On Losing One\'s Voice: Two Performances from Romeo Castellucci\'s \"e la volpe disse al corvo\"

It is an old story: And the fox said to the crow in the tree, “how beautiful you are, the most beautiful of birds. If only your voice could match such splendor.” And the crow opened its mouth to realize its name— to crow—but as it happened out fell the morsel of cheese, which the fox snatched up fast in its maw. The moral is clear: do not trust flatterers. But Aesop’s story of the crow also teaches that one should not trust one’s own name or the very act of naming. To speak, to crow, is to lose oneself. Or, to lose whatever matters most: food, face, or tongue. It is to eat crow. hat then to make of the Italian director Romeo Castellucci’s selection of the phrase “e la volpe disse al corvo” (and the fox said to the crow) as the title for the ten-part program that the city of Bologna hosted in his name from January to May 2014? We might call it a gesture of self-mockery. For if the honor is mere flattery, as the parable suggests, it is a ploy to trick an honoree so renowned for his largely non­ verbal performance compositions into losing himself. Since founding the company Societas Raffaello Sanzio in the nearby city of Cesena in 1981 with his sister, Claudia Castellucci, and wife, Chiara Guidi, Romeo Castellucci has produced a body of work in which the word plays

W

a subsidiary role to a cataclysm of appearance and disappearance. Castellucci arrived in the theatre after studying visual arts at the Accademia dell’Bella Arte in Bologna and his performances are nothing if not visually striking: in the first fifteen minutes of his Inferno (2008), for example, a man climbed the 100-foot edifice of the medieval Palais des Papes in Avignon, then threw a basketball in an impossibly long arc off the ramparts to the stage below; later a white horse trotted into view and a piano was lit on fire as televisions plummeted from the upper floors to shatter on the ground. Borrowing from their namesake— the painter Raphael, whose canvases first perfected classical representation and later swelled its forms with baroque excess—the image on Societas Raffaello Sanzio’s stage is interminably at odds with itself. (See TF 36, 3-15.) It is too literal, too self-destructive, or it is burdened with Daniel Sack is an assistant professor in the English Department at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. His writings have been published in a variety of journals including PAJ, TDR, Studies in Theatre and Performance, Theatre Journal, and Theater, as well as in a number of edited collections. His monograph on futurity and performance is forthcoming from the University of Michigan Press in 2015.

TheatreForum

37

a supplem ent so that it exceeds any direct correlation between idea and realization. These images often extend beyond the strictly visual to encompass the full sensorium of a spectator’s body: sounds run inaudible vibrations through the organs, winds brush against the skin. While in conversation with the visual arts, then, the work of Societas Raffaello Sanzio places a constant pressure on the nature of theatrical representation, its histories of spectatorship, and its inherently duplicitous relationship with the real. In this respect, Castellucci’s performances have been regarded as a continuation of Antonin Artaud’s conception

speaking subject does not possess the word “I” it temporarily claims from a common language (see Ong). A fundamental scission insists itself between representation and actuality, between the speech and the one who speaks. Under the curatorial vision of Piersandra Di Matteo (who has been working with Castellucci since his 2008 staging of The Divine Comedy), e la volpe disse al corvo gathered together new work and old to illustrate the matter of the voice as a central concern for the director since his first performances more than thirty years ago. The subtitle for the program, Course in General Linguistics, invokes Ferdinand de

of a theatre where the materiality of the image—at once awful and sublim e—plays across the very body of a spectator, by working directly on the nerves: “it is through the skin that metaphysics m ust be made to re-enter our m inds” (99). For A rtaud wanted a theatrical “language of everything that can be said and signified upon a stage independently of speech, everything that finds its expression in space, or that can be affected or disintegrated by it” (69). And yet, if Artaud’s work inspired a nonverbal theatre of images, it might also be said to have inspired a theatrical deconstruction of the voice. The mad visionary wrote with terror about the act of speech as an irreparable loss. Not only because sound cannot stand still or it would cease to be, not only because it must always leave us, but also because the

Saussure’s founding lectures on semiotics between 1906 and 1911 (posthumously compiled and published under that title in 1916) to suggest the director’s guiding concern with the logic of signification, while acknowledging an overarching pedagogical orientation. As lectures that took printed form only after their speaker’s death, the reference to Saussure also recalls how a statement might live on outside or at odds with the vocal body who spoke it. Castellucci’s note on the program’s title reflects these dual concerns: "So as not to lose the thing, I cannot say it; I am forced to grasp onto it with all my strength. But if I hold it like this, so close to my eyes that I can’t even see it, then it will never be possible for this thing to become an image.

