The Hatred of Music

First Treatise. THE TEARS OF SAINT PETER

We wrap in cloth an extremely injured and infantile acoustic nudity, which remains without expression deep within us. This cloth is of three kinds: cantatas, sonatas, poems.

That which sings, that which sounds, that which speaks.

With the help of this cloth, just as we try to keep most of the noises of our body from the ears of others, we keep from our own ears certain more ancient sounds and groans.

Mousikè—says a verse by Hesiod — pours small libations of oblivion on sorrow. Sorrow is to the soul in which memories build up what dregs are to the amphora filled with wine. All we can wish for is that they settle. In ancient Greece, the mousa of mousikè was named Erato. She was a prophetess of Pan, the god of panic, traveling in a state of trance under the effect of drink and the consumption of human flesh. Shamans were inspired by animals, priests by immolated humans, bards by the muses. Always victims. Works, however modern they pretend to be, are always more untimely than the times that welcome or reject them. They are always inspired by “panickeas.”¹ Panickeas, accompanied by shamanic thyrsi, Pan flutes, and hoarse, mimetic singing, in Latin bacchatio, consisted in putting a young man to death by tearing him apart while still alive and immediately eating him raw. Orpheus is eaten raw. The muse Euterpe brings a flute to her mouth. Aristotle says in his Politics that the mouth and the hands of the muse are occupied exactly like those of a prostitute who, with her lips and fingers, reinflates her client’s physis in order to make it stand below his belly, in such a way that it emits his seed. Works (opera) are not made by free men. All that operates is occupied. The “preoccupation” of sorrow. In French souci.² The deposit in the amphora: the cadaver, the dead that is peculiar to wine.

It was Athena who invented the flute. She fashioned the first flute (in Greek aulos, in Latin tibia) to imitate the cries she had heard escape the throat of the gold-winged, boar-tusked snakebirds. Their song fascinated, immobilized, and allowed them to kill in the moment of paralyzing terror. The paralyzing terror is the first moment of omophagic panic. Tibia canere: to make the tibia sing.

Marsyas the Silenos pointed out to Athena that, as she imitated the song of the Gorgon by blowing in her tibiae, her mouth was stretched out, her cheeks swollen, her eyes bulging. Marsyas cried out to Athena:

“Put down the flute. Give up that terrifying song and the mask disarranging your jaws.”

But Athena did not listen to him.

One day, in Phrygia, as the goddess was playing on the bank of a river, she caught sight of her reflection in the water. The image of an occupied mouth frightened her. She immediately threw her flute far into the reeds along the bank. She fled.

Then Marsyas picked up the flute the goddess had abandoned.

I am examining the bonds between music and acoustic suffering.

Terror and music. Mousikè and pavor. I find these words to be inextricably linked — however allogenic and anachronistic they may be in relation to each other. Like the sex and the cloth that covers it.

Cloth is used to bandage a gaping wound, to hide a shameful nudity, to wrap the infant coming out of the maternal night and discovering its voice, letting out its first howl, initiating the rhythm peculiar to the “animal” pulmonation that will be its own until death. The old Roman verb solor diverts from our obsessions. It assuages what weighs on the human heart and sweetens the bitterness that eats away at it. It dulls what painfully lurks there and ceaselessly threatens to rise up, to leap out in anguished and feverish panic. That is why we say in French that the muse “amuses” pain. This is the origin of the word consolatio. When the Roman Empire disintegrated province by province, when the social bond and the religio that united the territories were torn asunder only to be reconstructed according to the will of the Christian party and the barbarians who themselves were Christian — at least Aryan — in the early years of the sixth century, a Roman scholar was imprisoned by order of king Theodoric of the Ostrogoths, first at Calvenzano, later in a tower in Pavia. There, the young scholar, the patrician, the Neo-Platonist, the Porphyrian, the Ammonian Boethius, husband to the great-great-granddaughter of Symmachus, husband forever deprived of his wife’s body, composed De Consolatione Philosophiae. Has philosophia ever been much bolder than this solor of the soul? The book was interrupted by the stroke of an axe, one fall day. It was October 23, 524. His name was Anicius Manlius Torquatus Severinus Boethius. Before his decapitation, in the jail in Pavia, the spirit of the world of the dead, the imago, the “consolatory figure” appeared to him in the form of a woman. I quote Prosa I in the first book of the Consolatio: “As I meditated in silence, as I noted down my silent groan on the tablet with my stylus, I sensed that an immense woman had risen above my head, standing very straight, now young, now old. Her eyes were two flames …” The Conservatory. The Consolatory. Joseph Haydn noted, in the small journals/checkbooks he would bring with him on his travels, that he sought to assuage an old acoustic suffering that originated in Rohrau, on the border between Austria and Hungary, and that dated back to the 1730s: the murmur of the Leitha, the wheelwright’s workshop, the illiterate father, the wood used in wheelwrighting, the familiarity with elm, ash, oak, hornbeam, the shafts, the wheels, and the beams, the blacksmith’s anvil, the jolts of the mallets, the saws and their teeth — in a word, all the pathos of the childhood bond rushed forth into his rhythms. He defended himself by composing. Until the months leading up to his death, months during which these rhythms increasingly buried Haydn at a speed that prevented him not only from transforming them into melodies but even from noting them down. Both everything that cannot be translated into language in order to be retained and nothing that can be hailed by language to be expressed and put to death. The unverbalizable. Haydn said that within him were hammer blows as God heard them, nailing his living hands, hammering his joined, living feet, on a stormy day as he found himself fastened to a cross, at the top of a hill.

We sit in a chair. The tears we dry are very old, more ancient than the identity we invent for ourselves. The tears are, like the woman rising up beside Boethius’s bed, “now young, now old.” Between two expressions: “We listen to music,” “We dry tears similar to those of Saint Peter,” I find the latter formulation to be more accurate. A distant farmyard crowing all of a sudden makes a man standing in the corner of a porch break down in tears, in the early days of the month of April, a few minutes before daybreak bleaches all shadows. The crow of a cock that has since been stuck (probably to mark the memory of these enfevered moments that sounds sanction or even announce by triggering them) atop the steeples of churches in the Christian world.

Vestiges predict the weather, foretell the future.

Certain sounds, certain hums tell what “past” is presently within us.³

Sei Shōnagon in the year one thousand, in the empress’s palace, in Kyoto, on multiple occasions, in the diary that she rolled up and stuffed inside her wooden pillow as she lay down on her bed, noted down the noises that moved her. The sounds on which she dwelled the most frequently, seemingly without ever having grasped their full meaning, or understood their reasons, because of the solitude and celibacy suffocating her, and which every time brought her the feeling of joy (or the nostalgia for joy, or perhaps the present appealing illusion that characterizes the nostalgia for joy), consisted in the noise of wagons on the dry road, in the summer, at the end of the day, when shadow encroaches on all the visible land of the earth.

Empress Sadako’s confidante added:

Hearing behind the partition the sound of chopsticks clicking.

Hearing the noise that the handle of the rice wine jar makes as it falls back down.

The faint noise of voices through a partition.

Music is primordially linked to the theme of the “acoustic partition.” The earliest tales make use of this theme of pricking one’s ears, of overhearing confidences, behind the curtain, in the castles of Denmark, behind the wall, in Rome or Lydia, behind the palisade, in Egypt. It is possible that listening to music consists less in distracting the mind from “acoustic suffering” than in struggling to reestablish animal alert. What characterizes harmony is that it resuscitates the acoustic curiosity that is lost as soon as articulated and semantic language spreads within us.

Apronenia Avitia, in Rome, in the early years of the fifth century, in the letter that begins with the words Paene evenerat ut tecum …, briefly mentions the “enthralling noise of the dice cup” that affects her violently. Then she moves on to something else. There are noises that have “enthralled” themselves in each of us. Although she belonged to the pagan party, she was related through the bonds of gens and patronage to Proba (the Christian patrician who opened the gates of Rome to Alaric’s Gothic armies) and to Paula (Saint Paula). A painting by Claude Lorrain kept in the Prado museum, entitled Embarkation of Saint Paula Romana at Ostia, allows us to imagine Apronenia’s silhouette, beside that of Eustochia, in 385, accompanying Saint Paula to the sea.

The sea is calm. The light spills out of the space of the sky; it tears apart the forms on which it settles by amplifying them. All is silence before the island where the Sirens lie in wait.

The Sirens are Apronenia, Eustochia, Saint Paula.

In all favorite music there is some ancient sound added to the music itself. A mousikè in the Greek sense is added to the music itself. A sort of “added music” that makes the ground fall away, that immediately takes aim at the cries from which we suffered without our being able to name them, when we could not even see their source. Nonvisual sounds, forever withdrawn from sight, roam within us. Ancient sounds tormented us. We did not yet see. We did not yet breathe. We did not yet scream. We heard.

