In chapter 3, we suddenly find Girard changing his story: the first two chapters have been a necessary diversion or a helpful distraction. He states this quite bluntly on page 28
As a result we no longer see it [the persecution event behind the persecution text] as controversial but as the pure and simple truth of these texts. And we have good reason. It remains to find out why such a solution does not occur to us in the case of a myth like that of Oedipus. That is the real problem. The lengthy analysis I havae just given of the type of interpretation that automatically results int he identification of stereotypes of persecution was necessary in order to understand that problem.
This point of transition is vital, I think (right now), to understanding Girard’s entire project: what does this move betray about what Girard is doing? Read the rest of this entry »
