: The Juggler of otre Dé and the Medi yp of rae be) Ln, nhy OL Fixe we THE JUGGLER OF NOTRE DAME VOLUME 1 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity Vol. 1: The Middle Ages Jan M. Ziolkowski OpenBook Pe ulcers https://www.openbookpublishers.com (cmcom The text of this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0). This license allows you to share, copy, distribute and transmit the text; to adapt the text and to make commercial use of the text providing attribution is made to the author(s), but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work. Attribution should include the following information: © 2018 Jan M. Ziolkowski Jan M. Ziolkowski, The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity. Volume. 1: The Middle Ages. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers, 2018, https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0132 Copyright and permissions for the reuse of many of the images included in this publication differ from the above. Copyright and permissions information for images is provided separately in the List of Illustrations. Every effort has been made to identify and contact copyright holders and any omission or error will be corrected if notification is made to the publisher. Further details about CC BY licenses are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ All external links were active at the time of publication unless otherwise stated and have been archived via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine at https://archive.org/web Digital material and resources associated with this volume are available at https://www.openbookpublishers. com/product/697#resources ISBN Paperback: 978-1-78374-433-6 ISBN Hardback: 978-1-78374-434-3 ISBN Digital (PDF): 978-1-78374-435-0 ISBN Digital ebook (epub): 978-1-78374-436-7 ISBN Digital ebook (mobi): 978-1-78374-437-4 DOI: 10.11647/OBP.0132 Cover image: The jongleur before the Virgin and Child. Miniature, thirteenth century. Paris, Bibliotheque nationale de France, MS Arsenal 3516, fol. 127r. Image courtesy of Bibliotheque nationale de France, Paris. All rights reserved. Cover design: Anna Gatti. All paper used by Open Book Publishers is SFI (Sustainable Forestry Initiative), PEFC (Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes) and Forest Stewardship Council(r)(FSC(r) certified. Printed in the United Kingdom, United States, and Australia by Lightning Source for Open Book Publishers (Cambridge, UK) Contents Note to the Reader 3 Preface 5 Overture 5 The Story of a Story 6 From Our Lady’s Tumbler to The Jongleur of Notre Dame 9 1. The Medieval Beginnings of Our Lady’s Tumbler 17 The French Poem 17 The Manuscripts 22 Gautier de Coinci and Anonymity 25 Picardy 33 The Identity of the Poet 34 The Bas-de-Page Miniature: Of Marginal Interest 38 The Genre: Long Story Short 54 The Table of Exempla, in Alphabetical Order 57 The Latin Exemplum 59 The Life of the Fathers 63 True Story: Why the Story Succeeded 69 2. Dancing for God 73 The Tumbler 73 Notre Dame versus Saint Mary 75 The Equivocal Status of Jongleurs 79 Trance Dance 90 Jongleurs of God 96 Holy Fools 99 Fact or Fiction? 102 3. Cistercian Monks and Lay Brothers 117 The Order of Citeaux 117 Cistercians and the Virgin 125 Mother’s Milk 131 Mary’s Head-Coverings 133 Cistercian Lay Brothers 140 Conversion Therapy 146 The Language of Silence 149 Gym Clothes 153 Sweat Cloth 158 The Weighing of Souls 162 The Latin-Less Lay Brother and Our Lady 166 4. Reformation Endings: A Temporary Vanishing Act 171 What Makes a Story Popular? 171 Walsingham, England’s Nazareth 177 Madonnas of the World Wars 186 Literary Iconoclasm 192 Marian Apparitions 196 5. A Troupe of Sources and Analogues 203 King David’s Dancing 204 The Widow’s Mites 210 The Virgin’s Miraculous Images and Apparitions 216 The Jongleur of Rocamadour 218 The Holy Candle of Arras 225 The Pious Sweat of Monks and Lay Brothers 232 The Love of Statuesque Beauty 235 The Holy Face of Christ and Virgin Saints 237 Notes 247 Notes to Preface 247 Notes to Chapter 1 249 Notes to Chapter 2 Notes to Chapter 3 Notes to Chapter 4 Notes to Chapter 5 Bibliography Abbreviations Referenced Works List of Illustrations Index 267 288 305 315 335 335 335 377 387 To Michel Zink Art and beauty and poetry are a portion of our mediaeval heritage. Our contribution to the knowledge of those times must be scholarly, first of all, but scholarship must be arrayed, as far as possible, in a pleasing form. —E. K. Rand Mary Garden as Jean the juggler in Jules Massenet’s Le jongleur de Notre Dame. Photograph by Aimé Dupont, 1909. Note to the Reader This volume is the first of a half dozen. Together, the six form The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity. The book as a whole probes one medieval story, its reception in culture from the Franco-Prussian War until today, and the placement of that reception within medieval revivalism as a larger cultural phenomenon. The study has been designed to proceed largely in chronological order, but the progression across the centuries and decades is relieved by thematic chapters that deal with topics not restricted to any single time period. This installment, entitled “The Middle Ages,” deals with the story in its medieval forms, with the nature of chief character as a dancer and lay brother, with the circumstances relating to the Reformation and Counter-Reformation that explain the disappearance of the narrative in the early modern period, and with possible sources and analogues, from the Bible on through saints’ lives. The second in the series, called “Medieval Meets Medievalism,” examines the reemergence of the narrative after its edition in 1873, its translation into English, and its recasting as a short story by Anatole France. Later volumes trace the story of the story down to the present day. The chapters are followed by endnotes. Rather than being numbered, these notes are keyed to words and phrases in the text that are presented in a different color. After the endnotes come the bibliography and illustration credits. In each volume-by- volume index, the names of most people have lifespans, regnal dates, or at least death dates. Significant topics and concepts are also indexed. One comment on the title of the story is in order. In proper French, Notre-Dame has a hyphen when the phrase refers to a building, institution, or place. Notre Dame, without the mark, refers to the woman, the mother of Jesus. In my own prose, the title is given in the form Le jongleur de Notre Dame, but the last two words will be found hyphenated in quotations and bibliographic citations if the original is so punctuated. All translations are mine, unless otherwise specified. Pretace Overture If no one can walk backward into the future, can anyone walk forward into the past? Over the last half decade, an unattributed joke in French has made the rounds of the highways and byways on the internet. In it, two musicians, one Corsican and the other Breton, chat together in a club for violinists. Both instrumentalists pride themselves on their talents. The performer from the Mediterranean island brags, “Last week I played a concerto in the cathedral of Ajaccio, in front of six thousand spectators. You won't believe me, but I acquitted myself so well on my instrument that I moved the statue of the Holy Virgin to bawl her eyes out.” The entertainer from Brittany shakes his head and replies, “As for me, yesterday I played at the cathedral of Brest before an audience of more than ten thousand people. You won’t believe me, but at one point I saw Jesus detach himself from the cross and come to me. I stopped playing. In the dead silence, he said to me, ‘My son, I hope you know the music well.’ Surprised, I responded, ‘Lord, I know the score. Why do you say that to me?’ He answered, ‘Because last week at the cathedral of Ajaccio, a pompous little Corsican played so badly that he caused my mother to wail.” Jests of this sort may circulate hither and yon for a while, then die out for a bit, only to return from the jocular grave to joyous rebirth and regrowth. Yet few ever prove themselves ready for the big time. Achieving broad visibility and long durability nowadays requires the narrative to be infiltrated somehow into a mass-media blockbuster of one kind or another, such as a chart-topping film or novel. Otherwise the tale will not make much headway when the tempo of life is frenetic and airtime is packed. For all the tenuousness of its current existence, the French joke makes a suggestive point of departure for the book before you. Its basic elements so typify the Middle Ages that no one should be startled to find that it was in fact recounted in medieval © 2018 Jan M. Ziolkowski, CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0132.07 6 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 Europe and that in a zigzag it transited across the space-time continuum from then and there to become today’s worldwide meme. The story’s humor is verbal. Even so, it presumes nonverbal performances by artists before Madonnas. The crucial actions, so to speak, take place within cathedrals consecrated to the Virgin. The punchline assumes that in her maternal capacity, Mary has special leverage over her son. The dialogue between the two European musicians takes as an ontological given either that images of the Mother of God and Christ may become animate or that the real beings for whom they are stand-ins may come as visitants associated with them. More simply, statues of Mary and Jesus are brought to life or the heavenly personages depicted in them descend to earth. With luck, the amusement of the brief account intrigues and predisposes you, dear reader or listener, enough that you want to learn more about our protagonist, the juggler of Notre Dame. He too enacts his routine before a Madonna in a church—but that is only part of the story. The Story of a Story In the introduction... I would have preferred to see a short overview of the history of the motif. — Arthur Langfors This book, six volumes in all, tells the story of a story. In a sense, the prose to come resembles a megafarm of the sort that sprawls across the Great Plains of North America. Conceive a mental picture of a vast acreage devoted to monoculture. The plant under single-crop cultivation is one narrative and its reception. Then again, all the words that follow offer much more than the story of a single story. Just as musicians learn, perhaps especially in consorts, from playing and replaying the same piece, and readers refine themselves and their understanding by reading and rereading, the enrichment on offer here is enhanced —cultivated—by perusing multiple versions of the same narrative. To think of a different geography and geology, these chapters map a planetwide archipelago of translations, adaptations, and performances that is formed by the evidence for the reception of one medieval tale and its descendants. Because the tale has been retold in many ways and because it relates to a host of other tales, the account presented here is not an exercise in pure monomania on my part. In fact, it leads in enough other zigs and zags to warrant comparison with The Thousand and One Nights. It takes us into other stories and histories, first contemporary with the original one and then surrounding it down to the present day. It offers up a succession of whodunits, although the mystery is not a murder but a miracle. As we watch the wonder unfolded again and again, we can never be certain what the upshot Preface 7 will be in the final scene of each episode. Each chapter expands like the bellows of an accordion to become a different detective novel. The tale of the story is then, more accurately, the tale of the ebbing and flowing fate that befell the narrative as it was received by this and that author or artist and audience. As such, it mirrors the tale of the medieval period as it has been reconstructed by people who have come afterward. At the same time, its trajectory reflects the overall destiny of Gothic. The jongleur, our itinerant musician and juggler, flourished, at least relatively, in two texts from the Middle Ages. The first was a poem in a form of the language now called French. The second was a preaching exemplum—an edifying story—in Latin. To judge by all indications, the written expression of the story originated in France in the first half of the thirteenth century or conceivably a tad earlier. It sprang into being in roughly the same place and time as the architectural and artistic manner known as Gothic itself took shape. Both writing specimens date to the final third of the long era and grand social construct that for the sake of convenience we call the Middle Ages. Let us say that the period extends roughly from 500 to 1500. The relatively derisory evidence of textual transmission for both the French poem and the Latin prose suggests that before disappearing temporarily into the floss of a cultural cocoon, the tale lived on in these incarnations until the medieval era drew to a close. Perhaps a more apt choice of words would be chrysalis, since the hardened body of a butterfly pupa is better suited to the architecture of the great stone churches. In what has been called the Gothic survival, this construction style too persevered through the beginning of the sixteenth century, at which juncture it slipped largely out of both cultural consciousness and architectural practice. The narrative and the architecture alike succumbed to the wave of anti-Gothicism and antimedievalism that washed across Europe and its colonies in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, along with other reflexes of the Italian Renaissance. During the Reformation, the anonymous story plunged into obscurity, where it vegetated for a few successive centuries. It resurfaced or was recovered in the early 1870s. At that moment, it elicited a romantic gusto that contributed to its being remade time and time again, down to the present day, in paraphrases, literary reworkings, and operatic refashionings. Eventually it permeated many levels and genres of mass culture. Both the medieval text and some of the chief modern adaptations have been rated of the highest grade. The tale occupies a paradoxical position by being at once nowhere and everywhere, resembling the titular object in Edgar Allen Poe’s “The Purloined Letter.” In this short story from 1845, a document is plastered over by being hidden in open view. Our medieval narrative also, after having been a stock item in the storehouse of cultural literacy throughout much of the twentieth century, has now subsided from mass culture. For many reasons, a moment came, a switch was flicked. The sway of the tale had been unassailable, but suddenly language teachers and literary critics spoke of what in jurisprudence is called undue influence. More devastatingly, the 8 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 narrative dropped precipitously from popular view. In the twenty-first century, it is no longer reenacted annually on live television at Christmas as it was in the 1950s, no longer retold constantly on radio programs as it was in the 40s, and no longer promoted as a regular feature on the opera circuit as it was from 1900 through 1930. For all that, the juggler of Notre Dame seems still to be widely encountered and remembered, even if only as a warm and fuzzy memory in the minds of today’s audiences. Everyone who comes across it appears to regard it as a personal find, the narrative equivalent of an objet trouvé. It is uncamouflaged. At the same time, it is a secret weapon. Examples of its hiding in plain sight are plenty but I will limit myself to two: Five years before my godmother passed away in 2009, I mentioned to her that I was studying a medieval story and its reception since the late nineteenth century. When I told her the kernel of the narrative, she mused a moment before dropping the title of a poem by W. H. Auden. Until that point—confession time—I had not run across “The Ballad of Barnaby.” As we will see in due course, the short stanzas by the great twentieth-century poet tell the same medieval story. A little more recently, I happened to be asked about my research by the longest-serving flight attendant in the world, a favorite person of mine on my weekly commuter hop. I prattled about the narrative for a couple of minutes. At first, she smiled blankly, but within an instant her mien changed completely. She recognized the tale as one preferred by her son when she read it to him decades earlier. To this day, he recalls it fondly. In short order, we pieced together that she had known the story in a children’s book written and illustrated by Tomie dePaola. The tale under discussion here is a love story, and this book of mine is a love story about it. Not all undying love is romantic, with billing and cooing. Even less is it necessarily erotic or a prologue to sex. All the same, in our hard-core world it is almost inevitable that even a guiltless juggler should be compelled to enter a seamy space in culture not too many inches removed from jiggle-booty videos. Before this book is finished, we will see the medieval narrative as it has been manipulated by filmmakers of porn—to explain, ancient carvings of the last-mentioned sort often showed a Greek or Roman god with the ramrod of an erect penis. Wait to learn how a representation of the juggler could possibly merit comparison with such a figure. In an interview about the movie of his novella Love Story, Erich Segal demurred when the reporter compared him with the jongleur. Although the author balked at the comparison, he went on in short order to reveal that he knew the tale and that telling it gave him a leg up in negotiations about the film. In fact, the juggler of Notre Dame served him in virtually the same way as it would have done a preacher in the Middle Ages. It seems that during the planning for the filming of the smash hit Love Story, the financers from the studio had decided to save a large sum of money by lopping Preface 9 from the screenplay what has become one of its most famous moments. In this scene, the hero ice-skates at Wollman Rink in Central Park. To convince them to keep the segment, Segal had a half minute to make his pitch while climbing the stairs to their office. In those thirty seconds, he narrated the tale of the performer from the Middle Ages. Won over, they agreed to retain the episode. Thus, a pivotal scene in the film owes its presence to Segal’s invocation of the juggler’s spiritual love. Not only is this study about a story of love, it is also about a love of story. One emotion binds the protagonist of the medieval narrative to the Virgin. The affective tie is hitched by way of a Madonna in a crypt, before whom the lead character expresses his devotion by performing an acrobatic or juggling routine. This daily grind puts into action a heart-melting lyricism. His feeling is faith-based, but the humble attachment to Mary that is described in the narrative emanates from an era when religion was not as quarantined from the rest of life as many now experience it. The other love has less to do with the divine than with art itself. This consuming—and creating — passion ties to the jongleur every poet, illustrator, composer, and other creative soul who has remodeled the tale in literature, art, music, and other media. The makeover commences with the two medieval versions, resumes with the rediscovery of the story in the late nineteenth century, and stretches to the present day. Nor should researchers be omitted. From 1873 until this very moment, they have been inspirited by their own gusto for the narrative and more broadly for the Middle Ages. Propelled by that affection, they have transmitted it to the public, including fresh generations of artists, who have kept it living through rereading and creative reinterpretation. From Our Lady’s Tumbler to The Jongleur of Notre Dame The account of concern to us here has traveled under various aliases. The story is simplicity incarnate, but it also displays an astonishing plasticity. Most often, it has borne in English the titles Our Lady’s Tumbler and The Jongleur of Notre Dame. The two versions are closely related but not fungible. Many renderings of them have been deceptively simple in the number and nature of their narrative elements. The narrative can even be pruned at its barest minimum to the interior of a high-ceilinged Gothic church and a ball, by way of which the cover art to the program of an opera production summed up the whole narrative (see Fig. Pref.1 below). Not even a single human being is present. Gothic is familiar to everyone who has traveled in Europe, the Americas, and many other places around the globe that were once gripped by European imperialism or tied to its national cultures. The principal elements of the style instantiate the gist of medieval Christianity: the pointed arch conjures up a monastery, a cathedral of Notre Dame, or both. By visual metonymy, the sphere evokes the juggler himself. 10 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 LE "@ JONGLEUR 0 NOTRE-DAME : Fig. Pref.1 Christie Grimstad, Le jongleur de Notre Dame, 2009. Ink pointillism, 28 x 35.6 cm. © Ken Fish. All rights reserved. Tracing how the tale of the juggler acquired these associations has its own inherent interest. More broadly, it takes us down a path toward appreciating how the Middle Ages have been recaptured since the late nineteenth century. The medieval period as we now know it was retrieved, reinvented, and reconceived by the nineteenth century as a counterbalance to industrial society. Since then, it has been reinvoked both architecturally and literarily at times of profound soul-searching, by both individual artists and whole cultures. Everyone knows that with each passing moment we venture beyond a new point of no return and that the event horizon lies behind us. In this sense, Gothic is gone—but that does not mean dead and gone. At least half of William Faulkner’s adage holds true: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” We may now have reached once again a juncture where the Middle Ages have an especially heightened relevance or meet needs that other times will not fill. The architecture of Gothic revivals cannot be ignored. In fact, it represents an essential aspect of the overall reinvention that the medieval period has undergone recurrently. In part, the story has thrived owing to the seductiveness of the built spaces in which the imaginations of the reader have pictured it taking place. Fathoming the juggler helps us to grasp the reasons for which the construction style predominated as it did. In turn, comprehension of the buildings assists in coming to terms with the performer in the literary texts. Gothic architecture and literature are the twin terminuses of a heavily traveled two-way street. They are not in discord; we are under Preface 11 no obligation to pit them against each other in a game of rock-paper-scissors. Instead, they are constantly, ever-evolvingly interactive. In both edifices and texts, Gothic may be so often seen and so readily recognized that it needs to be defamiliarized for us to perceive it afresh. The wretched and yet transcendent jongleur himself stands beyond the intellectualism of polarities between print and oral, Reformation and medieval, and modernism and Middle Ages. He speaks to all of us who suffer the trials and tribulations of at least two anxieties. One makes us fear in the pit of our stomachs that our chosen occupation is insubstantial; the other fills us with fretfulness that our execution of it may not be even particularly authoritative or dignified. Relieving both worries, he shows us that art and physicality, acted out in the right spirit, can transfuse meaning into life and win accolades even in the afterlife. The most common English title, Our Lady’s Tumbler, is one translation of a French title, Del Tumbeor Nostre Dame, by which the medieval narrative was known when it was first brought back to light. From this story another has been crafted, a nineteenth- century adaptation called, again from the French, The Jongleur of Notre Dame. It recounts a miracle of the Virgin Mary. Such wonders were the abundant side shoots and suckers of medieval literature that sprouted from the much heftier trunk of hagiography, that is, saints’ lives and legends. Since the late nineteenth century, these two forms of the tale—Our Lady’s Tumbler and The Jongleur of Notre Dame—have undergone frequent amalgamation and adaptation. In close association, they have constituted an enduring component of culture in Western Europe, America, and even farther afield. Whereas most medieval narratives that have exercised much influence on modern culture have been familiar, at least patchily, since romanticism or even earlier, Our Lady’s Tumbler gamered attention only from 1873. Sometimes coming on the scene late can have upsides and confer advantages. From that year on, the story and its awesomely variegated progeny have held a place continuously in literature, as well as eventually in music, dance, radio, television, cinema, painting, sculpture, and other media. Scrutinizing the family tree of this one tale illustrates and validates the worth of the arts and humanities. This case study demonstrates how the world may be constructed creatively through language, art, music, movement, and other forms of human expression. Even just within the literary sphere (and that is a big “just’”), the narrative has found expression in a multitude of genres, which include cheap paperbacks, handwritten and printed pseudo- manuscripts, miniature books, bibliophilic editions, and children’s books, even pop-up books. Until the late twentieth century, the world of learning tended to keep apart many categories just mentioned, and to ignore or boycott popular and mass culture. Oral and written, folkloric and literary, low and high, image and text, children’s and adult, medieval and modern, and many other such either-or dualities were kept in place with far greater rigidity than has become the custom. Similarly, investigators speak now 2 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 of literary reception rather than tradition. This change corresponds to a shift of focus from authors and their intentions to readers and their multiplicity of interpretations. For the breaking down of artificial balkanizations that were created and instituted long after the Middle Ages, I am thankful. Their evaporation enables us to wend our way freely across time, genre, and space. Scholarship needs the solidity of disciplines and fields, but at this point who would write off the attractions and values of building on them to attain vibrant multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity across areas? Disciplines and fields must be maintained so that we may acquire the expertise required for knowledge and wisdom, yet simultaneously, they must be resisted and transcended, so that culture may be understood holistically, across times, places, media, levels, and more. In my wanderings, I have lighted upon beauties in narrative and in lives touched and sustained by the story that would have escaped me. At the same time, the contemplation of later reformulations has granted insights into the medieval poem that would never have occurred to me otherwise. For all the marvels that human ingenuity has reached through science, we are still unable either to outleap our own mortality or to journey back or forward in time. Try as we may, we are bogged down more than knee-deep in the here and now. Yet this story has enabled me to achieve intimacy with individuals, some accomplished, others unremarkable, most large- hearted and next to none small-minded or mean-spirited, from across eight centuries or more. Among the many delights and duties of devotees to the humanities is to role- play as bounty hunters. First, we tail our prey. After nabbing them, we parade them in a perp walk before a broader public. Why? Because they are the “wanted, dead or alive” who can expand our appreciation of culture. Over the first few decades of the prolific aftermath that the medieval Our Lady’s Tumbler has engendered since the late nineteenth century, the reception of the narrative owed to its intrinsic qualities. The historical circumstances when it was received were marked by particularities that would have predisposed audiences to the significations they detected in it. In addition, the story’s heft has gained from the serendipity that a host of major scholars, authors, songsters, performers, and artists gravitated to it and reshaped it. Tracking the shifting fate of Our Lady’s Tumbler allows insights into not only the life and afterlife of medieval tales and modern preconceptions of the Middle Ages but also the very nature of story. ae The story I will tell extols humble zeal, which is how many who have fallen under its spell would like to characterize their own spirit in approaching Our Lady’s Tumbler. Nurturing a determination to be unshowy seems inherently self-subversive, but such undermining seems to be an essential element of being human. So, let us aspire to be modest but also to help wean this tale off life support. Fiction writers might hope Preface 13 to save it by composing utterly different retellings. I will instead offer a study that surveys the theme from as many analytical vantage points as my own conceptual and cultural-historical capacities allow. Our combined efforts may yet help to confirm that the pen is mightier than the sword. The length of this study has not resulted from mere writing mania on my part, but rather from the multiplicity and richness of the issues involved in it. I cannot claim to have constructed a cathedral of learning, but I can argue that like some of the finest Gothic places of worship, this edifice of words and images has a complex structure in which each component predicates another. Great churches are cruciform, enforcing on worshipers and even on nonbeliever visitors an empathy with Christ through imitation of the crucifixion as they bring their bodies to the crossing of nave and transept. Yet the same houses of worship deposit upon the original story of Jesus many others, both precedents from the Hebrew Bible and successors from saints’ lives and other subsequent tales, told in stained glass, carvings, paint, and many of the other media that go into the making of cathedrals. So too you will find here, as you thumb through this volume, a very deliberate accumulation of what ideally will serve as purposeful variety. Decide for yourself whether it adds up to more than merely the sum of the parts. Our Lady’s Tumbler and The Jongleur of Notre Dame, like their title characters, may seem uncomplicated and timeless. People who are humble and devout risk being described as simple, which in turn can be conflated with simpleminded. The jongleur is no simpleton. For that matter, those who have created art or artisanship about him are not simplistic either. As for timeless, on each occasion these stories are retold, they mutate. Like the jumping gymnast of the story, they are whirligigs. Despite qualities that take them out of time, many changes in fact reflect transformations brought about constantly by the passage of days, months, and years. To rephrase what I wrote at the outset, the pages to follow unfold the unauthorized biography of a tale. Although the destiny of the story may be never-ending, and although my aspirations may be totalizing, this study of its life can be neither. All mortals, unlike some of the art they produce, have only a finite measure of vitality at their disposal. Thus, I must finish, for my own sake as well as yours. As loath as Iam to pull back from an enterprise that has taught me much and brought me unbroken joy, the moment has arrived to start the show-and-tell of what I have learned. Like any biographer who aspires to do his subject justice, I am filled with fervor to delineate a detailed picture. Even more, I ache to construct one that has all the three-dimensional immersiveness of an insight gained or even entered from multiple perspectives. The fancy word for this objective is perspectivism, the practice of viewing and analyzing a situation or object from different observation posts. This project, driven by an aim for holism, provides the ingredients for an infinity of close readings. The big-hearted soul who in the early thirteenth century left us our 14 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 earliest extant manifestation of the narrative was already in the thick of an interchange between what has been called high and low culture. His poem perched at an interface. On the one side was the sometimes spicy, unrehearsed entertainment that was made available to the illiterate common folk. Indeed, the protagonist of his poem was himself a ruefully unlettered performer. On the other end of the spectrum stood the esoteric exercises of the educated and privileged elite, especially ecclesiastics such as monks. The result is a contradiction, a beautiful and learned text about monastic life that imparts how conventional prayer may be outstripped without Latin, chant, or liturgy. Alternatively, what prevails is the simplicity of the performer's thoughts and hopes: wishful thinking comes out on top. To elucidate, I will follow one-way lines of cause and effect, but the linear causalities will be braided together into complex bundles. I will toggle between text and context, with the added nuance that the text itself will change at every step of the way—as holds true of a human life history, since individuals develop in response to the environment that evolves around them. For all these reasons and more, digital devices have functioned for me as tools rather than interlocutors. As a humanist, I have been driven to converse with human beings—sometimes face to face with the living but more often via printed page, canvas, film, and other media with the dead or distant. The days, weeks, months, and years have heaped up like flakes in a heavy snowfall as I have picked up and put down the work. Each artist or interpreter has furnished me with another lens, sometimes microscopic, sometimes telescopic, that has amplified and clarified my vision and insight. I have been fascinated by learning about these other individuals and their perspectives. If I have been clumsy in interpreting them, I have at least tried: in our times, anxiety about past or present injuries done to others seems to encourage talking about things rather than people. Objects have become the preferred subjects. That is too bad, since in a time of materialism the consideration of humanity makes a nice counterweight to the preoccupation with materiality. Human beings win out over stuff and nonsense. This book grapples with two equal but opposite processes. One is the making modern of a medieval story; the other is the making medieval of the cultures that have received it. In what follows, a single miraculous tale supplies the vehicle for sharing and revelation. At the same time, The Jongleur of Notre Dame relates to what has happened to the Middle Ages themselves. It makes this one story a synecdoche, or a rich case in point, for the entire reception of the medieval period in modernity. The description and analysis that lie ahead tell and show (to transpose the usual idiom) a tale. They alternate between countless texts and contexts. The versions of the story and the cultures surrounding them interdigitate inextricably. I would like to resuscitate the narrative, while also applying it as a fulcrum for understanding the reception of the medieval era in general. Preface 15 Accept then a heartfelt invitation to commute back and forth through time and space, as retailed in words and images. We will get underway by taking a very long stride into the Middle Ages—or at least into what they have been made by those who have sought to shuttle between them and their own times, and into what they appear to be to me. (I am resisting saying that our excursion takes us back, since that carries unfavorable connotations— medieval is not another word for backward.) Then, after taking that huge lunge to 1200, we will jump part of the way forward again toward the somewhat more proximate past of the late nineteenth century. And, from the 1870s onward, we will take baby steps across time until our own day. As chance would have it, our appreciation of medievalism is much fuller and perhaps simpler up to our late nineteenth-century starting point of 1870 than afterward. That year makes a good dividing line for at least France and Germany, which acted out important roles in the reception of Our Lady’s Tumbler, since the Franco-Prussian War precipitated major changes in both. Even though Britain did not participate in the armed conflict, 1870 marked a seismic shift in its culture as well. As has happened ad nauseam since, the hostilities no sooner drove people apart than they made the world a smaller and more nodal place. Among other things, movements in art and culture spread like wildfire internationally, especially across the transatlantic plane. Strictly speaking, the reception portion of my book commences in 1873. Many medievalists are well acquainted with the reemergence of the medieval in the Gothic revival of the nineteenth century. Yet that eruption of revivalism is often understood to have fizzled out in failure precisely when my timetable starts. In the conventional scheme, the main renewal of medievalizing entered its twilight by 1880 and was extinct by 1900. As a result, the timeline of this probe may catch my colleagues in medieval—or medievalism— studies, ill- or even altogether unprepared. We are not trained to be aware of second- and third-wave medievalism. ee The tale of the performer has been for me a top-notch teacher and guardian angel—or acrobat. Alongside unnerving and subversive undercurrents that only enrich it, the story possesses a redemptive goodness that has made lengthy immersion in it nothing but a charm. This undertaking has also made me belatedly valorize the fragile durability of books. I have never considered myself an especial book lover—a bibliophile carries a gene for collecting that