Department of Comparative Literature University of Helsinki PAJARI RÄSÄNEN Counter-figures An Essay on Antimetaphoric Resistance: Paul Celan’s Poetry and Poetics at the Limits of Figurality Academic dissertation to be publicly discussed, by due permission of the Faculty of Arts at the University of Helsinki in auditorium XII, on the 27 th of October, 2007 at 10 o’clock. Supervised by Docent Kuisma Korhonen Faculty of Arts University of Helsinki, Finland Reviewed by Professor Werner Hamacher Institut für Allgemeine und Vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, Germany and Professor Thomas Schestag Judd A. and Marjorie Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences Northwestern University, USA Discussed with Professor Thomas Schestag Department of German and Romance Languages and Literatures Johns Hopkins University, USA _______________________________ © 2007, Pajari Räsänen ISBN 978-952-92-2726-6 (paperback) ISBN 978-952-10-4204-1 (PDF) http://ethesis.helsinki.fi Helsinki University Printing House Helsinki 2007 Abstract As the title suggests, the present essay on antimetaphoric resistance investigates what is here being called counter-figures. This term has in this context a certain variety of applications. Any other-than-image or other-than-figure, anything that cannot be exhausted by figuration (and that is, more or less, anything at all) can be considered ‘counter-figurative’ with regard to the formation of images and figures, ideas and schemas, “any graven image, or any like- ness of any thing”. This is why singularity and radical alterity are key issues here, and why an ethical dimension is implied by, or intertwined with, the aesthetic. In terms borrowed from Paul Celan’s Meridian speech, poetry may “allow the most idiosyncratic quality of the Other, its time, to participate in the dialogue” (trans. Jerry Glenn). This connection between singularity, alterity and temporality is one of the reasons why Celan so strongly objects to the application of the traditional concept of metaphor into poetry: focus on metaphor can be a way to disregard the “most idiosyncratic quality” of the poetic “figure [Gestalt]” and to disallow the mentioned “participation”. As Celan says, “carrying over [übertragen]” by metaphor may imply an unwillingness to “bear with [mittragen]” and to “endure [ertragen]” the poem’s irreducible otherness, namely an unwillingness to give time. The thesis is divided into two main parts. The first consists of five distinct prolegom- ena which all address the afore-mentioned variety of applications of the term ‘counter- figures’, and especially the rejection or critique of either metaphor (by Aristotle, for instance) or the concept of metaphor (defined by Aristotle, and sometimes deemed “anti-poetic” by both theorists and poets). The purpose of these prolegomena is to show that there are various ways to defy the traditional means of interpreting literature and language in general, and various ways by which literature and “the things themselves” defy those Post-Aristotelian means of understanding language and literature. Even if we restrict ourselves to the tradi- tional rhetorico-poetical terms, we may see how, for instance, metonymy can be a counter- figure for metaphor, allegory for symbol, and irony for any single trope or for any piece of discourse at all. The limits of figurality may indeed be located at these points of intersection between different types of tropes or figures. The second part, following on from the open-ended prolegomena, concentrates on Paul Celan’s poetry and poetics. According to Celan, true poetry is “essentially anti- metaphoric”. I argue that inasmuch as we are willing to pay attention to the “will” of the po- etic images themselves, the tropes and metaphors in a poem, to be “carried ad absurdum”, as Celan invites us to do, we may find alternative ways of reading poetry and approaching its “secret of the encounter”, precisely when the traditional rhetorical instruments, and especially the notion of metaphor, become inapplicable or suspicious — and even where they still seem to impose themselves. Acknowledgments “No one knows who is thanking whom for what.”1 Jacques Derrida’s characteristic interjec- tion, in the middle of the ordinary expressions of recognition exchanged at the end of a roundtable discussion (“On the Gift”, indeed) manifests anything but an unwillingness to give thanks. As far as I can see, the abrupt remark acknowledges the devastating aporias that threaten to overwhelm thanks-giving, while gratitude may always be drawn, remain or become drawn, to the world of bargains. At the same time, saying “thank you” implies an exposure to the limits of knowledge and calculability, not to mention the limits of memory, while thanking (Danken) is also a way of thinking (Denken) and remembrance (Andenken). By countersigning Derrida’s phrase, I would like to acknowledge more than I acknowledge, in respect of a gratitude beyond gratification and acknowledgment beyond knowledge. And I wish to do that as consciously as possible, recognizing also that these preparatory remarks may still be just a poor excuse for forgetting to give thanks to all those I should give thanks to. Professor Hannu K. Riikonen has given his support to my endeavours with an open- mindedness, professional experience, patience and scholarly excellence that should set the standard for all university academics. The pre-examination reports by professors Werner Hamacher and Thomas Schestag were more than valuable at the final stages of writing the dissertation. Being instructed and encouraged by my supervisor, dr. Kuisma Korhonen, has been for me a genuine process of learning and even, as I would timidly suggest, of “essaying friendship”. Docent Korhonen is also the director of the research group Encounters: Art and Philosophy whose member I have been since 2006 and which has been an inspiring and com- radely environment. For critical comments at earlier stages of the study and especially at the post-graduate seminars, I would like to extend my gratitude to professors Heta Pyrhönen, Bo Pettersson, and Christopher Prendergast, as well as my fellow post-graduates. I find myself unable to name all the teachers and students, participants in academic events, conferences and collo- quia, workshops and symposia, friends and colleagues with whom I have discussed things related to, and (at least apparently) unrelated to my research. Besides those already men- tioned and those who are mentioned in the footnotes, I must express my very special recogni- tion to Markku Lehtinen, for introducing me to what I would call méthode Jean Hyppolite. In other words, it was Lehtinen who encouraged me, in the mid-nineties, to “learn German by reading Heidegger”, which turned out to be a very good idea. 1 Jacques Derrida, “On the Gift: A Discussion between Jacques Derrida and Jean-Luc Marion”, moderated by Richard Kearney, in John D. Caputo and Michael J. Scanlon, eds., God, the Gift, and Postmodernism (Bloomington: Indiana U.P., 1999), pp. 54-78, here p. 77. I could not think of a more exciting way of spending more than four years reading the Metaphysics than doing it in the spirited company of the Aristotle Circle of Helsinki. The La- can Circle of Helsinki has provided a hospitable environment for an occasional “hang-around member” whose knowledge of Lacan is negligible, and also the Law and Evil Research Pro- ject and the Group of Research on European Thought must be mentioned collectively as im- portant nuclei of academic comradeship in Helsinki. The annual conferences of the Interna- tional Association for Philosophy and Literature have been important occasions of international exchange for me during the last few years, and the conference on the Travelling Concepts: Meaning, Frame, Metaphor at the Amsterdam School for Cultural Analysis (ASCA, 2001) deserves special mention as an inspiring event. I am much obliged to the staff at the Institute of Art Research and the Department of Comparative Literature for the support on practical matters. John Gage revised the language of my text with meticulous attention, and Annikki Harris at the Language Centre was very helpful too. If any linguistic problems remain, they will be on my responsibility. One of my geographically distant friends, dr. Sandro Zanetti, is not only one of the most remarkable ex- perts on Paul Celan, but has also patiently answered my questions concerning some specific details of his native language, German, as it “takes shape [Gestalt]” in Celan’s poetry. I grate- fully acknowledge the Finnish Cultural Foundation, Väinö Koho Fund, Ella and Georg Ehrn- rooth Foundation, The University of Helsinki, and the Academy of Finland (project 110217) for financial support. For my father Kauko, my mother-and-father-in-law Maria-Liisa and Pekka, all my dear children, Aino, Saini, Vilho, Vaula, and Aarne, and my wife, my beloved Heli-Maria, I find no words more accurate than Hölderlin’s: “nun aber nennt er sein Liebstes, / Nun, nun müssen dafür Worte, wie Blumen, entstehn.” Vohlo (Uusikaupunki), September 29th, 2007 Contents Part I PROBLEMS WITH METAPHOR? Prolegomena for reading otherwise .....11 Epigraphs .............................................................................................. 13 Prolegomenon I..................................................................................... 14 The first counter-figure... ................................................................................ 16 ... is the Second Commandment.....................................................................