文字记录 · CC BY 3.0

现代奥德赛:小组讨论

本页标题、字幕、摘要和阅读笔记为已保存的 AI 译文,可能有误。时间戳与来源一致,可展开查看原始字幕,并对照原视频核对。

现代奥德赛小组通过旅程和身份探索荷马的《奥德赛》、卡瓦菲、弗吉尼亚·伍尔夫和艾梅·塞泽尔之间的间接联系。

希腊研究中心 · 发布于 · 2 小时 02 分钟 · 英语 · 许可:CC BY 3.0 · 来源:在 YouTube 上观看

文字记录来源:YouTube上创作者上传的字幕。Vidleaf添加了AI标点;保留原始措辞和时间戳锚点。原始文字记录可在下方获取。

AI生成的摘要

Michelle Zerba 与同行学者讨论《现代奥德赛》,这是她对荷马《奥德赛》与 C. P. 卡瓦菲、弗吉尼亚·伍尔夫和艾梅·塞泽尔作品之间间接关系的研究。Zerba 发展出一套关于间接性的词汇,用于描述那些不符合古代原作及其现代改编简单模式的旅程、身份和写作形式。她的四个组织性比喻涉及扩散、孤立、迂回和不安的回归。专题讨论小组将这种方法与荷马多文本、奥兰多的性别跨越、塞泽尔不断变化的文学和政治项目、黑人研究、数字学术以及卡瓦菲分散的希腊主义联系起来。在讨论中,Zerba 为历史接受研究保留了一席之地,同时主张尊重对经典的反抗和通过多重归属形成的身份的方法。结尾的问题探讨了受众、专业知识、互文性、批评词汇,以及为什么对古典来源的忠实不必决定每一次阅读行为。

根据文字记录生成。请对照原始视频检查链接段落。

带时间戳的章节摘要

关于《现代奥德赛》与古典接受的专题讨论

  • [0:18] Richard Armstrong 介绍 Michelle Zerba 的《现代奥德赛》以及由希腊研究中心主办的专题讨论。
  • [2:06] 讨论从该领域走向多元接受和古代文学全球研究方法开始。

作为间接联系模型的展览

  • [8:00] Zerba 描述了受损的安提基特拉奥德修斯雕像以及雅典的 2016 奥德赛展览。
  • [9:48] 并置的文物、诗歌和音乐通过缺席和共鸣暗示了联想,帮助她组织与荷马有间接联系的作品。

归家、狡黠与延迟的解决

  • [10:57] 《奥德赛》中的归家是迂回地接近的,即使奥德修斯到达伊萨卡后仍有进一步的漂泊。
  • [12:10] 第二次旅程以及佩涅洛佩的编织和拆解使稳定的结局复杂化。
  • [13:20] Zerba 将 nostos 与 metis 联系起来,即奥德修斯和佩涅洛佩有角度的实践智慧。
  • [14:39] 这些模式引发了关于分裂身份、家庭、政治秩序和战争影响的问题。

卡瓦菲、伍尔夫和塞泽尔:不同的现代旅程

  • [16:55] 三位现代作家探索了涉及同性恋欲望、非规范性行为和种族意识的旅程。
  • [19:34] 卡瓦菲的间接性将流散与情欲体验联系起来,同时富有表现力地利用暗示和部分隐藏。
  • [20:59] Zerba 将奥兰多的虚构传记解读为对性别、身份以及伍尔夫与维塔·萨克维尔-韦斯特关系的侧向接近。
  • [22:51] 《奥兰多》中的照片扰乱了传记、小说和想象身份之间的界限。
  • [23:41] 塞泽尔的回归诗通过碎片化记忆和对过去的斜向接近来面对奴隶制和殖民主义。
  • [26:14] Zerba 将这些关系与那些明确邀请通过荷马影响和改编进行分析的作品区分开来。

多形态荷马与四个组织性比喻

  • [27:38] 该书将《奥德赛》视为多形态传统,而非单一权威起源。
  • [28:14] Zerba 指出荷马多文本项目对这种思维方式很重要。
  • [29:52] 拼贴和并置帮助她避免与荷马进行单独的逐作者比较。
  • [30:26] 组织性比喻是扩散与混合、岛屿与孤立、通道与迂回,以及回归与分裂结局。

Casey Dué 论口头传统与伏击诗学

  • [32:51] Dué 强调荷马史诗既可以是传统的又可以是流动的。
  • [34:29] 多形态性的概念避免将某一版本视为原作,而将所有其他形式视为从属。
  • [36:08] 手稿证据和页边评注揭示了多种流传形式和解释。
  • [37:19] 奥德修斯的克里特故事显示出对《奥德赛》可能展开的替代方式的意识。
  • [41:36] 伏击、欺骗和间接夺取特洛伊将叙事间接性与战争形式联系起来。
  • [43:34] 演讲得出结论,变异是口头传统的正常特征。

Laura Jansen 论《奥兰多》与接受的边界

  • [46:25] Jansen 考虑对《奥德赛》和《奥兰多》的侧向阅读如何使不同的主体性进入视野。
  • [48:44] 倾斜性提供了一种讨论并非直接引用的古典记忆和联想的方式。
  • [51:40] 她问缺席和非常微弱的联系能为现代写作中的古代研究贡献什么。
  • [52:54] 她的问题涉及接受能否容纳这些方法,或者是否需要不同的学科词汇。

Adam Lecznar 论塞泽尔持续的旅程

  • [55:11] Lecznar 跟随塞泽尔超越其回归诗的连续版本,进入后来的艺术和政治发展。
  • [57:43] 他描述了向历史主题和悲剧戏剧的转变,伴随着对集体经验的更多关注。
  • [1:00:24] 他问与《奥德赛》的接触是否代表一位作家职业生涯的特定阶段。
  • [1:01:00] 塞泽尔的火山意象引发了对物理环境和内在体验如何塑造诗歌的讨论。
  • [1:03:22] 与乔伊斯的比较提出了关于内部和外部地理相互作用的问题。

Patrice Rankine 论边界、归属与后人类

  • [1:05:10] Rankine 考虑文本的界限、种族归属和人类范畴。
  • [1:07:04] 他探索当古典传统的等级模型和强文本联系失去权威时,什么成为可能。
  • [1:10:36] 他将这本书与质疑单一 racial 归属叙述的黑人研究学术并列。
  • [1:12:33] 对哈特曼和贝斯特的讨论使关于无复杂性地回归非洲或恢复亲缘关系的想法变得复杂。
  • [1:16:19] 后人类提供了另一个语境来思考身份和等级制度是如何被建构的。
  • [1:17:40] 数字学术可以重新配置关联,并挑战关于文本边界和叙事闭合的假设。

理查德·阿姆斯特朗论卡瓦菲的离散希腊主义

  • [1:20:26] 阿姆斯特朗将卡瓦菲的离散希腊主义与以雅典为中心的古典课程形成对比。
  • [1:22:04] 卡瓦菲的历史人物凸显了地理和时间的混合,旅程本身成为中心。
  • [1:23:50] 《奥德赛》也穿行于边缘环境,包含失落和失败,而非直截了当的胜利。
  • [1:25:36] 卡瓦菲的人物结合了文化依附、混杂性、妥协和狡黠。
  • [1:28:30] 涉及希腊化犹太人物的例子揭示了希腊文化主张内部的张力。
  • [1:32:06] 诗作《爱希腊者》尖锐化了希腊身份和文化可被定位在何处的问题。

泽尔巴的回应:修正方法、专业知识和受众

  • [1:34:55] 泽尔巴为考察改编和历史接触的接受研究保留了一席之地。
  • [1:35:46] 她主张,扩大经典也需要关注作家对继承等级制度的抵抗的方法。
  • [1:38:23] 多重、混杂和流动的主体性需要尊重其复杂性的解释形式。
  • [1:40:56] 小组将文化阅读描述为多种经验的汇聚,而非单一的传承路线。
  • [1:42:10] 讨论转向更广泛的受众以及将不同读者带入学术对话的可能性。
  • [1:43:27] 泽尔巴将间接性扩展到哲学对话、神话、秘仪和秘密话语。

结尾问题中的互文性、词汇和忠实性

  • [1:46:59] 一个关于互文性的问题开启了对用于接近难以表达的经验的语言的讨论。
  • [1:49:25] 泽尔巴挑战文学作品是完全自足的对象的假设,并倾向于由作品本身塑造的批评语言。
  • [1:52:19] 小组考虑了倾斜性、间接性、迂回与异化经验之间的关系。
  • [1:53:32] 泽尔巴呼吁更富表现力的词汇,同时承认某些模糊性可能仍有生产力。
  • [1:54:46] 她解释说,忠实性并非她书中比较的主导问题。
  • [1:57:11] 扬森通过博尔赫斯接触荷马的经历说明阅读不必从古代源头开始。
  • [1:59:04] 闭幕讨论强调个人阅读史涉及汇聚的影响,并不遵循单一的文化年表。

[0:18] 好的,欢迎,晚上好——在美国这里是晚上好,如果你在加利福尼亚,下午好,如果你从英国或欧洲大陆加入我们,非常感谢你熬夜加入我们。我是休斯顿大学的理查德·阿姆斯特朗,我将担任今天网络研讨会的主持人,研讨会由华盛顿特区的希腊研究中心赞助。我们特别感谢拉娜·科尔和艾莉·马布里在帮助我们组织这次活动方面的出色协助。这将是一场为期两小时的讨论,关于米歇尔·泽尔巴的新书《现代奥德赛:卡瓦菲、伍尔夫、塞泽尔与间接诗学》,与作者本人以及一些渴望加入的同事进行讨论。

[0:58] 稍后,我将更详细地介绍泽尔巴教授,但让我先介绍我们的 fellow 参与者。和我一起在休斯顿的是凯西·杜阿,休斯顿大学古典研究教授,著有数本关于希腊史诗和悲剧的书,并且是荷马多文本项目的长期领导者和合作者,这与我们今天的讨论直接相关。在英国,我们有劳拉·扬森。布里斯托大学古典学和比较文学高级讲师,著有数本关于接受问题的书,涉及安妮·卡森和豪尔赫·路易斯·博尔赫斯等人物。

[1:29] 并且是与布鲁姆斯伯里合作编写的关于20世纪古典接受的激动人心的系列丛书的主编。同样在英国的是亚当·莱茨纳,伦敦大学学院名誉研究员、研究员。著有最近由剑桥大学出版社出版的关于尼采之后的狄俄尼索斯的专著,以及关于黑大西洋古典主义的合编卷,以及其他关于古典接受的各种论文,包括关于艾梅·塞泽尔的研究。最后但同样重要的是帕特里斯·兰金,我母校芝加哥大学的古典学教授,著有《亚里士多德在黑人戏剧中:黑人公民不服从的剧场》、《尤利西斯在空白中》。

[2:06] 呃,拉尔夫·埃里森,拉尔夫·埃里森:非裔美国文学中的古典主义,以及《牛津美洲希腊戏剧手册》的联合编辑,以及许多其他接受研究。现在你刚刚听到我在这里多次提到接受这个词。而这正是今天讨论的中心。在过去的25年里,我们见证了古典研究领域的惊人转变,曾经被称为古典传统的东西已经演变为复数的古典接受,一个挑衅性地称为后古典主义的东西,对深层古典的兴趣,以及越来越关注全球古典,或者根据世界文化和文学重新定位古代文化。

[2:45] Michelle Zerba 的书是对这场持续讨论的重要贡献。稍后,她本人将简要阐述这本书的论点,以及根据她所说的“间接诗学”来阅读荷马、卡瓦菲、弗吉尼亚·伍尔夫、艾梅·塞泽尔的阅读策略。我与艾伦·米勒共同担任俄亥俄州立大学出版社“古典记忆,现代身份”丛书的编辑,本书即由该丛书出版。从一开始我就必须说,我们对它采取的方向感到非常兴奋。我们认为这些讨论对我们职业的未来至关重要,我们希望您通过在网上研讨会中提出问题来参与其中。

[3:18] 巧合的是,我们的丛书今天也在网上启动了一场关于丛书中另一本书的研讨会,即马里奥·特洛的《档案情感:希腊悲剧理论》,五位学者已提交书面回应,将从今天起在 syndicate.network 上于未来几周内发表。现在,在 Zerba 教授大致概述本书要点之后,我们每位参与者将主持约 5-10 分钟的讨论。然后我们将依次进行,再回到 Michelle,之后我们将继续这场一般性讨论。

[3:49] 所以请随时通过网上研讨会聊天向我们发送您的问题,我们会尽可能将其纳入讨论。回到我们的作者,Michelle Zerba 是路易斯安那州立大学的 Maggie B. Martin 修辞学与古典研究教授,并在英语系和世界语言与文学系有联合聘任。她的研究和教学跨越希腊和罗马文学、哲学与修辞学、文艺复兴戏剧以及古典接受中的政治理论等领域。她对古代与现代交汇处出现的问题特别感兴趣。

[4:19] 她曾获得美国国家人文基金会、雅典美国古典研究学院、法国政府大学合作基金以及美国大学妇女协会的资助。她的出版物包括由普林斯顿大学出版社出版的《悲剧与理论》,由剑桥大学出版社出版的《古代与文艺复兴怀疑主义中的怀疑》,抱歉,是《古代与文艺复兴怀疑主义中的怀疑》。本书《现代奥德赛》,以及诺顿批评版亚里士多德《诗学》。她目前还在撰写一本书,题为《秘仪起源:厄琉息斯秘仪的文化史》。

[4:50] 现在我将把时间交给 Michelle Zerba。好的,非常感谢你,Richard,感谢你慷慨而热情的 introduction。也感谢各位观众在百忙之中抽出时间今天加入我们。嗯,我要感谢哈佛希腊研究中心主办这次活动。呃,我非常荣幸能参与其中。嗯,我还要感谢俄亥俄州立大学出版社的编辑 Ana Jimenez Moreno,我想她今天可能也在我们中间。

[5:22] 呃,正是她找到了那份后来成为我们将要讨论的这本书的手稿。但我尤其要感谢 Richard Armstrong 和 Paul Miller,他们是“古典记忆,现代身份”丛书的共同编辑。特别是 Richard,在过去几年中一直是一位极其支持我的编辑和同事。我非常感激他。嗯,最后但同样重要的是,我要感谢今天加入我们的杰出小组成员,特别是你们中那些嗯,在英格兰 10 点钟深夜的人。

[5:58] 呃,你们的工作对我非常有启发性,我希望我们今天的讨论能够打开新的探究之门。我现在要切换到屏幕共享 PowerPoint。让我来操作一下,你们都能看到吗?是的。我们没问题吧?是的。好的。在 1900 年,南爱琴海安提基特拉岛海岸附近的海绵潜水员发现了一处水下沉船,这是一艘可追溯到公元前一世纪下半叶的希腊货船的残骸。

[6:47] 正如这些照片所示,该遗址的发掘工作持续了 20 世纪的大部分时间,并延续到 21 世纪。嗯,在 1912 年,或者更确切地说 2012 年,当右边这张照片拍摄时,仍有一批陶罐尚未从深海中打捞出来。现在,从这个遗址中抢救出的许多珍贵文物中,最著名的一件就是被称为安提基特拉机械的装置。

[7:24] 这是一个精巧的数学和天文装置,引起了广泛关注。它常被称为世界上第一台模拟计算机。它引起了广泛关注,试图重建其可能工作原理的努力包含在幻灯片右侧的这些图像中。但除了安提基特拉机械之外,这尊不寻常的雕像也从深海中被打捞上来,它被鉴定为奥德修斯。

[8:00] 这尊布满藤壶、饱经风霜的雕像看起来完全就像嗯,我们在荷马史诗中遇到的那个饱经苦难的狡黠之人。呃,他失去了双手和一条腿。嗯,他对我今天演讲至关重要,原因我现在将简要说明。呃,安提基特拉,呃,奥德修斯,正如人们所称,是 2016 年在雅典国家考古博物馆举办的一场名为“奥德赛”的展览的中心展品。

[8:39] 这,嗯,这尊安提基特拉奥德修斯是众多文物之一,嗯,这些文物被安置在展览举办地的大厅和房间中。安提基特拉发现物的大部分,我应该说,实际上收藏在雅典国家考古博物馆,但他是展览中展出的众多跨越数个世纪的文物之一,在房间的墙壁上投影着 C.P. 的现代希腊诗歌片段。

[9:16] 卡瓦菲、乔治·塞菲里斯、扬尼斯·里索斯和奥德修斯·埃利蒂斯。瓦格利斯·帕帕萨纳西乌将抒情音乐通过管道送入大厅。唤起长途旅行和破碎归乡的苦乐参半的变迁。现在我提起这个展览,是因为它启发了我的书。它并没有启发这本书的起始,但它启发了这本书的组织结构。

[9:48] 策展人通过将奥德修斯雕像与来自其他旅程和其他历史的后期文物环绕在一起,邀请观众进行联想,这些联想是暗示性的、共鸣的、间接的,并且同样由缺席和在场引发。同样由可见之物和必须想象之物引发。

[10:22] 我认为,这种组织形式可以用于为批评性地探讨《奥德赛》这首诗设计一个框架。这正是我参观展览时所需要的。我当时正在研究一组与荷马史诗只有微弱联系的文学作品。这些作品最终出现在我的书页中。现在,展品引发了其他想法。

[10:57] 长期以来,我一直着迷于这样一个事实:归乡和史诗——荷马称之为“nostos”——既不是诗中的稳定中心,奥德修斯也不是直接接近它。《奥德赛》通过漫长曲折的旅程间接地演绎归乡,甚至当奥德修斯抵达伊萨卡后,他还必须在自己家中曲折地徘徊。

[11:29] 《奥德赛》的结构围绕延迟、推迟和延期展开。这一直是学术研究长期关注的话题,并可追溯到古代的skolia。一些最著名的延迟包括:主人公在诗的前四卷中仅从竞争性的视角侧面出现,直到第四卷后才占据中心舞台。抵达伊萨卡后,他反复冒充克里特人,并编造关于自己身份、来历和所受苦难的虚假故事。

[12:10] 当他最终被揭穿身份后,他必须立即再次离开伊萨卡进行第二次旅行。这是一次内陆之旅,将带他到一个人们不认识海洋的地方,那里的人认为他手中携带的桨是一把扬谷扇。因此,我认为诗中这种延迟和推迟策略的标志性形象是佩涅洛佩本人,她织了又拆的行为非常著名。

[12:46] 在这张幻灯片上由多拉·惠勒呈现的图像中,你可以看到,首先,让我说,惠勒决定不画佩涅洛佩,而是编织她。这是一块丝绸刺绣布,显示佩涅洛佩在夜间编织或拆解她白天编织的东西。我想让你注意她的位置,这在佩涅洛佩艺术中非常常见。那就是她从侧面被间接地看到。

[13:20] 现在,nostos的曲折性在诗中与metis的曲折性密切相关,metis即狡黠,这是奥德修斯的关键性格特征,也是佩涅洛佩的关键性格特征。而metis,或狡黠,是一种实践智慧,以狡猾、有角度和间接的方式解决问题。它们共同传达了诗中的一种感觉:真相是一个弯曲的东西,难以在露天流通。

[14:00] 这种弯曲性,这种侧向接近事物的方式,似乎内置于《奥德赛》的荷马式叙事本身。事实上,《奥德赛》常被谈论为元诗性的,因为它依靠自己的人物来反思自己的讲故事和制造意义的方式。这种弯曲性在《奥德赛》中的效果是,这首诗似乎故意干扰自己的归乡。

[14:39] 为什么会这样,什么样的真相在游荡?现在这些问题在我看来与《奥德赛》中非常根本的问题紧密相连。它们反映了诗中个人和集体身份出现时的冲突。它们指向不仅人类主体中的断裂和分裂,而且指向家庭和国家这些基本社会单位中的断裂和分裂。

[15:11] 它们谈到了战争的破坏、压力下心灵的脆弱,也谈到了骗子人物奥德修斯的资源。现在这些都不是对《奥德赛》的新见解,但我想以尚未尝试过的方式接近它们。我特别试图发展一种批评词汇和思考间接性——方式——间接表达方式——以倾斜方式讲述的方式。

[15:47] 我试图发展这种词汇,以尊重这首诗邀请我们谈论这一点的方式。我在这项事业中很早就学到的是,在试图创建一种批评词汇来谈论《奥德赛》的狡黠和间接性的过程中,我不断违背传统和影响的概念,这些概念标志着现在所谓接受研究的大部分内容。

[16:24] 它也利用了我自己的努力,也利用了该领域其他人最近沿着类似路线工作的努力,并想象诸如深层古典学、后古典主义、边缘古典学、切线古典学等项目。现在对我来说,施加在我项目上的压力来自我正在研究与《奥德赛》相关的文学作品。

[16:55] C.P. 卡瓦菲、弗吉尼亚·伍尔夫、艾梅·塞泽尔。这些作家来自全球非常不同的地区——地中海、加勒比、盎格鲁欧洲英国——而我正在研究的作品与《奥德赛》深度共鸣,却没有直接接触它。这些作家常被归入国际或全球现代主义的范畴,他们各自以不同的方式追踪不寻常的旅程,在卡瓦菲的例子中源于同性恋欲望。

[17:38] 在伍尔夫的情况下,涉及非规范性取向;在塞泽尔的情况下,涉及种族意识。这些旅程尚未进入文学表达。现在我将它们放在一起,因为它们使得研究20世纪初涌现的反主体性成为可能,这些反主体性持续塑造着我们对现代性的观念。

[18:09] 我们仍在非常努力地创造语言和思维方式,以便思考和讨论当时被视为可憎、边缘、任性的事物。卡瓦菲的诗歌涵盖了广泛的历史主题,他实际上经常自称是一位历史诗人。这些主题并非取自欧洲启蒙运动的古典希腊,而是来自晚期古代、拜占庭以及黎凡特侨民群体的世界。

[18:52] 卡瓦菲写了许多情色相遇的诗,沿着小亚细亚王国的有时是品牌,但常常是破败的道路,在混合人口的东地中海城镇和城市贫民区。在这里,隐秘的情色触摸和匆匆一瞥带来了罕见的顿悟时刻。在幻灯片上,我向你们展示了大卫·霍克尼的一些素描,这些是他为一本名为《14 卡瓦菲诗选》的翻译准备的。

[19:34] 霍克尼本人利用卡瓦菲的漫游诗来探索自己的同性恋遭遇。在这部地中海写作中,同性恋和流散有着深刻的联系。卡瓦菲偏爱间接和斜叙的风格,不仅因为他的主题当时受到审查,还因为他发现了暗示和半隐藏事物的力量。

[20:10] 他刻意回避与古典希腊的宏伟相关的主题。对此有一些例外,我们可以在问答&中讨论。卡瓦菲斯的朋友伊恩·福斯特曾将他描述为‘一个完全静止地站在与宇宙略有角度的位置的人’。在《奥兰多》中,弗吉尼亚·伍尔夫带我们穿越几个世纪和大陆,描绘了一个活了350年的人物,在此过程中只衰老了36年,并在君士坦丁堡——古代的拜占庭,现代的伊斯坦布尔——经历了神秘的性别转变。

[20:59] 伍尔夫的作品副标题为“一部传记”,但这是一部虚构的传记,算是吧。因为奥兰多在各方面都是间接的,因为它呈现了一种彻底侧面的尝试,来处理她与维塔·萨克维尔-韦斯特的关系,维塔在右边的这些照片中呈现给你。伍尔夫讽刺了大部分英国文学史,同时避开古典模式并摒弃传统体裁。

[21:36] 她在《奥兰多》中谈到了心灵的幻影,并将其描述为异类相遇的地方。不断涌现的思想、感受和欲望不允许直接正面处理。当然,她因在《奥兰多》之外的作品中采用实验性方式而闻名。伍尔夫在倾斜中找到了她捕捉构成性和性别的多形态自我所需的策略。

[22:14] 读她的作品时,人会感觉到航行在密集的切线文学遭遇的海洋中,这些遭遇彻底去中心化,并且仅在她明亮的诗意散文中勉强连贯。对右边照片的几点评论,它们确实是维塔·萨克维尔-韦斯特的,但你会注意到在说明中她被标识为奥兰多。弗吉尼亚实际上从一开始就计划拍摄这类照片并将它们纳入《奥兰多》。

[22:51] 她说服维塔为这些照片摆姿势,而维塔对此并不舒服。大多数照片是由弗吉尼亚的妹妹凡妮莎·贝尔拍摄的。维塔虽然抗拒这个想法,但还是默许了,但她在给弗吉尼亚的信中抱怨说,她感觉自己像是商店橱窗里的蜡像,上面挂着衣服和珠宝,换句话说,一个人体模型。然而,这些照片见证了真实与虚构、现实与想象、历史与虚构之间界限的模糊,或者伍尔夫在她的一篇散文中称之为“花岗岩与彩虹”。

[23:41] 塞泽尔在《返乡笔记》中深入奴隶制和殖民主义的熔炉,他是第一位这样做的加勒比作家。他努力通过想象来召唤在非洲奴隶贸易的深渊中被吞没的东西。这在诗中被体验为不透明和海底萦绕的区域。塞泽尔尝试或试图拼凑只存在于碎片中的经验的记忆的策略。

[24:21] 他的动作不是直接的,而是间接的、迂回的,并且常常涉及接近和回避。他深深浸淫于西方传统,尤其是希腊和拉丁传统,因为他在巴黎高等师范学院获得了高级学位。但他的作品常常——尽管不总是——避开西方文学形式。因此,试图将他纳入源头与派生、原型与复制的标准模型,不仅可能在批评上迟钝,甚至可能冒犯。

[24:59] 鉴于这个诗歌项目的激进性质,即去殖民化加勒比心灵。左边的画作是巴勃罗·毕加索的作品。它——被收录在塞泽尔的一本名为《Corps Perdu》或《失落的身体》的诗集中,出版于1950年。不过,它也被用于宣传第一届国际黑人作家和艺术家大会的海报,该大会于1956年在巴黎举行。

[25:38] 这里的中间那幅图像出自著名的古巴画家维弗雷多·拉姆。它经常被收录在关于“黑人性”的文集里,而“黑人性”这一概念是塞泽尔帮助缔造的,我们可以在问答环节&中讨论它。而右边的这幅图像是位于格林纳达海岸附近的水下雕塑之一,就在委内瑞拉海岸附近,由贾森·德凯雷斯·泰勒创作,是加勒比海底景象的萦绕人心的图像。

[26:14] 所以我在书中谈论的是小写的“奥德赛”,它们实践一种迂回的诗学,并不起源于《奥德赛》,也不把它当作原型来接近。在这里用比较的方式来思考可能会有帮助。乔伊斯的《尤利西斯》、庞德的《诗章》、H.D.的《埃及的海伦》以及卡赞扎基斯的《奥德赛:续篇》,这些都是古典现代主义中直接与这首古诗对话的著名作品,它们召唤出一种关于传统、影响和改编的批评话语,正如这些概念在主流接受研究中所被运用的那样。

[27:03] 我应该说明,所有这些作品在近期的批评中都得到了精彩的探讨,如果没有那些工作,我写的这本书就绝不可能完成。但在配置卡瓦菲、伍尔夫和塞泽尔时,我试图把其他形式的关系带入视野。这些作家——尽管有一些重要的例外——并不拥抱影响和改编,而是常常回避与起源和古代经典文本的直接接触。

[27:38] 因此,他们呼唤的是尊重他们所做出的姿态、与倾斜讲述的方式相契合的方法。所以《现代奥德赛》是对古典影响与接受这些基本概念之解构的一份贡献。我所使用的一些策略列在这张幻灯片上。我试图把《奥德赛》不是当作原始文本、不是当作源泉或来源,而是当作一种多形态来对待。

[28:14] 当作一个在古代就已经以许多不同方式被讲述的故事。在一个活态的口头传统中,我们已无法接触到某些要素并追踪它们。其中一些痕迹就在《奥德赛》本身之中。荷马多文本项目——你们许多人知道它,凯西几分钟后会谈到它——对我构想和理论化多形态荷马的后果提供了巨大的帮助。

[28:47] 荷马多文本项目以奇异的方式展示了古代口头领域与当代数字领域是如何正在汇聚的。我还为这个项目发展了四个松散配置的转义。转义取其基本含义,即倾向、转向、趋势,捕捉旅程的各个方面。这些转义只是松散地属于荷马式的。

[29:18] 它们并非取自荷马研究,尽管我在塑造它们时思考过荷马研究;它们并非荷马所著。这些是我不得不拼合起来的一个批评建构的要素,我从诗歌和小说中折衷地汲取它们。我在书中抵制的一件事是以作者为主导的章节。所以我尽量不写一本有关于荷马与卡瓦菲、荷马与塞泽尔、荷马与伍尔夫的章节的书。

[29:52] 相反,我试图做的是以多重组合来组织单元,我朝着随笔式的写作风格努力,常常使用拼贴和并置的技巧,以便引出沿着弱连接线索工作意味着什么。所以我现在要以这最后一张幻灯片收尾了,在幻灯片中我给你们我的书的目录,这样你们就能大致看到我所应对的一些挑战。

[30:26] 我确实保持了章节的组织结构。这主要是因为我的编辑告诉我必须这样做。“没有章节的书卖不出去”,他们说,所以我保留了章节,但我围绕四个转义来组织它们:扩散与混合、岛屿与孤立、通道与迂回、回归与分裂的结局。我确实以关于荷马的文章开篇。而且,尽管我试图在某种意义上解除作者权威、去文本化,以这种新方式开展文学研究,我还是保留了我在前言中提到的那些作者,因为我想让这本书对只想了解卡瓦菲或只想了解塞泽尔的人足够友好。

[31:14] 他们可以查阅书中的章节来了解如何做到这一点。所以,在开展这类项目时,你无法完全摆脱你试图摆脱的那些限制。但我想让你们看到我尝试运用迂回概念的一些方式。说到这里,我将停止共享,回到这里的画廊视图,然后要么回到理查德,要么回到凯西,我想他是接下来要就这个项目发言的人。

[31:48] 没错。我们现在将进行一组简短的回应,由那些特别熟悉你书中特定方面的人来发言。我们将从我在休斯顿的同事凯西·杜开始,尤其是针对《奥德赛》的回应。好的,太好了。希望大家都能听到我并看到我的幻灯片?实际上我要按一下播放,确保它能用。好的。太棒了。非常感谢你邀请我,米歇尔。

[32:20] 我的意思是,即使就在你刚才的演讲中,我也学到了很多。你知道,尽管我研究荷马多文本项目、思考它、构想它已经超过20年了,我总是告诉人们我们真的才刚刚开始。我们真的只是打下了基础,然后还有更多的工作要做,而你想要探讨其含义并与之合作。所以,听到你所说的一切,我真是太激动了。

[32:51] 那么让我简短地说,每当我试图把荷马史诗理解为一个多形态的、诗歌传统时。我都会回到古代性和流动性的概念。我试图解释这些,这是一个动态的传统,但它也是传统的,这很难——这很难概念化。但在思考这个、这个、这个、这个古代性时,我、我总是回到,你知道,这幅来自皮洛斯青铜时代遗址的壁画。

[33:27] 所以,你知道,这几乎是在《伊利亚特》和《奥德赛》任何类似文本固定化之前近一千年。我们看到,我喜欢想象一位史诗诗人,表演一首史诗歌曲,也许类似《伊利亚特》或《奥德赛》。显然艺术家将歌曲想象为一只鸟。这让我当然想到那句著名的、传统的程式化短语“有翼的话语”,你在史诗中一次又一次地看到它。

[33:58] 这不是唯一的例子。我们还有这个晚期米诺斯陶盒,展示了一位音乐家,也许是一位史诗诗人,而歌曲似乎被概念化为鸟类。我展示这些只是为了再次强调古代性,但也强调流动性,即歌曲被设想为在飞行中。它是某种一旦说出就飞走的东西。它不是被钉住的,不是僵化的。它是动态的。

[34:29] 在制作《荷马多文本》时,我们深受穆伦·佩里和阿尔伯特·洛德工作的影响,尤其是阿尔伯特·洛德关于“多形态”一词的论述。他、他、他写道:“‘多形态’一词比‘变体’更准确,因为它不偏好或优先任何一词或一组词来表达一个想法;相反,它承认这个想法可以以多种形式存在。”所以我认为这与米歇尔的工作很好地结合在一起。

[35:00] 不存在一个或文本以及从中衍生的一切。相反,存在——这是一个多形态传统。有《奥德赛》的实例,有《伊利亚特》的实例,但没有一个单一文本是其他一切变异的来源。不幸的是,你知道,对史诗传统的这种理解与你研究生院学习如何处理古代文本时所教的一切相悖,对吧?

[35:31] 因为他们、许多古典学者的目标是确立文本。制作文本,然后,你知道,将其确立为正确文本,其他一切只是你知道的,你放在页面最底部以显示你从中制作文本的东西。对吧。但是,但这暗示存在一个正确文本,其他一切只是,你知道的,辅助性的。所以我、我试图,你知道,表明传播的现实,尤其是《伊利亚特》的传播,远比那复杂得多。

[36:08] 而且,我们必须对《伊利亚特》和《奥德赛》采取多文本方法。这张所谓公元10世纪的Venetus A的幻灯片,已经,它是一个多形态文件。它是《伊利亚特》最古老的所谓完整文本。然而它充满了多形态性,在行间、内边距、外边距、注释的主体中,有如此多关于文本其他可能方式的讨论。

[36:38] 对。因此,当我说对荷马史诗采取多文本方法时,是指我不基于一个人写了一个文本的想法来做出我的解释或学术研究,而是基于在不同时间不同地点已知的许多文本实例。所以,总结一下,更合适的说法是多形态而非原始文本和变体,更合适的是将我们遇到的每个传世的《奥德赛》和《伊利亚特》视为一个概念性文本的实例,该文本以某种方式既是传统的又是流动的。

[37:19] 哦,理查德通过文本告诉我我剪掉了一点,但我还在,我现在在吗?你现在能听到我吗?好的,好。对此抱歉。你随时可以 later 提问。哦等等,不,我要、我要继续讲Venetus A。现在,米歇尔在她的书中精彩地谈论了克里特谎言。我也经常喜欢谈论它们,作为不仅多形态性的例子,因为奥德修斯讲述的故事,可能是《奥德赛》。

[37:55] 但也展示了对多形态性的意识。换句话说,《奥德赛》知道自己是多形态的。当然,我们从开篇诗句就能看到这一点,奥德修斯和他的标志性称号Polutropos,他可以变成许多不同的东西,他是一个变色龙,他有许多转变,你知道,他基本上是多形态的,这就是Polutropos告诉我们的。但克里特在这些克里特谎言中某种程度上象征着多形态性和间接性的理念。

[38:29] 当然,克里特有着与替代性、替代故事相关联的悠久历史。有那个寓言,我是说,那个、你怎么称呼它,那个、那个、那个、那个典型短语,“所有克里特人都是骗子”。但然后,你知道,除了与替代诗学和不同讲故事方式、其他版本相关联之外,克里特还与替代性战争、伏击、特种作战相关联,对吧。

[39:02] 而且,当然这一切都由Métis主导。所以奥德修斯标志性的Metis特质,即狡猾的智慧,在《伊利亚特》中与克里特相关联,来自克里特的英雄伊多墨纽斯和墨里俄涅斯是给我们最完整描述伏击的人,你知道,作为男人勇气最展示的地方。这些史诗的观众也非常清楚史诗的多形态性,一个很好的例子是,我认为,你知道,是在克里特谎言中,奥德修斯告诉欧迈俄斯的那一个,他谈到他们如何得到、如何在特洛伊前某天晚上设置伏击。

[39:51] 于是他把这个故事讲给欧迈俄斯听,他讲到自己是多么寒冷,以至于他,他,他告诉,他,他基本上是骗了某个人跑回船上去。于是他得到了,他得到了他们的斗篷,对吧?他得到了那个跑回船上去的士兵的斗篷。但是,听众,当然,欧迈俄斯理论上并不知道这就是奥德修斯,他仍然在伪装中。

[40:23] 但在《伊利亚特》第10卷中,这一卷发生了伏击和夜袭,所有英雄,或者说他们的衣着,在他们夜间外出参加第一次夜间集会时都被精心描述。而唯一没有斗篷的人就是奥德修斯。所以就有了这一整套关于斗篷、关于欺骗、伪装和揭示的东西,而奥德修斯当然,你知道,在暗示他是谁。听众肯定也会知道。

[40:55] 但是,而且,而且,而且有趣的是,这整个动态中有一个有趣的额外层次,即在这个特定的谎言中,我们有一个对《伊利亚特》第10卷的暗示,对《多隆尼亚》的暗示,就是,就是,就是狄俄墨得斯和奥德修斯进行夜袭并最终伏击了瑞索斯和,和,和他的手下的那一卷。所以,当然,这一卷,是,我记得之前可能提到过,也许是在大家到齐之前,但我们当时在讨论这一卷是探讨伏击诗学的一卷,或者说是我和我的同事玛丽·埃博特合写的一本关于《多隆尼亚》的书。

[41:36] 它探讨的是,是,是伏击的诗学,或者说洛科斯特,洛科斯特。伏击的诗学基本上就是,你知道,伏击是一种斜向或间接的作战方式,对吧?当你无法进行全力 assault,当常规战斗——你,你知道,把所有力量都投向城墙——在10年后仍然不奏效时,你该怎么办?你得试试别的办法。你得试试间接的方式。当然,特洛伊只有通过间接的方式,即木马,才陷落。

[42:09] 所以第10卷是我们的那一卷,充满了间接性,和,和,和,和替代的诗学以及墨提斯的诗学。它与《奥德赛》共享大量程式化语言。所以非常有趣的是,即使在古代,或者,你知道,也有人怀疑这一卷可能不属于《伊利亚特》,我是说《伊利亚特》第10卷。所以,这里是汤利手稿中关于《伊利亚特》第10卷的斯科利昂,“他们说这部史诗作品是由荷马单独编排的,”仍然是由荷马,但不属于《伊利亚特》的一部分,“它是由庇西特拉图编排进那首诗中的。”

[42:51] 所以,我不想对此多说,只是想指出,即使在古代,也有人怀疑《伊利亚特》第10卷在某种程度上是不同的。它像《奥德赛》,它也许不应该,也许与《伊利亚特》的其余部分不匹配,但当然我有关于原因的理论。好的。有几件事很快说一下。我要总结一下,很多这些想法,在八十年代就已经开始被,被,被塞尔基利尼在他的书中阐述,你知道,《变体的赞歌》,In Praise of the Variant。

[43:34] 而且,我只是,在那本书的某一处,他,他引用了拉蒙·梅嫩德斯·皮达尔。他在书中说,“史诗体裁只存在于变体中。”但如果你去查实际引文,你知道,并不,他并没有完全说对,但已经足够接近了。对吧。而且,变体不是偶然和不利的事故,而是歌谣的正常生活方式。换句话说,你知道,像这样的传统注定是多形态的。

[44:10] 它一直都会是多形态的。所以大问题是,我们如何应对多形态口头传统的诗学?我就在这里停下。谢谢。非常感谢。再次,只是说明一下形式,我们将有几位讨论者做这些简短的发言,然后继续由米歇尔回应。再次,如果你确实有问题,本次网络研讨会有一个特别的问答功能,你应该注意到,请把问题放在那里,我们会尽量回答,因为聊天也在处理其他问题。

[44:52] 现在作为礼貌,特别是为了熬夜到这么晚的劳拉·詹森,将让她发言,然后我们继续。当你回到我这时,你知道,我们,我们快结束了。太好了。非常感谢你的介绍,也非常感谢今晚邀请我来这里。谢谢你,米歇尔,感谢你精彩的书。所以在准备我的评论时,我花了相当多的时间思考,不是荷马的结合,或者特别是在我们听到的一切之后,对荷马这一观念,或我们称之为荷马的诗人的思考,以及弗吉尼亚·伍尔夫,米歇尔·泽尔巴在她引人入胜的书中考虑的 three 位现代主义作家之一。

[45:40] 我在想如何反思米歇尔在《奥德赛》和《奥兰多》的多价、深层时间结构中所追踪的非凡的间接政治,特别是就指导她研究两个相互关联的解释领域而言。第一个是她对如何 approach 古代与现代之间关系的重新思考,尤其是当古代与现代作者和文本之间的相遇,如米歇尔所说,不是正面的,而是斜向的,并且通过一个网络持续,该网络描绘了并排阅读两个文本的明显不同的动态。

[46:25] 而另一个维度则是通过这种修正性方法涌现出的丰富越界的反主体性。当人们追溯那些微妙地连接奥德修斯和奥兰多流浪回归的间接性根源时。最重要的是,我被间接性产生对《奥德赛》和《奥兰多》的横向理解和横向视野的方式所震撼。不仅在具体叙事内部,而且正如人们可以看到的,有四种转义,它们微弱地——这里我强调地使用引号——“微弱地”将它们联系在一起,尽管它们在穿越想象地理、在跨越时间跨度时有许多差异。

[47:15] 奥德修斯和奥兰多都被力量和海洋运动所牵引,如同扩散与混合、岛屿与孤立、通道与迂回、以及分裂末端回归的海洋运动。”正是这种循环形式,敏锐地表达了奥德修斯和奥兰多各自涌现的kleos和跨性别主体性。因此,这就是我接下来三四分钟想要进一步展开的内容,提供一些关于《现代奥德赛》对新兴的斜向研究——或者我想称之为切线古典系统——所作出的重要贡献的反思。

[48:03] 确实,我认为米歇尔这本精彩的书也可以题为《切线奥德赛》,关于现代主义写作的流浪旅程,讲述人类经验和越界如何边缘地却又极具创造性地与荷马自己的回归故事接触。米歇尔这本书的众多优点之一是,它邀请读者重新思考什么构成接受,既作为一种方法论也作为一个学科类别,以及我们如何扩展或确实重写这种实践的未来。

[48:44] 对我来说,这始于米歇尔天才地诉诸艾米莉·狄金森的诗《说出全部真相但要说偏》,其中“说偏”成为重新思考像伍尔夫这样的作者如何叙述奥兰多旅程的指导模型,将其作为在晚期维多利亚时代英格兰性别规范性内部通往跨性别的奥德修斯式航行。在这里,倾斜性和切线性的概念提供了一个更宽广的范式,用于描绘伍尔夫奥德赛式策略的“ pissy”特质,以及她的古典知识、观念、冲动、记忆、联想,甚至过度简化和不准确之处得以涌现并与她有趣的诗互动的隐含程度,但也包括间接性程度。

[49:46] 确实,人们可以想到她的小说《奥兰多》,它在350年的陡峭跨度中叙述了某人36年的生活,作为一个叙事角色随意地生活在《奥德赛》世界旁边,但不在其中。在这个意义上,人们在NBCT对《奥德赛》的狼式关注中发现了一种局限,通过传统古典接受途径的透镜,或在有意或无意继续守护通往她与荷马文学古典接触之方法的学科边界内。