In the rarest moments, music could be defined: something less acoustic than the acoustic. Something that binds noise. (In other words: a piece of tied-up sound. A piece of sound whose nostalgia intends to remain in the intelligible. Or this simpler monstrum: a piece of semantic sound devoid of meaning.)

What constitutes the pavor, the terror, in memories is that childhood is irreparable and that the irreparable part was its amplifying, vigorous, and constructive part. We can only stir up these sediments that are “semantic without meaning,” these asemic semes. We can only make them howl like when we pick at wounds to examine their state. Like when we rip rotting and infecting threads from the pink lips of wounds.

The scar of childhood, like the one that preceded it and that opens up in nocturnal sound, will be a flat electroencephalogram.

Horace never wrote a single line about his memories of his mother. From Varius, from Messalla, from Maecenas, from Virgil, we know how difficult it was for him to speak. His delivery was fragmented; he butchered the cases. In the Epistle to the Pisos, he wrote:

Segnius irritant animos demissa per aures

Quam quae sunt oculis subjecta fidelibus.

Father Sanadon chose to translate these two verses in the style of a measured and somber maxim:

Ce qui ne frappe que les oreilles fait moins d’impression que ce qui frappe les yeux.

⁴

Theophrastus asserted on the contrary that the sense that opens most widely the door to passion is acoustical perception. He said that sight, touch, smell, and taste subject the soul to a less violent distress than that caused, through the ears, by “thunder and moans.”

Visible scenes stupefy me and expose me to silence which itself is a song by privation. I have suffered from mutism: a deprived song. A dance: one sways back and forth. Or one’s head turns from one ear to the other. Silence is rhythmic.

But most piercing screams, certain crashes overwhelm me beyond measure, to the point of arrhythmia.

Sounds plunge us into a silence of hearing more torn asunder than the silence of sight which Horace claims however to be the first esthetic tearer.

Music alone tears asunder.

Horace also affirms that silence cannot divide itself entirely. Acoustic annihilation cannot reach the end of its division: complete silence. Horace says that even at noon, even at the moment of greatest torpor, in summer, silence “buzzes” on the stagnant riverbanks.

Our familiarity with light, our familiarity with atmospheric air — these are as old as we are. In our societies, our age is counted not from the moment of conception, but from birth, in the familial, symbolic, linguistic, social, historical order.

Our familiarity with an acoustic world without the capacity for expression in return, without the capacity for apprehension or for verbal reaction, and even the ear of the language into which we will be born, these precede us by several months.

By two to three seasons.

The Acousticals predate our birth. They predate our age. These sounds even predate the sound of the name that we do not yet bear and that we never bear until well after it has resounded around our absence in the air and in the day that do not yet include our face and that are oblivious to our sex.

Mousikè and pavor.

The pavor nocturnus. Noises, gnawing of field mice, of ants, water dripping from the faucet or from the gutter, breathing in the shadows, mysterious wails, muffled screams, silence that suddenly does not meet the norm of the sound of silence of that place, alarm clock, branches lashing or rain pattering against the roof, cock.

Pavor diurnus. In the sanctuary. In a corridor on Rue Sébastien-Bottin⁵ for twenty-five years: no one there and still we speak softly. Monklike whispering. Occasional meowing laughter. We are wicker puppets, what the Romans called larva, and the older, ancestral dead pull the strings.

The living reside more often than they know with the before-living or in the world of the dead.

This was the knowledge of shamans, and this presumption was the foundation of their skill in healing the body: the mania of an ancestor lies in wait for you. A word was pronounced seven generations before your birth.

Something said in confidence, in a forest, thirty-two years ago.

We were alone among the yellowing leaves and wavering rays of light: she lowered her voice to a faint whisper, deafening my perception, confiding to me her every desire.

I could not understand what she said. I was wrong half the time. Who was she afraid might overhear? A deer? A leaf?

God?

Her lips brushed against my ear.

Pavor that will not be remitted. Pavor connatural with children playing marbles. They have one knee on the ground. They aim at a marble while on the lookout for something else.

Permanent lookout for irruption, for arrhythmia, for war, for uprising under the threat of death. Passivity before the intrusion from which nothing protects us. When has night ever been less deep than in the state that precedes birth, which is the third intrusion of life? What man has escaped the death lying in wait for him, ready to pounce, preparing the death rattle?

In what place does the ground cease to open up suddenly beneath our feet?

Reading in the garden in the heat, the languor, the slowness, the drowsiness that come together in summer.

A lizardling’s foot, as it moves a dead leaf, produces a crash that makes the heart jump.

You are already on your feet, trembling all over, in the burning grass.

In nature, human languages are the only sounds that are pretentious. (They are the only sounds, in nature, that pretend to give a meaning to this world. They are the only sounds that have the arrogance to pretend to provide those who produce them a meaning in return. A hammering of feet that makes the earth resound: expavescentia, expavantatio, which is the sound of humans who ceaselessly trample the earth, fleeing, terrified, nearness to place.⁶ Nearness to place, before the Neolithic, was the abyss.)

The beginning of Fronto’s Principia Historiae:

Vagi palantes nullo itineris destinato fine non ad locum sed ad vesperum contenditur. (Wandering, scattered, their journeys have no goal, they walk, not toward a place, but toward the evening.)

Non ad locum:

not toward a place.

Man’s den is his Occident. The world of the dead, there lies his dwelling, where the sun leads him each day as it dies before him.

There is a fragment by Pacuvius that formulates what interrupts the plurimillennial hammering march. In 1823, J. B. Levée translated it thus: “Ce promontoire dont la pointe s’avance dans la mer.”⁷

Promontorium cujus lingua in altum projicit.

A lingua⁸ is that with which a society juts out into nature. Language, strictly speaking, does not extend what is. It exteriorizes. It introduces outside into plenitude. Introducing delay into the immediate: this is music (or memory) and that is why mnèmosynè and musica are the same. Logos insinuates two into one. Anno Domini 520, the Greek philosopher Damascius, in Athens — before he was expelled from the empire and pushed toward Persia by the Christian edicts — wrote that all logos was the foundation of a kingdom of dissidence in a continuous universe.

Lingua grows the “outside,” the “afterward,” absence, discontinuity, death, binary division, couple, interval, duel, sex, struggle.

Just as negation in the eyes of the linguist does not subtract anything: it adds to the positive sentence the marks that negate it.

At the beginning of language, all languages acquired sounds whose purpose was to subtract—whose purpose was to excise what was just said, and that must be put forward in order to subtract it.

Thus lingua is a Tarpeian Rock and the flow of words the mass of a crowd pushing a man who falls into the vertical void that separates him from the sea. In the language of the Ancient Greeks the word problema signifies this very escarpment rising above the waves below, on top of which the city sacrifices by pushing a victim over the edge. It is curious — it is almost Fescennine — that promontory, language, problem, death are the same.

Promonotorium, lingua, problema.

“Sounds whose purpose is to subtract” define music.

The sounds of music subtract from human language in the same way that they separate from the natural Acoustic.

Sounds of death.

Hermes empties the tortoise, steals a cow and cooks it, cleans the skin, stretches it over the shell emptied of its flesh, then finally attaches it and strings across it seven sheep entrails. He invents the kithara. Then he gives his tortoise-cow-sheep to Apollo.

Syrdon, in the Book of Heroes, finds bodies of his children boiling in the cauldron, strings the veins from the twelve hearts of his dead sons over the bones of the right hand of his eldest. Thus Syrdon invents the first foendyr.

In the Iliad, the kithara is not a cithara: it is still a bow. And the musician is still Night, that is, nocturnal panic hearing. It is the opening, the first book, verse 43: “Apollo came down from the summits of Olympus. On his shoulder were the silver bow and his tightly closed quiver. Each step he took in his heart’s fury, the arrows resounded on his back. He strode, like the Night (Nukti eoikōs). Apollo positioned himself away from the ships. He shot an arrow. The silver bow emitted a terrifying bark (deinè klaggè). First he hit the mules, then the dogs that run so fast. Finally he pierced the warriors. The funeral pyres burned without end. For nine days the arrows of the God rained down on the army.”

At the other end of the work, at the end of the Odyssey, Ulysses solemnly enters the palace hall. He draws his bow. He prepares to shoot his first arrow, signaling the massacre of the suitors, another sacrifice once more assisted by Apollo the Archer. Book XXII: “Just as a man knowledgeable in the art of the lyre and of singing, having attached to the ends of his instrument a string made of flexible and acoustic entrails, easily tightens it by turning a peg and tunes it, Ulysses, all of a sudden, effortlessly arched his formidable bow. To test the string he opens his right hand. When released, the string sang beautifully (kalon aeise), with a voice (audèn) like a swallow.”

Once again the lyre comes first. The bow comes second. Ulysses’ bow is like a kithara. The archer is like a citharede. The vibration of the bowstring sings a song of death. If Apollo is the quintessential archer, his bow is musical.

