english project help, need help coming up with a rhyming digitale that takes place in the 60's or 70's
the digitale has to ryme and imitate gefery chaucer's style of writong, can some please help! first answer gets best answer!
- ari-pupLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
-Your question is not quite clear.
Read this closely:
Mary Catherine Davidson writes on ‘Code-Switching and Authority in Late Medieval England’ (Neophil 87 473–86) using approaches adapted from
studies of multilingualism in linguistics to investigate patterns of mixed-language speech in The Canterbury Tales, Piers Plowman, and The Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft.
She finds that choice of language is bound up with social motivation, and that mixed-language speech can be used to construct authority. R.D. Eaton writes on ‘Gender, Class and Conscience in Chaucer’ (ES 84 205–18),
comparing occurrences of the term conscience in The Canterbury Tales (principally in The Second Nun’s Tale), The Legend of Good Women, and Troilus, and concluding that the perceived diversity in Chaucer’s use of this term
is linked to factors of gender and class. Simon Horobin builds an interesting case on the word panne in ‘Pennies, Pence and Pans: Some Chaucerian Misreadings’
(ES 84 426–32). Far from meaning ‘dish’ or ‘pan’, as has been suggested for various contexts in The Reeve’s Tale and The Friar’s Tale, Horobin argues
that the form ‘panne’ is a common variant of the form ‘penny’ in Middle English, particularly in the Essex and London dialects; the discovery of an attestation of
the form in a London Guild Return of 1389 makes his argument compelling, and carries some implications for critical interpretation. Horobin further argues that if
we are to accept the greater linguistic variety found in London English of this period then the evidence for Chaucer’s authorship of the later part of the Romaunt
needs to be reconsidered.
Turning to Chaucer’s politics, not one shred of positive evidence exists to suggest that Chaucer was bumped off nor does this book produce any, but in Who
Murdered Chaucer? A Medieval Mystery Terry Jones and his team of researchers (Terry Dolan, Juliette Dor, Alan Fletcher, and Robert Yeager) spin a 400-page
yarn of circumstantial evidence arguing that in the paranoia of the new Lancastrian regime Chaucer’s work appeared ideologically suspect, and that the
poet and his work were actively suppressed by the real villain of the moment, who was not Henry IV but Thomas Arundel, reinstated archbishop of Canterbury. The
first six chapters focus on Richard II, and piece by piece dismantle the edifice, constructed in the chronicles after 1399, that portrays Richard as the unpopular,
MIDDLE ENGLISH: CHAUCER Page 3 of 34
irresponsible, luxurious tyrant who sold England down the river in the Hundred Years’ War. The chronicles’ picture of a loyal Bolingbroke who returns to reclaim his birthright and unwillingly accepts the mantle of power thrust upon
him by the nation is also contested. Instead, Bolingbroke is presented as having come under the influence of Arundel while on the Continent in exile; usurpation seems intended from the beginning. In light of the need of Henry’s administration for court poets to write serious propaganda, Chaucer’s Complaint to his Purse looks measly at best in comparison to Gower’s self-serving hyperboles. Arundel
embarks on a systematic elision of treason with heresy, and things that could be debated and written in the 1380s become a death warrant in 1400.
Seen thus, Chaucer’s anti-ecclesiastical satire acquires a dangerously subversive edge, and the Parson seems increasingly to look like everything Arundel is not. The earliness of Hengwrt is accepted, and the authors suggest that its occasional hastiness in composition indicates Chaucer’s efforts to leave behind a full corpus of his poem. Early damage to the manuscript also suggests that it was
hidden during the early years of Henry’s reign. Ellesmere, on the other hand, appears to have been appropriated by Henry after careful censorship; the illustrations of the Monk and Friar have been over-washed to remove signs of the
luxury and vice of the pilgrims. Where Chaucer survived the political crisis of 1387 by lying low, he moves into the eye of the storm in 1399 by his association with Westminster Abbey, a focal point of opposition to Henry. The Retraction is
reconsidered as a possible forced confession elicited by Arundel. Evidence for 1402 as Chaucer’s real death date is seriously considered, and the case closes with
the chilling picture of Chaucer dying, not peacefully in a Westminster garden with birds twittering, but starving to death in Arundel’s prison, Saltwood Castle, or meeting a sticky end in a back-street alley.