Date Published:

Abstract:

Until the mid-1960s, two groups of readings of Melville’s Benito Cereno represented the implied author’s sympathies in opposite ways. According to one group of readings, the rebelling slaves and their leader Babo symbolize demonic evil. According to the other, the slaves are admirable freedom fighters. In the last generation, new interests and new interpretive methods have made the controversy obsolete. This article uses the controversy as an opportunity to attempt to explain what makes contradictory readings of an implied author’s attitude possible and what prevents them reaching a compromise.

This article, which is part of Daniel Avitzour's PhD research project, was accepted for publication just a couple of months before the author’s untimely death. Despite limitations imposed by a serious illness, Avitzour pursued his research, which offers an in-depth examination of conflicting interpretations of literary works. Avitzour's project is an important contribution to our understanding of the dynamics of critical controversies: the ways in which they emerge, evolve, and sometimes are either resolved or become irrelevant. I had the privilege of serving as the director of his PhD dissertation and, in that capacity, meeting a rare individual who combined a keen analytical mind – Avitzour held a PhD in mathematics and enjoyed a successful career as an engineer – with the sensitivity of a perceptive literary critic, attentive to the complexities of literary texts. I already miss our challenging and rewarding intellectual dialogue.

David Fishelov, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Publisher's Version