本論文試圖聯結敘述文及生命以解讀喬叟；作為一海德格騎士，作為一意義的追求者，他對生命存在和敘述意義的追求乃本論文要旨。對喬叟而言，死亡之於生命，誠如結尾之於敘述文。在《坎特伯里故事集》中，最具爭議地莫過於喬叟的「撤消」，喬叟在此撤回了他之前的創作僅認可那些具道德及宗教性的作品。但諷刺的是，最能吸引讀者的故事卻是那些粗俗的故事，並且據喬叟這位朝聖者所觀察，貢獻這些下流故事的男女本身即道德敗壞之徒，他們藉朝聖之名，別有用心。話雖如此，朝聖原本為展現人的懺悔和對生命終極意義的追尋；因此本論文認為喬叟以其「撤消」之法作為自身精神朝聖無法到達的暫時終點，藉以省視自己而非他筆下的人物在世界的經驗。在此同時，他在《坎特伯里故事集》中隱誨的結尾也迫使讀者追求各自獨到但可為人接受的詮釋，同時沉思自己作為一現世存有的個人世界經驗。

　　年長的喬叟在《坎特伯里故事集》中的歷程，也正反映喬叟留在《崔洛斯與奎西妲》的惱人結局，但藉由此，莎士比亞宣揚崔洛斯的忠誠以解除讀者對奎西妲的撻伐。作為一現世存有，莎士比亞鄙視《崔洛斯與奎西妲》的結局，而擱置崔洛斯的死，並使他領悟他存在於此世以及對他人的責任。此種關係蘊藏於喬叟的《崔洛斯與奎西妲》。藉由莎士比亞提醒讀者注意喬叟結局的專橫性，和敘述者邀請讀者補足其不足的戀愛經驗，《崔洛斯與奎西妲》方可以喬叟從自己的存在於此世得來的經驗和想像力，做一解讀。藉此，二十一世紀的讀者得以認同喬叟的角色，特別是崔洛斯。在體驗《崔洛斯與奎西妲》的故事時，讀者早已被告知崔洛斯的悲劇下場。但喬叟成功地引起讀者對此一熟悉故事的興趣，以勾起讀者內心的戀愛經驗，而正是此種經驗折磨了年輕王子崔洛斯。直到奎西妲真地棄崔洛斯不顧，讀者才願意接受此早已知道的事實。為了減輕讀者的痛苦，喬叟因襲舊故地訴諸於道德及神的愛作為萬靈丹，卻反而疏遠了他的讀者和所吸引他們的此世經驗以及現世存有的意義。

　　This thesis attempts to bring narrative and life together so as to facilitate the reading of Chaucer as a Heideggerian knight in his quest of Being in life and meaning in narrative. To Chaucer, what death is to life, ending is to narrative. In the Canterbury Tales the most problematical is Chaucer’s Retraction in which Chaucer erases all his works except those concerned with moral and Christianity. But ironically, no tales attract more readers’attention than those bawdy tales whose (feigned) authors, according to Chaucer the pilgrim, are morally inferior and tend their own nasty business only in the guise of a pilgrimage. Nevertheless, the original conception of going on a pilgrimage is to show one’s repentance as well as to search for the ultimate meaning of life. This thesis argues that Chaucer uses his Retraction as the unreachable but temporary destination of his spiritual pilgrimage (the meaning of Being) to revise his experiences in this world, rather than his fictional characters’experiences. Simultaneously, his elusive ending in the Canterbury Tales forces readers to pursue their unique but acceptable choice of interpretation while contemplating their own personal experiences in the world as Dasein.

　　What the elderly Chaucer treks in his Canterbury Tales may reflect the other perplexing ending Chaucer leaves behind in Troilus and Criseyde from which Shakespeare salvages Cressida from the ire of Chaucerian readers by honoring Troilus’s faithfulness. Shakespeare as a Dasein makes light of Troilus’s palinode by suspending his death and making him recognize his being in this world and responsibility for Others, a relationship implicit in Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde. With Shakespeare reminding the readers of the monolithic nature of Chaucer’s palinode and the narrator inviting readers to complement his insufficient love experience, Troilus and Criseyde is interpreted in terms of the experiences Chaucer distils from his being in this world and from his imagination, both of which allow the twenty-first-century readers to identify with his characters, especially Troilus. In the course of experiencing the story, readers have already been notified of Troilus’s tragic end. But Chaucer successfully arouses readers’ interest in this oldie by recalling within readers the love experience which pinches young prince Troilus. Not until Criseyde really abandons Troilus are readers willing to accept what has been known long before. To relieve the pang inside his readers, Chaucer conventionally resorts to morality and God’s love as cure-all, which turns out to alienate his readers away from what he appeals to them—experiences in this world and the meaning of Being in the ontological way.

Adelman, Janet. Suffocating Mothers. New York: Routledge, 1992.

Allen, Mark. “Penitential Sermons, the Manciple, and the End of The Canterbury Tales.”Studies in the Age of Chaucer 9 (1987): 77-96.

Archibald, Elizabeth. “Declarations of ‘Entente’ in Troilus and Criseyde.” Chaucer Review 25.3 (1991): 190-213.

Benson, C. David. Introduction. Chaucer’s Religious Tales. Ed. Benson and ElizabethRobertson. Cambridge: Brewer, 1990. 1-7.
---, ed. Critical Essays on Chaucer’s “Troilus and Criseyde” and his Major Early Poems.Milton Keynes, Eng.: Open UP, 1991.

Berry, Craig A. “The King’s Business: Negotiating Chivalry in Troilus and Criseyde.”Chaucer Review 26.3 (1992): 236-65.

Bestful, Thomas H. “Chaucer’s Parson’s Tale and the Late-Medieval Tradition of Religious Meditation.” Speculum 64 (1989): 600-19.

Bisson, Lillian M. Chaucer and the Late Medieval World. 1998. New York: St.Martin’s, 1999.

Bloomfield, Morton W. “Distance and Predestination in ‘Troilus and Criseyde’.”Chaucer’s Troilus: Essays in Criticism. Ed. Stephen A. Barney. Hamden: Archon,1980. 75-90.
---. “Chaucerian Realism.” The Cambridge Chaucer Companion. Ed. Piero Boitani and Jill Mann. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1986. 179-93.

Boas, Frederick S. Shakspere and His Predecessors. 1896. New York: Greenwood, 1969.

Boitani, Piero, ed. Chaucer and the Italian Trecento. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984.
---, ed. The European Tragedy of Troilus. Oxford: Clarendon P, 1989.
---. “Antiquity and Beyond: The Death of Troilus.” Boitani, European 1-19.
---. “Eros and Thanatos: Cressida, Troilus, and the Modern Age.” Boitani, European 281-305.

Bonnefoy, Yves. “Lifting Our Eyes from the Page.” Readers and Reading. Ed. and introd. Andrew Bennett. Longman Critical Readers. London: Longman, 1995. 222-34.

Brewer, Derek, ed. Chaucer: The Critical Heritage, 1385-1933. 2 vols. London: Routledge, 1978.
---. “Comedy and Tragedy in Troilus and Criseyde.” Boitani, European 95-109.
---. The World of Chaucer. 1978. Cambridge: Brewer, 2000.

Burke, Peter. The Renaissance. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities, 1987.

Burrow, J. A. Medieval Writers and Their Work: Middle English Literature and its Background 1100-1500. Rpt. ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1990.

Campbell, Jennifer. “Figuring Criseyde’s ‘Entente’: Authority, Narrativity, and Chaucer’s Use of History.” Chaucer Review 27.4 (1993): 342-58.

Campbell, Oscar James. Shakespeare’s Satire. New York: Oxford UP, 1943. New York:Gordian, 1971.

Caputo, John D. “Heidegger and Theology.” The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger. Ed. Charles B. Guignon. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993. 270-88.
---. Heidegger and Aquinas: An Essay on Overcoming Metaphysics. Rpt. ed. New York:Fordham UP, 1998.
---, ed. Deconstruction in a Nutshell: A Conversation with Jacques Derrida. Rpt. ed.New York: Fordham UP, 1998.

Carr, David, Charles Taylor, and Paul Ricoeur. “Discussion: Ricoeur on Narrative.” Wood 160-87.

Chance, Jane. The Mythographic Chaucer: the Fabulation of Sexual Politics.Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1995.

Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Riverside Chaucer. Ed. Larry D. Benson. 3rd ed. Boston: Houghton, 1987.

Delasanta, Rodney. “Penance and Poetry in the Canterbury Tales.” PMLA 93.2 (Mar.1978): 240-7.

Donaldson, E. Talbot. “Briseis, Briseida, Criseyde, Cresseid, Cressid: Progress of a Heroine.” Vasta and Thundy 3-12.
---. Speaking of Chaucer. 1970. Durham: Labyrinth, 1983.
---. The Swan at the Well: Shakespeare Reading Chaucer. New Haven: Yale UP, 1985.

Edwards, David, L. Christian England: Its Story to the Reformation. 1980. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983.

Erzgräber, Willi. “‘Auctorite’ and ‘Experience’ in Chaucer.” Intellectuals and Writers in Fourteenth-Century Europe. Ed. Piero Boitani and Anna Torti. Cambridge: Brewer,1986. 67-87.

Evans, Murray J. “‘Making Strange’: the Narrator (?), the Ending (?), and Chaucer’s‘Troilus’.” Benson, Critical 164-75.

Ferguson, Wallace K. The Renaissance in Historical Thought. New York: AMS, 1981.

Ferster, Judith. Chaucer on Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1985.

Furrow, Melissa. “The Author and Damnation: Chaucer, Writing, and Penitence.” Forum for Modern Language Studies 33.3 (July 1997): 245-57.

Gaylord, Alan T. “The Lesson of the Troilus: Chastisement and Correction.” Essays on Troilus and Criseyde. Ed. Mary Salu. Rpt. ed. Cambridge: Brewer, 1991. 23-42.

Gibaldi, Joseph. MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers. 5th ed. New York: MLA, 1999.

“Gilt.” A Concordance to the Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer and to Romaunt of the Rose. Ed. John S. P. Tatlock and Arthur G. Kennedy. Rpt. ed. 1963.

Girard, René. A Theater of Envy: William Shakespeare. New York: Oxford UP, 1991.
---. “The Politics of Desire in Troilus and Cressida.” Shakespeare and the Question of Theory. Ed. Patricia Parker and Geoffrey Hartman. N.p.: Methuen, 1985. New York: Routledge, 1993.

Godman, Peter. “Henryson’s Masterpiece.” Review of English Studies 35.139 (1954):291-300.

Hanning, Robert W. “The Crisis of Meditation in Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde.” The Performance of Middle English Culture: Essays on Chaucer and the Drama in Honor of Martin Stevens. Ed. James J. Paxson, Lawrence M. Clopper and Sylvia Tomasch.Cambridge: Brewer, 1998. 143-59.

Harmon, William, and C. Hugh Holman. A Handbook to Literature. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice, 1996.

Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. Trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. New York: Harper, 1962.

Hillman, Richard. William Shakespeare: The Problem Plays. New York: Twayne, 1993.

Hudson, Anne. The Premature Reformation: Wycliffite Texts and Lollard History. Oxford:Clarendon P, 1988.

Huppé, Bernard F. “The Unlikely Narrator: The Narrative Strategy of the Troilus.”Signs and Symbols in Chaucer’s Poetry. Ed. John P. Hermann and John J. Burke.University: U of Alabama P, 1981. 179-94.

Jauss, Hans Robert. Toward an Aesthetic of Reception. Trans. Timothy Bahti. Theoryand Hist. of Lit. 2. Rpt. ed. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1994.

Justice, Steven. “Lollardy.” The Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature. Ed.David Wallace. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999. 662-89.

Kahn, Victoria. “Intention, Interpretation, and the Limits of Meaning: A Response to A. C.Spearing and H. Marshall Leicester, Jr.” Exemplaria 2 (1990): 279-85.

Kaminsky, Alice R. Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde and the Critics. N.p.: Ohio UP, 1980.

Kaske, R. E. “The Aube in Chaucer’s Troilus.” Chaucer Criticism: Troilus and Criseyde and the Minor Poems. Ed. Richard J. Schoeck and Jerome Taylor. Rpt. ed. Vol. 2.Notre Dame: U of Notre Dame P, 1982. 167-79.

Kermode, Frank. The Sense of an Ending: Studies in the Theory of Fiction. Rpt. ed.London: Oxford UP, 1979.

Kinney, Clare Regan. Strategies of Poetic Narrative: Chaucer, Spenser, Milton, Eliot.Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992.

