The Oulipo and Modern Thought Dennis Duncan Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oulipo-and-modern-thought-dennis-duncan/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
Book Parts Dennis Duncan (Editor)
https://ebookmass.com/product/book-parts-dennis-duncan-editor/
Encyclopedia of modern optics 2nd Edition Duncan G. Steel (Editor)
https://ebookmass.com/product/encyclopedia-of-modern-optics-2ndedition-duncan-g-steel-editor/
Cicero: Political Philosophy (Founders of Modern Political and Social Thought) Malcolm Schofield
https://ebookmass.com/product/cicero-political-philosophyfounders-of-modern-political-and-social-thought-malcolmschofield/
Liberal States, Authoritarian Families: Childhood and Education in Early Modern Thought Rita Koganzon
https://ebookmass.com/product/liberal-states-authoritarianfamilies-childhood-and-education-in-early-modern-thought-ritakoganzon/
The Political Thought of David Hume: The Origins of Liberalism and the Modern Political Imagination 1st Edition Zubia
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-political-thought-of-davidhume-the-origins-of-liberalism-and-the-modern-politicalimagination-1st-edition-zubia/
Gallows Hill Duncan
https://ebookmass.com/product/gallows-hill-duncan/
The Pyramid of Lies Duncan Mavin
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-pyramid-of-lies-duncan-mavin-2/
The Pyramid of Lies Duncan Mavin
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-pyramid-of-lies-duncan-mavin/
Britain and the Arctic 1st Edition Duncan Depledge (Auth.)
https://ebookmass.com/product/britain-and-the-arctic-1st-editionduncan-depledge-auth/
THEOULIPOANDMODERNTHOUGHT TheOulipoand ModernThought DENNISDUNCAN GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©DennisDuncan2019
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2019
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2019931584
ISBN978–0–19–883163–1
Printedandboundby CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,CR04YY
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
ForClaire 3.Surrealism
4.CalvinoataCrossroads:CombinatoricsandAnticombinatorics
5.PerecandMathews:TranslationandAnalyticPhilosophyin
ListofFigures 1.RaymondQueneau(secondfromleft)in1952withhisson, Jean-Marie,andhiswifeJanine(farright).Inbetween themareJean-PaulSartreandSimonedeBeauvoir.6
2.Bénabou’scompletedsliprequestingthathisfriend JacquesLacanshouldreceiveacomplimentarycopy of LaLipo.(FO,DM-3(28)).6
3.AnearlyOulipomeetinginFrançoisLeLionnais’ s garden.LeLionnaisandQueneausport,respectively, asailor’scapandatophat,symbolsoftheir ‘benign dictatorship’ overthegrouptheyfounded.8
4.GeorgesPerec’shandwrittenminutestothegroup’ s meetingofJanuary1971(FO,DM-3(1)).18
5.Earlyprintedoutputfromthe firstversionofthe ‘Love Letters’ algorithm,showingStrachey’shandwritten correction.29
6.PhotographofstreetfurnitureinStrasbourgdisplaying oneofthegroup’spunningnarratives.(FO,MS-3,f.99).65
7. Bonneannéepataphysique [HappyPataphysicalNewYear]. Postcardwithtwohomophonictranslations(‘Housemaidhas Pataphysicalnose’ ; ‘Goodassshocksboy(sic)’)tomarkthe Pataphysicalnewyear,96E.P.(8Sept1968).Onthereverse ofthecardsentbyStanleyChapmantoLeLionnais,PaulGayot hasadded ‘Intraduisible[untranslatable]inEnglisch’ (FO,DM-2(30)).66
8.RamónLlull, Illuminatisacrepagineprofessorisamplissimi magistriRaymundiLull,arsmagna,generalisetultima (Lyon:J.Mareschal,1517)sig.B1v.103
9.MarcelBénabou, ‘TheThreeCirclesofLipo’ (FO,MS-6f.14)104
10.MarcelBénabou’shandwrittenminutesforthemeeting of8November1972recordPerec’soutlineofwhatwould become LaViemoded’emploi andthelongdiscussions thatfollowedit.Oulipo, ‘Compterenduautographede MarcelBénaboudelaréuniondu8novembre1972’ (FO,DM-3(24)).128
Introduction TheSecretofLightness Quintilian,the first-centuryRomanrhetorician,hasastoryaboutPlato composing TheRepublic.ThewayQuintiliantellsit,thephilosopher agonizedoverthe firstfourwordsofhismostfamouswork.Heknew whichwordshewantedtouse,butcouldn’tdecidethebestordertoput themin.It’snotthat TheRepublic beginswithanyprofoundlycomplex thought: κατέβηνχθὲςεἰ ςΠειραιᾶ,theopeningtranslatesas ‘Iwentdown yesterdaytoPiraeus’.Nevertheless,accordingtoQuintilian,thesefour words ‘werefoundwrittenon[Plato’s]tabletsinmanydifferentorders’.¹ Greatphilosophy,Quintilianwantsustoknow,dependsonwhatwe mightconsidertobeliteraryqualities:rhythmicalphrasing,astrong opening.Inotherwords,itdependsonrhetoric.Thus,weareaskedto picturethephilosopherplayingwithpermutations,arrangingwordslike unhewnstones,tryingto findtheirbest fit,knowingthatthereispowerin theirorderingaswellasintheirmeaning.
Inthisbook,Iwanttoconsiderthesesameelements literature, philosophy,theplayofcombinatorics butinadifferentorder.Rather thanthegreatphilosopher’spainstakingconcernfortheliteraryqualityof hiswork,thisisabookaboutthetypesofthoughtencodedintheworkof agroupwhoseverynamedeclarestheirinteresttobeprimarilyliterary. TheOulipo OUvroirdeLIttératurePOtentielle areknownbestfor theirinvestigationsintotheuseofmathematicalorstylisticconstraints,for proceduresofteninvolvingpermutationslikePlato’sabove,intheproductionofliterature.Althoughacademicinterestinthegrouphasgrown considerablyoverthelastdecade,intheanglophoneworldatleasttheir engagementwithmodernthought,withthedebatesoftheiracademic contemporaries,hasbeenlargelyoverlooked.²Thisbook,then,isan
¹Quintilian, TheOrator’sEducation,trans.byD.A.Russell,5vols(Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress,2014) IV,8.6.64(p.463).
²InFrancethesituationisslightlydifferent.CamilleBloomfield’ srecent Raconter l’Oulipo(1960–2000):histoireetsociologied’ ungroupe (Paris:HonoréChampion,2017),
attempttoredressthatbalance,tousetheevidenceofmeetingminutes andletters,aswellaspublishedworks,topaintadifferentpictureofthe Oulipo,onewhichcaststhegroupinthelightofsomeoftheintellectual currentsofthetwentiethcentury:psychoanalysis,structuralism,analytic philosophy,Surrealism.Oulipianwork,almostbydefinition,isrigorous andpainstakinginitsconstruction;whatIhopetoshowisthat,very often,thesearenottheonlycharacteristicsitshareswithPlato.
