Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Peter Brooks
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durabil-
ity of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the
Council on Library Resources.
3
The Text of Muteness
1 know not how it is that we need an interpreter, but the great majority ofmen
seem to be minors, who have not yet come in to possession of their own, or mutes,
who cannot report the conversation they have had with nature.
-R. W. Emerson, "The Poet"
THE TEXT
as Tableau. One can sense how agreeable it is for the spectator to take
in at a glance the psychological and moral condition of each
character." 6 The last sentence comes close to suggesting the motive of
tableau: it gives the spectator the opportunity to see meanings
represented, emotions and moral states rendered in clear visible signs.
The text of muteness is, then, pervasive in melodrama and central
to the representation of its most important meanings. Gesture in all
forms is a necessary complement and supplement to the word, tableau
is a repeated device in the summary of meanings acted out, and the
mute role is the virtuoso emblem of the possibilities of meaning
engendered in the absence of the word. If it is relatively easy to grasp
the effect created by tableau, it is mucq more difficult to talk about
how gestuality in general, and the exclusively gestural language of the
mutes in particular, creates meaning. The problems in the making
and the reading of sense suggested by Eloi's trial remain to be
confronted. Y et they may usefully be prefaced by sorne consideration
of the origins of the text of muteness: the historical reasons for
melodrama's constant recourse to silent gesture, and the aesthetics
implied.
AN AEsTHETICS oF MuTENEss
language of social intercourse has become so highly codified that all its
signs-including a .set repertory of looks, sighs, gestures-are fixed,
and fully legible to the observer trained in the code. Human
relationships in Crébillon's world can be fully articulated in terms of
messages formed from this code; and this is true as well for the
traditional dramaturgy of the Théatre-Frarn;ais; whereas the mean-
ings which Diderot seeks in drama are simply not susceptible of
manufacture, of découpage, from this code. For him-and at virtually
a
the same moment Rousseau in the Lettre d'Alembert sur les spectacles is
carrying the same argument to a more radical conclusion-the
expressive code of social relationships as represented in dramatic
conventions constitutes an alienating mask rather than a medium for
true expression. Diderot, like Rousseau, shows a suspicion of "under-
stood" meanings, meanings implicit because conventional, and his
críes and gestures look toward the melodramatic foregrounding and
explicitation of meaning. Rather than deriving signification, like
Crébillon's looks and gestures, from a conventional code, Diderot's
cries and gestures posit the need for a new language, in which they are
the radical utterances. If it is a postulate of any language system that
it is sufficient for the generation of all meaning-that there is always
an excess of the signifier in relation to the signifiable-language as
socially defined, Diderot implies, may become inadequate to "cover"
an area of the signifiable.
It is in this context that the recourse to inarticulate cry and gesture
takes on its full importance. For they mark a kind of fault or gap in
the code, the space that marks its inadequacies to convey a full freight
of emotional meaning. In the silence of this gap, the language of
presence and immediacy, the primal language, is born anew. It takes
its place in the expressive ambition of those early Romantics-most
notably Rousseau and Sade-who were obsessed by the idea that they
must say all, tout dire, that nothing of the possible human response must
be left unexpressed, that writing must be a continua! overstatement. 18
Melodrama clearly offers a version of this ambition. But if gesture and
primal cry do indeed stand in the gap of the traditional code, marking
its inadequacy, we are forced to ask what the modalities of their
signification are, what their status within the system of communica-
tion and expression may be. Here Diderot's implicit answer is clear
enough: these cries and gestures signify because they ate the language
of nature, the language to which all creatures instinctively have
68 THE MELODRAMATIC IMAGINATION
recourse to express their primal reactions and emotions. This <loes not
salve the semantic and analytic problem, however, which we need to
address more closely.
message from the elements of a known code? How do we read the text
before our eyes?
These questions appear to place us before the problem of a gestural
semiotics, which has engaged sorne recent theoretical analysis. The
analysis of gestural communication according to a linguistic model
encounters difficulties since, most analysts would seem to agree, we
lack such normal characteristics of language as an identifiable code; a
set of substitutable shifters; the possibility of commutation, which
depends on the "doúble articulation"; the possibility of a retransmis-
sion of the message in its own terms. 23 According to Christian Metz,
we must usually consider gesture as "an actualized linguistic state-
ment": gestures do not refer directly to words, still less to phonemes
and morphemes (which demonstrates the lack of the second level of
linguistic articulation, that of phonemic combination), but rather to· a
whole phrase that cannot be further broken down.24 This distinction is
further elucidated by A. J. Greimas in his redefinition of the two relata
of the linguistic sign, signifier and signified, in the analysis of gesture.
