, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 289–302 | Cite as

Queer environments: Reanimating ‘Adam Scrivyen’

  • Jonathan Hsy
Original Article


Integrating queer theory and ecocriticism, this essay reassesses the historical manuscript contexts of Geoffrey Chaucer’s shortest poem, commonly known as ‘Adam Scriveyn,’ while also reconsidering the text’s varied afterlives in contemporary scholarship, including its manifestations in printed editions and digital media. Attending to the material transformations of the poem across time invites close scrutiny of the medieval homosocial networks of textual production, and Elizabeth Freeman’s critique of chrononormativity helps to illustrate how the poet Chaucer, the London scrivener Adam Pynkhurst, and early copyist John Shirley are ‘engrouped’ into a queer collective bound together by intimate forms of co-dependency. Queer relationality in turn structures the literary and affective networks that contemporary medievalists construct by means of the poem itself. Both manuscript scholars and literary critics enact what Carolyn Dinshaw calls a ‘queer touch’ across time, inhabiting a temporality that incorporates the text’s previous readers and editors and even the animal body that gave its life to produce the parchment upon which the orginary text was written. This analysis examines the visual presentation of Pynkhurst’s handwriting on the website Late Medieval English Scribes and interactive online interface of the collaborative project Networks of Book Makers, Owners and Users in Late Medieval England. Instantiating the ‘trans-corporeality’ and ‘distributed agency’ of ecotheorists Stacy Alaimo and Jane Bennett, digital media not only (re)animates textual objects but also demonstrates how texts circulate through networked environments by means of human participants and more-than-human forces.



  1. Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales, MS Peniarth 392D.Google Scholar
  2. Cambridge, Trinity College, MS R.3.20.Google Scholar
  3. London, Guildhall Library, MS 5370.Google Scholar
  4. San Marino, CA, Huntington Library, MS EL 26 C 9.Google Scholar


  1. Alaimo, S. 2010. Bodily Natures: Science, Environment, and the Material Self. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, J. 2010. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Benson, L., ed. 1988. The Riverside Chaucer. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cook, M.L. 2016. ‘Here taketh the makere of this book his leve’: The Retraction and Chaucer’s Works in Tudor England. Studies in Philology 133(1): 32–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dinshaw, C. 1989. Chaucer’s Sexual Poetics. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dinshaw, C. 1999. Getting Medieval: Sexualities and Communities, Pre- and Postmodern. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edelman, L. 2005. No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Ezard, J. 2004. The Scrivener’s Tale: How Chaucer’s Sloppy Copyist Was Unmasked after 600 years. The Guardian, 20 July, n.p.
  9. Franklin-Brown, M. 2012. Reading the World: Encyclopedic Writing in the Scholastic Age. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Freeman, E. 2010. Time Binds: Queer Temporalities, Queer Histories. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gillespie, A. 2008. Reading Chaucer’s Words to Adam. The Chaucer Review 42(3): 269–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Halberstam, J. 2011. The Queer Art of Failure. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holsinger, B. 2010. Parchment Ethics: A Statement of More than Modest Concern. New Medieval Literatures 12: 131–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holsinger, B. 2015. Written on Beasts. New York Review of Books, 25 November, n.p.
  15. Kay, S. 2011. Legible Skins: Animals and the Ethics of Medieval Reading. Postmedieval 2(1):13–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lima, M. 2013. Visual Complexity: Mapping Patterns of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lima, M. 2014. The Book of Trees: Visualizing Branches of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  18. Mize, B. 2001. Adam, and Chaucer’s Words Unto Him. The Chaucer Review 35(4): 351–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Morrison, S.S. 1999. The Use of Biography in Medieval Literary Criticism: The Case of Geoffrey Chaucer and Cecily Chaumpaigne. The Chaucer Review 34(1): 69–86.Google Scholar
  20. Mooney, L. 2006. Chaucer’s Scribe. Speculum 81: 97–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mooney, L., S. Horobin, and E. Stubbs. 2011. Late Medieval English Scribes.
  22. O’Connell, B. 2005. Adam Scriveyn and the Falsifiers of Dante’s Inferno: A New Interpretation of Chaucer’s Wordes. The Chaucer Review 40(1): 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stubbs, E. [Principal Investigator]. 2013. Networks of Book Makers, Owners, and Users in Late Medieval England.
  24. Warner, L. 2015. Scribes, Misattributed: Hoccleve and Pinkhurst. Studies in the Age of Chaucer 37: 55–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Waymack, A. 2017. Teaching de raptu meo: Chaucer, Chaumpaigne, and Consent in the Classroom. Medieval Feminist Forum 53(1): 150–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Weiskott, E. 2017. Adam Scriveyn and Chaucer’s Metrical Practice. Medium Ævum 86: 147–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan Hsy
    • 1
  1. 1.English DepartmentThe George Washington UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations