Recently when going through a file of old unfinished writings, I came across this satire. My intention was that by the end both sides would look absolutely ridiculous. Think it's worth finishing?
Correspondence on "The Raven"
by Claire Darrings, Ph.D., LL.D.
and Wilhelma Jennow, LL.D., D.D.
The following letters from Dr. Darrings and replies by Dr. Jennow appeared in The Epoch Literary Review over several issues. It is reprinted here for the first time. The article which provoked the debate, being of only marginal interest, has been omitted.
Volume XI, issue 2
Concerning Dr. Jenning's recently article, "The Symbol of The Raven", it is the editors' prerogative to publish religious drivel of this fashion, though not what I would look for in a supposedly scientific literary review. I do not deny their may be some truth in the concept of authorship, though such truth lies outside the realm of literary scholarship. What I cannot accept is Dr. Jennow' personal views, contradicted by abundant literary evidence, being disguised as genuine literary scholarship. I am referring, of course, to her statement that "Poe's" raven was once a parrot. My first reaction was to laugh and dismiss it, but further reflection convinced me that this was precisely the sort of thing which undergraduates latch unto and repeat innocently, creating a barrier to their intellectual advancement and retarding them socially in the academic community.
I have before me the text of "The Raven". The bird in question is referred to as "raven" no less than eight times, and never as "parrot" or any other species of bird. While it is frequently called "bird", there is no reason to suspect this generic term as implying anything other than raven. The use of the generic does not imply a change in the specific. One might just as well argue that the raven was once a rock formation because it is referred to as "it". Dr.. Jennow does discredit to others who share her authorial beliefs, many of whom have no difficulty in reconciling their religious and literary viewpoints.
Sincerely,
Claire Darrings, Ph.D., LL.D.
University of Gotham
Dr Jennow' reply:
I would like to point Dr. Darrings's attention to a passage in "The Philosophy of Composition" in which Poe writes, "Here, then, immediately arose the idea of a non-reasoning creature capable of speech; and, very naturally, a parrot, in the first instance, suggested itself, but was superseded forthwith by a Raven, as equally capable of speech, and infinitely more in keeping with the intended tone." While Dr. Darrings may reject the religious authority of "The Philosophy of Composition", she she will no doubt admit it as an historical document.
Volume XI, issue 3
It is notable that, put to the point, Dr. Jennow refers not to "The Raven", but to a religious work which I will "no doubt admit as an historical document." Both religious scriptures and historical documents lie outside my field of specialty, but I understand that the "Philosophy" in question is not only not included in the more popular editions of Poe, but has not been considered trustworthy evidence for some time. Even those who grant Poe's authorship of both the "The Philosophy" and "The Raven", have suspicions that in "The Philosophy", Poe is suffering from some sort of mental ailment. The scripture contains a number of absurdities. For instance, the claim that "nothing even remotely approaching this combination [of lines into stanzas] has ever been attempted."
More important, perhaps, is the difficulty in reconciling "The Philosophy" with the poem itself. For example, "Here then the poem may be said to have its beginning—at the end." This refers neither to the first nor last, but to the third to last stanza. After this stanza, in which Lover and Bird converse, "Poe" places the lover in his chamber, he introduces the bird (into the chamber apparently, the bird and the lover having already met). This, then, is the beginning of "The Raven" according to "The Philosophy". Most authorists today interpret this figuratively, and it is indeed difficult to see how else it can be interpreted, since any examination of the text proves it to be quite false literally. I would suggest that authorists seeking academic credibility treat the parrot passage similarly.
What concerns me about Dr. Jennow is not her personal beliefs about the author, but her insistence on confusing these with literary criticism. Granted, a poem may have an author. While linguists and symanticists are often inclined to doubt this, we have no concrete evidence to the contrary. The self-sufficiency of each poem and the findings of generative grammar may tend to make any author superfluous, but cannot prove him nonexistent. Aestheticists and prosodists, on the other hand, have frequently felt some sort of author implied by their findings. Though the "higher critics" scarcely remain even as a fringe religious sect, their attempts to demonstrate multiple authors for a single work were once considered a legitimate part of literary criticisms, and even today, because of their influence, some poems (known as "collaborations") are traditionally referred to as having more than one author. This is all very interesting, and the evolving relationship between literary scholarship and religion is a worthwhile subject for an historian; but it has long been accepted in the academic community that a work must be examined by its observable attributes, irrespective of traditional authorship or the critic's authorial theories. If an authorist's views are true, they have nothing to fear by this, and the knowledge of literary scholarship may even make him a better authorist. It is only the fundamentalist authorial sects which have any reason to oppose genuine scholarship. I do not know what affiliations may influence Dr. Jennow
Sincerely,
Claire Darrings, Ph.D.,LL.D.
Dr. Jennow' reply:
I would like to thank Dr. Darrings for her thoughtful comments. Unfortunately, she has misunderstood the intention of my reply to her last letter. She is quite correct in asserting that my religious convictions should not influence my literary scholarship: they have not done so. I did not mention "The Philosophy of Composition" because of its religious value, nor even because it is necessarily correct in many points. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that it is spurious—written, let's say,
No comments:
Post a Comment