Reading the Epigraphs in FLW

7/29/2019 Reading the Epigraphs in FLW

1/25

The Riddler Riddled: Reading the Epigraphs in John Fowles's "The French Lieutenant'sWoman"Author(s): Deborah BowenSource: The Journal of Narrative Technique, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Winter, 1995), pp. 67-90Published by: Journal of Narrative TheoryStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30225424 .

Accessed: 09/09/2013 22:29

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Journal of Narrative Theory andDepartment of English Language and Literature, Eastern Michigan

University are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of NarrativeTechnique.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 146.7.113.210 on Mon, 9 Sep 2013 22:29:34 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jnthttp://www.jstor.org/stable/30225424?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/30225424?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jnt


2/25

TheRiddlerRiddled:ReadingheEpigraphsnJohnFowles'sTheFrench ieutenant's omanDeborahowenIt may be valid to suggest, as JerryVarsavadoes in his book ContingentMeanings:PostmodernFiction,Mimesis,and theReader,thatself-reflexiv-ity in the novel has become faddishandmanneredhroughcanonizationandoveruse(Contingent146). But does this mean thata self-reflexive novel ofthe 1960s has lost its audienceby the 1990s?Perhaps t is, rather,a call fornew pointsof departure nd return. should like to proposea freshreadingof John Fowles's TheFrenchLieutenant'sWoman hat s informedby atten-tion to Fowles's paratextualuse of epigraphs.In particular, uch a readingwill foreground hepowerof the readern a text where the writerplays withpluralvoices butat the same timedesiresmasteryof them.In a brief but fascinatingpaperon the subversive and ironical effect ofFowles's epigraph o TheCollector,DavidLeonHigdonrefers in passingtoThe FrenchLieutenant'sWomanas exhibitinga paratextof epigraphsandfootnotesin which "Fowles createsan interplaywhich broadensanddeep-ens the implicationsof his text." Higdon suggests that the contrasting nparatextand textof Victorianand modernviewpointson issues such astime,sex, and progress,has the effect of "judgingeach age as lacking in someway"("Epigraph"71). This implied reciprocitybetweenparatextandtexthas, however,beenmorecarefully nvestigatedbyGerardGenette,whopointsout thattheobligationfelt by a reader n relation o a paratextualtem is lessthan heobligation hereader eels toward he text.In otherwords,the readerdoes not have to reada paratext:"Theparatext, n all its forms,is a funda-mentallyheteronomous,auxiliary,discoursedevotedto the service of some-thingelse which constitutes tsrightof existence,namely hetext" "Paratext"269).At the sametime,aparatext,"the ringeof theprinted ext,"may by itssuggestiveness "in reality control the whole reading" (Lejeune, qtd. in

This content downloaded from 146.7.113.210 on Mon, 9 Sep 2013 22:29:34 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/25

68 J N T"Paratext" 61). Leo Hoek refers to paratextas "cettepeau qui facilite ouocculte l'acces au texte"(al0). Whathappenswhen the readerchooses topay attention o the skin,the fringe,thetextual threshold?Genette calls the paratexta "zoneof transaction"hat is "definedby theintentionandresponsibilityof the author" 262). He quotesapprovinglyJ.Hillis Miller'sdescriptionof "para" s:

anantitheticalrefixwhich ndicates tonceproximitynddistance,imilaritynddifference,nteriorityndexteriority.... Athing n 'para's notonlyat once on bothsidesof thefrontierwhich eparatesheexterior nd he nterior;t is alsothefrontiertself, hescreenwhich reates permeable em-brane etweenhe nside nd heoutside. toperatesheir on-fusion, etting he outsidecome in andthe insidego out,itdivides hemandunites hem. "CriticsHost" 19)

Genette commentsthatthis is "averyfine descriptionof the activityof theparatext"271). He, like Hoek, discussesmany aspectsof paratextuality-cover,author'sname,title, "blurb," reface,notes,publicity,notoriety,andso forth-and he asserts thatspecific paratextualunctionmust be decidedempirically.The author'sname,as Foucaulthaspointedout in his now-ca-nonical"What s anAuthor?",may signalto the readerananticipated oher-ence andstylisticuniformityn the text to follow-or, perhaps, t may signalcertainkinds of deconstructive nterprise, s in the case of Foucaulthimself.A prefacemayconfirmanexpectationof traditional eadingpractices-or itmayfunctiontransgressively,f it disengageswriter romtext andquestionstextualauthority.An epigraphmay reinforce an irreversiblemovementto-ward a satisfyingclosure-or it may suggest, instead,textualplurality.Ineach case, however,the relationshipof the reader o the paratextualtem isdifferentfrom the relationshipof the readerto the primary ext. Genette'stranslatorMarie Maclean, in a companion paperto "Introduction o theParatext"n New LiteraryHistory,elaborateson Genette'spoint that thisdifferenceextends also to therelationshipof writer o textandparatext.Theparatextualmessagewill alwaysbe illocutionaryn status,whetheror not itis honest,for here is theplacewhere the writerdisplayshis or herintentionsand"speaksdirectly o the readeras sender o receiver" 278). However, ikeGenette,Maclean s makinggeneralstatements boutavarietyof paratextualelements thatneed to be contextualizedand specified in orderto be inter-preted.How must this notionof paratextas a free spacefor authorialnten-



4/25

ReadingheEpigraphsnTheFrenchLieutenant'sWoman 69tionalitybe moderatednthecase of theepigraph,which s alreadywrittenbya previous uthor?Maclean erself uggests hat"[t]he apbetween n-tention ndpractice.. is also thesphere f theartof theperipheral."Postmodern riters,nterestedn disruptinghereader'sraditional s-sumptionsbout he statusof thetext,have madeparticularlaywiththis"artof theperipheral."n his 1977jeu d'esprit"LivingOn," o offeranextremenstance,Derridalaysathisownexpenseas writer yproducingfootnote eneratedyhistitle,ofequalengthothetext,andhavingts owntitle.He calls thissecondaryexta "telegraphicand"hat"producesnuntranslatableupplement, hether wishit ornot" DeconstructionndCriticism 75).Ineffect he textbecomesparatext,ndvice versa: heyarebarelyobedistinguished,xceptbythetransgressiveature f theparatextassupplement,hichhere pecificallyscapeshecontrol fthewriter,atherthanspeaking irectlywithhisvoice.Thisnotion hatwritings noteasilycontainable,nd hatparatextualunctionmustbe defined mpirically,indsespecially ichexpressionn thesupplementf anepigraph.Fairly ommon s thesiteofauthoritativeommentaryn thenineteenth-centuryomanticovel, heepigraphasbecomewidespreadn latetwenti-eth-centuryluralexts,where tstransgressiveotentialmayberealizednmeaningshatexceedorevencontradicthoseof the text.Unlikeaprefaceor a footnote,anepigraphlmostalwaysoriginateswitha differentwriterfromthetext,thusformalizinghenotionof the"intertextualvent"andconsciouslyadmitting polyphony f voices. Even whensuperscribedythe writer f thenewtext,epigraphsrewrittenndifferentmodes,spokenwithdifferentonesof voice,anduttered ydifferent ersonae,rom hoseof thetextthat ollows.Theyarenotfirst-orderpeechactsbutsecond-,andrepresenthewriter istancedromorevenusurped ywriting, vertlymedi-tativeaboutt,andbothdirective ndplayfulnreferenceo thereader. heepigraph ecomesa particularindof writerly ommentuponthe wholeenterprisef thebook,a palimpsesthatholdsout a falsepromise f direc-tion othereader-to thewriter?-while tunfoldsnto hetext ts ownpriorcontext.As aresult,heseparatextualoicesmay, orthereader, avea lifeof theirown."Epigrapherst toujours ngestemuetdontI'interpr6tationrestea lachargedulecteur":ecauseanepigraphs "souvent nigmatique,d'unesignificationuines'6claircira,uconfirmera,u'h apleine ecturedu texte," ts interpretations "a la chargedu lecteur,dont la capacit6herm6neutiquestsouventmiseg l'apreuve"Genette, euils145-46).Thus,whenina self-reflexive iction ike TheFrenchLieutenant'sWoman



