在有關喬叟的研究中，大部分的批評文獻集中在人類社會、政治、

意識形態、 性別或心理學等議題。相較之下，喬叟對人類與自然的

關係之思惟是較被忽略的話題。然而筆者認為喬叟深信自然規律，

只是在現代科學與人文的角度下該信念顯得陳舊過時或迷信，而被

現代文學批評所低估或忽略。所以本研究旨在探討喬叟作品中人類

與自然規律之關係的呈現。筆者試圖將喬叟的宇宙觀與深度生態學

及環境倫理聯想，並以生態本位的觀念重新解讀喬叟的作品。生態

學在後現代已經不再只是有關環境保護的技術性問題而已，而是牽

涉到倫理、宇宙觀及信仰，因此有所謂的深度生態學(Deep

Ecology)與淺度生態學(Shallow Ecology)之分別。後者是關於被動

的自然資源保護，前者則較積極的探討宇宙觀與環境倫理。由於現

代科學文明對環境以及人類本身造成危害，深度生態學家呼籲人類

必須檢討或重整宇宙觀才能減緩危害。因此喬叟作品中所呈現之中

古世紀的宗教、農業與封建制度下的宇宙觀與現代科學文明形成強

烈對比，值得我們深思。中古宇宙觀可以與深度生態學聯想，因為

深度生態學家與中古世紀的人們皆相信人類面對自然必須虔誠、謙

卑與恭敬，並且在人類之上存在著更高遠的自然法則。中古世紀觀

念與深度生態學皆反對自文藝復興與科學革命以來所發展的人類本

位觀念。中古世紀價值觀與對上帝或自然規律的信仰被認為是保守

或迷信。 但在此後現代世紀，深度生態學家呼籲人們應回歸或重新

認可中古世紀對宇宙自然法則的信仰，以矯正現代人類本位主義的

觀念，生態哲學家認為該信念為現今生態危機的主因。在本研究中

筆者試圖以深度生態學的角度重新詮釋喬叟的宇宙觀及對自然規律

的信仰。喬叟的宇宙觀與自然法則信念等同於生態學之生物本位觀

念。首先筆者將喬叟在《聖堂參事之衛士的故事》(Canon’s

Yeoman’s Tale)中對煉金術的質疑，與生態學家對現代科學的批判

相互對照，因為現代科學濫用自然資源，被認為是一種煉金術。喬

叟對煉金術的質疑代表中古世紀人們對大自然的虔誠態度，類似環

境倫理，乃是後現代人所需參考，以矯正現代科技文明與資本主義

者對大自然所抱持的人類本位觀念。其次，筆者將現代宇宙觀與中

古宇宙觀做比較，闡明在中古宇宙觀中，人類與大自然是一體的，

而在現代科學宇宙觀中，兩者是分離的。在第三章，筆者探討喬叟

對大自然的觀念，呈現在其作品《群鳥的議會》(the Parliament

of Fowls)、《坎特伯理故事集》與對其影響深遠、波西斯

(Boethius)所著《哲學的安慰》(The Consolation of Philosophy)

中。喬叟的宇宙觀類似生態學家的生物本位觀念(biocentrism)，根

據此觀念，人類並非大自然的主宰，而是與其他生物一樣受制於自

然法則。在第四章，筆者將《坎特伯理故事集》詮釋為一生態系

統，因為喬叟在此作品中任由各類聲音自然呈現，各種生物自然互

動，此外朝聖的主題深刻的整合俗世與理想、土地與宗教，筆者將

以深度生態學與巴赫汀(Bakhtin)的chronotope 理論的角度加以探

討。第五章探討《特伊洛斯與凱以思達》(Troilus and Criseyde)

與《坎特伯理故事集》與作品中自然/女性與文化/父權制度兩者之

間的對立性，闡明喬叟所信奉的自然法則是包含而非否定自然肉身

與女性特質等條件。儘管喬叟在坎特伯理故事集的結尾，譴責自己

不該將罪惡的故事納入作品中。但他依舊呈現了那些故事，顯示他

是藝術家，並非道德家，而他所遵循的是自然法則，不是有限的意

識形態或教條。所以，文以載「道」，以生態學而言，「道」是天

道、自然之道。自然的一切自有其道理，即使人類不能理解。從古

至今，自然的法則一直都存在。

In Chaucerian study, most criticisms center on issues of

human society, politics, ideology, gender or psychology.

In comparison, how Chaucer relates humanity to nature is a

more neglected topic. However, the author believes that

Chaucer has a strong notion of natural order. The notion

seems to be outdated or superstitious from modern

scientific, humanistic viewpoint, and is thus

underestimated or disregarded by modern literary

criticism, which emphasizes human issues, hardly taking

Chaucer’s notion of cosmic order into consideration. In

this study, the author seeks to relate Chaucer’s

cosmology to deep ecology and environmental ethics, and to

re-read Chaucer’s works in light of ecological

biocentrism. Ecology in postmodern age is no longer a

technical matter of environmental protection, but a study

involving ethics, worldview and belief. Hence, there is a

distinction between so-called deep ecology and shallow

ecology. The latter is concerned only with passive

conservation of natural resources, while the former, more

radically with worldview and environmental ethics. As

modern scientific civilization has been destructive to the

environment and humanity itself, deep ecologists advocate

that human beings have to review or restructure their

cosmology in order to ultimately salvage the destruction.

Therefore, the worldview of the religious, agricultural

and feudal Middle Ages informed in Chaucer’s works is a

meaningful contrast for us to reflect on. Medieval

worldview might be related to deep ecology because both

deep ecologists and medieval men believe that man should

be pious, humble and respectful toward nature, and that

there is a higher, natural order beyond humanity. Both

medieval view and deep ecology oppose anthropocentrism or

the belief in human power which has developed since the

Renaissance and Scientific Revolutions. Medieval values

and belief in God or natural order have been regarded as

conservative or superstitious. But in this postmodern

age, deep ecologists have called for a return or re-

recognition of medieval belief in cosmic, natural order,

in order to modify the harm done by the modern belief in

anthropocentrism, which is the main cause of our

environmental crisis, according to ecophilosophers. In

this study, the author tries to redefine Chaucer’s belief

in cosmic order from the perspective of deep ecology.

That is, Chaucer’s worldview, his belief in natural order

is equated to ecological biocentrism. Firstly, in this

study Chaucer’s skepticism toward alchemy in the Canon’s

Yeoman’s Tale is associated with ecophilosphers’

criticism of modern science, which has been regarded as a

kind of alchemy in treating nature as a lifeless object to

be exploited by humanity. Chaucer’s skepticism toward

alchemy signifies medieval man’s piety toward nature, and

thus corresponds to the environmental ethics that

postmodern age needs to modify modern scientists’ and

capitalists’ anthropocentric approaches toward nature.

Next, modern scientific civilization and medieval

worldviews are compared to manifest that in medieval view

man and nature are organically one, while in modern

scientific worldview, man and nature are alienated.

Thirdly, Chaucer’s concept of nature revealed in the

Parliament of Fowls, some tales in the Canterbury Tales

and Boethius’s Consolation of Philosophy, is explored to

manifest that Chaucer’s worldview is similar to holistic

biocentrism, according to which, man is not the lord of

nature but one of the species humbly subject to the rule

of natural law. Fourthly, the Canterbury Tales is read as

an ecosystem, in which diverse voices, natural elements

and creatures (human beings, animals and constellations)

interacting with each other organically. Besides, the

metaphor of pilgrimage significantly integrating the

earthly world and the spiritual order, land and religion,

is thus probed in light of deep ecology and Bakhtin’s

theory of chronotope. The fifth chapter focuses on the

dualism between nature/womanhood and culture/patriarchy in

Troilus and Criseyde and some tales of the Canterbury

Tales, to manifest that the cosmic, natural order Chaucer

adheres to is based upon recognition rather than denial of

the earthly, the physical and the feminine entities.

