Analiza Engl Stanescu

7/29/2019 Analiza Engl Stanescu

1/9

The stylistic structure over the poetical

language at Nichita StanescuDoctorate thesis abstract

Conductor tiinific, Doctorand,

Prof. Univ. Dr. tefan Gitnaru Floriana Anca Punescu


2/9

This work assumes, from the very beginning, a difficult and vulnerable opposition:

it bares the ambition of equally situating itself related to the science of language alongwith the sciences which analyses the literary phenomena, phenomenon whosecomplexity one could find it hard to circumscribe through unilateral research methods.

More and more developed as an independent orientation after the 80s, literarylinguistics clearly stands out from the theoretical basis co structuralism and generallyfrom all linguistic orientations which operate with ideal constructs ( prototypical speaker,standard linguistic competence, homogenous linguistic communities).

Related to the ancient issue of the mimesis, Nichita Stanescu contradicts Plato,placing himself in the very role of God, who writes the world, in other words makes it.

The following tries drawing several particularities, which have been seen asinnovations of Nichita Stanescus perspectives.

In self-centered perspective (in an etymological meaning- the Latin pespicere= tolook through ones self) is constitutive to the lyrical act. But in Nichita Stanescu we oftenfind a special concern on the imaginary situation of the poetic self, hypostasis outlinedthrough the discourse modality, the direct expression of the lyrical subject of a certain

attitude towards the facts included in representation.Thus, the famous presence of the poet (persona), accompanied by a pack oftranslucent lions, is described in a discourse with a lot of modal insertions, whoseillocutionary force consists in the rising of readers trust in the verosimility of the fictionalsituation, concomitant with the intensification of the autoscopic effect:

Cum era turma mea de lei strvezii ?/ Ei erau dup cum urmeaz: ca jadul,/ canorul alb, ca sticla moale. (...) Ei erau ct bivolii. Precis erau ct bivolii/ din moment cecoama lor li-o frecau deoldul meu./ Dei animale, se purtau ca nite arme./ Cum adicde se purtau ca nite arme ?/ Uite cum: unul dintre eii-a pus labele strvezii pe parteastng/ i pe partea dreapt a pieptului meu,/ cu limb strvezie mi-a lins sternul ./

Depune propria mea mam mrturie despre aceasta(Turme de lei).Such discoursive situations are quite frequent in Nichita Stanescus lyrics. As thesubjective person is found as a lyric self in the representation (discourse), a certainimaginary self-observing perspective is being built; the topic of the discourse sustainsthe fictional costruct, developing a steady attitude towards the predicated information ,as in the example: Precis c sunt zeu./ Mi-am azvrlit dinii din gingie/i sabia mi-amdescins-o dinold ./ Precis c inima mea este vie/i c eu sunt mort(De aer prea mult).

Another modality of focusing on the represented ego, which comes back with asympathetic frequency, is related to what Ion Pop called the instant poetics. Throughinterjections and adverbs, with an illocutionary force, the voice of the poet sustains the

illusion of certain sudden situations or imaginative metamorphosis, bringing out the everunexpected image of the lyric self:"i iat-m, fr s dorm,/aievea vd zeii de filde"

(Vrsta de aur a dragostei.)"Deodat gndul mi s-a schimbat n vedere/i ea a nceput s m doar/ca

o dezmorire".(Blndelei ferocele activiti ale nsufletitelori nensufleitelor)

"Fr de marginii limpezi/noi doi eram/cnd deodat loc/n-am mai avutunul de altul/cum aerul apsat de aer/sub aripa psrii zburnde".(De aer prea mult)

The phenomenon could be described as a variation of the deictical centre withinthe textual space of a poem and it is a characteristic of modern and post modern poetryin general.Alexandru Stefanescu, who pays attention especially to the formal aspects ofNichita Stanescus poetry, catches this perspective, that he explains as an antirhetoric


3/9

tendency of the discourse: very often, in the very contents of the same poem, theperspective charges rapidly and brutally, as if a nervous hard handled the camera(...).

