ABSTRACT
Today the term canon usually refers to authorized texts, particularly those in school curricula, or to texts widely perceived to be worthy of interpretation and imitation. Canon in the narrower sense means the standard repertoire, the most highly prized or most frequently read or performed works within a particular genre or institution. By contrast, canon in the broader, more political sense, with which I am concerned here, means those texts that are recognized and used by dominant institutions. Historically, Western canon theory can be divided roughly into two approaches. The foundati on ali st, who sees a foundation or bedrock in the text, believes that a canonical text embodies some universal, unchanging, or absolute value. A good example is the famous essay 'What is a classic?', written in 1850 by Charles Augustin Sainte-Beuve, which notes that '[a] true classic ... is an author who has enriched the human mind,' 'who has discovered some unequivocal moral truth, or has once more seized hold of some eternal passion' (Richter 1989: 1294). The second approach, generally followed today, is antifoundational, which holds that there is no foundation in the text, that works in the canon reflect the interests of a particular group or society at a particular time: here the term canon, which implies conflict and change, deliberately replaces and critiques the notions of the classic and of tradition, which both suggest something unchanging or given. In this view, traditions, like literary classics, are constructed, particularly by dominant communities or institutions. At the same time, in deference to the foundationalist position, it would be foolish to imply that the texts are empty boxes ready to be filled by their next owners. Each text implies certain moral or aesthetic values and bears certain formal characteristics, including gendered authorship, that have had a deep impact on the manner in which it is received and reconstructed.
