Table Of ContentThis timely book challenges theory’s critique of literary
art. It argues that the institutionalization of theory,
particularly in North American universities over the last
quartercentury,hasled toapervasiveintellectualsterility.
Theory’s institutional triumph induces critics to offer
categorical explanations and demystifying analyses that
ignore the actual power and scope of literature. Mark
Edmundsontracesthistendency tosystematizeandsterilize
literaturetoPlato’sfamousquarrel,onbehalfofphilosophy,
against the poets. Edmundson goes on to show how
contemporary theorists like de Man, Derrida and Bloom
have renewed the philosophical drive to demean poetic
art, or to subsume it into some “higher” form ofthought.
This is not an anti-theoretical book: it acknowledges the
valueoftheoryand theintellectual prowessofthetheorists
ittreats.Butitisalsoconcerned torecognizetheory’slimits
and toestablish theresponsibilityofliterarycriticism todo
more than theorize: to identify those points at which
literatureresistsbeingexplained away. Thisbookcomes to
thedefenceofpoetry—andofliteraryartoverall—atatime
whenitsculturalstatusisindoubt. Challenging,clear,and
controversial, Mark Edmundson’sworkshould be read by
all teachers of literature and theory, and by anyone
concerned with the future ofliterary studies.
“Byfocusing on thecondescension with which philosophy
has,since Plato, treated poetry, Edmundson hasgiven usa
remarkablysuccessful and genuinelyoriginal treatmentof
the relation between contemporary European philosophy
and American literary criticism. Though he writes in a
spiritofreconciliation,hisviewisboundtobecontroversial.
Manyliterarytheoristshave nowish to be reconciled with
the poets.” Richard Rorty
LITERATURE AGAINST PHILOSOPHY,
PLATO TO DERRIDA
A DEFENCE OF POETRY
LITERATURE AGAINST
PHILOSOPHY, PLATO
TO DERRIDA
A qence ofPoetry
{MARK EDMUNDSOJV
UniversityofVirginia
CAMBRIDGE
"E is.“ UNIVERSITY PRESS
PublishedbythePressSyndicateoftheUniversityofCambridge
ThePittBuilding,TrumpingtonStreet,Cambridge032 [RP
40West20thStreet,NewYork,NY 10011—4211, USA
toStamfordRoad,Oakleigh,Melbourne3166,Australia
©CambridgeUniversityPress 1995
Firstpublished 1995
Reprinted 1996,1997
AcataloguertcordfirthisbookisavailablefiomtheBritishLibrary
LibraryofCongratscataloguinginpublicationdata
Edmundson,Mark, 1952—
LiteratureagainstPhilosophy,Platot0Derrida: adefenceofpoetry
/MarkEdmundson,
p. cm.
Includesindex.
ISBN0-521-41093-2(hardback)—1s1sN0-521-48532-0(paperback)
1. Literature—Historyandcriticism—Theory,etc. 2. Poetics.
3. Philosophyandliterature. I.Title.
PN81.E25 1995
809.1 —dc20 94-27021 me
1a0-521-41093-2hardback
1ssN0-521-48532-0paperback
Transferredtodigital printing2000
VN
For Matthew and William
Contents
Acknowledgments page xi
Prologue: an ancient quarrel
I Rhetorics ofblindness 30
2 Polemics against presence 67
3 Real history 114
4 Foucault Inc. I53
5 Under the influence 199
Index 240
ix
Acknowledgments
Thisbookbeganwith thepleasurableworkofteachingRomantic
poetry and literary theory at the University ofVirginia. There
are many students to whom I am grateful, among them Gayle
Wald, Gregoryjones, PamBurton, VirginiaHefi'ernan,Jennifer
Mendelsohn, Susan Schultz, Alice Gambrell, Neil Arditi, and
Paul Outka. From classrooms, some of the thoughts that take
final form here went into essays. For advice, endorsement, and
permission to reprint, thanks to Laurence Goldstein ofMichz'gan
QuarterlyReview,Gordon HutnerofAmericanLiteraryHistory, Frank
Lentricchia ofSout/z Atlantic Quarterly, and Suzanne Hyman and
Richard Poirier ofRarz'tan. To Richard Poirier I’m grateful for
more than editorial advice: his example as a literary critic who
has succeeded in becoming one ofAmerica’s foremost writers
was a continuing source ofpleasure and encouragement.
The first complete draft of the book was written at Ralph
Cohen’s Commonwealth Center for Literary and Cultural
Change. Ralph Cohen’s support for the project, his suggestions
along theway, and hisintellectual presence abetted the workin
numerous ways.
Oncefullyformed, themanuscriptgotgenerous, comprehensive
readingsfrom friends. ChipTucker, withwit and singularintel-
ligence, pointed out errors, made suggestions for development,
and pushedhardon thestructureofargumentJahanRamazani
enlightened me with his energetic, perceptive, and impassioned
response. Richard Rorty straightened me out on some philo-
sophical questions, and made numerous valuable comments.
Thechance to have Richard Rorty as a colleague, and to teach
xi
xii Acknowledgments
courseswithhim, has beenamongtheluckiestpartsofafortunate
intellectual life.
Thanks too to J. Hillis Miller, Geoffrey Hartman, William
Kerrigan,GordonBraden, AnthonyWinner,ViolaWinner, and
Jason Bell, who read pieces of the book and offered generous
responses.
Michael Pollangave mehiswarmth, intelligence, humor, and
invaluablefriendship, as well as his assurance that a book about
literary theory that he could read on the New York Subway
System might not be all bad.
Kevin Taylor is, in my experience, unique among university
presseditors, blendingashedoescalmintelligencewith marvelous
energy and self-trust. Working with him has been a pleasure.
My wife, Elizabeth Denton, gave me more than I can say.
The beauty Ifindinherandinherworkisacontinualinspiration.
My sons, Matthew and William, to whom I dedicate this book,
slowed its composition down and made it better than it would
otherwise have been, for which I’m grateful.
Prologue: an ancient quarrel
Literary criticism in the West begins with the wish that literature
disappear. Plato's chief objection to Homer is that he exists. For
to Plato poetry is a deception: it proffers imitations of imitations
when life's purpose is to seek eternal truth; poetry stirs up re-
fractory emotions, challenging reason's rule, making men woman-
ish; it induces us to manipulate language for effect rather than
strive for accuracy. The poets deliver many fine speeches, but
when you question them about what they've said, their answers
are puerile: they don't know what they're talking about. Though
Plato can be eloquent about the appeal of literary art, to him
poetry has no real place in creating the well-balanced soul or
the just state. When he conceives his Utopia, Plato banishes the
poets outside its walls.
All this is well known, yet it remains salutary to stop and
think how odd it is for literary criticism to begin as it does. Is
there any other kind of intellectual inquiry that originates in a
wish to do away with its object? Imagine art history beginning
in puritan iconoclasm; sociology in a commitment to deep solip-
sism; history in a wish that we should live always in the present.
I begin this book with reference to the quarrel between the
poets and philosophers, which Plato said was already ancient in
his time, because I think that, though changed in some important
ways, that quarrel continues on into the present.1 But the balance
1 On the contemporary relevance of the ancient quarrel Richard Rorty and Martha
Nussbaum concur. Rorty reflects on the contention throughout his work, but especially
in Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989),
pp. 23-43 an^ 73~95! Nussbaum throughout The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics
in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986) and in
Love's Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1990), especially pp. 3-53.
