One might well wonder, in the light of the conditions the “crucifixion” imposed upon the Runner, just what attitude he could assume in order to “prevail” in a manner pleasing to Mr. Stavrou, since to do other than what Faulkner has done would obviously be to falsify what the experience of history has taught us (i.e., the mutiny did not end the war - in fact the war itself did not end wars, nor have the ideals of Christianity prevailed or the crucifixion itself, even though much of the world is Christian).

One may make point in reference to the use of the Gospel stories. A Fable does not clearly offer an allegorical presentation of the Passion. Allegory does not generally make specific references to the institution behind the action represented, but allows the parallels to make the connection. Were this simply a modern allegory of the Passion, the obvious parallels of action would certainly have been sufficient to draw the resemblance, but Faulkner goes much beyond this. There are many references to the original Christ throughout the novel. The Runner states at one point, in his usual ironic fashion, that the Corporal's job is more difficult than Christ's was.

“His prototype had only man's natural propensity for evil to con tend with: this one faces all the scarlet and brazen impregnability of general staffs” [34, p. 56].

The old porter in admonishing the Runner to go and see the mysterious 13 men who preach pacifism tells him:

“-Just go and look at him.

-Him? - the Runner said. -So it's just one now?

-Wasn't it just one before? - the old porter said” [14, p.67].

The priest, after having warned the Corporal to “beware whom you mock by reading your own mortal's pride into Him” [14, p.363] reflects before his suicide upon the mercy of Christ.

“He was nailed there and he will forgive me” [14, p.370]. Even during the “last supper” scene one of the Corporal's men refers to Christ, “Christ assoil us” [14, p.337], punning on the word, since the prisoners are talking about their becoming manure to enrich the soil of France.

One can hardly be confused as to the Corporal's role within the frame of an allegory. He clearly is not Christ. Whatever symbolic reflections accrue to him by the actions he imitates is something else again. If the novel is read as an account of the Second Coming, the problem arises of explaining other relationships, such as the connection between the Corporal and the Marshall. One might also easily concede that if A Fable is a novel about the Second Coming of Christ, one hardly needs to employ all of the cumbersome machinery of the combined Gospel stories, plus the whole framework of the war. But in A Fable Faulkner has obviously gone out of his way to evoke similar patterns, even to the extent of wrapping a barbed wire crown of thorns around the Corporal's head and other such “excesses” of similarity.

Another point to consider is why the Second Coming, if it is that, should be destined to end so far below the first, especially after its author had made a speech in Stockholm four years earlier which was practically a testament to man. Certainly one must concede to Faulkner that lie was aware of the differences as well as the resemblances between his novel and the Passion story.

If we consider that the resemblance, even a close and obvious resemblance, between a new work and one which has already become established as a key, or even the core structure of an institution (be it a religious or national or whatever institution) - does not of itself demand that the new work under consideration adhere to the ethical, moral, or metaphysical beliefs of the institution which the original focused upon; our critical perspective need not be hamstrung by these considerations. Allegory, to function as allegory must function on at least three of four possible levels. The story must be a literal story; it must establish parallel relationships between it and the original story upon which it is based (if it is based on a story); it must establish parallel relationships between it and the institution which lies behind the original story; and it must establish a final universal or metaphysical level on which it may be read [11].

A Fable denies the institution, both in the action that is outside those parts which resemble the Passion directly, and, more importantly, by internal differences between those portions that do parallel the original Gospel stories, owing mainly to its treatment of those portions. In fact, the very parts that seem to offend most of the critics, the character of the Corporal, the “degrading” last supper scene, the barbed wire crown, the ironic resurrection, the final interment in the military monument and certain aspects of “character” of the Corporal, find their ethical and “theological” perspective, not in the codifications of institutionalized Christianity, which in A Fable is equated with “static religion”, but in “dynamic religion” as Bergson describes it. And therefore, A Fable is not a true allegory if one sees the Passion story in the sense that an allegory is supposed to bring us into contact with the ethical and moral teachings of an institution in order to further its teachings. In relation to the Passion one may say that A Fable merely utilizes a profound and meaningful story as background to add force to its own meanings.

The parallels between certain obvious incidents in A Fable and the Gospels, insofar as the purely imitative qualities go, may be read simply as part of the complex symbolic extension of the static religion of the closed society, much the same as the war is the symbolic extension of the military, and the city of civilized man. The allegorical trappings are simply part of the agglomeration of myth surrounding the institution, and the resemblance of the Corporal to the historical Christ is simply another manifestation of the mythmaking function of the intelligence. This action is obviously “earthed”. But the reduction of much of the agony of Christ to the mute, impassivity of the Corporal, the grotesqueries of the barbed wire crown, the irreverence and scatology in the last s upper scene, the ironic resurrection, point to something beyond a mere retelling of the original story [11, p.67-83].

This impetus is thus carried forward through the medium of certain men, each of whom thereby constitutes a species composed of a single individual. If the individual is fully conscious of this, if the fringe of intuition surrounding his intelligence is capable of expanding sufficiently to envelope its object, that is the mystic life. The dynamic religion which thus springs into being is the very opposite of the static religion born of the myth-making function, in the same way the open society is the opposite of the closed society.

The Corporal can't be supposed to be both a soldier and a pacifist. It's impossible to believe in the palpable reality of the Corporal when everyone is conscious that he is Christ. The Corporal's “palpable reality” is a strange one - he is essentially a mystic. Both Fiedler and Malin, like the other dissenting critics, offer a view which is tempered by their preconceptions of what a “Christ figure” ought to be, and they take umbrage at obvious deviations from the “norm” of presentations. A Christ figure may embody paradoxes, but the contradictions the Corporal presents are seemingly irresolvable ones. Humble, pleasant, meek, and mild, or even robust, he may be, but surly he must not be. The Corporal is obviously more in accord with the last two attributes than he is in accord with the first group - at least this is the way it appears on the surface, but Faulkner has used a rather singular method of presenting the Corporal [11, p.69-80].

The priest, after having warned the Corporal to “Beware whom you mock by reading your own mortal's pride into Him” [14, p.363] reflects before his suicide upon the mercy of Christ.

“He was nailed there and he will forgive me” [14, p.370].

Even during the “last supper” scene one of the Corporal's men refers to Christ, “Christ assoil us” [14, p.337], punning on the word, since the prisoners are talking about their becoming manure to enrich the soil of France.

One can hardly be confused as to the Corporal's role within the frame of an allegory. He clearly is not Christ. Whatever symbolic reflections accrue to him by the actions he imitates is something else again. If the novel is read as an account of the Second Coming, the problem arises of explaining other relationships, such as the connection between the Corporal and the Marshall. One might also easily concede that if A Fable is a novel about the Second Coming of Christ, one hardly needs to employ all of the cumbersome machinery of the combined Gospel stories, plus the whole framework of the war. Novelists who depict modern parallels to the Passion generally avoid following the lockstep pattern of imitation, and Faulkner himself is no exception to this rule in his previous novels. Carvel Collins points with pride to his being the first to discover the use of elements of the Passion in The Sound and the Fury.

A more reasonable explanation of the use of the Gospel stories is that Faulkner used them in relation to certain artistic and philosophical considerations which he must have been well aware of, and that he felt free to use them strictly in accordance with his art rather than subjecting them to strict religious dicta. That the Passion is the most profound story in our immediate culture few would deny; but that all treatments of any part of it must reflect, or at least simply, in that part the whole range of theological or ethical considerations surrounding the Passion is not necessarily valid literary criticism. This idea is what most of those who object to Faulkner's usage ultimately fall back on, although their objections are not stated so baldly as this. The Corporal's “Christianity” offends them because it does not in some way “measure up” to what Christianity means to them. Especially offensive are the ironic scenes and the final interment of the Corporal in the tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

These critics use as their focal point orthodox doctrinal or theological considerations. But Faulkner's focus need not even be on Christianity as such. If we consider that the mere resemblance - even a close and obvious resemblance, between a new work and one which has already become established as a key, or even the core structure of an institution (be it a religious or national or whatever institution) - does not of itself demand that the new work under consideration adhere to the ethical, moral, or metaphysical beliefs of the institution which the original focused upon; our critical perspective need not be hamstrung by these considerations.

Страницы: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13