The stylistic structure over the poetical language at Nichita Stanescu

Doctorate thesis abstract

Conductor tiinific, Prof. Univ. Dr. tefan Gitnaru

Doctorand, Floriana Anca Punescu

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 along with the sciences which analyses the literary phenomena, phenomenon whose complexity one could find it hard to circumscribe through unilateral research methods. More and more developed as an independent orientation after the 80s, literary linguistics clearly stands out from the theoretical basis co structuralism and generally from 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 as innovations of Nichita Stanescus perspectives. In self-centered perspective (in an etymological meaning- the Latin pespicere= to look through ones self) is constitutive to the lyrical act. But in Nichita Stanescu we often find a special concern on the imaginary situation of the poetic self, hypostasis outlined through 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 of translucent lions, is described in a discourse with a lot of modal insertions, whose illocutionary force consists in the rising of readers trust in the verosimility of the fictional situation, concomitant with the intensification of the autoscopic effect: Cum era turma mea de lei strvezii ?/ Ei erau dup cum urmeaz: ca jadul,/ ca norul alb, ca sticla moale. (...) Ei erau ct bivolii. Precis erau ct bivolii/ din moment ce coama lor li-o frecau de oldul meu./ Dei animale, se purtau ca nite arme./ Cum adic de se purtau ca nite arme ?/ Uite cum: unul dintre ei i-a pus labele strvezii pe partea stng/ 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 the subjective person is found as a lyric self in the representation (discourse), a certain imaginary self-observing perspective is being built; the topic of the discourse sustains the 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-am descins-o din old ./ 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 a sympathetic frequency, is related to what Ion Pop called the instant poetics. Through interjections and adverbs, with an illocutionary force, the voice of the poet sustains the illusion of certain sudden situations or imaginative metamorphosis, bringing out the ever unexpected 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". (Blndele i ferocele activiti ale nsufletitelor i nensufleitelor) "Fr de margini i limpezi/noi doi eram/cnd deodat loc/n-am mai avut unul 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 within the textual space of a poem and it is a characteristic of modern and post modern poetry in general.Alexandru Stefanescu, who pays attention especially to the formal aspects of Nichita Stanescus poetry, catches this perspective, that he explains as an antirhetoric

tendency of the discourse: very often, in the very contents of the same poem, the perspective charges rapidly and brutally, as if a nervous hard handled the camera(...). The Kaleidoscopic changing of the perspective represents one of the most efficient means of mining the rhetoric. An example would be that of the next poem, built on the perfectly symmetrical alternation of the subjective and non-subjective persons deictics: "Dormi cum doarme chipul reginei/pe faa monedei./Voi dormi cum doarme vulturul/pe ceafa monedei.// Chiar aa !/Trezete-te cum se trezete verdele/n carnea frunzei./M vor mica lene ca sevele/n nervurile frunzei .//Chiar aa!/Fii rece ca cerul dintr-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 dialogue between two persons or as a dialogue of the inner voices of the lyrical subjectivity. The alternance takes the aspect of a counterpoint as long as each voice expresses an option to the real, articulates a perspective. The statements, formally marked by a stating self ( I will sleep,I will move,....I will be cold...), are, in addition, modalized, expressing the attitude of the subjective person towards the stated facts, their purpose being the consolidation of the imaginary presumption.In such a poem, it is obvious that the monolitical representation of the lyrical subjectivity has come to an end. The text lives only due to the certain rhythm, to en interior balance, suggested by the title( Cantec de leagan), which would otherwise appear as unmotivated. A similar technique of experimenting the perspective, reveals itself from another poem of Stanescus early work( Euridice), based on changing the deictics of the subjective,/ non-subjective person into the third person. The first three stanzas, centered on the elements you/I build a perspective which looks back to the past.( as the text underlines 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 the hypostasis, contemplated in the past), stands for the perspective of the affective meaning: "Facle i tore i flcri i focuri/i se-aprindeau n ochi, cerndu-se stinse/de norul feei mele, plumburiu i greu/trecnd pe chipul tu, ca-n piscurile ninse.//i mai ineam braul nc/viaa a de viaa mea lipit./risipa dragostei nerisipit,/secunda nnodat de clipit (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 interpretation pendulating between a self addressing you and a genuine mark of a non-subjective person. The deictical referential expression, an element of a modern poetic discourse, is also sustained by the presumptive forms (will have passed, will have...), as well as by the 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 poems with 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 of attention from the low distance, which lies on the stylistic option for a you of a monolog in the mirror: "i strngi rurile/cum strngi umerii/te nali pe behitul caprelor /zici:(Nevermore).

The perspective chosen for the description of the lyric-self, unexpectedly fades due to the introduction of a sylogism by representation, through which the reader is confronted with a simultaneous internal-external focusing: "i apoi:/ fl/ dai din aripile altcuiva". 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 main textual 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 the imaginative 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..." ( Rud i strin cntecului). In the above poems, we also noted the effects the distancing of the lyrical

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 un oim pe ultima silab". (Eu, adic el) , may be read in correlation with: "Te-ai fcut subire i prelung/i un sentiment ciudat te doare,/i eti mndru, i i-l pori pe umr/ ca pe un oim de vntoare"(Poetul i dragostea), sau cu: "Poetul, cu un oim pe umr intr n cetate".(Orfeu n vechea cetate) In these poems, the effect of distancing the lyrical perspective is not only the consequence 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 el chioapt/ 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, n genere,/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 of the 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

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 ngerul i mi-a zis:/-Eti un porc de cine,/o jigodie i 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 ngerul i mi-a zis:/ -Mai strvezie este sticla dect cel mai statornic gnd opac al tu !/n curnd ai s mori i 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 s fiu 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

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 uitam i coama lung m edea 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 labe i 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 labe i schelli/latru, urlu,-/se prbuete-n catedral turnul/cel rsucit i idolatru./Alerg n patru labe dup el !/Nu-l ngropai niciunde/urlu, strig (...)"(Mozart i 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 it is 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./ El inea n mna stng un vierme./ El inea 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 to descentrate 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

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 inflectionsexpression 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 to the 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 the alternative. 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

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, which were 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 couldnt avoid 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.