5/25

70 J N TJohnFowles reintroduces he Victorianromantic echniqueof providinganepigraphnotjust at theopeningof the bookbutattheopeningof eachchap-ter,the pluralfunctions of both readerandwriter n the text are inevitablyforegrounded.Fowles createswith epigraphsa runningandheterogeneoussubtextthathe uses to counterandinterprethe main text and to functioninakindof dialogicwith it. Butonlya kindof dialogic,becauseFowles straddlesthe late twentieth-centuryand the Victorianperiodwith considerabledis-comfort: he appearsto desire not only the play of textualitybut also thetraditionalrole of omnipotentauthor.Criticalattemptshave been made tojustifythisapparent nconsistencyby reading hetext as an illustration f thecomplexityof whatFoucaulthas called the "authorunction."RobertSiegle,forinstance, dentifies"at east threecontrary trands"nthe authorialvoice,but explains them as instancesof the interplayof codes ("Conceptof theAuthor"132).William Nelles describes TheFrenchLieutenant'sWoman s"anexampleof anovel in whichthepublicnarrators to be closely identifiedwith theextra-fictional oice.These narratorsrealso identifiedwithFowleshimself' ("Problems" 09). Borrowinghis theoreticalmodel fromGenette,among others,Nelles tries to extend it to allow for the narrativevoice toexceed and conflate the given categories.In a paperon "The ParadoxofOmniscience n TheFrenchLieutenant'sWoman, FrederickM. Holmes ar-gues thatFowles is in fact "ableto have it bothways"because"[b]y expos-ing the artificiality of the form in the very act of using it, . . . he avoidswritingin badfaith"(185); Holmesgoes on to assertthat"[t]hesuccess ofthisnovel is inseparablerom its reflexive character"196). On thecontrary,I am suggesting that the failuresof the novel can be similarlyattributed:Fowles's complicitoususe of artificedispersestheauthorityof thenarrativevoice, thus destroyinghis powerto speakas a moralist.It is particularlynthe paratextualuse of epigraphs hatthis tensionbetweenpluralityand au-thorialcontrolbecomes evident.Latein the bookFowlesmakesspecificauthorial ommenton the writershe has cited in theepigraphs.Thiscomment, ike Fowles's ubiquitous ntru-sions elsewhere,has the dual effect of unsettlingthe natureof the reader'sengagementwith the text and enlighteningher about authorial ntention;Fowles's commentary tands n relation o theepigraphs ike anobjectto itsreflection n a glass. Itmaybe helpfulto quoteatlengththespecific passagein question,wherein Chapter49 Fowles writes:



6/25

ReadingheEpigraphsn TheFrenchLieutenant'sWoman 71[T]he actthateveryVictorian ad wo minds .. is the onepieceof equipment e mustalways akewithusonour rav-els back o thenineteenthentury.t s aschizophreniaeenatitsclearest,ts mostnotorious,n thepoets havequotedromso often-in Tennyson,Clough,Arnold,Hardy; utscarcelylessclearlyn theextraordinaryolitical eeringsromRightto Left and backagainof men like theyoungerMill andGladstone;ntheubiquitouseuroses ndpsychosomaticll-nesses of intellectualsotherwiseas differentas CharlesKingsley ndDarwin;ntheexecration tfirstpoured nthePre-Raphaelites,hotried--orseemed o be trying-to beone-minded boutbothartand ife; n theendless ug-of-warbetweenLiberty ndRestraint, xcessandModeration,ro-prietyandConviction, etweenheprincipledman'scryforUniversal ducationndhis errorfUniversaluffrage;rans-parent lsointhe mania oreditingandrevising othat f wewant o know herealMillortherealHardywe can earn armorefrom he deletions ndalterationsf theirautobiogra-phies han rom hepublishedersions.. more romcorre-spondencehatsomehow scapedburning,romprivate ia-ries, fromthe pettydetritus f the concealmentperation.Neverwastherecordocompletelyonfused, everapublicfacadeso successfully assedoff as thetruthon a gullibleposterity;nd his,I think,makes he bestguidebooko theageverypossiblyDrJekyll ndMrHyde.Behind tslatterdayGothickies averyprofoundndepoch-revealingruth.288-89)

How is the readerto respondto such stridencyin tone, when encouragedearlierto questionthe whole convention of authorial ontrol?It seems that,if Fowles the story-teller s willing to submit to his charactersand to hisreaders,Fowles the moralist s decidedlynotwilling to do anysuchthing.Inthepassage quotedabove,Fowles declaresthattheVictoriansmadefictionsof their lives not only in poetrybut also in politics, medicine and scholar-ship. He singles out a work of literary iction as theprofoundestexpressionof "truth" boutthatage becauseit allows the endemicschizophrenia o beexplicitly contained and revealed.By thus privilegingthe recognitionof acoexistence of contradictoryerms,he providesa perhapsunwittingcom-mentaryupon his own text, where, like thatof his heroine Sarah,his ownpresence may be described n terms of oxymoron:"luring-receding,ubtle-



7/25

72 J N Tsimple,proud-begging, efending-accusing"267).By creatingamoderatelyplural ext,he inevitablycreatesa pluralauthor,and thusundercuts he con-fidentconclusions of the authorialvoice.Fowles's analysisof Victorian chizophreniahastwo consequencesfor areadingof theepigraphs.First, heepigraphsmaythemselvesbeexpectedtodemonstrate chizophrenia ndtherefore o be overlaidwith authorialrony.Second, they maybe expectedto create,out of theirtensionwith the maintext andperhapswith one another,a recordof schizophrenic ealitythat al-lows for the coexistenceof unreconciled ataandmayeven exceed the mean-ingsforeseenbythe"sovereignauthor"see Spivak xxiv-v).If, forinstance,Fowles believes that t is notin socialdocumentation ut n DrJekyllandMrHydethata truepictureof theVictorianage is mostlikely to be found,thenthe readermust be suspiciousof thepictureofferedbythe variousextractsofsocial documentaryhat Fowles includes in the epigraphsandin the text ofthe novel itself. By the narrator's wn definition,a fiction thatis truly "ep-och-revealing"will manifest tself in paradoxandin the coexistence of ap-parentlymutuallyexclusivepointsof view. His use of paradox s not,how-ever, a deconstructivestrategyto undermineoppositionsby showing theirinterrelationshipnddemonstrating ow onetermof an antithesis nheres nthe other.ThoughThe French Lieutenant'sWomans a novel that"system-aticallyflaunts ts ownconditionof artifice" Alterx), thisconscious artificeworksto highlightthe necessity for moralchoice rather han to explode aconventionalmetaphysic.Fowles's privilegingof fiction as that multi-di-mensionalworld in which truthneed not be propositionalor singularstillrequiresa kind of authorialabsolutismaliento self-consciousfictions.Further vidence of a desire to be simultaneouslywithin and above hisown text is evident in Fowles's "endeavour o renegotiate he termsof ourunderstanding f realism"as he exploits the felt need to keep historyandfiction apart(Johnson291). Peter Conradirefersto this phenomenonas a"reductio ad absurdumof the principlesof authentication,exposing thepremissesof realismandexcitingin thereaderapleasingdiscomfortcompa-rableto mildepistemologicalvertigo" 69). Nowhereis thisrenegotiationofrealism moreapparenthanin Fowles's use of epigraphs, hroughwhich heeffectively collapsesthe boundariesbetween art andlife, the fictive and thereal. That he will necessarilythencreatea text of greaterplurality hancanbe containedwithin the "author-function"s a consequencethat extendstextualitybeyondthose traditionalbounds mplicitlyassumedby Fowles assovereignauthor.



8/25

ReadingheEpigraphsnThe FrenchLieutenant'sWoman 73The initialepigraphof The FrenchLieutenant'sWomans from an early

work of KarlMarx:Everyemancipations a restorationf the humanworldandof humanelationshipsomanhimself.-Zur Judenfrage1844)

Genettecurtlycites "cettephrase exemplairement nsignifiante"as an ex-ampleof anepigraphwhose sole valuedependsuponthe name of theauthor,"qui onctionneunpeuici comme une d6dicace inmemoriam'"(Seuils147).Certainlyacase canbemadefor a sympathybetweenearlyMarxand Fowlesthe author: Marx's early writings have been described as disclosing "astrangelymodem youthfulMarxspeaking n accents almost of an existen-tialistphilosopher," ndas providing nspirationor"anew,morallyaware,criticalMarxism" Tuckerxxvii). What Fowles meansby "emancipation"andwhat Marxmeantaredependenton differentunderstandingsf thepos-sibility of humanchoice, but to each, emancipations the centralconcept.Marx is in fact discussingthe necessityfor the individual o transmute ntothe "abstract itizen" and become a "species-being"n orderto enjoy free-dom(Tucker46), whichis a notion far from Fowles's understandingf per-sonalindividuation.Rather handevelopingin the novel the notionof free-dom as an inalienableright,Fowles emphasizes"theanxietyof freedom-thatis, the realization hat one is free and the realization hatbeing free is asituationof terror"FLW267). Theepigraph herefore tandsas a typeof thewayin whichmaterial rom one "episteme"will be interpreted ifferently nanother,and reminds he readerof thehigh degreeof authorial ontrolbeingexercisedin this text, atthe same time as suggestingthepossibilityof quiteother ntertextual elations.Inseveralof the novel's epigraphicparatexts,t is to Fowles'spurpose ohighlightrather hanelide conflicting polarities.In extendingthe implica-tions of such polarities nto the text, Fowles's manipulation f intertextualvoices is particularlyuggestive.Theepigraph oChapter14, forinstance, sfrom JaneAusten'sPersuasion:

"My deaof goodcompany,MrElliot, s thecompanyfclever,well-informedeople,whohavea greatdealof con-versation;hat s what callgoodcompany.""You remistaken,"aidhe,gently, thats notgoodcom-pany-that is the best. Goodcompany equires nlybirth,



9/25

74 J N Teducation,ndmanners,ndwithregardo educations notverynice."(Persuasion4)In the ensuing chapter,Charles and Ernestinapay the expected call uponMrsPoulteney.WhereAusten hasgiven one set of criteria ora definitionof"goodcompany,"Fowles ironically implies several more.The "goodcom-pany"beloved of AnneElliot is as absentfromthe Poulteney parlouras the"goodcompany"definedby Mr Elliot is shownto be a misnomer.The visitto Mrs Poulteney arouses no expectationof pleasureon either side, Mrs

Poulteneyanticipating hat it will be her "dutyto embarrass" he frivolousyoung people, and Charles andErnestinapreparing o endureboredom. Inthe event, the visit is moreunpleasantand embarrassinghanany of themcouldhaveforeseen,since Ernestina eveals hershallownessandprovincial-ity, Charles is snubbedby his hostess andrespondswith cold sarcasm,andthe generalabsence of thathumanity hatwould validatethe possession ofbirthand manners s brought ntosharprelief. LikeJaneAusten in the widercontext of Persuasion,Fowles moves fromasocietalto a morebroadlymoraldefinition of "goodcompany,"n which thesocial circles of Lymearesorelylacking.While Fowles extends the implicationsof JaneAusten's social criticism,he both illustratesandreinterpretshe personaltensions felt by a poet likeA. H. Clough.In the passage quotedearlierwhere Fowles describesVicto-rianschizophrenia,he declares t to be "seenat its clearest,its most notori-ous" in poets like Clough.The epigraph o Chapter31 providesa strikingexampleof whathe has in mind:

Whenpanting ighs hebosom ill,Andhandsbychanceunited hrillAt once withone deliciouspainThepulsesand henervesof twain;Wheneyes,that rstcouldmeetwithease,Do seek,yet,seeking, hylyshunEcstatic onsciousunison-The surebeginnings,ay,bethese,Prelusiveothestrain f loveWhichangels ing nheaven bove?Or s itbut hevulgarune,Whichall thatbreathe eneathhemoon



10/25

ReadingheEpigraphsn The French Lieutenant's Woman 75Soaccuratelyearn-so soon?

-"Poem" (1844)This is the epigraph o the chapter n which Charlesfinds Sarah n the barnand kisses her.Far fromengagingin that "concealmentoperation"of whichFowles accuses the Victorians,Cloughhererepresents hose fiction-writerswho were most awareof conflicting polarities,and he explicitly articulatesthetension betweenlove andlust, soul andbody, sublimityandvulgarity,asperceivedby the Victorianeye. Charles's reatmentof Sarah n this chapterdemonstrates xactlyandphysicallythe seesaw of emotionexpressedin thepoem:he takesher into his arms,feels hertenderness,andpushes her vio-lently away.But the text reinterpretshe epigraph n clearly privilegingtheexistential moment of action above the tensions it embraces.In this way,thoughhe too is espousinga particular, ulturally-specific heoryof truth,Fowles patronizesCloughas an instanceof limitedsensibility.The narratorhascommented,two pagesearlier:

InspiteofHegel,heVictorians erenotadialectically indedage; heydidnot hinknaturallynopposites, fpositives ndnegatives s aspectsof the samewhole.Paradoxesroubledratherhanpleasedhem.Theywerenotthepeople or exis-tentialmoments, utfor the chainsof causeandeffect;forpositiveall-explainingheories, arefully tudiedandstudi-ouslyapplied.197)

Appliedto CharlesandSarah, hequestion"Is it love or is it lust?"expressesa meaningless polarization.In Charlesthe physicalnearness of Sarahpro-duces a conditionedresponseof recoil-but justbeforehe kisses her,there samomentof fusionbetweenbodyandsoul, so that"[t]hemomentovercamethe age" (199). The reader'suncomfortableawarenesshere of a sovereigntwentieth-centuryuthorof coursesuggeststhatFowles too likes all-explain-ing theoriesof cause-and-effect,as long as they arehis own.Fowles's privilegingof literary iction over documentarys a significantelement nhis construction f doubleepigraphs,n which an ironicparatextualjuxtaposition may suggest a paradigmfor the novelistic text. PresumablyFowles intends that the dialectic between oppositions will generate the"whole"of whichtheyareaspectsand which he wantshis work to embrace.But by foregroundingboth the paradoxicalnatureof realityand the trans-gressiveeffects of contextualization, e also alerts he reader o the effectsofcontextualizingwriterandepigraphicparatextoutside of the novel as well as



11/25

76 J N Twithinit, as partof a web of textualityandhistorywhose meaningsescapethe author.Aparticularly roductivenstanceof Fowles's use of pluralvoiceoccurs at the beginningof Chapter2:

Inthatyear 1851) hereweresome8,155,000emales f theageoftenupwardsn theBritish opulation,scompared ith7,600,000males.Alreadyt will beclear hat f theaccepteddestiny f theVictorianirlwasto becomewife andmother,it wasunlikelyhat herewouldbeenoughmen ogoround.-E. RoystonPike,HumanDocumentsf theVictorianGoldenAge

I'll spreadail of silverand 'll steer owardshesun,I'll spreadailof silverandI'llsteer owardshesun,Andmyfalse ovewillweep,andmyfalse ovewillweep,Andmyfalse ove willweepformeafter 'mgone.-West-CountryFolksong, AsSylvieWasWalking"11)These two epigraphs,whichby their uxtapositionsuggestthat the shortageof eligible men will resultin female brokenhearts, n contextimply a num-ber of thingsthat the subsequent hapterdoes no more than hintat. This isthe chapter hat ntroduces he threechief protagonists f thebook, Charles,Ernestinaand Sarah,Charlesat this stage being engagedto Ernestinaandaboutto be fascinatedby Sarah.The epigraphs mplythatthese two womenwill be rivals forthe attentionof theman, ongbeforethisis madeexplicit inthestory.Theepigraphs urthermplythat herewill be a brokenrelationshipin which one partysails off leavinga desolate over behind.But the terms ofbothepigraphsarerenderedambiguous.The conclusions of the statistical irstcitationmay after all be premisedupona differentkind of girlfromthe ones in Chapter2. Will Sarahwant the"accepteddestinyof the Victoriangirl,"andwill Ernestinabe able to fulfilit?IsCharles n anycase thekindof manwho will be preparedo "goround"?Fowles will play with the disparitybetween the impersonalandcollectiveassumptionsof the statisticianandthe traditionallypersonaland individualassumptionsof the novelist. Thelyricalsecondcitationraisesthequestionofwhether he conventionsof romanceassumedwithin the song areto be up-held or undercutby thistext. Tradition upportsaplotin whichthe man sailsaway,as the FrenchLieutenanthas supposedlysailed away fromTragedy.But in this novel Sarah sails away from Charles ust as surely as he from



12/25

ReadingheEpigraphsnTheFrench ieutenant's oman 77Ernestina.Whenhe initiallysees the figureof Sarahat the end of the Cobbmoreclearly,Charlesremarks,"Goodheavens,I took thatto be a fisherman.But isn't it a woman?"(13). n the event, Sarah s both.The new contextofthe song allows a furtherambiguityover the identityof the "falselove": isthis a lover to whom the one sailing awayis beingfalse, or a lover who hasproved false to the sailor?The contrastbeing drawnbetween reality andromancewill be redrawnwith fresh parameterswithin the novel-indeedwithinthisvery chapter. nthiskindof redefinitionies much of thepleasureof the text for thereaderwho is "misea l'6preuve,"becauseFowles's skilfulevocation of voices mutedin the epigraphsspringsnot so much from anattitudeof historicalsuperiorityas fromanunfoldingof theircontradictoryepistemologies.Thisparatextual layinChapter hasfoundthe readerasyet undisturbedby the author's oregrounding f his own reflexivetechnique.In Chapter4,however,a similarproblematization f the doubleepigraphcontrastingpo-etryand socialdocumentaryoregrounds uestionsof authorialntention hataremoreunsettling:

What'sdone, s whatremains! h,blessed heyWho eavecompletedasksof lovetostayAndanswermutelyorthem,beingdead,Lifewasnotpurposeless,houghife be fled.-Mrs Norton,TheLadyofLaGaraye1863)MostBritish amilies f themiddle ndupper lasses ivedabove heirowncesspool ..

-E. RoystonPike,HumanDocumentsf theVictorianGoldenAgeThelines of poetryarefroma muchlongernarrativepoemwhichErnestinais later o be foundreadingaloudto Charlesas theirevening'sentertainment.Fowles uses that occasion to convey some informationaboutMrs Nortonherself:

Youmay hink hatMrsNortonwasamerensipidpoetastrixof theage. Insipidher verse s ... ; butshewas a farfrominsipidperson.She was Sheridan's randdaughteror onething;hehadbeen, o itwasrumored,Melborne'smistress-herhusband adcertainlyelievedherumortrongly noughto bringan unsuccessful rim.con. ctionagainst he great



13/25

78 J N Tstatesman;ndshewasan ardenteminist-whatwe wouldcalltodaya liberal.95)The narrator ndercutsany condemnationof the insipidityof the scene byhis appealto "real" acts aboutthe poetess. Humanbeings areparadoxicalcreatures,whocanwritesentimental alesbut live stridentives. Theillusioncreatedby the text is broken hrough heuse of external nformationwhich,

though t mightbe expectedto strengthenhe senseof thereal,in factworksto confoundthe reader'sexpectationsandunsettleher fromtraditional on-ventionsforreading.The contrastbetween the two epigraphiccitationsin Chapter4 lies notonly in thismany-leveled ife of thepoetherself,whohad her own cesspoolto contendwith,but also in theparadox hat"tasksof love"may spring rombase motivations.Of course Fowles means the cesspool initially to refermetonymicallyto Mrs Fairley's"Stygiandomain,"but withina few para-graphs he reference s extendedmetaphoricallyo the murkyconscienceofMrsPoulteneyherself.Hervery practicalattitude o theafterlife,whichspursherto actionsheotherwisedetests,presentsa facetiouscommentary n thosehighminded"blessed"of the Norton ines.What ooks to theoutsider ike anact of love mayspring romfear,greedandenvy;whatseems romanticmaybe utterly pedestrian;ennoblingfictions may springfrom sordid realities.Fowles says as muchin the infamousChapter13, in the course of his mostblatant irst foregroundingof his reflexive technique-"novelists writeforcountlessdifferentreasons: ormoney,forfame,forreviewers . .." 81).Theproblemarises nthedisclaimerhe makesaboutplayingGod,andhis dictumthat"agenuinelycreatedworldmust be independent f its creator."By situ-atinghimself within the networkof the text, the writerrendershimself fic-tional;the authoritativepronouncements f a fictionalizedwriterboth areand arenot the statementsof a god.If thecollapsingof the traditional oundariesbetweenartand ife createsa textualplayground or Fowles, nowhereis this moreevident thanin histreatmentof the relationshipbetweenthe FrenchLieutenantof the text andthe historicalFrenchLieutenantwhose case Dr Grogan nstructsCharlestoreadwithcare.Chapter 8,whichconcernshecase of Lieutenant aRoncibre,is prefacedby anotherpairof epigraphs:

Assumptions,asty, rude, ndvain,Fulloft touse willSciencedeign;



14/25

ReadingheEpigraphsnThe FrenchLieutenant'sWoman 79The corks henovicepliestodayThe swimmeroonshallcastaway.-A. H.Clough,"Poem"1840)AgainI springomakemychoice;Again n tonesof ireI heara God's remendousoice-"Becounsel'd, ndretire!"-Matthew Arnold, TheLake"1853)

In thecourseof thechaptertbecomesapparenthatLaRoncibreidnotdowhathewas accused fdoing,but hathediddosomethinglse,of ahighlycompromisingature. his nformationsnot,however,vailableoCharles:it is communicatedo the reader s paratextualnformationn a footnote.Although owleshasarguedorthesuperiorityf fictionas ahermeneuticaltool,he is by dispositionnclined o givethelastword o fact. But if eachconstructionfknowledges contextuallyalid, hen hereader's ositionsas limitedandas freeasCharles's:nawareness f textualpluralitys notsignificantor Charles'smoment f choice,so that hesenseof superioritysuchanawarenessosters nthereaders renderedneffectual ytheemo-tionalheartof thetext, ocated nthefatesof thecharacters.owles s notpreparedo allowdifferentextssimply ocoexist ntheirplurality,ecausetheextent o whichhecannot ontrolhem s the extent owhich hereaderapprehendsimandhisjudgmentssfiction.Charles'snitial esponseoreadingheLieutenant'storysto feelboundbyadeterministicniverse,nparticularecause"thedaythatotherFrenchLieutenant ascondemnedwastheverysamedaythatCharleshadcomeinto heworld"188).Science sreducedoastrologyorhim nthisrealiza-tion.But his desperationpurshim to action: eelingthathis allowingDrGroganojudgeSarah or himwas"because e hadnomore reewillthananammonite,"e comesto a placeof "indecipherableetermination"ndsetsoutto findherforhimself 189).If science s to beequatedwithdeter-minismandbondage, henhe will disregardts verdictsand follow thepromptingsf his ownintegrity,hoosingowritehistory ather han o bewrittenby it. Fowlesapparently ants hereader o feel thatCharles'se-fusalto accept hestoryof theLieutenantswrittenn stone sjustifiedbytheactual ontradictionsf thecase.Theunfoldingf thechapterhereforequestionsheauthority-figuresftheepigraphs.tbecomesunclearwhetherScience is to be trusted in affairs of humanconscience. Which "assump-



15/25

80 J N Ttions"are o becategorizeds"hasty,rude, ndvain"-those of theorigi-nalparticipantsn theLaRonciererial,hoseofGrogannthecaseof Sarah,or thoseof Charlesndismissinghe"historical"vidence?There s aques-tionmark, oo,over hevoiceof "God"nArnold's oem:s this hevoice ofScience,or of individualonscience, r of a transcendent ther?s it coun-selingCharles o retire romSarah, r to retire romGrogan's ocument?And nmakinghischoice, s Charles sing he "corks" f thenovice,ortheskills of thefully-trainedwimmer? owlesuses theepigraphsot to shedlightonwhetherCharles asmadea wisechoice,but oemphasizehe factthat"beingree s asituationf terror"nwhich hegroundsordecisionaredangerousndunclear.Thisforegroundingf Fowles'sexistentialympathiess themorenote-worthy ecause readingf theCloughinesoutside hecontext f thenovelgenerates quitedifferentmeaningor hepoem,onethatdoesnot allywithFowles's ronicexposure f Victorian arrownessnlightof hisconceptoffreedom.First,Fowleshaschosen o use a less well-attestedeading f theCloughpoem.Thestandarddition eads,"Assumptionsasty, rude,andvain,/ Fulloft to use withSciencedeign" Mulhauser1,my emphasis).Fowles'ssubstitutionf "will" or "with"makesScience,ratherhanthepoet, hesubject fthesentence,wherenthestandardeadingCloughoo isprivilegingndividualhoicebyissuingan mperativeo thereader. econd,intheiroriginal ontext he inesarespoken ythecynicwhom hepoet satpains o leave behind.Thepoem s about heimportancef intuition, er-sonalconvictionnthe faceof apparentactual vidence,and hepoweroftheheart--every tanzaopenswiththeline,"Comebackagain,myoldenheart!"t is a poemaboutnot Sciencebutsentiment,nd s muchnearer ofightingFowles'scase for him thanFowlesseems nterestedn showing.Even ntheArnold oem,whereheGod-figureoescarry uthority,here sa finalstanza n which hepoetshowsmuchmorestrengthf personalon-viction han heepigraphicinessuggest:"YeguidingPowers,who oinandpart, Whatwouldyehavewithme? Ah,warn omemoreambitiouseart,/And et thepeaceful e!"Fowles'smisrepresentativenvoking f other extsbrings uspicion nceagainuponhis ownnarrativeuthority.

Perhapsheprime nstance f readerly iscomfortwithFowles'sanxi-etiesof authorships in thenotoriousChapter5. Here,Fowles ntroduceshimselfasa Victorian ovelist ntotherailway arriagenwhichCharlesstravelingo London.What anhedo withCharles, owcanthe novelend?



16/25

ReadingheEpigraphsnThe FrenchLieutenant's Woman 81The epigraphto the chapter s fromLewis Carroll'sThrough he Looking-Glass:

"Why, boutyou!"Tweedledeexclaimed, lappinghishands riumphantly.And f he leftoffdreamingboutyou,wheredoyou suppose ou'dbe?""Whereamnow,of course,"aidAlice."Notyou!"Tweedledeeetortedontemptuously.You'dbe nowhere.Why,you'reonlya sortof thing nhisdream!""IfthatthereKingwas to wake,"addedTweedledum,"you'd o out-bang!-just like a candle!""Ishouldn't!"lice exclaimedndignantly.315)

Hereis anextract rom a fictionaltale, in which two charactersaretelling athirdcharacter hat she is more fictional thanthey are. Of course, in thestory,Alice wouldnot"goout" f theKingwoke up,forin thisstoryAlice iseffectively "morereal" hanTweedledeeandTweedledum,by virtueof hav-ing come from a "real"worldinto a looking-glassworld. In fact, since thecharacterof Alice is based upon that of the little girl for whom CharlesDodgson wrote the book, one might arguethat she has a still more solidclaimto reality.ButThroughheLooking-Glasss a story.Itis notpartof thestory to have characters through the glass question their own reality:TweedledeeandTweedledumhavenodoubtthat heyarematerially"there."And TheFrenchLieutenant'sWoman s a story.Sarahandthe FrenchLieu-tenant, ikeAlice, mayhaveanalogues n theeverydayworld,butthese ana-logues arenotunder he author'scontrol n the way his own charactersare.Or can this argumentbe turned on its head?Fowles, like many moretraditionalnovelistsbeforehim,suggeststhathischaracters ictateto him-thushe calls intoquestionnotonly the fictionalityof his charactersbutalsothe realityof theiranalogues.Fiction,he seems to say, is the game we allplay.The author, ike the King in Through he Looking-Glass,controls thefiction from within its own conventions;at the sametime, like Carroll, heauthormanipulateshefictionfrom outside. ButtheKing sleeps and Carrolldoes not intrude: he "real"presencesarethose of the characters, ach sureof his or her existence above that of the others. And here is a significantdifferencebetween the looking-glassworld and the world of The FrenchLieutenant'sWoman.The levels of fictionalityrevealedin the Carrollepi-graphparadoxically mplyanauthorial ontrolover thelooking-glassreflec-tionsthatFowles lacks overhis material, ince Carroll akes thatsilent stance



17/25

82 J N Toutsidehis text whichFowlesseemsboth o wantandexplicitly o reject.Carroll'sines exceedthemeaningsntended or themby Fowles'ssuper-scription,ndstand natransgressiveelationshipo the newtext.Returning inallyto the firstchapterof TheFrenchLieutenant'sWoman,the nitiated eader fepigraphshroughouthenovel s struck ytheappro-priateness f thisinitialepigraph-anenigmatic ne whichappearset toprovide keyto thequestions f thenovel,butwhichmay nstead eneratedeeper onfusion. t is fromHardy's TheRiddle":

StretchingyeswestOver hesea,Windoulor air,Alwaystood heProspect-impressed;Solely ut hereDidhergaze est,NeverlsewhereSeemedharmobe.(9)The itleofthispoemestablisheshemajorheme fthenovel.DavidWalkerhas described arahas "anemblemof theenigmaat theheartof reality"("Subversion"99),andby associationwithHardy'sines thatemblemsrenderedimelessandmotionless s a statue.Theepigraph ointsacontrastbetween andandsea,stability ndflux,whichwill in the novelbe elabo-rated nto a distinction etween ossilization ndfreedom.Andthebridgebetween hetwo elements s thewoman,"prospect-impressed"-bothm-pressedby theprospect nd,foranyoneobserving er, mpressed pon t,partof it. It seemsthatonlythe sea can charmher, hough hesucceedingchapter pecifically tates hat heland-prospect,f she wouldonlyturn olook at it, is a pleasant ndharmoniousne,and hat he"empty ea" s aplaceof madness10, 14).Theres an mplied ssociationetweenhewomanof thepoemandthesea-rampart,heCobb,of the novel.NotonlyhastheCobbtoo "always tood[in]wind foul or fair,"but it too is paradoxical,"[p]rimitiveetcomplex, lephantineutdelicate; s fullof subtlecurvesandvolumesas a HenryMooreor a Michelangelo;ndpure,clean,salt,aparagon f mass" 9-10).It is of the landbutformedorthesea; t has thestability fearthbut heflowand ineofwater--ablendof rawmaterial ndhuman rtistry. ndon thefarthestipof thisgreat ea-wall tandsSarah, afigure rommyth" escribed t firstas sointegral partof the sceneas to be



18/25

ReadingheEpigraphsnThe French Lieutenant'sWoman 83withoutgender:"It stoodrightat the seawardmost nd. ... Its clothes wereblack"(11). TheFrench Lieutenant'sWoman s the deconstructionof thisriddle,the enigmaof a charmedandcharmingwoman.But thetext is morethan his.By interpretinghe riddleasparadox,Fowlesmakesit metaphoricof his understanding f truth, he coexistence of oppo-sites in tensionwithin Sarahandwithinthelandscapeof thetext. Thereader,however, experiencingthe authorialpresence itself as riddle, and Fowleshimself as "prospect-impressed,"s less ableto solve theriddleby recourseto the notionof paradox,since the terms of this riddle do not coexist in thesamedimension.TheFowles impresseduponhis own createdworldspeakswith a quitedifferentvoice fromtheFowles impressedby it. Moreover,thereaderhas access to Hardy'sfull text, and knows that his "riddle"was of adifferent order.Hardy'spoem has a second stanzawhich drawsa contrastbetween the stance of the woman as she used to look out to sea and herpresentgaze inpreciselytheoppositedirection:"Alwayseyes east/ Pondersshe now- / As indevotion- / Hillsof blankbrow Wherenowavesplough./ Never the least / Room for emotion / Drawnfrom the ocean / Does sheallow"(inMomentsof Vision).Hardy'sriddle concernsthechangefromthewoman's charmedcommunionwiththe seato herdetermined oncentrationuponthe land. Canthis be appliedto Sarah's urning o the Pre-Raphaelitebrotherhood? erhaps;but it seemsclear thatFowles is more concernedwiththe riddle of her single enigmatic stance by the sea than with any futureinconsistency n her behaviour.Thisimageis in anycase the onethathe sayshauntedhimintowritinghis novel ("Notes"136-37).Quoting hefirststanzaof the poem withoutthe secondheightensthe auraof timeless mytharoundthewoman andsuppresses heoppositionsof thepoem'soriginalpuzzle. Ofcoursein his play with textualityFowles is at libertyto makewhateverusehe likes of what he finds within a poem. But writinga novelistic text thatexplicitly encouragescriticaldistancemust also lay himopento losing con-trol to thereader,who mayunderminehis apparentntentionby recognizingthetransgressivepotentialof his epigraphs.Furthermore, s if to reinforce henotion that n thisnovel life is a seriesof riddles,and a seriesof solutionsthatopen into moreriddles,Fowles de-velops in the readera suspicionof language tself. Theepigraphs,withtheirironical andenigmaticrelation o the text, already ostera distrustof verbalsurfacesand emphasizethe power of context. But more than this: an ex-tremely self-conscious and cautious attitudeto languageis epitomized inSarah, heriddlepersonified:hersendingof athree-wordaddress o Charles



19/25

84 J N Tis "perfectly n key withall herotherbehaviour,andto be describedonly byoxy-moron: uring-receding,.." etc. (267). WhereasCharles s introducedas the "scientist,the despiserof novels" who is drawn to mysteryand ro-mance(15), Sarah n thefinal d6nouement peaksfromtheperspectiveof ahighly-disciplinedartistwho is as concerned or truthas the most meticulousscientist:

"Ihavesinceseenartists estroywork hatmight o theama-teur eemperfectly ood.Iremonstratednce.Iwastold hatif an artist s nothis own sternestudgehe is not fit tobe anartist. believe hat s right. believeI wasright o destroywhathadbegunbetween s.Therewasa falsehoodn it .... "(351)

Charles n response s awakened o the dissonanceof:Two anguages, etrayingn theonesideahollowness,fool-ish constraint-but hehad ustsaid t,anartificialityfcon-ception-andon the othera substance ndpurity f thoughtandudgment;hedifference etween simple olophon, ay,and omepagedecoratedyNoelHumphreys,llscrollwork,elaboration,ococohorrorf void.

The artistry hatis not artificial s, however,deceptive in its simplicity,asSarah's face is "naturally" ragic thoughshe is supremelyplaying a part.There s no suchthingas non-fictionalexistence:artistrys necessary n theplayof life. However,artcan be a barrier oplayingwell if it is interpreted sstatic,or if it is mere decoration n reactionagainstthe void. In discussingthe horrorsof "real"Victorian ower-class life, Fowles writes, "Eachage,eachguilty age, buildshighwalls round ts Versailles;andpersonallyI hatethose walls most when they are madeby literatureand art"(129). Fowlescalls for thereader o acceptthatboth readerandwriterarecreating ictions.But Fowles's stronglymoralisticmessage-that distinctionsmustbe madebetweenartistryandartificiality,and that one's fictionsmust be in dynamicrelationshipwith living-necessarily cannot itself escape the suspicionoflanguage.

It is significantthat Sarahcreates fictions specificallyto escape reality.Her confession sharplycontrasts or Charles he real andthe ideal:



20/25

ReadingheEpigraphsnTheFrenchLieutenant'sWoman 85Itwasnotstrange ecausetwasmore eal,butbecauset waslessreal;a mythicalworldwherenakedbeautymatteredarmore hannaked ruth.144)

Sarah, he "figure rommyth,"hascomposeda mythicalworld for herselftoinhabit.She is not, in the sense she leads Charlesto suppose, the FrenchLieutenant'swoman;butthe fiction she hascreated s themost flexible andpowerfulwithinthe world of the novel, because it is constantlyrelevant tothe present.It is doubtful,however,whethersuch myth-making houldes-capethecensureof Fowles themoralist,since it involvesCharles n a tissueof deceit andpain.ThoughFowles says he wants to privilegenoble fictionsthat will dealrealisticallywith sordid ife outside the walls of Versailles,heactuallycapitulateshereto the magicof art andthe lure of mythicalbeauty.Sarah'srealityis a functionalmeaningthatshe has createdfor herself;herbeing is, as it were, permanentlydeferred,andas such infinitelyattractivenotonly to Charlesbutalso, it appears, o Fowles.Theriddle of Sarah s thestrongest orce in the textto encourageFowlesto avoidclosure. It is certainlywhenconfrontingheproblemof endingsthatFowles readsmostclearlylike an authorunderduress.Hisovertdeclarationthat he privileges fluidity,and his attemptsto escape closure by offeringalternative ndings,are atodds withthereader'spowerfulsense of Fowles'sspecific philosophicalpurposesin writing,and with the didacticauthorialvoice.Thatsuspicionof paradigmhathasbeen fostered nthereader hrough-out the novel is finally foregroundedby Fowles in his much-discussedplaywith the threeendings-but the samesuspicionundermines he authorityofhis constantneed to be directive.The most generallyacceptedcritical viewof the endings is thatthey areclearlyhierarchical, ach one, fromthe per-spective privileged by the author,an improvementover the one before, sothatthe thirdendingis theleastconventional, he least sentimental, he leastreductive,anda full-blownapologiaforexistentialchoice (see Conradi66-67;Holmes 190;Olshen88-89;Wolfe 165).Some criticshaveargueddiffer-ently:FrederikN. Smith,for instance,maintains hat "Fowles has not cho-sen" between endings, but presentsa "bifurcated onclusion [as] . . . themostobviousformalcharacteristic f a novelbifurcated nevery page"(87).Buthis appeal o ahistorical heoryof narrativemayalso historicizeFowles'sfinalchoice as theinevitableone: Smithsuggeststhatanexaminationof "theprecisekind of narrative ealityeach [ending]presupposes" egitimatestheauthenticityof each as reflecting"a fictionaluniverseintimatelytied to a



21/25

86 J N Tspecifichistorical eriod nd hecharacters'elationshipoit" 97-98).Thisargumentan be usedto explainhow,in the finalparagraphf thenovel,withSarah's iddlerevealed ndre-veiled,andwithCharles utadrift,heopen-endednessfparadoxndmysterys itself nvoked sclosure.Fowlesencourageshereaderosee theendurancef Sarah nd hepredictedndur-anceof Charles s demonstrativef thestrength ndartistry ecessarynresponseo life's"unplumb'd,alt,estrangingea" 366).The voice here sdirective. tbrings ogethernineteenth- ndtwentieth-centuryiction,andrepositionsnArnold oemwhich henarratorasearlier escribeds"per-hapsthe noblestshortpoemof the wholeVictorian ra" 334) withinanovertly xistentialistmorality.But the attentiveeadermust eel suspicious f this Arnoldian adenceandof the voiceof this finaldemi-god.Themostsignificant f thetextualvoices thatFowles is not ableto controlpointto the tensionswithinthenarratorimself.He hasasked he reader o be distanced ndcritical-butnotsocritical stobe immune ohisauthoritativenterjections.ehassug-gested hathischaractersavea lifeof theirown-but notto the extent hattheycanmakemovesundreamtf in hisphilosophy. ehasencouragedhereader o understandim as fictional-but not so fictional hathe cannotmakedefinitive ronouncementsbout henineteenth-centuryorld romatwentieth-centuryerspective. owles wants o indicate hecontradictoryparametersf reality, ut odemonstratehrough ischaractershepossibil-ityof livingwithconsistent hoice nlightof suchcontradictions.norigi-nalapproacho exoneratingheinsufferableondescensionf the narrativevoice is offeredby JeromeBump.He argues hat the narrator'sttitudechangesduringhe courseof thenovel,to the extent hatwe witness"theconversion f theprotoreadero theVictorianiewof sexuality,"hus"sub-tlyrevealing ow theVictoriansranscendedurownsimplistic ualism fpleasure ersusrepression" ith their"reflexive sceticism""NarratorsProtoreader"8).Toosubtle o be helpful,perhaps,hisreadingactuallyreinforceshe udgmenthat,n thefinalanalysis,Fowless notseriousn hispostmodern lay;hisdesire or control s asgreatas thatof anytraditionalnovelist, ndhisapparentiscreditingfthisdesiremakestbothmoredevi-ous and ess effective.In a novel entitled TheFrench Lieutenant'sWoman,where the title itselfis theinvention f apowerfullyontrolling ill (Sarah's),hereaderwhosedistanceromthe texthas made t possible o see thecontradictions ust