The bow is death from afar: inexplicable death.

More precisely: death as invisible as voice. Vocal cords, lyre string, bowstring are a single string: entrails or nerves of a dead animal that emit the invisible sound that kills from afar. The bowstring is the first song: the song which Homer says is “like the voice of a swallow.” Strings of stringed instruments are strings-of-the-death-lyre.

The lyre and the cithara are ancient bows that fire songs at the god (arrows at the animal). The metaphor Homer uses in the Odyssey is harder to understand than the one he presents in the Iliad, but it is perhaps indexical: it purports that the bow is derived from the lyre. Apollo is still the archer hero. It is not certain that the bow was invented before stringed instruments.

Sound, language are heard and not touched or seen. When song touches, 1. it transfixes, 2. it kills.

Gods are not seen but heard: in thunder, in torrents, in clouds, in the sea. They are like voices. The bow is endowed with a form of speech, in distance, invisibility, and air. The voice is initially that of the string that vibrates before the instrument is divided and arranged into music, hunting and war.

The prey that falls is to the sound of the bowstring what lightning is to the sound of thunder.

The Rigveda says that the bow carries death in the taut string that sings like mothers carry their sons in their womb.

A language.

First, a promontory. Then, a problem.

The tenth hymn of the Rigveda defines humans as being those who, unknowingly, have hearing as their ground.

Human societies have their language as their habitat. They are not sheltered by seas, caves, mountain peaks, or deep forests but by the voice they exchange among themselves and its strange accents. And all acts of trade and rites are performed inside this acoustic marvel, invisible and without distance, which everyone obeys.

What allows humans to hear and understand one another can hear and understand in turn.

Thus archers become Vac, Logos, Verbum.

When Greek words became Roman, when Latin words became French, their meaning changed more than the face of the sailors and the traders who brought them. Than the face of the legionnaires who shouted them. Faces of the court of Augustus, of the court of Charlemagne, those surrounding Madame de Maintenon nestling in her damask niche, those that Madame Juliette Récamier receives in her salon on Rue Basse-du-Rempart. Words changed. The beards and the ruffs a bit as well. But one can imagine the same faces.

Eternal sexes.

The same gaze upon nothing, at the bottom of which desire throws off the same terrible glare, and which the ever constant progression of aging similarly torments, the fear of suffering’s intolerable passivity, the unverbalizable certainty of death in its moan and in its cry, in its last breath.

I see the same faces. I sense the identical, inadequate, frightened, comical naked bodies through the cloth that covers them. But I hear accents and words that I have trouble grasping.

I ceaselessly devote all my attention to the sounds that I have trouble grasping.

Tréō and terrere. Trémō and tremere.

Lips that tremble from cold in winter. Consul Marcus Tullius Cicero’s trementia labra. Words themselves tremble when the lips that pronounce them tremble. The little doll of hot breath itself trembles in the cold of winter.

Lips, words, and senses. Sexes and faces. Breaths and souls.

Lips that stammer in sobs.

Lips that quiver when we hold back the tears — or when we read at the birth of reading.

Earthquakes and the ruins they protect, hiding them under themselves, in order to wait, like witnesses, nineteen millennia for a cave to open up.

Tremulare in Latin does not yet carry the markedly sexual sense of a jolt: it is the flame that flickers in the oil of the grease lamp.

Soft-boiled eggs. Tremula ova.

Catillus’s javelin in Virgil vibrates like a harmonious string.

Herminius dies.

Never did Horatius Cocles’ companion wear a helmet or dress in armor.

He fights naked. The mane of a “wild beast” falls from his head onto his shoulders. Wounds do not frighten him. He offers all of his body to the blows that rain down and that run through. Catillus’s javelin, vibrating (tremit), buries itself between his broad shoulders. The pain (dolor) doubles him over. A black blood (ater cruor) streams everywhere. Everyone celebrates the funeral. Everyone seeks a beautiful death (pulchram mortem) through the lips of his wound.

Beautiful sound is tied to beautiful death.

Hasta per armos acta tremit. A vibrating javelin, buried between the shoulders.

Every sound is a minuscule terror. Tremit. It vibrates.

In Tunisia, at the beginning of the fourth century, near Souk Ahras, in Thubursicum Numidarum, the grammarian Nonius Marcellus inventoried all Roman words in twelve books. He entitled the work Compendiosa Doctrina per Litteras and he dedicated it to his son. In a column in volumen V, Nonius registered the word terrificatio. Nonius Marcellus is the only one to recognize this word. It is not attested in any of the ancient texts that have been preserved. He explains its meaning: scarecrow.⁹

Music is an acoustic scarecrow. Such is birdsong for birds.

A terrificatio.

Terrification in Rome, or in Thubursicum: after the bow, a crude dummy with a human shape, dyed red and placed in grain fields.

It is an acoustic and tintinnabulating bogeyman. Scarecrow in classical Latin is formido. Whence the French formidable, which means dreadful.¹⁰ The formido was made out of a simple string (linea) on which tufts of feathers (pinnae) dyed in blood were fastened here and there. It is the ancient Roman hunting method par excellence: the beaters move the scarecrows covered in red feathers, the slaves raise the torches, the dogs accompany them, barking and seeking to fill the pursued monstrum with panic, forcing the wild boars deep into the forest, howling and pushing them toward the hunters holding spears, in short tunics, bare hands and faces, leaning firmly on their right foot in front of the nets.

Romans describe the terrifying flapping, the roaring of the linea pennis in the wind, forming the access corridor trapping and forcing the beasts in the direction of the nets.

The terrificatio is no longer exactly the formido. We believe that a branchy man smeared with vermilion will pass as human and hope that it will instill fear. It is no longer a question of boars and stags. We are determined to keep out curious little animals who love seeds and who, with the help of their former fins covered in feathers, are able to move about in the air and whom we call birds.

In the well of the small, dark cave that is located near Montignac, near the dead desirous man, there is a stick driven into the ground surmounted by a bird’s head.

An inao. A terrificatio.

From the beginning of book I of the Consolatio, as Boethius, in 524, imprisoned in the tower in Pavia, enumerates all of the senators who abandoned him to distress and to death, the philosopher evokes his terror, his dejection, shows the chain that is fixed to his neck, describes the maeror that, diminishing and blunting his own capacity for thought, is altering his perception of what he is and the evaluation of what he is worth. In two gripping verses, Boethius shows the unintelligible paralysis in which pain imprisons its victim and evokes the obedient stupor in which tyranny imprisons man. He compares these two enigmatic lethargus, which are far from characteristic of humans since they derive from animal fascination.

— Sed te, the beautiful and immense woman, whom he has named Philosophia and who stands over his bed, suddenly interrupts him, stupor oppressit.

“But stupor oppresses you as well.”

It is then blindly, without any of his volumen within reach, that Boethius, as he endeavors to analyze the gradual establishment of Theodoric’s tyrannical regime, constructs for the entire Middle Ages the mythical figure of the tyrant. Yokes of imagines become dialectical couples before they transform themselves into emblematic pairs: Zeno and Nearchus, Cassius and Caligula, Seneca and Nero, Papinian and Caracalla. Finally himself, Anicius Torquatus Boethius, against Flavius Theodoricus Rex.

Scarecrows: terrificatio.

Dread. Inspiring fear. Perspiration from fear, horripilation, pallor, immobilization, shitting. Shuddering, shivering, trembling, doubling over. To terror I prefer horror. The word is hardly more precise, but it happens to emphasize disgust and show hatred. What world do we imagine when we act surprised at the sight of terror mixed with the predation of power? Can we separate love from terror in its means, in its manifestations and in its end? (Anguish, trembling, anorexia, pallor, diarrhea, arrhythmia, death rattle.) Can beauty be cleansed of terror? (Stupefying, silencing, keeping at bay.) Do we know a god free of terror? The hand of the gentlest, the most Greuzian, the most Diderotian father is larger than his son’s head and, when he stands up, the child sees nothing but knees. Where are the hands that were given as the whitest? At the end of Erzsébet Báthory’s arms in Csejte, in the snow, on a spur of the Lesser Carpathians, in November 1609. Richelieu replied to Father Mulot, who asked him how many Masses had to be said to pull a soul out of purgatory: as many as it would take snowballs to heat an oven. Terror is in the depths of my heart. It is the depths of my heart. To restrict it I trust only those who see themselves as completely soiled at least by the sound that announces it. This sound preceded my birth, the inspiration of air and the contact of day. Our ears were pricked and terrorized by unintelligible signs under the partition of skin even before our lungs functioned and allowed us to scream.

Man re-creates the partition of a woman’s belly in drum skins, which are the cleaned skins of animals that are hailed by the sound of their horns.

Reconciliation, peace, divinity, goodness, purity, fullness, civilization, brotherhood, equality, immortality, justice, and they would slap their hands loudly against their thighs.

Everything is covered in blood related to sound.

War, the State, art, religions, earthquakes, epidemics, animals, mothers, fathers, factions, coercion, suffering, disease, language, hearing sounds, obeying. I brace myself against them.

Getting away from the gang; out of the corner of one eye watching out for the oh-so-funny and unexpected buckets of cold water over every door that swings open, out of the corner of the other the gaping mouths of wild beasts; fleeing at full speed whenever I catch sight of bodies that have any sort of faith in any sort of institution or being; fleeing the feebleminded and atrocious conviviality of our time; building a lesser dependency within a small network of polite expressions,

of harmonies between grammatical tenses and musical instruments,

of small softer regions of the skin,

of certain berries, of certain flowers,

of rooms, of books and of friends,

this is to what my head and my body devote the essential part of their reciprocal, always unadjusted, finally almost rhythmic times. This was what the emperors and interior ministers of two millennia ago used to shame the disciples of Epicurus and Lucretius. Virgil’s sorrow. Vergilius’s sorrow on the road from Pietole, on the banks of the Mincio, in Mantua, in Cremona, even in Milan — the author of the Bucolics, the disciple of Siro, the Vergilius of friendship and flute duos that stretch the lips and make the cheeks swell.

Menalcus turned to Mopsus and said: “Let us read to each other what we are writing.”

The Vergilius of Rome exempted from taxes, ambitious, domestic, white-fingered, three fingers clenched around a stylus that crosses out Cornelius Gallus’s name; reading aloud while dining at Octavian’s; reading aloud while dining at Maecenas’s.

Vergilius ashamed. For whom silence was suddenly a shore.

Finally the Publius Vergilius Maro on September 21, 19 before the era, sick with malaria, bedridden, sweating in a room in Brindisi, shivering with cold despite the late summer heat and the fire in the brazier that spits its flames in the middle of the room, pleading while dying that the boxwood tablets and already transcribed cantos of the Aeneid be gathered from the chests in the room and retrieved from the homes of his closest friends so that he might personally burn them all.

His hand trembled. His lips trembled as they pleaded. Drops of sweat trembled on his face that begged for his books.

And those who surrounded him in his agony, not moving, refusing him both his tablets and his scrolls, impassive, Octavianists, weary of his cries, immobile.

Horace ages. Quintus Horatius Flaccus reflects on the course of his life. Straightaway he considers it justified because he will have been “dear to his friends.” Carus amicis. These are the words that Horace inscribes with a trembling stylus.

In the fifth century before Christ, Confucius died. He had taught in a small town in Shandong. He was buried at Kong Lin, where his relics were preserved.

There are three of these relics: his hat, his guitar, his chariot.

“Confucius saw life as a perpetual cultural effort, made possible by friendship and frank courtesy, pursued privately, like a prayer, but a selfless prayer” (Marcel Granet, La pensée chinoise, Paris, 1950, page 492).

Like the Augurs in Rome tracing in the air with the tip of their lituus the imaginary space of the temple. The small, comforting square. Examining the directions of the birds’ flights as they spread their wings and projected their songs within the square of this feigned space. My life is a short recipe that I am still perfecting. If I had before me five or six millennia, a sort of feeling dawns within me that tells me that I would be afraid to finish.

Magnets spontaneously attract minuscule bits of iron, cobalt, or chromium. Magnets are like a mother’s smile. A mother’s smile immediately leads to the imitation of a curling up of the lips on the infant’s face. A mother’s smile is like fear: in fear the contagion is called panic. We are all, from the moment of our emergence, before our emergence, from the most extreme infancy, even before our birth, completely mimetic, as reproductive as our mothers were in order to conceive us. We are all completely panicked. Music is like panicked smiles. Every vibration resembling a heartbeat and the rhythm of breathing causes the same involuntary, irresistible, panic contraction. Smiles, which reveal the teeth of tigers, hyenas, and humans, are remnants of panic. We are all defenseless in the face of panic (the panic rock, the mother’s magnetic smile, the panic pole, the mental compass. We are all those little “nickel filings.” We are all those fragments, those contractions before the “bluish rock,” before concupiscence, before violent dread, before death).

How can one look down upon death? Intending to disapprove of it? I disapprove of the Acheron. I disapprove of shadows. Declaring that it is too unjust? That it is illegal? How can one reprimand domination or sickness? Sexuation? How can one say no to terror? How can one disagree with what is?

The recent religion of happiness turns my stomach.

People who decide to evade dread, I do my utmost to keep my lips from quivering and stretching, I pinch myself until I bleed in order not to laugh.

Surging hums.

Words form chains in breathing. Images form dreams at night. Sounds also form chains as days pass. We are also the object of an “acoustic narration” that in our language has not been given a name, like “dreams.” I will here name them surging hums. Hums surging unexpectedly when we walk, surging suddenly, according to the rhythm of our gait.

Old songs.

Hymns.

Childish and protective refrains.

Lullabies and nursery rhymes. Polkas and waltzes. Sing-along tunes and popular melodies.

Bits and pieces of Gabriel Fauré and Lulli.

Wicker trunks in the dust of the attic in Ancenis, in the acrid smell of the dry, fine dust, in the rays of light concentrated by the narrow dormer windows. Almost like a plaster powder that reverberated off the ancestors’ sheet music, written by lines of Quignards one after the other, all organ builders and organists in Bavaria, in Württemberg, in Alsace, in France, in the eighteenth century, in the nineteenth century, in the twentieth century. Most of their works were written on thick, blue paper. Gold would fall from the only dormer, allowing them to be read, inciting to dust them off, encouraging to hum them. The first rhythm was the heartbeat. The second rhythm was the pulmonation and its cry. The third rhythm was the cadence of walking upright. The fourth rhythm was the assailing recurrence of the waves of the sea breaking against the shore. The fifth rhythm removes the skin from the meat that was eaten, stretches it, attaches it, and attracts the return of the beloved, dead, devoured, desired animal. The sixth rhythm was that of the pestle in the grain mortar, etc. The unexpectedly surging hum immediately informs us about our state of being, about the mood that will govern the day, about the prey that we hail. When taught in music class it was known as the key signature. The hum sets the tone for the space of the body. It distributes the number of sharps and flats that one will have to remember while playing the day’s piece until night’s progression envelops body and face, without in the least muting the world.

The impatience and the irritation when we cannot recognize the name, the title, the lyrics that would allow us to master the resurgent hum. Not knowing the name of what haunts us in sound. Not knowing with what material, around what motif everything will suddenly be “woven together,” will suddenly “coalesce.” Frightened curiosity in regard to this impalpable, acoustic regurgitation, which is after all exactly like that of a mother’s milk or of vomiting. Fit of distress that “gets into” your head and spreads to the respiratory rhythm, seizes your heart, clenches little by little your stomach, that stings your back — like cow’s milk that “turns” upon contact with a suddenly adjacent heat. Suffering from words that fail, that are absent as sounds, that are the Absent, that remain absent on the “tip” of the tongue. On the “promontory,” on the problèma of language.

On the lingua of language.

Before a sacrificer throws the scapevictim of the Acoustical into the ocean, which is to say into affect: the-man-who-is-the-sacrificed-of-language. The man who is the obeyer.

I am like the thief in the ancient Indian tale who plugged his ears when stealing bells.

I know only four oeuvres in which joy was considered as the highest human quality: Epicurus, Chrétien de Troyes, Spinoza, Stendhal. At the end of their adventure, Chrétien de Troyes’s heroes receive Joy as their reward. It is still not clear what that might have been. Joy was either a magic horn that forces one to dance, or a horn that makes one drunk, or a game, or pleasure. Jocus is the game of jubilation. To be speechless with joy at the end of language, at the denouement of the adventure, opening oneself to the silence or to the music of the horn that forces the soul into silence, this is the aim of authors as it is the prey of heroes.

Chrétien de Troyes wrote William of England. During the reunion banquet, William of England did not even pay attention to his wife: he immediately lost himself in “thought.” He sees a stag. He pursues the sixteen-pointer. He suddenly cries out: “Hu! Hu! Bliaut!” The sequence is purely acoustic and it is so loud that the scream tears the king away from the vision from which it came. It is only after the scream to his dog and directed toward the stag that he can recognize his wife’s body and ask her about her life since they parted, more than twenty years earlier.

These are otium. Empty hiding places subject to the archaic influence of the predations that formed them. Completely secular ecstasies. These are “dead intervals.” In all of Chrétien de Troyes’s romances, they are what the author profoundly refers to as “thoughts.” Thoughts are not ideological sequences. “Thoughts” are “eclipses.” Erec’s oblivion thinks. Yvain’s amnesia thinks. Lancelot, suddenly losing his name, thinks.

Perceval leans on his lance. He contemplates three drops of blood on the snow, which the whiteness and the winter cold are slowly drinking. Chrétien writes: “He thinks so much he forgets himself.”

