THE END OF THE POEM

Studies in Poetics
Giorgio Agamben

The End of the Poem: Studies in Poetics was originally published in Italian in 1996 under the title Categorie italiane: Studi di poetica 1996 by Marsilio Editori for the Italian edition Stanford Uni ersity !ress Stanford" #alifornia

Acknowledgments
$#omedy$ first appeared in Paragone 347 % 19&'() $#orn* +rom Anatomy to !oeti,s$ was published in Le Moyen ge dans la modernit ! M langes offerts " #oger $ragonetti! ed% &ean #% Scheidegger! Sa'ine (irardet! and Eric )ic*s + (ene,a: Champion! -../0% 1The $ream of Language!1 originally 2ritten for the 3onda4ione Cini conference 1Languages of $reaming!1 appeared in Lettere italiane 4 + -.560% 1Pascoli and the Thought of the 7oice1 2as pu'lished as a preface to (io,anni Pascoli! 8l fanciullino + Milan: 3eltrinelli! -.560% 1The $ictation of Poetry1 appeared as a preface to 9ntonio $elfini:s Poesie della fine del mondo +Macerata: ;uodli'et! -..<0% 1E=propriated Manner1 2as pu'lished as a preface to (iorgio Caproni ! #es amissa + Milan: (ar4anti! -..-0% 1The Cele'ration of the )idden Treasure1 2as presented at a conference on Elsa Morante in Perugia in &anuary -..3% 1The End of the Poem1 2as presented >o,em'er -?! -..<! at the @ni,ersity of (ene,a during a conference honoring #oger $ragonetti% 19n Enigma Concerning the AasBue Coman1 appeared in Mar*a 67 + -..?0% 1The )unt for Language1 2as pu'lished in 8l Manifesto! &anuary 63! -..?% 1The &ust $o >ot 3eed on Light1 appeared in 8dra < + -..60 as an introduction to Eugenio $e Signori'us poems% 1Ta*ing Lea,e of Tragedy1 2as pu'lished in 3ine secolo! $ecem'er 7! -.5<% (%9%

Contents Preface 1 omed! " orn# From Anatom! to Poetics $ T%e Dream of &anguage ' Pascoli and t%e T%oug%t of t%e (oice ) T%e Dictation of Poetr! * E+,ro,riated Manner - T%e ele.ration of t%e Hidden Treasure / T%e End of t%e Poem Appendix A An Enigma oncerning t%e 0as1ue 2oman 0 T%e Hunt for &anguage T%e 3ust Do Not Feed on &ig%t D Taking &ea4e of Traged! Notes

-i 1 ./ 0/ 6. &6 '& 11. 119 119 1.0 1.6 1/1 1/2

Preface
3etween 19&0 and 19&6 I met regularly in !aris with Italo #al ino and #laudio 4ugafiori to define the program of a re iew) 5he pro6e,t was ambitious" and our ,on ersations" whi,h often were not entirely fo,used" followed the dominant motifs and muffled e,hoes of ea,h of our interests) 7e were" howe er" in agreement about one thing* one se,tion of the re iew was to be dedi,ated to the definition of what we ,alled $Italian ,ategories)$ It was a matter of identifying nothing less than the ,ategorial stru,tures of Italian ,ulture through a series of ,on6oined polar ,on,epts) #laudio immediately suggested architectureD,agueness %that is" the domination of the mathemati,al8ar,hite,toni, order alongside the per,eption of beauty as something ague() Italo had already been ordering images and themes along the ,oordinates of speedDlightness) 7or9ing on the essay on the title of the $i,ine Comedy that opens this ,olle,tion" I proposed that we e-plore se eral oppositions* tragedyDcomedy! la2D creature! 'iographyDfa'le) +or reasons that need not be ,larified here" the pro6e,t was ne er reali:ed) ;n,e we had returned to Italy" we all88if in different ways88,onfronted the politi,al ,hange that was already under way and that was to impress the 19'1s with its dar9 seal) It was ob iously a time not for programmati, definitions" but for resistan,e and flight) E,hoes of our ,ommon pro6e,t ,an be found in Italo 9merican Lectures" as well as in a large noteboo9 that has remained among his papers) +or my part" I attempted to establish the physiognomy of the pro6e,t" before it was definiti ely ,an,eled" in the $program for a re iew$ published in limine in 8nfancy and )istory) %5hose who are interested may loo9 in those pages for the pro isional list of ,ategories in their original" problemati, ,onte-t)( In their own way" the eight studies ,olle,ted here %the first of whi,h dates from the time of the pro6e,t" the last of whi,h was finished in 1992( remain faithful to this program) In the ,ourse of time" other ,ategories ,ame to be added to those rudimentary first ones % mother tongue D grammatical languageE li,ing language D dead languageE style D manner () At the same time" the pro6e,t of a definition of these ,ategories gradually ga e way to a study of the general problems in poeti,s that they implied) Ea,h of the essays in this boo9 thus see9s to define a general problem of poeti,s with respe,t to an e-emplary ,ase in the history of literature) 5he in<uiry into the reasons for the title of =ante Comedy ma9es it possible to ,ast new light on the ,omedy>tragedy opposition at the beginning of 4oman,e poetry? a reading of )ypnerotomachia Polifili and !as,oli ,onsiders the problem of the relation between li ing language and dead language as a fundamental internal tension in the poeti,s of modernity? the introdu,tion to the poeti, wor9 of a ,ontemporary Italian writer" Antonio =elfini" fun,tions as an o,,asion to reformulate the old problem of the relation between life and poetry and to define the prin,iple of narrati e in 4oman,e literatures as an in ention of li ed e-perien,e on the basis of poetry? and" finally" an analysis of one of the greatest poets of the twentieth ,entury" Giorgio #aproni" defines the a,t of writing with respe,t to the diale,ti,al tension of style and manner) In 1Corn: 3rom 9natomy to Poetics1 and 1The End of the Poem!1 the sub6e,t of study shifts to the problem of the spe,ifi, stru,ture of the poem itself) 5hese two essays are thus to be understood as a first ,ontribution to a philosophy and ,riti,ism of meter that do not yet e-ist) 5he first of these essays" whi,h e-amines Arnaut =aniel@s obs,ene sir,entes" de elops 4oman Aa9obson@s problem of the relation between sound and sense? the se,ond" whi,h lends its title to the boo9 as a whole" ,onsiders the end of the poem as a point of ,risis that is in e ery sense fundamental to the stru,ture of poetry) 5he initial program of a systemati, grid of the ,ategories bearing on Italian ,ulture ne ertheless remains unfinished" and this boo9 merely offers a torso of the idea of whi,h we on,e tried to ,at,h sight) It is therefore dedi,ated to the memory not only of ,ompanionship" but also of the one among us who is no longer present to bear witness to it)

THE END OF THE POEM

omed!

15 THE P6O0&EM
1) 5he aim of this essay is the ,riti,al assessment of an e ent that ,an be ,hronologi,ally dated at the beginning of the fourteenth ,entury but that" by irtue of its still e-erting a profound influen,e on Italian ,ulture" ,an be said to ha e ne er ,eased to ta9e pla,e) 5his e ent is the de,ision of a poet to abandon his own $tragi,$ poeti, pro6e,t for a $,omi,$ poem) 5his de,ision translates into an e-tremely famous incipit" whi,h one of the author@s letters states as follows* $Bere begins the #omedy of =ante Alighieri" a +lorentine by birth" not by disposition$ % 8ncipit comoedia $antis 9lagherii florentini natione non mori'us () 5he turn registered by these words is so little a <uestion internal to =ante s,holarship that it ,an e en be said that here" for the first time" we find one of the traits that most tena,iously ,hara,teri:es Italian ,ulture* its essential pertinen,e to the ,omi, sphere and ,onse<uent refutation of tragedy) 5he fa,t that e en a few years after the author@s death the reasons for the ,omi, title appeared problemati, and in,oherent to the oldest ,ommentators 1 bears witness to the e-tent to whi,h this turn hides a histori,al 9not whose repression ,annot easily be brought to ,ons,iousness) All the more surprising is the po erty of modern ,riti,al literature on the sub6e,t) 5hat a s,holar su,h as !io 4a6na %who so influen,ed later studies( ,ould rea,h su,h ob iously insuffi,ient ,on,lusions as those with whi,h his study of the poem@s title ends . is something that ,annot be e-plained e en by Italian ,ulture@s la,9 of ,onta,t with its own origins) E en Eri,h Auerba,h" the author of su,h penetrating wor9s on =ante@s style" does not su,,eed in e-plaining the poem@s incipit in satisfying terms) $=ante"$ he writes" referring to the an,ient theory of the separation of styles" $ne er freed himself ,ompletely from these iews? otherwise he would not ha e ,alled his great wor9 a ,omedy in ,learest opposition to the term alta tragedia whi,h he applied to Cirgil 9eneid)$ / And" ,on,erning =ante@s letter to #angrande" Auerba,h writes* It is not easy to see how =ante" after ha ing found this formula and after ha ing ,ompleted the #omedy" ,ould still ha e e-pressed himself upon its ,hara,ter with the pedantry e-hibited in the passage from the letter to #angrande 6ust referred to) Bowe er" so great was the prestige of the ,lassi,al tradition" obs,ured as it still was by pedanti, s,hemati:ation" so strong was the predile,tion for fi-ed theoreti,al ,lassifi,ations of a 9ind whi,h we ,an but ,onsider absurd" that su,h a possibility ,annot be gainsaid after all) 0 As far as e-planations for =ante@s ,hoi,e of title are ,on,erned" in a ,ertain sense modern ,riti,ism has not progressed beyond 3en enuto da Imola@s obser ations or the suggestions with whi,h 3o,,a,,io ends his ,ommentary on the title of the poem) $7hat"$ 3o,,a,,io as9s" will we then say of the ob6e,tions that ha e been made against itD ;n the grounds that the author was a most prudent man" I belie e that he would ha e had in mind not the parts ,ontained in ,omedy but its entirety" and that he named his boo9 on the basis of this entirety" so to spea9) And from what one ,an infer from !lautus and 5eren,e" who were ,omi, poets" the entirety of ,omedy is this* ,omedy has a turbulent prin,iple" is full of noise and dis,ord" and ends finally in pea,e and tran<uillity) 5he present boo9 altogether ,onforms to this model) 5hus the author begins with woes and infernal troubles and ends it in the pea,e and glory en6oyed by the blessed in their eternal life) And this ,ertainly suffi,es to e-plain how the said title suits this boo9) 2 5he methodologi,al prin,iple that we follow in this study is that our ignoran,e of an author@s moti ations in no way authori:es the presumption that they are in,oherent or

faulty) 7e hold that until pro en otherwise" =ante" as $a most prudent man$ % oculatissimo uomo(" ,ould not ha e ,hosen his incipit lightly or superfi,ially) ;n the ,ontrary" pre,isely the fa,t that the ,omi, title appears dis,ordant with respe,t to what we 9now of the ideas of the poet and his age brings us to ,laim that it was ,arefully ,onsidered) .) A pre,ise study of the passages in whi,h =ante spea9s of ,omedy and tragedy demonstrates that this ,laim is te-tually founded) 7e thus 9now that to =ante@s eyes" the poeti, pro6e,t that ga e birth to the great songs of the #ime seemed eminently tragi,) In $e ,ulgari eloBuentia" he e-pli,itly states that the tragi, style is the highest of all styles and the only one appropriate to the ultimate ob6e,ts of poetry* $well8being" lo e and irtue$ %salus" amor et ,irtus() 6 A little later he defines the song Ecan4oneF" the supreme poeti, genre" as a ,onne,ted series of e<ual stan:as in the tragi, style" without a refrain" and fo,used on a single theme" as I ha e shown when I wrote $=onne ,he a ete intelletto d@amore)$ If I say $a ,onne,ted series in the tragi, style"$ it is be,ause" were the style of the stan:a ,omi," we would use the diminuti e and ,all it a can4onetta) %iaeBualium stantiarum sine responsorio tragica coniugatio! ut nos ostendimus cum dicimus 1$onne che a,ete intelletto d:amore%1 ;uod autem dicimus tragica coniugatio! est Buia cum cornice fiat hec coniugatio! cantilenam ,ocamus per diminutionem )( & 5he poem@s ,omi, title therefore abo e all implies a rupture and a turn with respe,t to =ante@s own past and poeti, itinerary" a genuine $,ategori,al re olution$ that as su,h ,annot ha e been de,ided upon without ,ons,ious and ital moti ation) In a passage of the letter to #angrande" =ante seems impli,itly to affirm su,h an awareness of reasons for his ,hoi,e) 7ith a definition that formally repeats ,ommonpla,es of medie al le-i,ography" ' =ante here introdu,es a dis,ussion that ,annot be found in any of his 9nown sour,es) $Gow ,omedy is a ,ertain 9ind of poeti,al narration"$ he writes" $whi,h differs from all others$ %Et est comoedia genus Buoddam poFtice narrationis a' omni'us aliis differens () 9 5his pri ileged situation of the ,omi, genre" whi,h has no ,ounterpart in either medie al or late an,ient sour,es" presupposes an intention on the poet@s part to alter semanti,ally the term $,omedy$ in a sense that ,ertainly goes beyond what modern ,riti,ism belie es itself to ha e as,ertained) +rom this perspe,ti e" the fa,t that in the 8nferno =ante e-pli,itly defines the 9eneid as $high tragedy$ 11 is e ery bit as signifi,ant as the fa,t that he titles his own $sa,red poem$ a ,omedy) 5his is so not only be,ause he thus ,omes to oppose the #omedy to the wor9 of the poet from whom he ,onsiders himself to draw $the beautiful style that has done me honor$ %lo 'el stile che mi ha fatto onore(" but also be,ause the definition of the 9eneid as a tragedy ,annot be ,oherently re,on,iled with the ,riteria of the $pea,eful beginning$ and $foul end$ indi,ated in the letter to #angrande) In an attempt to use one half of the problem as an e-planation for the other half" it has been said that to =ante@s eyes" the 9eneid" as a poeti, narration in the high style" ,ould only be a tragedy) In fa,t" a,,ording to a tradition that has its origin in =iomedes and that is still ali e in Isidore of Se ille" 11 the 9eneid figures in medie al treatises as an e-ample not of tragedy as mu,h as of that genre of poeti, narration that was defined as genus ,ommune on a,,ount of presenting the spee,h of both ,hara,ters and the author) It is ,urious that" as has been o,,asionally noted" in medie al treatises the ,lassifi,ation of the three styles88whose prototype is to be found in the 4hetori,a ad Berennium 1. 88does not ne,essarily ,oin,ide with that of the genres of poeti, narration) #omedy and tragedy" whi,h ne er entirely lost their dramati, ,onnotation" were ,ommonly listed alongside satire and mime in the genus acti,am or dramaticon %in whi,h only ,hara,ters spea9" without the inter ention of the author() 5he enumeration of styles" moreo er" always in ol ed a referen,e at least to the elegy" 1/ and ,ould ne er be e-hausted in the ,omedy>tragedy opposition) 5he radi,ality with whi,h the letter to #angrande transforms this double ,lassifi,ation into a tragedy>,omedy antinomy88an antinomy that is at on,e stylisti, and substantial" and with respe,t to whi,h other poeti, genres are <ui,9ly set aside 10 88is in itself a suffi,ient sign of a strong" ,ons,ious sense of these two terms)

+rom this perspe,ti e" the e,logue to Gio anni di Cirgilio ,onstitutes another pie,e of e iden,e) Bere =ante alludes to his own poem with the e-pression comica ,er'a) 12 5he interpretation of this passage has been led astray by one of 3o,,a,,io@s glosses" whi,h e-plains that $,omi,a" id est ulgaria)$ 5he influen,e of this gloss has been so tena,ious that e en in the re,ent Enciclopedia dantesca one reads that" in the first e,logue" =ante resolutely identified $the ,omi, in the erna,ular)$ A te-t that ,ould ha e shed light on =ante@s ,hoi,e of title thus be,ame irrele ant" sin,e the identifi,ation between ,omi, style and the Italian language is ,learly untenable) 16 An attenti e reading of Gio anni@s erse epistle demonstrates that the reproa,hes made to =ante by the 3olognese humanist ha e as their ob6e,t not simply the use of the erna,ular as opposed to Hatin but rather the ,hoi,e of ,omedy as opposed to tragedy) 5he e-pression with whi,h Gio anni ,hara,teri:es =ante@s writing" sermone forensi" does not allude to the erna,ular but rather ,orresponds to the sermone pedestri of the passage in Bora,e ,ited by =ante in his letter to #angrande" as well as to the cotidiano sermone of medie al poeti,s) 1& Sermone forensi" in other words" refers to a ,hoi,e of style and not language) 5his interpretation is ,onfirmed by a further passage in the letter in whi,h Gio anni" spe,ifying his ob6e,tions" en,ourages =ante to sing in $propheti, erse$ the great fa,ts of the history of his age" that is" the heroi, and $publi,$ material of tragedy instead of the $pri ate$ matters of ,omedy) At the ,enter of the debate with Gio anni di Cirgilio" whi,h belongs to the ,ultural ,ir,le from whi,h the first modern tragedy" Mussato tragoedia Ecerinis! 2as to 'e 'orn! is not as much the LatinD,ernacular opposition as the tragedyDcomedy one% This testifies once again to the fact that for $ante! the comic title of his poem is neither contingent nor fragmentary! 'ut rather constitutes the affirmation of a principle% /) If this is true" then it is all the more dispiriting that the title of the #omedy is not ,ompatible with the set of definitions gi en by =ante for the tragi,>,omi, opposition" and that these definitions ,annot" moreo er" be redu,ed to a unitary system) As has been noted" these definitions are arti,ulated on two planes* a stylisti,8formal one %the modus loBuendi(" and a materialsubstantial one %the materia or sententia() In $e ,ulgari eloBuentia %in whi,h the stylisti, aspe,t is pre alent and whose in,ompleteness is su,h that this wor9 gi es us no genuine themati, treatment of ,omedy(" the tragi, style is defined" a,,ording to the prin,iples of the ,lassi,al tripartition of styles" as the most ele ated style %superiorem stilum(" in harmony with the height of the material reser ed for it %the three great magnalia* salus" amore" and ,irtus() In the letter to #angrande" in whi,h the material arti,ulation is pre alent" the tragi,>,omi, opposition is instead ,hara,teri:ed on the plane of ,ontent and as an opposition of beginning and end* tragedy is mar9ed by an $admirable$ and $pea,eful$ beginning and a $foul$ and $horrible$ end? ,omedy by a $horrible$ and $foul$ beginning and a $prosperous$ and $pleasant$ end) ;n the stylisti, plane" the tragi,>,omi, opposition is presented as an opposition between what is" in one ,ase" an ele ated and sublime modus lo<uendi and" in the other" a $lowly$ and $humble$ modus loBuendi %tempered" howe er" by a referen,e to Bora,e" who licentiat liBuando comicos ut tragicos loBui() E en a superfi,ial e-amination of these ,ategories demonstrates that a,,ording to the ,riteria of $e ,ulgari eloBuentia" the #omedy ,annot 6ustify its title without ,ontradi,tion" though the 9eneid probably ,an be ,oherently defined as a tragedy) A,,ording to the ,riteria of the letter to #angrande" by ,ontrast" while the tragi, 6ustifi,ation of the 9eneid appears unfounded" the #omedy suffi,iently 6ustifies its title) 5he only thing that ,an in fa,t be affirmed with ,ertainty is that in $e ,ulgari eloBuentia" =ante has in mind a tragi, poeti, pro6e,t that is prin,ipally arti,ulated on the stylisti, plane" whereas the letter to #angrande see9s to 6ustify a ,omi, ,hoi,e defined in mainly material terms) Go reasons for this ,hange ,an" howe er" be identified) 5he only new element that appears in the letter to #angrande is the pea,eful beginning > harsh beginning" foul end > prosperous end opposition88that is" pre,isely the element that appears to our eyes as a mannered repetition of e-tremely superfi,ial le-i,ographi, stereotypes) 5his is so mu,h the ,ase that one of the oldest ,ommentators and almost all modern s,holars prefer to dwell on the stylisti,8formal reasons" howe er defi,ient they may be" rather than a,,ept the idea that =ante ,ould ha e ,hosen the title of his own poem on the basis of su,h in,onse<uential ,onsiderations as the $foul$ beginning of the 8nferno %a principio horri'ilis et fetida est!

Buia 8nfernus( and the $pleasant$ end of the !aradiso %in fine prospera" desiderabilis et grata" <uia !aradisus() 1' Iet when it appears that none of these reasons ,ompletely does away with ,ontradi,tion" one may then as9 whether the $material$ arguments furnished by =ante in the letter to #angrande are not in fa,t to be ta9en seriously" and whether their seeming superfi,iality e en ,on,eals an intention that ,riti,ism ought to ma9e e-pli,it) !erhaps the iew that the Middle Ages had no e-perien,e of the ,omi, and the tragi, beyond a purely stylisti, opposition" or beyond the ,rudely des,ripti e differen,e between a pea,eful and a sad ending" deri es from our relu,tan,e to admit that the ,ategories of the ,omi, and the tragi,88,ategories in whi,h modernity" from Begel to 3en6amin" from Goethe to Jier9egaard" has pro6e,ted its most profound ethi,al ,onfli,ts88may ha e their remote origin in medie al ,ulture)

115 T6A78

798&T AND

OM8

798&T

1) 5he definition of the tragi,>,omi, opposition gi en in the letter to #angrande has until now been ,onsidered in isolation" without being pla,ed in relation to its ,onte-t) 7hile this definition" or at least the part that interests us" ,on,erns the wor9@s $material$ % >am si ad materiam respiciamus) ) )(" the immediate ,onte-t to whi,h it must be brought ba,9 is the wor9@s su'iectum) A little later" =ante defines this $sub6e,t$ in the following terms* 5he sub6e,t" then" of the whole wor9" ta9en in the literal sense only" is the state of souls after death" pure and simple) +or on and about that the argument of the whole wor9 turns) If" howe er" the wor9 be regarded from the allegori,al point of iew" the sub6e,t is man a,,ording as by his merits or demerits in the e-er,ise of his free will he is deser ing of reward or punishment by 6usti,e) %Est ergo su'iectum totius operis! litteraliter tantum accepti! status animarum post mortem simpliciter sumptus% >am de illo et circa illum totius operis ,ersatur processus% Si ,ero accipiatur opus allegorice! su'iectum est homo prout merendo et demerendo per ar'itrii li'ertatem iustitie premiandi et puniendi o'no=ius est )( 19 5he $prosperous$ or $foul$ ending" whether ,omi, or tragi," therefore a,<uires its true meaning only when referred to its $sub6e,t$* it thus ,on,erns man@s sal ation or damnation or" in the allegori,al sense" the sub6e,tion of man" in his own free will" to di ine 6usti,e %homo prout merendo et demerendo per ar'itrii li'ertatem iustitie premiandi et puniendi o'no=ius est() +ar from representing an insignifi,ant and arbitrary ,hoi,e on the basis of a,uous le-i,ographi, stereotypes" the ,omi, title instead implies the poet@s position with respe,t to an essential <uestion* the guilt or inno,en,e of man before di ine 6usti,e) 5hat =ante@s poem is a ,omedy and not a tragedy" that its beginning is $harsh$ and $horrible$ and its end $prosperous" desirable and pleasant$ thus means the following* man" who is the wor9@s su'iectum in his sub6e,tion to di ine 6usti,e" appears at the beginning as guilty %o'no=ius iustitie puniendi( but at the end as inno,ent %o'no=ius iustitie premiandi() Insofar as it is a $,omedy"$ the poem is" in other words" an itinerary from guilt to inno,en,e and not from inno,en,e to guilt) And this is not only be,ause in the boo9 the des,ription of the 8nferno materially pre,edes that of the Paradiso" but also be,ause the destiny of the indi idual named =ante" as well as the homo ,iator he represents" is ,omi, and not tragi,) In the letter to #angrande" =ante thus 6oined the ,ategories of the tragi, and the ,omi, to the theme of the inno,en,e and guilt of the human ,reature" su,h that tragedy appears as the guilt of the Gust and comedy as the Gustification of the guilty ) 5his formulation" whi,h appears so modern" is not something foreign to medie al ,ulture that we ha e attempted to pro6e,t on it here) 5he pertinen,e of the ,omi, and the tragi, to the theme of inno,en,e and guilt is san,tioned by the te-t on whi,h" impli,itly or e-pli,itly" e ery medie al ,on,eption of these two spheres is based* Aristotle Poetics) Bere the ,enter of both the tragi, and the ,omi, e-perien,e is e-pressed with a word that is none other than the one by whi,h the Gew 5estament indi,ates sin* hamartia) It is ,urious that this terminologi,al ,oin,iden,e" by irtue of whi,h tragedy and ,omedy ,ould appear as the two poeti, genres of anti<uity at whose ,enter lay peccatum %sin(" has not been ta9en into

a,,ount by s,holars) Attention has been gi en mainly to latean,ient grammarians %su,h as =onatus and =iomedes( and le-i,ographers %su,h as !apia and Ugu,,ione(" although we 9now that the te-t of the Poetics was a,,essible in Hatin both in partial form" through Berman the German@s translation of A erroes@s Middle #ommentary" and in its entirety" through 7illiam of Moerbe9e@s translation) .1 If ,omi, pe,,atum was ,hara,teri:ed here as a turpitudo non dolorosa et non corrupti,a " .1 the essen,e of the tragi, affair was defined as a transformation of prosperity into bad lu,9" not through radi,al moral guilt % propter malitiam et pestilentiam( but through a peccatum aliBuod) 5he presentation of a guilty person %pestilens( who went from bad lu,9 to prosperity %e= infortunio in eufortunium( was" by ,ontrast" treated as what was most antitragi, %intragodotatissimum() .. In A erroes@s paraphrase" the e-,lusion from tragedy of a sub6e,ti ely guilty % impro'um( ,hara,ter is understood in the sense that the essen,e of the tragi, situation mo es $from the imitation of irtue to the imitation of the misfortune into whi,h the 6ust ha e fallen$ %e= imitatione ,irtutem ad imitationem ad,ersae fortunae! in Buam pro'i lapsi sint () ./ 5he parado- of Gree9 tragi, hamartia8the ,onfli,t between a hero@s sub6e,ti e inno,en,e and an ob6e,ti ely attributed guilt88is thus interpreted by positing at its ,enter the misfortune of a $6ust person$ %pro'us() 7ith astounding sensibility" A erroes thus finds in the story of Abraham the tragi, situation par e-,ellen,e" anti,ipating Jier9egaard@s own treatment of the matter* $and on a,,ount of this story" whi,h tells the e-perien,e of Abraham" who was to 9ill his son" the greatest fear and terror is i olently shown$ % et o' hoc illa historia! in Bua narratur preceptum fuisse 9'rae! ut iugularet filium suum! ,idetur esse ma=ime metum atBue moerorem afferens() .0 In an opposite sense" A erroes e-pli,itly as,ribes to ,omedy the representation of ,itium %fault( from a perspe,ti e in whi,h it does not appear as ,ompletely negati e) .2 .) It is in the ,onte-t of this ,on,eption of tragi, guilt and ,omi, guilt that the title of the #omedy a,<uires its full weight and" at the same time" shows itself to be ,ompletely ,oherent) 5he $sa,red poem$ is a ,omedy be,ause the e-perien,e that ,onstitutes its ,enter88the 6ustifi,ation of the guilty and not the guilt of the 6ust88is de,isi ely antitragi,) 5he 9eneid" by ,ontrast" ,an only be a tragedy? its protagonist is a $6ust man$ par e-,ellen,e who" from the point of iew of the status animarum post mortem" will ne ertheless remain e-,luded from iustitia premiandi %=ante meets Aeneas in the first ,ir,le" alongside the souls that" e en though guiltless" ,ould not be sa ed() Aeneas" li9e Cirgil" here represents the pagan world@s ,ondemnation to tragedy" 6ust as =ante represents the $,omi,$ possibility opened to man by #hrist@s passion) #onfirmation of the de,isi e importan,e of the pea,eful or sad beginning of e ery human dis,ourse on guilt ,an be found in a passage from $e ,ulgari eloBuentia whose essential ,onne,tion with the problem of the #omedy@s title has until now not been noted and whi,h ,an" in fa,t" be seen as the se,ret mar9 with whi,h the tragi, poet of the 4ime un,ons,iously announ,es the turn to the #omedy) Bere =ante writes" with referen,e to Adam@s first wor9 in !aradise* $+or if" sin,e the disaster that befell the human ra,e" the spee,h of e ery one of us has begun with @woeK"@ it is reasonable that he who e-isted before should ha e begun with a ,ry of 6oy$ %>am sicut post pre,aricationem humani generis Buili'et e=ordium sue locutionis incipit a' 1heu!1 rationa'ile est Buod ante Bui fuit inceperit a gaudio() .6 If we 9eep in mind the later e olution of =ante@s thought and pla,e these words in relation to the $material$ moti ations in the letter to #angrande" these words signify that after the 3all! human language cannot 'e tragicE 'efore the 3all! it cannot 'e comic) At this point the ,riti,al problem of the #omedy@s title ,hanges" howe er" and must be reformulated in these terms* how ,ould =ante" until a ,ertain point" ha e held a tragi, pro6e,t to be possibleD Bow" that is" ,ould there be tragedy after the +all and after #hrist@s passionD And" on,e again" how is it possible to 6oin the impossibility of tragedy to the possibility of ,omedy" the e=ordium a' heu of e ery human dis,ourse to the $prosperous ending$ of ,omi, dis,ourseD

8885 PE6SON AND NAT96E

I) Modern s,holars ha e often repeated that a properly tragi, ,onfli,t is not possible in the sphere of the #hristian uni erse) Jurt on +rit:" the author of the effi,ient ,hara,teri:ation of tragi, guilt as the separation of a sub6e,ti ely attributable guilt from an ob6e,ti ely

grasped hamartia" ,onsidered the #hristian ,on,eption of the world to be radi,ally antitragi," e-,luding as it does the possibility of su,h a separation) .& 7hile substantially ,orre,t" this statement is too peremptory) A ,on,eption of guilt that is ,ertainly tragi, is present in #hristianity through the do,trine of original sin and the distin,tion between natura and persona! natural guilt and personal guilt" whi,h the theologians elaborated and 6ustified) +or Adam@s sin was not only personal? in him human nature itself sinned %$Iour nature" when it sinned totally in its seed$ E 7ostra natura! Buando peccH tota D nel seme suoF(" .' thus falling away from the natural 6usti,e that had been assigned to it by God) .9 As natural and not personal guilt" as guilt that falls to e ery man through his own origin %peccatum Buod BuisBue trahit cum natura in ipsa suo origine(" /1 original sin is a perfe,t e<ui alent of tragi, hamartia) 7e ,an e en say that pre,isely in its attempt to e-plain the parado- of guilt that is transmitted independently of indi idual responsibility through the distin,tion of natural sin and personal sin" #hristian theology lay the foundations for the ,ategories through whi,h modern ,ulture was to interpret tragi, ,onfli,t) 5he #hur,h +athers ,on,ei e of original sin not as an a,tual and sub6e,ti ely attributable sin but as an ob6e,ti e stain independent of will) 5his is so mu,h the ,ase" St) 5homas notes" that original sin is present e en in ,hildren who la,9 free will) /1 5he dispute between those who maintained that in Adam all humanity sinned personaliter and not only naturaliter" and the ,urrent orthodo-y" whi,h holds fast to the natural ,hara,ter of original guilt" well shows the formation in #hristian theology of this $natural$ ,on,eption of guilt) It is the ,onfirmation of the natural ,hara,ter of original guilt that the #hur,h +athers found in the passage in Genesis %/*&( in whi,h shame for one@s own nudity appears as the first ,onse<uen,e of guilt) 5hus if in St) Augustine $e ci,itate $ei" the loss of original 6usti,e and the birth of ,on,upis,en,e" whi,h withdraws the genital organs from the ,ontrol of the will" are dramati,ally seen as the immediate penal ,onse<uen,es of the +all" shame appears from the same perspe,ti e as the sign of the +all@s $natural$ ,hara,ter* Buman nature then is" without any doubt" ashamed about lust" and rightly ashamed) +or in its disobedien,e" whi,h sub6e,ted the se-ual organs solely to its own impulses and snat,hed them from the will@s authority" we see a proof of the retribution imposed on man for that first disobedien,e) And it was entirely fitting that this retribution should show itself in that part whi,h effe,ts the pro,reation of the ery nature that was ,hanged for the worse through that first great sin) /. %Pudet igitur huius li'idinis humanum sine ulla du'itatione naturam! et merito pudet% 8n eGus Buippe ino'edientia! Buae genitalia corporis mem'ra solis suis moti'us su'didit! et potestati ,oluntatis eripuit! satis ostendetur Buid sit hominis illi primae ino'edientiae retri'utum: Buod in ea ma=ime parte oportuit apparere! Bua generatur ipsa natura! Buae illo primo et magno in deterius est mutata peccato )( // It is this dar9 $tragi,$ ba,9ground that #hrist@s passion radi,ally alters) Ade<uate to the guilt that man would ne er ha e been able to e-piate" the passion ,arries out an in ersion of the ,ategories of person and nature" transforming natural guilt into personal e-piation and an irre,on,ilable ob6e,ti e ,onfli,t into a personal matter) $5his offen,e"$ the passage from St) Augustine ,ited abo e ,ontinues" $was ,ommitted when all man9ind e-isted in one man" and it brought uni ersal ruin on man9ind? and no one ,an be res,ued from the toils of that offen,e" whi,h was punished by God@s 6usti,e" unless the sin is e-piated in ea,h man singly by the gra,e of God)$ /0 5ransforming the ,onfli,t between natural guilt and personal inno,en,e into the di ision between natural inno,en,e and personal guilt" #hrist@s death thus liberates man from tragedy and ma9es ,omedy possible) Iet if man is no longer $the son of wrath"$ /2 he ne ertheless remains depri ed of his original Edeni, ,ondition and of the ,oin,iden,e between nature and person proper to natural 6usti,e) 5he sal ation brought by #hrist is not natural but personal* Sal ation passes from #hrist to man not ia nature but ia the wor9 of good will" by whi,h man adheres to #hrist? and whate er follows from #hrist is a personal good) Unli9e the sin

of our first parent" whi,h was passed on by nature" su,h a personal good therefore ,annot be transferred to others) %Efflu=us salutis a Christo in homines non est per naturae propaginem! se per studium 'onae ,oluntatis Bua homo Christo adhaeretE et sic Buod a Christo unusBuisBue conseBuitur est personale 'onumE unde non deri,atur ad posteros! sicut peccatum primi parentis! Buod cum naturae propagine producitur )( /6 5he +all ,ontinued to ha e penal effe,ts" moreo er" in ,on,upis,en,e itself" whi,h was the first ,onse<uen,e of guilt and whi,h one e-egeti,al tradition saw as the ery ehi,le for the transmission of sin) !erfe,t submission of the soul@s sensible part to reason and will" whi,h made possible blessed Edeni, impassability and the nonlibidinal use of genital organs" remains ,losed off to man e en after #hrist@s death) As St) 5homas writes" without noting the ,ontradi,tion impli,it in his letting a tra,e of Adami, ,etustas sur i e at the heart of the redeemed uni erse* After baptism there remains both the ne,essity of death and ,on,upis,en,e" whi,h is materially ,ontained in original sin) And thus the higher part of the soul parti,ipates in the mira,le of #hrist? but the souls of inferior men and the body itself remain in the original state that deri es from Adam) %Manet post 'aptismum et necessitas moriendi et concupiscentia Buae est materiale in originali peccato% Et sic Buantum ad superiorem partem animae participat no,itatem ChristiE sed Buantum ad inferiores animae ,ires! et etiam ipsum corpus! remanet adhuc ,etustas Buae est e= 9dam)( /& .) 7e may now understand why" to the eyes of the lo e poets and to the =ante of $e ,ulgari eloBuentia! lo,e 2as a tragic e=perience% 8nsofar as it circumscri'es the only sphere in 2hich the 1natural1 character of original sin is conser,ed! lo,e is in fact the only tragic e=perience possi'le in the medie,al Christian 2orld% 8t has 'een occasionally noted that the poets: introduction of lo,e into the field of tragedy constitutes a no,elty that cannot easily 'e e=plained% 9ccording to a tradition that is clearly e=pressed in a passage of Ser,ius commentary on the 9eneid 35 and that is still ali,e in Calther de ChItillon:s t2elfthJcentury classification of the 7eneriscopula among the ridicula! lo,e 2as considered 'y lateancient grammarians as the comic su'Gect par e=cellence% 8t is precisely the conflict 'et2een the natural guilt of concupiscence and the personal innocence of the e=perience of lo,e that ma*es possi'le the 'old re,ersal 'y 2hich lo,e passes from the sphere of comedy to that of tragedy% 8t is in this conflict that 2e may locate the origin of the o'stinately contradictory character of Pro,enKal and $olce Stil >o,o lo,e poetry that has so often di,ided modern critics! namely the appearance of this poetry as 'oth the transcription of a 'ase and sensual e=perience and the site of an e=alted soteriological itinerary% The attempt to o,ercome this tragic conflict through the proGect of a complete repossession of original Edenic Gustice! that is! in the e=perience of a simultaneously natural and personal 1perfection of lo,e1 +fin:amors0! constitutes the po2erful inheritance left 'y erotic poetry of the thirteenth century to modern Cestern culture% 3. 3rom this perspecti,e! $ante:s 1comic1 choice acBuires ne2 2eight% Cith respect to the 1tragic1 proGect of the lo,e poets! the comic title of his poem constitutes a genuine 1categorical re,olution1 that once again carries lo,e from tragedy to comedy% 8n the theory of lo,e set forth 'y 7irgil in canto 65 of the Purgatorio" the eroti, e-perien,e ,eases to be a $tragi,$ ,onfli,t between personal inno,en,e and natural guilt and be,omes a ,omi, re,on,iliation of natural inno,en,e and personal guilt) ;n the one hand he ,an thus affirm that $the natural is always without error$ %lo naturale L sempre sen4a errore() 01 ;n the other hand he ,an deny the ,laim of $the people who a er that lo e is praiseworthy in itself$ and88in opposition to Guido #a al,anti@s theory" a,,ording to whi,h lo e implied the impossibility of ,orre,t 6udgment %for di saluteJJgiudicar mantene(88,an ground the personal ,hara,ter of amorous responsibility in an $innate irtue" the fa,ulty that ,ounsels and that ought to hold the threshold of assent$ %innata la ,irtM che consiglia! D e de l:assenso de: tener la soglia () 01 Ho e thus withdraws from the dar9 tragi, ba,9ground of natural guilt to be,ome a personal e-perien,e attributable to the indi idual@s ar'itrium li'ertatis and" as su,h" ,apable of being e-piated in singulis)

/) 5his passage from natural" tragi, guilt to personal" ,omi, guilt is arti,ulated through =ante@s theory of shame" whi,h is de eloped in ,anto /1 of the !urgatorio) Bere =ante@s e-piation before his immersion in the waters of Hethe is a,,omplished through a pro,ess of $,omi,$ humiliation that has at its ,enter the e-perien,e of shame) If =ante had already felt shame before 3eatri,e and her se ere apostrophe %$so great shame weighed on my brow$ Etanta ,ergogna migra,H la fronteF(" 0. the purifying ne,essity of shame is ,onfirmed immediately after =ante ,onfesses his sin %$that you may now bear shame for your error$ Eperch mo ,ergogna porta D del tuo errore F() 0/ 5he height of this $,omi,$ humiliation ,omes when 3eatri,e turns to =ante" whom shame has made similar to a little boy %$as ,hildren stand ashamed and dumb$ E<uali i fan,iulli ergognando" mutiF(" 00 with the following words* $lift up your beard$ %al4a la 'ar'a() 02 5he meaning of this ,ruel 6o9e ,an be ,larified only if it is ,ompared with the theory of shame de eloped by =ante in the Con,i,io! 2here one reads that shame is 1good and praise2orthy1 +'uona e lauda'ile0 1in 2omen and in young people1 +ne le donne ne li gio,ani0! 'ut 1is not praise2orthy or suita'le in the elderly or in the irtuous$ %non L lauda'ile n sta 'ene ne li ,ecchi e ne li uomini studiosi() 06 Abo e all" howe er" one must 9eep in mind the passage in whi,h ;edipus" the tragi, hero par e-,ellen,e" is des,ribed as he who $put out his eyes" so that his shame would not appear without$ %si trasse li occhi! perch la ,ergogna d:entro non paresse di fuori() 0& 5he opposition ,ould not be ,learer between =ante" the $,omi,$ ,hara,ter who purifies himself of personal guilt in showing the full e-tent of his shame" and ;edipus" the tragi, hero who ,an neither ,onfess his guilt nor a,,ept shame insofar as he is personally inno,ent) 7hat was" for the #hur,h +athers" the mar9 of the ,reature@s natural guilt" whi,h the tragi, hero ,ould not master" thus here be,omes88through penitential humiliation88the instrument of re,on,iliation between man@s personal guilt and ,reaturely inno,en,e) 0' Immediately afterwards" the immersion in Hethe ,an,els e en the memory of guilt) Iet pre,isely be,ause his ,omi, ,hoi,e abo e all signifies the renun,iation of the tragi, ,laim to inno,en,e and the a,,eptan,e of the ,omi, fra,ture between nature and person" =ante must at the same time abandon the lo e poets@ attempt to return through perfe,t Goi to an inno,ent" Edeni, lo e) It is not by ,han,e that =ante lo,ates Arnaut =aniel and Guido #a al,anti" as e-emplary representati es of the eroti,o8poeti, troubadour and =ol,e Stil Go o pro6e,t" pre,isely on the insuperable threshold of Eden) Matelda" the $lady in lo e$ that =ante meets there" is indeed the symbol of the natural 6usti,e of the Edeni, ,ondition" as #harles Singleton@s ,on in,ing arguments demonstrate) 09 3ut at the same time" she is the ,ipher of the impossible ob6e,t of poetry and troubadour and =ol,e Stil Go o eros? this is why =ante presents Matelda" genuine senhal that she is" in styli:ed and impersonal terms" and this is why the whole episode" as has been noted" 21 ,losely re,alls the !ro enLal and #a al,antian $pastorelle)$ +or =ante" original 6usti,e and the $sweet play$ of the inno,ent" Edeni, lo e in whi,h nature and person on,e again ,oin,ide remain ina,,essible to the human ,ondition) In 7estern ,ulture" the 6oy of lo e is88whether tragi,ally or ,omi,ally88di ided)

8(5 PE6SON AND

OMED:

1) =ante@s de,ision to ,all his poem a $,omedy$ therefore represents an important moment in the semanti, history of two ,ategories by whi,h our ,ulture has brought to ,ons,iousness one of its $se,ret thoughts)$ 5he antitragi, turn that shows itself in this de,ision is not" howe er" a new and isolated e ent) In a ,ertain sense" it represents the final a,t in a pro,ess to whi,h late anti<uity entrusted one of its deepest intentions) 5he di ision of Gree9 tragi, drama" from whose sa,rifi,ial perspe,ti e tragedy and ,omedy still formed a whole" was already an a,,omplished fa,t in the fourth ,entury 3)#) 5his mu,h is elo<uently shown by !lato@s own ,riti<ue of tragedy) Iet it was through the Stoi, ,riti<ue" not the !latoni," that late anti<uity transmitted its antitragi, tenden,y to the Middle Ages) 5he Stoi, ,riti<ue of tragedy is de eloped through the metaphor of the a,tor" in whi,h human life appears as a dramati, performan,e and men are presented as a,tors to whom a part %a prosopon" a mas9( has been assigned) +or the Stoi,s" what is tragi, is not the mas9 in itself but the attitude" whether of attra,tion or repulsion" of the a,tor who identifies with it) 21 In a passage of the $iscourses %whi,h is most li9ely the immediate

origin of the insisten,e with whi,h late8an,ient and medie al grammarians oppose ,omedy@s humiles personae to tragedy@s reges! duces" and heroes(" Epi,tetus identifies the essen,e of the tragi, situation88whi,h is e-emplified by ;edipus88in the ,onfusion between a,tor and ,hara,ter* 4emember that tragedies ta9e pla,e among ri,h people" 9ings" and tyrants) A poor man ,an ta9e part in them only as member of the ,horus) Jings begin with prosperity88$de,o rate the pala,eK$88but then" in the third or fourth a,t" they say" $Alas" #itero" why did you re,ei e meD$ Sla e" where are the ,rowns and the diademsD Iour bodyguards no longer obey youD 7hen you meet one of these people" remember that you are meeting a tragi, hero88not an a,tor but ;edipus himself) 2. 5he wise man is instead the one who" a,,epting without dis,ussion whate er $mas9$ has been assigned to him by fate" represents his part and thereby refuses to identify with it) +rom this perspe,ti e" the term prosopon ,hanges meaning and" in ,ontrast to $person$ in the theatri,al sense" begins to designate man@s $moral personality"$ the power that furnishes ,riteria for a,tion and that remains superior to all the possible a,ts it ,an produ,e) ;n the one hand" $person$ is thus the theatri,al $mas9$? on the other" it refers to the emerging notion of moral personality" a notion to whi,h a properly 6uridi,al ,on,ept of the person is soon added) 5his 6uridi,al personality is already to be found in a passage of 5heophilus@s paraphrase of Austinian@s Institutions" where we read that $insofar as they ha e no person Eaprosopoi ontesF" ser ants are ,hara,teri:ed E*hara*teri4ontaiF by the master@s person)$ It is on the basis of the double semanti, heredity of the term $person"$ whi,h thus signifies both $mas9$ and 6uridi,o8moral $personality"$ that the theologi,o8 metaphysi,al notion of person is formed in the wor9 of the #hur,h +athers) 5his ambiguity is ,aptured in its undi ided" originary ,oheren,e in 3oethius Contra Eutychen% Aoethius is still perfectly conscious of the theatrical meaning of the term persona! yet he see*s to con,ert it into a philosophical category 'y ma*ing it the eBui,alent of the (ree* hypostasis in the sense of naturae rationa'ilis indi,idua su'stantia +the indi,idual su'stance of a rational nature0% 8n a passage in 2hich the importance of tragedy and comedy for the status of the person has its originary legitimacy! the difficulty of this crucial semantic change comes to light as a 1lac* of 2ords1: The 2ord 1person1 seems to 'e 'orro2ed from a different source! namely from the mas*s NpersonaeO 2hich in comedies and tragedies are used to represent the people concerned% % % % The (ree*s! too! call these mas*s prosopa from the fact that they are placed o,er the face and conceal the countenance in front of the eyes: para tou pros tous horas tithesthai +from 'eing put up against the face0% Aut since! as 2e ha,e said! it 2as 'y the mas*s that they put on that actors represented the indi,idual people concerned in a tragedy or comedyJJ)ecu'a or Medea or Simo or Chremes!JJso also of all other men 2ho could 'e clearly recogni4ed 'y their appearance the Latins used the name persona! the (ree*s prosopa% Aut the (ree*s far more clearly called the in di idual subsisten,e of a rational nature by the name hypostasis" while we through want of appropriate words ha e 9ept the name handed down to us" ,alling that persona whi,h they ,all hypostasis) 2/ Iet e en for 3oethius" the notion of persona always refers to a natura that is its subie,ta and without whi,h it ,annot subsist) 20 5he modern notion of person as inalienable sub6e,t of 9nowledge and morality does not e-ist in medie al ,ulture" whi,h still dete,ts the originary theatri,al sonority of the term and sees in it the set of indi idual properties that are added to human nature@s simpli,itas) +or only in Adam %and in #hrist( did nature and person ,oin,ide perfe,tly and ,ould a personal sin ,ontaminate all of human nature) After the +all" person and nature remain88tragi,ally or ,omi,ally88di ided and will ,oin,ide again only in the $last day$ of the resurre,tion of the flesh) And it is pre,isely be,ause nature and person do not ,oin,ide in the ,reature that the #hur,h +athers" ta9ing up an an,ient Stoi, metaphor" ,an iew human life as a fabula" a ,omoedia or tragoedia mondana) $+or if our age were to ,on,ei e a propheti, spirit"$ we read in Aohn of Salisbury@s Policraticus" $it would be ery well said that ,omedy is human life on earth" where e eryone" ha ing forgotten himself" e-presses a foreign person$ %9t si nostra tempora propheticus spiritus

concepisset! dicetur egregie Buia Comoedia est ,ita hominis super terram! u'i BuisBue sui o'litus! personam e=primit alienum() .) 5he ,omi, title of =ante@s poem must also be situated in this ,onte-t) Bere the antitragi, distan,e between a,tor and $person$ be,omes a $,omi,$ di ision between human nature %whi,h is inno,ent( and person %whi,h is guilty() 5he duality between =ante the histori,al indi idual and =ante the man in general" whose grammati,al tra,e Singleton found in the opposition between $nostra ,ia$ and $mi ritro,ai$ at the beginning of the poem %and for whi,h Gianfran,o #ontini sees an institutional san,tion in the opposition of the literal and allegori,al senses(" a,tually has its foundation in the dis6un,tion between natural inno,en,e and personal responsibility that lies at the ,enter of =ante@s $,omi,$ ,on ,eption) +ar from emerging fully armed from the mind of 7estern man" the modern ,on,ept of person was in fa,t formed through a lengthy pro,ess to whi,h the ,omedy>tragedy opposition was ,losely related) %+rom this point of iew" it ,an e en be said that the moral person8sub6e,t of modern ,ulture is nothing but a de elopment of the $tragi,$ attitude of the a,tor" who fully identifies with his own $mas9)$ 5his is why in modern ,ulture" while ,omedy88whi,h refused identifi,ation with the prosopon all the more be,ause it had at its ,enter the figure of the ser ant" that is" the aprosopos par e-,ellen,e88has ,onser ed its mas9" tragedy has instead been ne,essarily obliged to do away with it altogether)( 5he one who a,,omplishes the oyage of the #omedy is not a sub6e,t or an I in the modern sense of the word but" rather" simultaneously a person %the sinner ,alled =ante( and human nature %a,,ording to 3oethius@s definition" the specificato proprietas that is su'iecta to this person() And it is this unity8duality of nature and person that founds the spe,ifi,ity of the protagonist@s status in the #omedy with respe,t to that of other medie al allegori,al poems" from Alain de Hille $e planctu naturae to the #oman de la rose% 3or allegory! far from truly 'eing a 1personification!1 instead e=presses precisely the impossi'ility of the person: it is the cipher through 2hich a nature that has 'een petrified 'y guilt gi,es ,oice to its 1lament1 and see*s! 2ithout success! to o,ercome tragic guilt through personal destiny% << 8n this sense! the protagonist of the Comedy is the first 1person1 of modern literature% Aut that this person ,ie2s himself as a comic character rather than as a tragic hero is certainly not a meaningless fact% That the name of $ante! the e=emplary mar* of a person! 2as 1of necessity registered1 +registrato di necessit"0 </ on the threshold of Eden at the moment of the confession and e=piation of personal guilt confirms the poet:s renunciation of e,ery claim to tragedy in the name of the creature:s natural innocence% Pnce again! it is this 1comic1 conception of guilt and person that ma*es it possi'le to e=plain $ante:s attitude to la2% 8n tragedy! la2 e=presses the su'Gection of guilty human nature to destiny! a su'Gection that the hero cannot! in his moral innocence! o,ercome% 3ut in ,omedy" law be,omes the instrument of personal sal ation) 5he person is the $mas9$ that the ,reature assumes and then" in order to purify itself" abandons to the hands of the law) 5his is why in $e monarchia" =ante ,an ,on,ei e of the redemption of humanity through #hrist@s passion in the ,old terms of a legal trial that simply ends with the punitio infli,ted by a iude= ordinarius %regular 6udge(? and this is why the relation between guilt and e-piation is always presented by the symbols and language of law) 5he meti,ulous edifi,e of the #omedy" in whi,h modern ethi,al ,ons,iousness has su,h trouble finding itself" is nothing but the hus9 used by the ,reature@s natural inno,en,e to reali:e its personal e-piation) 3ut the $person"$ whi,h is the site of this e-piation" is neither an allegory nor the moral sub6e,t that modern ethi,s will ma9e into the inalienable ,enter of man) 5he $person$ is instead a prosopon" a mas9" the $foreign person$ and the risilis facies turpis aliBua et in,ersa sine dolore of law and ,omedy) It is this $,omi,$ ,on,eption of the human ,reature" di ided into inno,ent nature and guilty person" that =ante be<ueathed to Italian ,ulture) It is ,ertainly possible to see in his ,hoi,e a ,onfirmation of the histori,al position on whi,h s,holars ha e so often insisted) !resent in the ,ulture of =ante@s age were both the lo e poets@ tragi, pro6e,t" whi,h =ante on,e shared" and the seeds" interpreted in Italy by Mussato" that led" following the dis,o ery of the tragi, ,hara,ter of history" to the reaffirmation of tragedy in the modern era) 5hese tenden,ies slowly ,ame to pre ail in modern ,ulture" preparing the way for the ,entury that" with a tragi, ,laim" ,onsidered its own Celtanschauung to be ,on,ei able through tragedy alone) 2& 3ut in Italy these tenden,ies remained singularly ina,ti e" and if

Italian ,ulture remained more faithful than any other to the antitragi, inheritan,e of the late8an,ient world" this is be,ause" at the beginning of the fourteenth ,entury" a +lorentine poet de,ided to abandon the tragi, ,laim to personal inno,en,e in the name of the ,reature@s natural inno,en,e" lea ing behind perfe,t Edeni, lo e for the sa9e of ,omi,ally di ided human lo e" morality@s inalienable person for law@s $foreign person"$ and the 9ite@s $lofty soaring$ %altissime rote( $o er things that are totally base$ for the sparrow@s $low flight$ %,olare 'asso() 2' 5he fier,e mas9 left by a superfi,ial hagiography to a tradition that almost immediately forgot the reasons for the #omedy@s title is" in this sense" a ,omi, mas9* it is that of $our ,omedian$ %comicus noster(" as +ilippo Cillani defines him" lu,idly" at the beginning of his biography)

"

orn# From Anatom! to Poetics

3a'ulari paulisper lu'et! sed e= re) 88 Angelo !oli:iano

85 H8STO68A
5wo thirteenth8,entury" possibly Italian manus,ripts ,ontain the following ra:o* 4aimon de =ufort and Hord 5ur, Male, were two 9nights from Muer,y who ,omposed the sir entes about the lady ,alled Milday n@Aia" the one who said to the 9night that she would not lo e him if he did not corn her in the arse) And here are written the sir entes)
1

% 4aimons de =ufort eN G 5ur, Male,si foron du ca,allier de Caersi Bue feiren los sir,entes de la domna Bue ac nom ma domna n:9ia! aBuella Bue dis al ca,alier de Cornil Bu:ella no l:amaria si el no la corna,a el cul) Et aBui son escrit4 los sir,entes)( In the two sir entes that follow" howe er" as in Arnaut =aniel@s tauter poem" whi,h inter enes in the gap" the term designating the ob6e,t of the $,ornar$ is not $,ul$ %$arse$( but $,orn)$ . Moreo er" a,,ording to a pre,ious intention that ,hara,teri:es the impassable formalism of the poet whom =ante ,alled $the better ,raftsman$ %il miglior fabbro(" ,orn is ins,ribed here at the ,enter of a ,onstellation of obs,ure and rare words that ha e furnished philologists with the o,,asion for somewhat uninspiring interpretati e e-er,ises) 5o summari:e" let us open the dossier) Ugo #annello" 1''/* Cornar" meaning $to use sodomiti,ally$ in the sense at issue here" and thus corn for $bottom"$ are registered by neither the He-i,on nor the Glossary) 3ut the metaphor of corn as $bottom$ was ,ommon" as shown by 3arbri,,ia in =ante 8nferno! QQ8" 101" who made del cul trom'etta) And there is the ,ommentary to our passage in 4) de =ufort@s se,ond sir entes" whi,h is all too ,lear* $ Se el no la corna,a en cul)$ / 4) Ha aud" 1911* Corn* 4ayn) distinguishes corn" II" 0'2" $,ot" ,larion"$ from corn" II" 0'6" $horn" ,orner" angle" ,anal" pipe)$ HO y ,ombines all these senses in the same arti,le" I" /69" and adds $behind" anus"$ following A) =an) here and tur, Male, %or rather 4aimon de =ufort" a,,ording to #anello and me ) ) )() In this whole pie,e" the anus is ,ompared to a trumpet" a ,larion" or a horn)$ ) ) ) In erse 6 cornar has its ordinary sense %,f) 4)" II" 0'6( of $to sound a horn or a trumpet)$ 0 Gianluigi 5o6a" 1961* Cornar* #anello@s fan,iful interpretation %p) 1'&(" $to use sodomiti,ally"$ was ,orre,ted by Ha aud" who proposed $to sound a horn or a trumpet"$ hen,e $to blow"$ a meaning dedu,ed from the ordinary sense of ,orn %,f) S7" I" /6'" whi,h unites the words in Le=% 88" 0'2* cor! clarion and in II" 0'6* corne! coin! ancle! anal! tuyeau " with the additional sense of anus" bottom() Ha aud" ta9ing away the drama of #anello@s interpretation" has best understood the ,omi, and realisti, spirit of Arnaut@s piLce) ;n corn %P cul( there are no more doubts after the reading of IJ and

the allusions in /9&" I" 12816" ./8.0 and 00&" 1" II" 10" 0.) It seems that it is therefore a matter of an obs,ene $hole$ e-er,ise that has nothing to do with pra,ti,es ,ontrary to nature) 2 Mauri:io !erugi" 19&'* 7e are ery far from resus,itating the improbable sodomiti,al interpretation proposed by #anello? moreo er" with all good will and imagination" we ,annot su,,eed in understanding what this $hole e-er,ise$ ,onsists in and how" in short" to represent it ,on,retely % honni soit Bui mal y pense() After ,lose e-amination of the matter" and assuming that the men %and women( of the time were not substantially different from those of today with regard either to their physi,al stru,ture" their se-ual attitudes or the beha ior ine itably ,onne,ted to those attitudes" we belie e that all the s,holars from #anello onward were mista9en as to the part of the body at issue in the re<uested e-er,ise) ) ) ) 3efore presenting the ou,hers for our interpretation" let us ,onsider more pre,isely the pertinent traits of corn as they ,an be found on the basis of e-tant sir entes) 4=ur spea9s generi,ally of trauc sotiran and of a mysterious ra'oi %III* 01 * #ontini reads $bottom$ in ,onformity with his e-planation of the entire tenson() A=an is ri,her in details* it situates the corn in the efonil D enter l:eschin:eR l penchenil %,f) ) 018 0.)* the topographi,al detail surely ,orresponds to the ague Cornat4 m!ayssi so'reRl reon EII 10F(" and spends ,onsiderable time illustrating BueRl corns es fers e pelut4 D Bue sta preon4 din4 la palut4 ) ) ) e neSl Gorn no stai essut4 %,f) ) 1.812() Gow" without going any further" these details suffi,e to ma9e us <uestion the a,,epted interpretation* we agree on fers88but pelut4D And how to e-plain essut4 with any li9elihoodD Het us attempt to translate the ,ompli,ated metaphor) Corn is assimilated to the tap of a barrel? we 9now that it is lo,ated in the $funnel$ between the ba,9bone and the pubi, bone % A=an I" 0180.(" that it is lo,ated in a marsh ,o ered with hairs and that it is ,onstantly humid % A=an I" 1.812() 4aimon de =ufort says more generally that it is to be found so'reRl reon %III" 10(" but abo e all he ma9es a distin,tion of great anatomi,al pre,ision and ital e-egeti,al importan,e with the words SiRm mostra,a:l corn eRl con %III" 11() 5herefore the corn is ,lose to the ,on without being identi,al to it) ;n a,,ount of the metaphor ,ontinued in A=an and the ,onnotations gi en to it" there ,an only be one answer* the corn is the ,litoris) 6 H) Ha::erini" 19'18'/* 5he ,urrent opinion" howe er" has found a fier,e ad ersary in A)=)@s last editor" who" enturing in a few words into the dar9 re,esses of feminine anatomy" presents in a little %para8( gyne,ologi,al treatise the result of his laborious in estigations" with the intention of demonstrating how and in what way corn was not what it had been thought to be" but rather something <uite different %and more titillating() Het us say right away that this sensational performan,e" this 9ind of redlight $s,oop$ perpetrated at na Ena@s e-pense" lea es one somewhat perple-ed) ) ) ) In reality" the arguments do not add up) Ba ing first of all eliminated one trau, for the sa9e of the other" !erugi ends up doing away with both of them" sin,e it is impossible to see whi,h orifi,e ,ould be attributed to the organ he so peremptorily identifies) ) ) ) In addition to the doubts already mentioned" we are bothered by another ,riti,al point % A) =)" ).08.2(*

Bue! siRl ,engues d:amon lo rais! totRll: echauferaRl col eRl cais +or we do not see how a rais ,ould threaten amon the 9night of #ornhil" who is supposedly busy with a ,litoris) It is" in fa,t" the ,ase that all feminine traucs are une<ui o,ally lo,ated below the erogenous :one !erugi identified as the corn) & Mario Eusebi" 19'0* 5here would be no reason to repeat what a corn is if !erugi had not proposed an interpretation % II" pp) /811( that must be refuted) 5he substan,e of !erugi@s argument is as follows) 5he corn ,annot be the anus" be,ause it is pelut4 and is ne er essut4 %p) 2(? $ EitsF semanti, field ,oin,ides almost perfe,tly with that of ) 0& dosil$ %p) ' (? be,ause 4aimon de =ufort" III" 11 says SiRm mostra,a:l corn eRl con" $the corn is ,lose to the con without being identi,al to it$ %p) 9 (? hen,e $the ,orn is the ,litoris$ %p) 9 () Gow" %1( one ,an ,ertainly not maintain that the anal orifi,e ,annot be surrounded by hairs" nor ,an one ,laim that the re,tum does not ha e a mu,us of its own or that other se,ret is,ous li<uids %menstrual bloodD( ,annot wet the anus" whi,h is lo,ated in the same palut as the se-ual organs and in ,omplete a,,ord with the unpleasant effe,t that is sought) %.( 5he erse ,ited from 4aimon de =ufort " III" 11" pro es that the corn is not the con" 6ust as what one reads immediately afterwards" 10" Cornat4 m:ayssi so'reRl reon" lo,ates the corn in the bottom) ) ) ) Moreo er" what is meant by this parodi, in ersion" as the e-a,t opposite of the mouthD And cornar is naturally to be understood as $to bring the horn to one@s mouth$* e no taing Bue mais sia drut4 D cel Bue sa 'oc:al corn condut4 % ) 1&81'() '

885 A&&E7O6:
5he MinnesTnger used the term Uorn to signify $an una,,ompanied erse that is at the ,enter of a strophe" yet rhymes with the ,orresponding member of the following strophes)$ 9 5he phenomenon is not un9nown* it is the partially unrelated rhyme" whi,h the !ro enLals ,all rim:estrampa or dissolut and whi,h =ante" in $e ,ulgari eloBuentia %II" QIII" 2(" terms cla,is %$5here are some" indeed" who do not always rhyme within a single stan:a" but repeat them or rhyme them in later stan:as$ ESunt etenim Buidam Bui non omnes BuandoBue desinentias carminum rithimantur in eadem stantia! sed easdem repetunt! si,e rithimantur! in aliisF() 11 Matthias He-er has a ,lear understanding of the fun,tion of Uorn in strophi, stru,ture" writing that $the Meistersinger understood UVrner to be the ,onne,tion between two strophes through whi,h a erse of the one rhymed with a erse of the other)$ 11 3ut in most German di,tionaries" the term is listed among the senses of Uorn as $grain"$ su,h that it be,omes wholly ine-pli,able) Moreo er" although the deri ation of this metri,al institution of the troubadour@s te,hni,al poeti,s is ,ertain" 1. the ;ld ;,,itan word corn is not listed in any le-i,on as ha ing this meaning" and therefore no do,umentation e-ists to support the idea that the 4oman,e poets might ha e borrowed their term from the German) At least this was the situation before Maria #areri" wor9ing on her edition of troubadour songboo9 B" twi,e ,ame upon a gloss that" in order to mar9 a missing erse" noted the following* aici manca us corNnOs %cors with an elongation mar9 on the $o"$ whi,h #areri reads as ,orns() $#ors"$ the editor writes" surely means $ erse"$ metri,al unit) It is un,lear whether the word ,orresponds etymologi,ally to cursus or to cornus) ) ) ) It should be noted that in both this ,ase and that mar9ed in the =b. gloss ,on,erning Guiraut de #alanso@s song %there in the form 8R cors 8R faill(" the erse missing in B is a four8syllable one that rhymes with the immediately following erse %also a four8syllable erse in Arn=an" but a si-8syllable erse in Gr#al() It is therefore possible that the term corNnOs designates a spe,ial 9ind of erse)
1/

%It should also be noted" for the sa9e of a,,ura,y" that in the Arnaut song at issue the two four8syllable erses" whi,h are not te,hni,ally UVrner" metastrophi,ally re,all the two ,orresponding erses in the pre,eding co'la)( 5he B s,ribe is therefore familiar with an un9nown meaning of ,orn" one that refers not to feminine but rather to poeti, anatomy and that" from now on" will ha e to be listed among the meanings registered in the rele ant entry in Emil He y Petit dictionnaire pro,enKalJ franKais% -4 That this is not a matter of a forgetta'le hapa= is immediately confirmed 'y ) itself% 8n the first ,erse of the tornada of 1L:aur:amara!1 ) records not the usual 3ait4 es l:acort4 D Bu:el cor remir +2hich La,aud translates as 1this accord is concluded1 and Perugi renders as 1the accord has 'een stipulated10! 'ut rather 3aits es lo cors Buel cor remir! that is! 1the ,erse is made1 +or! 'y synecdoche! 1the poem is made10% (i,en the ,erse:s location in the tornada! the sense of this ,ersion is far more satisfying +the proof is that Euse'i himself ends 'y interpreting acort as 1rhyme1: 1the rhymes are o,er10% +9s for the 2riting of cor or cors for corn! 2ith the more or less intentional forgetting of the a''re,iation mar*! Euse'i compares it 2ith other instances of the same *ind in the manuscripts! such as! among others! precisely ,% 47 of our sir,entes%0 -< 8t is unnecessary to underline the inno,ati,eness of this le=ical feature 2ith respect to the 2hole corpus of courtly lyric poetry% The homophonic play of cors and cor! 2hich is so important for the trou'adours +as is the alliteration cuerDcors in the trou,Lres0! turns out to 'e complicated 'y a third term that 'rings in a selfJreferential element! in 2hich the anatomy of the 'ody of lo,e has a strict correlate in the poem:s metrical structure% That the poem could 'e assimilated to a 'ody in the conte=t of courtly ,erse is! moreo,er!

implicit 'oth in the anatomical metaphors that proliferate in metrical terminology +the stan4a:s 1feet!1 1face!1 and 1tail1E the capcaudada:s 1headJtail1E the 1crippled1 +estrampa0 rhymeE La'orintus:s $stoma,h$ erses( and in the e<uation between grammar and nostra dona" grammati,al figures and eroti, figures" that lies at the basis of Las leys d:amors and" therefore" of its obs,ene parody) 16 3ut this assimilation is e-pli,it in =ante" when" in defining the ,an:one" he pro,eeds a,,ording to the soul>body paradigm? and it is also e ident in the MinnesTnger! 2ho e,en use the 2ord Leiche +1corpse10 to name their supreme poetic institution% Ce shall gi,e only three e=amples! among the many possi'le passages found in 9rnaut $aniel:s 2or* alone% 8n 1Canso doJill1 it 2ill 'e necessary to correct ,erse <4! so that it reads not mos Gois 'ut rather! as is found in manuscripts 8U>SSg! per Bue mos cors +that is! corNnOs0 capduelha! 1my ,erse reaches the summit1 +this is indirectly confirmed 'y #! 2hich has mos chans0% 9nalogously! in Q8! 6<J6/: Aona doctrina e suaus e cors clars! suptils e franc= mandaRm er al ferm condug% +9 doctrine that is good and s2eet 9nd a cors radiant! gentle! and fran* )a,e led me to the ledge of lo,e%0 -7 The interpretation that suggests 1precious! su'tle! and fran* ,erses1 +) and # ha,e cars instead of clars0 displaces the poet:s unli*ely 'oastfulness onto his poetry! 2hich ma*es altogether more sense% 3inally! imagine ho2 the sestina:s 1mar,elous contri,ance1 2ould 'e semantically complicated follo2ing the restitution of an archetype: Lo ferm ,oler Bu:el corn intra noRm pot ges 'ees escoissendre ni ongla% +The firm 2ill that enters into my corn Cith no 'ea* or nail can e,er 'e torn from me%0
-5

)ere the firm 2ill penetrates not into the lo,er:s heart +2hoe,er is familiar 2ith the central function of the heart in medie,al psychophysiology 2ould e=pect the 2ill to depart from it as from its sour,e(" but into the poem) Moreo er" here we then find a serious appearan,e of the 'ecsDcorn appro-imation that is so ,hara,teristi, of the sir entes) And if a little later" in erses /1 and /." what would ne er lea e the woman is not the heart but the poem" then Eusebi@s e-,ellent ,on6e,ture %a,,ording to whi,h $the real sub6e,t of the entry into the cam'ra is song$* son % % % Bua:pres dins cam'ra intra ( 19 would be finally ,onfirmed) As to corn@s etymologi,al origin" there is no reason to do away with cursus? it suffi,es to relate it to one of corn@s meanings that is most well do,umented in the di,tionaries* $tip"$ @e-tremity"$ $,orner"$ $angle)$ .1 Aust as $ erse$ draws its name from the point at whi,h it is deployed %,ersus" whi,h deri es from ,erto" an origin with whi,h the Leys d:amors is perfe,tly familiar* girar or ,irar(" .1 so ,orn indi,ates the last part of a erse" whi,h ,arries the unrelated rhyme)

8885 T6OPO&O7:
5he legitima,y of a hypothesis must be erified abo e all through its fun,tion in spe,ifi, ,onte-ts) If we return" therefore" to Arnaut@s sir entes" the whole dispute surrounding Ayna@s corn is displa,ed from its obs,ene literal sense to a <uestion of poeti, te,hni<ue and from a problem of anatomi,al suitableness to a metri,al matter) 5he $body of the woman P body of the poem$ e<uation" whi,h is not altogether une-pe,ted but is still not a gi en" will find a ,ounterpart in the e<uation of ,orn as bodily orifi,e and ,orn as point of rupture of the strophe@s metri,al stru,ture) 5he poem@s body" said by =ante to be $harmoni:ed through the musi,al lin9@ %per legame musaico armoni44ato(" is ruptured at one point" 6ust as the integrity of the female body is bro9en in the trauc sotiran) 3ut how is the reading of the te-t altered by this semanti, displa,ement" whi,h transforms a se-ual

pran9 into a poeti, <ueryD +irst of all" the otherwise improbable presen,e of the master of the gradus constructionis e=cellentissimus in an obs,ene tenson now turns out to ha e a pre,ise reason) It happens that the problem of the unrelated rhyme in the strophe lies at the ,enter of =aniel@s te,h ni<ue" as =ante first notes with referen,e to the stan:a that is $unrhymed$ %sine rithmo(* $Arnaut =aniel used this 9ind of stan:a ery fre<uently" as in his SeRm fos 9mor de Goi donar1 +et huiusmodi stantiis usus est 9rnaldus $anielis freBuentissime! ,elut i'i! SeRm fos 9mor de Goi donar0 ) .. Got only does Arnaut often ma9e use of corn? ./ he also ele ates the dissol ed rhyme to the status of a new ,ompositional ,anon in a,,ordan,e with a metastrophi, intention that profoundly mar9s his poetry) +riedri,h =ie: noted this pe,uliar in,lination of $aniel Lied! 2hich constitutes the logical premise for the in,ention of the sestina: 8nstead of Goining the rhymes in the same strophe as usual! such that each strophe in itself constitutes a harmonic te=ture and a small Lied! he Goins them only in the follo2ing strophe and lea,es each rhyme to 2ait a 2hole strophe 'efore finding its counterpart! there'y greatly 2ea*ening the effect of the rhyme% 8n 9rnaut! this ordering of rhymesJJof 2hich there are also isolated e=amples in other trou'adoursJ'ecomes the rule! and he allo2s himself only rare and significant e=ceptions to it% )ence the easy transition to the sestina% 64 8f! in short! one 2anted to define 9rnaut:s style in one single trait that has its final ape= in the sestina! one could say that he is the poet 2ho treats all ,erses as 1corns1 and 2ho! 'y thus rupturing the closed unity of the strophe! transforms the unrelated rhyme into the principle of a higher relation% The Leys states as much 2hen! 2ith limpid intuition! it finds in the rim:estrampa the compositional principle of $aniel:s sestina: 19nd to understand 2hat is meant 'y this near eBuality of sylla'les 2ith a 'eautiful cadence! ta*e! for e=ample! the song 'y 9rnaut $aniel that 'egins :lo ferms ,olers BueRl cor m:itra%: % % % Ce usually call such rhymes estrampas1 +E per Bue entendat4 Bue ,ol dire Buaysh engaltat4 de silla'as am 'ela ca4ensa! podet4 ayssi penre per ysshemple la canso Bue fo 9rnaud $anielcan dish: lo ferms ,olers BueRl cor m:itra% % % % Et aytals rimas apelam comunamen estrampas%0 6< 3rom this perspecti,e! the 1'ody of the 2oman D 'ody of the poem1 eBuation! 2hich constitutes the sir,entes:s secret theme! shows88at least at a first le el88its full intelligibility) If the corn is a point of fra,ture in the unity of the strophe" and if the strophe@s metri,al stru,ture is not to be irremediably shattered %with the ,onse<uent emission of fum! glut4" and rais(" the la,eration must ta9e pla,e with a parti,ular pre,aution* the unrelated rhymes must be 6oined in a new metastrophi, formal unity) Gothing less" that is" than what Arnaut e-pli,itly asserts in $out4 'rait4* e doncas ieu! Bu:en la gensor entendi! dei far chanso so're tot4 de tal o'ra Bue noR i aia mot fals ni rim:estrampa %5herefore I" who am aiming toward the fairest" Should ma9e a song that will be of su,h fine wor9 5hat there won@t be a word that@s false or a rhyme out of pla,e Erim:estrampaF)( .6 %Bere" of ,ourse" we must 9eep in mind" as #ostan:o =i Girolamo has suggested" that Arnaut gi es the name rim:estrampa to $what the Leys d:amors would later ,all rims espars or 'rut" whi,h is to say ,ompletely unrelated rhymes)$( .& ;nly if the rhymes are thus metastrophi,ally 6oined will it be possible to lay bare %and e en 9iss( the body of the woman8poem without danger) %;n the basis of the parallelism with the tornada of $H@aur@amara"$ and in ,ontiguity with the sir entes@s cornarRl corn" in ) /9801 we thus read* BueRl sieu 'els cors 'aisan! ri4en desco'ra D e BueRl remir contraRl lum de la lampa " $to dis,o er" 9issing and laughing" her beautiful body" and to loo9 upon it in the light of the lamp)$(

A,,ording to the purest troubadour intention" the sir entes@s obs,ene and playful theme is thus perfe,tly reunited with that gra e $theorem of the predominan,e of the harmoni, o er the melodi,$ by whi,h #ontini" following =ante" grasped Arnaut@s poeti,s) .' 5he theorem is se ere insofar as it pla,es at the ,enter of poeti, ,omposition a ,anon that is" in the e-treme ,ase" per,eptible only in writing and that thereby prepared the way for the e ent that was soon to mar9 the history of the European lyri,* the poeti, te-t@s definiti e brea9 with song %that is" with the element =ante ,alled melos() +or if it is true that in ;,,itan literature we ,an assume a ,orresponden,e between strophi, di ision" whi,h is mar9ed by regular rhymes" and melodi, di ision" it is 6ust as ,ertain that the corn or unrelated rhyme signals a point of rupture in this ,orresponden,e) And the new te,hni<ue inaugurated by Arnaut" whi,h ele ates this fra,ture to the status of supreme ,ompositional prin,iple" will then signify su,h a radi,al metamorphosis of the body of the poem as to 6ustify the tempestuous al,hemi,al fermentation that seems to ta9e pla,e in the body of Ayna) At the point where the flat ,orresponden,e between metri,al phrase and melodi, phrase is bro9en" there arises a new and more ,omple- ,orresponden,e in whi,h the unrelated erse" binding itself to its ,ounterpart in the following strophe" plays out a superior and" so to spea9" silent s,ore) 5he ,hange of the stru,ture of song in the dire,tion of continuous ode and antimelodi, instrumentation does not" therefore" signify a musi,al ,hoi,e) Instead it is the prelude to a radi,al ,risis in the relation between the te-t and its oral performan,e) In this sense" =aniel@s sestina is the first mo e in a se,ular game that has as its e-treme ,he,9mate MallarmO 1@n coup de d s!1 and in whi,h what is at sta9e is the eman,ipation of the poeti, te-t not only from song but from all oral performan,e in general) $5he page"$ MallarmO will write" $ta9en as a unit" as is elsewhere the erse or the perfe,t line$ % La Page % % % mise pour unit comme l:est autre part le 7ers ou ligne parfaite () .9 In other words* poetry as something essentially graphi,) 5his self8suffi,ien,y of the written te-t was" after all" perfe,tly ,lear to =ante %despite the $song of lo e whi,h used to <uiet in me all my longings$ Eamoroso canto D che mi solea Buetar tutte le mie ,oglie F of Purgatorio 88" 11&8 '(" /1 who has no doubt that $a pie,e of musi, as su,h is ne er gi en the name cantio$ %numBuam modulatio dicitur cantio( and that $e en when we see su,h words written down on the page" in the absen,e of any performer" we ,all them can4oni$ %etiam talia ,er'a in cartulis a'sBue prolatione iacentia cantionem ,ocamus () /1 3onagiunta@s reproa,h of Guini:elli" a,,using him of $drawing song by the for,e of writing$ %where $by the for,e of writing$ must be read" as Guglielmo Gorni has suggested" as a syntagma(" /. must then be pla,ed in the ,onte-t of this transition from a strongly oral ,ompositional ,anon to one in whi,h writing has be,ome ,ompletely autonomous) 5he game played in the body of Ayna is this ris9y? it is this de,isi e)

8(5 ANA7O7:
;nly o,,asionally in modern wor9s on metri,al stru,tures is rigorous des,ription a,,ompanied by an ade<uate ,omprehension of the meaning of meter in the global e,onomy of the poeti, te-t) Aside from hints in BRlderlin %the theory of ,aesura in the 9nmer*ung to the translation of ;edipus(" Begel %rhyme as ,ompensation for the domination of themati, meaning(" MallarmO %the crise de ,ers that he be<ueaths to twentieth8,entury poetry(" and Ma- Jommerell %the theologi,al or" rather" atheologi,al meaning of 3reirhythmen(" a philosophy of meter is almost altogether la,9ing in our age) Might it be possible to ta9e a ,ue" in this sense" from the spe,ial anatomy of Ayna@s bodyD In any ,ase" it is ,ertain that a poet@s ,ons,iousness ,annot be in estigated without referen,e to his te,hni,al ,hoi,es) 7e ha e seen that as a point of rupture of the poeti, body" corn mar9s a dis6un,tion between harmoni, and melodi, te-tures and between orality and writing) 3ut this metri,al institution %li9e all others( ,annot be understood if it is not situated in the ,onte-t of a different formal opposition" namely" that between sound and sense" metri,al segmentation and synta,ti,al segmentation) It is the awareness of this opposition@s eminent status that has led modern s,holars to identify in en6ambment the only ,ertain distin,ti e ,riterion for poetry as opposed to prose) %!oetry will then be defined as that dis,ourse in whi,h it is possible to oppose a metri,al limit8whi,h ,an" as su,h" also fall in the ,onte-t of prose88to a synta,ti,al limit? prose will be defined as the dis,ourse in whi,h this is not possible)(

En6ambment thus themati,ally mar9s the $rupture$ // between metri,al pause and synta,ti,al pause that %as Georges Hote@s analyses of pau4a suspensi,a and pau4a plana demonstrate( /0 also ,hara,teri:es ,aesura and rhyme" if to a minor degree) 7hat is rhyme" if not a dis6un,tion between semioti, e ent %the repetition of sounds( and semanti, e ent" su,h that the mind sear,hes for an analogy of sense in the ery pla,e where" disen,hanted" it ,an find only a formal ,orresponden,eD %5he <uestion of the genesis of these institutions in modern poetry" whi,h is almost insoluble de facto" ,an be easily answered de iure if one ,onsistently ,onsiders it with referen,e to the harmony between sound and sense that defines the ery site of poetry)( Gow" the authors of medie al treatises show themsel es to be ,ons,ious of this opposition" /2 e en if it is ne,essary to wait until Gi,olS 5ibino for a perspi,uous definition of en6ambment %$it often happens that the rhyme ends without the meaning of the senten,e ha ing been ,ompleted$ Emultociens enim accidit Buod! finita consonantia! adhuc sensus orationis non est finitusF() /6 Moreo er" on ,loser inspe,tion it appears that =ante is perfe,tly aware of the absolutely fundamental signifi,an,e of this opposition) In the ery moment in whi,h he defines the can4one with respe,t to its ,onstituti e elements" he opposes cantio as unit of sense %sententia( to stan4a as a purely metri,al unit %ars(* And here you must 9now that this word Estan4aF was ,oined solely for the purpose of dis,ussing poeti, te,hni<ue" so that the ob6e,t in whi,h the whole art of the can4one was enshrined should be ,alled a stan:a" that is" a ,apa,ious storehouse or re,epta,le for the art in its entirety) 3or Gust as the can4one is the lap of its su'GectJmatter! so the stan4a enlaps its 2hole techniBue" and the latter stan:as of the poem should ne er aspire to add some new te,hni,al de i,e" but should only dress themsel es in the same garb as the first) %Et circa hoc sciendum est Buod hoc ,oca'ulum NstantiaO per solius artis respectum in,entum est! ,idelicet ut in Bua tota cantionis ars esset contenta! illud diceretur stantia! hoc est mansio capa= si,e receptaculum totuis artis% >am Buemadmodum cantio est gremium totius sententiae! sic stantia totam artem ingremiatE nee licet aliBuid artis seBuenti'us adrogare! sed solam artem antecedentis induere )( /& =ante thus ,on,ei es of the stru,ture of the can4one as founded on the relation between an essentially semanti," global unit and essentially metri,al" partial units) It is remar9able that he e-presses this ,ontrast pre,isely through a bodily image* the feminine bosom" womb" or lap" with the impli,it assimilation %suggested again a little later" de ipso corpore( /' of the can4one to a body ,onstituted by metri,al organs %and the erb ingremiare" $to @enlap@ or to re,ei e in the bosom" womb" or lap"$ ,an" li9e the ,orresponding erb insinuare" ha e an e<ui o,al sense() +rom this perspe,ti e" the unrelated erse %or corn( appears no longer merely as an instrument for the reali:ation of metastrophi, unity" but rather abo e all as the pla,e of the border per supere=cellentiam between metri,al unity and semanti, unity) It then be,omes ,omprehensible why =ante" offering what appears to be an improbable suggestion" ,alls the unrelated erse cla,is %$9ey"$ but also $nail"$ a,,ording to the double meaning of the term" whi,h also ,orresponds to the originary unity of the thing? see the play between the two senses in Paradiso! QQQ88" ) 1.68.9* $the 9eys ) ) ) with the nails$ Ele chia,i % % % coi cla,iF() Insofar as it opens %or ,loses* cla,is Buod claudat et aperiat" Isidore" Etymologiae! QQ" 1/" 2( the ,losed formal womb of the stan:a" the unrelated rhyme %the cornK( ,onstitutes a threshold of passage between the metri,al unity of ars and the higher semanti, unity of the sententia) 5his is why" in Arnaut@s s9illed hands" it e ol es so to spea9 naturally into a word8rhyme stru,turing the ,omposition of the sestina* the word8rhyme88it must be stressed88is first of all a parado-i,al point of unde,idability between an eminently asemanti, element %,onsonan,e( and an essentially semanti, element %the word() In the point at whi,h rhyme on,e attested to a dis6un,tion between sense and sound" between understanding and the ear" there now stands a purely semanti," isolated unit" whi,h frustrates the e-pe,tation of ,onsonan,e" only then to reawa9en and fulfill it at a point at whi,h it is almost inaudible %if not entirely silent" $by the for,e of writing$() 5he body of poetry thus appears to be tra ersed by a double tension" a tension that has its ape- in the corn* one tension that see9s at e ery opportunity to split sound from sense"

and another that" in ersely" aims to ma9e sound and sense ,oin,ide? one that attempts to distinguish the two wombs with pre,ision" and another that wants to render the two absolutely indistin,t) 5he e-treme ,ase is glossolalia" in whi,h sense and sound ,annot be told apart* 7illiam IQ@s $babariol" babarial" babarian"$ or Gemrod 1#aphel may amLch 4a'W almW!1 both $before or beyond$ /9 meaningful dis,ourse)

(5 SE9 SENS9S M:ST8 9S

5he senten,e in whi,h =ante e o9es the unrelated rhyme in $e ,ulgari eloBuentia! 2hich 2e emphasi4ed a'o,e! must 'e considered in this light% )ere $ante almost underlines +some2hat disdainfully0 the importance of the term! 'ut 2ithout dra2ing on the trou'adour tradition +he does not mention the instances of unrelated rhymes familiar to him in 9rnaut! for e=ample0% 8nstead he refers to an other2ise un*no2n (ottus of Mantua +2hich should perhaps 'e read not as an impro'a'le name 'ut as 1a (erman from Mantua!1 that is! as a reference not to a MinnesTnger 'ut to a &e2! as has 'een indicated to me 'y the su'tlest scholar of thirteenthcentury 8talian Ua''alists! Moshe 8del! on the 'asis of the common eBuation of 9lemano 2ith 9sh*ena4i*0% Cith his usual acumen! (% (orni has noted the $olce Stil >o,o poets: characteristic use of unrelated rhymes! 2hich (uini4elli! in the sonnet 1Caro padre mio!1 seems e=plicitly to oppose! as a 2ea* tie! to rhyme as the 1canonic *not1 of the poetic composition% 4? +8t is significant that $ante:s negati,e archetype! (uittone! ta*es the greatest care to a,oid unrelated rhymes%0 Ueeping in mind the dignity assigned to the *eyJ,erse +or nail,erse0 in the economy of courtly poetics may allo2 for a less nai,e +or at least less contradictory0 reading of $ante:s summary definition of the $olce Stil >o,o in canto QQ87 of Purgatorio% The tri,ial reading of this definition romantically distorts $ante:s theme 'y interpreting it as suggesting a lin* 'et2een sense and sound! te=t and dictation! that is closer than the one in (uittone +this is the mythological 1sincerity of e=pression1 scorned 'y Contini0% Such a reading is pro,en false 'y! among other te=ts! $ante:s theory of poetic enunciation! 2hich he de,elops in chapters 3 and 4 of Aoo* 888 of the Con,i,io and 2hich must no2 'e returned to its proper programmatic status% )ere $ante defines the poetic e,ent not by a ,on ergen,e but rather by a di ergen,e between intelle,t and language) 5his di ergen,e gi es rise to a double $ineffableness$ %ineffa'ilitade(" in whi,h the intelle,t ,annot grasp %$end$( what language says and in whi,h language does not $,ompletely follow$ what the intelle,t ,omprehends* +or in spea9ing of her my thoughts many times desired to ,on,lude things about her whi,h I ,ould not understand" and I was so bewildered that outwardly I seemed almost beside myself) ) ) ) 5his is one ineffable aspe,t of what I ha e ta9en as my theme? and" subse<uently" I spea9 of the other) ) ) ) I say that my thoughts88whi,h are the words of Ho eE88$ha e su,h sweet sounds$ that my soul" that is" my affe,tion" burns to be able to tell of it with my tongue? and be,ause I am not able ) ) ) this is the other ineffable aspe,t* that is" that the tongue ,annot ,ompletely follow what the intelle,t per,ei es) ) ) ) I say then that my insuffi,ien,y deri es from a twofold sour,e" 6ust as the grandeur of the lady is trans,endent in a twofold manner" in the way that has been mentioned) +or be,ause of the po erty of my intelle,t it is ne,essary to lea e aside mu,h that is true about her and mu,h that shines" as it were" into my mind" whi,h li9e a transparent body re,ei es it without arresting it? and this I say in the following ,lause* 9nd surely 8 must lea,e aside) 5hen when I say 9nd of 2hat it understands I assert that my inability e-tends not only to what my intelle,t does not grasp but e en to what I do not understand" be,ause my tongue la,9s the elo<uen,e to be able to e-press what is spo9en of her in my thought) 01 It is well to in estigate this e-tremely dense passage" in whi,h =ante proposes nothing less than a new and" e en today" largely un,onsidered ,on,eption of the poeti, a,t) 5a9e the te-t in St) 5homas that ,onstitutes =ante@s immediate model* 7hene er spee,h is the ,ause of the intelle,t" as in those things learned by instru,tion" what the intelle,t grasps is not e<ual to the power of spee,h? and the intelle,t ,an then hear" but not understand the things spo9en) ) ) ) 3ut whene er the intelle,t is the ,ause of

spee,h" as in those things 9nown by in ention" then the intelle,t e-,eeds spee,h" and many things are understood that ,annot be spo9en) %8n Bui'usdam locutio causat intellectum! sicut in his Buae per disciplina discuntur: unde contingit Buod intellectus addiscens non per tingit ad ,irtutem locutionisE et tunc potest loBui ea Buae audit! sed non intelligit% % % % ;uandoBue autem intellectus est causa locutionis! sicut in his Buae per in,entionem sciunturE inde in his intellectus locutionem e=cedit! et multa intelligantur Buae proferri non ,alent)( %I Sent%" d) /&( Bere the philosopher ,learly lo,ates the pro,ess of learning in a double dis6un,tion between the intelle,t and spee,h in whi,h language e-,eeds the intelle,t %spea9ing without understanding( and the intelle,t trans,ends language %understanding without spea9ing() 7hile 5homas" howe er" limits himself to opposing two distin,t and in e ery sense separate modes of learning %learning by dis,ipline and learning by in ention(" =ante@s genius ,onsists in his ha ing transformed the two into a double but ne ertheless syn,hronous mo ement tra ersing the poeti, a,t" in whi,h in ention is in erted into dis,ipline %into listening( and dis,ipline is in erted into in ention" so to spea9 by irtue of its own insuffi,ien,y) 7hat follows is neither an ana,hronisti, poeti,s of the intimate ,on6un,tion of sound and sense" spee,h and understanding" nor a flat and e<ually abstra,t rhetori, of the ineffable) 4ather" here poetry is defined by a ,onstituti e dis6un,tion between the intelle,t and language in whi,h" while language spea9s without ,omprehending %$almost mo ed by itself$ EBuasi da sL stessa mossaF(" the intelle,t ,omprehends without being able to spea9) 5his is why =ante ,an present this ,onstituti e insuffi,ien,y %$the wea9ness of the intelle,t and the inade<ua,y of our power of spee,h$ Ela de'ilitade de lo: ntelletto e la corte44a del nostro parlareF( as $a fault for whi,h I should not be blamed$ % una colpa de la Buale non deggio essere colpato(" for whi,h he has reason $simultaneously$ to a,,use and e-onerate himself) 5hese two syn,hronous and in erse pro,esses in the a,t of spea9ing %and listening(88that of language@s mo ement toward ,omprehension and of ,omprehension@s mo ement toward language88,ommuni,ate with ea,h other in their limitation" su,h that %as =ante will go on to say( their imperfe,tion a,tually ,oin,ides with their perfe,tion % Con,i,io! 888" 12" 9() If this is the stru,ture of the poeti, di,tation" the ter:inas of Purgatorio! QQ87" 0986/" will ha e to be reread) +irst of all" the double s,ansion spiralnoto and detta D ,o significando %as in the 8:lun dupli,ation( ,orresponds to the Con,i,io@s double e-,ess and double ineffability" whi,h88on,e definitely ta9en as a feli,itous poeti, prin,iple88delimits the spa,e in whi,h" a,,ording to =ante@s ,entral intention" in ention is transformed into listening %and trans,ription( and listening into in ention) 5he $,lose$ %strette( mo ement of the pen $following after$ %di retro( the di,tator ,annot therefore signify a simple obedien,e) 4ather" insofar as the pen follows the di,tation through its ery insuffi,ien,y" $,lose$ must be understood in the sense of $hampered" with diffi,ulty"$ as when it is referred to spee,h in the #omedy %see" abo e all" Purgatorio! Q87" 1.6* $so has our dis,ourse wrung my heart$ EsW m:ha nostra ragion la lingua stretta F() 0. 3ut the nodo D ch:i: odo rhyme" whi,h often appears in the #omedy in su,h signifi,ant ,onte-ts % Paradiso! 788" 2/822? Purgatorio! Q78" ..8.0(" also ,annot be a,,idental) It is e en possible to find in this rhyme a barely disguised e o,ation of the ery $nail$ %or $9ey$( that we ha e seen to mar9 the ,onne,tion8dis6un,tion %almost the unrelated relation( of sound and sense in $e ,ulgari eloBuentia %while the $9not$ EnodoF will then in ersely mar9 the arrogant attempt to ma9e sound and sense ,oin,ide" as in Mar,abru" $la ra4on eRl ,ers lassar e faire$() And does not Guini:elli re eal as mu,h in the ,learest fashion when" a little later" he ,ites 3onagiunta@s words and says* $Iou lea e" by that whi,h I hear" tra,es so deep and ,lear in me that Hethe ,annot ta9e them away or ma9e them dim$ %Tu lasci tal ,estigio D per Buel ch:i: odo! in me! e tanto chiaro D che Let nol puH trarre n far 'igio (D 0/ 5he 3onagiunta episode thus dramati:es in almost #a al,antian terms the same feli,itous dis6un,tion that the Con,i,io arti,ulates in the form of do,trine and that ,an be o er,ome only by the di ine mind" in whi,h the intelle,t and its ob6e,t ,oin,ide) +or e ery human ,laim to trans,end this dis6un,tion loses sight of the distan,e that separates the two $styles$ %the writing of language" whi,h e-,eeds the intelle,t" and that of ,omprehension" whi,h e-,eeds language(* $and he who sets himself to see9 further ,an see no other differen,e between the one style and the other$ %@e Bual piM a gradir oltre si mette D non ,ede piM da l:uno a l:altro stilo@() 00

9nd is this not precisely 2hat happens in e,ery genuine poetic enunciation! in 2hich language:s mo,ement to2ard sense is as if tra,ersed 'y another discourse! one mo,ing from comprehension to sound! 2ithout either of the t2o e,er reaching its destination! the one to rest in prose and the other in pure soundX 8nstead! in a decisi,e e=change! it is as if! ha,ing met each other! each of the t2o mo,ements then follo2ed the other:s trac*s! such that language found itself led 'ac* in the end to language! and comprehension to comprehension% This in,erted chiasmJJthis and nothing elseJJis 2hat 2e call poetry% This chiasm is! 'eyond e,ery ,agueness! poetry crossing 2ith thought! the thin*ing essence of poetry and the poetici4ing essence of thought% And in this ,rossing %in whi,h" as at e ery ,rossroads" ,atastrophe is always possible( it is the $nail$ %or $9ey$( that ,onstitutes the me,hanism of e-,hange" 6ust as it is the ,orn that mar9s the tra,e of this e-,hange in the delirious body of Ayna)

(85 EP8&O79E
3ut who is Ayna" this being made of both words and sound" whom we ha e e-plored in sear,hing after the limit of the anatomy of lo eD Sharp" li ely" and almost ,haste in her shamelessness" she ,ertainly appears as an in erted figure of the troubadour@s domna genser Bue no say dir" and of the 1Lady 8ntelligence1 that the lo e poets present as both the origin and the destiny of their song) As su,h" she ,alls to mind the $stammering woman$ %femmina 'al'a( of Purgatorio" QIQ" &812" the babbling siren whose appearan,e gi es rise to 6ust as inde,ent an e-hibition and in whom ,riti,s ha e rightly seen a figure of $non8song)$ 02 Bere" howe er" e en the in ersion is ,ompli,ated and" so to spea9" in turn in erted) 7e belie e that we ha e identified the ar,hetype in a passage of Eriugena@s glosses on Martianus #apella" a te-t that was ,ertainly not un9nown to ,ourtly ,ulture) Bere we read" with referen,e to one of the Muses@ names* AGIA" intelle,t) +or GIA is intelle,t" hen,e the e-pression G;IS) $A$ signifies many things for the Gree9s) Sometimes it denotes a negation? sometimes it denotes an addition" as in this name AGIA* here $A$ in,reases its sense) %AGIA" intelligentia) GIA enim intelligentia" ab eo <uod est G;IS di,itur) A apud Gre,os multa signifi,at) !er i,es enim negat" per i,es implet" si,ut in ho, nomine AGIA* ibi enim auget sensum)( 06 Ayna is e-a,tly the in erse of Ania) 3ut 6ust as for Eriugena" $A$ is not pri ati e but intensi e" so the in ersion of Ayna into ,omprehension is not simply negati e) 4ather" it is ,arried to the point %whi,h the a,t of cornar parodi,ally e-presses( at whi,h ,omprehension is dar9ened in spee,h and spee,h is silen,ed in ,omprehension) Insofar as it bears the corn@s ,oat of arms" her oneiri, body is the pla,e offered by the poet to unrelated relation and" almost" to the re,ipro,al ,atastrophe of sound and sense that defines poeti, e-perien,e) 5hat she appears in 4aimbaut d@Aurenga@s $Go say <ue s@es"$ that is" in a poeti, ,omposition whose e-treme no elty ,onsists in its 9eeping itself in both poetry and prose" will ,ertainly not seem in,ongruous at this point) 5he site of a fulfillment and an impossibility" of a perfe,tion possible through an imperfe,tion alone" Ayna is" perhaps more than any other feminine senhal" the final ,ipher of the troubadour pro6e,t" the flor en,ersa re ealed on the ery threshold of the terrestrial paradise in whi,h only Matelda %on,e again an in erted name* ad letam( performs her inno,ent dan,e) And only after ha ing ,onsigned this dream to its anagraphi, identity ,an we ta9e lea e of it)

$ T%e Dream of &anguage To 7io4anni Po;;i and arlo Dionisotti< 2%o leared t%e 2a! for E4er! 6eading of Polifilo

8
5he obser ations that follow see9 to lo,ate a famous yet littleread wor9 in the site that is proper to a reading and" in so doing" to return it to a dimension in whi,h its material ,ontent and its truth ,ontent %or" we ,ould also say" ta9ing up the medie al theory of the many senses of S,ripture" its literal sense and its allegori,o8moral sense( ,oin,ide) If it is true that e ery reading of a wor9 must ne,essarily re,9on with the growing distan,e between different le els of meaning that is ,aused by time" it is also true that a genuine reading ta9es pla,es only at the point at whi,h the wor9@s li ing unity" first present in the original draft" is on,e again re,omposed) In the ,ase of the anonymous in,unabulum printed in Ceni,e in 1099 that is our sub6e,t here" )ypnerotomachia Poliphili" 1 any attempt to assume this tas9 must ,onfront a number of parti,ular problems) +irst there are the diffi,ulties posed by a wor9 that is o er 211 years old and that ,omes from a milieu88fifteenth8,entury humanism88that has ne er su,,eeded in gaining a modern publi,) More de,isi e is the fa,t that the in,unabulum" ,losed in its perfe,t Aldine 6a,9et" seems to be ,omposed of elements so di ergent as to ma9e it appear from the beginning a dead spe,imen without pre,edent or des,endants" a 9ind of emblem in whi,h88to use the terminology of those allegori,al treatises that often too9 their inspira tion from it88the ingenious will of the author irre o,ably separated and silen,ed $soul$ and $body)$ E en the beautiful illustrations that ,ontributed to the boo9@s good fortune add to this hieroglyphi, and generally tombli9e impression) And yet e en if it ,ertainly registered the problem of death" )ypnerotomachia was not a simple" pedanti, e-er,ise substantially foreign to the li ing part of the Italian literary tradition) 4ather" it e-pressed in an e-emplary fashion the ,risis of one of the deepest intentions of the Italian tradition) !erhaps the philologi,al obsession and the e-a,erbated lo e of language that ,hara,teri:e fifteenth8,entury humanism and the bilingualism that is at issue in it %and whi,h is present in Italian literature" in different forms" from one end to the other( ,on,eal a problem that is more essential than we are a,,ustomed to thin9) 5he modest motto that !oli:iano attributed to Lamia@s prologue % grammaticus! non philosophus(" and that a te-t ,lose to those we are ,on,erned with here formulates as the fear of appearing as a $bad philosopher$ rather than a ,ommentator %ne philosophaster magis ,ideatur Buam commentator(" therefore suggests that the more a wor9 seems to ,on,entrate on philologi,al and linguisti, problems" the denser its truth ,ontent may be) It is perhaps pre,isely here that the ,riti, must not fear the ris9 of thought" and that the ,ommentator" in turn" must not shy away from appearing as a $bad philosopher)$

88
5he ne,essary introdu,tion to e ery reading of !olifilo is ,onstituted by analysis of its language) 5he effe,t of estrangement that its language produ,es so disorients the reader that he literally does not 9now what language he is reading" whether it is Hatin" the erna,ular" or a third idiom88perhaps the one that a si-teenth,entury parody early on defines pre,isely as the lingua poliphylesca) It is not simply a matter of an effe,t due to the te-t@s temporal distan,e from us) 5he awareness of this effe,t was so ,entral to the author and the first readers of the boo9 that we find it ,learly stated in the margins of the boo9 itself) In the Hatin letter of Heonardo #rasso that opens the te-t" we read* $5he one wonderful thing about it is that while it spea9s in the language of our ,ountry" ,onsiderable wor9 is re<uired to as,ertain whether it is in Gree9 and Hatin or 5us,an and the erna,ular$ %#es una in eo mirando est! Buod! cum nostrati lingua loBuatur! non minus ad eum cognoscendum opus sit graeca et romana Buam tusca et ,ernacula ( %I" IQ() 7hat is perfe,tly ,aptured here is what still disturbs the modern reader" e en if it is not at all ,lear whether we are to understand $the language of our ,ountry$ as the Hatin in whi,h Heonardo writes or the te-t@s own erna,ular) 5he anonymous elegy to the reader that follows a little later ,onfirms these ideas by spea9ing of a $no el language and no el spee,h$ %no,a lingua no,usBue sermo( %I" Q() E en more e-pli,itly" Matteo Cis,onti@s poem" added to the ,opy of the te-t in the Aerlin Staats'i'liote*" refers to an $in ention of a new and almost di ine spee,h$ % no,um propemodumBue di,inum eloBuium nactus ( % II" /6()

Modern s,holars ha e analy:ed !olifilo@s language" albeit not e-hausti ely) 5he results to whi,h they were led ,onfirm what appears to be the ,ase at first glan,e* the boo9@s language is a monstrous unicum in whi,h a Hatin le-i,on is igorously grafted onto the erna,ular language at the wor9@s foundation) In the words of one s,holar who too9 e-emplary ,are in studying )ypnerotomachia" the te-t is $an attempt to resol e the humanisti, debate o er Hatin and erna,ular with a pra,ti,al formula" preser ing the phonologi,al and morphologi,al reality of one and the le-i,al nobility of the other)$ . It is not simply a matter of the intrusion of purely Hatin %and at times Gree9( words into the erna,ular le-i,on" a,,ording to a pro,ess of growth that ,ertainly ,hara,teri:ed the history of the erna,ular in the fifteenth ,entury) 4ather" here innumerable new linguisti, formations are made through the separate transposition of Hatin roots and suffi-es" whi,h lend life to words that are grammati,ally possible but that in reality ne er e-isted" and whose life remains mainly ,onfined to their single appearan,e in !olifilo@s dream) Iet the sense of the operation performed on the le-i,al element is not fully understood if it is not pla,ed in relation to the parti,ular grammati,al and synta,ti,al stru,ture of the wor9@s prose) If )ypnerotomachia@s prose" on the one hand" ,aptures the long and ,omplesynta- of 3o,,a,,io@s style" on the other it ,ompli,ates and burdens that synta- with a series of delays and anomalies / that ultimately lea e the le-i,al element ,learly stranded" appearing all the more alien in the dis,ursi e ,onte-t of the te-t@s propositions) An intent of this 9ind88and" moreo er" one whi,h is ,ons,iously ,arried out88has been noted in MallarmO" 0 where the infinite synta,ti,al ,ompli,ation of the poet@s writing ma9es words stand out in their isolation while their semanti, alues are suspended in what MallarmO ,alled an isolement de la parole) 5hus" MallarmO writes" words" held ba,9 in $ ibratile suspension"$ are per,ei ed by the mind independent of their ,onte-tual synta,ti,al ,onne,tion" in a 9ind of pure self8referential mirroring* 7ords rise up unaided and in e,stasy? many a fa,et re eals its infinite rarity and is pre,ious to our mind) +or our mind is the ,enter of this hesitan,y and os,illation? it sees the words not in their usual order" but in pro6e,tion %li9e the walls of a ,a e(" so long as that mobility whi,h is their prin,iple li es on" that part of spee,h whi,h is not spo9en) 2 %Hes mots" d@eu- mTmes" s@e-altent U mainte fa,ette re,onnue la plus rare ou alant pour l@esprit" ,entre de suspens ibratoire? <ui les perLoit indOpendamment de la suite ordinaire" pro6etOs" en parois de grotte" tant <ue dure leur mobilitO ou prin,ipe" Otant ,e <ui ne se dit pas du dis,ours)( 6 It is this play between the le-i,al and the synta,ti,o8grammati,al elements that" in !olifilo" produ,es the effe,t of immobility and almost pi,torial rigidity that has been noted by the ,riti,s) And it is this ery play that the wor9@s illustrations" li9e mirrors" seem to multiply) 7e find oursel es before a language in whi,h the le-i,al element appears to pre ail o er the synta,ti,o8grammati,al element" before an agrammati,al language" as has been said) More pre,isely" it is a matter not of an agrammati,al dis,ourse but rather of a language in whi,h the resistan,e of names and words is not immediately dissol ed and rendered transparent by the ,omprehension of the global meaning? hen,e the le-i,al element remains isolated and suspended for a few se,onds" as dead material" before being arti,ulated and dissol ed in the fluid dis,ourse of sense) !olifilo@s language is therefore a dis,ourse in the erna,ular that ,arries within it the le-i,al s9eleton of Hatin names" lea ing it for an instant to appear in the ba,9ground of its own ,oat of arms) 7e ,an then say that we find oursel es fa,ed with a te-t in whi,h one language88Hatin88is refle,ted in another88the erna,ular88in re,ipro,al deformation) Chat the ,ernacular contains in itself 2ithout e=pressingJJ2hat remains unsaid in discourseJJis thus in this case another language! Latin ) Ben,e the impression of festina lente" of an e-,ited delay and breathless lingering in these pages" whose rhythm is as if slowed down from within) Ben,e also that $insoluble un,ertainly between humanisti, and fourteenth8,entury elements$ by whi,h =ionisotti so perfe,tly summari:es !olifilo@s ,hara,ter) Ben,e" finally" the sepul,hral and dreamy rigidity of a prose in whi,h dis,ourse ,ounts not for what it says but for what seems to remain

unsaid and" ne ertheless" to be present in it* e-a,tly as in a dream" or in an a,rosti," 6ust as the names of both the author and the belo ed are se,retly hidden in latine in the initials of e ery ,hapter* Poliam frater 3ranciscus Columna perama,it)

888
5hese obser ations on language must now guide us in the reading of )ypnerotomachia" if a wor9@s material ,ontent ,annot be separated from its truth ,ontent and the language in whi,h a wor9 is written ,annot be irrele ant to the wor9@s material ,ontent) 5he boo9 is the story of a dream" and at the ,enter of this dream lies the figure of a woman" !olia) 5he male protagonist@s lo e for !olia is so unusual and so obsessi e that he has no reality other than that ,on,ealed in the name !olifilo* !olia@s lo er) 5he whole matter ,an be des,ribed as a $ oyage into the amorous flames of !olia$ % I" 11/() 7ho is !oliaD Answers to this <uestion ha e traditionally been dire,ted toward the histori,al" anagraphi, de,iphering of the real woman who would ha e been hidden under this name %for e-ample" the nie,e of 5eodoro de@ Helli" bishop of 5rento(" or else toward the de,iphering of the name@s allegori,al meaning %for e-am ple" anti<uity() It is ob ious that for all their pre,iousness" su,h in estigations ,an add little to the ,omprehension of the wor9 as long as they do not ,onfront what ,onstitutes )ypnerotomachia@s te-tual spe,ifi,ity) 7hat do we 9now about !oliaD Abo e all what the name itself says) 5hough it may seem surprising" !olia %from the Gree9 polios! polia( means simply $the gray woman" the old woman"$ and !olifilo simply means $he who lo es the old woman)$ A reading of the marginal additions to the te-t %some of whi,h were presumably written out by the author himself( ma9es it possible to add signifi,ant determinations to this gi en" whi,h in itself is not transparent) +irst of all" the boo9@s dedi,ation informs us that !olia" the boo9@s sole owner and addressee" is also the one who $painted$ %depinto( and $made$ %fa'ricato( the boo9* $whi,h boo9"$ we read" $you" being its sole owner" ha e diligently painted in the amorous heart with a golden arrow" and sealed and made with your angeli, effigy$ % tu industriosamente nell:amoroso core cum dorate sagitte in Buello depincto et cum la tua angelica effigie insignito et fa'ricato hai! che singularmente padrona il possede ( % I" .() !olifilo merely translated the boo9 from its $first style$ %principiato stile( into its present form" su,h that !olia" $great wor9er of the mind$ %optima operatrice e cla,igera della mente(" would not re,ei e blame for its faults) Andrea 3res,iano@s poem informs us" moreo er" that !olia" whose name identified her as $the old woman"$ is in fa,t already dead) 3res,iano tells us that she li es again" dead" only than9s to !olifilo@s dream" whi,h ma9es her lie awa9e on the lips of the learned* P Buam de cunctis feli= mortali'us una es! Polia! Buae ,i,is morta! sed melius: Te! dum Poliphilus somno iacet o'trutus alto! Per,igilare facit docta per ora ,irum) %I" QC( %P Polia! 2ho among all mortals is the only happy one! you li,e in deathE 'ut you li,e 'etJ ter% Chile Polifilo lies destroyed in his deep sleep! he ma*es you stay a2a*e on the lips of the learned)( In the two epitaphs with whi,h the boo9 ends" !olia@s death %or" rather" her dead life( is ,onfirmed e en more e-pli,itly* !olia $li es buried$ %3eli= Polia! Buae sepulta ,i,is E I" 061F(" and !olifilo awa9ens her from her sleep) And in the words that !olia herself utters from the gra e" in whi,h the boo9 itself seems to appear as her mausoleum" !olia is nothing but a desi,,ated flower that will ne er li e again and that !olifilo has tried in ain to reanimate* $Alas" !olifilo" desist88a flower so desi,,ated will ne er li e again$ % )eu Poliphile D desine D flos sic e=siccatus D nunBuam re,i,iscit Eibid)F()

!olia" the ob6e,t of the author@s amorous <uest" is therefore not only an old woman? she is a dead woman" a woman brought to life by the dream alone" a woman who has in the boo9 both her wor9 and her mausoleum) 7hyD 7hat does !olia@s death meanD All these gi ens" whi,h at first glan,e are impenetrable" be,ome perfe,tly ,lear if we refer them not to a presumed referential reality but8on,e they are situated in the li ing unity of reading88 to what we ha e obser ed regarding !olifilo@s language and its self8referential nature) !olia" we may now ad an,e as our first hypothesis" is old %language(" dead %language(" that is" the same Hatin that !olifilo@s no el te-t" in its ar,hai, le-i,al rigidity" refle,ts into erna,ular dis,ourse in a re,ipro,al and dreamy mirroring) And !olifilo88he who lo es !olia88is a figure for lo e of Hatin* an impossible or dreamy lo e" sin,e it is the lo e of a dead language" a lo e that see9s to reanimate the desi,,ated flower by transplanting it into the li ing members of the erna,ular) Into !olifilo@s own members" that is" if !olifilo88 he who lo es Hatin88is therefore himself the figure of the mother tongue separated from Hatin" whose lo e" a,,ording to the words of the first letter to !olia" ne,essarily means being fully ali e in the other and ,ompletely dead in oneself % I" 0/9() +or dead Hatin words" suspended in their isolation" reappear and ,ome ali e again at the end" if it is true that" in the last analysis" we understand !olifilo@s te-t" albeit with diffi,ulty) 5he refle,tion of one language into another does not remain inert? it is not only the mirroring of two separate realities) Instead" here" as in e ery human dis,ourse" something li es and something dies) 5he language of Bypnerotoma,hia therefore ,ontains an impli,it but arti,ulated refle,tion on lan guage" a theory of the relations between the erna,ular and Hatin that must be brought to light) 5he a,rosti, re eals not only the author@s name but also the essential and irredu,ible bilingualism whose ,ir,ularity is already ins,ribed in the passage from the Hatin title to the erna,ular te-t and" again" to the final Hatin epitaph) 7hile leading the te-t to the site of a possible reading" this pro isional hypothesis ,on,erning !olia@s identity also returns it to the histori,al ,onte-t in whi,h it was born* fifteenth8,entury humanism and the fra,ture of its rhetori, into Hatin and the erna,ular) +or" a,,ording to a parado- that is only apparent" it was pre,isely the humanists who" in their passionate indi,ation of Hatin" first formulated the idea of a life" senes,en,e" and rebirth88but" by that ery to9en" also of a death88of language) It was pre,isely the humanists who" in other words" first ,on,ei ed of the ob6e,t of their li ing lo e as a dead and reborn language)

