While the aim of the conference was to have important conversations across university divides, specifically English and French departments, the long-term goal-- and hope-- was to draw further connections with other disciplines beyond just literature departments. The three papers on this panel are the first step in moving beyond the original ‘Channeling Relations’ schema by including the disciplines of history, law, manuscript studies, and the digital humanities. It is these additional disciplines that are indicated by the “beyond” portion of this panel’s title. The notion of beyond is, moreover, included as a way to project the continued future of this project; that it will eventually come to include ‘nations’, cultures, linguistic traditions, and influences from beyond the immediate geography of the Channel.
The four papers in this panel are organized chronologically. Each panelist will present for about 20 minutes, which will allow for at least 15 minutes of unstructured discussion afterward. The potentially complementary panel “Channeling Relations in Medieval England and France: The Matter of Britain,” focuses primarily on twelfth-century literature, while this panel moves into the later Middle Ages, covering the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries.
The first paper, “Pass the Duchy: 13th Century Petitions, Communication Network Analysis, and the Struggle for Gascony” examines petitions that reference the English king Edward I (1272-1307), with a focus on the issue of control of the Duchy of Gascony in France. James B. Harr III “examines data extracted from medieval petitionary texts from the British National Archives, Special Collections 8 [TNA, SC8] in order to form prosopographical narratives among medieval English/French society.” He considers both the physicality of these legal/political texts as material objects and their function as media to recognize and overcome cross-channel boundaries. These petitions become a bridge that opens communication networks : public, private, political, and social. This paper “recognizes and overcomes national boundaries, both physically and symbolically,” thereby underscoring one of the central long-term aims of the ‘Channeling Relations’ project.
The second paper, “Les unes sunt des autres gloses: The Roman de la Rose as mythographic prototype for the Book of the Duchess” discusses arguably the most well-known medieval French text alongside the most well-known medieval English author. Sarah Powrie addresses a glaring hole in both Chaucerian and Rose studies by considering the Rose as a direct source for Chaucer's dream vision in his Book of the Duchess. She illuminates a tradition of textual glossing-- a common practice in a variety of genres at the time-- that includes both ancient and contemporaneous sources, but with the emphasis on the Francophone textual antecedents. Powrie notes that “Chaucer "channels" French literature by repurposing Rose, transforming its amorous dialectic into a consolatory one.” Thus, while Chaucer is clearly influenced and inspired by this French text, he has no qualms about manipulating it to fit his own vision. One concern of the ‘Channeling Relations’ project is that Chaucer is rarely, if ever, evoked in French courses. Powrie’s nuanced analysis of how Chaucer transforms the Rose provides a perfect initiation for French teachers to introduce Chaucer into French studies.
The final paper in this proposed panel is “Lost in Self-Translation: Charles d’Orléans and the roundels of the Ms. BL, Harley, 682.” Mathias Sieffert focuses on the famous French poet Charles d’Orléans, who spent 25 years in captivity in England from 1415 to 1445, where he most likely produced some of his early poetry. Sieffert picks up a subject that has been severely neglected, save by Mary-Jo Arn almost 20 years ago: Charles d’Orléans’s English poems from a bilingual perspective. Sieffert analyzes not only the matter, subject, and language within the English poems, he examines the ‘twin’ manuscripts themselves (BnF fr. 25458 and BL Harley 682). He states: “Based on a codicological examination of the two manuscripts, the layout and their respective organization, I will demonstrate how this example of “self-translation” also illustrates the evolution of the poet-editor’s project.” He shows that the coherent organization found in the English manuscript is absent in the French manuscript, illuminating a change in the author’s poetical project, and questioning the traditional view of the French manuscript as the “better” version of Charles d’Orléans’s early poetry.
In all three papers of this panel, England and France, English and French, Englishness and Frenchness are intimately intertwined and exert a mutual influence that circulates between these two cultures/regions on either side of the Channel. These papers show that the Channel was both a literal and symbolic space of circulation: of goods, people, ideas, policies, art, literature, etc.; and that authors claimed by each tradition – the beloved figures of Chaucer and Charles d’Orléans, upheld as quintessentially English and French, respectively-- are prime examples of this bi-lingual and bi-cultural exchange. These papers fit into and further the crucial work of the budding ‘Channeling Relations’ project by putting scholars whose work bridges these two cultures into communication.