I lack. Rather, I have viewed myself as a craftsman in a profession that involves an untold array of tools, and printed matter forms a large and much-valued class among that panoply. Yet conducting the dragnet for this project has made me a bibliophile in the broadest and perhaps truest sense. The end result, these six volumes, has ensconced within itself aspects of my own fondness— for the tale, for medieval cultures, and for people in my life. l owe gratitude 16 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 to all those who have fostered in me the thirst and perhaps even the knack for making the past come alive as I construe it. The Roman myth of Pygmalion is analogous only so far, since the object of my enthusiasm is not a narrative that I composed myself, but I will acknowledge that this story made me fall in love with a product of art. Whatever resemblance I may have to Pygmalion, however, I hope to bear less of one to Narcissus. I long to coax mute texts into speaking, not to coerce them into serving as ventriloquist’s dummies for my own self. The goodness of our medieval tale froths up in the foam of positive feelings and memories that the story often elicits from those who have been touched by it. Truth to tell, I have been delightedly startled again and again by the generosity of those whom I have consulted when foraging for information and materials. The repeated kindness of strangers has led me to conclude that the story is innately and infectiously constructive. The world needs more narratives like it, for a story can be improving, a tale can be a tonic: a treatment known as bibliotherapy exists, with good cause. To be less highfalutin, we refer routinely to feel-good stories. This is such a narrative. If any of its qualities have rubbed off on my project, enough to make this book instill warm feelings in the cockles of others’ hearts, that outcome gladdens me. 1. The Medieval Beginnings of Our Lady’s Tumbler I find that I always get back to the twelfth century when left to myself. —Henry Adams The French Poem The poem often called Our Lady’s Tumbler, comprising 684 lines in 342 rhyming couplets, is held by common consensus to be a bright spot of French literature, among the most beautiful texts from the Middle Ages. Magnum opus though it may be, the piece poses quintessentially medieval puzzles. The tale it recounts has also come through to us in a later, no-frills Latin prose version. Rudimentary facts about interconnections between the poem and prose turn out not to be facts at all but moot points. When all is said and done, we can do nothing first except read, reason, and seek out hard evidence. Then we may proceed to formulate, substantiate, and evaluate hypotheses by trying them out in the proving grounds of public delivery. By taking precautions and implementing preventive measures against slipperiness, we can tiptoe around slippery-slope fallacies. Just by itself, the verse in Picard-flavored medieval French remains, in important regards, unexplored territory. Among the unknowns are authorship and precise date of composition. Even more mystifying is the exact relationship between the two actual written texts and any conjectural unwritten forms. Did an oral narrative stand behind the poem that is our earliest datum? Did one, either inspired by the poetic version or independent of it, lead to the later exemplum? At the end of the day, the only two foregone conclusions are the story itself and the manuscripts that transmit it. Both these diamond-hard certainties warrant close examination. Our Lady’s Tumbler has been termed a “stand-alone moralizing piece.” The tale it tells resembles a specific type of medieval literature known as an exemplum. Exempla, © 2018 Jan M. Ziolkowski, CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0132.01 18 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 to use the plural, were illustrative stories that furnished entertainment in speeches. By doing so, they particularly enlivened sermons. Generally, they were pithy. While providing a modicum of mirth, the brief narratives, which like most rhetoric were protreptic, served as launch pads for edification. Often they impressed salutary or redemptive ethical lessons. Sometimes they afforded humdrum, concrete explanations; at other times they illustrated complex, abstract doctrinal issues. These exemplary tales can be heterogeneous in nature, but many purport to relate an actual event in the life of a real human being. That is, they are presented as being true. Thus, they can approximate closely what today we might categorize as anecdotes or, alternatively, legends. At the very least, they are usually plausible. Whether they actually happened is almost beside the point. Preaching became ever more prevalent after 1200. Inside the beehives of Cistercian monasteries, abbots were expected to utter daily homilies in chapter meetings to the monks under their oversight. Beyond this routine expectation, the same community kingpins were also to hold forth in church on festivities, when pontificating was the order of the day. Those feasts, of course, included the major Marian celebrations. The white monks, as those of this order were called, spread throughout Europe, into the Eastern Mediterranean and even beyond. They carried with them their sermons and exempla in speech and writing, and enriched their stock of such narratives with what they heard and read during their travels. The store of these little tales swelled. In the world outside the abbeys, sermonizing proliferated as clerics were reoriented to devote far greater time and energy to the moral welfare and spiritual life of laypeople. In the process, the clergy tasked with pulpiteering developed a taste for enlivening and enlightening their orations with engaging and edifying stories. Eventually the friars, too, became especially enmeshed in proselytizing among the laity. All these preachers, monastic, fraternal, and clerical, felt an imperative to grandstand and to find attention-grabbing tales that lent themselves to moralistic or religious interpretations—in a word, to preachiness. Both the theory and praxis of homiletics necessitated familiarity, both broad and deep, with exempla. Consequently, the requirements of would-be sermonizers opened up niches for new sorts of reference works. In these books, aspiring orators who sought out stories suited to specific themes could forage for ones that met their needs. They rooted around in exempla collections conveniently arranged in clusters by topic. Alternatively, they consulted systematic “arts of preaching.” Illustrative stories often turned up in the model speeches that were implanted in or grafted onto such manuals. The exempla became only more pervasive as this type of rhetoric took an ever stronger hold on oral and written culture alike. In those two cultures, the noun “sermon” carried a dual meaning. On the one hand, it referred to a declamation proclaimed aloud and live to an audience. The delivery could come from memory, improvisation, a written outline, or a full text. On the other hand, the word could denote a text copied in a manuscript for reading and consultation. 1. The Medieval Beginnings of Our Lady’s Tumbler 19 Churchgoing listeners, whether monastic or lay, had far fewer reservoirs of diversion on which to draw than we have today. For them, the exemplum was a happy innovation that came into its own in the thirteenth century. It remained well liked throughout the remainder of the Middle Ages. Viewed from a higher altitude, this literary genre can be lodged within a broader framework. Even outside churches, the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries saw an explosion of both tales and tale- telling. To describe the trend toward fiction as a development of “story for story’s sake” would go too far. After all, many narratives had lessons or at least germs of wisdom to convey. Yet with or without morals, narrative mushroomed. The formulation “emancipation of story” may be the snappiest catchphrase that has been concocted to describe the proliferation of romances and “songs of heroic deeds,” fabliaux and so-called elegiac comedies, and fables and exempla. Like many others in society, preachers had to be good storytellers if they wished to compete and succeed. But let us turn inward from context to text. The poem of Our Lady’s Tumbler tells a stirring tale of a professional entertainer who specializes in dizzying double somersaults, light-footed leaps, and other such feats. In our terms this key figure might be called an acrobat, gymnast, or dancer. All three pursuits involve nonverbal bodily movements that are intentionally rhythmical, and all three follow patterned sequences. All three have interdependences between body and emotion, in strong contrast to the associations of linguistic expression with the mind and reason. Dance constitutes a symbolic form of communicating and representing. Its connection with symbolism elevates it. Yet it is also ineluctably physical, with the positives and negatives that corporeality entails. The hero of the poem is radically new, a role model who is simultaneously a roll model. Whatever name we assign to the profession and activities the tumbler transacts in the story, this simple layman tires of his existence as a secular performer. World-weary, he feels like a misfit, and he cannot stomach any more years of aimless wandering. From the medieval Christian perspective that he assumes, all his possessions are ill- gotten gains. In a sudden and definitive change of heart, and without any forethought, he repents by giving away his hard-earned money, horse, and clothes. He is game now to lead life pro bono. The entertainer aspires to cure his newly developed agoraphobia by yielding to claustrophilia. He joins a monastery as a lay brother, and he plunges in with a blank slate. The abbey is his spiritual promised land. Yet his notions of tabula rasa and a clean break prove to be illusory. All too soon, one form of hopelessness gives way to another. In his new environs, he realizes that he is far from his wheelhouse (or cartwheelhouse). He has no capability for singing or reading. Shortly, he despairs over his inefficacy. He cannot fulfill the duties of a regular monk—in fact, he is incapable even of deciphering the codes of monastic communication and conduct. After one life- changing transition, he needs another. This time he must invent a new life for himself, but within the inflexibilities of monasticism. 20 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 Eventually, the jongleur figures out a means for overcoming his life’s ennui. It dawns upon him that his priorities are all amiss. He needs to put the (cart)wheel before the horse: by recognizing in a way uniquely his own that the show must go on, he hybridizes his two ostensibly irreconcilable métiers. The physics of his devotion has its own space and time. To express himself in the only medium he can devise, the tumbler takes to slinking off to the crypt when the robed and hooded monks fulfill the canonical hours above. He leaves it to others to preach to the choir. Instead, in solitude he develops the custom of stripping down from his habit to his underclothes. Upon entering the abbey he divested himself figuratively of his property; now he does a literal divestment. In this array (or disarray), he venerates the Virgin Mary by enacting his devotions in solitude before an image of Our Lady. His reverence takes the shape of acrobatics. His physical exploits are intermingled with breast-beating, sighs, whimpering, and other indicia of penance. The moral of the story would appear to be “As you weep, so shall you reap.” The sequence culminates in genuflection before the Madonna. At the end of the whole-body workout (but perhaps especially the legwork), he collapses, not groveling, but parched and prostrate, lips chapped, lungs gasping for oxygen, his quadriceps heavy as lead. The story continues. Fellow monks have noticed the absenteeism of the tumbler, who supposedly abandoned the wandering without purpose in which he engaged professionally in the world outside. They remain unconvinced that despite now being at least nominally a monk of some species, he has not lost his bearings and reverted to his old ways. In their petty-mindedness, they suspect him of being shiftless. What does he do while they knuckle down to execute their duties by singing in choir? Could he be lounging, a laggard or loafer? Acting upon their suspicions, they trail him, ferret out his alibi, see his unorthodoxy in action, and disapprove. The lay brother believes that by tumbling, he is worshipping. Their reaction is dismissive: what they observe, they judge as “not a prayer.” Through them, the abbot is alerted to the unaccustomed and nonnormative behavior of the unwitting tumbler and spies upon him, at which moment he witnesses a miraculous visitant. Spoiler alert! The Virgin herself descends from heaven and, in her role as comforter, fans the tumbler. The scheming of the brethren has backfired. A while after this celestial encounter, the overwrought entertainer is summoned to a meeting in the abbot’s quarters. The lay brother is tied in knots with worry. Has he transgressed by riffing so radically on the regular worship? Has he committed not really but metaphorically a faux pas? Will his superior have him ejected from the abbey? Will he be defrocked for his frocklessness in the crypt? All these anxieties prove to be ungrounded. Instead of being reprimanded and penalized, he receives a commendation. In the view of his spiritual father, his dance routine gives evidence not of shirking but of supererogation: it is a balletic form of going above and beyond, except it takes place below ground. Relief washes over the tumbler. What happens 1. The Medieval Beginnings of Our Lady’s Tumbler 21 next may seem a kind of physiological non sequitur. Beyond the physical drain of performing multiple times a day, he has been under insufferable psychological duress. The sudden turnabout from anxiety to reassurance and relaxation overloads his constitution, which has become damaged through overwork. He immediately falls ill and soon expires. In one sense, he has attained the release from life that is designated technically as quietus. Peace and salvation have been his goals, and now he has reached them. From another perspective, he has truly worked himself to death. He has achieved the ultimate in work-life imbalance. Thanks to another intervention by Mary, angels wrest the tumbler’s soul from demons who have swooped in to claim it as their own. Despite being the beneficiary of the Virgin’s leniency, in neither case does he witness the act himself. He cannot measure up to a saint. He has not died after being martyred nor after living an entire life of unpolluted virtue, from cradle to grave. At the same time, beyond the shadow of a doubt, the entertainer who has become a lay brother has won ringing endorsement from the Mother of God. Although he is rail-thin and worn to the nub by asceticism, what happens around him are not his own fatigue-induced hallucinations. The miracles may function to his maximum advantage, but they take place unbeknownst to him. Rather, they are genuine epiphanies to which others can testify. They are wonders for which impartial, even skeptical eyewitnesses can vouch. If we dissect the tale and seek to taxonomize it within present-day categories of literary genres, we might waver in classifying Our Lady’s Tumbler. The genre of the poem, if not altogether uncharacterizable, is problematic to characterize— but fortunately those who write literature have often been much less fussy about generic exactitude than those who criticize, historicize, and theorize it. We could sort the poem under the heading of short story, if we regard the account as fiction. Alternatively, we could class it as minor biography, if we buy that it was meant to be taken as a record of reality—a moment in history. We could compare it profitably with the Occitan literary form called vida, which presented in prose a brief life story of a troubadour. Then again, we could subsume it within one subset of writings about the saints. Hagiography encompasses writings on the lives and deaths of saints, their miracles, and the fate of their mortal remains. By this measure the French text fits squarely within the form—it recounts a miracle tale about the Mother of God, who is a saint even if the tumbler is not. To go a step further, it tells a double wonder: In the first instance, the Virgin intervenes to succor physically a devotee of hers. In the second, she tops her earlier assistance by interceding to save his eternal soul from hell for heaven. The poem is technically a soteriological Marian miracle tale, in which the Mother of God performs a wonder to redeem an individual. As such, it falls within a subgenre of miracles about Mary that is not attested definitively before the eleventh century. 22 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 To return to familiar territory, the narrative unfolded in Our Lady’s Tumbler is an exemplum, just as the preamble to the poem declares. As might happen in a sermon, the tale concentrates our undivided attention upon reversals in stature. The tumbler has attained worldly success and prosperity, which he abandons. Within the monastery, he rates himself a total washout. Yet in the end, he manages to reach the ultimate of un- and otherworldliness. He attains recognition by securing a lifeline twice, both times courtesy of Mary. Our Lady’s Tumbler conjures up a hefty set of oppositions. It sets in competition the categories of lay and monastic, literate and illiterate, official and unofficial, public and private, liturgical and non- or paraliturgical, verbal and nonverbal, devout and blasphemous, and even aboveground and underground. Indeed, the list of such antonyms could be extended almost without end. What is more, the poem raises urgent questions about love, regarded at least nowadays as quite possibly the most powerful and mysterious aspect of human life, whether directed toward another person, God, or both. But we get ahead of ourselves by delving into such subtleties and shades of grey before dealing with more elementary issues. Prompted by the medieval text, our path must commence, whether we recognize it as such or not, with words preserved in ink on parchment. We must toe our way carefully, letter by letter, across and down painstakingly prepped and smoothed rectangles of cowhide. The manuscripts that transmit the text help us to hear the words and read the minds of people from the Middle Ages. A codex has an altogether different shape from a low-caliber revolver, yet if we seek out a smoking gun in the distant past of the Middle Ages, we need to start our search for the fumes by looking at the books made of animal skin. The Manuscripts Manuscripts can bear a deceptive resemblance to printed volumes, but by their very nature the first are handwritten (Latin manu “by hand,” scriptus “written’). Consequently, all such products are unique. No mass-produced items of this sort exist, any more than do assembly-line medieval cathedrals. No two styles of penmanship are the same. These objects, each one of a kind, pump the lifeblood of medieval studies, or at least fill the circulatory system for that vital force. In many respects, they were the vascular network of the Middle Ages themselves. They constitute the veins and arteries of the bloodstream through which medieval folk, especially the educated, have been best able to reach across the centuries and millennia and to communicate with us—and we with them. For all the skewing that results from their being the output of literate elites, such codices have always offered a sweet spot for access to the minds and hearts of many medieval people. By metonymy, they present medievalists an illusion that the era in which they specialize is remote but not intangible. Parchment leads to poetry and prose. Poems take us all the way to poets. 1. The Medieval Beginnings of Our Lady’s Tumbler 23 Books made of vellum and its kin embody a massive societal commitment. The investment came partly in what might now be called “staff time.” Preparing an animal skin to create a proper writing surface, penning texts upon it by hand with quill and ink, and binding it into a codex were all labor-intensive processes, often requiring teams of specialists. This cursory conspectus elides many steps in the production of even the plainest of plain-vanilla manuscripts. The economic costs of materials were also real and mounted high. The pelts employed for parchment could have been used instead for fabricating clothing, buckets, harnesses, or any of the thousand other functions that leather fulfilled in the Middle Ages, which plastics or synthetic fabrics might serve today. Although the parchmenting process often renders the hide soft and smooth, the resultant material is tough. It may be scuffed, scratched, and snipped, but it can stand a lot. Where manuscripts now reside holds interest, but far more consequential than the libraries in which they sit today is where they originated and how they relate to one another. In total, five codices of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries preserve the verse work Our Lady’s Tumbler. The original, at least as it has been handed down to us, is recorded in a form of French marked with many features of the language spoken and written in Picardy, a territory in the northern part of France. It could be termed Franco-Picard. The relationship between the literary idiom now customarily called Old French and the living colloquials or dialects grouped under the name Picard remains heatedly debated. When the poem was composed, the pecking order of languages within France was not yet established. Picard has devolved into a regional tongue or dialect under the overall umbrella of Jangue d’oil, the language employed in the northern half of the country and other nearby areas, but in the early thirteenth century, the linguistic and dialectal spectrum looked very different. Whatever label we attach to what is now a patois, the important thing is that the text is, and had to be, in the vernacular. It tells of a leading character who is nonclerical, illatinate, illiterate, and unlearned. Without making a conscious effort, he contests the world that belongs to his Latin, literate, and learned confreres. Thus, it juxtaposes very deliberately at least two or three discourses and sets of values. The text’s prototypes have vanished. We do not have a rough draft that the poet wrote out himself or that he dictated to a scribe. We lack even the next stage of a clean and corrected version. But we possess one manuscript closely related to the lost original. The other four all seem to stand at two or more additional removes from the hypothetical author’s original, or holograph. The unconfirmed authorial fair copy is sometimes designated the urtext, a term taken from German. The affiliation of the handwritten versions has been set down graphically in a genealogical chart that is known as a stemma (see Fig. 1.1). 24 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 /\ /\, /\/\ Fig. 1.1 Stemma of Our Lady’s Tumbler. Vector Art by Melissa Tandysh (2014) after Hermann Wachter, “Der Springer unserer lieben Frau,” Romanische Forschungen 11.1 (1901): 299. Image courtesy of Melissa Tandysh. All rights reserved. This kind of diagram is meant to isolate what is styled an archetype. This primogenitor sires a lineage of descendants, whose relative purity and propriety are to be spotlighted. Low-quality codices are black sheep (or cows, if the writing surface is vellum). We could take the metaphor further to call them bastards in the family tree. The propinquity of copies to the real or hypothetical original is determined by detecting what are called fallacies. Editors of texts, following the procedures of stemmatics, hunt down common errors that are shared by different manuscripts. By doing so, they narrow down how the varying texts preserved in the medieval books are related to one other. Textual edition and criticism prioritize the identification of supposed misapprehensions by those involved in writing out words by hand. To a degree, these two arts rest on an assumption that manuscripts and the scribes who produce them are error-prone. Consequently, they are often not enterprises that nurture positive and charitable thinking about the work of others. Philologists committed to such pursuits may go to great lengths in tallying errata. Over the centuries, the medieval copyists who have been put under the microscopes of these scholars have been on the receiving end of much obloquy for their real or alleged blunders. Helpless to defend themselves, they have been excoriated over and over again as stupid and slovenly bunglers. They have been taken to task especially for luckless efforts to make changes on the fly when they encountered wording that made no sense to them. Another consideration important for us to recognize is that the processes of editing and criticizing texts were held in the highest regard in the late nineteenth century, when nation-states were created and coalesced in Europe. Researchers contributed to the construction of nationhood by delivering to the public through the educational system the earliest literary expressions of national identities. First, they identified and 1. The Medieval Beginnings of Our Lady’s Tumbler 25 concurred about texts worthy of being considered foundational. Then they located and validated the manuscripts most faithful to their originals so that they could constitute reliable editions. In the sort of genealogy that a stemma provides, letters from the Greek and Roman alphabets customarily serve to signify individual manuscripts. Each such designation is called a siglum. In this case the letter O represents the lost original or archetype, which transmitted the urtext. The letter a stands for an early exemplar that was made as a copy of the archetype, although it, too, has not lasted. The alpha and beta, a and 6, that come below the Roman letter are two further exemplars that were copied from it. Neither of these is extant either; they also are hypothetical. Tangible and legible reality arrives in the next stage. From each of a and B, two handwritten versions were copied that survive. In each pair, the text of one shows signs of having been affected by consultation of one in the other couple. To indicate this crossover, the sigla of these two are joined by the dashed line that traces an arc between them. Of the five manuscripts that are not merely hypothetical but indeed exist, one has been deemed higher-ranking by all editors to date for the text it transmits. Its shelfmark, a notation that indicates its place in a collection, refers to the Arsenal library. Although far from infallible, the folios in this codex lack the major errors that are common to all the other codices that descend from the lost archetype, a. This text is largely without the omission or inversion of verses, faults in rhyme, mistakes in diction, and so forth that mar the other exemplars. This five-star copy has been assigned the letter F as its sighum in the stemma. In recognition of its superiority, it has been accorded a fork in the family tree all to itself. Alas, the prime quality of the text does not mean automatically that the manuscript has been passed down to us intact or even in sound condition. Fourteen folios have been vandalized. Most of the miniatures have been cut out, with attendant damage to many texts in the codex. What lingers of the art is the sad equivalent of the chalk on asphalt that outlines where the body of a homicide victim was found. But by exceedingly good fortune the image accompanying our tale remains mainly undamaged. The year in which the manuscript was written and assembled can be inferred from a piece of internal evidence. A perpetual calendar at the beginning commences with the year 1268. For readily recognizable reasons, we can conclude that the poem was composed before then—but by how long? To take on a still more intriguing question, by whom? Gautier de Coinci and Anonymity Our Lady’s Tumbler leads off a section in the Arsenal manuscript that mainly comprises miracles of the Virgin. Not one of the codices gives the faintest indication of authorship: in all five the poem is anonymous. The poet’s name may have been present in the archetype but gone missing between it and the earliest codex, or the author may have kept his identity a deliberate cipher. Anonymity would have been consonant with medieval Christian values as a fitting assertion of modesty. Such self-suppression 26 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 would have been especially appropriate if the writer had been a monk. Remember that the central figure of the poem is likewise unnamed. Since the tale is all about modesty and simplicity, it is apt for both the poet and his protagonist to be nameless. For application to the Middle Ages, the Shakespearean question “What's in a name?” could be reformulated with equal relevance as “What's in namelessness?” The anonymity of the title character befits his humble occupation as well as his personal humility. For that matter, the anonymity of the poem itself could be construed as an apt touch of modesty. Despite the lack of an ascription, many translators and authors who have adapted the story have credited it unequivocally but wrongly to a specific northern French poet and musician in the Benedictine order (see Figs. 1.2 and 1.3). Particularly in France, this Gautier de Coinci has enjoyed favor and name recognition among literati far beyond the degree to which he has been translated and read. He was born in the village of Coinci-L’Abbaye, south of Soissons, probably in 1177 or 1178. Notre- Dame de Soissons was the abbey there, with a church dedicated to Mary. A good- sized portion of the monastery as it existed in the times of this monk withstood the hazards of time until the French Revolution (see Fig. 1.4). At that point the complex of buildings suffered a blindingly rapid demise, from which little now remains (see Fig. 1.5). In Marian relics, the church possessed a slipper of the Virgin that became revered for the miracles associated with it. Fig. 1.2 Gautier de Coinci at work. Miniature by Fauvel Master, 1327. The Hague, Koninklijke Bibliotheek 71 A 24, fol. 49v. Image from Wikimedia Commons, https://commons. wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gautier_de_Coinsi.jpg 1. The Medieval Beginnings of Our Lady’s Tumbler 27 Fig. 1.3 Gautier de Coinci (detail). Miniature, 1260-1270. Brussels, Bibliotheque royale Albert I, MS 10747, fol. 3r. Image courtesy of Bibliotheque royale Albert I, Brussels. All rights reserved. ae ‘Sa% ‘gig — m z ee ity hat A ae DT lr Dour - Pa , A ed Feng «oOo 3 Ft ore eorvi s * te. Plervr Je. haw Coe CAT ue ¢ > age feos SOISSONS XVIII* siécle. — Vue de l'Abbaye Notre-Dame et de son Eglise, prise du bord de la riviere. — Sadat 64S Cette abbaye de bénddictines fut fondée par saint Drousin, eveque de Soissons, avec le concours #Ebroin, en 47%? © 660, L'église que lon yout etait siiuée sur la place Sasnt-Pierre. Sa tour ajourée était un chef-d'@uve dev oLaviilte legéreté architecturate. - . OF Bs eed de ed 1 Olommns env coro CAD LO wen Cote OE “4 an ee ‘va GSES Fig. 1.4 Postcard depicting Notre-Dame de Soissons in the eighteenth century (Soissons, France: Nougaréde, 1903). PrP. 0. — Nougaréde, Svisdfns 28 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 Fig. 1.5 Ruins of Notre-Dame de Soissons. Fig. 1.6 Postcard depicting the Abbey of Photograph, 1938. Photographer unknown. Saint-Jean-des-Vignes (Paris: Levy Fils et Cie, early twentieth century). Fig. 1.7 Postcard depicting the cloisters at the Abbey of Saint-Jean-des-Vignes (Paris: Neurdein et Cie, early twentieth century) 1. The Medieval Beginnings of Our Lady’s Tumbler 29 ame ai ep ast Fig. 1.8 L’Abbaye de Saint-Médard, Soissons. Engraving, date and artist unknown. Gautier grew up in a region tied particularly closely to the Mother of God. Sometime after 1143, a Latin author by the name of Hugh Farsit composed a prose collection of miracle stories, many of them connected with the local Madonna. He was a regular canon of Saint-Jean-des-Vignes, a monastery of Augustinian canons in Soissons (see Figs. 1.6 and 1.7), and his book of traditions about Mary from the vicinity records the miraculous healings she performed in this municipality during the fast-spreading epidemic of ergotism that swept over northern France in 1128. This outbreak is often identified by referring to the French victims as ardents “burning people.” The qualifier alluded to the discomfort that they experienced: the hot and bothered. At the age of fifteen or sixteen, Gautier himself entered as a novice monk into the Benedictine house of Saint Médard at Soissons in 1193 (see Fig. 1.8). He remained there for more than two decades. In 1214, he became prior of Sainte Léocade at Vic- sur-Aisne, a village within hailing distance of Soissons, and served there nearly twenty years. In 1233, he was appointed Grand Prior back at Saint-Médard, an office that an uncle of his had held. If he had been the author of Our Lady’s Tumbler, he would have 30 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 had good cause to be impressed by the chilly crypt of Saint-Médard and to think of it as the venue for the tumbling of the lead character in the poem (see Fig. 1.9). The space would have been as striking then as it is today. The poet died in 1236, in the same monastery where he had begun his monastic calling. Fig. 1.9 The crypt of the abbey of Saint-Médard, Soissons. Engraving by Léon Gaucherel, date unknown. Between 1212 and 1236, Gautier composed two books of verse Marian miracles known as Miracles of Our Lady. This chronology means that he had two staging grounds for his poetic creation. Although he wrote the individual segments mostly in Vic-sur- Aisne, he began and finished them at Saint-Médard in Soissons. His text achieves an extraordinary range in its language and rhetoric, holds to a careful and goal-oriented plan, and puts on display a discriminating and satirical perspective on both the secular and ecclesiastical society of his day. Many of his versified tales touch at least in passing upon images of the Mother of God. In numerous instances he introduces Madonnas when they were not mentioned in the Latin sources upon which he draws. Eleven of his stories go so far as to involve such representations as characters within their narratives. If Marian miracle tales qualify as a specific literary genre, ones about statues or paintings of the Virgin form a distinct and multipart subgenre within it. Time and again, such narratives were associated with sites where relics of Mary were held, and where pilgrims devoted to her would come. Gautier’s Miracles of Our Lady were enormously popular, to judge by the total of 114 extant manuscripts. This figure plants his composition squarely in the realm of bestsellers of the day, although none of the codices dates to his lifetime. A dozen of these copies contain extensive musical notation. Twenty-nine have the added drawing power of being beautifully illustrated. Likenesses of Madonnas and of Madonnine 1. The Medieval Beginnings of Our Lady’s Tumbler 31 miracles constitute a salient feature of the codices. The depictions emphasize figures as they kneel in supplication before images of the Virgin. In the Byzantine world, the act of genuflection was intrinsic within the veneration of icons. In the West, it became anachronistic by the thirteenth century. In writing, Gautier verged on describing himself as a jongleur, or at least as a trouvere or minstrel of his lady, Notre Dame. The stance the poet takes in his text correlates nicely to the pose in which he is presented in one manuscript portrait, where he is portrayed as a musician in black Benedictine monastic garb. While bowing the fiddle-like stringed instrument called the vielle, he looks down at a big sheet of parchment with two facing folio sides of musical notation that lies on the bench beside him (see Fig. 1.10). Thus, like the hero of Our Lady’s Tumbler, he managed to combine in himself strains of minstrelsy and monasticism. Fig. 1.10 Gautier de Coinci. Miniature, 1260-1270. Brussels, Bibliotheque royale Albert 1, MS 10747, fol. 3r. Image courtesy of Bibliotheque royale Albert I, Brussels. All rights reserved. 32 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 When all is said and done, the fact that Gautier was a highly successful poet from Picardy who wrote extensively in verse on miracles of the Virgin does not suffice to ascribe to him the authorship of Our Lady’s Tumbler. For better or worse, we have become acclimated today to requests that we identify ourselves by our names and birthdates, commit to memory and reel off numbers that have been affixed to us by states and businesses, and even surrender to biometric analysis of our fingers, faces, eyes, or more. Naturally we expect the past to bestow upon us at least some of the same trivia about its authors. But here we must reconcile ourselves to the anonymity in which much medieval literature has been engulfed. Some authors cloaked themselves in this kind of impersonality by choice, for reasons of Christian humility or owing to differing conceptions of authorship. The indifference of scribes or the happenstances of sloppy transmission imposed namelessness upon others. In any case, the identity and individuality of authors mattered far less, or at least far differently, in the Middle Ages than now. Many works traveled under aliases. Along with Pseudo-, Anonymous was the most prolific of medieval authors. She or he composed Beowulf, The Song of Roland, and Aucassin et Nicolette, to name only three texts from the many that spilled out from the comucopia of anonymity. In the same company, the poet of Our Lady’s Tumbler has no name right now. Indeed, none is likely ever to be accorded that will win general agreement. In medieval times, stories tended to be treated as in the common domain, whether they surrounded legendary figures of late antiquity or the early Middle Ages such as Arthur and Charlemagne, were connected with the heroic wars and haphazard wanderings of classical myths relating to Troy and Thebes, or celebrated the travails and triumphs of saints. No conventions of copyright existed, let alone of royalties, and the conception of plagiarism differed starkly from our own. Both copyright and unacknowledged borrowing have been under constant renegotiation since the advent of personal computers. The authors, collectors, scribes, readers, and hearers of medieval literature appear often to have been untroubled about the fine points of authorial rights. Many authorless texts from the Middle Ages are subject to a high degree of textual variance. With each rewriting by a scribe, they have been affected by variations in dialect, minor changes in lexicon here and there, thoroughgoing expansion and contraction, and sometimes even more drastic redrafting. This sort of textual mobility, a hallmark of manuscript culture, is alien to the fixity that has become expected of printed texts. It has been described with an imported French word, mouvance. No deduction about the author of Our Lady’s Tumbler is unquestionable or unimpugnable, beyond the fact that a poet was at work—and a very fine one at that. Yet when all is said and done, the anonymity need not deal us as expositors a crippling blow. All is not lost. We can still gain some sense of him, and an even greater one of the characters in his Our Lady’s Tumbler. The challenge is to exercise caution and not, in our eagerness to know the writer, to draw any hasty inferences. The unnamed poet 1. The Medieval Beginnings of Our Lady’s Tumbler 33 had his finger on the pulse of monasticism, but he need not have been a monk. He knew the minstrelsy, but he does not have to have been a minstrel himself. Regardless of his status, we have a fighting chance of determining the pecking order of human values in which he participated. In that valuation, the spiritual was privileged over the material. The ne plus ultra was to attain heaven through a mystical communion with the divine. But let us get both feet back on the ground, by examining the language and region with which the poet and poem are associated. Picardy Of the five medieval manuscripts, the earliest witness for Our Lady’s Tumbler survives from the second half of the thirteenth century. As mentioned, the poem has been described as being in Old French, the tongue spoken in the northern half of modern France and related regions from the ninth through the fourteenth centuries. Yet attaching this linguistic tag to the tale may oversimplify and distort the situation. The study of French in the Middle Ages, like that of most medieval languages, was established in the nationalistic atmosphere of the late nineteenth century. To serve the end of buttressing nation-states, the major languages of Europe that existed or were being willed into existence at that time were read back into the medieval past. The dialect that became modern French was in fact hardly the most important in the literary production of twelfth- and even thirteenth-century France, but its later centrality was retrojected upon it by the philologists who constructed the field of Romance philology. The patriarchs of Old French in the glory days of the field lived in a world of nationalism. Furthermore, their nation under the Third Republic revolved around a clearly defined and outsized capital city. If Paris was the axle, it was set into a hub, the greater Parisian region known as Ile-de-France. This conceptualization does not apply to the Middle Ages, but it was forced upon it by simultaneous anachronism and anatopism. By the late nineteenth century, dialects existed on the margins of a standardized official language, French. The concept of Old French assumes the existence of a similarly standard idiom already during the medieval period. By the touchstone of today’s population distribution, at the very northern tip of what is now France, Picardy may look peripheral. The territory is extrametropolitan, since it lies outside Paris. France has many cities but at the same time the country has been centralized for centuries now around the capital. The national transportation systems and governmental reporting structure may be visualized as a set of spokes radiating from what is now the City of Light and reaching out to the felly of the French frontiers. Yet this was not the organization of communication and power in the early thirteenth century, when Our Lady’s Tumbler was written. Localizing the poem in this northern area and in the Picard dialect likely means that the poet in fact was born, reared, and lived in that region. Those credentials place him at a long distance 34 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 geographically from daily life where the events of Our Lady’s Tumbler reputedly occurred. Clairvaux was a monastery in Champagne. Among other things, it was the abbey of Saint Bernard, from its foundation as daughter house of Citeaux Abbey, mother house of the Cistercian religious order of monks and nuns, until Bernard’s death in 1153. The white monks sought to reignite strict observance of the Rule of Saint Benedict, framed in the day of the founder himself, and to hammer home self- sufficiency through manual labor, as early Benedictinism had done. Obviously, the poem cannot have been written after the earliest datable manuscript in 1268, but the earliest surviving record of a text can come from long after the time of its writing. In this case, a frequent conjecture suggests that the text was composed around 1200, or even in the late twelfth century. The most thoroughgoing analysis has pegged the dating approximately in the late third decade of the thirteenth century. The linchpin of this chronology rested upon resemblances to the poetry of Gautier de Coinci, who died in 1236. As to place of origin, the most cogent hypothesis has been that the poet settled as a white monk in Ponthieu, a feudal county in northern France. Yet this reasoning, close to being a sophism, capitulates to the fallacious argumentation that is called the thin edge of the wedge. The premise that the writer was a Cistercian arises from the glowing praise that he gives to retreat from the world. The supposition that he belonged to a community in this particular locality has only one toehold: he singles it out for mention once. Both inferences are tenuous at best. The Identity of the Poet In a way, the name of the poet is nearly extraneous. Even if we knew this one detail in isolation but had no certitudes about social class, educational background, or other life circumstances, we would be no better positioned for guesswork about how his biography could inform our interpretation of the work. The style and content of the poem are tantalizing, since they imply that its writer was as sure-footed a metrist as his protagonist was an athlete. Although incontestably literate, he does not have all his facts straight about Clairvaux, however. Still, he was reasonably well acquainted with monks and monasteries. His ready knowledge of monastic life has long led some readers to assume that he was likely a brother himself, but the groundwork for this assumption warrants close and careful appraisal. The delineation that we are given of the tumbler’s life among the lay brethren may be a touch misleading. No one in his capacity would have been allowed to rove daylong—or at least during all the eight canonical hours of prayer— without having set duties. Coenobites were closer to being battery hens than free-range chickens. At the same time, the author of Our Lady’s Tumbler also had deep involvement in the lay world outside the monastery. He comprehended the simultaneous awe and alienation that the laity felt before the wealth, sophistication, and foreignness of 1. The Medieval Beginnings of Our Lady’s Tumbler 35 abbeys and life inside them. Nothing would have stopped a knowledgeable layman outside from writing of a lay brother’s experiences within a cloister. The poet tells a tale that gives no hint of being intended to establish or popularize a shrine, monastic or otherwise, as a pilgrimage site. Yet the poem could have been meant to disseminate the fame of the Cistercian order generally. More particularly, it could have served to highlight the contributions that lay brethren made inside the order, as well as to uphold the esteem in which they deserved to be held within it. Could the poet have been privy to the inner workings of both classes of brothers, from having taken the cloth only after having lived a relatively long life as a laic? The reality is that uncountable, not fictional medieval monks and friars found their monastic vocation and donned a habit only after having spent full lives in the world. An argument framed just about a century ago posited that the poet of Our Lady’s Tumbler was identical with the one who produced two other anonymous medieval French poems from the beginning of the thirteenth century, The Knight of the Barrel and The Hermit and the Jongleur, going so far as to posit Our Lady’s Tumbler to be a pendant to the latter. The case was built on strong similarities in language, versification (including rhymes), themes, and motifs. Both tales relate narratives that could be reckoned as exemplary in a twofold sense. First, they tell of characters who provide sterling examples to imitate and emulate. Second, they could easily be imagined as having been or as becoming exempla, those short tales used in sermons for illustrative purposes. Both stories have as their point of balance the theme of repentance. Although the penance takes place near religious figures, it does not require in either case a priest or mea culpa. The Knight of the Barrel is anything but a barrel of laughs; it is more like the medieval equivalent of a bucket list. Its outcome demonstrates the principle “Only tears will be weighed at the Last Judgment.” In this tale, a venerable hermit charges a cruel, impious, and blasphemous nobleman with filling from a rivulet a keg that he gives him (see Fig. 1.11 below). After the water refuses to enter the under-hydrated container, the knight sets out a-wandering. At each spring or river he passes, he tries to fill the small vat. Only at the end of his existence does the nobleman return to the old solitary and shed a tear for his former life of misdeeds. This one sign of contrition is the defining moment in what is revealed to be the archetypal sob story. As it turns out, this single globule of liquid suffices miraculously to leave the little vessel waterlogged. The sole deposit from his lacrimation is the drop in the bucket that gives the lie to the proverbial turn of phrase. Just as Our Lady’s Tumbler compels its audience to ponder the nature of true devotion, so, too, The Knight of the Barrel impels its readers or listeners to contemplate the purport of penance (see Fig. 1.12 below). In modern figurative use, we describe a forgetful so-and-so as having a mind like a sieve, since by design this utensil normally fails to retain all its contents. In the medieval tale, one special barrel performs differently from usual ones, so that it may serve as a spiritual test. 36 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 Fig. 1.11 The Knight of the Barrel. Miniature, from an unidentified manuscript in the Bibliotheque nationale de France, Paris. Reproduced in Emile Abry et al., Histoire illustrée de la littérature francaise (Paris: Henri Didier, 1946), 32. Fig. 1.12 The Knight of the Barrel. Illustration by Pio Santini, 1946. Published in Jéréme and Jean Tharaud, Les contes de la Vierge (Paris: Société d’éditions littéraires francaises, 1946), between pp. 140 and 141. 1. The Medieval Beginnings of Our Lady’s Tumbler 37 The second poem, The Hermit and the Jongleur, is extant in two additional versions. One of these adaptations is by a poet who has been held to be a Cistercian. The story had a rich afterlife in exempla as well. Thus, its transmission presents loose parallels to that of Our Lady’s Tumbler. In the opening three lines, the poet flags as his inspiration the genre known as Lives of the Fathers (citing its common Latin title overtly)—and the relationship is unambiguously one of source and influence. The title that this poem cites in the learned language corresponds nearly verbatim to that of the French Life of the Fathers, from which Our Lady’s Tumbler likewise claims to have drawn its story. The tale sketches a hermit who displays such devotion that God sends him his sustenance by way of an angel. Regrettably, being distinguished by this signal honor makes the loner grow self-important and insolent. Emboldened, he asks to be told who will accompany him in paradise. To his displeasure, the spirit relays God’s fiat: his companion will be a jongleur. In this instance, the performer turns out to be a fiddler. The ascetic puffs up indignantly that he has expended no inconsiderable efforts in his religious life; he does not appreciate being made to share his lot in the afterlife with a base entertainer. The messenger of God replies that by divine grace a repentant sinner can become rich in good works. The recluse then strikes out to find his promised companion. After leaving his abode and going to town, he encounters in the market place a poor but pious jongleur who has no means of earning his keep except with his stringed instrument and bow. After being upbraided by the skeptical solitary, the musician furnishes three examples of his virtuous conduct in the past. When the minstrel learns afterward from the hermit what has been foretold, he passes out. Upon regaining consciousness, he announces his intention to remain with the recluse. When the two return to the hermitage, its previous occupant finds himself locked out for his affront against God. An angel wafts down and signifies that the offense has been venial, but predicts that after three days the reclusive fellow will be pardoned. Yet one holdup arises: his companion will enter paradise before him. After two days and a night of prayer in penance, the fiddle-player becomes debilitated and dies. On the third day, the man of God also expires. Attendant spirits ferry their souls to paradise. The poem of The Hermit and the Jongleur is pious, but for whom was it intended? Likewise, who wrote it? It belongs to a clump of tales that has been labeled “the cycle of brotherhood.” The tag describes characters who are related, much as siblings would be. They share an aspiration to achieve perfection and to determine their salvation through their demeanor on earth. Yet they issue from disparate social strata and vocations. In all three cases, those of The Hermit and the Jongleur, The Knight of the Barrel, and Our Lady’s Tumbler, we the readers are left guessing whether the poet was a monk or not. Without a doubt, he was conversant with monastic life. For all that, he was under no contractual obligation to make his composition a versified customary: he does not have to detail hour by hour the practices of brothers. By the same token, 38 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 in the imaginary landscape of his poem he was not constrained to abide exactly by the architecture of Cistercian churches. The author could have been a onetime professional entertainer but now a monk, formerly drilled to satisfy lay audiences but latterly dedicated to his monastic brethren. He would have known how to address both insiders, the cliquish cenobites within monasteries, and outsiders, such as prospective converts who came from professions as marginal as his had been. And he would have been intimate with the type of protagonist he portrayed in Our Lady’s Tumbler. The poem, like its hero, has a topsy-turvy quality that enables it to beckon to both the status quo and its revolutionary opposite. The Bas-de-Page Miniature: Of Marginal Interest "CAN 1 JUST LooK AT THE PictURES?" Fig. 1.13 “Can I just look at the pictures?” © Paul Taylor. All rights reserved. Medieval literature plays out first and foremost, textually, artistically, musically, and otherwise, in the manuscripts that transmit the texts. The codices are often the sole equivalents we possess from the Middle Ages to printed books, audio-recordings, live performances, musical notation, illustrations, or most of the other media we take so much for granted nowadays. When those handwritten objects contain artwork, it should be vetted with the greatest care. In addition to its own inherent value and importance, it holds importance for its relationship to the text. Literary critics may use the written word to achieve interpretative liftoff, regarding the art as no more than an auxiliary element in the interpretative context. Art historians may do the opposite. To a degree, both are right. The two sets of experts contribute essential perspectives to an understanding and appreciation of what the codices furnish us. In some cases, medieval art and written work may be meticulously aligned. Often, but not always, 1. The Medieval Beginnings of Our Lady’s Tumbler 39 the interpretation of the words dictates the pictures that are supplied. In other instances, the art leads a life of its own—text and image are on the same page literally but not metaphorically. That is the situation with the miniature accompanying our poem from the early thirteenth century. In the case of Our Lady’s Tumbler, the original text has motivated many modern literary imitations. Do we dare go so far as to call them knockoffs or even rip-offs? Be that as it may, some of these copies have been inspired directly by the medieval poem, while many more have been tied to it only unconsciously and indirectly. Alongside the literature, pictorial representations of the tale have also existed since the Middle Ages. Still, the precariousness of the early evidence for illustration must be underlined. Fig. 1.14 The jongleur before the Virgin and Child. An angelic hand delivers a towel from the heavens while a vielle lies at the Virgin’s feet. Miniature, thirteenth century. Paris, Bibliotheque nationale de France, MS Arsenal 3516, fol. 127r. Image courtesy of Bibliotheque national de France, Paris. All rights reserved. As we have seen, a fivesome of medieval manuscripts transmits the text of the medieval French version. Of the five, just one contains a miniature by way of embellishment (see Fig. 1.14). The persistence of this single illustration hung on a thread in multiple ways. For a start, more than two dozen other paintings that should precede this specimen have gone missing by being sliced out of the manuscript at some point in its mysteriously checkered past, becoming nondigital clip art. It is the lucky survivor. 40 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 If only it could talk, to tell its story as in the Book of Job: “I only am escaped alone to tell thee.” Another fragility of the artwork owes to its placement on the folio. It differs from most in its codex, and in fact from those in any whatsoever, by being unusually misaligned. It sits in what would otherwise have been the unwritten-on and unornamented void below the left column of text on the folio side, which in French is termed bas-de-page, designating the lower edge of a side of parchment. In illuminated manuscripts, embellishments and marginal illustrations often appear in this area, but only atypically would a miniature in a contained frame be put there in the border. This placement was avoided for a good practical reason: by being set at the foot of a page, a piece of this kind is subjected to increased wear and tear from handling and from trimming. (It has no margin of safety.) By being enclosed, such a painting stands out from unenclosed marginalia, which are far more commonly found in this location. The nonstandard placement was probably not prearranged. Rather, the item may have been an afterthought supplied only after the text had been written. The inference that this artwork was a late addition is fortified by the stylistic separateness of the portrayal. The brushwork was done by a different hand than that involved in all the other extant pictures from this codex. The artist has been associated with the one who participated in producing a copy of Chrétien de Troyes’s Perceval and its Continuations that may have been created in Arras. In this town in the northernmost region of France, an extremely famous miracle connected with two entertainers and involving a statue of the Virgin Mary was reputed to have taken place. Although the episode is not mentioned in our poem, it may help to explain why the miniature contains a depiction of the vielle. An artist, patron, or both would naturally have associated and conflated the tumbler-minstrel with the renowned pair of local jongleurs, promoted by a municipal confraternity. If the composition is viewed as a stage setting, the instrument is placed lower stage left. It lies at the bottom of a line that runs to the semiotically all-important position of upper stage right, where a supernal forearm extends a fabric toward the bowed acrobat. Is the fiddle meant to recall the professionals of the other stories? Within the text of the poem, the seminudity of the tumbler is provocative. In contrast, the illustrator painted the performer as anything but half-naked —the athlete is portrayed fully clothed. Indeed, the lithe figure even has his long garment cinched demurely at the waist and is shod in mid-calf boots. Were these touches the results of a purposeful prudery, to avoid showing even a lay brother in substantial undress, or do they demonstrate the irresistible attraction of the other story set at Arras, in which a minstrel would have been clad in his normal attire when sounding his fiddle? The process by which this illuminator worked is unascertainable. We cannot divine whether the medieval artist read or was read the text, had no direct exposure to it but at least was clued in about the gist of the narrative by being given a short and sweet summary, or was directed by a scribe or manuscript compiler to depict 1. The Medieval Beginnings of Our Lady’s Tumbler 41 this scene without being told the tale in full. The placement of the miniature—very nearly at the foot of the page as it has now been trimmed—may have been motivated by the simple reality that the space was free, or it might equally have been prompted by the suitability of the position on the folio side to the standing that the performer would have had in society at the time, reflecting the ignoble societal associations that acrobats and dancers endured at the time when the illustration was painted. Within the artwork, the tumbler himself has his head positioned level with his own backside. He stands curved back upon himself, below the plinth on which the statue of the Virgin and Child begins. Thus, the representation conveys abasement both literal and figurative. In Romanesque statuary, we find jongleurs pictured in privileged places on facades, portals, and capitals throughout Europe, or at least from Germany and the south. In the Gothic period, only slightly later, the entertainers seem to have cascaded to lower orders, and slipped as well to a back seat within the iconographic hierarchy. Their images are now placed in subservient locations. For instance, they are depicted on the underside of the folding seats known as misericords, wooden carvings found in choir stalls, to say nothing of their place in miniatures and marginalia in manuscripts. Just as a lay convert has baser status than does a choir monk, so too the location of the image on the folio could be construed as signifying its humbler value. The English adjective humble derives from the Latin humus, for soil or ground. By setting the miniature at the farthest point from the top of the page, the artist or the person overseeing him may have intended to humiliate—put down—the humble tumbler. Strikingly, the angel, Virgin, and Child are positioned far above him. The tumbler is located before the statue of Mary and the infant Jesus on the altar, with his head at the height of his buttocks. This could be called making a rumpus, even though the last noun owes no etymological debt to the word rump. His head is cocked downward and groundward, and his line of sight is directed at his own hindquarters, rather than at the carving above him. Talk about low-profile! If the lower classes are supposed to aim at an ascent to the upper, what are we to make of a man who is the opposite of a social climber, with his head not far from the floor? Matters are made only worse by the fact that the ground is in a crypt, itself the lowest space within the building. Humbleness is one of the tumbler’s conspicuous traits. A nineteenth-century interpreter averred point-blank that the tale had been composed “to debase pride and exalt humility.” It is much likelier that the protagonist’s physical posture makes his meekness plain to see than that it conveys a message that we should damn the acrobat or dancer for ungodliness. The condemnatory alternative meaning can be found in an exemplum that compares a sinner with a jongleur who ambulates on his palms with his feet turned heavenward. Whereas human beings should do their best to keep their heavy-lidded eyes open on the supernal realms, entertainers 42 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 subvert normal human bearing and do the opposite. In their upside-down stance, performers effectively trample what is heavenly, while fixing their heads and gaze, along with their hands, on the earthly. Another perspective is to view this liminal location as sitting outside the official realm of control over the elite and sacred. Instead, this position at the threshold sets the illustration within a space reserved for the least hoity-toity, popular or folk culture. In a sense, the miniature resides in a no-man’s zone. The bas-de-page is seldom occupied by miniatures, but often by marginal art. It can become a veritable freak show, depicting drolleries and grotesques such as fools, wild men, monkeys, monsters, and minstrels. One common form of marginalia that may offer a glimpse of real-life performances portrays two entertainers who show the bread and butter of their trade: a musician strums an instrument alongside a male or female acrobat who performs a somersault, flip, or handstand. These representations are always parked in the lowest register of the folio sides (see Figs. 1.15, 1.16 and 1.17). In codicological terms, art in this ribbon of parchment is comparable to carvings in wood or stone, such as misericords, chimeras, and gargoyles, that lay somewhat outside the controlled formulation of iconography. Consequently, the imagery is itself marginalized and is put beneath the text, in value as in position. The placement could bring home visually and symbolically the story’s revolutionary outlook on lay and monastic relations—to wit, the jongleur holds a questionable ranking even within the laity but with the help of Mary’s reaction to his sincere devotion, he turns out to be superior spiritually to the monks. Then again, such an interpretation could conceivably be overthinking. The miniature could have been put in the bas-de-page not through premeditation but through poor planning or mismanagement, which unwittingly saved it from damage when the other miniatures preceding it were excised. The image may be easier to appreciate closely in a black-and-white facsimile made in the early twentieth century, because in the meantime some degradation has taken place: part of the bas-de-page has been trimmed off (see Fig. 1.18). Occupying the bottom left quarter of the frame, the miniature shows the tumbler performing acrobatics by arching backward in a hoop. The depiction could offer the freeze-frame view of a gymnast in the middle of a backflip. A performer is captured in a similar circular pose, with his hands clasping his lower legs above the ankles, in a portion of a sculpted limestone pilaster that is now in The Cloisters (see Fig. 1.19). Then again, and perhaps likelier, the miniature need not be a split-second of seeming stillness that has been isolated from lightning-fast motion. It could portray a specific pose the acrobat has struck. It could show him not midway into a backward flip, but rather in the gymnastic position known today as a bridge. He is recurved, like the tusk of a wild boar or an elephant. Frozen in this posture like an (athletic) insect trapped in amber, he has bent backwards until both his soles and his palms rest upon the ground. Literally as well as metaphorically, he is no backslider. Instead, he is well grounded, levelheaded, and down-to-earth. 1. The Medieval Beginnings of Our Lady’s Tumbler 43 Fig. 1.15 Musician and tumbler. Miniature by Petrus de Raimbaucourt, 1323. The Hague, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, 78 D 40, fol. 108r. Image courtesy of Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hague. All rights reserved. O90 fi eto tit 08. Erervip niamerus filro reehiOath beseniaaticens G fine rtifanaé: .€ eer Too wn dient? a. is s deeet’ c1s, At OF Ut ners Er ogregabunna fis dae Fig. 1.16 Musician and tumbler. Miniature, late thirteenth century. Lausanne, Bibliotheque cantonale et universitaire de Lausanne, U 964, fol. 343v. Image courtesy of the Virtual Manuscript Library of Switzerland, www.e-codices.unifr.ch, CC BY-NC. The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 Fig. 1.17 Musicians, dancers, and tumblers. Miniature by Jehan de Grise, 1338-1344. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bod. 264, fol. 90r. Image courtesy of the Bodleian Library, Oxford. All rights reserved. {7 y) \ [ { meu aed a Fig. 1.18 The jongleur before the Virgin and Child. Miniature, thirteenth century. Paris, Bibliothéque nationale de France, MS Arsenal 3516, fol. 127r. Monochrome facsimile, published in Alice Kemp-Welch, trans., Of the Tumbler of Our Lady & Other Miracles (London: Chatto & Windus, 1908), frontispiece. 1. The Medieval Beginnings of Our Lady’s Tumbler 45 Fig. 1.19 Portion of a pilaster with an acrobat, ca. 1150-1170, Lyonnais. Limestone, 30.8 x 21 x 26.7 cm. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art. In medieval manuscripts, text and image can be foils to each other. They can affirm in two separate media one and the same message; contrarily, they can set in conflict a couple of different perspectives. In this case, the kineticism of the acrobat in motion contrasts with the sedate stability of the text. By the same token, the mobility of the devotion that the lay brother performs is opposed to the static state of the monks as they stand rooted to their spots, singing the songs of the liturgical office in the choir somewhere above him. Yet the tumbler’s movement is not wobbly: his flipping back and forth is not like the flip-flopping in policy and backpedaling in rhetoric that are belittled in politics. He is at the midpoint of a happily steep learning curve. Paradoxically, the tumbler’s half-inverted stance calls to mind the likeness that Bernard of Clairvaux drew between the monks of his order, on the one hand, and jongleurs and tumblers on the other. The impressively athletic posture in which the performer has been caught has a sheer devotional aspect. We cannot forget that, after all, he bends over backward both literally and figuratively to please none other than the Virgin. If he is an athlete, he is (however unconventionally and even raffishly) an athlete of Christ. If he is masculine, his masculinity has no more machismo than does Jesus when hanging on the cross. At the same time, his pose approaches being Dantesque or infernal in its unnaturalness. Despite having no permanent deformity, he has misshapen himself temporarily. One commonplace, built upon Ovid's Metamorphoses, held that human beings were unique among the creatures of this world in their posture. They were formed to stand erect so that they could train their sight easily upon heaven. This natural inclination seems twisted in the stance of the tumbler, which is against the grain. As a result, he bears a resemblance to one of the 46 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 monstrous races that captivated the imaginations of teratologists in the Middle Ages. Take, for example, the creatures called Blemmyes, who were believed to lack heads but instead to possess eyes and mouths in their stomachs (see Fig. 1.20). ‘ HH Fig. 1.20 Alexander the Great encounters Blemmyes. Miniature, ca. 1445. London, British Library, Royal 15 E. vi, fol. 21v. The miniature reflects knowledge on someone’s part of the text it accompanies, but even so it does not match it in a facile, one-to-one correspondence. The upper right quarter depicts a likeness of the Virgin. In Western European fashion, she is crowned in her guise as Queen of Heaven. Yet she is unhaloed. Seemingly seated, she has no visible throne or chair. She clings to a strapping infant Jesus, who sits on her left thigh. With nimbus but crownless, Jesus is here God made man rather than the king of the universe. Both Mary and Jesus lack the frontality of much sculpture from the twelfth century. Rather, they gaze sideways from us as viewers, toward a figure 1. The Medieval Beginnings of Our Lady’s Tumbler 47 with a nimbus who floats down from a cloudlike projection at the center top of the miniature. Angelic but wingless, this being holds out and downward in his helping hands a thick towellike cloth with many rumples. This mega-serviette, probably of linen, is to be used for either wiping or ventilating the jongleur. Many later artists envisaged the item as a part of the headcloth, veil, sleeve, or hem of any garment worn by Mother of God herself (see Fig. 1.21). Here it is incontrovertibly a separate item. Both the Virgin and Child have their right forearms raised to the other figure. She is draped in a red mantle, and her right hand is splayed open fully. Jesus holds the ring finger and pinkie of his right hand curled down against his palm while extending the thumb, index, and middle finger in blessing. In his left hand, the child clutches an unidentified object. Fig. 1.21 The Virgin wipes sweat from the juggler’s brow. Illustration by Henry Morin, 1928. Published in Anatole France, Abeille / Le Jongleur de Notre-Dame / Les Pains noirs, ed. R. L. Graeme Ritchie (London: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1928), 133. The scene’s construction conforms with other depictions of miraculous Marian images. The artist takes care to convey that the miracle is enacted not by the statue itself but by divine potency. The image that the tumbler honors is shown to remain a representation on the altar as the wonder takes place. But the staging as portrayed in the bas-de-page departs from these other portrayals in not showing a life-size Virgin who intervenes. In contrast, the figure emerging from the heavenly stratocumulus at the top looks to be a divine emissary of another sort, anything but hands-off. In the world of medieval miracles about Mary, no sky is completely overcast: every cloud, even the blackest thunderhead, has an angelic silver lining. The predominant background in the miniature is a dark blue. The color makes good sense: in medieval art, no one likes better than the Mother of God to come out of the 48 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 blue to mediate salvation. Against the cobalt stands out what could almost be called a wallpaper of symbolism. These signs strongly resemble the rice symbol in Japanese typography, modern stylizations of the snowflake, and, most directly relevant, ancient forms of a textual mark that is still used today (see Fig. 1.22). The asterisk or star goes back ultimately to Byzantine images in which a so-called star-cross appears on the forehead or veil of the Virgin, or elsewhere on her person or garments. The token may well have signified the luminosity of the Madonna. The emblem also resembles one found in the fresco by Giotto on the vault of the Scrovegni Chapel in Padua, where Mary and the infant Jesus are encircled against an azure backdrop, with a gospel writer at each of the four corners (see Fig. 1.23). The miniaturist could have meant viewers to envisage the jongleur’s showstopper as taking place outside, against a starlit night sky. Likelier is that the illuminator had seen vaultings in chapels studded with stars, fleurs-de-lis, or other similar devices. A representative ceiling close to home would be the wondrous lower chapel of the Sainte Chapelle on the fle de la Cité in Paris, where at least as the nineteenth-century renovation has left the adornment overhead, asterisk management has been thrown to the wind (see Fig. 1.24). As mentioned, the jongleur is dressed more fully and modestly than the poem suggests. Does the clothing reflect concern for decorum? Although to all appearances untonsured, he also lacks the facial hair that was the most distinguishing physical feature of Cistercian lay brothers. Does the beardlessness typify the well-kempt self- presentation of entertainers at the time when the painter did his work? Professionally, the performer as painted here is not a specialist, restricted to the gymnastics he is caught doing. We can tell that he is a generalist in his entertainment abilities because a musical instrument is plainly depicted at the bottom right of the miniature. The unplayed device, a kind of wide-waisted violin, lies on a greenish mat at the foot of the dado-like altar (see Fig. 1.14). Has it been laid down at the foot of the altar as an offering, a sacrifice made by the tumbler? Its presence may hint that solo dances like that of the tumbler normally took place to the accompaniment of instrumental music, but that this performer could not do his solo routine and play simultaneously (see Fig. 1.25). In general, dancing has been often inextricable from stringed instruments. Think of the proverbial saying “If you want to dance, you must pay the fiddler.” Or consider the etymology of “jig.” Words in English and Romance languages from which it probably derives signify a kind of lively dance. A similar-sounding noun in German preserves the sense of violin. A conjectured relationship between the dance and the instrument has led to speculation, not very convincing, that the English term “gis” when denoting a live musical performance originated in a form of this name for a stringed instrument. Then again, the ostentatiously inactive instrument in the manuscript painting may not signal that dancing and fiddling go together. Rather, it could indicate exactly the opposite. It may be left aside so as not to mislead the reader into thinking that the solo tumbling is in any way analogous to lowly instrumental music, to the collective liturgical song in the choir above or, on a far higher level, to the heavenly music of the spheres or angels. 