Spanish Heteronyms and Apocryphal Authors. Some portraits and other fictions Maria Rosell* Keywords Heteronym, apocryphal, Iberian literature, Eugeni d’Ors, Max Aub, Sabino Ordás Abstract The aim of this paper is to offer a layout of Iberian writers who created a body of literary heteronyms throughout their works, in different genres such as poetry, prose and painting. This study is focused on the strategies employed by different authors who were able to create a sensation of realness in their heteronyms. Special attention is paid to contemporary Iberian heteronyms, from Octavi de Romeu — an Eugeni d’Ors’ creation — to Sabino Ordás — a collective work by young Juan Pedro Aparicio, José María Merino and Luis Mateo Díez —, whose portraits contributed to this realness, as did Archivaldo Orson Barnabooth and André Walter’s literary portraits, icons of French heteronomy, strongly connected to Spanish heteronyms. Palavras-chave Heterónimo, apócrifo, Literatura ibérica, Eugeni d’Ors, Max Aub, Sabino Ordás Resumo O objetivo deste trabalho é traçar uma panorâmica de manifestações ibéricas de alguns escritores que construíram um universo de heterónimos literários desde os seus primeiros trabalhos, praticando com diferentes géneros como a narrativa, a poesia e a pintura. A interpretação aqui apresentada da heteronímia está focada nas estratégias empregadas pelos autores para criar uma sensação de realidade em torno das suas máscaras. Por outro lado, neste artigo vamos concentrar a nossa atenção nos heterónimos ibéricos contemporâneos: desde Octavi de Romeu – uma criação de Eugeni d’Ors – até Ordás Sabino – uma obra coletiva realizada por Juan Pedro Aparicio, José María Merino e Mateo Díez Luis na sua juventude –, cujos retratos contribuíram para a construção dessa realidade, assim como os retratos literários de Archivaldo Orson Barnabooth e André Walter, representantes emblemáticos da heteronímia francesa, fortemente ligada à espanhola. * Universidad CEU-Cardenal Herrera. Rosell Spanish Heteronyms and Apocryphal Authors The Apocryphal Dimension: a new paradigm Cualquier desdoblamiento literario de la personalidad se nos presenta, bien entendido, como una representación en microcosmos del anhelo cósmico hacia el superhombre. Octavi de Romeu, Spanish writer and artist created by Eugeni d’Ors 1 Two very precise ideas are to be considered in this article: the necessary establishment of what may be called “A History of the Fake in Contemporary European Literature” which would allow us to possibly identify and study a continuum of artistic practices – closely related to Fernando Pessoa’s literature – through trans-historical and multi-disciplinary analyses. To that end, we must analyse if the various authors here studied wrote in isolation or if, on the contrary, they were part of a tradition to which they themselves also contributed, generating a tradition of their own which would be adopted afterwards by other young authors. First of all, it is necessary to define what the concepts of “forgery”, “fake”, as well as “apocryphal” refer to in this study. These terms are customarily associated to the detection of arts and fraud, the history of the falsification of works of art and techniques for detecting forgeries in addition to forgery strategies of texts and objects. Consequently, the translation of these concepts offers an added difficulty. For instance, when translating programmatic poems by Fernando Pessoa such as “Autopsicografia”, the translator must decide the best option for the Portuguese word “fingidor”, choosing between “feigner” or “forger”. A study carried out by George Monteiro, “Fernando, Old Artificer”(1985), analyses this complicated issue as, in general, these are all notions which are instinctively associated to something untrue, which is normally regarded negatively as it is related to the absence of truth — considered a positive value in our society. However, if we consider “falsity” as something that is not true, one can reach the conclusion that all art is irredeemably affected by this perception, with moral implications in creative genres. In this sense, the consistency between two authors with concerns in aesthetic-moral issues cannot be ignored. Specifically, Oscar Wilde and Fernando Pessoa, whose artistic and intellectual connections regarding the creation of masks and the myth-making process at work have been thoroughly analysed by Mariana de Castro (2006: 219-220), for whom: Despite his efforts to convince us of the contrary, however, there is an ample evidence that Pessoa was fascinated by Wilde […] The extent of Pessoa’s interest in Wilde is further supported by his espólio at the Biblioteca Nacional in Lisbon which contains, among the twenty-seven thousand or so manuscripts left behind after his death, at least thirty-seven fragments directly related to Wilde. 1 “Carta de Octavio de Romeu al profesor Juan de Mairena” (Ors, 1949: 291). Pessoa Plural: 2 (O./Fall 2012) 116 Rosell Spanish Heteronyms and Apocryphal Authors Wilde studied the topic of artistic forgery in greater depth, focusing on its ethical and cultural dimension, when writing the essays included in Intentions and particularly in a short story called “The Portrait of Mister W. H.” —which is found at the Casa Fernando Pessoa in Lisbon (Castro, 2006: 219). “The Portrait of Mister W. H.” was written in 1889. It was included in Lord Arthur Savile’s Crime and Other Prose Pieces, and first published in Blackwood’s Magazine. It confronts the topic of the enigmatic person to whom William Shakespeare dedicated his 154 Sonnets, which were published in 1609 by Thomas Thorpe and addressed “To the only begetter of these ensuing sonnets Mr. W. H”. The real person who inspired the characters referred to as the “Fair Youth”, the “Rival Poet” and the “Dark Lady” in these poems still today surrounded by an aura of mystery. Scholars have yet to agree who Shakespeare was thinking of when he wrote these sonnets. Wilde’s story begins with an unexpected discussion between two distinguished gentlemen, of quite different age and character, concerning literary forgery from Macpherson to Chatterton. One of them insists that alleged forgery shows the artist’s desire to obtain a perfect representation. Accordingly, we have no right in disapproving an artist for the conditions under which he may choose to present his work: censoring an artist for forgery would be mistaking a problem of ethics for one of aesthetics (Wilde, 2004: 7-8). The basis of Wilde’s narrative game, to celebrate literary fraud as a sublime practice, is soon exposed when his young conversational partner, Erksine, asks him the following question: What would you have to say about a young man with a peculiar theory on a particular piece of art, who firmly believes in his theory, if he were willing to commit forgery in order to prove it? His theory is that William Shakespeare’s Sonnets are dedicated to a young actor of great talent and physical appeal, Willie Hughes, of whom Erksine possesses a late XVI Century portrait. One may quickly infer that Wilde creates this story in order to enounce an apocryphal theory in relation to the Sonnets (due to which two of the three main characters die): they are not dedicated to Lord Pembroke, William Herbert, as many scholars believe, but to an effeminate actor, the inspirational source of Viola, Juliet, Rosalind, Portia, Desdemona or Cleopatra. The outcome of this story takes place when W. H. joins rival Christopher Marlowe’s theatre company provoking, according to Wilde’s hypothesis, the spite observed in some of the poems. In order to defend this thesis, already mentioned in the XVIII Century, two of the three main characters of the story die. What is left of their life-long detective investigation is but a critical collection of The Sonnets and an apocryphal portrait commissioned by one of them, as sole historic proof to support their thesis. Fraud is a key element in Wilde’s narration as it not only allows him to adhere to the thesis which was first verily defended by Thomas Tyrwhitt, but also Pessoa Plural: 2 (O./Fall 2012) 117 Rosell Spanish Heteronyms and Apocryphal Authors to form part of the critical and literary sector which defended an artist’s apocryphal writing in his politically critical works against the English cultural establishment of the latter part of the eighties, which would ultimately result in his conviction. Various decades after Wilde’s efforts to honour Ossian’s disciples, although he himself would not fake Shakespeare’s lover’s portrait, experimentation with fraud explodes in such a way that finally leads us to these most important questions: who is the true creator of a written text? What value is conveyed to originality nowadays? We shall now abandon Wilde, and continue with the use of dictionaries in order to analyse the terminology they both employed. According to the British Encyclopedia, the word “forgery” has various meanings, one of which is related to the adjective “spurious”, a term rarely used in normal conversation nowadays, but that is present in the Beaux Arts argot of different languages. In Spanish, for example, the Diccionario de la Real Academia de la Lengua (DRAE) defines this term as follows: Espurio (Del lat. spurĭus). 1. adj. bastardo (que degenera de su origen o naturaleza). 2. adj. falso (engañoso). V. hijo espurio. Fortunately, philological and historical analysis in recent decades is less focused on the aspects of reference or the verity of literary works than on the perspective of fiction and its limits. Thanks to this new perspective, it is now possible to review previously ignored texts, unclassified within traditional parameters, those which distinguished between fiction and testimony, or which established a clear separation between the generic frameworks of historical essays and those of novels. Authors such as Hayden White, Carlo Ginszburg, Eric Hobsbawm, Terence Ranger or Joan Oleza have shown that literature presented as objective, truthful or neutral, in fact as a historic or biographical account, follows the same paradigm as that of narrative fiction.2 Through recent theory and practice of what today is known as meta-fiction and self-fiction, we are now able to revise and recuperate these types of works (Oleza, 2010; Juan Navarro, 2002). The same can be carried out with others written by Spanish authors who were difficult to study from a perspective of Aristotelian verisimilitude. Thus, the public will not judge a work so much on is veracity, as on its plausibility, even if it contradicts historical or scientific truth (Eleanor Londero; José María Pozuelo Yvancos; Noël Valis)3. Impossible verisimilitude, in fact, can be 2 Their complete bibliographical references are included in the final Bibliography. 3 See Bibliography. Pessoa Plural: 2 (O./Fall 2012) 118 Rosell Spanish Heteronyms and Apocryphal Authors preferable to something possible but not credible in terms of the creation of a personal literary universe. In literary terms, by means of his most famous heteronym, Juan de Mairena, the master Antonio Machado developed a personal point of view about another word often employed in his texts, the word “apocryphal”: “Vivimos en un mundo esencialmente apócrifo, en un cosmos o poema de nuestro pensar, ordenado o construido todo él sobre supuestos indemostrables. […] el hecho —digámoslo de pasada— de que nuestro mundo esté todo él cimentado sobre un supuesto que pudiera ser falso, es algo terrible, o consolador. Según se mire” (Machado, 1936: 144-145).4 In a similar way, the adjective “apócrifo” is a key element of the terminology used to analyse his works. This is an accurate concept when referring to the Spanish poetic tradition inherited by Machado’s skepticism and, also, by two of his heteronyms, Juan de Mairena and Abel Martín, poets who: No existieron, pero debieron existir, y hubieran existido si la lírica española hubiera vivido su tiempo. Como nuestra misión es hacer posible el surgimiento de un nuevo poeta, hemos de crearle una tradición de donde arranque y él pueda continuar. Además, esa nueva objetividad a que hoy se endereza el arte, y que yo persigo hace veinte años, no puede consistir en la lírica — ahora lo veo muy claro — sino en la creación de nuevos poetas — no nuevas poesías —, que canten por sí mismos. (Machado, 1957: 157-158) “Terrible” and “consolatory”, Mairena stated when describing an apocryphal world: two adjectives not at all associated with the conventional definitions offered by the Holy Scriptures upon which Christian tradition is based. Once again, the DRAE furnishes a different meaning of that used by Machado: Apócrifo (Del lat. apocryphus, y este del gr. ἀπόκρυφος, oculto). 1. adj. Fabuloso, supuesto o fingido. 2. adj. Dicho de un libro atribuido a autor sagrado: Que no está, sin embargo, incluido en el canon de la Biblia.5 4 According to Fernando Pessoa the heteronym is “uma individualidade completa fabricada por ele [the writer], como seriam os dizeres de qualquer personagem de qualquer drama seu” (Pessoa, 1928: 10). 5 Antonio Machado recovers part of the first meaning of the word when between 1923 and 1925 he brought together a secret philosophical society called “Doce poetas que pudieron existir”, formed, among others, by Jorge Menéndez, Victor Acucroni, Jose María Torres, Manuel Cifuentes Fandanguillo, and a poet by the name of Antonio Machado. Despite the name of the society, there were, in fact, fourteen members. All of them formed a choir called Los Complementarios, the homonymic title of a notebook published in 1957 in Buenos Aires, but written between 1912 and 1925. Pessoa Plural: 2 (O./Fall 2012) 119 Rosell Spanish Heteronyms and Apocryphal Authors By means of Machado we come back to the initial question referring to the possibility of conceiving a history of fake, based on artistic forgeries, especially conceived by apocryphal authors. In addition, further questions arise: is the study of the tradition of apocryphal authors relevant to a more complete knowledge of our cultural history? Which would be the best period in which to initiate a new critical angle that would allow us to systematize apocryphal practices, insufficiently studied, in Iberian culture? The answer to the first query as to the most fitting period to be analysed is that which is marked by a hypertrophy of the author’s dimension and a recreational conscience of Art. More specifically, this characteristically took place during the periods of Romanticism and Modernism, but also during the end of the 1980’s. Reviewing the history of contemporary literature, one reaches the conclusion that the apocryphal tradition in Europe has rarely had the objective of committing fraud, an act of bad faith or willful misconduct. A classic example is Tomé de Burguillos (1634), alter ego of Lope de Vega, as shown by authors such as José Manuel Rozas (1985) or afterwards by Mark J. Mascia (2001). It has nothing to do with trying to exhibit a fake painting in a museum or a private collection or trying to sell it at an auction. Fake paintings have been plentiful in the history of art, and can be found in most museums. 6 Those found responsible for these frauds face serious consequences, such as prison sentences. When referring to a fake or an apocryphal author, however, we rarely find cases of personal enrichment, although some cases have been found. In order to study this alternative tradition, we first have to analyse the semantic field related to forgery. What is the meaning of apocryphal, or heteronym? When using these terms, are we referring to pseudonyms or pen names used by authors to hide their identities? No, we are not. Thus, we are aware of the fact that the heteronymous goes beyond any psychological drive inherent to the creative personality as the author intends to be more ambitious and to create a real empirical alternative. In the famous Pessoa’s “Tábua Bibliográfica” (1928) this difference is pointed out explicitly by Ettore Finazzi-Agrò: Com respeito a este desejo de “dar nome” à sua divisão, a utilização de heterónimo em prejuízo de pseudónimo parece-me francamente irrelevante já que não se trata de dois modos de se mascarar, mas de uma única forma de exprimir a sua desconfiança em relação à identidade do sujeito pensante/locutor consigo mesmo. E ao mesmo tempo de um modo de “dizer poeticamente” a sua própria crise, reduzindo os nomes próprios a puros significantes que podem, ou não, concretizar-se em personagens mas que de qualquer modo continuam a ser partes integrantes do discurso pessoano. (Finazzi-Agrò, 1987: 30) 6 In Fake! The Story of Elmyr de Hory, the Greatest Art Forger of Our Times (1969), Clifford Irving relates Elmyr de Hory’s story as a forger; Jonathan López studied Han van Meegeren’s biography in The man who made Vermeers. Unvarnishing the legend of Master Forger Han van Meegeren (2008). Pessoa Plural: 2 (O./Fall 2012) 120 Rosell Spanish Heteronyms and Apocryphal Authors Fig. 1. Fernando Pessoa, “Tábua Bibliográfica”, in Presença, n.º 17, December 1928, p. 10. Pessoa Plural: 2 (O./Fall 2012) 12 1 Rosell Spanish Heteronyms and Apocryphal Authors Although European languages share these and other concepts to describe lying, copying, forgery, truth, originality and authenticity, and although the negative connotation associated with everything false is a common denominator, we find ourselves on slippery ground when we assume that a dictionary can provide us with a precise set of words to suit our needs. This brings us to the following question: do dictionaries include accurate definitions of these terms? Dictionaries offer an unambiguous meaning of the word “apocryphal”: something of doubtful authenticity, fictitious, supposed or feigned. Bearing this meaning in mind — already devoid of the canonical sense it originally had —, researchers of the Iberian cultural tradition from the Modern period need to respond to various questions. It is necessary to clarify the concepts of apocryphal and the heteronym between the XIX and XXI Centuries. The internal history of the concept “heteronym” as used by Fernando Pessoa must be considered, as Pedro Sepúlveda (2012) and Jerónimo Pizarro (2012a) did. Pseudonyms have traditionally been a form of a shield which writers hid behind to conceal their true identity; heteronyms promote the “author function”, as detected by Jorge Uribe (2007: 49), when analyzing the precursors of Fernando Pessoa, as shall be discussed later. In addition, it is possible to employ the word heteronym as well as the word apocryphal in relation to Spanish authors who share similar conceptions of identities, personalities or authorial dimensions, even if Pessoa’s results are more radical and extreme. The latter is only comparable to the subsequent Romain Gary/Émile Ajar affair in France – an extremely interesting literary affair that deserves a study of its own (Rosell, 2009). Despite terminological difficulties within the semantic field surrounding the concept of “false”, and due to the lack of financial interest from the academic sphere related to this field, the apocryphal and heteronymous author reaches a certain poetic level if accompanied by a need for dialogue in the way that Fernando Pessoa did? In the last century he introduced an assemblage of undiscovered poets marked by an unprecedented discovery of the master he had within himself. Considering Sebastianismo e Quinto Império (Pessoa, 2011) Pessoa could not wait for future generations to initiate a varied and rich literary tradition which was to be the Fifth Empire and so he created poets through