Call for Papers: The Making of Thomas Hoccleve, University of Manitoba, July 6-8, 2018

In a 2014 Chaucer Review essay, Larry Scanlon argues this is ‘a good time for taking stock’ of critical approaches to Hoccleve and of the future of Hoccleve studies, ‘in part because of Hoccleve’s success, in part because historicism’s influence now seems on the wane’.  Thanks to his topicality and partisanship, Hoccleve’s engagements with politics and power have been explored in some detail in the last twenty-five years, and his place in Middle English studies is now well established.  As scholarship has moved beyond old and new historicisms toward fresh horizons, recent scholars have begun to identify other, less familiar Hoccleves: curial, priestly and clergial Hoccleve, for example, as well as Hoccleve the pacifist or an ascetic self, comparable to Julian of Norwich.  What other Hoccleves will hold the attention of criticism in coming decades?

It is fitting that this question should be the focus of the first conference to be hosted by the International Hoccleve Society (https://hocclevesociety.org/). The aim of the society and of the conference is to map and inspire future directions of research into the making of Thomas Hoccleve by bringing together established and emerging scholars.  We are delighted that Amy Appleford (Boston), Vincent Gillespie (LMH, Oxford), and Stephanie Trigg (Melbourne) will share plenary talks and that Nicholas Watson will respond to the conference as a whole. We now invite papers that consider Hoccleve as a maker of texts and of manuscript books as well as papers that examine the making of his critical reputation. Scanlon argues that Hoccleve offers ‘a wonderful test case for the relation between poetry and ideology’, but which ideologies might be most relevant and most illuminating? We seek papers that will critically examine current positions and break new ground by placing Hoccleve in new cultural contexts and reading his texts from different theoretical perspectives.

We therefore invite scholars to explore a range of questions about Thomas Hoccleve and his making. For example, how might we set his poetry, which is often celebrated for its idiosyncrasies and individuality, in broader frameworks? How might we re-examine its relationship to literary history?  Hoccleve’s closeness to Chaucer is well known but what other early influences, in English, French and Latin, shaped his writing?  Why do he and Lydgate, both writing for the same Lancastrian patrons, each studiously avoid reference to their rival?  Hoccleve is a key early-adopter of Chaucerian language, style, versification and metrical practice.  But Hoccleve also refuses much of Chaucer’s potential legacy (for example the genre of dream-vision, the mode of courtly allegory, narratives of cities of the pagan past such as Troy and Thebes) when Lydgate does not.  Where do those refusals leave Hoccleve in relation to English poetic history and what motivates them?  Did he influence Middle Scots makers, alongside the works of Chaucer, Gower and Lydgate?  What happens to the Lancastrian Regiment of Princes, a popular text surviving in whole or part in nearly fifty manuscripts, during the rule of the House of York?  What can this substantial corpus of manuscripts tell us about the reading of poetry and of political advice in the fifteenth century?

Hoccleve played an active role in the making of his own books as well as the translation of a range of texts drawn from several languages and traditions. Is Charles R. Blyth right that Hoccleve was not ‘widely read’, when his source-texts can be diverse and surprising?  Where and in what forms did Hoccleve encounter these source texts?  What linguistic theories and intentions underpin his translations of orthodox religious writing (especially given the context of Arundel’s Constitutions)?  And what about the diverse audiences for Hoccleve’s own poetry?  Hoccleve wrote not only for fellow civil servants but also for London citizens and members of the ecclesiastical hierarchy.  Some works might serve the antifeminist world of ‘London club culture’ (as Derek Pearsall has named it), but other works respond to the interests and reading habits of noblewomen, while Nancy Bradley Warren has put the Regiment in the hands of female monastics in the early sixteenth century. How can Hoccleve studies take account of such diversity while offering a coherent account of this author?  How might new approaches inform our understanding of Hoccleve in this context?

Hoccleve inhabits a middle position between ‘clerical’ and ‘lay’ literary and intellectual cultures, a middle position also characteristic of many of the most interesting cultural and artistic exchanges, relationships and texts of this period.  To make and remake Hoccleve’s literary reputation, as this conference will aim to do, is to also reach new understandings of the uncertain and rapidly changing cultural position of English poetry in the fifteenth century.

