143

03

jo

ur

na

l o

F c

on

te

mp

or

ar

y c

ul

tu

re

//

20

08

144/ nsfertra03 / / 2 0 0 8145

II Poetry in a postmodern society

Jordi Rourera

Jordi Julià, 2005, Modernitat del món fungible (Modernity of the Perishable World) Barcelona, Angle editorial, 165 pp.

Reviews

Thisisatemptingbook.Itistemptingbecause,firstofall,ifthereisanythingwelack,itisthoroughgoingstudiesofourpresent-dayliteratureand,inparticular,overviewanalysesthatexplaintrends,classifyauthorsandevaluatetheirworks.Inbrief,studiesthatoffersomeorder.AndtheaimofModernitat del món fungible istoobtainapictureofsomeoftoday’spoetry(non-existentevaluationaside).Itistempting,too,becauseitoffersanall-embracingaccountofsometwentypoetswhonowconstitutethemostconsolidated“younggeneration”.Thetemptationofabrilliantprojectthatiscapablypresentedshouldnot,however,preventusfromseeingsomeofthemoredebatable—inthetruesenseoftheterm—aspectsofthisessay.

Thepoet,criticandlecturerinLiteraryTheory,JordiJulià(1972),setsouttoanalyseandclassifythepoetryofwritersofhisgeneration(thoseborninthe60sand70s)inthelightofstudiesofpostmodernsociety.Julià’sthesisisthatpoliticalandsociologicalchangesintheworldoverthelasttwenty-fiveyearsmarkthisgenerationthatgrewupunderanotherparadigm(a“worldofyesteryear”)andthat,asaresult,producepoetrythathecallsreflexive realism,inparticularthepoetrytheyhaveproducedinthe21stcentury.Thesearethird-millenniumpoets,the“FalloftheWallGeneration”,andthishistoriceventistakenasasymbolofthecollapseoftheworldinwhichtheywereraised.

Tobeginwith,JordiJuliàsituatesthereaderinpostmodernsociety.Hethenrevealstheevolutionofpoetictendenciesfromthe1980sthroughtothepresentandproposesanupdatedclassification.Finally,hedescribeshowreflexiverealismisapoeticresponsetothehistoricalandsocialcircumstancesofthisgeneration,situatingitinhisschemaasasynthesisofpoetryofexperienceandmetaphysicalpoetrywhilealsoindicatingitsmainformalfeatures:alienation,digressionandcondensation.

Julià’saccountofthecontributionsofthemostoutstandingthinkersofpostmodernity(Taylor,Lipovetsky,Bauman,Virilio,LacroixandRosset)isinitselfanexcellentsummaryarticle,inwhichhemovesfromthemetaphoroftheliquid(changinganduncertain)worldthroughtheextremeindividualismthatgivesprideofplacetoinstrumentalreasoningandleadstothecultofimmediateemotiontothedetrimentoffeelings,andthenotionoftheperishableworldinwhich,intheabsenceofstability,everythingissusceptibletobeingconsumed.Juliàtight-weaveshisaccountbyintroducingnumerousquotesfromtheaforementionedtheoreticiansandsomeillustrativepoems,andhisexpositionisrigorous,clearandcomprehensible.

II145

Thethirdsection,ontheotherhand,istheonethatgivesrisetothemostmethodologicalandgeneraldoubts.ItispossiblethattheexamplesofthepoemsthatJuliàcitesreflectwhathewants(and,moreover,theinterpretationcanbejudgedasbiasedinsome)butitisobviousthattheworkofseveralpoets(ManelForcanoandSusannaRafart,forexample)istakingtotallydifferentpaths.Inotherwords,theexamplesheoffersconstitutetheexceptionbutnottherule.Onceagain,thefeaturesofreflexiverealismdonotcharacterisethebulkofthesepoetsand,furthermore,theyaresufficientlyvaguetobefoundinwritersofothergenerations.Theproceduretendstomakeonethinkthat,startingoutfromapreconceivedidea—theinfluenceoftheperishableworldonthepoetsbeingstudied—Juliàhassoughttocorroborateit,comehellorhighwater.

Again,someofhispremisesfordistinguishingthepoetshehasanalysedfromothersarecontentious,forexampletheideathatthisgenerationshouldhavefeltthe“collapseoftheworldofyesteryear”morethanthepreviousgenerationorthat,althoughtheywereproducingworksincethe90s,theydidnotpractisereflexiverealismuntiltheturnofthemillenniumwiththe9/11attacksascatalyst.Thenagain,isitliquidpostmodernsociety(whichwouldnotaffectthemexclusively)thatmarksthemorthechangeofhistoricparadigm?

Todenytheinfluenceofsocietyonpoetryisaswrong-headedastoimaginethatsocietyalonesignificantlyexplainsit.Sociologicalapproximationstoliteratureareuseful,inparticular,forseeinghowliteratureis,insomerespects,areflectionofsociety(andtheyexplainthesocietymorethanwhatliesinthestrictlyliterarydomain).Inthisregard,JordiJulià’sworkiscorrect.OnecannotdenythecloselinkbetweenwhathedescribesinthefirstpartofhisbookandworkssuchasHèctorBofill’sLes genives cremades (BurntGums)orSebastiàAlzamora’sBenestar (Well-being),butneitherhisownpoetrynorthatofanyoneelseisexplainedasreflexiverealismalone,noristhisexclusivetothepoetsunderconsideration.TheproblemappearswhenJuliàtriestousehistoricalandsocialfactstoaccountforanentiregenerationofquitewidelydifferingpoets,asiftheirworkweremerelyamirrorofthepasttwentyyears.Literaturealsoconsistsofliteratureandofverydiversepersonalexperiencethatgoesbeyondthecommoncoordinatesthattheepochassignstothesefacts.

Thismechanicalrelationshipbetweentheliteraryworkandsocietyseemstobesomethingoutofothertimes,pertaininglesstoJulià’sreflexiverealismthantosocial(or,aswewouldcallithere,historical)realism.ItmakesonethinkofthequestionnairethatthereviewPoemessentouttoanumberofpoetsin1963,thesixteenthquestionintheorderofthesurveybeing,“Haveyoubeeninfluencedbyhistoricevents?”Therewasnolackofrespondentswhospokeofsuperstructures.GabrielFerrater,moreironicandmocking,answered,“Yes,verymuch.Andmembersofmyfamilyevenmore”II

146/ nsfertra03 / / 2 0 0 8147

II A place where people and books lived

Simona Škrabec

Arnau Pons, 2006, Celan, lector de Freud (Celan, Reader of Freud), Lleonard Muntaner, Palma, 117 pp.

Thereisadeep-rootedconvictionthatapoem,especiallyifitishermetic,concealsseveralreadings.Whateverthecasemaybe,everytextbearswithinitselfadifferentfaceforeachreader.ArnauPons,authorofthebookCelan, lector de Freud,ismorethancompellinginshowingtheharmfuleffectsofsuchhaziness.Thequestforthemeaningofthepoemisadaptedfromtheoutsettotheexpectationsofthereader.Thetextisnotseenasatextthatsomeotherpersonhaswrittenbutbecomesinsteadnothingmorethansomekindofreflectionofthereader.Hence,itisnotpossibletoestablishanybridgetotheothernessthatthetextrepresents.

InthecaseofPaulCelan,areadingthatoverlookstheartistandhishistoricpositionperpetuatesevenmore“disrespectanddubiousculturalcelebration”.Incounteringtheseeffects,Pons’briefbookisastudyincriticalhermeneutics.Themostimportantfeatureofthismethodologyisthatitrecoversthenotionofsubject.Apoemcannotbestrippedofitschronologyandneithercantheparticularexperienceofthepoetbeoverlooked.

Withhisattentivereadingofthisonewriter,Ponsmanagestofashionatoolforreflectionthatishighlyappropriateforthetimesinwhichwelive.ForCelan’sreadersingeneralitisdifficult,nottosayimpossible,totakeintheseriousnessofthepoet’scaveatthatonemustunderstandthetexts,therhetoricandtheseductionofthewords.

Celanaccusesus.Heaccusesusbecausetheinabilityof,letussay,Europeanstodeciphertheseductionofthediscourseofpowerledtogenocide,systematicallyperpetratedbytheNazis.Hewantsustolearnhowtoreadsothatwecansteerclearofthesirensong.Butwestillhaven’tlearnedmuch,notmuchatall.

InBukovina,saidCelan,whenhereceivedtheCityofBremenPrize,thereusedtolivepeopleandbooks.Thenameoftheregioniscloselylinkedwithbooks.Bukva inRussianmeans“letter”andbukisbeech,justastheGermannounBuche (beech)takesustoBuch (book),ontheassumptionthatsoftbeechwoodblockswereonceusedinprintmaking.Whothen,asArnauPonsasks,canforgetthatthepeopleandbooksofBukovinawereburnedbytheNazis?

Howisitpossibletoovercomethedensesilenceofoblivion?Howcantheadvanceofthisinvasiveforestbeavoided?Inhispoem“Stretto”,PaulCelandescribesthelandscapeofafterwardsinjusttwowords:“Gras, auseinandergeschrieben”(Grass,writtenasunder).Hedescribesthegrass,letterbyletter.Thesettingisstillalandscape,butawrittenlandscape.Thereaderisdeportedintothetext.

Thiscrystallisationofmemory—thetearnevershedbutchangedintoasharp-edgedstonethatendures,inapoem—ishisgreatdifferencevis-à-visthemethodinwhichFreudtrusted.Theinventorofpsychoanalysissoughttoborrowcatharsis fromGreek

II147

II Robert Graves and his world

Joan Carles Simó

Maria Rosa Llabrés, 2006, Robert Graves i el món clàssic (Robert Graves and the Classical World), Lleonard Muntaner, Palma, 376 pp.

M.RosaLlabrés,headofasecondaryschoolGreekdepartmentandwellknownforhercontributionsontheclassicalworldindifferentspheres(lectures,translationsandpublications),hasalsopublishedamajorcollectionoflyricalpoetryofAncientGreecetranslatedbyherself.Thisbookdemonstratesherenormousabilityinworkingwithmaterialthatisofgreatuseforanyonewhoisinterestedinthedifferentaspectsoftheclassicaltradition.

ThoseofuswhoknowaboutM.Rosa’sfascinationwiththeworkofRobertGraves,andwhohaveheardherspeakingaboutitmorethanonce,werewaitingforthisdefinitiveworkonthedimensionthattheclassicalworldacquiresintheworkoftheDeiàdweller.Itrarelyhappensthatanessaycanbedescribedasindispensablebutthisoneispreciselythatinbeingbothsomethinglong-anticipatedandalsocomprehensive.Infact,alltheGravesscholarsanddevoteesoftheclassicalworldhavebeenwaitingforthisbookontherelationshipbetweenGraves’workandtheclassicaltradition.WeallknowthattheworkofthewriterfromWimbledonwhowenttoliveinDeiàhasbeenthestartingpointformanyapassionfortheclassicalworld.Itisasifthelove-haterelationshipthatGravesprofessedforallthattheGreco-RomanworldentailedstimulatedhisreaderstoapproachtheclassicsinthesamepersonalwaythatGravesaimedatandachieved.However,thismatterofawakeninginterestin,andpassionfor,theclassicalworld(andwhohasnotadmiredhisnovelI, Claudiusevenifonlybecauseofthetelevisionseries?)

tragedy.Hethoughtthatoneonlyneeded—Iamsimplifyingthings!—toexpressthetraumathroughlanguage,andthepainfulmemoriescouldbeovercome.

CelanbreaksdowntheFreudianconvictionwithanaphorismofKafka,whoalsoexclaimedatthefactthatitseemedthatallexplanationscouldbefoundinpsychology.Celan’sironyaboutthecurativepowerofthewordissharp,andithurts.CelanknewthatbothKafkaandFreuddiedofocclusionofthelarynx,ofthroatcancerandtuberculosisrespectively,whichmadeitimpossibletoswallowfoodinthefinalstages(“AHungerArtist”),ortospeak(“JosephinetheSinger”).

Theshadowofaphasiaoversomeonewhoselanguageisbeingbrokendownandthephysicalillnessthatmakesitimpossibletoarticulateanythingbutgutturalsoundsprojectapalpablethreatbecausethenweseethefragilityoflanguage,PaulCelan’s“breath-crystal”.Pon’sreflectionsonthesedenseverseshelpusagreatdealtodiscover,toperceive,littlebylittle,theirsound,theirsense II

148/ nsfertra03 / / 2 0 0 8149

washithertobereftofanystudyontheusethatGravesmadeoftheclassicalworldandofthesourcesofclassicalcultureingeneral,andontheveryspeciallinksbetweenGravesandGreco-Latinculture.M.RosaLlabrés’bookhasnowfilledthisvoid,correctlysituatingGraves’workandpersonbutwithoutanykindofadulationor,onthecontrary,hintofcondescensionaboutthefactthathiswritingisnotonlycreativebutalsoforpopularconsumption.

IhavealsonotedthatLlabrés’bookiswell-roundedanditissobecauseitengagesinaminutely-detailed,unhurried,andserioussurveyofeachandeveryoneofGraves’worksthatcontainreferencestotheclassicalworld,whilesourcesareanalysedpassagebypassageandtheiruseevaluatedwithalltheprofessionalaplombandrigourthatcomesfromtheauthor’sprofoundknowledgeofboththeclassicaltraditionandtherelevantelementsofRobertGraves’life,allofwhichledGravestooffer,throughhiswork,apersonalinterpretationoftheclassicsthatwasalsomuchmoreofaseriousendeavourthansomecriticshavewishedtorecognise.

Itisofnolittleimportancetohighlight,inthisregard,thatGraves’enlistmentinthearmyintheFirstWorldWarwasavirtualdepartureforTroy,afatum thatgovernsevents,likethefatumoftheemperorClaudiusthatsetsoutforaremoteposteritytoberesuscitatedbyGravesasaliteraryploy.AsM.RosaLlabréspointsout,thischaracterwhowillmarkGraves’futurecontainsinhismisunderstoodpersonalitythat,whilenotfittinginanywhere,isalsodeeplyhuman,traitsthataresufficientlycleartoofferglimpsesofacertainautobiographicalcomponent.

Thispersonaluseofhistoricaldatawillrepresentthetake-offpointformodernhistoricalnarrative:thepresentationofeventsindramaticform,alongwiththepersonalised,highly-detailednatureofthewayhetellshistoryinthestyleofSuetoniusandthehistoriographyoftheimperialera,arecharacteristicsthatbelongto20thcenturyhistoricalnarrative,andthesearedue,ingreatpart,tothecontributionsofRobertGraves.

Again,Llabrés’studyexploresGraves’psychologicaldimension,justashetoowasinterestedinthenewpsychologicaltrendsofhistimes.Infact,hispsychologicaltreatmentofClaudiusbut,inparticular,thesignificancehegivestothefemalefigurethatisomnipresentinhisnovelabouttheemperor,andinGraves’ownlifeaswell,isaconstantinhiswork.The White GoddessandHomer’s Daughter aretwoclearexponentsofthisfemalepresenceinGraves’subsequentwork.

Nonetheless,perhapsGraves’Claudius,asLlabrésmakesclear,isnomorethanthefirststoneintheimpressiveedificeconstructedaroundhistheoriesonthefactofmythologyandofpoetryingeneral.Itisafirststonethatisbynomeanslightandthisisworthremarkingonbecausethisbookcontainsnovelisticelementsthatsituateitamongotherworksinthegenrethathavemarkedthetendenciesoflaterperiods.ThepointisthatGravesproducesaversionoftheeventsandthecharactersthatnobodyhadpreviouslybeenabletomanage.Thisisanaccountofanalmostunknownemperor,withacomplexanddifficultpersonality,whousescunningandadulationtosavehimselfandtosurvive,seasonedwithagreatprofusionofdetailsthatsatisfiesthereader’scuriosity.

M.RosaLlabrésrightlylocatesGraves’hugemythologicalopus(The Golden Fleece,The White Goddess,andThe Greek Myths)inthecontextofhisreflectionsonpoeticcreationandtheuniversalityofthemythologicalfact.Eventhoughthisleavesroomfordoubtsas

II149

towhetherhisworkmightbeconsideredasscientific,itisnolesstruethatGraves,withhis“historicalgrammarofpoeticmyth”,stimulatesanyreaderwhoisinterestedinthemythologicalfacttostartaskingquestions,whilealsopointingoutnewpathstoexplorewithoutfailingtoappreciatethepoetryhisbooksexhale.

Whatevercriticismshavecomefromtheacademicworld,thepopularsuccessofhisopuscannotbeignored,anditisthisfactthatM.RosaLlabrésbooksituatesinitsrightfulplace.Hisuseofclassicallanguageinaninnovativeway,aboveallinpersonalanddemythologisingsenses,alongwithhismoreintimateandprofoundtreatmentoftheclassicaltradition,andthefactthathispoeticvisionistheexpressionofanancientanduniquesubjectmatterhavemeant,withoutadoubt,thatGraves’workhasbroughtonanaddictiontoclassicalthemesinmanypeople,whilefleeingpossible“dizzying,tiringorrigidlyscientific”standpoints.

Nottobeignored,either,istheaccountthatM.RosaLlabrésoffersinheressayofGraves’briefworks:shortstories,articles,poemsandtranslations,allpennedwithboundlessfantasyandalwaystruetohispoetic-mythologicaltheses.IntheseshortpiecesoneseesGraves’immenseintellectualbaggage,especiallywithregardtohisknowledgeoftheclassicalworld.

Inbrief,thisisasplendidworkthatoffersagreatdealofinformationaboutthecreationofGraves’particularmythologicalworldandtheimportanceofthepresenceoftheclassicalworldinhisoeuvre.ThisisaRobertGraveswho,onceinstalledinDeià,incorporatedideasintohisworkthatcannotbedetachedfromhisownwayoflivingandfeelinglife,andthatarecloselyboundupwiththesessuchasthoseheupheldaboutlivinginharmonywiththenaturalworld,ideasthatmakehimatrueprecursorofnewsocialcurrentsappearinginEuropeafterthe1960s:ecologicalmovements,alternativetherapies,newreligiousormusicalforms…AndallofthisthroughthemassiveprismoftheclassicaltraditionanduniversalmythologythatgivebothcoherenceandformtothethoughtofRobertGravesasawhole II

150/ nsfertra03 / / 2 0 0 8151

II A major contribution to Catalan philology

Brauli Montoya

Antoni Ferrando Francés and Miquel Nicolás Amorós, 2005, Història de la llengua catalana (History of the Catalan Language), UOC/Pòrtic, Barcelona, 540 pp.

Thisisavoluminousworkcomprising539denselypackedpages.ItbuildsonPanorama d’història de la llengua(HistoricalPanoramaoftheCatalanLanguage-Tàndem,Valencia:1993),anotherworkofthesameauthors,butislonger,morethandoublethenumberofpages,andhasathesis.Moreimportantly,includesconsiderablymoredevelopedandexpandedmaterial.Thebookisdividedinto12chaptersand,exceptforchapter1,eachonetracesthechronologyofthehistoryofCatalanfromitsorigins(chapter2)totheyearofthebook’spublicationin2005(chapter12).Chapter1dealswiththetheoryonwhichtherestofthebookisbuilt.Itistheonlychapterthatstraysfromthework’schronologicalorganisation.Thebookbeginswithaprologuebytheauthors,FerrandoandNicolás(hereinFandN),andisfollowedbyageneralbibliography.Eachchapterinturncontainsamorespecificbibliographysothat,intotal,thereare20pagesofbibliographicreferencematerial.

Withoutadoubt,Història de la llengua catalanafillsagapinthehistoryoftheCatalanlanguage,whichuntilnowhadnotbeenconveyedinascompleteandasrigorousamanner.FromnowonitispossibletosaythatthoseuniversityprofessorswhoarerequiredtoteachthehistoryoftheCatalanlanguagewillhaveanextremelyhelpfultoolattheirdisposal,whiletheirstudentswillequallyreapthebenefitsofagoodanalyticalguidetoCatalan’slinguistichistory.WithFandN,professionalsinthefieldoflinguistics,bothprofessorsandstudentsareingoodhands.FerrandohasmademanycontributionstostudiesofcrucialepisodesinthehistoryoftheCatalanlanguage,studieson,forexample,thelinguisticoriginandidentityofValencians;onBernatFenollarandJeroniPau’smedievaltextRegles d’esquivar vocables(RulesforAvoidingCertainWords),etc.inA.Ferrando,Consciència idiomàtica i nacional dels valencians (TheNationalandLinguisticAwarenessofValencians),InstituteofValencianPhilology,UniversityofValencia:1980;and“OntheAuthorshipoftheRegles d’esquivar vocables,again”,El Marges,70,2002,pp.67-98.Meanwhile,Nicolásisquitewellknownforhisincisive,criticalexaminationofthehistoryofCatalanlanguageinM.Nicolás,Història de la llengua catalana: la construcció d’un discurs (HistoryoftheCatalanLanguage:ConstructionofaDiscourse),PublicationsofAbadiadeMontserrat,InteruniversityInstituteofValencianPhilology,Barcelona-Valencia:1998.).

InordertoevaluatethecorecontentofHistòria de la llengua catalana,wemustbeginwiththeprologue,FandN’sveritabledeclarationofprinciples(andintentions).Intheprologue,theauthorsaffirman“emphasisonsociolinguisticfactorsandonideologicalrepresentations”(p.15)andanaim“toproblematisereceivedinterpretations”(p.18).Butthissociolinguisticemphasisandproblematisationofreceivedinterpretationsdependsalotonthescientificspecialisationreadersbringtobearonthetext.Thatistosay,ifthis

II151

bookisreadbysociolinguists,theywillfinditlackinginemphasisonimportantsocialandpoliticaleventsinthehistoryoftheCatalanlanguage,whileotherspecialistsinCatalan’slinguisticevolutionwillfinditlackinginotherpertinentaspects.

