On Affliction and Reading, Weeping and Argument: Chaucer's Lachrymose Troilus in Context

21 Pages·2006·0.14 MB·English

MARY CARRUTHERS
On Affliction and Reading,
Weeping and Argument: Chaucer’s
Lachrymose Troilus in Context
T     workthatismyinitialfocusinthises-
say—‘‘On Affliction and Reading’’ (De afflictione et lectione) by the twelfth century
monk, Peter of Celle—is not original with its author, but was in fact assigned by
Jean Leclercq, who wrote the first (and to my knowledge only) extensive study of
theworksofPeterof Celle.Butitisafittingtitle,forthetreatise doesindeedlink
corporealexperiencewiththeactivityofreadinginwaysthatIthinkmanymod-
ernswillfindpeculiar,evengrotesque.1TheEnglishtranslatorofthework,Hugh
Feiss,someonewithextensiveexperienceofthecorporealemphasisfoundsocom-
monlyinmonasticreflectionsupontheprocess ofprayerandmeditativereading,
found the content of this work often a bit over the top. In his introduction to the
CistercianStudiesvolumeofPeter’stranslatedworks,DomFeisscallsattentionto
a‘‘ratherrepulsive’’comparisonthatPetermakesinthistext,ofamonkmeditating
inhiscelltoabutcher(carnifex)sellingmeatthatishisownflesh.Itisagoodplace
tobegintosortoutPeter’sanalysisofwhatlearningtoreadthehardway,themo-
nasticway,entails:
Aroom(cella)hasoneoftwoqualities,dependingonthewayoflifeofthosewhodwellin
it.Itisahardplaceforcarnalpeople,butapleasantoneforspiritualpeople.Itisaprison
fortheflesh,aparadiseforthemind.Itisamarketwherethebutchersellssmall[literally,
pennies’worth]andlargeamountsofhisfleshtoGod,whocomesasacustomer.Themore
ofhisfleshhesells,thegreatergrowsthesumofmoneyhesetsaside.Letthemtherefore
increasetheirwealthandfilltheirpursebysellingtheirownbloodandflesh,forfleshand
bloodwillnotpossessthekingdomofGod.(1Cor.15:50)2
Perhaps the oddest feature of this comparison is the paralleling of the work done
in the monastic cell with the meat market, of meditative reading (‘‘a paradise for
the mind’’) with selling one’s own butchered flesh, and of God with a buyer (and

Thisessayexploresafundamentalconnectionamongperception,sensation,andrational
processinaselectionofworkswithinthelongmonastictraditionknownasdesertspirituality.Itsfocusis
theembeddingofintellectualjudgmentwithinbodilyexperience,expressedasaconnectionofaffliction
toreadingandweepingtorationalargument.Monasticspiritualitycultivatedintensesensationasaninstru-
mentofadequatejudgment,andtearsaspurgativeagents,havingthepotentialtoclearthought,notjust
tohinderit. / R 93.Winter2006(cid:1)MaryCarruthers.ISSN0734–6018,electronic
ISSN1533–855X,pages1–21.Allrightsreserved.Directrequestsforpermissiontophotocopyorrepro-
ducearticlecontenttoMaryCarruthers,Dept.ofEnglish,NewYorkUniversity,NewYork,NY10003. 1
thusaconsumer)ofmeat.Sometimes,throughasceticdiscipline,amonkmaysell
hisfleshinparsimoniousamounts,sometimesgenerously,butthefleshisnonethe-
lessconsumed,andbythepurespirit;thatis,byGod.
One can of course tame these implications to suit a more modern taste, and
dutifullynotethatmonasticdisciplineencouragedanidentificationthroughmedi-
tation of the monk with the Crucified, so that the basic metaphor used here is
groundedinorthodoxy.Theideathatthecarnalmustbeturnedtothespiritualis
alsostandardteaching.ThedoctrineofredemptionasfleshlypaymentforAdam’s
sinisorthodoxaswell.Still,thescandalofPeter’sconceitremains,notonlyinthe
vividnessofthebutchershop,butalsointhedescription’semphasisspecificallyon
commercialgain.Thereisaforcefulness,almostananger,inPeter’smetaphorthat
is not accounted for by traditional doctrine, conjuring as it does a savagely self-
tormentedfigure,cuttingthefleshfromhisbodyashepilesupanincreasingstore
of lucre. The image is difficult to reconcile with the promise in the previous sen-
tence,thatthecellisa‘‘paradiseforthemind.’’Peter’smoreusualstress,asinthe
beginningofthiswork,isontheneedformoderationinasceticdiscipline.3
Undoubtedly the vivid scandal of the carnal/spirit duality in this image is
meanttorecallsomethingofthecentralparadoxofIncarnation,withitsemphasis
upondivinitywithinhumanfleshthatSt. Paulcharacterizedasascandalamong
the Jewsand foolishness amongthe Greeks (1Cor. 1:22–23). Callingthe butcher
carnifex, a word used commonly in the sense of ‘‘torturer’’ but not for ‘‘one who
sells meat,’’ recalls centrally as well the Crucifixion, and in a particularly horrid
manner.TheEnglishpainterFrancisBacononcerevealedtoaninterviewer,‘‘I’ve
always been very moved by pictures about slaughterhouses and meat, and to me
they belong very much to the whole thing of the Crucifixion.... Of course, we
are meat, we are potential carcasses.’’ These remarks were judged ‘‘bizarre and
disturbing’’inarecentreviewofabookonBacon’swork.4Theyare.Butnomore
sothanPeterofCelle’simageofthemonkbutcheringhisownfleshtosellpiecemeal
to God in order to amass the currency of salvation. The scandal in Peter’s image
is as deliberately bizarre and ‘‘sensational’’ as it is in Bacon’s paintings. All five
sensesarestronglyevokedinPeter’swords:inthesightandsmellofthebutchered
meat,thepainoflaceratedflesh,theimageoftheDeityascarnivore(forGoddid
exactrepaymentinfleshontheCross),thecriesoftortureandslaughter.5
ThisfigureisplacedattheveryendofPeter’streatise,itsfinalstatement.Peter
contrasts the monk’s solitary inquiry after truth through prayer to the academic
inquiry undertaken in cities by crowds of students and masters. He intended his
rationally scandalous image as a vigorous rebuke to that particular intellectual
scene.ForjustasPaul,inCorinthians,addressedgroupshostiletoanddismissive
of the‘‘irrationality’’ ofChristianity, soin thistreatise Peterof Celle analyzesthe
fundamentalmonastictaskofknowingselfandGodthroughthecraftoflectiodivina,
in response to a hostile new milieu (as he saw it) of Aristotelian-based scholastic
rationalargument.Theclaimhemakesforlinkingup‘‘affliction’’andreading,in
2 R
otherwords,isnotonlyatherapeuticbutanepistemologicalone,havingtodowith
thepursuit oftruth. ForPeter, readingisan actnot somuch ofsoul-therapy asof
rationalinquiryandmakingnewknowledge.ThevisceralenergyinPeter’smeta-
phorshouldbeconsideredanecessarypartofthisinvestigativeactivity.
Peter of Celle was part of an extended circle of French and English officials
includingThomasBecket,andwasnotablyagoodfriendofbothJohnandRichard
ofSalisbury(JohndedicatedhisPolycraticustoPeter).FromanoblefamilyofCham-
pagne,by1148hehadbecomeabbotofthenorthernFrenchmonasteryofMontier-
la-Celle, home to Robert of Molesmes, the founder of Cˆıteaux. He corresponded
extensively—withPetertheVenerableandHughofCluny,withtheCisterciansof
Clairvaux, withthe Carthusians ofMont-Dieu, withThomas Becket. In1162 he
becameabbotofSt.Re´miatReims,andayearlaterwashostto JohnofSalisbury
during his French exile, as he was also to John’s brother, Richard. Like so many
greattwelfth-centuryabbots,hewasengagedintheissuesofhisday,includingits
intellectual debates. In De afflictione et lectione, he clearly joins his voice to that of
John of Salisbury in Metalogicon, defending the centrality of the trivium from the
attacks of that ‘‘Cornificius’’ who would demean it.6 Drawing on the traditional
monasticcontrastofnoiseandsilence,crowdsanddesert,Peterwrites:
ToinquireafteroneselfinGodandGodinoneself[seinDeumetDeuminsequaerere]isindeed
