Matthews' monograph considers the role of writing in communicating with, about, and around the king in pre-Ricardian England. According to Matthews, the role of writing in this period was important to political maneuvering, the airing of grievances involving the monarchy, and to those with little power being able to critique the practices of the monarchy. Covering a wide range of texts, including canonical Middle English texts as well as lesser known primary documents in Anglo Norman and Latin, Matthews tracks how writing shifts from writing directly to the king, from all three estates, to writing about the king. In this manner, writing that is aimed at the king provides rhetorical tactics for critiquing the king's actions; mirrors for princes, for example, offer advice but in so doing call to attention areas in which the king is deficient.
One area that Matthews' text calls to attention is the direct access that letters to the king offered individuals in this period. While this may be more expected among the gentry, Matthews cites letters written by rural communities that were directed specifically to the king. Edward II invited this communication, and though the practice expanded to the point that the king could not conceivably read all of these letters, the invitation suggests a direct line of communication to the monarch. This would seem to be part of the larger sentiment of late medieval England towards the monarch; complaints levied by the third estate often suggest that if they could only sit down with the king directly he would understand the complaints, as it is really parliament and the bureaucracy surrounding the king that causes the real problems.
Another issue of interest raised by Matthews is the rhetorical positioning that writing allows. One aspect of this is "clerical ventriloquism, where clerical writings take on the identity of the peasantry to call attention to their concerns. Despite this seeming altruism, Matthews is careful to point out that "to be behind the plough was almost automatically a disqualification from being able to write about ploughing" (16, original emphasis). This further ties to the larger tradition of plowman literature, feeding off Langland's text. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, Matthews argues that political verses of this type are tactical in nature; "They are opportunist almost guerrilla moments of political abuse and advice on the part of those with little real power and in this regard a form of antidiscipline" (18). Writing, even when addressing the king, can take on a series of ulterior political motives, and clever writers and rhetorical tacticians are able to fully take advantage of these forms.
No comments:
Post a Comment