Kelly, Kathleen Ann. "An Inspiration for Chaucer's Description of Chauntecleer." English Language Notes. Vol. 30, no 3, March 1993.1-6.
Kelly first gives a brief overview of the sources critics have attributed for Chaucer's description of Chantecleer. She then suggests that Chaucer did not simply create "a hyperbolic description of Everyrooster" but that he was influenced by the description of the phoenix in Mandeville's Travels. She contends that for those in Chaucer's audience who would have made the connection, it would have served to heighten the mock-heroic elements of the tale.
Shallers, A. Paul. "The 'Nun's Priest's Tale': An Ironic Exemplum." ELH 42, 1975. 319-337.
Shallers studies the Medieval exemplum and the ironic voice in this article. He goes over trends in criticism to assign a meaning to the tale. He also explores some of the sources and analogues for the tale, as well as looks at the tale in light of the Knight's Tale. He concludes that: "[The NPT] is instead Chaucer's comic vision of mankind which counterbalances in the Canterbury Tales the ideal image he presents in the Knight's Tale."
—taken from The Nun’s Priest’s Tale: An Annotated Bibliography, by Anniina Jokinen, http://www.luminarium.org/medlit/nunsbib.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please begin adding entries below (see syllabus for other details). After adding an entry, please put your name at the very end so that we know whom to ask about how best to locate the particular book or article that you overviewed. If you have immediate information, though, such as "available as reserve for class" or "available online through JSTOR," etc., please indicated that at the end of your entry as well. LH
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Brewer, D. S. “Class Distinction in Chaucer.” Speculum, Vol. 43, No. 2. (Apr., 1968), pp. 290-305
Brewer examines the social structures present in The Canterbury Tales, contending that there are in fact three distinctive class systems based on; “rank,” which is apparently divinely ordained, requires wealth, and classifies a social standing that ranges from high (king) to low (peasant); a binary system of the titled versus the untitled (and a conceptual “gentilesse” which allows a person to surpass his or her rank through qualities of character); and finally a three-fold categorization that distinguishes between knight, clergy and plowman. Brewer provides clarifying insights into the social mindset of the time period in which social status was almost – but not completely – fixed: through personal choices and behaviors a person could both fall from and climb the social “ladder.” Brewer concludes that social structure plays a critical role in The Canterbury Tales, and for that reason it ought to be explored more thoroughly. It is regrettable that the article itself does not do this more thorough exploration.
– Available on JSTOR
Lisa Goetz
Post a Comment