聽聽聽 Kathy Cawsey, assistant professor with Dalhousie's Department of English and co-founder of the Atlantic Medieval Association, is once again doing her bit for the dark ages. She has just published her first book, Twentieth-Century Chaucer Criticism (Ashgate, 2011). While Chaucer criticism is sort of the Burberry trench of English literary criticism 鈥� understated, solid, respectable鈥� Dr. Cawsey鈥檚 volume is like a flash of colour, a fuchsia scarf lopped around the neck if you will. Her book isn鈥檛 concerned just with Chaucer, exactly, but more with the ways in which audiences and critics have responded to the middle-English icon through the years.
鈥淢y initial interest was in Chaucer鈥檚 own ideas about audiences," says Dr. Cawsey. "I discovered not only did nobody agree with me about Chaucer鈥檚 ideas of audience, but no one agreed with one another!鈥�
Disagreement
She discovered this unrest in the Chaucerian ranks early on. 鈥淲hen I began my graduate studies, I faced six bookcases of books on Chaucer, all disagreeing.鈥�
Twentieth-Century Chaucer Criticism proceeds deliberately through six Chaucer critics of the last 100 years: George L. Kittredge (鈥渙ne of the first to really provide an overarching interpretation of Chaucer鈥�), C. S. Lewis (yes, the Narnia guy: more on him later), D. W. Robertson (who, 鈥渋n the 鈥�60s, formulated a really rigid method of reading medieval literature鈥�), E. Talbot Donaldson (an 鈥渁dvocate of close reading鈥�), Carolyn Dinshaw (who works with 鈥渇eminist and queer theories鈥�), and Lee Patterson (known for his work in 鈥渘ew historicism鈥�). While there were other significant critics, Dr. Cawsey considers the group a 鈥済ood snapshot.鈥�
The study of English literature is not really a realm known for mudslinging and hair-pulling. What does the above group of critics actually find to argue about? 鈥淥ne of the big debates,鈥� says Dr. Cawsey, 鈥淲as the exegetical debate, which was Robertson鈥檚 view 鈥� that all literature should be read the way the Bible is read.鈥澛�
Dr. Cawsey, for her part, focuses Twentieth-Century Chaucer Criticism on two historically key issues: whether the analysis of Chaucer鈥檚 crowd should 鈥渇ocus on medieval audiences or鈥� all audiences for all time,鈥� and whether Chaucer鈥檚 work is ironic 鈥� 鈥渄o you read it relatively straight, or do you see it so the surface reading is opposite to the real meaning?鈥� The last quarter of the 20th century has introduced a third question: whether Chaucer鈥檚 audiences are fundamentally a unified mass, or more heterogeneous? 鈥淒oes a woman read differently from a man? 鈥eople now are interested in the multiplicity of audiences.鈥�
Criticism gets personal
One of the most interesting things about the criticism of literature is that, while it frequently takes place in a professional realm, it is also often intensely personal. Of C. S. Lewis, for instance, Dr. Cawsey says, 鈥淗e calls himself a dinosaur, and believes because he has this old-fashioned worldview he can read Chaucer the way the medieval people would鈥� he鈥檚 quite happy to accept courtly love.鈥� Lewis鈥� romanticism caused him to neglect some of Chaucer鈥檚 bawdier works, like the famous Canterbury Tales. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a major gap in Lewis鈥� criticism. I counted the number of pages dedicated to the Canterbury Tales, and it was remarkably low鈥� I think it goes back to Lewis鈥� preference for that ordered, structured universe.鈥�
Examining so much criticism even affected Professor Cawsey鈥檚 personal views on the subject. 鈥淚 had unspoken, subconscious opinions鈥� this project has really forced me to re-examine.鈥� She鈥檚 already planning her next book: a study of six medieval authors鈥� use of language and the ways in which they thought language worked. Professor Cawsey hasn鈥檛 nailed down all of the details yet 鈥� but, of course, one of the authors will definitely be Chaucer.