theonegreatquestion,butitisnotinsolubleifthesearchisunendingandzealous.Actually,
another [inquiry] precedes [it], to seek oneself in oneself [se in se quaerere], [which far-
reachinginquiryusesthedisputationofsolitudeandisopenedupthroughmasteryofthe
fleshasastoolforitsfeet,whilethisfirstinquiryisnotyetfullysolved].Thisinquiryisrarely
undertakenbyacademicsintheschoolsofcitiesandtowns.Sinceitishardlyeverurged
there,itisevenmorerarelycompleted.Iwouldnot[banishtheirmethodentirelyfromour
cloisters]butthey[pay]less[attentionto]thisonequestion,whentheyareinvolvedinas
manyunnecessaryasnecessaryquestions,andacrowdofpeopleforcefullyurgessuperficial
andjabberingdisputantstosolvequestionswhichhavebeenraised.Bycontrast,oursolitary
inquirygoesbetterinsilenceandismoreperfectlystudiedinsolitude.Itisamatterofthe
heart,notthelips.7
Setting his program of reading in direct opposition to the viva voce lecture of
theuniversity,andhismethodoftextualstudy—sacrapagina—directlyagainstthe
emergentmethodofacademiccommentaryanddebate,Petermakesaveryconsid-
erableclaiminthispassage.Hespeaksinthevocabularyoflogic,ofaquaestiopraeli-
bata that can be soluta or not, and of solitudinis disputatio, borrowing the very lan-
guage of the schools in order to claim the superiority for rational inquiry of the
disciplines of sacra pagina: silence, meditation, and prayer. The main story of this
intellectualstruggleinthemid-twelfthcenturybetweentherivalclaimsofuniver-
sity and monastery to be the proper matrix of knowledge is well known.8 But it
should be stressed that it was a struggle over the nature of inquisitive procedure
andnotasimpleface-offbetweenfaithandreason(asitisstilloftencharacterized)
or (worse anachronism) some prototype of that between religion and science. At
OnAfflictionandReading,WeepingandArgument 3
stake at this point in time was not the object of knowledge per se, for Peter makes
thatclearinthepassageIjustquoted:bothmonasteryanduniversityareengaged
in the same quest, of finding God in self and self in God. It is rather the method
andprocessoftheinvestigationitselfthatisPeter’sconcern.AndstrikinginPeter’s
analysisishisstressontheessentialcarnalityofthemonasticmethod:carnisedomatio
reserata,areadingmethodmadeaccessiblethroughthetamingandtrainingofthe
flesh.Incontrast,Petercharacterizesthenewuniversityacademy,notasoverlyra-
tional,butaswoollyminded,tootheoreticalandinsufficientlyconcernedwiththe
realquestions,anivorytowerremovedfromsubstantivelife.
Readingbeginsinthehumanbody.Thisprincipleisfundamental.Theproce-
durestartswithaffliction,thefirststageofathreefoldmethodofstudy.Itprepares
thesucceedingstages:readingscripture(‘‘onwhichthesoulgrazes,’’pascitur,likea
ruminantanimal),andthencomposingprayerofcompunctionanddesire(‘‘which
raisesthespirit toGod,’’theobject ofknowledge).Otherspiritual writerstermed
thesetwostagesmeditatioandcontemplatio.9Butthestagesforsuchintellectualactivi-
tiesaregroundedinexercisesforthebody.
By ‘‘affliction,’’ Peter means ascetic discipline—as he says ‘‘to mount a cam-
paignagainstone’swantonness,notone’snature.’’10Afflictiotakestheformofexam-
ination ofconscience, togetherwith oralconfession, floodingtears, mortification,
kneeling in continuous silence, psalmody, and lashing.11 Those familiar with the
earlymonasticdisciplinesofprayerwillrecognizethem;theygobacktotheearli-
est monks, St. Pachomius, Basil the Great, and the desert fathers. Indeed an en-
tiretheologyhadbuiltuparoundthem,thesubjectofstudiesbyIre´ne´eHausherr,
Paul Rabbow, Pierre Hadot, BenedictaWard, and Elizabeth Clark, among many
others.12
I want to consider here a small aspect of this huge subject, namely, what was
the relationshipthought to bebetween these exercisesof the souland the activity
of reading. Peter of Celle refers to them as matters ‘‘to be paid attention to in a
methodical manner,’’ like the ‘‘method’’ claimed by university disputation. The
afflictionsofspiritualexercisearedesignedtotuneupandtuneinthereader,rather
inthemannerofafineinstrument.By‘‘attending’’onealsobecame‘‘intent’’(‘‘at-
tentive’’)and‘‘intended,’’directedandstretched,hammeredintoshape,asitwere,
by vigorous blows (the root meaning of Latin afflictio). The prereading exercises
are designed both to require ‘‘attention’’ and to ‘‘intend’’ someone toward their
reading.
Intention is a complex concept in medieval aesthetic experience.13 Since all
memories—thatisallthingslearnedandexperienced—aretypesofphysicalaffect
or passion, resulting from some change or movement in the body (including the
change resulting from any sensory perception), every memory consists of two as-
pects,a‘‘likeness’’(similitudo)andan‘‘intent’’(intentio),aparticularperspectiveor
resonance.ThisisbasicAristotelianandalsoStoicanalysis:onefindssimilarteach-
4 R
inginCicero’sTusculan Disputations.Thusthereisnosuchthingastrulydisinter-
estedreadingorlearning,sinceonlywhatisrememberedcanbesaidtohavebeen
learned,alllearnedmattershavesome‘‘intention’’builtintothewaytheyareper-
ceivedandrecollected.
Unlike‘‘likeness,’’towhichvariouscategoriesof trueandfalsecanmeaning-
fullybe applied,intention isa matterof perceptionand pointof view.Because of
this, it is malleable and pliant, and ‘‘arbitrary’’ in the root sense of that word. In
theTusculanDisputations,CicerosometimesusedthewordintentioalmostasEnglish
uses the word ‘‘resonance.’’ Indeed the root meaning of intendo is ‘‘tighten, make
tense’’astighteningthevoiceorthestringsofaninstrumentmakesitresonatein
thefirstplaceandalsocausesdifferentresonancesasthetensionchanges.Speaking
ofthePeripateticGreekphilosopher,AristoxenusofTarentum,Cicerosaysinhis
favorthathewas‘‘ateacherofmusic[musicus]aswellasphilosophy,whoheldthe
soul to be a sort of tuning of the body [corporis intentionem quandam], analogous to
thatwhichiscalledharmonyinepicandlyricpoetry;answeringtothenatureand
confirmation ofthe whole body,vibrations of differentkinds are producedjust as
soundsareindeclamationandsong[tanquamincantusonos].’’14InDeoratoreCicero
describes how every human emotion has its own expression, sound, and gesture,
and‘‘thewholeframeofaman,andhiswholecountenance,andthevariationsof
his voice, resonate like strings in a musical instrument, just as they are moved by
theaffectionsofthemind.Forthetonesofthevoice,like[strings],aresotightened
[intentae] as to be responsive to every touch.’’15 The original Greek word used by
Aristoxenuswasto´nos,whichCicerotranslatedwithLatinintentio.Theymayormay
notberelatedinfact,theimportantmatterinthiscontextisthatCiceroevidently
thoughttheywere.Intention isthusamatteroftone,oftension,andofresonance.16
Theconcept isapparentaswell inoneof thestandarddefinitions ofacedia (sloth)
indesertwritings,foracediaisa´toniapsuch´es,anegative,destructivelyunnaturalstate
inasoulthathaslostitscreativetone.17
Withthisbackground,Iwanttocallattentiontooneexerciseinparticularthat
PeterofCellecounselsamongthewaysormodes(modi)ofaffliction—namely,what
hecallssilentiitenor,‘‘keepingsilence.’’TenorisfromtheLatinverbteneo,‘‘tohold.’’18
Tenor is also a concept in late antique rhetoric, referring to the overall movement
or course ‘‘held to’’ in a work, as it still is in the English phrase—‘‘the tenor of a
speech.’’ As such, tenor is subject to various colorations (colores) and permutations
(modi),bothcolorandmodusbeingtermsusedbysomelateantiquerhetoriciansfor
thestylisticvariationsbymeansoftropesandfigures,measuresandtones,thatone
encountersinanycompetentwork.19SowhenPeterofCellesaysthattheexercise
modes(modi)of‘‘bodilyaffliction’’includetenorsilentiiheisreferringtoanunderly-
ingattitude,anintention—physicalandmental—ofareaderpreparingtoexperi-
enceawork,anattitudeofstrain,oftensionandanxiety.Forlectiodivina,thisatti-
tude is colored by two emotions in particular: grief and fear, the elements of
OnAfflictionandReading,WeepingandArgument 5
compunction. Peter’s references to ‘‘flooding tears’’ and ‘‘mortification’’ indicate
this, and the process is well known from many monastic writings from earliest
times.20
Thecarefulself-preparationformeditationislikethatofamasterartistabout
tomakeanewworkashereadieshimselfinhiscell(apun,referringtothe‘‘little
rooms’’bothinmonasticarchitectureandinthebrain).Theexperienceofreading
itselfis,asPeterdescribesit,intenselyemotional:
[T]ravelbyyourreadingallthewaytoparadiseandsighoverwhatwaslost[suspiraperdi-
tum]....Drinkfromthefourrivers....Bewaretheserpent’ssuggestion....WalkwithGod
asEnochdid....EntertheArkatthetimeofthefloodwhenGodisangrywithyou,stay
hopefulintheshadowofGod’swings....Inthismanner[modus,again]runthroughthe
contentsof[Genesis]withadeliberatebutlightstep...interpretingthedifficultandob-
scure,retainingandrememberingthosematterswhichareclear....ThencometoExodus
andbesaddenedbytheentryintoEgypt.21
ThereisagooddealmoreofthisinPeter’streatise.Infactthedisciplineofread-
ing is particularly marked by the deliberate self-invocation of often contradictory
feelings.This isessential toreading’s wholesomenessand intellecualpower. Peter
writes:
According to the inclinations of various feelings [appetitum ... diuersarum affectionum] one
shouldreadnowthingsoldthennew,nowdifficultthenplain,nowsubtlethensimple...
now serious then lighthearted [iocosa]. If the soul is encompassed with such harmonious
variety,itwillshuntediumandacquireitsremedy.22
ThevarietycounseledbyPeterisnotsubtle.Scripturalreading,byhisanalysis,
operatesbystrongantitheses.Andthischaracteristic,itseemstome,revealsafun-
damentalaestheticprincipleforthismeditativereading.Itisbaseduponthephilo-
sophicalconceptofharmonia,theresonanttensionofhumorsinthebody,avariety
ofqualitiesconcording(fromconcurso,‘‘runtogether’’)withoutlosingtheirdistinc-
tive attributes.23 Like many writers on the subject before him, going well back in
antiquity,Peterinvokesamedicalmodeltoexplaintheeffectsofreading.Thusone
should‘‘searchinreading’sgarden[inhortolectionis]foreffectiveherbs,’’medicines
againstthepoisonsoftemptation.24Abitlateronhespeaksofthemeditatingmonk
as‘‘concoctingthebest[ofherbalcordials]’’inhiscell.25
I have claimed, though, that Peter’s goal is not to defend reading as therapy.
Andwemisunderstandthemedicalmetaphorifwethinkofitsolelytherapeutically,
forthe‘‘medicine’’ofreadingdoesmorethanheal:itbringsknowledgeofselfand
ofGod,asPetersays.Lectiodivinaisconceivedtobearationalactivity.Inthisratio-
nalactivity,bothpassions(passiones,path´e)anddesires(appetita)areessentialcompo-
nents. Monastic practice has been so often characterized as ‘‘irrational,’’ since it
involvesemotion.Buttheadditionofemotiontorationalactivitydoesnotmakeit
thereforeirrational. Itmakes itaesthetic,fully rationalbut, ashumanreason was
understoodtobe,boundwithinsensoryexperience.26Readingandmeditationfor
6 R
PeterofCelleareimportantlymattersof‘‘sense,’’asintheOldFrenchwordsens,
requiringbothfeelingandunderstanding.Amongthemonks,aestheticexperience
isconceivedtobeanessentialcognitiveexperience,anecessaryaspectofthepro-
cessofhumanunderstanding.
