The Metapoetics of Authorship in Medieval England Gania Barlow
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Revisionary Retelling: The Metapoetics of Authorship in Medieval England Gania Barlow Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2014 © 2014 Gania Barlow All rights reserved ABSTRACT Revisionary Retelling: The Metapoetics of Authorship in Medieval England Gania Barlow When Geoffrey Chaucer depicts characters debating the flaws of his works in The Legend of Good Women, or when Marie de France tells histories of literary transmission to frame her Lais, these authors are writing what I describe as metapoetic narratives. By “metapoetic” I mean that their works are in part about the making of poetry, commenting on the authors’ poetic activity and creative processes from within. My dissertation, “Revisionary Retelling: The Metapoetics of Authorship in Medieval England,” examines how this self-conscious mode of writing enables certain vernacular authors to reflect on their positions as retellers of well-known narratives and established literary traditions. I argue that such self-reflection is central to the efflorescence of vernacular literatures in medieval England. In the last few decades, scholars have called into question the idea that the Middle Ages valued only established literary authority and had no interest in originality, with recent critics noting how medieval authors do make conscious use of the interpretive and distorting possibilities of translation and retelling. Although this line of criticism has been revolutionary, it still tends to view literary authority as inherently limited, so that newer authors must remain entirely subordinate to their sources or seek to replace them. This dynamic of limited authority would seem to be intensified for Anglo-Norman or Middle English retellers; long-standing scholarly narratives have similarly cast the English vernacular languages as competing for linguistic authority with Latin and French. “Revisionary Retelling” challenges these understandings of vernacular creativity by bringing to light the alternative conceptions of authorship and literary authority being invented and explored by writers working in both Anglo- Norman and Middle English. Rather than simply accepting or rejecting a subordinate status, authors such as Marie de France, the Orfeo poet, Thomas Chestre, Geoffrey Chaucer, and John Lydgate take a revisionary view of the challenges inherent to translation and retelling: challenges such as intertextual dependencies, interpretive distortions, and the recombination of traditions. In their metapoetic narratives, these writers theorize authorship and literary authority by dramatizing those types of literary challenges, as well as their processes of revision more broadly. As these authors tell stories about the possibilities and problems of vernacular retelling, they simultaneously imagine and enact a type of authorship—and a type of authority—based in creative revision. The first chapter traces this metapoetic mode back to Marie de France’s Anglo-Norman Lais, arguing that Marie offers a vision of authorship as an ongoing, trans-historic process of collaborative interpretation. Chapter Two examines how later Middle English lay authors consciously use their second-class status in relation to the French lays to leverage themselves into a position of critical distance from the traditions on which they draw. The third chapter argues that Chaucer willfully depicts his own canon as dependent and unstable in his catalogues of his works, and thereby takes ownership of the challenges of vernacular authorship and invents himself as an authoritative Middle English writer. In my fourth chapter, I suggest that the proliferation of literary authorities in John Lydgate’s Fall of Princes, which might seem to constrain and subjectify the text, counter-intuitively asserts the equal value of writing across languages, time, and retellings. Together, these four chapters demonstrate the rich complexity of medieval critical retelling and the power of retold narratives to creatively revise not just their sources, but also literary history itself. Table of Contents Acknowledgments. ii Introduction. 1 Chapter 1 The surplus of the ore: Reinterpreting Transmission in Marie de France’s Lais. 14 I. Obscurity and surplus in the General Prologue. 17 II. The jeweled box and the bare branch: Collaborative transformations in Laüstic and Chevrefoil. 27 III. Choose Your Own Aventure: Living Interpretively in Yonec and Eliduc . 41 Chapter 2 Of a ley þat was ysette: Revising the Lay Tradition in Middle English . .67 I. The Exaggerated Minstrel-King of Sir Orfeo . 71 II. The Unmotivated Self-Authoring Hero of Sir Launfal. .85 III. The “Fre” Author-Clerk of The Franklin’s Tale. .108 Chapter 3 He useth bokes for to make: Chaucer’s Catalogues of Vernacular Authorship . 126 I. Subjected to Revision: The Constrained Translator of The Legend of Good Women . .129 II. Appropriating Revision: The Man of Law’s Magpie-Muse . .147 III. Perpetual Revision: The Retraction’s Author-in-process . .162 Chapter 4 Auctour, Translatour, Maistir, Prynce: Leveling with Authority in Lydgate’s Fall of Princes 177 I. Auctour and Translatour: Framing Narration. 181 II. Auctours upon Auctours: Remodeling Authorship. 201 III. Maistir and Prynce: Humbling Authorities. 218 Bibliography: . 240 i Acknowledgments I could not ask for a better dissertation committee than Chris Baswell, Susan Crane, and Eleanor Johnson. Their time, energy, skepticism, enthusiasm, and insight pushed this project miles forward from where it began, making me think in different ways, say what I really mean, and stop using additive transitions. Beyond the dissertation, they have given me uncountable hours of time and invaluable advice and support in all aspects of the profession. They deserve more thanks than I have room here to give. Many thanks also to Patricia Dailey and Tom O’Donnell for their very thoughtful questions, comments, and suggestions during my defense. Extra thanks are due to Susan Crane for supporting and guiding me from the first moments of my acceptance into Columbia, and through every step of the process, with astounding generosity and thoughtfulness. I also want to extend a general thanks to all of the faculty and staff of the Department of English and Comparative literature who have been a part of this process in any way, from chatting in the halls, to dealing with paperwork, to contributing to the incredible knowledge and professionalization the department has to offer. In particular, Sarah Cole’s amazing dedication of time, energy, and emotion to placement deserve huge rounds of applause. I also owe special thanks to Consuelo Dutschke in the Rare Book and Manuscript Library, for teaching me the joys of paleography and codicology in her spare time. And many thanks to the faulty, staff, and fellow preceptors of Literature Humanities, especially Gareth Williams, for helping make that course such a joy to teach. Columbia has been a wonderful and transformational home, thanks to all of you. No small part of making Columbia feel like home are my fellow grad students. I am so grateful for all of my medieval colleagues past and present, in the colloquium formerly known as ii Medieval Guild and in the medieval Latin reading group, for creating a social and intellectual community that makes me extremely proud (even smug) to be a medievalist. It has been an honor to work and learn with you all. Likewise, I would probably not have made it through these seven years without my graduate cohort, and especially my colleagues in Awesome Studies, to make me laugh, play Rock Band, eat at Toast, occasionally leave Morningside Heights, and just generally feel human. I could fill a book with thanks to my family, whose love and support are just ridiculous. My father Ralph, my mothers Carole, Susan, Sherry, and Patti, and my sisters Marianne and Nicol are the best weird family I could ask for. Thank you so much for putting up with me and believing in me through everything. Finally, so many and such enormous thanks to Tim Donahue, for sharing in my freak-outs, bliss-outs, HBO series viewing, chores, extracurricular activities, and life, and for making it all worthwhile. iii Introduction to Revisionary Retelling: The Metapoetics of Authorship in Medieval England I. What is a medieval author? “Revisionary Retelling” changes the critical conception of medieval vernacular creativity by uncovering a widespread practice of metapoetic reflection on authorship in medieval England. Before we can address this metapoetics of authorship though, we must explore what a medieval “author” is. To speak of an “author” in modern parlance is to speak not just of a writer, but specifically of an original creator, an innovator of ideas.1 This modern conception absorbs an obsolete usage of the word, which connoted “an inventor, constructor, or founder,”2 thereby giving the modern idea of an author its implication of originality and innovation. The deeper history of the word, however, tells a different tale about what an “author” can be. The word comes into English from Latin through Anglo-Norman. The Anglo-Norman word “autour” or “auctor” connects the originary, creative connotation of the word especially to God, while the writerly connotation is linked instead to authority.3 “Auctor” is etymologically related to the 1 Dictionary.com even specifies that an author is “the composer of a literary work, as distinguished from a compiler, translator, editor, or copyist”; “Dictionary.com,”