FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W57905413> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W57905413 endingPage "166" @default.
• W57905413 startingPage "143" @default.
• W57905413 abstract "Berthelette's two of CA (in 1532 and 1554) have an importance unequalled by single early of Chaucer: not reprinted until 1810, and superseded only by Pauli's of 1857, they were the only means of access to Gower's English poem (apart from Caxton's even earlier of 1483) for more than 300 years. Machan is less interested causes than effects, the consequences of Berthelette's providing the preliminary interpretive frame (p. 145) for most readers during this long period. His description of the book as handsome and carefully produced is confirmed by his reproduction of a single page from the volume (from Book 5); and with its title page, its dedication to Henry 8, the publisher's letter to the reader, and the detailed ten-page table of contents, Berthelette has done everything he can to render Gower's long and complex poem accessible to his readers. Machan identifies several ways which the book is a typical product of its time. The dedication to Henry invokes a nobuls and commons united under the moral and literary authority of the king. The poem itself serves both a moralizing and a nationalistic purpose, edifying its readers in the way humanist literary paradigms require (p. 148), and testifying to the greatness of England itself. In his address to his readers, Berthelette recasts Gower as a conservative preserver of the language against the linguistic novelties of his own time, where earlier he had been praised, with Chaucer, for the eloquence of his rhetoric. And Berthelette's claims about restoring an authentic text, while to some extent true, also constitute a typical gesture of sixteenth-century publishers and serve his rhetorical purpose of inscribing both the conservativeness and antiquity of his author and the reliability of his own Machan identifies two major ways which Berthelette shaped the later reception of the CA, the judgment of the relative merits of Gower with Chaucer and the characterization of Gower as primarily a moral poet. Berthelette's own comments implicitly make Gower subservient to Chaucer; and he evidently consciously decided to present him as the author of only a single work, omitting even the colophon to CA which his other works are described, where Chaucer was already known for the variety of his compositions. What little he says about Gower's life, moreover, cast Gower as resolutely Roman (p. 155) during the time when Chaucer was becomingly increasingly Protestant. In his prefatory material he praises Gower for his morality. His presentation of the poem, moreover, with the Latin glosses incorporated directly to the text, inserts an authoritative moral voice that directs the reader's responses and preempts interpretation, contrast to the apologetic and self-deprecating Chaucerian persona. The reception of the work was also shaped by Berthelette's own reputation as a serious and conservative moralist. And finally, by remaining for so long the only available of Gower's works, Berthelette's established Gower as an increasingly antiquated figure, undeserving of new editorial attention, where Chaucer, regularly revived and re-presented, was forever modern, a trap from which Gower was not freed until he attracted the attention of the philologists of the middle of the nineteenth century. In an appendix, Printed History of Latin Glosses the Confessio (pp. 164-66), Machan argues that any new scholarly edition of CA needs to return the glosses to the status they hold the manuscripts and early editions (p. 166), that is, it must present them within the same column as the text rather than placing them the margins as Pauli and Macaulay did. Echard (in her essay Studies Philology) also objects to seeing the relation between text and gloss only as Macaulay presented it, but she gives a fuller consideration of the variety of alternatives the MSS. In making his own choice of a single format, Machan neglects to point that all of the earliest copies of the poem, and all that Gower might have had hand in, including Bodleian Fairfax 3 and Bodley 902, which he cites, but also Cambridge Univ. Mm.2.21 and Huntington Ellesmere 26 A 17, which he doesn't, the glosses are placed the margin. That the incorporation of the glosses into the text is a later scribal or editorial choice is indicated by the fact that many get placed different places different copies, often with no regard at all to the sense of the English text that they interrupt. Machan's advice is defensible, but it forces us to consider what we mean by edition. If we mean an effort to present the text more or less as the poet left it, then Macaulay got it right; it we mean an effort to represent it as some group of later readers saw it, then one might agree with Machan. Even Macaulay's text, of course, the relation between Latin and English is still open to interpretation, on which again see Echard above. [PN. Copyright The John Gower Society. JGN 17.2]" @default.
• W57905413 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W57905413 creator A5064898595 @default.
• W57905413 date "1996-01-01" @default.
• W57905413 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W57905413 title "Thomas Berthelette and Gower’s Confessio" @default.
• W57905413 cites W1491645084 @default.
• W57905413 cites W1506114200 @default.
• W57905413 cites W1526484701 @default.
• W57905413 cites W1547763707 @default.
• W57905413 cites W1560995357 @default.
• W57905413 cites W1570542095 @default.
• W57905413 cites W15768884 @default.
• W57905413 cites W1969578697 @default.
• W57905413 cites W2005865088 @default.
• W57905413 cites W2026188199 @default.
• W57905413 cites W2066440211 @default.
• W57905413 cites W2072703273 @default.
• W57905413 cites W2075331957 @default.
• W57905413 cites W207664003 @default.
• W57905413 cites W2104115273 @default.
• W57905413 cites W2171640626 @default.
• W57905413 cites W2243396037 @default.
• W57905413 cites W2317878612 @default.
• W57905413 cites W2489221233 @default.
• W57905413 cites W2570782407 @default.
• W57905413 cites W2781624159 @default.
• W57905413 cites W579735351 @default.
• W57905413 cites W656526197 @default.
• W57905413 cites W92561962 @default.
• W57905413 cites W98050234 @default.
• W57905413 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/sac.1996.0005" @default.
• W57905413 hasPublicationYear "1996" @default.
• W57905413 type Work @default.
• W57905413 sameAs 57905413 @default.
• W57905413 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W57905413 countsByYear W579054132013 @default.
• W57905413 countsByYear W579054132017 @default.
• W57905413 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W57905413 hasAuthorship W57905413A5064898595 @default.
• W57905413 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W57905413 hasConceptScore W57905413C95457728 @default.
• W57905413 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W57905413 hasLocation W579054131 @default.
• W57905413 hasOpenAccess W57905413 @default.
• W57905413 hasPrimaryLocation W579054131 @default.
• W57905413 hasRelatedWork W2332941581 @default.
• W57905413 hasRelatedWork W2488258410 @default.
• W57905413 hasRelatedWork W2498735738 @default.
• W57905413 hasRelatedWork W2503791906 @default.
• W57905413 hasRelatedWork W2587147951 @default.
• W57905413 hasRelatedWork W2587265756 @default.
• W57905413 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W57905413 hasRelatedWork W2904507792 @default.
• W57905413 hasRelatedWork W2946980061 @default.
• W57905413 hasRelatedWork W2947840720 @default.
• W57905413 hasVolume "18" @default.
• W57905413 isParatext "false" @default.
• W57905413 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W57905413 magId "57905413" @default.
• W57905413 workType "article" @default.