—138→
University of New Mexico
My first reaction to Pierre L. Ullman's
«Réplica a Anthony
Cárdenas»128 was,
frankly, one of surprise. I am grateful to him for pointing out some undeniable
lapses on my part, and for, in a sense, deconstructing my own deconstruction.
When all is said and done, however, I do think Ullman would have better spent
his time and energy pondering the richness and grandeur of Cervantine art
rather than my poor musings over the same. I should do the same. Nevertheless,
editor and colleague, Michael McGaha has offered me the opportunity for a
response to Ullman's reply and the following is my acceptance. To begin, Ullman
reads my study titled «Cervantes's Rhyming Dictum on 'Celestina': 'Vita
Artis Gratia' or 'Ars Vitae Gratia'?», as he writes «una refutación de algo que expuse, a fuer de
estudioso novel, en mi primer artículo»
(1), that is, as a refutation of his «The Burlesque Poems
which Frame the 'Quijote'». Fact is, my own effort had hoped merely to
examine and offer «a» reading (not «the» reading) of
the verses at the beginning of the
Quijote in reference to Celestina:
«... Celesti- / Libro en mi opinión divi-
/ si encubriera más lo huma-»
(Allen I, 80). It
is customary when treating a literary issue critically to review what
colleagues have previously written on the same matter. For this reason I cited
Ullman's study and
—139→
disagreed with what I viewed as «an
ingenious 'misreading' derived from [his] examining the
Quijote princeps»
(Cárdenas 23), namely, his expansion of the truncated verse
in question as: «Libró en mi opinion
divinamente»
rather than as
Libró and
«divino» as the consensus would have it. My
view, my opinion was that Ullman's decoding (still ingenious, mind you) failed
at two points: 1)
«divinamente» did not fit «the
implied rhyme scheme»
(Cárdenas 24), and 2)
«the use of diacritics in this edition [the
princeps] is sufficiently sporadic,
in my opinion, to prevent basing a convincing decoding upon such
usage»
(Cárdenas 24). I must admit that Ullman's
objections to my objections have shown me the errors of my ways. More exact
than «implied rhyme scheme»129, I should have stated that expanding «divi-» to
«divinamente» does not follow the established
pattern of «implied word endings» as well as does the expansion of
«divi-» to
«divino». In every verse of this poem, in
every verse of the only other cabo
roto poem, that is, in the very first
one, «Al libro de don Quijote de la Mancha Urganda la
Desconocida»
(Allen I, 75-77), in other words, if we
exclude the verse in question, in 79 lines of verse, a single syllable finishes
the word at the verses' end. What circumstance or set of circumstances could
prove this one line to be the exception? Ullman finds such when he views
«Libró» as the third person singular preterite form of
«librar» instead
of the noun «Libro».
When I examined the use of diacritics in the princeps, I used a copy of the princeps that was on the shelves in Casa del Libro on Gran Vía in Madrid. It was a chance encounter with this volume and I took my notes while squatting in an aisle in the bookstore. Again Ullman has been astute enough to show the error of my ways: 1) «domó» in the princeps has a grave accent mark and not an acute one as I reported from my notes: my mistake. He goes on to point out that «domó» occurs in the last verse of the first tercet of the sonnet of the Caballero del Febo and not in the last verse as I, in my lapse of «poco detenimiento», stated: my error again130.
—140→Ullman examines the use of diacritics in
these poems and comes up with the plausible and quite defensible theory that
their employment occurs «cuando su
omisión podría producir
confusión»
(6)131. He disapproves, however, of my term
«sporadic» to describe the use of accents in the
princeps and finds unacceptable my
description «diacritical eccentricities». He declares: «En suma, el uso de los diacríticos en la
edición príncipe del
Quijote no es
'sporadic', sino que se
hace según la lógica,
aunque no aplicada exactamente; es algo
variable, pero de ningún modo excéntrico. Esta última
palabra tampoco debe aplicarse a la selección entre las tres tildes
[acute accent, grave accent, and circumflex]; la voz más apropiada es
'fortuito'»
( 7; my emphasis). This
summary occurs not only after his theory of deployment but also after a list he
provides of «tildes
innecesarias»,
«errores»
and other oddities (7). The objections to my terminology seems, I
must say, nit-picking. «Sporadic» according to
Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary
means «occurring occasionally, singly, or in scattered instances».
In distinction to «infrequent» «sporadic implies occurrence
in scattered instances or isolated outbursts» (Webster's
Seventh). I have to maintain that to this modern carcass, given the use
especially as studied by Ullman, «sporadic»
—141→
seems not
an entirely inept description. As regards «eccentric» versus
«fortuitous»
Webster's Seventh indicates for the former
«deviating from some established pattern or from accepted usage or
conduct» and «suggests a wide divergence from the usual or normal
esp. in behavior», whereas for the latter it offers «occurring by
chance» and that this term «so strongly suggests chance that it
often connotes entire absence of cause». It would seem, given Ullman's
stance, that «eccentric» would be more acceptable than
«fortuitous». Even the Royal Academy's
Diccionario de la lengua española
(1992) seems to argue against Ullman's
«fortuito» which
means:
«Que sucede inopinada y
casualmente». In fine, had Ullman written the study he
would have used
«fortuito» and
never «sporadic» nor «eccentric».
«Fortuitous» or «sporadic»,
«fortuitous» or «eccentric», as I stated originally and
restate: «the use of diacritics in this edition is sufficiently
sporadic, in my opinion, to prevent basing a convincing decoding upon such
usage. Ullman's strongest point is that the criticism offered in the rhyme is
undoubtedly more than straightforward»
(Cárdenas
24).
«Divinamente» to this reader, although
ingenious, remains unsatisfying.
Ullman finds my ideas, of course matters on prosody aside,
«brillantes, acertadas y
sugestivas»
in one breath; but then in the next
«válidas, con tal que se deseche el
concepto desconstructivo con el cual cree abonarlas, a saber, la opinión
que toda lectura es un 'misreading'»
(4).
His understanding that I assume to guarantee my ideas through deconstruction is
an interesting reading on his part. How does one
«abonar» one's
ideas via an approach? My goal in citing Vincent Leitch's understanding of
«reading» as «misreading» was to inform the reader of
my approach and not to guarantee my ideas. Ullman's objection here may point to
yet another shortcoming on my part. I failed in my quoting of Leitch to include
the last paragraph within the same footnote, thinking, as I did, that it was
unnecessary given that I had cited a good portion of it in my first paragraph.
This last paragraph in its entirety reads: «Criticism insists on
performing what cannot be performed -reading texts. There can never be
'correct' or 'objective' readings, only less or more energetic, interesting,
careful, or pleasurable misreadings»
(Leitch 59). Hence,
I never refuted nor attempted to refute Ullman's 'misreading' (or if he prefers
'reading') of the passage in question. I called it «ingenious» as
it deserves (in my opinion) and said that it «fails at two points».
Perhaps I should have said it «fails to convince» or perhaps is
less «energetic, interesting, careful, or
—142→
pleasurable» for the two reasons I offered and maintain, unconvinced as I
am by Ullman's reply.
Finally, Ullman claims that «es
poco aconsejable sustituir el análisis polisémico
tipológico por la deconstrucción, por lo menos mientras no se
haya ensayado el primero»
(7-8). What can
I say to this? OK? Fine? This is his opinion, he is entitled to such, and I
have no desire to try to convince him otherwise. Michael Harney offers some
observations about literature worth citing here: «Surely the literary
work of art capturing as it does a complex experience in complex ways, can
accommodate -indeed, requires- several simultaneous critical
approaches»
. (15) This must certainly hold for a
multifaceted work such as the
Quixote. Ullman concludes: «hemos visto de demostrar que no es preciso recurrir a la
desconstrucción ni hablar de 'misreadings' para hacer caber las varias
interpretaciones del célebre juicio sobre la
Celestina dentro de un esquema
polisémico ya formulado en la época de Cervantes, siendo
así válida cada una de ellas»
(12). I agree with the first part about it not being necessary to
depend on deconstruction nor to speak of «misreadings». By the same
token, just as Ullman thinks it
«poco
aconsejable» to view Cervantine art through a
deconstructive lens, I think it possible to do so, and if in so doing even
Ullman finds «las ideas de Cárdenas...
brillantes, acertadas y sugestivas»
, then my goal to
offer a more «energetic, interesting, careful or pleasurable
misreading»
has been reached. To conclude, even though I disagreed
and still disagree with parts of Ullman's decoding of the rhyming dictum, the
value of his
«primer
artículo» is «that these poems do prepare
the reader for what is to come»
(Cárdenas 31) and
this «in total opposition to [Irwin] Edman's assessment that the poems
are but 'freaks of the author's pen'»
(Cárdenas
31). For this elucidation by Pierre Lioni Ullman I express my gratitude
and admiration and also for providing me the opportunity to attempt to express
more clearly points I tried to make in my original study and for correcting my
blatant errors.
Cárdenas, Anthony J. «Cervantes's Rhyming Dictum on Celestina: Vitae Artis Gratia or Ars Vitae Gratia?» Indiana Journal of Hispanic Literature 5 (1994 [1995]): 19-36.
Cervantes, Miguel de. El ingenioso hidalgo don Quijote de la Mancha. Ed. John Jay Allen. 2 vols. Letras Hispánicas 100, 101. 5th ed. Madrid: Cátedra, 1983.
_____. Don Quixote: The Ingenious Gentleman of La Mancha. Trans. John Ormsby. Introduction by Irwin Edman. Illustrations by Edy Legrand. New York: The Heritage Press, n. d., c. 1950.
—143→Leitch, Vincent B. Deconstructive Criticism: An Advanced Introduction. New York: Columbia UP, 1983.
Real Academia Española. Diccionario de la lengua española. 21st ed. Madrid: Real Academia Española, 1993.
Ullman, Pierre Lioni. «The Burlesque Poems which Frame the Quijote». Anales Cervantinos 9 (1961-62): 213-27.
_____. «Réplica a Anthony Cárdenas». Typed Manuscript. 15 pp. + 4 pp. Xerox copy of the verses as contained in the editio princeps.
Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam, 1963.
—144→
