228 Notes to Page 3 Representation: Kathryn Gravdal, Ravishing
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
228 Notes to page 3 representation: Kathryn Gravdal, Ravishing Maidens: Writing Rape in Medieval French Literature and Law (Philadelphia: University of Penn- sylvania Press, 1991); Karen Greenberg, ``Reading Reading: Echo's Abduc- tion of Language'' in Women and Language in Literature and Society, ed. Sally McConnell-Ginet, Ruth Borker, and Nelly Furman (New York: Praeger, 1980); Mary Jacobus, ``Freud's Mnemonic: Women, Screen Mem- ories, and Feminist Nostalgia,'' Michigan Quarterly Review 26 (Winter 1987): 117±139; Ann Rosalind Jones, ``New Songs for the Swallow: Ovid's Philomela in Tullia d'Aragona and Gaspara Stampa,'' in Re®guring Woman: Perspectives on Gender and the Italian Renaissance, eds. Juliana Schiesari and Marilyn Migiel (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991) and ``Demater- ializations: Textile and Textual Properties in Ovid, Sandys, and Spenser'' in Subject and Object in Renaissance Culture, ed. Margreta de Grazia, Maureen Quilligan and Peter Stallybrass (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 189±212; Patricia Klindienst Joplin, ``The Voice of the Shuttle is Ours,'' Stanford Literature Review 1, 1 (Spring 1984): 25±53; Amy Lawrence, Echo and Narcissus: Women's Voices in Classical Hollywood Cinema (Berk- eley: University of California Press, 1991); Elissa Marder, ``Disarticulated Voices: Feminism and Philomela,'' Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Phil- osophy, 7, 2 (Spring 1992): 148±66; Nancy K. Miller, ``Arachnologies: The Woman, the Text, and the Critic,'' in The Poetics of Gender, ed. Nancy K. Miller (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986); Tanya Modleski, ``Feminism and the Power of Interpretation: Some Critical Readings,'' in Feminist Studies/Critical Studies, ed. Teresa De Lauretis (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986); Claire Nouvet, ``An Impossible Response: the Disaster of Narcissus,'' Yale French Studies 79 (1991): 95±109; Amy Richlin, ``Reading Ovid's Rapes,'' in Pornography and Representation in Greece and Rome, ed. Amy Richlin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 158±179; Naomi Segal, ``Echo and Narcissus,'' in Between Feminism and Psychoanalysis, ed. Teresa Brennan (London: Routledge, 1989); Gayatri Spivak, ``Echo,'' New Literary History 24 (1993): 17±43. 6 See Barkan, The Gods Made Flesh; Nouvet, ``An Impossible Response''; Marder, ``Disarticulated Voices;'' and Spivak, ``Echo.'' In an early, sustained defense of rhetoric in the European tradition as one that poses a serious epistemological and ontological critique, Richard Lanham selects Ovid as an appropriate place to begin ``redeeming'' rhetoric in the west (The Motives of Eloquence: Literary Rhetoric in the Renaissance [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1976]). In the last ten years, renewed critical interest in the serious claims of rhetoric means that the approach to Ovid has begun to change. In particular, see Stephen Hinds, The Metamorphoses of Persephone: Ovid and the Self-conscious Muse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). 7 Loewenstein, Responsive Readings, p. 35. In contemporary feminist work, Ovid's Echo, Philomela, Arachne, and Ceres (to name a few) have all served their part in projects searching for an alternate, critical, view of literary history and the literary inscription of the social subject. But feminists often turn to the Metamorphoses by isolating one story from the rest of the narrative. Such selective treatment, in part the result of the way Ovid's poem Copyright © 2000. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 5/15/2014 3:13 PM via VANDERBILT UNIV DIVINITY LIBRARY AN: 77557 ; Enterline, Lynn.; The Rhetoric of the Body From Ovid to Shakespeare Account: s4136838 Notes to pages 3±8 229 was handed down, occludes a more expansive view of the relationship between rhetoric, poetic form, sexuality, and violence in the Metamorphoses as a whole (and hence, the many European poems indebted to it). That so many ®gures appealing to a feminist sensibility, whether critical or af®rma- tive, are drawn from one poem suggests that it is important to ask why this should be the case. 8 ``Disarticulated Voices,'' p. 158. 9 See Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), hereafter cited as OLD. For the last sense, OLD cites Q. Curtius Rufus (®rst century AD), ``confuderat oris notas pallor.'' 10 Of Philomela's notae, Marder writes: ``Although alienated from her body, this form of writing through weaving represents and writes the mutilated body'' (``Disarticulated Voices,'' p. 161) 11 William Keach, review of John Fyler's Chaucer and Ovid,inHelios 12 (1985): 78. 12 For the in¯uences of Roman rhetoric on Ovid's style, particularly the techniques of declamation, see S. F. Bonner, Roman Declamation (Liverpool: University Press of Liverpool, 1949): Ovid was ``a poet among declaimers and a declaimer among poets'' (p. 156). But to assess Bonner's judgment that ``declamatory rhetoric gave to Ovid virtue as well as vice; without it he might never have attained to the cleverness and sparkle which we admire in him at his best'' (p. 155), see Alison Goddard Elliot's discussion of the reasons for this dominant critical tradition (``Ovid and the Critics: Seneca, Quintilian, and `Seriousness,' '' Helios 12 (1985): 9±20). As she points out, received suspicion of Ovid's exuberant ingenium was born, in part, from the blindness of historical circumstance: ``One may suspect . that the Roman rhetor- icians were not predisposed to like Ovid, who was, after all, a talented speaker (on Seneca's admission) who abandoned oratory for poetry, who therefore appeared to have `sold out' '' (p. 16). Following Quintilian's assessment that Ovid was ``nimium amator ingenii sui'' (excessively fond of his own talent), the usual assessment of the Metamorphoses condemns it for lack of moral seriousness. In the sixteenth century Giraldi Cintio judges that Ovid is ``more ingenious than profound, more licentious than attentive to law, more copious than diligent''; a Victorian critic registers annoyance when ``arti®ce and labored ornament corrupts the sincerity of situation and characters and even slips into ineptitude and perversity''; and as recently as 1965, Clarence Mendell dismisses Ovid for a ``frivolous gaiety undisturbed by any concern for morals or politics'' (discussed by Elliott in ``Ovid and the Critics,'' pp. 12±14). Douglas Bush, too, takes Ovid's rhetorical facility as evidence of insincerity: therefore ``the soulless Ovid does not now hold high rank'' (``Foreword'' to Ovid's Metamorphosis Englished, Mythologized and Represented in Figures by George Sandys, ed. Karl K. Hulley and Stanley T. Vandersall [Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1970], p. xiii). Re- sponding to such charges in 1968, J. M. Frecaut had ®rst to contend with a general consensus that rhetoric is merely ornament to thought: Ovid is not ``too ingenious and arti®cial''; rather, the virtuoso transitions in the Meta- morphoses have deep ``artistic and psychological'' signi®cance (``Les transi- tions dans les Metamorphoses d'Ovide,'' REL 46 (1968): 247±63). Copyright © 2000. Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law. EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 5/15/2014 3:13 PM via VANDERBILT UNIV DIVINITY LIBRARY AN: 77557 ; Enterline, Lynn.; The Rhetoric of the Body From Ovid to Shakespeare Account: s4136838 230 Notes to pages 8±9 13 Perhaps most famously, T. S. Eliot declared Titus to be ``one of the stupidest and most uninspired plays ever written'' (Selected Essays: 1917±1932 [New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1932]). Coleridge wrote that the play's violence, ``to our ears shocking and disgusting,'' was ``intended to excite vulgar audiences'' (Coleridge's Shakespearean Criticism, ed. T. M. Rayson [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1930], vol. II, p. 31). Eugene Waith's 1957 article on Titus is the locus classicus for serious reconsideration of the relation between violence and rhetoric in the play; in this regard, he pays close attention to Shakespeare's debt to Ovid, although not all commentators interested in this conjunction follow suit (``The Metamorphosis of Violence in Titus Andronicus,'' Shakespeare Survey, 10 [1957]: 39±49). Waith's work informs Albert H. Tricomi's essay, ``The Aesthetics of Mutilation in Titus Andronicus'' (Shakespeare Survey, 27 [1974]: 11±19), which locates the ``relationship between language and event'' as the play's central concern. For related work, see Clark Hulse, ``Wresting the Alphabet: Oratory and Action in Titus Andronicus,'' Criticism 21 (1979): 106±18; Gillian Murray Kendall, ``'Lend Me Thy Hand': Metaphor and Mayhem in Titus Andronicus,'' Shakespeare Quarterly 40 (1989): 299±316; Karen Cunningham, `` `Scars Can Witness': Trials by Ordeal and Lavinia's Body in Titus Andronicus,'' for a reading of Lavinia's body as sign. For an account of the relationship between dismemberment in Titus and early modern conceptions of agency, see Katherine Rowe, ``Dismembering and Forgetting in Titus Andronicus,'' Shakespeare Quarterly 45 (1994): 279±303. 14 From Pierre Ronsard, Les Amours, poem XX, ed. Henri Weber and Catherine Weber (Paris: Editions Garnier FreÁres 1963). Translation mine. Following Barkan's suggestive reading of the