Terza e ultima parte del mio saggio o articolo: notizie del quale trovate al cappello introduttivo della prima puntata. Seguirà a giorni un post dal titolo “Il punto su Joyce”…
And here is an English translation of the letter:
03/18/88
Dear Pagnini,
I’m sorry to waste some of your time with a question on which I need your most illuminating opinion.
My new edition of Ulysses is about to be published (in May), and I am reading the proofs. It was a daunting job collating the final text (Penguin – Student Edition) with the old text and redo – among other things – most of the punctuation, replacing the very many pieces (single words, phrases, periods often transposed) and eliminating many errors (also my own, as it happens).
The new text leaves me perplexed in some places (e.g. I am left unconvinced by the transcription of “tranquility” instead of “tranquillity”, and of MUSTERRED instead of MUSTERED.
But there is a passage on which – to be sure – I would like to draw your attention because it frankly seems to me incomprehensible in the first version, and even more in the final one which I think is worse.
To make it easier I’ll transcribe it from p. 661 (Shakespeare & Co.) and p. 533 (Penguin):
Eumaeus – 1st version
Marble could give the original, shoulder, back, all the symmetry. All the rest, yes, Puritanism.
2nd version
Marble …………….. all the symmetry, all the rest.
It seems to me that all the rest does not make sense after enumerating shoulders, back, all the symmetry. What could all the rest be? As you will remember the reference is here to the naked statues that Bloom admired (end of Scylla and Charybdis).
But the trouble begins now:
1st version
It does though, St Joseph’s sovereign…… whereas no photo could, because it simply was not art, in a word.
I could never understand what the mysterious word hidden by the dots could be.
2nd version
After Puritanisme (why in French?) the text continues: It does though St. Joseph’s thievery, alors (Bandez!) FIGNE TOI TROP. Whereas no photo……..
Among the many questions: what do you think “St. Joseph’s thievery” is? (larceny – theft – even stolen goods?) May it allude to the pregnancy of Mary and to the Holy Spirit?
And the French words? Bandez seems to me to signify “Have an erection or get it to be raised”. FIGNE is slang for arse, but does not exist as a verb (unless one translates “Do fuck too much”, which obviously does not make any sense? Don’t you have the impression that the text is corrupt and that we are facing a big mess?
Sorry again, but I needed advice at the highest level.
If for you it’s easier call me on the phone.
Thank you. Sincerely, Giulio de Angelis
And this is Pagnini’s typed answer:
Pistoia, 21 3 88
Carissimo Giulio
mancano i riferimenti contestuali, sia per l’una che per l’altra delle redazioni; e dunque il lavoro delle inferenze va, per forza di cose, a ruota libera.
A occhio e croce direi che il testo Shak. & Co. sia meno oscuro dell’altro. “Simmetry” direi che si riferisca, senz’altro al culo della statua. “Puritanism” potrebbe essere un vocativo – come dire “culo e tutto il resto (cioè anche la fica). Si signor Puritanesimo!” – la statuaria antica fa queste cose! – “E le fa, per la Sovrana di San Giuseppe (eufemismo per “per la Madonna!”, e al contempo una paronomasia: sovereign – suffering)… meglio di una fotografia, data la superiorità dell’arte!”
Il testo Penguin puzza di guasti. A parte il Puritanisme (che non mi pare sia motivato eccetto forse dal fatto che, più avanti si passa dall’inglese al francese) “Joseph’s thievery” può essere ancora un eufemismo, parallelo all’altro – il che farebbe pensare che il testo Shak. & Co. fosse un emendamento [sic] –, e cioè la ‘refurtiva’ di San Giuseppe con riferimento a Gesù Bambino, al momento della fuga in Egitto, e dunque il furto a Erode –, e allora l’imprecazione sarebbe “per il Bambino Gesù!”. Infine, sempre pensando al culo della statua, “fattelo rizzare, e poi infilatici ben dentro!” Con l’ironia sulla buona resa dell’arte.
Tutte fantasie? Posso esser d’accordo: ma, in fondo, autorizzate.
Per “tranquility” e “masterred” [sic nella lettera di Pagnini] direi che si tratta senz’altro di refusi!
Allego il saggio della Paola Gullì, che spalanca le aporie del nuovo “Joyce”. […]
Un abbraccio in odore di antichità!
[Pistoia, 21 3 88
Dearest Giulio,
contextual references, for both of the editions, are missing, and therefore the range of the inferences, given these circumstances, is immense.
At a guess I would say that the Shak. & Co. text is less obscure than the other. “Symmetry” I would take doubtless to mean the arse of the statue. “Puritanism” could be a vocative – as if one said “arse and everything else (i.e. even the pussy). Yes, Mr. Puritanism” – the ancient statuary does these things! – “And it makes them, for the sovereign of St. Joseph (euphemism for “Our Lady”, and at the same time a paronomasia: sovereign – suffering) … better than a photograph, given the superiority of art!”.
The Penguin text smells of corruptions. Apart from Puritanisme (which does not seem to be motivated, except maybe for the fact that there is later a switch from English to French), “Joseph’s thievery” may still be an understatement, parallel to the other – which suggests that the Shak. & Co. text is an emendation – namely the ‘swag’ of St. Joseph with reference to the Child Jesus at the time of the flight into Egypt, and therefore the theft to Herod – and then the curse would be “for the Child Jesus! “. Finally, still having in mind the arse of the statue, “Make it stand on end, and then stick it all inside!” With irony on the good outcome of art.
All fantasies? I can agree: but, substantially, authorized.
As to “tranquility” and “masterred” [sic in Pagnini’s letter] I would say that they are certainly typos!
I attach the essay by Paola Gullì, who opens up the aporias of the new “Joyce”. […]
A hug in the odour of antiquity!]
The passage in question had appeared in the 1960 translation as follows: “Il marmo sì rendeva l’originale, spalle, didietro, tutta la simmetria. Tutto il resto, via, era puritanesimo. Però, però il sovrano di San Giuseppe… laddove nessuna foto ci arriva perché non è arte, via, in una parola”.
In the final result de Angelis adopted at least one of Pagnini’s suggestions (“la sovrana” for “il sovrano”): “Il marmo sì rendeva l’originale, spalle, didietro, tutta la simmetria, tutto il resto. Via, era puritanisme. Però, però la sovrana di San Giuseppe alors (Bandez!) Figne toi trop… Laddove nessuna foto ci arriva perché non è arte via in una parola”.
English Literary History 