Greetings, everyone - This is an expansion of the précis I sent to Candace.
I am interested in how Chaucer, as a diplomat, would have described restraint or tact in his works. The concept of “tact” is expressed in Chaucer’s time, but the word itself is not attested by the OED until well afterward. Chaucer uses “feeling” where modern English speakers might use “tact” – an interesting detail, as both words are semantically linked with ideas of touching and being touched, both physically and emotionally.
In my paper I will explore this and other aspects of what I’m calling Chaucer’s affective vocabulary, charting the semantic range of Chaucer’s terms “feeling” and “feele” as well as “rewen,” looking at the context of these terms, and seeing where analogues and sources can illuminate them. The list grows as one thinks of other terms treating feelings and emotions; caution about expressing feelings; and moments of throwing caution to the wind.
My goal is to generate a taxonomy of Chaucer’s affective vocabulary and learn what passages or works might be fruitfully re-read in light of that taxonomy. I am also interested Chaucer’s use of apophasis as a way of behaving “tactfully,” for example (and perhaps most famously) in Tr 3.1576: “I passe al that which chargeth nought to seye.” Of course, this rhetorical device complicates the making of a word-list, since it involves significant silences as well as speech or writing.
My question: Should the paper focus tightly on just one work (Troilus would probably give me plenty of information) or on the Chaucer canon? Thanks!
Susan,
ReplyDeleteOn your final point, about silence, Chaucer was familiar with Albertano of Brescia's Ars
Loquendi et Tacendi (see Manciple's Tale, conclusion), and that work might be regarded as a theoretical discussion of tact grounded in its discussions of speech and silence. It contains as well specific directions for those presenting diplomatic messages. See my translation of this work on the Albertano of Brescia website maintained by Angus Graham as well as the remarks in the biography of Chaucer by Donald Howard with whom I long ago shared this translation.
Bill Askins
I read your post with great interest, Susan. I don't know the answer to your question about how much Chaucer to cover, but I can say that I would be very interested in talking about how your discussion of diplomatic tact might intersect with my discussion of diplomatic representation and intercession, especially (though not only) in Troilus.
ReplyDeleteBeth
My paper is changing almost by the hour! I think it is getting further away from the notion of diplomacy and more, perhaps, in the direction of the possible effects of Chaucer's being a diplomat on what and how he wrote. I think I will be talking more about the Troilus than anything else - there is no end to thinking about that poem.
ReplyDeleteI see that your focus is tending toward Troilus-- and I'll be glad to hear more about that-- but I thought I'd just mention that this morning as I was reading the Second Nun's Tale I noticed how tactlessly conducted many of the extremely delicate personal, political, and religious conversations in it are. One more way in which this tale stands out as a strange one, and related, I think, to the way it's sometimes been read as comparatively poor work on Chaucer's part. The social rules seem to go out the window when spiritual absolutes are the focus of the story. Come to think of it, Troilus' laughter, from his enlightened position at the end of Bk V seems curiously inappropriate and even rude, given the audience, doesn't it? He's supposedly got his moral priorities straight by this point, but he seems insufferable to me.
ReplyDeleteWell, of course that's the Dantesque moment, isn't it. Prof. Askins' work reminds us to take seriously the serious (and pious) side of Chaucer, which of course includes SNT. Thanks for giving me (even more) to think about!
ReplyDelete