Skip to main content
Log in

Queer environments: Reanimating ‘Adam Scrivyen’

  • Original Article
  • Published:
postmedieval Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Integrating queer theory and ecocriticism, this essay reassesses the historical manuscript contexts of Geoffrey Chaucer’s shortest poem, commonly known as ‘Adam Scriveyn,’ while also reconsidering the text’s varied afterlives in contemporary scholarship, including its manifestations in printed editions and digital media. Attending to the material transformations of the poem across time invites close scrutiny of the medieval homosocial networks of textual production, and Elizabeth Freeman’s critique of chrononormativity helps to illustrate how the poet Chaucer, the London scrivener Adam Pynkhurst, and early copyist John Shirley are ‘engrouped’ into a queer collective bound together by intimate forms of co-dependency. Queer relationality in turn structures the literary and affective networks that contemporary medievalists construct by means of the poem itself. Both manuscript scholars and literary critics enact what Carolyn Dinshaw calls a ‘queer touch’ across time, inhabiting a temporality that incorporates the text’s previous readers and editors and even the animal body that gave its life to produce the parchment upon which the orginary text was written. This analysis examines the visual presentation of Pynkhurst’s handwriting on the website Late Medieval English Scribes and interactive online interface of the collaborative project Networks of Book Makers, Owners and Users in Late Medieval England. Instantiating the ‘trans-corporeality’ and ‘distributed agency’ of ecotheorists Stacy Alaimo and Jane Bennett, digital media not only (re)animates textual objects but also demonstrates how texts circulate through networked environments by means of human participants and more-than-human forces.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. All citations of Chaucer’s work are to this edition unless otherwise indicated.

  2. Reproduced in Mooney (2006, 155); see also online samples of his handwriting with ‘Pinkhurst characteristics’ and ‘Further Pynkhurst characteristics’ elaborated by Mooney, Horobin, and Stubbs (2011).

  3. Shirley’s manuscript is fully digitized online under Creative Commons license: http://trin-sites-pub.trin.cam.ac.uk/james/viewpage.php?index=1373 (scroll to 366–67). Samples of Shirley’s handwriting in the same manuscript are available at Mooney, Horobin, and Stubbs (2011); search for results for ‘John Shirley.’

  4. Recent scholarship has reassessed Mooney’s scribal identifications as well as Chaucer’s authorship of ‘Adam Scriveyn’ on the grounds of metrical analysis (Warner, 2015; Weiskott, 2017).

  5. See also Holsinger (2010).

  6. Now unavailable but accessed in July 2015.

References

Manuscripts

  • Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales, MS Peniarth 392D.

  • Cambridge, Trinity College, MS R.3.20.

  • London, Guildhall Library, MS 5370.

  • San Marino, CA, Huntington Library, MS EL 26 C 9.

Other

  • Alaimo, S. 2010. Bodily Natures: Science, Environment, and the Material Self. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, J. 2010. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benson, L., ed. 1988. The Riverside Chaucer. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, M.L. 2016. ‘Here taketh the makere of this book his leve’: The Retraction and Chaucer’s Works in Tudor England. Studies in Philology 133(1): 32–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinshaw, C. 1999. Getting Medieval: Sexualities and Communities, Pre- and Postmodern. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, L. 2005. No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ezard, J. 2004. The Scrivener’s Tale: How Chaucer’s Sloppy Copyist Was Unmasked after 600 years. The Guardian, 20 July, n.p. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/jul/20/highereducation.books.

  • Franklin-Brown, M. 2012. Reading the World: Encyclopedic Writing in the Scholastic Age. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, E. 2010. Time Binds: Queer Temporalities, Queer Histories. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, A. 2008. Reading Chaucer’s Words to Adam. The Chaucer Review 42(3): 269–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halberstam, J. 2011. The Queer Art of Failure. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Holsinger, B. 2010. Parchment Ethics: A Statement of More than Modest Concern. New Medieval Literatures 12: 131–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holsinger, B. 2015. Written on Beasts. New York Review of Books, 25 November, n.p. http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2015/11/25/parchment-beasts/.

  • Kay, S. 2011. Legible Skins: Animals and the Ethics of Medieval Reading. Postmedieval 2(1):13–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lima, M. 2013. Visual Complexity: Mapping Patterns of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Architectural Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lima, M. 2014. The Book of Trees: Visualizing Branches of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Architectural Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mize, B. 2001. Adam, and Chaucer’s Words Unto Him. The Chaucer Review 35(4): 351–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, S.S. 1999. The Use of Biography in Medieval Literary Criticism: The Case of Geoffrey Chaucer and Cecily Chaumpaigne. The Chaucer Review 34(1): 69–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mooney, L. 2006. Chaucer’s Scribe. Speculum 81: 97–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mooney, L., S. Horobin, and E. Stubbs. 2011. Late Medieval English Scribes. http://www.medievalscribes.com.

  • O’Connell, B. 2005. Adam Scriveyn and the Falsifiers of Dante’s Inferno: A New Interpretation of Chaucer’s Wordes. The Chaucer Review 40(1): 39–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stubbs, E. [Principal Investigator]. 2013. Networks of Book Makers, Owners, and Users in Late Medieval England. https://hridigital.shef.ac.uk/networks-of-books/.

  • Warner, L. 2015. Scribes, Misattributed: Hoccleve and Pinkhurst. Studies in the Age of Chaucer 37: 55–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waymack, A. 2017. Teaching de raptu meo: Chaucer, Chaumpaigne, and Consent in the Classroom. Medieval Feminist Forum 53(1): 150–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiskott, E. 2017. Adam Scriveyn and Chaucer’s Metrical Practice. Medium Ævum 86: 147–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hsy, J. Queer environments: Reanimating ‘Adam Scrivyen’. Postmedieval 9, 289–302 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41280-018-0091-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41280-018-0091-5

Navigation