Beowulf. A Verse Translation; Geoffrey Chaucer; Chaucer the Love Poet; The Structure of Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde; The Poetry of The Canterbury Tales; European Drama of the Early Middle Ages; Traditions of Medieval English Drama; Chaucer and Middle English Studies: In Honour of Rossell Hope Robbins

1975 ◽  
Vol 24 (118) ◽  
pp. 19-20
Author(s):  
R. M. Wilson
Author(s):  
Christopher Cannon

Plato and Aristotle offered contrasting definitions of “form.” According to Plato, a “form” was external to the material world, a notion or idea or thought that can properly exist only in a mind. For Aristotle, “form” was always a part of some material thing. In Troilus and Criseyde, Geoffrey Chaucer offers a description that does not use the word “form,” and yet it implies a process that could be summarized with the word “formation.” This article discusses the advantages of a literary analysis that embraces a uniquely comprehensive definition of form, particularly in the realm of Middle English literature. It argues that each element of a comprehensive theory of literary form encompasses both thinking and writing in the Middle Ages. It also considers key aspects of the form of two representative Middle English texts, Pearl and Robert Mannyng’s Handlyng Synne.


Text Matters ◽  
2013 ◽  
pp. 42-57
Author(s):  
Andrzej Wicher

Two of the tales mentioned in the title are in many ways typical of the great collections of stories (The Canterbury Tales and Il Decamerone) to which they belong. What makes them conspicuous is no doubt the intensity of the erotic desire presented as the ultimate law which justifies even the most outrageous actions. The cult of eroticism is combined there with a cult of youth, which means disaster for the protagonists, who try to combine eroticism with advanced age. And yet the stories in question have roots in a very different tradition in which overt eroticism is punished and can only reassert itself in a chastened form, its transformation being due to sacrifices made by the lover to become reunited with the object of his love. A medieval example of the latter tradition is here the Middle English romance, Sir Orfeo. All of the three narratives are conspicuously connected by the motif of the enchanted tree. The Middle Ages are associated with a tendency to moralize ancient literature, the most obvious example of which is the French anonymous work Ovide moralisé (Moralized Ovid), and its Latin version Ovidius Moralizatus by Pierre Bersuire. In the case of The Merchant’s Tale and The Tale of the Enchanted Pear-Tree, we seem to meet with the opposite process, that is with a medieval demoralization of an essentially didactic tradition. The present article deals with the problem of how this transformation could happen and the extent of the resulting un-morality. Some use has also been made of the possible biblical parallels with the tales in question.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Fruoco

Geoffrey Chaucer pose dans The Canterbury Tales un regard unique sur l’évolution de la poésie anglaise durant le Moyen Âge. L’alternance de genres et de styles poétiques différents lui permet de refléter tout le potentiel de la littérature par le biais d’un réagencement des images, symboles et conventions qui la définissent. Néanmoins, ce qui fait la force de Chaucer dans The Canterbury Tales, est sa capacité à développer un dialogue entre les différents récits constituant l’œuvre, ainsi que sa facilité à renverser nos attentes en extrayant son public d’un roman de chevalerie pour le propulser dans l’univers carnavalesque du fabliau, comme c’est le cas dans The Merchant’s Tale. En jouant avec l’imaginaire de l’arbre et du fruit, Chaucer nous prive dans ce conte de toute élévation et fait de son poirier un arbre inversé.


Author(s):  
Derrick Pitard ◽  
Lindsey Simon-Jones ◽  
Krista Sue-Lo Twu

Abstract This chapter has five sections 1. General; 2. The Canterbury Tales; 3. Troilus and Criseyde; 4. Other Works; 5. Reception. Section 1 is by Krista Sue-Lo Twu; section 2 is by Krista Sue-Lo Twu with additions by Lindsey Simon-Jones; sections 3 and 4 are by Derrick Pitard with additions by Lindsey Simon-Jones; section 5 is by Lindsey Simon-Jones.


1949 ◽  
Vol 64 (7) ◽  
pp. 500
Author(s):  
Howard R. Patch ◽  
R. M. Lumiansky

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document