UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Allegory, allegorical interpretation, and literary experience : essays in criticism. Neufeldt, Jerry Donald 1968

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1968_A8 N48.pdf [ 5.93MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0104450.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0104450-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0104450-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0104450-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0104450-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0104450-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0104450-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0104450-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0104450.ris

Full Text

ALLEGORY, ALLEGORICAL IN TERPRETATION, AND LITERARY EXPERIENCE: ESSAYS IN CRITICISM JERRY DONALD NEUFELDT. B;A., University of B r i t i s h Columbia,; 1966 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN. PARTIAL. FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF M.A. i n the Department of English We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June,, 1968 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and Study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department or by h.iis r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Department 1 A B S T R A C T : 1 The following thesis w i l l focus on the close r e l a t i o n between allegory and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Because interpretation! proceeds from, the viewpoint that the l i t e r a r y work i s essen-t a i l l y a statement about some aspect of experience, i t at-tempts^ to reduce the l i t e r a r y work to an argumentative statev ment. This thesis w i l l argue that i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s , , there-fore, a mode of a l l e g o r i z a t i o n . following from the argument that i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s ; a l l e g o r i z a t i o n , , t h i s thesis w i l l point to facto r s suggesting that the i n t e r p r e t i v e a l l e g o r i c a l approach i s a n t i t h e t i c a l to l i t e r a r y expression. Interpreta tion generally f a i l s to recog-nize the d i s t i n c t i o n : between philosophical discourse and" l i t e r a r y expression, or between, the logic- of discourse and' the l o g i c of na r r a t i v e . Further,, a l l e g o r i z a t i o n has a r e s t -r i c t i v e e f f e c t on l i t e r a r y expression, i n that an int e r p r e t i v e framework l i m i t s the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of the suggestivee rami f i c a t i o n s of the l i t e r a r y t a l e . The r e s t r i c t i v e e f f e c t of a l l e g o r i z a t i o n can he r e l a t e d to s o c i o l o g i c a l and c u l t u r a l f a c t o r s — facto r s that often determine the d i r e c t i o n of l i t e r a r y response. The Renaissances furnishes an example of a l l e g o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m ; that .interprets i n order to see l i t e r a r y works i n terms of the presiding c u l t u r a l - p h i l o s o p h i c a l system. Ki r t h e r , the example of the Renaissance suggests that we might look for a p a r a l l e l i n the conduct of modern c r i t i c i s m . i i A l l e g o r i z a t i o n i i n moderm c r i t i c i s m can be seen i n in t e r p r e t a t i o n s derived from Freudian,, Marxist, or C h r i s t i a n Humanist viewpoints. This thesis w i l l argue that such i n t e r -pretive c r i t i c i s m begins from outside the l i t e r a r y work,, for i t sees the l i t e r a r y work i n terms of the vocabulary of the c r i t i c ' s system.. Examples of approaches to Moby Sick w i l l be advanced as evidence of interpretation! that r e s u l t s i n a l l e g o r i z a t i o n . A further example of the way allegory guides the response of the reader can be seen i n The Pilgrim* s Progress*. Chapters I and I I I w i l l argue that we cant d i s t i n g u i s h between the tale and the allegory, and suggest that the presence of the a l l e g -o r i c a l guide can; be traced to e x t r a - l i t e r a r y motivations. Further,.when we attempt to reconcile the tale and the allegory, we see more c l e a r l y the irrelevance of the a l l e g o r i c a l frame-work. S a t i r i c allegory,, however, presents a unique problem* i n that allegory i n sat i r e i s generally not obtrusive.. Chapter I V w i l l poin* to f a c t o r s , such as the s a t i r i s t * ss viewpoint,, that p r o h i b i t the allegory from becoming a r e s t r i c -t i v e framework, as i s seem i n s a t i r i c a l l e g o r i e s such as? Animal Farm and Brave New World. I m opposition!, to the i n t e r p r e t i v e - a l l e g o r i c a l approach t h i s thesis w i l l argue that the open response i s more i n keeping with the demands of the l i t e r a r y work.. The freer and more contemplative attitude of the open; response dispenses i i i with the search f o r the hiddem meanings of l i t e r a r y expres-sion.. C r i t i c s such as Kazin, Lawrence*. Sontag, and Rahv point to the atti t u d e s and practise of the a n t i - a l l e g o r i c a l approach.. GONTEMITS Chapter: Page I . Preliminary D i s t i n c t i o n s • 1. I I . A l l e g o r i c a l C r i t i c i s m : Translations of Moby Dick 12 I I I . Author as A l l e g o r i c a l C r i t i c : The Pilgrim's  Progress • * 37 I V . Allegory Made Subservient: S a t i r i c Allegory. 56 V. The Open) Response: The U n f o r t i f i e d C r i t i c . . . 72 Conclusion 88 Bibliography. 92 Appendix. A l l e g o r i c a l Criticismi: A OulturaH Motivation 96 I wish to acknowledge the generous aid of Br. R. Seamon i n the preparation: of t h i s t h e s i s . Chapter I Preliminary D i s t i n c t i o n s The purpose of the following chapters i s to discuss the r e l a t i o n s h i p between: in t e r p r e t i v e allegory and l i t e r a t u r e . In addition! to the usual sense of the term,., I am using allegory to r e f e r to interpretive, appro ache ss such as Preudianism,, Marx-ism,, or Christian: Humanism. Further, 1 ami suggesting that these i n t e r p r e t i v e approaches are similar in. e f f e c t to the use of allegory by the l i t e r a r y a r t i s t . This thesis w i l l suggest that an i n t e r p r e t i v e framework, imposed by either author or c r i t i c : * i s e s s e n t i a l l y a l i e m to l i t e r a r y experience, unless the i n t e r p r e t i v e aspect of allegory i s smothered*, ass i n the case of s a t i r e . A basic proposition, of t h i s thesis,, then, i s that allegory i s part of the world of f a c t and discourse. Allegory proceeds i n terms of l o g i c a l frameworks and affirmation, of f a c t s . The world of the l i t e r a r y work i s quite different,, i n that i t does not proceed on the basis of discursive l o g i c . True, the l i t e r a r y work has i t s ownv logic*, as i s seen,, f o r example, i n ; the " l o g i c " of i t s structure and unity.. But as Frye suggests, the l o g i c of prose f i c t i o n i s based on narra-t i v e p r i n c i p l e s , while the l o g i c c o f discursive prose i s based; on> the p r i n c i p l e s of the proposition."*" Further, l i t e r a r y expression i s b a s i c a l l y suggestive in, that i t does not make a d e f i n i t e statement about experience. 2 The hypothetical nature of l i t e r a t u r e ensures that i t w i l l always he suggestive,, as opposed to the more d e f i n i t e nature of discourse: "Literature presents not an affirmation^ or repudiation of f a c t s , hut a series of hypothetical possib-i l i t i e s . ' 1 2 Because of i t s hypothetical, suggestive nature, l i t e r a r y expression: i s always expanding in-terms of s i g n i f i -cance: "Language can thus be regarded as either a mediumi of communication, or as a mediumi which can, : while communicating, simultaneously expand the significance of the communication!. The l a t t e r i s the l i t e r a r y use of language and does not, of course, confine i t s e l f to prose f i c t i o n . ^ inus I would des-cribe l i t e r a r y expression as b a s i c a l l y open-ended, i n that; i t i s more suggestive than a f f i r m a t i v e . Even though l i t e r a r y expression i s generally accepted as suggestive rather than affirmative,, one can r e a d i l y point to attempts to define the expanding significance of a given l i t e r a r y work.. For example,,witness the constant e f f o r t s to name ani equivalent for the whale i n Moby Dick., The f a l s e assumption; int such, e f f o r t s i s that a symbol must have am equivalent that can be defined i n discursive terms. II do not mean to suggest that the whale does not have symbolic; s i g n i f i -cance. But a symbol need not be part of ani argument. In f a c t , such a symbol would merely be a signpost erected to i l l u s t r a t e a moral. Oni the contrary, even though a symbol has more than l i t e r a l significance,: i t cam remain i n d e f i n i t e . There are minor a l l e g o r i e s in:Moby Dick, but these are not s u f f i c i e n t to 3 contain the symbol. As the novel progresses,, the whale gains si g n i f i c a n c e , and the reader too i s caught up with the excitement of the hunt. But the reader: does not know what exactly he i s pursuing. To presenct an i n t e r p r e t i v e framework i n such a case would l i m i t the novel and the symbol of the whale. Bat the q u a l i t y of open^-endedness or expanding s i g n i f i -cance i s not peculiar to works that focus on: c e n t r a l symbols such as the whale i n Moby Dick.. The following chapters proceed from the viewpoint that t h i s q u a l i t y i s basic to l i t e r a r y ex--pression., In M e l v i l l e ' s case, because of the temptation presented by the whale for the a l l e g o r i z i n g c r i t i c : , we become p a r t i c u l a r l y aware of the necessity of allowing the l i t e r a r y meaning the freedom, to expand.. But the q u a l i t y of openness i s also e s s e n t i a l to works such as The Adventures of Augie March — a novel with no central symbol.. I f we t r y to translate the wanderings of Augie March into a convenient mythic pattern, we can soon l i m i t the ex-panding p o s s i b i l i t i e s of the work. I f „ however, the reader • ' ft allows the various episodes to grow uponi him*, the impact of: the novel transcends any attempt to categorize i t . f There are various patterns i n The Adventures of Augie March such as that of the wandering explorer,, and thus the reference to CTolumbus at the end i s appropriate and e f f e c t i v e . But even here the pat term i s more suggestive tham conclusive. Bellow's novel! and M e l v i l l e ' s are v a s t l y d i f f e r e n t . In one case we focuss 4 car. a c e n t r a l powerful symbol,, which, takes us i n t o ethereal wanderings,, while i n the other, we are generally on. a much more na t u r a l i s t i e s l e v e l * . And yet,, i n both.cases the q u a l i t y of open-endedness i s important. The q u a l i t y of open-endedness distinguishes l i t e r a r y expression fromidiscursive statement.. L i t e r a t u r e i n i t s s purest formi would avoid a l i i comment on " l i f e " or experience,, or at l e a s t any d i r e c t comment.- But im. practi'se l i t e r a t u r e is> not often, t h i s "pure" and possibry t h i s i s a good thing.. Oh the other hand,, when; l i t e r a t u r e makes a d i r e c t statement about experience, such as when, i t recommends a c e r t a i n pattern: of behavior,,it becomes allegory or discursive statement.. Thee open-ended l i t e r a r y work presents i t s e l f as a kind of compro-mise.. An i n d e f i n i t e symbol might point; in. the direction! of a* c e r t a i n meaning or statement,, but i t neverc completess such a statement.. Rather than, judging t h i s to be a lack of c l a r i t y and preciseness on the part of l i t e r a r y language,, one cam see i t as part of the suggestive,, expanding and u n s e t t l i n g e f f e c t of l i t e r a r y expression that can only be appreciated i f -tile reader i s w i l l i n g to l a y aside h i s discursive and argumenta-tive frame of mind. Thus whemliterature comes i n contact: with an; a l l e g o r i c a l l frame of mind,, i t cam at l e a s t have the e f f e c t of exploding the set patterns.. When a critic;attempts to define a meaning for the l i t e r a r y work, he approaches i t from an. outside position.. That i s , , the a l l e g o r i z i n g c r i t i c might begin from h i s t o r i c a l 5 or sociological: f a c t s , and then move towards the l i t e r a r y work,, with the intention: of f i n d i n g s o c i o l o g i c a l or h i s t o r i -c a l information! or patterns. But i t i s e s s e n t i a l to r e a l i z e that such an approach always "begins fromi the world of d i s -course outside the l i t e r a r y work: "Literature, must "be ap-proached c e n t r i f u g a l l y , . from the outside,, i f we are to get any f a c t u a l significance out of it".. Thus an. h i s t o r i a n could learn, much from.a r e a l i s t i c novel; written in. the period he i s studying,, i f he knows how to allow for i t s hypothetical structure., I t would not do much violence to customary language to use the term.'allegorical' f o r t h i s whole deecrip-t i v e l e v e l of meaning,, and say, for instance,, that a r e a l i s t i c : novel was an: allegory of the l i f e of i t s time.I15 As f r y e goes on to suggest,, t h i s procedure i s legitimatec as long as the historian, or s o c i o l o g i s t r e a l i z e s that what he i s describing i s the h i s t o r i c a l or s o c i o l o g i c a l background,, and not the essence of the l i t e r a r y work. The problem;with such a l l e g o r i -c a l c r i t i c i s m i s that i t tends to assume that the f a c t u a l background material i s the author's meaning or statement.. Further, the a r t i s t himself can write i n an a l l e g o r i c a l manner. But even: i f he does so,, he s t i l l creates h i s hypo-t h e t i c a l world of f i c t i o n , , and thus we read the a l l e g o r i s t ' s work, even: i f we dismiss the allegory. The writer of allegory i s i n : essence another a l l e g o r i c a l critic:,; for he too recog-n i z e s the d i s t i n c t i o n between the l i t e r a r y work and the world of discourse: "A writer i s being a l l e g o r i c a l when he himself 6 i n d i c a t e s a continuous r e l a t i o n s h i p of h i s central hypotheti-c a l structure to a set of external f a c t s , or what he assumes to he f a c t s . This continuous counterpoint between- the saying and the c e n t r i f u g a l meaning i s c a l l e d a l l e g o r y o n l y when the r e l a t i o n i i s direct."* 7 The d i s t i n c t i o n ! between the l i t e r a r y work and the external f a c t s s i s essential,, because i t makes i t possible f o r the reader to respond to the t a l e , even though he might r e j e c t the a l l e g o r i c a l framework. B a s i c a l l y , the imposition of am a l l e g o r i c a l framework on a tale can i be traced to the desire to translate the tale i n t o discursive terms. The explanations for such a desire, are numerous. On one hand,, there might simply, be a lack of aware-ness of the d i s t i n c t difference between discursive and l i t e r -ary expression.. On the other hand,, the t r a n s l a t o r - c r i t i c might be interested i n channelling the l i t e r a r y work imwhat he considers to be a desirable d i r e c t i o n . In i t s more serious form, such am e f f o r t can become a form of censorship. To t h i s point the distinction, between l i t e r a r y expres-sion; and discursive statement or argument have b a s i c a l l y been, pictured as "being c l e a r l y separated.. This,, of course,; i s not always the case. A l i t e r a r y work might move betweem the poles of expression. At times Moby Dick seems to be a l l e g o r i c a l . For example,, the names of the ships that the Pequod meets : appear to have a l l e g o r i c a l overtones. But I would suggest; that the purpose of the a l l e g o r i c a l overtones i s to continue? 7 to stimulate the i n t e r e s t of the reader. That i s , the read-er returns to the l i t e r a r y work,, because he senses the added symbolic significance of l i t e r a r y expression. Such a r e s -ponse,, however, i s not necessarily synonymous with a l l e g o r i -c a l explication:. Even i f we see more than l i t e r a l significance i n the whale i n Moby Dick,, we need not, therefore, define that s i g n i f i c a n c e . Further, c r i t i c i s m too might move between the two poles. As suggested already, background material might be necessary for more adequate l i t e r a r y appreciation. But i t i s e s s e n t i a l that we move ultimately away from the pole where we view l i t e r -ature as an a l l e g o r i c a l comment on " l i f e " , - to an appreciation of the separate world of l i t e r a r y expression. As Frye suggests, we move from seeing l i t e r a t u r e as a commentary on l i f e to r e s -ponding to l i t e r a t u r e as a unique language: For we think also of l i t e r a t u r e at f i r s t as a commentary on an: external " l i f e " or " r e a l i t y . " But just as in. math-ematics we have to go from: three apples to three, ; and fromi a square f i e l d to a square, so in; reading Jane Austen: we have to go from the f a i t h f u l r e f l e c t i o n of English] society to the novel,, and pass from:literature as a sym-bo l to l i t e r a t u r e as an autonomous language. And j u s t as mathematics e x i s t s i n a mathematical universe which i s at the circumference of the common: f i e l d of experi-ence, so l i t e r a t u r e e x i s t s i n - a verbal universe,, which i s not a commentary on l i f e and r e a l i t y , but contains:; l i f e and r e a l i t y i n a systerna of verbal r e l a t i o n s h i p s . This conception: of a verbal universe, in: which: l i f e and r e a l i t y are inside l i t e r a t u r e , , and not outside i t and being described or represented or approached or symbolized by i t , , seems to me the f i r s t postulate of a properly organized c r i t i c i s m . 8 An attempt to j u s t i f y allegory as l i t e r a r y expression: 8 can be seem i n Edwin. Honig's discussion of allegory.9 Honig makes a basic d i s t i n c t i o n ! between, the concept of allegory and the manifestation of allegory i n a l i t e r a r y work. Honig 1 ss thesis i s that i n practise allegory i s much l e s s d i s t a s t e f u l than: i n theory. In fact,, Honig f e e l s that allegory cam be an a e s t h e t i c a l l y pleasing mode of l i t e r a r y expression: "Birfc i n the p r a c t i c a l completion of i t s design, the a l l e g o r i c a l work dispenses with the concept of allegory, as something precom-ceived, i n order to achieve the f u l l e s t f i c t i o n a l manifesta-ti o n of l i f e , fllpgory, which i s s ymbolic i n method,, i s r e a l i s t i c : i m aim and i n the content of i t s perception.!' 1^ The v a l i d i t y of Honig's d i s t i n c t i o n , between the concept of allegory and the manif e station of allegory i m imaginative l i t e r a t u r e i s debatable, for the concept should be derived from: what one observes i n the l i t e r a r y work.. The a r t i s t , i n using allegory, determines i t s nature,-and thus i f one finds:: the concept d i s t a s t e f u l , I suspect that t h i s might be because of previous experience of allegory i n l i t e r a r y works.. Furthermore, Honig's description: of allegory suggests* that the a l l e g o r i s t i s caught i n a curious game of being pursued and pursuing. On the one hand, the a l l e g o r i s t begins with an idea or argument he wishes to i l l u s t r a t e . On the other hand, he sets out to forget that idea and to discover i t i n the course of h i s creation; he i s pursued by the preconceived idea as he attempts to discover i t . . The al l e g o r i s t , . t h e n , i s caught looking both ways, and conse-9 quently, one cam r e a d i l y under stand why countercurrents might develop i n h i s allegory. Honig attempts to j u s t i f y allegory to the contemporary reader byy destroying our preconceptions about a l l e g o r i c a l l i t e r a t u r e . He hopes that the end r e s u l t w i l l be our accep-tance of allegory as a legitimate mode of expression for the creative imagination^ But I suspect that what Honig describes as the working out of allegory i n r e a l i s t i c ? f i c t i o n i s actu-a l l y a description of the a l l e g o r i s t overcoming the l i m i t a -t i ons of the a l l e g o r i c a l mode, or the process of the trans-formation- of allegory as i n t e r p r e t i v e framework or discourse into l i t e r a r y e x p r e s s i o n . 1 1 A further problem i n Honig 1s argument i s h i s equation of symbolic l i t e r a t u r e and allegory. Honig argues for the emergence of theme or meaning from the concrete action of the l i t e r a r y work, as opposed to the use of theme as an a r b i t r a r i l y imposed a r t i c l e of f a i t h . Further, Honig suggests that emergence of the theme from: a concrete basis, the theme as the end towards which the whole l i t e r a r y work moves,; i s the characteristic:method f o r a l l symbolic art.?-^ One has no quarrel with Honig 1 s description: of the emergence of the theme i n e f f e c t i v e symbolic: a r t . What i s questionable i s the argument that allegory i s a symbolic: mode,, and therefore,,an e f f e c t i v e l i t e r a r y medium. I suspect that once allegory becomes e f f e c t i v e symbolic art*, i t ceases to be allegory.". When the a l l e g o r i c a l framework i s 10 l e f t behind, the creative w r i t e r / i s free to develop h i s theme organically, hut he w i l l no longer write allegory. To say that t h i s l a t t e r r e s u l t i s s t i l l allegory only confuses the issue,, because then one must say that a l l symbolic a r t i s al l e g o r y . In the process of attempting to j u s t i f y allegory, Honig takes a great deal of l i b e r t y with the meaning of the term.. He appears to be intent on adding to allegory c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of myth, archetypes,,and i n d e f i n i t e symbols. The end r e s u l t i s the creation of allegory as a close synonym.for e f f e c t i v e symbolic a r t , but i n . the process one loses-a necessary c r i t i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n . The following chapters, then, are presented as r e l a t e d essays that focus oni various facets of the c o n f l i c t between: the i n t e r e s t s of allegory and l i t e r a r y expression. Chapter II focuses on i n t e r p r e t i v e - a l l e g o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m of Moby  Dick. Chapter I i r focuses on the separate i n t e r e s t s of a l l e -gory and the tale i n : a l i t e r a r y allegory: The P i l g r i m 1 s Progress. Chapter IV i s a discussion of allegory as e f f e c t i v e l i t e r a r y expression i n s a t i r i c allegory. Chapter V focuses on c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the open, response, i n contrast to a l l e g -o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m . The appendix points to c u l t u r a l motiva-tions i n a l l e g o r i c a l ; c r i t i c i s m . 11 CHAPTER I FOOTNOTES Northrop Erye,, "Levels of Meaning i n Literature,"KKs, XII (1950)* 2 5 2 . 2 I b i d . , 249. ^David Daiches,, A Stady of Lit e r a t u r e (New York: W. Wv Norton & Company, Inc., 1964"T> •> P»- 39 • % b t e Daiches 1 comment on the cumulative e f f e c t of expanding significance i m prose: "Im prose writing i t gener-a l l y takes time to achieve the proper e f f e c t : there must be a group of patterned incidents, rather than.a single incident, for prose i s a medium which,,compared with poetry, achieves i t s e f f e c t expansively rather than i n t e n s i v e l y , depending l e s s on sudden •explosions' of meaning i n the reader's mind than on the progressive fusion of retrospect and anticipation!, i n a more or l e s s l e i s u r e l y manner" (A Study of L i t e r a t u r e , p. 37). " ~~ 5 Prye, "Levels," 250. See also The Educated Imagination (Toronto: Canadian] Broadcasting Corporation, 1963)» P«-53. 6 Prye, "Levels," 250. 7 I b i d : Prye, "The Function of Criticism; at the Present Time," UTQ, XIX (1949),, 13-142 9 / Dark Gonceit (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1959). 1 0 I b i d . , p'. 3. A F o r further discussion of t h i s idea, see commentss r e l a t i n g to Frank Kermode's The Romantic Image, i n the introduction, to Chapter I I I . 1 2 H o n i g , p. 177. 12 CHAPTER I I ALLEGORICAL CRITICISM: TRANSLATIONS OP MOBY DICK The c o n f l i c t between the i n t e r e s t s of a l l e g o r y and l i t e r a r y e xpression i s evident i n a l a r g e p a r t of modern c r i t i c i s m . Although the c r i t i c a l approaches i n i questioni do-not see themselves as a l l e g o r i c a l approaches,- t h e i r i n t e r -p r e t a t i o n s suggest t h a t t h e y , , i n e f f e c t , a l l e g o r i z e l i t e r a r y e x p r e s s i o n . Examples of such approaches are the Freudian, M a r x i s t , and Christian:Humanist i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of l i t e r -ary works. Reading such c r i t i c i s m , one observes that these approaches begin: froma a p o s i t i o m outside the l i t e r a r y work. That i s , the v i s i o n of these a l l e g o r i c a l c r i t i c s i s always coloured by t h e i r systems of viewing l i t e r a t u r e and e x p e r i -ence,, and consequently, they f a i l to openly confront the l i t e r a r y work'. The vocabulary of the systems of i n t e r p r e t a -ti o n : a c t s as a p r o t e c t i v e h a r r i e r , , c h a n n e l l i n g the impulse of l i t e r a r y expression i n the d i r e c t i o n : t h a t the system: pre-s c r i b e s . B r i e f l y , , t h e response r e f e r r e d to i n the preceding paragraph should be separated from other trends i n modem c r i t i c i s m : that have greater r e s p e c t f o r l i t e r a r y e xpression. For example, the f o r m a l i s t school of c r i t i c i s m : , at l e a s t , , attempts to begin w i t h i n the l i t e r a r y work, by p o i n t i n g to 13 rhythms and patterns that characterize the unique q u a l i t y of l i t e r a r y expression. Frye, too,., works with a systematic approach to l i t e r a t u r e , hut again, h i s system; proceeds fromi within, i n that he attempts to see l i t e r a t u r e as a separate universe of l i t e r a r y forms and patterns, giving r i s e to a systematic: science of criticism*' 1" Whatever the f a u l t s of Frye's systemi and that of the Formalist c r i t i c s might he, they at l e a s t approach the l i t e r a r y work from within,, i n ani attempt to avoid seeing l i t e r a t u r e as an. a l l e g o r i c a l comment on " l i f e " ; Focusing on-a novel as p r i m a r i l y a work of the creative imagination! i s not tantamount to saying that a c r i t i c must; only eulogize a work of a r t i n rapturous g e n e r a l i t i e s con-cerning the i n t u i t i v e nature of a r t i s t i c i n s i g h t . IC must admit,, though,, that I favour the view that there a lways i s some aspect at the core of a l i t e r a r y work which cannot he stated i n terms of discursive meaning. Therefore, the c r i t i c ' s emphasis should he more oni r e a l i z a t i o n and appreci-ation of patterns and rhythms that comprise the narrative structure and logic.;of works such as Mohy Dick. Further, the c r i t i c should not forget the simple axiom; that the processes of a r t are based on i n t u i t i o n rather than on systematic r a t i o n a l thought... I f the critic-would curb hiss c u r i o s i t y , he might emerge with a clearer picture of the a r t i s t and h i s work: 1 4 ...one soon„ comes to a point at which i t i s wise to ask i f the pursuit of high colored exegetical discoveries,, l i k e the pursuit of the White Whale himself, may not end i n mere negation.. The v i c e of c r i t i c i s m ; i s c u r i o s i t y . I t has been, since the nineteenth century. And i t i s a deadly v i c e , for i n the desire to know everything the c r i t i c endan-gers h i s capacity for concretely r e a l i z i n g anything. That i s to say, while the accumulating data p i l e s up i n h i s books, there i s l i k e l y to be a relaxation; of relevance, and the image of the a r t i s t i s l i k e l y to be supplanted i n the c r i t i c ' s mind by a f e t i s h image corresponding to the l i v i n g creator only i n . inaccurate:; and misleading ways. 2 Not only i s the dogmatic; exegetical approach often, i r r e l e -vant; more seriously, i t usually, turns the work of a r t into an allegory. In.order to illuminate the weaknesses of a l l e g o r i c a l -i n t e r p r e t i v e c r i t i c i s m , t h i s chapter w i l l focus on repres-entative i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of Moby Dick. This novel i s a good basis for a discussion; of a l l e g o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m , because in . approaching Moby Dick,, the c r i t i c : i s confronted with a l i t e r a r y work in: which: a central symbol, forms the core. The imaginative impact of Moby- Dick can;be traced to the suggestiveness of the central i n d e f i n i t e symbol — a suggestiveness which continually expands as the novel progresses. Whatever approach the c r i t i c : might take,-he. must not circumscribe the ramifiicstions of a symbol such: as Moby Dick,. because when: t h i s happens he i s diminishing the imaginative impact of the l i t e r a r y work he i s c r i t i c * i z i n g . , The attempt to elucidate the meaning of l i t e r a r y works 15? a l l too often r e s u l t s i n the t r a n s l a t i o n of a l i t e r a r y work into a system, of thought'.. What happens i n the imaginative work i s translated i n t o economic;,, psychological, or religiouss terms by the c r i t i c . I f t h i s translation i s c a r r i e d through: to any great length, .the l i t e r a r y work soon becomes .an: allegory,, as the systemi imposed by the c r i t i c ; becomes the a l l e g o r i c a l framework. Such translation, i s c l e a r l y evident i n c r i t i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of Moby Dick. This novel has been: readx as a d i a t r i b e against God, as a parable on the v i r t u e s of humility before God, as a parable of the r u i n of c a p i t a l i s t i c : c i v i l i z a t i o n , . and as a story of innocent homo-sexual love'. In: attempting to define the meaning of Moby Dick, Howard Vincent;:advances a dogmatic C h r i s t i a n interpretation: 3 of the novel. A b r i e f summary of h i s interpretation: w i l l help to focus on the l i m i t a t i o n s of h i s c r i t i c a l method. For Vincent, Father Mapple's sermon:is central to an i n t e r -pretation of the n o v e l V i n c e n t takes the sermon at face value and suggests that the characters in. Moby Dick are to be judged by the implications of the sermon; each character: i s to be judged according to h i s deviation from: or adherence to the p r i n c i p l e s enunciated by Father Mapple. The novel represents M e l v i l l e ' s attempt to work out the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the i n d i v i d u a l soul to God, because M e l v i l l e ' s attitude i s the same as Father Mapple's."-' 16 Vincent also sees Ahab's destruction i n terms of h i s a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Ahab;, unlike Jonah,,, does not repent, and thus Ahab i s destroyed while Ishmael l i v e s . Thus Vincent f e e l s that M e l v i l l e i s arguing that the i n d i v -i d u a l should have l i b e r t y , , b u t l i k e Milton's i n d i v i d u a l , Father Map pie's " selfhood " i s only attained by submission! to God. 6 Vincent's a l l e g o r i c a l and dogmatic;.;interpretatiom of Ahab can be seen c l e a r l y from; the following quotation: From h i s Father Mapple's eloquent and passionate affirmation the re st of Moby Dick unfold s. Ahab no l e s s than Father Mapple i s i n searchiof an Ab-solute,, be i t s name God or Moby Dick,, but unlikes the whaleman-preacher,. Ahab; acknowledges no law but h i s own; h i s search w i l l be carried on; i n s e l f -assertion, not in: self-submission. In the early, unrepentant Jonah, Ahab has been, prefigured. Ahab defies God; h i s hybris i s the a n t i t h e s i s of Jonah'ss submission. Great as Ahab; i s , he i s not,, to borrow a phrase from;Keats,-"magnanimous enough to annihi-l a t e s e l f S t r i v i n g to be God himself, or i n wor-shiping f a l s e gods (even as the Ahab; of the Old. Testament worshiped Baal), Ahab w i l l never know de l i g h t . "Delight," Father Mapple states s i g n i f i -cantly and memorably, "can only be to him who has striven;to be God's." Not to him who s t r i v e s to be God. Ahab should have been one of the s i l e n t wor-shipers at the Seaman's Bethe1.7 M e l v i l l e ' s argument,, as interpreted by Vincent, i s very similar to that: of Milton's, i n that Father Mapple's sermon i s close to Milton's doctrine of r i g h t reason. In f a c t , the; end r e s u l t of Vincent's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s that Moby Dick becomes predominantly*an argument comparable to Paradise  Lost, i n i t s conscious and s p e c i f i c i n t e n t of ju s t i f y i n g ; the 17' ways of God to men. Vincent's statement about M e l v i l l e ' s theology i s too a l l e g o r i c a l l y oriented to account for what happens i n the novel^ more s p e c i f i c a l l y , to describe M e l v i l l e ' s attitude to Ahab and Ishmael ^  M e l v i l l e invests Ahab with considerable n o b i l i t y . Further, Ahab? emerges as a f o r e c e f u l character, p r e c i s e l y because M e l v i l l e sympathetically i d e n t i f i e s with h i s hero. To suggest that Ahab; should have been a mute and docile worshiper at the l o c a l chapel; implies a renunciation of the sympathies that M e l v i l l e projects into Ahab. One wonders how much of Vincent's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Ahab stems from a desire to avoid the implications of M e l v i l l e ' s sym-Q pathetic: treatment of Ahabi Ishmael ±QO i s not so good an: orthodox Christian; as Vincemt would have us believe. True,. Ishmael's language i s often pious. But Ishmael i s also involved i n scenes where: h i s piety:could be c a l l e d into question by the orthodox prelate* For example, Ishmael suggests that he made the: following observatiom i n admonishing Queequeg about the rigours of h i s Ramadan: "In one word, Queequeg, said I,, rather d i g r e s s i v e l y ; h e l l i s an idea f i r s t born: on. am un-digested apple-dumpling; and since then perpetuated through the hereditary dyspepsias nurtured by Ramadans." On the other hand, we do not need to pounce upon such statements as; evidence of an a n t i - C h r i s t i a n framework. 18 When Vincent begins to i n t e r p r e t Moby Dick, he trans-l a t e s M e l v i l l e ' s vision, into the v i s i o n of an orthodox C h r i s t i a n , and M e l v i l l e ' s novel becomes a moral exemplum: on: the v i r t u e s of submission! before the Puritan God,. Because Vincent attempts to see Moby Dick im terms of a discursive statement, he a l l e g o r i z e s the novel. A second i n t e r p r e t a t i o n which attempts to work out a very d e f i n i t e meaning for the whole of Moby Dick i s that of Lawrance Thompson.1^ Again: t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n takes a r i g i d l viewpoint towards the novel, and the r e s u l t i s that the sym-bolism!, including that of the whale, becomes f i x e d . In essence, Thompson! s interpretation, makes another allegory of Moby Dick. After having followed h i s in t e r p r e t a t i o n throughout h i s study of Moby Dick, Thompson: has l i t t l e freedom^ im suggesting a viewpoint about M e l v i l l e . Thompson, of necess-i t y , concludes that M e l v i l l e continued to be dependent on; the G a l v i n i s t i c concept of God — at f i r s t he honoured God im terms of love; then he saw GM i m terms of hate.1**" Ahab'ss 12 quest i s thus an a l l e g o r i c a l revenge p l o t directed at God. Thus, according to Thompson, M e l v i l l e could never go beyond the reacting stage, : and consequently h i s a r t suffered be causee of a l a c k of detachment.1-^ Im reading Thompson's c r i t i c i s m , one r e a l i z e s though that h i s conclusion! grows out of hiss insistence upon M e l v i l l e being governed by a s p e c i f i c ironic; purpose throughout the whole of Moby Dick". 19 According to Thompson, M e l v i l l e ' s purpose i n writing Moby Dick was to write a d i a t r i b e against God, and to write t h i s d i a t r i b e i n the form of i r o n i c s a t i r e : Having declared h i s independence from C h r i s t i a n dogma, and from God, M e l v i l l e arranged a r t i s t i c a l l y to achieve, as h i s major e f f e c t s i n Moby-Dick, various forms of taunting r i d i c u l e , , aimed at Chris-tiam dogma and at the C h r i s t i a n concept of God. I have already;suggested that whenever r i d i c u l e i s expressed i n i r o n i c s a t i r e , the inevitable conse-quence i s that somebody gets taken i n or l e f t behind or trapped. M e l v i l l e seems to have counted om just, that,, and there i s some evidence that h i s successs exceeded h i s boldest hope.14 Thompson, thus analyzes the whole of Moby Dick with the i n t e n t i o n of showing that M e l v i l l e was continuously speak-ing i r o n i c a l l y , so that h i s message would get through to the i n i t i a t e d and be l o s t to the naive orthodox b e l i e v e r s . In t h i s way, M e l v i l l e could both reach the select few and pro-tect himself against the c r i t i c i s m of the c l e r g y . 1 5 According to Thompson, M e l v i l l e chose the symbol of the whale, because he knew that any concern;with the whale as a symbol would be construed to be a genuine concern, with God.. M e l v i l l e , then,,maliciously used the symbol of the whale to develop h i s anti-God allegory and to play h i s per-sonal joke om the theologians of h i s day. 1 6 The adverse e f f e c t of Thompson's in t e r p r e t a t i o n i s that i t imposes another system on Moby Dick. One f e e l s that the l o g i c of Thompson's argument i s more complete than, that of M e l v i l l e ' s novel. Granted, M e l v i l l e i s often ironic,, 20 but Thompson:'s concern, with intention: supplants h i s c r i t i c a l sense when; he continues to discover irony i n every passage:; i n Moby Dick, Also, when the concern with in t e n t i o n i s taken to these extreme l i m i t s , the intention becomes the a l l e g o r i c a l message and mold of the novel. Thompson's a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s p a r t i c u l a r l y apparent from the unequivocal manner imwhich he equates the whale with God. In other words, for Thompson; the symbol off the whale i s always f i x e d : " A l l e g o r i c a l l y , we must remember, a l l concern for whaling i n Moby Dick i s some form of God-concern."^ Taken i n a broad sense, one could possibly accept t h i s statement, but we know that Thompson; means s p e c i f i c a l l y the C a l v i n i s t i c : God and M e l v i l l e ' s own: quarrels with h i s background. Using the equation of the whale as God as a basis, Thompson: a l l e g o r i z e s every part: of the narrative of Moby  Dick. One of the more absurd examples of t h i s a l l e g o r i z i n g process i s Thompson's commentary om the Jungfrau: "The Jungfrau i s a German vessel out of Bremen, and t h i s affords M e l v i l l e a chance f o r a backhanded slap at what seemed to him; the feebleness of Spinozean, Kamtian,. and post-Kantian theorizings as to the nature of God: 'At one time the greatest whaling people in. the world, the Dutch and Germans are now among the l e a s t . ' " ^ Continuing i n a similar manner, Thompson comments further on the Pequod's meeting with the various whaling vessels: "Over a period of weeks, the Pequod 21 speaks nine separate whalers, and asks each what i t knows about the White Whale; a l l e g o r i c a l l y , , about God," 1 9 A further example of Thompson's method of in t e r p r e t a -t i o n r e s u l t i n g in; a " hideous allegory " i s h i s discussion of the r o l e s of the three mates. Because Thompson has committed himself to the view that the whale i s M e l v i l l e ' s Calvinistic;God, the attitudesoof the mates become their attitude to that God: " A l l e g o r i c a l l y , of course,,each mate'ss 20 attitude toward whaling suggests h i s attitude toward God." Thus Stubb's pleasant and amiable attitude becomes the mark of the naive and unthinking r e l i g i o u s believer: ' In; the l i g h t of Stubb's attitude toward death, i t i s possible to view him, a l l e g o r i c a l l y , as an habitual user of r e l i g i o n u n t i l h i s senses have become so dulled that while he i s vaguely aware of a Superior, who may some day c a l l him " a l o f t " , he i s not much interested i n the subject of either the c a l l or the C a l l e r . Stubb sums up h i s r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f t h i s way: "Think not, i s my eleventh command-ment, and sleep whem you can,, i s my twelfth.21 The immediate question one asks i s why must Stubb's attitude be seen i m narrow r e l i g i o u s terms? But Thompson has f i x e d the symbol of the whale,, and following from; that he deter-mines to make the allegory consistent. Thus instead of focusing om the attitudes of the three mates, Thompson defines their attitudes i n terms of M e l v i l l e ' s supposed argumentative p o s i t i o n . Thompson continues h i s r i g i d a l l e g o r i z a t i o n of Moby  Dick i n t o h i s discus s i om of the chapters where Ishmael i s 22 concerned with; cetology. Here again; Thompson sees i n t e n t i o n a l s a t i r i c a l comment om God and theology: Instead of accepting God's i n s c r u t a b i l i t y , as Job did, Captain Ahab: defies i t and vows to dismember h i s taunting Dismemberer. While Ahab goes about that obvious business, Ishmael goes about h i s covert business of taunting the Taunter.. With mock humili-ty, for example, Ishmael sets up the pun value of cetology-theology in. the opening paragraphs of the "Cetology" chapter, and progresses u n t i l he cam exclaim; s a r c a s t i c a l l y , "What am I. that I should essay to hook the nose of t h i s leviathan? The awful taunt-ings i n Job might well appall me. 'Will he ((the levia< than) make a covenant with thee? Behold the hope of himi iis v a i n l l " With equally taunting mockery and sarcasm^, Ishmael contemplates a dying whale (possib-l y a symbol of an impotent and defeated and dying God), and continues h i s anti-Christian, sneering i n these r h e t o r i c a l questions,, "Is t h i s the creature of whom: i t was once so triumphantly said—'Canst thou f i l l h i s skim with barbed irons? Or hiss head with fishspears?...' This the creature? t h i s he? OhI that unfulfilments should follow the prophets. For with the strength of a thousand thighs i n h i s t a i l , Leviathan had rum h i s head under the moun-tains of the seas, to hide himi from; the Pequod's fish-spear si "2 2 Continuing i n the same manner, Thompson states that the chapters where M e l v i l l e r e l a t e * how the whale i s trans-formed from the dead whale int o us able whale o i l are meant to be sardonic; comments omJob's reference to the inscrutable nature of Leviathan i n Job 41*23. The undesirable r e s u l t of Thompson's approach; i s further seen when he attempts to force Ishmael i n t o h i s system. I f one disregards Thompsom's approach and that of other a l l e g o r i c a l c r i t i c s , the chapters where Ishmael comments on the whale are characterized by f l u i d i t y and expansiveness. As Ishmael focuses on the whale and the 23 whale hunt, the whale develops continuously i n t o a more expanded symbol. Ishmael's focus on the whale r e s u l t s i n an expansion of i t s symbolic p o s s i b i l i t i e s , u n t i l we see one c e n t r a l whale, which no one meaning can circumscribe. I f , however, one approaches the whale with the int e n t i o n of f i n d i n g some d e f i n i t e meaning, the expansion: of the symbol i s immediately l i m i t e d . Ishmael seems to be the one character i n Moby Dick who has a symbolic imagination. The e v i l aspects of white-ness, of the whale, of the universe, f r i g h t e n him, but at the same time he i s able to l i v e with ambiguity. Therefore, i t i s Ishmael's imagination, that focuses on the i n d e f i n i t e ; and expanding nature of the symbol of the whale. On the other hand,,in Thompson's in t e r p r e t a t i o n , Ishmael's imagination;is r e s t r i c t e d by the c r i t i c ' s a l l e g o r i -c a l approach. According to Thompson,, there can be l i t t l e . ambiguity about the whale; Ishmael i s also reacting against Ahab's God. According to Thompson, the attitudes of Ahah and Ishmael are similar,, except that Ishmael i s able to hide the true i n t e n t of h i s words i n masterfully deceptive language Im reaction to Thompson's allegorized version: of Moby  Dick, Bewley suggests a reading which more f u l l y respects^ the imaginative core of the novel. But even though Bewley suggests that the whale should not be explained in. terms of an argumentative p o s i t i o n , he cannot r e s i s t o f f e r i n g h i s own, 24 counter i n t e r p r e t a t i o n : ©. EU.Lawrence, ini what must always remain, one of the f i n e s t c r i t i c i s m s of M e l v i l l e ever written, said that probably M e l v i l l e himself didn't know what the White Whale meant. But Lawrence did not. mean that the White Whale was a vague symbol that; could mean: everything or nothing. He only meant that what i t a c t i v e l y r e a l i z e d i n i i t s e l f — r e a l i z e d with the complexity and mystery of a livings t h i n g — was incapable of being neatly itemized or systemized?. The White Whale i s M e l v i l l e ' s profoundest i n t u i t i o n into the nature of creation.,; and i t i s an i n t u i t i o n in: which God and nature are simultaneously present; and commenting on: each other•. But the i n t u i t i o n e x i s t s i n the world of M e l v i l l e ' s creative imagina-tion^, and the utmost care; must be taken when, making correlations between: h i s a r t and the theological a r t i c l e s of h i s faith.?5 Thompson;'s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f a i l s p r e c i s e l y because of h i s ; lack of caution i n : t r a n s l a t i n g M e l v i l l e ' s v i s i o n into a theological stance. lit can.be taken:for granted that the whale i n Moby/ Dick suggests some form; of ultimate concern. But:as long-as M e l v i l l e uses a symbol or image to suggest t h i s ultimate? concern,, the c r i t i c : should not attempt to define t h i s conr-cern i n terms of a system; that i s b a s i c a l l y part of the world outside the l i t e r a r y work. We might say that the: symbol of the whale i s defined i n terms of l i t e r a r y expres-sion,, and thus to define the symbol in: terms of the language of discourse and argument can: only r e s u l t i n a bad trans-l a t i o n : from; a language we can a l l read. Another al l e g o r i z e d version: of Mbby Dick i s that of James B5. H a l l . 2 6 H a l l i s reacting to the i n d e f i n i t e nature; 2* of much of the c r i t i c i s m of Moby Dick: "Much c r i t i c i s m makes M e l v i l l e a fo*castle tragediani or a metaphysician of the sea. In the case of Moby Dick these c r i t i c a l a t titudes are evas-ive actions: by vast generalization the c r i t i c can vault a fundamental implication! of the book." 2^ Ha l l ' s comments about the evasive c r i t i c i s m ; of Moby Dick are probably j u s t i -f i e d . In any work where there i s a broad vision; as i n Moby  Dick., the c r i t i c a l tendency i s to offer vast generalizations; about that v i s i o n . But in: reacting to t h i s trend, Hall: goes; to the opposite extreme and suggests a more d e f i n i t e meaning: by a l l e g o r i z i n g Moby Dick. One should, however, c r e d i t H a l l for stating that h i s interpretation: i s not necessarily the 28 main concern of the novel. H a l l ' s approach i s c l e a r l y seen when he suggests that M e l v i l l e i s f u l f i l l i n g h i s r o l e as a novelist: i n that he shows; the r e s u l t that c a p i t a l i s t i c : society has on; humanity. 29 In other words, Hall ' s aesthetic;favours a d i d a c t i c l i t e r a -t u r e — s p e c i f i c a l l y , ; a didacticism a r i s i n g from:a Marxist viewpoint. H a l l ' s interpretation!of Moby Dick c l e a r l y follows from h i s aesthetic: "The Pequod i s an; archetype of c a p i t a l i s t i c ; enterprise conceived i n the mood of an expand-ing ocean-frontier. She i s a c a n n i b a l i s t i c a l l y dressed ship,. "A noble c r a f t , but somehow melancholy'." This melancholy of the p a t r i a r c h a l f i g u r e " s i c among whaling ships suggests a tragic flaw i n the nature of an enterprise l a i d down: on the general p r i n c i p l e s -expounded by Adam. Smith."^0 26 Having established that Moby Dick i s about the weak-nesses of c a p i t a l i s t i c society,,Halll proceeds to i d e n t i f y the whale im terms of h i s allegory, and the symbol of the whale becomes f i x e d , because of an. attempt to codify thee meaning of Moby Dick* The whale i s some ultimate state of i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n , , which i s sought by the culture hero of the c a p i t a l i s t i c ; society, Ahab.^ 1 Ahah's pursuit of this? ultimate state of i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n , then, pointssto the: destructive nature of the culture out of which Ahab emerge s.-^ Continuing with h i s Marxist i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Moby Dick,, H a l l a l l e g o r i z e s the r e s t of the action of the novel. As i n Thompson's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , the various ships which the Pequod meets are given a l l e g o r i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . The Town: Hoi becomes am example of the r e s u l t of a system where r e l a t i o n s are based on;force alone, while the Bachelor 31 becomes am example of a c a p i t a l i s t i c dream. Further, the novel portrays a system which r e s u l t s i m a complete lack of moral concern: by everyone concerned—the owners of the ship remain at home, and the captain, of the ship i s pressured from the owners who are not on board the ship. No one i s s present to take moral r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the welfare of the: 32 mem on the ship., H a l l i s pointing out a significamt aspect of the theme of Moby Dick when he suggests that the novel:points to the r e s u l t of unbridled individualism. But the problem: a r i s e s when: B a l l translates t h i s concern: of M e l v i l l e ' s into terms of 27 a s p e c i f i c p o l i t i c a l and economic; system. Once these speci-f i c ; terms have beeniused, the novel has become an allegory because everything i n the novel becomes part of an a l l e g o r i -c a l drama. Like Thompson,,Hall does not s u f f i c i e n t care i n making the tr a n s l a t i o n between. M e l v i l l e 1 s symbols and other abstract systems, and as a r e s u l t the whale again, becomes s t a t i c • Another c r i t i c , Slochower,, sees many of the same themes"; i n Moby Dick that H a l l d o es.^ But Slochower i s able to illuminates these themes without f i t t i n g themiinto an a l l e g -o r i c a l mold. True, Slochower sees Moby Dick i n terms of a mythic; framework, and t h i s could be seen as a specific: sys-tem, but a mythic framework i s closer to the imaginative world, because i t r i s e s above the more s p e c i f i c systems to express a pattern, that i s more a l l - i n c l u s i v e • ^  Thus Slochower i s able to t a l k about the problemi of individualism and the c o l l e c t i v e without turning the novel into a r i g i d allegory.. In the same way, any consideration of r e l i g i o u s concerns i n Moby Dick should extend beyojad a s p e c i f i c theological frame-work and a specific;; God i n order to focus on; broader arche-types of experience — archetypes wMch subsume the narrower a l l e g o r i e s , and work i n a much more suggestive manner. The Freudian; or psychological approach o f f e r s another systematic; approach to l i t e r a t u r e , and as could be expected, Moby Dick has been analyzed from t h i s viewpoint. L e s l i e F i e d l e r ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n leans heavily i n t h i s direction.3 5 Whatever one f e e l s about F i e d l e r ' s a l l e g o r i z i n g tendencies, 28 one should give c r e d i t to F i e d l e r for h i s penetrating analysis of M e l v i l l e ' s epic. F i e d l e r ' s comments are on the whole a great help i n understanding the novel. P a r t i -c u l a r l y i s t h i s true of certain: aspects of the novel such, as the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between Ishmael and Queequeg* and Ahab) and Fedallah. The a l l e g o r i z i n g tendency i n F i e d l e r ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Moby Dick r e s u l t s from h i s use of psychological or Freud-ian terminology. The redeeming factor i n h i s c r i t i c i s m i s that he generally does not push the terminology to an extreme. As i n H a l l ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , the terminology of a s p e c i f i c ; system of thought begins to move the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the novel i n an a l l e g o r i c a l d i r e c t i o n . For example, F i e d l e r suggests that the motif of the rejected sons emerges fromi the descriptions of Ahab and Ishmael. Ahab i s thus the rejected son who at times desires to be reunited with the feminine aspect, but b a s i c a l l y desires to grapple with the " f i e r y Father". Ishmael too f e e l s rejected (iiote h i s dream about the hand), but i n the end he i s reunited with the mother weeping for her childr e n — Rachel. At another point i n h i s analysis of Moby Dick, F i e d l e r again, employs Freudian terminology; he i s focusing on the thematic; significance of Fedallah and Queequeg: "Those themes the maim themes of the novel are projected by two dark-skinned characters,, supernumeraries i n the action, who represent the polar aspects of the i d , beneficent and 2 9 d e s t r u c t i v e . " ^ Again,, the terminology forces us to read the novel i n terms of a s p e c i f i c system of thought.. When Fi e d l e r comments on Ishmael's dream i n which he sees the hand,, F i e d l e r ' s Freudian bias leads him to make a statement that i s consistent with the general d i r e c t i o n of h i ss interpretation,, but questionable i n terms of the novel. F i e d l e r suggests that the hand which Ishmael sees i n the dream:is to be interpreted as a symbol of g u i l t f e e l i n g s 38 about masturbation. Ishmael's dream i s one of the many vague aspects of the novel. I t r a i s e s a problem:in i n t e r -pretation, as does the symbol of the whale.. In such cases the Freudian or Marxist c r i t i c ; would l i k e to suggest that he has the terminology, to c l a r i f y the i n d e f i n i t e passage. But F i e d l e r ' s attempt to do t h i s with Ishmael's dream i s another example of the a l l e g o r i z i n g r e s u l t when, a c r i t i c brings a c e r t a i n system of thought to an imaginative VK>£k, and makes: the translation: without being s u f f i c i e n t l y aware of the un-translatable nature of the imaginative work.. And further, what difference does i t make to be able to i n t e r p r e t the dream in: terms of a s p e c i f i c system? The important aspect i s the e f f e c t of terror that the hand induces. As could be expected, F i e d l e r ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the meaning of the whale i s also based on. h i s Freudian bi a s . The descent into the sea of the whale i s for F i e d l e r emble-matic: of the immersion i n the i d : "The descent in t o either (as opposed to the assault upon: e i t h e r ) , l i k e the love-union 30 with the dark savage (as opposed to the pact with him),, s i g n i f i e s a l i f e - g i v i n g immersion i n nature or the i d , a death and r e b i r t h . " ^ F i e d l e r ' s comment im the above passage r e f l e c t s both the strength:, and l i m i t a t i o n of h i s c r i t i c a l approach*. He l i m i t s the novel by pushing too much i n one direction,., but the pattern he suggests i s s t i l l more i n -cl u s i v e than: r i g i d allegory, because F i e d l e r makes an; at-tempt to think more im terms of archetypes.^ The c r i t i c a l approaches of Vincent, Thompson,. Hall,, and F i e d l e r are examples of i n t e r p r e t i v e c r i t i c i s m , which because of i t s a l l e g o r i z i n g tendencies, f a i l s to allow the imaginative work to move i n an expanding d i r e c t i o n . Im making the tra n s l a t i o n from. Moby Dick to their systems of psychology,,philosophy, or r e l i g i o n , these c r i t i c s codify the meaning of the novel. The i n d e f i n i t e nature of the symbols i s undermined, and the scope of the novel i s r e s t -r i c t e d . L i t e r a r y expression cam be translated only to a certain: point,, and c e r t a i n l y the symbol of Moby Dick i s part of l i t e r a r y expression. Even though a l l e g o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m , i s b a s i c a l l y dam-gerous to and destructive of the l i t e r a r y work,, i t might have l i m i t e d value. For instance, a l l e g o r i c a l approaches^ are generally stimulated by some aspect of the work i n ques-tion: (e.g. mysterious symbols), and to the extent that they: help point to the existence of that aspect, they are helpful.. Furthermore symbolism i s a broader c l a s s i f i c a t i o n than: allegory,, and a l l e g o r i c a l r a mifications can; be present i n 31 symbolism. Thus an a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n helps to point to one aspect of the symbolism.^ But generally the a l l e g o r i c a l c r i t i c forgets that the expanding symbol i s more comprehensive than h i s more specific; systematization of the symbol,; and thus we are l e f t with the task of separating the a l l e g o r i c a l c r i t i c ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n from; the patterns that he has been able to bring i n t o focus. A more important r e s u l t of a l l e g o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m might be i t s a b i l i t y to force the reader to face implications of the l i t e r a r y work. In such c^ses, a l l e g o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m would be a l i b e r a t i n g f a c t o r . The c r i t i c ' s terms then become what F i e d l e r c a l l s , "mediate metaphors": BUt surely, the duty of the c r i t i c ; i s to mediates between, the l a y public and any area of experience which illuminates or i s illuminated by a work of art.. The general f a i l u r e to come to terms with works of l i t e r a t u r e i s often a f a i l u r e to connect; and the c r i t i c , who chooses to deal with the work i n is o l a t i o n , aggravates an endemic weakness of our; atomized:world. The c r i t i c ' s job. i s the making of: mediate metaphors that w i l l prepare? the reader for the more d r a s t i c metaphors of the poet; and such metaphor-making i s h i s concern: because he knows-, that the r e l a t i o n s h i p s he c l a r i f i e s s a r e r e a l r e l a -tion ships. 41 The baaife danger though of a l l e g o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m : i s that i t becomes more than a "mediate metaphor". As long ass any c r i t i c i s m helps the reader to move towards a more open: and d i r e c t confrontation with the l i t e r a r y work, i t performs a useful function. Such c r i t i c i s m : would f i r s t of a l l be more concerned! with bringing the reader to the l i t e r a r y work than with preserving the l o g i c of the i n t e r p r e t i v e - a l l e g o r i c a l 3 2 system. In order to bring the reader to the l i t e r a r y work, such c r i t i c i s m might use allegory merely as a means to an end. That i s , i t might employ allegory i n order to supply the reader with-helpful analogies that would help the reader: to enter the l i t e r a r y work.. R e s t r i c t i v e a l l e g o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m ! though would see the a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as a conclusive statement — one which defined the meaning of the l i t e r a r y work. Instead of leading the reader to confrontation, with l i t e r a r y expres-sion i t would, i m essence, substitute an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n for the l i t e r a r y work. Further, such r e s t r i c t i v e c r i t i c i s m would! lead the reader to substitute the c l a r i t y and preciseness of the l o g i c a l interpretation, f or the obscurity and unresolved tension that might be present i n the l i t e r a r y work. The nature and attractiveness of r e s t r i c t i v e i n t e r p r e t i v e c r i t i c i s m : i s described c l e a r l y by AllamRodway: Certainly, students of l i t e r a t u r e nowadays prefer reading c r i t i c i s m , f o r the c r i t i c displays i n f u l l -flowering c l a r i t y what was perhaps buried or obscure i n the r i c h confusion of the o r i g i n a l work. He r e l a t e s that work to Mam and Morality,, to Nature and Science, to History and Society. He sees i t s ana-logues and precedents,, and foresees i t s descendants:? and i t s r o l e in; worldmaking. Moreover,, he marshals the Many into One system. Wo wonder, then,, im such transcendence,,he should seem i p r e f e r a b l e . 4 3 lit i s against such c r i t i c i s m ; that Ham; arguing. CHAPTER II FOOTNOTES ^Northrop Frye, Anatomy of C r i t i c i sm (New York: Atheneum, 1966), pp. 15-16. 2 Marius Bewley, "A Truce of God for M e l v i l l e , " SR r LXI (1953), 682. The Trying-Out of Moby-Dick (Garbondale and Edward s-v i l l e : Southern I l l i n o i s u n i v e r s i t y Press, 1965). 4 I b i d . , p.. 70. 5 I b i d . , p.. 71i. 6Ibid.„ p.,72.. 7 I b i d . , p.. 75.= ^ o r a discussion of a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as a form of censorship see the Appendix. ^Mbby-Dick, ed. Charles Feidelson, J r . (Indianopolis, New York, and Kansas Cit y : The Bbbbs-Merrill Company, Inc.,. 1964)), p. 126. ^ M e l v i l l e 1 s Quarrel with God (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952). 1 : L I b i d . , p.. 149. •^Ibid.,, p. 190. x 3 l b i d . , p. 420., FOOTNOTES (CONTINUED) 34 14 Ibid.,, pp., 239-240., 15 I b i d . 16 I b i d . 17 I b i d . 18 I b i d . 19 I b i d . 20 U I b i d . 21 I b i d . 22 I b i d . 23 I b i d . 24 I b i d . p. 6. p. 148.. p. 211. p.. 211. p..206. P..173. , p. 177. p. 154. p. 214. , P. 151. 25 Bewley, p.. 692. 26 "Moby Dick: Parable of a Dying System," We stern Review, XIsFTl95o7, 223-226. 27 I b i d . , p.. 223. °Ibid.,.p. 226. 2 9 I b i d . , p.. 223. 5 0 I b i d . , p. 223. 35 FOOTNOTE'S (CONTINUED) 3 1 I b i d . , p.. 225. 5 2 I b i d . , p. 224. -^Harry Slochower, "Moby Dick: The Myth of Democratic Expectancy," A&, I I I (1950), 259^9., ^Nbte Northrop Frye's statement about the relations-ship between l i t e r a t u r e and other studies that focus on more s p e c i f i c thought systems: "I think i t has somewhat the same re l a t i o n s h i p to the studies b u i l t out of words, history, philosophy, the s o c i a l sciences,,law, and theology, that mathematics has to the physical sciences.. The pure mathe-matician proceeds by making postulates and assumptions and seeing what comes out of them* and what the poet or n o v e l i s t does i s rather s i m i l a r . The great mathematical geniuses of terndo their best work ini early l i f e , l i k e most of the great l y r i c a l poets. Pure mathematics enters i n t o and gives form to the physical sciences, and I Ihave a notion that the myths and images of l i t e r a t u r e also enter i n t o and give fo r m i to a l l the structures we b u i l d out of words" (iThe Educated Imaginatiom ( Toronto: Canadian-Broadcasting Gbrporation, 1963), p . 5 4 ) . JiSJS. an d Death i n the American Novell (New York: Crit e r i o n . Books, I960;. 36 I b i d . , pp. 550-551. 3 7 I b i d . , p., 530., J I b i d . , p. 535.. 3 9 I b i d . , p. 534. 40 F i e d l e r ' s discussion of h i s concerns as a c r i t i c suggest that h i s concern with myth and archetypes ('the broader p a t t e r n s ) ) i s similar to Frye's: "In.terms of myth, too, the c r i t i c f i n d s i t possible to speak of the profound! 36 FOOTNOTES (CONTINUED) interconnections of the a r t work and other areas of human experience, without translating the work of a r t into un-s a t i s f a c t o r y equivalents of "ideas" or "tendencies". The myth approach i s , , of course, no panacea; i n the hands of the scienitizers i t becomes, l i k e many other approaches, merely an excuse f o r another jargon, just one more strategy for avoiding evaluation" (!'Toward an Amateur C r i t i c i s m , " KR, XII (1950),, 574). The c r i t i c i s m that I would make of F i e d l e r s analysis of Moby Dick i s that h i s terminology s t i l l leads him too far i n the d i r e c t i o n of t r a n s l a t i o n . 