Introduction: Chaucer's Visions of Manhood

NOTES

Introduction: Chaucer’s Visions of Manhood 1. See Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York: Routledge, 1989), a work that “broke” gender and performativity onto the modern academic stage. In her Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex” (New York: Routledge, 1993), p. 241, Butler suggests that performance entails reflexive involvement, acknowledging its visual dynamism. 2. Works illustrating performance’s substantive influence over medieval manifestations of identity that have been most important to this project include Susan Crane, The Performance of Self: Ritual, Clothing, and Identity During the Hundred Years War (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002); Claire Sponsler, Drama and Resistance: Bodies, Goods, and Theatricality in Late Medieval England (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997); Kathleen Ashley and Robert L. A. Clark, eds., Medieval Conduct (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001); and Bruce W. Holsinger, “Analytic Survey 6: Medieval Literature and Cultures of Performance,” New Medieval Literatures 6 (2003): 271–311. 3. Kathleen Biddick, “Genders, Bodies, Borders: Technologies of the Visible,” Speculum 68 (1993): 389–418. 4. Michel de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life, trans. Steven F. Rendall (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984). 5. Works that have been helpful in my thinking about medieval masculinities, both in literary and historical terms, include Jeffrey Jerome Cohen and Bonnie Wheeler, eds., Becoming Male in the Middle Ages (New York: Garland, 1997); Clare A. Lees, ed., Medieval Masculinities (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994); Peter G. Beidler, ed., Masculinities in Chaucer (Cambridge, UK: D. S. Brewer, 1998); Ruth Mazo Karras, From Boys to Men: Formations of Masculinity in Late Medieval Europe (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003). 6. See Peggy Phelan, Unmarked: The Politics of Performance (New York: Routledge, 1993), whose entire argument for the political centrality of modern performance relies on a type of invisibility that escapes specular regimes of cultural regulation. 156 NOTES

7. Plato, Republic, Book II, 359c-d, Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997), p. 1000. 8. Indeed, in José Saramago’s Blindness, trans. Giovanni Pontiero (New York: Harcourt, 1995), the extreme epidemic of blindness creates a complete breakdown of ethics and politics. When no one can see, all become invisible to one another. 9. Emmanuel Levinas, Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority, trans. Alphonso Lingis (London: Kluwer Publications, 1991), p. 60. 10. H. G. Wells, The Invisible Man (1897; New York: Scribner & Sons, 1924). 11. John Landis, Joe Dante, dirs. Amazon Women on the Moon (Universal Studios, 1987). This skit is a spoof of Claude Raines’s performance in James Whale’s The Invisible Man (Universal Studios, 1933), itself a filmic representation of H. G. Wells’s book. Whale’s film, and particularly Raines’s portrayal of the invisible man’s disintegration into dementia, spawned its own B-movie genre, most recently culminating in Paul Verhoeven’s Hollow Man (Columbia Tri-Star, 2000). 12. Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man (1952; New York: Vintage, 1995). 13. See Thomas Laqueur, Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990); Joan Cadden, Meanings of Sex Difference in the Middle Ages: Medicine, Science, and Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995); Karma Lochrie, Peggy McCracken, and James A. Shultz, eds. Constructing Medieval Sexuality (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997); Danielle Jacquart and Claude Thomasset, Sexuality and Medicine in the Middle Ages, trans. Matthew Adamson (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988); Louise Fradenburg and Carla Freccero, eds., Premodern Sexualities (New York: Routledge, 1996); Simon Forde, Lesley Johnson, and Alan V. Murray, eds., Concepts of National Identity in the Middle Ages (Leeds: University of Leeds Press, 1995); John Block Friedman, The Monstrous Races in Medieval Art and Thought (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981); Jeffrey Jerome Cohen, ed., The Postcolonial Middle Ages (New York: Palgrave, 2000). 14. Critical work on The Pardoner’s Tale, which is both vast and rich, has done more to explore connections between gender, sexuality, and the body than any other tale. For representative examples of this nuanced subfield, see Monica McAlpine, “The Pardoner’s Homosexuality and how it Matters,” PMLA 95 (1980): 8–22; Carolyn Dinshaw, Chaucer’s Sexual Poetics (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989); Steven Kruger, “Claiming the Pardoner: Toward a Gay Reading of Chaucer’s Pardoner’s Tale,” Exemplaria 6 (1994): 115–40; Glenn Burger, “Kissing the Pardoner,” PMLA 107 (1992): 1143–56; and Robert Sturges, Chaucer’s Pardoner and Gender Theory: Bodies of Discourse (New York: Palgrave, 2000). 15. Here I pursue the gender implications of the poetic authority that A. C. Spearing explores in his study, The Medieval Poet as Voyeur: Looking and Listening in Medieval Love-Narratives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). Other critics who explore the impact of perspectiva on Chaucer’s work and who have greatly influenced the arguments that follow NOTES 157

include Norman Klassen, Chaucer on Love, Knowledge, and Sight (Cambridge, UK: D. S. Brewer, 1995); Carolyn P. Collette, Species, Phantasms, and Images: Vision and Medieval Psychology in The Canterbury Tales (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001); and Linda Tarte Holley, Chaucer’s Measuring Eye (Houston: Rice University Press, 1990). 16. My reading agrees with the “crisis” theory of masculinity, wherein phallic, hegemonic, or dominant masculinities are always on the verge of falling to pieces. As Arthur Brittan suggests in Masculinity and Power (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989), this theory assumes that in previous centuries, men knew who they were. This present panic, however, also gives men more mobility to adapt their gender positions to changing social conditions. See Steven Cohan, Masked Men: Masculinity and the Movies in the Fifties (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997), who investigates the ways in which American masculinities are repackaged after World War II so that a kind of domesticity that earlier might have been viewed as problematic becomes the masculine ideal. Part of Chaucer’s appeal is the sense of familiarity many readers develop with his persona. See Stephanie Trigg, Congenial Souls: Reading Chaucer from Medieval to Postmodern (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002), who discusses this phenomenon over six centuries. 17. Lee Patterson, “ ‘What Man Artow?’: Authorial Self-Definition in the Tale of Sir Thopas and the Tale of Melibee,” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 13 (1991): 117–75. 18. See Shoshana Felman, The Literary Speech Act: Don Juan with J.L. Austin, or Seduction in Two Languages (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983), p. 84, who relates the performative theory of J. L. Austin to the psychoanalytic theory of Jacques Lacan in a discussion of the effects of “language misfire”: “The act of failing thus opens up the space of referentiality—or of impossible reality—not because something is missing, but because something else is done, or because something else is said: the term ‘misfire’ does not refer to an absence, but to the enactment of a difference” (emphasis original). 19. Jeffrey Jerome Cohen, “Diminishing Masculinity in Chaucer’s Tale of Sir Thopas,” Masculinities in Chaucer, ed. Peter Beidler (Cambridge, UK: D. S. Brewer, 1998), p. 143 [143–56]. 20. See Anne Middleton, “The Idea of Public Poetry in the Reign of Richard II,” Speculum 53 (1978): 94–114. 21. E. T. Donaldson, “Chaucer the Pilgrim,” Speaking of Chaucer (London: Athlone Press, 1971), pp. 1–7; Donald Howard, “Chaucer the Man,” PMLA 80 (1965): 337–43. 22. Kaja Silverman, Male Subjectivity at the Margins (New York: Routledge, 1992), p. 65, suggests that “male mastery rests upon an abyss, and that the repetition through which it is consolidated is radically and ceaselessly undermined,” because the masculine subject is constituted through lack. Her claim that American male subjectivity of the post-war period is represented through traumatic lack is useful in the Chaucerian context 158 NOTES

because in Chaucer lack functions like a possession defining identity. Because he has lack Chaucer is a man. 23. Howard, “Chaucer the Man,” p. 337, puts it this way: “And in his best poems we feel him as a ‘man speaking to men.’” 24. David Wallace, Chaucerian Polity: Absolutist Lineages and Associational Forms in England and Italy (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997), p. xvii. 25. Roland Barthes, “The Death of the Author,” Modern Literary Theory: A Reader, ed. Philip Rice and Patricia Waugh (London: Arnold, 1989), pp. 114–18; Michel Foucault, “What is an Author?” Partisan Review 42 (1975): 603–14. 26. See Derek Pearsall, The Life of Geoffrey Chaucer: A Critical Biography (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1992), especially chapter 5; and Martin M. Crow and Clair C. Olson, eds., Chaucer Life-Records (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966), pp. 411–93. 27. Lee Patterson, Negotiating the Past: The Historical Understanding of Medieval Literature (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987) indicts this total- izing mode of medieval historicist criticism, while Dinshaw, Chaucer’s Sexual Poetics, analyzes its gender bias. 28. Besides works by Wallace and Patterson listed earlier, also see Paul Strohm, Social Chaucer (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989); David Aers, Chaucer, Langland, and the Creative Imagination (London: Routledge, 1980); Peggy Knapp, Chaucer and the Social Contest (New York: Routledge, 1990); and Lee Patterson, Chaucer and the Subject of History (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991). 29. See Dinshaw’s Chaucer’s Sexual Poetics, listed earlier, and also her article “Chaucer’s Queer Touches / A Queer Touches Chaucer,” Exemplaria 7 (1995): 75–92; Louise O. Fradenburg, “Criticism, Anti-Semitism, and the Prioress’s Tale,” Exemplaria 1 (1989): 69–115; Christopher Cannon, “Raptus in the Chaumpaigne Release and a Newly Discovered Document Concerning the Life of Geoffrey Chaucer,” Speculum 68 (1993): 74–94; also see Cannon’s “Chaucer and Rape: Uncertainty’s Certainties,” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 22 (2000): 67–92. Mikhail Bakhtin, Rabelais and His World, trans. Helene Iswolsky (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1968), p. 26, defines the classical body as that which is closed and complete. 30. Jeffrey Jerome Cohen, “Introduction: Midcolonial,” The Postcolonial Middle Ages, p. 5 [1–17], points out the “the impossibility of choosing alterity or continuity” as a critical model for contemporary scholars. 31. See the MED (Middle English Dictionary), s.v. “manhed(e),” 1–3, pp. 134–36, for numerous examples suggesting the three strict senses of this term (1) the human condition; (2) Manly virtues; (3) Belonging to the race, age, or occupation of men. 32. Barbara Newman, From Virile Woman to WomanChrist: Studies in Medieval Religion and Literature (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995), pp. 4, 31, 81–82, points out that Jerome and other early Church fathers associated vir with a type of strength that either men or women could assume. NOTES 159

33. To my eye, some of the most exciting work underway in medieval/ theoretical studies pursues connections between masculinity and passivity. Michael Uebel, “Toward a Symptomatology of Cyberporn,” Theory and Event 3 (2000), argues for the connectedness of masculinity and maschochism, while Robert Mills, “ ‘Whatever You Do Is a Delight to Me!’: Masculinity, Masochism, and Queer Play in Representations of Male Martyrdom,” Exemplaria 13 (2001): 1–37, traces its possibilities in a medieval context. 34. The Digby Plays: With an Incomplete “Morality” of Wisdom, Who is Christ, ed. F. J. Furnivall, EETS, e.s., 70 (London: Trübner & Co. for EETS, 1896), IV. 962. 35. Caroline Walker Bynum, Jesus as Mother: Studies in the Spirituality of the High Middle Ages (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982), pp. 110–69. 36. Bynum’s use of this term in Jesus as Mother is less problematic than most, though she does not acknowledge that passivity is not exclusively a feminine characteristic, particularly in the Middle Ages. In Chaucer studies, uses of “feminize” are more troubling: two prominent examples of this tendency are Elaine Tuttle Hansen, Chaucer and the Fictions of Gender (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992); and Jill Mann, Geoffrey Chaucer, Feminist Readings Series (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities, 1991), although these two studies employ the term to quite different effects. Jill Mann, in an attempt to counter what she rightly identifies as a “worrying” habit in medieval feminist criticism—namely, to naturalize the very gender stereotypes that feminist criticism purports to expose— retitled the 2002 edition of her book, Feminizing Chaucer. While it will become clear that I strongly agree with her contention that Chaucer “not only questioned the superiority of active masculinity. . .but that he also questioned the nature of active power itself, distributing agency through a multiplicity of causes which embrace the apparently passive” (p. xv), I do not think that calling such a move “feminizing” is sufficient. I agree that Hansen’s uncritical use of the term as if it has wholly negative con- notations is wrong. That said, I do not think Mann succeeds rhetorically in positively recharging the word. Her own appeal to reading Chaucer within a medieval context suggests that this term would be negative when applied to a man. See the OED (Oxford English Dictionary), s.v. “feminize,” which suggests that the term has to do with the construction of womanly identity. 37. Judith Halberstam, Female Masculinity (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998), p. 27, points out that “the very flexibility and elasticity of the terms ‘man’ and ‘woman’ ensures their longevity.” Jeffrey Jerome Cohen and Bonnie Wheeler, “Introduction,” Becoming Male in the Middle Ages (New York and London: Garland, 1997), p. xix, make the important further distinction that “male” and “female” are also fluid constructions, “not simple binaries, but multiplicities that are simultaneously relational and oppositional”; however, I am interested here in the ways that gender terms make room for such multiplicities, and even variations, in bodily formations. 160 NOTES

38. Nella Larsen, Passing (1929; New York: Collier Books, 1971). 39. Michel de Certeau, p. xvii, in fact, suggests that marginality itself has become universal, although members of the borderlands of culture are not homogeneous because they do not all have the same access to “information, financial means, and compensation of all kinds.” 40. See the collection of essays, Maria Carla Sànchez and Linda Schlossberg, eds., Passing: Identity and Interpretation in Sexuality, Race, and Religion (New York: New York University Press, 2001), for a complete exploration of the possibilities of this strategy. Although essays in Elaine K. Ginsberg, ed., Passing and the Fictions of Identity (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1996) are more interested in the juridical binary of transgression and punishment as they apply to the categories of race and gender, Ginsberg in her introduction acknowledges that “passing has the potential to create a space for creative self-determination and agency: the opportunity to construct new identities, to experiment with multiple subject positions, and to cross social and economic boundaries that exclude or oppress” (p. 16). 41. For example, Philip Roth’s novel, The Human Stain (New York: Knopf, 2000), features as its hero a light-skinned African-American who has passed as Jewish since his youth. His downfall from his position as Dean of a stuffy northeastern college, which clunkily pits the secrets that canonicity keeps against the embarrassed exposure that “political correctness” demands, remains interesting because it shows the delicacy with which the protagonist has calibrated his persona of mild-mannered professor. 42. As Margery Garber, Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing and Cultural Anxiety (New York: Routledge, 1997), points out “If treason works, it gets mainstreamed or translated into another, non-oppositional category, a new political orthodoxy. . .If we were to. . .replace “treason” with some metrically equivalent word—like “passing”—we would be characterizing a social and sartorial inscription that encodes (as treason does) its own erasure” (p. 234, emphasis original.) Robert Bernasconi, “The Invisibility of Racial Minorities in the Public Realm of Appearances,” American Continental Philosophy: A Reader, ed. Walter Brogan and James Risser (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2000), pp. 352–71. 43. Bernasconi, “The Invisibility of Racial Minorities,” p. 358. 44. See, Karma Lochrie, “Women’s ‘Pryvetees’ and Fabliau Politics in the Miller’s Tale,” Exemplaria 6 (1994): 287–304. 45. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, trans. G. E. M. Anscombe, 2nd edn. (London: Blackwell, 1958), especially part II. 46. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, II, xi, p. 223. 47. Régis Debray, “The Three Ages of Looking,” trans. Eric Rauth, Critical Inquiry 21 (1995): p. 531, 529–55; Bruno Latour, “Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern,” Critical Inquiry 30 (2004): p. 228, 225–48. 48. Wallace, Chaucerian Polity, p. xvii. 49. Latour, “Why Has Critique Run out of Steam?” pp. 232–33. Interestingly, Mary Carruthers, The Craft of Thought: Meditation, Rhetoric, and the Making NOTES 161

of Images, 400–1200 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 146–55, points out that medieval memory work explicitly involved such “gatherings,” connecting associations in catena and ordering them through collatio. 50. Although he articulates his concerns in relation to early modern studies, the work of Jonathan Gil Harris is useful for defining this methodology. See his article, “Shakespeare’s Hair: Staging the Object of Material Culture,” Shakespeare Quarterly 52 (2001), p. 485 [479–91], in which he traces the Aristotelian “particularization” of matter current in premodern science to Marx’s later understanding of objects as part of “the domain of labor and praxis” (emphasis original). The medievalist who most sensitively pursues this “long view” of history is Rita Copeland, whose “Childhood, Pedagogy, and the Literal Sense: From Late Antiquity to the Lollard Heretical Classroom,” New Medieval Literatures 1 (1997): 125–56, and Pedagogy, Intellectuals, and Dissent in the Later Middle Ages: Lollardy and Ideas of Learning (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), illustrate the importance of this approach. 51. I am greatly influenced by the excellent work of L. O. Aranye Fradenburg, whose writings illustrate the vital connections between historicism and psychoanalysis in medieval studies. Her suggestion that renunciation leads to satisfaction, which she most fully elaborates in her book, Sacrifice Your Love: Psychoanalysis, Historicism, Chaucer (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002), influences much of what follows. Yet her emphasis on loss, mourning, and trauma often belies a disciplinary impulse, the desire to show medievalists the ways in which a fascination with the past functions as a psychic defense against temporal rupture. 52. “Anna O.” was the pseudonym used for Bertha Pappenheim by Josef Breuer and Sigmund Freud, Studies on Hysteria ed. and trans. James Strachey (New York: Basic Books, 1957). 53. Trinh T. Minh-ha, Woman Native Other: Writing Postcoloniality and Feminism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989), p. 58, expresses in gendered terms the promise and failure that unilateral vision holds for the seer: “What a man looks for. . .is fortunately what he always/never finds: a perfect reflection of himself.” 54. Here I am influenced by Brian Massumi, Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2002), p. 12, who urges critics to admit that we “add to reality,” thus countering what he identifies as an unimaginative trend in intellectual culture: “Critical thinking disavows its own inventiveness as much as possible. Because it sees itself as uncovering something it claims was hidden or as debunking something it desires to subtract from the world, it clings to a basically descriptive and justificatory modus operendi.” In medieval studies, I would say that Nicholas Watson’s article, “Desire for the Past,” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 21 (1999): 59–97, comes closer than anything I have seen to achieving this creative enjoyment, mainly because he avows his commitments (to Caroline Walker Bynum’s Holy Feast and Holy Fast: The Religious Significance of Food 162 NOTES

to Medieval Women (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987) in an effort to understand the affective connections that book achieves with the past it explores. 55. See Maurice Merleau-Ponty, The Visible and the Invisible, ed. Claude Lefort, trans. Alphonso Lingis (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1968), pp. 262–68, who traces our intersubjective and intercorporeal commitments even to the point at which “active=passive” (265). As he acknowledges in his 1952 essay “An Unpublished Text by Merleau-Ponty: A Prospectus of His Work,” The Primacy of Perception, trans. James M. Edie (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1964), p. 11, this phenomenal interconnectivity is fundamentally ethical. 56. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus, Logico-Philosophicus, trans. D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuinness, introduction by Bertrand Russell (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1961), p. 74, in his final proposition (seven) famously claims that “What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.” As he makes clear in proposition six, this means endeavoring “to say nothing except what can be said, that is, propositions of natural science.” Much of Wittgenstein’s later writing, however, was an attempt to speak about matters of mind and language, even if they could never be fully clarified or elucidated. 57. Besides the studies by Dinshaw, Hansen, and Mann listed earlier, also see Catherine S. Cox, Gender and Language in Chaucer (Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 1997); Susan Crane, Gender and Romance in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994); Sheila Delany, The Naked Text: Chaucer’s Legend of Good Women (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994); Anne Laskaya, Chaucer’s Approach to Gender in the Canterbury Tales (Cambridge, UK: D. S. Brewer, 1995); Florence Percival, Chaucer’s Legendary Good Women (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); Angela Jane Weisl, Conquering the Reign of Femeny: Gender and Genre in Chaucer’s Romance (Cambridge, UK: D. S. Brewer, 1995). 58. See Martin Jay, Downcast Eyes: The Denigration of Vision in Twentieth-Century French Thought (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), who gives a survey of the importance of vision in the Western philosophical tradition, with particular emphasis on twentieth-century thought. In this study I follow Jay, p. 15, in focusing “on a discourse rather than on a visual culture in its entirety.” Thus, while I am influenced by theorists of medieval visual culture, including Michael Camille, The Gothic Idol: Ideology and Image-making in Medieval Art (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), V. A. Kolve, Chaucer and the Imagery of Narrative: the First Five Canterbury Tales (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1984), as well as D. W. Robertson, Jr., Preface to Chaucer: Studies in Medieval Perspectives (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962), my work focuses on the ways that writers discuss vision and images. While I will acknowledge the way that certain images influence discursive representations, my priority is the way that those images areexpressed through language. NOTES 163

Chapter 1 Seeing Gender’s Aspects: Vision, Agency, and Masculinity in the Tale of Melibee 1. John Berger, Ways of Seeing (London: Penguin, 1972), p. 47. Berger’s analysis anticipates Laura Mulvey’s seminal argument, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” Screen 16 (1975): 6–18, only by a few years. Steven Shaviro, The Cinematic Body (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993), p. 8, rightly suggests that the Mulveian gaze is an attempt to reassert the viewer’s agency in the face of an image’s power. 2. See Dallas G. Denery, II, Seeing and Being Seen in the Later Medieval World: Optics, Theology, and Religious Life (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). 3. Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos, 140, Patrologia Latina 37 ( J. P. Migne: Paris, 1845) 16.1825–26: Certe caro tanquam conjux est. . .ama et castiga, donec fiat in una reformatione una Concordia [your flesh is like your wife. . .love and correct it, until it is formed into one bond, one harmony]. Augustine, Confessions, trans. R. S. Pine-Coffin (New York: Penguin, 1987), 4.14, p. 85. For the Latin, see Augustine, Confessions: Introduction and Text, ed. James. J. O’Donnell, vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), 4.14, p. 42: [et obnubilatur ei lumen et non cernitur veritas, et ecce est ante nos]. 4. For early theories of vision, see David Hahm, “Early Hellenistic Theories of Vision and the Perception of Color, Studies in Perception, ed. Peter K. Machamer and Robert G. Turnbull (Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1978), pp. 60–95. David C. Lindberg, “The Science of Optics,” Studies in the History of Medieval Optics (London: Variorum Reprints, 1983) I: 338–68; other histories of optics include those by Vasco Ronchi, notably Optics: The Science of Vision, trans. Edward Rosen (New York: New York University Press, 1957), and The Nature of Light: An Historical Survey, trans. V. Barocas (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970); for the connections between femininity and vision in Greek thought, see Genevieve Lloyd, The Man of Reason: “Male” and “Female” in Western Philosophy (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984), pp. 2–8. 5. See David C. Lindberg, Theories of Optics from Al-kindi to Kepler (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976), who, in my opinion, gives the most useful survey of shifts and continuities between ancient and medieval optical theory. Also of critical importance to this study, Suzannah Biernoff, Sight and Embodiment in the Middle Ages (New York: Palgrave, 2002), links theories of vision to medieval conceptions of embodiment, including gender. Suzanne Conklin Akbari, Seeing through the Veil: Optical Theory and Medieval Allegory (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004), gives a fascinating historical account of the relations between medieval optics and allegory. 6. For key discussions of the dominating masculine gaze, including attempts to rework this model, see Mulvey, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” pp. 6–18; Mary Ann Doane, “Film and the Masquerade,” Screen 23 (1982): 28–54; and bell hooks, “The Oppositional Gaze: Black Female Gaze: Black Female Spectators,” Black Looks: Race and Representation (Boston: South End Press, 1992), pp. 115–31. 164 NOTES

7. David C. Lindberg, ed., trans., “Introduction,” Roger Bacon and the Origins of Perspectiva in the Middle Ages: A Critical Edition and English Translation of Bacon’s Perspectiva with Introduction and Notes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), pp. xxix–xxx; also see, Stephen Gersh, Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism: The Latin Tradition (South Bend, Indiana: Notre Dame University Press, 1986), pp. 421–33. 8. Lindberg, Theories of Vision, pp. 3–6, pp. 9–11, pp. 91–94; Plato, Timaeus, Plato’s Cosmology: The Timaeus of Plato, trans. Francis Macdonald Cornford (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, & Co., 1937), 45b–46c. 9. Lindberg, Theories of Vision, pp. 3–6, pp. 9–11, pp. 91–94. 10. Augustine, The Trinity, trans. S. McKenna, Fathers of the Church, 45 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1963), p. 315 (1.1); p. 343 (12.1); p. 355 (12.8). Augustine associates internal vision with the mind and external vision with the senses. 11. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, trans. John Hammond Taylor, 2 vols. Ancient Christian Writers, ed. Johannes Quasten, 41–42, (New York: Newman, 1982), 2:191 (12.11.22). 12. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 1: 37–38. 13. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 2: 194 (12.25). 14. Augustine, Confessions, 10.35. p. 243: [stelio muscas captans vel aranea retibus suis inruentes implicans saepe intentum facit (O’Donnell, vol. 1, 10.35, p. 141)]. 15. Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1941), p. 229. 16. A. Mark Smith, “Getting the Big Picture in Perspectivist Optics,” Isis 72 (1981), p. 571 [568–89]. 17. Aristotle, De anima, Aristotle: On the Soul, Parva Naturalia, On Breath, trans. W. S. Hett. Loeb Classical Library 288 (1957; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986), 2.12.424a. 18. Lindberg, Theories of Vision, 104–7; also see Lindberg, “Introduction,” Roger Bacon and the Origins of “Perspectiva,” pp. xl–xlii. For the attack on extramission’s theory of rays, see Albertus Magnus, Summa de creatures, II, quest. 22, in Opera omnia, ed. Auguste Borgnet, 38 vols. (Paris: Vivès, 1890–95), vol. 35, pp. 210–28. 19. For Plato’s claim, see the Timaeus, 53d. For its influence, see David C. Lindberg, “On the Applicability of Mathematics to Nature: Roger Bacon and his Predecessors,” British Journal for the History of Science 15 (1982), pp. 7–10 [3–25]. 20. Lindberg, Theories of Vision, 94–95; A. C. Crombie, Robert Grosseteste and Origins of Experimental Science 1100–1700 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953), pp. 116–17. 21. Lindberg, “Introduction,” Roger Bacon and the Origins of ‘Perspectiva,’ p. xli. 22. Jeremiah M. G. Hackett, “The Attitude of Roger Bacon to the Scientia of Albertus Magnus,” Albertus Magnus and the Sciences, ed. James A. Weisheiple (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1980), pp. 53–72; NOTES 165

Roger Bacon, Opus minus, Opera quædam hactenus inedita, ed. J. S. Brewer, 3 vols. (Wiesbaden: Kraus Reprints, 1965), vol. 2, p. 327. He also attacks Albert in his Opus tertium, Brewer, vol. 1, p. 38. 23. Robert Grosseteste, On Light, trans. Clare C. Riedl (Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 1942), p. 10: “Light is the first corporeal form.” See Crombie, Robert Grosseteste, pp. 106–7; Lindberg, Theories of Vision, 95–98; and Biernoff, Sight and Embodiment, 67–73, for a discussion of Grosseteste’s view of light. 24. See Lindberg, “Introduction,” Roger Bacon and the Origins of “Perspectiva,” p. xxxviii. 25. Smith, “Getting the Big Picture,” p. 568, n. 1, presents a pithy timeline for the major works of this tradition. De aspectibus, the Latin translation of Alhacen’s Arabic Book of Optics (eleventh century), appeared in the mid- thirteenth century; Roger Bacon composed his Perspectiva (Opus Majus, Pt. V) in the 1260s; Witelo’s Perspectiva appeared in the mid-1270s, and John Pecham’s Perspectiva communis dates to the late 1270s. 26. On Bacon’s life, works, and influence, see Theodore Crowley, O. F. M., Roger Bacon: The Problem of the Soul in His Philosophical Commentaries (Louvain: Éditions de l’Institut supérieur de philosophie, 1950); and Stewart Easton, Roger Bacon and His Search for a Universal Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952). 27. This is not to diminish the importance of the other perspectivists. In fact, as the most widely disseminated perspectival treatise, Pecham’s Perspectiva communis was the most familiar statement of optical theory until the seventeenth century. Furthermore, as Akbari points out in Seeing through the Veil, pp. 38–39, the encyclopedias would have provided a major source for general knowledge about the processes of sight. For a discussion of Pecham’s work, including its wide-ranging influence, see David C. Lindberg, “Introduction,” John Pecham and the Science of Optics: Perspectiva communis, ed. David C. Lindberg (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1970), pp. 12–32. Bacon has often been cred- ited with instigating this movement, although it is most accurate to say that they shared “a common fund of information” (Lindberg, ed. John Pecham, p. 26). My interest in Bacon is in his elaborate effort to illustrate the worth of optics in spiritual terms. See Denery, Seeing and Being Seen, pp. 75–115, who suggests that Peter of Limoges took Bacon’s program very seriously, attempt- ing to explicate the moral dimensions of sight in his widely read, Tractatus moralis de oculo (written around 1280). For Bacon’s associations with heresy and magic, see George Molland, “Roger Bacon as Magician,” Traditio 30 (1974): 455–60; and Lynn Thorndike, A History of Magic and Experimental Science, vol. 2 (New York: Macmillan, 1923), pp. 616–92. 28. See Rita Copeland, Rhetoric, Hermeneutics, and Translation in the Middle Ages: Academic Traditions and Vernacular Texts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 87–126. 29. Bacon’s major influences seem to have been Ptolemy, Alhacen, and Grosseteste (as well as the many sources that informed the works of these 166 NOTES

writers). See Lindberg, “Introduction,” Roger Bacon and the Origins of Perspectiva, xlii–xliii, for a complete catalogue. 30. References to Bacon are formatted to give a sense of the Perspectiva’s independence from and inclusion within the Opus Majus. For all citations, I use David C. Lindberg’s facing page edition (see n. 7 for complete details), hereafter referred to as the Perspectiva. I follow the internal divisions of that work, citing part, distinction, chapter, and line numbers. For readers using an edition of the Opus Majus, each citation to the Perspectiva is to Pt. V of that text. See n. 49 for references to the standard Latin and English editions of the Opus Majus. Bacon, Perspectiva, III.iii.2, lines 139–41 [Et in statu pre- senti est visio triplex, scilicet recta in perfectis, fracta in imperfectis, et in malis et in negligentibus mandata Dei est per reflexionem]. 31. Bacon, Perspectiva, III.iii.3, lines 160–62 [Et sic pro utilitatibus rei publice et contra infidels possent huiusmodi apparitions fiere utiliter]. 32. David C. Lindberg, “Science as Handmaiden: Roger Bacon and the Patristic Tradition,” Isis 78 (1987): 518–36, 527. 33. “[Y]ou shall bring her home to your house and she shall shave her head and pare her nails. And she shall put off her captive’s garb, and shall remain in your house and bewail her father and mother a full month; after that you may go in to her, and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.” For analysis of this passage’s gendered model of reading, see Carolyn Dinshaw, Chaucer’s Sexual Poetics (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989), pp. 3–27. 34. See Marina Warner, Monuments and Maidens: The Allegory of the Female Form (New York: Antheneum, 1985), pp. 63–87, and pp. 177–209 for a discussion of grammatical gender and the habit of representing allegorical figures of wisdom as female. More recently, Barbara Newman, God and the Goddesses: Vision, Poetry, and Belief in the Middle Ages (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), suggests that the spectrum of female tutelary figures represents a Christian divinization of the feminine. 35. Lynn Thorndike, “Roger Bacon and Experimental Method in the Middle Ages,” Philosophical Review 23 (1914): 283–92; also see Easton, Roger Bacon and his Search for a Universal Science; and N.W. Fisher and Sabetai Unguru, “Experimental Science and Mathematics in Roger Bacon’s Thought,” Traditio 27 (1971): 353–78. 36. Biernoff, Sight and Embodiment, p. 74, explains its roots in the Indo-European spek (“to see”) and relates Bacon’s definition of “species” to those of Augustine and Grosseteste. 37. Roger Bacon, De multiplicatione specierum, Roger Bacon’s Philosophy of Nature: A Critical Edition with English Translation, Introduction, and Notes, of “De multiplicatione specierum” and “De speculis comburentibus”, ed. David C. Lindberg (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), I.i.42, 43–44, 46–48, 53–55, 56–58, 60–61, 64, 67–69: [Dicitur autem similitudo et ymago respectu generantis eam. . .Dicitur autem species respectu sensus et intellectus secundum usum Aristotelis et naturalium. . .Dicitur vero ydolum respectu speculorum, sic enim multum utimur. Dicitur fantasma et simulacrum in NOTES 167

aparitionibus sompniorum. . .Forma quidem vocatur in usu Alhacen, auctoris Perspective vulgate. Intentio vocatur in usu vulgi naturalium propter debilitatem sui esse respectu rei. . .Umbra philosophorum vocatur, quia non est bene sensibilis nisi in casu duplici dicto, scilicet de radio cadente per fenestram et de specie fortiter colorati. . .Dicitur vero virtus respectu generationis et corruptionis. . .Impressio vocatur quia est similes impressionibus. . .Vocatur autem passio quia medium et sensus in recipiendo speciem patiuntur transmutationem in sua substantia]. 38. Bacon, De multiplicatione specierum, VI.ii.24: [idem facit virtus patris in seminibus]. 39. Bacon, De multiplicatione specierum, VI.ii.30–31: [et ideo species et virtus patris recepta in matre conservatur per presentiam matris]. 40. Bacon, De multiplicatione specierum , VI.ii.29–30: [pater et mater are eiusdem nature specifice]. 41. Bacon, De multiplicatione specierum , VI.ii.31–32: [que sufficit loco patris propter idemptitatem nature specifice]. 42. Bacon, De multiplicatione specierum , I.iii.50–70. 43. Bacon, De multiplicatione specierum , I.ii. Bacon, Perspectiva, I.vii.2. This chapter, “In which it is shown that in the act of sight the species or power of the eye extends to the visible object,” sets forth Bacon’s position, which he elaborates in the next two chapters. See also, Biernoff, pp. 85–92, who is particularly helpful in elucidating the relationship that this reciprocity implies. 44. Bacon, Perspectiva, I.vii.4, 143–44: [species rerum mundi non sunt nate statim de se agree plenam actionem in visum propter eius nobilitatem]. 45. Bacon, Perspectiva, I.vii.4, 147–49: [Et sic preparat incessum speciei ipsius rei visibilis, et insuper eam nobilitat, ut omnino sit conformis et proportionalis nobilitati corporis animati, quod est oculus]. 46. Bacon, Perspectiva, I.vi.1, 18–21: [Nam principaliter non requiritur nisi quod visus percipiat distincte rem ipsam et certitudinaliter et sufficienter; et hoc fieri potest per unam pyramidem in qua sint tot linee quot sunt partes in corpore viso]. 47. Bacon, Perspectiva, I.vii.4, 157–62. 48. Bacon, Perspectiva, I.vii.4., 167–69: [una pyramid est principalis, scilicet illla cuius axis est linea transiens per centrum omnium partium oculi, que est axis totius oculi]. 49. For the English citations, see The Opus Majus of Roger Bacon, trans. Robert Belle Burke, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1928); for the Latin, I use The “Opus Majus” of Roger Bacon, ed. John Henry Bridges, 2 vols. (Frankfurt/Main: Minerva G.m.b.H, 1964). 50. Bacon, Opus Majus, Pt. IV, “The Application of Mathematics to Sacred Subjects,” 1: 234: [quia nihil est nobis ad plenum intelligibile, nisi figuraliter ante oculos nostros disponatur; et ideo in scriptura Dei tota rerum sapientia figurationibus geometricis certificanda continetur et longe melius quam ipsa philosophia posit exprimere (Bridges, 1:212)]. 51. Bacon, Perspectiva, III, iii.1, 68–74: [Et dictum est quod ad visionem exigitur non solum ut fiat intus suscipiendo, sed estramittendo et cooperando per 168 NOTES

virtutem propriam. Nam motus liberi arbitrii et consensus requiruntur cum gratia Dei ad hoc ut videamus et consequamur statum salutis]. 52. Bacon, Perspectiva, III.iii.1, 36–37: [Hec est igitur litteralis expositio. . . pupille spiritualis, id est, anime]. 53. Bacon, Perspectiva, III.iii.1, 17–18: [et ideo nichil magis necessarium est sensui litterali et spirituali sicut huius scientie certitudo]. 54. Bacon, Perspectiva, III.iii.2, 79–81: [Nam sicut hichil videmus coporaliter sine luce corporali, sic impossibile est nos aliquid videre spiritualiter sine luce spirituali gratie divine]. 55. Bacon, Opus Majus, Pt. IV, “The Application of Mathematics to Sacred Subjects,” 1: 242: [quando oportet vel in confessione vel ob aliam aliquam causam loqui cum mulieribus. Nam omnes homines quantumcunque sanctos species fortes in hac parte turbarent (Bridges, 1: 219)]. 56. Bacon, Opus Majus, Pt. IV, “The Apllication of Mathematics to Sacred Subjects,” 1: 241: [Et Adam allectus est ut se et totum genus humanum specierum sensibilium multiplicatione damnaret. Sic David sanctus propheta per speciem Betsabeae deceptus de adulterio cecidit in homicid- ium. Sic sense presbyteri quos judicavit Daniel secie mulieris decepti sunt (Bridges, 1: 219)]. 57. Bacon, Opus Majus, Pt. VII.iii.5, 2: 680 (Bridges, 2: 271). 58. Bacon, Perspectiva, I.vii.4, 176–77: [Species autem oculi est species animati corporis, in qua virtus anime dominatur]. 59. Bacon, Opus Majus, Pt. IV, “The Application of Mathematics to Sacred Subjects,” 1: 241: [Sic Eva receipt seciem soni serpentis et pomi visibilis et suavis odoris (Bridges, 1: 219)]. 60. Bacon, Opus Majus, Pt. IV, “The Application of Mathematics to Sacred Subjects,” 1: 241–42: [ut vitent pyramides breviores, atque multiplications principales et rectas et ad angulos aequales (Bridges, 1: 219)]. 61. Bacon, Opus Majus, Pt. VII.iii.5, 2: 679: [Impedit enim consilium voluptas rationi inimica et mentis oculos perstringit (Bridges, 2: 270)]. 62. Bacon, Perspectiva, I.i.1, 28–29: [quia cecus nichil potest de hoc mundo quod dignum sit experiri]. 63. Bacon, Opus Majus, Pt. VII.iv.1, 2: 821 (Bridges, 2: 402). 64. Bacon, Opus Majus, Pt. VII.iv.1, 2: 814: [Sed maximum quidem et arduissimum est subjicere se vuluntati alterius omnino; ut quilibet novit. . .est Christi legem omnino praevalere (Bridges, 2: 395)]. 65. Bacon, Opus Majus, Pt. VI.ex.iii, “Chapter on the Third Prerogative or the Dignity of the Experimental Art,” 2: 633: [et imperat aliis scentiis, sicut ancillis suis (Bridges, 2: 221)]. 66. Bacon, Opus Majus, Pt. VII.iv.1, 2: 821 (Bridges, 2: 402). 67. Herbert Kessler, Spiritual Seeing: Picturing God’s Invisibility in Medieval Art (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000), traces this tradition in the pictorial art and aesthetic theories of Byzantium and the Latin West. 68. This idea derives from Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana, On Christian Doctrine, trans. D.W. Robertson, Jr. (New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1958), 3.5.9. The most well known elaborators of this critical methodology in the twentieth century are D.W. Robertson, Jr., and Bernard F. Huppé. NOTES 169

