ForLauraMarcus inmemoriam
Preface
ItisaquestionasoldastheSevenHillsofAthens.Ischaractermultipleorsingular?InBookXof TheRepublic,SocratesandGlaucondiscussimitativepoetry oncemore,andhituponafundamentalmisgivingwiththeHomericandtragic traditionsofnarrativerepresentation.Reflectingontheoptimalconstitutionof thesoul,Socratesproposesthatastoical,impersonalmasteryofone’semotional turmoilisfarpreferabletothevariablemoodsandaffectsthatcastone’scharacter tothebreeze.The‘bestpartofus’issupposedtomasterandsubdue‘thehurtpart’ thatgivesrisetothecompulsivedissolutionsoflamentation,grief,andsorrow. Andhereinliestheproblemofmimeticpoetry.
Now,thisexcitablecharacteradmitsofmanymulticoloredimitations.Butarationalandquietcharacter,whichalwaysremainsprettywellthesame,isneither easytoimitatenoreasytounderstandwhenimitated,especiallynotbyacrowd consistingofallsortsofpeoplegatheredtogetheratatheaterfestival...¹
Literaryrepresentationfeedsuponandamplifiesthe‘irrational,idle’forcesinour souls,refractingthemintoclearlyrecognizablebutdissociatedpassions,andso contributestotheundoingofoursoberselves.The‘rationalandquietcharacter’, notbeingdistinguishedbyanynotabletraitsoridentifyingmarks,eludesrepresentation;itis,indeed,notsusceptibletorepresentation,muchasKantwould laterstipulateforconsciousness,since,aswhatallrepresentationisreferredto, itissubtractedfromthefieldastheeyefromwhatitsurveys.² Plato,auguringthe ageofreason,makesacaseforthe‘reasoningcharacter’(the ratio)asimmuneto mimesis.
Clearly,then,animitativepoetisn’tbynaturerelatedtothepartofthesoulthat rulesinsuchacharacter,and,ifhe’stoattainagoodreputationwiththemajority ofpeople,hisclevernessisn’tdirectedtopleasingit.Instead,he’srelatedtothe excitableandmulticoloredcharacter,sinceitiseasytoimitate.³
¹ Plato, RepublicX,604d–e,trans.G.M.A.GrubeandC.D.C.Reeve,inJohnM.Cooper,ed., Plato: CompleteWorks (Indianapolis:Hackett,1997),1209.
² SeeFredricJameson, ASingularModernity:EssayontheOntologyofthePresent (London:Verso, 2002),44–54.
³ Plato, Republic X,605a,Cooper,ed., Plato,1209.
Successfulliterature,then,undoestherationalconsistencyandsingularityofa noblecharacterbyexposingittotheappetitesoftheplebs:‘animitativepoetputs abadconstitutioninthesoulofeachindividualbymakingimagesthatarefar removedfromthetruthandbygratifyingtheirrationalpart’(Republic X,605b–c, 1209–10).Agoodreasontobanitfromtheidealcity.
Theoreticalreflectionon‘character’hasalwaysturnedinthegyrecreatedby atmospherictensionsbetweentheOneandtheMany,andPlatoremindsuspalpablyoftheclassstrugglesimplicitinsuchtensions.The‘bestpart’ofthesoulis noble,singular,regulatory,cool,implacable;the‘irrationalpart’isopentothe variouscomplications,multiplicities,colorations,andexcitationsthatemanate fromthecrowd,theunrulymultitudeofatheatre-goingpopulace.TheOneis incapableofrepresentation;theManyarethestockintradeof mimēsis.Asitis inthe polis,soitisin ēthos and kharaktēr.Whateverthemultifariousdistinctive traitsandmarksthatdefineanindividualorapeople,thereisoneoccult,unrepresentableessence—ofreasoning,impersonalsovereignty—thatpresidesoverits ever-shiftingcomplexionoftonesandshades.Withoutit,multiplicitydescends intoanarchy:decadence.Withit,asoundwillcanbetranslatedintoeffectsand thegoodmayyetprevail.Suchanaristocratic,monarchicconceptionofcharacter willfluctuateinliteraryspeculationoverthenexttwoandhalfmillennia,making roomforrepublicananddemocraticcurrentsofthoughtwithouteverfullybeing deposed—apartfromonebriefinterludewhichisthetopicofthisbook.
Outsideofmainstreamliterarytheory,ancientconcernsintersectwithcontemporarytheoryinmoresuggestiveways.Here,themonarchicconceptionof characterhasbeenundersiegeforacenturyormore.Neuroscienceproposesthat whatItookforaself,a‘sovereignnation’ofself-consistent,organizedintegrity, turnsouttobeafortbesiegedbya‘riotoffreeagents’,making‘me’‘ablindhead ofstate,barricadedinthepresidentialsuite,listeningonlytohandpickedadvisors asthecountryreelsthroughadhocmobilizations’.⁴ Where‘I’was,there‘they’go: ‘Toomanypartsfor[my]braintoremember.Evenapartnamedtheunnamed substance.Andtheyallhadamindoftheirown,eachhagglingtobeheardabove theothers’(439).Whatcouldbemoreprovisional,fictional,thanthe‘one’Itook myselftobe?Itisaquestionalreadyprovoked,andextensivelyexplored,byFreud acenturybefore,onlynowcastinanewaestheticform:
Whatdowefindinthebrain?Billionsofneurons(aroundtwentybillionin humans)connectedinanetworkofinnumerablelinks,thesynapses.‘Thehuman brain’,saysChangeux,‘makesonethinkofagiganticassemblyoftensofbillions ofinterlacingneuronal“spider’swebs”inwhichmyriadsofelectricalimpulses flashby,relayedfromtimetotimebyaricharrayofchemicalsignals.’These
⁴ RichardPowers, TheEchoMaker (London:Vintage,2007),439,460.
‘spider’swebs’,neuronalconnectionsalsocalled‘arborizations’,areconstituted progressivelyoverthecourseofanindividual’sdevelopment.⁵
ForNietzscheandthematerialistpsychologistsofthe1880s,allofthiswasalready obvious.
Howeverfaramanmaygoinself-knowledge,nothing...canbemoreincomplete thanhisimageofthetotalityof drives whichconstitutehisbeing.Hecanscarcely nameeventhecruderones:theirnumberandstrength,theirebbandflood,their playandcounterplayamongoneanotherandaboveallthelawsoftheirnutriment remainwhollyunknowntohim.⁶
Thenaturalisticsenseofthe‘soulasasocietyconstructedoutofdrivesandaffects’ ranthroughoutpsychologicalspeculationbeforeFreud.⁷ Ribotwroteofthe‘sum ofconscious,sub-conscious,andunconscious(purelyphysical)stateswhichat the[given]momentconstitutetheperson,theego’.⁸ HenryMaudsleythoughtthat ‘Whatwecalltheego,isinrealityanabstractioninwhicharecontainedtheresidua ofallformerfeelings,thoughts,volitions,—acombinationwhichiscontinually becomingmoreandmorecomplex.’⁹
Somuchforpsychology.What,then,ofthesocialself?Writingaboutclass compositioninthenewmillennium,McKenzieWarksuggeststhat,asarelationalcategory,classconnects‘notindividualsbut... dividuals,unitsofbeing smallerthananindividual.Itturnsoutthatindividualscanindeedbefurther divided.’¹⁰ GeraldRaunigtiesthisbreakingapartoftheolderindividualtocontemporarydevelopmentsin‘Big-Data-Knowledge-Complexes’,andclaimsthat ‘machiniccapitalism’‘arrangesthemolecularlevelofdividualdesiringintonew compliantassemblages’.¹¹ NegtandKluge,intheir HistoryandObstinacy,present ahumanbeingconstituted,notbyregularityandintegrity,butbyinternaldifferentiationandsubdivision.‘Crackopenthepsyche,andyoufindamultiplicity ofvyingvoicesandimpulses,anelaboratedialecticalconfigurationofforcesand
⁵ CatherineMalabou, WhatShouldWeDowithOurBrain?,trans.SebastianRand(NewYork: FordhamUniversityPress,2008),17–18.
⁶ FriedrichNietzsche, Daybreak,II,119,ed.MaudemarieClarkandBrianLeiter,trans.R.J. Hollingdale(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1997),74.
⁷ FriedrichNietzsche, BeyondGoodandEvil:PreludetoaPhilosophyoftheFuture,12,ed.RolfPeterHorstmannandJudithNorman,trans.JudithNorman(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 2002),14.
⁸ ThéoduleRibot, DiseasesoftheWill,trans.MerwinSnell(Chicago:OpenCourt,1894[c.1883]), 21.
⁹ HenryMaudsley,ThePhysiologyandPathologyoftheMind(1867),qtd.inTheWestminsterReview (January&April1868),62[37–64].
¹⁰ McKenzieWark, CapitalisDead,Ebookedition(LondonandNewYork:Verso,2019),Kindle Locations1513–16.
¹¹ GeraldRaunig, Dividuum:MachinicCapitalismandMolecularRevolution,trans.AileenDerieg (Pasadena:Semiotext(e),2016),90.
counterforcesarrangedwithasenseforequilibrium.’¹²RichardSennettestablished aprofoundrelationshipbetweenthedisintegrationofbasicmoralandpsychologicalunities,andtherelentlessassaultbytheeconomyontraditionalformsof life.Whathecallsthe‘corrosionofcharacter’underlatecapitalismamountstoa pulverizationofthestableegobynew‘flexible’workregimesandthe24/7world clockofgrindingaccumulation.‘Apliantself,acollageoffragmentsunceasing initsbecoming,everopentonewexperience—thesearejustthepsychological conditionssuitedtoshort-termworkexperience,flexibleinstitutions,andconstantrisk-taking.’¹³ Thesimilarityofthisminor-keydescriptiontothemajor-key accountofa‘schizo’selfhoodinDeleuzeandGuattari’s Anti-Oedipus isstriking, andchimeswiththattext’sinterestin‘puremultiplicity’,theplethoraof‘desiringmachines’pluggedintoabodywithoutorgans:‘Thereisnosortofevolutionof drivesthatwouldcausethesedrivesandtheirobjectstoprogressinthedirectionofanintegratedwhole,anymorethanthereisanoriginaltotalityfromwhich theycanbederived.’¹⁴ Drives are;theyintersectanddiverge,passingthroughthe individualswhomtheycleaveanddissociate enroute tootherassemblages.
Theterm‘dividual’derivesfromtheruminationsofBertoltBrechtonmetapsychology:‘Whatshouldbestressedabouttheindividualispreciselyhisdivisibility (ashebelongstoseveralcollectives).’¹⁵
Theindividualappearedtousmoreandmoreasacontradictorycomplexinconstantdevelopment.Seenfromoutside,itmaybehaveasaunity,andstillitisa multitudefulloffights,inwhichthemostdifferenttendenciesgaintheupper hand,sothattheeventualactiononlyrepresentsthecompromise.(22.2:691)
As‘theindividualisa“dividual”’,‘anabstraction,concealingthefactthatthe humansubjectreallyisasuperimpositionofmanydifferentcharacters’,¹⁶somultiplicityseparatesthepliantstuffofpersonhoodintofragmentsofalostwhole.‘[The humanbeing]fallsapart,heloseshisbreath.Heturnsintosomethingelse,heis nameless,henolongerhasanyface,heescapesfromhisoverstretchedstateinto
¹² DevinFore,IntroductiontoAlexanderKlugeandOskarNegt, HistoryandObstinacy,trans. RichardLangstonetal.,ed.DevinFore(NewYork:ZoneBooks,2014),44.
¹³ RichardSennett, TheCorrosionofCharacter:ThePersonalConsequencesofWorkintheNew Capitalism (NewYorkandLondon:W.W.Norton,1998),133.
¹⁴ GillesDeleuzeandFélixGuattari, Anti-Oedipus:CapitalismandSchizophrenia,trans.Robert Hurley,MarkSeem,andHelenR.Lane(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1983),44.
¹⁵ BertoltBrecht, GroßekommentierteBerlinerundFrankfurterAusgabe (Berlin-Weimar-Frankfurt amMain:Suhrkamp,1989–2000),21:359.PartlytranslatedinWolfgangHaug,‘Philosophizingwith Marx,GramsciandBrecht’, boundary2 34.3(Fall2007),150.
¹⁶ StefanJonsson,‘NeitherMassesnorIndividuals:RepresentationsoftheCollectiveinInterwar GermanCulture’,inKathleenCanning,KerstinBarndt,andKristinMcGuire,eds., WeimarPublics /WeimarSubjects:RethinkingthePoliticalCultureofGermanyinthe1920s (NewYorkandOxford: BerghahnBooks,2010),291.SeealsoStefanJonsson, CrowdsandDemocracy:TheIdeaandImageof theMassesfromRevolutiontoFascism (NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2013),160.
hissmallestproportion—fromhisdispensabilityintonothingness.’¹⁷ Thedirect equationthatBrechtmakesbetweenthischaracterologicaldisassemblyandthe mass-productionprocessesoftheFordistassemblyline—in MannistMann—is particularlylucid:
Tonightyouaregoingtoseeamanreassembledlikeacar, Leavingallhisindividualcomponentsjustastheyare.¹⁸
WhatIproposeinthisbookisawayoflookingatanepisodeofliteraryhistoryasa genuineinterventioninthought.Inbrief,thekindofanti-Platonicthinkingabout characterweseeelaboratedbyNietzsche,Brecht,Freud,Deleuze,Sennett,Kluge, andothersinthetwentiethcentury—dethroningthesingular‘rationalandquiet’ seatofcharacterinthenameofaswarmingmultitudeofirreconcilable‘dividual’ components—canbemappedontoadeterminatebreakfromWesternmodelsof literarycharactermadebyamotleycrewofwritersattheendofthenineteenth century.Thesewriters,fullyacceptingPlato’schargethat‘theexcitableandmulticoloredcharacter’iseasiertorepresentthantherationalsubjectofEnlightenment, pushedtheinsightasfarasitcouldgo,pursuingtheirformallyaudaciousdepictionsofcharacterologicaldeliquescenceanddecayasacriticalengagementwith whatReasonwasdoingtomodernlife:sappingitofromance,enshrininganempty bureaucraticcentre,puttingrationalmeanstoirrationalends,subduingindependenceandcharisma,payingforinordinatewealthwithstructuralpoverty,and shoringupthesovereignWesternsubjectwithubiquitoussexualandracialdivisionsoflabour.Itwastheseliteraryartistswho,defectingoncenturiesofformal protocolsaroundcharacterpresentation,collectivelyjettisonedthehegemonic ‘bestpart’ofthehumansoulinordertogivethe‘hurtpart’itsproperdue:creating newchromaticismsofintensifyingmoodandaffect,combiningbrittlepersonae intounprecedentedgroupformations,descendingintoanomieandaimlessness, anddiscoveringrichaestheticpotentialityinthemolecularcorpusclesofashatteredindividuality.Thismomentous putsch againstthesingularonthepartofthe multipleisoneofthegreatunsungpassagesinliteraryhistory.Itcannotadequately besunginasinglevolume,andthiswork,whichcoversonlytheyears1888–1905, isconceivedasthefirstofthreeconsecutivevolumesthatwouldtakeusthrough tothe1930sandsocompleteapictureofthemostmonumentalandunderappreciatedeventincharacterologysinceShakespeare.Whetherthereisanappetitefor thatfullerpictureremainstobeseen.
¹⁷ BertoltBrecht,‘[Notizenu¨ber]IndividuumundMasse’[1929],in GesammelteWerke (Frankfurt amMain:Suhrkamp,1967),60.TranslatedbyStefanJonsson.
¹⁸ BertoltBrecht,ManEqualsMan,trans.GerhardNellhaus,inCollectedPlays:Two,ed.JohnWillett andRalphMannheim(London:Methuen,1979),38.
Introduction
Atsomepointearlyinthecurrentcentury,aconsensusemergedabouttheexcesses andoversightsofarecentmovementinliterarystudies,so-calledpoststructuralism,whichinitsmethodologicalzealhadoverstatedthedegreetowhichtextuality wasanunstableprocesswovenofmultiplecodes,attheexpenseofmorecommonsenseandpragmaticengagementswithliterarydiscourse.¹ Innootherdomainof literarytheoryhasthisreactionbeenmoreconspicuousthaninthecontemporaryreconsiderationof‘character’,wherealltheestablishedaxiomsofthe1970s and1980sappeartohavebeenrejectedfortheirantihumanismandindifferenceto moralphilosophy,theirperverserefusaltoendorsemodelsofliterarypersonhood thatcannotbereducedtodiagrams,semiotics,andimbricatedcodes.² Thisreactionagainstaonce-privilegedconceptualapparatushastakentwodistinctpaths incharacterscholarship:theoreticalmetalanguage,andliteraryhistory.InwiderangingstudiessuchasAnderson,Felski,andMoi’s Character:ThreeInquiries, BlakeyVermeule’sWhyDoWeCareaboutLiteraryCharacters?,andMarjorieGarber’sCharacter:TheHistoryofaCulturalObsession,wefindahostilitytowardsany approachthatleavesus‘withnothingtosayaboutcharactersasobjectsofidentification,sourcesofemotionalresponse,oragentsofmoralvisionandbehavior’,in lifeorliterature.³ Theirinterestisinshowinghowirreducibleandtranshistorical thesemoralandpsychologicaldomainsofcharacterhavealwaysbeen,andhow
¹ Seethediscussionsin TerryEagleton, AfterTheory (NewYork:BasicBooks,2004); Rosi Braidotti, AfterPoststructuralism:TransitionsandTransformations (London:Routledge,2010); David R.Howarth, PoststructuralismandAfter:SubjectivityandPower (Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan, 2013); PaulJay, TheHumanities‘Crisis’andtheFutureofLiteraryStudies (Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan,2014); GalinTihanov, TheBirthandDeathofLiteraryTheory:RegimesofRelevancein RussiaandBeyond (Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,2019);and BenoîtDillet,IainMacKenzie, andRobPorter,‘Conclusion:PoststructuralismToday?’,inDillet,MacKenzie,andPorter,eds., The EdinburghCompaniontoPoststructuralism (Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,2013),507–26.