[50:27] 例如,通过专门追踪古典参照的实质或斜向性,使它们能够说明并讲述一个重要的直接或相当大的出发点,从而使接受练习值得进行。米歇尔并非唯一以这种方式思考古今相遇的人。例如,古典学和古典传统学者越来越多地挖掘这类问题。

[51:03] 在她为接受与比较主义、希腊罗马戏剧表演档案所作的2021讲座中,艾米丽·格林伍德提请注意,当涉及学科边界的警觉性时,接受仍然可以追踪的问题,这常常揭示该子领域观点和方法的转变。在我自己的工作中,我试图主张更仔细地研究古典作为缺席的涌现。

[51:40] 你看,缺席作为一种转义,用于重新思考我们在追求古典在场时的所指和所求,尤其是在现代作者的情况下,对他们来说古代是一种诱人却几乎不存在的在场。而当影响的连接线似乎处于断裂点时,最后,从比较文学的学生那里有很多可学之处,他们也在挑战自己领域的知识边界和秩序。

[52:14] 就在上周,亚历山大·比克罗夫特就影响问题谈到了这个问题,他认为,我引用:“比较彼此邻近产生的事物很容易,由能够相互影响的人产生。传统上,比较文学比较的是密切接触的文学。起初是欧洲文学,后来是世界各地以欧洲语言书写的文学,有时甚至是非欧洲语言的当代文学,其中欧洲文学的影响显而易见。

[52:54] 但那些接触极少甚至几乎不存在的比较呢?那是我们应该尝试做的事情吗?”引文结束。所以我有一个相互关联的问题,对我、对你和米歇尔,也许我们可以稍后讨论。你设想你的重要研究在日益增长的接受事业批判中处于什么位置?其次,包括你自己的研究在内的这些新研究路线,是否集体可以被设定为属于接受本身的类别。

[53:35] 愿未来进一步、进一步、进一步扩展接受视野,还是接受可能变得过于限制性,成为一个捕捉新范式的术语?谢谢。非常感谢你,劳拉。那些绝对是核心问题。我们肯定会回到它们。但首先,让我们给一点时间给你在英国的夜猫子同伴。亚当,我们准备好让你加入了。

[54:07] 大家好。我这就共享屏幕做一个演示。非常感谢邀请我来发言。好的。那么正如我的第一张幻灯片所示,这只是我对米歇尔书中艾梅·塞泽尔(Aimé Césaire)所扮演角色的一些回应中的几点想法,以及我想,它让我思考了什么,以及我认为我们可以从中引出哪些问题。

[54:38] 所以首先,我们在这里一直在说的一件事是,《奥德赛》——我的意思是,当我们读到荷马《奥德赛》的结尾时,实际上我们并没有到达奥德修斯旅程的终点。这只是一个片段,而且实际上在奥德修斯神话般的一生中,有许多次旅程,不是吗,这次归乡只是其中之一。

[55:11] 而且我们被以预叙的方式告知了之后将要发生的所有事情。我也在艾梅·塞泽尔身上思考了这一点,思考在他写完米歇尔谈到的那首特定的诗《返乡笔记》(The Notebook of a Return to My Native Land)之后发生了什么。所以它最初的形式出现在1939左右,然后在1947年达到另一种形式,然后在1956年又达到另一种出版形式。

[55:45] 实际上,1956对艾梅·塞泽尔来说是至关重要的一年,无论在他的艺术生涯还是政治生涯方面都是如此,因为他既是艺术家又是政治家。所以,实际上是在1946,塞泽尔在苏联于1956十月入侵匈牙利后退出了法国共产党。

[56:18] 所以这就是他对法国共产党对这一行动的反应感到不满的一个原因,因为他认为这是苏联的帝国主义行为。而且也是因为他认为——他开始认为实际上共产党并不真正关心他以及其余的黑人族群,所以这就是他在这封著名信件中所包含的内容。

[57:06] 所以他有点选择了一条完全不同的政治道路——但引人注目的是,这也正是他开始发表悲剧作品的时刻。所以在1956年到1973年之间,他实际上——我记不清他是否完全没有发表诗歌,但他肯定主要发表的是悲剧,而这是他的第一部,你可以在幻灯片上看到它的图片。

[57:43] 我想这只是让我思考了塞泽尔在艺术和政治世界中继续他的奥德赛时所发生的一些艺术转变。所以一方面,这也是我在一篇关于塞泽尔的文章中论证的,一方面,我们看到从神话到历史的转变,以及从那种更史诗性的诗歌到这些悲剧戏剧的转变。所以他对那种标志性的——对自己身份以及对自己关于种族政治和种族身份观念的那种标志性和象征性再现不那么感兴趣了。

[58:31] 而他实际上对其历史维度以及可以从历史中学到什么变得更感兴趣。而这又符合另一个转变,即从个体到集体的转变。所以当他以更——当他以一种与荷马《奥德赛》更相关的模式写作时,对塞泽尔来说有更多的个体关注,他更感兴趣的是自己的旅程,既是回到马提尼克的旅程。也是在——和解可能不是正确的词,但只是思考自己的身份方面。

[59:09] 所以有一个从那种个体关注到更多——到更多对集体的关注的转变。所以他的戏剧几乎有更多的道德说教目的,试图教人们了解过去。而且还有这些转变,实际上有这两个从史诗到悲剧的转变,你可以从历史角度和艺术角度来理解。所以你可以理解在1939年,在《笔记》中,他对历史的兴趣更多是一种史诗模式。

[59:47] 他对海地革命及其成功之类的事情感兴趣,而当他经历他的悲剧作品时,他对历史的兴趣是一种悲剧性的东西。所以他对例如——他的其中一部悲剧是关于1960年帕特里斯·卢蒙巴(Patrice Lumumba)被暗杀。所以还有一个——所以在他思考历史的方式上有一个转变,但这在某种程度上伴随着这些艺术形式的转变。

[1:00:24] 所以他从史诗形式转向悲剧形式。因此,他对《奥德赛》的回应只是这段旅程的一部分这一想法,这是我希望我们思考的。而且特别是与我们正在谈论的其他艺术家相关。所以《奥德赛》在多大程度上——这些艺术家在多大程度上有一个荷马《奥德赛》阶段?

[1:01:00] 第二个想法是这种内部和外部地理的想法,像是那种内部的、心理的地理和外部现实世界的地理。我真的被米歇尔所写的关于塞泽尔描写马提尼克这座火山——培雷火山(Mount Pelé)的作品所打动,以及塞泽尔如何在附近长大。而他——几乎住在火山附近的经历影响了他对自己艺术的态度,他实际上把自己看作一个火山诗人,以及那是怎样的。

[1:01:44] 所以一方面,我认为这与灵感以及诗歌的自然力量之类的观念有关。但另一方面,思考火山的破坏性力量也让我想到詹姆斯·乔伊斯在描述他为何写作《尤利西斯》时所用的一句话。所以这显然是对《奥德赛》的另一种回应,正如米歇尔所评论的,更为直接,但他在谈到写作他对荷马《奥德赛》的回应时给出的理由之一是说:“我想给都柏林画一幅如此完整的图画,以至于如果这座城市有一天突然从地球上消失,它也能从我的书中被重建出来。”

[1:02:47] 那么一方面,这其实并不相同。这其实并不是你经常听到的关于乔伊斯《尤利西斯》的那个故事。你听到的关于乔伊斯《尤利西斯》的故事是非常内在的。它是关于意识流的。它是关于人类心理的,而这在米歇尔的书中相当多地体现出来,即人们如何应对不同形式的身份、不同形式的自身在世界中的定位方式。但我在想,显然当你读荷马《奥德赛》时,也有一段外在的旅程。

[1:03:22] 有一种观念认为,你在现实世界中从一个地方旅行到另一个地方。塞泽尔也是如此。他正前往马提尼克,而乔伊斯似乎也几乎如此,他正前往都柏林;他想为都柏林作出记述。于是我在想,那么我想这会把我们引向我有的两个问题。所以一方面,我们指的是我一开始所说的,我们是否认为对荷马《奥德赛》的典故构成了米歇尔所讨论的每一位艺术家职业生涯中一个独特阶段的组成部分,还是说这是塞泽尔所独有的?

[1:04:02] 其次我在想,为什么,为什么我们都认为——不仅是米歇尔——荷马《奥德赛》能帮助这些作者,以及其他作者,思考这些内在与外在地理的相互作用。所以,是的。太好了。非常感谢。这些是很棒的问题。我还要感谢艾伦·米勒和约瑟夫·阿索凯在问答&中提出的问题,并提醒大家那是可供你们查看的,我们会回到那些问题。

[1:04:34] 但现在,帕特里斯,让我们听听你的发言。大家好。再次感谢你邀请我,米歇尔。大家都应该知道这是一本出色的书,写得极好,以各种真正重要的方式唤起共鸣。那么,我也要共享屏幕。我想把我的10分钟用在解体、界限、边界这一理念上,至少从三个意义上讲。希望大家都看得到,也许小组里有人能给我竖个大拇指。太好了。谢谢。

[1:05:10] 文本的界限,这一直是我们所听到的,我指的是古典文本和当代文本两者。种族归属的界限,这本书确实开始发掘、唤起这一界限。第三,人的界限,人的界限。在某种程度上,当我们谈论斜视事物,或移动我们所创造、并已逐渐定义我们的叙事的边界时,我意识到斜视和跨越边界是两种不同的——即便相容的——比喻,我们实际上谈论的是一种死亡,或一种从一种形式向另一种形式的过渡。

[1:05:49] 在卡塔巴西斯之前,在冥府上升之前,我们必须遭遇祛魅或死亡,我们正在跨越一条边界。塞泽尔通过其圣徒图桑·卢维杜尔呈现了遭遇黑人性(Negritude)的可能性,作为一次死亡的跨越,因为米歇尔以咒语般的方式开启了卢维杜尔的定义。而且,对于那些一边慢跑一边做其他事情的人——我在跑步和做其他事情时经常听这些东西——我这就,我们面前有一张幻灯片,是塞泽尔作品中一段很长的引文,但我只读幻灯片上高亮的一小部分。

[1:06:31] “死亡在这个人上方划出一道闪亮的圆圈。死亡在他头顶上方轻柔地闪耀。死亡在他双臂成熟的甘蔗中呼吸,死亡在监狱中疾驰,像一匹白马。死亡在一个白色的沉默之池中消逝。”塞泽尔感兴趣的是从一种已然是死亡的黑,走向黑人性之黑的可能性,而卢维杜尔的形象引领着穿过黑暗。

[1:07:04] 但塞泽尔的诗歌和米歇尔的研究也揭示了另一种可能性,即一种基于等级制的古典传统的死亡,甚至是我们也一直听到的接受之终结,以及基于显明材料、有形接触点、至少是强关联的比较主义的终结。我也认为米歇尔书中的关联比我们一直所暗示的要强得多。这种祛魅在某些方面也许令人遗憾,这些事物的终结在某些方面也许令人遗憾,但在其他方面,如果我们能想象我们正在过渡进入什么,这些可能性是令人兴奋的。

[1:07:48] 在她对模糊关联的定义中——我想我记不太准确了,米歇尔,如果你,如果你引用了洛娜·哈德威克,我想你是引用了——但她提醒我们,她提醒我们,她的读者,意义是在诗人与受众之间的接受点上生成的,并大胆提出,用哈德威克的话说,迟来的艺术家很少是古典语文学家,更不用说熟悉原文本的语境了。

[1:08:21] 对于在接收点生成的这个意义,究竟可能存在多少种可能性?我正在展示一张幻灯片,上面是 The Weeknd 和 Da Baby 出现在 Kanye West 的《Hurricane》中,我在另一场演讲中也展示过这张图,他们在三美神旁边做着手势。我展示这个是为了暗示我们可能想象的无穷的、横向的位置。当我从古典的斜向角度来思考时,我想知道,Michelle 是否可以稍微谈谈她留下的那些并置。

[1:08:55] 我们已经听到了一些关于这方面的内容,那些为了那部精彩连贯的作品——即她的《现代奥德赛》——而被剪除的可能性。例如,鉴于 Adam 今天在场,我想到 Césaire,想到他在这个案例中的联系,这联系一点也不模糊,他把 Dion——与欧里庇得斯和尼采的狄俄尼索斯联系起来,Adam 在他的《尼采之后的狄俄尼索斯》一书中梳理了这一点。

[1:09:28] 我正在展示那些咒语般的重复,嗯,还有,呃,屏幕上显示的是法语,但我要读英文翻译。Eia,献给那些从未发明过任何东西的人,献给那些从未探索过任何东西的人,献给那些从未征服过任何东西的人。Eia,为了欢乐。Eia,为了爱。Eia,为了悲伤。这是彻底的,它诉说着转世重生的泪水。这些与《酒神的伴侣》中 Eia 的重复相比,颇具诱惑力。

[1:10:04] 也许在这里,Adam,我们正在打乱史诗与悲剧的联想,“Ο δ'εξαρχοσ βρομιοσ, ευοι. Ευια τον ευιον αγαλλομεναι θεον。”所以这里咒语的重复无疑是酒神式的。这不一定是为了提出一个接受史的论点,而是为了暗示从 Michelle 对修辞格的研究中生成的众多横向定位之一。

[1:10:36] 如果我们把她的书当作我们自己“下降”(Katabasis)的工具,即对我们所知之物进行消解,将其视为通往其他事物的通道。其中一条通道就是将《现代奥德赛》与几位黑人研究学者中正在发生的、对种族归属概念的质疑与增殖联系起来。所以我想在这里提出,这本书处于一个更广泛的学术语境之中,涉及各个领域,而我想强调的两个领域,首先是黑人研究,然后是后人类。

[1:11:15] 在她对 Césaire 的解读中,Michelle 提出,用她的话说,我这里只读这本书的一小段,“非洲再一次充当了一个至关重要的迂回,通向一个位于环绕安的列斯群岛和欧洲的通道之外的大陆。它通过深化可能理解二元关系的术语并扩展历史的视野,对一个二元关系进行了三角化。Césaire 将黑人性英雄卢维杜尔的形象,甚至意象,运送到了非洲。

[1:11:49] 他让他旅行,通过将 Césaire 与卡瓦菲斯和伍尔夫并置,闭合了欧洲与加勒比之间的三角通道。然而,Michelle 做了那种 Stephen Best 归功于 Eve Sedgwick 的“并置性”(besideness)的揭露,在 Best 看来,这种并置性提供了一条摆脱他所认为的二元思维的出路。这种并置性,或横向定位,这种迂回,揭示了通往非洲的路线并非不可避免,这个非洲也不是单一的事物。

[1:12:33] Saidiya Hartman 在她的《失去你的母亲》一书中质疑了 Paul Gilroy《黑色大西洋》中的那个概念——那个观念性的非洲,在那里,一次前往非洲、前往加纳的旅行,前往非洲、前往加纳,打乱了她对亲缘关系的幻想。在这里,我也只读 Hartman 书中的一小段,我们非裔美国人声称的是哪个非洲?非洲从来不是一个;从来就不曾是一个。

[1:13:04] 非洲仅仅是一个无人再能命名的失落之国的密码吗?它是我们无家可归的补救,还是一个让我们背弃我们称之为家的那个敌对国家的机会?还是说非洲也有未来?正如 Kwame Anthony Appiah 所说,身份是一种虚构,一个谎言。亲缘关系唤起,抱歉,亲缘关系在停留与离开中模棱两可,在 Judith Butler 关于亲缘关系的主旨演讲中所说的“破碎的纽带”的推拉之中。

[1:13:44] Hartman 在她加纳之行早期所表达的、关于离散者回归可能性的希望被打乱了,因为在美国奴役的社会性死亡所产生的亲缘关系希望,在非洲大陆上被揭示为更加令人忧虑。非洲和伊萨卡的家园一样,既是一种虚构,也是多重想象归属的集合。鉴于对困境(aporia)的领悟,Best 选择,或想象选择脱离关系、脱离情感而非联想的有效谬误,会是怎样的情形。

[1:14:25] 这里是 Stephen Best 的一段话。他说:“一次又一次,我出发去从档案中恢复某些东西,却在尝试中失败。但在每一次尝试中似乎被确认的,不是过去的顽固,而是我被狂喜地剥夺存在的程度。面对这一事实,我受到启发,要去构建一种并非忧郁的历史主义,而是接受过去的转身离去,作为我对它的渴望的一种伦理条件。

[1:15:00] 过去转身离去,消解了非洲,揭示出它迷失在历史的档案之中。但 Best 欢迎这种消解。Best 的书名为《无人似我们》。我们今天没有时间深入探讨,但只需说,这个书名源自 David Walker 的1833《致世界有色公民的呼吁》,在书中 Walker 向上帝祈祷,“愿无人似我们者得以重生,直到时间不复存在。”

[1:15:31] 如果不存在这样的人,不像我们这样的人,那么脱离关系、幻灭、死亡,就会战胜任何有效切除过去的可能性。任何黑人大西洋式的欢愉的可能性,都丧失在米歇尔与哈特曼和贝斯特一同认识到的孤立之中。在这里,再次非常符合我们过去大约10年里黑人研究中的一些趋势。除了对种族归属的斜向视角——不是作为后种族主义,而是作为对种族历史难题的多元方法——我建议第二个语境,我们可以在其中定位米歇尔的书:后人类。

[1:16:19] 正如扎基亚·伊曼·杰克逊在《成为人类》中所论,人类的建构总是已经要求——不一定是其对立面非人类,但确实是各种非人类可能性在例如被黑化的人身上的体现,尤其是被黑化的女性身体,正如杰克逊所说,可以被“动员来产生种族差异”。《现代奥德赛》与后人类主义的讨论,特别是数字人文所催生的那些讨论,处于对话之中。

[1:16:56] 例如,正如米歇尔所讨论的,诗歌史诗周期的扁平化归因于我们之前在数字项目中听到的内容。我要再引用一点,这又是一个较长的引文,但我只引用米歇尔项目导言的下半部分:“通过从根本上改变作者身份和来源的概念,并通过强调多样性和回归故事的地方版本的概念,荷马多文本项目使得一种将《奥德赛》视为表演中的创作的方式成为可能,这种创作与其他故事竞争并将其边缘化。”

[1:17:40] 数字人文引发了文本幻灭的潜力,使得关联可以以这本书所例证的方式重新配置。这种幻灭的潜力是深远的。超越荷马,正如斯特凡·田中在《没有年表的历史》中所说,再次只读较长引文的一小部分,“数字媒体为人文学术提出了另一个问题,对象、信息、事实、认知和理解之间的界限。”

[1:18:11] 数字媒体扰乱或扁平化了过去材料的性质和使用。再次,数字人文只是众多溶解我们已将其视为话语现实的人类的技术之一。后人类主义还将物种与技术并置为另一种智能,取代人类在知识中心的地位,例如在赛博格和人工智能的创造中。

[1:18:43] 如果文本,正如我们在延迟之前所知的那样,作为封闭回路的文本已经死亡,也许我们已经跨入了叙事幻灭的可能性,或者正如田中肯定论证的那样,是历史的幻灭。或者至少我们可以认识到从作为讲故事的人类到作为故事和现实修正的人类的一种转变。米歇尔的书也是一种修正——一种重写,与荷马一样多,也一样有力。

[1:19:19] 所以,还有没有,除了控制论式的叙事闭合之外,还有任何叙事闭合能唤起其他回路吗?所以感谢米歇尔的书以及你的扩散、孤立和迂回与回归。你召唤我们进行一场对身份的无尽追寻,这个身份实际上永远找不到,尽管我们可能不时地在我们称之为家的身份上休息。非常感谢。

[1:19:53] 我们开始吧。我知道它回到我身上,米歇尔,我想给你充足的时间回应,所以我不想讲太久,但我想这会带回——让我们回到两件事。一是个人层面,为什么你的书在卡瓦菲斯方面引起我的共鸣,因为卡瓦菲斯在我与古典教育抗争时是一位重要的作家。所以部分我想谈论的是回到非常老式的希腊主义观念,对吧?

[1:20:26] 并且,想想你如何帮助我们真正聚焦于卡瓦菲斯的古怪希腊主义,我们可以这样称呼它,对吧,相对于传统古典课程中如此核心的 centered Hellenism。如你所知,那从根本上非常以雅典为中心,非常陷入伯里克利时刻,对吧?我思考这个有几个原因。部分是因为,你知道,当雪莱非常著名地说“我们都是希腊人”时,他真正意思是我们都是雅典人,对吧?

[1:20:58] 在自由民主传统中,这真正从根本上聚焦于某些类型的身份形成,这些身份形成不断与希腊民主一起上演。我在想,你知道,在诗《赫利斯》中“让自由有光,像从海上升起的日出,雅典升起,”你知道。雪莱很擅长这样的口号,但他也创造,并且我认为传统古典课程经常他确实创造,在西欧和美国,那种奇怪的、历史性的雅典帝国主义,对吧?

[1:21:31] 他接着说“她的公民的帝国精神从过去统治现在,所有这世界的人继承。他们的印记已定。”所以有一种奇怪的方式,这种我们通过传统古典课程进入的以海蒂为中心的希腊主义,你知道,创造了那种视野。嗯我记得,我总是为此挣扎,部分因为我是中世纪研究者,同时也是对古典学有兴趣的人,而阅读卡瓦菲斯,当然,恰恰做了你所说的这些扩散和混合的比喻。

[1:22:04] 向我展示了一位诗人,他能创造出这些精彩的人物形象,展现出希腊主义在地理和时间上极为分散的分布。所以从某种意义上说,借用《奥德赛》的理念以及他那首关于伊萨卡的著名诗作,我们多少会把卡瓦菲的参与视为希腊主义自身的一场奥德赛,对吧,这正是他所创造的那些历史人物形象令人着迷的地方之一。如果我们想拿他的诗作《伊萨卡》作为出发点,那么重点同样在于旅程,而不在于回归的目的地,对吧?

[1:22:38] 所以当我们思考它究竟是什么时,在古典学领域长期以来,那种执着的回归,总是回到最初的地平线,对吧?试图抵达这种古代文化的本真现实。这极大地损害了我们对希腊主义的复杂性与妥协性的理解。而且,我再次认为,这也是为什么《奥德赛》和卡瓦菲的作品都需要以这种方式不断被阅读的原因之一。回归的理念在某种意义上是必不可少的,正如他所说,是伊萨卡给了你那段美好的旅程,对吧?

[1:23:15] 所以再次说,这种回归、融入并在某种意义上与过去建立关系的冲动,我认为对他们来说从未完全消失。但卡瓦菲令我着迷、并且你再次出色地指出的,是他的希腊主义奥德赛如何刻意推向遥远的角落,不仅是亚历山大港,还有安条克、希腊化的耶路撒冷、拜占庭世界的君士坦丁堡——鉴于他的家族世系,这一点非常重要——甚至如他所说,越过扎格罗斯山脉,就在他那首我认为绝妙讽刺的诗中,我稍后再回到你。

[1:23:50] 所以我喜欢你的书也提醒我们,在《奥德赛》本身中,我们面对的是一个边缘的希腊世界。我的意思是,特洛伊毕竟在远东边缘,伊萨卡在西部边缘,奥杰吉厄岛更远,对吧?事实上,我们只有因为忒勒马科斯决定从伊萨卡前往希腊大陆,才得以到达那里,对吧?也就是说,在真实时间中。所以荷马的世界本身在《奥德赛》中就是这种有趣的边缘世界。

[1:24:21] 而亚该亚人常常惨遭失败,所以那种把它视为凯旋盛典的想法——我们不断思考和排练的,是希腊的那种古老英雄版本,究竟是什么?显然我们都知道,在阅读荷马时,悲伤、失落、那种迫近的厄运感,这些都是强有力的元素,与某种凯旋主义毫无关系。所以在这个意义上,以这种方式阅读《奥德赛》,相对于卡瓦菲,真的让我产生共鸣,我记得很小的时候,恰恰把它当作一种解药。

[1:24:57] 但最近我其实一直在想另一位诗人的一首诗,那位诗人回应卡瓦菲,就是我的前同事亚当·扎加耶夫斯基,他在去芝加哥之前曾在这里待了几年。这里有一首题为《在卡瓦菲一卷诗集上入睡》的诗。有趣的是,他把卡瓦菲诗中的人物阵容,那些贯穿他诗作的历史人物形象,描绘成有趣的、风格化的失败者。引文:“他们以优雅极好地承受失败,接受他们国家、他们城市的灾难,那些城市被罗马有条不紊地征服,并非轻易,而是以不平等的辉煌。”

[1:25:36] 他接着说,因为他们的慰藉是引文“某种任何征服都无法从他们那里夺走的东西,或者他们如此认为,他们在希腊世界中的位置。”所以有趣的是,他捕捉到了他诗中如此多的人物形象都是希腊主义的一种形式,似乎属于这种挣扎的一部分。但正如我多少提到的,这是一种混合、分散、混杂的希腊主义,正如你在解读那首关于波塞冬尼亚人的诗时出色地指出的那样。

[1:26:08] 但扎加耶夫斯基继续说,他们似乎引文“忙于为永恒的安息做准备,一场美丽的失败激起我们的同情。尽管他们中很少有人是英雄,驱动他们的是狡黠,而非荣誉。”所以再次说,这些诗中的人物形象具有狡黠,对吧?那是奥德修斯式的本质特征,使他们令人同情,尽管常常有一种他们被妥协的感觉,对吧?以及在他们的一些自命不凡中。

[1:26:40] 那么我为什么对亚当的观点感兴趣?亚当是一位波兰诗人,但原籍利沃夫,位于今天的乌克兰,那个被入侵和蹂躏的地方。所以当我想到亚当在东西方帝国的十字路口长大,经历他所经历的历史,一段作为诗人个人流离失所的历史,我再次想到所有这些修辞,以及它们进入我们阅读和吸收的深刻而个人的方式。

[1:27:12] 所以再次说,我回到这个想法:“既然我们身处接受研究的分散世界,且带有希腊主义本身这样的概念,我们现在该怎么办?”对吧?从历史上看,正如他的诗常常指出的,这是一种分散与混合、冲突与妥协的现实。他非常出色地创造了人物形象,每一个都代表着地中海世界某个角落的这种古怪的希腊主义,而那个角落显然在地理上更契合亚历山大港的视角,正如他的现实那样。

[1:27:45] 但同时也要从现代希腊人的边缘视角来看待,远离古代世界那种充满神性的文化,以及所有那些声称要利用它来获得真实性和正当性的说法,对吧?在他那个时代,他使用的是一种有争议且不稳定的现代语言,一种少数民族语言,无论是在亚历山大港还是在整个西欧。实际上,他身处一种膨胀的文化中,心态却在衰落,后来更带有后奥斯曼式的倾向。所以,与此同时,他之所以如此引人入胜,这也引出了你出色地提出的同性恋倾向问题,是因为他生活在亚历山大港那个世界主义、混杂性时代的舒适环境中,而那个世界就像斯米尔诺夫或大屠杀前的塞萨洛尼基一样,是一个失落的世界。

[1:28:30] 这是一种岌岌可危的希腊主义,但有些人向我们展示了它强大却转瞬即逝。然而,卡瓦菲斯的希腊主义仍然是一种坚定而富有感染力的希腊主义,正如一些涉及朱迪亚的诗所暗示的那样,亚历山大·朱尼乌斯和亚历山德拉·皮乌斯作为米诺斯君主,他们说希腊语,拥有希腊名字,在一首诗中描绘了胜利时刻,当然,突然背叛了马加比家族的反希腊主义愿望。这提醒我们,具有讽刺意味的是,Ἑλληνισμός(希腊主义)这个词本身就代表了一整套文化价值体系,而不仅仅是语言学,不仅仅是语言规范和与新创造的Ιουδαϊσμός(犹太教)的辩证张力。

[1:29:11] 这就是《马加比二书》的讽刺之处,这部文本以希腊语写成,充满了希腊修辞,却讲述了一场针对希腊文化和强制希腊化的虔诚革命。卡瓦菲斯的诗将这些犹太君主的胜利时刻渲染得淋漓尽致,尽管充满讽刺,诗人所要做的只是一遍又一遍地重复他们的名字:亚历山大和亚历山德拉。显然,这些不是犹太名字。一旦你逃离希腊主义,这就是其中一些诗的乐趣之一。当然,与希腊主义的这种辩证张力在《等待野蛮人》中的野蛮人身上则走向了另一个方向,对吧?

[1:29:50] 他说:“没有野蛮人,我们会怎样?他们是一种解决方案,”正如他非常著名地说的那样。所以,我们再次看到希腊主义是一个辩证的、紧张的、混合的概念。因此,富有感染力的希腊主义这一观念在另一首关于希腊化犹太人的诗中更加突出,即《犹太人的日子 50 公元》中的安东尼之子扬尼斯。尽管扬尼斯声称渴望引用“永远做犹太人的儿子,神圣的犹太人”,但希腊人对感性美的追求却牢牢地钩住了他。

[1:30:24] 在这首诗中,Ἑλληνισμός与ηδονισμός,即希腊主义与享乐主义,被有意等同起来,当你回到同性恋倾向问题时,显然会提到这一点。亚历山大港希腊主义的艺术和愉悦已经俘获了这种虔诚,而且没有回头路,对吧?这就是那首诗的有趣含义。所以卡瓦菲斯的希腊主义在各个方面都是一种讽刺性的、而非标志性的希腊主义,对吧?一种具有感染力,但同时又危险地、某种程度上,游走在文化自负边缘的希腊主义。

[1:30:59] 在他向我们展示的这些历史时刻中,既有胜利也有纹身般的愤怒,例如在《亚历山大港的国王》中,他谈到克利奥帕特拉和安东尼的孩子们被带出来,被赋予所有这些美妙的头衔,你知道,呈现给狂热的人群,但他公开说“亚历山大港人当然知道,这一切都只是空话,全是戏剧。”对吧?所以这些时刻的戏剧性,我认为是他作品如此独特的原因之一。

[1:31:35] 所以有趣的是,回到亚当的观点,尽管如此,我们在这些诗中发现对这些人物有一种奇怪的同情,尽管他们如此妥协,如此半野蛮或半希腊化。我认为,这再次是一个绝妙的方式,让我们开始思考如何冥想未来的希腊主义理念,或者它与其他概念的动态关系,正如我们正在研究这个概念一样。

[1:32:06] 毕竟我们并非全是希腊人,雪莱以来,我们是混合的、边缘的、古怪的、迟来的希腊人,对吧,半野蛮、半希腊化,整个职业一直如此。这就是为什么我想以对《爱希腊者》这首诗的精彩审视来结束,如果你从未读过,它相当有趣,讲述一位东方国王在扎格罗斯山脉以东远方的自负,他正在设计一枚硬币,在这里我们看到爱希腊者变成了庸俗者,对吧?

[1:32:41] 他说他想把“爱希腊者”这个词放在硬币上,因为许多其他人,比我们更野蛮的人选择刻上它,我们也要刻上。此外,别忘了有时沙发从叙利亚来到我们这里,还有打油诗人和其它此类无聊之徒。所以我认为我们并非“非希腊”。因此,在那个时刻出现的问题,“希腊人在哪里?”“希腊文化在哪里?”在伦敦、柏林、亚历山大港、扎格罗斯山脉后方,甚至休斯顿,都同样有效。

[1:33:12] 因此,我再次为卡瓦菲斯与荷马,尤其是《奥德赛》的并置喝彩,正是因为这个原因。好的。那么,为了对米歇尔公平起见,她不得不忍受许多赞美和许多问题,我想我要让她开始回应。我会提醒大家,这里有一个问答功能,问题可以排序。我看到这里至少有三个问题。

[1:33:42] 那么,考虑到时间关系,再次强调,如果我们能把这些内容放进去,这有助于我们整理这些事情,我会尝试把这些内容输入进去,但是,米歇尔,现在请你发言。感谢大家以不同方式对这本书以及你们自己的项目和问题的精彩参与,我们许多人在这个专业领域都在思考这些问题。我想,我想先处理一些更广泛的问题,那些大声反对的问题,也许通过这种方式再进入其他一些问题。

[1:34:17] 首先,我想说一个显而易见的事情,我们几乎所有人,无论我们是古典学家还是任何研究人文学科的人,我们都学会了各种解释过去的方法,这些方法涉及建立因果关系和直接联系的必要性。这已经成为我们作为学者被灌输的工作方式中如此重要的一部分,以至于常常让人觉得,如果你不那样论证,你的工作就是软弱的,或者在某些方面缺乏专业性。

[1:34:55] 所以我想从这里开始,因为我想首先说,我们所谓的接受研究永远会有其位置和需要,但基本上是关于现在的作家或历史后期阶段的作家,他们如何使用、改编、接管和吸收先前形式的论点。所以我并不是在论证我们正在摆脱对这种研究的需求。我想说的是,现在我们所有人都被要求以更全球化的视角来思考跨国主义和国际主义,各种跨越这些巨大地理和文化边界的形式,这些边界对我们来说很难跨越。

[1:35:46] 如果我们坚持关于文学关系的旧思维方式,它们几乎是不可能跨越的。所以我想说的是,因为经典的开放意味着我们正在向那些抵抗经典的文本开放经典,好吗?这是关键点,你看,文学抵抗的行为往往旨在去殖民化,或者针对父权制,而如果我们把这些文本当作我们可以用传统接受理论来谈论它们,那么理解它们的这些批判努力可能会受到根本性的限制。

[1:36:36] 这对写作是冒犯的。如果我们继续使用这些批判方法,对于开放经典所涉及的内容就是迟钝的。所以我们现在做的最难的事情是,好吧,我们正在打开谈论一个更全球化的经典的大门,但我们如何做到这一点?我的观点是,我们常常通过不充分修订我们的工具、我们的批判工具来做到这一点。所以与帝国对话可能会受到限制,因为它服从霸权秩序的指令。

[1:37:12] 如果你假装人们在回应帝国,那么你实际上是把他们绑在帝国所说的内容上。所以我想说的一件事是,这是我们需要认真思考的事情。我想说的另一件事关于正面联系,你们中有些人以不同方式提出了这一点,那就是如果你论证某某回应了某某,那么你给人的印象是,文本在某种意义上围绕一个非常有限的接受点是可理解的,对吧?

[1:37:51] 而我谈到的许多艺术家,以及我们在后古典主义中处理的许多艺术家都在抵抗这一点。我谈到的那三位艺术家从根本上抵抗这一点,因为他们使用扩散和间接的技巧来阻止这种对找到一个接受点作为统一接受点的强迫性需求。

[1:38:23] 好吗?关于所有这些方法论我想说的最后一件事是,是的,我在书中主要谈论的是主体性和身份,以及我所研究的那种反主体性的出现,身份通常是虚拟的而非本体论上稳定的,它们是多重建构的。它们由混合种族、混合族裔、跨性别存在、变性经历组成,主体是多个而非一个。

[1:39:06] 因此,努力将这一点付诸实践的作品需要尊重这些姿态。所以,你知道,凯西在开始时说,你们许多人都附和了。那就是我们面临的挑战,真正解构我们被教导的许多思维方式,并以严谨和令人信服的方式做到这一点,从而能够说服那些以更主流方式工作的人,这不仅能够做到,而且能够令人信服地做到。

[1:39:41] 所以我想围绕这一点开放讨论。我不想只谈论问题,但如果有任何人想对此回应,我很乐意在这里暂停。如果可以的话,我只想说一件事。我当然不想主导对话,但是,再次,我认为部分原因是人文学科在学术工作背景下的普遍问题,这意味着我们被期望有论点和发现,对吧?还有证据。因此,这确实鼓励了一种线性思维。

[1:40:15] 而奇怪的是,你知道,旧的古典传统那种论点会是证明古典学值得存在,因为它,你知道,保持相关性,你知道,就像你仍然需要我们。这显然是一种非常自我挫败的看法。而且,嗯,另一件事,这是一个谬误,对吧?以如此简单化的术语来思考因果关系,因为,你知道,再次,当某人在特定时刻接受教育并阅读《奥德赛》时,那种文化适应与他们同时经历的所有其他文化适应是汇聚的,对吧?

[1:40:56] 所以对我来说,这就是为什么它真正成为一个关注复杂融合的问题,因为我们创造古典文化。你知道,这就是我们一直在做的事情。我们创造现代文本。我们创造文本的现代现象学,你知道,古代文本的。所以,认为古希腊就像从五世纪广播的电台,而我们正在接收信号的想法是一种谬误,对吧?然后这是一种非常不舒服——不复杂的方式来思考,但你能理解为什么大学管理者喜欢这样,你知道,因为这是一种简单的方式来评估某人提出了强有力的论点,他们有证据,你知道,再次,期刊也经常喜欢这个问题。

[1:41:34] 所以当我们开辟关于文学、哲学等的不同思考方式时,这些方式更具联想性,而不太关心,你知道,他知道什么以及他何时知道的,我喜欢称之为水门事件问题的接受研究。我认为这是问题的一部分。艾伦·米勒有一个评论或问题在——在你走之前,只是对米歇尔的一个快速回应,你提供给我们的。在我看来,你提出了一个关于受众的问题,这让我想知道“我们为谁做我们的工作?”

[1:42:10] 它是为学院中某些既定的古典精英吗?它是邀请性的吗,比如说一个21世纪的学生,他也在考虑机器人技术、计算机科学和商业?你知道,它是为Weeknd吗,你知道,去问Weeknd,你在三美神旁做手势时在做什么?所以在某些方面,besideness提供的是受众的扩展和一种交叉观看,使得所有这些受众都被邀请到桌面上。

[1:42:52] 是的,不,我认为那真的对。不知何故,我们被束缚在这种专业知识的观念中,这使得我们很难在我们培养得最好的领域之外交谈。我要说的是,在我的书中,你知道,我不是我所谈论的任何作者专家。我不认为自己是一个专家,但理查德和我谈过,关于专业知识的要点是,如果你参与一个项目,需要你了解你所研究的东西,你认为重要,那么你就发展出专业知识来令人信服地谈论它。

[1:43:27] 而且通常,从局外人的视角开始可以非常有助于对话。这是我想说的一件事。你们中的许多人想知道这种关于间接性的思考方式还可能如何在更广泛的范围内发挥作用。我认为实际上这个想法变得不那么难以捉摸。在我试图概念化这个概念的那些年里,我有点难以把握它。但如果你看非常经典的文本,比如柏拉图的对话,你考虑对话形式本身,你考虑它像柏拉图作品的大部分,那是多个对话,实际上彼此拆解,如果你把对话相互对照阅读。

[1:44:16] 此外,如果你读柏拉图,要理解在这些对话中,他使用某种不能直接接近主题的话语,因此他诉诸神话来谈论它,这是一种间接策略。这是一种策略,承认你不能正面接近它,因此,你可以谈论间接性作为整个哲学传统的一部分。赫拉克利特是一个著名的体现,但你知道,当然,否定神学也是其中的一部分,这种否定哲学是其中的一部分,间接策略在试图表述你所谈论的东西时变得绝对至关重要。

[1:45:02] 我认为有许多文学作品与身份探索有关,作者使用这些非常切线和万花筒般的方式——接近他们主题的方式。而且我认为,当然,神秘本身这一体裁是你可以视为间接性的策略性使用的东西。我认为有整个主题都适合这种关于间接性的思考方式。

[1:45:33] 我现在正在写关于古代神秘召唤的内容,我在谈论秘密的话语。无论你在哪里拥有秘密的话语,你都有可能是或不是实际秘密的东西,但以各种方式通过间接性来接近,以创造神秘感,以引起兴趣,以建立受众,或构建边缘个体的社区。对吧?所以我的部分是——我的观点是,有时间接性是我们正在文学中看待的东西,有时它是我们作为文本解释者需要在阅读和谈论事物的方式中培养的东西。

[1:46:20] 所以再次强调,开放,你知道,开放讨论。再次,如果我可以引用我们问答环节中的一个问题,我们的问答Q&A在这里,艾伦·米勒问道:“如果接受边界不断向更远处移动,它难道不会在某个时刻变得与克里斯·斯蒂芬的互文性概念无法区分吗?”所以再次,我们,显然,我们一直在谈论互文性研究,但是,我不知道你是否有任何,如果有人对此有任何想法。

[1:46:59] 想想你刚才说的,米歇尔,关于当你提到否定神学时,我刚刚想到,在那种情况下你必须间接的原因是因为你谈论的东西是不可言说的,你无法谈论它,你不喜欢,你无法真正概念化你话语的主题。而我,我想我认为那可能与此有关——那里可能有与克里斯蒂娃关于科拉所写的内容以及类似不可言说性、那种不可再现性的联系。

[1:47:45] 但我觉得,我,我想这感觉像是它的产物,就你的书而言,那是所有作者都在努力应对的东西的产物,即某种尚未被表达出来的东西——是的。——但他们必须为它找到一套词汇,某种在他们自身与自我的关系中难以言说的东西,作为他们自身的一部分,他们未必理解,却正试图与之和解。

[1:48:16] 而且这是一个,我是说,就用你的,就用那个显而易见的比喻,这是一段旅程。这是一种归家,是对自我的一种欢迎。但那算是给它套上词语了。所以那就是,对,我当时的想法就是这样。对,我,对,我觉得,那些难以言说的事物,尽管如此,却激发出大量关于它们的语言。

[1:48:46] 这是不道德之物的反讽之一:它产生了一种关于不可言说之物的论述。而且我觉得,你知道,我觉得这是一个重要的问题,你可以从任何,你知道,从任何数量的视角来看待它。但没错,我是说,这就回到保罗的问题了,我认为对我们来说最具挑战性的事情之一是,我们在,而我在创建一组四个转义时试图处理的,就是要对抗文本这个概念。

[1:49:25] 因为我所谈论的那些作品如此开放,以至于它们抗拒文本性,它们抗拒封闭,它们抗拒,它们抗拒我们接近文本的某种常识性方式,而这部分是我们把它们在书本中阅读的后果。而且那,那,那就是它们被包含在内的感觉,对吧?它们以某种方式被包含在内,并且它们以某种方式具有这些界限,使我们能够管理并控制它们。凯西从她自己的研究中知道,那些试图理论化荷马中非文本之物的后果的人必须考虑,继续使用文本的语言。

[1:50:09] 所以如果你不想谈论文本,却在谈论互文性,那好吧,我们又回到这儿了。我们的语言不断地,你知道,在我们的努力中背叛我们。所以部分出于这个原因,我抗拒批评术语行话。我在自己工作中使用的一个策略是,试图从我正在阅读的作品中生成一种批评习语。我们当然永远无法完全抛弃我们周围的框架和我们职业的语言,但通过从文本中生成语言,并谈论诸如倾斜诗学或间接诗学或伏击诗学之类的东西,我们实际上试图做的是,是说文本在教我们,作品在教我们如何谈论它们。

[1:51:07] 好吗?而我们谈论它们的方式,其原因,或者说一侧的口头性与另一侧的数字世界正在趋同,是因为我们正在检验我们关于什么是文本的观念的极限。这也是帕特里斯所说的后人类的一点,即非常,我是说,几个世纪以来,人类一直以书本这种文本的方式来构想。而我认为,密切关注数字世界正在告诉我们的关于文本的事情,就是我们需要创造一种新的批评习语。

[1:51:47] 而我们不一定通过谈论互文文本来做到这一点。如果我可以接续我们问答Q&A中的一个问题,这个问题来自安德烈亚·库克拉纳基斯,正是关于你所选择的词语。那么,问题是:“在聚焦于锻造批评词汇时,你能否进一步阐述所有这些词之间的区别:倾斜性、间接性、迂回性。我经常互换使用它们,但就多重主体性而言,我们是否应该进一步区分它们?”

[1:52:19] 倾斜也可以是一种感到失衡的状态,不是吗?经典性、帝国计划、侵略性资本主义、种族主义、恐同症,全都能把人推向异化,而异化是一个你只能倾斜而不适的地方,无论你是否从中创造艺术,是否从中创造艺术。”所以这是个相当的问题,但是,所以如果你能也许阐述一下倾斜、间接和迂回。对,不,我觉得这是个好观点。我要说的是,劳拉和我,劳拉和我已经开始谈论一个她目前正在构思的项目,它将朝向你可能围绕这一点发展出什么样的词汇。

[1:53:01] 在我的,在我的书里,我一直在尝试替代术语,认识到我所谈论的许多东西实际上濒临精神病态、疯狂和完全解体之类的东西的边缘。所以我觉得,那,你知道,有些方式,这部分就是为什么我们——有些人开始把奥德修斯本人看作具有如此多面性,可能具有精神病态。

[1:53:32] 而且仅就那里有心灵病理在起作用而言,那表明了他不适配的这种激进方式。我在这里大概没有时间谈论那些术语之间的差异。我确实同义地使用它们,但我要说,我们现在项目的一部分是开始创造一种词汇,它能更具表现力、更谨慎,也许有时也导向对更大模糊性的需要,培养对一种健康模糊性的容忍,那对所有分类来说大概是不可避免的。

[1:54:15] 而那是非常开放于我的事业,你知道,开放于。好吧,让我们来看一个早些时候在聊天中来自delirium for the GME的有趣问题。那就是问你们,你知道,我们经常谈论关于文本和重写的忠实与背叛。所以这里的问题是:“你会如何解释现代作家对原初奥德修斯的重大忠实或背叛?你认为这些作家中有谁背叛了原初奥德修斯的主题目的吗?”

[1:54:46] 而且,我认为这引出了一个有趣的问题:作为古典文学的守护者,我们在某种意义上常常被当作守门人,对吧?想要以某种方式在正确与错误的解读之间作出裁决。那么,现在让我们来听听你的观点。你会如何回应这个问题?是的。我想说,在我处理我所谈论的那些文本的方式中,忠实性根本不是问题所在。换句话说,我的观点是,改编理论的发展正是为了帮助我们谈论这一点,翻译理论也是如此。

[1:55:24] 改编和翻译为我们提供了更审慎的方式来谈论忠实性。我认为,忠实性这一概念有时会让我们以为,我们所能言说和行动的界限在某种程度上是由已经被言说和行动过的东西所决定的。而这恰恰是我所抗拒的。而且,不仅如此,我的意思是,显然我不是唯一一个抗拒的人。我们纳入这个更广阔的、后经典世界中的作家们也没有这样做。

[1:56:03] 他们非常刻意地考验我们对忠实性的概念,你知道,为了说出我们阅读的经典作品中未曾说过的话。所以,Pelumi 其实是我的学生之一,谢谢你,Pelumi,谢谢你的提问。我认为,你知道,有许多古典学者在诸如爱琴海——比如“黑色爱琴海”这样的领域做了非常可信的研究,他们就是以那种方式处理忠实性问题的。

[1:56:37][ 但我认为,我们还需要以其他方式提出关于为什么忠实——忠实何时重要、何时是一种实际上阻碍我们以新方式思考和言说的干扰——的问题。Laura 有评论或问题吗?是的,只是作为一个追问,我在想,忠实性的问题之所以有问题,还因为它带来了一种对原始来源的单线式思考方式,我是在对这里的学生们说。

[1:57:11] 你知道,你可以做的一件事,这也是间接诗学的一部分,就是你可以从任何你想读的东西开始读。你不必从经典开始。你知道,例如,我是在 17 岁时通过博尔赫斯了解到荷马的。我当时还没读过荷马,对我来说,这是一次好奇心的旅程,我根本不知道是博尔赫斯本人在教我如何阅读这些文本。

[1:57:45] 所以这些间接路径,当然,我后来大大扩展了我所关注的作者的多样性。所以对我来说,忠实性根本无关紧要,因为这只是一个由不同作者组成的网络,他们彼此讲述着关于经典可能是什么或不是什么的不同事情。所以在西班牙语中,我们有这个说法,我们称之为 La Tradicion Classica,但我们也称之为 la traición Classica,即传统的背叛,这是一个褒义词,是要思考,我要——Richard,你能翻译一下这个吗?

[1:58:30] 是的。这只是一个文字游戏,因为它是“tradicion”,你去掉那个‘d’,这就成了一个范式,用来解锁对原作的奴从。我不是在对专家说话,我更多是在对我的古典接受课上的学生们说,因为我通常对他们说这个,因为他们开始时只有经典。所以你必须讲一个在某种程度上忠实于经典的故事。

[1:59:04] 所以那可能是一种思考方式。而且,接受研究中的一个非常古老的观点同样是,意义在接受的那一刻得以实现,不存在空间,不存在阿基米德点,从中可以看到一个文本的真理,你知道,只有互动,对吧?所以当我们思考复杂的汇聚时,例如在我的情况下,我一直非常感兴趣于思考表演与弗洛伊德及其对俄狄浦斯的兴趣之间的关系,你会意识到,你知道,是的,弗洛伊德在______中阅读了俄狄浦斯,但他也作为一个深受法国浪漫悲剧影响的人来阅读它,当你开始思考这一点时,这非常合理,而他对这部戏剧的阅读——这对精神分析如此重要——同时是对《俄狄浦斯王》和《哈姆雷特》的阅读。

[1:59:54] 而这些复杂的汇聚,它们就是文化的现实,对吧?再次,你知道,《哈姆雷特》在《俄狄浦斯王》中观看他所阅读的东西,你知道,同时成长,他的戏剧经验在某种程度上强化了这一点,你会意识到:我们个人的轨迹并不复制西方文明的年表,你知道吗?我们总是脱节的,总是跟不上节拍,我们总是在追赶。我们总是在说,“我需要回去读卡利马科斯什么的,你知道吗?”所以,这就是为什么这有点傻,对吧,在某种程度上,当你意识到,我们为什么会认为它曾经是别的样子呢?

[2:00:29] 一种复杂的汇聚,分离的性质,我们的阅读经验或戏剧经验中有那么多给我们留下印象,或者某个特定的人,你知道,硬塞给你一本书,或者你生命中的某个特定时刻,对吧,文本的某些部分会向你浮现出来,也许你后来会觉得不成比例地,正如你所说的,Laura,通过_______来到荷马,对吧?这就是现实,对吧?而且,我认为,再次,这就是人文学科在理解人类意义的本质和轨迹方面将继续如此重要的原因。

[2:01:05] 如你所知,我们一直在与研究范式作斗争,因为行政管理部门希望我们以某种方式量化和计算研究对我们的意义,但体验性的元素在其中如此重要,而且它是时间性的、令人困惑的。现在已经到6:02了!我想我们在这里已经做得不错了,我知道你们中有些人需要去睡觉了。我,我想感谢大家通过提问参与其中。再次感谢我们的学生朋友,以及我们的同事,我真的想感谢Michelle,让她承受了如此多的赞美和如此多的批评。

[2:01:43] 谢谢大家。再次,让我们在未来继续这一讨论,并且,如果你有机会、还有精力的话,也许明天,去看看我们在syndicate.network上关于Mario Telos的书的在线研讨会,那是另一本令人震惊和惊异的书,《归档的情感:希腊悲剧理论》。好吗?所以再次感谢大家,尤其感谢希腊研究中心。Allie,谢谢你的帮助,还有Olivia,我们希望很快能再次见到大家。

[2:02:17] 谢谢。谢谢大家。

查看英文原始字幕

[0:18] Okay, welcome and good evening here in the US, good afternoon, if you're in California and if you're joining us from the UK or the European continent thank you so much for staying up so late to join us. I'm Richard Armstrong of the University of Houston, and I'll be the moderator of today's webinar, sponsored by the Center for Hellenic Studies in Washington, DC. And we wish especially to thank Lanah Koelle and Allie Marbry for their wonderful assistance in helping us get this together. This will be a two hour discussion of Michelle Zerba's new book, Modern Odysseys: Cavafy, Woolf, Cesaire, and a Poetics of Indirection, a discussion with the author herself, and some colleagues eager to join in.

[0:58] In a moment, I will introduce Professor Zerba in more detail, but let me first introduce our fellow participants. With me here in Houston is Casey Dua, professor of classical studies at the University of Houston, author of several books on Greek epic and tragedy, and a longtime leader and collaborator on the Homer Multi-Texts project, which is going to be of direct relevance for our discussion today. In the United Kingdom, we have Laura Jansen. Senior lecturer in classics and comparative literature at the University of Bristol, author of several books dealing with matters of reception on figures like Anne Carson and Jorge Luis Borges.

[1:29] And a main editor of an exciting series on classical receptions in the 20th century writing with Bloomsbury. Also the United Kingdom is Adam Lecznar, honorary fellow, research fellow, at the University College London. Author of a recent monograph on Dionysus after Nietzsche with Cambridge University press, and accorded volume on classicisms in the Black Atlantic, various other essays on classical reception, including work on Aime Cesaire. And last, but certainly not least Patrice Rankine, professor of classics at my Alma Mater at the University of Chicago, author of Aristotle in Black Drama: a Theater of Black Civil Disobedience, Ulysses in Blank.

[2:06] Uh, Ralph Ellison, Ralph Ellison: Classicism in African-American Literature, and co-editor of the Oxford handbook of Greek Drama in the Americas, and many other studies in reception. Now you've just heard me mentioned the word reception several times here. And this lies at the center of today's discussion. Over the past 25 years, we've seen an astounding transformation in the field of classical studies as what was once called the classical tradition has morphed into a plural classical receptions, a provocatively termed post classicism, an interest in deep classics and increasingly a focus on global classics, or the repositioning of ancient culture in line with world cultures and literatures.

[2:45] Michelle Zerba's book is a vital contribution to this ongoing discussion. And in a moment, she herself will briefly lay out the book's argument and strategy of reading Homer, Cavafy, Virginia Woolf, Aime Cesaire, according to a poetics of indirection, as she puts it. Along with Alan Miller, I'm co-editor at the Ohio State University press for the series, Classical Memories, Modern Identities, which published this book. And from the start I have to say, we were very excited about the direction it takes. We feel these discussions are crucial to the future of our profession, and we'd like you to be a part of it through posing questions via the webinar.

[3:18] By coincidence also, our series is launching online a symposium today on another book in the series, Mario Tello's Archive Feelings, a Theory of Greek Tragedy, where five scholars have submitted their written responses that will be published in the coming weeks, starting today on syndicate.network. Now, after Professor Zerba about outlines the gist of the book, each one of our participants will lead a part of our discussion for about 5-10 minutes. And then we'll go through each one of us, uh, and circle back to Michelle and we will continue then this general discussion.

[3:49] So feel free to send your questions to us here through the webinar chat, and we'll try to work them in as we can. Back to our author, Michelle Zerba is the Maggie B. Martin professor of rhetoric and classical studies at Louisiana State University and has a split appointment in the departments of English and world languages and literature. Her research and teaching span the fields of Greek and Roman literature, philosophy and rhetoric, Renaissance drama, and political theory in classical reception. She is especially interested in questions that emerge at the intersection of antiquity and modernity.

[4:19] She held grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Partnership University Fund of the French government, and the American Association of University Women. Her publications include Tragedy and Theory with Princeton University Press, Doubt in the Politics of, sorry, Doubt in Skepticism in Antiquity in the Renaissance with Cambridge University Press. This book, Modern Odysseys and, uh, the Norton Critical edition of Aristotle's Poetics. She's currently also writing a book, entitled The Origins of Mystery: a Cultural History of the Eleusinian Mysteries.

[4:50] So now I'll turn it over to Michelle Zerba. Okay, thank you very much, Richard, for that generous and warm introduction. And thank you audience members for making time in your busy schedules to join us today. Um, I want to thank the Harvard Center for Hellenic Studies for hosting this event. Uh, I'm very honored to be a part of it. Um, I also want to thank the editor of the Ohio State University Press Ana Jimenez Moreno, who I think may be with us today.

[5:22] Uh, she's the one who sought out the manuscript that became the book that we're going to be talking about. But in particular, I want to thank Richard Armstrong and Paul Miller, who are the co-editors of the Classical Memories, Modern Identities series. Richard in particular has been an extremely supportive editor and colleague over the past couple of years. And I'm very much grateful to him. Um, finally, but not least. I want to thank the distinguished panelists who are joining us today, especially those of you who, um, are in England at 10 o'clock at night.

[5:58] Uh, your work has been very inspirational to me and I'm hoping that our discussion today can open new doors of inquiry. I'm going to now shift to a screenshare PowerPoint. So let me do this and can you all see this? Yes. Are we good? Yes. All right. In 1900 sponge divers off the coast of the island of Antikythera in the Southern Aegean discovered an underwater shipwreck, the remains of a Greek cargo ship dating from the second half of the first century BCE.

[6:47] Excavations at the site extended over most of the 20th century and into the 21st century as these photos suggest. Um, and in 1912 or in rather 2012, when this photograph on the, on the right was taken, there was still a trove of earthen ware jars that had not yet been pulled from the deep. Now among the many valuable artifacts that were refuge-that were rescued from this site, the most famous one is what is, uh, come to be referred to as the Antikythera mechanism.

[7:24] This is an ingenious, mathematical and astronomical device that has drawn wide attention. And it's often been referred to as the world's first analog computer. It's drawn wide attention and efforts to reconstruct how it might've worked are contained in these images on the right of the slide. But in addition to the Antikythera mechanism, this unusual statue was pulled up from the deep and it's been identified as Odysseus.

[8:00] This barnacled and battered statue looks every bit, um, like the wiley man of much suffering that we meet in Homer's epic. Uh, he's missing two hands and a leg. Um, and he is vital to the talk that I'm giving today for reasons that I will now say a few things about. The, uh, the Antikythera, uh, Odysseus as he called, was the center of a, uh, an exhibition held at the National Archeological Museum in Athens in 2016 called Odysseys.

[8:39] This, um, this Antikythera Odysseus was one among numerous artifacts that were, um, established in the halls, the rooms of where the exhibition took place. Most of the, the remains I should say of the Antikythera find are in fact housed at the National Archeological Museum in Athens, but he was one of many artifacts featured in the exhibit drawn from across the centuries in rooms on whose walls were projected fragments of modern Greek poetry by C.P.

[9:16] Cavafy, George Seferis, Yiannis Ritsos, and Odysseas Elytis. Lyrical music was piped into the halls by Vangelis Papathanassiou. Evoking the bittersweet vicissitudes of long journeys and broken home comings. Now I bring up this exhibit because it inspired my book. It didn't inspire the inception of the book, but it inspired the organization of the book.

[9:48] The curity, the curators of this exhibit by surrounding the Odysseus statue with artifacts from other journeys and other histories in later times invited the viewer to make associations that were suggestive, resonant, oblique, and that were elicited as much by absence as by presence. As much by what could be seen as what had to be imagined.

[10:22] This form of organization, I thought could be put to work in devising a framework for a critical approach to the poem, the Odyssey. And this is what I needed at the time that I visited the exhibition. I was working with an ensemble of literary works that had only soft connections with Homer's poem. Literary works that ultimately ended up in the pages of my book. Now the exhibits struck up other thoughts.

[10:57] I've long been fascinated by the fact that homecoming and the epic-what, Homer calls "nostos" is neither a stable center in the poem, nor does Odysseus approach it directly. The Odyssey enacts homecoming obliquely, through a long circuitous journey and even one arriving on Ithaca, Odysseus must wander circuitously in his own house.

[11:29] The Odyssey is structured around delays, deferrals and postponements. This has been a topic of longstanding interest in scholarship, and it extends back to the ancient skolia. A few of the most famous delays are that the hero appears center stage in the poem only after four books in which he is seen laterally from competing perspectives. Upon arrival in Ithaca, he repeatedly poses as a Creten and he tells false tales about who he is, where he comes from and what he suffered.

[12:10] When he finally is unmasked he has to depart Ithaca immediately again for a second journey. An inland journey that is going to take him to a place where people don't know the sea and who thinks that the oar that he's carrying in his hands is a winnowing fan. So the iconic image, I think in the poem of this, uh, kind of these strategies of delay and deferral is Penelope herself, who's weaving and unweaving is famous.

[12:46] In the image that I present you with on this slide by Dora Wheeler, you can see, well, first of all, let me say that Wheeler has decided not to paint Penelope, but to weave her. This is a silk embroidered cloth that shows Penelope weaving or unweaving by night, what she weaves by day. And I want you to note something about her position that is very common in Penelope art. And that is that she's seen obliquely from the side.

[13:20] Now the circuitousness of nostos is closely linked in the poem with the circuitous of metis, of cunning, which is Odysseus's key key character trait, as it is a key character trait of Penelope. And metis, or cunning, is a form of practical intelligence that goes about solutions to problems in a wiley, angled, and oblique way. Together they convey the sense in the poem that truth is a crooked thing that has trouble circulating in the open air.

[14:00] This crookedness, this sideways fashion of coming at things seems built into Homeric storytelling itself in the Odyssey. In fact, the Odyssey is often talked about as meta-poetic because it looks to its own characters to reflect upon its own ways of telling stories and making sense. The effect of this crookedness in the Odyssey is that the poem seems to interfere deliberately with its own homecoming.

[14:39] Why is this, what kinds of truths wander? Now these questions seem to me bound up with very fundamental issues in the Odyssey. They reflected conflicts in the emergence of personal and collective identities in the poem. They point to fractures and splits not only in the human subject, but in the basic social units of family and state.

[15:11] They spoke to the ravages of war, the fragility of the psyche under pressure, and also to the resources of trickster figures: Odysseus. Now none of these were new insights into the Odyssey, but I wanted to approach them in ways that had not yet been attempted. I was trying in particular to develop a critical vocabulary and ways of thinking about obliqueness-of way-of indirection, of ways of telling it slant.

[15:47] I was trying to develop this kind of vocabulary in order to respect the ways in which the poem invites us to talk about this. And what I learned very early on in this enterprise is that in the process of trying to create a critical vocabulary to talk about, um, the wileyness and the indirection of the Odyssey, I was continuously going against the grain of concepts of tradition and influence, which brand much of what is called now reception studies.

[16:24] It also tapped in my own efforts also tapped into recent efforts by others in the field who were working along similar lines, and imagining projects like deep classics, post classicisms, peripheral classics, tangential classics. Now for me, the pressure that was being exerted on my project came from the literary works that I was studying in relationship to the Odyssey.

[16:55] C.P. Cavafy, Virginia Woolf, Aime Cesaire. These were writers from very different parts of the globe, the Mediterranean, the Caribbean, Anglo European Britain, and the works that I was studying deeply resonated with the Odyssey without directly engaging it. These writers are often gathered under the rubric of international or global modernism, and they each in their different ways tracked uncommon journeys, arising from homoerotic desire in the case of Cavafy.

[17:38] Of non-normative sexualities in the case of Woolf, and of racial consciousness in the, in the case of Cesaire. Journeys that had yet to make their way into literary expression. Now I was drawing them together because they enabled the study of emergent counter subjectivities in the early 20th century that have continued to shape our ideas about modernity.

[18:09] We are still very much struggling to create languages and ways of thinking that will allow us to think about and discuss what was then abhorrent, marginal, wayward. Cavafy's poetry covered a wide swath of historical subjects, and he in fact called himself often a historical poet. These subjects were drawn not from the classical Greece of the European enlightenment, but from the worlds of late antiquity, Byzantium, and the diasporic populations of the Lavant.

[18:52] Cavafy wrote a great many poems of erotic encounters along the sometimes brand, but often tattered by ways of minor Asian kingdoms, of Eastern Mediterranean towns with mixed populations and in city ghettos. Here, secretive, erotic touches and passing glances, brought moments of rare epiphany. On the slide I present you with some sketches by David Hockney, that he prepared for a translation of a book called 14 Poems by Cavafy.

[19:34] And Hockney himself used Cavafy's itinerant poems to explore his own homosexual encounters. Homoeroticism and diaspora are deeply linked in this Mediterranean writing. Cavafy favors a style of indirection and slant telling not only because his subjects were at the time censored, but because of the power he discovered in suggestiveness and of things half-hidden.

[20:10] He adopts a deliberate skew in steering clear of subjects associated with the grandeur of classical Greece. There are some exceptions to this, and we can talk about them in the Q & A. Cavafy's friend, Ian Forster, once characterized him as "a man standing absolutely motionless at a slight angle to the universe." In Orlando, Virginia Woolf gives us a romp through the centuries and across continents in a figure who lives 350 years, aging only 36 years in the process, and who go through a mysterious sex change in Constantinople, the ancient Byzantium, the modern Istanbul.

[20:59] Woolf's work is subtitled "A Biography", but it's a fictional biography, sort of. Because Orlando is oblique in every sense, since it presents a radically sideways attempt to address her relationship with Vita Sackville-West, who is presented to you in these photographs that are to the right. Woolf satirizes most of British literary history, while staying clear of classical models and disavowing traditional genres.

[21:36] She speaks in Orlando of the phantasmagoria of the mind, and she talks about it as a meeting place of dissemblables. A constant welter of thoughts, feelings, and desires that don't allow direct frontal treatment. And of course she's famous for her experimental ways of going about this in works outside of Orlando. Woolf finds in slantness the strategies she seeks in capturing the polymorphous selves that constitutes sex and gender.

[22:14] One has a sense in reading her work of sailing through a dense sea of tangential literary encounters that are radically de-centered and that cohere, but only tenuously in her luminous poetic prose. A few comments on the photographs to the right, they are indeed of Vita Sackville-West, but you'll notice in the captions she's identified as Orlando. Virginia had in fact, planned, on taking photographs of this sort and including them in Orlando from the beginning.

[22:51] And she had convinced Vita to sit for these photographs, a proposition that Vita was not comfortable with. Most of the photographs were taken by Vanessa Bell, Virginia's sister. Vita, resistant to the idea, nonetheless acquiesced, but she complained in letters to Virginia, that she felt like one of those wax figures in a shop window in which you hang clothes and jewels,, a mannequin in other words. These photos, bear witness, however, to the blurriness of boundaries between truth and fiction, the real and the imagined, history and confabulation, or what Woolf calls "granite and rainbow" in one of her essays.

[23:41] Cesaire descends into the cauldron of slavery and colonialism in "Journal of a Return To The Native Land" and he's the first Caribbean writer to do so. He struggles to conjure up through the imagination what has been swallowed in the abyss of the African slave trade. This is experienced in the poem as a zone of opacity and of submarine hauntings. Cesaire essays or attempts strategies for piecing together the memory of an experience that exists only in fragments.

[24:21] His moves are not direct, but oblique, circuitous, and often implicated in approach and avoidance. He was deeply steeped in the Western tradition and particularly in Greek and Latin, since he took a higher degree at the Ecole Normale Superieur in Paris. But his work often though, not always eludes Western literary forms. So attempting to fit him into standard models of source and derivation, prototype and copy, can not only be critically obtuse, but even offensive.

[24:59] Given the radical character of the poetic project, which is to decolonialize the Caribbean mind. The drawing on the left here is by Pablo Picasso. And it is-- was included in a volume of Cesaire's poetry called "Corps Perdu", or Lost Body published in 1950. It was also used though, for the poster that circulated to advertise the first International Congress of Black Writers and Artists, which was held in Paris in 1956.

[25:38] The middle image here is from the famous Cuban painter Wifredo Lam. It's often included in volumes on Negritude, a concept that Cesaire helped forge and that we can talk about in the Q & A. And the image on the right here is one of the under water sculptures that are located off the coast of Grenada just off the coast of Venezuela by Jason deCaires Taylor, haunting images of what lies at the bottom of the Caribbean.

[26:14] So what I was talking about in the book were lowercase odysseys that practice a poetics of indirection, and that don't originate in the Odyssey or approach it as a prototype. It might help to think in terms of a comparison here. Joyce's "Ulysseys", Pound's "Cantos", H.D.'s "Helen in Egypt", and Kazantzakis' "Odyssey: A Sequel", these are famous works in classical modernism that directly engage with the ancient poem and they invite a critical idiom of tradition, influence and adaptation as those concepts have been deployed in mainstream reception studies.

[27:03] All of these works, I should say, had been treated brilliantly in recent criticism and without that work, this book that I wrote would never have been possible. But in configuring Cavafy, Woolf, and Cesaire, I was trying to bring other forms of relation into view. Rather than embracing influence and adaptation, these writers with some important exceptions, often elluded direct encounters with origins and ancient canonical texts.

[27:38] And so they called for approaches that respected the gestures they were enacting that were in tune with ways of telling it's slant. So "Modern Odysseys" is a contribution to the disarticulation of basic concepts of classical influence and reception. Some of the strategies I use are listed on this slide. I tried to treat the Odyssey, not as an Ur-text, as a font or as a source, but rather as a multiform.

[28:14] As a tale that was told in many different ways already in antiquity. In a living oral tradition we no longer have access to accept and trace elements. Some of those traces in the Odyssey itself. The Homer MultiText project, which many of you know about and which Casey we'll talk about in a few minutes, was an enormous help to me in conceptualizing and theorizing the consequences of a multiform Homer.

[28:47] It demonstrates in uncanny ways, the Homer MultiText project, how the ancient oral and contemporary digital realms are converging. I also developed four loosely configured tropes for this project. Tropes in the basic sense of leanings, turns, tendencies that captured aspects of journeys. These tropes were only loosely Homeric.

[29:18] They weren't drawn from Homeric scholarship, though I had thought about Homeric scholarship in shaping them; they were not authored by Homer. These are elements of a critical construct that I had to put together and I drew them eclectically across the range of poetry and fiction. One of the things I've resisted in the book was author-dominated chapters. So I tried not to write a book that had chapters on Homer and Cavafy, Homer and Cesaire, Homer and Woolf.

[29:52] Instead, what I tried to do was to organize units with multiples, and I worked toward an essayistic style of composition, often using techniques of collage and juxtaposition in order to draw out what it means to work along the lines of weak links. So I'm going to tail off right now with this last slide in which I give you the table of contents of my book so that you can kind of see some of the challenges I was engaged with.

[30:26] I did keep to an organization of chapters. This was mostly because my editors has told me I had to. "Books don't sell without chapters", they said, so I kept chapters, but I organized them around the four tropes of diffusion and mixture, islands and isolation, passage and detour, return and split endings. I did lead with essays of Homer. And even though I was trying to deauthorize in a sense, detextualize, how we might go about the study of literature in this new way, I kept to authors whom I named in the introduction, because I wanted to make the book user-friendly enough for people who wanted to just tap into Cavafy or just into Cesaire.

[31:14] They could consult the chapters in the book in order to find out how to do that. So you can't entirely escape the strictures that you're trying to in going about this kind of project. But I wanted you to see some of the ways in which I attempted to work with the concepts of indirection. And there I'm going to stop sharing and move back to the gallery view here and either back to Richard, or to Casey, who I think is next in the line of those who are going to speak to the project.

[31:48] That's right. We're going to go now, for a brief set of responses from people, who are especially situated with particular aspects of your book. And we'll begin with my colleague, Casey Due here at Houston in response, especially to the Odyssey. Okay, great. Can everybody hear me and see my slides, I hope? Actually I'm going to press play to make sure that works. Okay. Awesome. Thank you so much, Michelle, for inviting me.

[32:20] I mean, even just in your talk just now, I'm learning so much. And you know, even though I've been working on the Homer MultiText or thinking about it, conceptualizing it over more than 20 years, I always tell people we really are just getting started. We really just kind of laid the groundwork and then for more work to be done and you're wanting the implications and working with it. And so, I'm just so thrilled to hear everything you're saying.

[32:51] So let me be brief, but whenever, whenever I try to make sense of the Homeric epics as a multiform, poetic tradition. I go back to, the concept of antiquity and, and fluidity. I try to explain that these, this is a, this is a dynamic tradition, but it's also, it is traditional and that's hard-- that's hard to conceptualize. But in thinking about the, the, the, the antiquity, I, I always go back to, you know, this Fresco from the Bronze age site of Pylos.

[33:27] So we're, you know, nearly a thousand years before anything like text fixation of the Illiad and the Odyssey. And we see, I like to imagine something like an epic poet, performing an epic song, maybe something like the Iliad or the Odyssey. And clearly the artist has envisioned the song as, a bird. And it makes me think of course of that famous, traditional formulaic phrase of "winged words" that you see again and again throughout the epic poems.

[33:58] That's not the only example. We also have this late Minoan Pyxis, showing a musician, maybe an epic poet, and, and the song seems to be conceptualized as birds. And I just show these just to, to again, emphasize antiquity, but also fluidity that the song is conceived of as being in flight. It's something that once is spoken, it flies. It's not pinned down, it's not, rigid. It is, it is dynamic.

[34:29] And in making the Homer MultiTexts, we were very, influenced by, by the work of Mullen Perry and Albert Lord, but especially Albert Lord's, talk of the word multiform. He, he, he writes that "the word multi-form is more accurate than 'variant' because it does not give preference or precedence to any one word or set of words to express an idea; instead it acknowledges that the idea may exist in several forms." So I think this ties in with Michelle's work very well.

[35:00] There's not an or text a-- and everything that derives from it. But instead, there-- it's a multi-form tradition. There are instantiations of the Odyssey, instantiations of the Iliad, but there's not one single text from which everything else varies. Unfortunately, you know, that understanding of the epic tradition it goes against everything you learn in graduate school when you're being taught how to work with ancient texts, right?

[35:31] Because they, the, the goal of many classists has been to establish the text. Make the text, and then, you know, establish it as, as the correct text and everything else is just you know, what you put at the very bottom of the page to show what you made the text from. Right. But, but it implies that there's a correct text and everything else is just, you know, ancillary. So I, I'm trying to, you know, show that the reality of the transmission, especially of the Iliad is way more complicated, than that.

[36:08] And, that, we have to take a multi textual approach to, the Iliad and the Odyssey. And this slide of the so-called Benetus A from the 10th century AD is, already, it's a multi-form document. It's the oldest quote unquote, complete text of the Iliad. And yet it's full of multi-formity, between the lines, inner margins, outer margins, the main body of skolia, there are so many different, discussions of other ways to go with the text.

[36:38] Right. And, and so when I say, take a multi text approach to Homeric epic is that I don't make my interpretations or my scholarship based on the idea that there is one text that a guy wrote, but rather many instantiations of the texts that were known in different times in different places. So, and just to sum up, it's more appropriate to speak of, multi forms rather than an Ur text and variant, and it's more appropriate to consider each transmitted Odyssey and Iliad that we encounter as instantiations of a notional text that is somehow both traditional fluid.

[37:19] Oh, Richard's telling me by texts that I cut out a bit, but am I still, am I there now? Can you hear me now? Okay, good. Sorry about that. You can always ask questions later. Oh wait, no, I'm going to, I'm going to stay with the Venetus A. Now, Michelle talks in her book beautifully about the Cretan lies. And I often like to talk about them too, as examples of, not only multformity, because Odysseus tells tales, that could be Odysseys.

[37:55] But also, show awareness of multiformity. In other words, the Odyssey knows that it's multiform. And, of course we see that even from the opening lines, with Odysseus and his signature, epithet, Polutropos, he can turn into many different things, he's a chameleon, he's had many turns, you know, he's multi-form, basically, is what is what Polutropos is telling us. But Crete in, in these Cretan lies kind of symbolizes, that idea of multi formity and indirection.

[38:29] Of course, Crete has a long history of being associated with, alternatives, alternative stories. There's the parable, I mean, the, what do you call that, that, that, that, that typical phrase," all Cretans are liars". But then, you know, in addition to the being associated with, with alternative poetics and different ways of telling the story, other versions, Crete is associated with alternative warfare, with ambush, with special ops, right.

[39:02] And, of course that's all dominated by Métis. So Odysseus' signature trait of Metis, of cunning intelligence, , is associated with Crete in the Iliad, the, the heroes from Crete, Idomeneus and Meriones are the ones that give us our fullest description of, of ambush as the place where, you know, the bravery of men is most on show. The audience of these epics is also very much aware of the multi formity of epic and when, a great example of that, is, is, I think, you know, is, is in the Cretan lies on, and, the one that, Odysseus tells Eumaeus where he talks about how they got an , how they set up an ambush before Troy one night.

[39:51] So he tells this story to Eumaeus and he talks about how he was so cold, that he, he would get, he, he told, he, he tricked someone basically into, running back to the ships. And so he gets, he gets their cloak, right? He gets the cloak of the soldier who ran back to the ships. But, the audience, of course, Eumaeus doesn't, in theory, know that this is Odysseus, he's still in disguise.

[40:23] But in book 10 of the Iliad, which is a book in which ambush occurs and night raids, all the heroes, or their clothing is elaborately described as they go out into the night for this first assembly in the night. And the only one who doesn't have a cloak is Odysseus. So there's this whole thing with cloaks and, and, and, and deception and disguise and revelation and Odysseus is of course, you know, signaling who he is. And certainly the audience would know.

[40:55] But, and, and, and interesting but it's an interesting extra layer to this whole dynamic that, in this particular lie, we have an illusion to Iliad 10 to the Doloneia, the, the, the book in which Diomedes and Odysseus go on a night raid and ended up ambushing Rhesus and, and his men. So, of course, This book, is, was, I think mentioned maybe before, maybe it was before everyone arrived, but we were talking about this book as one that explores the poetics of ambush or a book I wrote with my colleague, Mary Ebbott I should say, about the Doloneia.

[41:36] It explores the poetics of, of, of ambush or Lacoste Lacoste. And the poetics of ambush are basically, you know, ambush is an oblique or indirect approach to warfare, right? When you can't do the full on assault, when the regular battle where you, you know, throw everything you have at the walls isn't working after 10 years, what do you gotta do? You gotta try something else. You gotta try an indirect approach. And of course, Troy only falls by the indirect approach, the, the wooden horse.

[42:09] So book 10 is our book that's full of indirection and, and, and, and poetics of alternative and the poetics of Metis. It shares a lot of formulaic language with the Odyssey. And so it's, it's very interesting that, even in antiquity or, you know, there was suspicion that maybe this book doesn't belong in the Iliad, Iliad 10, I mean. And so, here's the skolion, on Iliad 10 from the Townley manuscript, "They say that this epic composition was arranged separately by Homer," still by Homer, but not to be part of the Iliad and" it was arranged into that poem by Peisistratos."

[42:51] So, I don't want to say a lot about that, but just to indicate that even in antiquity, there was, a suspicion that somehow the Iliad 10 is, is different. It's it's Odyssey like, and it should not, maybe it doesn't match the rest of the Iliad, but, of course I have theories about why that is. Okay. There's a few things just very quickly. I'm going to be wrapping up that a lot of these ideas, were starting to be were articulated, even in the eighties, by, by Cerquiglini and in his book, you know, Eloge de la variante In Praise of the Variant.

[43:34] And, I just, at one point in that book, he, he, quotes, Ramon Menendez Pidal. And he says, he says in the book that "the epic genre exists only in variants." But if you go look up the actual quote, you know, it's not, he doesn't get it exactly right, but it's close enough. Right. And it's, the variant is not a fortuitous and adverse accident, but the normal way of life of the ballad. In other words, you know, a tradition like this is meant to be multiform.

[44:10] It was always going to be multiform. And so to the big question is how do we grapple with the poetics of a multi-form oral tradition? And I will stop here. Thank you. Thank you very much. Again, just to note on format, we're going to have a few of these brief presentations by our discussants, and then move on to responses by Michelle. And again, if you do have questions, there's a special Q and A feature in this webinar that you should notice, please, if you'll put your questions there, we'll try to get to them simply because the chat also is, dealing with other issues.

[44:52] Now as a courteous courtesy, especially for staying up so late Laura Jansen, will make her a statement and, and then we'll move on. When you get back to me, you know, we're, we're getting close to being done. Great. Thank you very much for your introduction and thank you very much for inviting me here tonight. And thank you, Michelle, for your wonderful book. So in preparing for my comments, I spent quite a bit of time pondering, not the conjunction of Homer, or especially after everything we've heard to the idea of Homer or the poet that we call Homer and Virginia Woolf, one of the three modernist authors that Michelle Zerba considers in her compelling book.

[45:40] I was wondering how to reflect on the remarkable politics of indirection that Michelle tracks in the polyvalent, deep time structures of the Odyssey and Orlando specifically in terms of two interrelated areas of interpretation guiding her study. The first sees her rethinking of how to approach the relationship between antiquity and modernity above all when encounters between ancient and modern authors and texts are, as Michelle puts it, not frontal, but oblique as well as sustained through a network that maps out markedly different dynamics of reading the two texts side by side.

[46:25] And the other dimension is the richly transgressive counter such subjectivities that emerge through this revisionary approach. As one follows the roots of indirection that subtly connect Odysseus' and Orlando's wandering return. Above all I was struck by the way indirection, generates lateral understandings and lateral visions of the Odyssey and Orlando. Not just within the specific narratives, but also as one can see there is the four tropes that weakly, and here emphatically I use quotes, "weakly linked them together despite their many differences as they travel across imaginary geographies under teaching us spans of time.

[47:15] Both Odysseus and Orlando are pulled by force and sea movements of sea like movements of diffusion and mixture, island and isolation, passage and detour, and return on split ends." It is this form of circulation that gives accute expression to Odysseus' and Orlando's emerging subjectivities of their kleos and transsexuality, respectively. And so this is what I would like to expand on a bit more for the next three, four minutes, offering some reflections on the significant contribution that Modern Odysseys makes to the emergent study of oblique, or what I would like to call tangent classic systems.

[48:03] Indeed, I would suggest that Michelle's brilliant book could also be entitled Tangent Odysseys, wandering journeys of modernist writings about how human experience and transgression and transgression marginally yet highly creatively make contact with Homer's own tale of return. One of the many virtues of Michelle's book is that it invites readers to reconsider what constitutes reception, both as a methodology and a disciplinary category and how we may expand or indeed rewrite the future of this practice.

[48:44] For me, this begins with Michelle's genius, appeal to Emily Dickinson's poem "Tell all the truth and tell it slant" with tell it slant becoming the guiding model for rethinking how authors like Woolf narrate Orlando's journey as an Odysseus-like voyage to transsexuality within the gender normativity of late Victorian England. Here the concepts of obliquity and tangentiality offer a more capacious paradigm for plotting the pissy quality of Woolf's Odyssian strategies as well as the degree of implicitness, but also indirection, through which her classical knowledge, ideas, impulses, memories, associations, even oversimplifications and inaccuracies emerge and interact with her interesting poem.

[49:46] Indeed one can think of her novel "Orlando", which relates the 36 years of someone's life in the precipitous span of 350 years as a character of narrative casually living alongside, but not in, the world of the Odyssey. In this sense, one finds a limitation in NBCT in wolves regard for the Odyssey, through the lens of traditional avenues of classical reception or within the disciplinary boundaries that consciously or otherwise continue to guard approaches to her classical engagement with Homeric literature.

[50:27] For example, by exclusively tracing substance or obiquity of classical references in such a way that they can speak to and tell of a weighty direct or sizeable point of departure for a reception exercise to be worth pursuing. Michelle is not alone in thinking about ancient and modern encounters in this way. For example, scholars of classics and the classical tradition are increasingly tapping into these kinds of questions.

[51:03] In her 2021 lecture for receptions and comparativisms for the archive of performances in Greek and Roman drama, Emily Greenwood draws attention to the problems that reception still be traced when it comes to the vigilance of its disciplinary borders, which often disclosing transition in transitions views and approaches to the subfield. In my own work, I have tried to argue for a closer study of the emergence of the classical as an absence.

[51:40] You see an absence as a trope for rethinking what we mean and what we are after in the pursuit of classical presences, especially in case of modern authors for whom antiquity is an alluring yet barely there presence. And when the connective thread of influence seems to exist at breaking point, finally, there is much to be learned from students of comparative literature who are also challenging the borders and orders of knowledge in their own field.

[52:14] Just last week, Alexandre Beecroft tapped on this issue in relation to the question of influence, arguing that I quote, "it's easy to compare things that are produced near each other, by people who are able to influence each other. Traditionally, comparative literature has compare literatures in close contact with each other. At first European literatures, later literatures in European languages around the world and sometimes even contemporary literatures in non-European languages where the influence of European literature is clear.

[52:54] But what about comparisons where contact is minimal and almost non-existent? Is that something we should try to do at all?" End quote. So I have two interrelated questions for me, for you and Michelle, and maybe we can discuss them later. What do you envisage as the place of your important study in this growing critique of the enterprise of reception? And second, whether collectively, these new lines of research, including your own, can be set to belong to the category of reception per se.

[53:35] May the future in pale expanding receptions horizons even further and further and further, or might reception become too restrictive, a term to capture the new paradigm? Thank you. Thank you very much, Laura. And those are absolutely central questions. We'll definitely return to them. But first, let's give some time to your fellow night owl there in the UK. Adam, we're ready for you to chime in.

[54:07] Hi, there everybody. I'm just going to share my screen for a presentation. Thank you very much for inviting me to speak. Okay. So as my, as my first slide suggests, this is just a few thoughts on some of my responses, I suppose, to the role of Aime Cesaire in Michelle's book and how, I suppose what it made me think and what I thought we could draw out of that in terms of questions.

[54:38] So in the first instance, so one of the things that we've been saying here is that the Odyssey, as, I mean, when we reach the end of the Odyssey, of Homer's Odyssey, actually we aren't at the end of Odysseus' journey. This is just a snapshot of, and really over the course of Odysseus' mythological life, there are lots of journeys, aren't there, of which this homecoming is only one.

[55:11] And we're told sort of proleptically about all the things that are going to happen after. I was thinking about that in terms of Aime Cesaire as well, about what happens after he's written the particular poem which Michelle talks about, "The Notebook of a Return to My Native Land". So that comes out between sort of 1939 is its initial form and then it reaches another form in 1947 and then it reaches another form of publication in 1956.

[55:45] And actually 1956 is a very crucial year for Aime Cesaire both in terms of his artistic and his political career, because he was both an artist and a politician. So it's actually 1946 that Cesaire resigns from the French communist party after the Soviet Union's invasion of Hungary in October, 1956.

[56:18] And so that's one reason that he's not happy about the response of the, of the communist party in France to the action because he sees it as being a being an Imperial act by the Soviet Union. And also because he thinks,, he's come to think that actually the communist party don't really care about him and the, and the, the rest of the Black race, so that's what he includes in this famous letter.

[57:06] And so he's kind of chose to chose an entirely different political paths-- path, but it's also the moment, strikingly, when he starts to publish tragedies. So between 1956 and 1973, he actually, I can't remember if he publishes absolutely no poetry, but he certainly mainly publishes tragedies and this is his first one that you can see an image of on the-- on the slide.

[57:43] And I suppose that just led me to think about some of these artistic shifts that took place as Cesaire continued his Odyssey through the artistic and the political world. So on the one hand, and this is something I argue in an essay that I've written about Cesaire, on the one hand, we see a shift from the mythological to the historical and the shift from the sort of more epic poem to these tragic dramas. So he's less interested in the kind of iconic-- in sort of iconic and symbolic representations of his own identity and of his idea of racial politics and racial identity.

[58:31] And he actually becomes more interested in it's kind of historical dimension and in what can be learned from history. And this fits into another shift, which is from the individual to the collective. So when he's writing in his more, it, when he's writing in a mode, which is more related to Homer's Odyssey, there's more of an individual focus for Cesaire, he's more interested in his own journey, both back to Martinique. And also in terms of coming to terms is probably not the right word, but just thinking through his identity.

[59:09] And so there's a shift from that individual focus to a, more, to more of a focus on the collective. So his dramas have a more sort of moral didactic purpose, almost, trying to teach people about the past. And there's also these shifts, there are these two shifts really from epic to tragedy which you can understand both historically and artistically. So you can understand in 1939, in The Notebook, he's interested in history in more of a sort of epic mode.

[59:47] He's interested in things like the Haitian Revolution and its success whereas when he moves through his tragedies, he's interested in history as a kind of tragic thing. So he's interested in, for example, one of his, one of his tragedies is about the assassination of Patrice Lumumba in, 1960. So there's also a, so there's this shift in how he thinks about history, but which is kind of, which is kind of it's accompanied by a shift in terms of these artistic forms.

[1:00:24] So he moves from the epic form to the tragic form. And so the idea that his response to the Odyssey is just one part of this journey, that's something that I that I would like us to think about. And also particularly in relation to the other artists that we're talking about. So to what degree is the Odyssey to, what it's like, to what extent do these artists have a kind of Homer's Odyssey phase?

[1:01:00] And the second idea was this idea of internal and external geographies , like kind of internal, psychological geographies and external real-world geographies. And I was really struck by what Michelle wrote about Cesaire's writings about this volcano in Martinique, Mount Pele and how Cesaire grew up nearby. And he, and almost the experience of living near a volcano came to influence his attitude towards his own art that he, he actually saw himself as a volcanic, poet and how that was.

[1:01:44] And so on the one hand, I think that links to ideas of kind of inspiration and kind of the natural forces of poetry. But on the other hand, thinking about the, thinking about the, destructive force of a volcano also led me to think about a line that James Joyce uses about Ulysses when he's describing why he wrote it. So this is obviously, this is another response to the Odyssey, more direct as Michelle commented, but he says on one of his reasons for writing his account, his writing his response to Homer's Odyssey " I want to give a picture of Dublin so complete that if the city one day suddenly disappeared from the earth, it could be reconstructed out of my book."

[1:02:47] Now on the one hand, this is this isn't really the same. This isn't really the story that you often hear about Joyce's Ulysses. You hear the story about Joyce's Ulysses it's very much internal. It's about stream of consciousness. It's about human psychology and that sort of comes out quite a lot in Michelle's book, the way in which people are grappling with different forms of identity, different forms of their own way they're positioned in the world. But I wondered about, obviously when you read Homer's Odyssey, there's an external journey as well.

[1:03:22] There's an idea that you are traveling from one place to another in the real world. And it's the same with Cesaire. He is traveling to Martinique and it's almost seems to be the same with Joyce, that he is traveling to Dublin; he wants to account for Dublin. And I wondered, well then I suppose that will bring us to the two questions I had. So on the one hand, we're referring to what I said at first, do we think that allusions to Homer's Odyssey form part of a distinctive stage in the careers of each of the artists that Michelle discusses, or is it unique to Cesaire?

[1:04:02] And second I wondered why, why we all think not only Michelle, that's Homer's Odyssey helps these authors, and also other authors, think about the interaction of these internal and external geographies. So, yeah. Excellent. Thank you very much. Those are great questions. And I also want to thank, Alan Miller and Joseph Arsokay for the questions they put in the Q&A and remind everyone that that is available for you and we'll come back to those.

[1:04:34] But now, Patrice, let's, let's hear from you. So hi everyone. And thanks again for inviting me, Michelle. And everyone should know this is an excellent book, excellently written, evocative in all kinds of really important ways. So, I'm going to also share the screen. And I'd like to spend my 10 minutes, hopefully everyone can see that, maybe someone on the panel can just give me a thumbs up. Great. Thank you. I'd like to spend my time on the idea of dissolution, limits, boundaries in at least three senses.

[1:05:10] The limits of the text, which we've been hearing about, and by that, I mean, both the classical texts and the contemporary. The limits of racial affiliation that the book really begins to, unearth, evoke. And the limits of the human, thirdly, the limits of the human. To some extent, when we talk about seeing things slant wise, or moving the boundaries of the narrative that we create and that have come to define us, and I realized that slanting and boundary crossing are two different, if even compatible tropes, we're really talking about a kind of death , or a kind of passing from one form to another.

[1:05:49] Before the Katabasis before the underworld ascent, we have to encounter disillusion or death, we're crossing a boundary. Cesaire presents the possibility of encountering Negritude through its saint, Toussaint Louverture, as a death crossing for Michelle's opening the definition of Louverture through incantation. And, for those who are jogging and doing other things, while we give our talks , I often listen to these things while I'm running and doing other things, I'm just going to, there's a slide in front of us, a long, quote from Cesaire's work, but I'm just going to read a short portion that's highlighted on the slide.

[1:06:31] "Death traces a shining circle above this man. Death stars softly above his head. Death breathes in the ripened cane of his arms, death gallops in the prison, like a white horse. Death expires in a white pool of silence. Cesaire is interested in the possibility of the emergence from a blackness that is already death to the blackness of Negritude and the image of Louverture leads through the darkness.

[1:07:04] But there's also the possibility exposed by Cesaire's poetry and by Michelle's study of the death of a classical tradition based on hierarchy, or even the end of reception, which we've been hearing about as well and comparativism based on manifest material, tangible points of contact, at least strong links. And I too think that the links in Michelle's book are much stronger, than, we've been suggesting. This disillusion might be regrettable in some ways, the end of these things might be regrettable in some ways, but in other ways, the possibilities are exciting if we can imagine what we're passing into.

[1:07:48] In her definition of fuzzy connections, which I think I couldn't remember exactly Michelle, if you, if you cite, Lorna Hardwick, I think you do, but she reminds us, that readers, she reminds us our, her readers, that meaning is generated at the point of reception between the poet and the audience venturing that the belated artist is, in Hardwick's words, rarely a classical philologist let alone knowledgeable about the contexts of the original text.

[1:08:21] For this meaning generated at the point of reception just how many possibilities might there be? And I'm showing a slide of an image of the Weeknd and Da Baby on Kanye West's "Hurricane", which I've shown at another presentation, gesturing beside the Three Graces. And I'm showing this to suggest the endless and lateral positions that we might imagine. When I think of the classical slant wise, I wonder if, Michelle might talk a little bit about the juxtapositions she left behind.

[1:08:55] And we've heard a little bit about this already, the possibilities that were pruned away for the wonderful coherent composition, the text that is her Modern Odysseys. For example, given Adam's presence here today, I'm struck by Cesaire, by his connection in this case, not at all fuzzy , his association of the Dion-- with the Dionysus of Euripides and of Nietzsche, which Adam teases out in his book "Dionysus After Nietzsche".

[1:09:28] And I'm showing the incantatory repetitions of um, and, uh, it's on the screen in French, but I'm going to read, the English translation. Eia for those who never invented anything, for those who never explored anything, for those who never conquered anything. Eia, for joy. Eia, for love. Eia, for grief. And it's utter, it's utters of reincarnated tears. These are seductive next to the repetitions of Eia in the Bacchai.

[1:10:04] And perhaps Adam here we're disrupting the epic versus tragic associations, "Ο δ'εξαρχοσ βρομιοσ, ευοι. Ευια τον ευιον αγαλλομεναι θεον." So the repetition of the incantation here is certainly Bacchic. This is not necessarily to make a reception argument, but rather to suggest one of the many lateral positionings that generate from Michelle's study of tropes.

[1:10:36] If we take her book as a tool of our own Katabasis of a dissolution of what we know to be a passage into something else. One such passage would be to link Modern Odysseys to occurrent amongst several black studies scholars of querying and multiplying notions of racial affiliation. So I want to suggest here that this book is within a broader context in scholarship, in various fields and the two that I want to highlight are first Black studies and then the post-human.

[1:11:15] In her reading of Cesaire, Michelle proposes that in her words, and I'm just going to read a section of the book here, "Africa, once again, functions as a vital detour to a continent that lies outside the passage that loops the Antilles and Europe. It triangulates a binary relationship by deepening the terms in which it may be understood and extending the purview of history. Cesaire transports the I'image, the, Imago even of the Negritude hero, Louverture, to Africa.

[1:11:49] He travels him, which closes a triangular passage between Europe and the Caribbean by placing Cesaire alongside Cavafy and Woolfe. However, Michelle does the kind of unmasking that Stephen Best credits to Eve Sedgwick in her idea of besideness, besideness, which to Best offers a way out of what he considers to be a dualistic thinking. This besideness, or lateral positioning, the detour, reveals that the route to Africa was not inevitable, nor is this Africa any one thing.

[1:12:33] Saidiya Hartman questioned the notion -- the notional Africa of Paul Gilroy's Black Atlantic in her book, Lose Your Mother where a trip to Africa, to Ghana, to Africa, to Ghana disrupts her fantasy of kinship. And here again, I'm just going to read a short section of Hartman's book, Which Africa was it that we African-Americans claimed? There was not one Africa there never had been.

[1:13:04] Was Africa merely a cipher for a loss country that no one could any longer name? Was it the remedy for our homelessness or an opportunity to turn our backs to the hostile country we called home? Or was there a future in Africa too? Identity is a fiction, a lie as Kwame Anthony Appiah has it. Kinship evoking, sorry, kinship equivocating in the stay leave, the push and pull of Judith Butler's Broken Bonds in her keynote on kinship.

[1:13:44] The hope that Hartman expresses early in her trip to Ghana of the diasporic possibility of return is disrupted as the hope for kinship ties that result from the social death of enslavement in the United States are revealed to be even more fraught on the continent. Africa is as much a fiction or a multiplicity of imagined affiliations as the Homeland of Ithaca. In light of the realization of aporia, Best chooses, or imagines what it might be like to choose disaffiliation, disaffection over the effective fallacy of association.

[1:14:25] And here is a bit from Stephen Best. He says "Time and again, I would set out to recover something from the archive and fail in the attempt. But what seemed to be affirmed in each attempt was not the recalcitrance of the past, but rather the extent to which I am drawn into being ecstatically dispossessed. Facing up to this fact, I'm inspired to craft a historicism that is not melancholy, but accepts the past's turning away as an ethical condition of my desire for it.

[1:15:00] The past turns away, dissolving Africa, revealing it to be lost in the archives of history. But Best welcomes the dissolution .Best's book is titled None Like Us". And we don't have time today to delve into it, but suffice it to say that the title derives from David Walker's 1833 Appeal to the Colored Citizens of the World where Walker prays to God that "none like us ever may live again until time shall be no more."

[1:15:31] If there shall be none, unlike us, then disaffiliation, disillusion, death, triumphs over any potential for an effective resection of the past. Any potential of a Black Atlantic conviviality is lost to the isolation that Michelle recognizes alongside Hartman and Best. Here again, very much in keeping with some trends in Black studies that we, over the last 10 years or so. Beside the slant wise view of racial affiliation, not as post racialism, but as a multiplicity of approaches to the historical conundrum of race, I suggest a second context in which we might position Michelle's book, the post-human.

[1:16:19] The construct of the human as Zakia Imaan Jackson argues in "Becoming Human" always already required not necessarily it's opposite in the non-human, but certainly the embodiment of a range of non-human possibilities in, for example, blackened people, especially the blackened female body that could be, as Jackson puts it, "mobilized to produce racial difference." Modern Odysseys is in conversation with discussions of post humanism, particularly those that the digital humanities spawn.

[1:16:56] As Michelle discusses, for example, the flattening of the epic cycle of poetry is oweing to what we heard about earlier in the digital project. And I'm going to quote a little bit, again, this is a longer quote, but I'm just going to quote the bottom half here of, Michelle's introduction to the project "By radically altering notions of authorship and source, and by emphasizing the concept of multiformity and local versions of the return tale, the Homer MultiText Project has enabled a way of thinking about the Odyssey as a composition in performance that competed with and marginalized, other tales.

[1:17:40] Digital humanities occasions the potential disillusion of the text such that associations can be reconfigured in ways that the book exemplifies. The potential of such disillusion as far reaching. Beyond Homer, as Stefan Tanaka puts it in History Without Chronology and again, just reading short portions of a longer quote, "Digital media raises another issue for humanistic scholarship, boundaries between objects, information, facts, knowing and understanding."

[1:18:11] Digital media disrupts or flattens the nature and use of past material. Again, digital humanities is only one of many technologies that dissolve the human as we have come to know it as a discursive reality. Post humanism also places the species alongside technology as another intelligence that displaces the human at the center of knowledge, such as in the creation of cyborgs and artificial intelligence.

[1:18:43] If the text, as we knew it before the delayed, the text as a closed circuit is dead, perhaps we have crossed into the possibility of the disillusion of narrative, or certainly as Tanaka argues, the disillusion of history. Or at the very least we can recognize a shift from the human as storytelling to the human as story and reality revising. And Michelle's book is also a revising-- a rewriting as much as, and as powerfully as Homer is.

[1:19:19] So, there is, is there any more, a narrative closure other than a cybernetic one that raises other circuits that, that calls up other circuits? So thanks Michelle for the book and your diffusion, isolation and detours and returns. You've called us to an endless search for an identity that is actually never to be found, even though we might rest from time to time on the identities that we call home. Thank you very much.

[1:19:53] There we go. I know it comes back to me, and Michelle, I want to give you ample time to respond, so I don't want to go on too long, but I thought it would bring back-- bring us back to sort of two things. One is sort of at a personal level, why your book resonated with me with regard to Cavafy because Cavafy was an important author for me as I struggled against my classical education. So partly what I want to talk about is a return to the very old fashioned idea of hellenism, right?

[1:20:26] And, and think about how you've helped us to really focus on Cavafy's eccentric Hellenism we might call it, right, as opposed to the centered Hellenism that is such a part of the traditional classics curriculum. Which as you know, is fundamentally very Atheno-centric, very caught up in the Periclean moment, right? And I was thinking about that for a couple of reasons. In part though, you know, when Shelly very famously says "we are all Greeks" what he really means is we are all Athenians, right?

[1:20:58] In the liberal democratic tradition that is really fundamentally the focus based on certain types of identity formation, that are constantly being played out with Greek democracy. I'm thinking of, you know, in the poem Helis "Let there be lights at Liberty and like sunrise from the sea Athens arose," you know. Shelly is very good at slogans like that, but he also creates, and I think the classical curriculum traditionally often he did create, in Western Europe and United States, that sort of weird, historical imperialism of Athens, right?

[1:21:31] He goes on to say "Her citizens' imperial spirits rule the present from the past on all this world of men inherits. Their seal is set." So there's a curious way in which this Heidi centered Hellenism that we sort of go into through a traditional classics curriculum, you know, kind of creates that vision. Well I remember, I always struggled with this in part being a medievalist, as well as the person with an interest in classics and reading Cavafy, of course, did precisely what you're talking about with these tropes of diffusion and mixture.

[1:22:04] Showed me a poet who can create these wonderful personae of a very diffused and geographical and temporal dispersion of Hellenism. So in a way, taking the idea of Odyssey and his famous poem on Ithaca, we sort of think of Cavafy's engagement as a sort of Odyssey of Hellenism itself, right, which is one of the fascinating things about these historical personae that he creates. And if we want to take his poem, Ithaca, just as a point of departure, again, the point is the journey and not the return destination, right?

[1:22:38] So when we think about what it is, in the field of classics for so long, the obsessive return, always to the original horizon, right? Trying to get to the authentic reality of this ancient culture. It's done us such a tremendous disservice in understanding, you know, the complexity and the compromise that is Hellenism. And again, I think this is one of the reasons why, both the Odyssey and Cavafy's work are, need to be read constantly in this way. The idea of return is essential in a way, as he says, it is Ithaca that gave you the lovely journey, right?

[1:23:15] So again, this impulse to return incorporate, and in some sense, build a relationship with the past I don't think ever fully goes away with those. But what fascinates me with Cavafy and again, that you bring out so well, is how his Odyssey of Hellenism deliberately pushes to the far corners, not just Alexandria, but Antioch, Hellenized Jerusalem, Constantinople in the Byzantine world, which is very important given his funereal lineage and even beyond Zagros, as he says in his I think wonderfully ironic poem, back to you in a minute.

[1:23:50] So I love that your book also reminds us that in the Odyssey itself, we're dealing with a peripheral Hellenic world. I mean, Troy is, after all, is in the far Eastern edge, Ithaca on the Western edge, Ogygia farther still, right? In fact, we only get to the mainland of Greece because Telemachus decides to go there from Ithaca, right? In real time that is to say. So Homer's world is itself this interesting kind of peripheral world in the Odyssey.

[1:24:21] And the Achaeans are often in abject defeat so that the idea of it as a triumphal pageant, as we're constantly thinking and rehearsing, what is this old heroic version of, you know, of Greece? Obviously we all know, in reading Homer that the sorrow, the loss, the sort of impending sense of doom, these are powerful elements that have nothing to do with a kind of triumphalism. And so in that sense, reading the Odyssey in this way, vis-a-vis Cavafy really you know, resonated with me, I remember at a very early age, precisely as a sort of antidote.

[1:24:57] But lately I've actually been thinking of a poem by another poet who responds to Cavafy and that's my former colleague Adam Zagajewski who was here for some years before he went to Chicago. And here's a poem called "Falling Asleep Over a Volume of Cavafy". And what's interesting is he depicts Cavafy's cast of characters, these historical personae throughout his poems, as interesting sort of stylized failures. Quote, "Who endured failure superbly with grace and accepted the catastrophe of their nations, their cities systematically subdued by Rome, not easily, but with unequal brilliance."

[1:25:36] He goes on to say, since their consolation was quote "Something, no conquest could take from them, or so they thought, their place in the Hellenic world." So what's interesting again, is he sort of picks up on the way in which so many of the personae in his poems are being a form of Hellenism that seems to be part of this sort of struggle. But it is a Hellenism , as I sort of mentioned, of hybridity, of diffusion, of mixture as you point out so well in your reading on the poem, on the Posedonians, for example.

[1:26:08] But Zagajewski continues to say that they seem quote, "Taken up with preparations for eternal rest, a beautiful defeat stirring our sympathy. Though, few of them are heroes, cunning, not honor, drives them." So again, the idea that the personae of these poems have the cunning, right? That is the sort of essential Odyssean feature, makes them sympathetic despite often the sense that they are compromised, right? And in some of their pretensions.

[1:26:40] So why am I interested in Adam's view? Adam was a Polish poet, but originally from Lviv in what is today Ukraine, that invaded and violated place. And so when I think about Adam growing up at the crossroads of Eastern and Western empires and living through the history that he did, a history personally of displacement as a poet, again, I think of all of these tropes and the sort of profound and personal way in which they sort of enter in to our reading and absorption.

[1:27:12] And so again, I come back to the idea of "what do we do now that we're in a diffused world of reception studies with a concept like Hellenism itself", right? It is historically, as his poems often point, out a reality of diffusion and mixture, of conflict and compromise. He does such a great job of creating personae that each represent this eccentric Hellenism from some point in the Mediterranean world when, obviously, more in tune geographically with the view from Alexandria as his reality was.

[1:27:45] But also temporally with the peripheral view of a modern Hellene, far from the numinous culture of the ancient world and all the claims to sort of use it for authenticity and justification, right? Speaker of a contested and unstable modern language in his day, a minority language, both in Alexandria and within Western Europe as a whole. In a bulking culture with a declining and later post- Ottoman sort of mindset in reality. So, the same time, what's so fascinating about him, and this goes to the question of, homoeroticism that you bring up so well, is living in the comforts of that age of cosmopolitan, hybridity in Alexandria which is such a part of a lost world like Smirnoff or Thessaloniki before the Holocaust.

[1:28:30] It is a Hellenism that is precarious yet some show us powerful yet evanescent. Yet Cavafy's remains a decidedly tenacious and infectious Hellenism as some of the poems involving Judea suggest Alexander Junius and Alexandra Pius has Minoan monarchs who speak Greek and have Greek names are depicted in one poem in a moment of triumph, suddenly betraying of course, the anti-Hellenic aspirations of the Maccabees. And this reminds us that ironically, the very word Ἑλληνισμός (Hellenism) took on a sense of a whole cultural system of values and not just linguistics, not just linguistic norms and dialectical tension with the newly coined Ιουδαϊσμός (Judaism).

[1:29:11] This is the irony of second Maccabees, a text couched in Greek and infused with Greek rhetoric that talks of a pious revolution against Greek culture and forced Hellenization. Cavafy's poem pumps a triumphal moment of these Jewish monarchs for all its irony, for which all the poet has to do is repeat over and over again their names, Alexander and Alexandra. Obviously, these are not Jewish names. Once you escape from Hellenism, that's one of the fun things about some of these poems. And of course this dialectical tension with Hellenism goes the other way with the barbarian in "Waiting for the Barbarian After All", right?

[1:29:50] He says "What's going to happen to us without barbarians? They were those people a kind of solution," as he very famously says. So again, we see Hellenism, as a dialectical sort of tense hybrid sort of concept. So the idea of an infectious Hellenism has brought out all the more in another poem about a Hellenized Jew, Yianntis son of Anthony in "Of the Jews 50 AD". Though Yianntis professes a desire to quote, "remain forever son of the Jews, the holy Jews", the Greek pursuit of sensuous beauty has its hooks in him.

[1:30:24] There's a deliberate identification in this poem of Ἑλληνισμός with ηδονισμός with Hellenism and hedonism, a point that obviously you refer to when we get back to the question of homoeroticism. The art and pleasure of Alexandrian Hellenism have captured this devotion and there's no turning back, right? That's kind of the interesting implication of that poem. So Cavafy's is in various ways and ironic, not an iconic Hellenism right? One that is infectious, and yet also dangerously, sort of, skirting cultural pretensions.

[1:30:59] There's both triumph and tattoo furry that we see throughout these moments of history that he shows us as in Alexandrian kings, for example, the poem where he talks about the children of Cleopatra and Antony being brought out along with given all these wonderful titles and, you know, presented to the crowd who are raving, but he's openly says the "Alexandrians knew of course, that this was all mere words, all theater." Right? So the theatricality of these moments is one of the things that I think makes his work so distinctive.

[1:31:35] So what's an interesting though, to come back to Adam's point, is that nonetheless, we find this weird sympathy with these characters in these poems, as compromised as they are as semi-barbaric or semi Hellenized as they are. And I think, again, this is such a wonderful way to sort of start to think about how we can meditate on the, the idea of a Hellenism in the future or its sort of dynamic relationship with other concepts as we sort of work on this notion.

[1:32:06] After all we're not all Greeks and Shelly since, we are hybrid peripheral, eccentric belated Greeks, right, Semi barbaric, semi-hellenized in the profession as a whole as we have always been. And this is why I would just like to end with a wonderful look at the, at the poem Philhellene, which if you've never read it it's quite funny about an Eastern king's pretensions beyond Zagros far to the east where he's designing a coin and here we see the philhellene becomes the Philistine, right?

[1:32:41] He says he wants the word philhellene and put on the coin since so many others, more barbarian than ourselves choose to inscribe it, we would inscribe it too. And besides, don't forget that sometimes sofas to come to us from Syria and versifiers and other triflers of that kind. So we are not, I think, "un Greek". So that question that arises in that point, "where are the Greeks" "where is the Greek culture"? Is as valid in London or Berlin or Alexandria or behind Zagros or even in Houston.

[1:33:12] And so again, I applaud juxtaposition of Cavafy and Homer, especially the Odyssey for that very reason. Okay. So in all fairness to Michelle, who's had to endure much praise and many questions, I think I'm going to let her begin her response. And I will remind everyone there's a question and answer function here where questions can be ordered. I see at least three here.

[1:33:42] So, the interest of time, again, it helps us to order those things if we can get it there and I'll try to feed those in, but Michelle, you have the floor. Thank you all for those wonderful engagements in different ways with the book and with your own projects and problems many of us are thinking about in the profession. I guess I want to take the, some of the broader questions first that, that loud opposes and, maybe get my way into other, into some of the other questions that way.

[1:34:17] First of all, I guess I want to say the obvious thing, that almost all of us, whether we're classicists or anybody who studies the humanities, we've learned ways of interpreting the past that involve the need to establish causal relations and direct contacts. This has been so much a part of the way that we are ingrained to work as scholars that the feeling often is that your work is soft or that in some ways it lacks, expertise if you don't go about arguing that way.

[1:34:55] So I want to begin there because I want to say, first of all, that there will always be a place and a need for what we're calling reception studies, but basically arguments that have to do with what writers in the present or in later points in history, how they used, adapted and took over and assimilated prior forms. So I'm not arguing that we are moving out of the need for that at all. What I want to say rather is that all of us now are being asked to think in more global terms of trans nationalism and internationalism, various forms of crossing these huge geographical and cultural boundaries that are very hard for us to cross.

[1:35:46] They're almost impossible to cross if we maintain our old ways of thinking about literary relationships. So what I want to say about that is that because the opening of the Canon means that we're opening the Canon to texts that resisted the Canon, okay? This is the key point, you see, that acts of literary resistance are often aimed at decolonializing or at taking aims at the patriarchy and these critical efforts to understand them can be radically limited if we are approaching these texts as if we can talk about them, in terms of traditional reception theory.

[1:36:36] It is offensive to the writing. It is obtuse about what is involved in opening the Canon if we continue to use these critical methods. So the hardest thing that we're doing now is, well, we're opening the door to talking about, you know, a more global Canon, but how do we do that? My point is that we're often doing it by not revising our tools, our critical tools, enough. So talking back to the empire can be constricting since it obeys the orders of the hegemonic order.

[1:37:12] If you're pretending that people are answering back to the empire, then you are in effect, tying them into what is the empire saying. So one of the things I want to say is that that is something that we need to think hard about. The other thing I want to say about frontal connections and various of you have put this in different ways is that if you, if you argue that so-and-so was responding to so-and-so, then you give the impression that the text is, in a sense, comprehensible around a very limited point of reception, right?

[1:37:51] And many of the artists I was talking about, and many of the artists we're dealing with in our post-classicisms are resisting that. The three artists that I was talking about radically resist that because they use techniques of diffusion and indirection in order to forestall this kind of obsessive need to find a point of reception as a unified point of reception.

[1:38:23] Okay? The last thing I want to say about the methodology of all this and, and is that yes, I am talking about largely subjectivities in the book and identities in the emergence of counter subjectivities of the sort I was studying, identities are typically virtual rather than ontologically stable they're multiply constituted. They're composed of mixed races, hybrid ethnicities, cross-gendered beings, transsexual experiences, the subject is many and not one.

[1:39:06] And therefore a works that attempt hard to put that into motion need to have those gestures respected. So, you know, Casey was saying at the beginning, what many of you have echoed. And that, that is what we're being faced with is the challenge of really undoing many of the ways in which we've been taught to think, and to do that in ways that are rigorous and compelling, and that therefore can convince those who are working in more mainstream ways that this not only can be done, but it can be done compellingly.

[1:39:41] So I guess I will open around that. I don't just want to talk about the questions, but if there's anybody who would like to answer back to that, I'm happy to just pause here. I would just say one thing if I may. And I certainly don't want to dominate the conversation, but, which is, again, I think part of this is the problem of the humanities generally within the context of academic work, which means that we're expected to have arguments and discoveries, right? And evidence. And so as a consequence, that does encourage a certain linear thinking.

[1:40:15] And the odd thing about that is, you know, the old classical tradition sort of argument would be to sort of prove classics deserves to exist because it, you know, remains relevant and, you know, sort of like you still need us. Which is obviously a very self-defeating way to look at it. And, um, the other thing, it's a fallacy, right? To think of causal relationships in such simplistic terms, because, you know, again, when someone is educated at a particular point and is reading the Odyssey, that acculturation is convergent with every other acculturation they're going through at the same time, right?

[1:40:56] So that this is why for me, it's really been an issue of focusing on complex convergence, because we create classical culture. You know, that's what we're doing all the time. We create modern texts. We create the modern phenomenology of the text of , you know, the ancient texts. And so the idea that somehow, you know, ancient Greece is like a radio station broadcasting from the fifth century and we're picking up the signal is a fallacy, right? And then it's a very uncomfortable -- uncomplicated way to think, but you can understand why university administrators like that, you know, because it's a simple way of assessing someone's made a strong argument that they have evidence, you know, again, journals often like this problem too.

[1:41:34] So when we open up different ways of thinking about literature, philosophy, et cetera, that are more associative and less concerned with, you know, what did he know and when did he know it, the Watergate question I like to think, of reception studies. I think that's part of the problem. Alan Miller had a comment or a question in-- Before you go, just a quick response to Michelle, what you offered us. It seems to me, you're raising a question about audience and it makes me wonder "for whom are we doing our work?"

[1:42:10] Is it, is it for some established classical elite in the academy? Is it invitational for, let's say a 21st century student who's also considering robotics and computer science and business? You know, is it for the Weeknd where, you know, go up to the Weeknd and ask him, what were you doing when you gestured by the three graces? So and in some ways what the besideness offers is a kind of expansion of audiences and a kind of cross viewing such that all of those audiences are invited to the table.

[1:42:52] Yeah, no I think that's, that's really right. Somehow we're tied into this notion of expertise that makes it very difficult for us to talk outside of the fields that we've cultivated best. I will say that in my book, you know, I'm not an expert on any of the authors that I talked about. I don't consider myself an expert, but Richard and I have talked about it and the point about expertise is that if you engage in a project that requires you to know things about what you're studying, you think are important, then you develop the expertise to talk about it compellingly.

[1:43:27] And often, beginning from the point of view of an outsider can very much help the conversation. That's one of the things that I want to say. Many of you were wondering how else this kind of way of thinking about indirection might work more broadly. And I think actually the idea becomes less elusive. It was a little bit hard for me to grasp it in the years I was trying to conceptualize the concept. But if you look at very canonical texts, like Plato's dialogues and you consider the dialogue form itself and you consider it like the bulk of Plato's work, which is multiple dialogues, which take each other apart actually, if you read dialogues against each other.

[1:44:16] Furthermore, if you read Plato, understand that in these dialogues, he's using a certain kind of discourse that cannot approach the subject directly and therefore he resorts to myth in order to talk about it, this is a strategy of indirection. This is a strategy by which the acknowledgment is that you cannot approach it frontally, therefore, you can talk about indirection as being part of an entire philosophical tradition. Hereclitis is a famous embodiment of it, but you know, certainly negative theology is also a part of, this negative philosophy is a part of this where strategies of indirection come to be absolutely vital in trying to formulate what it is you're talking about.

[1:45:02] I think that there are many literary works that have to do with searches for identity, where authors use these very ,tangential and kaleidoscopic way of-- ways of coming at their subject. And I think that certainly the genre of mystery itself is something that you can look at as a strategic use of indirection. I think there are whole topics that lend themselves to this way of thinking about indirection.

[1:45:33] I'm writing now on the ancient mystery calls, and I'm talking about discourses of secrecy. Wherever you have discourses of secrecy, you have things that may or may not be actual secrets, but that are in various ways being approached through, indirection to create mystique, to solicit interest, to build audiences, or to construct communities of individuals who are marginal. Right? So my part is that-- my point is that sometimes indirection is something that we're looking at in the literature and sometimes it's something that is required of us as interpreters of texts to cultivate in the ways that we read and talk about things.

[1:46:20] So again, open, you know, open to discussion. Again, if I may refer a question from our question and answer our Q&A here, Alan Miller asked, " if receptions boundaries keep moving ever more distantly, does it not become indistinguishable at some point from a Chris Stephen concept of intertextuality? So again, we, obviously, we're always talking about intertextual studies, but, I don't know if you have any, if anyone has any thoughts on that.

[1:46:59] Thinking about what you just saying, Michelle, the idea about like when you mentioned negative theology, I just had the thought that like, the reason you have to be indirect in that instance is because the thing you're talking about is ineffable, you can't talk about it, that you don't like, you can't really conceptualize the subject of your discourse. And I, which I suppose I think that probably links to do with that-- there are probably links there with what Kristeva writes about Cora and things like the ineffability of that the kind of unrepresentability.

[1:47:45] But I think I, and I, I suppose it feels like that's a product of it just in terms of your book, that's a product of, that's actually something which all of the authors, are grappling with, the idea of something that's not yet been articulated-- Yes. --But which they're having to find a vocabulary for something which is ineffable in their own personal sort of in their own relations to themselves as a part of themselves, which they don't necessarily understand in which they're trying to come to terms with.

[1:48:16] And it's an, I mean, just to use your, just to use the obvious metaphor, it's a journey. It is a homecoming, it's a kind of welcoming of the self. But that's sort of putting words to it. So that was, yeah, I was just what I thought. Yeah, I, yeah, I think that, the things that are ineffable, nonetheless provoke, a great deal of language about them.

[1:48:46] This is part of the irony of the unethical is that it produces a discourse of the ineffable. And I think that you know, I think that's an important problem that you can look at from any, you know, any number of perspectives. But yes, I mean, this is to go to Paul's question though, one of the things that I think is most challenging to us is we, and that I was trying to deal with in creating a set of four tropes, was to work against the concept of the text.

[1:49:25] Because the works I was talking about are so open that they defy textuality, they resist closure, they resist, they resist a certain common sense way in which we approach texts that is partly the consequences of reading them in books. And that, that, and that is the sense that they're contained, right? That they're somehow contained and that they somehow have these limits that allow us to manage them and control them. Casey knows from her own work that people who are trying to theorize, you know, the consequences of the non-text in Homer have to consider, continue to use the language of the text.

[1:50:09] So if you don't want to talk about texts, but you're talking about intertextuality well, there we are. Our language is constantly, you know belying us in our efforts. So I partly resist critical language jargon for that reason. One of the strategies I use in my own work is to try to generate a critical idiom from the works that I'm reading. And we of course can never totally jettison the frameworks around us and the language of our profession, but by generating the language out of the text and talking about things like, a poetics of slantness or indirection or a poetics of ambush, what we're effectively trying to do is, is to say that the texts are teaching us, the works are teaching us how to talk about them.

[1:51:07] Okay? And the way that we're talking about them, the reason why, or orality on one side and the digital world on the other are converging is because we are testing the limits of our ideas about what a text. This is the point also about what Patrice was saying about the post-human is that very, I mean, for centuries now, the human has been conceived of in terms of texts that are books. And I think that paying close attention to what the digital world is telling to us about texts is that we need to create a new critical idiom.

[1:51:47] And we don't do that necessarily by talking about inter texts. If I might pick up, one of our questions from the Q&A, this is from Andrea Kouklanakis, it's precisely about the words that you've chosen. So, the question: "is focusing on forging critical vocabulary, could you elaborate a bit on distinctions between all these words: slantness, indirection, obliqueness. I often use them interchangeably, but in terms of multiple subjectivities, should we distinguish them further?

[1:52:19] Slantness can also be a condition of feeling unhinged, no? Canonicity, imperial projects, aggressive capitalism, racism, homophobia, all can push people to alienation and alienation is a place from which you can only be slanted and uncomfortable, whether you create art, create art from it or not." So that's quite a question, but, so if you can maybe elaborate on slantness, indirection and obliqueness. Yeah, no, I think this is a good point. What I would say is that, Laura and I , Laura and I have begun to talk about a project that she's now formulating that is going to be oriented towards what kind of vocabulary you might develop around this.

[1:53:01] In my, in my book, I have been experimenting with alternative terminology, recognizing that much of what I'm talking about, actually tips on the brink of things like psychopathy and madness and complete dissolution. So I think that, that, you know, there are ways that that's partly why we've-- some people have come to look at Odysseus himself who is so many sided as potentially psychopathic.

[1:53:32] And just in the sense that there are pathologies of the psyche at work there that, that suggests this radical way that he doesn't fit in. I don't really have the time here to probably to talk about the differences between those terms. I do use them synonymously, but I would say part of our project now is to begin to create a vocabulary that can be more expressive, more careful, perhaps sometimes also leading towards the need for greater fuzziness, developing a tolerance for a healthy fuzziness that, is probably inevitable to all categorizing.

[1:54:15] And that's an enterprise that I'm very much open to, you know, open to. Well, let's go to a, an interesting question that came earlier in the chat from delirium for the GME. And that is just asking you, you know, we often talk about faithfulness and betrayal with regard to texts and rewriting. So the question here is "how would you explain the significant faithfulness or betrayal of the modern writers to the original Odysseus? Do you think that any of the writers betrays the thematic purpose of the original Odysseus?"

[1:54:46] And again, I think this goes to an interesting question of as keepers of classical literature in a sense were often put as gatekeepers, right? Wanting to somehow adjudicate between correct and incorrect readings. So let's empower your point of view, now. How would you respond to that question? Yeah. I would say that in the ways I approached the texts I was talking about, fidelity was, was, was just not the issue. In other words, my, my, my view was that theories of adaptation have been developed to help us talk about that and so have theories of translation.

[1:55:24] Adaptation and translation have given us more careful ways of talking about fidelity. I think the notion of fidelity can sometimes lead us into thinking that the limits of what it is we can say and do are somehow determined by what's already been said and done. And that is precisely what I'm resisting. And, and not only that, I mean, I'm not the only one resisting, it obviously. It's that the writers that we are including in this wider, post canonical world are not doing that either.

[1:56:03] They're testing or notions of fidelity very deliberately, you know, in order to say things that have not been said in the canonical works that we read. So, Pelumi, is actually one of my students and thank you Pelumi for the question. I think that, you know, there are a number of classicists who've worked very credibly on like a, you know, Aegean like the Black Aegean who, who addressed questions of fidelity in that way.

[1:56:37] But I think that there are other ways in which we have to ask the question about why fidelity-- when fidelity matters and when it is a distraction that is actually impeding us from being able to think and say things in new ways. Laura has a comment or question? Yeah, just as a follow-up I was thinking that also the question of fidelity is problematic because it brings a sort of uni linear way of thinking about the original source, I'm speaking to the students here.

[1:57:11] You know, one of the things you can do, and this is also part of the poetics of indirection, is that you can begin reading whatever you want. You don't have to begin with the classic. You know, for example, I, I learned about Homer through Borges when I was 17. I hadn't read Homer and for me, this was a curiosity into a journey that I, I just didn't know it was Borges himself who was teaching me how to read these texts.

[1:57:45] So these indirections, and then of course I amplified much more the variety of authors that I was looking at. So fidelity for me was just besides the point, because this is just about a network of different authors that are telling each other different things about what the Canon might or not be. So in Spanish, we've got this thing that we call about , La Tradicion Classica but we also call it la traición Classica, the treason of tradition, which is a positive term, is to think about, I am going to Richard, can you translate this?

[1:58:30] Yeah. It's just, it's a game of words because it's "tradicion" and you remove the 'd' and this becomes a paradigm for unlocking that servitude to the original. I'm not talking to the expert, I'm talking much more to, I usually say that to my students in classical reception, because all they begin with is the classics. So then you have to tell a story that somehow it's faithful back to the classic.

[1:59:04] So that might be a way of thinking about it. And again, a very old point of view and reception studies is about, again, meaning being realized at the point of reception is there's no space, no Archimedean point from which a text can be seen in its truth, you know, there are only interactions, right? So when we think about complex convergence, in my case, for example, I've been very interested in thinking about performance in relation to Freud and his interest in Oedipus and what you realize is, you know, yes, Freud read Oedipus in the ______, but he reads it also as someone who is powerfully influenced by French romantic tragedy, which makes a lot of sense when you start to think about it and his reading of the play, which is so important for psychoanalysis, is simultaneously a reading of Oedipus the King in Hamlet.

[1:59:54] And these complex convergences, they are the reality of culture, right? Again, you know, Hamlet in Oedipus the King views the things that he's reading, you know, at the same time growing up and his theatrical experience sort of reinforces this and you realize : our individual trajectories do not replicate the chronology of Western civilization, you know? We're always out of time, always out of step, we're always catching up. We're always saying," I need to go back and read Callimachus whatever, you know? So, so this is why it's, it's a little silly, right, in a way when you realize, why did we ever think it was any other way?

[2:00:29] A complex convergence, dissociative nature, that so much of our reading experience or theatrical experience impresses upon us or a particular person, you know, forces a book on you or a particular moment in your life, right, has certain parts of a text that emerge to you, perhaps you later, you might think disproportionately, as you were saying Laura, with coming to Homer through _______, right? This is the reality, right? And, and I think, again, this is where the humanities will remain so important in understanding the nature and trajectory of human meaning.

[2:01:05] We're always struggling with research paradigms as you know, because administrations want us to sort of quantify and calculate what research is for us, but the experiential is such an important element in this, and it is a temporal and confusing. We're at 6:02! I think we've done a good hole here and I know some of you need to go to bed. I, I want to thank everyone for their participation through the questions. Again, our student friends, as well as our colleagues, and I really want to thank Michelle for exposing herself to so much praise and so much critique.

[2:01:43] Thank you all. And again, let's continue this discussion in the future and do, if you have a chance , and any energy left, perhaps tomorrow, check out our online symposium on syndicate.network of Mario Telos' book, which is a, another shocking and startling book, Archived Feelings: The Theory of Greek Tragedy. Okay? So thank you again, and especially our, thanks to the Center for Hellenic Studies. Allie, thanks for your help and Olivia, and we will hopefully see you all again soon.

[2:02:17] Thank you. Thank you all.

在Vidleaf工作台中打开

搜索转录文本,选择行,复制带时间戳的引文,翻译。

在工作台中打开 →

署名

《现代奥德赛:小组讨论》,由希腊研究中心(https://www.youtube.com/@thecenterforhellenicstudies)制作,依据CC BY 3.0(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)许可。源视频:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsiHP9B4Dco。本页是该视频的文本转录,添加了段落分隔和时间戳;创作者与Vidleaf无关联,也不为其背书。Vidleaf添加了AI标点和AI生成的摘要;原始措辞仍可在本页查看。

您是创作者或权利持有人吗?请求更正或移除:copyright@vidleaf.app(参见关于这些页面)。

最后更新于