The humour of Chaucer is naturally more often taken for granted than it is examined. Dr. D. S. Brewer is among the few who have challenged it at all. According to Dr. Brewer, humour is made up of two elements: subjective and objective. The objective element stands for what is capable of evoking humour, while the subjective element is a sense of humour that appeals to those who appreciate humour. The present essay tries to approach the humour of Chaucer from rather a different angle from that of Dr. Brewer. It is the writer's opinion that there exists in Chaucer a kind of humour seen through a peculiar arrangement of various units of expression. The units of expression are not obviously connected and because of this the reader might feel frustrated. However the frustration prepares the reader to meet unexpected happenings and surprises and he is able to find them amusing. Humour is possible through a structural pattern of expression as much as through its content. Some of Chaucer's jokes belong to this type. By way of illustration, the description of the Prioresse in the General Prologue of the Canterbury Tales, has been quoted. In this description three different levels of meaning are found side by side; romantic, ecclesiastical, and realistic life. The reader expects something religious in the Prioresse's portrait, is given instead phrases with romantic echoes. One can appreciate what the reader expects and at the same time what the reader is given. The lingering association of these two levels combined is in turn broken with the introduction of the third phase, i.e. the description of the Prioresse as a woman. In fact these three levels are to be recognized in the Prioresse's portrait. Every transition from one level to another causes humorous ambiguity. A typical example is 'amor vincitomnia', a motto at the end of the passage. The motto also allows three different kinds of interpretation. Humour emerges when the reader is conscious of all of the three meanings and he is undecided as to which is the prevailing one. The multiple meaning comes from the poet's 'centrifugal' imagination that is always creating variants from the literary conventions of the period. The humour of Chaucer is motivated by the special nature of his own imagination. Besides, this view of Chaucer's imagination throws a reviving light on the now half-forgotten theory that the poet's life falls into three periods; French, Italian, and English. It is suggested that the so-called three periods are, in fact, so many stages marked by the poet's centrifugal imagination, and not a matter of a mechanical division of his literary career.

View full abstract

Among the three southern writers of America, Truman Capote, Carson McCullers and Tennessee Williams, I note a theme common to their works-the pursuit of loneliness in human beings. The theme may be considered to be a noteworthy movement in American literature after World War II in that it symbolizes the uneasiness of us living in the twentieth century. When I study, however, the works of these three writers from the viewpoint of realism which forms the main current of American literature -expecially from my viewpoint of 'sex'-I think it is Carson McCullers that draws most sharply and approaches nearest to the core of the loneliness all the human beings have within. For example, the human image incarnated in a soldier named Williams as depicted in her Reflections in a Golden Eye has a much keener sincerity in the actual confrontation with our intrinsic loneliness, than either Cool, an old judge who expounds the theory of 'a chain of love' in The Grass Harp by Capote, or a nameless youth described by Tennessee Williams in his The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone. The reason is that there is neither sensual frailty perceivable in 'a chain of love,' nor the mysterious feebleness peculiar to the nameless youth. And, considering such frailty or mysticism is a dangerous pitfall for literature which aims at art for art's sake, it may be said that McCullers follows the middle road of the literature of realism. In this sense, I am inclined to expect much of her who is capable of showing us an image like Williams, the soldier.

View full abstract

The variety of cases in which the gerund and/or the infinitive are used as object of a verb is so vast that the choice between the two verbal forms presents a difficulty to native as well as non-native speakers of English. With this in mind the writer of this article tried to discovery some of the basic differences by which the choice is made. To clear the ground the writer has drawn out from the semantic difference between I like getting up early (in general) and I like to get up early (in this particular case) the following three points: 1) The logical subject of "getting up" (gerund) need not be the same as the subject of the main verb while that of "to get up" (infinitive) is identical with the subject of the main verb. 2) The gerund-construction has practically nothing to do with the happening of the thing which it denotes, but the infinitive-construction is primarily concerned with the happening of the activity. 3) The gerund has no time reference, but the infinitive refers to future. As an example of the first point we can cite the contrast: He allows smoking/He allows to smoke* (cf. He allows us to smoke). This applies to such verbs as permit, advise, advocate, encourage, provoke, urge, etc., all of which represent actions commonly done by the agent to affect other people or things. He tried writing in pencil versus He tried to write in pencil is another example, and to the latter type belong such verbs as aim, endeavour, strive, contrive, and seek. A few retroactive gerundial constructions, e.g. Your work needs correcting (to be corrected), also illustrate this point. The gerund is active in form, because it represents an activity apart from the agent. The second point is exemplified in the idiomatic preference of I intend to go to I intend going. The infinitive is preferred here because, being concerned as it is with the happening of the activity, it is more determinative than the gerund. This may be the reason why verbs like want, hope, care, long, yearn, decide, resolve, and make up one's mind are always found with the infinitive to the exclusion of the gerund. The gerund is used with verbs like avoid, delay, defer, escape, evade, miss, postpone, put off, shirk, resist, etc., which are all negative in meaning to the realization of the activity. The third point is closely allied with the second in that the infinitive refers to the future. It is probably for this reason that the gerund, which is in itself non-distinctive of time, refers to the past. Typical examples are I remember posting your letter versus Please remember to post this letter and I shall never forget hearing you sing versus I forgot to answer your question. Reference of the gerund to the past can also be seen when it is used after such verbs as acknowlege, admit, deny, doubt, mention, and report. It is worth noticing, however, that the above three points do not cover the whole of the distinction between the two constructions. That is to say, with some of the main verbs of the sentences we must take into account the affinity of the -ing of the gerund with that of the present participle as used in progressive form. We stopped talking and We began talking are cases in point. So are the sentences containing commence, start, continue, go on, finish, or cease. We must also consider that unless we have a clear view of the close connection between the mark "to" of an infinitive and a mere preposition "to", we cannot possibly come to a proper understanding of "to talk" in We stopped to talk. To conclude the article, the writer adds that in making a study of this kind he himself is quite aware of the danger he will quite probably fall into-hasty generalization. Indeed a complete list of the verbs taking the gerund and/or the infinitive is necessary before we can make any general remark on this question, but this article, the writer believes, may have some claim to be a stepping-stone for further research.

View full abstract