So with our lovely two-day (thanks, Albert) test approaching, I figured we could maybe post some good review websites or personal thoughts/interpretations/ideas that might benefit the whole class. I've found one good site that has a really comprehensive biography of Chaucer and links to lots of essays and articles on the Canterbury Tales in general and, more specifically, each of the tales. The link is: http://www.luminarium.org/medlit/chaucer.htm.
Also, does anyone have any insight on the relationships between the characters or on how Chaucer's background (member of a merchant family) affected his writing and description of the different characters? I'm feeling a little confused about the objective portion of the test...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I'm going to blog some thoughts about Chaucer's background and see where it takes me. Please correct me if I'm wrong?
Chaucer doesn't make fun of the Knight, the Squire, or the Guildsmen. Knights were part of the nobility, which is Chaucer's audience, so he can't make fun of them. He does make fun of the Squire a bit, but only for his immaturity. The Squire's flaw is not nearly as bad as some of the other charactors. It seems like he's going to grow out of it soon. Chaucer just makes fun of him on the surface. In terms of the Guildsmen, the author doesn't make fun of them at all. I think Laz said that this was because Chaucer knew a lot of guildsman (the nobility hired them a lot), and respected them. He (Chaucer) also wasn't part of the nobility, but on the fridge of it, which seems to be the same place where the Guildsmen are.
Chaucer makes fun of the Church A LOT in the tales. This makes sense- there was an ongoing power battle between the Church and the Nobility. His noble audience would have loved any kind of humour at the Church's expense.
I'm going to just post about the relationships of my three charactors. The Miller and the Reeve hate each other. Laz explained the reasons for this. The Miller grinds up the corn, and the Reeve basically runs the lands. The peasants are dependent on both, and in turn, they are dependent on each other. The Reeve will not have food without the Miller, and the Miller needs the Reeve to send people his way. They're both in positions of power, and both hate being dependent on each other. This isn't specific to these two charactors (who don't know each other), but about reeves and millers in general. Does that make sense?
The Reeve tells a story about a miller who (basically) loses everything, and the Miller tells a story about a carpenter (which is the Reeve's side job). Their inherent hatred for each other shows itself in their stories.
I don't really have anything to say about the Franklyn. I'll ask in class tomorrow about him.
Can someone explain the negative traits of the Nun's Priest and the Second Nun? And who had the Parson?
Alright. First of all, that two day test thing, was totally not my fault. thanks guys.
Secondly, there were only subtle negative traits for the Nun's Priest. At the epilogue of his tale, the Host jests him and tells him that all the ladies must swoon after him, due to his manly features and such. I took this to mean that while being a religious figure, one has to question whether his good looks have gotten him into trouble or not, i.e. sex. Laz suggested that the Host was making fun of him because in his story, he describes a rooster where all the hens follow him, which contrasts his own status in the pilgrimage, which is following women. So the only real negative things would be those two, although it'd be kind of grasping at straws.
The Second Nun also isn't really portrayed negatively. Her story was a bit boring, clearly only a biography rather than a story that keeps people interested.
It's tough to say that Chaucer thought negatively of those people simply because they weren't described in the general prologue. So much of Chaucer's opinion on the pilgrims lie in the character descriptions rather than in the tales.
The guildsmen were portrayed in a good light because being part of a guild was being part of a brotherhood. This was illustrated nowhere else in the group. Being part of a guild meant that you earned that position, rather than just saying, "Hey, let's make a fast buck." It took a commitment that no one else except maybe the Knight really exemplified. The religious characters have some commitment, but ultimately their motives lie elsewhere.
Chaucer, with his background as unique as his was, had a great perspective on his society. He knew the ins and outs of the middle class because he grew up in it, and he also knew the aristocracy due to his position. This allowed him to portray each social class from a much more objective viewpoint. Of course, since his audience was the nobility, he had to portray them in a better light than the middle class and church figures, although he did drop a few jokes at their expense.
Since he lived at a time where church corruption was rampant, (buying your way/your family's way into heave, building massive cathedrals, exclusivity mindset, etc), it was only natural that he paint the religious characters in a bad light.
The objective portion of the test will look at the characters and see how they can be related to their tales and other characters. It's very significant that Laz assigned the characters the way he did. I'm kinda worried that very few (if any) of us included the significance of our characters' groupings. If you all could, please mention that on the blog.
