Prologue
1. Frank Kermode, The Art of Telling (Cambridge, Mass., 1983). In Britain the book was titled Essays on Fiction; it was published by Routledge & Kegan Paul.
2. Frank Kermode, The Genesis of Secrecy (Cambridge, Mass., 1979).
3. Robert von Hallberg, ed., Canons (Chicago, 1984).
4. Barbara Herrnstein Smith, Contingencies of Value: Alternative Perspectives for Critical Theory (Cambridge, Mass., 1988).
5. Frank Kermode, Forms of Attention (Chicago, 1985).
6. Frank Kermode, History and Value (Oxford, 1988).
7. Robert Alter and Frank Kermode, eds., The Literary Guide to the Bible (Cambridge, Mass., 1987), pp. 600–610.
8. Paul de Man, The Resistance to Theory (Minneapolis, Minn., 1986), pp. 3–20; Jacques Derrida, Mémoires (New York, 1986), especially pp. 41–43.
9. The best way into that controversy is to read Stanley Fish, “Profession Despite Thyself: Fear and Self-loathing in Literary Studies,” Critical Inquiry, 10 (1983), 349–364; and the collection Against Theory, ed. Walter Benn Michaels and Stephen Knapp (Chicago, 1985), based on another issue of the same journal.
10. Gerald Graff, Professing Literature (Chicago, 1987), pp. 68, 114, 161, 218.
11. Jonathan Culler, Framing the Sign: Criticism and Its Institutions (Norman, Okla., 1988).
12. J.-M. Goulemot, “Histoire littéraire et mémoire nationale,” in Between Memory and History, ed. M. N. Bourguet, L. Valensi, and N. Wachtel (History and Anthropology, 2 [October 1986], 225–235).
13. Hillis Miller, the doyen of imperialist Theory, has an essay with the neat and aggressive title “The Function of Rhetorical Study at the Present Time.” Like Culler, he is glad that works of literature now, after the theoretical takeover, “tend to be redefined as ‘examples’ demonstrating the productive effectiveness of this or that theory”; and he laments the fact that for some of these theories, set forth in books composed in foreign languages (such as French and German), students are often forced to wait, translations being sometimes tardy. What he doesn’t seem to think a cause for lamentation is the monoglot character of the students’ education. It might have been thought that instead of hanging about awaiting the translators’ pleasure they could learn the foreign language in which their favorite reading is to be found; but this might not leave time to keep up with the neocritical journals as Miller thinks they must. (See James Engell and David Perkins, eds., Teaching Literature [Cambridge, Mass., 1988], pp. 87–109.)
14. Alvin Kibel, “The Canonical Text,” in Reading in the 1980s, ed. S. Graubard (New York, 1983), pp. 239–254.
15. I gratefully acknowledge that what I know about the Ratio Club derives from the conversation of Jonathan Miller.
16. René Wellek, The Attack on Literature and other Essays (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1982).
17. Frederick Crews, Skeptical Engagements (Oxford, 1986), p. 170.
18. Terry Eagleton, Literary Theory: An Introduction (Minneapolis, Minn., 1983) pp. 200ff.
19. Robert Scholes, “Deconstruction and Communication,” Critical Inquiry, 14 (1988), 284–285.
20. See Richard Poirier, The Renewal of Literature, (New York, 1987).
21. “Parmi ces hommes sans grand appétit de Poésie, qui n’en connaissent pas le besoin et qui ne l’eussent pas inventée, le malheur veut que figurent bon nombre de ceux dont la charge ou la destinée est d’en juger, d’en discourir, d’en exciter et cultiver le goût; et, en somme, de dispenser ce qu’ils n’ont pas. Ils y mettent souvent toute leur intelligence et tout leur zéle: de quoi les conséquences sont à craindre.” Quoted by Maria Corti, An Introduction to Literary Semiotics, trans. M. Bogat and A. Mandelbaum (Bloomington, Ind., 1978), epigraph.
22. Here is an instance, not to be attributed: “The allegory of ‘The Dead’ is therefore cautionary rather than expressive, less a dramatisation of Gabriel’s fatuity than a structure of deferred action that serves as a pedagogical instance for the relief of the anxiety of belatedness that Ulysses will formalize. The future, the later, thus takes a logical if surprising advantage over a past that otherwise precedes it and so makes it anxious. The future, after all, is the ineluctable site of the past’s enduring presence, its putative histoire always already a function of a récit belated to it phenomenologically but precedent to it discursively. Such an apparent evasion of the Oedipal paradox …” This, though full of fun, is not intended as parody, and its absurdity is not unique. One sees why the ancients find it easy to avoid reading the moderns.
23. Hayden White, “Historical Pluralism,” Critical Inquiry, 12 (1986), 480–493.
24. Paul de Man, “Hypogram and Inscription,” in The Resistance to Theory, p. 29. “Return to Philology” is in the same volume, pp. 21–26.
25. Paul de Man, “Autobiography as De-facement,” in The Rhetoric of Romanticism (New York, 1984), pp. 69–70. Derrida quotes this passage (Mémoires, pp. 22–23) and agrees that “this undecidability itself remains untenable,” though without telling us how to get out of the door or off the wheel.
26. Dissemination, trans. Barbara Johnson (Chicago, 1981), p. 223. For a more subtle discussion of what is meant by this statement, see Rodolphe Gasché, The Tain of the Mirror (Cambridge, Mass., 1986), pp. 256ff.
27. Gasché, The Tain of the Mirror, p. 261.
28. Robert Scholes, Textual Power (New Haven, Conn., 1985), p. 24.
29. Scholes, “Deconstruction and Communication,” p. 283.
30. David Brooks, “From Western Lit to Westerns as Lit,” Wall Street Journal, February 2, 1988.
31. Vincent B. Leitch, American Literary Criticism from the Thirties to the Eighties (New York, 1988), p. xiv.
32. Ibid., pp. 223–224.
33. Lionel Trilling, Beyond Culture (London, 1966), pp. 4–6.
34. Ibid., pp. 10–11.
35. Lionel Trilling, “The Function of the Little Magazine,” in The Liberal Imagination (New York, 1950; reprinted 1961), pp. 93–103.
36. William Empson, Argufying, ed. John Haffenden (London, 1987), p. 104.
1. The Common Reader
1. Helen Gardner, In Defence of the Imagination (New York, 1982), pp. 41–42, 47.
2. Erich Auerbach, Literary Language and Its Public in Late Latin Antiquity and the Middle Ages (London, 1965), p. 333.
3. Boswell’s Life of Johnson, ed. G. B. Hill and L. F. Powell (Oxford, 1964), pp. iv, 218 (May 1, 1783).
4. Garnett’s role is documented in George Jefferson’s Edward Garnett: A Life in Literature (London, 1982).
5. Peter Uwe Hohendahl, The Institution of Criticism (Ithaca, N.Y., 1982).
6. Ibid., p. 133.
7. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” in Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, ed. Hannah Arendt (New York, 1968), pp. 219–253.
8. Edmund Wilson, Classics and Commercials (London, 1950), pp. 204–208.
9. The London Review of Books, 4(15) (August 19 – September 1, 1982), 18.
10. Philip Rieff, Fellow Teachers (London, 1975), p. 97.
11. Donald Davie, These the Companions (Cambridge, 1982), p. 78.
12. Rieff, Fellow Teachers, p. 175.
2. Milton in Old Age
1. The following paragraphs are based on the account of Godfrey Davis, “Milton in 1660,” Huntington Library Quarterly, 18 (1954–55), 351–363.
1. Wallace Stevens, Opus Posthumous (New York, 1957); hereafter cited as OP in the text.
2. Letters of Wallace Stevens, ed. Holly Stevens (New York, 1966); hereafter cited as OP in the text.
3. Margaret Peterson, “Harmonium and William James,” Southern Review (Summer 1971), 664ff.
4. Wallace Stevens, The Necessary Angel (New York, 1951); hereafter cited as NA in the text.
5. “Und keinen Waffen brauchts und keinen / Listen, so lange, bis Gottes Fehl hilft.” Text and translation from Michael Hamburger’s complete parallel text, Friedrich Hölderlin: Poems and Fragments (London, 1966), pp. 176–177 (translated from Hölderlin: Sdmtliche Werke [Stuttgart, 1961]).
6. Friedrich Hölderlin, Poems and Fragments, trans. Michael Hamburger (bilingual edition; Cambridge, 1980), p. 250.
7. Ibid., pp. 600–601. The prose poem “In lieblicher Bläue,” from which these lines derive, is not certainly Hölderlin’s own, but Heidegger treats it without question as authentic.
8. Thomson, “The City of Dreadful Night”; Whitman, “A Clear Midnight.” Both quoted in NA, p. 119.
9. Wallace Stevens, Collected Poems (New York, 1954); hereafter cited as CP in the text.
10. Jarrell, The Third Book of Criticism (New York, 1969), pp. 57–58.
11. Heidegger, Poetry, Language, Thought, trans. Albert Hofstadter (New York, 1971), p. x.
12. Heidegger, “The Origin of the Work of Art [Der Ursprung von Kunstwerkes],” in Poetry, Language, Thought, pp. 17–81.
13. “The Thinker as Poet,” in Poetry, Language, Thought, p. 4.
14. Heidegger, “Hölderlin and the Essence of Poetry,” trans. Douglas Scott, in Heidegger, Existence and Being, comp. Werner Brock (Chicago, 1949), p. 310.
15. Commentators on Stevens appear not to have interested themselves much in this affinity, always supposing that it exists. They have not, to my knowledge, spoken of Stevens in relation to late works of Heidegger (that is, from the 1936 Hölderlin essay on). But Richard Macksey freely alludes to Sein und Zeit (along with Husserl and Merleau-Ponty) to illuminate late Stevens. He observes, in part, that “Stevens grounds his poetics and defines his individuality in terms of a death which always impends even in ‘the genius of summer’” (CP, p. 482). See his “The Climates of Wallace Stevens,” in Roy Harvey Pearce and J. Hillis Miller, eds., The Act of the Mind: Essays on the Poetry of Wallace Stevens (Baltimore, 1965), p. 201. Heidegger argues that my death alone achieves and delimits wholeness of Being (cf. “Every man dies his own death” [OP, 165]); and the project of the late Stevens recalls Heidegger’s Sein zum Tode (“when Dasein reaches its wholeness in death, it simultaneously loses the Being of its ‘there’”). Macksey cites as his epigraph Heidegger’s favorite Hölderlin quotation (“dichterisch, wohnet der Mensch auf dieser Erde”) but does not otherwise refer to the philosopher’s later work. An essay by J. Hillis Miller in the same collection sounds as though Miller could have had these later essays in mind, but he does not allude to them explicitly.
16. In Being and Time, trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson (New York, 1962), p. 80, Heidegger explains (though that is not the right word) that the word innan (wohnen) collects the senses of “to dwell” (inn) and “accustomed,” “familiar with,” and “look after something” (an). But there is no substitute for a reading of that passage and related passages.
