German Studies Review 35.2 (2012): 319333 2012 by The German Studies Association.

ABSTRACT
Allegory, Pathos, and Irony:
The Resistance to Benjamin in Paul de Man
Andrea Mirabile
Paul do Mah`s wiitihgs oh allogoiy aio sighilcahtly ihluohcod hy tho woik ol Wal-
ter Benjamin. Nevertheless, Benjamin is conventionally perceived as semireligious
and pathos-laden, whereas de Man is described as secular and emotionless. A close
ioadihg ol soloctiohs liom tho two authois` woiks (ih aiticulai Boh|amih`s The
Origin of German Tragic Drama and de Mans Blindness and Insight) complicate
this distinction, and the stereotypes supporting it. Both de Man and Benjamin
help us to question the accepted borders between the emotively charged and the
dotachod, tho saciod ahd tho iolaho, tho iodomtivo ahd tho hihilistichohco
thoii cohtiovoisial yot uhlaggihg iosohahco ih cohtomoiaiy cultuio.
In the eld of allegorical intuition the image is a fragment, a rune. Its beauty as a
symbol evaporates when the light of divine learning falls upon it.
Walter Benjamin
1
I intend to take the divine out of reading.
Paul de Man
2
Oho ol Paul do Mah`s most oiigihal cohtiihutiohs to cohtomoiaiy litoiaiy thooiy
is a how loimulatioh ol tho cohcot ol allogoiy. Do Mah was oihas tho last gioat
scholai ol tho twohtioth cohtuiy to doal with allogoiy, ahd ho took uoh himsoll tho
voiy dillcult task ol hoth givihg a systomatic dolhitioh ol tho cohcot ahd usihg it
as a ioadihg stiatogy. Ih oidoi to lully uhdoistahd ahd aiociato do Mah`s woik oh
allogoiy, it is ossohtial to cohsidoi it ih iolatioh to Waltoi Boh|amih`s wiitihgs oh tho
suh|oct. I iooso to show how ahd whoio Boh|amih`s ihluohco is iosoht ih do Mah`s
ioloctiohs oh allogoiy, ahd how do Mah hoth ahsoihod ahd iosistod this ihluohco.
320 German Studies Review 35 /2 s 2012
Altoi somo gohoial cohsidoiatiohs iogaidihg do Mah`s ioadihg ol Boh|amih, I will
ahalyzo somo assagos ol tho last chatoi (Allogoiy ahd 1iauoisiol) ol Boh|amih`s
The Origin of German Tragic Drama, I will thoh cohsidoi tho list ait (Allogoiy
ahd Symhol) ol do Mah`s ossay 1ho Rhotoiic ol 1omoiality. Iihally, my cohclu-
sioh doals with tho socohd ait ol that ossay, Iiohy.
3
I locus oh thoso toxts hocauso
thoy aio tho moio comloto ahd stiuctuiod amohg tho woiks oh allogoiy wiittoh hy
tho two authois, who aio hoth lamous loi tho liagmohtaiihoss ol thoii ciiticism. I
will attomt a stylistic ioadihg ih oidoi to idohtily tho tiacosoi oihas oho should
say tho symtomsol Boh|amih`s iosohco, osocially ih do Mah`s ciitical loxicoh. I
thoioloio ihovitahly givo ioloiohco to a limitod, hoiizohtal ioadihg ol lahguago ahd
stylo, ihstoad ol a voitical ioadihg ol tho widoi thooiotical ahd cultuial imlicatiohs
ol Boh|amih`s ahd do Mah`s wiitihgs. ^ovoitholoss, it is imoitaht to hoto that do
Mah ahd Boh|amih aio tyically associatod with two voiy dilloioht kihds ol ciiticism,
which cah ho chaiactoiizod hy a otohtially ohdloss soiios ol iathoi vaguo yot ihtiiguihg
binary oppositions: secular vs. nonsecular, apathetic vs. pathetic, neutral vs. radical,
technical vs. poetic, and many others.
4
Whilo quostiohihg thoso simlistic distihctiohs
oh a ihotoiical lovol, oho must koo ih mihd tho widoi issuos cohcoihihg tiaditiohal
acadomic classilcatiohs, ahd oh ah ovoh laigoi scalo cohtomoiaiy tiahsloimatiohs
ol ihtolloctual ahd idoological aiadigms. Lvoh though tho comloxity ol thoso toics
oxcoods tho limits ol my ossay, I hoo it will still ho ol somo uso loi thoso ohgagod ih
moio challohgihg tasks.
5
Although Benjamin wrote The Origin of German Tragic Drama in 1924 and 1925,
tho toxt, alohg with tho lull coius ol Boh|amih`s woiks, was hot lully iodiscovoiod
hy Amoiicah ciiticism uhtil tho sixtios.
6
Lvoh il do Mah was a cosmoolitah scholai,
holdihg toachihg ositiohs ih tho \hitod Statos ahd Luioo,
7
1ho Rhotoiic ol
1omoiality (list uhlishod ih 1969) may ho cohsidoiod oho ol tho most sighilcaht
responses to this rediscovery. Surprisingly, given his slightly atypical yet authoritative
ositioh ih Amoiicah acadomia, at loast holoio tho shockihg osthumous iovolatioh ol
his ahtisomitic wiitihgs ol tho 1940s,
8
do Mah uhlishod ohly two hooks ih his lilotimo.
Blindness and Insight (1971 and 1983) and Allegories of Reading (1979).
9
In these
two collections, Benjamin is quoted very rarely and almost incidentally: twice in the
socohd oditioh ol tho list hook (ih 1ho Rhotoiic ol 1omoiality, whoio tho quota-
tiohs aio ih lact hot much moio thah hihliogiahical ioloiohcos), ahd ohly ohco ih tho
socohd hook. Ih do Mah`s osthumous woiks, oh tho othoi hahd, Boh|amih is quotod
oltoh. At list glahco thoio may soom to ho two do Mahs. 1ho oaily do Mah (liom
tho sixtios to tho ohd ol tho sovohtios) is a moio oi loss loimalist ioadoi ihtoiostod
in rhetoric and language, who gradually but relentlessly rejects the pathetic nuances
ol a kihd ol oxistohtial hilosohical modo ol discouiso . . . usod . . . hy ciitics liko
Blahchot oi hilosohois liko Hoidoggoi, whoioas tho lato do Mah (ih tho oightios)
Andrea Mirabile 321
is a olitically awaio thihkoi, moio ahd moio ihtoiostod ih Maix ahd dooly ihsiiod
by Benjamins critical model.
10

Ih lact, howovoi, this distihctioh is oiiohoous, loi il oho ioads caiolully tho quota-
tiohs mado hy tho lato do Mah, thoy aio oltoh slightly iiohic, il hot suhtly hogativo.
somotimos Boh|amih sooms ah oxamlo to avoid, iathoi thah a mastoi to lollow. Ioi
ihstahco, ih tho hiiol 'Cohclusiohs`. Waltoi Boh|amih`s '1ho 1ask ol tho 1iahslatoi`
(tho last ol six Mossohgoi Loctuios dolivoiod at Coiholl \hivoisity ih Iohiuaiy ahd
Maich 1983, holoio his doath ih Docomhoi 1983), which is how ihcludod ih tho 1986
volume The Resistance to Theory, the author writes:
You havo tho ciitical oicotioh, you havo tho ossihility ol caiiyihg oh ih aoca-
lyptic tones, you have the particular eloquence that comes with that (because one
cah ohly ioally got oxcitod il oho wiitos ih ah aocalytic modo), hut you cah still
talk ih toims ol hoo. . . . Boh|amih would ho ah oxamlo ol this comhihatioh ol
nihilistic rigor with sacred revelation.
11

Oi, ih a 1981 aiticlo oh Bakhtih`s Dialoguo ahd Dialogism, ih tho samo colloctioh,
do Mah oxlaihs with a light touch ol saicasm tho ioasohs hohihd Boh|amih`s iocoht
literary success:
Litoiaiy thooiy . . . a iathoi haiioh aioa ol ohdoavoi cohstahtly thioatohod hy tho
todium ol its tochhiquos as woll as hy tho maghitudo ol tho issuos, ollois ooi soil
loi tho hoioos ahd tho hoio-woishi that it iathoi dosoiatoly hoods. So whoh a
ossihlo cahdidato loi such a status comos alohg, ho is likoly to ho voiy woll iocoivod,
osocially il ho is saloly ahd osthumously out ol ioach. . . . A laiily iocoht oxamlo
is, ol couiso, tho caso ol Waltoi Boh|amih.
12

^ovoitholoss, as |ah Rosiok oihts out,
Do Mah`s owh khowlodgo ol Boh|amih goos hack at loast to tho mid-60s, whoio wo
lhd tho list oxlicit ioloiohco ih a 1964 ioviow. Oho might aiguo that Boh|amih`s
ihluohco cah ho dotoctod ovoh ih do Mah`s Ph.D. dissoitatioh, Mallarm, Yeats,
and the Post-Romantic Predicament (1960), as it is stiuctuiod oh tho hasis ol a
distinction between the natural image and the emblem.
13
Ih lact, Boh|amih`s Allogoiy ahd 1iauoisiol ahd do Mah`s 1ho Rhotoiic ol 1om-
oiality soom to havo sovoial similaiitios. 1ho toxts havo two ohomios ih commoh.
1ho list is tho iomahtic cohcot ol symhol as tho immodiato oiloct uhioh ol loim
ahd moahihg, distihguishod liom, ahd suoiioi to, tho liagmohtatioh ol allogoiy
322 German Studies Review 35 /2 s 2012
ahd its tomoial dovolomoht. 1ho socohd ohomy is tho oisistohco ol this cohcot
ih modoih ahd cohtomoiaiy aosthotics, ih which symhol ahd allogoiy aio oltoh
cohlusod. Accoidihg to Boh|amih ahd do Mah, tho two lguios aio iolouhdly dilloi-
ent. Both de Man and Benjamin stress instead the connection between allegory and
tomoiality, ih oositioh to tho ihstahtahoity ol symhol. 1imo loads allogoiical sighs
to liagmohtaiihoss, aihitiaiihoss, ahd discohtihuity ahd domystilos tho ihstahtahoous
lullhoss, hatuialhoss, immohility, ahd oigahicity ol symhol. Il symhol is suosod to
ho a hatuial uhioh ol sigh ahd moahihg, allogoiy shows tho distihcthoss ol sigh ahd
meaning and their conventional relationship. Benjamin writes about German baroque
Trauerspiel, whilo do Mah locusos oh iomahtic wiitois, hovoitholoss, Boh|amih staits
his mohogiah with a ciitiquo ol tho iomahtic dolhitioh ol symhol (159) ahd oltoh
ihvokos haioquo litoiatuio ahd iomahtic litoiatuio, as woll as haioquo allogoiy ahd
romantic allegory, stressing their common opposition to classicism:
1ho dosiio to guaiahtoo tho saciod chaiactoi ol ahy sciit . . . loads to comloxos,
to hieroglyphics. . . . The written word tends toward the visual. It is not possible
to cohcoivo ol a staikoi oosito to tho aitistic symhol, tho lastic symhol, tho
imago ol oigahic totality, thah this amoihous liagmoht which is sooh ih tho loim
ol allogoiical sciit. Ih it tho haioquo iovoals itsoll to ho tho sovoioigh oosito to
classicism, as which hithoito, ohly iomahticism has hooh ackhowlodgod. Ahd wo
should hot iosist tho tomtatioh ol lhdihg out thoso loatuios which aio commoh to
hoth ol thom. Both, iomahticism as much as haioquo, aio cohcoihod hot so much
with iovidihg a coiioctivo to classicism, as to ait itsoll. (156)
Both Benjamin and de Man discuss allegory as a rhetorical trope and an interpre-
tative strategy.
14
1hoii two toxts aio hot ohly studios ol allogoiy, hut also olomical
ahd motaciitical suivoys ol othoi oiiohoous ciitical ositiohs. Oh tho oho hahd, tho
two woiks aio oiudito studios ol allogoiy, syhchiohic with thoii suh|octs, tho Goi-
mah haioquo ahd tho iomahtic wiitois. Oh tho othoi thoy aio diachiohic, locusihg
oh mahy othoi souicos outsido tho histoiical cohtoxt ol thoii maih suh|octs. Boyohd
hoihg showiocos ol oiuditioh, thoy aio also ih a way militaht amhlots, soakihg
out hot ohly agaihst tho cohlusioh ol symhol ahd allogoiy ahd tho iodomihahco ol
symhol ovoi allogoiy, hut also agaihst ovoiy ossihlo hatuialhoss ol tho lihguistic sigh.
1hoso aio tho most ovidoht similaiitios hotwooh tho two toxts, a closo ioadihg will
reveal other connections. On several occasions Benjamin analyzes symbol and allegory
ih thoii dilloioht iolatiohshis with timo, ahd givos vaiious dolhitiohs ol tho two toims
usihg oxamlos liom classical timos u to tho Middlo Agos, liom tho Rohaissahco to
modoihity. 1ho moasuio ol timo loi tho oxoiiohco ol tho symhol, ho wiitos, is
tho mystical ihstaht. . . . Oh tho othoi hahd, allogoiy is hot lioo liom a coiiosohdihg
dialoctic (165). Symhol, which is associatod with hiovity, doos hot chahgo, ho hotos,
Andrea Mirabile 323
whoioas allogoiy is always chahgihg. 1ho allogoiical must cohstahtly uhlold ih how
and surprising ways. The symbol, on the other hand . . . remains persistently the
samo (183). 1ho dilloioht tomoialitios ol symhol ahd allogoiy ioduco tho socilc
somiotic stiuctuios ol tho two modos. Symhol is cohhoctod with idoalizatioh, whoioas
allogoiy doals with tho ciudo matoiiality (facies hippocratica) ol histoiy (166).
Symhol iolois to a hiight woild, whoioas allogoiy is its daik hackgiouhd (161).
1ho oquatioh oi cohlusioh ol symhol ahd allogoiy, tho ihtoiiotatioh ol allogoiy as a
kihd ol symhol, is a classicistic commohlaco (214).
Ioi do Mah too, tho suiomacy ol tho symhol ovoi allogoiy is a commohlaco
ahd ah oiioi (189). Do Mah tiios to situato this cohlusioh withih tho modoih histoiy ol
litoiatuio, ahd thoioloio ooiatos ih a histoiical, moio dolimitod way thah Boh|amih.
Ho also iosoits moio lioquohtly to quotatiohs liom tho toxts, thoioloio wiitihg ih a
moio hilological way thah Boh|amih. Do Mah`s discussioh ol tho iolatiohshi hotwooh
symhol ahd allogoiy staits ih tho oightoohth cohtuiy ahd locusos oh oaily iomahtic
wiitois, liom hoio ho dovolos a histoiical ahd hilological ahalysis ol tho symhol`s
suiomacy ih modoih aosthotics liom tho oightoohth cohtuiy to tho twohtioth ih
thioo litoiaiy tiaditiohs. Goimah (18890), Lhglish (19198), ahd Iiohch (199208).
Ihtoiostihgly, do Mah cohhocts tho litoiatuio ol tho Lhlightohmoht ahd ol Romahti-
cism with tho ciitical accouht ol thoso oiiods. tho cohtomoiaiy ^oith Amoiicah
ciiticism ol Romahticism ih aiticulai sooms oivadod hy glaiihg cohtiadictiohs ahd
aoiias. 1ho wiitois ahd thoii ciitics, with low oxcotiohs, ho claims, shaio tho samo
lascihatioh with tho iosumod totalizihg caahility ol tho symhol, as tho otymology ol
tho woid symhol ihdicatos. Ioi do Mah, tho symhol claims tho status ol ah oigahic
ohtity, ahd tho litoiaiy ciiticism that valoiizos it claims to ho ah oigahic iatiohal loim
ol discuisivity. As |ohathah Culloi oihts out. By otihg loi tho symhol oho oxiossos
a laith that ootiy cah cioato loims ih which tho aiticulai is ihdissoluhly lusod with
tho gohoial, ih which oh|octs . . . givo loith . . . ah ihoxhaustihlo moahihg oigahically
iosoht withih thom.
15

Ih tho wiitois ahalyzod hy do Mah, ih lact, tho comlotohoss oi hatuialhoss ol
tho symhol is suosod to havo ah ihtiihsic suiomacy ovoi tho liagmohtaiihoss ahd
aihitiaiihoss ol allogoiy hot ohly ih litoiatuio hut also ih aosthotics, it is this suosod
suiomacy that loads to tho cohlusioh hotwooh tho two toims ih hoth litoiatuio ahd
litoiaiy ciiticism. Still, do Mah shows how doo tho iosohco ol allogoiy is (osocially
ih mattois ol satial ahd googiahical ioiosohtatioh) ih authois such as Roussoau ahd
Woidswoith, ahd how doo tho hlihdhoss ol ciiticism is ih its misioadihg ol symhol.
1ho commohlaco ol tho iodomihahco ol tho symhol is also tho commohlaco ol tho
symholic ioadihg ol Romahticism scholais, who do hot iocoghizo allogoiical stiuctuios
ih tho wiitois thoy ahalyzo, tho iosumod symholic hatuialhoss ol Romahticism is
ih ioality coiiodod hy tho aihitiaiy ahd cohvohtiohal stiuctuio ol allogoiy. Roussoau,
osocially, is ih do Mah`s ioadihg a dooly allogoiical authoi, loi whom chaiactois,
324 German Studies Review 35 /2 s 2012
lacos, ahd imagos (hotwithstahdihg thoii ioloiohtial misioadihg hy scholais) aio lih-
guistic sighs, with ho ioloiohco to a ioality outsido lahguago ahd litoiatuio. Whoioas
tho symhol ostulatos tho ossihility ol ah idohtity oi idohtilcatioh, do Mah stiossos,
allogoiy dosighatos iimaiily a distahco ih iolatioh to its owh oiigih, ahd, renouncing
the nostalgia and the desire to coihcido, it ostahlishos its lahguago ih tho void ol this
tomoial dilloiohco (20, italics miho).
16

1his last quotatioh iovoals oihas tho maih dilloiohco hotwooh Boh|amih`s ahd
do Mah`s idoas ol allogoiy. Ioi Boh|amih, haioquo allogoiy is a loim ol mouihihg,
whereas in de Man it does not carry the same melancholic nuance. Both Benjamin
ahd do Mah stioss tho luhdamohtal lihk hotwooh allogoiy ahd timo, oi tomoiality,
in the relationship between allegorical signs and meanings; the allegorical temporal
dialoctic domystilos ahd hioaks tho illusoiy, symholic, ahd static coihcidohco hotwooh
woid ahd woild. Both authois stioss tho owoilul hoauty ol allogoiical liagmohtaiihoss
ahd its caacity to domystily tho suosod symholic totality. Yot thoio aio dilloiohcos
hotwooh tho two wiitois. Boh|amih omloys a athotic ahd mimotic loxicoh (ioh-
ahly mimotically with tho suh|oct it ahalyzos, such as oh ago 205, whoio athos is
cohsidoiod a chaiactoiistic olomoht ol tho haioquo diama), which ihsists oh docay
and demons, ruins and death, memento mori ahd ghosts, skolotohs ahd coisos, daik-
hoss ahd lall. Do Mah, hy cohtiast, (aaiohtly) omtios tho dosciitioh ol allogoiy ol
all athos, hovoi goihg hoyohd tho hoidois ol litoiaiy histoiy ahd ihotoiic, oxcot to
situato allogoiy ih tho dialoctic hotwooh tho soll ahd tho hohsoll. thoio is (aaiohtly)
ho ioom ih do Mah loi hostalgia, hoi loi molahcholy.
Boh|amih stiossos tho lihk hotwooh allogoiy ahd doath, sighilcahtly, tho list ago
ol Allogoiy ahd 1iauoisiol (159) staits with a lohg quotatioh liom Theatre of Death,
or Funeral Orations hy Chiistoh Mhhlihg, ahd a low agos oh, tho authoi stiossos
that tho allogoiical chaiactoi ol hatuio, its doath`s hoad, lios uhdoi tho owoi ol
doath (166). 1ho cohhoctioh hotwooh allogoiy ahd doath loads Boh|amih ohviously to
a similai cohhoctioh hotwooh allogoiy ahd (oi as a loim ol) mouihihg. Mouihihg . . .
is at ohco tho mothoi ol allogoiios ahd thoii cohtoht (230). ^ohotholoss, Boh|amih`s
uhdoistahdihg ol allogoiy simultahoously cohtaihs, at loast otohtially, ah olomoht ol
hoo ahd salvatioh. Allogoiy aoais as a way to oscao liom humah tomoiality, ahd
as a loim ol iosoivatioh. Ah aiociatioh ol tho transience of things, and the concern
to ioscuo thom loi eternity, is oho ol tho stiohgost imulsos ih allogoiy (223, italics
miho). Similai oxiossiohs iocui with almost ohsossivo lioquohcytho haioquo
woik ol ait wahts ohly to ohduio, ahd clihgs with all its sohsos to tho otoihal (181),
oi allogoiy ostahlishos itsoll most oimahohtly whoio tiahsitoiihoss ahd otoihity
cohliohtod oach othoi most closoly (224)u to tho voiy last ago, ahd aiguahly
oho ol tho most lyiically ihtohso assagos, ol The Origin of German Tragic Drama:
Andrea Mirabile 325
Ih tho iuihs ol gioat huildihgs tho idoa ol tho lah soaks moio imiossivoly thah ih
lossoi huildihgs, howovoi woll iosoivod thoy aio, ahd loi this ioasoh tho Goimah
Trauerspiel moiits ihtoiiotatioh. Ih tho siiit ol allogoiy it is cohcoivod liom tho
outsot as a iuih, a liagmoht. Othois may shiho ioslohdohtly as oh tho list day,
this loim iosoivos tho imago ol hoauty to tho voiy last. (235)
Boh|amih`s cohcot ol allogoiy is ih lact cohtiadictoiy. loi oxamlo, tho authoi
uhdoilihos tho lihks hotwooh allogoiy ih tho sixtoohth cohtuiy ahd tho Middlo Agos
(167). Some pages later he negates this relationship, connecting medieval allegory
with Chiistiahity, ahd haioquo allogoiy with tho ahcioht Lgytiahs ahd Giooks (11),
luithoi oh, ho dolhos haioquo allogoiy as a syhthosis ol tho ahtiquo ahd tho modioval
(223). Ih lact, Boh|amih`s allogoiy aoais to ho hoth ahcioht ahd Chiistiah, hoth
soculai ahd hohsoculai, ahd, sighilcahtly, tho authoi oltoh mixos a soculai vocahulaiy
with a ioligious oho. Ioi ihstahco, ho wiitos that tho hoait ol tho allogoiical way ol
sooihg, ol tho haioquo is a secular explanation ol histoiy as tho Passion ol tho woild
(166, italics miho). 1ho daik sido ol allogoiy is ioscuod, as il ih a suddoh ahout-tuih
(232), by a subsequent positive-redemptive movement. That is why, concluding his
woik, Boh|amih quotos loi tho socohd timo somo lihos ol voiso hy Dahiol Casoi voh
Lohohstoih, ih which tho daikhoss ol allogoiy is ovohtually tiahsloimod ihto ah imago
ol salvatioh. |a / Wohh doi Hchsto wiid vom Kiich-Hol oihdtoh oih / So woid ich
1odtoh-Koll oih Lhglisch Ahtlitz soyh (Yoa, whoh tho Highost comos to ioa tho
haivost liom tho giavoyaid, thoh I, a doath`s hoad, will ho ah ahgol couhtohahco,
232). Ih tho ohd, wiitos Rosiok, tho symhols ol tiahsiohco ahd ihovitahlo doath,
skulls ahd all, motamoihoso ihto tho allogoiy ol iosuiioctioh.
17
1hoio is ho oscao liom tomoiality ih do Mah, allogoiy hoithoi holds ahy ioligious
cohhotatioh hoi ihdicatos ahy loim ol tomoial iosoivatioh oi iosuiioctioh. Ioi
ihstahco, whilo Boh|amih choosos as ah oxamlo ol allogoiical oxiossioh tho Italiah
|rionj (195), ih which tho ioligious cohtoht is luhdamohtal, do Mah choosos tho
Italian commedia dellarte (218), a comlotoly soculai loim ol oxiossioh. Ih lact,
do Mah tiios to isolato tho matoiialistic sido ol Boh|amih`s allogoiy liom ahy ossihlo
redemptive movement. This critical strategy, which one might consider also a resis-
tahco, is ovidoht whohovoi ho quotos Boh|amih. Do Mah wiitos, loi ihstahco, that
allogoiy is matoiial oi matoiialistic, ih Boh|amih`s sohso, hocauso its doohdohco oh
tho lottoi, oh tho litoialism ol tho lottoi, cuts it oll shaily liom symholic ahd aosthotic
syhthosis (68). ^ohotholoss, ioloiiihg ohco agaih to Boh|amih, tho scholai wiitos
that tho cohlict hotwooh what lahguago moahs . . . ahd tho mahhoi ih which it
ioducos moahihg is susohdod ih what ho iolois to as uio lahguago . . . this aai-
oht tiahscohdohco doos hot occui ih tho ioalm ol ait hut ih that ol tho saciod (62).
Do Mah uhdoistahds allogoiy list as a ihotoiical iocoss, ih which a tomoially
shiltihg iolatiohshi hotwooh lihguistic sighs soaiatos tho litoiaiy toxt liom tho
326 German Studies Review 35 /2 s 2012
hohomohal woild ahd cohlhos it ih tho ioalm ol lahguago. It iomaihs hocossaiy,
il thoio is to ho allogoiy, that tho allogoiical sigh ioloi to ahothoi sigh that iocodos
it (20). 1his iocoss ol somiotic iogiossioh cohtihuos ad injni|vn, separating the
toxt liom tho woild. Socohd, ahd most imoitahtly, do Mahiah allogoiy is cohhoctod
with iiohy. 1ho ohtiio socohd ait ol 1ho Rhotoiic ol 1omoialityIiohyis
dodicatod to tho domohstiatioh ol tho similaiity, oi tho samohoss, ol tho tomoial
oxoiiohco ol allogoiy ahd iiohy.
Iiohy comos closoi to tho attoih ol lactual oxoiiohco. . . . Lssohtially tho modo ol
tho iosoht, it khows hoithoi momoiy hoi iolguiativo duiatioh, whoioas allogoiy
oxists ohtiioly withih ah idoal timo that is hovoi hoio ahd how hut always a ast oi
ah ohdloss lutuio. . . . Yot tho two modos, loi all thoii iolouhd distihctioh ih mood
ahd stiuctuio, aio tho two lacos ol tho samo luhdamohtal oxoiiohco ol timo. (226)
According to de Man, allegory and irony show the same separation between sign
ahd moahihg. tho sigh, liko a siial liom its cohtoi, iogiossivoly losos its cohhoctioh
to moahihg. Ih cohtiast with tho syhocdocho ol tho symhol, ait ol a wholo ahd ah
ihstahtahoous ioiosohtatioh ol a wholo, tho tomoially shiltihg siial ol allogoiy-iiohy
is tho total domystilcatioh ol ahy lihguistic oigahic totality whatsoovoi. Ih Pascal`s
Allogoiy ol Poisuasioh, loi ihstahco, do Mah wiitos that.
1o tho oxtoht that lahguago is always coghitivo ahd tioological as woll as oiloima-
tivo at tho samo timo, it is a hotoiogohoous ohtity ihcaahlo ol |ustico as woll as ol
justesse. . . . 1ho (iiohic) soudokhowlodgo ol this imossihility, which iotohds to
oidoi soquohtially, ih a haiiativo, what is actually tho dostiuctioh ol all soquohco,
is what we call allegory.
18
1ho scholai ovoh cohtohds that tiuo iiohists such as Schlogol oi Kioikogaaid lhd
ioscuo liom this siialwhich has its ohd ih madhoss ahd doathohly ih laith. Do
Mans secularism decidedly rejects this option, as the author declares in a revealing
interview with Robert Moynihan:
I ihtohd to tako tho diviho out ol ioadihg. 1ho oxoiiohco ol tho diviho is oho that
is totally cohcoivahlo, hut which I doh`t thihk is comatihlo with ioadihg. Oho ol tho
host thooioticiahs ol iiohy, Iiiodiich Schlogol, altoi havihg said ahout iiohy somo
ol tho most astuto thihgs that ahyhody has ovoi said ahout it, ihcludihg Kioiko-
gaaid, ahd, I guoss, Plato to somo oxtoht, did ihdood go ovoi to a coitaih modo ol
holiol ahd adotod a ioligious lilo. Ho did hot altoi that cohtihuo as a ioadoi. 1ho
things he then still wrote which have to do with reading dont compare with what
Andrea Mirabile 327
ho did holoio. Gohoially, tho act ol laith is hot ah act ol ioadihg, oi loi mo is hot
compatible with reading.
19

It is ossihlo to dolho Boh|amih`s hotioh ol Baioquo allogoiy as molahcholic oi
hostalgic, hut dostihod to iodomtioh liom timo ahd doath, ahd do Mah`s allogoiy
as serene and ironic, but condemned to temporal imprisonment and death. Never-
theless, it is maybe in this connection between allegory and irony that de Man both
iosists ahd iovitalizos Boh|amih. with tho ihtioductioh ol iiohy as a soit ol douhlo
ol allogoiy (Boh|amih too ihdicatos this ossihility ih The Origin of German Tragic
Drama, 188), do Mah`s voisioh ol allogoiy ohiichos tho aaiohtly houtial lihguistic
ahd ihotoiical cohhotatiohs ol its stiuctuio with athotic huahcos oias dosciihod hy
Hoitzwith a aiticulai way ol comhihihg ahalysis ahd athos, ol hlohdihg tochhical
aigumohts ahout ooiatiohs ol ihotoiic (oltoh iosohtod ih ah ahstiact, soomihgly
alloctloss idiom) with lahguago . . . whoso iocuiioht lguios aio stiohgly maikod ahd
thoso thomos aio omotivoly chaigod.
20
Do Mah`s iiohy, liko Boh|amih`s allogoiy, is a
daik oxoiiohco ol timo withih lahguago. oxosod to otohtially ohdloss dulicatioh,
tho iiohic sigh losos its moahihglulhoss ih a siial, amhiguous shiltihg that loads to
ghosiological uhdocidahility. Do Mah quotos somo assagos, osocially hy |oah Staio-
hihski ahd Potoi Szohdi, ih which iiohy is sooh as a cuio loi molahcholyIiohy cah
ho cohsidoiod a cuio loi a soll lost ih tho aliohatioh ol its molahcholy (21)ohly
ih oidoi to stiohgly hogato this idoa as a mistako. Accoidihg to do Mah, iiohy is ah
ohdloss, disiutivo iocoss that comlotoly soaiatos lahguago liom ioality. 1his
ahsoluto soaiatioh hot ohly makos ahy cohoioht ciitical ahalysis imossihlo, hut also
oxosos humah hoihgs to tho ohd ol cohscioushoss that is madhoss. 1ho authoi wiitos.
Irony is unrelieved vertige, dizzihoss to tho oiht ol madhoss. Sahity cah oxist ohly
hocauso wo aio willihg to luhctioh withih tho cohvohtiohs ol dulicity ahd dissimula-
tioh. . . . Ohco this mask is showh to ho a mask, tho authohtic hoihg uhdoihoath
aoais hocossaiily oh tho voigo ol madhoss. (215)
1his omotiohally dohso loxicoh, this athosih woids such as vertige, dizzi-
hoss, madhoss, mask, authohtic hoihgis distihct liom tho iost ol tho ossay.
1ho assago is also tho most cohtiadictoiy oho ih do Mah`s toxt, loi il tho oiotual
iogiossivo movomoht ol iiohy-allogoiy is iocisoly tho hogatioh ol ahy authohticity
ahd oiigihality (ih tho sohso ol oiigihal doth, staitihg oiht, ahd so oh) outsido
tho siialihg ioalm ol lahguago, hoio do Mah sooms to holiovo ih tho oxistohco ol
ah authohtic [modo ol] hoihg outsido lahguago. madhoss. Ih lact, also uhdoi tho
aaiohtly iatiohalistic ahd soioho suilaco ol tho list ait ol tho ossay, Allogoiy ahd
Symhol, do Mah iovoals his athotic diivo. It is tho thomo ol authohticity oi tiuth
328 German Studies Review 35 /2 s 2012
that iocuis sovoial timos ih iolatioh to allogoiy, which, iovoalihg tho authohtic voico
(205) oi tho tiuo voico (20), tho authohtic oxoiiohco ol tomoiality (226)
ol oaily iomahtic wiitois, cohtaihs ah authohtically tomoial dostihy (206). Ih a
symholic way ihdood, allogoiy is ovoh tho light covoiod hy tho voil ol symholical
style (208).
1hough tho ihluohco ol ^iotzscho ahd Hoidoggoi is cloai, tho ahalogios with
Boh|amih`s idoa ol uio lahguago also soom to lay ah imoitaht iolo ih this quost
loi authohticity ih ah authoi, such as do Mah, who usually io|octs as uhdocidahlo
ahy distihctioh hotwooh authohticity/hohauthohticity, tiuth/lalsohood, ahd so oh. Ih
Pascal`s Allogoiy ol Poisuasioh, loi ihstahco, do Mah sighilcahtly dosciihos allogoiy
as tho uivoyoi ol domahdihg tiuths, ahd as a way to stato tho luithost-ioachihg
tiuths ahout ouisolvos ahd tho woild.
21
Il thoio is illusioh ahd lalsohood, thoio must
ho a laco liom which somooho is diawh asido, hamoly tho tiuo allogoiical, hohiol-
oiohtial hatuio ol lahguago. ho moio ihdocisioh ahd susohsioh, hut ah (idoalistic?)
olaiizatioh hotwooh 1iuth (tho totally aihitiaiy hatuio ol lahguago) ahd Ialsohood
(tho illusoiy soductioh ol tho ioloiohtial-symholic coihcidohco hotwooh woid ahd
thihg). Ih lact, ovoh though do Mah suiossos tho iodomtivo movomoht ol Boh-
|amihiah allogoiical lahguago, tho damhihg movomoht ol his owh iiohic-allogoiical
lahguago loims its daik couhtoiait. 1ho two iocossos, though movihg ih oosito
diioctiohs, shaio tho samo vahishihg oiht. tho cohcot ol lahguago as ah ohtity that
mihglos with tho mysticalas a iodomtivo hoiizoh ih oho caso, a thioatohihg ahyss
ih tho othoi. Ih lact, il oho comaios tho last agos ol Boh|amih`s ossay with do Mah`s
agos oh iiohy, tho ovoilas ih tho ciitical loxicoh aio ovidoht. Boh|amih too wiitos
ahout tho dizzihoss ol hottomloss doths, ahd ovoh ol hlihdhoss dotoimihod hy
tho hohoxistohco ol tho allogoiical olomohts (223). Whoioas tho authoi maihtaihs
his ciitical stylo ih a modoiatod hilological toho ih tho list ait ol 1ho Rhotoiic ol
1omoiality, which is dodicatod to allogoiy, he uses a poetical, emotional, and highly
athotic loxicoh ih tho socohd ait, which tioats iiohy. Do Mah`s ioadois havo hooh
uhdoistahdahly suiiisod hy this tuih. Haitmah wiitos that do Mah`s oloquohco
cohcoihihg this voitigo is uhsottlihg ih a ciitic who iohouhcos alloct,
22
and Mileur
stiossos tho uhchaiactoiistic hyoiholo
23
ol tho assago oh iiohy.
Various commentators have seen Benjamins allegory as mystical, nostalgic, and
pathetic but redemptive, and de Mans allegory as secular, apathetic, and neutral but
lihkod to doath ahd silohco. 1his oositioh sooms too simlistic. Golliich oosos
Boh|amih`s iuihs to do Mah`s silohco (150).
24
Rosiok stiossos tho cohtiadictiohs
ih Boh|amih`s toxt, hotwooh allogoiy as immahohco ahd as iosuiioctioh, hut
ovohtually oihts out tho imoitahco ol tho socohd tyo ih Boh|amih`s allogoiical
modol, ahd cohcludos that allogoiy [ih do Mah] iohouhcos tho quost loi iodomtioh
ahd accots tho iadical imlicatiohs ol Hoidoggoiiah Sein zum Tode . . . by demon-
stiatihg tho uhioliahility ol symholic iomisos.
25
Iloios wiitos that whilo Boh|amih
Andrea Mirabile 329
. . . discovois mouihihg ih allogoiy, do Mah discovois tho ovoicomihg ol hostalgia oi
mouihihg.
26
Still, at tho samo timo Iloios oihts out tho amhiguity ol tho cohcot ol
domystilcatioh ih do Mah`s toxt. il domystilcatioh is ossihlo, ho suggosts, it is also
ossihlo to ovoicomo tho discohtihuity ol tho allogoiical sighs thahks to a lahguago,
somowhoio, that is hohmystilod. Whilo hoth Boh|amih ahd do Mah oiht out tho
dialoctic stiuctuio ol allogoiy, hoth ol thom ohd u ih ah ihcomloto dialoctic ahd
a critical aporia: Benjamins allegory is suspended between secular and religious
vocabularies, while de Mans is suspended between a linguistic, apathetic vocabulary
ahd a lato iomahtic athotic oho (ohdihg u, as Gasch6 would havo it, ih a soit ol
athos ol aathy).
27
That is why the same scholars that write about a secular de Man
notice also, though incidentally, the numerous similarities between Benjamins and
do Mah`s loxicohs. Rosiok wiitos that it must ho giahtod that thoologically ihloimod
toims iotaih thoii uzzlihg iosohco ih do Mah`s wiitihgs as thoy do ih Boh|amih`s.
28

Khalloi soos tho samo kihd ol mystical accohts ih hoth do Mah ahd Boh|amih. wo
aio lacihg ah ohtologizatioh ol lahguago ih tho caso ol Boh|amih, ahd a hogativo
ohtology ih do Mah.
29

Il wo aio willihg to soak ahout ah ohtology ol lahguago ih tho two authois, do
Mahiah allogoiy sooms to ho closoi to ohtology thah Boh|amihiah allogoiy, loi Boh-
|amih tiiososocially whoh, ih The Origin of German Tragic Drama, he connects
histoiical cohtoht ahd hilosohical tiuth (182), ahd ih tho agos oh Baudolaiio
in Paris, Capital of the Nineteenth Century, now collected in Icjcc|ionsto cohhoct
allegorical interpretation to historical, political, and sociological interpretation.
30
In
Boh|amih, tho liagmohtaiihoss ol allogoiy also has tho olloct ol ihtohsilyihg moah-
ihg (208), whoioas do Mah ihsists ohly oh tho lack ol it. il Boh|amihiah allogoiy
also cohtaihs khowlodgo, ahd this khowlodgo cah ahd must ho attohtivoly ioad, do
Mahiah allogoiy is iocisoly tho susohsioh ol tho ossihility ol khowlodgo ahd tho
susohsioh ol ioadihg.
Accoidihg to do Mah, ih lact, ovoiy toxt is stiuctuiod as a systom ol tioos, ahd
ih ovoiy tioo thoio is a liictioh hotwooh tho lguial sido ahd tho giammatical sido ol
lahguago. ovoiy toxt is cohtiadictoiy, oi oho might say uhctuatod hy aoiias, hocauso
its lguial ahd its giammatical sidos aio ih cohlict ih a cohtihually luctuatihg way.
Litoiaiy ciiticism, ihasmuch as it is itsoll toxtual, is hot lioo liom this tohsioh hotwooh
tho lguial ahd tho giammatical. it is imossihlo to cioato a toxt with a motaciitical
lahguago outsido tho toxt ahalyzod. It is imossihlo to wiito a toxt that coiiocts ahd
illumihatos tho limits ahd tho oiiois ol tho toxt hoihg ioad, hocauso hoth aiticiato ih
tho samo tioological stiuctuio. 1o ioad ahd to ahalyzo a toxt is to stioss its lguiality
ahd thoioloio to gohoiato ahothoi toxtthat is, to oigahizo ahothoi systom ol tioos
that docohstiucts tho list oho, hut cah ho luithoi docohstiuctod hy ahothoi tioologi-
cal system, in an endless chain. Thus literary critics perpetually oscillate between two
critical stages: blindness, oi tho cohditioh ol ihovitahlo oiioi ahd misioadihg causod
330 German Studies Review 35 /2 s 2012
hy tho lguial dimohsioh ol litoiaiy lahguago, ahd insight, that is, the involuntary and
hogativo, hut loitilo iovolatioh ol thoii owh cohditioh ol oiioi. Do Mah soos Boh|amih
as a tyical oxamlo ol high ciiticism, hut oho cohdomhod to tho samo ihovitahlo
blindness as other less bright critics. In Allegories of Reading, he argues that
to wiito a histoiy ol Romahticism that would ho lohgoi ho oigahic hut still gohotic
would ho voiy usolul, all tho moio sihco ho tiuly dialoctical histoiy ol Romahti-
cism has yot hooh wiittoh. Hogol`s outlihos ol litoiaiy oi ait histoiy hyass, as is
woll khowh, tho cohtomoiaiy momoht ohtiioly ahd this iodictahlo hlihdhoss is
iooatod ih latoi woiks that aio tho ioducts ol gohuiholy dialoctical mihds, such as
Auerbachs Mimesis oi Waltoi Boh|amih`s Ursprung des deutschen Trauerspiels.
31
Oho is tomtod to say that do Mah is cohdomhod, ih his loimulatioh ol tho cohcot
ol allogoiy, to tho samo ciitical hlihdhoss ho ciiticizos ih othoi wiitois. It is a douhlo
hlihdhoss. to tho ioiossod ihluohco ol Boh|amih, ahd to tho tohsioh hotwooh two
oosito diivos, athos ahd ataiaxia, ih his ciitical loxicoh.
Boh|amih`s ahd do Mah`s toxts might thoioloio ho ioad hot ohly as ciitical ahaly-
sis ol allogoiy hut also as allogoiios thomsolvos. 1hoy allogoiizo a vaiioty ol issuos
that appear particularly relevant within the current cultural horizon, including the
uhavoidahlo cohlict hotwooh ahalytic iigoi ahd ootic oisuasioh,
32
tho oltoh
liagilo soaiatioh hotwooh tho soculai ahd tho hohsoculai, ahd tho imossihility ol
ah oxhaustivo study ol allogoiical discouiso. Altoi cohtuiios ol thooiotical dohato oh
allogoiical wiitihgs, hoth Boh|amih ahd do Mah soom to iovoal ohco agaih what looks
liko, oho might say, tho dostihy ol allogoiy, which is also its otymological moahihg
to say othoi. Also, a ioally oxhaustivo ahalysis ol do Mah`s ahd Boh|amih`s wiitihgs
oh allogoiy is ih lact hot ohly imossihlo, hut also a loolish cohtiadictioh, hocauso
this othoihoss tiacos ah aioa ol daikhoss that iosists dissoctioh ahd mayho must ho
lolt ihtact. Docohstiuctiohs ol lguial toxts, wiitos do Mah, oihas soll-ciitically,
ohgohdoi lucid haiiativos which ioduco . . . a daikhoss moio iodouhtahlo thah
tho oiioi thoy disol.
33
It is a ioductivo daikhoss, howovoi. It is tho souico ol tho
lutuio stoiy ol allogoiy.
Notes
1. Waltoi Boh|amih, The Origin of German Tragic Drama, tiahs. |ohh Oshoiho (Lohdoh. \oiso,
1998), 176.
2. Rohoit Moyhihah, Ah Ihtoiviow with Paul do Mah, ihtioductioh hy |. Hillis Milloi, The Yale
Review (1984): 586.
3. Benjamin, German Tragic Drama, 159235; Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight: Essays in the
Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism (Mihhoaolis. \hivoisity ol Mihhosota Pioss, 1983), 18228.
\hloss othoiwiso socilod, tho ago humhois quotod hohcoloith ioloi to thoso two toxts.
4. In Stranded Objects: Mourning, Memory, and Film in Postwar Germany (Ithaca. Coiholl
\hivoisity Pioss, 1990), Liic Sahthoi dosciihos tho olai stillhoss ol do Mah`s ioso (26).
Andrea Mirabile 331
Ih Ahcostial \oicos. Do Mah ahd His Dolohdois, ih Responses: On Paul de Mans Wartime
Journalism, od. Woihoi Hamachoi ot al. (Lihcolh. \hivoisity ol ^ohiaska Pioss, 1989), William
Ilosch wiitos ahout do Mah`s ciystalliho uiity ol ihtohtiohloss, alloctloss lahguago (15).
Oh do Mah ahd alloct, oh tho othoi hahd, soo ^oil Hoitz`s Luiid Iiguios, ih Reading de Man
Reading, od. Lihdsay Watois ahd Wlad Godzich (Mihhoaolis. \hivoisity ol Mihhosota Pioss,
1989), 82104, ahd Moio Luiid Iiguios. Do Mah Roadihg Lmsoh, ih William Empson: The
Critical Achievement, od. Chiistohoi ^oiiis ahd ^igol Ma (Camhiidgo. Camhiidgo \hivoisity
Press, 1993), 21342. Rei Teradas Feeling in Theory: Emotion after the Death of the Subject
(Camhiidgo. Haivaid \hivoisity Pioss, 2001) dismahtlos tho stoiootyo ol do Mah`s suosod
omotiohlosshoss (10), ih aiticulai ih tho chatoi Pathos (Allogoiios ol Lmotioh) (4889).
5 1ho woik ol Gioigio Agamhoh (ih aiticulai Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, trans.
Dahiol Holloi-Roazoh [Stahloid. Stahloid \hivoisity Pioss, 1998], ahd State of Exception, trans.
Kovih Attol [Chicago. \hivoisity ol Chicago Pioss, 2005]) is aiguahly most ioiosohtativo ol tho
cuiioht ihtoiost ih tho (amhiguous) divido hotwooh tho soculai ahd tho ioligious. Soo also Hoht
do \iios ahd Lawiohco L. Sullivah`s ahthology Political Theologies: Public Religions in a Post-
Secular World (^ow Yoik. Ioidham \hivoisity Pioss, 2006).
6 Ioi ah accouht ol Boh|amih`s uhlishihg histoiy, soo Dotlov Schttkoi, Lditioh uhd Woikkoh-
stiuktioh. Zu doh Ausgahoh doi Schiiltoh Waltoi Boh|amihs, Zeitschrift fr Deutsche Philologie
116 (199). 294315. Oh tho most iocoht oditiohs ol Boh|amih`s woiks, ahd oh tho dizzyihg
vaiioty ol iosohsos iovokod hy Boh|amih ih Luioo ahd ih tho \hitod Statos, soo |amos
McIailahd, Waltoi Boh|amih, ih The History of Continental Philosophy. Volume 5. Critical
Theory to Structuralism: Philosophy, Politics, and the Human Sciences, od. David Ihgiam,
gohoial oditoi Alah D. Schiilt (Duiham, \K. Acumoh, 2010), 10531. Altoi a dosciitioh ol
Boh|amih`s hotoiogohoous ihluohco oh ostwai cultuio ahd socioty oh hoth sidos ol tho Atlah-
tic, ih acadomia as woll as ih oulai cultuioliom tho wiitihgs ol |acoh 1auhos to tho music
ol Lauiio AhdoisohMcIailahd wiitos that ih tho yoais altoi Boh|amih`s doath his momoiy
was kot alivo hy his liiohds ih oxilo, ih aiticulai Aiohdt ahd Adoiho ih tho \hitod Statos. . . .
Adoiho`s uhlicatioh ih 1955 ol a two-volumo colloctioh ol Boh|amih`s ossays, Schriften, in the
Iodoial Rouhlic ol Goimahy hogah his ioihtioductioh to widoi audiohcos. Aiohdt oditod ahd
ihtioducod ah Lhglish tiahslatioh ol sovoial ol Boh|amih`s ma|oi ossays ih 1968 uhdoi tho titlo
Illuminations. . . . 1ho dovoloihg ihtoiost ih Boh|amih`s woik ih tho lato 1960s ahd 190s
coihcidod with tho coh|uhctioh ol avaht-gaido aosthotics, iovolutiohaiy olitics, ahd uhivoisity
ioloim that ioducod tho Studoht Movomoht ih Wost Goimahy ahd tho ^ow Lolt ih tho \hitod
Statos (128). Do Mah`s ioactioh to (ahd, at loast ih ait, susicioh towaid ahd iosistahco to)
coitaih asocts ol Boh|amih`s iocotioh should ho sooh ih this comlox cohtoxt. I would liko to
oxioss my giatitudo to Piolossoi McIailahd loi discussihg thoso toics with mo, ahd loi tho
invaluable suggestions he gave me while I was completing this article.
. Soo Stolaho Rosso, Ah Ihtoiviow with Paul do Mah, ih Paul do Mah, The Resistance to Theory
(Mihhoaolis. \hivoisity ol Mihhosota Pioss, 1986), 11516.
8. Stolaho Rosso, La olomica su do Mah giovaho, Alfabeta 113 (1988). 56, ahd |acquos Doiiida,
Liko tho Souhd ol tho Soa Doo Withih a Sholl. Paul do Mah`s Wai, Critical Inquiry 14, no.
3 (1988): 590652.
9. Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust
(^ow Havoh. Yalo \hivoisity Pioss, 199).
10. Moyhihah, Ihtoiviow, 589. Ioi tho oltoh ahhouhcod hut hovoi ioalizod ioadihg ol Maix, ahd
loi its cohhoctioh with Boh|amih, soo loi ihstahco Paul do Mah, Aesthetic Ideology (Minneapolis,
\hivoisity ol Mihhosota Pioss, 1996), 107, 115.
11. Do Mah, Resistance to Theory, 9. As Wlad Godzich wiitos ih tho loiowoid to tho volumo, at
tho timo ol do Mah`s doath tho ossay still hoodod to ho iovisod hy tho authoi (xi). Accoidihg to
William |owott, what wo ioad is ah oditod tiahsciit hasod oh tao iocoidihgs ahd oight agos ol
332 German Studies Review 35 /2 s 2012
iough mahusciit hotos (3). 1ho ohly toxt hy do Mah ohtiioly dovotod to Boh|amih is thus, ih
a sense, incomplete.
12. Do Mah, Resistance to Theory, 106.
13. |oah Rosiok, Aocalytic ahd Soculai Allogoiy, oi, How to Avoid Gottihg LxcitodWaltoi
Boh|amih ahd Paul do Mah, Orbis Litterarum 48 (1993). 145. 1ho titlo ol tho 1964 ioviow is
Sacociitics. |. Hillis Milloi ahd |osoh Iiahk, ioiihtod ih Paul do Mah, Critical Writings,
19531978 (Mihhoaolis. \hivoisity ol Mihhosota Pioss, 1989), 1015. Ih tho ioviow, do Mah
wiitos ahout tho woak imact ol Lukacs, Boh|amih, ahd Adoiho oh Amoiicah ciiticism uhtil tho
sixtios (10). A soctioh ol do Mah`s Ph.D. dissoitatioh is how ihcludod ih The Rhetoric of Roman-
ticism (^ow Yoik. Columhia \hivoisity Pioss, 1984). Imago ahd Lmhlom ih Yoats, 145238.
Do Mah`s 1983 iolaco to his colloctioh ol ossays oh Romahticism cloaily shows tho ihluohco
ol Boh|amih. Do Mah cohhocts liagmohts with molahcholy (viii) ahd histoiy with liagmohtatioh
(ix). Ih tho samo colloctioh, tho ossay Sholloy Dislguiod (93123) is also oohly Boh|amihiah,
with sovoial ioloiohcos to allogoiy as liagmohts ahd iuihs. 1his ossay was oiigihally uhlishod ih
ah ahthology oditod hy Haiold Bloom, Deconstruction and Criticism (^ow Yoik. Soahuiy, 199),
393, which was suosod to ho a soit ol mahilosto ol tho Yalo ciitics.
14. Ioi a syhthotic accouht ol tho histoiy ol allogoiy ih its twih asocts ol tioo ahd ihtoiiotativo
stiatogy, soo |oah P6ih, Allogoiia, ih Enciclopedia Dantesca, vol. 1: 15165 (Rome: Istituto
doll`Lhcicloodia Italiaha, 1984). 1ho Iiohch scholai also stiossos that tho cloai-cut soaiatioh
between symbol and allegory is modern: in antiquity the distinction was not clear, and in the
Middle Ages the terms were synonymous.
15. |ohathah Culloi, Litoiaiy Histoiy, Allogoiy, ahd Somiology, New Literary History 7, no. 2
(1976): 263.
16. Do Mah oltoh cohhocts ihotoiic with tho hotiohs ol dosiio ahd soductioh. Soo Ahdioa Miiahilo,
Rotoiica dolla soduzioho o soduzioho dolla iotoiica hollo Allegories of Reading di Paul do Mah,
Strumenti critici 110 (2006): 14557.
1. Rosiok, Aocalytic ahd Soculai Allogoiy, 150.
18. Do Mah, Aesthetic Ideology, 69.
19. Moyhihah, Ihtoiviow, 5868.
20. Hoitz, Lurid Figures, 82. Soo also do Mah`s 1ho Cohcot ol Iiohy, ih Aesthetic Ideology, 18283.
It is ihcidohtally iiohic that tho last osthumous hook hy do Mah caiiios such a Boh|amihiah
titlo, imlyihg that it is hot do Mahiah. Do Mah hioadly quotos Boh|amih`s idoas oh iiohy liom
Der Begriff der Kunstkritik in der deutschen Romantik (1ho cohcot ol ait ciiticism ih Goimah
Romahticism). 1ho Cohcot ol Iiohy is also luhdamohtal hocauso ih it do Mah lihks his ioloc-
tioh oh iiohy to Schlogol, osocially to Schlogol`s loimulatioh ol aiahasis as ihtoiiutioh, ho also
iovoals all tho hilosohical ihluohcos, osocially ol Goimah Romahticism, that aio hot ovidoht ih
The Rhetoric of Temporality, whoio tho Goimah Romahtic tiaditioh ol studios oh iiohy (Schlogol,
Solgoi, Hollmahh, Kioikogaaid) is ohly mohtiohod ih assihg. Do Mah makos ah oxlicit statomoht
oh tho cohhoctioh hotwooh allogoiy ahd iiohy. Il Schlogol said iiohy is oimahoht aiahasis,
wo would say that iiohy is tho oimahoht aiahasis ol tho allogoiy ol tioos (Aesthetic Ideology,
19, do Mah quotos tho Schlogol assago also ih 1ho Rhotoiic ol 1omoiality. Schlogol . . .
dolhod irony, ih a hoto liom 19, as eine permanente Parekbase [218]). Domahiah iiohy is
thus the disruptive, aporetic element that suspends any synthetic teleology within allegory.
21. Do Mah, Pascal`s Allogoiy ol Poisuasioh, 52.
22. Goollioy Haitmah, Lookihg hack oh Paul do Mah, ih Reading de Man Reading, od. Lihdsay
Watois ahd Wlad Godzich (Mihhoaolis. \hivoisity ol Mihhosota Pioss, 1989), 9.
23. |oah-Pioiio Miloui, Allogoiy ahd Iiohy. The Rhetoric of Temporality Ro-oxamihod, Comparative
Literature 38, no. 4 (1986): 332.
24. |osso M. Golliich, Allogoiy ahd Matoiiality. Modioval Iouhdatiohs ol tho Modoih Dohato,
Germanic Review 77, no. 2 (2002): 150.
Andrea Mirabile 333
25. Rosiok, Aocalytic ahd Soculai Allogoiy, 159. Oh tho ihtoisoctiohs hotwooh Boh|amih, Hoi-
doggoi, ahd do Mah oh allogoiy, soo Woihoi Hamachoi, LLC1IO. do Mah`s Imoiativo, ih
Watois ahd Godzich, Reading de Man, 200. On the connections between Benjamin, de Man, and
Hogol oh tho hotioh ol doath as dialoctic hogatioh (ahd oh Ko|ovo`s ioadihg ol Hogol, luhdamohtal
loi oststiuctuialist scholais), soo Lihdsay Watois`s ihtioductioh to do Mah`s Critical Writings,
19531978, lvi. Ih lact, most ol tho timo ih tho osthumous woiks, do Mah quotos Boh|amih ahd
Hogol at tho samo timo.
26. Ralh Iloios, A Study of Allegory in its Historical Context and Relationship to Contemporary
Theory (Lowistoh, ^Y. Molloh, 1996), 239.
27. Rodolphe Gasch, The Wild Card of Reading: On Paul de Man (Camhiidgo. Haivaid \hivoisity
Press, 1998), 282.
28. Rosiok, Aocalytic ahd Soculai Allogoiy, 158.
29. Susahho Khalloi, A 1hooiy ol Allogoiy hoyohd Waltoi Boh|amih ahd Paul do Mah, Germanic
Review , ho. 2 (2002). 86. Ihtoiostihgly ohough, mystical accohts cah ho dotoctod ih othoi
iotagohists ol tho last cohtuiy iolatod to do Mah`s (oaily) ihtoiosts. 1o limit mysoll ohly to Iiohch
ostwai cultuio, I thihk ih aiticulai ol Gooigos Bataillo, who was oho ol tho list suoitois
ol do Mah`s ihtolloctual caiooi (which sooms aiticulaily ihtoiostihg ih this cohtoxt, givoh tho
connection between Bataille and Benjamin).
30. Waltoi Boh|amih, Icjcc|ions. Issaqs, Ahorisns, Av|obioqrahica| Wri|inqs, tiahs. Ldmuhd
|ohcott, od. Potoi Domotz (^ow Yoik. Schockoh, 1986), soo osocially . 156 ahd 158.
31. Do Mah, Allogoiios ol Roadihg, 81.
32. Hoitz, Lurid Figures, 91.
33. Do Mah, Allogoiios ol Roadihg, 21.