Chaucer's "The Canterbury Tales"
I owe my whole career to this man in the Viking hate: Dr. W. Bryant Bachman. He was the kindest, wisest man I have ever met. He fed my love for literature and sparked my desire to teach; he is one of the few people who has "written on my soul". I sought him out for my second semester Freshman English course, commonly called "Comp/Lit"; in walked this charming man in a light blue suit with aged-yellow legal pages in his hands. Those legal pages were his lecture notes, and I hold them in esteem amongst the "greatest of all written texts". On one of my first essays, he wrote on my paper, "you should consider a degree in the Liberal Arts". That was it; that was all it took. He said that I should study "Liberal Arts", so that is what I was going to do. I went on to take many, many classes with Dr. Bachman, and although he always said he "didn't remember students' names", he always remembered mine. His approval was very important to me. He bacame my mentor, and I loved him dearly. His retirement was very sad for me; i'll never forget giving him those Celtic Goblets-- hoping that he'd keep them and think of all of us that he'd inspired everytime he saw them. My favorite class with Dr. B was "Chaucer". He brought so much color to "The Canterbury Tales". I'll never forget his lectures-- they had such an impact on me. Thank you, Dr. Bachman, and may you rest in peace.
Cattle die, kinsmen die,
one's self dies the same;
I know one thing which never dies --
the word-fame of a great man.
-- from an old Icelandic poem
MIDDLE ENGLISH: Chaucer & His Tales of Canterbury
Guide: http://webpages.marshall.edu/~will2/chaucer.html
Notes on the Language:
"The Canterbury Tales" is written in the East Midland Dialect of Middle English. This is a language that doesn't exist today but can be reconstructed by the comparative method. English is a Germanic Language.
"The Out of Africa Theory" suggests that all languages derive from Africa. Certain nuances to this idea are debated, but we know this is true because:
fossils of modern-like humans are found in Africa stone tools and other artifacts support African origin DNA studies suggest a founding population in Africa
For more information: http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html
We have studied Old English, so you are aware of the harsh, distinctive sound of that language. So, how did we get from Old to Middle English? Middle English is the dialect spoken and written between Old English (Beowulf) and Modern English. It evolved after the Norman Conquest, when in 1066, William the Bastard, a Norman Duke and the grandson of a Viking, and who was illiterate, conquereed England and replaced teh bureaucracy with Normans who spoke OLD FRENCH. The few people who could write, wrote everything in LATIN. Therefore, Old English was used much less, and eventually, not at all. The use of Old English was discouraged b/c it was seen as a prmitive, barbaric, German tongue. If a language is not written, then clearly it change; English went "underground", and change it did! [We see this in South Louisiana, for example, with "Cajun French"]. After Baron's WAr in 1258, the ruling class of England became more English; England was again fighting the French, so the French lanugage was seen as the language of the enemy, so its use was limited. English then "crept" back into use; English writing reappeared and was essential to learning. Late in the 14th century, Chits aucer began composing his "Canterbury Tales" in "English"; it was the new language of the land. By that time, Old English had undergone 2 centures of change! It was then Middle English, an analytical, not inflectional, language. There were varied English Dialects-- 59 in Chaucer's time! Over the next 200 years, the London Dialect became the central dialect, but the East Midland Dialecgt eventually dominated b/c it was the language of the educational and trade center of England. We get MODERN ENGLISH from this dialect.
-Old English is a synthetic, inflectional language. It uses case endings to determine meaning; word order is not important. After the endings were transformed, what was important was word order; thus, Modern English follows an 'SVO' pattern. IN all languages, pronunciations "collapse" over time; vowels collage to the schwa; example: soem Old English words are bocum, bocam, bocim, but all became "boc m". The theory suggests that eventually, schwa will be the only sound we have left!
The Great Vowel Shift: All vowels moved up a slot in the human mouth, which changed pronunciations. http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Fall_2001/ling001/gvs.gif
The great vowel shift of 1400 separates Middle and Modern English "[almost] All the long vowels are different, having been fronted and dipthongized during the Great Vowel Shift" (15th - 17th centuries):
The main difference between Chaucer's language and our own is in the pronunciation of the "long" vowels. The consonants remain generally the same, though Chaucer [1345-1400] rolled his r's, sometimes dropped his aitches, and pronounced both elements of consonant [and vowel] combinations, such as kn, in knife /kni:f@/. In Modern English the k is silent. The short vowels are very similar in Middle and Modern English. But the "long" vowels are strikingly different. This is due to what is called "The Great Vowel Shift": Beginning in the twelfth century and continuing until the eighteenth century (but with its main effects in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries) the sounds of the long stressed vowels in English changed their places of articulation (i./e., how the sounds are made). (see vowel table-->)
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/vangogh/555/Spell/vowel-shift.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/vangogh/555/Spell/vaul-shift.htm&usg=__g0i7GJx18UEF7tQNGAuzraKxgdQ=&h=320&w=295&sz=5&hl=en&start=2&um=1&tbnid=s_ltl9WWH3YVjM:&tbnh=118&tbnw=109&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgreat%2Bvowel%2Bshift%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7GGIK_en-US%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1
CHAUCER's LIFE:
All of the information we have on Chaucer comes from public records, and not much of that remains after all these years. He was probably born in the mid 14th century, around 1344. His father was a wine merchant named Thomas. They were successful, upper middle class. We know nothing of certain about his education, but we can speculate that he may have gone to Oxford b/c we know, through public record, that he was fined 2 schillings for a public beating on the street that runs in front of Oxford.
