DOCSLIB.ORG

Geoffrey Chaucer As Witness

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Cleveland State University EngagedScholarship@CSU English Faculty Publications English Department 1993 Interpreting Guillaume de Lorris’ Oiseuse: Geoffrey Chaucer as Witness Gregory M. Sadlek Cleveland State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cleng_facpub Part of the French and Francophone Language and Literature Commons How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! Publisher's Statement Copyright © 1993 The Johns Hopkins University Press. This article first appeared in South Central Review, Volume 10, Issue 1, 1993, 22-37. Original Published Citation Sadlek, Gregory M. “Interpreting Guillaume de Lorris’ Oiseuse: Geoffrey Chaucer as Witness.” South Central Review 10.1 (1993): 2 2-37. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the English Department at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in English Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. InterpretingGuillaume de Lorris'sOiseuse: GeoffreyChaucer as Witness GREGORY M. SADLEK UniversityofNebraska at Omaha Certes,the hevene is yevento hem that wol labouren,and natto ydel folk -Chaucer's Parson Near the opening of theRoman de la Rose,Guillaume de Lorrisintroduces the firstallegorical character in Deduit's garden,the garden's gatekeeper. She is an attractiveyoung woman, picturedwith a mirror,whose carefree lifeincludes no morework than her own daily toilet.' The interpretation of this character,Oiseuse, presentsa textualcrux. The Old Frenchword "oisose" or "uiseuse" indicates"inaction," "leisure," "laziness," or "folly."2 Nevertheless,twentieth-century critics have been unable to agree on the character'sexact import. Two generalpositions have arisen. To one group of critics,Oiseuse representsa personalvice, perhaps lechery or idleness or laziness. Criticsholding thisview believe that Oiseuse is a reprehensible figure,justly condemned by Guillaume and all historicallyaware readers ofthe Roman. To the othergroup of critics, Oiseuse representsa virtue. She mightbe the aristocraticleisure necessary for the contemplationof beauty or even thepleasure of beauty itself. For themOiseuse is an attractivefigure and a necessarycondition for the practice of Courtly Love. Using the terms "courtly" and "clerkly"to identifythese schools is helpful.3However, in each of these camps one finds subtle differencesof interpretationand methodology. In thisarticle I hope to sortout the differencesof opinion on Oiseuse and advance our historicalunderstanding of this characterusing reception criticism.Specifically, I offerevidence on hermeaning from the writingsof GeoffreyChaucer, one of Guillaume's early and influentialreaders. Not only did Chaucer translatethe Romaninto Middle English, but he also commented-directlyand indirectly-on the Roman,its imagery,and its doctrine. Indeed, JamesWimsatt calls Chaucer the Roman's"most famous evangelist."4Chaucer's authorityas a translatorof French love poetrywas acknowledged by his French contemporary,Eustache Deschamps, who, afterpraising Chaucer forthe Romauntof the Rose, called him "grand trans- lateur"and senthim some ofhis own poetry.5Nevertheless, evidence from Chaucer's writings,important as it is, has not been given the systematic attentionitdeserves in the recent debate over Oiseuse's meaning. Withinthe clerkly and courtly schools, many different methodologies- lexicological,exegetical, iconographic, and formalist-have been used to decipherOiseuse's meaning. Moreover, critics have looked both into her literarypedigree and into her medieval reception. A fewkey interpretive assumptions,however, necessarily precede judgments on Oiseuse's mean- ing. Since both camps invoke contextas an importantjustifying element, the firstassumption concerns what the criticstake to be the centralmessage ofthe whole Roman.6The second followsfrom the first assumption: namely, the significanceof Deduit's garden. Fromthese followswhat is oftenthe key interpretiveassertion: the iconographicsignificance of Oiseuse's comb and mirror. The clerklyschool of readersis dominatedby the Exegetes. Finding the Romande la Rose to be neithera handbook of love nor an authoritative dream,they declare it to be a nightmareoffering an exemplumof a lover caughtin "idolatrouslechery." The nightmare,however, is only an "integ- ument," a covering,which hides the necessarilyChristian moral of the poem.7 Deduit's gardenis, then, a gardenof sinful pleasures. Oiseuse, the porterof thisgarden, is a vice. On the basis of Oiseuse's mirrorand comb, D. W. Robertson,Jr., underscores the strongiconographic links between Oiseuse and luxuria. JohnFleming and Charles Dahlberg take up and elaborate Robertson's arguments.8 Fleming argues that Oiseuse is not exactly luxuriabut Ovidian idleness "cognate with the capital vice of Sloth."9 Not all clerklyreaders are Exegetes,however. Throughan explorationof Guillaumede Lorris'sindebtedness to Ovid, MartaPowell Harleyfinds that the Romanis not a celebrationof CourtlyLove but "a statementof some consequence on the destructivenessof . obsessive passion."10 Harley argues that Guillaume's characterizationof Oiseuse is ultimatelyderived fromOvid's treatmentof Salmacisin theMetamorphoses because both char- acters carrycombs and mirrors."1Because of this link,Harley finds that Oiseuse represents"narcissistic lethargy."12 While clerklyreaders see the Romanas an ironicpiece of moral didacti- cism,courtly readers tend to see it as a handbook on the practiceof Courtly Love.13They tend to interpretwithout irony Guillaume's comment that the Romanis a book "ou l'art d'Amorsest tote enclose" [in which the whole art oflove is contained](38). Deduit's gardenbecomes, then, a secularParadise, whereinaristocratic lords and ladies practicea refinedcode oflove. Oiseuse is the aristocraticleisure necessaryto enjoy Deduit's garden.14Herbert Kolb, forexample, finds that, while a woman with a mirrorand combcould representluxuria, such a moralisticinterpretation would not be appropriate forthe keeper of the paradise of love. Kolb would rathertrace Oiseuse's pedigree to monasticotium, the leisure monksneeded to practicecontem- plation. Interpretedin this context,Oiseuse becomes the leisurenecessary for a "hofisch-weltlich. kontemplativenLebens," a secular, courtly contemplativelife.15 Othercourtly readers agree that Oiseuse is a virtuein the systemof CourtlyLove expoundedby theRoman. Sounding much like Kolb, Jean Batanyargues that Deduit's garden is a monasteryof love towhich Love's followersflee. Oiseuse is leisure,a "social-psychologicalforce" that makes CourtlyLove possible.16 Erich Kohler finds Oiseuse to be the "paradiesischenLebenslust im Lande ewigen Fruihlings und harmonischer Geselligkeitim Geiste suindefreier Liebe" [heavenly love oflife in theland of eternalspring and harmoniouscompany in the spiritof love without sin].17Shigemi Sasaki writes that Oiseuse, leisure, "est une valeuret une vertu que Guillaumeintegre a bon escientdans l'Fthique courtoise traditionnelle"[is a value and a virtuethat Guillaume advisedly integrates into the traditionalcourtly ethic]. She adds thatGuillaume's attitude towardaristocratic leisure is thataspect of the Roman to whichGuillaume referswhen he comments"La matireest et bone et nueve" [Its matter is good and new].'8 CarlosAlvar writes that Oiseuse, like Ovid's Venus,simply representsfeminine beauty.'9 Finally, Earl Jeffrey Richards believes that Guillaume'spersonification is a sensualand eroticfigure who signifies "verbalfolly." Although he, like Kolb, agrees that a womanwith mirror and combcould representluxuria, he arguesthat this would be a "marginal traditionin theoverall 13th-century iconographic tradition."20 Theseare the modem interpretations ofOiseuse. If one assumes that only a single,foundational meaning resides in thetext, such radically different and seeminglyincompatible interpretations ofOiseuse's character suggest thatwe mustabandon the interpretations ofeither the courtly or the clerkly readers. Oiseuse's meaning, however, does not simply reside in Guillaume'stext. As reception theorists have argued, her meaning is inpart constructedby Guillaume'sreaders.21 Thus, it is possiblethat both sets of criticsmay, at leastin part,offer historically valid interpretations. Specific commentaryabout Oiseuse by Guillaume'snear contemporariesoffers a valuablemethod of evaluatingthese conflicting interpretations. Indeed, criticsusing reception methodologies have already deepened our historical understandingof the Roman considerably. Nevertheless, important mate- rialsrelating to Oiseuse'smedieval reception still await exploration.2 Forall thereasons mentioned in myintroduction, Geoffrey Chaucer is a good readerto query. AlthoughChaucer's reading of Oiseuse does not necessarilygive us Guillaume'sunderstanding and althoughhe writes morethan 100 years after Guillaume, he was an importantmedieval trans- latorof the Roman. He knewthe Roman intimately, and it influencedhis poetryprofoundly. Moreover, because he was notFrench and his opinions antedatethose in the "Querellede la Rose,"his writingsoffer a fresh, outside perspective.Scholarship on Chaucerand theRoman is voluminous, but generallyChaucerians treat the Romanas a way to set the background for Chaucer's writingsrather than using Chaucer as a witness for the interpretationof the Roman.23F. N. M. Diekstra'srecent study is an excep- tionto therule, but, finally, it is less a receptionstudy
Recommended publications
  • Rest, Sweet Nymphs: Pastoral Origins of the English Madrigal Danielle Van Oort Olson25@Marshall.Edu

