Reviewed by: The Arts of Disruption: Allegory and “Piers Plowman.” by Nicolette Zeeman Rebecca Davis Nicolette Zeeman. The Arts of Disruption: Allegory and “Piers Plowman.” Oxford Studies in Medieval Literature and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020. Pp. xiii, 432. $90.00. Nicolette Zeeman’s ambitious new book is an apt sequel to her first, “Piers Plowman” and the Medieval Discourse of Desire (Cambridge, 2006). Here again Piers Plowman is the hub of a teeming intellectual and literary history that encompasses classical rhetoric and ethical writings, Latin pastoralia, and allegorical narratives in French and English. Also like the earlier book, Zeeman’s latest study uncovers the deep structural workings of the poem through careful attention to its recurrent forms and, crucially, by placing Langland’s poetic practice in a rich context of contemporary discourses. Piers Plowman, notoriously, challenges students and scholars alike to get a sense of their footing in the poem, to determine which of the poem’s numerous speakers are trustworthy, and which are suspect. More than any other study I have read, The Arts of Disruption explains how and why [End Page 360] Langland creates these peculiarly disorienting effects, and it is sure to change future conversations about the poem. Equally important, however, is its contribution to the wider field of medieval literary studies, for here Zeeman offers a theory of allegory as a “disruptive art” whose implications are by no means limited to Piers Plowman. Against the tendency even among sophisticated readers to understand allegory as a binary set with a “controlling discourse,” she defines allegory in more capacious terms as a contingent and dynamic relation, one that, as the ensuing chapters make clear, transcends genre. For Zeeman, allegory emerges at “the confluence of any two or more relatively distinct and mutually commenting discourses, each of which nuances, refigures and redirects, but may also unpack, critique, and even contradict, the others present” (7–8). Zeeman’s chief interest is personification and the associated genres of dialogue and debate; but as the later parts of the book demonstrate, Zeeman’s supple definition of allegory as a “disruptive art” encompasses a broad range of literary activities. “Qualification and even negation must be its mode,” she writes, “because all descriptions exclude even as they include, every formulation is capable of becoming a complacency, and words always demand more words. Allegory is a response to the contingency and multi-dimensionality of being in the world” (2). Setting out to locate these hallmarks of disruptive allegory, the book traces five “conflictual structures” that are marked by “some form of diegetic tension, conflict, or internal contradiction” (1). These five structures are found throughout the broader medieval allegorical tradition as well as in Piers Plowman. Intricately organized, the book is divided into five two-chapter parts that correspond to the five allegorical structures. The first three parts begin with a chapter devoted to the allegorical tradition and then, in a paired chapter, trace its presence in Piers Plowman. In the last two parts, Zeeman discusses Piers Plowman in each chapter, interweaving discussion of the poem with discussion of the larger allegorical tradition. In Part 1, Zeeman introduces the trope of paradiastole, a rhetorical technique in which vices are “redescribed” as virtues, and vice versa. Paradiastole developed in classical legal settings, and is known to have resur-faced in early modern rhetoric, but Zeeman presents ample evidence for its continued use in medieval allegory and pastoral and devotional writing: “What had originally been primarily a Classical rhetorical technique . . . became in the Middle Ages part of a wide-ranging body of psychological [End Page 361] and ethical thought about the subtler manifestations of hypocrisy and self-deception” (38). Chapter 1, “The Hypocritical Figure,” identifies a particular type of allegorical personification that arises from the practice of paradiastole. “The hypocritical figure,” Zeeman writes, “is marked by various forms of tension, discrepancy, or slippage so as to reveal hidden corruption, but also other more insidious problems of decline, formalism, or complacency” (3). The chapter ranges widely, tracing paradiastole from Latin pastoral and devotional texts such as Gregory the Great’s Regula pastoralis, to narrative allegory, from Prudentius’s Psychomachia, to Guillaume de Deguileville’s Pelerinage...
Read full abstract