We are unable to display your institutional affiliation without JavaScript turned on.
Browse Book and Journal Content on Project MUSE
OR

Find using OpenURL

Author, Author

From: Philosophy and Literature
Volume 20, Number 1, April 1996
pp. 76-88 | 10.1353/phl.1996.0043

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Philosophy and Literature 20.1 (1996) 76-88

Proceedings of the ALSC

The title of this essay is not a reference to that enthusiastic but misguided shout from his friends in the audience at the St. James Theatre in 1895 that brought a reluctant Henry James to the stage at the end of his play Guy Domville, only to be greeted by whistles, shouts, and insults from the irate denizens of the gallery, one of whom had somewhat spoiled the dramatic effect of the actor's climactic line--"I am the last of the Domvilles"--by shouting: "And a bloody good thing y'are!" My title is the rubric of an infuriating competition that appears every week in the pages of the London Times Literary Supplement; it offers three quotations, all dealing more or less with the same subject, and defies the reader to identify the authors. Since the fiends who concoct these puzzles have carefully avoided passages likely to turn up in anthologies, having, in fact, ransacked their authors' lesser-known works for texts innocent of such clues as proper names, dates, or allusions to historical events, the reader unwise enough to take a hand in the game has to rely on indications of the personality of the author.

Not, obviously, the historical, biographical personality, but the literary personality: the characteristic attitudes and concerns, the rhythms, tones, and levels of discourse, the literary individuality that enables us to distinguish a paragraph of Jane Austen from one of Henry James, and either of them from one of Ernest Hemingway, or the epic blank verse of Milton from that of Keats or Tennyson. This literary identity is now the target of academic assaults from many quarters, of which I propose to single out two in particular -- the Roland Barthes-Derrida denial of authors' identity or even of their existence, and the New Historicism, which confines that identity to the stringent limitations of the author's time and place.

The first aberration treats the author's work as a "text," material for the discovery of intertextuality, subtext, and -- a word that I have not seen in print but that, if not yet born, is surely close to delivery from the womb of the goddess Terminologia -- metatext, which, on the analogy of "metatheater," would denote a text discussing its own textuality. In the deconstruction of the text the author disappears; Barthes in fact proclaimed the "death of the author." But though such theories are usually thought of as French products of the Sixties and Seventies, their origins can be discerned in much earlier work done by Americans in the Forties, the years that saw the birth of that New Criticism which Norman Fruman recalls in his short history of our association, reasserting its basic principle: that "there should be a primary focus on literature as literature and not as something else." I am myself a child -- an aging child -- of the New Criticism; the first article I ever published had a title that sounds like a parody of the typical New Critical title--"The Serpent and the Flame." The editors of the American Journal of Philology, who reluctantly accepted the article after several unsuccessful attempts to get me to tone it down, felt constrained to add to the title: "Patterns of Imagery in the Second Book of the Aeneid."

But there was one aspect of the New Criticism that disturbed me: the influential idea, expounded by a formidable member of the Yale English department, William Wimsatt, called the Intentional Fallacy, which proclaimed that "the design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art." Though this pronouncement was hedged about with many limitations and provisos it still seemed to me to give rein to freewheeling interpretations that eased the acceptance of the radical hijacking of the author's work by Derrida, Barthes, Lacan, and hoc genus omne.

I was especially disturbed by this doctrine because, as a classical scholar, I had been very much concerned, as is every member of our discipline, with authorial intention at the basic level -- the often vexed question not of what impression the author...


You must be logged in through an institution that subscribes to this journal or book to access the full text.

Shibboleth

Shibboleth authentication is only available to registered institutions.

Project MUSE

For subscribing associations only.