We invite proposals for complete sessions and individual presentations. Proposals for complete sessions may take a variety of forms: a set of three, twenty-minute presentations; several position papers, seminar discussions, etc. Proposals for individual presentations should describe a twenty-minute presentation. We ask that all prospective participants (whether members of a complete panel or individual presenters) submit a proposal that describes your contribution that does not exceed 150 words (including the title); we also ask that each participant submit a 100-word explanation of how coming to the conference might contribute to your work. Proposals should be sent by August 31, 2017 to Jenni Nuttall and David Watt via the email address hocclevesociety@gmail.com. Earlier submissions are welcome.

The International Hoccleve Society is committed to ensuring that students and scholars who wish to present at the conference can be accommodated. We are seeking external support to fund as much of this conference as we can. This is why we are asking for both a very short proposal and an explanation of how this conference might contribute to your work. Although it may not be possible for us to cover all costs for all participants, we hope to secure enough funding to ensure that participation in this conference is not limited for financial reasons. As an additional measure to help overcome financial barriers for students and scholars alike, we have scheduled the conference to take place during the weekend prior to the meeting of the New Chaucer Society in Toronto. This way, scholars from far afield will be able to attend both conferences on a single trip to Canada.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

International Hoccleve Society Sessions at Kalamazoo 2017

This year, the International Hoccleve Society is pleased to be sponsoring two sessions at Kalamazoo, a roundtable on “Teaching Hoccleve,” and a panel on “Hoccleve at Play.” Both of them will take place Saturday afternoon. Contact Danielle Bradley (danielle.bradley@rutgers.edu), who has organized both sessions, with questions or to inquire about how to meet up with International Hoccleve Society members while at Kalamazoo.

Teaching Hoccleve, A Roundtable (Session 401)
Saturday May 13, 1:30pm in Fetzer 1005

Organizer: Danielle Bradley, Rutgers Univ.
Presider: David Watt, Univ. of Manitoba

Presenters:
“A Pedagogical Gambit: Framing Hoccleve as the Anti-Chaucer”
–Nicholas Myklebust, Regis Univ.

“Hoccleve and the Rehearsal of Emotion”
–Stephanie Trigg, Univ. of Melbourne

“Hoccleve’s Hand”
–William A. Quinn, Univ. of Arkansas–Fayetteville

“Teaching Hoccleve’s Regiment of Princes in the Great Books Curriculum”
–Elon Lang, Univ. of Texas–Austin

“Teaching the Regiment in Various Contexts”
–Siobhain Bly Calkin, Carleton Univ.

Session Description:
There is a subtle irony in the fact that Thomas Hoccleve, whose corpus of early fifteenth-century poems is saturated with the concepts of recovery and rehabilitation, has been at the center of a decades-long process of poetic and pedagogic rehabilitation in university English departments. No longer brushed aside as a mere epigone of Geoffrey Chaucer, the traditional nucleus of Medieval English literature syllabi, Hoccleve now claims a legitimate place in the late medieval canon. But what is that place exactly, as far as college classrooms go? The International Hoccleve Society wishes to evaluate current and potential uses of Hoccleve’s poetry in literature, comparative literature, and history curricula. We appeal to instructors to share their experiences teaching Hoccleve to various sorts of university undergraduate, graduate, and secondary-school classrooms, and to recommend lesson plans, assignments and in-class exercises, and pedagogical approaches to Hoccleve’s oeuvre.

One goal is to evaluate the effects of institutional contexts of instruction, for instance the experience of teaching Hoccleve at four-year universities versus community colleges, within history versus literature departments, and for survey courses versus upper-level seminars. What do students find entertaining or surprising about his poetry, and what difficult? What does this teach us about the size of Hoccleve’s rightful place in a syllabus on medieval or late medieval subject matter? Is he rightfully taught as a subordinate within a a post-Chaucerian framework, or can one envision an upper-level undergraduate or graduate literature course focused on Hoccleve? What would that look like?

Secondly, we wish participants to discuss Hoccleve’s role in critical paradigms, including how his poetry might usefully illustrate (or be illustrated by) theories like new historicism, new formalism, feminist and queer theory, narratology, cultural studies, postcolonialism, affect theory, or deconstruction. What opportunities does Hoccleve provide students in questioning medieval genre, periodization, popular spirituality, administrative culture, socio-economic class structures, urban life, political commentary and resistance, or the rise of the individual? Is Hoccleve a useful nexus for interdisciplinarity?

