Abstract:This essay argues that the form Geoffrey Chaucer devises for the Canterbury Tales rests on a recursive and iterative corrective process based on grammatical emendation that was tied, by a long-standing analogy, to moral reform. The Tale of Melibee makes this process most explicit and suggests both the ambitions and the dangers of this artistic and moral project. On the one hand, it is in the Melibee that the logic of the corrective process can be seen most clearly, as Prudence makes correction a principle of her prose; the tale portrays a slow, incremental repetition that only gradually brings about change. In that way, the tale displays the ambitions of the project. On the other hand, its dangers are clear enough, because the tale is notoriously unsatisfactory. Chaucer, however, deliberately stages those dangers in the Melibee and contrasts the dangers with a solution. While in the Melibee that incremental repetition illustrates literary pitfalls, in the Tales it becomes a means for literary innovation: the certainty of error and the corruption of discourse provide Chaucer an artistic method, one that evades moral clarity but provides the occasion for ongoing intellectual, artistic, and moral exercise. This account of Chaucer's moral poetics suggests that debates over the moral bearing of his poetry are unavoidable by design, but also irresolvable by design.

中文翻译：

---

乔uc的矫正形式：梅利比的故事与改良诗学。

摘要：本文认为，杰弗里·乔uc（Geoffrey Chaucer）为《坎特伯雷故事集》设计的形式基于一种基于语法修正的递归和迭代的纠正过程，该纠正与长期的类比联系在一起，是与道德改革联系在一起的。《梅利比的故事》使这一过程最明确，并暗示了这一艺术和道德计划的野心和危险。一方面，在梅利比（Melibe）中，可以最清楚地看到矫正过程的逻辑，因为保诚（Prudence）将矫正作为其散文的原则。这个故事描绘了一个缓慢而渐进的重复过程，这种重复过程只会逐渐带来变化。这样，故事就显示了项目的野心。另一方面，它的危险已经很清楚了，因为这个故事众所周知是不令人满意的。乔uc，但是，故意在Melibee中分阶段处理这些危险，并将这些危险与解决方案进行对比。在《梅利比》中，增量重复说明了文学上的陷阱，而在《故事》中，它成为文学创新的一种手段：错误的确定性和话语的腐败为乔uc提供了一种艺术方法，一种规避道德上的明晰性，但却为不断发展的知识分子提供了机会，艺术和道德锻炼。关于乔uc的道德诗学的论述表明，关于他的诗歌的道德承载力的辩论在设计上是不可避免的，而在设计上也是无法解决的。一种逃避道德清晰度，但却为进行持续的智力，艺术和道德锻炼提供了机会。关于乔uc的道德诗学的论述表明，关于他的诗歌的道德承载力的辩论在设计上是不可避免的，而在设计上也是无法解决的。一种逃避道德清晰度，但却为进行持续的智力，艺术和道德锻炼提供了机会。关于乔uc的道德诗学的论述表明，关于他的诗歌的道德承载力的辩论在设计上是不可避免的，而在设计上也是无法解决的。