8(
B) 7) Jlein has already re,onstru,ted the birth of the ,on,ept of dead language in humanism) & Bere it suffi,es to re,all that it was Horen:o de@ Medi,i who" in the 1Commento sopra alcuni de: suoi sonetti1 +1Comment on Some of )is Sonnets10 " whi,h antedates the printing of )ypnerotomachia by about fifteen years" first attempted to ,ompare the de elopment of a language to that of a li ing organism" establishing a parallelism between the ages of man and those of language) $5he ,hildhood of this language until now ,an be said to be ery great" sin,e it is be,oming more and more elegant and pleasant) And it might attain e en greater perfe,tion in its youth and adulthood)$ ;nly a little later" after spea9ing of the death of the woman to whom the sonnets are dedi,ated" Horen:o states the prin,iple %whi,h was later" in a famous dialogue by Car,hi" to be te-tually transferred to language( a,,ording to whi,h $it is do,trine among good philosophers that the ,orruption of one thing is the ,reation of another)$ Many years before" in a te-t that ,onstitutes the first history of Hatin literature" Si,,o !olenton Scriptorum illustrium latinae linJguae li'ri Q7888 guae libri QCIII" the e<uation of language with a li ing organism was e-pressed in the metaphor not of birth and rebirth but of a sleep and reawa9ening of language) 4eferring to the renewal of Italian ,ulture in =ante@s age" Si,,o des,ribes in ,harming detail the reawa9ening of the Hatin Muses after a slumber of o er a thousand years* $at that moment" li9e those who are still asleep" they began to mo e their limbs" rub their eyes" and stret,h out their arms$ % hoc ,ero tempore! ut somnolenti solent! mem'ra mo,ere! oculos tegere! 'rachia e=tendere coeperunt () ' Iet in the prefa,e to the first boo9 of the Elegantiae" at the moment he states his passionate program for the restoration of the Hatin language" Horen:o Calla already spea9s of the death %or the near death( of the Hatin letters that will now be reawa9ened to new life % ac paene cum litteris ipsis demortuae! hoc tempore e=citentur ac re,i,iscant ()

Many years later" when the humanist dis,ussion" starting with 3embo" too9 the form of a $debate about language$ %Buestione della lingua( and a ,ontrast between erna,ular humanism and Hatin humanism" it would be pre,isely the idea of the death of language88 an idea originally forged for the sa9e of indi,ating Hatin88that would furnish arms to the proponents of the erna,ular) In Sperone Speroni $ialogo delle lingue %whi,h dates from 120." thus more than 01 years after )ypnerotomachia and almost .1 years after Prose della ,olgar lingua(" the growth and death of Hatin are a natural phenomenon" ,omparable to the ital ,y,le of a plant* $+or this is the will of nature" who has de,ided that this tree soon be born" flower" and bear fruit" and that another soon grow old and die)$ 5he erna,ular" by ,ontrast" is a $ irgin$ who has not yet fully flowered* $I tell you that this modern language" howe er old it is" is still <uite a young and deli,ate irgin" one who has not yet fully flowered and borne the fruits of whi,h she is ,apable)$ ;n the lips of the ,ourtier who is the spo9esman for the erna,ular" the superiority of the erna,ular o er Hatin is by now simply the superiority of the li ing o er the dead* $May you be permitted to want to hold it Ethe Hatin languageF in your mouths dead as it is? and lea e us idiots in pea,e to spea9 our li ing erna,ulars with the tongue that God ga e us)$ 9 ;n,e 3embo@s ,laims had won their battle" the ,on,epts of dead language and li ing language appeared in Car,hi Ercolana" &1 years after )ypnerotomachia" as the a,,epted instruments of linguisti, ,lassifi,ation that are perfe,tly familiar to us %$;f languages" some are li ing and some are not li ing) 5he non8li ing languages are of two 9inds* those whi,h we would ,all wholly dead" and those whi,h are half ali e$() At the same time" the problem of whether the erna,ular is $a new language on its own or merely the an,ient language" now bro9en and ,orrupted$88a problem that had been greatly debated among the humanists88was resol ed in fa or of a relati e but firm autonomy of the erna,ular %$thus this language will be ,onsidered to be new" though built on the foundations of Hatin$() 11 5he first generations of humanists had been so ,on in,ed of the erna,ular@s substantial differen,e from Hatin that they ,laimed the erna,ular ,ould ha e deri ed etymologi,ally from Hatin only through the mediation of Gree9 or a barbarian language) Gow these ery ideas" whi,h had been used to support the superiority of Hatin" are instead in o9ed to 6ustify the e-,ellen,e of the erna,ular) =ionisotti has 6ustly obser ed that modern historians ha e too often and too easily tried to e-plain the passage from Hatin humanism to erna,ular humanism as the normal out,ome of a ,onfli,t between a dead language and a li ing language) 11 A simple glan,e at the dates of the te-ts ,ited demonstrates that in the years in whi,h )ypnerotomachia was written" the idea of the death of language had not yet a,<uired its modern meaning" whi,h emerges only in fun,tional pro-imity to the polemi, against Hatin) 5his does not mean that the idea of a dead language was not yet present" but only that it did not retain the same meaning before and after the watershed mar9ed by Prose della ,olgar lingua% Aefore Prose della ,olgar lingua! the idea of a dead language 2as the condition of a re'irth and restorationE after2ard it mar*ed the definite end of the spo*en use of Latin% 8f 2e 2ant to ,erify the sense and truth of our identification of Polia as an old and dead language! 2e must therefore attempt to rec*on precisely 2ith this difference and to enter a 4one in 2hich the crisis of language 'et2een the fifteenth and si= teenth ,enturies had not yet assumed the form88a form that is so determining for the Italian tradition88of a $debate about language)$

(
5o measure the no elty of the idea of Hatin as a dead language" it is ne,essary to stress the brea9 that it mar9ed with respe,t to fourteenth8,entury ideas) In =ante Con,i,io and $e ,ulgari eloBuentia! the perisha'le and dead language par e=cellence is still the ,ernacular! 2hile Latin is 1perpetual and incorrupti'le%1 8nsofar as it is the lingua grammatica! Latin is! for $ante! 2hat puts an end to the mortality of languages% The fact of the matter is that $ante:s 'ilingualism and the 'ilingualism of the fifteenth and si=teenth centuries in no 2ay refer to the same phenomenon% The first corresponds to the opposition not so much 'et2een t2o languages as 'et2een t2o different e=periences of language! 2hich $ante calls the mother tongue and the grammatical language% The ,ernacular is an a'solutely primordial and immediate e=perience of speech +1first speech1 Nprima locutioO N $e ,ulgari eloBuentia! 8! 6! 6-OE 1Nit isO one and only in the mindE that

2hich is alone and first in the 2hole mind1 Nuno e solo L prima nella menteE Buello che L solo prima in tutta la menteO N Con,i,io! 8! Q888! <O0% 8t is an e=perience prior not only to all other languages 'ut also to all science and all *no2ledge! of 2hich it constitutes the necessary condition +1this ,ernacular of mine 2as 2hat led me into the path of *no2ledge 2hich is our ultimate perfection! since through it 8 entered upon Latin and through its agency Latin 2as taught to me1 N;uesto mio ,olgare fi introduttore di me ne la ,ia della scien4a! che L ultima perfe4ione! in Buanto con esso io entrai ne lo latino e con esso mi fu mostratoO N Con,i,io! 8! Q888! <O0% -6 This primordiality of the ,ernacularJJ2hich is truly something li*e the d2elling of the logos in the 'eginning of &ohanine theologyJJis! $ante says! 1a cause that engenders lo,e1 +cagione d:amore generati,a0! that is! the ground of the 1most perfect lo,e of one:s o2n language1 +perfettissimo amore alla propria loBuela0! 2hich is so important for him% 9nd yet! for all its primordiality! precisely 'ecause it coincides immediately 2ith the illumi nation of the mind that gi es rise to 9nowledge and be,ause it e-perien,es the $ineffability$ %ineffa'ilitade( % Con,i,io! 888" IC" 1( impli,it in this illumination" the erna,ular ,an follow only $use"$ not $art$? and it is" therefore" ne,essarily transient and sub6e,t to ,ontinual death) 5o spea9 in the erna,ular is pre,isely to e-perien,e this in,essant death and rebirth of words" whi,h no grammar ,an fully treat) %5his is why =ante says" in Con,i,io! 88" QIII" 11" that $the rays of reason$ Eli raggi de la ragioneF ,annot $end$ EterminarsiF in language" $in parti,ular in words$ Ein parte spe4ialmente de li ,oca'oliF? in fa,t" $,ertain words" ,ertain de,lensions" and ,ertain ,onstru,tions are now in use whi,h formerly were not" and many were formerly in use whi,h will yet be in use again$ Ecerti ,oca'oli! certe declina4ioni! certe costru4ioni sono in uso che gi" non furono! e molto gi" furono che ancor saranno F() 1/ 5he lingua grammatica is instead the language of 9nowledge" locutio secundaria) Grammati,al language always presupposes the mother tongue and ,an be learned" by means of rules and study" only through the mother tongue) 5his is why grammati,al language is unalterable and perpetual %hen,e the apparent ,ontradi,tion a,,ording to whi,h the greater nobility of Hatin does not e-,lude the primogeniture of the erna,ular() =ante@s refle,tions on Hatin and the erna,ular must be situated in the ,onte-t of this double e-perien,e of spee,h" whi,h was possible only in the brief period between the appearan,e of the literary ,ons,iousness of the erna,ular in the lo e poets and the ,onstru,tion of the first grammars in 4oman,e languages %Las leys d:amors dates from the first de,ades of the fourteenth ,entury" and $onat proensal appeared earlier? but Italian grammar emerged with +ortunio@s #egole in 1216() ;nly if ,onsidered in this light ,an =ante@s pro6e,t be understood* to gi e stability to the erna,ular" whi,h is ,onstituted as the language of poetry" without transforming it into a grammati,al language) 5he bilingualism of the fifteenth and si-teenth ,enturies" by ,ontrast" presupposes a regulated and instrumental relation to language that is substantially the same for both Hatin and the erna,ular) 5he struggle between #i,eronian Hatin and the fourteenth8 ,entury erna,ular as 3embo understood it was" from =ante@s point of iew" a struggle between two grammati,al languages* both renoun,e the primordial e-perien,e of the e ent of language? both seem to presuppose a 9nowledge and a prelinguisti, thought that" as has been suggested for the Hatin thin9ers of the late Middle Ages" might ,oin,ide with the erna,ular" whi,h is singularly obs,ured in debates about language) 5he ,risis of language that too9 pla,e between the fifteenth and the si-teenth ,enturies was therefore not simply the ,ontrast between a dead %or half li ing( language and a li ing language that naturally su,,eeds it) %As the more lu,id thin9ers immediately reali:ed" e en the fourteenth8,entury erna,ular proposed by 3embo was" after all" a dead language" a language that" in 3ernardo =a an:ati@s words" $one does not spea9" but learns li9e dead languages through the wor9s of three +lorentine writers)$( 4ather" the fifteenth8 and si-teenth8,entury ,risis of language mar9s the definiti e de,line of the e-perien,e from whi,h 4oman,e lyri, poetry emerged" as well as a radi,al ,hange in the nature of bilingualism) In a de,isi e turning8point in European ,ulture" =ante@s antithesis between the erna,ular and grammar88that is" between the e-perien,e of the originary and se,ondary status of the e ent of language %or" again" between lo,e of language and *no2ledge of language(88 therefore ,omes to be repla,ed by the antithesis between li ing language and dead language) 5he humanist opposition then ,on,eals and" in fa,t" e en o erturns the meaning

of the earlier distin,tion) +or the essential bilingualism of human spee,h is now resol ed through a dia,hroni, separation by whi,h one language is pushed ba,9ward" as $dead"$ prior to $li ing$ language) Iet the language that thus dies88Hatin88is not =ante@s imperishable grammati,al language but rather a mother tongue of a new 9ind" whi,h is already the lingua matri= of se enteenth8,entury philology88the original language from whi,h other languages deri e and whose death renders possible the intelligibility and grammati,ality of other languages) ;nly the appearan,e of Hatin as a dead language allowed the erna,ular to be transformed into a grammati,al language) And it was pre,isely the idea of a dead language that" in the hands of 4omanti, linguisti,s" made possible the birth of the modern s,ien,e of language) +or what is Indo8European88whose re,onstru,tion mar9ed the ,ulmination of modern ,omparati e grammar8if not the idea of a dead language that is always ne,essarily presupposed for e ery language and that" present pre,isely in being dead" sustains the systemati, 9inship and intelligibility of languagesD +rom this point of iew" it ,an be said that the first generations of humanism" whi,h passionately e-perien,ed the ,orruption and rebirth of Hatin" transferred to Hatin pre,isely the e-perien,e of language that had originally been the e-perien,e of the erna,ular) Hatin thus rose up again in humanism in a radi,ally new form* it was now no longer the immobile grammati,al language of the Middle Ages but rather a li ing and" by that to9en" ,orruptible and mortal language) 5he intelle,tual mo ement that ,aptured this new e-perien,e of language was not #i,eronian humanism but rather the ,urrent of humanisti, philology that" from !oli:iano to 3eroaldo to !io" had ,on,entrated its le-i,ographi, attention on the ar,hai, and late facies of the latinity that was soon to be rigidified into a ,anon following the i,tory of 3embo@s position) In the pra-is of this seemingly pedanti, philology" in its obsessi e e-,a ations of obsolete and rare words" Hatin was not an instrumental language %whether ali e or dead( but an e-perien,e in whi,h what was in,essantly at play was88as in the erna,ular lo e poets88death and rebirth) ;nly by re,uperating this linguisti, problemati, in all its ,omple-ity is it possible to situate the language of )ypnerotomachia in its real ,onte-t) And it is from this perspe,ti e that we must now loo9 to what is ,ertainly one of this wor9@s most singular intentions* its abandonment of the erna,ular in fa or of a humanist le-i,al passion" together with its retrie al of moments and ,ontents that fourteenth,entury lo e poetry had assigned pre,isely to the erna,ular)

(8
5he affinities between !olifilo@s tale of lo e and the themes of the =ol,e Stil Go o and =ante@s lyri, poetry ha e been often noted) 1Polifilo and Polia1 ha e been said to be $li9e =ante and 3eatri,e"$ and it has been pointed out how" under her fifteenth8,entury robes" !olia ,ontinues the soteriologi,al fun,tion of the lady in lyri, poetry" e en as !olifilo is $humble and trembling li9e the lo ers of the =ol,e Stil Go o)$ 10 And it is pre,isely the te-t@s solid referen,e to lo e poetry and ,onse<uent retrie al of the =ol,e Stil Go o feminine figure that allows us to erify and deepen our hypothesis ,on,erning !olia) +or 6ust as !olifilo@s uni<ue linguisti, pra,ti,e impli,itly ,ontains a refle,tion on language" so behind the !ro enLal and =ol,e Stil Go o theory of lo e stands a radi,al refle,tion on poeti, language) 5his refle,tion is" in fa,t" so new and important that only the pseudos,ientifi, hermeneuti, tradition that has for ,enturies obstinately sear,hed for referential information beyond te-tual elements ,ould ha e obs,ured it) 5he signifi,an,e of what appears in the poeti, te-t as a feminine name and figure has been distorted by the seemingly thoughtless gesture with whi,h 3o,,a,,io" reporting what appeared to be a pie,e of lo,al gossip" identified 3eatri,e with the daughter of +ol,o !ortinari" later wife of Simone de@ 3ardi) 5he meaning of this gesture" whi,h was already a,,omplished in the germinal short stories that are !ro enLal ,idas and ra4os" ,an be grasped only if it is understood in stri,t solidarity with 3o,,a,,io@s ,reation of the +lorentine no ella) +or the !ro enLals as for the =ol,e Stil Go o poets" the e-perien,e of lo e was the e-perien,e of the absolute prima,y of the e ent of words o er life and of 2hat is poetici4ed Eil poetatoF o,er 2hat is li,ed Eil ,issutoF) Gow this e-perien,e is o erturned in the idea that e ery poeti,i:ation is" instead" always a poeti,i:ation of life" a putting into words88narration88of a biographi,al e ent) If one loo9s ,losely" howe er" both

3o,,a,,io and the anonymous authors of the troubadour idas do nothing other than follow the lo e poets@ intention through to its most e-treme ,onse<uen,e) #onstru,ting a biographi,al ane,dote to e-plain a poem" they in ent 2hat is li,ed on the basis of 2hat is poetici4ed" and not i,e ersa) If =ante@s e-perien,e of the absolute originarity of spee,h was a $new life"$ e en as in Aohn@s Gospel it is said that what is made in the word is life" then in a ,ertain sense 3eatri,e truly was a +lorentine girl) 3o,,a,,io himself suggests that his remar9 is in no ,ase to be read merely biographi,ally and referentially) 4esponding in a sonnet to the a,,usation of ha ing re ealed the mysteries of poetry to the uninitiated" he writes* 8o ho messo in galea sen4a 'iscotto l:ingrato ,ulgo! et sen4a alcun piloto lasciato l:ho in mar a lui non noto! 'ench sen creda esser maestro e dotto ) %I put the ungrateful ulgar in a ship without bis,uit" and left them without any pilot on a sea that they 9new not" although they thin9 themsel es masters and men of learning)( 12 Ba ing repeated the tale of 3i,e !ortinari for fi e ,enturies" s,holars of Italian literature" the ungrateful ulgar" ,ontinue to drift aimlessly at sea" although they thin9 themsel es masters and men of learning) It is therefore time to re eal what e ery intelligent s,holar has always 9nown" e-pli,itly or impli,itly* 3eatri,e is the name of the amorous e-perien,e of the e ent of language at play in the poeti, te-t itself) She is thus the name and the lo e of language" but of language understood not in its grammati,ality but" rather" in its radi,al primordiality" as the emergen,e of erse from the pure Gothing % de dreit nien" a,,ording to the incipit of Guilhem IQ@s ,ers() It is be,ause of its absolute originarity that spee,h is the supreme ,ause and ob6e,t of lo e and" at the same time" ne,essarily transient and perishable) =ante@s essential e-perien,e of spee,h" 3eatri,e@s death" and the loss of Edeni, language narrated in the first boo9 of $e ,ulgari eloBuentia a,<uire their full signifi,an,e from this perspe,ti e) If =ante begins by see9ing in poeti, pra,ti,e" and not grammar" to ,onfer stability and duration on the erna,ular" he ends" in the #omedy" by wholly a,,epting the irreparable loss of e ery mother tongue and by stating" through Adam" that e en before the ,onstru,tion of the tower of 3abel Edeni, language was already $all e-tin,t$ %tutta spenta( % Paradiso! QQ78" 1.08.9() In )ypnerotomachia" the demand for a primordial status and Edeni, ,etustas of spee,h is inserted not into the firm opposition between mother tongue and grammati,al language but rather into a situation in whi,h the erna,ular is being transformed into a grammati,al language and Hatin is be,oming a dead language) 5his is why )ypnerotomachia@s language ,annot ,oherently be defined either as a mother tongue or as a grammati,al language" either as a li ing language or as a dead language) It is" instead" all of these at on,e) =rasti,ally redu,ing all these different le els of bilingualism into one single plane" )ypnerotomachia presents language as a battlefield between irre,on,ilable demands) A,,ording to the model of lyri, poetry" howe er" this battle is an amorous fight" a ,ombat of eros %erotomachia( that gi es rise to a re,ipro,al estrangement and in,essant e-,hange of life and death between Hatin and the erna,ular) In !ro enLal and =ol,e Stil Go o poetry" the $dispute$ was that poeti, form in whi,h different mother tongues" in their 3abeli, dispersion" were ,alled to bear witness to the lo e of the one distant language) In this sense" )ypnerotomachia is a dispute of the most no el 9ind" in whi,h different languages are penetrated by ea,h other" thus re ealing e ery language@s intimate dis,ord with itself" the bilingualism impli,it in all human spee,h) At this point" ,an we still see in !olia88the old language88simply a figure for HatinD Bere an additional hint ,an be found in a wor9 that the author often ,onsulted" as shown by the te-ts ,olle,ted by !o::i and #iapponi) In Isidore of Se ille Etymologiae % IQ" I" 6(" medie al thought" uniting its early histori,al ,ons,iousness with a metahistori,al ,onsideration of linguisti, fa,ts" distinguished four ages or figures of the Hatin language) In Isidore@s list" the first re,ei es the name of !ris,a" $the disordered language that was used" in a

disordered state" by the most an,ient Italians under Aanus and Saturn" as when they had the poems of the Salii$ %Buam ,etustissimi 8taliae su' 8ano et Saturno sunt usi! incondita! ut se ha'ent carmina saliorum() !ris,a" the an,ient woman" is Hatin" but she is Hatin not as a language of 9nowledge but rather as an un9nown language of the Golden Age" a language e<ui alent to the pre83abeli, language of the bibli,al tradition said to ha e sur i ed in fragments of po ems belonging to the Salii" the priests of Mars) 5he figure of !olia is ,ertainly tied to the e-perien,e of this unformed" originary dimension of language through the allegedly pedanti, pra,ti,e of humanist philology) 3ut at the same time" through its position in the erna,ular ,ulture" !olia and !olifilo@s lo e ,an be,ome a figure for the pure self8referentiality of language) 5he ob6e,t sought by lo e would then ,oin,ide with the ery language in whi,h the boo9 is written) As we ha e seen" this language88!olia" the old woman88is neither Hatin nor the erna,ular" neither a dead language nor a li ing language" but88if the boo9 is a dream88a dreamt language" the dream of an un9nown and absolutely no el language whose e-isten,e lies in its te-tual reality alone) In the phrase $dream of language"$ the geniti e $of$ ,ertainly has an ob6e,ti e alue %in the sense that here an un9nown language is dreamt(? but it also has a sub6e,ti e or possessi e alue if the boo9 is made by !olia herself" as the dedi,ation suggests) %And" after all" does not e ery dream imply a problem of bilingualismD Is the dream not always a dimension not 'eyond languages but 'et2een them and" as su,h" in need of an interpretation and a $eutungD( In this perfe,t self8referentiality" the boo9 fully reali:es88if only through its uni<ue bilingualism88the pro6e,t attempted by =ante and the =ol,e Stil Go o poets in their poetry* to present the absolute dwelling of language in the beginning) 7ith the disappearan,e of its originary opposition to grammar" =ante@s language" 3eatri,e" entered into the linguisti, history in whi,h we still mo e today" e en if this entry too9 pla,e through a number of misunderstandings) Iet after fi e ,enturies" !olia remains unfamiliar" as dead and ine-tinguishable in her ,losed dream as she was at the moment in whi,h her author88 whoe er he may ha e been88,onsigned her to the lea es of his in,unabulum) 3ut this dream" whi,h is fully ,ontemporary today" is in fa,t dreamt again e ery time a te-t" restoring the bilingualism and dis,ord impli,it in e ery language" see9s to e o9e the pure language that" while absent in e ery instrumental language" ma9es human spee,h possible) %Instan,es of su,h te-ts are numerous e en in re,ent Italian literary history" from Gio anni !as,oli@s use of obsolete and foreign words to #arlo Emilio Gadda@s neologisms and ar,haisms and the in,reasing intrusion of diale,t into the body of language)( 5he dream of the old woman88the dream of language88lasts to this day) Bow we might wa9e from it in the end" how we" the spea9ing beings" might awa9en from the dream of language and on,e and for all lea e behind us the illusion of bilingualism8whether" in other words" there ,an be human spee,h that is uni o,al and withdrawn from all bilingualism88 these <uestions lie beyond the s,ope of this essay) Bere we ha e restri,ted oursel es to the sub6e,t indi,ated by the name of the ,onferen,e" $Hanguages of =reaming)$

 ' Pascoli and t%e T%oug%t of t%e (oice

To (ianfranco Contini

8
Gianfran,o #ontini was the first to identify in Gio anni !as,oli@s poeti,s an aspiration to wor9 in a dead language that e-,eeded his poeti, ,raftsmanship in Hatin) +ollowing the ambition that is ,ommon to all great European de,adent poets %but that has perhaps a stronger lineage in Italy( to write in a new language" !as,oli" #ontini argues" positioned himself in relation to language as to a $reser e of poeti, ob6e,ts that were on,e ali e and to whi,h life was to be restored)$ Ben,e his appropriation in normal language of spe,ial languages %$down to those e-tremely spe,ial ones that are the phoni, se<uen,es of proper names$(? hen,e too his obstinate re,ourse to the agrammati,al or pregrammati,al language of onomatopoeia %the $insufferable presen,e of birds$ that so bothered !intor() It would be superfluous to reaffirm the pre,ision of this diagnosis here) Instead we obser e that #ontini ,ould also ha e ,ited a te-t of !as,oli@s in whi,h the poeti,s of a dead language is e-pli,itly formulated as su,h) In a passage of Pensieri scolastici! polemici4ing against the proposal to a'olish the instruction of (ree* in schools! Pascoli 2rites! 1the language of poets is al2ays a dead language!1 and immediately adds! 1a curious thingJJa dead language used to gi,e greater life to thought%1 Ce 2ish to depart from this last sentence! continuing to reflect on the relation between poetry and dead language in order to interrogate !as,oli@s poetry in a dimension in whi,h what is at issue is no longer simply his poeti,s but his di,tation* the di,tation of poetry" if we mean by this term %whi,h we ta9e from the o,abulary of medie al poeti,s" but whi,h has ne er ,eased to be familiar to the Italian poeti, tradition( the e-perien,e of the originary e ent of spee,h itself) !oetry" !as,oli says" spea9s in a dead language? but dead language is what gi es life to thought) 5hought li es off the death of words) +rom this perspe,ti e" to thin9 and to poeti,i:e is to e-perien,e the death of spee,h" to utter %and to resus,itate( dead words) #ontini obser es that the problem of the death of words troubled !as,oli as mu,h as the death of ,reatures) 3ut in what way and in what sense ,an a dead language gi e life to thoughtD In what way ,an poetry a,,omplish this e-perien,e of dead wordsD And what88sin,e this is what is at issue88is a dead wordD

88
In a passage of $e Trinitate that ,onstitutes one of the first pla,es in whi,h the idea of a dead language appears" St) Augustine offers a meditation on a dead word" a ,oca'ulum emortuum) Het us suppose" he says" that someone hears an un9nown sign" the sound of a word of whose meaning he is ignorant" for e-ample the word temetum %an obsolete term for ,inum() 3eing ignorant of the word@s meaning" he will ,ertainly want to 9now it) 3ut for this it is ne,essary that he already 9now that the sound he has heard is not an empty oi,e %inanem ,ocem(" the mere sound reJmeJtum" but rather a signifying sound) ;therwise that trisyllabi, sound will already be fully 9nown the moment it is per,ei ed* 7hen all its letters and the length of ea,h sound are 9nown" what else would there be in it to loo9 for to 9now it better" if one did not also 9now that it is a sign" and if one were not mo ed by the desire to 9now what it signifiedD 5he more the word is registered" without being fully so" the more the soul therefore desires to 9now that residue of 9nowledge) If it 9new only the e-isten,e of this oi,e and not that it signified something" the soul would ha e nothing to sear,h for on,e it had per,ei ed the sensible sound as best it ,ould) 3ut sin,e the soul already 9nows that there is not only a oi,e but also a sign" it wants to ha e perfe,t 9nowledge of it) #an one say that someone is without lo e if" with ardent :eal" he see9s to 9now and perse eres" e-,ited by his studiesD #an one say that he therefore lo esD #ertainly it is not possible to lo e something that is not 9nown) And he does not

lo e these three syllables that he already 9nows) #an it then be said that what he lo es in them is the 9nowledge that they signify somethingD In this passage" the e-perien,e of the dead word appears as the e-perien,e of a word uttered %a ,o=( insofar as it is no longer mere sound %istas tres sylla'as(" but not yet a signifi,ation88insofar as it is the e-perien,e" that is" of a sign as pure meaning E ,olerJdireF and intention to signify before and beyond the arri al of e ery parti,ular signifi,ation) +or Augustine" this e-perien,e of an un9nown word % ,er'um ignotum( in the no8man@s8land between sound and signifi,ation is the e-perien,e of lo e as will to 9now) 7hat ,orresponds to the intention to signify without signifi,ation is not logi,al understanding" in fa,t" but rather the desire to 9now %Bui scire amat incognita! non ipsa incognita! sed ipsum scire amat* lo e is thus always the desire to 9now() It is important" howe er" to stress that the site of this e-perien,e of lo e" whi,h shows the ,o= in its purity" is a dead word" a ,oca'ulum emortuum: temetum) %Het us note here" in passing" that the !ro enLal and =ol,e Stil Go o theory of lo e ,an only be understood as an attempt to ,all into <uestion this ery passage in Augustine) 9mor de lonh is pre,isely the wager that there ,an be lo e that ne er passes into 9nowledge" an amare ipsa in,ognita" that is" a word88here too a word that is" not by ,han,e" obs,ure and rare* ,ars" bruns e tenh4 mot488that ,an ne er be translated into the logi,al e-perien,e of signifi,ation)(

888
In the ele enth ,entury" medie al logi, returned" e en before poetry did" to the Augustinian e-perien,e of the un9nown oi,e to ground in it the most uni ersal and originary e-perien,e" that of 3eing) In his ob6e,tion to St) Anselm@s ontologi,al argument" Gaunilo affirms the possibility of an e-perien,e of thought that neither signifies nor refers to a res" but instead dwells in $the oi,e alone)$ 4eformulating the Augustinian e-periment" he proposes a thin9ing that ,on,ei es not so mu,h the oi,e itself" whi,h is something somehow true" that is" the sound of the syllables and letters" so mu,h as the signifi,ation of the oi,e that is heard? not" howe er" as it is ,on,ei ed by him who 9nows what is usually signified by that oi,e" but rather as it is ,on,ei ed by him who does not 9now its signifi,ation and thin9s only a,,ording to the mo ement of the soul" whi,h see9s to represent the signifi,ation of the oi,e that is per,ei ed) Go longer mere sound and not yet logi,al signifi,ation" this thought of the oi,e alone$ %cogitatio secundum ,ocem solam( opens thought to an unheard dimension sustained in the pure breath of the oi,e" in mere ,o= as insignifi,ant will to signify)

8(
In I #orinthians 10*18.2" !aul e-presses his stubborn ,riti<ue of the linguisti, pra,ti,e of the #hristian ,ommunity of #orinth* Be that spea9eth in an un9nown tongue Eho lalon glosse! Bui loBuitur lingua" a,,ording to St) AeromeF spea9eth not unto men" but unto God* for no man understandeth him? howbeit in the spirit he spea9eth mysteries) ) ) ) Be that spea9eth in an un9nown tongue edifieth himself? but he that prophesieth edifieth the ,hur,h) ) ) ) Gow" brethren" if I ,ome unto you spea9ing with tongues" what shall I profit you" e-,ept I shall spea9 to you either by re elation" or by 9nowledge" or by prophesying" or by do,trineD ) ) ) So li9ewise ye" e-,ept ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood" how shall it be 9nown what is spo9enD +or ye shall spea9 into the air) ) ) ) If I 9now not the meaning of the oi,e" I shall be unto him that spea9eth a barbarian" and he that spea9eth shall be a barbarian unto me) ) ) ) 7herefore let him that spea9eth in an un9nown tongue pray that he may not interpret) +or if I pray in an un9nown tongue" my spirit prayeth" but my understanding is unfruitful) ) ) ) 3rethren" be not ,hildren in understanding)

Bow are we to understand the te-t@s lalon glosseD Gew 5estament hermeneuti,s has established that glossa means $spee,h foreign to the language of use? obs,ure term" whose meaning is not understood)$ 5his is the meaning the word already had in Aristotle? but Muintilian still spea9s of glossemata as ,oces minus usitatae %$more unusual sounds$(" whi,h belong to the $more mysterious language" whi,h the Gree9s ,all glossas$ %lingua secretior! Buam (raeci glossas ,ocant() Glossolalia is therefore not the pure utteran,e of inarti,ulate sounds but rather a $spee,h in glosses"$ that is" a spee,h whose meaning is un9nown" e-a,tly li9e Augustine@s temetum) If I do not 9now the word@s dynamis %this too is a grammati,al term" one whi,h means $semanti, alue$(" !aul says" I will be a barbarian with respe,t to the person to whom I spea9" and he who spea9s in me shall be a barbarian) 5he e-pression $he that spea9eth in me$ %ho lalon en emoi( poses a problem that the Culgate and the Jing Aames 3ible resol e in interpreting en emoi as mihi" $for me"$ $unto me)$ 3ut the te-t@s en emoi ,an only signify $in me"$ and what !aul means is perfe,tly ,lear* if I utter words whose meaning I do not understand" he who spea9s in me" the oi,e that utters them" the ery prin,iple of spee,h in me" will be something barbarous" something that does not 9now how to spea9 and that does not 9now what it says) 5o8spea98in8gloss is thus to e-perien,e in oneself barbarian spee,h" spee,h that one does not 9now? it is to e-perien,e an $infantile$ spee,h %$3rethren" be not ,hildren in understanding$( in whi,h understanding is $unfruitful)$

(
7hat" for !as,oli" is the e-perien,e of dead language as the $language of the poets$D Is it possible also to find in his poetry a dimension of language that" appearing with the ,hara,teristi,s we ha e s9et,hed for the $thought of the oi,e alone$ and for glossolalia" has its pla,e between the withdrawal of mere sound and the arri al of signifi,ationD And if this were the ,ase" would it then be possible to interpret in a new way and" at the same time" to grasp the unity of !as,oli@s poeti,s of dead language" his onomatopoeti,s and his phono8symbolismD 7e ,ontinue to stand before !as,oli@s te-t as $barbarians$ who do not 9now the dynamis of words) $5here are little words that are poorly understood$ and that" despite the glossary that ,loses %and does not openK( Canti di Castel,ecchio" do not truly want to be interpreted and to depart from the pure intention to signify that ,hara,teri:es spea9ing in gloss) #ontini has already noted the purely phono8symboli, alue of the word $4illano$ in $L:amorosa giornata)$ 3ut this obser ation ,ould be e-tended to the terms $Schilletta"$ $sericcia"$ $accia"$ $gronchio"$ $grasce"$ $stiglie"$ $astile"$ $Palestrita"$ $Stiampa"$ $Sprillo"$ $tarmolo"$ $strino"$ $legoro"$ $cuccolo"$ $guaime"$ and innumerable other glosses" as in the -enoglossiae of $Italy$ and $5he Bammerless Gun$ %these last disseminated among ornithologi,al onomatopoeias() !as,oli ,ounts on a reader who does not 9now all the words he uses) As the $poet of a dead language$ says" in a te-t that bears that name" poetry" li9e religion" needs $words that eil and dar9en their meaning" words" I mean" foreign to present use$ %and whi,h are ne ertheless used $to gi e greater life to thought$() (lossolalia and =enoglossia are the ,iphers of the death of language* they represent language@s departure from its semanti, dimension and its return to the original sphere of the pure intention to signify %not mere sound" but rather language and thought of the oi,e alone() 5hought and language" we would say today" of pure phonemes8for what else ,an it mean to note an intention to signify that is distin,t from mere sound but that does not yet signify" if not to re,ogni:e language@s phonemes" the negati e and purely differential entities that a,,ording to modern linguisti,s ha e no signifi,ation and" at the same time" ma9e signifi,ation possibleD It is therefore not truly a matter of phono8symbolism" but rather a matter of a sphere so to spea9 beyond or before sound" a sphere that does not sym'oli4e anything as mu,h as it simply indicates an intention to signify" that is" the oi,e in its originary purity) 5his is an indi,ation that has its pla,e neither in mere sound nor in signifi,ation but rather" we might say" in pure grammata" in pure letters" pre,isely li9e the $bla,9 sowing$ of language that" in Myri,ae@s $!i,,olo aratore"$ later flowers into a sonorous and li ing world" or li9e those ery letters that" gathered in $mantelle$ %another glossK(" in Piccolo mietitore spea9 between one@s teeth" $li9e us" but better than us)$

(8
Analogous obser ations ,an be made for !as,oli@s onomatopoeias" for those $si,,e,O"$ $uid"$ $ ide itt"$ $s,ilp"$ $:isteretet"$ $trr trr terit"$ $fru"$ $sii sii"$ $scricchiolettii"$ $fruili"$ and $sgrigiolii$ that ,rowd the erses of Canti and Myricae and that the poet himself" spea9ing of the language of swallows" assimilates to a dead language $no longer 9nown)$ ;nomatopoeia is generally ,hara,teri:ed as a pregrammati,al or agrammati,al language %$this language"$ #ontini writes" $as su,h has nothing to do with grammar$() In the introdu,tion to his Principles of Phonology" G) S) 5rubets9oy" ,onsidering the o,al imitation of natural sounds" writes* $If someone tells a hunting story and" to enli en his tale" imitates an animal sound or any other natural noise" he must at that point interrupt his story? the natural sound imitated is then a foreign body that remains outside normal representati e dis,ourse)$ Iet is it ,ertain that !as,oli@s onomatopoeias are a pregrammati,al languageD And what" first of all" is a $pregrammati,al$ languageD Is su,h a language88a dimension of human language that is altogether not grammati,al88e en ,on,ei ableD An,ient grammarians began their studies with the oi,e % phone() 3ut the oi,e" as pure natural sound" did not enter into grammar) Grammar abo e all begins by distinguishing the $,onfused oi,e$ of animals %phone agrammatos? the Hatins translate this as ,o= illiterata! Buae litteris comprehendi non potest " whi,h ,annot be written" li9e the eBuorum hinnitus and the ra'ies canum( from the human oi,e" whi,h ,an be written %engrammatos( and arti,ulated) A more subtle ,lassifi,ation" whi,h is of Stoi, origin" ne ertheless ,hara,teri:es the oi,e with greater sophisti,ation) $;ne must 9now"$ we read in =ionysius 5hra,e Techne grammati*e! that among ,oices! some are articulate and capa'le of 'eing 2ritten NengrammatoiO! li*e ours% Pthers! such as the crac*ling of fire and the din of stone and wood" are inarti,ulate and ,annot be written) ;thers still" su,h as imitations of irrational animals" li9e 're*e*e*s and *oi" are inarti,ulate and yet ,an be written? these oi,es are inarti,ulate" sin,e we do not 9now what they mean" but they are engrammatoi" sin,e they ,an be written) Het us pause to ,onsider these inarti,ulate and yet $writable$ oi,es" these 're*e*e*s and *oi" whi,h are so similar to !as,oli@s onomatopoeias) 7hat happens to the ,onfused animal oi,e su,h that it be,omes engrammatos and ,omprehended by lettersD In entering into grammata in being written" the animal oi,e is separated from nature" whi,h is inarti,ulate and ,annot be written? it shows itself in letters as a pure intention to signify whose signifi,ation is un9nown %it is in this respe,t similar to glossolalia and Augustine@s ,oca'ulum emortuum() 5he only ,riterion that ma9es it possible to distinguish it from the arti,ulated oi,e is" in fa,t" that $we do not 9now what it means)$ 5he gramma" the letter" whi,h itself does not signify" is therefore the ,ipher of an intention to signify that will be a,,omplished in arti,ulated language) Are*e*e*s! *oi" and other imitations of animal oi,es ,apture the oi,e of nature at the point at whi,h it emerges from the infinite sea of mere sound without yet ha ing be,ome signifying dis,ourse) It is in light of these ,onsiderations that we must regard !as,oli@s onomatopoeias) It is not a matter of mere natural sounds that simply interrupt arti,ulated dis,ourse? in !as,oli@s poetry" as in e ery human language" there is no88and there ,ould ne er be88presen,e of the animal oi,e) 5here is" rather" only a tra,e of the animal oi,e@s absen,e" of its $death"$ whi,h renders itself grammati,al in a pure intention to signify) Hi9e #aprona@s $s,hilletta$ %in Canti di Castel,ecchio(" these sounds belong to no li ing being? they are a bell hanging on the ne,9 of a $shadow"$ a dead animal that now ,ontinues to sound between the hands of a $little boy$ who $does not spea9)$ 5he oi,e" as in the poem by this name in Canti" is noted only $at the point in whi,h it dies"$ as an intention to signify %$to say many things and still more$( whi,h as su,h ,annot say and signify anything other than the $breath$ of a proper name %$V ani$() +rom this perspe,ti e" the dead ,oice is ,ertainly e<ui alent to the swallows@ dead language in $Addio$88a language that is not pregrammati,al" howe er" but rather purely and absolutely grammati,al in the most rigorous and originary sense of the word* phone engrammatos! ,o= litterata)

