No description available.

Note:

No description available.

Given the importance of an accurate, well-documented base text for any kind of literary or linguistic analysis, my thesis will consider how the editorial bias forced on a popular and influential medieval romance, the Auchinleck Guy of Warwick, by its EETS editor Julius Zupitza misrepresents the romance's manuscript presentation and has therefore prejudiced scholarship on fourteenth-century bookmaking. When Zupitza edited the Auchinleck version of the Guy romance, he seems to have had in mind the conventional textual principles upheld by his fellow Victorians. Unfortunately few of these Victorians produced texts which would today be considered acceptable. Though Victorian productions of many works have been replaced by modern editions, Zupitza' s Guy is the only available text of the romance. The failure of Zupitza's text is complicated by the fact that the Auchinleck Manuscript and the Auchinleck Guy, because of its unique division into three poems, figure prominently in medieval bookmaking theory. While three medieval bookmaking theories focus on the Auchinleck, none of the prominent Auchinleck scholars - Laura Loomis, Pamela Robinson, or Timothy Shonk - has recognized how Zupi tza unintentionally manipulates the Auchinleck Guy with his textual presentation of the romance. By indicating the errors and misleading practices which have shaped Zupitza's presentation of the Auchinleck Guy, I plan to establish the necessity for a new, more accurate critical edition of the Auchinleck Guy and to suggest how a more accurate critical edition can influence literary and bibliographical studies. / M.A.

Though much has been made of Chaucer's saintly characters, relatively little has been made of Chaucer's approach to hagiography. While strictly speaking Chaucer produced only one true saint's life (the Second Nun's Tale), he was repeatedly intrigued and challenged by exemplary literature. The few studies of Chaucer's use of hagiography have tended to claim either his complete orthodoxy as hagiographer, or his outright parody of the genre. My study mediates the orthodoxy/parody split by viewing Chaucer as a serious, but self-conscious, hagiographer, one who experimented with the possibilities of exemplary narrative and explored the rhetorical tensions intrinsic to the genre, namely the tensions between transcendence and imminence, reverence and identification, and epideictic deliberative discourse.

黎必信. / "2006年8月" / 論文(哲學碩士)--香港中文大學, 2006. / 附參考文獻. / "2006 nian 8 yue" / Abstracts in Chinese and English. / Li Bixin. / Lun wen (zhe xue shuo shi)--Xianggang Zhong wen da xue, 2006. / Fu can kao wen xian. / Chapter 第一章、 --- 序論 --- p.1-34 / Chapter 第一節、 --- 毛綸、毛宗崗父子與《三國志演義》 / Chapter 1. --- 毛綸、毛宗崗的生平梗槪 --- p.2-11 / Chapter 2. --- 毛氏父子《三國》評點本的刊行問題 --- p.11-14 / Chapter 3. --- 毛氏父子評點本《三國志演義》版本流傳槪況 --- p.14-16 / Chapter 第二節、 --- 本文的硏究格局 / Chapter 1. --- 評點釋義及本文的硏究思路 --- p.16-20 / Chapter 2. --- 硏究材料的考辨 --- p.20-30 / Chapter 3. --- 本文的硏究方法 --- p.30-32 / Chapter 4. --- 本文的硏究意義 --- p.32-34 / Chapter 第二章、 --- 毛氏父子《三國志演義》評點研究回顧 --- p.35-66 / Chapter 第一節、 --- 硏究回顧的嘗試 --- p.35-36 / Chapter 第二節、 --- 毛氏父子《三國志演義》評點硏究階段槪述 / Chapter 1. --- 第一階段：有清以還的毛評本《三國》硏究(1679-1918) --- p.37-40 / Chapter 2. --- 第二階段：五四學風影響下的毛氏父子《三國》評點硏究(1919-1948) --- p.40-42 / Chapter 3. --- 第三階段：社會一歷史批評風氣下的毛氏父子《三國》評點硏究(1949-1979) --- p.42-45 / Chapter 4. --- 第四階段：毛氏父子《三國》評點硏究的多元發展期(1980年以後） --- p.45-57 / Chapter 5. --- 小結 --- p.57-58 / Chapter 第三節、 --- 毛氏父子《三國志演義》評點硏究之 博士、碩士論文評介 --- p.58-61 / Chapter 第四節、 --- 毛評本《三國》硏究的總體評價及展望 / Chapter 1. --- 缺少對毛評本《三國》硏究史的整理 --- p.61-62 / Chapter 2. --- 較少著眼於毛評本與其他小說評點的比較 --- p.62-63 / Chapter 3. --- 硏究視野的局限 --- p.63-64 / Chapter 4. --- 毛評本《三國》硏究展望 --- p.64-66 / Chapter 第三章、 --- 毛氏父子修訂《三國志演義》及其相關問題 --- p.67-114 / Chapter 第一節、 --- 引論 / Chapter 1. --- 文本修訂的合理性 --- p.67-69 / Chapter 2. --- 毛氏父子所言「古本」與「俗本」 --- p.69-70 / Chapter 3. --- 嘉靖本《三國志通俗演義》研究價値商榷 --- p.70-74 / Chapter 4. --- 本章的硏究格局 --- p.74 / Chapter 第二節、 --- 從〈凡例〉 看毛氏父子修訂《三國》 --- p.75-83 / Chapter 第三節、 --- 毛氏父子修訂《三國》補論 / Chapter 1. --- 「章回結構」的確立：從「則」到「回」的過渡 --- p.83-89 / Chapter 2. --- 「史傳特徵」的淡化：毛氏父子對「書表論贊」的删削 --- p.89-96 / Chapter 3. --- 介乎「章回結構」及「史傳特徵」的修訂 --- p.96-97 / Chapter 4. --- 小結 --- p.97-98 / Chapter 第四節、 --- 毛氏父子修訂《三國》受《李卓吾先生批評三國志》影響考略 / Chapter 1. --- 毛氏父子修訂《三國》受葉昼評語影響考 --- p.99-106 / Chapter 2. --- 毛氏父子修訂《三國》受葉昼評點符號影響考 --- p.106-112 / Chapter 3. --- 小結 --- p.112-113 / Chapter 第五節、 --- 結語 --- p.113-114 / Chapter 第四章、 --- 毛氏父子《三國志演義》批語的價値定位及其相關問題頁 --- p.115-173 / Chapter 第一節、 --- 引言 --- p.115-116 / Chapter 第二節、 --- 從「評點槪念」看毛評本《三國》批語的價値定位 / Chapter 1. --- 小引 --- p.116-117 / Chapter 2. --- 毛氏父子「步武聖嘆」說商榷 --- p.117-125 / Chapter 3. --- 從「評點槪念」看毛氏父子與金聖嘆的理論異同頁 --- p.125-133 / Chapter 4. --- 毛評本《三國》與金批《水滸》「評點槪念」述論頁 --- p.133-145 / Chapter 第三節、 --- 毛評本《三國》批語的承革與類型 / Chapter 1. --- 毛評本批語對明代《三國》評本的承革 --- p.145-147 / Chapter 2. --- 毛評本《三國》批語的內容類型試論 --- p.148-157 / Chapter 3. --- 小結 --- p.157 / Chapter 第四節、 --- 毛評本《三國》批語的文化意義論略 / Chapter 1. --- 從毛氏父子批語看評點者處身的文化景觀 --- p.158-161 / Chapter 2. --- 毛氏父子《三國》評點與傳統審美文化 --- p.162-173 / Chapter 第五節、 --- 結語 --- p.173 / Chapter 第五章、 --- 毛氏父子評點《三國志演義》的基本形態及其批評功能頁 --- p.174-253 / Chapter 第一節、 --- 引論 --- p.174-176 / Chapter 第二節、 --- 明清《三國志演義》評點形態之演進 / Chapter 1. --- 明代《三國》評點形態之演進 --- p.176-186 / Chapter 2. --- 清代《三國》評點形態之演進 --- p.186-187 / Chapter 第三節、 --- 毛評本《三國志演義》評點形態分解 / Chapter 1. --- 小引 --- p.190-191 / Chapter 2. --- 〈四大奇書第一´種Ø凡例〉：《三國志演義》的修訂法則 --- p.191-193 / Chapter 3. --- 〈讀三國志法〉：《三國志演義》批評觀點論綱 --- p.193-195 / Chapter 4. --- 回評：評點者的導賞文字 --- p.195-198 / Chapter 5. --- 批語：評點者的「反應」與「提示」 --- p.198-200 / Chapter 6. --- 圈點：輔助閱讀的批評符號 --- p.200-213 / Chapter 7. --- 各種評點形態的組合意義 --- p.213-219 / Chapter 第四節、 --- 從〈四大奇書第一´種Ø凡例〉看毛氏父子圈點《三國》 / Chapter 1. --- 〈四大奇書第一´種Ø凡例〉所述增補部份的圈點情況頁 --- p.220-230 / Chapter 2. --- 〈四大奇書第一´種Ø凡例)所述修訂部份的圈點情況頁 --- p.230-250 / Chapter 3. --- 小結 --- p.250-252 / Chapter 第五節、 --- 結語 --- p.252-253 / Chapter 第六章、 --- 結語 --- p.254-255

This thesis has examined the individual accomplishments of Geoffrey Chaucer and Giovanni Boccaccio in terms of their parallel characters and stories. The Chaucerian works used in this study are three stories from The Canterbury Tales: The Knight’s Tale, The Franklin’s Tale, and The Clerk’s Tale. Chaucer’s art of story telling, as exhibited within these stories, has been directly compared to parallel characters and plots taken from the works of Giovanni Boccaccio: The Teseida, The Filocolo, and The Decameron. A direct comparison of Chaucer’s method in creation of character, suspense, and plot to those of Boccaccio has allowed a true estimate of the value of both authors.In addition, it has been possible to examine what Chaucer and Boccaccio found in separate sources but wished to treat differently, what Chaucer saw directly in the works of Boccaccio and wanted to change, and the method of treatment as related to the maturation of the separate writers.

It will be the purpose of this thesis to survey and to evaluate twentieth-century criticisms of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. Because the topic is so broad, it is necessary to find methods of limiting the subject so that it· may be adequately covered herein. This paper will be limited primarily to books published on the topic under consideration. To cover all the work in periodical literature would go beyond the scope of this study. Perhaps that task can be covered by someone else.

No description available.

Rhythm in early Western polyphonic music.