Introduction: Chaucer's Visions of Manhood - Springer LINK

NOTES

Introduction: Chaucer’s Visions of Manhood

1. See Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity(New York: Routledge, 1989), a work that “broke” gender andperformativity onto the modern academic stage. In her Bodies that Matter: Onthe Discursive Limits of “Sex” (New York: Routledge, 1993), p. 241, Butlersuggests that performance entails reflexive involvement, acknowledging itsvisual dynamism.

2. Works illustrating performance’s substantive influence over medievalmanifestations of identity that have been most important to this projectinclude Susan Crane, The Performance of Self: Ritual, Clothing, and IdentityDuring the Hundred Years War (Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaPress, 2002); Claire Sponsler, Drama and Resistance: Bodies, Goods, andTheatricality in Late Medieval England (Minneapolis: University of MinnesotaPress, 1997); Kathleen Ashley and Robert L. A. Clark, eds., Medieval Conduct(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001); and BruceW. Holsinger, “Analytic Survey 6: Medieval Literature and Cultures ofPerformance,” New Medieval Literatures 6 (2003): 271–311.

3. Kathleen Biddick, “Genders, Bodies, Borders: Technologies of the Visible,”Speculum 68 (1993): 389–418.

4. Michel de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life, trans. Steven F. Rendall(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984).

5. Works that have been helpful in my thinking about medieval masculinities,both in literary and historical terms, include Jeffrey Jerome Cohen andBonnie Wheeler, eds., Becoming Male in the Middle Ages (New York:Garland, 1997); Clare A. Lees, ed., Medieval Masculinities (Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1994); Peter G. Beidler, ed., Masculinities inChaucer (Cambridge, UK: D. S. Brewer, 1998); Ruth Mazo Karras, FromBoys to Men: Formations of Masculinity in Late Medieval Europe (Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003).

6. See Peggy Phelan, Unmarked: The Politics of Performance (New York:Routledge, 1993), whose entire argument for the political centrality ofmodern performance relies on a type of invisibility that escapes specularregimes of cultural regulation.

7. Plato, Republic, Book II, 359c-d, Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper(Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997), p. 1000.

8. Indeed, in José Saramago’s Blindness, trans. Giovanni Pontiero (New York:Harcourt, 1995), the extreme epidemic of blindness creates a completebreakdown of ethics and politics. When no one can see, all becomeinvisible to one another.

9. Emmanuel Levinas, Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority, trans.Alphonso Lingis (London: Kluwer Publications, 1991), p. 60.

10. H. G. Wells, The Invisible Man (1897; New York: Scribner & Sons, 1924).11. John Landis, Joe Dante, dirs. Amazon Women on the Moon (Universal

Studios, 1987). This skit is a spoof of Claude Raines’s performance in JamesWhale’s The Invisible Man (Universal Studios, 1933), itself a filmic represen-tation of H. G. Wells’s book. Whale’s film, and particularly Raines’sportrayal of the invisible man’s disintegration into dementia, spawned itsown B-movie genre, most recently culminating in Paul Verhoeven’s HollowMan (Columbia Tri-Star, 2000).

12. Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man (1952; New York: Vintage, 1995).13. See Thomas Laqueur, Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud

(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990); Joan Cadden, Meaningsof Sex Difference in the Middle Ages: Medicine, Science, and Culture (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1995); Karma Lochrie, Peggy McCracken,and James A. Shultz, eds. Constructing Medieval Sexuality (Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1997); Danielle Jacquart and ClaudeThomasset, Sexuality and Medicine in the Middle Ages, trans. MatthewAdamson (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988); Louise Fradenburgand Carla Freccero, eds., Premodern Sexualities (New York: Routledge,1996); Simon Forde, Lesley Johnson, and Alan V. Murray, eds., Concepts ofNational Identity in the Middle Ages (Leeds: University of Leeds Press, 1995);John Block Friedman, The Monstrous Races in Medieval Art and Thought(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981); Jeffrey Jerome Cohen,ed., The Postcolonial Middle Ages (New York: Palgrave, 2000).

14. Critical work on The Pardoner’s Tale, which is both vast and rich, has donemore to explore connections between gender, sexuality, and the body thanany other tale. For representative examples of this nuanced subfield, seeMonica McAlpine, “The Pardoner’s Homosexuality and how it Matters,”PMLA 95 (1980): 8–22; Carolyn Dinshaw, Chaucer’s Sexual Poetics(Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989); Steven Kruger,“Claiming the Pardoner: Toward a Gay Reading of Chaucer’s Pardoner’sTale,” Exemplaria 6 (1994): 115–40; Glenn Burger, “Kissing the Pardoner,”PMLA 107 (1992): 1143–56; and Robert Sturges, Chaucer’s Pardoner andGender Theory: Bodies of Discourse (New York: Palgrave, 2000).

15. Here I pursue the gender implications of the poetic authority that A. C. Spearing explores in his study, The Medieval Poet as Voyeur: Lookingand Listening in Medieval Love-Narratives (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1993). Other critics who explore the impact of perspectiva onChaucer’s work and who have greatly influenced the arguments that follow

N O T E S156

include Norman Klassen, Chaucer on Love, Knowledge, and Sight (Cambridge,UK: D. S. Brewer, 1995); Carolyn P. Collette, Species, Phantasms, and Images:Vision and Medieval Psychology in The Canterbury Tales (Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press, 2001); and Linda Tarte Holley, Chaucer’sMeasuring Eye (Houston: Rice University Press, 1990).

16. My reading agrees with the “crisis” theory of masculinity, wherein phallic,hegemonic, or dominant masculinities are always on the verge of falling topieces. As Arthur Brittan suggests in Masculinity and Power (Oxford: BasilBlackwell, 1989), this theory assumes that in previous centuries, men knewwho they were. This present panic, however, also gives men more mobil-ity to adapt their gender positions to changing social conditions. SeeSteven Cohan, Masked Men: Masculinity and the Movies in the Fifties(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997), who investigates the waysin which American masculinities are repackaged after World War II so thata kind of domesticity that earlier might have been viewed as problematicbecomes the masculine ideal. Part of Chaucer’s appeal is the sense of famil-iarity many readers develop with his persona. See Stephanie Trigg,Congenial Souls: Reading Chaucer from Medieval to Postmodern (Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 2002), who discusses this phenomenonover six centuries.

17. Lee Patterson, “ ‘What Man Artow?’: Authorial Self-Definition in the Tale of Sir Thopas and the Tale of Melibee,” Studies in the Age of Chaucer13 (1991): 117–75.

18. See Shoshana Felman, The Literary Speech Act: Don Juan with J.L. Austin, orSeduction in Two Languages (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983),p. 84, who relates the performative theory of J. L. Austin to the psychoana-lytic theory of Jacques Lacan in a discussion of the effects of “languagemisfire”: “The act of failing thus opens up the space of referentiality—or ofimpossible reality—not because something is missing, but because somethingelse is done, or because something else is said: the term ‘misfire’ does notrefer to an absence, but to the enactment of a difference” (emphasisoriginal).

19. Jeffrey Jerome Cohen, “Diminishing Masculinity in Chaucer’s Tale of SirThopas,” Masculinities in Chaucer, ed. Peter Beidler (Cambridge, UK: D. S. Brewer, 1998), p. 143 [143–56].

20. See Anne Middleton, “The Idea of Public Poetry in the Reign of Richard II,”Speculum 53 (1978): 94–114.

21. E. T. Donaldson, “Chaucer the Pilgrim,” Speaking of Chaucer (London:Athlone Press, 1971), pp. 1–7; Donald Howard, “Chaucer the Man,”PMLA 80 (1965): 337–43.

22. Kaja Silverman, Male Subjectivity at the Margins (New York: Routledge,1992), p. 65, suggests that “male mastery rests upon an abyss, and that therepetition through which it is consolidated is radically and ceaselesslyundermined,” because the masculine subject is constituted through lack.Her claim that American male subjectivity of the post-war period isrepresented through traumatic lack is useful in the Chaucerian context

N O T E S 157

because in Chaucer lack functions like a possession defining identity.Because he has lack Chaucer is a man.

23. Howard, “Chaucer the Man,” p. 337, puts it this way: “And in his bestpoems we feel him as a ‘man speaking to men.’”

24. David Wallace, Chaucerian Polity: Absolutist Lineages and Associational Formsin England and Italy (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997), p. xvii.

25. Roland Barthes, “The Death of the Author,” Modern Literary Theory:A Reader, ed. Philip Rice and Patricia Waugh (London: Arnold, 1989),pp. 114–18; Michel Foucault, “What is an Author?” Partisan Review42 (1975): 603–14.

26. See Derek Pearsall, The Life of Geoffrey Chaucer: A Critical Biography(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1992), especially chapter 5; and Martin M. Crowand Clair C. Olson, eds., Chaucer Life-Records (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1966), pp. 411–93.

27. Lee Patterson, Negotiating the Past: The Historical Understanding of MedievalLiterature (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987) indicts this total-izing mode of medieval historicist criticism, while Dinshaw, Chaucer’sSexual Poetics, analyzes its gender bias.

28. Besides works by Wallace and Patterson listed earlier, also see Paul Strohm,Social Chaucer (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989); DavidAers, Chaucer, Langland, and the Creative Imagination (London: Routledge,1980); Peggy Knapp, Chaucer and the Social Contest (New York: Routledge,1990); and Lee Patterson, Chaucer and the Subject of History (Madison:University of Wisconsin Press, 1991).

29. See Dinshaw’s Chaucer’s Sexual Poetics, listed earlier, and also her article“Chaucer’s Queer Touches / A Queer Touches Chaucer,” Exemplaria7 (1995): 75–92; Louise O. Fradenburg, “Criticism, Anti-Semitism, and thePrioress’s Tale,” Exemplaria 1 (1989): 69–115; Christopher Cannon, “Raptusin the Chaumpaigne Release and a Newly Discovered DocumentConcerning the Life of Geoffrey Chaucer,” Speculum 68 (1993): 74–94; alsosee Cannon’s “Chaucer and Rape: Uncertainty’s Certainties,” Studies in theAge of Chaucer 22 (2000): 67–92. Mikhail Bakhtin, Rabelais and His World,trans. Helene Iswolsky (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1968), p. 26, definesthe classical body as that which is closed and complete.

30. Jeffrey Jerome Cohen, “Introduction: Midcolonial,” The Postcolonial MiddleAges, p. 5 [1–17], points out the “the impossibility of choosing alterity orcontinuity” as a critical model for contemporary scholars.

31. See the MED (Middle English Dictionary), s.v. “manhed(e),” 1–3,pp. 134–36, for numerous examples suggesting the three strict senses of thisterm (1) the human condition; (2) Manly virtues; (3) Belonging to the race,age, or occupation of men.

32. Barbara Newman, From Virile Woman to WomanChrist: Studies in MedievalReligion and Literature (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995),pp. 4, 31, 81–82, points out that Jerome and other early Church fathers asso-ciated vir with a type of strength that either men or women could assume.

N O T E S158

33. To my eye, some of the most exciting work underway in medieval/theoretical studies pursues connections between masculinity and passivity.Michael Uebel, “Toward a Symptomatology of Cyberporn,” Theory andEvent 3 (2000), argues for the connectedness of masculinity andmaschochism, while Robert Mills, “ ‘Whatever You Do Is a Delightto Me!’: Masculinity, Masochism, and Queer Play in Representations ofMale Martyrdom,” Exemplaria 13 (2001): 1–37, traces its possibilities in amedieval context.

34. The Digby Plays: With an Incomplete “Morality” of Wisdom, Who is Christ, ed.F. J. Furnivall, EETS, e.s., 70 (London: Trübner & Co. for EETS, 1896),IV. 962.

35. Caroline Walker Bynum, Jesus as Mother: Studies in the Spirituality of the HighMiddle Ages (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982), pp. 110–69.

36. Bynum’s use of this term in Jesus as Mother is less problematic than most,though she does not acknowledge that passivity is not exclusively a femi-nine characteristic, particularly in the Middle Ages. In Chaucer studies,uses of “feminize” are more troubling: two prominent examples of thistendency are Elaine Tuttle Hansen, Chaucer and the Fictions of Gender(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992); and Jill Mann, GeoffreyChaucer, Feminist Readings Series (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities,1991), although these two studies employ the term to quite differenteffects. Jill Mann, in an attempt to counter what she rightly identifies as a“worrying” habit in medieval feminist criticism—namely, to naturalizethe very gender stereotypes that feminist criticism purports to expose—retitled the 2002 edition of her book, Feminizing Chaucer. While it willbecome clear that I strongly agree with her contention that Chaucer “notonly questioned the superiority of active masculinity. . .but that he alsoquestioned the nature of active power itself, distributing agency througha multiplicity of causes which embrace the apparently passive” (p. xv), Ido not think that calling such a move “feminizing” is sufficient. I agreethat Hansen’s uncritical use of the term as if it has wholly negative con-notations is wrong. That said, I do not think Mann succeeds rhetoricallyin positively recharging the word. Her own appeal to reading Chaucerwithin a medieval context suggests that this term would be negativewhen applied to a man. See the OED (Oxford English Dictionary), s.v.“feminize,” which suggests that the term has to do with the constructionof womanly identity.

37. Judith Halberstam, Female Masculinity (Durham, NC: Duke University Press,1998), p. 27, points out that “the very flexibility and elasticity of the terms‘man’ and ‘woman’ ensures their longevity.” Jeffrey Jerome Cohen andBonnie Wheeler, “Introduction,” Becoming Male in the Middle Ages (NewYork and London: Garland, 1997), p. xix, make the important further dis-tinction that “male” and “female” are also fluid constructions, “not simplebinaries, but multiplicities that are simultaneously relational and opposi-tional”; however, I am interested here in the ways that gender terms makeroom for such multiplicities, and even variations, in bodily formations.

N O T E S 159

38. Nella Larsen, Passing (1929; New York: Collier Books, 1971).39. Michel de Certeau, p. xvii, in fact, suggests that marginality itself has

become universal, although members of the borderlands of culture are nothomogeneous because they do not all have the same access to “information,financial means, and compensation of all kinds.”

40. See the collection of essays, Maria Carla Sànchez and Linda Schlossberg,eds., Passing: Identity and Interpretation in Sexuality, Race, and Religion(New York: New York University Press, 2001), for a complete explorationof the possibilities of this strategy. Although essays in Elaine K. Ginsberg,ed., Passing and the Fictions of Identity (Durham, NC: Duke University Press,1996) are more interested in the juridical binary of transgression andpunishment as they apply to the categories of race and gender, Ginsberg inher introduction acknowledges that “passing has the potential to create aspace for creative self-determination and agency: the opportunity toconstruct new identities, to experiment with multiple subject positions, andto cross social and economic boundaries that exclude or oppress” (p. 16).

41. For example, Philip Roth’s novel, The Human Stain (New York: Knopf,2000), features as its hero a light-skinned African-American who has passedas Jewish since his youth. His downfall from his position as Dean of a stuffynortheastern college, which clunkily pits the secrets that canonicity keepsagainst the embarrassed exposure that “political correctness” demands,remains interesting because it shows the delicacy with which the protagonisthas calibrated his persona of mild-mannered professor.

42. As Margery Garber, Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing and Cultural Anxiety(New York: Routledge, 1997), points out “If treason works, it getsmainstreamed or translated into another, non-oppositional category, a newpolitical orthodoxy. . .If we were to. . .replace “treason” with somemetrically equivalent word—like “passing”—we would be characterizing asocial and sartorial inscription that encodes (as treason does) its own erasure”(p. 234, emphasis original.) Robert Bernasconi, “The Invisibility of RacialMinorities in the Public Realm of Appearances,” American ContinentalPhilosophy: A Reader, ed. Walter Brogan and James Risser (Bloomington:Indiana University Press, 2000), pp. 352–71.

43. Bernasconi, “The Invisibility of Racial Minorities,” p. 358.44. See, Karma Lochrie, “Women’s ‘Pryvetees’ and Fabliau Politics in the

Miller’s Tale,” Exemplaria 6 (1994): 287–304.45. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, trans. G. E. M. Anscombe,

2nd edn. (London: Blackwell, 1958), especially part II.46. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, II, xi, p. 223.47. Régis Debray, “The Three Ages of Looking,” trans. Eric Rauth, Critical

Inquiry 21 (1995): p. 531, 529–55; Bruno Latour, “Why Has Critique Runout of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern,” Critical Inquiry30 (2004): p. 228, 225–48.

48. Wallace, Chaucerian Polity, p. xvii.49. Latour, “Why Has Critique Run out of Steam?” pp. 232–33. Interestingly,

Mary Carruthers, The Craft of Thought: Meditation, Rhetoric, and the Making

N O T E S160

of Images, 400–1200 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998),pp. 146–55, points out that medieval memory work explicitly involvedsuch “gatherings,” connecting associations in catena and ordering themthrough collatio.

50. Although he articulates his concerns in relation to early modern studies, thework of Jonathan Gil Harris is useful for defining this methodology. See hisarticle, “Shakespeare’s Hair: Staging the Object of Material Culture,”Shakespeare Quarterly 52 (2001), p. 485 [479–91], in which he traces theAristotelian “particularization” of matter current in premodern science toMarx’s later understanding of objects as part of “the domain of labor andpraxis” (emphasis original). The medievalist who most sensitively pursuesthis “long view” of history is Rita Copeland, whose “Childhood,Pedagogy, and the Literal Sense: From Late Antiquity to the LollardHeretical Classroom,” New Medieval Literatures 1 (1997): 125–56, andPedagogy, Intellectuals, and Dissent in the Later Middle Ages: Lollardy and Ideasof Learning (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), illustrate theimportance of this approach.

51. I am greatly influenced by the excellent work of L. O. Aranye Fradenburg,whose writings illustrate the vital connections between historicism andpsychoanalysis in medieval studies. Her suggestion that renunciation leadsto satisfaction, which she most fully elaborates in her book, Sacrifice YourLove: Psychoanalysis, Historicism, Chaucer (Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press, 2002), influences much of what follows. Yet her empha-sis on loss, mourning, and trauma often belies a disciplinary impulse, thedesire to show medievalists the ways in which a fascination with the pastfunctions as a psychic defense against temporal rupture.

52. “Anna O.” was the pseudonym used for Bertha Pappenheim by JosefBreuer and Sigmund Freud, Studies on Hysteria ed. and trans. James Strachey(New York: Basic Books, 1957).

53. Trinh T. Minh-ha, Woman Native Other: Writing Postcoloniality and Feminism(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989), p. 58, expresses in genderedterms the promise and failure that unilateral vision holds for the seer: “Whata man looks for. . .is fortunately what he always/never finds: a perfectreflection of himself.”

54. Here I am influenced by Brian Massumi, Parables for the Virtual: Movement,Affect, Sensation (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2002), p. 12, whourges critics to admit that we “add to reality,” thus countering what heidentifies as an unimaginative trend in intellectual culture: “Critical think-ing disavows its own inventiveness as much as possible. Because it sees itselfas uncovering something it claims was hidden or as debunking something itdesires to subtract from the world, it clings to a basically descriptive andjustificatory modus operendi.” In medieval studies, I would say thatNicholas Watson’s article, “Desire for the Past,” Studies in the Age of Chaucer21 (1999): 59–97, comes closer than anything I have seen to achieving thiscreative enjoyment, mainly because he avows his commitments (to CarolineWalker Bynum’s Holy Feast and Holy Fast: The Religious Significance of Food

N O T E S 161

to Medieval Women (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987) in aneffort to understand the affective connections that book achieves with thepast it explores.

55. See Maurice Merleau-Ponty, The Visible and the Invisible, ed. Claude Lefort,trans. Alphonso Lingis (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press,1968), pp. 262–68, who traces our intersubjective and intercorporeal com-mitments even to the point at which “active=passive” (265). As heacknowledges in his 1952 essay “An Unpublished Text by Merleau-Ponty:A Prospectus of His Work,” The Primacy of Perception, trans. James M. Edie(Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1964), p. 11, this phenomenalinterconnectivity is fundamentally ethical.

56. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus, Logico-Philosophicus, trans. D. F. Pears andB. F. McGuinness, introduction by Bertrand Russell (Atlantic Highlands,NJ: Humanities Press, 1961), p. 74, in his final proposition (seven) famouslyclaims that “What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.” Ashe makes clear in proposition six, this means endeavoring “to say nothingexcept what can be said, that is, propositions of natural science.” Much ofWittgenstein’s later writing, however, was an attempt to speak aboutmatters of mind and language, even if they could never be fully clarified orelucidated.

57. Besides the studies by Dinshaw, Hansen, and Mann listed earlier, also seeCatherine S. Cox, Gender and Language in Chaucer (Gainesville, FL:University Press of Florida, 1997); Susan Crane, Gender and Romance inChaucer’s Canterbury Tales (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994);Sheila Delany, The Naked Text: Chaucer’s Legend of Good Women (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1994); Anne Laskaya, Chaucer’s Approach toGender in the Canterbury Tales (Cambridge, UK: D. S. Brewer, 1995);Florence Percival, Chaucer’s Legendary Good Women (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1998); Angela Jane Weisl, Conquering the Reignof Femeny: Gender and Genre in Chaucer’s Romance (Cambridge, UK: D. S.Brewer, 1995).

58. See Martin Jay, Downcast Eyes: The Denigration of Vision in Twentieth-CenturyFrench Thought (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), who gives asurvey of the importance of vision in the Western philosophical tradition,with particular emphasis on twentieth-century thought. In this study I followJay, p. 15, in focusing “on a discourse rather than on a visual culture in itsentirety.” Thus, while I am influenced by theorists of medieval visual culture,including Michael Camille, The Gothic Idol: Ideology and Image-making inMedieval Art (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), V. A. Kolve,Chaucer and the Imagery of Narrative: the First Five Canterbury Tales (Stanford:Stanford University Press, 1984), as well as D. W. Robertson, Jr., Preface toChaucer: Studies in Medieval Perspectives (Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress, 1962), my work focuses on the ways that writers discuss vision andimages. While I will acknowledge the way that certain images influence dis-cursive representations, my priority is the way that those images areexpressedthrough language.

N O T E S162

Chapter 1 Seeing Gender’s Aspects: Vision, Agency, and Masculinity in the Tale of Melibee

1. John Berger, Ways of Seeing (London: Penguin, 1972), p. 47. Berger’sanalysis anticipates Laura Mulvey’s seminal argument, “Visual Pleasure andNarrative Cinema,” Screen 16 (1975): 6–18, only by a few years. StevenShaviro, The Cinematic Body (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,1993), p. 8, rightly suggests that the Mulveian gaze is an attempt to reassertthe viewer’s agency in the face of an image’s power.

2. See Dallas G. Denery, II, Seeing and Being Seen in the Later Medieval World: Optics,Theology, and Religious Life (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).

3. Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos, 140, Patrologia Latina 37 ( J. P. Migne:Paris, 1845) 16.1825–26: Certe caro tanquam conjux est. . .ama et castiga,donec fiat in una reformatione una Concordia [your flesh is like yourwife. . .love and correct it, until it is formed into one bond, one harmony].Augustine, Confessions, trans. R. S. Pine-Coffin (New York: Penguin,1987), 4.14, p. 85. For the Latin, see Augustine, Confessions: Introduction andText, ed. James. J. O’Donnell, vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), 4.14,p. 42: [et obnubilatur ei lumen et non cernitur veritas, et ecce est ante nos].

4. For early theories of vision, see David Hahm, “Early Hellenistic Theories ofVision and the Perception of Color, Studies in Perception, ed. Peter K. Machamerand Robert G. Turnbull (Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1978),pp. 60–95. David C. Lindberg, “The Science of Optics,” Studies in the Historyof Medieval Optics (London: Variorum Reprints, 1983) I: 338–68; other historiesof optics include those by Vasco Ronchi, notably Optics: The Science of Vision,trans. Edward Rosen (New York: New York University Press, 1957), andThe Nature of Light: An Historical Survey, trans. V. Barocas (Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press, 1970); for the connections between femininity andvision in Greek thought, see Genevieve Lloyd, The Man of Reason: “Male”and “Female” in Western Philosophy (Minneapolis: University of MinnesotaPress, 1984), pp. 2–8.

5. See David C. Lindberg, Theories of Optics from Al-kindi to Kepler (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1976), who, in my opinion, gives the mostuseful survey of shifts and continuities between ancient and medieval opticaltheory. Also of critical importance to this study, Suzannah Biernoff, Sight andEmbodiment in the Middle Ages (New York: Palgrave, 2002), links theories ofvision to medieval conceptions of embodiment, including gender. SuzanneConklin Akbari, Seeing through the Veil: Optical Theory and Medieval Allegory(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004), gives a fascinating historicalaccount of the relations between medieval optics and allegory.

6. For key discussions of the dominating masculine gaze, including attempts torework this model, see Mulvey, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,”pp. 6–18; Mary Ann Doane, “Film and the Masquerade,” Screen 23 (1982):28–54; and bell hooks, “The Oppositional Gaze: Black Female Gaze: BlackFemale Spectators,” Black Looks: Race and Representation (Boston: South EndPress, 1992), pp. 115–31.

N O T E S 163

7. David C. Lindberg, ed., trans., “Introduction,” Roger Bacon and the Originsof Perspectiva in the Middle Ages: A Critical Edition and English Translation ofBacon’s Perspectiva with Introduction and Notes (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1996), pp. xxix–xxx; also see, Stephen Gersh, Middle Platonism andNeoplatonism: The Latin Tradition (South Bend, Indiana: Notre DameUniversity Press, 1986), pp. 421–33.

8. Lindberg, Theories of Vision, pp. 3–6, pp. 9–11, pp. 91–94; Plato, Timaeus,Plato’s Cosmology: The Timaeus of Plato, trans. Francis Macdonald Cornford(London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, & Co., 1937), 45b–46c.

9. Lindberg, Theories of Vision, pp. 3–6, pp. 9–11, pp. 91–94.10. Augustine, The Trinity, trans. S. McKenna, Fathers of the Church,

45 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1963), p. 315(1.1); p. 343 (12.1); p. 355 (12.8). Augustine associates internal vision withthe mind and external vision with the senses.

11. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, trans. John Hammond Taylor,2 vols. Ancient Christian Writers, ed. Johannes Quasten, 41–42,(New York: Newman, 1982), 2:191 (12.11.22).

12. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 1: 37–38.13. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 2: 194 (12.25).14. Augustine, Confessions, 10.35. p. 243: [stelio muscas captans vel aranea

retibus suis inruentes implicans saepe intentum facit (O’Donnell, vol. 1,10.35, p. 141)].

15. Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1941), p. 229.

16. A. Mark Smith, “Getting the Big Picture in Perspectivist Optics,” Isis72 (1981), p. 571 [568–89].

17. Aristotle, De anima, Aristotle: On the Soul, Parva Naturalia, On Breath, trans.W. S. Hett. Loeb Classical Library 288 (1957; Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1986), 2.12.424a.

18. Lindberg, Theories of Vision, 104–7; also see Lindberg, “Introduction,” RogerBacon and the Origins of “Perspectiva,” pp. xl–xlii. For the attack on extramis-sion’s theory of rays, see Albertus Magnus, Summa de creatures, II, quest. 22,in Opera omnia, ed. Auguste Borgnet, 38 vols. (Paris: Vivès, 1890–95),vol. 35, pp. 210–28.

19. For Plato’s claim, see the Timaeus, 53d. For its influence, see DavidC. Lindberg, “On the Applicability of Mathematics to Nature: RogerBacon and his Predecessors,” British Journal for the History of Science15 (1982), pp. 7–10 [3–25].

20. Lindberg, Theories of Vision, 94–95; A. C. Crombie, Robert Grosseteste andOrigins of Experimental Science 1100–1700 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953),pp. 116–17.

21. Lindberg, “Introduction,” Roger Bacon and the Origins of ‘Perspectiva,’ p. xli.22. Jeremiah M. G. Hackett, “The Attitude of Roger Bacon to the Scientia of

Albertus Magnus,” Albertus Magnus and the Sciences, ed. James A. Weisheiple(Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1980), pp. 53–72;

N O T E S164

Roger Bacon, Opus minus, Opera quædam hactenus inedita, ed. J. S. Brewer,3 vols. (Wiesbaden: Kraus Reprints, 1965), vol. 2, p. 327. He also attacksAlbert in his Opus tertium, Brewer, vol. 1, p. 38.

23. Robert Grosseteste, On Light, trans. Clare C. Riedl (Milwaukee,WI: Marquette University Press, 1942), p. 10: “Light is the first corporealform.” See Crombie, Robert Grosseteste, pp. 106–7; Lindberg, Theories ofVision, 95–98; and Biernoff, Sight and Embodiment, 67–73, for a discussion ofGrosseteste’s view of light.

24. See Lindberg, “Introduction,” Roger Bacon and the Origins of “Perspectiva,”p. xxxviii.

25. Smith, “Getting the Big Picture,” p. 568, n. 1, presents a pithy timeline forthe major works of this tradition. De aspectibus, the Latin translation ofAlhacen’s Arabic Book of Optics (eleventh century), appeared in the mid-thirteenth century; Roger Bacon composed his Perspectiva (Opus Majus, Pt. V)in the 1260s; Witelo’s Perspectiva appeared in the mid-1270s, and JohnPecham’s Perspectiva communis dates to the late 1270s.

26. On Bacon’s life, works, and influence, see Theodore Crowley, O. F. M.,Roger Bacon: The Problem of the Soul in His Philosophical Commentaries(Louvain: Éditions de l’Institut supérieur de philosophie, 1950); and StewartEaston, Roger Bacon and His Search for a Universal Science (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1952).

27. This is not to diminish the importance of the other perspectivists. In fact, as themost widely disseminated perspectival treatise, Pecham’s Perspectiva communiswas the most familiar statement of optical theory until the seventeenth century.Furthermore, as Akbari points out in Seeing through the Veil, pp. 38–39, theencyclopedias would have provided a major source for general knowledgeabout the processes of sight. For a discussion of Pecham’s work, including itswide-ranging influence, see David C. Lindberg, “Introduction,” John Pechamand the Science of Optics: Perspectiva communis, ed. David C. Lindberg (Madison:University of Wisconsin Press, 1970), pp. 12–32. Bacon has often been cred-ited with instigating this movement, although it is most accurate to say thatthey shared “a common fund of information” (Lindberg, ed. John Pecham,p. 26). My interest in Bacon is in his elaborate effort to illustrate the worth ofoptics in spiritual terms. See Denery, Seeing and Being Seen, pp. 75–115, whosuggests that Peter of Limoges took Bacon’s program very seriously, attempt-ing to explicate the moral dimensions of sight in his widely read, Tractatusmoralis de oculo (written around 1280). For Bacon’s associations with heresy andmagic, see George Molland, “Roger Bacon as Magician,” Traditio 30 (1974):455–60; and Lynn Thorndike, A History of Magic and Experimental Science, vol. 2(New York: Macmillan, 1923), pp. 616–92.

28. See Rita Copeland, Rhetoric, Hermeneutics, and Translation in the Middle Ages:Academic Traditions and Vernacular Texts (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1991), pp. 87–126.

29. Bacon’s major influences seem to have been Ptolemy, Alhacen, andGrosseteste (as well as the many sources that informed the works of these

N O T E S 165

writers). See Lindberg, “Introduction,” Roger Bacon and the Origins ofPerspectiva, xlii–xliii, for a complete catalogue.

30. References to Bacon are formatted to give a sense of the Perspectiva’sindependence from and inclusion within the Opus Majus. For all citations,I use David C. Lindberg’s facing page edition (see n. 7 for complete details),hereafter referred to as the Perspectiva. I follow the internal divisions of thatwork, citing part, distinction, chapter, and line numbers. For readers usingan edition of the Opus Majus, each citation to the Perspectiva is to Pt. V ofthat text. See n. 49 for references to the standard Latin and English editionsof the Opus Majus. Bacon, Perspectiva, III.iii.2, lines 139–41 [Et in statu pre-senti est visio triplex, scilicet recta in perfectis, fracta in imperfectis, et inmalis et in negligentibus mandata Dei est per reflexionem].

31. Bacon, Perspectiva, III.iii.3, lines 160–62 [Et sic pro utilitatibus rei publice etcontra infidels possent huiusmodi apparitions fiere utiliter].

32. David C. Lindberg, “Science as Handmaiden: Roger Bacon and thePatristic Tradition,” Isis 78 (1987): 518–36, 527.

33. “[Y]ou shall bring her home to your house and she shall shave her head andpare her nails. And she shall put off her captive’s garb, and shall remain inyour house and bewail her father and mother a full month; after that youmay go in to her, and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.” Foranalysis of this passage’s gendered model of reading, see Carolyn Dinshaw,Chaucer’s Sexual Poetics (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press,1989), pp. 3–27.

34. See Marina Warner, Monuments and Maidens: The Allegory of the Female Form(New York: Antheneum, 1985), pp. 63–87, and pp. 177–209 for a discus-sion of grammatical gender and the habit of representing allegorical figuresof wisdom as female. More recently, Barbara Newman, God and theGoddesses: Vision, Poetry, and Belief in the Middle Ages (Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), suggests that the spectrum offemale tutelary figures represents a Christian divinization of the feminine.

35. Lynn Thorndike, “Roger Bacon and Experimental Method in the MiddleAges,” Philosophical Review 23 (1914): 283–92; also see Easton, Roger Baconand his Search for a Universal Science; and N.W. Fisher and Sabetai Unguru,“Experimental Science and Mathematics in Roger Bacon’s Thought,”Traditio 27 (1971): 353–78.

36. Biernoff, Sight and Embodiment, p. 74, explains its roots in the Indo-Europeanspek (“to see”) and relates Bacon’s definition of “species” to those ofAugustine and Grosseteste.

37. Roger Bacon, De multiplicatione specierum, Roger Bacon’s Philosophy of Nature:A Critical Edition with English Translation, Introduction, and Notes, of “Demultiplicatione specierum” and “De speculis comburentibus”, ed. David C.Lindberg (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), I.i.42, 43–44, 46–48, 53–55,56–58, 60–61, 64, 67–69: [Dicitur autem similitudo et ymago respectugenerantis eam. . .Dicitur autem species respectu sensus et intellectussecundum usum Aristotelis et naturalium. . .Dicitur vero ydolum respectuspeculorum, sic enim multum utimur. Dicitur fantasma et simulacrum in

N O T E S166

aparitionibus sompniorum. . .Forma quidem vocatur in usu Alhacen,auctoris Perspective vulgate. Intentio vocatur in usu vulgi naturalium propterdebilitatem sui esse respectu rei. . .Umbra philosophorum vocatur, quia nonest bene sensibilis nisi in casu duplici dicto, scilicet de radio cadente perfenestram et de specie fortiter colorati. . .Dicitur vero virtus respectugenerationis et corruptionis. . .Impressio vocatur quia est similesimpressionibus. . .Vocatur autem passio quia medium et sensus in recipiendospeciem patiuntur transmutationem in sua substantia].

38. Bacon, De multiplicatione specierum, VI.ii.24: [idem facit virtus patris inseminibus].

39. Bacon, De multiplicatione specierum, VI.ii.30–31: [et ideo species et virtuspatris recepta in matre conservatur per presentiam matris].

40. Bacon, De multiplicatione specierum , VI.ii.29–30: [pater et mater are eiusdemnature specifice].

41. Bacon, De multiplicatione specierum , VI.ii.31–32: [que sufficit loco patrispropter idemptitatem nature specifice].

42. Bacon, De multiplicatione specierum , I.iii.50–70.43. Bacon, De multiplicatione specierum , I.ii. Bacon, Perspectiva, I.vii.2. This chapter,

“In which it is shown that in the act of sight the species or power of the eyeextends to the visible object,” sets forth Bacon’s position, which he elaboratesin the next two chapters. See also, Biernoff, pp. 85–92, who is particularlyhelpful in elucidating the relationship that this reciprocity implies.

44. Bacon, Perspectiva, I.vii.4, 143–44: [species rerum mundi non sunt nate statimde se agree plenam actionem in visum propter eius nobilitatem].