AttheirmonthlymeetinginMarch1963,theOulipoarediscussinga nineteenth-centurywriternamedJ.-A.Révéroni.Révéroni,itseems,had devisedamethodofcomposingsermonsusingcombinatorics,wherebya smallnumberofelementscouldbeshuffledtoproducealargenumberof lessons.Naturally,thiswouldbeaninterestingprecedentforagroupset uptoexploremathematicalapproachestoliterarycreation,butunfortunatelyattheOulipo’smeetingno-oneintheroomhasdetailedknowledge ofhowRévéroni’ sprocess hisso-called matrix works;thetip-offhas comefromthephilosopherMichelFoucault.³
AftersomediscussionaboutRévéroni’slife,thefollowingexchange occurs:
-Good.IcanaskMichelFoucault,whichisperhapslinkedtomyother intervention.IproposethatweaddMichelFoucaulttoourlistof futureinvitees.Youknowheiswritingabook,that’sgoingtocome out,onRoussel.Imeantheproblemsofmultipleparentheses,etc.
-Foucault?AULT?
-AULT,yes.
-Iwouldhavespelleditlikethepriest[i.e.CharlesFoucauld]!
-Eachtohisown!!
-No,butanyway,heistheauthorofabookonmadness... -...whichisverygood.
- HistoryofMadness,whichisnotwithoutinterest.
-Heistheauthorof HistoryofMadness.Heisnowontheeditorial boardof Critique.
-Heworksat Bizarre?
-Yes,andnowheisontheeditorialboardof Critique.
-He’snotapsychiatrist,ishe?
-Gentlemen,youhavebeforeyouaproposal.Whatisyourdecision? Yourvote...
forexample,isasuperb,archivalhistoricizationoftheOulipoinits firstdecades,andwill surelybecomeessentialforresearchersworkingonthegroup.
³FoucaulthadrecentlybeenresearchingRévéroni,andhadpublishedashortarticleon himthepreviousyear:MichelFoucault, ‘Unsicruelsavoir’ , Critique 182(July1962): 597–611.
TheSecretofLightness -Abouttheinvitation?
-Yes.
-Everyoneisinagreement?
-No-oneobjects?
-No...
-Theproposalisadopted.⁴
PreservedintheOulipoarchivesattheBibliothèqueNationalinParis, thisisaremarkablepieceofminute-taking,givingusawonderfulinsight intothewaythesemeetingswereconducted.Thespeakersaren’tidentified(thoughthe firstspeaker,knowingthatFoucault’sbookonRousselis comingupforpublicationwithGallimard,islikelyRaymondQueneau,a senioreditorthere),butthisonlyintensifiesthesenseofchaosaboutthe dialogue:peopleinterrupt,talkovereachother;therearerepetitions,preemptions,jokes;thetoneswitchesinaninstantfromeruditetobureaucratictowhimsical;someofthegroupspeakadmiringlyofFoucault’ s work,otherscan’tevenspellhisname.Andinspiteofthisinformality thisjoyous,convivialpolyphony somethingformalneverthelesstakes place:avoteisheld,andtheOulipodecideunanimouslytoinviteMichel Foucaulttocomeanddinewiththem.
ThemeetingwithFoucaultsadlynevertookplace.Foucault’ sname appearsagainsomemonthslateronalistofpeopletoinvite,before slippingofftherecord,anuntickeditemonthegroup’sever-expanding ToDolist.⁵ Whatthisincidentremindsus,however,isthat,intheearly
⁴ [‘-Ben...JepeuxdemanderàMichelFoucault,c’estpeut-êtreliéàmonautre intervention;jeproposedemettreMichelFoucaultsurlalistedenosinvitésfuturs.Vous savezqu ’ilaunlivreenpréparation,quivasortir,surRoussel.Jeveuxdirelesproblèmesde parenthèsesmultiples...etc.../ – Foucault?AULT?/ – AULT.Oui./ – Moi,j’aurais dit,commelePère!/ – Chacunsesconvictions!!/ – Non,maisenfin,c ’estl’auteurd’unlivre surlaFolie.../ – ...quiesttrèsbon./ – L’HistoiredelaFolie;...quinemanquepas d’interêt./ – C’estl’auteurde L’HistoiredelaFolie.Ilfaitpartiemaintenantducomitéde rédactionde Critique./ – Ycollaboreà Bizarre?/ – Ouietilfaitpartiemainenantducomité derédactionde Critique./ – C’estpasunpsychiâtre,non?/ – Vousêtesdevantune proposition,Messieurs,quelleestvotredécision?Votrevote.../ – Aproposdeson invitation?/ – Oui./ – Toutlemondeestd’accord?/ – Pasd’opposition?/ – Non.../Lapropositionestadoptée.’] ‘Photocopieducompterendudactylographiédelaréuniondu 22mars1963’ (Paris,BnF,March1963).FondsOulipo.Dossiersmensuelsderéunion (1960–2010),BoxDM-1(30).SubsequentcitationsforFondsOulipoarchivalmaterial willbegiveninthefollowingformat: ‘(FO,[box][folder])’.Inthecaseofthe ‘Dossiers mensuels’ boxes,i.e.thosewithacodestartinginDM,scannedimagesareavailabletoview onlineviatheBnF’sGallicaviewer:<https://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/ cc98168h/cd0e48>[accessed8August2017].
⁵ AsimilarfatebefallsRolandBarthes,whoislistedasapotentialinviteeinAugust 1970,butnevermakesanappearanceinperson.[‘Pré-programmedactylographiédu congrèsd’août1970avecajoutsautographesdeFrançoisLeLionnais’ (FO,DM-2(54)).]
1960s,FoucaultandtheOulipowerepartofthesame milieu the discussiongrowsoutofaface-to-faceencounter,acasualconversation, betweenthephilosopherandoneofthegroup.⁶
PerhapsitisnosurpriseinthecaseoftheveteranQueneau cofounderoftheOulipo,formerSurrealist,eminentPataphysician,prominenteditor thathislinkstotheworldofphilosophyshouldrundeep.⁷ ButQueneauwasfarfromtheonlyOulipianwithinterestsorconnections ofthiskind.Totakeanotherexample,then,thistimeconcerningJacques Lacan’softenoverlookedskillsasababysitter,MarcelBénabou,who joinedtheOulipoin1970,relatesthefollowingsurprisingtale:
Irememberadinnerpartyatourswherewe’dinvitedLacanandmyson David,whowasthentwoorthree,suddenlywokeupcrying.Lacaninsisted ongoingtocalmhimdown,andwithaslow,dignifiedstepheascendedthe staircaseleadingtothechild’sroom.MywifeandIfearedtheworstbutwe lethimgoandwaitedanxiouslyfortheresultofthisimprobableencounter –oursonwasbynomeansaneasychild.Wedidnothavetowaitlong.Afew momentslater,wecouldseeasmilingLacancomingdownthosesamestairs withaperkinessinhisstep.Witharapiditythatprovokedouradmiration, hehadmanagedtoputthechildtosleep.Weneverknewhowhedidit.⁸
WhatanecdotesliketheseillustrateishowlittletheParisianintellectual sceneduringthe1960sand70swassiloedbyprofession.Analystsand academics,writersandpublishers:betweenthesegroups,andothers, relationsexistedthatwereoftenbothprofessionalandpersonal.Ideas fromone fieldwereadopted andcritiqued inanother.Sometimes theselinkswereformal,enshrinedinthestructuredinterdisciplinarityof anacademicseminarorresearchcentre;atothertimestheywerenot,as
⁶ [‘J’airencontrérécemmentMichelFoucaultquiapubliéunepetiteétudesurRéverony deSaint-Cyretquim’aassuréqu’ilavaitunematriceàsermons.’]
⁷ FormoreonQueneauandphilosophy,seeJean-CharlesChabanne, ‘Queneau,Les TempsModernes,Sartre’,in Tempsmêlés DocumentsQueneau 150+33 – 36(1987): 355 – 61.
⁸ [‘Jemesouviensque,aucoursd’undînerchezmoiauquelLacanétaitconvié,mon fils David,quiavaitalorsdeuxoutroisans,seréveillasoudainenpleurant.Lacaninsistapour allerlui-mêmelecalmer,etmontad’unpaslentetdignel’escalierquimenaitàlachambre del’enfant.Bienquecraignantlepire,mafemmeetmoilelaissâmesfaire,etattendîmes, anxieux,lerésultatdecetteimprobablerencontre,carnotre filsn’étaitpasdugenrefacile. Nousn’attendîmespaslongtemps.Quelquesinstantsplustard,nouspûmesvoirLacan souriantdescendrelemêmeescalierd’unpasbeaucoupplusguilleret.Avecunerapiditéqui provoquanotreadmiration,ilavaitréussiàendormirl’enfant.Nousn’avonsjamaissuce qu ’ilavaitpufairepourcela.’]MarcelBénabou, ‘LaGalèreouPourquoij’aiparticipéàla confectionduvolumeintitulé 789néologismesdeJacquesLacan’,in L’amourdeloindu docteurL. (Paris:L’Unebévue,2004),pp.27–31(p.28).Meanwhile,thecurioustaleof JacquesRoubaud’spersonalconnectiontoLacanisthesubjectofhistinybook, Mavieavec ledocteurLacan (Bordeaux:L’Attente,2004).
whentheOulipianNoëlArnauddescribesthe ‘delightfulcorrespondence’ hesharedduringthe1960swithClaudeLévi-Strauss.⁹ Infact,soembeddedweretheOulipowithinthebroaderintellectualscenethatattimesthe groupstruggled,evenamongthemselves,tomakethecaseforwhatwas uniqueabouttheiridentity.Thisexistentialcrisissurfacesoccasionallyin themeetingminutes,forexampleinQueneau’sanxietythatthewriters ofthe TelQuel grouporthe nouveauromanciers mightbedoingessentially thesameworkastheOulipo: ‘Anumberofwritersnow – notablythose associatedwiththenouveauroman,orthe TelQuel group,or Change – are lookingattheuseofrefined,sometimesquiteintricate,constructions.Is theirresearchanydifferentfromours?’¹⁰
Agroup,then,whoarefrequentlyinthecompany bothsociallyand intellectually ofthe figureswenowidentifyastheleadingphilosophers oftheirday,thechiefexponentsof theory,aswehavecometocallit: whatIwishtoargueinthisbookisthatwecan findevidenceofthese relations,ofthisengagementwiththethoughtofthetime,everywherein thegroup’swork.Inotherwords,wecanreadagreatdealofOulipian writing fromthe1960sand70s,atleast asacreativeparticipationina varietyofprominentintellectualdebates.Arnaudinhis ‘Prolegomenato aFourthManifesto’ makesatellingclaimaboutthe1960s: ‘Academe, intheOulipo’ s firstdecade[...]hadjustbegun – inFranceatleast – its infatuationwithSurrealismandpsychoanalysis.Inthehigherspheres, structuralismappliedtoanalysisandliterarycreationhadbeguntoconsolidateitsdogma’.¹¹Whatisstrikingishowwecan findexactlythese concerns Surrealism,psychoanalysis,structuralism encodedintheliterarycreationoftheOulipoduringthesameperiod.Andastheintellectual climatechanges asitmovesfromstructuralismtopoststructuralism naturallywecanseethistooreflectedwithinthegroup’sminutesandtheir literaryproduction.
Inonesensethereshouldbenothingsurprisingaboutthis Ihopethe abovesummarymakesthecaseseemuncontroversial.Neverthelessthere hasbeenatendencyinmuchwritingabouttheOulipo,muchanglophone writingatleast,bothto flattentimeandtooverlookplace.Thegroup’ s
⁹ NoëlArnaud, ‘Foreword:ProlegomenatoaFourthOulipoManifesto – orNot’,in Oulipo:APrimerofPotentialLiterature,ed.byWarrenF.Motte(Lincoln,NE:University ofNebraskaPress,1986),pp.xi–xv(p.xiv).
¹⁰ [‘Eneffet,plusiersécrivainsaujourd’hui,notammentcequiseréfèrentaunouveau roman,ouàl’équipedeTelQuel,ouàcelledeChange,sontattentifsàl’utilisationde constructionsrecherchées,parfoisdélicates.Leursrecherchesdiffèrents-ellesdenôtres?’]. ‘Copieducompterendudactylographiédelaréuniondu27aoûtaveccorrectionsdeJacques BensetFrançoisLeLionnais’ (FO,DM-3(8)).
¹¹Arnaud, ‘Prolegomena’,p.xiv.
Fig.1. RaymondQueneau(secondfromleft)in1952withhisson,Jean-Marie, andhiswifeJanine(farright).InbetweenthemareJean-PaulSartreandSimone deBeauvoir.
ImagereproducedbykindpermissionofGallimard/Queneauestate.
Fig.2. Bénabou’scompletedsliprequestingthathisfriendJacquesLacanshould receiveacomplimentarycopyof LaLipo.(FO,DM-3(28)).
ImagereproducedbykindpermissionoftheOulipo.
development,andthecontextinwhichitoccurred,areoftenignored, whileOulipianwhimsicalityisgivenaprominencethatobscuresthe senseofpurposethathasalwaysrunalongsideit.(Rememberhow,inthe dialogueaboutFoucaultabove,throughthecacophonyofinterruptionand wordplay,thebusinessofthemeetingstillproceedsrelatively fluently.)
On25November1960,thedayafterthegroup’ s firstmeeting,Jacques Benscirculatedamemoamongtheeightwhohadattended.Initheasksa questionwhichperfectlycapturesthebalanceofjovialityandseriousness ofintent: ‘Seeingaswearen ’tmeeting just toamuseourselves(although thatis,ofcourse,aconsiderablepartofit),whatcanweexpectfromour work?’¹²OrwemightthinkofArnaudagain,whopointsoutthat,in severalregards,thedifferencebetweentheOulipoandthestructuralists wasmoreoneoftoneorattitudethanofmethod,concludingthat ‘the [structuralists]envelopedthemselvesinaponderoussobrietythatrenderedthemimpervioustoOulipianfacetiae ’.¹³Ifthedifferenceissimply oneofsobrietyversusribaldry,thenweneedtobeabletolookpastthis tolook,infact,forthesharedstructuresunderneath.
Alongsidethis,themake-upofthegroup(forexample,thepresenceof themathematicianClaudeBergeamongitsfoundermembers)plusthe convenienceofframingtheOulipointermsofthe ‘TwoCultures’ debate asararebridgebetweenmathematicsandliterature makesit easytodownplaythestatusofphilosophy(broadlyconceived)intheir concerns.Forthesereasons,Ihopethatabookthatframestheearly Oulipointermsoftheirengagementwithformsofthoughtthatwere prominentinthe1960sand70s,thatreadstheirworkinthelightof structuralism,psychoanalysis,andSurrealism,andthatdrawsonthe wealthofmaterialsintheFondsOulipo thewonderfulsetofarchives heldattheArsenalsiteoftheBibliothèqueNationalinParis tochartthe Oulipo’sdevelopment,notjustintermsofnewmembersbutintermsof newintellectualpriorities,willbeavaluablecontributiontothegrowing bodyofworkonthisextraordinarygroup.¹⁴
Yet,evennowasIreadbackthroughthoselastfewparagraphs,Iam consciousthattheyseemtotipthescalestoofarintheotherdirection, wringingthejoyoutoftheOulipoinfavourofpo-facedphilosophical analysis.Ofcourse,there is asenseoffunthatisalmostagiveninthe publishedoutputoftheOulipo,andthismustn’tbeoverlooked.Evenfor amasterlikePerec,whosegreatestworks LaDisparition (1969)and La Viemoded’emploi (1978) drawdeeplyonthelossofhisparentsinthe
¹²[‘Considérantquenousnenousréunissonspas seulement pournousdivertir(cequiest déjàconsidérable,certes),quepouvonsnousattendredenostravaux?’].Oulipo, ‘Circulaire n 1dactylographiéedeJacquesBensduSéminairedeLittératureExpérimentaleduvendredi25novembre1960’ (FO,DM-1(2)).
