HELIOGABALUS
OR THE CROWNED ANARCHIST
by Antonin Artaud translated by Alexis Lykiard
ISBN 978-1-9160091-1-0
Infinity Land Press.
Just short of
two-hundred pages, in a hardback format, printed in a good-sized
font on high quality paper and including an introduction and the
letters Artaud wrote about the work. This is the first complete
translation into English of what Alexis Lykiard describes as a
“fascinating mystic-historical essay” It is part history, part myth,
part fiction. Artaud and his subject are too-well known to need
rehearse their life stories or influence. What readers makes of this
book will depend, probably, on their orientation to both, in the
sense that they are figures of divisive controversy. Frazer, for
example, described Heliogabalus as a “crack-brained despot”, though
others have argued he was no tyrant but an impossibly bad emperor.
Artaud tends to be revered by his acolytes and dismissed by his
detractors, who point out that though extensive influence is claimed
for “the theatre of cruelty”, its impulse to destroy scripted drama
hasn’t got very far. Even those writers most often cited as
inheritors, Beckett for example, are highly literary writers for
whom the written word remains, if not paramount, at least highly
significant.
Many of Artaud’s central ideas remain highly dubious. His
claim, for example, that “words say little to the mind” compared to
images, sounds and action might not be readily accepted by Noam
Chomsky. If Chomsky’s theory of emergence is right, then it could be
argued that language is mind: they came into existence together
through a random mutation in an individual some 60 or 70 thousand
years ago. His claim that
the anarchist is an enemy of public order might have alarmed
Kropotkin whose theory of mutual aid saw order as arising
organically when people agree among themselves about how to live,
rather than having order imposed from on high.
Artaud is a very good writer, but there’s no doubt his mind
was, in some ways disordered. We have put behind us the denigration
of people with mental health problems. Artaud certainly had them: he
suffered a nervous breakdown at nineteen, was a laudanum addict and
believed a walking stick he possessed had belonged to St Patrick,
Lucifer and Christ. Did his mental health problems engender a taste
for decadence? Certainly, his subject engaged in various forms of
debasement which suggest a mind at odds with itself. He was emperor
at only fourteen. As Lincoln remarked, anyone can tolerate
adversity, but if you want to test a man, give him power.
Heliogabalus was a mere boy. Did power drive him mad ? Artaud
describes him as “most economical with human blood” yet at the same
time he admits his sent many to the galleys and had them flogged or
castrated. Indeed, he seems to have had something of an obsession
with castration.
There is much to say about both Artaud and his subject, but
perhaps it’s better to focus on Alexis Lykiard’s translation.
Whatever may be thought of either Artaud or Heliogabalus, Lykiard
has done an excellent job. Artaud’s style is not always easy to
render but Lykiard has
worked hard to replicate it:
“The subterranean traffic night and day feeding the greed of
the great solar deity seems to have dissolved into the light,
sweated away into the daylight outside.”
The rhythm of the sentence, its balance and the poetry of its
parallelisms make it a pleasure to read. Milan Kundera complains
about Voltaire’s much-cited quip about translations, correctly:
Lykiard shows here that a translation can be faithful and eminently
beautiful.
“It was the coarser classes of the population that created
the gods they chuck in our faces, and – if to mention only authors
traduced in the classroom – we were still now capable of
understanding Plato as he should be understood, we could, through
the path of classical esotericism, get back to a notion of
divinities – principles which mustn’t be confused with the
anthropomorphic representations of the gods.”
Whatever judgement may be made of the content, Lkyiard’s version is
elegant and clear.
“If nations ended up by considering the gods as beings
veritably separate, if they mistook the significance of these gods,
we should note that each nation, taken in isolation and at the same
moment in time and space, has always tried to organise its powers
hierarchically, and that wherever a feminine one overlaid a
masculine one and vice versa – in the minds and hearts of the people
who placed above them upon pedestals those essentially contradictory
gods, the masculine was masculine and the feminine feminine with no
inversion of nomenclature possible; I must say forthwith that the
same name would apply to two forms, made, apparently so that one
might devour the other; and the Syria of the era of Heliogabalus
took to a supreme point the notion of this mysterious fusibility.”
Readers at ease with French might like to look at the original and
compare. The choice of lexis and the careful preservation of the
structure of the paragraph to convey the thread of its thought are
first-rate.
“As for anyone who rakes up the gods of the ancient religions
and stirs them around at the bottom of his hod as though with a
streetcleaner’s spiked stick…”
The choice of “hod” and “streetcleaner’s spiked stick” is inspired.
There are multiple examples of Lykiard’s poet’s
ability to find le mot juste, perhaps after a
Flaubertian struggle, but the prose reads fluently, the artistry
concealed. Lykiard is an experienced translator from French:
Lautréamont, Jarry and others. Infinity Land chose well.
Interest in Artaud remains lively across the globe. It’s unlikely
Lykiard’s rendering of this key text will be surpassed.
|