Hello, all!
Here's a very slightly revised version of the proposal I sent to Candace:
In this paper I am pursuing the hypothesis that Chaucer holds up the "diplomatic work" of sacred intercessors as a mirror to his audiences, a recurring reminder that in the Christian cosmology as in the perceivable world of social politics, one’s own relevance will depend on one’s relationship to someone else.
In Chaucer’s version of Deguilleville’s Marian ABC, the speaker-supplicant represents himself as one in the know, having spent some time asking around to get the “Wherefor and whi,” the back story of the internal diplomacy that has forged a peace between God and his undeserving human subjects. Conspicuously mindful of the many aspects of Mary’s position, the supplicant advances his petition by acknowledging that the Blessed Virgin is the only “mene” between himself and the divine power that determines his fate, a power that “granteth no pitee” whatsoever without Mary’s approval. Pious appeals in Chaucer often question the relationship between heavenly values and worldly affairs through irony and comic incongruities. Yet Jesus, his mother, and other saints are sometimes invoked in ways that produce a potentially more discomfiting tension, roping the audience into the cosmic politics of the Chaucerian imaginative world(s) by including the audience in communal prayer. In appeals on behalf of Criseyde, the Chaucerian audience is called not only to formulate opinions about a story’s characters as social actors, but also to take an active role in representing these characters charitably to some party or parties beyond themselves. In other words, the audience is placed in the intercessory role elsewhere occupied by Mary and the saints.
I situate this argument within a broader movement to re-introduce questions of belief into the study of Chaucer, focusing in particular on how Christian beliefs and relational ethics intersect. This paper brings ecclesiastical and social histories together to contextualize Chaucer's representation of relationships with the political community and the communion of saints as negotiated through similar means. Exploring the intercessory relationships central to both offers insight into Chaucer’s worldview and his ethical engagement with humanity.
My questions:
1) I'm also wondering how much of Chaucer I should attempt to cover here. I initially wrote to Candace planning to work with the Canterbury Tales and Troilus and Criseyde, but I think I could change my textual focus between now and next month. (No, CT are not mentioned in the above proposal, just for the sake of clarity and conciseness. I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to cover so much. But I will be glad to elaborate if it seems important for me to follow through on that initial intention to work with the CT. For starters, the Prioress's Tale offers some interesting examples of the intercession trope.) Thoughts about scope from those of you with more experience than I have?
2) As a grad student, I just don't yet feel I know how to frame an argument with optimum interest and clarity, for delivery at a conference. As an audience member, what topic from my proposal would you want to hear more about? Anything you would just yawn about?
Thanks!
Beth
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Beth,
ReplyDeleteI think that this is an important take on the subject of these sessions on diplomacy. If, given your final remarks, you feel the need for a rhetorical model, you might take a look at a piece by Craig Bertolet, “Chaucer’s Envoys and the Poet-Diplomat,” The Chaucer Review, 33 (1998), 66-89. He begins with some general comments about diplomatic procedures and types, accounts Pandarus the diplomat in Troilus, and then focuses specifically on some of the lyrics. He has nothing to say about the Christian context of diplomacy and might serve therefore as a stalking horse for your own view of that text.
There are, furthermore, a number of texts which do support your views. Angels, for example, especially Gabriel at the Annunciation, were regarded as types of the nuncio, messengers of the kind we see in the Squire’s tale. Anyone in your audience familiar with the practice of medieval diplomacy will be aware that this is a broad topic, one open to a wide range of exploratory presentations.
Best,
Bill Askins
Thank you so much for this advice, Prof. Askins!
ReplyDeleteHi - I am just rereading Troilus book one and am struck (anew) by the rhetorical placement of the speaker. He is the servant of the servants of the God of love, but he issues seven commands to lovers in just under 20 lines - to remember, pray, and "bid" - which I think is a bit stronger than "pray." The speaker here seems like an intercessor but also a director, almost a judge (as when he says, let's go ahead and kill off the lovers in despair). Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Prof. Yager! I really appreciate your observation that the narrator is speaking as both intercessor and judge. I've been trying to work out an argument about the relationship between judgment and intercession in another paper, actually, but I hadn't yet thought about the commanding language of the Troilus narrator in this way. Looking forward to hearing your presentation in Siena!
ReplyDeleteI have been thinking, as well, about Grisilde and diplomacy. She's the essence of tact, or of self-effacement -- and how similar were these, I wonder, for Chaucer? She clearly acts as a judge in the absence of her spouse. But she doesn't really act like a diplomat, in the sense of asking for anything (other than a quiet grave for her children), though she does ask for Wife #2 to be treated more gently. Custance intercedes for her baby, in the larger context of a tale about diplomatic exchange. More idle thoughts - my favorite kind!
ReplyDelete