See n., 75 for their allegorical interpretation of Chaucer’s Tale of Melibee. Besides other works listed later, see their, Fruyt and Chaf: Studies in Chaucer’s Allegories (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963), which sets their exegetical interpretations of Chaucer’s Book of the Duchess and Parliament of Fowls in relation to other medieval allegorical accounts. 69. Rita Copeland and Stephen Melville, “Allegory and Allegoresis, Rhetoric and Hermeneutics,” Exemplaria 3 (1991), p. 169 [159–87]. 70. Copeland and Melville, “Allegory and Allegoresis, Rhetoric and Hermeneutics,” p. 171. 71. Bacon, Opus Majus, Pt. VII.iv.1, 2: 822: [Praeterea nec possemus sustinere propter horrorem et abominationem. Nam cor humanum non posset perferre ut carnes crudas et vivas masticaret et comederet et sanguinem crudum hauriret (Bridges, 2: 403)]. 72. For a discussion, see Jesse M. Gellrich, “Allegory and Materiality: Medieval Foundations of the Modern Debate,” Germanic Review 77 (2002): 146–59. 73. Bacon, De multiplicatione specierum, I.i.24–26. 74. W.F. Bryan and Germaine Dempster, eds., Sources and Analogues of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales (London: Routledge, 1958. First published in 1941), pp. 560–614. 75. In the grandest rendering of the tale’s allegorical scope, D. W. Robertson, Jr., A Preface to Chaucer: Studies in Medieval Perspectives. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963), p. 368; and Bernard F. Huppé, A Reading of the Canterbury Tales (Albany: SUNY Press, 1967), p. 235, believe this tale’s “sentence” is key to the spiritual allegory that is the Canterbury Tales. 76. Lee Patterson, “ ‘What Man Artow?’: Authorial Self-Definition in the Tale of Sir Thopas and the Tale of Melibee,” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 11 (1989): 117–75, is in my view the best treatment of Chaucer’s literary authority as it emerges from this sequence. Also valuable is Larry Scanlon’s discussion of this tale as it relates to one strand of the fürstenspiegel tradition in his book, Narrative, Authority, and Power: The Medieval Exemplum and the Chaucerian Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 206–15. I am most intrigued by his claim, p. 212, that the lay authority he sees Melibee expounding “describes the rule of law as it was coming to be defined in later medieval England. Although I do not treat the intersection of documentary culture and gender visibility in this study, it holds fascinating potential.” 77. See Ephesians 5, in which Paul compares marriage to Christ’s relation to the Church. 78. James Brundage, Law, Sex and Christian Society in Medieval Europe (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), pp. 187–90; pp. 235–75; pp. 332–36; and John Noonan, “The Power to Choose,” Viator 4 (1973): 419–34, trace the development of the consensual theory of marriage during the Middle Ages. 79. See Michael M. Sheehan, Marriage, Family, and Law in Medieval Europe, ed. James K. Farge (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996), p. 84, who explains that after Peter Lombard included marriage among the seven sacraments the institution was overhauled “at all levels of thought ranging from theology, through moral guidance and law, to confessional practices.” 170 NOTES

80. Henry Ansgar Kelly, Love and Marriage in the Age of Chaucer (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1975) for a discussion of clandestine marriage. 81. See Matthew 19: 5–6, which describes marriage thus, “And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” 82. While marital consent and companionate affection are two different concepts in the history of marriage, Frederick Pedersen, in his article, “‘Maritalis affectio’: Marital Affection and Property in Fourteenth-Century York Cause Papers,” Women, Marriage, and Family in Medieval Christendom: Essays in Memory of Michael M. Sheehan, ed. Constance M. Rousseau and Joel T. Rosenthal, Studies in Medieval Culture, vol. 37, Medieval Institute Publications (Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan UP, 1998) 175–209, explains that the two were becoming more closely linked during the later Middle Ages: “Marital affection is an elusive concept with a long history in European law. The meaning of the phrase developed over the centuries, initially meaning the wiling of the (property) consequences of marriage, but developing into a phrase that encompassed the internal psychological quality of marriage” (207). 83. Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis Christianae fidei, On the Sacraments of Christian Faith, trans. Roy J. Deferrari (Cambridge, MA: Medieval Academy, 1951), p. 329. 84. Sharon Farmer, “Persuasive Voices: Clerical Images of Medieval Wives,” Speculum 61 (1986): 517–43. 85. Thomas of Chobham, Thomae de Chobham: Summa Confessorum, ed. F. Broomfield, Analecta Mediaevalia Namurcensia 25 (Louvain, Éditions Nauwelaerts, 1968), p. 375: [sicut parti corporis sui. . .Nullus enim sacerdos ita potest cor viri emollire sicut potest uxor]. 86. See Jacques Lacan, “God and the Jouissance of [/]The Woman,” Feminine Sexuality, ed. Juliet Mitchell and Jacqueline Rose, trans. Jacqueline Rose (New York: Norton, 1982), p. 138 [137–61]. As Glenn Burger argues in his book, Chaucer’s Queer Nation (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003), p. 73, the “hybridity” of medieval conjugality required “the feminizing of the female (as Aristotelian body and receptacle, mother, helpmeet, needing male protection and regulation) and the masculinizing of the male (as possessing the vital seed in procreation, head of the household, agent of outward action) in the newly sacramentalized partnership of marriage.” 87. Elizabeth Robertson, Early English Devotional Prose and the Female Audience (Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1990), pp. 77–93, shows that marriage was also allegorized in religious writings in order to separate women from sexuality. 88. See W. W. Lawrence, “The Tale of Melibeus,” Essays and Studies in Honor of Carleton Brown (New York: New York University Press, 1940), pp. 100–110, and his Chaucer and the Canterbury Tales (New York: Columbia University Press, 1950), pp. 119–44, who argues that the tale’s concern is marriage. 89. In this line of argument I am influenced by Carolyn P. Collette, “Heeding the Counsel of Prudence: A Context for the Melibee,” Chaucer Review 29 NOTES 171

(1995): 419 [416–29], who argues that this story, including Chaucer’s use of it, “may be understood as part of a group of texts designed to instruct aristocratic women,” though she does not pursue further the relevance of this type of wife to constructions of masculinity. Also see David Wallace, Chaucerian Polity: Absolutist Lineages and Associational Forms in England and Italy (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997), pp. 212–46, whose insightful chapter on this tale galvanizes the argument that follows. 90. Besides Collette, n. 89, see Elizabeth Lunz, “Chaucer’s Prudence as the Ideal of the Virtuous Woman,” Essays in Literature 4 (1977), p. 4 [3–10], argues “that Chaucer introduced Prudence as an ideal of human virtue, offered specifically as a model to women for their roles in medieval marriage and society.” Monica McAlpine, “Criseyde’s Prudence,” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 25 (2003): 199–224, considers this virtue in relation to Criseyde, but in doing so suggests the importance of this trait to late medieval notions of femininity. 91. Denise N. Baker, “Chaucer and Moral Philosophy: The Virtuous Women of The Canterbury Tales,” Medium Aevum 60 (1991): 241–56, treats Prudence’s representation in abstract philosophical terms. 92. See Joan Ferrante, Woman as Image in Medieval Literature (New York: Columbia University Press, 1975), p. 42, who claims that marriage was an important way for writers to figure “the harmony that results from the union of opposites” as a means of instituting order over disparate matter. Charles A. Owen, Jr., “The Tale of Melibee,” Chaucer Review 7 (1973): 269–70 [267–80], notes that during the turbulence of the late 1380s—when some argue that Melibee was written to address political events—Chaucer was very interested in articulating and developing the image of the “good woman.” 93. See Sawles Warde, Medieval English Prose for Women: Selections from the Katherine Group and Ancrene Wisse, ed. Bella Millett and Jocelyn Wogan-Browne (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), pp. 86–109. In this narrative, wit’s control over the physical senses, who would otherwise be run by his wife will, is figured in terms of a husband governing his household; In the same vein, Bernard of Clairvaux, On Conversion, Bernard Clairvaux, Selected Works, trans. G. R. Evan, Classics of Western Spirituality (New York: Paulist Press, 1987), pp. 65–97, deploys a grotesque image of a wife as will, who causes upheaval in the household because she does not respect her husband, Master Reason. 94. Prudentius’s fourth-century Latin poem, Psychomachia, is often cited as the first personification allegory, and has come to signify an entire genre, which, Michel Zink, “The Allegorical Poem as Interior Memoir,” Yale French Studies 70 (1986), p. 100 [100–126], suggests should be “understood in the broadest sense as a description of the movements and the conflicts within psychological as well as moral consciousness.” 95. For a discussion of the virtues as they were commonly disseminated to a lay audience in the later Middle Ages, see Richard Neuhauser, The Treatise on Vices and Virtues in Latin and the Vernaculars ( pre-1800 Works ) (Torholt: Brepols, 1993), chapter 2. 96. Rosemond Tuve, “Notes on the Virtues and Vices, Part 1,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 26 (1963), p. 267 [264–303], identifies 172 NOTES

Aristotle, Cicero, Macrobius, and the “Pseudo Seneca,” Martin of Braga, as the “four streams” of classical thought that inform this tradition. 97. D. L. Burnley, Chaucer’s Language and the Philosopher’s Tradition (Cambridge, UK: D. S. Brewer, 1979), pp. 82–116; pp. 151–70, is particularly good at tracing the ways that prudence was adapted to a Christian model of compassion. 98. See Warner and Newman, n. 34, for this larger tradition. In relation to prudence, see J. A. Burrow, “The Third Eye of Prudence,” Medieval Futures: Attitudes to the Future in the Middle Ages, ed. J. A. Burrow and Ian P. Wei (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell and Brewer, 2000), 37–48. 99. See A. J. Minnis and A. B. Scott, eds., with assistance from David Wallace, Medieval Literary Theory and Criticism c. 1100–1375: The Commentary Tradition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), pp. 212–76, for a discussion and examples of the quaestio or the disputatio. Prudence’s style is more similar to these fictions of orality than to interactive or performative models (such as the quodlibet). 100. This is David Wallace’s phrase, which forms part of his chapter’s title. His concluding suggestion, Chaucerian Polity, p. 246, that women’s “household rhetoric” cannot be “acknowledged as political work,” indicates his aware- ness of the female invisibility that this discourse mandates for women (emphasis original). 101. See n. 89, earlier, for full citations. 102. Wallace, Chaucerian Polity, p. 225; Farmer, “Persuasive Voices,” 517–43, also cites instances in which women are urged to use persuasion, even deception, in order to make sure husbands dispense property to the church. 103. Paul Strohm, “Queens as Intercessors,” Hochon’s Arrow: The Social Imagination of Fourteenth-Century Texts (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), pp. 95–120. As Strohm points out, the decline in queenly authority from its zenith in the twelfth century resulted in the formation of a new feminine role, that of intercessor. This type of influence relied on appeals to the female body, either as alluring or as vulnerable. Strohm acknowledges, in contrast, that this kind of female authority is different than Prudence’s “good counselor” role. 104. Patricia Parker, Literary Fat Ladies: Rhetoric, Gender, Property (New York: Methuen, 1987); and Lee Patterson, “ ‘For the Wyves love of Bathe’: Feminine Rhetoric and Poetic Resolution in the Roman de la Rose and the Canterbury Tales,” Speculum 58 (1983): 656–95. 105. Wallace, Chaucerian Polity, p. 218. 106. Wallace, Chaucerian Polity, p. 221. Wallace suggests the most common “go-betweens” are wives and friars, but most of his examples have to do with the ways that wives prevent masculine violence in the private space of the domestic. 107. See The Good Wife Taught Her Daughter, The Good Wyfe Wold a Pylgremage, The Thewis of Gud Women, ed. Tauno F. Mustanoja (Helsinki: Suomalaisan Kirjallisuuden Seuran, 1948), E.V.24–7. NOTES 173

108. For example, in The Consail and Teiching at the Vys Man Gaif His Sone, Ratis Raving and other Moral and Religious Pieces in Prose and Verse, ed. J. R. Lumby, EETS 43 (Oxford: Oxford University Press for EETS, 1870), the father repeatedly suggests this to his son. 109. The most famous example of this in Chaucer’s canon is summed up by the Wife of Bath’s story of Midas’s wife, who could not keep the secret that her husband had “asses eres” (III. 954) growing on his head. See chapter 4 for a discussion of the Wife’s relations to secrecy and visibility. 110. Burnley, Chaucer’s Language and the Philosopher’s Tradition, p. 52. 111. See Le Mesnagier de Paris, ed. Georgina E. Brereton and Janet M. Ferrier, trad. Karin Ueltschi, Lettres Gothiques (Paris: Librarie Générale Française, 1994) I.ix (pp. 324–407). 112. William Caxton, The Book of the Knight of the Tower, ed. M. Y. Offord, EETS, Supplementary Series, 2 (London: Oxford University Press for EETS, 1971), lxxv. 27–28; 33–34. 113. As Biernoff, Sight and Embodiment, argues, p. 172, “In the sense that a woman’s ‘head’ was her husband or father, she lacked the necessary social and symbolic organs to represent the entire corporeal hierarchy. Instead, defined primarily by her reproductive function, she served as man’s body, both literally and metaphorically.” 114. Also see Wayne Rebhorn, The Emperor of Men’s Minds: Literature and the Renaissance Discourse of Rhetoric (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995) who suggests that early modern discussions of rhetorical restraint use the image of a discreet woman to suggest this virtue. 115. A flyleaf poem written around 1464 expresses the popular sentiment that Henry VI’s troubles derived from his marriage to Margaret of Anjou in terms that illustrate Melibee’s worries about gendered visibility. Once Henry was able to ride over England (in a gesture that recalls Melibee’s roaming over the fields) dressed in cloth of red gold; but now, after allowing his wife to rule his counsel, he dares not show himself. Henry, sig- nificantly, makes his complaint beside a hall underneath a hill, from which he claims Margaret “was the cause of all my mon.” The poem’s refrain, taken as its title, “God Amend Wykkyd Cownscell,” associates visible wifely agency with the dissolution of a man’s public image. See Rossell Hope Robbins, ed., “God Amende Wykkyd Cownscell,” Neuphilogische Mitteilungen 57 (1956): 94–102, for the text of the 53–line poem. 116. W. Arthur Turner, “Biblical Women in The Merchant’s Tale and The Tale of Melibee,” English Language Notes 3 (1965): 92–95. 117. Daniel Kempton, “Chaucer’s Tale of Melibee: ‘A litel thing in prose,’” Genre 21 (1988): 263–78, points out that Prudence invokes contradictory authorities in a manner similar to a scholastic Book of Sentences. 118. John S. P. Tatlock, The Development and Chronology of Chaucer’s Works (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1963), p. 189. 119. The classic treatment of Chaucer’s valorization of suffering is Georgia Ronan Crampton, The Condition of Creatures: Suffering and Action in Chaucer 174 NOTES

and Spenser (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974). See L. O. Aranye Fradenburg, Sacrifice Your Love: Psychoanalysis, Historicism, Chaucer (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002), pp. 1–41 for a theorization of sacrifice’s relation to the multiple states of enjoyment. 120. See Burrow, “The Third Eye of Prudence,” for a discussion of this iconographic tradition. Akbari, Seeing through the Veil, p. 7, classifies Prudence’s mirror as “the good mirror which makes visible what could otherwise never be perceived. . .the helpful mirror of foresight held by Prudence.” 121. Burrow, “The Third Eye of Prudence,” pp. 39–41. 122. Bacon, Opus Majus, Pt. VI.ex.iii, “Chapter on the Third Prerogative or the Dignity of the Experimental Art,” 2: 632: [ut tactum est in futurorum praesentium et praeteritorum cognitione speciali, atque in operum mirabilium exhibitione pro Ecclesia et Republica (Bridges, 2: 220)]. 123. See Strohm, Hochon’s Arrow, pp. 110–11, and Farmer, “Persuasive Voices,” pp. 517–43, who distinguish between wife as sensible (assertive) counselor and vulnerable (passive) intercessor. 124. See Dolores Palermo, “What Chaucer Really Did to Le Livre de Melibee,” Philological Quarterly 53 (1974), p. 306; 316 [304–20], whose dismissals of Prudence derive from her sense that the tale is a “pretentious and undistin- guished piece of bourgeois moralizing” that is vulgar for its very disruption of gender order. Later, she makes the gendered stakes of the Thopas-Melibee explicit, suggesting that Prudence is a joke because the tale satirizes her overblown rhetorical style: “While Sir Thopas exudes a sort of medieval machismo. . .in the Melibee, by way of contrast, a domineering albeit polite wife argues her husband into acquiescence.” Turner, “Biblical Women in The Merchant’s Tale,” p. 94, calls Prudence “insufferably patient and pedantic.” Charles Muscatine, Chaucer and the French Tradition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1957), p. 207, asks “What wife was ever so learned or pedantic as Prudence in Chaucer’s Melibee?” 125. Edward E. Foster, “Has Anyone Here Read Melibee?” Chaucer Review 34 (2000): 398 [398–409]. I am interested in Foster’s excuses for Melibee’s unpopularity because they admit and justify Melibee’s status as Chaucer’s invisible tale, although his reading only applies to later audiences. For analyses of the tale’s manuscript- and print-traditions, which attest to its popularity, see John M. Manly and Edith Rickert, The Text of the Canterbury Tales, Studied on the Basis of All Known Manuscripts, 8 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940), 2: 371–72; Seth Lerer, “ ‘Now holde youre mouth’: The Romance of Orality in the Thopas-Melibee Section of the Canterbury Tales,” Oral Poetics in Middle English Poetry, ed. M. C. Amodio (New York: Garland, 1994), pp. 181–202; Daniel S. Sylvia, “Some Fifteenth-Century Manuscripts of the Canterbury Tales,” Chaucer and Middle English Studies in Honor of Rossell Hope Robbins, ed. Beryl Rowland (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1974), pp. 153–63. 126. To be fair, most readers do not say that Prudence is tedious (with notable exceptions; see n. 124). In fact, most critics who dismiss the tale as boring, dull, or tedious assign this fault to Chaucer or his source. Yet the simple NOTES 175

truth is that Prudence speaks for much of the tale. So, when Ruth Waterhouse and Gwen Griffiths, “ ‘Sweete Wordes’ of Non-Sense: The Deconstruction of the Moral Melibee, part I” Chaucer Review 23 (1989): 338, [338–61], claim that “It is not necessary to read far into the tale to realize that its truly tedious surface level can have such a soporific effect upon an audience,” the droning to which they refer is Prudence’s speaking. 127. There are three traditional views of the tale: it stands as a marker of medieval alterity, more popular then than now; it serves as an example of Chaucerian irony, as a joke on any number of targets; or it serves as a moral / historical allegory, a structural point that gives shape to the Canterbury collection. For the “difference theory,” see E. Talbot Donaldson, ed. Chaucer’s Poetry (New York: Ronald Press, 1975), p. 937; and Lee Patterson, “What Man Artow?” 117–75; for the “joke theory,” see Trevor Whittock, A Reading of the “Canterbury Tales” (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), pp. 210–13; John Gardner, The Life and Times of Chaucer (New York: Knopf, 1977), pp. 291–96; for “allegory readings,” see Donald R. Howard, The Idea of the Canterbury Tales (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976), p. 309; Lynn Staley Johnson, “Inverse Counsel: Contexts for the Melibee,” Studies in Philology 87 (1990): 137–55; Paul Strohm, “The Allegory of the Tale of Melibee,” Chaucer Review 2 (1967): 32–42. 128. Richard Firth Green, Poets and Princepleasers: Literature and the English Court in the Late Middle Ages (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1980), p. 164. 129. My reading thus disagrees with Mari Pakkala-Weckström, “Prudence and the Power of Persuasion—Language and Maistrie in the Tale of Melibee,” Chaucer Review 35 (2001): 399–412. 130. Paul Strohm, Hochon’s Arrow, pp. 104–5, n. 9, reports a conversation with Susan Crane in which together they come up with an economical rendering of the point of this chapter: “The possibility arises, in other words, that what appears to be a prescription for female conduct might not be about women at all, but only a way of saying something further about men.” 131. Indeed, Paul Strohm, “The Allegory,” p. 34, suggests that readers’ difficulties with the tale arise from the “curious passivity” Prudence recommends in the face of foes who, according to one exegetical tradition, are meant to be fought with concentrated agency. 132. In early printed Chaucers, the Melibee is often identified as “Chaucer’s Tale.” 133. See particularly Alan T. Gaylord, “Sentence and Solaas in Fragment VII of the Canterbury Tales: Harry Bailly as Horseback Editor,” PMLA 82 (1967): 226–35. 134. The historical associations of the tale have been asserted and renewed. In the 1940s the critical debate focused on whether Chaucer’s translation of a work recommending patience in a ruler was directed to prevent John of Gaunt’s impending campaign to support his wife’s claim to the throne of Castile. See, J. Leslie Hotson, “The Tale of Melibeus and John of Gaunt,” Studies in Philology 18 (1921): 429–52; W.W. Lawrence, “The Tale of Melibeus,” pp. 100–110. Gardiner Stillwell, “The Political Meaning of Chaucer’s Tale of Melibee,” Speculum 19 (1944): 433–44, 176 NOTES

anticipates my argument that men realized long ago that personal matters retained political importance, arguing as he does that Prudence might be a model of wifely counselor that Anne was perhaps being urged to assume in royal affairs. Later reassessments of the political valence of the tale include William Askins, “The Tale of Melibee and the Crisis at Westminster, November, 1387,” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 2 (1986): 103–12; V. J. Scattergood, “Chaucer and the French War: Sir Thopas and Melibee,” Court and Poet: Selected Proceedings of the Third Congress of the International Courtly Literature Society, ed. Glyn S. Burgess (Liverpool: Cairns, 1980), pp. 287–96; R. F. Yeager, “Pax Poetica, On the Pacifism of Chaucer and Gower,” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 9 (1987): 97–122; Johnson, “Inverse Counsel,” p.141, acknowledges the gender transgression that Prudence’s advice entails: “She begins by undercutting two tenets of a predominately male and hierarchical society.” 135. Judith Ferster, “Chaucer’s Tale of Melibee: Contradictions and Context,” Inscribing the Hundred Years’ War in French and English Cultures, ed. Denise N. Baker (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2000), p. 82 [73–89], comments on the flexible topicality of the poem in terms evocative of invisibility: “But the notion of disguise could also be used to explain the fact that the tale is a self-consuming artifact. What better disguise is there than to pretend not to be saying anything at all?”

Chapter 2 Portrait of a Father as a Bad Man: Visible Pressure in the Physician’s Tale 1. Anne Middleton, “The Physician’s Tale and Love’s Martyrs: ‘Ensamples Mo Than Ten’ as a Method in the Canterbury Tales,” Chaucer Review 8 (1973): 9 [9–32], counters the argument that this tale is uncharacteristic for Chaucer in terms I find particularly compelling: “it is so utterly and modestly Chaucerian that it is practically invisible” (emphasis mine). 2. Nevill Coghill’s condemnation of the tale’s “horrifying piece of senti- mental savagery” in his essay “Chaucer’s Narrative Art in the Canterbury Tales,” Chaucer and Chaucerians: Critical Studies in Middle English Literature, ed. Derek Brewer (Birmingham: University of Alabama Press, 1966), p. 126 [114–39], is an extreme expression of a sentiment echoed by many. I have found John Hirsch’s “Modern Times: The Discourse of the Physician’s Tale,” Chaucer Review 27 (1993): 387–95, useful insofar as he reads the tale as a response to a “modern” shift in cultural perspective that becomes more dominant in the early modern age, what we might look forward to as Stephen Greenblatt’s notion of “self-fashioning,” Renaissance Self- Fashioning: from More to Shakespeare (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980). 3. For recent assessments of the tale’s suspension between history and fable, see Angus Fletcher, “The Sentencing of Virginia in the Physician’s Tale,” Chaucer Review 34 (2000): 300–308; Andrew Welsh, “Story and Wisdom in Chaucer: The Physician’s Tale and The Manciple’s Tale,” Manuscript, Narrative, NOTES 177

Lexicon: Essays on Literary and Cultural Transmission in Honor of Whitney F. Bolton, ed. Robert Boenig and Kathleen Davis (Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press, 2000), pp. 76–95. Brian S. Lee, “The Position and Purpose of the Physician’s Tale,” Chaucer Review 22 (1987): 141–60, discusses the tale as a homiletic exemplum. See Helen Corsa, ed., The Physician’s Tale, A Variorum Edition of the Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, vol. 2, part 17 (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987), for a summary of criticism linking the tale to different literary forms. 4. P. B. Taylor, “Chaucer’s ‘Cosyn to the Dede,’ ” Speculum 57 (1982), p. 316, n. 1 [315–27], suggests that Virginia’s deception is the kind Augustine classifies as innocuous in his De mendacio because it is the kind of lie “that save[s] innocence or protect[s] purity.” As he further notes, Chaucer would have been well aware of Augustine’s classification since the Parson reproduces almost verbatim in his tale (X. 608–10). 5. Livy, From the Founding of the City: Books Three and Four, trans. B. O. Foster, in Livy II, Loeb Classical Library 233 (1959; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), pp. 142–67. Guillaume de Lorris and Jean de Meun, Le Roman de la Rose, ed. Félix Lecoy, 3 vols. (Paris: H. Champion, 1965–70), 1:559–628. For a discussion of Chaucer’s potential familiarity with Livy, see Bruce Harvert, “Chaucer and the Latin Classics,” Writers and Their Background: Chaucer, ed. D. Brewer (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1975), pp. 137–53. 6. Jerome Mandel, “Governance in the Physician’s Tale,” Chaucer Review 10 (1976): 324 [316–25], in the ultimate patriarchal metaphor, compares Viginius’s mercy to God’s. 7. Almost everyone who discusses this tale in detail, however, sees this passage (which is actually an example of amplificatio not digressio) as important. John S. P. Tatlock, The Development and Chronology of Chaucer’s Works (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1963), p. 153, who uses these lines to suggest an historical connection that helps situate the tale as one of Chaucer’s first in the Canterbury collection, makes a particularly strong statement: “no such serious, overt and practical criticism of life is to be found any- where else in the Canterbury Tales.” Recently, Michael Uebel, “Public Fantasy and the Logic of Sacrifice in the Physician’s Tale,” American Notes and Queries, 15 (2002): 30–33, suggests that this tale’s focus on private governance is designed to maintain social unity. Sarah Stanbury, “The Body and the City in Pearl,” Representations 48 (1994): 30–47, traces the ways that a woman’s body allegorically stands for the paradisal city, pointing to the fragilities its contingencies reveal. 8. George Lyman Kittredge, “Chaucer and Some of His Friends,” Modern Philology 1 (1903): 1–18, first connected this passage to the elopement of Elizabeth of Lancaster, as I shall discuss later. Most accept this connection, but George Cowling, Chaucer (London: Methuen, 1927) links it to a different royal incident involving the abduction of Elizabeth of Halle in 1387. As both episodes suggest, the fashion in which daughters behave, or con- versely, the manner in which men treat noble women, has public impact on political dealings. 178 NOTES

9. Sheila Delany, in both her article, “Politics and the Paralysis of Poetic Imagination in The Physician’s Tale,” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 3 (1981): 47–60, and her book, Medieval Literary Politics: Shapes of Ideology (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1990), argues that Chaucer’s domestication of the tale’s sources diminishes its artistic and political impact. My reading parts ways with her strictly Marxist account, principally because I stand with a (Marxist-feminist) theorist like Catharine MacKinnon, Towards a Feminist Theory of the State (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), pp. 119–20, who claims “the personal as political is not a simile, not a metaphor, and not an analogy. It does not mean that what occurs in personal life is similar to, or comparable with, what occurs in the public arena. It is not an application of categories from public life to the private world, as when Engels (followed by Bebel) says that in the family the husband is bourgeois and the wife represents the proletariat. . .what it is to know the politics of woman’s situation is to know women’s personal lives, particularly women’s sexual lives.” Although Mandel, “Governance in the Physician’s Tale,” p. 320, takes up the relation between absolutism and martyrdom in the tale in a more abstract fashion than I will do here, I am much influenced by his argument that the tale’s concern is with “fraud, art, and governance” as it is figured through the (gendered) politics of the domestic. 10. Aristotle, De Generatione Animalium, Aristotle: Generation of Animals, trans. A. L. Peck, Loeb Classical Library 366 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), p. 109. 11. It is no accident that a tale embedded with court scandal ends up being about a scandalous court. Court, both the royal and legal arenas, are spaces of presentment, of seeing and being seen, hopefully in the ways that one designs. My thinking here is indebted to Susan Crane, The Performance of Self: Ritual, Clothing, and Identity During the Hundred Years War (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002), pp. 39–64; pp. 78–87, who claims that royal and legal courts are spaces of visible ritual in medieval culture. I am also influenced by thinkers who address our own spectacles of court. See Shoshana Felman, The Juridical Unconscious: Trials and Traumas in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002), pp. 54–105, who discusses what courts keep invisible in modern trials. As we all know, there are certain things that jurors are simply not allowed to see in a courtroom; also, as Andrea Dworkin argues, “Trying to Flee,” Los Angeles Times, October 8, 1995, p. M6, sometimes there are certain things that jurors simply refuse to see when they sit in judgment. The violence that attends this interplay, between making certain things visible as “facts” and keeping others concealed as “immaterial,” is the dynamics that Chaucer’s tale takes up at the most basic level. 12. Charles A. Owen, Jr., “Relationship between the Physician’s Tale and the Parson’s Tale,” Modern Language Notes 71 (1956): 84–87; Raymond Preston, Chaucer (London: Sheed and Ward, 1952), p. 228; and Nevill Coghill, “Chaucer’s Narrative Art,” p. 128, all claim that these lines are spoken in Chaucer’s own voice. Owen, “Relationship between the Physician’s Tale” NOTES 179

p. 85, argues that their “emotional temperature” suggests that they are Chaucer’s public comment (of condemnation) on this royal scandal. 13. See R. Howard Bloch, Medieval Misogyny and the Invention of Western Romantic Love (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), pp. 49–63, which is a distillation of his important article, “Chaucer’s Maiden’s Head: ‘The Physician’s Tale’ and the Poetics of Virginity,” Representations 28 (1989): 113–34. Bloch, Medieval Misogyny, p. 104, discusses the feminine’s connection with the unruly and seductive art of rhetoric (which was likened to the female flesh), and also suggests that Chaucer’s Physician’s Tale “explores. . .the violence of perception, or, more specifically, of the look.” Rita Copeland, “The Pardoner’s Body and the Disciplining of Rhetoric,” Framing Medieval Bodies, ed. Sarah Kay and Miri Rubin (New York: Manchester University Press, 1994), pp. 138–59, points out that theorists claimed the undisciplined body of rhetoric “is a sexually wayward body. . .and that the disciplinary permeability of rhetoric is nothing less than ambiguity of gender.” 14. See the continuation of Ranulph Higden’s Polychronicon, The Westminster Chronicle, 1381–94, ed. and trans. L. C. Hector and Barbara F. Harvey (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), pp. 192–93. 15. Kittredge, “Chaucer and Some of His Friends,” p. 5, n. 7. 16. Michael Camille, “The Image and the Self: Unwriting Late Medieval Bodies,” Framing Medieval Bodies, p. 77 [62–99]. 17. Huling E. Ussery, Chaucer’s Physician: Medicine and Literature in Fourteenth- Century England (New Orleans: Tulane University Press, 1971), p. 135; John Gardner, The Poetry of Chaucer (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1977), p. 296; and, George Williams, A New View of Chaucer (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1965), p. 162, who claim that the advice would more likely have been directed toward Chaucer’s own wife, Philippa, who served longer in John of Gaunt’s household than her sister. His reasoning is similarly based on a feeling that Swynford would have been beyond even veiled reproach. 18. Westminster Chronicle, 1381–94, pp. 192–93: [“set illa viripotens tunc effecta in regalem cuiram est delata ad conspicandum gestus aulicos et mores eorum”]. 19. Emerson Brown, Jr., “What Is Chaucer Doing with the Physician and His Tale?” Philological Quarterly 60 (1981), p. 134 [129–49], makes a similar point: “The Physician’s Tale demonstrates that no matter how perfect a child is and how free from the need of a ‘maistresse,’ she can still be destroyed by wicked forces beyond her or her parents’ control. That hardly seems an exemplum calculated to keep parents and governesses on their toes.” 20. Westminster Chronicle, 1381–94 pp. 192–93: [“set illa viripotens tunc effecta in regalem curiam est delata ad conspicandum gestus aulicos et mores eorum. Quam ut aspexit dominus Johannes Holand, frater domini regis nunc ex parte materna, vehementer captus est ejus amore, propter quod die notuque eam sollicitavit; tamen per permporum intervalla tandem tam fatue illam allexit sic quod tempore transitus domini ducis per eum extitit / impregnata”]. 180 NOTES

