Читать книгу Medieval Nonsense - Jordan Kirk - Страница 10

Chaucer was in the habit of recording his dreams—if they were not rather revelations, hallucinations, or prophecies, not to speak of flights of fancy.⁶ In the report of a dream that he says he had on December 10 of an unspecified year, he claims to have beheld a strange sight. This particular apparition was not, perhaps, quite as wondrous as some of the other sights he saw that same night: a vast desert, an ice mountain, a talking bird, a goddess holding court, a wicker labyrinth spinning in thin air. Not as wondrous, indeed, as the mere fact of seeing anything at all. But it stopped him in his tracks. It was a windmill, and it was being placed under a walnut shell.⁷

The vision arose in a very particular place—midway between the heavens, the earth, and the sea, wherever that might be—that Chaucer called the hous of Fame, which means the “realm of language itself.”⁸ His discovery or positing of this obscure place, fanciful as it might be, is also something more: the solution of an ostensible problem in the physics of sound. It is easily observable that noises do not remain where they arise, that as soon as they become audible in one place they are already becoming fainter there and starting to become audible somewhere else. Where, then, are all the noises going? In response to such a line of questioning, the poet asserts, on the uncompromisingly ironic authority of his book learning and of his quasi-transcendent stultification, that just as heavy objects naturally tend toward the lowest place possible, sounds are naturally drawn toward their own most proper place, and that somewhere in the universe there is a point at which they all collect.⁹ That point will be known henceforth as the hous of Fame. Moreover, as the various squeaks, thuds, grumbles, and enunciations of all the world arrive in this zone—utterly removed now from the contexts in which they might once have been meaningful—they are bestowed, in a kind of universal inverse ekphrasis, with a certain visibility: they seem to take on the forms of the beings that made them.¹⁰ Thus it is that the unimaginably loud clamor of the realm of language itself discloses itself to the eyes of the dreamer who arrives there as a land of mountains and valleys and architectural constructions in which living beings abide.

Among these beings of every description, Chaucer encounters a host of wonder-workers: sorcerers, natural scientists, tricksters. These he lists in passing, pausing only in the case of one of them. The figure who arrests his attention is a tregetour—a sleight-of-hand artist—by the name of Colin, to whom the following five lines are devoted:

Ther saugh I Colle tregetour

Upon a table of sycamour

Pleye an uncouth thyng to telle—

Y saugh him carien a wynd-melle

Under a walsh-note shale.¹¹

[There I saw Colin the tregetour

Perform, on a sycamore table,

A thing that is strange to recount:

I saw him put a windmill

Under a walnut shell.]

If the significance of this passage has never, perhaps, been altogether clear, so much is perfectly in keeping with its own indications: for what Chaucer beheld is, as he says, uncouth to telle. This specification could mean a number of things—that the act of placing a windmill under a walnut shell is unfamiliar, or marvelous, or outrageous, or occult—but in fact the poet is using the word uncouth here in the etymological sense of unknown, so that uncouth to telle means unknown with respect to its being discussed.¹² Accordingly, any speech that says “I saw” such a thing—and the poet says it twice here—can only be the production, and perhaps the transmission, of an ignorance of that same thing. The full measure of this declaration should be taken: this passage will give rise to nothing else than an unknowing of what it discusses. But we do not need to throw up our hands before the specter of ineffability; the poet, for his part, certainly does not. For if the thing beheld cannot be known in the telling, there is nothing to prevent that ignorance itself from being known—and known with precision. What is opened by this passage is a question: What sort of unknowing is produced by the report of the placement of a windmill under a walnut shell?

Chaucer does not neglect to provide the means of answering this question. In his list of the various kinds of charmers, illusionists, and practitioners of magyke naturel to be found in the palace of Fame—a list in which the passage in question terminates—he has just set up a rudimentary taxonomy of the possible ways of bringing about a wondrous phenomenon. Tregetry, the specific means employed in the matter of the windmill and the shell, seems to be distinguished on the one hand from sorcery and on the other from natural science. This shell game, whatever else it will prove to have been, is something accomplished neither by mere spontaneous force of nature nor by supernatural spell but by means of the application of a technical skill. What is more, this technical skill can itself be identified without difficulty. In the late fourteenth century, the word tregetrie could refer to various kinds of prestidigitation, but Chaucer makes explicit that he is using it here in the literal sense of trajection, throwing across—that is, juggling.¹³ What allows for a windmill to be placed under a walnut shell is a variety of juggling: a movement from hand to hand, a circulation of objects such that they are constantly in motion without ever arriving anywhere other than where they started, but also without ever remaining in their place of origin. Tregetry is a peculiar mode of suspended transmission, characteristic of clubs tossed in the air or shells shifted around on a tabletop, in which the transfer does not exhaust itself in delivering its object across some gap but rather retains it within the configuration of its own unceasing circulation—that is, within the gap itself.

