Wuthering Heights and The Rhetoric of Interpretation

Wuthering Heights and the Rhetoric of Interpretation
Author(s): Michael S. Macovski

Source: ELH, Vol. 54, No. 2 (Summer, 1987), pp. 363-384
Published by: Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2873028
Accessed: 09-11-2015 22:49 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ELH.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 192.167.209.10 on Mon, 09 Nov 2015 22:49:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WUTHERING HEIGHTS AND THE RHETORIC

OF INTERPRETATION
BY MICHAEL S. MACOVSKI
For storytelling
is alwaysthe artof repeatingstories,and this
art is lost when the storiesare no longerretained.It is lost
because thereis no moreweavingand spinningto go on while
theyare beinglistenedto.
WalterBenjamin,"The Storyteller"
I wantyouto tellme myway,notto showit;or else to persuade
Mr. Heathcliff
to give me a guide.
Lockwoodin WutheringHeights
Ever since F. R. Leavis firstcharacterized it as a "kind of sport"
-an anomaly with "some influence of an essentially undetectable
kind"-critics have attempted to locate WutheringHeights within
various schools of literary interpretation or detection. To the
"barred" doors of the Heights world have come those who see the
novel as an allegory of class conflict, a microcosm of generational
tension, or a response to Romantic tradition.' The last fifteen
years, however, have seen a determined, ifinconsistent,turnaway
from this legacy of attempted interpretation, of what J. Hillis
Miller calls our need "to satisfy the mind's desire for logical
order," to "indicate the rightway to read the novel as a whole."2
These latter criticsaccordinglycite what they variouslyreferto as
the "misinterpretation,""crisis of interpretation,"or "conflicting
possibilities of interpretation" that allegedly distinguish the
novel.3 Of course, such approaches differamong themselves: while
some attribute this misinterpretation to a particular narrator's
unreliable point ofview, others maintainthatany path throughthe
novel leads to a "reader's quandary"-since its "multiplicityof
outlook" and "surplus of signifiers"demonstrate an "intrinsicplurality." Still others deny even the potential import of such signifiers,insistingthat the very language of the novel presents us with
a "missing center": hence even the name of a given character"despotically eliminates its referent,leaving room neither forplurality
nor forsignificance."4Although these recent criticshardly consti363
tutea consensus,theywouldseem to agree that,in Miller'swords,

"howeverfarinside [the 'penetralium']the reader gets," he will
findonly"enigmaticsigns,""bewilderment,"and "ultimatebafflement.""The secrettruthaboutWutheringHeightsis," Millergoes
on, "thatthereis no secrettruth."5
Thus, the presentgenerationofcriticsseems inclinedto let the
problematicmysteriesand open questionsof WutheringHeights
live a lifeoftheirown, and indeed thereis muchto be said forthis
The torturedrelationship,
forinstance,
approachto interpretation.
between Catherineand Heathcliff
is inimicalto any recognizable
casuistic standard; and if some alien moralitystands behind
Heathcliff's
own inconsistentactions,it has yet to be defined.Yet
despite the reader's "bewilderment"and even "ultimatebafflement" at such mysteries,it is difficult
to deny thatthe novel is
itself.Despite its disturbing"crisis
about the act ofinterpretation
we muststillrecognizethatBrontepresentsthe
ofinterpretation,"
entirenovel as a rendering,as a storyreportedat one, two, or
three removes. The interpretivevaluations of characters like
Lockwood, Nelly,and Zillah distortalmostevery episode of the
storywe hear-thereby implicatingthe reader as the last in a
framedsuccessionofinterpreters.
Much has been made of this peculiarlyframedformof WutheringHeights:severalcritics,forinstance,have suggestedthatthe
listenersembedded in the novel are in manyways analogous to
to
actualreaders.Such studiesattemptto likenour interpretations
thoseofthe "normalskepticalreader,"and to insistthatNellyand
Lockwood,the primarywitnessesto the eventsofthe novel, serve
to representthisreader.6 Yetthe questionofreadingin Wuthering
Heightsis surelymore complexthan thiscomparisonwould suggest: we must,forinstance,ask how any reader who apprehends
the novel can resemble Lockwood, a characteruniversallyacknowledgedto be an effetebungler,insensitiveto the dramatic
power of the storyhe hears. We mustalso take into accountthat
we hear Nelly's perspectiveduringmostof the novel, and sense
thatshe too is not an observerworthemulating.Finally,we must
considerwhatthesemodelsofauditionsayaboutthepossibilityfor
interpretingsuch charactersas Heathcliffand Catherine Earnshaw.
Whatthe foregoingstudieshave notconsideredis thatthe issue
and responseis addresseddirectlywithinthe text
ofinterpretation
364
WutheringHeightsand the Rhetoricof Interpretation
exchanges
ofWutheringHeights-most explicitlyby interrogative
between characters,but also by the rhetoricalformof the novel
itself.For the substanceof the novel is in effecta successionof
addresses directedto designatedlisteners,a series of witnessed
narratives.These addressesinclude not only Nelly Dean's narrative to Lockwood, but the two climactic exchanges in which
and Catherinerespectivelydescribetheirpreternatural
Heathcliff
union to Nelly (72-74, 255-56). The novel accordinglyforebothcharacters'expeby framing
groundsthe act ofinterpretation
rienceswithinthe contextofsustainedaudition.
In fact,in orderforthese two charactersto "let out" (in Cathappears
erine'swords)theirsecrets,the presenceofan interpreter
to be vital (70). At the beginningof one interchange,Catherine
actuallyproceeds to restrainNelly,her auditor(72). Furthermore,
Catherineseems determinedto incorporatea listener'sresponse
intoher own evaluationofself.Againand again,she begs Nellyto
corroborateher decisionto marryEdgar. When Nelly mocksthe
question,Catherineagaindemands,"Be quick,and saywhetherI
was wrong";still later,Catherinepleads, "say whetherI should
have done so-do!" (70). Finally,at the end of this brokencolloquy Catherinesaysto Nelly,"yetyou have not told me whether
I'm right"(71). Thus, the impetusbehind rhetoricalinterchange
to "let out" one's "secret"is to
here appears to be interpretation:
need it received and judged.
Even Heathcliff
displaysthe need to expresshis inmostfeelings
During
beforeanother,to breakhis solitude,at least momentarily.
his most extendedattemptto describe his relationto Catherine,
he saysto Nelly,"you'llnot talkofwhatI tellyou, and mymindis
so eternallysecluded in itself,it is tempting,at last, to turnit out
to another"(255). Here again, the purpose of auditionis to draw
out the "eternallysecluded" self:to delineatethe ego accordingto
social or dialogiccorrelates.Much as Catherineseeks to "let out"
too attemptsto "turn[hismind]out
her buried"secret,"Heathcliff
to another"in order to interpretit. In this sense, his request to
"1turn
out" his self to Nelly resembles his earlier plea to Catherine's ghost:"Oh! myheart'sdarling,hear me thistime"(33). In
enjoinshis listenerto "hear"or comprehend
bothcases, Heathcliff
self.And althoughhe eventhe broken"heart"-the fragmented
tuallyattainsa formofunionwiththe deceased Catherine,Heathcliffstillspendsthe finaldaysofhis lifeendeavoringto addressher
Michael S. Macovski
365
beyondthe graveand thustranscendbothhis rhetoricaland social

isolation.
II
Yet audition ultimatelyfails Heathcliff,as it does nearly all

in WutheringHeights;withinthe dialogic
would-beinterlocutors
theymust remain"eternallysecluded."
novel,
the
of
framework
begun his attemptto "turnout" his mind
No soonerhas Heathcliff
"1toanother"thanhe breaksoff,saying,"it is frenzyto repeatthese
thoughtsto you" (255). He thenconcludes:"My confessionshave
not relievedme" (256). And such an outpouringto Nelly does insince she provesincapable
deed resemblean undirected"frenzy,"
Heathcliffsearlier efrecounting
In
response.
of any reciprocal
fortsto depict his attendant"spectre,"Nelly says, "He only half
addressedme, and I maintainedsilence-I didn'tlike to hear him
talk!"(230).
Nelly'ssilence here indicatesa largerpatternoffailedaudition,
forit implies an inabilityto apprehendthose ghostsand visions
whichrepresentrevelationin the novel. When Catherine,forinstance,beginsto speak ofher visionofheaven, Nellyinsists,"Oh!
don't, Miss Catherine. . . . We're dismal enough withoutconjuringup ghostsand visionsto perplexus" (72). When Catherine
goes on, Nelly cries, "I tell you I won't harkento yourdreams,
Miss Catherine!"Yet by refusingto "harken"to these revelatory
visions,Nelly also misses the pivotalrevelationof the novel: the
spectralbond between Catherineand Heathcliff,a bond repreby sightingsand visions.As one critichas written
sentedprimarily
assuranceof
in describingthismysticunion,"To deny Heathcliff's
"7
Catherine'spresence is to deny the novel.
Such denials amountto a kind of analyticdeafness:both Nelly
and Lockwoodattemptto discountwhat theycannotunderstand.
Thus when Nelly firstbungles this auricularrole, Catherinereprocessin thenovel: "that's
sponds,in effect,to everyinterpretive
notwhatI intend,"she says,"that'snotwhatI mean!" (73). Even
has become a deceived auditorafterhe "listenedtillhe
Heathcliff
heardCatherinesay it would degrade her to marryhim,and then
he stayedto hear no farther"(73). We thusbegin to see thatthis
failureof interpretationruns deeper than any local misunderstandingsof Heathcliffand Catherine on the part of Nelly. Al366
WutheringHeightsand theRhetoricof Interpretation
thoughrevelationsare "half-addressed"to listeners,theyrepeatedly encounterinterpretivesilence. Whereas exposure may be

possible in thisnovel, colloquyis not.8
We are left,then, with the question of why this novel would
incorporatea self-consciously
flawed model of listening.What is
more, whywould Bronteemphasizethese flawed interpretations
by making them the central point of view, the irregularlens
throughwhichwe see everycharacterin the novel? Why would
she actuallydramatizea frustrated
interchangeseen fromthe position of an uncomprehending
observer-as if she had built an intentionallyskewed frameof referenceinto her novel? And if this
distortingframedoes leave us in what Miller calls "ultimatebafflement,"how mightBrontehave expectedus to respondto such
an exegeticalpredicament?That is, whatare we to make of those
longstandingcriticaldilemmaswhich continueto dog the novel:
the unaccountablecrueltyand otherGothicevents;the framenarrative and representationsof reading;the importof Catherine's
climacticstatement,"I am Heathcliff"?9
Finally,if these critical
problemsare inseparablefromthe elusivebeautyofthe novel,we
muststillask what theysay about the statusofinterpretive
possibilityin Bront6'sworld.
We can startto answer these questions of interpretation
and
responseby reexamining
whatis certainlythe mostimmediateaudience forHeathcliff's
and Catherine'sstory-those incorporated
auditorswho firstwitnessthe narrative.I will argue thatmanyof
these unresolvedquestionsare a resultofwhatI considerthe vital
structureofthe novel: an epistemologicaldisjunctionbetweenlistenersand speakers.It is, moreover,preciselythisdisjunctionthat
blurs the line between speakersand listeners.Indeed, the questionofwho interpretsand who narratesbecomes a complexone in
thisnovel,since it is actuallybuiltarounda pairofspeaker/listener
paradigms.We have noted, forinstance,thatwhile Nelly clearly
directsher tale to Lockwood,the mostcrucialscenes ofthe novel
centeraroundthose dialoguesin whichshe herselfmustplay the
listener to Heathcliff'sand Catherine's revelatoryconfessions.
Nellymustthereforebe both tellerand listener,forshe acts as an
interpreterpositionedbetween an unexplainedcharacterand an
uncomprehendingaudience. Though she is a storytellerin her
own right,she is also a listenerattempting
to fathomthe "history"
of an enigmaticHeathcliff(37, 139). And once again, the finallisMichael S. Macovski
367
tenersin thissuccessionof audiences are the readers:we receive

Lockwood'sjournalofuncertaindestination.
We can thusreconsiderWutheringHeightsas a convergenceof
apostrophes,a chainofrhetoricalexposures.Indeed, I would suggest thatwhen the speakersof WutheringHeightsaddress a listener,theyin effectexpose a hiddenpartofthe self-expose it to
theinterpretation
notonlyofthe other,but ofthemselvesas well.
While mostofthese interpretations
breakdown duringthe novel,
I ultimatelyreject the notionthatBront6leaves us withonlycircumscribedvisionand misinterpretation.
Instead,I willarguethat
the novel continuallykeeps the possibilityof interpretation
open
bysustaininga rhetoricalprocessofunderstanding,
by enactinga
seriesofhermeneuticforms.For even when theseaddressescome
up againstinadequateaudition,theyneverthelessestablishmodels
ofongoingcomprehensionand interpretation
forthereader.What
is more,theserhetoricalexposuresbeforean othercome to representnot onlythe separateinterpretation
ofselfand other,but the
actualfashioning
ofthisselfin termsoftheother.In thissense, the
and ontological.
listener'sfunctionis bothinterpretive
It is not surprising,
then,thatthesenarrativeexposurestakeon
different
functionsat variouspointsin the novel. On one level, I
arguethatwhen Brontduses the narrativeaddressto an auditoras
a mode of interpretation,
she in effectreenactsthe nineteenthOn
centurytransformation
of confessioninto self-decipherment.
anotherlevel, I show how, elsewherein WutheringHeights,this
narrativeexposuretakeson attributesofan interpretive
dialogue,
and is accordinglyanalogousto such psychoanalytic
processes as
the past and transferring
reconstructing
ontothe other.I thenexpand on Bront6'sview of self-interpretation,
takingas my model
thechild'smethodofmirroring
his ego ontoan other,and showing
how thismethodilluminatesthe literaryspeaker'sestablishment
ofhis or her own selfbeforean addressee. At otherpointsin the
resultsfroma character's"dialogic"internovel,thisself-creation
changes with a listener,which I go on to consider in light of
Bakhtin'sparadigmof multiplevoices. Lastly,I suggestthatthis
desire to inspiritthe selfthroughan otheris
nineteenth-century
best explainedby Coleridge'sconceptof"outness"-that statein
whichhe can definethe "Boundary"ofhis external"Self."
III
Thoughthe actualpurposeofauditionis rarelydiscussed,many

studies note the deploymentof framenarrativein Wuthering
368
WutheringHeightsand theRhetoricofInterpretation
Heights.Still otherapproachesstressthe Gothicelementsof the

novel (the enigmatichero, mist-shrouded
house, hidden evil, and
so on).10Yet what such studiesmiss is thatthese Gothicfeatures
are precisely what gives the novel its framedform,since the
Gothic evils actuallypromptthe need forexposure to an other
withina narrativeframe.Accordingly,
Bront6repeatedlyinvokes
this notion of evil incarnateas somethinggrosslyinhumanand
"unnatural,"comparableto a "ghoul" or "vampire"thatmustbe
unmasked(258-60). These termsare, in fact,Nelly Dean's imat one point,she alludes to himas an "evil
pressionsofHeathcliff:
beast" (94), and even by the end ofthe novel he remainsa "dark
thing"forher (260). CharlotteBront6,too, in her second preface
as one "animatedby demon life
to the novel, refersto Heathcliff
-a Ghoul" (12). It is such a "beast" that must be rhetorically
loosed fromWutheringHeights.
This daemonicallyrepresentedevil also spawnsa host of guilty
motivesfornaracts intothe novel,whichin turnbecome further
rativeconfession.Heathcliff,the mysteriouslocus of the tale, is
also the very incarnationof guilt, not only because of his own
vengefulaction,but because ofhis relationto the othercharacters
in the novel. To Mr. Earnshaw,he representsfamilialdisruption
and, possibly,the memoryof adulterouslove; to Catherine,he
becomes the image ofinnocencelost and passionabandoned;and
standsas the reminderofher confessed"cowto Nelly,Heathcliff
to him,as well as her consequentpunishardice and inhumanity"
ment (39). He thus personifiesan almostuniversalguilt in this
narrative,an autochthonousother who returnsto haunt nearly
everycharacterin the novel. He representsthatomnipresentyet
lishiddenincubusthatmustbe verbalizedbeforean interpretive
tener.
It is thiskindofpersistentguiltthathelps to explainthe need to
expose the "beast"withinWutheringHeights.For instance,in recountinghis dream about JabesBranderham'sinvectivesermon,
Lockwoodnotes that"eitherJoseph,the preacher,or I had comand were to be publicly
mittedthe 'First of the Seventy-First,'
exposed and excommunicated"(28, emphasis added). We soon
learn, however,that the immoralacts which disturbLockwood
and thepreacherproveto be no ordinaryChristiansins:Lockwood
insiststhat"theywere of the mostcuriouscharacter-odd transgressionsthatI had never imaginedpreviously"(29). He further
contendsthatBranderhamhas committeda "sin thatno Christian
Michael S. Macovski
369
need pardon"(29). Generallyspeaking,these "odd transgressions"