(88
5he letter is therefore the dimension in whi,h glossolalia and onomatopoeia" the poeti,s of dead language and the poeti,s of the dead oi,e" ,on erge in one site" where !as,oli situates the most proper e-perien,e of poeti, di,tation* the site in 2hich he can capture language in the instant it sin*s again! dying! into the ,oice! and at 2hich the ,oice! emerging from mere sound! passes +that is! dies0 into signification ) In !as,oli@s poetry" glossolalia and onomatopoeia spea9 from one and the same pla,e" e en if they seem to pass through it in opposite dire,tions) Ben,e the e-emplary ,hara,ter of the erses in whi,h onomatopoeia ,rosses o er into arti,ulated language and arti,ulated language ,rosses o er into onomatopoeia* 3inch % % % finchL nel cielo ,olai 7:L di ,oi chi ,ide % % % ,ide % % % ,ide,itt 9nch:io anch:io chio chio chio) %@nt % % % until 8 fle2 in the s*y! there 2ere those among you 2ho sa2 % % % sa2 % % % sa2itt% Me too me too eetoo eetoo eetoo eetoo%( Ben,e also the parti,ular status in !as,oli@s poetry of the proper name" whose sphere of signifi,ation poses almost insurmountable problems for linguisti,s" and whi,h 4oman Aa9obson says does not ha e proper signifi,ation" being simply a referen,e of the linguisti, ,ode to itself) At the limit between onomatopoeia and glossolalia" the proper name seems to ,onstitute a dar9 point of ,rossing between oi,e and language) If $V ani$ is the $breath$ of the oi,e at the point at whi,h it dies"$ in $Hapide$ the proper name ins,ribed on the tomb of a girl is e-pli,itly defined as the $thought$ that the li ing being" dying" e-hales into language* Lascia argentei il cardo al leggero tuo alito i pappi suoi come il morente alla morte un pensiero ,ago! ultimo: l:om'ra di un nome) %5he thistle lea es its sil er pappi to your light breath" as the dying man lea es a thought to death a ague" last thought* the shadow of a name)( #onsider also the onomasti, series of $Gog e Magog"$ whi,h re,alls the 3abeli, language of =ante@s Gemrod* di Mong! Mosach! Thu'al! 9neg! 9geg! 9ssur! Pothim! Cephar! 9lan! a meK %Mong! Mosach! Thu'al! 9neg! 9geg! 9ssur! Pothim! Cephar! 9lan! to meK( Bere the pure language of names" in whi,h the dead oi,e is ins,ribed" de,ays and ,annot be separated from the glossolalia of words that $ eil and dar9en their meaning)$ 5he e-perien,e of this $,rossing o er"$ whi,h ,onstitutes the site of !as,oli@s poeti, di,tation" is an e-perien,e of death) It is only in dying that the animal oi,e is" in the letter" destined to enter signifying language as pure intention to signify? and it is only in dying that arti,ulated language ,an return to the indistin,t womb of the oi,e from whi,h it originated) !oetry is the e-perien,e of the letter" but the letter has its pla,e in death* in the death of the oi,e %onomatopoeia( or the death of language % glossolalia(" the two of whi,h ,oin,ide in the brief flash of grammata)

(888
In this ,onte-t we ,an also better understand the theory of the $little boy$ % fanciullino( by whi,h !as,oli tried to ,apture his own e-perien,e of poetry in terms of a di,tation %the little boy $di,tated inside$ Edetta dentroF li9e lo e in =ante() If the reader often ,onfronts !as,oli@s te-t li9e the !auline barbarian who does not 9now the dynamis of words" the ,laim that genuinely ,hara,teri:es !as,oli@s e-perien,e of di,tation is that $he that spea9eth$ in the poet is also a barbarian" spea9ing without 9nowing what he says and thus uttering spee,h in its in,epti e state" as pure intention to signify and the language of names) In a,,ordan,e with these prin,iples" the di,tation of the little boy is mainly presented in terms of oi,e %$he ,onfuses his oi,e with ours ) ) ) he feels only a palpitation" a s,ree,hing and a howling ) ) ) li9e the ringing of a bell ) ) ) hearing its ,hattering$() 1 And the little boy appears as $Adam" who was the first to gi e names)$ 7hat is de,isi e" howe er" is that in the 1#itorno a san Mauro1 poems that ,lose Canti" his figure is re ealed as the figure of a tomb" the shaded profile of a dead person that fades away and at times almost merges with that other dead person" his mother) All the 1#itorno a san Mauro1 poems are greatly ,larified if they are read as a dialogue with a dead language %the mother( and a dead oi,e %the little boy(" whi,h now betray their se,ret unity) In 1Mia madre!1 the infantile oi,e remains near the dead mother* Tra i pigolii dei nidi io ,i sentii la ,oce mia di fanciullo) %In the ,hirping of the nests" I heard my oi,e" the oi,e of a little boy)( And in $Gio annino"$ the little boy inhabits the limit of the ,emetery" being by now in his poeti, fun,tion ,learly e<ui alent to the maternal figure) It is this ision of the gra e that lies at the ,enter of the poem in whi,h !as,oli most su,,essfully ,aptured his own e-perien,e of di,tation* $La tessitrice$ %$5he Seamstress$(" whi,h" in a dialogue between the poet and a oi,e" ta9es hold of the awful e ent of the poeti, word) Bere" at the heart of the di,tation" there was not e en $the sound of one word$? the loom that wea es the ,loth of language $no longer ) ) ) sounds$ and e erything is only $mute gesture)$ ;nly af ter the <uestion $7hy does it not soundD$ is repeated twi,e does the o,al irgin %little boy and muse" oi,e and maternal language( re eal her own irreparable death* E piange e piangeJJMio dolce amore! non t:hanno dettoX non lo sai tuX 8o non son ,i,a che nel tuo cuore ) MortaY SW! mortaY Se tesso! tesso per te soltanto) %And ,ry" and ,ry) My sweet lo e" did they not tell youD =o you not 9now itD I am ali e only in your heart) =eadK Ies" deadK If I wea e" I wea e for you alone)( $Ha tessitri,e$ thus says the truth that 8l fanciullino still 9ept eiled* the little boy does not e-ist" and the infantile oi,e di,tating poetry is a dead oi,e" 6ust as only a dead oi,e ,aptures its di,tation) %Ben,e the inade<ua,y of the ,riti,isms so often le eled at 8l fanciullino" whi,h supposedly $,onfused the little boy nature and the little boy poetry$* what is at issue here is not simply a $ oi,e of nature$ or a poeti, determination but rather the purely negati e relation between the li ing being and nature in whi,h oi,e and language be,ome indistin,t in death)( 7e ,an ,onsider this trait as one of those that most

deeply mar9s the physiognomy of Italian ,ulture* the will and the ,ons,iousness of operating in a dead language" in an indi idual and artifi,ially ,onstru,ted language" whi,h is $glossolali,$ in the sense ,onsidered" with or without a $prayer of interpretation)$ Bere we must thin9 not only of those names that immediately ,ome to mind when thin9ing of twentieth,entury Italian writers88Gadda and Montale" !asolini" Go enta" Van:otto88but also of those prose writers who wor9 in an apparently different area" su,h as Honghi" whose use of the word $s,andelle$ %$drops or parti,les of light$( in his essay on Serodine ma9es his synta- reminis,ent of !as,oli) Su,h is this people@s diffi,ult and enigmati, relation to their mother tongue" by whi,h it ,an only find itself in it if it su,,eeds in hearing it as dead" and by whi,h it ,an only lo e it and ma9e it its own in brea9ing it into fragments and anatomi,al segments) Bere" too" 3eatri,e@s death ,onditions Italy@s entire literary tradition" and !etrar,h@s Haura %aura" $l@aura$( is nothing but the breath of the oi,e88a oi,e that" in the end" is only $dead air"$ aura morta)

8=
+or !as,oli" human language is therefore always $language that no longer sounds on the lips of the li ing$ in the double sense that it is ne,essarily a dead language or a dead oi,e and it is ne er the li ing oi,e of man or the spee,h of any li ing ,reature) !as,oli" we might say" des,ends li9e +aust into the 4eign of the Mothers" the goddesses who shelter $what has not e-isted for a long time$ and in whom we must see a figure of mother tongues and S,aligero@s matrices linguae) Hi9e +aust" !as,oli dis,o ers that the Mothers are dead" and that around their heads fly only images that are $mobile" but lifeless$ %e en if it is possible" through song" to animate them and to ma9e them sing() And the oi,e of nature is unattainable and dead along with them) %And is it not perhaps true that our e ery word is a $dead letter"$ a dead language handed down to us by the dead" whi,h ,an ne er gi e rise to something li ingD Bow is it possible" then" for these lifeless words to be,ome our li ing oi,e" for dead letters to sing suddenly in the heart of the poetD( 5o spea9" to poeti,i:e" to thin9 ,an only be" from this perspe,ti e" to e-perien,e the letter as the e-perien,e of the death of one@s own language and one@s own oi,e) !as,oli@s e-perien,e of $letters$ is so serious and e-treme that this is what it means" for him" to be $a man of letters)$ !as,oli" $he who" when seen from behind" seemed a ,reator"$ who ,ertainly wrote $a terrible amount of ugly poems"$ is therefore truly $the most European of Italian poets at the turn of the ,entury)$ 5he poet of metaphysi,s in the age of its de,line" !as,oli most radi,ally e-perien,es metaphysi,s@ original mythologeme88the mythologeme of the oi,e" its death and memorial preser ation in the letter) 5his is pre,isely why" at the point at whi,h we register the ,o heren,e and rigor of !as,oli@s lesson" it is ne ertheless ne,essary also to pose a <uestion that must remain pro isionally unanswered here* ,an there be an e-perien,e of spee,h that is not an e-perien,e of the letter in the sense that we ha e seenD #an there be spee,h" poetry" and thought beyond the letter" beyond the death of the oi,e and the death of languageD

) T%e Dictation of Poetr!

8
5he problem of the relation between poetry and life has gi en rise to su,h tena,ious ambiguities that it has 6ustly fallen into disrepute) #laims for its legitima,y are" howe er" as an,ient as the ery definition of man as the $li ing being who has language)$ 5he problem@s dubiousness ,oin,ides with the diffi,ulties that this apparently tri ial formula has ne er ,eased to pose to thought) 7hat does it mean for a li ing being to spea9D Is language" as seems ob ious" a ,reation and an e-pression of the li ing human being" or is the opposite true instead" as we are all too in,lined to belie e todayD =o life and spee,h ,onstitute an arti,ulated unity" or is there a dis6un,tion between the two that neither indi idual e-isten,e nor the histori,al de elopment of humanity ,an o er,omeD

It is on this une en ground that theology and" later" psy,hology and biology too9 up their residen,e) 7hen literary ,riti,ism and aestheti,s finally ,ame to formulate the problem of the relation between li ed e-perien,e and poeti,i:ed e-perien,e with regard to the wor9 of art" the terrain on whi,h the problem ,ould ha e been ,orre,tly posed had already been ,o ered o er and fore er altered)

88
It is of this territory that a summary stratigraphy should first of all be drawn) E-,a ation wor9 in the dire,tion indi,ated here is almost entirely la,9ing) +rom the perspe,ti e of the resear,her" what ought to be the most proper site of the poeti, wor9 appears instead as a ast field partially submerged in psy,hologi,al swampland" out of whi,h imposing ruins and theologi,al torsos o,,asionally rise) 5he la9e8dwelling e-iles of literary in estigation are suspended on this un,ertain terrain" almost without any ,onta,t with it) 5he stru,tures of the literary wor9 that the modern s,ien,e of the te-t began to bring to light se eral de,ades ago do not" in the final analysis" del e into any other terrain) 5he fruitful wor9 of analysis that it has underta9en has been possible only than9s to an epochZ that has rigorously bra,9eted all elements of psy,hology and li ed e-perien,e) 7hat thus ,omes to the foreground of formalist ,riti,ism" howe er" is88without e er appearing ,ons,iously as su,h8a purely theologi,al presupposition* the dwelling of the word in the beginning" of logos in archZ" that is" the absolutely primordial status of language) 5his uninterrogated persisten,e of a theologi,al foundation shows itself in the fa,t that the original stru,ture of the poeti, wor9 remains mar9ed by negati ity* the primordiality of logos thus <ui,9ly be,omes a prima,y of the signifier and the letter" and the origin re eals itself as tra,e) %It is here that the de,onstru,tionist fa,tory establishes its residen,e)(

888
In the prologue to the Gospel of Aohn" the interla,ement of life % 4oZ( and spee,h %logos( is e-pressed in the following formula* $E erything was made by him Ethe HogosF and without him nothing of what was made was made) Hife was in him" and life was the light of men)$ 3ut until the fourth ,entury" when the te-t was altered to ,ombat the Arian heresy" and in the ,ommentaries of the first #hur,h +athers and the Hatin ersion that pre,edes the Cul gate" the te-t appeared in a different form" one that noti,eably ,hanges its meaning* $E erything was made by him" and without him nothing was made" and what was made in him was life" and life was the light of men)$ #ommenting on these erses" the Gnosti, !tolomeus writes* $E erything was made by the Hogos" but life was made in him) Hife" whi,h was made in him" is ,loser Eoi*oioteraF to him than what was made by him? life is one with him and bears fruit through him)$ In the same sense" ;rigen writes* $Hife itself is made in ,oming to pass to language Eepiginetai toi logoiF and" on,e made" remains inseparable Ea*horistosF from him)$ Hife is what is made in spee,h and what remains indistinguishable from it and ,lose to it) 5his un<uestioned bond of spee,h and life is the inheritan,e that #hristian theology transmits to a literature that has not yet be,ome fully profane)

8(
In the theologi,al tradition that emerges from the Aohanine prologue" the life8language relation thus runs in pre,isely the opposite dire,tion from the ,on ention dominating the modern ,on,ept of biography) 5he theologi,al tradition was so authoritati e that it not only impeded the formation of a biographi,al ,anon in the modern sense but also determined how poets understood their relation to li ed e-perien,e at the origins of 4oman,e lyri, poetry) An,ient rhetori, ga e the name ratio %or ars( in,eniendi %as opposed to ratio iudicandi" whi,h ,on,erned the truth and ,orre,tness of spo9en dis,ourse( to the te,hni<ue that allowed the orator or poet a,,ess to the pla,e %hen,e the term topi,a( of spee,h" so that

he might now and then find there the argumentum that he needed) Insofar as it sought abo e all to establish that the orator ne,essarily had at his disposal the $topi,s$ he needed" an,ient rhetori, in time de,ayed and be,ame a mnemote,hni,s" ,on,ei ing of the $pla,es$ of spee,h as mnemoni, images whose mastery assured the orator the ability to present his argument) 5he first germs of a mutation in this pagan ,on,eption of in,entio following the new ar,hetypal status of Aohanine logos ,an already be found in St) Augustine $eTrinitate 5rinitate" in whi,h in,entio is interpreted" by means of an etymologi,al figure" as in id ,enire Buod Bueritur) Man" that is" finds spee,h only through an appetitus" an amorous desire" su,h that the e ent of language appears as an ine-tri,able interla,ement of lo e" spee,h" and 9nowledge) $7hile the mind lo es itself and 9nows" its word is 6oined to it through lo e) And sin,e the mind lo es 9nowledge and 9nows lo e" spee,h is in lo e and lo e is in spee,h" and both are in the lo er and the spea9er$ %cum itaBue se mens no,it et amat! iungitur ei amore ,er'um eius% Et Buoniam amat notitiam et no,it amorem! et ,er'um in amore et amor in ,er'o! et utrumBue in amante et dicente() 1 In the ,ourse of the twelfth ,entury" topi,s and their ratio in,eniendi were" in the wa9e of Augustine" interpreted in a radi,ally new way by the !ro enLal poets) Modern European lyri, poetry has its origin in this reinterpretation) +or the poets" ratio in,eniendi be,ame ra4o de tro'ar" and it is from this e-pression that they drew their own name % tro'ador and tro'arit4() 5he new e-perien,e of spee,h that is at issue here goes de,isi ely ba,9 beyond ,lassi,al in,entio* the troubadours want not to re,all arguments ,onsigned to a topos but instead to e-perien,e the ery e ent of language as original topos" whi,h ta9es pla,e in an absolute pro-imity of lo e" spee,h" and 9nowledge) 5he ra4o" whi,h lies at the foundation of poetry and whi,h ,onstitutes what the poets ,all its di,tation % dictamen(" is therefore neither a biographi,al nor a linguisti, e ent) It is instead a :one of indifferen,e" so to spea9" between li ed e-perien,e and what is poeti,i:ed E il poetatoF" an $e-perien,e of spee,h$ as an ine-haustible e-perien,e of lo e) 9mor is the name gi en by the troubadours to this e-perien,e of the dwelling of spee,h in the beginning? and for them lo e is therefore the ra4o de tro'ar par e-,ellen,e)

(
3etween the thirteenth and fourteenth ,enturies" the minstrels and $s,ri eners$ %so they define themsel es in the !ro enLal songboo9s they ,ompile( U, de Saint #ir, and Mi<uel de la 5or ,ompose" in !ro enLal" the first e-amples of biography in 4oman,e lit erature) A re ersal of the poetry8life relation that defined the troubadours@ poeti, e-perien,e is a,,omplished in these germinal short stories %some of whi,h will appear in >o,ellino(" whi,h briefly relate the life of the troubadour and the episode that lay at the origin of his poems) 7hat for the troubadours was an e=perience of the ra4o88that is" an e-perien,e of the e ent of language as lo e" as the tight unity of what is li ed and what is poeti,i:ed88 now be,omes a gi,ing of reasons for e=perience) Iet things are not so simple) 5a9e the ra4o of the famous song of 3ernart de Centadorn" 1;uan ,ei la lau4eta mo,er1* And he E 3ernartF presented himself to the du,hess of Gormandy" who was young and well understood honor" merit" and good words) And 3ernart@s erses pleased her ery mu,h" and she warmly wel,omed him near her) Be remained at her ,ourt in this way for a long time" and he fell in lo e with her and she fell in lo e with him" and he ,omposed many beautiful songs) And he ,alled her $Alau:eta$ Es9ylar9F be,ause of a 9night who lo ed her and ,alled her $4ai$ ErayF) And one day the 9night ,ame to the du,hess and entered her bedroom) 5he woman" who saw him" then lifted up the hem of the ,oat as high as her ne,9 and let herself fall onto the bed) And 3ernart saw e erything" sin,e one of the lady@s handmaids se,retly showed it all to him) And it is for this ra4o that he ,omposed the song that says* $Muan ei la lau:eta mo er)$ It suffi,es to glan,e at 3ernart@s song to reali:e that the author of the ra4o %who ,laims to note family gossip" as 3o,,a,,io will later do for =ante@s 3eatri,e( in fa,t does nothing other than bring the troubadour@s a,ti ity to its most e-treme ,onse<uen,es) In the

apparent intention to relate the biographi,al ane,dote that should e-plain the poem" he ,ompletely in ents it %and" to tell the truth" in ents it rather aw9wardly( on the basis of the first three erses of the poem %$;uan ,ei la lau4eta mo,er D de Goi sos alas contra[l rai D Bue s:o'lid: es laissa cha4er$() Be thus ,onstru,ts what is li ed on the basis of what is poeti,i:ed and not the in erse %as ought to be done a,,ording to the biographi,al paradigm to whi,h we moderns are a,,ustomed() It is not by ,han,e that ,idas and ra4os were written %as shown by the Italianisms that proliferate in their le-is( in an Italian en i ronment or at the least for an Italian publi,) +or it is pre,isely here" a,,ording to a ,anon that has its e-emplary moments in the 7ita nuo,a and the $i,ine Comedy" that life is ,on,ei ed essentially as fable %fabula" that is" a,,ording to the etymologi,al root" something that essentially has to do with spee,h" with fa'ulari() 7hat was" in the prologue to the Gospel of Aohn" the inseparable dwelling of life in logos now be,omes fable" ,omedy" life8in8spee,h %+i,ino* $not life" but the fable of life$() It is good not to forget that in 4oman,e literature" narrati e %at least in the sense of short story( is born as the ra4o of lyri, poetry) It is than9s to the poeti, word@s unspea9able dwelling in the 'eginning that something li9e li ed e-perien,e is made for the narrator) 5his is the $no ella$ that he limits himself to e-emplifying)

(l
Adding an introdu,tion to the se,ond edition of his stories in 1926" Antonio =elfini wrote the longest ra4o for Il ricordo della Basca that any poet has e er ,omposed for his wor9) In this ,ase the ra4o" howe er" ris9s leading the reader astray" as had already happened in !ro enLal biographies) =elfini gestures in the dire,tion of the author@s e-perien,e" but it is an e-perien,e %whether authenti, or not( in no way e-hausted in the biographi,al e ents that arti,ulate it) And this is not be,ause a future biographer will be unable to erify that a fifteen8year8old Italian girl appeared in the street to the young artist on a summer day of a ,ertain year" although it is already ,ertain that he wrote Poesie della fine del mondo after ha ing met a woman in !arma of whom it is all too easy to furnish an anagrammati, identity) 5he fa,t is that in =elfini" as in perhaps no other writer of the twentieth ,entury" the indeterminateness of what is li ed and what is poeti,i:ed is absolute" and life is truly only 2hat is made in speech) In this sense" =elfini is the most authenti, heir to the troubadour and =ol,e Stil Go o tradition" and his entire wor9 ,an be iewed as a singular draft" after se en ,enturies" on the ,ulture that produ,ed the !ro enLal biographies) 5his is why when =elfini ga e his lo e letters to Ugo and Mi,hin Guanda shortly before lea ing for his last stay in 4ome" he soberly made ,lear that he had gi en them not a $do,ument of lo e$ %as the re,ipients had mista9enly thought( but rather $an editorial offering)$ Bere we find a ,orre,tion of the $psy,hologi,al mirror writing$ that" a,,ording to a ,le er entry in Jaf9a@s penultimate noteboo9" ma9es it seem that men are in,essantly ,on,erned to ,onsolidate their life with a posteriori writings and 6ustifi,ations) 7ith a de,isi e gesture =elfini shows" against e ery psy,hologi,al reading" that $in reality man ere,ts his life on his own 6ustifi,ations"$ sin,e $here no one ,reates anything other than the possibility of spiritual life)$ It is" in any ,ase" upon these ar,hetypes that both =elfini and Jaf9a ,onstru,ted their li es) 5heir biographi,al failure %or at least what appears as su,h in the in erted image of psy,hology( had to bear witness to88and not 6ustify88the theologi,al authenti,ity of writing %its dwelling in the archZ()

(88
5he worst way to misunderstand Poesie della fine del mondo would" howe er" be to read it as an immediate trans,ription of the life of Antonio =elfini %as $pri ate re enge"$ as it has inappropriately been ,alled() 5he note with whi,h the ,olle,tion ends lea es no doubt as to the position of these te-ts in principio" stating without ambiguity that $before the poet wrote there was not only no reality" but e en the so8,alled reality of the publi, ,ould not ha e been formulated)$ 5he ,laim of the ante,eden,e of li ed e-perien,e %$so8,alled real life$( to the te-t belongs to $those who" not 9nowing how and not being able to li e Ethat is" in speechF" let nothing li e" re<uiring that it be offi,ially said that they li e)$ %5hese are

the sinister phantoms with obs,ene ni,9names who so often appear in the te-t" where they ha e the same fun,tion as the lau4engier" the liar in !ro enLal songs)( In =elfini" the world and life are born with spee,h and in spee,h) 7hy then does the title so ,learly spea9 of the $end of the world$ as something that has in,ontestably already happened %or that" in any ,ase" is already happening(D Bow ,ould it happen that spee,h is no longer ,apable of ma9ing life and maintaining it in its autonomyD And why does the spee,h of poetry here inaugurate not a ,ita no,a but a ,osmi, and poetologi,al ,atastrophe without pre,edentD 5hat =elfini was aware of the almost theologi,al impli,ations of this situation is impli,it in one of the ariant titles that figures among the author@s notes* $God e-ists" but not the world)$ 5here ,ould be no ,learer way to e-press the drasti, rupture of the lifepoetry and logosJcosmos lin9 that ,hara,teri:es both the prologue to the Gospel of Aohn and the di,tation of the =ol,e Stil Go o poets) In the other possible title preser ed in =elfini@s notes" $S,enes unleashed from life in the pro in,es"$ the ad6e,ti e $unleashed$ <ualifies pre,isely life that has bro9en its tie to spee,h) 5his life" whi,h is now simply $so8,alled real life"$ does not truly li e? it ,an only $re<uire$ that it be said that it li es)

(888
5he ,atastrophe that is a,,omplished in these poems is therefore nothing less than the rupture of the poeti, ra4o" the irreparable fragmentation of =elfini@s di,tation) 3ut this la,eration" whi,h abandons life to its $true bad lu,9"$ immediately re erberates in poetry itself" whi,h now be,omes $bad poetry"$ poetry that the poet ne ertheless ,annot 9eep himself from writing %$it is my duty to write bad poetry"$ we read in the incipit of one the ,olle,tion@s 9ey poems() 5he poet himself must thus88and this is the most atro,ious e ent of the ,atastrophe88brea9 his own di,tation* $deta,h your horrible thought from pen > and from paper" this mu,h is demanded and des,ribed here$ % distaccare il tuo orri'ile pensiero dalla penna D e dalla carta L Buanto Bui si ,uole e si descri,e () 5his tas9 is" in other words" e-a,tly the opposite of the one =ante assigned to lo e poets through the figure of 3onagiunta in Purgatorio %$your pen follows ,lose after him who di,tates$ E le ,ostre penne D di retro al dittator s:en ,anno strette F() . 5his is why the poet appears in the prefa,e as a $murderer$* he is ,ondemned to 9ill his $lady"$ that is" his own life and his own poetry" his poetry8life %$the only way possible is death$() Ben,e the preliminary in ersion of the feminine figure to whi,h the lo e poets assigned the most integral image of their di,tation) 5he woman %the $3as,a"$ ins,ribed in the tradition of the Stilno ist and !ro enLalsenhal among 3eatri,e" Gio anna" Miell: de =omna" =e:irada" 3on Ce:i(" who bore the unity of what is li ed and what is poeti,i:ed and of life in spee,h" is now for,ibly separated from writing and spee,h and transformed into bare life" the hideous and dar9 symbol $of fraud" betrayal" sin)$ In a famous poem %whose erbal iolen,e is in e ery way a mat,h for =elfini@s in e,ti es(" Arnaut =aniel e o9es the figure of his own di,tation as a woman %,alled Anya( whose body is bro9en in one area %in its corn" whi,h philologi,al rigor ainly attempts to identify as some feminine orifi,e or sphin,ter() In a 9ind of al,hemi,al storm" all life threatens to es,ape from this area in the form of a is,ous se,retion" fetid smo9e" and boiling refuse) In the lady of many names" in the $filthy" foul ,reature$ or $infamous" dirty phantom"$ =elfini sees before him this life %the woman@s life" hen,e also his life( in the a,t of definiti ely parting from spee,h and irreparably ta9ing lea e of poetry to be,ome $real life)$ 5his separation" this unbearable reifi,ation" is the theme of =elfini@s poems)

8=
It is therefore possible to understand why =elfini" in his prefa,e" defines the Poesie della fine del mondo as an $anti8Can4oniere%1 Ta*en literally! this definition contains a precious reference not only to the literary tradition in 2hich his collection is situated 'ut also to the poetic e=perience that is accomplished in it%

8n the Vita nuova! $ante consciously plays 2ith the title of the 2or*! so that it is impossi'le to decide once and for all if in the title one is to find a reference to 2hat is li,ed or to 2hat is poetici4ed! to the 1'oo*1 +li'ro0 of memory +in 2hich one finds the title 8ncipit ,ita no,a0 or to the 1'oo*let1 +libello 0 in 2hich the poet transcri'es 2hat the reader 2ill read% The entry 7ita no,a thus delimits an undecida'ility 'et2een 2hat is li,ed and 2hat is poetici4ed% Consider instead the autograph title of PetrarchCan4oniere: 3ranceschi Petrarchae laureati poetae rerum ,ulgarium fragmenta %in the #higi autograph" fragmentorum li'er() Bere the author" ,olle,ting poems in the ,olle,tion that we are inappropriately a,,ustomed to ,onsider as the $organi, ad enture of a soul"$ distan,es them from li ed e-perien,e with a de,isi e apotropai, gesture* it is merely a matter of $fragments in the erna,ular)$ 5here ,ould be no ,learer way to say that the poeti, uni erse that ga e rise to the !ro enLal and =ol,e Stil Go o pro6e,ts had by now been left behind fore er %the term fragmenta" whi,h sounds so modern" must be restored its original sense as $splinters" shards"$ as in Isidore Etymologiae! QQ" ." 1'* fragmenta! Buia di,iditur! ut fracta() 7ith a definiti e mo ement away from the troubadour di,tation" life now stands on one side" and poetry" on the other side" is only literature" mourning the irremediable death of Haura) 5he Poesie della fine del mondo is an anti8Can4oniere be,ause it is pre,isely this mo ement that =elfini refuses to a,,ept at any pri,e) Ben,e the furious war that the poet unleashes with his last for,es against $reality"$ whi,h is to the same degree a battle for poetry" a battle to 9eep the Poesie della fine del mondo from e er be,oming a Can4oniere% This is 2hy he fights against the 1lady1 of many heteronyms! the dar* senhal of 'are life and the luminous cipher of complete life: the girl 2ith the flaming rose! the daughter! naturally! of (uido Ca,alcanti +2ho here authoritati,ely represents the tradition of lo,e poets0% Such is the apocalyptic ,ision +2hich! li*e e,ery apocalypse! carries a historical inde=: one of the significant merits of the collection is to ha,e captured the infernal facies of the -.<?s at their end0 that the Poesie della fine del mondo e,o*es and! at the same time! 2ards off 2ith terri'le scorn: a ,ision of life fore,er departing from speech +the a,antJ garde poetry of the -./?s 2as soon to register it acti,ely in its o2n 2ay0 and presuming to state officially that it li,es% $elfini:sPoesie della fine del mondopresents an e=perience that is perhaps uniBue in our century! the e=perience of a poet 2ho cannot accept that his li,ed e=perience 'ecomes 'iography! ine=ora'ly departs from speech! and 'ecomes a real fact% This is 2hy the most inhuman ,ision to 2hich the poet 'ears witness %$my ,ourage was greatK$( is that the $lady$ %his life( is obser ing him $e en as EheF dies)$ Bere" as in ,ertain sudden brea9s in the fabri, of 8l ricordo della Aasca! 2hat appears is an uncertain! fe'rile! and almost decayed image! the figure of an e=perience of poetic dictation that lies 'eyond the tradition of &ohn and the $olce Stil >o,o as 2ell as of Petrarch! a poetic dictation reser,ed for future poetic generations%

 * E+,ro,riated Manner
8
At the time of his death" on Aanuary .." 1991" Giorgio #aproni was preparing a ,olle,tion of poems whose title" themati, ,ontent" and relation to his pre ious wor9 he had already announ,ed" publi,ly or pri ately" on arious o,,asions) ;n,e he had finished the final draft of the poem he entitled $4es amissa$ %shortly before Aanuary ." 19'&" if not on that ery day(" 1 #aproni noted the following on the manus,ript* 5his poem will be the sub6e,t of my new boo9 %if I su,,eed in writing it(" followed by ,ariations" 6ust as in Conte di U% the sub6e,t is the 3east %e il( in its arious forms and metamorphoses) 7e are all gi en something pre,ious that we then lose irre o,ably) %5he 3east is E il) 5he res amissa Ethe lost thingF is Good)( Iet the first s9et,h of the poem %whi,h" although not dated" is ,ertainly from sometime after the first days of Go ember 19'6" the time of the isit to #ologne that furnished the o,,asion for the poet@s refle,tions( already ,ontained an annotation" first written in pen,il and later ner ously ,ontinued in pen) $7e are all"$ it reads" $%without our remembering from whom( > gi en something pre,ious > and we hide it away so ,arefully that we no longer remember where and" e en" what the gift is #es amissa 5he opposite of the #ount #enter loss)$ Hater" #aproni e-plained in an inter iew with =omeni,o Astengo* A little poem E$(enerali44ando"$$Generali:ing$F that would" pre,isely to generali:e" be something of a ,aption" or abbre iation" of a boo9 that I am dreaming of" whi,h" if I su,,eed in writing" I would ,all #es amissa% The idea came to me from a ,ery 'anal fact that 2ould ta*e Buite a 2hile to e=plain here% 8t can happen to anyone that he hides a2ay a precious thing so carefully as then to forget not only the thing:s location! 'ut also the actual nature of the o'Gect itself% This is a su'Gect that! for all its apparent simplicity! is ,ery am'itious! especially so! 8 thin*! on account of the 1,ariations1 it can produce% This time 2hat 2ould 'e at sta*e 2ould no longer 'e the hunt for the Aeast! as in Conte di Ue,enhSller! 'ut rather the hunt for the lost (ood% 9 (ood left entirely ad li'item to the reader! a (ood perhaps identifia'leJJfor the 'elie,erJJ2ith (race! gi,en that there is such a thing as 1admissi'le (race%1 Cith (race or 2ith anything else of the *ind% +Aut 8 'elie,e the latter is not my case%0 3or Caproni! the cue for such an 1am'itious1 ,ariation may ha,e 'een e,en merely an entry in one of the reference 'oo*s he routinely used! Pala44i 8talian $ictionary% This is suggested 'y an annotation made on one of the pages of the manuscript: 1Pala44i 9dmissi'le +from the Latin amittere0 that can 'e lost: admissi'le grace%1 The speed 2ith 2hich this laconic lemma suffices to introduce one of the most arduous theological and ethical pro'lems is astonishing% +Aut 2hoe,er has held in his hands one of Caproni:s copies of the $i,ine Comedy! full of marginalia and 2orn out 'y freBuent use! 2ill ha,e no trou'le imagining ho2 much theology he could transmit to his poetry%0 The su'Gect of the admissi'ility of grace is! ho2e,er! found for the first time precisely in an author dear to Caproni! St% 9ugustine! 2ho! in his $e natura et gratia! discusses it in the conte=t of his dispute 2ith Pelagius% 6 The position of Pelagius! one of the most impressi,e figures pushed to the margins of the Christian tradition 'y dogmatic orthodo=y! is 2ell *no2n% The possi'ility of not sinning +impeccantia0! Pelagius held! inheres in human nature in an insepara'le manner +and this leads 9ugustine to coin the adGecti,e inamissi'ile0! 3 and there is there fore no need for the inter ention of an ulterior gra,e" human nature being itself the immediate wor9 of di ine gra,e) 7ith his usual a,umen" Augustine dis,erns the ultimate ,onse<uen,es of this do,trine and" afraid" retreats from them* the impossibility of distinguishing between human nature and a gra,e that has be,ome inadmissible and" thus" the ruin of the ery ,on,ept of sin) 5his is why the #hur,h ,onsistently ,ondemned !elagianism and" against all e-tremist ,urrents" sustained the need both for the inter ention of gra,e and for its essentially $admissible$ ,hara,ter" that is" its loss through sin %#oun,il of 5rent" sess) 6" ,hap) 12* $If someone states that on,e man has been 6ustified" he ,an neither sin nor lose Gra,e ) ) ) anathema$()

#aproni@s idea is a 9ind of e-treme !elagianism* gra,e is a gift so profoundly infused in human nature that it ,annot be made 9nown to it" being always already a res amissa and always already unappropriable) Inadmissible" sin,e it is always already lost" and lost on a,,ount of being88li9e life and nature itself88too intimately possessed" too $,arefully %irre,o erably( hidden away)$ 5his is why #aproni" e-plaining to =omeni,o Astengo the sense of the $thorn of nostalgia$ %spina della nostalgia( in the poem 1(enerali44ando!1 spe,ified that $the ,ontent or ob6e,t of su,h nostalgia is nostalgia itself)$ Bere the good that is gi en is not" in fa,t" something that was on,e 9nown and then forgotten %the $then$ EpoiF of 1(enerali44ando1 is not ,hronologi,al but purely logi,al() 5he gift that is re,ei ed is" instead" fore er lost from the beginning) 5he anaphori, $it$ % ne( that opens #es amissa %$I find no tra,e of it$ E>on ne tro,o tracciaF( remains fore er depri ed of the anaphori:ed term that alone ,ould furnish it with its denotati e alue) 7ith a ,hara,teristi, gesture" #aproni" drasti,ally identifying gra,e and nature in the figure of the res amissa" renders obsolete the ,ategorial distin,tions on whi,h 7estern theology and ethi,s are founded88or rather" he ,ompli,ates them and displa,es them into a region in whi,h their sense radi,ally ,hanges) ;ne ,ould" that is" repeat for #aproni the 'outade with whi,h 7alter 3en6amin defined his own relation to theology when he ,ompared it to that between an in9 pad and in9* the in9 pad is" to be sure" full of in9" but if it were up to the pad" not e en a drop of in9 would remain) 5his is why the term $negati e theology$ %whose misuse the poet himself a oided( is neither useful nor ade<uate) ;ne ought" instead" to note how in #aproni" the tradition of modern atheologi,al poetry % #aproni also ,alls it $pathotheology$( rea,hes its e-treme out,ome" e en its ,ollapse) In this tradition %if one may spea9 of a tradition(" #aproni@s poetry represents something li9e AstWpo o" the small train station where 5olstoy died* a ,asual stopping point from whi,h it is impossible to turn ba,9" on a trip leading nowhere and" at the same time" in flight beyond e ery familiar figure of the human and the di ine)