38

TheatreForum

Every image is in fact constituted by its detachment from things. The problem is that I, the crow, am a born singer, and (as far as I know) the very existence of theatre depends on images. So what now?" (Castellucci, pamphlet) So what now? It’s a question that undergirds all live production with its constant departure towards a future: what is the now that follows on this present? If it is necessary to detach a thing from itself in order to see it as an image, then e la volpe disse al corvo described the nature of the theatre by delineating its outside limit. Only the first of ten parts took place in an actual theatre building—Castellucci’s staging of Wagner’s Parsifal was presented in the city’s opera house. The other parts were performed, as Di Matteo notes, in “a cinema theatre, the gymnasium of a sports complex in the outskirts of the city, a lecture hall with reproductions of classical sculptures, an air-raid shelter, an ex-haven for children.” Di Matteo comments, “all of these places—or at least most of them— are inappropriate for theatre, and for this very reason are perfectly suited for a search for theatre’s proprium [proper form]. They sought the limit of the theatre in its everyday uses, made the city itself a stage for performance, or called its many histories theatrical pageants themselves. This address to the voice, language, and the acting body was particularly apparent in two performances that were presented during the first week of April when I was in the city participating in another of the program’s ten parts: the first international symposium devoted strictly to Castellucci’s work, titled La Quinta Parete [The Fifth Wall], The performances collapsed two different periods of the director’s work into the present—one belonging to his excavation of canonical dramatic texts during the 1990s and the other to his most recent explorations. In Giulio Cesare: pezzi staccati [Julius Caesar: spared parts], Castellucci excised figures from his striking 1997 production of Shakespeare’s tragedy to form a triptych that

not only considered what remains of historical performance (both in the theatre and in the civic space), but also what remains of the actor in the transmission of a theatre text. The original 1997 performance had been part of a trilogy of performances from 1992-1999, Epopea della polvere [Epic of D ust], th at deconstructed the classical tragedies Oresteia, Hamlet, and Julius Caesar, to uncover the origins of western dramatic tradition. The second performance, Giudizio, Possibility Essere [Judgment, Possibility, Being], extended a section from his recent production, Four Seasons Restaurant (2012), into an independent fulllength performance. Four Seasons Restaurant refers to Mark Rothko’s rescinded commission of a series of large murals for the eponymous restaurant. Together with a work based on Nathanial Hawthorne’s short story “The Minister’s Black Veil,” it continues the director’s current investigation of the artistic act of making as an apocalyptic event, at once creative and destructive, how one must not appear in order to create an appearance. In other words, both pieces originated as fragments of larger wholes and were here given independent life. They realized Castellucci’s claim that “every image is in fact constituted by its detachment from things” and they wrestled with the problems of separation, of individuation, and of actualization, at the heart of all enactment. Giulio Cesare: pezzi staccato [Julius Caesar: spared parts]

These are the days of speechwriters and teleprompters where a political speech can be separated from the speaker, but even in the Ancient Roman days of oratorical improvisation, the treatises of Cicero dictated set tropes of persuasion. The great orator Cicero is mentioned in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, speaking incomprehensible Greek to an offstage senate, but he only appears briefly onstage. In Castellucci’s acclaimed 1997 production of the play, however, a 350-pound man sat at center reciting lines from the Roman’s texts, literalizing rhetoric as the unspoken gravitational nexus of the tragedy. The pared down version of Castellucci’s performance shown in Bologna had no Cicero; but it, too, asked how power-divine or earthly—speaks through the body of another, that spare but necessary part: the actor. There is no speech for the masses in the stately lecture hall in Bologna’s Accademia di Belle Arti where Castellucci staged his Julius Caesar: spared parts-, a host of sculptures face me like some mute chorus of mythic and familiar

TheatreForum

39

characters, Neoclassical fragments of Michelangelo’s David and the Laocoon, reduced to but a head or a father clutching at limbs in place of boys. [Photo 2] These parts alone are spared. And yet, these are inverted monuments. Clearly plaster casts, molded imitations of their more weighty granite originals—theatrical sculptures, perhaps. Set on pedestals of painted wood, it as if they stood frozen for eternity on a small stage, or what we call “the boards.” They are ancient characters ready for action.