The Kaleidoscopic changing of the perspective represents one of the mostefficient means of mining the rhetoric. An example would be that of the next poem, builton the perfectly symmetrical alternation of the subjective and non-subjective personsdeictics:

"Dormi cum doarme chipul reginei/pe faa monedei./Voi dormi cum doarmevulturul/pe ceafa monedei.// Chiar aa !/Trezete-te cum se trezete verdele/n carneafrunzei./M vor mica lene ca sevele/n nervurile frunzei .//Chiar aa!/Fii rece ca ceruldintr-un criv de toamn,/voi fi rece ca zpada dintr-un criv/de Iarn .../Chiar aa!"(Cntec de leagn)

The poem presents itself as an alternance of voices, as a fictional dialoguebetween two persons or as a dialogue of the inner voices of the lyrical subjectivity. Thealternance takes the aspect of a counterpoint as long as each voice expresses an optionto the real, articulates a perspective.

The statements, formally marked by a stating self ( I will sleep,I will move,....I willbe cold...), are, in addition, modalized, expressing the attitude of the subjective person

towards the stated facts, their purpose being the consolidation of the imaginarypresumption.In such a poem, it is obvious that the monolitical representation of thelyrical subjectivity has come to an end. The text lives only due to the certain rhythm, toen interior balance, suggested by the title( Cantec de leagan), which would otherwiseappear as unmotivated.

A similar technique of experimenting the perspective, reveals itself from anotherpoem of Stanescus early work( Euridice), based on changing the deictics of thesubjective,/ non-subjective person into the third person. The first three stanzas, centeredon the elements you/I build a perspective which looks back to the past.( as the textunderlines especially a you of the beloved human being), emotionally colored. The

voice of the lyrical subject ( separated through the imperfect by the lyrical self of thehypostasis, contemplated in the past), stands for the perspective of the affectivemeaning:

"Faclei torei flcrii focuri/i se-aprindeau n ochi, cerndu-se stinse/de norulfeei mele, plumburiui greu/trecnd pe chipul tu, ca-n piscurile ninse.//i mai ineambraul nc/viaa a de viaa mea lipit./risipa dragostei nerisipit,/secunda nnodat declipit(Euridice)".

The perspective is removed through the reference to the thirs person :"Pai, rsete, poveti silabice, istorii,/destinuiri, sperane voi/erai ntr-adevr

adevrate/n jurul celor doi din iarna cnd/un aer scnteind, pe lng tine/va fi trecut. Va

fi trecnd ...". (Euridice)The constant return of the 2nd person, at the end of the text, is highly unusual(beside you); this presence is however ambiguously used the interpretationpendulating between a self addressing you and a genuine mark of a non-subjectiveperson. The deictical referential expression, an element of a modern poetic discourse, isalso sustained by the presumptive forms (will have passed, will have...), as well as bythe dots, so that the entire image created by the paranthesis of the affective memory,seems to be certain, uttering itself.

The changings from the I(monologic you) to they, is used in other different poemswith non-accidental effects of outdistancing the perspective in the description of the

poetic object. Thus, the famous Flying Lesson opens with a self-observing focus ofattention from the low distance, which lies on the stylistic option for a you of a monologin the mirror:

"i strngi rurile/cum strngi umerii/te nali pe behitul caprelor

/zici:(Nevermore).


4/9

The perspective chosen for the description of the lyric-self, unexpectedly fadesdue to the introduction of a sylogism by representation, through which the reader isconfronted with a simultaneous internal-external focusing: "i apoi:/ fl/ dai din aripilealtcuiva".

The mans progressive distancing from his own body, through the passage

from life to death, is presented in the text by the pronominal metamorphosis you/I,

he/somebody else :"i apoi/eti el./iar el e pururi altcineva."

The changing of the deictic referential centre proves to be, in this case, the maintextual operator of the lyrical perspectives distancing and of the poetic visions

articulation towards the death, as a progressive depersonalization, as a self-identity

dissolution.