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

Knight, G. Wilson. The Wheel of Fire: Interpretations of Shakespearian Tragedy with Three New Essays. 1930. London: Routledge, 1989.

Kovacs, George. The Question of God in Heidegger’s Phenomenology. Evanston: Northwestern UP, 1990.

Krier, Theresa M. Introduction. Refiguring Chaucer in the Renaissance. Ed. Krier. Gainesville: UP of Florida, 1998. 1-18.

Lacoue-Labarthe, Philippe. “Mimesis and Truth.” Diacritics 8.1 (1978): 10-23.

Lawler, Traugott. The One and the Many in the Canterbury Tales. Hamden: Archon, 1980.

Lawton, David. “Chaucer’s Two Ways: The Pilgrimage Frame of The Canterbury Tales.”Studies in the Age of Chaucer 9 (1987): 3-40.

Lerer, Seth. Chaucer and His Readers: Imagining the Author in Late-Medieval England.New Jersey: Princeton UP, 1993.

Lewis, Clive Staples. “What Chaucer Really Did to ‘Il Filostrato’.” Brewer, Critical 2:468-85.

Mann, Jill. “Shakespeare and Chaucer: ‘What is Criseyde worth?’.” Boitani, European 219-42.
---. “Troilus’ Swoon.” Benson, Critical 149-63.

Martin, Priscilla, ed. Shakespeare: Troilus and Cressida. London: Macmillan, 1976.

McGerr, Rosemarie P. Chaucer’s Open Books: Resistance to Closure in Medieval Discourse. Gainesville: UP of Florida, 1998.

Mehl, Dieter. Geoffrey Chaucer: An Introduction to his Narrative Poetry. Cambridge:Cambridge UP, 1986.

Mieszkowski, Gretchen. “Chaucer’s Much Loved Criseyde.” Chaucer Review 26.2 (1991): 109-32.

Miller, J. Hillis. Reading Narrative. Oklahoma Project for Discourse and Theory vol. 18.Norman: U of Oklahoma P, 1998.

Morgan, Gerald. “The Ending of ‘Troilus and Criseyde’.” Modern Language Review 77.2 (Apr. 1982): 257-71.

Morse, Ruth, and Barry Windeatt, eds. Chaucer Traditions: Studies in Honour of Derek Brewer. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1990.

Muir, Kenneth. “‘The Fusing of Themes’.” Martin 82-95.
---. The Sources of Shakespeare’s Plays. New Haven: Yale UP, 1978.
---. Shakespeare’s Tragic Sequence. 1972. Liverpool: Liverpool UP, 1979.
---. Shakespeare’s Comic Sequence. Liverpool: Liverpool UP, 1979.

Muscatine, Charles. “Chaucer’s Religion and the Chaucer Religion.” Morse and Windeatt 249-62.

Oates, Joyce Carol. “Essence and Existence.” Martin 167-80.

Olmert, Michael. “The Parson’s Ludic Formula for Winning on the Road [to Canterbury].”Chaucer Review 20.2 (1985): 158-68.

Patterson, Lee. “What Man Artow?: Authorial Self-Definition in ‘The Tale of Sir Thopas’and ‘The Tale of Melibee’.” Studies in the Age of Chaucer 11 (1989): 117-75.
---. Chaucer and the Subject of History. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1991.

Payne, Robert O. “The Historical Criticism We Need.” Chaucer at Albany. Ed. Rossell Hope Robbins. New York: Franklin, 1975. 179-91.

Pearsall, Derek. The Life of Geoffrey Chaucer: A Critical Biography. Rpt. ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993.

Randall, John Herman Randall, Jr. The Making of the Modern Mind. 50th anniversary ed.New York: Columbia UP, 1976.

Ricoeur, Paul. The Conflict of Interpretations: Essays in Hermeneutics. Ed. Don Ihde.Evanston: Northwestern UP, 1974.
---. Time and Narrative. Trans. Kathleen McLaughlin, Kathleen Blamey and David

Pellauer. 3 vols. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1984-8.
---. “Appropriation.” Valdés 86-98.
---. “Narrated Time.” Valdés 338-54.
---. “Life: A Story in Search of a Narrator.” Valdés 425-37.
---. “Poetry and Possibility.” Valdés 448-62.

Rossiter, A. P. “The Problem Plays.” Shakespeare: Modern Essays in Criticism. Ed.Leonard F. Dean. Rev. ed. London: Oxford UP, 1967. 263-82.
---. “Troilus and Cressida.” William Shakespeare: The Tragedies. Ed. Harold Bloom.Modern Critical Views. New York: Chelsea, 1985. 61-78.

Rowe, Donald W. O Love O Charite! Contraries Harmonized in Chaucer’s Troilus. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1976.

Rufini, Sergio. “‘To Make that Maxim Good’: Dryden’s Shakespeare.” Boitani, European 243-80.

Ruggiers, Paul G. “Serious Chaucer: The Tale of Melibeus and the Parson's Tale.” Vasta and Thundy 83-94.
---. “The Italian Influence on Chaucer.” Companion to Chaucer Studies. Ed. Beryl Rowland. Rev. ed. New York: Oxford UP, 1979. 160-84.

Sadlek, Gregory M. “Love, Labor, and Sloth in Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde.” Chaucer Review 26.4 (1992): 350-68.

Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. “Between Men.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden: Blackwell, 1998. 696-712.
Shakespeare, William. Troilus and Cressida. Ed. Kenneth Palmer. Arden Shakespeare.Rpt. ed. London: Routledge, 1991.

Spearing, A. C. Medieval to Renaissance in English Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge UP,1985.

Steadman, John M. Disembodied Laughter: Troilus and the Apotheosis Tradition.Berkeley: U of California P, 1972.

Thomas, Vivian. The Moral Universe of Shakespeare’s Problem Plays. 1987. New York: Routledge, 1991.

Thompson, Ann. Shakespeare’s Chaucer: A Study in Literary Origins. Liverpool: Liverpool UP, 1978.

Thomson, J. A. F. “Orthodox Religion and the Origins of Lollardy.” History 74 (1989):39-55.

Trigg, Stephanie. Introduction. Medieval English Poetry. Ed. Trigg. Singapore: Longman, 1993.

Ure, Peter. “Troilus and Cressida, II. ii. 162-93.” Review of English Studies 17 (1966):405-9.

Valdés, Mario J., ed. A Ricoeur Reader: Reflection and Imagination. New York: Harvester, 1991.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. “Philosophical Antecedents to Ricoeur’s Time and Narrative.” Wood 34-54.

Vasta, Edward, and Zacharias P. Thundy, eds. Chaucerian Problems and Perspectives:Essays Presented to Paul E. Beichner C.S.C.. Notre Dame: U of Notre Dame P, 1979.

Vickers, Brian. The Artistry of Shakespeare’s Prose. London: Methuen, 1968.

Virgil. The Aeneid of Virgil. Trans. Allen Mandelbaum. 1971. Berkeley: U of California P, 1982.

Volk-Birke, Sabine. “Sickness unto Death: Crime and Punishment in Henryson’s The Testament of Cresseid.” Anglia 113.2 (1995): 163-83.

Warren, Victoria. “(Mis)reading the “Text” of Criseyde: Context and Identity in Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde.” Chaucer Review 36.1 (2001): 1-15.

Wentersdorf, Karl P. “Some Observations on the Concept of Clandestine Marriage in Troilus and Criseyde.” Chaucer Review 15.2 (Fall 1980): 101-26.

Wenzel, Siegfried. “Notes on the Parson’s Tale.” Chaucer Review 16.3 (Spring1982):237-56.

White, Hayden. “Ethnological ‘Lie’ and Mythical ‘Truth’.” Diacritics 8.1 (1978): 2-9.
---. “The Metaphysics of Narrativity: Time and Symbol in Ricoeur’s Philosophy of History.” Wood 140-59.

Windeatt, Barry. Oxford Guides to Chaucer: Troilus and Criseyde. 1992. Oxford: Clarendon P, 1995.

Wolfe, Matthew C. “Placing Chaucer’s Retraction for a Reception of Closure.” Chaucer Review 33.4 (1999): 427-31.

Wood, David, ed. On Paul Ricoeur: Narrative and Interpretation. London: Routledge,1991.

Zesmer, David M. Guide to Shakespeare. New York: Barnes, 1976.

校內：立即公開
校外：2003-01-29公開