24.04.2013 Views

WRITING AUTHORITY IN LATE MEDIEVAL ... - Cornell University

WRITING AUTHORITY IN LATE MEDIEVAL ... - Cornell University

WRITING AUTHORITY IN LATE MEDIEVAL ... - Cornell University

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

not affect the “standing” of meaning. Thinking that changing syntax across languages could<br />

change meaning implies that Trevisa does not conceive of meaning as the denotative<br />

understanding of ideas by a “clear” order of words and, as a result, that syntax has as its role<br />

more than the portrayal of thought.<br />

In this chapter, I will argue that Trevisa’s diction prevents meaning from being<br />

denotatively understood through vernacular syntax despite the “cleer and pleyn” language of his<br />

translations. His approach to translation manufactures a form of exegesis that proceeds by<br />

allusion and undermines the ability of writing to present truth for the vernacular language of his<br />

audience. He does this by making his use of “everyday” or “cleer and pleyn” English cater only<br />

to audiences proficient in Latinate learning. This type of writing has two important effects. First,<br />

it preserves Latinate traditions in an environment that favors vernacular speech while keeping<br />

English-only speakers from assimilating Latin thought into their culture. Second, it makes the<br />

intercultural change from Latin to English by-pass the communication of ideas through the use of<br />

signs alone. As I will argue, the wide cultural dissemination of Trevisa’s translations proves that<br />

their effectiveness do not depend on their ability to communicate knowledge directly and openly<br />

to vernacular-only speakers but rather in their ability to remind and evoke knowledge in a way<br />

that is far more socially enclosed than scholarship usually suggests.<br />

1. Everyday “Menyng”: Interpreting English Clarity<br />

As we have discussed in respect to Castilian historiography, medieval writers could<br />

divorce basic readerly behaviors, like the common association of reading with the unfolding of<br />

time, from a reader’s experience of reality because they did not always think that the role of a<br />

text was to represent abstract thought. For fourteenth and fifteenth-century England, the Oxford<br />

English Dictionary and the Middle English Dictionary record a similar cultural behavior around<br />

207

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!