¹³Arnaud, ‘Prolegomena’,p.xiv.
¹⁴ Thearchivesincludetheminutesthatwerecirculatedaftereachmeetingandwhich oftendisplaythehandwrittenannotationsofparticularmembers.Forahistoryofthese archives,seeClaireLesage, ‘L’archive,miroirdel’Oulipo’,in Oulipo,ed.byCamille BloomfieldandClaireLesage(Paris:BnF/Gallimard,2014),pp.66–8.
war hisfatherinbattle;hismotherinthecamps thesadnessofthe materialisthrownintoreliefbythepleasureofexperiencingthetextasa pieceofexquisitelycraftedmachinery.Whatjumpsoffthepagewhen lookingattheminutesofthegroup’smonthlymeetingsisthespiritof conviviality thewordplay,thein-jokes,themockceremoniousness withwhichtheseeventsareconducted.Howthentowriteanintellectual accountofthese farceurs?Willitnotbe,atbest,afundamentalmisunderstanding,atworst,anactofbadfaith?
Oneearlycommentatorwouldthinknot.ThewriterGuyLeClec’h, whohadseenthegroupupcloseasaguestatoneoftheirearlymeetings, cutsstraightthroughthe bonhomie whenhewritesanintroductionforthe 1964Oulipospecialissueof Tempsmêlés: ‘Thedeliberatelyhumorous aspectofthistypeofresearchshouldnothowevermaskitsseriousness.’¹⁵ There is aseriousnessbutonethatiscouchedinlightness.LeClec’h’ s term mask isanaptone,andanincidentfromtheJuly1963meetingis
Fig.3. AnearlyOulipomeetinginFrançoisLeLionnais’sgarden.LeLionnais andQueneausport,respectively,asailor’scapandatophat,symbolsoftheir ‘benigndictatorship’ overthegrouptheyfounded. ImagereproducedbykindpermissionofGallimard/Queneauestate.
¹⁵ [‘Quel’aspectvolontairementhumoristiquedecegenrederecherchesn’ enmasque pourtantpaslesérieux.’]GuyLeClec’h, ‘Introduction’ , Tempsmêlés,66–67(1964): i–iv(iv).
TheSecretofLightness telling.DiscussingtheS+7method animportantOulipianprocedure formakingnewtextsoutofoldones JeanQuevalremarksslylythat whatitproducesis ‘ unpeu “farce”’:alittlejoke.¹⁶ Queneauisoffended. Hestatesthatthisisthe firsttime innearlythreeyearsofmeetings thattheword farce hasbeenusedtodescribetheOulipo’swork.Atthis point,theacademicAlbert-MarieSchmidtintervenes,notingthattheologiansusetheterminanentirelyserioussense,andthisobservation restoresthepeace.
Itisastrangelittlescene,butarichonewhenthinkingabouthowwe shouldmeasuretheseriousnessoftheOulipianproject.Atfacevalue, QueneauishurtthatQuevalshoulddescribeoneofthegroup’ s flagship methodsasifitweremerelywhimsical,abitofajoke.No-onehassaidthis before atleastnotatameeting,infrontoftheothers eitheraboutS+7 oraboutanyoftheirotherworks.AsQueneauwouldhaveit,then,in spiteoftherambunctioustoneoftheirgatherings,thegrouphasalways beencompletelyinearnestabouttheseriousnessoftheiractivities.Alternatively, contra LeClec’h,perhapsseriousness nothumour isthe maskthathasbeenmaintainedwithutterscrupulousnessfortheprevious two-and-a-halfyears.Butlettingitslip,evenbriefly,ispotentiallyfatalfor thewholeenterprise.ThemomentAlicedenounceshertormentorsas ‘nothingbutapackofcards’ isthemomentsheawakesandthestoryends. NowonderQueneauisquicktopullQuevaluponthis.
Thewaythatthiseruptionofscepticismishandledandamicability restoredistypicallyOulipian.Schmidt’scontributioniseruditeand technical.Hepointstoapreciseuseoflanguagefromanobscure field ofknowledge(surelyifthereisanywaytomollifyanirateOulipianthen thisisit).ButwhatissoperfectaboutSchmidt’ssolutionisthat,in informingthegroupthatsometimesfarcecanbeserious,heisgivingthem anacademicprecedentforsomethingtheyalreadyknew something theyhavebeenactingoutforthepastthreeyears(longerstillforthe Pataphysiciansamongthem).Wecanhaveitbothways;wedon’thaveto choose.Itisnotevennecessaryto know whenthefarceisseriousandwhen itisfarcical.
Notseriousintone,then,butseriousinitsaims?Perhapseventhatis tooleaden,toorestrictiveadefinitionofthegroup.Butitwilldofornow. Andasfortheothersideofthecoin theanarchic,thecomic itwill beworthdrawingadistinctionbetweenlightnessandwhimsicality. Thelatter thethrowaway,thedroll canbeskimmedoffthetopof thegroup’soutputwithlittledisruption;theformerisadefining
¹⁶ Oulipo, ‘Compterendudactylographiésigné«YthierMarchant»delaréunionn°35 du1ejuillet1963’ (FO,DM-1(34)).
characteristic.AdecadeafterQueval’spotentiallycataclysmic fauxpas,a serio-comicOulipoatthepeakofitspowerswillwelcomeItaloCalvinoto itsmembership.AnditisCalvino,attheendofhislife,whowillenshrine lightness laleggerezza asthemodelforourtimes: ‘WereItochoosean auspiciousimageforthenewmillennium,Iwouldchoose[...]the suddenagileleapofthepoet-philosopherwhoraiseshimselfabovethe weightoftheworld,showingthatwithallhisgravityhehasthesecretof lightness.’¹⁷ Notmerelyapoet,oraphilosopher,butapoet-philosopher: wearebackwithPlatoshufflinghisfourwords,lookingfortheperfect arrangement;orperhapswithQueneau,theverymodeloftheliterary gentleman,diligentlytranscribingalectureseriesonHegel.¹⁸ Andnot merelylightness,buta willful lightness,oneperformed inspite ofone’ s owngravityandtheweightoftheworld.Inabookwhichseekstofocuson theseriousnessofthegroup’sactivities tolinktheiroutputandintentionswiththoseoftheircontemporarieslesstouchedwiththegiftof lightness IhopenottodoCalvino’simagethedisserviceofmaking Oulipianplayseemlikelabour,oroftreatingOulipian farce alwayswitha theologicalgravity.
ParisduringtheNazioccuptation:twomen FrançoisLeLionnais,a chemicalengineer,andRaymondQueneau,awriterandeditorat Gallimard meetintheliterary milieu ofSaint-Germain-des-Prés.Their backgroundsareratherdifferent:anativeParisianandthechildofanoted concertpianist,LeLionnaiswasraisedinahighly-cultured hautbourgeois household;Queneau,fromthecoastaltownofLeHavre,hadcometo Parisasastudentandworkedhiswayuptheliteraryladderwithjournalisticandtranslationworkalongsidehisnovelsandpoetry.¹⁹ Nevertheless,
¹⁷ ItaloCalvino, SixMemosfortheNextMillennium,trans.byPatrickCreagh(London: Cape,1992),p.12.
¹
⁸ AlexandreKojève’scelebratedseminaronHegel’ s PhenomenologyofSpirit,delivered inParisinthe1930sandattendedbymanyoftheleadingintellectuals including Blanchot,Merleau-Ponty,andLacan wassubsequentlypublishedfromQueneau’ s notes.AlexandreKojève, IntroductionàlalecturedeHegel,ed.byRaymondQueneau (Paris:Gallimard,1947).
¹⁹ FormoreonLeLionnais’schildhood,see UnCertaindisparate,aseriesofinterviews conductedwithhimin1976byJean-MarcLevy-LeblondandJean-BaptisteGrasset. Intendedasabook itevengotasfarashavinganextensiveindexcompiled(nowinthe archivesattheBnF:FO,MS-5) theprojectwasshelvedforthirty-fiveyearsbeforebeing resurrectedbyOlivierSalonandAnneGarrétaasaseriesofblogs:<http://oulipo.net/fr/uncertain-disparate/>[accessed9August2017].FormoreonQueneau’schildhood,see MichelLécureur, RaymondQueneau (Paris:BellesLettres,2002).Themostcomprehensive accountofthegroup’soriginsandfoundationcanbefoundinBloomfield, Raconterl’Oulipo (pp.71–223).
TheSecretofLightness bothsharepassionsthatcrossthe ‘TwoCultures’ divide:theyareboth keenchessplayersandamateurmathematicians;both,too,areseriousin theircommitmenttoliteratureandart.Afriendshipisstruckup,onethatwill lasttheirlifetimes,andwillgiverise,nearlytwentyyearslater,totheOulipo. WhenLeLionnais,amemberoftheResistance,iscapturedandsent firsttoBuchenwaldthentoDora,itisartthatsustainshim.Inthecamp, heandhisfriendJeanGaillardkeeptheirspiritsupbyrecalling,inminute detail,theirfavouritepaintings:
Thusdidwecontemplateatlengthinourminds’ eyesVanEyck’sRolin Madonna.Iprojected,asthoughwithamagiclantern,thesevereexpression ofthedonor,therabbitscrushedunderthecolumns,thedrunkennessof Noahdepictedatopacapital,thelittletuftsofgrassgrowingbetweenthe stonesinthecourtyardandthesixstepsleadingtotheterrace,eachdetailof thecirculatingstreamandoftheurbanagitationatitsbase.Thetragically interlaceddiagonalsofGiotto’ s St.FrancisofAssisiReceivingtheStigmata disquietedhim;thetender,delicious DecapitationofCosmasandDamian by FraAngelicocharmedhim.Wetooklongexcursionsthrough TheTemptation ofSaintAnthony byHieronymousBosch(whichhangsinLisbon),throughDa Vinci’ s TheVirginoftheRocks,[...],throughDürer’ s MelencoliaI.²⁰
IntheserecollectionswecanseenotonlytheseedsoftheOulipo’ s miniaturism,butofart andofplay asamatteroflifeanddeath,as somethingthatcouldkeepatbaytheotherwiseunendurablerealityofthe camps.LeLionnaiswouldreturnfromDora;Gaillardwouldnot.
BackinParis,LeLionnaisandQueneauresumetheirfriendship.Le Lionnaispublishesthecollection LesGrandsCourantsdelapenséemathématique (1948)whileQueneaubeginstohavesignificantliterarysuccess. Firstofallwith Exercicesdestyle (1947),astylisticrompinwhichthesame short,banalpieceofnarrative(anargumentonabusfollowedbya conversationaboutaraincoat)isrenderedinninety-ninedifferentways, fromHomericepictocourtroomdramatobutchershopslang.Thenin 1959with Zaziedanslemétro,anovelwhoseinsouciantteenagediction, renderedphonetically,becameanationalsensation,with Elle magazine reportingthat ‘theZaziephenomenonisravagingFrancelikeanepidemic. Inthestreetsandonthemetro,fromthemountainstothebeaches,weare all “speakingZazie” ’²¹
²⁰ FrançoisLeLionnais, ‘PaintingatDora’,trans.byDanielLevinBecker, TheBeliever 11.5(2013):27–31(29).
²¹[‘LephénomèneZaziearavagélaFrancecommeuneépidémie.Danslesruesetdans lemétro,àlamontagneetsurlesplages,on “parleZazie” . ’] ‘L’InsupportableZazieva conquérirl’Amériquegrâceàunepetiteparissienne ’ , Elle (France)#714(31August1959): 66–7(66).
Thenextyear findsQueneauworkingonanewbook, Centmilles milliardsdepoèmes (hereafter CMMP).Thework,inPaulFournel’ s lovelyphrase,is ‘uneespècedeself-servicepoétique’ [‘akindofpoetical self-service’].²²Itconsistsoftenpoems,allsonnets,eachprintedonconsecutiverectopages.Betweeneachlineofpoetry,thepageiscutsothatthe individualline ratherthanthewholepage canbeturnedover,revealing thecorrespondinglineofthesonnetbeneath.Thus,aswithchildren’sbooks ofheads,bodiesandlegs,alargenumberofcombinations 10¹⁴ tobe precise canbederived.Queneau’staskasauthoristowritehistenbase sonnetssothatanycombinationwillbegrammaticallycorrectandconform tothesonnetrhymescheme.Butthedifficultyoftheexerciseiscausing Queneautoloseinterest:
Ihadwritten fiveorsixofthesonnetsfor Centmillemilliardsdepoèmes and washesitatingalittleaboutcarryingon,thatis,Ididn’thavethestrengthto goon,themoreIwentalong,themoredifficultitwastodonaturally,when ImetLeLionnais,whowasafriend,andhesuggestedasortofresearch groupforexperimentalliterature.Thatgavemetheencouragementtocarry onwithmysonnets.²³
The ‘researchgroup’ LeLionnasproposes,ofcourse,willbecometheOulipo. Nevertheless,whileLeLionnaisandQueneauwillforeverbeidentified asthegroup’sofficialfounders,or co-fondateurs,itseemsthattheideafor theOulipomightnothaveoriginatedwithLeLionnais.InSeptember 1960,a décade aten-daycolloquium washeldatCerisy-la-Sallein northernFrance.TheconferencethemewasRaymondQueneauandthe Frenchlanguage,anditwasherethattwooftheattendees,AndréBlavier andJacquesBensformedthenotionofasecretsocietydevotedtoexperimentalwriting.AsBlaviertellsit: ‘onenight,JacquesBensandIwere unabletosleepandhadtheideaofproposingtoRQandF.LeLionnaisa sortofsecretsocietytopromotethekindofliteratureweloved.’²⁴ Two
²²PaulFournel, Clefspourlalittératurepotentielle (Paris:LettresNouvelles,1972),p.8.
²³[‘Jesuisassociédansunesortedegroupderecherches,queestintituléOULIPO, c ’est-à-direOUvroirdeLIttératurePOtentielle,quiaétéfondéparLeLionnais.J’avaisécrit cinqousixdessonnetsdes Centmillemilliardsdepoèmes,etj’hésitaisunpeuàcontinuer, enfinjen’avaispasbeaucouplecouragedecontinuer,pluscelaallait,plusc’étaitdifficileà fairenaturellement,quandj’airencontréLeLionnais,quiestunami,etilm’aproposéde faireunesortedegroupederecherchesdelittératureexpérimentale.Celam’aencouragéà continuermessonnets’].GeorgesCharbonnier, EntretiensavecRaymondQueneau (Paris: Gallimard,1962),p.116.
²⁴ [‘unenuit,onn’arrivaitpasàdormirJacquesBensetmoi,onaeul’idéedeproposerà RQetF.LeLionnaisunesortedesociétésecrètepourfavoriserlegenredelittératureque nousaimions’].QuotedinCamilleBloomfield, ‘Histoiredel’Oulipo:Quelquesjalons chronologique ’,inBloomfieldandLesage,pp.29–38(p.31).Theoriginalappearedinthe Belgianpaper LesWallons on21January1995.
monthslater,whenthegroupholdtheir firstofficialmeeting attheVrai Gasconrestaurant,82rueduBac,ontheLeftBankinParis sixofthe eightattendeeshadbeenpresentatCerisy.
Thegroupbegintomeetmonthlythereafter apracticewhichhas continuedalmostuninterruptedtothisday.Withanextraordinaryprescience,fromtheearliestdays,detailedminutesweretaken,typedup,and circulated givingusawonderfulinsightintotheworkingsofagroup whoseinternationalsignificance,ofcourse,couldnothavebeenapparent atthetime.Inthe firstfewmeetings,anumberofsignificantdecisionsare taken.Firstly,theeightmemberssoonbecometen,withtworepresentativesfromCollègede ’Pataphysique LatisandNoëlArnaud invitedto join.²⁵ Secondly,thegroupundergoanamechange,havingidentifieditself initiallyastheSeminairedeLittératureExperimentale(abbreviatedto SélitexorSLE).Bythesecondmeeting,thistitlehasbeenfoundwanting, andanother,theOuvroirdeLittératurePotentielle,isvotedmoreappropriatetothegroup’sspecificaims.Thisnameappearsinabbreviated form theOlipo throughoutthatmeeting’sminutes.Nexttimethe groupmeetup,however,Latissuggestsapreferablecontraction:the Oulipo finallyhasitsname.
Buthowshouldwetranslatethatword Ouvroir thatgivestheOulipoits ou?Discussingtheterm,Arnaudnotesthatithasfallenintodisusein modernFrench,butbesidesdenotingashoporaworkroom,itonce meantasewingcircleinwhichwell-offladieswouldcarryoutsumptuous needleworkforthebenefitofthepoor. ‘Curiouslyenough,’ headds,in enthusiasticallyadoptingthename, ‘itwasthislastnotion,the “sewing circle,” thatprevailedinthemindsoftheOulipians.’²⁶ Ouvroir impliesa certainmodestyinthegroup’saims,ananti-theoreticalself-imagewhich, aswewillseeinthenextchapter,setsthemapartfromthestructuralists. AsBénabouputsit, ‘[t]henotionofthe ouvroir hadbeenintroduced preciselybecauseitwasaplaceofartisanalwork.Itwasn’taboutinventing grandtheories,itwasn’taboutsettingouttoconquersomethingor other.’²⁷ Thereisevenasenseofbenevolenceboundupintheideaof
²⁵ Foundedin1948andbasedonanideamootedinAlfredJarry’sposthumouslypublishednovel GestesetopinionsdudocteurFaustroll,pataphysicien (1911),theCollègede ’Pataphysiqueisanotherlong-runningavant-gardeliterarygrouping.ForthebestEnglish introductiontotheCollège,seeAlastairBrotchie(ed.), ATrueHistoryoftheCollege of ’Pataphysics:WithManifestos,Statutes,CalendarandDocuments,trans.byPaulEdwards (London:Atlas,1995).Latis,meanwhile,wasjustoneofthevariousidentitiesofEmmanuel Peillet(1914–73),othersbeingJean-HuguesSainmont,DrIrenée-LouisSandomir,Oktav Votka,MélanieLePlumet,andmore.
²⁶ Arnaud, ‘Prolegomena’,pp.xi–xii.
²⁷ [‘Lanotiond’ouvroiraétéprécisémentintroduiteparcequec’étaitunlieudetravail artisanal.Ilnes’agissaitpasd’inventerdegrandesthéories,ilnes’agissaitpasdepartiràla
thesewingcircle,withJeanLescureclaimingthatthetermthus ‘flattered themodesttastethatwesharedforbothbeautifulworkandgooddeeds’.²⁸ Nevertheless,Ihaveyettoseethegroup’snametranslatedanywhereas ‘SewingCircleforPotentialLiterature’,andIdonotproposetoadoptthat versionhere.MostEnglishtextsdiscussingtheOulipohithertohavegone for workshop:theWorkshopforPotentialLiterature.Butthisisnotideal since workshop alreadyhasawell-knownliterarysense asessioninwhich writerssharetheirworkandreceivefeedbackfromthegroup andthisis mostdefinitely not whattheOulipois,apointreiteratedbrusquelyand frequentlybyprettymuchallmembers.²⁹ Wemightthentry workroom agooddirecttranslationof ouvroir,andonewhich,likeitssource,seems slightlyarchaicinEnglish.ThisisthetermwhichQueneauusesinan articleforthe TimesLiterarySupplement in1967inwhichheintroduces thegrouptoEnglishreaders,andIthinkthiswilldonicely:itsslight awkwardness—‘Don’ tyoumean workshop?’—iscorrect.³⁰
Inaradiointerviewin1962,Queneaurunsthroughthegroup’ s membersasfollows:
FirstlythereisFrançoisLeLionnais,whoisthefounder;andmyself,thecofounder.ThereisAlbert-MarieSchmidtwho,asyouknow,isagreat sixteenth-centuryist.Itishimwehavetothankforthetitleofourworking group.[...]Togoonwiththelist,thereisamathematician,ClaudeBerge; JacquesBens,whoissecretary;andthentworepresentativesfromthe Collègede ’Pataphysique,NoëlArnaudandLatis,sinceweareattachedto theCollègede ’Pataphysique;thenthreeothermemberswhoarepoetsand writers,Lescure,DuchateauandQueval.Wehaveforeigncorrespondents, AndréBlavier,PaulBraffort,StanleyChapmanandRossChambers.³¹
conquêtedequoiquecesoit.’]Thequotationappearsinthetranscriptofaninterview whichanumberofOulipiansgaveforthejournal Pagedeslibraires inearly1996.(FO, MS-6(‘Page’)).
²⁸ JeanLescure, ‘BriefHistoryoftheOulipo’,inMotte, Oulipo,pp.32–9(p.33).
²⁹ SeeforexampleQueneau’slist, ‘WhatistheOulipoNot?’,quotedbelow.
³⁰ RaymondQueneau, ‘ScienceandLiterature’ , TLS 3422(28September1967): 863–4(864).
³¹[‘Ilyad’abordFrançoisLeLionnais,queenestlefondateur;moi-même,quiensuisle co-fondateur.IlyaAlbert-MarieSchmidtqui,commevouslesavez,estungrand seiziémiste.C’estàluiquel’ondoitladénominationmêmedenotregroupdetravail. [...]Pourcontinuerl’énumération,ilyaunmathématicien,quiestClaudeBerge;Jacques Bens,quiestlesecrétaire;etpuisdeuxreprésentantsduCollègede ’Pataphysique,Noël ArnaudetLatis,parcequenousnoussommesrattachésauCollègede ’Pataphysique;puis troisautresmembresquisonddespoètesetdesécrivains,Lescure,DuchateauetQueval. Nousavonsdescorrespondantsétrangers,AndréBlavier,PaulBraffort,StanleyChapman, RossChambers’].Theinterviews,conductedbyGeorgesCharbonnier,wentoutbetween 2Februaryand27April1962.ThetranscriptsareavailableasGeorgesCharbonnier, EntretiensavecRaymondQueneau (Paris:Gallimard,1962),pp.116–17.
(Afurtherforeigncorrespondent,MarcelDuchamp,bythenanaturalized American,wasaddedtotherosterinMarch1962,justasQueneau’sradio interviewswerebeingbroadcast.However,Duchampwouldinfactmeet theOulipoonlytwice,whilepassingthroughParisin1967and1968.) WhatcomesacrossclearlyasQueneauliststhegroup’smembersisthat thisis not awriter’sgroupintheordinarysense.There are writers Lescure,Duchateau,andQueval(nottomentionQueneauhimself) buttheyarelistedlast,whileBergeisintroducedspecificallyasamathematician,Schmidtasanacademichistorian,andLatisandArnaudare identifiedbytheirroleintheCollègede ’Pataphysique(infact,Arnaudisa writerwhileLatisisaphilosophyteacher).TheOulipo,fromtheoutset,is aplaceofexchangebetweentheworldsofliteratureandscience,communitiesbetweenwhomacertainamountofnegotiationisbothnecessary andfruitful.AsLeLionnaisputsitatoneoftheearlymeetings, ‘Thefactis thatourgroupincludesbothmathematicalandliterarypeopleforwhom thesamewordsdon’talwaysapplytothesamenotions.’³²
Sowhat is theOulipoifnotawriters’ workshop?Neither workroom nor sewing-circle reallytellusmuchaboutwhatthegroupdo.Albert-Marie Schmidt’searlydescriptionofthegroupintheProtestantweekly Réforme offersussomeinsightwhenhecallsthem ‘asecretlaboratoryofliterary structures ’.³³ Secret hereisaquestionablelabel,especiallyifoneappliesit oneselfinanewspaperarticle andtherewillbemoretosayaboutthislater but laboratory ishelpful.Thisisaplaceofexperimentation,where literary structures areproposed,invented,tested.Queneaualsohassomeusefulwords bywayofthefollowingdefinition(albeitanegativeone)ofthegroup:
WhatistheOuliponot?
1.Itisnotamovementoraliteraryschool.Wesituateourselvespriorto aestheticvalue,whichisnottosaythatweignoreit.
2.Neitherisitascientificseminar,or ‘serious’ (ininvertedcommas)working group,eventhoughwehaveaprofessorfromaFacultyofLettersand anotherfromaFacultyofScienceamongournumber.
Finally,3.Itisnotaboutexperimentaloraleatoryliterature(forexampleof thekindpractisedbythegrouparoundMaxBenseinStuttgart).³⁴
³²Meetingof23August,1966.TheminutesforthismeetingaremissingfromtheBnF archive,butappear,inIainWhite’stranslation,as ‘AndréBlavier CircularNo.75 (+/ )’,in MathewsandBrotchie, OulipoCompendium (London:Atlas,1998),pp.188–91(p.191).
³³QuotedinArnaud ‘ Prolegomena ’,p.xiii.Theoriginalappeared Réforme on 2February1963.
³⁴ [‘Qu’ estcequen ’estpasl’ OU. LI. PO?1.Cen’estpasunmouvementouuneécole littéraraire.Nousnousplaçonsendeçàdelavaleuresthétique,cequineveutpasdireque nousenfassions fi.2.Cen’estpasnonplusunséminairescientifique,ungroupedetravail “sérieux” entreguillemets.[...]Enfin,3.Ilnes’agitpasdelittératureexpérimentaleou
Queneaualsohasafewpositivedescriptionsofthegroup,mostnotably thattheOulipo’sworkis ‘amusing(atleastforus)’,andhegoesonto defendthevalueofplayfulnessusingexamplesfromthehistoryofmathematics: ‘Imustinsistonthisadjective “amusing”.Certainly,certainof ourworks,inthedomainofsimple “jests” or “wordplay”,mightseem analogoustocertain “parlourgames”.Letusrememberthattopologyand numbertheorywereborn,inpart,outofwhatwereoncecalled “mathematicaldiversions” [mathématiquesamusantes].’³⁵ Ifthestructuresthat comeoutoftheOulipianlaboratoryseemlikemerediversionsthen,we areremindednottojudgetoohastilytheirusefulnessorimport.³⁶
Butperhapsthemostusefulinsightintowhatthegroupactuallydo comesfromtheirmeetingminutes.Bythelate1960sOulipomeetings havesettledintoastandardformat,groupedunderregularheadingsinthe minutes:Creation,Rumination,Erudition,Action.³⁷ Creation,asthe groupthemselvesputit,isthemostimportantoftheheadings: ‘Itis obligatory,onpainofthemeeting’scancellation,thattherebeatleastone interventionunderthisheading.AnOulipianpresentsanewconstraint, accompaniedbyatleastoneexample.Thispresentationisfollowedbya generaldiscussion.’³⁸ InRumination,newconstraintsnotyetwelldevelopedenoughtoproduceatextualexampleareintroducedforwider consideration,whileinEruditionmemberspresentonworkswhich predatethegroupbutexhibitOulipiancharacteristics.³⁹
aléatoire.’]RaymondQueneau, ‘Littératurepotentielle’ , Bâtons,chiffresetlettres,2ndedn (Paris:Gallimard,1965),pp.317–45(pp.321–2).Thepublishedtextwas firstdeliveredas atalktoJeanFavard’sSeminarofQuantitativeLinguisticsinJanuary1964.
³⁵ [‘J’insisteraicependantsurlequalificatifd’“ amusant ”.Ilestcertainquecertainsdenos travauxpeuventparaître,dudomainedelasimpleplaisanterieouencoredesimples “jeux d’esprit”,analoguesàcertains “jeuxdesociété”.Rappelons-nousquelatopologieoula théoriedesnombressontnéesenpartiedecequ’onappelaitautrefoisles “mathématiques amusantes ” ’]Queneau, ‘Littératurepotentielle’,p.322.
³⁶ LeLionnaiswillfeeltheneedtoreiteratethissentimentinthegroup’ssecond manifesto: ‘Mostwritersandreadersfeel(orpretendtofeel)thatextremelyconstraining structuressuchastheacrostic,spoonerisms,thelipogram,thepalindrome,ortheholorhyme(tociteonlythese five)aremereexamplesofacrobaticsanddeservenothingmore thanawrygrin,sincetheycouldneverhelptoengendertrulyvalidworksofart.Never? Indeed.Peoplearealittletooquicktosneeratacrobatics.’ [FrançoisLeLionnais, ‘Second Manifesto’,inMotte, Oulipo,pp.29–31(p.30)].
³⁷ Theseheadingsseemtodevelopoutofanearlier,roughlysynonymousset:Practique, Théorique,andAnecdotique.See ‘OrdredujourautographedeFrançoisLeLionnaisdela réuniondu23août1966’ (FO,DM-2(6)).
