StyleinAmericaandthe KingJamesVersionassets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9125.pdfeloquent language of the King James Bible provided an important resource, beyond the vital inventiveness

�

Copyrighted Material

Chapter 1

StyleinAmericaandthe

KingJamesVersion

fsIassemblethesereflectionsonthepresenceoftheKingJamesVersioninAmericanwriting,thefourthcentennialofthe1611translationstandsonthehorizon.Agreat deal has changed in American culture since thethirdcentennialwas celebrated in1911.At that juncture, the King James Version was extolled by leadingpublicfiguressuchasTheodoreRooseveltandWoodrowWilsonasAmerica’snationalbookandasthetextthatmorethananyotherhadaffectedthelifeofEnglishspeakingpeoples.Myguessisthatthe2011milestonewillbemarkedmoreinacademiccirclesthaninthepublicdomain.Inthecenturysincethepreviouscentennialwascelebrated,twomajorshiftshavetakenplace:thepracticeofreadingtheBiblealoud,ofreadingtheBibleatall,andofmemorizingpassages fromtheBiblehasdrastically diminished; and the King James Bible hasceasedtobethealmostuniversallyusedtranslationasreadershavebeenencouragedtousemore“accessible”


10 Chapter1

versions,whichalsohappentobestylisticallyinferiorinvirtuallyallrespects.

ThedeclineoftheroleoftheKingJamesVersioninAmericanculturehastakenplacemoreorlesssimultaneouslywithageneralerosionofa senseof literary language,althoughIamnotsuggestingacausallink.Thereasonsforthislatterdevelopmenthaveoftenbeennoted,andhencethebriefestsummarywillsufficeforthepurposeofthepresentargument:Americansreadless,andread with less comprehension; hours once devoted to booksfromchildhoodonaremorelikelytobespentinfrontofatelevisionsetoracomputerscreen;epistolaryEnglish,onceaprovinggroundforstyle,hasbeenwidelydisplacedbythehighspeedshortcutlanguageofemailandtextmessaging.Thedisappearanceofasenseofstyleevenmakesitselffeltinpopularbookreviewing.Mostcontemporaryreviewersclearlyhavenotoolstodiscussstyle,ormuchinterestindoingso.Oneunsettlingsymptomofthegeneralproblemisthatinthecountry’smostinfluentialreviewingplatform,the New York Times Book Review, when a critic singles out a writer for stylisticbrilliance,itisfarmoreoftenthannotthecasethattheprofferedillustrativequotationturnsouttobeeitherflatandbanalwritingorproseofthemostpurplehue.Obviously,therearestillpeopleintheculture,includingyoungpeople,whohavearichandsubtlesenseoflanguage,buttheyareanembattledminorityinasocietywheretonedeafness to style is increasingly prevalent. That tonedeafnesshasalsoaffectedtheacademicstudyofliterature,butthereareotherissuesinvolvedintheuniversitysetting,andtothoseIshallturninduecourse.

Insharpcontrasttoourcurrentcondition,American


StyleinAmerica 11

cultureinthemidnineteenthcentury,wheremyconsiderationsofthebiblicalstrandinthenovelbegin,cultivatedtheadeptuseoflanguageinavarietyofways.Therelishforlanguagewasbynomeansrestrictedtohighculture: thevigorandwitof theAmericanvernacularwere prized qualities that were widely exercised, andonecanseetheirliterarytransmutationintheproseofMarkTwainandthepoetryofWaltWhitmanandEmilyDickinson.Thethoroughfamiliarityinthisperiodwiththe strong and eloquent language of the King JamesBibleprovidedanimportantresource,beyondthevitalinventiveness of spoken American English, that nourishedthegeneralsenseofstyle.

Acaseinpointistheproseofoneofthefineststylistsof nineteenthcenturyAmerica,AbrahamLincoln.Hewas,werecall,amanwhohadvirtuallynoformalschooling.Justashetaughthimselflawthroughhisownstudiousefforts,hedevelopedapowerfulandnuancedsenseof English through his own reading. It is not easy toimaginecomparableinstancesinourowntimeinwhichsuchmasteryoflanguagecouldbeacquiredthroughthesheerdedicationofanautodidact.TheforceofLincoln’sspeechesderivesfromanumberofdifferentsources,oneofwhichwasbiblical.Hehadawonderfulnativesensefortheexpressiveuseofcadence,repetition,antithesis,andforthecinchingeffectivenessofaperiodicsentence.Especiallyintheformalarchitectureofhisspeeches,healsoregisteredtheinfluenceoforatoryinspiredbytheAmericanGreekRevival.1Attimesthepersuasiveforce

1OnthebackgroundoftheGreekRevival,seeGarryWills,Lincoln at Gettysburg (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992), pp. 41–62. A moreelaborateandprobingstylisticanalysisoftheGettysburgAddressisoffered


12 Chapter1

ofhispublicrhetoricwasaltogetherlawyerly,whichishardlysurprising.HisFirstInauguralAddress,forexample,deployslawyerlylanguagefromoneendtotheother because it is an argument to the nation on thequestion of whether there is a right of secession andwhethertheUnioncancontinuewithoutcivilwar.“IftheUnitedStatesbenotagovernmentproper,butanassociationofStatesinthenatureofcontractonly,canit,asacontract,bepeaceablyunmadebylessthanallthepartieswhomadeit?”Here,asthroughouttheAddress,onehearsthevoiceofLincolntheIllinoislawyer,sortingoutinplainandpreciselanguageissuesofcontractandconstitutionandconsentastheRepublicfacedafatefuljuncture.Thislanguage,too,isakindofrhetoric. The stylistic plainness, as Gary Wills, looking atLincoln’srevisions,hasshown,2isaqualitythatLincolnlaboredtoperfectovertime,especiallyagainstabackgroundofAmericanoratorythatfavoredhighlywroughtornamentation.

We more typically rememberLincoln’s speeches fortheir eloquence. Much of this, as I have suggested, isachievedthroughhis intuitivefeelforappropriatedictionandrhythmicemphasis,manifested,mostfamously,in every phrase of the Gettysburg Address, as in the grandconcludingsweepof“weherehighlyresolvethatthesedeadshallnothavediedinvain,”movingontotheclimacticanaphora,“thatgovernmentofthepeople,bythe people, for the people, shall not perish from theearth.”OnlyasinglephraseintheAddressisexplicitly

byStephenBoothinPrecious Nonsense (Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1998).

2Wills,Lincoln at Gettysburg,especiallypp.157–60.


