Process Of Literary Canon Forming Around Certain Works - Research Paper Example

Process Of Literary Canon Forming Around Certain Works The body of work contained in the “canon,” up until about 50 years ago, was a narrowly-accepted group of works that fit narrowly-defined literary history, creating a narrative that told the story of an age—from an elitist perspective (Perkins, 1992). The canonization process is rarely done directly. A work of art stands out in its own time and is preserved through the generations, surviving as translated and retranslated text (Russell, 1975). The canon is ever-evolving as time reveals new works or critics and academics begin to examine works once considered minor (Kuipers, 2003). Works perpetually included in the canon are often fine pieces of art as well as being interesting for critics to deconstruct (Mujica, 1997; Russell, 1975). Of course, the world-view of scholars is a consideration in what is canonized and what is not (Mignolo, 1991). In the time and place in which the work was written, it was produced by the dominant culture using the dominant language. Each speaks to a contemporary audience who is as educated as the writer himself. Mignolo distinguishes between the “central” canon, which contains both the work itself and academic discourse about the work, and “peripheral” canon, which contains the work(s) and leaves out the scholarly details (p. 4). This presents an interesting problem for the student: how much of the academic discourse is really necessary for the student to read and understand the work? There is a complex layering effect when one considers that a work from the medieval canon has been translated from one language to another (either Spanish-Spanish or Spanish-English). Certainly, contemporary considerations such as the Church or the Inquisition affected what original writers put down on paper (p. 8). Guillory (1994) takes a slightly different view of canon formation. He examines the idea of “canon” (a body of academically accepted works which is representative of a culture) through a comparison of Marxist viewpoints with pluralist viewpoints. Guillory points out that the canon is formed around the university’s need for a body of works to study, not cultural or artistic considerations. Non-canonical works are excluded for a reason—political, most likely. For Guillory, the most likely works to survive repeated generations and enter the canon are those that originated in the literate class—written by the educated, using educated language. Sung or spoken vernacular pieces may have fallen by the wayside, though these pieces may have value as well. Because only certain works survive, students become acculturated by the canon and works are removed from their contexts, thus losing some of their signifying meaning. The Power of the Anthology in Producing (and Reproducing) the Canon Anthologies can set aside canonical issues and present a sample of writings organized around a theme (genre or time survey, for instance). Kuipers (2003) states, “The anthology is a literary storage and communication form: a textbook, (now) a digital archive, (once) a commonplace book, (perhaps still) the poems one has memorized for pleasure” (51). An anthology is a survey of literature from a particular time and place, not the whole of that time and place. Most of the works are from the academically-accepted canon rather than miscellaneous representations of literature (Mujica, 1997), but considerations outside the predominant cultural view influence which works are chosen (Mignolo, 1991). Even with certain works consistently canonized, “Anthologists are confronted at the outset by the problem of suitable texts” (Buchanan, 1950, p. 343). A “good” anthology is not a “trite array of selected readings with some standard information about the author or period,” but instead advance “appreciation and understanding of medieval lyric in the best tradition of the scholar-teacher” (Cammarata, 1993, pp. 111-112). For a work to be canonized, it must be a good example of its time and place; extensive enough to warrant critical examination from a variety of angles; enduring enough to be taken out of context and to be viewed in context; and repeatedly referred to as having these qualities by generations of academics and critics (Mujica, 1997). Canonized works tell the story of an age or a nation, and are chosen for their place in the “narrative thread” created by academics that follow in the next age (Perkins, 1992). A work must be worth preserving and criticizing for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. The more often a particular work (or part of a work) is repeated in anthologies and as a stand-alone work, the more it can be considered canonized. Anthologies are an important part of the canonization process (Mujica, 1997). The entire work need not be reproduced for the student; representative examples used to teach broader concepts are often included in anthologies. A good anthology gives the student more than a literary work in its original language or in translation; it also sets the scene by including a biography of the work’s author, the history and geography of the region at the time the work was produced, and of course notes (Thompson, 1964; Kiddle, 1950; Crow, 1974; Peréz, 1974). Rather than taking a small piece of a literary work out of its context, a good anthology allows for appreciation and brevity, and it will tell a story (Perkins, 1992). Intellectual and academic considerations aside, anthologies are published by publishing houses. Publishing houses are in the business of making money (Mujica, 1997). The canon provides a ready set of accepted works; canonical criticism