Yetthiscouldjustbethebook’sprincipalvirtue.Everybodywillfindsomethingtheyarelookingfor,butnobodywillfindeverything.ForahistoryoftheCatalanlanguagewhichespouses,quitewisely,awholisticapproachtomethodology,withseriousattentiongiventothemesthatareimportanttohistoriansoftheCatalanlanguage,itcouldbenootherway.Afterall,FandN’sbookcanbeusedasauniversitytextbookonacourseonthehistoryoftheCatalanlanguage.Theauthorscommunicatethisclearlywiththeformalstructuretheyhavechosenforthebook.Thedistributionofchaptersisdidacticinthesensethattheorycomesfirstandappliedknowledgesecond.Sothatitmeetsthehistoricistneedsofthehistoryfield,itisalsochronological.Meanwhile,inmanyinstances,explanationsareaccompaniedbytextsandillustrationsfromthehistoricalmomentstowhichtheypertain.Then,inchaptersdealingwithappliedcomponents,therearewell-detaileddiagramssuchas“chronologicaltables”,whichcontaincomplementaryextensionstothematerial.Finally,thereisabibliographyorganisedaccordingtothebook’svariousthemes,appearingattheend.Thefinal,overallresultisabookwhichisidealforpedagogicalpurposes.

Nevertheless,detailsoftheworkanditsmaterialarecertainlyopentodebate.InnamingSpanishandCatalankings,FandNadoptthenumberingsystemofthedynastyoftheHouseofBarcelona,insteadoftheCastiliansystemofdesignation.Thiscouldcauseproblemsforreaderswishingtoidentifykingsfromthesixteenthcenturyonwards,aftertheCatalancourtwastransferredtoCastileandpeoplebegantounderstandthemonarchyaccordingtoitsCastiliannumbering(inthisschemeofthings,“PhilipII,”famousforhislineabouthisterritorialpossessionsbeingsovastthesunneversetonthem,becomesforFandN“PhilipI”).Asforthebook’scontributionofdocumentarymaterial,althoughthismaterialiswellconceived,itleavesusindesireofmore.Thesameforthebook’sillustrations,which,inblackandwhiteandsmallindimension,hinderafullappreciationofthehistoricalmomentsdescribedinthem.Finally,thereisthequestionofthebibliographies.Theirdisaggregatedarrangementmayslowsomereadersdownwhenconsultingcitations.

Butforallthesecriticisms,FandNarewellintentioned.InthecaseofthenumericaldesignationofCatalanandSpanishkings,FandNwishtopayhomagetothesovereigntyoftheoldterritoriesoftheAragoneseCrown,asfarastheNovaPlantadecrees.Furthermore,inthedesignationofkingsaccordingtotheirroyalnicknamesratherthantheirofficialnumbering,whichisconsistentwithestablishedCatalantradition,theauthorswishtoavoidcertainconfusion.Finally,withrespecttothesometimesdifficultdecipheringofillustrations,thisisduepartlytothebook’sformaldesignandstyle,itsuseofpoor-qualitypaper,itsabsenceofcolour,itssmalllettersize,itssmalloverallsizerelativetoitsnumberofpages,etc.Thesearedecisionsofthepublisherandnottheauthors.

AlthoughFandNmaintaintheiremphasisisonsociolinguisticfactors,thetruthisavarietyofeclecticselectionsgovernthebook’smaterialanddirection.Inthecondensedconceptualandterminologicaldefinitionsofthefieldoflinguistics,whichappearinchapter1,theauthorsputforwardanomenclatureforanddelimitationwhichis

152/ nsfertra03 / / 2 0 0 8153

somewherebetweenasocialhistoryandasociolinguistichistoryofCatalan(p.38),eventhoughtheyinsistona“cleanlysocialperspective”(p.39).Theauthorsalsoaccept,however,themoretraditionaldisciplinaryorientation,asrepresentedby,forexample,RafaelLapesa’sclassicHistoria de la lengua española(TheHistoryoftheSpanishLanguage)(Gredos,Madrid:1980).Itisnocoincidencethatpurelyhistoricalevents,andinsomecasesevenpurelysocialevents,areseparatedoutfromthelinguisticeventspertinenttothedevelopmentofCatalan.Startinginchapter2,theselinguisticeventsareusuallyplacedinasectionoftheirownattheendofthechapter.Figure1.2(p.40)istypicalofthis.Inthisfigure,theauthorshaveorganisedthevariousdisciplinesandsub-disciplinesthatcompriseCatalan-languagestudiesintoaneat,clearlysynthesisedchart,buttheyhaveleftoutsociolinguistichistorywhichtheyhadjustfinisheddiscussingtwopagesbefore.

FandN’schronologicalexplanationbeginsinchapter2andcarriesonthroughouttherestofthebook.EachsubsequentchaptercorrespondstoaconcreteepochorerainthehistoryofCatalan,delimitedbykeydatesmarkingthehistoryofthelanguage.OneproblemwiththisformulationisthatFandNdonotallotequalproportionalitytoeachhistoricalperiod.Wearestruckbythequantityofpagesdedicatedtothecontemporaryera,inall,215pagescoveringthe19thand20thcenturies.Meanwhile,thetenpreviouscenturies,dividedintosevenchapters,occupyjust252pages.Ofcourse,thereisingeneralmuchmoreinformationonthe19thand20thcenturiesthanonthecenturiesbeforethese.Still,itisquestionablewhetherFandNcanwritesuchalopsidedmassofcontemporaryhistorywithasufficientsenseofperspectiveforsuchrecenttimesasthelastcoupleofdecades,letalonethelastcoupleofyearsallthewayuptothepublicationofHistòria de la llengua catalana,astheyindeeddo.

Butinspiteofeverything,FandN’scontributionisgreatlywelcomed.OtherhistoriesoftheCatalanlanguagearelessthorough.Inonecase,theyfocusonmoredistantratherthanrecentepochs.Twodistinguishedworksthatfallintothiscategory,whichcoverthehistoryofCatalanonlyasfarasthe15thcentury,areSanchisGuarner’sAproximació a la història de la llengua catalana(ApproachestotheHistoryoftheCatalanLanguage-Salvat,Barcelona:1980)andJ.NadalandM.Prats’sHistòria de la llengua catalana(HistoryoftheCatalanLanguage-Edicions62,Barcelona:1982-1996).Boththesehistoriesweredesignedasworksinprogress,withtheintentiontheywouldonedaybecontinuedforthecontemporaryera.Intheothercase,Catalanhistoriestendtocentreonthe16thcenturyandonwards,inanoftenfragmentedmanner.WithFandN,however,wehaveourfirstcompletehistoryofCatalanfromantiquitytothepresentinonevolume.

Eachchronologicalchapterbeginswithanhistoricalintroduction,oran“historicalframeworks”asFandNcallit,andendswith“chronologicaltables”thatincludethepoliticalandsocialeventsoftheperiodsidebysidewiththepurelylinguisticevents(orinsomecases,thesociolinguisticevents).Naturally,eachchapter’sbodycoverstheeventsthatproperlymarkthehistoryofCatalan.Inthisbreakdown,FandNcouldhaveshortenedandsimplifiedeachchapter’sintroductionandexpandedeachbodysectiontoinclude,say,moreexemplifyingtextorillustration.Theycouldalsohavechosenamorereadablefont,particularlyinviewofthesmallsizeoffontthatwaschosen.ButFandNdoprovideexplanationsandsourcetextsthatclearlymatchtheirpurposes,asinchapter2(pp.61-62),wheretheypresentasequenceoffragmentswhichgiveagoodsense

II153

ofthedetailinvolvedintheevolutionofCatalanfromLatin.Inthissamechapter,FandNmakeasignificantcontributiontocorrectingthemisnomer“Mozarabic”,thetraditionaldesignationofthatlanguageinheritedbytheChristiansofAl-AndalusfromLatin,to“Romance”or“RomanicAndalusian”.

MostofthechaptersdonotlimitthemselvestomeredescriptionsofvicissitudesinthehistoryoftheCatalanlanguagefromthetimeofitsestablishmentintheterritoriesofCataloniauntiltoday.Rather,criticalexaminations,sprinkledthroughoutwithlargelyunexploredobservationsonthesocietalusesofCatalan,predominate.AnexampleofthisiswhenFandNspeakaboutthedifferencesintheuseofCatalanbetweenthegenders:“After1500,”theyargue,“therewereindicationsthatnobleandcultivatedwomen,secularandreligious,weremorerecalcitrantabouttheCastilianisationofCatalanthanmen”(p.160).AnotherexampleiswhenFandNgivedetailsonagenerationaldiscontinuanceofCatalanamidsttheValenciannobility:“ManynoblesandalsocourtservantsofthenewmonarchycontractedtheservicesofCastiliantutorsfortheirchildren,forthepurposesofcoachingtheminthecommandofCastilian”(p.199).

AthirdexampleiswhenFandNmentionthetownofMontsó,“anAragonesevillage,butCatalanspeaking”(p.189).Wewouldliketoknowmoreaboutthisvillageinthosetimes.Similarly,itwouldbenicetoknowaboutthe“twelvepopulationsinthewesternregionoftheKingdomofValenciawhosedominanttonguewasCastilian-Aragonese”(p.199,thereviewer’sitalics).

OnthetopicofchangestotheCatalanlinguisticfrontierovertime,thematerialisdividedupbetweenthedifferentchaptersofthebook.Thereissomedescriptionofthisinmaps(figures3.1and6.2),butitisnotexaminedingreatdetail.Instead,FandNspendalotoftimeininvestigatingtherepresentationsofCatalanbywriters,intellectuals,andchroniclers,startinginthe16thcentury(seechapters5,6,and7).Amongotherfiguresoftheperiod,theauthorsciteCervantesandValdés,andnativesthinkerssuchasPonçd’IcardandPujades.FandNdiscoverageneralinterestinCatalaninthesepersons,foraperiodinwhichtheprestigeofCatalanwasindeclineallover.However,theseauthorsalsoseemtobecompensatingforCatalan’sdisusebyCatalanauthorsinanyeruditesense.AnotherthemeFandNtacklearethelinguisticshiftsthatsplitthemoreunifiedCatalanoftheerapriortothe15thcentury.Theemergenceof“apitxat,”thedialectofCatalanspokeninthecityofValencia,ordifferencesinthepronunciationoftheletter“r”attheendofwords,areexamplesoftheselinguisticshifts(chapter4,p.175andchapter5,p.218).

FandNdividetheinstitutionalizedrepressionthatCatalanhassufferedinthelasttwocenturies(chapters6and7)intotwoseparateperiods,andtomarkthisdividetheychoosetheyear1759.ThiswastheyearthatthereignofCharlesIIIcommencedandtheapplicationofacleardespotismbegan.Althoughalwayshelpfultoreaders,perhapsthebook’schronologicalorganisationistoostrictforamorecohesivetreatmentofthethemesFandNundertake,particularlythosethemesextendingwellbeyondcenturiesinthehistoryofCatalan.Ontheotherhand,bythetimewearriveattheendofthebook,thedifferentthemesbecomemorecondensedintimeandwecanappreciatethembetter,partlybecauseFandNhavewrittenmoreforthisperiodthanforpreviousperiods.

154/ nsfertra03 / / 2 0 0 8155

ThefinalchaptersincludeastudyoftheCatalantraditionaloralmodel,maintainedallthewayupuntil20thcentury,andananalysisofcontemporaryanti-CatalanismintheregionofValencia.Butthisdiscussionislimitedbyinsufficientdepthandanalysis.Thephenomenonofthe“verticallinguisticsubstitutionintheprincipalcities”(Barcelona,Valencia,andPerpignan),occurringinthe19thcentury(chapter8,pp.304,322),requiresmoreextensivetreatment,andhadthistreatmentbeengivenitwouldhavepermittedabetterunderstandingofCatalan’scurrentsociolinguisticsituation.ThelinguisticchoiceofCastilianbyValencianwritersinthefirstfewdecadesofthe20thcentury,apointwhichtheauthorstouchoninchapter9(pp.376-377)butonlyverysuperficially,similarlyrequiresgreaterdetailandanalysis(B.Montoya:“Larespresentaciódelconflictelingüísticenlaliteraturavalencianacontemporània[ambunesguardespecialalanarrativavaloriana]”-“TherepresentationoflinguisticconflictincontemporaryValencianliterature[withspecialconsiderationgiventoEnricValor’snarrativework]”,Llengua & Literatura,13[2002],pp.59-92).

Intheend,however,theselection,focus,andlevelofdetailgiventothedifferentthemesappearinginanyoneworkwillalwaysreflecttheauthors’personalcriteriaandbiases,asproductsofcertainscientifictendencies.Thus,asakindofcounterbalancetothecriticismsthathavebeenofferedhere,thefinalevaluationofFandN’sworkandtheirversionofthehistoryofCatalancouldnotbeanythingbutpositive.Withthisbook,weareinthepresenceofamajorcontributiontoCatalanphilology II

Burano (Italy), Toni Catany (2007)

II155