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 apa 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 aclose 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 ali 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 acons 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 adouble 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 akind o w i ing in which “philosophy” and “li -
e a u e” o en me ge o he poin o becoming indis inguishable— akind 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 aspeci ic kind: li -
e a y wo ks seem o be egula ly men ioned when i comes o explaining apa 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— apa 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, Ice 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 agenuine 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 agood s a ing poin , no because
o he me e men ion o he name, bu because, by acu ious wis o i ony, ha
men ion is linked o ali 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 ape son
esponsible o he p oduc ion o abook o a ex , Foucaul p oposes o discuss he
no ion o he au ho in ab 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 aplace”.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 akey 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 àl’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 amajo 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 asomewha 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 ase
o sub le dis inc ions in o de o delimi he no ion o a ounde o discu si i y in
anega 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 ano el is only he au ho o
his own ex ;9 in asense, 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 ace 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 anumbe 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, acu 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 ano 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 “ace ain numbe o di e ences”,
c ea ing hus “apossibili 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 ali 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 “ano elis ” o “ he au ho o ano 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 “ace -
ain numbe o esemblances and analogies” possible. A he same ime, howe e ,
Radcli e’s wo k i sel is apa o acomplica 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 aloss 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 adi iding line be ween
a“ ounde o discu si i y” and a“ ounde o ascience” (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, ano 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’apas 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
ap 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, aw 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
aRadcli 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 ab ie dig ession. I is well
known ha much o Ann Radcli e’s li e has always emained amys 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 ali 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 ASicilian
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 amen al asylum. In he Summe Excu -
sions (1809), Elisabe h Isabella Spence claims, in aqui e s aigh o wa d manne , ha
“ he eade will, no doub , eg e wi h me ha alady 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 ahis 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
apoem 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 acommon 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 aRadcli 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 ano 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, Iwill 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 ATheo 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, as 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, apas 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 agen e
o s yle. He e is o be ound in apu 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 apas 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 ace 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. Ia 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— Iwill 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 anega i e wo k o be ca ied ou i s : we mus id
ou sel es o awhole 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 alec 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 ,
ac 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, aspec 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 , anew igu e o he c iminal appea s: he c iminal as amons e . Ac-
co ding o Foucaul , he mons osi y o he c iminal may be wo old. Fi s , he e is
amons osi y caused by “ he abuse o powe ”, mons osi y embodied in he igu e
o amigh 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, Ibelie 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— asa 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 ap 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 agenuinely s ong cas le”,34 c ea -
ing hus aconjunc 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 ap onouncedly po-
li ical accen o his analysis: “In his igu e o he Châ eau des Py énées we ha e, Ibe-
lie e, adense 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 amas 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 adeg 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
amo 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 aRadcli 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
alo 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 aFoucauld-
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, aFoucauldian in e p e a ion o he spec acula depic ion o he hideous
p io ess’s dea h in The Monk (ano el ha Foucaul , as a as Iknow, 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 acohe 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 ace ain ambi alence,
as akind 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 ali 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 ab ie men ion o The Cas-
le o O an o ha would undoub edly be wo h ade 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 awhole
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
amass 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 ali 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 ahis 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. ATheo 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.
AGenealogy, 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