Hood College Chaucerians

I thought alchemy was about making potions, but aren't these guys just magicians? Tricking priests into thinking they can turn anything into silver doesn't make me think of alchemy... While the Yeoman is introducing them, the Canon even tries to sneak away because he is worried the Yeoman is sharing too many of his secrets. They remind me more of con artists than potion makers :( I was really hoping they were mixing up cool potions. I was especially convinced that these guys were phonies when he sells his secret for 40 pounds and then disappears. Slightly disappointed, but they are still very entertaining and an unexpected surprise.  https://i.ytimg.com/vi/VlRXDwsJ9zE/maxresdefault.jpg

Nightmares are often manifestations of fears we already have, whether they’re subconscious or conscious. This means that we could very well have dreams about the typical irrational fear, such as vampires sucking our blood, but the nightmare Chauntecleer has about getting attacked in the yard is a very rational fear. I mean, he’s a helpless chicken. Getting eaten should be his number one fear. Pertelote tries to say he should never fear a dream, and there’s an entire argument with proof for why you should or shouldn’t take dreams seriously. I’m so annoyed by this! Humans (or, in this case, chickens) are so binary, thinking you either fear or don’t fear something. The in-between exists, and I think Pertelote forgets that dreams can serve as reminders. For example, if you have a nightmare where your mother dies, you don’t need to fear her death, but you might remind yourself to tell her you love her more often. Chauntecler’s nightmare could have served as a reminder to watch out fo...

The Shipman describes a merchant and his exquisite wife who live in a large beautiful mansion where they throw parties. Right off the bat, I was thinking of The Great Gatsby. The merchant is a frugal man, although his house is lavish. His wife resents his frugality and wishes she had more money to spend on elegant clothing. Daun Jon is a monk who is friends with the merchant and claims that they are related. They swear to a brotherly allegiance, which Daun Jon quickly betrays by taking his money and giving it to his wife, who he also sleeps with. When the wife later tells her husband of what transpired, he decides to forgive her, but demands that she never be so spend-thrifty again. Is the lesson really to be careful how you spend your money and not to be faithful and truthful with your partner? I was expecting the merchant to be upset with his wife for lying to him and having sex with the monk, but he was more worried about his money. https://uppitynegronetwork.com/2013/06/04/the-a...

Before I rant about my love for this tale, let me just point out a few interesting, important, and substantial things: The use of both Greek gods and the Christian God. The Franklin’s question at the very end about “Who is more free?” Aurelius asks the sun and moon gods for a miracle, but ends up going to a magician instead for an artificial miracle. What is the Franklin’s purpose for telling this tale?  Okay, now for my rant. If I had to choose one of Chaucer’s tales as MY tale, it would definitely be this one. I literally don’t know what else to say except that I love this tale and it is now my all-time favorite! I think I am just glad to finally read some literature this semester that is actually happy and satisfying at the end. We have Arveragus and Dorigen, who are true and faithful to each other and are willing to endure great suffering and death for each other, but who are also quick to forgive and honor each other. Then there is Aurelius, who is kind of stupi...

from allmygifs.wordpress.com I have no doubt that Dorigene is being 100% sarcastic in her proposal of a deal with Aurelius. After all, the tale does emphasize how impossible his side of the deal is. It’s exactly like saying, "I'm married, so you and I will be together when pigs fly ." The modern reader is more familiar with the flying pigs translation, which allows it to look more like, "No, we will never be together." The only reason Dorigene uses sarcasm instead of outright denial is because she's obsessed with her husband's safe return. I don't think her sarcasm should have been held to the standards of a promise, but Aurelius does and becomes sick just trying to find a solution. If he knew the only reason she wants the rocks removed from the coast is so her husband can return home safely, maybe he would move onto the next, available chick; why the Hell would a woman promise to love someone if he could ensure the safe delivery o...

I don't know why, but I really like this tale... Maybe because I am not into romance or conventional love stories, but this was fun to read. The narrator describes how wonderful love is, "Marriage is a ful greet sacrament" and follows with a story about deceit and adultery. I thought it was very interesting that Pluto and Proserpina decided the fate of the couple instead of Jupiter and Juno, a more conventional couple among the gods, given that Juno is the goddess of marriage and Proserpina was essentially kidnapped into marriage. It makes sense that Proserpina would have been sympathetic to May because she also had no choice in marrying her husband.  I think Chaucer chose these two gods because he wasn't actually trying to demonstrate the niceties of marriage, but rather point out the problems; specifically jealousy and adultery. The symbolism of May taking the adviser's literal fruit from the secret garden was hilarious to me; I actually laughed out loud. htt...

I was not expecting the Merchant’s Tale to pull me in so many different directions but he does! In the beginning of the tale, I was all on board with his long spiel about how amazing and wonderful it is to have a wife. As a wife, I know I'm pretty awesome so I appreciated the acknowledgement. But, then January (by the way, what a name!) comes into the scene and starts talking about his specifications for a wife. I mean, she can’t even be older than 20 so I guess all of us over-20s are just doomed forever. It's cool; those women didn't want to be ol' Jan's wife anyway.  After dealing with January and his lovely character, I got some major Tristan and Isolde vibes coming from May and Damian and I was all for it! And then Hades and Persephone (Pluto and Proserpina) come in!? Be still my heart. The Merchant is ticking all my fan-girl boxes. However, at the very end of the tale I had a feeling we were dipping into biblical territory with May being tempted by Damian in t...

Oh my... the Friar is soooo ready to dig into the Summoner for all of his faults, but is he ready to get it thrown back at him? I have read the Summoner's tale before, but I can's remember all of the details of it...and now that I've gotten much better at reading and understanding middle English, I cant wait to read the response to the Friar. It's about to be a roast fest... The Friar is making the Summoner out to be a super horrible person; after all, can anyone who makes a deal with the devil really be a good person? (Bearskin from the German fairytale being the exception...) I mean, honestly, he calls the Devil his brother! From my understanding of the general prologue, neither of these men are exceptional Christians; so, if the devil takes the Summoner down to hell in the Friar's story, I can't wait to see what happens to the Friar... (btw isn't it funny that he gets called out by a poor old lady!)

Well, clearly the Friar has dug at the Summoner. The animosity between these two men could not be more obvious. In fact, I’m wondering if this is going to turn into a “at-least-I’m-not-as-bad-as-you” battle, though who will really come out on top is the main question. Clearly, in calling out the Summoner and his “evil” deeds the Friar has unexpectedly set himself up for a prideful fall that I really hope happens later. I mean, is the Friar really trying to deflect attention away from his own “lady’s man” ways by focusing the spotlight on the Summoner? Does he honestly think that this going to work? What I found really funny though was that in his tale the Friar tells of a summoner who goes to collect money from a poor old widow without just means, but in the prologue, Chaucer describes the Friar as someone who could preach so well that poor old widows, who may not even had enough for themselves would readily donate to him. Well then. And just like the summoner in his tale, the Friar...

from Tenor GIF Keyboard What good is a feud between two people that both suck for the same reason? As early as the General Prologue, Chaucer keys readers into the idea that friars and summoners are not always as kind as they should be or seem. In “The Friar’s Tale,” our (selfish and greedy) friar tells a tale about a selfish and greedy summoner who goes to Hell for refusing to repent. Why? Because he hates our summoner for competing with him on the pilgrimage and in reality. Both men extort people for money, but our friar implies with his tale that the difference between his extortions and the summoner’s extortions is that our friar (apparently) repents for his. I find that brilliantly satirical because, according to Christianity, our friar’s logic makes sense: as long as you accept God as your savior and repent for your sins, you’ve got a spot in Heaven. However, I find it clear that both the friar and the summoner’s extortions are still wrong, and if Hell exists,...

Having read and blogged about this woman before, I had a prior understanding on her liberal beliefs. 5 husbands sounds like a lot, but the Wife of Bath (Alison) is certain to justify herself and spends a lot of her introduction explaining and defending her choices, as well as delving into her marriages: good, bad, and ugly. She resents the idea that people accuse her of bigamy because her marriages are sequential and not simultaneous. I think Chaucer was probably making fun of the "gold-digger" or "black widow" tropes, but it doesn't quite work like that for me. To quote an idea I mentioned about the WoB in the aforementioned previous blog post, she gestures to the idea of not "following a rubric, and following her own path" which I still find empowering especially at a time where women weren't generally thinking like that/acting on it.

The Wife of Bath is my favorite character, without question. She’s an expert in all things relating to marriage and doesn’t care about authority, therefore, making her experiences far more worthwhile. In the time of Chaucer, women didn’t have many options when it comes to free will, so divorce was out of the question. But the Wife has been married five times, and I like how she takes the scripture of God and turns it around to benefit her. Nowhere in the bible can she find where it says women can’t be married more than once, so obviously, she’s the most reasonable human being in the Canterbury Tales. I also appreciate that the Wife is someone who has gone through a lot of hardships in her life, therefore losing her beauty, but she can live her life by her standards, and no one is going to diminish her happiness. 

I found it interesting that the Wife of Bath had so many biblical examples to defend her five marriages, which certainly would have made her story more appealing to the many clergy members on the pilgrimage. Although, scholarly, she favors experience. She takes a dominant role in her relationships and uses her sexuality to her advantage. I think it is also interesting that she mentions that the reason for sex is reproduction and argues it's importance in creating other virgins, but does not mention whether she has any children of her own. If she had any with her last husband, I assume they would have been disturbed when their parents got in a fist fight in the living room. I am also assuming she is def in one ear, as stated in the prologue, from the strike she took in the head from her husband that knocked her to the ground. It is impressive that she held her own against a grown man and defended what she believed in, especially considering the time it was written. She is a woman th...

     Oh my God! God is everywhere in this tale... I agree with Amanda that this story is almost like an advertisement for Christianity. I think that Custaunce is named strategically and is meant to represent the constant presence of God and of the religion of Christianity. After all, she is the sole reason that the Sultan wanted to convert himself and everyone to followers of God! The Sultan fell in love with Custaunce because of how the merchants described her to him - he never laid eyes on her. Similarly, Christianity is not a tangible thing, it can only be described and talked about. Also, when the Sultan's mother is plotting her revenge, she is described as a snake, which is reminiscent of the serpent in Eden that represents sin and deception. When this serpent woman carries out her sneaky plan, Cunstaunce (AKA Christianity) is the only survivor. Hm...coincidence?

Am I wrong to say that the “The Man of Law’s Tale” is more like a persuasive essay than a tale? “The Man of Law’s Tale” attempts to convince readers to convert to Christianity by illustrating three situations in which “God liste to shewe his wonderful myracle…for we sholde seen his myghty werkis…” (477-478). First, it is insisted that only God could have saved Constance from death (470-483). Second, Alla is smite by God for swearing a lie on the book (669-686). Lastly, Alla finds his wife and son while seeking penance (1149-1161). I guess the Man of Law’s angle is clever if the Host is Christian, which seems to be the case, considering the fact that the Host is ready for full sermon mode in the Epilogue. Speaking of the Epilogue, I love how Chaucer allows the Shipman to immediately interject the idea of a sermon and prepare the company for an entirely different, less elaborate tale than those that were told before him. "Thoughts on Secular Conversion" from In...

How the heck does Custance get so unlucky as to have the two worst mothers-in-law in the world? I mean really, she’s so nice and great and the guys she gets married to are so loyal to her, but apparently that means nothing to Fate or Fortune or whoever. Anyway, while I was reading, two quotes from the text stood out to me. The first is from Custance as she is about to leave for Syria: “Wommen are born to thraldom and penance, And to been under mannes governance.” (“The Man of Law’s Tale,” I. 286-7) Here, Custance is speaking about how she believes women are meant to be married and submitted to their husbands, according to her Christian beliefs. However, a quote by the wicked Sultaness comes in sharp contrast to Custance’s remarks: "What sholde us tyden of this newe lawe But thraldom to oure bodies and penance…” (“The Man of Law’s Tale,” I. 337-8) Here, the Sultaness is speaking about how Christianity is a religion that will only enslave and submit her and her people. Bu...

The Man of Law's Tale was not what I was expecting it to be. Although, religious justice is a theme throughout, it was not the "justice" I had in mind. In contrast to the other tales we have read, it is very different. It has conventions like the Knight's Tale, but instead of the tale being riddled with romantic medieval tropes, it is full of familiar religious narratives and iconography. In my opinion, this tale resembles a sermon. The Man of Law embeds his tale with Christian iconography to reinforce his own personal moral and religious beliefs. Looking at this tale in a broader perspective, it is clear that in Chaucer's world religious conflict was a very real issue, and this tale emphasizes his worldview. I still cannot decide if I like this tale or not. It is filled with death and suffering, but the outcome of it all, ends up being something good. Cantigas de Santa Maria 13th Century Alfonso X

After lengthy descriptions of the three temples, the battle results in Arcite's victory, which is consistent with what the God of War tells him the night before. Then Arcite is mortally wounded by an earthquake and Palamon and Emelye marry after his death, consistent with what Venus and Diane told each of them as well. What interested me most about part four was the advice Egeus gives Theseus, about the nature of the world and how every man will die. Because the gods controlled the outcomes for each character, it is described like fate, which is a reoccurring theme, so far. Egeus seems like the character that understands best how to grieve for Arcite because he has seen fortune change for the longest, given that he is Theseus's father and has lived for longer than Palamon and Emelye, who mourn for a long time after his death. The lesson Egeus tells is that fortune is ever changing and that each of us will die eventually; and I am not sure if that is the moral of the story, but ...

After what seems like a lifetime of dialogue and plot development between Arcite and Palamon, I am so happy to have finally heard Emelye's voice in Part 3. Up until this point, the whole debate over Emelye has been between two males who she knows nothing about. Her monologue to Diana was finally the first time we, as readers, hear what Emelye wants and her thoughts on this tug of war for her heart. She has no designs of becoming a wife or bearing children. She's content to serve her goddess, be one with nature (which is exactly what we saw her doing in Part 1) and just live out her days holding onto her virginity. It's not a lot to ask for. I already liked Emelye, and felt sorry for her in the previous Parts, but I really respected her when she beseeches Diana to give her to a man who desires her most. I think, considering the circumstances and her fate regardless of winner, her mind was in the right place in asking for a man who truly wants her as a woman, rather than a m...

The last part of this tale has always been the most enjoyable part for me. The theme of chance throughout this story is what I find most interesting. By chance, Emily walks by the prison, where both Arcite and Palamon notice her. Also, the God of destiny decides how the story ends by altering the outcome of the fight. I think reason goes out the window when they are acting out of emotion, such as the strong affection both men feel towards a woman they don’t know. By the end of the tale, both knight’s get some semblance of what they asked for, which makes me feel better about someone else controlling their destinies.