40

TheatreForum

The too-fragile figures that will take the room are icons from a more recent th e a tr ic a l p ast. T hree orators that will appear are “spared parts” from the 1997 perform ance, rem ainders caught in the throat. Each will enter, come to the center of the lecture hall to present his speech, and then depart. A trio of men in white togas linger at the edges of the room or look down on the action from the balcony above. They are a silent chorus, members of the Roman senate, perhaps, arranged in poses of attention or perhaps contributing to a tableau vivant that describes the action. At one point, they tie a bust of Caesar to a line and lower it headfirst off the balcony precipitously hanging over the scene as if the great m an’s downfall were suspended perpetually. O therwise, like us, they merely watch. One of these three chorus members sits before me to begin the performance. He lubricates an endoscopic camera, then traces its gaze over his ear, his eye, his mouth. A projector casts the scene in a circular projection onto the back wall: parts of a body in close-up. He then begins to insert the camera through his nostril, snaking it down to the back of his throat where it catches sight of his vocal chords. [Photo 3] The interior folds of his throat undulate behind him as he speaks the lines from the play’s opening dialogue between Marullus, Flavius, and the crowd. I see his vocal chords working like some abyssal monster looming at the rear of the stage. At the same time it acts like a physical presence thrust down my own throat, so that the alien movement seems to work within me. If sound is the sense that envelops the hearer and sight a sense at a remove, here those roles intermingle and I seem to become the theatre. A badge on his chest identifies

the character as “...vskij” (in homage to Stanislavskij, the forefather of an interiorized acting), but the performer will play all the parts in this opening mob scene—not only the two named characters and the crowd, but also myself sitting in the audience—collapsing us into a single grotesque conglomeration, phlegm. W hen he leaves the room , a second figure, Caesar, shuffles forward in long red robes, lifting the folds to reveal his feet with every step. Each footfall is amplified tenfold via speakers situated throughout the chamber. Is this garb Clytemnestra’s fateful weaving that prophesizes death or is he, rather, a theatre himself, the red curtain rising to unveil the expected corpse b en eath —or, at least, its earthbound soles? He does not speak. Instead he offers up gesticulations, semaphoric accompaniments to a rhetorical game that has been stripped bare of content, a kind of dance of the politician’s gestures. [Photo 4] It is as if Caesar has already dreamed of Casca’s words to cue the assassination: “Speak hands for m e” (3.1). But he has nothing of substance to say. All that remains is the resonant rush of air that a sleeve might make against itself in the pure play of rhetorical calisthenics. W hen he is finished, the three chorus m em bers (...skij and his two companions) join Caesar in a series of tableaux representing the assassination. Then they seal him inside the red toga, dragging the bagged corpse down the aisle bisecting the audience and out behind us. [Photo 5] A third figure steps down. Here comes Mark Antony,

Photo 5: Giulio Cesare: pezzi staccati (2014). The Chorus shroud Cesare (Gianni Plazzi) for his burial. Photo: Luca del Pica

stately in his slow progress to a pedestal at center, which is not unlike those on which the other casts are mounted. This one, however, says o u trig h t w hat all pedestals m erely imply: it is im p rin ted w ith the w ord “A rs,” insisting that, despite his claims to the contrary, Antony is the master of the arts of rhetoric. He begins to speak, but what comes forth is som ething hollowed out. The actor, Dalmazio Masini (17 years removed from his first performance of the part and now 75), has had his larynx rem oved, so there is a gaping hole where his speech should be, a literalization of Caesar’s many wounds that conclude the character’s famous monologue. He would “put a tongue / in every w ound of Caesar that should move / the stones of Rome to rise and mutiny” (3.2) as if to wake these many plaster casts. Antony is the extension of Caesar’s body, his arm according to the conspirators, and the extension of his voice; his first lines in the play announce the fact: “I shall remember: / W hen Caesar says ‘Do this’, it is perform ed” (1.2). Bereft of his own vocal cords, Antony’s esophageal speech comes from the vibrations of the stoma itself. [Photo 6] Before my eyes stands the engastrimyth (en “in”, gaster “stomach”, and mythos “word”; one who has a second voice in that seat of digestion, the stomach), the Latinate precedent to our ventriloquist, speaking words and giving breath to a seemingly lifeless other. The most famous of these vessels for non-human voicing were the prophetesses of old, the Delphic oracle seated on her tripod above a crack in the earth, whose

*

TheatreForum

41

winds inspired her to voice forth divine breath. Here, Antony acts the tongue for the dead divinity, Caesar, who cannot witness his own experience posthumously, a gag that, like all tongues, remains undigested. And when the performer wipes a sponge soaked in red across his mouth, it leaves a wet bloody stain, as if the wound Antony represents were reopened by the act of speech. The p ro fo u n d labor of w orking the air into sound sh o w s a c ro s s M a s in i’s performance; he strains under the task. Such is the curse of divination and the burden of the actor, carrying the weight of a role like a messenger. For the ideal messenger is the one who least distorts the message, who allows the event to consume his body of all distinguishing feature, and merely transmits the character of another, an event that cannot speak its own name. These figures bring me so close to the threshold of speech—to vast curtains of flesh or fabric sounding off, to a hole into the very ground of breath. Yet, what appears here in a most felt way is the white noise of the actor’s insistent interruption, his body’s refusal to become transparent or as set as stone (or plaster). By another nam e we m ig h t call this “presence,” or “living.” This spare part, this throat gagging on its potential to say. M ark A ntony departs the room and we are left with the statues, but the performance does not end. A row of lightbulbs mounted on a long black beam of metal has stood opposite the audience throughout, a mysterious piece of seemingly useless stage machinery; only now do they illuminate like a span of elevated footlights. From left to right, one at a time, small plates unwind to clamp down on each bare bulb, until the delicate glass globe bursts under the pressure. [Photo 7] Each small world explodes in a shower of glass, its filament snuffed out. In Shakespeare’s play, when the rebel Cassius dies, Titinius forecasts the end of city and civilization, saying “the sun of Rome is set. Our day is gone” (5.3). Perhaps this machine has been constructed merely to show the inexorable darkening of our days in methodical succession. One by one, our fragile forms will give way to whatever pressure or power. Perhaps this machine is the true spine or essence of tragedy as such: for what is tragedy but a machine for making darkness visible?

42

TheatreForum

Giudizio, Possibility, Essere [Judgment, Possibility, Being] It begins with another machine for making darkness, or, rather, a m achine for m aking darkness audible. Someone—a young woman—is sitting, facing away from me, watching the slides projected onto the standing screen at the back of the room. They tell the story of a satellite at the far reaches of imagined distance, recording the sound of a black hole discovered in the Perseus galaxy some 250 million light years away. The noise is playing for us now, transposed into a register so that I might hear its hazy rough cackles and deep throbs cast huge and terrifying. This is the edge of knowing, like a door opened into the outside, relayed by this sidereal messenger. It has been turned over by a further mediation, so that a sensation normally outside my hearing m ight speak a language I can understand. Even so, th e re are no words for this expanse; if the messenger is the white noise in Giulio Cesare, here the message itself is white (black) noise, the medium is the message. The sublime depths of the universe speak to me, saying nothing. The fluorescent lamps above flicker on. We are in a school gymnasium, another place of education, not the lecture hall’s pursuit of verbal gymnastics, but a space for training the body. I can now see the young woman more clearly. She wears an Amish dress of homespun cloth, a peculiarly timeless sort of uniform for a student. She comes forward to the edge of the playing space to look out at the audience. She is another satellite around the black hole’s open mouth, an actor learning to translate this abyss into a form that might be comprehended. So what now? In one hand she holds a pair of scissors and in the other she takes her own tongue, holds it firm as the twin blades close decisively once, then twice, and it is done. The flesh falls to the floor. A whimper, a swelling—she is about to retch—a handkerchief to her mouth. And now there is another young woman beside her, having entered from the rear. She, too, brandishes gleaming shears and snips away, weeping the while. And another woman and another, they keep coming down to stand directly in front of us and

do the deed. Each action is visceral and unbearable. Each repetition, a new forgetting of what pain felt like before, fust as the endoscopic stare seemed to put my monstrous interior onstage, here I cannot help but imagine my tongue catching on a cold metallic edge. When they are finished a Germ an shepherd dog comes onto the stage, almost sheepish with tail between its legs as it gobbles down the tongues in quick succession. Nature takes back its flesh and there is no return from this act. The crow will not ever find its cheese again.

