Nature's farthest verge or landscapes beyond allegory and rhetorical convention? The case of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and Petrarch's Ascent of Mount Ventoux.(LITERATURE)(Critical essay)

Publication: Studia Anglica Posnaniensia: international review of English Studies

Publication Date: 01-JAN-06

Bookmark this article Print this article Link to this article Email this article Digg It! Add to del.icio.us RSS

COPYRIGHT 2006 Adam Mickiewicz University

ABSTRACT

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and Petrarch's Ascent of Mount Ventoux have both been held up as marking pivotal stages in the development of naturalism in landscape descriptions. This article attempts to gauge to what extent non-referentiality (both in figurative and formalistic terms) is sustainable in representations of landscapes in these two late-medieval texts. On close inspection, the portrayal of landscape in these two works suggests that proto-modernity has little purchase on their topographic verisimilitude, which functions not so much as a harbinger of proto-modernity but as a naturalistic signifier operative in conventional figural situations.

**********

Somewhat optimistically, perhaps, the title suggests that certain medieval artefacts, both literary and non-literary, invoke landscapes that are immune to allegorical interpretation and can withstand the rigours of rhetorical conventions. This statement, in turn, rests upon the sweeping assumption that medieval art and literature are invested with the potentiality to navigate beyond these symbolic and formal requirements. And, once again, this assumption stems from yet another underlying hypothesis, namely that art and literature, whether medieval or not, can operate independently of the restraints made on it by symbolism and formal demands. And even this brief list of assumptions cannot stand without clarification: how canonical or non-canonical are my definitions of "art" and "literature", what is my understanding of "allegory" and "symbolism"; surely, they are not the same, just as little as "rhetorical convention" and "formal demands" are not equivalents in any narrow sense. Besides, there is the question of just how transferable terms are between the two disciplines of art and literature. There are other qualms, too: what, for instance, do I mean by "landscape"? For the purpose of my argument, let us just make the leap of faith that, at least theoretically, stricly nominalist and non-referential discourse is possible in both art and literature, i.e. that no alter egos or signifieds stand behind the verbally or visually depicted and that such artefacts can survive in a formalistic vacuum.

But before I lay my cards on the table, a handful of definitions beg consideration. To begin with, my understanding of "allegory" is a narrow one: in essence, I see it as a compound metaphor where events and dynamic actions can take the place of both vehicle and tenor. As concerns "rhetorical convention", I restrict myself in the context of landscapes to that of descriptio loci and ancillary conventions. By "landscape" I mean not so much the generic classification employed by historians of art, but simply the depiction of an outdoor scene. (1) A final clarification surrounds the term "naturalism" which I shall regard as synonymous with "verisimilitude".

The question, as I would like to propose it, is to gauge to what extent non-referentiality (both in figurative and formalistic terms) is sustainable in representations of landscapes in late-medieval texts. This is, of course, a considerable shortfall with regard to the title's ambition, and to add injury to insult, I will restrict myself to a small sample by probing the portrayal of landscapes in two narrowly defined literary locales.

What I have just surrendered in terms of scope, I hope to recover in terms of relevance: Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and Petrarch's Ascent of Mount Ventoux have both been held up as marking pivotal stages in the development of naturalism in landscape descriptions. In the case of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight this verisimilitude is regularly labelled "realistic", "naturalistic", or "cinematographic"; (2) and it cascades down the poem to its various instances. One such instance is the belligerent topography against which Gawain's struggle is cast. This pairing of the knight's plight with his hostile surroundings is itself not free of bias: for one, it aligns the landscape with Gawain's predicament and it renders the his adventure a topographical struggle even before he is given an opportunity to be tested by his designated opponent:

At vche warpe oper water her be wyze passed He fonde a foo hym byfore, bot ferly hit were, And bat so foule and so felle bat fezt hym byhode. Sumwhyle wyth wormez he werrez and with wolues als, Sumwhyle wyth wodwos bat woned in be knarrez, Bobe wyth bullez and berez, and borez operquyle, And etaynez bat hym anelede and be heze felle (Gawain: 715-17, 720-23).

The intimate intertwining of the landscape with its harmful outgrowths is a function of the unchecked enmity it harbours toward Gawain. Every turn, every line presents new difficulties that cannot be separated from the terrain they inhabit: generic "wodwos" are said to live in "pe knarrez" and nameless giants assault Gawain from "pe heze felle". Unlike so often, this effect cannot be blamed on the writer's quest for material that would alliterate: "knarrez" appears in a line where the alliterant is "w". And in the case of "be hese felle" from which the giants emerge, the topography even teams up with Gawain's opponents by increasing their already existing advantage of ground in what is a thoroughly uncourteous gesture: as one would except of this rampaging wilderness, it does not play by the rules of chivalry.

Whilst the odds in this uneven contest with the forces of fayerie relegate the nonpareil knight to the status...

Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.