At around 13, he was sent to Prince Lionel (son of Edward III) to become a Page: http://medievaleurope.mrdonn.org/knights.html : It was common to place children in royal houses. He experienced social events and cermonies and traveled. After a year, he joined the army and went on an expedition against France; we know that there was a ransom for Chaucer from the French for 16 lbs.
There is a gap in the records between 1359-1367. By 1367, he had become a trusted messenger of the King's chamber. He was probably married to PHILLIPA, whose sister Catherine was the mistress (and then wife) of John of Gant, Edward III's 4th son. John probably slept with Chaucer's wife b/c he gave pension to them when he married the last time to a woman named Blanche.
Chaucer made several trips to Italy and read Bocaccio, Petrarch, and Dante. He got a job at port customs for 10 lbs a year, plus a percentage of the fines he'd collect. So, for 12 years, he was in contact with all sorts of people, the types of people that he wrote about. He also visited France. After Edward died, Richard II renewed Chaucer's position, at which time he bought a house.
He either had a daughter or a sister named Elizabeth. We also know that he was charged but released of all charges of "raptus" (rape or abduction) by Sicily Champagne.
He stayed at the custom's house until 1386, when he left to become a Knight for the district of Kent. He served for 2.5 years, then lost court influence when Phillipa died and John of Gant lost power. It was in these troubled, dark times that he wrote "The Canterbury Tales". At age 45, he turned to Richard II to find him another job; he was being robbed a lot b/c of his job handling money. He became Deputy Forester for King's Parks until 1893. He had a new pension, but he never got out of debt. 3/4 of waht survives are creditor's notices, which comes out in the tales.
He leased a house at Westminster Abbey, where he was buried after his death on 25 October 1400. He existed on the patronage of people in power and died in debt; there is no evidence of him in the records as a great writer, so some debate, is "Chaucer, Chaucer"?
The General Prologue:
It is spring time, the time when people want to wander. Love is in the air. People are going on pilgrimages; this one is to visit the shrine of St. Thomas A. Beckett, to thank him for help when the people were "seke" (sick). The journey is a spiritual impulse, and the tales express the concerns of the Sacred and the Profane, a duality often dealt with in Medieval thought. There is a tension that can't be avoided b/c we are tied to this secular world and can't help it. In the 13th and 14th centuries, everyone agreed that God exists-- this was the basis for their deductive reasoning. People didn't believe in the senses-- they believed that this life was merely a reflection of the other world. Because they believed that the senses were faulty and not to be trusted (Plato's Legacy), science didn't develop much. This was an idealistic world that held that "God is all, and we are nothing". But, some people did not like that notion, adn from a place caught between the two polarities, great art was created.
The first 18 lines of the Prologue present polarities. We see the divide between the sacred and the profane-- this is expressed in the reasons given to go: the first 16 lines represent worldly reasons, the last 2 spiritual ones. He accepts this world while reminding us of the other one. The journey begins at the TABARD INN (a bar in England) and will end at Canterbury Cathedral (it is a profane to sacred journey). It will take 2.5 days by horse.
The characters can be divided into the Scoundrels, Ideals, and Everyone Else. Scoundrels: Pardoner, Friar, Summoner; Ideals: Knight, Parson, Plowman; the Middle: Everyone Else!
The tales are called "fragments"; we know that fragment 1 contains the Knight, Miller, and Reeve (in that order); we know that Fragment 10 is the "Parson's Tale", but fragments 2-9 are anyone's guess. We don't know the exact order of the rest, but we do know that fragment 1 contains tales of this world, and fragment 10 is spiritual. Metaphorically, the pilgrimage represents the HUMAN CONDITION. It expresses the worldly/heavenly polarity. Matthew Arnold said that "Chaucer lacked high seriousness"; he was wrong. Each pilgrim falls within the polarities, and they all view life in different, distinct ways. Chaucer is probably investigating where the truth lies. The Knight's tale asks, "What is this world", and, "What is expected from us"? Maybe there is some truth/answer in everyone's view.
The Parson is the most idealized character; he is the "great priest". His tale is last, and the topic is 'salvation'. However, his way of viewing things is not exclusive, because to look at the world his way, we would have to deny all of the tales that came before his. His tale is a boring prose tract, completely devoid of any art. The same set up takes place i nteh poem "Troilus and Cressida", which says 2 things: dont' put faith in worldly goods, and, you can't not put faith in wordly goods-- it is in your nature as a human being. It is the idea of a blank warning-- things we say as ideal but can't truly follow through (Sir Gawain?). The tension is what drives art, esp. in ME literature.
St. Thomas A. Beckett: was the Archbishop of Canterbury who began the secularization of England. On Christmas day in 1170, he preached in Canterbury Square on "man's good will"; he began by excommunicating 2 priests and 3 bishops; Henry 8th reacted by assassinating Thomas A. Beckett. People rushed out to get his relics-- they knew he was a saint. He wore a "HAIR SHIRT", and when they cut it off, it boiled over with vermin (he had worn it for years). People thought that was a sign of sainthood. Money was left by pilgrims on the altars of Saints; no money was left at God's altar, and many saints had little money left to them-- but Beckett had a lot!
General Prologue:
There are 29 pilgrims (plus 3 other priests with the Wife of Bath); 116 tales were supposed to be told, but he only gets to 24. It was written over approximately 18 years. He includes himself as a narrator, making it both personal and a tale.
[Side Note: It is interesting that the Squire, the brave, chivalrous Knight's son, was conceived in 1366, when the Knight would have been away at battle! Also, the Catholic Church in 14th century was a major employer; they owned most of the land, and peole went into cleric vocations for many reasons other than today.]
Harry Bailey-- may or may not have been a real man. There is a record of a Henri Bailiff who owned a Tabard Inn. He's a manly man-- sets 2 rules: 2 tales going, 2 coming back; everyone gets a turn, they will draw straws to see who goes first. The Knight draws first... the winner of the tale telling gets a free supper.
We are reading 3 tales: Wife of Bath, Miller, and Pardoner. WOB is named Allison. She is of this world... she is a weaver and a businesswoman and has lots of money. She travels a lot and is somewhat deaf b/c her last husband Jenkin through "The Book of Wicked Wives" at her. She is aggressive; she wears spurs and takes no S**T! She wears the color scarlet red. She is very socialble and can join any conversation. She is very experienced-- has had 5 husbands. She is described as having a space between her teeth, which is a symbol of a high libido, and she is familiar with books and aphrodisiacs as well. She lives by a "live life now" philosophy and is on the pligrimage to find another husband. The first 3 died of old age, 4 (?? she may have killed him), and 5 is Jenkin. Overall, she is treated positively.
The Miller leads the procession out playing the bagpipes. His description is almost all effictio-- physical. Robyn has a wart on his nose with hair coming out from it as "red as the bristles of a sow's ass". Millers had a monopoly on weighing grain-- a very abuseful position. The bagpipes are loud and were usually used as a battle inadication, but the instrument itself is phallic; we get the bagpipes at the beginning of the journey, bells of canterbury at the end (again, sacred/profane).
The Pardoner is an ecclesiastic figure that exists b/c of a shortage of priests. They preached, sold relics, and sold indulgences or "pardons". People gave money to have their sins forgiven. The money was supposed to go to the church, but there were many scam artists (on top of these LEGAL scam artists, right??). He rides with the summoner, his friend, his "good friend". Their song, "com hither me love to me" suggests that they are lovers. He has stringy, yellow hair and no beard; at a time when 90% of men had a beard, he couldn't grow one. His voice is also very feminine, and he "sung best at offeratory". He is said to be a "gelding or a mare"-- a eunuch, which may suggest that he is impotent. It is said that the pardoner is the treble or tenor of their song "come hither me love..." and the summoner is the bass or "berdoon", a word also meaning "hard pole", which is also phallic. this was a time when the church was full of abuses, which led to the reformation.
"He was a verray parfit gentil knyght" - Chaucer
My favorite portrait: The Miller
The millere was a stout
Ful byg he was of brawn, and eek of bones.
That proved wel, for
At wrastlynge he wolde have alwey the ram.
He was short-sholdred, brood, a
Ther was no dore that he
Or breke it at a
His berd as any sowe or fox was reed,
And therto brood, as though it were a spade.
Upon the
A
Reed as the
His
A swerd and
His mouth as greet was as a greet
He was a
And that was moost of synne and
Wel koude he
And yet he hadde a thombe of gold, pardee.
A whit cote and a
A baggepipe wel koude he blowe and
And
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Prologue-- beyond the first 18 lines!
Whan that Aprill with
The
And bathed every
Whan
The tendre
Hath in the
And smale
That slepen al the nyght with open
(so priketh
Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages,
And
To
And specially from every shires ende
Of Engelond to Caunterbury they
The hooly blisful martir for to
That
In Southwerk at the Tabard as I lay
Redy to
To Caunterbury with ful devout
At nyght was come into that hostelrye
Wel nyne and twenty in a compaignye,
Of
In felaweshipe, and pilgrimes were they alle,
That toward Caunterbury wolden ryde.
The
And wel we weren
And shortly, whan the sonne was to reste,
So hadde I spoken with hem
That I was of hir felaweshipe
And made
To take oure wey ther as I yow
But
To telle yow al the condicioun
Of e
And whiche they weren, and of what
And
And at a knyght than wol I first bigynne.
"The Miller's Tale"
Set-Up: After "The Knight's Tale", which everyone likes, especially the "gentils", Harry Bailey points to the MONK to go next b/c he is next in social standing. But, the Miller interrupts. The Miller is drunk, and the Knight's tale irritated him, so he wants to go next to "ANSWER" it. Like the tale before his, the Miller's tale is also about a love triangle, but with a different take. He and Harry exchange words... The Miller's story is about a carpenter and his wife and how two clerks do him in; the Reeve objects, of course, b/c he is a carpenter and b/c he and the Miller do not get along. The Miller says something to the effect that "a man should not be too concerned with god's or wife's business as long as he's "getting enough'". The issue at hand is "PRIVITE"- a word that plays on 2 meanings: Secrets and Private Parts. Chaucer adds, if we don't like the tale, then we can skip it, so of course, we are lured into reading it. He also warns us not to make something serious out of something fun.
The tale is a FABLIEAUX-- an old French word from the latin "fibula"; it is a genre of liberature. This is an untrue narrative or a versified short story told to provoke laughter. It is usually indecent, and the plot is based upon a pracitcal joke for seduction or revenge. It often presents a harsh view of the world. It is courtly in origin, originally used for the aristocrats to ridicule the lower classses or as a bourgeois satire of the self. Few of these have survived; the only extant Fablieaux are the 5 in Chaucer, another unfinished tale of Chaucer's (Shipman's), and another Medieval story called "Dame Sirith". "The Miller's Tale" is considered the best of extant fablieaux, and the story is often anthologized with "The Pardoner's" and the "Wife of Bath's" Tales (our book is no exception). Matthew Arnold's famous comment that "Chaucer lacked high seriousness" resulted in a refusal to anthologize this tale during the 19th century.
We know that Chaucer's tale comes from several sources; there were earlier fablieaux centered around a flood, branding with the hot iron, and the misdirected kiss, but Chaucer's is the only one that combines all 3 of these together. Nicholas' cry, one word, "WATER", brings all 3 plots together. the love triangle is between 2 clerks, Absalom and "Clever Nicholas" adn Allison; John is an older man and the 4th character-- he is a "blocking figure". The tale is Robyn's (Miller's) clever parody of the Knight's tale; it is a show of "relativism" or "2 realities" of one instance; the point is that there are NO absolutes. We get a further view of the reality in this instance: the Miller tells a story of a cuckolded carpenter, so then teh Reeve tells a tale of a cuckolded Miller; this coninues the connection and presents yet another view. A cuckold is a man married to an adulterous wife.
John is rich; he lives in a big house and takes in boarders. Nicholas is called "Hende", which usually means "clever or handy" (good with hands :); Nicholas is a different "Hende"-- he's "hende" when wooing. The Miller says, "I'll give you a real Hende hero".... he's a con man and a musician. It is aironic that he plays a hymn about the coming birth of Jesus (an older carpenter).
John loves his 18 year old wife. He is a SENEX AMANS: an older lover-- the term also connotates senility. John does not know he should marry someone equal in age and in estate. Allison is a parody of the conventional romance heroine. She's described with similes-- "is as great as____", usually the sun, sky, etc... something courtly., but not here. This is a conventional description with unconveional language; she is compared to a weasel, wears a cloth apron on her loins (a body part never mentioned), she's as slim as a pear tree (symbol of coming sexuality), etc.
The wooing of Allison by Nicholas is a reaction to the wooing of Palamon and Arcita in "The Knight's Tale"; they don't speak or touch until the very end. The opposite is true in the "Miller's Tale". The Miller reverses this, and Nicholas "acts first and talks later"... he's "handy"... he grabs her crotch before he even speaks to her. It is an "ends before means" situation. He uses traditional language of romance, but his hand remains on her throughout his attempt to woo her.
Absalom is the town dandy. He is described in the conventions of romance heroes and heroines-- curled golden hair, clean shaven, gray eyes (like Guinevere)-- says they are "as grey as a goat", which is feminine. Romance figures can do it all, and he tries hard to entertain and seduce her, but it does not work.
Nicholas' scheme against John begins witha plan to be in Allison's bed for a night. He pretends to go crazy and not eat and says he is on a mission from god; the 2nd flood is coming, and he needs to prepare. He needs to attach 3 mead tubs to the ceiling and release them for escape; all this is done for one night with Allison. It all seems a bit much-- it is not necessary and not meant to produce a long term relationship; he is eventually undone by his own devices.
John first attributes Nicholas' madness to his "desire to know things best kept hidden"-- don't question, just believe, esp. if you are getting enough in life for yourself. Nicholas threatens to release "god's privite" (god's providence), and John jumps. This is the Miller's reaction to the lectures in the Knight's tale.
Nicholas' version of god's providence is believed in by John until the end, and he gets cuckolded, ridiculed, and physically injured. While the figures in the Knight's tale are passive, the ones in the Miller's tale are active. Nicholas' scheme is to try to control events; his control of "privite" will give him access to Allison's "privitee".
Absalom gets the misdirected kiss. Nicholas gets swatted with a hot iron and screams, signaling the one word-- "Water"-- that he shouldn't. The hot iron is a long pole (phallic)-- the burning object on the pole-- hint, hint! It is very anti-heroic.
John is punished by being cuckolded, which is common, but what is uncommon is the further punishment he receives by breaking his arm and being publicly disgraced. He is called "jealous", but no real proof of that is presented. He goes to Oceana for weeks alone, so he mustn't be too protective. He's not too upset about Absalom's singing to Allison-- he never even chases him away. Also, he's concerned for Nicholas when he doesn't eat and pretends to be crazy: overall, he seems nice. And when he thinks something will go wrong (the flood), he thinks first of the safety of his wife. He's a good man who is cruelly treated. This is odd b/c usually the senex amans deserves the punishment, but not this time. It is not so funny of a grand joke.
The Wife of Bath
[Note: Line # references refer to the Riverside Chaucer Edition]
There has been a lot of criticism on Alison... early critics relentlessly condemn her. It has been said that she embodies the 7 sins. Kittridge (a famous critic) called her a "herisiarch" or a "heretical matriarch". But, all of this criticism was written by MEN! With the rise of feminism, she is no longer treated so harshly. Some put a Freudian twist on her-- she is not ideal, but whatever she is, she is it HONESTLY.
