Here tunggë made here slayn: Dangerous speech acts in four exempla from Robert Mannyng 【翻译】

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the friends and family members who took the time to proofread and
listen to ideas as I worked through this project. I especially owe a huge dept of gratitude to
Dr. Christine Neufeld and Dr. Natasa Kovacevic. You pushed me intellectually and
encouraged me when I felt overwhelmed. I appreciate you both very much.
Abstract
In this project, I consider four exempla from Robert Mannyng of Brunne’s Handlyng Synne:
“The Tale of the Bloody Child,” “The Tale of the Sacrilegious Carolers of Colbek,” “The
Tale of the Midwife Who Christened the Child Wrongly,” and “St. Gregory’s Tale of the
Nun Who Spoke Naughty Words.” I read these exempla through the theoretical texts of
Georges Bataille, Jacques Derrida, Julia Kristeva, and Mary Douglas, as well as others, and
conclude that speech acts, whether deviant or sanctioned, make identity at any level
(de)constructable. I hope to show that while this is particularly noticeable against the
historical and ideological backdrop of Mannyng’s day, linguistic differance always opens
identity constructs. Language always poses a threat to individual, deific, and institutional
identity, and so society attempts to control it through ritual. Complete symbolic
quarantine, however, proves to be impossible, and so the unstable self must be written onto
the physical space of the monstrous and grotesque body.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................ i
Abstract ................................................................................................................. ii
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
“Al to-drawe were þe þarmys”: a vision of linguistic dismemberment ....................... 18
“And noþer body, ne arme bledde neuer blodë colde ne warme”: speaking death...... 36
“Mydwyfe ys a perylus þyng”: naming and ritualistic speech..................................... 53
“Þey cloue here mouþe euyn two”: speaking the body.............................................. 70
Conclusion: Unspeakable Possibilities and the Apophatic Tradition........................ 87
Works Cited .......................................................................................................... 90
Appendix A Works Consulted................................................................................ 96
Introduction 1
Introduction
In Robert Mannyng of Brunne’s early fourteenth century penitential text, Handlyng Synne,
dismembered bodies, burning tongues, and possessed children leave readers with powerful
images and unforgettable lessons. Baby Jesus is torn limb from limb, his entrails stringing
out of him as he cries. Noisy carolers are put into a trance and forced to dance and sing
unceasingly for the rest of their lives. A dying infant is forbidden Christian burial, and a
dead nun is dragged from her grave and cut in half by demons with swords of fire as her
screams go unheeded. These and similar scenes were used to teach Mannyng’s audience
about the dangers of an unguarded tongue. Deviant speech can literally kill.
Mannyng’s preoccupation with linguistic power makes his text an optimal space within
which to consider the relationship between language and identity and how both of these
function within and, at times, challenge an ideological structure like the medieval church.
Perhaps unintentionally, Mannyng explores within his text the impossibility of creating a
clearly defined identity. Identity is always unstable and penetrable. Language makes
evident the mutability of even the most basic borders. For example, as we look at the
exempla contained within Handlyng Synne, the borders between life and death, community
Introduction 2
member and non-member, and cleric and lay wo/men are all complicated by the very words
used to construct them.
Handlyng Synne is a translation of a French text entitled Manuel des Peches, which is usually
attributed to William of Wadington, though some scholars challenge this, positing that a
close study of the manuscript reveals that at best Wadington only wrote certain sections
(Sullivan, “A Brief Textual History,” 339). Like Handlyng Synne, the Manuel is a
penitential handbook meant to teach its audience about how to confess sin as well as how
to facilitate confession. Though Mannyng’s translation is the most popular, it was one of
many made even up until the sixteenth century (343). In organization and subject matter
Mannyng stays fairly true to Wadington’s text, but he does often extend his narratives to
include dialogue and setting to an extent that is not paralleled in the original text. Most
likely Mannyng did this because of his audience and, in fact, he says as much in his
prologue:
Þat may be weyl on englyssh tolde, So that it might be told in English,
To telle ȝow þat, y may be bolde; I have boldly done this;
For lewdë men y vndyr-toke For lewd men I undertook
On englyssh tunge to make þys boke. To write in English tongue this book,
For many ben of swyche manere, For many of them are of such manner,
Pat talys and rymys wyl bleþly here; That they happily listen to tales and rhymes;
Yn gamys, & festys, & at þe ale, In games, & festivities, & at the ale,
Loue men to lestene trotëuale: Men love to listen to gossip;
Þat may falle ofte to vylanye, And they may often engage in villany,
To dedly synne, or oþer folye; And deadly sins and other folly;
For swyche men haue y made þis ryme For such men have I made this rhyme
Introduction 3
Þat þey may weyl dyspende here tyme, That they may make good use of their time,
And þere-yn sumwhat for to here, And because of what they hear,
To leue al swyche foul manere, They may leave such foul habits,
And for to kunnë knowe þerynne And so to know
Þat þey wene no synne be ynne. That they know no sin be in [it]. (ll. 41-56)
His stories are meant as a way to keep the attention of the lay wo/men in his congregation
so that he might better instruct them on how to recognize and confess their sins. He
chooses not only to write in the vernacular but also engages his audience through his use of
exempla, hoping that stories will be appealing to them because those will be reminiscent of
the type of talk they engage in at festivals and while in the tavern.
Mannyng knew his audience might be a reluctant one, but he lived in an era where timely
and proper confession practices were paramount to the faith. It was important both to his
career and to his congregants that he educate them about how to “handle” their sins. He
explains what exactly he means by “handlyng synne” and emphasizes the importance of
both properly identifying sin and then confessing it.
We handel synnë euery day; We handle sin every day;
In wurde and dedë, al we may, In words and in deeds, all we may,
Lytyl or mochel, synne we do, Whether little or much, we sin,
Þe fend and oure flesh tysyn vs þerto; The fiend and our flesh work toward this;
Ffor þys skyle hyt may be seyde For this reason it may be said
‘Handlyng synne’ for oure mysbreyde; “Handling sin” for our wrong-doing;
Ffor euery day & euery oure For every day and every hour
We synne þat shal we bye ful soure. We sin bitterly.
Anoþer handling þer shuld be, Another handling there should be,
Introduction 4
Wyþ shryfte of mouþe to clensë þe. With shrift of mouth to cleanse thee,
Handyl þy synnë yn þy þouȝt, Handling sin in thy thought,
Lytyl & mochel, what þou hast wroght; Whether thou have done little or much;
Handyl þy synne to hauë drede; Handle thy sin in full awe;
Noþyng buy peyn ys þerefore mede. So that nothing by punishment is therefore won.
(ll. 89-102)
While Mannyng’s agenda is in part the result of a larger movement towards lay education
within the medieval church, it is important to note, as Ronald Finucane points out in his
introduction to Miracles and Pilgrims: popular beliefs in medieval England, that the medieval
church is not one enclosed unity but rather encompasses many different and often
conflicting voices (10). There were official doctrines meant to help distinguish between
“true” members of the church and those who would be labeled as heretics, but even these
can’t create a unified church. People believe different things and interpret mandates in
different ways. Finucane also cautions us against reading official doctrines or canons as
representative of what may have concurrently been said in the pulpit. As he puts it, the
peasant priest is in a very different place from the pope (11). With this in mind, I try to
distinguish between pastoral and ecclesiastical stances, though even these terms cannot
pretend to represent unified identities. Ultimately, how to refer to the church is a question
that haunts my text, and I’m not sure that it can be resolved. I intentionally try to
Introduction 5
acknowledge that like any identity construct, the medieval church is a multitude of things
in a multitude of places at a multitude of times.
That said, we must briefly consider the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 and several of its
canons, not because they represent the church as a whole, but because by Mannyng’s day,
the Fourth Lateran was known to almost all clergy and had significantly changed the
background against which Mannyng and his contemporaries worked.
Altogether, seven church councils were held between the years of 1123 and 1312. Seven
councils may not sound like a great many spread over nearly two hundred years, but the fact
that a good many of these councils served almost exclusively to reiterate and reinforce
decrees of previous councils points to the fact that during this period the church had some
difficulty enforcing their declarations. The Fourth Lateran Council, however, was one of
the few that met to establish new rules for the operation of the church. It also clarified
some of the more disputed aspects of the Christian faith at that time.

原文地址：

http://www.hongfu951.info/file/resource-detail.do?id=4381c24b-8b38-462e-bdd8-ffab74563bce