21. Virginia’s passivity thus fits with Sigmund Freud’s formulation of its normative function in his, “Femininity” (1933), Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, ed. and trans. James Strachey, 24 vols. (London: Hogarth Press, 1964), vol. 22, p. 115 [112–35]: “One might consider characterizing femininity psychologically as giving prefer- ence to passive aims. This is not, of course, the same thing as passivity; to achieve a passive aim may call for a large amount of activity.” I have discussed this formulation of feminine passivity as it relates to constructions of masculinity in my article, “Performative Passivity and Fantasies of Masculinity in Chaucer’s Merchant’s Tale,” Chaucer Review 38 (2003): 178–98. 22. Frederick Tupper, “Chaucer’s Bed’s Head. I. Chaucer and Ambrose,” Modern Language Notes 30 (1915): 5–7; Karl Young, “The Maidenly Virtues of Chaucer’s Virginia,” Speculum 16 (1941): 340–49; Martha S. Waller, “The Physician’s Tale: Geoffrey Chaucer and Fray Juan Garcia de Castrojeriz,” Speculum 51 (1976): 292–306. 23. As Waller explains in The Physician’s Tale, p. 300, n. 15, this metaphor “may owe something to the numerous figures derived from hunting in the Roman de la Rose.” 24. See Karma Lochrie’s excellent chapter on gossip in her Covert Operations: Medieval Uses of Secrecy (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999), pp. 56–92, where she makes the following observation, important to my interpretation of invisibility in conduct discourse: “Gossip was also associated with a kind of insurrectionary discourse on the part of women as a marginalized medieval community, one that existed alongside—but also in resistance to—a variety of institutionalized, written discourses,” (p. 57). See also Patricia Meyer Spacks, Gossip (New York: Knopf, 1985), p. 12, who acknowledges gossip’s ability to shore up dominant structures of visible control despite its purportedly invisible operation. 25. For examples, see “The Gossips’ Meeting,” Jyl of Breyntford’s Testament and Other Poems, ed. Frederick J. Furnivall (London: Printed for private circulation, 1871), p. 29; “Good Gossips,” Songs and Carols of the Fifteenth Century, ed. Thomas Wright (London: T. Richards, 1856), pp. 91–95; 104–107. 26. Wakefied Master, Noah, Medieval Drama, ed. David Bevington (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1975), pp. 290–305. 27. They are, then, agents of the public law, which Slavoj Vivek, The Metastases of Enjoyment: Six Essays on Women and Causality (London: Verso, 1994), argues depends on its written, visible dimension for its power. As Vivek points out, p. 57, ignorance of the public law is no excuse; since the public law is available to be known, it achieves greater jurisdictional scope. 28. In Slavoj Vivek, The Fragile Absolute, or Why is the Christian Legacy Worth Fighting For? (London: Verso, 2000), p. 149, he suggests that transgression is a support of the regulatory system of the law because it justifies its existence. 29. This tactic fits with Larry Scanlon’s definition of the “public exemplum,” Narrative, Authority, and Power: The Medieval Exemplum and the Chaucerian Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 81–88, NOTES 181

which he claims often operates through negative examples. Virginia’s tale corresponds to Scanlon’s definition of the exemplum, p. 34, as “a narrative enactment of cultural authority,” but it does so in gendered ways that com- plicate a straightforward binary of power, or that points to the monarch as a centralizing oversight against legal abuse. 30. From the time of the Norman conquest (and arguably before), the forest was an idea, a jurisdiction of royal authority. As Charles R. Young explains, The Royal Forests of Medieval England (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1979), p. 3: “the royal forest was first of all an area in which a special kind of law—the forest law—applied. . .From its beginning the royal forest was to some extent an artificial creation that included lands without woods and villages that were alien to the idea of a forest in any physical meaning of the term.” G. J. Turner, in his, “Introduction,” Select Pleas of the Forest, ed. G. J. Turner, Selden Society, vol. 13 (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1901), p. ix, [ix–cxxxiv], explains the social arrangements that emerge from the forest as a legal district governed by the king: “But although the king or a subject might be seised of a forest, he was not necessarily seised of all the land which it comprised. Other persons might possess lands within the bounds of a forest, but were not allowed the right of hunting or of cutting trees in them at their own will.” 31. The law of the forest was established with the arrival of the Normans. The boundaries of the legitimate royal forest was a cause of continual dispute between the kings and the barons until they reached a settlement, which was included in the Magna Carta. These provisions were expanded and clarified in 1217 in the Forest Charter. The statute of 1327 established the perambulations of the forest for the late Middle Ages, since they were confirmed by Richard II in a statute of 1383. Since the forest law was a legal system that developed separately from common law, it produced its own administrative class. Besides foresters, who patrolled the forests to protect the king’s game, there were wardens and rangers over the forests, making the forest districts very heavily surveilled areas. 32. Barbara A. Hanawalt, “Men’s Game, King’s Deer: Poaching in Medieval England,” “Of Good and Ill Repute”: Gender and Social Control in Medieval England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 143; p. 154 [142–57]. 33. Qtd. in Hanawalt, Of Good and Ill Repute, p. 153. 34. Young, Royal Forests, 107–8, suggests about half of poachers hunted for sport. This does not mean that all of those who hunted for sport saw their activity as a type of political affront, although when they were caught they would be charged with a crime that treated their practice as such. 35. By the late fourteenth century, Young, Royal Forests, suggests that the system of apportioning the offices of forester (and warden) had in effect become hereditary appointments of patronage to the king’s favorites. This meant that many foresters took the post for the prestige or income, not the work: “by the fourteenth century many of the forest officials were performing their duties by deputy while enjoying the income from the offices. Both because of the authority of their offices and the abuses of power, the foresters earned for themselves a bad reputation” (p. 164). 182 NOTES

Foresters, then, were visibly tied to the king, but their performance of duty was more for personal gain. This historical situation seemingly complicates Chaucer’s use of the poaching metaphor even further, because it suggests that a poacher turned forester works for personal interest, but now cloaks that action in the guise of respectable authority. 36. See Jean Birrell, “Who Poached the King’s Deer? A Study in Thirteenth Century Crime,” Midland History 7 (1982): 9–25, who discusses habitual poachers who acquired venison for others. 37. Birrell, “Who Poached the King’s Deer?” pp. 9–25. 38. Besides the varying kinds of female guides who aid the lover in Le Roman de la Rose, there is the tradition of female bawd exemplified in what is known as the “weeping bitch” motif. In these stories, of which Dame Sirith is probably best known [Dame Sirith, The Trials and Joys of Marriage, ed. Eve Salisbury (Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute, 2002)], a young man seeks the aid of an old woman, who helps him win his lady’s love through deception. See John Hines, The Fabliau in English (London: Longman, 1993), for a discussion of this tradition. 39. Nicole Nolan Sidhu, “Go-Betweens: The Old Woman and the Function of Obscenity in the Fabliaux,” Comic Provocations: Exposing the Corpus of Old French Fabliaux, ed. Holly A. Crocker (New York: Palgrave, 2006), pp. 45–60. 40. Sidhu, “Go-Betweens,” p. 52. For the text of Auberee, see Recueil Complet des Fabliaux, eds. Willem Noomen and Nico van den Boogaard, 10 vols. (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1983–98) 1: 4. 41. Select Documents of English Constitutional History, ed. George Burton and H. Morse Stephens (1901; New York: Macmillan, 1930), 72.2. See J. G. Bellamy, The Law of Treason in England in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), pp. 59–101, for a discussion of the parameters of this statute. 42. Paul Strohm, Hochon’s Arrow: The Social Imagination of Fourteenth-Century Texts (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), pp. 121–44; Frances Dolan, “Battered Women, Petty Traitors, and the Legacy of Coverture,” Feminist Studies 29 (2003): 249–77. 43. Robin L. Bott, “ ‘O, Keep Me from Their Worse than Killing Lust’: Ideologies of Rape and Mutilation in Chaucer’s Physician’s Tale and Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus,” Representing Rape in Medieval and Early Modern Literature, ed. Elizabeth Robertson and Christine M. Rose (New York: Palgrave, 2001), pp. 189–211, argues that the shame associated with rape is figured as a disease that must be removed before it infects the male body. 44. Chaucer’s Complaint of Mars, due to an attributive gloss by copyist John Shirley, has also been connected to John Holland’s scandalous behavior, both with Isabel of York and with Elizabeth of Lancaster. See Walter W. Skeat, The Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1899), pp. 65–66; pp. 86–87, for further details. 45. Westminster Chronicle, 1381–94 pp. 72–75; pp. 122–23; pp. 144–45; pp. 158–61. NOTES 183

46. Sydney Armitage-Smith, John of Gaunt (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1964), p. 459. 47. Westminster Chronicle, 1381–94 pp. 294–95; pp. 342–43; pp. 450–51. 48. Holland served as constable in Lancaster’s army. See Henry Knighton, Chronicon Henrici Knighton vel Cnitthon, monachi, Leycestrensis, ed. J. R. Lumby, 2 vols. (Rolls Series, 1865–86), ii. 207, and Westminster Chronicle, 1381–94 pp. 164–65. 49. “regard,” deriving as it does from the French “regarder,” principally means “to look at, gaze upon, observe.” In the Middle Ages it had an even more plain connection to regulation because it was a legal term. Under forest law, the “regard” was, according to Young, Royal Forest, “an institution that provided a general survey of the vert and of encroachments upon the forest” (p. 157). Also see Turner, Select Pleas of the Forest, pp. lxxv–lxxxvii, who discusses the practice and its procedures in detail. 50. Froissart, Chronicles, ed. and trans., Geoffrey Brereton (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1978), p. 448. 51. Froissart, Chronicles, pp. 450–51. 52. Froissart, Chronicles, p. 467. 53. Froissart, Chronicles, pp. 467–68. 54. See René Girard, Deceit, Desire, and the Novel: Self and Other in Literary Structure, trans. Yvonne Freccero (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1966), pp. 1–52; Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985), pp. 1–27; and Gayle Rubin, “The Traffic in Women: Notes on the ‘Political Economy’ of Sex,” Towards an Anthropology of Women, ed. Rayna R. Reiter (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1975), pp. 157–210, for a discussion of the three interrelated concepts of masculine rivalry, triangulation of male homosocial desire, and the traffic in women that enable such rivalries and triangulations. 55. Here I refer to Walsingham’s report of Richard II’s dismissal of the rebels’ petition for political recognition following the 1381 rebellion: “Rustics you were and rustics you are still; you will remain in bondage, not as before but incomparably harsher,” Historia Anglicana, qtd. in R. B. Dobson, ed., The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 (London: Macmillan, 1970), p. 311. For the Latin, see Thomas Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, ed. H. T. Riley, 2 vols. (London, 1863–64), 2: 18: “Rustici quidem fuistis et estis; in bondagio permanebitis.” It should be noted that Walsingham’s “rustici” could also be translated “churls.” 56. Delany, “Politics and the Paralysis of Poetic Imagination,” pp. 47–60. 57. Delany, “Politics and the Paralysis of Poetic Imagination,” p. 52. 58. Paul Strohm, Social Chaucer (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), p. 159. 59. Linda Lomperis, “Unruly Bodies and Ruling Practices: Chaucer’s Physician’s Tale as Socially Symbolic Act,” Feminist Approaches to the Body in Medieval Literature, ed. Linda Lomperis and Sarah Stanbury (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993), p. 29 [21–37]. 184 NOTES

60. Glenn Burger, Chaucer’s Queer Nation, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003), pp. 53–54; pp. 131–39. 61. David Wallace, Chaucerian Polity: Absolutist Lineages and Associational Forms in England and Italy (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), p. 109, suggests that Appius’s gaze is “tyrannical.” 62. Vivek, The Metastases of Enjoyment, p. 74. 63. Lynda E. Boose, “The Father’s House and the Daughter in It: The Structures of Western Culture’s Daughter-Father Relationship,” Daughters and Fathers, ed. Lynda E. Boose and Betty S. Flowers (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989), pp. 19–74. 64. As Sedgwick, Between Men, points out, p. 50, cuckoldry is a bond between men that is “necessarily hierarchical in structure,” serving as it does to distinguish men from one another on a sliding scale of worth. 65. According to Luce Irigaray, The Sex Which Is Not One, trans. Catherine Porter (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985) p. 183, women should not be able to govern female sexuality if men intend to exchange them amongst themselves for power and profit: “Commodities can only enter into relationships under the watchful eyes of their ‘guardians.’ ” 66. See Katherine J. Lewis, “Model Girls? Virgin-Martyrs and the Training of Young Women in Late Medieval England,” Young Medieval Women, ed. Katherine J. Lewis, Noël James Menuge, and Kim M. Phillips (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999), pp. 25–46, is particularly helpful in tracing this practice in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. 67. Middleton, “The Physician’s Tale and Love’s Martyrs,” p. 19; Fletcher, “The Sentencing of Virginia,” p. 305. 68. William Caxton, The Book of the Knight of the Tower, ed. M. Y Offord, EETS Supplementary Series, 2 (London: Oxford University Press for EETS, 1971), p. 28 (lines 11–13; 14–15). Also see p. 72 (lines 20–31), which instructs virtuous women to dress modestly to honor God and family. 69. Christine de Pizan, A Medieval Woman’s Mirror of Honor: The Treasury of the City of Ladies, ed. Madeleine Pelner Cosman, trans. Charity Cannon Willard, (New York: Persea Books, 1989), p. 203. 70. Middleton, “The Physician’s Tale and Love’s Martyrs,” p. 17. 71. Middleton, “The Physician’s Tale and Love’s Martyrs,” p. 26. 72. Tupper, “Chaucer’s Bed’s Head,” pp. 5–7; Young, “The Maidenly Virtues,” pp. 340–49; Waller, “The Physician’s Tale,” pp. 292–306. 73. See Waller, “The Physician’s Tale,” pp. 293–94, for this genealogy. She claims that Don Bernabe, Bishop of Osma charged in 1344 with the education of the five-year-old heir to the Castilian throne, Infante Pedro, comis- sioned Fray Juan Garcia de Castrojeriz to prepare a Castilian version of Aegidius’s treatise. Castrojeriz’s verion, which contained extensive commentary, was widely copied and circulated in manuscript, and was printed in Seville in 1494. The infante Pedro became Peter I of Castile (the Cruel), whose assassination in 1369 Chaucer treated in the Monk’s Tale. Waller suggests that Chaucer may have had access to this text, either on a visit to Spain in 1366 or after Constance, Peter’s heir, became John of Gaunt’s second NOTES 185

wife. Waller’s contention, p. 305, that “It appears likely indeed that the literate and religious Constance should have taken to England with her the volume prepared by her grandmother’s confessor for her father’s instruc- tion with its chapters devoted to the nurture of noblemen’s children,” is suggestive to my argument, because it also connects the instructions to parents and governesses in John of Gaunt’s household, here through a different wife. 74. H. Marshall Leicester, Jr., The Disenchanted Self: Representing the Subject in the “Canterbury Tales,” (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), p. 117. 75. J. D. W. Crowther, “Chaucer’s Physician’s Tale and its ‘Saint,’ ” English Studies in Canada 8 (1982): 125–37. 76. Sandra Pierson Prior, “Virginity and Sacrifice in Chaucer’s Physician’s Tale,” Constructions of Widowhood and Virginity in the Middle Ages, ed. Cindy Carlson and Angela Jane Weisl (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999), pp. 165–80. 77. Prior, “Virginity and Sacrifice,”, p. 170. 78. Fletcher, “The Sentencing of Virginia in the Physician’s Tale,” p. 306; Hirsch, “Modern Times,” pp. 388, 390; See Diane Speed, “Language and Perspective in the Physician’s Tale,” Words and Wordsmiths: A Volume for H. L. Rogers, ed. Geraldine Barnes, et al. (Sydney: University of Sydney Press, 1989), pp. 119–36; Thomas B. Hanson, “Chaucer’s Physician as Storyteller and Moralizer,” Chaucer Review 7 (1972): 132–39. 79. This is similar to the claim of Lianna Farber, “The Creation of Consent in the Physician’s Tale,” Chaucer Review, 39 (2004): 162 [151–64], that the tale’s operation is ideological, to the extent that it “stress[es] the way those who have control over [Virginia] educate her and teach her to understand reality.” 80. Crane, The Performance of Self, p. 29 [29–38]. 81. Crane, The Performance of Self, p. 34. 82. Lomperis, “Unruly Bodies and Ruling Practices,” p. 29. 83. Brian Massumi, Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2002), p. 30, argues that the virtual “is a lived paradox where what are normally opposites coexist, coalesce, and connect.” 84. See Jane Gallop, The Daughter’s Seduction, Feminism and Psychoanalysis (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1982), p. 77, who claims that “Paternity is corporeally uncertain, without evidence. But patriarchy com- pensates for that with the law which marks each child with the father’s name as his exclusive property.” 85. See, Corinne Saunders, Rape and Ravishment in the Literature of Medieval England (Cambridge, UK: D. S. Brewer, 2001), who gives a history of the development of and changes in rape law and the ecclesiastical responses the issue generated. As she points out, p. 75, in the later Middle Ages, when the law generally becomes more influenced by Roman law, primogeniture means that the act of rape is marginalized in contrast to charges of abduction: “actual rape, when it did not occur in the context of abduction or loss of virginity, was largely ignored, even while the notion of violation of the female body played an important rhetorical role in the recording of case histories and in legal theory.” 186 NOTES

86. As Joseph Allen Hornsby, Chaucer and the Law (Norman, OK: Pilgrim Press, 1988), pp. 116–17, points out, a 1382 statute gave husbands or fathers the right to seek damages for rape even if the woman consented (because she did not have the right to dispense of herself ). Barbara Hanawalt, “Of Good and Ill Repute”: Gender and Social Control in Medieval England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 124–41, suggests, however, that a woman’s ability to present her rape appeal in a manner consistent with legal regulations made a big difference in a father’s or husband’s suit. If a woman or girl could not articulate her appeal in the format designated by the court (without changing the account over what might be several recitations) her case was almost sure to be decided in favor of the accused. 87. According to jurists, however, such resistance had to be easier to see. Glanville advises that “A woman who suffers in this way must go, soon after the deed is done, to the nearest vill and there show to trustworthy men the injury done to her, and any effusion of blood there may be and any tearing of clothes.” George D. G. Hall, ed. and trans., Tractatus de Legibus et Consuetudinibus Regni Anglie qui Glanvilla Vocatur, The Treatise on the Laws and Customs of the Realm of England Commonly Called Glanvill (London: Nelson, 1965), p. 175: [Tenetur autem mulier que tale quid patitur mox dum recens fuerit maleficium uicinam uillam adire, et ibi iniuriam sibi illatam probis hominibus ostendere et sanguinem si quis fuerit effusus et uestium scissions]; Henry Bracton, De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae, On the Laws and Customs of England (c. 1250), ed. George E. Woodbine, trans. Samuel E. Thorne, Selden Society (1968; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977), pp. 394–95, likewise says that an appeal of rape must indicate “whether garments were torn and whether blood was shed by the ravishment.” [tunc de scissione vestimentorum et de sanguinis effusione per corruptionem]. 88. Augustine, The City of God, trans. Marcus Dods (New York: Modern Library, 1950), Book I, 10: 18 (p. 22). 89. See Caxton, Book of the Knight, Cviij, Cix, and Cx (pp. 145–48). 90. This elevation over regular women is expressed both in terms of social status and virtuous conduct in Caxton, Book of the Knight, pp. 148–50. For example, immediately after the example of Mary is elaborated, there are two chapters, Cxj and Cxij, that recommend contemporary women as models. 91. See Camille, “The Image and the Self,” who, in discussing images of women from medical discourse, points to what my catalogue leaves out—making woman into a body really ends up making woman into a womb: “She is all body. . .Indeed her whole body is held in by networks of linear control, rendering her passive and waiting, a mere receptacle for male semen” (p. 83). 92. The Usual Suspects, dir. Brian Singer (Gramercy Pictures) 1995. 93. Vivek, Fragile Absolute, p. 150. 94. Qtd. from the film’s dialogue. 95. Vivek, Fragile Absolute, p. 150. 96. Jacques Lacan famously states that “The Woman does not exist,” he also claims that courtly love creates woman as a blank screen upon which he NOTES 187

may project his narcissitic fantasy in The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, 1959–60, The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book VII, ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Trans. Dennis Porter (London: Routledge, 1992), pp. 149–50. 97. Jacques Lacan, “A Love Letter,” Feminine Sexuality, ed. Juliet Mitchell and Jacqueline Rose (New York: Norton, 1982), pp. 149–61, especially p. 150. 98. Vivek, Fragile Absolute, p. 150. In The Sublime Object of Ideology (London: Verso, 1989), Vivek suggests that an identity based on inclusion within a community, (which, if we remember our Aristotle, is the condition that stitches “human” and “identity” together), always involves what he calls “forced choice”: “the subject must freely choose the community to which he already belongs, independent of his choice—he must choose what is already given to him. . .he is never actually in a position to choose: he is always treated as if he had already chosen” (pp. 165–66, emphasis original). To make the “crazy” choice to destroy that which one holds most dear, then, is a sign of one’s belonging to a community, according to Vivek. 99. Lomperis, “Unruly Bodies and Ruling Practices,” p. 28.

Chapter 3 “My first matere I wil yow telle”: Visual Impact in the Book of the Duchess 1. Ovid, Metamorphoses, Books IX–XV, trans. Frank Justus Miller, ed. G. P. Goold, Loeb Classical Library 43 (1916; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984) XI. 410–749. 2. James Wimsatt, “The Sources of Chaucer’s ‘Seys and Alcyone,’” Medium Aevum 36 (1967): 231–41, suggests that Chaucer probably used Ovid, along with Machaut’s Dit de la fonteinne amoreuse, and the Ovide moralisé. See A. J. Minnis, with V. J. Scattergood and J. J. Smith, Oxford Guides to Chaucer: The Shorter Poems (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 90–112, for a survey and discussion of Chaucer’s sources. 3. See Frances Yates, The Art of Memory (London: Routledge, 1966), pp. 50–81, who argues that medieval thinkers turned rules of place and image in the rhetorical construction of memory to devotional purposes. Mary Carruthers, The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 34–45, explores locational memory using two principal metaphors, that of the book, or tablet, and that of the house, or “cella.” Both writers stress that memory, as a constitutive element of rhetoric (particularly in the Rhetorica ad Herrenium), is a practice that gains its kinship with art through the application of regularized discipline. 4. It is important to distinguish, then, between dreams, which were the province of the imagination, and dream visions, which were the territory of the memory. As Carruthers explains in her Book of Memory, pp. 58–59, Aristotle suggests that dream images are spontaneous combinations of the imagination. For an image to reach the vis memorativa, by contrast, it would have to become part of what we would call “long-term memory.” As she discusses in her Craft of Thought: Meditation, Rhetoric, and the Making of 188 NOTES

Images, 400–1200 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 171–220, dream visions are a recollective representation of compositional invention. Works including A. C. Spearing’s, Medieval Dream-Poetry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976); Barbara Nolan, The Gothic Visionary Perspective (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977); Kathryn L. Lynch, The High Medieval Dream Vision: Poetry, Philosophy, and Literary Form (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988) suggest that medieval dream vision was almost purely a literary form. Steven Kruger’s Dreaming in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), shows that even as dreams were considered to be physiological in some respects, in others they were thought of as expressive, either in purely aesthetic or in divinely prophetic terms. Kruger’s work, as well as J. Stephen Russell’s The English Dream Vision: Anatomy of a Form (Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1988), indicates that the view of dreams in the Middle Ages crossed discourses of theology, art, and science. 5. Although Yates and Carruthers show in rich and ample ways the rhetorical and creative processes of memory, I would credit Michael Camille, particularly his essay, “Before the Gaze: The Internal Senses and Medieval Practices of Seeing,” Visuality Before and Beyond the Renaissance: Seeing as Others Saw, ed. Robert S. Nelson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 197–223, for thinking about the connections between aesthetics and physiology in medieval conceptions of perception and epistemology. 6. See Katherine Tachau, Vision and Certitude in the Age of Ockham: Optics, Epistemology, and the Foundations of Semantics, 1230–1345 (New York: Brill, 1988); David C. Lindberg, Theories of Vision from Al-kindi to Kepler (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976), pp. 141–46. 7. As W. R. Jones, “Lollards and Images: The Defense of Religious Art in Later Medieval England,” Journal of the History of Ideas 34 (1973): 27–50, suggests, the debate over religious images turned on contrasting definitions of idolatria: “The English iconodules defined idolatria in a narrow, historical sense, applicable to pagans and infidels, who worshipped the wrong things, and sometimes to sorcerers, who used images for magical purposes” (p. 43). Reformers, by contrast, applied idolatria to a broad range of image-usage, only excepting reverence for signs that were themselves stripped of orna- ment (e.g., a “poor cross”). While this debate is only in the nascent stage when Chaucer is supposed to have composed this poem, the challenges to sight that contribute to anxieties regarding images are already circulating. 8. John Berger, Ways of Seeing (London: Penguin, 1972), pp. 11–23. 9. Besides Carruthers, The Book of Memory, pp. 33–45, I am also indebted to D. Vance Smith, “Irregular Histories: Forgetting Ourselves,” New Literary History 28 (1997): 161–84; “Plague, Panic Space, and the Tragic Medieval Household,” South Atlantic Quarterly 98 (1999): 367–413; and Arts of Possession: The Middle English Household Imaginary (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003), who connects memory to the rhythms of the everyday and the locus of the medieval household. This “domestication” of memory is important to my thinking about gender, because it suggests ways NOTES 189

in which repetitions, arrangements, and elisions that characterize memory work also typify the reiterative processes of coverage that give categories of masculinity and femininity their naturalized cultural appearance. 10. For an analysis of medieval diagrams that divided the brain into chambers, see Edwin Clark and Kenneth Dewhurst, An Illustrated History of Brain Function (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972), pp. 10–24. Avicenna’s influence is elucidated in John E. Murdoch, Album of Science: Antiquity and the Middle Ages (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1984), pp. 325–26; and finally A. Mark Smith’s essay, “Getting the Big Picture in Perspectivist Optics,” Isis 72 (1981): 572 [568–89], has a succinct and sophisticated diagram of the interworkings of medieval faculties, which culminate in the recollective gathering of memory. The classic accounts of medieval faculty psychology remain Murray Wright Bundy’s The Theory of Imagination in Classical and Medieval Thought (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1927), pp. 177–224; and Ruth E. Harvey, The Inward Wits: Psychological Theory in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance (London: Warburg Institute, 1975). 11. A. Mark Smith, “Getting the Big Picture,” pp. 572–73, discusses the interrelation of Galen and Aristotle in medieval theory; this classification- scheme is from Carolyn Collette, Species, Phantasms, and Images: Vision and Medieval Psychology in the “Canterbury Tales” (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001), p. 6. 12. See Harvey, The Inward Wits, pp. 39–49; pp. 53–61. 13. This point is Bundy’s, The Theory of Imagination, p. 192, though Collette, Species, Phantasms, and Images, p. 9, also emphasizes the role of temporality in the scheme of Albertus Magnus. 14. D. Vance Smith, “Plague, Panic Space,” p. 379. 15. D. Vance Smith, “Plague, Panic Space,” p. 374. 16. D. Vance Smith, “Plague, Panic Space,” p. 385. 17. Hugh of St. Victor, “Hugo of St. Victor: ‘De Tribus Maximis Circumstantiis Gestorum,’ ” ed. William M. Green, Speculum 18 (1943): 484–93. (p. 490, lines 26–27): [ut eas quoque quae extrinsecus accidere possunt circumstantias rerum non neglegentur attendamus]. 18. Albertus Magnus, Commentary on Aristotle, On Memory and Recollection, trans. Jan M. Ziolkowski, The Medieval Craft of Memory: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, ed. Mary Carruthers and Jan M. Ziolkowski (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002), p. 127. 19. See Charles Muscatine, who, in Chaucer and the French Tradition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1957), p. 107, claims that Chaucer’s use of comic versions of Ovidian narrative (e.g., Machaut’s Fonteinne Amoureuse ) “brings into the most serious part of the poem a tasteless vein of humor.” 20. Derek Pearsall, “The Roving Eye: Point of View in the Medieval Perception of Landscape,” Speaking Images: Essays in Honor of V.A. Kolve, ed. R. F. Yeager and Charlotte C. Morse (Asheville, NC: Pegasus Press, 2001), p. 469 [463–77] rightly points out that medieval art allows for a free gaze over a visual scene, since pictures often rely on their viewers “to read, scan, 190 NOTES

store, and recompose.” But he does not take into account the discipline of cognitive composition in his consideration of the eye’s mobility: “the eye moves about the picture, not under any constraining discipline of order, and chooses its moments of truth.” Mnemonic practice, which regulates the process of image making, means that the “wandering around” that Pearsall identifies as part of the experience of medieval art is meant to assume its own orderly composition. This measured, stationed seeing is thus more akin to what Laura Mulvey, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” Screen 16.3 (1975): p. 11 [6–18], describes as “the determining male gaze [which] projects its phantasy on to the female figure which is styled accordingly.” 21. In her influential and provocative analysis of loss in elegiac poetics, Louise O. Fradenburg, “ ‘Voice Memorial’: Loss and Reparation in Chaucer’s Poetry,” Exemplaria 2 (1990): 169–202, argues that Chaucer’s Book of the Duchess, like other works of death, uses a system of threat and reward to obscure loss, thereby providing through narrative “inconclusiveness” a defense against its persistence. For, as she points out, the birth of poetry and the promise of prosperity await Chaucer’s masculine dyad in a relation of reward that staves off the threat of isolation accompanying protracted mourning. 22. See Carruthers, Craft of Thought, pp. 176–79, for a discussion of the exedra, a chamber designed for compositional memory work. As she points out, these chambers were often decorated with familiar images that were designed to spur mental invention. Interestingly, Michael Norman Salda, “Pages from History: The Medieval Palace of Westminster as a Source for the Dreamer’s Chamber in the Book of the Duchess,” Chaucer Review 27 (1992): 111–25, argues that this dreamscape is not based on a “literary” scene (such as a particular illuminated manuscript), but is a rendering of St. Stephen’s chapel. Petrarch, perhaps in a bid for inventional ingenuity, complains about those who “decorate their rooms with furniture devised to decorate their minds and. . .use books as they use Corinthian vases or painted panels and statues,” Petrarch: Four Dialogues for Scholars. . .from “De remedies utriusque fortune,” ed. and trans. Conrad H. Rawski (Cleveland, OH: Press of Western Reserve University, 1967), p. 31. 23. See Minnis, The Shorter Poems, pp. 73–160, for a liberal overview of the critical history of the poem, especially the issue of consolation and its relevance to the Man in Black’s condition at the end of the poem. 24. Kathryn L. Lynch, “The Book of the Duchess as a Philosophical Vision: The Argument of Form,” Genre 21 (1988): 279–306; She elaborates this argument in her book, Chaucer’s Philosophical Visions. 25. Lynch, “The Book of the Duchess as a Philosophical Vision,” p. 285. 26. Although Fradenburg addresses defenses against loss in broader terms than I do in this chapter, her “ ‘Voice Memorial’ ” traces elegy as a mode of defense against the past in a way that I find instructive. 27. For a helpful discussion, see Michael Camille, Gothic Art: Glorious Visions (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996), pp. 16–23. NOTES 191

28. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, trans. John Hammond Taylor, 2 vols. Ancient Christian Writers, ed. Johannes Quasten, et al., 41–42, (New York: Newman, 1982), 2:191 (12.11.22). 29. Bundy, The Theory of Imagination, pp. 187–93. 30. Bundy, The Theory of Imagination, pp. 187–93. 31. Bundy, The Theory of Imagination, p. 191. 32. See Alastair Minnis, “Medieval Imagination and Memory,” The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism, vol. 2, The Middle Ages, ed. Alastair Minnis and Ian Johnson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 240–42, for a discussion of Aquinas’s differences from the opinions of his teacher, Albertus Magnus. 33. See Roger Bacon’s Perspectiva, which is Pt. V of the Opus Majus. For all citations, I use David C. Lindberg’s facing page edition, Roger Bacon and the Origins of Perspectiva in the Middle Ages: A Critical Edition and English Translation of Bacon’s Perspectiva with Introduction and Notes (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), hereafter cited as the Perspectiva. Bacon’s description of these divisions, especially as they relate to the multiplication of species, is contained in the Perspectiva, I.i.4; also see Lindberg’s Roger Bacon’s Philosophy of Nature. A Critical Edition, Introduction, and Notes, of “De multiplicatione de specierum” and “De speculis comburentibus” (Oxford: Clarendon, 1983), I, ii, lines 86–88, and lines 287–88, for a description of the memory as the final space that the species reach. Bundy, The Theory of Imagination, pp. 195–98, discusses Bacon in relation to other theorists. 34. Minnis, “Medieval Imagination and Memory,” p. 242. 35. Minnis, “Medieval Imagination and Memory,” p. 242. 36. Alastair Minnis, “Langland’s Ymaginatif and Late-Medieval Theories of Imagination,” Comparative Criticism 3 (1981): 71–103. 37. See William J. Courtenay, Covenant and Causality in Medieval Thought (London: Variorum Reprints, 1984), pp. 208–9, who explains that symbols for Aquinas “declared. . .an action or effect.” See Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, ed. and trans. Colman E. O’Neill O. P., vol. 50 (London: Blackfriars, 1965), 3a. 25, a. 3, which demonstrates Courtenay’s suggestion in relation to the reverence due to images of Christ: “Applying this to our problem, we conclude that no reverence is shown to the image of Christ insofar as it is an independent reality—a piece of wood, carved or painted— for reverence cannot be given to any but a rational being. It remains that whatever reverence is shown it has in view its function as an image. From this it follows that the same reverence is shown to the image of Christ as to Christ himself. Since, therefore, Christ is paid divine worship, so too his image should be paid divine worship” [Sic ergo dicendum est quod imagini Christi, inquantum est res quaedam, puta lignum sculptum vel pictum, nulla reverentiaexhibetur: quia reverentianonnisi rationali naturae debetur. Relinquitur ergo quod exhibeatur ei reverentiaexhibeatur imagini Christi et ipsi Christo. Cum ergo Christus adoretur adoratione latriae, consequens est quod ejus imago sit adoratione latriae adoranda]. 192 NOTES

38. Sarah Stanbury, “Regimes of the Visual in Premodern England: Gaze, Body, and Chaucer’s Clerk’s Tale,” New Literary History, 28 (1997): p. 279 [261–89]. 39. Camille, “Before the Gaze,” p. 207. 40. See the classic study by Erwin Panofsky, Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism (New York: Meridian Books, 1957). Michael Camille, The Gothic Idol: Ideology and Image-making in Medieval Art (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); and Susannah Biernoff, Sight and Embodiment in the Middle Ages (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002) resist in different ways Panofsky’s clean periodization of affective directness. Rachel Fulton’s From Judgment to Passion: Devotion to Christ and the Virgin Mary, 800–1200 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002), is also useful for thinking specifically about devotion to Christic and Marian images in medieval devotional practice. 41. Stanbury, “Regimes of the Visual in Premodern England,” p. 279. 42. Stanbury, “Regimes of the Visual in Premodern England,” p. 267. 43. Stanbury, “Regimes of the Visual in Premodern England,”, p. 273. 44. Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: Vintage, 1975), p. 191. 45. Miri Rubin, Corpus Christi: the Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 131–34; Sara Beckwith, Christ’s Body: Identity, Culture and Society in Late Medieval Writings (New York: Routledge, 1993), p. 23; Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England 1400–1580 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992), pp. 96–102. 46. Rubin, Corpus Christi, pp. 243–71; Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars, pp. 109–117; and Mervyn James, “Ritual, Drama, and Social Body in the Late Medieval Town,” Past and Present, 98 (1983): 3–29. 47. See Susan Crane’s The Performance of Self: Ritual, Clothing, and Identity During the Hundred Years War (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002), chapter 1 and chapter 4; Louise O. Fradenburg, City, Marriage, Tournament: Arts of Rule in Late Medieval Scotland (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991). 48. Stanbury, “Regimes of the Visual in Premodern England,” p. 279. 49. Middle English Lyrics, ed. Maxwell S. Luria and Richard L. Hoffman (New York: Norton, 1974), #215, (p. 208). 50. Stanbury, “Regimes of the Visual in Premodern England,” pp. 271–73. 51. Biernoff, Sight and Embodiment in the Middle Ages, pp. 133–64. 52. See Phillipa Hardman, “Chaucer’s Man of Sorrows: Secular Images of Pity in the Book of the Duchess, the Squire’s Tale, and Troilus and Criseyde,” Journal of English and Germanic Philology 93 (1994): p. 206 [204–27], who shows that fourteenth-century lyrics depicting Christ’s suffering ask the reader “to ‘behold,’ ‘look,’ ‘see’ the sorrows and pains of Christ,” which she connects to the growing popularity of the Man of Sorrows in continental, then English art. Such cues to pity, Hardman argues, p. 219, are a “challenge: an opportunity to assess one’s own emotional health, to discover by confronting the archetype of sorrow whether one has a pitiful human heart, or an unmoved and ‘fendly’ one.” NOTES 193

53. Middle English Lyrics, #212 (p. 206). 54. Middle English Lyrics, #217 (p. 209). 55. Sara Lipton, “The Sweet Lean of His Head”: Writing about Looking at the Crucifix in the High Middle Ages,” Speculum 80 (2005): 1172–208. Also see Jeffrey Hamburger, The Visual and the Visionary: Art and Female Spirituality in Late Medieval Germany (New York: Zone Books, 1998), pp. 100–108, who discusses what he calls the “topography of visionary experience.” 56. Carruthers, Craft of Thought, pp. 77–81. 57. V. A. Kolve, Chaucer and the Imagery of Narrative: the First Five “Canterbury Tales” (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994), p. 30. 58. As Rosemary Woolf, The English Religious Lyric in the Middle Ages (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), pp. 184–85, explains of the imago pietatis, “Christ is shown oppressed by suffering, although the Crucifixion is past, as the wounds in hands, feet, and side bear witness. . .The intention is entirely meditative, to confront the beholder with a timelessly suffering Christ and thus to arouse his compassion.” 59. R. A. Shoaf, “Stalking the Sorrowful H(e)art: Penitential Lore and the Hunt Scene in Chaucer’s ‘The Book of the Duchess,’ ” Journal of English and Germanic Philology 78 (1979): 313–24. 60. Karma Lochrie, Covert Operations: the Medieval uses of Secrecy (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999), especially chapter 1. 61. Mary Carruthers, “ ‘The Mystery of the Bed Chamber’: Mnemotechnique and Vision in Chaucer’s The Book of the Duchess,” The Rhetorical Poetics of the Middle Ages: Reconstructive Polyphony, ed. John M. Hill and Deborah M. Sinnreich-Levi (Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2000), p. 79 [67–87], makes the connection between confession and elegy explicit: “The elegiac poem is like a confession only because both activities are dependent on memory-work. Each involves a sustained, deliberate act of remembering, though their goals are different. Both also begin in grief, mourning (for one’s self, for another) as the matrix of remembering.” 62. See Minnis, Shorter Poems, p. 125. 63. See Guillaume de Machaut, Jugement dou Roy de Behaigne and Remede de fortune, ed. James I. Wimsatt, William W. Kibler, and Rebecca A. Baltzer, The Chaucer Libarary (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1988), pp. 112–15 (ll. 1050–107); and pp. 218–23 (ll. 905–1000). 64. See George Lyman Kittredge, “Guillaume De Machaut and the Book of the Duchess,” PMLA 30 (1915): 1–24, who argues that the image of Fortune is influenced by the Remede de fortune, Jugement dou Roy de Behaigne, the eighth Motet, and Comfort. 65. Minnis, “Langland’s Ymaginatif,” p. 73, points out that the chimera was itself an animal produced from the recombination of imagistic fragments (a lion’s head, a goat’s body, and a serpent’s tail). 66. The Lanterne of Li{t, ed. L. M. Swinburn, EETS, OS 151 (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trübner, & Co. for EETS, 1917), p. 37. 67. Fifteenth Century Prose and Verse, ed. A. W. Pollard (London: A. Constable & co., 1903), p. 137. 194 NOTES

68. Kittredge, “Guillaume De Machaut and the Book of the Duchess” argues that Chaucer is here indebted to Machaut’s ninth Motet. Also relevant is Vincent of Beauvais’s claim, Speculum naturale, Speculum quadruplex; sive, Speculum maius, vol. 1(Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlaganstalt, 1964–65), 20.95.col.1549, that the scorpion has a face “somewhat like a maiden’s.” 69. Carruthers, “Mystery of the Bedchamber,” p. 80, claims that chess is a game of memory because “It is a game of patterns, one that depends on ‘finding’ images in places, the essential technique of memory. And these remembered patterns enable the invention of each new game.” Despite the relational adaptability of medieval chess, the remembered moves that Carruthers cites give the impression of permanence, at least by the time that Ludwig Wittgenstein uses chess as an example of rule-following in Zettel, ed. G. E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von Writght, trans. G. E. M. Anscombe, 2nd edn. (1967; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981), 320 (p. 58): “. . .if you follow other rules than those of chess you are playing another game” (emphasis original). Certainly, we can see that Black reads the rules of chess as static, and that he lacks the inventive capacity to adapt to changing situations. 70. H. J. R. Murray, A History of Chess (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), p. 423. 71. H. J. R. Murray, A History of Chess, p. 426. 72. H. J. R. Murray, A History of Chess, pp. 426–27. 73. Peter W. Travis, “White,” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 22 (2000): 1–66. I am highly indebted to Travis’s exhaustive inquiry into the ways that “White” precipitates misrecognition in relation to medieval debates concerning meaning and reference in language. My interest in his thinking about this meconaissance is the potentially deliberate character of Black’s misrecognition. As we see with the fers confusion, misrecognition can be applied to preserve categorical stability in one instance by sacrificing clarity in the case of another seemingly stable distinction. 74. See Jenny Adams, “Pawn Takes Knight’s Queen: Playing with Chess in the Book of the Duchess,” Chaucer Review 34 (1999): 125–38, who insightfully connects the high stakes of Black’s game to the widespread practice of gambling on chess. 75. See Jacques Derrida, “Plato’s Pharmacy,” Literary Theory: An Anthology, ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1998), pp. 429–50, who posits the “logic of the supplement” as a continual threat to invention, insofar as the creator’s place is continually subject to displacement. 76. Matthew de Vendôme, Ars Versificatoria, Les Arts poétiques du XII et XIII siècles, ed. Edmond Faral (Paris: E. Champion, 1924), pp. 121–31. Matthew has seven models of description, each of which moves from describing exterior features to interior worth. 77. Travis, “White,” pp. 13–18. 78. Travis, “White,” p. 17. 79. Lynch, “The Book of the Duchess as a Philosophical Vision,” pp. 288–95. Like anyone who has tackled this knotty topic, I am greatly indebted to NOTES 195

Katherine Tachau’s work. Particularly important to what follows is her Vision and Certitude, esp. chapter 1 and chapter 5. Also, her article “The Problem of the Species in Medio at Oxford in the Generation after Ockham,” Mediaeval Studies 44 (1982): 394–443, is highly valuable for my thinking about the mediating role of species in cognitive conceptions of distance. 80. See Tachau, Vision and Certitude, pp. 115–35. See William of Ockham, Opera philosophica et theologica, II Rep, Q. 12–13, eds. P. Boehner, G. Gál, and Steven Brown, 7 vols. (St. Bonaventure, NY: Editiones Instituti Franciscani Universitatis S. Bonaventurae, 1974–88) vol. 5 p. 269, lines 1–6: “Et ideo concedo quod in omni sensu, tam interiori quam exteriori, est cognito intuitiva, hoc est, talis cognitio virtute cuius potest praedicto modo cognoscere rem esse vel non esse, licet non sit cognitio intuitive ocularis. Et in hoc decipiuntur multi: credunt enim quod nulla sit cognitio intuitiva nisi ocularis, quod falsum est.” [I concede that there is intuitive cognition in every sense, interior as well as exterior—that is, such cognition by virtue of which, in the aforesaid way, a thing is known to be or not to be; granted, this is not ocular intuitive cognition. And, in this way, many are deceived: for they believe that there is not intuitive cognition unless it is ocular, which is false.]. And further, II Rep. Q. 12–13, Opera philosophica et theologica, 5, p. 268: lines 1–11: “Ad cognitionem intuitivam habendam non oportet aliquid ponere praeter intellectum et rem cognitam, et nullam speciem penitus. Hoc probatur, quia frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora. Sed per intellectum et rem visam, sine omi specie, potest fieri cognitio intuitiva, igitur etc.” [it is useless to achieve by more things what can equally well be achieved by fewer; but intuitive cognition can occur by means of the intellect and the thing seen, without any species.] 81. Ockham’s objection to species can be considered antirepresentational. See A. Stephen McGrade, “Seeing Things: Ockham and Representationalism,” L’Homme et son Univers au Moyen Age, Philosophes Médiéaux 27 (Louvain-la- Neuve: 1986): 591–97. Ockham claims that habits are synonymous with species in Aristotle, and further argues that they are a locational way of preserving things past: II Rep. Q. 14, Opera philosophica et theologica, 5, p. 261, lines 13–18: “Cognitio autem intuitiva imperfecta est illa per quam iudicamus rem aliquando fuisse vel non fuisse. Et haec dicitur cognitio recordativa; ut quando video aliquam rem intuitva, generatur habitus incli- nans ad cognitionem abstractivam, mediante qua iudico et assentio quod talis res aliquando fuit quia aliquando vidi eam.” 82. William of Ockham, “Et per consequens potest sol immediate agree in distans” III Rep. Q. 12–13, Opera philosophica et theologica, 6, p. 53, line 7. 83. See Lindberg, Theories of Vision, pp. 104–22. 84. Bacon, Perspectiva, I.v.1; also see I.vii.4. 85. Bacon, Perspectiva, I.ix.4. See also De multiplicatione specierum, Pt. I. 86. Tachau, Vision and Certitude, especially Part 3; her article, “The Problem of the Species in Medio,” gives a more compact account. 87. Heather Phillips, “John Wyclif and the Optics of the Eucharist,” From Ockham to Wyclif, ed. Anne Hudson and Michael Wilks, Studies in Church 196 NOTES

History 5 (London: Blackwell, 1987), p. 247, n. 12 [245–58], provides the relevant passages of comparison between the two writers. 88. Phillips, “John Wyclif and the Optics of the Eucharist,” pp. 253–56. 89. For example, see De Eucharistia, ed. J. Loserth and F. D. Matthew, Wyclif Society (London: Trübner, 1892), pp. 11–13. 90. John Wyclif, Tractatus de Mandatis Divinis, ed. J. Loserth and F. D. Matthew, Wyclif Society (London: C.K. Paul, 1922), pp. 152–58. Wyclif claimed that the exposure to images could have good or ill effects: in their “proper” usage, the exposure to images kindled the faith of the mind, encouraging devout worship of God. By contrast, in negative instances, an image could lead one astray from true faith, which would entail adoration of an image with latria (the adoration due to God alone). His distinction between the proper and improper use of images is summed up in his statement, p. 156, “Et patet quod ymagines tam bene quam male possunt fieri: bene ad excitandum, facilitandum et accendendum mentes fidelium, ut colant devocius Deum suum; et male ut occasione ymaginum a veritate fidei aberretur, ut ymago illa vel latria vel dulia adoretur. . .” 91. G. R. Owst, Preaching in Medieval England: An Introduction to Sermon Manuscripts of the Period c. 1350–1450 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1926), p. 131, identified a group of writings that constituted a non- heretical critique of images. See also G. R. Owst, Literature and the Pulpit in Medieval England (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1961), pp. 135–50. Margaret Aston, Lollards and Reformers: Images and Literacy in Late Medieval Religion (London: Hambledon Press, 1984), p. 153 n. 65, suggests that these writings might be called “Wycliffite” Lollardy, since Wyclif preserved Gregory the Great’s claim that images were books for the unlearned even as he criticized the improper use of images as idolatry. 92. Wyclif was not alone, nor was he unorthodox, in cautioning against the deceptive power of images. Citing Grosseteste, Wyclif claims in Tractatus De Mandatis Divinis, p. 64, that “the variety of apparel, buildings, utensils, and other objects invented by pride constitutes the book or graven image of the devil, by which mammon or another is worshipped in the image. Therefore the whole church, or a great part of it, is tainted by this idolatry, because the works of their hands are effectively more highly valued than God.” His comments are similar to those of Richard Fitzralph, (Owst, Literature and the Pulpit, p. 141) who claims that “those who venerate such images for their own sake and make offerings to them to procure healing or benefits of some kind appear to be true and potent idolators.” And, as Nicholas Watson illustrates in his “ ‘Et que est huius ydoli materia? Tuipse’: Idols and Images in Walter Hilton,” Images, Idolatry, and Iconoclasm in Late Medieval England: Textuality and the Visual Image, ed. Jeremy Dimmick, James Simpson, and Nicolette Zeeman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 95–111, before Hilton penned his defense of images in his De adoracione ymaginum, he had used iconoclastic rhetoric to represent the sinful soul in several works, both Latin and vernacular. NOTES 197

93. On the Twenty-Five Articles, Select English Works of John Wyclif, ed. Thomas Arnold, vol. 3 (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1971), p. 463. 94. John Wyclif, Sermones, vol. 2, ed. J. Loserth and F. D. Matthew, Wyclif Society (London: Trübner, 1888), p. 165. 95. On the Twenty-Five Articles, p. 463. 96. On the Twenty-Five Articles, p. 463. 97. As the charge against and answer of an accused heretic from the turn of the fifteenth century indicates, the legitimacy of image-making depended on the affective effect of an image’s figuration in the century after Chaucer’s death. While the “Sixteen Points on which the Bishops Accuse Lollards,” English Wycliffite Writings, ed. Anne Hudson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), p. 19, claims “Qat neiQer crosse ne ymages peynted or grauen in Qe worship of God or any oQer seyntis in Qe chirche shuld be worschipid,” the accused replied, p. 23, that “Qe making of ymages trewly peynted is leueful, and men mowen leuefuliche worschippe hem in sum manere, as signes or tokones.” 98. Spearing, Medieval Dream-Poetry, p. 55. 99. Ardis Butterfield, “Lyric and Elegy in The Book of the Duchess,” Medium Aevum 60 (1991): p. 50 [33–60]. 100. Butterfield, “Lyric and Elegy in The Book of the Duchess,” p. 39. 101. MED s.v. “colour,” (n.) (4), and (5b), associate “color” with devices of rhetoric, and those with deception. As I note later, this usage was often taken up by those who resisted the use of images in devotional practice. 102. Andreas Capellanus, The Art of Courtly Love, trans. John Jay Perry (New York: Columbia University Press, 1941), p. 31, makes it clear that love is an interactive ideal: “Love gets its name (amor) from the word for hook (amus), which means ‘to capture’ or ‘to be captured,’ for he who is in love is captured in the chains of desire and wishes to capture someone else with his hook. . .so the man who is a captive of love tries to attract another person by his allurements and exerts all his efforts to unite two different hearts with an intangible bond. . .” 103. See Robin Hass, “ ‘A Picture of Such Beauty in their Minds’: The Medieval Rhetoricians, Chaucer, and Evocative Effictio,” Exemplaria 14 (2002): 383–422. Also see Valerie Allen, “Portrait of a Lady: Blaunche and the Descriptive Tradition,” English Studies 74 (1993): 324–42, who argues that Chaucer attempts to render a more complex method of description for Blanche by admitting a relation between mind and body. 104. Hass, “A Picture of Such Beauty in their Minds,” p. 408. 105. Minnis, Shorter Poems, p. 86. 106. Minnis, Shorter Poems, p. 87. 107. Andrew Cowell, “The Dye of Desire: The Colors of Rhetoric in the Middle Ages,” Exemplaria 11 (1999): pp. 116–18 [115–39]. As Carruthers and Ziolkowski point out, many medieval writers connect rhetoric’s colors with perception, insofar as sight was described as its vehicle, with the other senses serving as its “colors.” 108. Qtd. in Cowell, “The Dye of Desire,” p. 116. 198 NOTES

109. Hugh of St. Victor, Didascalicon, IV, trans. Jerome Taylor (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), p. 102. 110. As Cowell, “The Dye of Desire,” points out, p. 119, n. 13, Cistercians chose undyed cloth for their habits to avoid such associations with dissembling. See MED s.v. “blaunchen,” (v.) (1) which suggests that “blaunchen” can mean “white-wash” in a context that suggests iconoclasm. See particularly its usage in Mandeville: “A faire kirk all ouer whyte blaunched. . .for. . .Qe Sarzenes gert blaunche Qam. . .to fordo Qe paynture and Qe ymages Qat ware purtraid on Qe walles.” 111. The connection between coloring in language and art was sometimes made explicit by those who objected to images in devotional practice, as we see in the Heresy Trials in the Diocese of Norwich 1428–31, ed. N. P. Tanner, Camden Fourth Series, vol. 20 (London: Offices of the Royal Historical Society, 1977), p. 44, “lewd wrights of stokes hawe and fourme suche crosses and ymages, and after that lewd peyntors glorye thaym with colours. . .” 112. John Wyclif, Sermons, Select English Works of John Wyclif, ed. T. Arnold, vol. 2 (1871), p. 15; Treatise of Miracle Plays, Reliquiae antiquae, ed. T. Wright and J. O. Halliwell, vol. 2 (London: J.R. Smith, 1845), pp. 42–57. 113. Geoffrey de Vinsauf, The Poetria Nova, The Poetria Nova and its Sources in Early Rhetorical Doctrine, ed. and trans. Ernest A. Gallo (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1966), pp. 583–89: [. . .metumque polito / Marmore plus poliat Natura potentior arte. / Succuba sit capitis pretiosa colore columna / Lactea, quae speculum vultus supportet in altum / Ex cristallino procedat gutture quidam / Splendor, qui possit oculos referire videntis / Et cor furari. . .]. 114. See MED, s.v. “colourles,” (adj.) (b), which means “artless (style).” 115. Diane M. Ross, “The Play of Genres in the Book of the Duchess,” Chaucer Review 19 (1984): 1–13, identifies the three modes of expression the knight uses to identify White: lyric, allegory, and proces, or sequential narrative. Although she sees each of these modes ending in failure, I would argue, with many other critics, that this layered structure is an attempt to arrange the knight’s identity in a fashion that covers over such failures with at least the image of consolation. 116. In William Caxton’s translation of the Book of the Knight of the Tower, ed. M. Y. Offord, EETS Supplementary Series 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press for EETS, 1971), p. 150, ll. 10–14: Cxij, “Example of many good ladyes of tyme presente,” the Knight tells of many women who should be made models for emulation. Of the woman married to a “symple” man, the knight claims: “And therfore she ought to be preysed in all estates / and to be sette amonge the good ladyes / how be it that she was no grete mystresse / but the goodnes and bounte of her may be to al other a myrrour and exemplary / wherfore men ought not to hyde the fayttes and good dedes of ony woman.” 117. Qtd. in Owst, Literature and the Pulpit, p. 19. 118. Robert Grosseteste, Carmina Anglo-Normannica: Robert Grosseteste’s Chasteau d’Amour, to which are added, “La Vie de Sainte Marie Egyptienne” and an NOTES 199

English version of the Chasteau d’Amour, ed. M. Cooke (1852; New York: Burt Franklin, 1967), ll. 392–93. 119. Russell A. Peck, “Chaucer and the Nominalist Questions,” Speculum 53 (1978): 745–60. 120. This kind of declaration, since it is an attempt to remember the absent beloved, finds particular resonance with Reginald Pecock’s defense of images in his treatise, The Repressor of Over Much Blaming of the Clergy, ed. Churchill Babington, Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain and Ireland During the Middle Ages, 2 vols. (London: Longman, 1860), vol. 1, p. 268, when he argues that the affection produced by a (devotional) image is similar to the remembrance of an absent friend: “Wherefore the other next present being of his freend, which is next aftir his bodily present visible being, is the next grettist meene aftir his bodily visible presence into the gendering of the seid affeccioun.” Even more striking, Pecock uses the image of bodily embrace for a loved one to suggest the ways in which images of Christ move viewers to devotion, p. 271, “(euen ri{t as we han experience that oon persoon gendrith more loue to an other, if he biclippe him in armys, than he shulde, if he not come so ny{ to him and not biclip- pid him,)—it muste nedis folewe, if thou ymagine Crist or an other Seint for to be bodili strei{t thoru{out the bodi of the ymage, that thou shalt gendre, gete, and haue bi so miche the more good affeccioun to God or to the Seint, that thou dost to him touching him in the ymage as bi ymaginacioun.” 121. Pecock. The Repressor of Over Much Blaming of the Clergy, p. 272. 122. Denis Walker, “Narrative Inconclusiveness and Consolatory Dialectic in the Book of the Duchess,” Chaucer Review 18 (1983): 15 [1–17]. 123. See Jacques Derrida, “White Mythology,” Margins of Philosophy, trans. Alan Bass (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), pp. 207–71, who uses this term to refer to the misplaced metaphysical desire to strip language of its figurative coloration. 124. Blanche of Lancaster died, probably of plague, in 1368. See Minnis, Shorter Poems, pp. 80–81. Chaucer’s reference to the poem as “the Deeth of Blaunche the Duchesse” in the Prologue to the Legend of Good Women makes the poem’s occasional status clear, even though it does not establish a definitive date for the composition or performance of the poem. 125. Phillipa Hardman, “The Book of the Duchess as a Memorial Monument,” Chaucer Review 28 (1994): 209 [208–13]. 126. See Sydney Armitage-Smith, John of Gaunt (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1964), pp. 75–78; pp. 138–41. For discussions of John of Gaunt’s marriage to Blanche as it relates to Chaucer’s poem, see Donald R. Howard, Chaucer: His Life, His Works, His World (New York: Dutton, 1987); George Kane, Chaucer (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984); Derek Pearsall, The Life of Geoffrey Chaucer: A Critical Biography (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1992). It should be noted that biographers of both Gaunt and Chaucer generally conclude that Gaunt’s affection was sincere. My point is a simpler one, and relates to the ways in which Chaucer’s poem makes such sounding of sincerity impossible. 200 NOTES

As Minnis, Shorter Poems, points out, p. 77, “In the final analysis, we cannot claim familiarity with Gaunt.” Also see, Adams, pp. 134–35, who emphasizes the contractual, arranged character of Gaunt’s marriage to Blanche.

Chapter 4 Which Wife? What Man? Gender Invisibility between Chaucer’s Wife and Shipman 1. Richard F. Jones, “A Conjecture on the Wife of Bath’s Prologue,” Journal of English and Germanic Philology 24 (1925): 512–47; Robert A. Pratt, “The Development of the Wife of Bath,” in Studies in Medieval Literature, ed. MacEdward Leach (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1961): 45–79; William W. Lawrence, “Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale,” Speculum 33 (1958): 56–68; and William W. Lawrence, “The Wife of Bath and the Shipman,” Modern Language Notes 72 (1957): 87–88. 2. See MED, s.v. “revelous,” “revelry” Although the MED defines the word as “disposed to revelry, merry,” and defines “revelrie” as “amusement, diversion, pleasure,” the word “revelour” is used with pejorative connota- tions in the Wife of Bath’s Prologue (III. 453) and in the Cook’s Tale (“Perkyn revelour”). Furthermore, other virtuous women in the tales are separated from adjectives that do not suggest gravity and propriety. For example, Canacee in the Squire’s Tale (V. 360ff.) and Virginia in the Physician’s Tale (VI. 61) are distanced from “revelry.” Here I pursue the argument, force- fully and eloquently articulated by Mary Carruthers, “The Wife of Bath and the Painting of Lions,” PMLA 94 (1979): 209–22, that the rules outlined for women in books of deportment are themselves subject to qualification when transferred to the domain of the late fourteenth-century household. 3. William F. Woods, “A Professional Thyng: The Wife as Merchant’s Apprentice in the Shipman’s Tale,” Chaucer Review 24 (1989): 140 [139–49]. 4. Peter Beidler, “Contrasting Masculinities in The Shipman’s Tale: Monk, Merchant, and Wife,” Masculinities in Chaucer, ed. Peter Beidler (Cambridge, UK: D. S. Brewer, 1998), p. 142 [131–42]. 5. “Reconstruction,” as a term dating from the reformulation of the American Union after the Civil War, suggests that the political position one has held is in need of correction so that it corresponds to the ideas of the polis. See the OED, s.v. “unreconstructed,” which suggests this term’s relation to political heterodoxy. The neologism “unreconstructed” first appears in The Liberator, November 17, 1865, and again in the December issues, where it is used by radical Republicans to suggest an ideological fixity that would preclude a political change of heart on the part of former southern rebels (and would thus argue for a denial of citizenship). By January 1866 this term gains wider momentum, popping up in the New York Times. It is finally reappropriated by southern writers in May, 1867, in a piece in the Southern Cultivator. Warm thanks to David Shields for directing me to these references. NOTES 201

6. For examples of this long tradition, see Robert K. Root, The Poetry of Chaucer (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1906), p. 189; Donald R. Howard, The Idea of the “Canterbury Tales” (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976), p. 276; Murray Copland, “The Shipman’s Tale: Chaucer and Boccaccio,” Medium Aevum 35 (1966): 11–28. Robert Adams, “The Concept of Debt in the Shipman’s Tale,” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 6 (1984), pp. 87–88 [85–102], sees the tale’s lack of moral focus as part of a (moral) critique: “however puzzling or shocking its [amoral] conclusion may be, the body of the narrative does contain an indirect moral critique of the way of life it describes.” This focus on the tale’s (im)morality is also taken up by Michael W. McClintock, “Games and the Players of Games: Old French Fabliaux and the Shipman’s Tale,” Chaucer Review 5 (1970): 112–36; George R. Keiser, “Language and Meaning in Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale,” Chaucer Review 12 (1977–78): 147–61; and Gerhard Joseph, “Chaucer’s Coinage: Foreign Exchange and the Puns of the Shipman’s Tale,” Chaucer Review 17 (1983): 341–57. 7. See A. C. Spearing, The Medieval Poet as Voyeur: Looking and Listening in Medieval Love-Narratives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), especially chapters 1 and 2, for an excellent analysis of the ways that psychoanalytic theories of looking intersect (or miss) medieval ideas about the privileges and dangers that accompany the ability to see from an unseen position. Spearing’s discussion of Actaeon, pp. 35–39, which he argues is a narrative moment that includes the audience in the transgression of looking, is a good example of the moral responsibility that attaches to looking in the medieval (and early modern) imagination. 8. Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: Vintage, 1979), pp. 201–4, explains that the invisibility of power is the key to panopticism’s success. 9. Vern L. Bullough, “On Being a Male in the Middle Ages,” Medieval Masculinities: Regarding Men in the Middle Ages, ed. Clare Lees (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994), pp. 31–45. As The Goode Man Taght Hys Sone, Trials and Joys of Marriage, ed. Eve Salisbury (Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute, 2002), also makes clear, a husband was expected to satisfy his wife, by among other things, providing her with clothing. I am also influenced in my interpretation of masculine responsibility in this chapter by Anne Laskaya, Chaucer’s Approach to Gender in the “Canterbury Tales,” Chaucer Studies XXIII (Cambridge, UK: D. S. Brewer, 1995), pp. 15–31; pp. 176–88. 10. As Myne Awen Dere Sone, ed. Tauno F. Mustanoja Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 49 (1948): 145–93, puts it, “To wynne Qe wyrschyp and honoure. / Be liberall, sone, curtase, and wyse, / If Qou will wyn Qe lofe and pryse” (lines 386–88). 11. In The Consail and Teiching at the Vys Man Gaif His Sone, Ratis Raving and other Moral and Religious Pieces in Prose and Verse, ed. J. R. Lumby, EETS 43 (Oxford: Oxford University Press for EETS, 1870) the speaker refuses to counsel his son on whether or not to take a wife. His outline of the stages 202 NOTES

of life, however, suggests that marriage is a natural stage in a young man’s transition from youth to maturity. The new husband marks his wisdom, moreover, by treating his wife well, and by acting blamelessly]: “Be war, my veddyt sone, for-thy / And treit thi wyf recht tendyrly; / And gyf hir cauß of gud bounte, / Sa that defalt be nocht in thee” (lines 1800–1803). 12. See Lee Patterson, “ ‘For the Wyves Love of Bathe’: Feminine Rhetoric and Poetic Resolution in the Roman de la Rose and the Canterbury Tales,” Speculum 58 (1983): 656–95, for a discussion of the Wife of Bath’s ability to use dilatio in order to resist the linear rhetoric of her male opponents. See also, Susan K. Hagen, “The Wife of Bath: Chaucer’s Inchoate Experiment in Feminist Hermeneutics,” Rebels and Rivals: The Contestive Spirit in the “Canterbury Tales,” ed. Susanna Greer Fein, David Raybin, and Peter C. Braeger (Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University, 1991), p. 112, [105–24], who usefully identifies the critical tendency to use the “values of the prevailing authority. . .to judge the Wife at fault for being in opposition to those values.” 13. See John A. Alford, “The Wife of Bath Versus the Clerk of Oxford,” Chaucer Review 21 (1986): 113 [108–32], for an analysis of the different strategies of Alisoun and the Clerk in terms of the distinction between philosophy and rhetoric. His suggestion that the Clerk’s method ( philosophy) is a linear disposition that is “terse, moral, guided by knowledge, motivated by the desire for truth,” is similar to Jankyn’s in its formal organization and ostensible purpose. Also see Robert A. Pratt, “Jankyn’s Book of Wikked Wyves: Medieval Antimatrimonial Propaganda in the Universities,” Annuale Mediaevale 3 (1962): 5–27, who traces the prevalence of the contents in Jankyn’s book in clerical discourse, particularly at Oxford. 14. Carruthers, “The Wife of Bath and the Painting of Lions,” p. 222, n. 38. 15. Catharine MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), p. 168. Also see Karma Lochrie, Covert Operations: The Medieval Uses of Secrecy ( Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999), pp. 135–76, for a fascinating discussion of making women into men’s secrets. 16. The medieval household was not a private space that was unseen by others. See David Herlihy Medieval Households (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), pp. 149–55, for a discussion of the circulation of members in the household during the late Middle Ages. Paul Strohm, Social Chaucer (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), pp. 24–44, explains that the royal household was simply an assemblage of persons. As an idea, then, even in more urban, mercantile arrangements, the household was not a bounded space outside the perusal of others. Moreover, as Barbara Hanawalt explains in her Crime and Conflict in Medieval England, 1300–1348 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979), pp. 155–60; The Ties that Bound: Peasant Families in Medieval England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), pp. 205–19; and Growing Up in Medieval London: The Experience of Childhood in History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), medieval living arrangements, especially in urban settings, were more open to the perusal of neighbors than those of later periods. NOTES 203

