Chapter 1 Geoffrey Chaucer
Geoffrey Chaucer, the founder of English Poetry, was the son of a prosperous wine merchant. His creative works vividly reflected the changes which had taken root in English culture of the second half of the 14th century, which can be divided into three periods: the French period, the Italian period and the English period. In contradistinction to the old English alliterative verse, Chaucer chose the metrical form which laid the foundation of the rhymed stanzas of various types to English poetry. He also contributed to the foundation of the English literary language, the basis of which was formed by the London dialect, so profusely used by the poet.
Critical Perspectives
1.Thematic Study
Ellen M. Caldwell, in “Love’s (and Law’s) Illusions in Chaucer’s Franklin’s Tale”, not only examines the illusion of the marriage but also connects it to the equally illusory claim that Dorigen’s hasty promise to Aurelius carries as much weight as her marriage vow or of any consciously worded statement where word and intent match. Finally, the mercy shown to Dorigen is assessed, not as the generous solution to Dorigen’s waywardness but as an illusion that, like the law, pardons, but never exonerates, Dorigen and her unintended words.[1]
2.Reader-Oriented Criticism
C.W.R.D Moseley, in“Tu Numeris Elementa Ligas: The Consolation of Nature’s Numbers in Parlement of Foulys”, argues that Chaucer is expecting, indeed exploiting, the gap between the reception of a poem when it is heard socially and its afterlife as a text, when it is a different thing altogether. He also argues that a poem’s form is itself a way of communicating ideas. The discussion focuses on The Parlement of Foulys, but the conclusions may be more widely applicable.[2]
Sebastian Sobecki, in “‘And gret wel Chaucer whan ye mete’: Chaucer’s Earliest Readers, Addressees and Audiences”, takes stock of what we know about Chaucer’s earliest audiences, that is, about uses of and references to his work made during his lifetime. Relevant new research on manuscript use and ownership has been included in the case of Thomas Hoccleve and the scrivener Thomas Spencer. In addition to various named addressees of Chaucer’s works—Peter Bukton, Henry Scogan and Philip de la Vache—this brief survey lists contemporary references to Chaucer and his works in the poetry of John Gower, Eustache Deschamps, John Clanvowe and Thomas Usk.[3]
3.Ethical Criticism
Chad G. Crosson, in “Chaucer’s Corrective Form: The Tale of Melibee and the Poetics of Emendation”, argues that the form Geoffrey Chaucer devises for The Canterbury Tales rests on a recursive and iterative corrective process based on grammatical emendation that was tied, by a long-standing analogy, to moral reform. The Tale of Melibee makes this process most explicit and suggests both the ambitions and the dangers of this artistic and moral project. On one hand, it is in the “Melibee” that the logic of the corrective process can be seen most clearly, as Prudence makes correction a principle of her prose; the tale portrays a slow, incremental repetition that only gradually brings about change. In that way, the tale displays the ambitions of the project. On the other hand, its dangers are clear enough, because the tale is notoriously unsatisfactory. Chaucer, however, deliberately stages those dangers in the “Melibee” and contrasts the dangers with a solution. While in the “Melibee” that incremental repetition illustrates literary pitfalls, in the “Tales” it becomes a means for literary innovation: the certainty of error and the corruption of discourse provide Chaucer an artistic method, one that evades moral clarity but provides the occasion for ongoing intellectual, artistic, and moral exercise. This account of Chaucer’s moral poetics suggests that debates over the moral bearing of his poetry are unavoidable by design, but also irresolvable by design.[4]
4.New Criticism