17. Quoted by Heidegger in “Hölderlin and the Essence of Poetry,” p. 296.
18. Heidegger, “Building Dwelling Thinking,” in Poetry, Language, Thought, pp. 143–162.
19. Heidegger, “Remembrance of the Poet,” trans. Douglas Scott, in Existence and Being, p. 281.
20. Heidegger, “Hölderlin and the Essence of Poetry,” pp. 293ff.
21. Heidegger, “Remembrance of the Poet,” p. 264.
22. Heidegger, “The Origin of the Work of Art,” p. 41.
23. Ibid., p. 47.
24. Heidegger, “What Are Poets For?” in Poetry, Language, Thought, p. 97.
4. T. S. Eliot
1. Autobiography of William Carlos Williams (New York, 1967), pp. 146, 174–175.
2. Richard Poirier, The Renewal of Literature (New York, 1987), pp. 21–22.
3. Harold Bloom, The Breaking of the Vessels (Chicago, 1982), pp. 17–20.
4. The Letters of T. S. Eliot, vol. 1, ed. Valerie Eliot (Orlando, Fla., 1988), p. 57.
5. Ibid., p. 310.
6. Herbert Howarth, Some Figures behind T. S. Eliot (London, 1965), chap. 1. Dickens, in his American Notes (1842), described him as “a gentleman of great worth and excellence” (quoted by Valerie Eliot, Letters, p. 7).
7. T. S. Eliot, To Criticize the Critic (New York, 1965), p. 44.
8. “The Influence of Landscape upon the Poet,” Daedalus (Spring 1960), 421–422. Cited by Robert Crawford, The Savage and the City in the Works of T. S. Eliot (New York, 1987), p. 6. Crawford adds considerably to our knowledge of the St. Louis days.
9. Howarth, Some Figures behind T. S. Eliot, p. 29.
10. Times Literary Supplement, January 13, 1961, quoted by George Watson, “The Triumph of T. S. Eliot,” Critical Quarterly (1965), reprinted in T. S. Eliot: The Waste Land (Casebook), ed. C. B. Cox and A. Hinchliffe (London, 1968), pp. 47–50.
11. G. M. Young, Daylight and Champaign (1937), p. 202, quoted in Bevis Hillier, Young Betjeman (London, 1988), p. 333.
12. Bernard Bergonzi, T S. Eliot (New York, 1972), pp. 117–118.
13. See Eugen Weber, Action Francaise (Stanford, Calif, 1962), p. 480.
14. Lyndall Gordon, Eliot’s New Life (New York, 1988), p. 92.
15. “The Urban Apocalypse,” in Eliot in his Time, ed. A. Walton Litz (Princeton, N.J., 1973), pp. 23–49.
16. Gareth Reeves, “The Waste Land and the Aeneid,” Modern Language Review, 82 (1987), 555–572. Reeves adds to the list of parallels proposed by Kenner.
17. For detail, see my book The Classic (Cambridge, Mass., 1983), chap. 1. Eliot, in 1923, called England “a Latin country”; in 1949, however, he wrote: “When we consider the western world, we must recognize that the main cultural tradition has been that corresponding to the Church of Rome. Only within the last four hundred years has any other manifested itself; and anyone with a sense of centre and periphery must admit that the western tradition has been Latin, and Latin means Rome … From this point of view, the separation of Northern Europe, and of England in particular, from communion with Rome represents a diversion from the main stream of culture.” Nevertheless we remain (exiled) citizens of the Empire.
5. William Empson
1. William Empson, Argufying (London, 1987).
2. William Empson, The Royal Beasts (London, 1986).
3. An essay on “The Faces of the Buddha” appeared in The Listener, February 5, 1936, and is reprinted in Argufying, pp. 573–576.
4. William Empson, Some Versions of Pastoral (London, 1935); hereafter cited as SVP in the text.
5. The Review, 6–7 (1963), p. 4.
6. T. E. Hulme, Further Speculations, ed. Samuel Hynes (Minneapolis, Minn., 1955), pp. 108–109.
7. See the essay “Ballet of the Far East” published in The Listener, July 7, 1937, and reprinted in Argufying, pp. 577–582.
8. William Empson, “Rescuing Donne,” in Just So Much Honor (Philadelphia, 1972), p. 95.
9. New York Review of Books, December 3, 1981, pp. 42–50.
10. Ibid., March 4, 1982, p. 43.
11. William Empson, Milton’s God (London, 1961), pp. 45–46.
12. William Empson, Essays on Shakespeare (Cambridge, 1986).
13. Ibid., p. 10.
14. Ibid., p. 84.
15. Ibid., p. 107.
1. M. Foucault, The Order of Things, trans. A. Sheridan Smith (1966; London, 1970); Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge, trans. A. Sheridan Smith (1969; London, 1972).
2. P. Mahony, Freud as a Writer (New York, 1982), pp. 11–12.
3. P. Brooks, “Freud’s Masterplot: Questions of Narrative,” Yale French Studies, 55–56 (1977).
4. S. Freud, “Introductory Lectures on Psycho-analysis: III,” in The Complete Psychological Works: Standard Edition, ed. James Strachey (London, 1966), vol. 16, pp. 389, 397.
5. S. Freud, “From the History of an Infantile Neurosis,” in Standard Edition, vol. 17, pp. 50–51.
6. Ibid., p. 97.
7. S. Ferenczi, Thalassa, trans. H. A. Bunker (New York, 1968), p. 66.
8. Letters of Sigmund Freud, ed. E. L. Freud (London, 1961), p. 323.
9. F.J. Sulloway, Freud: Biologist of the Mind (London, 1979).
10. E. Jones, Life and Work of Sigmund Freud (London, 1957), vol. 3, p. 313.
11. S. Freud, “Moses and Monotheism,” in Standard Edition, vol. 23, p. 130.
12. S. Freud, “Introductory Lectures on Psycho-analysis,” pp. 370–371.
13. F. de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, trans. W. Baskin (1915; London, 1974).
14. Ibid., p. 81.
15. E. Gombrich, Aby Warburg: An Intellectual Life (London, 1970), pp. 238ff.
16. J. R. Moore, The Post-Darwinian Controversies (Cambridge, 1979), pp. 148ff.
17. F. Nietzsche, The Use and Abuse of History (1874; Indianapolis, 1949), pp. 7, 28.
18. W. Dilthey, “The Types of World View and Their Development in Metaphysical Systems,” in Dilthey: Selected Writings, ed. H. P. Rickman (Cambridge, 1976), p. 135.
19. C. Lévi-Strauss, The Savage Mind (1962; Chicago, 1966), p. 261.
20. S. Freud, “The Future of an Illusion,” in Standard Edition, vol. 21, p. 29.
21. Ibid., p. 36.
22. S. Freud, “Civilisation and Its Discontents,” in Standard Edition, vol. 21, p. 123.
23. S. Freud, “On the History of the Psycho-analytic Movement,” in Standard Edition, vol. 14, pp. 17ff.
24. S. Freud, “On Narcissism: An Introduction,” in Standard Edition, vol. 14, p. 77.
25. S. Freud, “Constructions in Analysis,” in Standard Edition, vol. 23, p. 269.
26. J. Neu, “Genetic Explanation in Totem and Taboo,’ in Freud: A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. R. Wollheim (New York, 1974), pp. 366–393.
27. P. Ricoeur, Freud and Philosophy (New Haven, 1970).
28. Ibid., pp. 374–375.
29. J. Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests, trans. J.J. Shapiro (1968; London, 1972), p. 189.
30. Ibid., p. 193.
31. M. A. Skura, The Literary Use of the Psychoanalytic Process (New Haven, 1981), pp. 22ÍF.
32. M. M. Schwartz, “Critic, Define Thyself,” in Psychoanalysis and the Question of the Text, ed. G. Hartman (Baltimore, 1978).
33. Skura, Literary Use, p. 271.
34. R. Schafer, “Wild Analysis” (unpublished paper, 1983).
35. D. A. Spence, Narrative Truth and Historical Truth (New York, 1982).
36. Ibid., pp. 165–166.
37. J. Malcolm, review of Narrative Truth and Historical Truth by D. A. Spence, New Yorker, November 24, 1982.
7. Divination
1. The Printing and Proof-reading of the Shakespeare First Folio, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1963).
2. George Steiner, “The Uncommon Reader,” Bennington Review, no. 3 (December 1978).
3. L. D. Reynolds and N. G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1974), p. 212.
4. James Thorpe, Principles of Textual Criticism (Pasadena, Calif., 1972), pp. 30, 27.
5. Dunciad III. 27–28; see Aubrey L. Williams, Pope’s Dunciad (London, 1955), pp. 82–83.
6. In the Arden Shakespeare (6th ed., 1958).
7. Richard Levin, New Readings versus Old Plays (Chicago, 1979).
8. The Classic (New York, 1975), chap. 3.
9. Reynolds and Wilson, Scribes and Scholars, p. 211. Incidentally, a compositor setting Massinger’s play The Emperor of the East changed the word Courte into Constantinople; a copy survives in which the author corrected it. (See John Crow, “Editing and Emending,” in The Practice of Modern Literary Scholarship, ed. Sheldon P. Zitner (New York, n.d.), pp. 161–175.
8. The Plain Sense of Things
1. Wallace Stevens, Collected Poems (New York, 1957), p. 502; hereafter cited as CP in the text.
2. See F. O. Matthiessen, The Achievement of T. S. Eliot, 3rd ed. (New York, 1958), p. 90.
3. Northrop Fryc, Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays (Princeton, N.J., 1957), p. 76.
4. J. Barton, Reading the Old Testament (London, 1984), p. 85.
5. De libero arbitrio, quoted in Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 3, The West from the Reformation to the Present Day, ed. S. C. Greenslade (Cambridge, 1969–1970), p. 28.
6. John Lyons, Semantics, vol. 1 (Cambridge, 1977), p. 237.
7. Bruno Bettelheim, Freud and Man’s Soul (New York, 1983).
8. Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 3, p. 11.
9. Gerald Hammond, The Making of the English Bible (Manchester, 1982), p. 10.
10. Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1952), p. 15; D. S. Wallace-Hadrill, Christian Antioch: A Study of Early Christian Thought in the East (Cambridge, 1982), chap. 2.
11. City of God, XVI, 2.
12. Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 2, pp. 252ff.
13. Smalley, Bible in the Middle Ages, chap. 4.
14. Ibid., p. 151.
15. Ibid., p. 163.
16. Ibid., p. 362.
17. J. S. Preuss, From Shadow to Promise: Old Testament Interpretation from Augustine to the Young Luther (Cambridge, Mass., 1969), p. 53.
18. Ibid., p. 69.
19. Ibid., p. 81.
20. J. T. Burtchaell, Catholic Theories of Inspiration since 1810 (London, 1969), p. 32.
21. Ibid., pp. 69–70.
22. Ibid., chap. 5.
23. Papers of the Institute of Jewish Studies, London, vol. 1, ed. J. G. Weiss (Jerusalem, 1964), pp. 141–185.
24. John Searle, “Literal Meaning,” in Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts (Cambridge, 1979).
9. The Argument about Canons
1. W. G. Kümrnel, The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems (London, 1973, from the German ed. of 1970), pp. 304–305.
2. Ibid., p. 373.
3. Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (New York, 1975, from the German 2nd ed. of 1965; 1st ed., 1960), pp. 295–296.
4. Ibid., p. 301.
5. Ibid., pp. 307–309.
6. Gershom Scholem, The Kabbalah and Its Symbolism (New York, 1965, ed. of 1969, from the German ed. of 1960), p. 46.
7. Ibid., p. 21.
8. Ibid., p. 30.
9. Kümmel, The New Testament, p. 425.
10. D. C. Hoy, The Critical Circle (Berkeley, Calif., 1978), p. 139.
10. The Bible: Story and Plot
1. See Paul Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, trans. Kathleen McLaughlin and David Pellauer (Chicago, 1984), pp. 5ff., for a valuable discussion of Augustine’s passage in relation to plot.
