24.04.2013 Views

WRITING AUTHORITY IN LATE MEDIEVAL ... - Cornell University

WRITING AUTHORITY IN LATE MEDIEVAL ... - Cornell University

WRITING AUTHORITY IN LATE MEDIEVAL ... - Cornell University

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

sure, but in the Chaldee language, which he here calls Syriac.” 164 At the precise moment in<br />

which Nebuchadnezzar says that speech cannot speak, cannot represent his visual experience—<br />

that speech has left its ability to represent an idea, Daniel shifts from using speech to narrate<br />

ideas—to tell us a story—to reducing the status of text as a marker of another text. When<br />

Nebuchadnezzar can no longer signify by means of language, Daniel can only use language to<br />

point to yet another language. The biblical presentation of events, like the dream of the king,<br />

becomes purely visual as the Hebrew uses its characters not to mean something when read aloud<br />

but to point to another structural system—to Syriac—and so to demand a strict ethics of reading<br />

and translation and not of narrative continuity when encountered on the page.<br />

Starting from Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of time, The Book of Daniel empties its written<br />

Hebrew characters from their oral presence by requiring the reader to understand another<br />

language through them—it is as if a text began in English and then continued in Arabic without<br />

changing characters. This use of language as merely a marker for another linguistic structure<br />

literally makes writing a-personal by removing direct meaning from the function of words, and<br />

figuratively it mimicks the king’s refusal to voice his authority by means of “sermo” ‘speech’ by<br />

making the authority of his narrative rely on the seeing and not the hearing of narrative. The<br />

story does not merely translate Hebrew into Aramaic (one oral way of speaking into another); it<br />

changes a Hebrew language that means what it says into an “Aramaic-in-meaning-and-Hebrew-<br />

in-look” text. In a close parallel, when the king can no longer speak to signify and when his<br />

authority does not guarantee the truth of his narration, the narrative turns into a visual “echo” and<br />

“trace,” a literal dream vision of language, which lacks its own identity except as an<br />

interpretation.<br />

164 Commentary on Daniel 25.<br />

95

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!