Theory of Literature - Wikipedia

Theory of Literature - Wikipedia

Theory of Literature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theory of Literature

Dust jacket, first edition
Author	René Wellek Austin Warren
Country	United States
Language	English
Subject	Literary scholarship
Publisher	Harcourt, Brace, and Company
Publication date	1948 1942, 1946, 1949 (imprint)
Media type	Hardcover
Pages	403
OCLC	1599846

Theory of Literature is a book on literary scholarship by René Wellek, of the structuralistPrague school, and Austin Warren, a self-described "old New Critic".^[1] The two met at the University of Iowa in the late 1930s, and by 1940 had begun writing the book; they wrote collaboratively, in a single voice over a period of three years. Its contents were based on their shared understandings of literature.

Originally consisting of twenty chapters – one was cut in later editions – Theory of Literature describes various aspects of literary theory, criticism, and history. After defining various aspects and relationships of literature in general, Wellek and Warren divide analysis of literature based on two approaches: extrinsic, relating to factors outside a work such as the author and society, and intrinsic, relating to factors within such as rhythm and meter. They stress the need to focus on the intrinsic elements of a work as the best way to truly understand it. In doing so they adapt the phenomenology used by Roman Ingarden.

Published by Harcourt, Brace, and Company in December 1948, Theory of Literature received mixed reviews from the academic community. It was used to teach literary theory beginning soon after publication and remained in common use into the 1960s. Its success has been credited as introducing European literary scholarship into the US and crystallizing a movement towards intrinsic literary criticism. Theory of Literature saw three editions and has been translated into more than twenty languages.

Contents

  [hide] 

• 1Background
• 2Writing
• 3Contents
  • 3.1Section 1: Definitions and Distinctions.
  • 3.2Section 2: Preliminary Operations
  • 3.3Section 3: The Extrinsic Approach to the Study of Literature
  • 3.4Section 4: The Intrinsic Study of Literature
  • 3.5Section 5: The Academic Situation
• 4Theoretical borrowings
• 5Publication
• 6Reception
• 7Legacy
• 8Notes
• 9References
• 10External links

Background[edit]

René Wellek (1903–1995^[2]) was an Austrian-born scholar from the structuralist Prague school of linguistics,^[3] studying under Vilém Mathesius.^[4] Wellek had training in classical literature and was fluent in several European languages, both Romance and Slavic.^[5] His theoretical training included the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl, as used in Roman Ingarden's work, and the psychologically influenced linguistics of Karl Bühler.^[6] After Nazi Germany occupied Prague in 1939, Wellek fled London – where he had been teaching – for the United States, teaching at the University of Iowa under Norman Foerster.^[7]

There Wellek met Austin Warren (1899–1986^[8]), an American literary scholar who considered himself an "old New Critic".^[1] He had written extensively on literary criticism^[9] and was raised in, but later saw several limitations to, the New Humanist views promoted by Irving Babbitt and Paul Elmer More. Wellek and Warren were soon in agreement over several aspects of literature, and by 1940 they had begun considering collaboration on a book.^[10] Over the next several years they furthered their understandings of European and American literature theory through discussions with Cleanth Brooks and Robert Penn Warren, and extensive reading of contemporary European writings.^[11]

Writing[edit]

Owing to several academic commitments, work on Theory of Literature did not begin until 1945, after Wellek and Warren received a stipend from the Rockefeller Foundation over a period of two summers. Wellek and Warren began dividing their responsibilities, at first evenly, but with more work done by Wellek as Warren dealt with the illness, and later loss, of his wife Eleanor in 1946. During this period of writing Wellek transferred to Yale University (1946) and Warren to the University of Michigan (1948), but collaboration continued.^[12]

The title, according to Wellek and Warren, was "more than ordinarily difficult" to choose. Some titles, such as Theory of Literature and Methodology of Literary Study, were dismissed as too cumbersome.^[13]However, in a 1950 review for The Antioch Review, the literary scholar Herbert S. Benjamin wrote that a better title would have been Theory of the Methodology of the Literary Study; he considered the book lacking the theory implied by the chosen title.^[14][15]

The original publication of Theory of Literature consists of twenty chapters set in five sections based on thematic similarities;^[16] one chapter and section was removed in later editions.^[17] Wellek contributed thirteen of the book's chapters, while Warren wrote six; the final chapter was written collaboratively.^[18] Although most of the chapters are credited as the work of one man, the two often copyedited and proofread each other's work, at times inserting entire sentences or paragraphs. Each also suggested further references that the other could use in expanding his chapter.^[12]

In their writing Wellek and Warren attempted to present a single voice despite the dominance of individuals.^[18] Their success in presenting such a voice has been debated. Wellek later recalled that people often told him it was difficult to tell who had written which chapter without consulting the book's introduction.^[19] However, the literary scholar C. J. van Rees of Tilburg University notes that Wellek's influences are prevalent in chapters authored by Warren.^[20] Aldo Scaglione, in a review of the second edition, wrote that "one immediately senses the change of hand" between chapters by different authors.^[15]

Contents[edit]

Section 1: Definitions and Distinctions.[edit]

The first section, entitled Definitions and Distinctions, consists of five chapters and details how Wellek and Warren define literature.^[16] This section also contrasts Wellek and Warren's definition with those of others, such views of literature as everything in print and as only belles-lettres (accepted literary canon). They define literary scholarship as beyond the personal ("super-personal")^[21] and contrasted with the literary arts by its more scientific approach.^[22] Wellek and Warren suggest that neither a purely objective nor a purely subjective approach would be able to properly describe literature. They note that literary scholarship should not only examine what makes a work or author unique, but also its general characteristics that allow it to be compared to other works.^[23]

Wellek and Warren begin their discussion of the function of literature with Horace's proclamation that works should be "sweet and useful" (dulce et utile).

Wellek and Warren limit their definition of literature to pieces of "imaginative literature", which can gain artistic merit from their coherence and complexity. The language in literary works is contrasted from scientific and other language by the use of connotative (non-literal) language and expressive content.^[24][25] Studies of literature must be literary and systematic,^[26] treating literature as literature and not part of another field.^[27]Wellek and Warren discuss several proposed functions of literature, beginning with Horace's proclamation that literature must be "sweet and useful" (dulce et utile; have a coalescing aesthetic and functional role), and extending to literature as a substitute for travel and experience, a vehicle for truth or persuasion, to relieve or incite emotion, or as something without a function.^[28] They ultimately describe the main function of literature as being loyal to its own nature.^[29]

They call for a systematic and integrated study of literature, uniting literary theory, which outlines the basic principles of literature; criticism, which critiques individual works; and history, which outlines the development of literature. Although these aspects have clear distinctions, they are in a dialectical relationship and should not be separated; for example, a theory of literature is impossible without referring to works of literature.^[30] They reject Historicist approaches to literary history, which they find reduce literary history to "a series of discrete and hence finally incomprehensible fragments" and emphasize the author's intent too greatly.^[31] Instead, Wellek and Warren argue that a work must be seen from the point of view of both its own period and all subsequent periods, as a work's historical meaning is derived from "the history of its criticism by its many readers in many ages."^[31]Criticism should not be limited to classical and medieval literature, but also include works by living authors.^[32]

Wellek and Warren describe the term comparative literature as "troublesome", noting that it has been used for the study of oral literature, the study of the literatures in two or more countries, and the study of a "general", "universal", or "world" literature; this last use, according to the authors, obviates issues present in the other understandings of the term.^[33] This understanding of literature as a totality can be used to trace the development of the art, unlimited by differences between languages.^[34] Within this comparative literature other supernational literatures, which may be based on language families and schools, are also apparent. There are also national literatures which, although possibly of the same language, will still have thematic differentiations. These are also worthy of study.^[35]

In describing the treatment of manuscripts, Wellek and Warren often cite research into the works of William Shakespeare.^[36]

Section 2: Preliminary Operations[edit]

This section consists of a single chapter regarding the treatment, classification, annotation, and other aspects of working with manuscripts and related documentation.^[16]Wellek and Warren describe tasks such as authenticating manuscripts and establishing an author and date as important ones without which "critical analysis and historical understanding would be hopelessly handicapped"; however, these tasks should be preliminary to the "ultimate task of scholarship", analysis, and not a goal in themselves.^[37] Wellek and Warren note the importance of identifying forgeries, a task which can be completed in numerous ways: paleography, bibliography, linguistics, and history may all be involved. These forgeries may spark further investigation and literary debates which can result in a better understanding of the period, the writer, or the writer's oevre.^[38]

The authors identify two levels of operations when dealing with manuscripts: the assembly and preparation of the materials, and the establishment of aspects such as chronology and authorship.^[37] At the first level one must locate and identify materials to study, be they written, printed, or oral; such a task may be difficult and depend on factors outside literature in its completion. Written and printed works must then be edited for readability; this task, which requires "lucky guesswork", entails deciphering illegible parts in the material, classifying it, and identifying possible changes made by scribes (and thus bringing the material closer to its "author's own").^[39] Meanwhile, the second level may require greater initiative from the one studying a work; it involves, among other things, selection of what should be published, how it is best arranged in a collection, the establishment of chronology and authorship through internal and external evidence, and the provision of proper annotation and commentary.^[36]

In discussing how literature does not necessarily reflect an author's experiences, Wellek and Warren quote the actress Ellen Terry: if Shakespeare wrote only what he knew, he "must have been a woman".^[40]

Section 3: The Extrinsic Approach to the Study of Literature[edit]

The third section consists of five chapters discussing various elements extrinsic to works of literature, such as biography, psychology, social milieu, ideas, and other arts; this is opposed to elements intrinsic to a work, which are explored in Section 4.^[16] They write that research into extrinsic elements often results in an attempt to establish some causality between the extrinsic elements and a work. Although "[n]obody can deny that much light has been thrown on literature by a proper knowledge of the conditions under which it has been produced", such studies "can never dispose of problems of description, analysis, and evaluation of an object such as a work of literary art."^[41]

Wellek and Warren describe three views of a biographical approach, of which only one – the biographical aspects relating to the production of a work – can be of use;^[42] this use, however, is limited. They reject the views that works accurately reflect the author's life or that the author's life must be understood in order to understand a particular work.^[43]According to Wellek and Warren, works may indeed reflect the author's experiences, but they may also reflect an author's hopes and dreams, or literary tradition and convention, and as such are "not a document for biography".^[44] Likewise, an understanding of personal style (what makes a work "Miltonic", "Keatsian", "Shakespearean", or "Virgilian") does not rely on knowledge of the author's life. They conclude that "it seems dangerous to ascribe to [biography] any real critical importance", and that such approaches, if undertaken at all, should be done with a "sense" of the distinctions outlined above.^[45]

Wellek and Warren consider analysis of characters the only legitimate application of psychological analysis in literary study. Such an analysis, however, they find lacking on its own merits: individual characters do not fit psychological theories of the time they are written. Works which are true to certain psychological theories, meanwhile, are not necessarily better. Thus, they question the value of looking for psychological "truth" in how a work is presented.^[46] Additionally they outline and critique psychological theories that have been used to analyze authors^[47] and the creative process.^[48]

Wellek and Warren note that Coleridge's work helped bring Neoplatonistic views to England.^[49]

Wellek and Warren write that literature is ultimately a social institution as several aspects of it are created or influenced through social conventions and norms. They reject a more specific understanding of social realities in literature.^[50] An author, for example, is a social being, raised and shaped by society and is in a dialectic relationship with the audience: the audience provides recognition and an income, and the author shapes audiences' tastes and behavior.^[51] Intrinsic elements of the work, and indeed the "realization of certain aesthetic values", can reflect contemporary society and its attitudes.^[52]Literature does not, however, "correctly" reflect society or life,^[50] and may exhibit little connection.^[52] As such, "social truth" should not become an artistic value of its own right, and literature should not be thought of as a "substitute for sociology or politics".^[53]

Wellek and Warren note arguments that literature is a form of philosophy or, alternatively, that it is devoid of such ideas. They reject extreme versions of these arguments. They write that "a knowledge of the history of philosophy and of general ideas" will be valuable for a researcher.^[54]However, they note that philosophical ideas may not have been consciously included in a work. Instead, they agree with the German scholar Rudolf Unger that "literature expresses a general attitude toward life, that poets usually answer, unsystematically, questions which are also themes of philosophy", in a manner that differs over time.^[55] They outline attempts at classifying these ideas, including through Weltanschauung ("world view") and Geistesgeschichte ("time spirit"), before showing shortcomings in these systems.^[56] They then write that students of literature, an art which may (but need not) parallel philosophical development, should focus on how ideas enter the work.^[57] Wellek and Warren argue that a work does not necessarily become better with more philosophical content.^[58]

Wellek and Warren write that the relationship between literature and other forms of art, such as architecture, sculpture, music, or visual art, is "highly various and complex". For example, literature may inspire the other art forms, or vice versa.^[59] A work of literature may also attempt to have the same effect as another art, through visualization, musicality, or other techniques. However, literature remains a separate art form, and effects found within are conveyed imperfectly. The emotions triggered by a work, or the intentions or theories behind it, will likewise not completely parallel those of another art form;^[60] individual forms of art have also "evolved" differently.^[61] Instead, Wellek and Warren suggest that works of art, like literature, can only be truly understood by looking at the works of art themselves and not their extrinsic aspects.^[62] A comparison between literature and another art form, thus, is secondary to establishing "outlines of strictly literary evolution".^[61]

Section 4: The Intrinsic Study of Literature[edit]

This section, almost twice the size of the others, consists of eight chapters regarding various elements intrinsic to works of literature.^[16]Wellek and Warren write that starting an analysis from elements intrinsic to the work is "natural and sensible", given that "only the works themselves justify all our interest" in extrinsic issues.^[63] They outline different definitions of literature, including as artifacts, sequences of sounds pronounced when reading, the experiences of the reader or author, or the "sum of all past and possible experiences" (alternatively "the experience common to all the experiences") related to a work. All these understandings they find lacking.^[64] Instead they suggest that literature is a "potential cause of experiences" consisting of a system of stratified norms – implicit in the work – which can only be partially realized by the reader;^[65] it is neither purely material, mental, nor ideal, nor is it static or bereft of value.^[66]

Among the works Wellek and Warren quote when discussing meter is Alexander Pope's An Essay on Man.^[67]

Wellek and Warren consider patterns of sound as inherent to the text; these must be analyzed while keeping the meaning (or general emotional tone) in mind. They suggest two different aspects of sound systems: sounds in isolation, and sounds in relations with others. The sounds in isolation are used in a work establish a euphony or orchestration – a sound aesthetic which may be pleasing or harsh – while the relational aspect "may become the basis of rhythm and meter".^[68] Regarding euphony, Wellek and Warren discuss issues of classification, rhyme, onomotopeia, and the "physiognomy" of sounds as part of orchestration.^[69] Of rhythm they explore varying definitions, applications, typology, and artistic value.^[70] They then discuss theories of meter and their shortcomings, noting that the metric foundation differs between languages and stressing that meaning should not be divorced from meter.^[71]

Language, meanwhile, they describe as "quite literally the material of the literary artist"; although a work is influenced by language, the writer's style, the use of communicative language, may influence language.^[72] Rather than use a work to study linguistic history, they recommend examining works through stylistics, which in literature they define as "the study of a work of art or a group of works which are to be described in terms of their aesthetic function and meaning".^[73] Such studies can be done either as a search for a "total meaning" or a "sum of individual traits".^[74] Ideally, such a study should "establish some unifying principle, some general aesthetic" in a work or genre, although some may be more difficult than others.^[75] As such, they reject stylistic studies which focus mainly on "peculiarities of style" or which are linked to extrinsic elements.^[75]

For other understandings of meaning, Wellek and Warren suggest a look at the sequence of image, metaphor, symbol, and myth, which they consider making up the "central poetic structure" of a work.^[76] In turns, they outline various historical definitions of the terms – which at times overlap – before writing that most of these theories have treated the sequence as "detachable parts of the works in which they appear."^[77]This Wellek and Warren refuse, instead arguing that "the meaning and function of literature [i]s centrally present in metaphor and myth".^[77]They show that the dominant form of figurative language shifts over time^[78] before overviewing two diverging typologies of metaphor, that of Henry W. Wells and Hermann Pongs.^[79] They finally discuss several aspects of "practical criticism" based on poetic language and its underlying assumptions. They reject approaches which attempt to understand the author through his or her words or which attempt to understand figurative language alone; instead, it should be studied not in isolation but as "an element in the totality, the integrity, of the literary work".^[80]

After reiterating their views of the relationship between reality and literature, Wellek and Warren write that narrative fiction takes place in its own "worlds", consisting of five codeterminant elements: narrative structure, characters, setting, world-view, and tone. The latter two are discussed in the following chapter.^[81] They define the narrative structure as built around a pattern of dialog and description, and various concepts related to narrative; these include time within a work, narrative points of view and voices, major types, plot, devices, and pacing.^[82] This is followed by a discussion of characterization, involving modes, types, and typologies, then setting (the environment in a work).^[83] This world can serve as a basis for analysis and judgment of a work.^[81] Although they focus on the "world" in narrative fiction, drama shares similar aspects.^[84]

Wellek and Warren proscribe a more specific understanding of genre than Aristotle's poetry, prose, and drama.

Wellek and Warren consider genres as influencing "any critical and evaluative ... study".^[85] All works of literature can be so classified, although the genres themselves are (presumably) not fixed. After outlining a brief history of the "ultimate" genres as understood by Aristotle (poetry, prose, and drama), they show such an understanding as "scarcely promising of objective results" and overly prescriptive; they also reject several alternative theories of genre.^[86] Instead, they suggest that genres should be understood descriptively, as based on the "outer form" (meter, structure) and the "inner form" (attitude, tone, purpose), with the "outer form" emphasized.^[87] Wellek and Warren consider genres to be continually shifting, with good writers conforming to but ultimately expanding them.^[88]

According to Wellek and Warren, evaluation of literary work should be done based on the work's own nature, divorced from an author's practical or scientific intent. They reject evaluation based on extra-literary content, writing instead that literature – like all fine art – will provide an "aesthetic experience" which can be judged.^[89] They note various criteria used to identify "good" literature, rejecting Russian formalism's criterion of defamiliarization and similar understandings for one based on the diversity of materials amalgamated within a work.^[90]They reject a static hierarchy or generationalist understanding of literary greats. Instead, they suggest that every work's rank changes when a new work is introduced and that values within are "really, or potentially, present in the art object".^[91] They note a dialectic relationship between evaluating and critically analyzing literature.^[92] This ties genre theory to the history of literature.^[93]

Wellek and Warren – disapproving of contemporary histories of literature – opine that a history of literature is possible and should be based on elements intrinsic to works. Such a history should describe the development of "[t]he process of interpretation, criticism, and appreciation" or trace the development of works in small and large groups before tying it to universal literature.^[93] This "historical evolution" of related yet individual events they tie to "variable schemes of values" which must be "abstracted from history itself."^[94] They suggest numerous ways in which this can be accomplished, including identifying the development of values, traits, forms, themes, and motifs.^[95] Periodization, they write, should not be based on chronological boundaries, but a "time section dominated by a system of literary norms, standards, and conventions, whose introduction, spread, diversification, integration, and disappearance can be traced" which must be extracted from history, with boundaries marked by both internal and external changes.^[96] They close the chapter by stating that existing methods are "clumsy" and that a new ideal and methods of literary history is necessary.^[97]

Section 5: The Academic Situation[edit]

The final section of the book, removed in later editions, consists of a single chapter regarding the study of literature.^[16] Wellek and Warren bemoan that literary students are "offered no wider choice than between the 'historical method' ... and dilettantism", supporting instead a critically oriented literary scholarship.^[98] After finding faults with the literary scholarship in England, Germany, France, and Russia, Wellek and Warren suggest that the US is poised to start a new era in scholarship.^[98] They note that this opportunity may, however, be lost in a conflict between those advocating change and the inertia (including persons defending the status quo) in American literary studies and institutions.^[99]

Rather than maintain the system of having scholars specialized in certain time periods and authors, Wellek and Warren push for scholars who have mastered certain approaches and thought patterns, preferably those who are from a literary background. They also recommend "sharper distinction between the teacher and the scholar", allowing some individuals to devote their careers to research and not teaching.^[99] They emphasize a need for fluency in several modern languages rather than an understanding of the classical ones;^[99] this coincides with their urge to establish departments teaching comparative literature.^[100] They recommend the teaching of literary methods and theories in combination with periods and authors, with a retooling of the doctoral dissertation procedures.^[101]

Theoretical borrowings[edit]

Theory of Literature was influenced by Russian formalism, a school of thought which sought to examine literature (or, more precisely, what formalist-turned-structuralist Roman Jakobson's termed literariness^[102]) as an autonomous body,^[103] and the American New Criticism, which likewise denied external influences.^[104] The book borrowed formalism's concepts of an aesthetic function and dominance of different elements of language.^[105] Unlike Russian formalism, however, Wellek and Warren's theory recognized the possibility of factors outside the work being studied, although Wellek and Warren continued to emphasize aspects within the work itself.^[105] Also unlike their forerunners, Wellek and Warren saw aesthetic value as not the defamiliarization of the mundane, but an interaction among the strata derived from Roman Ingarden's work: the phonological (sound) level at the base, then semantic (meaning), and the "world" created by literature. This last strata they divided into paradigms and "metaphysical qualities", the level which a reader contemplates.^[106][107] They did not, however, accept Ingarden's teachings as a whole, writing that Ingarden "analyze[d] the work of art without reference to values", a system which they found untenable.^[108]

Wellek and Warren's concept of aesthetics borrowed from the writings of Immanuel Kant, implying that a specific "aesthetic realm" was autonomous within the work and required a certain perspective to properly understand;^[109] they emphasize this with a quote from the neo-Kantian philosopher and literary critic Eliseo Vivas, that beauty is a "character of some things ... present only in the thing for those endowed with the capacity and the training through which alone it can be perceived".^[110] Meanwhile, their depiction of a dynamic scale of values, as opposed to an anarchical one, is a reimagining of perspectivism, which Wellek and Warren define as "recogniz[ing] that there is one poetry, one literature, comparable in all ages, developing, changing, full of possibilities".^[111][112] They explicitly denounce absolutism and relativism.^[112]

Publication[edit]

Theory of Literature was published by Harcourt, Brace, and Company in December 1948, with a copyright notice dated 1942, 1947, and 1949.^[113][114] Wellek notes that 1942, often quoted as a year of publication in Europe, is in fact when his article "The Mode of Existence of a Literary Work of Art" was published in The Southern Review; the article was reused as a chapter of Theory of Literature, leading to the inclusion of the year 1942.^[113] Several other works by Wellek and Warren had been adapted for Theory of Literature.^[20]

Translations of Theory of Literature began soon after it was published;^[15] by 2010 the work had been translated into more than twenty languages,^[115] including Spanish, Korean, Hebrew, and Hindi.^[116] Two new editions were issued, first in 1956 then in 1962.^[20]These new editions included updated bibliographies and clarified points; the last chapter, "Study of Literature in the Graduate School", was removed beginning in the second edition as Wellek and Warren considered the reforms suggested within already accomplished in several places.^[17] By 1976 Wellek was of the opinion that the book required updating, but asked rhetorically "who can master the astonishing and bewildering literature on theory which since [1949] has been produced in many countries?" and noted that he and Warren were busy with their own projects.^[113]

Reception[edit]

Academic reception of Theory of Literature was mixed. The philologist Helmut Hatzfeld, reviewing shortly after the book's release, described Theory of Literature as "radical in its viewpoint, rich in ideas and bibliographical material, poised in its judgment of other approaches to literature"^[117] as well as a "landmark in literary studies."^[118] Although Hatzfeld agreed with Wellek and Warren's main points, he thought it lacking in references to theories and literature from the Romance languages^[119] and concrete interpretations.^[120] William Troy, writing in The Hudson Review, echoed the sentiment, stating that, although the book was "unusually difficult" to read,^[121] he felt "unqualified agreement with the main position".^[122] He expected that the book would not succeed with "anyone ungifted from birth with some susceptibility to ... 'intrinsic' elements", a group which he believed comprised the majority of those teaching literature in the US.^[122]Seymour Betsky, writing in Scrutiny, praised the book's summary and adjucation; he wrote that it was "in its way impressive", a "tour de force" which would "usher in a new era".^[123] However, Betsky felt that the book lacked a "controlling purpose" and that it neglected to emphasize the need to differentiate between "the cheap commercial appeal and the genuine" literature.^[124]

Edward G. Ballard, reviewing for The Journal of Philosophy, found the treatment lacking, with major terms left undefined and much of the book providing synopses of other writers' theories; he conceded, however, that it convincingly showed that "the intellectual study of literature qua literature has just begun".^[125] In The Kenyon Review, Vivas wrote that the book's discussion of the relation between literary criticism and scholarship "leaves nothing to be desired", providing a "well balanced" look at the major points;^[126] he found that no other such work existed in English at the time.^[127] Vivas opined, however, that Wellek and Warren lacked a single, non-contradictory theory to use as a base for their conclusions.^[126] Kemp Malone, reviewing for Linguistics, discussed three chapters on elements of literature related to linguistics. He considered these to provide "food for thought" for linguists and suggested that Wellek was well-versed in linguistics for a professor of literature, despite misusing several terms common in the discipline.^[128]

Newton Arvin, writing in the Partisan Review, found Theory of Literature to excessively indulge in formalism and expressed concern that the idea of literary history may have "gone into the discard once and for all".^[15]Benjamin found the book not something new, but a final assertion of the dominance of New Criticism in literary theory, a dominance which he considered untenable.^[129] Rather than emphasize theory, he found that Theory of Literature was "ninety-nine parts a 'good offense' against its slain and buried foes"^[130] with "exceptionally lucid and authoritative" discussions of literary problems.^[14] Scaglione opined that Theory of Literature's plain, imprecise language had introduced numerous inconsistencies within its theoretical framework;^[131] he also stated that the book led readers to believe they were approaching an understanding of literature without ever reaching the core essence of the subject.^[132]

Ingarden, who believed his theories the basis of Wellek and Warren's arguments, considered himself inadequately credited and took offense with the attribution of his ideas to "pure phenomenologists".^[133] He also stated that they had misrepresented his views.^[133] George Grabowicz, prefacing his translation of Ingarden's The Literary Work of Art, suggested that Theory of Literature was "instrumental" in spreading Ingarden's ideas.^[134]

Legacy[edit]

At the time of publication Wellek and Warren considered Theory of Literature unparalleled in English-language publications,^[105] an attempt to unite literary theory, criticism, history, and scholarship.^[13] Although they noted a similarity to existing German and Russian works, the authors considered those earlier works "eclectic" and "doctrinaire", respectively.^[105] Ballard writes that Theory of Literature was published during a time of increasing focus on the art of literature, rather than its underlying philosophy.^[135]

In an academic biography of Wellek, Michael Holquist of the University of Columbia writes that Theory of Literature established Wellek's reputation as a literary scholar^[136] for the next three decades.^[2] The book proved to be Wellek's only "book-length scholarly manifesto",^[136] a format which Holquist credits to Warren's influence.^[137] Wellek's other works were essays on literary theory and criticism which, even though bound in a single volume, did not provide a single coherent manifesto.^[137] Wellek would continue to use the theories contained in Theory of Literature into the late 1980s.^[138]

The book was used to teach literary theory at universities beginning not long after publication^[15] and remained dominant into the mid-1960s,^[102] at which time an increasingly heterogeneous academia questioned the universal value of literature; literary theorist Terry Eagleton finds that, after the 1960s, "it was no longer possible to take for granted what what literature was, how to read it, or what social functions it might serve".^[139] Steven Mailloux describes Theory of Literature as crystallizing an American movement towards intrinsic literary criticism, as dominated by New Criticism,^[140] while van Rees credits the book with popularizing a text-oriented interpretation.^[141]Grabowicz writes that its importance for both American and general literary studies is "indisputable".^[134] Writing in 1987, Jeremy Hawthorn described the book as an "excellent introductory study", despite extrinsic studies having become more dominant in literary criticism,^[105] while Holquist found that the book could still "be usefully invoked" in literary debates of the early 21st century.^[115] In an obituary of Wellek, Robert Thomas Jr. credited Theory of Literature with "introduc[ing] European scholarship to the United States" and establishing a framework for comparative literature studies in the United States.^[142]

The theoretical positions promulgated in Theory of Literature have generally been criticized by later writers. Van Rees, for example, considers Wellek and Warren's distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic aspects of literature to be too sharply drawn, leading to the two aspects becoming binary opposites.^[143] Holquist notes that this distinction proceeds from a different understanding of literature. He writes that Wellek's school of thought considered literature as a "unified subject" with definite boundaries which could be mastered,^[115] while more recent scholarship has rendered "[t]he very identity of literature as an object of study ... no longer clear."^[144]

Notes[edit]

1. ^ Jump up to:^a b Drake 1996, pp. 851–854.
2. ^ Jump up to:^a b Holquist 2010, p. 163.
3. Jump up^ Makaryk 1993, p. 484.
4. Jump up^ Holquist 2010, p. 169.
5. Jump up^ Holquist 2010, pp. 166, 168.
6. Jump up^ Holquist 2010, p. 170.
7. Jump up^ Wellek 1976, p. 68.
8. Jump up^ NYT 1986, Austin Warren.
9. Jump up^ Wellek 1976, p. 69.
10. Jump up^ Wellek 1976, p. 71.
11. Jump up^ Wellek 1976, p. 72.
12. ^ Jump up to:^a b Wellek 1976, pp. 73–74.
13. ^ Jump up to:^a b Wellek & Warren 1949, p. v.
14. ^ Jump up to:^a b Benjamin 1953, p. 427.
15. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e} Scaglione 1958, p. 400.
16. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f} Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. ix–x.
17. ^ Jump up to:^a b Scaglione 1958, p. 408.
18. ^ Jump up to:^a b Wellek & Warren 1949, p. vi.
19. Jump up^ Wellek 1976, p. 73.
20. ^ Jump up to:^a b c van Rees 1984, p. 504.
21. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 8–10.
22. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 3.
23. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 5–8.
24. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 11–14.
25. Jump up^ van Rees 1984, p. 528.
26. Jump up^ van Rees 1984, p. 506.
27. Jump up^ van Rees 1984, p. 507.
28. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 20–27.
29. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 28.
30. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 29–31.
31. ^ Jump up to:^a b Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 33–35.
32. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 36.
33. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 38–41.
34. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 41.
35. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 41–43.
36. ^ Jump up to:^a b Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 54–58.
37. ^ Jump up to:^a b Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 49.
38. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 60–62.
39. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 50–52.
40. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 73.
41. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 65.
42. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 67–68.
43. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 69.
44. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 70–72.
45. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 73–74.
46. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 86–88.
47. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 75–79.
48. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 81–85.
49. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 111.
50. ^ Jump up to:^a b Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 89–90.
51. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 91–98.
52. ^ Jump up to:^a b Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 100–104.
53. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 106.
54. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 107–109.
55. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 111–112.
56. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 113–118.
57. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 120–121.
58. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 122–123.
59. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 124–126.
60. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 124–127.
61. ^ Jump up to:^a b Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 135.
62. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 129–131.
63. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 139.
64. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 141–150.
65. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 151–152.
66. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 157.
67. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 159–176.
68. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 159–160.
69. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 161–164.
70. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 165–167.
71. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 168–176.
72. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 177–178.
73. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 180–183.
74. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 184.
75. ^ Jump up to:^a b Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 185–189.
76. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 190.
77. ^ Jump up to:^a b Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 191–198.
78. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 199–204.
79. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 205–213.
80. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 214–218.
81. ^ Jump up to:^a b Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 219–222.
82. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 223–227.
83. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 228–229.
84. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 234.
85. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 235.
86. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 236–239, 245.
87. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 241–242.
88. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 244.
89. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 249–252.
90. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 253–255.
91. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 257–258.
92. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 262.
93. ^ Jump up to:^a b Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 263–266.
94. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 267–268.
95. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 269–273.
96. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 274–280.
97. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 282.
98. ^ Jump up to:^a b Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 285–288.
99. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 289–293.
100. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, pp. 297.
101. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 294.
102. ^ Jump up to:^a b Holquist 2010, p. 172.
103. Jump up^ Makaryk 1993, p. 53.
104. Jump up^ Makaryk 1993, p. 120.
105. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e} Parrinder 1993, pp. 135–136.
106. Jump up^ van Rees 1984, p. 516.
107. Jump up^ van Rees 1984, p. 529.
108. Jump up^ Holquist 2010, p. 175.
109. Jump up^ van Rees 1984, p. 512.
110. Jump up^ van Rees 1984, p. 524.
111. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. 35.
112. ^ Jump up to:^a b van Rees 1984, p. 519.
113. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Wellek 1976, p. 75.
114. Jump up^ Wellek & Warren 1949, p. iv.
115. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Holquist 2010, p. 165.
116. Jump up^ Wellek 1976, p. 74.
117. Jump up^ Hatzfeld 1949, p. 277.
118. Jump up^ Hatzfeld 1949, p. 281.
119. Jump up^ Hatzfeld 1949, p. 280.
120. Jump up^ Hatzfeld 1949, p. 278.
121. Jump up^ Troy 1950, p. 619.
122. ^ Jump up to:^a b Troy 1950, p. 620.
123. Jump up^ Betsky 1949, p. 260.
124. Jump up^ Betsky 1949, p. 261.
125. Jump up^ Ballard 1951, pp. 109–110.
126. ^ Jump up to:^a b Vivas 1950, p. 162.
127. Jump up^ Vivas 1950, p. 165.
128. Jump up^ Malone 1950, pp. 311–313.
129. Jump up^ Benjamin 1953, p. 424.
130. Jump up^ Benjamin 1953, p. 425.
131. Jump up^ Scaglione 1958, p. 402.
132. Jump up^ Scaglione 1958, p. 404.
133. ^ Jump up to:^a b Ingarden & Grabowicz 1979, pp. lxxix–lxxxiv.
134. ^ Jump up to:^a b Ingarden & Grabowicz 1979, p. lxiii.
135. Jump up^ Ballard 1951, p. 108.
136. ^ Jump up to:^a b Holquist 2010, p. 164.
137. ^ Jump up to:^a b Holquist 2010, p. 176.
138. Jump up^ van Rees 1984, p. 505.
139. Jump up^ Eagleton 2008, p. 191.
140. Jump up^ Mailloux 1984, p. 51.
141. Jump up^ van Rees 1984, p. 501.
142. Jump up^ Thomas 1995, René Wellek.
143. Jump up^ van Rees 1984, p. 510.
144. Jump up^ Bernheimer 1995, p. 2, quoted in Holquist (2010, p. 166)

References[edit]


"Austin Warren". New York Times. August 22, 1986. Retrieved 25 October 2012.
Ballard, Edward G. (February 1951). "Theory of Literature by René Wellek: Austin Warren". The Journal of Philosophy. 48 (4): 108–110. doi:10.2307/2021441. JSTOR 2021441. (subscription required)
Benjamin, Herbert S. (1953). "Criticism in Reverse". In Bixler, Paul Howard. The Antioch Review Anthology: Essays, Fiction, Poetry, and Reviews from the Antioch Review. Cleveland: World Publishing. pp. 424–428. ISBN 978-0-8369-1782-6.
Bernheimer, Charles (1995). "Introduction". Comparative Literature in the Age of Multiculturalism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 1–17. ISBN 978-0-8018-5004-2.
Betsky, Seymour (September 1949). "The New Antiquarianism". Scrutiny. 17 (3): 260–264.
Parrinder, Patrick (1993). "Having Your Assumptions Questioned". In Bradford, Richard. The State of Theory. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-07323-3.
Drake, Robert (1996). "Continuity, Coherence, Completion". Mississippi Quarterly. 49 (4): 851–854.
Eagleton, Terry (2008). Literary Theory: An Introduction. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 978-0-8166-5447-5.
Hatzfeld, Helmut (Summer 1949). "Theory of Literature by René Wellek; Austin Warren". Comparative Literature. 1 (3): 277–281. doi:10.2307/1769174. JSTOR 1769174. (subscription required)
Holquist, Michael (2010). "Remembering René Wellek". Comparative Critical Studies. 7.2 (3): 163–178. doi:10.3366/E1744185410001047. (subscription required)
Ingarden, Roman; Grabowicz, George G. (translator) (1979). "Translator's Introduction". The Literary Work of Art: An Investigation of the Borderlines of Ontology, Logic, and Theory of Language. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press. ISBN 978-0-8101-0537-9.
Mailloux, Steven (1984). Interpretive Conventions: The Reader in the Study of American Fiction. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-9285-3.
Makaryk, Irene Rima, ed. (1993). Encyclopedia of Contemporary Literary Theory: Approaches, Scholars, Terms. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-0-8020-6860-6.
Malone, Kemp (April–June 1950). "Theory of Literature by René Wellek; Austin Warren". Linguistics. 26 (2): 311–313. JSTOR 410075. (subscription required)
van Rees, C. J. (December 1984). "'Theory of literature' viewed as a conception of literature: On the premises underlying Wellek and Warren's handbook". Poetics. 13 (6): 501–533. doi:10.1016/0304-422X(84)90021-4. (subscription required)
Scaglione, Aldo (May 1958). "'Theory of Literature' (2d ed.), by René Wellek and Austin Warren (Book Review)". Romance Philology. 11 (4): 400–408.
Thomas Jr., Robert McG. (November 16, 1995). "René Wellek, 92, a Professor of Comparative Literature, Dies". New York Times.
Troy, William (Winter 1950). "Limits of the Intrinsic". The Hudson Review. 2 (4): 619–621. doi:10.2307/3847717. JSTOR 3847717. (subscription required)
Vivas, Eliseo (Winter 1950). "Theorists without Theory". The Kenyon Review. 12 (1): 161–165. JSTOR 4333129. (subscription required)
Wellek, René (1976). "Collaborating with Austin Warren on Theory of Literature". In Simon, Myron; Gross, Harvey. Teacher & Critic: Essays By and About Austin Warren. Los Angeles: Plantin Press. pp. 68–75. OCLC 3023887.
Wellek, René; Warren, Austin (1949). Theory of Literature. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company. OCLC 1599846.
External links[edit]
List of scholarly reviews of Theory of Literature

The Ecological Indian: Myth and History: Shepard Krech III: 9780393321005: Amazon.com: Books

The Ecological Indian: Myth and History: Shepard Krech III: 9780393321005: Amazon.com: Books




Top Customer Reviews
4.0 out of 5 starsThought-provoking, though not perfectBy Bortukan on April 20, 2000
Format: Hardcover Verified Purchase
In this book, Krech sets out to contradict popular perceptions of Native Americans as perfect beings living in harmony with their environments. This doesn't sound like a very nice thing to do at first, but the author clearly states that he feels such images are not only inaccurate generalizations based on biased, outdated European stereotypes, but are dehumanizing in their suggestion that native people are "natural" animals rather than "cultural" humans. He goes on to present a number of case studies showing situations in which Native Americans were indeed cultural humans not living in perfect ecological balance with their surroundings. His treatment of the archaeological evidence is pretty thorough and unbiased. His historical case studies, while relying a bit heavily on potentially biased historic records by White settlers, remain fairly convincing examples of situations in which Native Americans were not perfect conservationists. Unfortunately, after this array of case studies it can be easy to forget that Krech's stated reasons for examining them were to present Native Americans as active human beings rather than passive stereotypes. Instead, readers can end up with a negative feeling about Native American land use practices in general or about Krech in particular, as the reviews below point out. In spite of these flaws, however, the book does raise interesting questions about how perceptions of Native Americans are constructed (both by native people themselves and by others) and about how we should approach environmental issues (including our definition of a "natural" environment) we grapple with today. His writing is clear and issues are presented in a fairly understandable way for a general audience, not just dusty academic types. Although you may not agree with all of the book's conclusions, the issues it raises make it very worthwhle reading material for anyone interested in environmental impact and Native Americans in the past and today.Comment 76 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? YesNo Report abuse

3.0 out of 5 starsMixed BagBy E. N. Anderson VINE VOICE on February 25, 2000
Format: Hardcover Verified Purchase
Earlier customer reviews have tended to comment on bias. Most of the book is actually very fair, particularly the first few chapters; the treatment of Paul Martin's "Pleistocene overkill" hypothesis is exemplary. But the last couple of chapters are indeed rather biased, and read perhaps more "anti-Indian" than Dr. Krech intended. For example, Dr. Krech makes it sound as if the buffalo jump was a common, regular thing--the Indians drove a few million buffalo over a cliff every time they wanted a light lunch. Actually, archaeology and common sense both suggest that a big jump episode was rare. Try herding buffalo on foot and you'll understand. And Krech takes an extreme position in re the Indians' tendency to kill beaver; most authorities agree that beaver were more or less conserved until the white trappers got into the act. Certainly, there were lots of beaver, and not just in eastern Canada (the area he considers). Over a million beaver were trapped out of the southwestern US in the 1830s and 1840s, in spite of very dense Indian settlement then and earlier. The first 5 or 6 chapters would provoke little reasonable disagreement, but the last 2 or 3 would provoke (or are provoking) increasingly acrimonious debate among the learned. Suffice it to say that if you got the message that the Native Americans were not always models of selflessness, but were ordinary (if sensible) human beings, you're right, and this is probably what Dr. Krech intended. If you got the message that the Native Americans were bloodthirsty savages who killed wantonly, you're wrong. I hope and trust Dr. Krech did not mean that, but he does quote-at length and with apparent favor--a lot of racist 19th-century writers who did mean that.1 Comment 56 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? YesNo Report abuse

3.0 out of 5 starsA much-needed perspective - important and thought-provoking, if flawed.By Jacquelyn Gill on September 5, 2006
Format: Paperback
There is no doubt that Shepard Krech offers a much-needed volume on the subject of American Indian ecological impact, and by the end of the powerful introduction he has convinced the reader that this may well be the definitive volume on the subject. The intro is a strong and compelling case for the re-evaluation of a popular stereotype, and should itself be included in the syllabi of courses on anthropology and ecology alike. The thesis presented in The Ecological Indian is a simple one (though by no means without controversy): the traditional image of the Indian living in non-invasive harmony with the land is not only false, but in fact does a disservice to those of aboriginal heritage by perpetuating the falsehood of the primitive noble savage.

Krech's writing shines when he wears the hat of an environmental philosopher and an anthropologist, and so it is with great disappointment that I made the transition to the actual substance of the book's thesis. In some areas (particularly those more recent historically documented cases), Krech strongly underlines his case. In others, however, he falls unbelievably short where the data is almost more compelling. Most striking was the first chapter on the Pleistocene extinctions, which oddly begins the book with arguments against the human overkill hypothesis even in the face of very compelling evidence. He focuses too strongly on the mid-80's publications of Dr. Paul S. Martin, when much more recent work has come out regarding human hunting that was completely overlooked. This poor treatment weakend the impact of the powerful introduction, and was a lost opportunity for strong evidence about early human land impact.

Similarly, the chapter on fire made almost no mention of the paleoecological record of fossil charcoal or other pre-settlement fire histories. The chapter on the Hohokam was compelling, but would have been made stronger by the inclusion of other examples from the Southwest or even the Midwest. Krech's weakness with regards to the ancient record were obvious to someone in the field, but may not be so to those without a background in anthropology or North American paleoecology, and so readers could get an incomplete picture based on certain omissions. This could be easily corrected with future editions.

Krech's background is obviously stronger in the historical period, and the section on the colonial impressions of the North American "Eden" was perhaps the strongest in the book. Here the author makes the important point that, coming from the intensely modified landscape of Europe, even a moderately-modified North America would seem like a wilderness, particularly when those doing the reporting have commercial interests. The section on buffalo is likewise very strong, including striking descriptions of buffalo jumps and other clearly excessive tactics. Here Krech makes the case about an Indian ecology most strongly, reminding the reader that the Indian ecological theory included mythological elements that are simply not compatible with Western ecological theory, such as a never-ending source of buffalo from sacred lakes or caves. With an eternally replenished supply, why would there be a need for sustainable harvesting? Similar chapters on deer and beaver emphasize the influence of European markets on overhunting for trade goods. While these are quite compelling, the book drags here at times with repetitive lists of animals killed in different regions.

Critics have lambasted Krech for making an unfair comparison between colonial and industrial human impact and those of less technologically complex cultures, one that the author himself predicts and addresses in the book. His response is to point out that just because modern humans are more manipulative doesn't mean that the Indians didn't manipulate at all. An inherent aspect of his argument is the notion of what constitutes "ecological" behavior, and Krech makes an excellent (and much-welcome) distinction between the actual science of ecology and the popular notion of ecology as environmental stewardship.

Scholarly faults aside, readers accustomed to popular science may find the writing to be dry and at times bordering on tedious. However, the book is excellently referenced, particularly with regards to primary sources, and in spite of its tone the content is very accessible to non-scholars. Ultimately, The Ecological Indian is an important contribution to the field, if occasionally disappointing in its incomplete scholarship.

~ Jacquelyn Gill

The Ecological Indian. Myth and History.

H-Net Reviews

Shepard Krech, III. The Ecological Indian. Myth and History. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1999. vi + 318 pp. $27.95 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-393-04755-4.

Reviewed by Adrian Tanner (Department of Anthropology, Memorial University of Newfoundland)
Published on H-AmIndian (April, 2001)

Recently a student told me he thought he was of aboriginal descent. I asked what group he was from, but he said he did not know, since none of his relatives identified themselves as aboriginal. However, he said he had always felt particularly close to nature, and so concluded he must be Native. As it happens, he could well have been since, starting about a century ago, some Newfoundland Mi'kmaq hid their ethnicity, even from their own children, to avoid discrimination. But what of his idea that being 'close to nature' is a mark of being of Native descent?

Sheppard Krech III's book The Ecological Indian sets out to probe the basis and historical validity of the idea that people of native descent are, and always have been, caring towards the environment, a characteristic commonly claimed by or attributed to them. With a series of empirical case studies he investigates whether their ideas and actions were always those of ecologists and conservationists. He finds that the Ecological Indian proposition is of doubtful validity, concluding that, for example, Indians needlessly killed many buffalo, set fires that got out of control, and over-exploited deer and beaver for their skins.

This book is handsomely produced, and well-written by a respected scholar who draws on an enormous quantity of interdisciplinary sources and diverse lines of thought. While, as will become clear below, I am sceptical about its thesis, the work covers many important issues and I, at least, found it instructive to trace the author's endeavour, despite the shortcomings, on which my review will concentrate.

In his Introduction, Krech examines the beginnings and development of the notion that Indians are by nature 'ecological'. Most of these sources are not aboriginal people, but the likes of Baron de Lahontan, James Fenimore Cooper and Ernest Thomas Seton, all drawing upon the 'Noble Savage' ideal. In fact only two aboriginal people are cited in this section -- the nineteenth century Dakota Sioux author Charles Eastman (Ohiyesa) and the Lakota holy man Black Elk (along with a cursory footnote allusion to Chief Seattle). Not until the book's Epilogue does the author turn his attention to self-attributions of the image by several native authors, most appearing after 1970, and often in the context of political disputes.

The bulk of the book consists of seven self-contained test cases, each of which deals with different groups, three of them involving prehistoric situations, and the other four historical ones. Each of these cases is well known to specialists, having been the subject of much scholarly controversy. Krech provides a detailed and generally even-handed review of these debates, along with additional data and his own conclusions.

In the first chapter Krech asks if over-hunting by Paleo-Indians was responsible for the extinctions of various large mammals during the Pleistocene era. He presents the position of Paul Martin, who concludes Paleo-Indian hunters caused these extinctions, along with that of his critics. However, both arguments seem to me based on a great deal of unwarranted speculation. While Krech is unconvinced by Martin's position, he is not sure that Paleo-Indians were entirely free of any responsibility. But, given the very distant lineage that may connect Paleo-Indians with modern aboriginal people, one wonders about the relevance of this case to the issue being addressed in this book.

The next case also seems to me to be of questionable relevance. Krech asks if the prehistoric Hohokam's irrigation practices caused salination of their fields, leading to their disappearance. He offers the contrasting views of two authors, Bernard Powel and Emil Haury. The issue between them is whether the Hohokam should be condemned for the ecological problems arising from their system of irrigation agriculture, or admired for its achievements, which are compared to the negative effects of more recent settlement by non-natives of this region of southern Arizona. Krech delves into the considerable complexities of the case, but does not resolve this unanswerable question, acknowledging that it is not known what finally happened to the Hohokam.

One aspect of The Ecological Indian is based on the notion that North American aboriginal people looked after their environment, so the first Europeans found the continent in an unspoiled condition. Krech's next chapter questions this. He notes that several authors have revised upward earlier prehistoric population estimates and, as a consequence, have increased their assessment of the post-contact population decline. Krech suggests that, apart from along the East Coast, many initial European reports of a pristine environment came after the aboriginal population had declined, so that the newcomers would have arrived in an environment that was no longer supporting its previous larger population. The land would have thus by then returned to the more natural state that the newcomers described. (In the next chapter he further discredits the idea of a 'pristine' proto-contact environment, suggesting that Europeans were predisposed to find the wilderness they described, regardless of evidence to the contrary.) But in the end his convoluted argument fails to offer any real indication of a pre-contact environment that was other than the pristine one the newcomers described.

In the next chapter, Krech asks whether the Indians were acting with environmental responsibility in their deliberate setting of forest and brush fires. The extensive literature on this topic shows that Indians in all parts of the continent used fire to modify their environment, serving a wide variety of purposes. While in some instances this was done to improve hunting, he shows that fires were also set during wars against trespassing groups, both whites and other Indians, and for communication with other Indians. Many authors believe they did so with sufficient skill that fire generally benefited the environment. But Krech refers to several settlers' anecdotes about Indian-set fires that got out of control. However, it does not seem to matter to Krech if such mistakes were by Indians in unfamiliar territory, due to post-contact dislocation.

In the last three chapters the author examines whether Indians over-hunted, respectively, the buffalo, the white-tailed deer and the beaver. All these species were used aboriginally for subsistence, and after contact they continued to be sources of subsistence food at the same time as they provided market commodities. Krech thinks the commercialisation of deer and beaver hides lead to their overexploitation, but he also believes Indians were wasting buffalo even when the species was being hunted only for subsistence.

For me, this chapter provides the book's most serious challenge to The Ecological Indian. While Indians had uses for every part of the buffalo, their practice of slaughtering whole herds, at a buffalo jump or in an enclosure, sometimes produced more carcasses than a group could possibly use. As a result, waste occurred. He documents instances of Indians leaving animals to rot, utilising only the cows, or taking only the tongues and the humps. However, the overkilling did not cause the extermination of the species, which only came after non-Indians and Metis hunted them commercially for fresh meat, pemmican and hides.

Krech proposes two 'religious' reasons for the earlier over-killing. It was believed (by the Piegan and Cree) that any buffalo that escaped while being rounded up in the hunt would warn other buffalo, who would then avoid hunters, so that it was necessary to chase and kill these escapees, whether they were needed or not. Other Indians (specifically the Cheyenne and Arapaho) believed that when hunters were unable to find buffalo it was because the animals had retreated to a land underneath a large lake, from which they would eventually reappear in endless numbers. Krech concludes that, given these beliefs, the Indians did not see overhunting as a cause of any shortage of animals or the need to conserve.

The next chapter concerns the white-tailed deer. Between about 1670 and 1800 the skins of these animals, previously the major subsistence species for Indians in the Southern and Eastern United States, became their main item of trade with Europeans. Deer were hunted in increasing numbers, in part, according to Krech, to satisfy the Indian's craving for alcohol. By the end of the period deer were scarce or locally absent, which Krech concludes was due to overhunting by Indians. The population did not recover until many years later.

While Krech acknowledges the trade in deer skins occurred during a period of intense disruption, he does not see that dislocation and warfare resulting from European settlement may have rendered the Indian's conservationist practices ineffective. Instead, as with the buffalo example, he explains the willingness to overkill deer by reference to the pre-Christian spiritual beliefs of the tribes of the region. He notes, for instance, that the Cherokee believed in the reincarnation of deer, some of them believing this could recur four or seven times. From this he concludes that conservation would have made no sense to them.

The final substantive chapter is about the beaver, an important subsistence food source for prehistoric northern Indians, and later a mainstay of the fur trade. Their sedentary existence made the species especially vulnerable to overhunting, particularly with the introduction of steel traps. Beaver eventually did become extinct in some regions such as New England, although generally in areas where they were never particularly numerous. For the subarctic Indian Krech blames overhunting for causing reported declines in beaver populations.

However, there were other factors Krech does not sufficiently take into account, like incursions by foreign Indians and cutthroat competition, that would have undermined local conservation efforts. Also, since beaver meat was eaten, they were harvested more intensely if other game were at the low end of their cycles of abundance, something neither Indians nor traders could control. Beavers were also subject to epidemic disease.

Krech explanation of the overhunting focuses on ideology, saying Northern Algonquians (i.e. forest Cree, Ojibway and Innu) only showed interest in "today's conservation ethics and practices" in the nineteenth century (p. 206). He notes that in this recent period Indians used family hunting territory to conserve beaver, while traders' tried to influence their ideas of conservation. However, Krech does not take adequate account of the evidence that Indians made their own strategic decisions.

Krech thinks Indian spiritual ideas account for their purported failure at beaver conservation. He says Algonquians believed the bones of animals were set aside to be reincarnated, so that they could not be over-hunted. Algonquian non-Christian religious ideas "apparently had nothing to do with waste and conservation of animal populations until recently" (p. 204). I, however, contend that Algonquian religious ideas support conservation strategies, by providing a moral basis for human-animal relations, beyond the pragmatic one. But these strategies also depend on their ability to control their lands.

Initially, the target for Krech's book seems to be the use by Madison Avenue and Hollywood of the Ecological Indian image. But in the Epilogue he sets his sights on modern Indians, both those who attribute to themselves ecological sensitivity, mainly in the context of political fights over resource issues, and those who in his view engage in environmentally questionable activities, despite the image. He sees a disjunction between the Indian's environmentalist image and their historical practices. "Their actions, while perfectly reasonable in light of their own beliefs and larger goals, were not necessarily rational according to the premises of Western ecological conservation." (p. 212).

In his analysis Krech privileges Indian religious ideologies over their environmental knowledge. Virtually any game shortage is used to challenge the Ecological Indian, as if, for the image to be genuine, they would have had to avoid all environmental uncertainty. Anthropologically, Krech's view of Indians seems curiously old-fashioned, presenting them as poorly adapted, without practical knowledge of sustainable production, motivated instead by irrational beliefs. By contrast, most ethnographic field studies of non-western peoples by scientifically trained participant-observers conversant in the local language reveal adaptations that involve rigorously empirical knowledge of the environment, however nonrational their other beliefs may appear.

There is unintended irony in the author's evaluation of Indian actions against "the premises of Western ecological conservation". As Krech himself notes, the modern rhetoric of aboriginal environmentalism involves a critique of North American society over environmental issues. From the start the image of the Ecological Indian entailed a (sometimes-implicit) comparison and criticism of non-Indians. From the Noble Savage to the Ecological Indian, these are indictments of non-native society, particularly its treatment of the environment. In the societies where the premises of ecological conservation originated and where they are paid lip service, the record of successfully following them is less than inspiring. If Indians lacked these ideological principles, it is questionable if they fared any the worse without them. Given the comparative aspect implicit in the Ecological Indian image, I wonder why Krech did not frame the image's empirical tests by means of comparisons with the equivalent impact on the environment by the activities of the newcomers? Then he would not have just asked whether Indians were environmentally sensitive, but whether they were more or less environmentally sensitive than non-Indians.

Whether or not Indian groups historically acted with environmental responsibility, the contemporary claim that they are, by their nature and heritage, 'ecological' is also part of their counter-hegemonic political ideology. Another study that has looked for the origins of 'Mother Earth', a concept related to that of the Ecological Indian, concludes it first appeared in the context of nineteenth century aboriginal political discourses with whites (Gill 1987). Krech's data seem to concur with those of Gill that it was relatively recently and by comparison to whites that they began to explicitly attribute 'closeness to nature' to themselves.

Krech questions the Ecological Indian as a particular interpretation of the past. A more useful approach would show it to entail an essentializing of a socially constructed primordial identity. As such, it is an assertion of the group's collective self-identity based on a common past, real or imagined (or both), and serves to unite and unify. These are all features characteristic of ethnic group nationalist movements in general, found today in innumerable and multiplying discourses around sub-state ethnic identity (see, e.g. Wilmsen and McAllister 1996).

Krech gives this perspective passing recognition and acknowledges it is an illusion to privilege any one version of history as objective. Yet despite these admissions he thinks it more important to discredit the claim, asserting that "it seems unwise to assume uncritically that the image of the Ecological Indian faithfully reflects North American Indian behaviour at any time in the past." One of the reasons he gives for challenging the image is that it denies variations between Indian groups (p. 26). However, throughout his book he accepts at face value the idea of the homogenised pan-Indian as the subject of the image that he wants to test. Otherwise, he would have limited the results of each of the seven case studies to only the modern descendants of the respective tribal groups.

The test cases each draw on prehistoric or historic data from times when North American aboriginal people's most important identities were diverse among themselves and tribal. However, the image of the Ecological Indian is part of a more recently constructed unified pan-Indian identity. Today pan-Indian unity exists alongside tribal diversity, the one emphasising commonality while the other continues to recognize difference. Krech's test cases only take account of one side of this complex reality, and ultimately hardly seem relevant to the issue of invalidating a pan-tribal conception.

The kinds of claims made about ethnic identity are not appropriately treated as hypotheses put forward as historically verifiable, which is how Krech deals with the Ecological Indian. Whatever their self-conception, simply by being non-industrial Indians were comparatively 'ecological', at least if left to their own devices. However, this study missed the chance to contribute to an understanding of the image, for instance, by showing that if the Ecological Indian is a social construction, it was constructed partly by, and by reference to, the colonizers, as part of an ongoing political dialogue. The image of the Ecological Indian also asserts moral superiority, an understandable response of a relatively powerless group in the political context of struggles over land and resources. Unfortunately, Krech's failure to adequately take account of the political context of Indian environmental discourse means his book may play into the hands of reactionary and racist interests and prejudices opposed to aboriginal rights.

References

Gill, Sam D. 1987, Mother Earth. An American Story. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

Wilmsen, Edwin N. and Patrick McAllister, 1996, The Politics of Difference. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

엔도 슈사쿠의 '침묵'을 읽고...

엔도 슈사쿠의 '침묵'을 읽고...



엔도 슈사쿠의 ‘침묵’을 읽고...

책을 읽으며...

처음부터 가슴이 콩닥거리게 하는 두려움을 동반한 묘한 궁금증을 안겨주며 시작되는 이야기의 신부로 신학적 재능이 뛰어나고 신자와 사제들에게 존경을 한 몸에 받던 페레이라 신부가 ‘구멍매달기’라는 고문에 못이겨 배교를 했다는 보고가 교황청으로 들어오는 것이 이야기의 시작이다

페레이라 신부의 제자였던 가르페 신부와 로드리고 신부는 당신들의 존경해마지 않던, 그 인자하고 하느님의 사랑에 확신에 가득찼던 스승 신부님의 배교라는 도저히 믿을 수 없는 보고에 자신들의 눈으로확인하고 오겠다는 목적과 함께 일본 선교를 자청하여 들어간다. 시기적으로 워낙 위험하였으나 젊은신부들의 확고한 신념과 굳건한 믿음아래 결국 그들의 일본 선교에 대한 허락이 떨어지면서 일본 선교에 나선 로드리고 신부의 보고서를 시작으로 이야기는 전개 되어간다.

로드리고 신부는 ‘기치지로’라는 아주 특이한 일본인의 도움을 받아 우여곡절 끝에 일본 열도로 무사히 잠입하게 되고, 그곳에서 그는 일본에 대한, 일본에서의 보고 느끼는 자신의 상황과 일본 신자들에 대한 상황에 대한 자세한 보고서를 교황청에 올리게 된다. 너무나도 사실적으로 이어진 보고서라책의 3분의 1을 읽을 때까지는 나는 내가 지금 읽고 있는 책이 ‘소설’이란 생각을 전혀 하지 못했다

만약 책날개에 붙어있는, 엔도 슈사쿠가 소설가라는 그에 대한 소개말을 읽지 않았다면, 나는 아마도에필로그를 읽을 때까지 보고서인줄 알고 읽었을 터였다.



‘침묵’을 읽기 시작하며 나를 치고 들어온 감정은 하느님에 대한 그들의 절절한 사랑에 대한 고통이었다. 



그분들은 기도는 커녕 성호도 제대로 그을 수 없는 상황에서 그렇게 절절한 마음으로 하느님을 사랑하며 그리워했는데, 정작 박해도 받지 않으며 마음껏 ‘당신을 사랑한다’고 세상에 외칠 수 있는이 평화로운 세상에 태어난 나는 대체 뭘 하고 있는건가..? 하는 부끄러운 죄책감에서 오는 아픔이 가슴 깊은 한 켠에서 꿈틀거리며 올라왔다.

--





--

책에 나오는 여러 등장인물들 중 나의 시선을 사로잡은 인물은 의아스럽게도 바로 일본인 기치지로였다. 한없이 교활하고, 때마다 배신하고 배교하고 심지어 자신의 목숨부지를 위해 로드리고 신부까지 신고하면서도 끝까지 신부 곁을 떠나지 못하고 고해성사를 해달라며 울부짖는 기치지로. 그의 비굴하면서도 ‘신뢰’란 단어는 사전에 없는 듯 제몸하나 살리고자 배신행위를 우습게하는 기치지로서도그는 끝까지 신부 곁에서 맴돌며 그를 챙겨도 주고, 자신도 카톨릭 신자라고 잡아가라고 외쳐대면서도 고문이 다가올라치면 두 번 생각 안하고 성화를 밟고 배교하고 풀려나고 그리고는 또 신부를 찾아와 고해성사를 구하는 거머리 같다 못해 구더기 같은 기치지로.. 읽으면서 더러운 구더기 같은인간이라는 생각을 했으나, 과연 나는 어떨까..? 하는 생각을 해보지 않을 수 없었다.

기치지로 역시지금처럼 평화로운 시대에 태어났더라면 밝고 활발하고 환영받는 신자였을지도 모른다. 그의 한탄대로 그는 약하게 태어났고, 그것이 그의 십자가이며, 그래서 늘 배교하지만, 그 안에는 하느님을 두려워할 줄 아는 마음과 그것에 대한 양심 속에 그는 늘 괴로워하며 로드리고 신부의 주위를 맴돌며 자신의 비겁한 나약함에 고해성사를 구한다.



기치지로, 처음엔 그를 보며 어떻게 저럴수가 있을까? 싶었지만.. 점점 이야기의 흐름 속에 기치지로의 모습이 내 모습이 아닐까하는 생각에 진저리가 처졌다. 내가 필요할 때는 ‘하느님 사랑해요 도와주세요’ 절절한 외침으로 찾으면서 정작 내가 조금 편해지면 외면하고 마치 나는 하느님이 누구신지 모른다는 듯 그렇게 내 삶 속에 푹 빠져 지내곤 한다. 성화를 밟는 배교는 아니나, 얼마나 많은 순간 너무나도 자연스럽게 죄의식도 느끼지 못하면서 그렇게 하느님께서 멀리 떨어져 나가는가..



“밟아라.. 나를 밟아라.. 나는 너희에게 밟히기 위해 이 세상에 왔다.”며 우리보다 우리의 고통을 더 아파하시는 하느님을 느끼며 눈물이 흘렀다. 피눈물로 당신의 사랑을 보여주시는 예수님을 우리는 그렇게 짓밟음으로써 당신이 이 세상에 오신 목적을 상기시켜드려야 했을까...? 신자들의 고통을 바라보며 “밟으세요 밟아도 좋아요” 라고 외치는 로드리고 신부의 신자들에 대한 사랑. 예수님 마음이 이러셨겠지...



매 순간 어떠한 상황에서도 예수님의 얼굴을 떠올리며 잘 이겨낸 로드리고 신부. 하지만 자신으로 인해 고통받는 신자들을 보며, 예수님이 만약 당신 때문에 누군가가 죽어간다면 어떡하셨을까



이것은 내 자신을 위한 신앙인가..? 정말 예수님의 사랑을 실천하는 것은 어떤 것인가에 대한 갈등을일으키는 신부의 고뇌를 보며, 나 역시 그 고뇌에 동참하지 않을 수 없었다. 예수님이셨다면로 인해 아무 죄없이 죽어가는 이 순진한 신자들을 보며 ‘당신의 아버지인 하느님에 대한 사랑을 위해순교하시고 천국 가십시오..’라고 말씀하셨을까..? 차라리 나를 밟고 지나가라. 나는 너희에게 밟히기위해 이 세상에 왔다. 나는 너희를 위해 이 세상에 죽으러 왔다고 하시는 예수님의 목소리가 자꾸만귓가에서 들리는 듯 하다..

침묵하는 예수님을 흔들어대며 ‘주여, 지금이야말로 당신은 침묵을 깨 버리셔야 합니다. 더 이상 침묵하고 계셔서는 안됩니다. 당신은 올바름이며 선이며 사랑의 존재임을 증명하고. 당신이 엄연히 존재함을 이 지상과 인간들에게 나타내기 위해서라도 뭔가를 말씀하지 않으면 안 됩니다.” (P262)



로드리고의 신부의 절규가 가슴에 소낙비되어 내린다.



겉으로 드러난 ‘배교’라는 그림은 비슷했을지 모르나. 어쩜 로드리고 신부가 선택한 사랑의 실천은 옳은 선택이 아녔을까..? 하는 생각이 가슴 안에서 계속 맴돈다. 하느님만은 로드리고 신부의 당신을 향한 절절한 사랑을, 당신의 자녀들인 신자들을 사랑하는 그 진실된 사랑을 아실 것이라는 마음생떼를 쓰고 싶어지는 순간이다.

“성직자들은 이 모독의 행위를 격렬하게 질책할 테지만, 나는 그들을 배반했을지 모르나 결코 그분을배반하지는 않았다. 지금까지와는 아주 다른 형태로 그분을 사랑하고 있다. 내가 그 사랑을 알기 위해서 오늘까지의 모든 시련이 필요했던 것이다. 나는 이 나라에서 아직도 최후의 가톨릭 신부이다고 그분은 결코 침묵하고 있었던 게 아니다. 비록 그분이 침묵하고 있었다 하더라도 나의 오늘까지의인생은 그분과 함께 있었다. 그분의 말씀을, 그분의 행위를 따르며 배우며 그리고 말하고 있었다(P294)



로드리고 신부의 고백이 내 가슴에 메아리되어 남는다. 신부님의 결정이 옳으셨다고, 하느님께서는아신다고, 예수님께서도 그러셨을거라고... 우리는 당신의 마음을 알고 있다고... 내가 그분 옆에 있었다면 신부님의 손을 꼬옥 잡아드리고 싶었다...



책을 덮으며...

비록 로드리고 신부는 엔도 슈사쿠가 지어낸 인물이긴 하지만. 일본을 선교하러 간 많은 사제들리고 수많은 일본 신자들이 어떻게 고문을 당하며 자신들의 신앙을 지켜내며 순교를 했는지는 하임언니의 일본 순례여행 후기를 읽으며 이미 알고 있었던 터, 하임 언니가 왜 그렇게 ‘나가사키’를 떠올리면 가슴이 먹먹해지고 목젖이 아파오는지. 하임 언니가 왜 그렇게 나가사키와 사랑에 빠지셨는지알 것만 같았다. 일본 순례 여행을 다녀오시며 지옥이 따로 없었다며 그렇게 절절한 느낌을 전해주시던 언니.. 소설가 한수산씨가 “나가사키는 역사와 로망을 안고 오늘도 아름답다. 보랏빛으로

2010.04.22 10:24

엔도 슈사쿠의 <침묵> - 하나님은 왜 침묵하시는가?

엔도 슈사쿠의 <침묵> - 하나님은 왜 침묵하시는가?

침묵(보급판)(믿음의글들9)  상세보기
지은이 엔도 슈사쿠
출판사홍성사
출간일 2005.7.29
----

 이 책은..

17세기 일본의 기독교 박해를 배경으로 쓰여진 엔도 슈사쿠의 소설 <침묵>을 읽었다.  17세기 서양과 무역으로 재미를 본 일본 권력자들이 처음엔 기독교의 선교 자체에 호의적이었으나, 곧 정치적이나 경제적 목적에 휘둘려, 무자비한 기독교 박해를 시행한다.  파송된 신부들을 비롯해 수많은 일본의 카톨릭 신도들이 잔인한 방법으로 고문끝에 처형되고, 남겨진 이들은 배교를 종용받게 된다. 이 과정에서 포루투칼에서 파송된 덕망높고 신심깊었던 페레이라 신부가  영광된 순교를 거부하고 고문의 위협에 눌려 배교라는 치욕스런 죄를 저질렀다는 사실이 로마교황청에 접수된다.  결국 그는 교회에서 제명되고, 이런 불명예스런 배교를 저질렀다고 상상할 수 없었던 그의 제자들이 일본으로 비밀리에 입국하여, 그의 행방을 추적하게 된다.



페레이라 신부의 제자 로드리고는 일본에 입국, 비밀리에 신도들을 만나다 결국 체포되어 투옥되고, 우여곡절끝에 완전한 일본인으로 변신한 스승 페레이라와 옥중에서 재회하게 되는데, 교회와 하나님께 영광인 아름다운 순교를 거부하고,  구차하게 자신의 목숨을 부지하려 배교를 선택한 그는, 열심히 자신의 배교 행위를 로드리고 제자에게 설득하려 든다. 강한 신앙심으로 순교를 결심한 로드리고는 흔들리는데.....결국 로드리고 신부도 페레이라의 뒤를 이어, 성화를 밟아 하나님을 모독하고 교회를 배신하는 배교를 결심하게 된다.  그들은 신부로서 명예로운 죽음인 순교를 포기하고,  배교한 이유는 무엇일까?  이 소설은 이 과정에서 종교와 세속의 권력 사이에서 갈등하는 신부를 통해, 무엇을 보려주려 하는걸까?

그리 긴 분량이 아니지만, 이 소설은 신앙인들에게 던지는 질문 자체의 무게가 어느 작품 못지 않는 문제작이다.  작가는 로드리고 신부를 통해 작품속에서 하나님의 `침묵'에 대해 이의를 제기한다.  눈앞에서 일본인 신도들이 권력자들의 잔인한 폭력앞에 쓰러져간다.  이천년전 예수님의 십자가형에 못지 않은 고통을 겪으며 신도들이 죽어간다. 그들은 사실, 신부인 자신들이 가르쳐준 성경과 교리를 지키고자 한 것 밖에 죄가 없다. 자신의 눈앞에서 처형을 기다리고 있는 신도들에게 신부로서 할 수 있는 일이라고는, 겨우 짧게 기도해주는 것이 전부다. 그들은 목이 잘리거나 구멍에 거꾸로 매달려 고통스럽게 죽어가거나 바닷가에 매달려 수장되고 있다. 그들의 처형뒤에 무슨일이 있는가?  세상은 파리의 날개짓 조차 들을 수 있을만큼 조용하고, 한가하고, 평화롭다.  그들을 처형한 무사들은 희희낙낙하며, 사람들은 무관심하다. 이 거룩한 순교앞에서 세상은 어찌 이렇게도 거룩하지 못할까?  그리고 대체 하나님은 왜 역사하시지 않는가?  왜 하나님은 마른 하늘에 벼락이라도 내리지 못하는 걸까?  대체 하나님은 어디에 계시며, 왜 `침묵'만을 지키시는가?   이 소설이 묻고 있는 질문이다.

"예루살렘의 밤, 한 사나이의 운명에 아무 관심도 없이 불에 손만 쬐고 있던 몇 사람의 모습. 그들처럼 이 파수꾼들도, 인간이란 이 정도로 타인에게 무관심할 수 있구나 하고 느끼게 하는 그런 소리로 웃기도 하고 지껄이기도 했다. 우리가 생각하는 것처럼 도둑질을 한다거나 거짓말을 하는 그런 것이 죄가 아니었다. 죄란, 인간이 또 한 인간의 인생을 통과하면서 자신이 거기에 남긴 흔적을 망각하는 데 있었다."- 엔도 슈사쿠,<침묵>,p.136

사실, 신부들은 아름다운 순교로 죽음을 선택했어야 맞을것도 같다.  왜냐하면, 자신들의 가르침을 받은 일본인 신도들은 배교를 거부하고 죽음을 맞아들였다. 그럼에도 불구하고 로드리고나 페레이라는 배교하고 만다. 언뜻보기에 이것은 모순같다.  이노우에라는 최고권력자는 로드리고 신부와 옥중에서 일본사회와 신앙에 대한 논쟁을 통해, 일본은 문화적 특수성으로 타종교가 뿌리내릴 수 없는 늪지대와 같다고 비유한다. 어떤 종교건, 일본으로 건너와 자체의 가르침을 그대로 유지한체로 포교될 수 없다. 그들이 믿는것은 신부가 가르쳐준 하나님이 아니라, 일본인의 다신사상속에서 섬김을 받고 있는 수많은 신 가운데 하나일 뿐이라고 단언한다. 그리고 신부에게 표면상의 배교를 종용한다. 마음속으로 무엇을 품고 있건 상관없이, 표면상의 배교, 즉 발로 성화를 밟고 지나가고 말로 배교한다고 선포하라는 것이다.

물론 이노우에의 주장은 정치권력자로서 통치의 수단으로 기독교의 사상이 맞지 않기 때문에, 더이상의 포교를 허락하지 못한다는 것이 핵심이다.  이 과정에서 신부는 자신의 배교가 신도들의 목숨과 연계돼 있다는 현실적 딜레마에 빠져든다.

아름다운 순교는 교회 자체의 명예를 드높이고, 자신의 신부로서의 자존심을 지켜내는데 유용할 것이다. 그러나 눈앞에서 실제적으로 신도들의 목숨이 경각에 달려 있다.  만약, 우리가 저 신부의 입장에 놓인다면 어떤 선택을 해야 할까?

하나님은 또 어떤 모습을 로드리고에게 바랐을까?  하나님의 침묵가운데서 신부는 결국 배교를 선택한다.  성직도, 신앙도, 그리고 그렇게도 사랑했던 하나님의 얼굴조차 밟고 지나간다. 이 처절한 선택의 고뇌와 행위 사이에서 방황하는 주인공의 내면 심리를 일본인 특유의 절제된 문장력으로 작가 엔도는 훌륭하게 그려내고 있다.

이 소설의 중심은 지상의 고통과 하나님의 `침묵'이 가리키는 의미를 찾아내는 데 있다. 신부가 계속해서 하나님께 요구하는 것은 침묵을 깨시고 이 지상에 그 힘으로 역사하시라는 것이다. 이것은 성직자가 품고 있을만한 신앙은 아니다.   왜냐하면 하나님은 그 아들의 죽음앞에서도 침묵하셨기 때문이다. 예수는 지상에서 한 인간으로서 감내할 수 있는 모든 심적, 육체적 고통을 감수하고 마지막을 장엄히 마치셨다.  그럼에도 불구하고 신부 로드리고는 자신의 눈앞에서 벌어지는 무구한 신도들의 죽음앞에 하나님의 침묵을 질타한다.  그래서 우리가 그의 요구의 부당함을 신학적으로 지적할 수 있을까?  물론 이론적으론 가능하다. 그러나 현실적으로 내가 그 박해의 시대를 살았던 신부나 신자였다면, 과연 그 이론이 유용할 것인가 생각해볼 필요가 있다.  신부로서 죽어가는 신도들을 도울 방법은 오직 자신의 배교 행위밖에 없다면, 우리는 어떤 선택을 해야 할까?  결국 로드리고 신부는 지금 그 순간 신도의 목숨을 구하는 것이 그들을 위한 최후의 기도가 아니라, 바로 성화를 밟고 또 배교행위를 선포하는 일이라고 생각하게 된다. 스승 페레이라 신부의 배교 행위를 이제 제자인 로드리고는 이해할 수 있게 된 것이다.

"파수꾼이 견디다 못해 몽둥이를 쥔 채 밖으로 나오자 기치지로는 도망가면서 계속 소리쳤다. `그렇지만 제게도 할 말이 있어요. 성화를 밟은 자에게도 밟은 자로서의 할 말이 있어요. 성화를 제가 즐거워서 밟았다고 생각하십니까? 밟은 이 발은 아픕니다, 아파요. 나를 약한 자로 태어나게 하신 하나님이 강한 자 흉내를 내라고 말씀하십니다. 그건 무리라고 생각하지 않습니까? 그건 억지이고말고요." p.177

성직도 잃고 신앙도 잃었지만, 로드리고 신부는 결코 마음속의 하나님은 잃지 않았다. 교황청의 파문조차 이제 의미가 없다고 생각했다. 왜냐하면, 자신이나 일본인 신도들이나 박해의 시대에 태어나지 않았다면, 아니 기독교가 공인된 나라에 태어났더라면, 어쩌면 자신이나 배교를 선택한 기지치로라는 사람이나 모두, 아름다운 신앙을 지키며 살아갈 수 있었을 것이기 때문이다.  그래서 아마도 로드리고 신부는 교회에서 파문당한것이지만, 하나님께 파문당한 것은 아니라고 말할 수 있는 것이 아닐까?

이 소설은 하나님의 침묵의 바른 뜻을 해명하며 끝을 맺는다.  우리가 힘들때, 우리가 시련에 놓였을때, 가장 먼저 찾는 것이 하나님이다. 우리가 능력있을때, 우리가 행복할때, 우리는 하나님을 잊고 살아가기도 한다. 신앙에 불타다가도 때로 신앙을 잃기도 하며, 다시 하나님앞에 볼낯을 붉히며 되돌아오기도 한다.  우리는 매일 죄짓고, 또 죄를 회개하며 용서해 달라고 기도하기도 하며, 사랑한다 말해놓고 배신하기도 한다. 우리는 완전하지 않으며, 우리는 자신에게조차 정직하지 못하다.  우리는 연약하며, 우리는 비굴하고, 교만하며, 욕망으로 가득차 있다.  그러나 하나님은 어느 순간에도 우리를 배신하지 않으시며, 외면하지 않으신다. 그분은 우리가 자신의 얼굴을 밟고 지나가는 순간에도, 그에게 침뱉고 모욕하는 순간에도, 그에게 영광돌린 순간처럼 그와 함께 계셨다.  이것이 하나님이고, 그분의 성품이다. 이 소설은 이것을 말하고 싶었던 게 분명하다. 이것은 하나님의 무한한 `은혜'이며 자비로우심이다.  그것은 사랑이다.

"밟아도 좋다. 네 발은 지금 아플 것이다. 오늘까지 내 얼굴을 밟았던 인간들과 똑같이 아플 것이다.  하지만, 그 발의 아픔만으로 이제는 충분하다.  나는 너희의 아픔과 고통을 함께 나누겠다. 그것 때문에 내가 존재하니까. ``나는 침묵하고 있었던 게 아니다. 함께 고통을 나누고 있었을 뿐.'" p.293
----

엔도 슈사쿠의 「침묵」 | 가톨릭평화신문

[고전의 향기에 취하다]-(4) 엔도 슈사쿠의 「침묵」 | 가톨릭평화신문

엔도 슈사쿠의 「침묵」 불러도 대답없는 주님, 눈물 흘리고 계셨네 2009. 03. 29발행 [1012호]

홈 > 문화출판 > 고전의 향기에 취하다

불러도 대답없는 주님, 눈물 흘리고 계셨네 ▲ 김윤성(가브리엘) 시인이 우리말로 옮겨 바오로딸에서 출간한 엔도 슈사쿠의 「침묵」 한국판. ▲ 정길연(베트라, 소설가)    정길연(베트라, 소설가)    고백하면, 나는 오랫동안 교회를 떠나 있었다. 그리고 누군가 내게 종교를 물으면 나는 종교주의자가 아닙니다, 라고 대꾸했다. 부끄러웠기 때문이었다.(지구상에 존재했고 지금도 존재하는 그 어떤) 종교의 이름으로 자행된 모든 독선과 야만, 종교가 야기한 모든 갈등과 적대감에 대체로 아전인수하는 종교인들의 모습에 실망했기 때문이었다. 현대 종교가 외적 성장에 치우쳐 지나치게 화려해지고 타성적이 돼 간다고 생각했기 때문이었다. 　교회에 나가던 동안 나는 제자리걸음이었다. 내 믿음을 믿지 못했다. 순정하지 않았고, 다분히 기계적이었다. 습관적 출석과 입에 밴 기도문 암송으로 외형상 착실하게 종교적 행위를 했을 뿐이었다. 물론 내 영혼이 허약한 탓이었다. 　다시 조심스럽게 고백하면, 교회에 나가지 않는 동안 나는 오히려 더 꾸준히, 더 집중적으로 성경을 읽었다. 희미하게나마 길이 보이는 듯했다. 회의하고 투정하고 고꾸라지고 일어나면서, 말씀 안에 모든 대답이 다 들어 있음을 조금씩 깨달아갔다. 여전히 교회에 나가지는 않으면서, 비록 종교주의자는 아니지만 믿음은 가지고 있다고, 하느님은 존재한다고 떠듬거릴 수 있게 됐다. 　그러나 완전한 승복은 아니었다. 나는 아직 내 믿음에 대해 내놓고 말하기가 불편하다. 지구촌 곳곳에서 펼쳐지고 있는 악몽 같은 현실을 떠올리면 더더욱 입이 떨어지지 않는다. 총칼을 앞세운 군인들에 의해 제 땅 제 집에서 쫓겨나는 난민들, 핍박받는 하층민들, 착취당하는 노동자들, 맨발로 쓰레기더미를 뒤져야 하는 어린아이들……. 이 불공평하고 절망적인 세계를 납득할 수 없어서다. 　하느님의 손이 절대적으로 절실한 이 순간에도 어떻게 아무런 메시지가 없을 수 있는가? 도대체 왜 이런 세상을 내버려 두시는가? 엔도 슈사쿠의 「침묵」을 다시 찾아 읽게 된 것도 어쩌면 그 질문과 새롭게 맞닥뜨리고 싶어서였는지도 모른다. ----    엔도 슈사쿠의 1966년 작 소설 「침묵」은 17세기 일본 규슈 나가사키 지방의 가톨릭 박해 상황을 배경으로, 배교를 강요당하는 포르투칼 신부 페레이라와 로돌리코의 내밀한 고뇌와 번민을 다룬 소설이다. 　스승 페레이라 신부의 배교 소문을 확인하고자 일본으로 밀항한 로돌리코 신부 일행은 교활하고 비굴한 인물 기치지로와 피할 수 없는 악연으로 얽힌다. 동료 신부 가르페가 순교한 뒤, 유다가 예수를 팔아넘기듯이 기치지로 또한 로돌리코를 팔아넘기지만, 그러면서도 끝까지 그의 주변을 맴돌기를 그만두지 않는다. ---- 　회유와 협박에도 굴하지 않던 로돌리코를 후미에(성화판을 발로 밟음으로써 배교를 증명하는 행위)로 이끈 건 옥사 너머로 들려오던 코 고는 소리의 진실이었다. 페레이라 신부가 배교 직전에 들었던 소리이기도 했다. 　'"나도 저 소리를 들었다. 구덩이에 거꾸로 매달린 사람들의 신음소리를 말이다." 　그 말이 그치자 다시금 코 고는 소리가 높게 낮게 귀에 들려 왔다. 아니, 그것은 이미 코 고는 소리가 아니고, 구덩이에 거꾸로 매달린 사람들의 지쳐 떨어진 숨이 끊길 듯 끊길 듯한 신음소리라는 것이 신부에게도 지금은 뚜렷이 느껴졌다'(195쪽). 　결국 로돌리코 신부 또한 '자기 생애 가운데서 가장 아름답다고 여겨 온 것, 가장 성스럽다고 여겨 온 것, 인간의 가장 높은 이상과 꿈으로 가득 차 있는' 성화판에 발을 올리고 만다. 　'발에 둔중한 아픔을 느꼈다.(……) 이 발의 아픔. 이때 밟아도 좋다고 목판 속의 그분은 신부를 향해 말했다. 밟아도 좋다. 네 발의 아픔은 바로 내가 가장 잘 알고 있다. 밟아도 좋다. 나는 너희들에게 밟히기 위해 이 세상에 태어나, 너희들의 아픔을 나눠 갖기 위해 십자가를 짊어졌던 것이다. 　이렇게 해서 신부가 성화에다 발을 올려놓았을 때, 아침이 왔다. 닭이 먼 곳에서 울었다'(201쪽). ---- 　소설은 배교자 바오로, 오카다 산우에몬이 된 로돌리코가 고백성사를 애원하는 기치지로의 청을 들어주는 것으로 끝을 맺는다. 경멸하고 저주했던 기치지로야말로 나약한 인간의 표상이며, 그조차 용서하고 품는 것이 예수의 사랑임을 깨달으면서. 　'성직자들은 이 모독적인 행위를 몹시 책할 테지만, 나는 그들을 배반했을지 모르나 결코 그분을 배반하지 않았다. 지금까지와는 아주 다른 형태로 그분을 사랑하고 있다. 내가 그 사랑을 알기 위해서 지금까지의 모든 것이 필요했던 것이다'(226-227쪽). 　교회법으로 보자면, 페레이라와 로돌리코의 후미에는 배교가 분명하다. 그러나 그들은 인간의 고통을 외면하지 않았다. 그러기에 그 종교적 불명예는 예수 사랑이라는 통찰에서 행해진 것이다. 그것은 처절하고도 숭고한 자기희생, 또 다른 의미의 순교다. 스스로 아름답고 자랑스럽고자 하는 순교는 종교적 명예심에 붙들린 제스처에 불과하다. 　하느님은 이 참혹한 고통의 순간에 어디 계시는가? 　「침묵」에서도 되풀이하는 이 질문은 우리가 크고 작은 어려움에 처할 때마다, 부당한 폭력 앞에 정의가 무너지는 순간을 목격할 때마다, 또는 인간의 힘으로 감당할 수 없는 재난이나 가난으로 비참함을 느낄 때마다 하늘에다 종주먹을 들이대듯 던지는 물음이기도 하다. 　나 역시도 가슴이 먹먹할 때, 그 먹먹한 가슴을 손바닥으로 짓누른 채 차오르는 설움을 토해낼 때, 모멸감과 무력감에 치를 떨 때에야 비로소 다급하고도 간절하게 하느님을 찾지 않는가. 그러나 하느님은 우리 앞에 현현하지도, 직접 나서서 어떤 대답을 들려주지도 않는다. 신의 자비로 고통을 면할 방법은 없다. 고통은 오롯이 내 몫이다. 껴안아 내 뜨거움으로 녹여야 한다. 　우리는 우리가 원하는 대답이나 해결책을 듣지 못할 때 버릇처럼 하느님이 침묵한다고 절규한다. 그러는 동안 하느님은 어디에 계시는가?…라고. 페레이라와 로돌리코가 배교 직전에 깨닫게 된 것처럼, 침묵하고 계시는 게 아니라 함께 괴로워하고 계시는가?…라고. 　정녕 우리와 함께 계시는 것이라면, 고통의 눈물은 닦아주시리라. 고통이 지나간 자리에 비로소 평화를 허락하시리라. -----    #엔도 슈사쿠(遠藤周作, 1923-1996)는    일본 도쿄에서 태어난 엔도 슈사쿠는 가톨릭 신자였던 이모의 영향으로 열두 살 때 세례를 받았다. 1943년 게이오대 불문학과를 졸업하고 1950년 프랑스 리옹대학으로 건너가 현대 가톨릭문학을 공부하던 중 결핵으로 학업을 중단할 수밖에 없었다. 2년 반만에 귀국해 본격적으로 창작활동을 시작했다. 　종교와 인간에 대한 성찰이 녹아 있는 묵직한 주제의 작품들을 많이 발표한 걸로 알려졌으나, 의외로 밝고 유머러스한 문체로 일상적 이야기들을 써내려간 산문으로도 독자들의 꾸준한 사랑을 받았다. 가톨릭문학과 순수문학을 잘 아우른 격조 있는 작품들로 양쪽에서 모두 성공적 평가를 받은 행복한 작가이기도 하다. 　대표작으로는 종교적 색채가 짙은 소설 「침묵」 「바다와 독약」 「그리스도의 탄생」 등이 있으며, 이 외에도 「백인」 「여자의 일생」 「지금은 사랑할 때」 등 작품을 남겼다. 신쵸샤 문학상과 마이니치 출판문화상, 아쿠타가와 상을 수상했으며 노벨문학상 후보로도 여러 번 거론됐다. 　최근에는 「택시 드라이버」 「좋은 친구들」 등 영화로 우리에게도 잘 알려진 마틴 스콜세지 감독이 2010년쯤 개봉 예정으로 「침묵」의 영화화 작업에 들어갔다는 소식이 들린다.