"She has had the world in her time"...
She is definitely of this world. She proclaims self-success too! For her, love is not a true felicity (happiness)... marriage adn love are fulfilling, but this is only partial compensation for people. She's a distinct product of her own time (an unstable time).
There were 2 traditions concerning women during this time: 1. Saw women as the root of all evil and as hinderers of production. In the "GREAT CHAIN OF BEING", a hierarchy of all living things, women fell just between lizards & toads! This anti-feminist approach was clerical in origin and called the "Sour Grapes" tradition that was held by monks. IN a powerful note written by St. Jerome called "The Epistle Against Jovianne" in "The Golden Book of Marriage" by Theofractes, the powerful publication starts, "A wise man must not take a wife". This letter and the "Romance of the Rose" are Chaucer's sources for the tale, but overall, it is among his most original stories. The Anti-Feminist approach held to male perfection and male domincance. but at the same time, there also existed a tradition of
2. Courtley (not Courtney) Love :) : This tradition places women on pedestals with a woman's wish being a man's command. [Yes, we like this one!]
Authority vs. Experience was also controversial at the time. Tehre was the Epistomology Question: How do we know what we know? These roots were in the 12th and 13th century Scholastic Period. This world and the senses were mistrusted-- the senses lie to us. To know truth, we must derive it from fundamentals, so the only received knowledge that is reliable is through authority. In the 14th century, experience was revived, and Allison is from/for the world of experience.
Authority and Experience were often seen as MALE and FEMALE. This refers to ways to learn; women were restricted to sensory knowledge, which Alison defends, but it represents a decay of the notion at that time because of the fact taht she reasonably argues it!
Alison masters all of these issuesand she's no clerk-- only a mere WIFE! she has read and mastered a whole list of writings. There is organization to her rambling and a pattern to her prologue. The first 162 lines are theoretical, as she argues against chastity and defends successive marriages.
Lines 163-93: Pardoner interrupts b/c she talks about sex. He calls her a "noble preacher". Lines 193-453 talk about the trials with her first 3 husbands. 454-524 is devoted to her 4th husband, and 524-828 are devoted to her 5th husband, Jenkin.
She meets "Jankyn" while still married to her 4th husband, and it only takes her a month after he dies to marry Jankyn (who is younger than she is). They have a tulmutuous relationship; Jankyn wishes to control "Alisoun". It is only after the physical altercation, when he throws the "Book of Wicked Wives" at her that he relents, giving her possession over her property again, and so they live happily until his death.
In line 105, she moderates her argument against chastity. She says that it is fine for some people, just not for her. Lines 113-114 are a famous couplet: "I'll devote my life to the great institution of marriage"; the first 3 lines of the prologue are "Experience is good enough for me to speak of woe in marriage". Is she aware of the contradictions she speaks? There are many.
She uses the Bible to defend her position on multiple marriage, citing the multiple wives of Abraham, Jacob, and Solomon (who as you know, had over 700 wives!)
She says her first 3 husbands were good to her (they were old and wealthy), and she hated them. The last 2 were bad to her, and she loved them. The first 3 provided money and security, but they were cynical marriages, not for love. She says, "All is for sale"... it is an unromantic view of marriage.
Line 469-- she's 40 and has "had the world", but where does she go from here? She is older and less attractive now; she says she'll cope the best she can.
The tale is a fairy story set in an Arthurian setting. It is a Medieval metrical romance and a ballad... it is also a "positive outcome Breton Lay". All of these are "types" of stories. This is odd comign from a woman who says, "All is for sale".
The prologue is so long that she is interrupted by the Friar; she rebuffs him in 20 lines.
Her tale is thought to be part of the "marriage group", which includes the Clerk's, Merchant's, and Franklin's tales; this assumption was first made by George Lymnan Kittridge, the famous Chaucer scholar. Others argue that there's a distinction between the "marriage group", which provide a moral lesson, and those which do so by way of some "magic", like the Wife's tale.
The tale opens with a RAPE. A young Knight finds a young maiden by a river and rapes her. King Arthur, revolted by this unknightly behavior, is called upon to bring the knight to justice! While he wants to condemn him to death, the Queen begs for the authority to judge him. The knight's behavior is beyond uncourtly; one fo her themes is the "mastery of men", but this situation presents teh opposite.... we learn that Alison is more about the "mastery of women"! The knight's life depends on his answer to the question: "What is the thing that most women desire". He has 1 year to find out.
He finds many different answers: wealth, pleasure, flattery... he comes across an old ahg in teh woods who says she'll give him the answer if he'd do whatever she required of him in return; he agrees. Her answer is "sovereignty over their husbands", and in return, the ugly hag asks that he marry her; he agrees.
On the wedding night, he pays no attention to her and confesses that she repulses him. she reminds him that virtue should trump appearance and explains that her looks may be an asset b/c he doesn't have to worry about other men having his wife! In other words, he won't be cuckolded. She offers him a choice: An ugly, loyal hag or a beautiful, covetous wife. [What would YOU choose?]