1. The Medieval Beginnings of Our Lady’s Tumbler 49 Fig. 1.22 The Japanese komejirushi (“rice symbol”), so called for its similarity to the kanji for kome (“rice”) and used in Japanese writing to denote an important sentence or thought. Unicode U+203B. Vector art by Melissa Tandysh, 2014. Image courtesy of Melissa Tandysh. All rights reserved. Fig. 1.23 Giotto, Vault of Cappella degli Scrovegni, 1303-1306. Fresco. Padua, Capella degli Scrovegni. Image from Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia. org/wiki/File:Giotto_di_Bondone_-_Vault_- WGA09168.jpg Fig. 1.24 Ceiling of the Lower Chapel of Sainte-Chapelle, Paris. Photograph by Benh Lieu Song (2007). Image from Wikimedia Commons, © Benh Lieu Song (2007), CC BY-SA 3.0, https:// commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ste_Chapelle_Basse_s.jpg 50 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 ine fa. ba oe a pele iat ie tf. Mo in tH lic folt | bt, ud ua, EE t. Rfvcte 10 Feartuth Gy Ke fidanuchditinuunic CriciieLe (Ant fetitint Garant: & 2 Fig. 1.25 Fiddler and dancer. Miniature. Graz, Universitatbibliothek Graz, MS 32, fol. 106v. Image courtesy of Universitatsbibliothek Graz. All rights reserved. The vielle, a fiddle (and therefore by definition fretless), had four or five gut strings with a flattish bridge and frontal tuning pegs. It was played with a bow on the arm or shoulder. Here it occupies a position that can only be called low-key: it can be seen where the jongleur has laid it on the ground on what could be green tiles or a green rug beneath the statue of the Virgin and Child. Far less probably, another performer could have set it down there as an offering. Its function may be to provide visually what we cannot receive aurally, namely, the musical accompaniment that the painter took as a given for dance. The tumbler cannot have it in arm as he does his routine. He may not need it, since he has internalized the rhythmical grace of music. In any case, the instrument is left there intact as the minstrel performs himself into exhaustion. By the end, he is a wreck. In contrast, the proto-violin remains, well, fit as a fiddle. The vielle, a progenitor of the violin, became known in the Renaissance and baroque periods as a viol. It looks to have been roughly the size of a large modern viola. Later it also evolved bit by bit into a cranked contrivance more like a hurdy-gurdy, with a handle to turn. Simultaneously, it became associated with rustic performers in clogs, peasant dances, and songs in dialect (see Figs. 1.26 and 1.27). The stock-in-trade of medieval jongleurs in many regions of Europe, this kind of instrument is often shown in the hands of musicians playing to honor the Virgin. For example, a renowned manuscript from medieval Germany known as the Manesse Codex contains on one folio side a rollicking scene. A portrait of the vernacular lyric singer Frauenlob occupies the center (see Fig. 1.28). Sounding a vielle, the poet is flanked by four entertainers. 1. The Medieval Beginnings of Our Lady’s Tumbler 51 He has above him to one side the emperor and to the other the Virgin herself. The representation of Frauenlob brings home that in the miniature accompanying Our Lady’s Tumbler the tumbler has set the musical instrument aside. With his salvation at stake, he is not going to fiddle around (and there is no second fiddle). At the time, much dance involving these entertainers may have presupposed instrumental music. Yet our performer has opted instead to act in silence. He cannot very well fiddle a tune to accompany a routine that overtaxes every fiber of his whole musculature. His body is his sole instrument, and he applies it to a ritual dance of his own devising. Fig. 1.26 Postcard depicting a musician and his vielle a roue, also known as a hurdy- gurdy (Le Puy-en-Velay, France: Margerit- Brémond, early twentieth century). Fig. 1.28 Frauenlob and his fellow performers. Miniature, 1300-1340. Heidelberg, Universitatsbibliothek, Bibliotheca Palatina, Cod. Pal. Germ. 848, fol. 399r. Image courtesy of Universitatsbibliothek Heidelberg, CC BY-SA 3.0. Fig. 1.27 Postcard depicting dancers and aman with a vielle a roue, also known as a hurdy-gurdy (L. Ferrand, 1911). 52 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 Since the early twentieth century, artists have not needed to travel to Paris to inspect the miniature firsthand. Rather, they have had access to it through facsimiles, photographs, and imitations. The bas-de-page that accompanies the medieval French poem in one codex has been reproduced repeatedly. For example, it showed up already as the frontispiece to the 1908 English translation of Our Lady’s Tumbler. Furthermore, modern book illustrations have been influenced heavily by the original artwork, the frontispiece reproduction of it just mentioned, and modern illustrations inspired by it either directly or indirectly. Thus, the jongleur illustrating the story in one medieval painting has had a robust afterlife. What does the miniature tell us about the understanding of the narrative, as told in the text, at the time when this codex was produced? From the outset, we must remind ourselves that the medieval book may have been made nearly a half century after the poem itself as we have it was composed. Consequently, ample room existed at that time for conflation and confusion between tales of an athletic jongleur and a musical one, since in the Middle Ages the two functions were often fulfilled by one and the same entertainer. The painter could have incorporated the fiddle simply because of the presupposition that most performers were multitalented, and that an acrobatic member of this profession would likely play a stringed instrument as well. Then again, the illuminator could have caught the drift of the story from the scribe or someone else, and in a slapdash way blended it with other narratives—for instance, miracles in which Mary responded to musical rather than gymnastic performances by jongleurs before Madonnas. In either case, the artist was notably unworried by any controversy over the presence of musical instruments in church. Even long before stormy debates over the appropriateness of organs in ecclesiastical settings, proto-viols were not at all universally welcomed. This presents another interpretation to explain the setting aside of the vielle: it signifies a renouncement of corporeal music to make way for spiritual music. The minstrel’s routine has no need of a physical instrument beyond his own body. When push comes to shove, all that is needed is to act in accordance with divine law and worship. An intriguing pair of carvings that may relate to Our Lady’s Tumbler can be found at Exeter in southwest England. They hover on the south side in the cathedral church of Saint Peter. One corbel, representing the Virgin carrying the Child in her arms, was badly damaged at some point, perhaps by iconoclasts (see Fig. 1.29). Opposite it, the second of these supporting projections depicts a minstrel playing a vielle (see Fig. 1.30). Above the music-maker, a tumbler either turns a somersault or walks upside down (see Fig. 1.31). In 1910, the experts who craned their necks to catalogue figural bosses on the ceilings and brackets on the upper levels of the interior architecture in this building were tentatively seduced by the notion that these projections might render in lapidary form the legend of the tumbler. They were apparently under the spell of a translation that had been published sixteen years earlier. Apart from this one possible allusion in medieval ecclesiastic art, the narrative in Our Lady’s Tumbler is otherwise unattested in Britain before the late nineteenth century. If not referential to our story, 1. The Medieval Beginnings of Our Lady’s Tumbler 53 the two carvings at least suggest that the two jongleurs, the one an instrumentalist, the other a tumbler, perform in homage to the Virgin and Child. © Arina-Hulbert'’s*estate Fig. 1.29 Damaged corbel of Exeter Cathedral. Photograph by Anna Hulbert, no date. Image courtesy of Anna Hulbert’s Estate. All rights reserved. Fig. 1.30 Corbel of Exeter Cathedral. Photograph by Anna Hulbert, no date. Image courtesy of Anna Hulbert’s Estate. All rights reserved. ves <2? © pr ive reity of Exeter Fig. 1.31 Corbel of Exeter Cathedral, no date. Image courtesy of the University of Exeter. All rights reserved. 54 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 Beyond the medieval manuscript, the only certain allusion to the story that appears in ecclesiastical architecture is in a twentieth-century work of art in New York City. In the church of Saint Thomas, one panel illustrates a performance of Our Lady’s Tumbler (see Figs. 1.32 and 1.33). The oak carving, like the others in the chancel, was made as an offering of thanks for the armistice that ended World War I. All these wood sculptures were carved not too long after the identification, right or wrong, of the corbel at Exeter as relating to our story. In sum, the oaken figure in Saint Thomas stands as the proof of concept. It demonstrates the popularity of Our Lady’s Tumbler, not as the follow-up of an unsundered tradition from the Middle Ages, but as reinvigorated in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Figs. 1.32 and 1.33 Panel from the Church of Saint Thomas, New York City. Photograph by David M. Daniels, no date. Image courtesy of David M. Daniels. All rights reserved. The Genre: Long Story Short Perfectionism in the taxonomy of stories is a modern malady, or at least an affliction of professional literary critics. In the Middle Ages, authors and scribes apparently lived undeterred by any such obsession. Thus, they resort often, seemingly indiscriminately, to words that correlate to our “exemplum,” “legend,” and “miracle,” to cite only a few. Understandably, they do not apply the plethora of generic terminology that originated only after the medieval period. In many respects Our Lady’s Tumbler has ample claim to warrant being called a miracle, and more particularly a Marian one, like those of Gautier de Coinci. Then again, the miraculous aspect of the narrative pertains more to its contents than to its literary form. In any event, the story of the acrobat or dancer is nowhere labeled as a miracle within the text itself or within the manuscripts. If calling Our Lady’s Tumbler a miracle gives pause, we have even more reason to hold back from styling it a legend. 1. The Medieval Beginnings of Our Lady’s Tumbler 55 This term, designating the biography of a saint, derives from the Latin legendum est or “it is to be read.” Such accounts of holy men were regular fare in places and on occasions where texts in the learned tongue were read aloud ceremonially, especially on the feast-days of given saints. Reading of this kind happened, for instance, in the installments that were recited in monastery refectories at mealtimes. One insuperable impediment prevents us from construing Our Lady’s Tumbler as a saint’s legend: the jongleur is not a saint or even saintly. Furthermore, the tale lacks the connection with pilgrimage that is evident in many legends, miracles, and exempla. For whom then was the poem composed? Was it to be plowed through by individuals or declaimed in cadenced voices before groups? By whom was it copied? To return to the question of literary form, what kind of literature was it? In modern terms, the story satisfies the generic criteria of a pious tale or, to use a modern French term, a pious récit. Both The Knight of the Barrel and The Hermit and the Jongleur have been categorized within this genre of short narrative. Stories in this category, which is associated particularly with the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, can be in prose, but are more often in verse. They bear a close resemblance to hagiography, and they draw often on the Life of the Fathers and Marian miracles. Pious tales are more reverent and less worldly cousins to fabliaux. Contrary to the tug of instincts some of us may feel, the two forms can overlap or even be coterminous. Our Lady’s Tumbler is in fact sometimes called a fabliau. If the designation is understood to mean nothing more than a tale in verse, Our Lady’s Tumbler can be classed more precisely as a pious fabliau. It must be noted that piety need not be identical with po-faced; a pious tale may in fact be comic as well as didactic. That said, the assertion does not carry much conviction that the apparent piety in Our Lady’s Tumbler is somehow laughable. Yet another literary type with which the pious tale deserves comparison is the exemplum, a brief story told to entertain and edify by setting an example or by exemplifying a moral lesson. Many pious tales are such illustrative stories that have been expanded and dramatized. Like exempla, they are designed to instruct. Exempla are meant to be repeated, revised, and remade. In this regard, they live up to their etymological relationship with the technique of “sampling” in today’s popular music: a portion of one audio recording is reused, almost like an instrument or component, in a different piece of music. The exemplum existed at the intersection of two distinct planes, amusement and didacticism. These stories throw open windows that allow us to look back upon two often distinct groups and processes in the Middle Ages—they convey the mentalities of those whose actions are described as well as of those whose writing framed that behavior within the discourses and values of Latinate, literate, ecclesiastical culture. Short narrative was one of the many rhetorical devices that medieval preachers, above all from the twelfth century on, enlisted to make their sermons more effective. They may have been especially reliant upon these devices when speaking before illiterate audiences of lay people. The entertainment of the tale helped to stave off 56 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 yawns of boredom, while the edification worked to win over listeners to the ethical or theological doctrine being purveyed, particularly by epitomizing the recompense of good behavior, or punishment of bad. A loose nexus to legend exists, since the accounts are often based on recent incidents, actual or supposed. What does Our Lady’s Tumbler claim itself to be? This may turn out to be a trick question. The poem is identified in its preamble as an examplel, a “little example” or a “mini-exemplum.” The poet could have meant the noun in a broad-brush or generic sense, just as an “example.” After all, the word has that as its fundamental definition. Yet the likelier alternative is that the French refers here deliberately and explicitly to the specific oratorical and literary genre. While the medieval text is not, strictly speaking, an exemplum in a sermon, its narrative has that form at its very core. Like other categories of rhetoric, the exemplum is intended to persuade by its cogency. In Our Lady’s Tumbler, the narrative applies all the power of learned wordcraft toward the objective of suasion, but the persuasion ends up subverting the authority of learnedness itself. The protagonist who prevails does so despite his utter lack of learning. The prior and choir monks stand for one hegemony within medieval society: they are the literarily and liturgically literate class. Without any conscious effort, the tumbler confronts this status quo head-on. In some high-altitude circles, he would be called counter-hegemonic for his de facto commitment to dismantling hegemonic power. The irony of ironies is that the story of his quiet and unwitting opposition comes down to us in writing that is thoroughly salted with learning, liturgy, Latin, and literature. The exemplum is an autonomous literary genre. Yet it exists almost intrinsically to serve the construction of narrative in other genres. At the same time, we may commit a stark injustice by forcing this type upon the Procrustean bed of present-day literary-critical or -theoretical categories. To the Cistercians in the first century of their order, the form would have been anything but an abstraction. Rather, it would have occupied a space not unlike episodes in the Gospels: it recorded momentous aspects in the community life through which the monks sought redemption and expressed their shared values and aspirations, the ties that bind. Exempla offered means for tellers within the Cistercian order to inform their peers about their worldviews. The white monks were remarkably prolific in the exemplary genre, but nowhere more than at Clairvaux. The collections they assembled there were rife with exempla about the lay brothers known in Latin as conversi. The frequent appearance of such brethren in short illustrative texts should surprise no one. Presumably this Cistercian literature served to shape the conduct of the converts as well as to forge a body of basic beliefs and principles held in common by both the choir monks and them. Our Lady’s Tumbler is too long and too truly poetic to qualify narrowly as an exemplum. But sound reason exists to take the poet at his word when he suggests that the tale at its base originated in this genre. We may require no further evidence beyond the use of the term examplel to assure ourselves that the poet was well acquainted with preaching and perhaps even with the formal teaching of it in homiletics. If we do 1. The Medieval Beginnings of Our Lady’s Tumbler 57 need more grist for our mill, we can consider that the poem enfolds within itself a miniature authorial sermon or homily. We should have no difficulty in appreciating either how easily the narrative could have grown out of an exemplum, or how readily it could have been distilled back into one. The Table of Exempla, in Alphabetical Order A Jesuit, Dominican, and Cistercian were stranded on a desert island. They came upon a magic lamp. After they rubbed it, a genie materialized and offered each of them a wish. When the Jesuit said that he wished to teach at the world’s most famous university, he vanished. When the Dominican announced that he wanted to preach in the world’s largest church, he disappeared. The Cistercian said, “I got my wish.” The heyday of medieval exempla stretched from the late twelfth through the fifteenth century. During these hundreds of years, the Church obligated preachers to pronounce more sermons and the laity to attend more of them. The narratives are sometimes handed down on their own, free-floating; alternatively, these tales may be incorporated individually or in small groups within other types of writing. In fact, they pop up in almost every genre written in the later Middle Ages. Finally, they may be corralled into systematic assemblages, first in learned language and later in colloquial, nonstandard (vulgar) tongues. In similar fashion, Our Lady’s Tumbler is documented first in relative seclusion, as an independent poem in a manuscript codex. Long thereafter, it is attested as one narrative within a specific type of prose collection. This alternation has held true in the subsequent fate not only of the medieval tale, narrowly defined, but also of adaptations made from it. The story has been both transmitted by itself and passed down in repertories with other short texts. How it transits from one medium to another, or even if the surviving evidence suffices to allow us to speculate about the routes of transmission—these questions demand thoughtful consideration. The same story related in Our Lady’s Tumbler is also preserved as an exemplum in the schematic Latin prose Table of Exempla, in Alphabetical Order. This reference work for preachers composing sermons was confected in the second half of the thirteenth century, about 1277. The compendium comprises more than three hundred illustrative anecdotes. They are schematized under 151 headings that traverse the Roman alphabet from the letter A all the way to X. The abecedarian arrangement facilitated the efforts of pulpiteers on the prowl for materials with which to embellish sermons that they draft. The headwords were intended to sum up the main themes of the exempla. Another bonanza to sermonizers was the table of contents, to which the title refers. Both alphabetization and tables of contents were thirteenth-century refinements in the organization of exempla collections. Both innovations owed specifically to the 58 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 religious movement known as Franciscanism, since the members of this new order committed themselves particularly actively to preaching to the laity. These untried tactics contributed to an explosion of unprecedented formats that changed the look of manuscripts in the later Middle Ages. Many alterations expanded and enhanced the investigation and consultation of handwritten books through reference systems, indexes, and other aids to study and reference. The anonymous compiler of the Table of Exempla was probably a French Franciscan, quite possibly of rural origins. The fraternal connection may help to illuminate the purposes for which the anecdote about the tumbler was woven into the compilation. The friars minor had ample cause to be hospitable to the notion of religious devotion embedded in the basic narrative underlying Our Lady’s Tumbler. Their founder referred to himself as a “jongleur of God,” and was the subject of stories in which he performed stunts and behaved like jongleurs and jesters. Equally to the point, the followers of Saint Francis of Assisi made a policy of pursuing social engagement in large urban settings. This venue required them to practice preaching, especially in the vernacular languages, that would attract people’s notice. To this end, they needed the paraphernalia of skills, and tricks of the trade, of professional entertainers. Able sermonizers could give new meaning to the old injunction “practice what you preach”: they could help the audience members, even as they sat and listened, to picture the minstrel performing. Thus, the exemplum could achieve the slick effect of bringing the tumbler, at least in their listeners’ imaginations, from outside into the church. In the process, it could lure auditors away from the antics of real street entertainers in market squares and entice the same individuals into services, either out of doors on a thoroughfare or within formal ecclesiastical settings. The assembly could even have been spectators in the full sense. The speaker recounting the tale from the pulpit or on a piazza could have punctuated a recapitulation with gestures at reenactment, by feigning somersaults and other movements that would then taper off at the finish of the story. Franciscans delivering sermons would have found ready use for the narrative. They could have retold it to lay listeners to spur them on to the possibility of converting, becoming friars, and seeking redemption within that religious context. Whatever their specific objectives in repeating the exemplum, preachers from any order could have conveyed the gist of the tale about the jongleur to listeners who could and would never have waded through the text of the French poem. Whatever the most common medium of transmission was, whether textual or oral, we cannot know how many in the audiences would have recollected their experience of the narrative. The hermeneutic gap between what the preacher delivered and what the listeners recalled could have been imperceptible or unbridgeable. The story could have gone in one ear and out the other, or it could have made a life-altering impact. If it figured in many sermons with large congregations, it could have benefited from the closest equivalent that the Middle Ages had to mass communication. Then again, it could have been only sparsely used and known. 1. The Medieval Beginnings of Our Lady’s Tumbler 59 The Latin Exemplum The source, properly so called, of the poet is still unknown. The gist of Our Lady’s Tumbler is relayed in an exemplum that is compartmentalized in the Table of Exempla under the rubric “Joy.” If we set aside the preoccupation of Our Lady’s Tumbler with penance and devotion, its placement under this heading is altogether appropriate, since gifted performers were thought to display and to engender jubilation. They could render joyful their audiences of both human attendees and heavenly onlookers, such as God, angels, and saints. Such euphoria has been expressed in life by the faithful whose commitment to dance has been documented extensively over the past century and a half. The essentials of the narrative in this Latin version from around 1277 are summarized telegraphically. ‘.~ fons ttle fin religiig éturve ropes ithe peep foros fi 1105 08 igo ai crs ¥ ys ater Sie fae TEL Hum oe atacseae ped fuoliurerd-1B8men fier fap tolo Dm. Fig. 1.34 Excerpt from Liber exemplorum secundum ordinem alphabeti, chap. 49, no. 28, “Gaudium.” London, British Library, MS Additional 18351. Image courtesy of British Library, London. All rights reserved. The whole of the closely packed two-sentence original reads in translation as follows: A certain entertainer, forsaking the world, entered a religious order and, when he saw his peers singing Psalms, since he did not know his letters, thought how he could praise God with the others. For that reason, when the others sang their Psalms, he began to dance and leap for joy, and when asked why he did such things, replied, “I see everyone serving God in accord with his faculty, and for that reason I wish to celebrate God in accord with mine, as I know how.” The relationship between this later, roughly fifty-word exemplum in Latin prose and the earlier 684-line poem in medieval French verse cannot be established conclusively. 60 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 One sure thing is that this in-a-nutshell version differs radically from the piece of poetry in more than length alone. The Madonna and Virgin are suppressed in favor of God. We hear nothing of the crypt, nothing of the venomous monks, nothing of the abbot, nothing of the miracle, nothing of the jongleur’s death, and nothing of his soul’s fate. Nearly a third of the short text comprises the closing utterance of the entertainer. The exemplum is sheer paradox, being made all of words but all about deeds. Then again, it embodies the famous principle of writing, “Show, don’t tell.” Its hero is a man who expresses himself most effectively through private acts. Yet here the physicality of the earlier tale is shucked to make room for an uncensored statement by the solo artist, almost like the moral to a fable. He has the last word—and then some. We know only a little about him. It is as if he entered the monastery —the order is not even specified—in a fugue state that made him an amnesiac. In our times, names are essential to being and identity, but, again, as in the vernacular verse, the tumbler and the poet resemble each other in their anonymity. The protagonist is notable in both the poem and exemplum for his namelessness. Lacking a name makes him even more exemplary. For being a nobody, or at least a no-name, he becomes an everyman. Does he have a specific identity at all, or is he incognito deliberately? Does his virtuousness support the argument that he is made up—that he must be fictitious because he is too good to be true? Fig. 1.35 Postcard depicting Thomas Frederick Crane (left) and David Hoy (right), ca. 1910. Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Archives. Image from Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ File:Davy_and_TF_Crane_1910.jpg 1. The Medieval Beginnings of Our Lady’s Tumbler 61 No evidence exists that would facilitate illuminating the interconnections between our two surviving attestations of the narrative. The exemplum is the merest scrap of a tale. In 1911 an American folklorist asked, “Is this prose story the hitherto undiscovered original of the French poem?” (see Fig. 1.35). The question is astute. The Latin in the Table of Exempla could transmit, even word for word, a text as the author of the French verse read it. Then again, the early twentieth-century researcher could have gotten it backwards. The prose from the late thirteenth-century compendium could be a distillation that the anonymous Franciscan made directly from reading the medieval French piece of poetry, or indirectly from hearing it performed verbatim or its contents related less punctiliously. Underlying the folklore scholar’s question is his conjecture that the medieval poet did not personally invent the fundamentals of the story as we have it. But accepting that hypothesis does not force the conclusion that the version passed down by the Franciscan author lay any closer to a notional original. Both the French versifier and the Latin prose writer could have been indebted to a common written source, without any intermediary; or another exemplum in the learned language could have predated the medieval French poem. The short Latin prose version could have inspired both Our Lady’s Tumbler and the exemplum. Then again, the poet and prose writer alike could have picked up the tale orally from sermons or some other form of anecdote. Possible explanations could be constructed in abundance if not ad infinitum, but potential shreds of proof for any of them are regrettably elusive. The likelihood is that both the French and the Latin survive, by a mere twist of fate, from a much larger multitude of lost versions, as the story pulsed back and forth between oral and written, popular and elite, lay and clerical, short and long, vernacular and Latinate. Both the poem and the prose are likely to have been under an obligation somehow to an exemplum that achieved diffusion through the Cistercian monastic order. Initially, such a tale would have been recounted by itself. A monk who heard or witnessed a miracle might relate it, others might press the point, and ultimately the head of an abbey might employ it in speaking with the brethren in the chapter house. It might be retold for hosts at another monastery. A choir monk could relate it to a lay brother, or vice versa. In a later stage, such exempla agglutinated within collections, often produced for and by the monasteries where many are thought to have originated. The white monks were great collectors and carriers of edifying and entertaining short narratives, especially those that bore on miracles relating to the particularities of their monasteries. During the period from roughly 1140 to roughly 1200, the Cistercians put together the stories of both monks and lay people, particularly lay brothers. When recapitulating what they had heard, the compilers presented the tales in succinct and straightforward Latin, with a minimum of rhetorical flourishes. These assemblers may be imagined as having relied heavily on oral reports and even on what we might call oral literature. They were prototypical oral historians. 62 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 The activities of the Cistercian collectors coincided with the emergence of a new form of transmission for vernacular literacy in what were in those days the two principal tongues of France: Occitan (the language of Languedoc, including what was formerly known as Provencal) and what is now called French. The designation “minstrel manuscript” has been applied to simple codices, with texts invariably in single columns, written in the twelfth or thirteenth centuries. Such handwritten books, small and portable, could have been carried as manuals in the literal or etymological sense. The best-known exemplar of all the ones to which this name has been attached conserves the text of the famous French epic, The Song of Roland. In the past quarter century, the longstanding assumption has been rejected or at least strongly critiqued that such objects were produced by dictation from oral poets for their use in rehearsal or recitation. The extant texts are not actual working copies, and we must take pains not to project upon them romantic views of minstrels. At the same time, it has not been misconceived to seek connections between surviving medieval literature and the contents of oral performances that took place without being recorded or successfully transmitted. From the mid-thirteenth century, the early Cistercian exempla collections were tapped by friars. Both Franciscan and Dominican tabulators of these illustrative stories resembled the white monks of the order’s first few decades in aiming at narrative brevity and rhetorical simplicity. Like many mendicants of his day, the anonymous author of the Table of Exempla drew systematically upon such accounts available from contemporaneous and earlier friars and Cistercians. The line of descent that has been laid out has emphasized the roles of first white monks and later fraternal orders. It demands little imagination to devise a mental image of an abbot relating the short narrative in the chapter house to choir monks, to motivate them to be kind to lay brothers. Alternatively, the same teller could recount the tale when recruiting prospective lay brethren. The story could spur them to act on their impulses by converting to join the Cistercians. The likeliest venue for the hypothetical lost exemplum is a Cistercian monastery, specifically the one at Clairvaux. As with so much else, we cannot be certain. Interestingly, many exempla associated with this order do seem to have emanated from that very abbey. As rotten luck would have it, the chief early collection of Claravallian anecdotes has not weathered the storms of time. Consequently, we can only speculate about whether our poem, set as it is in Saint Bernard’s institution, ever formed part of it. In all periods, the tale has lent itself remarkably to compression and subsequent re-expansion. Even visually, the whole of the story can be expressed by the most economical of metonymies. For example, one artist active in the early twenty-first century called the entire narrative to mind by illustrating an orb caught in the air at the top of a soaring pointed arch (see Fig. Pref.1). The ball stands in for other objects being juggled, but not pictured, by a likewise unrepresented juggler. The lancet recalls 1. The Medieval Beginnings of Our Lady's Tumbler 63 a whole Gothic church, presumably a Notre-Dame, or even a cathedral dedicated to the Virgin, with a Madonna, though Mary too is not shown. In sum, the jongleur is reduced to the rounded geometry of a sphere; Our Lady, to the pointed one of a lancet. The Life of the Fathers More than any other literary genre, edifying Christian tales have been subjected over the course of centuries to successive re-readings. Many of them go back to the tradition of the Desert Fathers. Ah, scholarship—or should I say, ah, pedantry! Brace yourself, dear reader, for alternation between the titles Lives of the Fathers and Life of the Fathers. The inconsistency is deliberate and owes nothing to typographical errors. Let me do my best to unravel the tangled skein, so that we may tease apart the individual strands and make sense of them. By referring in French to Lives of the Fathers, the poem invokes as an ostensible source what may appear to be, to switch metaphors, no more than a red herring. Works in both French and Latin exist that could have been designated in this way in the thirteenth century, although nowadays the names in both languages are reserved for incomparably different texts. The fact that the tale of Our Lady’s Tumbler has turned up in none of them could lead to three conclusions. One is that the wellspring of the poem bubbled up in a version of Lives of the Fathers that has failed to survive. Another is that poet’s reference was calculated to be a false scent. If the citation was meant to be taken under such false pretenses, one reason could be that the author sought to keep under wraps his actual inspiration in another source, which either no longer exists or remains unidentified. The third interpretation could be that the writer of Our Lady’s Tumbler made up the story out of whole cloth, but succumbed to a characteristically medieval impulse by alleging that his fabrication had authoritative underpinning, as it was drawn from a respected work. A total of at least five French poems of the thirteenth century claim as their origin a text that may be either Lives of the Fathers in Latin or the related but distinct Life of the Fathers in French. Only The Hermit and the Jongleur has been tracked conclusively to an item in any such narrative treasury. In the other four, the citation of Lives of the Fathers appears to be a literary device to misguide readers. Two of them share with The Hermit and the Jongleur the feature of being both miracles and pious tales. The same combination occurs in both the French Life of the Fathers and the Miracles of Gautier de Coinci. Furthermore, the manuscripts of the French Life of the Fathers overlap substantially with those that transmit the Marian miracles of Gautier de Coinci. 64 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 Lives of the Fathers designates in the first instance a Latin collection that emerged in the last quarter of the fourth century and later, presumably based on Greek originals. The text amasses in ten books brief narratives that are comparable in a coarse way to the one about the jongleur. Such accounts are known as “spiritually beneficial” or “useful tales.” They are narratives, but at the same time they could be called spiritual exercises. More than a thousand such stories were recorded at the latest in the late fourth century, but some of them may have circulated orally long before then. At the other extreme of the chronological spectrum, most of the major collections in the genre had been put together by the beginning of the seventh century. Additional tales cropped up, singly and in clumps, for centuries afterward. The genre assembles traditions, running the gamut from completely developed biographies to much shorter dialogues, sayings, and anecdotes. Many of these materials relate to individual Christians who from the end of the third century withdrew from society to devote their lives to spiritual self-improvement and hyperascetic severity in the solitude of the wilderness. The so-called desert fathers at the heart of the collections were the earliest such figures from within Christianity. They inhabited the wilds of what we call the Mideast, especially the region around Thebes in Egypt, Judea, and Syria. All of them were hermits, in that they dwelled in wastelands. In Greek, the root of the word for “hermit” means “deserted,” “uninhabited,” or “solitary.” Initially they were solitaries, but eventually they lived mostly in ordered communities. Lives of the Fathers, which pertains to the early stages of development, admits stories of laypeople who do not reside in the sunbaked desert and whose concerns are not strictly religious but sometimes even inarguably secular. Lives of the Fathers exercised appreciable influence in the Middle Ages. In the beginning the work would have been particularly esteemed among monks. The monastic appreciation began early, since the Rule of Saint Benedict prescribes the text for collective reading after a sit-down dinner. Among Cistercians, recitation took place during balanced meals in the refectory as well as at the close of the day when the brethren huddled in the collation gallery. Lives of the Fathers belonged among the favored texts for reading aloud, since it affirmed to the monks the achievements and vicissitudes experienced by some of their earliest and most important role models, the desert fathers. But the reach of the collection was destined to extend far beyond the cloister. In time, it was translated into many European vernaculars. In French, versions of different portions from it were created in both verse and prose between the late twelfth and fifteenth century. In the literary history of medieval French, the title Life of the Fathers (differing by use of an initial singular rather than plural) refers most often to an agglomeration from the first half of the thirteenth century. This heavyweight piece of poetry from the Middle Ages enjoyed a lasting success. Its popularity is confirmed by the existence of more than fifty complete and partial manuscripts, from the thirteenth into the sixteenth century. The narratives contained in this verse compendium have 1. The Medieval Beginnings of Our Lady’s Tumbler 65 often been subsumed within the genre of pious tale, although some of them bear a stronger resemblance to fabliaux. Although Life of the Fathers has a similar title and overlaps very loosely at the beginning with some material found in the Latin Lives of the Fathers, no part of the whole poem as it has come through in the spoken language is directly connected with the latter, or with related Latin compositions that deal with the sanctity of the desert fathers. The three main thrusts of the French text are toward the ascetic existence of those early fathers, aspects of monasticism, and miracles of the Virgin Mary. To get down to further nitty-gritty, the Life of the Fathers in the vernacular language comprises three collections. The first one has been attributed to a formerly anonymous author who has now been identified provisionally by majority opinion as one Ernoul Langny. Although well disposed toward the Cistercians, this individual is remarkably clear in suggesting that lay existence is in no wise inferior to monastic. In fact, it establishes that laymen may overshadow monks in their way of life. The poet is likely to have written near Paris in the 1220s or thereabouts. The second and third collections were added later to the first one. The additional stories that make up the second are probably to be dated shortly after the first was completed. They show signs of having originated in western Picardy. The third is later again. It may have come from the hand of a Franciscan. Thus, we can see familiar fellow-travelers, with white monks preparing the way for friars minor, and with a Picard connection. The forty-two tales in the first assemblage of tales take place mostly in Egypt in the days of the desert fathers. The prologue to each proffers a truth of Christian life or dogma, which is exemplified by the narrative. At the other end, an epilogue teases out the moral. The narratives in the other two collections are more often given a contemporary thirteenth-century setting, with their concluding commentary being shorter. Some of them tell miracles of the Virgin, unlike the stories in the first, set in olden times. For example, we have seen that The Tale of the Barrel, which is loosely related to Our Lady’s Tumbler, surfaces among these accounts. The lay brothers are heavily represented among the narratives included within the French Life of the Fathers. Yet neither the Latin Lives of the Fathers nor the French in any guise manifests any reflex of the legend that corresponds to the exemplum recounted in Our Lady’s Tumbler. All the same, the reference in our poem does not necessarily constitute false advertising. Instead, it may point to a tangential, rather than a straight-line, indebtedness. In seeking tales comparable to Our Lady’s Tumbler, we could look for other narratives about professional entertainers. Adhering to this criterion, we find that the French Life of the Fathers incorporates a tale about a minstrel. The story of the tumbler might be construed as a narrative that counters it. The forty-two episodes making up the French text are conventionally known by short titles that were assigned to them in 1884 by Gaston Paris, a scholar of language and literature who will appear often in this book. This episode goes by the name “Goliard.” The epithet originally applied to members of the medieval clergy, particularly students, who composed Latin squibs 66 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 and drinking poems. In other words, goliards belonged to the same social stratum that included jongleurs. To speak in terms of present-day academic attire, they were tweedy, but their heavy-twill jackets sometimes had holes through which their elbows poked, rather than the leather patches that have become metonymous with “professor.” In this case, the story centers upon a bibulous cleric with a compulsive gambling problem and the French appellation of Lechefrite or “Grease Pot.” This malfeasant converts to become a Cistercian monk. His hidden intent is to pocket gold and silverware from the monastery and make off with it. Yet for twenty years, his conscience renders him unable and unwilling to carry through on either his initial intention to commit theft or his later resolution to leave the order. Although at the outset the goliard only feigns a resolve to be a monk, a miracle causes him to undergo a conversion that is both authentic and enduring. On one occasion, after holy orders have been conferred upon him, he decides to forsake the monastery once he has said Mass. His first objective is to officiate at the altar of the Virgin, so that Mary may protect him from temptation in the world outside; but the best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry. Just when the goliard-turned-priest elevates the host, the right hand of the infant Jesus, who is pictured in the altarpiece with his mother, reaches out and grabs it from him. No sooner has the would-be escapee lamented and prayed to the Virgin than Jesus returns the wafer and wine to him. After the penitent goes back to bed all sackcloth and ashes, the monk who assisted him at the altar reveals to his superior what happened. In turn, the abbot visits the onetime worldly wordsmith. Eventually the reformed monk, no longer a wannabe runaway, is himself elected to the highest office within the abbey, whereupon he dies and is granted entry into heaven. The tales of “Goliard” in the French Life of the Fathers and of the entertainer in Our Lady’s Tumbler are by no stretch of the imagination one and the same. Yet the overlap suffices to render it at least plausible that the author of the jongleur poem was not merely indulging himself in the supremely medieval whimsy of citing a spurious source with his mention (and perhaps significantly, in the plural form) of Lives of the Fathers. Both pieces of poetry gloss over inaccuracies about time and place by engaging in anachronism and, to resort to the corresponding term for a comparable spatial disjunction, anatopism. To be specific, both texts present tales that are identified as happening in medieval Cistercian monastic contexts, but as if the characters and events belonged to the Egyptian desert of the fathers from late antiquity. To turn to the two poems’ protagonists, both the tumbler and the goliard issue from marginal groups with reputations that are antithetical to those of monks; both convert to the Cistercian order, which is treated favorably by the poets; both undergo crises when performing before altars dedicated to the Virgin; both elicit motions from within representations of the Virgin that become animated; both become the focus of communiqués made by a fellow monk to the abbot; and both are admitted to the celestial realm at the close of the tales. Despite the risk of growing unctuous, it is 1. The Medieval Beginnings of Our Lady’s Tumbler 67 worth mentioning in addition that both are connected pointedly with cooking fat. In Our Lady’s Tumbler, a strikingly oleaginous simile describes in animal terms the perspiration of the performer after he completes his routine to honor the Virgin: “Just as grease comes out on the spit so the sweat comes out of him... from his feet up to his head.” The image of the meat sizzling on the skewer underlines the carnality of the gesture that the minstrel makes in devotion to the Virgin. The goliard and eponymous character “Grease Pot” is related to oily matter through his very name. Then again, we may misjudge if we make the profession of the protagonist the benchmark for the degree of proximity between Our Lady’s Tumbler and any of the tales in the Latin Lives of the Fathers or French Life of the Fathers. The fact that an entertainer plays the foremost role in both stories may be a distraction. Instead, we should think about the progression of events in specific narratives that we compare. Evaluation in this spirit leads to the episode in Life of the Fathers that has been entitled “Miserere.” The tale is so called because it has at its nucleus the prayer for mercy known by this name. The Latin imperative miserere or “have pity” is the first word of Psalm 51. For the major moving parts of this narrative, this story would seem to have a common source with a miracle in Gautier de Coinci. In “Miserere,” a simple but goodhearted man makes up his mind to give up all his possessions and to join a holy hermit, which the solitary allows. The recent arrival prays repetitiously, using shaky phraseology in the learned language that does not follow the wording of the biblical verse as it should. Liking the text for its sincerity and humility, God causes a miraculous glow to gleam whenever the unflashy fellow worships. Unaware of God’s favor and the miracle, the recluse insists that the beginner use only the proper Latin. The miracle ceases, the man is distressed, and in his perturbation, he sickens. One half year later, the ascetic visits, discovers what has transpired, recognizes the piety of his former companion, and has him return to his earlier practice and phrasing. At this point the light resumes. The hermit witnesses the wonder. Duly awestruck, he remains with the man forever after. Finally, the reference to Lives of the Fathers in Our Lady’s Tumbler could have one more explanation. The poet may have intended to acknowledge that he was beholden not so much in content as in spirit. The tale of the tumbler shows a person, saintlike even if not a saint, who wins divine favor. He achieves this grace not through martyrdom but through conversion and staunch belief. To be precise, he expresses piety through humility in the face of public humiliation. Even the profuse sweating could be construed as referring to a hagiographic motif and implying the tumbler’s saintliness, by calling to mind the deacon Lawrence. When tortured by being placed upon a red- hot iron grille, this famous martyr of the third century reportedly responded only by telling his tormentors, “This side is done, turn me over.” Similarly, the tumbler makes himself into a human roast, but through the blistering heat of his own exertions rather through the effects of a torture device. Both men have the last laugh in their ordeals. At the end of his routines, the tumbler is prone. The position is reminiscent of the 68 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 obeisance that is known technically now by the Greek meooKvvnotc, proskunesis. In this act of devotion, the worshiper bends down and kneels. In extreme cases, he lies face down. The Rule of Saint Benedict prescribed a humble posture of penance, with head and eyes glued to the ground, and body stretched out. Pride is the deadliest sin, and the self-debasement of humility affords an opportunity for avoiding the fall that the prideful are known to suffer. Portraits, even self-portraits, may be found in which monks are shown in such a position before the Virgin and Child (see Fig. 1.36). To take a remarkable instance, a manuscript of a chronicle contains by way of proem a self- depiction of its author in this stance. A large framed drawing portrays the historian (and artist) himself on his knees in deference before the Virgin and Child, shown enthroned. The picture is the medieval equivalent of a snapshot that catches Christ in motion as he presses his face against his mother’s, strokes her hair, and clambers up toward the apple she is holding. Fig. 1.36 Kneeling monk (Matthew Paris). Miniature by Matthew Paris, 1250-1259. London, British Library, MS Royal 14 C VII, fol. 6r. Image courtesy of British Library, London. All rights reserved. The self-abasement here is true to the word, since etymologically abasement refers to a lowering. The comportment ascribed by the painter to the worshipful monk is more characteristic of the heroic asceticism and devotion of the early centuries in the church. The performer in Our Lady’s Tumbler takes down the humility, or even self- humiliation, by one additional gradation. To be clad in the attire of a monk is already humble enough, but he strips down to the even lowlier layer of his underclothing. In attire as in all else, he becomes the opposite of vainglorious. While not wholly in the buff, he molts to a very exposed and defenseless state. In any event, the story of the tumbler’s redemption through humility conveys a message consistent with the biographies of the desert fathers. The gist is worth chewing over. People, especially 1. The Medieval Beginnings of Our Lady’s Tumbler 69 odious ones, have always been inclined to misconstrue humility for softheadedness. Often they also commit an error by assuming that simplicity will be the kiss of death. So much the worse for them, because simplicity can be powerful. True Story: Why the Story Succeeded What garnered the story its modest success in the Middle Ages? A fact beyond speculation is that whatever the relative priority of the Latin, the medieval French, and any hypothetical versions no longer extant, the piece of poetry in the spoken language alone accounts ultimately for the impact of the tale from the late nineteenth into the twenty-first century. Here we are probably very fortunate that the author opted to express himself within the vernacular literary tradition. At the time when the poem was composed, most writers working in the learned tongue and its heritage would have felt obliged to pull out all the rhetorical stops. The results would have made a verse or prose version in the language of liturgy and learning less attractive to us. Yet the mere fact that Our Lady’s Tumbler was set down in French is not the whole story. From the twelfth century on, the laity was incited ever more strenuously by the clergy to attend church and hear sermons. On the supply side, the clerics were bidden to preach publicly far more often than had once been customary. The papal assembly of 1215 (Fourth Lateran Council) enjoined preachers to indoctrinate lay folk in virtuous living. As a result, the application of exempla became more entrenched, with the hard-minded aims of enticing listeners and holding their interest so that they would not slip away before the preaching had finished. Finally, it bears mentioning that from early in the second half of the twelfth century, the Cistercians were exceptionally active in collecting and employing exempla. A case has been made that they intended their digests of such stories for brethren in their order, as a means of corroborating collective identity, memory, and values. Of course, sermons had to vie with other forms of amusement. The types of entertainment furnished by professionals would have posed acute challenges to sermonizers. We must not forget that traveling preachers jockeyed with jongleurs for audiences. At times, sermonizers entered into rivalry with singers, dancers, and jugglers, as well as with very different performers of public speech-making (construing the word broadly) such as lawyers and heretics. Yet the two different groups were not always at each other’s throats. They may have journeyed together in company sometimes and would have by various avenues been familiar with each other’s techniques and practices. Because medieval churches were not merely official places of worship but also de facto social centers, most of these different professions plied their trades at least some of the time either outside the churches or even inside them. Under the circumstances, speakers would predictably have resorted to techniques we would associate today more with stand-up comedy in an open-mike club than 70 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 with church, especially when they were delivering sermons before open-air crowds in cities. Entertainment and edification have always intersected. In English literary history, two anecdotes set in Anglo-Saxon times make the matter perfectly clear. One is a legend told in the twelfth century by the monk and historian William of Malmesbury about what allegedly took place four hundred years earlier, in the seventh century, when the abbot, bishop, and Latin author Aldhelm would attract audiences in Malmesbury by playing a proselytic pied piper. He would sing Old English lays on a bridge to listeners whom he would then lead to church. The other is a celebrated episode related in Bede’s Ecclesiastic History of the English People. In this blow-by-blow account in Latin, a simple herdsman named Czedmon cares for the animals at what is now known as Whitby Abbey during the abbacy of Saint Hilda. The herder is illiterate and therefore, it goes without saying, a layman. One evening, when the brethren croon to the strumming of a harp after dinner, this poor fellow absents himself out of the equivalent to stage fright on an amateur night. Like the tumbler, he feels shame at his inability in a skill possessed by the monks with whom he lives. Subsequently, he has a dream in which he is asked to sing of creation. Soon thereafter, he inaugurates Christian song in Old English oral-formulaic verse by performing a short encomium to God as creator of heaven and earth. On the following morning, he adds to his earlier composition. The foreman of the farm, after hearing of Ceedmon’s vision and gift, has him visit the abbess, who first puts his compositional acumen to the test and then has him take monastic vows. The animosity toward non-Christian pastimes is typified by the later Anglo- Saxon Alcuin, who in a Latin letter written in 797 denounces monks for regaling themselves with narratives about pagan protagonists, rather than Jesus Christ in his role as Messiah. Referring to one such hero, he asks, “Let God’s words be read at the episcopal dinner-table. It is right that a reader should be heard, not a harpist, patristic discourse, not pagan song. What has Hinield to do with Christ?” Yet in both the legend of Aldhelm and the anecdote of Caedmon, the non-Christian diversion is something to be set aside or transcended. The legendary Aldhelm seduces his auditors into leaving behind secular pleasantries. Ceedmon gains notice through the innovation of directing toward Christian ends the conventions of Old English verse- making, otherwise to be eschewed or at least forgotten. In fact, the herdsman passes muster as an old Germanic jongleur of God. He bears comparison with the tumbler in his dithering about the value of what he can offer in his devotion, as well as in his fix about participating in collective activity. In the relationship between the French and the Latin treatments of the tale, the vernacular verse of Our Lady’s Tumbler is less likely to have been informed by the prose of the learned language than vice versa. Alternatively, the two works could have been prompted by other sources, written, oral, or both. No evidence has come to light thus far to suggest that anyone paid the slightest heed to the story from when the 1. The Medieval Beginnings of Our Lady’s Tumbler 71 Latin prose fell out of fashion in the late fifteenth century. For reasons both linguistic and cultural, the medieval vernacular form could have ceased earlier to be readily intelligible. To all intents, the tale of Our Lady’s Tumbler and its Latin equivalent evanesce for four hundred years, until the late nineteenth century. In the Middle Ages, people had the desert fathers for inspiration and imitation. In the twentieth century, avid readers called their utmost favorites “desert island books.” These were readings that they fantasized they would take with them if marooned as castaways on an isolated atoll with only the smallest of libraries. The two gravitations, toward the fathers and islands, are not unrelated. Human beings crave a furlough from distractedness in direct proportion to their addiction it. We are at once extroverts and introverts, herd animals and lone wolves. The little story of the tumbler can tell us about both poles of our shared condition. In fact, medieval monasticism has much to teach on the same topic, since in a certain sense it constitutes a system of social solitude. Let us follow in the footsteps of the minstrel made monk, first into the entertainment world and then into the cloisters of the Middle Ages. 2. Dancing for God I would only believe in a God that knew how to dance. [...] Now a God dances in me. —Friedrich Nietzsche To make sense of Our Lady’s Tumbler, we must transport ourselves to the Middle Ages. We have delved into the manuscripts, and we have begun to come to terms with the texts and the single image that they transmit. For all that, we have not advanced very far in decoding what the narrative portends. The words are never mere words. They constitute our best guides to the meanings that individual writers, their communities, and, even more broadly, their societies hoped to relay across the chasms of time and space to others—including, now, us. All the same, the verbalism is, at the risk of appearing flippant, only part of the story. To wrest the richest and deepest significance from the tale, we will be obligated to go beyond the strictly and solely lexical level. Through the lexicon and subject matter, we may identify and reconstruct discourses. In the poem and exemplum, we need to uncouple the conceptual framework of the entertainer from that of the monk. The two are overlaid, like electrochemical cells in a battery or conductors in a capacitor, to create the extraordinary electricity that the lay brother and jongleur in this tale discharges. The Tumbler Scribes in the Middle Ages manifested nearly the same indifference to transmitting exact titles as they did to pinning down exact authorship. The names of medieval texts were often not authorial, but concocted by scribes or readers. Thus, the manuscripts of Our Lady’s Tumbler divulge no consensus as to the original title, if one even existed. To the contrary, they identify the poem in five different ways. Each codex, to judge by the captions for our poem, tells a different story: © 2018 Jan M. Ziolkowski, CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0132.02 74 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 Of the Tumbler of Our Lady This Is about the Tumbler of Our Lady The Tale of the Jongleur Of a Minstrel Who Became a Monk to Whom Our Lady Showed Grace Of a Minstrel Who Served Our Lady by His Own Craft. The common element in all these combinations is a term for a professional entertainer, whether tumbler, jongleur, or minstrel. But exactly what sort of performer? Even more to the point, what manner of tale should we have in mind? Finally, what type of association with the Virgin should we envisage the protagonist having? After all, she is mentioned in four of the titles. Research is detective work. Let us become gumshoes ourselves, on a manhunt to understand the character who dies at the end of our story. In our medieval film noir, the blackness is the ink on folios of parchment. Various factors would have made advantageous a shift from a tumbler into a jongleur. The latter is usually lowlier in social status than the troubadour, but the two nonetheless share resemblances. One is that both could be instrumental musicians, singers, or both. Another is that both have an interesting connection with passion for women. The troubadour belongs to the system of courtly love, in which the beloved and unattainable lady is idolized. The jongleur here, at his most pious, is presented as a humble but sincere worshiper of the Virgin, who is embodied in a Madonna. He does everything, and gives his all, for the love of Mary alone. In the titles that four of the five manuscripts offer, this character is associated with the Mother of God. In other words, he too is a fool for love, but his inamorata is Mary. He dances attendance upon her and upon no one else. The most literal-minded transposition of the prevailing medieval title into present- day French would be Le tombeur de Notre Dame, word-for-word “The Tumbler of Our Lady.” The hitch with retaining this wording unmodified in the modern tongue lies in the element tombeur. While the verb tomber means “to fall,” for more than a century the derivative noun has come to connote in French not a tumbler, in the sense of acrobat, dancer, or acrobatic dancer, but rather a lady’s man, ladykiller, womanizer, cad, or bounder, for whom incautious women may fall, sometimes much to their subsequent remorse. Although the term is by no means an obscenity, and no one would be foulmouthed in using it, it carries a charge of moral disapproval and condemnation. Imagine if every time English speakers employed the word tumble, their thoughts turned to sexual intercourse, because of the euphemistic “a tumble in the hay.” Under such circumstances, they might shun the noun tumbler, which is the predicament that tombeur thrusts upon French-speakers today. The medieval verb is another matter, since it carried no such associations. The discomfort about transposing the original term from medieval French into the modern language can be inferred from a heading in a 1912 volume of French literary 2. Dancing for God 75 history. The caption leading into discussion of the medieval poem reads “Le Tombeur (Jongleur) de Notre-Dame,” and the following sentence glosses the word in question as “a tumbler or performer of tumbles.” To bat away objectionable associations of tombeur that ill befit a spiritual tale, the closest and otherwise most natural modern rendering of the thirteenth-century French has been unloaded in favor of Le jongleur de Notre Dame. The present-day title can be and has been rendered into English as The Jongleur of Notre Dame in the hybrid of the two languages that has been styled Frenglish. In this case, key noun is a loanword that can mean generally minstrel or particularly juggler. The situation in French hastened conflation of the medieval story with its fin- de-siecle adaptations by the Nobel Prize-winning author Anatole France and the once supremely successful songwriter Jules Massenet. We need not bid them au revoir, since we will encounter them again repeatedly. Their short story and opera, respectively, carry the title Le jongleur de Notre Dame. Thus, in French both sides of the narrative equation, medieval and medievalized, are known unvaryingly as Le jongleur de Notre Dame. In contrast, in English, despite occasional contamination across the divide, the medieval tale tends to be called Our Lady’s Tumbler, whereas the texts by the above short-story writer and musician are designated by the half-Anglicized title of Jongleur of Notre Dame. Modern authors have contrived myriad ways of ringing changes, mostly slight but some radical, upon each of these captions. Notre Dame versus Saint Mary At first blush, the other panel in the diptych-like title looks problem-free. No troubleshooting would appear to be called for. When used as a possessive, the medieval French Nostre Dame morphed into the modern de Notre Dame. Yet this other phrase too requires at least a little examination. Notre Dame designates the Virgin in her capacity as “Our Lady.” Even more often, it serves as shorthand for a religious foundation dedicated to her, with the cathedral of Paris being by far the best known. The more relevant matter is what led to the formulation Notre Dame in the first place. Despite its familiarity, it should not be taken for granted. French is unusual in calling Mary what it does, in having as many dedications of places, buildings, and institutions to her as it does, and in vaunting a cathedral named after her that has become emblematic of both Gothic architecture overall and particularly the city of Paris. Let us take a gander at all these aspects of the one seemingly simple phrase. The designation of the Virgin as “Our Lady,” from the Latin domina nostra, has hardly been universal in the Romance languages. Calling her Saint Mary was, and perhaps still is, more common (see Fig. 2.1). To take one well-known nautical example, Christopher Columbus’s largest ship was not christened Nuestra Sefiora, Spanish for 76 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 Our Lady. On the contrary, it was the Santa Maria—Saint Mary if translated into English. In French, usage has differed markedly—and the divergence from most other languages began early. Notre Dame may well have become current already in the eleventh century. To all appearances, the phraseology took strong hold first at Chartres in the second half of the twelfth century. From there, it seeped by linguistic drip-drip into other forms of Romance speech, such as Occitan and Catalan, at the expense of the formulations for “Saint Mary” in these tongues. Fig. 2.1 Edward Maran, The “Santa Maria,” 1492, 1892. Painting, reproduced on color print from original The Santa Maria, Nifia and Pinta (Evening of October 11, 1492). No one knows what bright soul coined the locution Notre Dame. (Nobody filed for exclusive rights to it.) The turn of phrase may have arisen among the laity rather than among ecclesiastics, as a means of marking the Virgin apart from other saints, including virgins, to accord her special credit for her uniqueness. By not being labeled “saint” she is elevated, not to the point of heading a matriarchy, but still head and shoulders above all others. The discrimination makes perfect sense, since she occupies a degree below that of Jesus Christ but above ordinary saints. At the same time, Mary was the most popular, in the fullest sense of the word, of holy women. Yet Notre Dame differs interestingly from, for instance, the Italian Madonna, which could be equated to “my lady” or “milady.” We may not stop to puzzle over why we say “your Majesty” as opposed to “my Lord,” but the possessive adjectives have been driven by specific forces. The plural in the French first-person possessive for “Our Lady” brought home that she belonged to everyone. The form “Our” may well reflect liturgical practices, in which the members of a church collectively invoke the Mother 2. Dancing for God 77 of God. The noun Dame had the simultaneous effect of coordinating the Virgin with feudalism. In French, Jesus Christ is Notre Seigneur, or “Our Lord.” By being called “Our Lady,” Mary is recognized in rank for being what she was, that is, the most powerful female in Christianity. In medieval society, women were ringed around by constraints, but the Mother of God knew no limitations: she had to shatter no stained- glass ceiling. Making her into a lady had the self-contradictory, but understandable effects of simultaneously ennobling, familiarizing, and humanizing her. As obligatory within the feudal system, the Virgin would indemnify her devotee as a lady would shield a vassal against all threats and arm-twisting. The upswing in the wording Notre Dame took place within a much larger swing, namely, the cult of Mary. This veneration began to proliferate in the eleventh century, and in the twelfth century reached in both lay and clerical piety a pinnacle from which it would not be dislodged for the rest of the Middle Ages. The high point turned out to be a mesa-like plateau. Devotion to the Virgin must be reckoned among the most instrumental forces in spiritual life and creative achievement from the twelfth through the fifteenth centuries. There is no hyperbolizing the number of sculptures, paintings, stained-glass windows, and other artworks created in honor of Mary, and no overstating the volume of hymns and stories composed on her behalf. This literary flowering coincided with the efflorescence of courtly love literature, in which the lady occupied an exalted place. The two developments would have supported each other, and would have initiated many-sided interplay. The Mother of God as elevated through mass devotion was manifold. At first the Virgin won favor through her relation to Christ. She enabled the Word to become flesh when she accepted her role in the Incarnation, as the human mother from whom the Son of God took his humanity. In her own humanness, she was later the grieving Mary. In this guise, she would become formalized as the Mater Dolorosa, or “Sorrowful Mother.” Even more particularly, her griefs would be numbered seven. In this connection, we should not overlook the parallels between the maternal Virgin as she keens over the deposed Christ, and the Mary who assuages the jongleur after he collapses before the Madonna. Eventually, the Mother of God won a clean sweep through her Assumption into heaven, which positioned her first for coronation and then for being seated on the right side of Jesus as the Virgin and Child in majesty. On a civic plane, Mary constituted a favored last-line defense for municipalities, in the first instance Constantinople. She earned this reputation after the siege of the Byzantine capital by Persians and Avars in 626. A progression becomes clear: she acquired status as the invincible defender and invulnerable protector of, first, the city, then the whole Eastern Roman Empire, and ultimately all Christendom. Despite having a power quotient that bordered on omnipotence, the Mother of God was not preempted from transitioning to being a merciful mediator. In her maternal 78 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 capacity, she acted as a vigilant lookout for the best interests of humanity. As the Virgin of Mercy, she went from merely being Mother Confessor to playing an active role in motivating her son to absolve repentant sinners. Beyond the Marys in all these capacities burgeoned a multiplicity of other Virgins, including Madonnas that triggered local affection and devotion while generating miracles. In popular devotion, such images served as the focal points for personal and affective language that invoked the Mother of God as intercessor. In exchange for the worship, the Virgin traveled to and fro between heaven and earth with a facility disallowed to Jesus himself. She was especially approachable, and uniquely capable of working miracles. All these Marys traveled with a long train of miracle stories, sermons, popular literature, art works, and shrines. In modern French, Notre Dame has come to denote without distinction the Virgin Mary herself and a cathedral, since almost all such foundations in France are dedicated to her. After the bombing of Reims in World War I, an author spouted about the synecdoche with patriotic wholeheartedness: When we speak indifferently of “the Cathedral” or of “Notre-Dame” we do not confound the Palace with the Queen; we affirm that the Palace is the Queen’s, and that she is at home there; we mean to say that the Cathedral is her domain, her sanctuary, that one cannot separate the one from the other, that to touch the Cathedral is to touch Our Lady, and to violate the Cathedral is to violate Our Lady. What rendered Mary exceptional, and why was she worshiped so warm-bloodedly by so many? The special saving grace of Christianity was that the religion made monotheism approachable by incorporating a man within its divinity. For all that, in time the godhead became regarded as aloof and forbidding to the rank and file. At the top of the social hierarchy, emperors and kings were God’s anointed. In that capacity, they had a privileged relation to Jesus. In Christian iconography of the East, we find Christ Pantokrator. In Greek, the epithet means “almighty.” In the corresponding imagery of the West, we encounter Christ in Majesty, enthroned as ruler of the world. In contrast to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, the Mother of God seemed within reach to everyone, no matter how humble. The reforms of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 suggest that by then she was sought after more than ever to intercede with her offspring. One explanation was that the Church was not equipped to deliver the level of pastoral care demanded for the swelling numbers of needy Christians. Filling the gap, the Blessed Virgin could be counted upon to sway Jesus through her maternal influence. The underlying guideline was the common reality of life that a solicitous son can be prevailed upon to do anything for his mother. Thus, Mary assumed an unexcelled place within personal piety from which she shows no signs of being budged even today. 2. Dancing for God 79 The Equivocal Status of Jongleurs Not all those who wander are lost. —J.R. R. Tolkien It is high time to read beyond the title and to think about the protean character to whom it refers in its first part. In French as in English, jongleur can now designate performers of innumerable different complexions. It behooved the practitioners of this profession to wear many hats. In their versatility, they diverted their audiences, both lay and ecclesiastical, with displays of verbal, musical, and physical skill. Even a very approximate taxonomy of these entertainers ramifies into a many-branched family tree. As artists of the word, they composed, ad-libbed, or rattled off verses and told tales. To detail these activities in composition and delivery more specifically, a jongleur could be a singer or composer of love songs, comic narratives, heroic lays, or other narratives such as histories and saints’ lives. In the fullest sense of the expression, they would sing for their supper. What is more, jongleurs were actors. At the humblest level, they mimed and mummed in dumb shows. Likewise, they tried their hands (truly) as puppeteers. Then too, they served as buffoons, clowns, fools, and jesters. Beyond acting, they ventured before their audiences as musicians, singers and instrumentalists alike. In another direction, they could perform physically as acrobats, contortionists, dancers and dance masters, fire-eaters, gymnasts, jugglers, ropewalkers, stiltwalkers, and sword-dancers, -jugglers, and -swallowers. Among other things, they were conjurors and magicians. To go beyond the purely human, they tamed, trained, and exhibited animals, such as bears, dogs, and snakes, and they entered the fray as equestrians too. All told, it may sometimes seem harder to determine what they were not than what they were. They acted as the archetypal and ultimate crossover artists, prepared to do whatever would attract medieval thrill-seekers. The repertoires of such entertainers were not restricted merely to acts of physical adroitness such as acrobatics, prestidigitation, and juggling. Their stock-in-trade also had a verbal (and voluble) dimension. Indeed, these performers drew upon all the sorts of words and music associated with the wandering minstrels and court jesters who long ago became embedded in modern conceptions of medieval life (see Fig. 2.2). Although sometimes courtly, such figures were often related to discreditable places and activities, such as taverns and throwing dice. A jongleur could be a professional gambler, instrumentalist, or contortionist—or all of the above. Likewise, he could be a mountebank, an individual who would hop onto a long seat to do his act. The last designation, originating in the Italian imperative “climb on (the) bench!,” isametonymy 80 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 that tends to imply an inn or alehouse, where the bare minimum of furniture would have been trestles, tabletops, and benches. We are not talking about fancy marquetry. In worlds without theaters, the altitude of such seating was often as close as actors and audiences could get to stages or circus rings. In time, the mountebank became as we know him today, a nomadic charlatan who stands atop an elevation, maybe even a plank on two sawhorses, not so much to enact an entertainment routine as to peddle a nostrum or some other overpriced product of quackery. Fig. 2.2 Postcard depicting court jesters (L. Vandamme et Cie, 1905). Guiraut de Calanson, often termed (with only flimsy support) a Gascon troubadour, frequented the courts of northern Spain. In the first two decades of the thirteenth century, he composed a dozen poems in Occitan that are extant today. In one of these compositions, he lays out the talent that a performer worthy of being called a jongleur should have. In enumerating an ideal repertoire, he touches upon the abilities to speak and rhyme wittily, be steeped in the Trojan legend, balance apples on the tips of knives, juggle, jump through hoops, and play multiple musical instruments. What can the etymology of jongleur tell us? The English is scrounged from the French, which in its turn is a direct blood relative of the Latin ioculator. By whatever name, the term denoted then a joker or jokester, usually professional. At its broadest, the word meant any kind of entertainer. The primary sense of the original noun in the learned language derived from iocus, meaning “game, play, or jest.” The English word “joke” comes from the same noun. In the Middle Ages, both the Latin and vernacular nouns became contaminated by association with a similar-sounding term of Germanic origin, jangler (babbler, chatterbox, gossip, liar, scandal-monger, calumniator). Yet the early medieval labor market did not allow many entertainers to specialize in the arts of speech alone. They learned to move among verbal, musical, and physical skills. Therefore the Latin noun gave rise in English not only to “joker” but also to “juggler.” Ioculator was but one item in the sprawling Medieval Latin nomenclature to indicate this ilk. In the ferocious Darwinian battleground that language can constitute, 2. Dancing for God 81 this noun rode roughshod over its closest predecessors and eventually displaced them. The results can be cross-checked in many European tongues, including English. Throughout Europe, the Latin word has progeny that go back to the Middle Ages. In contradistinction, the root of histrio survives mainly as a later and learned reintroduction from Greek, whence the adjective histrionic. Likewise, the stem of the other derivative from the same language, mimus, has become largely restricted to the ambit of mime-player. Finally, the Latin scurra has persisted solely as embedded in scurrilous and scurrility. As performers became more professionalized, stark shifts took place in the old meanings of words. In English, the most common derivative of the Latin ioculator became not a “joker” in general, but much more narrowly a “juggler.” In medieval French, it denoted above all entertainers who specialized in song. Similarly, the jester turned into a clown-like figure, even though the name originally implied an artist or teller of tales or stories. A gestour was a teller of gestes, or “stories.” From him descended the jester as we know him. Another Latin noun of the Middle Ages has been largely omitted so far. The ioculator had a major competitor in the ministerialis. The two, jongleurs and minstrels, were sometimes conflated. The medieval Latin ministerialis, better known now as minstrel, signified literally “of a little minister, servant,” but more commonly “minor court official.” In turn, the term in the learned language came from the noun ministerium for “service, office,” itself derived from minister. It signified the hireling of a lord, either secular or ecclesiastical, or prince. The French for “minstrel” derived from this Latin. The vernacular word soon referred to a person who had mastered a craft. The word to describe what a minister does is ministerium “ministry.” Mestier, the medieval French derivative of that noun, gives us métier. To slip from conflation to its opposite, a primary distinction has been predicated between jongleurs and trouveres. Cognates of these two terms exist in the language of southern France and other neighboring Mediterranean regions. In presentations of poetics in this other Romance tongue, the two groups are sometimes differentiated by stressing that the joglar performs, whereas the trobador invents or composes. By this standard, the two types of professionals were as distinct or indistinct as artisans from artists. The underlying premise is that the jongleur or joglar is a professional musician and singer, whereas the trouvere or trobador is a songwriter and lyricist—not quite gentlemen scholars, but much closer to them than the jongleurs. The last-mentioned were marginal beings whose social standing and reputation could be deemed equivocal, at best. They were edgy in every sense of the word: they specialized in brinkmanship, by operating at the margins. In contrast, trouveres could have achieved exalted status through their affiliation with noble courts. The dichotomy can apply as well to Latin. Cognates for trouveres and troubadours are not used there, but substantially the same line is drawn between functions. Clerics could concoct texts in Latin or even in vernacular languages, such as medieval French. Often, they relied upon lay entertainers to deliver them. In this schema, jongleurs perform orally in the vulgar tongue before lay audiences. All the same, we should not 82 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 suppose that the writers in the Middle Ages who used these words upheld the nuance regularly. We should be even less disposed to credit that composers and performers themselves had fixed terminology to describe themselves. The relevance, or even existence, of such glib sociocultural distinctions between trouveres and jongleurs has been rightly challenged. The differences in meaning between the two are not nearly so straightforward and schematic as some would wish us to believe. Take the courts, for example, where minstrels and jongleurs are often discussed as if they were transposable. As the associations of their name suggest, minstrel is the diminutive of the noun minister. A minstrel can be then a minor official attached to a set retinue. To warrant being named what they were, they may have largely abandoned the rootless itinerancy that put wandering players into friction with the sedentariness and stability esteemed within much of medieval society. Another factor to weigh is a reshuffling that may have occurred over time. Troubadours who became impoverished may have cascaded many rungs to become jongleurs, while jongleurs who succeeded may have scaled the social ladder. Whatever the causes, over time the neat differentiation between troubadours and jongleurs seems to have become muddied. In 1274, a late troubadour penned a lengthy poem of supplication to King Alfonso X of Castile. In it, he asked that the inhabitants of his kingdom maintain bright-line distinctions between the two groups. This poet approved that the Castilians still discriminated among instrumentalists, imitators, troubadours, and even more reprehensible performers. In contrast, in Provence at the time, the troubadours had become déclassé and lost the cachet of their name, the supremacy that originated in their ability to compose. They were all called jongleurs without differentiation. Certain proclivities of jongleurs stand beyond dispute. For a start, these performers tended to be transients who subsisted and worked on peripheries. With their special privilege of laissez-aller, they existed at the fringes of princely and ecclesiastical courts, villages, and everywhere else they circulated. The marginality in which the entertainers were enveloped because of their profession meant that they were often considered disreputable—personae non gratae. Yet their rakishness was not an undiluted negative. For instance, they could venture into places where, and at times when, others could not. The protagonist of Our Lady’s Tumbler may have benefited from the carte blanche accorded jongleurs, at least when they appeared as characters in fiction. He seems to have enjoyed license to roam the monastery at will. When considering the medieval French poem, we must take note that the hero is not a street performer in straitened circumstances, however often grinding poverty and professional failure are assumed to be the case in post-medieval adaptations of the tale. On the contrary, the tumbler has proven himself to be a successful entrepreneur in entertainment. Unlike the visionaries who experienced many of the most important apparitions of Mary in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the dancer betrays no sign of enduring economic deprivation, political upheaval, or brewing war. What he 2. Dancing for God 83 does let drop is that he lives in a time of high religiosity, particularly when devotion to the Virgin enters consideration. Traditionally, jongleurs were expected to be multitalented. Yet no one individual could be a true jack-of-all-trades, thoroughly competent in all the arts that were ascribed to this class of entertainers. A little before 1215, Thomas of Chobham produced a vade mecum of practical theology on penance and confession for priests, which accrued wide favor. In it, the English-born but Paris-educated ecclesiastic distinguished among three classes of performers, referring to all of them generically as histriones. Thinking of ‘histrionic’ gives a clue. The first category in his taxonomy comprises those who specialize in what we might call physical comedy or burlesque. Part of their disgrace consists in their habit of disrobing to a level of attire (or should we Say non-attire?) that common folk found shocking, even horrid. These entertainers rate the lowest in Thomas’s hierarchy. The second of his groupings encompasses gossips, while the third comprises singers. The last two have in common that their tongues wag. He subdivided the vocalists in turn into two clusters, one praiseworthy and the other not worth a tinker’s damn. The ethical framework of this manual tags as bad those jongleurs who do not direct the body to spiritual goals. These lowlifes do not shrink from unabashed buffoonery in either words or deeds. In effect, they submit the spirit to the flesh. Still worse, they engage as agents provocateurs to sin. By engaging in obscene movements of the anatomy, they incite concupiscence in other people. From Genesis 1:27 on, we know that a person’s frame is made in God’s image. As such, the human body is not to be deformed. Neglectful of this divine analogue, acrobats writhe their limbs out of shape. By employing their physique to despicable ends, they have the look of streetwalkers. If the tumbler were truly like such gymnasts, he would resemble at best a harlot saint like Mary Magdalene or Thais before conversion. That is, he would earn his living by selling his body through enactment of base acts. Yet his solution differs, since he does not so much turn away from his profession by leaving it as redeem it by inventing a means of making the performance private and transcendent. As a caste, physical jongleurs deserve their comeuppance. They not only indulge in frivolity themselves, but even worsen matters by implicating others. Through their sensuality, they stimulate lustfulness and turpitude among their audience. But what can be said of good jongleurs? On the positive side, Thomas excepts from condemnation jongleurs who “sing the lofty deeds of princes and lives of saints, furnish solace when a person is sick or unsettled, and do not commit the disgraceful acts that male and female acrobats perform, as well as those who put on shameful shows.” This laudable type of trouper serves the aims of the Church and elicits wary approval above all for helping to propagate the cults of saints and pilgrimage. The approved kind restricts physicality to a sober-minded bearing and to the playing of musical instruments. To this top-flight echelon in his classificatory system the ecclesiastical writer grants careful but ungrudging approbation. In concluding his consideration, 84 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 he relates an anecdote about a jongleur. This individual addresses himself to Pope Alexander III to test the waters about his fate in the afterlife. He wants to find out if he can win salvation. His holiness asks him if he knows another trade. Despite receiving a negative answer, the supreme pontiff assures his jumpy inquirer that he can live without fear so long as he avoids suggestive conduct or obscenity. In the Romance of Flamenca we again encounter three genera of jongleurs, but the taxonomy is not at all the same as in Thomas of Chobham. First come those who sing songs, lyric and narrative; then instrumentalists; and finally, physical performers. Before entering a monastery, the artist in Our Lady’s Tumbler would have been completely at home in this third cadre. By the same token, the acrobat in the medieval French poem belongs to the final one in Thomas’s three ranks of entertainers. His flair, like theirs, lies in the body. So far as we are given to know, our tumbler is an old hand solely in acrobatics, including what we would regard as dance. Indeed, we are told explicitly that he knew only to make his leaps and that he was incapable of anything else. He is not an odd-job man in the entertainment field. What accounts for the permafrost distrust and disregard in which performers, especially of the physical sort, were held? One pat answer would be that Christians in the Middle Ages were meant to leave the body behind, and not to dwell upon it. The anxieties of people across the centuries about the human plight of having an immortal spirit caged within a mortal frame were captured starkly in medieval debates. In the culture of the Middle Ages, body and soul were often presented as antithetical. Debate poems abound in which the two are pitted against each other. This makes sense, considering that the tension between them is a common and perhaps even a fundamental human dilemma. How do we reconcile two such different pulls upon us? In such exchanges, the soul often occupied a position of superiority over the body. It held the moral high ground. In other cases, the two were equally inculpated. Within the asceticism and body-denying spirit of medieval Christianity, it was questionable enough for the entertainer to have a sharpened sensitivity to his own body. How could the joy of dance qualify as asceticism? Even worse, spectators would have been inspired too by the tumbler to pay closer heed to their corporeality as human beings. Yet we must also remember that the acrobat kills himself through the mortification of his devotion. He makes his physicality the means to an end: his body serves as the instrument for the expression of his soul in worship. He makes the prison of the spirit into an escape hatch. Physicality thrusts the tumbler to the bottom of the scale for jongleurs and minstrels. It took a long time for the shame of his corporeality to be destigmatized. Generally, both kinds of artists are portrayed in vernacular literature as being able to sing and play the fiddle-like vielle or harp, as well as perhaps to tumble and perform acrobatics. A manuscript of the Old Spanish Canticles of Saint Mary portrays King Alfonso X the Wise on bended knee before Mary as he calls upon a gaggle of jongleurs, both 2. Dancing for God 85 instrumentalists and dancers, to join him in performing in her honor (see Fig. 2.3). The fragmentary Old Occitan epic Daurel and Beton depicts a professional jongleur named Daurel who possesses both skill sets, musical and athletic. Yet he refrains from imparting his gymnastic arts to his king’s son Beton, and instead gives him a boot camp in music and song alone. Implied is that the physical stunts would ill besuit the station of a nobleman. Whatever their menu of professional skills, jongleurs tended to be regarded with suspicion but not with universal condemnation. A more benevolent outlook upon them can be detected in a thirteenth-century poem by the troubadour Cerveri de Girona, which gives utterance to nail-biting about the spiritual salvation of jongleurs. After initially exhorting them to renounce their wrongful and debasing profession, the poet comes around to urging them instead to put their gifts at the disposal of the Virgin Mary. Me OG 6 oS > ae a umele C6 aco “ - oe Teme 3 Fig. 2.3 Musicians before the Virgin and Child, as depicted in the Cantigas de Santa Maria (Codice Rico). Madrid, Real Biblioteca del Escorial, MS T.1.1., fol. 170v. The tumbler has in common with the jongleur a mobility that was shared in medieval times almost uniquely by pilgrims and merchants. They could go it alone, or travel in troupes. When plural, they swarmed in a kind of proto-circus. For self-protection, they organized themselves ever more tightly by forming guilds and wearing a distinctive livery. The clothing remains with us in popular stereotypes of clowns and court jesters. 86 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 Jongleurs could move from the crossroads, central squares, and street corners of yokel villages to the halls of lordly castles, from the parvises of the saintliest cathedrals to the interiors of the seamiest brothels and bathhouses, and from everyman’s pilgrimage route to the choosiest cloisters. The itinerancy of the jongleurs could border on vagrancy. In a monastic context, steadfastness of place is often designated by the Latin expression stabilitas loci, by which the Rule of Saint Benedict stipulated staying put as one of its most sacrosanct principles. The vows of a Benedictine underlined stability of residence in a single monastery as one of a monk’s paramount duties. Brothers were supposed to abstract themselves from the world at large. By remaining stably in place, they would show the constancy that could elide the otherwise immeasurable space between divinity and humanity. Like the entertainers, the act of wandering elicited praise in some cases and uneasiness in others. The Latin expression homo viator, concretizing the conception of man as nomad, captures the article of faith that the human condition is to range between two worlds. The meandering has logically as its pendants the notions of pilgrim and pilgrimage. But not all drifters were created equal. Those brethren who moved about were condemned for their rambling and roving. Consequently, the monk who was remiss and failed to stay put in one place risked being degraded as a gyrovague. This term for a monastic defector melded a Greek root for a round plane figure and a Latin one for wandering. It has never been thought good to go in circles. The scholar who wheeled about from one venue to another held the shady status of being a wanderer or vagrant. The pilgrim might be righteous or not. The minstrel who accompanied the pilgrim also might be upstanding or not. When in the world, the jongleur in Our Lady’s Tumbler was a boundary-crosser. No container could hold him: he stretched limits, pushed the envelope, and expanded horizons. In contrast to a pious monk, he could epitomize instability. In some ways, he would have resembled a knight. He strayed about sometimes by himself as a knight errant would do, sometimes among troupes of peers. Yet his errancy was not construed as a redemptive quest. He led a vagabond life. He alternately straddled and transgressed, embodying the concept of liminality by crossing thresholds as he went from town to town on a hunt for income from performances. The society around him almost instinctively conflated physical waywardness with moral or spiritual error. Since to be errant and arrant are closely related not merely in etymology, he was more like an arrant knave than an errant knight. He incurred suspicion for being a desperado, a truant, or even a felon. At the end of the day, the jongleur was regarded as a weak prospect for experiencing an enduring conversion. He issued from a class seen as being especially prone to recidivism. When he first entered the monastery, the inveterate rambler would become by force of circumstances a stay-at-home —or this story’s medieval equivalent, a stay-in-monastery. In our story, the tumbler remained just as much of a wanderer, as he shuttled between the ground level or slightly elevated plane of the church where 2. Dancing for God 87 the monks carried out their devotions and the crypt below where he executed his performances. For all that, the entertainers had their good sides and strong suits. For instance, they could serve as cultural vectors across geographic boundaries and social barriers. In this function as intermediaries, they could carry culture from high to low and vice versa, ecclesiastical to secular and vice versa, region to region, language to language, and ethnic group to ethnic group. The performers transported stories and techniques across the lines that ran between such steely oppositions as lay and clerical, oral and written, Germanic and Romance, and worldly and religious. In a year-round open season, they lifted material and methods liberally from others, just as others drew at liberty from them. This unrestricted aspect of jongleur life is evident in the many dance steps with which the tumbler of Our Lady demonstrated familiarity. To judge by their names, he was exposed in his earthbound life to a rainbow of different regional styles in gymnastics. In mobility, the jongleurs bore a likeness to the wandering scholars who are often lumped together and called goliards. Yet our tumbler was no free-and-easy student. Whereas the prerequisite for academic status was Latin, he was unscathed by exposure to the learned tongue. If he had a universal language, it took the form of nonverbal communication in the use of body movements and gestures. Contrary to what many later variants of the story intimate, the protagonist of Our Lady’s Tumbler in its original medieval French verse reflex flourished in his career before entering the abbey. Prior to becoming involved in a miracle tale, he was not a failure but a success story. The geographic diffusion of the balletic steps or acrobatic moves enumerated in his practice suggests that he interacted with entertainers from far and wide. His routinized dance shows the cosmopolitanism of his trade as well as the breadth of his travels and the many ethnicities of his audiences. He was anything but a one-trick pony. Through whatever channels, he familiarized himself with movements indigenous to regions all over Western Europe. Relatively nearby, he was conversant with dance steps or gymnastic moves characteristic of Metz, Lorraine, and Champagne. Further afield, he alluded to Brittany, Spain, and Rome. The distribution may even imply that he traveled in person to these places. Yet since all the steps or moves named are otherwise unknown and unknowable, the real nature of the drill cannot be reconstructed. Though the play-by-play names names without inhibition, we have no frame of reference for them. We cannot discern how one national or regional style of sport or dance differed from another. To complicate matters further, we must even consider that the complex acrobatic or balletic cycle corresponds to no performance that a tumbler or dancer ever put on show. At the remove of many hundred years, we cannot analogize with confidence to any event in our experience. At one extreme would be calypso or cancan moves in freestyle dance competitions; at another, calisthenics before floor exercises in gymnastics. In any case, the supposed routine could be entirely the fancy of the poet, as a way of almost parodying the overwrought psalmody that goes on in monastic churches. 88 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 Finally, we have no idea how much the dance varies from one performance to the next. Is it mechanical and even robotic, or it is improvised anew in each instance— does the jongleur rejig his jig each time he does it? The “vault of Metz” is the first and last named regional move that he performs. Does he save for last the best leap or handspring of his imagination? How does his routine relate to the ritualism of the liturgical offices enacted by the monks above? Our Lady’s Tumbler has sundry associations with Picardy: its dialect contains features typical of the region; it has common ground with the miracles of Gautier de Coinci, who hailed from the heart of the area; it shares motifs with stories from such places as Arras; and so forth. In view of these factors, it is intriguing that in later centuries tumblers and jongleurs from Chauny earned special renown. The Picard town had its own Confraternity of Trumpet-Jongleurs. The guild staged its own festival and went on the road as well. But just as we may not discover much that is meaningful about the supposedly local dance moves that the tumbler made, we are unlikely ever to make great inroads in coming to grips with the particularities of Picard performers. No matter how fine-toothed the comb with which we check the ledgers, relevant information may well never emerge: however great the information explosion may be, not all facts will be at the tips of our fingers. A stock view in Western Europe held thatjongleurs were damned automatically, for the very fact of being jongleurs. A systematic exposition of the Christian faith presents a snatch of dialogue to this effect between its author Honorius Augustodunensis and one of his students. The pupil asks if these entertainers have any glimmer of hope for salvation. His master with the catchy Latin name replies with a stiff negative. The outlook of the churchman meshed with a perspective in which these performers were social outcasts. Often others of this type are mentioned pejoratively, with disapproving terms in French that became modern English /echer and ribald. Although the relationship of the jongleurs with the clergy was fraught, their standing shot up from the early Middle Ages to the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Subsequently, the entertainers who earned their keep in urban or at least curial settings attained a noticeably higher socioeconomic status. Though some remained squalid and marginal, an appreciable number came to have property and wealth. One of them was the tumbler in the original medieval poem, who was far from a penniless failure. The modern image of the jester relates to this intensifying fixity of place or, to be more accurate, milieu. One element in the evolution was the engagement of entertainers with courts and palaces, of both noblemen and ecclesiastical magnates, such as bishops. Jongleur and jester are nearly substitutable terms. An entertainer of this ilk was also attached to a set circle, in this case the entourage of a noble or king. After him, the professional buffoon arrived. Jongleurs and the Church had abundant reason to make common cause when they could. On the clerical side, monks and friars composed legends, increasingly in the vernacular, that they wanted delivered before the widest audience. Sometimes they would have profited from witnessing and appropriating the performance techniques of the jongleurs, to make their own 2. Dancing for God 89 preaching more appetizing. On the other side, professionals had every reason to ingratiate themselves with the clerics who policed many of the common spaces where the largest publics awaited them. By describing in loving detail the virtuosity of a resourceful entertainer, the preacher who resorted to the exemplum of the tumbler would have coopted some of what his competitors in entertainment had to offer. In effect, the stimulation of hearing an eloquent exemplum about a high-quality performance could have rivaled the experience of watching an actual performer in action: score one for the pulpiteer versus the puppeteer. The equivalence would have held especially strong if the sermon- giver employed gestures or movements to convey mimetically how the acrobat’s tumbling might have appeared. Along these lines, a parish priest is reported to have later called himself a “mime of Christ” in the inscription at his burial place. If true, this allegation would transmute the mimetic art into being an “imitation of Christ.” In this case, the jongleur would have mimed the elation of creation upon being saved. In an added Marian wrinkle, he achieved salvation through the grace of the Virgin. At the same time, one main thrust of the exemplum is to burnish the reputation of a professional entertainer who repudiated his profession and converted. By drawing upon the narrative, a sermonizer would have exalted religious devotion over more earthly pursuits. When a speaker related the story at the pulpit, he could claim for his narrative the full weight of institutional authority. Such church-sanctioned use is what the poet of Our Lady’s Tumbler assumes by referring to the tale as a “little exemplum.” Many valuations of jongleurs and their colleagues have come to light from the medieval period. Ambivalence about them percolates into plain sight in Gautier de Coinci. The poet of the Virgin takes pains to establish the veracity of the legends he relates. By doing so, he differentiates his narrative repertoire from the fallacious and fraudulent miracles retailed by footloose and fancy-free goliards and itinerant sermonizers. Gautier, nobleman turned Benedictine, monk promoted to abbot, was no jongleur himself. Nor, the odds would imply vigorously, was the author of Our Lady’s Tumbler. But both poets, alongside preachers who drew upon the exemplum for their sermons, had incentive to assert control over the sometimes reviled and sometimes dreaded members of their guild. They could do so by promulgating a view of what a proper entertainer—one who merited the approbation of no less than the Mother of God herself—should be and do. During the Reformation, all entertainers, both jongleurs generally and jugglers specifically, fell into even deeper disrepute than in the Middle Ages. Furthermore, jugglers and their skill became anti-Catholic slurs in England. Priests who officiated at Mass were likened to entertainers of this sort, as the Mass and transubstantiation were to their characteristic craft. The theologian John Wycliffe went so far as to smear such fathers with being “the devil’s jugglers.” In many parts of Europe a story with a jongleur as protagonist would have stood an even slimmer chance of eliciting favor during the sixteenth-century reform movement than in most earlier times. 90 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 Trance Dance So he became a dancer to God. —T.S. Eliot Dance and spiritual practice sometimes relate strongly to each other. No one how-to or do-it-yourself manual can tell everyone how to achieve transcendence through an altered state. For some, the best means of attaining an out-of-body experience comes through the body itself, through the ecstatic ritual of dance. The liturgy of Christian worship may seem excessively verbal and slow-moving, even stalled, but in every single one of its expressions it involves motions as well as words. We would not go too far to say that the prayer books of many denominations seek to formulate for worshipers a coherent message from both a choreography of ritualized steps and a content based on set texts. Analyzed against this backdrop, the juggler had landed in a quandary. As an illiterate lay brother, he was not permitted to participate in the sequence of motions, and he could not understand the foundational texts. The scriptures and formal ceremonies were unintelligible to him. Although not anti- intellectual, he was inalterably unintellectual. What was to be done? His achievement came in dreaming up a silver bullet all his own. His leggy liturgy was a worship with movements and language of his own creation. A clash and crisis follow, since his veneration through dance is initially indecipherable to the other monks. We have competing, mutually uncomprehending, and uninterpretable illiteracies, the one of texts and the other of dance. Despite the distinctly detail-oriented description that the poet of Our Lady’s Tumbler furnishes, we cannot reconstruct the tumbler’s jumps in their entirety. We are unable to state with assurance how a single move in it would look, or even to establish for sure whether the act was properly a dance, a gymnastic routine, a fusion of the two, or something different again. We do know that a multitude of religious systems, distributed widely across time and space, have allowed for the physical expression of ritual adoration—for sacred performance. In ancient Greece, the athletic competitions of the Olympic Games were tied so tightly to religious festivals in honor of Zeus that they ceased only when the Christian emperor Theodosius banned such pagan cults. In pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, ballgames constituted symbolic and ritual actions while they also served the purposes of politics and entertainment. In Buddhism, monks still dance to offer their bodies to the Buddha. This is obviously not to say that all dances have been accepted in any religion, and even less that any type of such rhythmic stepping has been rubber-stamped across the full religious spectrum. From the Fathers of the Church through the Middle Ages, Christianity showed itself highly disposed to condemn dancing. Many ecclesiastical councils and synods, as well as texts concerned with penance, leave the distinct impression that priests wished to extirpate dance. The taboos held with remarkable hardiness against any movement remotely resembling it during divine service, 2. Dancing for God 91 especially in sermons and sacred processions. By the same token, dancing elicited frowns and furrowed brows when it took place in hallowed sites, such as churches, churchyards, and cemeteries. By both timing and place, the conduct of the lay brother in Our Lady’s Tumbler was glaringly provocative to orthodox views within Christianity. In almost every way imaginable, but particularly in this one regard, he challenges the inelasticity of the dissociation that the Church sought to impose between lay and clerical culture. During the same span of a millennium and a half, Christians never stopped gyrating for long. Despite hostility to the medium, some of the recurrent denunciations themselves confirm that dancing took place. In fact, even priests engage in ritual dances sometimes. In special cases, the physical activity could lead to mystical experiences. Through balletic performance the tumbler could have attained a state of altered consciousness that is achieved through the manner of movement known as trance dance. This type of effortful motion facilitates entry into ecstasy. Such a condition of heightened being is achieved, above all, in religious rituals. A particularly ancient manifestation is the leaping for which the followers of the Greek god Dionysus were known in Greece. It was associated with the choral song or chant known as the dithyramb, which to this day is associated with wildness and irregularity. In dances associated with possession, the participants may undergo visitations from spirits that take hold of them. Incidentally, they may do spectacular feats beyond their normal abilities. The line between religious ritual and entertainment is often porous, especially in the case of fire-walking (see Fig. 2.4). As captured in an image of Fijian men from the 1960s, this sort of religious ritual features barefooted people who lope unharmed over white-hot stones or coals. The tumbler’s performance resembles the custom of the Pacific islanders mainly in his ability to locomote through what a person in a normal state might have experienced as extreme discomfort. The joys of his movement and his worship are analgesic in the same way as religious ecstasy protects pyro-peripateticists. Medieval asceticism and mysticism abound in manifestations of devotion that originate in self-inflicted suffering. The order of white monks is devoted in large part to the expression of piety through penance. Their goal is to merit intercession, not merely for themselves but also for others. Cistercianism included its fair share of devotees who inflicted penitential pain upon themselves. Alongside exaltation and exultation, the lay brother would have braved with gritted teeth the pain of penitential prayer and worship. The tumbler’s self-imposed physical torment, although whipless, faintly resembles that of radicals in the late medieval movement known as flagellantism who lashed themselves with scourges or cat-o’-nine-tails (see Fig. 2.5). In turn, the European flagellants bring to mind the pious in the yearly ‘Ashura’ ritual in Twelver Shi‘ism, who march through the streets flogging themselves in remembrance of al-Husayn, the Prophet’s martyred grandson. Loosely similar to both groups, the gymnast puts himself on a treadmill of self-annihilation through physical expression of devotion. By continuing despite exhaustion, he kills himself through the enactment of his love for Mary, working or worshiping himself to death. In the story of Our Lady’s Tumbler, 92 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 the acrobat suffers the reality suggested by the etymology of contrition, which derives ultimately from a Latin participle for “broken” or “ground down.” He is stomped down through the stamping of his own feet. Véritable Extrait de viande inet hed 1 ays em cre bleu Pesogy la signature LIEBIG en sur l’étiquetie et le papier pois. qui enveloppe les bs OK Ne 4— PROCESSION DE FLAGELLANTS A AVIGNON. Sere VOIR AU VERSO. Fig. 2.5 Trade card depicting a flagellant procession in Avignon, 1574 (London: Liebig’s Extract of Meat Company, 1903). 2. Dancing for God 93 The late Middle Ages and early modern era witnessed their own distinctive manifestations of dances in dazes. These phenomena peaked in number and intensity from the late fourteenth down through the seventeenth century. In these events, packs of people would go berserk and engage in a frenzied mass hysteria of dancing in the streets. Such manic episodes hinged upon collective dance that was associated with music, sometimes allegedly either precipitated or palliated by the playing of instruments (see Fig. 2.6). The causes of the flare-ups remain disputable. One explanation that has gained traction lays the blame on poisoning, the culprit being either toxins from infected foodstuffs or bites from spiders or scorpions. Another line of reasoning sees the illness as having no real physiological etiology. Instead, the impulse would be psychogenic or psychosomatic. Supposedly this balletic “monkey see, monkey do” on a grand scale resulted from shared stress. In contrast to the group dances of the laity, the tumbler’s performance is the solo act of an individual. So far as he is aware, his audience has just one member. His disporting is neither competitive nor spectator sport. Only the Virgin Mary watches him, through the proxy of the Madonna. He does not join others in ad hoc line dancing, but instead remains in solitude. What he does by himself is pray, but for his soliloquy he resorts not to verbose utterances, but to physical maneuvers. He apostrophizes the Virgin through his steps, without realizing that she sees and esteems what he accomplishes. Although not lonesome, the tumbler dances alone. The aloneness of his dance sets it far apart from collective dances, whether in rings or not. If such a thing as penitential dancing existed, it would be his atonement in this way. His dancing is also distinctive in not entailing possession by a spirit. On the contrary, it turns upon Fig. 2.6 Pieter Brueghel the Younger (attributed), The Pilgrimage of the Epileptics to Molenbeek, late sixteenth to early seventeenth century. Oil on panel, 29.2 x 62.2 cm. Image from Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dance_at_Molenbeek.jpg 94 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 performance before an image that leads to the appearance of a presence. But the balletic routine of the individual performer does set the stage for a death that makes him loosely comparable to the victims of the mass dance frenzies. He dances himself into oblivion. Before the tumbler dies, his practice results in a loss of self. Whether his state amounts to mania in any way equivalent to the madness of the maenads or bacchantes in Greek mythology remains open to debate. Likewise requiring further discussion is whether the leaping and falling match up with spiritual exaltation and depression. Is the leaper subject to mood swings in tandem with his physical undulation? One surety is that late in the game he suffers, both physical and psychological, prostration as he buckles before the Madonna. Christianity is the religion that enters the equation in Our Lady’s Tumbler and its diverse progeny. The tumbler coordinates his personal expression of devotion with the liturgical song of the monks who chant in the church above the crypt. Similarly, he aligns dance from the lay realm with monastic ritual. Both the liturgy and the performance of the tumbler prescribe movements that function as a language of signs. Even so, we must not assume that the jongleur’s routine could correspond reductively, step by step, to an utterance or a text. In part, dancers dance to express what cannot be conveyed verbally, rather than to translate verbal pronouncements into physical actions. In this case, the tumbler makes into motion the emotion that moves more learned monks to transact the set words and gestures of worship. The tumbler shares with the victims of dancing mania a compulsion to dance until he is emptied of all his cyclonic energy and crumples. Indeed, he could be said fairly to have danced himself into his grave. The outcome of self-immolation through this activity reappears in the nineteenth-century French ballet Giselle, or The Wilis, set in the Rhineland during the Middle Ages (see Fig. 2.7). Its star-crossed title character dies of a broken heart after catching wind that her lover is betrothed to another. The Wilis, who summon the peasant girl from her grave, target her beloved for execution, but her love extricates him from their grasp. In legend, these nightwalkers are the ghosts of young ladies who, having died before their wedding days, cannot remain at peace in their tombs. To fulfill the unbridled passion for dance that they could not sate during their lives, they dance in troupes at midnight. Woe betide the young man who meets these seductive spirits, since he must dance with them until he drops dead. To look beyond the motif of death through nonstop dancing, the routine of the jongleur anticipates approximately the enthusiastic vocalization and bodily movement that have been incorporated into the worship of various religions. For example, adherents of the American religious sect known as the Shakers sang and danced. Similarly, worshipers in some churches in the Southern United States engage in “praise dance” as a channel for sacred expression. Outside Christianity, the fevered steps of the tumbler bear comparison with the corkscrewing moves of dervishes. Such Muslim Sufi mystics wandered from place to place; stood apart from normal people in their dress, behavior, and language; and expressed their piety through a vigorously 2. Dancing for God 95 athletic mélange of music and motion. Like them, the jongleur loses himself in a physicality of bodily movements and touch (by Mary), but, alone when he does his routine, it constitutes at once a private ritual and a one-person festival. More especially, the apparition of the Virgin herself from heaven relates to the collective delusions in medieval dancing mania. Are the collapses of the tumbler merely the unintended outcome of overexertion, or are they the purposeful results of performances designed to achieve ecstasy through whirling? We would do well to recall the etymology in Old English of giddy, which referred literally to scatterbrained possession by a God, and dizzy, which meant “foolish” or “witless.” Older still is the Greek enthusiasm, from a word meaning “possessed by a god.” Thus, our God-filled character was not a madcap innovator in doing his vertiginous dance before the Madonna. = CISELLE ou les WILIS. Melodie Turée du Ballet de Giselle. MUSIQUE DAD. ADAM. Pareles de UF L.ESCUDIER. A MADEMOISELLE DOBREE. Paris Chez J MEISSOMNIER., 28, Rue Dauphine Fig. 2.7 Front cover of Jules-Henri Vernoy de Saint-Georges and Théophile Gautier, Giselle, ou les Wilis, illus. Célestin Nanteuil (Paris: J. Meissonnier, 1841). Image courtesy of Bibliotheque nationale de France, Paris. All rights reserved. 96 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 The tale does not advocate the abandonment of conventional worship. Rather, it reminds us that traditional veneration exists as a conduit for a spirit of reverence, devotion, love, joy, and hope. All of us must decide for ourselves where soul or mind begins, and where body stops. Likewise, we must determine, for both ourselves and the tumbler, what constitutes thought and feeling, reason and faith. Finally, we should cogitate about song and instrumentation. If music of any sort is set aside, the performance is a form of acrobatics; if the rhythm and melody are internalized, dance results. (Break dancing, which is often held to have originated in the mid-1970s, is only the latest and best-known style of acrobatic dancing, with its spinning headstands, fancy footwork, tumbling, and pantomime.) Laying down a boundary between the two can be ticklish, even impossible. Jongleurs of God The jongleur captured the theologians’ attention because he was an antitype of themselves. The pleasure principles in whichjongleurs were ensnared brought them inevitably into tension with Christianity, at least in fits and starts. Were they divine or diabolic forces? Was their artistry licit or illicit? The position of these performers was ambiguous. Often it was judged to be very negative, but sometimes more positive. For hundreds of years, churchmen, almost unanimously, voiced stentorian disapproval of such entertainers. Yet in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, dissenting murmurs of approval can be heard at the fringes of the loudly condemnatory chorus. Indeed, Church luminaries spoke of their own missions in life as resembling those of entertainers. As the jongleur relates to his earthly patrons, so too does the inspired devotee to his divine ones. Cistercian monks had a complicated self-image as God’s jesters. The foremost exponent of Cistercianism, Bernard of Clairvaux, was accused of having in his misspent youth devised minstrel-like ditties and suave melodies. He referred to himself, no doubt with a measure of irony, as an “acrobat of God.” In a letter dated around 1140, the celebrated saint-to-be presented monastic life as a kind of humbling game that pleases the Almighty even as it elicits stares and sniggers from men. Continuing, he contrasted the transcendence of spiritual exercise to the deformity of physical entertainment. The gymnasts are yogis who practice yoga in ashrams; the others are contortionists who bend themselves into pretzels to divert the public. In a world where values are upended, monks may appear to the worldly to cavort. Elsewhere they will seem to angels to enact a wonderful spectacle. Understandably, Bernard does not himself refer to spectacle here in describing the behavior of monks. The large-scale, public display that is implied by the concept of the spectacular is attested first in English in a 1340 psalter by Richard Rolle. Interestingly, the mystic writes of such showiness specifically when referring to the “hopping and dancing of tumblers.” The context he evokes is one familiar from present-day 2. Dancing for God 97 reenactments of medieval and Renaissance fairs, in which colorful gatherings of many people include such performers as jugglers, jesters, and other entertainers often popularly associated with the Middle Ages. To return to the passage by Bernard from two centuries earlier, the gist of his point- by-point description is that professionals, such as actual jongleurs and dancers, turn themselves wrong side up to provide pleasure to their terrestrial audiences. In contrast, monastic brothers exemplify humility and serve heaven. They engage in apparent frolic as sacred play. The Cistercian’s audacious simile is in no way inconsistent with the vitriolic verdicts against jongleurs and other traveling entertainers pronounced by him (even in this very snippet), as well as by other monks and clerics. Yet he opens a pathway to redemption for the professional performers that others who follow him see reason to maintain. After him, his fellow white monk Caesarius of Heisterbach speaks of unassuming souls whom he esteems to be “jongleurs of God and of the holy angels.” He describes folk without airs and graces, who upend worldly values. By the same token, they make what is reasonable seem nonsensical, and vice versa. To him, they are like gymnasts who twist themselves to ambulate with their heads down and their feet aloft. If we let our imaginations run wild, we can make out the gentle sound of their handfall (let us give footfall a sibling). In characterizing the simple man, Caesarius treads carefully among the many connotations of simplicity. He does not correlate the noun and concept completely with simplemindedness or vacuity. Similarly, he leaves implicit the notions of humility, ordinariness, and inexperience. Later, Saint Francis of Assisi transcended simile. He counseled his companions to eschew Latin books when preaching. Instead of putting on any airs of learnedness, he disguised himself as a beggar or busker, performed the medieval equivalent of air guitar by miming a jongleur fiddling, and trilled songs in French. This was one way of saying, “It’s showtime, folks!” All these behaviors had the goal, or at least the effect, of making the public titter at his expense. By extension from their founding father, the Franciscans collectively remain famed even today for having styled themselves provocatively jongleurs or minstrels of the Lord, of Christ, and of God. These pairings were oxymora that bordered on being blasphemous. Despite his miming, the Poor Man of Assisi made apparent that he was a God’s troubadour who juggled with words rather than physical acts (see Fig. 2.8). He took a bold roll of the dice by equating the words of songs such as lyrics and ballads with the Word of God, and vernacular entertainment with Latin preaching. In all cases Francis and the friars minor served as jesters of the divinity, not of the Church. They claimed divine rather than ecclesiastical sanction for their conduct. The ruler for whom they tumbled was God; the court, heaven. The first generation of the saint’s original stalwarts supposedly included Brother Juniper, who joined the friars in 1210. Known in time as “the jester of the Lord,” this legendary figure was renowned for simplicity and humility. At the same time, his radical humbleness caused him to be bracketed as a fool. Through pranks and practical jokes, hoaxes and hilarity, Brother Juniper defied social norms and sought to subvert them. In contrast, our tumbler abstracted himself from the conventions of 98 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 the closed society that he entered within the abbey, and charted and piloted a course uniquely his own, without making the slightest effort to prescribe it to anyone else. Fig. 2.8 Film poster for Francesco, guillare di Dio, dir. Roberto Rossellini (Minerva Film, 1950). © Minerva Pictures. All rights reserved. The example of Francis, building upon that of Bernard of Clairvaux, had a strong bearing upon the standing of jongleurs, at least in similes and metaphors. The Castilian poet Gonzalo de Berceo differentiated between two classes of artists in societal rank, presenting himself as a troubadour when singing to the Virgin, a jongleur when dealing with Saint Dominic of Silos. Nicolas de Biard was a mendicant preacher of the late thirteenth century in Paris who assembled two much-esteemed sermon collections. In one of them he likened confessors to jongleurs, or vice versa. Francis was not the only jongleur-like solitary who attracted enough champions to warrant founding a religious congregation in the early thirteenth century. Blessed John Buoni was another. He lived licentiously as a professional entertainer until suffering a near-fatal illness at around the age of forty. After that moment of truth, he saw the light in 1209. He turned into a true troglodyte, a bona fide hermit in an equally real grotto (see Fig. 2.9). Through his stringent asceticism he attracted hermitic acolytes. In 1217, he formally established a following. His admirers became known as Boniti, after his cognomen. 2. Dancing for God 99 Jongleurs of God stand not too far from jongleurs of Notre Dame. What is Our Lady’s tumbler, if not such a minstrel of Mary? Like others of this kind, he consolidates two qualities that would seem mutually exclusive. Though humble to the core, he is still so self-assured that he rashly breaches the conformity and obedience required by monasticism and even by Catholicism. He throws caution to the wind and improvises an entire liturgy for himself, determined not by readings, chant, and hallowed movements and objects, but rather by a physical performance that he has devised from scratch. Contrary to the very basis of monasticism, he serves as his own drillmaster and taskmaster. Such pluck might seem dim-witted, but the apparent empty-headedness is holy. Fig. 2.9 John Buoni. Engraving by Adriaen Collaert after Maerten de Vos, 1585-1586. Published in Jan Sadeler, Solitudo, sive vitae Patrum Eremicolarum (Antwerp: Jan Sadeler, ca. 1590s). Holy Fools We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are wise in Christ. —Paul the Apostle The distinction between faith and folly can be cut very finely. If truth be told, the dividing line may be invisible to the naked eye. The fool of God, also known as the holy fool, is an even more multifaceted and omnipresent conception from medieval Christianity down to the present day than is the acrobat of God. The two concepts are interrelated, and the figure of the jongleur has sometimes been superimposed upon that of the holy fool. 100 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 From one end to the other in both time and space, the Middle Ages were anything but foolproof. That said, the notion of the fool of God or the fool for Christ became disseminated far more widely outside than inside Western Europe. The cultural importance of this type has loomed large, first in the Greek East and later in Russia. One of the first attested examples of such a character is the sixth-century Symeon of Emesa. Two other cases, both fools who happen to be nuns, are found in the Lausiac History, a major compendium of traditions about the desert fathers that enjoyed popularity through the East. Such figures often make idiots of themselves in public through (un) intentional absurdism. They engage in seemingly weak-minded behavior from which a clear-headed person would refrain. They dispose of all their possessions, sometimes even down to much or all their clothing. They express themselves in babbling or blustering twaddle that others may find inexplicable, meaningless, or even unhinged. Yet there is method to the madness. From one perspective, these religious fools may appear to profane the sacred. From another lookout point, they take to an extreme what is called in Latin imitatio Christi. That is, they humiliate themselves to imitate the humility and humiliation of Jesus. Within Western Europe, Saint Francis of Assisi stands out as the paragon of the holy fool, just as of the jongleur. His clowning had the collateral effect of illuminating the degree of his simplicity. The jongleur of God reportedly presented himself likewise as a slow-minded fool or jester of God. He and the first generations of Franciscans paralleled the tumbler in rejecting the finery and splendor of the conventional Church for lowness and abasement. For their stance, they earned regard as what Erasmus called “fools to the world.” Beyond the general homogeneity of the protagonist in Our Lady’s Tumbler and of holy fools, it bears noting that the exemplum resembles accounts of so-called hidden saints. These secret servants of God are typically retiring in their comportment. They slave at a humble vocation, their sanctity unrecognized by others. An archetype would be Saint Joseph, the carpenter. Such holy men are numerous in Byzantine hagiography. There we encounter individuals whose holiness goes undetected or is even mistaken for negative qualities, such as derangement. A lesson could be drawn from all these stories that communities are not always capable of the discernment required to tell apart a mere jongleur from one of God, or a fool from one of God. For instance, Daniel of Scetis, an Egyptian monk and abbot, tells the tale of Mark the Fool. This saint pretends to be demented and passes himself off as a raving lunatic. For eight years, he plays the role of a Robin Hood among fools by distributing to others what he begs and steals. It emerges that earlier he had lived fifteen years in a monastic community, before his eight years as a solitary. On the morning after the facts of his life have become known to the pope, Mark dies and subsequently his body emanates the odor of sanctity—a mystical scent of incorruption that was construed as a sign of saintliness. Another example is a narrative recounted in the vita of Daniel himself. While visiting a convent, he allegedly witnessed a sister there who to all appearances was sprawled intoxicated. That night the future saint and his disciple observed how the same nun would stand in prayer until a passerby appeared, at which point she 2. Dancing for God 101 would sag to the ground. They brought this behavior to the attention of the abbess, who realized rapidly that the alleged falling-down drunk was a hidden saint. When the report of the sister’s piety spread, she fled the nunnery. Still other tales in the genre have principals who are entertainers, apparently leading unseemly lives but in fact recognized by God as being on the side of the angels. The type of behavior that these individuals display is attested in Byzantine hagiography throughout the Middle Ages. A memorable case of such holy and high- functioning folly from the fourteenth century is Maximos. This man, a soon-to-be saint, acclaimed from childhood for his devotion to the Virgin, became a monk rather than enter into a marriage arranged for him by his parents. In Constantinople, he dwelled for a time in the gateway of the church of Saint Mary of Blachernae in the guise of a fool for Christ’s sake. Later, on Mount Athos, Maximos earned his colorful cognomen, the Hut-Burner, as a kind of auto-arsonist. Whenever he moved to anew dwelling for greater seclusion, he would torch his old hovel. Likewise worth mentioning are the later Russian descendants of the Byzantine hidden saints—the holy fools or fools in Christ—who are stock characters in first Muscovy and later Imperial Russia. In Western Europe, fools of God are far from unknown in French literature from the early thirteenth century. To cite only two examples, Life of the Fathers contains a story that goes simply by the short title “Fool,” and Gautier de Coinci wrote a miracle on the topic. Distinct from a saint who poses as a fool would be a court jester who has occasion to display miraculous piety. In 1878, the German author Gottfried Keller composed a poem based on a purportedly actual event of 1528. Entitled “The Fool of Count von Zimmern,” the piece describes how an entertainer of this sort was called upon to assist in the office when the chaplain was shorthanded. At the point when a bell was to be tolled, none was to be had, and so the joker improvised by shaking with all his might to jingle his fool’s cap, whereupon a golden glow shone out from the large lidded flagon that held the host for the Eucharist. In recent times a figure well worth examining in this conjunction is Dario Fo. His first major work after receiving the 1997 Nobel Prize in Literature was The Holy Jester Francis. Like the medieval saint, the modern Italian performer immersed himself in folk culture, popular theater, and oral tradition. Although the laureate wrote extensively, his texts presumed performance. He was himself styled a holy jester. His theater entailed mime and pantomime, song and dance, acrobatics, clowning, puppetry, and above all storytelling. Fo’s main stance was as a latter-day jongleur. Accordingly, he termed his one-man show “jonglery.” His objective was to demonstrate how culture belonging to the unempowered masses ha an inherent worth that has been either arrogated or effaced by the dominant cultures of the Church, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie. The Italian author’s conception of a subaltern jongleur suits the tale of the medieval tumbler well. In a way, the paradox of the spiritually inspired fool was hardwired within Our Lady’s Tumbler. The story is built upon the radical innovation and challenge that enabled lay brothers to serve within cenobitism. Of the various trials made in this direction, that of the twelfth-century Cistercians may well have 102 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 been “the most successful and significant.” This experiment allowed the depiction of a man without education and culture, who lacked institutional or political muscle but possessed the power of boundless charisma. He was not a fool so much as a simple man of God, not a jester so much as a jongleur of God. The tumbler may have been a legend based on an otherwise unattested reality. Then again, he may have been fabricated as an exemplum to occupy a vacancy that real-life personages had not filled. In either case, he perpetuated the image of real-life holy fools who had preceded him. By the same token, he was a proto-Franciscan who anticipated equally actual jongleurs of God who would succeed him. Like all of them, he was a beatific ascetic. He blurred the absolute lines that some have sought to draw between religious and profane, as between monastic and secular. Fact or Fiction? Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn’t. —Mark Twain The story of the jongleur poses fundamental and ultimately unanswerable questions, some of them along the lines of the old chicken-or-egg conundrum. Did the reports of saintly behavior rest on reality? Did Our Lady’s Tumbler monasticize or monkify a preexisting motif that storytellers had imagined and transmitted in written or oral literature? Or did it remodel an actual occurrence that played out within a monastery? Was it, then, history rather than story? How far did the tale lie from bona fide lived religion? By a process almost equivalent to convergent evolution, personal and social circumstances of all types have led in radically different cultures across time and space to astonishingly similar cases of performers who have dedicated their crafts to God. These peas in a pod deserve our full attention. In The City of God, Augustine, bishop of Hippo and later saint, quotes from a lost treatise On Superstition by Seneca the Younger. In the passage, the Roman philosopher lambastes a down-at-the-heels mime. Formerly at the top of his profession, the washed-up thespian, now in his declining years, performs daily on the Capitol in Rome with the expectation of pleasing the pagan gods. The old man seems to have subscribed to the belief that in the end, artists and artisans devote their achievements to the gods. Although the dotard may have been pressured by material needs to perform, no mention is made of payment by temple keepers or passersby. In effect, the worn-out entertainer enacts the routine in a spirit of “the show must go on.” Yet however humble the player, the spectator may be divine, in the person of Jupiter as worshiped in the sanctuary on the Capitoline Hill. Such a story as Seneca tells, and Augustine repeats, need not have been altogether fanciful. Professional actors may have rendered performances in honor of God, the 2. Dancing for God 103 Virgin, and others. Afterward, events may have ensued that came to be credited as miracles. Both the fragment quoted by Augustine and Our Lady’s Tumbler present performers who have withdrawn from their practices but who offer their acts in homage to divinities. Yet would the storyteller with whom Our Lady’s Tumbler originated have needed the provocation of either a written source or an actual performance by a jongleur to come up with his idea? To create any of the tales as we have them, would he have required such a propellant? Before answering these questions, we should consider one half dozen historically attested cases from western Christendom. One tells of a humble Spanish friar in the sixteenth century who was unwittingly seen prancing before a statue of the Virgin over the refectory door. Another concerns an Italian priest whose methods for drawing youths into the values of the Church included following and preceding prayer with presentations of juggling, acrobatics, and magic. The third relates to an incident in 1935 that involved a female American trailblazer of modern dance, Ruth St. Denis. The fourth pertains to a French ballerina who turned nun. Once she took the habit, her longing to dance for God put her at odds with the ecclesiastical hierarchy later in the twentieth century. The fifth is a man who first came to live in a circus while a Jesuit. After leaving the Catholic religious order, he remained a clown with his troupe. The final—and most recent, bringing us into the twenty-first century —is an Italian lap- or pole-dancer. Although no longer gyrating or grinding, her persistence in dancing after her conversion to religion created hassles for her like those that the ballerina faced. The Church has demonstrated abiding ambivalence toward dance as an expression of devotion, not least within the setting of formal monastic institutions. The hierarchy has sought to devise and decree the proper forms of praise and prayer, and to make its decisions the pathway to miracles. Not all individuals have complied. Instead, some have chosen, not always consciously, to find or make rituals of their own. They have realized that even the mundane may be magical—that ordinary lives turn out to be filled with miracle whenever the people living them feel grateful for the ordinariness of their lives. If God moves in mysterious ways, so too do worshipers. ry Dancers are the athletes of God. To begin with our first attested instance, we have a sixteenth-century friar who began life as a Spanish rustic. An illiterate herdsman born in Aragon in 1540, Paschal Baylon was devoted to the Eucharist and the Virgin. Out of devotion to the latter, this future saint taught himself to read so that he could make use of the Little Hours of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the prayerbook most favored among laypeople. He adopted habits of going barefoot, fasting, and eating only simple fare. Not content merely with being ascetic, he wore beneath his shepherd’s cloak an imitation of a friar’s habit. In 1564, at the age of 24, he was at long last granted his heart’s desire and allowed to enter the reformed Franciscan friary of the Blessed Virgin of Loreto in Valencia, where 104 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 he distinguished himself as a lay brother by his sanctity, especially in love for the poor and in visions of the Eucharist. Most mainstream hagiography and all the iconography concerning Paschal focus on his attachment to the Eucharist. Secondarily, in popular devotion he is widely associated with cooking, above all in Mexico. In the Mexican state of Chiapas and in Guatemala he has tertiary associations in folk traditions with death, as a bony “King of the Graveyard.” Finally, the good friar is known for dancing. Holding special relevance to Our Lady’s Tumbler is an episode connected with the functions of the future saint in the communal kitchen and scullery. Despite his complete inexperience as a cook, the lowly man was put in charge of tending to the refectory. A beautiful statue of the Virgin stood above a doorway of the room. As refectorian, Paschal made sure always to deck the altar there with fresh-cut flowers. On feast days, he supplied candles. While attending to his duties by himself, he would sing quiet songs of praise to the Mother of God. Once a fellow Franciscan caught him in an unguarded moment as he gamboled in rhythmic steps of joy, by some accounts a rudimentary gypsy dance, moving forward and backward, before the statue. The image of Mary allegedly assumed a real body and blessed the saint. Dancing is also a motif in a tale about a journey by foot that the friar made as he returned from engaging with heretics on his return trip from Calvinist France. In at least one telling (see Fig. 2.10), he first prayed before his staff and thereafter broke into a jubilant jig. The given name Paschal draws attention to Easter. In contrast, the cognomen Baylon suggests a sense of “one fond of dancing.” If this is the case, the nickname could have come to him specifically thanks to his predilection for high-stepping in honor of the Virgin. Paschal’s cult has developed especially strong connotations with dance in the Philippines, where in the eighteenth century Spanish Franciscan missionaries in Obando built a church dedicated to him. Thanks to the interpretation of his second name as an epithet, the saint became associated with a ritual known as the “Obando Fertility Rites.” These feast days, which take place on the streets on three consecutive days in May, feature dancing by men, women, and children in traditional dance costumes. On each day, an image of the patron saint of the day heads the procession— in effect, as lead dancer. The first day of the Obando festival, the official feast day of Paschal, which falls on May 17, is dedicated to Paschal; the next is dedicated in honor of Saint Clare (whose regular feast day is August 11); and the third is to celebrate Our Lady of Salambao (see Fig. 2.11). Paschal is called in this conjunction “the dancing saint.” Some faithful believe that when accompanied by dance, prayer to him will be granted more readily. For these associations with rhythmic movement, he has been termed “a second jongleur de Notre-Dame.” Our second example goes in English by the name of Saint John Bosco. This holy man grew up fatherless and in poverty in Piedmont, in the north of what is today Italy. At the age of nine or ten, he had the first in a series of life-determining dreams. He first saw himself in a field with a knot of poor juvenile delinquents who played and cursed. Then, when he failed to stop the penniless urchins from misbehaving, a man 2. Dancing for God 105 of noble dress and bearing counseled him to win over the boys from vice to virtue through gentleness and softheartedness. Toward the end of the vision, a woman appeared. The guttersnipes turned into a pack of wild animals until she put out her hand, whereupon they changed into a flock of capering lambs. LUEGO, LLENO DE GOZO, CANTO Y BAILO COMO UN ENAJENADO..