88
A date of birth ,an be assigned" with reasonable a,,ura,y" to poeti, atheology* it is the day on whi,h BRlderlin" at the dawn of the nineteenth ,entury" ,orre,ted the last two erses of the poem 1$ichter'eruf1 % 1The Poet:s Calling1() 7here the first ersion read* @nd *einer CSrde 'rauchts! und *einer Caffen! solange der (ott nicht fehlet %And there is no need for worth and for arms" as long as the god is not absent( BRlderlin ,orre,ts* @nd *einer Caffen 'rauchts! und *einer Listen! so lange! 'is (ottes 3ehl hilft ) %And there is no need for arms and for ,unning" as long as God@s absen,e aids)(
0

7hat begins here %without being ,onsigned to any tradition in the stri,t sense" but instead rebounding" so to spea9" from poet to poet( is not a new theology? and it is not e en a negati e theology %whi,h posits pure 3eing in withdrawing from it e ery real predi,ate and essen,e() Gor is it an atheisti, #hristology %as in a ,ertain ,ontemporary so,ial theology() BRlderlin@s ,orre,tion mar9s the point at whi,h the di ine and the human ali9e are ruined" at whi,h poetry opens onto a region that is un,ertain and de oid of a sub6e,t" flattened on the trans,endental" and whi,h ,an be defined only by the BRlderlinian euphemism" $betrayal of the sa,red)$ %$5hus"$ we read in the >otes to BRlderlin@s translation of Sopho,les @ Pedipus" $man forgets himself and the god turns away" but sa,redly" as a traitor) At the e-treme limit of suffering nothing remains but the ,onditions of spa,e and time)$( 7hat ,hara,teri:es poeti, atheology as opposed to e ery negati e theology is its singular ,oin,iden,e of nihilism and poeti, pra,ti,e" than9s to whi,h poetry be,omes the laboratory in whi,h all 9nown figures are undone and new" parahuman or semidi ine ,reatures emerge* BRlderlin@s half8god" Jleist@s marionette" Giet:s,he@s =ionysus" the angel and the doll in 4il9e" Jaf9a@s ;drade9 as well as #elan@s $Medusahead$ and $automaton$ and Montale@s $pearly snail@s tra,e)$ %In this sense" atheology had already

begun when !ro enLal and =ol,e Stil Go o lyri, poetry transformed poetry into the ,hamber or stan4a in whi,h an absolute e-perien,e of desub6e,ti i:ation and deindi iduation went hand in hand with the ,eremonious in ention of figures of delirium* the woman8angel and the lo e8spirits of the =ol,e Stil Go o poets and the partial bodies of the troubadours" all under the sign of the parado-i,al identifi,ation of poetry with the female body)( In #aproni" all figures of atheology rea,h a point at whi,h they ta9e lea e) $=is,harge$ or $ta9ing lea e$ EcongedoF is truly the e-emplary moment of the later #aproni %I ta9e the later #aproni to begin with the publi,ation of Congedo del ,iaggiatore cerimonioso in 1962() 3ut whereas BRlderlin@s infidelity held fast pre,isely to the hope that $the memory of the hea enly ones might not end"$ here what asserts itself is the $de,ision to ma9e do without"$ in whi,h e en atheologi,al pathos is definiti ely set aside" the memory of gods and men e,lipsed and a way ,leared to a lands,ape that is now entirely empty of figures) 5his is why #aproni" perhaps more than any other ,ontemporary poet" su,,eeded in e-pressing without any shadow of nostalgia or nihilism the ethos and almost the Stimmung of the $solitude without God$ of whi,h he spea9s in 3ranco cacJciatore ,iatore@s $Inserto)$ %$3asi,ally unbreathable) Bard and ,olorless li9e <uart:) 3la,9 and transparent Eand ,uttingF li9e obsidian) 5he happiness that it ,an gi e is unspea9able) It@s the entry88 e ery hope neatly ,ut off88to e ery possible freedom) In,luding that Ethe serpent that bites its tailF of belie ing in God" while 9nowing88definitely88that there is no God and that he doesn@t e-ist)$( 2 3ut the infinite $,eremony$ of ta9ing lea e" whi,h had already been a,,omplished in 3ranco cacciatore and in Conte %and it is then truly possible" as has been obser ed" 6 to read in $4ifiuto dell@In itato$ something li9e a Hast Supper that has be,ome entirely immemorable(" is now repla,ed by ta9ing lea e from lea e8ta9ing itself" to penetrate into regions of e er greater e-propriation between man and God) In this sense" it is de,isi e that both Conte and #es amissa ha e at their ,enter a figure of impropriety) 5he 3east of Conte is" in fa,t" something that as su,h belongs to no one %the fera 'estia is" in 6uridi,al terms" the ery type of the res nullius() And the good that is at issue in the last ,olle,tion is a res amissa" not in the sense of a res derelicta %whi,h" a,,ording to 4oman 6urists" be,omes an ob6e,t of property on,e again as soon as someone ta9es hold of it(" but as something that ,an ne er be appropriated) 5he 3east of Conte was" after all" an allegory not so mu,h of e il %one ,ould e<ually well" a,,ording to an e<ui o,ation typi,al of #aproni" dis,ern in it a ,ipher of life and language( as of e il@s radi,al impropriety" su,h that the only true e il was nothing other than the stubborn and useless human attempt to ,apture e il and ma9e it one@s own) 5he res amissa is" in the same way" nothing but the unappropriability and unfigurability of the good %whether this good is ,on,ei ed" in turn" as nature or gra,e" life or language88or" as one reads in the first draft of the poem" freedom() 5he 3east and the res amissa are therefore not two things but instead two fa,es of the same e-propriation of a single gift) ;r rather" the res amissa is nothing other than the 3east be,ome definiti ely unappropriable" the dis,harge from e ery hunt and e ery will to appropriation %a,,ording to an indi,ation that is also ,ommon to the late 3eto,,hi* $E il and good are two mirrors > of the same illusion* that is > to li e master of one@s own being$() & 5his is how one must understand the tight ,orresponden,e suggested by #aproni between the two ,olle,tions* together they ,onstitute the panels of a dipty,h bearing the introdu,tion to a new ethos" that is" to the new dwelling of the $disinhabitants$ of the earth)

888
7hy does poetry matter to usD 5he ways in whi,h answers to this <uestion are offered testify to its absolute importan,e) +or the field of possible respondents is ,learly di ided between those who affirm the signifi,an,e of poetry only on ,ondition of altogether ,onfusing it with life and those for whom the signifi,an,e of poetry is instead e-,lusi ely a fun,tion of its isolation from life) 3oth groups thereby betray their apparent intention* the first" be,ause they sa,rifi,e poetry to the life into whi,h they resol e it? the se,ond" be,ause in the last analysis they are ,on in,ed of poetry@s impoten,e with respe,t to life) 4omanti,ism and aestheti,ism" whi,h ,onfuse life and poetry at e ery step" are 6ust as foolish as ;lympian ,lassi,ism and well8meaning se,ularism" whi,h e erywhere 9eep life

and poetry apart" destining humanity to transmit a patrimony that is holy but that has be,ome useless pre,isely in the issue that should ha e be,ome de,isi e) ;pposed to these two positions is the e-perien,e of the poet" who affirms that if poetry and life remain infinitely di ergent on the le el of the biography and psy,hology of the indi idual" they ne ertheless be,ome absolutely indistin,t at the point of their re,ipro,al desub6e,ti i:ation) And88at that point88they are united not immediately but in a medium) 5his medium is language) 5he poet is he who" in the word" produ,es life) Hife" whi,h the poet produ,es in the poem" withdraws from both the li ed e-perien,e of the psy,hosomati, indi idual and the biologi,al unsayability of the spe,ies) At the origins of Italian poetry" in the ter:ina in whi,h =ante defines the =ol,e Stil Go o" this unity of li ed e-perien,e and what is poeti,i:ed E il poetatoF in the medium of language at a point that is both singular and without a sub6e,t was presented as the proper tas9 of the poet* Ed io a lui: 8: mi son un che! Buando 9mor mi spira! noto! e a Buel modo ch:L ditta dentro ,o significando) %And I to him" $I am one who" when Ho e inspires me" ta9es note" and goes setting it forth after the fashion whi,h he di,tates within me)$( ' Bere the $I$ of the poet is from the beginning desub6e,ti i:ed into a generi, un %$one$(" and it is this un %something more88or less88than the $e-emplary uni ersal$ of whi,h #aproni spea9s( that" in the di,tation of lo e" e-perien,es the indissoluble unity of li ed e-perien,e and what is poeti,i:ed) 5he unity of poetry and life does not ha e a metaphori,al ,hara,ter at this le el) ;n the ,ontrary" poetry matters be,ause the indi idual who e-perien,es this unity in the medium of language undergoes an anthropologi,al ,hange that is" in the ,onte-t of the indi idual@s natural history" e ery bit as de,isi e as was" for the primate" the liberation of the hand in the ere,t position or" for the reptile" the transformation of limbs that ,hanged it into a bird) 5a9e the legendary ,y,le of 7ersi li,ornesi for Annina !i,,hi in #aproni 8l seme del piangere% Choe,er is not 2holly insensiti,e to the pro'lems and tradition of poetry 2ill remain astonished at this stri*ing resurgence of the Sicilian can4onetta and Ca,alcanti:s 'allata in the cele'ration of the 1splendid in,ention1 +Mengaldo0 of an amorous relation 2ith a motherJmaiden% Pne cannot! ho2e,er! grasp the poetic tas* that is fulfilled here as long as one considers this poetry in the conte=t of the psychological and 'iographical Buestion of the incestuous su'limation of the motherJson relationshipJJ2hich is to say! as long as one does not recogni4e the anthropological change that ta*es place in these ,erses% 3or here there are neither figures of memory nor e,en amor de lonh% #ather! lo,e! in a *ind of temporal +and hence not merely spatial! as in the $olce Stil >o,o poets0 shamanism! encounters for the first time its lo e ob6e,t in another time) 5his is why there ,an be no tra,e of in,est* the mother is truly a girl" $ a ,y,list"$ and the $betrothed$ poet literally lo es her at first sight) In this sense" #aproni@s man belongs to a different phylon from the man of ;edipus* leaping in one bound o er the lugubrious ,hronologi,al order of the family" the edi,t of Cersi li ornesi announ,es the end of ;edipus and the in,estuous family) 7hoe er ,ontinues" when ,onfronted with this poetry" to spea9 in terms of in,est and psy,hology ,annot but play the part of the e-emplary ,riti, who" with nowhere to go" lingers o er the dead railway tra,9 of poeti, anthropology) Ben,e the terrible reuniting of the two figures ad portam inferi" when the girl ends by ,onfusing herself with the oedipal mother and sear,hes in ain for the 9eys and the ring she ,annot ha e) 5he infernal threshold here does not so mu,h mar9 the passage from the reign of the li ing to that of the dead as it mar9s the point of fusion" in the li ing furna,e of poeti, fantasy" at whi,h the two pass through ea,h other) 5he death of Annina !i,,hi" e-a,tly li9e that of 3eatri,e" is not the death of an indi idual but the tremendous ,ollision between two irre,on,ilable worlds)

5hese are therefore not $family poems$ 9 but rather" as in the poem to the son Attilio Mauro in Muro della terra! temporal in,ersions and phylogenetic e=changes in 2hich family hierarchies 'ecome unrecogni4a'le% Caproni! in other 2ords! succeeds 2here Pascoli perhaps tried! 'ut failedJJto confuse and erotically transfigure the 2alls of the domus and the family! in order ultimately to encounter creatures 2ho! 2holly re'orn to themsel,es and to others! once li,ed there% This is 2hy it is not senseless to compare the girl of 7ersi li,ornesi 2ith Pascoli:s 1La tessitrice% 1 &ust as Ca,alcanti and the $olce Stil >o,o poets +on the epochal threshold of an anthropological change that 2ould for the first time dislocate se=uality 'eyond the confines of reproduction of the species0 had! through their 1spirits1 or spiritelli! presented in a li,ing figure the separate Sicilian image of the 2oman painted in the mind! so the mute pantomime of memory that imprisons Pascoli:s 1,irgin1 is dissol,ed! in Caproni! in the cheerful gesture of the em'roideress and the li,ely! noisy run of the cyclist% The transformation of the oedipal family that failed in !as,oli@s San Mauro is happily a,,omplished in Hi orno in #aproni@s e-periment" in whi,h the alen,e of $progressi e anthropology"$ whi,h S,hlegel and the Aena 4omanti,s assigned to poetry" shows its full truth) %3y a singular ,oin,iden,e that we re,ord here only out of the lo e of ,uriosity" #aproni is also the name of the physi,ian who" in 3arga" treated the dying !as,oli)(

8(
Anthropologi,al ,hanges ,orrespond" in language" to poetologi,al ,hanges) 5hese are all the more diffi,ult to register in that they do not simply represent stylisti, or rhetori,al progressions" but rather ,all into <uestion the ery borders between languages) 5he linguist Ernst Hewy" who was 3en6amin@s professor in 3erlin" in 191/ published a brief monograph entitled \ur Sprache des alten (oethes! Ein 7ersuch S'er die Sprache des Ein4elnen +Pn the Language of the Pld (oethe: 9n Essay on the Language of the 8ndi,idual0) Hi9e many before him" Hewy had noted the transformation of Goethe@s language in his late wor9s) 3ut whereas ,riti,s had a,,ounted for this transformation in terms of senile stylisti, de i,es" Hewy" who was an e-pert glottologist and a spe,ialist in Ural8Altai, languages" obser ed that in the old Goethe German e ol ed from the ,hara,teristi, morphology of Indo8European languages toward forms ,hara,teristi, of agglutinati e languages" su,h as 5ur9ish) Among these ,hanges" Hewy listed %1( the tenden,y toward e-tremely unusual ,omposed ad6e,ti es? %.( the pre alen,e of the nominal senten,e? and %/( the progressi e disappearan,e of the arti,le) 7e 9now of only one other e-ample of this type of analysis ,ondu,ted on the wor9 of a writer* #ontini@s $brief guide$ to !i::uto Paginette) 11 #ontini dis,erns in !i::uto@s stubborn elision of the erb" in $his 9ind of ablati e absolutes"$ in his dislo,ated or alternati e agreements %more imaginable in a language with ,ases( a tenden,y not only toward ar,hai, Indo8European and its nominal style but also $beyond the borders re,ogni:ed in Indo8European"$ toward monosyllabi, languages %su,h as #hinese" for e-ample() It is not surprising that Hewy@s essay eli,ited 3en6amin@s enthusiasm) +or here the language of the indi idual be,omes the site of a dislo,ation and e-perimental ,hange in whi,h what ,omes to light is the ery $pure language$ % =ante spo9e" in a sense that is not so dissimilar" of an $illustrious erna,ular$ E,olgare illustreF( that" a,,ording to 3en6amin" stands between languages without ,oin,iding with any of them %and whose proper pla,e he found in translation() 5ensions and e-tremisms of this 9ind" whi,h are not un,ommon in the wor9 of old artists %it is enough" for painting" to thin9 of 5itian or the late Mi,helangelo(" are usually ,lassified by ,riti,s as mannerisms) 5he Ale-andrian grammarians obser ed early on that !lato@s style" whi,h is so limpid in the youthful dialogues" be,omes diffi,ult" affe,ted" and o erly parata,ti, in the late dialogues) Similar remar9s %e-,ept that here one usually spea9s of madness and not senility( ha e been and ,an be made ,on,erning BRlderlin@s writings after the translations of Sopho,les" whi,h are so di ided between the harsh te,hni<ue of the hymns and the fro:en sweetness of the poems signed with the heteronym S,ardinelli) Analogously" in Mel ille@s last no els %thin9 of Pierre! or the 9m'iguities or The ConfidenceJ Man( mannerisms and digressions proliferate to the point of brea9ing the ery form of the

no el" ,arrying it away toward other" less legible genres %the philosophi,al treatise or the erudite noteboo9() 5erms of $manner$ are ,ertainly apt" to the e-tent that they register the phenomenon@s irredu,ibility to a pro,edure of stylisti, e olution) Bere" howe er" it will be ne,essary to o erthrow or abandon the usual hierar,hi,al relation between style and manner" and to ,onsider their ,onne,tion in a new light) 5hese ,on,epts designate two realities that are ,orrelates" yet irredu,ible to ea,h other) If style mar9s the artist@s most ,hara,teristi, trait" manner registers an in erse pro,ess of e-propriation and e-,lusion) It is as if the old poet" who found his style and rea,hed perfe,tion in it" now forgets it in order to ad an,e the singular ,laim of e-pressing himself solely through impropriety) In the areas in whi,h it has been most rigorously defined %art history and psy,hiatry(" manner in fa,t designates a polar pro,ess* manner is an e-aggerated adhesion to a us age or model %stereotype" or repetition( and" at the same time" a show of absolute e-,ess with relation to it %e-tra agan,e" or singularity() In art history" mannerism thus $presupposes the 9nowledge of a style to whi,h one belie es oneself to adhere" but whi,h one instead un,ons,iously see9s to a oid$ %!inder() +or psy,hiatrists" on the other hand" the mode of being of the mannerist ,onsists in showing $impropriety in the sense of not being oneself$ and" at the same time" the will to earn thereby one@s own terrain and status %3inswanger() Analogous obser ations ,ould be made with respe,t to the writer and his language? and it ought not to be forgotten that a signifi,ant ,urrent of Italian literature %Gadda is e-emplary here( is ,hara,teri:ed by nothing other than ta9ing its distan,e" so to spea9" from language through an e-,essi e" mannered adhesion to it %as if the writer e-,luded himself from the language in whi,h he wrote in order to be o er,ome by it() ;nly in their re,ipro,al relation do style and manner a,<uire their true sense beyond the proper and the improper) 5he free gesture of the writer li es in the tension between these two poles* style is an e=propriating appropriation" a sublime negligen,e" a selfforgetting in the proper? manner is an appropriating e=propriation" a presentiment or remembran,e of oneself in the improper) Got only in the old poet but in e ery great writer % Sha9espeareK( there is a manner that distan,es itself from style" a style that e-propriates itself into manner) At its height" writing e en ,onsists in pre,isely the inter al88or" rather" the passage88between the two) !erhaps in e ery field but most of all in language" use is a polar gesture* on the one hand" appropriation and habit? on the other" e-propriation and nonidentity) And $usage$ %in its whole semanti, field" as both $to use$ and $to be used to$( is the perpetual os,illation between a homeland and an e-ile88dwelling)

(
In twentieth8,entury Italian literature" #aproni@s late poetry ,onstitutes perhaps the most e-emplary testimony to this di ergen,e) Bere one finds" first of all" at least two of the traits noted by Hewy and #ontini* the tenden,y to anomalous ad6e,ti al ,ompounds %to ta9e only #es amissa* $bian,oflauta"$ $flautos,omparsa$( and a nominal style %the e-treme ,ase is $In en:ioni"$ in whi,h se en out of eight senten,es ha e no erb() !asolini@s 6o9ing remar9 %whi,h the poet himself li9ed to repeat( that #aproni spea9s not Italian but $#apronian$ is in this sense 6ustified) 3ut what is essential is that this transgressi e manner e-erts itself on the element that" more than any other" ,hara,teri:es poetry* meter) +or at a ,ertain point the poet who had rea,hed e-,ellen,e both in the harsh" almost stony te,hni<ue of Passaggio d:Enea and in the sweet te,hni<ue 11 of 8l seme del piangere sets aside his song and88repeating on a different plane the gesture with whi,h the youthful or,hestra player" ,alled upon one e ening to play first iolin" smashed the wood of his iolin88now undoes and brea9s up his pre,ious poeti, instrument) 5a9ing up an e-pression of =ante@s" #aproni gi es the name $musi,al tie$ % legame musaico( to the formal relation that is here dissol ed88or rather" suspended) In the inter iew with Astengo" the rele ant passage in =ante Con,i,io %$nothing harmoni:ed through the musi,al tie ,an be transferred from its own phrasing into that of another without ruining its sweetness and harmony$ Enulla cosa per legame musaico armoni44ata si puH de la sua loBuela in altra transmutare sen4a rompere tutta sua dolce44a e armonia F( is ,ited ,on,erning the impossibility of translation) And translation %in parti,ular that of #Oline" from whom #aproni may ha e borrowed his use of ellipsis dots? but also" in an opposite dire,tion" that

of 7ilhelm 3us,h( is the laboratory in whi,h #aproni prepared for the $transformation$ that mar9ed his late poetry" that is" its progressi e e-propriation of the $musi,al tie)$ %Might the reader allow a digression) More than any other European national literature" twentieth8,entury Italian poetry 9ept itself most faithful to the need for metri,al ,losure in poeti, dis,ourse) German lyri, poetry has been familiar with freie #hythmen Ethose" for e-ample" of Go alis )ymns to the >ight and 4il9e $uino ElegiesF for o er a ,entury? and +ren,h poetry definiti ely turns its ba,9 on the metri,al tradition with MallarmO@s $Un ,oup de dOs)$ In Italy" on the other hand" the twentieth ,entury Edespite d@Annun:io@s free erse88but on this see Hu,ini@s obser ationsKF mar9s one of the pea9s of musi,al ersifi,ation" one without ,ounterpart in other European languages) Ben,e its untranslatability) 4il9e" for all the profundity of the ,ontent of his poems" often remains the prisoner of a soft musi,ality as far as rhythm is ,on,erned" 6ustifying 3en6amin@s ,hara,teri:ation of him as the poet of &ugendstil% Pascoli! 2hose poems: su'Gects are often do2nright insipid! is 2ithout ri,al in Europe in his mastery of the musical tie% This is 2hy Pintor:s translation of >eue (edichte in Poemi con,i,iali is eBual! if not superior! to the original! 2hile a translation not only of Pascoli 'ut e,en of Penna or Caproni 2ill ne,er succeed in gi,ing the ,aguest idea of the original%0 8t has already 'een noted ho2 this progressi,e transfiguration of the musical tie articulates itself in Caproni:s last collections% The traditional measure of the ,erse is drastically contracted! and the three ellipsis dots +2hich Caproni himself compares to the pi44icato that functions to 'rea* up the de,elopment of the melodic phrase in Schu'ert:s op% /3 Buartet0 mar* the impossi'ility of completing the prosodic theme% The ,erse is thus reduced to its limiting elements: enGam'ment +if it is true that enGam'ment is the only criterion that allo2s one to distinguish poetry from prose0 and caesura +2hich )Vlderlin defined as 1antirhythmic1 and 2hich e=pands to the point of de,ouring the 2hole rhythm0%
-6

Pne ought to spea*! therefore! neither of free nor of typographically fragmented ,erse! 'ut rather of aprosody +in the sense in 2hich neurologists! 2ho spea* of aphasia 2hen characteri4ing distur'ances to the logicoJdiscursi,e aspect of language! define aprosody as the alteration of language:s tonal and rhythmic aspects0% 9nd one ought to recogni4e that this aprosody is! as is o',ious! patiently calculated and o'sessi,ely ordered + Caproni:s pu'lishers 2ere familiar 2ith the poet:s almost maniacal attention to the typographical arrangement0! 2hich ma*es it no less destructi,e% 9ccording to the polar character of poetic 2riting that has already 'een noted! ho2e,er! this estrangement from the prosodic element produces an opposite effect: the moc* ,erse of the counterCaproni% -3 Pne may 2onder 2here the in,asi,e proliferation of this %metri,ally tri ial( humming ,omes from" a,,ompanying the bro9en song of the last poems almost li9e whistling in the middle of the se erest hymn" gi ing ,onsisten,y to the paradoof a poet who li es in personal union with a ,ounter8poet) 5hese little erses are the splinters ,hipped off from the impla,able wor9 of e-propriation that ,hara,teri:es #aproni@s supreme manner) In this sense" #es amissa truly ,ontains the final sense of its poetry) +or now poetry itself has" for the old poet" be,ome the res amissa in whi,h it is impossible to distinguish between nature and gra,e" dwelling and gift" possession and e-propriation) Bo ering" poised in a 9ind of trans,endental mimi,ry between the aprosody of interrupted song and o erly harmonious little erses" poetry now rea,hes a domain fore er beyond the proper and the improper" sal ation and ruin) 5his is the unappropriable lega,y that #aproni@s e-propriated manner lea es to Italian poetry" and that no benefit of in entory will permit it to elude) Hi9e an animal whose mutation has ,arried it so far outside its spe,ies that we ,an neither assign it to another phylon nor 9now if it will pass its mutation on to others" poetry88now both unre,ogni:able and all too familiar8has definiti ely be,ome a res amissa for us) 5his is why it is impossible to say whether e en one of all the poetry boo9s that are being published and that will ,ertainly ,ontinue to be published will be at the le el of the e ent that has happened here) 7e ,an only say that here something ends fore er and something begins" and that what begins begins only in what ends)

 - T%e ele.ration of t%e Hidden Treasure

I own the ,opy of Spino:a Ethics that belonged to Elsa Morante? it was gi en to me by #arlo #e,,hi in remembran,e of Elsa) It is the edition published in Sansoni 1Classici della filosofia1 series in 196/" and it reprodu,es the Hatin te-t and notes of Gio anni Gentile@s 1912 Hater:a edition" adding to it an Italian translation by Gaetano =urante) Elsa@s spe,ial eneration for Spino:a is illustrated" as you 9now" by his lo,ation at the top of the mo,9 genealogi,al tree in her 1Can4one degli 3%P% e degli 8%M%1 % 1Can4one of the )appy 3e2 and the @nhappy Many1( alongside Simone 7eil" Giordano 3runo" Grams,i" 4imbaud" Mo:art" Aoan of Ar," Gio anni 3ellini" !lato" and 4embrandt) As I write this list" I noti,e that the philosophers are in the ma6ority) 5his might be a point of departure for an in estigation of Elsa@s relation to philosophy" whi,h is anything but settled? but this is not the pro6e,t I wish to pursue) It is not surprising" then" that the ,opy of the Ethics in <uestion ,ontains arious marginal ,omments in Elsa@s handwriting" in the form of stars" lines" <uestion mar9s" e-,lamation points" and" finally88in one signifi,ant pla,e88a genuine annotation) I would li9e to spea9 to you briefly about this last marginal ,omment" sin,e it bears witness to a sharp and ,ontinuous disagreement that" I thin9" parti,ularly illuminates Elsa@s tena,ious philosophi,al ,on i,tions) 3ut first let us ta9e a loo9 at the mar9ings that pre,ede this one) 5he first" in the shape of a pretty red star" a,,ompanies the defini tions that open the first boo9 of the Ethics" in parti,ular the si-th" that is" the famous definition of God* $3y God I mean an absolutely infinite being? that is" substan,e ,onsisting of infinite attributes" ea,h of whi,h e-presses eternal and infinite essen,e)$ 1 Elsa mar9ed the e-pli,ation that immediately follows* $I say @absolutely infinite"@ not @infinite in 9ind)@ +or if a thing is only infinite in its 9ind" one may deny that it has infinite attributes) 3ut if a thing is absolutely infinite" whate er e-presses essen,e and does not in ol e any negation belongs to its essen,e)$ . A few pages later" a double red line appears in the margin of the s,holium to proposition 11" where one reads* $Gow if anyone as9s by what mar9 we ,an distinguish between different substan,es" let him read the following !ropositions" whi,h show that in Gature there e-ists only one substan,e" absolutely infinite)$ / It is easy to sense how Elsa ,ould ha e been attra,ted to Spino:a@s idea of the unity of di ine substan,e ,onstituted by an infinity of attributes" ea,h of whi,h e-presses an eternal and infinite essen,e) And it is ,ertainly not surprising to see another red star mar9ing the important ,orollary to proposition .2" whi,h reads* $!arti,ular things are nothing but affe,tions of the attributes of God? that is" modes wherein the attributes of God find e-pression in a definite and determinate way)$ 0 5hat all things and all li ing beings are nothing but the modes in whi,h the di ine attributes e-pli,ate and e-press themsel es88here is another idea that must ha e been parti,ularly ,ongenial to Elsa and that e en ,onstituted one of her deepest ,on i,tions) After this point" the mar9ings be,ome rarer and rarer" until they disappear altogether in !art 5hree" pre,isely the part that" with its treatment of the passions" must ha e immensely interested Elsa) 5he annotations start up again suddenly in the s,holium to proposition /& of !art +our" where a double series of alternating <uestion mar9s and e-,lamation points mar9 both the Hatin te-t and the translation) 5hey introdu,e the following sharp" dis,ordant obser ation in the bottom margin of the boo9* $;h 3aru,hK I feel ery sorry for you" but here you did not UG=E4S5AG=)$ 5he passage from whi,h these words distan,e themsel es reads as follows* +rom this it is ,lear that the re<uirement to refrain from slaughtering beasts is founded on groundless superstition and womanish ,ompassion rather than on sound reason) 5he prin,iple of see9ing our own ad antage tea,hes us to be in ,lose relationship with men" not with beasts or things whose nature is different from human nature" and that we ha e the

same right o er them as they o er us) Indeed" sin,e e ery indi idual@s right is defined by his irtue or power" man@s right o er beasts is far greater than their rights o er man) I do not deny that beasts feel? I am denying that we are on that a,,ount debarred from paying heed to our own ad antage and from ma9ing use of them as we please and dealing with them as best suits us" seeing that they do not agree with us in nature and their emotions are different in nature from human emotions) 2 5he reasons for Elsa@s disagreement seem all too ob ious) Moreo er" Spino:a@s thesis is in some way an affront to our sensibility" and it brings to mind an episode in the biography of the philosopher that has often been ,ontrasted with his image* $Be loo9ed"$ #olerus writes" $for spiders" whi,h he would then for,e to fight against one another" or else for flies" whi,h he would ,ast into the spider@s web? and he obser ed these battles with so mu,h pleasure that he often burst out laughing)$ I must pause on this point" but neither to ,larify a problem in the interpretation of Spino:a nor to defend the ,oheren,e of the philosopher) 4ather" I wish to ,ast some light on the reasons for his disagreement with Elsa" whi,h may in fa,t be less ob ious than appears at first sight) At the end of the passage that I 6ust ,ited" Spino:a refers to the s,holium of proposition 2& of !art 5hree) $Ben,e it follows"$ Spino:a writes" that the emotions of animals that are ,alled irrational %for now that we 9now the origin of mind we ,an by no means doubt that beasts ha e feelings( differ from the emotions of men as mu,h as their nature differs from human nature) Borse and man are indeed ,arried away by lust to pro,reate" but the former by e<uine lust" the latter by human lust) So too the lusts and appetites of inse,ts" fishes and birds are bound to be of arious different 9inds) So although ea,h indi idual li es ,ontent with the nature wherewith he is endowed and re6oi,es in it" that life wherewith ea,h is ,ontent and that 6oy are nothing other than the idea of soul %anima( of the said indi idual" and so the 6oy of the one differs from the 6oy of the other as mu,h as the essen,e of the one differs from the essen,e of the other) 6 5he fa,t is that for Spino:a" all li ing beings without distin,tion e-press God@s attributes in a ,ertain determinate manner) 3ut this absolute ontologi,al pro-imity" not only between men and animals but also between all indi iduals of e ery spe,ies" is ,onfirmed by their di ergen,e on the plane of ethi,s) !re,isely be,ause they are all modes of a single substan,e" they ,an gather together or not gather together a,,ording to the di ersity of their natures) 5he great right of man o er animals does not" therefore" e-press a hierar,hi,al or ontologi,al suprema,y? instead it ,orresponds to the general di ersity of li ing beings) If" for the sa9e of hypothesis" there were a man whose e-isten,e was in,reased by the spider or the fly" or who ,ould de elop friendships with them" this man a,,ording to Spino:a would do well to ta9e greatest ,are to prote,t these ,reatures@ li es) If we turn now to Elsa and more ,losely ,onsider her ideas on animals and the reasons for her disagreement with Spino:a" we may be in for a surprise) 7hat" for Elsa" is the reason for the spe,ial dignity of the animal" whi,h Spino:a did not $understand$D It is simple* animals are the sole witnesses to the e-isten,e of earthly paradise and" therefore" the sole proof of man@s lost Edeni, state) 5his absolutely serious thesis is 6o9ingly stated in the two fragments of 1921 entitled 1Paradiso terrestre1 and 17ero re degli animali!1 where Elsa spea9s $of the e-treme proof of mer,y that the Eternal +ather" despite Bis se erity" ga e to man" lea ing him the ,ompany of animals" who had not eaten from the tree of 9nowledge as he had)$ 3ut this ,on i,tion is present to a ,ertain e-tent in all her wor9s) In his noteboo9s" Jaf9a %the only writer whom Elsa ,onfessed to ha e been influen,ed by( says that $there were three different ways to punish original sin* the mildest 9ind was immediately infli,ted" and it was the banishment from paradise? the se,ond was the destru,tion of paradise itself? and the third88and this is said to ha e been the worst punishment of all88was the barring of a,,ess to the eternal way" with e erything else left as before)$ Elsa begins by a,,epting the first possibility* man has obtained the 9nowledge of good and e il and has" therefore" been banished from Eden? animals" immune to this shadow" ha e remained in the Garden) 3ut the animals@ negati e pri ilege mar9s them off from man by an unbridgeable abyss" di iding men and animals far more than the di ersity of natures separated them in Spino:a) 5he wound that tra erses Elsa@s wor9 is not simply"

as in Spino:a" the di ergen,e between forms of life" the dis,ordant plurality of the different modes of e-pressing a single substan,e) It is instead a fra,ture that passes through the inside of life itself" di iding it li9e the sharpest blade a,,ording to whether or not it remained in Eden and whether or not it was ,ontaminated by the shadow of 9nowledge) !ure animal life %whi,h is ,learly also present in the natural life of man( and human life" Edeni, e-isten,e and the 9nowledge of good and e il" nature and language* these are the edges of the wound that the Audeo#hristian inheritan,e mar9ed in Elsa@s thought" and that separate her from her belo ed ,ats far more than Spino:a was di ided from his spiders and other so8,alled $irrational beasts)$ Iet if this is true" if what 3aru,h did not understand is this irreparable fra,ture" how ,an it then be that the philosopher@s name figures %by irtue of a ,hoi,e whi,h the manus,ripts show to ha e been meditated( at the summit of the genealogi,al tree in Can4one" under the title $the ,elebration of the hidden treasure$D I ha e often as9ed myself what the meaning of this singular formula ,ould be) 7hat ,elebration is at issue hereD And what is its hidden treasureD And how did Elsa ,ome to be re,on,iled with 3aru,hD A hint of a possible answer is ,ontained in Elsa@s dis,ussion of the relation between light and bodies in her te-t on 3eato Angeli,o) $#olors"$ Elsa writes" $are a gift of light" whi,h ma9es use of bodies ) ) ) to transform its in isible ,elebration into an epiphany) ) ) ) It is well 9nown that to the eyes of idiots %poor and ri,h ali9e( the hierar,hy of splendors ,ulminates in the sign of gold) +or those who do not 9now the true" inner al,hemy of light" earthly mines are the pla,e of a hidden treasure)$ 5he $,elebration of the hidden treasure$ is therefore the be,oming isible" in bodies" of the al,hemy of light) 5his al,hemy is both a spirituali:ation of matter and a materiali:ation of light) And it is this $,elebration$ that the 9nowledge of the third 9ind re ealed to Spino:asu' Buadam aeternitatis specie) 5he late en,ounter with 3eato Angeli,o thus ,oin,ides with a $Spino:ist$ moment in whi,h Elsa sets aside her tragi, $pre6udi,es$ and Edeni, mythology to approa,h her supreme ision" whi,h8li9e ,omprehension in Spino:a88is far more despairing than e ery tragedy and far more festi e than e ery ,omedy) Bere the re,on,iliation with Spino:a is important" for it a,ts as a ,ounterbalan,e to a temptation in Elsa that was ,ertainly strong) All greatness ,ontains an inner threat with whi,h it is in ,onstant ,ombat and to whi,h it at times su,,umbs) And e ery ,omprehension of a wor9 that does not 9eep in mind this part of the shadow %whi,h is absolutely not of the psy,hologi,al order( ris9s falling into hagiography) +or Elsa" this shadowy part ,oin,ides with the tragi,o8sa,rifi,ial mythology that identifies the ,reature@s bare life as the most absolute inno,en,e and as the most e-treme guilt" as san,tity and as maledi,tion" and as dar9ness and as light) 5his mythology ta9es these two aspe,ts to be indistinguishable" a,,ording to the ambiguous meaning %whi,h is wrongly thought to be original( of the ad6e,ti e sacer) It is a ,on,eption of this 9ind that leads Simone 7eil" in her Cahiers" to e o9e the figure of the s,apegoat" in whom sa,rifi,ial inno,en,e and guilt" san,tity and ab6e,tion" i,tim and e-e,utioner are founded for the sa9e of ,atharsis) It is ne,essary to re,ogni:e this temptation in both Morante and 7eil for what it is" and to sear,h in their own wor9 for the antidotes ,ontained there when they refuse the temptation of the spirit of the desert) +or Elsa" this is the moment at whi,h she abandons the first and the third of Jaf9a@s hypotheses for the sa9e of the se,ond88that of the irreparable and retroa,ti e destru,tion of paradise) And it ,oin,ides with the turn mar9ed by the se,ond half of the 1961s %in parti,ular by 196'" than9s to a 9ind of ironi, histori,al ,ipher(" whi,h #esare Garboli has powerfully re,onstru,ted in psy,hologi,al terms and whi,h I would li9e to attempt to understand from a philosophi,al perspe,ti e) In the ,olle,tion of aphorisms that Jaf9a ,omposed in Vurau between 191& and 191' and that Ma- 3rod pompously entitled P'ser,ations on Sin! Pain! )ope and the True Cay" we find the following singular statement" whi,h seems to me to ,ontain the epitome of the shift at issue* $5he fa,t that only the spiritual world e-ists depri es us of hope and gi es us ,ertainty)$ In >ine $oors" AXrX Hanger holds that this is $the most beautiful Bassidi, do,trine$*

