Gerard Genette the Architext an Introduction 1

7/27/2019 Gerard Genette the Architext an Introduction 1

1/100


2/100

The Architext


3/100

ABOUTQUANTUMBOOKS

QUANTUM. THE UNIT OFEMITTED ENERGY. A QUANTUM

BOOK ISA SHORT STUDYDISTINCTIVE FOR THE AUTHOR'SABILITY TO OFFER A RICHNESS OF

DETAlL ANO INSIGHT WITHINABOUT ONE HUNDRED PAGES

OF PRINT. SHORT ENOUGH TO BEREAD IN AN EVENING AND

SIGNIFICANT ENOUGHTO BE A BOOK.


4/100

Grard Genette

The ArchitextAn Introduction

Translated byJanc E. LcwinWith aForeword by Robert Sclzoles

Univcrsity of California PrcssBcrkclcy Los Angeles Oxford


5/100

Originally published .1s Imroduaicm /'ar(hirexrt 197') Editions du Seuil. ParisUniversit\' of Californ P r c : s ~'Bcrkcley and Los Anf:clcs, CaliforniaUniv.:rsity of California Prcss, Ltd.Oxford. E n ~ l a n d


6/100

Contents

Forcword, by Robcrt Scholcs ..VllTranslator's Note .XlTHE ARCHIIEXT: AN lNTRODUCTION 1Indcx 87


7/100

Foreword to the English-language Edition

Poetics is a vcry old and vcry young "science": the little it"knows" it would pcrhaps somctimes be better off forgetting.In a sense, that is alll wantcd to say-and that too, of course,is still too much. (G. Gcnctte)

In the heaven of ideas, thc tortoisc of form always outruns thc harc of contcnt. Hcrc on carth things are morecomplicatcd, but here, too, the tortoise regularly outlasts thc hare. For ovcr two dccadcs now, Grard Ge-nette has persisted in formal and rhetorical studies,whilc idcological storms raged around him and criticalfashions arrivcd with fanfarcs :md dcparted with whimpers. After poststructuralism, evcn after deconstructur-alism, the formal corc of structural studics-which arash critic once callcd the "low structuralism" of Ge-nctte-rcmains. lf literature is to be studied, discussed,criticized, it will always need poetics-and poetics iswhat this little book is all about.

As m y cpigraph indicatcs, takcn, as it is, from near thccnd of Genettc's discussion, this book is "little" in morethan one sense. lt is brief, of course, consisting of one


8/100

V111 Fonword

major article, followed by sorne second thoughts and adialogue in which its methodology is challenged andgently defended. But it is also unpretentious, claimingfor poetics neither truth nor intrinsic worth. What Ge-nette does claim for poetics is only that criticism cannotget along without it. What he shows, howevcr, in thecourse of bis discussion, is that the history of poetics isone of astonishing confusions and misprisions, in \vhichevery sort of latcr idea and attitude has bccn rcgularlyfoisted upon thc foundcrs of poctic thought, Plato andAristotle. As one of thosc whom Gcnette cites as guiltyof such error, 1 can do no better than ph:ad 110/o col!telldcre.Sincc 1 first read his words, u pon this book s publicationin France sorne years ago. 1 have mcnded m y ways.

Spccifically, om: of che important things Gcncttcdtmonstrates herc is that many later critics have attrib-uted to Aristotle a poetic doctrine that is mainly Ro-mantic in its origins. thus sowing confusions that stillconfound us. Not contcnt mercly to show thc rcsults ofthis process, Gcnctte sketches the evolution of this mis-prision with masterful learning and lucidity. From theancicnt through the medieval, Renaissance, Enlighten-ment, and Romantic and on to the modern thcories ofliterary gcnre, Gcncttc traces thc process by which newforms of textuality are regularly justified by being as-signed ancient lineages, the thicket of poetics thus con-tinually made denser and more difficult to penetrare.His project is to prune this thicket and blazc trailsthrough it.He also oftcrs, \vith propcr diffidence and disarmingwit, sorne advice for the continuation of poetic think-

ing. Challcnging himsclf in a closing dialogue to justifythis practicc, his interlocutor asks why this should notbe lcft "to litcrary historians (it's their job, certainly)."Genette's response is to point out that all emprica) stud-ies depcnd upon definition of their objccts in ordcr to


9/100

Forewonl .IX

function, and such dcfinition rcquircs thought prccisclyto avoid thc pitfalls of traditional tcrms that conccal andconfusc their objects over time. The history of literatureis a real history, with certain irreversible clements in it,but it is "guidcd" toa great extent by poetic possibilitiesthat can be describcd formally only by poetics. Wc necdpoctics bccause wc cannot make sense of any individualtext without situating it in terms of other texts and intcrms of a rcpcrtory of textual possibilitics. Evcn thcstudy of literary transformation, Genette maintains,"implies the examination, and thus the taking into ac-count, of continuitics."

As a proposal for continuing poctics, Gcnettc suggcsts wc rccognizc that what wc call "gcnrcs" are bestdescribcd as thc intcrscctions of ccrtain modes of cnunciation and ccrtain thematic conccrns. The modes arebasic to thc pragmatics of language itsdf (likc narration)and are therefore cxtrcmcly pcrsistent across time andcultures. Themes, howcvcr, though also pcrsistcnt(lovc, dcath), are grcatly marked by cultural and histor-ical situations. Persistcnt or durable links bctwccn par-ticular mudes and rhemes give us literary genrcs or "architcxts." Thc study of these is what, since Aristotlc,we have callcd "poctics"-an old scicncc, as Gcncttcsays, and also a young onc, bccause it must always berencwcd. What Gcncttc has accomplished, in a tcxt nolargcr than Aristotk's own, is to discncumbcr poctics ofccnturies of accrctions. He givcs it to us again, clarificdand refrcshcd, in this book. Among othcr things, he rc-minds us hcrc of why Aristotlc's Porties has itsclf provcdso durable, and in doing so he has given us a book thatbclongs, in courses and on shelves, right ncxt ro itsgrcat architcxtural prcdcccssor.

-Robert Scholt.:s


10/100

Translator's Note

In English, the words epic, lyric, and twrrative functionboth as nouns and as adjectives; unlcss the context pro-vides a decisivc "adjcctivity" cuc, thc rcader proccsscscach of thosc words as a noun. In this book, howcvcr,it is essential for thc readcr to rccognize whcn the nounis meant and when the adjective. (French makcs the dis-tinction: l'pope/pique, le lyriquellyrique, le rcitltwrra-tij.) Thus, whencvcr thc adjcctival form is mcant but thecontcxt lacks a strong adjectivity cuc (a cue that lcadsthe reader to process the word instantaneously as an ad-jcctivc), 1havc uscd epical instcad of epic, havc uscd lyr-ical instcad of lyric, and ha ve placcd "[narrat!(]" immc-diatcly aftcr ttarrative. (In a fcw placcs, the contextmakcs it appropriatc to modify this practicc in one di-rection or the othcr.)

For thc English translation, thc author modificd theoriginal French tcxt in a handful of placcs.


11/100

1Wc are all familiar with that passagc in A Portrait oJ tl1eArtist as a Y o m 1 ~ Matl in which Stcphcn cxplains to hisfriend Lynch "his" theory of the thrcc majar acstheticforms: "Thc lyrical form, thc form whcrcin thc artistprcscnts his imagc in immcdiatc rclation to himsclf; thccpical form, thc form whcrcin he prcscnts his imagc inmediate relation to himsclf and to othcrs; thc dramaticform, thc form whcrcin he prcscnts his imagc in immcdiatc rclation to othcrs." 1 This tripartition in itsclf isnot cspccially original, as Joyce was well awarc, for inthc first vcrsion of thc episodc he addcd ironically thatStephcn was cxprcssing himsclf "with a na'if air of dis-covcring novcltics," cvcn though "his Esthctic was inthc main 'applied Aquinas.' " 2

1 don't know whcthcr Saint Thomas cvcr proposcdsuch a tripartition-or evcn whcthcr Joycc was rcallysuggcsting he did-but 1havc notcd hcrc and thcrc that,for sorne time, thc tripartition has bccn rcadily attrib-utcd to Aristotlc, evcn to Plato. In hcr study of thc his-tory of the division into genres, Irene Behrcns cited ancxamplc of thc attribution from thc pcn of Erncst Bovct

l. James Joycc, A p,,rtrait of tile Artistas a Y o r m . ~ Man (1916;rpt. Ncw York: Viking, 1966), 214.2. Stcplrcrr Hcro (Ncw York: Ncw Dircctions, 1944), 77.


12/100

?- The Arcllitext("Aristotlc having distinguishcd among thc lyric, cpic,and dramatic genres ... ") and immcdiatcly rcfuted it,while asscrting that it was alrcady vcry widespread.3But, as wc will scc, hcr clarification did not kecp othcrsfrom rcpcating the ofTensc-undoubtcdly in part because thc error (or, rathcr, thc retrospective illusion thatis in qucstion here) is decply rooted in our conscious, orunconscious, litcrary minds. Bcsidcs, hcr clarificationitsclf was not cntircly untainted by the tradition shc wasdcnouncing, for she wondercd in all seriousness how itcarne about that thc traditional tripartition did not appear in Aristotle, and she found one possible reason inthc fact that Grcek lyricism was too closcly associatcdwith music to be includcd within poctics. But tragcdywas just as dosely associatcd with music; and lyric is absent from Aristotle's Poetics for a much more basic rcason-a reason that needs only to be perceived for thequcstion itsclf to lose any kind of rclcvancc.

But not, apparcntly, any raison d'ctrc; wc do not casily forgo projccting onto the founding text of classicalpoetics a fundamental tenct of "modcrn" poetics (whichactually, as wc will often sec, really means romantic poctics), and perhaps the thcorctical consequences of theprojection are unfortunatc. For by usurping that remateanccstry, the relatively recent thcory of thc "threc majorgcnres" not only lays claim to ancientness, and thus toan appearancc or prcsumption of bcing ctcrnal andthcrcforc sclf-cvidcnt; it also misappropriatcs for the

3. Ernest Bovet, Lyrisme, pope, drame: une /oi de l'volu-tion /iuraire explique par l'flolution xnrale (Paris: Colin,1911 ), 12; Irene Bchrcns, Die Lehre 11011 der Einteilrm,q der Dicht-kunst, vomclrmliclr vom 16. bis 19. Jahrlumdert: Studierr zur Ge-schichte dcr poetischm Gatttmgen, Beihefte zur Zcitschrift ftir romanische Philologie, no. 92 (Halle: Nicmeyer, 1940).


13/100

An Introduction 3benefit of its three generic institutions a natural foundation that Aristotlc, and Plato bcforc him, had established, perhaps more lcgitimatcly, for something verydiffcrent. This knot of confusions, quid pro quos, andunnoticcd substitutions that has lain at thc hcart ofWestcrn poctics for severa) ccnturics is what 1 want totry to untangle a bit.