Despite his repentance and retraction as seen in the

Canterbury Tales, Chaucer’s listing all the tales that

“sownen into synne” bespeaks that he is an artist, not a

moralist, and what he follows is natural law rather than

limited ideologies or religious dogmas. Therefore, “Al

that is writen is writen for oure doctrine.” Everything

of nature must be meaningful in terms of deep ecology even

though humans do not understand it. Natural order has

never been absent from the (modern) world since the Middle

Ages.

Chinese Abstract ................................... iii

English Abstract .....................................v

Acknowledgments ...................................viii

Chapter One
Introduction:
"Men Sholde Nat Knowe of Goddes Pryvetee”–
Medieval Worldview and EnvironmentalEthics..............1

Chapter Two
"Newe Science out of Olde Bokes”—
Medieval Worldview, Modern Science
and Postmodern Deep Ecology ......................... 24

Chapter Three
“A Gretter Lawe Than May Be Yeve to Any Erthely Man”:
Chaucer’s Concept of Nature, Worldview
and Ecological Biocentrism ............................73

Chapter Four
"Diverse Folk Diversely They Seyde":
The Canterbury Tales as Ecosystem .....................120

Chapter Five
"An Housbonde Shal Nat Been
Inquisityf of Goddes Pryvetee, Nor of His Wyf":
Chaucer and Ecofeminism................................183

Chapter Six
Conclusion:
"Al That Is Writen Is Writen for Oure Doctrine"....... 238

Works Cited............................................248

1. Primary sources:
Bisson, Lillian. M. Chaucer and the Late Medieval World. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998.

Boethius. The Consolation of Philosophy. Trans. V. E. Watts. New York: Penguin, 1980.

Brewer, Derek. A New Introduction to Chaucer. 2nd ed. London: Longman, 1998.

---. The World of Chaucer. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2000.

Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Riverside Chaucer. 3rd ed. Ed.

Larry D. Benson. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1987.

Chenu, M. D. Nature, Man and Society in the Twelfth
Century. Ed. and trans. Jerome Taylor and Lester K. Little. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1983.

Economou, George D. The Goddess Natura in Medieval Literature. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard UP, 1972.

Evernden, Neil. “Beyond Ecology: Self, Place and the Pathetic Fallacy.” Glotfelty and Fromm 92-104.

---. The Social Creation of Nature. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1992.

Glotfelty, Cheryll, and Harold Fromm, eds. The Ecocriticism Reader. London: U of Georgia P, 1996.

Goffman, Ethan. “God, Humanity, and Nature: Comparative Religious Views of the Environment.” Dec. 2005. CSA. Online. ProQuest LLC. 28 Nov. 2008. Available: http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/envrel/review.php?SID=9jqb71nh4f4ro6tos0s66v4cn0.

Leiss, William. The Domination of Nature. Montreal: McGrill-Queen’s UP, 1998.

Lewis, C. S. The Discarded Image. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1981.

Merchant, Carolyn. The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution. San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 1989.

North, J. D. Chaucer’s Universe. N.Y.: Oxford UP, 1988.

Oleschlaeger, Max. The Idea of Wilderness: From Prehistory to the Age of Ecology. New Haven: Yale UP, 1991.

Randall, J. H. The Making of Modern Mind: A Survey of the Intellectual Background of the Present Age. New York: Columbia UP, 1976.

Scearce, Carolyn. “Abelard's Questions and Ockham's
Razor: Connections between Medieval Philosophy and Modern Science.” Nov. 2008. CSA. Online. ProQuest LLC. 27 Nov. 2008. Available http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/medieval/review.php.

Stanbury, Sarah. “EcoChaucer: Green Ethics and Medieval Nature.” The Chaucer Review 39 (2004): 1-16.

Tillyard, E. M. W. The Elizabethan World Picture. New York: Vintage Books, 1962.

Tucker, Mary Evelyn, and John A. Grim, eds. Worldviews and Ecology. Lewisburg: Bucknell UP, 1994.

2. Secondary sources:

Adams, Carol J, ed. Ecofeminism and the Sacred. New York: Continuum, 1993.

Aers, David. Community, Gender, and Individual Identity: English Writing 1360-1430. London: Routledge, 1988.

---. “Criseyde: woman in medieval society.” Benson, Critical Essays 128-48

---, ed. Medieval Literature: Criticism, Ideology & History. Sussex: Harvester, 1986.

Andreas, James. “‘Newe Science’ from ‘Olde Bokes’: A
Bakhtinian Approach to the Summoner’s Tale.” Chaucer. Ed. Valerie Allen and Ares Axiotis. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997. 232-41.

Archibald, Elizabeth. “Women and Romance.” Companion to Middle English Romance. Ed. Henk Aertsen and Alasdair A. MacDonald. Amsterdam: VU UP, 1990. 152-69.

Armbruster, Karla and Kathleen R. Wallace, eds. Beyond Nature Writing: Expanding the Boundaries of Ecocriticism. Charlottesville: UP of Virginia, 2001.

Bakhtin, Mikhail. Rabelais and His World. Trans. Helene Iswolsky. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1984.

---. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Ed. Michael Holquist. Trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: U of Texas P, 1981.

Bennett, Tony. Formalism and Marxism. London: Routledge, 1979.

Benson, C. David. Chaucer’s Drama of Style. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 1986.

Benson, C. David, ed. Critical Essays on Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde and his Major Early Poems. Milton Keynes: Open UP, 1991.

Berry, Thomas. “The Spirituality of the Earth.” Liberating Life: Contemporary Approaches to Ecological Theology. Ed. Charles Birch, William Eakin and Jay B. McDaniel. New York: Orbis Books, 1990.

Bloch, R. Howard. The Scandal of the Fabliaux. Chicago: The U of Chicago P, 1986.

Boitani, Piero and Anna Torti, eds. The Body and the Soul in Medieval Literature. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1999.

Braswell-Means, Laurel. “A New Look at an Old Patient: Chaucer’s Summoner and Medieval Physiognomia.” The Chaucer Review 25 (1991): 266-75.

Brewer, Derek. “The Fabliaux.” Rowland 296-327.

Bynum, Caroline Walker. Fragmentation and Redemption: Essays on Gender and the Human Body in Medieval Literature. New York: Zone Books, 1992.

Callicott, J. Baird. “Toward a Global Environmental Ethics.” Tucker and Grim, Worldviews and Ecology 30-8.

Campbell, Sueellen. “The Land and Language of Desire: Where Deep Ecology and Post-Structuralism Meet.”
Glotfelty and Fromm 124-136.

Capra, Fritjof. “Deep Ecology: A New Paradigm.” Ed. George Sessions. Deep Ecology for the Twenty-First Century. Boston: Shambhala, 1995. 19-25.

Coates, Peter. Nature: Western Attitudes since Ancient Times. Berkeley: U of California P, 1998.

Collingwood, R. G. The Idea of Nature. London: Oxford UP, 1960.

Cook, Jon. “Carnival and The Canterbury Tales.” Aers, Medieval Literature 169-91.

Cooper, Helen. The Structure of The Canterbury Tales. Athens: U of Georgia P, 1984

Cosgrove, Denis E. Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1998.

Coupe, Lurence. Introduction to Part II, Section One. The Green Studies Reader. 61-65.

---. Introduction to Part IV, Section Two. The Green Studies Reader. 157-59.

---, ed. The Green Studies Reader: From Romanticism to Ecocriticism. London: Routledge, 2004.

Davis, Norman, et al., comp. A Chaucer Glossary. New York: Oxford UP, 1979.

David, Alfred. The Strumpet Muse: Art and Morals in Chaucer’s Poetry. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1976.
“Deep Ecology.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.
Online. Google. 27 Nov. 2008. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology

Duffy, Eamon. “The dynamics of pilgrimage in late medieval England.” Morris and Roberts 164-177.

Dyas, Dee. Pilgrimage in Medieval English Literature, 700-1500. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2001.

Edwards, Philip. Pilgrimage and Literary Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005.

Fromm, Harold. “From Transcendence to Obsolescence: A Route Map.” Glotfelty and Fromm 30-9.