    Rest, Sweet Nymphs: Pastoral Origins of the English Madrigal Danielle Van Oort [email protected]

    Marshall University Marshall Digital Scholar Theses, Dissertations and Capstones 2016 Rest, Sweet Nymphs: Pastoral Origins of the English Madrigal Danielle Van Oort [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://mds.marshall.edu/etd Part of the European History Commons, History of Religion Commons, and the Music Commons Recommended Citation Van Oort, Danielle, "Rest, Sweet Nymphs: Pastoral Origins of the English Madrigal" (2016). Theses, Dissertations and Capstones. Paper 1016. This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Marshall Digital Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses, Dissertations and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Marshall Digital Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. REST, SWEET NYMPHS: PASTORAL ORIGINS OF THE ENGLISH MADRIGAL A thesis submitted to the Graduate College of Marshall University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Music Music History and Literature by Danielle Van Oort Approved by Dr. Vicki Stroeher, Committee Chairperson Dr. Ann Bingham Dr. Terry Dean, Indiana State University Marshall University May 2016 APPROVAL OF THESIS We, the faculty supervising the work of Danielle Van Oort, affirm that the thesis, Rest Sweet Nymphs: Pastoral Origins of the English Madrigal, meets the high academic standards for original scholarship and creative work established by the School of Music and Theatre and the College of Arts and Media. This work also conforms to the editorial standards of our discipline and the Graduate College of Marshall University. With our signatures, we approve the manuscript for publication. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to express appreciation and gratitude to the faculty and staff of Marshall University’s School of Music and Theatre for their continued support.
  • The Knight's Tale”

    The Knight's Tale”

    The Hilltop Review Volume 8 Issue 2 Spring Article 3 May 2016 Philosophical Romance: Figures of Venus in “The Knight's Tale” Caleb Molstad Medieval Institute Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/hilltopreview Part of the Literature in English, British Isles Commons, and the Medieval Studies Commons Recommended Citation Molstad, Caleb (2016) "Philosophical Romance: Figures of Venus in “The Knight's Tale”," The Hilltop Review: Vol. 8 : Iss. 2 , Article 3. Available at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/hilltopreview/vol8/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Hilltop Review by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact wmu- [email protected]. 3 Philosophical Romance: Figures of Venus in “The Knight’s Tale”1 First Place Paper, Spring 2016 By Caleb Molstad Medieval Institute [email protected] The Roman goddess Venus seems an unlikely figure to survive the transition from Roman antiquity to the Middle Ages. Catholic Christianity, which grew to be the dominant religion in medieval Europe, is monotheistic. Pagan gods were potential idols and/or rivals to the one God. Furthermore, Venus is a goddess, a powerful female pagan figure. A society in which men were almost exclusively responsible for defining and defending orthodox belief would ostensibly be hostile to goddesses. In spite of this, Venus had a remarkable career in the literature of the Middle Ages, as noted in Theresa Tinkle's Medieval Venuses and Cupids, which emphasizes the presence of not one, but multiple medieval Venuses.2 Though there are commonalities between these Venuses, each particular Venus varied according to the aims of the individual writer.
  • Chaucer and the Roman De La Rose

    Chaucer and the Roman De La Rose

    '""^"' ^IfHLiiii G^_l^ltl^LZwr?, /i /^ - Book f €l. Gop)iighl]^'.__Zi/^ COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN ENGLISH AND COMPARATIVE LITERATURE CHAUCER AND THE ROMAN DE LA ROSE :: COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS SALES AGENTS NEW YORK: LEMCKE & BUECHNEE 30-32 West 27th Street LONDON HUMPHREY MILFOED Amen Corner, E.G. TORONTO HUMPHEEY MILFOED 25 Richmond Street, W. CHAUCER AND THE ROMAN DE LA ROSE BY DEAN SPRUILL FANSLER, Ph.D. u Nrw fork COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 1914 All rights reserved 71? 11'^ l-^lAr Copyright, 1914 By Columbia University Press Printed from type, January, 1914 FEB 21 I9i4 ©CI.A362662 i T r- • ^ ji f f 1 T/wa' Monograph Jms been approved hy the Department of English and Comparative Literature in Columbia Uni- versity as a contribution to knowledge worthy of publi- cation. A. H. THORNDIKE, Executive Officer. To My Father and Mother This hook is affectionately dedicated PREFATORY NOTE I take pleasure in acknowledging in print my indebted- ness to Professor Harry M. Ayres, Professor George P. Krapp, and Professor William W. Lawrence, of Columbia University, who have generously read both the manuscript and the proof-sheets of this book and have made many suggestions of value. My greatest obligation is to Professor Lawrence, under whose immediate direction this disserta- tion has been prepared. He has unselfishly at all times given me the benefit of his wide acquaintance with medieval literature, and has been most courteous and helpful. I am also grateful to Professor William E. Mead, of Wesleyan University, for a number of useful bibliographical refer- ences.
  • OF the ROMAUNT of the ROSE Cornell University “Chaucer's Translation of the Roman De La Rose Repres

    OF the ROMAUNT of the ROSE Cornell University “Chaucer's Translation of the Roman De La Rose Repres

    JOURNAL OF ENGLISH STUDIES - VOLUME 3, (2001-2), 217-236 CHAUCER’S “MAKYNG” OF THE ROMAUNT OF THE ROSE JORDI SÁNCHEZ MARTÍ Cornell University ABSTRACT. Despite its being the first testimony of Chaucer’s genius, the interest of modern criticism in the Romaunt has mainly focused on the issue of authorship, whereas the efforts to assess this text as a translation have been limited both in their number and in their scope. This paper discusses Chaucer’s translation of the Roman de la Rose, and provides an evaluation of Fragment A from a modern traductological perspective, while taking account of contemporary theoretical positions. First, this article compares the Romaunt with Chaucer’s later translating practice. Second, taking into account that the immediate audience of the Romaunt would have been cognizant of French, this essay considers the pragmatic function of this translation. Finally, I reconstruct some of Chaucer’s decisions in the translation process, and then I present the translation strategies he adopted in order to create an English metapoem which replicated the spirit of the Roman, thus proving the adequacy of English for poetic expression. “Chaucer’s translation of the Roman de la Rose represents his first significant literary endeavor”1. Undertaking a poetical translation of the French original must have been a challenging project if we take into consideration the situation of the English language and literature in the second half of the fourteenth century: the contact of English with French since 1066 had promoted a unidirectional movement of literary imitation by English writers of 1. A shortened version of this article was read at the 36th International Congress on Medieval Studies, Western Michigan University, May 3-6, 2001.
  • 69-4996 WEAVER, John Joseph William, 1935- RHETORIC AND

    69-4996 WEAVER, John Joseph William, 1935- RHETORIC AND

    This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 69-4996 WEAVER, John Joseph William, 1935- RHETORIC AND TRAGEDY IN THOMAS SACKVILLE'S CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE MIRROR FOR MAGISTRATES. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1968 Language and Literature, m odem University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan ® Copyright by John Joseph William Weaver 1969 RHETORIC AND TRAGEDY IN THOMAS SACKVILLE'S CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE MIRROR FOR MAGISTRATES DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By John Joseph William Weaver, A.B., M.A. ****** The Ohio State University 1968 Approved by Adviser Department of ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Like most students, I am immeasurably indebted to those who have taught me. Although a listing of all of them here would be more tedious than, though not as dreary as, Bucking­ ham's catalogues, I take special pleasure in thanking those who made this dissertation possible: Professor Huntington Brown, of the University of Minnesota, who taught me how to write; Professors John B. Gabel and Robert M. Estrich, of The Ohio State University, who taught me how to re-write. But my most enduring and profound gratitude must go to Professor Ruth W, Hughey, my adviser and friend, who by precept and example has taught me that scholarship and scholars can be and must be humane. ii VITA November 18, 1935 B o m - Pittsfield, Illinois 1958 . ........... A.B., Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts 1958-1960 .... Teacher, Sewickley Academy, Sewickley, Pennsylvania I9 6 0-I96 2 .... Teaching Assistant, Department of English, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 1 9 6 2............
  • Chaucer, Books, and the Poetic Library

    Chaucer, Books, and the Poetic Library

    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal) Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln October 2010 Chaucer, Books, and the Poetic Library David C. Kupfer University of North Texas, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac Part of the Library and Information Science Commons Kupfer, David C., "Chaucer, Books, and the Poetic Library" (2010). Library Philosophy and Practice (e- journal). 429. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/429 Library Philosophy and Practice 2010 ISSN 1522-0222 Chaucer, Books, and the Poetic Library David C. Kupfer, MLS Graduate student College of Professional Education Texas Woman's University Denton, TX 76205 Introduction Though books have a prominent role in Chaucer‟s fiction, the library does not. Chaucer coins the word “library” in his translation of The Consolation of Philosophy – known as the Boece – and uses that word just twice throughout his fictional corpus. He uses the word “study” as a synonym but employs that word just twice also, both times in The Canterbury Tales. As Chaucer is perceived as a great commentator on the pains and salvations of reading, and since libraries are a fountainhead for medieval reading, there is an interesting discord in his benchmarking literacy while invalidating the reading center. That Chaucer should be almost incognizant of the preservers of textual knowledge shows the library as a virtual nonentity for English readers of the 14th century. It is as though the library is an empty estate, a medieval orphan to a new birthright of reading reestablished by Chaucer by a melding of thought between traditions of classical and Christian reading.
  • On Editing Troilus and Criseyde Now

    On Editing Troilus and Criseyde Now

    On Editing Troilus and Criseyde Now Steve Guthrie Abstract This essay advertises an interactive online edition of Troilus and Criseyde designed to offer student readers in particular access to the poem and to Chaucer’s Middle English without modernized spelling or translation. The essay describes the textual method of the edition and its approach to online publication and language instruction. Many years ago, I made a study of the text and language of Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde as the basis for a metrical analysis (Guth- rie 1988).1 At the time, a new edition of the poem was a tempting thought, but two perfectly good and relatively new scholarly editions were available in John Fisher’s Complete Poetry and Prose and Stephen Barney’s text in Larry Benson’s Riverside Chaucer. As these volumes increased in price, the thought returned, but Barry Windeatt’s freestanding paperback edition of the poem became widely available in this country in 2003, and once again the ground seemed to be have been covered. I returned to the idea a third time in the present decade because it seemed clear, even to an analogue mind more or less at sea in a digital age, that a real online edition of the poem could be useful to medievalists, and at the same time more useful to students, including Middle English lan- guage learners, than either a print edition or the currently available online texts, which were merely .pdf files scanned from older print editions.2 1. Detailed results of the study are in my unpublished 1985 Brown University dis- sertation, “Chaucer’s French Pentameter”.
  • John Keats's Response to Chaucerian Dream Poems in the Fall Of

    John Keats's Response to Chaucerian Dream Poems in the Fall Of

    1 John Keats’s Response to Chaucerian Dream Poems in The Fall of Hyperion: A Dream By Molly Williams Thoresen A Thesis Presented to the Department of Literature, Area Studies and European Languages, University of Oslo, in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Master of Arts Degree Spring Term, 2007 2 For out of olde feldes, as men seyth, Cometh al this newe corn from yer to yere, And out of olde bokes, in good feyth, Cometh al this newe science that men lere. - Geoffrey Chaucer, The Parliament of Fowls But let a portion of ethereal dew Fall on my head, and presently unmew My soul; that I may dare, in wayfaring, To stammer where old Chaucer us’d to sing. - John Keats, Endymion Whoever aspires to a lasting name among the English poets must go to the writings of Chaucer, and drink at the well-head. - Robert Southey, Select Works of the British Poets 3 Acknowledgements First and foremost, a heartfelt thanks to my most excellent advisor, Juan Christian Pellicer, for his constant encouragement, sound advice, helpful ideas and infinite patience. My husband, Leif Olav Williams Thoresen, deserves special recognition for his tolerance of the heaps of books and papers that have bedecked every flat surface in our home for the last months, as well as my deepest gratitude for his unending support. I also wish to thank my father, Gregory Williams, for always believing in me, even when I did not. Finally, I wish to thank my mother, Denise Williams, who first read to me, and who continues to inspire children, including my own, to love books.
  • Considering Chaucer's Romaunt of the Rose

    Considering Chaucer's Romaunt of the Rose

    Lette Vos 3695107 BA Thesis English Language and Culture, Utrecht University. Begeleider: dr. Anita Auer. Juni 2013 8645 woorden Considering Chaucer’s Romaunt of the Rose: Principles and Processes of Medieval and Present-day Translations Folio 57v from the Hunter Manuscript, c. 1440-1450, Glasgow University Library 2 Acknowledgements I would like to express my gratitude to dr. Anita Auer for her enthusiasm in the development of this thesis, and for helping me find a suitable scope to address this topic. Despite the physical distance, I felt that you were always close at hand in times of uncertainty. As they say in Manchester: ta! I would also like to thank Ingmar Bloemendal, for being eternally kind and witty in evaluating my work, and dr. Gerda van der Weele, my most critical and constructive reader, for always taking the time to appreciate and improve whatever I produce. You are an indispensable part of my writing process. Finally, thank you to dr. Marcelle Cole for kindly agreeing to assist in correcting my thesis. I am proud to present this work as the result of not only the last couple of months, but three years of great courses at two great universities. 3 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 4 2. Identifying Chaucer’s Hand in the Romaunt of the Rose 2.1. Walter W. Skeat 7 2.2. Fragment B and C 8 2.3. Fragment A 10 3. Chaucer’s Style of Translation 12 4. Comparison to Modern Translations 4.1. Introduction to Modern Translations 17 4.2. Chaucer in Robbins and Dahlberg 18 4.3.
  • The Chaucer Review

    The Chaucer Review

    Bibliography Search Results http://library.northwestu.edu/chaucer/all.php?listname=chaucer Abraham, David H. "Cosyn and Cosynage: Pun and Structure in the Shipman's Tale." 11 (1977): 319-27. The structure of the Shipman's Tale can be understood in terms of Chaucer's puns on "cosyn," referring to relationship (between the monk and the merchant, and, indirectly, between the monk and the merchant's wife), and "cosynage," referring to deception. Used no fewer than sixteen times, the two meanings of "cosyn" take on different emphases in the two parts of the tale. In the first part the "relationship" aspect of "cosyn" dominates, with the "deception" aspect submerged. In the second part, the deception aspect dominates. The structure of the tale depends, then, on the structure of the pun. Acker, Paul. "The Emergence of an Arithmetical Mentality in Middle English Literature." 28 (1994): 293-302. Arithmetical methods passed from Pythagoras to Boethius, who passed these ideas on to Cassiodorus and Isidore. Bartholomaeus Anglicus picks up these ideas in De proprietatibus rerum, translated by Trevisa into Middle English. In the twelfth century, algorism began to replace arithmetic. Gower refers to this new arithmetic in the Confessio amantis in a stanza borrowed from Brunetto Latini. The Court of Sapience also reveals a shift in mathematical models. The Art of Nombryng and Mum and the Sothsegger give evidence that even those writers not concerned with mathematics were becoming aware of it. Adams, Robert. "The Egregious Feasts of the Chester and Towneley Shepherds." 21 (1986): 96-107. The playwrights of the Chester and Towneley cycles include feasts at the beginning of each play in order to dramatize the difference between Christ, the coming Good Shepherd, and the poor shepherds who disregard the law by eating what is specifically forbidden in the Levitical codes and who are more interested in their own dinners than in feeding their sheep.

  • Game’ in the Tale of Gamelyn

    MEDIUM ÆVUM, VOL. LXXXV, No. 1, pp. 97–117 © SSMLL, 2016 ‘GAME’ IN THE TALE OF GAMELYN It is often said that the protagonist of the fourteenth-century Tale of Gamelyn has a name that means ‘son of the old man’, deriving from the Icelandic gamalll or ‘old’.1 Th is reading speaks to Gamelyn’s status as the child of his father’s old age, and the fact that it is his position as a son among other sons that sets the narrative in motion. But Gamelyn’s name also bears a signifi cant relationship to the word ‘game’ in its multiple senses of amusement, delight, and pleasure; wild animals hunted for sport; the act of hunting them; and structured play, of the sort explored by Johan Huizinga in his classic 1938 study of ‘the play element of culture’, Homo ludens. Th ese resonances have been noted by a number of diff erent critics, but so far as I am aware no one has yet developed them into a structured account of the text.2 This article investigates the extent to which the dynamics of the Talee can be thrown into relief by inserting it into a late medieval culture of ‘game’. This engagement has a double character. In the fi rst place, game and play are characterized by rule-boundedness. ‘All play’, Huizinga argues in Homo ludens, ‘has its rules.’ Hence his comment, that play ‘creates order’ – more than that, that it ‘is order’.3 Consideration of ordered ‘game’ in Gamelyn leads towards late medieval conduct books and household manuals – books of ‘game’ and of ‘nurture’ – and their codifi cations of rules for proper behaviour.
  • Chaucerian Works in the English Renaissance: Editions and Imitations

    Chaucerian Works in the English Renaissance: Editions and Imitations

    THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA Chaucerian Works in the English Renaissance: Editions and Imitations A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of the Department of English School of Arts and Sciences Of The Catholic University of America In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Sean Gordon Lewis Washington, D.C. 2011 Chaucerian Works in the English Renaissance: Editions and Imitations Sean Gordon Lewis, Ph.D. Director: Michael Mack, Ph.D. Chaucerian Works in the English Renaissance: Editions and Imitations articulates the connection between editorial presentation and authorial imitation in order to solve a very specific problem: why were the comedic aspects of the works of Geoffrey Chaucer—aspects that appear to be central to his poetic sensibilities—so often ignored by Renaissance poets who drew on Chaucerian materials? While shifts in language, religion, politics, and poetic sensibilities help account for a predilection for prizing Chaucerian works of sentence (moral gravity), it does not adequately explain why a poet like Edmund Spenser—one of the age’s most unabashedly Chaucerian poets—would imitate comedic, works of solaas (literary pleasure) in a completely sententious manner. This dissertation combines bibliographic approaches with formal analysis of literary history, leading to a fuller understanding of the “uncomedying” of Chaucer by Renaissance editors and poets. This dissertation examines the rhetorical and aesthetic effects of editions of the works of Chaucer published between 1477 and 1602 (Caxton through Speght) as a means of understanding patterns of Chaucerian imitation by poets of the period. Although the most obvious shift in textual presentation is the change from printing single works to printing “Complete Works” beginning with the 1532 Thynne, I argue that choices made by the printing-house (in terms of layout, font, and, most specifically, editorial directions) had a gradual, cumulative effect of highlighting Chaucerian sentence at the expense of solaas .