UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Comic writing and the reader in the Quart livre of François Rabelais Sheppard, L. Randall 1989

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1989_A8 S53.pdf [ 3.84MB ]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0097895.json
JSON-LD: 1.0097895+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0097895.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0097895+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0097895+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0097895+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0097895 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0097895.txt
Citation
1.0097895.ris

Full Text

COMIC WRITING AND THE READER IN THE QUART LIVRE OF FRANCOIS RABELAIS By L. RANDALL SHEPPARD B.A., The University of British Columbia. 1976 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FUIJTLLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of French) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNTVERSTTY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April 1989 © L. Randall Sheppard, 1989 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, 1 agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date DE-6 (2/88) Abstract The Quart Livre of Francois Rabelais is a work which l ike a l l the work of Rabelais, presents a non-verisimilar f ict ion, through abundant authorial commentary, and an unreliable narrator, through a narrative strategy peculiar to a certain genre of comic writing. Following the model of Aristotelian poetics, which founded a generic theory of tragedy on the response of a reader (catharsis), we pursue our inquiry into "genre" in the Quart Livre of Rabelais by examining the effects of the comic f ict ion on an "implied reader," an exemplary reader created by the generic expectations generated by the l i terary text i tse l f . F i r s t , we examine the authorial strategy which distinguishes the comic f ict ion in the Quart Livre from other genres which rely upon a mimesis of "representation" (an "il lusion of reality") to obtain their characteristic effects. Secondly, we examine the question of "purpose" (purposiveness) in the kind of writing of which the Quart Livre is an example, as l i terary form determined by the (anticipated) "desire" of a reader. Final ly , we examine the major episodes in the Quart Livre i t se l f , with a view to drawing the portrait of this reader — a reader who "indulges" the author, a smiling reader gratified by the accentuated "difference" of satire, a laughing reader identifying with the object of his laughter. It is this last r e a d e r who i s t h e s i g n of t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a m b i v a l e n c e of t h e humour i n Rabelai3, w h i c h r e l a t i v i s e s a n y a t t e m p t b y t h e p o l e m i c e i t h e r t o k i l l l a u g h t e r b y i d e a l i s i n g o r 3 a c r a l i s i n g , o r t o r e d u c e l a u g h t e r t o t h e s m i l e of i r o n y . We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e c o m i c w r i t i n g i n t h e Q u a r t L i v r e of Rabelai3 o p p o s e s t h e t e n d e n c y , f o r i n s t a n c e , i n t r a g e d y t o i d e a l i s e , t o i n d i v i d u a l i s e , and t h e r e b y t o s a c r a l i s e t h e t r a g i c " v i c t i m " n e c e s s a r y t o f u l f i l l t h e c a t h a r t i c ( s o c i a l ) f u n c t i o n i n t h e a u d i e n c e . C o m i c " v i c t i m a g e " a s we f o u n d i t i n t h e Q u a r t L i v r e , show3 a movement a n t i t h e t i c a l t o t r a g i c v i c t i m a g e : t h e i d e a l a n d t h e " i n d i v i d u a l " become t h e common and t h e " o r d i n a r y , " and t h e s a c r e d becomes t h e p r o f a n e , i n o r d e r t h a t t h e r e a d e r may l a u g h . - i v - Table of Contents Abstract i i - i i i Introduction 1-5 Chapter I. Author and Reader: the Unreliable Narrator and the "Hypocrite lecteur" 6-19 Chapter II. Literary Form and the Desire of the Reader 20-32 Chapter III. Portrait of the Reader in the Quart Livre 33 A. Reader's Interest and Digression: The Coui l latr is Story 33-40 B. The "monde a l'envers". Dindenault and the Chiquanous 40-45 C. The Mimesis of Laughter: The Tempest Story 45-52 D. Satire and Difference: Quaresmeprenant and the Andouilles 53-59 E. P a p e f i g u e 3 and Papimanes: the Non-committal Reader 59-65 F. Messer Gaster: the " J u 3 t e Milieu" of the Belly 65-70 Conclusion 71-75 Notes 76-81 Bibliography 82-84 I Introduction In choosing to examine "comic writing" in the Quart Livre of Francois Rabelais, and not "comic writing" and the Quart Livre, I am choosing to see i t not merely as an example of a wider genre, in which case the object would be to indicate the ways in which the r u l e s of genre are r e s p e c t e d in the Quart Livre. Instead, the aim of this study is to proceed inductively, discovering the effects produced in the reader by the comic narrative and bringing to light the how and why of these effects. In order to study the how and why of these effects I have found i t necessary to posit a certain author-function (in the sense of Foucault's "What i 3 an author?"!), and thus reader- function, outside the text. This does not mean a recourse to an his tor ica l , geographical or biographical approach. The concern is not, for instance, with the geographical references in the Quart Livre (as was the case with Lefranc and the other posi t iv ist cr i t i c s of the Rabelaisian text) and their consequent historical reference — the search for the Northwest Passage, the discovery of the New World and the concomitant explosion of knowledge in the Renaissance — interesting as these questions might be. Nor is the concern here with the different "series" of images in the Quart Livre: the series of eating, sexual. 2 scatological and death images so b r i l l i a n t l y elaborated by Mikhail Bakhtin in his work on the "chronotope" in Rabelai3, which he sees as a restoration of the primacy of the body image a 3 an expression of cosmic unity after the Platonic and medieval denial of the body. The interest here then is in the Quart Livre a 3 a cultural product, but not as a document in the history of ideas. The principle of referentiality that is to be posited here — "implied author" and "implied reader" — is a means of elaborating the kind of writing the reader encounters in the Quart Livre, a way of defining genre. We are concerned, not with the various series of images in the Quart Livre, or the new f ict ive elaboration of time and space one encounters there, so much as with the appeal of this imagery within the context of the inter subjectivity of author and reader, with how the art i s t (the author) adopts a certain rhetorical strategy in a specific socio-cultural context in order to elaborate his vision. The narratives of the Renaissance and of the 18th century distinguish themselves from those of the periods where classical and rea l i s t ic tastes prevailed by an abundance of authorial commentary. The commentary one find3 in the Quart Livre, not only in both of the Prologues (that of 1548 and of the f inal one of 1552) but also in the narrative proper, wherever the "je" of the author (or narrator) intrudes, brings into question the whole mimetic project of an author of f ict ion. It is for this reason that we take the authorial commentary as the starting point, in order to re-examine the f ict ive premises of the 3 implied author in the Quart Livre. Our project i3 an enterprise a deux volets: in the f i r s t instance, to examine the "comic writing" in the Quart Livre as an expression of "contract" between reader and author, different and distinct from that which exists in the "dramatic" or "romanesque" genre; and secondly, to show that the implied author distinguishes himself from his "unreliable" narrator and that the reader also f u l f i l l s his destiny as "hypocrite lecteur," pretending to believe the "truth" the narrator pretends to t e l l . As the second part of this volet, we shall examine the question of l i terary form as a "response" of the implied author to the anticipated desire of his reader. Although references to the Prologues of the Quart Livre and to 3ome of i t s episodes to i l lustrate the argument, we are concerned mainly with elaborating the "comic writing" suggested in the t i t l e of thi3 thesis, the kind of writing in the Quart Livre and the particular intersubjectivity i t entail3, a relation between author and reader which brings into question the whole idea of mimesis as representation. We w i l l thereafter proceed with the second volet of the project: "the reader." Progressing through the diegesis of the narrative i t se l f , we attempt to draw a portrait of the "envisaged reader" (a term U 3 e d by Dorothy Coleman2): a reader whose attention i3 not on "what happens next," a laughing reader 4 whose laughter betrays a c e r t a i n "pleasure p r i n c i p l e " a t work, or an i r r e d u c t i b l e ambiguity of i d e n t i t y and d i f f e r e n c e , a s m i l i n g reader f i r m l y a l i g n e d w i t h an author championing "Nature" and "mediocrity" i n an age of i d e o l o g i c a l extremes. Having r e j e c t e d a narrow A r i s t o t e l i a n mimesis a3 an operating p r i n c i p l e i n the Quart L i v r e , we f i n d i n drawing the p o r t r a i t of the laughing reader that a c e r t a i n mimetic p r i n c i p l e must be acknowledged i n the comic n a r r a t i v e , a mimesis of i d e n t i t y which separates humour from s a t i r e , the i r o n i c or parodie e l a b o r a t i o n of d i f f e r e n c e . The laughing reader, f i n a l l y , i s a reader who can laugh a t h i m s e l f , he who laugh3 with, as w e l l as a t , the object of r i d i c u l e . Here we r e j o i n B akhtin i n h i s " h i s t o r y of laughter," i n the f i r s t chapter to R a b e l a i s and h i 3 world, where he v a l o r i s e s the i n c l u s i v e "cosmic" nature of Rabelais' laughter, as a g a i n s t the e x c l u s i v e s a t i r e of V o l t a i r e , or the 3atanic "mockery" of Baudelaire (Bakhtin 1968, 59-144). The l a t e r episodes of the Quart L i v r e , where s a t i r e predominates, we w i l l analyse through the p e r s p e c t i v e of the reader's f e l t d i f f e r e n c e w i t h the f i c t i v e o b ject and i d e n t i t y w i t h the i d e o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e of the implied author: the pure d i f f e r e n c e of an unimaginable Quaresmeprenant and the "too- readable" a l l e g o r y of A n t i p h y s i e , " b l u r r e d " by the comic fanta s y of the war w i t h the A n d o u i l l e s , becomes, wi t h the Papefigues- Papemane3 s t o r i e s , through displacement and i r o n y , a comic r e l a t i v i t y which navigates on the margins of the sacred forswearing a l l i d e o l o g i c a l extremes. The f i n a l image of the 5 book, Messer Gaster, valorises the "belly" as common good and "juste milieu," which does not abrogate the domain of the 3acred to i t se l f , but which instead as "gouffre de 1'esprit," to use the famous descriptive phrase of Victor Hugo in reference to Rabelais-3 recapitulates a certain folkloric wisdom or "popular culture." I contend that the Quart Livre remains a l i terary text, and not just a repository of "popular culture." As a l i terary text, one of the f i r s t to be reproduced by the printing press, i t must be analysed as a narrative having an "implied author" (term to which is ascribed a l l the strategies of the text, the narrator, etc.) and thus an "implied reader." It is to thi3 reader that I have turned my attention, but the strategies of reading, identifications and responses demonstrated are, of course, my own. Thus the "implied reader" is unavoidably myself, but myself taken as an example of subject to generic expectations generated in the text. Literary crit icism may be, as Wilde said, "the highest form of autobiography," but i t i3 only the "highest form" insofar as i t is "autobiography" that participates in the culture, not only in the cultural horizon of the text, but also in that of the reader, the c r i t i c himself. 6 Chapter I. Author and Reader: The Unreliable Narrator and the "Hypocrite Lecteur" Since the Quart Livre is not only a "literary text," but also a narrative, with a l l that this term implies (a narrator, etc. ) we wi l l begin the inquiry into i t s "comic" specif icity by an examination of the narrative strategies of i t s "implied author."4 We w i l l attempt to locate t h i 3 "implied author" ideologically, rather than "biographically" or "psychologically," since by doing so, we w i l l be able also to locate the "implied reader" ideologically. For our purposes, i t is this "ideological alignment" of author and reader which is most important, since i t is this which determines the operation of irony and parody in the narrative i tse l f . F i r s t , let us examine the device of the "prologue" in Rabelais, the liminary text in which the author, in principle standing outside the work of l i terary f ic t ion i tse l f , speaks about his work as a whole. In the Prologue to Garqantua, for instance, the author, under the pseudonym of Alcofribas, considers his work using gastronomic or medical metaphors: his books are "livres de haute gresse" with healing properties, concealing their precious inner properties with an ugly exterior, a3 S o c r a t e 3 concealed his wisdom under a Silenus- l ike appearance. 7 In the 1552 Prologue to the Quart Livre, however, the author does not refer to his book a 3 a book. Instead, he refers to himself, the author, under the medical metaphor of a doctor who wishes h i 3 readers perfect health. Addressing h i 3 readers as "gens de bien," and thereby abandoning the previous formula "Beuveurs et goutteux tres pr6cieux," the author presents himself in a direct "oral" style, 30 to speak, as a personnage groping for his glasses in order better to see his interlocutor, the reader, viewed perhaps as an intruder into h i 3 study: Gens de bien, Dieu vous sauve et guard! Ou estes vous? Attendez que je chausse mes lunettes (Rabelais,15) The l i terary work i 3 only referred to after the narration of the Aesopian fable of Coui l la tr i s , and then only metaphorically as the hearing of a 3tory rather than as the reading of a book: Or, en bonne sante toussez un bon coup; beuvez en trois , secouez de hait vos aureil les , et vous oyrez dire merveilles du noble et bon Pantagruel. [my underlining] (Rabelai3, 2 9 ) In the 1552 Prologue to the Quart Livre, therefore, in contrast to the Prologues to the other books of Rabelais, the author does not distance himself from his book and therefore from h i 3 narrator. On the contrary, he becomes, in effect, a dramatised narrator who te l l s the story of Coui l la tr i s , which makes up the bulk of the Prologue. e I t i s i n the P r o l o g u e of 1548 t h a t the a u t h o r d i s t a n c e s h i m s e l f from h i s work, and t h e r e f o r e from h i s n a r r a t o r . The re a d e r s (addressed by the customary f o r m u l a "Beuveurs t r e s i l l u s t r e s , e t vous Goutteux t r e s p r e c i e u x " ) a r e i n v i t e d " t o g i v e , t o 3ay, t o judge" on b e h a l f of the a u t h o r i n the matter of h i s work. They a r e imagined as h a v i n g i n v i t e d the a u t h o r t o the " c o n t i n u a t i o n de l ' h y 3 t o i r e P a n t a g r u e l i n e " ( R a b e l a i s , 6 ) , c o n s i d e r e d as r e a d i n g ( " l e c t u r e " ) and not as h e a r i n g a s t o r y . The a u t h o r f l a t t e r s h i s r e a d e r s , a d o p t i n g an i r o n i c tone, r e p l e t e w i t h the i r o n i c formulae o f t e n encountered b o t h i n the l i m i n a r y t e x t s and i n the d i e g e s i s of the f i c t i v e t e x t i n R a b e l a i s . He a s k s h i s r e a d e r s t o r e s e r v e t h e i r l a u g h t e r u n t i l the s e v e n t y - e i g h t h book, 3aying a l s o t h a t he w i l l m a i n t a i n j u s que s au f e u e x c l u s i v e m e n t que vous e s t e s grands gens de b i e n , tous e x t r a i c t z de bons p e r e 3 et bonne3 meres. ( R a b e l a i s , 6 ) The a u t h o r t h e n a p p e a l s t o the r e a d e r s t o judge h i 3 c a l u m n i a t o r s ( c h a r a c t e r i s e d as d e v i l s through the etymology of d i a b o l u s ) , the l i s t of whom echoes s i m i l a r l i s t s i n the oth e r P r o l o g u e s and i n the Abbaye de Th61eme episode i n Garagantua: c a f a r s , c a g o t z , matagotz, b o t i n e u r s , p a p e l a r d s , b u r g o t z , p a t e s p e l l u e s , p o r t e u r s de roga t o n s , c h a t t e m i t e s . ( R a b e l a i s , 6 ) I n the 1548 P r o l o g u e , t h e r e f o r e , the a u t h o r s t a k e s out h i s "moral t e r r i t o r y , : " so t o speak, by i m p l i c a t i o n a l 3 0 l o c a t i n g 9 his "ideal" readers ideologically, while excluding those who misread him by attributing heresy to his comic tales, called by Rabelais in the dedicatory letter to Odet the Cardinal of Chastillon "folastries joyeuses, hors 1'offense de Dieu et du Roi" (Rabelais,13). The author thereby establishes complicity with his readers, a kind of connivance which, as often happens with sa t ir ic writing, is a precondition for comic effect which depends on the exclusion of a third party. It is "behind the back," so to speak, of the excluded third party that the author and reader laugh together. The exclusion of the hypocritical misreaders establishes a certain permanent "dramatic irony" upon which the connivance of author and reader is based, and which to some extent makes possible the comic atmosphere. But certain other "dramatic ironies," as we shall see, are involved as well. How, then, i 3 the ground of ideological commonality, the values held in common which faci l i tate this author-reader complicity, revealed? In the Quart Livre there are many passages which reveal, in different ways, the ideology (values and beliefs) of the implied author, to a greater extent, or at least more specif ical ly, than, say, the celebrated letter of Gargantua in the eighth chapter of Pantagruel, or the Th61eme episode in Gargantua, which are limited to widely-held humanist values. The f i r s t way in which the author's ideological "bias" is revealed is in the story (histoire) i t se l f .5 An example of this would be the invention of Antiphysie and her children, the 10 familiar catalogue of anathematised misreaders, reminiscent of the l i s t of those excluded from Theleme, though 3 l i g h t l y more his tor ica l ly specific: . . . . l e s Matagotz, Cagotz et Papelars, les Maniacle3, Pistoletz; le3 Demoniacles Calvins, imposteurs de Geneve (Rabelais,112) A second way in which the implied author's ideological perspective intrudes i 3 through the "reliable" commentary^ of his dramatised narrator, as on the island of Medamothi, where the narrator comments on the painting depicting the rape of Philomela: Je vous jure, par le manche de ce fal lot que c'estoit une paincture gualante et mirifique. Ne pensez, je vous prie, que ce feust le protraict d'un homme couple sus une f i l l e . Cela est trop sot et trop lourd. (Rabelais,33) Thirdly, the implied author's values are further revealed through the reliable commentary of secondary characters whose function is to reinforce the reader's ideological commonality with the author?, such as Epistemon in the Homenaz episode: A ces motz, se leva Epistemon, et dist tout bellement a Panurge: "Faulte de 3 e l l e persee, me contraint d'icy. Ceste farce me a de3bond6 le boyau cul l ier : je ne arresteray gueres." (Rabelais,156) A fourth way that the author reveals and reinforces the 11 v a l u e s he h o l d s i n common w i t h the reader i s through d e s c r i p t i o n s w i t h , f o r i n s t a n c e , q u a l i f i c a t i v e a d j e c t i v e s , such as the d e s c r i p t i o n of Manduce, i d o l of the G a s t r o l a t r e s : C ' e s t o i t une e f f i g i e monstrueuse, r i d i c u l e , hydeuse e t t e r r i b l e aux p e t i t z e n f a n t s , ayant l e s yeux p l u s grands que l e v e n t r e , e t l a t e s t e p l u s g r o s s e que t o u t l e r e s t e du corp s . . . . ( R a b e l a i s , 1 7 6 ) Here we a r e d e a l i n g of course w i t h d e s c r i p t i o n w i t h no " r e a l i s t i c " i m p l i c a t i o n s : the d e t a i l s , the head too b i g f o r the body, the eyes too b i g f o r the stomach ( i t s e l f s i m p l y a "dead metaphor" i n p o p u l a r usage made l i t e r a l ) , c orrespond t o the d e s c r i p t i o n of A n t i p h y s i e , who, "comme un a r b r e r e n v e r s e , " i s a l s o a t r a v e s t y of na t u r e . The d e s c r i p t i o n of Quaresmeprenant (whose "anatomy" i s i n f a c t a c a t a l o g u e of metaphors) as " f o u e t t e u r de3 p e t i t z e n f a n t s , " a l s o f a l l s i n t o t h i s category. The i m p l i e d a u t h o r i n R a b e l a i s thus makes v e r y l i t t l e a ttempt t o be " o b j e c t i v e " or t o c r e a t e the i l l u s i o n of r e a l i t y . H i s c o n t i n u a l i n t r u s i o n s t h rough commentary, the obvious l a c k of v e r i s i m i l i t u d e and autonomy on the p a r t of h i s c h a r a c t e r s , and the r h e t o r i c a l m a n i p u l a t i o n which f o r c e s the r e a d e r s t o "take s i d e s " i n a p o l e m i c (and thus d e s t r o y s the myth of the " u n i v e r s a l i t y " of a v i r t u a l p u b l i c ) , a l l i n d i c a t e t h a t the a r t i s t i c u n i t y of t h i 3 type of w r i t i n g i s t o be found elsewhere than i n i t s r e a l i s t i c "mimetic" e f f e c t . That i s t o say, the au t h o r does n ot attempt t o e f f a c e 12 himself (to minimise commentary) in order to create by hi3 3ilence an i l lus ion of "objectivity," as in a real i s t ic mimetic narrative presentation. Although, for instance, he presents dialogue in direct style, as in dramatic presentation, thereby imitating direct speech (as in Panurge's blubbering during the tempest, or his bargaining with Dindenault), i t i s in a parodie mode, that i s , through exaggeration to create not identification with a character through verisimilitude, but a "distancing" effect produced by caricatural deformations of spoken idiom. The reader is therefore not expected to "experience" the work through identification with characters made believable by means of an ar t i s t i c i l lus ion of real i ty, but to judge real i ty through the work, which brings real i ty into a comic l ight, the l ight of ambiguity and irony. This "reality" can be seen only in social dimensions, since the reading public must be a "real" and his tor ica l ly specific one, and not a "universal" v irtual one. The f ict ion does not therefore imitate social reality; i t brings i t into question, which seems to suggest an almost Brechtian commitment to didacticism.8 The commentary I have mentioned so far is "reliable" commentary, commentary which reflects the ideological point of view of the implied author, the values he shares with his (implied) readers. It does not matter whether this commentary is on the part of the narrator or on the part of his secondary characters. The "reliabil ity" of the commentary depends not 13 upon p r o x i m i t y to the author but upon the moral " t e r r i t o r y " a l r e a d y prepared i n the t e x t by the i m p l i e d author. The commentary of Panurge, f o r instance, f u n c t i o n s n e g a t i v e l y i n the Quart L i v r e ( f o l l o w i n g the negative p a t t e r n i n the Tier3 L i v r e ) through i r o n y : one can be sure that h i s r e l i g i o u s s c r u p l e s during the tempest (c f . the Raminagrobis episode i n the Tier3 L i v r e ) and h i s h a l f - h e a r t e d p r a i s e of Homenaz are meant to be taken i r o n i c a l l y by the reader as negative r e f l e c t i o n s of the implied author's a t t i t u d e . Panurge's commentary, a t the l e v e l of the s t o r y , i s t h e r e f o r e " u n r e l i a b l e " : i t runs c o n t r a r y to the i m p l i e d author's (and t h e r e f o r e implied reader's) i d e o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e . Although the Quart L i v r e i s s t r u c t u r e d as a framework n a r r a t i v e whereby a m u l t i p l i c i t y of n a r r a t o r s (Panurge, Xenomanes) t e l l a number of shorter "detachable" n a r r a t i v e s which add nothing to the l a r g e r "quest" n a r r a t i v e , the r o l e of the primary n a r r a t o r i s s t i l l important. Some important shorter n a r r a t i v e s (the Dindenault, Tempest, and A n d o u i l l e s s t o r i e s ) s t i l l form p a r t of the primary n a r r a t i v e . Who i s t h i 3 n a r r a t o r and what i s h i s f u n c t i o n i n mediating implied author and i m p l i e d reader? We have a l r e a d y seen that the author, i n the Prologue to the Quart L i v r e presents himself i n o r a l s t y l e i n the persona of a doctor, becoming i n e f f e c t a dramatised n a r r a t o r who ends by ( r e ) t e l l i n g the Aesopian f a b l e of C o u i l l a t r i s , and using i n the 14 process several digressive techniques which Abraham K e l l e r i den t i f i e s wi th the rhe to r ica l manipulation of the ora l s to ry te l l e r . 9 i n the text proper of the Quart L iv re the narrator i s an "eyewitness" of the f i c t i v e events: he takes no s ign i f i can t part i n the ac t ion and does not interact with any of the characters, but i s nonetheless present, narrating such events as the drowning of Dindenault, the conquest of the Andouil les , the thawing of the frozen words and the k i l l i n g of the monstrous whale by Pantagruel, as i f he had himself "veu, leu , et sceu" (to use the formula from the Prologue the Pantagruel) the events described. At at least two points i n the Quart L iv re — once on the is land of Ruach (Rabelais, 136), and once during the v i s i t to the Papimanes (Rabelais, 154) — the narrator addresses the readers as "beuveurs," using the fami l ia r formula of address from the Prologues. On one occasion, on the is land of Ennasin, he even refers to "notre pays de vache" (54), a reference which l i n k s him to the h i s t o r i c a l R a b e l a i 3 himself. The narrator- author d i s t i n c t i o n i s therefore quite f l u i d : the narrator feels free to address the readers as "beuveurs" just a 3 the author of the Prologues does, and the reader might even assume that the author and the narrator are the same person. The narrator however never i den t i f i e s himself i n the Quart L iv re , even under the pseudonym Alcofr ibas as i n the f i r s t two b o o k 3 , though the author of the Prologues does. 15 The reader, i n any case, though he may confuse author and n a r r a t o r , cannot f a i l to n o t i c e that, when "speaking" as dramatised n a r r a t o r , the "author" i s a t times an o s t e n t a t i o u s l i a r . A good example of t h i s would be the t h i r t y - e i g h t h chapter, where the n a r r a t o r p r o t e s t s the v e r a c i t y of what i s o b v i o u s l y the author's f i c t i v e i n v e n t i o n , the A n d o u i l l e s : Vous truphez i c i , Beuveurs, et ne croyez que a i n s i 3 o i t en v e r i t 6 comme j e vous raconte. Je ne s c a u r o i s que vous en f a i r e . Croyez l e , s i voulez; 3 i ne voulez, a l l e z y v o i r . Mais j e scay b i e n ce que j.e veidz. (Rabelais,125) I t seems a3 though the imp l i e d author chooses to make h i s n a r r a t o r appear " u n r e l i a b l e " so that reader and author may connive together "behind the back" of the n a r r a t o r , so to speak, c r e a t i n g , here as w e l l as i n the case of the cursed misreaders, a k i n d of dramatic i r o n y , which a g a i n c o n t r i b u t e s toward producing a "comic atmosphere," an atmosphere of ambiguity and irony. The connivance of author and reader created by "dramatic i r o n y " occurs i n f a c t i n three ways i n the Quart L i v r e : f i r s t , a g a i n s t the c h a r a c t e r s , as f o r i n s t a n c e where the reader, aware of Panurge'3 cowardice during the tempest, takes h i s ensuing bravado i r o n i c a l l y ; secondly, a g a i n s t the cursed misreaders, those who a t t r i b u t e heresy to the " f o l a t r i e 3 joyeuse3" of the implied author; and t h i r d l y , and perhaps most important, a g a i n s t the primary n a r r a t o r . 16 One must therefore not only distinguish in the case of the author between "implied author" and "dramatised narrator," but also, in the case of the reader, between "implied reader" and "narrative audience." Although the dramatised narrator appeals loudly to his "narrative audience" that they should believe his story of the Andouilles, the implied author obviously doe3 not expect his "implied reader" to "believe i t really." The author's narrator is in fact impersonating a story-telling ("lying") charlatan of the foire (familiar from the Prologue to the Pantagruel), thereby rendering himself ridiculous in the eyes of the implied reader, who in turn impersonates a credulous listener (reader), that is, accepts the premise of the fiction without for an instant accepting i t a3 real or reliable. Thus the author of the Prologue of 1548, who characterises his stories as "folatries joyeuses" in order to deflect the misreading of those who impart heresy to his work, is completely different from the dramatised narrator, who renders himself ridiculous by insisting on the l i teral truth of one of his most outrageous stories, the Andouilles story. It i 3 a role, a persona that the author takes on in order to interact comically with a reader who is equally ready to take on a provisional role. Narrative audience and dramatised narrator interact under a consciously fictive premise, as if they were both "acting" roles: implied author and implied reader have in fact created fictional personae for themselves, a l l the while highly conscious of their dissimulation. A comic atmosphere is thus 17 created, partly through aesthetic distance, 3ince author and reader both remain disengaged emotionally,11 hut also through willingness to play a game, 3ince, though they never believe ("take seriously") for an instant their own pretense, they are s t i l l wil l ing to play their roles ostentatiously. The author in the Quart Livre has thus chosen: f i r s t , not to be si lent, but through an abundance of commentary, to destroy any i l lus ion of objective "reality," while revealing his ideological biases; secondly, to create through a kind of dramatic irony complicity with his "postulated" readers, so that often the communication of his essential attitude (the key to the tone, style and interpretation) is dependent upon the exclusion of either a character (Panurge), hypocritical misreaders, or even his narrator; and thirdly, "behind the back" of this excluded third party to cultivate a constant invitation to ostentatious "role-playing" on the part of his readers. The whole of his technique results in a comic atmosphere where no attempt is made to "convince" the reader through verisimilitude of the real i ty of anything. The f ict ive premise is in fact simply an invitation to the reader to impersonate a reader just as an author impersonates an author. The ground of the interaction of reader and author is therefore 18 "falsehood" rather than "truth." The author plays an ostentatious l i a r , while the reader only pretends to believe him. The author does not want his reader to believe him; on the contrary, the comic effect of h i 3 impersonation of the l i a r depends to a large extent upon the reader's tacit refusal to believe. Thus, the ground of interaction, the rules of the game, between author and reader, depends on a refusal on the reader's part to "suspend disbelief." In order for the comic effect to be realised, the reader must approach the text conscious of playing his role in the 3ame way that the author is conscious of playing his. Thus, having attempted to answer the question of genre through examining the "inter subjectivity "12 0 f author and reader, we find that the implied author in Rabelais is not trying to convince his reader, through hiding his ar t i f i ce , of the "reality" of his f ict ive creation. Nor primarily is he trying to produce in his reader id ent i f ication with his f ict ive characters. His ar t i s t i c method of f ict ive presentation is neither rea l i s t i c , nor dramatic. The ground of interaction of author and reader is not "truth," imitation of real l i f e through concealment of ar t i f i ce or production of belief through probability, but "falsehood," highly conscious acceptance of ridiculously deformed f ict ive premises in the comic atmosphere of role-play. Clearly, thi3 form of writing is "non-mimetic," in the 3ense that the line of demarcation between f ict ion and 19 r e a l i t y i s c l e a r l y d r a w n f o r t h e r e a d e r , who e x p e r i e n c e s t h e f i c t i o n h i g h l y s e l f - c o n s c i o u s l y i n a f i c t i o n a l r o l e he c o n s t r u c t s f o r h i m s e l f , t h a t of t h e c r e d u l o u s l i s t e n e r . 