his influence threatened its politicians, Empedocles turned his back on society even as his people begged him to return. Instead, seeking to join with the infinite, perhaps become a god himself, the philosopher threw him self into the depths of Mount Etna. His bronzed sandal was spit back out, the spared part mocking his ambitions or proving his apotheosis to his disciples. A tongue cut from a mouth. The women perform H olderlin’s play in a very presentational manner, all stylized gestures and occasional tableaus at the rear, as if it were a dance that they had been

A rtaud would be proud of these uniform ly dressed disciples. They have willed their separation from speech, forestalling the incision between speaker and spoken word with a cut of their own devising. They had touched the edge of the infinite, a black hole they could not name; they had no use for language. It seems a linguistic and social suicide, irrevocable, but however gut-wrenchingly realistic, this is still the theatre; it is all a game in a gymnasium. The tongue-less supplicants gather upstage in a circle with their hands linked. They are, if anything, fully reconstituted as a community, having suffered a common experience like a word that only they have shared, claiming “I” as way of knowing “us.” And then they do the seemingly impossible: they speak. They perform a version of The Death o f Empedocles, the unfinished Trauerspiel (mourning play) that the German poet Friedrich Holderlin wrote between 1798 and 1799, restaging the events leading up to the pre-Socratic philosopher’s suicide. Exiled from his city in Sicily because

taught by others, a ritual handed down for generations. [Photo 8] Indeed, on the edges of the playing space those who are not in the scene right now take turns mimicking the gestures of the performers onstage. They rehearse the part for their eventual turn, understudies preparing for when they will be called up. At times, the young women switch roles, never entirely inside their part. And, as the play progresses, the women’s voices too become divorced from their particular bodies, seeming to issue from their very core as if, like Caesar in spared parts, the costume spoke on their behalf (speakers have been placed inside each dress). When this happens, they lipsync along, awkwardly, displaced from their own articulations. Somewhere in here one of the young women fills her mouth with whipped or shaving cream and begins to gag on the stuff, falling to the floor in spasms that approximate an epileptic seizure. The action recalls the cutting of the tongue, but insists even more overtly that this is all pretend. The “seizure” is like the game that children play, trying to

TheatreForum

43

m m m im

•mi

A ::

n

r a £ si;-,

I

... \ r ‘:

^. - ;

='. ' • “=•.:>

,

c ,;v. .

Y--

(m & ,

e

•syflfiG} y ; x

3$ ■

Ska

B make themselves pass out and disappear, to negate the self before the world. We might think of this act as a matter of the individual stepping out from the chorus, for it is only the one woman who takes this on, Nietzsche’s Apollonian individual emerging from the Dionysian chaos of nature before rejoining it again. Such a move between the one and the many is in keeping with Empedocles’ understanding of life as an oscillation between opposed forces of attraction (or what he called love) and dissolution (or strife). Creation and destruction interweave with each other, a lesson ingrained in the earliest of tragic forms from the Bacchae down to Holderlin’s abortive drama. In three successive versions, Holderlin never finished his play, always abandoning the writing short of that final leap into the void. As David Farrell Krell has pointed out, “Holderlin’s marginal notations throughout the manuscript insist that it is important for Empedocles—if he is to rejoin his gods through a voluntary death—to make his suicide an essentially affirmative act, and act of love rather than strife” (36). The poet struggled to present the philosopher’s suicide as a decision to rejoin the infinite through love rather than strife. As the Socrates depicted in Plato’s Phaedo affirms his encroaching suicide as his transcendence into the purity of an eternal idea, so Holderlin’s Empedocles seeks to coincide with an undivided idea in a positive manner. Here the philosopher is a poet who repeatedly mourns his distance from a natural world that once felt immediate: “Alas! I the lonely one, did I not live / In company with this our holy earth and with this light, / With you from whom the soul refuses to depart / O father ether [...] I’ve been ejected” 44