5he most beautiful Bassidi, tea,hing is without doubt the do,trine of the spirituality of matter) A,,ording to this do,trine" all of matter is full of the spiritual spar9s of di ine holiness) 5he purely physi,al e-pressions of human life88li9e eating and drin9ing" washing and sleeping" dan,ing and the a,t of lo e88are demateriali:ed by Bassidism and transformed into nobler religious e-er,ises) It is li9ely that Elsa 9new this te-t) 3ut" from the Jaf9aes<ue perspe,ti e that she fully shared" this beautiful ,ertainty is also what depri es us of hope) 5he loss of hope %e en of that retrospe,ti e hope" nostalgia for Eden( is the terrible pri,e that the mind must pay when it rea,hes the in,andes,ent point of ,ertainty) 5his is why Spino:a@s ,elebration is the $,elebration of the hidden treasure)$ 5he treasure is hidden not be,ause someone or something buried or ,o ered it o er but be,ause it is now e-posed" beyond both tragedy and ,omedy in the absolute and despairing absen,e of all se,rets) 5he 9nowledge of good and e il" whi,h had so deeply mar9ed Morante@s tales with its shadow" finally shows itself to be" in Spino:a@s sober words" nothing but the 9nowledge of sadness and delight? it is now up to the $angeli, wild beasts$ and the $fero,ious 9nights"$ to men and to animals) 5he definiti e ta9ing lea e of the lost Eden is" in this sense" the bitterest and most diffi,ult point in Elsa@s ,reati e ad enture) It is the essential moment ins,ribed by her $Addio"$ in the $blue nights without redemption"$ on the ery threshold of 8l mondo sal,ato dai raga44ini%

> / T%e End of t%e Poem

My plan" as you ,an see summari:ed before you in the title of this le,ture" is to define a poeti, institution that has until now remained unidentified* the end of the poem) 5o do this" I will ha e to begin with a ,laim that" without being tri ial" stri9es me as ob ious88namely" that poetry li es only in the tension and differen,e %and hen,e also in the irtual interferen,e( between sound and sense" between the semioti, sphere and the semanti, sphere) 5his means that I will attempt to de elop in some te,hni,al aspe,ts CalOry@s definition of poetry" whi,h Aa9obson ,onsiders in his essays in poeti,s* 1The poem: a prolonged hesitation 'et2een sound and sense1 +Le poLme! h sitation prolong e entre le son et le Sens0) 7hat is a hesitation" if one remo es it altogether from the psy,hologi,al dimensionD Awareness of the importan,e of the opposition between metri,al segmentation and semanti, segmentation has led some s,holars to state the thesis %whi,h I share( a,,ording to whi,h the possibility of en6ambment ,onstitutes the only ,riterion for distinguishing poetry from prose) +or what is en6ambment" if not the opposition of a metri,al limit to a synta,ti,al limit" of a prosodi, pause to a semanti, pauseD $!oetry$ will then be the name gi en to the dis,ourse in whi,h this opposition is" at least irtually" possible? $!rose$ will be the name for the dis,ourse in whi,h this opposition ,annot ta9e pla,e) Medie al authors seem to ha e been perfe,tly ,ons,ious of the eminent status of this opposition" e en if it was not until Gi,olS 5ibino %in the fourteenth ,entury( that the following perspi,uous definition of en6ambment was formulated* $It often happens that the rhyme ends" without the meaning of the senten,e ha ing been ,ompleted$ % Multiocens enim accidit Buod! finita consonantia! adhuc sensus orationis non est finitus () All poeti, institutions parti,ipate in this non,oin,iden,e" this s,hism of sound and sense88 rhyme no less than ,aesura) +or what is rhyme if not a dis6un,tion between a semioti, e ent %the repetition of a sound( and a semanti, e ent" a dis6un,tion that brings the mind to e-pe,t a meaningful analogy where it ,an find only homophonyD Cerse is the being that dwells in this s,hism? it is a being made of murs et pali:" as 3runetto Hatini wrote" or an Ttre de suspens" in MallarmO@s phrase) And the poem is an organism grounded in the per,eption of the limits and endings that define88without e er fully ,oin,iding with" and almost in intermittent dispute withsonorous %or graphi,( units and semanti, units)

=ante is fully ,ons,ious of this when" at the moment of defining the can4one through its ,onstituti e elements in $e ,ulgari eloBuentia %II" IQ" .8/(" he opposes cantio as unit of sense %sententia( to stantiae as purely metri,al units* And here you must 9now that this word Estan4aF was ,oined solely for the purpose of dis,ussing poeti, te,hni<ue" so that the ob6e,t in whi,h the whole art of the can4one was enshrined should be ,alled a stan:a" that is" a ,apa,ious storehouse or re,epta,le for the art in its entirety) 3or Gust as the ,an:one is the lap of its su'GectJmatter! so the stan4a enlaps its 2hole techniBue" and the latter stan:as of the poem should ne er aspire to add some new te,hni,al de i,e" but should only dress themsel es in the same garb as the first) %emphasis mine( %Et circa hoc sciendum est Buod ,oca'ulum NstantiaO per solius artis respectum in,entum est! ,idelicet ut in Bua tota cantionis ars esset contenta! illud diceretur stantia! hoc est mansio capa= si,e receptaculum totois artis% >am Buemadmodum cantio est gremium totius sententiae! sic stantia totam artem ingremiatE nec licet aliBuid artis seBuenti'us adrogare! sed solam artem antecedentis induere )( =ante thus ,on,ei es of the stru,ture of the can4one as founded on the relation between an essentially semanti," global unit %$the lap of the whole meaning$( and essentially metri,al" partial units %$enlaps the whole te,hni<ue$() ;ne of the first ,onse<uen,es of this position of the poem in an essential dis6un,tion between sound and sense %mar9ed by the possibility of en6ambment( is the de,isi e importan,e of the end of the poem) 5he erse@s syllables and a,,ents ,an be ,ounted? its synaloephae and ,aesuras ,an be noted? its anomalies and regularities ,an be ,atalogued) 3ut the erse is" in e ery ,ase" a unit that finds its principium indi,iduationis only at the end" that defines itself only at the point at whi,h it ends) I ha e elsewhere suggested that the word ,ersure" from the Hatin term indi,ating the point at whi,h the plow turns around at the end of the furrow" be gi en to this essential trait of the erse" whi,h88perhaps on a,,ount of its ob iousness88has remained nameless among the moderns) Medie al treatises" by ,ontrast" ,onstantly draw attention to it) 5he fourth boo9 of La'orintus thus registers finalis terminatio among the erse@s essential elements" alongside mem'rorum distincto and silla'arum numeratio) And the author of the Muni,h Ars does not ,onfuse the end of the poem %whi,h he ,alls pausatio( with rhyme" but rather defines it as its sour,e or ,ondition of possibility* $the end is the sour,e of ,onsonan,e$ % est autem pausatio fons consonantiae() ;nly from this perspe,ti e is it possible to understand the singular prestige" in !ro enLal and Stilno ist poetry" of that ery spe,ial poeti, institution" the unrelated rhyme" ,alled rim:estrampa by Las leys d:amors and cla,is by =ante) If rhyme mar9ed an antagonism between sound and sense by irtue of the non,orresponden,e between homophony and meaning" here rhyme" absent from the point at whi,h it was e-pe,ted" momentarily allows the two series to interfere with ea,h other in the semblan,e of a ,oin,iden,e) I say $semblan,e"$ for if it is true that the lap of the whole te,hni<ue here seems to brea9 its metri,al ,losure in mar9ing the lap of sense" the unrelated rhyme ne ertheless refers to a rhyme8fellow in the su,,essi e strophe and" therefore" does nothing more than bring metri,al stru,ture to the metastrophi, le el) 5his is why in Arnaut@s hands it e ol es almost naturally into word8rhyme" ma9ing possible the stupendous me,hanism of the sestina) +or word8rhyme is abo e all a point of unde,idability between an essentially asemanti, element %homophony( and an essentially semanti, element %the word() 5he sestina is the poeti, form that ele ates the unrelated rhyme to the) status of supreme ,ompositional ,anon and see9s" so to spea9" to in,orporate the element of sound into the ery lap of sense) 3ut it is time to ,onfront the sub6e,t I announ,ed and define the pra,ti,e that modern wor9s of poeti,s and meter ha e not ,onsidered* the end of the poem insofar as it is the ultimate formal stru,ture per,eptible in a poeti, te-t) 5here ha e been in<uiries into the incipit of poetry %e en if they remain insuffi,ient() 3ut studies of the end of the poem" by ,ontrast" are almost entirely la,9ing)

7e ha e seen how the poem tena,iously lingers and sustains itself in the tension and differen,e between sound and sense" between the metri,al series and the synta,ti,al series) 3ut what happens at the point at whi,h the poem endsD #learly" here there ,an be no opposition between a metri,al limit and a semanti, limit) 5his mu,h follows simply from the tri ial fa,t that there ,an be no en6ambment in the final erse of a poem) 5his fa,t is ,ertainly tri ial? yet it implies ,onse<uen,es that are as perple-ing as they are ne,essary) +or if poetry is defined pre,isely by the possibility of en6ambment" it follows that the last erse of a poem is not a erse) =oes this mean that the last erse trespasses into proseD +or now let us lea e this <uestion unanswered) I would li9e" howe er" at least to ,all attention to the absolutely no el signifi,an,e that 4aimbaut d@Aurenga@s $Go sai <ue s@es$ a,<uires from this perspe,ti e) Bere the end of e ery strophe" and espe,ially the end of the entire un,lassifiable poem" is distinguished by the une-pe,ted irruption of prose88an irruption that" in e=tremis" mar9s the epiphany of a ne,essary unde,idability between prose and poetry) Suddenly it is possible to see the inner ne,essity of those poeti, institutions" li9e the tornada or the en oi" that seem solely destined to announ,e and almost de,lare the end of the poem" as if the end needed these institutions" as if for poetry the end implied a ,atastrophe and loss of identity so irreparable as to demand the deployment of ery spe,ial metri,al and semanti, means) 5his is not the pla,e to gi e an in entory of these means or to ,ondu,t a phenomenology of the end of the poem %I am thin9ing" for e-ample" of the parti,ular intention with whi,h =ante mar9s the end of ea,h of the three boo9s of the =i ine #omedy with the word stelle" or of the rhymes in dissol ed erses of Heopardi@s poetry that inter ene to stress the end of the strophe or the poem() 7hat is essential is that the poets seem ,ons,ious of the fa,t that here there lies something li9e a de,isi e ,risis for the poem" a genuine crise de ,ers in whi,h the poem@s ery identity is at sta9e) Ben,e the often ,heap and e en ab6e,t <uality of the end of the poem) !roust on,e obser ed" with referen,e to the last poems of Les fleurs du mal! that the poem seems to 'e suddenly ruined and to lose its 'reath +1it stops short!1 he 2rites! 1almost falls flat % % % despite e,erything! it seems that something has 'een shortened! is out of 'reath10% Thin* of 1Le cygne!1 such a tight and heroic composition! 2hich ends 2ith the ,erse 19u= captifs! au= ,aincues %%% " 'ien d:autres encoreY1 +Pf those 2ho are capti,e or defeated %%% and of many more othersY0 Concerning a different poem of Aaudelaire:s! Calter AenGamin noted that it 1suddenly interrupts itself! gi,ing one the impressionJJdou'ly surprising in a sonnetJJof something fragmentary%1 The disorder of the last ,erse is an inde= of the structural rele,ance to the economy of the poem of the e,ent 8 ha,e called 1the end of the poem%1 9s if the poem as a formal structure 2ould not and could not end! as if the possi'ility of the end 2ere radically 2ithdra2n from it! since the end 2ould imply a poetic impossi'ility: the e=act coincidence of sound and sense% 9t the point in 2hich sound is a'out to 'e ruined in the a'yss of sense! the poem loo*s for shelter in suspending its o2n end in a declaration! so to spea*! of the state of poetic emergency% 8n light of these reflections 8 2ould li*e to e=amine a passage in $e ,ulgari eloBuentia in 2hich $ante seems! at least implicitly! to pose the pro'lem of the end of poetry% The passage is to 'e found in Aoo* 88! 2here the poet treats the organi4ation of rhymes in the can4one +Q888! 7J50% 9fter defining the unrelated rhyme +2hich someone suggests should 'e called cla,is0! the te=t states: 1The endings of the last ,erses are most 'eautiful if they fall into silence together 2ith the rhymes1 +Pulcherrime tamen se ha'ent ultimorum carminum desinentiae! si cum rithmo in silentium cadunt () 7hat is this falling into silen,e of the poemD 7hat is beauty that fallsD And what is left of the poem after its ruinD If poetry li es in the unsatisfied tension between the semioti, and the semanti, series alone" what happens at the moment of the end" when the opposition of the two series is no longer possibleD Is there here" finally" a point of ,oin,iden,e in whi,h the poem" as $lap of the entire meaning"$ 6oins itself to its metri,al element to pass definiti ely into proseD 5he mysti,al marriage of sound and sense ,ould" then" ta9e pla,e)

;r" on the ,ontrary" are sound and sense now fore er separated without any possible ,onta,t" ea,h eternally on its own side" li9e the two se-es in Cigny@s poemD In this ,ase" the poem would lea e behind it only an empty spa,e in whi,h" a,,ording to MallarmO@s phrase" truly rien n:aura lieu Bue le lieu) E erything is ,ompli,ated by the fa,t that in the poem there are not" stri,tly spea9ing" two series or lines in parallel flight) 4ather" there is but one line that is simultaneously tra ersed by the semanti, ,urrent and the semioti, ,urrent) And between the flowing of these two ,urrents lies the sharp inter al obstinately maintained by poeti, mechanZ) %Sound and sense are not two substan,es but two intensities" two tonoi of the same linguisti, substan,e)( And the poem is li9e the *atechon in !aul@s Se,ond Epistle to the 5hessalonians %.*&8'(* something that slows and delays the ad ent of the Messiah" that is" of him who" fulfilling the time of poetry and uniting its two eons" would destroy the poeti, ma,hine by hurling it into silen,e) 3ut what ,ould be the aim of this theologi,al ,onspira,y about languageD 7hy so mu,h ostentation to maintain" at any ,ost" a differen,e that su,,eeds in guaranteeing the spa,e of the poem only on ,ondition of depri ing it of the possibility of a lasting a,,ord between sound and senseD Het us now reread what =ante says about the most beautiful way to end a poem" the pla,e in whi,h the last erses fall" rhymed" in silen,e) 7e 9now that for him it is a matter of a rule) 5hin9" for instan,e" of the en oi of $#osY nel mio parlar oglio esser aspro)$ Bere the first erse ends with an absolutely unrelated rhyme" whi,h ,oin,ides %and ,ertainly not by ,han,e( with the word that names the supreme poeti, intention* donna" $lady)$ 5his unrelated rhyme" whi,h seems to anti,ipate a point of ,oin,iden,e between sound and sense" is followed by four erses" lin9ed in ,ouplets a,,ording to the rhyme that Italian metri,al tradition ,alls ba,iata %$9issed$(* #an:on" attene dritto a <uella donna ,he m@ha ferito il ,ore e ,he m@in ola <uello ond@io ho piZ gola" e dUlle per lo ,or d@una saetta? ,hO bell@onor s@a,<uista in far endetta) %!oem" go straight to that woman who has wounded my heart and stolen from me what I most hunger for" and stri9e her heart with an arrow" for one gains great honor in ta9ing re enge)( It is as if the erse at the end of the poem" whi,h was now to be irreparably ruined in sense" lin9ed itself ,losely to its rhyme8fellow and" la,ed in this way" ,hose to dwell with it in silen,e) 5his would mean that the poem falls by on,e again mar9ing the opposition between the semioti, and the semanti," 6ust as sound seems fore er ,onsigned to sense and sense returned fore er to sound) 5he double intensity animating language does not die away in a final ,omprehension? instead it ,ollapses into silen,e" so to spea9" in an endless falling) 5he poem thus re eals the goal of its proud strategy* to let language finally ,ommuni,ate itself" without remaining unsaid in what is said) %7ittgenstein on,e wrote that $philosophy should really only be poeti,i:ed$ E Philosophie dSrfte man eigentlich nur dichtenF) Insofar as it a,ts as if sound and sense ,oin,ided in its dis,ourse" philosophi,al prose may ris9 falling into banality? it may ris9" in other words" la,9ing thought) As for poetry" one ,ould say" on the ,ontrary" that it is threatened by an e-,ess of tension and thought) ;r" rather" paraphrasing 7ittgenstein" that poetry should really only be philosophi:ed)(

A,,endi+ A An Enigma 2oman oncerning t%e 0as1ue

In the prefa,e %or" rather" the e-tremely long ra:o( added to the se,ond edition of 8l ricordo della Aasca in 196/" Antonio =elfini defines his story as $a pasti,he that no one understood)$ Be then warns his readers against the temptation of as9ing" $7hy a 3as<ue womanD 7ho is sheD 7hat does she meanD$ 5he dar9est point in the story is ,ertainly the poem in a foreign language that" li9e a final seal" ,loses the tro'ar clus of the story@s final pages* Ene i:ar maitea ene ,harmagarria i,hili9 :ure i9hustera yten nit:aitu leihora? 9oblat:en dudalari9" :ande lo9harturi9* gaba:9o ametsa be:ala ene 9antua :a[t:ula) 5hat these in,omprehensible erses might somehow help to answer the bothersome reader@s <uestions is suggested by their strategi, position at the end of the wor9) It is also implied by the fa,t that when the author %,ons,iously alluding to the passage in the 7ita nuo,a in whi,h =ante refers to the epiphany of 3eatri,e( tells the story" in his ra4o" of his first en,ounter with the fifteen8year8old girl $I ,ame to ,all the 3as<ue woman"$ he ,hara,teri:es her pre,isely through a referen,e to her language* she spo9e with her brother $in a language of su,h tou,hing deli,a,y that when I heard it" my heart seemed to want to put an end to its own beating" lea ing things suspended fore er in that moment$ %p) 9.() %A little later" the author see9s to understand the words of the two youths" and he then ,omes so ,lose to them that he ,an $almost tou,h them$ Ep) 90F) 3ut he ,an gather only the word $enton,es"$ #astillian for $at that time"$ whi,h is the ery in illo tempore of myth)( 5he 3as<ue woman appears through the sweetness of an un9nown language" and she disappears in the ungraspable murmur of words in a foreign language) 7ho is the 3as<ue womanD And why is she obstinately ,hara,teri:ed by an impenetrable $spea9ing in tongues$D A first answer is impli,it pre,isely in the in,omprehensible nature of the erses at issue) 5he story suggests se eral times that the 3as<ue woman is that whi,h is so inner and present that it ,an ne er be remembered %$I would li9e her to be so ,lose to me that a for,ed memory would not gi e me e en her image$ Ep) .1.F() 7hat" then" is more inner and immemorable than a spea9ing in tongues" that is" a language in whi,h the spirit is 6oined with the oi,e without the mediation of meaning %,f) 8 Corinthians 10*." $Be that spea9eth in an un9nown tongue spea9eth not unto men" but unto God* for no man understandeth him? howbeit in the spirit he spea9eth mysteries$(D +ollowing a tena,ious troubadour and Stilno ist intention that ma9es of a female senhal the symbol of the language of poetry" the 3as<ue woman would therefore be the ,ipher of this originary and immediate status of language" in whi,h language is" as in =ante@s $maternal spee,h$ %parlar materno(" what is $uni<ue and first in the mind$ and with respe,t to whi,h no 9nowledge and grammar are possible) Insofar as he e-perien,es this immediate dwelling of the word in the beginning" the poet ,annot $say anything that has something to say$ %p) .11(? he is absolutely without words before language)

If the 3as<ue is the figure of this immediate e ent of language" why then is the story ,alled $4emembran,e of the 3as<ue 7oman$D And why is the 3as<ue woman not merely lost but" rather" $a woman eternally anished$ %p) .16(D #ontradi,ting himself in this way" =elfini dis,reetly gestures toward the other 3as<ue woman of twentieth8,entury Italian literature" who ,learly ,onstitutes the e-ample here* Manuelita Et,hegarray" the #reole woman of $=ualismo$ in =ino #ampana Canti orfici" whose name is ,learly of 3as<ue origin) Against the nai e faith in poeti, immedia,y" #ampana %who formulates his poeti,s here" as Gianfran,o #ontini has obser ed( asserts the dualism and bilingualism that" for him" ,onstitute the e-perien,e of poetry* memory and immedia,y" the letter and the spirit" thought and presen,e) !oetry is always di ided between an impossibility of thin9ing %$I did not thin9" I did not thin9 of you* I ha e ne er thought of you $ ( and the ,ompulsion to thin9 %$I lost you then" Manuelita ) ) ) I remember" I went into the library$(" between an in,apa,ity to remember in the perfe,t" amorous adhesion to the present and the memory that wells up pre,isely in the impossibility of this lo e) 5his inner di ergen,e is the di,tation of poetry) As in the song by the troubadour +ol<uet de Marselha" the poet ,annot help remembering in his song the ery thing that he would li9e only to forget there %$In singing I re,all what I am trying" in singing" to forget$() Ben,e what =elfini ,alls $the irremediable tragedy of this memory$ %p) .11() 5he e-perien,e of poeti, language %that is" of lo e( is wholly ,ontained in the fra,ture between an immemorable presen,e and the ne,essity of remembering) 5he language of poetry is not" therefore" a perfe,t spea9ing in tongues in whi,h this fra,ture is healed" 6ust as" despite its tension toward the absolute" human language ,annot leap o er mediation of meaning and resol e itself without residue in a $spea9ing in tongues)$ 5he disappearan,e of the 3as<ue woman is eternal" sin,e she is eternally missing in the languages of men" whi,h bear witness to her in the 3abeli, dis,ord of their many idioms alone) If this is true" then the poem with whi,h the story ends ,annot simply be a spea9ing in tongues" a glossolalia) 4ather" it must in some way bear witness to the radi,al diglossia of the poeti, e-perien,e) 5he wor9 of a friend of mine" who is a 3as<ue spe,ialist" ,on firms this hypothesis) It has shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that" far from ,onstituting a glossolali, in ention %as in ,ertain stories by 5ommaso Handolfi(" the poem is in fa,t a co'la in pure 3as<ue) $5he poem"$ my friend informs us" is written in a perfe,tly ,omprehensible northern 3as<ue) Gaturally it is not a 3as<ue that respe,ts the rules established by the present #eal 9cademia ,asca? it employs the sub6un,ti e and other grammati,al forms that are no longer in use) 5he only trait that ,an be defined as in,orre,t is the spelling ichili* in ) /" whi,h should be emended to i=ili*? moreo er" the term *o'lat4en % ) 2(" from $,opla"$ no longer means $to find"$ that is" $to ,ompose poetry)$ ;n the basis of these ,hara,teristi,s it is possible to date the poem between the se enteenth and the eighteenth ,enturies) And here is the translation done by my friend" whi,h I translate from Spanish* My belo ed star" my en,hantress" I ,ome" mute" to loo9 at you? for me you lea e by the window) 7hen I find a poem" you are falling asleep88 may my song be for you li9e the dream of the night) At this point" it is ob ious that the lines that immediately pre,ede the poem in =elfini@s story ,an be said to paraphrase it? and it is therefore ,lear that =elfini must ha e 9nown the poem@s meaning" although it is unli9ely he was its author) Bow he pro,ured the te-t and the linguisti, ,ompeten,e to understand the poem is a problem we lea e to future

biographers) +or now it suffi,es to ha e been able to ,ontribute in some way to the understanding of an enigma %or" rather" a $pasti,he$( that still remains to be fully sol ed) In Mar,h 199/" after this arti,le had been published in the issue of the 6ournal Mar*a that is de oted to =elfini" I re,ei ed a letter from 3ernard Simeone" a +ren,h professor of Italian literature" in whi,h he wrote* I had o,,asion to read your te-t" 19n Enigma Concerning the AasBue Coman!1 in the ,ompany of a 3as<ue friend from Ustarrit:" who immediately re,ogni:ed the poem ,ited by =elfini) It is a te-t from the 17icomte de Ael4unce!1 written at the end of the si-teenth or the beginning of the se enteenth ,entury) Bis translation is slightly different from that suggested by your friend" the 3as<ue spe,ialist) It reads* My belo ed star" my ,harming one" in silen,e to ,ontemplate you do I approa,h the window) 7hen the poem is born on my lips" stay sleeping* let my song be to you li9e a dream in the night) Cerses 0 and 6 assume a different and more ,oherent meaning in this possible ersion* it is the poet who approa,hes the window" and the si-th erse is an e-hortation %an imperati e() 5his poem" whi,h is by now almost a popular song" ,an be found in arious 3as<ue anthologies that I ,ould dire,t you to" if it interests you) It is still the ,ase that the poem is an important pie,e in the pu::le of =elfini@s poeti,s" not only be,ause of its poetry>dream e<uation" but also and abo e all be,ause of the play it suggests between real language and imaginary language) 3ut the poem may also ,ast new light on some of Handolfi@s in entions %li9e the unintelligible ,omposition at the ,enter of $ialogo dei massimi sistemi! 2hose real character 2ill no2 ha,e to 'e ,erifiedE $elfini and Landolfi 'oth freBuented 3lorentine caf s! and the young Landolfi:s passion for e=otic languages is 2ell *no2n0% 8t may! moreo,er! 'egin a ne2 historiographical chapter in the history of t2entiethJcentury 8talian poetics% 8n particular! the claims put for2ard 'y the character 1]1 2ould! from this perspecti,e! assume an unmista*a'ly $elfinian Buality +2ithout infringing on the Buestion of priority: Landolfi $ialogo is from -.3<0%

0 T%e Hunt for &anguage

In the 3ible" the e-emplary hunter is the giant Gemrod" the same one to whom tradition attributes the pro6e,t of the tower of 3abel" whose summit was to tou,h the s9y) 5he author of Genesis defines him as $a mighty hunter before the Hord$ %11*9( %or rather $against the Hord"$ as we read in the older Hatin" $Itala$ ersion(" and this <uality was so essential that it be,ame a pro erb %$wherefore it is said" E en as Gemrod the mighty hunter before the Hord$() In 8nferno! QQQ8! $ante punishes >emrod for his 1ill thought1 +mal coto0 2ith the loss of meaningful language +1for e,ery language is to him as his is to others! 2hich is *no2n to none1 Nch cosL a lui ciascun linguaggio D come:l suo ad altrui! cha nullo L notoO0: he can only utter senseless sounds +#aph l may am ch 4a'W almi0 or! as a hunter! sound his horn +1Stupid soul! *eep to your horn and 2ith that ,ent yourself1 N9nima sciocca D tienti col corno! e con Buel ti disfogaO0% Chat did >emrod huntX 9nd 2hy is his hunt 1against (od1X 8f the punishment of Aa'el 2as the confusion of languages! it is li*ely that >emrod:s hunt had to do 2ith an artificial impro,ement of the one human language that 2as to grant reason unlimited po2er% $ante at least suggests this much 2hen! in characteri4ing the perfidy of the giants! he spea*s of an 1instrument of the mind1 +argomento della mente0 + 8nferno! QQQ8! <<0%

Is it mere ,han,e that in $e ,ulgari eloBuentia =ante also ,onstantly presents his own sear,h for the $illustrious erna,ular$ in terms of a hunt %$we are hunting down language$ EI" QI" 1F? $what we are hunting for$ EI" QC" 'F? $our hunting arms$ EI" QCI" .F( and that language is thus assimilated to a fero,ious beast" a pantherD At the origins of the Italian literary tradition" the sear,h for an illustrious poeti, language is pla,ed under the disturbing sign of Gemrod and his titani, hunt" almost as if to signify the mortal ris9 impli,it in e ery sear,h for language that see9s in some way to restore its originary splendor) 5he $hunt for language$ is both an antidi ine arrogan,e that e-alts the ,al,ulating power of the word and an amorous sear,h that wants to remedy 3abeli, presumption) E ery serious human effort in language must always ,onfront this ris9) In #aproni@s late poetry" these two themes are brought so ,lose that they ,oin,ide in the idea of an obsessi e and fero,ious hunt whose ob6e,t is language itself" a hunt that unites the bibli,al giant@s ,hallenge to the limits of language with =ante@s pious eneration) 5he two aspe,ts of human language % Gemrod@s naming and the poet@s amorous sear,h( ha e now be,ome indistinguishable) And the hunt is truly a mortal e-perien,e whose prey88 spee,h88is a beast that" as #aproni says" $animates and 9ills$ and that" $tame and atro,ious"$ on,e again88for what is perhaps the last time8wears the spe,9led ,oat of =ante@s panther %but a $nebulous panther"$ a $sui,idal$ panther() Spee,h now turns to its own logi,al power? it says itself and" in this e-treme poeti, gesture" grasps only its own foolishness and appears only in its own dispersion) 5he $trumpet$ that ,an be heard to $e,ho$ in the interrupted musi, of the late #aproni is the last" muffled resonan,e of Gemrod@s ra ing $high horn"$ of the $mighty hunter before the Hord)$

T%e 3ust Do Not Feed on &ig%t

In May 1961" !aul #elan met Gelly Sa,hs for the first time) It was the +east of the As,ension" and while the two poets were spea9ing in front of the ,athedral %$we spo9e of your God"$ #elan writes" $and I spo9e against him$( it seemed to them that a golden light shone from the water in whi,h the faLade was refle,ted) A few months later" the two friends met again in !aris" in #elan@s home) $7hile we were spea9ing at our home for the se,ond time about God" about your God" the one that is waiting for you" the golden light shone on the wall)$ Iears later" announ,ing to his friend the imminent publi,ation of 3adensonnen % 196'(" #elan wrote* $5han9 you for your lines" for the remembran,e of that light) Ies" that light) Iou will find it named in my ne-t ,olle,tion" whi,h is ,oming out in April" named88,alled by a Bebrew name)$ 5he poem at issue is the one that begins 1>ah! im 9orten'ogen1* >ah! im 9orten'ogen! 8m )ell'lut: das )ell2ort) Mutter #ahel 2eint nicht mehr% #S'ergetragen alles (e2einte) Still" in den Uran4arterien! unumschnSrt: \i2! Genes Licht) 1

%Gear" in the aorta8ar,h" in the bright blood* the bright word) Mother 4ahel no longer ,ries) E erything ,ried88,arried o er) Muiet" in the ,oronary arteries" untied* Viw" that light)( \i2 is the term with whi,h the Jabbalists name the splendor of the She*hina! that is! the di,ine manifestation% 9nd in the 2orld to come! the Gust feed on this light% T2o years later! the image of light returned as a *ey2ord in the ne=t collection! Licht42ang% Aut this time it 2as a matter of a 1light compulsion1 that *eeps human creatures! 2ho are lost and huddled as if in a 2ood! from touching themsel,es: Cir lagen schon tief in der Macchia! als du endlich heran*rochst% $och *onnten 2ir nicht hinS'erdun*eln 4u dir: es herrschte Licht42ang% +Ce 2ere lying deep in the macchia! 'y the time you crept up at last% Aut 2e could not dar*en o,er to you: light compulsion reigned%0 6 8n &anuary -..-! 2hen Eugenio $e Signori'us composed his Aelliche series! he! too! in,o*ed something li*e a glimmer! a light% 9ccording to a tradition still ali,e in $ante! 1the form of light1 is identical to the di,ine su'stance and is the cipher of the perfect transparen,y of a thin9ing that" in thin9ing itself" thin9s all things) 5his light is now %sin,e whenD( fra,tured into a $hypo,riti,al bea,on$ that lights up the night and in whose ser i,e there are $tinselwearers$ and $prayer8predators$ whose language bal9s at $following the ,ourse > of the ,ommon good"$ and a $defenseless" unredeemed light$ that sear,hes gropingly for its brothers in an inhospitable world* Luce inerme! irredenta luce che 'ruci nel mondo inospitale tra i solchi scellerati e i cancelli fissati dalla mente criminale % % % nell:angolo cieco o nel ,uoto delle stan4e tu sei! o nel pianto del luminWo campale % % % il faro ipocrita illumina le 'ande ma tu esisti! e cerchi i tuoi fratelli) %=efenseless" unredeemed light" you who burn in the inhospitable world" between the wi,9ed furrows and gates fi-ed in the ,rim8 inal mind ) ) ) you are in the blind ,orner or the emptiness of rooms" or in the lament of the battle8field glare ) ) ) the hypo,riti,al bea,on lights up the troops" but you e-ist and sear,h for your brothers)( 5he off8s,reen oi,e that spea9s this ,ompletely profane light seems to ,ome from nowhere88or from a tele ision that someone has forgotten to turn off" a tele ision that shows houses le eled to the ground" Ira< in flames" the $ele,tro,uted stare$ of ,hildren)

Host" sub8 or para8human" li9e that of a 6ust human being who has learned to fast on \i2! this ,oice has reali4ed the prophetic omen of 9ssassinii: Sopra la loro testa di,isa possano uccelli e ,ermi partare% +9'o,e their di,ided head 'irds and 2orms can spea*%0 5he poet who" $in the e ening of the ,entury"$ spea9s with this oi,e88a oi,e so lowly that it ,annot be re,ogni:ed" and so strong that it ,an barely be heard889new how to name the $,roo9ed fa,e of the world)$ Be is perhaps the greatest engaged poet of his generation" and the Italian poetry that is to ,ome88the poetry that will" of ,ourse" ha e to fast on light88will be in,essantly for,ed to ,onfront him)

D Taking &ea4e of Traged!