But first, not for the pcdantic pleasure of finding faultwith sorne very bright minds but to illustratc, by theirexamples, the pervasiveness of this lectio facilior, here area few other, more rccent occurrences of it. In AustinWarren:

Aristotle and Horace are our classical tcxts forgenre thcory. From them, wc think of tragcdy andcpic as thc charactcristic (as wcll as thc two major)kinds. But Aristotle at least is also aware of otherand more fundamental distinctions-bctwecndrama, epic, and lyric.... The three major kindsare already, by Plato and Aristotle, distinguishedaccording to "manner of imitation" (or "representation"): lyric poctry is thc poct's own persona; inepic poetry (or the novel) the poet partly speaks inhis own pcrson, as narrator, and partly makes hischaracters speak in direct discourse (mixed narrativc); in drama, the poct disappcars bchind his castof characters.... Aristotlc's Poetics ... roughlynominates epic, drama, and lyric ("melic") poetryas thc basic kinds of poetry.

Northrop Frye, more vague or more prudcnt: "We havethe threc generic terms drama, epic, and lyric, derivedfrom tlze Greeks." More circumspect still, or more evasi ve, Philippc Lcjeunc assumes that the point of departure for the theory was "the threefold division by tl1eAncients among the epical, the dramatic, and the lyri-


14/100

4 Tllc Arclztextcal." N oc so. chough, Robert Scholcs, who specifiesthat Fryc's system "bcgins with his acccptancc of thc hasic Aristotcliatz division into lyric, cpic, and dramaticforms." And evcn lcss so Hlcne Cixous, who, com-mcnting on Scephcn s spccch, pinpoints its so urce thus:"A classical tripartitc division derivcd from Aristotlc'sPorties, 1447 a, b, 1456-62 a and b." As for Tzvctan Todorov, he has thc triad go back ro Plato and to Diomedcs' dcfinitivc systcmatization of Plato:

From Plato to Gocthc and Jakobson ro Emil Staigcr, attempts havc bccn made to divide literaturcinto thrcc catcgorics and to considcr chcsc as thcfundamental or cvcn thc natural forms of literaturc.... Systcmatizing Plato in thc fourth ccn-tury, Diomcdcs defincd duce basic genrcs: onc in-cluding thc works in which only che authorspcaks, anothcr including thc works in which onlyche charactcrs spcak, and a third including thcworks in which both aurhor and charactcrs spcak.

In 1938 Mikhail Bakhtin, without formulating thc attribution in qucstion quite so preciscly, assertcd that thcthcory of gcnrcs "has not. up to our own time, bccnablc to add anything substancial to what Aristotlc hadalrcady done. His poctics remains thc immutablc foundation of the thcory of gcnrcs, although sometimcs thisfoundation is so dccply buried that we no longer disccrn. ""t .

4. "Litcrarv Gcnrcs," in Rcn Wcllck and Austin Warrcn,Tllcory of Ltcraturc (Ncw York: Harcourt, Bracc, 1956), 217.223; Northrop Fryc, Anatomy of Crtcsm: Four Essays (1957;rpt. Ncw York: Athcneum, 1967), 246; Philippc Lcjcunc, LePacte autobo,l!raplzquc (Pars: Seuil, 1975). 330; Robcrt Scholcs,Stmcwralsm l l Litmzture (Ncw Havcn: Vale Univcrsity Prcss,1974), 124; Hl\:nc Cixous, Tlzl' Exlc ~ { J a m e s )


15/100

A11 l11troductio11

Evidently Bakhtin is unaware of the massive silencethc Poctics maintains on thc subjcct of lyric gcnrcs, andparadoxically his mistake demonstrates thc very igno-rancc of the foundation of the theory of genres that hethinks he is dcnouncing. For what is important, as wewill scc, is thc rctrospcctivc illusion by which modcrn(preromantic, romantic, and postromantic) literary the-orists blindly project thcir own contributions onto Ar-istotle, or Plato, and thus "bury" thcir own diflcrencc-their own modcrnity.

That attribution, so widesprcad today, is not entirelyan invention of the twenticth century. We find itas earlyas the eighteenth ccntury, in a chapter that Abb Bat-teux addcd to his cssay Les Bea11x-Arts rduits a 111 mmcpri11cipe (The Fine Arts Obeying Onc Law). The titlc ofthis chaptcr is almost more than wc could havc hopcdfor: "Que ccttc doctrine est conforme acelle d'Aristote"(That This Doctrine Is in Keeping with Aristotle's).5Thc doctrine in qucstion is Battcux's general thcory on"thc imitation of fair nature" as the sole "law" of thcfine arts, including poetry; but for the most part thcSally A. J. Purccll (Ncw York: David Lcwis, 1972), 625; Os-wald Ducrot and Tzvctan Todorov, E11cyclopedic Dictio11ary oftl1e Scimccs C!f L n i i J : u n . ~ e . trans. Cathcrim Portcr (Baltimorc:Johns Hopkins Univcrsity Prcss, 1979), 153; Mikhail Bakhtin,Estllrtique et tl1orit du romatl, trans. Dara Olvcr (Pars: Gal-limard, 1978), 445. AII emphascs on attributions are mine.

5. This chaptcr first appearcd in thc 1764 rcprint of thc es-say (originally published in 1746) in thc tirst volumc of LesPri11cipes de littrature. At that time it was only thc cnd of achaptcr, "La Posic des vcrs," that was addcd on. In thc post-humous edition of 1824, this ending was madc into a separarechaptcr, with a titlc taken from thc tcxt of thc material addedin 1764.


16/100

6 The Architextchapter concentrares on dcmonstrating that Aristotlc di-vides the art of poctry into thrce genrcs or, as Battcuxcalled them, borrowing a term from Horace, three basiccolors. "These three colors are those of the dithyramb,or lyric poctry; thc cpic, or narrativc poctry; and finallythc drama, or tragedy and comedy." The abb himselfquotes the passage in the Poetics on which he bases hisclaim, and thc quotation is worth repcating, in his owntranslation: "Les mots composs de plusicurs mots conviennent plus spcialemcnt aux dithyrambes, les motsinusits aux popes, et les tropes aux drames" (Thewords made up of severa} words are more especially appropriatc to dithyrambs, rare words to epics, and tropesto dramas). This comes at the cnd of chapter 22, whichfocuses on questions of lexis or, as we would say, style.As one can see, at issuc here is the appropriate linkagebetween genres and stylistic methods-although Batteux stretches Aristotle's terms a bit in that direction bytranslating ta hroika (heroic verses, that is, dactylic hex-ameter) as "epic" and ta iambeia (iambic verses, andmore particularly, no doubt, thc trimcters of tragic orcome dialogue) as "drama."

Let us ovcrlook this slight accentuation: herc Aris-totlc indccd secms to apportion thrce stylistic featuresamong three genres or forms (dithyramb, epic, dramatic dialogue). What we still need to evaluate is theequivalcnce Batteux establishcs betwccn dithyramb andlyric poetry. Today thc dithyramb is not a wcll-knownform, for almost no examples of it remain; but scholarsgenerally describe it as a "choral song in honor of Di-onysus" and thus readily classify it among the "lyricforms. " 6 They do not, howcvcr, go as f.1r as Batteux,

6. Jacqucline de Romilly, La Tragdie grecque (Paris: Prcsscsunivcrsitaircs de Francc, 1970), 12.


17/100

Atl IntroductiotJ 7who says that "nothing corresponds better to our lyricpoctry," an asscrtion that givcs short shrift to, for cxample, the ocles of Pindar or Sappho. But as it happens,Aristotlc does not mention the dithyramb anywhereclsc in the Poetics, cxccpt to rcfcr to it as a forcrunner oftragedy.' In thc Homeric Problems, he spccifles that theform was originally narrativc and later became "mimctic"-that is, dramatic.

8As for Plato, he mcntionsthc dithyramb as the consummate example of poetrythat is ... purely narrative.9

Nothing thcrc, then, authorizcs us to claim that inAristotle (or Plato) thc dithyramb illustratcs thc lyric"gcnrc"-quitc thc contrary. The passage Batteux citesis the only one in all the Poetics he could have invokedto give Aristotlc's sanction to the illustrious triad. Thedistortion is flagrant, and the point at which it is applicdis significant. To appreciate the significancc more fully,

7. 1449a.8. 19.918b-919.9. Rep11blic 394 c. "lt seems that at thc beginning of thefifth century, the lyric song in honor of Dionysus may have

dealt with sacred or heroic subjects more or lcss associatedwith thc god; thus, according to thc fragmcnts of Pindar thathavc bccn prcscrvcd, thc dithyramb appcars to havc bccn apiccc of hcroic narration, sung by a choir, without dialogue,and leading into an invocation to Dionysus or sornctirnes cvcnto other divinities. Plato must be alluding to this typc of composition rather than to the dithyramb of the fourth century,which was profoundly modificd by thc mixing of musicalmodcs and thc introduction of lyric solos" (RosclyneDupont-Roc, "Mimesis ct nonciation," in Ecriture et tlloriepotiques: lectures d'Homere, Escllyle, Platon, Aristote [Pars:Prcsscs de l'Ecolc normalc supricurc, 1976), 8). Cf. ArthurWallace Pickard-Cambridgc, Dithyramb, Tragedy, and Comedy(Oxford: Clarendon, 1927).


18/100

8 The Architextwc must once again rcturn to thc sourcc-that is, to thcsystem of genrcs that Plato conceived and Aristotlc dcveloped. 1 say "system of genres" as a provisionalconcession to the vulgate, but wc will soon sec that thctcrm is incorrect and that somcthing entircly differcnt isin volved.

11

In thc third book of the Republic, Plato justifics his well-known dccision to expcl pocts from thc statc with twosets of considerations. Thc first bcars on the content (lo-.I!OS) of thc poets' \Vorks. which basically should be moralizing (though all too often it is not): the poet shouldnot rcpresent shortcomings, cspccially in gods and he-roes, and should certainly not promote shortcomingsby represcnting virtuc as miserable or vice as triumphant. Thc sccond bears on the "form" (lexis), meaningthc modc of rcprtsclltatio/1} 11 Every pocm is a narrative(diegesis) of past, prcsent, or future cvents; narrative inthis broad sense can take thrce forms: it can be purclynarrative (lzaple dit:(!esis), it can be mimetic (dia mime-sos-in othcr words, as in the theater, by way of dia-logue betwecn characters), or it can be "mixed" (in

1O. Of course thc tcrms l1wos and lcxis do not a priori ha vethis antithetical valuc; out of contcxt, the most faithful trans-lations would be "discourse" and "diction." lt is Plato himsclfwho constructs thc opposition (392 e) and glosscs it as Iza lek-tcoll ("thc mattcr of spccch ") and lzc5s /ckteo11 ("thc manncr ofspccch "). Subscqucntly, as we know, rhetoric limits lexis tothc mcaning "stylc." [Translator's note: Translations of Platoare from thc Locb cdition.]


