Riverside Chaucer 3rd ed.
Riverside Chaucer 3rd ed.
复制标题
河边乔叟第三版。
DOI：
10.15027/16306
复制
发表时间：
1987
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
L. Benson
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
L. Benson
人们期待已久的罗宾逊的《乔叟》修订版的注释已经被一大批著名的中世纪英语学者完全重写了，如果它们不能为当前对乔叟与高尔关系的看法提供精确的指导，它们确实提供了一些想法，让学生们在未来几年的乔叟课上能学到关于高尔的什么。许多人会很高兴地看到，这一版本对诗人之间争吵的理论不予重视，马丁·克劳和弗吉尼亚·利兰在他们的传记介绍中（第23页）提到了高尔删去对乔叟的赞美的“结构原因”（CA 8.2941 ff.），帕特里夏·埃伯利在她对《法律人的故事》的介绍（第854页）的注释中指出了高尔修订日期的不确定性。（罗宾逊在给LGW g315的信中也排除了争吵的可能性）。然而，高尔被广泛报道，作为乔叟作品中许多段落的来源或类比，特别是在CT中。在总编辑的介绍（第3页）中，CA被包括在当代故事集的讨论中，但在第795-96页的注释中被省略了。在对《总序》的讨论中，高尔只在GP 435-37（来自MO 8338-43）中被引用过一次，作为可能的来源，但在对僧侣、书记、法律中士（他被称为）、物理学博士、牧师、农夫和召唤师的肖像的注释中，他引用了他所有三部主要作品中的说明性段落。高尔也在一些故事的注释中被引用；例如KnT 2129， MLT 161, 302-8, 1183， WBT 1109等：没有精确的计数，这样的参考文献的数量似乎比罗宾逊的版本大得多。在《CA》中有相似之处的四个故事中：本森和帕特里夏·埃伯利都赞同高尔把康斯坦斯的故事放在首位（第9页，856-57页），并且布洛克从高尔·埃伯利那里借用了九段文字，其中增加了康斯坦斯离开诺森伯兰的整个场景，MLT 834-68。本森在评论《法律人的故事》序言时指出，“也许乔叟是在开玩笑地挑战他的朋友，让他参加一场类似于清教徒参加的讲故事比赛”（第9页）；而Eberle（第856页）对推断高尔的引用所涉及的复杂性提供了很好的说明。克里斯汀·瑞安·希拉里（Christine Ryan Hilary）引用乔叟的第1081行和CA 1.1727-31（第872-73页），有点令人惊讶地宣称，“乔叟知道并可能呼应”高尔在《WBT》中讲述的弗洛伦特的故事。她还将WBT 1073与CA 1.1587进行了比较。然而，她没有引用费雪的话，费雪是唯一一个肯定会同意乔叟借用的学者。（本森只把高尔的故事作为类比，第11页。）拉里·本森断言，乔叟在写《物理学家》之前就知道高尔的弗吉尼亚故事（第14页），但大卫·本森只把高尔的故事作为一个类比，并得出结论：“没有令人信服的证据表明乔叟借鉴了除《r.r.》之外的任何早期版本”（第902页）。拉里·本森将高尔的《Phebus and Cornide》作为乔叟的《MancT》（第20页）的可能来源之一，V.J.斯卡特古德在有利的语境中引用了黑泽尔顿的建议，即乔叟的故事是对高尔故事的拙劣模仿（第952页）。科林·威尔考克森（Colin Wilcockson）在给BD的笔记中只引用了高尔的《ceeix和Alceone》一次（第968页），不是作为类比，而是作为包含乔叟省略的变形。本森在《鸡的议会》的引言（第383页）中引用了高尔的第34首和第35首诗歌作为当代情人节诗歌。John M. Fyler在给HF的笔记中提到Tatlock的观点（1907），即MO 22129-52可能基于HF 1573-82（第988页）。M.C.E. Shaner和A.S.G. Edwards对LGW的注释（第1059-75页）反映了这首诗与CA之间关系的复杂性。他们注意到CA 8.2468中的“花与叶”段落“可能是模仿”LGW F 72，而LGW G 315“可能是对高尔的友好抨击”。在这些故事中，高尔的《埃及艳后》“可能是基于”乔叟的《埃及艳后》（1066页），尤其是关于她死亡的细节（LGW 678- 80,696 -702）；乔叟和高尔关于提斯比的故事“似乎是相关的，但很难说哪个是先出现的”（第1067页），两者都呼应了罗宾逊的说法。高尔只是作为乔叟关于美狄亚、卢克蕾丝、阿里阿德涅、菲洛美拉和菲利斯的故事的类比而被引用。鲁特（1909年）认为乔叟的《卢克蕾丝》可能是基于高尔的《卢克蕾丝》，但没有提到这两首诗之间最有趣的相似之处之一，即卢克蕾丝在被塔克文侵犯之前的昏厥（LGW 1815-17; CA 7.4986-87）。在给LGW的注释中，还引用了MO、VC和CA的其他类似段落，其中许多来自Fisher。莱拉·格罗斯（Laila Z. Gross）注意到费舍尔对乔叟的《缺乏坚定》（lack of stedfastness）和高尔的《CA Prol》（CA Prol）之间的许多相似之处的描述。（第1086页），Stephen Barney在他给T&C的注释5.1856-59（第1058页）中将Fisher列为高尔与乔叟关系的一般来源。除此之外，费雪在这个版本中被明显地忽略了：例如，没有提到他相信高尔对GP和婚姻组概念的影响，也没有提到他在HF中对鹰的识别，虽然他被引用（第1059页），因为他相信LGW是应女王的要求编写的，他的其余建议，LGW和CA是为1385年的同一委员会编写的，没有注意到。尽管在涉及如此多不同的人的工作中不可避免地存在不平衡和不一致，但总的来说，编辑们做了一项值得称赞的工作，以清晰而紧凑的形式呈现了最有用的关于乔叟的学术研究。对于我们这些决定从这本书中引用的人来说，他们的细心细心有一个虽小但很有启发意义的例子：除了拉尔夫·汉纳（Ralph Hanna）和特劳戈特·劳勒（Traugott Lawler）新编辑的《伯斯》（Boece），编辑们在页面上排列了散文文本，以便行号与他们要替换的版本中的行号相同。(PN。版权所有约翰·高尔协会[JGN 6.1]