The "semiosis" of gesture, he argues, will consist in "the relation
between a sequence of gestural figures, taken as the signifier, and the
gestural project, considered as the signified." 25 Greimas largely
accepts the position of Julia Kristeva that gesture is "anaphoric,"
indicative. Gestures themselves are desemanticized, and the problem
of signification is secondary. Hence analysis must be trans-linguistic.2 6
These considerations seem just and pertinent, and in particular
Greimas' reformulation of the relata of the sign as "gestural sequence"
and "gestural project" identifies accurately the elements with which
we must work. But gestural semiotics in its current state <loes not solve
the difficulties of approach to a gestural text for which specific
meanings are proposed and are clearly of considerable importance for
the global meaning of the play. Part of our problem in reading the
text of muteness evidently derives from the procedures of the script,
the stage directions, which, we noted, at times give us information
pertaining to the "gestural sequence," the actual motions to be
accomplished by the actor, and at other moments evoke rather the
"gestural project," the effect to be rendered by the actor's gestures,
their expressive result, their achieved message. There is indeed a shift
in the script from description of the gestural signs required of the actor
to a verbal translation of the signification of these signs. Hence the
effort to analyze gesture into the relata of the sign, to see a pattern of
signifiers covering a pattern of the signified, or a gestural sequence
THE TEXT OF MUTENESS 71
covering a gestural project, tends to break clown: the gestural system is
relayed by another sign-system, that of language proper, with its own
relation of signifiers and signified. We can, of course, from our
experience of the theatre, imagine generally the kind of gestures that
an actor might use to render "respect for the decrees of Providence."
Yet in the absence of any recognizable code in terms of which to
identify this message (Aubert's estimate of the limitations of the code
in the most highly developed pantomime indicates we cannot operate
on the hypothesis of a code once operative and now lost), we cannot
think of gestures themselves in terms of signifier and signified: too
great a distance and too great an indeterminacy open up between the
relata of the sign, however redefined, for any semiosis to be credible.
This suggests why the script needs to relay one system by another,
indicating verbal signs through gestural signs, yet specifying the
gestural signs through their verbal translations. The gestural signs will
themselves be exaggerated, hyperbolic (all that we know about
Boulevard acting styles of course confirms this), because the signified
in question is grandiose. But any specification of the conceptual
meaning of the gestural sign must be relayed through the system of
articulated language.
If, on the one hand, the symbolic or analogic relationship between
gesture and meaning <loes not seem operative when gesture is
postulated as conveying meanings of this type-that is, where any
imaginable analogon must seem inadequate-and if, on the other
hand, there seems to be no identifiable code of gestures, a semiotics of
gesture on a linguistic basis should no doubt be set aside in favor of a
more pertinent approach. We must recognize that gesture in the texts
that concern us is being mediated by the context of articulated
language, that the generalized indications of the gestural sequence
exist to be translated into specific verbal articulations of the gestural
project. This translation may in part be performed by other persons on
the stage (as in the case of Dame Gertrude ), by the context of action in
which the gesture occurs (which must to sorne degree be true of gesture
in pantomime proper), and, necessarily, by the spectator, whose
interpretations are represented by those messages suggested in the
stage directions. The operative code is that of articulated language,
which alone provides the possibility of interpretation and hence of
meaning; gesture is in fact desemanticized, it is anaphoric, in Julia
Kristeva's term, in that it points toward meaning.
Mute gesture can then perhaps most pertinently be considered as a
THE MELODRAMATIC IMAGINATION
file-the file which a still younger Pip had stolen and brought to
Magwitch so that he could free himselffrom the leg iron: "It was nota
verbal remark, but a proceeding in dumb show, and was pointedly
addressed to me. He stirred his rum-and-water pointedly at me, and
he tasted his rum-and-water pointedly at me. And he stirred and he
tasted it: not with a spoon that was brought to him, but with a file." 34
The repetition of "pointedly" suggests the role of the "dumb show"
with the file in establishing a line or direction or intention of meaning
in Pip's life, tracing the first inscription of his "expectations" (the
emissary will in fact leave Pip two one-pound notes), plotting meaning
in the novel. Gesture may serve as the original pointing to meaning.
Gesture to such as Warburton and Condillac was inscribt:d in the
first written languages as hieroglyph. 35 It is in fact imaginatively
logical to think of the identity of gesture and writing, écriture, the
inscription of meaning. It is, then, within this fictive logic that the
novel should so often present its interpretations of human meanings as
the decipherment of gestures. Balzac, who typically had recourse to
pseudo-theory in order to justify his imaginative practice, was led to
concoct a Théorie de la démarche, which provides a "basis" for such
decipherments. Body postures and gestures, he tells us, "are imprinted
with our will and are of a frightening signification. This is more than
the word, it is thought in action." 36 What Balzac has perceived and
needs to explain is the close relationship between gesture and writing,
and h.ow the creation of significance through the trace of the latter so
often follows the figure traced by the former. Man's gestures indicate
his intention to mean, and writing, retranscribing these intentions as
realized gestures of meaning, mimes and translates their indications.
Thus gesture in the novel becomes, through its translation, fully
resemanticized, and may stand as emblematic of the whole novelistic
enterprise of finding signification and significance in man's terrestrial,
even quotidian actions.