 

Hoccleve at Play (Session 473)
Saturday May 13, 3:30pm in Schneider 1265

Organizer: Danielle Bradley, Rutgers Univ.
Presider: Elon Lang, Univ. of Texas–Austin

Presenters:
“Does This Stress Make Me Look Fat? Awkwardness in Thomas Hoccleve’s Verse”
–David Watt, Univ. of Manitoba

“Funny Money in Hoccleve’s Begging Poems”
–Taylor Cowdery, Univ. of North Carolina–Chapel Hill

“Play Wor(l)ds: Form, Style, Play at Work in the Ballades of Good Company
–Travis Neel, Ohio State Univ

“Hoccleve Ludens: Playing with De ludo scaccorum in the Regiment of Princes”
–Amanda Walling, Univ. of Hartford

Session Description:
Since Thomas Hoccleve chose to set his “Compleinte,” the opening salvo of his five-poem Series, in the “broun sesoun of Mihelmesse” (an intentional inversion of Chaucer’s springtime “Aprill shoures”), critics of his poetry have been immersed in the depressive and disconsolate overtones of much of his verse. Hoccleve makes this easy—he dwells on his misspent youth and the infirmities of old age, bodily and financial. Malcolm Richardson’s decades-old evaluation of Hoccleve as an “unfortunate poet,” a “slacker” and “failed bureaucrat” remains alive in much current scholarship which scours Hoccleve’s self-admitted defeats and disappointments for evidence of his commentary on fifteenth-century English politics and identity-politics.

While such avenues are certainly fertile, this panel seeks papers that probe Hoccleve’s jocular and imaginative side. What positive emotions are present in Hoccleve’s work, indicative of the humor he may have witnessed in everyday life? What metrical and rhetorical play and humorous subject matter does he engage with in his poetry and prose? We recognize that affect theory is opening new ground for finding meaning in Hoccleve’s expressed madness and rehabilitation, his emotional and psychological state, and the relationships between mental health and late medieval social experience.

Yet as Hoccleve’s existential crisis looms so large in scholarship it becomes hard to imagine the man simply existing at all. We seek another human side of this poet: the playful, the happy, the celebratory.

Jerome Mitchell once noted that “La male regle,” for example, develops a “humourous tone” inherent to the poet’s lived experiences. Affect theory advances this current of Hoccleve study that foregrounds the autobiographical subject—what Bobby Meyer-Lee calls the poet’s “textualization of his identity as a privy seal clerk.” Studies of Hoccleve’s revelatory mode often resuscitate his poetic reputation by stressing his idiosyncratic manipulation of convention towards material, financial ends, as for example Ethan Knapp’s theories on Hoccleve’s participation in—and literary construction of—bureaucratic culture. Not only might Barbara Rosenwein’s concept of “emotional communities” shed light on Hoccleve’s self- and group-constructive rhetorical play, but it might produce a reading of his techniques alternative to the moods of begging or complaint that seem to prevail due to the the scribal nature of his poetic productions. Can we find instead an ironic rather than a workmanlike Hoccleve, performing rather than expressing emotion?

Some potential questions participants may with to address include: Can Hoccleve’s claims to autobiography be inherently a pretense to gamesmanship? His posing among shifting personas be fundamentally playful? Are his failures and faults intended as laughable farce, the awkward encounters in “Male regle” with untrustworthy tavern-keepers, prostitutes and boatmen to be viewed as pranks? Could Hoccleve intend his self-scrutiny in front of the mirror in “My Compleinte” as over-the-top caricature or slapstick comedy? Is the interaction between Thomas and the Regiment prologue’s Old Man a farcical inversion of Boethian consolation, given the Old Man’s unsympathetic advice and insistent dominance of the conversation? When he complains in the Regiment prologue that most people do not understand the difficulty of scribal work but “holde it but a game,” is Hoccleve himself playing a game—a game of contrasting the alienating or solipsizing act of scribal labor to its social cure, poetry? Is the bureaucratic emotional community one joined by playful poetizing as much as it is by poetic petition, resistant to the commodifying pressures of bureaucratic documentation and patronized poetry? Is poetry an escape for the Late Medieval renaissance man, a place for aesthetic play rather than a tool for doing work in the world? How might we model a hermeneutics of humor in Hoccleve’s collected works?

We look forward to your interpretations of how Hoccleve shares a laugh with his cohort.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Year in Hoccleve, Volume 4.1 (Spring 2017)

The Newsletter of the International Hoccleve Society, Volume 4.1 (Spring 2017), is available. In the annual newsletter, you will find updates about IHS projects, a bibliography of publications and dissertations in Hoccleve studies, and summaries of important Hoccleve-related events and conference sessions.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

3rd Annual Hoccleve Recovery Day on Social Media

As we have done for the last couple years the International Hoccleve Society is very pleased to be sponsoring the 3rd Annual Hoccleve Recovery Day, this November 1 on social media. We are excited to welcome you and your students to participate by posting something related to our theme (and perhaps to Hoccleve) with the hashtag #Hoccleve at least once on a major social media site like Facebook or Twitter that day. The theme this year is “What are the things we recover?” Our full call is below the line. We really hope you will participate and we look forward to seeing what you’ll post!

The International Hoccleve Society Sponsors the 3rd Annual Hoccleve Recovery Day: “What are the things we recover?”

What are the things that we recover in our working and private lives? To what must we return in order to know ourselves? What things must we wait for–patiently, virtuously–to come back to us? Just as Thomas Hoccleve signals his recovery of mental health in his “Complaint” (lines 50-56) by describing how his memory “went to pleye as for a certayne space” but then “the lorde of vertew…made it to returne..at Alle Hallowmesse” we invite you to join us on All Hallows Day (November 1st) to reflect on ideas of recovery and return that inform our lives as medievalists.

The International Hoccleve Society invites you to join us in our social media communities on 1 November 2016 to celebrate Hoccleve’s recovery of his work community, his mental faculties, his routines as an urban office worker and family man, etc. by exploring what you “recover” in your work and other daily activities. What do you return to regularly and what returns to you to guide, animate, and energize your life and habits as a medievalist? What have you recovered recently in your readings, research, internet surfing, filing, or remembering that has made you think about your medieval interests (professional or recreational) and their place in the world?

We invite you to post a short passage of verse or criticism, an image of places, manuscripts, printed books, or people, and/or a brief note reflecting on why certain items or ideas have been or ought to be recovered in our attention. Please identify your posts and tweets on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Pintrest, LinkedIn and our Website with the hashtag #Hoccleve, and feel free to “like” or “retweet” thematically pertinent items throughout the day under this hashtag. You may also attach other tags (#recovery, #thisiswhataprofessorlookslike, #MiddleEnglish, #MSilluminations, etc.) after #Hoccleve. We will kick off the event with posts on our Society and Hoccleve Lyfe Coache, Twitter and Facebook feeds. So please follow us and like us to stay tuned!

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Calls for Papers Kalamazoo 2017

IHS is pleased to announce that we will be sponsoring two sessions–“Hoccleve at Play” and “Teaching Hoccleve”–at the 2017 ICMS in Kalamazoo. Please send one-page abstracts, noting for which session you would like to be considered, along with a Participant Information Form (https://wmich.edu/medievalcongress/submissions) to Danielle Bradley (danielle.bradley@rutgers.edu) by 15 September 2016.  Inquiries also welcome.

Hoccleve at Play

Since Thomas Hoccleve chose to set his “Compleinte,” the opening salvo of his five-poem Series, in the “broun sesoun of Mihelmesse” (an intentional inversion of Chaucer’s springtime “Aprill shoures”), critics of his poetry have been immersed in the depressive and disconsolate overtones of much of his verse. Hoccleve makes this easy—he dwells on his misspent youth and the infirmities of old age, bodily and financial.  Malcolm Richardson’s decades-old evaluation of Hoccleve as an “unfortunate poet,” a “slacker” and “failed bureaucrat” remains alive in much current scholarship which scours Hoccleve’s self-admitted defeats and disappointments for evidence of his commentary on fifteenth-century English politics and identity-politics.

While such avenues are certainly fertile, this panel seeks papers that probe Hoccleve’s jocular and imaginative side. What positive emotions are present in Hoccleve’s work, indicative of the humor he may have witnessed in everyday life? What metrical and rhetorical play and humorous subject matter does he engage with in his poetry and prose? We recognize that affect theory is opening new ground for finding meaning in Hoccleve’s expressed madness and rehabilitation, his emotional and psychological state, and the relationships between mental health and late medieval social experience.

Yet as Hoccleve’s existential crisis looms so large in scholarship it becomes hard to imagine the man simply existing at all. We seek another human side of this poet: the playful, the happy, the celebratory.

Jerome Mitchell once noted that “La male regle,” for example, develops a “humourous tone” inherent to the poet’s lived experiences. Affect theory advances this current of Hoccleve study that foregrounds the autobiographical subject—what Bobby Meyer-Lee calls the poet’s “textualization of his identity as a privy seal clerk.”  Studies of Hoccleve’s revelatory mode often resuscitate his poetic reputation by stressing his idiosyncratic manipulation of convention towards material, financial ends, as for example Ethan Knapp’s theories on Hoccleve’s participation in—and literary construction of—bureaucratic culture. Not only might Barbara Rosenwein’s concept of “emotional communities” shed light on Hoccleve’s self- and group-constructive rhetorical play, but it might produce a reading of his techniques alternative to the moods of begging or complaint that seem to prevail due to the the scribal nature of his poetic productions. Can we find instead an ironic rather than a workmanlike Hoccleve, performing rather than expressing emotion?

Some potential questions participants may with to address include: Can Hoccleve’s claims to autobiography be inherently a pretense to gamesmanship?  His posing among shifting personas be fundamentally playful? Are his failures and faults intended as laughable farce, the awkward encounters in “Male regle” with untrustworthy tavern-keepers, prostitutes  and boatmen to be viewed as pranks? Could Hoccleve intend his self-scrutiny in front of the mirror in “My Compleinte” as over-the-top caricature or slapstick comedy? Is the interaction between Thomas and the Regiment prologue’s Old Man a farcical inversion of Boethian consolation, given the Old Man’s unsympathetic advice and insistent dominance of the conversation?  When he complains in the Regiment prologue that most people do not understand the difficulty of scribal work but “holde it but a game,” is Hoccleve himself playing a game—a game of contrasting the alienating or solipsizing act of scribal labor to its social cure, poetry?  Is the bureaucratic emotional community one joined by playful poetizing as much as it is by poetic petition, resistant to the commodifying pressures of bureaucratic documentation and patronized poetry?  Is poetry an escape for the Late Medieval renaissance man, a place for aesthetic play rather than a tool for doing work in the world? How might we model a hermeneutics of humor in Hoccleve’s collected works?

We look forward to your interpretations of how Hoccleve shares a laugh with his cohort.

 

Teaching Hoccleve

There is a subtle irony in the fact that Thomas Hoccleve, whose corpus of early fifteenth-century poems is saturated with the concepts of recovery and rehabilitation, has been at the center of a decades-long process of poetic and pedagogic rehabilitation in university English departments. No longer brushed aside as a mere epigone of Geoffrey Chaucer, the traditional nucleus of Medieval English literature syllabi, Hoccleve now claims a legitimate place in the late medieval canon.  But what is that place exactly, as far as college classrooms go? The International Hoccleve Society wishes to evaluate current and potential uses of Hoccleve’s poetry in literature, comparative literature, and history curricula.  We appeal to instructors to share their experiences teaching Hoccleve to various sorts of university undergraduate, graduate, and secondary-school classrooms, and to recommend lesson plans, assignments and in-class exercises, and pedagogical approaches to Hoccleve’s oeuvre.

One goal is to evaluate the effects of institutional contexts of instruction, for instance the experience of teaching Hoccleve at four-year universities versus community colleges, within history versus literature departments, and for survey courses versus upper-level seminars. What do students find entertaining or surprising about his poetry, and what difficult?  What does this teach us about the size of Hoccleve’s rightful place in a syllabus on medieval or late medieval subject matter?  Is he rightfully taught as a subordinate within a a post-Chaucerian framework, or can one envision an upper-level undergraduate or graduate literature course focused on Hoccleve? What would that look like?

Secondly, we wish participants to discuss Hoccleve’s role in critical paradigms, including how his poetry might usefully illustrate (or be illustrated by) theories like new historicism, new formalism, feminist and queer theory, narratology, cultural studies, postcolonialism, affect theory, or deconstruction. What opportunities does Hoccleve provide students in questioning medieval genre, periodization, popular spirituality, administrative culture, socio-economic class structures, urban life, political commentary and resistance, or the rise of the individual?  Is Hoccleve a useful nexus for interdisciplinarity?

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Touching Hoccleve | International Congress on Medieval Studies, Kalamazoo 2016

The goal of this year’s panel, titled “Touching Hoccleve,” was twofold: to explore how his poetry (or official bureaucratic productions) might allow modern readers to reach back and grasp Thomas Hoccleve’s social and psychological moment, coming to a sympathetic accord with his worldview and means of reacting to inter-personal stimuli; and to appraise how the physical body might manifest these internalized social stimuli while poetry externalizes psychological processes.  What touched Hoccleve, and how can we touch him?  What is, and is not, recoverable?