When Colin the tregetour’s operation is described in such a fashion, it is impossible not to recognize in it the basic gesture of the House of Fame as a whole. For the passage in question comes only after a series of variations on the theme of transmission: a self-conscious translation of Virgil, various invocations of poetic and other lineages, a quasi-scientific account of the transfer of sound through space, ostentatious displays of metaphorization, and so forth. In each case, whatever transfer might be expected to take place—from idiom to idiom, generation to generation, location to location, or image to image—is turned back on itself to circulate in a void, inoperative. This gesture becomes most spectacularly visible in the poem’s famous final pages, in which Chaucer evokes a wicker house whirling in the air about its own axis, resounding with the clamor of a constant communication of news, and then breaks off his description, leaving the poem “unfinished,” seemingly just when he is about to disclose the crucial bit of news around whose discovery the whole text would have seemed to be organized. The work that the poet is carrying out answers to the same description as the placement of a windmill under a walnut shell, in short, and if both the one and the other are uncouth to telle, it is because they consist precisely in stripping the communicative function from a means of communication.

So much is legible in the epithet tregetour, and it is no less legible in the particular sleight-of-hand artistry in which Colin engages. For the walnut shell that he manipulates cannot be said to be unfamiliar. In the much-discussed integumental model of interpretation that is a basic presupposition of medieval literary theory, a text is likened to a nut whose shell, the mere letter, is to be cracked open in order that the kernel of signification it conceals might be revealed.¹⁴ Alain de Lille, Bernardus Silvestris, Bede, Fulgentius, Jerome, and Plautus—to give only a small fraction of the possible names—had all put the matter this way; and Chaucer and his contemporaries recurred to the figure with frequency. But, as is only fitting in the context of the House of Fame, here it appears only in the form of its own disfigurement, as a shell containing no nut to speak of, but, unthinkably, something else entirely: a windmill.

This disfigurement is a reenvisioning of the integumental model for the purposes of tregetry. It develops out of the observation that, if a shell can contain a nut, it can also (and for the same reason) be empty of any nut. Tregetry takes advantage of the fact that the sound-shape of a word can exist without any meaning’s inhering within it, that there can be a full-fledged word in the absence of sense. For this emptiness makes possible a certain maneuver. It means that a shell is capable of sheltering not only a kernel of meaning but other things as well, or at any rate one other thing in particular. And, like the shell in which it is placed, this particular thing will not be selected at random. For the windmill, too, was a familiar linguistic figure in Chaucer’s time and place: “the clacking of the windmill,” it has been observed in another context, “was commonly used to convey empty garrulity.”¹⁵ In this manner the force of the figure seems at first simply to be redoubled: what is found within the mere noise of a shell without a kernel would just be more noise. But the noise of a windmill is of course not just any noise but that of the very apparatus whose exemplary purpose (not least in Chaucer’s own “Reeve’s Tale”) is the crushing of kernels in particular. Sheltered impossibly within the emptiness of the word the poet beholds not just an absence of meaning but a technology for its pulverization. It is not merely the case, then, that there are words that do not signify; there are also words that might serve as the site of an engineered destruction of signification generally.

But it cannot yet be said with certainty that such a destruction is actually taking place. The windmill in question, after all, might not be a real machine in working order; indeed, the fact that it can be placed under a walnut shell might seem to suggest that it is nothing but a trinket or figurine. In such a case, however, it is not clear what would be uncouth to telle about its placement there. Moreover, there is good reason to think that the windmill is in fact in operation. For not the least part of the racket emitted by a windmill is that produced by the part of the apparatus that actually grinds the kernels themselves: the millstone. And it is precisely to the sound of stone that the realm of Fame is repeatedly likened: as when—after making an oath by Saint Peter, of all things—the dreamer declares that this sound is “lyk betynge of the see … ayen the roches holowe” (like the beating of the sea against a hollow in the rocks); or when he compares the gret noyse of the whirling wicker house to the “rowtynge of the ston / That from th’engyn ys leten gon” (the roaring of the stone that has been thrown from a machine: a catapult, no doubt, though other readings remain possible); or again, quasi-analogically, when the sound that makes up whatever appears in the realm of Fame is said to travel there the way a ripple moves across the surface of a body of water when a stone, in particular, has been thrown into it; or yet again when the tydynges that are Fame’s prima materia are enumerated by reference to the pulverized form of stone (“moo tydynges … then greynes be of sondes”; more tidings than there are grains of sand).¹⁶ So insistently does Chaucer return to the figure of rock in the House of Fame that a reader could perhaps be forgiven for taking as a paronomasia his affirmation that the writers of old arrayed in the memory palace of Fame are as numerous “as ben on trees rokes nestes” (as there are rooks’ nests on trees).¹⁷ Indeed, it can be observed that the dream vision’s most memorable images and axioms emerge from the multiplicative fragmentation of the semantic kernel of the word roke, whose various senses in Middle English include not only “stone” and “rook” but also “castle” and “distaff” and “mist”: think of its castle built upon a rock of ice, of the “femynyne creature” within it spinning out her tales, of the radical dictum it introduces that “every thing ys wyst / though hit be kevered with the myst” (everything is known / though it be covered with the mist).¹⁸ In short, the sound of the realm of language itself is a specifically petrological sound, and the figures into which that sound is made visible by inverse ekphrasis are no less petrological.¹⁹

What resounds in “thise rokkes or thise milnestones,” as the synecdoche is elaborated in the Troilus, is in short the millstone housed within the windmill beneath Colin’s walnut shell.²⁰ Its racket—the clamor of the inanimate—has no meaning; it is the sound of the pulverization of meaning itself. But this “empty garrulity” is also the announcement aloud, in the mode of betokening, of the existence of a perhaps unsuspected phenomenon. For if the millstone is grinding, that means that the sails of the apparatus are turning, and that in turn means that the abyss within the empty shell of the mere letter is not an inert void but a dynamic zone traversed by meteorological forces. There must be a wind that blows, of its own accord, through the hollows of the word. Chaucer’s vision of the placement of a windmill in a walnut shell is thus uncouth to telle—to recapitulate in a single unwieldy formula everything that has been said so far—in the precise sense that it is the beholding, by inverse ekphrasis, of a word found within the realm of language itself that shelters an emptiness traversed by a spontaneous energy that can be harnessed to power an apparatus designed to pulverize signification.

The House of Fame is a device engineered to transmit this word. It is the récit visionnaire of a mind-technician whose practice is said to consist in maintaining an unsurfeited sorrow over his books, keeping the ironic vigil of his astonishment, the doors of his senses sealed, always “also domb as any stoon” (as mute as a stone: but how mute is that, again?).²¹ This contemplative practice or engineering of awareness is undertaken in order that the practitioner might enter such a dream-state as will allow him or her to encounter the being of language as such, which resounds as visibility in the emptiness of the mantric word given over to the inoperativity of transmission.²² The record of this encounter—the literary work—is an apparatus designed to bring about a like encounter in those who come across it, begin fiddling with it, and find that they cannot put it down. It functions not by transmitting some particular information, opinion, or instruction but by being constructed in such a manner that when we, whoever we might be, search it for such a kernel of meaning, we will have at last no choice—if we do not first grasp at our own projections of solid form into the void it shelters—but to come face-to-face with our inability to find anything at all. By transmitting nothing in such a manner, the work makes possible the spontaneous arising across time and space of the empty awareness of the bare fact that anything occurs at all. The poems that make up the Chaucerian corpus are generated, as it were holographically, from the empty words with whose preservation they have been entrusted and in which they are contained in nuce. It is in their moments of sheer uninterpretability that Chaucer’s works make known most unmistakably the nature of the poet’s practice.

To identify the essence of Chaucer’s poetics as “tregetry” in this sense—that is, as what Giorgio Agamben calls experimentum vocis, the experience and experiment of the bare vocalization—is to rejoin an important line of current scholarly research.²³ For Chaucerians have been bringing to light, over the course of the past decade, the extent to which the poet was preoccupied with exactly this matter.²⁴ Peter Travis, in his Disseminal Chaucer, sums up the matter with characteristic perspicacity: “Chaucer was absolutely fascinated by noise throughout his career, and by the possible significance, political and otherwise, of sounds that are traditionally understood to be devoid of meaning…. [The poet] explores the essence of history via his experimental interrogations of the semiotics of noise, even as he explores with equal intensity the resistance of noise to our understanding.”²⁵ Likewise, D. Vance Smith writes: “One terminus of [Chaucer’s] writing [is] the hubbub of English noise, the noise that he will celebrate in the midst of a minisumma of rhetorical art in the “Nun’s Priest’s Tale,” the ‘out’ and ‘harrow’ of the rural landscape and the sounds of angry rebels in 1381…. The scene of English noise is always there, and occasionally Chaucer stops briefly to listen to it, to show how its noise is the all-too-often disparaged echo chamber of his poetic invention.”²⁶

But such suggestions, just because they are so well founded, should also come as something of a surprise. For it might have seemed that medieval literature, not to speak of medieval thought and culture generally, could be characterized by a thoroughgoing commitment to the kernel of meaning as over against the shell of the mere letter. That was of course the strongly stated position of the “Robertsonians” in the last century; but even when their detractors objected most forcefully that medieval literary works could not, in fact, be reduced to allegories of Christian teachings, they did so on the basis of the fact—which it would be foolish indeed to contest—that other meanings can be ascribed to them just as convincingly. The various schools of thought that have dominated medieval literary study hold in common, notwithstanding their marked differences, a presupposition that what matters in a given medieval text is what it signifies, if not in a mode of allegory at least in one of intention, representation, evidentiation, or symptomatization.

It may be that this presupposition is warranted, and that if—as both the foregoing commentary and the scholars just cited suggest—what matters in a text of Chaucer’s is something else altogether, not its meaning but its noise, it is because there is something exceptional about this particular poet. Here it would be tempting to invoke the category of genius, or at least to point toward a Borgesian possibility of anachronistic reading, in order to skirt the difficulties involved in the recognition that Chaucer can be said to anticipate the poets who will come five and six hundred years after him. For it is not simply that a concern with nonsignification seems not quite medieval: it also seems positively—even suspiciously—modern.