19/100

A11 l11troduction 9othcr words, in rcality altcrnating-somctimcs narrativc and sometimes dialogue, as in Homer). Herc 1 willnot go back ovcr thc dctails of Plato's demonstration 11or his wcll-known dcvaluing of che mimetic and mixedmodes, which is onc of his main grounds for indictingpoets (the other, of coursc, is the immorality of theirsubjects). 1 simply wish to point out che corrcspondenccbetwccn the tluee modcs of lexis distinguishcd by Platoand what will latcr be callcd the poctic "genres": thepurc mimctic corresponds to tragcdy and comedy, themixcd to cpic, and thc purc narrativc ro-"espccially"(malista pou)-dithyramb (che only illustration). Thewholc "system" comes clown to that. Clearly, Platohcrc is considcring only the forms of poctry that is"narrativc" in thc broad scnse-poctry that the subsequent tradition, aftcr Aristotle, will more rcadily call(invcrting thc terms) "mimetic" or r e p r e s m t a t o t ~ a l : poctry that "reports" cvents, real or fictivc. Plato dcliberatcly. !caves out all nonrcprescntational poetry-andchus, abovc all, what wc calllyric poetry-and a fortioriall other forms of literature (including, of course, anypossible "rcprescntation" in prose. like our novel ormodcrn thcatcr). An cxclusion not only in fact but indeed in principie, for again, the rcprescntation of cventsis hcrc thc vcry dcfinition of poctry: thcrc is no pocmcxccpt a rcprcscntational one. Plato obviously was notunawarc of Iyric poccry, but he cxcludcs it hcrc with adcliberatcly rcstrictivc dcfinition-a rcstriction pcrhapsad hoc, since it facilitatcs the banning of pocts (cxccpt

11. 1 discuss thcm in F ( ~ u r c s of Litcrary Discourse, trans.AJan Shcridan (Ncw York: Columbia Univcrsity Prcss,1982), 128-33; and Narrativc Discoursc, trans. Janc E. Lewin(lthaca: Corncll Univcrsity Press, 1980), 162-70.


20/100

10 The Architextlyric pocts?), but a rcstncuon that, va Aristotlc, willbecome-and for centuries will rcmain-the basic tenetof classical poetics.

Indecd, the first page of the Poctics clearly defines poetry as the art of imitation in verse (more exactly, "byrhythm, language, or 'harmony'" [1447 a]), explicitlyexcluding imitation in prose (the mimes of Sophron,the Socratic dialogues) and nonimitative verse-andmaking no mention at all of nonimitative prose, su eh asoratory, on which the Rlzctoric, for its part, focuses. 12 Toillustrate nonimitative verse Aristotle selccts the workof Empedocles, and more generally any "treatise onmedicine or natural sciencc ... brought out in verse"(1447 b)- in other words, didactic poetry, which he re-jects despitc what he calls a widcspread opinion ("thcname of poet is by custom given to the author"). ToAristotlc, as wc know, "it would be right to call ... [Empedoclcs] physicist rather than poct," even though Empedocks uses the same meter as Homer. As for thepocms that we would call lyric (for examplc, those ofSappho or Pindar), neither here nor elsewherc in thc Po-etics docs Aristotlc mcntion thcm; thcy are plainly outsidc his ficld, as they wcre outsidc Plato's. Thc subsequent subdivisions will thus be brought to bear onlywithin the strictly circumscribed arca of rcprcsenta-tional poctry.

Thcir basis is an intcrsccting of categories that are directly connected to the very fact of representation: thc12. [Translator's note.] Throughout, translations of the

Poctics are S. H. Butchcr's (1895; rcv. 1911; rpt. in Critcism:Thc Major Tcxts, ed. Waltcr Jackson Bate [New York: Har-court, Brace, 1952]). All references to the Poetcs are givcn inche text.


21/100

An Introduction 11object imitated (thc question what?) and thc manner ofimitation (the question how?). The object imitatedherc wc have a ncw rcstriction-consists solcly of hu-man actions, or more precisely of human beings in ac-tion, who can be rcprcscnted as superior to (beltionas),equal to (kat'hemas), or inferior to (kheironas) "us"(1448a) 13- tha t is, no doubt, to ordinary people. Themiddle group will reccivc vcry little attention, so thecriterion of content (the object imitated) comes down tothe contrast betwccn superior and inferior hcrocs. Asfor the manner of imitation, it consists cithcr of tclling(thc Platonic llapte diegesis) or of "prescnt[ing] all [the]characters as living and moving before us" (1448 a ) that is, setting them on stage moving about and speak-ing (the Platonic mimesis, or dramatic rcprescntation).Here again we see that an intermediare class-the Pla-tonic mixed class-has disappcarcd, at least as a taxo-nomic principie. Apart from that disappearance, what

13. Thc translation and thcrcforc thc intcrprctation ofthese terms obviously involve the entire interpretation of thisaspect of the Poetics. Their usual meaning is clearly moral, asis the context of their first appearance in this chapter: char-acters are distinguished by vice (kakia) and virtue (arete). Thelater classical tradition tends rather to interpret thcm in socialterms, with tragcdy (and epic) portraying characters of highrank and comcdy charactcrs of low rank; and it is ccrtainlytrue that thc Aristotelian theory of thc tragic hero, which wcwill come upon latcr, is not consistcnt with a purely moral dcf-inition of the hcro's cxcellence. "Superior"/"inferior" is aprudent compromise, perhaps too prudent, but one hesitatesto have Aristotle rank an Oedipus or a Mcdea with heroeswho are "better" than the average person. As for Hardy's[French J translation (Pars: Les Uelles Lcttrcs), it gets cnmeshcd in incohcrence from the start by trying both rcndcr-ings within fiftccn lines of cach othcr.


22/100

12 The Arclritext

Aristotle calls "thc manner . . of imitation" (1447 a) isexactly equivalent to what Plato caBed lexis. This is notyct a systcm of gcnrcs; che most exact tcrm for dcsignating this category is undoubtedly thc tcrm-uscd inthe !Butcher] translation-mode. Strictly spcaking, wcare dealing not with "form" in the tradicional sensc, asin che contrast bctwecn verse and prosc or bctwcen different types of verse, but with sitllatious of m m c i a t i l l , ~ ? .To use Plato's tcrms, in the narrative mode the poetspeaks in his own namc, whercas in the dramatic modethc charactcrs thcmsclves speak-or, more prcciscly, thcpoet speaks disguised as so many characters.

In che first chapter Aristotlc distinguishes in principiethree types of diffcrcntiation among the arts of imitation: differentiation by the objcct imitated and by thcmode of imitation (the two wc are concerncd withhcrc), but also diffcrentiation by the "medium" (in(Butchcr'sJ translation ( 1447 aJ; literally, thc qucstion"in what?" in the sense of one's cxpressing oncsclf "ingestures" or "in words," "in Grcck" or "in English,",,. ' ' ''. ,, ,,. ,, ,,. .m prose or m verse, m pentamcter or m tn-meter," etc.). This third type corrcsponds bese to whatour tradition calls jorm; but it rcccives no real attcntionin che Poetics, whose systcm of genrcs comprises by andlargc only objects and modes.Setting the t\vo "object" categorics in cross-relationto che two "modc" categories chus produces a grid withfour classes of imitation, corresponding preciscly towhat thc classical tradition will call gmres. Thc poet canrecount or sct on stagc thc actions of superior cluractcrs, rccount or sct on stagc che actions of inferior characters.14 The superior-dramatic defines tragedy, the

14. With rcspcct to lcvcl of dignity (or morality), A r i s t o t l ~ :clcarly docs not ditTcrcntiatc betwccn charactcrs and actions,vicwing thcm no doubt as indissolubly linkcd-in fact he dis-


23/100

A11 ltztroductiotl 13superior-narrative defines cpic; thc infcrior-dramaticcorresponds to comedy, the infcrior-narrative corresponds to a genre that is less clcar-cut-one that Aristotle leaves unnamed and illustrates somctimes by the"parodies" (pardiai), no longcr cxtant, of Hegemonand Nicochares (1 448 a) and somctimcs by a Margites attributcd to Homer (1448 b), which he cxpressly declaresis to comedies what the Iliad and thc Odyssey are to tragedies (1449 a). This slot, thereforc, is obviously thc oncfor comic narration, which seems to havc originallybeen illustrated-whatever wc should takc that tomean-basically by parodies of epics (the mock hcroicBatracllolll}'Omachic could, rightly or wrongly, givc us

cusscs charactcrs only as carricrs of thc action. Corncillcsecms to have been the first to break that bond, invcnting in1650 thc mixcd subgenre of "hcroic comedy" for Don Satrclrcd'Aragon (a nontragic action in a noble setting). His Pulchrie,1671, and Tite et Brtrice, 1672, are other, later examples. Inhis Discours du pohne dramatiqr1e, 1660, he justifies that dissociation with an explicit criticism of Aristotlc: "Dramatic poctry, according to him, is an imitation of actions, and he stopsherc (at the bcginning of thc Poetics) with thc rank of thc charactcrs, not saying what those actions should be. In any case,his dcfinition was consistcnt with thc practicc thcn in vogue,when only characters of inferior rank wcre allowed to speakin comcdy. Bis dcfinition is not cntircly appropriatc in ourtime, however, when even kings can figure in comedy as longas thcir dccds do not raisc them above it. When one sets onstagc a simple )ove story among kings and they endanger neither themselves nor their realms, 1 do not think that eventhough thc charactcrs are illustrious, the action is sufficientlyso to risc to the lcvel of tragcdy" (CEuvres de Pierre Conrei/le,cd. Charles Marty-Lavcaux (Pars: Hachettc, 1862-68],1 23-24). The in verse dissociation (a tragic action in an cvcryday setting) will, in thc next ccntury, produce bourgcoisdrama.


24/100

14 The Architext

sorne idea of these). The Aristotclian genre system,then, can be depicted like this:~ Dramatic Narra ti ve[11arratifJ

Superior tragedy .cptcInferior comedy parody

As we know only too wcll, thc rcmainder of the Po-etics will dcploy on this grid a succession of abandonments or dcadly depreciations: the inferior-narrativewill be mentioned no more, and comedy very little. Thetwo high genres will be left face-to-face in an unequalmatch becausc, after sctting forth this taxonomic framcwork, thc Poetics (at lcast all but a fcw pagcs of what rcmains of it) turns out to be mainly a theory of tragcdy.That outcome in itself does not concern us. Let us atleast note that this triumph of tragcdy is not solely thceffcct of incomplctcness or mutilation but results fromexplicit and motivated attributions of higher value.First, of coursc, thc superiority of the dramatic modcover thc narrative (the well-known reversa} of Plato'sprcjudice), a supcriority proclaimed apropos of Homer,one of whose merits is that as narrator he intervenes aslittle as possible in his poem and makes himself as muchof an "imitator" (that is, a dramatist) as an epic poet canbe, letting his characters speak as often as possible (1460a) (this commendation shows, incidentally, that although Aristotle omitted the category, he was no lessaware than Plato of the "mixed" nature of Homericnarration, a fact whose consequcnces 1 will rcturn to). 15