StyleinAmerica 13

biblical,thoughonemightarguethattheveryuseofalanguagethatisbothplainanddignified,resonantinitsveryordinariness, is inpart inspiredbythedictionoftheKingJamesVersion.Manypeople,Isuspect,assumethat theopeningphrase, “Four score and sevenyearsago,” is explicitly biblical, though in fact it is merelymodeledonthe“threescoreandten”oftheKingJamesVersion, a phrase that, given the sacred status of theformulaicnumberseventy,appears111timesinthe1611translation.TheHebrewactuallyhasnoequivalentexpression and simply says “seventy,” as does Tyndale’s translation,whichwasaprincipalsourcefortheKingJamestranslators.Theirdecisiontousethiscompoundformwouldseemtoreflectadesiretogivetheirversionaheightenedanddeliberatelyarchaicflourish(itseemsunlikelythatthisisthewayordinaryEnglishmensaid“seventy”intheseventeenthcentury),andLincolnclearlyrespondedtothisaiminadoptingtheform.Thedifferencebetween“eightyseven”and“fourscoreandseven”isthattheformerisamerenumericalindicationwhereasthelattergivesthepassageoftimesincethefoundingoftheRepublicweightandsolemnity.Thiseffectinpartisaconsequenceofbreakingthenumberintotwopieces,forcingustoslowdownaswetakeitinandcomputeit.Butitalsohassomethingtodowiththearchaiccharacterofthephrase,andinthisregardthebackgroundoftheKingJamesVersionhasadirectrelevance.The1611translation,ashasoftenbeenobserved,wasingeneralalittlearchaiceveninitsowntime.Bythemiddledecadesof thenineteenthcentury,muchof its languagewassurelyfelttobearchaic(andeventhen,perhapsnotalways perfectly understood), and yet the text was,


14 Chapter1

paradoxically,partofeverydaylife,afamiliarfixtureofhearthandhome.Inthisway,thesheerdisseminationoftheKingJamesVersioncreatedastylisticprecedentfortheAmericanearinwhichalanguagethatwaselaboratelyoldfashioned,thatstoodatadistancefromcontemporaryusage,wasassumedtobethevehicleforexpressing matters of high import and grand spiritualscope.Thus,“fourscoreandsevenyearsago,”abiblicizingphrasethatisnotanactualquotation,soundsastrongnoteofbiblicalauthorityatthebeginningoftheGettysburgAddress.

Theconcludingflourish,bycontrast,“shallnotperishfrom theearth,” isadirect citation from theBible. Itappearsthreetimes,alwayswithoutthe“not,”andonlyin the Hebrew Bible: “His remembrance shall perishfrom theearth” (Job18:17);“Thegods thathavenot madetheheavensandtheearth,eventheyshallperishfrom the earth” (Jeremiah 10:11); “The good man isperishedoutof theearth” (Micah7:2). (Althoughthe1611translationusesadifferentprepositionfortheversefrom Micah, the original uses the same preposition, min,“from,”inallthreecases.)Theborrowingofthebiblicalphraseisnotreallyanallusiontoaparticularscripturalintertextbutrathertheuse,intheperorationalfinalgestureoftheAddress,ofafamiliarbiblicalidiomthatgivesthespeaker’sownlanguagethebreadthandmoralgravityoftheBible.TheBiblebeginswithGod’screationofheavenandearth.Itincludesrepeatedgrimintimations,bothinthisparticularphrasingandrelatedones,ofindividuals,nations,humankindperishingfromtheearth,wipedoutfromthefaceoftheearth.Theideaofpersistinginordesistingfromexistenceisgiven,one


StyleinAmerica 15

couldsay,acosmicperspectiveandacertainprecariousnessinthebiblicallanguage.ImaginethedifferenteffectifLincolnhadconcludedhisspeechwithaphraselike“shallnotcometoanend”or“shallnotceasetoexist.”Themeaningwouldhavebeenapproximatelythesame,butthesenseofmagnitude,theideaofthenationrealizinganewandhopefuldestiny“underGod,”asLincoln wrote, would have been diminished. The sternlygrandlanguageoftheKingJamesBible,asMelvillehadalreadydemonstratedmorethanadecadeearlierandasFaulkner and others would demonstrate in differentwayslater,wasawayofgivingAmericanEnglishareachandresonanceitwouldotherwisenothavehad.

Lincoln’sgreatestspeechbesidestheGettysburgAddressishisSecondInauguralAddress.Itbeginsbyaffirmingthat thehistoricalmoment—theUnion instilltenseexpectationonthevergeofsuccessfullyconcludingfouryearsofbloodyconflict—invitesbrevity.Itisinfact a fifth the length of the First Inaugural Address(thoughstilltwiceaslongasthebreathtakinglyconciseGettysburgAddress).Thefirsthalfofthespeech,intothemiddleofthethirdofitsfourparagraphs,isafactualreviewof the courseof thewarand itsorigins in thedisputeoverslavery.Thereisnothingbiblicalinthisfirstsection.Instead,Lincolndisplayshisabilitytouseplainandpreciselanguage—forexample,“Tostrengthen,perpetuate,andextendthisinterest[ofslavery]wastheobjectforwhichtheinsurgentswouldrendtheUnionevenbywar.”Hisgiftforemphaticantithesisinsuccinctparallelclausesisalsoinevidencehere.TheBibleisexplicitly mentioned at the midpoint of the Address: “BothreadthesameBibleandpraytothesameGod,andeach


16 Chapter1

invokesHisaidagainsttheother.”(Onewonderswhetherinthiswryawarenessof thecompetinguses towhichScriptureanddeityareputLincolnmayhavebeenrememberingthepassagefromVoltaire’sCandideinwhichbothwarringarmiescelebrateaTeDeumtothankGodforpermittingthemtodestroytheirenemies.)OncetheBiblehasbeenintroducedinthisfashion,biblicalquotationsandweightedphrasesdrawnfromthelanguageoftheBiblearepredominantfortherestoftheAddress.“Itmayseemstrange,”Lincolnnowgoesontosay,“thatanymenshoulddare toaska justGod’sassistance inwringingtheirbreadfromthesweatofothermen’sfaces,butletusjudgenot,thatwemaynotbejudged.”Thefirstclause,ofcourse,givesavigoroushomiletictwisttoGod’s curse of Adam in Genesis 3:19, pointedly andconciselysuggestingthatslaveryisafundamentalperversionofthedivinemoralorder.Thesecondclause,aslightlymodifiedquotationofLuke6:37,strikesatleastarhetoricalbalance inagestureofconciliationtotheSouth(thoughitishardtodismissthattellingimageofwringing bread from the sweat of other men’s faces).TheversefromLukeoccursinthemidstoftheBeatitudesandimmediatelyaftertheinjunctionto“loveyourenemies,”sowecanseehowLincolnismakingtheutmostuseofhisscripturalsourceswithakindofpreacherlycanniness.TheonlyotherexplicitquotationfromtheBibleappearsat theendof theextraordinarysentencethatconcludesthislongparagraph:

YetifGodwillsthatit[thewar]continueuntilallthewealth piledupby the bondsman’s twohundred andfifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, anduntil


StyleinAmerica 17

everydropofblooddrawnbythelashshallbepaidbyanotherdrawnbythesword,aswassaidthreethousandyearsago,sostillitmustbesaid,“thejudgmentsoftheLordaretrueandrighteoustogether.”

