No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A Literary Philtrum or the Last Cultural Intimacy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 June 2015
Abstract
The philtrum – the small groove above the upper lip of every human being – is, according to Hebrew myth, the mark of an angel’s touch. The fullness and beauty of this myth does not prevent us from almost having forgotten it, while the difficulty of talking about something so human and common to all of mankind as the philtrum, within the framework of academia, provides clear evidence of the alienation of cultural discourse from its essence – the achievement of intimate, unmediated connection between cultures and nations. Likewise, despite the literary-theoretical oblivion of important ideas of literariness and the ontological cognitive power of literature, literary works, such as those of Meša Selimović, are still able to teach us about the beauty of (mutual) existence and the importance of cultural dialogue. In a sense, literature is a reservoir of humanity and a reminder of the importance of intimate human contact through cultural dialogue in the age of globalization and mechanization.
- Type
- Focus: A Dialogue of Cultures
- Information
- Copyright
- © Academia Europaea 2015
References
References and Notes
1.Hillman, J. (1997) The Soul’s Code: In Search of Character and Calling (New York: Grand Central Publishing), p. 46.Google Scholar
2.Kierkegaard, S. (1983) Fear and Trembling: Repetition. Edited and translated with Introduction and Notes by H. V. Hong and E. H. Hong (Princeton, New Jersey and Chichester, West Sussex: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
3.See Vraneš, B. (2011) Poslednji vitezovi: ogledi iz književnosti [The Last Knights: Essays on Literature]: Вранеш, Бранко (2011) Последњи витезови: огледи из књижевности (Београд: Завод за уџбенике).Google Scholar
4.Selimović, M. (1999) The Fortress. Translated by E. D. Goy and Jasna Levinger (Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press).Google Scholar
5.Selimović, M. (1996) Death and the Dervish. Translated by B. Rakić and S. M. Dickey. Introduction by H. R. Cooper, Jr. (Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press); (1983) Derviš i smrt (Beograd: BIGZ).Google Scholar
6.To the writer himself, the protagonists of the novels Death and the Dervish and The Fortress represent ‘the embodiment of two principles, two possibilities in man’s life: hate and love’, on account of which the protagonist of the former ‘slowly loses human characteristics, gradually becomes dehumanised’ [translation by the author]. Selimović, M. (1983) Pisci, mišljenja i razgovori: eseji, članci, polemike, intervjui (Beograd: BIGZ), p. 362.Google Scholar
7.It is very difficult to fully transpose Selimović’s metaphor into English. The adjectival phrase ‘narrow-minded’ is but one of the meanings of the adjective used in the original. The adjective ‘uskogrud’ from the original literally refers to a narrow chest, but can also connote great brittleness and weakness. Also, in its nature, it is closer to the position of the heart and the characteristics of the world of emotions. Cf. Selimović, M. (1983) Tvrđava (Beograd: BIGZ), p. 185.Google Scholar
8.Žižek, S. (2005) Superego by Default. In: The Metastases of Enjoyment: on Women and Casuality (London, UK and New York, NY: Verso), pp. 54–86.Google Scholar
9.Blumenberg, H. (2010) Parable of the unmissable missed encounters. In: Care Crosses the River (Chicago, IL: Stanford University Press), p. 117.Google Scholar
10.We refer to Andrić’s tragic statement assigned to the protagonist of his short novel The Damned Yard: ‘[O]ne cannot recover from oneself’, Andrić, I. (2012) The Damned Yard and Other Stories. Edited and Translated with Introduction by C. Hawkesworth (Beograd: Dereta), p. 337. Andrić’s original sentence was as follows: ‘од себе се не може оздравити’. Андрић, Иво (1977) Проклета авлија. (Београд: Просвета; Загреб: Младост; Сарајево: Свјетлост; Љубљана: Државна заложба Словеније; Скопље: Мисла), p. 113.Google Scholar
12.The delicacy of comparison is lost in the English version, where the metaphor of a bloom appears in the lament over a lost sweetheart in place of a dandelion head: ‘another’s lips have brushed the bloom of her skin’ (italics added). Selimović, M. (1996) Death and the Dervish, Translated by B. Rakić and S. M. Dickey. Introduction by H. R. Cooper, Jr. (Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press), p. 450. Cf. M. Selimović (1983) Derviš i smrt (Beograd: BIGZ), p. 491.Google Scholar
13.Јерков, А. (2009) Интракултурни простор разлике: од радикалног зла до баналности добра. Српски језик, књижевност, уметност: зборник радова са научног скупа одржаног на Филолошко-уметничком факултету у Крагујевцу 31. октобра и 1. новембра 2008. год: књига II: Интеркултурни хоризонти: јужнословенске/европске парадигме и српска књижевност. (Крагујевац: ФИЛУМ; Скупштина града Крагујевца), рр. 9–23; р. 10.Google Scholar
14.That is the only thing that Myshkin, on his own behalf and on behalf of his ‘fellow travellers’, requires of the embittered Ippolit: ‘[F]orgive us our happiness!’ What is perhaps even more poignant than that request is the fact that the emaciated and tragic Myshkin is – happy. Dostoevsky, F. (1996) The Idiot (Hertfordshire, UK: Wordsworth Editions), p. 489. Myshkin’s original statement was: ‘простите нам наше счастье!’ Достоевский, Ф.М. (1973) Идиот. Полное собрание сочинений. В тридцати томах. Том восьмой. (Ленинград: Издательство ‘Наука’), р. 433.Google Scholar
15.Walter, B. (2003) The work of art in the age of its technological reproducibility: Third version. In Selected Writings: Volume 4: 1938–1940. Translated by E. Jephcott and Others. Edited by H. Eiland and M. W. Jennings (Cambridge, MA and London, UK: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press), pp. 251–283.Google Scholar