St. Paul

This English-language edition first published by Verso 2014

Translation © Elizabeth A. Castelli 2014

Foreword translation © David Fernbach 2014

Introduction © Elizabeth A. Castelli 2014

Afterword © Ward Blanton 2014

First published in Italian as San Paolo

© Einaudi 1977

Foreword first published in the French edition, Saint Paul

Foreword © Editions Nous 2013

All rights reserved

The moral rights of the authors have been asserted

Verso

UK: 6 Meard Street, London W1F 0EG

US: 20 Jay Street, Suite 1010, Brooklyn, NY 11201

www.versobooks.com

Verso is the imprint of New Left Books

ISBN-13: 978-1-78168-288-3 (HBK)

eISBN-13: 978-1-78168-289-0 (US)

eISBN-13: 978-1-78168-658-4 (UK)

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

v3.1

Contents

Cover

Title Page

Copyright

Foreword by Alain Badiou

Acknowledgements

Introduction: Translating Pasolini Translating Paul by Elizabeth A. Castelli

Plan for a Film about Saint Paul

Outline of a Screenplay for a Film about Saint Paul (in the Form of Notes for a Production Director)

Note on the Text

Afterword: Appropriation’s Excess, Paul of Tarsus for an Age of the Capitalization of Mastery by Ward Blanton

Foreword

Alain Badiou

It is well known that the Christian reference played a role of primary importance in the formation of Pasolini’s thought, despite (or because of) the sexual and transgressive violence that inspired his personal life and bestowed a particular coloration on his communist political choices. In a certain sense, it was a sacrifice bordering on the sacred – the mysterious death of his brother, an Italian partisan, probably killed by the Yugoslav resistance at the moment of Liberation – that led both to his view of the judgement one can make on History, and to the severity he displayed, from the late 1950s on, towards the Italian Communist Party. Basically, the PCI was guilty in his eyes of having allowed the young people of the Resistance to die without legitimate heirs or genuine political paternity, which led also to abandoning to their fate the young proletarians of the modern housing estates. Among other texts, the broad and splendid poem Vittoria presents the history of this denial, suggesting in the background the denial of St Peter: by denying Christ, Peter had shown too much attachment to his own safety; and against Paul, at Antioch, too much attachment to the old rituals that limited the universality of the message. It was Peter, rather than Paul, who prefigured the sclerosis of the Church, and likewise that of the PCI. Consider this passage, which stigmatizes the ‘realism’ of political parties, caught in the ‘mysterious debate with Power’ and deaf to the voice of young people in revolt:

… Joyous

with a joy that rejects any second thought

is this army – blind in the blind

sun – of young dead, who come

and who await. If their father, their leader,

leaves them alone in the whiteness of the hills, in the peaceful

plains – absorbed in a mysterious debate

with Power, enchained to its dialectic

that history forces him unceasingly to reform –

quite gently, in the barbarous hearts

of the sons, hatred gives way to love of hate.

More generally, Pasolini relentlessly confronted the forms that a life devoted to the naked truth of the subject could take vis-à-vis the avatars of the Passion and the pitfalls of holiness. If we compare him, for example, with Bataille, it is easy to maintain that it is with much more sincerity, exposure to risk, and poetic gift that Pasolini made the dialectic of abjection and the sublime his own. If we compare him with Genet, we have – though in this case equal in terms of quality – the whole difference between sublimation by way of poetry (or the cinema) and sublimation by way of prose (and the theatre). The former orients itself towards origins, fables and myths, the figures of history (Oedipus, Christ, St Paul, Dante, Gramsci) the latter to an intimate tale mingled with and borne up, as it were, by the latent breath of the history of peoples: underclass prison angels, prostitutes, blacks, Palestinians … But in every case, on the horizon of meditation lies the question of religion. Not as a possibility still open, there is no question of believing in it, but as a poetic and historical paradigm of the possibility of scathing confrontation, at the heart of individual and collective existence, with the implacable truths that religion can express and with the meaning it may or may not receive from the world such as it is.

It is indeed this rift between meaning and truth that is at issue in the figure of Oedipus, as Pasolini’s very fine film restores him: as soon as one discovers the truth (murder of the father, incest with the mother), the only meaning that life still finds is in blindness and death. But this is also the figure of Christ: so that truth will come to the desert world of men, God must present the absurdity of his own torment. Hence the power of the film that Pasolini drew from the Gospel According to St Matthew. And is it not tempting to see Pasolini’s own death, which remains so obscure, as the Passion of true desire fulfilled in sacrifice under the insensate knife of the person this desire encounters?

It is only too natural, in this context, that St Paul should have been a tutelary figure for Pasolini. He saw him, in fact, as the first embodiment of the conflict between political truth (communist emancipation being the contemporary form of salvation), and the meaning this could assume in the weight of the world. In our world, in fact, truth can only make its way by protecting itself from the corrupted outside, and establishing, within this protection, an iron discipline that enables it to ‘come out’, to turn actively towards the exterior, without fearing to lose itself in this. The whole problem is that this discipline (of which Paul is here the inventor under the name of the Church, like Lenin for communism under the name of the Party), although totally necessary, is also tendentially incompatible with the pureness of the True. Rivalries, betrayals, struggles for power, routine, silent acceptance of the external corruption under the cover of practical ‘realism’: all this means that the spirit which created the Church no longer recognizes in it, or only with great difficulty, that in the name of which this was created.

Paul is one of the possible historical names of the tension between fidelity to the founding event of a new cycle of the True (metaphorically, the resurrection of Christ; actually, the communist revolution) and the rapid exhaustion, under the cross of the world, of the pure subjective energy (holiness, or totally disinterested militancy) that the concrete realization of this fidelity would demand.

Pasolini wanted to make a major film on the dialectical character of Paul. This would essentially be a sequel to his film on the Passion of Christ: the history of the Church, which, as guardian of the meaning of this Passion, propagates and perpetuates its truth effects, and also the history of the failure of this guardianship. He did not find financing for this film. But we have a very detailed scenario of it, a scenario that in my view is in itself a literary work of the first magnitude.

As he did in his Oedipus Rex, Pasolini juxtaposed the ancient reference with the contemporary, but in a very different manner. The action of Saint Paul, in fact, is situated completely in the contemporary world, whereas in Oedipus Rex, the contemporary drama with the mother ‘duplicates’ the connected visibility of the legendary tale. What pertains totally to antiquity in Saint Paul is quite simply, and exclusively, the apostle’s own words, the text.

We might say that in Oedipus we have a ‘distribution of the sensible’, in the meaning that Jacques Rivière gave this expression, the history – the legendary text – being distributed between two different regimes of visibility, the ancient and the modern. In Saint Paul, on the other hand, the sensible is homogeneous (it belongs to our world), while a large part of the intelligible (what is thought and uttered), being drawn from the epistles of Paul or the Acts of the Apostles, is a reproduction of the antique.

Pasolini’s wager, therefore, is that the truth of which St Paul is the divided bearer, the sacrificed militant, can make sense in the world of today, thus proving the latent universality of his thought. We can see the United States in place of Rome, the intellectual snobs of Rome (whom Pasolini hated) in place of the philosophers of the Athenian agora, or echoes of collaboration and the Resistance in France: Paul’s text crosses all these circumstances intact, as if it had foreseen them all.

What this meant for Pasolini was that all corruptions resemble one another, declining empires and their exhausted valets resemble each other, and the betrayers of all truths exposed to lack of meaning all wear the same mask.

With stupefying virtuosity, Pasolini manages this very risky construction, in which the invariance of a text that bears truth – the invariance, basically, of the Idea – is shown, in the Passion it supports, as having to find an acceptable meaning in unappropriated worlds.

This scenario should be read, not as the unfinished work that it was, but as the sacrificial manifesto of what constitutes, here as elsewhere, the real of any Idea: the seeming impossibility of its effectuation. Pasolini was scarcely optimistic as to the possible metamorphosis of this impossible-real in a world that would finally have meaning. Do we have reasons to be more optimistic than he was? The existence of Pasolini’s poems and films is certainly one of these reasons, as optimism has never been anything but a pessimism overcome by its own subject, in the work of universal significance that, against all expectation, this has produced.

Acknowledgements

Work on this translation was supported by a grant from the Center for Translation Studies at Barnard College, thanks to an umbrella grant from the Mellon Foundation. I wish to express my special thanks to the Center’s director, Peter Connor, for his encouragement of this project. Dr. Rita Lucarelli of the University of Bonn reviewed the translation and made several helpful suggestions and corrections; she was also an enthusiastic supporter of this project. I presented portions of this translation to seminars and audiences at the Center for Religion and Media at New York University, the Program in Scripture and the Arts at Boston University, and the University Seminar on the New Testament at Columbia University, and I benefited greatly from the discussions that took place on those occasions. I wish also to thank Ward Blanton of the University of Kent for his collaboration on this project. And finally to Verso Books for acquiring the English-language rights for this publication.

Introduction: Translating Pasolini Translating Paul

Elizabeth A. Castelli

Ogni bestemmia è una parola sacra.

[Every blasphemy is a sacred word.]

Pier Paolo Pasolini

In May 1966, Pier Paolo Pasolini – poet, novelist, translator, critic, screenwriter, filmmaker, cultural theorist, polemicist, and artist-of-the-self – wrote a letter to Don Emilio Cordero, the director of Sampaolofilm in Rome, to accompany ‘these few little pages’ [queste poche paginette] that contained the initial treatment for the film about Saint Paul that Pasolini hoped to make. ‘I have the impression’, Pasolini wrote, ‘that, for the person who reads it unprepared, this project will cause a little dizziness … As far as I am concerned, I am beginning to feel toward this project that exclusive and possessed love that binds me to my work, when doing it begins to become irrepressible.’¹ Cordero’s response to Pasolini was enthusiastic about the project itself but negative about the practical possibilities of moving forward with it at the time: ‘I wanted and hoped so much to make a film about Saint Paul with you. Unfortunately, the moment has not yet arrived … I am sure … that the project designed by you is valid and of great interest’.²

The following month, Pasolini responded with considerable disappointment, asking whether he ought to resign himself to not making the film, whether the project might be possible in two or three years’ time, ‘or should I think that my project and my person are considered a risk and that therefore no real possibility exists even in the distant future?’³ Don Cordero responded with a Latin quotation adapted from Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians – ‘do not weep like those who do not have hope’ [nolite flere sicut qui spem non habent] (1 Thess. 4:13), and encouraged Pasolini, despite the practical obstacles involved in making the film at that moment, not to give up.⁴ Two years later, Pasolini wrote again to Don Cordero, referring to the film now as ‘our THEOLOGICAL FILM’, and gesturing toward the project’s most foundational ideological distinctions and cultural critique: ‘In fact here the story of two Pauls is narrated: the saint and the priest … I am all for the saint, while I am certainly not very tender toward the priest …[The screenplay leaves] the spectator to choose and to resolve the contradictions and to establish whether this THEOLOGICAL FILM be a hymn to Holiness or to the Church.’⁵ If Don Cordero responded to this letter, the correspondence is not preserved, though in the end the project was never realized and the film remained unmade.

This exchange of letters contains the first references to the Saint Paul project in Pasolini’s writings, one of several projects that never came to completion during his lifetime. Despite the ultimate failure of the project, there is plenty of testimony, especially in interviews, newspaper articles, and other parts of the Pasolini archive, showing that Pasolini remained deeply committed to making the film.⁶ Indeed, its subject matter – the saint-prophet-founder Paul – had long captivated and haunted Pasolini, not merely as a historical subject but as both an analogical lens through which to read his contemporary political context and a semi-autobiographical figure for his own artistic and personal experience of alienation and persecution.

Although Pasolini generated the initial treatment for the project in 1966 (‘these few little pages’ to which he makes reference in the May 1966 letter to Don Cordero), the majority of the script for the film was written over a very short period in May and June of 1968, and it was this draft that accompanied the letter to Don Cordero dated 9 June 1968. Pasolini returned to the work and edited it further in 1974, in anticipation of its publication. That version was published by Einaudi in 1977, and it is the Einaudi edition that is translated here.⁷

I have approached this translation both as a practical exercise in rendering Pasolini’s Italian text into standard English but also as an occasion to consider the theoretical importance of Pasolini’s work as itself a form of cultural translation – hence, the title of this introduction: ‘Translating Pasolini Translating Paul’. Pasolini’s Saint