² Theclassicsofpoststructuralist‘charactercriticism’wereRolandBarthes, S/Z,trans.Richard Miller(Oxford:Blackwell,1990); HélèneCixous,‘TheCharacterof“Character”’, NewLiteraryHistory 5(1974):383–402;and A.J.Greimas, OnMeaning:SelectedWritingsinSemioticTheory,trans. PaulJ.PerronandFrankH.Collins(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1987).Butseealso JamesH.MaddoxJr., Joyce’sUlyssesandtheAssaultuponCharacter (NewBrunswick:RutgersUniversityPress,1978); JamesNaremore, TheWorldwithoutaSelf:VirginiaWoolfandtheNovel (New Haven:YaleUniversityPress,1973);and ThomasDocherty, Reading(Absent)Character:Towardsa TheoryofCharacterizationinFiction (Oxford:ClarendonPress,1983).
³ AmandaAnderson,RitaFelski,andTorilMoi, Character:ThreeInquiriesinLiteraryStudies (ChicagoandLondon:UniversityofChicagoPress,2019),4.SeealsoMarjorieGarber,Character:The HistoryofaCulturalObsession (NewYork:Farrar,Straus,andGiroux,2020);and BlakeyVermeule, WhyDoWeCareaboutLiteraryCharacters? (Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,2009).
ModernCharacter.JulianMurphet,OxfordUniversityPress.©JulianMurphet(2023). DOI:10.1093/oso/9780192863126.003.0001
tangledupwiththeprotocolsofliteraryrepresentationtheystillare.⁴ Inmore historicalstudies,likethecontemporarysurveyofMarcoCarraciolo’s Strange NarratorsinContemporaryFiction,SotiriosParaschas’nineteenth-centurycoveragein ReappearingCharactersinNineteenth-CenturyFrenchLiterature,orthe eighteenth-centuryopticbroughtbyTaraWallaceto ImperialCharacters,the emphasisisalsoonperduringpsychicmodesofreaderlyinvestmentincharacter,fictionalpersonae’sextra-literarycognitiveandemotivebasesingeneralsocial practices—andnotonformalconstructednessperse.⁵ Inonewayoranother,the presidinganti-theoreticalintellectualmoodhasshapedthefindingsofhistorical literaryinquiry,withtheresultthatabookwiththetitle FictionalCharacters,Real Problems:TheSearchforEthicalContentinLiterature (aworkwhichneveronce mentionsthenamesBarthes,Genette,orGreimas)canstandastypicalofmuch workinthefieldtoday.⁶
Whathashappenedtothebulkofcharacterscholarshipoverthelastthirtyyears isacaseofreactivetransvaluation,whereprofoundshiftsinthetheoreticallandscapehavebeencriticallyappliedtohistoricalcasestudies.Butiftheoryisonly everadistillationofhistoricalfacts,thensurelythisisputtingthecartbeforethe horse.Whatwewanttoknowisnotwhat‘character’isandmustbebyvirtueof hard-wiredcognitiveandaestheticlaws,butwhatithasbeencapableofbecominginthehandsofourmostadventurousliteraryartists,whowillhaveanswered thatquestiononlyinspecificsocialandhistoricalcircumstances.Themostimportantcontributionstothetheoryandhistoryofliterarycharacterinourrecent periodhavehewedsteadfastlytothatcriticalmaximandadvancedourknowledgeofthetopicinwaysthat‘risefromtheabstracttotheconcrete’throughfull immersionintheformalcharacteristicsofthehistoricallysituatedbodiesofwork underconsideration.AstringofmajormonographsleadsusfromChaucerand Spenser(inElizabethFowler’s LiteraryCharacter),throughFieldingandSterne (DeirdreLynch’s TheEconomyofCharacter),throughScott,Hazlitt,andBeddoes(JonasCope’s DissolutionofCharacter),throughDefoeandHardy(Nicola Lacey’sWomen,Crime,andCharacter),throughAusten,Balzac,andDickens(Alex Woloch’s TheOnevs.theMany),toEmersonandMelville(SusanManning’s PoeticsofCharacter)—butthennotablybreaksfromliteraryhistoryandresumesagain inthepostmodernperiod(ElinorFuchs’ DeathofCharacter;MurraySmith’s
⁴ ‘[F]ictionalcharactersstaythesameinonerespect:theyarethegreatestpractical-reasoning schemeseverinvented.Weusethemtosortoutbasicmoralproblemsortopracticenewemotional situations.’Vermeule, WhyDoWeCareaboutLiteraryCharacters?,xii.
⁵ See MarcoCarraciolo, StrangeNarratorsinContemporaryFiction:ExplorationsinReaders’ EngagementwithCharacters (Lincoln:UniversityofNebraskaPress,2016); SotiriosParaschas, ReappearingCharactersinNineteenth-CenturyFrenchLiterature:Authorship,Originality,andIntellectual Property (London:PalgraveMacmillan,2018);TaraGhoshalWallace,ImperialCharacters:Homeand PeripheryinEighteenth-CenturyLiterature (Lewisburg:BucknellUniversityPress,2010).
⁶ GarryL.Hagberg,FictionalCharacters,RealProblems:TheSearchforEthicalContentinLiterature (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2016).
EngagingCharacters;JeremyRosen’s MinorCharactersHaveTheirDay).⁷ This contemporarytraditionofseriousscholarlyachievementundertakesadiscontinuousandrelativelysubterraneantheoreticalinitiativethatstandsalooffromthe dominanttrendof‘naive’orethicalcriticism;butitwouldbefairtosaythatthe theoryofcharacterdevelopedineachoftheseworksissospecifictoitsperiod ofliteraryhistorythatitformsamethodologicalmonadwithlittleovertapplicationinanyoftheothers.Inthatsense,themissingmeta-theoreticallabour couldbesaidtohavebeendisplacedontotheshouldersofJohnFrow,whose epochal CharacterandPerson isourperiod’ssummativestatementonthematterathand,gatheringnotonlythelatenttheoreticalconsonancesacrossthese andotherliterary-historicalworks,butallofthemajorconceptualmilestonesof thestructuralistandpoststructuralistmomentsaswell.⁸ Theonlydisadvantage ofthistoweringworkis,tobesure,itsrelativeabstractionfromthehistorical situationsoutofwhich‘character’and‘person’arewoveninthefirstplace— somethingthestudywasneverintendedtodo,itsagendabeingentirelytheoretical. PlacingFrow’sworkalongsidethestringofmonographsjustrehearsedandthinkingthemtogetherasacomplexwholemightyetbethebestwaytotheorize theliteraryhistoryofcharactertoday,andtohistoricizeoursustainingtheoreticalvictoriesovertheempiricalchaosoftheliteraryrecord.Yetthehistorical sequencehere—coveredbyFowlerthroughWolochandRosen—isfarfromcomplete.Mostconspicuous,ofcourse,istheabsenceofmodernismfromthisbody ofwork(thoughitpunctuatesFrow’sbookinsalutarydoses),anabsencethatis amajormotivationbehindtheconceptionofthepresentstudy,whoseostensible purposeisfillthatgapandsocompleteaprovisionalrecordofthemajorformal developmentsinliterarycharacterfromChaucertothepresentday.
