<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/270658">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Language, Knowledge, and Power: The Politics of Chaucer&#039;s Translation]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Argues that Chaucer&#039;s texts engage translation as a political tool. Rom indicates a balance of resistance to France and outreach to its cultural products; Bo can be read as suspicious of royal power during the late Ricardian period; and ClT demonstrates how translation (as in the propagandistic translation of Griselda) can be a means of &quot;consolidating&quot; power.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/270657">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[&#039;Forget what you have learned&#039;: The Mistick Krewe&#039;s 1914 Mardi Gras Chaucer]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Assessing the conservative ideological underpinnings of the pageantry and commenting on its &quot;inability to control the polysemy of Chaucer&#039;s texts,&quot; Barrington summarizes the history of Mistick Krewe and describes its 1914 parade and party dedicated to &quot;Tales from Chaucer.&quot; She examines details of images of the parade floats and associated materials, some perhaps responsive to the 1912 modernization of Chaucer by John Tatlock and Percy Mackaye. See also &quot;A Response to Barrington,&quot; by Clare Sponsler.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/270656">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Poetic Fame]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Cooper argues that, despite his own skepticism about fame, Chaucer was the &quot;model of fame&quot; in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century England. Comments on Chaucer&#039;s appeal to humanists, to Protestants, and to Catholics and on Chaucer&#039;s role as &quot;father&quot; of English poetry.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/270655">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Conjuring Gower in Pericles]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Driver contrasts Shakespeare&#039;s limited attention to Chaucer with his lionization of Gower in &quot;Pericles,&quot; commenting on representations of Gower in modern stage productions of the play.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/270654">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Lydgate in Scotland]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Examines the influence of Lydgate in Scotland in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, commenting on the manuscript circulation of his poems. Scottish writers&#039; stylistic indebtedness to Lydgate is complicated by the influence of Chaucer&#039;s writings on both Lydgate and the Scots poets. Lydgate&#039;s verse has only a small place in the literary culture of medieval Scotland.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/270653">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[A Revised Edition of &quot;The Manly-Rickert Text of the &#039;Canterbury Tales&#039;&quot;]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[A corrected reprint of Ramsey&#039;s 1994 publication (see SAC 18 [1996], no. 31), with Kelly&#039;s summary of the importance of the volume and its arguments concerning the relationships of the manuscripts (especially Hg, El, and Dd) and the editing of Chaucer&#039;s works.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/270652">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Orthography, Codicology, and Textual Studies: The Cambridge University Library Gg.4.27 Canterbury Tales]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Analysis of MS Gg.4.27 of CT, combining a codicological approach with analysis of linguistic aspects such as graphemic and graphetic variants. This multifocal approach helps identify the process of copying as well as the scribal profile.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/270651">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[The Linguistic Stratification in the Cambridge Dd Copy of Chaucer&#039;s Canterbury Tales]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[The authors review previous scholarship concerning Cambridge MS. Dd.4.24 and evaluate the linguistic stratification indicated by orthographic variants. They argue that the manuscript appears to date from the late fourteenth century, that it originated in London-Westminster, and that it should be labeled a type III text of CT.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/270650">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Quat Is This Fairy Burial Mound? The Gawain-Poet&#039;s Green Moment in &#039;Sir Gawain and the Green Knight&#039;]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Because of the lack of manuscript history, the works of the Gawain-poet must be studied in contexts different from those of Chaucer and his London contemporaries. The seriousness of poetic temperament is pronounced throughout the narrative of the poem.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/270649">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Using Reason to Change Their Worlds: The Tale of Rosiphelee and the Tale of Alceone in John Gower&#039;s Confessio Amantis]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[By discussing the tales of Rosiphelee and Alceone from &quot;Confessio Amantis,&quot; Bakalian exemplifies how Gower (in contrast to Chaucer) urges readers to improve their behavior through right reason and rejection of irresponsible passion.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/270648">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Colonialism, Latinity, and Resistance]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Bowers describes Chaucer&#039;s treatment of Latin texts throughout his &quot;literary insurgency against [a] foreign incursion&quot;--a kind of postcolonial resistance that is also consistent with Lollard vernacularization. Reads MLT as a &quot;rejection&quot; of Bede&#039;s authoritative account of the Christianization of England, part of an overall rewriting of history to assert an &quot;English homeland,&quot; free of foreign, Latin domination.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/270647">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[France]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Butterfield reviews traditional, generally dismissive attitudes toward &quot;Frenchness&quot; in Chaucer criticism and advocates a new awareness of the linguistic complexity that underlies Chaucer&#039;s uses of French models and French diction, particularly the interpenetration of international dialects of French in England and on the Continent. Comments in detail on Chaucer&#039;s use of Froissart in the opening of BD and explores the multilingual--and multicultural--dimensions of puns in ShT.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/270646">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Italy]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Reconsiders Chaucer&#039;s use of Italian sources and his references to Italy and Italian regions (including Rome), focusing on ways that Italy was a geographical and cultural place of strangeness. Authors such as Chaucer and Gower negotiated tensions between strangeness and familiarity. Edwards comments on Chaucer&#039;s journeys to Italy (including surmises about an early trip in 1368) and considers how the &quot;multiform contexts of literary influences&quot; complement traditional &quot;comparative and intertextual studies&quot; and encourage consideration of how Italian influences were &quot;transmitted in more than one language.&quot;]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/270645">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Geoffrey Chaucer (c. 1340-1400)]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Grosskopf summarizes Chaucer&#039;s life and assesses allusions to King Arthur and Arthurian motifs and characters in CT, commenting on SqT, Th, NPT, WBT, and the lack of Arthurian material in KnT. Surveys related critical commentary and suggests that Chaucer satirizes Arthurian tradition because of his disillusionment with chivalric ideals.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/270644">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[&#039;Ovidio medieval&#039;: Los mitos Ovidianos en las obras de Geoffrey Chaucer y John Gower]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Surveys Ovid&#039;s influence on medieval literature and assesses Chaucer&#039;s use of Ovidian myths.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/270643">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[The Professionalization of Writing]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Horobin surveys &quot;complex and contradictory&quot; evidence for the professionalization of writing in England in the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, with comments on Chaucer&#039;s scribes (including Adam Pinkhurst), Thomas Hoccleve, and others.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/270642">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Negation in Different Versions of Chaucer&#039;s Boece: Syntactic Variants and Editing the Text]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Iyeiri investigates negative constructions in five versions of Bo, discussing the relative chronology of the witnesses to the text and, more generally, the editing of Middle English texts.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/270641">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[A Digital Catalogue of the Pre-1500 Manuscripts and Incunables of the &quot;Canterbury Tales&quot;]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Comprehensive description of the eighty-four manuscript witnesses to CT and four pre-1500 editions, each including contents, tale order, progress of copying, materials, page size, collation, format, hands, illumination, binding, date, language, provenance, and bibliography. Descriptions include links, internal and external, to supporting data. The disk contains an essay on each of the following scribes: B, D, Hammond, Petworth, Beryn, and Hooked-g (i.e., scribe of the Devonshire group).]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/270640">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[The Paper Stocks of the Beryn Scribe]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Mosser assesses the watermarks and paper stock of the ten manuscripts attributed to the &quot;Beryn Scribe,&quot; to establish their dates and relative chronology.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/270639">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[A Project for a Comprehensive Collation of the Two Manuscripts (Hengwrt and Ellesmere) and the Two Editions (Blake [1980] and Benson [1987]) of the Canterbury Tales]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Describes a comprehensive comparison of two manuscripts and two editions of CT.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/270638">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[What Did Adam Pynkhurst (Not) Write?: A Reply to Dr. Horobin]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Argues that the context and argument of Horobin&#039;s refutation of Fletcher&#039;s earlier essay are deficient (see &quot;The Criteria for Scribal Attribution: Dublin, Trinity College, MS 244, Some Early Copies of the Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, and the Canon of Adam Pynkhurst Manuscripts,&quot; SAC 31 [2007], no. 30, and &quot;The Criteria for Scribal Attribution: Dublin, Trinity College MS 244 Reconsidered,&quot; SAC 33 [2009], no. 16). The question of the role of palaeography and historical linguistics in determining scribal attribution remains moot.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/270637">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Middle English Manuscripts and Readers]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Hanna discusses late medieval English &quot;textual culture,&quot; commenting on the production and disposition of manuscripts, habits of collecting and anthologizing individual works, the vagaries of manuscript survival, reading practices, etc. Cites examples from Chaucer&#039;s work often, including comments on a facsimile leaf of TC (Cambridge, St. John&#039;s College, MS L.1, fol. 6v).]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/270636">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Adam Pinkhurst and the Copying of British Library, MS Additional 35287 of the B Version of Piers Plowman]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Palaeographical differences between the hands of the Hengwrt and Ellesmere manuscripts of CT and of Additional 35287 are more compelling than are the similarities. Horobin suggests that Pinkhurst &quot;was not Chaucer&#039;s personal copyist&quot; and focuses on the probability that there was &quot;more cooperation between independent scriveners than we have traditionally allowed.&quot;]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/270635">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Adam Pinkhurst, Geoffrey Chaucer, and the Hengwrt Manuscript of the Canterbury Tales]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[A petition in the hand of Pinkhurst requesting that a permanent deputy be appointed to relieve Chaucer of his duties as controller of the wool custom establishes their connection in 1385. However, codicological evidence suggests that the poet &quot;was no longer available for consultation&quot; on the production of Hengwrt even as it provides further proof of collaborative scribal practice in late medieval London.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/270634">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Manuscripts and Scribes]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Horobin describes recent advances in understanding &quot;late medieval textual culture&quot;--reading habits, book ownership, institutional affiliations, etc.--focusing on the œuvres of several Chaucerian scribes, discussions of locale and provenance, relationships between Chaucerian and non-Chaucerian contents, and the utility of electronic databases.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description></rdf:RDF>