Gaard, Greta, ed. Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1993.

Ganim, John M. Chaucerian Theatricality. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton UP, 1990.

Gash, Anthony. “Carnival Against Lent: The Ambivalence of Medieval Drama.” Aers, Medieval Literature 74-98.

Glacken, Clarence J. Traces on the Rhodian Shore. Berkeley: U of California P, 1967.

Glotfelty, Cheryll. “Introduction: Literary Studies in an Age of Environmental Crisis.” Glotfelty and Fromm xv-xxxvii.

Hansen, Elaine Tuttle. Chaucer and the Fictions of Gender. Berkeley: U of California P, 1992.

Hargrove, Eugene C. Foundations of Environmental Ethics. Denton, TX: Environmental Ethics Books, 1996.

Heller, Chaia. “For the Love of Nature: Ecology and the Cult of the Romantic.” Gaard 219-42.

Hines, John. The Fabliau in English. London: Longman, 1993.

“Holism.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Online. Google. 27 Nov. 2008. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism.

Howard, Donald R. The Idea of the Canterbury Tales. Berkley: U of California P, 1978.

Husserl, Edmund. The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology. Evanston: Northwestern UP, 1970.

Johassen, Frederick B. “The Inn, the Cathedral, and the Pilgrimage.” Rebels and Rivals: The Contestive Spirit in
The Canterbury Tales. Ed. Sussanna Greer Fein, David
Raybin and Peter C. Braeger. Kalamazoo, M.I.: Medieval Institute Publications, 1991. 1-36.

Jolly, Karen. “Father God and Mother Earth: Nature-Mysticism in the Anglo-Saxon World.” The Medieval World of Nature: A Book of Essays. Ed. Joyce E. Salisbury. New York: Garland, 1993. 221-52.

Katz, Eric. “Judaism and the Ecological Crisis.”
Tucker and Grim, Worldviews and Ecology 55-70.

Keeble, N. H. “To be a pilgrim’: constructing the Protestant life in early modern England.” Morris and Roberts 238-56.

Kendrick, Laura. Chaucerian Play: Comedy and Control in the Canterbury Tales. Berkeley: U of California P, 1988.

Kheel, Marti. “From Heroic to Holistic Ethics: The Ecofeminist Challenge.” Gaard 243-71.

Kiser, Lisa J. “Chaucer and the Politics of Nature.” Armbruster and Wallace 41-56.

Kittredge, George Lyman. “Troilus.” Benson, Critical Essays 1-7.

Knapp, Peggy Ann. Chaucer and the Social Contest. New York: Routledge, 1990.

Kordecki, Lesley. “Chaucer’s Squire’s Tale: Animal Discourse, Women, and Subjectivity.” The Chaucer Review 36 (2002): 277-97.

Le Goff, Jacques. Medieval Civilization: 400-1500. Trans. Julia Barrow. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001.

---. Medieval Imagination. Trans. Arthur Goldhammer. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1988.

Leavis, F. R. and Denys Thompson. “The Organic Community.” Coupe, The Green Studies Reader 73-6.

Lewis, C. S. “What Chaucer really did to Il Filostrato.” Benson, Critical Essays 8-22.

Lovejoy, Arthur O. The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1964.

Manes, Christopher. “Nature and Silence.” Glotfelty and Fromm 15-29.

Mann, Jill. Chaucer and Medieval Estates Satire: The Literature of Social Classes and the General Prologue to the Canterbury Tales. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1973.

Marlowe, Christopher. The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus. Drama of the English Renaissance. Ed. M. L. Wine. New York: Modern Library, 1969.

Martin, Priscilla. Chaucer’s Women: Nuns, Wives and
Amazons. Iowa City: U of Iowa P, 1990.

Marx, Karl. Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. Online. Google. 29 Nov. 2008. Available: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm.

Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy. New York: Anchor Books, 1989.

McDowell, Michael J. “Bakhtinian Road to Ecological Insight.” Glotfelty and Fromm 371-91.

McFague, Sallie. “An Earthly Theological Agenda.” Adams 84-98.

---. The Body of God: An Ecological Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.

Meeker, Joseph W. The Comedy of Survival: Literary Ecology and a Play Ethic. 3rd ed. Tucson: the U of Arizona P, 1997.

---. “The Comic Mode.” Glotfelty and Fromm 155-69.

Mieszkowski, Gretchen. “Chaucer’s Much Loved Criseyde.” The Chaucer Review 26 (1991): 109-32.

Morris, Colin and Peter Roberts, eds. Pilgrimage: The English Experience from Becket to Bunyan. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002.

Muscatine, Charles. Chaucer and the French Tradition. Berkeley: U of California P, 1957.

---. Medieval Literature, Style, and Culture: Essays. Columbia: U of South Carolina P, 1998.

---. “The Canterbury Tales: Style of the Man and Style of the Work.” Chaucer and Chaucerians: Critical Studies in Middle English Literature. Ed. D. S. Brewer. Alabama: U of Alabama P, 1966. 88-113.

Nolan, Barbara. “Promiscuous Fictions: Medieval Bawdy Tales and Their Textual Liaisons.” Boitani and Torti. 79-106.

Olson, Paul A. The Canterbury Tales and the Good Society. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton UP, 1986.

Ortner, Sherry B. “Is Female to Male as Nature Is to Culture?” Woman, Culture, and Society. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1974.

Owen, Charles A. The Design of the Canterbury Tales. Rowland, Companion 221-42.

Peasall, Derek. The Life of Geoffrey Chaucer. Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.

Plumwood, Val. Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. London: Routledge, 1993.

Rawcliffe, Carole. “Curing bodies and healing souls: pilgrimage and the sick in medieval East Anglia.” Morris and Roberts 108-40.

Rigby, S. H. Chaucer in Context. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1996.

Robertson, D. W. A Preface to Chaucer: Studies in Medieval Perspectives. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1962.

Rowland, Beryl. “Chaucer’s Imagery.” Companion to Chaucer Studies. 117-42.

---, ed. Companion to Chaucer Studies. Rev. ed. N.Y.: Oxford UP, 1979.

Rueckert, William. “Literature and Ecology: An Experiment in Ecocriticism.” Glotfelty and Fromm 105-123.

Ruether, Rosemary Radford. “Ecofeminism: Symbolic and Social Connections of the Oppression of Women and the Domination of Nature.” Adams 13-23.

Ruskin, John. “Landscape, Mimesis and Morality.” Coupe, The Green Studies Reader 26-31.

Salisbury, Joyce E. The Beast Within: Animals and the Middle Ages. New York: Routledge, 1994.

Selden, Raman. A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory. Brighton, Sussex: Harvester, 1985.

Takada, Yasunari. “‘Commune Profit’ and Libidinal Dissemination in Chaucer.” The Body and Soul in Medieval Literature. Boitani and Torti 107-122.

Tu, Wei-ming. “Beyond the Enlightenment Mentality.”
Tucker and Grim, Worldviews 19-29.

Tucker, Mary Evelyn, and John A. Grim. Series Foreword. Judaism and Ecology: Created World and Revealed Word. Ed.
Hava Tirosh-Samuelson. Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard Divinity School, 2002. xv-xxxii.

Vance, Linda. “Ecofeminism and the Politics of Reality.” Gaard 118-145.

Wallace, Kathleen R. and Karla Armbruster. “Introduction: Why Go Beyond Nature Writing, and Where To?” Armbruster and Wallace 1-24.

Webb, Diana. Pilgrimage in Medieval England. London: Hambledon and London, 2000.

---. Pilgrims and Pilgrimage in the Medieval West. London: I. B. Tauris, 2001.

White, Hugh. Nature, Sex, and Goodness in Medieval Literary Tradition. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000.

White, Lynn, Jr. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis.” Glotfelty and Fromm 3-14.

Williams, Raymond. The Country and the City. London: Hogarth, 1993.

Wood, Chauncey. The Elements of Chaucer’s Troilus. Durham, N.C.: Duke UP, 1984.