previous | | 2.9.2 (177) | contents


 Mikkel Borch­-Jacobsen (1991) reads “this admirable fable of truth,” retold by Pierre Klossowski, “as an erotico­-theological reformulation of Heidegger’s aletheia,” moreover, Diana at Her Bath  (1956) “appeared the same year as The Freudian Thing,” yet “Lacan’s ‘prosopopoeia’” correlates to “Klossowski’s writing strategy of the ‘simulacrum’” thanks to both having drawn ink from Bruno’s well. But as Beckett protests, in Dante . . . Bruno . Vico . . Joyce (1927), “literary criticism is not book­-keeping.” Then again, Lacan, unlike Klossowski, re-barks his remarks with due credit, “according to the signification Bruno drew from this myth ... it would show us in Freud an Actaeon perpetually set upon by dogs that are thrown off the scent right from the outset,” who nonetheless lead us back to the a/lethic wellspring—from Plato’s umbral cave to Diana’s specular grotto. Here, as Ioan Couliano (1986) notes, Bruno’s Speculum Dianae reflects “one part that is visible and another that is invisible. The water symbolizes the sensory world created in the image of the intelligential world.” As in fig.73 (above), each contrary may well Square itself by one figural track or another.

index | 2.9.3 (178) | | next


 From another angle, processes suggest pivots for a Plot as in fig.74 (above): “Goddess, hunter, and dogs are the phantasmic supports of the mnemonic content described by Bruno in his commentary.” That is, Bruno strictly subjects his literary exploits to exegetical methods—as Couliano stresses, “these characters are statues of the artificial memory.” As such, each metamorphic phase is keyed to a discursive turn. For example, “Contemplation of the goddess is tantamount to the death of Actaeon” yet it constitutes “a rite­ of passage towards the intellectual state.” Contrary to his neo­-Aristotelian epistemology (and yet, in many ways, comparable to Lacan’s notion of “traversing the fantasy”), Bruno is “at pains to state precisely that this passage consists in outstripping phantasmic knowledge.” As Bruno’s interlocutor ‘Tansillo’ puts it, Diana reveals to Actaeon “the performative power and external operation which can be seen in the contemplative state and act of a mortal or divine mind”—yet, as ‘Cicada’ is quick to note, the poet “compares divine and human comprehension [not as] to the two different modes, but to one and the same object of contemplation.”

© 2008-2012 Ian C Thorne. all rights reserved. about credits privacy contact share