15. In 1448b, Aristotle goes so far asto call the Homericcpics "dramatic ... imitation" (mimescis dramatikas), and ap-


25/100

At1 ltztroductiotl 15Sccond, thc formal supcriority of tragcdy's varicty ofmeters and its inclusion of "music and scenic effects"(1462 a). Third, the intcllcctual superiority of tragedyfor its "vividncss of imprcssion in rcading as wcll as inrepresentation" (1462a). Fourth and fth, the aestheticsuperiority of tragedy for its concentration and unity(1462 b) and, more surprising, the thematic superiorityof thc tragic objcct.More surprising because theorctically, as we haveseen, the opening pages of the Poetics attribute to thetwo genres objects that are not only equal but identical-namcly, the represcntation of superior heroes.This equality is proclaimed again (for the last time) in1449 b: "Epie poetry agrees with [ekolomesetz] Tragedy inso far as it is an imitation in verse of characters of ahigher typc." Thcn comes thc rcmindcr of thc diffcr-ences in form (epic's uniform meter versus tragedy'svarying meter), the difference in mode, and the differ-encc in "lcngth" (tragcdy's action cnclosed within thefamous unity of t ime-one revolution of the sun). Fi-nally, the officially granted equality of object is surreptitiously dcnied: "O f their constituent parts sorne arecommon to both, sorne peculiar to Tragedy. Whocvcr,

ropos of the Mar


26/100

16 The Architext

thcrcforc, knows what is good or bad Tragcdy, knowsalso about Epic poetry: for all the elemcnts of an Epicpoem are found in Tragedy, but the elemcnts of a Trag-cdy are not all found in thc Epic pocm." Thc placing ofhighcr valuc, in thc propcr scnsc of thc phrasc, lcaps outat thc reader, for this passage attributes an automaticsupcriority if not to thc tragic poct thcn at least to thcconnoisscur of tragcdics, by virtuc of thc principie"whoevcr can do more can do lcss." Thc rcasons for thissuperiority may still sccm obscurc or abstruse: tragedyallcgedly indudes, with no conccssion of rcciprocity,"constituent parts" (mre) that cpic docs not indude.What docs ali this mean?Litcrally, no doubt. that of thc six "parts" of tragcdy(plot, character, diction, thought, spectacle, and song[ 1450 a]), thc last two are spccific ro it. But asidc fromthesc tcchnical considcrations, the comparison intimareseven at this point that thc initial dcfinition common tothc objects of both genres will not complctdy sutiicc (rosay rhe lcast) to define thc objcct of tragcdy-an inti-marion borne out a fcw lincs larcr by this second dcfi-nition, which has becn authoritativc for ccnturies:"Tragcdy then, is an imitation of an action that is seri-ous, complete, and of a ccrtain magnitudc; in languagccmbcllished with each kind of artistic ornament, thesevera! kinds being found in separare parts of the play;in the form of action, not of narrarivc; through pity andfcar cffccting thc propcr purgation of thcsc cmotions"(1449b).

As everyone knows, the theory of tragic catharsis setforth in thc final phrasc of that definiran is not amongthc clcarest, and its obscurity has supported multitudesof perhaps pointless excgeses. For us, in any case, theimportant rhing is not thc effcct (whcrhcr psychological


27/100

A11 l11troductiotl 17or moral) of the two emotions of tragedy but the veryprcscncc of thcsc cmotions in thc definition of thegenre, as well as the set of specific features Aristotle designares as necessary to thcir production and thercforc tothc existence of a tragcdy that is in kccping with thatdefinition: an uncxpected (para te11 doxmr) and amazing(thaumaston) train of cvcnts, as when "coincidcnces ...have ;m air of dcsign" (1452a); "pcripeteia" or "reversal" of the action, as when behavior produces an outcome that is thc revcrsc of what has bccn anticipated(1452 a); "rccognition" of pcrsons whosc identities ha vehitherto been unknown or conccalcd (1452 a); misfortune suffcrcd by a hcro who is ncither wholly innocentnor wholly guilty, causcd not by a real crimc but by atragic flaw (hamartia) (1453 a); violcncc committed (or,bettcr, on thc vcrgc of bcing committcd, but prcvcntcdat the last momcnt by thc rccognition) betwcen pcopledcar to each othcr, prefcrably bound by tics of bloodbut unawarc of thc naturc of thcir tics (1453 b); and soon.16 All thcsc critcria, which mark thc actions of Oe-dipus Rcx or thc Cresphontes as the most perfcct tragicactions and Euripcdcs as thc author who is most tragic,eminently tragic, or cspccially tragic ( t r a , ~ ? i k o t a t o s ) (1453a), certainly constitute a ncw definition of tragedy-oncwc cannot wholly dismiss mcrcly by calling it less cxtcnsivc and more dctailcd than thc earlicr dcfinition, forsome of the incompatibi1itics are a little more difficultto reconcile. One example is the idea of a tragic hero

16. Chaptcrs 9-14; a littlc furthcr on (l459b). to be sure,Aristotle restares the balance somewhat by granting to epicthe samc constituent "parts" that tragedy has, "except songand sccncry," induding "Reversals of lntention, Recognitions, and Tragic lncidcnts." But the basic motif of thctragic-fcar :md pity-rcmains alicn to c:pic.


28/100

18 The Architextwho is "ncither entircly good, nor entirely evil" (according to Racine's faithful paraphrasc in thc prcface toA t ~ d r o m a q u e ) but basically Jallible ("very far from bcingperfect. he must always ha ve sorne defect." as the preface to Britmmiws extcnds the idea-corrcctly, in myvicw) or not clear-sightcd cnough or-and this amountsto thc samc thing-too clear-sighted (like Oedipus, 17 whoin Holderlin's famous and inspired verse has "one eyetoo many") to avoid the traps set by fatc. 18 That ideadocs not squarc wcll with thc carlier decree of a humannaturc superior to thc average, unless this supcriority isto be deprived of any moral or intellectual dimension.which would be rathcr incompatible with thc ordinarymeaning of the adjectivc beltio11, as we have seen. Anothcr examplc is Aristotle's requirement that thc actionbe capable of arousing fear and pity regardless ofwhether it is shown on stage or merely narrated (1453b). Here he ccrtainly seems to admit that the tragic subjcct can be dissociatcd from the dramatic modc and entrusted simply to narration, without thcrcby bccomingan cpic subjcct.

17. Too c l c a r - s i ~ h t e d beca use, like Laius befo re him, 1110 we/1i 1 ~ { o r m e d (by the oracle). And so, in any case, t o o f a r s i ~ h t e d andtoo c a r ~ { u l ; that is thc m a in themc, tragic hcrc beca use thc issueis dcath, but comic in othcr works (L'Ecole des Jenmres, Le Barbier de Sl'ille) whcrc thc issuc is only thc mortification of anold fool or thc "uselcss" prccaution-uselcss and cvcn l r a m ~ { l 1 /or. to put it in tcrms more appropriatc in this contcxt. dis.tstrOIIS or fatal.

18. Tire Complete Plays of ]ean Racine, trans. Samucl Solomon (New York: Random Housc, 1967), 1:141 (Andromaque), 1:289 (Britamricus). Friedrich Holderlin. "In lieblichcrBlauc," lincs 75-76.


29/100

An ltltroduction 19So the tragic can exist apart from tragedy, just as

thcrc are doubtlcss tragcdies that lack thc tragic or thatin any case are less tragic than others. Robortello, in hisCommentary of 1548, is of the opinion that the con-ditions laid clown in the Poetics are rcalized only in Oedipus Rex, and he resolves this doctrinal difficulty bymaintaining that sorne of those conditions are necessarynot to the nature of a tragcdy but only to its perfcction:

9

This jesuitical distinction would perhaps have satisfiedAristotlc, for it maintains the apparent unity of the con-ccpt of tragedy across the variable gcomctry of its dcf-initions. Actually, of coursc, thcrc are two distinct real-ities here. One, laid clown in the opening pages of thePoetics, is simultancously modal and thematic: it is thehigh or serious drama, in contrast to the high narrative

19. Reponed by Corncillc in his Discours de la tragde(1660, in (Eiwres, 1 59). Seven pagcs latcr, he applies that dis-tinction to two of thc Aristotclian rcquircments: thc scmi-innocence of thc hero and thc existencc of close tics betwecnthe antagonists. "When 1 say," he adds, "that these two con-ditions are only for pcrfcct tragcdics, 1 do not mean that trag-edics in which thcy do not obtain are impcrfcct; that wouldamount to making thcse two conditions an absolute rcquire-mcnt, and 1 would be contradicting mysclf. But by 'pcrfecttragcdies' 1 mean those of thc most sublime and affcctingkind. so that tragcdics lacking in onc or thc othcr. or both. ofthesc two conditions, evcn if they are regular in all other re-spects, do not fall short of perfcction for their kind, althoughthcy remain at a lcss clevatcd rank and do not approach thebeauty and brilliancc of thc others." Here we ha ve a fine ex-amplc of those quibblcs by which, for a short pcriod, onccompromiscd with (s'accommodat)-thc phrasc is Corncillc'sown (60)-an orthodoxy onc was alrcady daring to disrupt infact, although not yet in words.


30/100

20 The Architext

(thc cpic) and to the low, or mirthful, drama (comcdy).This gcncric reality, which embraces thc Persians as wcllas Oedip11s Rex, is traditionally dcsignatcd t r a . ~ ? e d y , andAristotlc obviously docs not considcr qucstioning thatdcsignation. The other rcality is purcly thematic and ofan anthropological, rathcr than poetic, naturc: it is thc

t r a . ~ i c - t h a t is, thc sense of thc irony of fatc or thc cruclty of the gods; this is what chaptcrs 6-19, for thc mostpart, havc in view. Thcsc two rcalitics intcrscct, and thean:a whcrc thcy ovcrlap is that of tragedy in thc strict(Aristotclian) scnsc, or tragcdy par cxccllcncc, fulfillingal1 the conditions (coincidcncc, reversa), rccognition,etc.) for producing fcar and pity, or rathcr that spccificblend of fcar and pity that in thc thcatcr is arouscd bythc cruel manifestation of tate.

high drama

tragrdy

thc tragic

In tcrms of a systcm of gcnrcs. tragcdy is thcrcforc athcmatically dcfincd catcgory within high drama, justasfor us vaudcvillc is a thcmatical1y defincd catcgorywithin comcdy, or the detective novel a thcmatical1y de-fmcd catcgory within the novd. This distinction hasbccn obvious to cvcryonc sincc Didcrot, Lessing, orSchlcgcl. but for ccnturies it was conccalcd by thc am-


31/100

An lntrod1ution 21biguity of thc word tragedy, with its two scnscs, broadand narrow. Certainly Aristotlc cspouscd both scnscs insuccession without paying much attention to the difference betwccn thcm-and without suspecting, 1 hope,the theorctical imbroglio into which, many centurieslater, his casualness would throw sorne literary theorists, cntrappcd by thc confusion and naivcly bcnt onapplying and having others apply to thc wholc of agenre the norms he had elucidatcd for one of its spccies.

III

But let us go back to the initial systcm, which thatmemorable digrcssion on the tragic transcends but apparcntly docs not rcpudiate. As wc havc sccn, thc system did not and by definition could not assign any placeto lyric poetry; but wc havc also sccn that thc systemoverlooked, or sccmcd in passing to overlook, thc Platonic distinction between the pure narrative mode, illustrated by dithyramb, and the mixed modc, illustratedby epic. Or rather, 1 repeat, Aristotlc rccognized themixed nature of thc cpic mode perfcctly well-and puta lzigher value on it. What disappears in his system is thestatus of the dithyramb and, at the samc time, thc ncedto distinguish bctwccn purc narrativc and impurc narrativc. From that point on, howcvcr wcak thc justification, cpic will be rankcd among the narrative genres:after all, a single word of introduction by the poet is ultimatcly enough to make it narrativc, cvcn if everythingthat follows is dialogue (just as, sorne twcnty-fivc centuries later, the absence of such an introduction will beenough to establish the "interior monologue"-a proceeding almost as old as narrativc-as a full-ftcdgednovelistic "form"). In short, if for Plato epic bclongcd


32/100

.,.,-- The Architextto thc mixed mode, for Aristotle it belongs to the narrativc mode evm t l z o u ~ l ! it is basically mixed or impure,which obviously means that the criterion of purity is nolonger rclevant.

Something happens therc-bctween Plato and Aristotle-that wc havc trouble appreciating fully because,for one thing, the dithyrambic corpus is, sadly, missing.But thc dcvastation wrought by time undoubtcdly doesnot bcar solc responsibility: Aristotlc spcaks of thatgenre as if it is airead y a thing of the past, and he surelyhas rcasons for overlooking it altiJOugl! it is uarrative, andnot only, from pro-mimctic prcjudice, because it is purely11arratil'e. And wc know well from cxperience that purenarrative (telling without showifiJ! in the language ofAmerican criticism) is pure possibilily, with almost noattempt made to actualize it at the lcvel of a whole workand, a fortiori, at thc lcvel of a genrc; wc would be hardput to name a novclla without dialogue, and for the cpicor thc novel, pure narrativc is out of the question.20 lfthc dithyramb is a phantom gcnre, purc narrative is afictitious modc, or at lcast a purcly "thcorctical" one,and Aristotlc's abandoning it is also a charactcristiccxprcssion of cmpiricism.

20. [Translator's note.] In Nou!'eau discours du rcit (published four years after Iutroductiou a 'architexte), Genette wrotc:"[1 takc this] opportunity to corn:ct a blunder 1 made in thcArchitexte, wherc 1 complctely excluded the possibility of along narrative (epic or novel) without dialogue. The possibility is. howcver, obvious; and Buffon's principie ('evcrything that may be, is') should encouragc one to be prudent;and (barring a new error) there is not a single line of dialoguein Mmoires d'Hadric11" (Nou!'eau discours du rcit [Pars: Seuil,1983]. 28; tr. Narrati1'e Discourse Rel'isited, trans. Jane E. Lewin[lthaca: Cornell University Press. 1988]. 42).


33/100

An Imroduction 23What remains, however, if wc compare Plato's sys

tcm of modes with Aristotlc's, is thc fact that onc sloton the chart has been vacated (and promptly lost) alongthc way. The Platonic triad

narra uve[narrarif) mixcd drama tic

has bccn rcplaced by the Aristotelian pair~ - - - - - - - --r-------y--------,narranve[narratifl dramatic

~ - ------- . . . .1 . . . - - - --- . . . .L. . - - ----- 'but not by oustcr of thc mixcd; rathcr, thc purc narrative disappears bccause it is noncxistcnt, and themixed-thc only narrative left-establishes itself in theplace rcscrved for narrative.

So, thc pcrspicacious rcadcr will say, thcrc is a slot tobe fillcd, and it's casy to gucss what happens next, cspecially when we already know the outcome. But let'snot skip too many steps.

IVFor severa} centurics, thc Platonic-Aristotelian rcstriction of poetics to the representative will weigh heavilyon the theory of gcnres and kecp the theory's adherentsin a statc of malaisc or confusion.21 Thc idea of lyric po-

21. For thc most part, thc historical information that follows is takcn from Edmond Faral, Les Arts potiques d11 Xlle etdr1 XII/e siecle: rccherchts et documellts sur la teclmiqr1e littraire du


34/100

24 Tlu A.rchitextctry is obviously not unknown to rhc Alcxandrian crit-ics, but it is not madc part of thc paradigm alongsidc theideas of cpic and dramatic poctry, and its definition isstill purcly tcchnical (pocms with lyrc accompanimcnt)and rcstrictivc. Aristarchus, in thc third to sccond ccn-tury B. c., draws up a list of ninc lyric pocts (includingAlcaeus, Sappho, Anacreon, and Pindar), which willlong rcmain canonical and cxcludcs, for cxamplc, thciambic and thc clcgiac distich. Horacc, although himsclfa l yricist and satirist, limits thc Art of Poetry, in tcrms ofgcnrc, to praising Homer and setting forth thc rules ofdramatic poctry. In the list of rcadings in Grcck andLatn thar Quintilian recommcnds to thc futurc orator,he mcntions, bcsides history, philosophy, and of courserhctoric, sevcn poetic genres: epic (which here com-priscs all kinds of narra tive, dcscriptivc, or didacticpocms, including thosc of Hcsiod, Theocritus, and Lu-crctius), tragcdy, comedy, elcgy (Callimachus, thc Latinmoym ~ ( ! t ' (Paris: Champion, 1924); Bc:hrcns, l.drre I'OII der

E i l l t e i l r m . ~ ; Wdlck and Warrcn, TIJcory of Utcratrrre; M. H.Abrams, Tilc lvlirror a11d thc Lamp: Romalltic Tlzcory a11d rileCritica/ Traditio11 (Oxford: Oxford Univcrsity Prcss. 1953);Mario Fubini, "Gcncsi e storia dci gcncri littcrari" ( 1951 ). inCritiw e poesa: saggi 1' discorsi di teora lcttcraria (Bari: Latcrza,1%6); Rc:n Wcllck. ''Gc:nrc: Thcory, thc Lyric. and Erlt'lmis"(1967), in Discrimi11atio11s: Frrrtila Co11cepts t?f Criticism (NcwHavcn: Yale University Press, 1970): Pcter Szondi, "La Tho-rie des genres potiques chcz F. Schlegel" (1968), in Posie etpotiqrre de l'idalismt' t ~ l l t m , m d , trans. Jcan Uollack, UarbaraCassin, ct al. (Pars: Minuit, 1975); Wolfgang V. Ruttkowski,Die liter


35/100

An lntroduction 25

clegists), iambic (Archilochus, Horace), satire ("toranostra": Lucilius and Horacc), and lyric poctry-thislast illustrated by, among others, Pindar, Alcaeus, andHoracc. In other words, here the lyric is simply one ofseveral nonnarrative and nondramatic gcnres and comesclown in fact to onc form, which is thc ocle.

But Quintilian's list is obviously not an art ofpoetry,sincc it includcs works in prosc. Thc latcr attcmpts atsystcmatization, at thc cnd of antiquity and in thc Middle Ages, make grcat cfforts to integrare lyric poetryinto thc systcms of Plato or Aristotlc without modifying thcir catcgorics. Thus Diomcdcs (late fourrh ccntury) rechristcns thc thrcc Platonic modcs "genres"(.geuera) and, after a fashion, apportions among themthe "species" (speccs) that we would call gcnres: the ge-11115 imitativum (dramatic), in which only the charactcrsspeak, comprises the tragic, comic, and satiric species{thc last-namcd is thc satiric drama of thc carly Grcektctralogics, not mcntioncd by Plato or Aristotlc); thc te-1/1/S emwrativum (narrativc), in which only che poctspeaks, comprises che propcrly narrative, the scntcntious (gnomic?), and the didactic spccics; thc JJCmts com-mrme (mixcd), in which poct and characters spcak inturn, compriscs the spccies that are heroic (thc epic) and... lyric (Archilochus and Horace). Proclus (fifth ccntury) omits thc mixed catcgory, as Aristotle did, and inthc narrativc gcnrc he puts-alongsidc cpic-iambic, cl-egy, and mlos (lyricism). John of Garland (thirtecnthcentury) goes back to Diomcdcs' systcm.

Thc sixtecnth-ccntury authors of ares of poctry gcncrally forgo constructing systcms and are contcnt insecad simply to juxtaposc spccics. Thus Pclctier duMans (1555): epigram, sonnet, ocle, epistlc, clcgy, satirc, comcdy, tragcdy, "hcroic work"; or Vauquclin deLa Frcsnayc (1605): cpic, ckgy, sonnct, iambic, song,


36/100

26 The Architextodc, comcdy, tragcdy, satirc, idyll, pastoral; or SirPhilip Sidncy (Au Apologie for Poctrie, about 1580): hcroic, lyric, tragic, comic, satiric, iambic, clcgiac, pastoral, etc. The main arts of poetry of the classical tradition, from Vida to Rapin, are basically, as we know,commentarics on Aristotlc, in which the incxhaustiblcdebate about thc comparativc mcrits of tragcdy and cpicgoes on and on, whilc thc cmcrgcncc in thc sixtccnthcentury of new genres (like thc hcroical-romanticpocm, the pastoral novel, the dramatic pastoral, or thetragicomcdy, cach too casily reducible to thc narrativcor the dramatic modc) ncvcr really altcrs thc picturc. Inthe classical vulgate, the de facto rccognition of thc various nonrcprescntational forms is rcconcilcd, aftcr afashion, with thc maintcnancc of Aristotclian orthodoxy by mcans of a convenicnt distinction bctwccn "thcmajor gcnrcs" and . . . thc othcrs-a distinction towhich the arrangcmcnt of Boileau's Art potiquc (1674)perfectly (albcit implicitly) attests: canto 3 dcals withtragcdy, cpic, and comcdy, whilc canto 2, likc itssixtccnth-ccntury predcccssors, strings togcthcr idyll,elcgy, odc, sonnet, cpigram, rondcau, madrigal. bailad,satirc, vaudcvillc. and song, without any comprchcnsivc classification.22 In thc samc ycar, Rapin spcaksopcnly of thc distinction and pushcs it furthcr:

22. Wc should rcmembcr that cantos 1 and 4 are devotcd totransgcncric considcrations. And, in passing. that certain misunderstandings. not to say misinterpretations, of "classicaldoctrine" are duc to an improper gcneralization of specific"preccpts" that havc become provcrbs without contcxt andthus without rdcvancc. For examplc. cvcryonc knows that"un beau dsordre cst un effct de l"art" (a fine disordcr is ,meflcct of art). but this is a five-foot alexandrinc that pcoplereadily complete with a "Souvent" (ofttimes) as apocryphal as


37/100

Att Introductiotl 27Poetics as a wholc can be dividcd into thrcc differ-cnt spccics of pcrfcct Pocm-Epic, Tragcdy, andComcdy-and thcsc thrcc spccics can be rcducedto only two, one of which consists of action andthe other of narration. AH thc other species thatAristotle mcntions [?) can be reduced to those two:Comcdy to dramatic Poctry, Satirc to Comedy,Ode and Eclogue to heroic Poetry. The Sonnet,the Madrigal, the Epigram, the Rondeau, and theBallad are but spccies of imperfect Poetry.23

In short, the nonrepresentational genres may choosconly bctwccn an annexation that enhances thcir value(satirc annexed to comedy and thus to dramatic poetry,ode and eclogue to cpic) or a dismissal to outer darknessor, if one prefcrs, to the limbo of "imperfection." Thercis undoubtedly no bettcr commc:nt on this scgrcgativeassessment than the discouragcd avowal Ren Braymakes whcn, having studicd the classical thcories of the"major gcnrcs" and thcn tricd to bring together someinformation on bucolic poctry, clcgy, ode, cpigram, andsatire, he abruptly brcaks off: "But Jet us stop siftingthrough so barren a doctrine. The thcorists wcre toocontcmptuous of cvcrything outsidc thc majar gcnrcs.Tragcdy and thc hcroic pocm wcrc all they paid atten-tion to. " 24

Bcsidc-or rathcr, thcrcforc, bcncath-thc majornarrativc and drantatic gcnrcs is a cloud o f small forrns,

it is evasivc. Thc: real bc:ginning of thc: linc: is "Chez elle"(with hcr). With whom? The answer is in canto 2, lim.-s 58-72.

23. Rijlexions sur la potique (Pars, 1674); part 2, chapter1.

24. La Fonnatilm de la doctrine classique en Frauce (1927; rpt.Paris: Nizet. 1966), 354.


38/100

28 Tire /irclritextwhosc infcriority or lack of poctic status is duc some-whac co chcir littlcncss (real in che case of chcir dimcn-sions, allcged in the case of thcir subjects) and muchmore co che centurics-old exclusion applicd co cveryching thac is not "an imication of mcn in accion." Ocles,elegies, sonnets, etc., "imitate" no action, bccause thcorecically all thcy do. like a speech ora prayer, is cxpressthcir authors' ideas or fcelings, real or ficcicious. Con-sequently, there are only cwo conceivable ways of pro-moting them to poetic dignity. The first way is to up-hold, while somewhat expanding, che classical dogmaof i 1 1 u ~ s i s and scrive to show that that type of statementis scill, in its own fashion, an "imitation." The secondand more radical way is to break with che dogma andproclaim che cqual poetic dignicy of a nonrcpresemational utterance. Todav those cwo movemencs seem an-tithetical and logically incompatible. But in fact onc willsucceed che other and link up wich ic almosc unnociccably. che former paving che way for che latter whilecloaking ic, as rcforms somecimes break che ground forrevolutions.

VThe idea of federacing all che kinds of nonmimecic po-etry to escablish them as a third parcy under che com-mon name of lyric poetry is noc wholly unknown to checlassical period: ic is mcrcly marginal and, so co spcak,heterodox. The tlrsc occurrence of it chat Irene Behrensnaced is in che work of the Icalian Minturno, for whom"poctry is divided into thrce pares, onc of which iscalled thcatrical, thc sccond lyrical, che chird epical."Cervantes, in chapter 47 of Do11 Quixote, has his Canon


39/100

A11 llltroductio11 29spcak of a fourfold division, with dramatic poctry splitinto two parts: "Thc unrcstrictcd rangc 1of books ofchivalry] enablcs the author to show his powers, epic,lyric, tragic, or comic." Mil ton claims to find in Aristotlc, Horace, "and thc ltalian commcnraries of Castelvetro, Tasso, Mazzoni, and othcrs ... thc laws ... ofa true epic ... , dramatic .... [or]lyric" pocm-theearliest cxamplc. to my knowlcdgc, of our impropcr attribution. Dryden distinguishcs thrce "ways": dramatic,epic, lyric. Gravina devores one chapter of his Ragio11poerica (1708) to cpic and dramatic poetry and thc nextchaptcr to lyric poctry. Houdar de la Motte, a "modern" in thc contcxt of the Quarrd of the Ancients andModcrns, compares thc threc catcgorics and describeshimsclf as "at once an epic, dramatic, and lyric poct."Finally, llaumgarten, in a 1735 tcxt that outlines or prefigures his Aesthetica, evokes "the lyrical, the cpical. thcdramatic and thcir gencric su bdivisions. " 25 And mycnumcration lays no claim to cxhaustivcncss.But none of thost: propositions is truly wdlgrounded and wcll cxplaincd. Thc carlicst cffort in that

25. Minturno, De Poet11 (Venice, 155l)); bis Arte p


40/100

30 The Architextdircction scems to have been madc by the SpaniardFrancisco Cascales, in his Tablas poeticas (1617) and Car-tas p l z i l o l o ~ i c a s (1634): lyric poctry, says Cascales apropos of thc sonnct, has for its "plot" not an action, ascpic and dramatc poetry do, bur a thought (concepto).This distortion of orthodoxy is signficant: the termplot (fbula) is Aristotclian, and the term t h o u ~ h t couldcorrcspond to thc cqually Aristotclian tcrm dianoia. Butthc idea that a thought can serve as the plot of anythingwhatsoevcr s totally alen to thc spirit of thc Poetics,which explicitly defines plot (mutlzos) as "the arrangcment of thc incidents" (1450 a) 26 and in which dianoia{"thc faculty of saying what is possible and pcrtinentin given circumstanccs," 1450b) covcrs scarccly morethan thc charactcrs' tcchniqucs of argumcntation; vcrylogically, thcrcforc, Arstotlc dismisscs thc topic, rcfer-ring to his study of it in "thc Rhetoric, to which inquiry thc subjcct more strictly bclongs" (1456 a). E venthough sorne critics, like Northrop Fryc/7 cxtcnd thedcfinition to include the thought of the poet himsdf,obviously all of that cannot constitutc a plot in thc Aristotclan scnsc. Cascalcs is using a vocabulary that isstill orthodox to covcr an idea that is alrcadv as far'from orthodox as possiblc, namcly. thc idea that apoem, likc a discourse or a letter, may havc as its subjcct a thought or fccling that it simply cxposcs or cxprcsscs. Uttcrly banal today, for ccnturics this idea rc-maincd not unthought of, surely (no litcrary theoristcould be unawarc of thc immensc corpus it covcrs), butalmost systcmatically represscd bccausc it could not be

26. Cf. 1451 b: "The poet or 'maker' should be the makerof plots rather than of verses; since he is a poet be cause he imitates. and what he imitates are actions ...?7 A -? -3. natomy. =>--:> .


41/100

Att Imroductiott 31

integrated into the system of a poetics founded on thedogma of "imitation."

Batteux's cffort-thc last cffort classical poeticsmakes to survivc by opcning itsclf up to what ir hasncvcr managcd cithcr to ignore or to acknowlcdgcthcrefore consists of attempting the impossible: retain-ing imitation as thc solc law of all poetry (as of all thcarts} but cxtcnding this law to lyric poctry itsclf. Thatis his aim in chaptcr 13, "Sur la posie lyriquc." llattcuxbegins by admitting that, lookcd at supcrficially, lyricpoctry "sccms to lend itsclf lcss than thc othcr spccicsto the gcnerallaw that reduces cvcrything to imitation."Thus, it is said, thc psalms of David, thc ocles of Pindarand Horacc are only "firc, cmotion, intoxication ... asong inspircd by joy, admiration, thankfulncss ... a cride coeur, an outburst in which naturc docs cvcrythingand are nothing." The poet, therefore, is cxpressing hisfcclings and imitating nothing. "Which makcs twothings true: first, that lyric pocms are truc pocms; scc-ond, that thcsc poems are not charactcrized by imita-tion." But actually, answcrs Battcux, this purc cxprcs-sion, this truc poctry without imitation, is found onlyin thc biblical hymns. God himsclf dictatcd thcm, andGod "has no nccd to imita te; he crea tes." Pocts, on thccontrary. who are only human bcings.

havc nowhcrc to turn but to thcir natural gift, animagination cxcitcd by art, a fcigncd rapture. Thatthey may have really felt gladness is somcthing tosing about, but for only onc or two couplets. Ifsomething more cxtcnsivc is wantcd, it is up to artto stitch to that first cloth ncw feelings resemblingthe earlier oncs. Let nature light thc fire; art mustat least nourish and sustain it. So thc examplc of


42/100

32 The Architextthe prophets, who sang without imitating. provcsnothing against poets as imitators.

At least in part, thercforc, the feclings cxpresscd bypocts are fcdings pretended through art, and this partcarries thc whole, since it shows the possibility of cx-prcssing fictitious fcclings-which, morcover, dramaand cpic have done right from thc start:

So long as the action [in cpic or drama J m oves for-ward, thc poctry is epic or dramatic; when the ac-tion stops and the poetry portrays nothing exceptthc uniquc statc of the soul, the purc fceling it iscxpericncing, thc poetry in itsdf is lyric: to be setto song, it necd only he givcn thc appropriatcform. Thc monologues of Polyeuctc, Camillc,and Chimcne are lyric fragmcnts: and in that case,why should feeling, which is susceptible of imi-tation in a drama, not be susceptible of it in anode? Why can passion be imitated on a stage butnot in a song? So thcre is no cxccption. All poctshavc thc samc objcct. which is to imitar


43/100

A11 lmroductiotl 33So now lyric poctry is integratcd into classical port

ies. But, as rcadcrs may havc obscrvcd, that intcgrationentailed two vcry noticeable distortions in oppositc dircctions. On thc onc hand, Batteux had to slip silcntlyfrom a mere possibility of fictitious cxprcssion to an cs-selltial fictitiousncss of the fcclings cxprcssed, had to reduce all lyric poctry to the reassuring modcl of thctragic monologue, so that he could admit into the heartof alllyric creation that screen of fiction without whichthe idea of imitation could not be applied to lyric. Onthe other hand, he had to slip. as Cascalcs had alrcadydone, from thc orthodox term imitathm of actio11s to abroadcr tcrm: imitclti(lll, pcriod. As Batteux himsclfsays. "In epic and dramatic poetry. onc imitatcs actionsand customs; in the lyric. one sings of imitated feelingsor passions. " 2" Thc asymmctry rcmains obvious, andwith it thc surrcptitious betrayal of Aristotlc. Thus, asupplcmentary guarantec (or prccaution) is indccd ncccssary in this dircction, and that is what les behind Battcux s addition of thc chaptcr cntitlcd "Que ccttc doctrine cst conforme acelle di\ristotc ..Thc principie of thc operation is simple and alreadyfamiliar to us: it consists first of deriving from a fairlymarginal stylistic commcnt a tripartition of the pocticgcnrcs into dithyramb. epic, and drama, which bringsAristotle to thc Platonic point of departure; then of intcrprcting dithyramb as an cxamplc of thc lyric gcnrc,which allows one to attributc to thc Poetics a triad thatneither Plato nor Aristotlc had ever considered. But we

28. Thc chapter "Sur la posic lyriquc .. at the cnd. lnci-dcntally. thc changc from che


44/100

34 Tire Arclzitcxtmust immcdiatcly add that this gcncric misappropria-tion has something to be said for it on thc lcvel of modc:the initial definition of thc pure narrative mode, wcshould rcmcmbcr, was that thc poct constitutcs thc onlyenunciating subjcct, monopolizing speech without cverturning it ovcr to any of his charactcrs. In principie thisis what happcns in the lyric pocm also, cxccpt that inlyric, thc spccch in qucstion is not inhercntly narrativc.If wc ovcrlook this proviso and go on to define thc thrccPlatonic modcs purcly in tcrms of cnunciation, wc getthe following tripartition:

. . altcrnating . .CI1Uilt'l3tl011 enunnauonrcscrved for thc enunnauon n:servcd forpoct thc dtaractcrs

Defined in this way, thc first position can cqually wdlbe purdy narrativc or purely "exprcssive" or can blendthe two functions in any proportion at all. Sincc, as wenotcd earlicr, no purcly narrativc genrc cxists, thc firstposition is just thc right place for any kind of gcnn: dc-voted chiefly to expressing, sincerely or not, ideas orfcelings: ir is a negative catchall (for cvcrything that isncithcr narra tive nor dramatic) ,29 on which thc name

29. Mario Fubini, "Gcncsi e storia," quotcs this rcvcalingsentencc from an ltalian adaptation of Hugh l31air's Lccturcs (111Rlworic mul Belles Lmm (17H3; compendiare dal P. Soave,Parma, IH35, 211): "Plople commonly distinguish thrl'l'gcnrcs of poctry: cpic, dramatic, and lyric. with thc lattcr in-cluding cvcrything that docs not bdong ro thc first two." Un-lcss 1 am mistakcn, that rcduction docs not appcar in thc workof I31air himsclf, who. bcing closcr to classical orthodoxy,distinguishcd poetry as dramatic, epic. lyric, pastoral. didac-tic. dcscriptivc, and ... Hcbraic.