20 Chapter I I . L i t e r a r y Form and the D e s i r e of the Reader Let us continue our i n q u i r y i n t o the ways i n which the n a r r a t i v e i n the Quart L i v r e of Rabelai3 can be considered "comic" by an i n q u i r y i n t o the "purpose" of the n a r r a t i v e . F o l l o w i n g the example of A r i s t o t l e , who d e f i n e d "tragedy" i n terms of the c a t h a r s i s , the response of the reader, we w i l l assume that the "entelechy" of the Quart L i v r e produces the "pleasure proper to i t s k i n d " : the q u e s t i o n of "purpose" i 3 n e c e s s a r i l y bound up w i t h the q u e s t i o n of "pleasure," the response of the reader. F i r s t , we must s p e c i f y the purpose f o r which the i m p l i e d author i s not w r i t i n g . We can assume that h i s purpose i 3 not a p u r e l y d i s c u r s i v e one: i f he had wanted simply to convince the reader of a s e r i e s of p r o p o s i t i o n s , he would not have chosen the f i c t i v e form. Secondly, he i 3 not attempting to c o n s t r u c t a " l i v i n g p l o t " i n the A r i s t o t e l i a n sense,13 a c l o s e d u n i v e r s e i m i t a t e d i n order to produce a c a t h a r t i c pleasure of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n the reader (audience). Nevertheless ( l e t us continue to proceed i n d u c t i v e l y ) the w r i t i n g doe3 produce ple a s u r e i n the reader, not the p l e a s u r e of c a t h a r t i c i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , but pleasure nonetheless. What i s the nature of t h i s p l e a s u r e produced i n the reader, and whence does i t come? Let us assume that t h i s p leasure i s more than simply an 21 "aesthetic" one in the formalist sense, the contemplation of forms and felicitous phrases and images, language "for i ts own 3ake. " Let us examine the kind of writing we encounter in Rabelais as though i t satisfied basic human wishes: the wish to know (the most "natural" and preeminent of wishes according to Aristotle); and the wish to judge. This may be a better way to proceed, in view of the real public of the Quart Livre and their "horizon of expectation,"14 i n other words, the historical situation of the text. F i r s t , let us recal l br ief ly the general principles of dramatic comedy, where the "pleasure proper to the genre" is produced more clearly than in comic narrative, and see how human wishes are gratified pleasurably there. In Aristotel ian poetic theory, where "reader response" has pr ior i ty in determining l i terary genre, comic writers are "meaner spirits" with a tendency to imitate "lower characters in order to incite laughter."15 Thus for Aristotle characterisation, and not plot, i s the essential element in dramatic comedy producing the comic effect on the audience, whereas in tragedy i t is plot which has priority . AI30 in dramatic comedy, because of the limitations of the stage, rules of verisimilitude must be respected not in order that the audience should sympathise with the characters, but rather in order that the audience should be surprised by 22 comic r e v e r s a l s i n the p l o t . Of course, the moral framework i n dramatic comedy i s b a s i c a l l y c o n s e r v a t i v e : the archetype of dernesure ( T a r t u f f e , Arnolphe) i s punished, but not too s e v e r e l y , l e s t the p i t y of the audience be aroused. ¥here have these elements gone i n comic n a r r a t i v e , of which the Quart L i v r e i s an example? F i r s t of a l l , comic n a r r a t i v e does not conform to the same p h y s i c a l l i m i t a t i o n s as dramatic comedy. The o n l y l i m i t a t i o n s i n comic n a r r a t i v e are those of the imagination of the author and the p r o v i s i o n a l c r e d u l i t y of the reader. As we have seen, p r o b a b i l i t y ( v e r i s i m i l i t u d e ) doe3 not p r e s c r i b e or determine anything. The v e r y p h y s i c a l f a c t of reading a n a r r a t i v e , r a ther than a t t e n d i n g a dramatic p r e s e n t a t i o n , i m p l i e s an i n d i v i d u a l , r a t h e r than a c o l l e c t i v e , a e s t h e t i c experience, and thus i n d i v i d u a l i s e d i n t e r p r e t i v e work on the p a r t of the reader. Nevertheless i n R a b e l a i s the reader i s addressed by the n a r r a t o r i n the p l u r a l : the p a r t i c i p a t o r y f i c t i o n of the f o i r e and t h e r e f o r e the r o l e p l a y of the credulous n a r r a t i v e audience i s maintained. Thus the r e a l i n d i v i d u a l i s e d work of the reader i s camouflaged i n the n a r r a t i v e as c o l l e c t i v e r o l e - p l a y . The reader, i n h i s r o l e of credulous p a r t i c i p a n t i n the audience, i s thus asked i n R a b e l a i s to accept completely, y e t p r o v i s i o n a l l y , improbable events: the n a r r a t o r ' s e n t e r i n g the g i a n t Pantagruel's mouth, and d i s c o v e r i n g there c i t i e s the s i z e of Rouen or Nantes, i n the Pan tag rue 1; the slaughter by F r e r e 23 Jean of incredible numbers of P icrochole ' s men i n graphic d e t a i l , i n the Gargantua. Narrative form, a3 opposed to dramatic form, inv i t e s hyperbole i n the comic or parodie mode, and leads quite na tura l ly to the gigantism of Rabelais ' characters. Instead of the comic archetypes of dernesure that we find i n dramatic comedy, we f ind i n Rabelais the "physical" specimens of dernesure that are Grandgousier, Gargantua, and Pantagruel. I t seem3 as though i n the comic narrat ive of Rabelais, narrat ive imagination del ights i n v i o l a t i n g the l i m i t s of be l i e f . The author del ights i n " ly ing" outrageously, thus comically drawing a t tent ion to h i s power as a narrator and to the "written" character of h i s f i c t i o n . There remains another type of character i n Rabelais, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the th i rd and fourth books. This i s the type represented by Frere Jean and by Panurge, the former being marked p r imar i ly by h i s warlike courage and voracious appet i t , and the l a t t e r by h i s mischievousnes3 (Pantagruel), h i s indecis ion (Tiers L i v r e ) , or by h i s cowardice (Quart L iv re ) . This type of character, ca l led i n the 18th century a "humour," i s dist inguished by one t r a i t and one t r a i t only. 16 Though the t r a i t may change, at any one moment i n the narrative the character isat ion i s s t i l l dominated by one t r a i t at a time. Just as a s ingle t r a i t represents the character flaw leading to the comic resolut ion of L ' Avare or Le Misanthrope of Moliere, for instance, so also does a s ingle t r a i t function a 3 a 24 character flaw in the comic narrative of the Quart Livre of Rabelais. In the third and fourth books of Rabelais, more than in the f i r s t two books, thi3 single t ra i t , say for instance the cowardice of Panurge, has "moral implications." One might even say that i f there is any unity in the Quart Livre, i t i3 an ideological unity, since i t is the theme of mediocritas, explicit in the Coui l latr is 3tory in the Prologue, which forms the moral backdrop, not only to the Tempest story, but also the Lord of Ba3che and Dindenault stories, and al30 to the v i s i t to the Papimanes episode and anatomy of Quaresmeprenant. The Me3ser Gaster episode is perhaps the most "emblematic" of this theme of moderation: the narrator's undisguised contempt for the G a s t r o l a t r e 3 is a clear manifestation of this. Assuming that characterisation, and not plot, i3 the essential narrative element through which the comic effect is obtained, i . e . , through which human wishes are pleasurably gratif ied, to what human wishes do these two classes of characters correspond? I would suggest that the giant3, especially in the "apprenticeship" or "education" cycles in the f i r s t two books, 3eem to correspond to, or to function comically through, the reader's need to know; whereas the "humours," predominant in the third and fourth Books, function through the reader's need to judge. As in the f i r s t two books the education of Pantagruel and Gargantua lay open to the reader's curiosity 25 the branches of medieval and humanistic knowledge, in the third and fourth books the positive ideological content (following the Erasmian model) is no longer simply presented naively and exuberantly, but an appeal is made to the reader's moral sense, an appeal which relies upon the moral authority of antiquity: the principle of stoic moderation. The retel l ing of the fable of Coui l latr is in the Prologue, in spite of i t s vivid digressive meanderings, ends with a moral: Soubhaitez done mediocrity: el le vous adviendra; et, encore mieulx, deuement ce pendent labourans et travaillan3. (Rabelais, 28) Thus the cowardice of Panurge, the fanaticism of Homenaz, the idolatry of the Gastrolatres, and the "unnatural" Quaresmeprenant become ridiculous to the postulated reader of Rabelais, to a public sharing the ideological perspective of the implied author. The reader's need to judge is gratif ied pleasurably through ridicule. Laughter, which up to this point in Rabelais has been dominated by i t s positive content, now becomes dominated by i t s c r i t i c a l function, and the joyful exuberance of the f i r s t two books t a k e 3 on, in the Quart Livre (as in the Tiers Livre) , a more specif ical ly sat ir ic tone. The purpose of the author's communication however with the reader in the Quart Livre is never reduced to mere polemic. The author's intention in a work of f ict ion, no matter how "coloured" i t i s ideologically, is almost never purely to 26 persuade the reader, but to evoke in him a (more or less) predictable aesthetic response. The ideological common ground of author and reader is assumed, not posited, in order that the reader might experience the f ict ion pleasurably. A3 in tragedy, where fear and pity are evoked in order to dissipate harmlessly and pleasurably in the cathartic resolution, in comic narrative also the appeal to the reader's judgement i 3 made only in order to fac i l i tate a pleasurable effect. The author is not attempting to arouse the indignation of the reader in order to arouse him to action; he is only assuming a certain ideological bias in the reader in order to realise his comic purpose. Polemic is absorbed by comic vision, and not vice-versa. Thus the two Kantian conditions for art are maintained: purposiveness (Zwe ckmassiqkeit) and purposelessness (Zwecklosigkeit). The reader's need to exercise his free moral judgement i 3 exercised, but only to be dissipated harmlessly in the comic. Thus, though in the Quart Livre the effect is achieved through the reader'3 need to know and need to judge, the reader is not however motivated by a need for information or a need to exercise h i 3 moral judgement a3 such. The catalogue of metaphors in the anatomy of Quaresmeprenant and gamut of culinary terminology in the Andouilles and Gastolatres episodes do not represent a useful recapitulation which answers the reader's need for information, nor are the various examples of d erne sure in the Quart Livre meant for the edification of the 27 reader in the fulfillment of his respons ib i l i t i e s . The author simply exploits the ideological consensus of his readers — that cowardice i s shameful, that religious hypocrisy is reprehensible, that an excess of asceticism is unnatural — in order to achieve hi3 comic effect. The question of purpose of the author's communication with the reader in the Quart Livre, therefore, as with a l l works of f ict ion without external "use" i3 bound up with the question of form. The reader's natural human wishes, the wish to know and the wish to judge, are aroused (exploited) and fu l f i l l ed in order to serve purposes internal to the work of art , not external to i t . For form, in literature as in the other arts, as Kenneth Burke puts i t , is "the arousal and fulfillment of desire."17 Assuming that the creation of l i terary form in the Quart Livre is a "response" on the part of the implied author to the anticipated reactions of an envisioned reader, i t soon becomes apparent that the author i3 working against the reader's expectations in two ways. F i r s t , the deliberate lack of verisimilitude in characterisation and plot reveals a working against the reader's "pattern of experience" or sense of real i ty, a3 we have seen. Secondly, the author seems to be working against the l i terary conventions of heroic romance, that i s , working against expectations of naive readers of heroic 28 romances. A3 Jean Paris (among others) shows,18 the five cycles of heroic romance form the l i terary "background." to the five books of Rabelais: whereas the Pantagrue1 and the Gargantua correspond to the "apprenticeship" and "childhood" cycles respectively, the third and fourth books correspond roughly to the "quest" and "noble deeds" ("prouesses") cycles. The implied reader of the Quart Livre is aware of these correspondences, and, l ike the reader of Don Quixote, measures what he reads against expectations generated by the genre of heroic romance. That is to say, the author, working negatively against expectations of naive readers of heroic romances, produces comic effect in a reader who is anything but naive (but who pretends to be naive, as we have shown) through parodying the conventions of heroic romance. Aside from the Tempest and Andouilles episodes, which have antecedents not only in the heroic romance but also in classical and b ib l i ca l l iteratures, a clear example of this kind of parody in the Quart Livre is the slaying of the "physetere," or sea- monster, by Pantagruel in the thiry-fourth chapter: "Le noble Pantagruel" is described, after a l i 3 t of several javel in- throwers of antiquity, as "en l ' ar t de jeter et de darder sans comparaison plus amirale," capable of opening oysters without touching the shells' edges, of turning the pages of 29 Frere Jean'3 breviary "l'un apres 1'autre sans rien desirer" (Rabelais, 115). Taken naively, in spite of this hyperbole, the ensuing exemplary drag on-slaying type of episode might seem to be an account by an admiring narrator of a particularly noble deed of the hero Pantagruel. Read by the reader postulated by much of the rest of the text, however, i t would be seen as a parody of an admiring account of a noble and chivalrous deed. The Medamothi episode, with i ts exchange of gifts and highly "rhetorical" letters between father Gargantua and son Pantagruel, might be read "straight," were i t not for the description of the gifts themselves: Epistemon en achapta un aultre, on quel estoient au33i painctes les Idees de Platon, et les Atomes de Epicurus. Rhizotome en achapta un on quel estoit Echo selon le naturel representee. (Rabelai3, 33) Thus the type of comic writing encountered in the Quart Livre seem3 to work negatively, "against the grain," f i r s t of the reader's "pattern of experience" or sense of reality; and secondly, against naive readers' expectations associated with a l i terary genre, the heroic romance. Human communication, however, requires a minimum of positive polarity, a sort of consensus between sender and receiver, in order for a message to be comprehensible. Although, on the one hand, the creation of l i terary form in the Quart Livre seems to work negatively in terms of reader's experience and expectations, i t does work "positively" in one respect — ideologically. The implied 30 author assumes that his reader shares his values and beliefs, that his reader "takes his side" in the h is tor ica l ly "charged" atmosphere in which the text i 3 written. Certainly, the Quaresmeprenant, the Papimanes, and even the Tempest episodes w i l l not be "received" properly by a reader who does not, at least provisionally, share the author's point of view in regard to rel igion, society and culture at a time when (in contrast to the grand 3 i e c l e ) a 3 t r o n g social consensus and a common ideology did not exist. The h is tor ical "situation" of the Quart Livre does indeed shed light on the author" s strategy for procuring his desired effect through his l i terary art. Whereas, for instance, the tragedies of Racine and the comedies of Moliere relied on a strong social consensus to achieve their effects, the a r t i s t 3 of a transitional period l ike the 16th century, such as Rabelai3 and Montaigne, could not rely on such a consensus. In Montaigne's case, this led to the creation of an entirely "new" genre, the essay, midway between autobiography and treatise, which relies upon self-disclosure, the autoportrait, for i t s ar t i s t i c unity. Rabelais, however, prefers not to disclose himself, but instead to work through an unreliable narrator, working against outmoded l i terary convention through parody, and addressing himself to a reader alienated from a social consensus which he (the reader) experiences a3 repressive. Unlike in Montaigne, in Rabelai3 one does not find an 31 author searching for a new consensus through painting the autoportrait of the "universal" self. Instead of searching for a new language in order to create a new consensus, Rabelais assumes that his reader already shares his values. He then sets about to achieve his comic effects through setting up characters for ridicule (like Dindenault and the C h i q u a n o u 3 ) by having them violate a pre-existent code already accepted by his postulated reader. If language is communication through symbols, and i f , as Kenneth Burke says,19 a r t i s t 3 divide into two groups: those who seek to conquer a reading public through discovering effective symbols (Montaigne, Rousseau), and those who seek to exploit an ideological consensus by making symbols effective, Rabelais certainly belongs (with Racine and Moliere) in the second group. We discover, then, that the type of characterisation and plot in the Quart Livre presents us with a negativity, a working against the reader's experience and expectations through deliberate lack of verisimilitude and parody. Nevertheless, we discover a positive factor in the assumed ideological commonality of implied author and implied reader, which faci l i tates predictable comic effects. The creation of l i terary form is thus s t i l l seen as "author's response" to anticipated reader's response, the "arousal and fulfillment of desire," where the work appeals through the reader's natural desires: to know a n d t o j u d g e 33 Chapter III. Portrait of the Reader in the Quart Livre By distinguishing "implied reader" from "narrative audience," and "implied author" from "dramatised narrator," we saw that the expectations generated by the comic writing encountered in Rabelais's Quart Livre led to an emotional distance on the part of the implied reader which undermines t h i 3 reader's identification and the verisimilitude of character and event (or "agent" and "act," to use the terms of the Burkean pentad 2 0) in the narrative. We saw this through noting the divergences of effects on the reader from those generated by the real i s t ic or "dramatic" modes of f ict ive presentation, where the i l lusions of real i ty (mimesis) is important in order to achieve the aesthetic effect which is sought (catharsis, identification). The implications of these divergent generic expectations s t i l l remain to be analysed and i l lustrated through the narratives of the Quart Livre, structured, as i t i s , as a framework narrative. A. Reader's Interest and Digression: the Coui l latr is Story Since most narratologies (and especially that of Gerard Genette21) analyse narrative from the perspective of grammatical 34 aspect (person, or n a r r a t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e or "point of view," r e l a t i o n of "temps narre" and "temps r e e l , " e t c . ) , l e t us f o l l o w t h e i r example and begin by examining the "grammar" of the n a r r a t i v e s of the Quart L i v r e . Beginning w i t h "syntax," we w i l l n o t i c e f i r s t of a l l , i n examining the f i r s t s h o r t n a r r a t i v e , the C o u i l l a t r i s s t o r y , which occupies most of the Prologue, the tendency to d i g r e s s . One could c h a r a c t e r i s e these d i g r e s s i o n s as " p a r e n t h e t i c a l . " ¥e could b e n e f i t , perhaps, by examining the C o u i l l a t r i s 3 t o r y i n d e t a i l . The scene i s f i r s t set ("here below" on earth) by the l o s s of C o u i l l a t r i s ' hatchet, the " c o i g n 6 e " on which he depends i n order to earn a l i v i n g . N e c e s s i t y being the " i n v e n t r i c e d'Eloquence," C o u i l l a t r i s begins to implore the heavens to r e t u r n h i s hatchet. At t h i s p o i n t , the scene a b r u p t l y switches to heaven, where amid the c r i e s of C o u i l l a t r i s J u p i t e r enumerates h i 3 preoccupations w i t h v a r i o u s i n t e r n a t i o n a l events of h i s t o r i c a l importance. J u p i t e r ends h i s speech with a c o n f e s s i o n of h i s p e r p l e x i t y a t the controversy between the s c h o l a r s P i e r r e Rameau and P i e r r e Galand a t the Sorbonne i n P a r i s and a request f o r the advice of Priapus i n the matter. Priapus, " l a t e s t e l e v 6 e , rouge, flamboyante et asseuree" ( R a b e l a i 3 , 2 0 ) , recommends that J u p i t e r t u r n both " P i e r r e s " i n t o stone, as he had once done to a dog and a fox i n order to s e t t l e a d i s p u t e between Bacchus and Vulcan. A f t e r n o t i n g other c i v i l d i s t u r b a n c e s and sending Vulcan e i t h e r to s t i r or c l e a r them up, J u p i t e r , as an a f t e r t h o u g h t , 3ends Mercury to f i n d out what 35 C o u i l l a t r i s want3, s i n c e h i s i n s i s t a n t c r i e s continue. Priapus i n the meantime notes the v a r i o u s metaphorical uses of "coignee" (to designate male member) and brag3 of h i s own member (mentule) which he l e t s pass f o r a lapsus, s i n c e he meant to say "memoire" ("grande assez pour emplir un pot b e u r r i e r " [ R a b e l a i s , 23]). He proceeds to demonstrate by r e c i t i n g two l i s t s (of musicians) and two poem3, where the p l a y on words "coignee sans manche", "pour mieux vous coigner" i s g i v e n f r e e r e i g n . The gods and goddesses respond w i t h laughter, l i k e a "microcosme de mouches" (Rabelais, 24). The primary s t o r y i s resumed: we r e t u r n to earth, where C o u i l l a t r i s i 3 o f f e r e d three hatchets -.- one of gold, one of s i l v e r , and h i s own of wood — out of sheer obstinacy, he chooses h i s own hatchet of wood and i s rewarded w i t h r i c h e s . H i s envious neighbours t r y to get r i c h the same way and are punished by d e c a p i t a t i o n . The moral i s then presented: we should a l l , i n a l l s i m p l i c i t y , wish nothing b e t t e r f o r ourselves than "choses mecliocres" (Rabelais, 27), the best example of which i s good h e a l t h . We can see, f i r s t of a l l , that the primary n a r r a t i v e , that of C o u i l l a t r i s and h i 3 hatchet, i s i n t e r r u p t e d by a long d i g r e s s i v e p a r e n t h e s i s , beginning w i t h the scene i n heaven, and i n c l u d i n g the Rameau-Galand s t o r y and Priapus' expos6 of the metaphorical connotations of "coignee." What i s the f u n c t i o n of t h i s p a r e n t h e s i s ? F i r s t , one should keep i n mind the context of the 36 narrative: the Prologue of 1552, which, as we 3howed in the f i r s t chapter, asks the reader to imagine the author groping for his glasses after having been interrupted in h i 3 study, setting up a scene in which the "telling" of the story is indeed a "telling," and not a "writing." Nevertheless, the "original" written character of the f ict ion is highlighted, since the author c i t e 3 his source: Aesop, whom he claims is really a Frenchman, since the French are descendants of the Phrygians the Trojans (a commonplace repeated throughout the Prologues). We are asked to believe that the Coui l latr is stroy is thus a "retelling" (though written) in a (false) "oral" mode of an Aesopian fable. The narrative audience i 3 clearly evoked 3ince the author has already addressed them direct ly in his role a3 author-dramatised narrator, the bellicose personnage groping for his glasses. The "rhetorical situation" of the Coui l latr is story thus presents i tse l f as that of an oral storyteller, as Abraham Keller 3hows in his detailed analysis. 22 we notice also a sort of mise en abyme of this storyteller/audience situation within the story i t se l f : the god3 and goddesses laughing l ike "un microcosme de mouches" at the witticism of Priapus. This reflects the presumed amusement of the Prologue-author"s narrative audience, which, as we showed in the f i r s t chapter, is a result of detached role-play on the part of the implied reader. By a sort of mimicry, Priapus' joking about the double- 37 meaning of "coignee" reflects the rhetorical situation of the oral storyteller in the Prologue: i t i s the audience's interest which is the determining factor in the amplification of the digression. The function of the parenthesis, the "digression," seems to be simply to sustain the "reader's interest," to "entertain" the crowd, the collective audience of an oral tale, which is i t se l f a f ict ion, since the tale is written and the audience i 3 in fact the reader. Having 3aid thi3, however, we have not said very much. Realistic and dramatic presentation avoid digression for. the same reason: to sustain the reader's interest. The difference must l i e , not in the objective s ty l i s t i c feature, but in the subjective factor brought about by generic expectations created in the reader: the nature of the "reader's interest" i tse l f . The answer seems to be that "reader's interest," being, as we have seen, detached from identification with the characters and essentially "disbelieving" in terms of the verisimilitude of the events, i s not directed teleoloqicallv toward the outcome of the story. For instance, the "outcome" of the framework narrative in the Quart Livre, the intrigue around the question of Panurge's marriage, the reason for seeking the oracle of Bacbuc, etc. , has been entirely forgotten: i t i 3 a foregone conclusion with absolutely no interest for the reader. There is no question of using suspense, foreshadowing, prolepse and analepse, etc. , in order to create a sense of the inevitable 38 fulfillment of the reader's worst fears, as with tragedy, or of meting out blame or just i f icat ion, a3 in the detective novel or even in the rea l i s t ic novel, as i f the reader were a jury in a forensic proceeding. The "digression" in fact "brackets" the passage of time in comic writing: the deferral of the outcome of a story does not produce suspense, because the reader's interest is not wholly in the "future," but instead i 3 placed squarely in the "present" of the writing. The digressions in the Coui l latr is story — the scene among the gods, the Rameau-Galand story, the speculation of Priapus over the semiosis of "coign6e" — though they interrupt a story which ha3 the status of exemplum in a moral argument about "m6diocrite," also reduce whatever "importance" or "seriousness" that the Aesopian fable i t se l f could have had. The Priapus-Jupiter dialogue effectively places the Coui l latr is affair beside the inf in i te ly more "important" Rameau-Galand affa ir , among others, thus bracketing and r e l a t i v i 3 i n g i t . Coui l latr is himself resembles a sort of peasant buffoon, and his moral choice is the result more of stupidity than of stoic resolution. The "hero" of the story i 3 effectively Priapus, whose wit and erudition in the matter of the "coignee" viv idly render him the audacious possessor of verbose loquacity. Where, therefore, is the interest of the reader? Cetainly not in the outcome of the fable, but in the digression i tse l f . We can see how the story is in fact structured to accomodate the 39 generic expectations generated in the reader, resulting in a non- teleological structure, not only as a function of the necessarily episodic "framework narrative," but even within the story i tse l f . Having noted t h i 3 tendency towards "non-teleological" digressive structure in the Coui l latr is story, we note, as we read further in the Quart Livre, certain uses of suspense, notably in the Dindenault and Tempest stories. How are we to reconcile this with our model of "non-teleological" structure? Firs t of a l l , we should realise that "non-teleological" does not mean for us that a story in the comic writing of Rabelais does not have the "organic" unity of "beginning, middle and end." It simply means that the reader's interest is not directed towards the "future" in terms of his experience of (or even "participation in") the f ict ive presentation. Whereas, for example, Stendhal envisages a reader whos entire attention is on the "future" — "what happens next?" — and thus forswears anything resembling digression, and even analepse and prolepse, ending up with a spare style in almost completely linear development. Rabelais envisages a reader whose interest is not in "what happens next," but rather, i f not in "what is happening now," at least in the "now" of the writing, in commentary and textual comparison, enumeration and cataloguing, among other things. This reader can only be gratified through digression, where secondary narratives a l 3 0 40 occasionally appear as a part of the commentary of characters on the action, as with the Lord of Basche story of Panurge during the v i s i t to the Chiquanous. B. The "monde a l'envers": Dindenault and the Chiguanous The next story of real comic effectiveness in the Quart Livre, the Dindenault story, seems to use "suspense" in order to heighten the vividness of the outcome of the story, the drowning of Dindenault the abrasive sheep merchant with his sheep. Dindenault, seeing Panurge without his braguette and wearing glasses, loudly insults him by calling him a "coqu," in i t iat ing a dialogue with Panurge where the situation of buying sheep provides an opportunity for hyperbole and enumeration on Dindenault's part, a parody of the popular l i n g u i 3 t c virtuosity of the charlatan of the foire. Panurge"s secret instructions to Frere Jean and Epistemon: Retirez vous icy un peu a l 'ecart, et joyeusement passez temps a ce que voirez. II y aura bien beau jeu, s i la chorde ne rompt. (Rabelais, 43) seem to be a reflection of what the (implied) author is recommending to the (implied) reader. The "chorde" or the "trame" which the author seems to be "stretching out" is in fact the web which Panurge's monosyllabic replies ("Combien?"; "Patience"; "Voire") allow the verbose Dindenault to spin for 41 himself. Panurge is in fact, to borrow two metaphors from today's argot, "playing (Dindenault) l ike a v io l in ," or "giving him enough rope to hang himself." Dindenault's digressions, which venture into domains such as the medical properties of the parts of sheep, serve to entrap him, to deprive him of the power of speech, and to reduce him to the status of a drowning man who mu3t l i s ten to Panurge's demonstration: " . . . . l e u r remonstrant par lieux de Rethorique les miseres de ce monde....(Rabelais, 49)". The deferral of the punishment of Dindenault, though i t produces a kind of "suspense," does not real ly create a "trame" in the sense of a teleological deferral of a reader's satisfaction in terms of 3torv (plot, characterisation, identification and just i f icat ion, etc.) but instead suspends reader's interest in outcome and simply surprises him. Panurge's action must appear as gratuitous and as unexpected as possible. And 30, as Panurge has been the duplicitous victim of Dindenault's bombast, Dindenault suddenly becomes the victim of Panurge'3 bathos: reversal of rapport of power, where "power" is the power of speech. Certainly the offense does not correspond to the punishment — drowning the motif of revenge lacks verisimilitude or acceptability to the reader by any standard. The episode has the status of a game, quite self- consciously and intentionally: just as Frere Jean and Epistemon 42 are told by Panurge to "retirez un peu a l 'ecart," to "pa3s their time joyfully," the reader is indeed being invited to accept the seemingly cruel revenge inf l icted upon Dindenault as a "passe-temps," a hobby, having no reference to any social code, no referent in the social context of the reader. The very effectiveness of the scene may even depend, from a comic point of view, on the very inversion of this accepted moral code: the "monde a l'envers," which stems from the operation of "carnavalisation,"23 the key concept of Bakhtin so essential to the understanding of the Rabelaisian "world." Yet this "world," which not only does not imitate the world of the reader but even inverts i t s codes and standards, is somehow also a function of the expectations generated in the implied reader by the implied author in this kind of writing. The very fact that the restraints of verisimilitude, identification and standards of moral just i f icat ion do not apply in comic writing, since both reader and author in a sense only pretend — "untrustworthy" narrator, in this case, to t e l l the truth, and the reader to believe him — creates the very conditions for the symbolic appeal of the imaginary world "a 1'envers. " The v i s i t to the Chiquanous, which gives rise to the story of the Lord of Basche narrated by Panurge, which in turn is commented upon by a tertiary narrative, that of "Maistre 43 Francois Vi l lon ," narrated by the Lord of Basche himself,24 i l lustrates this "monde a l'envers," which i3, as the result of the f ict ive inversion of the social referent, a sort of joyous acting-out of the transgression of the social code. The "gentilhomme," in danger of losing a l l he possesses and rotting in prison "comme s ' i l eu3t frappe le Roi" (Rabelais,60) i f he dares to lay a hand on the legal representative of the Crown, the b a i l i f f , finds in the Lord of Basche his hero and example. For the Lord of Basche has found a remedy to the situation of the sacrosainct person of the b a i l i f f : thanks to popular custom, blows can be given during a marriage ceremony, and thus the b a i l i f f , provided that there is a wedding, can be beaten with impunity. The mock marriage ceremony in the Lord of Basche 3tory provides the opportunity for "bailiff-bashing" forbidden in the society of the day. The rhetorical appeal of the 3tory thus resides in the breaking of a taboo: as in the Carnival, where, as Bakhtin show3, the travesty of the "Pope of fools"25 is enacted, here the King is mocked in the person of his ba i l i f f . But the condition for the reader's enjoyment of this i 3 not custom (as with the Carnival), but the "contract" between implied author and implied reader. As the non-teleological structure in the Coui l latr is story stems from an envisaged reader whose attention is not on "what happens next," here the non-verisimilar story materials stem from the reader'3 "use" of 44 the f i c t i o n not to see himself r e f l e c t e d "mimetically" i n the s o c i a l h i e r a r c h y . The s t o r y i n v e r t s the s o c i a l code and r e l a t i v i s e s i t : the King i n e f f e c t appears as v i c t i m , and the pleasure of the reader stem3 from t h i 3 effacement of a l l d i f f e r e n c e between dominator and dominated. A3 the C o u i l l a t r i s s t o r y i s s t r u c t u r e d to b r i n g l i n e a r t e m p o r a l i t y and thus c a u s a l i t y i n t o question, so the Dindenault and Lord of Ba3che s t o r i e s show, under the doubled f i c t i o n (Panurge pretending to buy a sheep, the Lord of Ba3che pretending to c e l e b r a t e a wedding) a joyous i n v e r s i o n of a power r e l a t i o n s h i p , and thus s t o i c a l " c a u s a l i t y , " i n a sense. "Maistre F r a n c o i s V i l l o n " ' s mistreatment of the i n t r a n s i g e n t Tappecoue r e v e a l s the same mistreatment of an a u t h o r i t a t i v e v i c t i m , under the pretense of the C a r n i v a l - l i k e s t a g i n g of a P a s s i o n play. There i s a "doubling" of the f i c t i o n here as w e l l — the t r a v e s t y of a P a s s i o n p l a y — which f a c i l i t a t e s the v i o l e n t h u m i l i a t i o n of the a u t h o r i t y f i g u r e , the joyou3 punishment of the punisher. Here the scapegoating takes on the macabre dimensions of a blood s a c r i f i c e : there i s nothing l e f t of the poor Tappecoue but h i s r i g h t f o o t and shoe entangled i n the 3 t i r r u p of h i s runaway horse, and h i 3 dismemberment i s d e s c r i b e d i n graphic d e t a i l . The n a r r a t o r , the Lord of Basche, model of the l i g h t h e a r t e d "gentleman," ends the s t o r y by i n c i t i n g h i s men to enact a s i m i l a r "tragicque f a r c e " (Rabelais, 65) a g a i n s t the 45 bai l i f f3. The term "tragicgue farce" is in fact appropriate to designate the "bracketing" effect of l i terary genre upon such story material, which, in another kind of implied author/implied reader "situation," that of real i s t ic narrative, say, could be narrated unaltered with an opposite (tragic or cathartic) effect upon the reader. The "bracketing" effect is none other than the parody of a "tragic" f ict ive "event," the event of a character, Tappecoue, who becomes a "victim" due to his intransigence in the matter of the Passion Play to be staged by Vi l lon and his companions, dressed as d e v i l 3 . The grotesque dismemberment of Tappecoue is in fact a parody of the "victimage" employed by tragedy to achieve i t s cathartic effect: that is why i t i s described as a "tragicque farce" by the Lord of Basche. C. The Mimesis of Laughter: the Tempest Story We said, in the f i r s t chapter, that the comic writing of Rabelais is "non-mimetic" in the sense that i t does not enjoin identification upon the reader, but instead presents non- verisimilar humour3 (characters with one overriding trai t ) resulting in the gratif icat ion of the reader'3 desire to know and to judge the characters as objects, since no attempt is made to present them as subjects. Thus, the mimetic principle of identity i 3 replaced with a principle of difference. 46 Nevertheless, after looking at the operations of the "monde a l'envers" in the Dindenault, Lord of Basche and Vi l lon stories, we must recognise that there remains a certain mimetic principle, at work, as i t were, unconsciously. The source of pleasure in the f ict ion is that what is normally repressed i 3 acted out ostentatiously and joyously, which must be seen as a sort of wish-fulfillment, 3ince the f ic t ion has the logic of a kind of "pleasure principle" at work in a wish-fulf i l l ing dream, in opposition to the "reality principle" imposed by society. S t i l l , in spite of t h i 3 Freudian schema, we do not see what Freud posited to explain the appeal of the romance-type of f ict ion, a Jame3 Bond-like hero, an ego-subject whose desires are invariably gratified. Instead, as we see in the Tempest 3tory, the character closest to a protagonist, Panurge, is transformed through "dramatic irony" (the reader's giving the l i e to Panurge"s bravado), as outlined i n the f i r s t chapter, from a narrating, controlling subject into an object of the reader's ridicule. Panurge is "demasked" as the cr i s i s of the storm approaches, and the reader shares the perspective of Frere Jean, under whose c r i t i c a l eye Panurge'3 demasking (cowardice) during the storm is followed by h i 3 "rema3king" (bravado) once the danger is past. The episode of the Tempest in the Quart Livre i s , I believe, an extremely good example of the mechanism of comic writing as i t relates to the reader's identifications and 47 d i s t a n c e s from the c h a r a c t e r s , to c e r t a i n r e c u r r e n t s t r u c t u r e s which produce the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c p h y s i o l o g i c a l r e a c t i o n i n the reader — laughter. As Rene G i r a r d p o i n t s out,26 the p h y s i o l o g i c a l aspect of laughter has a c e r t a i n "mimetic" q u a l i t y which "mimic3" the object of laughter: laughter, which reduces the subject to c o n v u l s i v e impotence ( G i r a r d uses the example of t i c k l i n g ) , mimics the l o s s of c o n t r o l of the object of t h i s laughter, and the r e d u c t i o n of t h i s object from the s t a t u s of a subject, w i t h whom the laughing subject can i d e n t i f y , to the s t a t u s of a h e l p l e s s laughed-at object. B a u d e l a i r e , i n h i s De 1'essence du rire.,27 sees t h i s same p o s s i b i l i t y i n the eventual i d e n t i t y of "weakness" of mocker and mocked. Thus we f i n d that a c e r t a i n "mimesis" must be brought back as an a c t i v e p r i n c i p l e i n understanding reader repsonse i n the Quart L i v r e . What k i n d of "mimesis" i s t h i s ? and how i s i t d i s t i n g u i s h e d from the mimesis of r e a l i s m , which, as we 3 a i d i n the f i r s t chapter, i s not a t work i n the Quart L i v r e ? We s a i d that the comic w r i t i n g of R a b e l a i s i s not l i m i t e d by v e r i s i m i l i t u d e to represent the probable i n order to produce the " i l l u s i o n of r e a l i t y " i n the reader. The key word here i s "represent": the "world represented" ("monde represents," term used by Bakhtin i n h i s work on the "chronotope" i n the novel28), does not "mirror" the "world r e p r e s e n t i n g " ("monde representant"), although the "monde representant" forms e i t h e r a h o r i z o n or a f e r t i l e substratum of c u l t u r e (popular or 48 c l a s s i c a l ) f o r the "monde represents" i n the f i c t i o n . That remains true f o r us: p a r t of what we d i d i n the f i r s t chapter wa3 to d i s t i n g u i s h "monde representant" from "monde represente," when we d i s t i n g u i s h e d "implied author" from "dramatic n a r r a t o r " (and "implied reader" from " n a r r a t i v e audience"), thereby showing c e r t a i n e f f e c t s of genre i n the text i t s e l f ("monde represente"), and s e t t i n g these e f f e c t s a g a i n s t e f f e c t s i n other genres, n o t a b l y the dramatic ( t r a g i c ) and romanesque ( r e a l i s t i c ) genres, where the reader who responds, the impli e d reader, remains outside the tex t , forming p a r t of the "monde rep63entant. " We saw a l s o through the workings of the "monde a l'env e r s " that the "monde representant" i s not "mirrored" a t a l l , but ra t h e r i n v e r t e d , "turned upside down," by the f i c t i o n . We s a i d a l s o that the implied author does not e n j o i n " i d e n t i f i c a t i o n " on the reader; t h i s remains true i n that sympathy ( p i t y ) and t e r r o r , necessary to the c a t h a r s i s , are not among the e f f e c t s that the author wants h i 3 reader to experience. Yet, as we see i n the Tempest episode, the reader does r e q u i r e a c e r t a i n a l t e r n a n c e of i d e n t i t y and d i f f e r e n c e i n order to experience the f u l l comic e f f e c t , which comes from an i r r e d u c t i b l e ambiguity, that of the i d e n t i t y of c o n t r o l l i n g s ubject and impotent object. Panurge, whom the reader has seen i n the p o s i t i o n of power i n the Dindenault episode, now appears, i n the l i g h t of h i 3 p a r a l y s i n g f e a r of death, as a h e l p l e s s coward: 49 Panurge, ayant du contenu en son estomach b i e n repeu le3 poissons scatophages, r e s t a i t acropy sus l e t i l i a c , tout a f f l i g e , tout meshaigne, et a demy mort: invoque tous l e s b e n o i s t z s a i n t s et s a i n t e s a son ayde.... (Rabelais, 79) The " c r i t i q u e " of Panurge, which began i n the T i e r s L i v r e , where a s o r t of p o l a r i t y F r e r e Jean/Panurge (honest human c o u r a g e / h y p o c r i t i c a l cowardice) has a l r e a d y e s t a b l i s h e d i t s e l f , here takes on i t s f u l l p h y s i c a l dimensions as vomiting which h a 3 reduced him to impotence. In the T i e r s L i v r e , where Panurge'3 meeting w i t h the dying Raminagrobis leads him to a metaphysical c r i s i s where he imagines that the room i s f u l l of d e v i l s , Panurge h y p o c r i t i c a l l y defends the mendicant orders and condemns Raminagrobis f o r heresy, i n order to "save h i s own s k i n , " so to speak, and assuage h i s "doubts," which immediately reduce to " f e a r s , " f e a r s not only of death but of the d e l i r i u m of h e l l . Here i n the Quart L i v r e the p a t t e r n i 3 repeated, but Panurge's f e a r ha3 an immediate p h y s i c a l m a n i f e s t a t i o n : he empties his. stomach, as here, or h i s bowels, as i n the Ganabin episode which c l o s e s the book. What are the e f f e c t s on the reader, and what p s y c h o l o g i c a l mechanism i 3 a t work? F i r 3 t , l e t us admit that the reader has learned to i d e n t i f y w i t h Panurge i n the comic p e r s p e c t i v e : Panurge o f t e n appears as the n a r r a t i n g , c o n t r o l l i n g subject (according to the p a t t e r n e s t a b l i s h e d i n the Pantagruel) who makes i t p o s s i b l e f o r the reader to be comfortably e s t a b l i s h e d 50 as spectator, so that the Bergsonian c o n d i t i o n of s u p e r i o r i t y 2 9 can be f u l f i l l e d , i n order that the "mScanique plaque sur l e v i v a n t " can t r i g g e r laughter. Yet i t i s t h i s same character, Panurge, who i s now degraded to impotent object through h i s shameless cowardice and hypocrisy. Notice however that F r e r e Jean, w i t h the "demotion" i n the eyes of the reader of Panurge, remains a paragon of courage, not only i n the face of danger, but a l s o i n that of death and h e l l i t s e l f . The l i t a n y of e p i t h e t s which F r e r e Jean h u r l s a t Panurge ("Panurge l e veau, Panurge l e p l e u r a r t , Panurge l e c r i a r t . . . . " ) are matched by c o n t i n u a l r e f e r e n c e to multitudes of d e v i l s i n h e l l , a d e f i a n c e of the d e l i r i u m of h e l l which, g i v e n the p r e v a l e n t metaphysics of the 16th century c u l t u r e , i s bound to have i t s e f f e c t on any envisaged reader. The p o l a r i t y — Panurge the, (temporarily) r e l i g i o u s / F r e r e Jean the (temporarily) i r r e l i g i o u s — i s a s t r u c t u r e which has the e f f e c t of, f i r s t , through Panurge'3 degradation, producing the ambiguous i d e n t i t y (of the reader) of c o n t r o l l i n g s u b j e c t and impotent object, and secondly, through F r e r e Jean's courage, modelling a non-ambiguous c o n t r o l l i n g subject, through whom the reader can maintain h i s s u p e r i o r i t y , l e s t e i t h e r sympathy or f e a r muffle h i s laughter. The degradation of Panurge from c o n t r o l l i n g subject to object of r i d i c u l e causes the reader to laugh c o n v u l s i v e l y himself, thus mimicking the same process, that of r e d u c t i o n to impotence. Thus a mimetic process i s indeed a t work, though not 51 a mimesis of representation, but rather a mimesis of (unconscious) identif ication with the transformation of the character from controlling subject to helpless object. Just as, with the representation of the "monde a l'envers," the rapport of power was inverted, and thus a l l difference effaced between dominant and dominated, so here that degradation of the subject Panurge shows the "democratic" nature of laughter, the tendency in comic writing to replace the principle of moral just i f icat ion so noticeable in dramatic or real i s t ic presentation with a principle of levell ing. Nothing is sacred, and nothing is individual in comic writing; the dist inction sacred/profane is ofter reversed, and the individual, with h i 3 claims to nobil i ty, uniqueness, etc. , is reduced to his animal limitations, to what he has in common with the rest of humanity. Although we see, in the degradation of Panurge, the "democratic" comic levell ing process, when i t comes to the reader's relation to Panurge's "double" Pantagruel, we see an attitude which, though ambivalent, is nonetheless respectful. When the cosmic effects of the death of Christ are recounted as the death of "le bon Pan, le grand pasteur. . . . nostre unique Servateur" (Rabelais, 103). Pantagruel is represented in his gigantic and grotesque form for the f i r s t time in the Quart Livre: Pantagruel, ce p r o p o 3 finy, r e 3 t a en silence et profonde contemplation. Peu de temps apres, nous veismes les l a r m e 3 decouller de ses oeilz grosses comme oeufs de Austruche. Je me donne a Dieu, s i 52 je mens d'un seul mot. (Rabelai3, 103-4) (Note the protestation of veracity on the part of the narrator, in its ironic form "Je me donne a Dieu...." which, as we said in the first chapter, p u t 3 the fiction not the particularly comic context of the "ground of falsehood" between implied author and implied reader.) The tears of Pantagruel, as "large as ostrich eggs," lead to a certain effect of pathos in the reader which stems from the reader's position as admirer of the "noble Pantagruel" who, in the passage quoted in the first chapter, kills in mock-heroic (epic) style the monstrous "physetere" with all the parodie hyperbole that entails. Thus, Panurge, and not Pantagruel, i 3 the character to whom the reader responds with the characteristic comic ambivalence, with the ambiguity of identity and difference. The ambivalence the reader f e e l 3 towards Pantagruel is an ambivalence of difference: Pantagruel is "noble" — distinguished from the reader — but his nobility is not the tragic nobility of the catharsis, a nobility mitigated by a tragic flaw (hamartia), but a parodie and grotesque nobility of mock-epic. It is in this (long-established and recurrent) role that Pantagruel vanquishes the Andouilles on the Isle Farouche, the non-verisimilar mock- epic narrative which occasions the narrator's self-discrediting protestation of veracity, the implications of which were discussed in the first chapter. 53 D. Satire and Difference: Quaresmeprenant and the Andouilles Before we broach the subject of the mechanism of reader response at work in the Qua re smepreriant-Andou.il les episode, the Papefigues and Papemanes episodes and the Hesser Gaster episode, which form the major part of the rest of the Quart Livre, let us take a brief theoretical excursus into the difference between humour and satire, in the perspective of our mimetic principle of identification. This w i l l be necessary because the elements of satire predominate in these latter episodes over the elements of humour. As elaborated by Luigi Pirandello in his essay L'umori3mo3Q the difference between "humour" and "satire" is that the latter is characterised by irony (ironia), defined by Pirandello as an expression of the contrary of what is meant (ex: Swift's A Hodest Proposal), while "humour" stems from an ambivalence (sentimento del contrario) on the part of the implied author, and therefore of the implied reader. In our terms, "satire," whose modalities include parody and irony, presents an object with which the reader cannot possibly identify: everything is exaggerated in order to accentuate the feeling of difference on the part of the reader. Irony (satire, grotesque parody) leads the reader to a feeling of superiority, and is therefore marked not by laughter (which, as we saw with the example of Panurge during the tempest, requires a measure of identification) but by 54 the smile (Pirandello uses, for instance, the example of the smile of the "serene" irony of Ariosto). Humour, on the other hand, is marked by the ambivalence of laughter, a phenomenon remarked upon at length by Bakhtin in his "history of laughter" in the f i r s t chapter of his Rabelais.31 In humour, laughter is triggered by the unconscious ambiguity of the reader's identity coupled with his difference vis-a-vis the object of his laughter. In effect, the laughing reader in a sense laugh3 with, as well as at, the object of his laughter. Due to the nature of the polemic behind the remainder of the episodes in the Quart Livre, made sharper by the ever- present threat of censure in the Prologues in the f i r s t chapter (curse of the misreaders, etc.) , i t is the elements of satire which begin to dominate over the ambivalence of humour, exemplified in the Tempest episode. The grotesque figures Quaresmeprenant, Antiphy3ie, and even M e 3 s e r Gaster accentuate difference and reduce identity to a minimum on the part of the reader. The ambivalence the reader felt towards Panurge during the Tempest, the beaten Chiquanous, and even the drowning Dindenault diminishes, and so does the convulsive mimetic laughter: laughter is replaced by the bitter but superior (not to say "supercilious," as one could probably say of the smile of the reader of Voltaire) smile of irony. Quaresmeprenant, the "fouetteur de petitz enfans.. . . homme 55 de bien et de grande devotion" ( R a b e l a i 3 , 101), whose description, as we saw in the first chapter, shows clearly the ideological perspective of the implied author, is "anatomised" in such a way as to render him completely "other," so that the reader regards him as an "object". Hi3 internal parts are listed as a series of 3 i m i l e s , terms not even necessarily "marked" by pejorative connotations stemming from the satire. Particularly "interesting" internal parts, such as the heart ("comme une chasuble"), or the "boyau cullier" (always "interesting" in Rabelais, "comme un bourabaguin monachal"), or the urine ("comme un papefigue"), however, do have mock- religious resonances. The similes corr3ponding to Quaresmeprenant's abstract qualities — his imagination ("comme un carillonment de cloches"), "3ens commun" ("comme un bourdon"), "pensees" ("comme un vol d'estourneaulx") convey satirical intent, but when it comes to his "external parts," all reference seems to be lost in favour of the free play of the signifier. Nevertheless, as far a3 the signified i 3 concerned, there seems to be a certain visual appeal: the "trou de cul" i 3 compared to a "mirouoir crystallin," and the "mamelle3" to "un cornet a bouquin. " This visual appeal continues with the list of metaphors expressing the "contenances" of Quaresmeprenant: for instance, when he opens his mouth to belch, the spectacle is compared to "huytres en escalle." However, if he speechifies ("discourait") it i 3 (as) "neiges d'antan," the cliche from Villon indicating that he 56 tends to be a bore. This enigmatic "anatomy" of Quaresmemprenant presents us with a kind of monstrous abstraction: not only can the reader not identify, but the metaphorical deformations of language inscribe Quaresmeprenant in the completely "non-mimetic" (in the sense of representation) category of language i t se l f , without reference or even communicative purpose. The catalogue of metaphors does not "narrate" Quaresmenprenant, nor does i t describe him. The term "Quaresmenprenant" is not a "character" in the sense of "subject"; i t i s the term under which the comparisons are l i s ted, with hyperrealistic (belching l ike (huitres en escalle") or even surrealist ic (the "trou de cul" compared to "mirouoir crystallin") resonances without regard to f ict ional referent. It is the commentary of Frere Jean and Pantagruel which contextualises Quaresmeprenant, and gives him his function in terms of the ideological alignment of implied author and implied reader. Frere Jean comments, obviously ironical ly: Yoyla le guallant... . C 'est mon homme. C 'est celui que je cherche. Je luy vais mander un cartel. (Rabelais, 110) Pantagruel's commentary then situates Quaresmeprenant in reference to the positive ideological polarity, the perspective valorised by the implied author: the "mediocrite" of the Prologues is now replaced by the parent term — "nature," of 57 which "mesure" i s the epigonic i d e a l (as opposed to "demesure"). I t i s the element of "demesure" which make3 Quaresmeprenant "une estrange et mon3trueuse membreure d1homme," who reminds Pantagruel of the "forme et contenance de Amodunt [disharmony] et Discordance" (Rabelais, 110), c h i l d r e n of "Antiphysie", " A n t i - nature," the double32 produced by the idea "Nature," which i s a f t e r a l l an a b s t r a c t i o n whose f u n c t i o n i s to engender the humanistic i d e a l s "mediocrite" and "mesure". The image of the c h i l d r e n of A n t i p h y s i e , t h e i r f e e t i n the a i r and t h e i r h e a d 3 below, "continuellement f a i s a n t l a roue, c u l sus t e s t e , l e s pied3 contrement" (Rabelais, 111) i s an image which unambiguously f i x e s d i f f e r e n c e v i s - a - v i 3 the reader, a s a t i r i c a l image which r e l i e 3 f o r i t s e f f e c t on the i d e o l o g i c a l alignment of implied author and impl i e d reader. The myth of An t i p h y s i e , through the "smile" of i r o n y , f u r t h e r e l aborates and f i x e s the "monstrosity" of Quaresmeprenant, e f f e c t i n g the "comfortable" i d e n t i t y of reader and author, and naming and cataloguing t h e i r i d e o l o g i c a l enemies: . . ..Mategotz, Cagotz et Papelars; l e s Maniacles, P i s t o l e t z : l e s Demoniacles C a l v i n s , i m p o 3 t e u r s de Geneve, l e s enragez Putherbes, B r i f f a u x , Caphars, Chattemittes.... (Rabelais, 112) Le s t the a l l e g o r y become too "readable" here, and perhaps because of the censure, the war of Pantagruel ( i n h i s mock- 58 h e r o i c r o l e ) and the A n d o u i l l e s ensues i n order to " b l u r " the transparency with comic fantasy. The A n d o u i l l e s are the l e a s t r e f e r e n t i a l of the f i c t i v e i n v e n t i o n s of R a b e l a i s , and i t i s t h i s juncture e x a c t l y that the p a r a d o x i c a l p r o t e s t a t i o n of v e r a c i t y d i s c u s s e d i n the f i r s t chapter occurs, not only r e f l e c t i n g the comic u n r e l i a b i l i t y of the n a r r a t o r but a l s o proposing a s o r t of mock-mythic genealogy of A n d o u i l l e s , as symbolic r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of the seductive and serpentine feminine p r i n c i p l e . Nevertheless, the scene of slaughter of A n d o u i l l e s , w i t h the f l y i n g p i g Mardi Gras and the h e a l i n g mustard, t r i g g e r s laughter through the parody of e p i c — the residue of the tendency to i d e n t i f y w i t h the hero (Pantagruel), the parody of the T r o j a n horse s t o r y ("la Truye") f i l l e d w ith cooks by F r e r e Jean, etc. The author has, i n e f f e c t , through the "monstrosity" of Quaresmeprenant and e s p e c i a l l y through the i n v e n t i o n of A n t i p h y 3 i e , exposed h i s i d e o l o g i c a l p o s i t i o n , and now attempts to b l u r the transparency of the a l l e g o r y w i t h u n b r i d l e d comic fantasy, not only to evade the censure but a l s o to safeguard h i s a r t i s t i c purpose, the comic v i s i o n which p l a c e s everything i n a "double" p e r s p e c t i v e , undecidable and i r r e d u c t i b l y ambiguous. An unambiguous transparency would be by nature i n a r t i s t i c , rendering the f i c t i o n s u s c e p t i b l e to l i t e r a l t r a n s l a t i o n . T h i s i s the reason, both f o r the p l a y of the s i g n i f i e r and f o r the "unimaginable" s i g n i f i e d i n the " d e s c r i p t i o n " of Quaresmeprenant, and f o r the non-ref e r e n t i a l i t y of the 59 Andouilles and their mock-mythological resonances. E. Papefigues and Papemanes: the Non-committal Reader One of the reasons for blurring the allegory through the "unreadable" and farcical battle with the Andouilles is to relativise the polemic which threatens to make the reader's 3mile of irony a l i t t l e too self-satisfied. Polemic, as Ren6 Girard rightly observes, tends to "monopolise whatever remains of the sacred" (Girard, 116), to replace whatever i 3 "debunked" with a new set of taboos, which abrogate to themselves the sacredness of the old taboos. If, as Roger Cai l lo i s says, the sacred can be defined as . . . that being, object, or idea [. . . ] for which man departs from routine, that which he does not allow to be discussed, scoffed at, or joked about... ( C a i l l o i 3 , 132-3) we can say that the sacred, or at least the place of the sacred, i 3 profoundly antagonistic to the comic, that which continually relativises exactly those things taken most seriously in the social context (as we see, for instance, in the operation of the "monde a l'envers"). The Papefigues and Papemanes episodes mu3t be seen in the historical context, that of post-Affair-of-the-Placards France, the persecutions of the Protestants by the ecclesiastical and 60 monarchical powers, etc. Pantagruel, in the cursed and desolate land of the Papefigues (Protestants), comes upon the strange sight of a Papefigue total ly submerged in a baptismal font with his nose protruding. The narrative which ensues explains the cause of this, and ends with a surprising gesture which liberates the submerged Papefigue. It concerns the outwitting of one of the devils who attempt to extort tribute from the oppressed Papefigue's agricultural produce. The narrative not only valorises the peasant wisdom of a folkloric culture against officialdom (who are represented by the devil as succumbing to his temptations), but also, curiously, situates the f inal vanquishing power of the Papefigue3 against the devi l , by a kind of displacement, in the exposure of the 3ex of the old wife of the persecuted Papefigue. Seeing the 3ex of the old woman, the devil 3creams in alarm: Mahon, Demiourgan, Hegere, Alecto, Persephone, i l ne me tient pas! Je m'en voy3 bel erre. Cela! Je l u i quite le champs. (Rabelais, 146) The Papefigue in the baptismal font is thus saved from a promised "scratching" contest with the devil by the "wound" of his wife, which w i l l "never heal. " The sex of the woman has therefore taken the place of the sacred, capable of saving man and frightening away devils. What does this mean in terms of the reader of the comic fiction? We can say, f i r s t of a l l , that the polemic of the 61 humanist author/*reader ha3 been r e f r a c t e d by the f i c t i o n , which d i s p l a c e s the i n t e r e s t of the reader from the a s s i g n a t i o n of p r a i s e or blame and the d e s i g n a t i o n of hero/martyrs (an i n s t i n c t nourished by the reading of the l i v e s of s a i n t s , etc. ), to the demonstration of i n t e l l i g e n c e on the p a r t of the v i c t i m s (and s t u p i d i t y on the p a r t of the v i c t i m i z e s ) , and f i n a l l y to the scandalous showing of the female sex. The rapport of power i s thus i n v e r t e d to the d e l i g h t of the reader, not through the triumph of one i d e o l o g y over another, but through a parody of the sacred, the female sex having taken the p l a c e of the s i g n of the cr o s s , the e f f i c a c i t y of which i n the popular s a i n t ' s l i v e s genre i s to f r i g h t e n away d e v i l s . Thus, though the sympathy of the reader i s w i t h the Papefigue farmer and h i s wife, and h i s i r e d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t the v a r i o u s e c c l e s i a s t i c a l and monarchical o f f i c i a l s mentioned by the d e v i l , one monological33 context i 3 not s u b s t i t u t e d f o r another, i . e . , the i d e o l o g y of the v i c t i m s does not r e p l a c e the i d e o l o g y of the v i c t i m i z e r 3 . The " v i c t o r y " i s obtained and the p l e a s u r e of the reader g r a t i f i e d , through a parody of the sacred, which puts i n the p l a c e of the sacred what i s not only not sacred, but even "obscene," the female sex. The reader i s thus not allowed to s a t i s f y h i s i n d i g n a t i o n a g a i n s t i n j u s t i c e , s i n c e t h i s would d e s t r o y the comic tone and atmosphere; i n s t e a d comic ambivalence i s maintained through a r a d i c a l j u x t a p o s i t i o n of the 3acred and the obscene, which i s the essence of 62 "carnavalisation," the deliberate bringing together of two domains normally kept separate through parody. The Papemanes episode, with the worshipping of the Pope by the Papemanes as "God on earth," Homenaz's bombastic praise of the Decretals, and the catalogue of the mock "miracles" of these said Decretals, continues this parodie modality. The sententiousness and bombast of Homenaz reminds one of the similar tone of Dindenault, but this time the object of the parodie encomium is not the medical properties of the parts of sheep, but the "Sainctes Decretales. " The parody in fact replicates a common style in R a b e l a i 3 , the epideictic style used, for instance, in the praise of the debtors and of the herb Pantagruelion in the Tiers Livre. Whereas, however, the reader in the Dindenault episode is gratified by the revenge of Panurge upon the verbose sheep merchant, by a reversal in the rapport of power (symbolised by the power of speech), here the commentary of both Panurge and Pantagruel seems to reflect positively upon Homenaz. Panurge comments of the Papemanes: I cy . . . . de par tous les Diables, ne sont i l z hereticques comme fut Raminagrobis, et comme i l z sont parmy les Almaignes et Angleterre. Vous estez Christians triez sur le volet. (Rabelais, 154) And upon reception of Homenaz' parting gi f t of "good Christian 63 pears," Pantagruel comments: "...oncgues ne veiz Christians meilleurs que ces bon3 Papimanes" (165) These seemingly "positive" remarks must of course be taken ironical ly by the reader, and in fact, after the ostensible tears of contrition shed for pathetic effect by Homenaz as he finishes the peroration of his epideictic oration in praise of the Decretals, capable of "drawing gold from France to Rome," Epistemon, Frere Jean and Panurge feign their own tears: voyans cette facheuses catastrophe, commencerent au couvert de leur serviettes crier: Myault, Myault, Myault, feignant ce pendent de 3'essuer les oeilz, comme s ' i l s eussent plore. (Rabelais, 164) Bombast thus cal ls forth bathos, as i t did in the case of Panurge's sermon to the drowning Dindenault. Part ia l ly due to the effects upon the reader of this commentary of the characters (an authorial strategy mentioned in the f i r s t chapter), we can say then that what i 3 said, both by Homenaz and by the characters, through irony, is in fact the exact contrary of what i 3 meant. The ideological alignment of implied author and implied reader is already so firmly established through the Prologues and commentary, the Antiphysie episode, etc. , that the speech of Homenaz, with a l l the ornamentation of i t s rhetoric, i s not only unconvincing in and of i t se l f , but even convinces the reader of the exact opposite of what i t purports to convince him. Thus we can safely assume that Homenaz' praise of the efficacy of the Decretals in drawing 64 gold from France to Rome is proof of the author's Gallicanism and Evangelicalism. Can we say, then, that the polemic of the author here simply inverts i t se l f through the f ict ion, and that we simply interpret (x) by substituting (y), that one monological context has been replaced by another through irony? If that were true, the comic aspect of the f ic t ion would be in danger, just a3 i t was endangered by the "too-readable" allegory of Antiphy3ie. If the author'3 polemic simply substitutes one set of taboos with another, the widest sense of the comic is lost, 3ince the very nature of the comic i 3 to relativise the sacred, not to replace i t : laughter becomes "reduced"34 and humour narrows i ts scope to the "satirical" exclusively. If the f u l l ambivalent nature of the comic is to be safeguarded, the reader must remain, to some extent, non- committal. If he were to be "engaged" by the polemic of the author and were to embrace a Manichean view of social real i ty in which humanity is polarised into ideological opposites, the f u l l public participatory and "carnavalised" nature of laughter would be lost, the 'democratised" public square would become the drawing room of snobbery35 and the laughter of humour would become the smile of irony. In the Quart Livre of Rabelais, however, this is not the case, for the speechifying Homenaz demonstrates his humanity through a few well choses physical 65 actions: Icy commenca Homenaz rocter, peter, r i re , baver et suer; et ba i l la 3on gros, g r a 3 bonnet a guatre braguettes a une des f i l l e s , laquelle le posa sus son beau chef en grande alaigresse, apres 1'avoir amoureusement baise (Rabelais, 163) The interest of the reader is then further displaced from the inverted polemic of irony to the "poires du bon Christian," gifts of Homenaz to his departing guests, and to the obscene comments of Frere Jean concerning Homenaz' daughters. Thus, just as the sex of the old Papefiguiere robs the 3acred of i t 3 power through parody, the polemic of the author is referenced to the sweating, belching and farting body of the buffoon Homenaz, lest i t divide the "represented world" into Manichean halves, and reduce laughter to exclusive ridicule of the ideologically "impure" other. The abstract and idealised, which tends to impinge on the scacred through the conflict of polemic, i s thus relativised by a comic representation of the body in i ts most concrete and certainly "non-ideal" (heroic or tragic) functions. F. Hesser Gaster: the "Juste Hilieu" of the Belly The image of Messer Gaster, "premier maistre es ars de ce monde" (Rabelais, 171), l ike Antiphysie, is an allegory, a 66 f ict ive bringing to l i f e of the "dead metaphor" of the proverb: "the stomach has no ears," a frequent topos in Rabelais (for example, the f i r s t meeting of Pantagruel with the famished Panurge in Pantagruel, where this idea is conveyed in fourteen real or imagined languages): . . .D ieu de silence. En Grec nomme Sigalion, estre astome, c'est-a-dire s a n 3 bouche, a ins i Gaster sans aureil les fut cre£ II ne parle que par signes. Mais a s e 3 3 i g n e s tout le monde o b e i 3 t plus soubdain qu'aux edictz des Preteurs, et mandemens des Roys. (Rabelais, 171-2) Citing the allegory of Aesop in which the primacy of the Belly was restored after a failed revolt against him of the other organs in the "royaume de Somates," the author goes on to posit Ga3ter (Belly) as the inventor of "toutes ars, toute3 machines, tous engins et subtilitez" (172). Though Gaster himself cannot speak, he teaches the animal3 language: Les Corbeaulx, les Gays, les Papegays, les Estourneaulx, i l rend poetes; les Pies i l fa i t poetrides, et leur aprent languaige humain proferer, parler, chanter. Et tout pour la trippe. (Rabelais, 172) Everything i 3 referenced to the Belly: the art of conserving grain, and of war, even language i t se l f , which becomes a tool, a means more than an end, in order to fac i l i tate the satisfaction of hunger, which takes pr ior i ty over a l l the other human desires. 67 For a l l h i 3 pr ior i ty and primacy, however, Gaster does not occupy the realm of the 3acred: after the description of the sacrifices of the Gastrolatres by means of their "effigie monstrueuse, r idicule , hydeuse" (176) Manduce to "leur dieu ventripotent" (175) Gaster, the author makes abundantly clear that Gaster is "non Dieu, mais paouvre, v i l e , chetifve creature" (180). After a l l the culinary delights are sacrificed to him, Gaster sends the Gastrolatres: . . . . a sa selle pers6e veoir, considerer, philospher et contempler quelle divinity i l s trouvaient en sa matiere fecale. (Rabelai3, 180) What, then, is the function of this f inal powerful image in terms of the laughing reader and the comic vision of the Quart Livre? The appropriateness of this image of the profane and primal Belly can be 3 e e n from the ideal of "mediocrity proposed in the Prologue of 1552, which provides the 3ign of ideological unity, the thematic under which could be subsumed almost the total i ty of the narratives . of the Quart Livre: from Coui l la tr i s , Dindenault and Chiquanous, through the Tempest, the anatomy of Quaresmeprenant and Antiphysie, to the Vis i t to the Papefigues and the Papemanes. The image of the Master Belly recapitulates a l legorical ly this thematic, a thematic more profound than any Gallican or Evangelical polemic. For not only does the Belly occupy the "juste milieu" between the Head (site of what Burke calls the "hierarchical goadings"36) and the 68 G e n i t a l i a ( s i t e of a l l i n s t i n c t i v e l i b i d i n a l longings which, f o r Freud, have primacy i n the Unconscious), but i t a l s o does not abrogate the sacred to i t s e l f : whereas men have worshipped the p h a l l u s and the human or animal countenance, they have never worshipped the b e l l y . For t h i s reason the B e l l y i s profoundly comic, r e l a t i v i s i n g and "profaning" the sacred. Whereas the t r a g i c has a sacred f u n c t i o n , depending f o r i t s c a t h a r s i s on a p r i n c i p l e of "victimage,"3? or scapegoating, the comic i s profoundly, and by nature a t odds w i t h i d e o l o g i c a l extremes of any k i n d , and even with a b s t r a c t i o n i n general. I t tends towards the c o r p o r e a l , the profane, the s c a t o l o g i c a l and the "obscene. " If there are " v i c t i m s " i n comedy (Dindenault, the Chiquanous) these v i c t i m s do not c a l l f o r t h the c a t h a r s i s , the p u r g a t i o n of f e a r and p i t y i n the reader, but i n s t e a d s e l f - i n c l u s i v e laughter, which mimes p l e a s u r a b l y the h e l p l e s s n e s s of the " v i c t i m . " *** Our p o r t r a i t of the reader of the Quart L i v r e — a reader whose a t t e n t i o n i s " n o n - t e l e o l o g i c a l , " a reader who enjoys the i n v e r s i o n r a t h e r than the i m i t a t i o n of s o c i a l r e a l i t y , a laughing reader who mimes the h e l p l e s s n e s s of the comic " v i c t i m , " a non-committal reader who transcends polemic i n order to experience a d e s a c r a l i s e d and profoundly " m a t e r i a l " 69 represented world — i s the p o r t r a i t of an "implied reader." a reader i m p l i c a t e d by the g e n e r i c expectations generated by the "text" i t s e l f . We can say that t h i s reader i s the "evidence" that the "comic" a3 a l i t e r a r y genre e x i s t s a t a l l , s i n c e we can see the d i f f e r e n c e s between the responses of t h i s reader and those of the reader of "tragedy" or of "epic. " Through the demonstration of the response of t h i s reader, we can show the p a r t i c u l a r k i n d of "mimetic" r e p r e s e n t a t i o n with which we have to d e a l i n the "comic" n a r r a t i v e of the Quart L i v r e of R a b e l a i s : f i r s t , n e g a t i v e l y , through showing how i t d i f f e r s from the mimesis of tragedy and r e a l i s m , and then, p o s i t i v e l y , through showing the profoundly m a t e r i a l and d e s a c r a l i s i n g , u n i f y i n g character of the response of the i d e n t i f y i n g laughing reader. Through drawing the p o r t r a i t of the reader of the Quart L i v r e , we can t h e r e f o r e f u r t h e r g e n e r a l i s e a s t r a t e g y of an author of t h i s k i n d of w r i t i n g , seeing a l s o s i m i l a r s t r a t e g i e s that apply to other l i t e r a r y works of a r t . The next 3tep would be to see the context of such an a r t i s t i c s t r a t e g y , to explore the causes i n the c u l t u r a l context of the time, and then perhaps f u r t h e r to g e n e r a l i s e to other s i m i l a r s o c i o - h i 3 t o r i c a l c u l t u r a l contexts which may create s i m i l a r reading p u b l i c s sharing the expectations of the reader of whom we have drawn a p o r t r a i t . If the c r e a t i o n of l i t e r a r y form i s the r e s u l t of the "arousal and f u l f i l l m e n t of d e s i r e , " as Burke suggests (3ee above, 22-27), then the s t r a t e g y of the author i t s e l f must be seen as a "response" to the "aroused" d e s i r e of a reading p u b l i c , a p u b l i c w h i c h i s a s much a c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t a s t h e l i t e r a r y work i t s e l f . *** 71 Conclusion The reading of a text which is a cultural product of a bygone humanist and Christian culture, of which only traces remain in our modernity, seems at best to invite us to a work of "archeological" reconstitution. The text of Rabelais, in spite of i t s striking "modernity," with a l l i t s "progressive" aspects (demonstrated convincingly by Jean Paris in his Rabelais au futur), and most important, the fact that i t is a "literary text" in the modern sense, reproduced by a printing press, i s , for a l l that, a product of a culture which w i l l never regain i t 3 former dominance, but is destined to marginality. Nevertheless, my project ha3 not been a purely "archeological" one. I have tried to show, in demonstrating the ar t i s t i c strategy of Rabelai3 and the portrait of the reader implied by his comic writing, that Rabelais, through his use of authorial commentary, unreliable narration, parody, and irony, rejoins the reading tastes of our own "post-modern" cultural climate. I suggest, at the end of my chapter on "Literary Form and the Desire of the Reader," that this is because of the fragmented and ideologically polarised nature of the cultural universe Rabelais inhabited, which of course is not unlike our own. I suggest parallels al30 from the 18th century, notably Sterne and Diderot, and Joyce from our own century, who adopt a similar ar t i s t i c startegy: digression (Sterne), authorial commentary (Diderot), and parody (Joyce). 72 In c o n c e n t r a t i n g on a u t h o r i a l s t r a t e g y (commentary, u n r e l i a b l e n a r r a t i o n , etc.) and reader response i n the Quart L i v r e of R a b e a l i s , I have t r i e d to c l e a r the t h e o r e t i c a l path towards a "method" of reading which would not refuse everything not " t e x t u a l i s e d , " but which would i n s t e a d see the " t e x t " as a c u l t u r a l product of an author and a reader who are a l s o c u l t u r a l products. B e l i e v i n g that the Word ("text") and the World are i n e x t r i c a b l y l i n k e d , not only through a "naming" f u n c t i o n , but a l s o through what Burke c a l l s "symbolic a c t i o n , " the c r e a t i v e power of language i n general, I have approached t h i s t e x t as i f i t had the power to i l l u m i n a t e our own c u l t u r a l context. Since " p o e t i c s " i s , i t seems to me, an e n t e r p r i s e which n e c e s s a r i l y e n t a i l s a b s t r a c t i o n , and d i s t i n g u i s h e s i t s e l f from "poetry" by the f a c t that i t uses a d e s c r i p t i v e language which i3 not " p o e t i c , " I f e e l that the p r o j e c t of the c r i t i c i s not 3imply to comment, glos3, or e x p l i c a t e t e x t s , nor to produce "po e t i c " t e x t s themselves, but to synthesize, a b s t r a c t and g e n e r a l i s e : the object, a f t e r a l l , of " p o e t i c s , " as Wellek and Warren p o i n t out i n t h e i r Theory of L i t e r a t u r e , 3 8 i s not ju3t "poems" but "poetry". Thus my "method" ha3 been to g e n e r a l i s e and to c o n t e x t u a l i 3 e the Quart L i v r e of Rabelais, to a b s t r a c t from i t g e n e r i c expectations r e f l e c t e d i n a reader implied by the t e x t i t s e l f . Without e x p l i c i t l y proposing the new conception of 73 l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y of the proponents of the R e z e p t i o n s t h e o r i e of the Constance s c h o o l ( J a u s s , I s e r ) , through my c o n c e n t r a t i o n on the reader I have sought t o a v o i d an o v e r l y f o r m a l i s t i c concern o n l y w i t h the t e x t , s i t u a t i n g the t e x t i n s o c i e t y and t h e r e f o r e i n " h i s t o r y " w i t h o u t f a l l i n g i n t o e i t h e r h i s t o r i c i s m or b i o g r a p h i s m , or "phenomenological" q u a s i - " p o e t i c " r e n d e r i n g s . B e l i e v i n g t h a t some k i n d of d e s c r i p t i v e p o e t i c s i s 3 t i l l p o s s i b l e , I a c c e p t b o t h a measure of " r e f e r e n t i a l i t y " ( i m p l i e d a u t h o r and i m p l i e d r e a d e r ) and an i d e a of l i t e r a r y genre, i n order t o show the n a r r a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s of a t e x t l i k e the Quart L i v r e , and t h e i r i m p l i c a t i o n s i n terms of a r t i s t i c "purpose" 3een i n terms of "reader response. " I n t h i s I am 3imply f o l l o w i n g the example of A r i s t o t l e , who i n h i s P o e t i c s a b s t r a c t e d " r u l e s " from a corpus of t r a g e d i e s , a t r a g i c "genre" which had a l r e a d y begun t o decay, the a r t i s t i c "purpose" of which was the c a t h a r s i s , the response of the reader. I n the Quart L i v r e of R a b e l a i s we found an a u t h o r who n e i t h e r d i s c l o s e s h i m s e l f nor keeps s i l e n t , who uses an u n r e l i a b l e n a r r a t o r and abundant commentary t o p r e s e n t a non- v e r i s i m i l a r f i c t i o n u n d e r l y i n g which i s an a m b i v a l e n t comic v i s i o n which, though i t ensures i d e o l o g i c a l a l i g n m e n t of a u t h o r and r e a d e r , t r a n s c e n d s any polemic. We saw how the a u t h o r i n the Quart L i v r e r e l a t i v i s e s t h i s p o l e m i c , thus s a f e g u a r d i n g comic ambivalence, t h r o u g h parody: p r e s e n t i n g c h a r a c t e r s (comic " v i c t i m s " ) who f u n c t i o n through the r e a d e r ' s need t o "know" and t o "judge," c r e a t i n g a l i t e r a r y form which a r o u s e s and f u l f i l l s 74 the reader's "desire," while working against the reader's "pattern of experience," even his pattern of reading experience, through parody. Thus, the "word" that the author presents us in the Quart Livre is what Bakhtin c a l l 3 a "hetero-directed double voiced word,"39 a parodistic narration, not the author's word, nor j u 3 t the represented words of characters, but a word directed towards the expectations of a reader, which depends for its final meaning on these expectations. We saw that this reader in the Quart Livre is a reader who "indulges" the author by pretending to believe him, a reader whose desires are gratified through both the "difference" of satire (the smiling reader) and the "identity" of humour (the laughing reader), where the elements of humour predominate through relativising and desacralising parody. The "purpose" of the Quart Livre, in terms of "producing the pleasure proper to i t 3 kind," of realising its "entelechy," is therefore to produce the ambiguous identification of laughter in the reader. The mimesis of representation of realism is thus replaced by a mimesis of identification, through a "perilous balance"40 which evades both "too much" distance or "too much" identity on the part of the reader. A certain non-committal skirting of what men call "sacred" is called for, a "light touch" which Rabelais calls "joyousness," combined with a common sense rooted in the body and i t 3 least "ideal" functions. 75 F i n a l l y the comic n a r r a t i v e i n R a b e l a i s s erves an analagous f u n c t i o n to t ragedy , w i t h i t s "vict image" p r i n c i p l e on which the c a t h a r s i s depends, except tha t comic "v ic t ims" a r e not unique and i n d i v i d u a l , as a r e t r a g i c v i c t i m s , but common "types" (humours) whose t r a g i c f laws become t h e i r main c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (see p. 23). T h i s comic p r i n c i p l e of "vict image" i s i n f a c t a parody of t r a g i c v i c t i m a g e : the v i o l e n c e , c r u e l t y and danger that the comic v i c t i m s exper ience ( D i n d e n a u l t , the Chiguanous, Panurge) make us l augh ( i n s t e a d of c r y ) o n l y because of the r e l a t i v i s i n g na ture of t h i s parody, which opposes the i d e a l and the 3acred , p r o f o u n d l y a n t i t h e t i c a l a3 these a r e to the comic. 76 Notes 1 Here however I am not concerned with an "author" a3 "initiator of discursive practices" (Foucault, 146), but as a term under which not only l i terary indications of difference can be ascribed, such as style, but also ideological alignment in an his tor ical ly "charged" atmosphere. 2 Dorothy Coleman uses the term "envisaged reader" to indicate the relationship of the reader to the author's strategy (Coleman, 45-6). The term "postulated reader" might also be used to indicate either authorial strategy or the modern c r i t i c ' s "reconstitution" of a real reading public. The term of Iser, "implied reader," is however the most general and inclusive one. 3 Thi3 phrase of Victor Hugo, from Les Contemplations (VI, 23), actually refers to the "eclat de r ire enorme" of Rabelais rather than to his belly-image, but as Hugo elaborates elsewhere (in his Preface to Cromwell and in his book on Shakespeare) the belly-image i 3 the topographic centre of Rabelais' imagery. Bakhtin points this out in his "History of Laughter" chapter of his Rabelais (Bakhtin 1968, 123-8) but denies that Hugo understood the "deep optimism," "popular-festive nature," or "epic" style of this imagery. 4 Shlomith Rimmon points out that this term of Genette parallels the term "implied reader." (Rimmon, 54) 5 I am using story (histoire) to mean story "materials," what the Russian formalists called "fabel" and what Seymour Chatman opposes to discourse. For the corresponding terms in the narratologies of Barthes, Genette and Todorov, see the concordance provided by Rimmon (Rimmon, 35). 5 I am using the terminology provided by Wayne Booth in his The Rhetoric of Fiction. "Reliable commentary," according to Booth, is commentary which reflects the perspective of the implied author, not necessarily the perspective of the (reliable) narrator. Included in the taxonomy of i t s functions are "providing the facts" (summary), "molding beliefs," "relating particulars to the established norms," "heightening significance of events," and "manipulating mood" (Booth, 169- 205). 7 Booth, in the Afterword to the 1982 edition of his Rhetoric of Fict ion cites Sheldon Sack's work in revealing the rhetorical role of secondary characters employed by the implied 77 author to reinforce his perspective (Booth, 438). 8 Brecht's famous "Verfremdungseffekt," or "alienation effect," is meant to destroy the identification and therefore catharsis of the audience effected through dramatic mimesis, in order that the audience should be free from pathetic manipulation, their c r i t i c a l sp ir i t intact. For this reason his f i r s t collection of Schriften zum Theater (1957) wa3 subtitled "Uber eine nicht-aristotelische Dramatik." 9 I w i l l return to this in my second chapter. Keller claims that the rhetorical situation of oral storyteller is the key to modes of digression not only in the Coui l latr is story, but also in the narrative of the Quart Livre as a whole. 10 Booth, again in hi3 Afterword (see note 4 above), cites Peter Rabinowitz's work in making the crucial dist inction between "authorial audience" and "narrative audience" (Booth, 423). 11 Here Bergson's theory of laughter might be recalled, with i ts insistance on the importance of avoidance of sympathy with the comic character. 12 "Intersubjectivity" is a term which suggests both Sartre and Bakhtin, who insist upon the importance of safe-guarding the moral freedom of both author and reader (cf. Todorov, 90). Here I am simply using i t to reflect the interchange between (self- conscious though ironic) author and (respected though challenged) reader, which makes possible the mutual role-play in the reading of Rabelais. 13 "Living plot" is term used by "neo-Aristotelian" Wayne Booth, which reflects the theory of organicism f i r s t proposed by Aristotle in his Poetics (Aristotle, 52). 14 I am deliberately using the term "horizon of expectation," "Erwartungshorizon" in the nomenclature of the Rezeptionstheorie of the Constance school, in conjunction with the .reference to the real (historical) public of the Quart Livre, thereby suggesting that the reader implied by the text has something to do with this real public, and therefore with the his tor ical "situation" of the text. 15 This rather unflattering charaterisation of comic writers is again from the Poetics (Aristotle, 49). 16 Wolfgang Iser shows in his analysis of Smollet that the humour, whose origins had been in allegory (such as in Bunyan" s Pilgrim's Progress), can be used in the comic novel (Iser, 73- 4)). The connection between comic character flaw and humour. 78 however, i s my own suggestion. 17 Kenneth Burke, with his concern for rhetorical strategy and motivational situation ("dramatism") in l i terary form, sees form, whether "repetitive," "progressive," or "syllogistic," as a strategic response to the expectations of an audience. He also implutes a certain value to form working against the "categorical" expectations of l i terary convention (Burke 1953, 124-7; 167-70). 18 Jean Paris, however, does not mention the antecedent genre of heroic romance. He simply points out the "synchronic" and "diachronic" structural aspects of the five "foyers" around wich the five books of Rabelais are organised (Paris, 224-5). 19 Burke sees a l l of language as "symbolic action" and refuses to see art in isolation from i t s "appeal" in an h i s tor ic l context. Hi3 theory of the division between "essayistic," more subjective authors and "dramatic" authors (Burke 1953, 193-7), I have applied here to Rabelais. Writers l ike Rabelais or Diderot, a class of authors Burke does not mention, are "dramatic" authors operating in a lack of strong social consensus, usually (according to Burke) a condition for " e s s a y i 3 t i c " writers. 20 Kenneth Burke, against the formalism of the New C r i t i c s , developped a "dramatistic" method of l i terary analysis which regards poetic language as a mode of "symbolic action" not radically different from any other "rhetorical" strategy based in human "motives." This "symbolic action" is described in term.3 strongly reminiscent of Aristotle: "Act," "Scene," "Agent," "Agency," and "Purpose," are the terms of Burke's dramatistic "pentad" through which a l l descriptions of "symbolic action" based in human "motives," are f i l tered. 21 Following the method proposed by her husband, Gerard, Raymonde Debray-Genette, in the introductory paragraph of her essay "Du mode narratif dans les Trois Contes" (Revue d'histoire l i t t era ire de France: juillet-octobre 1981) say3 that the "grammaticality" of narrative, i 3 an effective "descriptive" and "metaphorical" way to understand, for instance, "focalisation" (subjunctive mode of the verb) and "omniscience" (indicative mood of the verb). Here though we wi l l l imit ourselves to "syntactical" effects determined by the "destinataire". 22 Keller sees the digressions in the Coui l latr is 3tory and the "suspense" elements in the Dindenault story as, respectively, "interruptions" and "prolongation" technique with a "time-killing" function, where, the effectiveness of the "time- ki l l ing" is measured by the retention of the audience'3 attention. He therefore imagines that the "written" character of the story is overshadowed by the " o r a l - 3 t o r y t e l l e r " 79 rhetorical device. (Keller, 18-19). 23 i t is not in the study of Rabelais, but in the study of Dostoyevski, that Bakhtin systematically catalogues the effects of "carnivalisation" in l iterature: in a 3 e n s e , a l l carnivalist ic "mesalliances," "profanation," parodie doubles, rites of "discrowning," and abolition of "hierarchical" relationships form a part of thi3 "monde a l'envers" which is the carnival (cf. Bakhtin 1973, 100-7). 24 This story is of course apocryphal, since nothing is know of the poet Francois Vi l lon in his old age. 25 Bakhtin describes this Saturnalian r i te as a "crowning- discrowning, " as an "ambivalent ritual" which expresses the "jolly re la t iv i ty of every system and order, every authority and every (hierarchical) position." (Bakhtin 1973, 102). 26 Rene Girard sees a certain dialect ic in operation with laughter, an effort to "deny reciprocity" and, at the same time, a restoration of "reciprocity." thus the "superiority" of laughter (emphasized by Bergson and Baudelaire), the feeling of difference from the object of r idicule , is replaced, i f convulsive laughter continues, by "creeping identity" between laughing subject and ridiculous object (Girard, 128-9). 27 Although Baudelaire see3 in the "satanic" nature of laughter an expression of superiority of man over man ("chez le lecteur, la joie de sa superiorite") or even nature, as with the "comigue absolu" or grotesque (Baudelaire, 993) he allows the possibi l i ty of a "double" nature of laughter, an ambiguity which would allow a redemptive kind of "faiblesse" as well as strength and "orgueil": . . . c'est avec le r ire que (l'hornme) adoucit quelquefois 3on coeur et 1'attire; car les phenomenes engendres par la chute deviendront les moyens du rachat. (Baudelaire, 978). 28 Bakhtin makes very clear, not only that "monde represent^" and "monde representant" should be dealt with separately, but also "real author" (what he calls "auteur individu") and "implied author" ("auteur-createur),as a matter of methodology (Bakhtin 1978, 394). He also separates two "chronotope3" (space-time relations) in the l i terary work that of the narrative and that of the narration, saying that the participation of the reader in the latter i l lustrates the penetration of the "real world" (monde representant), a "monde social qui evolue selon 1"Histoire." (Bakhtin 1978, 394-5) 29 Bergson situates his theory of the comic in a dialect ic of "tension" ("raideur") and "elasticite," the former being characteristic of the laughed-at object and the latter 80 characteristic of the laughing subject. The laughing subject for Bergson is "society," since laughter has a social function, that of the punishment ("chatiment") of "raideur" (Bergson, 14- 6). Emphasizing the "indifference" of the laughing "spectator", Bergson ignores the ambivalence and mimetic quality of laughter: he concentrates on the object of r idicule , and on how and why i t makes us laugh. 30 Pirandello actually distinguishes between the "comic" and the "humoristic," saying that the comic is the "awertimento del contrario," whereas the "humoristic" is the "sentimento del contrario," the former being external and the latter characterised by a "reflexion" (Pirandello, 146-7). Irony for him is "only verbal," saying one thing and meaning another. 31 The f u l l character of laughter is for Rabelais "popular- festive laughter," which stems of course from the Carnival, "the people laughing in the public square." (Bakhtin 1968, 474) 32 i am using "double" here to indicate a procedure of antithesis: that an idea (Nature) engenders i t s "antithetical double" (Anti-nature), creating "vividness" (a procedure remarked upon by Aristotle in his Rhetoric). 33 This term of Bakhtin tend3 to refer to the "serious," an unambiguous expression whose semantic authority resides in the speaker. The l y r i c a l genre lends i t se l f to the "monological," whereas narrative presumes the "dialogical," and includes parody, irony and other procedures which lead to ambiguity and perspectivism in interpretation of an utterance. A "monological context" is an unambiguously "serious" ideological context (cf. Bakhtin 1973, 150-69). 34 "Reduced" laughter, within the scheme of Bakhtin's historical degeneration of laughter in the l i terary genres, coincides, not suprisingly, with the rise of the bourgeoisie (cf. Bakhtin 1968, 101-2). 35 Along with "reduced laughter," when laughter ceases to "belong to the whole people" (Bakhtin 1968, 107), the topography of ambivalent, "public-festive" laughter changes as well: the comedy of manners, etc., with i t s cla33 divisions, privileges the drawing room, and the public square is left behind (Bakhtin 1973, 107-8). 36 in Language as Symbolic Action, Kenneth Burke defines man as the symbol-using (or misusing) animal who (among other things) is "goaded by the sp ir i t of hierarchy" (Burke 1966, 15- 16). The fact that Rabelais chooses the Belly as organising centre of his "world" and not the "head," i3 significant in that he opposes these "hierarchical goadings" as they organised themselves in the Gothic medieval culture, with i ts emphasis on 81 h i e r a r c h i c a l a u t h o r i t y . 37 The p r i n c i p a l of "victimage." mentioned a t l e n g t h i n the work of both Burke and Ren6 G i r a r d , i s an important one i n the a n a l y s i s of the e f f e c t s upon the reader of dramatic (or comic) c o n f l i c t , as w e l l as i n t h a n a l y s i s of a l l of what G i r a r d would c a l l "mimetic phenomena. " G i r a r d t r a c e s the cause of scapegoating to "mimetic r i v a l r y , " and has devoted h i s " e s s a y i s t i c " La V i o l e n c e et l e sacre (1977) to t h i s problem, using the t e x t s of Greek tragedy and anthropology. 38 wellek and Warren's Theory of L i t e r a t u r e defends l i t e r a r y theory ( p o e t i c s ) a 3 a necessary "organon of methods," i n " u n i v e r s a l terms," as a g a i n s t c r i t i c i s m and l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y , concerned w i t h the " i n d i v i d u a l i t y : of a work, p e r i o d , etc. (Wellek and Warren, 7). The a b s t r a c t i o n of " r u l e s of genre," etc. , would of course f a l l under the category of " l i t e r a r y theory." 39 The " h e t e r o - d i r e c t e d double-voiced word" (Bakhtin 1973, 164) i 3 i n f a c t the r e s u l t of the " d i a l o g i c " nature of n a r r a t i v e i t s e l f , augmented i n i t s e f f e c t s by p o l e m i c a l l y "charged" h i s t o r i c a l context ( c f . Bakhtin 1973, 153-63). 40 i n h i s essay on comedy, Rene G i r a r d forms a "comic hypothesis" i n which he proposes a g e n e r i c theory of comedy based upon reader-response, which depends upon an e s s e n t i a l ambiguity of d i s t a n c e and i d e n t i t y , a " l o s s of autonomy and s e l f - p o s session" ( G i r a r d , 128). 82 Works Cited Rabelais, Francois. Quart Livre . Tome Deuxieme of Oeuvres de Francois Rabelais Ed. Louis Moland. Paris: Garnier, 1950. 2-208. Books Aristotle. Poetics. Critical Theory since Plato. Ed. Hazard Adams. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1971. 48-66. Bakhtin, M i k h a i l . Rabelais and His World. Trans. Helene Iswolsky. Cambridge, Mass., and London: MIT Press, 1968. — . Problems of Dostovevsky's Poetics. Trans. R. W. Rotsel. New York: Ardis, 1973. — . Estheticrue et theorie du roman. Trad. Daria Olwier. Paris: Gallimard, 1978. Bergsen, Henri. Le rire: Essai sur la signification du comicrue. Paris: Presses unversitaires de France, 1967. Booth, Wayne C. The Rhetoric of Fiction. Chicago: Univers i ty of Chicago Press, 1983. Burke, Kenneth. Counter-statement. Los Altos, California: Hermes, 1953. 83 — . The Philosophy of L i te ra ry Form: Studies in Symbolic Action. New York: Vintage, 1957. — . Language as Symbolic Action: ESsavs on Life. Li terature and Method. Berkeley: Univers i ty of California Press, 1966. Caillois, Roger. M a n and the Sacred. Trans. M e y e r Bar ash. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1959. Coleman, Dorothy. Rabelais: A Critical Study in Prose Fiction. London: Cambridge Univers i ty Press, 1971. Girard, Rene. "To double business bound": Essays on Literature. Mimesis , and Anthropology. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins UP, 1978. Iser, Wolfgang. The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1974. Keller, A b r a h a m . The Telling of Tales in Rabelais: Aspects of his Nar ra t ive A r t . Frankfurt : Klosterman, 1963. Paris, Jean . Rabelais au futur. Paris: Seuil, 1970. Wellek, Rene and Aus t in Warren . Theory of Literature. Mew York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1956. Todorov, Tsvetan. Critique de la critique: u n roman d' appr en tissage. Paris: Seuil, 1984. 84 Articles Baudelaire, Charles. "De 1'essence du r i re et generalement du comique dans les arts plastiques." Oeuvres completes. Paris: Gal l imard (Bibliotheque de la Pleiade), 1961. 975-993. Foucault, Michel . "What is a n author?" Critical Theory since 1965. Ed. Hazard Adams and Leroy Searle. Talahassee, Florida: Florida State UP, 1986. 138-48. Pirandello, Luigi. "L'umorismo." Saggi. Poesie. Scrit t i . Varie . Rome: Mondadori , 1960. 17-60. Rimmon, Shlomith . "A Comprehensive Theory of Narrat ive." Poetics and Theory of Li terature (1976): 33-62.

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 6 0
Germany 1 11
City Views Downloads
Ashburn 3 0
Unknown 2 12
Frankfurt am Main 1 0
Los Angeles 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097895/manifest

Comment

Related Items

Admin Tools

To re-ingest this item use button below, on average re-ingesting will take 5 minutes per item.

Reingest

To clear this item from the cache, please use the button below;

Clear Item cache