For Friday: “The General Prologue” from The Canterbury Tales (pp.1-22)
Answer TWO of the following…
1. How does the narrator characterize himself and the presumption of
writing a poem about pilgrims on a journey to Canterbury? How might this tie into the new beliefs of
the 14th century (as discussed in class) and his insistence on
writing the Tales in English?
2. Where in the Tales do we see social criticism and/or outright satire
of individual pilgrims? How might this
connect to the beliefs of the ‘common’ Englishman/woman, particularly regarding
topics such as the nobility, the Church, fashion, and manners?
3. Which pilgrim’s description/characterization did you find most
appealing and or interesting? How does
Chaucer’s language create this character and help us ‘see’ him or her? What do you feel he wanted us to connect with
and/or admire/dislike about the character?
4. Though The Canterbury Tales is
also a kind of comic/epic poem, how does it contrast most notably with the
style of Beowulf? What about the
language, style, verse, or tone of the work makes it recognizably more
French-English than the Anglo-Saxon Beowulf?
3. Maybe because of the narrator’s admiration of the Knight, or possibly because of the identical picture I have painted of a Knight in my mind, I find the Knight to be the most alluring character. He is a modest warrior who has already received great success during the crusades of his era; he is representative of the ideal Knight in my mind. He is brave, wise and Godly. Chaucer wants us to love him, and who am I to argue with Chaucer;)
ReplyDelete4. The biggest contrasts between the two seems to be language, religion, and the code of chivalry. “Beowulf” was written in Old English, therefore it had to be translated before we could understand it, and a lot can be lost in translation. “The Canterbury Tales” was written in Middle English which is similar to modern day English, which we can read, and with work, understand. This allows us to preserve the beauty of the words. “Beowulf” is very pagan, while “The Canterbury Tales” is not. Also the code of chivalry is arguably the most important aspect of the Anglo-Saxon culture, though there is still the since of the noble warrior in French-English times, there is much more modesty surrounding it. In “The Canterbury Tales” the Knight is portrayed as noble, yet humble; verses the boisterous, bragging Beowulf.
Yes, great point--Chaucer's poem is very modern because it shares our general concern with all classes, and not just the affairs of heroes and kings. It is a human poem in the best sense of the word, which is why, with a little translation, it makes such a deep impression on us. These people are still alive today, speaking different languages, wearing different clothes. But their ideas remain.
DeleteDevin Martinez
ReplyDelete1.) The narrator tells us that his voice in the story is simply there to retell the stories he was told while in the company of these unique characters. He tells the reader that before he attempts to recall each character's story he wants to describe each person as precisely as possible so as not to take away from their each own uniqueness. These appear to be people well traveled and/or from all walks of life. A salad bowl of personalities that should allow each to remain their own. The narrator acknowledges that by retelling their stories in English, (so that every common person might be able to enjoy) some words may be lost in translation and therefore by adding such detailed descriptions hopes to keep their identity intact.
3.)In my opinion the Knight seems to be the most interesting of the characters mentioned. He is admired and well known for his adventures and because of all the battles he has been involved in, I would assume he has some pretty interesting stories to tell. All of attributes are the epitome of what a brave and honorable knight should be.
Great responses; the narrator/Chaucer takes a back seat so he can be every character on the trip--their words speak through his, so that we can't really tell where they end and Chaucer begins. John Keats called this ability "negative capability," and claimed only the best poets/authors could make their artistic personality invisible in the service of their characters.
DeleteAnna Talkington
ReplyDelete2. The narrator says about the pardoner, “But with these relics, when he came upon some poor up-country priest or backwoods parson, in just one day he’d pick up far more money than any parish priest was like to see.” (p. 20) The narrators tones seems to criticize him for taking advantage of more “common” or simple-minded people. To a common English person this would be infuriating that he takes advantage of gullible people and also shows the corruptness of the Church. It also seems to insult their intelligence.
3. I absolutely loved the description of Madame Eglantine. It is what really drew me into the story. He vividly describes all of her mannerisms and features are beautiful detail. I don’t really feel like he is using her as a satirical feature like many of the other religious figures simply because he made her seem so lovely. But, I could be missing some tone of sarcasm. How the narrator intends for us to view her is open for discussion in my mind.
Great responses, and you're right, he gives us clues so we can see his satire. The Prioress isn't an object of real satire; he pokes fun at her affectations, but then shows how deeply affectionate she is toward her dogs. Whereas most of the other religious figures are truly despicable--which he takes great delight in showing us.
DeleteKelsey Tiger
ReplyDelete1. The narrator’s description of the pilgrims is as concise and true as he could get. He is narrating stories he was told and sometimes words and phrases get lost in translation, but it wasn’t his intentions to take away from who they really were and their distinctness. Through his narration I believe it is easier for the “typical” readers to read and understand. It seems as though he has managed to keep beauty and a sense of peacefulness tied into the narration that is associated with the 14th century.
3. I find the Squire the most appealing and interesting. Although he isn’t the Knight, he seems to be portrayed with great admiration. It seems as though he has all the “Knight in Shining Armor” type qualities. I think Chaucer’s language creates his character where we can see him as a knight who is willing to serve when the time comes, yet he is a gentle and modest man who has more of a loving peaceful nature. I think Chaucer wanted us to connect to and admire that he is a man of different talents, not just a brave hero ready for battle.
Great responses; I think it reads so easily because it was meant for a wide audience--not just the high born, but the low as well. It is one of the first 'universal' works in English, meant to showcase the entire society on one page.
DeleteAshley Bean
ReplyDelete3. I have two that stick out in my head for different reasons. The knight, because he seems so righteous and valiant. It's easy to admire him because Chaucer talks about his great deeds. I'm also a big fantasy fan, and knights always have great adventures. The other character that stands out to me is the summoner. His description is so vivid to me. It actually grossed me out a little. This character really shows the corruptness of the Church at the time. On page 19 it says that if a man is caught sinning, he should only fear if his soul was in his purse, since money is how he would pay.
4. The style and religion stand out the most to me. The style of the Tales is much lighter than Beowulf, though they both had/have fun moments. The Tales also rhyme sometimes and have more pattern, while Beowulf focused more on alliteration. Chaucer also seems a little easier to read because it is more straight forward. The religion in each book is portrayed very differently, though they both talk about Christianity. Beowulf juggles Christian and Pagan ideals, and holds the Christian ideals high. In the Tales, Christianity is almost shone in a negative light because of the corruption of the Church.
Great points: the descriptions can be 'gross' since his writing is so vivid and personal. We're meant to recognize these people and feel that we're among them. Chaucer isn't afraid to show the dark side of his society, whereas the Beowulf poet keeps that mostly in the pagan past (though he does seem to hint at the loss of some values). Still, Chaucer can afford to be a satirist--the Beowulf poet wouldn't have dared to do that, if it even occurred to him.
DeleteDeryk Ronk:
ReplyDelete3.) I really enjoyed the description of the knight's son. He seems to remind me a lot of how I used to be. He likes to dress nice to impress the girls, he takes care of himself (hair) and whatever occasion, he seems to be wanting to be the center of attention. I think that Chaucer wanted young men to connect to this character. We know nothing about the character's morale, only that he looks nice. I believe that this was the author's purpose.
4.) These two poems could not be anymore different thus far. Beowulf was a dark/scary toned poem, while Canterbury Tales seems to be a rhyming poem with a lot of rhythm. I believe that Beowulf was meant to be read in a dark and loud tone, while Canterbury Tales I picture being sang in an Irish accent in a noisy and goofy pub.
Yes, Chaucer is writing for a much more mixed audience, both high and low (as Shakespeare will), while the Beowulf poet is writing for a more closed, aristocratic/church audience. This lets Chaucer get away with so much more...
Delete2. We see the criticism of the church and its many people who fulfilled specific roles hinted to through out the general prologue, but during some character sketches of pilgrims, the rancid corruption is widely exposed. We have a Friar who is more acquainted with bar maids then the Virgin Mary. Then there is the Summoner who tells men don't’ fear if you have a concubine; there is a fee that can easily settle such an offense. I think this was amusing to the Englishman of that day, but also frustrating since this satirical humor was grounded in a painful reality of injustice.
ReplyDelete3. I love the contrast that come into play once the Parson is introduced. The Parson is the anomaly to the majority of “clergy” in this poem. He is actually more concerned with following the teachings of Christ then the modus operandi of the Church. We have the Pardoner who sells anything he can pass of as a religious relic clearly distinct form the Parson who would rather give what he has to help the needy. I think the author wanted us to admire the selflessness and the true meekness that the Parson embodied. This also helps balance his portrait of the church; although thoroughly corrupt there was a remnant of good. I guy like Parson could very well become Martin Luther a couple centuries later and spark the reformation!
Great responses; yes, the satire is based in the anger and tragedy of the 14th century, and as you suggest, the Parson is where someone like Martin Luther comes from!
DeleteCheyenne Counts
ReplyDelete2. I found that Chaucer’s disdain for the church was extremely evident in his descriptions of the Monk and the Friar. He presents both social criticism and satire in regards to these two “Christian” men. On page 8, at the top of the page, the Monk’s possessions and attire are described as being of the best quality. His sleeves were trimmed in the finest squirrel fir in the land, his horse and hounds were of the best breeds, and he “was a fine prelate”. This description doesn’t fit any proper monk that comes to mind. This individual he is informing the reader of is altogether too obsessed with worldly possessions to be a truly devout servant of God. The Friar is also depicted in this selfish light. Halfway down on page 9, the Friar is known to only keep company with the barmaids and innkeeps, instead of the lepers and beggars. A couple of lines further down, it is stated to “Stick to provision-merchants and the rich”. The Friar is a satirical representation of what was socially occurring during Chaucer’s life in the fourteenth century. Both pilgrims mentioned above portray the public’s distrust for the Roman Catholic Church. These two holy men are sinful in their vanity and selling of God’s forgiveness, and therefore they serve as the representation of society’s feelings that the Catholic Church is no longer to be trusted and revered.
3. I find myself most drawn to the Parson, perhaps because he’s the embodiment of good in what seems to be a very materialistic and sinful group. Chaucer’s uses language that evokes an immediate positive reaction from the audience. He uses such words and phrases as “saintly”, “truly preach”, and “devoutly teach” that evoke images of a moral person. Chaucer, as if his point hadn’t already blatantly been made, finally states “you’ll never find a better priest, I’ll swear”. There isn’t much of a physical description of the Parson. However, I like it better this way because you form your own image of what this good man should look like. I also believe that Chaucer deliberately did not give much of a physical description because the Parson is not concerned with material and worldly obsessions, so why should his appearance matter? I think that the reader is supposed to admire the Parson’s moral views. He’s the representative of what the Church should have as its forerunners. We respect his dedication to his parish and his ability to reprimand a follower no matter what their social class might be, as stated on page 16.
Excellent responses--it's fun to contrast the Parson with the others, since they are so vividly described (which is fitting, as you suggest, as they are obsessed with material wealth/appearance). Clearly we know where Chaucer's sympathies lie--as well as his audience's.
DeleteElyse Marquardt
ReplyDeleteQuestion 3: The Knight is my personal favorite character. I especially like that he prizes "trustworthiness, liberality, fame, and courteousness." The classic image of a knight is a man who instantly rides to the aid of any unfortunate victim who may cross his path, regardless of that victim's station in society. Chaucer's Knight fits this image perfectly. In fact, he is described as "the very pattern of a noble knight." He has just come home from an honorable adventure; Chaucer paints a vivid picture of this man, begrimed with rust, who hasn't even taken time to change out of his battle clothes before rushing off to give thanks for a successful expedition.
Question 4: The Prologue differs dramatically from Beowulf in many ways. It flows much more smoothly, several lines ending in rhyme. Chaucer is drawing careful portraits of his characters, while the author of Beowulf spends his time splattering blood and gore and glory all over the pages. Chaucer appreciates detail, so that we can be IN the story with his friends; Beowulf demands our attention, but not our presence alongside the characters. In the Prologue, we are led to sympathize with the Knight, sneer at the Friar, and secretly laugh at the Wife of Bath. Beowulf wants only our worship.
Great distinctions: the Beowulf poet wants us to see the big ideas of the work and how an old work can translate into his faith. Chaucer doesn't tell us anything specific, but leaves us to figure out who to admire and despise (well, he does give us a few hints). But it's more about the people, and the ideas come later.
DeleteShelby Pletcher
ReplyDelete3) As the reader, I was most attracted to the Friar and Madame Eglantine. I found the Friar intriguing because compared to his father, he is so different. I think this told a lot in the ways of the generation gaps in this spot of history. I almost pictured a 1960's hippie in my head due to Chaucer's description of the young man. lol He seems like such a paradox to me. He seems so shallow, yet so deep in terms of love. I'm interested to hear more from him and figure out his outlook on life and what Chaucer's reasoning could be to share that outlook on life with his readers. As for Madame Eglantine, I most connected with her. She seem so gentle, yet so strong. I loved the tender, human traits she carries and I love what she stands for. She seems so graceful and well-educated. I think she has something about her that all of us wish we possessed.
4) The style of the Canterbury Tales seems almost more relaxed to me than the straight epic style of Beowulf. Yet at the same time, it is reminding me why I love the English language so much. Chaucer's descriptions and poetic detail are so colorful. This is an art form to him, not just a political or religious platform like Beowulf felt to me sometimes, as beautiful and outstanding of a piece of literature I think it is. More notably I suppose is the cultural differences. As many of my peers have pointed out, and as we discussed in class, Beowulf's world is all about glory and action. This world seems to be more about beauty, love, and happiness. I'm excited to see how that truth of differences continues to come to life as we read and discuss this book in the coming weeks.
Great responses--and yes, the prioress is a unique character, both affected and affectionate. It's such a masterful portrait , and refreshing compared to the Monk, the Summoner, and the Pardoner!
ReplyDelete