Thegapinquestion,however,ismorethanmerelyaccidental.Itissymptomatic andemergespreciselyfromtheanti-Theoryimpetusthatrejectsthe‘“modernistformalist”alliance’anditssupposedhostilitytowards‘treatingcharactersasifthey werereal’.⁹ Whatifthishostilitystemmed,notfromaninvidiousmandarindisposition,butfromdeterminatehistoricalmovementsinliteraryhistoryitself?The
⁷ See ElizabethFowler, LiteraryCharacter:TheHumanFigureinEarlyEnglishWriting (Ithacaand London:CornellUniversityPress,2003); DeirdreShaunaLynch, TheEconomyofCharacter:Novels,MarketCulture,andtheBusinessofInnerMeaning (ChicagoandLondon:UniversityofChicago Press,1998); JonasCope, TheDissolutionofCharacterinLateRomanticism,1820–1839 (Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversityPress,2018); AlexWoloch, TheOnevs.theMany:MinorCharactersandthe SpaceoftheProtagonistintheNovel (PrincetonandOxford:PrincetonUniversityPress,2003);Nicola Lacey,Women,Crime,andCharacter:FromMollFlanderstoTessoftheD’Urbervilles(OxfordandNew York:OxfordUniversityPress,2008); SusanManning, PoeticsofCharacter:TransatlanticEncounters 1700–1900 (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2013); ElinorFuchs, TheDeathofCharacter: PerspectivesonTheaterafterModernism (BloomingtonandIndianapolis:IndianaUniversityPress, 1996); MurraySmith, EngagingCharacters:Fiction,Emotion,andtheCinema (Oxford:Clarendon Press,1995); JeremyRosen, MinorCharactersHaveTheirDay:GenreandtheContemporaryLiterary Marketplace (NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2016).
⁸ JohnFrow, CharacterandPerson (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2014).
⁹ SeeTorilMoi’scontributiontoAnderson,Felski,andMoi, Character,esp.30–49.
guidingpremiseof ModernCharacter isthatmetacommentaryonquestionsof literaryformcannotbeisolatedfromthehorizonofliteraryhistory;andthat somethingverypeculiarhappenedonthathorizonbetweentheyearsof1888and 1905whichshouldhavesignificantrepercussionsonanysubsequenttheoretical discussionofliterarycharacter(asitdid,tobesure,duringtheheydayofpoststructuralism).Inbrief,Iwillarguethatwhathappenedtended,inavarietyofways, toloosentheconventionsofliterarycharacterfromprevailingnormsofcomprehensionandconsumption:‘characters[understood]asobjectsofidentification, sourcesofemotionalresponse,oragentsofmoralvisionandbehavior’.¹⁰ Forreasonsthatarecomplexandsometimescontradictory,writersatthiscriticaljuncture inliteraryhistorydevelopedtechniquesandrepresentationaldevicesthatwould repel,oratleastproblematize,theseentrenchedethicalhabitsofreadinginfavour ofwhatIwillfollowRancièreincallingamore‘aesthetic’approachtocharacter.¹¹
Asacentralcomponentoftheapparatusofliterarydiscourseformillennia, characterhastraditionallyservedastheprincipalconductorofthatvitalreaderlyactivity,identification.¹² Butwhatseemstohavehappenedattheturnofthe twentiethcentury,inanynumberofdistinctlocations,isthatthisconductive nodewasrelatively(andsometimesexplicitly)deprivilegedalongwithidentificationitself,toclearspaceforothermodesofinvestmentintheliterarytext: patternrecognition,holisticawareness,catchingwavesoffree-floatingsensation andaffect,sensingdistributedresonance,andsimilarkindsofattentivepercipiencethatwerehamperedbyexcessivecharacteridentification.The‘common tendencytotreatcharactersasiftheywerepersons’was,allatonce,resistedby writerswhohadlearnedtoresentanumberofuncomfortableconsequencesstemmingfromit.¹³ Theseincludedthesenseofartisticcomplicitywithanexhausted andcompromisedmodeloftheindividual,aneglectofhigher-orderspiritualor
¹⁰ Anderson,Felski,andMoi, Character,4.
¹¹ ‘Attheendofthenineteenthcentury,Mallarméopposedthederisorystagethatsimplyofferedthe ladiesandgentlemenoftheaudiencetheircounterfeits,andtriedtoteaseoutthenewpowerofaform offictionnolongerlinkedtobeliefintheexistenceofacharacter,buttothe“specialpowerofillusion” propertoeachart.’ JacquesRancière, FiguresofHistory,trans.JulieRose(Cambridge:Polity,2014), 55–6.MyargumentisthatMallarmésoundedtheinitialshotsinamuchwidercampaigntomakethis aestheticshift,withenormousconsequencesforthecategoryofcharacter.
¹² See MurraySmith, EngagingCharacters:Fiction,Emotion,andtheCinema (Oxford:Clarendon Press,1995),110–16; P.E.JoseandW.F.Brewer,‘DevelopmentofStory-Liking:CharacterIdentification,Suspense,andOutcomeResolution’,DevelopmentalPsychology20(1984):911–24;FotisJannidis, FigurundPerson:BeitragzueinerhistorischenNarratologie(Berlin:DeGruyter,2004),229–36;K.OatleyandM.Gholamain,‘EmotionsandIdentification:ConnectionsbetweenReadersandFiction’,in M.HjortandS.Laver,eds., EmotionandtheArts (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1997),263–81; HansRobertJauß,‘LevelsofIdentificationofHeroandAudience’, NewLiteraryHistory 5.2(1974): 283–317; SimoneWinko,‘OntheConstitutionofCharactersinPoetry’,inJensEder,FotisJannidis, andRalfSchneider,eds.,CharactersinFictionalWorlds:UnderstandingImaginaryBeingsinLiterature, Film,andOtherMedia (Berlin:DeGruyter,2010),208–31.
¹³ Anderson,Felski,andMoi, Character,12.HereImustnoteastrongdivergencefromtheassumed modelsofcharacterologyinmodernismpresentedbyAmandaAnderson:‘theglorificationofthesubjectiveinWilde;thewilltopowerandtheheroiccharacterologyofNietzsche(becomingwhooneis); themoregeneralaggrandizementoftheindividualinearlymodernism’. TheWayWeArgueNow:A
aestheticvalues,aninculcatedblindnesstosocialtransformationsthattended towardsmoregenericandcollectiveformsofidentity,¹⁴ andthewideningscope ofglobalencountersfosteredbyimperialismandfreetrade.Thatliterary‘character’shouldbereconsideredandremodelledatthismomentisononelevelhardly surprising;thisis,afterall,thebeginningofaworld-wideartisticrevoltagainst automatedformsandvalues.Whatissurprisingisthatcontemporaryarguments aboutthiscriticalcategoryhavebeenworkinghardtodownplaythesignificance ofthisfortheoreticalreflection.Mycaseisthatliteraryhistorymustalwaysbe allowedtoresonateinliterarytheoreticalarguments,andthathistoricalchanges inpractice,howeverlongtheirduration,signalthenecessityforchangesina conceptual dispositif.
Hereitseemsappropriatetosuggestthatwhatthepoststructuralistsweremakingoftheconceptofcharacterinthe1970swasadirectresultoftheirextensive readingsinwhatthegenerationofmodernistshadalreadydonetoitinwriting fromtheperiodextendingfrom1888throughtotheendofthe1920s:¹⁵ dismantlingitsassumedconsistencyanddepth,demonstratingitsHumeanpropertiesof innerfluxanddiscontinuity,foregroundingitsmultipleaffectiveandperceptive states,resistingitsreductiontosimpleagencywithinaplot,allowingitsvarious personaetooverlapandcontradictoneanother,formingitintogroups,andsoon. Theoreticalcapturetendstoreifysuchachievementsastranshistoricalconcepts, andasetofdistributedpracticesisrepresentedasasetofinvariableprinciplesand values.So,thetypical‘poststructuralist’readingofcharactermaywellhavepreferredto‘avoidconceptssuchastheautonomoussubject,thehuman,orreference toreality’,¹⁶inordertofocusontextualproblems(forexample,thesocialconstructionofthehuman,thefunctionsandstructuresofsocialsubjectivity,orthetextual shapingofreality),inawaythattookthelessonsofthemodernistsasgospelfor areappraisaloftheentirehistoryofliterature—overlookingthemanyprecious victoriesoverprejudiceandsuperstitionrepresentedbyeachofthoseconcepts.¹⁷
StudyintheCulturesofTheory (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2006),139.Thisis,indeed,the veryoppositeofwhatmystudywillshowtobethecase.
¹⁴ ‘Mostpeopleareotherpeople.Theirthoughtsaresomeoneelse’sopinions,theirlifeamimicry, theirpassionsaquotation[...]theyborrowtheirideasfromasortofcirculatinglibraryofthought.’ OscarWilde,DeProfundisandOtherPrisonWritings,ed.ColmTóibín(London:Penguin,2013),118, 146.
¹⁵ Itisalwaysworthrememberingwhatinveteratereaderstheleadingtheoreticiansofthisschool wereofthemodernists:seeJuliaKristeva,RevolutioninPoeticLanguage,trans.MargaretWalker(New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1984); GillesDeleuze,‘TheExhausted’,in EssaysCriticalandClinical,trans.DanielW.SmithandMichaelA.Greco(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1997), 152–74;theessaysonMallarmé,Joyce,andCelanin JacquesDerrida, ActsofLiterature,ed.andtrans. DerekAttridge(NewYork:Routledge,1992),110–26,253–309,370–413;asasmallsample.
¹⁶ Anderson,Felski,andMoi, Character,p.4.
¹⁷ Theliteratureontheemergenceofthe‘modernself’istoovasttorequiremuchelucidation here,butobviously CharlesTaylor, SourcesoftheSelf:TheMakingoftheModernIdentity (Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1989); ErvingGoffmann, ThePresentationofSelfinEveryday Life (NewYork:Doubleday,1959); JerroldE.Seigel, TheIdeaoftheSelf:ThoughtandExperiencein WesternEuropesincetheSeventeenthCentury (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2005);and
Forinstance,MichelFoucault’swell-knownquestions—‘underwhatconditions andthroughwhatformscananentitylikethesubjectappearintheorderofdiscourse;whatpositiondoesitoccupy;whatfunctionsdoesitexhibit;andwhat rulesdoesitfollowineachtypeofdiscourse?’—mayhavetendedtosidestepthe severaladvantages‘thesubject’betokenedatthelevelofexperience,action,and consciousness;andhispracticaladvice—‘thesubject(anditssubstitutes)mustbe strippedofitscreativeroleandanalysedasacomplexandvariablefunctionof discourse’—flowninthefaceofsomeextraordinaryadvancesinnarrativetechniqueacrosstheeighteenthandnineteenthcenturies.¹⁸Andyet,itremainsthecase that,fortwoorthreegenerationsovertheturnofthetwentiethcentury,manyof theworld’smostsignificantliteraryartistsagreedthatitmightindeedbeproductivetoproceedasif‘thesubject’anditscognatecategories,well-establishedand nowconventionalcharacterologicalnotions,wereeffectively‘undererasure’orat leastpushedtothemarginsoftheirliteraryenterprise.Thatisthecentralclaimof thisbook,alongwiththecorollaryclaimthattheoryignoresthisepisodeofliterary historyatconsiderableperil.
Wecannowbeginthinkingtheseproblemsthroughinapracticalapplication. Arelativelystraightforwardexampleofhowanincipientnewtendencyworks itswaystealthilythroughestablishedformalconventionscanbefoundinAnton Chekhov’smomentous‘ABoringStory’(Скучнaяиcтoрия;1889),whichappears ontheverythresholdoftheliteraryhistorybeingexaminedhere.Thestoryis anobviousderivationfromthemodelpioneeredbyLevTolstoyinhisnovella ‘TheDeathofIvanIlych’(СмeртьИвaнaИльичa;1886):anoldpedantnearingtheendofhislifeconfrontsthefactthatheisalienatedfromthosenearestto him.ButChekhovresistsTolstoy’seffortsinthedirectionofreconciliationtoconcentrateonthegapseparatinghisprotagonist—NikolaiStepanovich—fromhis colleagues,hislovedones,andhimself.IfTolstoy’scharacterstudymovestowards introspectivediscoveryandspiritualillumination,Chekhov’sremainsadamantly inthemodeofscepticalalienation.ThedifferenceisapparentinChekhov’sformal decisiontokeepallbutthefinalepisodeofhistaleinthe‘iterative’presenttense ofgeneric,repetitivetemporality,asagainstTolstoy’smoreconventionalnarrative preterite.‘ABoringStory’proceedsintheiterativetounderscoreitsdiegeticnarrator’sgenericcondition:whathappenstohimdailyhasalwayshappened,nothing isnewunderthesun,andhis‘character’isakindoflifesentenceinthesuffocating temporalityofthealways-already.Thereisasubjectivemisgivingattheheartof thisnovella,aninternalresistancethatonlyoneothercharacter—thenarrator’s beloved,adoptedKatya—candetectandsympathizewith;anditisaresistance withnowherenarrativelytogo.
GillesDeleuze,EmpiricismandSubjectivity:AnEssayonHume’sTheoryofHumanNature(NewYork: ColumbiaUniversityPress,2001),canstandaslodestarsforanycontemporarysurveyofthefield. ¹⁸ MichelFoucault,‘WhatIsanAuthor?’,in Language,Counter-Memory,Practice:SelectedEssays andInterviews,ed.DonaldF.Bouchard(Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1977),137[113–38].
IntothisintriguingmutationoftheTolstoyanframetherethenintrudeindicationsthatsomethingmomentousandconsequentialishappeningtothecategory ofcharacter;portents,Isuggest,ofthingstocome.Inthefirstplace,thereisthe explicitexcisionoftheprotagonist’spatronymic,adenominationseizeduponby thenarratorasawayofpryingopenanewkindofnegativecapability.If,asJohn Frowwrites,‘[f]ictionalcharactersareidentifiedaboveall(butnotnecessarily)by aname’—‘akindofhookonwhichpropertiesarehung’—andif,furthermore,the patronymisthechiefauthenticatingsuturebetweenapersonandasocialrolein apatriarchy(say,ascientist-professorintheRussianstate),thenwithholdingone isablowtothatcrucial‘imputationofidentity’inthefictionalpersonaandtothe mechanicsofidentificationthatflowfromit.¹⁹ Thenarratorwhobearsafamous namebutrefrainsfrommentioningitreflectsonitsaura:
Thisnameofmineispopular.InRussiaitisknowntoeveryliterateperson, andabroaditismentionedfrompodiumswiththeadditionofwell-knownand esteemed.Itisoneofthosefewfortunatenameswhichitisconsideredbadtone toabuseortakeinvain,inpublicorinprint.Andsoitshouldbe.Formynameis closelyconnectedwiththenotionofamanwhoisfamous,richlyendowed,and unquestionablyuseful.[...]Generally,thereisnotasingleblotonmylearned name,andithasnothingtocomplainof.Itishappy.²⁰
Clearly,however,therehasbeenadelaminationofthishappynamefromits increasinglymiserablebearer,andthisseparationfunctionsasakindofpermanentirony—‘Asmynameisbrilliantandbeautiful,soImyselfamdullandugly’ (56)—whichhasitsfiguralprecedentsinthegrotesqueallegoriesofGogol.Aswith thenoseorovercoatinaGogolstory,thenamehereseemstohavealifeofits own.Inthestory’sfinalsequence,inKharkov,‘NikolaiStepanovichSo-and-so’ [НикoлaйСтeпaнoвичтaкoй-тo]readsabouthisarrivalinthecityinalocal paper:‘Evidently,greatnamesarecreatedsoastolivebythemselves,apartfrom theirbearers.NowmynameispeacefullygoingaboutKharkov...’(105).Name andpersonhavefatefullygonetheirseparateways.Thedecisiontowithholdthe patronymicfromthestory’sdiscourseisintheserviceofastructuralironythat underscorestheencroachinganonymityoftheprotagonist,hisfallingoutofthe framehisillustriousnamecontinuestooccupy,intoaregionofblankandgeneric oldage.
Thisisonlythebeginningoftheimmenseriskstakeninthistale;foralongside theproblemofthepropernameanotherproblememerges,concerningtheconsistencyofthepersonorphanedbyhisname,hisverycoherenceandintegrity.And ittranspiresthatthetrue‘event’ofthestoryisthefarmoreradicalabandonment
¹⁹ Frow, CharacterandPerson,187.
²⁰ AntonChekhov, Stories,trans.RichardPevearandLarissaVolokhonsky(NewYork:Bantam Books,2000),55–6.
ofthede-nominatedpersonby‘thegeneralideaorthegodofthelivingman’,the perduringcoreofcharacterassuch:
AndhowevermuchIthink,howeverwidelymythoughtranges,it’scleartome thatmywisheslacksomechiefthing,someveryimportantthing.Inmypredilectionforscience,inmywishtolive,inthissittingonastrangebedandtryingto knowmyself,inallthethoughts,feelings,andconceptionsIformabouteverything,somethinggeneralislackingthatwoulduniteitallintoasinglewhole.Each feelingandthoughtlivesseparatelyinme,andinallmyopinionsaboutscience, thetheatre,literature,students,andinallthepicturesdrawnbymyimagination, eventhemostskillfulanalystwouldbeunabletofindwhatisknownasageneral ideaorthegodofthelivingman.
Andifthereisn’tthat,there’snothing.
(104–5)
Correspondingtotheabsenceofthat‘hook’ofanameonwhichtohangcharacteristicproperties,isthisdesertionoftheinner‘god’thatholdsapersonalitytogether, givesitethicalcoherence.Theresultantsenseofinnermultiplicity,aswarmof irreconcilableperceptsandaffects,‘afragmentationofexperiencethatcallsour ordinarynotionsofidentityintoquestion’,²¹ lacksanyinformingsubstance,and eventhemost‘skillfulanalyst’ofall—theliteraryartist,ornovelist—cannotdiscoverwhathasceasedtoexist.Characterundergoesadissolutioninthemaelstrom ofresidualandunmooredpsychicpart-objects.Whatresultsfromthisiswhat muchofthefollowingstudyattemptstochart:itiscalled‘moderncharacter’,and fromitvarioustheoreticallessonscanbelearned.
First,acharacterisnotalwaysfixedtoaname.Second,acharacterneednoteven haveacharacter.Third,astoryneedbeaboutnothingbutthese‘nothavings’.And fourth,theresult—thetitlesimplycallsit‘dreary’or‘boring’[Скучнaя],butthat isobviouslyaplaceholderforsomethingelse—isanaffectotherwiseinaccessible tomoreconventionallynamedandintegratedfictionalpersonae.Asatransitional text,positionedontheborderbetweenoneliteraryorderofthingsandanother, Chekhov’staleisnotyetdivorcedfromreaderly,ethicalhabitsofengagement. Readerscancontinuetoidentifywithandunderstandthisoldman,appreciate hisvexatiouscondition,seehimintheround;hebelongstoalonghistoryofprotagonistswhoareexhaustedorwornoutbytheworld.Andyet,somethinghas happenedwithintheconventionalframethatsignalsdeepandhistorictectonic shifts.Thereisalooseningofdiscoursefrommoralexpectation;anacceptance ofpsychicfragmentationasapermanentcondition;anabandonmentofnarrative intrigueoreveninterest;andarefusaltoresolveanyoftheaestheticruptureson
²¹ LindsayWaters,IntroductiontoPauldeMan,CriticalWritings,1953–1978(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1989),xxxii.
display.Allofthisislocatedintheverynarratologicalplacewhereavoicefailsto coincidewithaname,andwhereapersonfailstocoincidewitharole—thatisto say,itisentirelyamatterofcharacterization.Chekhovhasseizedanopportunity lyingdormantintheTolstoyanformandforcedabreakinliteraryhistory—the breakwewillbecalling moderncharacter.
Thepersonresponsiblefornominating‘moderncharacter’assuchwasacontemporaryofChekhov,andanotherofthekeyfiguresinthestorythatfollows: AugustStrindberg.Inhisprefaceto MissJulie (1888),writtenasacallingcard forÉmileZola,wedetectseveralprefigurationsofthepoststructuralistcritiqueof character:
Asmoderncharacters,livinginanageoftransitionmoreurgentlyhystericalthan theonethatprecededit,Ihavedepictedthefiguresinmyplayasmoresplitand vacillating,amixtureoftheoldandthenew[...].Mysouls(characters)areconglomeratesofpastandpresentstagesofculture,bitsoutofbooksandnewspapers, scrapsofhumanity,tornshredsofoncefineclothingnowturnedtorags,exactly asthehumansoulispatchedtogether[...].MissJulieisamoderncharacter.²²
Strindberg,steepedashewasinNaturalismatthetime,relatedhisaestheticdecisionsaboutcharacterologicalfragmentationandanachronisticconglomerationto recentsociologicaldevelopmentsinthelifeofthe‘humansoul’;butthediscoverybeingarticulatedhereisaboutmuchmorethancurrenttrendsinpsychology anddeterminism.Essentially,Strindbergisannouncingthesamekindofartistic breakthroughthatChekhov’sNikolaiStepanovichdiscoverswhenhelooksinto himselfandfindsthatevery‘feelingandthoughtlivesseparatelyinme’—namely, thatcharacterisnownotsomuchanidentityasafieldofcontentionbetween radicallyseparatedelements,ajerry-riggedassemblageofdisparatephenomena andpowerslackinganyintegratingmastercomponent.Andverydifferentthings canbedonewithsuchacharacterthantheusualbusinessofdelegatingtoitthe responsibilityofcarryingoutasequenceofactionswhileallowingittheluxuryof expressingitsinnermost‘soul’.TobeamoderncharacterlikeMissJulieorNikolai Stepanovichistobedelivered(relativelyspeaking)fromthecompulsionsofaplot andtheinjunctionsofamoralsubstance,freetoperformaverydifferentsetof functions.
Thepoststructuralistcritiqueofcharactermadesimilarargumentsonatheoreticallevel.Theinauguralseparationofthe‘agential’fromtheother,morediscursive aspectsofcharacter,stemmingultimatelyfromAristotle,entailedamethodologicalpredispositionnotto‘seecharactersolelyasafunctionofaction’,ashasbeen charged,²³ butmerelytosequesterthisdimensionofcharacterfromthefactthat
²² AugustStrindberg,‘Preface’toMissJulieinMichaelRobinson,ed.andtrans.,MissJulieandOther Plays (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1998),59–60.SeemuchmoreinChapter 3,below.
²³ Anderson,Felski,andMoi, Character,3.
theseagents‘mustnecessarily[also]havetheirdistinctivequalitiesbothofcharacterandthought’.²⁴Thispartitionallowedanalysistopursuetwodistinctpathsthat intermittentlyinterrelated:characterasafunctionofplot,andcharacterasthat nimbusofqualitiesandideationsthatgiverisetoanillusionofindividuality.With thismethodologicalriftinplace,itbecamepossibletoshowhowartificialandconstructedeachaspectofcharactertrulywas.Agencywaspurelyaformalcategory dictatedbytheconcernsoftheplot,and(withGreimasandPropp)abletobeanalysedintomultiplefociorsharedbyanynumberoffictionalpersonae.Meanwhile, RolandBartheswouldfollowTodorov,whowrotethat‘thegrammaticalsubject isalwayswithoutinternalproperties;thesecancomeonlyfromitsmomentary conjunctionwithapredicate’,andinsistedthatthesamewastruefornarrative character.²⁵ ‘Theseme(orthesignifiedofconnotation,strictlyspeaking)isaconnotatorofpersons,places,objects,ofwhichthesignifiedisacharacter.Characteris anadjective,anattribute,apredicate(forexample:unnatural,shadowy,star,composite, excessive, impious,etc.).’²⁶ Theclassicalrealisttextisthusoneengineered aroundan‘ideologyoftheperson’whichtheproliferationandconcentrationof semesunderthepropernamecementsinformandfunction.
AssoonasaNameexists(evenapronoun)toflowtowardandfastenonto,the semesbecomepredicates,indictorsoftruth,andtheNamebecomesasubject:we cansaythatwhatispropertonarrativeisnotactionbutthecharacterasProper Name:thesemicrawmaterial(correspondingtoacertainmomentinourhistory ofthenarrative) completes whatispropertobeing, fills thenamewithadjectives. (190–1)
Mypointhereisthatthisseparationwasamajorpartofthepurposeof‘moderncharacter’inthefirstplace,whichledtoagreaterdegreeofdeliquescenceof bothcharacterologicalagencyandconsistentqualitythaninanypreviousperiod inliteraryhistory.Aswewillseeinthevariouschaptersofthisbook,therearose inthe1890samarkedsuspicionandhostilitytowardstheveryideaofaplot, andanawarenessthatactionhadfalselydominatedtherepertoireofcharacter representationinfictionanddramafortoolong.Thisgaverisetoarelatedtendencytofashionworksthatdemotedactiontotestwhat‘distinctivequalitiesboth ofcharacterandthought’mightlooklikewhensparedthetrialsofagency.For Aristotle,characterwassimply‘whatmakesusascribecertainqualitiestothe agents’,andqualitieswereforAristotlesecondary,epiphenomenalthings,sinceit
²⁴ Aristotle,ThePoetics,§6,inTheCompleteWorksofAristotle,Vol.2,ed.andtrans.JonathanBarnes, BollingenSeriesLXXI:2(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1984),2320.
²⁵ TzvetanTodorov, GrammaireduDécaméron,quotedandtranslatedinJonathanCuller, StructuralistPoetics:Structuralism,Linguistics,andtheStudyofLiterature(Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress, 1975),235.
²⁶ Barthes, S/Z,190.
is‘inouractionsthatwearehappyorthereverse’.²⁷ But‘moderncharacter’wasa widespreadefforttoreversethisentrenchedhierarchy.Liberated(relatively)from thedictatesofplotmechanics,charactersattractedever-proliferatingadjectives whichrapidlybecamesemi-autonomous,likeNikolaiStepanovich’smultifarious feelingsandthoughtsandMissJulie’spatchworkquiltofimpulsesandnotions,or thosenebulous,namelessstateswewillcallaffects.²⁸ Aroundtheturnofthetwentiethcentury,itbecameimportantandnecessarytoplaywiththehypothesisthat literarycharactersarenotthereparticularlytobe‘identified’with;thattheycanbe presentedpreciselytobe seenthrough asluresofidentification,andtarriedwith forendsotherthanethicalorsympathetic.Formalmeanswerethusengineered forthemtotransferourliteraryperceptionsandaffectionsfromthedomainofthe ethical tothelevelofthe aesthetic itself.