The poem Vedere is constructed in the same direction, in which the deictic

variation is presented with the help of a gance game, marked in the text by a succession

of perspective verbs( I was seeing, I was glapsing, I was seeing my own image...):

"Ca orice fiin transparent,/de tot nevzutul m murdrisem,/ nchisesem

ua deschis spre rai/cu un cal de sticl./prin care vedeam un iepure,/prin

care zream un vulture/prin care strvedeam o vulpe,/ prin care l vedeam

nenscutul de mine/ ntins pe dulceaa de bronz a glonului,/ ncoronat cu

zarzavat,/ gtit,/i fiert/i de mncare".(Vedere)

The gradual distancing of the egos discourse perspective towards his

autoscopic hypostasis( his own image as an unborn, stretched, crowned, cooked,

boiled), is firstly sustained by the semantic load of the sights verbs, which are

gradual synonyms (I was seeing, I was glapsing, I was seeing my own image...), but, in

a more violent way, by the referential deviation: him...me, because the critic (him)

enroaches upon the conferentialitys rule, formally and not poetically.The sight( the vision, the perspective) remains of a self( I was seeing), which

is not recognized anymore, placing itself, paradoxically, both in an internal and in an

external way towards the own self.

In many poems, Nichita Stanescu meditates, from a metapoetic view, upon these

games of perspectives and voices, constitutive to the lyrical reflections act, explaining:

"Nu cum sunt eu sunt eu/ci cum eti tu sunt eu/un fel de tu sunt eu/ pe care

nu l-am mai lsat s fie eu"(Oraie de nunt.)

Such pronominal metamorphoses, which we consider as memberships of the

poems metatext, must be also viewed as declarative acts of unique subject eager to theimaginative projection and metamorphosis:

"Dar eu sunt tu/ alaltieriul/ cel de rsalaltieri/ cel de niciodat"

(Cntec de ncurajare pentru zeul Andia)

"Iar eu sunt tu/Nimic nu este altceva"

(Nimic nu este altceva)

"Vreau s fiu cu el (...)/Vreau s fiu iarb".

(Ars amandi)

"Eu. tu, ei/o s fim toi trei deodat//Mai mult tu/dect unicul/Mai mult eu,-

/dect piatra/Mai mult eu,-/dect singurtatea..."

( Rudi strin cntecului).

In the above poems, we also noted the effects the distancing of the lyrical


5/9

perspective have, but they always seemed as a consequence of a contrast or of a deictic

sliding.

The poets obsession of contemplating from the outside drives him to another

way of putting into scene the lyrical act, as he justly notices.

Beyond the titles indications, what allows the reader to identify this text ego with

the poets subjective person? Firstly, the lecture is directed by the fundamental

pragmatic convention, which, theoretically settles down the interpretation of any lyrical

agent as a hypostasis of the lyrical self. Secondly, the succession of the images related

to this own self, implicitly or explicitly drives to the poets condition, through the

intertextual lecture. Thus, the verses:

"El era fcut s fie prad./prad cuvintelor alese. - /cu unoim pe ultima

silab". (Eu, adic el), may be read in correlation with:

"Te-ai fcut subirei prelung/i un sentiment ciudat te doare,/i eti mndru,

ii-l pori pe umr/ ca pe unoim de vntoare"(Poetuli dragostea), sau cu:

"Poetul, cu unoim pe umr intr n cetate".(Orfeu n vechea cetate)

In these poems, the effect of distancing the lyrical perspective is not only theconsequence of the respective deictic selection and it is also obtained through other

mechanisms of stating the discourse.

The quoted auto portrait is deliberately constructed through the dissociation of

voice from the self focusing. The discourse subject( the lyrical narrator) wants just to

indirectly restore the alternative perspectives of some internal characters

( some ,others), textually marked through the saying or seeing verbs:

"Unii ziceau c elchioapt/ pentru c a fost lovit n glezn./Alii ziceau c el

chiopt/ pentru c a fost lovit n cuvinte./(...) Unii ziceau c trebuie s fi fost cal/pentru

c e| l-au zrit a fi fiind cal ./Alii ziceau c el este lebd/pentru c erau stui i, ngenere,/came de lebd nu se mnnc nici la foamete".(Autoportret)

Although the subjective person remains the focusing object (the lyrical self

referred to as him),the lyrical subject( the narrator), is parted with the character upon

which they focus, because of some strategies, paradoxically practicing the exercise of a

sight, which is separated by its own age.

In the project of the poetic representation, the focusing object (the self image), is

thus deliberately relative( lame man, horse, swan), it becomes even uncertain due

to the selection of some verbal moods, related to the assumption ( it must have been a

horse) or due to the inventions of some other moods from the same area( o having

been a horse), seems a presumptive made up of an infinitive).

Putting the lyrical subjectivity into a discourse, in these circumstances, appears

as entirely new for the Romanian Space, because the discourse lost its declarative

certainty and even its representative coherence, proposed by the way of exposing the

lyrics in a traditional monologue and also by the perfect coincidence between the

discourse subject with the focusing subject. The contact with the reader is thus violently

renegotiated.

In the already analyzed poems, the lyrical perspective maintains the support ofthe subjective voice, gives off from the telling of the discourse subject, coincidental or

not with the visions character.

Next, we take into account the cases when Nichita Stanescu multiplies the lyrical


6/9

voices, creates a number of lyrical agents, which are fictious mediators of the discourse

subject, thus dissipating the subjective centers in the text.

In the dialogued poems, the story-teller takes the angel, the demon, the soldier

and the nymph as usual lyrical interlocutors, in order to bring into scene the lyrical

ideation and, more often, the interior performance.

In the latest case, the lyrical agent orally offers an alternative perspective

towards the lyrical self, a perspective formulated in negative terms, which harms the

image of the dialogue partner:

"A venit ngeruli mi-a zis:/-Eti un porc de cine,/o jigodiei un rt/ Pute iarba

sub umbra ta care-o apas;/mocirl se numete respirarea ta !/ - De ce, i-am strigat, de

ce ?/-Fr pricin !/ A venit ngeruli mi-a zis:/ -Mai strvezie este sticla dect cel mai

statornic gnd opac al tu !/n curnd ai s morii viermi/ti vor forfoti n nri, n bot. n

rt, n tromp !"

(Al meu suflet, Psvchee.)

"ngerul naturii moarte, plannd/se apropie de mine n timp ce urlam/i-mi zise

electric:/-Eti ndrgostit, eti mov, eti/un porc de cine!"(Pnza de pianjen de Goya)

Seeing themselves through somebody elses eye, not only from a distance , but

also from a totally foreign angle of focusing, even placing themselves as an object of

focusing of a real verbal aggression, the subjective person relativizes their own image to

the ridiculous and, along with that, doubts the very relevance of the act of lyrical

reflexion. The self image lost its univocal consistence, it even becomes uncertain, an

object of poetic negociation between the lyrical actors, as in the lyrics:

"-Eti mort, mi-a spus ngerul buclai./Eti mort, mi-a spus ngerul buclai/cu dou

aripe ascuite, eti mort!/ - Cum o s fiu mort, i-am rspuns./ cum o sfiu mort, dac stau de vorb cu tine ?! - Nu stai de vorb cu mine, zise,/ nu

stai de vorb cu nimeni". (Papirus cu lacune)

Such a modality of the perspective, never practiced before Stanescu in the

Romanian poetry, represents, by all means, a challenge for the reader , invited to

radically redimension their prejudices about the monolitical representation of

subjectivism in poetry. Descentrating as a lyrical voice, imagining himself as a

declarative agent besides others, the subjective person descentrates at the level of

representation , too, simultaneously valuating himself, in parallel images, in a both

positive and negative way.

Pulling himself out of the world and of his own life, the subject that contemplates,

pins the tragic destiny of an impersonal entity on himself, being capable of canceling his

appartenence to a species in order to plunge in a boundless evolution.

The sudden metamorphosis of the perspective, is constantly marked in the text

above, by the verbs of sight (I saw), along with the adverb suddenly, repeatedly used,

whose textual function we have already commented upon.

The poet does not speak about the point of view of a certain entity anymore, but

he does speak from within that point of view, which is thus placed in the very act.The gliding of the perspective is not a consequence of the variation of the

deictical centre, but it is purely imaginative. The sudden changes of the angle creates an

impression of referential uncertainty, as in the fallowing fragment, in which the flexible


7/9

game of the eye does not draw firm shapes anymore, rendering the subject and the

object of focusing rather ambiguous.

In three or four poems Nichita Stanescu pushes the consequences of such an

imaginative projection all the way, speaking from the point of view of a foreign entity. In

Desert, the poet sees himself as an I, and the discourse has, consequently, the

stately and peaceful flow of a speech which is psychologically adopted to the speaker:

"Stteam cu laba obosit/pe rana unui iepure,/mi mirosea a nserare a vieii./ Ca

ntr-o oglind n soare m uitami coama lung medea peste nisipuri(...)"(Deert).

On the contrary,when he sees himself as a dog( Mozard and the Dog), the

uttering becomes rushed, repetitive,an expression of the emotional state of the one who

speaks:

"Alerg n patru labei nebun,/schelli, latru dup el acum,/mi-e inima prea

mic s-l ngrop n ea,/urechea mi-e prea surd pentru ngerimea sa !/Alerg

n patru labei schelli/latru, urlu,-/se prbuete-n catedral turnul/cel

rsuciti idolatru./Alerg n patru labe dup el !/Nu-l ngropai niciunde/urlu,strig (...)"(Mozarti cinele).

In such an example, the imaginary situation, the actor, (the dog) becomes for

real a lyrical thinker, who has a greater degree of autonomy.

His confession places itself in a mirror of the state of mind, belonging to the

helpless witness to the death of the genius, pendulating between affectionate devotion,

dispair and the incapacity of accepting the inevitable death.

A visibly psychological perspective we can find in The rise of the waters, a

poem which has an apparently unusual debute, with a narration sustained by the voice

of an anonymous teller, about which not until in the third part of the text do we find that itis attributed the identity of a fish, strangely cast ashore and living in the company of

men. The further events are presented from the peculiar characters perspective,

terrorized by the imminent threat of the men:

"M fix n ochi/cu vdit poft de mncare, cu o imens foame.// Imediat

dup aceea intr n camer/prietenul meu./ Elinea n mna stng un

vierme./ Elinea n mna dreapt un cuit."(Creterea apelor),

By such imaginative exercises, as well as the variations of the deictical centre,

stanescus poetry experiments games of lyrical perspective, which are completely new

for the Romanian poetic space.

Although, in most of the cases, both the perspective and the voice remain

fundamentally bound to an ego presence, which autoscopically projects in the discourse

plan, however we could notice a series of attempts, which belong to the modern poetry,

of overtaking the single-string character of the traditional lyricism( through the multiple

voices)and the representation, compulsory direct and unquestioned of the lyrical -self

(through the sliding, the distancing and moreover, the relativization of the lyrical

perspective).

These resizings of the lyrical act come from the subjects aspiration todescentrate both as a teller and as a focusing character ( multiple voices, alternative

perspectives), as well as represented by his own self( actor- the rising of imaginary

hypostases)- aspiration which proves to be illusionary, always bringing back the


8/9

subjectivitys games to the support of the ego, that is constitutive to la language act.

We could establish possible analogies between Nichita Stanescus conception

and Barthes as far as the distinction oral-written is concerned. Being interested in

catching le grain de la voix( which is also the title of R. Barthes book, published at

Seuil, Paris, 1975), the French critic reveals in his voice the personal game of our own

self in opposition to the writing trap, which evades the emitent and the dynamics of his

speaking.

We find such a belief at Nichita Stanescu for whom the writing represents a

means of showing the thinking, a trap from which he tries to go out, opposing the sound

to the letter, observing the tone, the tamber, the high, the quantity, the intrinsec

musicality and finally the unspeakable charm of the speakers personality.

It is considered that through this redeeming movement of the voices inflections-

expression of the feelings pulsatory materiality- Nichita Stanescus poetry builds a

poetry of setting up the stated instance of a speaking ego, as a unique way of

possessing the reality.

The number of the poems, created in this register is not at all overwhelming,many texts having an exposition led by the imagistic associativity, typical to the written

word. In these circumstances, the critics previous quotation must be viewed as a

necessary limitation.

Its true that, if he practices a metaphisical poem, a poem which does not look for

any kind of support in the outside world ( in mystics or metaphisics), Nichita Stanescu

invests the discoursing instance with a decisive role: by itself, as an imaginative and

speaking faculty, it sustains the poems approach, justifies it as an estetic

communicative act.

However, this introduction of the speaker in the foreground is clearly related tothe oral outline of his voice ( which is however, intermitent in the global space of Nichita

Stanescus work).

It is tried the drawing of some modalities, through which Nichita Stanescu poetry

tries to remake the oral throbs of the poetic voice.

Its obvious the poets effort to give the fluidity of the human voice, the aspect of

a speaking which is made and remade in front of us. In this sense, an important role is

played by the different types of repetitions and resumptions, which give the impression

of an uncertain discourse , which sounds only the expression of a poetic idea:

"Ce lam de cuit a tiat n dou./dar ce lam de Toledo a tiat n dou,/

iute, fulgertor a tiat n dou./sfietorul, recele, ascuitul,/a tiat n

dou/firul de pr, gtul, inima, piciorul,/Ie-a tiat n dou. n dou ./Ah. tu, de ce

n dou/n dou./prin tiere scurt, ideal ?" (Cantos III)

This type of rethorics is especially typical of the late period of Nichita Stanescus

lyrics and it correlates with the estetics of the works flows formulated at the same

time with the homonymous book.

The discourse abandoned any kind of illusions, it becomes vacillating, the

masterpiece is sacrificed to the advantage of the breaking up, the provisional and thealternative. The work in variants, borrowed from the oral literatures estetic, the poetic

site are brought in poetry by Nichita Stanescu.

Although Nichita Stanescus lyrical poetry is often characterized by a metaphoric


9/9

proteiform poem, both at the level of the representation of lyrical self, long-term games,(

a multitude of symbolic hypostasis of the lyrical protagonist) and at the level of the poetic

discourse ( the plurity of the stylistic registers and the language games.However, Nichita

Stanescus poetry appears , at the end of this analytical examination, as being strongly

centered around his declarative instance.

The final stage of the subjective process of the language material appears to be

Nichita Stanescus trial of edifying a poetic language, marked by specific accidents and

deviations, an own language utopia.

In this chapter, we were offered for the first time, an as complete as possible

inventory of the subversions made by Nichita Stanescus poetry, in the middle and even

against the common language system, stressing their systematic character, the basis of

a coherent poetry, with an eminently transgressive meaning.

The term unword- the eminently indefinite concept, used with all kinds of

acceptions in the critique- was expected to be set on a more rigorous linguistic

foundation.

The general analysis acknowledged many of the critiques major intuitions, whichwere interpretatively exposed and moreover, confronted with the arguments given by the

textual reality.

The undertaken investigation demands neither the linguistics strict domain( if,

through linguistics we understand the exclusive analysis of the language of a text

studied as an object indeed), nor the literary domain, because it was used by theories

and repudiated instruments by the literatures historian and critic.

The risk of such an interdisciplinary investigations is that of being disputed by

both parts .

If the work of art failed in methodological impurity and eclectism, if it couldntavoid the inherent subjectivism of an interpretative textual tradition, if the strategic

lecture of Nichita Stanescus work is not set up in a model with a minimal, explicit,

theoretical power, then we have nothing to do, but to assume the consequences of this

failure.

What we want to prove is the fact that today, the linguist cannot read poetry with

the working tools and with the analysis methods of the sixties. However, it was made at

least a step towards the direction the discourse, the Romanian linguistics acknowledged

to one of the most complex language game, should step.

Analiza Engl Stanescu

Documents

Transcript of Analiza Engl Stanescu