That's all for now.
I must say I disagree Anisha; I do think Chaucer's poking fun at the squire was significant. Though he does make fun of the squire for his immaturity, couldn't it be that Chaucer also uses this character to subtly make fun of the noble class? Chaucer describes the squire as only being interested in courtly mannerisms, dress, and activities, not what it means to be a true knight. In this way, Chaucer gently pokes fun at the mundaneness (is this a word?) of the courtly life and how the nobility only worry about superficial things. ...This is just a theory though.
As far as the Nun's Priest goes, his biggest problem is that he has spent his whole life being subservient to women. Of course this is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does make him seem less manly and a less capable person because he needs to be controlled and directed by someone who is perceived to be physically, mentally, and emotionally weaker than him.
Now for the connection of my characters: the Man of Law, the Shipman, and the Merchant. All three of these characters are members of the rising middle class and are people that Chaucer would have interacted with on a regular basis (his father was a merchant, merchants get their goods from shipmen, and as a court clerk he would have worked closely with lawyers to document events). All three of these characters tell stories about the pitfalls of marriage. The Man of Law's story shows how a jealous mother can ruin the bond between her son and daughter-in-law (though love triumphs in the end). The Shipman's tale shows how women indebted to their husbands must often commit sinful and disloyal acts in order to repay their debts. This story also shows a religious figure in a bad light. The Merchant's tale shows what happens if a person rushes into a marriage and marries someone who is too young for them. Also, all three stories have a lot of feminist criticism associated with them (re: my handouts).
I think that's pretty much the basic connection between these characters. If anyone has something they want to add, please do!
Liz, I see your point about the Squire. I can see how it is poking (small) fun at the nobles.
Anyway, Liz brought up a good point about feminism. We can see from the stories that women were seen as subservient to men. The Wife of Bath is the only story in which she's in charge and happy. Still, this story is seen negatively, and I think her dominance is one of her flaws.
Can anyone else add any other comments, particularly about feminism?
Going back to the feminist criticism, I don't think that Chaucer was anti-women or anything like that. It was the society of the time and the culture that automatically looked down upon women. And the majority of the women then accepted that. Characters like the Wife of Bath were rare and therefore seen as a bit on the looney side. She was overly outgoing and rebellious so no one actually agreed with her. In a way no one took her seriously. The ideas that she proposed (like the woman being dominant in the marriage) were just plain ridiculous to everyone else.
I think Chaucer was just trying to have a variety of audiences. And he also showed the reader how different personalities and people received different reactions from their society.
uh..that was Fatima.
The Wife of Bath is definitely an interesting character. She is, in a sense, the black widow of the bunch. If I'm not mistaken, all of her past husbands are dead? This definitely calls into question her morals, etc.
However, the idea of the woman being dominant wouldn't necessarily be frowned upon, especially by the other women in the group. The Prioress, for example, a character who is uber emotional and will cry at the drop of a hat, is leading around the Nun's Priest, a very manly looking man. While explicit support for dominance of women isn't shown, there definitely would've been a few nods of agreement when the Wife of Bath was talking.
btw, everyone, please post some relationships between your characters as Laz said to me that it is definitely something worth noting.
I talked about the relationships between the Reeve and the Miller in my original post. All three of my charactors (Reeve, Miller, Franklin) are linked by their ties to the land. None of them are nobility, and none of them are Church officials. The Reeve is basically rules the land (does the accounts for his young lord), the Franklin owns land, and the miller works with the land (grinds the food). I think this is as close to a connection as I can make.
I found something interesting. Two of the stories, the Merchant's Tale and the Miller's Tale, look very, very similar. Both are about younger wives who cheat on their older husbands. Both seem to condemn women for their behavior. There is a difference in the conclusion of the stories. In the Merchant's Tale, January catches his wife with the other man, and in the Miller's Tale, John doesn't. I don't think these are particularly big differences, though, and find these similiarities really interesting.
I have to disagree with what you said, Albert. Women's dominance seems to be very frowned upon in these stories. The two examples I gave above are just the beginning. The Wife of Bath has many flaws. Her dominace as a women, and her views on love, the spurs she wears to rid, all seem to be negative things. There may have been the occasional nod from the Canterbury crowd, but the audience of this story would not have approved.
Her views on love and her riding spurs both relate back to female dominance. I think it's a stretch to say that her views were outright condemned. Sure, people would've disagreed but I doubt her stories would be "very frowned upon," as you put it.
Chaucer knew his audience. I doubt he blatantly created a character in order to spur hatred from them.
Chaucer knew his audience - exactly. Most of these charactors have specific faults which make the audience look at them more carefully. The Wife of Bath's faults include her beleives about womanhood.Historicaly, this was a time during which women were more subservient to men.
Yes, I agree, but does that necessarily mean that Chaucer's audience automatically hates the Wife of Bath, simply because of an altered view?
Oh, I agree. I don't think they hate her, but I doubt they agree with her views on a woman's place.
I think we've argued this to death.
Dan Kim can you please post your charactor info?
Anisha and Albert, I get what you both are saying. I would have to agree with both of you on some parts. Chaucer did know his audience. I don't think that the other characters are outright condemning the Wife of Bath and her views. The women (and maybe even some of the men) probably admire her in a way-because they don't have what she had. She had the bold nature-the fearlessness-to blatantly go against the norms. They don't immediately hate her because of her varying views. Look at it this way: no matter when or where you are living, there are going to be people who agree with you, who disagree you, like you, or loathe you. You can't make everyone happy. Even though the majority opinions have changed in our society compared to back then, the system is the same. There are conservatives, liberals, and people in the middle in all societies.
Fatima
Knight’s Tale
The Knight is the most dignified of the pilgrims and thus tells his story first. He represents humility, loyalty, honesty, piety, and integrity. He is polite and tells his story in fitting manner.
Characters
Theseus
Arcite
Palamon
Emelye
Summary
Four women tell Theseus, king of Athens, their husbands, were killed in battle at Thebes, but the lord of Thebes dishonors their bodies my not burying them. So Theseus ends up conquering Thebes and finds two enemy soldiers, Arcite and Palamon. While imprisoned from their cell, the two see Emelye in the garden, and they fall in love with her. Arcite is eventually freed (because of his connections), but Palamon remains (he eventually escapes). The two meet in the wood and battle. Theseus searches for them and finds them in the woods fighting. Theseus at first decides to kill them but after the woman complain/plea to spare the lives of the two knights, he decides to let them battle it out for Emily's hand in marriage. Thus Theseus prepares stadium. Here, he also builds three temples to the gods (Venus, Mars, and Diana). Arcite (Mars = strength/victory in battle), Palamon (Venus = love), and Emily (Diana = the winner loves her) pray to the gods before the battle, and the gods then argue as to which to answer. Arcite ends up winning the battle, but is killed when he thrown from his horse when Saturn shakes the ground. Thus Palamon ends up marring Emelye.
Squire’s Tale
The Squire is the Knight’s son, and acts the Knight’s apprentice. Though he is not unskilled in battle, he is more concerned with love/beauty (this dressing in flowery clothes and such). He is still dutiful son, and respects his responsibilities.
Summary-
The Host asks the Squire to tell a tale of love. But the Squire says that he doesn't know of it, but will still tell one. He begins by introducing a king named Cambiuskan, who has three children, Algarsyf, Cambalo, and Canace In the twentieth year of his reign, he decides to throw a party. During the party, a knight comes from afar bearing gifts: a horse that can take its rider anywhere; a mirror to sortof see the future (no sure of its role); a ring lets the bearer talk with birds and has the power to heal; and a sword that can cut through anything and the wound it exacts can be healed by its hilt. The partiers marvel at the gifts and party some more. In the second part, Canace , the daughter of Cambuskan, awakes and decides to go on a walk in the woods. She takes the ring (can now talking with birds) and soon hears a falcon in pain. The falcon is hurt because her lover left her for a kite (the lowliest of birds). She then basically helps the falcon by healing her wounds. The Squire begins another tale but the Franklin interupts him.
The Knight’s Yeoman comes along with the knight and the squire. Wears green all over and carries a bow and arrows, and sword and shield, and thus looks like a forester.
I can't seem to find my notes on the canon yeoman's tale so im retyping them now.
Post a Comment