My friendship with Elsa Morante began twenty8two years ago" on the small train that tra els through the 4oman ,ountryside from !ia::ale +laminio to Citerbo) Elsa was going to see her mother" who was re,o ering in a nursing home in Citerbo) 7il,o,9" whom I had met a few months before" had ,hosen that ery day to introdu,e us) Elsa left us at the Citerbo train station" and we met up again an hour later) It was not easy for Elsa to see the ailing patient) Elsa@s mother suffered from partial dementia following a serious form of arterios,lerosis" and she did not re,ogni:e her daughter) 3ut in loo9ing at her mother" Elsa had the impression of seeing herself in that fa,e framed by tufts of white hair) She went away frightened) She told me years later that this was why she preferred to dye her prematurely graying hair) %In the 4oman ,lini, where Elsa spent the last three years of her life" when she had not been dyeing her hair for some time and she sometimes momentarily seemed not to re,ogni:e me" I was reminded of our first meeting)( +rom that day on" our intense" almost fe erish friendship began) 7e saw ea,h other e ery day" sometimes from morning till e ening) Elsa was ery free when she was not writing) In the morning we would ha e brea9fast outside 4ome" or on the old Cia Atti,a" at the $I trenini$ bistro? in the e ening we would go to some restaurant in the ,enter) In addition to younger friends" !ier !aolo !asolini" Sandro !enna" Gatalia and Gabriele 3aldini" and #esare Garboli were also often present) I was twenty8one years old then" and I will ne er forget the support88,apri,ious but in,omparable88that Elsa@s friendship ga e me) 3ut if I as9 myself now what it was that so stru,9 me from the ery first meeting" what it was that I always found in Elsa" I ,an only say* she was serious" wildly serious) I do not mean $serious$ in the sense of someone who ta9es e erything as true and with gra ity) E en without ta9ing a,,ount of her readings of the Indian ,lassi,s" Elsa was ery aware that the world is only appearan,e %remember the $sub ersi e refrain$ from 8l mondo sal,ato dai raga44iniD() Ber seriousness was instead that of someone who ,ompletely and unreser edly belie es in +i,tion and" therefore" means to say e erything that it says) In 9li'i" that e-traordinary ,olle,tion of poems that went almost unnoti,ed at the time of its publi,ation in 192' and that is in fa,t one of the great boo9s of Italian postwar poetry" there is a poem that ,ontains a pre,ious 9ey to Elsa@s fantasti, world) It is the one ,alled $Alla fa ola$ and begins" $I ,o er myself with you" +i,tion > foolish garment$ %$i te! 3in4ione D mi cingo! D fatua ,este () 5his is why" gi en the two possible relationships to language88tragedy and ,omedy88Elsa instin,ti ely adhered to the tragi, one) Ingeborg 3a,hmann %whom Elsa and I met and saw fre<uently a few years later and who truly resembled Elsa ery mu,h( on,e made this terrible ,onfession* $Hanguage is punishment) All things must enter into language and remain there a,,ording to the degree of their guilt)$ In this sense" the serious word is the one that ne er forgets that language is punishment and that we are all" in spea9ing or writing" suffering a punishment)

Is there redemption from this punishmentD In a poem" Ingeborg turns to spee,h" to punishment itself" to as9 for sal ation* $;h my spee,h" sa e meK$ 3ut for Elsa" there seems to be neither es,ape nor redemption from the punishment of language) 7hen I told her" many years later" that I was writing a boo9 ,alled Language and $eath" she ,ommented* $Hanguage and deathD Hanguage is deathK$ %8l linguaggio e la morteX 8l linguaggio L la morteY( 5his is why Elsa@s wor9 appears as one of the few truly tragi, wor9s in a literary tradition88 the Italian tradition88that has remained so obstinately faithful to the antitragi, intention of the $i,ine Comedy) 3ut in Elsa %and this was perhaps her #hristian inheritan,e(" it is as if inside tragedy there were another tragedy that resisted it" su,h that the tragi, ,onfli,t e-plodes" not between guilt and inno,en,e but between two in,ommensurable punishments) Another poem from 9li'i formulates the law that bro9e her heart in this way* $5here is no Elysium outside limbo)$ As is well 9nown" limbo is the pla,e not of inno,ents but rather of those who ha e no other guilt than natural guilt" of those infants who ,ould not ha e been submitted to the punishment of language and to whom Elsa loo9ed lo ingly for her whole life) 5he baptism of the Cerb ,an,els this natural guilt" but it ,an,els it only through another" more atro,ious punishment) 3ut in Elsa it is as if" at a ,ertain point" the ,reature from limbo lifted its fragile arm against the histori,al tragedy of a language in a hopeless gesture" in a silent ,onfrontation whose out,ome ,annot easily be understood) I often as9ed myself in the last months" when the tragi, part of Elsa@s life had grown beyond e ery measure" whether there was not an antitragi, gleam in her" whether her tragedy was not" in some way" an antitragic tragedy) E ery tragedy ,ertainly pro6e,ts a ,omi, shadow" and whoe er 9new Elsa remembers the in,redible little songs that only she 9new and with whi,h she ,ould ma9e her friends laugh if she wanted %there is a tra,e of them in the distra,ted refrains with whi,h she li9ed to fill up her no els() 3ut this is not what I mean) 4ather" it is sometimes as if Elsa adhered so tena,iously to tragi, fi,tion that it opened up a path beyond itself" toward something that is no longer tragi, %e en if it also ,annot be ,alled ,omi,() In this path" without punishment or redemption" we momentarily ga:e upon pure +i,tion before demons bring it to Bell or angels ,arry it away to the s9y) And this moment88in whi,h fi,tion is seen and spee,h e-piated88is a departure from tragedy) ;nly at this point does Elsa@s poetry show its shining phoeni-" its eternal ash)

Notes
85
1)

omed!
5he inability to gi e e en a ,oherent e-planation of the poems title is ,ommon to almost all the medie al ,ommentators" from !ietro Alighieri to Aa,opo della Hana and the Anonymous of +loren,e) As Eri,h Auerba,h has noted" howe er" 3en enuto da Imola stands out among all others for ha ing first formulated the argument88so often repeated by modern ,riti,s88that =ante@s poem is" as to its material" at on,e tragedy" satire" and ,omedy %$hi, est tragoedia" satyra et ,omoedia$(" yet owes its title to stylisti, ,onsiderations %$dico Buod auctor ,oluit ,ocare li'rum Comoedia a stylo infimo et ,ulgari$() See Aen,enuti de #am'aldis de 8mola Comentum super $antis 9ligheriG nunc primum integre in lucem editum % +loren,e* G) 3arbera" 1''&(" 1* 1'8 19) $I do not 9now how to e-plain the fa,ts e-,ept by supposing that =ante must ha e made the ,hoi,e of the title fairly early on) A poeti, narration in the high style was at that point and always ,ontinued to be for him tragedy? and" therefore" no wor9 deser ed that designation more than Cirgil@s poem) 3ut when ,onfronted with Cirgil" =ante is o er,ome with feelings of re eren,e and admiration" feelings he attributes to Sordello and Statius in the Purgatorio% 8f 7irgil:s 2or* 2as therefore a tragedy! $ante:s o2n could only 'e a comedy% )e 2as! moreo,er! determined to 2rite in the ,ernacularE and 8 thus conclude that he did not yet ha,e as high an opinion of the ,ernacular as he 2as to ha,e in the Con,i,io! e,en if he had already reGected the strict notions of the 7ita no,a + Pio #aGna! 18l titolo del poema dantesco!1 Studi danteschi 4 N -.6-O: 3<0% 8t is unfor tunate to see su,h an unsatisfying e-planation in the re,ent Enciclopedia dantesca %see 1Commedia:() ;n the problem of Commedia@s title" see also M) !orena" 18l titolo della Commedia!1 4end) A,,) Hin,ei" 68IQ8 19//? E Ma::oni" $H@epistola a #angrande"$ Studi Monte,erdi % Modena(" 1929 %now in Contri'uti di filologia dantesca E +loren,e* Sansoni" 1966F(? and Manlio !astore8 Sto,,hi" $Mussato e la tragedia"$ in $ante e la cultura ,eneta % +iren:e* H) S) ;ls,h9i" 1966() ;n =ante@s $,omi, style"$ see Alfredo S,hiaffini " $9 proposito dello stile comico di $ante"$ in Momenti di storia della lingua italiana % 4ome* Studium" 192/(? and" abo e all" the obser ations in Gianfran,o #ontini" 1@t:interpreta4ione di $ante1 and $3ilologia e esegesi dantesca"$ now both ,olle,ted in @n:idea di $ante % 5urin* Einaudi" 19&6() Eri,h Auerba,h" Mimesis: The #epresentation of #eality in the Cestern Corld " trans) 7illard 4) 5ras9 % !rin,eton" G)A)* !rin,eton Uni ersity !ress" 192/(" p) 1'6) Ibid)" p) 1'&) Gio anni 3o,,a,,io" 8l commento alla $i,ina Commedia e gli altri scritti intorno a $ante! ed% $% (uerri + Aari: Later4a! -.-50! -: --<% The 8talian te=t reads as follo2s: 1Che adunBue diremo delle o'ie4ioni fatteX Credo! conciosiacosach oculatissimo uomo! lui non a,ere a,uto riguardo alle parti che nella commedia si contengono! ma at tutto! e da Buello a,ere il suo li'ro dinominato! figurati,amente parlando% 8l tutto della commedia L +per Buello che per Plauto e per Teren4io! che furono poeti comici! si puH comprehendere0: che la commedia a''ia tur'olento principio e pieno di romori e di discordie! e poi l:ultima parte di Buella finisca in pace e in tranBuillit"% 9l Bual tutto L ottimamente conforme il li'ro presente: percioch egli incomincia da: dolori e dalle tur'a4ioni infernali e finisce nel riposo e nella pace e nella gloria! la Buale hanno i 'eati in ,ita eterna% E Buesto dee poter 'astare a fare che cosW fatto nome si possa di ragione con,enire a Buesto li'ro%1 $e ,ulgari eloBuentia! ed% and trans% Stephen Aotterill + Cam'ridge! Eng%: Cam'ridge @ni,ersity Press! -../0! 88! 87! 5! pp% <5J<.% Ibid)" II" CIII" '" pp) &18&/) =ante@s le-i,ographi, sour,es ha e been indi,ated by !aget 5oynbee " $ante Studies and #esearches % Hondon* Methuen" 19&.( and 4a6na" 18l titolo del poema dantesco%1 5hat =ante s,holarship has sear,hed for the poet@s sour,es in only le-i,ographi, and grammati,al treatises is" howe er" to our eyes one of the reasons why it has been unable to de elop a more profound understanding of the problem of the poems ,omi,

.)

/) 0) 2)

6) &) ')

9)

title) $antis 9laghierii EpistolaeE The Letters of $ante " ed) and trans) !aget 5oynbee % ;-ford* ;-ford Uni ersity !ress" 1966(" Letter Q" \11" p) 1&2? trans) p) .11)

11) =ante Alighieri" The $i,ine Comedy! 8nferno" trans) #harles Singleton % !rin,eton" G)A)* !rin,eton Uni ersity !ress" 19&1(" QQ" 11/" pp) .11811) All subse<uent referen,es to the #omedy are to the Singleton bilingual edition and translation* Purgatorio % !rin,eton" G)A)* !rin,eton Uni ersity !ress" 19&/(? Paradiso % !rin,eton" G)A)* !rin,eton Uni ersity !ress" 19&2() 11) =iomedes" in Beinri,h Jeil" (rammatici latini e= recensione )enrici Ueilii % Heip:ig* 3) G) 5eubner" 1'22(" 1* 0'.) 5he distin,tion between genus acti,um %that is" sine poetae interlocutione(" genus enarrati,um %in whi,h only the poet spea9s(" and genus commune ,an be found in Isidore % Etymologiae! 7888" &" 11* $9pud poetas autem tres characteres esse dicendi: unum! in Buo tantum poeta loBuitur! ut est in li'ris 7ergilii (erorgicorumE alium dramaticum! in Buo nusBuam poeta loBuitur! ut est in comediis et tragediisE tertium mi=tum! ut est in 9eneide% >am poeta illic et introductae personae loBuuntur$() ;n this ,lassifi,ation see Ernst 4obert #urtius@s obser ations in 1E=cursus 71 %dedi,ated to late an,ient literary studies(" in European Literature and the Latin Middle 9ges" trans) 7illard 4) 5ras9 % !rin,eton" G)A)* !rin,eton Uni ersity !ress" 192/(" pp) 0/6802) 1.) #hetorica ad )erennium! 87" '* $Sunt % % % tria genera! Buae genera nos figuras appellamus! in Bui'us omnis ratio non ,itiosa consumitur: unam gra,em! alteram mediocrem! tertiam e=tenuata ,ocamus% (ra,is est! Buae constat e= ,er'orum gra,ium magna et ornata constructioneE mediocris est! Buae constat e= humiliore! neBue tamen e= infima et per,ulgatissima ,er'orum dignitateE attenuata est! Buae demissa est usBue ad usitatissimam puri sermonis consuetudinem )$ +or the medie al de elopment of these ideas %of whi,h an e-ample ,an be found in Isidore@s theory of the three modi dicendi" in Etymologiae! 88" 1&( and for their relation to the distin,tion between tragedy and ,omedy" see 7ilhelm #loetta " AeitrTge 4ur Literaturgeschichte des Mittelalters und der #enaissance % Balle* Giemeyer" 1'91(" 1* .08.2? and Edmond +aral" Les arts po tiBues du Q88 et Q888 siLcle % !aris* #hampion" 196.(" pp) '6ff) 1/) In $e ,ulgari eloBuentia % II" IC" 2(" =ante still holds to the pre alent tripartition and also lists the elegy alongside tragedy and ,omedy) In Matthew of Cend]me@s 9rs ,ersificatoria! comedy appears as the third style! after tragedy and satire! and 'efore the elegy: 1Tertia surrepit co moedia! cotidiano ha'itu! humilito capite! nullius festi,itatis pratendens delicias$ % +aral" Les arts po tiBues! p% -<30% $ante:s oldest commentators also *no2 four poetic styles% 8n this conte=t! the letter to Cangrande mar*s a passage from a tripartition +or Buadropartition0 to a Gu=taposition! a passage for 2hich precedents cannot easily 'e found% 10) $And there are other 9inds of poeti,al narration" su,h as the pastoral poem" the elegy" the satire" and the oti e song" as may be gathered from Bora,e in The 9rt of Poetry? but of these we need say nothing at present$ %Sunt et alia genera narrationum poTticarum! scilicet carmen 'ucolicum! elegia! satira! et sententia ,oti,a! ut etiam per Pratium patere potest in sua poetriaE sed de istis ad praesens nihil dicendum est ( % $antis 9laghierii Epistolae! ^ -?" p) 1&&? trans) p) .11() It should be noted that in the treatment of ,omedy and tragedy ,ontained in Aristotle Poetics" the two genres are not e-pli,itly opposed to ea,h other) 5he only passage in whi,h Aristotle e-pli,itly opposes tragedy and ,omedy is $e generatione et corruptione %/12b(" in whi,h we read the ,omment" made in passing" that $with the same letters it is possible to write both tragedies and ,omedies)$ In his ,ommentary on this passage" St) 5homas writes as follows* $Et ponit e=emplum in sermoni'us Buorum prima principia indi,isi'ilia sunt litterae: e= eisdem autem litteris! transmutatis secundum ordinem aut positionem! fiunt di,ersi sermones! puta comoedia! Buae est sermo de re'us ur'anis! et tragoedia! Bua est sermo de re'us 'ellicis)$ Sancti Thomae 9Buinatis! doctoris angelica: Ppera omnia % 4ome* E- 5ypographi,a !olyglotta S) #) de !ropaganda +ide" 1''6(" /* .&2) 12) $#omi,a nonne ides ipsum reprehendere erba)$ =ante Alighieri" Ecl%! 8" 2.) 16) See Auerba,hs@ obser ations" whi,h show that the e-pression $lo,utio ulgaris" in <ua et mulier,ule ,ommuni,ant"$ whi,h =ante uses in the letter to #angrande" ,annot

refer to the use of the Italian language* $It is diffi,ult to attribute su,h an idea to =ante" who defended the noble dignity of the erna,ular in his $e ,ulgari eloBuentia! 2ho 2as himself the founder of the ele,ated style in the ,ernacular through his can4oni! and 2ho had finished the Comedy at the time 2hen he 2rote his letter to Cangrande%1 9uer'ach! Mimesis! p% -5/% 1&) Gio anni@s e-pression is* $Praetera nullus! Buos inter es agmine se=tus D nec Buem conseBueris coleo! sermone forensi D descripsit )$ See Lacorrisponden4a poetica di $ante e (io,anni di 7irgilio e l:ecloga di (io,anni al Mussatto! ed% (iuseppe 9l'ini + 3lorence: L% S% Plsch*i! -./30% 1') $) ) ) di <uesta ,ommedia" id est istius operis" <uod au,tor o,a it comoediam non tam ratione materiae! Buam styli ,ulgaris humilis$ %see 3en enuti 4ambaldis de Imola" Comentum! p% <</0% Contini! the author of magnificent remar*s on $ante:s 1comic1 style! implicitly admits the insufficiency of formal moti,ations! repeating Aen,enuto:s thesis of the 1name 2ith an infamous origin1: 18n this place in 2hich all tradition is summed up! in this e=traordinary institution of thematic and tonal mi=tures % % % the stro*e of intellectual genius is to ha,e 'egun at the lo2est le,el1 + Contini! 1@n:interpreta4ione di $ante!1 p% -?40% Pn $ante:s comic style! see also Schiaffini:s study! 19 proposito dello stile comico di $ante!1 2hich sho2s ho2! from the le=ical point of ,ie2! idioms +such as introcBue0 and 1hum'le1 2ords +such as mamma! gregge! femmina! corpo0 are! all things considered! of little importance% 19) $antis 9laghierii Epistolae! ^ 5" p) 1.0? trans) p) .11) .1) Berman the German attempted to translate the Poetics from the Arabi, ersion before 1.21? but in 1.26 he de,lared that his attempt had failed on a,,ount of insurmountable diffi,ulties and that he preferred to translate A erroes@s Middle #ommentary %$tantam in eni diffi,ultatem proper dis,on enen,iam modi metrifi,andi in gre,o ,um modo metrifi,andi in arabi,o et propter o,abulorum obs,uritatem$? see E) +ran,es,hini " $La poetica di 9ristotele nel sec) QIII"$ 9tti dell:8st% ,eneto di scien4e! lettere e arti E 19/08/2F() 7illiam of Moerbe9e@s Hatin translation was ,ompleted in 1.&' and is reprodu,ed in ol) // of 9ristoteles Latinus! ed% E% 3ranceschini and L% MinioJPaluello + ArugesJParis: Arou2er! -.<30% .1) $Uomodia autem est! sicut di=imus! mutatio peiorem Buidem! non tamen secundum omnem malitiam! sed turpis est Buod risile particulaE nam risile est peccatum aliBuod et turpitudo non dolorosa et non corrupti,a )$ 9ristoteles Latinus! 3?* ') ..) Ibid)" p) 16) It is in this passage of Aristotle Poetics %2.b" /2( that one may presumably see9 the remote origin of the medie al ,hara,teri:ation of tragedy and ,omedy a,,ording to the happy beginning > unhappy ending opposition) It should be noted that Aristotle does not say that the misfortune > good fortune in ersion is ,omi,al" but says only that it is antitragi, %atragodotaton" whi,h 7illiam translates as intragodotatissimum() ./) 9ristoteles stagiritae omnia Buae e=tant opera cum 9,errois cordu'ensis % % % commentaris % Ceni,e* n)p)" 122.(" .* 91) .0) Ibid)" pp) 9189.) .2) $9liBui tamen introducunt in illis scenis tragicis imitationem ,itiorum et scelerum simul cum re'us lauda'ilis! cum ha'eant Buid peripetiae% 7erum ,ituperare ,itia est potius comoediae proprium Buam tragoedia)$ Ibid)" p) 91) .6) $e ,ulgari eloBuentia! 8! 87" 082" pp) '89) .&) Jurt on +rit:" 9nti*e und Moderne TragVdie % 3erlin* de Gruyter" 196.() .') =ante" $i,ine Comedy! Paradiso! 788" '2" pp) &68&&) .9) ;n the distin,tion between natural 6usti,e and personal 6usti,e" see #harles S) Singleton e-tremely a,ute obser ations in &ourney to Aeatrice % 3altimore* Aohns Bop9ins Uni ersity !ress" 192'(" pp) ...82/) 5he distin,tion between natural guilt and personal guilt elaborated by the #hur,h +athers ,orresponds to +rit:@s distin,tion between ob6e,ti e guilt and sub6e,ti e guilt)

/1) $3uit enim peccatum 9dae in homine! Buod est in naturaE et in illo Bui ,ocatus est 9dam! Buod est in persona% Est tamen peccatum Buod BuisBue ) ) )$ St) Anselm" $e conceptu ,irg% et de orig% peccato! in Migne! Patrologia Latina! -<5: 433% /1) $Ergo in eis +sc% pueris0 est aliBuid peccatum% Sed non peccatum actuale! Buia non ha'ent puer usum li'eri ar'itir! sine Buo nihil imputatur homini ad peccatum% % % % >ecesse est igitur dicere Buod in eis sit peccatum per originem traductum )$ =i i 5homae A<)" Summa contra gentiles % 4ome" 19.&(" p) 6/9) /.) St) Augustine" Concerning the City of (od! 9gainst the Pagans " trans) Benry 3ettenson % Gew Ior9" 19&.(" p) 2'.) //) St) Augustine" $e ci,itate $ei! Q87" .1) /0) St) Augustine" City of (od" p) 2'.) /2) $Si de illo peccato non fusset satisfactum per mortem Christi! adhuc essemus filii ire natura! natura scilicet depra,ata)$ =ante" $e monarchia! 6! 88! 6J3% /6) =i i 5homae" Summa contra gentiles" p) 62&) /&) St) 5homas" $e malo! .% 4! a%/! ad 4% )eretical mo,ements such as 9damism! 2hich! starting in the thirteenth century! preached free lo,e and the impecca'ility of the perfect Christian! are directed against this contradiction in Christian theology! 2hich *eeps ali,e natural guilt after redemption! if only in the form of a poena% /') $Est autem paene totus in affectione! licet in fine pathos ha'eat! u'i a'scessus 9eneae gignit dolorem% Sane totus in consiliis et su'tilitati'us est: nam paene comicus stilus est: nec mirum! u'i de amore tractatur )$ Ser ius" regarding 3oo9 IC of the 9eneidE see Ser,ianorum in 7erg% Carmina Com% % ;-ford* ;-ford Uni ersity !ress" 1962(" .* .0&) /9) ;n the essen,e of ,ourtly lo e and =ante@s relation to it" see 4oger =ragonetti@s e-tremely a,ute obser ations in $L: pisode de 3rancesca selon la con,ention courtoise"$ in 9u= frontiLres du langage po tiBue +_tudes sur $ante! Mallarm ! 7al ry0" ol) 11 % Gent* 4omani,a Gandensia" 1961() 01) =ante" $i,ine Comedy! Purgatorio! Q788" 90" pp) 1'08'2) 01) Ibid)" QCIII" /0869" pp) 19189/) 0.) Ibid)" QQQ" &'" pp) //18/1) 0/) Ibid)" QQQI" 0/802" pp) /01801) 00) Ibid)" QQQI" 60" p) /0.) 02) Ibid)" QQQI" 6'" pp) /0.80/) 06) =ante Alighieri" Ppere minori! ed% Cesare 7asoli and $omenico $e #o'ertis + Milan: #icciardi! -..<0! ,ol% 88! 6! Con,i,io! 4! Q8Q! 5J-?! pp% 746J43E $ante 18l Con,i,io1 +The AanBuet0! trans% #ichard )% Lansing + >e2 ]or*: (arland! -..?0! p% 6?<% 0&) =ante" Ppere minori" ol) II" -! Con,i,io! 3" CIII" 11? =ante 18l Con,i,io1 +The AanBuet0" p) 111) 5ranslation slightly modified) 0') ;n the ,on,eption and pra,ti,e of penitential humiliation in the twelfth ,entury and their influen,e on the 6uridi,al theory of ,rime as sin" see Mario =al !ra@s remar9s in !eter Abelard" Conosci te stesso! o Etica! ed% Mario $al Pra + 3lorence: La >uo,a 8talia! -.7/0! pp% 5/J57% 09) Singleton" &ourney to Aeatrice" pp) .128.1) It is ,urious that Singleton" who identified Matelda as the natural 6usti,e en6oyed by man in !aradise" did not draw the ,onse<uen,es of this identifi,ation as far as the theory of lo e was ,on,erned) If Matelda is natural 6usti,e" she does not simply signify the triple sub6e,tion of nature to reason? she is also ne,essarily the figure of Edeni, lo e" that is" of the ,oluntarius

usus sine ardoris illece'roso stimulo) 21) See 3arnes" $=ante@s Matelda"$ 8talian Studies 65 % 19&/() 21) Epict% Ench%! Q788* $4emember that you are li9e an a,tor in the part that the playwright wanted to assign you* brief" if it is brief? long" if it is long) If he wants you to perform the part of the beggar" perform it well) =o the same for the party of a lame person" a magistrate" or an ordinary ,iti:en) +or your tas9 is to perform well the ,hara,ter that has been assigned to you? to ,hoose the ,hara,ter is that of another)$ Epict% $iss%! 8! QQ8Q" /9* $Is it perhaps in your power to ,hoose a sub6e,tD Iou ha e been assigned a ,ertain body" ,ertain parents" ,ertain brothers" a ,ertain homeland" a ,ertain ran9) And now you ,ome to me and say" @Het@s ,hange the sub6e,t)@$ Epict% $iss%! 8! QQ8Q" 01* $5he day will soon ,ome when a,tors will belie e that they themsel es are their mas9 and ,ostumes)$ 2.) Epict% $iss%! 8! QQ87" 1681') 2/) 3oethius" The Theological Tractates and 1The Consolation of Philosophy!1 trans) B) +) Stewart" E) J) 4and" and S) A) 5ester % #ambridge" Mass)* Bar ard Uni ersity !ress" 19&/(" pp) '68'&) 20) $>am illud Buidem manifestum est personae su'iectam esse naturam nec praeter naturam personam posse predicari)$ Ibid)" p) '.) 22) Medie al allegory" whi,h has been so often dis,ussed" ,an best be situated in the ,onte-t of the passage in whi,h 3oethius e-plains that a,,idents ,annot be,ome persons %$,idemus personam in accidenti'us non posse constitui: Buis enim dicat ullam al'edinis ,el nigredinis ,el magnitudinis esse personam D$ Ibid)" p) '. () 26) Purgatorio! QQQ" 6/" pp) //18/1) 2&) ;n this thesis" whi,h has its origin in CRl9elt" see 7alter 3en6amin@s remar9s in @rsprung des deutschen Trauerspiels! in Calter AenGamin! (esammelte Schriften! ed% #olf Tiedemann and )ermann Sch2eppenhTuser ! ,ol% 8! - +3ran*furt am Main: Suhr*amp! -.740! pp% 67.J5?E translated as The Prigin of the (erman Tragic $rama! trans% &% Ps'orne + London: 7erso! -.770! pp% -??J-?6% 2') =ante" Ppere minori! ,ol% 88! 6! Con,i,io! 87! 78! 6?! p% <.<E $ante 18l Con,i,io1 +The AanBuet0! p% -/<: 1Aetter 2ould it 'e for you to fly lo2 li*e a sparro2 than to soar aloft li*e a *ite o,er things that are totally 'ase1 +Meglio sare''e a ,oi come ronde ,olare 'asso! che come ni''io altissime rote fare sopra cose ,ilissime0%

"5 ? orn#? From Anatom! to Poetics

1) .)

The 7idas of the Trou'adours" trans) Margarita Egan % Gew Ior9* Garland" 19'0(" p) 9/) 5ranslation slightly modified) 5he ,riti,al te-t of Arnaut used here is that edited by Mario Eusebi" 9rnaut $aniel! 8l Sir,entese e le Can4oni % Milan* 9ll:insegna del pesce d:oro" 19'0( %from whi,h I depart only in writing the name Ayna" as opposed to Ena() Ugo A) #anello" La ,ita e le opere del tro,atore 9rnaldo $aniello % Balle* Giemeyer" 1''/(" p) 1'&) 4) Ha aud" $Les po sies d:9rnaut $aniel: # edition critiBue dX:aprLs Canello! $ in 9nnales du Midi 66 % 1911( and ./ % 1911( % Gene a* Slat9ine 4eprints" 19&/(" p) 9) Gianluigi 5o6a" 9rnaut $aniel! Can4oni % +loren,e* Sansoni" 1961(" p) 1'.) Mauri:io !erugi" Le Can4oni di 9rnaut $aniel % Milan* 4i,,iardi" 19&'(" .*0811) H) Ha::erini" $Cornar lo corn: Sulla ten4one tra #aimon de $ufort! Truc Malec and 9rnaut $aniel"$ in Medioe,o roman4o ' % 19'18'/(* //9801) Eusebi" 9rnaut $aniel" pp) 18.) Andreas Beusler" $eutsche 7ersgeschichte % 3erlin* de Gruyter" 1926(" .*//.)

/) 0) 2) 6) &) ') 9)

11) =e ulgari elo<uentia" ed) and trans) Ste en 3otterill % #ambridge" Eng)* #ambridge Uni ersity !ress" 1996(" pp) '08'2) 11) Matthias He-er" Mittelhochdeutsches )and2Vrter'uch % Stuttgart* Bir:el" 19&9(" p) 1691) 1.) Beusler" $eutsche 7ersgeschichte" p) //1) 1/) Maria #areri" 8l Can4oniere pro,en4ale )! Struttura! contenuto e fonti % Modena* Mu,,hi" 1991(" p) .'0) 10) Emil He y" Petit dictionnaire pro,enKalJfranKais % Beidelberg* #) 7inter" 1966() 12) Eusebi" 9rnaut $aniel p) 9) 16) See two flagrant e-amples in !ierre 3e," AurlesBue et o'scenit che4 les trou'adours % !aris* Sto,9" 19'0(" pp) 1.&8/1" in parti,ular $;ue:m mostrLs son conGunctiu )$ 1&) The Poetry of 9rnaut $aniel" ed) and trans) Aames A) 7ilhelm % Gew Ior9* Garland" 19'1(" p) 02) 1') Ibid)" p) /) 19) Eusebi" 9rnaut $aniel" p) 1.') .1) He y" Petit dictionnaire pro,enKalJfranKais" p) 96) .1) #ostan:o =i Girolamo" Elementi di ,ersifica4ione pro,en4ale % Gaples* Higuori Editore" 19&9(" p) 116) ..) $e ,ulgari eloBuentia" II" QIII" ." pp) '.8'2) ./) See the list in 5o6a" 9rnaut $aniel! Can4oni" p) 01) .0) +riedri,h =ie:" Le'en und Cer*e der Tro'adours % Heip:ig* A) A) 3arth" 1''.(" p) .'6) .2) Las 3lors del gay sa'er % 5oulouse* Gatien8Arnout" 1'0180/(" /*//1) .6) The Poetry of 9rnaut $aniel" p) 09) .&) =i Girolamo" Elementi di ,ersifica4ione! p% 4-% .') Gianfran,o #ontini" 7arianti e altra linguistica % 5urin* Einaudi" 19&1(" p) /12) .9) StOphane MallarmO" `u,res complLtes % !aris* !lOiade" 1966(" p) 022) /1) =ante Alighieri" The $i,ine Comedy! Purgatorio! trans% Charles S% Singleton + Princeton! >%&%: Princeton @ni,ersity Press! -.730! pp% -5J-.% /1) $e ,ulgari eloBuentia! 88" '" 286" pp) &18&1) /.) Guglielmo Gorni" 8l nodo della lingua e il ,er'o d:amore % +loren,e* H) S) ;ls,h9i" 19'1(" p) 01) //) =i Girolamo" Elementi di ,ersifica4ione! p% 6.% /0) Georges Hote" )istoire du ,ers franLais % !aris* 3oi in" 1909(" 1*16&8&.) /2) $Et de,et4 sa'er Bue nos cossiram pau4a en dos manieras! la una cant a la sentensa: e segon aBuesta maniera en tot loc del 'ordo pot estar pau4a suspensi,a! plena o finals % % % en autra manera cossiram pau4a en Buant Bue la prendem por una alenada)$ Las 3lors del (ai Sa'er! estier dichas Las Leys d:9mors! ed% 9dolphe 3% (atienJ9rnoult! 3 ,ols% + Toulouse: Typ% de &%JA% Paya! -54-J430! -:-3?% /6) Hote" )istoire du ,ers franKais! p% 6<6%

/&) $e ,ulgari eloBuentia! 88! 8Q" .8/" pp) &.8&/) Emphasis mine) /') Ibid)" II" Q" 1) /9) 4oger =ragonetti" $$ante face " >emrod: Aa'el m moire et miroir de l:Eden"$ CritiBue /'&8/'' % 19&9(* &12) 01) Gorni" 8l nodo della lingua! p% 6.% 01) =ante 18l Con,i,io1 +The AanBuet0" trans) 4i,hard B) Hansing % Gew Ior9* Garland" 1991(" pp) 92896) 5he Italian te-t reads as follows* 1PerH che li miei pensieri! di costei ragionando! moire fiate ,oleano cose conchiudere di lei che io non le oeta intendere! e smarri,ami! sW che Buasi parea di fuori alienato% % % % E Buesta L l:una ineffa'litade di Buello che io per tema ho presoE e conseguentemente narro l:altra % % % e dico che li miei pensieriJJche sono parlare d:amoreJJsonan sW dolci! che la mia anima! cioL to mio affetto arde di poter ciH con la lingua narrareE e perch dire not posso % % % Buesta L l:altra ineffa'ilitadeE cioL che la lingua non L di Buello che lo:ntelletto ,ede compiutamente seguace % % % $ico adunBue che la mia insufficen4a procede doppiamente! sW come doppiamente trascende l:alte44a di costei! per lo modo che detto L% Ch a me con,iene lasciare per po,ert" d:intelletto molto di Buello che L ,ero di lei! e che Buasi ne la mia mente raggia! la Buale come corpo diafano rice,e Buello! non terminando: e Buesto dico in Buello seguente particula: E certo e: mi con,en lasciare in pria% Poi Buando dico: E di Buel s:intende! dico che non pur a Buello che lo mio intelletto non sostiene! ma e4iando a Buello che io intendo sufficiente non sono! perH che la lingua mia non L tanta fa cundia che dire potesse ciH che nel pensiero mio se ne ragiona)$ =ante Alighieri " Ppere minori! 88" 1" ed) #esare Casoli and =omeni,o =e 4obertis % Milan* 4i,,iardi" 1992(" II" 1) 0.) Purgatorio" pp) 121821) 0/) Ibid)" QQCI" 1168'" pp) .'08'2) 00) Ibid)" QQIC" 6186." pp) .61861) 02) Gorni" 8l nodo della lingua! p% 6?% 06) ^douard Aeaneau" ;uatre th mes rig niens % 5oronto* !ontifi,al Institute of Mediea al Studies" 19&'(" p) 11.)

$5 T%e Dream of &anguage

1) .) /) 0) 2) 6) &) ') 9) Citations of )ypnerotomachia Poliphili refer to the critical edition of (io,anni Po44i and Lucia 9% Ciapponi" . ols) % !ado a* Editrice 9ntenori" 196'() Maria 5eresa #asella8!o::i" 3rancesco Colonna: Aiografia e opere" . ols) % !ado a* Editrice 9ntenori=" 1929(" .*&9) A list of these delays and anomalies is gi en ibid)" pp) 11&8.6" and is e-panded in )ypnerotomachia! 6*//8/2) I refer to the analysis in J) B) Stierle" 1Linguaggio assoluto e linguaggio strumentale in Mallarm !1 Metaphorein 3 % 19&'(*1&8/0) StOphane MallarmO" Selected Prose Poems! Essays! and Letters " trans) 3radford #oo9 % 3altimore* 5he Aohns Bop9ins Uni ersity !ress" 1926(" p) //) StOphane MallarmO" % Eu,res complLtes! ed% )enri Mondor and C% &eanJ9u'ry + Paris: Pl iade! -.4<0! p% 35/% Bans 7ilhelm Jlein" Latein und 7olgare in 8talien % Muni,h* M) Bueber" 192&() Si,,o !olenton" Sicconis Polentoni Scriptorum illustrium latinae linguae li'ri Q7888 " ed) 3) H) Ullmann % 4ome* Ameri,an A,ademy in 4ome" 19.'(" p) 1.9) Sperone Speroni" $ialogo delle lingue e dialogo della rettorica % Han,iano* 4) #arabba" 191.(" pp) 2082')

11) #laudio 5olomei" ,ited in Jlein" Latein und 7olgare! p% 56% 11) #arlo =ionisotti" 1>iccol Li'urnio e la cultura cortigiana!1 Letture 8taliane -4 % 196.(* /') 1.) 5he English translation of =ante Con,i,io ,ited here is that in =ante 18l Con,i,io1 +The AanBuet0" trans) 4i,hard B) Hansing % Gew Ior9* Garland" 1991(" p) /1) 1/) Ibid)" p) &1) 10) !o::i8#iapponi@s ,omment in )ypnerotomachia! 6*19) 12) +or a dis,ussion of this te-t" see Ernst 4obert #urtius" European Literature and the Latin Middle 9ges" trans) 7illard 4) 5ras9 % !rin,eton" G)A)* !rin,eton Uni ersity !ress" 192/(" pp) /&08&') 5he translation ,ited is the one published in this wor9)

'5 Pascoli and t%e T%oug%t of t%e (oice

1) $Egli confonde la sua ,oce con la nostra % % % si sente un palpito solo! uno strillare e un guaire % % % tinnulo sBuillo come di campanello % % % udirne il chiacchiericcio )$

)5T%e Dictation of Poetr!

1) .) St) Augustine" $e Trinitate! 8Q" 11" 12) =ante Alighieri" The $i,ine Comedy! Purgatorio" trans) #harles S) Singleton % !rin,eton" G)A)* !rin,eton Uni ersity !ress" 19&/(" QQIC" 2'829" pp) .61861)

*5 E+,ro,riated Manner
1) .) 5he timing ,an be surmised gi en the letter to Gianni =@Elia" the president of $Hengua"$ whi,h was sent together with the fourth and definiti e draft of the poem) 5his is the same sub6e,t that Jaf9a" in the years of the Great 7ar" dis,ussed with his friend +eli- 7elts,h" author of a boo9 entitled 3reedom and (race* $7ho was !elagiusD I ha e read many things on !elagianism" but I do not remember a thing)$ Letter of Uaf*a to 3% Celtsch! $ecem'er -.-7 ) $;uamBuam insepara'ilem ha'ere possi'iltatem id est! ut ita dicam! inamissi'ilem )$ St) Augustine" $e natura et gratia! L8! <.% +riedri,h BRlderlin" STmtliche Cer*e! ed% 3riedrich Aeianer + Stuttgart: C% Uohlhammer! -.<30! 6: 355% $8rrespira'ile per i piM% $ura e incolore come un Buar4o% >era e trasparente +e tagliante0 come l:ossidiana% L:allegria ch:essa puH dare L indici'ile% b l:aditoJJtroncata netta ogni speran4aJJa tutte le li'ert" possi'ili% Compresa Buella +la serpe che si morde la coda0 di credere in $io! pur sapendoJJdefiniti,amenteJJche non c:L e non esiste)$ 5he obser ation was made by E Milana" $8n,oca il non in,oca'ile"$ 9ione sociale < % 1991() 18l 'ene e il male sono due specchi D della stessa illusione: che L Buella D di ,i,er padroni dell:essere proprio%1 =ante Alighieri" The $i,ine Comedy! Purgatorio " trans) #harles S) Singleton % !rin,eton" G)A)* !rin,eton Uni ersity !res" 19&/(" QQIC" 2.20" pp) .61861) A,,ording to the feli,itous formulation of #esare Garboli" in Gio anni !as,oli " Poesie famigliari! ed% Cesare (ar'oli + Milan: Mondadori! -.5<0%

/) 0)

2)

6) &) ') 9)

11) !i::uto Paginette is now reprinted in Gianfran,o #ontini" 7arianti e altra linguistica % 5urin* Einaudi" 19&1(" pp) 6.18.2)

11) $Barsh$ and $sweet$ te,hni<ues are meant here in the strong sense of $polar partition of the lyri, style$ that these e-pressions" drawn from Bellenisti, rhetori, % harmonia austera! harmonia glaphyra(" ha e in Gorbert on Bellingraths ,ommentaries on BRlderlin) 1.) 5he proliferation of internal rhymes in #aproni@s poems88whi,h is ,learly intentional" as shown by ,lose e-amination of the manus,ripts88is another sign %if ambiguous" li9e the pre,eding ones( of this tenden,y to ,all into <uestion the unity of the erse %whi,h is already impli,it in MallarmO@s attempt to substitute the page" by means of blan9s" for the erse as a rhythmi, unity() 1/) E$#ounter8#aproni$ is the title gi en by #aproni to a group of ,ompositions at the end of 4es amissa" in whi,h the poet parodies his own poems)885rans)F

-5T%e ele.ration of t%e Hidden Treasure

1) 3aru,h Spino:a" Ethics! Treatise on the Emendation of the 8ntellect and Selected Letters" trans) Samuel Shirley" ed) Seymour +eldman % Indianapolis* Ba,9ett" 199.(" p) /1) Ibid) Ibid)" p) /6) Ibid)" p) 09) Ibid)" p) 1&0) Ibid)" p) 1/9) .) /) 0) 2) 6)

A,,endi+ 0# T%e Hunt for &anguage

1) =ante Alighieri" The $i,ine Comedy! 8nferno" trans) #harles S) Singleton % !rin,eton" G)A)* !rin,eton Uni ersity !ress" 19&1(" pp) //18//)

A,,endi+ &ig%t
1) .)

# T%e 3ust Do Not Feed on

!aul #elan" (edichte in 42ei ATnden % +ran9furt* Surh9amp" 19&2(" .* .1.) Poems of Paul Celan" trans) Mi,hael Bamburger % Gew Ior9* !ersea 3oo9s" 19''(" pp) .''8'9)