RECOMENDACIONES GUIPCAR 2007

night of this conflict, that had been building up during the 1670’s and even earlier, was the legendary session of the Académie Française on January 22, 1687 (Levine 1991, 124-6). During what had promised to be

21 _{A few examples: «transport & emportement» (p. 8); «forçe, transport & entousiasme» (p.}

9); «l’action … est grande … & nous remplit l’esprit d’une magnifique idée» (p. 16); «matières vastes» (p. 21); Lucan is like the torrents that befell Ulysses (p. 22); Lucan is like the sun (p. 23). In Du Hamel’s booklet these metaphors are also used to express what rhetoricians called euidentia and hypotyposis.

a fairly run of the mill session all hell broke loose when Charles Perrault began to recite his poem Le siècle de Louis le Grand in which he not only sang the praise of the great modern empire lead by Louis XIV but also extolled the achievements of the modern times and the inevitable superiority of contemporary literary production over that of the ancients. Throughout the recital, Nicolas Boileau, the latter-day Horace, had been muttering and in the end he had shouted so loudly that shortly thereafter he lost his voice. The fight at the Académie was the beginning of a flurry of writings and pamphlets in which both sides of the camp tried to argue their case (collected in Lecoq 2001). Almost at once the quarrel attracted a mock historian, François de Callières (see Waquet 2005 for a portrait of this fascinating figure). His Histoire poétique was a satire in the tra- dition of the battle of books, in which authors used their works or fa- mous scenes from those works and their stylistic peculiarities as wea- pons to fight the opposition in an open war for the heights of Parnassus (cf. inter alia works by Boccalini, Caporali & Cervantes; see Hölter 1995). The work also engages a seventeenth century French tradition of allegorical descriptions of literary feuds (Tournon 2006). The open fight among the authors themselves, in order to secure their position on the Parnassus, represents the new autonomy of authors who can have a pu- blic debate on literary matters, using self-determined criteria (Tournon 2006, 49). The heroes of this battle are the writers themselves, not the critics or philosophers who lay down the law. Within Callières’ booklet Lucan and Brébeuf feature prominently – like Brébeuf’s translation, this allegory is intended for the sophisticated general reading public (Tour- non 2006, 58-9). The judgment of Callières on Brébeuf’s Lucan is ba- lanced or at least ambiguous (the Histoire poétique as a whole is cha- racterized by measured and reasonable moderation, see Nédélec 2011). In book 2 the ancients offer Lucan a place as Vergil’s lieutenant which he defiantly refuses. As ever in poetical treatises, Lucan hardly stands a chance when compared to Vergil22_{. He is the super-sub of epic poetry.}

But in Callières’ storybook, Lucan’s position is more complicated than that. In book 3 we find ourselves in the camp of the moderns. They are at a loss, because they have no epic poet who can reasonably be opposed to Vergil. Chapelain and Scudéry are head to head, others join in and it

22 _{The ancient poets «connoissoient parfaitement la distance qu’il a entre lui & Virgile, & lui}

all turns into an ear-deafening din. At that moment Brébeuf intervenes: Lucan offers his help to the moderns. Of course, it is true that he doesn’t speak French but, Brébeuf continues, «me regardant comme un autre lui», he is willing to settle for him (Callières 1688, 48). Everybody un- derstands that the situation has become hazardous, but the choice for a translator as a leader would ridicule French poetry forever. As a com- promise Brébeuf proposes Corneille (Callières 1688, 49). After some skirmishes with Ronsard the matter is settled. In this passage, dramatic poetry supplants epic as the master-genre and Corneille (Lucanist hors

catégorie) beats the army of Vergil’s admirers (Goupillaud 2005, 257).

The association of epic and tragedy in Lucan’s epic was already part of Heinsius’ appreciation of the poet in his De tragoediae constitutione (1611/43) — a work of great importance for French poetical theory (Heinsius 1611/43 [2001]). The idea will prove to be of lasting signifi- cance, especially among French theorists. It survives well into the 18th century and will find its most eloquent exposition in the poetical theory of Marmontel (Zeller 2009, 268-71). Choosing Corneille is a reflection of a widespread conception among French theoreticians: the glory of French poetry was its theatrical tradition, its secret dream the creation of a genuine and convincing epic poem — which never truly materialized (Goupillaud, 2005; Méniel 2004). The fact that Brébeuf’s translation can be considered a serious candidate, however qualified, is high praise in- deed for his achievement. Lucan returns in book 5, sitting idle on the heights of Parnassus from where he observes two moderns approaching, Boileau and Racine, who seemingly are planning to join the ranks of the ancients. When Lucan attacks Boileau’s well ordered army with his ten books, he is easily beaten (Callières 1688, 108):

«mais le Poéte Moderne comme un nouvel Hercule défit en un in- stant tous ces monstres imaginaires de Lucain, par la seule com- paraison qu’il en fit aux Spectres, qui se presentent quelquesois à un homme malade d’une frenesie ou d’une fièvre chaude, plûtôt- qu’à l’imagination d’un Poéte bien sensé.»

This defeat thoroughly upsets Lucan. He searches for a shelter among the cliffs and sends an eagle to Brébeuf informing him about the two moderns who try to join the ancients. Shortly afterwards the translator foolhardily assaults the Odyssee and is beaten without any difficulty

(Callières 1688, 114-5). In the end, Callières’ judgment is defined by Boileau’s doxa.

4.4 Even with its nostalgic idealization of classicist elegance Callières’