Thisparticularlymattersbecausetheeffort,whilenotalwayspoliticalinexplicit orientation,tallieswithagatheringimpatiencewiththat‘ideologyoftheperson’whichBartheslaternominatedasthetargetofthisapproachtocharacter.²⁹ Asearlyas1848,wefindtwostridentcriticsofcontemporarybourgeoissociety inveighingagainstoneofitsideologicallynchpins:thenotionofthe‘individual’. ‘[T]heworkoftheproletarianshaslostallindividualcharacter,and,consequently, allcharmfortheworkman’,theywrite;and‘capitalisindependentandhasindividuality,whilethelivingpersonisdependentandhasnoindividuality’.³⁰ Factory conditionsoflabour(deskilling,erosionofhandicraft,‘cooperation’initsinvidiousaspect)havedispelledallclaimsoftheindividualoverhisproductandthe natureofhiswork,whilecommodificationandthewagerelationhaveabrogated socialindividualityfromwithout.Theircallforan‘abolitionofbourgeoisindividuality,bourgeoisindependence,andbourgeoisfreedom’(225)isthusacryon behalfofrealindividuality.Totheirenemies,theycry:
Youmust,therefore,confessthatby‘individual’youmeannootherperson thanthebourgeois,thanthemiddle-classownerofproperty.Thispersonmust, indeed,besweptoutoftheway,andmadeimpossible.
(225)
²⁷ Aristotle, ThePoetics,2320.
²⁸ Muchofmysubsequentdiscussionofthisfashionabletopicwillnottakethetypical,transhistoricalroutepromotedbythepsychologists,butthatsuggestedby FredricJamesoninhis TheAntinomies ofRealism (London:Verso,2013).‘The“serious”writer—thatis,theonewhoaspirestothedistinctionofliterature—willkeepfaithwithwhataloneauthenticallysurvivestheweakeningofallthejoints andjoists,thebulkheadsandloadbearingsupports,ofnarrativeassuch,oftherécitonitspointsof submersion:namelyaffectassuch,whosetriumphoveritsstructuraladversaryisthatbodilinessthat alonemarksanysingularityintheeveryday,andwhichnowturnstoengageitsnewliteraryadversary inlyricandlanguage.Itsfateishenceforththefateofmodernism...’(184).
²⁹ Barthes, S/Z,190.
³⁰ KarlMarxandFriedrichEngels, ManifestooftheCommunistParty,inMarx, Economicand PhilosophicManuscriptsof1844 (Amherst,NY:PrometheusBooks,1988),216.
Propping‘thisperson’up,inthemeantime,wastheveryinstitutionofliteratureitself.Theevolutionofliteraryformovertheeighteenthandnineteenth centurieswasspecificallyengineeredtobuttressandconsolidatethispeculiar WesternEuropeanconceptionofmodern‘personhood’,famouslysummarizedby CliffordGeertzas‘abounded,uniquemoreorlessintegratedmotivationaland cognitiveuniverse,adynamiccenterofawareness,emotion,judgment,andaction organizedintoadistinctivewholeandsetcontrastivelybothagainstothersuch wholesandagainstitssocialandnaturalbackground’.³¹ W.J.Harveynaturalized thisconception—‘unique,isolate,discrete’,hewrote—inhismimeticaccountof characterinCharacterandtheNovel.³²Butthisbourgeoisnotionofbounded,integratedselfhoodwashistoricallyrecentinEuropeandquiteexceptionalwithregard tomostoftherestoftheworld,whereverydifferentideascontinuedtoholdsway.
TheprevailingWesternideasofcharacterinthenineteenthcenturywere assayedearlybyBaptistpreacherJohnFoster,whose EssayonDecisionofCharacter (1804)wentthroughnineeditionsby1830.³³ Thepamphletsetoutthemoral termsonwhichtheRomanticswouldbuildtheirstridentethosandtheirmostsuccessfulliterarycharacters:boldness,courage,decisiveness,allthe‘commanding’ qualitiesofspiritthatsustainedone’s‘VigourofAction’throughallthe‘harassing Alternationsofwill’.³⁴Hisassaultonthe‘irresolutemind’cross-sectionsagenerous sampleofliteraryandhistoricalfiguresinsearchofitsarchetype.Milton’sAbdiel andSatan,Shakespeare’sMacbethandLadyMacbeth,RichardIII,andProspero, alongwithCaesar,Cromwell,andLuther,allinstance‘thatactiveardentconstancy,whichIdescribeasacapitalfeatureofthedecisivecharacter’(46).This encomiumforthe‘persistentuntameableefficacyofsoul’(47),groundedinthe mimetictheoryofcharacter-modelling,echoesfaracrossthesubsequentcentury: inCarlyle’s‘greatman’theoryofhistory;³⁵ inNietzsche’sestimateofcharacteras astylingofthewill-to-power;inSamuelSmiles’genial Self-Help (1897),withits declarationthatthe‘chiefuseofbiographyconsistsinthenoblemodelsofcharacterinwhichitabounds’.³⁶ Literature’splaceinthisbourgeoisecologyofcharacter wasassuredanddeeplyimplicatedinitsideologicalmission:tonormalizeAristotle’ssubjugationofqualitytoactivity,andsotoorganizetheever-increasing numberofcharacterologicalqualities—appetites,affects,specializedsenseperceptions,shocks,andsoon—thataburgeoningcommodityculturewasnormalizing,
³¹ CliffordGeertz,‘“FromtheNative’sPointofView”:OntheNatureofAnthropologicalUnderstanding’,in LocalKnowledge:FurtherEssaysinInterpretiveAnthropology (NewYork:BasicBooks, 1983),59[55–71].
³² W.J.Harvey, CharacterandtheNovel (Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1965),31.
³³ JohnFoster, EssayonDecisionofCharacter (NewYork:Printedforbooksellers,1830).
³⁴ Foster, EssayonDecisionofCharacter,7.
³⁵ ‘TheHistoryoftheworldisbuttheBiographyofgreatmen.’ ThomasCarlyle, OnHeroes,HeroWorship,andtheHeroicinHistory,ed.DavidR.SorensonandBrentE.Kinser(NewHaven:Yale UniversityPress,2013),30.
³⁶ SamuelSmiles, Self-Help:WithIllustrationsofCharacter,Conduct,andPerseverance (1859) (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2002),303.
withinanavailable‘aristocratic’conceptionofself-mastery.The‘ideologyofthe person’asourlatergenerationofwritersencountereditwasthusawell-established extra-literary discipline (inFoucault’ssense)withprofoundrootsintheliterary cultureoftheage:inlightfictionasmuchasseriousnovels,andonthestagein creakingmelodramaticforms,allreinforcingasetofassumptionsviastrategiesof identificationwithrepresentedindividuation.
Myclaimisthatartistsbegantorealizetowardstheendofthislongcenturyofbourgeoishegemonythattheavailabletechniquesforrepresentingliterary characterwereinlockstepwiththatintegrated,unifiedmodelofthesocialindividualthat,foronereasonoranother,wascomingintoobjectivecrisis.³⁷ Taking manyoftheircuesfromcontemporarypsychology,butintunetoowitheconomictrendsinthedivisionoflabourandwithnewdemographicpressureson theancientideaof‘character’as ethos (national,sovereign,individual),these artistsbegantorejectthenotionofarounded,identifiable,consistentliterarypersonaandtoexplorenewwaysoforganizingliterarymaterialsaroundalternative modelsofconstructedpersonhood—characterless,dividual,grouped,multiple, inconsistent,minor,insignificant,artificial,rivenbyunnameableaffects,abstract, networked,marionette-like,impulsive,andsoon—allofwhichwouldserveas blueprintsforthemajorrevolutionsabouttosweepthroughtheartsinthefirst threedecadesofthetwentiethcentury.Thispioneeringclusterofartistsistoday relativelyunsungfortheenormityoftheirachievementinthisregard;butwithouttheireffortsitisdoubtfulwhetherJoyce,Stein,Eliot,Woolf,Brecht,Pirandello, Ionesco,andtherestofthatstoriedcompany,wouldhavebeeninanypositionto undertaketheirexperimentswithcharacterinthe1920s.Moretothepointforthis study,itisthisearliergenerationwhoshouldtakethelion’sshareofthecreditfor doingsomethingtheoreticallyconsequentialtotheveryconceptofcharacterfor thefirsttimeinthreehundredyears.Itistheywhohavemadeitverydifficult,if notimpossible,forthepresentlygoverningethicalconsensusaboutliterarycharactertoassimilatetheintransigentseriesofexperimentsanddevelopmentsthat characterizethisperiodinliteraryhistory,spanningroughlyfrom1888to1930. Foritistheywhoeffectedthemostradicaldiremptioninliteraryhistoryfromthe ideathatcharactersarebydefinition‘sympathetic’andworthyofidentification; thatcharacterisaboutempathyandunification;thatithas,asaliterarycategory, anythingspecificallymoralaboutitwhatsoever.
Breakingdownthissystematicassaultintoitsconstituentinitiatives,Iforeshadowherethemajor leitmotiven thatplayacrossthevolumethatfollows— severalofwhichwehavealreadynoticedinembryo.
³⁷ Formoreonthistopic,see MichaelL.Klein, MusicandtheCrisesoftheModernSubject (Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,2015); SaurabhDube, SubjectsofModernity (Manchester: ManchesterUniversityPress,2017); PalAhluwalia,‘Specificities:CitizensandSubjects—Citizenship, SubjectivityandtheCrisisofModernity’, SocialIdentities 5.3(1999):313–29;andtheessayscollected inSpecialIssue‘WhoComesaftertheSubject?’,ed.Jean-LucNancy, Topoi 7.2(September1988).
1. Thedisarticulationofrepresentedpersonsfromnarrativeplots,andaconsequentdisablingofourinterestinthemasagents.Havinglittleornothingto do,thesecharacterseitherdriftaimlesslyorretreatintotheirowninteriority wherenewdepthsaresoundedandmoodsexplored.
2. Anexacerbationofwhathasbeencalledthe‘crisisofprotagonicity’in latenineteenth-centuryliterature.³⁸ Theabandonmentorattenuationofthe functionofthe‘hero’,andanerosionofthesalienceassociatedwithitscentralpositionincharacterologicalspace.Acharactercanswelltocolonize everycornerofatextwithoutforallthatbeingaprotagonist.
3. ‘TheEmotionofMultitude’.³⁹ Compensatingforthecollapseofprotagonicityisanewaccentongrouppersonaeanddistributedresonance.Conrad’s crews,Hauptmann’speasants,Maeterlinck’s‘blind’,Strindberg’shallsofmirrors,Chekhov’sgroups,James’triadsandquadrilaterals:themultipleisa choricfactofmoderndramaandliterature,drivingwhatIanWattcalled‘the requisiteimpersonalurgency’.⁴⁰ But,evenmorepowerfully,itwillturnout thatthe‘individual’hasitselfbeenexposedasamultiple—inconsistent,selfantagonizing,andvariouslycompositedoutofdrives,affects,andfunctions indisarray.Theemotionofmultitudeisinternalaswellasexternal.
4. Affectivechromaticism.Timeandagain,whatsurgesupfromtheinterior orgetsconductedbetweenthenodesofthemultiple,isanuncontrollable discordanceofnewandnamelessaffectiveintensities.Atbest,withthe Decadents,characterscanbecomescientist-connoisseursoftheseriptides ofinnersensation,butasarule,theyareundonebythem,dismantledinto thenerve-endsandsynapsesthatconductthemfromoneplacetoanother.
Onelastconceptcanhelpuscometotermswiththesestrangedeformationsof characterologyattheendofthenineteenthcentury.Thisis stultitia.Foucault’s descriptionoftheoppositionbetweenthe‘Stoicconceptionoftheunityofexistence’and‘thepluralityof stultitia,ofthedisorderedandmorbidsoul’,tiesbackto Plato’sinauguraldistinctionbetweenthe‘rationalandquietcharacter’ofreason andthe‘excitablecharacter’ofmultitudinousaffectsandisausefulwayofdistinguishingbetweenthebourgeoisdisciplineof‘theideologyoftheperson’anda growinginterestinitsdissolutionacrossthisperiod.⁴¹
³⁸ FredricJameson, TheAntinomiesofRealism (London:Verso,2013),95–113.
³⁹ ‘Greekdramahasgottheemotionofmultitudefromitschorus’,writesYeats;‘IbsenandMaeterlinckhave[...]createdanewform,fortheygetmultitudefromthewildduckintheattic,orfromthe crownatthebottomofthefountain,vaguesymbolsthatsetthemindwanderingfromideatoidea, emotiontoemotion.’ W.B.Yeats, EssaysandIntroductions (London:Macmillan,1961),215,216.
⁴⁰ IanWatt, EssaysonConrad (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2004),71.
⁴¹ MichelFoucault,DiscourseandTruthandParrhesia,ed.DanieleLorenzini,Henri-PaulFruchaud, andNancyLuxton,trans.NancyLuxton(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2019),29; Plato, Republic X,604d–e,trans.G.M.A.GrubeandC.D.C.Reeve,inJohnM.Cooper,ed., Plato:Complete Works (Indianapolis:Hackett,1997),1209.
The stultus isessentiallysomeonewhodoesnotwill,whodoesnotwillhimself, whodoesnotwanttheself,whosewillisnotdirectedtowardstheonlyobject onecanfreelywill,absolutelyandalways,whichisoneself.In stultitia thereis adisconnectionbetweenthewillandtheself,anonconnection,anonbelonging characteristicofstultitia,whichisbothitsmostmanifesteffectanddeepestroot.⁴²
Perhapsitshouldserveasoneofthecardinalpointsofdecadence,thisaccountof aperson‘notonlyopentothepluralityoftheexternalworldbutalsobrokenup intime’(132),andconsequentlyunabletoamounttoaself.Butinanyevent,itis asignificantaidincomprehendingwhatishappeningtocharacteratthistimein literaryhistory.Ourinterestisformal,notpsychological,andwhatremainstobe saidisthat stultitia suggesteditselfasatechnicalsolutiontoanobjectivecrisisin narrativeanddramaticaesthetics—namely,thefinalobsolescenceofallvestigesof theheroicquest,whichrenderedprotagonicityandmuchofitsestablishedcharacterspaceredundant.⁴³ Characteritselfwouldbecometheformalspaceinwhich toobserve‘thepluralityof stultitia’—psychicpart-objects,fragmentsofaformer unity,separatedandflowingtheirdifferentways—ratherthanremainafunction ofaresidualfeudalnarrativeparadigm.
Inthefirstpartofthisstudy,Itracetheimpactofthisinitiativeinthe‘littletheatres’ofthe1890sand1900s.Thiscrucialinstitution—enablingtheappearanceof Strindberg’sScandinavianExperimentalTheatreinCopenhagen(1889)andhis IntimateTheatreinStockholm(1907),thefabledMoscowArtTheatre(1898),and Germany’sFreieBu¨hne(1889),nottomentionJ.T.Grein’sIndependentTheatre inLondon(1891)andtheIrishNationalTheatreinDublin(1902)—triggeredthe mostcomprehensiverevolutionindramaticartsincetheElizabethantheatresof thelatesixteenthcentury.BeginninginPariswithAndréAntoine’sThéˆatre-Libre (1887)andAurélien-MarieLugné-Poe’sbreakawayThéˆatredel’Oeuvre(1893), thesmalltheatremovementwasinfactthematerialoriginofmuchofthemodernistaestheticavant-garde,andinittheprotocolsofdramaticcharacterization werealtereddecisively.InthelastworksofIbsen,whichhadanespecialaffinity withthesesmallerstages,wewillchart(inChapter 1)theprogressivedemotion ofdramaticactionundertakenbytheelderstatesmanoftheEuropeanstage,and aconsequentialshifttowardsanexternalizedinteriority.Allowingthedeadweight
⁴² MichelFoucault, HermeneuticsoftheSubject:LecturesattheCollègedeFrance,1981–1982,ed. FrédéricGros,trans.GrahamBurchell(NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,2005),133.
⁴³ ‘Thenineteenthcentury,indeed,maybecharacterizedastheeraofthetriumphofeverydaylife, andofthehegemonyofitscategorieseverywhere,overtherarerandmoreexceptionalmomentsof heroicdeedsand“extremesituations”.’ FredricJameson, AntinomiesofRealism (LondonandNew York:Verso,2013),109.‘OneisremindedoftheantithesisevokedintheProtestantEthicbetween “adventurecapitalism”—impulsive,violent,confidinginfortune,andpresentinalmosteveryepoch, likethosenarrativesthatinEnglisharecalled“romances”—andthesober,predictable,repressedethos ofbureaucratic-rationalcapitalism,whichisinstead,likethe“novel”,arecentEuropeaninvention.’ FrancoMoretti,‘SeriousCentury’,inMoretti,ed., TheNovel, Vol.1: History,Geography,andCulture (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2006),384.