He gives the choice back to her [lesson learned], and she magically becomes beautiful. (Reminds me of a movie I once saw...:)
The topic here is definitely "mastery"... should men be "masters" of their households? Should women "submit" to their husbands?
Meaning?
The story is an EXEMPLUM: A tale told to prove a point. Chaucer legitimizes the female point of view adn creates a sympathetic female character. While multiple marriages was considered sinful, like today, the point is made that scripture does NOT support this. She knows how to argue her positions. While her behavior may be shocking, esp. back then, no apology is made for her. She's simply a human being.
Feminism or Anti-Feminism: How you view the story depends on which side of this you fall on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M61_L5PT-9A&feature=related General Prologue Rap
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzCwWPeFZLY Student Video (you can do better!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdHxWMiixaU&feature=related funny presentation of the story
The Pardoner's Tale
This is the most anthologized tale, which probably means that MANY consider this to be his very best work! It is not a typical tale, but it introduces us to one of the most eccentric characters in all of literature... The Pardoner!
Organization: 1- Intro. to tale; 2. Prologue to tale; 3. Prologue to tale; 4. Tale; 5. Epilogue. There is a LOT of material to sort through!
One of the most compelling aspects of the character is the question of why he confesses his fraudulent activities to the pilgrims and then tries to get them to fall for his act? This is a questions we'll be coming back to...
The critical interest of this tale was on the decline in the 1980's and 1990's, except for 1 article in the PMLA (a literary journal) on the Pardoner's homosexuality. It is hard to say why there was a decline in interest in the story b/c it is so compelling.
Some of the evidence for the Pardoner's homosexuality are as follows: In line 691, he is called a "gelding or a mare"; this might symbolize his "unproductiveness", both physically and spiritually. The terminology suggests that he is a eunuch because "geld" means "to castrate" and a "mare" is a "female horse". We can't forget how he rides with the Summoner singing "come hither me love to me" and the business about the "stiff berdoon", etc. The worst thing that a Viking could be called was a "mare"; this meant that he was a homosexual, and that was considered a CURSE. [Note that even then, homosexuality was NOT believed to be a choice... that is a fairly recent misguided "idea" that has, of course, been scientifically discredited. The Medievalists didn't embrace homosexuality like the Greeks did; in fact, they did help to shape this "Christian-based stereotype" of homosexuals. [Note, by Christian based, I do NOT mean "Bible based"-- refer to the book "What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality" and the film "For the Bible Tells Me So" for an interesting perspective on how some Christian sects have come to INTERPRET a few passages in the book in a way that disregards homosexuality].
The 14th century view of homosexuality was that nobody understood it. They thought, though, that it was unnatural and contemptuous, so homosexuals were OUTCASTS in society. We must remember that we are dealing with a time that had just taken a big leap into Christianity.
The Pardoner's section begins as Harry Bailey complains that the Physician's tale was too sad and asks for a lighter subject. He calls the Pardoner "Me Belle Amis", literally translated as "good friend", but this could also connotate "lover". This means that he knows who he is talking to and is probably egging him on to some extent. The Pardoner is thirsty and wants ale. The "gentils" protest that they want a "moral" tale; he agrees if he can get his ale. While drinking, he tells them of the successful tricks of pardoners. He has a license and can sell amulets, etc. His "jew's sheep's bone", for example, is said to cure animal ailments and jealousy! He sells it in support of adultery; he also, of course, sells pardons for sins. He knows his real audience; he tells them, "no one with a horrible sin should come forth, and no one who is guilty of cuckolding: "If any wight be in this chirche now / That hath doon synne horrible... Or any woman be she yong or old, / That hat ymaad hir housbonde cokewold...". So, those who don't go up to him are in essence admitting that they have committed horrible sins-- brilliant! Would you take the chance of being perceived in that way? He is brilliant! He is a master con-artist, as you can see, and finds joy in fooling his audience. Perhaphs, though, this all stems from that one untold "sin", one that cannot be confessed...
In line 423, he tells us his intent for being a corrupt ecclesiastic: It is for money! However, the main theme of his sermons is "radix malorun est cupiditas", which speaks against greed and avarice. The irony is that he preaches against exactly what he does; he is clever, and this si the ultimate degradation of his audience. The says that through his preaching, he steers some away from greed, but that isn't necessarily his intent; maybe he does not wish to redeem himself.
But why does he confess? Is it because he is drunk? We'll come back to that oen... Maybe it is self-condemnation. Thosse holding church position are thought of as accepting poverty, abstinence, and devoting themselves to service, but he doesn't believe in those things. He's an "anti-apostle".
One irony is that he is honest about his dishonesty!
His sermon is an impressive, dramatic performance, esp. to his usual audience of rustics. THe sermon attacks "Tavern Sins" {gluttony, gampling, swearing, etc.}, yet in another irony, he is at a TAVERN preaching this! It is totally ironic. Preachers competed for audiences on Sundays, and a tavern was actually a good place to find an audience.
The Pardoner's is the only tale with no female character in it.
Teh tale is an EXEMPLUM: A story with an example of a moral behavior; in this case, it si for what he preaches, that "avarice is the root of all evil". It is a struggle between the pursuit of this world, and a pursuit of the next world. The tale is not original with Chaucer; the earliest form is an Indian Folk Tale "Birth Tales of Buddah". There are many European versions, but the Italian version is the closest to Chaucer's (but it comes a bit later). A modern version is Kipling's "2nd Jungle Book".
The presentation of death is unuusaly for ME literature. Death does not usually appear as a character, and the presence of "DEATH" here gives the tale power. Critic George Lyman Kittridge states that the old man in the tale is "death". But the problem is that if he is death, then why would he be seeking death? The old man gets a lot of attention; basically, he's a mysterious hermit, dressed in all cloth, and pounds the ground with a stick saying, "Let me in". He's a foil to the 3 rioters who wish to live forever; they come into contact with the one who does and sees that he is not happy with it.
The Pardoner calls on Harry Bailey to be the first to come up and buy a relic; this is a bad choice, b/c eh won't fall for the Pardoner's self-exposed scam! He responds with great anger, and the Pardoner is struck speechless! The Knight intercedes and stops the quarrel then asks Harry to "KISS" the Pardoner... we get a vision fo the most heterosexual man kissing the most feminine man! :)
But, why the confession of the scam? Let's explore further... 1: He's drunk, and it is the ale talking. Problem: he begins confessing only 10 lines after beginning to drink, and the brilliance of the sermon and the tale are dramatically beautiful. Indications are that he is a frequent drinker and would handle his liquor better than that, anyway. 2: He's a con-artist. Maybe he overreaches b/c he's carried away and finds the ultimate challenge in confessing a scam and then working it. Problem: this is sort of a comedic take, but he is not a comedic figure. 3: He's either insane or depressed-- he's psychologically ill; he has a sado-masochistic edge. He does agree to go on the pilgrimage and tell a tale, which shows that he does want to participate. He has a friend, the Summoner, and wants to be included in a group as a "good fellow"; he wants it, but he sabotages it! He is self-destructive. Maybe, just maybe, he is paralyzed byt the guilt of the "sin horrible" and views symptoms of that sin (homosexuality) as being avarice and hypocrisy. Maybe he is duped by society into thinking that he can't be a good man, so he gives society what they demand... isn't there more irony in the fact that society leaves him guilt stricken with no possibility of a pardon?
Homosexuality was seen as a spiritual reflection of the physical appearance. To be homosexual in 14th century England was beyond awful. The church's official position is revealed in the Parson, who calls it an "abomination" [note that the meaning of this word and context has changed over years of biblical interpretation], but here, it means what some now interpret it to mean... an unredemmable sin of which "no man can either speak or write". He has been evicted fromt he church and from society for something he feels he has no control over, so he, understandably, feels hostile.
+ "In a world that won't pardon him, he becomes a pardoner".
And one with a vengeance! It is a bitter and obscene revenge. If he can get the pilgrims to kiss the relics, then he gets to be needed by heterosexuals; they need his absolution. But it doesn't work, and he ends up speechless. This, the man of many words, with nothing to say.
Think of the intensity of the old man's declaration: "I want back in"; he wants to be included-- it is his plea for acceptance. This is the only real TRAGEDY in "The Canterbury Tales".
If we'd invent a trailer for the tale, it might sound like this: 3 Rioters, and Old Man... Tree-Gold-Straws-Wine-Sab-DEATH: All dead except the one man who wants to be!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oNt68PA4tI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itgLRJs20js&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_0hoc39_bI&feature=related
[Instructor's Blog Notes: Studying the Pardoner helps to put us in the shoes of a social outcast. It allows us to see the ramifications of society's judgment. When we judge, we allow others to rebel against that judgment. But when it is implanted in us that society's negative judgment is in any way accurate, the rebellion can take a much harsher form, as we see here. The Pardoner has allowed me to see the power that society has in shaping the actions of individuals. For example, society says that "gay marriage" is illegal, so homosexuals grow up believing that marriage is not something they can ever aspire to. In turn, this affects the types of relationships they have; the average number of sexual partners is much higher in the gay community. Some people believe that homosexuals are just inherantly more promiscuous, but couldn't it be that they are conditioned toward that behavior? Society teaches them that they are not worthy of monogomy. Acceptance, tolerance, and equality are concepts that I live by. If I were to encounter Chaucer's pilgrims today, I would pull a chair right up next to the Pardoner; I would put my hand on his shoulder and let him know that everyone is deserving of unconditional love and acceptance; I would tell him that his sexuality was not something that he need confess, but something that he should embrace, and that the "albatross" he carries is not his sexuality, but his guilt.]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I dedicate this section of study to Dr. Bachman; I hope that I did these tales justice. I have tried very hard to preserve the essence of his lectures; what I give you here is for the most part what he gave me... I am passing the torch, so to speak. May the fire never burn out.
Essay 2: Theme & Symbolism in Medieval Literature
Theme: The subject of an artistic work. Theme is conveyed by a phrase, rather than just a one-word description. For instance, while "greed" may often be considered a "theme", "greed is the root of all evil" is a more detailed assessment of a theme, and this is the kind of statement I am looking for. Your theme must contain a subject AND a predicate.
Motif: An implicit or recurring idea. An example fo a motif might be the colors "green and gold" because they appear so often in "Sir Gawain". A motif can be described by using a word or phrase.