Thisaestheticmethodofreading,particularlyasitcallsforantitheticalswings
of contradictory experiences, was rooted in the notion of the natural ‘‘qualities’’
(hot,cold,wet,dry)andthewaystheyharmonizeoneanother’seffects.Themedical
practice derived from this theory was based upon managing the tension between
contraries.ThemainteachersoftheversionsthatcomeintotheMiddleAgesare
the Stoics and also, importantly, Galen, who wrote on the passions as well as on
manyothertopicsinmedicine(andGalendidseethepassionsasamedicaltopic).27
Itis,Ithink,amainlyStoicmodelofhumoraltheorythatonecanperceiveinthe
linkageofbodilyafflictionwithmeditation,butitsinfluenceonatwelfth-century
figure like Peter would not have been direct. Rather it would have come through
themeditativepraxisestablishedinearliestmonasticism,specificallythatofthein-
junctionthatmonksmustweepwithoutceasing.
Inthewritingsofthedesertfathersmuchattentionisgiventothegiftof‘‘flood-
ing tears,’’ Peter’s lacrymarum effusio.28 It is of great interest that the effect of such
tears is discussed often in terms of a physiology based on medical qualities. The
work I will cite is mostly of the fourth and early fifth centuries, the formational
periodofmedievalmonasticpraxis,butthecarefulattentionpaidinthesewritings
tothematterofestablishingaproductive,aestheticallyconditionedintentiontoward
readingcarriesthroughtherestoftheMiddleAges,largelyinthesameterms.
Tearsaremoistandhot.Rationalargumentiscoldanddry.Tears’effectupon
abarrensoulislife-giving.Boredom,indifference,tedium—thecold,dryeffectsof
acedia—are remedied by weeping. This physiological, humoral analysis can be
foundveryearly:thusSt.Irenaeus(secondcentury)consideredthatonemustkeep
‘‘a heart that is soft and pliable ... lest being hardened you lose the impressions
of [the creator’s] fingers.’’29 Two centuries later, Evagrius of Pontus attributes the
inabilitytoweeptohardnessofsoul.30‘‘Tearsarelikebloodinthewoundsofthe
soul,’’ says Gregory of Nyssa; hot, moist, and restorative of deadened, scarred
flesh.31
Laughter and harsh criticism (parrh´esia) are condemned by these ascetics be-
causetheattitudetheycanrequireishardandcold.32Bothphenomenawerecon-
sideredambiguous.‘‘Speakingfreely’’—parrh´esia—canbeavirtuebutitcanalso
beafault.St.Barsanuphius(d.ca.540),animportantfigureindesertmonasticism,
distinguishedtwokindsofparrh´esia,thatfromimpudence(anaideia´s)andthatfrom
gaiety(hilaro´tes).Laughteristheouterexpressionofboth.But,sincetheambiguity
oflaughtermakesiteasilymisunderstood,Barsanuphiuscomments,itisbestfora
monk to avoid it altogether. But, his disciple persists, there is a kind of ‘‘proper
gaiety’’(pr´epousa hilaro´tes)—whataboutthat?Amonkshouldbemasterenoughof
hiscraftsothathecandisplayapleasingcountenanceandpleasantdemeanor,all
OnAfflictionandReading,WeepingandArgument 7
thewhileheisgroaninginwardly,asamonkshould.33Spiritualdryness(acedia)is
thegreatenemyofmonasticdiscipline,andtearsmustconstantlywaterthemonk’s
thoughtstopreventit.
Thetearscanbenotonlyspontaneousbutalsotheresultofwilledmentalexer-
cise.Theyarenecessaryfortheintellectual methodofmeditation.Evagriuswritesof
ascesisandmeditationtogetherwhenhediscussesthemethodofprayer:‘‘Thegoal
of the ascetic life is charity; the goal of contemplative knowledge is theology.’’34
Tearsstartoffthewholeprocedure:‘‘Prayfirstforthegiftoftearssothatbymeans
of sorrow you may soften your native rudeness.’’35 Ascetic exercises are designed,
among other things, to bring tears—compunction and tears. And what of those
occasionswhentearswillnotcome?St.Nilus,inalettertothedeaconAgapetus,
suggeststhefollowingexercise:
Whatmustonedowhodesirestears?Dothis:Imagineyoursoulweepingasitkeepsvigil,
as you have often seen it weeping in a dream. Weep and shed tears before God in your
intention.... I know some who did not stop there, but by dint of faith and prayer they
changedtherockoftheirsoulintoastreamofwater...theyhavecausedfloodsoftearsto
springupfromwithin,througheyesofstone.36
Evagriuscounsels:‘‘Atthebeginningofprayer,forceyourselftotearsandcompunc-
tion,sothatyourprayermaybecomefruitful.’’37In JohnCassian’sninthConfer-
enceonprayerthepupil,Germanus,complainstoAbbaIsaacthathecannotweep
at will. He has tried the exercises: ‘‘I have spent all my efforts on this. I recall to
mindallmymistakesandallmysins,andstillIcannotrecovertherichabundance
oftears.Myeyesstaydry,likethehardeststone.’’38Heiscounseledtosqueezeany
tearsoutofhisdryeyesandhardenedheart,foreventhosecanhaveeffect.Notice
thehumoraladjectivesused:dryandhard(cold).
Inasceticwriting,tearsarenotnecessarilyexpressionsofsadness,norindeed
of any particular emotion. Sadness, tristitia, is one of the eight sins of the desert,
alongwithacedia.Tearscanaccompanyanynumberofdifferentemotionalstates,
including joy—hence the monk can look happy yet inwardly groan, or weep but
beinwardlyjoyful.Tearsareproducedbythedeliberateexerciseofcompunction,
which calls upon different emotions, from fear to grief to joy.39 This is one of the
aspectsoftheexerciseofcompunctionthatmodernsfindmostalien.ButGregory
of Nyssa, recounting the physiology of tears, is at pains to say that tears are not
produced by the heart, the seat of emotion, but rather by a purely physiological
processthatisindependentoftheheartitself.Awrenchingcontractionofthestom-
achcausestheopeningsoftheabdomentoclose,therebycompressingtheinterior
organs, particularly the lungs and respiratory tract and the vas bilis or bile duct.
Moistureisthuspushedoutandupandintotheheadandaccumulatesinthebrain’s
cavities.Thenductsatthebaseofthebraindrainintotheeyes,and,pushedoutby
the eyelids, themoisture falls as dropsof tears.40 Gregory was,as Hausherr notes
ofthispassage,agooddiscipleoflateclassicalmedicine.41Thisdoctrinecontinued
8 R
tobeknowninmedievalmedicalteaching;thecollectionsofmedicallore,taught
inthetwelfthcenturyandlateratParisandelsewhere,givesimilaraccountsofthe
genesisandeffectoftears.42
Tearsarephysiologicalaffectswhicharenot,inthispsychology,identifiedwith
anyspecificemotionorinwardstate.Oneresultofthismedicalanalysisofthephe-
nomenon of tears is to make them ambiguous as symptoms, for one can assume
tears for bad as well as good purposes. Like so much else in medieval ethical
thought,tears,asbodilyaffects,canoccurbothin bono et in malo,forgoodandill.
The debate between Evagrius and Cassian over the efficacy of feigned tears as a
meansforsofteningahearthardenedintediumreflectsthisfundamentalambigu-
ity. For it is not the tears themselves that are good or ill, but the actions that, like
other emetics and purgatives, they may enable. Tears are a ‘‘sign’’ of emotions
rather in the way that a successful enema is a ‘‘sign’’ of returning health—as an
agentorinstrumentratherthanasymptomorrepresentation—andtheirproduct
mustbecarefullyexamined.
Inthetwelfth-centurytreatiseonprayergesturesandproceduresbyPeterthe
Chanter,availableinatranslationbyRichardTrexlercalledTheChristianatPrayer,
apostureofprostrationisdescribed(identifiedastheseventhmodeinthistreatise)
in which the individual is bent all the way over, with the knees and feet touching
thefloormore camelorum,‘‘inthemannerofcamels.’’43Theelbowsalsoareonthe
floor,butnottheface,sothattheindividualputsfullweightonthekneesandthe
elbows. This posture was regarded as especially difficult; Peter the Chanter says
thereisnobiblicalauthorityforthisposition,butthatitwasaposturepracticedby
GregorytheGreat’saunt,andonthatauthorityPeteradmitsittohistreatise.This
posture places great strain on the lungs and the stomach, similar to the gut-
wrenching that produces tears. The other more common posture of prostration,
lyingfullyproneonthestomachandchest,facedownonthepavement,alsoputs
greatstrainonthestomachandlungs,squeezingthemandthussqueezingouteven
moreliquidastears.Peteremphasizeshowtheseposturesareespeciallyproductive
oftears,quotingBenedict’scommentthateffectiveprayeriswhen‘‘weknowour-
selvestobeheardnotinmanywordsbutinpurityandcompunctionanddevotion
ofheartandinaneffusionoftears.’’44Andhefurthercounselsthatprostratepos-
turesaretobeperformedasoneentersachurch,murmuringruminativelyinmedi-
tationandweeping.Cleansed bytearsonecanthenworthily enterthesanctuary.
Galendescribedthestrongestversioninantiquityoftheideathatthebodyand
mindareinseparable.Heheld,asRichardSorabjihaswritten,‘‘aphysicalistview
not only of the soul’s capacities, but also of the soul itself.’’45 Galen believed that
even rational capacities are based in the physical condition of the body, and that
bodilyhealthdirectlyaffectsmentalcapacities.‘‘Let[people]cometometolearn
whattheyshouldeatandwhatdrink.Fortheywillbegreatlyhelpedtowardsethics
andinadditiontheywillprogresstowardsexcellenceinthecapacitiesoftheratio-
nalpart[ofthesoul],byimprovingtheirintelligenceandmemory.’’46
OnAfflictionandReading,WeepingandArgument 9
Inmedievalmedicaltexts,thepromisemadebyGalenthateatinganddrinking
aright can improve rational faculties like intellect and memory is maintained.
HerballorefromDioscorides’Materiamedicaandothersourcestaughtthatvarious
herbsweregoodforthememory,includinglilyofthevalley,thistle,sage,andespe-
ciallybugloss—allherbsthatarehotanddry,presumablytocounteracttheeffect
of the brain (moist and cold) on the memory. But too much hot and dry are also
bad:strongwine,garlic,andonionsshouldbeavoided(indeed,itisawonderthat
GeoffreyChaucer’s Summoner,whoconsumesall thesethings,hasany mindleft
atall).47Washingtheheadandsoakingthefeetinabathofhoney,camomile,and
laurelisrecommendedbytheCatalanphysician,ArnaldusdeVillanova(d.1311).
Infifteenth-centurytextsontheartofmemory,composedforgeneralaudiences,a
section on medical remedies for improving and maintaining mnemonic health is
oftenincluded,evenwhenthememoryartisdiscussedaspartofanartofrhetoric,
tousanentirelyinappropriatecontext.48
Oftenacloseconnectionismadebetweenthestateofthestomachandthatof
memory.Thefifteenth-centuryItalianphysician,MattheolusofPerugia,saysthat
thefirstruleforregulatingandimprovingmemoryisthatthebodybekeptclean
ofallexcesses,towhichendthestomachshouldbepurgeddaily,andifnotbynature
thenartificially,withanemetic.49Thecommonmetaphorinmonasticmeditation,
of ruminating on reading and eating the book here finds its literal expression.50
Thegeneraltheoryofharmoniapresentedaperennialmodelforhumanbiology
inancientphilosophy:PlatoandAristotlebothdiscussit,andeachsoughttocriti-
cizeandmodifyitinvaryingdegrees.Forexample,inthesecondbookofhisRheto-
ric,Aristotleincludedananatomyoftheemotions,discussedintermsofcontrasting
pairs. It is the task of the orator, persuading the audience through their constant
interplay with speech and speaker, to raise and allay these emotions, balancing
angerwithcalm,pitywithjoy,inthemannerofaphysiciantreatingahumanbody.
Inantiquitygenuinepersuasionwasareasonedaction,andAristotleandhisheirs
respected emotion allied to reason because its effects, grounded in the humors of
thebody,arecognitive,evenepistemologicalintheircharacter.
There is, not surprisingly, a strong prejudice among the early monks against
intellectualism,theformalmethodsoftheologicalandphilosophicaldebate,asbe-
ingtoohardandtoocold,distortedbydispassiontothepointofacedia,adryness
ofsoul.Clearly,thedistrustthatPeterofCelleandothermonksofhisgeneration
feltforthefashionablephenomenonofuniversitydisputationisbasedinthisascetic
tradition. Indeed, weeping accompanies the invention of rational argument to a
surprising degree among medieval thinkers. For example, St. Anselm of Canter-
burydescribeshowhecametocomposehisProslogion,theworkinwhichhefound
hisproofoftheexistenceofGod.
Anselmemphasizeshisanxietyandtroubledcareduringthetimehewastrying
tofigureouthisargument.Hefeltill,hecouldnotsleep,hecouldnotconcentrate.
10 R