Abstract
The Horatian dictum poeta nascitur non fit wants to be reversed in the case of Chaucer. He was not a born poet, but a fabricated one, whose literary-historical place as the father of English poetry resulted less from talent or vision or any intrinsic merits of his verse born of either, but of his particular social location, doing his particular jobs at the time and place, this social location investing his verse with perspectives and attitudes and values that made the verse amenable to bearing the historical weight it has had and retains.1 Chaucer has been a useful poet, rather than a good one, because he could serve. Immediately, the writings themselves served the same interests Chaucer worked for in his household and state-bureaucratic employments; Chaucer’s writings also served other writers, contemporaries and after-comers, as a useful model for what poetry and poetic success might be.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
To say so much is not to deny Chaucer active, subjective agency, in responding to the determinant circumstance. It is to say—to reflect my judgment— that, in Chaucer’s case, agency is less consequential than determinant circumstance, for explaining both his writing itself and his writings reception. To be dogmatic, however, would be an error: in other cases, or in the same case by light of other evidence, or by light of the same evidence weighed differently for different purposes, agency might be judged to be of greater moment. Marx wrote, “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness” (“Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy,” in Selected Works, 3 vols. [Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1969], 1:503), and “Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered” (“The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,” in Selected Works, 1:398)—a formulation confirmed by Engels’s doctrinaire 1890 “Letter to Joseph Bloch” (in Selected Works, 3:487), “We make our history ourselves, but, in the first place, under very definite assumptions and conditions. Among these the economic ones are ultimately decisive.” But Marx also wrote, “The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of other circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men that change circumstances” (“Theses on Feuerbach III,” in Selected Works, 1:13). Certainly, the tradition is not clear or univocal: Antonio Gramsci, for one, set considerable weight by possibilities for exercise of subjective agency, despite determinant material circumstance (esp. the Leninist voluntarism: see “The Revolution against Capital” [1917], in Selections from Political Writings (1910–1920), ed. Quintin Hoare, trans. John Mathews [London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1977], pp. 34–37). Useful brief discussion of this agency—determinant circumstance problem is in
Perry Anderson, In the Tracks of Historical Materialism (London: Verso, 1983), pp. 33–35; for greater detail, see the exegetical work of
Martin Jay, Marxism and Totality (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984); the most pertinent discussion for present purposes is that of
Lee Patterson, Chaucer and the Subject of History (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991), esp. pp. 3–13.
Anne Hudson, “Piers Plowman and the Peasants’ Revolt: A Problem Revisited,” Yearbook of Langland Studies 8 (1994): 85–106; the evidence is reviewed also in
Steven Justice, Writing and Rebellion (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), pp. 102–39.
Margaret Aston, “Lollardy and Sedition, 1381–1431” (1960), repr. in Lollards and Reformers (London: Hambledon, 1984), pp. 1–47, and, more recently, “Corpus Christi and Corpus Regni: Heresy and the Peasants’ Revolt,” Past &Present 143 (1994): 3–47.
Hudson, “Lollardy: The English Heresy?,” Studies in Church History 18 (1982): 261–83. On the language-politics,
see now esp. Nicholas Watson, “The Politics of Middle English Writing,” in The Idea of the Vernacular, ed. Jocelyn Wogan-Browne, Watson, Andrew Taylor, and Ruth Evans (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999), pp. 331–52.
See, respectively, James Simpson, “The Constraints of Satire in ‘Piers Plowman’ and ‘Mum and the Sothsegger,’” in Langland, the Mystics and the Medieval English Religious Tradition, ed. Helen Phillips (Cambridge: Brewer, 1990), pp. 11–30,
and Watson, “Censorship and Cultural Change in Late-Medieval England: Vernacular Theology, the Oxford Translation Debate, and Arundel’s Constitutions of 1409,” Speculum 70 (1995): 822–64.
Paul Strohm, Social Chaucer (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989), pp. 164–66; on the passage in question,
see also Peter W.Travis, “Chaucer’s Trivial Fox Chase and the Peasant’s Revolt of 1381,” Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 18 (1988): 214–18.
Another reference is alleged in J. Stephen Russell, “Is London Burning?: A Chaucerian Allusion to the Rising of 1381,” Chaucer Review 30 (1995): 107–09.
The quotations are Confessio amantis prol. 151–53 and “In Praise of Peace” (IMEV 2587) 2–4; cf. Strohm, “Form and Social Statement in Confessio Amantis and The Canterbury Tales,” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 1 (1979): 26–30. On the Visio Angliae,
see Andrew Galloway, “Gower in his Most Learned Role and the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381,” Mediaevalia 16 (1993): 329–47.
Gawain 35. David R. Carlson, “Pearh Imperfections,” Studia Neophilologica 63 (1991): 51–67, can be taken to represent an extreme (paranoid, even) estimate of the poet’s capacities in this regard.
See esp. Watson, “The Gawain-Voet as a Vernacular Theologian,” in A Companion to the Gawain-Poet, ed. Derek Brewer and Jonathan Gibson (Cambridge: Brewer, 1997), pp. 293–313.
See esp. Frank Grady, “St. Erkenwald and the Merciless Parliament,” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 22 (2000): 179–211.
There are instructive remarks about the poet’s disengagement in Charles Muscatine, Poetry and Crisis in the Age of Chaucer (Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1972), pp. 37–42.
Chaucer’s lists include LGWG Prol. 255–66, 344, 405–20; MET 46–89; Ret 1085–87; and Adam. For the reception-history generally I rely on Seth Lerer, Chaucer and His Readers (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), establishing how thoroughly interested, albeit variably interested, the construction of Chaucer was in its earliest phases; also of significance is
John H. Fisher, The Importance of Chaucer (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992).
The Siege of Thebes prologue is edited and discussed in Bowers, The Canterbury Tales: Fifteenth-Century Continuations and Additions, METS (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 1992), pp. 11–22.
A great deal of pertinent information is assembled in Caroline F. E. Spurgeon, Five Hundred Years of Chaucer Criticism and Allusion 1357–1900, 3 vols. (1925; repr. New York: Russell &Russell, 1960), but Spurgeon’s dates are often significantly wrong—though it has fewer citations, the presentation is much better in
Derek S. Brewer, Chaucer: The Critical Heritage, 2 vols. (London: Routledge, 1978)—so for the Lydgate chronology I rely on
Derek Pearsall, John Lydgate (1371–1449): A Bio-bibliography (Victoria: University of Victoria, 1997).
I have been most influenced by the views of John H. Fisher, “Animadversions on the Text of Chaucer, 1988,” Speculum 63 (1988): 779–93, and “A Language Policy for Lancastrian England,” PMLA 107 (1992): 1168–80.The evidentiary fundamentals were laid out in
John S. P. Tatlock, “The Canterbury Tales in 1400,” PMLA 50 (1935): esp. 101–07, and, on relations between the Hengwrt and Ellesmere manuscripts and their relations to Chaucer’s papers, 127–31 and 133–38; the soundest fundamental analysis on these latter points (as far as I am competent to judge) are the remarks of
A. I. Doyle and M. B. Parkes, in “The Production of Copies of the Canterbury Tales and the Confessio Amantis in the Early Fifteenth Century,” in Medieval Scribes, Manuscripts & Libraries: Essays Presented to N. R. Ker, ed. Parkes and Andrew G. Watson (London: Scolar, 1978), esp. pp. 185–92, and in their “Paleographical Introduction,” in The Canterbury Tales: A Facsimile and Transcription of the Hengwrt Manuscript, with Variants from the Ellesmere Manuscript, ed. Paul G. Ruggiers (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1979), esp. pp. xix-xxxiii.
Strohm, “Chaucer’s Fifteenth-Century Audience and the Narrowing of the ‘Chaucer Tradition,’” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 4 (1982): 5 and 18–22.
Cf. Lee Patterson, “Court Politics and the Invention of Literature: The Case of Sir John Clanvowe,” in Culture and History 1350–1600, ed. David Aers (New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1992), pp. 29–30.
For the Deschamps ballad, I cite the text from Brewer, Chaucer: The Critical Heritage, 1:40, and the translation of T. Atkinson Jenkins, “Deschamps’Ballade to Chaucer,” Modern Language Notes 33 (1918): 270–71 (which article has a slightly differing text). The same text as is in Brewer (though with a different translation and notes) is also in
James I. Wimsatt, Chaucer and his French Contemporaries (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), pp. 249–50.
This is the date derived by Alfred David, in The Riverside Chaucer, 3rd edn., ed. Larry D. Benson (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1987), p. 1104.
William Calin, The French Tradition and the Literature of Medieval England (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994), p. 524 n27. On Chaucer and Deschamps otherwise, I rely on Wimsatt, Chaucer and his French Contemporaries, pp. 242–72.
These remarks draw on Ranajit Guha, “Dominance without Hegemony and its Historiography,” Subaltern Studies 6 (1989): 210–309.
Theodor W. Adorno, “Veblen’s Attack on Culture,” in Prisms, trans. Samuel Weber and Shierry Weber (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1981), p. 76.
The documentary evidence of Usk’s life is reviewed in Gary W Shawver, ed., Thomas Usk: Testament of Love Based on the Edition of John E Leyerle (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002), pp. 7–23; cf.
Carlson, “Chaucer’s Boethius and Thomas Usk’s Testament of Love: Politics and Love in the Chaucerian Tradition,” in The Centre and its Compass: Studies in Medieval Literature in Honor of Professor John Leyerle, ed. Robert A. Taylor, James F. Burke, Patricia J. Eberle, Ian Lancashire, and Brian S. Merrilees (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 1993), pp. 37–41; and
Strohm, “Politics and Poetics: Usk and Chaucer in the 1380s,” in Literary Practice and Social Change in Britain, 1380–1530, ed. Patterson (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), pp. 85–90, and “The Textual Vicissitudes of Usk’s ‘Appeal,’” in Hochon’s Arrow: The Social Imagination of Fourteenth-Century Texts (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), esp. pp. 145–53. Additional information is in May Newman Hallmundsson, “The Community of Law and Letters: Some Notes on Thomas Usk’s Audience,” Viator 9 (1978): 357–65, and Hallmundsson’s suggestion, 362, of a possible Berkeley connection, is pursued in
Lucy Lewis, “The Identity of Margaret in Thomas Usk’s Testament of Love” Medium Aevum 68 (1999): 63–72. For quotations from the Testament, I have used Shawver, ed., Thomas Usk: Testament of Love, citing parenthetically by book, chapter, and line numbers; and from Usk’s Appeal,
R. W Chambers and Marjorie Daunt, A Book of London English 1384–1425 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1931), pp. 22–31, citing parenthetically by line number. The same text of the Appeal, with the same lineation, is reprinted in
R.Allen Shoaf, ed., Thomas Usk: The Testament of Love, METS (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 1998), pp. 423–29.
Anne Middleton, “Thomas Usk’s ‘Perdurable Letters:’The Testament of Love from Script to Print,” Studies in Bibliography 51 (1998): 69. Cf.
Strohm, “Chaucer’s Audience,” Literature &History 5 (1977): esp. 31–33.
Galloway, “Private Selves and the Intellectual Marketplace in Late Fourteenth-Century England: The Case of the Two Usks,” New Literary History 28 (1997): 302.
Rodney Hilton, “Feudalism in Europe: Problems for Historical Materialists” (1984), repr. in Class Conflict and the Crisis of Feudalism, 2nd edn. (London: Verso, 1990), p. 8. The analysis of Ruth Bird, The Turbulent London of Richard II (London: Longmans, rd)—e.g., the summary statement at p. 30—is persistently clear about the class-conflictual implications of contemporary city politics; and there is clear, brief discussion of the place of urban economies within feudalism in
Perry Anderson, Passages From Antiquity to Feudalism (London: NLB, 1974), pp. 150–51.
The information about Strode is reviewed, e.g., in Fisher, John Gower: Moral Philosopher and Friend of Chaucer (London: Methuen, 1965), pp. 61–62, though the most interesting information available is in the footnotes of Hallmundsson, “The Community of Law and Letters,” 357–65. Cf. also Strohm, Social Chaucer, pp. 32 and 44.
Usk’s use of Anselm was first detailed by George Sanderlin, “Usk’s Testament of Love and St. Anselm,” Speculum 17 (1942): 69–73; see now esp.
Stephen Medcalf, “Transposition: Thomas Usk’s Testament of Love” in The Medieval Translator, ed. Roger Ellis (Cambridge: Brewer, 1989), pp. 181–95, and “The World and Heart of Thomas Usk,” in Essays on Ricardian Literature in Honour off. A. Burrow, ed. Alistair J. Minnis, Charlotte C. Morse, and Thorlac Turville-Petre (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), pp. 234–38.
For the Chaucer-Gower relationship, I rely on the thorough discussion in Fisher, John Gower, pp. 204–302; there are also important comments in David, The Strumpet Muse: Art and Morals in Chaucer’s Poetry (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1976), pp. 119–26.
The allusion is to Harold Bloom, The Anxiety of Influence (London: Oxford University Press, 1973).
Gardiner Stillwell, “John Gower and the Last Years of Edward III,” Studies in Philology 45 (1948): 471.
The most thorough discussion is in Normand R. Cartier, “Le Bleu chevalier de Froissart et le Livre de la duchesse de Chaucer,” Romania 88 (1967): 232–52;
see also Wimsatt, “The Dit dou bleu chevalier: Froissarťs Imitation of Chaucer,” Mediaeval Studies 34 (1972): 388–400,
and Susan Crane, “Froissarťs Dit dou bleu chevalier as a Source for Chaucer’s Book of the Duchess” Medium Aevum 61 (1992): 59–74. On Froissart and Chaucer otherwise, I rely on Wimsatt, Chaucer and his French Contemporaries, pp. 174–209.
Chaucer’s borrowings from contemporary French poets in the Book of the Duchess are presented compendiously in Barry A. Windeatt, Chaucer’s Dream Poetry: Sources and Analogues (Cambridge: Brewer, 1982), pp. 167–68.
On Clanvowe’s contributions, see Strohm, “Fourteenth- and Fifteenth-Century Writers as Readers of Chaucer,” in Genres, Themes, and Images in English Literature from the Fourteenth to the Fifteenth Century, ed. Piero Boitani and Anna Torti (Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 1988), pp. 92–94, and Social Chaucer,pp. 78–82. I use the edition (sc. of IMEV 3361) in
V.J. Scattergood, ed., The Works of Sir John Clanvowe (Cambridge: Brewer, 1975), pp. 35–53. The most thorough discussion of the authorship question remains Scatter-good, “The Authorship of The Boke of Cupide” Anglia 82 (1964): 137–49.
See Siegrid Düll, Anthony Luttrell, and Maurice Keen, “Faithful Unto Death: The Tomb Slab of Sir William Neville and Sir John Clanvowe, Constantinople 1391,” Antiquaries Journal 71 (1991): 174–90.
John A. Burrow, “The Audience of Piers Plowman,” Anglia 75 (1957): 377. That “all considerations of genius, of the subjectivity of the artist, of his soul, are on principle uninteresting,” because they are mystifications or evasions, is the extreme position, taken by
Pierre Macherey A Theory of Literary Production, trans. Geoffrey Wall (London: Routledge, 1978), pp. 67–68: The various ‘theories’ of creation all ignore the process of making: they omit any account of production. One can create undiminished, so, paradoxically, creation is the release of what is already there; or, one is witness of a sudden apparition, and then creation is an irruption, an epiphany, a mystery. In both instances any possible explanation of the change has been done away with; in the former, nothing has happened; and in the latter what has happened is inexplicable. All speculation over man the creator is intended to eliminate a real knowledge: the ‘creative process’ is, precisely, not a process, a labour; it is a religious formula to be found on funeral monuments. Macherey’s work was published, in 1966, just before the more influential (less Leninist) papers of Roland Barthes and Michel Foucault making much the same assertion: Barthes’s “The Death of the Author” (1968), in Image, Music, Text, ed. and trans. Stephen Heath (New York: Hill &Wang, 1977), pp. 142–48, and Foucault’s “What is an Author?” (1969), in The Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984, ed. Paul Rabinow, trans. Robert Hurley and others, 3 vols. (New York: The New Press, 1997–2000), 2:205–22; cf. also the still earlier contributions of Lucien Goldmann, insisting on the impersonal, social-collective ‘authorship’ of literary works, e. g., “Dialectical Materialism and Literary History” (1950), trans. Francis Mulhern, New Left Review 92 (1975): 39–44, or “The Genetic-Structuralist Method in the History of Literature” (1964), repr. in Towards a Sociology of the Novel, 2nd edn., trans. Alan Sheridan (London:Tavistock, 1975), pp. 156–59. 51. The loan is documented in CLR, p. 500. On Scogan otherwise, see R.T. Lenaghan, “Chaucer’s Envoy to Scogan: The Uses of Literary Conventions,” Chaucer Review 10 (1975): 46–47, esp. Hallmundsson, “Chaucer’s Circle: Henry Scogan and his Friends,” Medievalia et Humanística, n. s. 10 (1981): 129–39, and also Strohm, “Fourteenth- and Fifteenth-Century Writers as Readers of Chaucer,” pp. 94–96, though the comments and notes of Walter W Skeat, in Chaucerian and Other Pieces (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1897), pp. xli-xliii and 502–03, are still worth perusal, whence also, pp. 237–44, come the quotations herein from the text of the “Moral Ballad” (IMEV 2264), cited parenthetically by line numbers.
Cf. Robert Epstein, “Chaucer’s Scogan and Scogan’s Chaucer,” Studies in Philology 96 (1999): 20 n29. For information on the text of “Gentilesse” (IMEV 3348), I rely on George B. Pace and David, eds., The Minor Poems Part One, Variorum Edition of the Works of Geoffrey Chaucer 5 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1982), pp. 67–72.
Lenaghan, “Chaucer’s Circle of Gentlemen and Clerks,” Chaucer Review 18 (1983): 159.
The intelligence comes from John Shirley, whose labors and contributions are most recently analyzed in Margaret Connolly, John Shirley: Book Production and the Noble Household in Fifteenth-Century England (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998), though I have relied on the analysis in Lerer, Chaucer and His Readers, pp. 119–41. Hallmundsson, “Chaucer’s Circle: Henry Scogan and his Friends,” 129–30 and 134, points out that the Lewis John mentioned in Shirley’s headnote eventually had extensive commercial dealings with the butler of the royal household, an office held by Chaucer’s son Thomas, first in 1402 and then intermittently for the rest of his life, and held previously by John Payne, 1399–1402, who in that capacity had had dealings with Chaucer himself, near the end of the poet’s life. Lerer’s remark about the commodification of Chaucer comes in his contribution, “William Caxton,” in The Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature, ed. David Wallace (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 734.
Speght’s claim, in the 1602 edition of Chaucer’s works, and the likelihood that it is true, are discussed in George B. Pace, “Speght’s Chaucer and Ms. Gg.4.27,” Studies in Bibliography 21 (1968): esp. 233–35.
Various documents detail the series of preferments that came to Chaucer by way of his connections with John of Gaunt and his family: see Martin M. Crow and Clair C. Olson, Chaucer Life-Records (Oxford: Clarendon, 1966), esp. pp. 271–75 and 525–34; see also above, pp. 6–7 and 35.
There is some further discussion of these issues in Carlson, “Chaucer, Humanism, and Printing: Conditions of Authorship in Fifteenth-Century England,” University of Toronto Quarterly 64 (1995): 274–88, and “Morley’s Translations from Roman Philosophers and English Courtier Literature,” in Triumphs of English: Henry Parker, Lord Morley, Translator to the Tudor Court, ed. Marie Axton and James P. Carley (London: British Library, 2000), esp. pp. 131–37.
Richard Firth Green, Poets and Princepleasers (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1980), p. 211. The fundamental study remains
Pearsall, John Lydgate (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1970).
Cf. Ethan Knapp, “Eulogies and Usurpations: Hoccleve and Chaucer Revisited,” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 21 (1999): 247–73. For Hoccleve’s career and writings, generally I rely on Strohm, “Hoccleve, Lydgate and the Lancastrian Court,” in The Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature, ed. Wallace, pp. 640–51 and 657–61; I have also been influenced by Bowers, “Hoccleve’s Huntington Holographs: The First ‘Collected Poems’ in English,” Fifteenth-Century Studies 15 (1989): 27–51, and “Hoccleve’s Two Copies of Lerne to Dye: Implications for Textual Critics,” Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 83 (1989): 437–72.
Knapp, “Bureaucratic Identity and the Construction of the Self in Hoccleve’s Formulary and La male regle” Speculum 74 (1999): 357–76; and cf.
Malcolm Richardson, “Hoccleve in his Social Context,” Chaucer Review 20 (1986): 313–22.
M. C. Seymour, Selections from Hoccleve (Oxford: Clarendon, 1981), p. xiii.
Pearsall, “Hoccleve’s Regement of Princes: The Poetics of Royal Self-Representation,” Speculum 69 (1994): 387–88.
On the Letter, see Patterson, “‘What is Me?’: Self and Society in the Poetry of Thomas Hoccleve,” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 23 (2001): 450–54.
In quoting Hoccleve’s Regiment (giving the references parenthetically), I use the edition of Charles R. Blyth, Thomas Hoccleve: The Regiment of Princes, METS (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 1999).
Pearsall, “Hoccleve’s Regement of Princes,” 389. A different view of Hoccleve’s advice is argued in Judith Ferster, Fictions of Advice: The Literature and Politics of Counsel in Late Medieval England (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996), pp. 137–59.
Cf. Regiment 281–385; the context of events in which these remarks of Hoccleve about John Badby were made is discussed in Peter McNiven, Heresy and Politics in the Reign of Henry IV (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1987), esp. pp. 199–219.
David Lawton, “Dullness and the Fifteenth Century,” ELH 54 (1987): 761–99. Cf. Lenaghan, “Chaucer’s Circle of Gentlemen and Clerks,” 157–59.
On the manuscripts, see Seymour, “The Manuscripts of Hoccleve’s Regiment of Princes,” Edinburgh Bibliographical Society Transactions 4 (1974): 255–97; on the portrait, see esp.
Alan T. Gaylord, “Portrait of a Poet,” in The Ellesmere Chaucer, ed. Martin Stevens and Daniel Woodward (San Marino: Huntington Library, 1997), pp. 121–42; and on the copy of it reproduced herein (see frontispiece),
see A. S. G. Edwards, “The Chaucer Portraits in the Harley and Rosenbach Manuscripts,” English Manuscript Studies 4 (1993): 268–71.
There are important remarks on this development in Simpson, “Breaking the Vacuum: Ricardian and Henrician Ovidianism,” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 29 (1999): 325–55, and in
Lerer, Courtly Letters in the Age of Henry VIII (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), esp. perhaps pp. 1–33.
Copyright information
© 2004 David R. Carlson
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Carlson, D.R. (2004). Reception. In: Chaucer’s Jobs. The New Middle Ages. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-03914-9_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-03914-9_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-0-230-60243-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-03914-9
eBook Packages: Palgrave Literature & Performing Arts CollectionLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)