Chaucer's Prologue Research Articles

Little Lewis and Latin Folk in Chaucer's Prologue to the Treatise on the Astrolabe

Little Lewis and Latin Folk in Chaucer's Prologue to the <i>Treatise on the Astrolabe</i>

The Yeoman's “Pecok Arwes”

Abstract While attention to the Knight's Yeoman in Chaucer's General Prologue typically focuses on his weapons, fundamental misunderstandings regarding those weapons persist in the critical commentary. The character's peacock-fletched arrows are perhaps the most frequently misinterpreted component of his arms. This article contextualizes the peacock fletching of the Yeoman's arrows by explicating birdwing anatomy, the appearance of various peacock feathers, medieval fletching practices, and historical references to peacock-fletched arrows. Rather than being ostentatious, peacock fletching was mundane—unless enhanced by decorative embellishments. Based on reported uses of peacock-fletched arrows, it appears likely that esteem for such arrows was based more on performance than appearance, and a subsequent analysis of how the Yeoman's fletching is likely trimmed supports the tactical utility of his arrows. In this light, the Yeoman's “pecok arwes” suggest that he is a consummate bowman and a lethally effective companion to the Knight.

The Wife of Bath's Bele Chose

Abstract The Wife of Bath's famous erudition, resistance to authority, and unapologetic sexuality all come together in one of Chaucer's epithets for her private parts. Bele chose (beautiful thing) occurs only three times: in Chaucer's prologue to the Wife of Bath's Tale, in a Middle English translation of a Latin medical text, and—the present paper argues—in the Roman de la Rose. Chaucer uses the term as a deliberate repudiation of pudendum (shameful thing), a term that he does not use but which was undoubtedly known to him through several classical and medieval sources. A survey of all Chaucer's euphemisms for private parts in the Wife of Bath's Prologue contextualizes the discussion.

The stuff of metaphor: “fyr and tow” in the Prologue to the Wife of Bath's Tale

ABSTRACTThis paper proposes a new reading for a proverb in Chaucer's Prologue to the Wife of Bath's Tale (ll. 89–90). The dangers in assembling “fyr and tow” have long been understood simply as a figurative warning against sexual temptation, following a common precedent of Scripture and vernacular proverb. I argue here that the Wife's usage invites a contemporary, sensational reading of fire and tow as well: a reference to the fatal accident of the bal des ardents at the French royal court in 1393, which very nearly took the life of Charles VI. Such a reading allows for a more complete critical understanding of the Wife of Bath's sources and her social identity.

Chaucer the Forester:

Chaucer the Forester:

The Name Daisy: The Great Gatsby and Chaucer's Prologue to The Legend of Good Women

The Name Daisy: The Great Gatsby and Chaucer's Prologue to The Legend of Good Women

The Name Daisy: "The Great Gatsby" and Chaucer's Prologue to "The Legend of Good Women"

The Name Daisy: "The Great Gatsby" and Chaucer's Prologue to "The Legend of Good Women"

The Name Daisy: "The Great Gatsby" and Chaucer's Prologue to "The Legend of Good Women"

The Name Daisy: "The Great Gatsby" and Chaucer's Prologue to "The Legend of Good Women"

“Ripe” and “rot”: A proverb inAs You Like It andKing Lear

In Act 2, scene 7 ofAs You Like It, the professional Fool Touchstone is observed by the professional cynic Jaques in the act of philosophising about the nature of Time. Touchstone's lugubrious conclusion is that “from hour to hour we ripe ... from hour to hour, we rot.” In more elevated vein, in Act 5, scene 2 ofKing Lear, Edgar remonstrates with his blinded and despairing father, employing the striking and much admired aphorism that “men must endure/Their going hence, even as their coming hither:/Ripeness is all.” Traditional reaction to these invocations of the verbs “ripe” and “rot” is reverential, but neither editors nor exegetical scholars recognize that by the time Shakespeare juxtaposes these two words, the nexus is an exhausted catchphrase, the most time-honoured of cliches. It occurs at least as early as the C-text ofPiers Plowman, and in Chaucer's prologue toThe Reeve's Tale. No matter how penetrating and original an insight into the human condition it may appear to Shakespeare's nineteenth- and twentieth-century readers and audiences, to Shakespeare's contemporaries it was a platitude. Based uponthe traditional proverb “Soon ripe, soon rotten,” it is ubiquitous in the work of Shakespeare's immediate literary and dramatic precursors, and a favourite with the dramatists of the 1590s. Examples can be found in the works of Wager, Heywood, Robinson, Preston, Florio, Melbancke, Greene, and Dekker. But for them it was an allusion to the workings of Divine Providence: for us, in a secular age, it alludes only to subjective personal fulfilment.

Chaucer's General Prologue to the 'Canterbury Tales': An Annotated Bibliography, 1900 to 1982

Chaucer's General Prologue to the 'Canterbury Tales': An Annotated Bibliography, 1900 to 1982

Chaucer's Prologue

Chaucer's Prologue

Chaucer's General Prologue, 133–136

Chaucer's General Prologue, 133–136

Chaucer's general prologue, a 163

Chaucer's general prologue, a 163

Chaucer's Prologue to Pilgrimage: The Two Voices

Chaucer's Prologue to Pilgrimage: The Two Voices

Note on Chaucer's Prologue

Note on Chaucer's Prologue

Chaucer's Prologue, 1-7

Chaucer's Prologue, 1-7

Chaucer's Prologue and Knight's Tale

Chaucer's Prologue and Knight's Tale

Chaucer's Prologue 256.

Chaucer's Prologue 256.

A Note on Chaucer's Prologue.

A Note on Chaucer's Prologue.

GOWER’S MIROUR DE L’OMME UND CHAUCER’S PROLOG.

The epigraph to Fluegel’s article reads Glosynge is a glorious thyng certeyn (437), and Fluegel's critical method is to give extended glosses to various lines from the Prologue to Chaucer's CT. The primary purpose of these glosses is to provide analogues from quite a range of contemporary sources, Gower's MO and the VC being the foremost among them. Fluegel's discussion centers around a number of characters, namely the Knight (440-48), the Monk (448-60), the Friar (460-72), the Merchant (472-76), the Clerk (476-84), the Man of Law (484-96), the Physician (496-98), the Parson (498-503), the Plowman (503-04), the Summoner (505-07), and the Host (507-08). In general, Gower’s satire is sharper and less sympathetic. For instance, Fluegel suggests that the MO’s section on chivalers, with its scharfe kritik der gegenwartigen zeit (strong criticism of the present time) bears little resemblance to dem freundlichen, lebensfrischen und sonnigen in Chaucer's prolog (the pleasant, lively, and sunny [aspects] of Chaucer's Prologue; 440). Indeed, Fluegel generally describes the MO's style as similar to die olige, glatte monotonie der Confessio Amantis (the slick and polished monotony of the CA; 427). The MO has a certain farblosigkeit (colourlessness; 437)and is characterized by a melancholisch-pessimistischen tadelsfreude (melancholy and pessimistic enjoyment of censure; 437). Simply put, Chaucer's Prologue is shorter, but its satire is better. Nevertheless, some of the descriptions of the estates are surprisingly similar in the MO and the CT. For instance, Augustine's comparison of clergy that dabble in secular matters to fish out of water is found both in Chaucer's description of the Monk and in Gower's discussion of possessioners. In these sections, both authors also make reference to the Rule of St. Augustine (450). In places, Fluegel further notes the importance of the VC in relation to the CT. For instance, in the section on the Man of Law, Fluegel directs the reader to the first six chapters of book 6 of the VC (on the greed of judicial officials), which womoglich den Mirrour noch an bitterkeit und zorn ubertreffen (possibly exceed the MO in bitterness and fury; 484). Yet it is still the MO that receives most attention, and Fluegel suggests that the MO's section on the law contains a new legal expression about packing a jury; the leader who corrupts the jury is called a Tracier (489). Fluegel provides little commentary on whether any direct lines of influence are discernable between Gower and Chaucer. In fact, at times he notes their stark difference. One of the last characters Fluegel discusses, the Plowman, presents a stark contrast to Gower's complaints about contemporary laborers, and shows much more similarity with the depiction of the Plowman in Wyclif and Langland (503-04). [CvD]