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!
Thursday, January 22, 2015
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.
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Canterbury Limericks?
A clever fellow in the writers group I attend is named Mr. Kohoutek. He may be a distant relation of the comet of the same name. One of his talents is organizing things. His latest project was a limerick contest. A "poet" in spite of himself, his own contribution is a series of related limericks.
I'm inspired to share them with you because they were dedicated to me!
I'm inspired to share them with you because they were dedicated to me!
The Canterbury Limericks
by
Frank Kohoutek
There once was a bloke name of Chaucer,
Who wrote as he drank from his saucer,
The church said, "Geoffrey, my lad,
You must not be bad,
And do not break the law, sir!"
He started to write anyway,
Hid his thoughts in word play,
Had they figured it out,
They'd be left with no doubt,
But he outfoxed them and got it away!
What were his messages about?
He hid his thoughts--couldn't shout,
So thoroughly hidden,
His meanings unbidden,
It took Dolores to figure them out!
And so we are left with his tales,
Which some say are slower than snails,
But don't ever be blue,
'Cause this isn't true,
Mrs. Cullen has lifted the veils!
MAY 2015 BE A BLESSING TO US ALL.
Saturday, December 13, 2014
In the Christmas spirit!
What do you know about Chaucer? I mean Chaucer the man or Chaucer the pilgrim character in the Canterbury Tales.The second book I wrote--Pilgrim Chaucer: Center Stage--explores both sides of him. To tell his whole story, I had to include an X-rated chapter!
If you'd like a copy of the book -- at no cost to you -- email your address to me (Chaucer600@aol.com) and I'll send you a copy. The offer is only good for US residents. Sorry, rest of the world.
If you want me to sign it, just say so. I'd be happy to. The number available is limited, of course. Isn't everything?
Y'all have a Merry Christmas and a splendid 2015.
(PS I've only received a small number of requests. Don't be shy. lol The offer is good through the Twelfth Day of Christmas --January 6.)
If you'd like a copy of the book -- at no cost to you -- email your address to me (Chaucer600@aol.com) and I'll send you a copy. The offer is only good for US residents. Sorry, rest of the world.
If you want me to sign it, just say so. I'd be happy to. The number available is limited, of course. Isn't everything?
Y'all have a Merry Christmas and a splendid 2015.
(PS I've only received a small number of requests. Don't be shy. lol The offer is good through the Twelfth Day of Christmas --January 6.)
Friday, December 5, 2014
On the cyber trail
A comment I received a couple of days ago was a special treat. It had had quite a cyber trail before it reached me. Chaucer ain't like Gospel! is linked to Facebook. What I received by email was a "friend" request for Facebook from a Mr. Mault, whom I knew not at all.
So for curiosity, if for nothing else, I queried, "Why would you want me as a friend? Who do you know that I know?" and "What's your opinion of Chaucer?"
Aha, Mr. Mault responded that he had seen my Chaucer chat on YouTube!
So for curiosity, if for nothing else, I queried, "Why would you want me as a friend? Who do you know that I know?" and "What's your opinion of Chaucer?"
Aha, Mr. Mault responded that he had seen my Chaucer chat on YouTube!
He also expressed the intention of reading my books and Chaucer's. Therefore, recognizing Mr. Mault of Ohio as a man of noble spirit and good intentions, I accepted him as a Facebook "friend."
When he next contacts me, I'll be sure to direct him to my website
which holds a wealth of Chaucer information and considerable news of current Chaucer events and publications as well as stuff to download.
A link to my radio interview (Oct 21) will also be there soon.
With all the busyness of Thanksgiving and the Christmas season, the powers that be just haven't gotten around to it yet.
Blessings of the Season to all of you!
Sunday, November 16, 2014
Computer rehab!
My trusty 7 year old Mac has serious problems.
It’s been trying to keep up with the competition, but its memory has been
failing. It’s headed for rehab in a couple of days. Don’t know how long it will
be before it shapes up. . . . sigh . . . I’ll miss it. I just hope I still
recognize it when it comes back.
I’ll
be thinking about Chaucer while it’s gone and gathering some new ideas to share
with you. Until then, peace be with all of you.
Thursday, November 13, 2014
Cock-a-doodle who?
A couple of entries back (Oct 9) I said we'd find another bird concealed among the pilgrims. Now is the time.
The General Prologue, that introduces all the pilgrims, begins with two trios of travelers. We've already seen the Knight, Squire, and Yeoman as a trinity; the third person is a peacock. The Prioress, the Second Nun and their accompanying Priest also make up a trinity and, again, as a parody of the Catholic Trinity, we'll find a bird masquerading in the third person--the Nun's Priest.
We're told nothing about the Priest-Pilgrim until he is called upon to tell his tale. Recall that at the surface we see transportation is by horse, but at the covert level what is said of the transport can also divulge something about the Pilgrim. Instead of being respectful, the Host speaks rudely to the Priest calling his "horse" foul and lean. That's the first "bird" clue, and foul will be used again. When the Priest had his tale attamed/atamed, it can mean he began his story, but it can also say he controlled his tail!
After the Priest tells the very entertaining story of Chaunticleer (a rooster), the Host has much to say about the Priest's tendencies and appearance, often reflecting the fictional rooster's attributes. It has long been assumed the the Host is poking fun at a "man" with bird terminology. That works on the surface, but we aim to see the identity at a second level hidden within the pilgrim disguise.
If the Priest had been a secular, he'd have been a trede-foul (there's foul again) meaning he'd have been a sexually active bird. Chaunticleer had seven hens for his pleasure, but this character would need seven times seventeen hens! His "braun" is admirable; the word refers to flesh as meat. Chaunticleer was described stretching his neck; this priest also has a great neck and a large breast, as well, to add to his bird portrait. His eyes are bird eyes, like those of a hawk. Now add a splash of color to the picture. Where Chaunticleer had a comb redder than fine coral, we learn that no dye is needed for this Priest's features because they are naturally bright red. Visualize a cockscomb and wattle.
Once you picture this priest as a rooster a couple of other lines yield a second meaning. The bird role mimics the Catholic image of "Victim and Priest." Roosters were the victims in pagan augury. They would be sacrificed and their entrails examined to determine whether the future would bring good fortune--or no. Chaucer provides hints of augury.
To begin with, the Priest declares he must always be merry or he will be blamed. A happy outcome is always desired or the sacrificed bird will be the bearer of bad news! Then, during the story, Chaunticleer he is distressed, fearful. And what does Pertelote, his wife, recommend for her rooster husband? Take a laxative! That will improve the condition of his entrails which, in turn, will brighten the future.
(That's enough for here. But, if you want more details of how Chaucer wove extensive pagan elements into this trinity, see Chaucer's Pilgrims, pages 278-299.)
The General Prologue, that introduces all the pilgrims, begins with two trios of travelers. We've already seen the Knight, Squire, and Yeoman as a trinity; the third person is a peacock. The Prioress, the Second Nun and their accompanying Priest also make up a trinity and, again, as a parody of the Catholic Trinity, we'll find a bird masquerading in the third person--the Nun's Priest.
We're told nothing about the Priest-Pilgrim until he is called upon to tell his tale. Recall that at the surface we see transportation is by horse, but at the covert level what is said of the transport can also divulge something about the Pilgrim. Instead of being respectful, the Host speaks rudely to the Priest calling his "horse" foul and lean. That's the first "bird" clue, and foul will be used again. When the Priest had his tale attamed/atamed, it can mean he began his story, but it can also say he controlled his tail!
After the Priest tells the very entertaining story of Chaunticleer (a rooster), the Host has much to say about the Priest's tendencies and appearance, often reflecting the fictional rooster's attributes. It has long been assumed the the Host is poking fun at a "man" with bird terminology. That works on the surface, but we aim to see the identity at a second level hidden within the pilgrim disguise.
If the Priest had been a secular, he'd have been a trede-foul (there's foul again) meaning he'd have been a sexually active bird. Chaunticleer had seven hens for his pleasure, but this character would need seven times seventeen hens! His "braun" is admirable; the word refers to flesh as meat. Chaunticleer was described stretching his neck; this priest also has a great neck and a large breast, as well, to add to his bird portrait. His eyes are bird eyes, like those of a hawk. Now add a splash of color to the picture. Where Chaunticleer had a comb redder than fine coral, we learn that no dye is needed for this Priest's features because they are naturally bright red. Visualize a cockscomb and wattle.
Once you picture this priest as a rooster a couple of other lines yield a second meaning. The bird role mimics the Catholic image of "Victim and Priest." Roosters were the victims in pagan augury. They would be sacrificed and their entrails examined to determine whether the future would bring good fortune--or no. Chaucer provides hints of augury.
To begin with, the Priest declares he must always be merry or he will be blamed. A happy outcome is always desired or the sacrificed bird will be the bearer of bad news! Then, during the story, Chaunticleer he is distressed, fearful. And what does Pertelote, his wife, recommend for her rooster husband? Take a laxative! That will improve the condition of his entrails which, in turn, will brighten the future.
(That's enough for here. But, if you want more details of how Chaucer wove extensive pagan elements into this trinity, see Chaucer's Pilgrims, pages 278-299.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)