Given his admiration for the works of The work in question is Richard III, and the passage is taken from Scene VII, Act III, when, in the Shakespeare, Harold Bloom could never presence of two bishops; Sir William Catesby; the Lord Mayor of London, and his advisers and guards, the blame my use of one of the historical dramas Duke of Buckingham speaks in the following dialogue with the Duke of Gloucester: of the bard of Stratford to describe the motivation behind these pages. Gloucester... what is your Lord’s pleasure? Buckingham Even that, I hope, which pleaseth God above, And all good men of this ungoven d isle. Gloucester I do suspect / have done some offence That seems disgraceous in the city’s eye; And that you come to reprehend my ignorance. o o o Buckingham You have, my lord: would it might please your Grace, On our entreaties to amend your fault! Like Gloucester, Bloom committed an offence with the publication of his book, in 1994,The Western Canon, an offence bom, if not of ignorance, then certainly of arrogance; an offence which, disgraceous or not in the city’s eye, contributed nothing to the establishment of a legitimate and stable government on the ungovemed isle that is the literary canon. It is precisely the gravity of such lack of government that encourages me in the need to revisit Bloom’s book five years later, as it is obvious by now that no-one expects already an amendment of his error. Ilustration: Carolina Tapia University of California at Berkeley From my point of view, the basic error Therefore, there is no room for doubt that, from committed by Bloom was the very title he gave to his the very title onwards, Bloom’s book set itself up not book: The Western Canon ; for it would have been a just as an elegy for the canon, but also as a proposal of different state of affairs, and one which would have the contents of the Western Canon, and it was a proposal taken away the principal motive for these pages, had which the author appeared to regard as definitive (and he called it, for example, Pages I Have Read. Bloom’s completely so before 1800, as he said he felt confident Western Canon was neither a canon nor was it Western: with regard to the works he included before that date). it was no more than what is expressed by the title which, However, as I have already said,The Western Canon with humility, I propose for a second edition of the was neither a canon nor Western, which indicates that book, even if these pages are many (albeit not all) pages Bloom’s enterprise was a failure; at the very least, it read in the libraries of the University of Yale to which was not a canon established on the basis of intellectual Bloom accords grateful thanks for containing many rigour, crosscultural communication and respect for pages of many books (albeit not all pages of all books). diversity which should be the basis of so thorny a Even Bloom himself seemed to recognise from time question. For my own part, I will attempt to remain as to time the impossibility of establishing a definitive faithful as I can to these three principles, not in order canon of Western literature, at least one compiled by to propose an alternative canon (for I am aware of my one person alone. Thus, in the introduction to the book, own limits) but rather to indicate some (I would not “An Elegy for the Canon”, he said the following: «no- wish to be so immodest as to believe that I have one has the authority to tell us about what the Western indicated all) of what Harold Bloom omitted or forgot Canon is, certainly not from about 1800 to the present in his Western Canon, that is (and it bears repeating) day», and, he added, «It is not, cannot be, precisely the the Western and the canon. I will begin with the canon. list I give, or that anyone else might give». How fortunate it is then that Bloom advised us that the lists which he included at the end of his book, which occupied no less than thirty-seven pages, werenot the All of what he wrote appears to indicate that Western Canon. However, this statement came almost Bloom confused reading with literary theory and five hundred pages before the appearance of the said criticism; the frequent references to «my lifetime of lists, and not heading them, as prudence and honesty reading» are proof of this. Nonetheless, however might have required. divergent our conceptions of the function of literary theory, we would all agree that criticism is, by definition, an activity very different from that of In any case, even supposing that the lists were reading, especially that of texts considered to be to be preceded by such a statement, what other purpose “literary”. To my mind, and I hope that simplification could such lists have? That was, after all, a book will not alter the sense of what I wish to say, each critic entitledThe Western Canon, the principal objective of is faced with four different ways of addressing literary which was the constantly alluded to necessity for a works, and history provides us with abundant examples stable literary canon, and twenty-one of whose twenty- of each of these. In the first place a critic may adopt a three chapters were dedicated to the vehement prescriptive point of view of a specific work or of justification of the setting apart of a small number of literature in general. The prescriptive function of the writers (twenty-six in all) as beingmore canonical than critic is that of answering the question “What should the others who appeared in the famous lists. Whether the literary work be like?”, and it is a question or not Bloom so wished, it is impossible to read these applicable to various levels of literary production (for lists without seeing them as the writers he decided to example: what type of metre should an elegiac poem canonise (because he read and liked their works); have?, or how should a novel be structured?, or what amongst them the twenty-six greats, and beside them should be the duration of the action of a tragedy?, etc.).1 all the others, to a greater or lesser extent canonical. The second perspective which any literary critic may assume is the valorative. This critical function poses University of California at Berkeley the question “Is the literary work good?”, and extends tion, descriptive and interpretative, derive naturally the limits of its reference over all evaluations and from the process of reading, the task of the critic is not judgements on literature.2 The third function of the same as that of any other reader, since the reader criticism is the descriptive, which attempts to answer alone is relieved of any critical responsibility. No-one the question “What is the literary work really like?” can be unaware of the complexity of the exercise of (and not “what should it be like?”, nor “is it good?”).3 the interpretative and descriptive functions by the lit­ Finally, the fourth of the functions of literary criticism erary critic; such complexity lies in the need to base is the interpretative, that is responding to the question the critical task on certain theoretical principles, which “What does the literary work mean?”. These are, in are, preferably, explicit. From this perspective it is my view, the four basic functions of literary criticism, possible to understand contemporary literary theory and which is understood, according to the classic definition the diverse formulations of literary matters which it of René Wellek and Austin Warren(Theory o f has generated, such as feminism, deconstruction, re­ Literature, 1949), as the analysis of individual literary ception theory, marxism, new historicism, works; and it seems to me permissible to extend the multiculturalism, etc. I personally may agree to a greater limits of these four functions to the field of literary or lesser extent with the theoretical bases which sup­ theory, which is understood, again according to Wellek port each of these lines of thought, but whatever one’s and Warren, as the discipline which deals with the own personal view there is no shadow of doubt that general conception of literature, and which has only each of them responds to an be of sufficient strength to developed since the beginning of this century. Thus constitute a canon. What is more, proposals of canons we could also speak of the four possible functions such as his can only hasten the fulfillment of his own exercised by literary theory: the prescriptive, valorative, prophecy: «The means to destroy canons are very much descriptive and interpretative functions.4 at hand, and the process is now very much advanced». In effect, it is precisely the means that he used which are the most effective in destroying the canon, the con­ If we agree about all that has been expounded cept of the canon, or the feeling of necessity for any up to this point, it should not be difficult to establish canon. Bloom’s book was, it seems to me, one more the frontier between reading and criticism, and even step along the road to such destruction, and this is be­ less difficult to do the same for reading and literary cause it would be difficult to conceive of a project for theory. It is evident that the descriptive and interpreta­ a canon that demonstrated so clearly that precisely what tive functions, which literary studies of this century Bloom wished to condemn (the idea that «to make a have converted into the fundamental pillars of their canon (or to perpetuate one) is an ideological act in own existence, derive naturally from the basic process itself») is true.