-- 7 COMAN TODOS LOS MORTALES FRUTA CON QUE VIVIRAN, QUE ES DIOS DEBAJO DE PAN..2 Fig. 2.10 San Pascual Bailon. Comic illustration, 1961. Published in Vidas ejemplares 7.113 (November 15, 1961). Fig. 2.11 Statue of Our Lady of Salambao, Obando Church, The Philippines. Photograph by Ramon Velasquez, 2012. Image from Wikimedia Commons, © Ramon Velasquez (2012), CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Salambaojf.JPG 106 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 John Bosco put into action the oneiric advice that had been offered him. Very literally, he practiced what he preached (see Figs. 2.12, 2.13 and 2.14). By watching traveling showmen he learned juggling, acrobatics such as tightrope walking, and magic tricks. Seizing the initiative, he made himself as teacher into the class clown. He would punctuate with prayers his activities in sleight of hand and as a physical performer. In effect, he refined circus stunts into a means of enticing young people to say the rosary and attend Mass (see Fig. 2.15). Conjuring maneuvers such as ostensibly changing pebbles into coins became a trademark of his repertoire. In addition, he made demonstrations of rough-and-ready skills the basis for lessons in basic theology. For example, he would plait three cords to become a single rope. This uncomplicated action would bring home the nature of the Trinity. In the decade that followed, the man who would become a saint left behind life as a shepherd to take the clerical collar. Eventually, Bosco founded the Society of Saint Francis de Sales. The Salesians, as the members of this order came to be known, were divided into three groups, namely, priests, seminarians, and lay brothers. The holy man, canonized in in 1935, is regarded as the patron of stage magicians. Abracadabra! On his feast day, Catholic illusionists sometimes show their veneration by offering displays of conjuring gratis to poor children. The third instance takes us forward to the mid-1930s. The modern dancer Ruth St. Denis had long cherished an interest in dance as a spiritual medium. She defined her performances as “religion-art.” In the wake of a broken marriage and financial meltdown, she poured herself ever more into integrating her art form and her spirituality. Toward this end, she founded a Society of Spiritual Arts, tantamount to a Church of the Divine Dance, which evolved into a performing ensemble. During the early part of this phase, St. Denis made a specialty of dances on Christian themes that were performed to the accompaniment of music in churches. The most important such composition was The Masque of Mary, which premiered in 1934 in Riverside Church in New York. The dancer was introduced in the guise of the White Madonna (see Fig. 2.16). With thick makeup on her face and equally heavy paint on her finger- and toenails, and with veils wound around her, she posed on an altar. At the same time, the Angels of the Heavenly Host danced joyously around her. When their routine ended, she acted out what was effectively a sacred striptease by peeling back the layers of milky white to show her true colors: a gown of deep turquoise. Now as the Blue Madonna, she danced vignettes that illustrated the major moments in the Virgin’s life (see Figs. 2.17 and 2.18). In writing and speaking about the goal of the spectacle, St. Denis described the Mother of God as the incarnation of femininity and creative love, in terms not wholly incompatible with either Henry Adams, an American thinker of the generation preceding hers, or Sigmund Freud. No one will be nonplussed to hear that “Madonnas were the passion of her last years.” 2. Dancing for God 107 Ui WS CREAM, JOHNNY WAS TOLO TOBE KINP 7O PEOPLE. HE BEGAN RIGHT AWAY W7¥ 4 FPRIENC.- TH/s BOY ALWAYS HAD DAlek BREAD FOR LUNCH, LIKE THAT FOR MY FRIENDS / HIS HATS Fig. 2.12 Teresio Bosco, The Children’s Priest: St. John Bosco, illus. Alarico Gattia (Turin, Italy: Editrice L.D.C., 1988), 8. All rights reserved. 108 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 Now, FOR A BREAK .SOME OF YOu REMEMBERED FROM THE SERMON, Fig. 2.13 Teresio Bosco, The Children’s Priest: St. John Bosco, illus. Alarico Gattia (Turin, Italy: Editrice L.D.C., 1988), 9. All rights reserved. 2. Dancing for God 109 Peorc € LISTEN ANE ARE (PRESSED. CY7 SOME Wah ke AWay AS EASY AS WALKING PERMISSION, ‘LL TAKE A SHORT WALK e ON THis y TIGHTROPE! | TONY WATCHES SHENCE. ; z FROW A TUIEN apete OVSTANEE. MVPLALEE:,. e, { LAZY CLOWN’ J KR WHILE I BREAK MY BACK IN THE FIELDS. HE‘S PLAYING GAMES. ILL DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS/ Fig. 2.14 Teresio Bosco, The Children’s Priest: St. John Bosco, illus. Alarico Gattia (Turin, Italy: Editrice L.D.C., 1988), 10. All rights reserved. 110 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 Aa gem po Saint == JOHN BOSCO and the Childrens Saint og DOMINIC SAVIO. by @ Catherine Beebe Fig. 2.15 Front cover of Catherine Beebe, Saint John Bosco and the Children’s Saint Dominic Savio, illus. Robb Beebe (London: Vision Books, 1955). All rights reserved. 2. Dancing for God Fig. 2.16 Ruth St. Denis as the White Madonna in The Masque of Mary (Riverside Church, New York). Photograph, date unknown. Fig. 2.17 Ruth St. Denis as the Madonna in The Masque of Mary. Photograph, 1934. 111 112 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 Fig. 2.18 Ruth St. Denis as the Madonna in The Masque of Mary. Photograph, 1934. One Sunday in 1935, St. Denis caused a stir by celebrating a religious dance before the altar in another jam-packed Manhattan church, with congregants pressed shoulder to shoulder. The occasion sparked scorching controversy, all because of pedicure. St. Denis’s decision to color her toenails led to huffing and puffing against dance very generally. In support of this physical activity as a form of worship, one writer cited first scripture and next, foreseeably, Anatole France. The French writer belongs among the fistful of authors and artists who have done most to make Our Lady’s Tumbler famous in a modern guise. For the fourth case, we have a much fuller dossier, thanks largely to the written reminiscences of the woman herself. As a two-year-old toddler in Paris, Mireille Negre boarded an elevator. When it departed, her left foot slipped through the metal framework at the bottom. As the lift ascended, this lower extremity of her body became lodged between the grille and the top of the entrance. Although fortunately spared the amputation of her left leg, she still lost two toes. At the age of four she was sent to begin studying classical dance, in hopes that the training would correct the limp she had developed. Despite her handicap, she made such progress that once she turned seven, her father put her forward at the National Opera (Opéra national) of Paris. The commitment of the Frenchwoman to dance became extraordinary, but so did her attraction to a devotional life. Negre came from a religious family, but she took spirituality to an extreme far beyond her kinfolk. At the age of twelve, she had an epiphany of sorts. As an adolescent, she achieved ever greater success in ballet at the National Opera. In 1965 she took a retreat in a convent and had the revelation of her religious calling, but for five years she temporized in indecision between a spiritual vocation and dance. In 1973, at the age of twenty-eight, she entered the Carmelites of Limoges on a probationary but extended basis (see Fig. 2.19). The liturgy of this order lays notable emphasis upon holidays associated with Mary. 2. Dancing for God 113 ———— ne pees Se PA Fig. 2.19 Portrait of Mireille Negre. Photograph, 1973. Photographer unknown. © Argenta Images. All rights reserved. The almost fanatical Marianism of this religious society has not gone unquestioned. In the late Middle Ages the Carmelites were sometimes reproached for misrepresenting their relationship with Mary by disseminating half-truths and out-and-out lies about her. In one case in point, an antifraternal text from the very end of the fourteenth century charges that the brethren “make themselves out to be Mary’s men (so they tell people), / And lie about Our Lady many a long tale... .” The members of these brotherhoods and sisterhoods encompass friars, nuns, and layfolk. They may have been well suited to Negre in their capacity as the order of Thérése of Lisieux, because of the saint’s defining characteristics as well as her special connection with Mary. Known as “The Little Flower of Jesus,” this holy woman claimed to have experienced an apparition of the Virgin while still a child. At the age of fifteen she entered a Carmelite convent, in 1897 she died at the age of twenty-four, and in 1923 she was canonized. She incarnated naiveté and simplicity that are not worlds apart from qualities associated with the tumbler or jongleur, in both his medieval and modern manifestations. For three of Négre’s ten years at Limoges, she embraced the combined contemplation and asceticism of the order happily, with Saint Teresa of Avila as her model. In the process, she was required to abdicate the body, and refraining from dance formed part of the abdication. The renunciation entailed modifying her ballerina’s posture and carriage. When caught striking a balletic pose while plying a broom in the refectory, 114 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 she found herself chided by the mother superior. Despite the discouragement from above, the passion for dance would not leave Negre. Many Bible passages reminded her of the performing art, and with twinges of nostalgia she would hear during Mass words from scripture that referred to it: “I will dance for you, Lord, as long as I live.” When invited to serve as cantor, she replied that she could never do so, because she was “exasperated at not being able to pray for God by dancing for him.” For Négre, the leaps of ballet became degrees of rapture that could lead to union with the divine through love. Despite all the potential for joy, her reminiscences make no attempt to sweep under the carpet the painful sacrifices she made in forgoing her customary mode of asserting her identity. She establishes an equivalence between physical and verbal expression that recalls the tumbler, as indeed does much else in her account. During the remaining seven years of her decade within the religious society, Negre endured protracted tribulations marked by nervous breakdowns, bouts of anorexia, and the development of a triple scoliosis. Eventually, she left the Order of Carmel for the more complaisant Order of the Visitation of Holy Mary in Vouvant. Although the religious society to which she switched may have been less rigorous, the former ballerina’s ambition was unabated. On the contrary, she aspired to broaden the concept of spiritual self-consecration to Christ so that it would comprehend the dedication to Him of her body as a dancer. For her, God was the lord of the dance, and in her view, the art could be devout in consonance with the dictates of Christianity by entailing ascetic discipline while resulting in joyous ecstasy. In due course, the Church authorities came around to Negre’s viewpoint. The Carmelites permitted her to resume dancing. In 1986 she became consecrated as a sister. Since then she has danced in hallowed places, such as chapels and churches. She has even performed at Chartres, an archetypal cathedral of the Virgin. Since Vouvant, Neégre has choreographed the words of the liturgy. This experiment constitutes a fascinating parallel to the performance of the tumbler in the medieval French poem, who made his leaps correspond to the progression of the offices being performed in the choir above him. Just as the tumbler, versed in neither Latin nor monastic sign language, contrived to express himself through his acrobatics, so too this later Frenchwoman came to view ballet in linguistic terms. To what extent has Negre’s self-presentation been shaped by knowledge, filtered or unfiltered, of the tradition that originated in Our Lady’s Tumbler? She plants a seed when she presents herself, in her guise as “the protector of dancers,” to being “like the jongleur on the fagade of Notre-Dame of Paris, who used to represent for me the struggle of an artist who finds no recognition in the world.” This simile, which points to sculpture rather than literature, suggests an acquaintance with the story through secondary or back channels and not even through Anatole France. In fact, it would be a little hard to swallow that a professional dancer in France would not hear of the tale at one point or another. But it would be even more cockamamie to contend that a person would strive to replicate a story so far as to enter a nunnery for a decade—or to leave 2. Dancing for God 115 the same institution and return to a career of dancing. Both the story of the tumbler and the biography of Negre speak to clashing and yet compatible loves that have fired many artists, one of which passes under the name of art for art’s sake, while the other craves transcendence of mere art. Can dance and devotion go together? More to the point, can organized religion countenance the expression of prayer outside liturgy? The crux for this ballerina was her creed “I dance for God.” Our fifth example is Nick Weber, who was interested in both dramatic art and theology. After becoming a practiced clown, he was ordained as a Jesuit priest. Soon thereafter, he happened to see a medieval morality play, reconceived and enacted for a twentieth-century public. The experience became the germ of his idea to retool a traditional troupe, suited for the greatest show on earth, and to make its performances the vehicle for conveying Christian messages. Weber’s Royal Lichtenstein Circus traveled the United States for twenty-two years, from the summer of 1971 through 1993. Eventually the founder returned to the lay state, but in the prolonged intermezzo he approached becoming at least in aspiration a twentieth-century Saint Francis. By seeking to demonstrate the credal compatibility of Christian faith with what could be called sacred comedy, he strove to fulfill in reality what Dario Fo has sometimes acted out in his performances. Weber’s clowning rested on two convictions. One was that comedy allows for the boisterous celebration of life. The other was that laughter does not diminish the expression of worship, but in fact offers an additional avenue for it. An Italian nun, Sister Anna Nobili, will serve as the sixth and final example of a real-life individual who has chosen to pray and worship through dance. Like most of her predecessors, her choice has generated both fascination and unease within the Catholic Church. Images of her in action have graced mass-circulation newspapers and magazines. Her tale has been told in on-screen interviews and set forth in a tell-all memoir with an Italian title meaning J Dance with God: The Sister Who Prays Dancing. The blurb on the cover of the paperback concludes by referring to her “true and mysterious acrobatics of the heart and soul.” Born in 1970, as a young woman Anna Nobili became a dancer who performed on raised platforms in bars, nightclubs, and discotheques of Milan. Although really a go-go dancer, she is described often as having been a lap dancer and stripper. In 1998, at the age of twenty-five, she left the dance floor and went on a three-day visit to Assisi. During those days, she had an epiphany under the inspiration of Saints Francis and Chiara. In a subsequent repudiation of the heavy guzzling and no-strings lovemaking in her former life, Nobili entered the order of Worker-Sisters of the Holy House of Nazareth. Rather than abandoning her previous calling altogether, she drummed up permission ten years later to open a school devoted to contemporary sacred dance. She continues to do so, in an operation called HolyDance. Nobili now runs the program with clearance from the local prelate in her diocese of Palestrina, near Rome. The episcopal backing has not prevented her from being controversial. Although she considers herself a ballerina for God, some find her 116 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 ungodly. As Sister Anna Nobili, her participation in a public event at the Cistercian monastery of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem, along with other celebrities such as the pop star Madonna, may have played a contributing role in an imbroglio in May of 2011. The charges related especially to the monks’ handling of finances and liturgy, as well as their questionable behavior and moral discipline. Undeterred by such setbacks, Sister Anna has persisted in making many appearances on the small screen, disseminating her story in a book, and, above all, performing dance. She contends consistently that she has been driven from the beginning by a desire for love, but that it took her a long time to find that the truest love was love for God. ae What are we left to conclude about the French poem and Latin exemplum from the Middle Ages? Regardless of which came first, we confront the riddle of whether the earliest written form of the tale bore any relation to an actual incident in which a lay brother who had been an entertainer ever performed a devotional dance before an image of the Virgin Mary. Was the jongleur a mythic, legendary, or real goody two-shoes? As the saying goes, there are stranger things in reality than can be found in romances. The only finality is the ben trovato principle: “If it is not true, it is well conceived.” Even if not necessarily the record of a literal truth, the story still bears scrutiny. It rings true in a deeper sense. If situating the tumbler among his fellow medieval entertainers does not explain everything, then we will do well to pay heed next to his monastic context. 3. Cistercian Monks and Lay Brothers He who labors as he prays lifts his heart to God with his hands. —Bernard of Clairvaux The Order of Citeaux Vox clamantis in deserto Our Lady’s Tumbler manifests vividly both strains and rapprochements that recurred between laity and clergy within medieval Christianity. It offers a mostly laudatory close-up of life among the white monks in the twelfth century. Its protagonist stands in deep awe of Cistercian monasticism. Despite all this, it demonstrates that at least this once, the layman goes the monks one better in devotion. The amateur prayer outwits (or outdoes) the unpaid professionals at their own game. The stresses heightened during the late Middle Ages, before finally scoring their most drastic effects in the temblor and aftershock known as the Protestant Reformation and Catholic Counter- Reformation. Our story, from roughly three centuries earlier, has at its hub issues that anticipate the shock waves to come in the later period. To be specific, it points out cognitive dissonances between the faith that was professed in Christ and apostolic life, and the attitudes encoded in daily life within leading religious institutions. Let us look closely at how the tale of the tumbler fits within Cistercianism. The medieval French poem that forms the cornerstone of this book tells of a prosperous minstrel who wearies of his secular lifestyle and its turpitudes. In response, he redistributes his worldly possessions, such as money, horse, and clothes, and joins the Cistercian monastery of Clairvaux as a convert. He is not said to enter a novitiate. The untested brother has the objective of devoting himself to God, or rather to his more approachable mediator, the Virgin Mary. The initial dilemma, if not tragedy, for the former performer is that he takes the step of committing to a new walk of life within a monastery without grasping what it entails. At the time of his conversion, he does not know that he should be concerned about his preparedness to be a brother, © 2018 Jan M. Ziolkowski, CC BY 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0132.03 118 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 nor can he gauge realistically whether he has the wherewithal in cultural literacy and the psychological temperament for the monastic mode of life. Soon after his induction, he discovers to his consternation that he is out of his depth. He lacks the savoir faire and savoir dire to fulfill the services required of a monk. The value of the entertainer’s donations to the abbey could have been substantial. In the economy of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, jongleurs were often remunerated in kind rather than in cash. The objects that the minstrel conveys to the abbey are interesting, but when all is said and done, what he leaves behind matters less than what he takes on by embracing the specific brand of monkish life that the Cistercians represent. He goes from being at least modestly successful in the medieval entertainment world to being an underachiever and a nonentity as a monk in this order. Cistercianism was a new branch of monasticism that had been inaugurated in France at the very end of the eleventh century, around 1098. Although not a Crusade movement, it was established in sync with the first of those expeditions. Indeed, it absorbed many young men of the same sorts who were drawn to the movement across Latin Christendom to recoup the Holy Land for Christianity. From its inception, the order was tied closely to the Virgin, and it grew apace with the rise of Marianism in the twelfth century. It soon diffused throughout Europe. By 1200, the Cistercians tallied five hundred abbeys for monks and probably, grosso modo, the same number of convents for nuns. By the end of the thirteenth century, the white monks, as they were often styled, occupied approximately seven hundred houses. The explosive enlargement was not without growing pains. Eventually, envy over their ease in accumulating immense tracts of land and the resources that issued from them meant that the order incurred plenty of vilification, alongside praise. Even the monks themselves sometimes gave voice to fretfulness about what would be defined today as mission creep. For the site of their seminal “New Monastery,” the founder chose Citeaux, south of Dijon in France. Cistercianism promoted a radical reformation of Benedictine monasticism by emphasizing a literal, even fundamentalist interpretation of the celebrated sixth-century Rule of Saint Benedict of Nursia. The movement was formulated for frugality, in conscious reaction against the perceived immoderation of Benedictinism. Its aesthetic, in architecture, manuscript production, and all else, was deliberately humble. In fact, humility may well have been the most prominent of the values that the Cistercians professed. All branches of Christian coenobitism have had their own forms of law and order at their core, but the Cistercians were especially strict. Sundry dos and don’ts set these brethren apart from their confreres in longer- established orders. In contradistinction to the major older ones, the white monks did not acquiesce in child oblation (the practice of giving children to monasteries or convents), ran no schools, and expected postulants to have been educated before seeking entry. The last factor is intriguingly relevant to Our Lady’s Tumbler. 3. Cistercian Monks and Lay Brothers 119 7 een) ere oe i a F 48 LONGPONT. — Ancienne Abbaye de Citeaux, 'Eglise. — ND Phot. OS as oem ee rn Fig. 3.1 Postcard depicting l’Abbaye de Citeaux, Saint-Nicolas-les-Citeaux (early twentieth century). The original medieval buildings of Citeaux have all but disappeared, beyond rack and ruin. The place took its name ultimately from the Latin for “cistern,” a holding pen for runoff precipitation. Calling their venue after a catchment for rainwater acknowledges nicely its location amid the effluvia of low-lying swamps and swales. Benedictines— or, to use a name for the order after its tenth-century reform, Cluniacs— were montane: they tended to inhabit mountainous heights. They liked to be between a rock and a hard place. Whereas they sought out the highlands, Cistercians gravitated toward the lowlands (see Fig. 3.1). They were paludal and fluvial. Initially, they took as theirs the rural marshes and riverbanks, wetlands and boglands, basins and springs of France. Soon, they fanned out to similar environs elsewhere with high water tables, inhabiting neither terra firma nor open sea, making fens far and wide their own. The contrast between the two orders was embedded in an old aphorism that encapsulates the locations that their respective initiators purportedly favored: “Bernard loved the valleys, Benedict the hills.” Put differently, the white monks situated their monasteries with the goal of being siloed and freestanding. As their wasteland, the desert fathers of late antiquity had had windswept and sand-covered barrenness, especially in Egypt. For the Cistercians, Citeaux constituted their equivalent: drainage trumped dryness. Even so, they saw their home as harking back to the glory days of asceticism: one of their foundational texts from the early 1120s refers to the site in France as a desert. There they emulated the way of life that they believed the original inhabitants of such 120 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 spaces had practiced in the third and fourth centuries, and aspired, like the earlier Christian hermits and monks, to simplicity, poverty, and chastity. Monasticism has at its heart an antinomy that is latent in the very noun monk. In fact, the etymological meaning of the word flatly contradicts the communal nature of the organization it customarily assumes. It derives from a Late Greek substantive for “single” or “solitary,” itself from the earlier “alone.” Ordinarily, however, the people dwelling in monasteries are anything but alone. On the contrary, as the rank and file of tightly organized religious communities, they have no choice but to be gregarious. In performing the liturgy and especially in chant, they act in synchrony as a team. They should share an esprit de corps. In hardheaded terms, monastic brothers are not alone at all. Rather, they live shoulder to shoulder. Even referring to them as brethren indicates that they are bound together in something larger, an elective extended family. In acknowledgment of this reality, they are known as cenobites, from a Greek word composed of elements that mean “common” and “life.” They form complex societies, with a social contract. Within these groups, specific liturgical duties are shared by individuals who also execute a varied range of specialized functions. They imprison themselves voluntarily in cells, perpetually in a self-imposed lockdown. Still more paradoxical than monks generally are the Cistercians particularly. Their order encompasses both withdrawal and engagement— both the wilderness and the world. All the paradox accords well with the situation of the tumbler. He barters away a life in which he is a loosely regulated, venturesome individualist. In place of such freedom, he takes on the millstone of rule-bound conformity to set hours and practices. When the swap proves to be untenable for him, he devises or improvises a fix that fuses individualism with communitarianism. Small wonder that his story would regain appeal in the modern world, which has displayed inconsistencies as keen as any ever before about the mutual rights and responsibilities of individuals and communities. Cistercian communes were meant to be secluded from the secular world. Architecturally, they achieved this objective through claustration—that is, they confined their members within cloisters. To the same end, the abbeys were situated in unpopulous regions so that the monks could worship God apart from the distractions and irritants of worldly activity, by conducting a celibate life of devotion and work. Thanks to their location in wildernesses, the brothers of this order often turn out to bear at least some sketchy likenesses to solitaries. Despite their sometimes cohering in communities, they can be antisocial or even (to push the point) downright misanthropic. After all, the noun “hermit” denoted originally a person who inhabited a desolate place in isolation. Heremum is Latin for “desert” or “wasteland,” a place in the middle of nowhere. Yet a fundamental difference remains between the two classes of religious. Whereas a hermit runs a one-man operation, a monk does anything but that. 3. Cistercian Monks and Lay Brothers 121 A monastery has a complex ecology. The hermitage stands in opposition to the abbey, where the foodchain is topped by the official who gives the institution its very name. The term abbot goes back ultimately to Aramaic. In the New Testament abba is a form for “father” that Jesus and Paul use in addressing God intimately. Whereas the nature of eremitic life is solitude, the word for the leader of a monastery presumes the collectivity of a family. It also presupposes patriarchy and paternalism (the question posed in the slang expression “Who’s your daddy?” has never required more than a split second for monks to answer). Within a Cistercian context, the heads of a handful of the oldest communities, such as Citeaux and Clairvaux, have additional special status as proto-abbots. That is, they could be considered “abbots plus” or superfathers (better than superdad). At the top of the paternalistic pecking order, they figure out how to administer love, including tough love, toward the end of helping individuals grow and communities cohere. The chief job requirement might be called prior knowledge, especially in the form of Menschenkenntnis or (to translate the German) people knowledge. These monastic managers are owed obedience. In the story of Our Lady’s Tumbler, the monk who sees the tumbler’s performance finds it both ridiculous and unnerving; he hastens to deprecate the incongruity that arises when the lay brother unclothes himself to show submission through dance to the pious solemnity of the Virgin (and presumably Child). Yet the head of the abbey refrains from joining a rush to judgment about the unconventional behavior of the erstwhile entertainer. In the end, the abbot models multiple lessons for the brethren under his charge. The most important may be a deeply Christian message of tolerance. In his wisdom, the superior of the monastery takes his time to watch and listen: he is all ears. He conveys that it is not right to devalue or condemn any form of worship based upon sincerity. Sincere devotion to God deserves understanding and even praise. The minstrel in the medieval French poem takes very seriously the final say of his superior. A little while after the principal of the monastery has sighted the display of miraculous favor by God’s mother in the crypt, he summons the tumbler to his office. The abject entertainer, who has bizarrely performed his lack of stature through a ritual of his own making, expects that he has committed a trespass and that he will be expelled from the abbey. Instead of making him an outcast, the kindhearted abbot bids him to recount his life story, from beginning to end. After hearing it, he assures the minstrel that he will be in good odor in their order—and they in his. What does this distinction between two communities mean? The tumbler is designated a convers, a word that could be translated loosely as “convert.” As such, he held a status not necessarily identical with a full conversion to monastic life. In some ways, the functions of a laic convert, and the position of the jongleur as such, speak to the abiding tension between the two views of monasticism, hermitic and cenobitic. Even more broadly, the lay brother carves out a no-man’s- or no-monk’s-land in two 122 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 tripartite schemas that are often invoked to describe the warp and weft of medieval society. One framework comprises the three orders of the faithful, namely clerics, monks, and laymen. The other threesome comprehends those who pray (meaning clerics and monks), those who fight (the nobility), and those who work (peasants). Within this second triad, toil signifies above all agricultural labor in the production of food. The lay brother fits frictionlessly into none of the above slots. He embodies a radically new construct, as a layman, usually from the rural poor, who can shed the scarlet letter of being illiterate and lead a life that virtually guarantees salvation. The jongleur is an individualist, in leaving society outside as well as in striking out on his own within the monastery. First, he abandons the world. Then, after getting off to a halting start as a cenobite, he makes himself into a do-it-yourself recluse. With the intent of earning redemption or at least of showing penance, the former entertainer goes off to be at one with God, or rather with the Virgin. He breaks away from the communal liturgical offices to perform in camera his personal rituals of penance and devotion. In doing so, he enacts a solitude for which the white monks were known. Yet he achieves this end in a manner that would almost not have been permitted within the realities of Cistercian regulations governing both monks and lay brothers. In effect, he invents his own form of contemplative spirituality. He becomes a contradiction in terms. A recluse within a cenobitic community, he lives solitarily within a well-run organization that is structured around communal life. Such a paradox may have been lauded in eulogies on Clairvaux, but it is dubious that such nonconformity would have been countenanced in the actual day-to-day business of the monastery. Cistercianism could not have survived long, and could not have burgeoned with as much vim and vigor as it did, without the involvement of “converts” or lay brethren like the tumbler. The order specialized in first acquiring land that had hitherto been agriculturally unproductive and then fructifying those same fallow swamps, valleys, and springs. This was the turf war in which they engaged with the Benedictines and other religious societies. The monks dammed waterways with weirs to create fish ponds, channeled running water in millraces and flumes to power mills and presses, planted crops on new tillage, established vineyards, and herded sheep and made wool. For their establishments to be self-contained, managing all the temporalities and carrying out all the many agrarian tasks required a sizable work force. The so-called converts were the best solution to the chronic problems of being overstretched and understaffed. By enlisting extra help from such operatives, the full monks could have many hands available for manual labor without altogether sacrificing the proposition of uncompromising disengagement from the secular world. That said, the lay monks never outnumbered the so-called choir monks. The plus side to the care shown in keeping down their tally is that the order did not lose its founding focuses or values. 3. Cistercian Monks and Lay Brothers 123 A not-so-good drawback is that, if we allow ourselves anachronism by imposing present-day business administration upon the distant past, the organizational chart of a typical Cistercian foundation could have been regarded in present-day terms as top-heavy, with a preponderance of staff in administrative positions. Especially at times when the monasteries were undermanned, friction between the two groups was inevitable. To invoke a twentieth-century synecdoche, the tensions between lay and choir monks would have sometimes resembled the oppositions between blue-collar and white-collar workers. The categories of the convert monk and the lay brother were not always synonymous. At times, the Latin conversus was applied to any adult entrant into monastic existence. Such a full-grown joiner stood in contradistinction to the child oblate. In the learned language, the word for a convert implied a phrase that denoted “to the monastic way of life.” Within Cistercianism, the term evolved to signify a lay brother, usually of humble peasant stock. The monasteries did not hold to an open-door policy of accepting all would-be entrants, but they needed strong hands, sturdy backs, and stout shoulders, and the lay brethren contributed to monastic life first and foremost through heavy toil. The hardest work took place on the abbatial estates. These operations usually served agricultural purposes, as may be surmised from the usual name for such an estate, grange, which derives from a Latin adjective that relates to (and is cognate with) “grain.” Most often, lay brothers lent a hand with the grueling drudgery of food production. As farmhands, they provided the animal husbandry connected with sheep, grew vegetables and herbs, cleared land, and managed irrigation. In addition, they commonly ran the kitchens, infirmary, and guest-house. Their living conditions could not hold a candle to those of the full monks. Yet under the best of circumstances the two monastic sorts coexisted in mutual respect and interdependence. In a metaphor that drew upon specific personages in the Bible, the lay brother played the active role of Martha in executing physical labor, while the choir monk acted out the contemplative one of Mary. At least ideally, both types of brethren aspired to spiritual redemption, and both had equal claim to salvation. Choir monks were bound to perform the divine office in choir, to pray and study, and to do manual work. The first chore required, among other things, knowing by heart in Latin the hundred-and-fifty Psalms. As much as anything, the occupation of Psalm-singing marked these monks apart from the rest of society. It positioned them to be quasi-angelic. In contrast, lay brothers were exempted from liturgical practices that, nearly without exception, their counterparts in the choir were obliged to fulfill. Mostly illiterate, perhaps proud possessors of experiential knowledge but almost invariably intellectual vacuums where formal education entered the picture, these laymen were not called upon to engage in the so-called divine reading. Lectio divina, to use the customary Latin phrase, was a practice of unhurried scriptural reading, contemplation, and prayer that was cultivated by Benedictine monks and others. And 124 The Juggler of Notre Dame and the Medievalizing of Modernity: Volume 1 thus, questions arise about whether the very existence of lay members implies that the equilibrium between the office and work, or between contemplative study and corporeal slog, had been lost unrectifiably. Even under the most auspicious circumstances, lay brothers would generally have been segregated physically from choir monks in worship as well as in the remainder of life. The monastery was a house with many rooms, and a large number of the most prestigious ones lay off limits to the conversi. Within the honeycomb of the monastery, lay monks had their own separate spaces in the church, the meeting place known as the chapter room, the dining hall called the refectory, and the dormitory (see Fig. 3.2). Typically, the domain of the lay brethren was situated in the west range of the cloister. Inside the church, they were not allowed access to the choir, where the regular monks performed the office. Instead, they were quarantined in stalls outside and to the rear of it. The separateness was enforced by a partition, such as a roodscreen. The balance between the dueling duties of the lay brothers to do manual labor and to participate in the liturgy was disputed. They were expected to execute only a shortened form of the office, since often at the set hours for prayer they were far from the monastic churches and carrying out the tasks that had to be done in the fields. The lay members also would not have been included in most all-hand meetings in the chapter house, where abbots delivered homilies: the monasteries were places where preaching was nearly always directed at the choir monks. Sacristy Chapterhouse Workroom Dormitory Door to graveyard Church . Cloister Warming room Monks’ Refectory 7 “loister Cloister