4 1R. Wi Short, " M e l v i l l e as Symbolist," University of Kansas C i t y Review. XV (1948), 41. ^ F i e d l e r , "Toward an. Amateur C r i t L c i s m , H 564.. * 7"By r Algebra to Augustanism," i n Essays on: Style and  Language: Lingui stioc and C r i t i c a l Appr oache s t o T i t e r a r y  Style, ed. Roger Fowler (London: Routledge and~Kegan Paul, 19667, p. 53. CHAPTER- I I I AUTHOR AS ALLEGORICAL CRITIC: THE PILGRIM.1 S  PROGRESS A work that i s e x p l i c i t l y a l l e g o r i c a l forces the reader to commit himself on the question of the value of allegory i n imaginative l i t e r a t u r e . Obviously, one cannot conclude that a l l e g o r i c a l works need only to be rescued from a l l e g o r i z i n g c r i t i c s , because the a l l e g o r i c a l writer places an i n t e r p r e t i v e framework on h i s t a l e . In-, other words, the author himself becomes the a l l e g o r i c a l c r i t i c . This proposition, of course, implies that we see a d i s t i n c t i o n between the author's a l l e g -o r i c a l framework and h i s t a l e , a d i s t i n c t i o n which i s e v i -dent at points i n Banyan's ta l e , The P i l g r i m 1 s Progress. In h i s book The Romantic Image. Prank Kermode traces the development of the Symbolist a e s t h e t i c . 1 l He shows that t h i s development was concerned with underlining the unique-ness of l i t e r a r y expression! as opposed to the language and method of discourse. The implications for the l i t e r a r y work are s i g n i f i c a n t i n that the l i t e r a r y work i s not seen as e s s e n t i a l l y a presentation of an argument. I f there i s a discursive element i n the l i t e r a r y work, i t i s e s s e n t i a l that t h i s element be assimilated into the l i t e r a r y work, for otherwise i t remains an imposed a l l e g o r i c a l framework. In other words, thought content or the discourse must undergo a transformation; subject matter w i l l then; become an i n -37 38 2 d i v i s i b l e paxt of the aesthetic whole. One of the reasons for the d i f f i c u l t y i n responding to allegory i s that the a l l e g o r i c a l framework i s of tenia discursive element that has not been assimilated. Thus we see both the tale and the framework that i s to i n t e r p r e t the tale for the reader. But a l l e g o r i c a l l i t e r a t u r e i s s t i l l appreciated, and t h i s chapter w i l l focus on various approaches to The P i l g r i m 1 s Progress, some of which suggest acceptance, and others, dismissal of the a l l e g o r i c a l framework., One approach to The P i l g r i m 1 s Progress would be to read i t i n terms of i t s a l l e g o r i c a l intention.. Such an. ap-proach i s presented by Roger Sharrock, who suggests that we should follow Bunyan's i n v i t a t i o m to make the c o r r e l a t i o n between: h i s tale and the implied theological frameworks "The correspondence between the major incidents of the story and the psychological c r i s i s of a Puritan conversion i n v i t e s us to follow Bunyan's injunction, 'Turn up my metaphors'. The narrative method may seem to be that of a popular episodic romance, but there i s a strong framework of C a l v i n i s t theology underlying i t . " And further, Sharrock suggests that "we s h a l l not do jus t i c e to Bunyan's imagina-tion underestimating the importance of h i s theology: i t i s well to grasp i n outline the theological ground-plan of the allegory.!' 3 Sharrock then: attempts to recreate the theological basis of The Pilgrim.' s Progress f o r the reader. In the 39 process, he becomes involved i n pointing out the f i n e d i s -tincrtions between Bunyan's C a l v i n i s t f a i t h and other theolo-g i e s . Thus Sharrock focuses on problems such as the follow-ing: "The figure of Ch r i s t i n h i s human nature enters l i t t l e i n to Puritan p i e t y . The dynamic: p r i n c i p l e in: the theology of Ca l v i n and h i s successors i s the tension between the t o t a l depravity of f a l l e n man and the transcendent goodness of. God. To dwell much upon the Incarnation, i n which divine and human are reconciled, would blur t h i s tension; but a cen t r a l place i s given,to Christ's s a c r i f i c e on the Cross." 4 In the same passage, Sharrock goes on to show how Calvin's theology re l a t e d to Augustine and other theologians, and how Funyan was following Calvin's theology. What Sharrock recreates for the reader i s possibly s i g n i f i c a n t as h i s t o r i c a l data. That i s , Sharrock sees The  P i l g r i m 1 s Progress as an allegory of a theological stance that i s a part of the h i s t o r y of thought. Thus Sharrock's analysis could be h e l p f u l i n terms of understanding Bunyan'ss theology and the facto r s that influenced him, but the question i s whether the a l l e g o r i c a l framework which Sharrock describes can be reconciled with the l i t e r a r y aspect of The Pilgrim's  Progress. As we follow Sharrock's analysis, we r e a l i z e that the attempt to remain true to Bunyan's a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e n t i o n i s forced and awkward. Che senses that a framework i s being imposed upon the t a l e . For example, Sharrock i s forced into 40 the position.! of placing the conversations between Ch r i s t i a n , F a i t h f u l , and Talkative im a prominent po s i t i o n , eveni though we might f i n d t h i s episode r e l a t i v e l y i n s i g n i f i c a n t in. terms; of concrete scene and action: "This conversation i s most important for our understanding of the theology of The  Pilgrim* s Progress. F a i t h f u l i s more i n c l i n e d to d i a l e c t i c than C h r i s t i a n , and he makes a number of things clear which might otherwise cause d i f f i c u l t y . " Im the course of h i s analysis, Sharrock, i n e f f e c t , admits that the reader might be i n c l i n e d to move away fromi the a l l e g o r i c a l meaning of Bunyan's allegory.. Thus Sharrock i s always caught i n the unenviable p o s i t i o n of attempting to p u l l the reader back to the allegory: "The br i s k f a i r y - t a l e narration of the Doubting Castle episode must not make uss forget that t h i s episode i s a study of s p i r i t u a l malaise, ..6 l i k e the Slough of Despond and the struggle with Apollyon." And further, "Mr Wordly Wiseman (a l a t e r addition to the F i r s t Part) talk s and behaves l i k e a well-fed: tradesman, but he i s there to i l l u s t r a t e the dangerous inadequacy of a 7 l i f e of works without read f a i t h . " 1 I f we must be reminded constantly of Bunyan's meaning, we might conclude that Bunyan's a l l e g o r i c a l framework i s part of the world of discourse that has not been assimilated i n t o the l i t e r a r y work. That i s , i f we are forced to r e a l i z e that Doubting Castle i s representative of a s p e c i f i c stage i n C a l v i n i s t theology, we are not free to respond to that 41 scene in; terms of narrative effect.. And the f a c t that the allegory seems forced, as i s evident when Sharrock i n t e r p r e t s Mr. Wordly Wiseman a l l e g o r i c a l l y , , leads.-us to suspect that; there are d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of response to The Pilgrim;' s  Progress. On one l e v e l , we admires parts of the tale ass r e a l i s t i c n a r r a t i v e . On another l e v e l , we see an i n t e r -pretive framework which i s imposing an argument on Bunyan"s3 t a l e . The f i r s t l e v e l i s the concern; of l i t e r a r y expression, while the second l e v e l i s the concern of discourse. Another attempt to read The Pilgrim's Progress i n terms of h i s t o r i c a l background can be seen.in Kaufmann's Q a n a l y s i s . Kaufmann's reading i s more relevant to the ques-tion of the l i t e r a r y response i n that he i s concerned with more than just the d o c t r i n a l framework. As Kaufmann points out, The Pilgrim's Progress can be related to the Puritan t r a d i t i o n of meditation or method of looking at scripture. One e f f e c t of Kaufmann!s h i s t o r i c a l approach i s to show that Banyan, was using B i b l i c a l l i t e r a t u r e not only for dogmatic a l l e g o r i c a l purposes. Kaufmann shows that trends i n Puritan: meditation were allowing for a more symbolic appreciation of scripture and that t h i s i s r e f l e c t e d i n The  Pilgrim's Progress? Now i f the Psalms could be approached as the record of powerful f e e l i n g , i f Job could be seen; against the v i v i d l y imagined background of the ash heap, the time could not be f a r off when the metaphor of these books which Banyan.used so f r e e l y i n the construction, of h i s myths could be appreciated as symbols which derives their power from complex; and i r r e d u c i b l e human experience rather than from vaguely suggested doctrines. 9 42 On the other hand, t h i s h i s t o r i c a l approach; may provide i n t e r e s t i n g information that has l i t t l e pertinent value i n dealing with the question of the aesthetic: appreciation of allegory. For example, Kaufmann; f e e l s that he has proven, that Christian's r e t e l l i n g of h i s experience at the House of Interpreter i s not redundant, but rather i n the Puritan trad-i t i o n of meditation, on.experience. 1^ This may be true, but what bearing does t h i s knowledge have on our appreciation! of The P i l g r i m 1 s Progress? Further, i f we can say that i t i s appropriate f o r Christiana to engage i n occasional meditation, whereby she gives a meaning to everything that she see ss and 11 experiencess we s t i l l are revolted by her constant moral-i z i n g . We may be awareeof the tradition; explaining her method! of meditation,,but t h i s knowledge does not make the a l l e g o r -i c a l framework l e s s obtrusive. The attempt to r e b u i l d the h i s t o r i c a l background^ then,, does not necessarily; enhance our appreciation; of an allegory. The images may be f i l l e d out for us by providing; the doc-t r i n a l substance used by the author,, and i f t h i s process of h i s t o r i c a l recreation i s thorough! enough,, we may even be able to make a v a l i d statement about the intention, of thes 12 author.. On the other hand,, the f a c t that we are forced; to go outside the work to f i l l out the images of the al l e g o r y suggests that allegory lacks an-independent l i f e of i t s own. And once we have defined the author's intentions,, we are s t i l l : confronted with an argument rather than with l i t e r a r y expression. 43 Since allegory r e l i e s so heavily on; intention, i t demands:; agreement assc disagreement with discursive statement,, rather than; response to the independent l i f e of a l i t e r a r y work. Ultimately a l i t e r a r y work should be free of the author's intentions . Just as Kermode suggests that: "Leonardo's 'intentions' for the Mbna L i s a have no more to 13 do with i t than Pater's reactions to i t , " some might argue that Bunyan's intentions with reference to The Pilgrim;' s  Progress are i r r e l e v a n t to our response to The P i l g r i m ' s i Progress as a l i t e r a r y work. At l e a s t to the extent that they can be equated with the imposition of an; a l l e g o r i c a l framework, they are i r r e l e v a n t . I n essence, Bunyan's a l l e g o r i c a l meaning i s another int e r p r e t a t i o n of h i s t a l e , and we are free to either accept or r e j e c t the a l l e g o r i c a l framework. Sharrock and Kaufmann, then, attempt to reconcile allegory with l i t e r a r y / e x p r e s s i o n . In Sharrock's analysis, allegory s t i l l emerges as a discursive argument that i s to be i l l u s t r a t e d i n the course of the l i t e r a r y work. Kaufmann. suggests that the a l l e g o r i c a l framework i s a symbolic; way of viewing experience,, but even-if Kaufmann; i s able to show the presence of such a t r a d i t i o n i n Bunyan's time,, the reader i s s t i l l faced with a predominantly didactic: a l l e g o r i c a l frame-work. The ultimate aim in: the appreciation: of allegory as imaginative l i t e r a t u r e i s to become aware of q u a l i t i e s in: the 44 work that simply cannot he contained and defined by the; a l l e g o r i c a l framework. These q u a l i t i e s would "belong to the more timeless q u a l i t i e s of the allegory,;, continuing after the: more dated a l l e g o r i c a l framework (made up of ideas or doc-trines) had l o s t i t s relevance and capacity for f o r c e f u l impact. Further, t h i s approach would take us away front agreement with discursive statement and intention to r e s -ponse to l i t e r a r y expression. In terms of The P i l g r i m 1 s  Progress, we can: observe the q u a l i t i e s that make t h i s work e f f e c t i v e as imaginative l i t e r a t u r e — q u a l i t i e s that are not part of the a l l e g o r i c a l framework and i n t e n t i o n . In the Slough of Despond episode, one can see some aspects of Bunyan's l i t e r a r y a r t . In terms of the narra-tive , ; t h i s episode i s important and e f f e c t i v e . Christian's pilgrimage i s made more i n t e r e s t i n g by the portrayal of d i f f i c u l t i e s that he encounters.. And thus when Chri s t i a n wallows i n the mire,, our i n t e r e s t i s stimulated because of the concrete p i e t o r a l e f f e c t , as well as the element of sus-pense: "The name of the Slow was Dispond.. Here therefore they wallowed for a time, being grievously bedaubed with.the d i r t ; and Christian,, because of the burden that was on h i s back, began to sink i n the M i r e . " 1 4 H o w e v e r i n terms of l i t e r a r y response, we are not p a r t i c u l a r l y interested i n Banyan's int e r p r e t a t i o n of thee Slough of Despond episode, r eveni though h i s interpretation! i s obviously present. Bunyan wishes to control our reading of 45 the tale and thus i n the passage where Help asks C h r i s t i a n why he did not look for the steps, ; Bunyan; adds a footnote stating that the steps are the promises. Further, Bunyan states that the f i l t h of the slough i s comprised of the sins that leave the repentant sinnerj and that Christian's f a l l into the Slough of Despond i s to be interpreted as an image of the fears and doubts of the Ch r i s t i a n who wonders whether h i s sins have been a c t u a l l y forgiven. The scene of Vanity F a i r i s one of the prominent reasons why we might continue to read The Pilgrim's Progress as e f f e c t i v e l i t e r a r y expression. We are presented with a wide range of human characters and actions. One observessa picture of r e a l t o r s s e l l i n g houses, p r o s t i t u t e s s e l l i n g their bodiesj<while f o o l s and murderers go about their d a i l y rou-t i n e . The vanity of human a f f a i r s i s seen to extend from; the business of the i n d i v i d u a l to the business of the state. A passage fromiBunyan's description of the Fai r can. help us to focus on the l i t e r a r y q u a l i t i e s of Bunyan's a l l e g -o r i c a l t a l e : Therefore at t h i s F a i r are a l l such Merchandize sold, as Houses, Lands, Trades, Places, Honours, Preferments,, T i t i e s, Countr ey s, Kingdoms,, Lust s, Pieasur e,. and Delights of a l l sorts,, as Whores, Bawds, Wives, Hus-bands,, Children,. Masters,, Servants.', Lives,. Blood, Bodies, Souls, S i l v e r , Gold,, Pearls, Precious Stones, and what not. And moreover, at; t h i s f a i r there i s at a l l times to be seen. Juglings, Cheats* Games, Plays, Fools, Apes, Knaves, - and Rogues, and that of a l l sorts. Here are to be seen too, and that for nothing, Thefts, Murders, Adulteries, False-swearers, and that;, of a blood-red colour.15 46; Even though Bunyan i s describing the world that Chris-t i a n i s to r e j e c t , he succeeds i n concretely portraying the vanity of human a f f a i r s . 1 6 The l i s t of the merchandise that i s sold at the f a i r grows into a concrete image of the way of the world. Further, the phrase "that of a blood-red colour" provides us with an earthy,, v i v i d picture of the thef t s and murders that are a part of the F a i r . Bunyan1 s manner of description,, then, i s a key factor i n the creation of concrete d e t a i l and scene. For example, Bunyan e f f e c t i v e l y portrays the confusion that r e s u l t s when Chr i s t i a n and F a i t h f u l suggest to their i n q u i s i t o r s that they. wish to buy the truth: "At, that, there was am occasion; takem to despise the men the more; some mocking,, some taunting, some speaking reproachfully*, and some c a l l i n g upon; other ss to smite them. At l a s t things came to a hubbub,, and great s t i r 17 i n the f a i r ; insomuch that a l l order was confounded." But again, i n the Vanity F a i r episode, one i s aware of. the a l l e g o r i c a l framework. The f a i r becomes an emblem of the world. Even: t h i s would not be a r e s t r i c t i v e a l l e g o r i c a l interpretation,, but following the portrayal of Vanity Fair,, Bunyan makes i t clear that he means the world in. terms of h i s theological allegory. Thus the world (Vanity F a i r ) i s a place that the Christian:must traverse as he journeys to the C e l e s t i a l C i t y . On the one hand, one i s aware; of Bunyan's artistic:; a b i l i t y to create a v i v i d image of the vanity of human a f f a i r s , while on the other hand, one senses 47 Bunyan's a l l e g o r i c a l intention dismissing the richness and excitement of Vanity Fair,, that Bunyan the a r t i s t has just lfi created. One might suggest, then,, that at times the tale and the allegory are d i s t i n c t l y separated i n The Pilgrim's Progress. As f a r as the reader's response i s concerned, the d i s t i n c -tion allows him to respond to the t a l e , even though he might r e j e c t the allegory. As we focus on the f i c t i o n a l aspects of Bunyan's allegory,, we also become more aware of the weaknesses of a l l e g o r i c a l expression. We respond to the p l o t , but we become annoyed, whenever the allegory enters i n an attempt to e s t a b l i s h an argument. The Pilgrim's Progress i s a good example of the weaknesses of allegory as pointed out by Poes One thing i s cl e a r , that i f allegory ever estab-l i s h e s a f a c t , i t i s by d i n t of overturning a f i c t i o n . Where the suggested meaning runs through the obvious one i n a very profound under-current so as never to i n t e r f e r e with the upper one without our own v o l i t i o n , so as never to show i t s e l f unless c a l l e d to the surface, there only, f o r the proper uses of f i c t i t i o u s n a rrative, i s i t available at; a l l . Under the best circumstances, i t must always i n t e r f e r e with that unity of e f f e c t which to the a r t i s t , i s worth; a l l the allegory i n the world. 19 An; example of the interference of allegory with f i c -t i o n i s the scene where Christian:faces Appollyon i n b a t t l e . Following t h i s b a t t l e , C h r i s t i a n enters the Valley of the Shadow of Death. But after Ohristiani emerges from the Valley of the Shadow of Death, he r e c i t e s one of h i s hymns. 48 The hymn i n t h i s ease may not be as obtrusive as others, and yet i t c l e a r l y points the f i c t i o n , towards a s p e c i f i c theological framework. Moreover, one f e e l s that where these hjmns occur,, C h r i s t i a n i s stepping aside from the action to make a statement that obstructs the f i c t i o n . The author c l e a r l y f e e l s obligated to create signposts to point the reader i n the d i r e c t i o n of h i s argument. Poe's statements about allegory help to define the basis upon which we can. appreciate The P i l g r i m 1 s Progress as imaginative l i t e r a t u r e , for Poe suggests that our enjoyment of Bunyan 1s allegory depends upon the degree to which we cam smother the a l l e g o r i c a l intention, of i t s - author In other words our appreciation of The P i l g r i m 1 s Progress i s based: upon, our a b i l i t y to see i t as imaginative f i c t i o n , rather than as a l l e g o r y . Further, when we consider The P i l g r i m 1 s Progress as as imaginative l i t e r a t u r e , we become aware of an annoying lack of u n i t y , , r e s u l t i n g from the presence of an a l l e g o r i c a l framework. This lack of unity can: be traced to the simultan-eous presence of both l i t e r a r y expression and the language of discourse. A work l i k e Moby Dick i s not p e r f e c t l y u n i -f i e d , because i t s large scope. Such a lack of unity i s not a e s t h e t i c a l l y dangerous. But a lack of unity r e s u l t i n g from an imposed! a l l e g o r i c a l framework disrupts the response of the reader. Another objection to allegory i s i t s manner of communiaa-ti n g meaning. The objeatiom to The P i l g r i m 1 s Progress because 49 of i t s message i s not to suggest that f i c t i o n a l unity implies absence of meaning. Honig, however, f e e l s that those who r e -j e c t allegory, r e j e c t a r t that has any r e l a t i o n s h i p with: ideas: "The current prejudice against l i t e r a r y allegory.. . i s ; r e a l l y an; expression, of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n : with the concept of. allegory,, and with the idea that art — an autonomous pro-duct of the imagination,, a t h i n g - i n ^ i t s e l f — has any busi-21 ness with b e l i e f s or purposes." The Pilgrim* s Progress canibe appreciated f o r meanings; which are not part of i t s a l l e g o r i c a l framework. On t h i s l e v e l one i s responding to the discourse that has beem a s s i -milated into the l i t e r a r y work.. For example,, one senses a strong f e e l i n g of purpose in. the allegory. This sense of. purpose i s communicated to the reader, as he sees Chris-tian's continuing quest. Shaw appreciated The Pilgrim.' s  Progress for t h i s reason. He saw i n the allegory the pic*-ture of an i n d i v i d u a l caught up with and wasting himself for a s i g n i f i c a n t purpose that i s larger than himself.. Further, the sense of purpose that Shaw saw i n The  Pilgrim's Progress i s convincing because i t evolves as the tale progresses. One does not need Bunyan; to t e l l him; that. Christian; sees a s i g n i f i c a n t goal at the end of h i s journey. Neither does one need Bunyan to place t h i s significance ini a s p e c i f i c theological framework. Rather the awareness of purpose i s i n t e g r a l l y a p a r t of the a e s t h e t i c a l l y pleasing f i c t i o n . In f a c t , the f e e l i n g of purpose i s woven so 50 i n e x t r i c a b l y i n t o Bunyan's tale that i t cannot be separated from i t . The f e e l i n g of purpose i n The Pilgrim's Progress des-cribed by Shaw can be separated from;the a l l e g o r i c a l frame-work. While we are convinced of the statement of purpose emerging from,the tale,,we are generally annoyed by the: purpose suggested by the a l l e g o r i c a l framework. We can readily; sympathize and i d e n t i f y with; Christian;'s drive to at t a i n a f i n a l goal,. But we r e a c t strongly when: t h i s goal-i s translated into a S a l v a t i o n i s t t h e o l o g i c a l framework by Bunyan.. JUst as the a l l e g o r i c a l framework intrudes upon: the i n t e g r i t y of the tale,, so i t intrudes upon the i n t e g r i t y of the sense of purpose emerging from; the tale.. The a l l e g o r i -c a l framework does not allow the tale and the purpose which i s i n e x t r i c a b l y a part of the tale to speak for themselves,-and therefore,, i t i s v a l i d to make a d i s t i n c t i o n : between the significance that i s part of the a l l e g o r i c a l framework and 2 3 the significance that i s part of the f i c t i o n . J Leavis' comment i s relevant here: "Bunyan's theological statement of the significance he wishes to enforce i s abstract; but the sense of significance that a c t u a l l y possessed him couldn't be stated, i t could only be communicated by creative means." 2 4 We are, then, awareeof working with two l e v e l s i n The  Pilgrim's Progress: that of the allegory,, and that of the t a l e . As we saw, these two l e v e l s were evident i n such scenes as the Slough of Despond and Vanity P a i r . The l e v e l of allegory 51 i s comprised of Bunyan's C a l v i n i s t theology, which i s to act as an i n t e r p r e t i v e guide f o r the t a l e . The l e v e l of the tale i s comprised of scene,, action, and character, as well as the l i t e r a r y meaning that emerges organically from the evolving p l o t . The d i s t i n c t i o n ; between; a l l e g o r i c a l framework and tale i s not merely a d i s t i n c t i o n betweenimeaning and p l o t . I would suggest that the tale has i t s own l i t e r a r y meaning which might consist i n part of the sense of significance and purpose commented on by Shaw and Leavis.- Thus Shaw and Lea-v i s were possibly pointing to the assimilation; of the a l l e g -o r i c a l framework int o the tale,, or the a b i l i t y of Bunyan to go beyond h i s own allegory. For example, Leavis makes the following comment: "For what makes The Pilgrim's Progress a great book, one of the classics,, i s i t s humanity — i t s ; r i c h , , poised and mature humanity. And t h i s i s not the l e s s impressive for our being, here and there,, by the a l l e g o r i c a l intent of t h i s and that incident,, reminded of the uglier; and pettier.; aspects of the i n t o l e r a n t creed,. the narrow Calvin--i s t i c scheme of personal salvation,, that Bunyan: e x p l i c i t l y ,.25 sets out to a l l e g o r i z e . " Im essence, the allegory i n The Pilgrim's Progress i s another i n t e r p r e t i v e framework imposed on the t a l e . This time the author himself becomes the a l l e g o r i c a l c r i t i c * , and again,, allegory emerges as a r e s t r i c t i v e mold. Further, we cam trace the desire for placing the mold on the tale to 52 Bunyan's fear that the reader might not arrive at the sanc-tioned conclusions,.; i f he reads the tale without an i n t e r -pretive guide. The desire to control the response of the reader i s , therefore, again: the product of a c u l t u r a l or r e l i g i o u s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of experience. But we can point to scenes such as Vanity F a i r to see where Bunyan was able to go beyond h i s own a l l e g o r i c a l framework. 53 CHAPTER IIII FOOTNOTES (New York: Ghilmark Press, 1961). 2 I b i d . , pp. 158-159. 3John Bunyan; (London: Hutchinson House, 1954),, p. 76. 4 I b i d . , , p . 77. 5 l b i d . , p..83. 6IMd., p. 85. 7 I b i d . , : p..75. tions i n i Puritan' Meditation (New Haven and London: London Univer s i ty Press, 1966). Ibid.,, p..158., I b i d . , pp. 219-220. Ibid.,.p. 195. In allegory the question: of intention: takes the reader outside the work under consideration and, therefore, the h i s -t o r i c a l approach i s important i n defining the inten t i o n : "Both theological and poetic allegory, then, are seen as depending on intentions, for i n both cases meaning i s sought, not i n the work i t s e l f (the f i r s t condition of modern: poetics) but i n the physical, psychological,, and mental objects which the work presupposes" (Harry Berger,, J r . , The A l l e g o r i c a l Temper: V i s i o n and R e a l i t y i n Book III of Spenser 1 s "Faerie Queene" (Bew Haven: Yale Univ e r s i t y Press, , 1957), p. 182). I I r e a l i z e that I am quoting Berger out of context, but h i s argument; FOOTNOTES (CONTINUED) 54 points to a s i g n i f i c a n t weakness of allegory, i n spite of Berger's intentions to j u s t i f y i t . Ir5 •'Kermode, p. 47. c-^The Pilgrim's Progress, ed. James Blanton Wharcy and rev. by Roger Sharrock, 2nd e d i t i o n (Oxford; The Clar-endon, Press, I960),, p. 14. 1 5 I b i d . , p. 88. 16 Arnold Ket t l e ' s comment on The Pilgrim's Progress i s relevant here: "But the e s s e n t i a l point i s that, though he cannot wholly evade the consequences of a world-picture which sees death as more important than l i f e and salvation as a matter concerning the individual! as an i s o l a t e d e n t i t y , in: spite of t h i s b a s i c a l l y / l i f e - d e n y i n g philosophy; Bunyan manages to infuse a l i v i n g breath: into h i s fable" (An, Introduction to the English NJovel (New York and Evanston: Harper & Row, 19SoJ,. I „ 44)> 1 7The Pilgrim* s Progress, p. 9©» •^Leavis suggests that there i s a strong sense of enjoyment i n the earthly l i f e i n The Pilgrim,' s Progress, even though the theological statement of the allegory would deny t h i s . "Afterword", The Pilgrim;' s Progress (Toronto: The New American! l i b r a r y of Canada Limited, 1964), p» 300.. 1 9Edgar A l l a n Poe, L i t e r a r y C r i t i c i s m of Edgar Allan; Poe, ed. Robert L. Hough I Li n c o l n : University of Nebraska Press, 1965),, p. 147. 2 0 I b i d . , ; , p.. 147. 2 lHon±g, Dark Conceit, pp. 181^182. 22 George Bernard Shaw, The Complete Prefaces of Bernard  Shay (London: Paul Hamlyn,, 1965H ; P• 589. Also relevant here? i s L e a v i s 1 'comment that i n great works of a r t we are concerned with the question of significance — a concern that over*, r i d e s the answers. P.R. Leavis, "Afterword", pp. 297-298.. 55; FOOTNOTES (CONTINUED) ^Kaufmanm also sees both the tale and the a l l e g o r i -c a l framework i n The Pilgrim's Progress, and he further suggests that the presence of both i n the allegory resulted i n tension. On the one hand, Bunyan saw narrative as myth — an i n t u i t i v e approach to truth. On the other hand, Bunyan saw truth as logos — a r a t i o n a l and expositions! approach.. Both approachessare evident i n Bunyan's allegory.. See Kaufmann, p. 15. Leavis,, " Afterword" „ p.. 298., 5The Common- Pursuit (New York: New York University Press,, 19bT)„ p.. 206T GHAPTER.IV/ SATIRIC' ALLEGORY: ALLEGORY.{MADE SUBSERVIENT To t h i s point, we have considered allegory as a r e s -t r i c t i v e framework. But the condemnation, of allegory should! he q u a l i f i e d , , because i n satire,, allegory becomes an ef f e c -tive means of l i t e r a r y expression. In s a t i r e , the r e s t r i c -t i v e , i n t e r p r e t i v e t r a i t s of allegory fade into the back-ground,, as the v i s i o n and attitude of sat i r e move into the-foreground. When under-the control of sat i r e , , a l l e g o r y becomes part of the s a t i r i c : purpose of uprooting: established patterns-; and attitudes* rather than a r e s t r i c t i v e force,, attempting to s o l i d i f y e x i s t i n g p o s i t i o n s . 1 The ethos of satire transforms allegory into an.effective l i t e r a r y medium. The a l l e g o r i -c a l element no longer attempts; to simplify f i c t i o n ; a n d ex-perience; the allegory i s content to allow the t a l e , f o r the most part,, to speak for i t s e l f . A d e f i n i t i o n of sat i r e can: help us to c l a r i f y the r o l e of allegory i n s a t i r e : " s a t i r e consists of an attack by means  of a manifest f i c t i o n upon discernible historic;• p a r t i c u l a r s " Two aspects are p a r t i c u l a r l y important i n t h i s d e f i n i t i o n . P i r s t of a l l , Rosenheim; suggests that the s a t i r i s t proceeds by creating a t a l e . But the tale i s also directed towards an object of attack,, and t h i s i s where allegory i s important. That i s , allegory persuades the reader to look for the 56 57 implications.of the t a l e , without defining these implications. In t h i s way allegory works i n a suggestive mannerbecause even: though i t points the reader towards significances of the t a l e , i t allows the reader to draw hi s own conclusions. Because allegory i s suggestive i n s a t i r e , i t can point i n ce r t a i n d i r e c t i o n s , without i n t e r f e r i n g with the i n t e g r i t y of the f i c t i o n . A good example of e f f e c t i v e s a t i r i c allegory i s Or-well' s Animal Farm. As i n Part IV/ of G u l l i v e r ' s Travels, the animal world provides the basis from which s a t i r i c : allegory proceeds. Further, Animal Farm.is a b r i e f , but e f f e c t i v e tale — e f f e c t i v e , because the narrative surface i s not disrupted by the allegory. I t begins as an animal story and remains so to the end. Throughout the course of the story, we see everything from the viewpoint of the animals. In other words,: Orwell r e a l i z e s that i n order to communicate as an a r t i s t , he must f i r s t of a l l see to the creation of a convincing f i c t i o n a l world.^ The success of Animal Farm i s c l o s e l y related to i t s point of view. The progress of the tale i s controlled by the i n s i g h t of the animals: "The point of view i s always that of the animals who are being duped. Their p l i g h t i s a deepened for the reader by h i s being allowed to discover the successive machinations of the pigs only as they/are borne i n upom the stupider animals." 4 In. other words, we share the growing r e a l i z a t i o n , of the animals that something i s amiss,, and our r e a l i z a t i o n accompanies that of the animals. 58 Granted, we r e a l i z e more f u l l y what i s happening than does: Boxer — we are closer to Benjamin,, who knowingly shakes h i s head after any further a l t e r a t i o n : i n the seven commandments or proclamation explained by Squealer, BUt b a s i c a l l y our r e a l i z a t i o n keeps pace with that of the animals; our r e a l i z -ation of the f u l l extent of what i s happening i s also always increasing, u n t i l we too are confronted with the f i n a l scene. Since we share i n the growing r e a l i z a t i o n of the animals, we can conclude that Orwell has created a story that works e f f e c t i v e l y as a t a l e . Our i n t e r e s t i n Animal Farm as a story p r o h i b i t s us from systematically working out an abstract statement of what Orwell i s saying, at l e a s t u n t i l the end of the story. In:Animal Farm we are, however, concerned with making a c o r r e l a t i o n between the animal and human worlds. The a l l e -gory thus has i t s e f f e c t , because we are stimulated to det-ermine for ourselves the significance of the misfortunes at Manor Farm. BUt as Leyburn suggests, the allegory works i n -d i r e c t l y ; we draw the conclusions for ourselves: "Orwell's keeping the point of view consistently that of the helpless animals and l e t t i n g us make only the discoveries that they make forces us to i n t e r p r e t for ourselves not only the mis-fortunes of the renamed Manor Farm, but also those of our own world. We are compelled to p a r t i c i p a t e imaginatively. Animal Farm i s successful s o c i a l s a t i r e because i t i s succ-e s s f u l allegory."5 Leyburn's comment here points to a basic aspect of the 59 r o l e of a l l e g o r y in. s a t i r e . The element of a l l e g o r y per -suades the reader that the s a t i r i c f i c t i o n r e l a t e s to a s p e c i f i c problem, but the a l l e g o r y does not d i d a c t i c a l l y define the r e l a t i o n s h i p . I f i t were not for t h i s sense that the s a t i r i c : f i c t i o n r e l a t e d to a p a r t i c u l a r problem, we might move from the realm of s a t i r e i n t o that of comedy. 6 A l l e g o r y , , then, persuades the reader to see the more serious i m p l i c a t i o n s of the s a t i r i c f i c t i o n , without n e c e s s a r i l y d e f i n i n g these i m p l i c a t i o n s . The nature of d i d a c t i c i s m i n s a t i r i c a l l e g o r y i s unique i n that i t can "teach" without d i s r u p t i n g the n a r r a t i v e . Since the s a t i r i c a l l e g o r i s t i s concerned with making an assaul t upon, the e v i l s he sees, i t i s evident that an element of d i d a c t i c i s m w i l l s t i l l be present i n s a t i r i c : a l l e g o r y . . But i n s a t i r i c a l l e g o r y , the d i d a c t i c i s m does not close the work as i n Bunyan's case, where he plays the r o l e s of both a r t i s t and preacher. D i d a c t i c i s m , though, can be i n d i r e c t , and t h i s i s i t s nature i n good s a t i r i c : a l l e g o r y . ! b r example, Orwell does: not s p e l l out the relevance of h i s s t o r y . As a s a t i r i s t , he has a d i d a c t i c emphasis i n that he points to social , ; , moral or p o l i t i c a l e v i l s . But the didact ic ism, i s c o n t r o l l e d . I t s bas ic e f f e c t i s to convince the reader that what he i s reading i s not pure fantasy , but rather r e l a t e d to h i s own existence, and to stimulate the reader to think about the nature of that r e l a t i o n s h i p . In other words, when a reader becomes involved 60 i n the f a n t a s y w o r l d s o f the Y a h o o s and Houyhnhnms, o r i n . the q u a r r e l s o f P e t e r and J a c k i n A T a l e o f a T u b , the r o l e o f t h e a l l e g o r y i s t o n o t a l l o w the r e a d e r t o escape w i t h the f e e l i n g t h a t he i s r e a d i n g o n l y / f a n t a s y . Thus P r y e d e s c r i b e s a l l e g o r y a s " a p o w e r f u l u n d e r t o w " : "The humor o f p u r e f a n t a s y , t h e o t h e r b o u n d a r y o f s a t i r e , b e l o n g s t o r o m a n c e , . t h o u g h i t i s u n e a s y t h e r e , a s humor p e r c e i v e s the i n c o n g r u o u s , ; and t h e c o n v e n t i o n s o f romance a r e i d e a l i z e d . M o s t f a n t a s y i s p u l l e d ! b a c k i n t o s a t i r e by a p o w e r f u l u n d e r -tow o f t e n ; c a l l e d a l l e g o r y , ; w h i c h may he d e s c r i b e d a s the i m p l i c i t r e f e r e n c e t o e x p e r i e n c e i n the p e r c e p t i o n ; o f the i n c o n g r u o u s . " 7 A s l o n g a s the r e a d e r c a n r e a d G u l l i v e r ' s  T r a v e l s a s f a n t a s y , he c a n s t a y i n the r e a l m o f c h i l d r e n ' s ; l i t e r a t u r e . O n c e , h o w e v e r , the a l l e g o r y / ; b e g i n s t o a f f e c t h i m , t h e w o r k i s n o t n e a r l y a s i n n o c u o u s . R e c o g n i z i n g the r i s k o f o v e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n , one m i g h t compare a l l e g o r y and d i d a c t i c i s m a s i t a p p e a r s i n B u n y a n ' s e The P i l g r i m ' s P r o g r e s s t o a l l e g o r y a s i t a p p e a r s i n a s a t i r i c a l l e g o r y s u c h a s A n i m a l P a r m . The r e a s o n we f i n d a l l e g o r y o b t r u s i v e i n the f o r m e r c a s e i s because the a l l e -g o r y b e g i n s f r o m o u t s i d e the l i t e r a r y w o r k . T h a t i s , Bunyan h a s an a l l e g o r i c a l f r a m e w o r k w h i c h he w i s h e s t o i l l u s t r a t e i n the c o u r s e o f h i s t a l e . Thus we a r e m o v i n g f r o m an o u t -s i d e i n t e r p r e t i v e f r a m e w o r k t o w a r d s an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the t a l e and e x p e r i e n c e . We w o u l d , t h e r e f o r e , p r e f e r t o s t a y on the l e v e l o f t h e t a l e , b e c a u s e the a l l e g o r i c a l famework e s t a b l i s h e s Bunyani a s an o p p o n e n t w i t h whom we argue about ; an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , o f e x p e r i e n c e . 61 Oni the other hand, in i s a t i r i c allegory,, the allegory proceeds from within the t a l e * We begin, f i r s t of a l l , with the f i c t i o n , but i n the course of our reading, we become aware of r a d i a t i n g a l l e g o r i c a l suggestions. These all e g o r -i c a l suggestions are not, however,, am imposed framework, but rather a persuasive power, leading us to think about some aspect of experience. In s a t i r i c allegory, then, allegory does not b l i n d us to contradictory r e a l i t i e s — a confronta-tion that takes place without the aid of a convenient i n t e r -pretive framework. Huxley's Brave Hew World! provides us with another example of the e f f e c t i v e r o l e of allegory im s a t i r e . In Huxley's book we are again i n the realm of fantasy,, because a picture of the future must of necessity be a creatiom of.' the imagination. BUt i n Huxley's case, we cam never move far into the world of fantasy; the proximity of our own: world to Huxley's imagined world p r o h i b i t s any tendency to escape. Huxley's future world always appears to be just one step away: "The characteristic; future world created by s a t i r i s t s of our own day i s made not by contrast with the world that e x i s t s but by am.enlarged likeness of i t . . The vehicle of their s a t i r e i s simply am extension of the present." 9 Huxley,, then, creates a tale about a future world that a l l e g o r i c a l l y suggests that our world i s very close to that of Brave New World. But Huxley, does not need to state t h i s ; the tale has s u f f i c i e n t power to suggest the a l l e g o r i o a l l c o r r e l a t i o n , and thus we are pulled back from; the realm of 62 f a n t a s y . I f we cannot move very f a r i n t o the world of f a n t a s y i n Huxley's s a t i r e , i t i s because of the c l o s e p r o x i m i t y between Huxley's world and our own. The suggestive nature of a l l e g o r y i n s a t i r e a l l o w s the author to d i r e c t the response of the reader, without stand-i n g between, the reader and the l i t e r a r y work. For example, since Orwell s t i m u l a t e s the reader to work out the c o r r e l a -t i o n between the animal and human worlds, i t i s obvious t h a t he i s s t i l l a c t i n g as a guide. On the other hand, Orwell stays outside the t a l e . Thus Orwell meets th a t demand of the reader i n that he i s detached, : and y e t a c t s as a guide. Also,, s a t i r i c : a l l e g o r y enables the author to communicate h i s judgement d r a m a t i c a l l y without o v e r t l y s t a t i n g i t ! 0 And as long as the author focuses on the dramatic presentation, of h i s judgement, the d i d a c t i c aspect of a l l e g o r y w i l l be held i n check. A l l e g o r y t h a t i s not o v e r t l y d i d a c t i c might appear to be a c o n t r a d i c t i o n . And s u r e l y , i n Bunyan's case the a l l e g -o r i c a l framework i s o b v i o u s l y d i d a c t i c * , because i t s i n t e n t -t i o n : i s to teach the reader how to l i v e , and the reader's response to the t a l e i s n e c e s s a r i l y r e s t r i c t e d u n l e s s he can f o r g e t the a l l e g o r i c a l framework. Orwell's a l l e g o r i c a l suggestions are r a t h e r meant to i l l u m i n a t e a d i s t r e s s i n g p a t t e r n of development, and any o v e r t answer i s overpowered! by the f i n a l scene. Orwell's a l l e g o r y tends to explode a l l l simple s o l u t i o n s . A l l e g o r y , then, p l a y s a very important r o l e i n s a t i r e . 63 On the one hand the s a t i r i s t must create an imaginary world that has i t s own laws and consistency. I f the narrative surface i s to be l e f t undisturbed, he must devote h i s energies into staying on the l e v e l of the imaginary world. Possibly t h i s i s why i t might be important that s a t i r i c a l l e g o r i e s can be e f f e c t i v e as children's l i t e r a t u r e , for i f " they are e f f e c t i v e , they must have a good narrative sur-face. The s a t i r i s t , however, creates the hypothetical world i n order to make a disguised comment about experience, and allegory allows the s a t i r i s t to stimulate thought about h i s tale without having to i n t e r p r e t the f i c t i o n . He stays on thee l e v e l of the hypothetical world, but he also leaves behind enough guiding hints to d i r e c t the reader back to the world of experience. Further, the element of irony i n sa t i r e helps to en-sure that allegory w i l l be suggestive, rather than;overtly d i d a c t i c . The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the ironic, method are c l e a r l y described by Frye: "The term irony, then,> indicates a technique of appearing to be l e s s than one i s , which i n l i t e r a t u r e becomes most commonly a technique of saying as l i t t l e and meaning as much as possible,, or,. i n a more general way,, a pattern of words that turns away from,direct state-ment or i t s own obvious meaning." 1 1 Essentially,, the i r o n i c method cam be described as one of indirection, and understatement. Under the influence of irony, allegory be-comes an e f f e c t i v e l i t e r a r y technique, because as i t becomes more suggestive, i t stimulates the reader's response to a 64-greater: degree. A prime example of s a t i r i c allegory's f o r e e f u l i n d i r e c t statement i s Erasmus' colloquy,, "Charon". The object of the; satire i s war and i t s devotees. The a l l e g o r i c a l dramatic: si t u a t i o n i s created i n d i r e c t l y i n the course of the conver-sation between; Alastor and Charon. Alastor informs Gharon. that the earth i s ravaged by war and that they w i l l be more; than busy now,, because there w i l l be an increased number of dead people wishing to cross the r i v e r Styx. Alastor asks Charon why he i s not tending to h i s business,, and Charon r e p l i e s that h i s boat has been;shipwrecked, because of the excessive number of shades? Alas.. Can't get ahead of that goddess1. But why are you l o i t e r i n g here without your boat, then? Charon. Business t r i p : I came here to get a good, strong trireme ready.. My galley's so rotten, with age and so patched up that i t won't do for t h i s job; i f what Ossa told me i s true. Though what need was there of Ossa? The p l a i n f a c t of the matter demands i t : I've had a shipwreck., Alas. You are dripping wet,, undoubtedly. I thought you were coming back from:a bath. Charon. Oh, no, I've been; swimming out of the Stygian swamp. Alas. Where have you l e f t the shades? Charon. Swimming with the frogs.12 On the one hand,.the si t u a t i o n described i n the above conversation i s almost comic;... For a moment we seem.to be moving towards the realm; of fantasy, but the allegory p u l l s us back int o the realms of irony and satire as we r e a l i z e that the reason for the increased;number of shades i s the; increased scope of the war • 65 Further,, the hypothetical situation; i s extremely ironic;; Erasmus takes the point of view of the s p i r i t s who r e j o i c e as the wars increase. The element of irony makes: the dramatic situation, very suggestive, persuading the reader to make the a l l e g o r i c a l reference to h i s owm experi-ence . In both Animal Farm and "Charon" the authors d i r e c t th e i r energies i n t o creating a convincing hypothetical world. Thus both authors work with the i r o n i c method; any implica-tions about experience are always made i n d i r e c t l y . Both works, then, are very suggestive, as the element of irony acts as an e f f e c t i v e c o n t r o l l i n g force on the allegory. Instead of being repulsed by the allegory,, the reader i s persuaded to complete the allegory as he reads the l i t e r a r y work.. That i s , both Orwell and Erasmus stay on the l e v e l of thei r hypothetical worlds, trusting that the reader w i l l f o l -low out the implications of their tales i n r e l a t i n g the f i c t i o n a l world to the s p e c i f i c problem. Further, allegory i n sa t i r e i s not obtrusive because of the s a t i r i s t ' s attitude towards a r i g i d interpretation;of experience. Even though satire has a d i d a c t i c tone, i n that i t lashes out against e v i l s and often assumes a high moral at t i t u d e , i t does not propose an alternative r i g i d framework. S a t i r i c allegory i s deceptive, because i t usually develops a close p a r a l l e l between the hypothetical world and the r e a l world. This p a r a l l e l might suggest that the s a t i r i s t i s about to impose a framework on; experience, but the s a t i r i s t develops t h i s p a r a l l e l i n order to undermine the systems that 66 he i s attacking. Thus the end r e s u l t of the s a t i r i s t ' s : ; temporary adoption of a framework i s explosive rather than repressive. The s a t i r i s t ' s creation of a close p a r a l l e l between h i s f i c t i o n a l world and the world of r e a l i t y i s more a mat-ter of l i t e r a r y technique than one of i l l u s t r a t i n g an; ideo-l o g i c a l viewpoint. As he c r e a t e s h i s f i c t i o n a l world, the s a t i r i s t moves away from the discursive statement of polemic argument. The creation of a good f i c t i o n a l world helps the s a t i r i s t to become more i n d i r e c t and suggestive,, whereas an a l l e g o r i s t l i k e Bunyan moves towards argument and discourse as he creates the p a r a l l e l between the r e a l world and h i s t a l e . The s a t i r i s t casts a wary eye on any system,, for he sees both the system and that which the system has swept beneath the carpet to preserve c l a r i t y of d e f i n i t i o n . Thus? allegory i n sat i r e becomes an i r o n i c comment on r i g i d a l l e g -o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of experience. The position, of the; s a t i r i s t does not allow him to write a tale that i s meant to f i t a r i g i d framework.. Thus Frye states: "Insofar as the s a t i r i s t has a 'position* of h i s own,, i t i s the preference of p r a c t i s e to theory,, experience to metaphysics." 1 3 Cer-t a i n l y , t h i s i s true of Swift when he points to the absur-d i t y of the r e l i g i o u s systems evolved by Jack and Peter i n A Tale of a Tub. Also, we sense that Swift could not remain i n the world of the Houhyhnms for any length of time, because that world i s too systematically r a t i o n a l . 1 4 The s a t i r i s t attacks the system not only because i t i s 67 an over s i m p l i f i c a t i o n , but also because of i t s e f f e c t on human freedom. As Prye suggests, one aim of sa t i r e i s to break up the systems that impede the free movement of society. Thus Orwell writes a sa t i r e that portrays the evolution of tyrant, and Huxley writes a s a t i r i c allegory about the possible e f f e c t that s c i e h l t i f i c development might have on human freedom, when the ind i v i d u a l : no longer has the l i b e r t y to f e e l pain and horror• Because the writer of s a t i r i c allegory i s not interested i n codifying, allegory becomes a l i t e r a r y mode whereby sys-tems are attacked.. This explains why allegory i s not as d i s t a s t e f u l i n s a t i r i c allegory. Granted, s a t i r i c attack generally implies the presence of a counter i d e a l i n the s a t i r i s t ' s mind. BUt at l e a s t t h i s i d e a l i s not forced on 16' the reader. The presence of irony leads to the i n d i r e c t method. Also, i n s a t i r e , the p o s i t i o n of the s a t i r i s t i s usually general enough to surmount sectarian boundaries. That i s , i f the s a t i r i s t upholds the cause of.freedom, h i s concern i s not to s p e l l out the exact nature of that f r e e -dom. Or,, i f he attacks v i c e , h e does not deliver a moral exemplumion v i r t u e . The s a t i r i s t ' s abhorrence of systems i s simply too strong. There i s a basic difference, then,, between allegory as i t appearssin the sa t i r e s discussed i n t h i s chapter, and. a l l e -gory as used by Bunyan, or even Spenser. With Spenser,, the reader often wishes that the poet had been content with h i s world of fantasy. Although we enjoy h i s imaginative world, 683 we resent the a l l e g o r i c a l conclusions that Spenser draws for us. Granted, the s a t i r i c a l l e g o r i s t can also f a l l prey to the temptation! of pushing h i s moral. For example, Huxley tends to mistrust the effectiveness of h i s tale and charac-ters, and consequently, he occasionally overemphasizes to prove h i s point. At times, the speeches tend to be long and the dialogue i s often slanted too obviously towards Huxley's moral.. Granted, i n a s a t i r i c allegory,, the concern i s not for detailed and f u l l characterization, but i n Brave Eew  World, Lenina's attitude to sex< i s overemphasized,, to the extent that she i s often. more humorous than r e v o l t i n g . And as Huxley himself admitted* John: Savage strains the c r e d i b i -l i t y of the reader. But at l e a s t Huxley uses a b a s i c a l l y i n d i r e c t method. Oh the other hand, Orwell i n Animal Parmi shows himself to be the master of the i n d i r e c t method i n s a t i r i c allegory.. His tale i s generally free of unnecessary elaboration. B a s i c a l l y , then, we can picture the s a t i r i s t , as an i n d i v i d u a l who constantly r e j e c t s any dogma or form that; might stand i n the way of the impulse for freedom;: "Thee s a t i r i s t i s no revolutionary, that i s , he o f f e r s no opposing dogma,.no divine plan; to save the world.. He i s no conserva-tive,, i n the sense of r e j e c t i n g innovations and clinging; to oldforms because they are old. He i s the r e b e l who assertss the c i v i l i z i n g forms of society, old or new,, so long as they, 69 permit man to f u l f i l l himself. His r e b e l l i o n i s the w i l l to l i v e , the impulse of l i f e determined! to overcome i t s : chains." 1 1 7 To suggest that allegory i s more palatable when used i n the cause of freedom.is not tantamount to saying that revolutionary works are necessarily better l i t e r a t u r e . The freedom connected with s a t i r i c ; allegory i s a freedom, a r i s i n g from, the s a t i r i s t ' s viewpoint: towards interpretations of experience, as well as a freedomi of response on the partof the reader.. Because; the s a t i r i c a l l e g o r i s t does not define: the nature of freedom* h i s attack remains i n d i r e c t and sugf gestive, ?and thus more i n l i n e with l i t e r a r y expression.. Ultimately, we f i n d allegory i n satire more palatable, because i t d i r e c t s the response of the reader without placing-; defining; and r e s t r i c t i n g boundaries on that response. 70 CHAPTER IV FOOTNOTES See comments l a t e r i n t h i s chapter on the nature of didacticism i n s a t i r e . Even though the s a t i r i s t reacts to established positions, he does not necessarily suggest a counter system. I Iwould suggest that the nature of l i t e r a t u r e (and satire) i s such that i t tends to constant-l y point i n the direction; of alternative hypothetical p o s s i b i l i t i e s without defining the a l t e r n a t i v e . This i s why the r e l a t i o n s h i p between l i t e r a t u r e and l i f e appearsa to be vague and i n d e f i n i t e . I f the s a t i r i s t ; would define a counter system, h i s use of allegory would become r e s t r i c -t i v e . Edward Rosenheim, J r . , Swift and the S a t i r i s t ' s A r t (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1963), p. 31 (emphasis Rosenheim! s ) . Note also p.. 22 where Rosen-heim suggests that the s a t i r i s t creates the fiction,,, and the reader *sntask i s to make the co r r e l a t i o n s . At f i r s t the reader i s t o t a l l y engrossed i n the development of the t a l e . BUt he r e a l i z e s too that the tale has further s i g n i f i c a n c e . This awareness of the significance should only be elaborated on by the reader: himself after; the tale i s completed. R e a l i z a t i o n of thematic; significance,, then,,should be an: after e f f e c t of reading e f f e c t i v e f i c t i o n ; . As Coleridge suggested,, poetry (the same could be said of l i t e r a t u r e generally) should f i r s t of a l l please. 4 E l l e n Douglas Leyburn, S a t i r i c : Allegory: Mirror of  Man (New Haven:: Yale University Press,, 1956),"p.. 68.--'Ibid., p.. 70. ^Ro senheim,. p. 31... 'Prye,, Anatomy.., p.. 225. ^Leyburn's comments on Ae here: "The more a r t i s t i c f a b l es l i k e true a l l e g o r i e s , allowing sop's fables are relevant t e l l the story and stop the reader the pleasure o f FOOTNOTES (CONTINUED) 71 drawing h i s own conclusion: before he reaches the labeled moral, which remains outside the story!* (pp>. 57-58)). Signif i c a n t l y , , the moral i s described as being outside the tale • q ^Leyburn, p.. 114* 1 0 I . b i d . , p., 11. "^Frye, Anatomy.,., p.. 40.. 1 2 T h e Chlloquies of Erasmus, t r . . Craig R. Thompson (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1965), pp. 390-391. 13 ^Frye,, Anatomy. ,p.. 230.. 1 4Because sat i r e points to the oversimplification: of systems, i t makes a conscious e f f o r t to be r e a l i s t i c , , i n the sense of r e s t o r i n g the balance by showing f u l l y the prevalence of e v i l . Note, for example, the conclud-ing scenes of Animal Far mi and Brave New World.- The overpowering awareness of e v i l p r o h i b i t s the allegory i n sati r e from; presenting a simple didactic: view of experience. On: the v i s i o n of e v i l i n sat i r e see P h i l i p Pinkus, "S a t i r e ; and St. George," Queen1 s Quarterly. LXX (1963/64),. 30-49-15 Frye, Anatomy, p.. 233.. 16 The purpose of s a t i r e i s not to reform; i n the usual sense of reformation. Rather i t s purpose i s to s t r i p away the covering of hypocrisy, .in. an e f f o r t to lead the reader towards awareness. Pinkus , pp. 43-44. 1 7 P i n k u s , p.. 49. 7 2 CHAPTER V/ THE OPENI RESPONSE: THE UNFORTIFIED CRITIC; In; the previous chapters we have looked 1 at allegory as a f o r t i f i c a t i o n (except i n the case of s a t i r i c allegory) that stands between, thd reader and l i t e r a r y expression. These f o r t i f i c a t i o n s can be erected by both author and cr i t i c > , in; an e f f o r t to channel the l i t e r a r y work i n acceptable direc*-tions and to protect the reader from implications that might be u n s e t t l i n g . The opposite r e a c t i o n to l i t e r a r y expression would be the open-response. This chapter w i l l point to c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of that response,, and to attitudes that stand i n the way of such, responses to l i t e r a t u r e . One might be tempted to ask why a l i t e r a r y work should be e n t i t l e d to unique analysis and response. And one might simply answer that i f the a r t i s t were only interested i n making a statement that could be translated into the term-inology of the c r i t i c ' s system,, he would not write l i t e r a t u r e . . I f the a r t i s t creates only a statement that can be paraphras-ed,; we can picture him as a writer who st a r t s with; a pre-conceived idea of h i s statement,, and then embellishes-this statement by creating a t a l e . Nib doubt, examples of such a l l e g o r i s t s can be found. Furthermore,, such a writer could be quite e f f e c t i v e , because the techniques of " l i t e r a r y " expression: could enable the " a r t i s t " to overpower the unwary-75 reader.,, But once the reader i s aware of what i s happening, he might become quite annoyed, because he resents being the r e c i p i e n t of propaganda. On-the other hand, i n a good l i t e r a r y work there i s very l i t t l e that can be translated i n terms of a statement. What, a novel says can be said i n no other way,, and everything in; the novel contributes to the t o t a l e f f e c t of i t s suggestive expression. Therefore, i t i s f u t i l e to attempt to i s o l a t e the subject or statement of a good novel: "A work of l i t e r a t u r e means what i t says, and means a l l that i t says: i t never means what someone else can; say that i t says. The true meaning includes a l l the suggestions and cumulative insights; which; derive from* adequate symbolization,, adequate enrich-ment of meaning at a l l points through style,, pattern,, plot,-rhythm,, tone — everything. I d e a l l y , there i s no such thing as the subject of a good novel. There i s only the n o v e l . " 1 Given the view of a l i t e r a r y work suggested by Daiches,, one can; r e a d i l y see why c r i t i c s and readers might become un-comfortable i n the presence of a work of a r t . The c r i t i c ; that a l l e g o r i z e s looks for i n t e r p r e t i v e patterns, and i f a work does not f i t a system,, he tends to look u n t i l he f e e l s that he has discovered s u f f i c i e n t evidence to warrant categorizing the work of art.. Once he has f i t t e d the l i t e r -ary work int o i t s appropriate place,, he breathes a sigh of r e l i e f , because the system has remained i n t a c t . Thus a reason for the a l l e g o r i z i n g tendencies of c r i t i c s i s the unpredictable e f f e c t of a work of art.,. This 74 same reason: accounts for the e f f o r t s of medieval and renaiss-ance c r i t i c s to al l e g o r i z e works that might be considered morally objectionable. Readers could then view the works i n question i n terms of accepted systems of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Today c r i t i c s disparage t h i s p a r t i c u l a r phase of the history/ of c r i t i c i s m , , but the tendency to see l i t e r a r y works^in terms; of presently a cceptable systems,, whether they r be Freudian or Marxian,, i s simply/another version of a l l e g o r i c a l c r i t i -cism.. The only aspect that i s d i f f e r e n t i s the a l l e g o r i c a l framework. The development of l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m ; as a science can be:blamed pa r t l y for the tendency of the in d i v i d u a l . t o think im terms of systems of interpretation.. Because: of h i s desires to make h i s d i s c i p l i n e respectable,, the l i t e r a r y c r i t i c ; has; evolved a systematic; approach to l i t e r a t u r e . . A systematic; approach could be b e n e f i c i a l , but a system; tends to see; l i t e r a r y expression in: discursive terms.- Thus systematic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n can; very e a s i l y lead to categorizing and; 2 a l l e g o r i z a t i o n . Often, the c r i t i c ; seems to have forgotten; that the basic:; assumptions of h i s d i s c i p l i n e might be a n t i -t h e t i c a l to the demands of the l i t e r a r y work. Another aspect of the tendency to make l i t e r a r y c r i t i -cism i n t o a system i s the ascendency of the i n t e l l e c t . . When th i s ascendency i s assumed i n the process of. criticism,, the r e s u l t i s a reactionary attempt to curb; the degreeeof ex-posure to the work of a r t : "Today i s such a timewhen. the 75 project of interpretation! i s l a r g e l y reactionary,., s t i f l i n g . Like the fumes of the automobile and of heavy industry which befoul the urban atmosphere, the effusion of interpretation® of a r t today poisons our s e n s i b i l i t i e s . In a culture whosea already c l a s s i c a l dilemma i s the hypertrophy of the i n t e l l e c t at the expense of energy and sensual capability,, i n t e r p r e t a -3 tion; i s the revenge of the i n t e l l e c t upon a r t . " The i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n of the ar t s and the tendency to see l i t e r a r y expression as statement i n e v i t a b l y stand i n the way of the open, response, because such attitudes and methods f a i l to take into account the uniqueness of encoun^-terin g a work of a r t . The methods of studying an object must, at l e a s t to some extent,,be determined by the nature of the raw material,, but i n the case of much l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m , t h i s simple axiom? has obviously of ten: been; overlooked.. A basic; premise of c r i t i c i s m , , then,, should be the d i s t i n c t i o n between; l i t e r a r y expression: and statement: "A work of art: encountered as a work of art i s an experience, not a statement or an answer to a question. A r t i s not only about something; i t i s something. A work of a r t i s a thing in. the world,, not 4 just a text or commentary on; the world." Following from the above premise,, the c r i t i c ; should r e a l i z e that the knowledge he gains from: a l i t e r a r y work i s also unique. The open response leads to an experience of awareness, rather than to a knowledge of an i n t e l l e c t u a l conceptual system: "Whitch i s to say that the knowledge wee gain; through a r t i s an: experience of the form: or style of 76:, knowing something,, rather than a knowledge of something ( l i k e a f a c t or a moral judgement) i n i t s e l f ."5 The know-ledge that we gain from aniencounter with a l i t e r a r y work cannot he conceptualized. And once we attempt to describe that knowledge as knowledge of something,,, we avoid encounter-ing the l i t e r a r y work, because the experience of the t o t a l -i t y of the l i t e r a r y work i s the experience of awareness.. Since l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m as a science assumes that the l i t e r a r y work can be interpreted as a statement about a pa r t i c u l a r subject, i t f a i l s to do ju s t i c e to l i t e r a r y ex-pression. In contrast to the systematic, i n t e r p r e t i v e approach, the c r i t i c should approach the l i t e r a r y work with complete? openness. This approach allows for the l i t e r a r y work to have i t s e f f e c t — an e f f e c t of placing the reader i n a state of contemplation that i s above rejection, or approval of d i s -cursive argument: — "But a r t does not excite; or, i f i t does the ex c i t a t i o n i s appeased, within the terms of the aesthetic experience. A l l great a r t induces contemplation,, a dynamic contemplation!.. However much the reader or l i s t -ener or spectator i s aroused by a provisional i d e n t i f i c a -tion of what i s i n the work of a r t with r e a l l i f e , hiss ultimate reaction. — so far as he i s reacting to the work as a work of a r t — must be detached,,restful, contempla-6' tive,, emotionally free, beyond indignation and approval." Such a state of contemplation would obviously r u l e out the 77 p o s s i b i l i t y of mechanical a l l e g o r i z a t i o n . One can see where the contemplative attitude described by Sontag could be rather unsettling for the c r i t i c , since the open response demands that the r e a d e r - c r i t i c : approach the l i t e r a r y work without the f o r t i f i c a t i o n s of preconceived schemes fo r interpretation., Thus we might reasonably suggest that the unpredictable nature of confrontation has kept readers and c r i t i c s from: approaching l i t e r a r y works i n an. open manner. The open:response demands an almost c h i l d l i k e innocence., But readers and c r i t i c s fear t h i s unprotected state,, because they wish; to know the d i r e c t i o n of their response, before they have approached the l i t e r a r y work. Son-tag astutely traces the fear of the aesthetic response (state of contemplation! and openness on the part of the reader) to 7 the fear that truth and morality w i l l be compromised.,' Systems of interpretation; are also a t t r a c t i v e because they have a completeness that i s very desirable f o r wishful thinking. Rahv develops t h i s thesis by making a d i s t i n c t i o n between mythic models and h i s t o r y . Mythic: patterns are: com^ plete because they are above history.. I f f i c t i o n i s seen i n the l i g h t of the mythic: patterns, f i c t i o n becomes a haven for those who wish to see the reassuring patterns;. Rahv, how-ever, counters by arguing that f i c t i o n has a close r e l a t i o n to h i s t o r y — the actual s i t u a t i o n where patterns may not be-as complete. For Rahv, then, the attempt to see f i c t i o n ; in: terms of patterns i s a r e a c t i o n on the part: of the c r i t i c s Q against the unpleasant r e a l i t i e s of h i s t o r y . 78 Along with the d i s t r u s t of the moral e f f e c t s of the l i t e r a r y work, int e r p r e t i v e c r i t i c i s m reveals a marked d i s -Q t r u s t of appearances. That i s , the c r i t i c approaches the l i t e r a r y work with the presupposition that a mysterious meaning lurks behind the surface,, and that, therefore, h i s task i s to discover that meaning.. Such a view of symboliz-ation i n l i t e r a t u r e prevents the c r i t i c from: exposing him>-s e l f d i r e c t l y to the work of art... There i s neither time nor place f o r a detached, contemplative approach.. Instead,, he must play the r o l e of l i t e r a r y detective,, i n ani e f f o r t to discover s u f f i c i e n t evidence to make a case for what he sees to be the mysterious meaning. The symbol hunting c r i t i c can: only see the writer as a deceptive craftsman,, whose intent i s to hide h i s statement. The c r i t i c becomes;; the learned p s y c h i a t r i s t - s o c i o l o g i s t , , discovering hidden-t r a i t s ; i n both the author and h i s work. A clear example of the d i s t r u s t of appearances can be seen in; the Marxist and Freudian methods, of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Both viewpoints proceed from; the assumption, that the surface l e v e l should be distrusted.. What l i e s behind the appearance (assuming that there i s something there) i s of ultimate im-portance. When these viewpoints are: applied to l i t e r a t u r e , the r e s u l t i s a complete restatement,, i n b a s i c a l l y a l l e g o r i -c a l terms, of what happens i n the l i t e r a r y work: "According to Marx and Freud,, these eventws "manifest content" only seem; to be i n t e l l i g i b l e . . Actually, they have no meaning, without interpretation.. To understand i s to i n t e r p r e t . And 7 9 to i n t e r p r e t i s to restate the phenomenon, i n e f f e c t to f i n d an equivalent for i t " . 1 0 The c r i t i c who wishes to restates what he reads w i l l i n e v i t a b l y approach the l i t e r a r y work with suspicion. Consequently, instead of being able to r e s -pond f r e e l y to the work of art,, the c r i t i c f i n d s himself ini a state-of c o n f l i c t with the l i t e r a r y work.. The open response, however, does not preclude the concern:with symbolic expression. Symbolization i s b a s i c to l i t e r a t u r e . I f a novel i s e f f e c t i v e , i t s effectiveness often stems from i t s suggestiveness; i t stimulates the imag-i n a t i o n of the reader, as the reader becomes receptive to the suggestive aspect of the l i t e r a r y work. But symboliza-tion i n l i t e r a t u r e i s quite d i s t i n c t from the kind of symbol-ism envisionedby those who see symbols as clues to the statement of the novel: This i s not to say, to be sure, that f i c t i o m excludes symbolization. On the contrary,;, works of f i c t i o n ; abound ini symbolic; devices and the more s i g n i f i c a n t among them: have symbolic import. But when, we speak of symbolic import of a novel: what we have i n mind i s nothing more mysterious? than i t s overplus of meaning, i t s .suggestiveness over and above i t s tissue of particulars,, the actual representation: of which; i t i s comprised; and that i s scarcely the same thing as treating these p a r t i c u l a r s as "clues" which i t i s the ingenious c r i t i c * s task to follow up for hidden or buried meanings3that ares assumed to be the " r e a l point" of the text under examination.il In other words,, the symbolization: of a l i t e r a r y work must be allowed to remain: open-ended. The c r i t i c should be concerned that h i s responses to the l i t e r a r y work w i l l not circumscribe i t s expanding significance, for otherwise, the 80 c r i t i c w i l l be working against the nature of h i s subject matter. As Daiches suggests, the expanding q u a l i t y of symbolization i s the distinguishing aspect of e f f e c t i v e l i t -erature: "What distinguishes symbolization: i n a r t from other kinds of symbolization i s l a r g e l y the constantly expanding and reverberating meaning of the symbol"., , A 6 I f the c r i t i c : ; adopts the open response to the l i t e r a r y work and symbolization,, h i s r o l e and stature as a c r i t i c : ; w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t l y affected. As long as the c r i t i c c a c t s an an interpreter, he can pose as the bearer of the i n t e r p r e t i v e keys that w i l l open the secret chambers of the l i t e r a r y work. But once the c r i t i c : accepts the open:response, he must resign: himself to a more humble r o l e . The readjustment w i l l place the l i t e r a r y work i n the c r u c i a l p o s i t i o n , ; while the c r i t i c ; w i l l become what Rahv c a l l s a "...participant i n the l i t -erary event." One of the f i r s t postulates of the open response to the l i t e r a r y work i s that c r i t i c i s m ; can. never; be a f i n a l statement.. Because the l i t e r a r y work i s untranslatable,, the critic;;can do no more than:point to suggestive patterns and rhythms: " l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m i s always exaggerated,, always metaphorical, always an oversimplification.. At best i t i s * suggestive rather than final... By suggesting what we should look for i t may help us to see more c l e a r l y , but what wes actually observe when we do see more c l e a r l y may be come-thing which the c r i t i c o c o u l d not or would not d i s c u s s . " 1 4 And;;a further comment: "Art i s always more complex than any 831 theory about i t — more complex and yet more simple, for i t s meanings are subtle and manifold while i t s essence i s single and even!primitive. The c r i t i c cam do no more than make relevant,, but never wholly tenable, g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s . " ^ A good example of c r i t i c i s m ' that focuses on i l l u m i n a -ting patterns without,, for the most part,, i n t e r p r e t i n g them, i s A l f r e d Kazin's essa y on Moby Dick.. Kazin's open responses to M e l v i l l e ' s novel i s shown by the focus of h i s comments. He point si: to the patterns and rhythms that account for the sense of e x h i l a r a t i o n and vastness that we experience ini reading Moby Dick; I f we s t a r t by opening ourselves to t h i s abundance and force,, by welcoming not merely the story i t s e l f , , but the manner i n which i t speaks to us, we s h a l l recognize i n t h i s restlessness,, t h i s richness,, t h i s persistent atmosphere o f magnitude the e s s e n t i a l image on. which; the book i s founded. For Moby-Dick i s not so much a book about Captain AhaVs quest for the whale as i t i s an experience o£ that quest. This i s only to say, what we say of any true poem,, that we cannot reduce i t s e s s e n t i a l substance to a subject, that we should not i n t e l l e c t u a l i z e and summarize i t , but that we should recognize that i t s very force and beauty l i e i n the way i t i s conceived and written, i n the q u a l i t i e s that flow fromi itssbeing a unique? entity.15 S i g n i f i c a n t l y , Kazin does not attempt to discover a pleasant resolution! In Moby Dick. Ini f a c t , Kazin suggests that Ishmael remains a l i v e only because of the need for a witness to the f i n a l events. Rather than r e s o r t i n g to an. a l l e g o r i c a l framework i n order to provide the novel with a convenient resolution,, Kazin: points to possible reasons f o r 82 our f e e l i n g of t e r r o r : "What M e l v i l l e does i s to speak for the whirlwind, f o r the watery waste, f o r the sharks." A^ Kazin's c r i t i c a l comments, then, focus on what Daiches would c a l l the style of the l i t e r a r y work.. Daiches suggests; that the choice of words and images and handling of the ac-t i o n at any given point are a l l part of s t y l e , and further: the style maintains the constant e f f e c t of symbolic; ex-pansion. 1 7 Kazin's c r i t i c i s m i s h e l p f u l p r e c i s e l y because he elaborates on: those aspects; of M e l v i l l e ' s novel that create the open-ended e f f e c t . D. H. Lawrence's comments on Moby Dick are a good example of c r i t i c i s m that i s based on the open response to 1 8 the l i t e r a r y work.., As we read Lawrence's criticism,, we; sense that we are l i s t e n i n g to the spontaneous remarks of another reader., There i s l i t t l e e f f o r t to f i t the novel into a system,, except for the conclusion, where Lawrences suggests that the whale i s possibly representative of blood consciousness., On the other hand,. Lawrence balances such a statement by saying that he does not know what the symbol stands f o r , andhe further suggest sa that M e l v i l l e himself did not have a d e f i n i t e meaning for the symbol. Further, Lawrence does not attempt to j u s t i f y the whole of Moby Dick. Even though he f e e l s that Moby Dick i s a superior novel, he f u l l y acknowledges the weaknesses of the work., There i s no a r t i f i c i a l attempt to f i l t the whole-of the novel i n t o one comprehensive system,, as Lawrence r e a d i l y admits that aspects of the style disturb; the reader.. x^ This candour i s refreshing,, and a good example of freedom; o f 83 response on the part of the reader, Lawrence's method of c r i t i c i s m i s p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r c e f u l , i n that he simply places the various aspects? of the novel before the eyes of himself and other readers. One senses that one i s being c a l l e d upon;to f r e e l y respond to the key aspects of the novel. Also,. Lawrence's criticisms i s free of the s c i e n t i f i c o b j e c t i v i t y that sorts out data i n order to categorize the work, Lawrence's c r i t i c i s m , i s both objective and subjective,. He remains objective in> that he constantly focuses on basic aspects of the novel. Also, he does t h i s by taking these aspects at face value.. But Lawrence i s also subjective i n that we are aware of an i n d i v i d u a l reader with i n d i v i d u a l i d i o s y n c r a s i e s . There i s enough of Lawrence i n the c r i t i c i s m t to make us aware that the c r i t i c i s an a l i v e reader. And Lawrence i s never objective to the point where he f e e l s i n h i b i t e d about commenting on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between; Mel-o n v i l l e ' s novel and the r e a l i t y / that: i n s p i r e d , i t . . The kind of c r i t i c i s m advocated by Daiches, Rahv andi Sontag, and practised by Lawrence and Kazin demands both humility and courage. On the one hand, the critic:must r e -sign; himself to a r o l e that i s subservient to the l i t e r a r y work. He must be w i l l i n g to be dispensable. In f a c t , that:, should be h i s goal, f o r h i s concern should be to lead the reader beyond h i s c r i t i c i s m to the l i t e r a r y work. Courage i s also required, because the open.response'; demands that the r e a d e r - c r i t i c ; allow the unresolved tensions i n the l i t e r a r y work to remain unresolved:.. This i s a necessary price to pay,, for i f the c r i t i c : wishes to exp-erience the joy of open; response, he must also be open to the accompanying t e r r o r . 85: CHAPTER. V FOOTNOTES 1 David Daiches, A Study of L i t e r a t u r e , p.. 52. P h i l i p Rahv comments s i g n i f i c a n t l y on i n s t i t u t i o n i -a l i z a t i o n ; and the arts.. He suggests that a r t has always tended to he a n t i t h e t i c a l to i n s t i t u t i o n s . One can see*, therefore, why the e f f o r t to make l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m . i n t o a science (a form of a l l g g o r i z a t i o n ) i s not an unmixed! blessing.. " C r i t i c i s m and the Imagination, of Alternatives," i n The Myth and the Powerhouse (New York: Farrar, Straus? and Giroux, 1966.)pp.. 62-63. The other essays by Rahv referred to i n t h i s chapter are also from th i s c o l l e c t i o n of essays. 3 Susan Son tag, : " Against; Interpretation., " Against,  Interpretation. (New York: D e l l Publishing Co. Inc*,, 1966)„ p.. 7.- The other essays by Sontag referre d to i n th i s chapter are from, t h i s collection: of essays. Sontag,, "On Style," p. 21 (emphasis Sontag's). Ibid., ; p..22. 'Ibid., p.-27. Sontag, "On Style," pp.,22-23. Following from: her: attack on morality as a r i g i d code of behavior, Sontag proceeds to elaborate on her view of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a r t and morality, i m order to show that her view of art does not com-promise morality.. According to Sontag,- a r t leads us to greater s e n s i b i l i t y - a n d awareness — a sensibility/and aware-ness that arise from, disinterestedness and contemplation... A r t induces such a response and thus the aesthetic response to a r t can lead to a moral response — moral i n the sense that awareness can:lead to a conscious choice. "On Style," PI125., "The Myth and the Powerhouse," p., 21. The argument that, l i t e r a t u r e suggests more complete patterns in; opposition, to 86 FOOTNOTES (CONTINUED) the v i c i s s i t u d e s of h i s t o r y has a long t r a d i t i o n in: c r i t i -cism. This same argument was prominent i n Sidney's Defense  of Poesy., and i t can: also be traced back to A r i s t o t l e ' s Poetics. 9 Sontag, "Against Interpretation," p.. 7. 1 0 I b i d . , p.. 7*. i : LRahv„ " F i c t i o n and the Criticism: of F i c t i o n , " p. 46-12 Daiches, p.. 51. jRahv, " C r i t i c i s m and the Imagination: of Alterna-t i v e s , " P..74.-1 4Daiches, p. 107. •^"Introduction to Moby-Dick," i n M e l v i l l e ; A C o l l e c t i o n of C r i t i c a l Essays, ed. Richard Chase (Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962),. pp. 39-40 (emph-asis Kazin's). Kazin. further points to the profusion of chapters and M e l v i l l e ' s attempt to record the vastness of nature as aspects of the novel that communicate an expan-ding sensation to the reader, pp.. 46-48. 16 Kazin,. p. 46.. 17 'Daiches, p. 35• -^"Herman. M e l v i l l e ' s Moby Dick." Studies i n C l a s s i c  American Li t e r a t u r e (New York: The Viking Press,.. 1961), pp. 145-lSTT lQ ^Sontag also suggests that i t i s f u t i l e to attempt to j u s t i f y everything i m a work of a r t : " U s u a l l y / c r i t i c s who want to praise a work of a r t f e e l compelled to demon-strate that each part i s j u s t i f i e d , , that i t could not be other than: i t i s . And every a r t i s t , , when i t comes to h i s own work,, remembering the r o l e of chance,, fatigue,, external 87 FOOTNOTES (CONTINUED) distractions,, knows what that c r i t i c says to be a l i e , , knows that i t could well have been otherwise. The sense of inev-i t a b i l i t y that a great work of a r t projects i s not made up of the i n e v i t a b i l i t y or necessity of i t s part,, but of the whole" ("On.Style," p.,33). Lawrence i s able to respond to what Rahv c a l l s the " f e l t r e a l i t y of a r t " , Rahv suggests that i n order to es-cape the immediacy and grossness of action,, scene, and other aspects of the empirical nature of f i c t i o n , c r i t i c s have attempted to schematize works of art.. In t h i s way the c r i t i c ; can, avoid the d i r e c t confrontation with the art, and the r e a l i t y that inspired i t . " F i c t i o n and the: Cr i t i c i s m , of F i c t i o n , " p.. 45• 88 CONCLUSION! In. the cases of both a l l e g o r i c a l l i t e r a r y criticisn>: and the a l l e g o r i c a l l i t e r a r y work, we have seen allegory as an outside force,. imposing a framework that r e d i r e c t s the impulses and suggestions of l i t e r a r y expression, Further, we have seen allegory as a r a t i o n a l discursive element, attempting; to control and interpret: i r r a t i o n a l aspects of the l i t e r a r y work.. The c r u c i a l aspect of allegory as a c o n t r o l l i n g agent i s the question- of motivation.. As long as allegory i s i n c o n t r o l , the l i t e r a r y work i s being "used'.' for e x t r a - l i t e r a r y purposes. This i s evident: i n Bunyan1 sr;tale,, where he i n t e r -prets Christian's journey in. terms of C a l v i n i s t theology.. In. the case of Bunyan, we have the necessary h i s t o r i -c a l distance to d i s t i n g u i s h between: h i s moral and h i s t a l e . Thus we can ignore h i s a l l e g o r i c a l framework,, i f we choose to do so. BUt i n terms of l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m , , the problem: of a l l e g o r i c a l interpretation: i s more serious, p a r t i c u l a r l y when we r e a l i z e how e a s i l y a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n becomes an accepted and standard mode of reading l i t e r a t u r e . In. the present age, the problem of a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r -pretation i s evident i n the ascendancy of C h r i s t i a n Humanist readings of l i t e r a t u r e . The outline of the i n t e r p r e t i v e framework i s possibly not c l e a r l y evident, but a nostalgic residue can be seen i n the sentimental a l l e g o r i z a t i o n s of l i t e r a r y works. I f we must have allegorizatiom, one would; 8 9 prefer Bunyam or Milton,, who at l e a s t openly state the nature of their a l l e g o r i c a l frameworks. When a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s unconsciously accepted as a standard method of reading l i t e r a t u r e , the repressive e f f e c t of allegory i s p a r t i c u l a r l y apparent.. With Bunyan or Milton, there can: be open: disagreement between, a l l e g o r i s t and reader, as we cam choose to ignore their: a l l e g o r i c a l frameworks. But i f t h e nature and extent of a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s not realized,, i t can colour and control everything that the i n d i v i d u a l reads. Am i n t e r e s t i n g counter-argument for allegory has been offered by Honig,. who suggests that allegory makes i t pos-sible to suggest destructive implications, i n such a way that they w i l l be expressed,, but s t i l l c ontrolled: "From; the beginning,, allegory has offered the r a t i o n a l conscious-ness a way of regulating imaginative materials that other-wise appear confounded by contradictions and b r i s t l i n g with 2 destructive implications." I i would argue with Honig on two basic accounts. F i r s t of a l l , he states that the i r r a t i o n a l elements of l i t e r a r y expression are constantly played off against the c o n t r o l l i n g framework of allegory.. L i t e r a r y expression, thus never comes into i t s own,, because i t i s always subservient to the pre-v a i l i n g mode of interpretation:. Further, the argument that the i r r a t i o n a l i n literature;: could lead to dangerous acts presumes that l i t e r a r y expres-sion i s d i d a c t i c , either p o s i t i v e l y or negatively. A good 90 answer to t h i s viewpoint i s presented by Sontag.. Sontag; suggests that a work of a r t does not or, at l e a s t , should not lead d i r e c t l y to moral or immoral action, l o r example, the question, of sexual excitement i s i r r e l e v a n t to l i t e r a r y expression,, for i f the r e s u l t of the l i t e r a r y work i s sexual excitement, t h i s i s the r e s u l t of pornography and not of l i t e r a r y expression. A r t leads to a state of contemplation. — a contemplation that i s above immediate r e j e c t i o n or appro-v a l , or disagreement or agreement. Further, the r e s u l t of the; state of contemplation- i s awareness and not immediate action.^-In other words, the open response described by Sontag can lead to free acceptance of and r e c o n c i l i a t i o n with emotion. What Honig describes would lead to tentative acceptance, followed; by repression. Since allegory as a c o n t r o l l i n g i n t e r p r e t i v e agent i s an: outside force, i t i s not a part of l i t e r a r y expression; i t i s a n t i t h e t i c a l to l i t e r a r y expression, i n that; i t represses the open response created by the l i t e r a r y work. The fail u r e ; to achieve the open, response can then.be traced to the un-willingness to give oneself to the control of the l i t e r a r y work. lit would appear, then, that allegory as an i n t e r p r e t i v e framework and l i t e r a r y expression, have separate i n t e r e s t s , and each seeks to control the reader. 91 CONCLUSION-! FOOTNOTES I am using t h i s termi somewhat loosely here, possibly because of the vague outlines of the Chri s t i a n Humanist p o s i t i o n today. I am not suggesting that d e f i n i t e Chris-tian! a l l e g o r i z a t i o n s of l i t e r a t u r e are evident today as they were i n the sixteenth century, when the C h r i s t i a n Humanist p o s i t i o n was more c l e a r l y defined. But I would suggest that there s t i l l i s a strong tendency to read l i t e r a t u r e i n terms of good and e v i l , appearance and r e a l i t y — readings that can; be traced to the C h r i s t i a n Humanist t r a d i t i o n . Honig,, Dark Conceit, p. 53.. Sontag, "On Style,» pp. 2 6-29. 