The notes to the long-awaited revision of Robinson's Chaucer have been completely redone by a large team of well-known Middle English scholars, and if they do not provide a precise guide to current views of Chaucer's relationship with Gower, they do offer some idea of what students will be learning about Gower in their Chaucer classes for the next few years. Many will be pleased that the theory of a quarrel between the poets is given short shrift in this edition, both by Martin Crow and Virginia Leland in their biographical introduction (p. xxiii), who refer to "structural reasons" for Gower's removal of his compliment to Chaucer (CA 8.2941 ff.), and by Patricia Eberle in her notes to the Introduction to the Man of Law's Tale (p. 854), who points out the present uncertainty about the dating of Gower's revisions. (Robinson also dismissed the likelihood of a quarrel in his note to LGW G 315). Gower is given extensive coverage, however, either as a source or as an analogue for a great many passages in Chaucer's work, particularly in CT. CA is included in the discussion of contemporary tale collections in the General Editor's introduction (p. 3), but is omitted from the list in the notes on pp. 795-96. In the discussion of the General Prologue Gower is cited only once as a possible source, for GP 435-37 (from MO 8338-43), but illustrative passages are cited from all three of his major works in the notes to the portraits of the Monk, the Clerk, the Sergeant of the Law (as he is called), the Doctor of Physik, the Parson, the Plowman, and the Summoner. Gower is also cited in the notes to a number of the tales; e.g. KnT 2129, MLT 161, 302-8, 1183, WBT 1109, et al.: without a precise count, the number of such references seems much larger than in Robinson's edition. Of the four tales that have close analogues in CA: Both Benson and Patricia Eberle come down in favor of Gower's priority for the tale of Constance (pp. 9, 856-57), and to Block's list of nine passages that Chaucer borrowed from Gower Eberle adds the entire scene of Constance's departure from Northumberland, MLT 834-68. In his comments on the Introduction to the Man of Law's Tale Benson suggests that "perhaps Chaucer is teasingly challenging his friend to a storytelling contest parallel to that in which the pilgrims are engaged" (p. 9); while Eberle (p. 856) provides an excellent note on the complexities involved in inferring a reference to Gower. Christine Ryan Hilary declares, a bit surprisingly, that "Chaucer knew and probably echoes" Gower's tale of Florent in WBT, citing Chaucer's line 1081 and CA 1.1727-31 (pp. 872-73). She also compares WBT 1073 to CA 1.1587. She doesn't cite Fisher, however, the one scholar who would most certainly agree on Chaucer's borrowing. (Benson lists Gower's tale only as an analogue, p. 11.) Larry Benson asserts that Chaucer knew Gower's tale of Virginia before writing his PhysT (p. 14), but David Benson lists Gower's tale only as an analogue and concludes that "there is no convincing evidence that Chaucer drew on any earlier version except RR" (p. 902). Larry Benson includes Gower's "Phebus and Cornide" as one of the possible sources for Chaucer's MancT (p. 20), and V.J. Scattergood cites in a favorable context Hazelton's suggestion that Chaucer's tale is a parody of Gower's (p. 952). Colin Wilcockson cites Gower's "Ceix and Alceone" only once in his notes to BD (p. 968), not as an analogue but as containing the metamorphoses that Chaucer omits. Benson's introduction to The Parliament of Fowls (p. 383) cites Gower's 34th and 35th balades in a list of contempary Valentine's Day poems. John M. Fyler's notes to HF include a reference to Tatlock's belief (1907) that MO 22129-52 might be based on HF 1573-82 (p. 988). The notes to LGW by M.C.E. Shaner and A.S.G. Edwards (pp. 1059-75) reflect some of the complexity of the relationship between this poem and CA. They note that the "Flower and the Leaf" passage in CA 8.2468 "may be an imitation" of LGW F 72, while LGW G 315 "may be a friendly jab at Gower." Among the tales, Gower's Cleopatra "is probably based" on Chaucer's (p. 1066), particularly for the details of her death (LGW 678-80, 696-702); and Chaucer's and Gower's stories of Thisbe "seem related, but it is hard to say which came first" (p. 1067), in both cases echoing Robinson. Gower is cited only as an analogue for Chaucer's tales of Medea, Lucrece, Ariadne, Philomela, and Phyllis. No note is made of Root's suggestion (1909) that Chaucer's Lucrece may have been based on Gower's, and though other parallels are noted in this legend, no reference is made to one of the most interesting similarities between the two poems, Lucrece's swoon before she is violated by Tarquin (LGW 1815-17; CA 7.4986-87). Several other parallel passages from MO, VC, and CA are cited in the notes to LGW, many of them drawn from Fisher. Laila Z. Gross takes note of Fisher's account of the many parallels between Chaucer's "Lak of Stedfastnesse" and Gower's CA Prol. (p. 1086), and Stephen Barney lists Fisher as a general source on Gower's relation with Chaucer in his note to T&C 5.1856-59 (p. 1058). Otherwise Fisher is quite remarkably neglected in this edition: there is no reference, for instance, to his belief in Gower's influence on the conception of GP and the Marriage Group or to his identification of the Eagle in HF, and while he is cited (p. 1059) for his belief that LGW was written at the request of the queen, the rest of his proposal, that LGW and CA were written for the same commission in 1385, passes without notice. Despite the inevitable unevenness and inconsistency in a work involving so many different hands, the editors on the whole have done a commendable job of presenting the most useful scholarship on Chaucer in a clear and compact form. One small but revealing example of their care will cause some pleasure for those of us who decide to cite from this volume: except in the case of "Boece," which has been freshly edited by Ralph Hanna and Traugott Lawler, the editors have arranged the prose texts on the page so that the line numbers are the sa as in the edition that they are replacing. [PN. Copyright The John Gower Society JGN 6.1]