Chaucer's England: Literature in Historical Context

The Great Revolt of the English Peasantry of 1381 generally figures in studies of Middle English literature by way of references or reactions to it on the part of now-canonical poets, notably Chaucer, Gower, and Langland. But amidst its textual debris there survive those six rebel messages which merit appreciation (in which Langland assumes the auxiliary role of a potential influence) as fascinating testimonials to a late-medieval sub-culture that may legitimately be termed ‘vernacular’ in other and more than a linguistic sense. Achievements of early English wordcraft in their own right, if perhaps with a necessary rather than a contrived aesthetic, they qualify as candidates for an 'Arden' edition – authoritative texts with intertextual explorations, contextual information, and perceptive commentary against the background of existing scholarship -- of the kind habitually accorded to the plays, or more pertinently the Sonnets, of Shakespeare.

New Hibernia Review, 2010

The rebellion of 1798, together with the decade immediately preceding it, is commonly regarded as a crucial period in Irish history, vitally important for the forming of Irish national identity. Despite its tragic outcome, this period of political turmoil brought into close contact, and conflict, various groups of the Irish population that, owing to a rigid political system, lived in separate worlds and had relatively little understanding of each other. 1 This dramatically changed in the 1790s. The political project of the United Irishmen-famously expressed by Wolfe Tone's words "to substitute the common name of Irishman, in the place of the denominations of Protestant, Catholic, and Dissenter"-and the necessities of conspiracy and military organization required intensive communication between all levels of Irish society. The involvement of French soldiers, although of limited military impact, in the Connacht episode of the rebellion can also be seen as significant in the context of this cultural interchange. The groups involved have been commonly described in terms of religion (Catholics versus Protestants), economic status (landowners versus tenants), language (Irish versus English), nationality, and historical background. Yet, another dimension-the dichotomy of orality and literacy-may also prove useful in the description of cultural differences in the period of the rebellion, and in the analysis of its reflections in historiography and literature. new hibernia review / iris éireannach nua, 14:1 (spring / earrach, 2010), 112-126 1. The idea of separate cultures in Ireland during the eighteenth century was first introduced by Daniel Corkery in The Hidden Ireland: A Study of Gaelic Munster in the Eighteenth Century (Dublin: M. H. Gill, 1941). In discussing Gaelic culture during the period of Penal Laws, Corkery's book poses certain relevant questions and draws attention to interesting literary sources, but its overt nationalist bias and sweeping generalizations have rightly been criticized. See, for example, Louis M. Cullen,"Hidden Ireland: Re-Assessment of a Concept," Studia Hibernica, 9 (1969), 7-47. Recently, however, Joep Leersen has pointed to the continuing usefulness of the term "Hidden Ireland" if purged of the early twentieth-century romanticizing tendencies, treating it simply as a designation of a culture with no access to the public sphere. See Joep Leerssen, Hidden Ireland, Public Sphere (Galway: Arlen House, 2002).

The medieval historian engaged with the systems of power and authority that surrounded him. In his account of the Peasants' Revolt in late medieval England, the ecclesiastical historian Henry Knighton (d. 1396) both reinforced and challenged the traditional order. This thesis explores the ways in which his ideological perspectives shaped his understanding of the events of June 1381 and how this understanding was articulated through the structure, language, and cultural meaning of the historical text. The reconstruction of authorial intention and reclamation of both Knighton and the medieval reader as active participants in the creation of history challenge a historiography that has long disregarded Knighton as an unremarkable historical recorder. Instead, they reveal a scholar whose often extraordinary approach to the rebels and traditional authorities expresses a great deal about the theory, practice, and construction of power and authority in late medieval England.

This book chapter investigates the way in which chroniclers in thirteenth-century England understood the political conflicts between Henry III and Simon de Montfort. It focuses on the use of biblical models for interpreting the changing fortunes of the two parties.

Journal of Medieval Iberian Studies, 2016

This article compares the Barons' War against Henry III of England (1258-1265) and the revolt of the Castilian nobles against Alfonso X of Castile (1271-1273) and analyzes the ways the rebels opposed their kings in writing. It argues that the English barons and Castilian nobles viewed written authority and past custom as sufficient justification for their grievances and that they were aware of the political ramifications of their written statements. The English briefs submitted to Louis IX of France for arbitration in 1264 outlined the barons' grievances with Henry III. They appealed to past documents, such as Magna Carta and the Provisions of Oxford, and general consuetudines (customs) to support these grievances. They rarely attacked Henry III directly and forbore from naming themselves as they were still Henry's vassals. Similarly, the purported agreement between the Castilian nobles and Alfonso X, presented to Enrique I of Navarre in 1273, contained the nobles' demands of Alfonso. It emphasized the authority of previous regional fueros, both written and unwritten, and the customs of past kings. The Castilian nobles targeted Alfonso explicitly and named themselves with impunity, fearing little royal backlash. These under-studied documents offer a glimpse of the nobles' frustrations and preoccupations at specific moments in their revolts and highlight the importance of writing in rebellion.

Cornish Studies, 2008

The cultures and stories of peripheral populations and conquered peoples, which have largely been drowned out by the accepted discourse of the nation states that colonised them, have begun to be recouped and re-told. The subaltern school of post-colonial theory provides the writer of fiction with a range of theories from which to devise the means of voicing the unvoiced. Among these, Ranajit Guha's work on the prose of counter-insurgency provides the author with the key to finding lost voices, in particular those of the vanquished peasant rebel.

Imago temporis: Medium Aevum, 2023

In medieval Castile, language and propaganda were key aspects of political disputes. Some chroniclers and poets contributed to legitimisation and delegitimisation processes by representing both sides in their works. This paper presents a comparative view of the discursive strategies used to discredit the nobles who questioned whether Henry IV of Castile and, later, his successor, Isabella I, were rightful monarchs. The tactics of two chroniclers in particular will be examined, both of whom were solid defenders of the royal authority: Diego Enríquez del Castillo and Fernando de Pulgar. Their texts, as with other coetaneous chronicles, have never been compared in depth from the perspective suggested above; as such, an analysis could offer some interesting conclusions on the matter. Corral Sánchez, Nuria. «The Delegitimisation of Rebel Nobles around the War of the Castilian Succession: Discursive Strategies in Enríquez del Castillo’s and Pulgar’s Chronicles». Imago temporis: medium Aevum, 17, 2023, p. 105-129, https://doi.org/10.21001/itma.2023.16.05.

Studies in Romanticism, 1989