17. What I am suggesting, then, is that privacy in the Middle Ages is always a fabrication. As Herlihy explains, Medieval Households, pp. 112–30, those boundaries were often designated by roles that persons were meant to perform. 18. See Sheila Delany, “Strategies of Silence in the Wife of Bath’s Recital,” Exemplaria 2 (1990): 49–69; and Susan Signe Morrison, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: The Wife of Bath and Vernacular Translations,” Exemplaria 8 (1996): 97–123. Also see Lochrie, Covert Operations, pp. 56–61. 19. This point recalls Chauntecleer’s famous assertion, “Mulier est hominis confusio” (VII. 3164), which is, according to Benson, Riverside Chaucer, 3rd edn. (New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 1987), p. 939, “Part of a comic definition of woman so widely known that it was almost proverbial.” For a survey of its circulation, see Carleton Brown, “Mulier est Hominis Confusio,” Modern Language Notes 35 (1920): 479–82. One example of this passage, from the pseudo “Letter of Blessed Bernard to Abbot Codrille,” makes explicit the connection between woman as riot and the reduction of man’s stature: “Woman is man’s confusion—an insatiable beast, a continual care, the dwelling of turbulence, an impediment to chastity, a man’s destruction, the channel of adultery; she is the enslaving of man, and his heaviest weight of all,” qtd. in Carolly Erickson, The Medieval Vision: Essays in History and Perception, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), p. 201. 20. As Melibee attests (VII. 1055; see chapter 1 of this book for a discussion), it was common wisdom that men should not reveal secrets to women. While admonitory literature such as Myne Awen Dere Sone suggests that men should guard their private dealings with anyone, Alisoun herself affirms the stock belief that women could not keep secrets through her Midas account (III. 969–73). 21. For information about the spread of this faux etymology, see Henry Ansgar Kelly, “Rule of Thumb and the Folklaw of the Husband’s Stick,” Journal of Legal Education 44 (1994): 341–65; Medieval historians (see particularly the work of Hanawalt and Brundage) point to the paucity of statistical evidence documenting domestic violence as we define it now. This empirical scarcity is due at least in part to the visibility of domestic relations in the medieval household, since there is also the suggestion that the networks of visible surveillance that were simply part of medieval community relations (the church, neighbors, and family) kept marital cruelty (the standard for marital separation) under their own watch. 22. See James A. Brundage, “Domestic Violence in Classical Canon Law,” Violence in Medieval Society, ed. Richard W. Kaeuper (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2000), pp. 183–95, who suggests that men could use a reasonable standard of chastisement to subdue their wives, but who also explains that men who were abusive were condemned by canonists, to the extent that abused wives could seek legal separation from their violent spouses. The literature he surveys also suggests, interestingly, that clerics were expected to keep closer control over their wives, and thus were allowed greater latitude in means of chastisement. Shulamith Shahar, The Fourth 204 NOTES

Estate: A History of Women in the Middle Ages, trans. Chaya Galai (New York: Methuen, 1983), pp. 89–90, suggests that in some European towns, “men were punished for being beaten by their wives.” Barbara Hanawalt, “Violence in the Domestic Milieu of Late Medieval England,” Violence in Medieval Society, ed. Richard W. Kaeuper (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2000), p. 197 [197–214], suggests that the addition of familial violence to the 1352 Statute of Treason suggests that “the patriarchal establishment seemed to fear violent insurrection from wives, apprentices, minor clergy, and servants as well.” As she explains, pp. 204–5, sermons, advice literature, and even historical incidents suggest that marital harmony was the domestic state men were encouraged to foster. If a husband became abusive, the community—either on its own or through legal means—would moderate that man’s excessive discipline. 23. Emma Hawkes, “The ‘Reasonable’ Laws of Domestic Violence in Late Medieval England,” Domestic Violence in Medieval Texts, ed. Eve Salisbury, Georgiana Donavin, and Merrall Llewelyn Price (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2002), pp. 57–70; I have found the following essays from the same volume particularly useful in my construction of this chapter: Philippa Maddern, “Interpreting Silence: Domestic Violence in the King’s Courts in East Anglia, 1422–1442,” pp. 31–56; Eve Salisbury, “Chaucer’s ‘Wife,’ the Law, and the Middle English Breton Lays,” pp. 73–93; and Garrett P. J. Epp, “Noah’s Wife: The Shaming of the ‘Trew,’” pp. 223–41. 24. See the OED, s.v., “Rule of Thumb,” which is defined as “A method or procedure derived entirely from practice or experience, without any basis in scientific knowledge; a roughly practical method.” As far as I can deter- mine, this phrase post-dates Chaucer’s culture, but as folklorists explain, it was probably derived from a measurement of cloth that dates from the Middle Ages. 25. “Sire Hain et Dame Anieuse,” Nouveau Recueil Complet des Fabliaux (NRCF), eds. Willem Noomen and Nico van den Boogaard, 10 vols. (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1983–98), 2.5. All translations of this fabliau are by N. E. Dubin, © 2003. Many thanks to Professor Dubin for allowing me to use his unpublished verse translation of this fabliau. See also, Chester Mystery Cycle, ed. R. M. Lumiansky and David Mills, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974–86); The Towneley Plays, ed. Martin Stevens and A. C. Cawley 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994); Epp, “Noah’s Wife,” conducts an extremely useful comparative analysis of these and other Noah plays in relation to issues of domestic violence. 26. NRCF, 2.5.120–21. Dubin’s translation conflates the domestic-political resonance of masculine governance: “Do you imagine you possess / The sovereignty here already?” 27. NRCF, 2.5.260–69: [Sire Hains fu hastis & chaus, / Qui del ferir mout se coitoit; / N’en pot mes, quar mout le hastoit / Anieuse, qui pas nel doute: / Des deus poins si forment le boute / Que sire Hains va chancelant. / Que vous iroie je contant? / Tout furent sanglent lor drapel, / Quar maint cop & maint hatiplel / Se sont doné par grant aïr]. NOTES 205

28. NRCF, 2.5.378: [ {you must} obey and serve your man]. 29. NRCF, 2.5.383–85: [Par foi, bien le vueil creanter / Por que je m’en puisse garder; Ainsi en vueil fere l’otroi]. 30. See Eileen Power, trans., The Goodman of Paris: A Treatise on Moral and Domestic Economy by a Citizen of Paris (London: Routledge, 1928), p. 145. See the French in Le Mesnagier de Paris, ed. Georgina E. Brereton and Janet M. Ferrier, trad. Karin Ueltschi, Lettres Gothiques (Paris: Librarie Générale Française, 1994), I.vi.24. 1117–19. His emphasis, even in this passage, is on keeping the appearance of the husband’s control intact, for he goes on to say “nor behoveth it that your husband tell you the cause of his commandment, nor what moveth him, for that would seem a sign of your willing to do or not to do it according as the cause appeared good to you or otherwise, the which ought not to fall upon you nor upon your judgment, for it behoveth him alone to know it, and it behoveth not you to ask him, save it be afterwards, by your two selves alone and in private” (p. 145) Brereton and Ferrier, I.vi.24.1119–27. 31. NRCF, 2.5.364–67: [Si te covient d’ore en avant / Fere del tout a son plesir, / Quar de ci ne pués tu issir / Se par son commandement non!]. 32. Goodman of Paris, p. 137. Brereton and Ferrier, I.vi.10. 868; 869–72. 33. Bartholomeus Anglicus, De proprietatibus rerum, trans. John Trevisa, ed. Robert Steele (New York: Cooper Square, 1966), VI.13.74. 34. How the Goode Man Taght Hys Sone, lines 130–32. 35. The Book of the Knight of La Tour-Landry, ed. Thomas Wright, EETS 33 (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. for EETS, 1868), chapter XVII, p. 25. 36. The belief in woman’s lack of reason, and thus measure, was widespread in the clerical tradition. See Alcuin Blamires, ed. Woman Defamed and Woman Defended: An Anthology of Medieval Texts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), for a variety of readings from the Latin and vernacular traditions that make this assertion. 37. Qtd. in Erickson, The Medieval Vision, p. 204. 38. Peggy Knapp, “Alisoun Weaves a Text,” Philological Quarterly 65 (1986), pp. 398–99 [387–401], who gives a compelling reading of what she calls “four ways. . .[of ] seeing Alisoun” that culminates in an assertion that Alisoun’s reconciliation with Jankyn mediates the oppositional strands of critical analysis (medieval and modern) that constitute the fabric of her text. 39. See Arlyn Diamond, “Chaucer’s Women and Women’s Chaucer,” The Authority of Experience, ed. Arlyn Diamond and Lee R. Edwards (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1977), pp. 60–83. Other useful readings that concentrate primarily on the Wife of Bath’s Tale include H. Marshall Leicester, Jr., “Of a Fire in the Dark: Public and Private Feminism in the Wife of Bath’s Tale,” Women’s Studies 11 (1984): 157–78; Susan Crane, “Alison’s Incapacity and Poetic Instability in the Wife of Bath’s Tale,” PMLA 102 (1987): 20–28. 40. Helen Fulton, “Mercantile Ideology in Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale,” Chaucer Review 36 (2002): 311–28. For information on merchants’ changing social position in the late fourteenth century, see Sylvia Thrupp, The Merchant 206 NOTES

Class of Medieval London (1948; repr. Ann Arbor Paperback, 1962). Other recent studies, most notably D. Vance Smith, Arts of Possession: The Middle English Household Imaginary (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003) esp. pp. 23–43; pp. 126–36, also suggests that the problematic account of their exchange of money in the medieval imaginary made merchants more careful to conceal their identities in the public eye. While Fulton, “Mercantile Ideology in Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale,” p. 312, agrees that merchants did not mark their social identities through ostentatious displays, she also points out that “By the late fourteenth century, merchants were too powerful, too visible, too integral to the urban economy, especially in London, to be marginalized through the odd satirical portrait or unflattering anecdote based on the conventional stereotype of the greedy materialistic merchant.” In The Descryvyng of Mannes Membres, Twenty-Six Political and Other Poems, ed. J. Kail, EETS 124 (London, K. Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. for EETS, 1904), p. 64, which compares the state to a man’s body, merchants are represented as the thighs of the state. 41. Lee Patterson, Chaucer and the Subject of History (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991), p. 352; p. 365, suggests that the tale nods to the legitimate inevitability of the bourgeois life. W. E. Rogers and P. Dower, “Thinking about Money in Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale,” New Readings of Chaucer’s Poetry, ed. Robert G. Benson and Susan J. Ridyard (Cambridge, UK: D.S. Brewer, 2003), pp. 119–38, give a helpful reading of Patterson’s argument as it relates to criticism of the tale. 42. See “The Qualities of a Gentleman,” Reliquiae Antiquae, ed. Thomas Wright and J. O. Halliwell, 2 vols. (London: J. R. Smith, 1845) 1.252, which suggests that generosity is necessary for a man’s good repute. 43. In what follows I am greatly indebted to Alcuin Blamires’s article, “Refiguring the ‘Scandalous Excess’ of Medieval Woman: The Wife of Bath and Liberality,” Gender in Debate from the Early Middle Ages to the Renaissance, ed. Thelma S. Fenster and Clare A. Lees (New York: Palgrave, 2002), pp. 57–78. Although Blamires’s analysis focuses on the Wife of Bath, the association of liberality and masculinity in medieval discourse is important to my analysis of the expansion of gender that takes place in the Shipman’s Tale. 44. See “Against the Pride of Ladies,” Political Songs of England from the Reign of John to that of Edward II, ed. T. Wright (London, Camden Society, 1839), p. 153. A host of short poems from the thirteenth through the sixteenth centuries (including pieces by Lydgate and Hoccleve) attack women’s affinity for “horns,” which came to stand for feminine excess in dress. Sir Richard Maitland’s Satire on the town Ladies, (sixteenth century) is particularly interesting because it attacks bourgeois wives who attempt to mimic the nobility and hence waste their husbands’ money. 45. See G. R. Owst, Literature and Pulpit in Medieval England (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1961), pp. 390–411, for a discussion of moralists’ reactions against excesses in attire. He also cites a sermon in which the daughters of the devil are described using references to contemporary fashion: “for women settyn all here stodye in pride of array of here hed and NOTES 207

of here body, to lokyn in myrrourys, in kemyng here heed, in here hornys, in peerlys, in other ryche array abowte the heed, in ryngys, in brochys, in hedys, in long trayles” (p. 96). While “The Pride of Women’s Horns,” Historical Poems of the XIVth and XVth Centuries, ed. Rossell Hope Robbins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1959) p. 139, makes women’s extravagance its principal target, it also admits that men are equally guilty of vanity in dress. Other poems, such as “A Song of Galaunt,” Ballads from Manuscripts, ed. Frederick J. Furnivall, The Ballad Society (London: Taylor & Co., 1868–73), 1.445, and “Against Proud Galaunts,” Political Poems and Songs from the Accession of Edward III to That of Richard III, ed. T. Wright, 2 vols. (London: Rolls Series, 1859–61), 2.251, associate men’s fashion with the confusion of gender roles and the decay of society. 46. The Book of the Knight of La Tour-Landry , chapter XLVII, p. 62. 47. Goodman of Paris, p. 50. Brereton and Ferrier, I.i.10.133–34; 136–37. 48. Theresa Coletti, in her article, “The Mulier Fortis and Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale,” Chaucer Review 15 (1980–81): 236–49, argues that Chaucer’s initial description of the wife suggests that she is an inversion of the “good wife” from Biblical prescription. 49. See Benson’s explanatory notes to the Man of Law’s Epilogue (II.1163–190) for a survey of criticism that connects this passage, present in 35 MSS. to the issue of the Shipman’s Tale’s speaker. 50. Frederick Tupper, “The Bearings of the Shipman’s Prologue,” Journal of English and Germanic Philology 33 (1934): 352–71; Robert L. Chapman, “The Shipman’s Tale Was Meant for the Shipman,” Modern Language Notes 71 (1956): 4–5; and Hazel Sullivan, “A Chaucerian Puzzle,” A Chaucerian Puzzle and Other Medieval Essays, ed. Natalie Grimes Lawrence and Jack A. Reynolds (Coral Gables: University of Miami Press, 1961), pp. 1–46. 51. Michel de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life, trans. Steven Rendell (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), pp. xix, differentiates strategies and tactics between the powerful and the weak based on their alternate appropriations of space (strategy) and time (tactic). 52. See Carolyn Dinshaw, Chaucer’s Sexual Poetics (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989), pp. 113–31; Dinshaw uses Irigaray even as she surveys other feminist approaches to the tale. 53. Luce Irigaray, This Sex Which is Not One, trans. Catherine Porter (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985), p. 76. 54. Dinshaw, Chaucer’s Sexual Poetics, pp. 113–31; Susan Crane, Gender and Romance in Chaucer’s “Canterbury Tales” (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), pp. 86–92. 55. de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life, pp. 36–38, argues that strategies attempt to spatialize positions of power by appealing to propriety of place. 56. Irigaray, This Sex Which is Not One, p. 77. 57. See Kaja Silverman, Male Subjectivity at the Margins (New York and London: Routledge, 1992), pp. 329–36 for a discussion of the ways that male power articulates itself outside regulatory strictures of control. 208 NOTES

58. See John Ganim, “Double-Entry in Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale,” Chaucer Review 30 (1996): 294–305, who claims that the entire tale is an “allegory of creative bookkeeping” that involves passing off values through “organizing the world into a system of tropes and understandable and manipulable units, consistent with a particular set of values” (p. 298; p. 296). 59. Glenn Burger, Chaucer’s Queer Nation (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003), pp. 37–77, discusses the opportunities and pressures that that an emerging emphasis on conjugal affection placed on lay gender roles in the late Middle Ages. 60. John C. McGalliard, “Characterization in Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale,” Philological Quarterly 54 (1975): 1–18. 61. “Les Deus Changeors,” Nouveau Recueil Complet des Fabliaux (NRCF), eds. Willem Noomen and Nico van den Boogaard, 10 vols. (Assen, NE: Van Gorcum, 1983–98), 5.51. All translations of this fabliau are by N. E. Dubin, © 2003. Thanks to Professor Dubin for allowing me to use his unpublished verse translation of this fabliau. 62. Shoshana Felman, The Literary Speech Act: Don Juan with J.L. Austin, or Seduction in Two Languages (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983), p. 84. 63. Mary Flowers Braswell, “Chaucer’s ‘queinte termes of lawe’: A Legal View of the Shipman’s Tale,” Chaucer Review 22 (1988): 295–304. 64. See “Verses Concerning the Pepper-Mill,” The Literary Context of Chaucer’s Fabliaux, ed. Larry D. Benson and Theodore M. Andersson (New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1971) pp. 280–81; “The Priest and the Lady,” Literary Context, pp. 328–37. Gayle Rubin, “The Traffic in Women: Notes on the Political Economy of Sex,” Towards an Anthropology of Women, ed. Rayna R. Reiter (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1975), pp. 157–210, and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985), pp. 1–27, provide analysis of the circulations of homosocial desire that “trafficking” women can facilitate between men. 65. Karma Lochrie, “Women’s ‘Pryvetees’ and Fabliau Politics in the Miller’s Tale,” Exemplaria 6 (1994): 287–304. 66. NRCF, 5.51.105–7: [Au tesmoing que j’en ai veü. / Aucun pechié m’avoit neü / Que j’ai si tost fame espouse]. 67. Giovanni Boccaccio, The Decameron, trans. G. H. McWilliam (London: Penguin, 1972), VIII,1; VIII, 2. See John Finlayson, “Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale, Boccaccio, and the ‘Civilizing’ of Fabliau,” Chaucer Review 36 (2002): 336–51; and Carol F. Heffernan, “Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale and Boccaccio’s Decameron, VIII, 1: Retelling a Story,” Courtly Literature: Culture and Context, ed. Keith Busby and Erik Kooper (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1990), pp. 261–70, for a more developed discussion of connections between these stories and Chaucer’s tale. 68. Boccaccio, Decameron, VIII, 1 and VIII, 2. While VIII, 1 is a story designed to punish a woman’s greed, VIII, 2 is supposed to illustrate the deceptive nature of priests. It is clear that the woman in VIII, 1 is punished, but Belcolore comes to a reconciliation with the priest, but only, as the tale NOTES 209

points out, because he uses the authority of his office to frighten her: “But Belcolore was infuriated with the priest for having made such a fool of her, and refused to speak to him for the rest of the summer until the grape-harvest, by which time he had scared the life out of her so successfully by threatening to see that she was consigned to the very centre of Hell, that she made her peace with him over a bottle of must and some roast chestnuts” (p. 560). 69. Woods, “A Professional Thyng,” p. 147; Paul Stephen Schneider, “ ‘Taillynge Ynough’: The Function of Money in the Shipman’s Tale,” Chaucer Review 11 (1977): 207 [201–9], argues that the wife’s display of affection for her husband indicates that she will not be involved in similar adulterous exchanges in the future. 70. Thomas Hahn, “Money, Sexuality, Wordplay, and Context in the Shipman’s Tale’, Chaucer in the Eighties,” ed. Julian N. Wasserman and Robert J. Blanch (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1986), p. 235 [235–49]. 71. As Derek Pearsall, The Canterbury Tales (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1985), p. 214, notes, “The ease and speed with which she converts her own offence into a cause of complaint against her husband is nicely observed.” 72. David H. Abraham, “ ‘Cosyn and Cosynage’: Pun and Structure in the Shipman’s Tale,” Chaucer Review 11 (1977): 319–27; Schneider, “ ‘Taillynge Ynough,’” pp. 201–9. 73. Joan Cadden, Meanings of Sex Difference in the Middle Ages: Medicine, Science, and Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 93–4; pp. 134–65; and pp. 247–48, traces converges and differences between medical and moral views of sexual pleasure. 74. Goodman of Paris, pp. 184–86 (p. 184). Brereton and Ferrier, I.viii.11–12. 75. Leo Bersani, “Is the Rectum a Grave?” AIDS: Cultural Analysis/Cultural Activism, ed. Douglas Crimp (Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press, 1988), p. 218 [197–202], where Bersani elaborates the often unrecognized oscillation inherent to sexuality: “the self which the sexual shatters provides the basis on which sexuality is associated with power. It is possible to think of the sexual as, precisely, moving between a hyperbolic sense of self and a loss of all consciousness of self. But sex as self-hyperbole is perhaps a repression of self as self-abolition.” 76. See James Brundage, Law, Sex, and Christian Society, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), whose discussions of marital sex during different periods is especially helpful. Although his flowchart of regulations stipulated by various penitentials (figure 4.1, p. 162), predates Chaucer’s era, taken together with his discussion of marital sex in the period after the black death (pp. 487–518), it becomes clear that marital sex was an activity that moralists feared would corrupt partners in a conjugal union. Strict regulation of marital sex, accordingly, was not only meant to save married couples from the sins of sensuality, but also to demonstrate the disciplined order that ruled even the most private goings on in the household. 77. See Katharina Wilson and Elizabeth M. Makowski, eds.,“Wykked Wyves and the Woes of Marriage”: Misogamous Literature from Juvenal to Chaucer (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1990), especially chapter 4 for a survey of 210 NOTES

materials that express this view. Also see Owst, Literature and the Pulpit, pp. 378–79. 78. Augustine, City of God, trans. Marcus Dods, introduction by Thomas Merton (New York: Modern, 1950), Book XIV, chapter 18 (pp. 466–67). Citing the revelatory shift in sight that occurs upon the fall, Augustine attributes sexual shame to both men and women. His examples of marital sexuality, however, assume that a man controls the domain where such intimacy takes place; thus he turns out servants, sends away attendants, and so on, so that his shame will not be revealed. 79. Bersani, “Is the Rectum a Grave?” p. 218. 80. Besides articles by Richardson, and Adams, several other articles suggest Biblical allusions in this tale as part of an undercurrent of morality in the tale. This Christian undertow, which assumes that medievals could see marks of spirituality in ways that moderns cannot, is indebted to the Augustinian reading practices outlined by D. W. Robertson, Jr., in his rev- olutionary study, A Preface to Chaucer: Studies in Medieval Perspectives (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962), particularly pp. 52–137. I do not wish to argue against the contention that medievals had more acute powers of spiritual insight than we do today. Instead I want to admit that medievals were just as prone to don cognitive blinders in their readings of signs that could carry spiritual import as we are in our more secular culture. In other words, while I am indebted to articles including Gail McMurray Gibson, “Resurrection as Dramatic Icon in the Shipman’s Tale,” Signs and Symbols in Chaucer’s Poetry, ed. John P. Hermann and John Burke, Jr. (University, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1981), pp. 102–112; Lorraine Kohanske Stock, “The Reenacted Fall in Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale,” Studies in Iconography 7–8 (1981–82): 135–45; and R. H. Winnick, “Luke 12 and Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale,” Chaucer Review 30 (1995): 164–90, I do not see that the spiritual ethos to which their analyses point is attached to any point of view in the tale. Like other Old French fabliaux (Les quatre Sohais saint Martin, NRCF, 4.31; L’Esquiriel, NRCF, 6.58), this tale acknowledges tropes of common morality even as it refuses to affirm them.

Chapter 5 Miscellaneous Chaucer: Proverbial Masculinity in Harley 7333 1. John M. Manly and Edith Rickert, eds., The Text of the “Canterbury Tales” Studied on the Basis of All Known Manuscripts, vol. 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940), p. 207. See Linne R. Mooney, “John Shirley’s Heirs,” Yearbook of English Studies 33 (2003): p. 190 [182–98], who suggests that Harley 7333 was written by “at least eight scribes.” Her division of the hands, which differs from that of Manly and Rickert, interests me because she suggests that three scribes, one of whom was responsible for the portion of the manuscript containing Impingham’s proverbs, worked together in a close collaborative relationship, “passing texts and quires from one to the NOTES 211

other for completion” (p. 190). The three scribes that Mooney identifies are responsible for the Shirleian material in this manuscript, which, incidentally, also means that these scribes were involved in producing the portions of the text containing Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales and shorter poems (Mooney’s scribes B, C, and D also copied Shirleian material that was not by Chaucer, but they were responsible for all the Chaucer copying in the manuscript according to her identifications). The maker of the Impingham proverbs, then, played a pivotal role in the compilation of Chaucer’s body of work in this manuscript. 2. Margaret Connelly, John Shirley: Book Production and the Noble Household in Fifteenth-Century England (Brookfield, IL: Ashgate: 1998), pp. 173–75; Julia Boffey and John J. Thompson, “Anthologies and Miscellanies: Production and Choice of Texts,” Book Production and Publishing in Britain, 1375–1475, ed. Jeremy Griffiths and Derek Pearsall (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), p. 280 [279–315]. John J. Thompson, “After Chaucer: Resituating Middle English Poetry in the Late Medieval and Early Modern Period,” New Directions in Later Medieval Manuscript Studies, ed. Derek Pearsall, (Rochester, NY: York Medieval Press, 2000), pp. 189–90 [183–99], makes a similar point in discussing this manuscript’s relevance to Hoccleve’s self-promoting praise of Chaucer. 3. Ralph Hanna III, Pursuing History: Middle English Manuscripts and their Texts (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996), especially pp. 1–34. 4. A. I. Doyle, “Publication by Members of the Religious Orders,” Book Production and Publishing in Britain, 1375–1475, ed. Jeremy Griffiths and Derek Pearsall (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 109–23; also see Christopher Cannon, “Monastic Productions,” The Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature, ed. David Wallace (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 316–48, who discusses the holdings of late medieval monastic libraries and explores the atmosphere of patronage in monastic institutions of the late fifteenth century. In the case of Harley 7333, however, Doyle cautions against too comfortable an assumption that the manuscript was produced at Leicester Abbey, since the spelling has been associated with North Hampshire by Jeremy Smith (Connelly, John Shirley, p. 186, n. 21). From the names and rebuses in the manuscript, however, it is clear that the manuscript was among the Abbey’s holdings by the late fifteenth century, and it is also clear that the manuscript was compiled there. The marginal notation on folio 150r, “Doctor Peni wirt this booke,” would appear to be a clear indication of production; but as Linne R. Mooney points out in her discussion, “John Shirley’s Heirs,” p. 194, this inscription appears on one of two folios that her “Scribe E” copied, and this quire is written by two hands that do not appear elsewhere in the manuscript. This annotation, then, because its fascicle is rather unique, does not settle the location of production for the manuscript. Since Leicester itself was a locus of royal power during the last years of Henry VI’s reign, most scholars who have considered this manuscript believe the Shirley exemplars would have come into the 212 NOTES

hands of the Augustinian Canons through such contact, if not patronage. Ralph Hanna III, “Augustinian Canons and Middle English Literature,” The English Medieval Book: Studies in Memory of Jeremy Griffiths, ed. A. S. G. Edwards, Vincent Gillespie, and Ralph Hanna (London: British Library, 2000), p. 34 [27–42], suggests that Shirley might have spent time at Leicester Abbey, perhaps among a group of long-term guests that Hanna describes as “Augustinian groupies.” 5. I date the emergence of medieval literary manuscript studies as the York conference “The Literary Implications of Manuscript Study,” organized by Derek Pearsall and Elizabeth Salter in October, 1981. See Ralph Hanna III, “Analytical Survey 4: Middle English Manuscripts and the Study of Literature,” New Medieval Literatures 4 (2001): 243–64, for a survey and bibliography of this important field. 6. Indeed, if its library catalogue is to be believed, Leicester Abbey possessed one of the finest monastic libraries of late medieval England (with an incred- ible 900 volumes!). M. R. James in his survey “Catalogue of the Library of Leicester Abbey,” Leicestershire Archaeological Society 19 (1937): p. 126 [118–30], argues that the survival of the Leicester Abbey Catalogue is more important than that of the library, because the catalogue suggests that the library itself did not contain “many lost treasures.” Nevertheless, the prove- nance of Harley 7333 illustrates the local histories of particular volumes that resulted from the bureaucratic mechanisms of the Dissolution. Recording personal information of the Ithell family from the mid-sixteenth to the early seventeenth century, this manuscript was probably acquired from Leicester Abbey by Peter Ithell, who was commissioned to make a survey of Leicestershire’s ecclesiastical holdings in 1534–35. His family’s continued use of this volume as a repository for personal information suggests an interesting alternative to studies of the institutional construction of the post- Reformation library. Jennifer Summit’s claim in her article, “Monuments and Ruins: Spenser and the Problem of the English Library,” English Literary History 70 (2003): [1–34], that “library-building served the ends of nation- building” remains true for bibliophiles like John Bale, John Leland, Sir John Prise, or the later Matthew Parker, but Ithell’s use of Harley 7333 suggests that the histories of unique volumes are also bound up with the histories of individual subjects and their families. 7. Manly and Rickert, The Text of the “Canterbury Tales,” p. 211. 8. Seth Lerer, “Medieval English Literature and the Idea of the Anthology,” PMLA 118 (2003): p. 1255 [1251–67], uses “anthologistic impulse” to describe “the distinguishing feature of manuscripts or sections of manuscripts guided by a controlling literary intelligence. . .[as] a moment when the idea of the anthology is thematically present in the texts.” 9. As discussed above (n. 4), in recent years doubt has been cast on Manly and Rickert’s proposition that Harley 7333 was copied by the canons at St. Mary de Pratis in Leicester. Nevertheless, Mooney’s description of the close collabora- tion amongst the scribes might suggest a monastic production. Although the existence of six scribes working together fits with the commercial production of NOTES 213

vernacular literature as described by C. Paul Christianson, “Evidence for the Study of London’s Late Medieval Manuscript-Book Trade,” Book Production and Publishing in Britain, 1375–1475, pp. 87–108, and even though Andrew Taylor, “Manual to Miscellany: Stages in the Commercial Copying of Vernacular Literature in England,” Yearbook of English Studies 33 (2003): 1–17, shows that networks in which different book craftsmen worked on separate fascicles of a single volume existed as early as the thirteenth century, both scholars suggest an independent yet interlocking structure for the production of books before commercial scriptoria. Indeed, the existence of a close collaborative relation, in which different scribes worked within the same quires, would point to a more centralized framework for composition. 10. The “Catalogue of the Library of Leicester Abbey” lists several individual works included in Harley 7333 that would suggest that as late as 1477 the manuscript booklets had not yet been bound together. See Manly and Rickert, The Text of the “Canterbury Tales,” p. 216, for a discussion of the most well known of these titles. The library catalogue itself, which was printed in two consecutive issues of the Leicestershire Archaeological Society in 1937, offers other possibilities. 11. Accepting John Guillory’s claim in his article, “Canonical and Non-canonical: A Critique of the Debate,” English Literary History 54 (1987): p. 488 [483–527], that the canon is a “selection of values,” and combining it with Ralph Hanna III’s contention in Pursuing History, p. 31, that miscellanies create “private, individual canons,” Seth Lerer, “Medieval English Literature,” p. 1254, exam- ines the way that the idea of the anthology “controlled much of the dissemination, marketing, and critical reception of vernacular English writing.” 12. Seth Lerer, Chaucer and His Readers: Imagining the Author in Late-Medieval England (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), p. 12. 13. This collection exists uniquely in British Library manuscript Harley 7333, fol. 121v–122r. Although the transcriptions I use in this article are my own, R. H. Bowers prints these proverbs and traces the circulation of the Chaucerian proverbs and non-Chaucerian verses in his useful piece, “Impingham’s Borrowings from Chaucer,” Modern Language Notes 73 (1958): 327–29. My departures from Bowers, noted in my discussion, deal with spelling and punctuation. 14. See Hanna, Pursuing History, p. 9, who argues that unique volumes belie a “range or spectrum of literary communities.” These literary communities, I agree, produce authorial identities that are fitted to their immediate readerships. The proverbs of Harley 7333 demonstrate, however, the ways in which situating reception as a matter of representation give such particular identities wider resonance. 15. While Seth Lerer, “Medieval English Literature,” p. 1254, points out that “narrators often dramatize their acts of reading as acts of perusing an anthology,” these proverbs further suggest that the act of reading is represented as the compilation of an anthology. 16. Manly and Rickert, The Text of the “Canterbury Tales,” p. 215, counter the common assumption that “Impingham” is the name of a scribe by observing 214 NOTES

that the hand is the same as most of the booklet, and so it is unlikely that this writer would sign only these twenty-six lines if he were only a copyist. John Manly nominates Benedict Burgh, whose Cato and “Master Benet’s Christmas Game” are included in Harley 7333, noting that Burgh was prebend of Empingham, Rutland, from 1463–77. This assignation, however, is only speculative, since it depends on cellarer William Stoughton’s knowledge of Empingham based on the Abbey’s landholdings in the region. 17. See A. J. Minnis, Medieval Theory of Authorship, 2nd edn. (1984; Aldershot, Wildwood House, 1988), pp. 190–210, where Minnis explores Chaucer’s self-identification with the role of compiler. Glending Olson, “Making and Poetry in the Age of Chaucer,” Comparative Literature 31 (1979): 272–90, usefully traces the relationship between making and craftsmanship in medieval vernacular literature. 18. As Seth Lerer suggests in Chaucer and his Readers, Chaucer’s later imitators saw him as an auctor whose sentences could be rearranged. As he argues, p. 11, to be an auctor was to be “one participant in an enterprise shared by scriptor, compilator, and commentator ”; Stephanie Trigg, Congenial Souls: Reading Chaucer from Medieval to Postmodern (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002), pp. 74–108, demonstrates that many fifteenth-century Chaucerians did not draw a line between textual criticism and imitation. To write as Chaucer was also to write about Chaucer. 19. Really, the problem is that there is no investigation of parity or lack thereof between these terms. Rather, there seems to be an uncomplicated elision of two uses of “writing.” In the first instance, “writing” is a sign of literacy that can be deployed for institutional ends or local resistance. See Brian Stock, The Implications of Literacy: Written Language and Models of Interpretation in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983); Susan Crane, “The Writing Lesson of 1381,” Chaucer’s England: Literature in a Historical Context, ed. Barbara Hanawalt (Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1992), pp. 201–21; and Steven Justice, Writing and Rebellion: England in 1381 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994). In the second, “writing” is a textual product that gains meaning through its material construction, transmission, and reception. The most apparent examples of this treatment appear under the section heading of The Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature: “Writing in the British Isles,” which includes chapters on writing in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. Now certainly, these two terms overlap in key instances, like Emily Steiner’s investigation of “relationships between the institutional and the expressive, the material and the textual, the literate and literary, and Latin and the vernacular” in her book, Documentary Culture and the Making of English Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 10. “Making,” a modern transliteration of a Middle-English term (which admittedly does not account for the multilingualism of medieval insular writing anymore than any other English term does), gives a fuller sense of the ways that construction, transmission, and reception of texts connect our NOTES 215

notions of writers and receivers, sometimes to the point of effacing distinctions between them. 20. See MED s.v.: “maker(e)”: 3. (a)–(c); s.v.: “maken”: 5. (a)–(f ); s.v. “makinge”: 5. (a)–(c). All of these terms give a sense of ordinatio and compilatio as central components of the production of medieval texts. While many definitions of “writere” or “writen” or “writing” indicate the process of composition commonly associated with authorship, only one definition includes acts of textual assembly as “writing,” and there perhaps only as a metaphor expressing the process of conjoining events in narrative sequence: s.v.: “writen” 5. (b): to compose (a treatise, song, and so on); also, compile the narrative of (a saint’s life) [quot 1250]: St. Marg. (2) 301: “Theodoius Qe clerc, he wrot hire vie.” 21. It is because I strongly agree with David Wallace, who, in characterizing the habits of the contributors to the Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature, p. xxi, claims that “Medieval literature cannot be understood (does not survive) except as part of transmissive processes—moving through the hands of copyists, owners, readers, and institutional authorities—that form part of other and greater histories (social, political, religious, and economic),” that I believe we need a more finely calibrated term to acknowledge reception’s influence on literary meanings. 22. Justice, Writing and Rebellion, p. 261. 23. Stephen Greenblatt, Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in Renaissance England (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), p. 1. 24. Jeffrey Masten, Textual Intercourse: Collaborations, Authorship, and Sexualities in Renaissance Drama (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 1. 25. By focusing on the work of Greenblatt and Masten, I take seriously Ralph Hanna’s call for contact between medieval and early modern textual studies in his “Analytical Survey 4.” However, in recognizing that “one cannot arbitrarily believe in period closure in book history” (p. 248), I also acknowledge that I am not pursuing Harley 7333’s later trajectories, which means that I am making my own, limited, “medieval” version of this manuscript. 26. As Andrew Taylor points out in his Textual Situations: Three Medieval Manuscripts and their Readers (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002), p. 201, “one of the characteristics of the manuscript is that the simple difficulty of piecing out the letters only reveals more clearly what is true to some degree of any act of reading, that it is an act of desire.” 27. Kathleen Biddick, “Genders, Bodies, Borders: Technologies of the Visible,” Speculum 68 (1993): 389–418. 28. Lerer, “Medieval English Literature,” p. 1254; p. 1261. 29. See Julia Boffey’s and A. S. G. Edwards’s article, “ ‘Chaucer’s Chronicle,’ John Shirley, and the Canon of Chaucer’s Shorter Poems,” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 20 (1998): 201–18, which discusses other proverbial renderings of Chaucer in several manuscripts, particularly Additional 16165, as part of what 216 NOTES

they describe as “the gradual establishment, through the later fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, of Chaucer’s reputation for gnomic wisdom” (p. 213). 30. See W. W. Skeat, ed., Early English Proverbs (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910), p. 64, for parallels to this antithetical series. 31. Bowers, “Impingham’s Borrowings from Chaucer,” p. 328. 32. The margins of Ha4 and Ht include the Latin legal maxim: “Qui in uno gravatur in alio debet relevari.” 33. See, Juvenal, Satire VI, Juvenal and Perseus, ed. and trans. G. G. Ramsay (London: Routledge, 1918), p. 82; Jacques de Vitry, “Sermon 66,” Woman Defamed and Woman Defended: An Anthology of Medieval Texts, ed. Alcuin Blamires (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), pp. 146–47; and Giovanni Boccaccio, The Corbaccio, trans. Anthony K. Cassell (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1975), p. 35. 34. Glending Olson, “Adam Scriveyn and the Book Curse,” Thirty-Eighth International Congress on Medieval Studies, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI, May 8–11, 2003; I would like to thank Professor Olson for sharing and discussing this unpublished paper with me. 35. My phrasing her is indebted to Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: Vintage, 1975), p. 203, who claims “visibility is a trap.” 36. See John S. P Tatlock, “The Epilog of Chaucer’s Troilus,” Modern Philology 18 (1921): 625–59, for other examples of this habit. Looking forward to the engagement of readers with printed books, Sasha Roberts, Reading Shakespeare’s Poems in Early Modern England (New York: Palgrave, 2003), pp. 20–21, points out that the invitation to improve a text becomes a way of gendering different readers. “Gentlemen” readers are asked to correct the texts they read, while women readers are invited to play with texts they peruse for entertainment. 37. John S. P. Tatlock, “The Canterbury Tales in 1400,” PMLA 50 (1935): 100–139. 38. Judith Butler, Undoing Gender (New York: Routledge, 2004), pp. 10–16. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources Albertus Magnus. Commentary on Aristotle, on Memory and Recollection. Trans. Jan M. Ziolkowski. The Medieval Craft of Memory: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures. Ed. Mary Carruthers and Jan M. Ziolkowski. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002. ———. Summa de creatures. Opera omnia. Ed. Auguste Borgnet. Vol. 35. Paris, Vivès 1895. Amazon Women on the Moon. Dir. John Landis and Joe Dante. Universal Studios, 1987. Andreas Capellanus. The Art of Courtly Love. Trans. John Jay Perry. New York: Columbia University Press, 1941. Aristotle. De anima. Trans. W. S. Hett as Aristotle: On the Soul, Parva Naturalia, on Breath. Loeb Classical Library 288. 1957; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986. ———. De Generatione Animalium. Trans. A. L. Peck as Aristotle: Generation of Animals., Loeb Classical Library 366. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963. Augustine. The City of God. Trans. Marcus Dods. New York: Modern Library, 1950. ———. Confessions: Introduction and Text. Ed. James. J. O’Donnell. Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. ———. Confessions. Trans. R. S. Pine-Coffin. New York: Penguin, 1987. ———. De Doctrina Christiana. Trans. D. W. Robertson, Jr. as On Christian Doctrine. New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1958. ———. Enarrationes in Psalmos, 140. Patrologia Latina 37. J. P. Migne: Paris, 1845. ———. The Literal Meaning of Genesis. Trans. John Hammond Taylor. Ancient Christian Writers. Ed. Johannes Quasten. Vol. 41–42. New York: Newman, 1982. ———. The Trinity. Trans. S. McKenna. Fathers of the Church, 45. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1963. Bacon, Roger. De multiplicatione specierum. Roger Bacon’s Philosophy of Nature: A Critical Edition with English Translation, Introduction, and Notes, of “De multiplicatione specierum” and “De speculis comburentibus.” Ed. David C. Lindberg. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983. 218 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bacon, Roger. The “Opus Majus” of Roger Bacon. Ed. John Henry Bridges. 2 vols. Frankfurt/Main: Minerva G.m.b.H, 1964. ———. The Opus Majus of Roger Bacon. Trans. Robert Belle Burke. 2 vols. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1928. ———. Opus minus, Opera quædam hactenus inedita. Ed. J. S. Brewer. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Kraus Reprints, 1965. ———. Perspectiva [Opus Majus, Pt. V]. Roger Bacon and the Origins of Perspectiva in the Middle Ages: A Critical Edition and English Translation of Bacon’s “Perspectiva” with Introduction and Notes. Ed. David C. Lindberg. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Ballads from Manuscripts. Ed. Frederick J. Furnivall. The Ballad Society. London: Taylor & Co., 1868–73. Bartholomeus Anglicus. De proprietatibus rerum. Ed. Robert Steele. Trans. John Trevisa. New York: Cooper Square, 1966. Beauvais, Vincent of. Speculum naturale, Speculum quadruplex; sive, Speculum maius, vol. 1. Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlaganstalt, 1964–65. Bernard of Clairvaux. On Conversion. Bernard Clairvaux, Selected Works. Trans. G. R. Evan. Classics of Western Spirituality. New York: Paulist Press, 1987. 65–97. Boccaccio, Giovanni. The Corbaccio. Trans. Anthony K. Cassell. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1975. ———. The Decameron. Trans. G. H. McWilliam. London: Penguin, 1972. The Book of the Knight of La Tour Landry. Ed. Thomas Wright. EETS, o.s. 33. London: K.Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. for EETS, 1868. Bracton, Henry. De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae. Trans. Samuel E. Thorne as On the Laws and Customs of England (c. 1250). Ed. George E. Woodbine. Selden Society, 1968; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977. Caxton, William. The Book of the Knight of the Tower. Ed. M. Y. Offord. EETS, Supplementary Series 2. London: Oxford University Press for EETS, 1971. Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Riverside Chaucer. Ed. Larry D. Benson. 3rd edn. New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 1987. Chester Mystery Cycle. Ed. R. M. Lumiansky and David Mills. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974–86. Christine de Pizan. A Medieval Woman’s Mirror of Honor: The Treasury of the City of Ladies. Ed. Madeleine Pelner Cosman. Trans. Charity Cannon Willard. New York: Persea Books, 1989. The Consail and Teiching at the Vys Man Gaif His Sone, Ratis Raving and other Moral and Religious Pieces in Prose and Verse. Ed. J. R. Lumby. EETS 43. Oxford: Oxford University Press for EETS, 1870. Dame Sirith. The Trials and Joys of Marriage, ed. Eve Salisbury. Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute, 2002. The Descryvyng of Mannes Membres. Twenty-Six Political and Other Poems. Ed. J. Kail. EETS 124. London, K. Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. for EETS, 1904. The Digby Plays: With an Incomplete “Morality” of Wisdom, Who Is Christ. Ed. F. J. Furnivall. EETS, e.s., 70. London: K.Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. for EETS, 1896 . Ellison, Ralph. Invisible Man. 1952; New York: Vintage, 1995. BIBLIOGRAPHY 219

Early English Proverbs. Ed. W. W. Skeat. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910. English Wycliffite Writings. Ed. Anne Hudson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Fifteenth Century Prose and Verse. Ed. A. W. Pollard. London: A. Constable & Co., 1903. Froissart. Chronicles. Ed. and trans. Geoffrey Brereton. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1978. Geoffrey de Vinsauf. The Poetria Nova and Its Sources in Early Rhetorical Doctrine. Ed. and trans. Ernest A. Gallo. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1966. “God Amende Wykkyd Cownscell.” Ed. Rossell Hope Robbins. Neuphilogische Mitteilungen 57(1956): 94–102. The Good Wife Taught Her Daughter, The Good Wyfe Wold a Pylgremage, The Thewis of Gud Women. Ed. Tauno F. Mustanoja. Helsinki: Suomalaisan Kirjallisuuden Seuran, 1948. The Goode Man Taght Hys Sone. The Trials and Joys of Marriage. Ed. Eve Salisbury. Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute, 2002. The Goodman of Paris: A Treatise on Moral and Domestic Economy by a Citizen of Paris. Trans. Eileen Power. London: Routledge, 1928. Grosseteste, Robert. Carmina Anglo-Normannica: Robert Grosseteste’s Chasteau d’Amour, to Which Are Added, “La Vie de Sainte Marie Egyptienne” and an English Version of the “Chasteau d’Amour.” Ed. M. Cooke. 1852; New York: Burt Franklin, 1967. ———. On Light. Trans. Clare C. Riedl. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 1942. Guillaume de Lorris and Jean de Meun. Le Roman de la Rose. Ed. Félix Lecoy. 3 vols. Paris: H. Champion, 1965–70. Guillaume de Machaut. Jugement dou Roy de Behaigne and Remede de fortune. Ed. James I. Wimsatt, William W. Kibler, and Rebecca A. Baltzer. The Chaucer Library. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1988. Hall, George D. G., ed. and trans. Tractatus de Legibus et Consuetudinibus Regni Anglie qui Glanvilla Vocatur, The Treatise on the Laws and Customs of the Realm of England Commonly Called Glanvill. London: Nelson, 1965. Heresy Trials in the Diocese of Norwich 1428–31. Ed. N.P. Tanner. Camden Fourth Series, vol. 20. London: Offices of the Royal Historical Society, 1977. Historical Poems of the XIVth and XVth Centuries. Ed. Rossell Hope Robbins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1959. Hugh of St. Victor. Didascalicon. Trans. Jerome Taylor. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961. ———. De sacramentis Christianae fidei. Trans. Roy J. Deferrari as On the Sacraments of Christian Faith. Cambridge, MA: Medieval Academy, 1951. ———. “Hugo of St. Victor: ‘De Tribus Maximis Circumstantiis Gestorum.’ ” Ed. William M. Green, Speculum 18 (1943): 484–93. The Hollow Man. Dir. Paul Verhoeven. Columbia Tri-Star, 2000. The Invisible Man. Dir. James Whale. Universal Studios, 1933. Jacques de Vitry. “Sermon 66.” Woman Defamed and Woman Defended: An Anthology of Medieval Texts. Ed. Alcuin Blamires. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. pp. 146–47. 220 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Juvenal. Satire VI, Juvenal and Perseus. Ed. and trans. G. G. Ramsay. London: Routledge, 1918. Jyl of Breyntford’s Testament and Other Poems. Ed. Frederick J. Furnivall. London: Printed for private circulation, 1871. Knighton, Henry. Chronicon Henrici Knighton vel Cnitthon, monachi, Leycestrensis. Ed. J. R. Lumby. 2 vols. Rolls Series, London, Printed for H. M. Stationery off., by Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1865–86. The Lanterne of Li{t. Ed. L. M. Swinburn. EETS, OS 151. London: K. Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. for EETS, 1917. Larsen, Nella. Passing. New York: Collier Books, 1971. Le Mesnagier de Paris. Ed. Georgina E. Brereton and Janet M. Ferrier. Trad. Karin Ueltschi. Lettres Gothiques. Paris: Librarie Générale Française, 1994. Livy. From the Founding of the City: Books Three and Four. Trans. B. O. Foster. Livy II. Loeb Classical Library 233. 1959; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967. 142–67. Matthew de Vendôme. Ars Versificatoria, Les Arts poétiques du XII et XIII siècles. Ed. Edmond Faral. Paris: E. Champion, 1924. Middle English Dictionary. Ed. S. M. Kuhn and J. Reidy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1975–2000. Middle English Lyrics. Ed. Maxwell S. Luria and Richard L. Hoffman. New York: Norton, 1974. “Myne Awen Dere Sone.” Ed. Tauno F. Mustanoja. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 49 (1948): 145–93. Ockham, William. Opera philosophica et theological. Eds. B. Boehner, G. Gál, and Steven Brown. 7 vols. St. Bonaventure, NY: Editiones Instituti Franciscani Universitatis S. Bonaventurae, 1974–88. On the Twenty-Five Articles. Select English Writings of John Wyclif. Ed. Thomas Arnold. Vol. 3. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971. Ovid. Metamorphoses, Books IX–XV. Ed. G. P. Goold. Trans. Frank Justus Miller. Loeb Classical Library 43. 1916; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984. Pecham, John. Perspectiva communis. John Pecham and the Science of Optics: “Perspectiva communis.” Ed. David C. Lindberg. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1970. Pecock, Reginald. The Repressor of Over Much Blaming of the Clergy. Ed. Churchill Babington. Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain and Ireland During the Middle Ages. 2 vols. London: Longman, 1860. Petrarch. Petrarch: Four Dialogues for Scholars. . .from “De remedies utriusque fortune.” Ed. and trans. Conrad H. Rawski. Cleveland, OH: Press of Western Reserve University, 1967. Plato. “Republic.” Complete Works. Ed. John M. Cooper. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997. 971–1223. ———. Plato’s Cosmology: The Timaeus of Plato. Trans. Francis Macdonald Cornford. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, & Co., 1937. Political Poems and Songs from the Accession of Edward III to That of Richard III. Ed. T. Wright. 2 vols. London: Rolls Series, 1859–61. BIBLIOGRAPHY 221

Political Songs of England from the Reign of John to that of Edward II. Ed. T. Wright. London: Camden Society, 1839. Recueil Complet des Fabliaux. Ed. Willem Noomen and Nico van den Boogaard. 10 vols. Assen, NE: Van Gorcum, 1983–98. Reliquiae antiquae. Ed. T. Wright and J. O. Halliwell. 2 vols. London: J. R. Smith, 1845. Roth, Philip. The Human Stain. New York: Knopf, 2000. Saramago, José. Blindness. Trans. Giovanni Pontiero. New York: Harcourt, 1995. Sawles Warde. Medieval English Prose for Women: Selections from the Katherine Group and Ancrene Wisse. Ed. Bella Millett and Jocelyn Wogan-Browne. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. 86–109. Songs and Carols of the Fifteenth Century. Ed. Thomas Wright. London: T. Richards, 1856. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae. Ed. and trans. Colman E. O’Neill, O. P. London: Blackfriars, 1965. Thomas of Chobham. Thomae de Chobham: Summa Confessorum. Ed. F. Broomfield. Analecta Mediaevalia Namurcensia 25 Louvain, Éditions Nauwelaerts, 1968. The Towneley Plays. Ed. Martin Stevens and A. C. Cawley. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge. Ed. Clifford Davidson. Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute Publications, 1993. The Usual Suspects. Dir. Brian Singer. Gramercy Pictures, 1995. Wakefield Master. Noah. Medieval Drama. Ed. David Bevington. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1975. 290–305. Walsingham, Thomas. Historia Anglicana. Ed. H. T. Riley. 2 vols. London, 1863–64. Wells, H. G. The Invisible Man. 1897; New York: Scribner & Sons, 1924. The Westminster Chronicle, 1381–94. Ed. and trans. L. C. Hector and Barbara F. Harvey. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982. Wyclif, John. De Eucharistia. Ed. J. Loserth and F. D. Matthew, Wyclif Society. London: Trübner, 1892. ———. Tractatus de Mandatis Divinis. Ed. J. Loserth and F. D. Matthew. Wyclif Society. London: C. K. Paul, 1922. ———. Sermones. Ed. J. Loserth and F. D. Matthew, Wyclif Society. Vol. 2. London: Trübner, 1888.

Secondary Sources Abraham, David H. “ ‘Cosyn and Cosynage’: Pun and Structure in the Shipman’s Tale.” Chaucer Review 11 (1977): 319–27. Adams, Jenny. “Pawn Takes Knight’s Queen: Playing with Chess in the Book of the Duchess.” Chaucer Review 34 (1999): 125–38. Adams, Robert. “The Concept of Debt in the Shipman’s Tale.” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 6 (1984): 85–102. Aers, David. Chaucer, Langland, and the Creative Imagination. London: Routledge, 1980. Akbari, Suzanne Conklin. Seeing through the Veil: Optical Theory and Medieval Allegory. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004. 222 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alford, John A. “The Wife of Bath versus the Clerk of Oxford.” Chaucer Review 21 (1986): 108–32. Allen, Valerie. “Portrait of a Lady: Blaunche and the Descriptive Tradition.” English Studies 74 (1993): 324–42. Armitage-Smith, Sydney. John of Gaunt. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1964. Ashley, Kathleen, and Robert L. A. Clark, Eds. Medieval Conduct. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001. Askins, William. “The Tale of Melibee and the Crisis at Westminster, November, 1387.” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 2 (1986): 103–12. Aston, Margaret. Lollards and Reformers: Images and Literacy in Late Medieval Religion. London: Hambledon Press, 1984. Baker, Denise N. “Chaucer and Moral Philosophy: The Virtuous Women of The Canterbury Tales.” Medium Aevum 60 (1991): 241–56. Bakhtin, Mikhail. Rabelais and His World. Trans. Helene Iswolsky. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1968. Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author.” Modern Literary Theory: A Reader. Ed. Philip Rice and Patricia Waugh. London: Arnold, 1996. 118–22. Beckwith, Sara. Christ’s Body: Identity, Culture and Society in Late Medieval Writings. New York: Routledge, 1993. Beidler, Peter. “Contrasting Masculinities in The Shipman’s Tale: Monk, Merchant, and Wife.” Masculinities in Chaucer. Ed. Peter G. Beidler. Cambridge, UK: D. S. Brewer, 1998. 131–42. ———. Masculinities in Chaucer. Cambridge, UK: D. S. Brewer, 1998. Bellamy, J. G. The Law of Treason in England in the Later Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Benson, Larry D., and Theodore M. Andersson, Eds. The Literary Context of Chaucer’s Fabliaux. New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1971. Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin, 1972. Bernasconi, Robert. “The Invisibility of Racial Minorities in the Public Realm of Appearances.” American Continental Philosophy: A Reader. Ed. Walter Brogan and James Risser. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2000. 352–71. Bersani, Leo. “Is the Rectum a Grave?” AIDS: Cultural Analysis/Cultural Activism. Ed. Douglas Crimp. Cambridge, MA, and London: MIT Press, 1988. 197–202. Biddick, Kathleen. “Genders, Bodies, Borders: Technologies of the Visible.” Speculum 68 (1993): 389–418. Biernoff, Suzannah. Sight and Embodiment in the Middle Ages. New York: Palgrave, 2002. Birrell, Jean. “Who Poached the King’s Deer? A Study in Thirteenth Century Crime.” Midland History 7 (1982): 9–25. Blamires, Alcuin. “Refiguring the ‘Scandalous Excess’ of Medieval Woman: The Wife of Bath and Liberality.” Gender in Debate from the Early Middle Ages to the Renaissance. Ed. Thelma S. Fenster and Clare A. Lees. New York: Palgrave, 2002. 57–78. ———, ed. Woman Defamed and Woman Defended: An Anthology of Medieval Texts. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. Bloch, R. Howard. “Chaucer’s Maiden’s Head: ‘The Physician’s Tale’ and the Poetics of Virginity.” Representations 28 (1989): 113–34. BIBLIOGRAPHY 223

———. Medieval Misogyny and the Invention of Western Romantic Love. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991. Boffey, Julia, and A. S. G. Edwards. “ ‘Chaucer’s Chronicle,’ John Shirley, and the Canon of Chaucer’s Shorter Poems.” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 20 (1998): 201–18. Boffey, Julia, and John J. Thompson. “Anthologies and Miscellanies: Production and Choice of Texts.” Book Production and Publishing in Britain, 1375–1475. Ed. Jeremy Griffiths and Derek Pearsall. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. 279–315. Boose, Lynda E. “The Father’s House and the Daughter in It: The Structures of Western Culture’s Daughter-Father Relationship.” Daughters and Fathers. Ed. Lynda E. Boose and Betty S. Flowers. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989. 19–74. Bott, Robin L. “ ‘O, Keep Me from Their Worse than Killing Lust’: Ideologies of Rape and Mutilation in Chaucer’s Physician’s Tale and Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus.” Representing Rape in Medieval and Early Modern Literature. Ed. Elizabeth Robertson and Christine M. Rose. New York: Palgrave, 2001. 189–211. Bowers, R. H. “Impingham’s Borrowings from Chaucer.” Modern Language Notes 73 (1958): 327–29. Braswell, Mary Flowers. “Chaucer’s ‘queinte termes of lawe’: A Legal View of the Shipman’s Tale.” Chaucer Review 22 (1988): 295–304. Breuer, Josef, and Sigmund Freud. Studies on Hysteria Ed. and Trans. James Strachey. New York: Basic Books, 1957. Brittan, Arthur. Masculinity and Power. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989. Brown, Carleton. “Mulier est Hominis Confusio.” Modern Language Notes 35 (1920): 479–82. Brown, Jr., Emerson. “What Is Chaucer Doing with the Physician and His Tale?” Philological Quarterly 60 (1981): 129–49. Brundage, James A. “Domestic Violence in Classical Canon Law.” Violence in Medieval Society. Ed. Richard W. Kaeuper. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2000. 183–95. ———. Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. Bryan, W. F., and Germaine Dempster, Eds. Sources and Analogues of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. 1941; London: Routledge, 1958. Bullough, Vern L. “On Being a Male in the Middle Ages.” Medieval Masculinities: Regarding Men in the Middle Ages. Ed. Clare Lees. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994. 31–45. Bundy, Murray Wright. The Theory of Imagination in Classical and Medieval Thought. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1927. Burger, Glenn. Chaucer’s Queer Nation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003. ———. “Kissing the Pardoner.” PMLA 107 (1992): 1143–56. Burnley, D. L. Chaucer’s Language and the Philosopher’s Tradition. Cambridge, UK: D. S. Brewer, 1979. Burrow, J. A. “The Third Eye of Prudence.” Medieval Futures: Attitudes to the Future in the Middle Ages. Ed. J. A. Burrow and Ian P. Wei. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell and Brewer, 2000. 37–48. 224 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Burton, George, and H. Morse Stephens, Eds. Select Documents of English Constitutional History. 1901; New York: Macmillan, 1930. Butler, Judith. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex.” New York: Routledge, 1993. ———. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge, 1989. ———. Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge, 2004. Butterfield, Ardis. “Lyric and Elegy in The Book of the Duchess.” Medium Aevum 60 (1991): 33–60. Bynum, Caroline Walker. Holy Feast and Holy Fast: The Religious Significance of Food to Medieval Women. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987. ———. Jesus as Mother: Studies in the Spirituality of the High Middle Ages. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982. Cadden, Joan. Meanings of Sex Difference in the Middle Ages: Medicine, Science, and Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Camille, Michael. “Before the Gaze: The Internal Senses and Medieval Practices of Seeing.” Visuality before and beyond the Renaissance: Seeing as Others Saw. Ed. Robert S. Nelson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. 197–223. ———. Gothic Art: Glorious Visions. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996. ———. The Gothic Idol: Ideology and Image-Making in Medieval Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. ———. “The Image and the Self: Unwriting Late Medieval Bodies.” Framing Medieval Bodies. Ed. Sarah Kay and Miri Rubin. New York: Manchester University Press, 1994. 62–99. Cannon, Christopher. “Chaucer and Rape: Uncertainty’s Certainties.” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 22 (2000): 67–92. ———. “Monastic Productions.” The Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature. Ed. David Wallace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. 316–48. ———. “Raptus in the Chaumpaigne Release and a Newly Discovered Document concerning the Life of Geoffrey Chaucer.” Speculum 68 (1993): 74–94. Carruthers, Mary. The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. ———. The Craft of Thought: Meditation, Rhetoric, and the Making of Images, 400–1200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. ———. “ ‘The Mystery of the Bed Chamber’: Mnemotechnique and Vision in Chaucer’s The Book of the Duchess.” The Rhetorical Poetics of the Middle Ages: Reconstructive Polyphony. Ed. John M. Hill and Deborah M. Sinnreich-Levi. Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2000. 67–87. ———. “The Wife of Bath and the Painting of Lions.” PMLA 94 (1979): 209–22. Certeau, Michel de. The Practice of Everyday Life. Trans. Steven F. Rendall. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. Chapman, Robert L. “The Shipman’s Tale Was Meant for the Shipman.” Modern Language Notes 71 (1956): 4–5. Christianson, C. Paul. “Evidence for the Study of London’s Late Medieval Manuscript- Book Trade.” Book Production and Publishing in Britain, 1375–1475. Ed. Jeremy Griffiths and Derek Pearsall. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. 87–108. BIBLIOGRAPHY 225

Clark, Edwin, and Kenneth Dewhurst. An Illustrated History of Brain Function. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972. Coghill, Nevill. “Chaucer’s Narrative Art in the Canterbury Tales.” Chaucer and Chaucerians: Critical Studies in Middle English Literature. Ed. Derek Brewer. Birmingham: University of Alabama Press, 1966. 114–39. Cohan, Steven. Masked Men: Masculinity and the Movies in the Fifties. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997. Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome. “Diminishing Masculinity in Chaucer’s Tale of Sir Thopas.” Masculinities in Chaucer. Ed. Peter Beidler. Cambridge, UK: D. S. Brewer, 1998. 143–56. ———. “Introduction: Midcolonial.” The Postcolonial Middle Ages. Ed. Jeffrey Jerome Cohen. New York: Palgrave, 2000. 1–17. Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome, and Bonnie Wheeler, Eds. Becoming Male in the Middle Ages. New York and London: Garland, 1997. Coletti, Theresa. “The Mulier Fortis and Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale.” Chaucer Review 15 (1980–81): 236–49. Collette, Carolyn P. “Heeding the Counsel of Prudence: A Context for the Melibee.” Chaucer Review 29 (1995): 416–29. ———. Species, Phantasms, and Images: Vision and Medieval Psychology in “The Canterbury Tales.” Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001. Connelly, Margaret. John Shirley: Book Production and the Noble Household in Fifteenth-Century England. Brookfield, IL: Ashgate, 1998. Copeland, Rita. “Childhood, Pedagogy, and the Literal Sense: From Late Antiquity to the Lollard Heretical Classroom.” New Medieval Literatures 1 (1997): 125–56. ———.“The Pardoner’s Body and the Disciplining of Rhetoric.” Framing Medieval Bodies. Ed. Sarah Kay and Miri Rubin. New York: Manchester University Press, 1994. 138–59. ———. Pedagogy, Intellectuals, and Dissent in the Later Middle Ages: Lollardy and Ideas of Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. ———. Rhetoric, Hermeneutics, and Translation in the Middle Ages: Academic Traditions and Vernacular Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Copeland, Rita, and Stephen Melville. “Allegory and Allegoresis, Rhetoric and Hermeneutics.” Exemplaria 3 (1991): 159–87. Copland, Murray. “The Shipman’s Tale: Chaucer and Boccaccio.” Medium Aevum 35 (1966): 11–28. Corsa, Helen, ed. The Physician’s Tale, A Variorum Edition of the Works of Geoffrey Chaucer. Vol. 2, part 17. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987. Courtenay, William J. Covenant and Causality in Medieval Thought. London: Variorum Reprints, 1984. Cox, Catherine S. Gender and Language in Chaucer. Gainesville, FL: University Pressof Florida, 1997. Cowell, Andrew. “The Dye of Desire: The Colors of Rhetoric in the Middle Ages.” Exemplaria 11 (1999): 115–39. Cowling, George. Chaucer. London: Methuen, 1927. 226 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Crampton, Georgia Ronan. The Condition of Creatures: Suffering and Action in Chaucer and Spenser. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974. Crane, Susan. “Alison’s Incapacity and Poetic Instability in the Wife of Bath’s Tale.” PMLA 102 (1987): 20–28. ———. Gender and Romance in Chaucer’s “Canterbury Tales.” Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. ———. The Performance of Self: Ritual, Clothing, and Identity during the Hundred Years War. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002. ———. “The Writing Lesson of 1381.” Chaucer’s England: Literature in a Historical Context. Ed. Barbara Hanawalt. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1992. 201–21. Crocker, Holly A. “Performative Passivity and Fantasies of Masculinity in Chaucer’s Merchant’s Tale.” Chaucer Review 38 (2003): 178–98. Crombie, A. C. Robert Grosseteste and Origins of Experimental Science 1100–1700. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953. Crow, Martin M., and Clair C. Olson, Eds. Chaucer Life-Records. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966. Crowley, Theodore, O. F. M. Roger Bacon: The Problem of the Soul in His Philosophical Commentaries. Louvain: Éditions de l’Institut supérieur de philosophie, 1950. Crowther, J. D. W. “Chaucer’s Physician’s Tale and Its ‘Saint.’” English Studies in Canada 8 (1982): 125–37. Debray, Régis. “The Three Ages of Looking.” Critical Inquiry 21 (1995): 529–55. Delany, Sheila. Medieval Literary Politics: Shapes of Ideology. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1990. ———. The Naked Text: Chaucer’s Legend of Good Women. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. ———. “Politics and the Paralysis of Poetic Imagination in the Physician’s Tale.” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 3 (1981): 47–60. ———. “Strategies of Silence in the Wife of Bath’s Recital.” Exemplaria 2 (1990): 49–69. Denery, II, Dallas G. Seeing and Being Seen in the Later Medieval World: Optics, Theology, and Religious Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Derrida, Jacques. Margins of Philosophy. Trans. Alan Bass. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982. ———. “Plato’s Pharmacy.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1998. 429–50. Diamond, Arlyn. “Chaucer’s Women and Women’s Chaucer.” The Authority of Experience. Ed. Arlyn Diamond and Lee R. Edwards. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1977. 60–83. Dinshaw, Carolyn. “Chaucer’s Queer Touches / A Queer Touches Chaucer.” Exemplaria 7 (1995): 75–92. ———. Chaucer’s Sexual Poetics. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989. Doane, Mary Ann. “Film and the Masquerade.” Screen 23 (1982): 28–54. Dobson, R. B., ed. The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. London: Macmillan, 1970. Dolan, Frances. “Battered Women, Petty Traitors, and the Legacy of Coverture.” Feminist Studies 29 (2003): 249–77. Donaldson, E. T. “Chaucer the Pilgrim.” Speaking of Chaucer. London: Athlone Press, 1971. 1–7. BIBLIOGRAPHY 227

———. ed. Chaucer’s Poetry. New York: Ronald Press, 1975. Doyle, A. I. “Publication by Members of the Religious Orders.” Book Production and Publishing in Britain, 1375–1475. Ed. Jeremy Griffiths and Derek Pearsall. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. 109–123. Duffy, Eamon. The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England 1400–1580. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992. Dworkin, Andrea. “Trying to Flee.” Los Angeles Times. October 8, 1995. p. M6. Easton, Stewart. Roger Bacon and His Search for a Universal Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952. Epp, Garrett P. J. “Noah’s Wife: The Shaming of the ‘Trew.’” Domestic Violence in Medieval Texts. Ed. Eve Salisbury, Georgiana Donavin, and Merrall Llewelyn Price, Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2002. 223–41. Erickson, Carolly. The Medieval Vision: Essays in History and Perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976. Farber, Lianna. “The Creation of Consent in the Physician’s Tale.” Chaucer Review 39 (2004): 151–64. Farmer, Sharon. “Persuasive Voices: Clerical Images of Medieval Wives.” Speculum 61 (1986): 517–43. Felman, Shoshana. The Juridical Unconscious: Trials and Traumas in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002. ———. The Literary Speech Act: Don Juan with J.L. Austin, or Seduction in Two Languages. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983. Ferrante, Joan. Woman as Image in Medieval Literature. New York: Columbia University Press, 1975. Ferster, Judith. “Chaucer’s Tale of Melibee: Contradictions and Context.” Inscribing the Hundred Years’ War in French and English Cultures. Ed. Denise N. Baker. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2000. 73–89. Finlayson, John. “Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale, Boccaccio, and the ‘Civilizing’ of Fabliau.” Chaucer Review 36 (2002): 336–51. Fisher, N. W., and Sabetai Unguru. “Experimental Science and Mathematics in Roger Bacon’s Thought.” Traditio 27 (1971): 353–78. Fletcher, Angus. “The Sentencing of Virginia in the Physician’s Tale” Chaucer Review 34 (2000): 300–8. Forde, Simon, Lesley Johnson, and Alan V. Murray, eds. Concepts of National Identity in the Middle Ages. Leeds: University of Leeds Press, 1995. Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage, 1975. ———. “What Is an Author?” Partisan Review 42 (1975): 603–14. Foster, Edward E. “Has Anyone Here Read Melibee?” Chaucer Review 34 (2000): 398–409. Fradenburg, L. O. Aranye. City, Marriage, Tournament: Arts of Rule in Late Medieval Scotland. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991. ———. “Criticism, Anti-Semitism, and the Prioress’s Tale.” Exemplaria 1 (1989): 69–115. ———. Sacrifice Your Love: Psychoanalysis, Historicism, Chaucer. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002. ———. “‘Voice Memorial’: Loss and Reparation in Chaucer’s Poetry.” Exemplaria 2 (1990): 169–202. 228 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fradenburg, Louise O., and Carla Freccero, Eds. Premodern Sexualities. New York: Routledge, 1996. Freud, Sigmund. “Femininity.” Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. Ed. and trans. James Strachey. Vol. 22. 1933; London: Hogarth Press, 1964. 112–35. Friedman, John Block. The Monstrous Races in Medieval Art and Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991. Fulton, Helen. “Mercantile Ideology in Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale.” Chaucer Review 36 (2002): 311–28. Fulton, Rachel. From Judgment to Passion: Devotion to Christ and the Virgin Mary, 800–1200. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002. Ganim, John. “Double-Entry in Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale.” Chaucer Review 30 (1996): 294–305. Garber, Margery. Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing and Cultural Anxiety. New York: Routledge, 1997. Gardner, John. The Life and Times of Chaucer. New York: Knopf, 1977. ———. The Poetry of Chaucer. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1977. Gaylord, Alan T. “Sentence and Solaas in Fragment VII of the Canterbury Tales: Harry Bailly as Horseback Editor.” PMLA 82 (1967): 226–35. Gellrich, Jesse M. “Allegory and Materiality: Medieval Foundations of the Modern Debate.” Germanic Review 77 (2002): 146–159. Gibson, Gail McMurray. “Resurrection as Dramatic Icon in the Shipman’s Tale.” Signs and Symbols in Chaucer’s Poetry. Ed. John P. Hermann and John Burke, Jr. University, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1981. 102–12. Ginsberg, Elaine K., ed. Passing and the Fictions of Identity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1996. Girard, René. Deceit, Desire, and the Novel: Self and Other in Literary Structure. Trans. Yvonne Freccero. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1966. Green, Richard Firth. Poets and Princepleasers: Literature and the English Court in the Late Middle Ages. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1980. Greenblatt, Stephen. Renaissance Self-Fashioning: from More to Shakespeare. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1980. ———. Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in Renaissance England. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988. Guillory, John. “Canonical and Non-canonical: A Critique of the Debate.” English Literary History 54 (1987): 483–527. Hackett, Jeremiah M. G. “The Attitude of Roger Bacon to the Scientia of Albertus Magnus.” Albertus Magnus and the Sciences. Ed. James A. Weisheiple. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1980. 53–72. Hagen, Susan K. “The Wife of Bath: Chaucer’s Inchoate Experiment in Feminist Hermeneutics.” Rebels and Rivals: The Contestive Spirit in the “Canterbury Tales.” Ed. Susanna Greer Fein, David Raybin, and Peter C. Braeger. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University, 1991. 105–24. Hahm, David. “Early Hellenistic Theories of Vision and the Perception of Color.” Studies in Perception. Ed. Peter K. Machamer and Robert G. Turnbull. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1978. 60–95. BIBLIOGRAPHY 229

Hahn, Thomas. “Money, Sexuality, Wordplay, and Context in the Shipman’s Tale.” Chaucer in the Eighties. Ed. Julian N. Wasserman and Robert J. Blanch. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1986. 235–49. Halberstam, Judith. Female Masculinity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998. Hamburger, Jeffrey. The Visual and the Visionary: Art and Female Spirituality in Late Medieval Germany. New York: Zone Books, 1998. Hanawalt, Barbara A. Crime and Conflict in Medieval England, 1300–1348. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979. ———. “Of Good and Ill Repute”: Gender and Social Control in Medieval England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. ———. Growing Up in Medieval London: The Experience of Childhood in History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. ———. The Ties That Bound: Peasant Families in Medieval England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. ———. “Violence in the Domestic Milieu of Late Medieval England.” Violence in Medieval Society. Ed. Richard W. Kaeuper. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2000. 197–214. Hanna, III, Ralph. “Analytical Survey 4: Middle English Manuscripts and the Study of Literature.” New Medieval Literatures 4 (2001): 243–64. ———. “Augustinian Canons and Middle English Literature.” The English Medieval Book: Studies in Memory of Jeremy Griffiths. Ed. A. S. G. Edwards, Vincent Gillespie, and Ralph Hanna. London: British Library, 2000. 27–42. ———. Pursuing History: Middle English Manuscripts and Their Texts. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996. Hansen, Elaine Tuttle. Chaucer and the Fictions of Gender. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992. Hanson, Thomas B. “Chaucer’s Physician as Storyteller and Moralizer.” Chaucer Review 7 (1972): 132–39. Hardman, Phillipa. “The Book of the Duchess as a Memorial Monument.” Chaucer Review 28 (1994): 208–13. ———. “Chaucer’s Man of Sorrows: Secular Images of Pity in the Book of the Duchess, the Squire’s Tale, and Troilus and Criseyde.” Journal of English and Germanic Philology 93 (1994): 204–27. Harris, Jonathan Gil. “Shakespeare’s Hair: Staging the Object of Material Culture.” Shakespeare Quarterly 52 (2001): 479–91. Harvert, Bruce. “Chaucer and the Latin Classics.” Writers and Their Background: Chaucer. Ed. D. Brewer. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1975. 137–53. Harvey, Ruth E. The Inward Wits: Psychological Theory in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. London: Warburg Institute, 1975. Hass, Robin. “ ‘A Picture of Such Beauty in Their Minds’: The Medieval Rhetoricians, Chaucer, and Evocative Effictio.” Exemplaria 14 (2002): 383–422. Hawkes, Emma. “The ‘Reasonable’ Laws of Domestic Violence in Late Medieval England.” Domestic Violence in Medieval Texts. Ed. Eve Salisbury, Georgiana Donavin, and Merrall Llewelyn Price, Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2002. 57–70. 230 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Heffernan, Carol F. “Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale and Boccaccio’s Decameron, VIII, 1: Retelling a Story.” Courtly Literature: Culture and Context. Ed. Keith Busby and Erik Kooper. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1990. 261–70. Herlihy, David. Medieval Households. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985. Hines, John. The Fabliau in English. London: Longman, 1993. Hirsch, John. “Modern Times: The Discourse of the Physician’s Tale.” Chaucer Review 27 (1993): 387–95. Holley, Linda Tarte. Chaucer’s Measuring Eye. Houston: Rice University Press, 1990. Holsinger, Bruce W. “Analytical Survey 6: Medieval Literature and Cultures of Performance.” New Medieval Literatures 6 (2003): 271–311. hooks, bell. “The Oppositional Gaze: Black Female Gaze: Black Female Spectators.” Black Looks: Race and Representation. Boston: South End Press, 1992. 115–31. Hornsby, Joseph Allen. Chaucer and the Law. Norman, OK: Pilgrim Press, 1988. Hotson, J. Leslie. “The Tale of Melibeus and John of Gaunt.” Studies in Philology 18 (1921): 429–52. Howard, Donald R. “Chaucer the Man.” PMLA 80 (1965): 337–43. ———. Chaucer: His Life, His Works, His World. New York: Dutton, 1987. ———. The Idea of the “Canterbury Tales.” Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976. Huppé, Bernard F. A Reading of the Canterbury Tales. Albany: SUNY Press, 1967. Irigaray, Luce. The Sex Which Is Not One. Trans. Catherine Porter. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985. Jacquart, Danielle, and Claude Thomasset. Sexuality and Medicine in the Middle Ages. Trans. Matthew Adamson. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988. James, Mervyn. “Ritual, Drama, and Social Body in the Late Medieval Town.” Past and Present 98 (1983): 3–29. James, M. R. “Catalogue of the Library of Leicester Abbey” Leicestershire Archaeological Society 19 (1937): 118–30. Jay, Martin. Downcast Eyes: The Denigration of Vision in Twentieth-Century French Thought. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. Johnson, Lynn Staley. “Inverse Counsel: Contexts for the Melibee.” Studies in Philology 87 (1990): 137–55. Jones, Richard F. “A Conjecture on the Wife of Bath’s Prologue.” Journal of English and Germanic Philology 24 (1925): 512–47. Jones, W. R. “Lollards and Images: The Defense of Religious Art in Later Medieval England.” Journal of the History of Ideas 34 (1973): 27–50. Joseph, Gerhard. “Chaucer’s Coinage: Foreign Exchange and the Puns of the Shipman’s Tale.” Chaucer Review 17 (1983): 341–57. Justice, Steven. Writing and Rebellion: England in 1381. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Kane, George. Chaucer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984. Karras, Ruth Mazo. From Boys to Men: Formations of Masculinity in Late Medieval Europe. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003. Keiser, George R. “Language and Meaning in Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale.” Chaucer Review 12 (1977–78): 147–61. BIBLIOGRAPHY 231

Kelly, Henry Ansgar. Love and Marriage in the Age of Chaucer. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1975. ———. “Rule of Thumb and the Folklaw of the Husband’s Stick.” Journal of Legal Education 44 (1994): 341–65. Kempton, Daniel. “Chaucer’s Tale of Melibee: ‘A litel thing in prose.’” Genre 21 (1988): 263–78. Kessler, Herbert. Spiritual Seeing: Picturing God’s Invisibility in Medieval Art. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000. Kittredge, George Lyman. “Chaucer and Some of His Friends.” Modern Philology 1 (1903): 1–18. ———. “Guillaume De Machaut and the Book of the Duchess.” PMLA 30 (1915): 1–24. Klassen, Norman. Chaucer on Love, Knowledge, and Sight. Cambridge, UK: D. S. Brewer, 1995. Knapp, Peggy. “Alisoun Weaves a Text.” Philological Quarterly 65 (1986): 387–401. ———. Chaucer and the Social Contest. New York: Routledge, 1990. Kolve, V. A. Chaucer and the Imagery of Narrative: The First Five “Canterbury Tales.” Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1984. Kruger, Steven. “Claiming the Pardoner: Toward a Gay Reading of Chaucer’s Pardoner’s Tale.” Exemplaria 6 (1994): 115–40. ———. Dreaming in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Lacan, Jacques. The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, 1959–60. The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book VII. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Trans. Dennis Porter. London: Routledge, 1992. ———. Feminine Sexuality. Ed. Juliet Mitchell and Jacqueline Rose. Trans. Jacqueline Rose. New York: Norton, 1982. Laqueur, Thomas. Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990. Laskaya, Anne. Chaucer’s Approach to Gender in the “Canterbury Tales.” Cambridge, UK: D. S. Brewer, 1995. Latour, Bruno. “Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern.” Critical Inquiry 30 (2004): 225–48. Lawrence, William W. Chaucer and the “Canterbury Tales.” New York: Columbia University Press, 1950. ———. “Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale.” Speculum 33 (1958): 56–68. ———. “The Tale of Melibeus.” Essays and Studies in Honor of Carleton Brown. New York: New York University Press, 1940. 100–110. Lawrence, “The Wife of Bath and the Shipman.” Modern Language Notes 72 (1957): 87–88. Lee, Brian S. “The Position and Purpose of the Physician’s Tale.” Chaucer Review 22 (1987): 141–60. Lees, Clare, ed. Medieval Masculinities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994. Leicester, Jr., H. Marshall. The Disenchanted Self: Representing the Subject in the Canterbury Tales. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990. ———. “Of a Fire in the Dark: Public and Private Feminism in the Wife of Bath’s Tale.” Women’s Studies 11 (1984): 157–78. 232 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lerer, Seth. Chaucer and His Readers: Imagining the Author in Late-Medieval England. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993. ———. “Medieval English Literature and the Idea of the Anthology.” PMLA 118 (2003): 1251–67. ———. “ ‘Now Holde Youre Mouth’: The Romance of Orality in theThopas Melibee Section of the Canterbury Tales.” Oral Poetics in Middle English Poetry. Ed. M. C. Amodio. New York: Garland, 1994. 181–202. Levinas, Emmanuel. Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exeriority. Trans. Alphonso Lingis. London: Kluwer Publications, 1991. Lewis, Katherine J. “Model Girls? Virgin-Martyrs and the Training of Young Women in Late Medieval England.” Young Medieval Women. Ed. Katherine J. Lewis, Noël James Menuge, and Kim M. Phillips. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999. 25–46. Lindberg, David C. “On the Applicability of Mathematics to Nature: Roger Bacon and his Predecessors.” British Journal for the History of Science 15 (1982): 3–25. ———. “Science as Handmaiden: Roger Bacon and the Patristic Tradition.” Isis 78 (1987): 518–36. ———. Theories of Vision from Al-kindi to Kepler. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976. ———. “The Science of Optics.” Studies in the History of Medieval Optics. London: Variorum Reprints, 1983. Lipton, Sara. “ ‘The Sweet Lean of His Head’: Writing about Looking at the Crucifix in the High Middle Ages.” Speculum 80 (2005): 1172–1208. Lloyd, Genevieve. The Man of Reason: “Male” and “Female” in Western Philosophy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984. Lochrie, Karma. Covert Operations: Medieval Uses of Secrecy. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999. ———. “Women’s ‘Pryvetees’ and Fabliau Politics in the Miller’s Tale.” Exemplaria 6 (1994): 287–304. Lochrie, Karma, Peggy McCracken, and James A. Shultz, Eds. Constructing Medieval Sexuality. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997. Lomperis, Linda. “Unruly Bodies and Ruling Practices: Chaucer’s Physician’s Tale as Socially Symbolic Act.” Feminist Approaches to the Body in Medieval Literature. Ed. Linda Lomperis and Sarah Stanbury. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993. 21–37. Lunz, Elizabeth. “Chaucer’s Prudence as the Ideal of the Virtuous Woman.” Essays in Literature 4 (1977): 3–10. Lynch, Kathryn L. “The Book of the Duchess as a Philosophical Vision: The Argument of Form.” Genre 21 (1988): 279–306. ———. The High Medieval Dream Vision: Poetry, Philosophy, and Literary Form. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988. MacKinnon, Catharine. Towards a Feminist Theory of the State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989. Maddern, Philippa. “Interpreting Silence: Domestic Violence in the King’s Courts in East Anglia, 1422–1442.” Domestic Violence in Medieval Texts. Ed. Eve BIBLIOGRAPHY 233

Salisbury, Georgiana Donavin, and Merrall Llewelyn Price, Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2002. 31–56. Mandel, Jerome. “Governance in the Physician’s Tale.” Chaucer Review 10 (1976): 316–25. Manly, John M., and Edith Rickert. The Text of the “Canterbury Tales,” Studied on the Basis of All Known Manuscripts. 8 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940. Mann, Jill. Geoffrey Chaucer. Feminist Readings Series. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities, 1991. Massumi, Brian. Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation. Durham NC: Duke University Press, 2002. Masten, Jeffrey. Textual Intercourse: Collaborations, Authorship, and Sexualities in Renaissance Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. McAlpine, Monica. “Criseyde’s Prudence.” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 25 (2003): 199–224. ———. “The Pardoner’s Homosexuality and How It Matters.” PMLA 95 (1980): 8–22. McClintock, Michael W. “Games and the Players of Games: Old French Fabliaux and the Shipman’s Tale.” Chaucer Review 5 (1970): 112–36. McGalliard, John C. “Characterization in Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale.” Philological Quarterly 54 (1975): 1–18. McGrade, A. Stephen. “Seeing Things: Ockham and Representationalism.” L’Homme et son Univers au Moyen Age. Philosophes Médiéaux 27 (Louvain-la- Neuve, 1986): 591–97. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. “An Unpublished Text by Merleau-Ponty: A Prospectus of His Work.” The Primacy of Perception. Trans. James M. Edie. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1964. 3–11. ———. The Visible and the Invisible, Ed. Claude Lefort. Trans. Alphonso Lingis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1968. Middleton, Anne. “The Idea of Public Poetry in the Reign of Richard II.” Speculum 53 (1978): 94–114. ———. “The Physician’s Tale and Love’s Martyrs: ‘Ensamples Mo Than Ten’ as a Method in the Canterbury Tales.” Chaucer Review 8 (1973): 9–32. Mills, Robert. “ ‘Whatever You Do Is a Delight to Me!’: Masculinity, Masochism, and Queer Play in Representations of Male Martyrdom.” Exemplaria 13 (2001): 1–37. Minnis, A. J. “Langland’s Ymaginatif and Late-Medieval Theories of Imagination.” Comparative Criticism 3 (1981): 71–103. ———. “Medieval Imagination and Memory.” The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism. Vol. 2. The Middle Ages. Ed. Alastair Minnis and Ian Johnson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 240–42. Minnis, A. J. Medieval Theory of Authorship. 2nd edn. 1984; Aldershot: Wildwood House, 1988. Minnis, A. J., and A. B. Scott, Eds., with assistance from David Wallace. Medieval Literary Theory and Criticism c. 1100–1375: The Commentary Tradition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. 234 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Minnis, A. J., with V. J. Scattergood and J. J. Smith. Oxford Guides to Chaucer: The Shorter Poems. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. Molland, George. “Roger Bacon as Magician.” Traditio 30 (1974): 455–60. Mooney, Linne R. “John Shirley’s Heirs.” Yearbook of English Studies 33 (2003): 182–98. Morrison, Susan Signe. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: The Wife of Bath and Vernacular Translations.” Exemplaria 8 (1996): 97–123. Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Screen 16 (1975): 6–18. Murdoch, John E. Album of Science: Antiquity and the Middle Ages. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1984. Murray, H. J. R. A History of Chess. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913. Muscatine, Charles. Chaucer and the French Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1957. Neuhauser, Richard. The Treatise on Vices and Virtues in Latin and the Vernaculars (pre-1800 Works). Torholt: Brepols, 1993. Newman, Barbara. From Virile Woman to WomanChrist: Studies in Medieval Religion and Literature. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995. ———. God and the Goddesses: Vision, Poetry, and Belief in the Middle Ages. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. Nolan, Barbara. The Gothic Visionary Perspective. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977. Noonan, John. “The Power to Choose.” Viator 4 (1973): 419–34. Olson, Glending. “Making and Poetry in the Age of Chaucer.” Comparative Literature 31 (1979): 272–90. Owen, Charles A., Jr. “Relationship between the Physician’s Tale and the Parson’s Tale.” Modern Language Notes 71 (1956): 84–87. ———. “The Tale of Melibee.” Chaucer Review 7 (1973): 267–80. Owst, G. R. Literature and the Pulpit in Medieval England. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1961. ———. Preaching in Medieval England: An Introduction to Sermon Manuscripts of the Period c.1350–1450. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1926. Pakkala-Weckström, Mari. “Prudence and the Power of Persuasion—Language and Maistrie in the Tale of Melibee.” Chaucer Review 35 (2001): 399–412. Palermo, Dolores. “What Chaucer Really Did to Le Livre de Melibee.” Philological Quarterly 53 (1974): 304–20. Panofsky, Erwin. Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism. New York: Meridian Books, 1957. Parker, Patricia. Literary Fat Ladies: Rhetoric, Gender, Property. New York: Methuen, 1987. Patterson, Lee. Chaucer and the Subject of History. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991. ———. “ ‘For the Wyves love of Bathe’: Feminine Rhetoric and Poetic Resolution in the Roman de la Rose and the Canterbury Tales.” Speculum 58 (1983): 656–95. ———. Negotiating the Past: The Historical Understanding of Medieval Literature. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987. BIBLIOGRAPHY 235

———. “ ‘What Man Artow?’: Authorial Self-Definition in the Tale of Sir Thopas and the Tale of Melibee.” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 13 (1991): 117–75. Pearsall, Derek. The Canterbury Tales. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1985. ———. The Life of Geoffrey Chaucer: A Critical Biography. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1992. ———. “The Roving Eye: Point of View in the Medieval Perception of Landscape.” Speaking Images: Essays in Honor of V.A. Kolve. Ed. R. F. Yeager and Charlotte C. Morse. Asheville, NC: Pegasus Press, 2001. 463–77. Peck, Russell A. “Chaucer and the Nominalist Questions.” Speculum 53 (1978): 745–60. Pedersen, Frederick. “‘Maritalis affectio’: Marital Affection and Property in Fourteenth- Century York Cause Papers.” Women, Marriage, and Family in Medieval Christendom: Essays in Memory of Michael M. Sheehan. Ed. Constance M. Rousseau and Joel T. Rosenthal. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan UP, 1998. 175–209. Percival, Florence. Chaucer’s Legendary Good Women. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Phelan, Peggy. Unmarked: The Politics of Performance. New York: Routledge, 1993. Phillips, Heather. “John Wyclif and the Optics of the Eucharist.” From Ockham to Wyclif. Ed. Anne Hudson and Michael Wilks. Studies in Church History 5. London: Blackwell, 1987. 245–58. Pratt, Robert A. “The Development of the Wife of Bath.” Studies in Medieval Literature. Ed. MacEdward Leach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1961. 45–79. ———. “Jankyn’s Book of Wikked Wyves: Antimatrimonial Propaganda in the Universities.” Annuale Mediaevale 3 (1962): 5–27. Preston, Raymond. Chaucer. London: Sheed and Ward, 1952. Prior, Sandra Pierson. “Virginity and Sacrifice in Chaucer’s Physician’s Tale.” Constructions of Widowhood and Virginity in the Middle Ages. Ed. Cindy Carlson and Angela Jane Weisl. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999. 165–80. Rebhorn, Wayne. The Emperor of Men’s Minds: Literature and the Renaissance Discourse of Rhetoric. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995. Roberts, Sasha. Reading Shakespeare’s Poems in Early Modern England. New York: Palgrave, 2003. Robertson, Jr., D. W. Preface to Chaucer: Studies in Medieval Perspectives. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962. Robertson, Jr., D. W., and Bernard F. Huppé. Fruyt and Chaf: Studies in Chaucer’s Allegories. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963. Robertson, Elizabeth. Early English Devotional Prose and the Female Audience. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1990. Rogers, W. E., and P. Dower. “Thinking about Money in Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale.” New Readings of Chaucer’s Poetry. Ed. Robert G. Benson and Susan J. Ridyard. Cambridge, UK: D.S. Brewer, 2003. 119–38. Ronchi, Vasco. The Nature of Light: An Historical Survey. Trans. V. Barocas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970. ———. Optics: The Science of Vision. Trans. Edward Rosen. New York: New York University Press, 1957. Root, Robert K. The Poetry of Chaucer. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1906. 236 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ross, Diane M. “The Play of Genres in the Book of the Duchess.” Chaucer Review 19 (1984): 1–13. Rubin, Gayle. “The Traffic in Women: Notes on the ‘Political Economy’ of Sex.” Towards an Anthropology of Women. Ed. Rayna R. Reiter. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1975. 157–210. Rubin, Miri. Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Russell, J. Stephen. The English Dream Vision: Anatomy of a Form. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1988. Salda, Michael Norman. “Pages from History: The Medieval Palace of Westminster as a Source for the Dreamer’s Chamber in the Book of the Duchess.” Chaucer Review 27 (1992): 111–25. Salisbury, Eve. “Chaucer’s ‘Wife,’ the Law, and the Middle English Breton Lays.” Domestic Violence in Medieval Texts. Ed. Eve Salisbury, Georgiana Donavin, and Merrall Llewelyn Price, Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2002.73–93. Sànchez, Maria Carla, and Linda Schlossberg, Eds. Passing: Identity and Interpretation in Sexuality, Race, and Religion. New York: New York University Press, 2001. Saunders, Corinne. Rape and Ravishment in the Literature of Medieval England. Cambridge, UK: D. S. Brewer, 2001. Scanlon, Larry. Narrative, Authority, and Power: The Medieval Exemplum and the Chaucerian Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Scattergood, V. J. “Chaucer and the French War: Sir Thopas and Melibee.” Court and Poet: Selected Proceedings of the Third Congress of the International Courtly Literature Society. Ed. Glyn S. Burgess . Liverpool: Cairns, 1980. 287–96. Schneider, Paul Stephen. “ ‘Taillynge Ynough’: The Function of Money in the Shipman’s Tale.” Chaucer Review 11 (1977): 201–9. Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire. New York: Columbia University Press, 1985. Shahar, Shulamith. The Fourth Estate: A History of Women in the Middle Ages. Trans. Chaya Galai. New York: Methuen, 1983. Shaviro, Steven. The Cinematic Body. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993. Sheehan, Michael M. Marriage, Family, and Law in Medieval Europe. Ed. James K. Farge. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996. Shoaf, R. A. “Stalking the Sorrowful H(e)art: Penitential Lore and the Hunt Scene in Chaucer’s ‘The Book of the Duchess.’ ” Journal of English and Germanic Philology 78 (1979): 313–24. Sidhu, Nicole Nolan. “Go-Betweens: The Old Woman and the Function of Obscenity in the Fabliaux.” Comic Provocations: Exposing the Corpus of Old French Fabliaux. Ed. Holly A. Crocker. New York: Palgrave, 2006. 45–60. Silverman, Kaja. Male Subjectivity at the Margins. New York: Routledge, 1992. Skeat, Walter W. The Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer. Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1899. Smalley, Beryl. The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1941. BIBLIOGRAPHY 237

Smith, A. Mark. “Getting the Big Picture in Perspectivist Optics.” Isis 72 (1981): 568–89. Smith, D. Vance. Arts of Possession: The Middle English Household Imaginary. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003. ———. “Irregular Histories: Forgetting Ourselves.” New Literary History 28 (1997): 161–84. ———. “Plague, Panic Space, and the Tragic Medieval Household.” South Atlantic Quarterly 98 (1999): 367–413. Spacks, Patricia Meyer. Gossip. New York: Knopf, 1985. Spearing, A. C. Medieval Dream-Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. ———. The Medieval Poet as Voyeur: Looking and Listening in Medieval Love-Narratives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Speed, Diane. “Language and Perspective in the Physician’s Tale.” Words and Wordsmiths: A Volume for H.L. Rogers. Ed. Geraldine Barnes, et al. Sydney: University of Sydney Press, 1989. 119–36. Sponsler, Claire. Drama and Resistance: Bodies, Goods, and Theatricality in Late Medieval England. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997. Stanbury, Sarah. “The Body and the City in Pearl.” Representations 48 (1994): 30–47. ———. “Regimes of the Visual in Premodern England: Gaze, Body, and Chaucer’s Clerk’s Tale.” New Literary History, 28 (1997): 261–89. Steiner, Emily. Documentary Culture and the Making of English Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Stillwell, Gardiner. “The Political Meaning of Chaucer’s Tale of Melibee.” Speculum 19 (1944): 433–44. Stock, Brian. The Implications of Literacy: Written Language and Models of Interpretation in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983. Stock, Lorraine Kohanske. “The Reenacted Fall in Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale.” Studies in Iconography 7–8 (1981–82): 135–45. Strohm, Paul. “The Allegory of the Tale of Melibee.” Chaucer Review 2 (1967): 32–42. ———. Hochon’s Arrow: The Social Imagination of Fourteenth-Century Texts. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. ———. Social Chaucer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989. Sturges, Robert. Chaucer’s Pardoner and Gender Theory: Bodies of Discourse. New York: Palgrave, 2000. Sullivan, Hazel. “A Chaucerian Puzzle.” A Chaucerian Puzzle and Other Medieval Essays. Ed. Natalie Grimes Lawrence and Jack A. Reynolds. Coral Gables: University of Miami Press, 1961. 1–46. Summit, Jennifer. “Monuments and Ruins: Spenser and the Problem of the English Library.” English Literary History 70 (2003): 1–34. Sylvia, Daniel S. “Some Fifteenth-Century Manuscripts of the Canterbury Tales.” Chaucer and Middle English Studies in Honor of Rossell Hope Robbins. Ed. Beryl Rowland. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1974. 153–63. 238 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Tachau, Katherine. “The Problem of the Species in Medio at Oxford in the Generation after Ockham.” Mediaeval Studies 44 (1982): 394–443. ———. Vision and Certitude in the Age of Ockham: Optics, Epistemology, and the Foundations of Semantics, 1230–1345. New York: Brill, 1988. Tatlock, John S. P. “The Canterbury Tales in 1400.” PMLA 50 (1935): 100–139. ———. The Development and Chronology of Chaucer’s Works. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1963. ———. “The Epilog of Chaucer’s Troilus.” Modern Philology 18 (1921): 625–59. Taylor, Andrew. “Manual to Miscellany: Stages in the Commercial Copying of Vernacular Literature in England.” Yearbook of English Studies 33 (2003): 1–17. ———. Textual Situations: Three Medieval Manuscripts and Their Readers. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002. Taylor, P. B. “Chaucer’s ‘Cosyn to the Dede.’ ” Speculum 57 (1982): 315–27. Thompson, John J. “After Chaucer: Resituating Middle English Poetry in the Late Medieval and Early Modern Period.” New Directions in Later Medieval Manuscript Studies. Ed. Derek Pearsall. Rochester, NY: York Medieval Press, 2000. 183–99. Thorndike, Lynn. A History of Magic and Experimental Science. Vol. 2. New York: Macmillan, 1923. ———. “Roger Bacon and Experimental Method in the Middle Ages.” Philosophical Review 23 (1914): 283–92. Thrupp, Sylvia. The Merchant Class of Medieval London. 1948; repr. Ann Arbor Paperback, 1962. Travis, Peter W. “White.” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 22 (2000): 1–66. Trigg, Stephanie. Congenial Souls: Reading Chaucer from Medieval to Postmodern. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002. Trinh T Minh-ha. Woman Native Other: Writing Postcoloniality and Feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989. Tupper, Frederick. “The Bearings of the Shipman’s Prologue.” Journal of English and Germanic Philology 33 (1934): 352–71. ———. “Chaucer’s Bed’s Head. I. Chaucer and Ambrose.” Modern Language Notes 30 (1915): 5–7. Turner, G. J., ed. Select Pleas of the Forest. Selden Society, Vol. 13. London: Bernard Quaritch, 1901. Turner, W. Arthur. “Biblical Women in The Merchant’s Tale and The Tale of Melibee.” English Language Notes 3 (1965): 92–95. Tuve, Rosemond. “Notes on the Virtues and Vices, Part 1.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 26 (1963): 264–303. Uebel, Michael. “Public Fantasy and the Logic of Sacrifice in the Physician’s Tale.” American Notes and Queries 15 (2002): 30–33 ———. “Toward a Symptomatology of Cyberporn.” Theory and Event 3 (2000). Ussery, Huling E. Chaucer’s Physician: Medicine and Literature in Fourteenth-Century England. New Orleans: Tulane University Press, 1971. Walker, Denis. “Narrative Inconclusiveness and Consolatory Dialectic in the Book of the Duchess.” Chaucer Review 18 (1983): 1–17. Wallace, David. Chaucerian Polity: Absolutist Lineages and Associational Forms in England and Italy. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997. BIBLIOGRAPHY 239