seem to falloutsidethe realmofevangelicalChristianmorality;as
such, they remain unredeemableby any conventionalnotion of
repentance,absolution,or pardonby a listeningother.
Bronteworksout the implicationsof these unpardonablesins
withinthe narrativestructureof bogus confession.As we have
bringsthisformdirectlyinto questionwhen he
noted, Heathcliff
says,"My confessionshave notrelievedme" (256). That Heathcliff
would referto these outpouringsas "confessions"is particularly
detelling,forhis termreflectsa widespreadnineteenth-century
sire to adapt and redefine the confessionalform."lGenerally
theologianssought to transspeaking,many nineteenth-century
formthe confessionfroma coercive means of compellingsecret
truthsto a bilateralexaminationofself-a mutual,two-sidedhermeneutic in which both roles are crucial to interpretation.In
WutheringHeights,too, bothofthese rolesbecome crucialwithin
the apostrophicformof the novel, and we would do well to examineeach ofthemseparately.
in Bront6'snovel reflectsthe
The role ofthe speaker/confessee
as opview of confessionas self-examination,
nineteenth-century
posed to the earlier injunctionto provide evidence forexternal
"the nineteenthcenjudgment.In Michel Foucault'sformulation,
turyalteredthe scope ofthe confession;it tended no longerto be
concernedsolelywithwhat the subject wished to hide [fromanother],but withwhatwas hidden fromhimself"(66). Earlier religious encountershad stressed an outside witness'srole in both
and absolution;now, confessionalrhetoricwas also
interpretation
his
seen as enablinga speakerto structurehis own self-knowledge,
process of learningwhat was "hidden fromhimself."Hence in
WutheringHeights,when Heathcliffand Catherinedeliberately
seek to confess their secrets, each is framingthese mysteries
withina mode of discoursethatdemands as much decipherment
fromthe speakingconfesseeas it does fromthe listeningconfessor
(39, 70). Thus when Brontedepictsbothcharactersdeployingthe
rhetoricofconfession,she suggeststhateach is engaged in a process of revealingthe self. Such revelationis not onlyexposureof
self(to another),but disclosurewithinselfas well.
Yet the confessionalmode still necessitatessome externalcahoweverinadequate it appears in WutheringHeights,and
suistry,
This role becomes
herein lies the role of the listener/confessor.
especiallycrucial when Bronte ceases "makingthe confessiona
370
test, but rathera sign" (67). For when Heatheliffand Catherine

seek to "turn"or "let out" theirselves "to another,"thisrhetorical
situationbecomes a figureor signforongoinginterpretation.
Inasmuch as the presence of Bronte's listenersdraws forthwhat a
speakerhas "hiddenfromhimself,"theyreenactthisconfessional
figure.In WutheringHeights, then, the narrativeaddress itself
constitutesa signofinterpretive
engagement,despitethe factthat
manyofthe novel's secretsremainopaque. Confessionalnarration
thus takes on a hermeneuticfunction:a confessionalimpulse can
be realized as truthonly in the presence of a listenerwho both
assimilates and attemptsto interpretit. The personal secrets
withinWutheringHeightscan be revealedonlywithina symbiosis
between confessee and confessor,an interchangebetween selfrevelationand externaldecipherment.
Once again, though,such deciphermentis particularlyscarce
amonglistenersin WutheringHeights;yet thisinabilityto apprehend the Heightsworlddoes not inhibitthe dual roles ofthe confessionform.However inadequate the casuistryof Lockwood and
Nelly, it neverthelesskeeps the continuingattemptto interpret
confessionbefore Bronte'sreader. Indeed, when any confessing
speakerencountersa failedresponse,thisproblematicinterpretation may in factbe evidence thata speaker'srevelationis taking
place; as Foucault notes,confessionis a "ritualin whichthe truth
is corroboratedby the obstaclesand resistancesit has had to surmountin orderto be formulated"(62).
IV
Narrativeaddressesin WutheringHeightsthusmakeuse ofconfessionaltropes, and therebyenact a rhetoricalsearch forunorthodoxnotionsof reliefand pardon. In otherpassages, however,
the addresses in the novel representa more overtformof interpretation-an enactmentof thatnarrativeformwhichis intrinsiIn rhetoricalterms,the recurrenceof thisatcally self-analytical.
tempted colloquy in WutheringHeights signifiesa proleptic
the self,a methodbest explainedin terms
methodofinterpreting
of the psychoanalytic
dialogue. This heuristicagain demands the
presence of a listener,even an agonisticone, forhe or she is the
rhetoricalequivalentof the analyticor interpretivefigure.Even
Lockwood can hold this rhetoricalplace in the novel, especially
since his earlyrequestto playthelistenerto Nelly'snarrativeactuit is Lockallyinitiatesthe analyticformofthe novel. Accordingly,
Michael S. Macovski
371
wood who voices the novel's analyticintention,its interpretive

quest to fathomHeathcliff's
"curiousconduct"and "character"(19,
37), "decypher"Catherine's"faded hieroglyphics"(26), and uncover,in Lockwood'swords,"somethingofmyneighbours"(37).
What distinguishesthis analyticrhetoricis thatit allows characterslike Heathcliff
and Catherineto effectthe kindofprojective
self-understanding
sought during the psychoanalyticexchange.
When these charactersaddressan interpretive
figure,theynecessarilyattemptto imaginehis listeningexperience,his process of
theirdirectedaddress. As one psychoanalyst
interpreting
has put
it, "We have overtexperienceof this[projection]when we say 'I
suppose you thinkthatthisis. . . . "12 In WutheringHeights,we
encounter such projection most explicitly when Heathcliff
(speakingof Cathy's "startlinglikeness" to her mother)says to
Nelly,"That. . . whichyou maysuppose the mostpotentto arrest
my imagination,is actuallythe least, forwhat is not connected
withher to me?" (255, emphasisadded). Heathcliffagain makes
use of thisother-directed
tropein attemptingto comprehendthe
"maddening"and "strangechange"in him:againaddressingNelly,
he says, "You'llperhaps thinkme ratherinclinedto become ['insane']" (255). Earlier,he wondersaloud to Nelly if his failureto
avenge himself"sounds [to you] as if I had been labouringthe
whole time, only to exhibita finetraitof magnanimity"
(255; cf.
118). Generallyspeaking,charactersengaged in this projective
typeofself-analysis
assume the stanceofthe other,a positionthat
actuallyenables them to inhabit an other's criticalfacultyand
applyit to themselves.In becomingthe other,theyenterthe interpretiveprocess;theyconjuretheirown analysisas well as their
own listeners.
Hence both Catherine'sand Heathcliffssecretsare consciously
"half-addressed"
to Nelly,despite her avowed preference,as we
have seen, to have maintainedsilence. Their heuristicaddresses
proceed not in spite of but because of a paucityof genuinelyinsightful
listeners,forNelly'sunresponsivesilence enables themto
envisionher as a rhetoricalsurrogate,an analyticproxy.When
Heathcliff,for instance, strives to verbalize the "eternallysecluded" self,to "turnit out to another,"Nelly'sblanksilence momentarily
helps him to appropriateher angle ofvisionand substitute a personalperspective:it allows him to "tryto describe the
thousandformsof . . . ideas [Hareton] awakens, or embodies"
(255). Finally,Catherinetoo depends on Nelly'sauditionwithout
372
heedingher response:"tell me," she demands,"whatI've done to

grieve[Heatheliff]"
(72, 75). Here again,Catherineseeks to know
the criticalfacultyofher listenersin orderto distinguish
her own.
She must"become the other"to interpretherself.
Thus the implieddialoguesin Wutheritng
Heightsare analyticin
thattheyenable Catherineand Heathcliff
to recreatethe externalityof the other.Yet thisanalyticrhetoricserves anotherpurpose
in the novel, one whose functionis not so much interpretiveas
suitedto hisontological.For thisanalyticformis also particularly
toricalreconstruction,
to the recoveryofwhatLockwoodrefersto
as Heathcliff
and Catherine's"history"(36, 37). Indeed, such analyticexchangescan representa successionofpast dialoguesfroma
given speaker'shistory.Accordingly,
when a characterin WutheringHeightsmanagesto initiatesuch addresses,thereare necessarilyechoes of parallel conversationsburied in his or her past.
The attempteddialoguethusdisintersa character'srhetoricalhistory,much as the analyticdialogue invokesa series of transferences to figuresfroman analysand'spast. Hence Bronte'sdialogic
novel essentiallyexhumes the hidden past of its most impenetrablecharacters.When Heathcliff,
forinstance,attemptsto "turn
out" his mind,he seeks to recoverhis past dialoguesnotonlywith
Catherine, but with those unknownlistenerswho presumably
constitutehis own hidden past: he exposes his thoughts"4to another"in orderto revivethe "'pastassociations"ofhis mysterious
history(255). And when Catherinerepeatedlyendeavorsto "let
out" her "secret" beforeNelly (70), she is attemptingto evoke a
series of interlocutors
fromher own history,includingthe absent
the mis-hearing
Heathmother,indulgentfather,and, ultimately,
In
her
"fit"
or
dream
to
she
cliff. describing first
Nelly,
says:
Nelly,I'll tellyouwhatI thought.... I was enclosedin the
bed athome;andmyheartachedwithsomegreat
oak-panelled
griefwhich,just waking,I could not recollect.. . . most
thewholelastsevenyearsofmylifegrewa blank!
strangely,
wasjustburied,and mymisery
. . . I was a child;myfather
thatHindleyhad orderedbetween
arosefromtheseparation
me and Heathcliff.
(107;cf.108)
Here again, narrativeapostropheserves to disinterthe buried
figuresin a character'spast. Such rhetoricenables Catherineto
recoverwhatis "enclosed to reconsider"separation,"in a word,
to "recollect."'
Michael S. Macovski
373
Accordingto thisview, the recreationofdialoguegivesvoice to

a silent historyand therebyallows for its reinterpretation.If
Heathcliff's
truncateddialogueswithNellyrepresenthis desire to
hear his earliesthistoricvoice, Catherine'sflawed addresses attemptto invokeher fatherand Heathcliff,
the auditorsofher first
linguisticera. Even Nelly,by sustainingher ownnarrativeaddress
beforeLockwood,attemptsto imposesome contrivedorderon her
and Catherine.In each case,
past dialogueswithboth Heathcliff
these characters initiate an interpretivereenactmentof past
voices-a regressthatultimately
extendsback to thatoriginaldialogue with the self,thatconfrontation
with the otherwhich we
experienceduringthe "mirrorstage."''3
This stageis, ofcourse,JacquesLacan's termforthechild'sclarificationof selfhoodby focusingon an otherwithwhom he can
identify.
The child therebydefineshis ego by projectinghis own
separatenessontoan other.Lacan sees thisprocessofself-identifi"a veritablecaptureby theother.
'as in a
cationas a mirroring,
mirror,'in the sense thatthe subject identifieshis sentimentof
Selfin the image ofthe other."14 It is thismirrorstageconfrontation thatlies at the heartof manysustainedaddresses in WutheringHeights,foronlyin being recognizedby the autochthonous
othercan characterslike Heathcliffand Catherineextracttheir
own identities.Indeed, "the firstobject of desire is to be recognized by the other"(31), and it is preciselythisdesireforrecognitionofselfin otherthatin turnpromptsCatherineto envisionher
"He's more myselfthanI am," she says to
identityin Heathcliff:
Nelly; "Whateverour souls are made of, his and mine are the
same" (72). Later,she adds, "so, don'ttalkofour separationagain
-it is impracticable"(74). In WutheringHeights,moreover,this
also takesplace in rhetoricalterms,whichagain
primalrecognition
accountsforthe self-defining
other'srepeatedlytakingthe formof
an addressee.Accordingly,
establishingselfin thenovel mustnecessarilybe a linguisticact, since only throughlanguage can the
otherbothmanifestitselfand provide"recognition."15
v
Thus theanalyticaddresseeservesnotonlyto representthepast
interlocutorsof Heathcliffand Catherine,but to provide them
withrecognition-the selfimagedin the other.In whatis perhaps
themostexplicitaccountofthisprojectedselfhood,Catherinesays
to Nelly,"surelyyou and everybodyhave a notionthatthereis, or
374
shouldbe, an existenceofyoursbeyondyou. Whatwere theuse of

my creationif I were entirelycontainedhere?" (73-74). On one
level, of course, Catherine's "existence . . . beyond" refersto
she is explaininga unionthateventuallydefies"separaHeathcliff.
tion."Yeton anotherlevel, thispassage also alludesto a morevital
capacityto move outsideofone's containedexistence,to establish
too seeks
creationand being throughan other.Later, Heathcliff
when,upon learningofCatherine's
thisexternalizedidentification
death, he cries to her, "take any form. . . onlydo not leave me
. . . Oh, God! it is unutterable!I cannotlive withoutmy life!I
recognizesthatlife
cannotlive withoutmysoul!" (139). Heathcliff
inheresin the formofthe other,the surrogatesoul.
thisontological
formulated
The criticwho has mostthoroughly
connectionbetween speaker and other is Mikhail Bakhtin.To
self, that
speak of that "existence. . . beyond" the "contained">
calls
Bakhtin
at
once
what
is
to
of
speak
who
informs
being,
object
He writes <I am consciousthroughanother,
"self-consciousness."
actsconstituting
and withthehelp ofanother.The mostimportant
self-consciousnessare determinedby a relationshiptowardanotherconsciousness(towarda thou)."16 For Bakhtin,this "thou"
whichis to say thatonlythisdiahypostatizesself-consciousness,
logic relationshipcan make the selfaware ofits own distinctness,
can actuallyunveil the self to itself.He goes on: "in dialogue a
but he becomesfor the
personnot onlyshowshimselfoutwardly,
firsttimethatwhichhe is-and, we repeat,notonlyforothersbut
dialogically"(252,
forhimselfas well. To be meansto communicate
. . . beyond"
emphasisadded). Thus dialoguewiththe "Cexistence
enactsthe ego. As Bakhtinsaysearlier:
boundup
The hero'sattitudetowardhimselfis inseparably
ofanandwiththeattitude
towardanother,
withhis attitude
ofselfis constantly
perothertowardhim.His consciousness
of
oftheother'sconsciousness
ceivedagainstthebackground
of"I foranother."
him-"I formyself'againstthebackground
underthe
are structured
Thusthehero'swordsabouthimself
influence
ofsomeoneelse'swordsabouthim.
continuous
(207)
Consciousnessthus dissolvesunless projectedagainstthe "background"of the other.The limitsof the "I" emerge only amidst
much as the Freudian ego takes form
contrastswiththe "1thou,"
onlyin oppositionto the superego.We can say,then,thatwhen
Michael S. Macovski
375
Catherinesuggeststhather "existence. . . beyond"the selfcompletesher own being, she recognizesthat"consciousnessofselfis

constantlyperceived againstthe backgroundof the other'sconis, in her
sciousnessof [her]." When she concludesthatHeathcliff
.
.
but
as
myown
words,"alwaysin mymind-not as a pleasure .
being"(74), she acknowledgesthatonlyin engagingthe otherdoes
she "become forthe firsttime thatwhich [she] is." In both passages, establishingthe ego is a contrastiveact, a matterof perceivingthe otheras "background"foridentity.Catherineaccordinglyabhorswhatshe calls "separation"since,again,"1tobe means
to communicatedialogically":onlythisdialogicpresence sustains
she insists,"mygreatthoughtin
herselfhood.InvokingHeathcliff,
livingis himself'(74).
Thus "living,"forBronte,requireskeepingthe other"in mind":
"existence" partakes of the other (74). In WutheringHeights,
moreover,this othercan also manifestitselfcollectively,as what
she refersto as "society."For instance,althoughLockwood pretends to abjure this society(13), proclaiminghimselfa "perfect
he ultimatelycasts his narrativein the formof
misanthropist,"
whathe calls "sociable conversation"with Nelly (22). Then, after
onlytwodays at the Grange,he also acknowledgesa need for"social intercourse,"and remarksupon Heathcliffscuriousantipathy
toward"conversation"(35; cf. 17). Heathcliffhimself,of course,
societyof Catherine;yet we should also
cravesthe preternatural
recognizethat,like Lockwood,nearlyeverycharacterin the novel
voices a commensurateneed forsuch social interchange.Cathy,
Nelly, and even Joseph each refer to disparate versions of a
"friend,""companion,""company,"or "union" (247-250, 265; cf.
38). In each case, the quest forsuch companionsrepresentsthe
self. Catherine,forinstance,in seekingunion
socially-connected
is actuallystrivingto orienther existence,to place
withHeathcliff,
itwithinthe socialworld.She attemptsto locateherconsciousness
withina humanorder,to eschew (in Lockwood'swords)the "perpetual isolation"of being "banished fromthe world" (17, 240).
Hence thisneed forsocial intercourserecalls Bakhtin'snotionof
polyphonicdiscourse,in whichone "investshis entireselfin discourse,and thisdiscourseentersintothe dialogicfabricofhuman
life"(16). Bronte'sconceptof selfis thusessentiallyplural,social
in the broadestsense. As Bakhtingoes on to say, the self"must
(239).
finditself. . . withinan intensefieldofinterorientations"
establish
being
if
that
characters
in
mind
further
bear
must
We
376
WutheringHeightsand the RhetoricofInterpretation
throughsocial intercourse,theyalso stressthisdelineationof self

as vocal or spoken. The ego mustbe overheardin the formof a
voice. Hence Cathy Linton acknowledgesHareton's identityby
firstassailinghis silence, an act which,ifhe listens,will rhetoricallyintroduceher intohis discourseand his life."Hareton,Hareton, Hareton!"she cries, "do you hear? . . . you mustlistento
me (247). For Heathcliff,
too, thisontologicallisteningmustprecede a potentialunion:as we have noted,his plea to Catherineis
"hear me this time" (33). Indeed, we have seen thatthroughout
otheris necessarilyan auWutheringHeights the self-affirming
ditor,and thatthe foregoingsocial "interorientations"
are necessarilyspoken, what Bakhtinrefersto as "dialogues." "Life," he
writes,"by its verynatureis dialogic.To live means to participate
in dialogue:to ask questions,to heed, to respond,to agree,and so
forth"(293, emphasisadded). In thefollowing
passage, he goes on
the ego withindialogue, of
to develop this notionof portraying
individuating
the selfas a "voice."
Tofindone'sownvoiceandto orientitamongothervoices,to
combineit withsomeand to opposeit to others,to separate
one's voicefromanothervoicewithwhichit has inseparably
merged-these are the tasksthatthe heroes solve in the
thehero'sdiscourse.
courseofthenovel.Andthisdetermines
It mustfinditself,
revealitselfamongotherwords.
(239)
Here again,the processofdefiningthe selfis bothcontrastiveand
verbal: one must oppose one's voice to another's.In Wuthering
Heights,then, the dream narrativesof Heatheliffand Catherine
must also "orient [themselves]among other voices"; each must
"finditself,reveal itselfamong the spoken responsesof inadequate listeners.Only such interchanges-includingthe listening
whichunderliesthem-can resonatethe social self.
VI
Bakhtin'sdiscussionsof the dialogicconsciousnessof self thus

serve to clarifyBronte's concepts of existenceand social intercourse. Yet we need not rely solely on moderncommentaryto
expand on this notion of consciousness-in-other.Indeed, the
writerwho best exemplifiesthe nineteenth-century
concernwith
is Cothe externally-defined
self,withplural self-consciousness,
leridge,whose aestheticsare cited by the manycriticswho insist
Michael S. Macovski
377
on the RomanticqualityofWutheringHeights.17 Althoughhis use

fromBront6's,he too represents
ofan externalotheroftendiffers
thisontologicalpartneras a dubious listener(especiallyin poems
like "The Rime of The AncientMariner"and "Christabel").Regardless of the novel's Romanticallegiances, however, we can
betterunderstandits portrayalof "existence"(73), "conscience"
(73), and "being" (74) ifwe brieflyexamineColeridge'sanalysisof
the same issues. For bothBronteand Coleridgediscuss"being"in
thecontextofwhatColeridge,like Bakhtin,calls "Consciousness."
In Coleridge'scase, defining"Self' is a matterofestablishingthis
"Consciousness"through"Conscience":
(and ever-conFromwhatreasonsdo I believein continuous
but
Notformyself,
FromConscience!
tinuable)Consciousness?
& dutiestowards
formyconscience-i.e. myaffections
others,
butall Boundary
I shouldhaveno Self-forSelfis Definition;
impliesNeighbourhood-&is knowableonlyby Neighbourhood,or Relations.
(2:3231)
For Coleridge,"Self' is definedas a conscience"towardsothers,"
a "Boundary"consistingofclose "Relations."Such "Relations"essentiallydistinguishthe individual"Consciousness"and make it
"knowable."
It is this sense of "Boundary"and "Definition"thatCatherine
onlyhe
& dutiestowards"Heathcliff:
derivesfromher "affections
representwhatshe refersto as "being." Catherine's
can effectively
one explanationofthisprojectedbeing is thuscrucial:
Ifall else perished,and
in livingis himself.
mygreatthought
tobe; and,ifall else remained,
I shouldcontinue
heremained,
theUniversewouldturnto a mighty
andhe wereannihilated,
I shouldnotseema partofit . . . he'salways,always
stranger.
in mymind-not as a pleasure,anymorethanI am alwaysa
pleasureto myself-butas myownbeing.
(74)
and the external
What Catherineis suggestingis thatHeathcliff,
"conscience"he standsfor,can actuallydelimitselfin thisnovel.
In embodyingher "Boundary"or "Relations,"Heathcliffenables
her to "continueto be"; in representingher linkwith "the Uniher "being." Hence Catherineherself
verse,"he in effectconfirms
mighthave said, as Coleridgedid, "Self in me derivesits sense of
Being fromhavingthis one absolute Object" (2:3148). Her "Ob378
ject" thus definesa mental"Neighbourhood,"whichin turndefinesher place in "the Universe." When she momentarily
loses
this "Boundary" (during Heathcliff'sabsence), she necessarily
loses her "being"and perishes(85). She fallsvictimto whatColeridge calls "the incorporeity
oftruelove in absence"-that "incorporeity"of "Self' whichfollowsfromthe loss of "Definition"(3:
4036).
Catherine'sapparentneed forthisprojectedexistenceor "Definition"is furtherexplicablein lightofwhat Coleridgeelsewhere
refersto as "outness,"thatstatein whichhe can expose or "withdraw" his "painfulPeculiarities. . . fromthe dark Adytof [his]
own Being" (3:4166). For both Coleridgeand Catherinecan circumscribethe "Peculiarities"of the selfonlyby establishingthis
definitive
"outness."And once again,thisoutnessemergeseven in
the formofthe fecklesslistenersin WutheringHeights:theyprovide not corroboration
by othersso much as an exposurebefore
conscience. In Coleridge's terms,the sole "Impulse" forestablishing"Outness"is to unveilor "withdraw"the hiddenself-and
"notthewishforothersto see it" (3:4166,3624). It is the symbolic
and rhetoricalpresenceofsuch listenersthatenables Catherineto
expose her self,to demarcate"existence,"to "continueto be."
Here, I would say,we are addressingwhatis perhapsthe most
perplexingcriticaldilemmasurroundingWutheringHeights:the
statusofCatherine'scrypticstatement,"I am Heathcliff"
(74). For
we can now accountforthis equation by reflectingon what we
have been callingCatherine'savowedneed foroutness,thatdesire
to definebeing in termsofan "existence. . . beyond"one's "conCatherine
tained" self.Thus, in the statement"I am Heathcliff,"
essentiallydelimitsher existence by locatingit in another,by
makingher outnessone withHeathcliffs.It is thisnotionofoutness thatalso accountsforHeathcliffslast visionsof Catherine's
specter,forhe is essentiallylivingout herstateddescriptionofher
"If all else perished,and he remained,I should conexternality:
moretinue to be" (14). And it is this depictionof self-defining,
over,whichalso underliesthe novel'slast ghostlyimagesofCatherine and Heathcliff;by the time of his death, theyhave at last
establishedthisexternally
hypostatizedself-through-other.
As the novel closes, it is this projectionof selfthatfinallyaccountsforthe attenuatedimageofthe second generationunionforin this couple, not only do part of Catherineand Heathcliff
"continueto be," but a symbolof theirrhetoricalprocessof outMichael S. Macovski
379
ness necessarilylives on. And when the youngerCathyultimately

