Sign, Sentence, Discourse: Language in Medieval Thought and Literature ed. by Julian N. Wasserman, Lois Roney

Abstract

REVIEWS Diu Crone because a very few pages could place virtually the whole of the scholarship at the hands of the reader, and just a couple of pages the works in English. In his introduction Thomas draws attention totextualcorruption, errors, omissions, and finally the fact that his translation "deviates where Scholl's edition makeslittle or no sense" (pp. xxiv). I should very much like to know where such deviations occur and see what Scholl's edition actually said, but the translation provides only a scant handful of references of any kind, and these are virtually invisible. The only references to the original language also appear in these notes-and I could find only five (e.g., on p. 223: "Its shoulders were severely damaged by mang[?] and gespranc[?]"). Thus the only citations of the original are individual words that Thomas was unable to translate. His earlier books are much more generous with samples of the originals. Here the helps are limited to a brief, documented introduction, line numbers in brackets, division into individual episodes, and less justi­ fied division of the whole work into two books. There are no glossaries of names or terms to provide mooring for the general reader. And obviously Thomas had the necessary materials at hand to do much more. In the end, the impression one receives is that Thomas had attempted to produce a translation to suit the needs of both the scholar and the general reader, but one may justly ask what sort of general reader is ever likely to encounter Diu Crone. The result is a volume that is largely designed for an audience that is probably not there and will prove frustrating to the scholarly one that acrually is. For giving us the book as it stands, Thomas still deserves our appreciation, but with only a little more effort he could have provided us with a volume far more useful. JERRY L. BALL Arkansas State University JULIANN. WASSERMAN and LOIS RONEY, eds. Sign, Sentence, Discourse: Language in Medieval Thought and Literature. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syr­ acuse University Press, 1989. Pp. xxi, 318. $39.95. Since the early 1980s medieval studies have witnessed the emergence of a new kind of critic.No longer satisfied with the univocal and unequivocal readings of medieval texts as were their historical-critical, formalist, and 253 STUDIES IN THE AGE OF CHAUCER exegetical predecessors, these critics comment on the multidimensional readings present to medieval and modern readers of these texts. Sign, Sentence, Discourse: Language in Medieval Thought and Literature, a collection of fourteen essays grouped under seven classifications, has as its goal the analysis of canonical and noncanonical authors and texts focusing particularly on the self-conscious preoccupation with language as theme and vehicle. While space does not permit detailed summary and review of this challenging collection, we can discuss the implications of each of the major sections of the book. With the exception of a few essays that show mild deconstruction, the major critical strategydisplayed in varying forms of sophistication is semiotics. Part 1, "Of Figs and Figura: The Search for Origin Through the Breaking Up of the Word," contains essays by R. A. Shoaf and Glenn C. Arbery. Both criticsintroducethekeyissuesfoundthroughoutthecollection. Shoaf finds parallels between Heidegger's search for the "relation of all relations" (p. 10) and the medieval quest for meaning through language. Implicit in this metaphysical quest for meaning is a "breaking up" (p. 12) of the word or text,which reveals a simultaneous emptiness and fullness. The intention of the essay thatanalyzesDante's "Epistle to Can Grande," several tales of The Canterbury Tales, severaltextsby Augustine, and Le Roman de la Rose is to show the medieval imperative that reading a text is a writing of the text by the reader. Some readers may, however, question his linking the fourfold method of biblical exegesis with notions of the interpretation of secular texts. It seems hard to believe that a medieval exegete would have "filled" the text "with himself" (p. 14). Arbery through Dante's Paradiso 33 and De vulgarz· eloquentia continues the bridge between recent linguistic thought and medieval understanding. Using Derrida's notion of the anxiety associ­ ated with writing over the spoken form...