Lateness and modern European literature

403 Pages·2016·2.068 MB·English

by  Hutchinson, Ben

OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,11/7/2016,SPi
LATENESS AND MODERN EUROPEAN
LITERATURE
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,11/7/2016,SPi
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,11/7/2016,SPi
Lateness and Modern
European Literature
BEN HUTCHINSON
1
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,11/7/2016,SPi
3
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP,
UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,
andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof
OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©BenHutchinson2016
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2016
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin
aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe
priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted
bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics
rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe
aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe
addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform
andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress
198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2016932274
ISBN 978–0–19–876769–5
PrintedinGreatBritainby
ClaysLtd,StIvesplc
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand
forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials
containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,11/7/2016,SPi
Preface
ThisbookarguesthatmodernEuropeanliteraturecanbeconceived,inarangeof
consequential ways, as ‘late’. Exploring the manner in which European literature
repeatedly defines itself through its responses to a sense of lateness, the book
contends that this lateness can be understood as an expression of modernity’s
continuingquestforlegitimacy.Withinthisbroadoutline,theargumentproceeds
historically, attempting to distinguish between differing periods and national
literatures and the ways in which they have viewed themselves, either implicitly
orexplicitly,aslate.Agrowingbodyofworkhasbeendedicated,inrecentyears,to
reconsideringthecriticalparadigmof‘latestyle’notasasingle,universallyapplic-
ableconcept,butratherasanhistoricallycontingentconstruct,andadiscussionof
‘lateness’morebroadlydefinedmustequallydothehardworkoflocatingitwithin
culturallyspecificperiods.Theprivilegeofcomparisonmustbeearned.
The study nonetheless makes full use of this privilege to range widely, both
chronologicallyandlinguistically.Itmakesnoapologyforthiscomparativeapproach,
since itis only throughconsideringEuropeannationaltraditionsasinterlinked—as
they so manifestly are—that something approaching a composite understanding of
literary lateness can be attained. Nor does the emphasis on the canonical tradition
of ‘high’ European culture require particular justification, since the perception of
lateness is invariably contingent on the burden of an overwhelming past. This is
certainlynottoclaimthatallmodernliteraturecanbeunderstoodasanarticulation
oflateness,butratherthatthereisasignificantcounter-narrativetothe‘progressive’
view of modernity, a Copernican counter-narrative in which backward-looking
over-determinationbecomesasimportantasforward-lookingself-determination.
Understood in terms that are both theoretical and empirical, lateness emerges
inthissenseasahithertounsuspecteddriverofthemodern,oftheEuropean,and
of literature.
* * * * *
Abookofthisscopeincursmanydebts.Ishallattempttomentionthefriendsand
colleagues who have made a particular contribution to its genesis, but in case of
omissions,Iwouldliketothankeveryonewhohashelpedinsomecapacity.
ThebookwouldnothavebeenpossiblewithoutthegenerosityoftheLeverhulme
Foundation,intheformofaPhilipLeverhulmePrize.Icanonlyhopethatitrepays
theirfaith.Itwouldalsonothavebeenpossiblewithoutthecontinuingfriendship
andsupportofcolleaguesattheUniversityofKent,notablyKristofferAhlstrom-Vij,
DavidAyers, KerryBarber,AyeshaBarnes,MikkelBruun Zangenberg,Francesco
Capello, Jeremy Carrette, Ian Cooper, David Ellis, Edward Greenwood, David
Herd, Deborah Holmes, Heide Kunzelmann, Karl Leydecker, Gordon Lynch,
JacquiMartlew,ArianeMildenberg,KarlaPollmann,PeterRead,andAnnaKatharina
Schaffner. Laurence Goldstein could not, alas, see the book completed; he is not
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,11/7/2016,SPi
vi Preface
forgotten.ToallthosewhoparticipateintheresearchcommunityoftheCentrefor
Modern European Literature—not least my Co-Directors, as well as our Visiting
Fellows—Iextendmywarmestthanks.
TheresearchforthisbookwasgreatlyadvancedbyaVisitingProfessorshipatthe
UniversitédeMontpellierIII(2012–13);IamparticularlygratefultoGuyDugas
in the Department of Comparative Literature for the invitation, and to Christine
ReynierandJean-MichelGanteauintheDepartmentofEnglishformakingmeso
welcome,andmorespecificallyforsufferingmyviews,invariousformats,onMary
ShelleyandonGeoffreyHill.ThatmytimeinMontpellieroverlappedwiththatof
LauraMarcusmadeitallthemorepleasantandprofitable;mythanksgotoherfor
the‘readinglists’.NumerousinvitationstotheDeutschesLiteraturarchivMarbach
also made a real difference to the book; to all my old friends there and in the
Forschungsverbund MWW—allen voran Marcel Lepper, Anna Kinder, and Ulrich
Raulff—Iextendmyenduringgratitude.InParis,Ibenefitedfromtheinvitationof
LucieCamposandCatherineCoquiotoparticipateintheconference‘Littératureet
Histoireendébats’(January2013);Iwasalsofortunatetobeabletodrawonthe
extensive knowledge of Pierre Laffitte on French literature, as well as, from
Antwerp, that of Dirk van Hulle on Adorno. In London, Gordon McMullan has
beenmymostimportantinterlocutoronallmatterslate;Iamparticularlygratefulto
himandtoSamSmilesfortheinvitationtowritetheAfterwordtoLateStyleandits
Discontents. At Queen Mary, I have profited greatly from my annual conversations
with the Department of Comparative Literature, especially Angus Nicholls and
Leonard Olschner, as well as with my co-conspirator Richard Hibbitt. Colleagues
on the Executive Committee of the British Comparative Literature Association
(BCLA)—especially Marina Warner and Matthew Reynolds—provided a regular
sourceofstimulation,asdidMarenMeinhardtattheTLSandTomFlemingatthe
LiteraryReview.
I am also extremely grateful to everyone at OUP, in particular to Jacqueline
BakerandtoEleanorCollins,aswellastothethreeanonymousreaders.Mydebtto
the book’s first two readers, Ritchie Robertson and Shane Weller, is very consid-
erable, the former for the time and attention he so generously donated to the
project—as to everything else—and the latter for (what seems like) a lifetime’s
conversation,withoutwhichmyworkwouldbeunimaginableinitspresentform.
Toparaphrasethesloganofthe1960s,thepersonalistheintellectual.
Withinmyfamily,IwouldliketothankArabellaandCamillaStangerfortakingan
interestinboththeworkandtheboys,ClaireandAlwinHutchinson,andMichelle
and Pierre Paycha, for the sacred canopy, and, of course, Marie, Maximilien, and
Hugo,foreverything.Thisbookisdedicatedtothem,andtothememoryofTwee,
latetooearly.
* * * * *
Elements of the argument in this book have appeared as ‘Entre littérature et
Histoire: la “tardiveté” comme modèle herméneutique’, on www.fabula.org
(http://www.fabula.org/colloques/document2090.php); ‘The truth is the hole’, in
the Times Literary Supplement, 7 February 2014; ‘Epigonen or Progonen? Young
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,11/7/2016,SPi
Preface vii
GermansandShortProse’,inGermanLifeandLetters,68/4(2015);‘Aposthumous
honour:Onlateness,latestyleandthe“oldageoftheworld”’,intheTimesLiterary
Supplement,19February2016;andastheAfterwordtoLateStyleanditsDiscontents
(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2016).
The following publishers are gratefully acknowledged for permission to reprint
extracts from poems: Bloomsbury (Michael Hamburger’s translation of Benn);
Camden House (Däubler and Ehrenstein); Faber (Samuel Beckett’s translation of
Apollinaire,T.S.Eliot);OxfordUniversityPress(ByronandColeridge);Suhrkamp
(Hal Draper’s translations of Heine); University of California Press (Henry
Weinfield’stranslationofMallarmé).Unlessotherwiseindicated,alltranslations
from French, German, and Italian are my own.
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,11/7/2016,SPi
OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,11/7/2016,SPi
Contents
Introduction:‘TheOldAgeoftheWorld’ 1
I. FROM LATE TO POST-ROMANTICISM
1. TheSpiritoftheAge 31
2. ‘ABookReadtoitsEnd’:ThePost-NapoleonicConsciousness 36
3. LateRomanticismand‘Lastness’ 43
4. FrenchRomanticismandtheSpiritofthePast 62
5. EpigonentuminGermanyofthe1830s 95
II. DECADENCE
6. ModesofFalling:RomanticDécadenceinthe1830s 137
7. ‘AgeingPassions’:1850s–60s 147
8. FrenchModelsofLatenessinthe1880s 155
9. EnglishDecadence:‘Late-Learning’inaFrenchSchool 176
10. FriedrichNietzscheandthe‘Latecomers’ofModernity 198
11. ‘FindeSiècleandNoEnd’:TheAustrianArtofBeingLate 214
III. MODERNISM
12. Latenessas‘Embarrassment’:PaulValéry 239
13. Latenessas‘Decline’:OswaldSpengler,NicholasBerdyaev,
HelmuthPlessner,ArnoldGehlen 250
14. Latenessas‘aEuropeanLanguage’:TheodorW.Adorno
andLateStyle 257
15. Latenessas‘HollowingOut’:ThomasMann,ErnstBloch,
WyndhamLewis,D.H.Lawrence 274
16. Latenessas‘Myth’:T.S.Eliot,EugèneJolas,GottfriedBenn,
HermannBroch 288