45/100

A r ~ Imroduction 35lyric will bcstow its hegemony and its prestigc. Hencethe expected chart:

lyrical epical dramatic

Onc will rightly objcct to such an "accommodation"by pointing out that this modal definition of lyric can-not be applicd to thc so-callcd lyric monologues in thetheater, in the style of Rodrigue's cclcbrated "stances, " 30to which Batteux attributes so much importance for thereason we have seen and in which the enunciating sub-ject is not the poet. But we must rcmember that thismodal dcfinition is not Battcux's doing, for he pays noattention to modcs (any more than his romantic successors do). That (trans)historic compromisc, continuingto slither along, so to spcak, comes out into the openonly in thc twentieth century. whcn the enunciatingsituation again gains promincncc for thc more generalreasons wc are all awarc of. In thc intcrim, thc ticklishmattcr of thc "lyric monologue" rcccded into thc back-ground. lt rcmains intact, of course, and dcmonstratcs,if nothing dse, that modal and generic definitions donot always coincide: modally, it is always Rodriguewho speaks, whcther to sing of his love or to provokcDon Gormas; gcncrically. thc provoking is "dramatic,"whereas the !ove song (with or without the formalmarkers of meter or strophe) is "lyric," and thc distinction, once again, is (partly) thematic in nature: not cvery

30. [Translator's note.) Corneillc, Le Cid, 1.6. The PetitRobert dictiomwire de la laugue fran{aise defines s t a r ~ c e s as "thcnamc givcn since the sixtccnth century to lyric pocms of scrious inspiration (rcligious, moral, dcgiac) composed in avariable number of strophcs customarily of the same typc."


46/100

36 Tht .4rch ittxt

monologue is pcrccivcd as lyric (Augustc's in thc fifthact of Cimw is not, although it is no more integrateddramatically than Rodriguc's, both of which indccd lcadto a decision), and convcrscly. a dialogue on !ove ("Omiracle of )ove! 1O crowning woe! ... ) 31 can casi) ybe so perceivcd.

VIThe new systcm thcrcforc carne to rcplace the oldthrough a subtlc intcrplay of unconscious or unacknowlcdgcd shifts, substitutions, and reintcrprctationsthat allow the ncw ro be prescntcd, not without errorbut without scandal, as "in kecping" with classical thcory-a typical example of a transitional move or, as issaid elsewhere, of "revision," or "change within continuity." A sign of the next stagc, which \vill mark thcauthcntic (and apparcntly dcfinitivc) abandonment ofclassical orthodoxy. comes right on Battcux's hcds, inthc objcctions made to his system by his own Gcrmantranslator, Johann Adolf Schlcgcl, who is also-fclicitous conjunction-the father of the two great romantictheorists. The terms in which Batteux himself summarizcs and thcn refutes Schlegel's objections are thcse:"Mr. Schlcgel claims that thc law of imitation is notuniversal in poetry.... Here, briefly, is Mr. Schlegel'sreasoning. Imitation of nature is not thc sole law in mattcrs of poctry, if naturc itsclf, without imitation, can bethc objcct of poctry.... And furthcr on:

31. Le Cid. in Pierre Comeil/e: Tire Cid, Cirma, Tire Thc-atrical Illusion, trans. John Cairncross (Harmondsworth: Pcnguin, 1975), 3.4.985-86.


47/100

A11 l11troductio11

Mr. Schlcgcl cannot undcrstand how the ode orlyric poetry can claim to participare in che universallaw of imitation: that is his main objection. Hewould have it that in a wholc host of cases thc poctsings of his real feclings rathcr than of imitatedfcelings. That may be. and 1acknowledge as muchevcn in thc chaptcr he attacks. In that chapter 1hadto provc only two things: First, that feelings maybe pretended. likc actions; that, bcing part of naturc. they can be imitatcd likc cverything clse. 1think Mr. Schlegel will agrce to the truth of chis.Second, that all che fcdings cxprcsscd in lyric, pretended or real, must be bound by che rules of poctic imitation, that is, they must be probable, appropriate, sustained, as perfect as they can be intheir gcnrc, and finally, expresscd with all thccharms and all the vigor of poctic utterance. Thisis the meaning of thc law of imitation; chis is itsspirit.32

37

As we see, che basic rupture is exprcssed here with atiny shift in balance. Batteux and Schlegel manifestly(and necessarily) agree in recognizing that the "feelings"cxprcssed in a lyric pocm can be either pretended orgenuine. To Batteux. thc fact that these feelings cm1 l1epretc11ded is enough to subject che entire lyric genre tothe law of imitation (for in Batteux's view-and weshould remember that this view was shared by thcwhole classical tradition-imitation is not reproductionbut is in reality fiction: to imitareis to prcte11d). To Schle-gcl, che fact that thcy ca11 be ,{!CIIIIitzc is cnough to free thccntirc lyric genrc from that law, which therefore im-

32. Schlcgd, Einschrankmzg dcr sclzoncu Kiinstc auf einen cirz-z(ten Gnmdsat;; (1751 ); Batteux s response is in thc 1764 re-print, in notes to thc chaptcr "Sur la posic lyrique."


48/100

38 Tlze Arclzitextmcdiatdy loses its role as "sole law." Thus hangs in thebalance a wholc poetics, and a wholc acsthctics.

Thc illustrious triad will domnate all the litcrary thcory of Gcrman romanticism (and thcrcforc wcll bcyond), but not without undergoing. in turn, ncw rcintcrprctations and interna! mutations. Fricdrich Schlcgd,who apparently f!res thc f!rst shot, rctains or rediscoversthc Platonic division. but he gives it new mcaning: in1797 he claims, roughly speaking (1 will rcturn in a momcnt to thc cxact contcnt of this note), that thc lyric"form" is subjective, thc drama ic is objectit1e, thc cpic issubjectiJie-olljeaive. Thesc are indced thc tcrms of thc Platonic division (cnunciation by thc poct, by his charactcrs, by both poct and charactcrs). but thc choice of adjcctivcs obviously displaces thc critcrion from thc plancof thc cnunciating situation, which in thcory is purclytcchnical, toward a somcwhat psychological or existentia) planc. Furthcrmorc, thc ancicnt division did not involvc any diachronic dimcnsion: to both Plato and Aristotle, nonc of thc modcs sccmed, de facto or de jure,historically carlicr than thc othcrs; nor did thc ancicntdivision intrinsically involvc any indication of highcrvaluc: in thcory nonc of the modcs was superior to theothers, and in fact. as we airead y know, within thc samcsystcm thc biases of Plato and Aristotlc wcre diamctrically opposcd. On both counts Schlcgcl dcparts fromthe ancients. For him thc mixcd "form," in any case, ismanifestly more rcccnt than thc other t\\'0: "Naturalpoetry is eithcr subjective or clsc objcctive; thc samemixturc is not yct possibk for man in a statc of naturc. " 33 Thereforc, wc cannot be dcaling with an origi-

33. Kritischc Fricdrich-Schlcgcl Ausga!Jc, cd. Ernst Bchlcr(Munich: Schoningh. 195R), 16:111 (frag. 322). Thc dating ofche Schlcgcl notes is Rcn Wcllck's.


49/100

Atz llltroduction 39nal syncrctic stace from which simpler or purer formsallegedly brokc away at a lacer time.14 On che contrary,thc mixcd state is explicitly given high value as such:"There exist an cpical, a lyrical, a dramacic form, withouc che fiavor of the early poctic gcnrcs chac borc thosenamcs, but scparated among thcmselvcs by a definitcand eternal diffcrcnce.-As form, the cpical manifcstlyhas che bese of it. It is subjeccivc-objcctive. The lyricalis subjective only; thc dramatic, objectil'c only. " 35 Anothcrnote, from 1BOO, confirms this: "Epie = subjcctivcobjective, drama = objcctivc, lyric = subjective. " 36 ButSchlegcl seems to have hcsitatcd somcwhat ovcr this division, for a chird note, from 1799, attributcd thc mixcdstate to drama: "Epic = objectivc poetry. lyric = subjeccivc poctry, drama = objcctive-subjective poecry.37

34. As Blair. for cxamplc. assumcd (Lccwres 011 Rlzetoric,cd. Harold F. Harding [Carbondalc: Southern Illinois Univcrsity Prcss, 1965), 2:320-21). For him, "During the infancyof Poctry, all the diffcrent kinds of it lay confuscd, and wercminglcd in thc same composition, according as inclination,enthusiasm, or casual incidents. dirccted the Poet s strain. Inthc progrcss of Socicty and Arts. thcy bcgan to assumc thoscdiffercnt regular forms, and to be distinguished by those diffcrent names undcr which wc now know them" (which doesnot prevcnt him from immcdiately proposing that "ocles andhymns of cvcry (lyric) sort, would naturally be among thefirst compositions"). Wc know that Gocthc found bailad to bethc Ur-Ei of genrcs, thc undiffercntiatcd matrix of all subsequcnt gcnrcs. and according to him, cvcn "in ancicnt Grccktragedy, wc find the threc genres combined; only after a certain period of time do thcy draw apart frorn each other" (noteto West-i:istliclrer Divan; scc n. 68 below).

35. Kritische Aus.l!abt, ed. Behler, 16:111 (frag. 322).36. Literary Notebooks, 1797-1801, ed. Hans Eichner (Toronto: University of Toronto Prcss, 1957), no. 2065.37. !bid., no. 1750.


50/100

40 Tlu: ArclritexrAccording to Peter Szondi, thc hcsitation ariscs bccauscat times Schlegel has in mind a limited diachrony-thatof the evolution of Greek poetry. which culminares inAttic tragedy; and at times a much broader diachronythat of the cvolution of Wcstern poetry, which culminares in an "epic" understood as the (romantic) novel:'"

In Schlcgcl the dominant valuation seems indeed tolie with the lattcr (the epic), which is not surprising. ButHoldcrlin. in the fragmcnts he devores at about thesamc timc3" to thc qucstion of gcnrcs, does not sharcthat valuation: "Thc lyric [poem )." he notes, "in appearance idealistic ... , is naive in its significance. lt isa continuous metaphor of a fecling. The epie [poem ]. inappearancc naivc ... , is hcroic in its significance. It isthe metaphor of grcat aspirations. The tragic 1 ocm ], inappearancc heroic ... , is idcalistic in its significance. ltis the metaphor of an intcllcctual intuition ... .., Hereagain. the order chosen would seem to indicare a gra-

3H. P


51/100

Atl Introductiotl 41dation, in this case favorable to the dramatic ("the tragic[poem)''), but of course thc Holdcrlinian contcxt suggcsts rather thc highcr valuc of thc lyric, which, in theform of the Pindaric ode, Holderlin explicitly designares as carly as 1790 as thc link bctwccn cpic expositiouand tragic passion 41-and anothcr fragment from theHamburg period rejccts all hicrarchy and even all scqucnce, cstablishing among che threc gcnrcs an cndlcsschain, in a ring or a spiral, with cach gcnre alternatclyleading and following: "The tragic poet gains by studying thc lyric poet, the lyric poet the epic poct, the cpicpoet the tragic poct. For in thc tragic les the completionof the epic, in the lyric the complction of the tragic, inthe epic thc completion of the lyric. " 42

Actually, all of Schlegel's and Holdcrlin's successorsagree that drama is thc form that is mixcd or, rathcr (theword is becoming a muse), syntlletic, and thus unavoidably superior. This starts with August Wilhclm Schlcgel, who writes in a note from about 1801: "The Platonic division of genres is invalid. No truc pocticprincipie in that division. Epical, lyrical, dramatic: thesis, antithcsis, synthcsis. Light dcnsity, energetic singularity, harmonic totality.... Thc cpical, pure objectivity in thc human spirit. The lyrical, purc subjectivity.Thc dramatic, the interpenetration of che two. "H The

41. lbid., 4:202 (Szondi, 269).42. Ibid., 4:273 (Szondi, 266).43. Kritische Schriften und Briefe, ed. Edgar Lohncr (Stutt

gart: Kohlhammcr, 1963), 2:305-6 (onc would obviously Jiketo know more about thc rcproach lcvclcd at thc "Piatonic divi-sion"). This arrangcmcnt is also thc onc Novalis most oftcnadopted, with a clearly synthcsizing intcrprctation of the ter mdramatic: in frag. 196, cpical, lyrical, dramatic = sculpturc, mu-sic, poctry (this is airead y Hcgcl's Aesthetics in twce); in frag. 219,


52/100

42 The Architext"dialcctical" pattern is now in place, and it works to theadvantage of drama-which, incidentally, revives (andby an unexpectcd route) thc Aristotclian attribution ofvaluc. Thc scquencc, which Fricdrich Schlegcl lcftpartly in doubt, is now clear: epic-lyric-dramatic. ButSchelling reverses the order of the first two terms: artbcgins with lyric subjectivity, then riscs to epic objcctivity, and finally attains dramatic synthesis, or "identification."44 Hegel rcturns to August Wilhclm's pattern:at thc beginning, epic poetry, thc first cxpression of the"childlike consciousness of a peoplc"; thcn "the converse," "when the individual's spirit beco mes discntangled from the nation's concrete whole"-lyric poetry;and finally dramatic poetry, which "conjoins the twoprevious [modes of presentation] into a new whole inwhich we sce in front of us both an objective devclopment and also its origin in the hearts of individuals. " 45

= phlegmatic, rousing, a wholesomc mixture; in frag. 294, ~body, soul, mind; so also in frag. 276. Only frag. 160 gives theorder (Schelling's, then Hugo's, then canonical) lyrical-epicaldramatic (Novalis, Schrifteu, vol. 2, ed. Richard Samuel et al.,3d cd. 1Stuttgarr: Kohlhammcr, 1981 ). 564, 573, 592, 589, 560).

44. Philosopl!ie der Kuust (1802-1805, pub1ished posthumously in 1859). Thus: "Lyricism = molding of thc infinitcinto thc finitc = thc particular" (Frcnch translation in Philippc Lacouc-Labarthc andjcan-Luc Nancy, L'Absoi11 littraire,tl!orie de la littraire du romarrtisme allemaud [Pars: Seuil, 1978),45). [Translator's note: Although L'Absolu littraire has bccntranslatcd into English, thc translators did not includc-as thcFrench authors did-translations of thc main Gcrman tcxtsdiscusscd in thc book.]45. Aestl!etics: Lectures 011 Fine Art, trans. T. M. Knox (Oxford: Clarcndon Pn:ss, 1975), 2:1045, 1037, 1046, 1038; cf.1053 and, cvcn carlicr, 627, 634. The romantic triad governsall the visible architecturc of Hegel's "Poctics"-but not its


53/100

Atl lntroductiotl 43

Ir is, however, Schelling's sequence that holds thelead in thc nincteenth and twentieth centuries. For in-stance, to Hugo, who deliberately cstablishes a broaddiachrony that is more anthropological than poetic, lyr-icism is the utterance of primeva} times, when "manawakcns into a world that has just sprung up"; thc cp-ical (which, it must be added, embraces Grcek tragedy)is the uttcrance of ancient times, whcn "everythingcomes to a complete standstill"; and drama is the utter-ancc of modern times, marked by Christianity and thcsundcring of body and soul.'"' To Joycc, whom we havealready encountered,

Thc lyrical form is in fact the simplcst verbal ves-turc of an instant of emotion, a rhythmical crysuch as ages ago chcercd on thc man who pulled atthe oar or dragged stoncs up a slopc.... The sim-plest epical form is seen emerging out of lyricallit-erature when the artist prolongs and broods uponhimsclf as the centre of an epical event.... Thedramatic form is reached when the vitality whichhas fiowed and eddied round each person fillsevery person with such vital force that he or sheassumes a proper and intangible esthetic life. Thcpersonality of the artist, at first a cry or a cadenceor a mood and then a fluid and lambcnt narrative,finally refines itsclf out of existence, impersonal-ises itself, soto speak.... Thc artist, likc thc God

real contcnt, which crystallizcs into the phcnomenology ofsomc spccific gcnrcs (Homcric epic. novel, odc, song, Grecktragcdy, ancicnt comcdy, modcrn tragcdy), thcmselvcs ex-trapolatcd from sorne paradigmatic works or authors (the 11-iad, Wilhclm Meister, Pindar, Gocthc, A m ( ~ o 1 1 e , Aristophancs,Shakcspcarc).46. Prcfacc to Cromwel/ (1827).


54/100

44 The Arclritextof thc crcation, remains within or bchind or bcyond or above his handiwork, invisible, rcfinedout of existence, indifferent, paring his fingernails.47

Let us note, incidcntally, that hcre thc evolutionary pattern has cntircly lost its "dialectical" aspcct: from thelyric cry to the godlike impersonality of drama therc isnow only a linear and unequivocal advancement towardobjectivity, with no trace of an "overthrowing of thcpro by the con." The same in Staigcr, for whom thetransition f r o ~ _ l y r i c "inspiration" (Er;gr!{feulleit) to epi e"panorama" (UberscllaH) and then to dramatic "tension"(Spamumg) marks a sustained proccss of objectivization,or of progrcssivc dissociation bctwccn "subjcct" and.. b" t ""'8o ~ c e .

It would be casy, and rathcr pointless, to wax ironicabout this taxonomic kalcidoscope in which the tooscductive pattern of the triad49-a form receptive to anymcaning at all-passcs through cndless metamorphoscs, surviving on the crest of dubious reckonings (noonc can be certain which genrc historically preceded thcothers, supposing that such a question can be askcd) andintcrchangcablc attributions. Givcn thc hardly surprising observation that the most "subjective" mode islyric, then "objectivity" must pcrforce be assigned to

47. A Ptlrlrait ojthe Artist, 214-15.48. Grrmdbegr!ffe der Poetik (Zurich: Atlantis, 1946): tr. B


55/100

An lntroductiotz 45

onc of the othcr two, with thc middlc tcrm nccessarilygoing to thc onc that is kft; but bccausc hcrc no cvidence can support any claim, the choice remains basically dctcrmined by implicit-or explicit-rcspcct forthe value inhering in "progress," linear or dialcctical.The whole history of the thcory of genrcs is imprintedwith these f.1scinating patterns that inform and deformthc oftcn irregular rcality of thc litcrary ficld-pattcrnswhosc designcrs claim to have discovered a natural"systcm" prcciscly whcrc they are constructing a factitious symmctry with thc hclp of a copious supply offalse windows.These straincd configurations are not always useless-quite the contrary. Likc all provisional classifications, providcd thcy are takcn as such, thcy often servean unquestionable heuristic function. In any given case,thc falsc window may open onto a truc light and rcvealthc importancc of an unappreciatcd term; the slot lcftempty or laboriously filled may, much later, fmd a legitimate occupant. When Aristotlc, noting the cxistenccof a high narrative, a high drama, and a low drama, deduces, through abhorrence of a vacuum and a tastc forbalance, the existence of a low narrative that he provisionally identifies with the parodie epic, little does heknow he is saving a place for the realistic novel. WhenFrye, anothcr great craftsman of fearful symmctrics,notes thc cxistcncc of duce kinds of ' 'ftction"-introvertcd-personal (the romance), cxtrovcrted-pcrsonal(thc rcalistic novel), and introverted-intellectual (thcconfession)-and deduces the cxistcncc of a genrc ofextroverted-intcllcctual fiction that he christens atzatom}'and that draws together and promotes some misfits ofallcgorical-fantastic narration, such as Lucian, Varro,Pctronius, Apulcius, Rabclais, Burton, Swift, and


56/100

46 The ArchitextSternc, the proccdurc can no doubt be challengcd, butnot thc benefit that accrues.50 When Robert Scholes,adapting Fryc's theory of thc five "modcs" (myth, romance, thc high mimctic, thc low mimctic, irony) togive it a somewhat more orderly arrangement, offcrs ushis breathtaking chart of the subgenres of fiction andtheir ncccssary cvolution,51 wc no doubt havc a hardtime taking it completcly litcrally, but wc havc an cvcnharder time drawing no inspiration from it. The same istrue of thc cumbcrsomc but enduring triad, only sorneof whose many pcrformanccs 1 havc cvokcd hcrc.

One of thc triad's most curious performances, perhaps, consists of thc various attempts madc to pair itwith anothcr venerable trio, that of thc thrcc aspccts ofmc:: past, prc:scnt, and futurc. Thcrc havc bccn manysuch attempts, but herc it will sufficc to compare nincexamples mentioned by Austin Warrcn and Ren Wcllck.52 As an ovcrvicw, 1 offcr this comparison in thcform

Documents

Gerard Genette the Architext an Introduction 1