Waller, Martha S. “The Physician’s Tale: Geoffrey Chaucer and Fray Juan Garcia de Castrojeriz.” Speculum 51 (1976): 292–306. Warner, Marina. Monuments and Maidens: The Allegory of the Female Form. New York: Antheneum, 1985. Waterhouse, Ruth, and Gwen Griffiths. “ ‘Sweete Wordes’ of Non-sense: The Deconstruction of the Moral Melibee, Part I.” Chaucer Review 23 (1989): 338–61. Watson, Nicholas. “Desire for the Past.” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 21 (1999): 59–97. ———. “ ‘Et que est huius ydoli materia? Tuipse’: Idols and Images in Walter Hilton.” Images, Idolatry, and Iconoclasm in Late Medieval England: Textuality and the Visual Image. Ed. Jeremy Dimmick, James Simpson, and Nicolette Zeeman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 95–111. Weisl, Angela Jane. Conquering the Reign of Femeny: Gender and Genre in Chaucer’s Romance. Cambridge, UK: D. S. Brewer, 1995. Welsh, Andrew. “Story and Wisdom in Chaucer: The Physician’s Tale and The Manciple’s Tale.” Manuscript, Narrative, Lexicon: Essays on Literary and Cultural Transmission in Honor of Whitney F. Bolton. Ed. Robert Boenig and Kathleen Davis. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press, 2000. 76–95. Whittock, Trevor. A Reading of the “Canterbury Tales.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Williams, George. A New View of Chaucer. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1965. Wilson, Katharina, and Elizabeth M. Makowski, Eds. “Wykked Wyves and the Woes of Marriage”: Misogamous Literature from Juvenal to Chaucer. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. 1990. Wimsatt, James. “The Sources of Chaucer’s ‘Seys and Alcyone.’ ” Medium Aevum 36 (1967): 231–41. Winnick, R. H. “Luke 12 and Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale.” Chaucer Review 30 (1995): 164–90. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. Trans. G. E. M. Anscombe. 2nd edn. London: Blackwell, 1958. ———. Tractatus, Logico-Philosophicus. Trans. D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuinness. Introduction by Bertrand Russell. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1961. ———. Zettel. Ed. G. E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von Writght. Trans. G. E. M. Anscombe. 2nd edn. (1967; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981) Woods, William F. “ ‘A Professional Thyng’: The Wife as Merchant’s Apprentice in the Shipman’s Tale.” Chaucer Review 24 (1989): 139–49. Woolf, Rosemary. The English Religious Lyric in the Middle Ages. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. Yates, Frances. The Art of Memory. London: Routledge, 1966. Yeager, R. F. “Pax Poetica, On the Pacifism of Chaucer and Gower.” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 9 (1987): 97–122. Young, Charles R. The Royal Forests of Medieval England. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1979. Young, Karl. “The Maidenly Virtues of Chaucer’s Virginia.” Speculum 16 (1941): 340–49. 240 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Zink, Michel. “The Allegorical Poem as Interior Memoir.” Yale French Studies 70 (1986): 100–126. Vivek, Slavoj. The Fragile Absolute, or Why Is the Christian Legacy Worth Fighting For? London: Verso, 2000. ———. The Metastases of Enjoyment: Six Essays on Women and Causality. London: Verso, 1994. ———. The Sublime Object of Ideology. London: Verso, 1989. INDEX

abstractive cognition (Ockham’s), 93–5 Augustine, 17, 19, 23, 24, 71, 82, 83, action at a distance (Ockham’s), 94 133, 166 n. 36, 168 n. 68, 177 n. 4, Aers, David, 9 210 n. 78 affect, 13, 138 Augustinian canons, 137, 211–12 n. 4 devotional representation and, 31, Avicenna, 82, 189 n. 10 83–6 “Against the Pride of Ladies,” 120, Bacon, Roger, 20, 21–32, 44, 83, 94, 206 n. 44 165 n. 25, n. 26, n. 27, n. 29, Akbari, Suzanne Conklin, 163 n. 5, 166 n. 30, n. 36, 167 n. 43, n. 49, 167 n. 27, 174 n. 120 191 n. 33 Alain de Lille, 98 banality, 1, 18, 32, 35, 42, 44, 45, 46, Albertanus of Brescia, 32 47, 48, 49, 174 n. 126. See also, Albertus Magnus, 17, 20, 79, 82, gender (banality of) 164 n. 18, 189 n. 13, n. 18, Barthes, Roland, 158 n. 25 191 n. 32 Bartholomeus Anglicus, 116, 205 n. 33 Alhacen [Alhazen], 20, 23, 165 n. 25, Beckwith, Sarah, 84, 192 n. 45 166–7 n. 51 Beidler, Peter G., 108 Al-kindi, 20, 163 n. 5, 188 n. 6 Berger, John, 17, 163 n. 1, 188 n. 8 allegoresis 30–1, 81 Bernasconi, Robert, 11, 160 n. 42 allegory, 14, 18, 25, 28, 31–2, Bersani, Leo, 133, 209 n. 75 34–9, 41, 88, 91, 99, Biddick, Kathleen, 1, 142 163 n. 5, 166 n. 34, 168–9 n. 68, Biernoff, Suzannah, 23, 85, 165 n. 23, 170 n. 87, 171 n. 94, 175 n. 127, 166 n. 36, 167 n. 43, 173 n. 113, 177 n. 7, 198 n. 115, 192 n. 40 208 n. 58 Blamires, Alcuin, 206 n. 43 Allen, Valerie, 197 n. 103 blaunche(n), 98, 99, 103, 198 n. 110 Amazon Women on the Moon blindness, 29, 79, 149, 156 n. 8, (film;1987), 2 210 n. 80 Ambrose, 67 Bloch, R. Howard, 179 n. 13 Anna O., 13, 162 n. 52 Boccaccio, Giovanni, 128, 208 n. 67, Aquinas, Thomas, 22, 83, 117, 191 n. 37 n. 68, 216 n. 33 Arabic learning, 20, 21, 22, 90, body 164 n. 25 Chaucer’s, 4–5, 9, 15–16, 138–41, Aristotle, 19, 20, 23, 24, 54, 78, 79, 144, 151, 210–11 n. 1 93, 94, 195 n. 81 Christ’s, 84–6 242 INDEX body––continued Carruthers, Mary, 78, 112, 160 n. 49, domestic, 58, 60, 64, 65, 187 n. 3, 188 n. 5, 190 n. 22, 206 n. 40 194 n. 69, 197 n. 107, 200 n. 2 invisibility of, 33–5, 38, 40, 70, 72 Castrojeriz, Fray Juan Garcia de, 67, manly, masculine, 2, 33, 34, 72, 77, 184 n. 73 115, 138, 173 n. 113, 182 n. 43, Caxton, William, see Book of the Knight 206 n. 40 of the Tower rhetoric and, 38, 40, 179 n. 13, Certeau, Michel de, 1, 160 n. 39, 197 n. 103 207 n. 51, n. 55 textual, 138–41, 144 Chapman, Robert L., 122 woman’s, 34, 35, 38, 41, 66, 68, Chasteau d’Amour, 99 69–70, 71–2, 74, 75, 108, 111, Chaucer, Geoffrey 126, 127, 128, 131, 132, Book of the Duchess, 14, 75, 77–105, 170 n. 86, 172 n. 103, 121, 150, 151, 168–9 n. 68 173 n. 113, 177 n. 7, 179 n. 13, Clerk’s Tale, 69 185 n. 85, 186 n. 91 Complaint of Mars, 182 n. 44 Boethius, 17 Goodlief, 48, 49, 110 Boffey, Julia, 137, 215 n. 29 General Prologue, 3, 7 Book of the Knight of the Tower [Le Livre Harry Bailey [Host], 3, 4–6, 47–8, du chevalier de La Tour Landry], 38, 110 39, 66, 71, 116, 121, 184 n. 68, Knight, 3–4, 7 186 n. 90, 198 n. 16 Knight’s Tale, 144, 145 Bowers, R.H., 144, 213 n. 13 Man of Law’s Tale, 6, 89, brain (spatialization of), 78, 82, 83, 207 n. 49 189 n. 10, n. 11. See also, distance Manciple’s Tale, 90 (brain topography), faculty Merchant’s Tale, 138, 145, psychology 147–8, 149 Braswell, Mary Flowers, 127 Miller’s Prologue and Tale, 7, 11, 145, Bromyard, John, 99 147–8, 149 Brundage, James, 169 n. 78, 203 n. 21, Nun’s Priest’s Tale, 203 n. 19 209 n. 76 Pardoner, 3–4, 139, 156 n. 14, Bullough, Vern, 110, 201 n. 9 179 n. 13 Burger, Glenn, 156 n. 14, 170 n. 86, Pardoner’s Tale, 7, 16, 139, 208 n. 59 156 n. 14 Burnley, David, 39, 172 n. 97 Parliament of Fowls, 168–9 n. 68 Butler, Judith, 153, 155 n. 1 Parson, 33, 133, 177 n. 4 Butterfield, Ardis, 96 Physician’s Tale, 14, 48, 49, 51–76, Bynum, Caroline Walker, 159 n. 36, 104, 121, 150 161 n. 54 Reeve’s Tale, 11, 139, 144, 145 Calcidius, 18 Shipman’s Tale, 15, 102, 107–35, Camille, Michael, 55, 83, 162 n. 58, 139, 150 186 n. 91, 188 n. 5 Sir Thopas, 5 Cannon, Christopher, 9, 211 n. 4 Tale of Melibee, 6, 7, 14, 17–49, 51, Capellanus, Andreas, 197 n. 102 73, 110, 120, 150 INDEX 243

Troilus and Criseyde, 138, 143–4, “consecrated virgin” (Ambrose’s), 145, 150, 151, 152 56, 67 Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale, 15, consolation, 80–1, 190 n. 23, 198 n. 115 45, 107–35, 146–7, 173 n. 109, Constance of Castile, 104, 202 n. 12, n. 13, 203 n. 20, 184–5 n. 73 205 n. 38, n. 39, 206 n. 43 contemplation, 19, 85–6, 89, 95 Chaucer the Man, Pilgrim, Poet, Copeland, Rita, 30–1, 161 n. 50, Speaker, 4–9 179 n. 13 chess, 2, 90–91, 194 n. 69 court Chester Noah, 57, 114, 204 n. 25 judicial, 51, 52, 70, 72, 73, Chobham, Thomas of, 33 178 n. 11, 186 n. 86 Christ, 10, 32, 37, 68, 84–6, 95, royal, 48, 55–6, 61–2, 97, 103, 104, 193 n. 58 178 n. 11 Christine de Pizan, 66 Courtenay, William J., 191 n. 37 Christian learning, 18, 21–2, 28, 29, coverture law, 60, 121 31, 37, 44, 67, 68, 166 n. 34, Cowell, Andrew, 98, 198 n. 110 172 n. 97, 210 n. 80 Crane, Susan, 69, 122, 175 n. 130, Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome, 6, 155 n. 5, 178 n. 11 158 n. 30, 159 n. 37 Crowther, J.D.W., 68 Collette, Carolyn, 38, 189 n. 11, n. 13 cuckoldry, 11, 108, 119, 123,127, 129, color 132, 147, 149, 184 n. 64 art and, 33, 97–9, 198 n. 111 “colourles,” 198 n. 114 “death of the author,” 8, 158 n. 25 debates over, 93, 97–9 163 n. 4, Debray, Régis, 160 n. 47 198 n. 111 Delany, Sheila, 64, 178 n. 9 emotions and, 82, 197 n. 107 Denery, II, Dallas G., 165 n. 27 language and, 199 n. 123 Derrida, Jacques, 194 n. 75, rhetoric and, 97–9, 197 n. 101, n. 107 199 n. 123 compilation (textual), 138–50, detachment, 13, 78, 80, 86, 144, 150 210–11 n. 1, 213 n. 15, diachronic materialism, 12, 137 215 n. 20 Diamond, Arlyn, 118 conduct discourse, 38–9, 51, 53–6, Dinshaw, Carolyn, 9, 122, 158 n. 29, 57, 66–8, 71–2, 74, 75, 99, 121, 166 n. 33, 207 n. 52 175 n. 130, 180 n. 24, 186 n. 90, dissolution 200 n. 2 of masculinities, 36, 88, 90, 130, confession, 28, 86, 193 n. 61 148, 173 n. 115 conjugality, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, of the monasteries, 137, 212 n. 6 80, 109, 117, 121, 123–4, distance 128, 129, 130–1, 170 n. 86, brain topography and, 77–9, 82–3, 208 n. 59 189 n. 10 Connelly, Margaret, 137, exemplary, 14, 71 211 n. 2, n. 4 historical, 9, 11, 79 Consail and Teiching at the Vys Man Gaif masculinity and, 15, 42, 78, 80, 81, His Sone, 173 n. 108, 84, 86, 88, 92, 102, 104 201 n. 11 memory and, 15, 78–9, 83 244 INDEX distance––continued faculty psychology 78–9, 81–3, representation and, 31, 78, 79–80, 189 n. 10 82, 83–5, 86, 102 Farmer, Sharon, 33, 172 n. 102 visual, 15, 25, 28, 77–80, 83–5, 92, Felman, Shoshana, 157 n. 18, 178 n. 11 93–6, 102, 194–5 n. 79 Fitzralph, Richard, 196 n. 92 Dolan, Frances, 60 flesh, 17, 31, 33, 40, 41, 54, 133, domestic violence, 111, 114–19, 147, 163 n. 3, 170 n. 81, 179 n. 13 172 n. 106, 203 n. 21, 203–4 n. forest law, 57–9, 181 n. 30, n. 31 22, 204 n. 23 regard and, 183 n. 49 dreams, 187 n. 4 foresters, 57–9, 181 n. 31, n. 35 dream vision, 78, 80, 81, 88, 97, 187 n. 4 Fortune, 88–92, 193 n. 64 Donaldson, E.T., 4, 7 Foucault, Michel, 84, 158 n. 25, Duffy, Eamon, 84 201 n. 8, 216 n. 35 Dworkin, Andrea, 178 n. 11 Fradenburg, L.O. Aranye, 9, 161 n. 51, 174 n. 119, 190 n. 21, n. 26 elegy, 80, 82, 96–7, 190 n. 26, Freud, Sigmund, 13, 161 n. 52, 193 n. 61 180 n. 21 Ellison, Ralph [Invisible Man (1952)], Froissart, 62–3, 96 2–3, 4, 8 Fulton, Helen, 119, 205–6 n. 40 epistemology, 11, 93–5, 188 n. 5 fürstenspiegel, 46, 169 n. 76 erasure memory and, 79–80 Garber, Marjorie, 11, 160 n. 42 visibility and, 6, 15, 22, 34–5, 38, Gardner, John, 55 47, 74, 127, 142, 145, 147, Gaunt, John of, 48, 55, 62, 75, 97, 104, 148, 160 n. 42 179 n. 17, 184–5 n. 73, 199 n. 126 Eucharist, 31, 95, 192 n. 45 gaze exemplarity, 14, 37–9, 41–6, 47, 49, averted, 84–7, 97 52, 54, 67–8, 71, 92, 93, 99 feminist theory and, 17, 18, 84, extramission, 18–19, 20, 21, 24, 27, 163 n. 1, n. 6, 189–90 n. 20 94, 164 n. 18 gender eye allegory of, 14, 32–6, 39, 166 n. 34 agency of, 18–19, 20, 23, 25, 26, 29, banality of, 1, 18, 32, 35, 42, 44, 45, 82, 94–9, 167 n. 44 46, 47, 48, 49, 174 n. 126 connection to soul, 25, 27–8 as collaborative, 4, 10, 11, 12–13, frailty of, 89, 90, 95–9 15, 32, 46, 48, 81, 87, 90, 100, nobility of, 25, 29 101, 103, 104, 107, 108, 118, object’s influence over, 19–20, 23, 124, 132, 133, 134, 153 25, 26, 94–9 as coverage, 10, 11–12, 14, 15, 32, priority of, 19, 29, 30, 189–90 n. 20 78, 104, 105, 109, 133–4, 146, public, 36, 49, 103, 110, 123, 132, 150, 153, 159 n. 37, 188–9 n. 9 205 n. 40 distance and, 9, 12, 14–15, 28, 42, 77–80, 92, 102 fabliaux, 15, 59, 107, 109, 114–16, (in)visibility, 1–10, 15, 16, 18, 30, 119, 121, 125, 128–9, 182 n. 38, 32, 34–5, 37, 38, 40–1, 46–8, 210 n. 80 49, 57–8, 74, 80, 87, 102, 104, INDEX 245

107–10, 112–13, 117–19, Gower, John, 137, 152 123–4, 127, 131, 134–5, 138, Green, Richard Firth, 46 141, 148, 152, 155 n. 6, Greenblatt, Stephen, 142, 176 n. 2, 172 n. 100, 180 n. 24, 201 n. 8 215 n. 25 materiality and, 1, 13, 16, 36, 54, 80, Grosseteste, Robert, 17, 20, 23, 94, 103, 108, 138, 139, 141, 152 99, 165 n. 23, 196 n. 92, order, 174 n. 124, 175–6 n. 134, guilds, 9, 84 206–7 n. 45 “Gyges’s Ring,” 1–2 as outlaw formation, 59–60, 118 passing and, 3, 10–12, 16, 36, 46, 48, Hahn, Thomas, 129 51, 54, 72, 74, 103, 104, 107, Halberstam, Judith, 159 n. 37 108, 109, 113, 114, 117, 118, Hamburger, Jeffrey, 193 n. 55 122, 124, 134, 135, 138, 146, Hanawalt, Barbara, 58, 186 n. 86, 147, 150, 151, 152, 160 n. 40 202 n. 16, 203–4 n. 22 phenomenal construction of, 13–14 Hanna, III, Ralph, 137, 211–12 n. 4, reception (textual) and, 139–40, 213 n. 11, n. 14, 215 n. 15 216 n. 36 Hardman, Phillipa, 104, 192 n. 52 reciprocity, 14, 23, 24, 25, 28, 30, Harley 7333 (British Library MS.), 32, 80, 100, 101, 104, 124, 133 15–16, 137–50, 210 n. 1, relational, 16, 32, 39–40, 46, 48, 51, 211 n. 4, 212 n. 6, 212–13 n. 9, 52, 74, 77, 80, 81, 87, 88–93, 213 n. 10, 213 n. 13, 213 n. 14, 102, 103, 107, 110, 124, 133, 213–14 n. 16, 215 n. 25 134, 149, 159 n. 37, 208 n. 59 Harris, Jonathan Gil, 161 n. 50 rhetoric and, 38–9, 40, 45, 98, 103, Hass, Robin, 97 172 n. 100, 173 n. 114, Hawkes, Emma, 114 179 n. 13, 185 n. 85, 202 n. 12 heterosexuality, 34, 80, 88, 103 suspense of, 102, 103, 107, 108, historicism, 12, 15–16, 67–8, 142, 109, 121–2, 134, 206 n. 43 158 n. 27, 161 n. 51, 174 n. 119 violence of, 14, 43, 49, 72–6 Hoccleve, Thomas, 137, 206 n. 44, visuality of, 10–13, 14, 17–18, 38, 211 n. 2 40, 48, 54–5, 72–6, 77, 102, Holland, John, 14, 55–6, 61–3, 66, 75, 109, 133, 138, 145, 149, 182 n. 44, 183 n. 48 169 n. 76, 173 n. 115 homosocial bonds, 64–5, 88, 100, Geoffrey of Vinsauf, 98–9 103–4, 124–5, 183 n. 54, 208 n. 64 “God Amend Wykkyd Cownscell,” household 173 n. 115 masculine authority and, 34–5, 39, “The Goodwife Taught Her 41, 42, 48, 51, 53–4, 69, 72, Daughter,” 38 110–14, 116–19, 121, 129–30, go-betweens, 59, 106 n. 72 149, 170 n. 96, 171 n. 93 gossip, 57, 113, 180 n. 24, n. 25. See rhetoric and, 38, 172 n. 100 also, privacy, women (secrecy) royal court and, 55, 67, 179 n. 17, governance, 34, 42, 51–60, 67, 69, 71, 184–5 n. 73 74–5, 112–14, 116, 117, 120, 123, treason and, 60 130, 171 n. 93, 177 n. 7, 178 n. 9, visibility of, 47, 48, 53–4, 55, 60, 179 n. 19, 184 n. 65, 204 n. 26 69, 72, 110–14, 116–19, 123, 246 INDEX household––continued Jay, Martin, 162 n. 58 124, 131, 149, 188 n. 9, Jean de Meun, 53, 73 202 n. 16, 203 n. 17, n. 21 Jones, W.R., 188 n. 7 How the Goode Man Taght Hys Sone, Justice, Steven, 142 116, 201 n. 9 Howard, Donald, 7, 88, 158 n. 23 Kelly, Henry Ansgar, 170 n. 80, Hugh of St. Victor, 33, 98 203 n. 21 Huppé, Bernard F., 168 n. 68, 169 n. 75 Kessler, Herbert, 168 n. 67 Kittredge, George Lyman, 55, 89, idolatry, 23, 89, 90, 96–7, 100, 188 n. 7, 177 n. 8, 193 n. 64, 194 n. 68 196 n. 91 Knapp, Peggy, 9, 205 n. 38 images Kolve, V.A., 86, 162 n. 58 debates surrounding, 15, 77, 82, 83, 88, 89–90, 92, 93–6, 188 n. 7, Lacan, Jacques, 34, 74, 157 n. 18, 196 n. 90, n. 91, n. 92, 197 n. 186 n. 96 97, 198 n. 111, 199 n. 120 Lancaster, Elizabeth of, 14, 55–6, devotional, 83, 84–6, 89, 93–6, 60–6, 75, 177 n. 8, 182 n. 44 96–7, 102, 188 n. 7, 191 n. 37, Lanterne of Li{t, 89 192 n. 40, n. 52, 198 n. 53, Larsen, Nella, [Passing (1929)], 10 196 n. 90, n. 92, 197 n. 7, 198 Latour, Bruno, 12 n. 111, 199 n. 120 Leicester Abbey, 211–12 n. 4, feminine, 10, 22, 40, 52, 57, 64, 77, 212 n. 6, n. 9, 213 n. 10 79, 80, 86, 88, 89–90, 92, 96–9, Leicester, Jr., H. Marshall, Jr., 67 101, 113, 121, 150, 171 n. 92, Le Ménagier de Paris, 38, 115, 121, n. 93, 173 n. 114, 186 n. 91 132–3 masculine, 32, 34, 41–2, 47, 52, 64, Lerer, Seth, 138, 139, 174 n. 125, 73, 80, 86, 88, 89, 92, 113, 212 n. 8, 213 n. 11, n. 15, 117–19, 120–21, 123, 129, 214 n. 18 130–31, 132, 133, 134, 144, “Les Deus Changeors,” 125, 128 173 n. 114 Levinas, Emmanuel, 2 memorial, 78–9, 81, 82, 104, Lindberg, David C., 20, 94, 163 n. 5, 160–1 n. 49, 187 n. 3, n. 4, 164 n. 19, 165 n. 27, 165–6 n. 29, 189–90 n. 20, n. 22, 194 n. 69 191 n. 33 Impingham, 140–53, 210 n. 1 Lipton, Sara, 85, 193 n. 55 intimacy, 84–8, 100, 102, 112, 113, Livy, 53, 64, 72, 73, 177 n. 5 125, 133, 142, 210 n. 78 Lochrie, Karma, 11, 86, 127, intromission (visual theory), 19–21, 24, 180 n. 24, 202 n. 15 27, 52, 82–3, 86, 89, 94, 95 Lomperis, Linda, 64, 69, 75 intuitive cognition (Ockham’s), 93–5, Louens, Renaud de, 32 195 n. 80 “lover’s gift regained,” 107, 127–8 (in)visibility, see gender Lydgate, John, 137, 206 n. 44 ((in)visibility) Lynch, Kathryn L., 81, 93, 187–8 n. 4 Invisible Man (film; 1933), 156 n. 11. lyric poetry, 85, 88, 89, 96, 97, 120, See also Ellison, Wells 180 n. 24, 192 n. 50, 193 n. 58, Irigaray, Luce, 122–3, 184 n. 64 206 n. 42, n. 44, 206–7 n. 45 INDEX 247

Machaut, Guillaume de, 88–89, 97–98, 188 n. 5, n. 9, 189 n. 10, 187 n. 2, 189 n. 19, 193 n. 64, 189–90, n. 20, 190 n. 21, 194 n. 68 191 n. 32, n. 33, 193 n. 61, MacKinnon, Catharine, 112, 178 n. 9, 194 n. 69, 199 n. 20 202 n. 15 Melville, Stephen, 31 “maker(e),” 141, 146, 151, 152–3, Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, 162 n. 55 215 n. 20 Middleton, Anne, 67, 176 n. 1 Mandel, Jerome, 177 n. 6, 178 n. 9 Mills, Robert, 159 n. 33 manhed, 9–12, 158 n. 31 mimicry, 119–24, 140, 206 n. 44 Man of Sorrows [imago pietatis], 86, Minnis, Alastair, 83, 97, 172 n. 99, 190 192 n. 52, 193 n. 58 n. 23, 191 n. 32, 193 n. 65, Manly, John M., 137, 174 n. 125, 199–200 n. 126, 214 n. 17 210 n. 1, 213–14 n. 16 misfire (language), 125, 157 n. 18 manuscript studies, 212 n. 5 misogynist discourse, 39, 57, 122, 130, marriage 145–6, 147, 148–50, 151, allegory of, 14, 32–6, 38, 39, 179 n. 13 170 n. 81, 171 n. 92 mnemonics, see memory Christ’s union with the Church, Mooney, Linne R., 210–11 n. 1, 32–3, 169 n. 77 212 n. 9 conjugality, 15, 33–6, 38, 39, 80, Mulvey, Laura, 163 n. 1, 189–90 n. 20 109, 112, 117, 121, 123, Murray, H.J.R., 90–1 124, 128, 129, 130, 131, 149, Muscatine, Charles, 174 n. 124, 169 n. 78 n. 79, 170 n. 86 189 n. 19 John Holland and Elizabeth of Myne Awen Dere Sone, 201 n. 10, Lancaster, 55–6, 60–4, 177 n. 8 203 n. 20 mimicry and, 119–24 sexual debt, 130–3 Newman, Barbara, 158 n. 32, transactional, 107, 115, 121, 123–4, 166 n. 34 129, 131, 134, 201 n. 9 Noah Plays, 57, 114, 204 n. 25 Mary (Virgin), 71, 99, 186 n. 90 Nominalism, 99 masculinities, 1–216. See also, body (manly, masculine), distance Ockham, William of, 15, 81, 93–6, (masculinity and), gender, 195 n. 81 governance, household (masculine Olson, Glending, 151, 214 n. 17 authority and), images (masculine), On the Twenty-Five Articles, 95 vision (masculinity and) optics, 14, 18–32, 44, 49, 52, 94, 93–6, Massumi, Brian, 161 n. 54, 185 n. 83 163 n. 4, n. 5, 165 n. 25, n. 27, Masten, Jeffrey, 142, 215 n. 25 194 n. 79. See also, vision, visual matter, 20, 24, 31, 80, 161 n. 50, theory 171 n. 92 Ovid, 77, 79, 80, 81, 151 Matthew de Vendôme, 93, 194 n. 76 McGalliard, John C., 124, 208 n. 60 Panofsky, Erwin, 192 n. 40 memory, 14, 15, 77–83, 87, 88, passing, 2–3, 10–12, 16, 36, 46, 48, 91, 92, 94, 96–7, 101, 103–5, 51, 54, 72, 74, 103, 104, 107, 160–1 n. 49, 187 n. 3, n. 4, 108, 109, 113, 114, 117, 118, 248 INDEX passing––continued 203 n. 17, 203 n. 20, 205 n. 30, 122, 123, 124, 134, 135, 209 n. 76, 213 n. 11. See also 138–9, 146, 147, 150, 151, 152, women (secrets) 160 n. 40, n. 41, n. 42, 208 n. 58 prudence (virtue of), 37, 39, 44, 69, passivity 170–1 n. 89, 171 n. 90, n. 91, absolute, 24, 52, 63–4, 65, 72 172 n. 92, n. 98 feminized, 10, 51–3, 54, 56, 73–5, psychoanalysis, 12, 13, 73–4, 173–4 n. 149, 159 n. 36 119, 180 n. 21, 185 n. 84, Christ’s, 10 186–7 n. 96, 201 n. 7 manhed and, 9–10 men and, 10, 42, 49, 54, 56, 62, “The Qualities of a Gentleman,” 63–4, 65–6, 69, 73–5, 133, 206 n. 42 141, 146, 147, 159 n. 33, 175 n. 131 rape, 65, 70–1, 182 n. 43, 185 n. 85, radical, 49, 51–3, 63, 65, 103 186 n. 86 women and, 10, 36, 39, 51–3, 54, reason, 29, 78, 82, 83, 112, 116–17, 56, 60, 61, 62, 63–6, 67, 120, 130, 133, 171 n. 93, 69–70, 72, 73–5, 103, 117, 205 n. 36 121, 125, 146, 147, 148, 174 n. reception 123, 180 n. 21, 186 n. 91 textual, 7, 13, 15, 31, 138–43, 146, Patterson, Lee, 4, 9, 158 n. 27, 151, 152–3, 213 n. 11, n. 14, 169 n. 76, 202 n. 12, 206 n. 41 214 n. 19, 215 n. 21 patriarchal panic, 53 visual, 23, 25, 28–30, 37, 86–7, 92 Pearsall, Derek, 189–90 n. 20, rhetoric, 19, 22, 27, 68, 78, 95, 97, 98, 209 n. 71, 212 n. 5 126, 187 n. 3, 188 n. 5, 196 n. Pecham, John, 20, 165 n. 25, n. 27 92, 197 n. 101 Peck, Russell A., 99 amplificatio, 177 n. 7 Pecock, Reginald, 15, 102, 199 n. 120 collatio, 160–61 n. 49 perspectiva, 20–2, 23, 28, 156 n. 15 digressio, 177 n. 7 perspectivists, 21, 94, 165 n. 25, n. 27 dilatio, 202 n. 12 Peter of Limoges, 17, 165 n. 17 descriptio, 98 Phelan, Peggy, 155 n. 6 effictio, 97 Piers Plowman, 83 gender and, 38, 40, 45, 93, 98, Phillips, Heather, 95, 195 n. 87 103, 172 n. 100, 173 n. 114, Plato, 1, 14, 18–20, 24, 94, 174 n. 124, 179 n. 13, 185 n. 164 n. 19 85, 202 n. 12, n. 13. See also, poaching, 57–9, 184 n. 34, 181–2 n. women (rhetoric) 35, 182 n. 36 Rickert, Edith, 174 n. 125, 210 n. 1, Pope Clement IV [Cardinal Guy de 212–13 n. 9, 213 n. 10, Foulques], 27 213–24 n. 16 Prior, Sandra Pierson, 68 Robertson, Jr., D.W., 162 n. 58, privacy, 33, 36, 38–9, 49, 51, 53, 168 n. 68, 169 n. 75, 210 n. 80 55–7, 63, 72–3, 81, 87, 96, Robertson, Elizabeth, 170 n. 87 102–4, 112–13, 117–19, 121, Roman de la Rose, 81, 182 n. 38 124, 125, 127, 129–34, 172 n. Romanus, Aegidius, 67 106, 177 n. 7, 178 n. 9, 202 n. 16, Roth, Philip, 160 n. 41 INDEX 249

Rubin, Gayle, 183 n. 54, 208 n. 64 Taylor, Andrew, 212–13 n. 9, 215 n. 26 Rubin, Miri, 84 “technologies of the visible,” 1, 142 “rule of thumb,” 114, 203 n. 21, textual studies, 15, 107–9, 122, 135, 204 n. 24 137–42, 145, 146, 148, 149, 151, 152, 212 n. 5, 214 n. 18, n. 19, saints’ lives, 51, 67–8 215 n. 20, n. 21, n. 25 Saramago, José, 156 n. 8 Thompson, John J., 137, 211 n. 2 scandal, 14, 48, 53–7, 65, 75, 77, Thorpe, William, 89 127, 130, 178 n. 11, 178–9 n. 12, translatio studii, 21, 37 182 n. 44 Travis, Peter W., 91, 93, 194 n. 73 Scanlon, Larry,169 n. 76, 180 n. 29 treason, 11, 58, 60, 160 n. 42, Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky, 184 n. 64, 203–4 n. 22 208 n. 64 Trigg, Stephanie, 157 n. 16, 214 n. 18 “self-shattering,” 133, 209 n. 75 Trinh T. Minh-ha, 161 n. 53 Shaviro, Steven, 163 n. 1 Tupper, Frederick, 67, 122 Shirley, John, 15, 137–8, 182 n. 44, 210–11 n. 1, 211–12 n. 4, 215 n. 29 Uebel, Michael, 159 n. 33, 177 n. 7 Sidhu, Nicole Nolan, 59 Ussery, Huling E., 55, 179 n. 17 Silverman, Kaja, 157 n. 22, 207 n. 57 Usual Suspects (film; 1995), 73–4 “Sir Hain et Dame Anieuse,” 114–16 Smalley, Beryl, 19 viewer Smith, A. Mark, 19, 165 n. 25, power of, 3, 7, 18–20, 24, 25, 27, 189 n. 10, n. 11 85, 86, 92, 163 n. 1, 189 n. 20 Smith, D. Vance, 79, 188 n. 9, receptivity of, 17, 20–1, 25, 28–9, 205–6 n. 40 30, 31, 82, 83, 86, 92, 94–6, Spearing, A.C., 96, 156 n. 15, 199 n. 120 187–8 n. 4, 201 n. 7 susceptibility of, 25, 28–9, 31, 83–4, species, visible, 15, 18–19, 21, 23–6, 89–90, 94–6 27–9, 31, 93–5, 166 n. 36, Vincent de Beauvais, 67, 194 n. 68 167 n. 43, 191 n. 33, virtuality, 34, 70, 87, 95, 185 n. 83 194–5 n. 79 vision Stanbury, Sarah, 84, 177 n. 7 bilateral, 7, 18, 22, 24–5, 30, 32–3 stoics, 18, 37 connectivity in, 15, 18, 25–9, 102–3 Sullivan, Hazel, 122 corporeal [visio corporalis], 19, 82 Swynford, Katherine, 55, 61, 75, 104, distance and, 15, 25, 28, 77–80, 83–5, 179 n. 17 92, 93–6, 102, 194–5 n. 79 scorpion (image of), 89–90, 194 n. 68 femininity and, 59, 60, 68, 90, 109 Shoaf, R.A., 86 free will and, 27–8 Summit, Jennifer, 212 n. 6 intellectual [visio intellectualis], 19, 93 supplementarity, 92, 120, 194 n. 75 masculinity and, 3, 18, 19, 22, 24, surveillance, 1, 39, 56, 58, 60, 134, 35, 36, 43, 48, 65, 80, 92, 135 203 n. 21 objects of, 11, 13, 17–21, 23–8, 30, 62, 73, 81–4, 92, 93–5, 97, Tachau, Katherine, 94, 194–5 n. 79 167 n. 43 Tatlock, John S.P., 42, 152, 177 n. 7, perfected, 21, 26 216 n. 26 punitive, 109, 118, 134, 149 250 INDEX vision––continued 170 n. 86, 172 n. 103, 173 n. pyramid in, 25–6, 29 113, 177 n. 7, 179 n. 13, reciprocity in, 14, 23, 24, 25, 28, 30, 185 n. 85, 186 n. 91 32, 80, 100, 101, 104, 124, 133 conduct discourse and, 39, 53–6, 57, reflected, 21, 26, 52, 83, 95, 112, 66, 71–2, 75, 99, 120–1, 113, 161 n. 53 170–1 n. 89, 171 n. 90, refracted, 21, 26 177 n. 8, 184 n. 68, 186 n. 90, sin and, 21, 27–9, 41, 133 198 n. 116, 200 n. 2, spiritual [visio spiritualis], 14, 17, 19, 206 n. 45, n. 46 21, 25, 27–30, 30–2, 89, 95, gossip and, 113, 180 n. 24, n. 25 165 n. 27, 210 n. 80 guidance and, 25, 37–8, 59, stationed, 78, 80, 189–90 n. 20 182 n. 38 unilateral, 48, 84, 88, 100, 161 n. 53 (in)visibility of, 3, 10, 14, 15, 17, 33, visual theory (medieval) 35, 40, 46, 48, 49, 57, 60, 64, Aristotelian, 19–20, 24, 27, 94. 69, 74, 107, 113, 118, 123–4, See also, intromission 131, 134, 147, 149 Neoplatonic, 18–20, 21, 24, 94. as objects, 17, 28–9, 62, 63–4, See also, extramission 80, 103, 183 n. 84, 184 n. 65, voyeurism, 87, 109, 156 n. 15, 201 n. 7 208 n. 64 passing and, 11, 16, 33, 51, 60, 74, Walker, Denis, 103 126, 132–3, 146, 152 Wallace, David, 8, 9, 12, 38, 65, passivity and, 10, 36, 39, 51–3, 170–1 n. 89, 172 n. 100, n. 102, 54, 56, 60, 61, 62, 63–6, n. 106, 184 n. 61, 215 n. 21 67, 69–70, 72, 73–5, 103, Waller, Martha S., 67, 180 n. 23, 117, 121, 125, 146, 147, 184–5 n. 73 148, 174 n. 123, 180 n. 21, Warner, Marina, 166 n. 34 186 n. 91 Watson, Nicholas, 161 n. 54, 196 n. 92 as sights, 17, 25, 28–9, Wells, H.G., [The Invisible Man (1897)], rhetoric and, 38, 40, 45, 98–9, 103, 2, 156 n. 11 172 n. 100, n. 102. See also Westminster Chronicle, 55–6, 61–2 rhetoric Wheeler, Bonnie, 155 n. 5, 159 n. 37 (women), gender (rhetoric) wife-beating, see domestic violence species of, 28–9 Williams, George, 55, 179 n. 17 secrecy and, 40, 56, 57, 112–13, 180 Witelo, 20, 165 n. 25 n. 24, 180 n. 25, 202 n. 15, Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 11–12, 162 n. 203 n. 20. See also, privacy 56, 194 n. 69 Woolf, Rosemary, 193 n. 58 women Wyclif, John, 17, 94–6, 195–6 n. 87, agency and, 17, 25, 33, 39, 41, 46, 196 n. 90, n. 91, n. 92 48, 52, 54, 60, 67–8, 71, 74, 112, 121, 122, 123, 124, 128, Yates, Frances, 187 n. 3, 188 n. 5 131, 134, 145, 146, 147, 148, Young, Karl, 67 149, 158 n. 32 body and, 34, 35, 38, 41, 66, 68, Ziolkowski, Jan M., 197 n. 107 69–70, 71–2, 74, 75, 108, Vivek, Slavoj, 65, 73–4, 180 n. 111, 126, 127, 128, 131, 132, 27, n. 28, 187 n. 98.