FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1989713054> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1989713054 endingPage "237" @default.
• W1989713054 startingPage "215" @default.
• W1989713054 abstract "John Metham's Straunge Style:Amoryus and Cleopes as Chaucerian Fragment Jamie C. Fumo In the ninety years since Hardin Craig edited the unique manuscript of John Metham's Amoryus and Cleopes (1449) for the Early English Text Society, critical interest in the romance, an exotic reimagination of Ovid's Pyramus and This be narrative as Christian miracle tale, has been slow to develop. Most twentieth-century attention to Metham's romance, which blends the motifs and geography of the matter of the Orient with the elite, aureate style introduced by Chaucer and amplified by Lydgate, took the form of passing remarks in studies of medieval English romance and sporadic dismissals of its inconsistent prosody.1 On occasion, Amoryus and Cleopes attracted guarded admiration as a creative rewriting of an Ovidian sentimental tragedy (for example, in R. M. Lumiansky's commendation of Metham's seeming originality in shaping [his] materials), despite its general affinity with medieval Christian moralizations of Ovid's narrative in which a Christian metanarrative subsumes pagan misfortune.2 Aside from these fleeting notes of recognition, Amoryus and Cleopes remained largely untouched until the last decade, over the course of which appeared a fresh edition of the romance, by Stephen F. Page, and two articles devoted to elucidating its literary constitution and participation in fifteenth-century trends of Chaucerianism.3 Craig's opinion that Metham possessed no certain familiarity with Troilus and Criseyde, and still less with the Canterbury Tales4—despite his commemoration of Chaucer's style and practyk of rymyng at lines 2171–74 and 2185–92—was at long last definitively overturned by Page, whose essay and edition establish Metham's mastery of an unusually accurate Chaucerian voice and ironic tone, along with his extensive reliance, even intertextual play, on the works of Chaucer.5 Roger Dalrymple has, in turn, added further historical perspective to Page's important analyses by demonstrating that Metham's cultivati[on of] a selective Chaucerian identity takes the form of moral simplification and disambiguation of his source material in a manner consistent with the fifteenth-century [End Page 215] narrowing of the Chaucer tradition influentially described by Paul Strohm.6 Of course, the recuperation of Metham as a fifteenth-century Chaucerian ought neither to overshadow the eclecticism of his wide-ranging tastes in literature—evident in the contents of his own modest oeuvre (which includes treatises on palmistry and physiognomy as well as astrological prognostications)—nor to underestimate the idiosyncrasy (and independence) of his poetic voice, conspicuous above all in his romance's unorthodox approach to versification. If Chaucer's elevated style made its mark upon Metham, so too did legends of Alexander, romans antiques , Middle English popular romance, and hagiography, all of which supplied Metham with details, motifs, and in some cases identifiable precedents for elements of Amoryus and Cleopes. Insofar as Chaucer was a substantial influence, Metham's status as a participant in what is now recognized as a flourishing fifteenth-century East Anglian literary milieu—which included John Lydgate, John Capgrave, Osbern Bokenham, Stephen Scrope, and the Pastons, and boasted a lively culture of patronage and manuscript production—argues against a narrow or monolithic view of Metham's poetic interests. Within this loose-knit group alone, the diversity of Chaucerianisms recognized by recent critics is striking: from Lydgate's politicized contribution to the marketing of Chaucer's legacy by means of a subservient projection of his own poetic persona;7 to Capgrave's sensitive adoption of Chaucerian complexities and ambiguities in shaping his hagiographic romance of Saint Katherine;8 to Bokenham's indirect, allusive critique of Chaucerian classicism from a devotional perspective in his Legendys of Hooly Wummen;9 and onwards. Metham was confronted with a range of possibilities as to how to respond to Chaucer's precedent within a changing social and literary landscape in which the cultural capital of a Chaucerian imprimatur was increasingly esteemed. The purpose of this essay is not to delineate Metham's undoubted engagement with non-Chaucerian literary traditions—although that task still remains to be fully addressed—but to broaden and resituate our understanding of his adaptation of Chaucerian materials and ideas of poetic practice. Those critics who have taken..." @default.
• W1989713054 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1989713054 creator A5068192359 @default.
• W1989713054 date "2008-01-01" @default.
• W1989713054 modified "2023-10-03" @default.
• W1989713054 title "John Metham's Straunge Style: <i>Amoryus and Cleopes</i> as Chaucerian Fragment" @default.
• W1989713054 cites W1500183078 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W1503011812 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W1535847693 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W1573463889 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W1963588147 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W1976040035 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W1990424289 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W1992147603 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W2005091171 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W2010313756 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W2013346869 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W2015621656 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W2020613034 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W2030019314 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W2041992469 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W2050199605 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W2050287296 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W2055165837 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W2078321735 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W2168510115 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W226695054 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W2328920279 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W2332817669 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W2497048078 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W2513960293 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W2781557286 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W2796134907 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W2797902609 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W2809357370 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W3179861000 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W355095298 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W569256934 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W589151871 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W600138320 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W604316731 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W610431914 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W610553710 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W612229356 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W628903330 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W630460610 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W642643925 @default.
• W1989713054 cites W2484269077 @default.
• W1989713054 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/cr.0.0011" @default.
• W1989713054 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W1989713054 type Work @default.
• W1989713054 sameAs 1989713054 @default.
• W1989713054 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W1989713054 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1989713054 hasAuthorship W1989713054A5068192359 @default.
• W1989713054 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W1989713054 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1989713054 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W1989713054 hasConcept C199033989 @default.
• W1989713054 hasConcept C2776445246 @default.
• W1989713054 hasConcept C2780027720 @default.
• W1989713054 hasConcept C518914266 @default.
• W1989713054 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W1989713054 hasConceptScore W1989713054C124952713 @default.
• W1989713054 hasConceptScore W1989713054C138885662 @default.
• W1989713054 hasConceptScore W1989713054C142362112 @default.
• W1989713054 hasConceptScore W1989713054C199033989 @default.
• W1989713054 hasConceptScore W1989713054C2776445246 @default.
• W1989713054 hasConceptScore W1989713054C2780027720 @default.
• W1989713054 hasConceptScore W1989713054C518914266 @default.
• W1989713054 hasConceptScore W1989713054C95457728 @default.
• W1989713054 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W1989713054 hasLocation W19897130541 @default.
• W1989713054 hasOpenAccess W1989713054 @default.
• W1989713054 hasPrimaryLocation W19897130541 @default.
• W1989713054 hasRelatedWork W1989912656 @default.
• W1989713054 hasRelatedWork W2082975613 @default.
• W1989713054 hasRelatedWork W2370917860 @default.
• W1989713054 hasRelatedWork W2376358751 @default.
• W1989713054 hasRelatedWork W2376998924 @default.
• W1989713054 hasRelatedWork W2389740002 @default.
• W1989713054 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W1989713054 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W1989713054 hasRelatedWork W3007287242 @default.
• W1989713054 hasRelatedWork W2146945860 @default.
• W1989713054 hasVolume "43" @default.
• W1989713054 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1989713054 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1989713054 magId "1989713054" @default.
• W1989713054 workType "article" @default.