436
PARTISAN REVIEW
text that lies outside the appa rent subj ec t one wishes
to
ta lk a bout,
" litera ture." Or is it perhaps the ta lk itself, the ta lking-a bout, the
puta tive conversa tion , that is the goa l, the demonstrable product of the
teacher's work? The work o f producing ta lk: is this the peculiar
distinc tion o f the " teaching o f litera ture?"
In shon Donald Ma rsha ll 's opening question-simple, bo ld, one
might say in the best sen se innocent-o pens immedia tel y upon a ll the
imponderables of a precarious profess ion . Wha t does the teacher of
litera ture profess? Does he have a real subj ec t? Where does it lie? I find
admirable Donald Ma rsha ll 's rejec tion of theories o f the litera ry text
which deny the possibility o f "meaning." H e wishes to reta in a no tion
o f a n objective meaning, a " truth " -but is it a truth
about
the text, or
within it? And if the teacher in his ta lking about litera ture is ta lking
about meaning, does he confine himself to a n explica tion , a technical
work of logical exeges is?
If
meanin g res ides
in
the text, is the teacher's
role no more than that of a hermeneutical technicia n?
If
it lies, or
arises,
to
any degree outside the text-tha t is, in consc iou sness a t a
moment when the mind is free o f utter a nd a bsolute submiss ion to the
coercio n o f the text itself, then how do we apprehend it and identify it
as belong ing (somehow) to bo th text and reader? And if meaning is a
p roduct of some work that includes more than " reading" itself-the
work of an additional, supplementa l discourse called interpre tation
(whether performed pri va tely or in the classroom )-is it the teacher's
work to teach (literally, to show) methods o f interpre tation, ways of
achieving confidence tha t a reading is plausible, comple te, and coher–
ent with the quiddity o f the text? The "evidentia ry cas t o f mind"
Donald Marsha ll values presuma bl y replies positively: yes, among the
desired goals of the professing of litera ture is a respec t for logical
cla rity, fo r va lidity of statement, for the casting out o f error. Which can
onl y mean tha t ta lking about litera ture in a classroom requires a meta–
language o f ra tional skepticism in the form o f opera ti onal techniques.
"Memory" and "committed thinking" simila rl y represent for Donald
Ma rsha ll external cha rac teristics o f the p roduct o f hi s labor as teacher:
it is no t the achievement of meaning a lone then , tha t charac terizes the
classroom engagement with a text, but meaning in the service o f a kind
o f thinking: a clear thinking tha t no t onl y stands up for itse lf, but for
its p recedents reta ined in memory: a thinking tha t is no t a fo rgening.
Now who can gainsay the va lue of these end s? But one wonders if
they a re n o t among the ends o f wha t we mean by humane educa tion as
a who le-no t the exclusive, distinguishing signs o f litera ry study as
such , but in fac t the qua lities o f mind tha t litera ry study presupposes a t
