h e course of t h e i r s e l f realizations.
Aa I understand him. he wishes t o argue t h a t l i t e r a r y
e n t i t i e s have c e r t a i n d i s c e r n i b l e t r a i t s , r a t h e r l i k e what an
It i s t h e s e
o l d e r psychology c a l l e d " c h a r a c t e r t r a i t s . "
t r a i t s t h a t undergo p r o c e s s e s of combination, transformation.
deepening and l e a v e n i n g , i n s c r i p t i o n and effacement, g e n e r a l i z a t i o n and . p a r t i c u l a r i z a t i o n , u n t i l they become dormant,
r e c e s s i v e , o r moribund. These t r a i t s a r e not t i m e l e s s o r
e t e r n a l , common t o a l l l i t e r a r y e n t i t i e s everywhere and i n
a l l p e r i o d s , but a r e t o be conceived r a t h e r a f t e r t h e manner
of "family a t t r i b u t e s . "
A given c l u s t e r of t r a i t s may be
dominant i n one g e n e r a t i o n (thereby marking a d i s c e r n i b l e
"period" i n the l i f e of a given "family" o r , we might add.
"dynasty") and r e c e s s i v e i n another. They may be widely
disseminated o r p r e s e n t but a s s e r t i v e i n a r e l a t i v e l y reat r i c t e d a r e a of the l i t e r a r y f i e l d a t a given time and
place. But because they a r e s p e c i e s - t r a i t s , and i n the
case a t hand endemic t o "writing" i n a l l i t s forms ( w r i t i n g
i s the c l a s s t o which a l l s p e c i e s of l i t e r a t u r e belong),
they can never become t o t a l l y e x t i n c t and irrecoverable--in
the way t h a t c e r t a i n n a t u r a l s p e c i e s can be s a i d t o have
become e x t i n c t - - a t l e a s t , not a s long a s "writing" c o n t i n u e s
t o e x i s t . And t h i s because, a s he p u t s i t ,
there
e x i s t s no such phenomenon a s ' w r i t i n g ' which e s c a p e s forms
o r (he a d d s ] genres" (p. 3). " L i t e r a t u r e , " I take i t , i s a
s p e c i e s of the c l a s s " w r i t i n g , " d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from o t h e r
s p e c i e s by the a r r a y of "forms o r genres" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of
i t a c r o s s i t s whole h i s t o r y .
rite h i s t o r y of l i t e r a t u r e
c o n s i s t s of the production, combination, recombination;
e l e v a t i o n and demotion w i t h i n a h i e r a r c h y ; and r e t i r e m e n t ,
r e t r i e v a l , and renewal of t h e s e "forms and genres"--which
a r e t h e " p a r t s " o u t of which i d e n t i f i a b l e wholes, e a c h w i t h
an i n d i v i d u a l i t y of i t s own, a r e made. And i t is t h e s e
" p a r t s " and the process of t h e i r combination and arrangement
i n a h i e r a r c h y over time t h a t a r e t h e proper s u b j e c t s of
l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y f o r P r o f e s s o r Cohen. This i s how I unders t a n d him.
"...
Let me s a y before proceeding t h a t I f i n d n o t h i n g i n t h i s
t o which t o o b j e c t on t h e o r e t i c a l grounds. I d o n o t t h i n k t h a t
t h e r e i s any one, s o v e r e i g n way of doing h i s t o r y o r conceptualiz i n g i t s processes. And P r o f e s s o r Cohen'a way o f c o n c e p t u a l i z i n g
l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y belongs t o a n o l d , honorable, and by no
.
Beans moribund t r a d i t i o n . I wish t o s t r e s s a l s o t h a t what he
o f f e r s u s here i s not a t h e o r y of l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y f u l l y
e l a b o r a t e d , o r even a t h e o r y of l i t e r a r y change f u l l y worked
out i n i t s methodological i m p l i c a t i o n s , but only a propaedeutic
t o both. He i s d e f i n i n g a problematic, a n t i c i p a t i n g a " t o p i c s "
of l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y , s i t u a t i n g u s before a f i e l d of i n q u i r y ,
and s u g g e s t i n g some p r e l i m i n a r y thought regarding c e r t a i n
p i t f a l l s t h a t may await us i n any e f f o r t t o p e n e t r a t e t h a t
f i e l d . It would be i n a p p r o p r i a t e , t h e r e f o r e , t o respond t o
h i s t i g h t l y argued e s s a y w i t h o b j e c t i o n s based upon an
a l t e r n a t i v e t h e o r y of l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y o r , f o r t h a t m a t t e r ,
l i t e r a r y change. What is c a l l e d f o r on t h i s o c c a s i o n i s n o t
an a l t e r n a t i v e t h e o r y , but a n i n q u i r y i n t o the n a t u r e of t h e
" o p e r a t o r " i n P r o f e s s o r Cohen's d i s c o u r s e t h a t e n a b l e s t h e
kinds of moves, both p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e , of which h i s
d i s c o u r s e c o n s i s t s . This "operator" i s , of c o u r s e . the
n o t i o n of genre.
It i s , t o be s u r e , o n l y a notion.
Professor Cohen
e x p l i c i t l y d e n i e s any i n t e n t i o n of providing a t h e o r y of
genre o r a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of genres. tk f u l l y concedes t h a t
the t r a d i t i o n a l concept of genre is thoroughly d i s c r e d i t e d ,
s o we must take him a t h i s word t h a t he i s not t r y i n g to--as
i t i s now said--"recuperate"
t h i s concept i n i t s i n t e g r i t y
and impose i t on l i t e r a r y s t u d i e s a s the a u t h o r i t y t o which
a l l theory must pay homage i n r e t u r n f o r p a t e n t s of legitimacy.
We must, he s a y s , "redefine" t h e concept of genre i f i t i s t o
do t h e kind of s e r v i c e t o l i t e r a r y s t u d i e s t h a t he e n v i s i o n s
f o r i t . What i s t h e n a t u r e of t h i s " r e d e f i n i t i o n " of the
n o t i o n of genre? What i s i t s f u n c t i o n i n P r o f e s s o r Cohen'a
d i s c o u r s e ? How does i t o p e r a t e i n o r d e r t o e n a b l e the kind
of l i t e r a r y h i s t o r i c a l t h e o r y t h a t I have a t t r i b u t e d t o him?
To a n t i c i p a t e my conclusion, l e t me s a y t h a t , i n my view, t h e
n o t i o n of genre, a s he would d e f i n e i t , s e r v e s t o c o n s t i t u t e
l i t e r a t u r e a s a n auto-generative p r o c e s s , the products of
which w i l l be conceived t o be r e l a t e d a s members of " f a m i l i e s , "
with t h e f a m i l i e s themselves having t h e aspect of " f i c t i t i o u s
persons," t h a t i s t o say. c o r p o r a t i o n s . I n a word, the n o t i o n
of genre w i l l s e r v e t o transform " l i t e r a t u r e " i n t o a " s o c i a l "
phenomenon, the k i n d of phenomenon about which i t can p r o p e r l y
be s a i d t h a t i t
a history.
ftaa
R e c a l l t h a t P r o f e s s o r Cohen d e n i e s t h a t the d i s c r e t e
t e x t , regarded i n i t s p a r t i c u l a r i t y , can s e r v e a s a n o b j e c t
f o r t h e s t u d y of l i t e r a r y change. Taken i n i t s e l f , he
s a y s , "each l i t e r a r y t e x t i s always d i f f e r e n t from a l l
others--no m a t t e r how s l i g h t t h e d i f f e r e n c e " (p. 2).
Although a given t e x t may be a product of many r e v i s i o n s at
t h e hands of i t s a u t h o r , and can t h e r e f o r e be s a i d t o have
undergone t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s i n t h e course o f i t s composition,
i t cannot s e r v e a s an i n d i c a t o r of e i t h e r change o r c o n t i n u i t y
u n t i l i t h a s become i d e n t i f i a b l e a s a "raember of a genre"
(p. 2). P r i o r t o t h e moment of i t s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a s a
member of a genre, t h e only " c o n t i n u i t y " a g a i n s t which t h e
t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s i n t h e t e x t could be measured would be
something l i k e " a u t h o r i a l i n t e n t i o n s " ; and t h i s , we would
h a w t o s a y , is l e s s a " l i t e r a r y " than a "psycholagieal"
r e f e r e n c e point.
It i s the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the g e n e r i c
a t t r i b u t e s of t h e t e x t t h a t permits us t o speak of i t a s
having a h i s t o r i c a l , a s w e l l a s a purely p e r s o n a l , p a s t .
P r o f e s s o r Cohen p u t s i t thus: "What i s needed i s t o r e d e f i n e
every l i t e r a r y ' t e x t ' a s a member of a genre. In doing s o .
i t becomes p o s s i b l e t o f i n d t h a t every t e x t i n c l u d e s some
elements from i t s g e n e r i c p a s t and o t h e r s t h a t r e l a t e t o
i t s synchronic p r e s e n t " (p. 2-3).
In o t h e r words, a t e x t
becomes a member of a family of t e x t s , simply by v i r t u e of
the f a c t t h a t i t w i l l n e c e s s a r i l y s h a r e c e r t a i n formal feat u r e s w i t h o t h e r t e x t s . It i s t h i s resemblance of a t e x t
t o o t h e r t e x t s t h a t allows us t o understand why e v e r y t e x t
is "multi-dimensional, possessing elements which c o n a t i t u t e
i t a s a member of one o r more genres and which r e l a t e i t t o
o t h e r t e x t s i n d i f f e r e n t genres" (p. 3).
A t t h i s p o i n t , we a r e p e r m i t t e d t o ask: what p r e c i s e l y
i s the n a t u r e of t h i s resemblance? This is a c r u c i a l q m s t i o n
f o r Professor Cohen, and i t is obvious that he f e e l s t h e f o r c e
of i t ; because he candidly admits t h a t i n o r d e r t o g i v e c r e d i t
t o h i s n o t i o n of t h e r e l a t i o n of a t e x t t o a genre, he must
not only " r e d e f i n e e v e r y l i t e r a r y ' t e x t ' a s a member of a
genre." b u t a l s o " r e d e f i n e " t h e n o t i o n of genre i t s e l f .
"After a l l . " he s a y s . "terms l i k e ' t r a c e ,' 'discourse ,'
'absence.' have been r e d e f i n e d , and t h e r e i s no reason t o
assume t h a t genre need be excluded from t h i s p r o c e s s , espec i a l l y s i n c e , a s a c r i t i c a l formulation, i t makes a c c e s s i b l e
an understanding of l i t e r a r y change" (p. 3). Of what,
then, does t h i s ( p r o j e c t e d ) r e d e f i n i t i o n of genre c o n s i s t ?
It c o n s i s t s a p p a r e n t l y of t h e a s c r i p t i o n t o t e x t s of
j u s t those conceptual elements t h a t would permit u s t o
apprehend them a s members of "families."
"In t h i s new sense,"
P r o f e s s o r Cohen w r i t e s , "genre can be understood a s a family
term, c o n s t i t u t e d by elements o r p a r t s such a s m e t e r , c h a r a c t e r ,
types of r h e t o r i c , and d i s c o u r s e t o produce c e r t a i n e f f e c t s "
(p. 3).
But what s p e c i f i c a l l y does t h e phrase "family term"
d i r e c t o u r a t t e n t i o n t o i n o u r e f f o r t s t o comprehend the
r e l a t i o n s h i p s o b t a i n i n g between a t e x t and i t s " g e n e r i c p a s t " ?
Are " f a m i l i e s " of t e x t s comprised of i n d i v i d u a l s r e l a t e d only
by resemblance, connected by g e n e t i c a f f i l i a t i o n ( a s n a t u r a l
f a m i l i e s a r e ) , o r l i n k e d by some o t h e r mode of r e l a t i o n s h i p ,
such a s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a common e n t e r p r i s e , a f t e r the manner
of a s o c i a l group? The l a s t o p t i o n seems most l i k e l y , s i n c e
obviously the c l a i m of mere resemblance would be t o o weak f o r
P r o f e s s o r Cohen's purposes and t h a t of g e n e t i c a f f i l i a t i o n
would be too s t r o n g .
R e c a l l t h a t i n t h i s e s s a y h i s aim i s not t o provide a
f u l l - f l e d g e d t h e o r y of genre, but only t o i d e n t i f y the kinds
of changes which l i t e r a r y , i n c o n t r a s t t o n a t u r a l , e n t i t i e s
undergo by v i r t u e of t h e i r s t a t u s a s members of t h e c l a s s of
"writing."
Since t h e r e i s nothing " n a t u r a l " about w r i t i n g ,
the k i n d s of changes t h a t i t s species-types can be s a i d t o
undergo must be conceived t o belong t o the o t h e r o r d e r of
c u l t u r e , which i s t o say, t o t h e o r d e r of " f i c t i o n s " governed
by r u l e s of convention. What he r e q u i r e s , then, i s an analogue
of a process by which, not r e a l but only f i c t i t i o u s "families"
a r e c o n s t i t u t e d : the kind of process by which human groups
a r e c o n s t i t u t e d o v e r a g a i n s t t h e i r merely g e n e t i c a f f i l i a t i o n s .
This seems t o me t o be t h e purpose t h a t Professor Cohen's
" r e d e f i n i t i o n " of genre is intended t o serve.
The notion of genre suggested by Professor Cohen permits
him t o s a y of l i t e r a r y " f a m i l i e s " what he could n o t say of
n a t u r a l f a m i l i e s , namely. t h a t they "have many elements i n
common but they do have d i s t i n c t ends t h a t change according
t o the h i s t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n " (p. 4). And i t permits us t o
understand h i s c o n s t r u a l of Maria C o r t i ' s remark, quoted
approvingly by P r o f e s s o r Cohen, t h a t :
A genre may be t r a n s f o m d by i t s e l f from t h e i n s i d e
by a change i n the function of one of i t s c o n s t i t u t i v e
elements,
The genre reproduces l i k e a microsystem those f u n c t i o n a l v a r i a t i o n s t h a t generate the
very movement of l i t e r a t u r e ,
A genre i s q l s o
transformed by changes i n the l i t e r a r y system,
(P. 4)
...
...
...
If I am not mistaken, none of t h i s could be s a i d about n a t u r a l
f a m i l i e s , but a l l could be s a i d of the kinds of f i c t i o n a l or
g r t i f i c i a l "families" we c a l l "corporations." which is t o s a y ,
s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s held together by c o n t r a c t s and conventions.
I f we t r e a t e d genres a s prodvcts of c o n t r a c t s o r convent i o n s , we could then c r e d i t t h e kinds of changes t h a t Professor
Cohen a t t r i b u t e s t o them, on t h e qne band, and the kinds of
a u t o - t e l i c powers he a s c r i b e s t o them, on the other. Moreover.
a corporate theory of genre would e x p l a i n why I t is t h a t , a s
he puts i t : "Any attempt t o d i s c u s s change i n a genre system,
cannot avoid explanatory models derived from h i s t o r y o r
p o l i t i c s o r anthropology o r s o w o t h e r f i e l d i n which change
i s a f a c t o r " (p. 4).
It would e x p l a i n why, a s he s a y s , "In
any period, there a r e t e x t s from the p a s t that, a r e t r e a t e d
a s present and l i v i n g , " while o t h e r s a r e " d i s r e g s r d z r e
minimally p r a c t i c e d ,
" (p. 4) And i t would e x p l a i n why,
those t e x t s t h a t "are a p a r t of l i v i n g l i t e r a t u r e form a
hierarchy" (p. 51, s i n c e n a t u r a l f a m i l i e s do not n a t u r a l 1
form a hierarchy, while corporqte f a d l i e s and s
y
d
such f a m i l i e s always do. And, f i n a l l y , i t would e x p l a i n why
Professor Cohen i s so<omfortable with the notion t h a t .
although "every t e x t is an i n t e r s e c t i o n of a t l e a s t two
systems: a diachronic g e n e r i c system and a synchronic,
h i e r a r c h i c a l one,
Such systems a r e constructed by
c r i t i c s t o e x p l a i n c o n t i n u i t i e s and d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s i n
r e l a t i n g p a r t i c u l a r works o r groups of works t o the kinds
of changes t h a t a r e posited" (p. 5). These "constructions"
by c r i t i c s a r e of the same order of " f i c t i o n a l i t y " a s those
genres of which they a r e constructions.
...
A
...
...
A l l t h i s g i v e s us some i n s i g h t , I b e l i e v e , i n t o the
nature of t h a t " i d e n t i t y " which Professor Cohen a t t r i b u t e s
t o l i t e r a r y e n t i t i e s of a l l kinds and the "persistence" of
which "across a succession of d i f f e r e n c e s " i s a necessary
presupposition, by h i e l i g h t s , of any attempt t o f a s h i o n a
theory of l i t e r a r y change. At the end of Section I of h i s
"The n a t u r e of l i t e r a r y change i s thus a
e s s a y , he w r i t e s :
study of a l t e r a t i o n a which can only be understood i n terms of
the p e r s i s t e n c e of non-altered elements of frameworks which
provide an i d e n t i t y " (p. 6 ) . But t h e " i d e n t i t y " alluded t o
i s c o n s t i t u t e d by the kind of a f f i l i a t i o n t h a t c o n t r a c t s and
conventions provide. This i s why l i t e r a t u r e manifests a l l of
the kinds of change t h a t we can perceive t o occur i n s o c i e t y
and c u l t u r e a t large. Since it i s a f i c t i o n a l i d e n t i t y t h a t
has been provided, t h i a i d e n t i t y i s s u b j e c t t o a l l of the
kinds of changes t h a t f i c t i o n a l i z i n g processes i n general can
be s a i d t o produce.
The s t r e n g t h of t h i s conception of genre which, by now,
may be t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t from what Professor Cohen had i n
mind, i s t h a t i t allows u s t o regard the o b j e c t s of l i t e r a r y h i s t o r i c a l a t t e n t i o n , not a s things, but a s r e l a t i o n s h i p s o r
r a t h e r s t r u c t u r e s of r e l a t i o n s h i p s .
W
e would n o t have t o
regard a t e x t , a corpus, a canon, a s t y l e , a p e r i o d , and s o
on a s an o b j e c t which remains the same across a succession of
changes i n i t s a t t r i b u t e s , but r a t h e r a s a matrix, a system
of exchange o r c o r r e l a t i o n which a c t i v e l y works i n the i n t e r e s t
of i t s own s e l f - p e r p e t u a t i o n , i n p r e c i s e l y the same way t h a t
s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l i n s t i t u t i o n s do, whatever t h e forces
brought t b bear upon them i n the i n t e r e s t s of changing them.
This i s an important consideration f o r anyone a s p i r i n g t o a
theory of l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y , because the problem of h i s t o r y i n
general i s l e a s t h a t of change than t h a t of c o n t i n u i t y o r
persistence. H i s t o r i c a l change can be accounted f o r i n the
same way t h a t Darwin accounted f o r changes i n t h e b i o l o g i c a l
system, i.e., by a combination of s p e c i e s - v a r i a t i o n , on the
one a i d e , and changes i n t h e environment t h a t make some
v a r i a t i o n s more v i a b l e than o t h e r s , on the o t h e r side. What
Darwin could n o t account f o r , and what modern t h e o r i e s of
the g e n e t i c code e x p l a i n w e l l enough, i s s p e c i e s s t a b i l i t y ,
perduration, c o n t i n u i t y , e t c . And what Professor Cohen
d i r e c t s our a t t e n t i o n t o , a s I see i t , is the n e c e s s i t y of a
s e a r c h f o r something l i k e a g e n e t i c code f o r the study of
l i t e r a r y history.
The p r i n c i p a l impediment t o t h e successful prosecution
of t h i a search l i e s i n the notion, common t o most t h e o r i e s of
c u l t u r e i n our time, t h a t i n s t i t u t i o n s are products of
convention and t h e r e f o r e should be i n f i n i t e l y r e v i s i b l e a t
the w i l l of the human beings t h a t serve or a r e served by
them. That such i s not the case is demonstrated by the two
e n t u r i e s and w r e of recent h i s t o r y , i n which one revolut i o n a r y program a f t e r another has n@t only f a i l e d i n the
e f f o r t t o make s o c i e t y anew, but has succeeded a t b e s t i n
giving new f o r e s t o i n h e r i t e d s t r u c t u r e s of domination,
c o n t r o l , exchange, and s o on. ¶%e p e r s i s t e u a of t h e p a s t
i n whatever present o r f u t u r e t h a t revolutionary moveaents
have t r i e d t o f o r g e out of t h e i r sense t h a t human beings can
make t h e i r own h i s t o r y , underscores t h e t w t h of Zlnrx's
dictum t h a t w h i h PR aake t h e i r o m h i s t o r y , they cannot
lake i t i n whatever way they choose, b u t o n l y i n t h e ways
permitted by the s t a g e of develop.ent a t which they have
a r r i v e d i n a given h i s t o r i e s 1 moment. I f t h i s is t r u e of
history-in-general, i t must a l r o be trw of l i t e r a r y history.
And, a s I see i t , t h i s is t h e Larger i m p l i c a t i o n of Professor
Cohen's "Propaedeutic f o r L i t e r a r y Chaupp" and t h e notion of
genre t h a t he seeks t o place a t t h e e n t e r of work yet-to-bedone i n any conceptualization of tkc t a s k s of l i t e r a r y 'histor i c a l studies.
I n o t h e r words, what Professor Cohen d i r e c t s our a t t e n t i o n
t o is a o t s o much a theory of l i t e r a r y change a s a theory of
l i t e r a r y p e r s i s t e n c a , c o n t i n u i t y , perduration, and s o on.
Such a theory w i l l have t o address t h e problem of t h e f o r c e
o r s t r e n g t h of l i t e r a r y conventions, t h e ways i n which they
succeed i n reproducing themselves i n s p i t e of e f f o r t s on the
p a r t of w r i t e r s t o overturn, r e v i s e , o r otherwise break with
This argues f o r a s y s t e a a t i c s e a r c h f o r something l i k e
them.
a g e n e t i c code. of t h e s o r t r e c e n t l y invoked t o e x p l a i n t h e
r e p r o d u c i b i l i t y of species-types i n n a t u r a l families. This
should be easy enough f o r l i t e r a r y t h e o r i s t s , s i n c e t h e very
notion of code is s p e c i f i c t o language, speech, and w r i t i n g
and would have been inconceivable t o g e n e t i c theory had these
not been a v a i l a b l e a s models on which t o draw f o r the concept u a l i z a t i o n of b i o l o g i c a l r e p r o d u c i b i l i t y i n general.
Board of Studies i n History of Conaciwsaess
University o f C a l i f o r n i a , Santa Cruz
LITERARY CHANGE AND LITERARINESS
Michael R i f f a t e r r e
Ralph Cohen begins h i s discussion of change by s t a t i n g
t h a t he does not wish t o debate the meanings of t h e term
l i t e r a r y . Whereupon he proceeds t o propose a minimal, o r
very general d e f i n i t i o n of the term: "what is l i t e r a r y i s
what authors, c r i t i c s , t h e o r i s t s have i d e n t i f i e d a t the
same time or st d i f f e r e n t times a s l i t e r a r y . The f a c t t h a t
such a u t h o r i t i e s may disagree about the s i g n i f i c a n c e of
l i t e r a r y w i l l i n no way a f f e c t the i n q u i r y I propose."l
I take t h i s t o mean t h a t l i t e r a r y r e f e r s t o a consensus
of r e a c t i o n s t o a c e r t a i n type of t e x t t h a t could a l s o be
described a s a v e r b a l work of a r t , whether i t i s successful
o r n o t , t h a t i s , whether o r not i t accords with the t a s t e of
a given audience o r readership. I am not sure we should go
q u i t e s o f a r a s t o say t h a t almost a l l opinions about the
s i g n i f i c a n c e of l i t e r a r y a r e acceptable ( i n f a c t . I am s u r e
they a r e n o t , and I s h a l l r e t u r n t o t h i s point s h o r t l y ) .
But i n any case, no one can define a t e x t a s l i t e r a r y without
opposing i t t o t e x t s o r v e r b a l e n t i t i e s , sentences, phrases,
and types of discourse t h a t a r e not l i t e r a r y . W
e may not know
how t o analyze o r j u s t i f y t h e opposition, but one basic f a c t
withstands any a n a l y t i c a l s t r a t e g y , namely t h a t l i t e r a r i n e s s
s e t s a p a r t c e r t a i n verbal forms and t e x t s , or a t any r a t e our
perception and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of these. ( I do n o t , however,
see how we could imagine a perception o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t
would f o i s t l i t e r a r i n e s s o n t o a t e x t without the presence
i n t h e t e x t of fortnal f e a t u r e s t h a t i n v i t e such reactions.)
I i n s i s t on r e s t r i c t i n g b a s i c s i n t h i s way, f o r t h i s
approach n e a t l y s e p a r a t e s one of the three a s p e c t s of change
from t h e other two: j u s t by opposing l i t e r a r y t o non-literary,
we perhaps cannot e x p l a i n the nature and the k i n d s of change,
since these a r e a c c e s s i b l e only i f we s t a r t l i s t i n g f e a t u r e s
t h a t a r e present i n the l i t e r a r y and absent i n t h e non-literary,
or p o s i t i v e i n t h e f i r s t and negative i n the second. But
t h i s opposition i s s u f f i c i e n t f o r determining the relevancy
of explanations of change.
Indeed, i t p o s i t s an inescapable a l t e r n a t i v e . E i t h e r
l i t e r a r i n e s s involves the whole o b j e c t of inquiry and permeates
a l l i t s components, o r t h e o b j e c t c o n t a i n s elements t h a t a r e
n o t l i t e r a r y and a r e somehow subordinated t o t h e l i t e r a r y
ones. I n t h e f i r s t c a s e , any e x p l a n a t i o n of change t h a t
t r e a t s t h e o b j e c t a s i t would a n o n - l i t e r a r y one w i l l be
f a l s e . I n t h e second, t h e r e should be two ways of accounting
f o r change, one p e r t i n e n t t o t h e l i t e r a r i n e s s of t h e o b j e c t ,
and t h e o t h e r p e r t i n e n t t o t h e o b j e c t considered from a viewp o i n t o t h e r than l i t e r a r y . That t h e r e can be such c o n s i d e r a t i o n
is not a s paradoxical a s i t looks: s o c i o l o g i s t s , l i n g u i s t s
and h i s t o r i a n s have o f t e n used l i t e r a r y t e x t s a s evidence
f o r s o c i o l o g i c a l , l i n g u i s t i c , and h i s t o r i c a l i n q u i r i e s . This
i s q u i t e l e g i t i m a t e s o long a s they do n o t claim t h a t t h e i r
respective i n q u i r i e s are a l s o pertinent t o the l i t e r a r i n e s s
of the changing works o r genrea o r typea of discourse: they
do no more than i n c l u d e l i t e r a r y f a c t s among o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s
of s o c i e t a l , v e r b a l o r b e h a v i o r a l f a c t s . The l i t e r a r y t e x t
i s only a p r e t e x t f o r a c e r t a i n type of paraphrase i n a
metalanguage, the relevancy of which h a s not been e s t a b l i s h e d .
Ralph Cohen f e e l s , however, t h a t n o n - l i t e r a r y explanations
cannot be d i s r e g a r d e d , c i t i n g d i v e r s e forms of p o l i t i c a l cens o r s h i p , such a s a government's o f f i c i a l preference f o r w r i t i n g s
c h a r a c t e r i z e d by s o c i a l realiam.2 No doubt they cannot be d i s regarded, from t h e h i s t o r i a n ' s viewpoint. Whereas the l i t e r a r y
a n a l y s t can a f f o r d t o ignore them, f o r c e n s o r s h i p i s always
motivated by reasons o t h e r than l i t e r a r y ones. E i t h e r l i t e r a t u r e i s s i n g l e d o u t a s a t a r g e t because of an e f f e c t i v e n e s s
t h a t remains t o be e x p l a i n e d , a s opposed t o l e s s e f f e c t i v e .
more ephemeral, n o n - l i t e r a r y w d e a of e x p r e s s i o n ; o r e l s e i t
i s not s i n g l e d o u t , b u t i s s i l e n c e d by a gag a p p l i e d t o a l l
p u b l i c pronouncements. Furthermore, s o c i a l r e a l i s m , i n Cohen's
example, precedes a s a l i t e r a r y phenomenon t h e b l e s s i n g s i t
u l t i m a t e l y r e c e i v e s from the S t a t e and t h e consecutive p u b l i c
policy favoring i t s generalization.
To be s u r e , c e r t a i n c r i t i c s o r h i s t o r i a n s recognize nonl i t e r a r y e x p l a n a t i o n s of change a s e x t r i n s i c c a u s e s , b u t maint a i n t h a t they a r e p e r t i n e n t t o l i t e r a t u r e , because conaciouaness i s determined by s o c i a l being and l i t e r a r y works a r e b u t
"symptoms whose cause i s of another o r d e r of phenomnon f r m
i t s e f f e c t s . " Jameaon, f o r i n s t a n c e , r e f e r s t o Frank Kernode's
f i n d i n g an "unquestionable c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between the
admittedly e x t r i n s i c f a c t of t h e c r i s i s i n l a t e - n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y p u b l i s h i n g , during which the dominant three-decker
l e n d i n g l i b r a r y novel was replaced by a cheaper one-volun~e
format, and t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e 'inner form' of the novel
itaelf."3
Jameaon concludes t h a t l i t e r a r y a c h o l a r a a r e m i s s i n g
t h e p o i n t when they a t t e m p t " t o i n t e r p r e t the new form i n terms
of p e r s o n a l e v o l u t i o n o r of t h e i n t e r n a l dynamics of purely
formal change."
Most c e r t a i n l y they a r e , but t h a t does n o t .
make h i e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n more p e r t i n e n t . They a r e wrong f a c t u a l l y and he is r i g h t f a c t u a l l y . But these f a c t s , c o r r e c t
o r i n c o r r e c t , p e r t a i n t o a p r e - l i t e r i e a t i o n l e v e l of c a u s a l i t y .
They c o n s t i t u t e t h e c o n d i t i o n s t h a t r e s t r i c t e d o r o r i e n t e d
t h e a u t h o r ' s c r e a t i v e procees. These c o n d i t i o n s , however,
cannot e x p l a i n t h e l i t e r a r i n e s s of t h e r e s u l t i n g new type
of novel.4 because t h i s l i t e r a r i n e s s i s n e c e s s a r i l y t i e d
t o t h e reader response f a c t o r , and t h e reader h a s no n a t u r a l
way of knowing p a s t circumstances of the w r i t e r ' s s t r u g g l e s .
The r e a d e r s e e s t h e f i n i s h e d product, and p e r c e i v e s t h e r e f o r e
only those r e s t r i c t i v e c o n d i t i o n s t h a t a r e encoded i n the
t e x t o r i n a t r a d i t i o n , t h u s p r e s e n t before h i s e y e s o r i n
h i s mind (e.g. meter, l e x i c a l e x c l u s i o n s , o r t h e tropes t h a t
allow meaning t o develop unimpaired by these e x c l u s i o n s ) .
Ralph Cohen r i g h t l y remarks t h a t "explanations i n l i t e r a r y
study a r e always made i n terms of t h e aims of t h e explainer."5
I would rephrase t h i s a s follows: e x p l a n a t i o n s a r e made always
i n terms of the e x p l a i n e r ' s ideology. The good, o r p e r t i n e n t ,
e x p l a n a t i o n i s t h a t which does not superimpose i t s i d e o l o g i c a l
g r i d o n t o the l i t e r a r y work. Otherwise ideology c o n t r o l s t h e
decoding end d i s t o r t s the t e x t . No reader i s e v e r innocent
of i d e o l o g i c a l r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n . But r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n remains
a l e g i t i m a t e s t a g e of the r e a d i n g process i f i t b u i l d s exclus i v e l y on a decoding c o n t r o l l e d by t h e t e x t i t s e l f .
I f we did t r y t o d e f i n e l i t e r a r y and see what r e s i d u a l
common p r o p e r t i e s a r e l e f t a f t e r comparing the v a r i a t i o n s of
usage, our d e f i n i t i o n would have t o i n c l u d e t h e concept of a
conscious reader. Ralph Cohen's f i r s t paragraph l i s t s a s
a u t h o r i t i e s on l i t e r a r i n e s s a u t h o r s , c r i t i c s and t h e o r i s t s .
The r e a d e r i s omitted: and y e t a u t h o r s write f o r him; c r i t i c s
a r e supposed t o t e a c h him how t o read b e t t e r ; t h e o r i s t s cannot
avoid i n c l u d i n g him i n the models t h e y c o n s t r u c t . While I
agree w i t h Cohen t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l genres do n o t adequately
r e f l e c t the multi-dimensional complexity of a t e x t ,6 the b e s t
assurance we have of the relevancy of t h e genre i s the r e a d e r ' s
assumption t h a t any work of a r t corresponds t o a genre, t h a t
i t i s n o t j u s t a monument i n i s o l a t i o n but a member of a
c l a s s . Even i f such a view i s o v e r s i m p l i f i e d , o r n o t w r y
e n l i g h t e n i n g , t h e genre a s o v e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n o r a s s p u r i o u s
taxonomy would s t i l l be t h e proper o b j e c t of l i t e r a r y a n a l y s i s ,
s i n c e such a figment of the r e a d e r ' s imagination would s t i l l
be t h e b e h a v i o r a l r e a l i t y under s t u d y , a v a r i e t y of reader
The h i s t o r i a n would s t i l l have t o e x p l a i n what, i n
response.
t h e l i t e r a r y a c t of communication. makes t h e r e a d e r r e a c t t o
h i s p e r c e p t i o n of i n t e r t e x t u a l i t y by i n v e n t i n g c a t e g o r i e s .
No t e x t u a l o r d i s c u r s i v e phenouenon t h e r e f o r e can be
l i t e r a r y i f i t remains beyond t h e r e a d e r ' s ken. I f t h i s unperceived f a c t o r i s invoked a s a cause, i t can e x p l a i n only
those changes i n a t e x t t h a t have no l i t e r a r y f u n c t i o n .
When we e x p l o r e the n a t u r e of l i t e r a r y change, t h e r e f o r e .
we must f i r s t e x p l o r e t h e n a t u r e of i t s p e r c e p t i o n . Our
q u e s t i o n should be: t o what e x t e n t a r e changes i n l i t e r a r y
p r a c t i c e s and t h e r e a d e r ' s p r a x i s of l i t e r a t u r e perceived a s
such, and t o what e x t e n t does t h i s p e r c e p t i o n play a r o l e i n
the r e a d e r ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ?
Nowhere i s t h i s e s s e n t i a l r o l e of p e r c e p t i o n more apparent
than i n i n t e r t e x t u a l i t y , t h a t i s t o s a y , i n a reading procedure
t h a t i s t h e o p p o s i t e of the "normal" decoding %of t h e e e x t .
This normal decoding, the one t h a t p r e v a i l s i n everyday usage,
i s l i n e a r : words a r e deciphered s e q u e n t i a l l y i n accordance
with the s y n t a c t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n d i c a t e d by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e
p o s i t i o n s and by a number of grammatical connectors. Reading
becomes i n t e r t e x t u a l when the t e x t c o n t a i n s anomalies t h a t
block deciphering and appear t o the r e a d e r , on second thought,
a s the s i g n s of an incompleteness t o be completed elsewhere.
Elsewhere, t h a t i s , i n t h e i n t e r t e x t t h a t can be e i t h e r potenThe
t i a l i n language o r a l r e a d y a c t u a l i z e d i n l i t e r a t u r e .
t e x t i s l i t e r a r y because i t cannot be deciphered t h e way nonl i t e r a r y u t t e r a n c e s are--8s a sequence of words s p e l l i n g o u t
It i s l i t e r a r y because i t h a s t o be deciphered
what i s meant.
a s a sequence of p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s . Each word t h a t i s p e r t i n e n t
t o t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e f u n c t i o n s a s an embedding, summarizing
a s i n t e r t e x t ( t h e word being t h e l e x i c a l d e i x i s of a f u l l fledged syntagm) o r g i v i n g a r e v e r s e image of t h a t i n t e r t e x t .
Now my p o i n t i s t h a t such a t e x t i s not perceived i n t e r t e x t u a l l y a t f i r s t reading. It becomes i n t e r t e x t u a l and
u n v e i l s i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e when t h e i n i t i a l i n t e r p r e t i v e approach--the l i n e a r decoding--has f a i l e d . A change occurs t h a t
i s uniquely l i t e r a r y , when t h e t e x t a c h i e v e s its t e x t u a l i t y
not through an e x h a u s t i v e d e c i p h e r i n g of any meaning p r e s e n t
i n t h e s u r f a c e message, b u t through t h e i n t e r t e x t whose absence, displaceraent o r r e v e r s i o n i s i n d i c a t e d by t h e s u r f a c e
message. Reading, l i t e r a r y reading e f f e c t s the change.
And y e t nothing has changed i n t h e l e t t e r of t h e t e x t :
the r e a d e r has s h i f t e d from t h e r e f e r e n c e of words ( a s success i v e , d i s c r e t e semantic u n i t s ) t o t h i n g s , t o a r e f e r e n c e of
t e x t ( a s one s e m i o t i c u n i t , perceived i n t o t o , a s a sum t o t a l
of i t s p a r t s ) t o t e x t .
There i s a S u r r e a l i s t poem by Andre Breton beginning On
s o n t n o i r e s 7 ( I am t o l d t h a t X
w
n
t h a t o f f e r s the d e s c r i p t i o n of
some enchanted i s l e of the Southern s e a s , a modern Garden of
Eden, both an e s c a p e from t h e r e a l world and a l o c u s amoenus
This d i s c o u r s e does n o t
t r a n s c r i b e d i n en e x o t i c discourse.
s o much r e p r e s e n t d i s t a n t climes a s i t hyperbolizea the connot a t i o n s of the l o c u s amoenus. A s our reading p r o g r e s s e s , we
g a t h e r t h a t t h i s e x o t i c landscape s t a n d s f o r c a r n a l love. The
peak of a volcano spouting l a v a has t o be a p h a l l i c symbol-the s o c i o l e c t a t t e s t s t o t h e image and one l i n e : Lancant s e s
d e r n i e r s feux sombres e n t r e t e s
(Darting i t s l a s t dark
f i r e s between your l e g s ) is a s e x p l i c i t a s one c o u l d wish.
The o t h e r s e x u a l p a r t n e r , t h e woman, f i l l s out t h e landscape
i n v a r i o u s metonymic g u i s e s . A l l t h i s could be s t r a i g h t symbolism.
I f i t were only t h a t , we would have here an example
of l i t e r a r y d i s c o u r s e r a t h e r than of a l i t e r a r y text--a s t r i n g
of semantic displacements t h a t do not c o n s t i t u t e a whole.
These displacements could n o t by themselves j u s t i f y , l e t a l o n e
impose t h e wrenching r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t the r e a d e r is now
f o r c e d t o perform. This coup de t h e a t r e a b r u p t l y r e p l a c e s
our p e r c e p t i o n of a s e r i e s of conventional t r o p e s w i t h the
sudden awareness t h a t a l l t h e s e d e v i c e s combine t o form one
complex s i g n , s t a n d i n g f o r something e n t i r e l y new.
me d i t
la-bas l e s l a e s
--t h e r e t h e beaches a r e ,*bP
-----
The s u r p r i s e change from l i n e a r t o i n t e r t e x t u a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is t r i g g e r e d by two p o i n t s of absolute nonsense t h a t
a r e a t one and t h e same time t h e blocks on which we stumble i n
our l i n e a r reading, and the keys t o i n t e r t e x t u a l reading, f o r
they g i v e , i n t h e form of e a s y examples, the grammatical r u l e
t h a t you must use f o r t h a t reading: t h e t e s t now h a s t o be
understood 5 c o n t r a r i o , a s t h e r e v e r s e image of t h e i n t e r t e x t
where we w i l l d i s c o v e r meaning i n i t s s t r a i g h t form. The poem
ends t h u s , on a landscape s e e n from t h e top of t h e volcano:
E t p l u s bas v e r s t e s b r a s q u i s ' w v r e n t
A l a preuve p a r l e printemps
D'APUES
De l ' i n e x i s t e n c e du ma1
Tout l e pommier e n f l e e r de l a a e r
(And lower down, towards your arms opening wide
t o t h e proof by Springtitre of AFTeRWARDS
of t h e nonexistence of E v i l , t h e whole blossoming
a p p l e t r e e of t h e sea).
These f i v e l i n e s r e s i s t l i n e a r d e c i p h e r i n g u n t i l t h e
meaning of the c a p i t a l s of a f t e r w a r d s s i n k s i n . Springtime
proving t h e r e i s no e v i l a f t e r , suddenly r e v e a l s i t s e l f t o
be the r e v e r s e o r complementary v e r s i o n of the f i r s t of a l l
i n t e r t e x t s - - t h e s t o r y of t h e F a l l , of t h e e x p u l s i o n from
Eden. The a p p l e t r e e blossoming a f t e r w a r d s ( o r i n s p i t e o f )
r e v e r s e s the symbolism of the a p p l e t r e e S i n s l i t h e r e d o u t o f .
The t r e e ' s blossoms prove t h a t E v i l i s gone j u s t a s the r a i n bow was proof t o Abraham of a new covenant. Afterwards is
c a p i t a l i z e d because i t i s t h e hinge upon which t h e i n t e r t e x t u a l r e v e r s a l t u r n s , o v e r t u r n i n g t h e whole v a s t corpus
of p o s t l a p s a r i a n theology. Breton's poem owes its power Cu
i t s u n i t y , and i t owes i t s u n i t y t o two f a c t s . $ One: each
d e t a i l of what we f i r s t read a s an e x o t i c landscape s p e l l s
out s e x , t h e whole d e s c r i p t i o n being a l o n g r e i t e r a t i o n of
the one meaning--carnal love. Two: The whole sequence t u r n s
a f t e r upside down, and redeems t h e p o s t l a p s a r i a n universe-Innocence comes a f t e r the f a c t .
-
This r a d i c a l hermeneutic change of v e r b a l forms ( t h a t
remain unchanged % forms) i s confireaed, by t h e way, by an
a c t u a l i n t e r t e x t - - a prose e s s a y of Breton's, L'Amour fou, a
p h i l o s o p h i c a l travelogue d e s c r i b i n g t h e sane e x o t i c landscape
a s t h e s e t t i n g of a c r u i s e d u r i n g which t h e poet found t h e
woman of h i s dreams. The d e s c r i p t i o n is couched i n terms
such t h a t every e t o n y m f o r landscape must be deciphered a s a
m t a p h o r f o r s e x , and t h e r e i s even a n a s i d e from t h e a u t h o r
t h a t makes e x p l i c i t t h e redeeming v i r t u e of love. But t h i s
i n t e r t e x t u a l v e r i f i c a t i o n i s not a b s o l u t e l y necessary: t h e
poem i t s e l f i s b u i l t s o t h a t without i t s e l f a c t u a l l y changing,
i t f o r c e s i t s r e a d e r t o e f f e c t u a t e t h e s e m i o t i c change t h a t
c o n f e r s l i t e r a r i n e s s upon t h e t e s t .
The r e a d e r ' s r o l e i n b r i n g i n g about s e m i o t i c transformat i o n s depends on h i s l i n g u i s t i c competence. Ceneric s t r u c t u r e s
a r e b u i l t on v e r b a l s t r u c t u r e s .
It is only n a t u r a l t h a t
Ralph Cohen should a n a l y z e t h e connections between language
and genre. I n h i s c r i t i c i s m of Aayden White's l i n g u i s t i c
model f o r l i t e r a r y change,8 he i n s i s t s t h a t a g e n r e e x e r c i s e s
c o n t r o l over t h e codes a p p r o p r i a t e t o i t a t any h i s t o r i c a l
moment. When h e l a t e r d i s c u s s e s my own concept of d e s c r i p t i v e
system, he o b v i o u s l y f e e l s t h a t such systems a r e a l s o under
t h e sway of g e n r e , s i n c e h e a s s e r t s t h a t the c r i t i c cannot
s e e them a s r e p r e s e n t i n g c o n t i n u i t y and providing a context
f o r change, u n l e s s he a l r e a d y knows t h e i r r o l e i n t h e s t r u c t u r e o f a genre. "Do such systems a r i s e e x c l u s i v e of t h e
g e n r e s i n which they a r e found," Cohen then a s k s , " i n o r d e r
t o f i t some a b s t r a c t mental model of r e a l i t y ? " and he
answers i n t h e negative.9 T h i s , of course, is c o n s i s t e n t
w i t h h i s view of t h e primacy of genre: there c a n be no
l i t e r a r i n e s s independently of the genre--a tempting view
indeed i f d e s c r i p t i v e systems were s t r u c t u r e s o f the same
kind a s g e n r e s , i f they d i f f e r e d from genre o n l y i n t h a t
they have a wider d i s t r i b u t i o n ( t h e y a r e i n f a c t transg e n e r i c , f o r t h e simple reason t h a t they a r e semantic e n t i t i e s , t h e s t u f f upon which a l l g e n r e s can b u i l d ) . I f t h a t
were t h e case. i t would be our t a s k t o f i n d o u t how d e s c r i p t i v e systems a r e i n t e g r a t e d i n one g e n e r i c system: the
g e n e r i c s t r u c t u r e , f o r example, would s e t up g e n e r a l r u l e s
r e s t r i c t i n g t h e number and k i n d s of t e x t u a l v a r i a n t s of t h e
d e s c r i p t i v e systems' i n v a r i a n t s , o r modify t h e s e same i n v a r i a n t s . The system s t r u c t u r e s would be analogs of t h e g e n e r i c
s t r u c t u r e ( o r " e x t r a p o l a t i o n s " of i t , a s Ralph Cohen puts
it).lO
A d e s c r i p t i v e system, however, i s not an a b s t r a c t i o n
i n t h e sense t h a t a s t r u c t u r e is. W e r e a s a g e n r e is indeed
such a n a b s t r a c t i o n , a s e t of r u l e s organizing r e l a t i o n s h i p s
t h a t a r e a c t u a l i z e d a t t h e l e v e l of t e x t s , a d e s c r i p t i v e
system i s very concrete.
I d e f i n e i t a s a network of words
a s s o c i a t e d w i t h one another around a k e r n e l word, following
t h e model provided by t h e sememe of t h a t nucleus.
Each
component of t h e system is metonymically r e l a t e d t o the
nucleus. So s t r o n g a r e t h e s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t any such
metonym can s e r v e a s a metaphor f o r t h e whole, and annex t h e
p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s of t h e nucleus. At any point i n t h e t e x t
where t h e system remains i m p l i c i t , t h e reader c a n and i n f a c t
must f i l l i n gaps and r e c o n s t i t u t e t h e whole r e p r e s e n t a t i o n
from t h e metonym. The system r e s t s on s t r u c t u r e s , no doubt,
but when we come t o i t , i t is a l r e a d y a c t u a l i z e d . Even
though each system is t h e mental model of a r e a l i t y , it i s
a b s t r a c t only i n t h e l o o s e s e n s e t h a t thought i s a b s t r a c t a s
opposed t o a p h y s i c a l substance. But i n t h e r e a d e r ' s mind a
d e s c r i p t i v e system is a l r e a d y a c t u a l i z e d a s language. It i s
made up of words, of phrases. Likewise, t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s
between i t s components a r e n o t j u s t a grannar, b u t a s y n t a x
made t a n g i b l e and memorized i n t h e shape of s t e r e o t y p e d sentences. Unlike t h e concept of a semantic f i e l d t h a t groups
t o g e t h e r a s s o c i a t e d meanings, a l l belonging t o one sememe,
t h e d e s c r i p t i v e system is s i t u a t e d a t t h e l e x i c a l l e v e l : i t
does n o t d e r i v e d i r e c t l y from t h e sememe but from t h e lexeme
corresponding t o t h e sememe. This is why synonyms cannot
s h a r e t h e same system, another proof t h a t t h e system i s not
an a b s t r a c t one. I n s h o r t , t h e d e s c r i p t i v e system i s l i k e a
It i s l i k e a t e x t exp o s s i b l e d e s c r i p t i o n of i t s o b j e c t .
panding on t h e word r e f e r r i n g t o t h i s o b j e c t , a ready-made
segment of any s p e a k e r ' s l i n g u i s t i c competence.
Because of t h i s e s s e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e , c o n c r e t e n e s s v e r s u s
a b s t r a c t n e s s , t h e i n t e g r a t i o n of a d e s c r i p t i v e system i n a
genre s t r u c t u r e can never involve t h e system a s a whole, but
only those components of t h e system whose s t y l i s t i c f e a t u r e s
f i t t h e e s t h e t i c requirements of t h e genre.' Take f o r i n s t a n c e
t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of s u i c i d e i n t h e French novel of t h e ninesystem b u i l t around t h a t
t e e n t h century. The d-ive
word i n French c o n t a i n s a number of words such a s poison o r
( o r e l e g a n t synonyms of %)
t h a t r e f e r t o common t o o l s
They echo t r a d i t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s
of s e l f - d e s t r u c t i o n .
t h a t go a l l t h e way back t o a n c i e n t l i t e r a t u r e and whose
conventional c h a r a c t e r s o f t e n s the whole unpleasantness, e.g.
Octave's poisoning himself p o e t i c a l l y a t dawn i n s i g h t of t h e
Greek s h o r e s i n Stendhal's Armance. L i t e r a r y change such a s
t h e advent of r e a l i s m i n t h e novel f o l l o w s one of two paths:
i n t h e place of t h e poison mqtonym, i t s u b s t i t u t e s a d e p i c t i o n
of t h e d r e a d f u l e f f e c t s of t h e poison, which c a n c e l s f i g u r a t i v e n e s s ( t h e r h e t o r i c a l displacements w i t h i n t h e d e s c r i p t i v e
system) by r e v e r t i n g t o a l i t e r a l n a r r a t i v e . I n s t e a d of
S t e n d h a l ' s s a n i t i z e d a l l u s i o n t o t h e conventional l e t h a l
d r a u g h t , we t h e n have t h e harrowing s t e p by s t e p enumeration
of symptoms i n Madame Bovary's p r o t r a c t e d agony. These
symptoms by the-imply
s p e l l o u t a d e s c r i p t i v e system
borrowed whole from n o n - l i t e r a r y d i s c o u r s e , from medical
diagnosis. Change i s achieved by l i n g u i s t i c , o r r a t h e r
d i s c u r s i v e borrowing.
The o t h e r p a t h t o r e a l i s m c o n s i s t s i n s e l e c t i n g another
metonym of the s u i c i d e system, t h e improbable rechaud, ' p o r t a b l e
stove.'
In t h e French s o c i o l e c t of t h e time, t h e coal-burning
p o r t a b l e stove s t a n d s a s a synecdoche f o r the whole p o r t r a y a l
of d e a t h by carbon monoxide.
The s t o w i t s e l f , b e i n g a s m a l l
household a p p l i a n c e , connotes a minor o r i n s i g n i f i c a n t a s p e c t
of l i f e . A s a metonym f o r s u i c i d e , rechaud t h u s r e p r e s e n t s
a l i t e r a r y index of realismt-istic
subgenre of
t h e novel. It owes t h i s f u n c t i o n t o two f e a t u r e s of the
genre: f i r s t , a b a s i c r u l e of t h e novel i s t o d i s s o l v e the
d i e g e s i s , ( n a r r a t i v e and d e s c r i p t i o n ) , breaking i t down i n t o
sequences of metonyms, and e s p e c i a l l y t o r e i f y c h a r a c t e r s by
r e p l a c i n g t h e i r d i r e c t p o r t r a y a l w i t h r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of
s e t t i n g , c l o t h e s , h a b i t s , e t c . Second, a r u l e s p e c i f i c t o
the r e a l i s t novel d i c t a t e s t h e s e l e c t i o n of those metonyms
t h a t a r e a t the bottom of t h e s o c i a l and e s t h e t i c s c a l e of
values. This opens the g a t e s t o words d e s i g n a t i n g o b j e c t s
forraerly deemed i n s i g n i f i c a n t i n a l i t e r a t u r e t h a t predicated
l i t e r a r i n e s s on t h e e x c l u s i o n of the c o n t i n g e n t , of the
a c c i d e n t a l , of t h e unexemplary, of whatever was incapable of
sublimation. Hence the p o p u l a r i t y of rechaud. For i n s t a n c e ,
Balzac d e s c r i b e s t h e f a l l of a b a n k r u p m c f i g u r e ; the
g r e a t man i s dying l i k e a r a t : Raoul s'asph x i a i t come une
simple c o u t u r i e r e , au moyen d ' u n x a u d de h a r b o n m a o ~ l
was g a s s i n g himself l i k e a v ~ r ~ r ~ s wp o rit a btl e h
c o a l s t o v e ) . The condescending s i m i l e makes e x p l i c i t the
connotations of t h e metonym.
f
But now t h a t I have, I hope, c l a r i f i e d the i n t e r a c t i o n
of genre and d e s c r i p t i v e system, I must introduce a c o r r e c t i v e
t h a t s u g g e s t s e i t h e r l i m i t a t i o n s i n t h e relevancy of the former
o r a need t o s h i f t t h e focus from genre t o d i s c o u r s e , a t l e a s t
i n some i n s t a n c e s of change.
Let us c o n s i d e r t h e following from a 1854 n o v e l by Barbey
dVAurevilly:
t
Ses yeux, deux rechauds de pensees allumea e t
asphyxiants de lumiere e c l a i r a i e n t t o u t c e l a
(&
c i c a t r i c e s d'un v i s a g e def i g u r e ) , comme
l a foudre e c l a i r e un p i t o n q u ' e l l e a fracasse.12
( h i s e y e s , l i k e two s t o v e s of thoughts, l i g h t e d
w i t h an a s p h y x i a t i n g l i g h t , brightened the s c a r s
of h i s f a c e , a s l i g h t n i n g i l l u m i n a t e s the peak
i t destroys).
35
It
Never mind i f t h e image is t o o much f o r our t a s t e .
It slay be l u d i t e s t i f i e s t o t h e power acquired by rechaud.
crous but o n l y i f we t r i e d t o v i s u a l i z e ; i n o t h e r words, i f
we t r i e d t o f o r c e a r e a l i s t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n on t h i s t e x t .
The a s s o c i a t i v e power of t h e d e s c r i p t i v e system i s such t h a t
i t s mimetic l o g i c a l i t y has become i r r e l e v a n t . Metonymy has
become a metaphor, and d e n o t a t i o n h a s been replaced w i t h
connotation. The asphyxiating l i g h t , t h e s t o v e - l i k e eyes a r e
g i b b e r i s h a s mimesis, but s e m i o t i c a l l y p e r f e c t l y e f f e c t i v e
symbols of t h e e v i l , of t h e reek of d e a t h i n l i f e t h a t emanate
from t h e f a c e h e r e described: the man i s an outlaw, a Romantic
personation of e v i l . The change c o n s i s t s i n a s h i f t from
metonymy t o metaphor, i n a s h i f t from rechaud a s an index of
as a denial
v e r i s i m i l i t u d e t o rechaud a s symbol an=fore
of v e r i s i m i l i t u d e . And y e t t h e genre has not changed, and
t h e novel s t i l l belongs i n i t . Genre h e r e i s u n r e l a t e d t o
change, and we must r e s o r t t o t h e t r a n s g e n e r i c concept of
l i t e r a r i n e s s . What makes t h e image p o s s i b l e , and i t s innovat i v e d e p a r t u r e from t h e mimesis s o e f f e c t i v e , what e f f e c t s
t h e change i s t h e e x i s t e n c e of the d e s c r i p t i v e system a s a
network of metonyms. I t f u n c t i o n s t h e r e f o r e a s a g r i d of
e q u i v a l e n c i e s , with a b u i l t - i n program of s u b s t i t u t i o n s .
t h a t permit l e x i c a l exchanges without any bemantic l o s s .
Whether i t works o r not a s a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , whether i t i s
grammatical o r n o t , rechaud now symbolizes d e a t h . I t s v e r y
ungrammaticality causes t h e reader t o make a jump from t h e
o r i g i n a l lowly connotations t o t h e p r e s e n t awesome metaphys i c a l aura. Ungrammsticality--change, t h a t i s , p r e d i c a t e d
on t h e c o n t i n u i t y o r s t a b i l i t y t h e d e s c r i p t i v e system e n j o y s
i n t h e sociolect--ungrammaticslity h e r e d e f i n e s l i t e r a r i n e s s .
So much s o t h a t i n a poem w r i t t e n i n t h e same year a s
t h i s Barbey d l A u r e v i l l y novel, V. Rugo can speak of atheism
a s a moral asphyxia, and w r i t e :
...
sllume dans ton ame
Le hideux rechaud du Neantll3
(go l i g h t up i n thy s o u l Nothingness,
t h e awful s t o v e ) .
This i n a g e n r e , e p i c p o e t r y , t h a t he r e s u s c i t a t e s , and
w i t h i n which t h i s symbol, l u d i c r o u s t o today's r e a d e r , was
accepted then a s exemplary of the h i g h e s t p o e t i c mode.
L i t e r a r i n e s s , i n s e p a r a b l e a s i t i s from u n g r a m a t i c a l i t y , l 4
t h u s appears s u f f i c i e n t t o engineer a v e r y r a d i c a l type of
change--the c r e a t i o n of a s p e c i a l i z e d d i s c o u r s e , the coinage
of p r e - p o e t i c i z e d words, i n t r i n s i c a l l y l i t e r a r y i n any c o n t e x t
where ungrammaticality c a n c e l s t h e i r r e f e r e n t i a l function.
words t h e r e f o r e t h a t a r e l i t e r a r y r e g a r d l e s s of genre.
The above i n nowise d e t r a c t s from Cohen'a demonstration
of t h e v a l i d i t y of genre a s a p r i n c i p l e i n t h e e x p l a n a t i o n of
change: h i s view of t h e necessary i n t e r a c t i o n of c o n t i n u i t y
and change h a s a compelling l o g i c a l i t y t h a t I am not q u e s t i o n i n g .
R a t h e r , I s u g g e s t t h a t i t i s more widely a p p l i c a b l e , and h a r d l y
depends on c a t e g o r i e s invented by c r i t i c s , o r on norms immobil i z e d , a s i t were, i s o l a t e d by h i s t o r i a n s w i t h the b e n e f i t of
h i n d s i g h t . T h i s i n t e r p l a y of change and the unchanging only
t r a n s l a t e s i n t o a temporal code t h e r e a d e r ' s n a t u r a l sense of
ungrammaticalitiea.
Far from c h a l l e n g i n g o r c a n c e l l i n g the
s o c i o l e c t , they make t h e r e f e r e n c e of t e x t t o s o c i o l e c t necess a r y , thus transforming t h e l a t t e r i n t o an i n t e r t e x t , and
transforming r e f e r e n t i a l i t y i n t o i n t e r t e x t u a l i t y . This metamorphosis t a k e s place w i t h i n the a c t u a l time l i m i t s ok a
reading. The r e a d e r may r a t i o n a l i z e i t as a d e p a r t u r e from
the p a s t , from convention. But r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n i s but a
secondary s t a g e of reading. In t h e primary s t a g e , change
c o n s i s t s e s s e n t i a l l y i n t h e r e a d e r ' s n a t u r a l p e r c e p t i o n of
l i t e r a r i n e s s a s otherness.
Department of French and Romance Philology
Columbia U n i v e r s i t y
NOTES
1.
CHANGING THE T&RMS: IDENTITY CRISIS I N THe
LITERARX PROCESS
Ralph Cohen. "A Propaedeutic f o r L i t e r a r y Change," p. 1.
3. F r e d r i c Jameson, The P o l i t i c a l Unconscious: Narrative
a s a S o c i a l l y Symbolic Act ( I t h a c a : C o r n e l l University P r e s s ,
1981). pp. 25-26.
--
4. They e x p l a i n t h e c r e a t i v e process t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e
s t o n e i n Cromwell's u r e t e r e x p l a i n s t h e R e s t o r a t i o n . One
w i l l recognize P a s c a l ' s argument: undoubtedly he saw t h i s a s
a p e r t i n e n t cause, but what a c t u a l l y happened h e r e , I s u s p e c t ,
was t h a t he could n o t r e s i s t the l u r e of the oxymoron. The
d i s t a n c e , the q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e between e x t r i n s i c cause
and l i t e r a r y e f f e c t never f a i l s i n i t s p o e t i c s e d u c t i o n of
the s c h o l a r l y mind.
5.
"A Propaedeutic," p.
6.
Z.,pp.
13.
3.
7. Andre Breton, L'Air de l ' e a u (1934). The poem's i n t e r t e x t
i s L' Amour fou, p u m e F t G a r s l a t e r : l i t e r a r y change
does not n e c e s s a r i l y p a r a l l e l chronology.
8.
"A Propaedeutic," pp. 8.
11. Bslzac, Une F i l l e d ' E w (18321, Bibliotheque de l a
P l e i a d e , vol. 11. p. 143.
12.
L'Ensorcelee (Bewitched),
13.
La Legende des S i e c l e s , "Tout l e passe e t t o u t l ' a v e n i r . "
chap. V I I I , p.
166.
14. I am using ungrammaticality i n a broad sense t o cover whate v e r appears i n c o n t e x t unacceptable t o t h e r e a d e r , whatever
t h r e a t e n s language a s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , undermines v e r i s i m i l i t u d e ,
o r c r e a t e s i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s , c o n t r a d i c t i o n s and nonsense.
J e r r y Aline F l i e g e r
Ralph Cohen's "Propaedeutic f o r L i t e r a r y Change" seems
motivated by two d i s t i n c t b u t r e l a t e d t h e o r e t i c a l p r o j e c t s .
The e s s a y f u n c t i o n s u l t i m a t e l y a s a n apology f o r the procedure
of genre a n a l y s i s i n l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m , p r e s e n t i n g a convinc i n g c a s e f o r t h e h e u r i s t i c value of generic c a t e g o r i e s i n
the p r a c t i c e of l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m i n g e n e r a l , while arguing
s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r t h e u s e f u l n e s s of t h e g e n e r i c approach i n
t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the problem of l i t e r a r y change. But
even before advancing t h e m e r i t s of the case of g e n e r i c
c r i t i c i s m , the e s s a y a t t e m p t s t o e s t a b l i s h the parameters of
any d i s c u s s i o n of l i t e r a r y change, l a y i n g down groundrules
f o r debate. The f i r s t of t h e s e groundrules i s n e g a t i v e :
i n t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n t o h i s paper, Professor Cohen unequivoc a l l y s t a t e s h i s unwillingness t o "debate the meanings of
t h e term ' l i t e r a r y , ' " c a l l i n g i n s t e a d f o r a k i n d of g e n t l e men's agreement o r consensus concerning the d e f i n i t i o n of
t h i s key term ( " I s h a l l assume t h a t what i s ' l i t e r a r y ' i s
what a u t h o r s , c r i t i c s , t h e o r i s t s have i d e n t i f i e d a t the
He goes on
same time o r a t d i f f e r e n t times a s l i t e r a r y " ) .
t o s t a k e o u t t h e t e r r a i n of the d i s c u s s i o n , o p t i n g t o c o n s i d e r
t h r e e p o i n t s i n succession: namely, the nature of l i t e r a r y
change, the k i n d s of change, and t h e e x p l a n a t i o n s of such
change.
Now i n s p i t e of the c l a r i t y and e v i d e n t good sense of
t h e s e groundrules, the development of the e s s a y i t s e l f sugg e s t s t h a t the terms of t h e d i s c u s s i o n a r e n o t perhaps a s
s e l f - e v i d e n t a s they appear. I n p a r t i c u l a r , we must wonder
i f i t i s e v e r p o s s i b l e even t o broach the q u e s t i o n of l i t e r a r y
change without t a k i n g a p o s i t i o n , be i t e x p l i c i t o r i m p l i c i t ,
on "the meanings of the term ' l i t e r a r y . ' "
In P r o f e s s o r Cohen's
own e s s a y , f o r i n s t a n c e , an a p p a r e n t l y n e u t r a l s t a t e n e n t , which
could almost s l i p by unnoticed--the simple a s s e r t i o n t h a t "any
d i s c u s s i o n of l i t e r a r y change i m p l i e s t h a t t h e r e i s a s t a b l e
e n t i t y which can be d i v i s i b l e i n t o p a r t s " (p. 1)--is a c t u a l l y
a t h i g h l y i n f l e c t e d s t a t e m e n t which conceals a fundamental
p o s i t i o n about t h e nature of l i t e r a t u r e and t h e l i t e r a r y
a c t . And i t i s an assumption which i s by no means without
consequence f o r t h e d i s c u s s i o n which i t s e r v e s t o introduce.
I want, then, t o take a cue from Barthes (and from Freud),
and t o look again a t the i d e o l o g i c a l valence o r psychological
s t a k e s of t h a t which "gwa without saying" (Bartheas d e f i n i t i o n of i d e o l o g i c a l d i s c o u r s e ) , d i r e c t i n g my b r i e f remarks
t o a reconsideration of the groundrules of the d i s c u s s i o n a t
hand. I want t o look e s p e c i a l l y a t t h e notion of t e x t u a l
" e n t i t y " o r " i d e n t i t y " which i n s i s t s i n Professor Cohen's
a n a l y s i s , and which becomes e x p l i c i t i n the following formul a t i o n (the c l o s i n g of Part I ) : "The nature of l i t e r a r y
change i s a study of a l t e r a t i o n s which can only be understood i n terms of the p e r s i s t e n c e of non-altered elements
o r frameworks which provide an i d e n t i t y . "
I t is only, I
t h i n k , i n questioning the notion of t e x t u a l i d e n t i t y t h a t
we may f i n a l l y hope t o do j u s t i c e t o the most important
i n s i g h t s i n Professor Cohen's own a n a l y s i s , concerning the
multi-dimensional nature of the l i t e r a r y t e x t ( P a r t 111) a s
well a s the m e r i t s of the generic approach which the essay
seeks t o r e h a b i l i t a t e . Such an i n q u i r y w i l l i n t u r n s o l i c i t
a reexamination and reordering of the three c a t e g o r i e s of
the essay. For I want t o suggest, f i r s t , t h a t the "nature
of change" must be considered a s i n d i s s o c i a b l e from the
nature of the l i t e r a r y a c t i t s e l f , and t h a t % i tl o g i c a l l y
follows t h a t any "explanation" of change, a s w e l l a s any
taxonomy or l i s t i n g of "kinds of change" must be informed.
i f not determined, by our understanding of the term ' l i t e r a r y . '
I.
The Nature of L i t e r a r y Change, o r Change a s
L i t e r a r y Nature
What, then, a r e the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the understanding of
the l i t e r a r y t e x t a s an e n t i t y d i s p l a y i n g a p e r s i s t e n t g e n e r i c
i d e n t i t y ? F i r s t of a l l , the very choice of terms such a s
" s t a b l e e n t i t y . " "continuity," " p e r s i s t i n g i d e n t i t y , " e t c . ,
i t seems t o me, works t o overemphasize the conservative prop e r t i e s o r f u n c t i o n s of the l i t e r a r y a c t , o v e r p r i v i l e g i n g
the r o l e of a "changeless" ground i n t e x t u a l production, and
hence providing an unduly s t a t i c concept of genre a s the l o c u s
of an underlying c o n t i n u i t y o r a s the recognizable g e s t a l t
which i s counterposed and opposed t o a l t e r a t i o n . Even Nisbet's
somewhat more dynamic formulation of change ( c i t e d i n the
f i r s t s e c t i o n of the e s s a y ) a s "a succession of d i f f e r e n c e s
i n a p e r s i s t i n g i d e n t i t y . " s t i l l manages t o convey a s t a t i c
impression of the changing l i t e r a r y t e x t , a s a s e r i e s of
" s t a b l e e n t i t i e s " which seem frozen o r suspended i n time,
l i k e Zeno's srrow i n f l i g h t . This d e f i n i t i o n of change, moreover, is r e a l l y a figure-ground concept, i n which "changelessness" (of an always recognizable " g e s t a l t " ) provides a backdrop
f o r i n c i d e n t a l change. This c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n , t h e n , seems t o
encourage a h i e r a r c h i c a l v a l o r i z a t i o n of t h a t aiways recognizable " e n t i t y " o r corpus which seema almost t o s u r v i v e i n s p i t e
of the a c c i d e n t s which may a l t e r i t s "parts." Change, according
t o t h i s perspective, may be construed a s a kind of dislaemberment
of an " o r i g i n a l " corpus, r a t h e r than a s a process of adaptation
o r growth. Nisbet's notion of a p e r s i s t i n g i d e n t i t y thus seems
permeated with t h e kind of n o s t a l g i a f o r "plenitude" which has
been t h e focus of s o much r e c e n t c r i t i c a l commentary.
-
Of course, Professor Cohen's own use of the concept of
t e x t u a l o r g e n e r i c i d e n t i t y i s tempered throughout by c e r t a i n
c o r r e c t i v e s , l i k e h i e e x p l i c i t r e j e c t i o n of Maria C o r t i ' s
"received c a t e g o r i e s of genre." Yet the mere c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of change a s the counterposition of an i d e n t i t y with
i t s a l t e r e d "parts"--rather than, say, a s an o r g a n i c h i s t o r i c a l process (Marxist c r i t i c i s m ) , o r a s the "work" of the
Unconscious (Freudian c r i t i c i s m ) , o r even a s a p l a y of d i f ference (deconstructive criticism)--may end up c o n t r i b u t i n g
t o some of the abuses i n "normal" o r "period" genre c r i t i c i s m
which Professor Cohen himself p o i n t s out i n the f i n a l s e c t i o n
of h i s paper. An overemphasis on the c o n t i n u i t y of l i t e r a r y
genres, f o r i n s t a n c e , can l e a d t o an underestimation of the
r o l e of h i s t o r y i n l i t e r a r y change, giving s h o r t s h r i f t t o
the importance of the changing i d e o l o g i c a l ends of the l i t e r a r y
t e x t . Professor Cohen, f o r i n s t a n c e , does mention i n passing
t h a t "genres do have d i s t i n c t ends t h a t change according t o
the h i s t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n " (p. 4 ) , but he c h a r a c t e r i z e s these
"ends" a s a kind of secondary t r a i t , merely one of many " p a r t s "
o r elements whose a l t e r a t i o n need not destroy t h e t e x t ' s underThis p o s i t i o n , of course, is one which is a t
l y i n g "entity."
odds with many important schools of c r i t i c a l theory. including
both Marxist and psychoanalytic c r i t i c i s m , f o r which the ends,
be they i d e o l o g i c a l o r l i b i d i n a l , a r e the e s s e n t i a l o r d e f i n i n g
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the l i t e r a r y process.
Furthermore, the emphasis on g e n e r i c i d e n t i t y o r g e s t a l t
may c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e s i m p l i s t i c view of the t e x t aa r e f l e c t i o n
of a u t h o r i a l psychology o r i n t e n t i o n , o r a s m i r r o r of h i s t o r i c a l
conditione--a view which Professor Cohen e x p l i c i t l y r e j e c t s
i n h i s paper--precisely because , i t f o s t e r s a view of the t e x t
a s an e n t i t y o r product which can be separated o u t from i t s
And t h e b i a s i n f a v o r of t e x t u a l i d e n t i t y can con"causes."
t r i b u t e , moreover, t o t h e c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of t h e d i s c i p l i n e
of l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m i t s e l f a s a d e r i v a t i v e o r r e f l e c t i v e
a c t i v i t y , which "cannot avoid e x p l a n a t o r y models from h i s t o r y
o r p o l i t i c s o r anthropology o r some o t h e r f i e l d " (Cohen, p. 4).
When Professor Cohen s t a t e s , f o r example, t h a t t h e s t u d y of
change involves "frameworks from botany, entomology, o r chemist r y " (p. 2). he may himself be p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a view of
l i t e r a t u r e a s " r e f l e c t i o n " of r e a l l i f e .
A t h i r d consequence of an emphasis on g e n e r i c o r t e x t u a l
i d e n t i t y is s l o c a l one: Professor Cohen's view of genre a s
an i d e n t i t y whose " p a r t s " undergo a l t e r a t i o n f a i l s t o account
f o r t h e d i v e r s i t y of the k i n d s of change mentioned i n t h e
e s s a y i t s e l f . Changes from one genre t o a n o t h e r , semantic
change w i t h i n a s i n g l e t e x t , d i f f e r e n t v e r s i o n s of one work-a l l t h e s e a r e i n s u f f i c i e n t l y accounted f o r by a theory of
l i t e r a r y genre a s the l o c u s of t e x t u a l c o n t i n u i t y o r i d e n t i t y .
I n the f i r s t s e c t i o n of the paper, f o r i n s t a n c e . Professor
Cohen r e f e r s t o "semantic changes governed not by time b u t by
c o n t e x t ( d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t s , d i f f e r e n t meanings)" (p. 1).
This example of changes of the meaning of a key term w i t h i n
the work i t s e l f i s one example of s type of l i t e r a r y change
which r e s i s t s e x p l a n a t i o n i n g e n e r i c terms, simply because
the changed c o n t e x t s a l l occur w i t h i n an i n d i v i d u a l t e x t .
But, perhaps more s i g n i f i c a n t l y , t h i s example i l l u s t r a t e s t h a t
a t e x t i s capable not only of being " d i f f e r e n t from a l l o t h e r
t e x t s , " which Cohen a g r e e s i s always the case (p. 2). but
a l s o of being d i f f e r e n t from i t s e l f . Such an example works
the l i t e r a r y a c t , since
a g a i n s t the n o t i o n of "stabil-n
i t i l l u s t r a t e s t h e d i f f e r e n t i a l n a t u r e of t e x t u a l i t y i t s e l f ,
t h e c a p a c i t y of a work t o be c r e a t i v e l y u n s t a b l e , and t h u s t o
f u r n i s h m u l t i p l e "contexts" f o r i t s reading and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .
The c a t e g o r y of i n t r a t e x t u a l "change," t h e n , seems t o
open t o a d e f i n i t i o n of t h e l i t e r a r y process i t s e l f a s a k i n d
of d i f f e r e n c e , a l t e r a t i o n , o r c o n t e x t u a l play. Consider, f o r
example, the following c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of reading (by Michael
R i f f a t e r r e ) a s a process of discovery of "change" i n t h e t e x t .
t h e r e a d e r ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a game of hide and seek of which
"change" i s t h e very essence:
The t e x t i s an o b j e c t of gradual discovery, of a
dynamic and c o n s t a n t l y changing p e r c e p t i o n , i n
which the reader n o t only moves from s u r p r i s e t o
s u r p r i s e b u t s e e s , a s he moves forward, h i s own
understanding of what he has r e a d being modified,
e a c h new f i n d i n g adding a new dimension t o prev i o u s elements. 1
This kind of emphasis on the d i f f e r e n t i a l n a t u r e of t h e
t e x t i s , of c o u r s e , s d i s t i n g u i s h i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of much
of contemporary c r i t i c a l t h e o r y , but i t i s by no means conf i n e d t o post-modern o r p o s t - s t r u c t u r a l i s t a n a l y s i s . A view
of an a c t i v a t e d and a c t u a l i z e d l i t e r a r y t e x t a l s o informs t h e
a r t i s t i c v i s i o n of such canonic f i g u r e s a s F l a u b e r t and P r o u s t ,
who both s t r e s s t h e change of v i s i o n required of t h e a r t i s t
i n o r d e r t o provoke the " s u r p r i s e " of reading.
(For F l a u b e r t ,
" s t y l e i s a manner of seeing." while f o r P r o u s t , i t i s t h e
t a s k of the a r t i s t E l s t i r o r Bergotte t o allow u s t o "see
through new e y e s ," o r "through the e y e s of a hundred o t h e r s ,"
i n an ever-changing k a l e i d o s c o p i c v i s i o n . ) For many w r i t e r s
and c r i t i c s , "change" i s n o t a p r o p e r t y of the t e x t , nor i s
i t something which happens to the t e x t , but i t is the fundamental nature of t h e t e x t i t s e l f . For these w r i t e r s and
c r i t i c s , any d i s c u s s i o n of l i t e r a r y processes must challenge
the n o t i o n of t h e underlying i d e n t i t y of t e x t s , t h e knowledge,
t o use Cohen's metaphor, t h a t the god may r e t u r n a f t e r the
metamorphosis (p. 2). For such a "knowledge," of course,
depends on an assumption of the conservative f u n c t i o n of
l i t e r a r y processes.
But i t is not enough merely t o argue about the nature
of l i t e r a t u r e i t s e l f i n o r d e r t o r e a c h an understanding of
the q u e s t i o n a t hand. What is needed i s a comprehensive
theory which w i l l attempt t o r e l a t e t h e various l e v e l s and
k i n d s of l i t e r a r y change, whether t h e y be on t h e l e v e l of
the i n d i v i d u a l work o r an e n t i r e genre o r group of genres.
difAnd i f the view of the l i t e r a r y t e x t a s a process
f e r e n c e of change ( r a t h e r t h a n a s a s t a t e t o which change
o c c u r s ) is t o be u s e f u l i n e l a b o r a t i n g t h i s comprehensive
o r o r g a n i c t h e o r y , i t must be p e r t i n e n t t o a l l t h r e e a s p e c t s
of P r o f e s s o r Cohen's d i s c u s s i o n . And t h i s does indeed seem
t o be t h e case: f o r i f t h e "nature of change" i s seen a s
c o i n c i d i n g w i t h the nature of the l i t e r a r y , t h e n the "explan a t i o n s of change" w i l l n e c e s s a r i l y be bound up w i t h the
theory of the l i t e r a r y process i t s e l f . And t h e "kinds of
change" may t h e n be expected t o s e r v e a s i l l u s t r a t i o n s of
t h i s theory.
of
111.
11.
Reordering t h e Terms: Explanations and
Kinds of Change
Now t h i s a l t e r n a t e view of change, informed by t h e a l t e r n a t e view of t h e t e x t u a l process t o which I have a l l u d e d ,
by no means i m p l i e s t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o r d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n of
t h e g e n e r i c procedure which P r o f e s s o r Cohen seems t o favor.
But i t w i l l r e s u l t i n a n even more pronounced emphasis on t h e
multi-dimensional n a t u r e of t e x t s and of g e n r e s a l i k e , favoring
t h e second formulation of t h e concept of l i t e r a r y genre (which
appears on p. 3 of P r o f e s s o r Cohen's paper) a s "a f a m i l y t e r n .
c o n s t i t u t e d by elements o r p a r t s such a s meter, c h a r a c t e r .
types of r h e t o r i c , and d i s c o u r s e t o produce c e r t a i n e f f e c t s . "
This "new sense of genre" a s a kind of molecular soup of e l e ments o r p a r t s which i n t e r a c t i n a dynamic of combination and
rearrangement is d i f f e r e n t i n emphasis from t h e o r i g i n a l f i g u r e ground formulation. For t h e second modular understanding of
genre could almost q u a l i f y a s a s t r u c t u r a l i s t procedure ( i n
t h e manner of G e n e t t e ) , s i n c e i t emphasizes t h e f u n c t i o n a l
a s p e c t s of a t e x t , and t h e r e f o r e i s compatible w i t h an examin a t i o n of t h e ends o r o b j e c t i v e s of a t e x t ( a q u e s t i o n which
seemed t o be neglected by t h e e a r l i e r formulation). Unlike
t h e f i r s t emphasis on genre a s g e s t a l t o r i d e n t i t y , t h i s
second formulation i s by no means incompatible w i t h t h e not i o n of t e x t , i n t h e etymological sense of an interweaving
of d i s p a r a t e elements. And t h i s second concept of genre.
i t seems t o me, comes c l o s e t o t h a t found i n t h e r e c e n t
work of c r i t i c s l i k e Jameson, Eagleton, and Kavanaugh, who
r e j e c t a s t r i c t o r simple "determinism"--Althusser's "mechanic a l c a u s a l i t y " - i n f a v o r of an account which s t r i v e s t o reconstitute t h e complexity of t h e r e l a t i o n s between s o c i e t y
In a similar s p i r i t ,
and t h e "semi-autonomous" l i t e r a r y text.2
Hayden White h a s r e c e n t l y argued f o r t h e need t o eacape from
an u l t i m a t e l y s t u l t i f y i n g d i s t i n c t i o n between t e x t end cont e x t , l i t e r a t u r e and f r a m o r k , "myth" and "hiatory."3
What a l l of t h e s e r e c e n t a n a l y s e s have i n connnon i s
t h e i r i n t e r e s t i n a comprehensive theory of t e x t u a l i t y and
t e x t u a l change a s a " s o c i a l l y symbolic a c t " (Jarneeon) w i t h
p o l i t i c a l , e s t h e t i c , and s o c i e t a l consequences. I n t h i s
kind of a n a l y s i s , a t h e o r y of t h e l i t e r a r y a c t precedes and
informs a d i s c u s s i o n of i t s i n s t a n c e s : an "explanation" of
t h e "nature" of change e n a b l e s a d i s c u s s i o n of t h e i n s t a n c e s
o r "kinds" of change.
The P o l i t i c a l Unconscious:
Toward a Theory
of L i t e r a r y Change
The moat r e c e n t work of F r e d r i c Jameson, i t seems t o me,
is t h e b e s t example t o d a t e of t h i s k i n d of a n a l y s i s , which
makes use of a multi-dimensional view of the l i t e r a r y t e x t a s
w e l l a s a n o n - s t a t i c concept of l i t e r a r y genre .4 Indeed,
Jameaon t a k e s p a i n s t o p o i n t o u t t h a t "genre c r i t i c i s m has
always maintained a p r i v i l e g e d r e l a t i o n with h i s t o r i c a l m a t e r i alism" (The P o l i t i c a l Unconscious, p. 105). and h e makes i t
c l e a r t h r h e i n t e n d s t o e x p l o i t and enhance t h a t r e l a t i o n .
Like Ralph Cohen. Jameson i n s i s t s on looking a t genre a s an
i n t e r s e c t i o n of m u l t i p l e systems. Focusing on t h e convent i o n a l d i s t i n c t i o n between semantic views of l i t e r a r y genre
(which emphasize "essence" o r "content" i n the manner of Frye)
and s y n t a c t i c e x p l a n a t i o n s of genre (which emphasize process o r
paradigm, i n t h e manner of t h e s t r u c t u r a l i s t s and f o r m a l i s t s ) ,
Jaoleaon maintains t h a t t h e " t e x t must remain s u s c e p t i b l e t o
s t u d y from both t h e s e options."
(He does, however, point o u t
t h a t t h e choice i s not without i d e o l o g i c a l consequences.)
Like P r o f e s s o r Cohen. Jameson makes use of t h e c a t e g o r i e s
of sameness and d i f f e r e n c e , c o n t i n u i t y and d i s c o n t i n u i t y . i n
h i s e v a l u a t i o n of t h e s e two t e n d e n c i e s i n g e n e r i c c r i t i c i s m .
But u n l i k e Cohen. Jameson f i n d s t h a t g e n e r i c d i s c o n t i n u i t y i s
by f a r t h e more important of the two terms, a s i s evinced by
h i s d e f i n i t i o n of t h e novel a s " a synchronic u n i t y of c o n t r a d i c t o r y o r heterogeneous elements" (p. 141). Jameson's t e x t u a l
" e n t i t y " o r " u n i t y , " t h e n , i s f a r from "stable":
it i s , rather,
a p r e c a r i o u s and symptomatic compromise between c o n f l i c t i n g
p r e s s u r e s and tendencies.
I n o t h e r words, Jameson's theory of
genre i s informed by an e x p l i c i t p o s i t i o n "on t h e meaning of
the term l i t e r a r y . "
For Jameson, t h e l i t e r a r y t e x t i s an a c t
of w i s h - f u l f i l l m e n t ( i n t h e Freudian senae of t h e term), a
symptom of s o r t s which s e e k s an "imaginary s o l u t i o n " t o ideol o g i c a l c o n t r a d i c t i o n . T h i s theory permits him t o combine a
synchronic and a d i a c h r o n i c p e r s p e c t i v e , s i n c e h e considers
t h e " p o l i t i c a l unconscious" t o be a s o c i a l and h i s t o r i c a l
c o n s t r u c t , e n a b l i n g t h e c r i t i c t o s p e c u l a t e about the changes
i n genre through time, a s w e l l a s t o account f o r t h e s t a t u s
enjoyed by a p a r t i c u l a r l i t e r a r y form a t any g i v e n moment of
time. For Jameson, the t e x t i s u n s t a b l e , open t o the winds
of h i s t o r y . Indeed, f o r Jameson, t h e "heterogeneous" t e x t i s
i t s e l f a t r a n s f o r m a t i v e p r o c e s s , s i n c e i t works t o resolve
h i s t o r i c a l c o n t r a d i c t i o n s w i t h "imaginary" s o l u t i o n s .
One advantage of this approach is the emphasis which it
places on the textual function of objective, rather than its
"causes" (which is the case, unfortunately, with the toosimple determinism which flaws s o w Marxist analyses).
Jameson's hybrid Marxist-Freudian interpretation of literature, with its emphasis on the ideological quotient of
textual gratification, goes a long way toward providing an
organic and complex account of literary change on a11 levels.
by positing that change or alteration is a function of a
"desire" which is itself susceptible to alteration through
history. In other words, the Political Unconscious is a
valuable mediating term, which permits the critic to discuss
both intention and reception of the text in terms of the
production of literary gratification or pleasure, sa well
as in terms of ideological function.
Jameson's work is an important first step, since it
attempts to emphasize the social nature of the heretofore
highly subjective category of wish-fulfillment. But what
is needed is a clearer elaboration of the relation between
personal and social history, and an application of the concept of the political unconscious to the domain of esthetics
proper (taking on, for instance, the important question of
the political ramifications of Freud's opposition of "esthetics" and "work"). This effort will require a continuation
of the critique of subjectivity, begun by Lacan and others,
which will continue to challenge the notion of textual "identity," thereby changing our own practice as critics and
teachers, and enabling us to encounter the literary text not
as an "object" of study, but as an act of social consequence.
Department of French
Rutgers University
1. Michael Biffaterre, lasais de Stylistique Structurale
(Paris: Fl-rim,
1 9 9 1 ~ 3 ~ .
2. See especially James H. Ihvanaugh's "Xarxisr's Althusser:
Toward a Politics of Literary Theory," Macritics (Spring
1982). pp. 25-45.
3. Hayden White, "Getting Out of History," Diacritics (Fall
1982). pp. 2-13.
4. Fredric Jameson, The Political Wneonscious (Ithsca:
Cornell University ~ r i s o , ~ v ~seen also
d
the special
issue of Diacritics (Fall 1982) devoted to Jameson's work.
TIE GENERIC BASIS OF NARRATIVE HISTORY
OF LITeRARY CUANGE
Jaxes E. Ford
The g e n e r a l i s s u e of l i t e r a r y change can be made c o n c r e t e
i n t h e q u e s t i o n , i s n a r r a t i v e - c a u s a l h i s t o r y of l i t e r a t u r e
p o s s i b l e ? With few e x c e p t i o n s , t h e evidence of p a s t p r a c t i c e
of l i t e r a r y h i s t o r i a n s would suggest t h a t it i s not. The
v a s t m a j o r i t y of h i s t o r i c a l works h a s been e i t h e r of t h e
p h i l o l o g i c a l t y p e , which R. S. Crane d e s c r i b e s a s " c o n s i s t
[ i n g ] i n the l i t e r a l e x e g e s i s and comparison of t e x t s i n
terms of the m a t e r i a l t r a i t s of t h e i r content and form i n a
context of t h e circumstances of t h e i r composition," o r t h e
d i a l e c t i c a l v a r i e t y , wherein the "concern i s t o d i s c r i m i n a t e
the q u a l i t i e s o r v a l u e s which any work s h a r e s w i t h any
o t h e r work by p a r t a k i n g i n the common causes of a l l human
discourse--language. t h e mind, s o c i e t y , h i s t o r y , and s o on."l
...
I n terms of the argument I want t o develop here about
the g e n e r i c requirements f o r l i t e r a r y h i g t o r y , I would say
t h a t t h e s e common approaches a r e both d e f e c t i v e i n t h a t t h e i r
assumptions and methods make them incapable of p r e s e r v i n g the
l i t e r a r y phenomena of l i t e r a r y works. For n a r r a t i v e - c a u s a l
h i s t o r y must be phenomenal h i s t o r y , and n a r r a t i v e - c a u s a l
h i s t o r y of l i t e r a t u r e must be h i a t o r y of l i t e r a r y phenomena.
I nominate g e n r e , i n the sense t o be developed below, a s t h e
concept which can e n a b l e t h e c r i t i c - h i s t o r i a n t o preserve t h e
phenomena. I n s o doing, I j o i n Ralph Cohen i n championing
genre a s t h a t which is most l i k e l y t o s a t i s f y t h e requirements
f o r the s p e c i f i c a t i o n of p e r s i s t e n c e i n change which i s the
primary c o n d i t i o n f o r n a r r a t i v e h i s t o r y of change. However,
agreement a t t h e s u r f a c e on the importance of genre may not
e x t e n d t o more fundamental agreement about t h e n a t u r e of
genre, i f I understand c o r r e c t l y t h e view of t h e concept he
g i v e s i n "A Propaedeutic f o r L i t e r a r y Change" and elsewhere.
To f o r c e my own terms on P r o f e s s o r Cohen, I would s a y
t h a t he opposes Hayden White and Michael R i f f a t e r r e p r e c i s e l y
because t h e i r ( d i a l e c t i c a l ) approaches t o l i t e r a r y change
work a l i k e t o i n s u r e t h e r e d u c t i o n of the l i t e r a r y phenomena.
Countering White, P r o f e s s o r Cohen a s s e r t s t h a t "Although
genres a r e language s t r u c t u r e s , they a r e not r e d u c i b l e t o
language
r a t h e r , one must understand "the c o n t r o l
. . . ."
. . ."
a l i t e r a r y genre e x e r c i s e s upon t h e codes a p p r o p r i a t e t o i t
("A Propaedeutic f o r L i t e r a r y Change," pp. 8-9.
R e r e a f t e r c i t e d a s "PLC").
That i s , t o remove any element
from i t s s u b o r d i n a t e r e l s t i o n w i t h i n a l i t e r a r y work i n o r d e r
t o reduce i t t o codes is t o l o s e t h e l i t e r a r y phenomena--to
reduce t h e c a t h e d r a l t o i t s stonework. R i f f a t e r r e ' s approach
is s i m i l a r l y c r i t i c i z e d becauae i t l e a d s t o r e d u c t i o n t o a
"kernel word t h a t f i t s a mental model of the r e a l i t y repres e n t e d by t h a t word" ("PLC," p. 9). This k e r n e l word conc e p t i s t r a n s g e n e r i c and p u t s t h e e n a l y t i c a l c a r t before t h e
horse:
"Can we ," a s k s P r o f e s s o r Cohen. "accept t h i s v e r s i o n
- o f c o n t i n u i t y and change of a d e s c r i p t i v e system w i t h i n a
genre without knowing i t s r o l e i n t h e s t r u c t u r e of the genre?"
("PLC," p. 9-10) Not, I would answer, i f we a r e t o have h i s t o r y of l i t e r a r y phenomena.
So Professor Cohen and I a r e a g a i n s t the aame thing; I
am n o t a t a l l c e r t a i n t h a t we a r e f o r the same t h i n g . A l though we both would a s s e r t t h e p r i o r i t y of "the s t r u c t u r e
of t h e genre." w may not be championing the aame view of
t h a t s t r u c t u r e . While I f u l l y agree t h a t "The choice of
genre b e c o m s n o t a l i n g u i s t i c a c t , " I begin t o worry when
I read f u r t h e r t h a t the choice is "a s o c i a l one which d e t e r mines t h e l i n g u i s t i c " ("PLC," p. 9). I n the c o n t e x t of t h e
l i t e r a r y works under d i s c u s s i o n , I would have thought i t t o
be e s s e n t i a l l y a n a r t i s t i c choice.
Looking beneath the s u r f a c e of h i s words, I conclude
t h a t , i f I understand i t c o r r e c t l y , Professor Cohen's conc e p t i o n of genre w i l l not a l l o w him t o i d e n t i f y t h e concrete
g e n e r i c wholes h i s aims a c t u a l l y r e q u i r e a s he s e e k s "to
d e f i n e every l i t e r a r y ' t e x t ' a s a member of a genre" ("PLC."
For, a s I b e l i e v e Walter Davis has c o r r e c t l y seen,
p. 2).
i t is p o s s i b l e t o preserve t h e l i t e r a r y phenomena only by
"Making form a t r u l y purposive p r i n c i p l e , " "an immanent p r i n c i p l e of s t r u c t u r e capable of r e a l i z i n g i t s e l f i n p a r t i c u l a r
."2
works i n a continuous way
...
I t h i n k t h a t Professor Cohen's conception of genre omits
t h i s main r e q u i s i t e of g e n r e , which I would s p e c i f y a s t h a t
s u b o r d i n a t i n g p r i n c i p l e which g i v e s a work coherence, i t s
f i n a l cause o r " p e c u l i a r power."
I n s p i t e of t h e f a c t t h a t
he d e f i n e s genre a s "a family term, c o n s t i t u t e d by elements
o r p a r t s such a s meter, c h s r a c t e r , t y p e s of r h e t o r i c , and
d i s c o u r s e t o produce c e r t a i n e f f e c t s " ("PLC," p. 3). I do
not feel the force of the "to" worked effectually into the
essay. Missing from the preposition is the crucial appreciation of the architectonic role of the work's end. "for the
sake of" which the parts function as the effect or final cause
establishing "their strict subordination to form as a principle
of power endowed with the power to transform those materials,
giving them what Aristotle termed 'an end or purpose which
they would not by nature assumel'"3 In a literary text it is
the subordinating principle which transforms into literary
phenomena elements which were before only potentially such.
Although Profesaor Cohen does include "effects" in his
definition of genre, there is little indication here, and even
less in what follows, that in his scheme end is anything more
than one element among equals. The crucial notion of a subordinating final cause is absent, and that absence explains
his multitude of overlapping, unparallel categories of works
which, though they are indiscriminately called generic, are
more accurately to be viewed as classes of groupings according to any number of subject-mstter, material, technical,
traditionally or dialectically determined characteristics.4
Failure to distinguish what I would terd essential from accidental and historical elements results, in "A Propaedeutic
for Literary Change." in all of the following being labelled
genres: proverb, comedy. performance genre (presumably
drama), poem, sacred narrative, secular narrative, didactic
poem and critical text (all from p. 3). epic and romance
(p. 3 - 4 1 , novel and Wordsworthian poetry ("a new version of
poetic language and critical vision") (p. 5 ) , sonnet and
lyric fp. 6 ) , satire, exemplary satire, heroic poem, greater
Romantic lyric and georgic descriptive poem (the latter two
pace H. H. Abrams), and sermon (p. 7). ode and ballad parodies (p. 7), and ballad (p. 9). It even seems possible
that Cohen considers generic Keats' ten-line odic stanzas
(p. 7) and film (p. 9). Of course there is no reason to
class things together except for the usefulness of the classification. My purpose here is the preservation of literary
phenomena in order to enable the production of literary history. There is a sense in which. therefore, I am reversing
the logical order of the terms of the title of another of
Profesaor Cohen'a essays, "Historical Knowledge and Literary
Understanding." in suggesting critical concepts which are
sufficient to result in true literary history.
It is patently true that elements which have come to be
closely identified with works written in one genre can be
employed in other genres. We can all point, for example, to
satiric elements in works which we would not otherwise be
inclined to call satires. However, the truth is that the
same element does not function in the same way in different
genres; transported, elemente serve a function "they would
not by nature assume," and to fail to perceive this difference is to risk falling into errors of historical judgment.
evaluation, and interpretation. Sheldon Sacks finds a perfect
example of this danger in the ridicule the title character of
Emma directs toward the chattering Miss Bates. The "informing
principle" of satire as a genre is ridicule of something or
someone outside the work (or, more loosely, within the work).
In a satire, one would expect the treatment of Miss Bates
(with perhaps a cast at the whole of her chattering tribe)
to be there essentially for the sake of satirical ends. In
fact. Emma's callousness prompts Knightley's reprimand, which
causes our heroine's self-censure, contributing importantly
to her personal growth. Rather than serving satirical ends.
this element functions to advance the plot of a mimetic work-"an end opposed to satirew--as well as to qualify the reader's
judgment of Emma. A reader who does not appreciate the true
subordinate role of Miss Bates, and thereby overrates her
"satirical" quslity, might fail to "recognize the adeptness
with which Jane Austen has revealed, with exquisitely appropriate understatement, Miss Bates' essential good nature and
freedom from malice, ao that, when Emma errs, the extent of
her culpability is precisely defined."5 Such a reader, were
he or she a historian, might also treat the incident within
the history of literary change as inaccurately as one who
fails to recognize the specific sorts of transformations
undergone by elements mythic in origin when they are incorporated into imaginative works of literature, such as in
Euripides' dramatic treatment of the gods.
-
After reemphasizing that all writing is generic, Professor Cohen adds, "This in no way is w a n t to imply that s
Obviously a
text belongs only to one genre" ("PLC," p. 3).
text may belong to more than one of the classes Profesaor
Cohen lists--a tragic or comic novel, a comic or satiric
ode. Rowever, no work can "belong" to more than one genre
if, as I believe, a single (though possibly complex) principle of subordination is the eesence of a genre. Only a
failed work would strain at realizing its structure between
two competing powers. I f a work belongs t o more t h a n one
form of t h e work; i f
genre, i t is impossible t o speak of
t h e r e is no s u b o r d i n a t i n g form, t h e r e i s no p r e s e r v e r of t h e
l i t e r a r y phenomena; i f t h e l i t e r a r y phenomena a r e reduced,
t h e r e is no a p p r o p r i a t e m a t t e r f o r l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y of change.
I conclude from reading h i s c r i t i c i s m of Crane (whom he
acknowledges a s providing "some of t h e h i s t o r i c a l a n t e c e d e n t s
f o r the t h e o r e t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s t h a t I propose") t h a t t h e r e is
more than a n a c c i d e n t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between P r o f e s s o r Cohen'e
deemphasis of ends and h i s m u l t i p l i c a t i o n of i n t e r s e c t i n g forms.
He c i t e s approvingly Crane's b e l i e f t h a t t h e c r i t i c ' s j o b i s
" t o discover t h e problems of p a r t i c u l a r w r i t e r s a t d i f f e r e n t
times--their changes i n forms, m a t e r i a l s , and techniques--that
e x p l a i n t h e i r works a s ' m u l t i p l e h i s t o r i c a l r e l a t i o n s ' and a s
'unique a r t i s t i c wholea.'"6
But he seems t o f i n d t h e i d e a
of "multiple h i s t o r i c a l r e l a t i o n s " i n f i n i t e l y more congenial
than the concept of "unique a r t i s t i c wholes" which, f o r Crane.
i s t h e l o g i c a l l y p r i o r concept f o r t h e w r i t i n g of l i t e r a r y
history.
That word " a r t i s t i c " i s p a r t i c u l a r l y troublesome. Although Crane i s p r a i s e d f o r " h i s defence of c o n s t r u c t i o n a l
p r i n c i p l e s . " he i s judged t o be i n e r r o r " i n conceiving of
the l i t e r a r y t e x t a s an ' a r t i s t i c ' whole. This view presupposes a c o n s i s t e n c y of systems o r f u n c t i o n s t h a t i s unnecess a r i l y r i g i d i n e x p l a i n i n g the d i v e r s e r h e t o r i c a l procedures
and t h e i r combinations. The aims of a l i t e r a r y work need
("HKLU," p. 246).
Obviously
not be seen a s s i n g l e
n o t . Crane would c e r t a i n l y agree t h a t F i e l d i n g could inc o r p o r a t e t h e i n c u l c a t i o n of v i r t u e i n t o a work which f u r nished t h e p e c u l i a r p l e a s u r e s i n h e r e n t i n a mimetic account
of t h e c a r e e r of a b a s i c a l l y v i r t u o u s , n a i v e l y r o g u i s h E n g l i s h
youth, without supposing t h a t both aims were s t r u c t u r a l l y
equal. And he could a s e a s i l y a g r e e t h a t w r i t e r s aim t o make
money while they encourage u s t o v i r t u e o r move u s t o p i t y
and f e a r , without being prevented from d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between
t h e d i d a c t i c o r mimetic p r i n c i p l e s of s u b o r d i n a t i o n which a r e
e s s e n t i a l t o t h e r e s p e c t i v e s u c c e s s of two very d i f f e r e n t
k i n d s of works. Anyone s u b s c r i b i n g t o Crane's approach i s
a s t h e o r e t i c a l l y a b l e t o handle t h e c r a s s e s t commercial rhet o r i c a l work a s t h e moat e t h e r e a l lyric--as long a s fundaIn Critical
n e n t a l g e n e r i c d i s t i n c t i o n s a r e maintained.
and H i s t o r i c a l P r i n c i p l e s i t i s c l e a r t h a t Crane chooses t o
l i m i t h i s a t t e n t i o n t o developing p r i n c i p l e s and procedures
. . ."
-
i n r e l a t i o n t o imaginative works of l i t e r a t u r e , i n d i s t i n c t i o n ,
a s he s a y s , t o "most l i t e r a r y h i s t o r i e s [which], however g r e a t
t h e i r d i v e r s i t y i n o t h e r r e s p e c t s , have presupposed a concept i o n of imaginative l i t e r a t u r e ( o r p o e t r y ) which d o e s not
d i f f e r e n t i a t e e s s e n t i a l l y , b u t only s c c i d e n t a l l y , between
one of i t s s p e c i e s and o t h e r s , o r between any of t h e s e and '
w r i t i n g i n general."7
Since P r o f e s s o r Cohen r e j e c t s the middle ground of phenomena on which a u t h o r s a c t u a l l y e n c o u n t e r and s o l v e construct i o n a l problems i n o r d e r t o c r e a t e l i t e r a r y wholes, he must
look elsewhere f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n a l c o n t r o l . He must seek what
he needs t o organize h i s " g e n e r i c f e a t u r e s " (which i n the
modern f a s h i o n might w e l l be c a l l e d "genrethemea") o u t s i d e
the l i t e r a r y work. We know from "A Propaedeutic f o r L i t e r a r y
Change" t h a t he r e j e c t s what he s e e s a s the mechanistic reduct i o n s of White and R i f f s t e r r e .
In " H i s t o r i c a l Knowledge and
L i t e r a r y Understanding" he took the o p p o s i t e approach, f i n d i n g
on t h e h i g h ground "the concept of t h e period norm."
This i s
a "norm i n the s e n s e t h a t t h e c r i t i c i s providing an explanat i o n of t h e underlying p r i n c i p l e s of combination" w i t h a concept t h a t "permits s d i s t i n c t i o n between how [ g e n e r i c ] feat u r e s a r e joined and between the o v e r t statements of s u b j e c t
o r t h e h i s t o r i c a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e r h e t o r i c a l d e v i c e s " ("HKLU."
pp. 237-2301.
P r o f e s s o r Cohen s a y s e x p l i c i t l y (confirming
my i n t i m a t i o n t h a t h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e s would not
i n f a c t remain on t h e phenomenal p l a i n ) t h a t h i s i s a view
of " p o e t i c c o n s t r u c t i o n a s a moral and e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l procedure f o r d e a l i n g w i t h the p a s t " ("HKLU," p. 240).
That i s ,
t o quote Crane a g a i n on the d i a l e c t i c a l approach, Professor
Cohen's concern i s w i t h q u a l i t i e s o r v a l u e s works acquire
"by p a r t a k i n g i n t h e common causes of a l l human discourse-language, the mind, h i s t o r y , and s o on."
The a n a l y t i c a l procedure f o r anyone with such a concept i o n of norm is t o measure a number of works w r i t t e n over a
given p e r i o d a g a i n s t a norm--the p a t t e r n of r e j e c t i o n - a f f i r mation i s an instance--to which they a r e d i a l e c t i c a l l y rel a t e d . The s u c c e s s of the a t t e n d a n t procedure can be judged
by t h e r e s u l t a n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Keats' "Ode on Melancholy,"
which e n d s with t h e a s s e r t i o n t h a t i n t h e poem " p l e a s u r e must
be s a c r i f i c e d t o o b t a i n melancholy
& l a n c h o l y can
be achieved only a t t h e expense of l o s i n g the most sensuous
p l e a s u r e s t h a t make l i f e d e s i r a b l e . Thus the o b t a i n i n g of
melancholy i s warrant t h a t one has l i v e d i n t e n s e l y a t the
....
same time t h a t such i n t e n s e l i v i n g is over" ("HKLU," p. 242).
This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f i t s P r o f e s s o r Cohen's p a t t e r n ; i t a l s o
seems t o me n e a r l y t h e o p p o s i t e of what t h e poet of " m g a t i v e
c a p a b i l i t y " means. I f I am r i g h t , i t is an example of t h e type
of evidence-bending even t h e beat of i n t e r p r e t e r s a r e s u b j e c t
t o when working w i t h i n a d i a l e c t i c a l scheme.
(Even i f I were
wrong about t h e ode, my main p o i n t would not be a f f e c t e d . )
In "A Propaedeutic f o r L i t e r a r y Change," P r o f e s s o r Cohen
seems no longer a b l e t o hold t o even s o remote and g e n e r a l a
c o n s t r u c t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e a s a norm, though he c o n t i n u e s t o a s s e r t
Norms
t h a t the concept of genre i s necessary f o r p e r s i s t e n c e .
a r e now mere " a b s t r a c t e n t i t i e s , " e i t h e r t o o e l u s i v e t o be of
much use o r , when r e l a t e d t o Kuhn's i d e a of t h e paradigm, t o o
reminiscent of t h e Cranian n o t i o n s t h a t had p r e v i o u s l y been re"Any a p p l i c a t i o n of Kuhnian 'normal s c i e n c e ' t o l i t e r a r y
jected:
s t u d y has t o s u b s t i t u t e concepts of g e n e r i c e x p e c t a t i o n o r common
problem s o l v i n g f o r i n s t i t u t i o n a l p r a c t i c e " ("PLC," pp. 10).
Though an unwary r e a d e r might be misled. P r o f e s s o r Cohen's
p o s i t i o n c l e a r l y has nothing t o do w i t h any A r i s t o t e l i a n formist i c views of genre, i n s p i t e of t h e s u r f b c e conservatism of the
vocabulary and the a p p a r e n t l y conservative aims expressed i n the
essay.@ P r o f e s s o r Cohen h a s r e j e c t e d the mechanistic approaches
of o t h e r s and he has abandoned h i s o m former d i a l e c t i c a l i n c l i nations. What i s l e f t ? His genre t u r n s o u t t o be a decentered
ground f o r i n t e r s e c t i n g genrethemes. Far from being a guarantor
of p e r s i s t e n c e , such a c r e a t u r e d i s p l a y s a l a c k of both synchronic
s e l f - i d e n t i t y and d i a c h r o n i c c o n t i n u i t y not u n l i k e t h e p r o p e r t i e s
of the " t e x t " of deconstructionism. I would even venture t o pred i c t t h a t i n s p i t e of t h e i r incoramensurate aims, t h e most r a d i c a l
- contextualism w i l l be a b l e t o f i n d much i n t h e e s s a y t o approp r i a t e i n t h e s e r v i c e of such concepts as impermanence, d i f f e r Such a n e x p l o i t a t i o n may go
e n c e , t r a c i n g s , and i n t e r t e x t u a l i t y .
beyond P r o f e s s o r Cohen's i n t e n t i o n s , but t h e r e i s l i t t l e i n t h e
e s s a y t o c a l l i n t o q u e s t i o n the l o g i c of even t h e most r a d i c a l
c o n t e x t u a l i s t e x t r a p o l a t i o n . What i s c e r t a i n i s t h a t t h e princ i p l e s and assumptions underlying "A Propaedeutic f o r L i t e r a r y
Change" a r e not such t o e n s u r e t h a t what t h e l i t e r a r y h i s t o r i a n
produces is both l i t e r a r y l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y and l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y .
Department of E n g l i s h
U n i v e r s i t y of Nebraska-Lincoln
NOTES
1. C r i t i c a l and H i s t o r i c a l P r i n c i l e e of L i t e r a r History
(Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago PEess , 7 9 7 d 3 .
2. The Act of I n t e r r e t a t i o n : A C r i t i ue of L i t e r a r Reason
(Chicago: Universit; of C h i c a g o - P & 7 ~ , d 6 ~
3.
Davis, p. 69.
4. On t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between genres and " t r a d i t i o n a l genres"
and o t h e r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , s e e Crane, p. 15.
5 . F i c t i o n and t h e Shape of B e l i e f : A Study of Henry Fielding-w i t h Glances a t S w i f t , ~ o h ~ o ~ ~ i c b r -rkelcy:
d s o n
U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1964). p. 13.
6. " H i s t o r i c a l Knowledge and L i t e r a r y Understanding" ( h e r e a f t e r ,
"HKLU"). E, 14 (1978), 246.
7.
Crane. p. 2.
8. The term " f o r m i s t i c " and some of the o t h e r terms used i n
t h i s paragraph and e a r l i e r t o c a t e g o r i z e p o s s i b l e p e r s p e c t i v e s
on genre a r e drawn from t h e p l u r a l i s t i c systems of Richard
McKeon ( e s p e c i a l l y h i s unpublished "Philosophic Semantics and
Philosophic Inquiry") and Stephen C. Pepper, World Hypothesis:
-A Study i n Evidence (Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s .
1970).
GENRE AND THE PROBLEM OF CHARACTER IN LITERARY CHANGE
Patricia Harkin
One of the most problematic aspects of literary change,
I believe, is that of character. I refer not to change in
the delineation of a single character within a work, but
rather to changes in authors' and readers' conceptions of
character types or of characterization. Such concepts allow
us to make critical statements about "the changing characteristics of the picaro." for example, or to have a notion of "antihero" which is somehow continuous with "hero," or to undertake
an analysis of "Shakespeare's fools," or "Hemingway's women."
Ralph Cohen urges that we study this change in generic
context, since genre can be understood as a family term, "concharacter
stituted by elements or parts such as
to produce certain effects," and quotes approvingly Maria
Corti's suggestion that "a genre my be transformed by itself
from the inside by a change in the function of one of its
Cohen's procedures work especially
constitutive elements."(4).
well to explain a diachronic change in a recognizable character
type in two contiguous sub-genres, for example, the eighteenth
century epistolary novel and the nineteenth century historical
novel. Cohen presents this position in specific opposition
to Hayden White's assertion that "changes in the linguistic
code 'will in turn be reflected in changes both in the
cognitive content of literary works (the messages) and the
modes of contact (genres) in which the messages are transmitted
and received.'" (p. 8) White's implication here, as Cohen
reports it, is clearly that code, rather than genre, should
be the overarching category for the study of literary
change. But Cohen charges that White's hypothesis "seems
to misconstrue the relation between language and genre."
(p. 9) Genres, Cohen asserts, are not "merely reflections
of changes in the language code;" rather they are "constituted
by linguistic codes that are inconsistent in their implications.
(p. 9) Hence I infer that, for Cohen, an explanation of
literary change which construes generic change as merely a
reflection of change in the culture's system of encoding and
decoding would risk being inadequately attentive to the
complexity of the phenomenon it seeks to investigate.
...
..
...
.
My project is to examine Cohen's argument against a
particular historical problem in which both character and
genre change significantly. My exemplum is a type of character
I name "ingenue." I choose her because she is particularly
problematic. Unlike such formulaic characters as the miles
gloriosus, or the fool, she cannot be defined solely by
traits. However, several traits suggest themselves: the
ingenue is young, innocent, unsophisticated, appealing.
It is clear at once, however, that such trait-oriented or
semantic descriptions must confront the problem of naming
the traits that will be decisive, defining them, and determining whether they are applicable to a given character.
By contrast, a functional study of the ingenue raises the
problem of naming functions that are adequate to describe
her role in the narrative structure without being so abstract
as to be useless to this inquiry. The ingenue, for example,
can marry the hero, or serve as his "helper" or "donor." She
can be Propp's "sought-forabject" or she can be the subject-the heroine of a female-centered fiction. The more abstract
Greimasian geolaetries necessitate abandoning traditional notions
of character such that the term ingenue could have no meaning.
Still the term is intelligible. Young, unsophisticated
female characters evince enough similarity through time to be
recognizable, even while changing. How might we formulate
those elements that change as against those that are continuous?
Cohen would invoke the notion of generic control whose
continuity of elements and effects provides a basis for "locating which elements have been changed or added or omitted."
In such epistolary novels as Pamela and Evelina, the young
female character is central. n o t t ' s Waverle , Rose
Bradwardine is "marginalized." All three females are young.
sexually innocent, socially unsophisticated and writers of
letters. What is discontinuous, I believe, as the ingenue
moves from genre to genre over about fifty years, is the
social and semantic doasin of the innocence and the nature
of the plot events to which the innocence gives rise.
The ingenue conventions of the eighteenth century epistolary novel, if we m y so generalize, have, for my purposes,
four important characteristics. first, they connect sexual with
socio-political 8nd socio-cultural innocence. They oppose
thim innocence, located in the country, with the corruption
of the city. Pamela, for example, is ianocent of the mores
t h a t permit Mr. B t o seduce o r t o v i o l a t e h e r . E v e l i n a ' s
g u a r d i a n , i n t e n t on maintaining h e r innocence of glamorous
c i t y l i f e , s e e k s t h e r e b y t o prevent h e r from d e s i r i n g a l i f e
t h a t , h e t h i n k s , can never be h e r s . But E v e l i n a ' s consequent
s o c i a l innocence, h e r n a i v e t e about London mores, l e a d s h e r
i n t o faux p a s wherein h e r s e x u a l innocence i s c a s t i n t o doubt.
Second, e p i s t o l a r y h e r o i n e s i n s c r i b e t h e i r innocence i n
writing.
Both novels problematize t h e o p p o s i t i o n between
speech and w r i t i n g i n a s e r i e s of p l o t e v e n t s i n which t h e
h e r o i n e ' s speech, a s a r e s u l t of h e r innocence o r weakness,
goes unheard o r i s misunderstood while h e r w r i t i n g i s unders t o o d t o be an a c c u r a t e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of h e r personal
h i s t o r y . Pamela's j o u r n a l and l e t t e r s a r e t h e only c o r r e c t
accounts of t h e e v e n t s of t h e f i c t i o n . E v e l i n a ' s l e t t e r s
i n c l u d e a c c u r a t e and c r i t i c a l comments on s o c i e t y which
f u n c t i o n a s a s a t i r e on London l i f e .
T h i r d , both novels problematize t h e connection between
power and w r i t i n g i n a s e r i e s of s e x u a l t h r e a t s t o t h e
ingenue a u t h o r s of p e r s o n a l h i s t o r i e s . Pamela h i d e s h e r
j o u r n a l i n h e r undergarments. To read 'her w r i t i n g , t h e r e f o r e ,
i s t o r a p e h e r . When Evelina w r i t e s t o Lord O r v i l l e , i n an
e f f o r t t o provide an a c c u r a t e account of h e r encounter w i t h
h i s coachman, h e r l e t t e r i s i n t e r c e p t e d by S i r Clement
Willoughby, who does indeed o f f e r s e x u a l v i o l e n c e t o h e r
twice i n t h e n a r r a t i v e .
F i n a l l y , both t e x t s point t o , b u t do n o t name, a way of
knowing a t r u t h t h a t is n o t e m p i r i c a l l y a v a i l a b l e , and they
Both Mr. B and
l o c a t e t h a t t r u t h i n t h e ingenue h e r s e l f .
Lord O r v i l l e s e e through t o t h e n a t u r a l goodness of Pamela
and Evelina i n s p i t e of t h e a c c i d e n t s of t h e i r d r e s s and
manner.
I n Waverley, S c o t t expanda t h e t r a d i t i o n by connecting
p e r s o n a l and n a t i o n a l h i s t o r y i n t h e c h a r a c t e r of h i s protag o n i s t Edward Waverley. He e x p l i c i t l y g i v e s t h e name imagi n a t i o n t o t h e way of knowing t h a t which i s not e m p i r i c a l l y
knowable; he s p e c i f i e s t h e p a s t a s t h a t which i s t o be
known, and he r a i s e s q u e s t i o n s about t h e a p p r o p r i a t e way of
knowing i t . For s e v e r a l c h a p t e r s , Edward Waverley i s s a t i r i z e d
f o r t r y i n g t o l i v e t h e l i f e he imagines, Late i n t h e n a r r a t i v e ,
however, t h e n a r r a t o r d e c l a r e s t h a t "the romance of h i s l i f e
was ended, and t h a t i t s r e a l h i s t o r y had now commenced,"
(Waverley; o r 'Tie S i x t y Years S i n c e , ' ed. C l a i r e Lamont,
[Oxford: t h e Clarendon P r e s s , 19811, p. 283).
To understand t h e f u n c t i o n of t h e o p p o s i t i o n between romance and r e a l h i s t o r y i n S c o t t ' s g e n e r i c change, i t is u s e f u l
t o look a t t h e ingenue, Rose Bradwardine, and h e r connection
w i t h each term.
the ingenue f i g u r e , c e n t r a l t o t h e e p i s t o l a r y
n o v e l , i s h e r e only t h e p r o t a g o n i s t ' s fiancee. Her importance
t o t h e reader i s a f u n c t i o n of t h e way she a f f e c t s changes
i n h i s understanding. When Waverley f i r s t e n c o u n t e r s Rose.
she d e s c r i b e s t o him a feud with t h e Highlanders. The
p r o t a g o n i s t is amazed t h a t she has a c t u a l l y experienced
"such a scene a s he had used t o c o n j u r e up i n h i s imagination
a s o n l y o c c u r r i n g i n a n c i e n t times," (Waverley, p. 72).
Here S c o t t s h i f t s t h e l o c u s of t h e ingenue's innocence and
even of her youth f r o a s p a c e t o time. Rose l i v e s i n sn
e a r l i e r s t a g e of h i s t o r i c a l development; her world i s f e u d a l .
She speaks h e r h i s t o r y , and t h e r e can be no q u e s t i o n of i t s
e m p i r i c a l a c c u r a c y , but t h e immature Waverley c a l l s i t a
romance.
Rose w r i t e s twice i n t h e n a r r a t i v e . F i r s t , under
Waverley's t u t e l a g e , s h e w r i t e s romances. They t r a n s l a t e
Tasso t o g e t h e r . L a t e r , Rose w r i t e s r e a l h i s t o r y . Her
l e t t e r t o Waverley d e s c r i b e s t h e a r r i v a l of a p a r t y of
Hanoverian s o l d i e r s who s u s p e c t him of Jacobitism. She
w r i t e s "I cannot p r e v a i l on myself t o w r i t e what wicked f a l s e hoods they s a i d
I hope God w i l l p r o t e c t you, and t h a t
you w i l l g e t s a f e home t o England, where you used t o t e l l me
t h e r e was no m i l i t a r y v i o l e n c e nor f i g h t i n g among c l a n s perm i t t e d , but e v e r y thing was done according t o a n e q u a l - l a u - r h e i p r o t e c t e d a l l who were harmless and innocent," CWa6aeP, pp.
139-40).
....
The theory of h i s t o r y t h a t subtends Rose's l e t t e r may
s a f e l y be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e Philosophic H i s t o r i a n s , p a r t i c u l a r l y Adam Ferguson's n o t i o n t h a t h i s t o r y is t h e record of t h e
slow but s t e a d y progress of mankind toward v i r t u e . The p a s t .
f o r Ferguson and h i s c o l l e a g u e s , was p r i m i t i v e and v i c i o u s ,
only slowly tempered by t h e c i v i l i z i n g i n f l u e n c e of t h e law.
That complacency i s r e s o n a n t l y c a l l e d i n t o q u e s t i o n by S c o t t ' s
Innocent Rose Bradwardine
r e v i s i o n of t h e ingenue conventions.
-
has learned from Waverley that her own feudal society is
vicious. But when she writes to him, it is to apprise him
that the viciousness of his own government is about to
strip him of his rank. Her understanding of history is
superficial and reductive, especially to the extent that
she understands history as the power of law to govern men's
appetites. She herself is evidence that Ferguson's generalization is invalid. So, the non-empirical truth that the
ingenue Rose communicates is precisely the opposite of what
she writes.
When Waverley writes to Rose, he writes about the history of which he has empirical knowledge, the execution of
the Jacobites at Carlisle:
...
while he could not suppress his own feeling of the
calamity, by endeavoring [sic] to place it in a light
which might grieve her without shocking her imagination.
The picture which he drew for her benefit he gradually
familiarized to his own mind, and his next letters
were more cheerful, and referred to the prospects of
peace and happiness which lay before them. (Waverley,
329).
Waverley's gentle epistolary lovemaking is a "history"
which leaves out all that is ugly and terrible so as to serve
the ideological needs of author and audience. Both Rose and
Waverley are landed gentry; the peace and happiness which
lies before them will maintain the economic and political
status quo. The trait of innocence, shifted here from the
socio-cultural to the socio-historical register, allows us
to point to the deconstructible opposition between romance
and real history, and to see behind it an antinomy. It is
necessary to know the past. The past cannot be known by
reason operating on empirical data. Histories are narratives
in which the historian makes inferential connections among
past events. Imagination is therefore the operative
faculty of mind. Imagination is not a reliable way of
knowing because it selects and synthesizes those past
remembered events to form a new "created" whole.
We can therefore explain these changes in the character
of the ingenue by citing the tendency of Enlightenment historians to "ironize" history writing, a tendency which is
examined by Hayden White in Metahistsry, and which is appropriately described as a code change. Our queqtion now becomes
whether generic study permits us to describe or explain these
changes in such a way as to support Cohen's charge that White
"misconstrues* the relation between language and genre.
Cohen's understanding of genres as socially produced mixtures
of conventions allows for a notion of genre as mediator
between the codes of a culture and an individual literary
work. By studying this mediation, we can see the codes
changing. If, for example, we posit a generic continuity
named "novel," or even "comedy," in Frye's sense, as mythos,
then we perceive that all three fictions end with marriages
that enable a new social order. In the epistolary novels,
the marriages occur between economic power, located in a
sophisticated male character, and natural goodness located in
an ingenue. In Waverley, the marriage semantics involve an
old historical order, in Rose's feudal innocence, and a new.
conceptually suspect sophistication, in Waverley's "enlightened"
Hanoverianism. Only in the third fiction, however, is the
ingenue bride marginalized. Moreover, since Rose's innocence
also raises question$ about the empirical accuracy of historical
narratives, her marginal status suggests that the comic
resolution is achievable only by repressing the threatening
realization that history making serves the ideological needs
of author and audience. This perception rests on an understanding both of generic conventions for marriage and of codes
of history writing.
'
Cohen would also invoke the notion of the synchronic
hierarchy. Since Rose's innocence questions the epistemological grounds of history writing, it is appropriate,
following Cohen, to look at instances in other genres of
comparable epistemological questioning.
Tintern Abbey"
comes particularly to mind, and with it a context in which
Waverley's written remembrance of Carlisle can be read as a
"tranquil restoration" of "sensations" not "sweet" but
sweetened, made "more dear" for the sake of Rose, his muse.
The generic conventions for the romantic lyric establish a
context in which imagination is valorized for its ability
to change our perceptions of the empirical.
"...
These readings are of course illustrative of Cohen's
point that scholars impose their own linguistic codes upon
those of the past. My reading of Waverley, reflecting my
interest in the ideological function of generic conventions,
has prompted me to notice that the lyric conventions, when
introduced into a novel, create a situation in which linguistic codes are inconsistent in their implications.
Cohen implies that White's procedures would cause him to
fail to notice these inconsistent implications. Ke writes
that "in [White's) view the changes in language determine
the kind of genres most appropriate for the changed messages"
(p. 8). (The lyric might be more appropriate for wsaages
about imagination; the novel would be the locus of messages
about history writing.) While it may be true that White's
procedures will lead him to emphasize some genres over others
as he studies changing codes, it is not clear that he therefore "misconstrues" the relationship between language and
genre. White's interest in codes would lead him to ask
what is sayable in 1814 about history. about imagination,
about women, about muses, etc. Although he would certainly
understand the historical novel as a reflection of changing
codes of history writing, and mark its emergence as an instance
of a new genre required by a new message, his procedures, as he
practices them, do not seem to be so rigid as to prevent hie
perception of the complexity of the phenomenon he investigates.
Rather, I suggest, the difference between Cohen and White is one
of aims and strategy: Hayden White looks for changes in the
systems of encoding and decoding and emphasizes those which he
finds; Ralph Cohen looks for evidence of continuity in change.
The different strategies of the two theorists converge in this
instance to permlt us to perceive these three ingenues both as
a system of literary perduration and as symptom of literary
change.
Department of English
Denison University
a N R E AND LITERARY CHANGE
Gregory S. J a y
"Our f a t h e r s d i d , f o r change, t o France repair."
--Dryden, 1681
.. .
"Those e n c h a n t e r s
a r e p e r p e t u a l l y s e t t i n g shapes before
me a s they r e a l l y a r e , and p r e s e n t l y p u t t i n g t h e change upon
me, and transforming them i n t o whatever they please."
--Jarvia, t r a n s . , Don Quixote, 1742
. ..
"He had j u s t received i n a handful of change, t h e piece t h a t
he had
been seeking."
--Johnson, 1751
"You cannot put the change upon me s o e a s y a s you think."
--Scott.
1821
"No change given. Passengers a r e requested t o examine t h e i r
t i c k e t s and change before leaving."
--modern, u n a t t e s t e d 1
The enchantment of Ralph Cohen'e "A Propaedeutic f o r
L i t e r a r y Change" l i e s i n i t s l o g i c a l wizardry, a s the s t r a n g e
shapes of l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y a r e transformed i n t o what, g e n e r i c a l l y , they r e a l l y a r e : t h e " p a r t s " of a " s t a b l e e n t i t y " t h a t
The persuasive f o r c e of t h e argut e s t i f i e s t o a "continuity."
m n t i s e x h i b i t e d l e s s i n the r e f l e c t i o n s on change i t s e l f than
i n t h e i n s i s t e n c e upon t h e r e t e n t i o n of i d e n t i t y d e s p i t e a n
apparent metamorphosis. Thus we a r e l e d q u i c k l y t o t h e law of
genre a s t h e logos e n s u r i n g t h e o r d e r l y a n a l y s i s of l i t e r a t u r e :
"What is needed i s t o r e d e f i n e e v e r y l i t e r a r y ' t e x t ' a s a memIt i s the d i s c i p l i n e of a renovated genre
b e r of a genre."
theory t h a t predominates i n t h i s propaedeutic, and t h a t subord i n a t e s l i t e r a r y change t o a manageable s t a b i l i t y , s i n c e "some
l i t e r a r y u n i t l i k e genre i s necessary t o i n c l u d e c o n t i n u i t y i n
any d i s c u s s i o n of change." At a time i n l i t e r a r y theory when
the n o t i o n s of i d e n t i t y , o r d e r , c o n t i n u i t y , and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
have taken such a b e a t i n g , t h i s r e t u r n t o taxonomy provides a
welcome r e l i e f from undecidable a p o r i a s and decons t r u c t e d logoc e n t r i c i a m s . Cohen knows t h e p o s t - s t r u c t u r a l i s t canon a s w e l l
a s anyone, y e t he a s s i m i l a t e s i t s l e s s o n s t o an avowedly conven-
t i o n a l l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y . Of course I pun with t h i s "conven.
t i o n a l , " i n o r d e r t o suggest t h e degree t o which Cohen's
a t t e n t i o n t o l i t e r a r y d e v i c e s both a l i g n s h i s t h e o r y with
those of previous formalisms and marks h i s l i a i s o n s dangereuses w i t h the proponents of a t e x t u a l i t y w i e h o u t r e s e r v e . 2
-
What l i n k s Cohen's argument t o t h o s e of o t h e r contempor a r y c r i t i c s is its c o n s t i t u t i o n a s a r h e t o r i c . The models
of i n t e r t e x t u a l i t y a p p l i e d t o t h e h i s t o r y of p o e t r y by Harold
Bloom and Geoffrey Hartman, f o r example, follow i n t h e t r a d i t i o n of E. R. C u r t i u s aa they c h a r t t h e d i a c h r o n i c t r a n s f o r mation of t r o p e s i n t h e synchronic arrangement of f i g u r e s . 3
What e n s u e s i s a c r i t i q u e of o u r n o t i o n s of l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y
and p o e t i c consciousness r e l a t e d t o t h e d e c o n s t r u c t i o n of
metaphysics c a r r i e d o u t by Derrida i n h i s a t t e n t i o n t o the
play of metaphor i n philosophy. Cohen h a s been no l e s s sens i t i v e t o the t r i c k e r i e s of l i t e r a r y d e v i c e s than h i s posts t r u c t u r a l i s t c o l l e a g u e s . Indeed, h i s s t u d i e s of Thomson and
Denham e x h i b i t a p h i l o l o g i c a l r i g o r r a r e l y matched today.
But t h e s e readings c o n s i s t e n t l y o f f e r a kind of Augustan
balance and r e s t r a i n t i n t h e conclusions they r e a c h , perhaps
ref lecting--as do t h e e x c e s s e s of the p o s t - s t r u c t u r a l i s t s - the " t e x t - m i l i e u " from which t h e t h e o r i z i n g springs.4
The p o s i t i o n s s e t f o r t h i n t h i s propaedeutic summarize
and e x t e n d the r h e t o r i c a l view of l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y previously
a r t i c u l a t e d by Cohen i n h i s a n a l y s e s of seventeenth- and
eighteenth-century poetry. Change i s of course t h e c e n t r a l
t o p i c i n h i s s t u d y of Thomson's The Seasons. As i t w i l l f o r
the i d e a of genre, n a t u r e providT~-s
poem w i t h a
grounding metaphor t h a t o r g a n i z e s l o s s and d i f f e r e n c e i n a
c o n t i n u i t y , though one c a r e f u l l y conceived t o avoid the twin
p i t f a l l s of the random and t h e s t a t i c . "The Seasons, with
i t s awareness of l i m i t a t i o n s and change, urges upon man a
p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e environment, an awareness of i t t h a t
provides unexpected d e l i g h t s t o g e t h e r w i t h unexpected sadness,
d e s t r u c t i o n and t h e need t o t r u s t i n God. And i t does s o by
developing techniques f o r r e v e a l i n g t h e p a s t i n t h e p r e s e n t ,
the i n d i v i d u a l i n t h e g e n e r a l , the sadness i n t h e joy."
The
p e r c e p t i o n of " t h e i n d i v i d u a l i n the g e n e r a l " e n v i s i o n s the
theory of genre, and Thomson reclaims o u r i n t e r e s t a s he is
shown t o be a r e v i s i o n a r y a r t i s t of i n h e r i t e d devices. J u s t
a s n a t u r e accommodates change t o i t s u l t i m a t e (though mysterious) u n i t y , l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y appears t o be an o r g a n i c whole
capable of r e t a i n i n g i t s i d e n t i t y d e s p i t e the p o e t ' s trens-
formations of i t . "The s o u r c e s and models f o r The Seasons
a r e Job, t h e @ o r i c s , De Rerun Natura. L'Alle r o , 11 Penseroso
and G a d i s e Lost: and ===ad
t o a b w genre c a l l e d
' d e s c r i p t i v e poems.'
Rather, The Seasons is a r e l i g i o u s didact i c poem, and i t s ' u n i f y i n g v i s i o n ' appears i n t h e manner i n
which i t j o i n s e u l o g i e s , e l e g i e s , n a r r a t i v e s , prospect views,
h i s t o r i c a l catalogs, etc."
We n o t e t h a t t h i s list of precurs o r s preeminently f e a t u r e s l i t e r a r y e f f o r t s t o t r e a t t h e d i e harmony of n a t u r e and c u l t u r e , o r t o r e s t o r e f a l l e n n s t u r e s
t o an o r d e r l y p a r a d i s e , and t h a t t h i s problem l i e s w i t h i n t h e
very concept of genre i t s e l f . Cohen i s c a r e f u l t o show t h a t
"organicism becomes merely another type of fragment." but t h i s
only r e i n f o r c e s our s u s p i c i o n t h a t n a t u r a l metaphors--such a s
genre--cannot c o n t a i n t h e changes of l i t e r a t u r e . 5
Thomson i s shown t o be an i n n o v a t o r who a d o p t s , a d a p t s .
a d j u s t s , v a r i e s , r e v i s e s . r e a r r a n g e s , r i d i c u l e s , parodies , and
mocks the p o e t i c m a t e r i a l he i n h e r i t s . "But v a r i e d meanings of
t h e same word o r convention i n no way l e d Thomson t o r e l a t i v i s m ,
And he
f o r he accepted the b e l i e f i n God's wisdom and love."
"accepted some a s p e c t s of l i t e r a r y c o n t i n u i t y " a s "a b a s i s f o r
h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e s i m u l t a n e i t y of' p a s t and p r e s e n t . "
Despite h i s "varied u s e s of genres and f i g u r e s . " Thomson's
"view of change o p e r a t e s w i t h i n t h e given n a t u r a l and i n s t i t u t i o n a l boundariea."6
As t h e s t u d y concludes, the c o r r e l s t i o n between n a t u r a l change and l i t e r a r y change continues t o
be a source of i n s i g h t , and of t r o u b l i n g q u e s t i o n s . While
the "seasons provided Thomson w i t h a n a t u r a l i s t i c b a s i s f o r
change
t h e c y c l e of the seasons i s not t h e c i r c l e of
It l e a d s t o a temporary completion t h a t
perfection
Organic o r d e r i s , from one peri n t r o d u c e s a new beginning."
s p e c t i v e , a s a l v a t i o n from c h a o t i c change: "The u n i f y i n g
imagery i n e a c h season and the s t y l i s t i c and thematic u n i t y
of t h e whole prevent t h e poem from c o l l a p s i n g i n t o a heap of
fragments."
Unlike E l i o t ' s The Waste Land and i t s "heap of
broken images." Thomson'a Th-e S e x f a n f i n d a g e n e t i c patt e r n i n n a t u r e f o r t h e c o n ~ l ~ r e s s i of
o nhuman change.
Regardless of t h e i n c e s s a n t "fragmentation" of n a t u r a l o r d e r .
l i f e ' s mutable a s p e c t s "are c o n t r o l l e d by a concept of n a t u r a l
change governed by a God who f o r a l l His v a r i a t i o n s i s timel e s s and omnipresent." Apprehension of t h i s Logos, however,
remains f l e e t i n g a t b e s t : "It i s p o s s i b l e t o e s t a b l i s h
coherence and o r g a n i c i n t e r r e l a t e d n e s s i n some a r e a s of
Thomson's world, b u t t h e world a s a whole remains a maze.
t h e plan of which i s hidden from m o r t a l eye."7
. . .. . . .
66
Is it t o o s p e c u l a t i v e t o read h e r e a c r i t i c a l a l l e g o r y
sbout l i t e r a r y change and l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y ? The " t i m e l e s s
and omnipresent," though r a r e l y and i n d i v i d u a l l y glimpsed.
d i v i n e p a t t e r n resembles t h a t "simultaneous order" of the
"whole of l i t e r a t u r e " n o t o r i o u s l y promulgated by E l i o t i n
" T r a d i t i o n and t h e I n d i v i d u a l Talent."
Rarold Bloom's repeated a t t a c k s a g a i n s t t h i s "noble i d e a l i z a t i o n " h e l p us
t o read i n r e t r o s p e c t the e x c l u s i o n s , l o s s e s , d e s i r e s , and
d i s o r d e r s motivating such f i c t i o n s i n E l i o t (and perhaps i n
Thomson a s w e l l ) .8 As I have argued elsewhere, a f a r more
d i s t u r b i n g and l e s s harmonious v i s i o n of l i t e r a r y i n f l u e n c e
and p o e t i c h i s t o r y overshadows the c a n o n i c a l p i c t u r e of
E l i o t a s c o n s e r v a t i v e t h e o r i s t of T r a d i t i o n : " T r a d i t i o n , "
he s u b t l y c a u t i o n s , "cannot be i n h e r i t e d , and i f you want
i t you must o b t a i n i t by g r e a t labour."9
Such a t r a d i t i o n
i s not a p a s s i v e l y received o r happily re-sighted whole,
but an a c t i v e l y chosen canon designed t o a u t h o r i z e a p s r t i c u l a r r e v i s i o n a r y p r a c t i c e . E l i o t ' s c r i t i c a l e s s a y s and
the a l l u s i o n s i n h i s poetry demonstrate t h a t a p o e t ' s t r a d i t i o n i s s y s t e m a t i c and i d i o s y n c r a t i c , i n t e n s e and narrow.
For t h e p o e t , l i t e r a r y change involves processes of r e j e c t i o n and defense t h a t preclude from t h e s t a r t any comforting
i d e a of t h e simultaneous, t h e omnipresent, o r the t i m e l e s s .
The break with n a t u r e always s i g n a l s , c o n v e n t i o n a l l y , t h i s
lack of correspondence between n a t u r a l genealogies and the
haunted t e m p o r a l i t y of the t e x t u a l .
But t h e n a t u r a l r e p e a t e d l y r e c u r s a s a s t r u c t u r a l res o l u t i o n of c u l t u r a l parodoxes t h a t exceed i t . Thomson's
"conversion of l i t e r a r y conventions t o h i s own a r t i s t r y "
t h r e a t e n s the whole with fragmentation, y e t i n t h e organic
s t r u c t u r e of the poem the " r e p e t i t i v e themea, images, words
become a means f o r i n t e r c o n n e c t i n g t h e whole."
Such, one
might argue, i s t h e t a s k of t h e l i t e r a r y c r i t i c c h a r t i n g t h e
changing appearances of conventions and devices. However, a s
with Thomson, t h e o r g a n i c metaphor f a i l s t o provide f i n a l l y
an a b s o l u t e p e r s p e c t i v e on t h e "maze" of l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y .
"Thomson's order." Cohen shrewdly concludes, "demands of the
reader a r e j e c t i o n of completion, a c o n s t a n t and unending d i s c r i m i n a t i o n of d i s t i n c t i o n s . " l O
What sameness o r genres can
p o s s i b l y survive t h i s interminable a n a l y s i s of d i f f e r e n c e s ?
Can t h e p o e t ' s twin d e s i r e s f o r i d e n t i t y and change be f i x e d
w i t h i n t h e formal c a t e g o r i e s of t e c h n i c a l i n n o v a t i o n and
v a r i a t i o n ? Or do t h e poet's motives belong t o a genre t h a t
c r o s s e s , and perhaps undermines, any of i t s i n c a r n a t i o n s ?
Evident h e r e is t h e t e n s i o n between c e a s e l e s s d i f f e r i n g
and a logos of t i a e l e s s coherence. T h i s impasse ( o r a p o r i a f
s t a n d s a t t h e h e a r t of E l i o t ' s own r a d i c a l ambivalence towards
t r a d i t i o n and t h e i n d i v i d u a l t a l e n t . The poet d e s i r e s t o put
h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e p l a c e of t h e f a t h e r , and y e t s e e k s a n
a u t h o r i z i n g o r d e r from t h e p a s t t o s a n c t i f y h i s u s u r p a t i o n
and h i s d e f i a n c e of a n a t u r a l ( i n E l i o t ' s c a s e a Romantic)
genealogy. Cohen's t h e o r y of g e n r e s r i g h t l y supplements
Bloom's t h e o r y , s o t h a t when we r e a d The Waste Land we n o t e
toward
not only i t s anxious, g u i l t y . and m u r o t s
t h e p o e t i c f a t h e r s but t h e forms E l i o t adopts a s v e h i c l e s
and embodiments of t h i s s t r u g g l e . The poem i s a rsgbag of
d i f f e r e n t g e n r e s , but t h i s fragmentation o r drowning of t h e
body of t r a d i t i o n i n paradoxical hopes of its r e s u r r e c t i o n
only underscores our r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t the p a s t o r a l elegy-from i t s s o u r c e s i n F r a z e r through its r e v i s i o n by Milton,
S h e l l e y , Whitman, Tennyson and others--provides the poem w i t h
i t s g e n e r i c i d e n t i t y . The death and r e b i r t h n a r r a t i v e of the
e l e g y , combined with t h e p o e t ' s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h t h e s l a i n
p r e c u r s o r , makes of t h e e l e g y not only an a l l e g o r y of g e n e r i c
i n t e r t e x t u a l i t y but a reminder of t h e l o s s and d i s o r d e r ent a i l e d by e v e r y d e s i r e f o r i d e n t i t y . E l e g i s t s c o n v e n t i o n a l l y
e n t e r t a i n and t h e n r e p u d i a t e n a t u r a l metaphors i n t h e e f f o r t
t o comprehend death--the u l t i m a t e metaphor of change. E l i o t ' s
a n t i - p a s t o r a l a n t i - e l e g y continues t h e t r a d i t i o n by r e l e n t l e s s l y
mocking and d e c o n s t r u c t i n g i t s d e v i c e s , while he goes on longi n g f o r the p r i n c i p l e of o r d e r they once made appear s o r e a l .
Turning back t o the "Propaedeutic." we s e e t h a t p a r t one
The p r e f a c e
i s e n t i t l e d "The Nature of L i t e r a r y Change."
s p e c i f i c a l l y r u l e d o u t any debate over the term " l i t e r a r y , "
assuming t h e " l i t e r a r y " t o be what t h e a u t h o r i z e d t r a d i t i o n
recognizes.
Such a r u l i n g , l i k e genre i t s e l f , appears t o belong t o c u l t u r e r a t h e r than n a t u r e , and t h i s ambivslence of
realms h a s always been a t h o r n i n t h e s i d e of genre theory.11
each
Nevertheless, genre is defined a s a "family term
genre being i d e n t i f i e d by t h e n a t u r e of t h e i r combination and
The etymology of "genre" shows t h a t
t h e e f f e c t s produced."
"It has t h e same r o o t a s 'gender' and, i n being r e l a t e d t o
gender, i n d i c a t e s the n a t u r a l i s t i c d i s t i n c t i o n s t h a t a r e i m plied."
The metaphor of t h e etymological " r o o t " doubles the
d e s c r i p t i o n ' s r e l i a n c e on an o r g a n i c i s t framework, r e p e a t i n g
a s i t does a n a t u r a l i s t i c view of philology i n f l u e n t i a l s i n c e
the e i g h t e e n t h century. Are the " n a t u r a l i s t i c d i s t i n c t i o n s "
observed h e r e put i n q u e s t i o n , a s t h e i r ground i n metaphor
...
is exposed, o r a r e ve meant t o understand t h a t t h e d i s t i n c t i o n s between g e n r e s a r e a s n a t u r a l and t r a n s p a r e n t a s the
d i s t i n c t i o n s between t h e genders? Feminist and p s y c h o a n a l y t i c
theory w i l l c u t u s o f f b e f o r e we can r e l y upon t h e l a t t e r .
The r e l a t i o n s h i p between t e x t and genre, l i k e t h a t of
c u l t u r e and n a t u r e , w i l l always be supplementary ( i n Derrida's
s e n s e ) and thus never a b l e t o f u n c t i o n a s an o r i g i n of proper
i d e n t i t i e s o r a s t h e t e l o s of s h i s t o r y . In o t h e r words, rhet o r i c i s an u n n a t u r a l a c t t h a t g e n e r a t e s systems of genealogy
t h a t may i n t e r p r e t d i f f e r e n c e s a s p a r t i c u l a r o r d e r s , but only
through t h e i r r e v o c a b l e e x c l u s i o n of non-generic o r b a s t a r d
t r a i t s and only i n t h e s e r v i c e of a master genre o r ideology
t h a t governs the c r i t i c a l a c t .
"To r e l a t e l i t e r a r y change
t o concepts of thought and f e e l i n g o r t o forms of a u t h o r i a l
and r e a d e r consciousness." s a y s the "Propaedeutic." " i s t o
r e a l i z e t h a t l i t e r a r y change i s connected with l a r g e r frameworks of change i n nature and i n man."
As the u n i t of such
a n a l y s i s , however, genre a l r e a d y presupposes such a framework
and s o d e l i m i t s t h e scope of change, r u l i n g out t h e transg r e s s i v e d i f f e r e n c e i n p r i v i l e g i n g "innovation" and "vsriation."
It i s not t h e " u n r e l a t e d i n s t a n c e s " t h a t d i s t u r b
the t h e o r y , but t h o s e i n s t a n c e s of d i f f e r e n c e t h a t cannot be
subsuroed by the metaphysics of genre o r the l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y
of s t a b l e e n t i t i e s . "The n a t u r e of l i t e r a r y change i s thus
a s t u d y of a l t e r a t i o n s which can only be understood i n terms
of the p e r s i s t e n c e of non-altered elements of frarneworks which
provide an i d e n t i t y . " Here we note t h a t , a t l e a s t grammatic a l l y , "nature" i s a "study," and change the begrudgingly
r e t u r n e d d i f f e r e n c e l e f t over a f t e r t h e production of the imp r i n t of a more v a l u a b l e i d e n t i t y .
I f the framework only
e x i s t s a g a i n s t t h e foreground of change, then do we not have
a misesn-abyme i n which e a c h framework i n t u r n becomes the
changing element i n another framework? The r o l e of genre
theory i s t o put a s t o p t o such a d e f e r r a l of i d e n t i t y , such
an uncanny n o t i o n of change, through a recourse t o t h e u l t i mate frameworks of a u t h o r i t y and t r a d i t i o n : "no e x p l a n a t i o n
by a modern c r i t i c of a p a s t change avoids d i s t o r t i o n . What
we can do i s t o c o n t r o l the d i s t o r t i o n by i n t r o d u c i n g g e n e r i c
elements s t i p u l a t e d by o t h e r s from e a r l i e r times."
But t h i s
only t u r n s the mise-en-abyme i n t o a d i a c h r o n i c s p e c t a c l e of
the e n d l e s s d i s t o r t i o n s composing l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y .
Though he f i n d s i t "tempting," Cohen r e j e c t s Bloom's
"oedipal" model f o r p o e t i c c o n t i n u i t y , s i n c e " i f i t i s g r a n t e d
t h a t genre e x e r c i s e s c o n t r o l i n c o n s t i t u t i n g a t e x t , no e x p l a n a t i o n can n e g l e c t i t s function." T h i s r e j o i n d e r r e q u i r e s a
number of responses. F i r s t , i n p r a c t i c e Bloom does p o s i t a
genre--the " c r i s i s ode"--as t h e v e h i c l e of t h i s c o n f l i c t , proposing i t a s a r e v i s i o n of M. H. Abrams' " g r e a t e r romantic
lyric."
Second, t h e judgment here a g a i n s t Bloom depends upon
a narrowly conventional d e f i n i t i o n of genre. E a r l i e r Cohen
acknowledged " t h a t numerous contemporary c r i t i c s and t h e o r i s t s
Re
consider received generic c l a s s i f i c t i o n a discredited."
claims t o "share t h e i r opinion" and t o " f i n d no need t o idenThis i s an e n t i r e l y
t i f y genre w i t h such r e c e i v e d c a t e g o r i e s . "
convincing, and promising, paragraph, but i t s r e l a t i o n t o t h e
Although genre
remainder of t h e e s s a y remains puzzling.12
becomes t h e l i n c h p i n of t h e theory of l i t e r a r y change, no new
d e f i n i t i o n of e i t h e r i s o f f e r e d . The genres involved d u r i n g
t h e argument a r e the "received g e n e r i c c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s " of
tragedy, comedy, l y r i c , b a l l a d , s o n n e t , novel, and t h e o t h e r
recognizable forms a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s p e c i f i c e f f e c t s . Much
of t h e e s s a y , i n f a c t , defends the conventional i d e a of g e n r e ,
a g a i n s t r e c e n t i n n o v a t i o n s , a l l of which v i o l a t e t h e law of
genre by proposing o t h e r p r i n c i p l e s f o r t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n and
a n a l y s i s of t h e products of language.
+
One v a l u e , I b e l i e v e , of r e c e n t c r i t i c i s m h a s been i t s
i n g e n u i t y i n d e t e c t i n g t h e c o n t i n u i t y of r h e t o r i c a l and conc e p t u a l s t r u c t u r e s t h a t a r e t r a n s g e n e r i c . Such c r i t i c i s m
d i s t u r b s t h e i d e n t i t y of l i t e r a t u r e a s a s t a b l e e n t i t y o r
academic i n s t i t u t i o n , and i n s o doing o f f e r s i n s i g h t s t h a t
t h e o l d e r new c r i t i c i s m was b l i n d t o ( t h e r e v e r s e , of c o u r s e ,
i s e q u a l l y t r u e ) . The c o n t r i b u t i o n , f o r example, of F r e d r i c
Jameaon's The P o l i t i c a l Unconscious i s t o provide a method
f o r r e a d i n g h e t e x t of d i v e r s e g e n r e s a s p a r t of a continuous t r a d i t i o n i n which s o c i a l c o n t r a d i c t i o n s a r e sylabolically
resolved i n a s t r u c t u r e of romance o r utopia.
Cohen f i n d s
t h a t t h e book " n e g l e c t s t h e r e l a t i o n of c o n t i n u i t y and t h e
concepts t h a t u n d e r l i e i t s o t h a t the r e l a t i o n of landscape
p o e t r y t o p a s t o r a l and g e o r g i c forma from which i t comes i s
In response one might r e p l y t h a t
suppressed o r overlooked."
such a g e n e r i c genealogy i s a t l e a s t a s g u i l t y i n i t s suppress i o n of t h e t e x t ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n s o c i a l and conceptual
formations t h a t c r o s s t h e boundaries of genres. "Romance"
f o r Jameson i s p r e c i s e l y a t r a n s g e n e r i c term ( a s i s , f i n a l l y ,
n a r r a t i v e ) f o r t h a t "single great c o l l e c t i v e s t o r y
for
Marxism, t h e c o l l e c t i v e s t r u g g l e t o w r e s t a realm of Freedom
from a realm of Necessity."l3 The importance of Marx, Freud,
...
70
Nietzsche and o t h e r p h i l o s o p h e r s of d i f f e r e n c e o r deconstruct i o n emerges i n t h e i r e l a b o r a t i o n of a mode f o r analyzing, and
t h u s transforming, t h e hidden agenda o r s t r u c t u r e composing
a p p a r e n t l y s t a b l e o r n a t u r a l i d e n t i t i e s . Cohen'e r h e t o r i c of
g e n r e s a i d s t h a t p r o j e c t i n i t s keen e y e f o r t h e m u l t i p l i c i t y
of g e n r e s t r a v e r s i n g any g i v e n work, b u t i t seems l i m i t e d when
appearing t o r e a s s e r t t h e p r i v i l e g e of received c a t e g o r i e s o r
t o i d e n t i f y a work w i t h any s i n g l e genre.
T h i r d , Cohen's own r h e t o r i c l e n d s t a c i t s u p p o r t t o Bloom's
theory. When "genre e x e r c i s e s c o n t r o l i n c o n s t i t u t i n g a t e x t , "
we have t h e c o n d i t i o n s f o r t h e murder of the f a t h e r . Jameson's
" s i n g l e g r e a t c o l l e c t i v e s t o r y " i s i n Bloom's hands the recurr e n t s t r u g g l e of t h e poet f o r freedom from the n e c e s s i t y of
obeying t h e d i c t a t e s of t h e f a t h e r s . I n p r e s c r i b i n g f o r t h e
poet a s e t of conventional techniques and concepts, genre a l s o
e n t a i l s i t s own undoing. The i d e n t i t y of t h e new poem o r poet
can o n l y be c o n s t r u c t e d o u t of a d i f f e r e n c e ; t h e necessary perc e p t i o n of t h a t d i f f e r e n c e a g a i n s t a background of c o n t i n u i t y
o n l y i n c r e a s e s t h e a n x i e t y of the i n d i v i d u a l t a l e n t and t h e
consequent t u r n i n g a g a i n s t t h e f a t h e r ' s tropes. A poem thus
h a s no g e n r e , no s t a b l e i d e n t i t y , but occupies a s t r a t e g i c
p l a c e between t h e genres i t i n h e r i t s and those i t t u r n s t o
f o r a countering canon of d e v i c e s and concepts. A poet's
response t o t h e f a t h e r ' s g e n r e s , o r h i s choice o f a l t e r n a t i v e
forms, obeys not o n l y an a e s t h e t i c imperative b u t t h e t r a n s g e n e r i c "logic" of d e s i r e . Thus t h e i d e n t i t y of a genre t u r n s
out t o i t s e l f be an " e x t r a t e x t u a l " l o g o s produced by the
h i s t o r y of d i f f e r e n c e s i t p u r p o r t s t o o r i g i n a t e and govern.
The i d e n t i t y of a poet i s l i k e w i s e a genre o r n a r r a t i v e t h a t
t r a n s g r e s s e s v i t h i t s d e s i r e t h e o r d e r l y whole i t both r e t r o s p e c t i v e l y p r o j e c t s a s n a t u r e and p r o j e c t i v e l y r e p r e s e n t s a s
c u l t u r e . A s E l i o t himself p u t it: " I n an i d e a l s t a t e of
s o c t e t y one might imagine t h e good New growing o u t of the good
Old, without t h e need f o r polemic and theory; t h i s would be a
s o c i e t y , a s a c t u a l s o c i e t i e s a r e , i n which t r a d i t i o n i s
e v e r l a p s i n g i n t o s u p e r s t i t i o n , and t h e v i o l e n t s t i m u l u s of
n o v e l t y i s required."l4
Department of E n g l i s h
U n i v e r s i t y of Alabama
1. These e p i g r a p h s a r e drawn from t h e e n t r y under "change"
i n t h e Oxford E n g l i s h M c t i o n a r ] ~ .
2. A l l of Cohen's work shows an e x p e r t a t t e n t i o n t o t h e
i n t r i c a c i e s of convention. See i n p a r t i c u l a r "Innovation and
Variation: L i t e r a r y Channe and Geornic Poetry." i n Ralph
Cohen and Murray ~ r i e ~ e r , - ~ i t e r a t u r e - a nHistory
d
(Los Angeles,
19741, pp. 10-14.
12. A s i m i l a r wve c h a r a c t e r i z e s Cohen's overview of the use
of l i t e r a r y a n a l y s i s i n o t h e r humanities d i s c i p l i n e s . Bis
g e n e r a l l y f a v o r a b l e account e n d s w i t h a c a l l f o r a r e t u r n t o
genres. "The Function of L i t e r a r y Study f o r t h e Humanities,"
date ,
ed. Malinda R. Maxfield
i n Images and Innovations:
( s p a r t a n b u r g , 1979). pp. 140%
470s
13. F n d r l c Jameson,
p. 19.
The P o l i t i c a l
Unconscious ( I t h a c a , 1981).
- -
3. Cohen h a s responded t o Bloom's theory of p o e t i c h i s t o r y
on v a r i o u s o c c a s i o n s , f o r i t p a r a l l e l s h i s own i n many of i t s
assumptions. See "On a S h i f t i n t h e Concept of I n t e r p r e t a A f t e r , ed. Thomas D. Young
t i o n . " i n The New C r i t i c i s m
( C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , 1976). pp, 65--8,
and "The Statements
L i t e r a r y Texts Do Not Uake. New L i t e r a r y H i s t o r y . 8:3 (Spring,
1982). pp. 384-385.
4. "We do n o t possess a c a r e f u l s t u d y of t h e o r i e s of c r i t i c i s m
i n t h e l i g h t of t h e i r t e x t - m i l i e u : how theory depends on a
canon, on a l i m i t e d group of t e x t s , o f t e n c u l t u r e - s p e c i f i c
Geoffrey Hartman, C r i t i c i s m i n t h e Wilderness
o r national."
(New Haven, 1980). p. 5.
5. Ralph Cohen,
1979), pp. 2-3.
6.
U n f o l d i n g o f "The Seasons" (Baltimore.
U n f o l d i n g o f "The Seasons," pp. 5, 7.
7.
The U n f o l d i n g o f
8.
Harold Bloors,
"The Seasons," pp. 325, 327.
4 Map
of Misreading (New York. 1975), p. 30.
9. T. S. E l i o t , S e l e c t e d Essays, 4. This argument, and a dia5
Waate Land, a p p e a r s i n my
c u s s i o n of t h e
E l i o t and t h e P o e t i c s of L i t e r a r y H i s t o r y , forthcoming i n 1983
from the Louisiana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Press.
T.
10.
The U n f o l d i n g o f
"The Seasons," pp. 328. 327. 330.
+
11. Jacques Derrida, "The Law of Genre." C r i t i c a l I n q u i r
7: 1 (Autumn, 1980). pp. 55-82.
One wonders what Cohen s
response would be t o D e r r i d a ' s d e c o n s t r u c t i o n of genre.
14.
T. S. E l i o t , " R e f l e c t i o n s on 'Vers Libre'," i n S e l e c t e d
g. Eliot, ed. Prank Kernode (New York, -1
32.
Prone of T.
-
LITeRARY CHANGE I N LETeRARY HISTORY:
AN OVERVIEW
Takis Poulakos
During t h e l a s t decade t h e i s s u e of l i t e r a r y change h a s
received i n c r e a s i n g a t t e n t i o n . P a r t of the reason, P r o f e s s o r
Ralph Cohen p o i n t s o u t i n h i s i n t r o d u c t i o n t o New Dimensions
i n L i t e r a r y H i s t o r y , may l i e i n t h e new d i r e c t i o n c r i t i c s
and t h e o r i s t s have taken i n t h e i r approach t o i s s u e s , a d i r e c t i o n t h a t c a l l s f o r l i t e r a r y s t u d i e s which a r e s y s t e m a t i c a l l y
sound. No longer c o n t e n t merely t o i d e n t i f y changes i n l i t e r a ry conventions, l i t e r a r y f e a t u r e s , e t c . , c r i t i c s and t h e o r i s t s
have sought ways t o move beyond t h e paths t r a c e d by t h e i r predecessors by o f f e r i n g s y s t e m a t i c e x p l a n a t i o n , i d e n t i f y i n g t h e i r
assumptions, r e v e a l i n g t h e i r presuppositions.
Another reason
may l i e i n a s h i f t of a t t i t u d e toward the l i t e r a r y work i t s e l f :
i n a p o s t - f o r m a l i s t i c e r a . a work of a r t i s no longer considered
t o be a f i x e d " o b j e c t " of i n v e s t i g a t i o n , but r a t h e r an "event,"
an " a c t i o n , " a " r e l a t i o n " between i t and the reader. Such
d e f i n i t i o n s s t r e s s t h e f l e x i b l e a s p e c t a£ t e x t s , and d i s p e l
the notion t h a t a work has a "changeless" n a t u r e ; consequently,
l i t e r a r y s t u d i e s a r e more concerned w i t h i s s u e s of change than
they were two decades ago.
Of c o u r s e , such e x p l a n a t i o n s of l i t e r a r y change f a l l thems e l v e s under the scope of more g e n e r a l i n q u i r i e s i n t o h i s t o r i c a l , c r i t i c a l , and t h e o r e t i c a l changes.
Defining change i n g e n e r a l a s d i f f e r e n c e i n c o n t i n u i t y .
Ralph Cohen p o i n t s o u t t h a t l i t e r a r y change can only be s t u d i e d
a g a i n s t a background of c o n t i n u i t y . A d i s c u s s i o n of change
must a l s o make e v i d e n t t h a t n o n a l t e r e d background a g a i n s t which
a l t e r a t i o n s can be discerned. For example, t r a d i t i o n a l s t u d i e s
of p e r i o d i z a t i o n have f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h a background of c o n t i n u i t y from one p e r i o d t o t h e n e x t , a s they focus on a changing
foreground. Yet changes can be ueasured s y s t e m a t i c a l l y only
a g a i n s t a background of c o n t i n u i t y .
This paper begins by assuming t h a t Cohen's d e f i n i t i o n of
l i t e r a r y change a s d i f f e r e n c e - i n - c o n t i n u i t y o r c o n t i n u i t y - i n d i f f e r e n c e i s shared by s e v e r a l o t h e r c r i t i c s , and proceeds by
i d e n t i f y i n g t h e e x a c t n a t u r e of l i t e r a r y change a s d e s c r i b e d
i n t h e works of a s e l e c t e d few. Since t h e scope of l i t e r a r y
change is v a s t , o n l y one aspect--changes i n l i t e r a r y history-f a i n c l u d e d here. The f o l l o w i n g c r i t i c s 1 t h e o r i s t s a r e , i n
one way o r a n o t h e r , preoccupied w i t h l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y , each
approaching t h e s u b j e c t from a d i f f e r e n t angle: Ralph Cohen
approaches l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y by c o n c e n t r a t i n g on t h e study of
genre; Hayden White examines t h e i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between
l i t e r a t u r e and language ; Michael Riff a t e r r e s t u d i e s the r e a d e r 'a
r e l a t i o n t o a work; Harold Bloom and Geoffrey Hartman examine
a work's r e l a t i o n t o i t s l i t e r a r y p a s t ; Hans Robert Jauss
zeroes i n on a work's r e l a t i o n t o the h i s t o r y of i t s r e c e p t i o n ;
Robert Weimann and F r e d r i c Jameson develop the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between a work's g e n e s i s and i t s e f f e c t upon s o c i e t y .
According t o P r o f e s s o r Cohen, l i t e r a r y change can beat be
s t u d i e d i n r e l a t i o n t o genre s i n c e "some l i t e r a r y u n i t l i k e
genre i s necessary t o include c o n t i n u i t y i n any d i s c u s s i o n of
change" (See "A Propaedeutic f o r L i t e r a r y Change").
Genres do
not p o s s e s s a changeless i d e n t i t y and e a c h g e n e r i c i n s t a n c e i s
d i f f e r e n t from e v e r y o t h e r . Each i n s t a n c e , however, possesses
a s u f f i c i e n t number of f e a t u r e s which combine t o make i t a member of a c l a s s ; s o s t a b l e a r e t h e s e f e a t u r e s t h a t i n any time
span some g e n e r i c f e a t u r e s a r e more dominant than o t h e r s . Thus,
though t h e r e a r e no s t a b l e f e a t u r e s which can be s e e n a s the
e s s e n t i a l f e a t u r e s of a g e n r e , some g e n e r i c f e a t u r e s become i n
any p a r t i c u l a r p e r i o d more c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a genre than o t h e r s .
The genre a s a whole i n time possesses f e a t u r e s some of which
d i s a p p e a r , o t h e r s of which a r e added, and the connecting l i n k s
a r e always between p a r t i c u l a r h i s t o r i c a l moments of the genre.
In t h i s s e n s e , Cohen'a n o t i o n of s t a b i l i t y i s a s h i s t o r i c a l a s
i s h i s n o t i o n of change: what remains s t a b l e i s t h e f a c t t h a t
any work c o n s t i t u t e s a genre i n s t a n c e of one o r more types.
More s p e c i f i c a l l y , Cohen s e e s e v e r y w r i t e r a s committed
t o h i s t o r i c a l p o s s i b i l i t i e s and h i s composition a s based on
h i s t o r i c a l precedents which o f f e r the source f o r b u t do n o t
determine h i s g e n e r i c c o n s t r u c t i o n . T h i s i s p o s s i b l e because
a w r i t e r may c r e a t e new combinations of forms o u t of o l d comb i n a t i o n s , o r he may employ s i m i l a r l i t e r a r y f e a t u r e s f o r new
p o e t i c e n d s (See " H i s t o r i c a l Knowledge and L i t e r a r y Understanding." Papers on Language and L i t e r a t u r e , 14 (1978).
pp. 227-248).
Other works by P r o f e s s o r Cohen p e r t i n e n t t o t h e t o p i c of
l i t e r a r y change a r e : "Innovation and Variation: L i t e r a r y Change
and Georgic Poetry," L i t e r a t u r e and H i s t o r y , William Andrews
Clark Memorial L i b r a r y , U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , Los Angelea,
1974, pp. 3-42; " L i t e r a r y Theory a s a Genre," Ctntrum, 3 (1975).
DD. 45-64; "On t h e I n t e r r e l a t i o n s of ~ i ~ h t e e n t h - C e n t uLr i~t e r a r y
horns,* New Ap roaches to B i hteenth-Centur L i t e r a t u r e :
S e l e c t e d ~ a p e rfrom
~
t h e E n g k h I n s t i t u t e . y e d . P h i l l i p Harth,
Columbia ~ n i v e r s E ~ c e s sNew
. York. 1974, pp. 33-78; "On a
S h i f t i n t h e concept of ~ n t e r ~ r e t a t i o n ,The
"
New C r i t i c i s m and
A f t e r , ed. Thomas Daniel Young, ~ n i v e r s i t y r of
z Virginia,
C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , 1976. pp. 61-79; Cohen, Ralph, "The Function
of L i t e r a r y Study f o r t h e Humanities," Images and Innovations:
Update '70'8, ed. Malinda R. H a x f i e l d , papers of t h e So. Humanit i e s Conf., Converse College, Spartansburg, SC: Center f o r t h e
Humanities. Converse College, 1979, pp. 140-157.
-
Like Cohen, Hayden White d e f i n e s l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y i n terms
of d i f f e r e n c e and c o n t i n u i t y : "a l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y must be nothing
more nor l e s s than an account both of change i n c o n t i n u i t y and
of c o n t i n u i t y i n change" ("The Problem of Change i n L i t e r a r y
History," New L i t e r a r y H i s t o r y , 7 (Autumn 1975). p. 105). To
determine what i s changing and what i s continuous i n any given
period of t h e whole h i s t o r i c a l r e c o r d , we must s t u d y "the component shared by t h e c o n t e x t , t h e audience., t h e a r t i s t , and t h e
work a l i k e . T h i s component is language i n general" (p. 106).
Changes i n any of t h e f o u r prime elements of the l i t e r a r y
f i e l d (work, a r t i s t , audience, c o n t e x t ) must be r e l a t e d t o the
Change t h e n i s
more g e n e r a l f i e l d of l i n g u i s t i c transformation.
f o r Professor White a d i a l e c t i c a l i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between the
elements of t h e l i t e r a r y f i e l d and t h e , l i n g u i s t i c code (Jacobson's
code) which s e r v e s a s t h e mediating agency among them a l l .
Though l i t e r a r y i n n o v a t i o n , l i k e speech i n n o v a t i o n , must
be presumed t o be going on a l l t h e time, h i s t o r i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t
l i t e r a r y i n n o v a t i o n i s p o s s i b l e o n l y a t those times when new
systems of e n c o d a t i o n and t r a n s m i s s i o n of messages a r e b e i n g
c o n s t i t u t e d ; b u t t h e s e times a r e a l s o those d u r i n g which
guage i t s e l f h a s f a l l e n under q u e s t i o n and none of t h e convent i o n a l modes of message formulation and t r a n s m i s s i o n appear t o
be adequate f o r naming and c l a s s i f y i n g t h e elements of the
l a r g e r h i s t o r i c a l - n a t u r a l c o n t e x t * (p. 108).
"+-
For Hayden White then, 11t e r a r y change
quence of changes i n a l i n g u i s t i c code; any
l i t e r a r y change must be r e l a t e d t o the more
Other works by
l i n g u i s t i c transformation.
becomes a conaes t a t e m e n t s about
g e n e r a l f i e l d of
White p e r t i n e n t
t o t h e i s s u e o f l i t e r a r y change a r e " I n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n
H i s t o r y , " New L i t e r a r y H i s t o r y , 4 (Winter 1973), pp. 281-314;
" L i t e r a r y History: The Point of It A l l , " New L f t e r a r
2 (Autumn 1970); Tropics of Discourse: B G y s i n C u i tHfstory,
ural
C r i t i c i s m , The Johns ~ o ~ k G
U nsi v e r s i t y Press, Baltimore.
1978.
For Michael R i f f a t e r r e , l i t e r a r y chsnge c o n s i s t s essent i a l l y i n the r e a d e r ' s p e r c e p t i o n of l i t e r a r i n e s s .
Thus though s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l e v e n t s may themselves cause
changes i n t h e composition of a work, t h e reader perceives
o n l y t h e f i n i s h e d product, having "no n a t u r a l way of knowing
p a s t circumstances of t h e w r i t e r ' s s t r u g g l e s " (See " L i t e r a r y
Change and L i t e r a r i n e s s " ) .
Hence t h e nature of l i t e r a r y
change i s c l o s e l y t i e d t o t h e n a t u r e of i t s p e r c e p t i o n by
t h e r e a d e r . Whereas t h e l i n g u i s t i c code used by a given
t e x t remains changeless, t h e code brought t o t h e t e x t by
t h e r e a d e r i s c o n s t a n t l y , l i k e language i t s e l f , changing.
The concept of " i n t e r t e x t u a l i t y " enables P r o f e s s o r
R i f f a t e r r e t o d e f i n e l i t e r a r i n e s s through a r e a d i n g procedure
" t h a t i s t h e o p p o s i t e of t h e 'normal' decoding of t h e text."
Ungra~mnaticalitye f f e c t s a change i n t h e normal l i n e a r reading
procedure, marking a l s o t h e p o i n t a t which l i t e r a r i n e s s obt a i n s : "the s u r p r i s e change from l i n e a r t o i n t e r t e x t u a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s t r i g g e r e d by
p o i n t s of a b s o l u t e nonsense
t h a t a r e a t one and t h e same time t h e blocks on which we
stumble i n our l i n e a r reading, and t h e keys t o i n t e r t e x t u a l
reading. "
...
M I t h i s l a p o s s i b l e because t e x t s a r e composed of
d e s c r i p t i v e systems: "Every d e s c r i p t i v e system provides t h e
g e n e r a l language from which t h e poet makes h i s p r i v a t e o r
i n d i v i d u a l language; thus q u e s t i o n s of genre, t r a d i t i o n ,
i n f l u e n c e a r e ' p e r i p h e r a l ' t o t h e problem of t h e v e r y e x i s t e n c e of t h e l i t e r a r y work."
S i n c e " d e s c r i p t i v e systems" undergo changea i n meaning,
R i f f a t e r r e l e a n s on a " h i s t o r y of words" i n o r d e r t o recons t r u c t t h e o r i g i n a l meaning of a work (See "The S t y l i s t i c
Approach t o L i t e r a r y H i s t o r y , " New L i t e r a r y H i s t o r y , 2 (Autumn
1970), pp. 39-55; r e p r i n t e d i n New D i r e c t i o n s i n L i t e r a r
Hi;tory, ed. Ralph Cohen. The 1 x 8 Hopkins u n G e r s i t y Pfess.
Ba timore. 1974, pp. 147-1641.
Other works by P r o f e s s o r
R i f f a t e r r e p e r t i n e n t t o l i t e r a r y change are: Semiotics
of
Poetry, I n d i a n a U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1978 (esp. pp:
172. f o o t n o t e 24); " F l a u b e r t ' s P r e s u p p o s i t i o n s ,
11, Winter 1981.
39-40
D
i a c r iand
tics,
L i t e r a r y change a s a way of d e s c r i b i n g a work's r e l a t i o n
t o i t s p a s t ( g e n e r i c o r otherwise) informs t h e w r i t i n g s of
Harold Bloom and Geoffrey Hartman, who i d e n t i f y t h e uniqueness
of a work through t h e ways i n which i t p a r t i c i p a t e s i n b u t a l s o
r e s i s t s i t s l i t e r a r y p a s t . P r o f e s s o r Bloom o f f e r s an o e d i p a l
model f o r p o e t i c continuity--an ongoing c r i s i s e a c h poet f a c e s .
What changes on t h e d i a c h r o n i c a x i s a r e t h e r e s o l u t i o n s thems e l v e s , unique f o r e a c h poet a s he s t r u g g l e s f o r freedom from ce:
t h e d i c t a t e s of h i s p o e t i c f a t h e r . (See The Anxiety of I n f l u e n
A Theory of Poetry, Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . New York, 1973;
A Map of g s r e a d i n g , Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . New York, 1975).
-
-
Geoffrey Hartman s t u d i e s t h e " i d e n t i t y c r i s i s " e a c h poet
g w s through a s he a t t e m p t s t o i n d i v i d u a l i z e t h e "chaos of
forms." On t h e b a s i s of t h i s c r i s i s , P r o f e s s o r Hartman founds
a h i s t o r y of p o e t i c vocation which r e c o r d s a n ongoing "genius/
Genius" c o n t e s t ( t h e a r t i s t ' s s t r u g g l e , w i t h p a s t m a s t e r s ) and
a q u a r r e l of "genius w i t h g e n i u s l o c i " (of a r t w i t h t h e n a t u r a l
r e l i g i o n o r dominant myth of i t s age). I n such a s e a r c h f o r a
vocation "There a r e , always, i t seems, two g e n i i f i g h t i n g f o r
t h e s o u l of the a r t i s t : two s t a r s o r v i s i o n s of d e s t i n y , o r
Genius and t h e g e n i u s l o c i . "
(See "Toward L i t e r a r y H i s t o r y , "
I n Search of L i t e r a r Theory, ed. Morton W. Bloomfield. Cornell
U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . I t i a c a . 1972. pp. 195-235).
---
I n a n o t h e r paper, t h i s t e n s i o n i s put i n t o t h e f o r s o f
a journey a s e a c h a r t i s t p r o g r e s s e s from a chaos-of forms,
"with which t h e h i s t o r i c a l consciousness b e g i n s , toward a
r e v e l of forms, "which e r a s e s t h e n a f f i w s t h e a r t - r e a l i t y
P r o f e s s o r Hartman f e e l s t h a t a h i s t o r y of
distinction."
" a u t h e n t i c responses" i s p o s s i b l e only s o l o n g a s a work i s
s e e n a s h i s t o r i c a l l y i n d i v i d u a t e d . (See a l s o "A S h o r t H i s t o r y
of P r a c t i c a l C r i t i c i s m , " New L i t e r a r y H i s t o r y , 10 ( Spring
1979). pp. 495-509; r e p r i n t e d i n C r i t i c i s m i n t h e Wilderness:
The Study of L i t e r a t u r e Today. Yale U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , New
Haven. 198fl.
---
Whereas Bloom and Hartman a d d r e s s t h e i s s u e of t h e ext e n t t o which a work i s h i s t o r i c a l l y i n d i v i d u a t e d by focusing
on a work's r e l a t i o n t o i t s p a s t . Hans Robert J a u s s addresses
t h e same problem by c o n c e n t r a t i n g on a work's r e l a t i o n t o i t s
f u t u r e . For J a u s s , t h e h i s t o r y of a work's r e c e p t i o n is a
v a l u a b l e t o o l , i n d i s p e n s a b l e i n r e c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e p a s t : we
cannot understand a work of a r t by r e c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e s e t
of conventions, e x p e c t a t i o n s , e t c . , t h a t e x i s t e d a t t h e time
of its production s i n c e t h e h i s t o r i c a l consciousness of a
period can never e x i s t a s a s e t of recorded p r o p o s i t i o n s .
At t h e moment of i t s r e c e p t i o n , t h e i n d i v i d u a l work of
a r t s t a n d s out a s u n i n t e l l i g i b l e w i t h regard t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g
conventions.
But a h i s t o r y of r e c e p t i o n w i l l d i s c o v e r prop e r t i e s h e l d i n common between a given work and i t s p r o j e c t e d
h i s t o r y . Thus a h i s t o r y of r e c e p t i o n w i l l contain elements
of "genuine paradigmatic" s i m i l a r i t y t h a t c i r c u l a t e f r e e l y
between t h e formal s i n g u l a r i t y of the work and t h e h i s t o r y
of i t s reception.
As De Man, i n h i s i n t r o d u c t i o n t o Jauss'
Toward an A e s t h e t i c of Reception, p u t s i t , "In Jause' hietor i c a l model, a a y n t a G t i c displacement w i t h i n a synchronic
s t r u c t u r e becoroes, i n i t s r e c e p t i o n , a paradigmatic condens a t i o n w i t h i n a diachrony. A t t r i b u t e s of d i f f e r e n c e and of
s i m i l a r i t y can be exchanged thanks t o t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n of
temporal c a t e g o r i e s : by allowing the work t o e x i s t i n time
without complete l o s s of i d e n t i t y , t h e a l i e n a t i o n of i t s
formal s t r u c t u r e is suspended by the h i s t o r y of i t s understanding."
(See a l s o " L i t e r a r y History a s a Challenge t o
L i t e r a r y Theory," New L i t e r a r H i s t o r y , 2 (Autumn 1970).
pp. 7-37; "The rlt=ty and Mzdernity of Medieval L i t e r a t u r e , "
New L i t e r a r y H i s t o r y , 10 (Spring 1979). pp. 181-227).
-
--
L i t e r a r y change, a s examined by Robert Weimann, l i e s a t
the c e n t e r of the problem of i n t e r p r e t i n g a work of t h e paat
from a contemporary p o i n t of view. For Weimann, time and
t i m e l e s s n e s s a r e f u s e d i n t o one i n t h e i n t e r r e l a t e d f u n c t i o n s
of a r t : t h e mimetic ( h i s t o r i c a l ) , and t h e moral (ever-present).
The twofold f u n c t i o n s c a l l f o r a corresponding a c t i v i t y on the
p a r t of t h e h i s t o r i a n - c r i t i c who must s e e t h e work b o t h a s a
"product o f i t s time," a "mirror of i t s a g e , " and a s a "producer of t h e f u t u r e , " a "lamp t o the f u t u r e . "
When a work of t h e p a s t i s seen a g a i n s t i t s p r e s e n t
r e c e p t i o n and when t h e contemporary i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s seen
a g a i n s t t h e h i s t o r i c a l e i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e work, t h e n can
we begin t o acquire "a sense of h i s t o r y which can d i s c o v e r
permanence i n change but a l s o change i n seeming permanence;
t h e p a a t i n t h e p r e s e n t but a l s o the p r e s e n t i n t h e past."
(See "Past S i g n i f i c a n c e and P r e s e n t Meaning i n L i t e r a r y
H i s t o r y , " New D i r e c t i o n s i n L i t e r a r H i s t o r y , ed. Ralph Cohen,
The Johns G k i n s ~ n i v e r s sP ~
r e s ~ , ~ B a l t i . o n .1974; r e p r i n t e d
i n S t r u c t u r e and S o c i e t y i n L i t e r a r y History: S t u d i e s i n t h e
H i s t o r y and Theory of H i s t o r i c a l C r i t i c i s m , U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s
of V i r g i n i a , ~ h a r l o z e s v i l l e ,1976, pp. 18-56; a l s o s e e
"'Reception A e s t h e t i c s ' and the C r i s i s of L i t e r a r y H i s t o r y , "
t r a n s . Charles Spencer,
5 (1975), pp. 3-33.
w.
F r e d r i c Jameson a d d r e s s e s a s i m i l a r problem: t h e i n h e r e n t
paradox i n which a work of a r t r e f l e c t s the c o n d i t i o n s of t h e
time of i t s production and y e t transcends those c o n d i t i o n s .
maintaining a relevance t o i t s own b u t a l s o t o subsequent epochs.
Jameson o f f e r s a d i f f e r e n t approach from t h e one suggested by
Weimann
.
For P r o f e s s o r Jameson, h i s t o r i c a l epochs c o n s i s t of "overl a y s " of d i f f e r e n t modes of production. Thus a work of a r t which
g r a s p s a s o c i a l c o n t r a d i c t i o n and which p r o j e c t s a v i s i o n t h a t
r e s o l v e s a problem e x p r e s s i b l e i n terms of a s p e c i f i c mode of
production can s t i l l remain r e l e v a n t t o subsequent works which
a r e produced under s i m i l a r and d i s s i m i l a r modes of production.
" C l a s s i c works" do n o t appeal t o l a t e r ages by some t i m e l e s s
wisdom b u t through t h e i r p r e s e n t a t i o n of man's c a p a c i t y t o endow
l i v e d c o n t r a d i c t i o n s w i t h i n t i m a t i o n s of p o s s i b l e transcendence.
N a r r a t i v e s a r e u n i v e r s a l i n t h e i r c a p a c i t y t o j u s t i f y the
dream of achieving an i d e a l community; they a r e p a r t i c u l a r i n
t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of the c o n t r a d i c t i o n s p r e s e n t . But narr a t i v e and h i s t o r y a r e s u b j e c t e d t o t h e f o r c e s of a s i m i l a r
dialectic--"Desire" i n c o n f l i c t w i t h "Necessity"--and
they
r e c o r d a s i m i l a r movement: the p r o c e s s e s through which a u n i t y
of meaning ( P l o t , H i s t o r y ) i s imposed upon t h e chaos of e l e ments ( s t o r y s l e m e n t s , h i s t o r i c a l e v e n t s ) .
(See
Political
Unconscious, C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , I t h a c a , 1981. Also see
"Demystifying L i t e r a r y History," New L i t e r a r y H i s t o q , 5 (Spring
1974), pp. 605-612; "Magical N a r r a t i v e s : Romance a s Genre,"
New L i t e r a r y History. 7 (Autumn 1975), pp. 135-163.)
-
A d d i t i o n a l works p e r t i n e n t t o t h e s t u d y of l i t e r a r y change i n
l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y a r e t h e following:
Buck. Gunther. "The S t r u c t u r e of Hermeneutic Experience and
t h e Problem of Tradition." Trans. P e t e r Heath.
Literary
H i s t o r y , 10, (1978). pp. 31-47.
Canary, Robert H., and Henry Koeicki, eds. The W r i t i n g of
History: L i t e r a r Form and H i s t o r i c a l Understandin
Madison: UniversItK c o n s i n PressCrane, R.S.
History.
C r i t i c a l and H i s t o r i c a l P r i n c i l e s of L i t e r a r
Chfcago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicagf: Press,+
De Man, Paul.
" L i t e r a r y H i s t o r y and L i t e r a r y Modernity."
In
Blindness and I n s i g h t . New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .
1971, pp. m - 1 6 5 .
Eggers, Walter F., J r . "The Idea of L i t e r a r y Periods."
Comparative L i t e r a t u r e S t u d i e s , 17 (1980). pp. 1-15.
Galan. F.W.
" L i t e r a r y System and Systemic Change: The Prague
School Theory of L i t e r a r y History." B,94 (1979). pp. 275-285.
Krieger, Murray. Theory of C r i t i c i s m : A T r a d i t i o n and I t s
Systems. Baltimore : The Johns HopkiG ~ n i v e r s i t g r z . 1976.
Kusher, Eva. "Diachrony and S t r u c t u r e : Thoughts on Renewals i n
the Theory of L i t e r a r y History." S y n t h e s i s , 5 (1978), pp. 37-50.
d d g e , David.
"Historicism and L i t e r a r y History: Mapping t h e
Modern Period."
L i t e r a r y H i s t o r y , 10 (1979), pp. 547-555.
S t a r o b i n s k i , Jean.
"The Meaning of L i t e r a r y History."
L i t e r a r y History, 7 (1975). pp. 83-88.
'The O r i g i n of Genres."
Todorov, Tzvetan.
8 (19771, pp. 159-170.
Department of E n g l i s h
Miami University
New
New
Literary History,
UNIVERSITY
Of PENNSYLVANIA
raw data about the processes involved in reading; and, therefore (in response to
a question to which the panelists were specffically asked to sddress themselves),
PHILADELPHIA 19104
(d) that whatever pedagogic or self-revelatory value the production of such
protocols might have for individual teachers and students, they were of limited
general interest in the development of what might be properly considered a theory
of reading.
t
Comparative Literature
& Liierury Theory Program
wruuMs HALL/cu
215-243-6836
January 6 , 1983
professor James J. Sosnoski
The Society for Critical Exchange
P.O.Box 475
Oxford, Ohio 45056
ii
Although nothing in these remarks referred to or implied anything about my
classroom practices or policies, it appears that they did indeed provoke from
"the political caucus" the tendentious question Professor Barney cites.
What
refers to as "the underlying political nature of the discussion" (and also
itshe
intellectual reaches) was perhaps most dramatically illustrated by a particularly
fevered moment in the exchange that followed--when,after I repeated the gist of
my prior remarks and added that a more general theory of reading (that took account
of, among other things, related activities occurring outside the classroom) would
have, as I put it. "greater explanatory power," one member of that caucus (who had
earlier given a stirring account of the successful democratization of his own classroom) shouted in triumph: "You see--so it & only power you want, isn't it?"
own
Dear Jim,
On
ln SCE Reports 11 (Spring, 1982), Richard Barney reviews a
Theories of Reading held at Indiana University in September* 19819 which I 'lso
recollections and notes appear to be richer than Professor
attended. since
Barney@Son certain points, I should like to fill out the picture of what he
reports as foll0wS:
The underlying political nature of the discussion, especially as
it bore on the economics of the profession, became particularly
clear when Barbara Herrnstein Stnith and Peter Brooks, rePreSentatives of the nation's nore prominent institutions--the University
of Pennsylvania and Yale--were repeatedly singled Out by heated
criticism for their view that studying students are not necessarily
(One political caucu
important for developing a theory of reading.
question to them read: "Does a disinterest in student 'readings'
of literature imply a political unwillingness to share power with
the young?") ' [$.1011
The "view" here attributed jointly to Peter Brooks and nryself is, as sta
absurd and was expressed by neither of us. What I did say (anong other thing
was:
(a) that, judging from the organization and activities of the conference
might conclude that reading was an activity confined to teachers of English 1
ature and their students;
(b) that if current "theories of reading" were not so dominated by the
immediate interests of the literary academy, it might be usefully recognized
there are texts that are not read in literature classes, readers who are nei
professors or students, and motives and occasions for reading that are not a
(c) that it was methodologically naive to believe, as a number of confer
participants apparently did, that the written "responses" (or "protocols") el
from their students (under the conditions they described and implied) constit
I am
what Professor Barney had in mind in regard to how the discussion
"bore on the economics of the profession" unless it was his suspicion that, there
being no other obvious candidates in sight, the "representatives of the
more prominent inStitutions" had to be cast in the role of the establishment heavies
in the political caucus's pre-written script,
There Is much that needs Saying about the political and economic dynamics of
the practices Of the literary academy, but that project was not much advanced at the
'Onference On Theories
Reading which, whatever its achievements, did not, I think,
unmask the power structure either of theories of reading or of anything
Sincerely yours,
Barbara Herrnstein smith
University Professor of English
and Conmrunicationa
FORTHCOMING IN CRITICAL EXCUANGE 14
"Special Issue on Fredric Jameson"
edited by
Steve Nimia. Miami University
"The Ideological Analysis of Space"
FREDRIC JAMESON, Yale Univ
.
"Imagining the Real: Jameson's Use of Lacan"
MICHAEL CLARK, Univ. of Michigan
"Jameson: Interpretation/Interpellstion?"
JOHN BEVERLEY, Univ. of Pittsburgh
"Jameson and the Dialectical Use of Genre Theory"
JUNE HOWARD. Univ. of Michigah
"Marxist Literary Criticism and Marxist Political Writing"
MICHAEL RYAN. Univ. of Virginia
"Jameson's Utopias"
LARYSA MYKYTA, Univ. of Nevada, Reno
"Does Jameson Rave Any Use for Allegory?"
CAROL P. JAMES, Roosevelt Univ.
"The Political Unconscious of Jameson's
The Political Unconscious"
JES
IFFLAND, Boston Univ.
"Peaceful Coexistence:
Jameson's Theoretical and Political Strategy"
JAMES KAVANAGH, Princeton Univ.