Symbol: Soemthing that represents something else by association, resemblance, or convention. For example, let's analyze the "green sash with gold flecks" in "Sir Gawain". Green is a color associated with nature; it reminds us of trees and grass. On the other hand, gold is a color associated with wealth and material possession; unlike the naturalness of green, men contrive material objects with gold. Therefore, the "green sash with flecks of gold" might symbolize the idea that all men, even the honorable Sir Gawain, are a mixture of both the natural world and the civilized world. Please notice how the symbol is stated, associated, examined, and explained. All of these steps are necessary in effectively making your point.
Directions: Choose one of Chaucer's tales-- "The Wife of Bath's Tale", "The Miller's Tale", or "The Pardoner's Tale"-- and write an essay that examines the THEME of that work. [Note that multiple themes may be present in the story-- focus on only ONE.] In essence you will be making this kind of a claim: This is the theme of the tale, and this is the evidence from the text that supports this claim. You are not using any outside sources for this essay! You MAY NOT research the stories prior to writing your essay! Every idea in this paper must be YOUR OWN, and you must use evidence from the STORY (and only from the story) to support your ideas. You may, however, use the prologue as part of your analysis.
The essay must be 2 full pages long-- and must not be any longer-- and in MLA format with a header, unique title, and Works Cited Page that lists the story from your textbook. Remember that in MLA format, everything is double-spaced and in 12 point font; margins should be 1 inch.
Specifics: You may NOT use outside sources to write this essay. Every idea must be your own! You are making claims based on your observations of the text only-- not on any research or background information on the story or the author. You will make your claim, use quotes from the text to support your claim, cite the page number, connect how the example supports your claim, calrify your statements with further explanation/discussion, and then finally transition to the next idea/paragraph. Balance the length of your paragraphs; no paragraph should be excessively long or noticeably short. A paragraph is only complete when it has a minimum of 5 sentences.
Your essay should be 5 paragraphs in length.
With an essay of this length, a good way to organize would be to have an introduction that sets the reader up to understand which work is being discussed, the context of that story (a very brief summary/synopsis of the plot, usually 1-2 sentences long), what theme is being analyzed, and some basic ideas about that theme. Then you would have 3 body paragraphs, each with a very clear topic sentence, each one expressing soemthing specific in the text that leads you to your analysis of the subject. Finally, you would have a conclusion taht connects all of the topics together with the theme, brings your argument full circle, and expresses the "social commentary", or the importance that the message of the story has and how it can be applied to society today.
You should have at least 3 short quotes [from the story] per body paragraph. You may NOT use long quotes in short essays! You should cite the page number that the quote appears on. Remember, introduce your quotes-- do NOT leave them "hanging". Go on to explain each quote/analyze its relevance to your topic. Since you are including the author's name and title of the story somewhere in the intro., there is no need to cite his name after each quote... page number only. Punctuation (such as a period or comma) should come after the parenthetical citation ..." " (100).
The challenge of this essay is to create a tightly woven analysis that is all your own. While the last essay that you wrote was very far-reaching, this one is closely-knit. Do not make the mistake of over-summarizing the tale! Your body paragraphs should NOT be a reiteration of the plot-- this is NOT the goal of the essay. The goal is to discuss intellectually the deeper significance of the tale and for you to demonstrate how you arrived at that significance through the analysis of textual evidence.
Be careful to not switch from topic to topic-- stay focused. Also, the temptation to "borrow" others' ideas in an essay like this-- on a topic that has been much analyzed and discussed by sophomores and Ph.D's alike-- may be quite tempting. Know that I will thoroughly investigate each essay, and rest assured, that now that you are aware of these guidelines, plagiarism of any kind will not be tolerated. You have all of the necessary tools to write this paper; write something original that you can be proud of!
All students are expected to complete the writing process in STEPS. I will need to evaluate this progress. You will be assigned a grade for having a completed ROUGH DRAFT. I also want to see any brainstorming/outlining/tutoring notes, etc. that you accumulate while working on this essay.
The rough draft is due Friday 03 April. Your rough draft will be graded for completion. The final draft is due Monday 06 April. I do NOT plan to give extensions on this essay; it is a fairly short, clear-cut assignment.
Sample Thesis and Topic Sentences:
Thesis: The theme of "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" is the unsustainability of imposed order.
Body 1, Topic: Various symbols of order are used to present the concept of "contrived" perfection as it is perceived by Sir Gawain and his "round table" counterparts. [Here I might discuss the castle, the shield, and other symbols of order].
Body 2, Topic: The images of orderly perfection are juxtaposed in the story with images of chaotic imperfection. [Here I might discuss the appearance of the Green Knight, the chapel, etc.]
Body 3, Topic: The "test of trouthe" presented in the story pits order against chaos and creates moral dilemmas for Gawain that are meant to teach him a lesson. [Here I would in one sentence explain the test, then i'd discuss his first moral dilemma (the kisses and the sash), then the second (the flinching). I would end by explaining that try as Gawain might, these dilemmas, which have no absolute solution, prevent him from maintaining his "perfection".
Conclusion, Topic: Society imposes rules with the goal of achieving order and civility; however, what can be learned from "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" is that not all order is natural. Imbedded in the human condition is instinct, which often prohibits an individual from maintaining imposed order.
[Note that I could have chosen a variety of themes in regards to this story, but I stayed focused on the one that I did choose! Notice the use of a key word from my thesis, order, used (albeit differently) in each topic sentence; this promotes focus and organization!]
