Negotiating the Past (Lee Patterson)

The subtitle (The Historical Understanding of Medieval Literature) sums up Patterson's project, even in its ambiguity. In this book, Patterson is concerned with both the role of history in medieval literature studies and the understand of history put forth in the literature itself: these are its two main projects.

The first project -- analysis of the scholarly handling of literature in relation to history -- is itself handled within a historical narrative of the development of Chaucerian studies. He begins his scholarly retrospective with the revival of medieval studies in the late 1700s/early 1800s. This "medievalism" was driven by conservative nationalistic politics, a rejection of the chaos of modernity in favor of the stable hierarchies of a nostalgically idealized Middle Ages. On the other hand, medievalists like Ruskin and Morris saw in the Middle Ages a time of authentic and natural individualism, later corrupted by the classically sophisticated Renaissance and the depersonalizing Industrial Revolution. This latter Romantic view was congenial to "the methods of German scientific historicism and liberal values," which rejected the absolutist conservative right and the egalitarian revolutionary left in favor of a system that valued individual liberty above all (12). While the Middle Ages was conceived of as a time of defined social structures, the medieval writers were not seen as constrained by those structures, and so were independent individuals commenting out of a universal, unconstrained humanity. The view held "historical context and transhistorical humanism" in tension -- a tension broken by the late 19th century historicist Chaucerians (14). The historicists viewed historical context as controlling: "causes" of literary features were sought in the historical settings, providing "objective" (and self-evident) insight into a work. In reaction to this stultifying, "scientific" reading of literature, New Criticism arose, insisting that literature must instead be read ahistorically and acontextually, relying instead on literary form: "reading a work on its own terms". This was a humanist endeavor, seeking meaning in the universal verities of human nature, and the sovereignty of individual identity and choice. In reaction to New Criticism came D.W. Robertson's Augustinian exegetical approach: for Robertson, the New Critics are hopelessly mired in the newfangled individualism of modernity, and so misconstrue their subject. Instead of treating works as autonomous worlds of meaning, all medieval literature must be read as depicting a single system of values through a single system of symbols (caritas uber alles!). The individual is not seen as independent of the cultural system, but instead a fully integrated part of it.

At this point, medieval studies crash into the recognition of subjectivity that is postmodernism. The inescapability of historical context by the individual is the main issue. Patterson cites Marxist criticism as an approach that embraces the truth of this notion. In fact, the Marxist approach lauds itself for embracing the totality of history, both advancements and the suffering caused along the way. This view of the totality (synchronically and diachronically) enables the critic to see beyond the obscuring fragmentation of oppressive systems, to perceive the truth and the need for revolution. Patterson sees this as a weakness critically: texts become an occasion for the critic's reaffirmation of the totality he already believes, confirming it positively or negatively (through "suppression"). In opposition to this, Patterson sets the Foucaldian New Historicists. These critics view society as a self-regulating mechanism of Power, that subverts and contains any effort to defy the order, undercutting individual resistance: "New Historicism discloses a world strangely drained of dynamism, in which every effort to enact change issues in a reaffirmation of the status quo" (63). This makes Patterson grumpy: where's the room for change in this scenario, or real individuals with meaningful agency? What Patterson suggests (albeit nebulously) as a replacement is a kind of historically-aware individualism that recognizes its own paradoxical nature: "In attempting to understand the past, we inevitably enter into elaborate and endless negotiations, struggles between desire and knowledge that can never be granted closure... Whatever individualism we seek to sustain must, to be sure, insist upon its own historicity" (72-3, 74). Yes, there are determinative factors in history that shape individuals, and, yes, individuals rise above such hegemony and speak in resistance to it. (And that's just the way it is, because otherwise life would be unthinkable for Lee Patterson.)

Patterson's discussion of the Kane-Donaldson Piers Plowman is, to him, a fine example of scholars accepting both the historical situatedness of themselves and their object of study (through rigorous engagement with the texts), while asserting the agency of themselves and Langland (through rational textual criticism and editing). Good on them.

* The rest of the book I found dull: a 15th century reading of Troilus and Criseyde (it's all about love! Thanks, medieval D.W.), the influence of the Aeneid's pessimistic view of history's role in the present as it affects Chretien de Troyes, and a reading of the AMA (kings die! it's sad! feel sorry for the king -- and submit).