Diagnosis and Repair: Reading the Sick Body with Chaucer's Physician and Pardoner

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Una Creedon-Carey
{"title":"Diagnosis and Repair: Reading the Sick Body with Chaucer's Physician and Pardoner","authors":"Una Creedon-Carey","doi":"10.1353/sac.2023.a913913","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This paper theorizes fourteenth-century English metaphors of reading as a medical process, arguing that Canterbury Tales Block C showcases the interplay of the Physician's and Pardoner's two distinct medicalized hermeneutics. Turning to the queer disability politics of Eli Clare and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick to unpack the ethical import of such metaphors of reading and repair, I argue that these two tales proffer first the Physician's systematized interpretive strategy of diagnosis and cure before turning to the immoral, anti-cure processes of interpretation offered by the Pardoner. Chaucer's Physician is widely acknowledged as an inadequate reader who fails to account for nuanced spiritual meaning in both his literary and medical practice. I argue that the Physician and his tale reveal the failures of interpretation that reads for harm's \"roote\" and \"boote\" (GP, 424–25), and, further, reveal the violence of authoritative cure applied without consent. In this paper's sick/queer lens, then, the Pardoner and his invitation to informed and consensual comfort become a response to such reading methods that seek to organize, cure, and adhere to coherent systems of meaning. Further, nuancing our current understanding of queer reparative practices in the context of chronic illness, the Pardoner's methods showcase the impossibility, at times undesirability, of interpretive repair that pursues wholeness. Refusing medical and spiritual intervention, the Pardoner comes to offer a participatory hermeneutic that prioritizes comfort over wholeness, and a model of care based not on authoritative cure but on iterative consent.","PeriodicalId":53678,"journal":{"name":"Studies in the Age of Chaucer","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in the Age of Chaucer","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/sac.2023.a913913","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract:This paper theorizes fourteenth-century English metaphors of reading as a medical process, arguing that Canterbury Tales Block C showcases the interplay of the Physician's and Pardoner's two distinct medicalized hermeneutics. Turning to the queer disability politics of Eli Clare and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick to unpack the ethical import of such metaphors of reading and repair, I argue that these two tales proffer first the Physician's systematized interpretive strategy of diagnosis and cure before turning to the immoral, anti-cure processes of interpretation offered by the Pardoner. Chaucer's Physician is widely acknowledged as an inadequate reader who fails to account for nuanced spiritual meaning in both his literary and medical practice. I argue that the Physician and his tale reveal the failures of interpretation that reads for harm's "roote" and "boote" (GP, 424–25), and, further, reveal the violence of authoritative cure applied without consent. In this paper's sick/queer lens, then, the Pardoner and his invitation to informed and consensual comfort become a response to such reading methods that seek to organize, cure, and adhere to coherent systems of meaning. Further, nuancing our current understanding of queer reparative practices in the context of chronic illness, the Pardoner's methods showcase the impossibility, at times undesirability, of interpretive repair that pursues wholeness. Refusing medical and spiritual intervention, the Pardoner comes to offer a participatory hermeneutic that prioritizes comfort over wholeness, and a model of care based not on authoritative cure but on iterative consent.
诊断与修复:用乔叟的《医生与赦免者》解读生病的身体
摘要:本文将14世纪英语的阅读隐喻理论化,认为《坎特伯雷故事集C》展示了《医生》和《赦免者》两种截然不同的医学解释学的相互作用。在谈到伊莱·克莱尔和伊芙·科索夫斯基·塞奇威克的酷儿残疾政治来揭示这些阅读和修复隐喻的伦理意义时,我认为这两个故事首先提供了医生对诊断和治疗的系统化解释策略,然后再转向宽恕者提供的不道德的,反治疗的解释过程。人们普遍认为,乔叟的《内科医生》是一本不合格的读物,未能在他的文学和医学实践中解释细微的精神意义。我认为,医生和他的故事揭示了解读的失败,解读了伤害的“根”和“靴”(GP, 424-25),进一步揭示了未经同意应用权威治疗的暴力。因此,在本文的病态/酷儿视角中,宽恕者和他对知情和双方同意的安慰的邀请成为对这种寻求组织、治愈和坚持连贯意义系统的阅读方法的回应。此外,在慢性疾病的背景下,我们对酷儿修复实践的理解略有不同,赦免者的方法展示了追求整体性的解释性修复的不可能性,有时是不受欢迎的。“赦免者”拒绝医疗和精神干预,提供了一种参与性的解释学,优先考虑舒适而不是整体性,以及一种基于反复同意而不是权威治疗的护理模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Studies in the Age of Chaucer
Studies in the Age of Chaucer Arts and Humanities-Literature and Literary Theory
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信