<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/267505">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Debating Dialect: Essays on the Philosophy of Dialect Study]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Seven essays by various authors who challenge &quot;orthodox views about dialects and dialectology&quot; while discussing topics of dialect and &quot;standard&quot; in English, especially British English. For two essays that pertain to Chaucer, search for Debating Dialect under Alternative Title.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/271308">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[December]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Item not seen; cited in WorldCat, which indicates that a woodcut by Margaret Lock accompanies an excerpt from part 5 of CT.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/270245">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Deception and Self-Deception in &#039;The Franklin&#039;s Tale&#039;]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Contrasts Dorigen of FranT with the biblical Eve: where Eve falls because of her desire for knowledge, Dorigen nearly falls for lack of knowledge, particularly her lack of self-knowledge as is evident in her complaint against the rocks and her playful promise to Aurelius. Both the complaint and the promise deviate from Augustinian notions of the place of humanity in divine order.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/277222">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Deciphering the Manuscript Page: The &quot;Mise-en-Page&quot; of Chaucer, Gower, and Hoccleve Manuscripts.]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Includes analysis the &quot;mise-en-page&quot; of twenty-four Chaucer manuscripts, including assessment of &quot;borders, initials, paraphs, rubrics, running titles, speaker markers, glosses and notes,&quot; and arguing that--like Gower and Hoccleve manuscripts--they evince scribal attention to poetic form.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/263132">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Deciphering the Middle English Narrative Poem: Two Approaches]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Review article comparing John M. Ganim&#039;s discussion of Middle English narrative in TC and other Middle English works with Lynn Staley Johnson&#039;s treatment of the subject in the &quot;Pearl&quot; poems.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/267976">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Declaiming Chaucer to a Field of Cows : Three Twentieth-Century Glimpses of the Poet]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Explicates works by three twentieth-century poets who have made Chaucer the subject of their work: Benjamin Brawley&#039;s sonnet &quot;Chaucer&quot; (1922), e. e. cummings&#039;s untitled sonnet from his collection &quot;Xaipé&quot; (1950), and Ted Hughes&#039;s &quot;Chaucer&quot; (1998). These diverse poets present Chaucer as an emblem of &quot;what poetry can and should be&quot; (18).]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/261451">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Declarations of &#039;Entente&#039; in Troilus and Criseyde]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[TC is a drama of &quot;entente,&quot; concerned more with why people do things than what they do.  Chaucer uses &quot;entente&quot; here much more heavily than in any of his earlier works and evokes its numerous meanings.  As the poem progresses, there is a &quot;slippage of meaning,&quot; focusing the reader on the &quot;unreliability of stated intentions and the difficulty of interpreting them.&quot;]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/276333">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Decline and Fall of Interjections.]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Surveys uses of primary and secondary interjections (i.e., exclamations and oaths) in Anglo-Saxon through modern English, exploring how the &quot;inventive ability is more marked in some centuries than in others.&quot; Comments on oaths based in religion (God, Mary, saints, and demons) and colloquial phrasing in CT as well as in Middle English drama and legal records.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/262937">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Deconstructing &#039;The Canterbury Tales&#039;: Con]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Though deconstruction is a useful tool for breaking down troublesome parts of CT, its &quot;wholesale use&quot; in the interpretation of Chaucer&#039;s poetry does great discredit to the author.  Deconstructive criticism tends to place any author in a position subordinate to the critic in its suggestion that the author is a slave to the subconscious implications of language.]]></dcterms:description>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Faith in the poet&#039;s ability to master the constructive and instructive uses of language should never be replaced by the inherent skepticism of deconstruction.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/262936">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Deconstructing &#039;The Canterbury Tales&#039;: Pro]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Deconstructive readings of CT can reopen the study of historical &quot;particulars,&quot; allowing readings from various interpretative communities.  Instead of generalized acceptance of &quot;the medieval world view&quot; or of direct historical references suggesting authorial intention, the new task will entail a &quot;reimagining of the past.&quot;]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/261429">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Deconstructing Chaucer&#039;s Retraction]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Ret is an example of a Derridean &quot;parergon,&quot; simultaneously marginal to and an important element of CT.  It allows for both humanistic and exegetical readings, producing a &quot;hermeneutic double-bind,&quot; separated by an aporetic gap that generates new meanings and interpretations while denying interpretive closure.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/269703">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Deconstruction and the Medieval Indefinite Article: The Undecidable Medievalism of Brian Helgeland&#039;s A Knight&#039;s Tale]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[D&#039;Arcens addresses Helgeland&#039;s film as an entry point for deconstructing medievalist studies. Such studies, she suggests, reflect a latent Platonism that regards the Middle Ages as a stable standard against which to measure texts and contemporary textual adaptations.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/267223">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Decorated Caxtons]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Surveys the quantity and quality of decoration in books printed by Caxton, including works by Chaucer. Speculates why there is less decoration in Caxton&#039;s printed books than in those produced on the Continent. Includes four black-and-white illustrations, two from Chaucer.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/263410">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Decorum and Expression of Intention in &#039;Beowulf,&#039; Njals Saga,&#039; and Chaucer]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Body language, grouping, and voice level used by characters signify intent; in Chaucer&#039;s works, typically, appeasement manifests itself as the intent.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/273050">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Deep Readings and Thin Screens: Narrative Kenosis in Jane Barker&#039;s &#039;A Patch-Work Screen for the Ladies&#039;]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Refers to Jane Barker&#039;s use in an early novel of Dryden&#039;s retelling of CT to provide context for her 1723 anti-novel, &quot;A Patch-Work Screen for the Ladies.&quot;]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/267684">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Deference and Difference : Lydgate, Chaucer, and the Siege of Thebes]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Lydgate appropriates Chaucer not so much to pay tribute as to distance himself from anticlericalism, to redeem the narrative and monastic voice, and to assert its freedom from authority, as represented by Harry Bailly. Lydgate&#039;s apparent compliance allows the monastic identity to address unwelcome truth to secular authority. While the prologue to the &quot;Siege&quot; is self-confidently naive, the body of the poem articulates the inability of rhetoric to affect history.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/271125">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Defining Acts: Drama and the Politics of Interpretation in Late Medieval England]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Assesses the biblical and theatrical allusions in MilT for the ways that they engage the theme of interpretation, challenge gender categories, and dovetail with contemporary concerns about the dangers of drama and reading. Compares these with similar concerns in the &quot;Treatise of Miracle Pleyinge&quot; and accounts of the Peasants&#039; Revolt, using these texts to initiate an analysis the politics and hermeneutics of late-medieval drama.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/264303">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Definitions of Middle English Romance: Part I]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Confused in definition, &quot;romance&quot; designates both a value system and a method of treatment.  The presence of the marvelous, courtly love, and chivalric adventure is not enough to form a definition.  A parody like Th helps, since it indicates what is expected and can therefore be successfully ridiculed.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/264304">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Definitions of Middle English Romance: Part II]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Romances are distinguished not by the presence of certain features--the erotic, the fabulous, etc.--but by attitudes toward those elements.  WBT is &quot;deliberately&quot; not a romance.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/265326">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Deflection in the Mirror: Feminine Discourse in &#039;The Wife of Bath&#039;s Prologue&#039; and &#039;Tale&#039;]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Although WBP does not succeed in fictionalizing a discourse community of women, it makes clear the possibility in its struggle with patriarchal authority.  WBT poses such a community in a transient, illusory form.  Chaucer capitalizes on the contemporary desire for women&#039;s access to literature and for feminine discourse, anticipating Christine de Pisan.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/266715">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Deiphebus, Hector, and Troilus in Chaucer&#039;s &#039;Troilus and Criseyde&#039;]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[In TC, Deiphebus serves as an important foil to Troilus.  He exposes Troilus not only as weak and inadequate but also as human, something Hector is not.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/262023">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Deiphobus and Helen: A Tantalizing Hint]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[According to Virgil (Aeneid, VI) Deiphobus became the husband of Helen after Paris&#039; death.  Perhaps Pandarus reveals a covert knowledge of this burgeoning romance when, in TC II, he confidently sends Helen and Deiphobus into the garden for an hour, thereby leaving Troilus and Criseyde alone for their first interview.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/263312">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Deiphoebus Betrayed: Virgilian Decorum, Chaucerian Feminism]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[The rich Virgilian background of TC brings into focus Hector and Deiphoebus--bound to Troilus by brotherly love and manipulated by Pandarus--and the parallel perfidies of Helen and Criseyde.  In TC, the betrayal of Deiphoebus is &quot;a feminist invention...that questions a clearly established male tradition&quot; (p. 197).]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/268410">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Delicacy vs. Truth: Defining Moral Heroism in the Canterbury Tales]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Lawler argues that Chaucer privileged simplicity and disapproved of decadence and over-refinement. Lexical examination demonstrates Chaucer&#039;s preference for &quot;delicacy,&quot; evident most clearly in Griselda of ClT and supported by evidence from KnT and ParsT.]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://chaucer.lib.utsa.edu/items/show/275747">
    <dcterms:title><![CDATA[Delicious, Tender Chaucer: Coleridge, Emotion and Affect.]]></dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:description><![CDATA[Explores relations between the reception of Chaucer and the &quot;study of the history of emotion,&quot; focusing on the &quot;symbolic capital&quot; of Samuel Taylor Coleridge&#039;s brief comments on Chaucer in &quot;Table Talk,&quot; the &quot;social context&quot; in which the comments were practiced, distinctions between &quot;emotional&quot; and &quot;affective&quot; responses that may be observed in the comments, and the &quot; emotional work performed&quot; by them. Includes comments on Chaucer&#039;s uses of &quot;tender.&quot;]]></dcterms:description>
</rdf:Description></rdf:RDF>