Marcel Proust reconnected with this medieval stupor. The narrator of In Search of Lost Time, hunched over his boot in the Grand Hôtel in Balbec, cries out in tears: “Stag! Stag! Francis Jammes! Fork!”

The noise of the spoon tapping against the faience plate and, under the haze of the soup that it is trying to scoop, the design caught in the faience, which little by little will be revealed under the thick consistency, cannot yet be made out.

The spoon, tapping the container, chimes.

The spoon scraping, the stag at the bottom of the plate reemerges from prehistory.

The musical bow reemerges.

The hum resonates with the individual acoustic molecule, older than day. The old asemic string vibrates little by little to the harmony of the seemingly absurd semantic song that evokes it. Emotion overcomes us all of a sudden. Once more, everything suddenly disrupts all the rhythms of the body, but no real meaning has been provided.

Stupor. Falling into a faint. Faintness defines fainting. Saint Peter in Annas’s courtyard in Jerusalem. Augustine in the garden in Milan associating the crow’s caw with an old children’s song he had heard in Carthage and whose title he can no longer recall. Saint Augustine’s insomnia in Cassiciacum. The persistent murmur of the steam that disturbs him. The nibbling of the mice (and Licentius who sleeps next to Augustine and who taps with a piece of boxwood on the foot of the bed in order to scare them off).

The noise of the wind in the leaves of the chestnut trees in Cassiciacum.

There is an old French verb that expresses this drumming of obsession. That denotes this group of asemic sounds that disturb rational thought inside the skull and that awaken in the process a nonlinguistic memory. Tarabust, rather than hum, is perhaps the word that should be suggested.¹¹ Tarabustis is attested after Chrétien de Troyes, in the fourteenth century.

“Something tarabusts me.”

I am searching for the acoustic tarabuster that predates language.

Tarabust is an unstable word. Two distinct worlds meet in it, attract it, and thus divide it according to two processes of morphological derivation that are both too plausible for the philologist to decide between them. The word tarabust is itself disputed between the group of that which belabors and the group of that which drums. Between the rabasta group (the noise of quarreling, the belaboring group) and the tabustar group (hitting, talabussare, tamburare, the family of resonators, of drums).

Either vociferous human coitus. Or percussions of hollow objects.

Acoustic obsession is unable to distinguish in what it hears between what it ceaselessly wants to hear and what it cannot have heard.

An incomprehensible noise that belabors. A noise that could either be quarreling or drumming, panting or blows. It was very rhythmic.

We come from this noise. It is our seed.

Every woman, every man, every child immediately recognizes the tarabust.

Salmon swim upstream and back in time in order to die at the exact spawning ground where they were conceived.

And spawn, and die.

Bits of red skin fall to the bottom of the bed.

Werner Jaeger (Paideia, Berlin, 1936, volume I, page 174) asserts that the oldest trace of the word rhythm in the Greek language is spatial. Jaeger, as Marsyas does with Athena’s flute on a riverbank in Phrygia, gathers the remains in a fragment by Archilochus:

Dare to know what rhythmos holds man in its net.

Rhythm “holds” man like a container. Rhythm is not fluid. It is neither the sea nor the pulsating song of the waves that come in, break, retreat, amass, swell. Rhythm holds man and attaches him like a skin on a drum. Aeschylus says that Prometheus is tied for eternity to his rock in a “rhythm” of steel chains.

Hums encrust the heart of man as quickly as rust encrusts iron.

There are things that we do not dare reveal to ourselves even in silence, even in our dreams. Phantasms are a kind of mannequin located behind images and memories, and which hold them upright. We are entirely obedient to them, although we dread glimpsing these ancient and rather obscene armatures on which our vision focuses and which preform it.

There are more ancient acoustic structures than these visual terrificatio. Tarabusts are the phantasms of rhythms and sounds.

Just as hearing precedes sight, just as night precedes day, tarabusts precede phantasms.

Thus the strangest ideas have a purpose, the oddest tastes a source, the most surprising erotic obsessions an irresistible horizon, panics an invariable vanishing point.

Thus the wisest animals can be fascinated and, paralyzed, await the death they fear and that comes to them in the form of a mouth that opens, that sings.

What is in my thoughts belongs only to me.

But the self does not belong to itself.

Phantasms are involuntary obsessive visions.

Tarabusts are the involuntary, besieging, tormenting, haunting acoustic molecules.

In the Odyssey, in the twelfth book, verses 160 to 200.

The Sirens are singing in a flowering meadow, surrounded by the remains of bones of consumed men.

It would seem that when we are still deep in our mothers’ sex, we cannot mold wax borrowed from beehives to make ourselves earplugs. (Bees around the garden flowers, wasps before the storm, flies in the rooms with open shutters, buzzing around, are the first tarabusters of the ears of the smallest children at the hour of the ritual afternoon nap.) We cannot not hear. We are tied hands and feet to the mast standing on the deck, minuscule Ulysses lost in the ocean of our mother’s womb.

What Ulysses says after the Sirens have sung and after screaming for the ropes that bind him to the mast, for pity’s sake, to be untied, so that he might immediately head toward the incredible music that fascinates him:

— Autar emon kèr èthel’ akouemenai.

Ulysses never said that the Sirens’ song was beautiful. Ulysses — who is the only human to have heard the song that kills without being killed — says, in order to describe the Sirens’ song, that the song “fills the heart with the desire to listen.”

The sounds of the voice draw part of their breath from the air that is accumulated and emitted through respiration. The entire internal “auditorium” and even the future respiratory “theater” emphatically reflect the emotions that the body experiences, the effort it tries to make to expel them or the sensations that animate it. Sounds collaborate with the necessity for air and ventilation that constrain this hollow and skin-covered instrument that we ourselves are. Language is organized around a zoological body that inspires and expires without respite. That “agonizes” without respite. Those who emit sounds divide their respiration in two never completely distinct halves. They give up control of their will to this obsessive, subjugating pulmonation. And — the word psychè in Greek only means breath — with its cries, they build their tone, their timbre, their voice, their cadence, their silence, and their song.

This functional metamorphosis and division are themselves redoubled by a more remarkable characteristic: those who emit a sound hear the sound they emit. (At least after their birth and their exposure to air and breathing. And still they cannot hear it as others perceive it. No more so than those who hear it can perceive it as others produce it.) Ceaselessly this back-and-forth takes place and this game that never ceases to repeat itself allows us to construct pitch, intensity, rhythm, incantation, persuasion, and various rhetorical, which is to say personal, forms of “harrowing” cries, “sullen” moans, “deep” sighs, “hermetic” silences.

Ceaselessly “ear” compares what “mouth” and “throat” have attempted.

The pulmonary “psyche” compares. This is what ties the soul to the wind. And to the aerial, that is the invisible, to sounds, to the celestials, to birds. To Homer’s swallow.

Sound that resonates is thus already the result of a veritable acoustic competition. Every animal species adapted to air is endowed with a hum that allows it to differentiate itself from other species, participating in an acoustic system in which, in order to be associated with its “acoustic family,” it plays the part expected of it only by superimposing and negating the other parts it is capable of hearing. We imitate ourselves imitating. This is not simply childhood. A sort of acoustic conversation, of resound and ceaseless appearance, continuously creates, shapes, and refines each language in its system of voices in the same way that it creates and alerts each sound in the acoustic forest.

Bellowing is the yearning of man’s song. The changing of boys’ voices¹² cannot surpass it in its intensity and petrifying violence.

For man, bellowing is the impossible song. It was the identifying song as it is the inimitable song entrusted to the invisible secret of the forest.

The twenty-first can be played on strings — on bows — and on winds — at the tip of flutes. On the harpsichord and the piano, it is never heard. Other than by those who silently read works written for keyboard. And yet the listener believes he hears what is not played.

Only with the eyes do we “hear” the subtonic.

We raise a bit for the eye’s ear what keys cannot produce.

Even for strings, Johann Sebastian Bach liked to write whole and half notes that were linked two strings apart and that could be audible only to the eye.

Unplayable notes, nonacoustic sounds, signs that are written down for the pure beauty of writing.

I propose to call “unheard notes” these written unplayable sounds that bring to mind what grammarians call “ineffable consonants” (the p in sept).¹³

Besides the songs forbidden to man when his voice changes, there are also ineffable vowels. And not only among the gods who reign over the dark clouds and the Sinai and whose consonantal name is murmured with the help of the breeze at the entrance to prehistoric caves.

Still in the forests (the a in daine).¹⁴

All that the millennia on the Ganges have seen of human history can be captured in a flash at high noon: “All that you have heard resembles the piece the musician plays when his servant has carried his cithara off for repairs and after the mouse has eaten away at his score.”

It is said of certain rains that they hammer. Of others that they drum. Of others that they crackle. These images, apart from the sense of truth they provide, are strictly speaking extraordinary — a drum, a fire, a hammer — for describing rain. Such images lead to the reversal of the comparison at their source.

It was not rain that drummed. It was drumming that called for rain.

It is Thor who holds the hammer.

In the Middle Ages, revenants were in the habit of tapping three times on the window casement or on the door before returning. These sounds revived the hammering of the three nails into the cross. (And they prefigured the three knocks that, at the theater in our days, have come to precede the appearance of colorful and talkative ghosts.)

The dead drum. In Japanese Noh, this drumming reaches a devastating intensity, upon every appearance, that nothing seems capable of equaling.

What I call tarabust is Zeami’s silk-covered drum: this drum awaits a drummer whose love will be so strong that it will make silk resound. Zeami’s drum is an ineffable consonant in Kyoto, in the middle of the fifteenth century.

In a story by Caesar of Heisterbach, dating from the first half of the thirteenth century, a dead father, having taken up the habit of returning frequently to the home of his son, pounded the door so hard (fortiter pulsans) that the son complained to his father that his sleep was disturbed even when he did not return.

The first texts written in the history of the world (Sumerian, Egyptian, Chinese, Sanskrit, Hittite literature) are twilit. These songs, these letters, these dialogues, and these stories are all marked by terror and by tragic, moaning reiteration. Tragic in Greek means the breaking, hoarse voice of a slaughtered goat. The despair that carries these most ancient texts is as absolute as the death in their endings and the ruin that seals their fate. Every last one of these texts is haunted by death and by the dead. Is tarabusted.

Every last one of their supposed authors a sort of Job.

Brightness, hope, cheerfulness, only with the arrival of revealed religions and nation-state ideologies do these enchanting silhouettes appear on the horizon: meaning of life, meaning of the earth, escalation of war, progress of history, daybreak, deportation.

Xu You lived in the time of Emperor Ti Yao. The emperor sent a troop of his best officers to Xu You to ask him to accept the empire. Xu You was rendered violently ill before the emissary at the very idea that the heavenly emperor had thought to offer him to rule the world.

His hand over his mouth, he could not respond. And he withdrew.

The following day, before dawn, while the officers were still sleeping, he fled.

He arrived at the foot of Mount Chi and discovered a place so deserted that he felt the desire to settle down. He looked around at the rocks that could provide shelter and placed his bundle under one of them.

Then he went down to the river to wash out his ears.

Qao Fu took his contempt for politics even further than Xu You.

Qao Fu lived in a small hermitage, well hidden under the foliage, which no one could see, toward the foot of Mount Chi, just above the valley. His sole possessions were a field and an ox. As he went down the side of the valley to the river to water his ox, Qao Fu saw Xu You crouched on the bank, tilting his head to the right, inclining his head to the left, washing out his ears.

Qao Fu went up to Xu You and, having greeted him multiple times, asked him the reason for his rhythmic gestures.

Xu You retorted:

“Emperor Ti Yao offered me the reins of the empire. That’s why I’m carefully washing out my ears.”

Qao Fu’s entire upper body shuddered.

Crying, he contemplated the Ying River.

Qao Fu led away his ox by the halter and did not allow him to drink from the river where Xu You had washed out ears that had heard such a proposition.

In two of Haydn’s London Trios a rare event takes place: phrases that respond to each other and almost have meaning. They are at the limit of human language.

Small gatherings without screaming.

Consonating. An acoustic reconciliation.

Suavitas.

Suave, in Latin, means sweet.

Someone who does not get angry. Parents who do not scold. Men who do not raise their voices in order to dominate. Women who do not complain about being girls when they are not mothers, and who do not whine about being mothers when they are no longer girls.

Someone who caresses.

Someone whose voice is loving, flowing and cheerful like a small stream of melted snow running down the mountain, running down Mount Chi.

Someone who does not offend.

Suasio. Persuasion. What, in Latin, is suavis? The extraordinary opening of Lucretius’s second book answers three times. On three occasions Lucretius defines what is suave:

Suave, mari magno turbantibus aequora ventis

e terra magnum alterius spectare laborem …

“It is suave, when the vast sea is whipped up by the winds, to observe the distress of others from the shore. Not that one feels a pleasant voluptas at the sight of another man’s suffering: it is simply suave to contemplate the evils that we are spared.

“It is also suave to witness without risk great feats of war, to contemplate from above battles being fought down on the plains.

“But of all that is suave, the sweetest (dulcius) is to inhabit the acropolises fortified by the doctrina of wise men …”

The arguments Lucretius invokes have been commentated by tradition throughout the centuries in the driest, most moralizing fashion. They have been judged cynical or insufficient. The finale, however, reveals their secret: do you not hear “what nature barks”? Nature barks (latrare), it does not “speak” (dicere); reality is not endowed with the meaning that only the imagination and the symbolic and social institutions of humans who speak to each other create in terrified await of sound. What nature enunciates is, beyond moaning and aggressive intensity, indeed a cynical sound, a dog’s sound: a nonsemantic sound that precedes us in our very own throat. Latrant, non loquuntur: “They bark, they do not speak.” Zoological sound precedes and, before meaning, makes the heart jump. The barking of the bark is bellowing.

With this barking that closes the text, the suavis, the sweet suddenly carries a more concrete meaning than the arguments, themselves quite ideological and trifunctional, that Lucretius presents: the suavis is less the remoteness that the text describes than the acoustic consequence of distance. The text repeats the same thing three times: we are too far away to hear. The shipwrecked, we cannot hear their cries. We are on the shore. We see tiny figures gesticulating; plowmen of the sea and traders are disappearing beneath the surface of the ocean in the distance. But around us, we hear only the noise of the waves breaking on the shore. The warriors, we hear neither their cries, nor the clash of the weapons and the shields, nor the fire crackling in the barns and in the fields. We are in the thicket at the top of the hill. We see tiny figures falling to the ground. Around us, we hear only birdsong. At the top of the acropolis or at the temple, we no longer hear anything at all. Vultures are the only birds to have sacrificed the group for solitude and song for elevation. We no longer hear even the barking of dogs, or the puffing and panting of work, or the stomach that also, in Rome, like nature, “barks” its hunger (latrans stomachus), or the trampling of the herds coming home, or the fireplaces purring: only the silence of atoms raining through the nocturnal space and the silent letters of the alphabet aligned on the paginae (the furrows) of the volumen. Neither the auctor nor the lector hears the litterae screaming or barking. Litteratura is the language that distances itself from barking. This is suavitas. Suavitas is not a visual notion, but an auditory one. Distance does not, by means of panoramic vision, provide the voluptas of the Celestials: it increases our remove from the acoustic source. It is the suavitas of silence, the suavitas not of the silenced but of the silencing, the suavitas of a far-off barking in horror. A partition made up of distance in space. A suffering that has run out of cries. One of Titus Lucretius Carus’s childhood memories.

At Fontainebleau. In 1613. Marie de’ Medici loved François de Bassompierre.

Messieurs de Saint-Luc and de La Rochefoucauld, who were both in love with Mademoiselle de Néry, were no longer on speaking terms. Bassompierre made the following bet with Créqui: not only would he reconcile them, but he would oblige Saint-Luc and La Rochefoucauld to kiss that very same day.

The Jardin de Diane lay beneath the queen’s windows. Concini is with Marie de’ Medici in the vast bay of the window. He points out Bassompierre down below. With his glove, Concini indicates the four men discussing while gesticulating and kissing among the flowers.

Concini explains to the queen that this kissing and these oaths, these embraces between men who certainly have never seemed to prefer the attributes of their own bodies, are somewhat abnormal.

And yet they are nothing more than dwarfish silhouettes gesticulating silently in the distance, in the freshness and the light of the day being born.

Concini taps his lace. He murmurs, as if to himself, that perhaps it is curious to see Bassompierre animate La Rochefoucauld, as if such a volatile ember needed the help of a flame. He wonders aloud if they are “caballing.” Perhaps even “conspiring.” Otherwise, he adds, of what use are these kisses between people who see each other all the time?

When evening comes, the door to Marie de’ Medici’s apartments is closed to Monsieur de Bassompierre because in the morning he touched Monsieur de La Rochefoucauld’s arm and then kissed Monsieur de Saint-Luc in the small garden situated beneath her window. Concini’s verbal interpretation of the “inaudible words” prevailed. I will add that Concini is like Orpheus: Concini’s body was torn apart and eaten raw by the people of Paris, while all the bells were pealing. I feel a spontaneous fascination with these scenes of “mishearing,” which are really scenes of “not hearing.” This anecdote can be read in Bassompierre’s diary. I have completed it with the help of a letter from François de Malherbe. I am reminded of Claude Lorrain’s paintings. He is thirteen years old at the time (at the time of the scene in the Jardin de Diane at Fontainebleau). His father and his mother are dead. He arrives in Rome. Characters lost in nature. They are not the size of a finger. They are in the foreground and they chat with each other. In Lorrain’s paintings, we are always too far away to hear. They are lost in light. They speak vivaciously and we only hear silence and the falling light.

His name was Simon, a fisherman, son and grandson of fishermen from Bethsaida. He himself was a fisherman at Capernaum. This French word that describes stowage and chaos was then a beautiful village. A particularly anthropomorphic god approached the boat, hailed the fisherman and decided to take away his name and to replace it with a patronymic of his own invention. He ordered him to leave the Lake of Gennesaret. He ordered him to abandon the cove. He ordered him to let go of the net. He named him Peter. The suddenness and the strangeness of this baptism began to blur, to perturb the acoustic system in which Simon had thus far been immersed. These new syllables, to the sounds of which he would now have to respond, the expulsion and the burial of the former syllables that had named him, the repression of emotions and the putting aside of the small fables that little by little during his childhood had come to be associated with these sounds, were sometimes betrayed by certain involuntary and unexpected behaviors. A dog barking, pottery breaking, the sea swelling, a thrush or a nightingale or a swallow singing, would suddenly make him break down in tears. According to Cneius Mammeius, Peter confided one day to Judas Iscariot that the one regret he harbored regarding his former trade was neither the boat, nor the cove, nor the water, nor the nets, nor the strong odor, nor the light that gets caught in the scales of the fish that die in a sort of jolt: Saint Peter confided that what he missed about the fish was the silence.

The silence of fish when they die. The silence during the day. The silence at twilight. The silence during night fishing. The silence at daybreak when the boat returns to the shore and night fades little by little in the sky together with the freshness, the stars, and the fear.

One night in early April, year 30 in Jerusalem. In the courtyard of High Priest Annas, Caiaphas’s father-in-law. It is cold. Servants and guards are seated together. They reach their hands out toward the fire. Peter sits down among them, himself bringing his hands toward the brazier, warming his shivering body. A woman approaches. She believes she recognizes his facial features in the glow emanating from the brazier. In the atrium (in atrio) day breaks in the late winter and the humid mist. A cock (gallus) crows all of a sudden. Peter is startled by the sound, which immediately exposes something that Jesus the Nazarene said to him — or at least something that Peter suddenly remembers him saying. He walks away from the fire, from the woman, from the guards, reaches the porch of the high priest’s courtyard, and, in the door on the porch, beneath the vault, he breaks into tears. They are bitter tears. Tears that Matthew the Evangelist calls bitter.

“I do not know what you are saying,” Peter says to the woman in the atrium. He repeats: Nescio quid dicis (I do not know what you are saying).

The woman pulls up her hood in the late freezing April night. She says: “Your words betray you.” Tua loquela manifestum te facit.

I do not know what the words say. This is where Peter is. I do not know what language manifests. Peter repeats. They are his tears. I repeat. This is my life. Nescio quid dicis. I do not know what you are saying. I do not know what I am saying.

I do not know what I am saying but it is manifest.

I do not know what you are saying but day breaks. I do not know what language makes manifest but for a second time the cock begins to raise the hoarse and dreadful song that manifests the day.

Nature barks daybreak in the form of a cock: latrans gallus.

Beneath the porch, in what remains of the night, flevit amare. He cries bitterly. Amare means to love. It also means bitterly. No one knows while speaking what he is saying.

Jorge Luis Borges used to quote a “verse that Boileau translated from Virgil”:

Le moment où je parle est déjà loin de moi.¹⁵

In truth, it is a verse by Horace. The verse is the one that precedes the carpe diem of Ode XI:

dum loquimur, fugerit invidia

aetas: carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.

(As we speak, time, jealous of all things in the world, has fled. Cut and hold the day in your hands like you would a flower. Never believe that tomorrow will come.) Borges evokes the river that is reflected in Heraclitus’s eyes as he crosses it. The eyes of man have changed less than the water that passes by. They are equally soiled. No one sees the river in which he bathed before he was. In Saint Luke, the scene of the denial is inevitably more Greek than the way it was treated by the other evangelists: a circle of guards and servants, all seated in the middle of the courtyard around the blaze. Peter tries to insert himself into the egalitarian ring that is reminiscent of scenes from the Iliad and tries to warm his body in the contiguous solidarity of the men rather than in the warmth rising from the brazier at daybreak, April, year 30, and death. But Saint Luke goes further: he brings together the scene of the denial and the scene of the tears. He piles one on top of the other like two sediments in the same geological layer or like a short circuit in an electrical installation: Kai parachrèma eti lalountos autou ephōnèsen alektōr. In Latin: Et continuo adhuc illo loquente cantavit gallus. In English: “And, in that instant, while he was still speaking, a cock crowed.”

Dum loquimur … The cock’s crow is a Venetian “paving stone,” an expavement¹⁶ at the heart of the acoustic experience of language, over which Peter stumbles as he does over his name. The harsh song that announces daybreak plunges him into another level of himself: the level of Jesus, the level of Peter, the level before Peter (the level of Simon), the level before Simon. “Not only your face, or your facial features, or your body betrays you,” said the servant, “but your language betrays you.” The Greek reads: Your lalia makes you visible. The Latin reads: Your loquela manifests you. Within the acoustic that betrays him, deeper than the very name he betrays (Jesus), deeper than the very name he betrayed (Simon), lies the small portion of the acoustic that language cultivates, which suddenly refers back to the immense bark of nature and to the narrower stretch of animal song from which human language took its small vessel of specific sounds. The cock’s crow is in a certain sense the bellowing, which became “tragic” and sedentary in the small Neolithic villages where language ceased to be a nomad and a hunter.

To the ears of the servant, language betrays Peter in at least three ways: by his accent, by his Galilean morphological markers, by the alteration of his voice due to the fear Peter experiences before the tarabust of the questions he is asked by the servant. Peter’s pavor, hooked by the cock’s crow, constitutes a rough acoustic jolt that catches in its net an acoustic fish older than the fisherman himself, a face always older than light, and joins them in tears.

Every child’s face is older than the light that illuminates it. The tears of the newborn.

I will add a correction by Saint Jerome.

Mark’s text is odd: “And just then, for the second time (ek deuterou) a cock crowed. And Peter (Petros) remembered what Jesus (Ièsous) had told him: ‘Before the cock crows twice (dis), you will betray me thrice (tris).’ And he broke down in tears.”

Jerome revised Mark’s text. He unified it according to the lessons of the other Gospels. Jerome, at the end of the fourth century (so fascinated by classical Roman culture that he confessed as a mortal sin that he would sometimes dream at night that he took pleasure in reading ancient pagan books), is immediately sensitive to these three stages worthy of fables and corrects them while translating.

1. Jerome’s correction is entirely justified. Saint Mark missed the first crow that prepares the emotion. A musician, a novelist would not have left it out, due to the pathetic effect that this first call seems to hail in the space of the text, without it yet being heard by the hero.

2. Jerome’s correction is not at all justified. There is in this already repeated crow, which does not appear for the first time until the second, which produces a triple betrayal, a moving depth that I cannot clearly explain. (For all that I feel, I have an incredible

esprit d’escalier

This is the only gift the

fata

bestowed upon me. Certain emotions come to me with a delay of several hours, a year, two years, seven years, twenty years, thirty years. The injury that Ulysses suffered to the knee, during the wild boar chase with Autolycus’s sons, when the weather is humid, I am only now starting to feel it.)

The texts of the various Gospels are not from the first century Anno Domini. But in the same historical epoch, although under the reign of Nero, the knight Petronius wrote another scene about a cock’s crow. It is not impossible that the first authors of the Gospels, or those who rewrote and altered them, might have remembered this. This page, which we owe to the completely literary genius of Gaius Petronius Arbiter, a few weeks before he took his own life, constitutes fragment LXXIII of the Satyricon. It is Trimalchio’s banquet. The hour is very late. Trimalchio orders another banquet in order to joyfully greet the day. He adds that this banquet will be dedicated to the celebration of the first beard of one of his young slave lovers.

Haec dicente eo gallus gallinaceus cantavit. Qua voce confusus Trimalchio … “As he said these words, a cock crowed …” Trimalchio is immediately troubled by the crow, confusus. The scene then progresses extremely rapidly: 1. Trimalchio orders a libation of wine on the table. 2. Trimalchio has the oil lamp doused to prevent the risk of fire. 3. Trimalchio shifts his ring from his left hand to his right. 4. Trimalchio declares: Non sine causa hic bucinus signum dedit … “It is not without reason that the trumpet sounded its signal. There is a fire somewhere. A man draws his last breath in the neighborhood. Far from us! Far from us! Whoever brings me the prophet of misfortune will have his reward.” 5. No sooner has he spoken (faster than words, dicto citius) than the cock is brought in. 6. Trimalchio orders that it be sacrificed immediately (it is placed in the pan). 7. The cock is eaten, the sacrifice is consumed, the sign devoured, and the curse kept at bay (Trimalchio ate the sinister voice).

These two literary scenes associating action with a cock’s crowing in the yard constitute a strange set of mirrors. These mirrored reflections, this echo of Rome in Jerusalem, this little diptych between Trimalchio in his palace and Petrus in Annas’s courtyard, this symmetry is all the more fascinating since a somewhat erudite imagination, transposing with some difficulty the banquet to the reign of Tiberius, could try to anchor it historically. One could speculate that it is the same year. One could claim that it is the same day. One could suppose that it is the same hour. One could perhaps say that it is the same cock.

Rainer Maria Rilke wrote that memories really become memories only when they leave the space of the head and separate themselves from the images that have metamorphosed them as well as from the appearance of the words that endeavor to keep them at a distance. That the beginning of a memory coincided with the effort made to forget it, by the effort to bury it. The memory would then find the strength to return to us, still dripping with water from the river of oblivion, without words, without dreams, without icons, in the form of gestures, manias, sordid movements, courtyards, cooked meals, sudden urges to vomit, faints, tarabusts, and inexplicable terrors. Losing name and meaning, it arises like the tears in Peter at the cock’s third crow, in the beginning of the month of April, at daybreak, abruptly standing far from the atrium and the brazier, in the corner of the door to the house of Caiaphas’s father-in-law. Peter’s real memory is the salty water of the tears, the shaking back, the cold of the emerging day, the sniffling wet nose. The nose of a fish in the atmospheric air. The “Last Supper” of this “rock” of the second name is water and salt. Saint Peter’s meal, as opposed to Trimalchio’s banquet, is his tears. In Augustine, such is the beatific vision: “Day and night I eat the bread of my tears.” (Enarratio in Psalmum CIII.) Peter forever joined daybreak to tears. La Tour curiously shows: vine shoots in embers, a plump cock. Georges de La Tour is closer to Trimalchio. In La Tour, Saint Peter’s body is curiously, not upright, the body of a grown man looking down on the servant, fleeing her, but that of an old man, crouching, squat, the size of a child, chin on his knees, like the dead that humans in the Paleolithic age tied up with reindeer nerves, in the curled-up position of a fetus, hoping for a second birth in the shadow of the hide of the totemic animal.

The tears of Saint Peter, despite the effort I make to visualize a more Roman scene, I can only imagine it in the Baroque style of Henry IV or Louis XIII. A gray courtyard in the Louvre in winter, or a rainy courtyard in Rouen. Or a damp, freezing courtyard in La Tour’s Lunéville.

In 1624 Georges de La Tour sold Saint Peter’s tears for 650 francs. The Cleveland Museum of Art keeps tears of Saint Peter that date from 1645. The cock with the round eye of Mesopotamian gods and the old vine shoots that surround the martyred apostle make up the very few depictions of nature that La Tour consented to paint (human beings are not counted as depictions of nature. Cocks that crow and vine shoots that burn fall under the rubric of still lifes). At the end of the previous century, in Malherbe’s Tears of Saint Peter, language abandoned the nocturnal word. If shame is born with this twilight of the night that is daybreak, then it is silence that comes with day:

Le jour est desja grand et la honte plus claire

De l’apostre ennuyé l’avertit de se taire

Sa parole se lasse et le quitte au besoin

Il voit de tous costez qu’il n’est veu de personne.

Toutesfois le remors que son ame luy donne

Tesmoigne assez le mal qui n’a point de témoin.¹⁷

Abandoning that which abandons. Abandoning those who abandon. Chaste shame, twilit shame in the suffering of love, shame that precedes the embrace in the night, shame that prefers shadow and remorse, relics, songs, tears, crêpe, veils, the color black — this movement was once called mourning. The French word for mourning, deuil, comes from the Latin word for pain. The Latin dolor comes from being beaten. The forceful expression for having a migraine was, in ancient Rome, caput mihi dolet (my head is beating). It is the beating of the blood; the pulse is the beat of music. Beating that defines the tarabust, since it precedes pulmonation. Migraines are the pensive drumming of a small expression or a small memory that begins to tarabust the breath (the psychè) of those who as a result begin to breathe with more and more difficulty. One must search for the name of the victim whose skin was stretched across this small psychic drum in order for this constriction of the skull to find the means to relax at last. For the heart of the tarabust, the dregs of the amphora, is obstruction, even before asphyxia. It is death, unmourned death, man’s irrepressible nocturnal death wish. What returns in the form of migraines also returns in the form of nightmares. The dead betray us, by abandoning us, and we never cease to betray the dead, by living. We are angry with the dead not only for their death, but for death itself, of which they are proof, not least through the pain of the blood within us that beats for two. “Why have you forsaken me?” Deus meus, Deus meus, ut quid dereliquisti me? Even gods scream this scream toward death. Derelictio, abandonment, such is the “scream of mourning,” the dolor. This scream is older than the first century of our era and older than Friday, April 7, 30. Such is the scream that Peter too lets out, after Jesus has emitted it, when he feels his own denial under the porch of the atrium of Caiaphas’s father-in-law in Jerusalem. He has just forsaken the one who has just forsaken him. A courtyard song, a childhood song, a song that comes from farther away than the knowledge of that which devotes to death, a song that comes from farther away than the acquisition of language, a song that is a relic, an archaic song that is distance in time become perceptible as a hoarse sound, daybreak lodged in the throat of a strangely anachronistic fowl:

Il a la voix perçante et rude;

Sur la tête un morceau de chair;

Une sorte de bras dont il s’élève en l’air …¹⁸

By this sound, Simon shivers under the rock of his second name, trembles under the stony shell, sobs on the stone porch. It is not only God he has denied; he has denied himself; he has forsaken himself by forsaking the nets at Capernaum, by giving up the boat on the banks of the Jordan; it is both the horror and the daimōn itself that is joined to it, and that he has denied in the past, that are suddenly startled together.

He forsook himself by forsaking his name.

The cock’s crow ringing so curiously in Peter’s ear is the rock to which God has devoted him, the ceaselessly uneven cobblestone that always dates back to before man’s mastery of language, the porch of music, the threshold of music, and that afterward assumes the form of tears: when sounds were pure passions, tragic, suffocating, disconcerting, frightening passions. Acoustic daybreaks, and not linguistic signs. The innate pathos returns, the acoustic night, the pricked ear in the acoustic night, in the acoustic forest, in the nocturnal cave where humans advanced with torches and lamps filled with fat at the breaking of initiation, upon their death-and-rebirth in the nocturnal depths of the earth. It is the terror before the body itself, all of a sudden abandoned to rhythms and screams, between the open legs of a mother, on the bank of a thigh, in a sand of filth, in a lake of urine, in the air where these sorts of fish suffocate — in a sort of acoustic Capernaum that continues without break until the ultimate wail in the expiration of death.

Curiously: music protects sounds. The first works of so-called Baroque music were inhabited by the will to tear oneself out of the acoustic bark by means of the modulations peculiar to human language and the organization of its affetti. The invention of opera resulted from this will for affective rebirth, for acoustic breaking and sorting, for acoustic sacrifice. I consider the highly tonal diatonic scale, from the early seventeenth century to the first half of the eighteenth century, in Europe, to be one of the most beautiful things ever to have existed, no matter how briefly. Of an absolute beauty — no matter how contingent and immediately deprived of a future. I rank it as highly as the Roman satura, the invention in Greece and in Rome of the historical genre, red wine from the Bordeaux region, a grilled fillet of Saint Peter’s fish, bourgeois individualism, William Shakespeare’s tragedies.

It is said that as Peter grew older he could no longer bear cocks. Even domesticated thrushes, small quail, pigeons, mallards, and blackbirds that frighten no man — all that could sing, in the courtyard of his basilican palace in Rome, he had put to death. Cneius Mammeius reports that he would ask Fuscia Caerellia to smother them in a cloth dyed with bilberries (vaccinia). This was before he was incarcerated in the Mamertine prison, that is, before Seneca the Younger was forced to commit suicide. Saint Peter (Simo Petrus) lived at the time in a vast, rather dilapidated, palace in Rome, acquired in the early 60s. He was beginning to become known. Simo Petrus dined with Lucan, with Seneca, with the young Spaniard Martial. He was also seen at Quintilian’s, at Valerius Flaccus’s, at Pliny’s. Cneius Mammeius says that in the last moments of his life he could no longer bear children at play or the songs of the Divine Office. One day, he had a group of elderly patrician women chased away with a whip, when they had just converted to the Christian party, because they lingered in the courtyard to gossip while letting out loud high-pitched screams. The palace was shrouded in silence, the windows blinded with drapes. The doors to the inner apartment were hung with several Gallic coats, attached with the help of a horizontal beam, stitched together in order to muffle sounds. Fuscia Caerellia made little wool plugs that hung day and night from Saint Peter’s ears.