JohnMilbank

UniversityofNottingham
FictioningThings:GiftandNarrative
Childhood and Narrative
Theologianstodayexercisealmostzeropublicinfluence.Andyet,throughthemediumofchildrens
literatureandfantasyliteraturegenerally,apublictheologicaldebateofakindcontinuestobe
conducted.FromGeorgeMacdonaldintheVictorianerathroughG.K.ChestertontotheInklings,an
attempthasbeenmadetorepresentChristianityinthemodeofwhatMacdonaldalreadycalledthe
fantasticimagination.1Ifonejudgesbybooksalesfigures,theavidreadershipofthisliteraturemust
extendwellbeyondthenumbersofthosewhogotochurch,althoughthelattergroupalsohavebeen
perhapsmuchmoreprofoundlyshapedbythisliterarymodeofreflectionthanbytheworkof
conceptualtheologians.
AsifinrecognitionthatbythismeansChristianitystillexertsacovertholdontheglobalimagination,
PhilipPullmaninHisDarkMaterialshaswrittenanantiChristianfantasytrilogy,whichtosome
extentisdeliberatelydirectedagainstcertainkeythemesoftheMacdonaldtraditioninparticularthe
privilegingoftheinnocent,childisheyewhileatthesametimeitismanifestlyindebtedtothis
traditionforitsmodeofconstruction.Thisisespeciallyapparentintermsofitsenvisagingofa
paralleluniversewithitsownlawswhichisdeployedbothtopointoutthearbitrarycontingencyofthe
universeweinhabitandtoindicatemoresharplyanessenceofethicallegalitythatmighttranscend
arbitrarinessanddisplayitsimperativesinanypossibleworldwhatsoever .2Moreover,Pullmans
ethicalprescriptionremainsatheologicaloneofasortheoffersakindofmaterialistGnosticismas
analternativetoorthodoxChristianfaith.
Thefactthatitisnowpossibleandrespectabletoofferthissortofthingtochildrencouldbeseenas
onemeasureofdeChristianizationalthoughalreadyPullmanhascalledforthapopularworkof
ChristianfictionalcritiqueintheshapeofD.P.TaylorsShadowmasterunfortunatelyaworkthatis
wellconceivedbutpoorlyexecuted,thoughlittlemoresothanthelatterpartofPullmanstrilogy
whichseverelydegenerates,perhapsbecauseofitsmythopoeicincoherency,aftertheunsurpassed
brillianceofthefirstvolume(especiallythefirsthalf).3AndofcoursetheHarryPottersequenceso

. 1GeorgeMacdonald,TheFantasticImagininationinGeorgeMacdonald,TheCompleteFairy
TalesedV.CKnoepflmacher(Harmondsworth,Middlesex:Penguin,1999),115
.2PhillipPullman,HisDarkMaterials:NorthernLights;TheSubtleKnife;TheAmberSpyglass
(London:ScholasticPress,1995,1997,1999)Onethicsandfantasy,seeG.K.Chesteron,TheEthics
ofElflandinOrthodoxy(London:TheBodleyHead,1957)66103
.3D.P.Taylor,Shadowmancer(London:FaberandFaber,2003)

muchbetterinthefilmswhentheploddingproseiscastawaytoleavethesuperblyimaginedcoreis
rightlyrecognizedasessentiallysustainingaChristianvision.
AndthiscallsforthawiderreflectionistheentireadaptationofChristianitytoafantasticmodeitself
asignofdeChristianizationandapostreligiousapproachtoreligiousmaterials?Aconversionof
doctrineintoafictionalizedmythmightbeseenasonemanifestationofapostChristianphasein
whichwhatwasoncetruthstillpersistsintheechoofpublicvalue.Moreover,theassociationof
erstwhileChristianrealitieswithotherworlds,lostworldsorpastworlds,mightsuggestacertainnote
ofpathospervadingallsuchliterature.Inaway,itisarguablethatLewisandTolkienorJ.K.Rowling
areinnegativeagreementwithDonCupitt:thereisnocoreoftheologicalrealismthatcansurvivethe
lapseofbeliefinanenchantedcosmos.Henceonecanreadtheirworkattimesasalamentfortheloss
ofenchantment.Ifitismorethanthat,ifitispartofaprojectofreenchantment,asseemstobethe
case,thenonemightask,wouldnotsuchaprojecthavetoexceedtherealmofthefictional
imagination?Cantherebeinanysensearealistunderstandingofthisliteraturesengagementwiththe
seeminglyfantastic?
IwanttosuggestinwhatfollowsthatitispossibletoreadwhatIshallcallTheMacdonaldtradition
asmorethanakindofrearguardactionofretreatingfaith.Itisnotsomuch,Ishallcontend,thatthis
traditionmerelyrepresentsChristianityinafictionalmode,asthatitreenvisagesChristianity
altogether,incontinuitywithcertainstrandsoftheRomantictradition,intermsofthecategoriesofthe
imagination,thefairyrealmandofmagic.Itisasif,inthefaceofthedeclineofChristianity,
MacdonaldandChestertonputforwardtheradicalclaimthatthisdeclineislinkedtoaperennialfailure
ofabstractreasonsufficientlytograspthecharacterofChristiandoctrineandpractice.Thishasavery
importantimplicationfortheattitudeoftheologytowardsthestrikingemergenceinourtime
especiallyintheBritishIslesofmodesofneopaganism,newageismetc.Myargumentinthispaper
willsuggestthatweapproachthisphenomenoninasympatheticandmediatingratherthan
confrontationalmanner,andthatonlysuchanapproachwillallowustoformulateamoreprecise
critiqueofneopaganism.
Thisreenvisaginggoesalongwithakindofsubversionoftraditionalnotionsofcatechesis.Intermsof
thelatter,Christianteachingissomethingfullygraspedbyadultsinabstractterms,andisthen
presentedtochildrenintermsofimageandstorythattheywillfindmorereadilycomprehensible.Yet
atthecentreofChristianitystillmoresothanwithJudaismandIslamstandnarrativesandsymbols.
Itisthesethatareheldtobeinexhaustiblyinspirationalandtoensurethatabstractdoctrinemust
endlesslydevelopbecauseitcanneverbefinallyconclusive.Itfollowsthatthemostbasic,themostfu
ndamentalelementsofthefaithcanbetaughttochildrenandthatintheirinitialimaginativeand
intuitiveresponsetothissaturationofmeaning,thereliessomethingofmoreauthoritythanadult
reflection.Adultsmaybethemeansoftransmission,butinasensetheyareconveyingwhattheyhave
receivedandmustcontinuetoreceivethemselvesaschildren.Thegospelsthemselvesleavenodoubt
aboutthis:itischildren,particularly,whoneedtocometoseeJesusandiftherestofusaretoseehim,
wewillourselveshavetobecomelikechildrenandbebornagain.TheinfantJesusinthetemplewas

abletoinstructhiselders,notjustbecausehewastheLogosincarnate,butalsobecausethetruelogos
istheSoninwhosegenerationtheFatheraloneexistsandthereforeisalsothechildwhoinstructshis
parentwithexactequivalencetothemeasureinwhichheishimselfinstructed.ThustheLogosspeaks
onearthfirstwithachildishwisdomthatevenhisdevelopedhumanlyadultminddoesnotlosesight
of.
Sothereisaprivileginghereoftheinnocenteye,whichistheinnereyewhosecommonsensingis
initiallyoverwhelmed,beforeanystrongdegreeofreflectionintervenes,bytheimpressionsmadeby
images,sounds,touchesandnarrativesequences .4
Suchthingsareenjoyedbythechildfortheirownsake,inthemodeofplay,andinthiswaythe
childisheyehasmoreregardfortheentireultimatepointofthings,since,asyet,itisrelatively
immunetothegoalsofambition,possessionandsexualconquest.Likeacat,achildneedsacertain
rangeofitsown,acertainterritoryforitssafefreeranging,butthisismoretodowiththechildlosing
itselfbeyondegotism,thanitistodowithpossessivenessversustheequallyegoconsciousclaimsof
nonpossessiveness.Thechildwishestoloseitselfinaworldofwhichitisnonethelessapart,outside
theadultoscillationsbetweenpossessiveseizureandtheimperativeofselfsacrifice.
Anditisthismodeoflosingofselfthatthegospelsseektorecommend.Itisanenteringbackintothe
paradisalbeforetheverypossibilityofevilanddeathandtheirrequiredremediesofsacrificial
sufferingandpreparednesstodie.ThisisnothowevertosaythatChristianityidentifieschildish
innocencewithAdamicinnocence;thatwouldbethepostChristianRousseauianmodificationofthe
Christianview.Nevertheless,intheChristianviewforexampleinAugustineandcontrarytomost
readingsbeforetheindividualwillhasfreelyassentedtothatimpairmentofournaturewhichisthe
legacyoforiginalsin,itremainsrelativelyinnocentandthereisarealpowerfulechoofEden .5Tobe
sure,becauseofthislegacyofimpairment,constantlyreinforcedbyalltheevildecisionsofthepast,
thereis,fromtheoutset,evenforthechild,acorruptedhabitualtendencyandsoanadulttravailtobe
gonethrough,whichnecessitatesselfsacrificeandthepreparednesstodieoneselfratherthaninflict
deathuponothersifevilistobecancelled.Buttodiethiswayistodieinnocentlyandnotpurposely
outofsomehalfconcealedsuicidalurge.Innocencenomorewillsharmtoitselfthanharmtoothers
innocenceisrangedonthesideofcosmicjusticeandthefree,peacefulplayofallwithall.Forthis
reason,asthetraditionhassometimesenvisaged,itisChristtheconfusedchildwhodiesuponthe
cross,andifheisabletosingthesongofexperienceinsuchawayastocanceltheeffectsof
experiencealthoughhecannotescapeenduringthem,thenthisisbecausehesustainsinthefaceof
adversitythevisionofinnocencethevisionofGodhimselfwhohasexperiencednothing,undergone
nothing,passednotrials,notestsandforjustthisreasonisgood,aspureenvisaging,pureinner
playfulness,andpureintuitionwithoutanydegreeofreflectionwhatsoever.Itisclear,asIhave
.4SeeCharlesPguyonthebalanceinhumanitybetweenchildhoodandadulthoodinBasicVerities:
ProseandPoetrytransAnnandJulienGreen,198205,222231,232251(extractsfromSaints
Innocents)esp223:Itisinnocencethatisfullandexperiencethatisemptyetc
.5SeeJohnMilbank,BeingReconciled:OntologyandPardon(London:Routledge,2003),126

alreadysuggested,thatforChristiandoctrineGodsadulthoodasFatherishisoriginating,without
remainder,theSonandthereforeisbuttheemergenceofGodaschilditis,torepeat,fundamentally
forthisreasonthatitwasappropriatefortheLogostobecomeincarnatefirstasachildand,asachild,
toinstructthelearned.TheChristianreversionofpedagogyisconsummatedinthevisionofTrinity
andIncarnation.
ThisChristianprivilegingofchildhoodastheexemplarybeginningofwonderhasperhapsbeen
especiallygraspedwithinBritishtraditionfromThomasTrahernethroughtoWilliamWordsworth.But
alreadyintheMiddleEnglishMedievalpoemPearl,thenarratorhasavisionofhisdeadinfant
daughterasaspotlesspearlwhoisjustlyelevatedtothesamebeatitudeasthosewhohavelived,
suffered,enduredandpersisted.6Theyallreceivebygraceanequaljusticeduetoinnocence;theyare
allequallyadornedbythewhitepearlsofsimplenessandpurity.Forifunsulliedinnocenceshouldin
justicebeprotectedandgivenallthatthereistogive,soalsothosewhohavedonejusticemust,
preciselyinorderhavedoneso,havedefendedinnocence,andthemselvessustainedorfurther
achievedaninnocencebydevelopingtheirownresourcesinanunsulliedmanner,sincetodorightlyis
topreservetheintegrityofonesownnature,toletitgrowwhereasifsomethinghappensbymere
unabsorbedchanceexperiencetothisnature,thatsomethingmustbeanevilcontamination.AsCharles
Pguyputit:Itisinnocencethatgrowsandexperiencethatwanes.7
Henceiftheinnocenceofthedeadchildisrightlyrewarded,so,symmetrically,theachievedjusticeof
adultsreceivestherewardofinnocence.Christisaholyinnocentonthecross;theholyinnocentsshare
inadvanceinhiscrucifixion.
However,itseemstohavebeenonlyinthe19thcenturythataChristianandpostChristiansensethat
childhoodwasspecialreceivedafullrecognition,andespeciallysoinAngloSaxoncountries.(The
greatFrenchcontributorstothisthemearePguyandAlainFournier.)Thisismostcertainlya
complexphenomenonandfullofambivalences:itwassometimesindeedrelatedtoadarkandgloomy
accountofadultsexualityandacorrespondinglyperversepromotionofchildhoodandchildren
themselvesasobjectsofadultdesire.Thisfurtherentailedaseriesofprojectionsrenderingchildren
eitherimplausiblysexlessorelsesexualizedinalltooadultamanner.Anotherdangerhereisthatofa
cultofchildhoodasaretreatfromamodern,adult,disenchantedworldwithitstrialsofsexualfreedom
andincreasedneedforselfdirection.ThisisclearlypartofPhilipPullmanslegitimateworryabout
thislegacy.
However,tostressonlythisdarksidewouldsurelybetoignorethewayinwhich,lateintheday,and
ironicallyaftertheonsetofitspublicdecline,Christianityfinallyhelpedtobringaboutarecognition
thatchildhoodisafullyhumanphaseofhumanlifeandyetonecharacterizedbyspecialneedsand
prioritiesofwhichtheallowingoffreereigntotheimaginationandtotherealmofplayareparamount.
.6PearlinThePoemsofthePearlManuscriptedMalcomAndrewandRonaldWaldron(Exeter:
UniversityofExeterPress,1996)53111
.7Pguy,BasicVerities,223

PullmannotablywishestoofferaGnosticaccountoftheneedfortransgressionandoflossifweareto
growup.InGeorgeMacdonaldsworkhowever,thereissomethinglikeaBlakeansensethatifthe
sexualfieldistobesuccessfullynegotiated,itmustbereenvisagedintermsofitsoriginalinnocence
thatinasenseitmustbeseamlesslyintegratedintounfoldingchildhood,inorderthatitswonder,
play,totalcommitmenttotheimmediaterangeofwhatisofferedintheshapeofonessexualpartner,
anditsselflessexcesstothecontrastbetweensacrificeandegotismmaybesuccessfullyembraced.
Thus,inhisfairystoryTheLightPrincess,thesheerchildishnessofthePrinceandPrincesscauses
thementirelytosurrendertonightsofswimminginthemoonlitwatersofanenchantedlake.8The
eponymousheroinewholacksasenseofgravity,bothliterallyandfiguratively,isnottobetakenin
Pullmanesquetermssimplyasanultrachildwhoneedstolearntofallandsotogrowup,becausein
factshelacksalsothechildlikegravityofseriousplaywhichshediscoversonlythroughthepullof
waterandnotondrylandandcanlaugh,evenatdisaster,butlacksthecapacitytosmile.Sheisif
anythingadamaged,autisticchild,gapingamorallyattheworldofgravityasifattheharmlessbangs
andcrashesofaDisneycartoon,andthepointofherfictionalcreationbyMacdonaldistopointout
howoursubjectiontogravityiswhatliterallyhelpstomakeusmetaphoricallygraveandtovalue
ourbeinghelddown,pulledtowardsfinitethings,includinginasexualsense.Aswithhisfriendand
contemporaryLewisCarrollandwithChestertonlateron,Macdonaldsplaywithcounterfactuality
makesusseethecontingentabsurdityofourownworldwhichmighthavebeenotherwise,andatthe
sametimethespecificvalueofthiselectivesetofcircumstances.Beingheldtothegroundgivesriseto
acertainsetofappreciationsandforahumanbeingtobewithoutgravityisgrotesque.
Andyet,theprincessattheendofthestorystilloccasionallymissesherlevity,andthereisahintthat
forothermodesofcreatedbeingtheangelic,forexamplesuchanidiommightbeappropriate.Soit
isnotthecasethatthisstorycanbeculturallyinstrumentalisedasaparableabouttheneedforthechild
togrowup,noraboutanecessarypassagethroughrupturethelightwhichitshedsonourworldand
thecomparativeweightwhichthislightnessgrantsit,israthermoresubtleandindirect,sincethe
princessmust,inauniquefictionalfashion,growintotherealityofourworldfromwhichshehasbeen
sunderedatbirththroughthemaliceofawickedfairy.Althoughshemustindeedlearntofall,thisis
notapassagethroughahappytransgression,butsimplytheacquiringofourpeculiarlyhuman
ontologicaldensity.
Particularlystrikinginthisrespectisthefactthat,sincethePrincesshasnotbeenabletofall,saveinto
waters,tearshavenotbeenabletofallfromhereyeseither.Thereaderofthestoryanticipatesthatthey
willdosotherebyinductingtherestofherbodyintoweightinesswhensheseesthatthePrinceis
preparedtodieforherbyactingasahumanstoppertopreventthedrainingofthelake(!)underthe
furtherevilenchantmentofthewickedfairy.Butwearedisappointedthisdoesnotoccur.Instead,the
PrincessstearsfallfirstthroughjoywhenthePrinceisresurrectedfromhissacrificialdeath.Inthis
wayaGnosticorHegelianmessagethatallspiritualrealitymustsufferinordertodevelopisavoided
forwhatthePrincesshasenduredthroughthehandofmaliceislessanoutrightevilconditionthatit
.8GeorgeMacdonald,TheLightPrincess,CollectedFairyTales,1553

isanontologicallyinappropriateone.(ForthisreasonitisalsonotaHeideggereanfallintotheguilt
ofonticexistenceassuch.)Hencehercuredoesnotlieasitmustforafallencreatureandforthose
aroundherwhohavetoendureheranomalousconditionasanevilviathepassagethroughsuffering
ofwhichherlevityremainsautisticallyoblivious,butratherthroughherrebirthintogenuinehumanity
includingthecapacityforsympatheticsufferingbyjoyandecstasy.Somethingatlastgetsthrough
toher.
ThusthePrincessbecomesablefullytolovethePrincebybelatedlybecominganormalchild.Here,
forMacdonald,ontologicallyspeaking,maturationisaneventwithinchildhoodandthissophisticated
aspectofhisvisionissomethingwhichPullmanscritiqueisunabletrulytocometotermswith.One
couldsaysomethingsimilaraboutPullmanskeythemeofselfreflection,selfconsciousnessandthe
acquiringofadeterminableidentitywhenonesdaemontakesonafixedhabitualshapea
wonderfulmythopoeicthematicinhistrilogy.Surelythisworkofindividuationisalwaysalready
begunwithinchildishplayitself,inthetryingoutandgradualselectionofdifferentroles?Gradually,
suchroleplaybecomesinadolescencemoreforrealandthen,indeed,selfconsciousnesssetsin.But
theferociousLyrais,Iwouldcontend,moreplausibleinherearlychildishphasethaninherlaterpre
pubescentandadolescentones,forsuchadegreeofboldnessismorecharacteristicoftheunself
consciouschildwhoimaginesthat,ifonemerelyadoptsarole,thewherewithalsuccessfullytofulfillit
willautomaticallyfollow..thisistrueofJoanAikensDidoTwite,whoremainsverymuchachild
andonwhomitseemstomeLyramaybesomewhatbased.Adolescentselfconsciousness,bycontrast,
isinhibitingasmuchasitisawkwardlypromotingofactionandofadistinctiveidentitythatisstillto
somedegreeachildishtryon.InthisrespectLyrascharacterdoesnotseemtoaltersufficientlyand
heradolescentexperimentationistooconfusedwithachildishanduncomplicateddirectness.
Moreoverandmoredecisively,thereductionofonesdaemontoonefixedshape,sinceitoccurs
undertheaegisofaninsecureadolescenttryingonofaspecificfront,issurelybothmoreunstableand
lessfinalthanPullmansfictionimposes?Onecouldarguethatsuchareachingforfixityisreally
characteristicofadolescent,initialadulthood,ratherthanfullyachievedadulthoodassuch.
Surely,bycontrast,fulladultmatureselfconsciousnesscomesatthepointwhere,asC.S.Lewis
indicated,onehalfstepsbackintochildhoodandrelocatesselfreflectionwithinacertainforgettingof
selfinordertoreengagewiththeworld,andwherealsoonestepssomewhatbackintoaflexibilityof
roleplayinginthesurerknowledgethatonesuniquecharacter,sinceitsurvivessuchpublic
metamorphoses,willshinethroughmanynecessarysocialdisguises .9Soonlythepathologicaladult
wouldbealwaysapsychicwolf,fox,spideretc.anditmaybethattheproblemwithadultsinourown
timeislessthattheyremainstillmonstrouschildrenasratherthattheyremainstillawkward,graceless
adolescents.Buttheadolescentphaseitselfneednotbepathologicalwheregreaterselfreflectionis
correlatedwiththerealizationthat,iftheindividualminduniquelyreflectstheworld,thenalsocertain
aspectsoftheworldaretherebyreflectedthroughthemindbacktotheworld.Perhapsalackofthis
sortofsomewhatneoplatonicmetaphysicalrealismhelpstofomentadolescentnarcissistic
.9C.SLewis,SurprisedbyJoy:theShapeofmyEarlyLife(London:GeoffreyBles,1955)

pathologiesinourowntimeinthecasewheretheemergingchildimaginesthatsheisstucksimply
withherownpeculiaritythathasnobroaderdisclosivesignificance,selfconsciousnesscantakethe
formofeithernihilisticaggressionorelseanorexicselflacerationandselfstarvation.Yetaltogetherto
avoidthesepathologiesandtosustainasensethatselfreflectionisalsoaninductionintotheworld
reflectingitselfinusastruth,requiresthatthehealthyadolescentremainsomewhatachild,ablestillto
putherexperiencesintotheperspectiveofaplayfulexperimentwhichstrivestoechotheplayofthe
wholeofexistence.
Ofcourseahumanbeingmaysuccumbtothesyndromeofthepueraeternus:remainforeverover
attachedtothesmotheringembraceofhisparents.Butthepointhereisthatthedramaoftryingto
remain,asonemust,attachedtooneslegacyandyetcapableoffreelydevelopingit,beginsin
childhooditself,indeedinbabyhood.Atanypointinahumanlifeonecanbeeithertoochildishortoo
grownup,orbothindifferentways.Tobeachildistobegintoworkouthowtobeadeterminateand
deliberatingadult;tobearoundedadultistoknowhowconstantlytoqualifyegoisticself
consciousnesswithachildishlyactivebutunselfconsciousparticipationinthereal.Thusashasso
oftenbeensaid,fairystoriesworkwellwithchildren,especiallylessselfconsciousyoungerones,
becausetheyarenotmainlyaboutchildrenoranimals,butaboutadultsfacinggrimtasksandhorrorsin
anobviouslymakebelieveuniverse.Inthisway,theoftrepeatedtheoreticalstorygoes,realtrialsto
comecanbesafelynegotiatedinimaginationinadvanceinawaythatshapesandsteelsthechilds
intellectandwill.Andnodoubtthisisalltrue.Butshouldoneentirelyreducethemakebelievefactor
totheinstrumentalasiflivingouttherealistnovelinonesownlifeweretherealpointintheend?I
amnotsosure.Forthechildisnotinitiallyconcernedjustwithhisownsuccessorotherwise,butalso
withtheverydefiningofworthwhileprojectstopursue.Thelatterdependsuponaconceptionofan
idealworld,towhoseidealitysuchprojectswouldcontribute.
Theothernessofmakebelievethereforeconstitutesthedistanceofneverfullyrealizedvalue,andnot
justthedistanceofplayorsafety.Indeedplayassuchisrelatedtoidealityintermsoftheforitsown
sakebeyondtheinstrumental,anditsexperimentalcharacterisrelatedtoasensethatculturalandeven
naturalworldsareonlygivencontingencieswhichmightbeotherwise.Andnotonlydoesthistriedout
varietypostulatedifferentvalues,itisalsoanexperimentcarriedoutinordertodiscoverprecisely
whichvaluessurvivetransmondainadventureswhatcodeofchivalryappliesinthedesertsofArabia
asmuchasinthefrostsofNorway,sotospeak.
Norisplayjustapreparationforreality.Tothecontrary,thesaneadultmustcontinuetoplay
tokeeptheworldofherworkinperspective,shemustcontinuetoimagineotherrealities.To
sustain,forexample,apoliticalcritique,withintheUnitedKingdom,shemustretainthemythical
sensethattheislandofBritainbelongsnotjusttothecurrentgovernmentbuttonature,tothepast,to
thefuture,andtomanyhiddencommunitiesandchangingracialconfigurations.Perhapsthegreat
BritishIrishliterarythemefromtheherotalesandtheMabinogionthroughtoBrianMerriman(18 thC
CountyCorkauthorofthegreatGaelicpoemTheMidnightCourt,whereafairyjudgmentisdealt
outinfavourofIrishwomenagainstthemalepriesthood),Kipling,Yeats,Machen,Buchan,Tolkien,

J.CPowys,HopeMirrleesandnowSusannahClarke10thattheislandsreallybelongtotheLongaevi,
thefairies(orelsetothegiants)istodowithjustsuchanexerciseofthecriticalimagination.

Andintheend,ifthewholeofthecosmoshasapoint,orisitsownpoint,theritualsofplay

anddancecomeclosertorealitythanthesolemnitiesofwork,skills,targetsandmeans,sobelovedof
ourcurrentmasters.
Thisquestionoftheroleoffairystoriesandofplayforyoungchildrenrelatesstronglyto
whatIsaidearlieraboutaradicalpedagogy.Onecanimaginethattherealtheoreticalworkinthought
concernstheextendingofthefrontiersofunderstanding,whileeducationonlydealswiththe
instrumentalquestionofhowtoinductpeopleintonewknowledge.But,tothecontrary,ifwhatwe
firstlearnisthepregnantessential,theentiregrammar,includinglinguisticgrammar,withinwhose
infinitescopeorrangealllatercognitivepermutationslie,thendecidingwhattoteachmeans
theoreticallytodecideonwhatisbasicnotinthesenseoffoundationalpresuppositions,butinthe
senseofthemostdenseandthemostsimplepreciselythepearlsofwisdomthatweshouldfirstoffer
totheuninitiated.Sincechildrenfirstlearnthroughpicturesandstories,theselectionoftheright
storiestoldtherightwaybecomesthemostcentralconcernofphilosophyandthisofcourseis
preciselywhatPlato,thefirstrealphilosopher,taughtfromtheoutset.
Thusindebating,aswesooftendonowadays,whatandhowweshouldteachchildren,weare
reallyasking,asRowanWilliamshassooftenrecentlyindicated:whatiscentraltoourcultureand
whatdowewishtobecentralandthereforetopasson?Thisisperhapsonereasonwhychildrens
literaturehasrecentlycometosuchprominence.Perhapsmostgreatliterature,sinceitdealswithwhat
isaltogetherfundamentalandinsomefashionthereforesimple,isaccessiblebychildrenentirely
adultnovelstotallyinaccessibletochildrenarerarelytheverygreatestones,withsomeimportant
exceptions.Buttodayadultliteratureismoreeasilyabletoposeaspurediversion,whereaswestill
guiltilyfeelthatwemustoffertochildrensomethingofvalueandsomethingentertainingina
legitimateway.Moreover,thefactthatsex,thoughitcanbemooted,cannotbeatthecentreof
childrensliterature,asneithercantheworldofadultwork(althoughtheworldofadultwarfarecanbe
preciselywhy?)ensuresthatthisliteraturemustoftenbemoreconcernedwiththemysteriesofspace,
time,theimmediatephysicalenvironment,thecosmosandtheentiretyofbeing,inawaythatitsadult
counterpartisnot.
Myth and Fairy-Tale

e10Seeinparticular,RudyardKipling,PuckofPooksHillandRewardsandFairies
(Harmondsworth,Middlesex:Penguin,2001/2002)J.CPowys,Porius:aRomanceoftheDarkAges
(NewYork:ColgateUP1994);JohnBuchan,Midwinter:CertainTravellersinOldEngland
(Edinburgh:BandW,1993);HopeMirrlees,LudintheMist(London:Gollancz,1991)Susannah
Clarke,JonathanStrangeandMrNorrell(London:Bloomsbury,2004)Alltheseworksconcerningthe
interactionsbetweenBritainandanotherparallelworldofFaerieorelsethegiants(Powys)are
stronglypoliticalincharacter.

Ifchildrenarethereforeincreasinglyofferedfoundationalnarratives,thenonemightsaythatthisis
becausechildrensliteratureliesveryclosetothemythic.Butwhatdowemeanbythemythological?
HereitisperhapsbesttocommencewiththeoutrightscepticismofMarcelDetienne.Forthelatter,
thereisnogenreofmyth,andmythandmythologyareGreekinventionslaterrevivedand
repeatedbytheEnlightenment.11TobeginwithinGreece,mythosandlogos,narrativeandreason,
weresynonymoustheybegantobedistinguishedwhenhistoryseparateditselffromfalsetaleor
rumour,ethicalreligionfromscandaloustalesaboutthegods,andphilosophicalabstractionfrom
mythologicalpersonification.Butinallthreeinstances,claimsDetienne,thecriticalturnagainst
mythfailedtoreflectthatitwasinlargepartsubstitutingtheprotocolsofawrittencultureforthoseof
anoralone.
Ifonerealisesthatsocalledmythisessentiallyoralnarrative,thenoneaspectofthesupposed
puzzleofmyth,namelyitsauthorlesssocialdispersioninmultipleversions,evaporates,Inthecaseof
writing,thetextsustainsasingleauthor,butinthecaseoforalnarrative,thesurvivalofthetale
dependsuponthechainofrecipientsandtheirretellings.Fororalnarrativethereareendlesslyshifting
versionsandpublictruthmuchmoreincorporatesmultiplesubjectiveperspectivesand
interpretations.Notjustsupposedly,butinasensereallyandtruly,inahistorythatislivedoutin
relationtooralreportageandmemory,naturalevents,dreams,imaginings,premonitions,and
forebodingsformpartofthefabricofwhatactuallyoccurs.Bycontrast,writtenhistoryhasaformal
biastowardsisolatingobjectiveandimpersonalfactsthatmustbeacceptedastruebyall.
Inasomewhatparallelfashion,theabstractconceptinphilosophyconcernssomethingdelimitableand
preciselyrepeatable,likeapassageofwriting.Thistendstoinsinuatetheideathatbehindtheprocesses
ofnaturelieregularlyoperatingforcesratherthancapriciousandquasiwilfulones,asmythologyoften
suggests.
IfoneweretoacceptDetiennesperspective,thenmythologywouldsimplydenotetheentireworld
oforalnarrativereasoningincludingwhatwetendtothinkofasfairystoriesaswellaswhatwetend
tothinkofasmyths.TheGreekgesture,partiallyrefusingitsownoralculture,wasthenrepeatedona
globalscalefromthe18thcenturyonwardsWesternerswereagainscandalisedbytheshocking
featuresoftribalmyths;theyoncemoresoughttodisinterarealhistoryoftribesthatcouldbewritten
downfromthemorassoforalaccretionandtheysoughttoteachtopeoplesoforalculturesa
supposedlytruerreligion,focuseduponabstractconceptsandethicalimperatives .12
ItthenbecameyetmoreurgentthanithadbeenfortheGreekstoaccountforsupposedmythical
delusionandmanyconflictinganswersweresupplied.Mythwasprotoscience(Comte);itwas
languagewithoutabstraction(Tylor);itwasthedeceitofmetaphor(MaxMller);itwasthetraceof
thesubconscious(Freud);itwasthedetritusofanarchaichumanitywhichconfusedsubjectandobject
(Lvy-Bruhl),oritwasrathertheworkofastrictlyrationalclassificationandgraspingof
.11MarcelDetienne,lInventiondelaMythologie(Paris:Gallimard,1981)1587
.12Detienne,1550

contradictions,albeitinconcreteterms(LviStrauss).13Andsoonandsoforth.ButDetienne
contendsthatallthesetheoriestendtomissthesheermultifariousnessandformalnecessityofmyth
oncewehavegraspedthatitisequivalenttooralculture.
Nowonthewhole,IsuspectthatDetienneisright.Neverthelesstherearethreewaysinwhichone
mightdefendacertainspecificityofmythafterall,buildingonsomeofDetiennesownobservations.
Firstofall,hehimselfnotesthatintermsofwrittenculturethereisagreatdifferencebetweenthe
hieroglyphicimperialworldsofEgypt,BabylonorChinaandthephoneticalphabetsofGreece,and,
wecanadd,Israel.Inthecaseoftheformerthegraphicislinkedtosecrecy,elitism,centralisationand
bureaucraticcontrol.Wearetalkingabouttherecordsoffice.InthecaseofGreece,bycontrast,
remarkablyfewpublicrecordswerekeptanddemocraticproceduresremainedpredominantlyoral.
Phoneticwritingwashereanexotericinstrumentwhichmadenewsmorepubliclyavailableand
allowedgreatereaseofaccesstocollectivememory.14OnecanaddthatinIsraelalsolegalpractice
remainedoverwhelminglyoralcomparedwithofhertoweringneighbourBabylon,andthatalphabetic
writingwaslessaninstrumentofcentralcontrolthanofsustainingandfixinginthepublicrealm
certainexemplarykeylaws,narrativesandprophecies.ButDetiennefailstoreflectthat,ifEgyptwas
seenbytheGreeksasthelandofthelongestmemoryandofthemostancientstoriesofdivineand
humanorigin,thenthiswasdeeplyconnectedbythem,asPlatotellsusintheCritias,tothelong
survivalinEgyptofwrittenrecordsandofauthoritativegraphicdepiction.Thisthenwouldsuggest
thatmythsasstoriesoforiginsexhibitakindofformalbiastowardswritingratherthantowardsorality.
AndinthisconnectionDetienneperhapsexaggeratesthedifferencesbetweenoralandwrittencultures:
insofar,ashesays,thatoralnarrationconstantlyobliteratesolderversions,itcanalsoexhibitabias
towardstheparadigmaticandatemporal,andtendsgraduallytodistilcertainstablefeaturesofatale
whichsurviveallretellings,likeMrPunchandhisclub.Indeedonecanarguethat,bycontrast,the
moderatealphabetisationofGreeceandIsraelactuallyassistedthemoresyntagmaticaspectoforality:
arecordofearlierversionsofastoryorofearlieroracularpredictionscanservetobringabouta
consciousnessofnonidenticalrepetitionwhichswervesawayfromthemythicalsenseofarepeated
staticfoundationtowardsoneofanirrecuperablelossoforiginwhichcanonlybesavedby
eschatologicalrecovery.15Itisalsothecasethatthemorestaticaspectoforalnarrationisreinforced
bygraphicdepictiononbodiesandonthesurfaceoftheearth.Derridawasquiterighttosaythatthere
isnoculturalphasebeforeanymodeofwritingwhatsoever.16
.13Foranexcellentsummaryofthishistory,seeRobertSegal,Myth:aVeryShortIntroduction
(Oxford:OUP2004)
.14Detienne,155224
.15SeeJohnMilbank,Pleonasm,SpeechandWritinginTheWordMadeStrange:Theology,
Language,Culture(Oxford:Blackwell,1997),5584
.16JacquesDerrida,OnGrammatologytransGayatriChakravortySpivak(Baltimore:JohnsHopkins
UP1976)

Butthekeypointtonoteisthecoincidenceofanesoteric,hieroglyphicandbureaucraticwriting,with
astronglymythologicalculturelikethatofEgypt,inthesenseofoneconcernedwithtalesofgodsand
origins,therelationofrulerstoKingsandtheritualrepetitionoforiginsbythesemonarchs.Thereis
relativelylessinteresthereintalesofheroeswhichtendtoconcernstoriesoftheusurpationof
kingshiportherestorationofthehiddenlegitimateheirandsoforthsuchstoriesarerelatively
legendaryandpopularincharactercomparedwiththehightalesoftheoriginationoftheworldandof
keyfeaturesofnationandculture.
Inthesecondplace,DetienneseestheGreekrefusalofmythasarejectionofscandalousstoriesabout
thegods,depictingthemasinvolvedinviolence,adulteryandthelike.Howeverherightlycontrasts
Xenophon,whoseeksapurifiedreligiousbeliefandpracticefreeofallmyth,withPlatowhoseeks
rathertoretellmythinapurifiedform.AtfirstinTheRepublic,thisseemstobeamatterofanelite
reeducatingitselfandthemasses,butinTheLaws,itisratheramatterofthepopularcirculationof
whatPlatocallsarumour(pheme)ofthegoodandthebeautiful,distributedthroughfolktale,
proverbandritualpractice.Ingeneral,inejectingmyth,theGreeks,includingPlatoearlier,were
deploringoldwivestales,butinTheLawsPlatocelebratesthepassageoforalsequencesfromold
peopletochildrenasmostsustainingthevisionofjusticeinthecity,eventhoughboththesegroupslie
outsideactivecitizenship.Herepoliticsisamomentwithineducation,insteadofeducation
instrumentallyservingthepolity.17
ThereforePlato,uniquely,envisagedapopularandyetnotscandalousmythos.Detiennedoesnotask
whetherthereisaprofoundinheritedjustificationforthisbuttheremightindeedbeso.Onecantake
mythosintheGreeksenseasincludingbothwhatwewouldmorethinkofasmythandwhatwewould
thinkofasfairyorfolktale.Yetitisclearthatwhenoralstoriesfirstgotwrittendown,asbyHesiod
andHomer,itwasinitiallythehighermattersofgodsandorigins,orofheroesinrelationtothegods
whichwereselectedoutthedeliberatewritingdownofmorefolkishmaterial,asinApuleiusor
indeedVirgilsAeneid,seemstohavecomelater,whereasinHomeretcitismoreaccidentallypresent
andhastobediscerninglydisinterred .18ForthisreasonDetiennewouldberighttosaythat
mythologywasparadoxicallyinventedbywriting.
However,cannotonesay,aswehavealreadyseen,thatthereisacertainelectiveaffinitybetween
highstoriesoforiginsandthestabilityofwriting?Equallythough,onecouldarguethatthe
scandalouselementofarbitraryviolence,grotesquemetamorphosisandsuperhumansexualgreedis
rathermoretotheforeinthemythicasataleoforiginsthaninthefolkloric.Itisoftenasifthe
contingencyofthegivenworldishererecognisedinataleofaninitialarbitraryviolencelikethe
sunderingofCronusbyhissonsortheplunderingofthegiantsbodiesbytheAesirinNorse
mythology.Folktales,foralltheirfrequentviolence,moreoftenthanmythologicaltalesframethis
.17Detienne,15590;Plato,Laws,X,887c8e1;XII966c5
.18ThistaskhasbeencarriedoutbyGrahamAndersoninhisFairytaleintheAncientWorld(London:
Routledge,2000)

violencebyawistfulevocationofarealmwherethebiasofphysicalrealityfavoursthedoingofjustice
ortheelevationoftheweakintheshapeofmagicallyselfrenewingsourcesoffoodorCinderellas
carriageandsoforth.
Inasensethen,PlatoinTheLawsdemandsthatthemorepopularfolkloricandrituallydispersed
idiomsbegintospeakofthehighestoriginsandofmediationfromthehighestsources.Folktalesare
aboutexchangesofobjects,whetherbygiftorbycombat,andthegenerallyjustoutcomeofthelatter
meansthattheirbiasrunstowardsgiftinfacttheentireplotofafairytaleislesstheworkofthe
heroandheroinethanitisinthegiftofasenderhelperfigurelikeCinderellasfairygodmother.So,
forexample,intheScottishtaleTheLandofGreenMountainsthehelperfigureclearlyknowsin
advancethattheherowillviolatethebanontouchinganythingintheprincesssbronzecastlebecause,
priortothisviolation,hehasalreadyensuredthattheherosecureforhimselfthefriendshipofagiant
andthekingofthefish,wholaterextricatetheherofromthedireconsequencesofhisviolation.19
Inwhatwetendtothinkofasmythproperhowever,theoriginisrarelyenvisagedaspuregift,but
ratherasoriginalrupture,orevenasanoriginalsacrifice,asintheVedas.Often,inconsequence,the
ritualrelationtomythconcernsasacrificialrepetitionof,orcompensationfor,thisinitialrupture,
whilethelaterdramaticrelationtomythtakesthemodeoftragedy,whereintheagonisedself
consciousnessoftheherowhollyalientothewoodenprotagonistofthefolktaleisneverthelessthe
counterpartofanimpersonalfatedprocesswhichhasoverriddeneventhearbitrarydeedsofthegods
fromthecosmicoutset.20Comedyandtragicomedyontheotherhand,areequallymorelinkedtothe
folkloric.
ForPlatointheLawshowever,therealtragedyliesinthecityitselfperhapsweshouldtakethisto
includeaswellashighdelight,alsoeverydayanguish,dilemmaandapparentlygoodchoicethatfails
toworkout.Butthisimpliesthatitnolongerliesattheframingmargins.Instead,originscannowbe
toldandmediatedintermsofthenonsacrificialdonationofthegood,trueandbeautiful.His
reformationofmythineffectconstitutedanintellectuallyledfolkrebellionagainstbotharistocratic
mythandbourgeouisreason,sinceitmakesthefolktale,notthemyth(norpurephilosophy)speakof
beginnings.Yetthisdenialofscandaldoesnotrestrictorality,whichPlatoalwaysprivilegesover
writing.Tothecontrary,ifpopular,folklorictalesconcerningmorelowlypersonagesthanheroesare
moreconstantlyincirculation,thenthismodeofcirculation,whichisakindofverbalgiftexchange,
conformsexactlywiththebiastowardsgiftinthecontentofthesestories.Theinnerrealityofanoral
cultureisalwaysthemostoral:atitsedgesstandssomethingmorelikefixedgraphicboundaries
whetherwithotherculturesorwithmythwhoseinstitutionmaybeconceivedasunilateral,arbitrary,
.19TheLandofGreenMountainsinScottishFairyTales,(NewYork:Dover,1997),6492.Seealso,
TheRiderofGrianaigandIaintheSoldiersSoninPopularTalesoftheWestHighlandsVol2
collectedandtranslatedbyJ.F.Campbell(Edinburgh:Birlinn,1994),number58,pp212239fora
similarstoryinwhichthesenderhelperfigureisaraven.
.20JPVernant,JeanPierreVernantandPierreVidalNaquet,MythandTragedyinAncientGreece
transJanetLloyd(NewYork:Zone,1990)esp4985

violent.Platoineffectprojectstheinnerrealityoforalculturealsoontoitsmarginsandontoitscosmic
andontologicalorigins.PresentlyIshallarguethatChristianitycarriesthisprocessstillfurther .21
Inthethirdplace,despitehisdenialthatmythisagenre,DetienneseemstoendorseGeoirges
DumzilandA.J.Greimasscautiousdistinctionbetweenmythandfairytale,accordingtowhichone
cansaythatinmyththeactantsareprimarilysubjects,butinfairytalestheyareprimarilyobjects .22
Strikingly,thisunderstandingoffairytaleisexactlythatalsoofJ.R.R.Tolkien,workinginavery
differentphilologicaltraditioninhisessayOnFairyStories.Tolkienarguesthatdrama,which
focusesoninterpersonalaction,tendstoneglectobjects,andsoinevitablyseesthedeathofsubjects
(subordinatingthesurvivalofobjectsandsigns)intragictermsastheendoftheplot.Oral,reported
narrative,bycontrast,doesnotpresentdeathonstagebutspeaksofthosewhoarealreadydead,and
concomitantlyisconcernedwiththatwhich,likeitself,thestory,hasnonethelesssurvivedthisdeath
includingespeciallymaterialobjectswhichoutlivehumanlives.23Suchobjects,whennarrated,arein
factsurvivingsignsofpromise,liketheBiblicalrainbow.Theineliminablepositivityofthingshasto
bereadasasignofpromisedespiteoforbeyonddeath,unlesswedeliberatelyrefusetoreceivethings
asgiftsfailingtoseethat,asforHopkins,thereremainsthedearestfreshnessdeepdownthings.By
contrast,followingGreimassinsight,wecanseethatstoriesoforiginorhighherotalesarealready
mainlydramatic,inthatheresubjectivepersonagesaredominant:thisismostclearlyevidentinstories
ofaetiologyandmetamorphosiswherethingsoriginatefrompersons:theMyrhhtreefromthe
incestuousMyrrahforexampleinthestoryofAdonis,ortherapidminigrowthcycleofthedogdays
fromtheprematureandexcessivepassionofAdonishimself.24Conversely,inthefairytale,itisthe
girdle,thering,thevesseletcwhosecirculationsmovetheplotsomuchsothat,asGreimassays,one
canreducethefairytaleactorstothestatusofmereoccasionalsourcesfortheshiftingpositionsof
significantobjects.
However,thereisalurkingparadoxhere,notbroughtoutbyGreimas.Mythsapparently
foregroundsubjectsorpersons,yetthispurityofformisoftentragicallyundercutbyashadowy
objectivitywhichmaybeprimordialchaosorobscurefate.Mythfocusesonpersons,butpersonsdo
notheretriumph.Fairytaleyieldsupasymmetricallyoppositeparadox:thecirculationofobjectsin
thebasicplotisshadowedbytheoperationsatametanarrativelevelofmistypersonagessenders
.21Detienne,155190;CatherinePickstock,AfterWriting:OntheLiturgicalConsummationof
Philosophy(Oxford:Blackwell,1998),347
.22Detienne,209210.AndseeA.J.Greimas,LesAcquisetlesProjets,PrefacetoJosephCourts,
IntroductionalaSmiotiqueNarrativeetDiscursive:MthodologieetApplication(Paris:Hachette,
1971);LaLittratureEthniqueinSmiotiqueetSciencesSociales(Paris:EditionsduSeuil:1974);
OnMeaning:SelctedWritingsinSemioticTheory(Minneapolis:MinnesotaUP1993),316,63105
. 23J.R.R.Tolkien,OnFairyStoriesinPoemsandStories(London:GeorgeAllenandUnwin,1980)
75113
.24SeeMarcelDetienne,TheGardensofAdonis:SpicesinGreekMythology(NewJersey:The
HumanitiesPress,1977)

andhelpers,preternaturallyotherfairyfiguresandgiantsorelselegendaryhumanpersons.Moreover,
thoughthehumanheroesandheroinesofthemainplotareciphers,whosimplyreceivegiftsand
assistanceandundergotrialsandviolatemagicalprohibitionsaswellasperformingimpossibletasks,
etc.theseciphers,unlikethemorestronglycharacterisedgodsorheroes,dointheendtriumph,thanks
tothemediationsofthemagicalobjectsandaseriesofexchangesatthemetanarrativelevelwiththe
otherfairyrealms.25
Thusalthoughobjectsmovethefairytaleplottheymagicallysubservethefulfilmentofsubjects,
whereaswhilesubjectsmovethemythicalplot,neverthelessallplotandpurposeisfinallyundonebya
shadowybutinexorableobjectivity.

Onecanwellillustratethisfeatureoffairytalefromafolkloricelementwithinthestoryof

SigurdintheVolsungssaga,followingthecrucialexplorationsofWendyDoniger.26Herethehero
SigurdchangesshapeswithhisrivalforthehandofBrynhild,Gunnar,beforeridingthrough
Brynhildscurtainofwaveringflameswhichisthetestshehassetforanaspiringbridegroom.Thuson
thelevelofsubjectivityandappearanceonehashereadeceptionandamasking.However,whenlying
inbedafterwardswithBrynhild,SigurdtakesfromherhandthefatefulringAndvaranautwhichmuch
earlierhehadgiventoherasaplightoftheireventualintentiontomarry(andwhichthedwarfAndvari
had,attheoutsetofthetalehadputunderadeathdealingcurse,afteritwasstolenfromhimbythe
greedofthehalfgodLoki.)Soonafterwards,BrynhildsfemalerivalGudrunwhoisalreadymarried
toSigurd(theunfortunateupshotofhisdrinkingofthealeofforgetfulness),inordertoprovethe
greatervalourofherconsortrevealstoBrynhildwhathasoccurredbypresentingherwiththering
whichshehasnowtakenfromSigurd.
Thustheobjecthereundoesthesubjectivedeception,butonlytoprovethatSigurdwasin
realityimpersonatinganotheronlyinordertoimpersonatehimself.Forthethevalourthatallowedhim
toleapthroughtheflameswashisalone;theringwastrulyhisownpledgesuchthathenowtakesback
whattrulybelongstohim,andintheshapeofGunnarhehasallowedBrynhildtosleepwithhertruly
desiredbridegroom.Thusintheirstolennuptial,theauthentichasoccurredundertheguiseofthe
inauthentic.Thematerialobjectwhichistheringgivesthiscircumstanceaway,sincebothits
meaninganditsseriesofcirculationscannot,likeaspiritualbeing,hidebehindacorporealmask.On
theotherhand,thetruemeaningandthetruejourneyoftheringareonlyrevealedbecauseSigurd,
throughsubjectiveheroicvalour,hasmanagedtokeeppacewiththecourseoftheringswanderings
andtherebyisabletoseizeitbacktohimself.Thisstoryofselfimpersonation,ofteninvolvingaring
asanidentifyingobject,hasbeentoldmanytimeswithinIndoEuropeantraditionandactuallymore
oftenoffemalesubjects,asinShakespearesAllsWellthatEndsWell.

.25SeethevariousworksbyGreimascitedabove.
.26WendyDoniger,TheWomanwhoPretendedtobeWhoSheWas:MythsofSelfImitation(Oxford:
OUP2004)

Thetalehastheoppositeimplication(onecouldaddtoDoniger)tothatofPoesThe
PurloinedLetterasunderstoodbyJacquesLacan,wheretheobjectassigncommandstheactionofthe
storybyensuringthatitssubjectsaregovernedbyanintersubjectiverepetitioncompulsionwhich
displacesthemfromonefundamentalroleintheplottoanother.Supremely,theGovernmentMinister
whohasseenthroughtheQueensattempttohideacompromisingletterbyleavingitinapparently
exposedvisibility,inturnresortstothesameruseandisundonebytheinsightoftheprivatedetective
Dupin.27Inprinciple,thelattercouldinturnbecomesubjecttothesameunconsciousforgetfulness,in
whichthesubjectbecomestrappedwithinanimaginarygazeuponherselfandforgetsthatself
identificationisbutamomentwithinthechainofsignificationofthesymbolicorderthatescapesany
subjectivecontrolandalwaysmovestowardsatleasttemporarypublicdisclosure.
ButinthecaseoftheSigurdstory,asintheotherslikeit,thewilesofthesignasobjectare
undonetotheextentthattheoriginalsubjectandmoveroftheplothimselfhascontrivedtocatchup
withallthecirculationsoftheobjectandrestoreshisownandothersauthenticitybyatotallaying
claimtotheobjectanditsmaterialhistorywhichisstillwhathelpstopersonifyhim.Thuswithinthis
folktalestructure,objectsasidentifierscandeceive,butoftenwithmagicalaidtheheroine(moreoften
thanthehero)canpretendtobeherselfandbeintherightplacetoreceivetherightgiftswhicharehers
eventhoughtheyappearnottobesolikeCinderellareceivingthevapouryfairytrappingsofa
princesbridebecauseshereallyistobecomesuchbyrightofherbeauty.
Sointhecaseofthisarchetypalfolkloricstory,itistheobjectwhichexposesthetruthof
subjectivemaskings,butitisonlyabletodosobecausethesubjectfullykeepsupwiththegiftobject
(combiningsignandmateriality)thattrulyidentifieshimorherintheirnobleandhonourablestatus.
Themagicoftheobjectfinallysubservesthesubject,andyetthesubjecttrulybecomessubjectina
certainhistoryofassociationwiththeobject.
ThisstructureisinexcessofLacanspoststructuralismpreciselybecauseittakesmore
accountofthenecessarymaterialvehicleofthesignandthereforemakesthegift(forexamplean
exchangedring)morefundamentalthanthesign.Sincethelattercanonlybeexchangedifamaterial
thingisalsoexchanged(forexamplethepaperthatPoesmessageiswrittenon)asignisbutanaspect
ofagift,whileinversely,everyculturallyexchangedthingisalsoasignandthereforeagift.Giftis
fundamentalbecauseitistheprecisepointofintersectionbetweentherealandthesignifying,asalso
betweenthehistoricalandthefictional.Whenagiftisreceivedinreallife,likearinggivenasa
promiseoflove,historicalrealitysuddenlybecomesalsoromanceorfairytale,sinceforawhileit
losesitsnormaldeficiencyofmeaning.Themerestoryofsuchanevent,ontheotherhand,possessesa
symmetricaldeficiencyofthereal,andyettheverytellingofthestorybringsitbackwithinthereal
historicalframeworkofactualofferinginwhichthetaleitselfisofferedasagifttoitshearers.Sucha
giftthenrepresentsashadowyhopeforatransformedhistoricalfuture.
Becauseasignmustbealwaysagiftandpossessanobjectdimension,itisthisdimension
thatisabletorescuethesubjectfromtheLacaniandoomoftheperpetualdeceptiveoutrunningofthe
.27JacquesLacan,ThePurloinedLettertransJ.MehlmanninYaleFrenchStudies48,1972,3872

subjectbythesignifier.Foreventhoughthesubjectcannotprecommandalltheendlessnewmeanings
whichasignmayconjureintobeing,heneednotnecessarilybeblindtotheirceaselessinstancein
ordertoimaginehimselfasasubject.Instead,hecankeeppacewiththesignifier,andthisispossible
justbecauseeachneweventofsignifyinginterpretationofprevioussignswillalwaysinvolvealsoa
newmaterialinscriptionandmovementofobjectswhichcanonlybeaccomplishedbyasubjective
actor.Thisactorneednot,ofcourse,betheoriginalinitiatoroftheplot(indeed,scarcelyeverwillbe,
andfinally,becauseofhumandeath,willcertainlynotbe)andyet,inprincipleitcouldbe,ifthe
originalactorrecoupsthemeaningsstolenfromhim(forexamplethebondsoftrothbetweenlovers)by
impersonatingthoseimpersonatinghim,andsooccupyinginturnallthefundamentalrolepositionsof
theplot:thoseofruler,violaterandrevealerasdisinterredbyLacan.
SowhereasthePoestoryturnsouttobemythic(inkeepingwiththeviewthatmythology
alreadydemythologisesseebelow)inthatadramaofmodernsubjectsinadisenchantedworldis
showntoberuledbytheimpersonalcirculationsofsignfloatingfreeofgift,theSigurdstoryremains
folkloric,inthathereamagicalsignthatremainsalsogiftobjectpermitstherecoveryofthesubject
againstthepossibledeceitexertedbythesign(whichtherebyisreduced,contraLacan,to
contingency.)InthemythicalPoetale,theletteralonecirculates;inthefairytaleSigurdstory,the
heroalsocirculatesalongwiththesignasgift.
Ofcourse,thepaperthatthebetrayingmessageinwrittenoninthePoestoryisalsoagiftand
thenanantigiftorstolenobject,butitrepresentsadisenchantedattempttoreduceobjectivitytothe
pureblanknessofaninstrumentalvehiclewithoutmeaninginitself.Nevertheless,itisthesightofthis
veryblanknesswhichrevealsthetruthfirsttotheMinisterandthentoDupin,andLacandoesnotdo
realjusticetothisnegativegiftobjectdimension.FortheblankpaperisnotsimplyanabsentLacanian
realalwaysimpliedbythesymbolicorder:onthecontraryitisamaterialrealthatalwayskeeps
pacewiththesymbolicandpermitsitsinstant.Correspondingly,itallowsthedetectivetocatchup
withthesigndrivenplot,eventhoughhedoesnotkeeppacewithitthroughout,likethefolkloric
hero.Inprinciple,Dupinmightneverbeselfdeceivedinturn,sincetherupturinghiddennessofthe
symbolicordertoimaginaryselfdelusionitselfdepends(asThePurloinedLettershows)uponan
actualmaterialactofsubjectiveconcealmentwhichcanneverbefinalbecauseeveryhiddenthingis
alwaysthroughthisveryhidingdangerouslyexposedtoview,sinceallspaceisfinallypublicspace.In
consequence,theneverforeclosedrealmofsignificationisalsothetranscendentallycoterminous
realmofsubjectivelyenactedunconcealment.
Itfollowsthatthemorethatobjectsaredisenchantedandwetrytoletsignsfloatfreeoftheir
materialvehicles(fromthesymbolictokenthroughthepictographtothehieroglyphtothephonetic
alphabettoprintingtotheinternet),thenthemoreindeeditishardfortheoriginalactorstokeeppace
withtheirmeaningsandselfidentity.Andyet,thealwaysremainingpossibilitythatthewilesofsigns
andmaskingscanbedetectedbysomesubjectorotherremainsthetraceofthisineliminable,because
transcendentalpossibility,ofatransnarrationalkeepingpacewithsignifyingcirculationonthepartof
theinitialactor.Andthisisbecausethemostetherealvehicleremainsavehicleandthemostabstracted

signsmuststilldeploythisvehicleandsoremaininsomedegreealsoobjectsandthereforeassign
objectsgifts.Thisiseventrueofthesignsystemsoffictionitself:becausefictions,inordertobe
transmitted,mustbereallyofferedasgifts,itisatranscendentalconditionoftheirverypreservationin
timethathistoricalactorsmightbeabletocatchupwithfictionalmeaningsandactuallyrealisetheir
utopianimport.Onecouldsaythatdramaisthemiddletermhere:onstagefictionsaremademore
real;removetheconventionthatdramaisonlypretendandfictionitselfisreturnedtohistory.
Becauseafictionisalsoanobjectivegift,andisinexcessofasignsystempreciselybecauseitnarrates
theexchangesof(semimaterial)giftsandnotjusttheexchangesofmeanings,itsfirstnarratorscan,in
away,throughlaterhermeneuticsurrogates,evenkeeppacewithitthroughouthistoricaltime.
Fictionisthereforemorefundamentallytheorisedintermsofgiftthanitisintermsofsign.
Intheend,theSigurdstoryisnotinitswholecoursefolkloric,butratherconveyssomething
ofthetragedyofthemythic,sincethecursedringluresalltotheirdoom.Nevertheless,theringisnot
apurecipherforimpersonalfatality,sinceitsmagicalactioniscomplicitwithasubjectivegreedand
willtohoardwhichdeniesthefundamentalNordicsocialprincipleofgenerosityandgiftcirculation.
IfLokihadnotexercisedinordinategreedinexactingexcessransomfromAndvari,thefatalchainof
eventswouldnothavebeensetinmotion.
Here,therefore,amythicalfatefulorderseemstoariseonlythroughrefusalofthenormsof
oralgiftculturenowideallyenshrinedinthefolktale.Thismaybetokenthedistinctivebiasof
Scandinavianmythology(asopposedtotheIndianversionsofthesameIndoEuropeanmythemes)
againstthenotionofanoriginalneutralviolence.Allconflict,fairandunfair,fortheScandinavian
sources,seemstohaveoriginatedinanoriginalcontingentevildeedlikethatconveyedthroughthe
fatalmistletoewhichfelledBaldur.28ConformingtothissingularityistheScandinavianintimationof
aneschatologicalcrisisevenforthegods.Thisshowshowthebordersbetweenmythandfairytalecan
beveryfluid:inTheLandofGreenMountainsthemagicalobjectsoftransportaship,ahorse
areprovidedbythemetamorphosisofthesenderfigurehimself;yetunlikeatragicnymphorhero
sacrificiallyreducedtoatreeorwhatever,thesendergivesthesetransitionsandalwaysrecoversfrom
them.
GivenwhatIhavesofarsuggested,thereisnoreasontothinkthatmyth,justbecauseit
concernsthecosmicallyprimordial,isolderthanfairytale.Therewillalwayshavebeenstoriesofa
hiddenotherworldwithinthisone,alongsidestoriesoforigins.Moreover,ifdivinitieswereoftenat
firstlocalpresencesandfamiliarspirits,fairiesmayoftenbeolderthangods,evenif,nodoubtoftenin
apreChristianera,godswerereunderstoodasfairiesforexampletheScottishfolktaleofabattle
betweenaBlackandaWhitefairyKingfortheWhitefairysbrideisfairlyclearlyareducedfolk
versionofapieceofnaturemythology.29

.28SeeGreimas,ComparativeMythologyinOnMeaning,316
.29SeeBattleoftheFairyKingsinMackenzie,ScottishFairyTales,17

Nevertheless,onecanarguethatfairytaleliescloserthanmythtothefundamentalstructures
ofhumanlanguageassuch.Oneshouldcertainlybewareofreducingmythorfairytaletoadisguised
featureofearlylanguagethatlackedabstractconcepts.However,morecompellingthanthisapproach,
isGreimassargumentthatallhumanlanguagehasanarrativestructure.30Thebasicsentencecontains
asubjectandanobject,andslightlymorecomplexonestwosubjects.Ifonestickstothepurely
grammaticalmodalvaluesoftheselanguageelements,thenonecoulddenythateverysentencetellsa
story.Butinfact,weonlyspeaksentencesatallbecauseculturalvaluesoverdeterminethemodalones
andnoobjectisneverneutrallyidentifiedastick,acall,aflower,ahouse,acaretcalwaysalready
havemeaningforus.Thusnarrativestructurehypotacticallyencompassessentencestructure.Andas
Greimassays,withinthisstructurethesubjectissecondarytotheobjectthesubjectcanonlybe
identifiedbywhathepossesses,seizes,givesorreceives(Accordingtoourtopologicalinterpretation,
thevariousdisplacementsofobjectsarealoneenoughtoaccountfortheorganisationofstory,withthe
subjectsbeingnomorethanthelocioftheirtransfer31).Suchactivitiesofthesubjectwhoseseries
suppliesherwithacharacteronlymakesensetousatallbecauseobjectsaresubjectivelyaccorded
someculturalvalue.Inverselythough,meaningsarestillconveyedbyobjectsandforthisreason
Greimasseesnarrative(andthereforelanguageassuch)asfundamentallyaboutgiftexchangeandas
itselflocatedwithingiftexchange.32
Andhereinliesthesourceofmeaningassuch,ifoneaddstoGreimasthefactthatweperceive
anobjectthroughtheoperationofalloursensesandinthemysterioussynaestheticblending(or
exchange)ofincommensurablesights,touches,sounds,scentsandtastes,wealreadyhave,in
commonsenseembryonicform,anintellectualapprehensionoftheobjectasmeaningful.Yetthis
meaningisalwaysfurtherpubliclycodedintermsofthedesirableorundesirableandsuchacultural
selection,ifitistobeseenasmorethanarbitrary,hastobeunderstoodintermsofobjectsas
themselvesvaluablegifts,andsoasreceivingtheirvaluefromanelsewherewhichisthesourceofall
validation.This,asGreimasindicates,isthefairyrealmoffolktale.ThustheEnglish17 thCpoem
lamentingthelossofthemonasteriesandofenchantmenthaditright:Farewellrewardsandfairies .33
Onecanthenseehowthefairytaleliesclosetothefundamentalnarrativestructureofall
language;heresubjectsacquireandloseidentityandprestigeviatheproductionandexchangeof
valuedobjectswhicharegifts.InthestoryofCinderella,forexample,sheisidentifiedandre
identifiedthroughobjects(theashes,themagicalcoachandballgown)andmovesfromanegative
.30SeeGreimas,ElementsofaNarrativeGrammarinOnMeaning,6383
31Greimas,AProblemofNarrativeSemiotics:ObjectsofValueinOnMeaning,25
.32Greimas,ElementsofaNarrativeGrammarandAProblemofNarrativeSemiotics:Objectsof
ValueinOnMeaning,6383,84105
.33RichardCorbet,AProperNewBallad,intitulatedtheFairiesFarewell,orGodaMercyWillin
TheOxfordBookofSeventeenthCentureVerseedH.J.C.GreirsonandG.Bullough(Oxford:OUP
1968)148,PP206208

economicexchangewithhersisterstoapositiveonewiththePrince.Atthesametime,sheisinvolved
inamorefundamentalexchangewiththefairyrealmwithinwhichmeaningfulvaluationassuchis
constitutedandtransformed:thisexchangeincludesthebanonherremainingattheballbeyond
midnight,andinsomeversionsalsoanofferingoffoodtothefairygodmotherinreturnforthemagical
items.34Atthemetanarrativelevelinallfairystories,objectsreceivevaluationfromtheotherfairy
realm(identifiedbyGeorgesDumzilwiththeIndoEuropeansovereignsphere)35towhichweare
boundtoconveyreturngifts.
However,thiscircumstancealsoconstitutedsomethingofaproblemforstructuralistanalysis,
asGreimasrecognised.Forwhilesuchanalysisiscomfortablewiththeapparentswayofthe
paradigmaticoverthenarrowplotrepertoireoffairytalesingeneral,thisswayisnotsoclearly
maintainedinthecaseoffairyassistance.Forhereitseemsthattheentirenarrativeuniverseofcultural
giftexchangeisitselfhierarchicallyandunilaterallygivenbythesenderfigureinasyntagmatic
structurewhoseeventcharacterisirreducibletoanysynchronicreversibility .36Thiscontrastis
doubledbyasecondone.Atthehumanlevelofthefairytaleplot,asGreimasnotes,thereisalways
instabilityassociatedwithgiftexchange,inthatanythingheldmaybelaterlostthroughreattribution
orrenunciationwithintheprocessesofofferingorelsebydispossessionwithintheprocessesoftestor
trial(whichisanagonisticmodeofexchange).Inconsequence,nothingimmanentcanbestableand
thepermanentframeworkwithinwhichexchangetakesplaceisitselfamoreunilateralsortofgiftthat
arrivesfromtheelsewhereoftheferique.Greimasdealswiththeresultingproblemthatthisrealm
appearstobeoutsidetheswayofstructuralreciprocitybyarguingthatthesenderofthegiftoftheplot
itselfdoesnot,likethehumancharacterswithintheplot,losewhathegives,buteminentlyretainswhat
isgiven,inthefashionofasovereignpower.
However,onecancriticiseGreimassreadingofthissituationintwoways.Firstofall,itis
onlymodernabsolutesovereigntythatisnotinanysenseinvolvedinexchangeandneverexposedto
depletion.37Moretraditionalhumanpoliticalruleconstantlyhadtorecoupitsplenitudeandreserveof
donatablehonourbyreceivingtributefromitssubjects.Sincethefairyrealmwasnotitselfthedivine
realm,thisappliedsomewhatalsotoitsonlypartialsovereignty:ascertainstoriesoffairiesexchanging
rulerswiththehumanrealm(especiallytheWelshstoryPwyll,LordofDyfedinTheMabinogion)38
.34SeeJosephCourts,UneLecturesmiotiquedeCendrilloninJosephCourtsIntroductionala
SmiotiqueNarrativeetDiscursive,100137
)35SeeGreimas,PrefacetoCourtes,Introduction,25
.36Greimas,AProblemofNarrativeSemiotics:ObjectsofValue,inOnMeaning,84105
.37SeeJohnMilbank,TheGiftofRuling:SecularizationandPoliticalAuthorityinNewBlackfriars
Vol85No996March2004,212239
)38Pwyll,LordofDyfedinTheMabinogion,transJeffreyGantz(Harmondsworth,Middlesex:
Penguin,1966)4566

andofrequiringotherhumangoodsandabilities(includingtheabilitytodie)clearlyreveal.Ifthe
fairyrealmwasasourceofvaluationforhumans,thenthismeanssomethingmorelikethepartial
sourceofvaluationthatislocatedintheotherrealmofnature,butwhichcombineswiththehuman
realmtopromotetruevalueinaprocessofmutualsupplementation.
Itfollowsfromthisthatthefairyrealminitselfisnotfullysovereignlikethedivinerealm,
andthereforedoesnotitselfescapetheinstabilityofexchange.Howthen,isthelattertobeescapedin
ordertoundergirdthefairytalescharacteristichappyending?Herethesecondpointtobemade
againstGreimasisthatgiftexchangeisnotamodernzerosumabsoluteexchangeofequivalence,and
thusthecontinuingattachmentofthegivertothethingthathehasgivenisnotnecessarilyakindof
permanentloomingthreatofreversal(thoughitcanbethat)butratherrepresentsanideallyirreversible
syntagmaticadvancetowardsfurtherstrengtheningofthebondsofsociality.Thecrucialmarkofthisis
that,whilethegiftgivenhasinauguratedanendlessexpectationoffutureexchanges,thesame
identicalthingisnotexpectedbackbytheintialgiver,butratheracountergiftevenifthisbethe
samething,timeandplacewilldifferentiateit,astheydonotforourcommodity.Thisensuresthat
reciprocityisnotacirclebutaspiralandthatthesynchronicisconstantlybreachedbythediachronic.
HencethesolutiontoGreimassdilemmaconcerningstability,reciprocityandunilaterality
lieswithbreakingthenormsofhisstructuralistassumptions.Ontheonehand,onecouldsuggestthat
theentireinterhumanandhumanfairyinteractionisteleologicallyluredthroughspirallinggift
exchangebyahigherdivinerealmwhichthestoriesonlyeverremotelyhintat.Ontheotherhanditis
notablethat,fortheusualmythologicaloutlook,thedivinerealmitselfisoftenseenassubjectto
fatefuldrasticreversalsofromthisperspectiveitismoreasifthefairytalenarratesamainly
immanentreversalthatleadstostability,andthatthisnarratinghasawistful,ungroundedqualitytoit.
AnadequategroundinginastabledivinegoodisonlyprovidedfirstbyPlatoandtheHebrewBible
andlaterbyChristianity.Inthiswaythefairytaleiselevatedandnewlygrantedanontological
disclosivenessbeyondthepowerofmyth,whichitsformerwistfulnessonlyintimated.
Anexceedingofthestructuralistperspectivealsoallowsonetoseethatatthelevelofthe
existentialsituationoffairytalesthemselves,theydonot,despitetheirstronglyparadigmaticfeatures,
tediouslyreiteratethesamestory,astheRussianformalistandlatertheFrenchstructuralisttradition
tendedtoimplyrathertheirvariationsaretheirinterestingpointsandmostofallrevealtheirstructure
assyntagmsofcontingentgivenness.Theirtautegoryispreciselytheirdeepestmeaning,aswitha
pieceofmusic,asGeorgeMacdonaldsaid.39
Ashumanpersonalitygrowsmorecomplexandreflexive,wetendtoforgetthatithasits
sourceinanidentificationwithobjects.ThegrainoftruthinLvyBruhlstheoryofprelogical
participationisperhapsthatlessreflexivepeopleshavenotyetlostthesensethatformasthe
locationofmeaningnecessarilycirculatesbetweenpeopleandthings.40Indeed,LviStrausssidea
.39Macdonald,OntheFantasticImagination
.40LucienLvyBruhl,HowNativesThinktransLilianA.Clare(London:GeorgeAllenandUnwin,
1926)TheSoulofthePrimitivetransLilianA.Clare(London:GeorgeAllenandUnwin,1965)

thatsavagepeoplesclassifiedtheabstractintermsoftheconcrete,andlocatedfundamentalcultural
structuresandcontradictionsoutthereinthewildernessofparticularthings,onlymakessense
(despitewhatheclaimedagainstLvyBruhl)iftherewerethisrelativelydifferentbutnot
necessarilyprelogicalexperienceoftheworld.41
Themagicalsenseofthefairytalethatthingsalsoareactors,andworkwithusoragainstus
asmuchaspersonsdo,liescloserthantheworldofmythsoforigintothisprimordialsensethatwecan
onlybeidentifiedandactiveinandthroughthingswhicharethemselvescontingentlygiventousand
cantakeusbysurprise.Mythsoforigin,bycontrast,seemtoprojectpersonagesreflectivelyfreeof
objectiveentanglement.Concomitantlyandparadoxically,theyappearalsotoprojectamorepurely
impersonalobjectiveworld,indifferenttosubjectivehappiness.Myththereforeitselfalready
demythologises,bydividingsubjectfromobjectandbyseekingtolocateafundamentalabiding
structure,identicallyrepeated.Inthisway,mythisprotoscience,andmyth,asAdornoand
Horkheimerprecociouslyargued,unlikethenonidenticalrepetitionoftheHebrewBible,preshadows
rationalistenlightenment.42
Butdoesthismeanthatmythisactuallylaterthanfairytale?Notreally.Rather,onecould
arguethatmythalwaysbelongedtothemargins,theborders,theorigins.Oralandgiftcirculationabide
withinatribe:butatitsbordersandoriginsonehasmysterythattendedtobeinternallyconfiguredas
rupture,sacrifice,violenceandfixedcontractalllinkedtoanotionofhowthingsarbitrarilyareand
alwayswillbe.Reflectiononbordersandoriginsthereforesustainedaninitialabstractionthattended
towardstheformulationofimpersonallawsthatgovernedtheapparentlyunrulyitself.Ofcourse,one
canexaggeratethiscontrast:Ihavealreadyindicatedhowdifferentcultures(forexamplethe
Scandinavian)mightmoreprojectanoralgiftelementontoallofreality,whileconverselyasacrificial
andviolentdivisionisgenerallyitselfrepeatedwithinthetribeasacrucialaspectofwhatisexchanged
andperpetuated.
Fairy-Tale and Christianity
Thereflectionsoftheforegoingsectionpermitustoapproachinanewwaythequestionofwhythe
Macdonaldtraditionshouldhavereconfiguredtheologyintermsoffairytale,andconcomitantly
suggestedthatChristianityrequiresthereeducationofadultsbychildren.Foritispossibletoread
Christianityasfinallyimaginingtheoriginsandending,thewholehumanandcosmicstory,intermsof
thehithertoinnertriballocalfolktale,justasChristianityprojectsfoundinggiftandgiftexchange
beyondtheinnertribalalsotothisfundamentalontologicallevel.Thesetwindevelopmentsperhaps
showusinanewwayjustwhyChristianityproposesitselfastheuniversalreligion,sinceitseeksto
ensurethateverylocality,everytradition,isalsotheultimateanduniversallocationandtraditionnow

.41ClaudeLevyStrauss,LaPens eSauvage(Paris:Plon,1962)
.42TheodorAdornoandMaxHorkheimer,DialecticofEnlightenment,(London:Verso,1992)4381

thatitnolongerneedundergoselfestrangementatitsownborders.ItisconceivablethatChristianity
properlyunderstoodisthemetahistoryofsendinghelpingwhichshouldrescueandnotimperially
overrulelocaltalesandrevelations.
TheChristiannarrativeismorefairytalethanmyth.Initially,Godconfrontsnoprimordial
beast,butshapesathing,theCreation,andthendoesfurtherthingswiththatthing.Humanbeingsand
evenangelsenjoynooriginalandindependentspontaneity,butbeginandremainentirelyobjectsofthe
divineshaping.Lateroninthisstory,theplotisnotpropelledbytheprimordialandirremediable
conflictofwarringpersonalimpulsesasinmyth:loveandwar,loveanddomesticity:Aphroditeand
Ares,AphroditeandHestiaetc.AdamandEvedonotfirstcompetefortheapple,butEvetransgresses
thefairytalebanoneatingthisobject,whichisobjectivityassuchinthemodeofillusionofavalue
neutralcontroloveronesfateandoverlifeanddeath.CainandAbelwerenotdoomedtoquarrel;
ratherCainsmurderousnesshadsomethingtodowithhispossessiveapproachtotherealmofthings.
ThelaterstoryofIsraelconcernstheirescapefromtheobsessiveruleofcruellyindifferentthings
(idols);theirconstructionofamoremobilething,theArk,whichrealisesbutdoesnotentraptheir
subjectiveidentity;thelossesandregainingsofthismobilething;andfinallymoredetailedself
identificationintermsofalegalhandlingofthingswhichwasthroughoutconcernedwiththe
protectionofspiritandlifefromthefatedobjectivityofregularbloodletting.
IntheNewTestament,astheRussiantelleroffantastictalesNikolaiLeskovsuggested,Christ
isasmuchasenderandanenchanterasheisalsoasentandaidedhero,abletocommandand
subordinateallobjects,butunderthebanofnotdeployingthispowerforthesakeofhisownpower .43
Aswiththeoriginaltaleofcreation,theentirenarrativeoftheNewTestamentbuildstowardsthe
shapingofanewthingofredemptivepower,namelytheEucharist,whichasfoodisthemostexact
exampleofanobjectnecessaryforsubjectiveidentitywhichnonethelessultimatelysubservesthat
identity.(Inconsumingthisfood,unlikeallotherfood,saysAugustineandmanyothers,wemust
becomewhatweeat.)Consistentlywiththisfolkloricstructure,itisobjectstodowiththePassionand
theMasswhichbecomethecrucialmagicalobjectsoftheGraillegend.TheworkoftheEucharist
undoestheabuseofthefruitofthetree.Forhere,theoriginalabsolutedivinepoweroverthingsand
fatewassubvertedbyhumanfreedom,whoserefusalofgiftinfavourofautonomyreenslavesitto
fateandtheruleofobjectsphysicalthings,likeitsownbody,whichwilleventuallybetrayit.Inthe
Eucharisthowever,Goddescendsbeneathhumanityintothinghood,therebyrestoringkenotically
throughthissubmissiontothewaysofthingsitssubordinationtosubjectivefreedom,butretainingthe
truththatthisfreedomisonlysustainedbyameasureduseofobjectivematerialreality.
ThelatereffectofChristianityuponliteratureorratherperhapstheinventionofliteraturein
oursensebyChristianityisconsistentwiththereadingofChristiannarrativeasfairytaleratherthan
myth.OntheAtlanticseaboardoftheChristianWest,thefairytaleevolvedintotheromanceorroman,
withinwhichspacethenovelfundamentallyremains.Theromancedisplacedinapermanentfashion
.43NicolaiLeskov,TheEnchantedWandererinTheEnchantedWandererandOtherTales
(Moscow:ProgressPress,1974)85239

despitelaterearlymodernresistancestheepicandthetragic,dominatedbymythicfate,byclaiming
foritselfanewsortofuniversalseriousness.TheWelshwriterofstrangefantasies(whichagain
revolveroundthesensethatthereiswithinBritainanotherworldthatbelongstomoreradiantbeings,
eithersinisterorbenign)ArthurMachen,issupposedtohavesaidthattheliteraryworthofallnovelsis
thedegreeoftheirconformitytoCatholicdoctrineandbythisoutrageousclaim,heperhapsmeantthat
themeaningofallromancesistodowiththemurkytransitionfrompaganismtoChristianityandthe
questionofwhatstatusnowbelongstothedethronedCelticandGermanicgodsofwar,eroticloveand
naturalforces.
AsalreadytheScandinavianEdda,theAcallamnSenrach(anaccountofStPatricks
encounterwiththeoldpaganheroes)andtheWelshMabinogionimply,thefairyreductionof
erstwhilegodsandheroestopreternaturalpresencesisinfactnotareduction,butanelevation,
properlyunderstood.44Forpreviously,theywerechainedbyobjectivefate,boundintheendtosuffer
andeventodie.Butnowtheycanintheendoutplaythemagicalmachinationsofobjects.Excaliburis
drawnandeventuallyreturnedtoawaitanotherday;theringsarerestoredtotheirrightfulwearers;the
Grailobjectsareglimpsedbysome,andthoughtheymustbequestionedandnotcommanded,they
ministertohumanfulfilment.TheIrishsagasandtheEddaevenfaceuptothedeathofthegods,which
perhapsearlierpreChristianpaganversionsofthesenarrationsdidnotsofullyintimate(orevendid
notfullyintimateatallsinceallthesestorieshavebeenmediatedtousthroughtherewritingsof
monks).Theycandosobecause,beyondtheinvocationoffate,theycannowspeakofOdinand
Balduragainpickingupthechesspiecesmagicalobjectswhichhavesacramentallyoutlastedall
subjectivedestructioninarebornAsgard,orofSt.Patrickmetingoutimmortalityandretrospective
baptismtotheoldgodsandheroes.
FortheGrailstories,itisasifthesalvificobjecttheEucharisthasarrived,butmustbe
everywhereandconstantlysoughtoutintherealmsofnatureandhiddenpolitieswhichexceedthe
swayofhumangovernance.45TheGrailisinthekeepingofthefairyrealm,anditisasifthe
romanceexploresthecounterfactualofthefairymuchasthetheologianexploresthecounterfactual
oftheangelic.Thisisborneoutbythesporadicmedievalspeculationsastowhetherfairiesweresemi
fallenangels,fallenangels,unfallenhumanbeingsoraspeciesbetweenthehumanandtheangelic .46
AsC.S.Lewissaid,thelaterearlymodernbanishingofthefairiesdidnotoccurundertheauspicesof
reason,butratherunderthoseofsuperstitionwhichconcluded,likeJamesVIofScotlandandIof
.44ThePoeticEddatransCarolynLarrington(Oxford:OUP1996);TheMabinogion;Talesofthe
EldersofIreland[AcallamnSenrach,sometimesknownasThe Colloquy of the
Ancients] trans Ann Dooley and Harry Roe (Oxford:OUP 1999)
.45SeeCatherinePickstock,ThomasdAquinetlaQuteEucharistique(Geneva:AdSolem,2001)
.46C.S.LewisTheLongaeviinTheDiscardedImage(Cambridge:CUP1964)122138;fortheearly
Irishexplorationofthesepossibilities,seeJohnCareyTheBaptismoftheGodsinASingleRayof
theSun:ReligiousSpeculationinEarlyIreland(AndoverandAberystwyth:CelticStudiesPublications
Inc1999),139

England,thatallfairieswerereallydemons.47IfonerecallsGreimasspointthattheroleofthefairy
senderhelperfigureistodowithvaluation,thenonecouldsaythattheromanceconstitutesa
theologicalexplorationofthevarietyofimmanentgoodnessbeneaththeswayofgreaterangelicand
thendivinegovernance.Itconcerns,asIhavealreadysuggested,thecalloftheotherwithinnature
thattantalisingsuggestionwhichweconstantlyexperienceofsomethingbehindthedistanthillorthe
neartreethatwewillneverquitegraspanintegrityofnaturetoberespected,itsownlifewhichwe
cannotfullyunderstandandyetwhichconstantlyteachesusinsymbolicmode,ethicalandaesthetic
lessonspatience,hope,joy,keepingtherightdistanceandperspectiveandsoforthifwewillbut
payattention.(ThissensehasbeenconstantlycapturedbythemodernFrenchpoetPhilippe
Jaccottet.48)Andperhapsthemostacuteaspectofthesenseofsomethingelsewherewithinthe
naturalrealmliesinthesexualsphereorintheintersectionofthisspherewithnonhumannature.
OnerecallsthefirstmeetingofJaneEyreandMr.Rochesteronadarkcountrylaneattwilightwhere
theyboth,astheylaterreveal,appeartoeachotherassuperhuman,fairylikebeings.49
Hereonecancommentthat,properlyunderstood,monotheismconcernsanultimateunified
sourcebeyondmerenumericalunityanddiversityanditisaconsequenceofthisveryplenitudeatthe
originthatthereshouldbemultipleanddiversespiritualmediators,someofwhomcanonlybelocally
understood.ItisthemarkoftrueapophaticacknowledgmentoftheoneGodthatoneapproacheshim
bymultiplemediationofgods,angels,daemons,spiritsandfairies:claimstodirectaccesstoa
hypostasisedsubjectivewillarebycontrastalltoolikelytoissueinarrogant,terroristicinterventions.
4.ChristianityandMagic
Perhapsthen,theentiretraditionofChristianromanceasrenewedbytheMacdonaldtradition
pointstoareenvisioningofChristianitywhichwillstressitslinkstofairytaleandasenseofthe
faerieanditselevationinsignificanceofthisfolkloricconsequencewhichisclearlyfocusedupongift
ratherthansacrificeandonspiritualmaterialintercourseratherthantragicdualism.Andsuchastress
mightperhapsinturnallowittoshowamoregeneroussympathyforalllocalcultsandpractices.
Sofarthough,whileIhavepointedoutthatfairytalegivestheprimeroletoobjectsand
therebyparadoxicallyrenderssubjectivityultimate,Ihavesaidlittleaboutthemagicalcharacterof
fairytaleobjects,whichispreciselythefactorwhichsustainsthisparadox.
InTheSilmarillion,Tolkien,followingcertainleadsinnorthernmythologywhichIhave
alreadyalludedto,offersaveryChristianfictionalaccountofcosmicoriginsmoreintermsoffairy
talethanmythinwhich,indeed,fairiesorelvesoccupyacentralcosmicrolewhichtheycertainlydo
.47loc.Cit.
.48PhilippeJaccottet,UnderCloudedSkiesandBeaureagard/PensessurlesnuagesandBeauregard
transMarkTreharneandDavidConstantine,FrenchEnglishbilingualedition(NewcastleuponTyne:
Bloodaxe,1994)
.49CharlotteBrnte,JaneEyre(Hoarmondsworth,Middlesex:Penguin,1985),ChapterTwelve,pp
1437

notinTheEdda.Inhisprefacetothesecondedition,helinksthistothefocalquestionofthetwo
magicswithwhichallhisworkisconcerned.50Thesinistermagicistechnologytooslavishly
deployed,andhereherightlyindicatesthatweavoidnoticingthefactthatmodernitythreatenstobe
thetriumphofthissortofmagicsincenoone,includingscientists,reallyquitecomprehendswhythe
radio,thelightswitch,theautomobile,themobilephoneandtheinternetcanbyregularformulae
commandthepowerstheydo.Tosurrenderexclusivelytotechnologyistheologicallytofallinthe
mostfundamentalsenseasfarashumanbeings(notangels)areconcernedthroughthewillto
dominateobjectsandsotoforgeasinglemeansofdomination:oneringtorulethemall.Bycontrast,
thegoodmagicandthehighermagicoftheelvesisart,whichconstitutestheoriginalmusicalbeauty
oftheworld.Whereobjectsareapproachedinthemodeofart,weattendtotheirinexhaustiblevalues,
orattempttomouldsomethingthatwillcharminitsownuniqueterms,untranslatableintoageneral
formulaofrepeatablecontrol.Inthisway,TolkienoffersakindofecologicalrereadingofChristian
doctrinethatislinkedtoarespectforthefairyvaluesimmanentinnatureandart.
Nowifoneweretoextendthistheologyandattemptamoreabstracttranscriptionofthe
Macdonaldtradition,thenonemightaskthefollowingquestions:firstofall,ifhumanthoughtisa
psychicandnotjustamaterialreality,thenhowcanitactonrealityandbeinfluencedbythings?How
canthesubtlydifferinginflectionsofthewindaffectmymood?Orapatternofshadows,orthe
interplaybetweenseaandsky?Inversely,howisitthatwordswhichdonotobviouslyresemblethings
caninvokethingsinsuchamannerthatthingsbecometherebymorepowerfullypresent,evenintheir
absence,thantheyarepresenttousontheirown?Unlessmyconsciousnessisanillusionthrownup
bymybrainandwhatcoulditmeanthattheillusionisthere?isnotthistwowayintercourse
betweenmatterandmindakindofineffable,magicalinfluence?(Perhapsthesupremeexplorerofthis
mostbasicmysteryofallpoeticexperiencewasthenovelistJ.CPowys.)
Secondly,whymightitbethatthecreativeimaginationisindispensableforthought?Theneoplatonist
Proclus,whoistherealsourceforalllaterreflectiononthistopic,astheEnglishRomantics(after
ThomasTaylor)wellknew,suggestedthatthemindmustreachbackdownwardsintomatter,because
inacertainsensethesimplicityandnonreflexivityofmatter,likethePearlinthemedievalpoem,
betterreflectsthesimplicityandnonreflexivityoftheoriginalOnewhichliesaboveintellect(even
thoughitmaythinkinitsown,forusunaccountablemanner)thandoesthespiritualrealm. 51Itisfor
thesamereasonthatProclus,likePlato,didnotthinkwecouldrisetothedivinebytheoretic
contemplationalone:ratherthedivineitselfdescendstousandobscurelyspeakstousinthelanguage
ofmythsandsymbols.Inconsequence,eventhoughthesoultendstoloseitselfbyoverattentiontothe
materialrealm,thecureforthiscanonlybehomeopathic:anewrecognitionoftranscendencefirstof
.50J.R.R.Tolkien,TheSilmarillion(London:GeorgeAllenandUnwin)Prefacetothesecondedition
xxxiv,Ainulindal:themusicoftheAinur,1522
51SeeJeanTrouillard,LaMystagogiedeProclos(Paris:LesBellesLettres,1982)esp4453

allwithinthematerialsphereunderthereachofdivinegracesincethesoulhavingsurrenderedits
superiorityoverthematerialcannotthen,ofitselfalonerecoverit.(TheproximitytoChristian
thematicshereisofcoursefargreaterthanhasoftenbeenthought.)
PerhapsitisonlytheseProcleanreflections,aspartiallytakenoverbyDionysiustheAreopagite
andMaximustheConfessor,thatfullyallowChristiantheologytocomprehendtheinherentvalueof
therealmofmatterandtheroleofunthinkingthings,andsotoanswerthecrucialquestion:whydid
Godcreatethematerialcosmosandnotjusttheangelicrealm?Althoughindeed,spiritstandsabove
matterbecauseitisabletoacknowledgeitsownnatureasgiftandsoliveappropriatelyasgratitude,
theexpressionofthisgratitudeasimitativefreegivingandreciprocalsharingwithothersisrendered
possibleinsofarasthingsallowustoexitthecircleofselfreflexivitygivingourselvestoourselves
andbestowthingsonothersandsharethingswiththem.Thismediationbythematerialisforusthe
preconditionofintersubjectivityanditmaybethattherelativesimplicityofthingspermitsacertain
coincidenceofselfsacrificeIgivethisthingtoyouandofcommunitythisthingisneitheryou
normeaswellascreativetensionbetweenthetwo,thatisimpossibleevenfortheangels.
Thirdly,ifthesupremeartisliturgy,doesnotthisartmagicallyinvokethedivinethrough
humanwork?Wecannotalterthedivinemindbyprayerorritual,butthisdoesnotmeanthattheyare
merelyconvenientpedagogicinstrumentsforselfeducation.Rather,asthepaganneoplatonist
Iamblichussuggested,thesepracticesattuneustothedivineandsoasitweremagicallychannel
divinepower,eventhoughGodofcourseultimatelyandentirelyshapesourveryinvocations.52Inthis
wayGodisallowedtoretainhisaseity,yetisconceivedasreallyandtrulyactingthroughourprayers
andritualperformances.
Inthefourthplace,ifcreationisadivineworkofbeautifulartandourappropriateresponseto
thisisthegratefulmakingandethicalexchangeofthingsofbeautyinturn,thenwhatisthenatureof
theholdingtogetherofdiversethingsinaunifiedbeautyandtherecognitionofthisbeautybymind?Is
itnotmagicalintheprecisesensethattheblendingofthedifferentandtheidenticalasbeauty,and
theaestheticresponseofmindtobeautyinmaterialthings,istakenasreal,yetcannotbedescribedor
invokedsavetautegoricallybyrepresentingthebeautifuleffect?Onehashereirreduciblyineffable
connections,andifoneacceptstheirreality,thisistantamounttoacknowledgingamagical
dimensioninthereal.ProcluswasalsotheultimatesourceforAquinassparticipatoryanalogyof
attributionwhichconcernsjustsuchanineffablebelongingtogetherofthediverseinanhierarchical
ascentuptoGod.ButinProclusthisnotionofparticipatoryanalogyisinseparablefromhissenseof
magicalconnectorsasanontologicallyfundamentalprinciple. 53TheauthenticallyThomisticPico

.52Iamblichus,OntheMysteriestransEmmaClarkeetal(Atlanta,Georgia:SocietyofBiblical
Literature,2003)
53Proclus,TheTheologyofPlatotransThomasTaylor(Lodon:KessingerRareReprints,2002)Book
Four,ChaptersXIXXXIpp265272;TheElementsofTheology,transE.R.Dodds(Oxford:OUP
2000)Propositions100,108,110,139,185

dellaMirandola(farmoresothantheneoscholastics)intheRenaissancewaswellawareofthisand
sorevivedthecrucialmagicaldimensionoftheanalogiaentis54
Wetendtothink,ofcourse,thatmagicsimplyanticipatedsciencebecauseitwasafalsemythical
attemptatpredictionandcontrol.Yettheabsolutecontrastbetweenfreespiritualactionandresponse
ontheonehand,andautomaticmaterialactionandresponseontheotherisapostCartesianone
whichfailstoreckonwiththegivenfactoftransitionofmeaningfulformsbetweentheonerealmand
theother.Muchofmagicalpracticeinthehumanpastwasinrealitymorelikeaprudentialmixof
receivedformulaandwilledintuitiveadaptationtocircumstancethatexceededtheprescriptionof
rules,injustthewaythatethicalactiondidforAristotle.Thiswasbecause,inmanywayslikereligious
liturgy,ittendedtoblendformulaicconjurationwithwilledinvocationofhiddenpersonalpowersor
tracesofsuchpowers(inthesignaturesofthings)thesepowersincludingthefairies,theangels,
evenGodhimselfandthedemonsinthecaseofsinistermagic.(Upuntilthe15thCthewordmagic
tendedoftentobereservedbytheologiansforbad,demonicmagic,buttheobservationandbenign
manipulationofoccultforces,thatlatercametobetermednaturalmagicwasstillrecognized. )55
Henceitcouldjustbethatmagic,asforexamplepracticedbythealchemistsandtheCabbalists
(JewishandChristian)namesalostpossibilityofajustandprudentialaswellasspirituallyelevating
interactionalsowithnatureaswellaswiththehumanrealm.Certainly,onesuspectsthatmagicalready
intheMiddleAges(RogerBacon,forexample),andmoreespeciallyintheRenaissanceeraafter
Paracelsus,becameoftenroutinisedinawaythatwasindeedprototechnological.Nevertheless,it
remainsstrikingthatathinkerpursuingamorehermeticandmagicalapproachtothecosmoslike
GiordanoBrunoseemstohavefarmoreanticipatedmodernphysicswhichallowsforuncertainty,
mysteriousactionatadistance,singularitiesthatevadetheruleofgenerallaws,theoperationof
unknowableforcesandeventhemediationofmatterwithsubjectivitythandoesthefinally
disenchantedNewtoniantradition.56Inseekingtoextendthesesortsofrecognitionalsotothe
chemicalandthebiologicalsciences(followingperhapstheexampleofGoethe)itmightbethateven
intherealmofscientificandtechnologicalinteractionwithnatureweneedtoinfuseTolkienslower
magicwiththehigherelvishmagic.
Therefore,iftheChristiannarrativecanbetakenasafairytalethatmainlyconcernsthe
properuseofmaterialthingsandtheirsacramentalnature,itremainstruerthanwehavesuspectedto
themagicalnatureofthefairytalesignobjectwhichisgift(andthensupremelytheeucharistasgrail),
s54PicodellaMirandola,Heptaplus,SixthExposition:oftheAffinityoftheWorldswitheachother
andwithallThingsinOntheDignityofMan/OnBeingandtheOne/HeptaplustransC.G.Wallisetal
(Hackett:Indianapolis,1998)139147
)55SeeRichardKieckhefer,MagicintheMiddleAges(Cambridge:CUP2000),817
.56SeeGiordanoBrunoOnMagicandAGeneralAccountofBondinginCause,Principleand
UnityandEssaysonMagictransRichardJ.Blackwell(Cambridge:CUP1998)andHilaryGatti
GiordanoBrunoandRenaissanceScience(Ithaca:CornellUP1999)forawellreceivedargumentfor
Brunosrelevancetothoughtinourowntime.

justasittakesmoreseriouslythanwehavesuspectedtheimmanentmediationofvaluationthatcanbe
identifiedasthefairyrealm.(ThemostastonishingexampleofthisisthePresbyterianminister
RobertKirksneoplatonicandBiblicalpresentationofScottishfairybeliefinhis1692treatise,The
SecretCommonwealth.)57
Perhapsthen,thefictionalizationofChristianityinimaginativechildrensliteratureisnota
signofthepostChristianbutaharbingerofanewandtruerreimaginationofChristianityassuch.
Anditmaybetimetobidfarewelltothemonotheismofthegrownup,disenchantedcosmosthe
grownupsitproducesarecalledbinLadenandGeorgeBush,whoinvokethesacredonlyasacrudely
positivisedapologiafortheiroperationsinadraineddesertofmoney,machineryandelectronic
signals.Butmostpeople,asidefromBiblicalfundamentalistsoranalyticphilosophersofreligion(who
haverathersimilaroutlooks)cannotunderstandandwithgoodreasonaworldviewwhereone
acknowledgesnomysteriesuntilonesuddenlystumblesupontheultimateoneoftheoneGod.(Itwas
tothisabidinghiddenpopularCatholicsenseoftheplurallymysteriousthatfirstNewmanandlater
Chestertonappealed.)Bycontrast,beliefinGodandinthetriuneGodcanperhapsonlyberevivedif
wereenvisageandreimaginetheimmanentenchantmentsofthedivinecreationwhichappropriately
witnessestothetranscendentOnethroughapolytheisticprofusionofcreatedenigmas.Thenewtellers
offairytalestochildrenandadultsopenoutjustthisrealhorizon.

)57RobertKirk,TheSecretCommonwealthinMichaelHunteredTheOccultLaboratory:Magic,
ScienceandSecondSightinLte17thCScotland:TheSecretCommonwealthandOtherTexts
(Woodbridge,Suffolk:TheBoydellPress,2001),77107