• David R. Carlson
Part of the The New Middle Ages book series (TNMA)


The Horatian dictum poeta nascitur non fit wants to be reversed in the case of Chaucer. He was not a born poet, but a fabricated one, whose literary-historical place as the father of English poetry resulted less from talent or vision or any intrinsic merits of his verse born of either, but of his particular social location, doing his particular jobs at the time and place, this social location investing his verse with perspectives and attitudes and values that made the verse amenable to bearing the historical weight it has had and retains.1 Chaucer has been a useful poet, rather than a good one, because he could serve. Immediately, the writings themselves served the same interests Chaucer worked for in his household and state-bureaucratic employments; Chaucer’s writings also served other writers, contemporaries and after-comers, as a useful model for what poetry and poetic success might be.


English Literature Literary Production Fourteenth Century Political Engagement Literary Tradition 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    To say so much is not to deny Chaucer active, subjective agency, in responding to the determinant circumstance. It is to say—to reflect my judgment— that, in Chaucer’s case, agency is less consequential than determinant circumstance, for explaining both his writing itself and his writings reception. To be dogmatic, however, would be an error: in other cases, or in the same case by light of other evidence, or by light of the same evidence weighed differently for different purposes, agency might be judged to be of greater moment. Marx wrote, “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness” (“Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy,” in Selected Works, 3 vols. [Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1969], 1:503), and “Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered” (“The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,” in Selected Works, 1:398)—a formulation confirmed by Engels’s doctrinaire 1890 “Letter to Joseph Bloch” (in Selected Works, 3:487), “We make our history ourselves, but, in the first place, under very definite assumptions and conditions. Among these the economic ones are ultimately decisive.” But Marx also wrote, “The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of other circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men that change circumstances” (“Theses on Feuerbach III,” in Selected Works, 1:13). Certainly, the tradition is not clear or univocal: Antonio Gramsci, for one, set considerable weight by possibilities for exercise of subjective agency, despite determinant material circumstance (esp. the Leninist voluntarism: see “The Revolution against Capital” [1917], in Selections from Political Writings (1910–1920), ed. Quintin Hoare, trans. John Mathews [London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1977], pp. 34–37). Useful brief discussion of this agency—determinant circumstance problem is inGoogle Scholar
  2. Perry Anderson, In the Tracks of Historical Materialism (London: Verso, 1983), pp. 33–35; for greater detail, see the exegetical work ofGoogle Scholar
  3. Martin Jay, Marxism and Totality (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984); the most pertinent discussion for present purposes is that ofGoogle Scholar
  4. Lee Patterson, Chaucer and the Subject of History (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991), esp. pp. 3–13.Google Scholar
  5. 2.
    Anne Hudson, “Piers Plowman and the Peasants’ Revolt: A Problem Revisited,” Yearbook of Langland Studies 8 (1994): 85–106; the evidence is reviewed also inCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Steven Justice, Writing and Rebellion (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), pp. 102–39.Google Scholar
  7. 3.
    Margaret Aston, “Lollardy and Sedition, 1381–1431” (1960), repr. in Lollards and Reformers (London: Hambledon, 1984), pp. 1–47, and, more recently, “Corpus Christi and Corpus Regni: Heresy and the Peasants’ Revolt,” Past &Present 143 (1994): 3–47.Google Scholar
  8. 4.
    Hudson, “Lollardy: The English Heresy?,” Studies in Church History 18 (1982): 261–83. On the language-politics,Google Scholar
  9. see now esp. Nicholas Watson, “The Politics of Middle English Writing,” in The Idea of the Vernacular, ed. Jocelyn Wogan-Browne, Watson, Andrew Taylor, and Ruth Evans (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999), pp. 331–52.Google Scholar
  10. 5.
    See, respectively, James Simpson, “The Constraints of Satire in ‘Piers Plowman’ and ‘Mum and the Sothsegger,’” in Langland, the Mystics and the Medieval English Religious Tradition, ed. Helen Phillips (Cambridge: Brewer, 1990), pp. 11–30,Google Scholar
  11. and Watson, “Censorship and Cultural Change in Late-Medieval England: Vernacular Theology, the Oxford Translation Debate, and Arundel’s Constitutions of 1409,” Speculum 70 (1995): 822–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 6.
    Paul Strohm, Social Chaucer (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989), pp. 164–66; on the passage in question,Google Scholar
  13. see also Peter W.Travis, “Chaucer’s Trivial Fox Chase and the Peasant’s Revolt of 1381,” Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 18 (1988): 214–18.Google Scholar
  14. Another reference is alleged in J. Stephen Russell, “Is London Burning?: A Chaucerian Allusion to the Rising of 1381,” Chaucer Review 30 (1995): 107–09.Google Scholar
  15. 7.
    The quotations are Confessio amantis prol. 151–53 and “In Praise of Peace” (IMEV 2587) 2–4; cf. Strohm, “Form and Social Statement in Confessio Amantis and The Canterbury Tales,” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 1 (1979): 26–30. On the Visio Angliae,Google Scholar
  16. see Andrew Galloway, “Gower in his Most Learned Role and the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381,” Mediaevalia 16 (1993): 329–47.Google Scholar
  17. 8.
    Gawain 35. David R. Carlson, “Pearh Imperfections,” Studia Neophilologica 63 (1991): 51–67, can be taken to represent an extreme (paranoid, even) estimate of the poet’s capacities in this regard.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 9.
    See esp. Watson, “The Gawain-Voet as a Vernacular Theologian,” in A Companion to the Gawain-Poet, ed. Derek Brewer and Jonathan Gibson (Cambridge: Brewer, 1997), pp. 293–313.Google Scholar
  19. 10.
    See esp. Frank Grady, “St. Erkenwald and the Merciless Parliament,” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 22 (2000): 179–211.Google Scholar
  20. 11.
    There are instructive remarks about the poet’s disengagement in Charles Muscatine, Poetry and Crisis in the Age of Chaucer (Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1972), pp. 37–42.Google Scholar
  21. 12.
    Chaucer’s lists include LGWG Prol. 255–66, 344, 405–20; MET 46–89; Ret 1085–87; and Adam. For the reception-history generally I rely on Seth Lerer, Chaucer and His Readers (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), establishing how thoroughly interested, albeit variably interested, the construction of Chaucer was in its earliest phases; also of significance isGoogle Scholar
  22. John H. Fisher, The Importance of Chaucer (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992).Google Scholar
  23. 13.
    The Siege of Thebes prologue is edited and discussed in Bowers, The Canterbury Tales: Fifteenth-Century Continuations and Additions, METS (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 1992), pp. 11–22.Google Scholar
  24. A great deal of pertinent information is assembled in Caroline F. E. Spurgeon, Five Hundred Years of Chaucer Criticism and Allusion 1357–1900, 3 vols. (1925; repr. New York: Russell &Russell, 1960), but Spurgeon’s dates are often significantly wrong—though it has fewer citations, the presentation is much better inGoogle Scholar
  25. Derek S. Brewer, Chaucer: The Critical Heritage, 2 vols. (London: Routledge, 1978)—so for the Lydgate chronology I rely onGoogle Scholar
  26. Derek Pearsall, John Lydgate (1371–1449): A Bio-bibliography (Victoria: University of Victoria, 1997).Google Scholar
  27. 16.
    I have been most influenced by the views of John H. Fisher, “Animadversions on the Text of Chaucer, 1988,” Speculum 63 (1988): 779–93, and “A Language Policy for Lancastrian England,” PMLA 107 (1992): 1168–80.The evidentiary fundamentals were laid out inCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. John S. P. Tatlock, “The Canterbury Tales in 1400,” PMLA 50 (1935): esp. 101–07, and, on relations between the Hengwrt and Ellesmere manuscripts and their relations to Chaucer’s papers, 127–31 and 133–38; the soundest fundamental analysis on these latter points (as far as I am competent to judge) are the remarks ofCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. A. I. Doyle and M. B. Parkes, in “The Production of Copies of the Canterbury Tales and the Confessio Amantis in the Early Fifteenth Century,” in Medieval Scribes, Manuscripts & Libraries: Essays Presented to N. R. Ker, ed. Parkes and Andrew G. Watson (London: Scolar, 1978), esp. pp. 185–92, and in their “Paleographical Introduction,” in The Canterbury Tales: A Facsimile and Transcription of the Hengwrt Manuscript, with Variants from the Ellesmere Manuscript, ed. Paul G. Ruggiers (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1979), esp. pp. xix-xxxiii.Google Scholar
  30. 17.
    Strohm, “Chaucer’s Fifteenth-Century Audience and the Narrowing of the ‘Chaucer Tradition,’” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 4 (1982): 5 and 18–22.Google Scholar
  31. 18.
    Cf. Lee Patterson, “Court Politics and the Invention of Literature: The Case of Sir John Clanvowe,” in Culture and History 1350–1600, ed. David Aers (New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1992), pp. 29–30.Google Scholar
  32. 19.
    For the Deschamps ballad, I cite the text from Brewer, Chaucer: The Critical Heritage, 1:40, and the translation of T. Atkinson Jenkins, “Deschamps’Ballade to Chaucer,” Modern Language Notes 33 (1918): 270–71 (which article has a slightly differing text). The same text as is in Brewer (though with a different translation and notes) is also inGoogle Scholar
  33. James I. Wimsatt, Chaucer and his French Contemporaries (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), pp. 249–50.Google Scholar
  34. 20.
    This is the date derived by Alfred David, in The Riverside Chaucer, 3rd edn., ed. Larry D. Benson (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1987), p. 1104.Google Scholar
  35. 21.
    William Calin, The French Tradition and the Literature of Medieval England (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994), p. 524 n27. On Chaucer and Deschamps otherwise, I rely on Wimsatt, Chaucer and his French Contemporaries, pp. 242–72.Google Scholar
  36. 22.
    These remarks draw on Ranajit Guha, “Dominance without Hegemony and its Historiography,” Subaltern Studies 6 (1989): 210–309.Google Scholar
  37. 27.
    Theodor W. Adorno, “Veblen’s Attack on Culture,” in Prisms, trans. Samuel Weber and Shierry Weber (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1981), p. 76.Google Scholar
  38. 28.
    The documentary evidence of Usk’s life is reviewed in Gary W Shawver, ed., Thomas Usk: Testament of Love Based on the Edition of John E Leyerle (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002), pp. 7–23; cf.Google Scholar
  39. Carlson, “Chaucer’s Boethius and Thomas Usk’s Testament of Love: Politics and Love in the Chaucerian Tradition,” in The Centre and its Compass: Studies in Medieval Literature in Honor of Professor John Leyerle, ed. Robert A. Taylor, James F. Burke, Patricia J. Eberle, Ian Lancashire, and Brian S. Merrilees (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 1993), pp. 37–41; andGoogle Scholar
  40. Strohm, “Politics and Poetics: Usk and Chaucer in the 1380s,” in Literary Practice and Social Change in Britain, 1380–1530, ed. Patterson (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), pp. 85–90, and “The Textual Vicissitudes of Usk’s ‘Appeal,’” in Hochon’s Arrow: The Social Imagination of Fourteenth-Century Texts (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), esp. pp. 145–53. Additional information is in May Newman Hallmundsson, “The Community of Law and Letters: Some Notes on Thomas Usk’s Audience,” Viator 9 (1978): 357–65, and Hallmundsson’s suggestion, 362, of a possible Berkeley connection, is pursued inGoogle Scholar
  41. Lucy Lewis, “The Identity of Margaret in Thomas Usk’s Testament of LoveMedium Aevum 68 (1999): 63–72. For quotations from the Testament, I have used Shawver, ed., Thomas Usk: Testament of Love, citing parenthetically by book, chapter, and line numbers; and from Usk’s Appeal,Google Scholar
  42. R. W Chambers and Marjorie Daunt, A Book of London English 1384–1425 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1931), pp. 22–31, citing parenthetically by line number. The same text of the Appeal, with the same lineation, is reprinted inGoogle Scholar
  43. R.Allen Shoaf, ed., Thomas Usk: The Testament of Love, METS (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 1998), pp. 423–29.Google Scholar
  44. 29.
    Anne Middleton, “Thomas Usk’s ‘Perdurable Letters:’The Testament of Love from Script to Print,” Studies in Bibliography 51 (1998): 69. Cf.Google Scholar
  45. Strohm, “Chaucer’s Audience,” Literature &History 5 (1977): esp. 31–33.Google Scholar
  46. 30.
    Galloway, “Private Selves and the Intellectual Marketplace in Late Fourteenth-Century England: The Case of the Two Usks,” New Literary History 28 (1997): 302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 33.
    Rodney Hilton, “Feudalism in Europe: Problems for Historical Materialists” (1984), repr. in Class Conflict and the Crisis of Feudalism, 2nd edn. (London: Verso, 1990), p. 8. The analysis of Ruth Bird, The Turbulent London of Richard II (London: Longmans, rd)—e.g., the summary statement at p. 30—is persistently clear about the class-conflictual implications of contemporary city politics; and there is clear, brief discussion of the place of urban economies within feudalism inGoogle Scholar
  48. Perry Anderson, Passages From Antiquity to Feudalism (London: NLB, 1974), pp. 150–51.Google Scholar
  49. 35.
    The information about Strode is reviewed, e.g., in Fisher, John Gower: Moral Philosopher and Friend of Chaucer (London: Methuen, 1965), pp. 61–62, though the most interesting information available is in the footnotes of Hallmundsson, “The Community of Law and Letters,” 357–65. Cf. also Strohm, Social Chaucer, pp. 32 and 44.Google Scholar
  50. 38.
    Usk’s use of Anselm was first detailed by George Sanderlin, “Usk’s Testament of Love and St. Anselm,” Speculum 17 (1942): 69–73; see now esp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stephen Medcalf, “Transposition: Thomas Usk’s Testament of Love” in The Medieval Translator, ed. Roger Ellis (Cambridge: Brewer, 1989), pp. 181–95, and “The World and Heart of Thomas Usk,” in Essays on Ricardian Literature in Honour off. A. Burrow, ed. Alistair J. Minnis, Charlotte C. Morse, and Thorlac Turville-Petre (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), pp. 234–38.Google Scholar
  52. 42.
    For the Chaucer-Gower relationship, I rely on the thorough discussion in Fisher, John Gower, pp. 204–302; there are also important comments in David, The Strumpet Muse: Art and Morals in Chaucer’s Poetry (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1976), pp. 119–26.Google Scholar
  53. 43.
    The allusion is to Harold Bloom, The Anxiety of Influence (London: Oxford University Press, 1973).Google Scholar
  54. 44.
    Gardiner Stillwell, “John Gower and the Last Years of Edward III,” Studies in Philology 45 (1948): 471.Google Scholar
  55. 45.
    The most thorough discussion is in Normand R. Cartier, “Le Bleu chevalier de Froissart et le Livre de la duchesse de Chaucer,” Romania 88 (1967): 232–52;Google Scholar
  56. see also Wimsatt, “The Dit dou bleu chevalier: Froissarťs Imitation of Chaucer,” Mediaeval Studies 34 (1972): 388–400,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. and Susan Crane, “Froissarťs Dit dou bleu chevalier as a Source for Chaucer’s Book of the DuchessMedium Aevum 61 (1992): 59–74. On Froissart and Chaucer otherwise, I rely on Wimsatt, Chaucer and his French Contemporaries, pp. 174–209.Google Scholar
  58. 46.
    Chaucer’s borrowings from contemporary French poets in the Book of the Duchess are presented compendiously in Barry A. Windeatt, Chaucer’s Dream Poetry: Sources and Analogues (Cambridge: Brewer, 1982), pp. 167–68.Google Scholar
  59. 47.
    On Clanvowe’s contributions, see Strohm, “Fourteenth- and Fifteenth-Century Writers as Readers of Chaucer,” in Genres, Themes, and Images in English Literature from the Fourteenth to the Fifteenth Century, ed. Piero Boitani and Anna Torti (Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 1988), pp. 92–94, and Social Chaucer,pp. 78–82. I use the edition (sc. of IMEV 3361) inGoogle Scholar
  60. V.J. Scattergood, ed., The Works of Sir John Clanvowe (Cambridge: Brewer, 1975), pp. 35–53. The most thorough discussion of the authorship question remains Scatter-good, “The Authorship of The Boke of Cupide” Anglia 82 (1964): 137–49.Google Scholar
  61. 48.
    See Siegrid Düll, Anthony Luttrell, and Maurice Keen, “Faithful Unto Death: The Tomb Slab of Sir William Neville and Sir John Clanvowe, Constantinople 1391,” Antiquaries Journal 71 (1991): 174–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 50.
    John A. Burrow, “The Audience of Piers Plowman,” Anglia 75 (1957): 377. That “all considerations of genius, of the subjectivity of the artist, of his soul, are on principle uninteresting,” because they are mystifications or evasions, is the extreme position, taken byGoogle Scholar
  63. Pierre Macherey A Theory of Literary Production, trans. Geoffrey Wall (London: Routledge, 1978), pp. 67–68: The various ‘theories’ of creation all ignore the process of making: they omit any account of production. One can create undiminished, so, paradoxically, creation is the release of what is already there; or, one is witness of a sudden apparition, and then creation is an irruption, an epiphany, a mystery. In both instances any possible explanation of the change has been done away with; in the former, nothing has happened; and in the latter what has happened is inexplicable. All speculation over man the creator is intended to eliminate a real knowledge: the ‘creative process’ is, precisely, not a process, a labour; it is a religious formula to be found on funeral monuments. Macherey’s work was published, in 1966, just before the more influential (less Leninist) papers of Roland Barthes and Michel Foucault making much the same assertion: Barthes’s “The Death of the Author” (1968), in Image, Music, Text, ed. and trans. Stephen Heath (New York: Hill &Wang, 1977), pp. 142–48, and Foucault’s “What is an Author?” (1969), in The Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984, ed. Paul Rabinow, trans. Robert Hurley and others, 3 vols. (New York: The New Press, 1997–2000), 2:205–22; cf. also the still earlier contributions of Lucien Goldmann, insisting on the impersonal, social-collective ‘authorship’ of literary works, e. g., “Dialectical Materialism and Literary History” (1950), trans. Francis Mulhern, New Left Review 92 (1975): 39–44, or “The Genetic-Structuralist Method in the History of Literature” (1964), repr. in Towards a Sociology of the Novel, 2nd edn., trans. Alan Sheridan (London:Tavistock, 1975), pp. 156–59. 51. The loan is documented in CLR, p. 500. On Scogan otherwise, see R.T. Lenaghan, “Chaucer’s Envoy to Scogan: The Uses of Literary Conventions,” Chaucer Review 10 (1975): 46–47, esp. Hallmundsson, “Chaucer’s Circle: Henry Scogan and his Friends,” Medievalia et Humanística, n. s. 10 (1981): 129–39, and also Strohm, “Fourteenth- and Fifteenth-Century Writers as Readers of Chaucer,” pp. 94–96, though the comments and notes of Walter W Skeat, in Chaucerian and Other Pieces (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1897), pp. xli-xliii and 502–03, are still worth perusal, whence also, pp. 237–44, come the quotations herein from the text of the “Moral Ballad” (IMEV 2264), cited parenthetically by line numbers.Google Scholar
  64. 53.
    Cf. Robert Epstein, “Chaucer’s Scogan and Scogan’s Chaucer,” Studies in Philology 96 (1999): 20 n29. For information on the text of “Gentilesse” (IMEV 3348), I rely on George B. Pace and David, eds., The Minor Poems Part One, Variorum Edition of the Works of Geoffrey Chaucer 5 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1982), pp. 67–72.Google Scholar
  65. 55.
    Lenaghan, “Chaucer’s Circle of Gentlemen and Clerks,” Chaucer Review 18 (1983): 159.Google Scholar
  66. 57.
    The intelligence comes from John Shirley, whose labors and contributions are most recently analyzed in Margaret Connolly, John Shirley: Book Production and the Noble Household in Fifteenth-Century England (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998), though I have relied on the analysis in Lerer, Chaucer and His Readers, pp. 119–41. Hallmundsson, “Chaucer’s Circle: Henry Scogan and his Friends,” 129–30 and 134, points out that the Lewis John mentioned in Shirley’s headnote eventually had extensive commercial dealings with the butler of the royal household, an office held by Chaucer’s son Thomas, first in 1402 and then intermittently for the rest of his life, and held previously by John Payne, 1399–1402, who in that capacity had had dealings with Chaucer himself, near the end of the poet’s life. Lerer’s remark about the commodification of Chaucer comes in his contribution, “William Caxton,” in The Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature, ed. David Wallace (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 734.Google Scholar
  67. 59.
    Speght’s claim, in the 1602 edition of Chaucer’s works, and the likelihood that it is true, are discussed in George B. Pace, “Speght’s Chaucer and Ms. Gg.4.27,” Studies in Bibliography 21 (1968): esp. 233–35.Google Scholar
  68. 60.
    Various documents detail the series of preferments that came to Chaucer by way of his connections with John of Gaunt and his family: see Martin M. Crow and Clair C. Olson, Chaucer Life-Records (Oxford: Clarendon, 1966), esp. pp. 271–75 and 525–34; see also above, pp. 6–7 and 35.Google Scholar
  69. 61.
