@article{oai:nagoya.repo.nii.ac.jp:00027872,
 author = {久野, 陽一 and Kuno, Yoichi},
 journal = {IVY},
 month = {Oct},
 note = {There open several holes or gaps in the middle of Samuel Richardson’s Clarissa. All these holes are placed where must be some representations concerning the most crucial event of the novel, thas is, the rape of Clarissa. They are discovered both in Clarissa’s and Lovelace’s letters. First appears Lovelace’s brief announcement of the event; but this letter of his only informs the reader about the end of execution of his plot and the boundery of its representation within the epistolary discourse. There is a gap of information between this letter and his preceding report on the advance of his plot. On the other hand, Richardson as an editor authorizes Clarissa’s account on the event to fill up this gap. Her letter succeeds in clarifying some aspects of Lovelace’s plot, but the essential fact still remains unclear. Thus the very act of rape of Clarissa evades their discursive representation, and, as a result, the realistic construction of the novel is finally damaged at the most decisive point because of these gaps of information.  But the absence of representation compels Clarissa to choose another rhetorical position as a letter writer. Up to that time, her basic rhetoricality, that is a sort of non-rhetoricality as a matter of fact, has been shaped from the model of critical discourse in the age of the Enlightenment: the faith in communication through the neutral transparent discourse and achievement of the realistic objectivity. According to this rhetorical model, she tries to reconstruct the affair of violence within her epistolary discourse. The final absence of representation of its occurrence, therefore, means the defeat of her discursive activity and the loss of her objective rhetoricality. While her former medel fails to surmount this difficulty of representation, her new rhetorical position can be formed contrarily by realizing the absence in her discourse. Her account on the rape and ten mad papers written just after the violence, though they cannot fill up the gaps, present the images of Clarissa in a confused state of mind. These images are not objective reports about the event at all, but they disclose the figure of her subjectivity which cannot be seen in the neutral discourse. Her new rhetorical position deeply depends on this subjectivity, which leaks through the holes of epistolary discourse, and which makes her possible to speak of her unspeakable experience, of her traumatic danger of life, the rape. In other words, the rape is the primal scene where she repeatedly returns, and the holes or gaps in the discourse initiate her into the new and completely different rhetoricality for the representation of her traumatic subjectivity., 本稿は日本文学会中部地方支部第43回大会（1991年10月5日三重大学人文学部）において行われた口頭発表に、大幅に加筆・修正を加えたものである。},
 pages = {1--21},
 title = {クラリッサの凌辱と不在の手紙},
 volume = {25},
 year = {1992}
}