<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/267404">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Ecocriticism and Middle English Literature]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Ecocriticism is &quot;a discipline that examines (criticizes) the relationship of texts to literal and figurative environments.&quot; Douglass&#039;s test case is an examination of how metaphors of nature are used in KnT and MilT to set off the person of Emilye, the characters of Palamon and Arcite, and the youthful energy of Alisoun. Also explores how implied natural settings relate to the conventions of romance and fabliau.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/271342">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Ecofeminism and the Father of English Poetry: Chaucer&#039;s &#039;Parliament of Fowls&#039;]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Describes how Chaucer reaches beyond the phallocentrism and &quot;human parochialism&quot; of his time by giving voice to the feminine and the animal in PF, even though the poem ends with a return to masculinist, human-centered subjectivity.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/271502">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Ecofeminist Subjectivities: Chaucer&#039;s Talking Birds]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Assuming a consistent narrative voice across the Chaucer canon, this study treats Chaucer&#039;s use of animal, specifically, avian, discourse as a means of exploring subjectivity. The author emphasizes the role of non-humans and women in &quot;challenging identities and preconceptions,&quot; noting how investing these speakers with agency works to alter genre and gender assumptions. Chaucer&#039;s use of animal speakers reveals &quot;his restless search for an authorial voice.&quot; Focuses on HF, PF, SqT, NPT, and ManT.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/267867">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Economy, Representation, and the Sale of Indulgences in Late-Medieval England]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[In fourteenth-century England, the sale of indulgences was supported by orthodoxy and attacked by Wycliffites. Poetic fictions transcend this simple opposition, as seen in the artful deviousness of PardT and the revitalized idealism of &quot;Piers Plowman.&quot;]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/274148">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Ecopoetics and the Origins of English Literature.]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Views &quot;Sir Gawain and the Green Knight,&quot; Malory&#039;s &quot;Morte Darthur,&quot; and CT through the lens of ecopoetics, contending that they all rely upon the interdependence of author, text, and audience; employ metonyms rather more than metaphors; play with &quot;time and nontime&quot;; and suggest that land possesses ethical subjectivity. Includes analysis of the &quot;green world&quot; evident in the opening lines of GP and the concern with &quot;elvishness&quot; in WBPT and MLT in response to the destruction of nature in KnT.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/268686">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Edited Text and Medieval Artifact: The Auchinleck Bookshop and &#039;Charlemagne and Roland&#039; Theories, Fifty Years Later]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Critical review of two applied textual theories, exposing their weaknesses in light of recent theory and revealing their ongoing utility. Includes discussion of Laura Hibbard Loomis&#039;s arguments that Th indicates Chaucer&#039;s firsthand knowledge of the Auchinleck MS.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/266678">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Editing All the Manuscripts of All &#039;The Canterbury Tales&#039; into Electronic Form: Is the Effort Worthwhile?]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[A description of questions raised in the process of producing the first installment of the computer-assisted &quot;Canterbury Tales&quot; Project (SAC 20 [1998], no. 11), and a justification of the project.  The first installment made possible Solopova&#039;s analyses of meter and punctuation in WBP and clarified something of Chaucer&#039;s process of revision, in particular his excision of the so-called &quot;added passages&quot; from WBP.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/272989">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Editing and Correcting]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Discusses the importance of &quot;corrections&quot; in Middle English manuscripts. In particular, addresses scribal errors and corrections in the Ellesmere and Hengwrt manuscripts.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/268548">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Editing as Palinode : The Invention of Love and The Text of the Canterbury Tales]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Comments on the critical reception of Manly and Rickert&#039;s &quot;The Text of the Canterbury Tales&quot; (1940), exploring underlying assumptions about textual theory and gender politics. Uses Tom Stoppard&#039;s play &quot;The Invention of Love&quot; (1997) to reveal perspectives that underlie the praise of Manly&#039;s work and the occlusion of Rickert&#039;s.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/267646">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Editing Chaucer: John Koch and the Forgotten Tradition]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Argues that John Koch ought to be considered one of the great editors of Chaucer&#039;s works, even though he is largely forgotten by Anglophone Chaucerians who downplay German contributions to the field.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/263577">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Editing Chaucer: The Great Tradition]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[A collection of essays on the editorial practices of great editors of Chaucer:  Caxton, by Beverly Boyd; Thynne, by James E. Blodgett; Stow, by Anne Hudson; Speght by Derek Pearsall; Urry, by William L. Alderson; Tyrwhitt, by B. A. Windeatt; Wright, by Thomas Ross; Furnivall, by Donald C. Baker; Skeat, by A. S. G. Edwards; Root, by Ralph Hanna, III; Manly and Rickert, by George Kane; and F. N. Robinson, by George F. Reinecke. For the twevlve essays that pertain to Chaucer, search for Editing Chaucer: The Great Tradition under the title of this volume.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/271427">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Editing Chaucer&#039;s Early Poems: A Rationale for Virtual Copy-Text]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Proposes that a &quot;computer facilitated re-spelling of a reconstructed archetype&quot; ought to be the basis for future editions of LGW, Anel, HF, PF, and BD because the textual situations of these poems are &quot;precarious.&quot; The reconstruction would use the &quot;standard of spelling represented by the Hengwrt manuscript&quot; of CT.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/263349">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Editing Medieval Texts: Some Developments and Problems]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Use of the Robinson second edition based on the Ellesmere MS has encouraged the neglect of many textual problems in critical studies concerning &quot;unity&quot; or &quot;idea&quot; of CT; Manly and Rickert&#039;s monumental edition is virtually ignored.  Hengwrt is a vastly superior witness of what Chaucer wrote, though lacking CYP, CTY, and passages of WBP.  Although no manuscript represents Chaucer&#039;s &quot;act of publication,&quot; each manuscript witnesses a stage in Chaucer&#039;s developing intentions.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/273555">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Editing Middle English Texts: Spin-offs for the Oxford English Dictionary. ]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Analyzes the Wife of Bath&#039;s &quot;deceptive nature of fine outward show,&quot; in terms of her dress and clothing, as opposed to her inner purity in WBT.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/265160">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Editing the &#039;Canterbury Tales&#039;: An Overview]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Surveys textual issues that confront editors of CT, presenting the issues as background to the &quot;Canterbury Tales&quot; Project. Considers problems of lineation, the incompleteness of the text, the role of the links, questions of early circulation,glosses, manuscript hierarchy, and issues of meter, spelling, and punctuation.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/266641">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Editing the &#039;Canterbury Tales&#039;: Preliminary Observations]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Referring to &quot;The Wife of Bath&#039;s Prologue on CD-ROM&quot; (Studies In the Age Of Chaucer 20 [1998], no.11), Blake concludes that Hengwrt should be used as the base text for the &quot;Canterbury Tales&quot; Project.  He proposes three areas in which Hengwrt might be emended against other witnesses:  the addition to Hengwrt of substantial passages found in some other manuscripts; emendations of minor omissions and deletions from Hengwrt; and correction of the spelling of Hengwrt.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/270242">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Editing the Middle English Manuscript]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[A pedagogical introduction to the practices involved in preparing a critical edition of a Middle English text, with commentary on paleography, the language of Middle English, and the processes of textual criticism.  Includes reproductions of the early witnesses of the text of Scog (Furnivall&#039;s transcriptions of three manuscripts, the Globe edition, Skeat, and Robinson), and solutions to several problems involved in preparing an edition from these witnesses.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/261211">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Editing, Orality, and Late Middle English Texts]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Questions the role of orality in the recording and transmission of Middle English texts, suggesting that various attitudes and techniques of oral improvisation have left residues in these texts and that modern editors should use oral models.  Draws examples from TC, PF, and elsewhere.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/263855">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Edition critique et commentee du Roman de &quot;Troyle,&quot; traduction francaise du xve siecle du &quot;Filostrato&quot; de Boccace]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Argues from linguistic evidence that Pratt is wrong when hypothesizing that Chaucer used a French version of the Troy story.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/274347">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Editions and Translations of Chaucer Now in Print.]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Surveys the &quot;editions and translations of Chaucer currently in print&quot; (in 1965) and designed for college courses, commenting on their strengths and weaknesses.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/268891">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Editorial Assumptions and Problems in The Canterbury Tales]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Considers textual issues that pertain to the &quot;Host stanza&quot; at the end of ClT (4.1212a-g) and several passages in MkT and NPT: the &quot;Adam stanza&quot; (7.2007-14), the &quot;Modern Instances&quot; (7.2375-2462), and the short versus long versions of NPP. Discusses manuscript evidence and the likely sequence of composition.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/266340">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Editorial Assumptions and the Manuscripts of &#039;The Canterbury Tales&#039;]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Demonstrates the dangers of over-reliance on Hengwrt, Ellesmere, or any limited number of privileged manuscripts in establishing the text of CT, arguing for attention to all available material.]]></dcterms:description>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Uses Ad3 (British Library MS Additional 35286) to show (1) how its unique ordering of tales may preserve an early stage in Chaucer&#039;s composition process and (2) how two passages that Ad3 shares only with Ellesmere (FranT 1455-56, 1493-98) may preserve an authorial revision.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/266045">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Editorial Authority: William Thynne and the Construction of The Chaucer Canon in the Henrician Age]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[William Thynne, the first true editor of Chaucer&#039;s oeuvre, performed fewer duties for the royal household than has been believed; thus, he had more time for editing.  Familiar with the three previous printings and with many manuscripts, he built on Caxton&#039;s edition and apparently relied most heavily on one manuscript, Tanner 346.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/277518">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Editorial Introduction: From Paradise to Padua.]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Introduces a special issue dedicated to Shakespeare&#039;s references to Padua, summarizing the collected essays and addressing references to Padua in the Towneley mystery play (&quot;Magnus Herodes&quot;) and in ClP (27). Suggests that Chaucer&#039;s linking of Padua with &quot;creative effort and academic endeavor&quot; characterized the city in &quot;English collective imagination.&quot;]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/262764">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Editorial Method and Medieval Translations: The Example of Chaucer&#039;s &#039;Boece&#039;]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[The textual problems of Bo are more complex than they seem.  Chaucer used several source texts, including commentaries and French translations; his chief interest was to translate the &quot;&#039;Consolatione&#039; tradition,&quot; not just the &quot;Consolatione&quot; itself.  In a sense, then, he created his own source.  Similarly, Chaucer&#039;s own text was adapted by scribes, who reflected their primary interest in the meaning and the language, not in the artistry.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description></rdf:RDF>