asks Haretonto listen,she necessarilyprovidesa vehicle forher
& duties towardsothers,"her own "Definition"of
own "affection
"Conscience"and "Self,"her own outness.The legacyof the auditoris thusconfirmed.
FordhamUniversity
NOTES
1 For an indicationofthisextraordinary
rangeofreadings-a rangeso contradictory
thatit begins to suggesta problematicapproachto interpretation-see RichardLettis
and William E. Morris,eds., A WutheringHeights Handbook (New York:Odyssey
Press, 1961); Miriam Allott,ed., The Bront&s:The Critical Heritage (London and
Boston: Routledge and Kegan, Paul, 1974); Miriam Allott,"The Brontes," in The
EnglishNovel: Select BibliographicalGuides, ed. A. E. Dyson (London: OxfordUniv.
Press, 1974), 218-45; AlastairG. Everitt,WutheringHeights:An Anthologyof Criticism(London: FrankCass, 1967); as well as the criticismselected in William M. Sale,
Jr.,ed., WutheringHeights: An AuthoritativeText, with Essays in Criticism(New
York:Norton,1963). My citationsofthe novel referto thisedition;see page 17 forthe
referenceto the "barred"doors ofthe HeightsWorld. (I have also adopted the critical
practiceof using "Catherine" to designateCatherineEarnshaw,and "Cathy" to refer
to her daughterby Edgar Linton.)
I have summarizedresearchon this
Regardingthe novel's Romanticcharacteristics,
aspect ofWutheringHeightsin note 17.
Finally,Leavis's observationalso accounts forthe unusuallydisparateattemptsto
approach this novelistic "sport" and trace its "undetectable" influence; he briefly
mentionsthe novel in The Great Tradition(1948; reprint,New York:New YorkUniv.
Press, 1973), 27.
2 See J. Hillis Miller's Fiction and Repetition(Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press,
1983), 52-53, 49. The remainderofMiller'scommentscitedin thissectionare froman
earlierversion of his chapter on the novel: "WutheringHeights and the Ellipses of
Interpretation,"
Notre Dame EnglishJournal12 (1980): 85-100.
For a surveyof what I see as the prevailingapproach to the novel duringthe last
fifteenyears,see note 3.
3 The three phrases are, respectively,fromAllan R. Brick, "WutheringHeights:
Narrators,Audience, and Message," College English 21 (November 1959): 81, reprinted in Lettis and Morris, 219-20; Carol Jacobs, "WutheringHeights: At the
ThresholdofInterpretation,"
Boundary2 7 (1979): 68; and Peter K. Garrett,"Double
Fiction32 (1977):
Plotsand Dialogical Formin VictorianFiction,"Nineteenth-Century
8. AlthoughBrick'sessay predates the period I am discussing,it too partakesof the
hermeneuticalapproachthathas prevailedduringthe last fifteenyears.A briefglance
at the titlesofthese studies-see Donoghue, Jacobs,and Sonstroem(cited in notes 4
and 17)-again suggeststhisapproach. See also Elizabeth R. Napier,"The Problemof
Boundariesin WutheringHeights,"PhilologicalQuarterly63 (1984): 96, 97; and Peter
Widdowson,"Emily Bronte:The RomanticNovelist,"Moderna Sprak 66 (1972), who
notes that his essay "is not intended to circumscribethe range of interpretationof
WutheringHeights(whichis splendidlyimpossibleanyway)"(3).
4 Those studiesthatattributethe novel's problemsofinterpretation
to its narrators'
"unreliability"include Gideon Shunami, "The Unreliable Narratorin Wuthering
Fiction27 (1973): 449-68; and JacquelineViswanathan,
Heights,"Nineteenth-Century
"Point of View and Unreliabilityin Bronte's WutheringHeights, Conrad's Under
WesternEyes, and Mann's Doktor Faustus," Orbis Litterarum29 (1974): 42-60.
380
WutheringHeightsand theRhetoricofInterpretation
of outlook"are fromDavid SonThe phrases "reader's quandry"and "multiplicity

stroem,"WutheringHeightsand the Limits of Vision," PMLA 86 (1971): 59, 61; the
phrases "surplusof signifiers"and "intrinsicplurality"are fromFrank Kermode, "A
Modern Way withthe Classic," New LiteraryHistory5 (1974): 434, 425. See also J.
always
Hillis Miller,Fictionand Repetition,who writesthatthe "act ofinterpretation
detail. There
leaves somethingover.... This somethingleftout is clearlya significant
are alwaysin facta group of such significant
details which have been leftout of any
reductionto order.The textis over-rich"(52).
Both Miller (67) and Jacobs(note 3) argue thatthe languageof the novel leaves us
witha "missingcenter"(56).
5 "WutheringHeights and the Ellipses of Interpretation,"92. Miller goes on to
revisethissentencein Fictionand Repetition,wherehe writesthat"thereis no secret
truthwhich criticismmightformulate"as a "principleof explanationwhich would
accountforeverything
in the novel" (51). Despite thisrevision,however,he thengoes
on to say that"it is impossibleto tell whetherthereis any secretat all hidden in the
depths" of WutheringHeights(69). And althoughhe speaks of the reader's "process"
and "effortof understanding,"he repeatedlystressesthe "bafflingof that effort"since an "interpretive
origin. .. cannotbe identifiedforWutheringHeights"(53, 63).
Yet if Miller dwells on that"remnantofopacitywhichkeeps the interpreterdissatisfied" (51), I argue thatthe rhetoricalforceofthosehermeneuticformsenacted in the
novel counterbalancesthis opacity.Althoughsuch concernsare finallydistinctfrom
Miller's,he is clearlyaware ofthemwhen he writesthatopacitykeeps "the processof
interpretation
stillable to continue"(51-52) and that"the situationof the reader of
WutheringHeightsis inscribedwithinthe novelin the situationsofall thosecharacters
who are readers [and] tellersof tales" (70).
6 See, forinstance,Carl R. Woodring,"The Narrators
ofWutheringHeights,"Nineteenth-Century
Fiction 11 (1957): 298-305, reprintedin Sale's edition of the novel
(338-43). See especially315, 338, 340. Woodringcomes closestto the concernsofthis
fromthe inanityhis
studywhen he writes:"If he [Lockwood] seems inane, he suffers
authorattributesto the average London readerintowhose handsher book will fall.In
his introductionto the RinehartCollege Edition, Mark Schorer followsGarrod in
interpretingthe originalplan of the novel as the edificationof a sophisticatedand
sentimentalprig, Lockwood, in the naturalhuman values of grand passion. Rather,
Lockwood reactsforthe normalskepticalreader in appropriateways at each stage of
the storyand its unfoldingtheme"(340). Woodring,however,neverexplainshis use of
the term"normalskepticalreader,"nor does he mentionwhy Bront6would feel the
need to representsuch a reader's reactionsin thisparticularnovel. We mustalso ask
how readerssince 1847 have read the novel: do theysharereactionswhichhave been
widely recognizedto be inadequate to the novel? Such questions, I would say, can
onlybe addressed ifwe considerthe statusoflistenersin the novel. See also Clifford
Collins, "Theme and Conventionsin WutheringHeights," The Critic 1 (Autumn
1947): 43-50, reprintedin Sale's editionofthe novel (309-18). Collins maintainsthat
"Lockwood not only exhibitsthe reactionsthat may be expected fromthe ordinary
is carefullyshownto be neither
reader(therebyinvalidatingthem,forhis commentary
intelligentnor sensitive),but he is representativeof urbanlifeand by originunfitted
forthe tempooflifeabout the Heights"(315). YetI would saythat,forreasonswhichI
willmake clear,the reactionsofmorethanjust the "ordinaryreader"informthe frame
structureof the novel. And I would add that WutheringHeights is less about the
of "urban life"and the Heights than about interpretiverhetoricand
incompatibility
the epistemologicalchasmbetween listenersand narrators.
7 See WalterE. Anderson,"The LyricalFormofWuthering
Heights,"University
of
TorontoQuarterly47 (1977-78): 120.
Of course, most charactersin this novel do deny its visionarypremises (as represented by its spectralsymbols)and in doing so theydeny not onlythe novel, but the
audition.Lockwood,forinstance,notonlyrepulsesthe
verypossibilityofinterpretive
Michael S. Macovski
381
ghostlyCatherine's returnto Heatheliff(30), but also fails to understandhow this

visionofCatherineresonatesthroughoutthe narrationhe hears fromNelly. He seems
unawareofthe connectionbetween his waif-hauntednightmareand the later "confession" by Heathcliff:"the moment I closed my eyes, she was either outside the
window, or sliding back the panels" (230). On an earlier occasion, Lockwood calls
Heathclifflsbelief in Catherine's ghost "folly"(33)-a term that Nelly later uses to
describe Catherine's revelations(74). Indeed, when Catherine herselfbegins to describeher phantasmalunion withHeathcliff,Nelly can onlyrespond, "I won'thear it,
I won't hear it! . . . I was superstitiousabout dreams then, and am still" (72). Later,
Heathcliffisencounterswith "ghosts and visions" promptthe same fearfulresponse
fromNelly: "Mr. Heathclifflmaster!"she cries, "Don't, forGod's sake, stare as ifyou
saw an unearthlyvision" (261). And when Nelly encountersthe child who claims to
have glimpsedthe deceased lovers, she insiststhat"he probablyraised the phantoms
fromthinking"(265). By the end of the novel, Nelly regardseven her own dreams as
lapses into "superstition,"which, as she says, continued until "dawn restoredme to
commonsense" (260).
We should also note thatLockwood's general incapacityforresponse precludes reactionnot onlyto the visionarymysteriesof Heathcliffand Catherine,but even to the
"fascinatingcreature"who earlier shows interestin him (15). "I 'never told my love'
vocally,"he says; and when he finallydoes prompta "return"fromher, he reports,"I
. . .shrunk icily into myself,like a snail; at every glance retiredcolder and farther"
(15). Once again, Lockwood's silence obviates any rhetoricalreturn.
Finally, Edgar too becomes the victim of broken colloquy when he demands of
Catherine, "answer my question.
. .
. You must answer it.
. .
. I absolutely require to
know"-only to hear her order him fromthe room (101-102).

8 As I go on to argue, it is thisexposure which sustainsboth the ongoingprocess of
and the vitalityofthe rhetoricalform.This is notto say,though,thatthe
interpretation
novel discountsthe fallibilityof the interpretiveprocess, includingits potentialfor
flawed judgment and moral caprice. Even Nelly seems at times to recognize this
possible failure, for aftercondemning one of Catherine's explanations, she adds,
"thoughI'm hardlya judge" (73). And indeed, the entireissue ofjudgment as interpretationis a questionable one withinWutheringHeights: the Branderhamepisode,
forexample, erupts into a chain-reactionof misfiredauditions. First Lockwood renounces his listeningrole and attacksthe offendingnarrator;then the congregation
itselfappears to misjudgeits leader's accountofLockwood and fallsupon one another.
And responsein WutheringHeightsis patternedafterLockwood's auditionduringthis
sermon- a botched audition which Branderham, with appropriate inclusiveness,
refersto as "humanweakness" (29). In the end, the Reverend'scasuistryalso proves to
be flawed,forhis "judgment"is actuallyretributionwhen he cries, "execute upon him
thejudgmentwritten"(29).
Generallyspeaking,the listenersof WutheringHeightsindulge in seeminglyarbitrarymoral judgments; like Branderham, each has "his private manner of intercan transcendanpreting"(29). Because of this moral subjectivity,no interpretation
other:as Nelly puts it to Lockwood, "you'lljudge as well as I can, all these things;at
least, you'llthinkyou will, and that'sthe same" (152). Withoutinterpretivestandards,
then, auditionbecomes a punishmentwith narrationthe trial. Listeners accordingly
become the objects ofjudgmentin thisnovel; like Lockwood, theyare "condemned to
hear" what theycan never understand(29).
9 See Anderson(note 7) fora readingof Catherine'scelebrated statement.For discussions of the othercriticaldilemmas mentionedhere, see the anthologieslisted in
note 1 (esp. Lettis and Morris).
10Numerousstudies of the novel allude to its "Gothic" character;see, forinstance,
James Twitchell,"Heathcliffas Vampire," Southern Humanities Review 11 (1977):
355-62; Peter McIverney, "Satanic Conceits in Frankenstein and Wuthering
Heights," Milton and the Romantics4 (1980): 1-15; Ronald A. Bosco, "Heathcliff:
382
Social Victimor Demon?" Gypsy Scholar 2: 21-39; JudithWeissman, " 'Like a Mad
Dog': The Radical RomanticismofWutheringHeights,"MidwestQuarterly19 (1978):
383-97; Emilio De Grazia, "The Ethical Dimension ofWutheringHeights,"Midwest
Quarterly19 (1978): 176-95; as well as the referencesto the Gothic listed in Patrick
Diskin, "Some Sources ofWutheringHeights,"Notes and Queries 24 (1977): 354-61;
and Miriam Allott, "The Brontes," in The English Novel: Select Bibliographical
Guides, ed. A. E. Dyson (London: OxfordUniv. Press, 1974), 218-45. Several of
these studies also suggestthatthe Gothic novel may have redefinedthe framenarrative form.
" See Michel Foucault, Historyof Sexuality,trans.RobertHurley (New York:Pantheon, 1978), esp. 66. All quotationsare fromHurley's edition.
For a more detailed historyof this shiftin confessionalrhetoric,see Walter H.
Conser, Jr.,Church and Confession:ConservativeTheologiansin Germany,England,
and America, 1815-1866 (Macon: Mercer Univ. Press, 1984), esp. 8-9, 99-160;
Frank D. McConnell, The ConfessionalImagination:A Reading ofWordsworth'sPrelude (Baltimore:The JohnsHopkins Univ. Press, 1974); and HenryC. Lea, Historyof
AuricularConfessionand Indulgencesin theLatin Church,3 (Philadelphia:Sea Bros.,
1896).
For analyses of the psychologicalaspects of confession-in termsofthe two roles I
discuss -see TerrenceDoody, Confessionand Communityin the Novel (Baton Rouge
and London: Louisiana State Univ. Press, 1980); Theodor Reik, The Compulsion to
Confess: On the Psychoanalysisof Crime and Punishment(New York:Farrar,Straus
and Cudahy, 1959), 304, 279; Erik Berggren,The Psychologyof Confession,Studies in
the Historyof Religions29 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975); WalterJ. Koehler, Counseling
and Confession (St. Louis: Concordia, 1982); and Reverend Paul E. McKeever,
S. T.L., The Necessityof Confessionfor the Sacramentof Penance, Studies in Sacred
Theology77, (Washington,D.C.: The Catholic Univ. of America Press, 1953).
Emily Bronte's own religiousattitudestowardforgivenessand confessionare discussed in Clement King Shorter,The Brontis: Life and Letters (New York: Haskell
but also Catherine
House, 1969). (I would also note in passingthatnotonlyHeathcliff,
and Nelly referto theireffusionsas "confessions"in variouspassages ofthe novel [39].)
12 Stanley Leavy, The Psychoanalytic Dialogue (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press,
1980), 40. The most pertinentdiscussions of psychoanalyticrhetoric,as it informs
narrativestructurein general and literaturein particular,include Leavy, esp. 39-41,
55, 80, 86; Roy Schafer, "Narration in the PsychoanalyticDialogue," in W. J. T.
Mitchell, ed., On Narrative (Chicago and London: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1981),
25-50; and Robin TolmachLakoff,"When Talk is Not Cheap: The Language of Psychotherapy,"in Leonard Michaels and ChristopherRicks, The State of the Language
(Berkeleyand Los Angeles: Univ. of CaliforniaPress, 1980), 440-48.
withindiaFor linguisticstudies ofthe necessarilybilateralaspect ofinterpretation
logue, see William Labov and David Fanshel, TherapeuticDiscourse (New York:Academic Press, 1977); FrederickErickson,"Listeningand Speaking,"in Languages and
Linguistics: The Interdependenceof Theory, Data, and Application, ed. Deborah
Tannen(Washington,D.C.: GeorgetownUniv. Press, 1986), presentedat the Georgetown UniversityRound Table on Languages and Linguistics1985; and R. P. McDermott and Henry Tylbor,"On the Necessity of Collusion in Conversation," Text 3
(1983): 277-97.
13 See Jacques Lacan, "Le Stade du miroir,"reprintedin Ecrits (Paris, 1966). I am
applyingLacan's model selectivelyhere, withparticularemphasis on his discussionof
the infant'sontologicaldevelopment. See also Lacan, The Language of the Self,trans.
AnthonyWilden (Baltimore: JohnsHopkins Univ. Press, 1968), esp. 100, 163, 166,
172-174, 200. Unless otherwise noted, all referencesto Lacan are to Wilden's edition.
14 See Lacan, "Propos sur la causalite psychique" (1950), 45; quoted in Wilden, 100,
n. 27.
Michael S. Macovski
383
15Lacan, 9. In Lacan's terms,such linguisticrecognitionis a functionof what he

calls the "Word"-that abstractsign of the analysand'sindividual"response," his discreteness."What I seek in the Word,"he writes,"is the responseofthe other"(63). In
WutheringHeights,I would say thatthe interpretivelistenerrepresentsthislinguistic
<'responseofthe other":when characterslike Catherine,Nelly,and Heathcliff
seek out
listeners,theyseek thatlinguisticinterpretation
("response")whichidentifiesthe self
("recognition").Many studies, ofcourse, have cited examples of such linguisticinterpretationsin WutheringHeights,includingthe instancesofHareton'sreading,Nelly's
censorship,and Lockwood's deciphermentand naming process; see, for instance,
Jacobs(note 3), 99; Ian Gregor,"Reading a Story:Sequence, Pace, and Recollection,"
in Reading the VictorianNovel: Detail into Form, ed. Ian Gregor, (Totowa, N. J.:
Barnes and Noble, 1980); and J. Hillis Miller, Fiction and Repetition.What these
studies have not noted, though,is that such linguisticinteractionscan use the "response of the other"to establishthe self. In Lacan's words, "Language, beforesigniin WutheringHeights
fyingsomething,signifiesforsomeone" (76-77). Self-affirmation
is literallythe articulationofthe selfto the other.
16 Poetics of Dostoevsky'sProse, trans. Michael Holmquist (Minneapolis: Univ. of
Minnesota Press, 1982), 287. All furthercitationsof Bakhtinare to this edition. AlthoughforBakhtindialogues between self and "thou" oftentake place internally,he
neverthelessdepicts them in termsof the spoken word.
17 For studieswhich apply Coleridge's theoryand poetrydirectlyto the novel, see,
forinstance,Denis Donoghue, "Emily Bront6:On the Latitude ofInterpretation,"in
Morton W Bloomfield,ed., The Interpretationof Narrative: Theory and Practice
(Cambridge:HarvardUniv. Press, 1970), 105-33, esp. 114; and Widdowson(note 3),
1-9 (esp. page 4 on the "Rime"). My referencesto Coleridgeantheoryare fromKathleen Coburn, The Notebooks of Samuel Taylor Coleridge (New York: Pantheon,
1957-61), and will be cited by volume and page numberparenthetically
in the text.
The mostprovocativeapplicationsofgeneralRomanticideologyto the novel include
Alan S. Loxterman,"WutheringHeights4s RomanticPoem and VictorianNovel," in
Frieda Elaine Penninger,ed., A Festschrift
for ProfessorMargueriteRoberts(Richmond: Univ. of RichmondPress, 1976), 87-100; and Widdowson (note 3). For more
theoreticaltreatmentsof Romanticismin relationto the novel see J. Hillis Miller,The
Disappearance of God (New York:Schocken, 1965), 160; WalterL. Reed, Meditations
on the Hero: A Study of the Romantic Hero in Nineteenth-Century
Fiction (New
Haven and London: Yale Univ. Press, 1974); Weissman (note 10); Alain Blayac, "A
Note on Emily Bront6's Romanticismin WutheringHeights," Cahiers Victorienset
Edouardiens 3 (1976): 1-6; and Donoghue (above), 113, 115. Studies thatdiscuss the
novel directlyin the contextof Romanticpoetryinclude JohnHewish, Emily Bronte:
A Critical and Biographical Study (New York:MacMillan, 1969); and Miriam Allott,
Novelistson the Novel (London: Routledge Paperback, 1968), 169. Other research
brieflynotes this Romanticcontextforthe novel, but chooses not dwell on its particular implications:see Q. D. Leavis, "Introductionto CharlotteBronte'sJane Eyre"
(Harmondsworth:Penguin, 1966), 25; PatriciaMeyer Spacks, The Female Imagination
(New York:AlfredA. Knopf, 1975), 134; Muriel Spark and Derek Stanford,Emily
Bronte:Her Life and Work (New York:J.Day Co., 1959); and E. A. Baker, The Historyof theEnglish Novel, 8 (New York:Barnes and Noble, 1968), esp. 11-29, 64-77,
and preface.
Still other approaches cite the Romanticqualities of the novel, but then go on to
characterizeit as transitionalto (or indicativeof) the Victorianera; see, forinstance,
David Sonstroem(note 4); Loxterman(above), 93; and even ArnoldShapiro, "WutheringHeights as a VictorianNovel," Studies in the Novel 1 (1969): 284-95. I would
stressthatthose who see the novel as a response to Romanticismalso serve to locate
theworkwithinthe generalrhetoricaland philosophicalcurrentsI am discussing(see,
forinstance,Nancy Armstrong,"Emily Bronte In and Out of Her Time," Genre 15
(1982): 243-264, esp. 260, 262, 259.
384

Wuthering Heights and The Rhetoric of Interpretation - 1987

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wuthering Heights and The Rhetoric of Interpretation - 1987

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Author(s): Michael S. Macovski

WUTHERING HEIGHTS AND THE RHETORIC

tutea consensus,theywouldseem to agree that,in Miller'swords,

WutheringHeightsand the Rhetoricof Interpretation

beyondthe graveand thustranscendbothhis rhetoricaland social

Yet audition ultimatelyfails Heathcliff,as it does nearly all

WutheringHeightsand theRhetoricof Interpretation

thoughrevelationsare "half-addressed"to listeners,theyrepeatedly encounterinterpretivesilence. Whereas exposure may be

tenersin thissuccessionof audiences are the readers:we receive

Thoughthe actualpurposeofauditionis rarelydiscussed,many

Heights.Still otherapproachesstressthe Gothicelementsof the

need pardon"(29). Generallyspeaking,these "odd transgressions"

WutheringHeightsand the Rhetoricof Interpretation

test, but rathera sign" (67). For when Heatheliffand Catherine

wood who voices the novel's analyticintention,its interpretive

WutheringHeightsand theRhetoricof Interpretation

heedingher response:"tell me," she demands,"whatI've done to

Accordingto thisview, the recreationofdialoguegivesvoice to

WutheringHeightsand theRhetoricof Interpretation

shouldbe, an existenceofyoursbeyondyou. Whatwere theuse of

Catherinesuggeststhather "existence. . . beyond"the selfcompletesher own being, she recognizesthat"consciousnessofselfis

WutheringHeightsand the RhetoricofInterpretation

throughsocial intercourse,theyalso stressthisdelineationof self

Bakhtin'sdiscussionsof the dialogicconsciousnessof self thus

on the RomanticqualityofWutheringHeights.17 Althoughhis use

WutheringHeightsand theRhetoricof Interpretation

ness necessarilylives on. And when the youngerCathyultimately

of outlook"are fromDavid SonThe phrases "reader's quandry"and "multiplicity

ghostlyCatherine's returnto Heatheliff(30), but also fails to understandhow this

. You must answer it.

know"-only to hear her order him fromthe room (101-102).

WutheringHeightsand the Rhetoricof Interpretation

15Lacan, 9. In Lacan's terms,such linguisticrecognitionis a functionof what he

WutheringHeightsand the Rhetoricof Interpretation

You might also like