Terror, Literature, History: Michel Foucault and Ann Radcliffe
Abstract
117
Full text
Te o , Li e a u e, His o y
Michel Foucaul and Ann Radcli e
Jose Fulka
Cha les Uni e si y, Facul y o Humani ies
[email p o ec ed]
h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0002-2688-3708
TERROR, LITERATURE, HISTORY: MICHEL FOUCAULT AND ANN RADCLIFFE
The objec o he p esen s udy is apa icula li e a y e e ence ha epea edly appea s in Michel
Foucaul ’s wo k— a e e ence o he wo k o Ann Radcli e. We p esen aclose s udy o he passages
whe e Foucaul , in one way o ano he , deals wi h Ann Radcli e’s no els (o no els ha he belie ed
o be w i en by Radcli e), and a emp o show ha Foucaul ’s in e es in he “li e a u e o e o ”
is no a all acciden al. Fo Foucaul , Go hic ic ion is ali e a y “embodimen ” o he his o ical an-
si ion om classicism o mode ni y.
KEYWORDS:
Michel Foucaul — Go hic ic ion— li e a y mode ni y— F ench philosophy
DOI
h ps://doi.o g/10.14712/23366729.2024.2.7
1. FOUCAULT, RADCLIFFE AND THE QUESTION OF AUTHORSHIP
Michel Foucaul ’s in e es in li e a u e ep esen s acons an ea u e o his mul i ac-
e ed oeu e— by s essing his a he ob ious ac , we can ha dly claim o ha e made
a ailblazing disco e y. Schema ically speaking, Foucaul ’s in e es seems o ha e
had adouble unc ion. On he one hand, especially in he ea ly s age o his philosoph-
ical ca ee , Foucaul was clea ly ascina ed by li e a u e as such, as an objec in i sel .
This ascina ion led him o de elop akind o w i ing in which “philosophy” and “li -
e a u e” o en me ge o he poin o becoming indis inguishable— akind o w i ing
ha Pie e Mache ey has ap ly called “li e a y philosophy”.1 This ea men o li e a-
u e is mani es in many o Foucaul ’s essays om he ea ly 1960s— hose on Geo ges
Ba aille, Mau ice Blancho and o he au ho s— and his 1963 monog aph on Raymond
Roussel migh be conside ed he apogee o his endency.2 On he o he hand, li e -
a y au ho s o en appea in Foucaul ’s wo k as exempli ica ions o aspeci ic kind: li -
e a y wo ks seem o be egula ly men ioned when i comes o explaining apa icula
1 Mache ey 1995, p.228.
2 Foucaul 1987.
OPEN
ACCESS
118 SVĚT LITERATURY 70
his o ical phenomenon o — e en mo e equen ly— apa icula his o ical change
o ansi ion. Su ice i o men ion Denis Dide o ’s Ne eu de Rameau in Madness and
Ci iliza ion3 o Miguel de Ce an es and Ma quis de Sade in The O de o Things.4 These
wo app oaches o li e a u e canno , in ac , be clea ly sepa a ed: Foucaul ’s “li e a y
philosophy” is undoub edly conce ned wi h se ious philosophical p oblems (such
as he p oblem o “being o language”, he inca na ion o which he sees p ecisely in
Roussel’s wo k), while his “exempli ica i e” use o li e a u e o en implies ema k-
able analyses o li e a y wo ks pe se.
In he ollowing a icle, my aim is o explo e one o Foucaul ’s li e a y e e ences
ha seems o be si ua ed p ecisely a he c oss oads be ween he wo app oaches
men ioned abo e, and ha has, pe haps, ecei ed less a en ion han i dese es: his
e e ence o he wo k o Ann Radcli e.5 By choosing his opic, Ice ainly do no
p e end o ha e disco e ed a“neglec ed” Foucauldian heme ha would shed new
ligh on Foucaul ’s hough in gene al. Foucaul ’s e e ences o wha he gene ally calls
he “li e a u e o e o ” (li é a u e de la e eu ) and o Ann Radcli e in pa icula
a e, howe e , nume ous enough o ep esen mo e han jus andomly chosen allu-
sions— indeed, hey may be ead as so many signs o agenuine in e es he easons
o which a e ce ainly wo h in es iga ing u he .
Among Foucaul ’s w i ings whe e we encoun e he name o Ann Radcli e, he
1969 lec u e “Wha Is an Au ho ?” ep esen s agood s a ing poin , no because
o he me e men ion o he name, bu because, by acu ious wis o i ony, ha
men ion is linked o ali e a y puzzle (mos likely unbeknowns o Foucaul ) ha
conce ns, p ecisely, he ques ion o au ho ship. In ac , he name o Ann Radcli e
appea s a a uly c ucial momen o Foucaul ’s lec u e, whe e Foucaul s i es o
de ine one o he mos undamen al no ions connec ed o his iew o an au ho and
au ho ship: ha o a“ ounde o discu si i y”. Blaming himsel o ha ing “unjus-
i iably limi ed” his subjec and ha ing iden i ied he au ho me ely wi h ape son
esponsible o he p oduc ion o abook o a ex , Foucaul p oposes o discuss he
no ion o he au ho in ab oade sense ha he e ms “ ansdiscu si e”, ha is, in
he sense o ha ing ounded “a heo y, adi ion, o discipline in which o he books
and au ho s will, in u n, ind aplace”.6 As o he his o ical de elopmen o ans-
discu si e au ho ship, which he deems o be “as old as ou ci ilisa ion”, Foucaul
3 Foucaul 1988, pp.199–201.
4 Foucaul 1973, pp.46–50, 208–211. The wo k o Ma quis de Sade, o which we will e u n
la e on in his pape , is one o Foucaul ’s mos equen li e a y e e ences. Apa om
innume able men ions in Foucaul ’s ea lie w i ings and in he semina s a he Collège de
F ance, he plays akey ole in he i s olume o he His o y o Sexuali y whe e his no els
a e ea ed as exempli ica ions o he his o ical ansi ion om “sanguini y” o “sexuali-
y” (Foucaul 1978, pp.148–149).
5 Le us men ion en passan ha Radcli e is no he only Go hic au ho which a ac ed Fou-
caul ’s a en ion. Fo example, “Le langage àl’in ini“, one o Foucaul ’s „li e a y/philosoph-
ical“ essays (published in 1963), in ol es a a he enigma ic passage de o ed o F ançois
Guillaume Duc ay-Duminil’s oman noi en i led Coelina ou l’en an du mys è e (Foucaul
2001, pp.285–288). And mo e examples would be easy o ind…
6 Foucaul 1984, p.113.
OPEN
ACCESS
JOSEF FULKA 119
s ipula es amajo his o ical shi ha ook place, in his opinion, in he nine een h
cen u y:
Fu he mo e, in he cou se o he nine een h cen u y, he e appea ed in
Eu ope ano he , mo e uncommon, kind o au ho , whom one should con use
wi h nei he he “g ea ” li e a y au ho s, no he au ho s o eligious ex s, no
he ounde s o science. In asomewha a bi a y way we shall call hose who
belong in his las g oup “ ounde s o discu si i y”.7
Who, hen, is a ounde o discu si i y? Foucaul a gues ha his ounde is somehow
“mo e” han he au ho o his o he wo ks. This pe son is ins ead someone who no
only p oduced he wo ks ha he/she w o e bu also o e ed, as Foucaul adds, “ he
possibili ies and he ules o he o ma ion o o he ex s”.8 Gi en he ime in which
Foucaul ’s lec u e was gi en (1969), wo canonical examples he gi es o he ounde s
o discu si i y should no su p ise us: Sigmund F eud and Ka l Ma x. Ma x’s and
F eud’s oeu e has, in ac , es ablished “an endless possibili y o discou se” (psycho-
analysis in he case o F eud, Ma xism and pos -Ma xism in he case o Ma x).
Le us lea e aside Ma x and F eud hemsel es: wha is o in e es a e he ollow-
ing pa ag aphs in “Wha is an Au ho ?” in which Foucaul p oceeds o make ase
o sub le dis inc ions in o de o delimi he no ion o a ounde o discu si i y in
anega i e way— by saying (as he o en does) wha he no ion in ques ion is no . And
i is he e ha he akes, as a e e ence, he wo k o Radcli e. Le us quo e he whole
passage a leng h:
One migh say ha i is no ue ha he au ho o ano el is only he au ho o
his own ex ;9 in asense, he also, p o ided ha he acqui es some “impo ance”,
go e ns and commands mo e han ha . To ake a e y simple example, one
could say ha Ann Radcli e no only w o e The Cas les o A hlin and Dunbayne
and se e al o he no els, bu also made possible he appea ance o he Go hic
ho o no el a he beginning o he nine een h cen u y; in ha espec , he
au ho unc ion exceeds he own wo k.10
Be o e examining he passage in some de ail, le us simply summa ise Foucaul ’s an-
swe o his “quali ica ion”. In Foucaul ’s iew, F eud and Ma x did, a e all, some-
hing discu si ely di e en om Ann Radcli e. While Radcli e’s ex s “opened he
way o ace ain numbe o esemblances and analogies which ha e hei model o
p inciple in he wo k” (and Foucaul goes on he men ion anumbe o Radcli ean li -
e a y de ices and ex ual pa aphe nalia aken o e by o he au ho s o Go hic ic ion:
hidden cas le, he oine in dis ess, acu sed, “By onic” he o, and so on), F eud and
7 Ibid., pp.113–114.
8 Ibid., p.114.
9 A ew lines ea lie , jus be o e naming di ec ly F eud and Ma x, Foucaul s a es ha
ounde s o discu si i y “a e e y di e en , o example, om ano elis , who is, in ac ,
no hing mo e han he au ho o his own ex ” (Ibid., p.114).
10 Ibid.
OPEN
ACCESS
120 SVĚT LITERATURY 70
Ma x made possible no only analogies, bu also “ace ain numbe o di e ences”,
c ea ing hus “apossibili y o some hing o he han hei discou se, ye some hing
belonging o wha hey ounded”.11
The passages quo ed abo e call o wo obse a ions.
