Matthew Arnold invited me to do a radio interview a few months ago. The subject? Chaucer, of course. It has taken a while to get the project uploaded onto YouTube, but it's there now.
If you go to the home page on my website (CelebrateChaucer.com), you'll see a "spotlight" in the upper left corner. Click it and you're connected. Enjoy.
Saturday, April 11, 2015
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
I'm on a roll!
Making clowns has been irresistible! Why did I never make one before? No matter, I had time to make two more--so I did. The bake and craft sale at church is Sunday. There isn't time to create another, but it sure has been fun.
Each doll is 16 inches tall. This is Ruffles, because of all the gathers in his suit.
And this is Pinkee because she has pink hair! Couldn't resist making those striped stockings. (Odd. In the photo it looks like there is a stain on the knee of her stocking--but there is none on the doll. ?)
OK. Next time it's back to Chaucer. See you then.
OK. Next time it's back to Chaucer. See you then.
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Send in the clowns!
Well, here they are. There are only two. I had planned for more, but my fall, a few weeks ago, made it necessary to change the plan. They will be part of the craft sale at our annual craft and bake sale at church just before Easter. We'll have some luscious special Easter desserts and breads, all homemade. If you're in the area--Berkeley and Bonita in Claremont, CA--visit the auditorium next to the church anytime in the morning of Palm Sunday (3-29). I'm sure you'll be impressed with the selection.
Penuche, on the left, and Pachuco, on the right, are 16 inches tall.
Thursday, March 5, 2015
Here's the entertainment
I've heard 2 different claims as to the source of the following oddity. Some say it was whipped up by a college professor many years ago. But the moderator in charge of a writers group I attended said it was the product of several bright college boys (including her nephew), in the1980s, who were taking a break from their studies. Either way, here it is. Have fun.
Ladle Rat Rotten Hut
Wants pawn term, dare worsted ladle gull how lift wetter murder inner ladle cordage honor itch offer lodge dock florist. Disc ladle gull orphan worry ladle rat cluck wetter putty ladle rat hut, end fur disc raison, pimple cauldron ladle rat rotten hut.
Wan moaning, rat rotten hut's murder colder inset, "Ladle rat rotten hut, heresy ladle basking winsome burden barter end shirker cockles. Tick disc ladle basking tudor cordage off year groin murder hoe lifts honor udder site other florist. Shaker lake, dun stopper laundry wrote, end yonder no sorghum stenches dun stopper torque wet strainers."
"Hoe cake, murder," resplendent ladle rat rotten hut, end ticker ladle basking end stuttered oft.
Honor wrote tudor cordage off year groin murder, ladle rat rotten hut mitten anomalous woof. "Wail, wail, wail," set disc wicket woof, "evanescent ladle rat rotten hut! Wares putty ladle gull goring wizard ladle basking?"
"Aroma goring tumor groin murder's," reprisal ladle gull. "Grammar's seeking bet. Armor ticking air burden barter end shirker cockles."
"Oh hoe! Heifer blessing woke," setter wicket woof butter taught tomb shelf, "Oil tickle shirt court tudor cordage off ear groin murder--oil ketchup wetter letter, end den, oh bore!"
Soda wicket woof tucker shirt court, end whinney retched a cordage off ear groin murder, picket inner window an sore debtor pore oil worming worse line inner bet. Inner flesh disc abdominal woof lipped honor betting adder rope. Zany pool dawn a groin murder's nut cup end gnat gun, any curdle dope inner bet.
Inner ladle wile, ladle rat rotten hut a raft adder cordage an ranker dough ball.
"Comb ink, sweat hard," setter wicket woof disgracing is verse.
Ladle rat rotten hut entity bet rum end stud buyer groin murder's bet.
"Oh grammar!" crater ladle gull, "wart bag icer gut! A nervous sausage bag ice!"
"Butter do lucky chew whiff, doll ink," whisker disc ratchet woof whither wickert small.
"Oh grammar, water bag noisy got! A nervous suture anomalous prognosis!"
"Butter do small your whiff," inserter woof, ants mouse worse waddling.
"Oh grammar, water bag mousey got! A nervous suture bag mouse!"
Daze worry on forget nut gull's lest warts. Oil off ear sudden, trolling offer carvers an sprinkling otter bet, disc curl an bloat Thursday woof ceased pore ladle rat rotten hut an garbled erupt.
Mural: Yonder no sorghum stenches shut ladle gulls stopper torque wet strainers.
-----Anomalous
Sunday, March 1, 2015
Current events
It's been a while. I've been working on some dolls for our annual fund-raiser at church. Then--an unplanned event--I took a fall. No broken bones, thank goodness, but a couple of remarkable bruises. Pretty low on energy, but I'm planning to enter a piece just for entertainment-value soon.
We will get back to Chaucer--that's for sure.
We will get back to Chaucer--that's for sure.
Thursday, January 22, 2015
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!
. . . 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!
Thursday, January 8, 2015
Chaucer murdered ?
This blog is dedicated to questioning the usual opinions regarding things Chaucerian. Mr. Terry Jones' questions and opinions belong here. You may recognize his name as part of the comic genius of Monty Python, but his attitude turns deadly serious when it comes to dealing with the death of Geoffrey Chaucer.
Are you aware that, in addition to comedy, Jones has a reputation as a presenter of history in both books and TV documentaries? He provides a "challenge [to] popular views of history." Terry Jones' Medieval Lives (2004) received an Emmy nomination for "Outstanding Writing for Nonfiction Programming." When he proposes the possibility that Chaucer was murdered, we should be attentive! Yes, his questions and opinions belong here.
He had the idea about Chaucer's death for thirty years, without finding the time to research and write it. But serendipity stepped in when he was invited to create an entertainment for the closing session of The Chaucer Society, an international literary group. With a twist of genius, the piece was staged as an inquest into the death of Chaucer! It was well received.
So much time, energy and enthusiasm had already been invested that these friends were eager to help turn the project into a book. Each would contribute an essay in the area of their expertise or their area of interest.
The book (Who Murdered Chaucer?) boldly questions currently held historical details and interpretations. For example, how had Chaucer survived the political upheaval during the reign of King Richard, though many friends had not?
In 1400--the year of Chaucer's death--the poet leased a house for 53 years. Does that sound like the action of a man who expected to die soon? But Henry had usurped the throne; Richard was confined to the Tower and died (perhaps by starvation) in February. The rented house was on the grounds of Westminster Abbey. Could there be thoughts of "sanctuary"?
Why do we know so little about the death of Chaucer who was revered by his contemporaries? Why does no one allude to illness, or details of a funeral? What happened to his estate? If renting his house is officially recorded, why is there no mention of his demise in an official document? How could he just vanish without a word?
And what became of his manuscripts? None are listed in wills or inventories of the day. Jones wonders whether they could have been deliberately destroyed for political reasons.
Terry Jones and his cohorts (and I) hope Who Murdered Chaucer? will stimulate further investigation into overlooked possibilities.
Are you aware that, in addition to comedy, Jones has a reputation as a presenter of history in both books and TV documentaries? He provides a "challenge [to] popular views of history." Terry Jones' Medieval Lives (2004) received an Emmy nomination for "Outstanding Writing for Nonfiction Programming." When he proposes the possibility that Chaucer was murdered, we should be attentive! Yes, his questions and opinions belong here.
He had the idea about Chaucer's death for thirty years, without finding the time to research and write it. But serendipity stepped in when he was invited to create an entertainment for the closing session of The Chaucer Society, an international literary group. With a twist of genius, the piece was staged as an inquest into the death of Chaucer! It was well received.
So much time, energy and enthusiasm had already been invested that these friends were eager to help turn the project into a book. Each would contribute an essay in the area of their expertise or their area of interest.
The book (Who Murdered Chaucer?) boldly questions currently held historical details and interpretations. For example, how had Chaucer survived the political upheaval during the reign of King Richard, though many friends had not?
In 1400--the year of Chaucer's death--the poet leased a house for 53 years. Does that sound like the action of a man who expected to die soon? But Henry had usurped the throne; Richard was confined to the Tower and died (perhaps by starvation) in February. The rented house was on the grounds of Westminster Abbey. Could there be thoughts of "sanctuary"?
Why do we know so little about the death of Chaucer who was revered by his contemporaries? Why does no one allude to illness, or details of a funeral? What happened to his estate? If renting his house is officially recorded, why is there no mention of his demise in an official document? How could he just vanish without a word?
And what became of his manuscripts? None are listed in wills or inventories of the day. Jones wonders whether they could have been deliberately destroyed for political reasons.
Terry Jones and his cohorts (and I) hope Who Murdered Chaucer? will stimulate further investigation into overlooked possibilities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)