provides a ready set of background materials. Questions only arise when anthologies endeavor to add “recent” works, or genre-specific works such as female authors, as is often expected in modern anthologies. In addition, students read literary works such as La Celestina, the Book of True Love, and Poem of the Cid for a number of reasons. Perhaps they are second-language readers whose Spanish is proficient enough to access and enjoy these works (Thompson, 1964; Walsh, 1949), so they are reading for enjoyment as well as edification. Perhaps they are advanced students interested in critical analysis of these works using a Marxist-feminist or sociolinguistic lens. Different editions of these three works have met with a variety of critical remarks (positive and negative). Each edition has its own drawbacks for a particular individual interested in reading it. Three Canonical Works: Cantar de Mío Cid, Libro de Buen Amor, and La Celestina The three main works this essay focuses upon, Poem of the Cid, the Book of True Love, and Celestina, are part of the canon of medieval literature and are thus frequently re-edited as individual works and included in multiple anthologies on medieval literature. As the study of medieval literature has come into its own right, much has been written critically on these three works and their place in the canon and in the classroom. In 1950, Oelschlägar introduced his translation of the Poema del Cid. Oelschläger includes an etymological vocabulary, a bibliography and short critical introduction (Kiddle, 1950). Oelschläger’s edition rose from the voluminous Menéndez Pidal three-volume editions (1908-1911 First Edition; 1944-1946 Second Edition). The 1976 volume of The Poem of the Cid (Snow, 1976) also examines the work from the Menéndez Pidal volumes but repeatedly modifies earlier assumptions such as dates and historical details used as background for the poem. In addition, the editor of the 1976 volume, Edmund de Chasca, is steeped in a long critical relationship to the poem and thus has access to research on it. For The Book of True Love, Willis’ 1972 edition grows out of the “G” manuscripts (T.R.H., 1974). Willis adjusted the language only slightly, and doesn’t note when he did so; the reviewer comments that advanced students still need other versions of the book for comparison. The 1988 critical edition of The Book of True Love (Dyer, 1989) used the Salamanca manuscripts and recommends critics and students examine the work from a variety of angles. This edition contains an extensive glossary of terms used in the Old Spanish which are absent from new Spanish, and Dyer comments that the book is good for both beginners and advanced scholars. The Book of True Love was also critically examined by Henry Ansgar Kelly in 1984 (Walsh, 1985; Silano, 1986), and the discussion of an archpriest’s duties does illuminate both the purported author and why he structured the book as he did. Kelly concludes that the book does not sound like it was written by one author; it is possible it was not actually written by an archpriest at all. Juan Ruiz did not exist in historical records, and there are places where the mastery of the poetic form fall distinctly short (Walsh, 1985; Silano, 1986). These facts concern scholars and students because in the modern era, we are used to knowing exactly who wrote literary works and this allows us to explore texts critically by exploring the author critically. Modern academics prefer to have known facts rather than speculation. The question of authorship arises with La Celestina as well. Russell (1975) comments that those who read for entertainment don’t care about the author, but academics aren’t satisfied with declaring La Celestina a work of genius and leaving it at that—they want to explore the minds of the authors. Both Proaza and Fernando de Rojas set up personas, making it difficult for future critics to tease out their motivations and involvements. Gilman (Russell, 1975) had access to copious notes and summarizes and interprets those notes for his readers, rather than publishing raw data. The scholar Green avoids the authorship issue and sheds light on the individual parts of the work itself (Deyermond, 1966; Crow, 1967), so if a student were to read academic discourse on La Celestina, perhaps Green’s work would allow the most access to the text. Deyermond further reviews Herriott’s critical edition which clears up much of the confusion surrounding early editions of La Celestina, and attempts to synthesis the scattered threads into one cohesive volume (Deyermond, 1966). Whether it is a dramatic play or novel really only matters to the student if dramatic elements are part of his or her study of La Celestina. Why Is Canonization Important to Academics and Students? It is rare that literary works are studied in isolation in a survey course, nor is the canon the only component of a survey course; so-called marginal works are often included (Mujica, 1997). Because they have been read and studied by academics, and academics have used various critical methods, students can access materials beyond the principal texts (Mujica, 1997; Guillory, 1994). Insightful and well-rounded criticism of a major work serves as an aid for the “unsuspecting novice” student (Snow, 1977, p. 592). Unfortunately, if only a handful of critical texts are used, limitations are placed on how deep the student and teacher can go into the text (Kiddle, 1950). At the same time, when critics attempt to explore the psychology of the works or the authors, the reader must determine the authority of the critic: is he or she a psychologist, or only guessing? Critics in the early to mid part of the 1900s often use “common knowledge” psychology to analyze literary works, not scientific analysis (Russell, 1975). Canonized works are stripped of their context, and context is re-supplied by critics (Mujica, 1997). Guillory (1994) would even go so far as to say that the students themselves become stripped of context, when the literary works are read or studied in a solely academic setting (p. 43). The reader must keep in mind who is criticizing or interpreting the work. Academic criticism also changes; the sensibilities of one generation (or one particular critic) are reflected in what is written about a text (Mujica, 1997; Lawrence, 1984). Crow (1967) mentions that in Otis Green’s introduction to his 1964 anthology, Green states that medieval writers had a geocentric view of the universe and that women were second-class citizens. Examining medieval works from this critical viewpoint could lead a student to different conclusions than using some other critical viewpoint. Guillory (1994) notes that just because a literary work contains narrow viewpoints reflective of the time they were written does not mean that we cannot currently examine those works through our own viewpoints. In the earlier part of the last century, it was permissible for editors and critics to blatantly speak from their experiences, using first person “I” and inserting opinions into their critiques. Walsh (1949) quotes the editor of A Critical Anthology of Spanish Verse as saying, “This is one of the finest poems ever written in Spanish: for sheer grandeur I know nothing that can touch it since San Juan de la Cruz” (560). Another reviewer (Buchanan, 1950) comments, “Such appraisals are personal, and difficult to assess, but within the limits set for himself, the critic scores a success” (341). Clearly, the editor considers himself an authority, and does not muddle up his opinion with theoretical frameworks. Mujica (1997) refers to this attitude as “a patriarchal vision and respect for intellectual authority” (211). Returning to Mignolo’s (1991) and Guillory’s (1994) critiques of canon formation, later critics often clearly state their own motivations and establish authority by telling the reader why they are authorities. All of these texts, when read for the purpose of studying them, need some kind of criticism to put them into context, and a few helpers such as etymological vocabularies and footnotes give students a sense of time and place, the shades of meaning in words, and a cross-reference within the text. A reviewer of A Critical Anthology of Spanish Verse (Buchanan, 1950) comments that leaving notes and etymological vocabularies out of this volume “flatters readers by assuming that they can understand the poems” without these helpers (341). This lack is roundly criticized by more recent reviewers (Peréz, 1972). Guillory (1994) also notes that literary works are composed in two different kinds of languages: the literate and the vernacular. Each of these is translated differently, and backup notes amplify the meaning of language, whether from the educated writer or the illiterate composer. As with any literary work translated from one language to another, the quality of the translation is different for each volume (Kiddle, 1950; T.R.H., 1974). Through each generation, translators take liberties with texts for their own purposes. Often multiple copies of manuscripts survive, leading translators to feel free to adjust future volumes to improve them or come closer to the most original (T.R.H., 1974). There is always the problem of dilution when any literary work (or literary criticism) is modernized. What was modern in 1950 is old-fashioned in 2009. All languages evolve over time (including the language of academic discourse), and there is the question whether continued updating of medieval texts is helpful to students (Thompson, 1964; T.R.H., 1974). There are certainly literary tricks and wordplays at work in each of these texts, something which a beginning language student might not catch (Lawrence, 1984). In these cases, it is very helpful to have good notes to give deeper meaning to the text. Concluding Remarks Literary criticism is a deconstructive process whereby a text written last week or 600 years ago is examined through a particular lens. Anthologies contain historical background, footnotes, and vocabularies, but they also contain criticism and interpretation. Notes provide structure, but should be examined for accuracy. In addition, canonical literature has been transcribed and studied and criticized, for hundreds of years in some cases. Young students must realize that they are looking at examples, not the entire body of literature, and that translations (whether from Spanish to English or Old Spanish to new) are translations (Kuipers, 2003). Students follow a narrative thread in their readings, the narrative of a time or place or culture (Perkins, 1992). There was an original audience for each of these works, people to whom the writers wrote (Lawrence, 1984). It may be best for a student to imagine being a part of that contemporary audience, and set other considerations aside for later. Students don’t really need to be caught up in the fine details that concern academics. Academics argue that canonization does not mean a work of literature is the best representative of its time and place. One might even go so far as to say, “By canonizing some texts and omitting others, [new historians] argue, professionals propagate and perpetuate the values of the ruling class” (Mujica, 1997, p. 208). Certainly the consideration of the critic’s motivation rarely entered the minds of critics from the early part of the last century; the survey of reviews examined for this essay contains a dizzying variety of personal opinions, learned opinions, high praise and scathing remarks. It would be difficult to determine an overall opinion of any one of these works—either original or in various treatments by subsequent translators and critics. Works are laid open for anyone and everyone to poke with a stick, and all this poking can make it more difficult for students to access the art and poetry on the page. There are two effects that canonization introduces into literary study which affect the student directly. First, works included in the canon are, by their nature, exclusive examples of a particular kind of literature; they are valued because critics and academics say they are valuable. Second, works newly introduced to the canon are sometimes brought in on the sole merit that they were excluded and not because they are “good art.” Because they speak from a formerly marginalized audience, the main body of critics doesn’t know what to do with them. While it may be good that the canon is undergoing extensive revision, academics must be careful to introduce new works that have merit beyond the fact they were formerly excluded. We are creating a new canon, after all, and we will be subject to criticism from future academics on our choices, just as we criticize former academics for their choices. Academic agendas, unfortunately, do concern the student; what is in the canon arrived there through a circuitous route, and why we read these works today has as much to do with their art as with the number of times a critic has examined them. As modern academics revise and revitalize the curriculum to include works formerly excluded from the canon, we are given a new batch of writings to analyze and criticize. As evidenced from the extensive number of times The Poem of the Cid, The Book of True Love, and Celestina have been examined, we could probably use some fresh material. References Blaylock, Curtis. “Review: An Anthology of Old Spanish by Tatiana Fotitch.” Hispanic Review 32.1 (January 1964): 71-74. Accessed 8 April 2009 from . Buchanan, M.A. “Review: A Critical Anthology of Spanish Verse by E. Allison Peers.” Hispanic Review 18.4 (October 1950): 341-344. Accessed 8 April 2009 from . Cammarata, Joan F. “Antología de la lírica Medieval Castellana by Ciriaco Morón Arroyo.” Modern Language Studies 23.3 (1993, Summer): 111-113. Accessed 8 April 2009 from . Crow, John A. “Review: Spain and the Western Tradition: The Castilian Mind in Literature from El Cid to Calderón by Otis H. Green.” The Modern Language Journal 51.6 (October 1967): 361. Accessed 8 April 2009 from . Crow, John A. “Review: Antología de Autores Españoles Antiguos y Modernos by Antonio Sánchez-Romeralo; Fernando Ibarra.” The Modern Language Journal 58.3 (March 1974): 136. Accessed 8 April 2009 from . Deyermond, A.D. “Spain and the Western Tradition. The Castilian Mind in Literature from El Cid to Caldern [sic]. Towards a Critical Edition of the Celestina. A Filiation of Early Editions. By Otis H. Green; J. Homer Herriott.” Renaissance News 19.3 (1966, Autumn): 268-275. Accessed 8 April 2009 from . Dyer, Nancy Joe. “Review: Libro de buen amor by Arcipreste de Hita (Ruiz, Juan); G.B. Gybbon-Monypenny.” Hispania 72.3 (September 1989): 539. Accessed 8 April 2009 from . Guillory, John. Cultural Capital: The Problem of Literary Canon Formation. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1994. Kiddle, Lawrence B. “Review: Poema del Cid in Verse and Prose by Victor R.B. Oelschläger.” The Modern Language Journal 34.3 (March 1950): 236-238. Accessed 8 April 2009 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/318405>. Kuipers, Christopher M. “The Anthology/Corpus Dynamic: A Field Theory of the Canon.” College Literature 30.2 (2003, Spring): 51-71. Lawrence, Jeremy N.H. “The Audience of the Libro de Buen Amor.” Comparative Literature 36.3 (1984, Summer): 220-237. Accessed 8 April 2009 from . Mignolo, Walter D. “Canons A(nd)Cross-Cultural Boundaries (Or, Whose Canon are We Talking about?” Poetics Today 12.1 (1991, Spring): 1-28. Accessed 8 April 2009 from . Mujica, Barbara. “Teaching Literature: Canon, Controversy, and the Literary Anthology.” Hispania 80.2 (May 1997): 203-215. Accessed 6 April 2009 from . Peréz, Louis C. “Review: A New Anthology of Spanish Literature by Richard E. Chandler; Kessel Schwartz.” Hispania 55.1 (March 1972): 200-201. Accessed 8 April 2009 from . Perkins, David. Is Literary History Possible? Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1992. Russell, P.E. “Review: The Spain of Fernando de Rojas: The Intellectual and Social Landscape of La Celestina by Stephen Gilman.” Comparative Literature 27.1 (Winter 1975): 59-74. Accessed 8 April 2009 from . Silano, Guilio. “Review: Canon Law and the Archpriest of Hita by Henry Ansgar Kelly.” Speculum 61.3 (1986, July): 670-672. Accessed 8 April 2009 from . Snow, Joseph. “Review: The Poem of the Cid by Edmund de Chasca.” Hispania 60.3 (September 1977): 592. Accessed 8 April 2009 from . Thompson, John A. “Review: Five Centuries of Spanish Literature; From the ‘Cid’ through the Golden Age by Linton Lomas Barrett.” The Modern Language Journal 48.1 (January 1964): 58. Accessed 8 April 2009 from . T.R.H. “Review: Libro de Buen Amor by Juan Ruiz; Raymond Willis.” Comparative Literature 26.3 (1974, Summer): 286-287. Accessed 8 April 2009 from . Walsh, Donald D. “Review: A Critical Anthology of Spanish Verse by E. Allison Peers.” Hispania 32.4 (November 1949): 559-560. Accessed 8 April 2009 from . Walsh, John K. “Review: Canon Law and the Archpriest of Hitá by Henry Ansgar Kelly.” Hispania 68.4 (December 1985): 767-768. Accessed 8 April 2009 from . Read More