45. Bacon, Perspectiva, I.vii.4, 147–49: [Et sic preparat incessum speciei ipsius reivisibilis, et insuper eam nobilitat, ut omnino sit conformis et proportionalisnobilitati corporis animati, quod est oculus].

46. Bacon, Perspectiva, I.vi.1, 18–21: [Nam principaliter non requiritur nisiquod visus percipiat distincte rem ipsam et certitudinaliter et sufficienter; ethoc fieri potest per unam pyramidem in qua sint tot linee quot sunt partesin corpore viso].

47. Bacon, Perspectiva, I.vii.4, 157–62.48. Bacon, Perspectiva, I.vii.4., 167–69: [una pyramid est principalis, scilicet illla

cuius axis est linea transiens per centrum omnium partium oculi, que est axistotius oculi].

49. For the English citations, see The Opus Majus of Roger Bacon, trans. RobertBelle Burke, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1928);for the Latin, I use The “Opus Majus” of Roger Bacon, ed. John HenryBridges, 2 vols. (Frankfurt/Main: Minerva G.m.b.H, 1964).

50. Bacon, Opus Majus, Pt. IV, “The Application of Mathematics to SacredSubjects,” 1: 234: [quia nihil est nobis ad plenum intelligibile, nisi figuraliterante oculos nostros disponatur; et ideo in scriptura Dei tota rerum sapientiafigurationibus geometricis certificanda continetur et longe melius quam ipsaphilosophia posit exprimere (Bridges, 1:212)].

51. Bacon, Perspectiva, III, iii.1, 68–74: [Et dictum est quod ad visionem exigiturnon solum ut fiat intus suscipiendo, sed estramittendo et cooperando per

N O T E S 167

virtutem propriam. Nam motus liberi arbitrii et consensus requiruntur cumgratia Dei ad hoc ut videamus et consequamur statum salutis].

52. Bacon, Perspectiva, III.iii.1, 36–37: [Hec est igitur litteralis expositio. . .pupille spiritualis, id est, anime].

53. Bacon, Perspectiva, III.iii.1, 17–18: [et ideo nichil magis necessarium est sensuilitterali et spirituali sicut huius scientie certitudo].

54. Bacon, Perspectiva, III.iii.2, 79–81: [Nam sicut hichil videmus coporalitersine luce corporali, sic impossibile est nos aliquid videre spiritualiter sineluce spirituali gratie divine].

55. Bacon, Opus Majus, Pt. IV, “The Application of Mathematics to SacredSubjects,” 1: 242: [quando oportet vel in confessione vel ob aliam aliquamcausam loqui cum mulieribus. Nam omnes homines quantumcunque sanctosspecies fortes in hac parte turbarent (Bridges, 1: 219)].

56. Bacon, Opus Majus, Pt. IV, “The Apllication of Mathematics to SacredSubjects,” 1: 241: [Et Adam allectus est ut se et totum genus humanumspecierum sensibilium multiplicatione damnaret. Sic David sanctuspropheta per speciem Betsabeae deceptus de adulterio cecidit in homicid-ium. Sic sense presbyteri quos judicavit Daniel secie mulieris decepti sunt(Bridges, 1: 219)].

57. Bacon, Opus Majus, Pt. VII.iii.5, 2: 680 (Bridges, 2: 271).58. Bacon, Perspectiva, I.vii.4, 176–77: [Species autem oculi est species animati

corporis, in qua virtus anime dominatur].59. Bacon, Opus Majus, Pt. IV, “The Application of Mathematics to Sacred

Subjects,” 1: 241: [Sic Eva receipt seciem soni serpentis et pomi visibilis etsuavis odoris (Bridges, 1: 219)].

60. Bacon, Opus Majus, Pt. IV, “The Application of Mathematics to SacredSubjects,” 1: 241–42: [ut vitent pyramides breviores, atque multiplicationsprincipales et rectas et ad angulos aequales (Bridges, 1: 219)].

61. Bacon, Opus Majus, Pt. VII.iii.5, 2: 679: [Impedit enim consilium voluptasrationi inimica et mentis oculos perstringit (Bridges, 2: 270)].

62. Bacon, Perspectiva, I.i.1, 28–29: [quia cecus nichil potest de hoc mundoquod dignum sit experiri].

63. Bacon, Opus Majus, Pt. VII.iv.1, 2: 821 (Bridges, 2: 402).64. Bacon, Opus Majus, Pt. VII.iv.1, 2: 814: [Sed maximum quidem et

arduissimum est subjicere se vuluntati alterius omnino; ut quilibetnovit. . .est Christi legem omnino praevalere (Bridges, 2: 395)].

65. Bacon, Opus Majus, Pt. VI.ex.iii, “Chapter on the Third Prerogative or theDignity of the Experimental Art,” 2: 633: [et imperat aliis scentiis, sicutancillis suis (Bridges, 2: 221)].

66. Bacon, Opus Majus, Pt. VII.iv.1, 2: 821 (Bridges, 2: 402).67. Herbert Kessler, Spiritual Seeing: Picturing God’s Invisibility in Medieval Art

(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000), traces this traditionin the pictorial art and aesthetic theories of Byzantium and the Latin West.

68. This idea derives from Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana, On ChristianDoctrine, trans. D.W. Robertson, Jr. (New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1958),3.5.9. The most well known elaborators of this critical methodology inthe twentieth century are D.W. Robertson, Jr., and Bernard F. Huppé.

N O T E S168

See n., 75 for their allegorical interpretation of Chaucer’s Tale of Melibee.Besides other works listed later, see their, Fruyt and Chaf: Studies in Chaucer’sAllegories (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963), which sets theirexegetical interpretations of Chaucer’s Book of the Duchess and Parliament ofFowls in relation to other medieval allegorical accounts.

69. Rita Copeland and Stephen Melville, “Allegory and Allegoresis, Rhetoricand Hermeneutics,” Exemplaria 3 (1991), p. 169 [159–87].

70. Copeland and Melville, “Allegory and Allegoresis, Rhetoric andHermeneutics,” p. 171.

71. Bacon, Opus Majus, Pt. VII.iv.1, 2: 822: [Praeterea nec possemus sustinerepropter horrorem et abominationem. Nam cor humanum non possetperferre ut carnes crudas et vivas masticaret et comederet et sanguinemcrudum hauriret (Bridges, 2: 403)].

72. For a discussion, see Jesse M. Gellrich, “Allegory and Materiality: MedievalFoundations of the Modern Debate,” Germanic Review 77 (2002): 146–59.

73. Bacon, De multiplicatione specierum, I.i.24–26.74. W.F. Bryan and Germaine Dempster, eds., Sources and Analogues of Chaucer’s

Canterbury Tales (London: Routledge, 1958. First published in 1941),pp. 560–614.

75. In the grandest rendering of the tale’s allegorical scope, D. W. Robertson,Jr., A Preface to Chaucer: Studies in Medieval Perspectives. (Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1963), p. 368; and Bernard F. Huppé, A Reading of theCanterbury Tales (Albany: SUNY Press, 1967), p. 235, believe this tale’s“sentence” is key to the spiritual allegory that is the Canterbury Tales.

76. Lee Patterson, “ ‘What Man Artow?’: Authorial Self-Definition in the Taleof Sir Thopas and the Tale of Melibee,” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 11 (1989):117–75, is in my view the best treatment of Chaucer’s literary authority asit emerges from this sequence. Also valuable is Larry Scanlon’s discussion ofthis tale as it relates to one strand of the fürstenspiegel tradition in his book,Narrative, Authority, and Power: The Medieval Exemplum and the ChaucerianTradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 206–15. I ammost intrigued by his claim, p. 212, that the lay authority he sees Melibeeexpounding “describes the rule of law as it was coming to be defined in latermedieval England. Although I do not treat the intersection of documentaryculture and gender visibility in this study, it holds fascinating potential.”

77. See Ephesians 5, in which Paul compares marriage to Christ’s relation to theChurch.

78. James Brundage, Law, Sex and Christian Society in Medieval Europe (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1987), pp. 187–90; pp. 235–75; pp. 332–36;and John Noonan, “The Power to Choose,” Viator 4 (1973): 419–34, tracethe development of the consensual theory of marriage during the Middle Ages.

79. See Michael M. Sheehan, Marriage, Family, and Law in Medieval Europe, ed.James K. Farge (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996), p. 84, whoexplains that after Peter Lombard included marriage among the sevensacraments the institution was overhauled “at all levels of thought rangingfrom theology, through moral guidance and law, to confessional practices.”

N O T E S 169

80. Henry Ansgar Kelly, Love and Marriage in the Age of Chaucer (Ithaca,NY: Cornell University Press, 1975) for a discussion of clandestine marriage.

81. See Matthew 19: 5–6, which describes marriage thus, “And said, For thiscause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: andthey twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but oneflesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

82. While marital consent and companionate affection are two different conceptsin the history of marriage, Frederick Pedersen, in his article, “‘Maritalis affectio’:Marital Affection and Property in Fourteenth-Century York Cause Papers,”Women, Marriage, and Family in Medieval Christendom: Essays in Memory ofMichael M. Sheehan, ed. Constance M. Rousseau and Joel T. Rosenthal,Studies in Medieval Culture, vol. 37, Medieval Institute Publications(Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan UP, 1998) 175–209, explains that thetwo were becoming more closely linked during the later Middle Ages:“Marital affection is an elusive concept with a long history in European law.The meaning of the phrase developed over the centuries, initially meaning thewiling of the (property) consequences of marriage, but developing into aphrase that encompassed the internal psychological quality of marriage” (207).

83. Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis Christianae fidei, On the Sacraments ofChristian Faith, trans. Roy J. Deferrari (Cambridge, MA: MedievalAcademy, 1951), p. 329.

84. Sharon Farmer, “Persuasive Voices: Clerical Images of Medieval Wives,”Speculum 61 (1986): 517–43.

85. Thomas of Chobham, Thomae de Chobham: Summa Confessorum, ed.F. Broomfield, Analecta Mediaevalia Namurcensia 25 (Louvain, ÉditionsNauwelaerts, 1968), p. 375: [sicut parti corporis sui. . .Nullus enim sacerdosita potest cor viri emollire sicut potest uxor].

86. See Jacques Lacan, “God and the Jouissance of [/]The Woman,” FeminineSexuality, ed. Juliet Mitchell and Jacqueline Rose, trans. Jacqueline Rose(New York: Norton, 1982), p. 138 [137–61]. As Glenn Burger argues in hisbook, Chaucer’s Queer Nation (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,2003), p. 73, the “hybridity” of medieval conjugality required “the femi-nizing of the female (as Aristotelian body and receptacle, mother, helpmeet,needing male protection and regulation) and the masculinizing of the male(as possessing the vital seed in procreation, head of the household, agent ofoutward action) in the newly sacramentalized partnership of marriage.”

87. Elizabeth Robertson, Early English Devotional Prose and the Female Audience(Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1990), pp. 77–93, showsthat marriage was also allegorized in religious writings in order to separatewomen from sexuality.

88. See W. W. Lawrence, “The Tale of Melibeus,” Essays and Studies in Honor ofCarleton Brown (New York: New York University Press, 1940), pp. 100–110,and his Chaucer and the Canterbury Tales (New York: Columbia UniversityPress, 1950), pp. 119–44, who argues that the tale’s concern is marriage.

89. In this line of argument I am influenced by Carolyn P. Collette, “Heedingthe Counsel of Prudence: A Context for the Melibee,” Chaucer Review 29

N O T E S170

(1995): 419 [416–29], who argues that this story, including Chaucer’s use ofit, “may be understood as part of a group of texts designed to instructaristocratic women,” though she does not pursue further the relevance ofthis type of wife to constructions of masculinity. Also see David Wallace,Chaucerian Polity: Absolutist Lineages and Associational Forms in England andItaly (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997), pp. 212–46, whoseinsightful chapter on this tale galvanizes the argument that follows.

90. Besides Collette, n. 89, see Elizabeth Lunz, “Chaucer’s Prudence as the Idealof the Virtuous Woman,” Essays in Literature 4 (1977), p. 4 [3–10], argues “thatChaucer introduced Prudence as an ideal of human virtue, offered specificallyas a model to women for their roles in medieval marriage and society.” MonicaMcAlpine, “Criseyde’s Prudence,” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 25 (2003):199–224, considers this virtue in relation to Criseyde, but in doing so suggeststhe importance of this trait to late medieval notions of femininity.

91. Denise N. Baker, “Chaucer and Moral Philosophy: The Virtuous Womenof The Canterbury Tales,” Medium Aevum 60 (1991): 241–56, treatsPrudence’s representation in abstract philosophical terms.

92. See Joan Ferrante, Woman as Image in Medieval Literature (New York:Columbia University Press, 1975), p. 42, who claims that marriage was animportant way for writers to figure “the harmony that results from theunion of opposites” as a means of instituting order over disparate matter.Charles A. Owen, Jr., “The Tale of Melibee,” Chaucer Review 7 (1973): 269–70[267–80], notes that during the turbulence of the late 1380s—when someargue that Melibee was written to address political events—Chaucer was veryinterested in articulating and developing the image of the “good woman.”

93. See Sawles Warde, Medieval English Prose for Women: Selections from the KatherineGroup and Ancrene Wisse, ed. Bella Millett and Jocelyn Wogan-Browne(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), pp. 86–109. In this narrative, wit’s controlover the physical senses, who would otherwise be run by his wife will, is fig-ured in terms of a husband governing his household; In the same vein,Bernard of Clairvaux, On Conversion, Bernard Clairvaux, Selected Works, trans.G. R. Evan, Classics of Western Spirituality (New York: Paulist Press, 1987),pp. 65–97, deploys a grotesque image of a wife as will, who causes upheavalin the household because she does not respect her husband, Master Reason.

94. Prudentius’s fourth-century Latin poem, Psychomachia, is often cited as thefirst personification allegory, and has come to signify an entire genre, which,Michel Zink, “The Allegorical Poem as Interior Memoir,” Yale FrenchStudies 70 (1986), p. 100 [100–126], suggests should be “understood in thebroadest sense as a description of the movements and the conflicts withinpsychological as well as moral consciousness.”

95. For a discussion of the virtues as they were commonly disseminated to a layaudience in the later Middle Ages, see Richard Neuhauser, The Treatise onVices and Virtues in Latin and the Vernaculars ( pre-1800 Works ) (Torholt:Brepols, 1993), chapter 2.

96. Rosemond Tuve, “Notes on the Virtues and Vices, Part 1,” Journal of theWarburg and Courtauld Institutes 26 (1963), p. 267 [264–303], identifies

N O T E S 171

Aristotle, Cicero, Macrobius, and the “Pseudo Seneca,” Martin of Braga,as the “four streams” of classical thought that inform this tradition.

97. D. L. Burnley, Chaucer’s Language and the Philosopher’s Tradition (Cambridge,UK: D. S. Brewer, 1979), pp. 82–116; pp. 151–70, is particularly good attracing the ways that prudence was adapted to a Christian model ofcompassion.

98. See Warner and Newman, n. 34, for this larger tradition. In relation toprudence, see J. A. Burrow, “The Third Eye of Prudence,” MedievalFutures: Attitudes to the Future in the Middle Ages, ed. J. A. Burrow and IanP. Wei (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell and Brewer, 2000), 37–48.

99. See A. J. Minnis and A. B. Scott, eds., with assistance from David Wallace,Medieval Literary Theory and Criticism c. 1100–1375: The CommentaryTradition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), pp. 212–76, for a discussionand examples of the quaestio or the disputatio. Prudence’s style is more sim-ilar to these fictions of orality than to interactive or performative models(such as the quodlibet).

100. This is David Wallace’s phrase, which forms part of his chapter’s title. Hisconcluding suggestion, Chaucerian Polity, p. 246, that women’s “householdrhetoric” cannot be “acknowledged as political work,” indicates his aware-ness of the female invisibility that this discourse mandates for women(emphasis original).

101. See n. 89, earlier, for full citations.102. Wallace, Chaucerian Polity, p. 225; Farmer, “Persuasive Voices,” 517–43,

also cites instances in which women are urged to use persuasion, evendeception, in order to make sure husbands dispense property to the church.

103. Paul Strohm, “Queens as Intercessors,” Hochon’s Arrow: The SocialImagination of Fourteenth-Century Texts (Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress, 1992), pp. 95–120. As Strohm points out, the decline in queenlyauthority from its zenith in the twelfth century resulted in the formation ofa new feminine role, that of intercessor. This type of influence reliedon appeals to the female body, either as alluring or as vulnerable. Strohmacknowledges, in contrast, that this kind of female authority is differentthan Prudence’s “good counselor” role.

104. Patricia Parker, Literary Fat Ladies: Rhetoric, Gender, Property (New York:Methuen, 1987); and Lee Patterson, “ ‘For the Wyves love of Bathe’:Feminine Rhetoric and Poetic Resolution in the Roman de la Rose and theCanterbury Tales,” Speculum 58 (1983): 656–95.

105. Wallace, Chaucerian Polity, p. 218.106. Wallace, Chaucerian Polity, p. 221. Wallace suggests the most common

“go-betweens” are wives and friars, but most of his examples have to dowith the ways that wives prevent masculine violence in the private space ofthe domestic.

107. See The Good Wife Taught Her Daughter, The Good Wyfe Wold a Pylgremage,The Thewis of Gud Women, ed. Tauno F. Mustanoja (Helsinki: SuomalaisanKirjallisuuden Seuran, 1948), E.V.24–7.

N O T E S172

108. For example, in The Consail and Teiching at the Vys Man Gaif His Sone, RatisRaving and other Moral and Religious Pieces in Prose and Verse, ed. J. R. Lumby,EETS 43 (Oxford: Oxford University Press for EETS, 1870), the fatherrepeatedly suggests this to his son.

109. The most famous example of this in Chaucer’s canon is summed up by theWife of Bath’s story of Midas’s wife, who could not keep the secret that herhusband had “asses eres” (III. 954) growing on his head. See chapter 4 fora discussion of the Wife’s relations to secrecy and visibility.

110. Burnley, Chaucer’s Language and the Philosopher’s Tradition, p. 52.111. See Le Mesnagier de Paris, ed. Georgina E. Brereton and Janet M. Ferrier,

trad. Karin Ueltschi, Lettres Gothiques (Paris: Librarie Générale Française,1994) I.ix (pp. 324–407).

112. William Caxton, The Book of the Knight of the Tower, ed. M. Y. Offord,EETS, Supplementary Series, 2 (London: Oxford University Press forEETS, 1971), lxxv. 27–28; 33–34.

113. As Biernoff, Sight and Embodiment, argues, p. 172, “In the sense that awoman’s ‘head’ was her husband or father, she lacked the necessary socialand symbolic organs to represent the entire corporeal hierarchy. Instead,defined primarily by her reproductive function, she served as man’s body,both literally and metaphorically.”

114. Also see Wayne Rebhorn, The Emperor of Men’s Minds: Literature and theRenaissance Discourse of Rhetoric (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995)who suggests that early modern discussions of rhetorical restraint use theimage of a discreet woman to suggest this virtue.

115. A flyleaf poem written around 1464 expresses the popular sentiment thatHenry VI’s troubles derived from his marriage to Margaret of Anjou interms that illustrate Melibee’s worries about gendered visibility. OnceHenry was able to ride over England (in a gesture that recalls Melibee’sroaming over the fields) dressed in cloth of red gold; but now, afterallowing his wife to rule his counsel, he dares not show himself. Henry, sig-nificantly, makes his complaint beside a hall underneath a hill, from whichhe claims Margaret “was the cause of all my mon.” The poem’s refrain,taken as its title, “God Amend Wykkyd Cownscell,” associates visiblewifely agency with the dissolution of a man’s public image. See RossellHope Robbins, ed., “God Amende Wykkyd Cownscell,” NeuphilogischeMitteilungen 57 (1956): 94–102, for the text of the 53–line poem.

116. W. Arthur Turner, “Biblical Women in The Merchant’s Tale and The Tale ofMelibee,” English Language Notes 3 (1965): 92–95.

117. Daniel Kempton, “Chaucer’s Tale of Melibee: ‘A litel thing in prose,’” Genre21 (1988): 263–78, points out that Prudence invokes contradictoryauthorities in a manner similar to a scholastic Book of Sentences.

118. John S. P. Tatlock, The Development and Chronology of Chaucer’s Works(Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1963), p. 189.

119. The classic treatment of Chaucer’s valorization of suffering is GeorgiaRonan Crampton, The Condition of Creatures: Suffering and Action in Chaucer

N O T E S 173

and Spenser (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974). See L. O. Aranye Fradenburg, Sacrifice Your Love: Psychoanalysis, Historicism,Chaucer (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002), pp. 1–41 for atheorization of sacrifice’s relation to the multiple states of enjoyment.

120. See Burrow, “The Third Eye of Prudence,” for a discussion of thisiconographic tradition. Akbari, Seeing through the Veil, p. 7, classifies Prudence’smirror as “the good mirror which makes visible what could otherwise neverbe perceived. . .the helpful mirror of foresight held by Prudence.”

121. Burrow, “The Third Eye of Prudence,” pp. 39–41.122. Bacon, Opus Majus, Pt. VI.ex.iii, “Chapter on the Third Prerogative or the

Dignity of the Experimental Art,” 2: 632: [ut tactum est in futurorumpraesentium et praeteritorum cognitione speciali, atque in operum mirabiliumexhibitione pro Ecclesia et Republica (Bridges, 2: 220)].

123. See Strohm, Hochon’s Arrow, pp. 110–11, and Farmer, “Persuasive Voices,”pp. 517–43, who distinguish between wife as sensible (assertive) counselorand vulnerable (passive) intercessor.

124. See Dolores Palermo, “What Chaucer Really Did to Le Livre de Melibee,”Philological Quarterly 53 (1974), p. 306; 316 [304–20], whose dismissals ofPrudence derive from her sense that the tale is a “pretentious and undistin-guished piece of bourgeois moralizing” that is vulgar for its very disruptionof gender order. Later, she makes the gendered stakes of the Thopas-Melibeeexplicit, suggesting that Prudence is a joke because the tale satirizes heroverblown rhetorical style: “While Sir Thopas exudes a sort of medievalmachismo. . .in the Melibee, by way of contrast, a domineering albeit politewife argues her husband into acquiescence.” Turner, “Biblical Women inThe Merchant’s Tale,” p. 94, calls Prudence “insufferably patient and pedantic.”Charles Muscatine, Chaucer and the French Tradition (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1957), p. 207, asks “What wife was ever so learned orpedantic as Prudence in Chaucer’s Melibee?”

125. Edward E. Foster, “Has Anyone Here Read Melibee?” Chaucer Review34 (2000): 398 [398–409]. I am interested in Foster’s excuses for Melibee’sunpopularity because they admit and justify Melibee’s status as Chaucer’sinvisible tale, although his reading only applies to later audiences. For analy-ses of the tale’s manuscript- and print-traditions, which attest to its popu-larity, see John M. Manly and Edith Rickert, The Text of the CanterburyTales, Studied on the Basis of All Known Manuscripts, 8 vols. (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1940), 2: 371–72; Seth Lerer, “ ‘Now holdeyoure mouth’: The Romance of Orality in the Thopas-Melibee Section ofthe Canterbury Tales,” Oral Poetics in Middle English Poetry, ed. M. C. Amodio(New York: Garland, 1994), pp. 181–202; Daniel S. Sylvia, “SomeFifteenth-Century Manuscripts of the Canterbury Tales,” Chaucer and MiddleEnglish Studies in Honor of Rossell Hope Robbins, ed. Beryl Rowland(London: George Allen and Unwin, 1974), pp. 153–63.

126. To be fair, most readers do not say that Prudence is tedious (with notableexceptions; see n. 124). In fact, most critics who dismiss the tale as boring,dull, or tedious assign this fault to Chaucer or his source. Yet the simple

N O T E S174

truth is that Prudence speaks for much of the tale. So, when RuthWaterhouse and Gwen Griffiths, “ ‘Sweete Wordes’ of Non-Sense: TheDeconstruction of the Moral Melibee, part I” Chaucer Review 23 (1989):338, [338–61], claim that “It is not necessary to read far into the tale to realizethat its truly tedious surface level can have such a soporific effect upon anaudience,” the droning to which they refer is Prudence’s speaking.

127. There are three traditional views of the tale: it stands as a marker of medievalalterity, more popular then than now; it serves as an example of Chaucerianirony, as a joke on any number of targets; or it serves as a moral / historicalallegory, a structural point that gives shape to the Canterbury collection. Forthe “difference theory,” see E. Talbot Donaldson, ed. Chaucer’s Poetry(New York: Ronald Press, 1975), p. 937; and Lee Patterson, “What ManArtow?” 117–75; for the “joke theory,” see Trevor Whittock, A Reading ofthe “Canterbury Tales” (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968),pp. 210–13; John Gardner, The Life and Times of Chaucer (New York: Knopf,1977), pp. 291–96; for “allegory readings,” see Donald R. Howard, The Ideaof the Canterbury Tales (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976),p. 309; Lynn Staley Johnson, “Inverse Counsel: Contexts for the Melibee,”Studies in Philology 87 (1990): 137–55; Paul Strohm, “The Allegory of theTale of Melibee,” Chaucer Review 2 (1967): 32–42.

128. Richard Firth Green, Poets and Princepleasers: Literature and the English Courtin the Late Middle Ages (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1980), p. 164.

129. My reading thus disagrees with Mari Pakkala-Weckström, “Prudence andthe Power of Persuasion—Language and Maistrie in the Tale of Melibee,”Chaucer Review 35 (2001): 399–412.

130. Paul Strohm, Hochon’s Arrow, pp. 104–5, n. 9, reports a conversation withSusan Crane in which together they come up with an economical renderingof the point of this chapter: “The possibility arises, in other words, that whatappears to be a prescription for female conduct might not be about womenat all, but only a way of saying something further about men.”

131. Indeed, Paul Strohm, “The Allegory,” p. 34, suggests that readers’ difficultieswith the tale arise from the “curious passivity” Prudence recommends inthe face of foes who, according to one exegetical tradition, are meant to befought with concentrated agency.

132. In early printed Chaucers, the Melibee is often identified as “Chaucer’s Tale.”133. See particularly Alan T. Gaylord, “Sentence and Solaas in Fragment VII of

the Canterbury Tales: Harry Bailly as Horseback Editor,” PMLA 82 (1967):226–35.

134. The historical associations of the tale have been asserted and renewed. Inthe 1940s the critical debate focused on whether Chaucer’s translation of awork recommending patience in a ruler was directed to prevent John ofGaunt’s impending campaign to support his wife’s claim to the throneof Castile. See, J. Leslie Hotson, “The Tale of Melibeus and Johnof Gaunt,” Studies in Philology 18 (1921): 429–52; W.W. Lawrence, “TheTale of Melibeus,” pp. 100–110. Gardiner Stillwell, “The PoliticalMeaning of Chaucer’s Tale of Melibee,” Speculum 19 (1944): 433–44,

N O T E S 175

anticipates my argument that men realized long ago that personal mattersretained political importance, arguing as he does that Prudence might be amodel of wifely counselor that Anne was perhaps being urged to assume inroyal affairs. Later reassessments of the political valence of the tale includeWilliam Askins, “The Tale of Melibee and the Crisis at Westminster,November, 1387,” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 2 (1986): 103–12; V. J. Scattergood, “Chaucer and the French War: Sir Thopas and Melibee,”Court and Poet: Selected Proceedings of the Third Congress of the InternationalCourtly Literature Society, ed. Glyn S. Burgess (Liverpool: Cairns, 1980), pp. 287–96; R. F. Yeager, “Pax Poetica, On the Pacifism of Chaucer andGower,” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 9 (1987): 97–122; Johnson, “InverseCounsel,” p.141, acknowledges the gender transgression that Prudence’sadvice entails: “She begins by undercutting two tenets of a predominatelymale and hierarchical society.”

135. Judith Ferster, “Chaucer’s Tale of Melibee: Contradictions and Context,”Inscribing the Hundred Years’ War in French and English Cultures, ed. DeniseN. Baker (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2000), p. 82[73–89], comments on the flexible topicality of the poem in terms evocativeof invisibility: “But the notion of disguise could also be used to explain thefact that the tale is a self-consuming artifact. What better disguise is therethan to pretend not to be saying anything at all?”

Chapter 2 Portrait of a Father as a Bad Man: Visible Pressure in the Physician’s Tale

1. Anne Middleton, “The Physician’s Tale and Love’s Martyrs: ‘Ensamples MoThan Ten’ as a Method in the Canterbury Tales,” Chaucer Review 8 (1973):9 [9–32], counters the argument that this tale is uncharacteristic for Chaucerin terms I find particularly compelling: “it is so utterly and modestlyChaucerian that it is practically invisible” (emphasis mine).

2. Nevill Coghill’s condemnation of the tale’s “horrifying piece of senti-mental savagery” in his essay “Chaucer’s Narrative Art in the CanterburyTales,” Chaucer and Chaucerians: Critical Studies in Middle English Literature,ed. Derek Brewer (Birmingham: University of Alabama Press, 1966), p. 126[114–39], is an extreme expression of a sentiment echoed by many. I havefound John Hirsch’s “Modern Times: The Discourse of the Physician’sTale,” Chaucer Review 27 (1993): 387–95, useful insofar as he reads the taleas a response to a “modern” shift in cultural perspective that becomesmore dominant in the early modern age, what we might look forward toas Stephen Greenblatt’s notion of “self-fashioning,” Renaissance Self-Fashioning: from More to Shakespeare (Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1980).

3. For recent assessments of the tale’s suspension between history and fable,see Angus Fletcher, “The Sentencing of Virginia in the Physician’s Tale,”Chaucer Review 34 (2000): 300–308; Andrew Welsh, “Story and Wisdom inChaucer: The Physician’s Tale and The Manciple’s Tale,” Manuscript, Narrative,

N O T E S176

Lexicon: Essays on Literary and Cultural Transmission in Honor of Whitney F. Bolton, ed. Robert Boenig and Kathleen Davis (Lewisburg, PA:Bucknell University Press, 2000), pp. 76–95. Brian S. Lee, “The Positionand Purpose of the Physician’s Tale,” Chaucer Review 22 (1987): 141–60,discusses the tale as a homiletic exemplum. See Helen Corsa, ed., ThePhysician’s Tale, A Variorum Edition of the Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, vol. 2,part 17 (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987), for asummary of criticism linking the tale to different literary forms.

4. P. B. Taylor, “Chaucer’s ‘Cosyn to the Dede,’ ” Speculum 57 (1982),p. 316, n. 1 [315–27], suggests that Virginia’s deception is the kindAugustine classifies as innocuous in his De mendacio because it is the kind oflie “that save[s] innocence or protect[s] purity.” As he further notes,Chaucer would have been well aware of Augustine’s classification since theParson reproduces almost verbatim in his tale (X. 608–10).

5. Livy, From the Founding of the City: Books Three and Four, trans. B. O. Foster,in Livy II, Loeb Classical Library 233 (1959; Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1967), pp. 142–67. Guillaume de Lorris and Jean de Meun,Le Roman de la Rose, ed. Félix Lecoy, 3 vols. (Paris: H. Champion,1965–70), 1:559–628. For a discussion of Chaucer’s potential familiaritywith Livy, see Bruce Harvert, “Chaucer and the Latin Classics,” Writers andTheir Background: Chaucer, ed. D. Brewer (Athens, Ohio: Ohio UniversityPress, 1975), pp. 137–53.

6. Jerome Mandel, “Governance in the Physician’s Tale,” Chaucer Review 10(1976): 324 [316–25], in the ultimate patriarchal metaphor, comparesViginius’s mercy to God’s.

7. Almost everyone who discusses this tale in detail, however, sees this passage(which is actually an example of amplificatio not digressio) as important. John S. P. Tatlock, The Development and Chronology of Chaucer’s Works(Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1963), p. 153, who uses these lines to sug-gest an historical connection that helps situate the tale as one of Chaucer’sfirst in the Canterbury collection, makes a particularly strong statement:“no such serious, overt and practical criticism of life is to be found any-where else in the Canterbury Tales.” Recently, Michael Uebel, “PublicFantasy and the Logic of Sacrifice in the Physician’s Tale,” American Notesand Queries, 15 (2002): 30–33, suggests that this tale’s focus on private gov-ernance is designed to maintain social unity. Sarah Stanbury, “The Bodyand the City in Pearl,” Representations 48 (1994): 30–47, traces the ways thata woman’s body allegorically stands for the paradisal city, pointing to thefragilities its contingencies reveal.

8. George Lyman Kittredge, “Chaucer and Some of His Friends,” ModernPhilology 1 (1903): 1–18, first connected this passage to the elopement ofElizabeth of Lancaster, as I shall discuss later. Most accept this connection,but George Cowling, Chaucer (London: Methuen, 1927) links it to a differ-ent royal incident involving the abduction of Elizabeth of Halle in 1387. Asboth episodes suggest, the fashion in which daughters behave, or con-versely, the manner in which men treat noble women, has public impact onpolitical dealings.

N O T E S 177

9. Sheila Delany, in both her article, “Politics and the Paralysis of PoeticImagination in The Physician’s Tale,” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 3 (1981):47–60, and her book, Medieval Literary Politics: Shapes of Ideology(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1990), argues that Chaucer’sdomestication of the tale’s sources diminishes its artistic and political impact.My reading parts ways with her strictly Marxist account, principally becauseI stand with a (Marxist-feminist) theorist like Catharine MacKinnon,Towards a Feminist Theory of the State (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress, 1989), pp. 119–20, who claims “the personal as political is not a simile,not a metaphor, and not an analogy. It does not mean that what occurs inpersonal life is similar to, or comparable with, what occurs in the publicarena. It is not an application of categories from public life to the privateworld, as when Engels (followed by Bebel) says that in the family the hus-band is bourgeois and the wife represents the proletariat. . .what it is toknow the politics of woman’s situation is to know women’s personal lives,particularly women’s sexual lives.” Although Mandel, “Governance in thePhysician’s Tale,” p. 320, takes up the relation between absolutism and mar-tyrdom in the tale in a more abstract fashion than I will do here, I am muchinfluenced by his argument that the tale’s concern is with “fraud, art, andgovernance” as it is figured through the (gendered) politics of the domestic.

10. Aristotle, De Generatione Animalium, Aristotle: Generation of Animals, trans.A. L. Peck, Loeb Classical Library 366 (Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1963), p. 109.

11. It is no accident that a tale embedded with court scandal ends up beingabout a scandalous court. Court, both the royal and legal arenas, are spacesof presentment, of seeing and being seen, hopefully in the ways that onedesigns. My thinking here is indebted to Susan Crane, The Performance ofSelf: Ritual, Clothing, and Identity During the Hundred Years War(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002), pp. 39–64; pp. 78–87, who claims that royal and legal courts are spaces of visible ritualin medieval culture. I am also influenced by thinkers who address our ownspectacles of court. See Shoshana Felman, The Juridical Unconscious: Trialsand Traumas in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress, 2002), pp. 54–105, who discusses what courts keep invisible inmodern trials. As we all know, there are certain things that jurors are simplynot allowed to see in a courtroom; also, as Andrea Dworkin argues, “Tryingto Flee,” Los Angeles Times, October 8, 1995, p. M6, sometimes there arecertain things that jurors simply refuse to see when they sit in judgment.The violence that attends this interplay, between making certain things visibleas “facts” and keeping others concealed as “immaterial,” is the dynamicsthat Chaucer’s tale takes up at the most basic level.

12. Charles A. Owen, Jr., “Relationship between the Physician’s Tale and theParson’s Tale,” Modern Language Notes 71 (1956): 84–87; Raymond Preston,Chaucer (London: Sheed and Ward, 1952), p. 228; and Nevill Coghill,“Chaucer’s Narrative Art,” p. 128, all claim that these lines are spoken inChaucer’s own voice. Owen, “Relationship between the Physician’s Tale”

N O T E S178

p. 85, argues that their “emotional temperature” suggests that they areChaucer’s public comment (of condemnation) on this royal scandal.

13. See R. Howard Bloch, Medieval Misogyny and the Invention of Western RomanticLove (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), pp. 49–63, which is adistillation of his important article, “Chaucer’s Maiden’s Head: ‘The Physician’s Tale’ and the Poetics of Virginity,” Representations 28 (1989):113–34. Bloch, Medieval Misogyny, p. 104, discusses the feminine’s connectionwith the unruly and seductive art of rhetoric (which was likened to the femaleflesh), and also suggests that Chaucer’s Physician’s Tale “explores. . .theviolence of perception, or, more specifically, of the look.” Rita Copeland,“The Pardoner’s Body and the Disciplining of Rhetoric,” Framing MedievalBodies, ed. Sarah Kay and Miri Rubin (New York: Manchester UniversityPress, 1994), pp. 138–59, points out that theorists claimed the undisciplinedbody of rhetoric “is a sexually wayward body. . .and that the disciplinarypermeability of rhetoric is nothing less than ambiguity of gender.”

14. See the continuation of Ranulph Higden’s Polychronicon, The WestminsterChronicle, 1381–94, ed. and trans. L. C. Hector and Barbara F. Harvey(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), pp. 192–93.

15. Kittredge, “Chaucer and Some of His Friends,” p. 5, n. 7.16. Michael Camille, “The Image and the Self: Unwriting Late Medieval

Bodies,” Framing Medieval Bodies, p. 77 [62–99].17. Huling E. Ussery, Chaucer’s Physician: Medicine and Literature in Fourteenth-

Century England (New Orleans: Tulane University Press, 1971), p. 135;John Gardner, The Poetry of Chaucer (Carbondale, IL: Southern IllinoisUniversity Press, 1977), p. 296; and, George Williams, A New View ofChaucer (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1965), p. 162, who claimthat the advice would more likely have been directed toward Chaucer’sown wife, Philippa, who served longer in John of Gaunt’s household thanher sister. His reasoning is similarly based on a feeling that Swynford wouldhave been beyond even veiled reproach.

18. Westminster Chronicle, 1381–94, pp. 192–93: [“set illa viripotens tunc effectain regalem cuiram est delata ad conspicandum gestus aulicos et moreseorum”].

19. Emerson Brown, Jr., “What Is Chaucer Doing with the Physician and HisTale?” Philological Quarterly 60 (1981), p. 134 [129–49], makes a similarpoint: “The Physician’s Tale demonstrates that no matter how perfect a childis and how free from the need of a ‘maistresse,’ she can still be destroyed bywicked forces beyond her or her parents’ control. That hardly seems anexemplum calculated to keep parents and governesses on their toes.”

20. Westminster Chronicle, 1381–94 pp. 192–93: [“set illa viripotens tunc effectain regalem curiam est delata ad conspicandum gestus aulicos et moreseorum. Quam ut aspexit dominus Johannes Holand, frater domini regisnunc ex parte materna, vehementer captus est ejus amore, propter quod dienotuque eam sollicitavit; tamen per permporum intervalla tandem tam fatueillam allexit sic quod tempore transitus domini ducis per eum extitit /impregnata”].

N O T E S 179

21. Virginia’s passivity thus fits with Sigmund Freud’s formulation of itsnormative function in his, “Femininity” (1933), Standard Edition of theComplete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, ed. and trans. James Strachey,24 vols. (London: Hogarth Press, 1964), vol. 22, p. 115 [112–35]: “Onemight consider characterizing femininity psychologically as giving prefer-ence to passive aims. This is not, of course, the same thing as passivity; toachieve a passive aim may call for a large amount of activity.” I havediscussed this formulation of feminine passivity as it relates to constructionsof masculinity in my article, “Performative Passivity and Fantasies ofMasculinity in Chaucer’s Merchant’s Tale,” Chaucer Review 38 (2003):178–98.

22. Frederick Tupper, “Chaucer’s Bed’s Head. I. Chaucer and Ambrose,”Modern Language Notes 30 (1915): 5–7; Karl Young, “The Maidenly Virtuesof Chaucer’s Virginia,” Speculum 16 (1941): 340–49; Martha S. Waller,“The Physician’s Tale: Geoffrey Chaucer and Fray Juan Garcia deCastrojeriz,” Speculum 51 (1976): 292–306.

23. As Waller explains in The Physician’s Tale, p. 300, n. 15, this metaphor“may owe something to the numerous figures derived from hunting in theRoman de la Rose.”

24. See Karma Lochrie’s excellent chapter on gossip in her Covert Operations:Medieval Uses of Secrecy (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,1999), pp. 56–92, where she makes the following observation, important tomy interpretation of invisibility in conduct discourse: “Gossip was also asso-ciated with a kind of insurrectionary discourse on the part of women as amarginalized medieval community, one that existed alongside—but also inresistance to—a variety of institutionalized, written discourses,” (p. 57). Seealso Patricia Meyer Spacks, Gossip (New York: Knopf, 1985), p. 12, whoacknowledges gossip’s ability to shore up dominant structures of visiblecontrol despite its purportedly invisible operation.

25. For examples, see “The Gossips’ Meeting,” Jyl of Breyntford’s Testament andOther Poems, ed. Frederick J. Furnivall (London: Printed for private circula-tion, 1871), p. 29; “Good Gossips,” Songs and Carols of the Fifteenth Century,ed. Thomas Wright (London: T. Richards, 1856), pp. 91–95; 104–107.

26. Wakefied Master, Noah, Medieval Drama, ed. David Bevington (Boston:Houghton Mifflin, 1975), pp. 290–305.

27. They are, then, agents of the public law, which Slavoj Vivek, The Metastasesof Enjoyment: Six Essays on Women and Causality (London: Verso, 1994),argues depends on its written, visible dimension for its power. As Vivekpoints out, p. 57, ignorance of the public law is no excuse; since the publiclaw is available to be known, it achieves greater jurisdictional scope.

28. In Slavoj Vivek, The Fragile Absolute, or Why is the Christian Legacy WorthFighting For? (London: Verso, 2000), p. 149, he suggests that transgression isa support of the regulatory system of the law because it justifies its existence.

29. This tactic fits with Larry Scanlon’s definition of the “public exemplum,”Narrative, Authority, and Power: The Medieval Exemplum and the ChaucerianTradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 81–88,

N O T E S180

which he claims often operates through negative examples. Virginia’s talecorresponds to Scanlon’s definition of the exemplum, p. 34, as “a narrativeenactment of cultural authority,” but it does so in gendered ways that com-plicate a straightforward binary of power, or that points to the monarch as a centralizing oversight against legal abuse.

30. From the time of the Norman conquest (and arguably before), the forest was anidea, a jurisdiction of royal authority. As Charles R. Young explains, The RoyalForests of Medieval England (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,1979), p. 3: “the royal forest was first of all an area in which a special kind oflaw—the forest law—applied. . .From its beginning the royal forest was to someextent an artificial creation that included lands without woods and villages thatwere alien to the idea of a forest in any physical meaning of the term.” G. J. Turner, in his, “Introduction,” Select Pleas of the Forest, ed. G. J. Turner,Selden Society, vol. 13 (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1901), p. ix, [ix–cxxxiv],explains the social arrangements that emerge from the forest as a legal districtgoverned by the king: “But although the king or a subject might be seised of aforest, he was not necessarily seised of all the land which it comprised. Otherpersons might possess lands within the bounds of a forest, but were not allowedthe right of hunting or of cutting trees in them at their own will.”

31. The law of the forest was established with the arrival of the Normans. Theboundaries of the legitimate royal forest was a cause of continual disputebetween the kings and the barons until they reached a settlement, whichwas included in the Magna Carta. These provisions were expanded andclarified in 1217 in the Forest Charter. The statute of 1327 established theperambulations of the forest for the late Middle Ages, since they wereconfirmed by Richard II in a statute of 1383. Since the forest law was a legalsystem that developed separately from common law, it produced its ownadministrative class. Besides foresters, who patrolled the forests to protectthe king’s game, there were wardens and rangers over the forests, makingthe forest districts very heavily surveilled areas.

32. Barbara A. Hanawalt, “Men’s Game, King’s Deer: Poaching in MedievalEngland,” “Of Good and Ill Repute”: Gender and Social Control in MedievalEngland (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 143; p. 154 [142–57].

33. Qtd. in Hanawalt, Of Good and Ill Repute, p. 153.34. Young, Royal Forests, 107–8, suggests about half of poachers hunted for

sport. This does not mean that all of those who hunted for sport saw theiractivity as a type of political affront, although when they were caught theywould be charged with a crime that treated their practice as such.

35. By the late fourteenth century, Young, Royal Forests, suggests that thesystem of apportioning the offices of forester (and warden) had in effectbecome hereditary appointments of patronage to the king’s favorites. Thismeant that many foresters took the post for the prestige or income, not thework: “by the fourteenth century many of the forest officials wereperforming their duties by deputy while enjoying the income from theoffices. Both because of the authority of their offices and the abuses ofpower, the foresters earned for themselves a bad reputation” (p. 164).

N O T E S 181

Foresters, then, were visibly tied to the king, but their performance of dutywas more for personal gain. This historical situation seemingly complicatesChaucer’s use of the poaching metaphor even further, because it suggeststhat a poacher turned forester works for personal interest, but now cloaksthat action in the guise of respectable authority.

36. See Jean Birrell, “Who Poached the King’s Deer? A Study in ThirteenthCentury Crime,” Midland History 7 (1982): 9–25, who discusses habitualpoachers who acquired venison for others.

37. Birrell, “Who Poached the King’s Deer?” pp. 9–25.38. Besides the varying kinds of female guides who aid the lover in Le Roman de

la Rose, there is the tradition of female bawd exemplified in what is knownas the “weeping bitch” motif. In these stories, of which Dame Sirith isprobably best known [Dame Sirith, The Trials and Joys of Marriage, ed. EveSalisbury (Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute, 2002)], a young man seeksthe aid of an old woman, who helps him win his lady’s love throughdeception. See John Hines, The Fabliau in English (London: Longman,1993), for a discussion of this tradition.

39. Nicole Nolan Sidhu, “Go-Betweens: The Old Woman and the Function ofObscenity in the Fabliaux,” Comic Provocations: Exposing the Corpus of OldFrench Fabliaux, ed. Holly A. Crocker (New York: Palgrave, 2006),pp. 45–60.

40. Sidhu, “Go-Betweens,” p. 52. For the text of Auberee, see Recueil Completdes Fabliaux, eds. Willem Noomen and Nico van den Boogaard, 10 vols.(Assen: Van Gorcum, 1983–98) 1: 4.

41. Select Documents of English Constitutional History, ed. George Burton andH. Morse Stephens (1901; New York: Macmillan, 1930), 72.2. See J. G. Bellamy, The Law of Treason in England in the Later Middle Ages(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), pp. 59–101, for adiscussion of the parameters of this statute.

42. Paul Strohm, Hochon’s Arrow: The Social Imagination of Fourteenth-CenturyTexts (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), pp. 121–44; FrancesDolan, “Battered Women, Petty Traitors, and the Legacy of Coverture,”Feminist Studies 29 (2003): 249–77.

43. Robin L. Bott, “ ‘O, Keep Me from Their Worse than Killing Lust’:Ideologies of Rape and Mutilation in Chaucer’s Physician’s Tale andShakespeare’s Titus Andronicus,” Representing Rape in Medieval and Early ModernLiterature, ed. Elizabeth Robertson and Christine M. Rose (New York:Palgrave, 2001), pp. 189–211, argues that the shame associated with rape isfigured as a disease that must be removed before it infects the male body.

44. Chaucer’s Complaint of Mars, due to an attributive gloss by copyist JohnShirley, has also been connected to John Holland’s scandalous behavior,both with Isabel of York and with Elizabeth of Lancaster. See WalterW. Skeat, The Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, vol. 1 (Oxford:Clarendon, 1899), pp. 65–66; pp. 86–87, for further details.

45. Westminster Chronicle, 1381–94 pp. 72–75; pp. 122–23; pp. 144–45;pp. 158–61.

N O T E S182

46. Sydney Armitage-Smith, John of Gaunt (New York: Barnes and Noble,1964), p. 459.

47. Westminster Chronicle, 1381–94 pp. 294–95; pp. 342–43; pp. 450–51.48. Holland served as constable in Lancaster’s army. See Henry Knighton,

Chronicon Henrici Knighton vel Cnitthon, monachi, Leycestrensis, ed. J. R. Lumby,2 vols. (Rolls Series, 1865–86), ii. 207, and Westminster Chronicle, 1381–94pp. 164–65.

49. “regard,” deriving as it does from the French “regarder,” principally means“to look at, gaze upon, observe.” In the Middle Ages it had an even moreplain connection to regulation because it was a legal term. Under forest law,the “regard” was, according to Young, Royal Forest, “an institution thatprovided a general survey of the vert and of encroachments upon the forest”(p. 157). Also see Turner, Select Pleas of the Forest, pp. lxxv–lxxxvii, whodiscusses the practice and its procedures in detail.

50. Froissart, Chronicles, ed. and trans., Geoffrey Brereton (Harmondsworth:Penguin, 1978), p. 448.

51. Froissart, Chronicles, pp. 450–51.52. Froissart, Chronicles, p. 467.53. Froissart, Chronicles, pp. 467–68.54. See René Girard, Deceit, Desire, and the Novel: Self and Other in Literary

Structure, trans. Yvonne Freccero (Baltimore and London: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, 1966), pp. 1–52; Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Between Men:English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire (New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press, 1985), pp. 1–27; and Gayle Rubin, “The Traffic inWomen: Notes on the ‘Political Economy’ of Sex,” Towards anAnthropology of Women, ed. Rayna R. Reiter (New York: Monthly ReviewPress, 1975), pp. 157–210, for a discussion of the three interrelated conceptsof masculine rivalry, triangulation of male homosocial desire, and the trafficin women that enable such rivalries and triangulations.

55. Here I refer to Walsingham’s report of Richard II’s dismissal of the rebels’petition for political recognition following the 1381 rebellion: “Rustics youwere and rustics you are still; you will remain in bondage, not as before butincomparably harsher,” Historia Anglicana, qtd. in R. B. Dobson, ed., The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 (London: Macmillan, 1970), p. 311. For theLatin, see Thomas Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, ed. H. T. Riley, 2 vols.(London, 1863–64), 2: 18: “Rustici quidem fuistis et estis; in bondagiopermanebitis.” It should be noted that Walsingham’s “rustici” could also betranslated “churls.”

56. Delany, “Politics and the Paralysis of Poetic Imagination,” pp. 47–60.57. Delany, “Politics and the Paralysis of Poetic Imagination,” p. 52.58. Paul Strohm, Social Chaucer (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,

1989), p. 159.59. Linda Lomperis, “Unruly Bodies and Ruling Practices: Chaucer’s

Physician’s Tale as Socially Symbolic Act,” Feminist Approaches to the Body inMedieval Literature, ed. Linda Lomperis and Sarah Stanbury (Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993), p. 29 [21–37].

N O T E S 183

60. Glenn Burger, Chaucer’s Queer Nation, (Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press, 2003), pp. 53–54; pp. 131–39.

61. David Wallace, Chaucerian Polity: Absolutist Lineages and Associational Formsin England and Italy (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), p. 109,suggests that Appius’s gaze is “tyrannical.”

62. Vivek, The Metastases of Enjoyment, p. 74.63. Lynda E. Boose, “The Father’s House and the Daughter in It: The

Structures of Western Culture’s Daughter-Father Relationship,” Daughtersand Fathers, ed. Lynda E. Boose and Betty S. Flowers (Baltimore: JohnsHopkins University Press, 1989), pp. 19–74.

64. As Sedgwick, Between Men, points out, p. 50, cuckoldry is a bond betweenmen that is “necessarily hierarchical in structure,” serving as it does todistinguish men from one another on a sliding scale of worth.

65. According to Luce Irigaray, The Sex Which Is Not One, trans. CatherinePorter (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985) p. 183, women shouldnot be able to govern female sexuality if men intend to exchange themamongst themselves for power and profit: “Commodities can only enterinto relationships under the watchful eyes of their ‘guardians.’ ”

66. See Katherine J. Lewis, “Model Girls? Virgin-Martyrs and the Training ofYoung Women in Late Medieval England,” Young Medieval Women,ed. Katherine J. Lewis, Noël James Menuge, and Kim M. Phillips (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999), pp. 25–46, is particularly helpful intracing this practice in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.

67. Middleton, “The Physician’s Tale and Love’s Martyrs,” p. 19; Fletcher,“The Sentencing of Virginia,” p. 305.

68. William Caxton, The Book of the Knight of the Tower, ed. M. Y Offord, EETSSupplementary Series, 2 (London: Oxford University Press for EETS,1971), p. 28 (lines 11–13; 14–15). Also see p. 72 (lines 20–31), whichinstructs virtuous women to dress modestly to honor God and family.

69. Christine de Pizan, A Medieval Woman’s Mirror of Honor: The Treasury of theCity of Ladies, ed. Madeleine Pelner Cosman, trans. Charity CannonWillard, (New York: Persea Books, 1989), p. 203.

70. Middleton, “The Physician’s Tale and Love’s Martyrs,” p. 17.71. Middleton, “The Physician’s Tale and Love’s Martyrs,” p. 26.72. Tupper, “Chaucer’s Bed’s Head,” pp. 5–7; Young, “The Maidenly

Virtues,” pp. 340–49; Waller, “The Physician’s Tale,” pp. 292–306.73. See Waller, “The Physician’s Tale,” pp. 293–94, for this genealogy. She

claims that Don Bernabe, Bishop of Osma charged in 1344 with the educa-tion of the five-year-old heir to the Castilian throne, Infante Pedro, comis-sioned Fray Juan Garcia de Castrojeriz to prepare a Castilian version ofAegidius’s treatise. Castrojeriz’s verion, which contained extensive com-mentary, was widely copied and circulated in manuscript, and was printedin Seville in 1494. The infante Pedro became Peter I of Castile (the Cruel),whose assassination in 1369 Chaucer treated in the Monk’s Tale. Wallersuggests that Chaucer may have had access to this text, either on a visit toSpain in 1366 or after Constance, Peter’s heir, became John of Gaunt’s second

N O T E S184

wife. Waller’s contention, p. 305, that “It appears likely indeed that theliterate and religious Constance should have taken to England with her thevolume prepared by her grandmother’s confessor for her father’s instruc-tion with its chapters devoted to the nurture of noblemen’s children,” issuggestive to my argument, because it also connects the instructions toparents and governesses in John of Gaunt’s household, here through adifferent wife.

74. H. Marshall Leicester, Jr., The Disenchanted Self: Representing the Subject in the“Canterbury Tales,” (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), p. 117.

75. J. D. W. Crowther, “Chaucer’s Physician’s Tale and its ‘Saint,’ ” EnglishStudies in Canada 8 (1982): 125–37.

76. Sandra Pierson Prior, “Virginity and Sacrifice in Chaucer’s Physician’s Tale,”Constructions of Widowhood and Virginity in the Middle Ages, ed. CindyCarlson and Angela Jane Weisl (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999),pp. 165–80.

77. Prior, “Virginity and Sacrifice,”, p. 170.78. Fletcher, “The Sentencing of Virginia in the Physician’s Tale,” p. 306;

Hirsch, “Modern Times,” pp. 388, 390; See Diane Speed, “Language andPerspective in the Physician’s Tale,” Words and Wordsmiths: A Volume forH. L. Rogers, ed. Geraldine Barnes, et al. (Sydney: University of SydneyPress, 1989), pp. 119–36; Thomas B. Hanson, “Chaucer’s Physician asStoryteller and Moralizer,” Chaucer Review 7 (1972): 132–39.

79. This is similar to the claim of Lianna Farber, “The Creation of Consent inthe Physician’s Tale,” Chaucer Review, 39 (2004): 162 [151–64], that the tale’soperation is ideological, to the extent that it “stress[es] the way those whohave control over [Virginia] educate her and teach her to understand reality.”

80. Crane, The Performance of Self, p. 29 [29–38].81. Crane, The Performance of Self, p. 34.82. Lomperis, “Unruly Bodies and Ruling Practices,” p. 29.83. Brian Massumi, Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation (Durham,

NC: Duke University Press, 2002), p. 30, argues that the virtual “is a livedparadox where what are normally opposites coexist, coalesce, and connect.”

84. See Jane Gallop, The Daughter’s Seduction, Feminism and Psychoanalysis(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1982), p. 77, who claims that“Paternity is corporeally uncertain, without evidence. But patriarchy com-pensates for that with the law which marks each child with the father’sname as his exclusive property.”

85. See, Corinne Saunders, Rape and Ravishment in the Literature of Medieval England(Cambridge, UK: D. S. Brewer, 2001), who gives a history of the developmentof and changes in rape law and the ecclesiastical responses the issue generated.As she points out, p. 75, in the later Middle Ages, when the law generallybecomes more influenced by Roman law, primogeniture means that the act ofrape is marginalized in contrast to charges of abduction: “actual rape, when itdid not occur in the context of abduction or loss of virginity, was largelyignored, even while the notion of violation of the female body played animportant rhetorical role in the recording of case histories and in legal theory.”

N O T E S 185

86. As Joseph Allen Hornsby, Chaucer and the Law (Norman, OK: Pilgrim Press,1988), pp. 116–17, points out, a 1382 statute gave husbands or fathers theright to seek damages for rape even if the woman consented (because shedid not have the right to dispense of herself ). Barbara Hanawalt, “Of Goodand Ill Repute”: Gender and Social Control in Medieval England (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 124–41, suggests, however, that awoman’s ability to present her rape appeal in a manner consistent with legalregulations made a big difference in a father’s or husband’s suit. If a womanor girl could not articulate her appeal in the format designated by the court(without changing the account over what might be several recitations) hercase was almost sure to be decided in favor of the accused.

87. According to jurists, however, such resistance had to be easier to see.Glanville advises that “A woman who suffers in this way must go, soon afterthe deed is done, to the nearest vill and there show to trustworthy men theinjury done to her, and any effusion of blood there may be and any tearingof clothes.” George D. G. Hall, ed. and trans., Tractatus de Legibus etConsuetudinibus Regni Anglie qui Glanvilla Vocatur, The Treatise on the Lawsand Customs of the Realm of England Commonly Called Glanvill (London:Nelson, 1965), p. 175: [Tenetur autem mulier que tale quid patitur moxdum recens fuerit maleficium uicinam uillam adire, et ibi iniuriam sibiillatam probis hominibus ostendere et sanguinem si quis fuerit effusus etuestium scissions]; Henry Bracton, De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae, Onthe Laws and Customs of England (c. 1250), ed. George E. Woodbine, trans.Samuel E. Thorne, Selden Society (1968; Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1977), pp. 394–95, likewise says that an appeal of rapemust indicate “whether garments were torn and whether blood was shed bythe ravishment.” [tunc de scissione vestimentorum et de sanguinis effusioneper corruptionem].

88. Augustine, The City of God, trans. Marcus Dods (New York: ModernLibrary, 1950), Book I, 10: 18 (p. 22).

89. See Caxton, Book of the Knight, Cviij, Cix, and Cx (pp. 145–48).90. This elevation over regular women is expressed both in terms of social status

and virtuous conduct in Caxton, Book of the Knight, pp. 148–50. For example,immediately after the example of Mary is elaborated, there are two chapters,Cxj and Cxij, that recommend contemporary women as models.

91. See Camille, “The Image and the Self,” who, in discussing images of womenfrom medical discourse, points to what my catalogue leaves out—makingwoman into a body really ends up making woman into a womb: “She is allbody. . .Indeed her whole body is held in by networks of linear control,rendering her passive and waiting, a mere receptacle for male semen” (p. 83).

92. The Usual Suspects, dir. Brian Singer (Gramercy Pictures) 1995.93. Vivek, Fragile Absolute, p. 150.94. Qtd. from the film’s dialogue.95. Vivek, Fragile Absolute, p. 150.96. Jacques Lacan famously states that “The Woman does not exist,” he also

claims that courtly love creates woman as a blank screen upon which he

N O T E S186

may project his narcissitic fantasy in The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, 1959–60,The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book VII, ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Trans.Dennis Porter (London: Routledge, 1992), pp. 149–50.

97. Jacques Lacan, “A Love Letter,” Feminine Sexuality, ed. Juliet Mitchell andJacqueline Rose (New York: Norton, 1982), pp. 149–61, especially p. 150.

98. Vivek, Fragile Absolute, p. 150. In The Sublime Object of Ideology (London:Verso, 1989), Vivek suggests that an identity based on inclusion within acommunity, (which, if we remember our Aristotle, is the condition thatstitches “human” and “identity” together), always involves what he calls“forced choice”: “the subject must freely choose the community to whichhe already belongs, independent of his choice—he must choose what is alreadygiven to him. . .he is never actually in a position to choose: he is alwaystreated as if he had already chosen” (pp. 165–66, emphasis original). To makethe “crazy” choice to destroy that which one holds most dear, then, is a signof one’s belonging to a community, according to Vivek.

99. Lomperis, “Unruly Bodies and Ruling Practices,” p. 28.

Chapter 3 “My first matere I wil yow telle”: Visual Impact in the Book of the Duchess

1. Ovid, Metamorphoses, Books IX–XV, trans. Frank Justus Miller, ed. G. P. Goold,Loeb Classical Library 43 (1916; Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress, 1984) XI. 410–749.

2. James Wimsatt, “The Sources of Chaucer’s ‘Seys and Alcyone,’” MediumAevum 36 (1967): 231–41, suggests that Chaucer probably used Ovid, alongwith Machaut’s Dit de la fonteinne amoreuse, and the Ovide moralisé. See A. J. Minnis, with V. J. Scattergood and J. J. Smith, Oxford Guides toChaucer: The Shorter Poems (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 90–112,for a survey and discussion of Chaucer’s sources.

3. See Frances Yates, The Art of Memory (London: Routledge, 1966), pp. 50–81,who argues that medieval thinkers turned rules of place and image in therhetorical construction of memory to devotional purposes. Mary Carruthers,The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 34–45, explores locational memoryusing two principal metaphors, that of the book, or tablet, and that of thehouse, or “cella.” Both writers stress that memory, as a constitutive elementof rhetoric (particularly in the Rhetorica ad Herrenium), is a practice that gainsits kinship with art through the application of regularized discipline.

4. It is important to distinguish, then, between dreams, which were theprovince of the imagination, and dream visions, which were the territory ofthe memory. As Carruthers explains in her Book of Memory, pp. 58–59,Aristotle suggests that dream images are spontaneous combinations of theimagination. For an image to reach the vis memorativa, by contrast, it wouldhave to become part of what we would call “long-term memory.” As shediscusses in her Craft of Thought: Meditation, Rhetoric, and the Making of

N O T E S 187

Images, 400–1200 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003),pp. 171–220, dream visions are a recollective representation of compositionalinvention. Works including A. C. Spearing’s, Medieval Dream-Poetry(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976); Barbara Nolan, The GothicVisionary Perspective (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977); Kathryn L.Lynch, The High Medieval Dream Vision: Poetry, Philosophy, and Literary Form(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988) suggest that medieval dreamvision was almost purely a literary form. Steven Kruger’s Dreaming in theMiddle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), shows thateven as dreams were considered to be physiological in some respects, inothers they were thought of as expressive, either in purely aesthetic or indivinely prophetic terms. Kruger’s work, as well as J. Stephen Russell’s TheEnglish Dream Vision: Anatomy of a Form (Columbus, OH: Ohio StateUniversity Press, 1988), indicates that the view of dreams in the Middle Agescrossed discourses of theology, art, and science.

5. Although Yates and Carruthers show in rich and ample ways the rhetoricaland creative processes of memory, I would credit Michael Camille, particularlyhis essay, “Before the Gaze: The Internal Senses and Medieval Practices ofSeeing,” Visuality Before and Beyond the Renaissance: Seeing as Others Saw, ed.Robert S. Nelson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000),pp. 197–223, for thinking about the connections between aesthetics andphysiology in medieval conceptions of perception and epistemology.

6. See Katherine Tachau, Vision and Certitude in the Age of Ockham: Optics,Epistemology, and the Foundations of Semantics, 1230–1345 (New York: Brill,1988); David C. Lindberg, Theories of Vision from Al-kindi to Kepler (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1976), pp. 141–46.

7. As W. R. Jones, “Lollards and Images: The Defense of Religious Art in LaterMedieval England,” Journal of the History of Ideas 34 (1973): 27–50, suggests,the debate over religious images turned on contrasting definitions of idolatria:“The English iconodules defined idolatria in a narrow, historical sense,applicable to pagans and infidels, who worshipped the wrong things, andsometimes to sorcerers, who used images for magical purposes” (p. 43).Reformers, by contrast, applied idolatria to a broad range of image-usage,only excepting reverence for signs that were themselves stripped of orna-ment (e.g., a “poor cross”). While this debate is only in the nascent stagewhen Chaucer is supposed to have composed this poem, the challenges tosight that contribute to anxieties regarding images are already circulating.

8. John Berger, Ways of Seeing (London: Penguin, 1972), pp. 11–23.9. Besides Carruthers, The Book of Memory, pp. 33–45, I am also indebted to

D. Vance Smith, “Irregular Histories: Forgetting Ourselves,” New LiteraryHistory 28 (1997): 161–84; “Plague, Panic Space, and the Tragic MedievalHousehold,” South Atlantic Quarterly 98 (1999): 367–413; and Arts ofPossession: The Middle English Household Imaginary (Minneapolis: Universityof Minnesota Press, 2003), who connects memory to the rhythms of theeveryday and the locus of the medieval household. This “domestication” ofmemory is important to my thinking about gender, because it suggests ways

N O T E S188

in which repetitions, arrangements, and elisions that characterize memorywork also typify the reiterative processes of coverage that give categories ofmasculinity and femininity their naturalized cultural appearance.

10. For an analysis of medieval diagrams that divided the brain into chambers,see Edwin Clark and Kenneth Dewhurst, An Illustrated History of BrainFunction (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972), pp. 10–24.Avicenna’s influence is elucidated in John E. Murdoch, Album of Science:Antiquity and the Middle Ages (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1984),pp. 325–26; and finally A. Mark Smith’s essay, “Getting the Big Picture inPerspectivist Optics,” Isis 72 (1981): 572 [568–89], has a succinct andsophisticated diagram of the interworkings of medieval faculties, whichculminate in the recollective gathering of memory. The classic accounts ofmedieval faculty psychology remain Murray Wright Bundy’s The Theory ofImagination in Classical and Medieval Thought (Urbana, IL: University ofIllinois Press, 1927), pp. 177–224; and Ruth E. Harvey, The Inward Wits:Psychological Theory in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance (London: WarburgInstitute, 1975).

11. A. Mark Smith, “Getting the Big Picture,” pp. 572–73, discusses theinterrelation of Galen and Aristotle in medieval theory; this classification-scheme is from Carolyn Collette, Species, Phantasms, and Images: Vision andMedieval Psychology in the “Canterbury Tales” (Ann Arbor: University ofMichigan Press, 2001), p. 6.

12. See Harvey, The Inward Wits, pp. 39–49; pp. 53–61.13. This point is Bundy’s, The Theory of Imagination, p. 192, though Collette,

Species, Phantasms, and Images, p. 9, also emphasizes the role of temporalityin the scheme of Albertus Magnus.

14. D. Vance Smith, “Plague, Panic Space,” p. 379.15. D. Vance Smith, “Plague, Panic Space,” p. 374.16. D. Vance Smith, “Plague, Panic Space,” p. 385.17. Hugh of St. Victor, “Hugo of St. Victor: ‘De Tribus Maximis

Circumstantiis Gestorum,’ ” ed. William M. Green, Speculum 18 (1943):484–93. (p. 490, lines 26–27): [ut eas quoque quae extrinsecus acciderepossunt circumstantias rerum non neglegentur attendamus].

18. Albertus Magnus, Commentary on Aristotle, On Memory and Recollection, trans.Jan M. Ziolkowski, The Medieval Craft of Memory: An Anthology of Texts andPictures, ed. Mary Carruthers and Jan M. Ziolkowski (Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002), p. 127.

19. See Charles Muscatine, who, in Chaucer and the French Tradition (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1957), p. 107, claims that Chaucer’s use ofcomic versions of Ovidian narrative (e.g., Machaut’s Fonteinne Amoureuse )“brings into the most serious part of the poem a tasteless vein of humor.”

20. Derek Pearsall, “The Roving Eye: Point of View in the MedievalPerception of Landscape,” Speaking Images: Essays in Honor of V.A. Kolve, ed.R. F. Yeager and Charlotte C. Morse (Asheville, NC: Pegasus Press, 2001),p. 469 [463–77] rightly points out that medieval art allows for a free gazeover a visual scene, since pictures often rely on their viewers “to read, scan,

N O T E S 189

store, and recompose.” But he does not take into account the discipline ofcognitive composition in his consideration of the eye’s mobility: “the eyemoves about the picture, not under any constraining discipline of order, andchooses its moments of truth.” Mnemonic practice, which regulates theprocess of image making, means that the “wandering around” that Pearsallidentifies as part of the experience of medieval art is meant to assume its ownorderly composition. This measured, stationed seeing is thus more akin towhat Laura Mulvey, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” Screen 16.3(1975): p. 11 [6–18], describes as “the determining male gaze [which] projectsits phantasy on to the female figure which is styled accordingly.”

21. In her influential and provocative analysis of loss in elegiac poetics, LouiseO. Fradenburg, “ ‘Voice Memorial’: Loss and Reparation in Chaucer’sPoetry,” Exemplaria 2 (1990): 169–202, argues that Chaucer’s Book of theDuchess, like other works of death, uses a system of threat and reward toobscure loss, thereby providing through narrative “inconclusiveness” adefense against its persistence. For, as she points out, the birth of poetry andthe promise of prosperity await Chaucer’s masculine dyad in a relation ofreward that staves off the threat of isolation accompanying protractedmourning.

22. See Carruthers, Craft of Thought, pp. 176–79, for a discussion of the exedra,a chamber designed for compositional memory work. As she points out,these chambers were often decorated with familiar images that weredesigned to spur mental invention. Interestingly, Michael Norman Salda,“Pages from History: The Medieval Palace of Westminster as a Source forthe Dreamer’s Chamber in the Book of the Duchess,” Chaucer Review 27(1992): 111–25, argues that this dreamscape is not based on a “literary”scene (such as a particular illuminated manuscript), but is a rendering of St. Stephen’s chapel. Petrarch, perhaps in a bid for inventional ingenuity,complains about those who “decorate their rooms with furniture devised todecorate their minds and. . .use books as they use Corinthian vases orpainted panels and statues,” Petrarch: Four Dialogues for Scholars. . .from “De remedies utriusque fortune,” ed. and trans. Conrad H. Rawski (Cleveland,OH: Press of Western Reserve University, 1967), p. 31.

23. See Minnis, The Shorter Poems, pp. 73–160, for a liberal overview of thecritical history of the poem, especially the issue of consolation and itsrelevance to the Man in Black’s condition at the end of the poem.

24. Kathryn L. Lynch, “The Book of the Duchess as a Philosophical Vision: TheArgument of Form,” Genre 21 (1988): 279–306; She elaborates thisargument in her book, Chaucer’s Philosophical Visions.

25. Lynch, “The Book of the Duchess as a Philosophical Vision,” p. 285.26. Although Fradenburg addresses defenses against loss in broader terms than

I do in this chapter, her “ ‘Voice Memorial’ ” traces elegy as a mode ofdefense against the past in a way that I find instructive.

27. For a helpful discussion, see Michael Camille, Gothic Art: Glorious Visions(Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996), pp. 16–23.

N O T E S190

28. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, trans. John Hammond Taylor, 2 vols.Ancient Christian Writers, ed. Johannes Quasten, et al., 41–42, (New York:Newman, 1982), 2:191 (12.11.22).

29. Bundy, The Theory of Imagination, pp. 187–93.30. Bundy, The Theory of Imagination, pp. 187–93.31. Bundy, The Theory of Imagination, p. 191.32. See Alastair Minnis, “Medieval Imagination and Memory,” The Cambridge

History of Literary Criticism, vol. 2, The Middle Ages, ed. Alastair Minnis andIan Johnson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 240–42,for a discussion of Aquinas’s differences from the opinions of his teacher,Albertus Magnus.

33. See Roger Bacon’s Perspectiva, which is Pt. V of the Opus Majus. For all cita-tions, I use David C. Lindberg’s facing page edition, Roger Bacon and theOrigins of Perspectiva in the Middle Ages: A Critical Edition and EnglishTranslation of Bacon’s Perspectiva with Introduction and Notes (Oxford:Clarendon, 1996), hereafter cited as the Perspectiva. Bacon’s description ofthese divisions, especially as they relate to the multiplication of species, iscontained in the Perspectiva, I.i.4; also see Lindberg’s Roger Bacon’s Philosophyof Nature. A Critical Edition, Introduction, and Notes, of “De multiplicatione despecierum” and “De speculis comburentibus” (Oxford: Clarendon, 1983), I, ii,lines 86–88, and lines 287–88, for a description of the memory as the finalspace that the species reach. Bundy, The Theory of Imagination, pp. 195–98,discusses Bacon in relation to other theorists.

34. Minnis, “Medieval Imagination and Memory,” p. 242.35. Minnis, “Medieval Imagination and Memory,” p. 242.36. Alastair Minnis, “Langland’s Ymaginatif and Late-Medieval Theories of

Imagination,” Comparative Criticism 3 (1981): 71–103.37. See William J. Courtenay, Covenant and Causality in Medieval Thought

(London: Variorum Reprints, 1984), pp. 208–9, who explains that symbolsfor Aquinas “declared. . .an action or effect.” See Thomas Aquinas, SummaTheologiae, ed. and trans. Colman E. O’Neill O. P., vol. 50 (London:Blackfriars, 1965), 3a. 25, a. 3, which demonstrates Courtenay’s suggestionin relation to the reverence due to images of Christ: “Applying this to ourproblem, we conclude that no reverence is shown to the image of Christinsofar as it is an independent reality—a piece of wood, carved or painted—for reverence cannot be given to any but a rational being. It remains thatwhatever reverence is shown it has in view its function as an image. Fromthis it follows that the same reverence is shown to the image of Christ as toChrist himself. Since, therefore, Christ is paid divine worship, so too hisimage should be paid divine worship” [Sic ergo dicendum est quod imaginiChristi, inquantum est res quaedam, puta lignum sculptum vel pictum, nullareverentiaexhibetur: quia reverentianonnisi rationali naturae debetur.Relinquitur ergo quod exhibeatur ei reverentiaexhibeatur imagini Christi etipsi Christo. Cum ergo Christus adoretur adoratione latriae, consequens estquod ejus imago sit adoratione latriae adoranda].

N O T E S 191

38. Sarah Stanbury, “Regimes of the Visual in Premodern England: Gaze, Body,and Chaucer’s Clerk’s Tale,” New Literary History, 28 (1997): p. 279 [261–89].

39. Camille, “Before the Gaze,” p. 207.40. See the classic study by Erwin Panofsky, Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism

(New York: Meridian Books, 1957). Michael Camille, The Gothic Idol:Ideology and Image-making in Medieval Art (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1989); and Susannah Biernoff, Sight and Embodiment in the Middle Ages(New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002) resist in different ways Panofsky’sclean periodization of affective directness. Rachel Fulton’s From Judgment toPassion: Devotion to Christ and the Virgin Mary, 800–1200 (New York:Columbia University Press, 2002), is also useful for thinking specifically aboutdevotion to Christic and Marian images in medieval devotional practice.

41. Stanbury, “Regimes of the Visual in Premodern England,” p. 279.42. Stanbury, “Regimes of the Visual in Premodern England,” p. 267.43. Stanbury, “Regimes of the Visual in Premodern England,”, p. 273.44. Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. Alan

Sheridan (New York: Vintage, 1975), p. 191.45. Miri Rubin, Corpus Christi: the Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 131–34; SaraBeckwith, Christ’s Body: Identity, Culture and Society in Late Medieval Writings(New York: Routledge, 1993), p. 23; Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of theAltars: Traditional Religion in England 1400–1580 (New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press, 1992), pp. 96–102.

46. Rubin, Corpus Christi, pp. 243–71; Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars,pp. 109–117; and Mervyn James, “Ritual, Drama, and Social Body in theLate Medieval Town,” Past and Present, 98 (1983): 3–29.

47. See Susan Crane’s The Performance of Self: Ritual, Clothing, and IdentityDuring the Hundred Years War (Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaPress, 2002), chapter 1 and chapter 4; Louise O. Fradenburg, City, Marriage,Tournament: Arts of Rule in Late Medieval Scotland (Madison, WI: Universityof Wisconsin Press, 1991).

48. Stanbury, “Regimes of the Visual in Premodern England,” p. 279.49. Middle English Lyrics, ed. Maxwell S. Luria and Richard L. Hoffman

(New York: Norton, 1974), #215, (p. 208).50. Stanbury, “Regimes of the Visual in Premodern England,” pp. 271–73.51. Biernoff, Sight and Embodiment in the Middle Ages, pp. 133–64.52. See Phillipa Hardman, “Chaucer’s Man of Sorrows: Secular Images of Pity

in the Book of the Duchess, the Squire’s Tale, and Troilus and Criseyde,” Journalof English and Germanic Philology 93 (1994): p. 206 [204–27], who shows thatfourteenth-century lyrics depicting Christ’s suffering ask the reader “to‘behold,’ ‘look,’ ‘see’ the sorrows and pains of Christ,” which she connectsto the growing popularity of the Man of Sorrows in continental, thenEnglish art. Such cues to pity, Hardman argues, p. 219, are a “challenge: anopportunity to assess one’s own emotional health, to discover byconfronting the archetype of sorrow whether one has a pitiful human heart,or an unmoved and ‘fendly’ one.”

N O T E S192

53. Middle English Lyrics, #212 (p. 206).54. Middle English Lyrics, #217 (p. 209).55. Sara Lipton, “The Sweet Lean of His Head”: Writing about Looking at the

Crucifix in the High Middle Ages,” Speculum 80 (2005): 1172–208. Also seeJeffrey Hamburger, The Visual and the Visionary: Art and Female Spirituality inLate Medieval Germany (New York: Zone Books, 1998), pp. 100–108, whodiscusses what he calls the “topography of visionary experience.”

56. Carruthers, Craft of Thought, pp. 77–81.57. V. A. Kolve, Chaucer and the Imagery of Narrative: the First Five “Canterbury

Tales” (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994), p. 30.58. As Rosemary Woolf, The English Religious Lyric in the Middle Ages (Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1968), pp. 184–85, explains of the imago pietatis, “Christ isshown oppressed by suffering, although the Crucifixion is past, as thewounds in hands, feet, and side bear witness. . .The intention is entirelymeditative, to confront the beholder with a timelessly suffering Christ andthus to arouse his compassion.”

59. R. A. Shoaf, “Stalking the Sorrowful H(e)art: Penitential Lore and theHunt Scene in Chaucer’s ‘The Book of the Duchess,’ ” Journal of English andGermanic Philology 78 (1979): 313–24.

60. Karma Lochrie, Covert Operations: the Medieval uses of Secrecy (Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999), especially chapter 1.

61. Mary Carruthers, “ ‘The Mystery of the Bed Chamber’: Mnemotechniqueand Vision in Chaucer’s The Book of the Duchess,” The Rhetorical Poetics of theMiddle Ages: Reconstructive Polyphony, ed. John M. Hill and DeborahM. Sinnreich-Levi (Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2000),p. 79 [67–87], makes the connection between confession and elegy explicit:“The elegiac poem is like a confession only because both activities aredependent on memory-work. Each involves a sustained, deliberate act ofremembering, though their goals are different. Both also begin in grief,mourning (for one’s self, for another) as the matrix of remembering.”

62. See Minnis, Shorter Poems, p. 125.63. See Guillaume de Machaut, Jugement dou Roy de Behaigne and Remede de

fortune, ed. James I. Wimsatt, William W. Kibler, and Rebecca A. Baltzer,The Chaucer Libarary (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1988),pp. 112–15 (ll. 1050–107); and pp. 218–23 (ll. 905–1000).

64. See George Lyman Kittredge, “Guillaume De Machaut and the Book of theDuchess,” PMLA 30 (1915): 1–24, who argues that the image of Fortune isinfluenced by the Remede de fortune, Jugement dou Roy de Behaigne, the eighthMotet, and Comfort.

65. Minnis, “Langland’s Ymaginatif,” p. 73, points out that the chimera wasitself an animal produced from the recombination of imagistic fragments(a lion’s head, a goat’s body, and a serpent’s tail).

66. The Lanterne of Li{t, ed. L. M. Swinburn, EETS, OS 151 (London: K. Paul,Trench, Trübner, & Co. for EETS, 1917), p. 37.

67. Fifteenth Century Prose and Verse, ed. A. W. Pollard (London: A. Constable &co., 1903), p. 137.

N O T E S 193

68. Kittredge, “Guillaume De Machaut and the Book of the Duchess” argues thatChaucer is here indebted to Machaut’s ninth Motet. Also relevant is Vincentof Beauvais’s claim, Speculum naturale, Speculum quadruplex; sive, Speculummaius, vol. 1(Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlaganstalt, 1964–65),20.95.col.1549, that the scorpion has a face “somewhat like a maiden’s.”

69. Carruthers, “Mystery of the Bedchamber,” p. 80, claims that chess is a gameof memory because “It is a game of patterns, one that depends on ‘finding’images in places, the essential technique of memory. And these rememberedpatterns enable the invention of each new game.” Despite the relationaladaptability of medieval chess, the remembered moves that Carruthers citesgive the impression of permanence, at least by the time that LudwigWittgenstein uses chess as an example of rule-following in Zettel, ed.G. E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von Writght, trans. G. E. M. Anscombe,2nd edn. (1967; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981), 320 (p. 58): “. . .if you followother rules than those of chess you are playing another game” (emphasis orig-inal). Certainly, we can see that Black reads the rules of chess as static, andthat he lacks the inventive capacity to adapt to changing situations.

70. H. J. R. Murray, A History of Chess (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913),p. 423.

71. H. J. R. Murray, A History of Chess, p. 426.72. H. J. R. Murray, A History of Chess, pp. 426–27.73. Peter W. Travis, “White,” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 22 (2000): 1–66.

I am highly indebted to Travis’s exhaustive inquiry into the ways that“White” precipitates misrecognition in relation to medieval debatesconcerning meaning and reference in language. My interest in his thinkingabout this meconaissance is the potentially deliberate character of Black’smisrecognition. As we see with the fers confusion, misrecognition can beapplied to preserve categorical stability in one instance by sacrificing clarityin the case of another seemingly stable distinction.

74. See Jenny Adams, “Pawn Takes Knight’s Queen: Playing with Chess in theBook of the Duchess,” Chaucer Review 34 (1999): 125–38, who insightfullyconnects the high stakes of Black’s game to the widespread practice ofgambling on chess.

75. See Jacques Derrida, “Plato’s Pharmacy,” Literary Theory: An Anthology,ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1998),pp. 429–50, who posits the “logic of the supplement” as a continual threatto invention, insofar as the creator’s place is continually subject todisplacement.

76. Matthew de Vendôme, Ars Versificatoria, Les Arts poétiques du XII et XIIIsiècles, ed. Edmond Faral (Paris: E. Champion, 1924), pp. 121–31. Matthewhas seven models of description, each of which moves from describingexterior features to interior worth.

77. Travis, “White,” pp. 13–18.78. Travis, “White,” p. 17.79. Lynch, “The Book of the Duchess as a Philosophical Vision,” pp. 288–95.

Like anyone who has tackled this knotty topic, I am greatly indebted to

N O T E S194

Katherine Tachau’s work. Particularly important to what follows is herVision and Certitude, esp. chapter 1 and chapter 5. Also, her article “TheProblem of the Species in Medio at Oxford in the Generation after Ockham,”Mediaeval Studies 44 (1982): 394–443, is highly valuable for my thinkingabout the mediating role of species in cognitive conceptions of distance.

80. See Tachau, Vision and Certitude, pp. 115–35. See William of Ockham,Opera philosophica et theologica, II Rep, Q. 12–13, eds. P. Boehner, G. Gál,and Steven Brown, 7 vols. (St. Bonaventure, NY: Editiones InstitutiFranciscani Universitatis S. Bonaventurae, 1974–88) vol. 5 p. 269, lines1–6: “Et ideo concedo quod in omni sensu, tam interiori quam exteriori, estcognito intuitiva, hoc est, talis cognitio virtute cuius potest praedicto modocognoscere rem esse vel non esse, licet non sit cognitio intuitive ocularis. Etin hoc decipiuntur multi: credunt enim quod nulla sit cognitio intuitiva nisiocularis, quod falsum est.” [I concede that there is intuitive cognition inevery sense, interior as well as exterior—that is, such cognition by virtue ofwhich, in the aforesaid way, a thing is known to be or not to be; granted,this is not ocular intuitive cognition. And, in this way, many are deceived:for they believe that there is not intuitive cognition unless it is ocular, whichis false.]. And further, II Rep. Q. 12–13, Opera philosophica et theologica, 5,p. 268: lines 1–11: “Ad cognitionem intuitivam habendam non oportetaliquid ponere praeter intellectum et rem cognitam, et nullam speciempenitus. Hoc probatur, quia frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri perpauciora. Sed per intellectum et rem visam, sine omi specie, potest fieri cog-nitio intuitiva, igitur etc.” [it is useless to achieve by more things what canequally well be achieved by fewer; but intuitive cognition can occur bymeans of the intellect and the thing seen, without any species.]

81. Ockham’s objection to species can be considered antirepresentational. SeeA. Stephen McGrade, “Seeing Things: Ockham and Representationalism,”L’Homme et son Univers au Moyen Age, Philosophes Médiéaux 27 (Louvain-la-Neuve: 1986): 591–97. Ockham claims that habits are synonymous withspecies in Aristotle, and further argues that they are a locational way ofpreserving things past: II Rep. Q. 14, Opera philosophica et theologica, 5, p. 261,lines 13–18: “Cognitio autem intuitiva imperfecta est illa per quamiudicamus rem aliquando fuisse vel non fuisse. Et haec dicitur cognitiorecordativa; ut quando video aliquam rem intuitva, generatur habitus incli-nans ad cognitionem abstractivam, mediante qua iudico et assentio quodtalis res aliquando fuit quia aliquando vidi eam.”

82. William of Ockham, “Et per consequens potest sol immediate agree indistans” III Rep. Q. 12–13, Opera philosophica et theologica, 6, p. 53, line 7.

83. See Lindberg, Theories of Vision, pp. 104–22.84. Bacon, Perspectiva, I.v.1; also see I.vii.4.85. Bacon, Perspectiva, I.ix.4. See also De multiplicatione specierum, Pt. I.86. Tachau, Vision and Certitude, especially Part 3; her article, “The Problem of

the Species in Medio,” gives a more compact account.87. Heather Phillips, “John Wyclif and the Optics of the Eucharist,” From

Ockham to Wyclif, ed. Anne Hudson and Michael Wilks, Studies in Church

N O T E S 195

History 5 (London: Blackwell, 1987), p. 247, n. 12 [245–58], provides therelevant passages of comparison between the two writers.

88. Phillips, “John Wyclif and the Optics of the Eucharist,” pp. 253–56.89. For example, see De Eucharistia, ed. J. Loserth and F. D. Matthew, Wyclif

Society (London: Trübner, 1892), pp. 11–13.90. John Wyclif, Tractatus de Mandatis Divinis, ed. J. Loserth and F. D. Matthew,

Wyclif Society (London: C.K. Paul, 1922), pp. 152–58. Wyclif claimed thatthe exposure to images could have good or ill effects: in their “proper”usage, the exposure to images kindled the faith of the mind, encouragingdevout worship of God. By contrast, in negative instances, an image couldlead one astray from true faith, which would entail adoration of an imagewith latria (the adoration due to God alone). His distinction between theproper and improper use of images is summed up in his statement, p. 156,“Et patet quod ymagines tam bene quam male possunt fieri: bene adexcitandum, facilitandum et accendendum mentes fidelium, ut colantdevocius Deum suum; et male ut occasione ymaginum a veritate fideiaberretur, ut ymago illa vel latria vel dulia adoretur. . .”

91. G. R. Owst, Preaching in Medieval England: An Introduction to SermonManuscripts of the Period c. 1350–1450 (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1926), p. 131, identified a group of writings that constituted a non-heretical critique of images. See also G. R. Owst, Literature and the Pulpit inMedieval England (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1961), pp. 135–50.Margaret Aston, Lollards and Reformers: Images and Literacy in Late MedievalReligion (London: Hambledon Press, 1984), p. 153 n. 65, suggests that thesewritings might be called “Wycliffite” Lollardy, since Wyclif preservedGregory the Great’s claim that images were books for the unlearned even ashe criticized the improper use of images as idolatry.

92. Wyclif was not alone, nor was he unorthodox, in cautioning against thedeceptive power of images. Citing Grosseteste, Wyclif claims in TractatusDe Mandatis Divinis, p. 64, that “the variety of apparel, buildings, utensils,and other objects invented by pride constitutes the book or graven image ofthe devil, by which mammon or another is worshipped in the image.Therefore the whole church, or a great part of it, is tainted by this idolatry,because the works of their hands are effectively more highly valued thanGod.” His comments are similar to those of Richard Fitzralph, (Owst,Literature and the Pulpit, p. 141) who claims that “those who venerate suchimages for their own sake and make offerings to them to procure healing orbenefits of some kind appear to be true and potent idolators.” And, asNicholas Watson illustrates in his “ ‘Et que est huius ydoli materia? Tuipse’:Idols and Images in Walter Hilton,” Images, Idolatry, and Iconoclasm in LateMedieval England: Textuality and the Visual Image, ed. Jeremy Dimmick,James Simpson, and Nicolette Zeeman (Oxford: Oxford University Press,2002), pp. 95–111, before Hilton penned his defense of images in his Deadoracione ymaginum, he had used iconoclastic rhetoric to represent the sinfulsoul in several works, both Latin and vernacular.

N O T E S196

93. On the Twenty-Five Articles, Select English Works of John Wyclif, ed. ThomasArnold, vol. 3 (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1971), p. 463.

94. John Wyclif, Sermones, vol. 2, ed. J. Loserth and F. D. Matthew, WyclifSociety (London: Trübner, 1888), p. 165.

95. On the Twenty-Five Articles, p. 463.96. On the Twenty-Five Articles, p. 463.97. As the charge against and answer of an accused heretic from the turn of the

fifteenth century indicates, the legitimacy of image-making depended onthe affective effect of an image’s figuration in the century after Chaucer’sdeath. While the “Sixteen Points on which the Bishops Accuse Lollards,”English Wycliffite Writings, ed. Anne Hudson (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1978), p. 19, claims “Qat neiQer crosse ne ymages peyntedor grauen in Qe worship of God or any oQer seyntis in Qe chirche shuld beworschipid,” the accused replied, p. 23, that “Qe making of ymages trewlypeynted is leueful, and men mowen leuefuliche worschippe hem in summanere, as signes or tokones.”

98. Spearing, Medieval Dream-Poetry, p. 55.99. Ardis Butterfield, “Lyric and Elegy in The Book of the Duchess,” Medium

Aevum 60 (1991): p. 50 [33–60].100. Butterfield, “Lyric and Elegy in The Book of the Duchess,” p. 39.101. MED s.v. “colour,” (n.) (4), and (5b), associate “color” with devices of

rhetoric, and those with deception. As I note later, this usage was oftentaken up by those who resisted the use of images in devotional practice.

102. Andreas Capellanus, The Art of Courtly Love, trans. John Jay Perry (New York:Columbia University Press, 1941), p. 31, makes it clear that love is an interac-tive ideal: “Love gets its name (amor) from the word for hook (amus), whichmeans ‘to capture’ or ‘to be captured,’ for he who is in love is captured in thechains of desire and wishes to capture someone else with his hook. . .so the manwho is a captive of love tries to attract another person by his allurements andexerts all his efforts to unite two different hearts with an intangible bond. . .”

103. See Robin Hass, “ ‘A Picture of Such Beauty in their Minds’: The MedievalRhetoricians, Chaucer, and Evocative Effictio,” Exemplaria 14 (2002):383–422. Also see Valerie Allen, “Portrait of a Lady: Blaunche and theDescriptive Tradition,” English Studies 74 (1993): 324–42, who argues thatChaucer attempts to render a more complex method of description forBlanche by admitting a relation between mind and body.

104. Hass, “A Picture of Such Beauty in their Minds,” p. 408.105. Minnis, Shorter Poems, p. 86.106. Minnis, Shorter Poems, p. 87.107. Andrew Cowell, “The Dye of Desire: The Colors of Rhetoric in the

Middle Ages,” Exemplaria 11 (1999): pp. 116–18 [115–39]. As Carruthersand Ziolkowski point out, many medieval writers connect rhetoric’s colorswith perception, insofar as sight was described as its vehicle, with the othersenses serving as its “colors.”

108. Qtd. in Cowell, “The Dye of Desire,” p. 116.

N O T E S 197

109. Hugh of St. Victor, Didascalicon, IV, trans. Jerome Taylor (New York:Columbia University Press, 1961), p. 102.

110. As Cowell, “The Dye of Desire,” points out, p. 119, n. 13, Cistercianschose undyed cloth for their habits to avoid such associations withdissembling. See MED s.v. “blaunchen,” (v.) (1) which suggests that“blaunchen” can mean “white-wash” in a context that suggests iconoclasm.See particularly its usage in Mandeville: “A faire kirk all ouer whyteblaunched. . .for. . .Qe Sarzenes gert blaunche Qam. . .to fordo Qe payntureand Qe ymages Qat ware purtraid on Qe walles.”

111. The connection between coloring in language and art was sometimes madeexplicit by those who objected to images in devotional practice, as we see inthe Heresy Trials in the Diocese of Norwich 1428–31, ed. N. P. Tanner,Camden Fourth Series, vol. 20 (London: Offices of the Royal HistoricalSociety, 1977), p. 44, “lewd wrights of stokes hawe and fourme suche crossesand ymages, and after that lewd peyntors glorye thaym with colours. . .”

112. John Wyclif, Sermons, Select English Works of John Wyclif, ed. T. Arnold, vol. 2(1871), p. 15; Treatise of Miracle Plays, Reliquiae antiquae, ed. T. Wright andJ. O. Halliwell, vol. 2 (London: J.R. Smith, 1845), pp. 42–57.

113. Geoffrey de Vinsauf, The Poetria Nova, The Poetria Nova and its Sources inEarly Rhetorical Doctrine, ed. and trans. Ernest A. Gallo (Ann Arbor:University Microfilms, 1966), pp. 583–89: [. . .metumque polito /Marmore plus poliat Natura potentior arte. / Succuba sit capitis pretiosacolore columna / Lactea, quae speculum vultus supportet in altum / Excristallino procedat gutture quidam / Splendor, qui possit oculos referirevidentis / Et cor furari. . .].

114. See MED, s.v. “colourles,” (adj.) (b), which means “artless (style).”115. Diane M. Ross, “The Play of Genres in the Book of the Duchess,” Chaucer

Review 19 (1984): 1–13, identifies the three modes of expression the knightuses to identify White: lyric, allegory, and proces, or sequential narrative.Although she sees each of these modes ending in failure, I would argue,with many other critics, that this layered structure is an attempt to arrangethe knight’s identity in a fashion that covers over such failures with at leastthe image of consolation.

116. In William Caxton’s translation of the Book of the Knight of the Tower, ed.M. Y. Offord, EETS Supplementary Series 2 (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress for EETS, 1971), p. 150, ll. 10–14: Cxij, “Example of many good ladyesof tyme presente,” the Knight tells of many women who should be mademodels for emulation. Of the woman married to a “symple” man, the knightclaims: “And therfore she ought to be preysed in all estates / and to be setteamonge the good ladyes / how be it that she was no grete mystresse / but thegoodnes and bounte of her may be to al other a myrrour and exemplary /wherfore men ought not to hyde the fayttes and good dedes of ony woman.”

117. Qtd. in Owst, Literature and the Pulpit, p. 19.118. Robert Grosseteste, Carmina Anglo-Normannica: Robert Grosseteste’s Chasteau

d’Amour, to which are added, “La Vie de Sainte Marie Egyptienne” and an

N O T E S198

English version of the Chasteau d’Amour, ed. M. Cooke (1852; New York:Burt Franklin, 1967), ll. 392–93.

119. Russell A. Peck, “Chaucer and the Nominalist Questions,” Speculum53 (1978): 745–60.

120. This kind of declaration, since it is an attempt to remember the absentbeloved, finds particular resonance with Reginald Pecock’s defense ofimages in his treatise, The Repressor of Over Much Blaming of the Clergy, ed.Churchill Babington, Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain andIreland During the Middle Ages, 2 vols. (London: Longman, 1860), vol. 1,p. 268, when he argues that the affection produced by a (devotional) imageis similar to the remembrance of an absent friend: “Wherefore the othernext present being of his freend, which is next aftir his bodily present visiblebeing, is the next grettist meene aftir his bodily visible presence into thegendering of the seid affeccioun.” Even more striking, Pecock uses theimage of bodily embrace for a loved one to suggest the ways in whichimages of Christ move viewers to devotion, p. 271, “(euen ri{t as we hanexperience that oon persoon gendrith more loue to an other, if he biclippehim in armys, than he shulde, if he not come so ny{ to him and not biclip-pid him,)—it muste nedis folewe, if thou ymagine Crist or an other Seintfor to be bodili strei{t thoru{out the bodi of the ymage, that thou shalt gendre,gete, and haue bi so miche the more good affeccioun to God or to theSeint, that thou dost to him touching him in the ymage as bi ymaginacioun.”

121. Pecock. The Repressor of Over Much Blaming of the Clergy, p. 272.122. Denis Walker, “Narrative Inconclusiveness and Consolatory Dialectic in

the Book of the Duchess,” Chaucer Review 18 (1983): 15 [1–17].123. See Jacques Derrida, “White Mythology,” Margins of Philosophy, trans. Alan

Bass (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), pp. 207–71, who usesthis term to refer to the misplaced metaphysical desire to strip language ofits figurative coloration.

124. Blanche of Lancaster died, probably of plague, in 1368. See Minnis, ShorterPoems, pp. 80–81. Chaucer’s reference to the poem as “the Deeth ofBlaunche the Duchesse” in the Prologue to the Legend of Good Womenmakes the poem’s occasional status clear, even though it does not establisha definitive date for the composition or performance of the poem.

125. Phillipa Hardman, “The Book of the Duchess as a Memorial Monument,”Chaucer Review 28 (1994): 209 [208–13].

126. See Sydney Armitage-Smith, John of Gaunt (New York: Barnes and Noble,1964), pp. 75–78; pp. 138–41. For discussions of John of Gaunt’s marriage toBlanche as it relates to Chaucer’s poem, see Donald R. Howard, Chaucer: HisLife, His Works, His World (New York: Dutton, 1987); George Kane, Chaucer(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984); Derek Pearsall, The Life of GeoffreyChaucer: A Critical Biography (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1992). It should benoted that biographers of both Gaunt and Chaucer generally conclude thatGaunt’s affection was sincere. My point is a simpler one, and relates to theways in which Chaucer’s poem makes such sounding of sincerity impossible.

N O T E S 199

As Minnis, Shorter Poems, points out, p. 77, “In the final analysis, we cannotclaim familiarity with Gaunt.” Also see, Adams, pp. 134–35, who emphasizesthe contractual, arranged character of Gaunt’s marriage to Blanche.

Chapter 4 Which Wife? What Man? Gender Invisibility between Chaucer’s

Wife and Shipman

1. Richard F. Jones, “A Conjecture on the Wife of Bath’s Prologue,” Journalof English and Germanic Philology 24 (1925): 512–47; Robert A. Pratt, “TheDevelopment of the Wife of Bath,” in Studies in Medieval Literature, ed.MacEdward Leach (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1961):45–79; William W. Lawrence, “Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale,” Speculum33 (1958): 56–68; and William W. Lawrence, “The Wife of Bath and theShipman,” Modern Language Notes 72 (1957): 87–88.

2. See MED, s.v. “revelous,” “revelry” Although the MED defines the wordas “disposed to revelry, merry,” and defines “revelrie” as “amusement,diversion, pleasure,” the word “revelour” is used with pejorative connota-tions in the Wife of Bath’s Prologue (III. 453) and in the Cook’s Tale (“Perkynrevelour”). Furthermore, other virtuous women in the tales are separatedfrom adjectives that do not suggest gravity and propriety. For example,Canacee in the Squire’s Tale (V. 360ff.) and Virginia in the Physician’s Tale(VI. 61) are distanced from “revelry.” Here I pursue the argument, force-fully and eloquently articulated by Mary Carruthers, “The Wife of Bath andthe Painting of Lions,” PMLA 94 (1979): 209–22, that the rules outlined forwomen in books of deportment are themselves subject to qualificationwhen transferred to the domain of the late fourteenth-century household.

3. William F. Woods, “A Professional Thyng: The Wife as Merchant’sApprentice in the Shipman’s Tale,” Chaucer Review 24 (1989): 140 [139–49].

4. Peter Beidler, “Contrasting Masculinities in The Shipman’s Tale: Monk,Merchant, and Wife,” Masculinities in Chaucer, ed. Peter Beidler(Cambridge, UK: D. S. Brewer, 1998), p. 142 [131–42].

5. “Reconstruction,” as a term dating from the reformulation of the AmericanUnion after the Civil War, suggests that the political position one has heldis in need of correction so that it corresponds to the ideas of the polis. Seethe OED, s.v. “unreconstructed,” which suggests this term’s relation topolitical heterodoxy. The neologism “unreconstructed” first appears inThe Liberator, November 17, 1865, and again in the December issues, whereit is used by radical Republicans to suggest an ideological fixity that wouldpreclude a political change of heart on the part of former southern rebels(and would thus argue for a denial of citizenship). By January 1866 this termgains wider momentum, popping up in the New York Times. It is finallyreappropriated by southern writers in May, 1867, in a piece in the SouthernCultivator. Warm thanks to David Shields for directing me to thesereferences.

N O T E S200

6. For examples of this long tradition, see Robert K. Root, The Poetry ofChaucer (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1906), p. 189; Donald R. Howard,The Idea of the “Canterbury Tales” (Berkeley: University of California Press,1976), p. 276; Murray Copland, “The Shipman’s Tale: Chaucer andBoccaccio,” Medium Aevum 35 (1966): 11–28. Robert Adams, “TheConcept of Debt in the Shipman’s Tale,” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 6(1984), pp. 87–88 [85–102], sees the tale’s lack of moral focus as part of a(moral) critique: “however puzzling or shocking its [amoral] conclusionmay be, the body of the narrative does contain an indirect moral critique ofthe way of life it describes.” This focus on the tale’s (im)morality is alsotaken up by Michael W. McClintock, “Games and the Players of Games:Old French Fabliaux and the Shipman’s Tale,” Chaucer Review 5 (1970):112–36; George R. Keiser, “Language and Meaning in Chaucer’s Shipman’sTale,” Chaucer Review 12 (1977–78): 147–61; and Gerhard Joseph,“Chaucer’s Coinage: Foreign Exchange and the Puns of the Shipman’sTale,” Chaucer Review 17 (1983): 341–57.

7. See A. C. Spearing, The Medieval Poet as Voyeur: Looking and Listening inMedieval Love-Narratives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993),especially chapters 1 and 2, for an excellent analysis of the ways thatpsychoanalytic theories of looking intersect (or miss) medieval ideas aboutthe privileges and dangers that accompany the ability to see from an unseenposition. Spearing’s discussion of Actaeon, pp. 35–39, which he argues is anarrative moment that includes the audience in the transgression of looking,is a good example of the moral responsibility that attaches to looking in themedieval (and early modern) imagination.

8. Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. AlanSheridan (New York: Vintage, 1979), pp. 201–4, explains that theinvisibility of power is the key to panopticism’s success.

9. Vern L. Bullough, “On Being a Male in the Middle Ages,” MedievalMasculinities: Regarding Men in the Middle Ages, ed. Clare Lees (Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1994), pp. 31–45. As The Goode Man TaghtHys Sone, Trials and Joys of Marriage, ed. Eve Salisbury (Kalamazoo, MI:Medieval Institute, 2002), also makes clear, a husband was expected tosatisfy his wife, by among other things, providing her with clothing. I amalso influenced in my interpretation of masculine responsibility in thischapter by Anne Laskaya, Chaucer’s Approach to Gender in the “CanterburyTales,” Chaucer Studies XXIII (Cambridge, UK: D. S. Brewer, 1995),pp. 15–31; pp. 176–88.

10. As Myne Awen Dere Sone, ed. Tauno F. Mustanoja NeuphilologischeMitteilungen 49 (1948): 145–93, puts it, “To wynne Qe wyrschyp andhonoure. / Be liberall, sone, curtase, and wyse, / If Qou will wyn Qe lofeand pryse” (lines 386–88).

11. In The Consail and Teiching at the Vys Man Gaif His Sone, Ratis Raving andother Moral and Religious Pieces in Prose and Verse, ed. J. R. Lumby, EETS 43(Oxford: Oxford University Press for EETS, 1870) the speaker refuses tocounsel his son on whether or not to take a wife. His outline of the stages

N O T E S 201

of life, however, suggests that marriage is a natural stage in a young man’stransition from youth to maturity. The new husband marks his wisdom,moreover, by treating his wife well, and by acting blamelessly]: “Be war,my veddyt sone, for-thy / And treit thi wyf recht tendyrly; / And gyf hircauß of gud bounte, / Sa that defalt be nocht in thee” (lines 1800–1803).

12. See Lee Patterson, “ ‘For the Wyves Love of Bathe’: Feminine Rhetoric andPoetic Resolution in the Roman de la Rose and the Canterbury Tales,” Speculum58 (1983): 656–95, for a discussion of the Wife of Bath’s ability to use dilatio inorder to resist the linear rhetoric of her male opponents. See also, Susan K.Hagen, “The Wife of Bath: Chaucer’s Inchoate Experiment in FeministHermeneutics,” Rebels and Rivals: The Contestive Spirit in the “CanterburyTales,” ed. Susanna Greer Fein, David Raybin, and Peter C. Braeger(Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University, 1991), p. 112, [105–24], whousefully identifies the critical tendency to use the “values of the prevailingauthority. . .to judge the Wife at fault for being in opposition to those values.”

13. See John A. Alford, “The Wife of Bath Versus the Clerk of Oxford,”Chaucer Review 21 (1986): 113 [108–32], for an analysis of the differentstrategies of Alisoun and the Clerk in terms of the distinction between phi-losophy and rhetoric. His suggestion that the Clerk’s method ( philosophy)is a linear disposition that is “terse, moral, guided by knowledge, motivatedby the desire for truth,” is similar to Jankyn’s in its formal organization andostensible purpose. Also see Robert A. Pratt, “Jankyn’s Book of WikkedWyves: Medieval Antimatrimonial Propaganda in the Universities,”Annuale Mediaevale 3 (1962): 5–27, who traces the prevalence of thecontents in Jankyn’s book in clerical discourse, particularly at Oxford.

14. Carruthers, “The Wife of Bath and the Painting of Lions,” p. 222, n. 38.15. Catharine MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), p. 168. Also see Karma Lochrie,Covert Operations: The Medieval Uses of Secrecy ( Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Press, 1999), pp. 135–76, for a fascinating discussion ofmaking women into men’s secrets.

16. The medieval household was not a private space that was unseen by others.See David Herlihy Medieval Households (Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1985), pp. 149–55, for a discussion of the circulation ofmembers in the household during the late Middle Ages. Paul Strohm, SocialChaucer (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), pp. 24–44,explains that the royal household was simply an assemblage of persons. As anidea, then, even in more urban, mercantile arrangements, the householdwas not a bounded space outside the perusal of others. Moreover, as BarbaraHanawalt explains in her Crime and Conflict in Medieval England, 1300–1348(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979), pp. 155–60; The Tiesthat Bound: Peasant Families in Medieval England (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 1986), pp. 205–19; and Growing Up in Medieval London: The Experienceof Childhood in History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), medievalliving arrangements, especially in urban settings, were more open to theperusal of neighbors than those of later periods.

N O T E S202

17. What I am suggesting, then, is that privacy in the Middle Ages is always afabrication. As Herlihy explains, Medieval Households, pp. 112–30, thoseboundaries were often designated by roles that persons were meant toperform.

18. See Sheila Delany, “Strategies of Silence in the Wife of Bath’s Recital,”Exemplaria 2 (1990): 49–69; and Susan Signe Morrison, “Don’t Ask, Don’tTell: The Wife of Bath and Vernacular Translations,” Exemplaria 8 (1996):97–123. Also see Lochrie, Covert Operations, pp. 56–61.

19. This point recalls Chauntecleer’s famous assertion, “Mulier est hominisconfusio” (VII. 3164), which is, according to Benson, Riverside Chaucer, 3rdedn. (New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 1987), p. 939, “Part of a comic defi-nition of woman so widely known that it was almost proverbial.” For asurvey of its circulation, see Carleton Brown, “Mulier est HominisConfusio,” Modern Language Notes 35 (1920): 479–82. One example of thispassage, from the pseudo “Letter of Blessed Bernard to Abbot Codrille,”makes explicit the connection between woman as riot and the reduction ofman’s stature: “Woman is man’s confusion—an insatiable beast, a continualcare, the dwelling of turbulence, an impediment to chastity, a man’sdestruction, the channel of adultery; she is the enslaving of man, and hisheaviest weight of all,” qtd. in Carolly Erickson, The Medieval Vision: Essaysin History and Perception, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), p. 201.

20. As Melibee attests (VII. 1055; see chapter 1 of this book for a discussion), itwas common wisdom that men should not reveal secrets to women. Whileadmonitory literature such as Myne Awen Dere Sone suggests that menshould guard their private dealings with anyone, Alisoun herself affirms thestock belief that women could not keep secrets through her Midas account(III. 969–73).

21. For information about the spread of this faux etymology, see Henry AnsgarKelly, “Rule of Thumb and the Folklaw of the Husband’s Stick,” Journal ofLegal Education 44 (1994): 341–65; Medieval historians (see particularly thework of Hanawalt and Brundage) point to the paucity of statistical evidencedocumenting domestic violence as we define it now. This empirical scarcityis due at least in part to the visibility of domestic relations in the medievalhousehold, since there is also the suggestion that the networks of visiblesurveillance that were simply part of medieval community relations (thechurch, neighbors, and family) kept marital cruelty (the standard for maritalseparation) under their own watch.

22. See James A. Brundage, “Domestic Violence in Classical Canon Law,”Violence in Medieval Society, ed. Richard W. Kaeuper (Woodbridge: BoydellPress, 2000), pp. 183–95, who suggests that men could use a reasonablestandard of chastisement to subdue their wives, but who also explains thatmen who were abusive were condemned by canonists, to the extent that abused wives could seek legal separation from their violent spouses.The literature he surveys also suggests, interestingly, that clerics wereexpected to keep closer control over their wives, and thus were allowedgreater latitude in means of chastisement. Shulamith Shahar, The Fourth

N O T E S 203

Estate: A History of Women in the Middle Ages, trans. Chaya Galai (NewYork: Methuen, 1983), pp. 89–90, suggests that in some European towns,“men were punished for being beaten by their wives.” Barbara Hanawalt,“Violence in the Domestic Milieu of Late Medieval England,” Violence inMedieval Society, ed. Richard W. Kaeuper (Woodbridge: Boydell Press,2000), p. 197 [197–214], suggests that the addition of familial violence tothe 1352 Statute of Treason suggests that “the patriarchal establishmentseemed to fear violent insurrection from wives, apprentices, minor clergy,and servants as well.” As she explains, pp. 204–5, sermons, advice literature,and even historical incidents suggest that marital harmony was the domesticstate men were encouraged to foster. If a husband became abusive, thecommunity—either on its own or through legal means—would moderatethat man’s excessive discipline.

23. Emma Hawkes, “The ‘Reasonable’ Laws of Domestic Violence in LateMedieval England,” Domestic Violence in Medieval Texts, ed. Eve Salisbury,Georgiana Donavin, and Merrall Llewelyn Price (Gainesville: UniversityPress of Florida, 2002), pp. 57–70; I have found the following essays fromthe same volume particularly useful in my construction of this chapter:Philippa Maddern, “Interpreting Silence: Domestic Violence in the King’sCourts in East Anglia, 1422–1442,” pp. 31–56; Eve Salisbury, “Chaucer’s‘Wife,’ the Law, and the Middle English Breton Lays,” pp. 73–93; andGarrett P. J. Epp, “Noah’s Wife: The Shaming of the ‘Trew,’” pp. 223–41.

24. See the OED, s.v., “Rule of Thumb,” which is defined as “A method orprocedure derived entirely from practice or experience, without any basis inscientific knowledge; a roughly practical method.” As far as I can deter-mine, this phrase post-dates Chaucer’s culture, but as folklorists explain, itwas probably derived from a measurement of cloth that dates from theMiddle Ages.

25. “Sire Hain et Dame Anieuse,” Nouveau Recueil Complet des Fabliaux(NRCF), eds. Willem Noomen and Nico van den Boogaard, 10 vols.(Assen: Van Gorcum, 1983–98), 2.5. All translations of this fabliau are byN. E. Dubin, © 2003. Many thanks to Professor Dubin for allowing me touse his unpublished verse translation of this fabliau. See also, Chester MysteryCycle, ed. R. M. Lumiansky and David Mills, 2 vols. (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1974–86); The Towneley Plays, ed. Martin Stevens andA. C. Cawley 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994); Epp,“Noah’s Wife,” conducts an extremely useful comparative analysis of theseand other Noah plays in relation to issues of domestic violence.

26. NRCF, 2.5.120–21. Dubin’s translation conflates the domestic-politicalresonance of masculine governance: “Do you imagine you possess / Thesovereignty here already?”

27. NRCF, 2.5.260–69: [Sire Hains fu hastis & chaus, / Qui del ferir mout secoitoit; / N’en pot mes, quar mout le hastoit / Anieuse, qui pas nel doute: /Des deus poins si forment le boute / Que sire Hains va chancelant. / Quevous iroie je contant? / Tout furent sanglent lor drapel, / Quar maint cop &maint hatiplel / Se sont doné par grant aïr].

N O T E S204

28. NRCF, 2.5.378: [ {you must} obey and serve your man].29. NRCF, 2.5.383–85: [Par foi, bien le vueil creanter / Por que je m’en puisse

garder; Ainsi en vueil fere l’otroi].30. See Eileen Power, trans., The Goodman of Paris: A Treatise on Moral and

Domestic Economy by a Citizen of Paris (London: Routledge, 1928), p. 145.See the French in Le Mesnagier de Paris, ed. Georgina E. Brereton andJanet M. Ferrier, trad. Karin Ueltschi, Lettres Gothiques (Paris: LibrarieGénérale Française, 1994), I.vi.24. 1117–19. His emphasis, even in thispassage, is on keeping the appearance of the husband’s control intact, for hegoes on to say “nor behoveth it that your husband tell you the cause of hiscommandment, nor what moveth him, for that would seem a sign of yourwilling to do or not to do it according as the cause appeared good to you orotherwise, the which ought not to fall upon you nor upon your judgment,for it behoveth him alone to know it, and it behoveth not you to ask him,save it be afterwards, by your two selves alone and in private” (p. 145)Brereton and Ferrier, I.vi.24.1119–27.

31. NRCF, 2.5.364–67: [Si te covient d’ore en avant / Fere del tout a sonplesir, / Quar de ci ne pués tu issir / Se par son commandement non!].

32. Goodman of Paris, p. 137. Brereton and Ferrier, I.vi.10. 868; 869–72.33. Bartholomeus Anglicus, De proprietatibus rerum, trans. John Trevisa, ed.

Robert Steele (New York: Cooper Square, 1966), VI.13.74.34. How the Goode Man Taght Hys Sone, lines 130–32.35. The Book of the Knight of La Tour-Landry, ed. Thomas Wright, EETS 33

(London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. for EETS, 1868), chapter XVII, p. 25.

36. The belief in woman’s lack of reason, and thus measure, was widespread inthe clerical tradition. See Alcuin Blamires, ed. Woman Defamed and WomanDefended: An Anthology of Medieval Texts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992),for a variety of readings from the Latin and vernacular traditions that makethis assertion.

37. Qtd. in Erickson, The Medieval Vision, p. 204.38. Peggy Knapp, “Alisoun Weaves a Text,” Philological Quarterly 65 (1986),

pp. 398–99 [387–401], who gives a compelling reading of what she calls“four ways. . .[of ] seeing Alisoun” that culminates in an assertion thatAlisoun’s reconciliation with Jankyn mediates the oppositional strands ofcritical analysis (medieval and modern) that constitute the fabric of her text.

39. See Arlyn Diamond, “Chaucer’s Women and Women’s Chaucer,”The Authority of Experience, ed. Arlyn Diamond and Lee R. Edwards (Amherst:University of Massachusetts Press, 1977), pp. 60–83. Other useful readings thatconcentrate primarily on the Wife of Bath’s Tale include H. Marshall Leicester,Jr., “Of a Fire in the Dark: Public and Private Feminism in the Wife of Bath’sTale,” Women’s Studies 11 (1984): 157–78; Susan Crane, “Alison’s Incapacityand Poetic Instability in the Wife of Bath’s Tale,” PMLA 102 (1987): 20–28.

40. Helen Fulton, “Mercantile Ideology in Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale,” ChaucerReview 36 (2002): 311–28. For information on merchants’ changing socialposition in the late fourteenth century, see Sylvia Thrupp, The Merchant

N O T E S 205

Class of Medieval London (1948; repr. Ann Arbor Paperback, 1962). Otherrecent studies, most notably D. Vance Smith, Arts of Possession: The MiddleEnglish Household Imaginary (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,2003) esp. pp. 23–43; pp. 126–36, also suggests that the problematicaccount of their exchange of money in the medieval imaginary mademerchants more careful to conceal their identities in the public eye. WhileFulton, “Mercantile Ideology in Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale,” p. 312, agreesthat merchants did not mark their social identities through ostentatiousdisplays, she also points out that “By the late fourteenth century, merchantswere too powerful, too visible, too integral to the urban economy, espe-cially in London, to be marginalized through the odd satirical portrait orunflattering anecdote based on the conventional stereotype of the greedymaterialistic merchant.” In The Descryvyng of Mannes Membres, Twenty-SixPolitical and Other Poems, ed. J. Kail, EETS 124 (London, K. Paul, Trench,Trübner & Co. for EETS, 1904), p. 64, which compares the state to a man’sbody, merchants are represented as the thighs of the state.

41. Lee Patterson, Chaucer and the Subject of History (Madison: University ofWisconsin Press, 1991), p. 352; p. 365, suggests that the tale nods to thelegitimate inevitability of the bourgeois life. W. E. Rogers and P. Dower,“Thinking about Money in Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale,” New Readings ofChaucer’s Poetry, ed. Robert G. Benson and Susan J. Ridyard (Cambridge,UK: D.S. Brewer, 2003), pp. 119–38, give a helpful reading of Patterson’sargument as it relates to criticism of the tale.

42. See “The Qualities of a Gentleman,” Reliquiae Antiquae, ed. ThomasWright and J. O. Halliwell, 2 vols. (London: J. R. Smith, 1845) 1.252,which suggests that generosity is necessary for a man’s good repute.

43. In what follows I am greatly indebted to Alcuin Blamires’s article,“Refiguring the ‘Scandalous Excess’ of Medieval Woman: The Wife of Bathand Liberality,” Gender in Debate from the Early Middle Ages to the Renaissance,ed. Thelma S. Fenster and Clare A. Lees (New York: Palgrave, 2002),pp. 57–78. Although Blamires’s analysis focuses on the Wife of Bath, theassociation of liberality and masculinity in medieval discourse is important tomy analysis of the expansion of gender that takes place in the Shipman’s Tale.

44. See “Against the Pride of Ladies,” Political Songs of England from the Reign of Johnto that of Edward II, ed. T. Wright (London, Camden Society, 1839), p. 153.A host of short poems from the thirteenth through the sixteenth centuries(including pieces by Lydgate and Hoccleve) attack women’s affinity for“horns,” which came to stand for feminine excess in dress. Sir RichardMaitland’s Satire on the town Ladies, (sixteenth century) is particularly inter-esting because it attacks bourgeois wives who attempt to mimic the nobility andhence waste their husbands’ money.

45. See G. R. Owst, Literature and Pulpit in Medieval England (New York:Barnes and Noble, 1961), pp. 390–411, for a discussion of moralists’reactions against excesses in attire. He also cites a sermon in which thedaughters of the devil are described using references to contemporaryfashion: “for women settyn all here stodye in pride of array of here hed and

N O T E S206

of here body, to lokyn in myrrourys, in kemyng here heed, in here hornys,in peerlys, in other ryche array abowte the heed, in ryngys, in brochys, inhedys, in long trayles” (p. 96). While “The Pride of Women’s Horns,”Historical Poems of the XIVth and XVth Centuries, ed. Rossell Hope Robbins(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1959) p. 139, makes women’sextravagance its principal target, it also admits that men are equally guilty ofvanity in dress. Other poems, such as “A Song of Galaunt,” Ballads fromManuscripts, ed. Frederick J. Furnivall, The Ballad Society (London:Taylor & Co., 1868–73), 1.445, and “Against Proud Galaunts,” PoliticalPoems and Songs from the Accession of Edward III to That of Richard III, ed.T. Wright, 2 vols. (London: Rolls Series, 1859–61), 2.251, associate men’sfashion with the confusion of gender roles and the decay of society.

46. The Book of the Knight of La Tour-Landry , chapter XLVII, p. 62.47. Goodman of Paris, p. 50. Brereton and Ferrier, I.i.10.133–34; 136–37.48. Theresa Coletti, in her article, “The Mulier Fortis and Chaucer’s Shipman’s

Tale,” Chaucer Review 15 (1980–81): 236–49, argues that Chaucer’s initialdescription of the wife suggests that she is an inversion of the “good wife”from Biblical prescription.

49. See Benson’s explanatory notes to the Man of Law’s Epilogue (II.1163–190)for a survey of criticism that connects this passage, present in 35 MSS. to theissue of the Shipman’s Tale’s speaker.

50. Frederick Tupper, “The Bearings of the Shipman’s Prologue,” Journal ofEnglish and Germanic Philology 33 (1934): 352–71; Robert L. Chapman,“The Shipman’s Tale Was Meant for the Shipman,” Modern LanguageNotes 71 (1956): 4–5; and Hazel Sullivan, “A Chaucerian Puzzle,”A Chaucerian Puzzle and Other Medieval Essays, ed. Natalie GrimesLawrence and Jack A. Reynolds (Coral Gables: University of MiamiPress, 1961), pp. 1–46.

51. Michel de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life, trans. Steven Rendell(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), pp. xix, differentiatesstrategies and tactics between the powerful and the weak based on theiralternate appropriations of space (strategy) and time (tactic).

52. See Carolyn Dinshaw, Chaucer’s Sexual Poetics (Madison: University ofWisconsin Press, 1989), pp. 113–31; Dinshaw uses Irigaray even as shesurveys other feminist approaches to the tale.

53. Luce Irigaray, This Sex Which is Not One, trans. Catherine Porter (Ithaca,NY: Cornell University Press, 1985), p. 76.

54. Dinshaw, Chaucer’s Sexual Poetics, pp. 113–31; Susan Crane, Gender andRomance in Chaucer’s “Canterbury Tales” (Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress, 1994), pp. 86–92.

55. de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life, pp. 36–38, argues that strategiesattempt to spatialize positions of power by appealing to propriety of place.

56. Irigaray, This Sex Which is Not One, p. 77.57. See Kaja Silverman, Male Subjectivity at the Margins (New York and London:

Routledge, 1992), pp. 329–36 for a discussion of the ways that male powerarticulates itself outside regulatory strictures of control.

N O T E S 207

58. See John Ganim, “Double-Entry in Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale,” ChaucerReview 30 (1996): 294–305, who claims that the entire tale is an “allegory ofcreative bookkeeping” that involves passing off values through “organizingthe world into a system of tropes and understandable and manipulable units,consistent with a particular set of values” (p. 298; p. 296).

59. Glenn Burger, Chaucer’s Queer Nation (Minneapolis: University of MinnesotaPress, 2003), pp. 37–77, discusses the opportunities and pressures that thatan emerging emphasis on conjugal affection placed on lay gender roles inthe late Middle Ages.

60. John C. McGalliard, “Characterization in Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale,”Philological Quarterly 54 (1975): 1–18.

61. “Les Deus Changeors,” Nouveau Recueil Complet des Fabliaux (NRCF), eds.Willem Noomen and Nico van den Boogaard, 10 vols. (Assen, NE: VanGorcum, 1983–98), 5.51. All translations of this fabliau are by N. E. Dubin,© 2003. Thanks to Professor Dubin for allowing me to use his unpublishedverse translation of this fabliau.

62. Shoshana Felman, The Literary Speech Act: Don Juan with J.L. Austin, or Seductionin Two Languages (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983), p. 84.

63. Mary Flowers Braswell, “Chaucer’s ‘queinte termes of lawe’: A Legal Viewof the Shipman’s Tale,” Chaucer Review 22 (1988): 295–304.

64. See “Verses Concerning the Pepper-Mill,” The Literary Context of Chaucer’sFabliaux, ed. Larry D. Benson and Theodore M. Andersson (New York:Bobbs-Merrill, 1971) pp. 280–81; “The Priest and the Lady,” LiteraryContext, pp. 328–37. Gayle Rubin, “The Traffic in Women: Notes on thePolitical Economy of Sex,” Towards an Anthropology of Women, ed.Rayna R. Reiter (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1975), pp. 157–210,and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Between Men: English Literature and MaleHomosocial Desire (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985), pp. 1–27,provide analysis of the circulations of homosocial desire that “trafficking”women can facilitate between men.

65. Karma Lochrie, “Women’s ‘Pryvetees’ and Fabliau Politics in the Miller’sTale,” Exemplaria 6 (1994): 287–304.

66. NRCF, 5.51.105–7: [Au tesmoing que j’en ai veü. / Aucun pechié m’avoitneü / Que j’ai si tost fame espouse].

67. Giovanni Boccaccio, The Decameron, trans. G. H. McWilliam (London:Penguin, 1972), VIII,1; VIII, 2. See John Finlayson, “Chaucer’s Shipman’sTale, Boccaccio, and the ‘Civilizing’ of Fabliau,” Chaucer Review 36 (2002):336–51; and Carol F. Heffernan, “Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale andBoccaccio’s Decameron, VIII, 1: Retelling a Story,” Courtly Literature:Culture and Context, ed. Keith Busby and Erik Kooper (Amsterdam:Benjamins, 1990), pp. 261–70, for a more developed discussion ofconnections between these stories and Chaucer’s tale.

68. Boccaccio, Decameron, VIII, 1 and VIII, 2. While VIII, 1 is a story designedto punish a woman’s greed, VIII, 2 is supposed to illustrate the deceptivenature of priests. It is clear that the woman in VIII, 1 is punished, butBelcolore comes to a reconciliation with the priest, but only, as the tale

N O T E S208

points out, because he uses the authority of his office to frighten her: “ButBelcolore was infuriated with the priest for having made such a fool of her,and refused to speak to him for the rest of the summer until the grape-harvest,by which time he had scared the life out of her so successfully by threateningto see that she was consigned to the very centre of Hell, that she made herpeace with him over a bottle of must and some roast chestnuts” (p. 560).

69. Woods, “A Professional Thyng,” p. 147; Paul Stephen Schneider,“ ‘Taillynge Ynough’: The Function of Money in the Shipman’s Tale,”Chaucer Review 11 (1977): 207 [201–9], argues that the wife’s display ofaffection for her husband indicates that she will not be involved in similaradulterous exchanges in the future.

70. Thomas Hahn, “Money, Sexuality, Wordplay, and Context in the Shipman’sTale’, Chaucer in the Eighties,” ed. Julian N. Wasserman and Robert J. Blanch(Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1986), p. 235 [235–49].

71. As Derek Pearsall, The Canterbury Tales (London: George Allen & Unwin,1985), p. 214, notes, “The ease and speed with which she converts her ownoffence into a cause of complaint against her husband is nicely observed.”

72. David H. Abraham, “ ‘Cosyn and Cosynage’: Pun and Structure in theShipman’s Tale,” Chaucer Review 11 (1977): 319–27; Schneider, “ ‘TaillyngeYnough,’” pp. 201–9.

73. Joan Cadden, Meanings of Sex Difference in the Middle Ages: Medicine, Science,and Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 93–4;pp. 134–65; and pp. 247–48, traces converges and differences betweenmedical and moral views of sexual pleasure.

74. Goodman of Paris, pp. 184–86 (p. 184). Brereton and Ferrier, I.viii.11–12.75. Leo Bersani, “Is the Rectum a Grave?” AIDS: Cultural Analysis/Cultural

Activism, ed. Douglas Crimp (Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press,1988), p. 218 [197–202], where Bersani elaborates the often unrecognizedoscillation inherent to sexuality: “the self which the sexual shatters providesthe basis on which sexuality is associated with power. It is possible to thinkof the sexual as, precisely, moving between a hyperbolic sense of self and aloss of all consciousness of self. But sex as self-hyperbole is perhaps arepression of self as self-abolition.”

76. See James Brundage, Law, Sex, and Christian Society, (Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, 1987), whose discussions of marital sex during differentperiods is especially helpful. Although his flowchart of regulations stipulatedby various penitentials (figure 4.1, p. 162), predates Chaucer’s era, takentogether with his discussion of marital sex in the period after the black death(pp. 487–518), it becomes clear that marital sex was an activity that moral-ists feared would corrupt partners in a conjugal union. Strict regulation ofmarital sex, accordingly, was not only meant to save married couples fromthe sins of sensuality, but also to demonstrate the disciplined order that ruledeven the most private goings on in the household.

77. See Katharina Wilson and Elizabeth M. Makowski, eds.,“Wykked Wyvesand the Woes of Marriage”: Misogamous Literature from Juvenal to Chaucer(Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1990), especially chapter 4 for a survey of

N O T E S 209

materials that express this view. Also see Owst, Literature and the Pulpit,pp. 378–79.

78. Augustine, City of God, trans. Marcus Dods, introduction by ThomasMerton (New York: Modern, 1950), Book XIV, chapter 18 (pp. 466–67).Citing the revelatory shift in sight that occurs upon the fall, Augustineattributes sexual shame to both men and women. His examples of maritalsexuality, however, assume that a man controls the domain where such inti-macy takes place; thus he turns out servants, sends away attendants, and soon, so that his shame will not be revealed.

79. Bersani, “Is the Rectum a Grave?” p. 218.80. Besides articles by Richardson, and Adams, several other articles suggest

Biblical allusions in this tale as part of an undercurrent of morality in thetale. This Christian undertow, which assumes that medievals could seemarks of spirituality in ways that moderns cannot, is indebted to theAugustinian reading practices outlined by D. W. Robertson, Jr., in his rev-olutionary study, A Preface to Chaucer: Studies in Medieval Perspectives(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962), particularly pp. 52–137. I donot wish to argue against the contention that medievals had more acutepowers of spiritual insight than we do today. Instead I want to admit thatmedievals were just as prone to don cognitive blinders in their readings ofsigns that could carry spiritual import as we are in our more secular culture.In other words, while I am indebted to articles including Gail McMurrayGibson, “Resurrection as Dramatic Icon in the Shipman’s Tale,” Signs andSymbols in Chaucer’s Poetry, ed. John P. Hermann and John Burke, Jr.(University, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1981), pp. 102–112; LorraineKohanske Stock, “The Reenacted Fall in Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale,” Studiesin Iconography 7–8 (1981–82): 135–45; and R. H. Winnick, “Luke 12 andChaucer’s Shipman’s Tale,” Chaucer Review 30 (1995): 164–90, I do not seethat the spiritual ethos to which their analyses point is attached to any pointof view in the tale. Like other Old French fabliaux (Les quatre Sohais saintMartin, NRCF, 4.31; L’Esquiriel, NRCF, 6.58), this tale acknowledgestropes of common morality even as it refuses to affirm them.

Chapter 5 Miscellaneous Chaucer: Proverbial Masculinity in Harley 7333

1. John M. Manly and Edith Rickert, eds., The Text of the “Canterbury Tales”Studied on the Basis of All Known Manuscripts, vol. 1 (Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1940), p. 207. See Linne R. Mooney, “John Shirley’sHeirs,” Yearbook of English Studies 33 (2003): p. 190 [182–98], who suggeststhat Harley 7333 was written by “at least eight scribes.” Her division of thehands, which differs from that of Manly and Rickert, interests me becauseshe suggests that three scribes, one of whom was responsible for the portionof the manuscript containing Impingham’s proverbs, worked together in aclose collaborative relationship, “passing texts and quires from one to the

N O T E S210

other for completion” (p. 190). The three scribes that Mooney identifies areresponsible for the Shirleian material in this manuscript, which, incidentally,also means that these scribes were involved in producing the portions of thetext containing Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales and shorter poems (Mooney’sscribes B, C, and D also copied Shirleian material that was not by Chaucer,but they were responsible for all the Chaucer copying in the manuscriptaccording to her identifications). The maker of the Impingham proverbs,then, played a pivotal role in the compilation of Chaucer’s body of work inthis manuscript.

2. Margaret Connelly, John Shirley: Book Production and the Noble Household inFifteenth-Century England (Brookfield, IL: Ashgate: 1998), pp. 173–75; JuliaBoffey and John J. Thompson, “Anthologies and Miscellanies: Productionand Choice of Texts,” Book Production and Publishing in Britain, 1375–1475,ed. Jeremy Griffiths and Derek Pearsall (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1989), p. 280 [279–315]. John J. Thompson, “After Chaucer:Resituating Middle English Poetry in the Late Medieval and Early ModernPeriod,” New Directions in Later Medieval Manuscript Studies, ed. DerekPearsall, (Rochester, NY: York Medieval Press, 2000), pp. 189–90[183–99], makes a similar point in discussing this manuscript’s relevance toHoccleve’s self-promoting praise of Chaucer.

3. Ralph Hanna III, Pursuing History: Middle English Manuscripts and their Texts(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996), especially pp. 1–34.

4. A. I. Doyle, “Publication by Members of the Religious Orders,” BookProduction and Publishing in Britain, 1375–1475, ed. Jeremy Griffiths andDerek Pearsall (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 109–23;also see Christopher Cannon, “Monastic Productions,” The CambridgeHistory of Medieval English Literature, ed. David Wallace (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 316–48, who discusses the holdingsof late medieval monastic libraries and explores the atmosphere of patronagein monastic institutions of the late fifteenth century. In the case of Harley7333, however, Doyle cautions against too comfortable an assumption thatthe manuscript was produced at Leicester Abbey, since the spelling has beenassociated with North Hampshire by Jeremy Smith (Connelly, John Shirley,p. 186, n. 21). From the names and rebuses in the manuscript, however, it isclear that the manuscript was among the Abbey’s holdings by the latefifteenth century, and it is also clear that the manuscript was compiled there.The marginal notation on folio 150r, “Doctor Peni wirt this booke,” wouldappear to be a clear indication of production; but as Linne R. Mooney pointsout in her discussion, “John Shirley’s Heirs,” p. 194, this inscription appearson one of two folios that her “Scribe E” copied, and this quire is written bytwo hands that do not appear elsewhere in the manuscript. This annotation,then, because its fascicle is rather unique, does not settle the location of pro-duction for the manuscript. Since Leicester itself was a locus of royal powerduring the last years of Henry VI’s reign, most scholars who have consideredthis manuscript believe the Shirley exemplars would have come into the

N O T E S 211

hands of the Augustinian Canons through such contact, if not patronage.Ralph Hanna III, “Augustinian Canons and Middle English Literature,” TheEnglish Medieval Book: Studies in Memory of Jeremy Griffiths, ed. A. S. G. Edwards,Vincent Gillespie, and Ralph Hanna (London: British Library, 2000), p. 34[27–42], suggests that Shirley might have spent time at Leicester Abbey,perhaps among a group of long-term guests that Hanna describes as“Augustinian groupies.”

5. I date the emergence of medieval literary manuscript studies as the Yorkconference “The Literary Implications of Manuscript Study,” organized byDerek Pearsall and Elizabeth Salter in October, 1981. See Ralph Hanna III,“Analytical Survey 4: Middle English Manuscripts and the Study ofLiterature,” New Medieval Literatures 4 (2001): 243–64, for a survey andbibliography of this important field.

6. Indeed, if its library catalogue is to be believed, Leicester Abbey possessedone of the finest monastic libraries of late medieval England (with an incred-ible 900 volumes!). M. R. James in his survey “Catalogue of the Library ofLeicester Abbey,” Leicestershire Archaeological Society 19 (1937): p. 126[118–30], argues that the survival of the Leicester Abbey Catalogue is moreimportant than that of the library, because the catalogue suggests that thelibrary itself did not contain “many lost treasures.” Nevertheless, the prove-nance of Harley 7333 illustrates the local histories of particular volumes thatresulted from the bureaucratic mechanisms of the Dissolution. Recordingpersonal information of the Ithell family from the mid-sixteenth to the earlyseventeenth century, this manuscript was probably acquired from LeicesterAbbey by Peter Ithell, who was commissioned to make a survey ofLeicestershire’s ecclesiastical holdings in 1534–35. His family’s continued useof this volume as a repository for personal information suggests an interest-ing alternative to studies of the institutional construction of the post-Reformation library. Jennifer Summit’s claim in her article, “Monumentsand Ruins: Spenser and the Problem of the English Library,” English LiteraryHistory 70 (2003): [1–34], that “library-building served the ends of nation-building” remains true for bibliophiles like John Bale, John Leland, Sir JohnPrise, or the later Matthew Parker, but Ithell’s use of Harley 7333 suggeststhat the histories of unique volumes are also bound up with the histories ofindividual subjects and their families.

7. Manly and Rickert, The Text of the “Canterbury Tales,” p. 211.8. Seth Lerer, “Medieval English Literature and the Idea of the Anthology,”

PMLA 118 (2003): p. 1255 [1251–67], uses “anthologistic impulse” todescribe “the distinguishing feature of manuscripts or sections of manuscriptsguided by a controlling literary intelligence. . .[as] a moment when the ideaof the anthology is thematically present in the texts.”

9. As discussed above (n. 4), in recent years doubt has been cast on Manly andRickert’s proposition that Harley 7333 was copied by the canons at St. Mary dePratis in Leicester. Nevertheless, Mooney’s description of the close collabora-tion amongst the scribes might suggest a monastic production. Although theexistence of six scribes working together fits with the commercial production of

N O T E S212

vernacular literature as described by C. Paul Christianson, “Evidence for theStudy of London’s Late Medieval Manuscript-Book Trade,” Book Productionand Publishing in Britain, 1375–1475, pp. 87–108, and even though AndrewTaylor, “Manual to Miscellany: Stages in the Commercial Copying ofVernacular Literature in England,” Yearbook of English Studies 33 (2003): 1–17,shows that networks in which different book craftsmen worked on separatefascicles of a single volume existed as early as the thirteenth century, bothscholars suggest an independent yet interlocking structure for the production ofbooks before commercial scriptoria. Indeed, the existence of a close collaborativerelation, in which different scribes worked within the same quires, would pointto a more centralized framework for composition.

10. The “Catalogue of the Library of Leicester Abbey” lists several individualworks included in Harley 7333 that would suggest that as late as 1477 themanuscript booklets had not yet been bound together. See Manly andRickert, The Text of the “Canterbury Tales,” p. 216, for a discussion of themost well known of these titles. The library catalogue itself, which wasprinted in two consecutive issues of the Leicestershire Archaeological Society in1937, offers other possibilities.

11. Accepting John Guillory’s claim in his article, “Canonical and Non-canonical:A Critique of the Debate,” English Literary History 54 (1987): p. 488 [483–527],that the canon is a “selection of values,” and combining it with Ralph Hanna III’scontention in Pursuing History, p. 31, that miscellanies create “private,individual canons,” Seth Lerer, “Medieval English Literature,” p. 1254, exam-ines the way that the idea of the anthology “controlled much of thedissemination, marketing, and critical reception of vernacular English writing.”

12. Seth Lerer, Chaucer and His Readers: Imagining the Author in Late-MedievalEngland (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), p. 12.

13. This collection exists uniquely in British Library manuscript Harley 7333,fol. 121v–122r. Although the transcriptions I use in this article are my own,R. H. Bowers prints these proverbs and traces the circulation of theChaucerian proverbs and non-Chaucerian verses in his useful piece,“Impingham’s Borrowings from Chaucer,” Modern Language Notes 73(1958): 327–29. My departures from Bowers, noted in my discussion, dealwith spelling and punctuation.

14. See Hanna, Pursuing History, p. 9, who argues that unique volumes belie a“range or spectrum of literary communities.” These literary communities,I agree, produce authorial identities that are fitted to their immediatereaderships. The proverbs of Harley 7333 demonstrate, however, the waysin which situating reception as a matter of representation give such particularidentities wider resonance.

15. While Seth Lerer, “Medieval English Literature,” p. 1254, points out that“narrators often dramatize their acts of reading as acts of perusing ananthology,” these proverbs further suggest that the act of reading isrepresented as the compilation of an anthology.

16. Manly and Rickert, The Text of the “Canterbury Tales,” p. 215, counter thecommon assumption that “Impingham” is the name of a scribe by observing

N O T E S 213

that the hand is the same as most of the booklet, and so it is unlikely that thiswriter would sign only these twenty-six lines if he were only a copyist. JohnManly nominates Benedict Burgh, whose Cato and “Master Benet’sChristmas Game” are included in Harley 7333, noting that Burgh wasprebend of Empingham, Rutland, from 1463–77. This assignation, how-ever, is only speculative, since it depends on cellarer William Stoughton’sknowledge of Empingham based on the Abbey’s landholdings in the region.

17. See A. J. Minnis, Medieval Theory of Authorship, 2nd edn. (1984; Aldershot,Wildwood House, 1988), pp. 190–210, where Minnis explores Chaucer’sself-identification with the role of compiler. Glending Olson, “Making andPoetry in the Age of Chaucer,” Comparative Literature 31 (1979): 272–90,usefully traces the relationship between making and craftsmanship inmedieval vernacular literature.

18. As Seth Lerer suggests in Chaucer and his Readers, Chaucer’s later imitatorssaw him as an auctor whose sentences could be rearranged. As he argues,p. 11, to be an auctor was to be “one participant in an enterprise shared byscriptor, compilator, and commentator ”; Stephanie Trigg, Congenial Souls:Reading Chaucer from Medieval to Postmodern (Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press, 2002), pp. 74–108, demonstrates that many fifteenth-centuryChaucerians did not draw a line between textual criticism and imitation. Towrite as Chaucer was also to write about Chaucer.

19. Really, the problem is that there is no investigation of parity or lack thereofbetween these terms. Rather, there seems to be an uncomplicated elision oftwo uses of “writing.” In the first instance, “writing” is a sign of literacy thatcan be deployed for institutional ends or local resistance. See Brian Stock,The Implications of Literacy: Written Language and Models of Interpretation in theEleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,1983); Susan Crane, “The Writing Lesson of 1381,” Chaucer’s England:Literature in a Historical Context, ed. Barbara Hanawalt (Minnesota:University of Minnesota Press, 1992), pp. 201–21; and Steven Justice,Writing and Rebellion: England in 1381 (Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress, 1994). In the second, “writing” is a textual product that gainsmeaning through its material construction, transmission, and reception. Themost apparent examples of this treatment appear under the section headingof The Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature: “Writing in theBritish Isles,” which includes chapters on writing in Scotland, Ireland, andWales. Now certainly, these two terms overlap in key instances, like EmilySteiner’s investigation of “relationships between the institutional and theexpressive, the material and the textual, the literate and literary, and Latinand the vernacular” in her book, Documentary Culture and the Making ofEnglish Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 10.“Making,” a modern transliteration of a Middle-English term (whichadmittedly does not account for the multilingualism of medieval insularwriting anymore than any other English term does), gives a fuller sense ofthe ways that construction, transmission, and reception of texts connect our

N O T E S214

notions of writers and receivers, sometimes to the point of effacingdistinctions between them.

20. See MED s.v.: “maker(e)”: 3. (a)–(c); s.v.: “maken”: 5. (a)–(f ); s.v.“makinge”: 5. (a)–(c). All of these terms give a sense of ordinatio and compilatioas central components of the production of medieval texts. While manydefinitions of “writere” or “writen” or “writing” indicate the process ofcomposition commonly associated with authorship, only one definitionincludes acts of textual assembly as “writing,” and there perhaps only as ametaphor expressing the process of conjoining events in narrative sequence:s.v.: “writen” 5. (b): to compose (a treatise, song, and so on); also, compilethe narrative of (a saint’s life) [quot 1250]: St. Marg. (2) 301: “Theodoius Qeclerc, he wrot hire vie.”

21. It is because I strongly agree with David Wallace, who, in characterizing thehabits of the contributors to the Cambridge History of Medieval EnglishLiterature, p. xxi, claims that “Medieval literature cannot be understood(does not survive) except as part of transmissive processes—moving throughthe hands of copyists, owners, readers, and institutional authorities—thatform part of other and greater histories (social, political, religious, andeconomic),” that I believe we need a more finely calibrated term toacknowledge reception’s influence on literary meanings.

22. Justice, Writing and Rebellion, p. 261.23. Stephen Greenblatt, Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation of Social

Energy in Renaissance England (Berkeley: University of California Press,1988), p. 1.

24. Jeffrey Masten, Textual Intercourse: Collaborations, Authorship, and Sexualitiesin Renaissance Drama (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 1.

25. By focusing on the work of Greenblatt and Masten, I take seriously RalphHanna’s call for contact between medieval and early modern textual studiesin his “Analytical Survey 4.” However, in recognizing that “one cannotarbitrarily believe in period closure in book history” (p. 248), I alsoacknowledge that I am not pursuing Harley 7333’s later trajectories, whichmeans that I am making my own, limited, “medieval” version of thismanuscript.

26. As Andrew Taylor points out in his Textual Situations: Three MedievalManuscripts and their Readers (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,2002), p. 201, “one of the characteristics of the manuscript is that the simpledifficulty of piecing out the letters only reveals more clearly what is true tosome degree of any act of reading, that it is an act of desire.”

27. Kathleen Biddick, “Genders, Bodies, Borders: Technologies of theVisible,” Speculum 68 (1993): 389–418.

28. Lerer, “Medieval English Literature,” p. 1254; p. 1261.29. See Julia Boffey’s and A. S. G. Edwards’s article, “ ‘Chaucer’s Chronicle,’ John

Shirley, and the Canon of Chaucer’s Shorter Poems,” Studies in the Age ofChaucer 20 (1998): 201–18, which discusses other proverbial renderings ofChaucer in several manuscripts, particularly Additional 16165, as part of what

N O T E S 215

they describe as “the gradual establishment, through the later fifteenth andsixteenth centuries, of Chaucer’s reputation for gnomic wisdom” (p. 213).

30. See W. W. Skeat, ed., Early English Proverbs (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1910), p. 64, for parallels to this antithetical series.

31. Bowers, “Impingham’s Borrowings from Chaucer,” p. 328.32. The margins of Ha4 and Ht include the Latin legal maxim: “Qui in uno

gravatur in alio debet relevari.”33. See, Juvenal, Satire VI, Juvenal and Perseus, ed. and trans. G. G. Ramsay

(London: Routledge, 1918), p. 82; Jacques de Vitry, “Sermon 66,” WomanDefamed and Woman Defended: An Anthology of Medieval Texts, ed. AlcuinBlamires (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), pp. 146–47; and GiovanniBoccaccio, The Corbaccio, trans. Anthony K. Cassell (Urbana: University ofIllinois Press, 1975), p. 35.

34. Glending Olson, “Adam Scriveyn and the Book Curse,” Thirty-EighthInternational Congress on Medieval Studies, Western Michigan University,Kalamazoo, MI, May 8–11, 2003; I would like to thank Professor Olson forsharing and discussing this unpublished paper with me.

35. My phrasing her is indebted to Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: TheBirth of the Prison, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: Vintage, 1975), p. 203,who claims “visibility is a trap.”

36. See John S. P Tatlock, “The Epilog of Chaucer’s Troilus,” Modern Philology18 (1921): 625–59, for other examples of this habit. Looking forward to theengagement of readers with printed books, Sasha Roberts, ReadingShakespeare’s Poems in Early Modern England (New York: Palgrave, 2003),pp. 20–21, points out that the invitation to improve a text becomes a wayof gendering different readers. “Gentlemen” readers are asked to correct thetexts they read, while women readers are invited to play with texts theyperuse for entertainment.

37. John S. P. Tatlock, “The Canterbury Tales in 1400,” PMLA 50 (1935):100–139.

38. Judith Butler, Undoing Gender (New York: Routledge, 2004), pp. 10–16.

N O T E S216

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Albertus Magnus. Commentary on Aristotle, on Memory and Recollection. Trans.Jan M. Ziolkowski. The Medieval Craft of Memory: An Anthology of Texts andPictures. Ed. Mary Carruthers and Jan M. Ziolkowski. Philadelphia: Universityof Pennsylvania Press, 2002.

———. Summa de creatures. Opera omnia. Ed. Auguste Borgnet. Vol. 35. Paris, Vivès1895.

Amazon Women on the Moon. Dir. John Landis and Joe Dante. Universal Studios,1987.

Andreas Capellanus. The Art of Courtly Love. Trans. John Jay Perry. New York:Columbia University Press, 1941.

Aristotle. De anima. Trans. W. S. Hett as Aristotle: On the Soul, Parva Naturalia, onBreath. Loeb Classical Library 288. 1957; Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress, 1986.

———. De Generatione Animalium. Trans. A. L. Peck as Aristotle: Generation ofAnimals., Loeb Classical Library 366. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress, 1963.

Augustine. The City of God. Trans. Marcus Dods. New York: Modern Library,1950.

———. Confessions: Introduction and Text. Ed. James. J. O’Donnell. Vol. 1. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1992.

———. Confessions. Trans. R. S. Pine-Coffin. New York: Penguin, 1987.———. De Doctrina Christiana. Trans. D. W. Robertson, Jr. as On Christian

Doctrine. New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1958.———. Enarrationes in Psalmos, 140. Patrologia Latina 37. J. P. Migne: Paris, 1845.———. The Literal Meaning of Genesis. Trans. John Hammond Taylor. Ancient

Christian Writers. Ed. Johannes Quasten. Vol. 41–42. New York: Newman,1982.

———. The Trinity. Trans. S. McKenna. Fathers of the Church, 45. Washington,DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1963.

Bacon, Roger. De multiplicatione specierum. Roger Bacon’s Philosophy of Nature:A Critical Edition with English Translation, Introduction, and Notes, of “De multipli-catione specierum” and “De speculis comburentibus.” Ed. David C. Lindberg.Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983.

Bacon, Roger. The “Opus Majus” of Roger Bacon. Ed. John Henry Bridges. 2 vols.Frankfurt/Main: Minerva G.m.b.H, 1964.

———. The Opus Majus of Roger Bacon. Trans. Robert Belle Burke. 2 vols.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1928.

———. Opus minus, Opera quædam hactenus inedita. Ed. J. S. Brewer. 3 vols.Wiesbaden: Kraus Reprints, 1965.

———. Perspectiva [Opus Majus, Pt. V]. Roger Bacon and the Origins of Perspectiva in theMiddle Ages: A Critical Edition and English Translation of Bacon’s “Perspectiva” withIntroduction and Notes. Ed. David C. Lindberg. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.

Ballads from Manuscripts. Ed. Frederick J. Furnivall. The Ballad Society. London:Taylor & Co., 1868–73.

Bartholomeus Anglicus. De proprietatibus rerum. Ed. Robert Steele. Trans. JohnTrevisa. New York: Cooper Square, 1966.

Beauvais, Vincent of. Speculum naturale, Speculum quadruplex; sive, Speculum maius,vol. 1. Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlaganstalt, 1964–65.

Bernard of Clairvaux. On Conversion. Bernard Clairvaux, Selected Works. Trans. G. R. Evan. Classics of Western Spirituality. New York: Paulist Press, 1987.65–97.

Boccaccio, Giovanni. The Corbaccio. Trans. Anthony K. Cassell. Urbana: Universityof Illinois Press, 1975.

———. The Decameron. Trans. G. H. McWilliam. London: Penguin, 1972.The Book of the Knight of La Tour Landry. Ed. Thomas Wright. EETS, o.s. 33.

London: K.Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. for EETS, 1868.Bracton, Henry. De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae. Trans. Samuel E. Thorne as

On the Laws and Customs of England (c. 1250). Ed. George E. Woodbine. SeldenSociety, 1968; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977.

Caxton, William. The Book of the Knight of the Tower. Ed. M. Y. Offord. EETS,Supplementary Series 2. London: Oxford University Press for EETS, 1971.

Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Riverside Chaucer. Ed. Larry D. Benson. 3rd edn. New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 1987.

Chester Mystery Cycle. Ed. R. M. Lumiansky and David Mills. 2 vols. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1974–86.

Christine de Pizan. A Medieval Woman’s Mirror of Honor: The Treasury of the City ofLadies. Ed. Madeleine Pelner Cosman. Trans. Charity Cannon Willard. New York: Persea Books, 1989.

The Consail and Teiching at the Vys Man Gaif His Sone, Ratis Raving and other Moraland Religious Pieces in Prose and Verse. Ed. J. R. Lumby. EETS 43. Oxford:Oxford University Press for EETS, 1870.

Dame Sirith. The Trials and Joys of Marriage, ed. Eve Salisbury. Kalamazoo,MI: Medieval Institute, 2002.

The Descryvyng of Mannes Membres. Twenty-Six Political and Other Poems. Ed. J. Kail.EETS 124. London, K. Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. for EETS, 1904.

The Digby Plays: With an Incomplete “Morality” of Wisdom, Who Is Christ. Ed. F. J. Furnivall. EETS, e.s., 70. London: K.Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. forEETS, 1896 .

Ellison, Ralph. Invisible Man. 1952; New York: Vintage, 1995.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y218

Early English Proverbs. Ed. W. W. Skeat. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910.English Wycliffite Writings. Ed. Anne Hudson. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1978.Fifteenth Century Prose and Verse. Ed. A. W. Pollard. London: A. Constable & Co., 1903.Froissart. Chronicles. Ed. and trans. Geoffrey Brereton. Harmondsworth: Penguin,

1978.Geoffrey de Vinsauf. The Poetria Nova and Its Sources in Early Rhetorical Doctrine. Ed.

and trans. Ernest A. Gallo. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1966.“God Amende Wykkyd Cownscell.” Ed. Rossell Hope Robbins. Neuphilogische

Mitteilungen 57(1956): 94–102.The Good Wife Taught Her Daughter, The Good Wyfe Wold a Pylgremage, The Thewis

of Gud Women. Ed. Tauno F. Mustanoja. Helsinki: Suomalaisan KirjallisuudenSeuran, 1948.

The Goode Man Taght Hys Sone. The Trials and Joys of Marriage. Ed. Eve Salisbury.Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute, 2002.

The Goodman of Paris: A Treatise on Moral and Domestic Economy by a Citizen of Paris.Trans. Eileen Power. London: Routledge, 1928.

Grosseteste, Robert. Carmina Anglo-Normannica: Robert Grosseteste’s Chasteaud’Amour, to Which Are Added, “La Vie de Sainte Marie Egyptienne” and an EnglishVersion of the “Chasteau d’Amour.” Ed. M. Cooke. 1852; New York: BurtFranklin, 1967.

———. On Light. Trans. Clare C. Riedl. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette UniversityPress, 1942.

Guillaume de Lorris and Jean de Meun. Le Roman de la Rose. Ed. Félix Lecoy.3 vols. Paris: H. Champion, 1965–70.

Guillaume de Machaut. Jugement dou Roy de Behaigne and Remede de fortune. Ed.James I. Wimsatt, William W. Kibler, and Rebecca A. Baltzer. The ChaucerLibrary. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1988.

Hall, George D. G., ed. and trans. Tractatus de Legibus et Consuetudinibus Regni Angliequi Glanvilla Vocatur, The Treatise on the Laws and Customs of the Realm of EnglandCommonly Called Glanvill. London: Nelson, 1965.

Heresy Trials in the Diocese of Norwich 1428–31. Ed. N.P. Tanner. Camden FourthSeries, vol. 20. London: Offices of the Royal Historical Society, 1977.

Historical Poems of the XIVth and XVth Centuries. Ed. Rossell Hope Robbins.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1959.

Hugh of St. Victor. Didascalicon. Trans. Jerome Taylor. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press, 1961.

———. De sacramentis Christianae fidei. Trans. Roy J. Deferrari as On the Sacramentsof Christian Faith. Cambridge, MA: Medieval Academy, 1951.

———. “Hugo of St. Victor: ‘De Tribus Maximis Circumstantiis Gestorum.’ ” Ed.William M. Green, Speculum 18 (1943): 484–93.

The Hollow Man. Dir. Paul Verhoeven. Columbia Tri-Star, 2000.The Invisible Man. Dir. James Whale. Universal Studios, 1933.Jacques de Vitry. “Sermon 66.” Woman Defamed and Woman Defended: An

Anthology of Medieval Texts. Ed. Alcuin Blamires. Oxford: Clarendon Press,1992. pp. 146–47.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y 219

Juvenal. Satire VI, Juvenal and Perseus. Ed. and trans. G. G. Ramsay. London:Routledge, 1918.

Jyl of Breyntford’s Testament and Other Poems. Ed. Frederick J. Furnivall. London:Printed for private circulation, 1871.

Knighton, Henry. Chronicon Henrici Knighton vel Cnitthon, monachi, Leycestrensis. Ed.J. R. Lumby. 2 vols. Rolls Series, London, Printed for H. M. Stationery off., byEyre and Spottiswoode, 1865–86.

The Lanterne of Li{t. Ed. L. M. Swinburn. EETS, OS 151. London: K. Paul,Trench, Trübner & Co. for EETS, 1917.

Larsen, Nella. Passing. New York: Collier Books, 1971.Le Mesnagier de Paris. Ed. Georgina E. Brereton and Janet M. Ferrier. Trad. Karin

Ueltschi. Lettres Gothiques. Paris: Librarie Générale Française, 1994.Livy. From the Founding of the City: Books Three and Four. Trans. B. O. Foster. Livy II.

Loeb Classical Library 233. 1959; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,1967. 142–67.

Matthew de Vendôme. Ars Versificatoria, Les Arts poétiques du XII et XIII siècles. Ed.Edmond Faral. Paris: E. Champion, 1924.

Middle English Dictionary. Ed. S. M. Kuhn and J. Reidy. Ann Arbor: University ofMichigan Press, 1975–2000.

Middle English Lyrics. Ed. Maxwell S. Luria and Richard L. Hoffman. New York:Norton, 1974.

“Myne Awen Dere Sone.” Ed. Tauno F. Mustanoja. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen49 (1948): 145–93.

Ockham, William. Opera philosophica et theological. Eds. B. Boehner, G. Gál, andSteven Brown. 7 vols. St. Bonaventure, NY: Editiones Instituti FranciscaniUniversitatis S. Bonaventurae, 1974–88.

On the Twenty-Five Articles. Select English Writings of John Wyclif. Ed. ThomasArnold. Vol. 3. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971.

Ovid. Metamorphoses, Books IX–XV. Ed. G. P. Goold. Trans. Frank Justus Miller.Loeb Classical Library 43. 1916; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,1984.

Pecham, John. Perspectiva communis. John Pecham and the Science of Optics: “Perspectivacommunis.” Ed. David C. Lindberg. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press,1970.

Pecock, Reginald. The Repressor of Over Much Blaming of the Clergy. Ed. ChurchillBabington. Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain and Ireland During theMiddle Ages. 2 vols. London: Longman, 1860.

Petrarch. Petrarch: Four Dialogues for Scholars. . .from “De remedies utriusque fortune.”Ed. and trans. Conrad H. Rawski. Cleveland, OH: Press of Western ReserveUniversity, 1967.

Plato. “Republic.” Complete Works. Ed. John M. Cooper. Indianapolis: Hackett,1997. 971–1223.

———. Plato’s Cosmology: The Timaeus of Plato. Trans. Francis MacdonaldCornford. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, & Co., 1937.

Political Poems and Songs from the Accession of Edward III to That of Richard III. Ed.T. Wright. 2 vols. London: Rolls Series, 1859–61.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y220

Political Songs of England from the Reign of John to that of Edward II. Ed. T. Wright.London: Camden Society, 1839.

Recueil Complet des Fabliaux. Ed. Willem Noomen and Nico van den Boogaard. 10 vols. Assen, NE: Van Gorcum, 1983–98.

Reliquiae antiquae. Ed. T. Wright and J. O. Halliwell. 2 vols. London: J. R. Smith, 1845.Roth, Philip. The Human Stain. New York: Knopf, 2000.Saramago, José. Blindness. Trans. Giovanni Pontiero. New York: Harcourt, 1995.Sawles Warde. Medieval English Prose for Women: Selections from the Katherine Group

and Ancrene Wisse. Ed. Bella Millett and Jocelyn Wogan-Browne. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1990. 86–109.

Songs and Carols of the Fifteenth Century. Ed. Thomas Wright. London: T. Richards,1856.

Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae. Ed. and trans. Colman E. O’Neill, O. P. London:Blackfriars, 1965.

Thomas of Chobham. Thomae de Chobham: Summa Confessorum. Ed. F. Broomfield.Analecta Mediaevalia Namurcensia 25 Louvain, Éditions Nauwelaerts, 1968.

The Towneley Plays. Ed. Martin Stevens and A. C. Cawley. 2 vols. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1994.

Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge. Ed. Clifford Davidson. Kalamazoo, MI: MedievalInstitute Publications, 1993.

The Usual Suspects. Dir. Brian Singer. Gramercy Pictures, 1995.Wakefield Master. Noah. Medieval Drama. Ed. David Bevington. Boston: Houghton

Mifflin, 1975. 290–305.Walsingham, Thomas. Historia Anglicana. Ed. H. T. Riley. 2 vols. London, 1863–64.Wells, H. G. The Invisible Man. 1897; New York: Scribner & Sons, 1924.The Westminster Chronicle, 1381–94. Ed. and trans. L. C. Hector and Barbara F. Harvey.

Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982.Wyclif, John. De Eucharistia. Ed. J. Loserth and F. D. Matthew, Wyclif Society.

London: Trübner, 1892.———. Tractatus de Mandatis Divinis. Ed. J. Loserth and F. D. Matthew. Wyclif

Society. London: C. K. Paul, 1922.———. Sermones. Ed. J. Loserth and F. D. Matthew, Wyclif Society. Vol. 2.

London: Trübner, 1888.

Secondary Sources

Abraham, David H. “ ‘Cosyn and Cosynage’: Pun and Structure in the Shipman’sTale.” Chaucer Review 11 (1977): 319–27.Adams, Jenny. “Pawn Takes Knight’s Queen: Playing with Chess in the Book of the

Duchess.” Chaucer Review 34 (1999): 125–38.Adams, Robert. “The Concept of Debt in the Shipman’s Tale.” Studies in the Age of

Chaucer 6 (1984): 85–102.Aers, David. Chaucer, Langland, and the Creative Imagination. London: Routledge, 1980.Akbari, Suzanne Conklin. Seeing through the Veil: Optical Theory and Medieval

Allegory. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y 221

Alford, John A. “The Wife of Bath versus the Clerk of Oxford.” Chaucer Review 21(1986): 108–32.

Allen, Valerie. “Portrait of a Lady: Blaunche and the Descriptive Tradition.”English Studies 74 (1993): 324–42.

Armitage-Smith, Sydney. John of Gaunt. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1964.Ashley, Kathleen, and Robert L. A. Clark, Eds. Medieval Conduct. Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota Press, 2001.Askins, William. “The Tale of Melibee and the Crisis at Westminster, November,

1387.” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 2 (1986): 103–12.Aston, Margaret. Lollards and Reformers: Images and Literacy in Late Medieval Religion.

London: Hambledon Press, 1984.Baker, Denise N. “Chaucer and Moral Philosophy: The Virtuous Women of

The Canterbury Tales.” Medium Aevum 60 (1991): 241–56.Bakhtin, Mikhail. Rabelais and His World. Trans. Helene Iswolsky. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press, 1968.Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author.” Modern Literary Theory: A Reader. Ed.

Philip Rice and Patricia Waugh. London: Arnold, 1996. 118–22.Beckwith, Sara. Christ’s Body: Identity, Culture and Society in Late Medieval Writings.

New York: Routledge, 1993.Beidler, Peter. “Contrasting Masculinities in The Shipman’s Tale: Monk, Merchant,

and Wife.” Masculinities in Chaucer. Ed. Peter G. Beidler. Cambridge, UK: D. S. Brewer, 1998. 131–42.

———. Masculinities in Chaucer. Cambridge, UK: D. S. Brewer, 1998.Bellamy, J. G. The Law of Treason in England in the Later Middle Ages. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1970.Benson, Larry D., and Theodore M. Andersson, Eds. The Literary Context of

Chaucer’s Fabliaux. New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1971.Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin, 1972.Bernasconi, Robert. “The Invisibility of Racial Minorities in the Public Realm of

Appearances.” American Continental Philosophy: A Reader. Ed. Walter Brogan andJames Risser. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2000. 352–71.

Bersani, Leo. “Is the Rectum a Grave?” AIDS: Cultural Analysis/Cultural Activism.Ed. Douglas Crimp. Cambridge, MA, and London: MIT Press, 1988. 197–202.

Biddick, Kathleen. “Genders, Bodies, Borders: Technologies of the Visible.”Speculum 68 (1993): 389–418.

Biernoff, Suzannah. Sight and Embodiment in the Middle Ages. New York: Palgrave,2002.

Birrell, Jean. “Who Poached the King’s Deer? A Study in Thirteenth CenturyCrime.” Midland History 7 (1982): 9–25.

Blamires, Alcuin. “Refiguring the ‘Scandalous Excess’ of Medieval Woman: The Wifeof Bath and Liberality.” Gender in Debate from the Early Middle Ages to the Renaissance.Ed. Thelma S. Fenster and Clare A. Lees. New York: Palgrave, 2002. 57–78.

———, ed. Woman Defamed and Woman Defended: An Anthology of Medieval Texts.Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.

Bloch, R. Howard. “Chaucer’s Maiden’s Head: ‘The Physician’s Tale’ and thePoetics of Virginity.” Representations 28 (1989): 113–34.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y222

———. Medieval Misogyny and the Invention of Western Romantic Love. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1991.

Boffey, Julia, and A. S. G. Edwards. “ ‘Chaucer’s Chronicle,’ John Shirley, and theCanon of Chaucer’s Shorter Poems.” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 20 (1998): 201–18.

Boffey, Julia, and John J. Thompson. “Anthologies and Miscellanies: Productionand Choice of Texts.” Book Production and Publishing in Britain, 1375–1475. Ed.Jeremy Griffiths and Derek Pearsall. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1989. 279–315.

Boose, Lynda E. “The Father’s House and the Daughter in It: The Structures ofWestern Culture’s Daughter-Father Relationship.” Daughters and Fathers. Ed.Lynda E. Boose and Betty S. Flowers. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UniversityPress, 1989. 19–74.

Bott, Robin L. “ ‘O, Keep Me from Their Worse than Killing Lust’: Ideologies ofRape and Mutilation in Chaucer’s Physician’s Tale and Shakespeare’s TitusAndronicus.” Representing Rape in Medieval and Early Modern Literature. Ed. ElizabethRobertson and Christine M. Rose. New York: Palgrave, 2001. 189–211.

Bowers, R. H. “Impingham’s Borrowings from Chaucer.” Modern Language Notes73 (1958): 327–29.

Braswell, Mary Flowers. “Chaucer’s ‘queinte termes of lawe’: A Legal View of theShipman’s Tale.” Chaucer Review 22 (1988): 295–304.

Breuer, Josef, and Sigmund Freud. Studies on Hysteria Ed. and Trans. JamesStrachey. New York: Basic Books, 1957.

Brittan, Arthur. Masculinity and Power. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989.Brown, Carleton. “Mulier est Hominis Confusio.” Modern Language Notes

35 (1920): 479–82.Brown, Jr., Emerson. “What Is Chaucer Doing with the Physician and His Tale?”

Philological Quarterly 60 (1981): 129–49.Brundage, James A. “Domestic Violence in Classical Canon Law.” Violence in Medieval

Society. Ed. Richard W. Kaeuper. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2000. 183–95.———. Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 1987.Bryan, W. F., and Germaine Dempster, Eds. Sources and Analogues of Chaucer’s

Canterbury Tales. 1941; London: Routledge, 1958.Bullough, Vern L. “On Being a Male in the Middle Ages.” Medieval Masculinities:

Regarding Men in the Middle Ages. Ed. Clare Lees. Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press, 1994. 31–45.

Bundy, Murray Wright. The Theory of Imagination in Classical and Medieval Thought.Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1927.

Burger, Glenn. Chaucer’s Queer Nation. Minneapolis: University of MinnesotaPress, 2003.

———. “Kissing the Pardoner.” PMLA 107 (1992): 1143–56.Burnley, D. L. Chaucer’s Language and the Philosopher’s Tradition. Cambridge, UK:

D. S. Brewer, 1979.Burrow, J. A. “The Third Eye of Prudence.” Medieval Futures: Attitudes to the Future

in the Middle Ages. Ed. J. A. Burrow and Ian P. Wei. Woodbridge, Suffolk:Boydell and Brewer, 2000. 37–48.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y 223

Burton, George, and H. Morse Stephens, Eds. Select Documents of EnglishConstitutional History. 1901; New York: Macmillan, 1930.

Butler, Judith. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex.” New York:Routledge, 1993.

———. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York:Routledge, 1989.

———. Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge, 2004.Butterfield, Ardis. “Lyric and Elegy in The Book of the Duchess.” Medium Aevum

60 (1991): 33–60.Bynum, Caroline Walker. Holy Feast and Holy Fast: The Religious Significance of Food

to Medieval Women. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987.———. Jesus as Mother: Studies in the Spirituality of the High Middle Ages. Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1982.Cadden, Joan. Meanings of Sex Difference in the Middle Ages: Medicine, Science, and

Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.Camille, Michael. “Before the Gaze: The Internal Senses and Medieval Practices of

Seeing.” Visuality before and beyond the Renaissance: Seeing as Others Saw. Ed.Robert S. Nelson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. 197–223.

———. Gothic Art: Glorious Visions. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996.———. The Gothic Idol: Ideology and Image-Making in Medieval Art. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1989.———. “The Image and the Self: Unwriting Late Medieval Bodies.” Framing

Medieval Bodies. Ed. Sarah Kay and Miri Rubin. New York: ManchesterUniversity Press, 1994. 62–99.

Cannon, Christopher. “Chaucer and Rape: Uncertainty’s Certainties.” Studies inthe Age of Chaucer 22 (2000): 67–92.

———. “Monastic Productions.” The Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature.Ed. David Wallace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. 316–48.

———. “Raptus in the Chaumpaigne Release and a Newly Discovered Documentconcerning the Life of Geoffrey Chaucer.” Speculum 68 (1993): 74–94.

Carruthers, Mary. The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

———. The Craft of Thought: Meditation, Rhetoric, and the Making of Images,400–1200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

———. “ ‘The Mystery of the Bed Chamber’: Mnemotechnique and Vision inChaucer’s The Book of the Duchess.” The Rhetorical Poetics of the Middle Ages:Reconstructive Polyphony. Ed. John M. Hill and Deborah M. Sinnreich-Levi.Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2000. 67–87.

———. “The Wife of Bath and the Painting of Lions.” PMLA 94 (1979): 209–22.Certeau, Michel de. The Practice of Everyday Life. Trans. Steven F. Rendall. Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1984.Chapman, Robert L. “The Shipman’s Tale Was Meant for the Shipman.” Modern Language

Notes 71 (1956): 4–5.Christianson, C. Paul. “Evidence for the Study of London’s Late Medieval Manuscript-

Book Trade.” Book Production and Publishing in Britain, 1375–1475. Ed. JeremyGriffiths and Derek Pearsall. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. 87–108.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y224

Clark, Edwin, and Kenneth Dewhurst. An Illustrated History of Brain Function.Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972.

Coghill, Nevill. “Chaucer’s Narrative Art in the Canterbury Tales.” Chaucer andChaucerians: Critical Studies in Middle English Literature. Ed. Derek Brewer.Birmingham: University of Alabama Press, 1966. 114–39.

Cohan, Steven. Masked Men: Masculinity and the Movies in the Fifties. Bloomington:Indiana University Press, 1997.

Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome. “Diminishing Masculinity in Chaucer’s Tale of Sir Thopas.”Masculinities in Chaucer. Ed. Peter Beidler. Cambridge, UK: D. S. Brewer, 1998.143–56.

———. “Introduction: Midcolonial.” The Postcolonial Middle Ages. Ed. JeffreyJerome Cohen. New York: Palgrave, 2000. 1–17.

Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome, and Bonnie Wheeler, Eds. Becoming Male in the Middle Ages.New York and London: Garland, 1997.

Coletti, Theresa. “The Mulier Fortis and Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale.” Chaucer Review15 (1980–81): 236–49.

Collette, Carolyn P. “Heeding the Counsel of Prudence: A Context for theMelibee.” Chaucer Review 29 (1995): 416–29.

———. Species, Phantasms, and Images: Vision and Medieval Psychology in “TheCanterbury Tales.” Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001.

Connelly, Margaret. John Shirley: Book Production and the Noble Household inFifteenth-Century England. Brookfield, IL: Ashgate, 1998.

Copeland, Rita. “Childhood, Pedagogy, and the Literal Sense: From LateAntiquity to the Lollard Heretical Classroom.” New Medieval Literatures1 (1997): 125–56.

———.“The Pardoner’s Body and the Disciplining of Rhetoric.” Framing MedievalBodies. Ed. Sarah Kay and Miri Rubin. New York: Manchester UniversityPress, 1994. 138–59.

———. Pedagogy, Intellectuals, and Dissent in the Later Middle Ages: Lollardy and Ideasof Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

———. Rhetoric, Hermeneutics, and Translation in the Middle Ages: Academic Traditions and Vernacular Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1991.

Copeland, Rita, and Stephen Melville. “Allegory and Allegoresis, Rhetoric andHermeneutics.” Exemplaria 3 (1991): 159–87.

Copland, Murray. “The Shipman’s Tale: Chaucer and Boccaccio.” Medium Aevum35 (1966): 11–28.

Corsa, Helen, ed. The Physician’s Tale, A Variorum Edition of the Works of GeoffreyChaucer. Vol. 2, part 17. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987.

Courtenay, William J. Covenant and Causality in Medieval Thought. London:Variorum Reprints, 1984.

Cox, Catherine S. Gender and Language in Chaucer. Gainesville, FL: UniversityPressof Florida, 1997.

Cowell, Andrew. “The Dye of Desire: The Colors of Rhetoric in the MiddleAges.” Exemplaria 11 (1999): 115–39.

Cowling, George. Chaucer. London: Methuen, 1927.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y 225

Crampton, Georgia Ronan. The Condition of Creatures: Suffering and Action inChaucer and Spenser. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974.

Crane, Susan. “Alison’s Incapacity and Poetic Instability in the Wife of Bath’s Tale.”PMLA 102 (1987): 20–28.

———. Gender and Romance in Chaucer’s “Canterbury Tales.” Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1994.

———. The Performance of Self: Ritual, Clothing, and Identity during the Hundred YearsWar. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002.

———. “The Writing Lesson of 1381.” Chaucer’s England: Literature in a HistoricalContext. Ed. Barbara Hanawalt. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press,1992. 201–21.

Crocker, Holly A. “Performative Passivity and Fantasies of Masculinity inChaucer’s Merchant’s Tale.” Chaucer Review 38 (2003): 178–98.

Crombie, A. C. Robert Grosseteste and Origins of Experimental Science 1100–1700.Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953.

Crow, Martin M., and Clair C. Olson, Eds. Chaucer Life-Records. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1966.

Crowley, Theodore, O. F. M. Roger Bacon: The Problem of the Soul in His PhilosophicalCommentaries. Louvain: Éditions de l’Institut supérieur de philosophie, 1950.

Crowther, J. D. W. “Chaucer’s Physician’s Tale and Its ‘Saint.’” English Studies inCanada 8 (1982): 125–37.

Debray, Régis. “The Three Ages of Looking.” Critical Inquiry 21 (1995): 529–55.Delany, Sheila. Medieval Literary Politics: Shapes of Ideology. Manchester: Manchester

University Press, 1990.———. The Naked Text: Chaucer’s Legend of Good Women. Berkeley: University of

California Press, 1994.———. “Politics and the Paralysis of Poetic Imagination in the Physician’s Tale.”

Studies in the Age of Chaucer 3 (1981): 47–60.———. “Strategies of Silence in the Wife of Bath’s Recital.” Exemplaria 2 (1990): 49–69.Denery, II, Dallas G. Seeing and Being Seen in the Later Medieval World: Optics,

Theology, and Religious Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.Derrida, Jacques. Margins of Philosophy. Trans. Alan Bass. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 1982.———. “Plato’s Pharmacy.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie Rivkin and

Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1998. 429–50.Diamond, Arlyn. “Chaucer’s Women and Women’s Chaucer.” The Authority of

Experience. Ed. Arlyn Diamond and Lee R. Edwards. Amherst: University ofMassachusetts Press, 1977. 60–83.

Dinshaw, Carolyn. “Chaucer’s Queer Touches / A Queer Touches Chaucer.”Exemplaria 7 (1995): 75–92.

———. Chaucer’s Sexual Poetics. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989.Doane, Mary Ann. “Film and the Masquerade.” Screen 23 (1982): 28–54.Dobson, R. B., ed. The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. London: Macmillan, 1970.Dolan, Frances. “Battered Women, Petty Traitors, and the Legacy of Coverture.”

Feminist Studies 29 (2003): 249–77.Donaldson, E. T. “Chaucer the Pilgrim.” Speaking of Chaucer. London: Athlone

Press, 1971. 1–7.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y226

———. ed. Chaucer’s Poetry. New York: Ronald Press, 1975.Doyle, A. I. “Publication by Members of the Religious Orders.” Book Production

and Publishing in Britain, 1375–1475. Ed. Jeremy Griffiths and Derek Pearsall.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. 109–123.

Duffy, Eamon. The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England 1400–1580.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992.

Dworkin, Andrea. “Trying to Flee.” Los Angeles Times. October 8, 1995. p. M6.Easton, Stewart. Roger Bacon and His Search for a Universal Science. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1952.Epp, Garrett P. J. “Noah’s Wife: The Shaming of the ‘Trew.’” Domestic Violence in

Medieval Texts. Ed. Eve Salisbury, Georgiana Donavin, and Merrall LlewelynPrice, Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2002. 223–41.

Erickson, Carolly. The Medieval Vision: Essays in History and Perception. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1976.

Farber, Lianna. “The Creation of Consent in the Physician’s Tale.” Chaucer Review39 (2004): 151–64.

Farmer, Sharon. “Persuasive Voices: Clerical Images of Medieval Wives.” Speculum61 (1986): 517–43.

Felman, Shoshana. The Juridical Unconscious: Trials and Traumas in the TwentiethCentury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002.

———. The Literary Speech Act: Don Juan with J.L. Austin, or Seduction in TwoLanguages. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983.

Ferrante, Joan. Woman as Image in Medieval Literature. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press, 1975.

Ferster, Judith. “Chaucer’s Tale of Melibee: Contradictions and Context.” Inscribingthe Hundred Years’ War in French and English Cultures. Ed. Denise N. Baker.Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2000. 73–89.

Finlayson, John. “Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale, Boccaccio, and the ‘Civilizing’ ofFabliau.” Chaucer Review 36 (2002): 336–51.

Fisher, N. W., and Sabetai Unguru. “Experimental Science and Mathematics inRoger Bacon’s Thought.” Traditio 27 (1971): 353–78.

Fletcher, Angus. “The Sentencing of Virginia in the Physician’s Tale” ChaucerReview 34 (2000): 300–8.

Forde, Simon, Lesley Johnson, and Alan V. Murray, eds. Concepts of NationalIdentity in the Middle Ages. Leeds: University of Leeds Press, 1995.

Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Trans. Alan Sheridan.New York: Vintage, 1975.

———. “What Is an Author?” Partisan Review 42 (1975): 603–14.Foster, Edward E. “Has Anyone Here Read Melibee?” Chaucer Review 34 (2000): 398–409.Fradenburg, L. O. Aranye. City, Marriage, Tournament: Arts of Rule in Late Medieval

Scotland. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991.———. “Criticism, Anti-Semitism, and the Prioress’s Tale.” Exemplaria 1 (1989):

69–115.———. Sacrifice Your Love: Psychoanalysis, Historicism, Chaucer. Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota Press, 2002.———. “‘Voice Memorial’: Loss and Reparation in Chaucer’s Poetry.” Exemplaria

2 (1990): 169–202.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y 227

Fradenburg, Louise O., and Carla Freccero, Eds. Premodern Sexualities. New York:Routledge, 1996.

Freud, Sigmund. “Femininity.” Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Worksof Sigmund Freud. Ed. and trans. James Strachey. Vol. 22. 1933; London:Hogarth Press, 1964. 112–35.

Friedman, John Block. The Monstrous Races in Medieval Art and Thought. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press, 1991.

Fulton, Helen. “Mercantile Ideology in Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale.” Chaucer Review36 (2002): 311–28.

Fulton, Rachel. From Judgment to Passion: Devotion to Christ and the Virgin Mary,800–1200. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002.

Ganim, John. “Double-Entry in Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale.” Chaucer Review30 (1996): 294–305.

Garber, Margery. Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing and Cultural Anxiety. New York:Routledge, 1997.

Gardner, John. The Life and Times of Chaucer. New York: Knopf, 1977.———. The Poetry of Chaucer. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1977.Gaylord, Alan T. “Sentence and Solaas in Fragment VII of the Canterbury Tales:

Harry Bailly as Horseback Editor.” PMLA 82 (1967): 226–35.Gellrich, Jesse M. “Allegory and Materiality: Medieval Foundations of the Modern

Debate.” Germanic Review 77 (2002): 146–159.Gibson, Gail McMurray. “Resurrection as Dramatic Icon in the Shipman’s Tale.”

Signs and Symbols in Chaucer’s Poetry. Ed. John P. Hermann and John Burke, Jr. University, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1981. 102–12.

Ginsberg, Elaine K., ed. Passing and the Fictions of Identity. Durham, NC: DukeUniversity Press, 1996.

Girard, René. Deceit, Desire, and the Novel: Self and Other in Literary Structure. Trans.Yvonne Freccero. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1966.

Green, Richard Firth. Poets and Princepleasers: Literature and the English Court in theLate Middle Ages. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1980.

Greenblatt, Stephen. Renaissance Self-Fashioning: from More to Shakespeare.Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1980.

———. Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in RenaissanceEngland. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.

Guillory, John. “Canonical and Non-canonical: A Critique of the Debate.” EnglishLiterary History 54 (1987): 483–527.

Hackett, Jeremiah M. G. “The Attitude of Roger Bacon to the Scientia of AlbertusMagnus.” Albertus Magnus and the Sciences. Ed. James A. Weisheiple. Toronto:Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1980. 53–72.

Hagen, Susan K. “The Wife of Bath: Chaucer’s Inchoate Experiment in FeministHermeneutics.” Rebels and Rivals: The Contestive Spirit in the “Canterbury Tales.”Ed. Susanna Greer Fein, David Raybin, and Peter C. Braeger. Kalamazoo, MI:Western Michigan University, 1991. 105–24.

Hahm, David. “Early Hellenistic Theories of Vision and the Perception of Color.”Studies in Perception. Ed. Peter K. Machamer and Robert G. Turnbull.Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1978. 60–95.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y228

Hahn, Thomas. “Money, Sexuality, Wordplay, and Context in the Shipman’sTale.” Chaucer in the Eighties. Ed. Julian N. Wasserman and Robert J. Blanch.Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1986. 235–49.

Halberstam, Judith. Female Masculinity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998.Hamburger, Jeffrey. The Visual and the Visionary: Art and Female Spirituality in Late

Medieval Germany. New York: Zone Books, 1998.Hanawalt, Barbara A. Crime and Conflict in Medieval England, 1300–1348.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979.———. “Of Good and Ill Repute”: Gender and Social Control in Medieval England.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.———. Growing Up in Medieval London: The Experience of Childhood in History.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.———. The Ties That Bound: Peasant Families in Medieval England. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1986.———. “Violence in the Domestic Milieu of Late Medieval England.” Violence in

Medieval Society. Ed. Richard W. Kaeuper. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2000.197–214.

Hanna, III, Ralph. “Analytical Survey 4: Middle English Manuscripts and the Studyof Literature.” New Medieval Literatures 4 (2001): 243–64.

———. “Augustinian Canons and Middle English Literature.” The English MedievalBook: Studies in Memory of Jeremy Griffiths. Ed. A. S. G. Edwards, VincentGillespie, and Ralph Hanna. London: British Library, 2000. 27–42.

———. Pursuing History: Middle English Manuscripts and Their Texts. Stanford:Stanford University Press, 1996.

Hansen, Elaine Tuttle. Chaucer and the Fictions of Gender. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1992.

Hanson, Thomas B. “Chaucer’s Physician as Storyteller and Moralizer.” ChaucerReview 7 (1972): 132–39.

Hardman, Phillipa. “The Book of the Duchess as a Memorial Monument.” ChaucerReview 28 (1994): 208–13.

———. “Chaucer’s Man of Sorrows: Secular Images of Pity in the Book of theDuchess, the Squire’s Tale, and Troilus and Criseyde.” Journal of English andGermanic Philology 93 (1994): 204–27.

Harris, Jonathan Gil. “Shakespeare’s Hair: Staging the Object of Material Culture.”Shakespeare Quarterly 52 (2001): 479–91.

Harvert, Bruce. “Chaucer and the Latin Classics.” Writers and Their Background:Chaucer. Ed. D. Brewer. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1975. 137–53.

Harvey, Ruth E. The Inward Wits: Psychological Theory in the Middle Ages and theRenaissance. London: Warburg Institute, 1975.

Hass, Robin. “ ‘A Picture of Such Beauty in Their Minds’: The MedievalRhetoricians, Chaucer, and Evocative Effictio.” Exemplaria 14 (2002):383–422.

Hawkes, Emma. “The ‘Reasonable’ Laws of Domestic Violence in Late MedievalEngland.” Domestic Violence in Medieval Texts. Ed. Eve Salisbury, GeorgianaDonavin, and Merrall Llewelyn Price, Gainesville: University Press of Florida,2002. 57–70.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y 229

Heffernan, Carol F. “Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale and Boccaccio’s Decameron, VIII, 1:Retelling a Story.” Courtly Literature: Culture and Context. Ed. Keith Busby andErik Kooper. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1990. 261–70.

Herlihy, David. Medieval Households. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,1985.

Hines, John. The Fabliau in English. London: Longman, 1993.Hirsch, John. “Modern Times: The Discourse of the Physician’s Tale.” Chaucer

Review 27 (1993): 387–95.Holley, Linda Tarte. Chaucer’s Measuring Eye. Houston: Rice University Press, 1990.Holsinger, Bruce W. “Analytical Survey 6: Medieval Literature and Cultures of

Performance.” New Medieval Literatures 6 (2003): 271–311.hooks, bell. “The Oppositional Gaze: Black Female Gaze: Black Female Spectators.”

Black Looks: Race and Representation. Boston: South End Press, 1992. 115–31.Hornsby, Joseph Allen. Chaucer and the Law. Norman, OK: Pilgrim Press, 1988.Hotson, J. Leslie. “The Tale of Melibeus and John of Gaunt.” Studies in Philology

18 (1921): 429–52.Howard, Donald R. “Chaucer the Man.” PMLA 80 (1965): 337–43.———. Chaucer: His Life, His Works, His World. New York: Dutton, 1987.———. The Idea of the “Canterbury Tales.” Berkeley: University of California Press,

1976.Huppé, Bernard F. A Reading of the Canterbury Tales. Albany: SUNY Press, 1967.Irigaray, Luce. The Sex Which Is Not One. Trans. Catherine Porter. Ithaca,

NY: Cornell University Press, 1985.Jacquart, Danielle, and Claude Thomasset. Sexuality and Medicine in the Middle Ages.

Trans. Matthew Adamson. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988.James, Mervyn. “Ritual, Drama, and Social Body in the Late Medieval Town.”

Past and Present 98 (1983): 3–29.James, M. R. “Catalogue of the Library of Leicester Abbey” Leicestershire

Archaeological Society 19 (1937): 118–30.Jay, Martin. Downcast Eyes: The Denigration of Vision in Twentieth-Century French

Thought. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.Johnson, Lynn Staley. “Inverse Counsel: Contexts for the Melibee.” Studies in

Philology 87 (1990): 137–55.Jones, Richard F. “A Conjecture on the Wife of Bath’s Prologue.” Journal of English

and Germanic Philology 24 (1925): 512–47.Jones, W. R. “Lollards and Images: The Defense of Religious Art in Later

Medieval England.” Journal of the History of Ideas 34 (1973): 27–50.Joseph, Gerhard. “Chaucer’s Coinage: Foreign Exchange and the Puns of the

Shipman’s Tale.” Chaucer Review 17 (1983): 341–57.Justice, Steven. Writing and Rebellion: England in 1381. Berkeley: University of

California Press, 1994.Kane, George. Chaucer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.Karras, Ruth Mazo. From Boys to Men: Formations of Masculinity in Late Medieval

Europe. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003.Keiser, George R. “Language and Meaning in Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale.” Chaucer

Review 12 (1977–78): 147–61.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y230

Kelly, Henry Ansgar. Love and Marriage in the Age of Chaucer. Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity Press, 1975.

———. “Rule of Thumb and the Folklaw of the Husband’s Stick.” Journal of LegalEducation 44 (1994): 341–65.

Kempton, Daniel. “Chaucer’s Tale of Melibee: ‘A litel thing in prose.’” Genre 21(1988): 263–78.

Kessler, Herbert. Spiritual Seeing: Picturing God’s Invisibility in Medieval Art.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000.

Kittredge, George Lyman. “Chaucer and Some of His Friends.” Modern Philology1 (1903): 1–18.

———. “Guillaume De Machaut and the Book of the Duchess.” PMLA 30 (1915): 1–24.Klassen, Norman. Chaucer on Love, Knowledge, and Sight. Cambridge, UK: D. S.

Brewer, 1995.Knapp, Peggy. “Alisoun Weaves a Text.” Philological Quarterly 65 (1986): 387–401.———. Chaucer and the Social Contest. New York: Routledge, 1990.Kolve, V. A. Chaucer and the Imagery of Narrative: The First Five “Canterbury Tales.”

Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1984.Kruger, Steven. “Claiming the Pardoner: Toward a Gay Reading of Chaucer’s

Pardoner’s Tale.” Exemplaria 6 (1994): 115–40.———. Dreaming in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.Lacan, Jacques. The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, 1959–60. The Seminar of Jacques Lacan,

Book VII. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Trans. Dennis Porter. London: Routledge,1992.

———. Feminine Sexuality. Ed. Juliet Mitchell and Jacqueline Rose. Trans.Jacqueline Rose. New York: Norton, 1982.

Laqueur, Thomas. Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990.

Laskaya, Anne. Chaucer’s Approach to Gender in the “Canterbury Tales.” Cambridge,UK: D. S. Brewer, 1995.

Latour, Bruno. “Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact toMatters of Concern.” Critical Inquiry 30 (2004): 225–48.

Lawrence, William W. Chaucer and the “Canterbury Tales.” New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press, 1950.

———. “Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale.” Speculum 33 (1958): 56–68.———. “The Tale of Melibeus.” Essays and Studies in Honor of Carleton Brown.

New York: New York University Press, 1940. 100–110.Lawrence, “The Wife of Bath and the Shipman.” Modern Language Notes 72 (1957):

87–88.Lee, Brian S. “The Position and Purpose of the Physician’s Tale.” Chaucer Review

22 (1987): 141–60.Lees, Clare, ed. Medieval Masculinities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,

1994.Leicester, Jr., H. Marshall. The Disenchanted Self: Representing the Subject in the

Canterbury Tales. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990.———. “Of a Fire in the Dark: Public and Private Feminism in the Wife of Bath’s

Tale.” Women’s Studies 11 (1984): 157–78.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y 231

Lerer, Seth. Chaucer and His Readers: Imagining the Author in Late-Medieval England.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993.

———. “Medieval English Literature and the Idea of the Anthology.” PMLA 118(2003): 1251–67.

———. “ ‘Now Holde Youre Mouth’: The Romance of Orality in theThopas MelibeeSection of the Canterbury Tales.” Oral Poetics in Middle English Poetry. Ed. M. C. Amodio. New York: Garland, 1994. 181–202.

Levinas, Emmanuel. Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exeriority. Trans. AlphonsoLingis. London: Kluwer Publications, 1991.

Lewis, Katherine J. “Model Girls? Virgin-Martyrs and the Training of YoungWomen in Late Medieval England.” Young Medieval Women. Ed. KatherineJ. Lewis, Noël James Menuge, and Kim M. Phillips. New York: St. Martin’sPress, 1999. 25–46.

Lindberg, David C. “On the Applicability of Mathematics to Nature: Roger Baconand his Predecessors.” British Journal for the History of Science 15 (1982): 3–25.

———. “Science as Handmaiden: Roger Bacon and the Patristic Tradition.” Isis78 (1987): 518–36.

———. Theories of Vision from Al-kindi to Kepler. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1976.

———. “The Science of Optics.” Studies in the History of Medieval Optics. London:Variorum Reprints, 1983.

Lipton, Sara. “ ‘The Sweet Lean of His Head’: Writing about Looking at theCrucifix in the High Middle Ages.” Speculum 80 (2005): 1172–1208.

Lloyd, Genevieve. The Man of Reason: “Male” and “Female” in Western Philosophy.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984.

Lochrie, Karma. Covert Operations: Medieval Uses of Secrecy. Philadelphia: Universityof Pennsylvania Press, 1999.

———. “Women’s ‘Pryvetees’ and Fabliau Politics in the Miller’s Tale.” Exemplaria6 (1994): 287–304.

Lochrie, Karma, Peggy McCracken, and James A. Shultz, Eds. Constructing MedievalSexuality. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997.

Lomperis, Linda. “Unruly Bodies and Ruling Practices: Chaucer’s Physician’s Taleas Socially Symbolic Act.” Feminist Approaches to the Body in Medieval Literature.Ed. Linda Lomperis and Sarah Stanbury. Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Press, 1993. 21–37.

Lunz, Elizabeth. “Chaucer’s Prudence as the Ideal of the Virtuous Woman.” Essaysin Literature 4 (1977): 3–10.

Lynch, Kathryn L. “The Book of the Duchess as a Philosophical Vision: TheArgument of Form.” Genre 21 (1988): 279–306.

———. The High Medieval Dream Vision: Poetry, Philosophy, and Literary Form.Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988.

MacKinnon, Catharine. Towards a Feminist Theory of the State. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press, 1989.

Maddern, Philippa. “Interpreting Silence: Domestic Violence in the King’s Courtsin East Anglia, 1422–1442.” Domestic Violence in Medieval Texts. Ed. Eve

B I B L I O G R A P H Y232

Salisbury, Georgiana Donavin, and Merrall Llewelyn Price, Gainesville:University Press of Florida, 2002. 31–56.

Mandel, Jerome. “Governance in the Physician’s Tale.” Chaucer Review 10 (1976):316–25.

Manly, John M., and Edith Rickert. The Text of the “Canterbury Tales,” Studiedon the Basis of All Known Manuscripts. 8 vols. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1940.

Mann, Jill. Geoffrey Chaucer. Feminist Readings Series. Atlantic Highlands,NJ: Humanities, 1991.

Massumi, Brian. Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation. DurhamNC: Duke University Press, 2002.

Masten, Jeffrey. Textual Intercourse: Collaborations, Authorship, and Sexualities inRenaissance Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

McAlpine, Monica. “Criseyde’s Prudence.” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 25 (2003):199–224.

———. “The Pardoner’s Homosexuality and How It Matters.” PMLA 95 (1980): 8–22.

McClintock, Michael W. “Games and the Players of Games: Old French Fabliauxand the Shipman’s Tale.” Chaucer Review 5 (1970): 112–36.

McGalliard, John C. “Characterization in Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale.” PhilologicalQuarterly 54 (1975): 1–18.

McGrade, A. Stephen. “Seeing Things: Ockham and Representationalism.”L’Homme et son Univers au Moyen Age. Philosophes Médiéaux 27 (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1986): 591–97.

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. “An Unpublished Text by Merleau-Ponty: A Prospectusof His Work.” The Primacy of Perception. Trans. James M. Edie. Evanston, IL:Northwestern University Press, 1964. 3–11.

———. The Visible and the Invisible, Ed. Claude Lefort. Trans. Alphonso Lingis.Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1968.

Middleton, Anne. “The Idea of Public Poetry in the Reign of Richard II.”Speculum 53 (1978): 94–114.

———. “The Physician’s Tale and Love’s Martyrs: ‘Ensamples Mo Than Ten’ as aMethod in the Canterbury Tales.” Chaucer Review 8 (1973): 9–32.

Mills, Robert. “ ‘Whatever You Do Is a Delight to Me!’: Masculinity, Masochism, andQueer Play in Representations of Male Martyrdom.” Exemplaria 13 (2001): 1–37.

Minnis, A. J. “Langland’s Ymaginatif and Late-Medieval Theories of Imagination.”Comparative Criticism 3 (1981): 71–103.

———. “Medieval Imagination and Memory.” The Cambridge History of LiteraryCriticism. Vol. 2. The Middle Ages. Ed. Alastair Minnis and Ian Johnson.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 240–42.

Minnis, A. J. Medieval Theory of Authorship. 2nd edn. 1984; Aldershot: WildwoodHouse, 1988.

Minnis, A. J., and A. B. Scott, Eds., with assistance from David Wallace. MedievalLiterary Theory and Criticism c. 1100–1375: The Commentary Tradition. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1988.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y 233

Minnis, A. J., with V. J. Scattergood and J. J. Smith. Oxford Guides to Chaucer: TheShorter Poems. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.

Molland, George. “Roger Bacon as Magician.” Traditio 30 (1974): 455–60.Mooney, Linne R. “John Shirley’s Heirs.” Yearbook of English Studies 33 (2003):

182–98.Morrison, Susan Signe. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: The Wife of Bath and Vernacular

Translations.” Exemplaria 8 (1996): 97–123.Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Screen 16 (1975): 6–18.Murdoch, John E. Album of Science: Antiquity and the Middle Ages. New York:

Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1984.Murray, H. J. R. A History of Chess. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913.Muscatine, Charles. Chaucer and the French Tradition. Berkeley: University of

California Press, 1957.Neuhauser, Richard. The Treatise on Vices and Virtues in Latin and the Vernaculars

(pre-1800 Works). Torholt: Brepols, 1993.Newman, Barbara. From Virile Woman to WomanChrist: Studies in Medieval Religion

and Literature. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995.———. God and the Goddesses: Vision, Poetry, and Belief in the Middle Ages.

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004.Nolan, Barbara. The Gothic Visionary Perspective. Princeton: Princeton University

Press, 1977.Noonan, John. “The Power to Choose.” Viator 4 (1973): 419–34.Olson, Glending. “Making and Poetry in the Age of Chaucer.” Comparative

Literature 31 (1979): 272–90.Owen, Charles A., Jr. “Relationship between the Physician’s Tale and the Parson’s

Tale.” Modern Language Notes 71 (1956): 84–87.———. “The Tale of Melibee.” Chaucer Review 7 (1973): 267–80.Owst, G. R. Literature and the Pulpit in Medieval England. New York: Barnes and

Noble, 1961.———. Preaching in Medieval England: An Introduction to Sermon Manuscripts of the

Period c.1350–1450. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1926.Pakkala-Weckström, Mari. “Prudence and the Power of Persuasion—Language

and Maistrie in the Tale of Melibee.” Chaucer Review 35 (2001): 399–412.Palermo, Dolores. “What Chaucer Really Did to Le Livre de Melibee.” Philological

Quarterly 53 (1974): 304–20.Panofsky, Erwin. Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism. New York: Meridian Books,

1957.Parker, Patricia. Literary Fat Ladies: Rhetoric, Gender, Property. New York: Methuen,

1987.Patterson, Lee. Chaucer and the Subject of History. Madison: University of Wisconsin

Press, 1991.———. “ ‘For the Wyves love of Bathe’: Feminine Rhetoric and Poetic

Resolution in the Roman de la Rose and the Canterbury Tales.” Speculum58 (1983): 656–95.

———. Negotiating the Past: The Historical Understanding of Medieval Literature.Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y234

———. “ ‘What Man Artow?’: Authorial Self-Definition in the Tale of Sir Thopasand the Tale of Melibee.” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 13 (1991): 117–75.

Pearsall, Derek. The Canterbury Tales. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1985.———. The Life of Geoffrey Chaucer: A Critical Biography. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1992.———. “The Roving Eye: Point of View in the Medieval Perception of

Landscape.” Speaking Images: Essays in Honor of V.A. Kolve. Ed. R. F. Yeagerand Charlotte C. Morse. Asheville, NC: Pegasus Press, 2001. 463–77.

Peck, Russell A. “Chaucer and the Nominalist Questions.” Speculum 53 (1978):745–60.

Pedersen, Frederick. “‘Maritalis affectio’: Marital Affection and Property in Fourteenth-Century York Cause Papers.” Women, Marriage, and Family in MedievalChristendom: Essays in Memory of Michael M. Sheehan. Ed. Constance M. Rousseauand Joel T. Rosenthal. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan UP, 1998. 175–209.

Percival, Florence. Chaucer’s Legendary Good Women. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1998.

Phelan, Peggy. Unmarked: The Politics of Performance. New York: Routledge, 1993.Phillips, Heather. “John Wyclif and the Optics of the Eucharist.” From Ockham to

Wyclif. Ed. Anne Hudson and Michael Wilks. Studies in Church History 5.London: Blackwell, 1987. 245–58.

Pratt, Robert A. “The Development of the Wife of Bath.” Studies in MedievalLiterature. Ed. MacEdward Leach. Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaPress, 1961. 45–79.

———. “Jankyn’s Book of Wikked Wyves: Antimatrimonial Propaganda in theUniversities.” Annuale Mediaevale 3 (1962): 5–27.

Preston, Raymond. Chaucer. London: Sheed and Ward, 1952.Prior, Sandra Pierson. “Virginity and Sacrifice in Chaucer’s Physician’s Tale.”

Constructions of Widowhood and Virginity in the Middle Ages. Ed. Cindy Carlsonand Angela Jane Weisl. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999. 165–80.

Rebhorn, Wayne. The Emperor of Men’s Minds: Literature and the RenaissanceDiscourse of Rhetoric. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995.

Roberts, Sasha. Reading Shakespeare’s Poems in Early Modern England. New York:Palgrave, 2003.

Robertson, Jr., D. W. Preface to Chaucer: Studies in Medieval Perspectives. Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1962.

Robertson, Jr., D. W., and Bernard F. Huppé. Fruyt and Chaf: Studies in Chaucer’sAllegories. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963.

Robertson, Elizabeth. Early English Devotional Prose and the Female Audience.Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1990.

Rogers, W. E., and P. Dower. “Thinking about Money in Chaucer’s Shipman’sTale.” New Readings of Chaucer’s Poetry. Ed. Robert G. Benson and SusanJ. Ridyard. Cambridge, UK: D.S. Brewer, 2003. 119–38.

Ronchi, Vasco. The Nature of Light: An Historical Survey. Trans. V. Barocas.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970.

———. Optics: The Science of Vision. Trans. Edward Rosen. New York: New YorkUniversity Press, 1957.

Root, Robert K. The Poetry of Chaucer. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1906.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y 235

Ross, Diane M. “The Play of Genres in the Book of the Duchess.” Chaucer Review19 (1984): 1–13.

Rubin, Gayle. “The Traffic in Women: Notes on the ‘Political Economy’ of Sex.”Towards an Anthropology of Women. Ed. Rayna R. Reiter. New York: MonthlyReview Press, 1975. 157–210.

Rubin, Miri. Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Russell, J. Stephen. The English Dream Vision: Anatomy of a Form. Columbus,OH: Ohio State University Press, 1988.

Salda, Michael Norman. “Pages from History: The Medieval Palace of Westminsteras a Source for the Dreamer’s Chamber in the Book of the Duchess.” ChaucerReview 27 (1992): 111–25.

Salisbury, Eve. “Chaucer’s ‘Wife,’ the Law, and the Middle English Breton Lays.”Domestic Violence in Medieval Texts. Ed. Eve Salisbury, Georgiana Donavin, andMerrall Llewelyn Price, Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2002.73–93.

Sànchez, Maria Carla, and Linda Schlossberg, Eds. Passing: Identity and Interpretationin Sexuality, Race, and Religion. New York: New York University Press, 2001.

Saunders, Corinne. Rape and Ravishment in the Literature of Medieval England.Cambridge, UK: D. S. Brewer, 2001.

Scanlon, Larry. Narrative, Authority, and Power: The Medieval Exemplum and theChaucerian Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Scattergood, V. J. “Chaucer and the French War: Sir Thopas and Melibee.” Court andPoet: Selected Proceedings of the Third Congress of the International Courtly LiteratureSociety. Ed. Glyn S. Burgess . Liverpool: Cairns, 1980. 287–96.

Schneider, Paul Stephen. “ ‘Taillynge Ynough’: The Function of Money in theShipman’s Tale.” Chaucer Review 11 (1977): 201–9.

Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire.New York: Columbia University Press, 1985.

Shahar, Shulamith. The Fourth Estate: A History of Women in the Middle Ages. Trans.Chaya Galai. New York: Methuen, 1983.

Shaviro, Steven. The Cinematic Body. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,1993.

Sheehan, Michael M. Marriage, Family, and Law in Medieval Europe. Ed. JamesK. Farge. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996.

Shoaf, R. A. “Stalking the Sorrowful H(e)art: Penitential Lore and the Hunt Scenein Chaucer’s ‘The Book of the Duchess.’ ” Journal of English and GermanicPhilology 78 (1979): 313–24.

Sidhu, Nicole Nolan. “Go-Betweens: The Old Woman and the Function ofObscenity in the Fabliaux.” Comic Provocations: Exposing the Corpus of Old FrenchFabliaux. Ed. Holly A. Crocker. New York: Palgrave, 2006. 45–60.

Silverman, Kaja. Male Subjectivity at the Margins. New York: Routledge, 1992.Skeat, Walter W. The Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer. Vol. 1. Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1899.Smalley, Beryl. The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages. Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1941.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y236

Smith, A. Mark. “Getting the Big Picture in Perspectivist Optics.” Isis 72 (1981):568–89.

Smith, D. Vance. Arts of Possession: The Middle English Household Imaginary.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003.

———. “Irregular Histories: Forgetting Ourselves.” New Literary History 28 (1997):161–84.

———. “Plague, Panic Space, and the Tragic Medieval Household.” South AtlanticQuarterly 98 (1999): 367–413.

Spacks, Patricia Meyer. Gossip. New York: Knopf, 1985.Spearing, A. C. Medieval Dream-Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.———. The Medieval Poet as Voyeur: Looking and Listening in Medieval Love-Narratives.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.Speed, Diane. “Language and Perspective in the Physician’s Tale.” Words and

Wordsmiths: A Volume for H.L. Rogers. Ed. Geraldine Barnes, et al. Sydney:University of Sydney Press, 1989. 119–36.

Sponsler, Claire. Drama and Resistance: Bodies, Goods, and Theatricality in LateMedieval England. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997.

Stanbury, Sarah. “The Body and the City in Pearl.” Representations 48 (1994):30–47.

———. “Regimes of the Visual in Premodern England: Gaze, Body, andChaucer’s Clerk’s Tale.” New Literary History, 28 (1997): 261–89.

Steiner, Emily. Documentary Culture and the Making of English Literature. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Stillwell, Gardiner. “The Political Meaning of Chaucer’s Tale of Melibee.” Speculum19 (1944): 433–44.

Stock, Brian. The Implications of Literacy: Written Language and Models of Interpretationin the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,1983.

Stock, Lorraine Kohanske. “The Reenacted Fall in Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale.”Studies in Iconography 7–8 (1981–82): 135–45.

Strohm, Paul. “The Allegory of the Tale of Melibee.” Chaucer Review 2 (1967):32–42.

———. Hochon’s Arrow: The Social Imagination of Fourteenth-Century Texts.Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.

———. Social Chaucer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989.Sturges, Robert. Chaucer’s Pardoner and Gender Theory: Bodies of Discourse.

New York: Palgrave, 2000.Sullivan, Hazel. “A Chaucerian Puzzle.” A Chaucerian Puzzle and Other Medieval

Essays. Ed. Natalie Grimes Lawrence and Jack A. Reynolds. Coral Gables:University of Miami Press, 1961. 1–46.

Summit, Jennifer. “Monuments and Ruins: Spenser and the Problem of the EnglishLibrary.” English Literary History 70 (2003): 1–34.

Sylvia, Daniel S. “Some Fifteenth-Century Manuscripts of the Canterbury Tales.”Chaucer and Middle English Studies in Honor of Rossell Hope Robbins. Ed. BerylRowland. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1974. 153–63.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y 237

Tachau, Katherine. “The Problem of the Species in Medio at Oxford in theGeneration after Ockham.” Mediaeval Studies 44 (1982): 394–443.

———. Vision and Certitude in the Age of Ockham: Optics, Epistemology, and theFoundations of Semantics, 1230–1345. New York: Brill, 1988.

Tatlock, John S. P. “The Canterbury Tales in 1400.” PMLA 50 (1935): 100–139.———. The Development and Chronology of Chaucer’s Works. Gloucester, MA: Peter

Smith, 1963.———. “The Epilog of Chaucer’s Troilus.” Modern Philology 18 (1921): 625–59.Taylor, Andrew. “Manual to Miscellany: Stages in the Commercial Copying of

Vernacular Literature in England.” Yearbook of English Studies 33 (2003): 1–17.———. Textual Situations: Three Medieval Manuscripts and Their Readers.

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002.Taylor, P. B. “Chaucer’s ‘Cosyn to the Dede.’ ” Speculum 57 (1982): 315–27.Thompson, John J. “After Chaucer: Resituating Middle English Poetry in the Late

Medieval and Early Modern Period.” New Directions in Later Medieval ManuscriptStudies. Ed. Derek Pearsall. Rochester, NY: York Medieval Press, 2000. 183–99.

Thorndike, Lynn. A History of Magic and Experimental Science. Vol. 2. New York:Macmillan, 1923.

———. “Roger Bacon and Experimental Method in the Middle Ages.”Philosophical Review 23 (1914): 283–92.

Thrupp, Sylvia. The Merchant Class of Medieval London. 1948; repr. Ann ArborPaperback, 1962.

Travis, Peter W. “White.” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 22 (2000): 1–66.Trigg, Stephanie. Congenial Souls: Reading Chaucer from Medieval to Postmodern.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002.Trinh T Minh-ha. Woman Native Other: Writing Postcoloniality and Feminism.

Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989.Tupper, Frederick. “The Bearings of the Shipman’s Prologue.” Journal of English

and Germanic Philology 33 (1934): 352–71.———. “Chaucer’s Bed’s Head. I. Chaucer and Ambrose.” Modern Language Notes

30 (1915): 5–7.Turner, G. J., ed. Select Pleas of the Forest. Selden Society, Vol. 13. London: Bernard

Quaritch, 1901.Turner, W. Arthur. “Biblical Women in The Merchant’s Tale and The Tale of

Melibee.” English Language Notes 3 (1965): 92–95.Tuve, Rosemond. “Notes on the Virtues and Vices, Part 1.” Journal of the Warburg

and Courtauld Institutes 26 (1963): 264–303.Uebel, Michael. “Public Fantasy and the Logic of Sacrifice in the Physician’s Tale.”

American Notes and Queries 15 (2002): 30–33———. “Toward a Symptomatology of Cyberporn.” Theory and Event 3 (2000).Ussery, Huling E. Chaucer’s Physician: Medicine and Literature in Fourteenth-Century

England. New Orleans: Tulane University Press, 1971.Walker, Denis. “Narrative Inconclusiveness and Consolatory Dialectic in the Book

of the Duchess.” Chaucer Review 18 (1983): 1–17.Wallace, David. Chaucerian Polity: Absolutist Lineages and Associational Forms in

England and Italy. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y238

Waller, Martha S. “The Physician’s Tale: Geoffrey Chaucer and Fray Juan Garcia deCastrojeriz.” Speculum 51 (1976): 292–306.

Warner, Marina. Monuments and Maidens: The Allegory of the Female Form. New York: Antheneum, 1985.

Waterhouse, Ruth, and Gwen Griffiths. “ ‘Sweete Wordes’ of Non-sense: TheDeconstruction of the Moral Melibee, Part I.” Chaucer Review 23 (1989): 338–61.

Watson, Nicholas. “Desire for the Past.” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 21 (1999):59–97.

———. “ ‘Et que est huius ydoli materia? Tuipse’: Idols and Images in WalterHilton.” Images, Idolatry, and Iconoclasm in Late Medieval England: Textuality andthe Visual Image. Ed. Jeremy Dimmick, James Simpson, and Nicolette Zeeman.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 95–111.

Weisl, Angela Jane. Conquering the Reign of Femeny: Gender and Genre in Chaucer’sRomance. Cambridge, UK: D. S. Brewer, 1995.

Welsh, Andrew. “Story and Wisdom in Chaucer: The Physician’s Tale and TheManciple’s Tale.” Manuscript, Narrative, Lexicon: Essays on Literary and CulturalTransmission in Honor of Whitney F. Bolton. Ed. Robert Boenig and KathleenDavis. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press, 2000. 76–95.

Whittock, Trevor. A Reading of the “Canterbury Tales.” Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1968.

Williams, George. A New View of Chaucer. Durham, NC: Duke University Press,1965.

Wilson, Katharina, and Elizabeth M. Makowski, Eds. “Wykked Wyves and the Woesof Marriage”: Misogamous Literature from Juvenal to Chaucer. Albany, NY: SUNYPress. 1990.

Wimsatt, James. “The Sources of Chaucer’s ‘Seys and Alcyone.’ ” Medium Aevum36 (1967): 231–41.

Winnick, R. H. “Luke 12 and Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale.” Chaucer Review 30(1995): 164–90.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. Trans. G. E. M. Anscombe. 2ndedn. London: Blackwell, 1958.

———. Tractatus, Logico-Philosophicus. Trans. D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuinness.Introduction by Bertrand Russell. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1961.

———. Zettel. Ed. G. E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von Writght. Trans. G. E. M.Anscombe. 2nd edn. (1967; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981)

Woods, William F. “ ‘A Professional Thyng’: The Wife as Merchant’s Apprenticein the Shipman’s Tale.” Chaucer Review 24 (1989): 139–49.

Woolf, Rosemary. The English Religious Lyric in the Middle Ages. Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1968.

Yates, Frances. The Art of Memory. London: Routledge, 1966.Yeager, R. F. “Pax Poetica, On the Pacifism of Chaucer and Gower.” Studies in the

Age of Chaucer 9 (1987): 97–122.Young, Charles R. The Royal Forests of Medieval England. Philadelphia: University

of Pennsylvania Press, 1979.Young, Karl. “The Maidenly Virtues of Chaucer’s Virginia.” Speculum 16 (1941):

340–49.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y 239

Zink, Michel. “The Allegorical Poem as Interior Memoir.” Yale French Studies70 (1986): 100–126.

Vivek, Slavoj. The Fragile Absolute, or Why Is the Christian Legacy Worth Fighting For?London: Verso, 2000.

———. The Metastases of Enjoyment: Six Essays on Women and Causality. London:Verso, 1994.

———. The Sublime Object of Ideology. London: Verso, 1989.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y240

abstractive cognition (Ockham’s), 93–5action at a distance (Ockham’s), 94Aers, David, 9affect, 13, 138

devotional representation and, 31,83–6

“Against the Pride of Ladies,” 120, 206 n. 44

Akbari, Suzanne Conklin, 163 n. 5,167 n. 27, 174 n. 120

Alain de Lille, 98Albertanus of Brescia, 32Albertus Magnus, 17, 20, 79, 82,

164 n. 18, 189 n. 13, n. 18, 191 n. 32

Alhacen [Alhazen], 20, 23, 165 n. 25,166–7 n. 51

Al-kindi, 20, 163 n. 5, 188 n. 6allegoresis 30–1, 81allegory, 14, 18, 25, 28, 31–2,

34–9, 41, 88, 91, 99, 163 n. 5, 166 n. 34, 168–9 n. 68,170 n. 87, 171 n. 94, 175 n. 127, 177 n. 7, 198 n. 115, 208 n. 58

Allen, Valerie, 197 n. 103Amazon Women on the Moon

(film;1987), 2Ambrose, 67Anna O., 13, 162 n. 52Aquinas, Thomas, 22, 83, 117, 191 n. 37Arabic learning, 20, 21, 22, 90,

164 n. 25Aristotle, 19, 20, 23, 24, 54, 78, 79,

93, 94, 195 n. 81

Augustine, 17, 19, 23, 24, 71, 82, 83,133, 166 n. 36, 168 n. 68, 177 n. 4,210 n. 78

Augustinian canons, 137, 211–12 n. 4Avicenna, 82, 189 n. 10

Bacon, Roger, 20, 21–32, 44, 83, 94,165 n. 25, n. 26, n. 27, n. 29, 166 n. 30, n. 36, 167 n. 43, n. 49,191 n. 33

banality, 1, 18, 32, 35, 42, 44, 45, 46,47, 48, 49, 174 n. 126. See also,gender (banality of)

Barthes, Roland, 158 n. 25Bartholomeus Anglicus, 116, 205 n. 33Beckwith, Sarah, 84, 192 n. 45Beidler, Peter G., 108Berger, John, 17, 163 n. 1, 188 n. 8Bernasconi, Robert, 11, 160 n. 42Bersani, Leo, 133, 209 n. 75Biddick, Kathleen, 1, 142Biernoff, Suzannah, 23, 85, 165 n. 23,

166 n. 36, 167 n. 43, 173 n. 113,192 n. 40

Blamires, Alcuin, 206 n. 43blaunche(n), 98, 99, 103, 198 n. 110blindness, 29, 79, 149, 156 n. 8,

210 n. 80Bloch, R. Howard, 179 n. 13Boccaccio, Giovanni, 128, 208 n. 67,

n. 68, 216 n. 33body

Chaucer’s, 4–5, 9, 15–16, 138–41,144, 151, 210–11 n. 1

Christ’s, 84–6

INDEX

body––continueddomestic, 58, 60, 64, 65,

206 n. 40invisibility of, 33–5, 38, 40, 70, 72manly, masculine, 2, 33, 34, 72, 77,

115, 138, 173 n. 113, 182 n. 43,206 n. 40

rhetoric and, 38, 40, 179 n. 13, 197 n. 103

textual, 138–41, 144woman’s, 34, 35, 38, 41, 66, 68,

69–70, 71–2, 74, 75, 108, 111,126, 127, 128, 131, 132, 170 n. 86, 172 n. 103, 173 n. 113, 177 n. 7, 179 n. 13, 185 n. 85, 186 n. 91

Boethius, 17Boffey, Julia, 137, 215 n. 29Book of the Knight of the Tower [Le Livre

du chevalier de La Tour Landry], 38,39, 66, 71, 116, 121, 184 n. 68,186 n. 90, 198 n. 16

Bowers, R.H., 144, 213 n. 13brain (spatialization of), 78, 82, 83,

189 n. 10, n. 11. See also, distance(brain topography), facultypsychology

Braswell, Mary Flowers, 127Bromyard, John, 99Brundage, James, 169 n. 78, 203 n. 21,

209 n. 76Bullough, Vern, 110, 201 n. 9Burger, Glenn, 156 n. 14, 170 n. 86,

208 n. 59Burnley, David, 39, 172 n. 97Butler, Judith, 153, 155 n. 1Butterfield, Ardis, 96Bynum, Caroline Walker, 159 n. 36,

161 n. 54

Calcidius, 18Camille, Michael, 55, 83, 162 n. 58,

186 n. 91, 188 n. 5Cannon, Christopher, 9, 211 n. 4Capellanus, Andreas, 197 n. 102

Carruthers, Mary, 78, 112, 160 n. 49,187 n. 3, 188 n. 5, 190 n. 22, 194 n. 69, 197 n. 107, 200 n. 2

Castrojeriz, Fray Juan Garcia de, 67,184 n. 73

Caxton, William, see Book of the Knightof the Tower

Certeau, Michel de, 1, 160 n. 39, 207 n. 51, n. 55

Chapman, Robert L., 122Chasteau d’Amour, 99Chaucer, Geoffrey

Book of the Duchess, 14, 75, 77–105,121, 150, 151, 168–9 n. 68

Clerk’s Tale, 69Complaint of Mars, 182 n. 44Goodlief, 48, 49, 110General Prologue, 3, 7Harry Bailey [Host], 3, 4–6, 47–8,

110Knight, 3–4, 7Knight’s Tale, 144, 145Man of Law’s Tale, 6, 89,

207 n. 49Manciple’s Tale, 90Merchant’s Tale, 138, 145,

147–8, 149Miller’s Prologue and Tale, 7, 11, 145,

147–8, 149Nun’s Priest’s Tale, 203 n. 19Pardoner, 3–4, 139, 156 n. 14,

179 n. 13Pardoner’s Tale, 7, 16, 139,

156 n. 14Parliament of Fowls, 168–9 n. 68Parson, 33, 133, 177 n. 4Physician’s Tale, 14, 48, 49, 51–76,

104, 121, 150Reeve’s Tale, 11, 139, 144,

145Shipman’s Tale, 15, 102, 107–35,

139, 150Sir Thopas, 5Tale of Melibee, 6, 7, 14, 17–49, 51,

73, 110, 120, 150

I N D E X242

Troilus and Criseyde, 138, 143–4,145, 150, 151, 152

Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale, 15,45, 107–35, 146–7, 173 n. 109,202 n. 12, n. 13, 203 n. 20, 205 n. 38, n. 39, 206 n. 43

Chaucer the Man, Pilgrim, Poet,Speaker, 4–9

chess, 2, 90–91, 194 n. 69Chester Noah, 57, 114, 204 n. 25Chobham, Thomas of, 33Christ, 10, 32, 37, 68, 84–6, 95,

193 n. 58Christine de Pizan, 66Christian learning, 18, 21–2, 28, 29,

31, 37, 44, 67, 68, 166 n. 34, 172 n. 97, 210 n. 80

Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome, 6, 155 n. 5,158 n. 30, 159 n. 37

Collette, Carolyn, 38, 189 n. 11, n. 13color

art and, 33, 97–9, 198 n. 111“colourles,” 198 n. 114debates over, 93, 97–9 163 n. 4,

198 n. 111emotions and, 82, 197 n. 107language and, 199 n. 123rhetoric and, 97–9, 197 n. 101, n. 107

compilation (textual), 138–50, 210–11 n. 1, 213 n. 15, 215 n. 20

conduct discourse, 38–9, 51, 53–6, 57, 66–8, 71–2, 74, 75, 99, 121,175 n. 130, 180 n. 24, 186 n. 90,200 n. 2

confession, 28, 86, 193 n. 61conjugality, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39,

80, 109, 117, 121, 123–4, 128, 129, 130–1, 170 n. 86, 208 n. 59

Connelly, Margaret, 137, 211 n. 2, n. 4

Consail and Teiching at the Vys Man GaifHis Sone, 173 n. 108, 201 n. 11

“consecrated virgin” (Ambrose’s), 56, 67

consolation, 80–1, 190 n. 23, 198 n. 115Constance of Castile, 104,

184–5 n. 73contemplation, 19, 85–6, 89, 95Copeland, Rita, 30–1, 161 n. 50,

179 n. 13court

judicial, 51, 52, 70, 72, 73, 178 n. 11, 186 n. 86

royal, 48, 55–6, 61–2, 97, 103, 104,178 n. 11

Courtenay, William J., 191 n. 37coverture law, 60, 121Cowell, Andrew, 98, 198 n. 110Crane, Susan, 69, 122, 175 n. 130,

178 n. 11Crowther, J.D.W., 68cuckoldry, 11, 108, 119, 123,127, 129,

132, 147, 149, 184 n. 64

“death of the author,” 8, 158 n. 25Debray, Régis, 160 n. 47Delany, Sheila, 64, 178 n. 9Denery, II, Dallas G., 165 n. 27Derrida, Jacques, 194 n. 75,

199 n. 123detachment, 13, 78, 80, 86, 144, 150diachronic materialism, 12, 137Diamond, Arlyn, 118Dinshaw, Carolyn, 9, 122, 158 n. 29,

166 n. 33, 207 n. 52dissolution

of masculinities, 36, 88, 90, 130,148, 173 n. 115

of the monasteries, 137, 212 n. 6distance

brain topography and, 77–9, 82–3,189 n. 10

exemplary, 14, 71historical, 9, 11, 79masculinity and, 15, 42, 78, 80, 81,

84, 86, 88, 92, 102, 104memory and, 15, 78–9, 83

I N D E X 243

distance––continuedrepresentation and, 31, 78, 79–80,

82, 83–5, 86, 102visual, 15, 25, 28, 77–80, 83–5, 92,

93–6, 102, 194–5 n. 79Dolan, Frances, 60domestic violence, 111, 114–19, 147,

172 n. 106, 203 n. 21, 203–4 n.22, 204 n. 23

dreams, 187 n. 4dream vision, 78, 80, 81, 88, 97, 187 n. 4Donaldson, E.T., 4, 7Duffy, Eamon, 84Dworkin, Andrea, 178 n. 11

elegy, 80, 82, 96–7, 190 n. 26, 193 n. 61

Ellison, Ralph [Invisible Man (1952)],2–3, 4, 8

epistemology, 11, 93–5, 188 n. 5erasure

memory and, 79–80visibility and, 6, 15, 22, 34–5, 38,

47, 74, 127, 142, 145, 147,148, 160 n. 42

Eucharist, 31, 95, 192 n. 45exemplarity, 14, 37–9, 41–6, 47, 49,

52, 54, 67–8, 71, 92, 93, 99extramission, 18–19, 20, 21, 24, 27,

94, 164 n. 18eye

agency of, 18–19, 20, 23, 25, 26, 29,82, 94–9, 167 n. 44

connection to soul, 25, 27–8frailty of, 89, 90, 95–9nobility of, 25, 29object’s influence over, 19–20, 23,

25, 26, 94–9priority of, 19, 29, 30, 189–90 n. 20public, 36, 49, 103, 110, 123, 132,

205 n. 40

fabliaux, 15, 59, 107, 109, 114–16,119, 121, 125, 128–9, 182 n. 38,210 n. 80

faculty psychology 78–9, 81–3, 189 n. 10

Farmer, Sharon, 33, 172 n. 102Felman, Shoshana, 157 n. 18, 178 n. 11Fitzralph, Richard, 196 n. 92flesh, 17, 31, 33, 40, 41, 54, 133,

163 n. 3, 170 n. 81, 179 n. 13forest law, 57–9, 181 n. 30, n. 31

regard and, 183 n. 49foresters, 57–9, 181 n. 31, n. 35Fortune, 88–92, 193 n. 64Foucault, Michel, 84, 158 n. 25,

201 n. 8, 216 n. 35Fradenburg, L.O. Aranye, 9, 161 n.

51, 174 n. 119, 190 n. 21, n. 26Freud, Sigmund, 13, 161 n. 52,

180 n. 21Froissart, 62–3, 96Fulton, Helen, 119, 205–6 n. 40fürstenspiegel, 46, 169 n. 76

Garber, Marjorie, 11, 160 n. 42Gardner, John, 55Gaunt, John of, 48, 55, 62, 75, 97, 104,

179 n. 17, 184–5 n. 73, 199 n. 126gaze

averted, 84–7, 97feminist theory and, 17, 18, 84,

163 n. 1, n. 6, 189–90 n. 20gender

allegory of, 14, 32–6, 39, 166 n. 34banality of, 1, 18, 32, 35, 42, 44, 45,

46, 47, 48, 49, 174 n. 126as collaborative, 4, 10, 11, 12–13,

15, 32, 46, 48, 81, 87, 90, 100,101, 103, 104, 107, 108, 118,124, 132, 133, 134, 153

as coverage, 10, 11–12, 14, 15, 32,78, 104, 105, 109, 133–4, 146,150, 153, 159 n. 37, 188–9 n. 9

distance and, 9, 12, 14–15, 28, 42,77–80, 92, 102

(in)visibility, 1–10, 15, 16, 18, 30,32, 34–5, 37, 38, 40–1, 46–8,49, 57–8, 74, 80, 87, 102, 104,

I N D E X244

107–10, 112–13, 117–19,123–4, 127, 131, 134–5, 138,141, 148, 152, 155 n. 6, 172 n. 100, 180 n. 24, 201 n. 8

materiality and, 1, 13, 16, 36, 54, 80,103, 108, 138, 139, 141, 152

order, 174 n. 124, 175–6 n. 134,206–7 n. 45

as outlaw formation, 59–60, 118passing and, 3, 10–12, 16, 36, 46, 48,

51, 54, 72, 74, 103, 104, 107,108, 109, 113, 114, 117, 118,122, 124, 134, 135, 138, 146,147, 150, 151, 152, 160 n. 40

phenomenal construction of, 13–14reception (textual) and, 139–40,

216 n. 36reciprocity, 14, 23, 24, 25, 28, 30,

32, 80, 100, 101, 104, 124, 133relational, 16, 32, 39–40, 46, 48, 51,

52, 74, 77, 80, 81, 87, 88–93,102, 103, 107, 110, 124, 133,134, 149, 159 n. 37, 208 n. 59

rhetoric and, 38–9, 40, 45, 98, 103,172 n. 100, 173 n. 114, 179 n. 13, 185 n. 85, 202 n. 12

suspense of, 102, 103, 107, 108,109, 121–2, 134, 206 n. 43

violence of, 14, 43, 49, 72–6visuality of, 10–13, 14, 17–18, 38,

40, 48, 54–5, 72–6, 77, 102,109, 133, 138, 145, 149, 169 n. 76, 173 n. 115

Geoffrey of Vinsauf, 98–9“God Amend Wykkyd Cownscell,”

173 n. 115“The Goodwife Taught Her

Daughter,” 38go-betweens, 59, 106 n. 72gossip, 57, 113, 180 n. 24, n. 25. See

also, privacy, women (secrecy)governance, 34, 42, 51–60, 67, 69, 71,

74–5, 112–14, 116, 117, 120, 123,130, 171 n. 93, 177 n. 7, 178 n. 9,179 n. 19, 184 n. 65, 204 n. 26

Gower, John, 137, 152Green, Richard Firth, 46Greenblatt, Stephen, 142, 176 n. 2,

215 n. 25Grosseteste, Robert, 17, 20, 23, 94,

99, 165 n. 23, 196 n. 92,guilds, 9, 84“Gyges’s Ring,” 1–2

Hahn, Thomas, 129Halberstam, Judith, 159 n. 37Hamburger, Jeffrey, 193 n. 55Hanawalt, Barbara, 58, 186 n. 86,

202 n. 16, 203–4 n. 22Hanna, III, Ralph, 137, 211–12 n. 4,

213 n. 11, n. 14, 215 n. 15Hardman, Phillipa, 104, 192 n. 52Harley 7333 (British Library MS.),

15–16, 137–50, 210 n. 1, 211 n. 4, 212 n. 6, 212–13 n. 9,213 n. 10, 213 n. 13, 213 n. 14,213–14 n. 16, 215 n. 25

Harris, Jonathan Gil, 161 n. 50Hass, Robin, 97Hawkes, Emma, 114heterosexuality, 34, 80, 88, 103historicism, 12, 15–16, 67–8, 142,

158 n. 27, 161 n. 51, 174 n. 119Hoccleve, Thomas, 137, 206 n. 44,

211 n. 2Holland, John, 14, 55–6, 61–3, 66, 75,

182 n. 44, 183 n. 48homosocial bonds, 64–5, 88, 100,

103–4, 124–5, 183 n. 54, 208 n. 64household

masculine authority and, 34–5, 39,41, 42, 48, 51, 53–4, 69, 72,110–14, 116–19, 121, 129–30,149, 170 n. 96, 171 n. 93

rhetoric and, 38, 172 n. 100royal court and, 55, 67, 179 n. 17,

184–5 n. 73treason and, 60visibility of, 47, 48, 53–4, 55, 60,

69, 72, 110–14, 116–19, 123,

I N D E X 245

household––continued124, 131, 149, 188 n. 9, 202 n. 16, 203 n. 17, n. 21

How the Goode Man Taght Hys Sone,116, 201 n. 9

Howard, Donald, 7, 88, 158 n. 23Hugh of St. Victor, 33, 98Huppé, Bernard F., 168 n. 68, 169 n. 75

idolatry, 23, 89, 90, 96–7, 100, 188 n. 7,196 n. 91

imagesdebates surrounding, 15, 77, 82, 83,

88, 89–90, 92, 93–6, 188 n. 7,196 n. 90, n. 91, n. 92, 197 n.97, 198 n. 111, 199 n. 120

devotional, 83, 84–6, 89, 93–6,96–7, 102, 188 n. 7, 191 n. 37,192 n. 40, n. 52, 198 n. 53,196 n. 90, n. 92, 197 n. 7, 198n. 111, 199 n. 120

feminine, 10, 22, 40, 52, 57, 64, 77,79, 80, 86, 88, 89–90, 92, 96–9,101, 113, 121, 150, 171 n. 92,n. 93, 173 n. 114, 186 n. 91

masculine, 32, 34, 41–2, 47, 52, 64,73, 80, 86, 88, 89, 92, 113,117–19, 120–21, 123, 129,130–31, 132, 133, 134, 144,173 n. 114

memorial, 78–9, 81, 82, 104, 160–1 n. 49, 187 n. 3, n. 4,189–90 n. 20, n. 22, 194 n. 69

Impingham, 140–53, 210 n. 1intimacy, 84–8, 100, 102, 112, 113,

125, 133, 142, 210 n. 78intromission (visual theory), 19–21, 24,

27, 52, 82–3, 86, 89, 94, 95intuitive cognition (Ockham’s), 93–5,

195 n. 80(in)visibility, see gender

((in)visibility)Invisible Man (film; 1933), 156 n. 11.

See also Ellison, WellsIrigaray, Luce, 122–3, 184 n. 64

Jay, Martin, 162 n. 58Jean de Meun, 53, 73Jones, W.R., 188 n. 7Justice, Steven, 142

Kelly, Henry Ansgar, 170 n. 80, 203 n. 21

Kessler, Herbert, 168 n. 67Kittredge, George Lyman, 55, 89,

177 n. 8, 193 n. 64, 194 n. 68Knapp, Peggy, 9, 205 n. 38Kolve, V.A., 86, 162 n. 58

Lacan, Jacques, 34, 74, 157 n. 18, 186 n. 96

Lancaster, Elizabeth of, 14, 55–6,60–6, 75, 177 n. 8, 182 n. 44

Lanterne of Li{t, 89Larsen, Nella, [Passing (1929)], 10Latour, Bruno, 12Leicester Abbey, 211–12 n. 4,

212 n. 6, n. 9, 213 n. 10Leicester, Jr., H. Marshall, Jr., 67Le Ménagier de Paris, 38, 115, 121,

132–3Lerer, Seth, 138, 139, 174 n. 125,

212 n. 8, 213 n. 11, n. 15, 214 n. 18

“Les Deus Changeors,” 125, 128Levinas, Emmanuel, 2Lindberg, David C., 20, 94, 163 n. 5,

164 n. 19, 165 n. 27, 165–6 n. 29,191 n. 33

Lipton, Sara, 85, 193 n. 55Livy, 53, 64, 72, 73, 177 n. 5Lochrie, Karma, 11, 86, 127,

180 n. 24, 202 n. 15Lomperis, Linda, 64, 69, 75Louens, Renaud de, 32“lover’s gift regained,” 107, 127–8Lydgate, John, 137, 206 n. 44Lynch, Kathryn L., 81, 93, 187–8 n. 4lyric poetry, 85, 88, 89, 96, 97, 120,

180 n. 24, 192 n. 50, 193 n. 58,206 n. 42, n. 44, 206–7 n. 45

I N D E X246

Machaut, Guillaume de, 88–89, 97–98,187 n. 2, 189 n. 19, 193 n. 64,194 n. 68

MacKinnon, Catharine, 112, 178 n. 9,202 n. 15

“maker(e),” 141, 146, 151, 152–3,215 n. 20

Mandel, Jerome, 177 n. 6, 178 n. 9manhed, 9–12, 158 n. 31Man of Sorrows [imago pietatis], 86,

192 n. 52, 193 n. 58Manly, John M., 137, 174 n. 125,

210 n. 1, 213–14 n. 16manuscript studies, 212 n. 5marriage

allegory of, 14, 32–6, 38, 39, 170 n. 81, 171 n. 92

Christ’s union with the Church,32–3, 169 n. 77

conjugality, 15, 33–6, 38, 39, 80,109, 112, 117, 121, 123, 124, 128, 129, 130, 131, 149,169 n. 78 n. 79, 170 n. 86

John Holland and Elizabeth ofLancaster, 55–6, 60–4, 177 n. 8

mimicry and, 119–24sexual debt, 130–3transactional, 107, 115, 121, 123–4,

129, 131, 134, 201 n. 9Mary (Virgin), 71, 99, 186 n. 90masculinities, 1–216. See also, body

(manly, masculine), distance(masculinity and), gender,governance, household (masculineauthority and), images (masculine),vision (masculinity and)

Massumi, Brian, 161 n. 54, 185 n. 83Masten, Jeffrey, 142, 215 n. 25matter, 20, 24, 31, 80, 161 n. 50,

171 n. 92Matthew de Vendôme, 93, 194 n. 76McGalliard, John C., 124, 208 n. 60memory, 14, 15, 77–83, 87, 88,

91, 92, 94, 96–7, 101, 103–5,160–1 n. 49, 187 n. 3, n. 4,

188 n. 5, n. 9, 189 n. 10, 189–90, n. 20, 190 n. 21, 191 n. 32, n. 33, 193 n. 61, 194 n. 69, 199 n. 20

Melville, Stephen, 31Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, 162 n. 55Middleton, Anne, 67, 176 n. 1Mills, Robert, 159 n. 33mimicry, 119–24, 140, 206 n. 44Minnis, Alastair, 83, 97, 172 n. 99, 190

n. 23, 191 n. 32, 193 n. 65,199–200 n. 126, 214 n. 17

misfire (language), 125, 157 n. 18misogynist discourse, 39, 57, 122, 130,

145–6, 147, 148–50, 151, 179 n. 13

mnemonics, see memoryMooney, Linne R., 210–11 n. 1,

212 n. 9Mulvey, Laura, 163 n. 1, 189–90 n. 20Murray, H.J.R., 90–1Muscatine, Charles, 174 n. 124,

189 n. 19Myne Awen Dere Sone, 201 n. 10,

203 n. 20

Newman, Barbara, 158 n. 32, 166 n. 34

Noah Plays, 57, 114, 204 n. 25Nominalism, 99

Ockham, William of, 15, 81, 93–6,195 n. 81

Olson, Glending, 151, 214 n. 17On the Twenty-Five Articles, 95optics, 14, 18–32, 44, 49, 52, 94, 93–6,

163 n. 4, n. 5, 165 n. 25, n. 27, 194 n. 79. See also, vision, visualtheory

Ovid, 77, 79, 80, 81, 151

Panofsky, Erwin, 192 n. 40passing, 2–3, 10–12, 16, 36, 46, 48,

51, 54, 72, 74, 103, 104, 107,108, 109, 113, 114, 117, 118,

I N D E X 247

passing––continued122, 123, 124, 134, 135, 138–9, 146, 147, 150, 151, 152, 160 n. 40, n. 41, n. 42, 208 n. 58

passivityabsolute, 24, 52, 63–4, 65, 72feminized, 10, 51–3, 54, 56, 73–5,

149, 159 n. 36Christ’s, 10manhed and, 9–10men and, 10, 42, 49, 54, 56, 62,

63–4, 65–6, 69, 73–5, 133,141, 146, 147, 159 n. 33, 175 n. 131

radical, 49, 51–3, 63, 65, 103women and, 10, 36, 39, 51–3, 54,

56, 60, 61, 62, 63–6, 67,69–70, 72, 73–5, 103, 117,121, 125, 146, 147, 148, 174 n.123, 180 n. 21, 186 n. 91

Patterson, Lee, 4, 9, 158 n. 27, 169 n. 76, 202 n. 12, 206 n. 41

patriarchal panic, 53Pearsall, Derek, 189–90 n. 20,

209 n. 71, 212 n. 5Pecham, John, 20, 165 n. 25, n. 27Peck, Russell A., 99Pecock, Reginald, 15, 102, 199 n. 120perspectiva, 20–2, 23, 28, 156 n. 15perspectivists, 21, 94, 165 n. 25, n. 27Peter of Limoges, 17, 165 n. 17Phelan, Peggy, 155 n. 6Piers Plowman, 83Phillips, Heather, 95, 195 n. 87Plato, 1, 14, 18–20, 24, 94,

164 n. 19poaching, 57–9, 184 n. 34, 181–2 n.

35, 182 n. 36Pope Clement IV [Cardinal Guy de

Foulques], 27Prior, Sandra Pierson, 68privacy, 33, 36, 38–9, 49, 51, 53,

55–7, 63, 72–3, 81, 87, 96,102–4, 112–13, 117–19, 121,124, 125, 127, 129–34, 172 n.106, 177 n. 7, 178 n. 9, 202 n. 16,

203 n. 17, 203 n. 20, 205 n. 30,209 n. 76, 213 n. 11. See alsowomen (secrets)

prudence (virtue of), 37, 39, 44, 69,170–1 n. 89, 171 n. 90, n. 91,172 n. 92, n. 98

psychoanalysis, 12, 13, 73–4, 173–4 n.119, 180 n. 21, 185 n. 84, 186–7 n. 96, 201 n. 7

“The Qualities of a Gentleman,” 206 n. 42

rape, 65, 70–1, 182 n. 43, 185 n. 85,186 n. 86

reason, 29, 78, 82, 83, 112, 116–17,120, 130, 133, 171 n. 93, 205 n. 36

receptiontextual, 7, 13, 15, 31, 138–43, 146,

151, 152–3, 213 n. 11, n. 14,214 n. 19, 215 n. 21

visual, 23, 25, 28–30, 37, 86–7, 92rhetoric, 19, 22, 27, 68, 78, 95, 97, 98,

126, 187 n. 3, 188 n. 5, 196 n.92, 197 n. 101

amplificatio, 177 n. 7collatio, 160–61 n. 49digressio, 177 n. 7dilatio, 202 n. 12descriptio, 98effictio, 97gender and, 38, 40, 45, 93, 98,

103, 172 n. 100, 173 n. 114,174 n. 124, 179 n. 13, 185 n.85, 202 n. 12, n. 13. See also,women (rhetoric)

Rickert, Edith, 174 n. 125, 210 n. 1,212–13 n. 9, 213 n. 10, 213–24 n. 16

Robertson, Jr., D.W., 162 n. 58, 168 n. 68, 169 n. 75, 210 n. 80

Robertson, Elizabeth, 170 n. 87Roman de la Rose, 81, 182 n. 38Romanus, Aegidius, 67Roth, Philip, 160 n. 41

I N D E X248

Rubin, Gayle, 183 n. 54, 208 n. 64Rubin, Miri, 84“rule of thumb,” 114, 203 n. 21,

204 n. 24

saints’ lives, 51, 67–8Saramago, José, 156 n. 8scandal, 14, 48, 53–7, 65, 75, 77,

127, 130, 178 n. 11, 178–9 n. 12,182 n. 44

Scanlon, Larry,169 n. 76, 180 n. 29Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky, 184 n. 64,

208 n. 64“self-shattering,” 133, 209 n. 75Shaviro, Steven, 163 n. 1Shirley, John, 15, 137–8, 182 n. 44,

210–11 n. 1, 211–12 n. 4, 215 n. 29Sidhu, Nicole Nolan, 59Silverman, Kaja, 157 n. 22, 207 n. 57“Sir Hain et Dame Anieuse,” 114–16Smalley, Beryl, 19Smith, A. Mark, 19, 165 n. 25,

189 n. 10, n. 11Smith, D. Vance, 79, 188 n. 9,

205–6 n. 40Spearing, A.C., 96, 156 n. 15,

187–8 n. 4, 201 n. 7species, visible, 15, 18–19, 21, 23–6,

27–9, 31, 93–5, 166 n. 36, 167 n. 43, 191 n. 33, 194–5 n. 79

Stanbury, Sarah, 84, 177 n. 7stoics, 18, 37Sullivan, Hazel, 122Swynford, Katherine, 55, 61, 75, 104,

179 n. 17scorpion (image of), 89–90, 194 n. 68Shoaf, R.A., 86Summit, Jennifer, 212 n. 6supplementarity, 92, 120, 194 n. 75surveillance, 1, 39, 56, 58, 60, 134,

203 n. 21

Tachau, Katherine, 94, 194–5 n. 79Tatlock, John S.P., 42, 152, 177 n. 7,

216 n. 26

Taylor, Andrew, 212–13 n. 9, 215 n. 26“technologies of the visible,” 1, 142textual studies, 15, 107–9, 122, 135,

137–42, 145, 146, 148, 149, 151,152, 212 n. 5, 214 n. 18, n. 19,215 n. 20, n. 21, n. 25

Thompson, John J., 137, 211 n. 2Thorpe, William, 89translatio studii, 21, 37Travis, Peter W., 91, 93, 194 n. 73treason, 11, 58, 60, 160 n. 42,

203–4 n. 22Trigg, Stephanie, 157 n. 16, 214 n. 18Trinh T. Minh-ha, 161 n. 53Tupper, Frederick, 67, 122

Uebel, Michael, 159 n. 33, 177 n. 7Ussery, Huling E., 55, 179 n. 17Usual Suspects (film; 1995), 73–4

viewerpower of, 3, 7, 18–20, 24, 25, 27,

85, 86, 92, 163 n. 1, 189 n. 20receptivity of, 17, 20–1, 25, 28–9,

30, 31, 82, 83, 86, 92, 94–6,199 n. 120

susceptibility of, 25, 28–9, 31, 83–4,89–90, 94–6

Vincent de Beauvais, 67, 194 n. 68virtuality, 34, 70, 87, 95, 185 n. 83vision

bilateral, 7, 18, 22, 24–5, 30, 32–3connectivity in, 15, 18, 25–9, 102–3corporeal [visio corporalis], 19, 82distance and, 15, 25, 28, 77–80, 83–5,

92, 93–6, 102, 194–5 n. 79femininity and, 59, 60, 68, 90, 109free will and, 27–8intellectual [visio intellectualis], 19, 93masculinity and, 3, 18, 19, 22, 24,

35, 36, 43, 48, 65, 80, 92, 135objects of, 11, 13, 17–21, 23–8,

30, 62, 73, 81–4, 92, 93–5, 97,167 n. 43

perfected, 21, 26punitive, 109, 118, 134, 149

I N D E X 249

vision––continuedpyramid in, 25–6, 29reciprocity in, 14, 23, 24, 25, 28, 30,

32, 80, 100, 101, 104, 124, 133reflected, 21, 26, 52, 83, 95, 112,

113, 161 n. 53refracted, 21, 26sin and, 21, 27–9, 41, 133spiritual [visio spiritualis], 14, 17, 19,

21, 25, 27–30, 30–2, 89, 95,165 n. 27, 210 n. 80

stationed, 78, 80, 189–90 n. 20unilateral, 48, 84, 88, 100, 161 n. 53

visual theory (medieval)Aristotelian, 19–20, 24, 27, 94.

See also, intromissionNeoplatonic, 18–20, 21, 24, 94.

See also, extramissionvoyeurism, 87, 109, 156 n. 15, 201 n. 7

Walker, Denis, 103Wallace, David, 8, 9, 12, 38, 65,

170–1 n. 89, 172 n. 100, n. 102,n. 106, 184 n. 61, 215 n. 21

Waller, Martha S., 67, 180 n. 23,184–5 n. 73

Warner, Marina, 166 n. 34Watson, Nicholas, 161 n. 54, 196 n. 92Wells, H.G., [The Invisible Man (1897)],

2, 156 n. 11Westminster Chronicle, 55–6, 61–2Wheeler, Bonnie, 155 n. 5, 159 n. 37wife-beating, see domestic violenceWilliams, George, 55, 179 n. 17Witelo, 20, 165 n. 25Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 11–12, 162 n.

56, 194 n. 69women

agency and, 17, 25, 33, 39, 41, 46,48, 52, 54, 60, 67–8, 71, 74,112, 121, 122, 123, 124, 128,131, 134, 145, 146, 147, 148,149, 158 n. 32

body and, 34, 35, 38, 41, 66, 68,69–70, 71–2, 74, 75, 108, 111, 126, 127, 128, 131, 132,

170 n. 86, 172 n. 103, 173 n.113, 177 n. 7, 179 n. 13, 185 n. 85, 186 n. 91

conduct discourse and, 39, 53–6, 57,66, 71–2, 75, 99, 120–1, 170–1 n. 89, 171 n. 90, 177 n. 8, 184 n. 68, 186 n. 90,198 n. 116, 200 n. 2, 206 n. 45, n. 46

gossip and, 113, 180 n. 24, n. 25guidance and, 25, 37–8, 59,

182 n. 38(in)visibility of, 3, 10, 14, 15, 17, 33,

35, 40, 46, 48, 49, 57, 60, 64,69, 74, 107, 113, 118, 123–4,131, 134, 147, 149

as objects, 17, 28–9, 62, 63–4, 80, 103, 183 n. 84, 184 n. 65,208 n. 64

passing and, 11, 16, 33, 51, 60, 74,126, 132–3, 146, 152

passivity and, 10, 36, 39, 51–3, 54, 56, 60, 61, 62, 63–6, 67, 69–70, 72, 73–5, 103, 117, 121, 125, 146, 147, 148, 174 n. 123, 180 n. 21, 186 n. 91

as sights, 17, 25, 28–9,rhetoric and, 38, 40, 45, 98–9, 103,

172 n. 100, n. 102. See alsorhetoric

(women), gender (rhetoric)species of, 28–9secrecy and, 40, 56, 57, 112–13, 180

n. 24, 180 n. 25, 202 n. 15,203 n. 20. See also, privacy

Woolf, Rosemary, 193 n. 58Wyclif, John, 17, 94–6, 195–6 n. 87,

196 n. 90, n. 91, n. 92

Yates, Frances, 187 n. 3, 188 n. 5Young, Karl, 67

Ziolkowski, Jan M., 197 n. 107Vivek, Slavoj, 65, 73–4, 180 n.

27, n. 28, 187 n. 98.

I N D E X250