³⁸ [‘Ilestobligatoire,souspeinedenullitédelaréunion,qu’ilyaitaumoinsune interventionsouscetterubrique.Unoulipienprésenteunecontraintenouvelle,accompagnéeaumoinsd’unexemple.Cetteprésentationestsuivied’unediscussiongénérale.’] Oulipo, ‘Desrubriques’ , Oulipo (Paris:ADPF,2005),pp.18–19(p.19).
³⁹ Furtherheadingscover financesandthearrangementofthenextmeeting.Foramore detailedoutlineoftheformatofanOulipomeeting,see ‘Desrubriques’
TheSecretofLightness TakingthemeetingofJanuary1971asanexamplethen,Georges Perec’sminutes,scribbledonthebackofasaleslistforabookseller,are briefbutinformative.Thisisthe119thmeeting,takingplaceatLe Lionnais’shouseinBoulogne-sur-Seineon12January.Thosepresent arePerec,LeLionnais,Arnaud,Bénabou,LucÉtienne,andPaulBraffort.
Themeeting’sCreationsectionconsistsofthreeitems:LeLionnais’ s ‘Absencederimesintérieures’ [‘Absenceofinternalrhyming’],Étienne’ s ‘Limerick’,andanotherbyÉtiennewhichPerecseemstohavemissed (thereisagapintheminutes,whereanoteaddedinLeLionnais’shand wonders ‘Quoi?’ : ‘What?’).ThemeetingproceedstoAction,hereconcernedlargelywiththegroup’slong-runningattempttobringouta collectionoftheirexperimentswiththepublisherJonathanCape,while amongthetopicsunderEruditionisadiscussionofhomophonictranslation(‘traductionphonologique’)ledbyPerec.Forthenextmeeting, scheduledfor12February,HarryMathewsismootedasaguest. SothisistheformadoptedwhentheOulipomeetamongstthemselves. Butifthegroup’spurposeistoinventandappraiseliterarystructuresthat mightbeofusetoawiderliteraryworld,howdothesecreations filterout? Thesedays,wemaybefamiliarwiththeOulipoviatheirwebsiteortheir monthlyThursdaynightperformances LesJeudisdel’Oulipo atthe BnFinParis.Intheirearlydays,however,thegroupwereconsiderably moreretiring.Nevertheless,someoftheirexperimentswerepublished, albeitdiscreetly,duringtheir firstyears.Animportantcollectionofthe Oulipo’swork,includingLeLionnais’ sessay ‘LaLipo’—thetextthat wouldbecomeknownasthegroup’ s firstmanifesto waspublished privatelybytheCollègede ’PataphysiqueasaspecialissueoftheCollège’ s Dossiers series Dossier17 inDecember1961.⁴⁰ Then,justoverayear later,anOulipospecialissueappearedinAndréBlavierandJaneGraverol’ s small-formatreview Tempsmêlés.Theintroductionhereisslightlydisingenuous: ‘Forsometime[theOulipo]hasbeenasecretsociety,buttheir workshavebecomesoimportantthattheyhavedecidedtodivulge them’ . ⁴¹Whilethislabelofa secret or semi-secret societyisattachedto theOulipoalmostasamatterofcourseinitsearlydays Camille Bloomfieldcallsit ‘TheMythofSecrecy’—intruththegrouphadbeen divulgingthemselvesinsmalldosesallalong,innewspapers,ontheradio, andinappearancesatseminarsandconferencesin fieldsthattooktheir interest.⁴²The Tempsmêlés issue,forexample,ismadeupforthemost
⁴⁰ Forthecontextinwhich ‘LeLipo’ isre-envisagedasamanifesto,seeCamille Bloomfield, ‘Lesmanifestesàl’Oulipo:Ladisparitiond’uneforme’ , Étudeslittéraires 44.3 (2013):35–46.
⁴¹[‘Ilsontlongtempsconstituéunesociétésecrètemaisleurstravauxsontdésormaissi importantsqu’ilsontdécidédelesdivulger.’]GuyLeClec’h, ‘Introduction’:i.
⁴²SeeBloomfield, Raconterl’Oulipo,pp.214–22.
Fig.4. GeorgesPerec’shandwrittenminutestothegroup’smeetingofJanuary 1971(FO,DM-3(1)).
ImagereproducedbykindpermissionoftheOulipo.
TheSecretofLightness partofcontributionstoaconferenceoncybernetics,which fiveofthe group halfitsmembership hadattendedandwheretheyhadspoken openlyabouttheOulipo ’sworkontherelationshipbetweenprocedure andcreativity.⁴³In1964,theOulipoalsotravelled enmasse toBlavier’ s hometownofVerviersinBelgiumtopresentastagedversionofone oftheirmeetingswhichwasbroadcastonBelgianradio.Notexactlya secretsocietythen,butoneatleastunconcernedwith fi ndingapopular audience,onewhosecollectivepublicationswouldreachacertain cognoscenti ofPataphysicians,ortheavant-gardistaswhoread Temps mêlés butfewothers.⁴⁴ Itisacuriousdetailthat,foralongtime, thegroup’ s fi rstmajorcollectivepublicationseemeddestinedtobean Englishone.
Intheautumnof1967,the TimesLiterarySupplement ranafeature called ‘Crosscurrents’ inwhichfourcontinentalintellectualswereinvited toconsidertherelationshipbetweenliteratureandanotherdiscipline. UmbertoEcowroteonliteratureandsociology,ItaloCalvinoonliterature andphilosophy.QueneauandRolandBarthesbothchosetowriteon literatureandscience,withBarthesgivingaprimerofliterarystructuralismwhileQueneauintroducestheOulipotoBritishreaders.TheQueneauarticlebeginsbybemoaningthe ‘TwoCultures’ schismthat separatedtheartsandsciences.⁴⁵‘Itisstillthefashionforapoetto boastthathedoesnotknowthe firstthingaboutmathematics,’ he complains,illustratinghiscasewithVictorHugo’srobustlyanti-scientific poem ‘LeCalcul’.Mathematics,forHugo,isanabysswhosedepthshe goesontoplumbinverse:
⁴³Theconference,entitled ‘Penséeartificielle,penséevécue’ [‘ArtificialThought,Lived Thought’]wasatCerisy,9–19July1963.
⁴⁴ Manyyearsafterthishalf-observedsecrecyhasbeenabandoned,HervéLeTellier willproposeaninterestingandpersuasivereasonforitshavingbeenadoptedinthe first place.Inthetranscriptsforaninterviewconductedforafeatureinthemagazine Pagedes libraires in1996,LeTellierwillmusethatQueneau,asthegroup’smostcelebrated member,wasconcernedthattheOulipomightappeartotheoutsideworldlikea personalitycult,oracoterieofsycophants: ‘Ithinkthereasonthegroupwasmoreor lesssecretwasthatitwaswhatRaymondQueneauwanted.Ithinkthatifthegrouphad notbeensecret,itwouldhaveseemedlikeabunchofyoungpeoplegatheredaround RaymondQueneau.Andthatwasnotatallwhathewanted.Hesaid,Idon ’twanttobe thenewBreton’.[ ‘Jepensed ’ailleursquec’estlaraisonpourlaquellelegroupeétaitplus oumoinssecret,c ’étaitunevolontédeRaymondQueneau.Jepensequesilegroupe n ’avaitpasétésecrete,ilseraitapparucommeétantplusiersjeunesgensautourde RaymondQueneau.Etcen’étaitpasdutoutsavolonté.Ildisaitjeneveuxpasêtrele nouveauBreton.’](FO,MS-6(‘Page ’)).
⁴⁵ RaymondQueneau, ‘ScienceandLiterature’ , TLS 3422(28September1967): 863–4.