TheatreForum

m

(second version, 1.4, 127). Already anticipating the fate of his indigestible sandal, he names himself “ejected” from Nature, though he wants nothing more than a return to its collective embrace. Throughout Judgment, Possibility, Being the Natural world is inaccessible without mediation: an antiquated radio upstage transmits pastoral bleats of sheep and the haze of nighttime crickets for the scenes in the wilds. And by now it should be apparent to the spectators that the black hole at the start of the performance is also the crater of Mount Etna. It is a starless sky, the word that cannot be spoken, or as, Castellucci put it in his prefatory note quoted above, the image held too close to be seen. Yet the performance we watch is not simply a Romantic longing for untrammeled sublimity. The young women all wear Amish dresses; like anchorites of old, like Empedocles shunning the city for the mountains, they mark their separation from the contemporary world. But theirs is not a hermitage of isolated individuals so much as a mass at odds with the idea of the single subject. The communal gathering turns increasingly sinister as the reenactment progresses: they don red armbands out of some Nazi rally, unfurl confederate flags to drape about the back, to tie on as kerchiefs, or to hang at the rear of the gym. Guns are distributed, slung across shoulders, a pistol carried about, then spray-painted gold to match a gilded wreath that is passed around to signify the role of Empedocles. The slide projector is switched on once more: now—in some epiphanic representation of the Natural world—it cycles through sun­ drenched images of snow-capped mountains as a Nordic

folksong blares loud over the speakers, while the women all perform a strange folk dance. The sublimity at work in Castellucci’s theatre with its spectacular voids and ritualistic patterns is here acknowledged as a descendent of Wagner’s proto-fascistic Gesamtkunstwerk, transcendence into a content-less political mise en abyme. The young women huddle into a mass of bodies on one side of the space, gathered about some unseen center of gravity. From the outside one of the young women stands alone (perhaps she is playing Empedocles?) and holds aloft the golden pistol. She aims into the tangle and fires a single shot. Throbbing and heaving now like an organism alive, the mass squeezes one of its number out onto the floor. [Photo 9] Birthed or born again (an event with clear religious associations), this one is then stripped bare as she lies in fetal position shivering on the ground. The others lift and embrace her, and then newly-born exits the space, holding her own naked body close. [Photo 10] One by one, the

women undergo the ceremony, leaving the room and us for the dark beyond. When it comes to the last of the group, her own hands enact this stripping, as if her actions belonged to another, predetermined by fate or destiny or whatever name tragedy goes by. The lights dim to dark on the husks of clothing, but the voices continue speaking from the folds of cloth in the blackout. The bodies have been carried away into the eternal night offstage and outside where galaxies create and destroy life. All they leave behind is the garment of their speech, the age-old costume that preceded them and that another will put on. If Artaud saw birth as the doubling of the self into a body and its representation, and the simple act of speech as the regular recurrence of this same division, then are we witnessing the women’s attempt to leave behind representation? The cutting of the tongue didn’t seem to work, so now they have cut themselves off again by disappearing from the theatre entirely. Framed by all the fascistic insignia, there is the nagging sense that these

TheatreForum

45

individuals head toward some darker purpose or sacrifice, cleansed and prepared for whoever or whatever waits outside. Judgment, Possibility, Being is the most verbal of the many pieces by Castellucci that I have seen over the last fifteen years, but it orbits precariously around an impossibility of speech. While parlaying in the anti-discourse of the sublimely unrepresentable, these performances do not present an apolitical wonder. As the armbands, flags, and guns of Judgment, Possibility, Being make clear, the rituals of the theatre also invoke legacies of political rhetoric of monstrous proportions. So too, the words spoken in Julius Caesar: spared parts carry with them a significance that, however obscured by the anomalous presence of its actors, subsist as an undercurrent advocating whatever party line speaks through Mark Antony or one of his plaster casts in subsequent generations. These performances—and the performances of Romeo Castellucci at large—tap into the inherently political roots of the theatre’s games of representation. They show us the nature of theatrical power, how it might make one lose

46

TheatreForum

one’s voice or self to whatever dark mass gathers on our horizon, whatever predator waits to snatch us up. SOURCES

Artaud, Antonin. The Theatre and its Double. Trans. Mary Caroline Richards. New York: Grove, 1958. Castellucci, Romeo. Contribution to “and the fox said to the crow.” Unpub pamphlet, Apr. 2014, n. pag. C onnor, Steven. Dumbstruck: a Cultural H istory o f Ventriloquism. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000. Di Matteo, Piersandra. Contribution to “and the fox said to the crow,” Unpub pamphlet, Apr. 2014, n. pag. Holderlin, Friedrich. The Death of Empedocles. Trans, and Ed. David Farrell Krell (Albany: SUNY Press, 2008). Krell, David Farrell. Ed Introd to Friedrich Holderlin, The Death of Empedocles, first version, 35-37. Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literacy. New York: Metheun, 1982