Justin Barker’s paper, “Unstable Matter and Poetic Authority in the Series,” took on this question of knowability by turning to Aristotelian hermeneutics. She analyzed Hoccleve’s engagement with “matter,” in the sense of subjects or topics and the substance of an author’s composition. Many have noted that his poems’ form breeds instability, but Justin argues that such instability is a source of possibility in Hoccleve’s works, that his authorial identity hinges on his matter’s indeterminacy.  As he peers deeply at his surroundings, Hoccleve’s attempts to scrutinize, understand, and represent his world are aided by the multitude of interpretations allowed by verbal malleability. Justin asked whether an author can truly control his matter, and determined that Hoccleve’s choice of challenging subject matter allows him to comment on his own mental composition as he puts his poetic form in order.

Melissa Isaacs (née Pankake) presented a paper, “‘Lerne to Dye’ and Narrating Despair,” that further allowed the audience to understand the purposes and content of Hoccleve’s self-reflection. Scholars who focus on the poet’s autobiographical revelations, she argued, tend to see the Series and the “Lerne to Dye” in particular as incomplete consolation. Viewed as a realistic response to old age and infirmity rather than as a typically Christian statement about “good death,” however, Moriens rather than the Disciple appears as the protagonist, and the poem proves to be Hoccleve’s opportunity to express an uneasiness people often have as they approach death.  Hoccleve fears the loss of self into death; writing about death might familiarize it and allow Hoccleve to ease into it by stages, offering catharsis and preparation not Christian repentance and consolation.

Likewise building off the Kierkegaardian notion that despair may be a normal state of human existence, Paul Magna questioned in his paper “Hoccleve’s Existential Crisis” the appropriateness and applicability of existential theory in the evaluation of self-narrative. While “crisis” is typically judged by Western socio-cultural standards as an allowable, if not common, experience in certain life junctures like puberty and middle age, Paul suggests Hoccleve wrote about stigmatized subjects like mental illness in order to stress the fundamentality of crisis periods to the human experience. Paul concluded that what makes Hoccleve touchable to modern readers is exactly what made him touchable to his contemporaries, which was the poet’s point entirely.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

IHS at the 20th Biennial Congress of the New Chaucer Society (London, 10-15 July 2016)

Aditi Nafde, University of Newcastle, and Elon Lang, The University of Texas at Austin, have organized a session for the 2016 NCS and we owe them a huge ‘thank you’ for their enthusiasm and hard work. The session is included in the Chaucerian Networks thread, and will run on Tuesday, 12th July, from 4:00-5:30 pm in PP2.

After Chaucer

Here is the original call for papers:

This roundtable seeks papers that address the influence and afterlife of manuscripts and text-makers that contributed to the continuity and development of England’s literary culture both during and after Chaucer’s life. We invite proposals that consider the networks of poets, scribes, books, and other cultural influences that led to Hoccleve’s famous identification of Chaucer as his poetic “fadir” and as the “firste fyndere of our fair langage”. What textual and cultural networks may have supported Chaucer’s early canonization and contributed to the broader fabric of late medieval literature? How might Chaucer’s as well as Hoccleve’s and others’ influence help us reposition the centre of late medieval literary and material culture? If so, how might other texts and authors be reconsidered in relation to Chaucer?

Papers might focus on codicological, palaeographical, and book historical work on books produced before and after Chaucer, on manuscripts that might have influenced Chaucer’s manuscripts, and on Chaucer’s works produced posthumously. Likewise, papers might examine readings that can be traced through Chaucer, both back to his influences and forward to Hoccleve and his other inheritors.

And here is the line-up for the roundtable:

  • Jenni Nuttall, St Edmund Hall, University of Oxford, “Form and Fashion in Lancastrian Poems”
  • Gabriel Haley, Concordia University, “Secularized Contemplation: Chaucer’s Lyrics in the Fifteenth Century”
  • Helen Hickey, University of Melbourne, “How Are Authors Made? Reading Chaucer and Hoccleve with the Encyclopedists”
  • Madeleine L. Saraceni, Yale University, “‘He fo in herte is vnto wommen alle’: Antagonism and Ambivalence in Hoccleve’s Series”
  • Phillipa Hardman, University of Reading, “A Late-Middle-English Literary Decorator: Chaucerian and Other Echoes in the Sowdone of Babylone”

Please consider joining the session for what promises to be a wonderful discussion of pre- and post- Chaucerian textual, intellectual, and cultural networks.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized