UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

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

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1968_A8 N48.pdf
UBC_1968_A8 N48.pdf [ 5.93MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0104450.json
JSON-LD: 1.0104450+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0104450.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0104450+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0104450+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0104450+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
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:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 34 0
Canada 9 0
United Kingdom 4 0
Ukraine 3 0
Switzerland 2 0
Spain 2 1
Taiwan 2 0
Philippines 2 0
Russia 1 0
Germany 1 14
France 1 0
Indonesia 1 0
China 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 15 14
Murfreesboro 14 0
London 4 0
Mountain View 4 0
Raleigh 4 0
Aurora 4 0
Santa Maria 3 0
Oceanside 2 0
Granada 2 1
Ashburn 2 0
Taipei 2 0
Beijing 1 0
Osler 1 0

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

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items