Chaucerian Parrhesia: World-building and truth-telling in The Canterbury Tales and ‘Lak of Stedfastnesse’

Abstract

This essay examines the role of parrhesia (i.e., free, frank, or fearless speech) in three Canterbury TalesThe Second Nun’s Tale, The Tale of Melibee, and The Manciple’s Tale – in which Chaucer explores how the desire to play the parrhesiastes and anxieties about parrhesia’s dangerousness can serve as catalysts in the production of literary worlds. By way of conclusion, it argues that Chaucer’s short poem ‘Lak of Stedfastnesse’ might archive a quasi-parrhesiastic utterance directed at the despotic King Richard II, and that a modern conception of Chaucer as a non-polemical ironist has prevented many critics from reading it as such.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a secondary discussion of Foucault on parrhesia, see Flynn (1988), 102–118.

  2. 2.

    Since Chaucer was not aware of the ancient Greek discourse on parrhesia out of which Foucault constructs his five qualifications, this essay will not devote much energy to analyzing which of his literary utterances fulfill all five. Instead, I use parrhesia rather loosely to mean something like ‘speaking truth to power.’

  3. 3.

    All citations of Chaucer refer to Chaucer (1987) and give abbreviated titles of individual works and line numbers.

  4. 4.

    For two excellent examples of the myriad critical readings of Chaucer’s endless self-textualization, see Patterson (1989) and Gust (2009).

  5. 5.

    For the Biblical account of the Canaanite woman, see Matthew 15:21–28 and Mark 7:24–30 (The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 2001, 31 NT and 71 NT). For a critical account of Chaucer’s appropriation thereof in The Second Nun’s Prologue, see Dobbs (2013).

  6. 6.

    Admittedly, neither Cecilia nor Prudence speaks ‘truth’ in the sense of an objective representation of reality. Instead, they speak ‘truth’ in the sense of morally virtuous conviction. Their utterances qualify as parrhesia, I think, insofar as they both clearly believe in the validity of the policy advocate.

References

  1. Aers, D. 2000. Chaucer’s Tale of Melibee: Whose Virtues? In Medieval Literature and Historical Enquiry: Essays in Honour of Derek Pearsall, ed. D. Aers. Cambridge, UK: D.S. Brewer.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Albertano of Brescia. 2000. The Art of Speech and the Art of Silence, trans. W.R. Askins. http://home.arcor.de/mcsquirrel/en/texts/albert1.htm.

  3. Braddy, H. 1937. The Date of Chaucer’s ‘Lak of Stedfastnesse.’ The Journal of English and Germanic Philology 36(4): 481–490.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brusendorff, A. 1925. The Chaucer Tradition. London: University of Oxford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cross, J.E. 1965. The Old Swedish Trohetsvisan and Chaucer’s Lak of Stedfastnesse: A Study in Medieval Genre. Saga-Book of the Viking Society 16: 283–314.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chaucer, G. 1987. The Riverside Chaucer, 3rd ed, ed. L.D. Benson. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

  7. Dinshaw, C. 1989. Chaucer’s Sexual Poetics. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dobbs, E. 2013. The Canaanite Woman, the Second Nun, and St. Cecilia. Christianity and Literature 62(2): 203–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Flynn, T. 1988. Foucault as Parrhēsiast: His Last Course at the Collège de France (1984). In The Final Foucault, ed. J. Bernauer and D. Rasmussen, 102–118. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Foucault, M. 2001. Fearless Speech, ed. and trans. J. Pearson. Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e).

  11. Foucault, M. 2010. The Government of Self and Others: Lectures at the Collège de France 19821983, trans. G. Burchell. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

  12. Gower, J. 1901. Vox Clamantis. In The Complete Works of John Gower, vol. 4, ed. G.C. Macaulay, 3–313. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

  13. Gust, G.W. 2009. Constructing Chaucer: Author and Autofiction in the Critical Tradition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Mum and the Sothseggeredited from the manuscripts, Camb. univ. Ll. IV. 14 and Brit. mus. Add. 41666. 1971. Ed. M. Day and R. Steele. EETS o.s. 199. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

  15. Patterson, L. 1989. ‘What Man Artow?’: Authorial Self-Definition in The Tale of Sir Thopas and The Tale of Melibee. Studies in the Age of Chaucer 11: 117–175.

  16. Pearsall, D. 1992. The Life of Geoffrey Chaucer: A Critical Biography. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sanok, C. 2007. Her Life Historical: Exemplarity and Female Saints’ Lives in Late Medieval England. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Schieberle, M. 2014. Feminized Counsel and the Literature of Advice in England. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Staley Johnson, L. 1992. Chaucer’s Tale of the Second Nun and the Strategies of Dissent. Studies in Philology 89(3): 314–333.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Strohm, P. 1992. Hochon’s Arrow: The Social Imagination of Fourteenth-Century Texts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 3rd ed. 2001. Ed. M. D. Coogan. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

  22. Turner, M. 2007. Chaucerian Conflict: Languages of Antagonism in Late Fourteenth-Century London. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Wallace, D. 1997. Chaucerian Polity: Absolutist Lineage and Associational Forms in England and Italy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was conducted by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the History of Emotions (Project Number CE110001011). The author would like to thank Eileen A. Joy for her sage advice getting this essay off the ground, as well as Leila K. Norako, Lara Farina, and the anonymous readers at postmedieval for their insightful comments during the editorial process.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Megna.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Megna, P. Chaucerian Parrhesia: World-building and truth-telling in The Canterbury Tales and ‘Lak of Stedfastnesse’. Postmedieval 9, 30–43 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41280-017-0066-y

Download citation