Norm Klassen, in “The Coherence of Creation in the Word: The Rhetoric of Lines 1-34 of Chaucer’s General Prologue”, argues that Geoffrey Chaucer’s introduction of the pilgrimage motif in lines 1-34 of the General Prologue to The Canterbury Tales combines the pursuit of the beatific vision with an evident interest in life in this world. Participation in God as coherence in Christ, who addresses and sustains the created order, informs the rhetorical structure and intensifying themes and playfulness of these lines. Resonant with the first sentence, the second performatively displays an obediential quality and emergent self and speciality, as Chaucer responds to the demands that the Incarnation places on the Christian poet.[5]
Barry Windeatt, in “Chaucer’s Tears”, interprets of the many instances of weeping by Chaucer’s characters, which is a key aspect of understanding his works. This article explores the relevance of models provided by tears in devotional contexts for viewing tears not simply as a corporeal symptom of emotion but as a mode of discourse that is as potent as it is paradoxical: both outward and inward, involuntary and applied, and forming a distinctive voice between passive and active.[6]
Helen Cooper, in “Unhap, Misadventure, Infortune: Chaucer’s Vocabulary of Mischance”, states that Chaucer is especially concerned with the use of privatives, negative prefixes, for these words, and the different senses they carry. In both positive and negative form, he recurrently works to inflect his larger concerns with Fortune (usually personified as an agent) and the mutability of the world.[7]
5.Archetypal Criticism
Benjamin Miele, in “The Political Unconscious of the Allusion: Shakespeare’s Habits of Mind and the Cultural Politics of Reading Chaucer in Early Modern England”, discusses about William Shakespeare’s habits of mind and the cultural politics of reading poet Geoffrey Chaucer in early modern England. Topics discussed include allusion of contemporary ideologies; allusion created in the play King Lear by Shakespeare; and an account of a poem The House of Fame by Geoffrey Chaucer.[8](https://www.daowen.com)
6.Narratology Study
R.S. Farris, in “Finding a Medievalist Narratology in Chaucer: Reinvention in The Wife of Bath’s Tale”, discusses medievalist narratology in the book, character of Beowulf in it, synchronization in narration, Romantic medievalism in literature and focus on audience familiarity. An overview of the book is also given.[9]
7.Cultural Study
Robert Epstein, in “The Lack of Interest in The Shipman’s Tale: Chaucer and the Social Theory of the Gift”, explores Bourdieu’s theory of the gift in which all exchanges are fundamentally agonistic and motivated by individual profit and the criticism of economic anthropologist David Graeber’s against such theory. It also examines Bourdieu’s emphasis that conscious motivation is irrelevant.[10]
【注释】
[1]Caldwell E M. “Love’s (and Law’s) Illusions in Chaucer’s Franklin’s Tale”. Studies in Philology,2019, 116:209-226.
[2]Moseley C W R D. “Tu Numeris Elementa Ligas: The Consolation of Nature’s Numbers in Parlement of Foulys”. Critical Survey,2017, 29(3):86-113.
[3]Sobecki S. “‘And gret wel Chaucer whan ye mete’: Chaucer’s Earliest Readers, Addressees and Audiences”. Critical Survey, 2017, 29(3):7-14.
[4]Crosson C G. “Chaucer’s Corrective Form: The Tale of Melibee and the Poetics of Emendation”. Studies in Philogogy, 2018, 115(2):242-266.
[5]Klassen N. “The Coherence of Creation in the Word: The Rhetoric of Lines 1-34 of Chaucer’s General Prologue”. Christianity ＆ Literature, 2014, 64(1):3-20.
[6]Windeatt B. “Chaucer’s Tears”. Critical Survey,2018, 30(2):74-93.
[7]Cooper H. “Unhap, Misadventure, Infortune: Chaucer’s Vocabulary of Mischance”. Critical Survey,2017,29(3):15-26.
[8]Miele B. “The Political Unconscious of the Allusion: Shakespeare’s Habits of Mind and the Cultural Politics of Reading Chaucer in Early Modern England”. Shakespeare Studies, 2017, 45:144-150.
[9]Farris R S. “Finding a Medievalist Narratology in Chaucer: Reinvention in The Wife of Bath’s Tale”. Essays in Medieval Studies, 2016,32:57-63.
[10]Epstein R. “The Lack of Interest in The Shipman’s Tale: Chaucer and the Social Theory of the Gift”.Modern Philology, 2015,113(1):27-48.