whom he could emit a message that could summarize what could be considered as the most valuable religious option in the western world. After his radical experience, the lyrical and philosophical ideas of Antonio Machado (1875-1939) generated all sorts of original searches in the Iberian Peninsula as, in his opinion, there was a lack of direction for young poetry. Thus, he created his own universe of poet-philosophers with whom he was able to maintain a dialogue that contributed to his country as well as his own Pessoa Plural: 2 (O./Fall 2012) 122 Rosell Spanish Heteronyms and Apocryphal Authors intellectuality. Machado’s example is so imprinted in future generations that this model is still an inescapable reference (Ordás, 2002). The equivalencies between the poetry of Pessoa and Machado have originated extensive bibliography as they have been analysed from very different perspectives, too vast to be summarized in the present article. It is worth, however, to point out the opinions of authors such as Liliana Swiderski (2006) or Jerónimo Pizarro, for whom much has been stated “nos aspectos que diferenciariam Machado de Pessoa; e muito pouco nas suas “afinidades electivas” (Pizarro, 2012b: 181). On the other hand, “ambos partilharam uma ‘pretensão ao objectivo’ através da ‘criação de novos poetas’, e que ambos pertenceram a uma geração para a qual a lírica se havia transformado num problema, após a exagerada exaltação do eu- lírico durante o período romântico” (Pizarro, 2012b: 181). But he was not the first one in Spain to develop a notorious tendency toward apocryphal creation. Before him, there were other important authors linked to the Pessoa and Machado initiative and after them a new wave of artists, writers and “outsiders” emerged to channel the aesthetic and existential worries of some of the most remarkable contemporary writers of the Iberian Peninsula. So before and after Pessoa an exceptional group of Spanish writers influenced by various European predecessors employed their talent in imagining other authors, even other painters, other literary writings, biographies and portraits. Experts such as Antonio Sáez Delgado (2010) are reviewing Pessoa’s Spanish reception and it appears that the author was not so well received as expected by the poets of the “Generación del Veintisiete” (Luis Cernuda, Federico García Lorca or Max Aub) or by Ramon Gómez de la Serna, always à la page introducer of young foreign talents. Although until the 1960’s there had not been a serious approach to Pessoa in this country, as has been studied by Antonio Sáez Delgado (2010; 2012), for years before, other writers had projected their careers making use of playing with their names and their works. Before Antonio Machado’s “Complementarios”, the most representative of these writers was the multifaceted Eugeni d’Ors (1882-1954), who showed such a great liking for literary masks that we know of at least four signatures of Ors, systematically serving him for the distinct features and interests of the writings and illustrations he published from 1904 onwards. Octavi de Romeu is, along with Xènius, his most complete invention of all. Eugeni d’Ors was interviewed in La Esfera (early June, 1916) in which he offered his concept of paganism as “El sophrosine, la armonía, calma, equilibrio y continua posesión y dirección de sí propio, me parecen el bien humano más apetecible, y así me lo concediesen los dioses, en los cuales, al pie de la letra, creo.”7 Fernando Pessoa read this interview and wrote a note in which he stated his accord with the Catalan, as may be seen below: 7 The complete interview may be found at: www.unav.es/gep/dors/entrevistas14.htm Pessoa Plural: 2 (O./Fall 2012) 123 Rosell Spanish Heteronyms and Apocryphal Authors Eugenio d’Ors – “Xenius” – V[er] entrevista em La Esfera de principio de junho 1916 (1º ou 2º nº do mez). His loves and hates are curiously like mine. – What real theories of paganism has he – who declares himself, al pié de la letra, a believer in the gods.8 (BNP/E3, 901-10v) Fig. 2. Fernando Pessoa’s note about Eugeni d’Ors Portraits from Barcelona: the master Octavi de Romeu Mas busca en tu espejo al otro, el otro que va contigo. Antonio Machado (1936: 279) Multipliquei-me aprofundando- me. Bernardo Soares (Pessoa, 2006: 113) Despite the cultural affinities between Fernando Pessoa and Eugeni d’Ors, the Catalan did not introduce Pessoa into his intellectual circle (Sáez Delgado, 2010). However, their connections and sensibilities become obvious when we read and observe drawings by Octavi de Romeu. From the very beginning, Ors made the most of self-representation strategies, setting himself up as an authentic character, a poseur, and a certain dalliance developed through a never-ending game of identities aimed to confirm 8 Text offered by Pauly Ellen Bothe, to whom I thank for the discovery. Pessoa Plural: 2 (O./Fall 2012) 124