92-BIBLIOGRAPHYi Works Cited Berger, Harry, Jr•. The A l l e g o r i c a l Temper; Vision; and R e a l i t y in' Book II of Spenser's "Faerie Queene". Yale Studies i n Eng l i s h , V o l . 137. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957. Bewley, Marius. "A Truce of God f o r M e l v i l l e , " SR, LXI (1953), 682-700. ~~ Booth, Thornton Y. "Moby Dick: Standing up to God," N.CF, XVII (1962),, W$3~ Bunyan,, John. The P i l g r i m 1 s Progress, ed. James Blanton Wharey; rev. by Roger Sharrock, 2nd e d i t i o n . Oxford: The Clarendon Press, I960. Bush, Douglas. Mythology and the Renaissance Tradition; in; E n g l i s h Poetry,, new rev. edn. The Norton. Library. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1963. Daiches, David. A Study of L i t e r a t u r e . The Norton L i b r a r y . New York:"~W. w. Nor ton & Company, Inc., 19 64.. Erasmus. "Charon," in; The Colloquies of Erasmus, t r . Craig R. Thompson.. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1965. Fiedler,, L e s l i e A. Love and Death i n the American: Novel., New York: C r i t e r i o n Books, I960. . "Toward an Amateur C r i t i c i s m , " KR, XII (1950),. 561-574. — Frye,, Northrop.. Anatomy of C r i t i c i s m . New York: Atheneum, 1962. . "Levels of Meaning i n L i t e r a t u r e , " KR, XII (1950), 246-262. "-" . The Educated Imagination. Toronto: Canadian Broad-casting Corporation, 1963. . "The Function of C r i t i c i s m at the Present Time," UTQ. XIX" (1949-1950),. 1-16. BIBLI OGRAPHY (COFTINUED) Gosson, Stephen. "The Schoole of Abuse," i n English L i t e r a r y  C r i t i c i s m : The Renaissance, ed. 0. Bi Hardison, J r . Goldentree Bhoks. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1963, pp..86-97. H a l l , James B; "Moby Dick: Parable of a Dying System," Western Review. XI? (1950), 223-226. Harington, S i r John. "A Preface, or rather a Briefe Apo-logi e of Poetrie," Elizabethan C r i t i c a l Essays, ed. G. Gregory Smith. London: Oxford Univer s i ty Pr e s s, 1964, I I , 194-222. Honig, Edwin. Dark Conceit. Evanston: Northwestern Univer-s i t y Press,, 1959. Huxley Aldous.. Brave New World. Penguin Modern, C l a s s i c s . Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin. Books Ltd., 1955. Kaufmann, U. Milo. "The Pilgrim's Progress" and Traditions i n Puritan Meditation. Yale Studies i n English, V61. 163.. New Haven, and London: Yale University Press, 1966. Kazin, A l f r e d . "'Introduction' to Moby-Dick." M e l v i l l e : A OTolleationt of C r i t i c a l Essays,, ed. Richard Chase." A Spectrum Book., Twentieth Century Views. Engle-wood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962, pp. 39-48. Kermode, Prank. Romantic Image. New York: Chilmark Press,, 1961. K e t t l e , Arnold. An Introduction to the English Novel,, V o l . I. Harper Torchbooks. Few York and Evanstown: Harper & Row, I960. Lawrence, L; H. "Herman M e l v i l l e ' s Moby Dick," Studies in. C l a s s i c American:Literature. Compass Books, New York: The Viking Press, 1964,, pp. 145-161. Leavis, Pi R. "Afterword," The Pilgrim's Progress.. Signet!; Glassies. Toronto: The New American-Library of Canada Limited, 1964. • The Common; Pursuit.. Few York: New York University "Press,, 1964. Leyburn, E l l e n Douglas. S a t i r i c Allegory: Mirror of Man. Yale Studies i n English, V o l . 130. New Haven: Yale Univ e r s i t y Press, 1956. BIBLIOGRAPHY ( CONTINUED ) 94; M e l v i l l e , Herman. Moby-Dick, ed. Charles Peidelson, J r . The Lib r a r y of L i t e r a t u r e . Indianapolis, Mew York, Kansas C i t y : The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1964. Fashe, Thomas. "The Anatomie of Ahsurditie," Elizabethan; C r i t i c a l Essays, ed. G?. Gregory Smith. London: Oxford University Press, 1964, 321-337. Orwell, George. Animal Farm. Penguin: Modern: C l a s s i c s . Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd., 1951. Pinkus, P h i l i p . " Satire and St. George," Queen's Quarterly, LXX (1963-64),, 30-49-Poe, Edgar A l l a n . "Tale-Writing: Nathaniel Hawthorne," L i t e r a r y C r i t i c i s m i o f Edgar A l l a n Poe, ed. Robert L. Hough. Regents "Sri t i c s Series. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1965, pp. 142-149•» Rahv, P h i l i p . " F i c t i o n and the C r i t i c i s m ; o f F i c t i o n , " " C r i t i c i s m and the Imagination of Alternatives," and "The Myth and the Powerhouse," i n The Myth and the  Powerhouse. The Noonday Press. New York: Farrar, Straus and Girouxi, 1966,, pp. 33-60; 61-80; 3-21.. Rodway,, A l l a n . "By Algebra to Augustanism," i n Essays on  Style and Language: Linguistic;and C r i t i c a l Appr-0 ache ss to L i t e r a r y Style,, ed. Roger Fowler. LondoS.: Rout ledge and Ke gam Paul, 196 6, pp. 53-67.. Rosenheim, Edward, J r . Swift and the S a t i r i s t ' s A r t . Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press,, 1963. Sharrock, Roger. John Bunyan. Hutchinson's University L i b r a r y . London: Hutchinson House, 1954. Shaw, George Bernard. The Complete Prefaces of Bernard Shaw. London: Paul Hamlyn,. 1965, pp.. 162-16*5; 589. Short, R.W. " M e l v i l l e as Symbolist," University of Kansas  City Review, XV/(1948),. 38-4"oT Slochower, Harry. "Moby Dick: The Myth of DemocraticcExpec-iiarry. n o  jJick: xn n  tancy," A&Ttt TI950), 259-269. Sontag, Susan. "Against Interpretation" and "On Style" i n Against Interpretation.. A Delta Book. New York: D e l l Publishing Co., Inc., 1966,, pp. 3-14; 15-36. BIBLIOGRAPHY (CONTINUED) 95 Thompson, Lawrance. M e l v i l l e 1 s Quarrel with God. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952.. Vincent,. Howard P. The Trying-Out of Moby-Dick. Arcturus Books. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern I l l i n o i s U niversity Press, 1965. WORKS CONSULTED Bloom, .Edward A. " The A l l e g o r i c a l P r i n c i p l e , " ELH, XVIII (1951),, 163-190. Brooks, Cleanth. "The Formalist 0ritic:>" KR, X I I I L (1951),» 72-81. Croce, Benedetto. "On the Nature of Allegory," Criterion,. I l l (1924-25), 405-412., Daiches, David. "The Few Criticism:," i n A Time of Harvest, ed. Robert E. S p i l l e r . American Century Series. New York: H i l l & Wang,,. 1962, pp. 95-110.. Fletcher,, Angus. Allegory: The Theory of a Symbolic Mode.. Ithaca: Cornell University P r e s s T 1964. Frye, Northrop. "The Nature of Satire," UTQ; XIV/ (1944'-45),. 75-89. Greene, Herbert Eveleth. "The Allegory as Employed by Spenser, Bunyan and Swift," FMLA,. IV/ (1889).. 145-192. Swallow, Alan. "Allegory as L i t e r a r y Method," NMQ, X". (1940),, 147-157. 96 APPENDIX ALLEGORICAL CRITICISM': A CULTURAL MOTIVATION: As we saw i n c r i t i c a l interpretations of Moby Dick,-, the tendency to impose an a l l e g o r i c a l framework on l i t e r a r y works i s evident i n modern c r i t i c i s m . . Further, the example of Moby Dick leads us to think about the motivating fact o r s that might lead to a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . That i s , , wee are led to ask whether there are c u l t u r a l or s o c i o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s that lead to such c r i t i c i s m . , In. the case of Moby  Dick,, t h i s question i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important, because the i n d e f i n i t e nature and uns e t t l i n g e f f e c t s of the work are a prime target for the r e s t r i c t i n g e f f e c t s of a l l e g o r i z a t i o n . An example from the history of c r i t i c i s m might be h e l p f u l i n exploring the question: of motivation. In the: Engl i s h Renaissance, moral c r i t i c s argued that poetry could be dangerous,, because i t might lead to immoral conclusions. Such charges sparked a l i v e l y debate regarding the virtues:; and defects of the a r t of poetry.. From; those who attacked: poetry, we .hear comments such as the following: "I must; confesse that poets are the whetstones of wit,, notwithstand-ing that wit i s dearly bought: where honie and g a l l are mixt:,, i t w i l l be h a r d t o sever the one from the other. The deceit-f u l l p h i s i t i o n geveth sweete syroppes to make h i s poyson goe downe the smoother."-^ And further,, the same c r i t i c : m a i n -t a i n s that poets i n t e n t i o n a l l y focus on e v i l : 97 It' i s the custome of the f l i e to leave the sound places of the horse, and sucke at the botch: the nature of oolloquintida to draw the worst humors; to i t s e l f e : the manner of swine to forsake the fayre f i e l d s and wallowe i n the myre; and the whole practise of poets}, either with fables to shewe their abuses, or with playne termes to unfolde their mis-cheefe, discover their shame,, discredite themselves,-, and desperse their poisom through the world. V i r g i l sweats i n describing h i s gnatte; Ovid be s t i r re th him. to point out h i s f l e a : the one shewes h i s a r t i n the l u s t of Dido; the other h i s cunning i n the incest of Myrrha,, and that trumpet; of bawdrie,, the C r a f t of love.2 In order to j u s t i f y l i t e r a t u r e , Elizabethan writers such as Harington and Ma she suggested that the l i t e r a r y work might be read i n terms of a n . a l l e g o r i c a l framework.. Thus-; Harington argued that the poet did not r e a l l y intend for h i s work to be read on. the l i t e r a l l e v e l : "Fow for the breeding of err ours which i s the t h i B d i Objection, I see not why i t should breed any when none i s bound to beleeue that they write, nor they looke not to haue their f i c t i o n s beliuedt i n the l i t e r a l l sence...." 3 Further,, Fashe's d e f i n i t i o n of poetry points; to ones o f the fundamental assumptions of the a l l e g o r i c a l view of l i t e r -ature,, i n that he sees poetry as a branch of philosophy: "I account of Poetrie as of; a more hidden & diuine kinde of Philosophy,, enwrapped i n blinde Fables and d a r k e s t o r i e s , wherein, the p r i n c i p l e s of more excellent Arts and moral! precepts of manners, i l l u s t r a t e d with diuers examples of other Kingdomes and Countries, are contained...." 4 Fashe also comments on poetry that might be morally questionable. Thus Fashe admits that i n some instances h i s 98) definitions of l i t e r a t u r e w i l l not apply.. But he does not; conclude that such l i t e r a t u r e should be dismissed.. Rather, i n such cases the reader ( b r i t i c ) w i l l have to be more care-f u l to focus on those aspects:of the work that w i l l have the: desired moral e f f e c t : "...and they that couet to picke more precious knowledge out of Poets amorous Elegies must have a discerning knowledge before they can aspire to the per-f e c t i o n of their desired knowledge, l e a s t the obtaining of: 5 t r i f l e s be the repentent end of their t r a u e l l . " In thiss statement we have a clear i n d i c a t i o n of the procedure of a l l e g o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m . I t selects those aspects that w i l l help to construct the a l l e g o r i c a l framework,, and thus avoids confrontation of those aspectsothat might be destructive of, the framework. The Renaissance, then, provides us with aniexample of c r i t i c i s m that resorted to allegory to control unwanted1 implications i n l i t e r a r y works. 6 On the other hand,, one should r e a l i z e that there were i n d i v i d u a l Elizabethans, such as Sidney,, who were pointing to the uniqueness o f l i t e r a r y expression,, even though they were working i n a pre-dominantly d i d a c t i c t r a d i t i o n of l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m . The a l l e g o r i c a l approach to l i t e r a t u r e suggested by Renaissance c r i t i c s such as Nashe points c l e a r l y to the r e s -t r i c t i n g e f f e c t s of such c r i t i c i s m . Thus i f a tale i s read from the a l l e g o r i c a l point of view, everything i n the tale w i l l be seen i n terms of the a l l e g o r i c a l framework.. The a l l e g o r i c a l mode of interpretation: acts ;as a guard, p r o h i b i t i n g 99 confrontatiom wi th aspects contrary to the framework. In. essence, then,, such an- approach to l i t e r a t u r e i s a form of censorship,, with the a l l e g o r i c a l framework acting as the censor.. In. i t s more extreme forms, a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a -tion could discourage awareness of anything that might be a n t i t h e t i c a l to the p r e v a i l i n g t r a d i t i o n , even: though the l i t e r a r y work i n question might,, i m a c t u a l i t y , be quite subversive. Thus i n the Renaissance,; Eashe could sanction Ovid by suggesting at one point that the myth of Deucalion and 3?yrrha r e f e r r e d to the deluge at the time of Hbah.^ Im the same way, modern i n t e r p r e t i v e c r i t i c i s m can be a l l e g o r i c a l and repressive. That i s , even though modern c r i t i c i s m , does not overtly i n t e r p r e t l i t e r a t u r e a l l e g o r i -c a l l y , . i t s t i l l often sees l i t e r a r y works i n terms of am e s s e n t i a l l y a l l e g o r i c a l framework. The terminology of the Freudian, Marxist, or Humanist points of view provides the reader with a convenient vocabulary to explain what happens? im the l i t e r a r y work, but the vocabulary forms a protective barrier between: the reader and the l i t e r a r y work. Thus rather than allowing anything to remain i n d e f i n i t e , or to be defined i m terms of l i t e r a r y expression, the c r i t i c : r e -sorts to the vocabulary of h i s system, in: am e f f o r t to explain and j u s t i f y . One of the prominent a l l e g o r i c a l approaches i n modern c r i t i c i s m . i s that of the C h r i s t i a n Humanist. This:term is:, not used here to describe a philosophical-metaphysical system, as for example,.represented by Milton,, but rather a weaker:^ 100) more sentimental, popular t r a d i t i o n of viewing experience and l i t e r a t u r e * Such a response i n modern c r i t i c i s m would see the l i t e r a r y work i n terms of g e n e r a l i t i e s such as the c o n f l i c t between: good and e v i l . Further, t h i s approach might even see the universe as b a s i c a l l y unkind to man,; but i t w i l l i n s i s t that man w i l l p r e v a i l . L i t e r a r y works, then, become a commentary on how men might p r e v a i l , even though the odds are against them. In the c r i t i c i s m of Moby Dick., the C h r i s t i a n Humanist approach becomes rather obvious, because the novel i s f i l l e d with more than the usual quota of unpleasant implications. There i s Ahah who s t r i k e s out against God, and t h i s factor i s frightening i f we admit that M e l v i l l e projects h i s sym-pathies into Ahab. Further, i f we censor Ahab,, we can; censor that part of ourselves that i d e n t i f i e s with Ahab's madness. Also, there are the unanswered questions of Ishmael,, but again,, our response to Moby Dick i s not as frightening, i f we can. supply an a l l e g o r i c a l framework that answers the questions. Thus we f i n d c r i t i c a l approaches that attemptb to j u s t i f y the universe for M e l v i l l e i n order to avoid the un s e t t l i n g experience of facing Moby Dick, without seeing a resolution, i n : the novel. I f there i s a merit; to Lawrence Thompson's approach, referred to i n Chapter I I , i t i s thati hea attempts to r e c t i f y the tendency to tame M e l v i l l e ' s novel, but i n the process he goes to the opposite extreme and1,, i n e f f e c t , imposes another a l l e g o r i c a l framework on Moby Dick.. An: example of an approach that attempts to resolve the 1011 complications i n Moby Dick can, be seen in. the following i n t e r pr e ta t i on: And i n the middle of the nineteenth century Herman; Melvi l l e , , examining God's universe i n h i s day,, found i n the ocean1 the symbol of the near chaos which he f e l t that sensitive and thoughtful men. werehaving to l i v e i n : f l u i d , shifting,, l a r g e l y uncharted* vast,, f u l l of dangers and terrors* In t h i s vast,, uncontrollable ocean, each man has one small,, green, gentle i s l a n d f u l l of peace,, to which he can never return, i f once he pushes: off . Yet, M e l v i l l e declares,, i t i s better- to push and! perish than to so circumscribe one's existence as to t r y to remain, on i t foreveri8 Further, Booth immediately sees M e l v i l l e ' s novel in; terms of the question of e v i l , , thus seeing the l i t e r a r y work as a moral tract.. Booth's conclusion, i s that Moby Dick answer so the problem; of e v i l by suggesting that e v i l existsa because the gods are not strong enough to control i t , leaving more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for man.? Thus we f e e l with Ahab,, but we w i l l be more i n t e l l i g e n t : as we turn, to our own: struggle with the universe: "And after the White Whale does drag him; down,, we can; turn with new determination perhaps to our own; l e s s heroic but we hope more i n t e l l i g e n t wrestlings with the individual^ t e r rors and e v i l s of l i f e , attempting to do man'ss part,, which must be done i f the b a t t l e i s to be won at a l l , , to l e arm what i s the highest good, and to make i t p r e v a i l . " 1 ^ Even though Booth's a r t i c l e i s not a key/discussion of Moby D i c k , i t i s relevant here i n that i t provides an example of a l l e g o r i z a t i o n that i s present i n a subtler form i n other a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . Significantly,. Booth points out that we do f e e l with Ahab, but i t i s noteworthy that i n h i s 102 conclusions,, he does not dwell on t h i s point. Thus Booth moves towards some of the t e r r o r i z i n g implications of the novel, hut rather than responding to them;openly, Booth r e s o r t s to h i s a l l e g o r i c a l framework which protects-;him: from the implications of the novel. Phrases such as "Attempting to do man's part" and "the highest good" are an example of the weak generalizations of the a l l e g o r i c a l framework that stand i n the way of any open confrontation: or d i r e c t response. Thus a further e f f e c t of approaching: a l i t e r a r y work i n terms of an a l l e g o r i c a l framework, i s that the reader remains e s s e n t i a l l y unmoved by what he reads,. The desire to control, the desire to avoid the un-s e t t l i n g confrontation,. the desire for j u s t i f i c a t i o n in: metaphysical terms, these could a l l be seen as motivations-for the ascendancy of a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . As we. saw, these motivations were evident i n the Renaissance, and I would suggest that they are s t i l l evident today. The d i s t r u s t of the l i t e r a r y work stems from, the usual state of tension between: a r t and morality, or for that matter, any established t r a d i t i o n . As Prye suggests,, because, of the hypothetical nature of a r t , the a r t i s t usually sugg-ests an: alternative to any established tradition, or morality.* Following t h i s argument further, we might suggest that one of. the functions of a r t i s to provide a medium for the expres-sion: of thoughts and emotions that might otherwise remain repressed". Thus the reader tends to d i s t r u s t the t a l e , and would often rather not be exposed to i t , without the protec-tive guide of the a l l e g o r i c a l framework provided by the 103 a l l e g o r i c a l c r i t i c . . Also, an i n t e r p r e t i v e framework acts as a preservative for the established c u l t u r a l or sociolog-i c a l t r a d i t i o n , because i t d i r e c t s the reader's response i n the appropriate d i r e c t i o n . One might suggest that a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i t -s e l f might have a changing t r a d i t i o n , and, therefore, not be r e s t r i c t i v e . I f we must have in t e r p r e t a t i o n , t h i s would c e r t a i n l y be desirable. But even: "new" a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r -pretation can be r e s t r i c t i v e i n that i t translates l i t e r a r y expression; into discursive statement, and I would suggest that l i t e r a r y expression, responds by seeking i t s own uniques freedom:as soon as the new a l l e g o r i c a l t r a d i t i o n i s presented. In other words, there i s l i t t l e hope for harmony between, a l l e g o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t i v e c r i t i c i s m and l i t e r a r y expression, even i f the a l l e g o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m i s part of a new t r a d i t i o n . 104-APPENDIX. FOOTNOTES Stephen,Gosson, "The Schoole of Abuse," i n Englishi L i t e r a r y C r i t i c i s m : The Renaissance,, ed. 0. B:> Hardison," J r . (Few York: Apple ton-Century-Crofts, 1963), p.. 87. 2 IJbid., ,p.= 87. 3 S i r Jbhni Harington, "A Preface, or nather a Briefes Apologie of Poetrie," i n Elizabethan C r i t i c a l Essays, ed. GJ. Gregory Smith. (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), II,, 208. A Thomas Fashe,. "The Anatomie of Absurditie," in, Elizabethan C r i t i c a l Essays^ ed. Gregory Smith (London: Oxford Univ e r s i t y Press), 1964), 1, 328. 5 I b i d . , p.. 333.. 6 See Douglas Bush.. Mythology and the Renaissance  Tradition i n E n g l i s h Poetry, rev. edn. (Few York: W. W. Norton: & Company, 1963), pp. 69-73, f o r a discussion of the allegorization- of c l a s s i c a l myths i n the Renaissance. 7; Fashe„ p•. 331. Q Thornton. Y. Booth, "Moby Dick: Standing up to God," NCP, XVII (1962),,38. 9 I b i d . , : p. 40. 1 0 I b i d . , , p.. 43-x l " L e v e l s of Meaning i n Li t e r a t u r e , " pp.. 258-259.. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

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.831.1-0104450/manifest

Comment

Related Items