2. Jurij M. Lotman, “The Origin of Plot in the Light of Typology,” Poetics Today, I, 1–2 (1979), 161–184.
3. Henry James, The Art of the Novel, ed. R. P. Blackmur (New York, 1934), p. 313.
4. Frank Kermode, “Secrets and Narrative Sequence,” in Essays on Fiction 1971–1982 (1983), chap. 6.
5. E. M. Forster, Aspects of the Novel (1927; Orlando, Fla., 1956), chap. 8.
6. The Letters of D. H. Lawrence, ed. Harry T. Moore (London, 1962), p. 1076.
7. Eliot observed that “Bloom told one nothing.” The Diary of Virginia Woolf ed. Anne Olivier Bell (Orlando, Fla., 1978), II, 203 (February 26, 1922).
8. Frank Budgen, James Joyce and the Making of “Ulysses” (London, 1934; ed. of 1972), p. 18.
9. The most interesting of the changes to the received text proposed in a new edition occurs in a famous passage where Stephen Dedalus is confronted by the ghost of his mother. He asks her, “Tell me the word, mother, if you know now. The word known to all men.” She does not tell him. But now, in a passage the printer inadvertently omitted from a different episode, the text reads “Love, yes. Word known to all men,” and goes on to give a Thomist definition of love. Bloom speaks elsewhere for love against “force, hatred, history”; so it is fitting that the same word should be there, though unspoken, at the climax of this “spiritual encyclopedia.” See Richard Ellmann’s review of Ulysses: A Critical and Synoptic Text, ed. H. W. Gabler (1984), in New York Review of Books, October 25, 1984.
10. Stuart Gilbert, James Joyce’s “Ulysses”: A Study (1930; rev. ed., New York, 1952).
11. T. S. Eliot, “Ulysses, order and myth” (1923), in Selected Prose of T. S. Eliot, ed. F. Kermode (New York, 1975).
12. Ezra Pound, “Ulysses” (1922), in Literary Essays of Ezra Pound, ed. T. S. Eliot (New York, 1954), pp. 403ff.
13. Hugh Kenner, “Ulysses” (London, 1980), pp. 26–30.
14. Richard Ellmann, The Consciousness of Joyce (New York, 1977), p. 33.
15. The Letters of James Joyce, ed. S. Gilbert (New York, 1957), I, 146–147.
16. L. A. G. Strong, The Sacred River (New York, 1949), pp. 144–145.
17. Robert Alter, “How Convention Helps Us to Read: The Case of the Annunciation Type-Scene,” Prooftexts, 2 (1983), 115–130.
18. M. D. Goulder, Midrash and Lection in Matthew (1974), pp. 234–235.
19. R. E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (New York, 1977), pp. 418–420.
20. Ibid., pp. 207ÍF.
21. Ibid., p. 417.
22. M. Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel (1919), trans. B. L. Wolf (Greenwood, S.C., 1971), pp. 188ff.
23. C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (New York, 1963), pp. 145–146.
24. I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1978), p. 902.
25. R. E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, XIII-XXI (New York, 1970), p. 1022.
26. Erasmus, Collected Works: Correspondence, trans. R. A. B. Mynors and D. F. S. Thompson (Toronto, 1979), vol. 5, p. 347.
27. E. G. Kraeling, The Old Testament since the Reformation (New York, 1955, 1969), p. 140.
28. H. von Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Bible, trans. J. A. Baker (Minneapolis, Minn., 1972), p. 64.
29. M. Hengel, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity, trans. J. Bowden (Minneapolis, Minn., 1979), p. viii.
30. E. Auerbach, Mimesis (1946), trans. W. Trask (Princeton, N.J., 1953), chap. 2; Literary Language and Its Public in Late Latin Antiquity (1958), trans. R. Manheim (1964), pp. 27–66.
31. Campenhausen, Formation of the Christian Bible, p. 101.