Call for Papers
A Roundtable Sponsored by
Medievalists@Penn
at the 51st
International Congress of Medieval Studies
Western Michigan University,
Kalamazoo, May 12-15, 2016
Unhappy
Families: Literary Inheritance in the Fifteenth Century
Organizers:
Daniel Davies (daviesd@sas.upenn.edu) and Sarah W. Townsend
(sarahtow@sas.upenn.edu)
vae
tibi terra cuius rex est puer et cuius principes mane comedunt (Ecc. 10:16)
For
Huizinga, the fifteenth century was a filial disappointment. The profound
advances made in the mature High Middle Ages were but a distant memory and it
was part of an epoch marked by ‘childish’ and immature beliefs. Whether or not
we accept this characterization, the fifteenth century seems peculiarly marked
by questions about childhood, youth, immaturity and filiation. The English
poets that succeeded Chaucer, such as Thomas Hoccleve, John Lydgate and Stephen
Scrope, expressed anxieties about their literary pedigree, comparing themselves
to ‘father’ Chaucer and finding their own abilities lacking. This session
invites papers which explore textual relationships through the lens of the
unhappy family. How does filial awareness and resentment shape and motivate
authorship? What modes of filiation do we find poets using? In what ways do
English writers of the fifteenth century both avoid and emulate Chaucer? In an
age when childhood became a political problem through the minority of Henry VI,
how do poets craft and explore maturity?
In
addition to exploring the relationship between fifteenth-century English
writers and ‘father’ Chaucer, submissions to this session might examine the
insular inheritance of continental French literature. While Sheila Delany
famously excluded Christine de Pizan from a list of “mothers to think back through,”
Thomas Hoccleve, Stephen Scrope and Anthony Woodville all translated
Christine’s French texts into Middle English during the fifteenth century.
Similarly, John Lydgate worked from French ‘parent’ texts, translating
Guillaume de Deguileville’s pilgrimage trilogy and using a version of the
French Roman de Thèbes to compose The Siege of Thebes. Are these
translations a practice of simple adaptation of material already in heavy
circulation among Francophone aristocratic lay readers or do these acts of cultural
appropriation take on a new meaning at the end of the Hundred Years’ War? And
might these French source texts allow fifteenth-century English poets to
re-think their relationship to Chaucer and shape a new vision of English
literary history?
Please
send proposals with a one-page abstract and a Participant Information Form (www.wmich.edu/medieval/congress/submissions/index.html) to Daniel Davies (daviesd@sas.upenn.edu) by September 15, 2015. Preliminary inquiries and expressions of interest are most welcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment