Chaucer continues to challenge

Let's review the reason for the title of this blog. When I went to college and saw things differently in Chaucer than the reasons presented in the texts, or scholarly articles, I wondered if it would be proper to doubt an age-old authority. Then I came upon The Art of Literary Research by Richard D. Altick. Such fascinating reading about perpetuated misprints, anachronistic "evidence," and "facts" that had been presented exactly the opposite from what was true. When Altick referred to:

      . . . an assumption of critics or literary historians which has gone unchallenged so long that it now seems as impregnable as an old-fashioned Gospel truth . . .

I felt justified in questioning age-old authorities. Actually, I felt encouraged to do so.

We'll look at just two instances where declarations made by worthy scholars, more than a century ago, are treated like Gospel. It's time to show some serious disregard for what amounts to old "opinions."
     The first one deals with the term "The Marriage Group." In the sequence of the Tales, four of them referred to as this "Group" begin with the Wife of Bath's Prologue and end with the Franklin's Tale. The term was elaborately discussed by George Lyman Kittredge, a "celebrated" Harvard scholar. He is often credited with introducing the term in 1912. But when I heard a young doctoral candidate refer to the "Group" as if it had been Chaucer's own idea, I was shocked. So convinced of its validity, she had never questioned its origin.

A second perpetual opinion comes from Bernhard ten Brink (d. 1892). It is true that much honor is owed the man; his research stimulated the revival of the study of Geoffrey Chaucer's works. And again, when such an eminent scholar makes a statement, how can we deny its value? Yet one statement I do deny--and forcefully.
     Here's the background: The Cook's unfinished tale follows the ever-popular Miller's Tale and the equally risqué Reeve's Tale. Ten Brink speculated that the Cook's plot was headed in a bawdy direction and, therefore, Chaucer broke off writing the story because the poet realized "three stories of the same [vulgar] stamp following each other" would be "too much for the reader." The Pilgrim Cook, however, in the introduction to his story, says he'll simply tell a little joke (litel jape). Ten Brink saw the main character as a "licentious . . . apprentice"--but it is only a façade!
     Chaucer uses tactics similar to old riddles in adapting details of human form and activity. Where an old riddle speaks of a bee as a "short little gentleman," Chaucer tells of a "proper short fellow." And where a riddle pictures a swarm of bees as "a heap of people on London Bridge," Chaucer uses a similar image, but a different structure. He describes a group of revelers who "sometimes led to Newegate." Editors explain this "Newegate" as the name of a prison--but we can just as easily visualize a swarm clumped on a new gate! That is part of the charm and challenge of allegory.
     It is also significant to notice that the Cook speaks not of an apprentice cook but of a victualler, a gatherer of foodstuffs! The food gatherer is brown as a berry, a proper short fellow who is like a hive full of honey. The disguised identity of this little character is the prevalent English brown bee. But he's not just any bee--he's a good-for-nothing drone. Cooks were well acquainted with honey as a coveted cooking ingredient. Industrious worker bees, worthless drones, and the movements of swarms were all common knowledge in Chaucer's day. Therein lies the point of the Tale.

So, don't be afraid to contradict old opinions when your view is contrary to what you've read. Do your research. Be careful. Be thorough. You might discover something darned exciting! Remember, what's been said before ain't Gospel!