Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin
RU EN






Today: 04.01.2026
Home Issues 2014 Year Issue №3 SPOUSES’ RELATIONSHIP PECULIARITIES IN MEDIEVAL ENGLAND THROUGH G. CHAUCER’S CANTERBURY TALES
  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Bulletin Archive
    • 2025 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 2024 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 2023 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 2022 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 2021 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 2020 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 2019 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
    • 2018 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
    • 2017 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
    • 2016 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
    • 2015 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
    • 2014 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
    • 2013 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
      • Issue №13
    • 2012 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
      • Issue №13
    • 2011 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
      • Issue №13
    • 2010 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
    • 2009 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
    • 2008 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
    • 2007 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
    • 2006 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
    • 2005 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
    • 2004 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
    • 2003 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
    • 2002 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
    • 2001 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
    • 2000 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
    • 1999 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
    • 1998 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 1997 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
  • Search
  • Rating
  • News
  • Editorial Board
  • Information for Authors
  • Review Procedure
  • Information for Readers
  • Editor’s Publisher Ethics
  • Contacts
  • Manuscript submission
  • Received articles
  • Accepted articles
  • Subscribe
  • Service Entrance
vestnik.tspu.ru
praxema.tspu.ru
ling.tspu.ru
npo.tspu.ru
edujournal.tspu.ru

TSPU Bulletin is a peer-reviewed open-access scientific journal.

E-LIBRARY (РИНЦ)
Ulrich's Periodicals Directory
Google Scholar
European reference index for the humanities and the social sciences (erih plus)
Search by Author
- Not selected -
  • - Not selected -
Яндекс.Метрика

SPOUSES’ RELATIONSHIP PECULIARITIES IN MEDIEVAL ENGLAND THROUGH G. CHAUCER’S CANTERBURY TALES

Tebenev K.G.

Information About Author:

The article is devoted to analysis of spouses’ relationship in famous English poet G. Chaucer’s creations. The author puts a question of its peculiarities to be connected with social and economic development of England in XIV century. Conclusion to be done shows spouses evaluating marriage as a transaction and this feature links to growing commodity-money relationships within the region this period. Peculiarities of development of new social and economic structure are discussed.

Keywords: Geoffrey Chaucer, Canterbury Tales, gender discourse, medieval England, marriage in medieval England, commodity-money relations

References:

1. Repina L. P. History at the border of the XX–XXI cc. Moscow, Krugh Publ., 2011. 560 p. (in Russian).

2. Nikolaeva I. Y. Archaic and Gender Cultural Codes in Context of Research the Sphere of Unconscious. Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2006, vol. 1, pp. 92–98 (in Russian).

3. Tebenev K. G. Actual methodological approach to Chaucer’s gender discourse analysis. Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2013, vol.

7, pp. 59–64 (in Russian).

4. Blamires A. Chaucer, ethic and gender. New York, Oxford university press Publ., 2006. 263 p.

5. Masi M. Chaucer and Gender. New York, Peter Lang Publ., 2005. 165 p.

6. Gorbunov A. N. Medieval Chaucer. Moscow, Labirint Publ., 2010. 335 p. (in Russian).

7. Kolve V. A. Chaucer and the Imagery of Narrative: The First Five Canterbury Tales. Stanford: Stanford university press Publ., 1984. 568 p.

8. Gurevich A. Y. A medieval merchant // Odysseus. Man in history. Moscow, 1990, pp. 97–131 (in Russian).

9. Chaucer Geoffrey. The Canterbury Tales. L.: Wordsworth Edition Limited, 2002. 706 p.

10. Patterson L. Chaucer and the subject of history. Madison. Univ of Wisconsin Press Publ., 1991. 489 p.

11. Rogers E. William, Dower P. Thinking about money in Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale / New readings of Chaucer’s Poetry. D. S. Brewer, 2003, pp. 119–138.

12. Mann J. Satisfaction and Payment in Middle English Literature. Cambridge: Girton College Publ, 1980. 278 p.

13. Boccaccio G. The Decameron. Мoscow, Pravda Publ., 1989. 752 p. (in Russian).

14. Lawrence W. W. Chaucer’s Shipman’a Tale. Speculum, 1958, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 56–68.

tebenev_k._g._80_86_3_144_2014.pdf ( 402.33 kB ) tebenev_k._g._80_86_3_144_2014.zip ( 395.74 kB )

Issue: 3, 2014

Series of issue: Issue 3

Rubric: GLOBAL HISTORY

Pages: 80 — 86

Downloads: 1574

For citation:


2026 Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin

Development and support: Network Project Laboratory TSPU