Even when it is unique a language remains a mixture, a
schizophrenic mélange, a Harlequin costume in which very
different functions of language and distinct centers of power are
played out, blurring what can be said and what can’t be said; one
function will be played off against the other, all the degrees of
territoriality and relative deterritorialization will be played out.
Even when major, a language is open to an intensive utilization that
makes it take flight along creative lines of escape which, no matter
how slowly, no matter how cautiously, can now form an absolute
deterritorialization.
(Deleuze and Guattari 1986:26)The major language that Tarchetti confronted was the Tuscan
dialect of Italian, the linguistic standard for Italian literature since
the Renaissance. In 1840, after more than a decade of research into
{161}
the question of a national language, Manzoni published an
extensive revision of the first version of I promessi sposi which
recast it in the Tuscan dialect, undertaking the nationalistic
project of unifying Italy through its language and literature, at
once situating his text in the Italian literary canon and
establishing a linguistic model for fiction which could be
understood by most Italian readers (Reynolds 1950). Because
Tarchetti’s fantastic narratives were written in the Tuscan dialect,
they took the major language on a line of escape that
deterritorialized the dominant fictional discourse. He used the
Italian literary standard to produce Gothic tales, a genre that was
not merely marginal in relation to realism, but that existed in
Italian culture primarily as sporadic translations of a few foreign
writers, namely Hoffmann, Poe, and Adelbert von Chamisso.[3]
Traced with German, English, French, even Arabic texts,
Tarchetti’s tales foregrounded what realism repressed, the
discursive and ideological determinations of subjectivity. In his
foreign-derived, fantastic narratives, the standard dialect was
turned into a political arena where the bourgeois individualism
of realist discourse was contested in order to interrogate various
class, gender, and racial ideologies. Nevertheless, Tarchetti’s
Orientalism shows that he did not have his cultural politics
entirely under control: his interrogations were democratically
directed, but they sometimes repressed the ideological
contradictions precipitated by their own materials and methods
of appropriating them.
IIMethods of cultural appropriation like translation would clearly be
useful to Tarchetti’s project of putting the major language to minor
uses. And the deterritorializing effect of this project would clearly
make his translations foreignizing in their impact on dominant
cultural values in Italian. His most intensive utilization of the
standard dialect did in fact occur in his translation of a foreign
fantastic narrative, an English Gothic tale written by Mary
Wollstonecraft Shelley. The political significance of Tarchetti’s
translation, however, is complicated by the fact that it is a plagiarism
of the English text.
In 1865, Tarchetti published a tale entitled “Il mortale immortale
(dall’inglese)” (“The Immortal Mortal (From the English)”) in the
{162}
Rivista minima in two installments, on 21 June and 31 August. The
first installment was unsigned; the second bore his name. These
appearances indicate Tarchetti’s authorship, and so Italian readers
have always assumed, none venturing beyond the supposition that
he adapted the fantastic motif of his tale, the elixir of immortality,
from two French texts. What Tarchetti actually published, however,
is his Italian translation of Shelley’s tale “The Mortal Immortal,”
which was first published in the English literary annual The
Keepsake in 1833. In 1868, Tarchetti had another opportunity to
acknowledge his translation, but he did not: while serving as the
editor of the periodical Emporio pittoresco, he reprinted it under his
name with a different title, “L’elixir dell’immortalità (imitazione
dall’inglese)” (“The Elixir of Immortality (An Imitation from the
English)”).