We apparantly got the "okay" from Blogspot. We have been taken off the Spam blog list, so keep it clean!
Geoffrey Chaucer was one of the first writers in English to write for a popular audience. His is the pop culture lit of his time. Although he was a patron of the court, it is clear from The Canterbury Tales that he was not only writing for the elite.
Decide whether or not you agree with that assessment and then show what evidence in the "Prologue" and in "The Knights Tale" you would point to to support your opinion.
14 comments:
I definitely agree with that assessment of Geoffrey Chaucer. As we discussed in class, he not only writes for the popular audience/common people, but he even made somewhat of a mockery out of the elite class as well as the religious figures. This can be seen in the descriptions of the pilgrims traveling to Canterbury. Chaucer describes the Lawyer as "cunning and discreet," claiming that "none was so busy as he with case and cause, and yet he seemed much busier than he was."
The Frankling, a landowner, was portrayed as a drunkard; "his ruddy face gave sign he liked his morning sop of toast in wine."
The Physician "was grounded in astrology." The mocking tone of the common medical practices during this time can be heard throughout Chaucer's writing.
The woman from Bath had been married five times.
In "The Knight's Tale," King Theseus thinks very highly of himself, yet Chaucer gives a hint of sarcasm when describing him and his actions. For example, he went to conquer Thebes to get revenge for the way they treated the men they had captured and killed, yet he captured two men and held them prisoner for years. He also doesn't really listen to what his wife, whom he also captured, or Emily have to say about things. He makes the decisions and what he says goes.
Chaucer makes his writing very applicable to the common people by including a character that everyone could relate to. He also leaves most of them nameless so as to portray them as a type of person rather than as an individual person.
I agree with the assessment as well. He has a person from all of the popular stereotypes of the time. His characters range from the upper class to the lower class, with the proper illustrations of character and language to represent the differences of each.( Ex., "piss", it's really not a pretty word.) If Chaucer was only meaning to write to one social class he probably would have stuck with one class.(More love and chivalry, or more "piss".)
The Knights tale does the same thing but in a more subtle manner. The knight is obviously in a higher class (no "piss" in sight), but the story he tells is easy to follow and carries a theme anyone can understand. I mean come on, everyone can understand love. If not, I suggest you see a counselor. The story of two men fighting over the company of a lady? They might not know her, she could use the word "piss" who knows, but they (I like to envision Wentworth Miller and the guy from Blade Trinity together as Palamon and Arcite, they are the "Prison Break" guys...) want her anyways. Everyone has wanted some one they can't have at some point in their lives!
I think anyways, they do make enough movies about it to make it seem pretty universal.
Being the pop culture figure of lit that he was, Chaucer couldn't confine himself to strictly one class. As an innovative writer of his time, he had to involve all. It's evident from the "Prologue" and from "The Knight's Tale" that Chaucer described all upper, middle, and lower class relatively easy. With the distance he creates between his fictional characters and he himself, it's easy for him to cover all ends. (He could easily blame it on the character himself.)
For example, in the "Prologue," when Chaucer offers his descriptions of the orators, he is straightforward. He might be inclined to talk about their best qualities, but he doesn't shy from speaking of their deficiencies.
"The Knight's Tale" doesn't pay as much attention to all other classes as it is very proper in its regards to chivalric code. However, once this tale is done, it brings others such as the miller down to earth; Chaucer moves from mythology to reality fairly quickly. In doing so he shows his full range of literary motion in how he can cover not only the elite, but the 'others' too.
Erin,
I totally agree. Especially about The Knights Tale. I was so wrapped up in the love story (This is what Lifetime does to me) I didn't notice the sarcasm. After you wrote this I actually went back and re-read it and behold! sarcasm was everwhere. I knew it was a little hypocritical, but to be honest I didn't read it that closely.
Good job Erin!
Lacey,
Good comment about Chaucer's choice of language. I had not even thought about looking at it from that aspect. Chaucer really does adjust his language according to the character being written about. When writing about a higher class of people, Chaucer uses more regal, formal language. When describing people from a lower class (as well as in the stories that those people tell) he uses a more common language.
I agree with the assessment that Chaucer was writing for the average everyday citizen. Chaucer writes about the life of individual people. He gives us characters that we can relate too. His characters ranged from priests and nuns to a miller and a reeve. They were rich and poor; he ridiculed all of them for their shortcomings. In the prologue he speaks of the Knight in favorable terms, “an excellent man, who from the earliest moment he began to follow his career loved chivalry.” In Knight’s tale the cousins Palamon and Arcite both experience love at first sight upon seeing Emily for the first time. He says of Palamon “Until on Emily his vision fell, he paled, and cried out “Ah” as if his heart had felt the sting” and He says of Arcite “[He] was hurt as much as he or more and with a sigh he cried out piteously….” When he wrote these he was writing for the common people of his time and describing the characters as they knew them to be, he didn’t fantasies or glorify any of them he gave them all human qualities. Some like to dress well others would cheat and steal and some would do it in Gods name. When speaking of the Friar “The barmaids and innkeepers pleased his mind better than beggars and lepers and their kind……… With sellers of victuals, that’s another thing wherever he saw some hope of profiting.” This is Chaucer showing the low side of human nature
At first, one would think that the Canterbury Tales are strictly for the elite because of its obviously hierarchical structure. The structure I am talking about, of course, is the order in which the travelers are described (beginning with the knight and continuing in order of rank).
There is no surprise nor dispute when the knight is the one who pulls the short straw and is the one to tell his story first. Once again, he is first on the list, and presumably the others will tell their stories in order of the elite and "holy" to the less wealthy travelers. So of course, there is some argument when the miller decides he will take his turn early. This is where it begins to show a little bit that the rich do not always have to take the stage. The miller gets his way, which messes up the whole hierarchical order of story telling, which in turn brings the reader into more realistic and down-to-earth tales.
I can imagine the more proper, higher class members raising their eyebrows at some of the more controversial topics in the miller's tale, but this blog asks for evidence from "The Knight's Tale".
We could see the knight's story as one for the elite because of the ideal portrayal of love and fighting and the use of mythical characters, but we can also see it as a story for everyone for several reasons: 1)money isn't an issue-neither Arcite nor Palamon are focused on their wealth when it comes to winning over Emily; 2)Palamon ends up winning the girl even though he lost the battle-what member of the elite would accept the loser being the one who gets the girl? 3)Palamon wins the girl, but he was nobody important-he was an escaped convict!Anything he might've been before imprisonment mattered little.
Also from the prologue, I would like to bring to attention the fact that the narrator even describes the negative aspects of the characters one would expect to have a clean record-a record worthy of well-born and successful people. However, by pointing out these vices, the characters seem more realistic and are taken down from their pedestal for a moment.
Martin,
I notice that our responses have similar points, for example when we talked about characters being brought down to earth and Chaucer's description of their shortcomings and bad habits.
I liked your observation of Chaucer's ability to switch between mythology and reality...therefore telling stories that both the elite and the lower-class will understand. And I can't believe I left out Chaucer's habit of distancing himself from the characters, or pushing off any responsibility for some of the more questionable stories onto his characters. I'm glad you mentioned it.
Claudia
i think this is what make the book realistic the fact that a common working person such as the miller tells his story second even though he was drunk and cut in.it got us out of the fantasy world and brought us back to real-life situations.
Rod, I think that the best example of Chaucer not only writing for the elite was in how he had special and unique stories for each and every individual (and proessions). I know that we haven't explored every character yet, but thus far we've had a chivalric knight, a drunken miller, and an old and experienced nun's priest. They all represent different facets of life; thus, Chacuer allows all classes to relate somehow to the character he creates. I like how you mention that they have human qualities--without those, this story would lose all its meaning in my opinion.
I agree with the statement and would like to add that I think Chaucer not only writes for the different societal classes but nearly focuses more on writing for the commoner's benefit rather than any monarch or royalty. Most of the tales are of everday things that the vast majority of people can identify with such as the backwardness of most of the religious figures as found in the prologue. With that being said, "The Knight's Tale" is completely different from anything in "real life". It focuses on an idea of love and chivalry rather than what love actually is/ how it actually happens.
Martin,
I agree with what you said about "The Knight's Tale" being used to bring the tales that follow it down to earth. I'm just wondering and speculating what Chaucer's intention was with "The Knight's Tale". It almost seems to me as if he uses it to give the reader hope that the stories after "The Knight's Tale" are going to be as heroic and mythic as it. In the "Prologue to the Miller's Tale" the host is in the middle of calling on the Monk to tell as grand a tale as the Knight when the Miller interjects with his own "illustrious" tale.
To me Chaucer seems to be teasing the audience with hope for another epic tale, but instead delivers a few less than stellar stories before satisfying the reader's appetite.
Sorry I'm so late getting into this conversation...there's not much left that hasn't already been said! I completely agree that Chaucer's intent was to create a collection of tales that could satisfy anyone who happened to read it...kind of a "something for everyone" idea. His prologue makes clear that he will show no favoritism based on class or wealth, but rather point out the travelers' virtues or vices as they warrant. I don't think he's necessarily preferring the commoner over the elite, though, since the knight, for instance, is truly a man of honor; he's simply arguing that things like wealth or titles bear little significance when it comes to determining character. In this way, a reader with little money and low social status could at least feel on par with, perhaps even superior to, their societal "betters"...nice of him to build their self-esteem like that, huh?
Claudia,
I think you are absolutely right in pointing out that the Knight's Tale is not just for the elite. I agree that while the form and language cater to an upper class, the story almost seems to poke fun at this notion of chivalric love...which some of the other travelers blatantly do. In the end, Arcite dies battling his cousin for the "love" of a woman neither of them know. I think Chaucer seems to acknowledge that while some readers will view such a tale as noble and heroic, others will find it utterly ridiculous.
Post a Comment