Intercultural Fantasies of Female Cruelty: Reflections on Gender and Power
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOSAR SPECIAL: EGALITATE, LIBERTATE, FEMINITATE INTERCULTURAL FANTASIES OF FEMALE CRUELTY: REFLECTIONS ON GENDER AND POWER Marina CAP-BUN Ovidius University of Constanţa, Romania Prezentul articol reprezintă o analiză exhaustivă a aspectelor interculturale bazată pe imaginea femeii în literatură, şi anume unele reflecţii asupra puterii feminine. Autoarea confruntă un număr impunător de opere pentru a scoate în evidenţă trăsăturile puterii şi luptei lăuntrice a Femeii. By the beginning of the twentieth century Ion Luca Caragiale (1852-1912) was already a well-established artist, aware of the fact that he had reached his artistic ma- turity. His plays were translated in many languages and successfully played in France, Germany, Italy, Hungary, and Russia, and his tragedy Năpasta (The Scourge) was even plagiarized by the French dramatist André de Lorde, provoking a huge scandal in both Romanian and French literary magazines. Caragiale refused to sue his French plagia- rist who, in fact, was making him more famous in Paris, as he acknowledged that his play was already entering the gallery of inciting universal themes, and it was by now provoking responses.1 In Romania, the controversies around his theatre were some- how diminished (although they never ceased to exist up to the present day), his texts were regularly reedited, his plays often staged, and the young scholar Horia Petra-Pre- descu was already conducting serious research about his life and career while writing a monographic doctoral thesis on the subject, which was to be published in 1911.2 So, in spite of his active enemies, he was generally recognized as a classic of Romanian literature. Nevertheless, after 1905, having inherited an important sum of money from an aunt, he decided to move to Berlin with his entire family, where he continued to write exclusively in Romanian. In late January 1912, when national official celebrations were organized for his sixtieth anniversary, he refused to come and be part of the fes- tivity, invoking health reasons, which were probably real as he died soon after that, in June. On the very evening of his death, an adaptation from his work O făclie de Paşte (An Easter Torch) was having its premiere in Paris, at Theâtre des Variétés.3 After 1890, his decision to abandon theatrical writing for short prose seems irrevocable4 although some notes of dramatic projects were preserved. His new liter- ary passion is confessed in a letter written from Berlin, in 1909, to his friend Mihail Dragomirescu (an important Romanian aesthetician himself and a translator of Shake- 1 See Romanian Academy & “G. Călinescu” Institute of Literary History and Theory, Bibliografia I. L. Cara- giale, I (Bucharest: Grai şi suflet – cultura naţională Publishing House, 1997), 425-444. 2 Horia Petra-Predescu, Jon Luca Caragiales Leben und Werke (Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth Publish- ing House, 1911). 3 The adaptation called Un soir de Pâques was signed by Albert Kleim and Alfred Gragnon, without mentioning Caragiale’s name. 4 For details see also Marina Cap-Bun, Oglinda din oglindă. Studiu despre opera lui I. L. Caragiale [Mirrors within mirrors. A Study on I.L. Caragiale’s Works] (Constanţa: Pontica Publishing House, 1998). 185 INTERTEXT speare)5: “I have a volume of excellent, unique stories, which I would not exchange for anything I have written in my entire life – a life wasted with trifles of vulgar art!”6 He is talking about his Schiţe noi (New Sketches), which were to be printed in 1910, the last volume which was published during his lifetime. The texts included in this selection truly deserve their epithet “new”, as they reflect indeed an important change in the writer’s perspective and attitude. Living in Berlin and becoming aware of his gradu- ally increasing European recognition, he is now searching for a new aesthetic identity, being highly preoccupied with the theoretical dimensions of literature. His texts are often presented to us in the very state of becoming, as the fictional component is combined with the self-reflecting literary discourse, revealing the generic mechanisms of each and every literary method he is experiencing. The process somehow reminds of Goethe’s famous comparison of Shakespeare’s works with a clock with a crystal dial, showing not only the exact time, but also the inner mechanisms of its measurement. In a note to his final volume, Caragiale mentioned that some of his stories also have versions in other languages, indicating the exact sources, but he still keeps his authorial rights intact, as they are presented in an original manner. In a typically clas- sicist approach, he argues that, while the great stories of all times belong to the entire world, the personal way of treating them goes to each and every writer, in the same manner in which the Holly Mother belongs to all Christians, but each pictographic representation of her expresses the artist who painted it. In his search for the com- mon essence of humanity, he is actually challenging the great themes of both Western European most prominent writers and Oriental storytelling. Emphasizing the meta-fic- tional dimension of all literature, he attempts to rewrite the great universal stories, in his own style and language from a different, very personal perspective. Trying to describe the intercultural transfer between cultures, Patrice Pavis uses the metaphor of the hourglass: In the upper bowl is the foreign culture, the source culture, which is more or less codi- fied and solidified in diverse anthropological, sociocultural or artistic modelization. In order to reach us, this culture must pass through a narrow neck. If the grains of culture or their conglomerate are sufficiently fine, they will flow through without any trouble, however slowly, into the lower bowl, that of the target culture, from which point we observe this slow flow. The grains will rearrange themselves in a way which appears random, but which is partly regulated by their passage through some dozen filters put in place by the target culture and the observer.7 In Caragiale’s case, the filters were so efficient that we can hardly recognize the new grains growing from the sedimentary beds of the source culture to be responses to the primary texts. But he always indicated his sources accurately in notes added to 5 Romeo şi Julieta de William Shakespeare. Tragedie în 5 acte. Tradusă în forma originală de Mihail Drag- omirescu (Bucharest: Editura literară a casei şcoalelor, 1922). 6 I.L. Caragiale, Scrisori şi acte, (Bucharest: Editura pentru literatură, 1963), 82; all the translations from Caragiale’s texts are mine, unless otherwise indicated. 7 Patrice Pavis, Theatre at the crossroads of culture, translated by Loren Kruger (London and New York: Routledge, 1992), 4. 186 DOSAR SPECIAL: EGALITATE, LIBERTATE, FEMINITATE each text. To give only a few examples, for Kir Ianulea, the historic novella opening his volume, he indicates sources like Novella di Belfagorx first written by Giovanni Brevio (Rime, Rome, 1545), then rewritten by Machiavelli (1549) and lately identified by La Fontaine in a French collection (Contes, Paris, 1682). He also mentions his oral sources as in the case of Pastramă trufanda (Firstling pastrami), which he heard as a child from an old Bulgarian barber, Kir Ştefan from his native city of Ploieşti. Later on, Caragiale also identified a version of the story in Decourdemanche’s Le Sottisier de Nasr-Eddin- Hodja (Bruxelles, 1878) but he preferred to follow the general lines of the oral version in his story. The final text of the volume, Făt-Frumos cu Moţ-în-frunte (Prince Charm- ing with a Frontal Curl) is indicated to be a translation of Charles Perrault’s Riquet à la Houppe (Paris, 1697), but yet an original text, as it bears the clear marks of Caragiale’s style and textual reconstruction. The next year after Schiţe nouă, Caragiale published a number of pseudo-trans- lations, in similar conditions, such as Mark Twain’s Un băieţaş rău (A Bad Boy), the Japa- nese fairy tale Fecioara-din lună (The Moon-Maiden), and a very short (fifth part of the original) version of a fragment of Cervantes’ Don Quixote entitled Curiosul pedepsit (The Punished Curious Guy). So the primary sources of inspiration are always clearly men- tioned leaving no ambiguity about his personal anxieties of influence to be solved by literary criticism, except for his works in progress, such as the last text which Caragiale left unfinished on his desk in Berlin in June 1912, called Poveste (Fairy Tale). My edu- cated guess is that the main female character of his story, Lady Floarea (Flower) was an intended response to Shakespeare’s Lady Macbeth. The play was definitely among his favorites, as it was produced at the National Theater in Bucharest during Caragiale’s directorship (1888-1889). In spite of the irreversible shift from stage to page, Caragiale’s theatrical experi- ence of using multiple codes of significance simultaneously remains intact in his late prose writings, and so does his admiration for his early models, including his favorite playwright: William Shakespeare. In such an ambitious strategy of literary responses to his favorite writers, he could not neglect his master, who had had a beneficial influence on his early theatre.8 In his last literary text, the very climax of his creative lucidity, and probably of his self-confidence, he gives a final replica of this (almost postmodern) dialogue with his predecessors. Poveste, with its obvious theatrical dynamism and plasticity, keeps only a formal appearance of a fairy tale, having no miraculous element at all. The furtive and frag- ile reference to the oral form of literature remains on the decorative level, in spite of the expectations created by the incipit of the text: “Once upon a time there lived two emperors who were good friends: Lily Emperor and Peony Emperor9.