<I>Chaucer and the Subversion of Form</I>, Ed. Thomas A

430 Mediaevistik 31 . 2018 Chaucer and the Subversion of Form, modern editor likened to both technical ed. Thomas A. Prendergast and Jes- writing and children’s literature. The first sica Rosenfeld. Cambridge Studies in three discuss different “failures of form.” Medieval Literature, 104. Cambridge Jenni Nuttall examines Chaucer’s attitude and New York: Cambridge University toward the craft of poetry, including his Press, 2018, pp. ix, 224. resistance to the technical language en Readers of Chaucer become accustomed vogue during the period, both in Eng- to his self-deprecating humor. In one fa- land and on the Continent, and his pref- mous example, the character of Chaucer erence for vague terms like book, song, the Canterbury pilgrim begins telling the dittie, and rhyme, all used in a single line tale of a knight named Sir Thopas who in The House of Fame. Jennifer Jahner tries to rescue the elf queen. He uses such considers the limits of the imagination to complicated verse forms that the host grasp problems such as those posed by the tells him to stop the “rym doggerel” and “Pleintif” (plaintif) in Chaucer’s dialogue to “telle in prose somewhat.” Chaucer the ballad “Fortune.” Tying the first section poet thus shows his virtuosity and his hu- together, Eleanor Johnson discusses the manity. The host is not an uncultured boor, struggle of fortune and its opposite, order, as some early critics said; however, the as treated in The House of Fame. pilgrim does not speak as Chaucer himself The next three essays handle the bodi- would have done on such an occasion. ly side of form as the poet shapes it. Jon- Subversive acts like these, on the part athan Hsy explores the various tragedies of Chaucer the poet, are the subject of that Chaucer’s monk claims to have col- this critically sophisticated collection of lected and begins to summarize, includ- essays. As the editors explain in their in- ing those about personal disabilities. He troduction, there is a difference between suggests that some of the “roughness” forms of literature and forms of human that early readers lamented in Chaucer’s thought. Authors inherit traditional forms verse was often deliberate and served to that do not fully accord with their own underscore the sufferings of people who ways of thinking. This may be especial- made the pilgrimage to Canterbury. Lisa ly true for medieval literature, where the H. Cooper reads the astrolabe treatise as expressed intention of the author (intentio a meditation on form that links the hu- auctoris) can pale in light of what the actu- man body to the heavenly bodies. Then al form of the author’s work seems to say. Julie Orlemanski turns to Chaucer’s Older critics of medieval literature taught great elegy, The Book of the Duchess, readers to expect what E. R. Curtius called where the poet uses both the language of mingled or transitional literary forms. dream vision, where the dead Duchess of The nine essays collected here cov- Lancaster actually speaks, and the every- er the span of Chaucer’s large corpus, day language where one can only write from The Book of the Duchess to The about her. Canterbury Tales and, within that work, The final grouping treats the reception from the General Prologue to individual of Chaucerian texts. Thomas A. Pred- tales. There is even one article dedicated ergast discusses The Physician’s Tale, to Chaucer’s one practical prose work, which the late Umberto Eco would have the Treatise on the Astrolabe, which a called an “open work.” He argues that Mediaevistik 31 . 2018 431 its lack of a moral goal or telos raises all Christine de Pizan, The Book of the kinds of questions for the reader. In the Cyte of Ladyes, trans. by Brian Anslay, ugly story of a father who wants to slay ed. by Hope Johnston. Medieval and his daughter rather than marry her to a Renaissance Texts and Studies, 457. brute, there is no clear indication which Tempe, AZ: Arizona Center for Medie- person has the moral high ground. Arthur val and Renaissance Studies, 2014, lxiv, Bahr focuses on the poetry of Chaucer’s 622 pp., 10 b/w ill. contemporary John Gower, specifically On the one hand, this new edition, or rath- when it reworks Lancastrian elements in er translation, of Christine de Pizan’s The The Book of the Duchess and rephrases Book of the City of Ladies (1405) certain- Chaucer’s English in French. Finally, ly deserves to be reviewed in Mediaevis- Stephanie Trigg touches on what will, for tik because Christine still falls squarely many readers, be the ultimate reception into the late Middle Ages. On the other, of Chaucer’s poetry: the reception by the publication date of this translation, their students. Concentrating on Chau- 1521, places it certainly outside of that cer’s “General Prologue” to the Canter- period. However, a translation is always bury Tales as given in the widely used an important mirror of the reception his- Riverside Chaucer, Trigg points to the tory, which proves to be particularly rich ambiguities and conflicts that confront in Christine’s case. Brian Anslay’s Eng- people reading Chaucer for the first time. lish translation was the first and only one The student is holding a book that fol- to appear in print (by Henry Pepwell), at lows a given manuscript while the man- least before the twentieth century. How- uscript contains only the text from which ever, we know of twenty-seven surviving Chaucer read aloud to his contemporar- manuscripts, whereas there are only five ies. copies of Anslay’s printed work available. The essays move in more directions It is worth noting that the issues addressed than a simple summary can indicate and here by Christine, helping women to find raise more questions for the perceptive their own realm and identity, was appar- reader. For example, Johnson extends her ently of significance also for her male reading of disorderly order in The House audience since Anslay was sponsored by of Fame to Virginia Woolf’s novel To Richard Grey, third earl of Kent. the Lighthouse. Meanwhile, no one here The English translation is accompa- moves from the subversive side of Chau- nied by the original text in Ms. London, cer to Derrida and deconstruction. The British Library Royal 19.A.xix (L), which contributors work within the framework again appears to have been copied by the of recent Chaucer scholarship and togeth- scribe from a very early version of Chris- er create a series of insights that should tine’s work. This, in turn, makes this dual interest students and teachers of Chau- edition doubly interesting also for medie- cer’s work as well as specialists. valists. Hope Johnston, the editor of this Thomas Willard, Department of English, volume, introduces us to the work itself, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721- highlighting the essential themes and top- 0067 – [email protected] ics. There are also extensive biographical .

Load more