22/25

ReadingheEpigraphsnThe FrenchLieutenant'sWoman 87alsoperceivehedistance etween eader ndwriter.fas readerheis bothto suspenddisbeliefand o unravelextuality,he must eelthatshehastheauthor'srespect;in The French Lieutenant'sWoman uch respectseems tobeonlythatof ateacher orhispupils.Thechoice o be made s the onethatFowlesadvocates. heresultantnd raditional etaphysicalesire omas-teranxiety reatesn the novel ustthat"contradictorilyoherentdea of acentre" hatDerrida erates.Fowles'splaywithpostmodernistechniqueseffectivelydeconstructsisownposition,bycreating text whosecontra-dictionsandpluralitieswill notcentre hemselves pon hetruthhe appar-ently ntended.As aresult,hisnovel s aprime xample f thewayinwhich extualityescapesheauthor.f"the extbelongs olanguage, ndnottothesovereignandgeneratinguthor"Spivakxxiv), henbypresentingimselfasapluralauthor owleshasmade hereadermore horoughlyheproducerf thetextthanhisstridentonesuggestsheintended.t is RolandBartheswhowrites,'"Theirth fthereadermustbe atthecostof thedeath f theAuthor"Barthes148)-but the readerof The French Lieutenant'sWoman s never sure ifFowlesreallymeansodie.Hisuse ofepigraphss anextension f thetradi-tionalVictorianmodelwhichgivesmorepower o the author atherhancallinghimintoquestion, utthe effectof theepigraphs ithin heplayfulcontextFowles reatess atransgressivene.Withoutheepigraphs,e wouldhavebeenmore ikelyto produce book;as it is, he hasgeneratedwhatDerridaerms"thedisruptionf writing"OfGrammatology8).Attentionto theepigraphicaratextoes ndeed uggesthatt controlshewholeread-ing:the servanturns uttobe the master.Butthere s anotherwayto read.Fowleswrites hat hetrulyepoch-re-vealing ictionmanifeststself nparadoxndapparentlyxclusivepointsofview. TheFrenchLieutenant'sWoman emonstratesheimpossibilityof rec-oncilingapostmoderntrategy f textualpluralitywith he interventionsfan authorial arratorlearlyattractedo omnipotence. haveargued hatFowlesseemsto want o bebothwithinandabovehis text.Neverassume,saysMargaret rabblen an address n "Mimesis: heRepresentationfReality n the Post-War ritishNovel," hatanyauthors everreallypre-paredobe other han overeign,whateverhegameshe or sheplays("Mi-mesis"13-14).Perhaps,hen,Fowles'snovel s indeed poch-revealing,n-sofaras this tensionbetweenwriter ndreader smeaning-makerss pecu-liarlyan obsessionof ourtimes.Metafictionalames,arguesDerrida,eadto "anuntranslatableupplement, hetherthewriter]wish[es] t ornot,"



23/25

88 J N Tand heprotectiveotion fthebook s lost ntheriddledabyrinthfreaderlyintertextualvents. suggesthatFowleshas,after ll,producedhequintes-sentialwentieth-centuryiction,because,ntheprocess fplayingwithsov-ereignty, e hasrendered imselfandhisopinionsictitiousoo.Universityof OttawaOttawa,Ontario



24/25

ReadingheEpigraphsnThe FrenchLieutenant'sWoman 89WorksitedAlter,Robert.PartialMagic: TheNovel as a Self-ConsciousGenre.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaress,1975.Austen, ane.Persuasion. 818.London:Macmillan,963.Balsamo,Gian."TheNarrative extas Historical rtifact: heCaseofJohnFowles."WorksandDays6.1-2[11-12] Spring/Fall988): 7-125.Barthes,Roland. TheDeath f theAuthor."mage-Music-Text.rans. tephenHeath.New

York:Hill&Wang, 977.142-48.Bump,Jerome. "TheNarrator s Protoreadern TheFrenchLieutenant'sWoman. The Vic-torianNewsletter74 (Fall 1988): 16-18.Conradi, eter. ohnFowles.Contemporaryriterseries.London&NewYork:Methuen,1982.Derrida,acques. LivingOn:BorderLines."1977.Trans. amesHulbert.DeconstructionandCriticism. d.HaroldBloom t al.NewYork: eabury ress,1979.75-176.Drabble,Margaret.Mimesis:heRepresentationfRealityn thePost-WarritishNovel."Mosaic20.1(Winter 987):1-14.Foucault,Michel."Whats anAuthor?"969. nHarari 41-60.Fowles, John.The FrenchLieutenant'sWoman.1969. Scarborough: ignet, 1970.

. "Noteson anUnfinishedNovel." 1969.Rpt. n TheNovelToday.Ed.MalcolmBradbury.Manchester London:Manchesterniversity ress&Fontana, 977.136-48.Genette,G6rard.IntroductionotheParatext."rans.MarieMaclean.NewLiteraryHistory22.2(Spring 991): 61-72.

. Seuils. Paris:Editions du Seuil, 1987.Harari, osu6,ed. Textual trategies:Perspectives nPost-StructuralistCriticism. thaca,NewYork:CornellUniversity ress,1979.Hardy, homas.TheCompleteoems.Ed.JamesGibson.London:Macmillan,976.Higdon,David Leon. "TheEpigraph o JohnFowles' TheCollector" Modem Fiction Stud-ies 32.4(Winter 986): 68-72.Holmes,FrederickM. "TheNovel, llusion, ndReality: heParadoxfOmnisciencenTheFrenchLieutenant'sWoman." ournalof NarrativeTechnique11 (1981): 184-98.



25/25

90 J N THoek, Leo H. " 'Une merveille qu'intime sa structure':Analyse semiotique du discours

paratextuel."Degres 58 (Summer 1989):al-a23.Johnson,A. J. B. "Realism n TheFrench Lieutenant'sWoman." ournalof ModernLitera-ture8.2 (1980/81): 287-302.Miller,J. Hillis. "TheCritic as Host."Deconstructionand Criticism,217-53.Mulhauser,F. L., ed. Poems of ArthurHugh Clough.2nd ed. London:OxfordUniversity

Press, 1974.Nelles, William. "Problemsof NarrativeTheory:The French Lieutenant'sWoman. Style18.2 (Spring1984):207-17.Olshen,BarryN. John Fowles. New York:FrederickUngar,1978.Palmer,William J. "JohnFowles and the Crickets."ModernFiction Studies 31.1 (Spring

1985):2-13.Siegle, Robert."TheConceptof theAuthor n Barthes,Foucault,and Fowles." College Lit-erature 10.2 (Spring1983): 126-38.Smith,FrederikN. "RevisionandtheStyleof Revisionin TheFrenchLieutenant'sWoman."

Modern Fiction Studies 31.1 (Spring1985):85-113.Spivak, Gayatri,trans.Of Grammatology, y JacquesDerrida.Baltimore:JohnsHopkins,1976.Tucker,RobertC., ed. TheMarx-EngelsReader.2nd ed. New York:W. W.Norton,1978.Varsava,Jerry.ContingentMeanings:PostmodernFiction,Mimesis,and the Reader Talla-hassee: FloridaStateUniversityPress, 1990.Walker,David. "Subversion f Narrativen theWorkof Andr6GideandJohnFowles." Com-

parative Criticism:A Yearbook.Vol. 2. Ed.ElinorShaffer.Cambridge:CambridgeUni-versityPress, 1980: 187-212.

Wolfe, Peter.JohnFowles,Magusand Moralist.2nded., rev.Lewisburg:BucknellUniver-sity Press, 1979.