No description available.

No description available.

This thesis is a study of the anticipatory remarks and choric comments in Richard II, Parts I and II of Henry IV, and Henry V.

No description available.

Satire and counsel recur together in the secular literature of the High and Late Middle Ages. I analyze their collocation in Latin, Old Occitan, and Middle English texts from the twelfth to the fifteenth century in works by Walter Map, Alan of Lille, John of Salisbury, Daniel of Beccles, John Gower, William of Poitiers, Thomas Hoccleve, and John Skelton. As types of discourse, satire and counsel resemble each other in the way they reproduce scenarios of social interaction. Authors combine satire and counsel to reproduce these scenarios according to the protocols of real-life social interaction. Informed by linguistic pragmatics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics and cultural anthropology, I examine the relational rhetoric of these texts to uncover a sometimes complex and reflective ethical discourse on power which sometimes implicates itself in the practices it condemns. The dissertation draws throughout on sociolinguistic methods for examining verbal interaction between unequals, and assesses what this focus can contribute to recent scholarly debates on the interrelation of social and literary practices in the later Middle Ages. In the first chapter I introduce the concepts and methodologies that inform this dissertation through a detailed consideration of Distinction One of Walter Map’s De nugis curialium . While looking at how Walter Map combines discourses of satire and counsel to negotiate a new social role for the learned cleric at court, I advocate treating satire as a mode of expression more general than ‘literary’ genre and introduce the iii theories and methods that inform my treatment of literary texts as social interaction, considering also how these approaches can complement new historicist interpretation. Chapter two looks at how twelfth-century authors of didactic poetry appropriate relational discourses from school and household to claim the authoritative roles of teacher and father. In the third chapter, I focus on texts that depict relations between princes and courtiers, especially the Prologue of the Confessio Amantis which idealizes its author John Gower as an honest counselor and depicts King Richard II (in its first recension) as receptive to honest counsel. The fourth chapter turns to poets with the uncertain social identities of literate functionaries at court. Articulating their alienation and satirizing the ploys of courtiers—including even satire itself—Thomas Hoccleve in the Regement of Princes and John Skelton in The Bowge of Court undermine the satirist-counselor’s claim to authenticity. In concluding, I consider how this study revises understanding of the genre of satire in the Middle Ages and what such an approach might contribute to the study of Jean de Meun and Geoffrey Chaucer.

Satire and counsel recur together in the secular literature of the High and Late Middle Ages. I analyze their collocation in Latin, Old Occitan, and Middle English texts from the twelfth to the fifteenth century in works by Walter Map, Alan of Lille, John of Salisbury, Daniel of Beccles, John Gower, William of Poitiers, Thomas Hoccleve, and John Skelton. As types of discourse, satire and counsel resemble each other in the way they reproduce scenarios of social interaction. Authors combine satire and counsel to reproduce these scenarios according to the protocols of real-life social interaction. Informed by linguistic pragmatics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics and cultural anthropology, I examine the relational rhetoric of these texts to uncover a sometimes complex and reflective ethical discourse on power which sometimes implicates itself in the practices it condemns. The dissertation draws throughout on sociolinguistic methods for examining verbal interaction between unequals, and assesses what this focus can contribute to recent scholarly debates on the interrelation of social and literary practices in the later Middle Ages. In the first chapter I introduce the concepts and methodologies that inform this dissertation through a detailed consideration of Distinction One of Walter Map’s De nugis curialium . While looking at how Walter Map combines discourses of satire and counsel to negotiate a new social role for the learned cleric at court, I advocate treating satire as a mode of expression more general than ‘literary’ genre and introduce the iii theories and methods that inform my treatment of literary texts as social interaction, considering also how these approaches can complement new historicist interpretation. Chapter two looks at how twelfth-century authors of didactic poetry appropriate relational discourses from school and household to claim the authoritative roles of teacher and father. In the third chapter, I focus on texts that depict relations between princes and courtiers, especially the Prologue of the Confessio Amantis which idealizes its author John Gower as an honest counselor and depicts King Richard II (in its first recension) as receptive to honest counsel. The fourth chapter turns to poets with the uncertain social identities of literate functionaries at court. Articulating their alienation and satirizing the ploys of courtiers—including even satire itself—Thomas Hoccleve in the Regement of Princes and John Skelton in The Bowge of Court undermine the satirist-counselor’s claim to authenticity. In concluding, I consider how this study revises understanding of the genre of satire in the Middle Ages and what such an approach might contribute to the study of Jean de Meun and Geoffrey Chaucer.

Les termes du traité de paix entre Charles VI et Henri V qui est ratifié par les deux souverains à Troyes en mai 1420 sont plutôt clairs et paraissent aisément applicables : l’unique héritier de Charles VI, le dauphin Charles, est déshérité; Henri V, par le mariage qui l’unit à la fille du roi de France, Catherine, devient le nouveau successeur légitime de Charles VI et, lorsque celui-ci mourra, règnera sur le France et l’Angleterre sans toutefois unir les deux royaumes; le traité scelle aussi l’alliance entre la Bourgogne, l’Angleterre et la moitié nord de la France dans la guerre contre le parti armagnac que dirigie le dauphin Charles et qui contrôle la moitie sud, le royaume de Bourges. Toutefois, lorsque la cérémonie de la cathédrale Saint-Pierre-et-Saint-Paul de Troyes se termine, la théorie du document se heurte à une réalité bien différente. Alors que le traité prévoit une adhésion totale de la moitié nord de la France à la paix et la disparition politique du parti armagnac du dauphin Charles, c’est tout le contraire qui se produit : des mouvements d’opposition ou de résistance au traité et à l’autorité qu’il confère à Henri V comme héritier et régent de France surgissent de toute part et le parti du dauphin, bien loin de disparaître, tient tête à la « coalition » anglo-franco-bourguignonne. À tout cela vient s’ajouter le décès prématuré, en août 1422, d’Henri V qui, lorsque Charles VI le suit dans la tombe en octobre de la même année, laisse les royaumes de France et d’Angleterre entre les mains d’un roi qui n’a pas encore un an. Tous ces faits semblent bien signifier l’échec de la paix et les responsables chargés de l’appliquer en sont tout à fait conscients. Il n’en demeure pas moins que la décennie qui suit la ratification du traité, malgré tout ce qui s’y oppose, est le théâtre d’une véritable tentative d’application de la paix de Troyes ou, du moins, des articles et des éléments de celui-ci que l’ont peut réellement mettre en pratique. / The terms of the peace ratified by Charles VI and Henry V in Troyes in May 1420 are pretty clear and seem easy to apply : the dauphin Charles, sole heir of king Charles VI, is disinheritaded; Henry V, by wedding the daughter of the king of France, Catherine, becomes the new legitimate heir of Charles VI and, when the latter is to die, will reign over France and England without, however, unifying the two kingdoms; the treaty of Troyes also seals the alliance between Burgundy, England and the northern half of France in the war against the armagnac party of the dauphin Charles which controls the southern part of France, the kingdom of Bourges. Yet, when the peace ceremony of the cathedral of Saint Peter and Saint Paul of Troyes is over, the theory of the treaty comes up against a completely different reality. While the treaty plans a total adherence to the peace from the northern half of France and the politic death of the armagnac party and of the dauphin Charles, what occurs is quite the opposite : aresistance movements to the treaty itself and to the authority that it gives to Henry V as heir and regent of France arise from everywhere and the dauphin’s party, far from disapearing, holds fast against the « coalition » formed by England, France and Burgundy. Last but not least comes the untimely death of Henry V in August 1422 wich, once Charles VI follows him in death in the following October, leaves the kingdoms of Fance and England in the hands of a less than one year hold baby-king. All those facts seem to imply a quick failure of the peace and the people in charge of applying it know it too well. Nevertheless, the ten years following the ratification of the treaty and despite every difficulties against it are the withnesses to a genuine attempt to properly apply the peace of Troyes or, at least, of some of its clauses and elements that really can be putted into practice.