    There is some further discussion of these issues in Carlson, “Chaucer, Humanism, and Printing: Conditions of Authorship in Fifteenth-Century England,” University of Toronto Quarterly 64 (1995): 274–88, and “Morley’s Translations from Roman Philosophers and English Courtier Literature,” in Triumphs of English: Henry Parker, Lord Morley, Translator to the Tudor Court, ed. Marie Axton and James P. Carley (London: British Library, 2000), esp. pp. 131–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 62.
    Richard Firth Green, Poets and Princepleasers (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1980), p. 211. The fundamental study remainsGoogle Scholar
  71. Pearsall, John Lydgate (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1970).Google Scholar
  72. 64.
    Cf. Ethan Knapp, “Eulogies and Usurpations: Hoccleve and Chaucer Revisited,” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 21 (1999): 247–73. For Hoccleve’s career and writings, generally I rely on Strohm, “Hoccleve, Lydgate and the Lancastrian Court,” in The Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature, ed. Wallace, pp. 640–51 and 657–61; I have also been influenced by Bowers, “Hoccleve’s Huntington Holographs: The First ‘Collected Poems’ in English,” Fifteenth-Century Studies 15 (1989): 27–51, and “Hoccleve’s Two Copies of Lerne to Dye: Implications for Textual Critics,” Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 83 (1989): 437–72.Google Scholar
  73. 65.
    Knapp, “Bureaucratic Identity and the Construction of the Self in Hoccleve’s Formulary and La male regleSpeculum 74 (1999): 357–76; and cf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Malcolm Richardson, “Hoccleve in his Social Context,” Chaucer Review 20 (1986): 313–22.Google Scholar
  75. 66.
    M. C. Seymour, Selections from Hoccleve (Oxford: Clarendon, 1981), p. xiii.Google Scholar
  76. 67.
    Pearsall, “Hoccleve’s Regement of Princes: The Poetics of Royal Self-Representation,” Speculum 69 (1994): 387–88.Google Scholar
  77. 68.
    On the Letter, see Patterson, “‘What is Me?’: Self and Society in the Poetry of Thomas Hoccleve,” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 23 (2001): 450–54.Google Scholar
  78. 70.
    In quoting Hoccleve’s Regiment (giving the references parenthetically), I use the edition of Charles R. Blyth, Thomas Hoccleve: The Regiment of Princes, METS (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 1999).Google Scholar
  79. 71.
    Pearsall, “Hoccleve’s Regement of Princes,” 389. A different view of Hoccleve’s advice is argued in Judith Ferster, Fictions of Advice: The Literature and Politics of Counsel in Late Medieval England (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996), pp. 137–59.Google Scholar
  80. 72.
    Cf. Regiment 281–385; the context of events in which these remarks of Hoccleve about John Badby were made is discussed in Peter McNiven, Heresy and Politics in the Reign of Henry IV (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1987), esp. pp. 199–219.Google Scholar
  81. 74.
    David Lawton, “Dullness and the Fifteenth Century,” ELH 54 (1987): 761–99. Cf. Lenaghan, “Chaucer’s Circle of Gentlemen and Clerks,” 157–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 75.
    On the manuscripts, see Seymour, “The Manuscripts of Hoccleve’s Regiment of Princes,” Edinburgh Bibliographical Society Transactions 4 (1974): 255–97; on the portrait, see esp.Google Scholar
  83. Alan T. Gaylord, “Portrait of a Poet,” in The Ellesmere Chaucer, ed. Martin Stevens and Daniel Woodward (San Marino: Huntington Library, 1997), pp. 121–42; and on the copy of it reproduced herein (see frontispiece),Google Scholar
  84. see A. S. G. Edwards, “The Chaucer Portraits in the Harley and Rosenbach Manuscripts,” English Manuscript Studies 4 (1993): 268–71.Google Scholar
  85. 77.
    There are important remarks on this development in Simpson, “Breaking the Vacuum: Ricardian and Henrician Ovidianism,” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 29 (1999): 325–55, and inGoogle Scholar
  86. Lerer, Courtly Letters in the Age of Henry VIII (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), esp. perhaps pp. 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© David R. Carlson 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • David R. Carlson

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations