Answer TWO of the
following...
Q1: How does the
narrator characterize himself and the presumption of writing a poem about
pilgrims on a journey to Canterbury
Q2: Where in the
Prologue do we see social criticism and/or outright satire of individual
pilgrims? How might this connect to the belief of the ‘common’ English
man/woman, particularly regarding topics such as the nobility, the Church,
fashion, and manners?
Q3: Which pilgrim’s
description did you find most appealing 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 or admire/dislike about the character?
Q4: Compare the style of narration of “The General Prologue” to Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Though both are written in the late 14th century, they are part of very different traditions of writing: Sir Gawain has more in common with the older, Anglo Saxon alliterative tradition, while Chaucer follows the more continental, ‘humanist’ approach. Are there passages that seem much more modern in Chaucer’s Prologue, or do they share many of the same stylistic traits and humor?
Q4: Compare the style of narration of “The General Prologue” to Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Though both are written in the late 14th century, they are part of very different traditions of writing: Sir Gawain has more in common with the older, Anglo Saxon alliterative tradition, while Chaucer follows the more continental, ‘humanist’ approach. Are there passages that seem much more modern in Chaucer’s Prologue, or do they share many of the same stylistic traits and humor?
Q2: Over and over again, I see criticism of religious figures. For example, let's look at the Summoner. Not only is his appearance frightening, but he has a serious character flaw. As summoner, he is to bring people before the church that have committed sins; some of these sins could lead to being kicked out of the church. He, however, uses this to his advantage. To me, it seems like he is blackmailing people or taking bribes - "he knew their secrets, they did what he said" (pg 21). The Prioress is very deceiving; she cries when she sees a mouse in a trap, but doesn't mind feeding flesh to her dogs. She is trying way too hard to be seen a particular way. I believe Chaucer is saying religious figures are not always what they should be, which is reinforced later when he introduces the Parson who does embody the qualities he preaches.
ReplyDeleteQ3: The description I found most appealing was that of the Plowman, brother to the Parson. He is a simple man, but a good man. His jobs consist of some of the most undesirable tasks (e.g. hauling loads of dung), yet "he [is] an honest worker, good and true..." (pg 17). He helps the poor, but never asks for money, works grueling tasks without asking for recognition, and pays his tithes regularly. He is easy to relate to and extremely likable.
Yes, Chaucer is delightfully critical of the clergy, especially since many of them were lining their pockets with their parishioners' ignorance. I think the Prioress is interesting, though, since he seems less critical of her, actually. She is full of affectations, but she's also terribly kind to animals (I think the fact that she feeds the dogs at all is meant to be seen as good-hearted). But you're right, the Plowman is a truly glowing characterization. Not all the clergy are bad, but they are the minority...as you'll see in some of the tales to come.
ReplyDeleteQ3:The most interesting character to me was Madam Eglantyne. The author included very descriptive characteristics about her, which makes her seem appealing. The author says, “She was all sentiment and a tender heart. Her veil gathered in a seemly way. Her nose was elegant, her eyes glass grey; her mouth was very small, but soft and red, her forehead, certainly, was fair of spread.” The author describes her in such a way that it is easy to visualize her. The thing I find most interesting about her is that later on the author says that to be called a Madam is a glorious thought, but so is going to church and being seen having your mantle carried in like a queen. I interpreted that the author may have said that with slight sarcasm, and that maybe Madam Eglantyne isn’t as perfect as she is described to be.
ReplyDeleteQ4: I think the writing styles between Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and The Canterbury Tales are mostly different. I had to keep rereading sentences of The Canterbury Tales to make sure I understood what was happening, while in Sir Gawain, it was easier for me to read without having to stop and reread something. However I do believe that both authors were similar in how they both took to time to explain almost every detail of the important characters
-Brooke McVeigh
Yes, great points here: I love the description of the Prioress, because on the one hand she's full of very human affectations, and wants to be seen as cultured and modern. Yet on the other, she loves animals and can't stand cruelty. She comes across as a very real woman, flaws and all, and I have trouble disliking her. It's also a nice touch when, in describing the tradesmen, he points out how all their wives want to be treated as fine ladies in church--how modern this is!
DeleteQ1: But first I beg you, in courtesy,
ReplyDeleteNot to condemn me as unmannerly
If I speak plainly with no concealings
And give account of all their words and dealings,
Using their very phrases as they fell. (Chaucer 22)
In these lines he appeals to the audience much like Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. He acknowledges the audiences opinions, conclusions, and intrigues their interest by engaging them directly. While engaging them he also takes their value at heart when saying to them to not judge him, but to also allow him the space to correctly portray the pilgrims. He appears to be a great watcher and observer, while also painting a picture of each pilgrim in their perceived façades in contrat to their actual being. His need/desire to portray to the audience the tale as close to factual as he can establishes a "credit" with the audience (at least it did me). You want to listen to him because of the honesty he is willing to portray. With writing the poem in English, he establishes his model to expose the underlyings of the aristocracy, merchant guilds, and double standards of many offices, as well as their coniving ways. Also, his poems appeal to the lower class man/woman in opening their eyes to the world around them and educating them using the "lower language."
Q3: Personally, I found the Parson to be the most appealing and interesting. Chaucer wrote about many clergymen, missionaries, and religious figures, but the Parson held the closest to the faith. I felt an admiration for him, especially after reading abouit many of the others that took a double standard to their title. Chaucer states on page sixteen,
Who truly knew Christ's gospel and would preach it
Devoutly to Parishioners, and teach it.
Benign and wonderfully diligent,
And patient when adversity was sent…
He hated cursing to extort a fee,
Nay rather he preferred beyond a doubt
Giving to poor parishioners round about…
These lines gave an adoration for the character as well as later lines in his summation. The Parson was a man of integrity and the positive feeling you get with his summary gives an intriguing change compared to the other characters. You get a good vision and glimpse into this character.
Great responses: yes, he is doing something very new here, and very much part of the 'humanism' movement that swept through Europe and led to the Renaissance. In his tales, he makes no distinction between the classes, and even apologizes for doing so. All life interests him, from the most exalted to the most obscure. He tells sex stories and tales of high chivalry. The pilgrimage is a great device to offer a cross-section of humanity so we can examine each class, caste, and career. The Parson is one of the few who come close to being ideal, which says something about how rare his humility is in this age. I love the line from the Parson's description: "A shame it is to see...a shitten shepherd and a snowy flock."
ReplyDeleteQ1:
ReplyDeleteHe characterizes himself as just a messenger of the facts on these characters. He says he was “one with them in fellowship” and thus seals his position of a reliable narrator. He says it would make sense to let the reader know what each character’s condition is in “full array” before going on with his tale. This allows the high profile pilgrims to be seen in an honest yet still subjective way. As I continued to read I was struck by the blunt descriptions of the characters and how little the narrator put his opinion straight-out. While many of the church members were obviously being called out many of them were given credit where credit was due, it all seemed very honest.
This reflects the beliefs that people are meant to be shown in a realistic way. Along with that, they should be shown to the general public who is affected by their actions, hence the poem being written in English. Although there is obvious satire and exaggerations, the prologue lets us know straight-away that we will be not be seeing this pilgrimage as an idealization of the church, which is what Chaucer and the people of this time period would like to see more of in art and literature.
Q3:
The Friar was the most despicable character to me, because he not only used his role as a church figure for his own gain but also misuses the very people he is called to help. He is at first described as “wanton” and “merry” and full of “gallant phrases” and “well-turned speech”. Quickly his relations with women are called to question, and I am left to wonder why he had to fix-up “his” women for marriage. His description is extremely satirical and ironic, as he is give back handed compliments one after the other. For example, he was highly loved by the Country folk near him, but only because he gave easy penances to those who were willing to pay him well. He is again described as a bit of a lady-killer who can sing and is strong, well associated with innkeepers and barmaids. Worst of it all, it is “below his dignity” to associate with lepers and beggars aka the “scum”. The very people his profession is called to love and minister to he avoids. The real irony is mentioned near the end of his description calling him, “the finest beggar of his batch” directly after describing his courtesy and lowliness of service. Of all of the church workers called into question he seems to have the most biting description. Whereas the previous mentioned characters obviously had some character flaws they did not abuse and harm others the way the Friar does.
Great responses: the levels of satire are outrageous here, especially as the narrator purports simply to show you what he sees, and nothing else. Classic unreliable narrator, though long before the term was invented.
DeleteQ.3 I honestly laughed after the description of the "Prioress". The long description of this elegant woman of beauty and stature who -gasp- spoke French was followed by a footnote of four people who were with her. That's it. That's all you need to know. She had a nun and three priests with her. Not what they looked like or what they really did, just that they were there. I'm not sure if it was meant as a satirical thing or not but I sure got a kick out of it.
ReplyDeleteQ4. Chaucer felt older to me somehow, as opposed to Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. The formatting and word usage seemed give Chaucer an older, though more poetic feel, than the slightly less dated and novel style of Sir Gawain. References to star movements as a time reference and places that no longer exist (such as Prussia) as opposed to the almost entirely fantasy themed adventure of Sir Gawain where the setting is mythical. Not that the setting doesn't date Sir Gawain either but at least Avalon is still well known today. I would have been incredibly confused if I hadn't of read Hetalia, which features Prussia in it, during the knight's description.
Kenia Starry
Yes, he is very sly about who he describes and who he glosses over. The Prioress gets a long description because she's so interesting: not a religious hypocrite like the Frair, the Monk, the Summoner, and the Pardoner, though she is a bit vain, and cares very much to be seen as a high-society lady within her cloister. But she's kind and really cares about love (maybe in the courtly way?) which makes her touching.
DeleteQ2: I found satire in the description of the Nun. Perhaps Chaucer liked her, as we discussed in class, but I think he's poking fun at her actions and ironic appearance in this description. I think he points his social criticism at her when he talks about her French dialect and how hard she tried to be proper and "admirable." It's like he was saying how cute it was of her to try so hard. I don't expect nuns of this time period to focus so much on her looks. Her table manners and etiquette, yes, but not her appearance. He also pokes fun at her size: "truly she had a fair forehead; it was almost a hand's breadth wide, I swear, for, to tell the truth she was not particularly small."
ReplyDeleteQ3: The Knight obviously had the most appealing, or flattering description. However, I found the piece about the Wife of bath the most interesting. Chaucer just blatantly describes her as a grown woman who has had several sexual partners and husbands. His last word on her said "She knew how to laugh and joke in company and all the remedies of love, for her skill was great in that old game." ...that's a dirty comment. Aside from her promiscuous habits, he describes her as a woman who dressed very well, going to the extreme to describe her new shoes and fine kerchiefs. Finally, we know she was a large woman. She was fat, super sexual, and well dressed. I feel like he wants us to keep an eye out for this woman's story. She should have something interesting to say.
Good responses, but remember these are technically due by class time. The goal is to give you something to think about before class, so you don't feel you're going in blind. I'll count this, but be careful!
Delete