(Reprinted from the Chicago Center for Literature and Photography [cclapcenter.com:]. I am the original author of this essay, as well as the owner of CCLaP; it is not being reprinted illegally.)The CCLaP 100: In which I read for the first time a hundred so-called "classics," then write reports on whether or not they deserve the labelEssay #44: The Canterbury Tales (~1380-1400), by Geoffrey ChaucerThe story in a nutshell:Written in stops and starts from roughly 1380 to 1400, Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales takes as its framing device an event that was common during its Late Medieval times, but that no one had ever thought of doing a story collection about before -- it's set among a group of unrelated tourists, making a pilgrimage from southern London to the Cathedral of Canterbury (one of the most important Christian sites in England, and home of that country's oldest Archbishop), during which the tour organizer suggests a story competition to while away their time, the winner of which will receive a free dinner at the end of their trip, and with the stories themselves bouncing from chivalrous tales by the nobility to pious tales by the clergy, to bawdy tales from the commoners present. (Although be aware that over 80 slightly different handwritten versions of this book exist from the century following Chaucer's death, because of movable type still technically not existing yet, none of which are in Chaucer's original hand, making it impossible to determine the stories' true original order; and in fact we don't even know whether the infamously "unfinished" tales are in that state accidentally, or were done on purpose by Chaucer as a sly joke about how boring they are.)And indeed, this is what made the Tales so widely reproduced and passionately loved once printing presses did finally make it to England, a century after Chaucer's death, for being clever to the point sometimes of laugh-out-loud funny, and with it not just being a story collection but no less than a grand satire of all the different ways stories were even told back then. Don't forget, before the rise of "Modern English" during the Early Renaissance, there were actually a dozen different types of "Middle English" used throughout the country, each of them with their own idioms and slightly different grammar rules, all of which Chaucer manages to ape at one point or another; and of course don't forget the already mentioned differing expectations among social classes of what stories were even supposed to be about, not to mention the sometimes even different language that existed between the rich and the poor, making this one of the first times in English history that a writer makes fun of specific groups by creating puns out of their local dialect. (Just to cite one good example, among the nobility, to "take pity" meant a selfless act of sympathy, while among the lower classes it was slang for having sex, a double-entrendre that Chaucer makes great use of in his book.) Less an interesting literary story and more an interesting literary exercise, The Canterbury Tales profoundly helped shape not only the modern English language we use today, but how we even think of the proper role and structure of the narrative format in general.The argument for it being a classic:The ways that this single volume has had an impact on society is almost innumerable, say its fans, the most important being many of the things already mentioned -- how by being one of the first books to be widely printed and distributed during the Renaissance, for example, it not only became the very first English "bestseller," but profoundly helped spread and normalize the use of so-called "chancery standard," the form of English invented by the government's then-burgeoning civil service, of which Chaucer was a well-paid veteran his entire adult life. (In fact, Chaucer in many ways was a precursor to the fabled "Renaissance Man" just around the historical corner -- he was a well-educated master of not only language but also math and proto-science, even while being an accomplished politician, office manager and sociologist.) Then there's the fact that Chaucer subverted the very way that stories were even told, bypassing the usual pecking order of the Middle Ages (in which it was expected that knights go first in all public endeavors, from telling stories to using the bathroom, then priests, then aristocrats, then merchants, then laborers, etc), mixing up his own story order between high-class and low-class tales and often having them be angry reactions to the story just told, ironically making this an early example of our modern notion of moral relativity; and by consciously inserting witty "fourth wall" references to the act of writing itself -- including the aforementioned "unfinished" stories that may or may not be deliberate jokes, as well as making himself an actual character in his own book, albeit a self-deprecatory version of himself who is often berated by the rest of the group for being a nerdy, unimaginative bookworm -- Chaucer also turns in a fine early example of metafictional postmodernism, only half a millennium before the term was first invented. And on top of all this, say its fans, it's simply an entertaining manuscript, full of fart jokes and pointed barbs at both corrupt clergy and dumb white-trash, the final element in the equation for elevating a book from merely "important" to a full "classic."The argument against:There's really only one main argument against this book that you see online, a huge problem that stops its haters from even reading it and coming up with other criticisms, which is the dense, obtuse Middle English that the original is written in, an outdated form of the language that literally hasn't been used in 600 years now; and indeed, you are in for a chore if you try to read the book this way yourself, despite your pretentious friend's insistence that Middle English is easy to follow once you "get the hang of it." (Liars! LIARS!) But I myself happened to read a modern translation of the book, making this criticism not really applicable to my specific review.My verdict:So yes, it's important to know that I read a modern translation of The Canterbury Tales, which I'm sure has purists foaming at the mouth even as we speak; and I gotta plainly admit, I highly recommend that you do the same unless you're specifically studying Middle English, in that otherwise you won't even have a chance of getting the full gist of what Chaucer is trying to say. If you do read the modern version, then, like me you'll realize that its fans are correct, that this is a much smarter and more contemporary book than what you thought could ever be accomplished during its time period, which as a side benefit offers a treasure trove of supplemental information about such period events as the 1381 Peasant's Revolt, the Great Schism of the Catholic Church, the Hundred Years' War and the invention of tree-based paper. (Of course, this then brings up the question we often seem to be debating among older titles here, of whether a book can truly be called a "classic" if it requires a week of homework beforehand to even understand what's going on; and along those lines, I highly recommend doing a close reading of this book's long Wikipedia entry before tackling the manuscript itself.) It really is surprising to see how readable and sometimes even lowbrow filthy this book actually gets at points; and although a little of this stuff goes a long way (I only read about half the book myself, then read simple recaps of the second half as a way of "finishing"), it's also an unexpected delight, and about the closest you'll get to a book this old still feeling fresh and relatable. Like most pre-Victorian books being reviewed in this series, it comes with a limited recommendation only, and I'll warn you that you need to strongly be in the mood to read this book in order to actually read this book; but certainly I think it's safe to call The Canterbury Tales a classic, a designation I don't envision it losing for a long, long time.Is it a classic? Yes(And don't forget that the first 33 essays in this series are now available in book form!)
Μετά τον Σέξπιρ, ο Τσόσερ είναι η άλλη σημαίνουσα μορφή ανάμεσα στους συγγραφείς της αγγλικής γλώσσας. Τι έδωσε στον Τσόσερ τη δύναμη να απεικονίσει τα πρόσωπά του με τέτοιο τρόπο ώστε να γίνουν παντοτινά; Υπάρχει μία θαυμάσια βιογραφία του 1987 από τον Ντόναλντ Ρ. Χάουαρντ που επιχειρεί να απαντήσει αυτό το δυσεπίλυτο ερώτημα. Ο Χάουαρντ αναγνωρίζει πως δεν έχουμε βαθύτερες γνώσεις για τον Τσόσερ πέρα από τα έργα του, αλλά επιχειρεί να μας θυμίσει το ανθρώπινο πλαίσιο του Τσόσερ:Η ιδιοκτησία και η κληρονομιά ήταν μόνιμες έγνοιες -εμμονές, ουσιαστικά- στους ύστερους μεσαιωνικούς χρόνους, ιδίως στην τάξη των εμπόρων στην οποία ανήκε ο Τσόσερ --και η ένοπλη αρπαγή, η απαγωγή, ή οι χαλκευμένες δίκες, δεν ήταν ασυνήθιστοι τρόποι για να περιέλθουν αυτά τα αγαθά στην κατοχή τους. Οι Εγγλέζοι της εποχής του Τσόσερ δεν είχαν καμία σχέση με το στερεότυπο του φλεγματικού Εγγλέζου της μοντέρνας εποχής, που είναι τέκνο του Διαφωτισμού και της Αυτοκρατορίας --έμοιαζαν πιο πολύ στους Νορμανδούς προγόνους τους, οξύθυμοι και ακραίοι όταν βρίσκονταν μεταξύ ίσων (καλλιεργούσαν την επιφυλακτικότητα ενώπιον κατωτέρων και ανωτέρων). Έκλαιγαν ανενδοίαστα δημοσίως, γίνονταν έξω φρενών, βλαστημούσαν εύκολα και ευρηματικά, επεδίδοντο σε θεαματικές αιματοχυσίες και ατέλειωτους δικαστικούς αγώνες. Στο Μεσαίωνα, η θνησιμότητα ήταν πολύ υψηλή και η ζωή αβέβαιη --συναντούμε μεγαλύτερη παρατολμία και τρόμο, μεγαλύτερη εγκατάλειψη και απελπισία και μεγαλύτερα παιχνίδια με την τύχη. Κι επιπλέον περισσότερη βία, ή μάλλον εκδικητική και επιδεικτική βία: κομμένα κεφάλια καρφωμένα σε πασσάλους, σώματα κρεμασμένα στην αγχόνη, ήταν το στιλ τους.Η καλή θέληση υπάρχει, αλλά είναι πάντα μίζερη στον Τσόσερ, και η πτώση από την ιπποτική πανδαισία είναι ανάγλυφη παντού. Το ενδιαφέρον για τον χαμένο ειδυλλιακό κόσμο είναι η βασική "ιδέα" που συγκροτεί τις Ιστορίες του Κάντερμπερι. Μας δίνουν την "εικόνα μιας παραπαίουσας χριστιανικής κοινωνίας σε κατάσταση αχρήστευσης, παρακμής και αβεβαιότητας, μιας κοινωνίας που δεν ξέρουμε προς τα πού πηγαίνει". Μόνο ένας συγγραφέας οξυμένης ειρωνείας θα μπορούσε να σφυρηλατήσει μία τέτοια εικόνα.Στα 30 του, ο ποιητής Τσόσερ ήξερε τι ζητούσε, κι αυτό δε μπορούσε να το βρει στον Πετράρχη ενώ μόνο επιφανειακά μπορούσε να το βρει στον Δάντη. Ο Βοκάκιος, τον οποίο ο Τσόσερ ποτέ δεν κατονομάζει στο έργο του, έγινε η πηγή που αναζητούσε. Το σημαντικότερο έργο εδώ είναι το Δεκαήμερο --ο Τσόσερ ποτέ δεν το αναφέρει και ίσως ποτέ να μην το διάβασε ολόκληρο, είναι όμως το εύλογο υπόδειγμα για τις Ιστορίες του Κάντερμπερι. Η ειρωνική αφήγηση που έχει ως θέμα την αφήγηση καθεαυτή είναι επινόηση του Βοκάκιου, και σκοπός αυτής της καινοτομίας ήταν να αποδεσμεύσει τις αφηγήσεις από τον ηθικισμό και το διδακτισμό, ουτωσώστε ο ακροατής ή ο αναγνώστης, και όχι ο αφηγητής, να αναλάβει την ευθύνη της χρήσης τους, για το καλό ή το κακό. Ο Τσόσερ πήρε από τον Βοκάκιο την ιδέα ότι οι αφηγήσεις δε χρειάζεται να είναι αληθινές ή να απεικονίζουν την αλήθεια --οι αφηγήσεις είναι μάλλον τα "καινούργια πράγματα", τα νεοφανή τρόπον τινά. Καθώς ο Τσόσερ ήταν μέγας είρων και ισχυρότερος συγγραφέας από τον Βοκάκιο, η μεταμόρφωση του Δεκαήμερου σε Ιστορίες του Κάντερμπερι ήταν ριζική, μιας ολοσχερής αναθεώρηση του Βοκάκιου. Αν τα δύο έργα διαβαστούν μαζί, οι ομοιότητες είναι σχετικά ελάχιστες --αλλά ο προχωρημένος τρόπος αφήγησης του Τσόσερ δε θα μπορούσε να προκύψει χωρίς την ανομολόγητη μεσολάβηση του Βοκάκιου.Ίσως ο Τσόσερ να ξαφνιαζόταν με τη σημερινή ομόφωνη αποτίμηση της κριτικής πως είναι πρωτίστως ειρωνικός συγγραφέας --σε αντίθεση με τον Δάντη που αγαπούσε μόνο το δικό του δημιούργημα, τη Βεατρίκη, ο Τσόσερ φαίνεται πως έτρεφε μία επιφυλακτική αγάπα για σύμπασα την κωμωδία της κτίσης.Ο Τσόσερ προαγγέλλει κατά αιώνες εκείνη την εσωτερικότητα που συνδέουμε με την Αναγέννηση και τη Μεταρρύθμιση: οι άντρες και οι γυναίκες του αναπτύσσουν μία αυτοσυνειδησία που μόνο ο Σέξπιρ ήξερε πως να την ενεργοποιήσει στην κατεύθυνση του αναστοχασμού και ενσυνεχεία στην έκπληξη και την αφύπνιση της βούλησης για αλλαγή.(Η Αριστοκρατική εποχή - Τσόσερ: Η σύζυγος εκ Μπαθ, Ο Συγχωρητής...)Harold BloomΤο review είναι μέρος της σειράς The Western Canon, που βασίζεται στο ομώνυμο βιβλίο του Harold Bloom και εξετάζει τους 26 σημαντικότερους συγγραφείς του δυτικού πολιτισμού. Όλοι οι συγγραφείς βρίσκονται εδώ.
What do You think about The Canterbury Tales (2003)?
I really love this collection of stories. Who didn't love the Wife of Bath? Or the Friar (a timely parable all Priests and Pastor should read). I loved The Canterbury Tales so much that I memorized the prologue in Old Middle English (and can still partially recite it)... "Whan that Aprille with his shoures soteThe droghte of Marche hath perced to the rote,And bathed every veyne in swich licourOf which vertu engendred is the flour,Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breethInspired hath in every holt and heethThe tendre croppes, and the yonge sonneHath in the Ram his half cours y-ronneAnd smale foweles maken melodye,That slepen al the nyght with open yë(So priketh hem nature in hir corages),Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages,And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes,To ferne halwes, couthe in sondry londes;And specially from every shires endeOf Engelond to Caunterbury they wende..."
—anique Halliday
A classic that has worn well... the psychology, in particular with regard to women, seems remarkably modern! It's funny, and not just in one style either. Sometimes he's subverting the popular cliches of the day, sometimes he's slyly campaigning for women's rights, and sometimes he's just having fun telling dirty jokes. I'm having trouble deciding which style I like most - they're all good, and often mixed up together too.I once spent a pleasant bus trip sitting next to a grad student who was doing a dissertation on Chaucer. I asked her why it seemed in some ways so much more sophisticated than Shakespeare. Apparently the difference is that Shakespeare had to be suitable for the masses, but Chaucer was aimed pretty exclusively at court people, who could be given stronger stuff without having their morals corrupted. Or whatever double standard was being employed. It all sounded quite interesting.I read it in the original Middle English... speaking Swedish and French, I found it reasonably easy to understand, most of the words were similar to something I knew. It's really lovely language.__________________________________To my considerable surprise, I have just learned that the good Geoffrey is still with us! He is very well-preserved considering his advanced age, and has even started a blog. Under "Favorite posts", I particularly recommend "Lynes of Pick-Up", "She's yonge, sexie & rich: interviewe wyth Parys" and "The Cipher of Leonardo".__________________________________Stalker Week update: read The Merchant's Tale! Or if you can't be bothered, at least answer my Quiz question about it.
—Manny
I first read the Coghill translation. Then I struggled through the original text, slowly at first enjoying the colour and richness of the original language, then reading it again and again, enjoying more each time.If you have a little French or German from school and can be flexible enough to understand that 'sonne' is 'sun', then give it ago. Once you're comfortable with it the language becomes a rich pleasure of it's own. It's become a book that I like to return to and reread on a regular basis. There's lots to enjoy, the variety of stories and the different styles they are told in, the different regional voices (that are different to those we hear in William Langland or in Gawaine) and Chaucer's interpretation of stories from Boccaccio.
—Jan-Maat
