What do you think?
Rate this book
Shakespeare's Chaucer: A study in literary origins
New Yiork 1978 first edition. Barnes and Noble. Hardcover octavo. 239p. VG light spotting on cover. in Good dj. Text clean; no ownership marks.
239 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1978
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
November 20, 2020
For me, Shakespeare’s Chaucer: A Study in Literary Origins by Ann Thompson was valuable in stressing and documenting the continuity of literary traditions, themes, allusions, and plots from classical, medieval, and Renaissance writers. Specifically, Thompson examines the debt Shakespeare owes to Chaucer for Troilus and Cressida and (with Fletcher) for Two Noble Kinsmen, the latter from The Knight’s Tale. She also touches on A Midsummer Night’s Dream and Romeo and Juliet plus a chapter on other 17th century playwrights who dipped into
“Chaucer, of all admir’d, the story gives
There constant to eternity it lives.”
Such close comparison between the works of Shakespeare & Chaucer, “implies a greater continuity between medieval and Elizabethan preoccupations in literature and philosophy than is apparent at first sight.” (p. 161) Aside from showing continuity, an additional benefit of Thompson’s 1975 work is, as she puts it: “Whether it can be proved the he [Shakespeare] did or not is a question which need not take absolute precedence over the matter of whether it is valid and interesting to read these two great works [Troilus and Cressida and Troilus and Criseyde] alongside each other. It is possible that to travel along this road is more important than to arrive. It throws certain things about both works into greater prominence….” (p. 109) Despite the tentative nature of that assertion, Thompson is conclusive about the precise nature of the influence and borrowing. Ultimately that’s the crux of this book. It’s not so much an assertion that borrowing and influence in fact occurred as it is an analysis of that melding of the two literary traditions.
“Chaucer, of all admir’d, the story gives
There constant to eternity it lives.”
Such close comparison between the works of Shakespeare & Chaucer, “implies a greater continuity between medieval and Elizabethan preoccupations in literature and philosophy than is apparent at first sight.” (p. 161) Aside from showing continuity, an additional benefit of Thompson’s 1975 work is, as she puts it: “Whether it can be proved the he [Shakespeare] did or not is a question which need not take absolute precedence over the matter of whether it is valid and interesting to read these two great works [Troilus and Cressida and Troilus and Criseyde] alongside each other. It is possible that to travel along this road is more important than to arrive. It throws certain things about both works into greater prominence….” (p. 109) Despite the tentative nature of that assertion, Thompson is conclusive about the precise nature of the influence and borrowing. Ultimately that’s the crux of this book. It’s not so much an assertion that borrowing and influence in fact occurred as it is an analysis of that melding of the two literary traditions.
Displaying 1 of 1 review