Asweshallhaveoccasiontosee,Faulkner,too,willusebiblicizinglanguagetorepresentthefullhistoricalgravityof the sinof slavery, linking thebloodshedofslaverytoCain’smurderofhisbrotherAbel.“Lash”isa very immediate synecdoche for the violence perpetrated through slavery, whereas “sword”—one againobservesthepowerofLincoln’santitheses—isareiterated biblical synecdoche for warfare. The citation ofPsalm 19:9 about the judgments of the Lord stronglyaffirmsthatthedevastationoftheslavestatesisanactofdivine retribution. (“Letus judgenot, thatwemaynotbejudged”isnolongermuchinevidencehere.)Elsewhere,thesecondhalfoftheAddressispunctuatedbybiblicallocutionsthatarenotquitequotations.American slavery is said tohavebeenpermittedbyGod tocontinuethrough“Hisappointedtime.”“Theappointedtime” isanoftenrecurringbiblical idiom,especially inHebrewScriptureandparticularlyintheProphets,whereitindicatestheunfoldingofadivineplaninhumanevents.A few lines later,Lincolnwrites,“Fondlydowehope,ferventlydowepray,thatthismightyscourgeofwarmayspeedilypassaway.”Thefirst twoclausesvividly illustratetheeffectivenessofparallelisminLincoln’srhetoric.The“scourge”ofwarisastronglyexpressivebiblicism:itisawordthatoccursinavarietyofbiblicalcontexts,almostneverinitsliteralsenseof“whip,”but,ashere,inthemetaphoricalsenseofdevastatingpunishment.The


18 Chapter1

concludingphrase“mayspeedilypassaway”doesnotoccurasacollocationintheBible,butboth“speedily”and“passaway”arebiblicismsthat,coupledwith“thismightyscourgeofwar,”givethewholeclauseitsstrength.(Again,hadLincolnwritten“rapidly”insteadof“speedily,”muchoftheeffectwouldhavebeenlost.)Finally,thebriefonesentenceparagraphthatendstheAddressbeginswithanotherofLincoln’ssplendidparallelisms,“Withmalicetowardsnone,withcharityforall,”andthenmoves into twoadditionalbiblical locutions,“tobindupthenation’swounds”and“tocareforhimwhoshallhavebornethebattleandforhiswidowandhisorphans.”Theadditionof“up”to“bind”givestheverbabiblicalcoloration,evoking,withoutspecificallusion,avarietyofpropheticpromisesofhealingandrestoration.Andthoughitmayseemperfectlylogicaltomentionthewidowandorphansofthemanfalleninbattle,this,too,isacollocationthatoccursagainandagainintheHebrewBibleasexemplaryinstancesofthosewhoarehelplessandinneedofsupport.

Lincoln’s prose powerfully illustrates the semanticdepth and stylistic gravity that American novelists aswellwouldoftentapindrawingonthelanguageoftheKingJamesBible.Hiswriting,aswehaveseen,isbynomeanspervasivelybiblical,butattheappropriatejuncturesitmobilizesbiblicaldictionbothtoeffectastylisticheighteningandtobringintoplayanelementofmoralor explicitly theological vision. The grand concludingmovementoftheSecondInauguralAddressaimstoengagetheaudienceinavisionofjusticeandhealingandpeaceafter fouryearsofdevastatingwarfare,andthevehicle thatmakes thispossible is the languageof the


StyleinAmerica 19

Bible.Ataculturalmomentwhenthebiblicaltext,verseandchapter,wasaconstantpresenceinAmericanlife,theidiomsanddictionandsyntaxincisedincollectivememorythroughtheKingJamestranslationbecameawellspringofeloquence.

Eloquence,ofcourse,isanattributewereadilyassociatewithoratory,butnotwiththenovel.TheprominenceofbiblicalmotifsorallusionsincertainmajorAmericannovelistshasoftenbeenobserved,butwhatIshouldliketoconsideriswhetherthelanguageoftheEnglishBiblemadeadifferenceinthetextureoftheprose,enablingcrucialshiftsorheighteningsofperspective,asitdidinLincoln’sspeeches.Thegeneralinsistenceofthisinquiryontheimportanceofstylemayitselfseemanachronisticto some, a mere indulgence in an aesthetic aspect ofprosefictionthatisofdubiousrelevancetowhatnovelsare reallyabout,andsoa fewcommentsare inorderabouttheroleofstyleinfiction.

Doesstyle inthenovel infactcountformuch?Theevidenceofthenoveliststhemselvesissomewhatmixed.Afewprominentnovelists,suchasDreiser,havebeenwretchedstylists.Trollope’sprosewasnomorethanserviceable,yetwithitheproducedanabundanceofgenuinely engagingnovels, agoodmanyofwhicharefinerepresentationsofclassandcharacterinVictorianEngland.Balzacwasnotatallabrilliant stylist,andonoccasionhecouldbebombastic,especiallyinhishandlingoffigurativelanguage,butThe Human Comedyisamongthemostgrandandenduringachievementsofthegenre.Stendhalfamouslyannouncedthathewantedtofashionafactual,understatedprosethatwouldcompetewiththelanguageofthecivilregistry,butstylemakesa


20 Chapter1

differenceinhisnovels,andanyonewhohasreadhiminFrenchislikelytosenseasaddiminutionofhislightnessoftouchandhisworldlytoneintheEnglishtranslations.Attheotherendofthespectrum,manygreatnovelistshavebeenexquisite,andinsomecases,painstaking,stylists:Fielding(whomStendhalgreatlyadmired);Flaubert,theinauguratorofthemodernideaofthenovelistasfastidiousartificer;Joyce,Kafka,andNabokov,alloftheminvaryingwaysemulatingthemodelofFlaubert;and, among many possible American instances, Melville,awildlyenergeticimproviserwhoseproseweshallconsiderindetail,andHenryJames,whosestylisticdisposition is in its idiosyncratic way Flaubertian ratherthanbiblical.

Thequestionofstyle inthenovelthatanimatesthepresentstudyurgentlyneedstobeaddressedbecauseithas been so widely neglected, especially in academiccircles,sincethe1970s.Morerecently,therehavebeensomeencouraging signsof a renewed interest in closereadingandtheformalaspectsofliterature,butthelegacyoftheneglectofstyleisstillwithus.Theprincipalreasonforthisneglectisquiteevident:indepartmentsofliterarystudies,theverytermandconceptofstyle—evenoflanguageitself—havebeenfrequentlydisplacedbywhatisusuallyreferredtoasdiscourse,anotionthatchieflyderivesfromMichelFoucault.Discourseinthesensethathasgenerallybeenadoptedisamanifestation,orperhapsratheratool,ofideology.Itflowsthroughthecircuitsofsociety,manipulatingindividualsandgroupsintheinterestsofthepowersthatbe,manifestingitselfequally,oratleastinrelatedways,infictionandinpoetry,inpoliticalspeeches,governmentdirectives,manu


StyleinAmerica 21

alsofmentalandphysicalhygiene,advertising,andmuchelse.Thisorientationtowarddiscoursewasattheheartof the New Historicism (now a fading phenomenon),and it is instructive that one of its founders, StephenGreenblatt, in thepreface tohisadmirableHamlet in Purgatory,shouldhavefeltconstrainedtosaythatthereisnopointintalkingaboutShakespeareifyoudonotrespond to the magic of the language, thus implicitlyrepudiatingmanyofhisfollowersandperhapssomeofhisownearlierinclinations.

AftertheNewHistoricism,thoughsometimesdrawingonit,atleastindirectly,literaryscholarshavebeenbusypursuingavarietyofpurportedlypoliticalagendaswith sometimesnomore than illustrative reference toliterarytexts—race,class,genderidentity,sexualpractices,thecritiqueofcolonialism,theexcoriationofconsumerismandoftheevilsoflatecapitalismandglobalization.Therehasscarcelybeenroominsuchconsiderationsforanyattentiontostyle,fortherecognitionthatitisliterarystylethatmightmakeavailabletouscertainpreciousperceptionsofrealityandcertaindistinctivepleasuresnottobefoundelsewhere.Whenoneencountersintelligentappreciationsofstylethesedays,theytendtocome from practicing novelists, or from a few criticswhohavenomorethanonefootinacademiclife.

Thereis,letmehastentosay,nologicalcontradictionbetweenattentiontostyleandattentiontoideology.Atleastinthemoreextremeinstancesofideologicallymotivatedwriting,virtuallytheoppositeistrue.Ideologymayimpelawritertocertainstylisticchoices—or,sincethisisachickenandeggphenomenon,thefondnessforcertainstylisticgesturesmayconceivablypredisposea


22 Chapter1

writertoembraceaparticularideology.Therearecertainlycasesinwhichstylisticanalysiscouldilluminatetheroleofideologyinaliteraryworkinfreshandinstructiveways.Thus,thefascinatingHebrewmodernistpoetUriZviGreenberg(1896–1981),whobecameamilitantZionistextremistandakindofJewishracist,deploysawildanddisruptivelyaggressivelanguageinhisstrongest poems from the 1920s onward that is intimatelyconnectedwithhispolitics,andajustaccountofsuchawriterwouldhavetoconsiderstyleandideologytogether. Greenberg has clear affinities with GermanExpressionism (born in the Hapsburg Empire, he absorbedGermanashisfirstEuropeanlanguageafterhisnativeYiddish),andifonerecallsthattheeminentExpressionistpoet,GottfriedBenn,wasatleastuntil1936an ardent supporter of Nazism, some correspondencebetween the Expressionist aesthetic and fascist valuesmaybeworthinvestigating.Mostwritershaveviewsonpoliticalquestions,evenifsuchviewsarenomorethanobliquelyimplicitintheirwork,andIamnotsuggestingthateithertheimpliedortheexplicitpoliticsofawritershouldbeignored.Whathashappenedtoooften,however, inAmerican literary studies is that the focusonideologicalconsiderationshastendedtoreducetheliteraryworktoitsinferablepropositionalcontent,theanalysis, bent on “unmasking” the text, looking past thearticulationsofstylethatarecompellinglyinterestingintheirown right and thatmight in fact complicate theunderstandingofthepropositionalcontent.TheclaimImakeinthisstudyfortheimportanceofstyleisnotanattempttocutoffliteraturefromitsmooringsinhistoryandpoliticsbutratheranargumentthatwewillbebet


StyleinAmerica 23

terservedbylookingwithafinerfocusattheverylinguisticmediumwritersusetoengagewithhistoryandpoliticsandperhapsinsomeinstancestotransformourvisionofboththoserealms.

Arecentbookthatdoesconcentrateonstyle in thenovelisAdamThirlwell’sThe Delighted States.3Thirlwell,ayoungBritishnovelistwhohasreadwidelyandenthusiasticallyinseverallanguages,laysoutaplayfultourthroughthehistoryofthenovelthathasconsiderablecharmandposessomeimportantquestionsaboutstyleinthenovel,evenifitisnotaltogetherconceptuallysatisfyingintheanswersitprovides.Althoughthedescriptive flourish of Thirlwell’s lengthy comic subtitlementions“fourcontinents”asthesettingforthisstoryaboutthenovel,hisattentionismainlydevotedtoEuropeanwriters,withtheUnitedStatesrepresentedonlybySaulBellow(unlessonewantstoallowNabokovasanAmericanwriter).OnereasonfortheparticularengagementinEuropean—andtoalesserextent,LatinAmerican—novelistsisthattheyexhibitmoretoandfromovementfromculturetoculture,usuallythroughtheagencyof translation, thanonefindsamongNorthAmericanwriters,andthequestionofnovelsintranslationisattheheartofThirlwell’sbook.Itsmostvaluablecontributiontothediscussionofstyleinthenovelistohaveputforththe phenomenon of translation as a kind of test caseabouttheroleofstyleinfiction.

3AdamThirlwell,The Delighted States: A Book of Novels, Romances, and Their Unknown Translators, Containing Ten Languages, Set on Four Continents, and Accompanied by Maps, Portraits, Squiggles, Illustrations, and a Variety of Helpful Indexes (NewYork:Farrar,StrausandGiroux,2008).


24 Chapter1

Novelsarefamously,orperhapsnotoriously,translatable.Thatverytranslatabilityposesachallengetoanyonewhothinks,asIdo,thatlexicalnuancesandpatternsofsoundandsubtletiesofsyntaxarecrucialtothesenseofrealityarticulatedinnovels.Thereissomethingscandalous,Thirlwellsuggests,thoughhedoesnotusethatterm,aboutthemanifesttranslatabilityofthenovel.Letmementiontworatherdifferentexamplesthathealsoinvokes,Don Quixote andMadame Bovary.IwouldassumethatwhatlinguisticallyinformedreaderscharacterizeasthepungencyandenergyofCervantes’Spanishisnotfullyconveyedbyanyofhistranslators,andyetDon QuixotehashadanimmenselyfructifyingeffectonmanydifferentEnglish,French,German,Russian,andYiddishnovelistswhoseonlyaccesstoitwasthroughtranslation.Perhapsthisisnotaltogethersurprising.ThearrestingarchetypesoftheendearinglydaftemaciatedDonandhispragmaticrolypolysidekickgrabtheimagination,evenwhenthelanguageofthetranslationmaybeasomewhatanemicapproximationoftheoriginal.Buttheothernovelinquestionthathashadawidespread effect on later writers is Madame Bovary (whichofcourseitselfdisplaysCervantes’paradigmofadelusionalsenseofrealityimbibedthroughreading).Flaubert,unlikeCervantes,isanovelistfanaticallydevotedtostylisticrefinements,aspiringtoaprose,ashesaysinoneofhisletters,thatwillperformthehighfunctioninliteraryculturethatwasoncethedomainofpoetry.Nevertheless,evenwithmanyoftheserefinementsscarcelyvisibleinthesundrytranslations,thisstoryofthefrustratedwifeofaprovincialdoctor,hertwodisastrousloveaffairs,andhersuicidehasbeencompelling


StyleinAmerica 25

forcountlessreadersandhasgivenmanywritersastrongprecedentfortheirownfiction.

Thereisatrickybalancebetweenthesheerweightoftherepresentedworldofanovelandtheforceofthelanguageinwhichitisconveyed.Novels,onemustconcede,areurgentlyaboutawholevarietyofthingsthatarenotmadeupofwords:events,individualcharacter,relationships, institutions,socialforces,historicalmovements,material culture,andmuchmore. If the translator inevitably substitutesotherwords,andusually lessadequateones,thanthenovelist’stopointtoallthesedisparateelementsof therepresentedfictionalworld, themereactofpointingoftenprovestobeefficaciousenough.TherearenodoubtallsortsofeffectsintheRussianofAnna KareninathatarelostonthoseofuswhoreaditinEnglish,yetwhenwefollowKitty,inthecompanyofhermother,onherwayupthegrandstaircasetoherfirstball,wegetaperfectlyvividsenseofherdelightedselfconsciousnessinherownappearance,thesoundoftheorchestrafilteringdownfromtheballroom,theparadeofpeopleinformaldressonthestairs,andthegeneralexcitementofthemoment.Tolstoy’ssubtlehandlingofthe narrative point of view, his wonderfully strategicchoiceofdescriptivedetail,andhisability toentersoconvincinglyintoKitty’sthoughtsandfeelings,allmakethispossible,andnoneofitisstrictlydependentonlanguage.

Yetsomethinghappensinnovelsthroughtheelaboratelywroughtmediumofstylethatresiststranslation,evenasthelargerepresentedworldofthenovelisconveyedwellenoughinanotherlanguage.Howthat“something”manifestsitselfintheAmericannovelthrougha


26 Chapter1

biblicalinflectionwillbethesubjectofthechaptersthatfollow.AsecondissueoftranslationisinvolvedinthisquestionofAmericanprosestyle.TheKingJamesVersionisitselfatranslation,oneinwhichsomeofthecontours of English were reshaped mainly in accordancewithaHebreworiginal.ThoughIcanattestthatreadingGenesisorJobinthe1611translationisbynomeansthe sameas reading it in theHebrew,much from the themesandimageryandcharacterizationoftheHebrewisneverthelesspreserved,andhasdeeplyaffecteduntoldnumbersofEnglishreaders,amongthemmajorwriters.AlanguagestretchedandbentforthepurposesoftranslationthusbecameaprimarymodelofEnglishstylethatAmericanwritersinparticularhavebeendrawntoembrace.Butiftranslationcanbetheengineofstylisticcreativity,merelycompetent(orlessthancompetent)translationasavehicleforconveyingtherepresentedworldofthefictionhastheeffectofdilutingorobscuringmanyofthemostdeeplyengagingaspectsoftheoriginal.

Letmeproposeapartiallistofattributesofstylethatmakeadifferenceinourexperienceoftheworkoffiction, thatgenerally resist translation,and thatareneglectedinliterarystudiestotheperilofourunderstandingofliterature.Theseare:sound(rhythm,alliteration,assonance,and so forth), syntax, idiomaticusageanddivergences fromit, linguistic register (that is, levelofdiction),andtheculturalandliteraryassociationsoflanguage.Iwouldliketoconsidersomeinstancesofhowtheseattributesofstylemakethemselvesfeltinfiction,keeping in mind the instructive test of translatability.MyinitialexamplesarefromMelville,towhomIshalldirectmoresustainedattentioninthenextchapter.


StyleinAmerica 27

IfyoutrytoimagineMoby-DickinFrenchorChineseorHindi,youcanreadilyconceivethatthetaleofAhab’smonstrous monomania and of the exotic crew of thePequod, the tremendousevocationsof thegreatwhitewhale as a virtually mythological presence, would allcomeacrosstofarflungreadersindifferentlanguages.AllthisconstituteswhatIhavereferredtoastherepresentedworldofthenovel,thepowerfullyimaginedmaterialoffictionalmimesis.Thisrepresentedworld,asInotedinconnectionwithTolstoy,isnotentirelydependentonthelanguageinwhichitisconveyed,andonemaygrantthecontentionofmanytheoristsofthenovelthat it is the representedworld that isprimary.But ifstyleisinsomesensesecondary,itneverthelesshaselectrifyingimportance,asIshalltrytoillustrate.ConsiderevenabriefsentencefromMelville’snovel:“Theseawasasacrucibleofmoltengold,thatbubblinglyleapswithlightandheat.”4Atranslationcouldeasilyreproducethesimileofmoltengoldandthevigoroftheverb“leaps,”butthedeliberateoddnessoftheadverbial“bubblingly”thatfocuses,byasmallswervefromestablishedEnglishusage,themovementofthewater,andthealliterationandassonanceof“leapswithlightandheat”thatlocktheclausetogether—theseareanothermatter.Allthesesmallstylisticeffectshelpcreatethelyricintensityofthismomentoftheseaperceivedfromthemovingship,andthey would necessarily be diminished in translation.TheyconstitutewhatStephenGreenblattcallsthemagicofthelanguage,andthattoalargedegreeiswhatmakestheexperienceofreadingthisbooksomesmerizing.

4HermanMelville,Moby-Dick(NewYork:W.W.Norton,1967),p.423.


28 Chapter1

AdifferentoperationoftheforceofstylemaybeseeninthesewordsfromadramaticmonologuebytheblackcabinboyPip.Here,assoofteninMelville,characteristics of the canonical English Bible come into play togetherwithotherelementsofstyle:“Oh,thoubigwhiteGodalofttheresomewhereinyondarkness,havemercyonthissmallblackboydownhere;preservehimfromallmenthathavenobowelstofear!”(p.155).Theartfulshapingofthelanguagemaybelessspectacularinthissentencethaninthepreviousonequoted,butitisnolessdecisive.Thedenseclusterofmonosyllabicwordsgenerates a clenched power. Instead of any gesture towardAfricanAmericandialect,Pipismadetospeakahighregisterpoetic languagethat in itspronounced iambiccadencesisreminiscent,likemuchelseinthisnovel,ofShakespeare.(InthelinesjustbeforethewordsIhavequoted,PiputtersdisjointedsyllablesthatsoundratherliketheFoolinLear.)Thearchaic“yon”isancillarytothisShakespearianimpulse,thoughatthesametimeitmaybenauticallanguage,like“aloft.”Theuseof“bowels”inthesenseof“deepfeelings”or“compassion”isdrawndirectlyfromtheKingJamesVersion,wherethewordappearsasaliteralrenderingofaHebrewidiom,andlikethehintsofShakespeare,itpointsbacktotheearly seventeenthcentury.ThehighsolemnityofPip’saddresstoGodcouldpresumablybeconveyedinalanguageotherthanEnglish,butit isthespecificbiblicalresonances(perhapsespeciallyofPsalms)andalsothoseofShakespeare(asusualinthisnovel,especiallypointingtoLear)thatgivethesewordstheirpeculiarmetaphysicaldignity.

LetuslookatamoreelaborateexamplefromMoby-


StyleinAmerica 29

Dickinwhichrepetitionofsound,poeticrhythm,andinterplayofdictionswithreminiscencesoftheBiblearebeautifully orchestrated.Here are the last three paragraphsofAhab’sapostrophefirsttosavagenatureandthentoadyingwhalethatoccurslateinthenovel(chapter116).

“Oh,thoudarkHindoohalfofnature,whoofdrownedbones has builded thy separate throne somewhere intheheartoftheseunverduredseas;thouartaninfidel,thouqueen,andtootrulyspeakesttomeinthewideslaughteringTyphoon,andthehushedburialofitsaftercalm.Norhasthisthywhalesunwardsturnedhisheadwithoutalessontome.

“Oh, trebly hooped and welded hip of power! Oh,highaspiringrainbowjet!—thatonestriveth,thisonejettethallinvain!Invain,ohwhale,dostthouseekintercedingswithyonallquickeningsun,thatonlycallsforthlife,butgivesitnotagain.Yetdostthou,darkerhalf,rockmewithaprouder,ifadarkerfaith.Allthyunnamable imminglings float beneath me here; I ambuoyedbybreathsofoncelivingthings,exhaledasash,butwaternow.

“Thenhail,foreverhail,Osea,inwhoseeternaltossingsthewildfowlfindshisonlyrest.Bornofearth,yetsuckledbythesea,thoughhillandvalleymotheredme,yebillowsaremyfosterbrothers.”(pp.409–10)

ThelanguageofAhab’selevatedspeechisallatonce,or alternately, Shakespearian, Miltonic, and biblical.SomeoftheturnsofformalapostrophesoundmoreliketheepicinvocationsofthemuseinParadise LostthanlikeanythinginShakespeare(“Thenhail,foreverhail”).


30 Chapter1

Theformalpoeticcharacterof thepassage isstronglyreinforcedbythe iambiccadences itrepeatedlyuses—“andthengoneroundagain,”“Oh,treblyhoopedandwelded hip of power,” “that only calls forth life, butgivesitnotagain.”Syntacticinversionisanothermarkerofpoetic formality—“this thywhale sunwards turnedhis dying head,” “Yet dost thou.” Alliteration underscores the emphatic force of the language—“Hindoohalf,”“bones ...builded,”“buoyedbybreath,”“hoopedhip.” (Theuseof“Hindoo”asanadjective illustratesMelville’s disposition to turn references to the exoticintorhetoricalterms—here,thewordreferringtowhatisalien,unknown,inscrutable—perhaps,assomehavesuggested,withKali,thegoddessofdestruction,inmind.)Theinventedadjective“unverdured”isprobablyaconscious emulation of Shakespeare, who, for example,coinedtheverb“incarnadine”inMacbeth.Thearchaicverbalform“builded,”ontheotherhand,isaborrowingfromtheKingJamesVersion,as,mostmemorably,inProverbs9:1,“Wisdomhasbuildedherhouse,shehashewnouthersevenpillars.”Equallybiblicalisthefondness for semantically parallel clauses—a stylistic traitthatwewillexploreingreaterdetailinthenextchapter—asin“thatonestriveth,thisonejettethallinvain.”(“Strive”inparticularisarecurrentterminthebiblicallexicon.)“Hip,”becauseitislinkedto“power,”probably recalls thebiblical“he smote them,hipand thighwithagiant slaughter” (Judges15:8).Counterpointedtothetaut,intermittentlybiblicaldictionaretwopolysyllabicandabstractwordchoices—“intercedings”andthe wonderfully alliterative coinage, “unnamable imminglings.”TheconcludingsweepofAhab’sapostrophe


StyleinAmerica 31

significantlyinvokesreminiscencesoftheBiblewithoutactualallusion.The“wildfowl”showsatraceof“thefowloftheair”oftheCreationstoryinGenesis1.“Bornoftheearthyetsuckledbythesea”isaneatreplicationof antithetical parallelism in biblical poetry (with thefirst phrase also pointing to the making of the firsthumaninGenesis2),while“findshisonlyrest”recallsavarietyofbiblicallocutionsinvolvingrestandrestingplace. Finally, the “billows” areKing James languagefor“waves,”as inJonah’spsalm(Jonah2:3),“all thybillowsandthywavespassedoverme.”Inallthis,onepalpablyfeelsthatthetextureofMelville’slanguageisdecisiveinshapingwhathewantstosayaboutthewhale,thesea,thenaturalworld,andthefinallyantibiblicalnatureofrealityasheconceivesit.

Toapplythetestoftranslatabilityonelasttime,itisinstructivetocompareMelville’sproseherewitharecentFrenchversion.TheFrenchiselegant,idiomaticallysmooth,andinmostrespectsrelativelyaccurate.ItdoesagoodjobincatchingtheformalsideofAhab’sapostrophe.Thus,“Thenhailforeverhail,Osea”worksquitewellas“Salut,donc—salutà jamais,ômer”5(even ifmorethanalittle is lostrhythmically)becauseFrenchhasitsowntraditionofelevatedliterarylanguageandloftyformsofaddress.Notsurprisingly,Melville’sexplosivealliterationshaveentirelyvanishedintheFrenchrenderingalongwithall the iambiccadences.What isrobustlyoddintheEnglishisregularizedintheFrench:

5Moby-Dick et Pierre ou les Ambiguïtés,undertheeditorialsupervisionof Philippe Jaworski, with the collaboration of Marc Amfreville, Dominique Marçais, Mark Niemeyer, and Hershel Parker (Paris: Gallimard,2006)p.539.


32 Chapter1

“Hindoo”becomes l’Indienne; “wideslaughtering” issimplydestructeur;and“unverdured” is interpretivelytranslatedandsadlyflattenedasinfertile.Melville’sproseisimprovisatory,exuberantlyunrulyinitsinventiveness,andinthisregardinauguratesatraditioninAmericanstyle; the French smoothes all this out. Perhaps moststrikingly,becausethereisnocanonicalFrenchtranslationoftheBiblethatcanbetappedasMelvilletapstheKingJamesVersion,thestrongsenseofgrandbiblicallanguageusedtoshapeavisionoftheworldcountertothatoftheBibleisentirelyabsent.Theterrificforceof“whoofdrownedboneshasbuildedthyseparatethroneintheheartoftheseunverduredseas”isdilutedintheunbiblical“quit’esconstruit,quelquepartaucoeurdecesmers infertiles,un trône faitdesosdesnoyés.”AreaderofthisperfectlycompetentFrenchversionwillnodoubtpickupagooddealofthegrandeurinAhab’saddress todestructivenatureand to thewhale,but it isbound tobeapaler experience than isofferedby theoriginal’sconstellationofstylisticeffects,includingthepotentbiblicalbackgroundtheyincorporate.

Thereisnorealcontradictioninmyunderscoringthefailureoftranslationtoconveythestylisticcomplexityoftheoriginalandmyexpressedadmirationforthe1611EnglishrenderingoftheHebrewBible.Therearesurelymomentsinliteraryhistorywhenatranslation,whateveritsclosenesstoordistancefromtheoriginalitrepresents,becomesanachievementinitsownright.Forreasonsthatwecannotentirelyexplain—threethatcometomindaretheminingofWilliamTyndale’sbrilliantversionoftheBible,therichnessofEnglishliterarycultureatthebeginningoftheseventeenthcentury,thepeculiarandpro


StyleinAmerica 33

ductivedecisiontofollowthecontoursoftheHebrewinidiomandofteninsyntax—thetranslatorsconvenedbyKingJamesshapedanEnglishversionthatintroducedanewmodelofstylisticpowertothelanguage.Whatusuallyhappens,however,intranslation,asintheinstanceoftheFrenchrenderingofMoby-Dick,isthatadutiful,moreorlesssemanticallyfaithfulversionoftheoriginal,employinga rather conventional setof stylisticprocedures,erasesagooddealofwhatismostcompellingintheoriginaltext.

Thereisoneaspectofstyleinthenovelthatdeservesspecialhighlighting,whichistheinterplayofdifferentlevelsandprovenancesofdiction,becauseitisparticularlyrelevanttotheeffectofinsetsofbiblicallanguagethatwill be examined in the remainder of this study.Languageinthenovelisquiteoftenanintricategameofhigh and low, for reasons that are probably best explained by the Russian theorist M. M. Bakhtin, whodefinesthegenericdistinctivenessofthenovelasacollisionofanddialogueamongdifferentlanguagesinthesameculture,eachembodyingitsownvaluesandoutlook.InLincoln’soratory,therearedifferentelementsofdiction,includingbiblicalturnsofspeech,butonegetsthesensethattheyhaveallbeenintegratedintoasingleoratorical style. In the novel, on the other hand, asBakhtinsuggests,thedisparatenessofthedifferentlanguages is preserved as they are played against eachother—“buildedthyseparatethrone”and“unnamableimminglings”belongtodifferentlinguisticrealms,andeachevenhasitsownmusicanditsownassociations.

Notmuchcriticalattentionthesedaysisdevotedtolevelsofdiction,andperhapsmanycriticsdonoteven


34 Chapter1

hearthenuancesofdifference.Thisinattentionmayinpartreflectbroadsocialchanges,thoughonealsosuspectsaconsequenceofthedeclineofreading.Theliterarydeploymentandrecognitionoflevelsofdictionarerootedinsocialhierarchy:whatisperceivedasloworevenvulgar,aseducatedspeech,orasloftyliterarylanguage,depends,atleastinorigin,onclassdistinctions.Contemporary American society exhibits a notoriousandincreasingeconomicgapbetweentherichandthepoor, but class differentiation is less formallymarkedherethanithasbeenearlierandelsewhere.ThelackofsuchdifferentiationsurelyhelpsfostersomeinsensitivitytolevelsofdictionamongAmericanreaders.Yetaneglectofthegameofhighandlowthathasbeengoingoninthenovelforthreecenturiesdullstheperceptionofstyleanddeprivesreadersofoneofthekeenpleasuresinthereadingexperience.ThusFieldinginTom Jones,inacharacteristicploy,describesTom’sdiveintothebusheswith the accommodating Molly Seagrim in the mosthighfalutinLatinatelanguagewhile,withprofessedreluctance,introducingtheterm“rutting”toidentifytheactivityinquestion.Thecontrastbetweenthetwodictionsnotonlyisamusingbutalsomakesamoralpoint:ayoungman’sactingonanimpulseoflustmaybehypocriticallydisguisedbyeuphemisticlanguage,butitbelongs,perhapsquiteappropriatelyandhealthily,totherealmofanimalbehavior.

InEnglish,thegreatsourceofstylisticcounterpointisthetwodictionsderivingrespectivelyfromtheGrecoLatinandtheAngloSaxoncomponentsofthelanguage:theformer,polysyllabic,learnedandsometimesevenrecondite,oftentendingtoabstraction;thelatter,phonet


StyleinAmerica 35

icallycompact,oftenmonosyllabic,broadlyassociatedwith everyday speech, and usually concrete. The languageoftheKingJamesVersionfallsbyandlargeonthe AngloSaxon side of this divide, though there areabundantelementsof the AngloSaxonstratumof thelanguagethathavenothingtodowiththeKingJamesVersion.ThecounterpointingofthetwostratahasbeenafeatureofEnglishprosesincetheseventeenthcentury,andwehavealreadyseenonestrikinginstanceofitinoneoftheexcerptsquotedfromMelville.ButitisFaulkner, clearly a kind of neoBaroque stylist, who is thegreatmasterofthisstrategyofcontrapuntaldictions.Aspectacular example is evident in the two paragraphsthatbegintheDilseychapterinThe Sound and the Fury.There isnothingobviouslybiblical in the languageofthepassage,thoughitcontainsonefreighted,paradoxical image that has a thematically important biblicalbackground.Inanycase,asIshallargueinrelationtoAbsalom, Absalom!,Faulkner’swritingisnotbiblicalintextureorsyntaxbutrather in itsmarshallingofkeywordsfromthebiblicallexicon,andIthinkthreesuchwordsoccurhere.Asreaderswillrecall,thisconcludingsectionofThe Sound and the Furyswitchesfromtheuseofthecharacters’pointsofviewemployedinthethreeprevioussectionstoaresplendentlyomniscientnarratordeployinghighFaulknerianlanguage:

Thedaydawnedbleakand chill, amovingwall ofgraylightoutofthenortheastwhich,insteadofdissolvingintomoisture,seemedtodisintegrateintominuteandvenomousparticles,likedust,thatwhenDilseyopenedthe door of the cabin and emerged, needled laterally


36 Chapter1

intoherflesh,precipitatingnotsomuchamoistureasasubstance partaking of the quality of thin, not quitecongealedoil.Sheworeastiffblackstrawhatpercheduponherturban,andamaroonvelvetcapewithaborderofmangyandanonymousfuraboveadressofpurplesilk,andshestoodinthedoorforawhilewithhermyriadandsunkenfaceliftedtotheweather,andonegaunt hand flacsoled as the belly of a fish, then shemovedthecapeasideandexaminedthebosomofhergown.

...Shehadbeenabigwomanoncebutnowherskeletonrose,drapedlooselyinunpaddedskinthattightenedagainuponapaunchalmostdropsical,asthoughmuscleandtissuehadbeencourageandfortitudewhichthedaysortheyearsconsumeduntilonlytheindomitableskeletonwasleftrisinglikearuinoralandmarkabove the somnolent and impervious guts, andabovethatthecollapsedfacethatgavetheimpressionofthebonesbeingoutsidetheflesh,liftedintothedrivingdaywith an expression at once fatalistic and of a child’sastonished disappointment, until she turned and enteredthehouseagainandclosedthedoor.6

ThepassagebeginswithachainofmonosyllabicwordsofAngloSaxonprovenance—which,inaccordancewiththenaturalrhythmsofEnglish,alsoconstituteaniambiccadence.Thecounterpointtothispatternisfirstassertedintheinitialsubordinateclause,wherethereisanarrayofLatinateterms—“dissolving,”“moisture,”“disintegrate,”“minuteandvenomousparticles.”Faulkner,

6WilliamFaulkner,The Sound and the Fury(NewYork:Vintage,1990),pp.265–66.


StyleinAmerica 37

withakindofstylisticrelish,delights inemphaticallybracketing terms that reflect the contrasting dictions:“mangy and anonymous fur,” “myriad and sunkenface,”“apaunchalmostdropsical,”“somnolentandimperviousguts.”ThestrongeffectofthesedoublebarreledformulationsissimultaneouslytogiveDilsey’spresenceagrittyphysicalconcreteness—anagingblackwomanwithasaggingfaceandaprotuberantbellywearingamotheatencape—andtoimbueherfigurewithmetaphysicalcomplication,representingherundertheaspectofeternity—thewrinklesonherfaceare“myriad,”asmuchamanifestationofthemultiplicityandvarietyoflifeexperienceasofdecay;theshabbinessofthefurtrimbecomes,wonderfully,“anonymous”justasthegutsaremysteriously“impervious”;and,mostevidently,Dilseyemergesthroughallthisenergeticactivityofstyleasanimageofcourageandfortitude,stubbornlycontinuingwiththechoresandtrialsofcaringforthosearoundherdespite thebody’sdecayandthemostmaddeningcircumstances.

Itmustbesaidthatthismetaphysicalcomplicationofthe physical description becomes, in the second paragraph,alittledisorienting,thoughthismaywellbetheintendedeffect:onedoesnotreadilyvisualizetheimageof thebonesbeingoutside theflesh.Whatdrives thatparadoxical image isEzekiel’svisionof thedrybonesrevived:“AndIwilllaysinewsuponyou,andwillbringfleshuponyou,andcoveryouwithskin,andputbreathinyou,andyoushalllive”(Ezekiel37:6).AlthoughEzekiel’s original prophecy is actually an allegory of nationalrebirthafterthemetaphoricaldeathofexile,initslaterreceptionitbecamethesourcetextfortheideaof


38 Chapter1

theresurrectionofthedead,anditsdisseminationinthepopularNegrospiritualissurelyrelevanttoFaulkner’srepresentationofDilsey.HerchapterissetonEasterSunday,1928,andatthechurchserviceshewillbegrantedavisionofthetrueresurrection(“I’veseeddefirstendelast”[p.297]).Faulkner,ofcourse,istransposingChristiantheologyintoamoralanduntheologicalperspectiveonhumannature:Dilsey,unlikethemembersoftheCompsonfamily,eachdeadendedinadifferentway,istheonefigure in thenovelcapableof regeneration,ofbearingupunderlife’sburdensandenduring.

Theword“skeleton”doesnotoccurinEzekielorinany other biblical text, but after it is put forth twicehere,weget“bones,”whichisatthecenterofthepassageinEzekielandalsopartofamoregeneralidiomaticpatternintheBible.ThreemonosyllabictermsthatfiguresignificantlyintheBibleformaconstellationhere:dust,flesh,andbones.(Inchapter3,wewillhaveoccasiontotracetheimportanceoftheseverytermsinthethematiclexiconofAbsalom, Absalom!)Itmayatfirstseemsomethingofastretchtolink“dust”inthefirstsentenceofthispassagewithanybiblicalusage.Itoccurshere,afterall,asasimilemeanttoconveytheconcrete look and feel of the gray light and moist air ofdawnonthisearlyAprilmorning.IntheBible,dustissometimesametonymyforhumanmortality, formanwhowasmadefromdustandisfatedtoreturntodust.ButasthemetaphysicalcomplicationsoftherepresentationofDilseyaccumulateinthesetwoparagraphs,withthethemeofresurrectionemerging,andas“flesh”and“bones”makeanappearance,which inbiblical idiomare a collocation that indicates kinship and the sheer


StyleinAmerica 39

physicalityofmortalhuman life,“dust”at thebeginningseemsnotonlyarenderingoftheweirdlyparticulatequalityof themorning lightanddrivingmistbutalsoanintimationoftheephemeralmaterialsubstanceofhumanexistence.Dilsey,likeallofus,isfromdust,andtodustshewillreturn;theintegumentoffleshmanifestedinherphysicalappearancebeginstofallaway,asitmust;butthebonesrisingfromtheslackfleshinvokeEzekiel’spromisethatnewfleshwillbelaidonthedrybonesandtheywillliveagain.

Faulkner’sproseisalimitcaseforthedecisivepresenceoftheKingJamesVersioninalonglineofAmericanwriters.Hisrhythmsandsyntaxandthespectacularlyreconditevocabularyheoftenfavorsarenotintheleastbiblical.Heisfarremovedfromthebiblicalrhetorical sweepofLincoln’soratoryand fromtheflourishes of biblical poetic style that mark some of thegrandermomentsofMelville’snarrativeprose.Yet,hewasawritersteepedinthe1611renderingofScripture,andhefoundinitathematicvocabularythatmetthelargemeasurehesoughtinhisnovelsfortherepresentationofthehumancondition.Stylistically,thesecompactkeytermsthathedrewfromtheBiblewere,intheirveryconcreteness,asIshalltrytoshowlater,aballast,liketherestofhisAngloSaxonvocabulary,againstthesoaring abstractions that were also vitally important forhim:dustandfleshandboneoveragainstmyriadandindomitableandfortitude.

ThisstudyisanattempttothrowlightontheabidingroleoftheKingJamesVersionintheshapingofstyleintheAmericannovelandatthesametimeanefforttoreanimate,throughthisparticularinstanceofthebiblical


40 Chapter1

component,thesenseoftheimportanceofstyleinthenovel. Especially because borrowings from the KingJamesVersionarealwaysoneelementamongmanyinAmericanprose,itisworthstressingthatlanguageitselfcompriseshighlyheterogeneouselements,andhencetheconstituentsofstyleingeneralarethemselvesheterogeneousandtheircombinationsandpermutationsintrinsicallyunpredictable.Thesoundandlengthofthewords(aswehavejustseeninFaulkner),theirsyntacticordering,thecadencesinwhichtheyarearranged,thelevelsofdictiontheymanifest, theantecedenttexts (biblicalandothers)theyevokeexplicitlyorobliquely,theirdeploymentoffigurative language—allcombine inshiftingpatternstoputanindeliblestampononemomentafteranotherandon theentirefictionalworldconstitutedfromthosemoments.Toreverttothequestionofwhatislostinmosttranslation,Iwouldsaythatreadingtheuntranslatabletext isultimatelywhatdepartmentsofliterarystudiesoughttobeabout,butinthepeculiaratmospherethathasdominatedtheacademyforseveraldecades,thereversehasoftentakenplace:theoriginalhasbeen readalmostas though itmightaswellhave beenatranslation.Toooften,thoughsurelynotinvariably, teachers of literature and their hapless studentshavetendedtolookrightthroughstyletothepurportedgroundingofthetextinoneideologyoranother.

AsIhavealreadynoted,Iambynomeansproposingthatthecontextofideologyisirrelevanttothestudyofliterature.Literaryworksaremadeofwords,buttheyemergefromandaddressissuesintherealworld,andsopolitics,socialhistory,biography,materialculture,technology,andintellectualhistoryareallworthyofatten


StyleinAmerica 41

tionintheefforttoattainafullerunderstandingofliterature.WhatIwouldliketoargueisthatnoneoftheseconsiderationsofcontextshouldentailanavertedgazefromtheartful,inventive,andoftenstartlinglyoriginaluseoflanguagethatistheprimarystuffofliterature,theverymediumthroughwhichittakesinhistory,politics,society,andeverythingelse.Theplayofstyleinfictionisnotonlyasourceofdeeppleasure, sometimesevenrapture,butalsoaprocessthatenablesthought,invitingtheperceptionofcomplexassociativelinks,compellingfinediscriminationsandqualifications,leadingustoseeone frameofmeaning in connectionwithanother,orwithseveralothers.TheKingJamesVersionoftheBible,oncejustifiablythoughtofasthenationalbookoftheAmericanpeople,helpedfoster,atleastfortwocenturies,ageneralresponsivenesstotheexpressive,dignifieduseoflanguage,tothewaysinwhichtherhythmsanddictionofacertainkindofEnglishcouldmovereaders.Against thisgeneralbackground, Iwouldnow like toexploresomeeminentinstancesinwhichnovelistsdrewontheresourcesoftheKingJamesVersiontofashiondifferent versions of a distinctive American style forprosefiction.

Documents

StyleinAmericaandthe KingJamesVersionassets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9125.pdfeloquent language of the King James Bible provided an important resource, beyond the vital inventiveness