Fi s , he no ion o a ounde o discu si i y is no en i ely clea . By con as -
ing he name o F eud and Ma x wi h ha o Radcli e, does Foucaul imply ha he
p i ilege o being a ounde o discu si i y belongs o au ho s o philosophical o
heo e ical ex s, as opposed o li e a y ex s? Does i mean ha ali e a y au ho can-
no , in p inciple, be a ounde o discu si i y? Foucaul does no seem o say so. All he
does is andomly men ion “ano elis ” o “ he au ho o ano el”, who is no hing mo e
han he au ho o his o he own ex — and his a he ague coun e - e e ence is
la e made mo e conc e e by aking in o accoun he example o Radcli e, whose “au-
ho unc ion” seems o exceed he wo k s ic o sensu bu , in ac , does no do so. This
does no imply— a leas no explici ly— an absolu e dis inc ion be ween heo y
and li e a u e. Be ha as i may, he e y example o Radcli e aises some in iguing
ques ions wi h ega d o li e a y his o y. Radcli e’s wo k has ce ainly made “ace -
ain numbe o esemblances and analogies” possible. A he same ime, howe e ,
Radcli e’s wo k i sel is apa o acomplica ed “genealogical” con ex o he “Go hic
aes he ic”,12 and i may be a gued ha his aes he ic ga e ise no only o analogies
bu also, and no less impo an ly, o conside able di e ences. In his espec , i is
qui e p oblema ic o say, as Foucaul does, ha Radcli e “ ounded he Go hic ho o
no el” o “made possible he appea ance o he Go hic ho o no el a he beginning
o he nine een h cen u y”. The Go hic gen e, inaugu a ed by Ho ace Walpole’s The
Cas le o O an o (1764) and c ea i ely de eloped by he no els o Cla a Ree e, Ma -
hew G ego y Lewis and Ann Radcli e he sel , is subjec o ema kable inne di e -
en ia ion ha a exceeds he model o me e “ esemblances and analogies”; in o he
wo ds, i is a ue discu si i y in i s own igh .13 “The Go hic ho o no el” ha Fou-
caul speaks abou , howe e , is p obably some hing di e en , as we will show sho ly.
The second obse a ion conce ns he e y i le o Ann Radcli e’s no el ci ed by
Foucaul : “Ann Radcli e no only w o e The Cas les o A hlin and Dunbayne and se e al
o he no els”. The English ansla o o Foucaul ’s lec u e was clea ly a aloss as o
he cu ious e e ence in Foucaul ’s o iginal ex and he chose— qui e logically— o
eplace i wi h he i le o a eal Radcli e no el.14 The F ench o iginal, howe e , says
11 Ibid. Fu he on, Foucaul makes one mo e dis inc ion, d awing adi iding line be ween
a“ ounde o discu si i y” and a“ ounde o ascience” (Ibid., pp.115–116). This, howe e ,
would lead us oo a om ou opic.
12 See Miles 1993, p.30. I should be no ed ha Miles’ a emp o ace a“genealogy” o Go h-
ic w i ing is i sel la gely inspi ed by he Foucauldian concep o genealogy, coined by Fou-
caul since he ea ly 1970s.
13 I has ecen ly been a gued, howe e , ha his “Go hic adi ion” wi h Walpole a i s o i-
gin was c ea ed e oac i ely due p ecisely o he popula i y o Radcli e. In his pa icu-
la sense, Radcli e may indeed be conside ed o be a“ ounde o discu si i y”. See Town-
shend, W igh 2014, pp.3–32.
14 The Cas les o A hlin and Dunbayne is, indeed, ano el by Ann Radcli e— i is he i s wo k,
published in 1789. In hese sho ju enilia, which canno compa e o Radcli e’s ma u e
OPEN
ACCESS
JOSEF FULKA 121
some hing di e en : “Ann Radcli e n’apas seulemen éc i Les Visions du châ eau des
Py énées e un ce ain nomb e d’au es omans… ”15 Wha no el is Foucaul e e ing
o? The eade migh hink ha Les isions du châ eau des Py énées migh be a a he
licen ious F ench ansla ion o The Cas les o A hlin and Dunbayne, bu his is easily
dispelled: as he i le sugges s, Radcli e’s s o y akes place in Sco land, a away om
he Py enees.
Nowadays, in he age o Google, he mys e y can be sol ed wi hin a ew seconds.
Les Visions du châ eau des Py énées is an apoc yphal no el, published in F ench— un-
de he name o Ann Radcli e— in 1809. E en hough i is undoub edly w i en in
ap onounced Radcli ean ein, i was no w i en by Radcli e he sel . The o iginal
i le o he book is Romance o he Py enees, published (in English) in 1803, and i s
eal au ho is Ca he ine Cu hbe son, aw i e who has allen in o nea ly comple e
obli ion. When he F ench ansla ion was published in 1809, i was p esen ed as
aRadcli e no el wi h no men ion o i s ac ual au ho .
A e y simple explana ion o his name swi ch seems o poin o a ema kable
episode o English li e a y his o y ha has, in ac , some bea ing on he ex o
Foucaul ’s lec u e i sel . I o ces us, howe e , o make ab ie dig ession. I is well
known ha much o Ann Radcli e’s li e has always emained amys e y. In his well-
esea ched and e udi e biog aphy o Radcli e, Ric o No on quo es F ances Bu ney,
who cha ac e ises he au ho o The Mys e ies o Udolpho in he ollowing way: “She
kep apa , like ali le swee bi d ha sings i s soli a y no es, sh ouded and unseen”.16
I is, howe e , ce ain ha a e ha ing isen o li e a y p ominence wi h ASicilian
Romance (1790), The Romance o he Fo es (1791), The Mys e ies o Udolpho (1794) and The
I alian (1796) in he las decade o he eigh een h cen u y, Ann Radcli e chose— o
easons we can only specula e on— o s op publishing and o emain silen o he
es o he li e, ha is, o mo e han wen y yea s.17 Gi en Radcli e’s immense popu-
la i y, he impac o he decision was a - eaching. This sudden “silence” led o wild
specula ions as o he possible cause o his wi hd awal, including a - e ched con-
jec u es o he sudden dea h, as well as un ounded heo ies conce ning he men al
heal h ha ing been damaged by he i id ligh s o imagina ion, leading o he inabil-
i y o w i e and o he p olonged esidence a amen al asylum. In he Summe Excu -
sions (1809), Elisabe h Isabella Spence claims, in aqui e s aigh o wa d manne , ha
“ he eade will, no doub , eg e wi h me ha alady whose o iginal genius and won-
de ul imagina ion ha e insu ed he immo al ame, should ha e been obliged o e-
i e in o a emo e pa o De byshi e unde he mos di ec in luence o deep- oo ed
and incu able melancholy”.18 E en mo e impo an ly, Radcli e’s e ea om w i -
wo ks, he au ho is s ill looking o p ope li e a y means o exp ess he e i ying isions
o which she was o become amous se e al yea s la e .
15 Foucaul 2001, p.833.
16 No on 1999, p.204.
17 The I alian was published in 1797; Radcli e died in 1823. I is ue ha in he mean ime she
had a emp ed o w i e ahis o ical no el en i led Gas on de Blonde ille— i was, howe e ,
published only pos humously.
18 Ci .in No on 1999, p.206. This alleged madness is, in a ema kable way, e lec ed in
apoem by Cha les Ap ho p Wheelw igh , en i led “Ode o Ho o ”: “As he pale spec es
OPEN
ACCESS
122 SVĚT LITERATURY 70
ing led o an unp eceden ed numbe — dozens, i no hund eds— o li e a y wo ks
published in F ance, Ge many and Holland claiming o be manusc ip s disco e ed
among Ann Radcli e’s “pos humous” pape s.19 These pas iches, imi a ions and apoc-
yphal ex s o en bea e y ex a agan i les: Man oné, o he One-Handed Monk, Le
ombeau— ou age pos hume d’Ann Radcli e, Ba on de la Mo he-Langon: L’he mi e de la
ombe mys é ieuse, e c.
This b ings us back o Foucaul . The ac ha he F ench ansla ion o Ca he ine
Cu hbe son’s Romance o he Py enees could be published unde he name o Ann Rad-
cli e wi hou i s eal au ho e en men ioned was acommon edi o ial p ac ice back in
he ea ly nine een h cen u y. And wha is pe haps e en mo e impo an : i is, wi h-
ou any doub , p ecisely hese pseudo-Radcli ean imi a ions ha Foucaul speaks
abou when he men ions he “ esemblances and analogies which ha e hei model o
p inciple in he wo k”.20
Foucaul ’s lec u e lea es us wi h one mo e ques ion. Was Foucaul eally con-
inced ha Les Visions du châ eau des Py énées was aRadcli e no el? Could i be ha
Foucaul , in ac , was well awa e ha i was no and ha he i onically insinua ed an
apoc yphal ex in o his lec u e in o de o s ess he ail and unce ain cha ac e o
he no ion o au ho ship? The answe appea s o be in he nega i e, o he men ions
he same no el— always e e ed o as ano el by Ann Radcli e— on se e al o he
occasions whe e his kind o i ony seems qui e ou o place. In he ollowing pa a-
g aphs, Iwill concen a e on hese subsequen men ions, ega dless o hei ch onol-
ogy. One p elimina y “me hodological” ema k, howe e , is equi ed.
Among F ench philosophe s, Foucaul was no he only one o speak o Les Visions
du châ eau des Py énées. Roughly du ing he same pe iod, he no el was also e e ed
o in one o he key wo ks o Ma xis li e a y c i icism, Pie e Mache ey’s ATheo y
o Li e a y P oduc ion (1966). I is gi en a ue exempla y alue o a“mys e y s o y”
pa excellence, ha is, as o y peopled wi h ghos s, mys e ious oices and appa i-
ions whose enigma ic na u e is g adually dispelled as he plo p og esses; indeed,
“ he s o y inishes when he u h o hese appea ances is e ealed, when hey a e
dispe sed”.21 Wha is o conce n o us is no Mache ey’s in e p e a ion i sel — how-
e e in e es ing i may be— bu he ac ha despi e being well awa e o he likely
apoc yphal s a us o he a o emen ioned no el (e en hough he ob iously did no
know i s ue au ho )22, he s ill chooses i as an exempla y oken o Go hic ic ion.
Mache ey s a es:
The book in ques ion is, as hey say, unp e en ious. This is no o ou disad an-
age; indeed, i is p ecisely why i has been chosen. E en among mino wo ks
c oss he way / Lo! Radcli e shudde s in dismay / And ainly s uggling o be ee / Flies
o he g asp o Dea h, om Madness and om hee” (ci .in ibid., pp.211–212).
19 No on 1999, p.205.
20 Foucaul 1984, p.114.
21 Mache ey 2006, p.37.
22 Geo ey Wall, he English ansla o o Mache ey’s wo k, adds a oo no e s a ing ha “ his
no el, o which no English o iginal has been iden i ied, is gene ally conside ed o be in-
co ec ly asc ibed o M s Radcli e” (Mache ey 2006, p.30).
OPEN
ACCESS
JOSEF FULKA 123
i is o he second ank; p obably i was no w i en by M s Radcli e bu is
a o ge y, apas iche, published unde he name a e he dea h. This kind o
ex , he mo e o less accu a e ake, is o en he mos cha ac e is ic o agen e
o s yle. He e is o be ound in apu e i no o iginal s a e all ha de ines he
ype. The skil ul imi a ion can be mo e e ealing han he model.23
Mache ey’s ema k is o cen al impo ance o he p esen eading o Foucaul . Fou-
caul e u ns o Les Visions du châ eau des Py énées (o o Ann Radcli e— bu he al-
ways seems o ha e his pa icula no el in mind) epea edly in his la e w i ings and
semina s. The blunde conce ning i s au ho is a om ende ing hese loci neg-
ligible. I is p ecisely o he easons s a ed by Mache ey: Ca he ine Cu hbe son’s
no el migh be apas iche, bu i ende s all he ea u es ha Foucaul pinpoin s in
he “no els o e o ” all he mo e ele an . All he mo i s ha Foucaul is in e es ed
in a e abundan ly p esen in Radcli e’s “genuine” wo ks, and i Les Visions du châ-
eau des Py énées we e eplaced by The Mys e ies o Udolpho, The Romance o he Fo es
o The I alian, Foucaul ’s analyses would s ill emain pe ec ly alid. The e o e, in he
ollowing analysis, hese pseudo-Radcli ean e e ences will be aken se iously, as i
hei objec s we e “ ue” Radcli e no els.
I seems clea ha , gene ally speaking, Foucaul always in e p e s he wo k o
Ann Radcli e24 as a“symp om” o ace ain his o ical— o poli ical— change. This is
linked o an in e es ing ea u e o Foucaul ’s hough in gene al: Foucaul , as is well
known, is a he e icen when i comes o explaining he causes o o easons o his-
o ical shi s and ans o ma ions. The his o ical “discon inui y” be ween epis emic
o ma ions, amously p esen in The O de o Things, is he mos pa en example o his
endency,25 and i has al eady been no ed ha , when speaking abou hese his o ical
shi s, Foucaul o en u ns o li e a y wo ks ha usually play he ole o exempli i-
ca ions— a he han explana ions— o he shi s in ques ion. The case o Radcli e
is no excep ion. Ia gue ha in Foucaul ’s eading o Radcli e, h ee p incipal se s o
in e ela ed opics migh be iden i ied: c ime, discipline, and space.
23 Ibid. p.32. Le us no e in passing ha la e in he ex , as i o suppo his claim, Mache ey
quo es, alongside Les Visions du châ eau des Py énées, also a“ ue” Radcli e no el, The I al-
ian (see ibid. p.35), wi hou making any subs an ial dis inc ion be ween a“ o ge y” and
he “o iginal”.
24 F om now on— and o he easons jus s a ed— Iwill use Radcli e’s name ega dless o
he ques ion o au ho ship.
25 This endency is undoub edly p omp ed by Foucaul ’s pa icula app oach o his o iog a-
phy, heo ised in The A chaeology o Knowledge (1969). In o de o a oid ce ain in ellec u-
al “au oma isms” ha ha e hampe ed he adi ional his o iog aphical esea ch, Foucaul
p oposes o in e p e he no ion o his o y no in e ms o linea i y and con inui y, bu
a he in e ms o “discon inui y, up u e, h eshold, limi , se ies, and ans o ma ion”; in
o de o achie e his, howe e , “ he e is anega i e wo k o be ca ied ou i s : we mus id
ou sel es o awhole mass o no ions, each o which, in i s own way, di e si ies he heme
o con inui y” (Foucaul 1993, p.21). In o he wo ds, Foucaul ein e p e s his o y in p o-
nouncedly spa ial ( a he han empo al) e ms. We will e u n o he opic o space la e
in his ex .
OPEN
ACCESS
124 SVĚT LITERATURY 70
2. THE NOVELS OF TERROR AS POLITICAL NOVELS
An ex ensi e e e ence o Radcli e can be ound in Foucaul ’s semina om 1974–1975,
en i led Les ano maux (Abno mal). In alec u e ha was i s deli e ed on Janua y 29 h
1975, Foucaul speaks abou an impo an his o ical ans o ma ion o wha he calls
“ he economy o puni i e powe ”— a ans o ma ion ha ook place oughly in he
ime o he F ench Re olu ion.26 Wi hin he amewo k o he “old” puni i e powe ,
ac ime, howe e insigni ican , was unde s ood as an a ack on he so e eign: as Fou-
caul pu s i , “ he e was a agmen o egicide in he smalles c ime” (ibid.). This
somewha blasphemous c ime had i s coun e pa on he side o punishmen — he
punishmen , as a as i s o m is conce ned, was, abo e all, aspec acula ep esen-
a ion o “ eac ualiza ion” o he c ime commi ed. We clea ly ecognise he echo o
his idea in he igh ul ableau o Damiens he egicide’s o u e ha opens Fou-
caul ’s Discipline and Punish (1975), published in he same pe iod.27 Hence he “ e -
o ising cha ac e o punishmen ”, i s “p inciple o excessi e demons a ion”, and
he “ i uals o a oci y” p omp ed by he ac ha c ime was unde s ood as an es-
sen ially egicidal ac .28 No less impo an ly, no ques ions we e aised abou , as Fou-
caul s aigh o wa dly pu s i , “ he na u e o c ime”.29 A he end o he eigh een h
cen u y, howe e , he si ua ion seems o ha e changed. Foucaul links he change in
ques ion o he appea ance— alongside he in en ion o new scien i ic and indus ial
echnologies— o new mechanisms o powe ha enabled he exe cise o powe in
he pe manen o m o su eillance and con ol, a he han in he spec acula o m
o i ual punishmen : again, i is easy o ecognise he opics ea ed in Discipline and
Punish, as well as in he i s olume o The His o y o Sexuali y. A his p ecise his-
o ical momen , anew igu e o he c iminal appea s: he c iminal as amons e . Ac-
co ding o Foucaul , he mons osi y o he c iminal may be wo old. Fi s , he e is
amons osi y caused by “ he abuse o powe ”, mons osi y embodied in he igu e
o amigh y and powe ul, bu mo ally co up pe son. Su p ising as i may seem,
“ he i s mons e is he king. The king, Ibelie e, is he gene al model om which,
h ough successi e his o ical shi s and ans o ma ions, he coun less li le mon-
s e s who people nine een h-cen u y psychia y and legal psychia y a e his o ically
de i ed”.30 Second, he e is wha Foucaul calls “ he mons e om below” (le mons e
d’en dessous), he mons e ha “b eaks he social pac by e ol ”31— asa age om he
o es , an indi idual go e ned by p imi i e, uncon olled d i es and coming no om
he op bu om he bo om o social scale. As Foucaul sums up, “ hese wo igu es
a ise om ap ecise conjunc u e, bu hey also ake up ancien hemes: he debauch-
e y o kings, he libe inage o he g ea , and he iolence o he people.”32
26 Foucaul 2003, p.82.
27 Foucaul 1977, pp.3–6.
28 Foucaul 2003, p.83.
29 Ibid., p.86.
30 Ibid., pp.94–95. This kind o mons osi y is illus a ed, in Foucaul ’s semina , by an ex en-
si e analysis o he public image o Louis XVI and Ma ie-An oine e (ibid. pp.95–98).
31 Ibid., p.98.
32 Ibid., p.99.
OPEN
ACCESS
JOSEF FULKA 125
A he end o he lec u e, Foucaul once again u ns o he “li e a u e o e o ” in
gene al and o Ann Radcli e in pa icula . The Châ eau des Py énées, he claims, p o-
ides us wi h an eloquen li e a y ep esen a ion o hese wo mons ous igu es. On
he one hand, he e is mons osi y s emming om he abuse o powe and embodied
in he igu es o wicked p inces and decei ul p ies s. On he o he , he e is also he
mons e om below, he “na u al man” wi h “limi less ins inc ”: he b igand, he man
o he o es , he b u e.33 Wha is mo e, he p e ailing spa ial se ing o he no el
co esponds pe ec ly o his double mons osi y: pa o he s o y akes place in an
“inaccessible, hollowed-ou moun ain ca ed in o agenuinely s ong cas le”,34 c ea -
ing hus aconjunc ion be ween wo milieus p ope o he wo species o mons e s
jus men ioned: he eudal cas le, on he one hand, he o es s and he moun ains—
in sho , he sa age na u e— on he o he . Thus, he s o y old in he Châ eau des
Py énées e ol es a ound wo ypes o mons osi y and wo di e en spa ial se ings
pa icula o each o hem. As Foucaul succinc ly pu s i , adding ap onouncedly po-
li ical accen o his analysis: “In his igu e o he Châ eau des Py énées we ha e, Ibe-
lie e, adense image o hese wo o ms o mons osi y as hey appea in he poli ical
hema ic and imagina ion o he age. The no els o e o should be ead as poli ical
no els.”35
I has al eady been s a ed ha wha e e Foucaul says abou he Châ eau des
Py énées can easily be ound in Ann Radcli e’s “genuine” no els. Indeed, hese wo
ypes o mons osi y a e no excep ion. Many Radcli ean cha ac e s i pe ec ly he
image o he i s ype o mons e , o he mons ous (quasi)so e eign: he da k ye
ascina ing igu e o Signo Mon oni om The Mys e ies o Udolpho is one example,
he mys e ious cha ac e o Fa he Schedoni om The I alian is ano he . Mon oni’s
po ayal in The Mys e ies o Udolpho, o example, is amas e piece o ambigui y—
his handsomeness and s a ely appea ance do no en i ely hide he decei ulness and
ea some na u e ha will only be e ealed la e in he no el, and ha is exp essed,
on his i s occasion, only in a e y allusi e manne , as a ague h ead anspi ing
h ough his ea u es:
This Signo Mon oni had an ai o conscious supe io i y, anima ed by spi i ,
and s eng hened by alen s, o which e e y pe son seemed in olun a ily o
yield. The quickness o his pe cep ions was s ikingly exp essed on his coun-
enance, ye ha coun enance could submi implici ly o occasion; and, mo e
han once in his day, he iumph o a o e na u e migh ha e been dis-
ce ned in i . His isage was long, and a he na ow, ye he was called hand-
some; and i was, pe haps, he spi i and igou o his soul, spa kling h ough
his ea u es, ha iumphed o him. Emily el admi a ion, bu no he admi-
a ion ha leads o es eem; o i was mixed wi h adeg ee o ea she knew no
exac ly whe e o e.36
33 Ibid., p.100.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid. Foucaul hen p oceeds o p esen a e lec ion on Sade’s Julie e, pinpoin ing he same
duali y in he igu e o he Sadean libe in (ibid. p.100–101).
36 Radcli e 1980, p.122.
OPEN
ACCESS
132 SVĚT LITERATURY 70
shend in The O de s o Go hic.65 The p esen pape is an a emp o gi e his s a emen
amo e conc e e o m by examining, one by one, Foucaul ’s e e ences o Ann Rad-
cli e— o , o be mo e p ecise, o wha he belie ed o be aRadcli ean no el. Despi e
he e o conce ning he au ho ship o Châ eau des Py énées, Foucaul ’s excu sions o
he ealm o “ he no el o e o ” a e a om being de oid o in e es . They ell us
alo abou bo h Go hic ic ion as such and abou Foucaul ’s ea men o li e a u e in
gene al.
One could, o cou se, lea e behind Foucaul ’s p ecise e e ences o (pseudo-)Rad-
cli e and enla ge he scope o he p esen conside a ions so as o de elop aFoucauld-
ian eading o o he wo ks o Go hic ic ion, “ he da k p oduc o he shi om clas-
sicism o mode ni y”.66 Dale Townshend goes a in his di ec ion when he p esen s,
o example, aFoucauldian in e p e a ion o he spec acula depic ion o he hideous
p io ess’s dea h in The Monk (ano el ha Foucaul , as a as Iknow, ne e men ions67),
d awing an analogy be ween his “me iculous, ca e ully calcula ed o m o punish-
men ” and he dea h o Damiens, as desc ibed by Foucaul in Discipline and Punish.68
Bu such an unde aking would lead us oo a om ou opic. To conclude, le us
come back o Foucaul ’s in e p e a ion o Ann Radcli e.
The allusions o Radcli e appea , as we ha e seen, in di e en con ex s; Foucaul
ne e p esen s acohe en in e p e a ion o ei he Go hic ic ion in gene al o o Ann
Radcli e in pa icula . These di e en con ex s seem, howe e , o ha e one ai in
common: Foucaul sees he “no el o e o ” as he epi ome o ace ain ambi alence,
as akind o “hesi a ion” be ween he old and he new. No e ha Foucaul ’s in e p e-
a i e s ance o en seems o hesi a e as well: in he Abno mal, he iews he no el o
e o as a ep esen a ion o a“new economy o puni i e powe ”, while in “The Eye o
Powe ”, he iews i as ali e a y ep esen a ion o p e-Enligh enmen space… Be ha
as i may, his e lec ion on he subjec is no doub inspi ed by he gen e’s undeniable
“ins abili y” and “hyb idi y” (bo h his o ical and li e a y). And as we ha e seen, his
ema ks, scan y as hey may seem ( he e is no need o deny ha Radcli e’s impo -
65 Townshend 2007, pp.4–5.
66 Ibid. p.1. We migh also no e ha Discipline and Punish includes ab ie men ion o The Cas-
le o O an o ha would undoub edly be wo h ade ailed discussion: “[…] om he ad-
en u e s o y o de Quincey, o om The Cas le o O an o o Baudelai e, he e is awhole
aes he ic ew i ing o c ime, which is also he app op ia ion o c iminali y in accep able
o ms” (Foucaul 1977, p.68).
67 He migh ha e known i , howe e : i was much admi ed by su ealis s and adop ed o he-
a e by An onin A aud, one o Foucaul ’s a ou i e w i e s.
68 Townshend 2007, pp.266–267. I is, none heless, a he cu ious o desc ibe his punish-
men as “me iculous” and “ca e ully calcula ed“: he p io ess is killed by a aging c owd
impelled by spon aneous need o wha Lewis calls “ba ba ous engeance”: “They o e
he om one ano he , and each new o men o was mo e sa age ha he o me . […] They
bea i [ he p io ess’s li eless body], od upon i , and ill-used i , ill i became no mo e han
amass o lesh, unsigh ly, shapeless, and disgus ing” (Lewis 1995, p.356). I would be in-
e es ing o ead his scene agains he backg ound o Foucaul ’s semina on Abno mal:
he e, he punishmen is no ca ied ou by he so e eign powe (o i s su oga e) bu p e-
cisely by “ he iolence o he people” ha Foucaul links wi h “mons osi y om below”
(see Foucaul 2003, p.99). In his sense, i is he exac opposi e o Damiens’s execu ion.
OPEN
ACCESS
JOSEF FULKA 133
ance as ali e a y e e ence is a in e io , in Foucaul ’s wo k, o ha o Sade), o en
o e ema kable insigh s. A he beginning o he p esen pape , i was s a ed ha
in Foucaul ’s w i ings, li e a y wo ks a e o en called in e idence whene e he need
a ises o deal wi h ahis o ical shi o his o ical ansi ion. This gi es us easons o
belie e ha he no el o e o (and Ann Radcli e in pa icula ) is, o Foucaul , mo e
han an objec o acciden al in e es . Hope ully, his close examina ion o Radcli ean
e e ences in Foucaul ’s wo k shows why his is so.
This wo k was suppo ed by he Coope a io P og am, esea ch a ea PHIL.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Bo ing, F ed. Go hic. Camb idge and New Yo k:
Rou ledge, 1996.
B ooks, Pe e . „The Opening o The Dep hs“.
The Eigh een h Cen u y, 30, 1989, No.2,
pp.113–122.
B ooks, Pe e . „Vi ue and Te o : The Monk”.
ELH, 42, 1973, No.2, pp.149–263.
Came on, Ed. The Psychopa hology o he Go hic
Romance. Je e son: McFa land and Company,
2010.
Foucaul , Michel. The O de o Things. T ans.
Alan She idan. New Yo k: Vin age Books,
1973.
Foucaul , Michel. Discipline and Punish. T ans.
Alan She idan. London: Penguin Books, 1977.
Foucaul , Michel. The His o y o Sexuali y
I.T ans. Robe Hu ley. New Yo k: Pan heon
Books, 1978.
Foucaul , Michel. “The Eye o Powe ”. T ans.
Colin Go don. In Powe /Knowledge. Ed.
Colin Go don. New Yo k: Vin age, 1980,
pp.146–165.
Foucaul , Michel. “Wha Is an Au ho ?” T ans.
Josué V.Ha a i. In Foucaul Reade . Ed. Paul
Rabinow. New Yo k: Pan heon Books, 1984,
pp.101–120.
Foucaul , Michel. “O O he Spaces”. T ans. Jay
Miskowiec. Diac i ics, 16, ol.1, 1986, pp.22–27.
Foucaul , Michel. Dea h and he Laby in h: The
Wo ld o Raymond Roussel. T ans. Cha les
Ruas. Oakland: Uni e si y o Cali o nia P ess,
1987.
Foucaul , Michel. Madness and Ci iliza ion.
T ans. Richa d Howa d. New Yo k: Vin age
Books, 1988.
Foucaul , Michel. The A chaeology o Knowledge.
T ans. Alan She idan Smi h. New Yo k:
Ba nes and Noble, 1993.
Foucaul , Michel. Di s e éc i s I.Pa is:
Gallima d, 2001.
Foucaul , Michel. Abno mal. T ans. G aham
Bu chell. London/New Yo k: Ve so,
2003.
Foucaul , Michel. La socié é puni i e. Pa is:
Gallima d/Seuil, 2013.
Kiely, Robe . The Roman ic No el in England.
Camb idge, Massachuse s: Ha a d
Uni e si y P ess, 1972.
Klossowski, Pie e. Sade My Neighbou . T ans.
Alphonso Lingis. E ans on: No hwes e n
Uni e si y P ess, 1991.
Lewis, Ma hew G ego y. The Monk. Ox o d
Uni e si y P ess, 1995.
Mache ey, Pie e. ATheo y o Li e a y P oduc ion.
T ans. Geo ey Wall. London/New Yo k:
Rou ledge, 2006.
Mache ey, Pie e. The Objec o Li e a u e.
T ans. Da id Macey. Camb idge: Camb idge
Uni e si y P ess, 1995.
Miles, Robe . Go hic W i ing 1750–1820.
AGenealogy, London and New Yo k:
Rou ledge, 1993.
Mish a, Vijay. The Go hic Sublime. Albany: S a e
Uni e si y o New Yo k P ess, 1994.
No on, Ric o . The Mis ess o Udolpho. Leices e :
Leices e Uni e si y P ess, 1999.
Radcli e, Ann. The Mys e ies o Udolpho. Ox o d:
Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 1980.
Radcli e, Ann. The Romance o The Fo es . Ox o d:
Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 1999.
OPEN
ACCESS
134 SVĚT LITERATURY 70
Radcli e, Ann. The I alian. London: Onewo ld
Classics, 2008.
Ree e, Cla a. The Old English Ba on. Ox o d:
Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 2003.
Sade, Dona ien Alphonse F ançois. Idée su le
oman. Pa is: Edoua d Rou ey e, 1878.
Sage, Vic o (ed.). The Go hic No el. London:
Macmillan, 1990.
S a obinski, Jean. Jean-Jacques Rousseau:
T anspa ency and Obs uc ion. T ans. A hu
Goldhamme . Chicago: Uni e si y o Chicago
P ess, 1988.
Townshend, Dale. The O de s o Go hic. New
Yo k: AMS P ess, 2007.
Townshend, Dale, W igh , Angela (eds.).
Ann Radcli e, Roman icism and he Go hic.
Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess,
2014.
Walpole, Ho ace. The Cas le o O an o. Ox o d:
Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 1996.
W obel, Clai e. “Go hique, é o me e
Panop ique”. Re ue d’é udes ben hamiennes,
2010, no.7, pp.1–15.
OPEN
ACCESS