The Importance of Company

Honesty time . . . 

Did I actually read The Canterbury Tales? 

Yes.

Did I understand it?

 . . . . Now that is a completely different question altogether. 

I just don’t know what it is. Why can’t I understand The Canterbury Tales? Is it the story itself, or is it just Middle English as a whole? It’s so upsetting for me (as an English Major) to read a classic piece of literature such as this and not be able to comprehend what it is saying. I keep reading, over and over again, desperate for some kind of clarity (I don’t want to depend on a more modern version), and the continuous rereading causes the story to become less intriguing in my mind.

Such a shame.

However – yes, there is a ‘however’ in this seemingly negative post – there is one thing The Canterbury Tales emphasizes that I am absolutely certain of: the importance of company.

In the General Prologue, Chaucer makes it a point to introduce all of his companions whom will be joining him on his pilgrimage. Each of his companions have very different personalities that, even someone like me, can see will make for a very interesting story. For example, the Knight, a man of honor and chivalry, entered the scene with his son, the Squire, a young man looking for love yet does not seem emotionally prepared for the responsibility, alongside him. The Wife of Bath, a woman clearly graced with riches and multiple life partners, was also introduced along with the Summoner, a man scarred by leprosy who frequently gets drunk. As you can see simply by the few characters accompanying Chaucer on this pilgrimage I have chosen to focus on, there are many different personalities and views circling throughout the story.

I always thought it was interesting how very different people can come together in a group and be friendly with one another despite their differences. Of course, I understand that there is much room for feuds and arguments during this pilgrimage, but I also know that it is part of life. People are put together in a certain situation for a reason, and whatever happens, positive or negative, is meant to teach a lesson and help one grow. As I mentioned before, I thought it was interesting how people could be so different yet come together as a group. Immediately, I thought of my group of friends. We are not much of a group, more like a trio, but we are each so different from the next, even I sometimes wonder, how in the world can we be friends? But then I realize, they are in my life for a reason – they are meant to teach me something and they are meant to be my company, at least for now, throughout my pilgrimage of life.

Perhaps this is what The Canterbury Tales is saying: company is one of the most important things in one’s life. All we have to do is decide who is good company and who is bad company.

Analysis of The Wife of Bath

I knew I would be fascinated with the wife of bath before I even read the reading. I am very interested in how men depict female characters in their work and the way Chaucer characterizes the wife of bath is strange for a man of his time. She is sexually independent and finds confidence in her sexual power over men. I feel like this would be very threatening to most men of the time. She disputes the men's interpretation of the bible and the belief that women should remain "virgins" by stating that some old testament figures had many wives. I wonder if her feelings on sexual power and control are based on the experience of being married at 12 (when she married her first husband). Her first husband was probably far older than she was and her father most likely forced her into the union. Perhaps her views on sexual power in her adulthood are a result of the trauma she experienced as a child. Did Chaucer actually think about women that much?

While Chaucer gives her the depth and humanity of having opinions that differ from the men’s and her own sexual freedom he also demonizes her for it. She is characterized as an abusive wife who manipulates her husbands into giving her money by holding out on them sexually. In this time period I doubt that women were allowed to have much of their own money so I personally see her as intelligent for doing this. She is written as manipulative and cunning. This is a view of women many men adopt when they are threatened by them. When women are not submissive they are portrayed as “cruel manipulators of men”.

The Wife of Bath seems to be a foil to the Prioress who is characterized as compassionate and dainty.I am interested in how these characters will interact and develop as the story continues. My general thoughts on the Canterbury Tales thus far are: I’m really bad at reading middle english. I hope this gets easier as the readings continue, but I have found I am very reliant on the translations. Does anyone have any tips they could comment? How are you all enjoying the reading so far? Do you have a favorite character yet? Mine is definitely the Wife of Bath. I did not think I would see such a sexually powerful women character! I remember when we read Canterbury Tales in highschool we skipped the part that described her (I went to a very small catholic high school and any mention of virginity not being necessary was not allowed, even in english class.)

The Great Vowel Shift

Well I for one found Middle English to be entirely different languages from Modern English when I first saw it, and I know many people in this class agreed and may still agree. Now that we have learned to read it (while I still struggle) it seems like it would be much simpler had that been the way I first learned English. Words are said very much like they look, like Dr. MB’s example of father and how the “a” sounds more like “ah”, yet when we say the alphabet me say it more as “ay” then its literal sound. So even though it has gotten easier as we go, it still makes me question many things. Like "why does it take me and hour to read twenty lines in this book," then I found out why. 

I find this meme to be a nice way of saying that I can't be lazy and rely on Modern English translations of The Canterbury Tales to get me through it. It just loses meaning without us having to struggle for over an hour to read a small amount. 

But seriously, Middle English does have a large amount of similaries to Modern English whether I can find them or not. Every line has at least one word that I know (or think I know). 

While this is true in many cases that I am very wrong when I think a word means something and it's not even close, but even just saying things out loud how they are supposed to sound does wonders for understanding words. Rather than writing about the similarities between the two versions of English though I chose to write about the reason Middle English shifted into what we call Modern English. Basically it all come down to The Great Vowel Shift (insert announcer voice here), which if I may say so sounds way more exciting then it is really. The original spelling of words in old and Middle English came from the Latin alphabet that matched their letters to the sounds of a word. Then during the thirteenth to the eighteenth centuries there was a change in the sounds of vowels in spelling of words. Its biggest impacts to the sounds of words came in the sounds of long vowels. The word we say as "sheep" today may have been spelled the same in Middle English, yet it was said more as "shape". Then by the eighteenth century that had changed. While historians know how it changed no one seems to know why exactly people changed the ways they formed words. Especially during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries there was a drastic change to the sounds of words. Basically to make a confusing explanation much more simple: the way that people formed the words (the way they moved their mouths to create a sound) changed from a lower articulation for example "boat" where the tongue moves to the back of the mouth to create a word it began to move up like in the word "beet" where the tounge goes forward to make the sound. I swear if you say the words out loud you notice a definite change in the position of your mouth. The words shifted from a low articulation of long vowels to a high articulation over time. Since the changes made words sounds very different from their roots people attempted to create a new alphabet more fitting of the sounds words made. People like John Hart (who I think Dr. MB mentioned) wanted to make a more phonetic sounding alphabet where spellings were purely based off of letters sounds to simplify the language. So a very long and complicated explanation later we can only somewhat understand this concept. A centuries long journey entirely based off of people deciding to articulate their words different for no apparent reason brings us to Modern English. 

The Great Vowel Shift -- Brief Note on Language." The Great Vowel Shift -- Brief Note on Language. Harvard, n.d. Web. 20 Sept. 2015.

A Myriad of Characters

So…how has the reading been going for everyone? (Everyone: groan.) I've actually found a trick to better get through the reading. Actually, I'm not sure how much of a trick it is, as it is fairly self-explanatory, but still, ,maybe it will help you.

The trick is to “block out” your need (and face it, English majors, by now it is a compulsive need) to see correctly spelled words. As you read, sound each word out, like you would when you first learned to read.

When you first (and by “you,” I also mean “me”) glanced at these lines:

“With hym ther was his sone, a yong squier,

A lovyere and a lusty bacheler”

You probably thought (or at least I thought):

With…hymn?...was his…a…squire?

A…and a lusty…bachelor?”

But upon looking at it again, and sounding each word at as you go, you can see that the words are quite similar, if not the same as our words, only spelled differently:

“With him there was his son, a young squire,

A lover and a lusty bachelor.”

Pretty straight-forward, and though we might not word it quite that way when speaking plain English (keep in mind this is poetry), we understand that it's basically saying:

“His son was with him, who was a young squire. He was looking for a lady.”

I believe that we have been taught structure in writing for so long growing up that we often have to unlearn habits in order to understand artful literature.

Anyway…time for my favorite meme:

So I will.

In the beginning of The Canterbury Tales, it seems as though everyone is introduced in the fashion of an Agatha Christie story. (I'll post a picture.) The characters are introduced one by one, often a caricature of a normal person. We are made aware of their appearances and personality traits, which help us predict what is yet to come (and what to expect from each character) . However, instead of the mystery being that of murder, the mystery is the stories the characters have yet to tell.

I'm wondering, what characters stood out to you? The ones who stood out to me were the Prioress and The Wife of Bath.

The Prioress seemed lovely to me and absolutely lovely in every way. She reminded me of none other than:

The Wide of Bath, while an equally interesting character (her ability to see reminded me of my grandmother) made a very different image come to mind (much unlike my grandmother):

And what about that Summoner, who tries people for infidels and yet has the skill of seducing many women? Hypocritical much!

What did you think in general? Who did you like? Dislike? Who was the best?

That if gold ruste, what shal iren do?

Of all the characters that we meet in "The General Prologue," I most liked the "povre Persoun," or poor parson. Out of all the characters, the poor parson seemed the most familiar to me; I think this is because, unlike knights or squires or summoners, the role of a parson is one that still exists in various forms and is, therefore, one that we generally recognize. It is interesting (and I wonder if Chaucer intended this) that the description of the poor parson follows the "Wyf," who lacks charity and commitment to others, and precedes (by several pages, as we didn't read all the way through) the summoner and pardoner, both of whom are vulgar and deceitful. I like that it is broken up this way, and - whether intended or not - emphasizes the parson's admirable qualities and, in turn, the others' unfavorable qualities.

The parson, though poor himself, gives what little income he has to his poor parishioners; his parish is so large and some live far, but he makes visits to all - regardless of weather, illness, or distance; and, most importantly, he strives to be an example of the gospel that he teaches. And he is an example - he doesn't just preach the gospel and act nice, but truly lives his life as Christ did in poverty and as an unyielding figure: the poor parson doesn't run "to London unto Seynte Poules" to take the easy, comfortable positions available to him as a member of the clergy, nor does he scorn sinful men, but rather, he "drawen folk to heven by fairnesse" and leads by example.

My favorite line from this passage is "That if gold ruste, what shal iren do?" The parson, an earthly representative for Christ, is "gold," the bright, desirable, holy character, the shining example of man - and admonishes other clergy members to not be corrupt, to not "rust." I couldn't help but think that it is fitting that we should be reading about the poor parson the week that Pope Francis is to visit the United States. Pope Francis, among many changes he has made in the Vatican, is well-known for his attention to corruption  and abuse within the Vatican and within the Catholic Church as a whole. I think there is some of this poor parson's gold that shines in Pope Francis, and I think it is something to which people are drawn.

Beowulf's Leadership

Beowulf to me is all about image, how  people see us. Beowulf has an image to maintain, not only to the men that came with him, but to the people he decided to help. To maintain his position above the other men, he takes risk and makes impulsive decisions. I know he is suppose to be a "superhero," but I feel that in order to continue the heroic acts and remain a hero in everyone's eyes, Beowulf has to put hi,self in danger and commit dangerous acts to keep that image he built. A leader does not always have to spring into action. He could have lead the people out of the village when the dragon attacked or he could have used his men to fight along with him. As you read the story, you can feel a sense of trust. The men do not intervene in any of Beowulf's fights because they trust him to protect them. Beowulf is an intresting character because he needs others to witness his glory, but does not need them to interfere in battles  that helped him obtain glory. He is a man of the people and they trust him with their lives.