< previous page page_254 next page >

Page 254
envisage more (and maybe less organized) suppositions, but the four I have listed are enough to explain the solution of chapter 6.
Ghost chapter 3. The fabula says clearly that the two individuals are not Raoul and Marguerite. But it adds that the two are surprised or astonished because they do not recognize each other. The reader tries to elaborate a tentative ghost chapter 3 in which he must take into account the following argument: if the Templar knows that the Pirogue is not Marguerite and if the Templar is astonished, this means that formerly the Templar believed that the Pirogue was Marguerite (and the same holds for the other character).
But the reader also realizes that the propositions 'the Pirogue is Marguerite' and 'the Templar is Raoul' were not propositions of the WN, but propositions outlined by the characters in a subworld of the world WR of reader's expectations. The reader should also realize that the world of his expectations is not accessible to the world of the final state of the fabula. (Obviously, the naive reader of Drame has not at this point read 8.8.3, but the present paper has tried to present in a more rigorous form what every reader unconsciously knows very well.)
At this point the reader is obliged to recognize that in his ghost chapter 2 Raoul and Marguerite were furnished with the S-necessary property of meeting at the ball, which property is exactly denied by chapter 6. Therefore Raoul and Marguerite are absolutely nonidentifiable with the Templar and the Pirogue, since they have different S-necessary properties and since the two world structures cannot be mutually transformed.
The logic of the fabula follows the Leibnizian principle: "If, in the life of any person and even in the whole universe, anything went differently from what it has, nothing could prevent us from saying that it was another person or another possible universe which God had chosen. It would be indeed another individual." 19 Replace "God" with the final state of the text, and this principle will hold perfectly.
But what the reader cannot definitely understand is why, since his suppositions were wrong, the characters of chapter 6 react as if they were true.
The reader is eager to accept the revelation that he had not the right to take incorrect inferential walks. But the fabula seems to accept the inferential walk just after having severely disproved it. In short, were the Templar and the Pirogue Raoul and Marguerite, they would have recognized each other. Were they not, they would not have reason to be astonished.
In fact, at this point the fabula assumes upon itself the astonishment of the reader (the only one to have a right to amazement). Thus the fabula demonstrates that the only one to be structurally and prag-

 
< previous page page_254 next page >