A Modern Society

Today we talked about the many different characters that Chaucer would criticize and critique in a humorous way. We might think that it is funny (I did of course) but it is very sobering if you look at the people as they would be in today's American society. For instance, the Pardoners pretty much were over-the-top hypocrites. They would strut around different cities selling pardons and indulgences. Like someone said in class today, they closely resembled the Pharisees that Jesus describes in Matthew 23. However, who would this group of people resemble in today's society? Also, the friar would only be in ministry to benefit himself, in some sort of selfish ambition. It worries me to think about this certain topic, because we might fall under some of these categories that Chaucer mentions. I do not know who these sort of people resemble, but even if I did I would not like to specifically call them out. But in conclusion, I would like to add that my hypocrism leads me to ponder which one I would fall underneath.

PS I commented on Jasmine's "Something about Chaucer"

i think i need to go for a walk...

After reading about two pilgrimages this week, I would like to take a nice long walk…  I would actually prefer not to have the company that either pilgrim had.  Walking through Hell meeting the folks that Dante had to meet sounds no bueno in the same way that hanging around the freaks that made up the Canterbury Tales’ fellowship.  These stories remind me of hiking the portion of the Appalachian Trial that I hiked with a couple buddies during Christmas break.  We wound up hiking in the snow and freezing cold and it was awful.  Literally, it was the worst five days of my life.  I can’t imagine adding horribly awful people into that mix.  Whether they admit to being awful or not, no one wants to spend day after day stuck with people who suck to be around…like those folk.

P.S.  -  I commented on Preston’s page.

Why is Chaucer is so funny?

Today we broke into groups and studied the various characters of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. My group was given the Friar, and needless to say we were easily entertained by his persona.  Dr. Bear asked us a very though provoking question, why is Chaucer so funny?  This made me think a lot about why I laugh and what exactly makes humor so amusing.  The only conclusion I could come to was that Chaucer saw elements about society that would never be subject to change.  This immutable subject would be expectation, which is present in any society.  No society lacks delegation to some person or organization, which expects them to fulfill some kind of duty.  Though some of Chaucer's characters are not immediately recognizable in purpose, some were completely obvious.  The Friar to the common man should be one who is one with humility, peace, compassion, and overall commendable character.  However, Chaucer used this character to express pure rebellion to both expectation and responsibility.

"In towns he knew the taverns, every one, And every good host and each barmaid too-Better than begging lepers, these he knew."

The Friar is completely out of his realm of duty, and makes a theology major like myself cringe in disgust of his outward ridiculousness. Sure, the Friar has some positive things about him like, "His throat was white as lily of the May," but by what standard does this affirm a great Friar?  The only way the Friar could be more out of line is if he had a mobile confession box.  My point is this, the reason why Chaucer is so funny is because he knows the level of expectation and responsibility our world has.  It is funny because the ones who try hard to meet those expectations are always sacrificing to the good of society.  In response to this, there are those who outwardly rebel against hierarchy, but never see the fruit of its reform.  So many lay off responsibility in order to please themselves, which squanders reputation and good character.  This misfortune, with the addition of positive reflection of oneself is what causes humor.  The acknowledgement of ones stupidity with idea of (I haven't been that stupid) bring the idea of laughter in Chaucer's work. This idea is not relative to all forms of humor, but is obvious in the Canterbury Tales. I personally loved Chaucer's work, and I think that if anyone wants to see brilliance from the Medieval era, this is an irreplaceable piece of literature.  

P.S. I commented on Tyler Cofield's "A whole New World!" 

Seriously. Enough said.

On Satires and Ridiculously Religious Hypocrites

I thought the way Dante and Geoffrey Chaucer ridiculed religious hypocrites was very funny. Dante shoved some of the popes into rocks in Hell (Dante XIX. 67-75). Chaucer highly exaggerated the qualities of some "Christian" figures, making them look ridiculous. Chaucer used descriptions of these characters and their stories to create his estates satire, while Dante's work subtly exhibits a slightly grotesque sense of humor.

I enjoyed reading both works, but I now wonder if we really should be laughing at these men. While it seems rather obvious that Geoffrey Chaucer thinks we can, I'm not sure that Dante would agree. When he met a pope in Canto XIX of The Inferno, he didn't laugh - he lectured the pope on his sin (Dante XIX. 87-117). Whether Dante thought these men could be the subject of jokes or not, it seems that Dante and Chaucer both wanted to show how wrong - and even, ridiculous - these leaders were.

P.S. I commented on Emily LaForce's post.

Something about Chaucer..

This is the second time I have read Canterbury Tales, the first time being in Middle English, which actually makes it funnier. Even reading it the second time I still laugh, especially when thinking about the jokes my senior English teacher made about the wife of bath. Just because she is described as gap toothed doesn't make her promiscuous, but she is wearing red tights! To me all of the tales are halarious and so are their descriptions. So this is just my general opinion of the reading!

Ps I commented on Hannah burch's

Chaucer and I Go WAY Back!

Today makes the third time in so many semesters that I have had to read Chaucer for a class. To be precise, this is the third time I have had to read the “General Prologue.” I love Chaucer, he is truly brilliant in the way he writes. And I have to say that “The Wife of Bath’s Tale” is probably one of my favorite, probably because it’s Arthurian. Last semester, I wrote my research paper on Gawain’s characteristics in many different Medieval works. “The Wife of Bath’s Tale” was one such work since it is very similar to “The Marriage of Dame Ragnell,” except for the fact that the night and lady are both given names. While Chaucer can be hard to decipher, especially in Middle English, he makes a lot of good points that probably made people uncomfortable then and can make people uncomfortable now.

Have a Happy Easter everyone!!

Tantum e tenebris receptum constabit,

Meghan

PS- I commented on Tyler’s post.

The Knight

In the Canterbury Tales, the contrast Chaucer makes between the other characters and the knight is a very interesting divide. The majority of the other pilgrims struggle with very worldly things such as alcohol and lust. The Knight is the epitome of chivalry, truth, honor, freedom, and courtesy. Chaucer says that he admires the night. He is the most noble among the pilgrims. He does not struggle with finding his identity as most of the other pilgrims do. I wonder why Chaucer only put one person of this morality in the story. I assume that men of this high esteem are not easy to find. 

ps. I commented on Jamie's post!

Nothing Ever Changes

As someone who was raised as the typical American child,  I grew up hearing things like "you can be anything you want to be."  So naturally, the idea of social hierarchy has always seemed strange to me.  But in reality, when we stop kidding ourselves, our social structure isn't that different from the Middle Ages. We have people who are poor, people who are rich, and some who are somewhere in between.  Most people born poor will die poor, and so on.  But like society in the Middle ages, our society's lines are often blurred. Chaucer is still entertaining to us today because we understand that people aren't always who we expect them to be.  For example, most of us have known someone who seemed, on the outside, to be noble and giving, but was actually selfish, much like the fryer.  We also know or hear of people who twist scripture to justify sin, like the wife of bath.  Chaucer reminds us that while trends, jobs, and titles change, people at their core remain the same.

Commented on Emily's "Be a true "fill in the blank.""

No Redemption

There is a quality to Dante's Inferno that is very disturbing in the graphic way of the punishment and the sinners reactions through the punishment. Even though the sinners are constantly punished for their sins, it seems that none of them feel sorry for what they have done instead they try to justify their actions even though their punishment constantly reminds them that they were wrong. The sinners have a constant reminder that they have done something wrong and they still refuse to acknowledge that they have something wrong even though they have a constant reminder that they have done wrong against themselves and humanity. Dante's absent of redemption in hell is one of the most striking and interesting characteristic of hell because only Jesus is the source of redemption for sins committed. This is a way to remind the reader that hell has no place for good intentions and the worst torture that a human can face is to face head on sins and feel pain for them but not being able to repent or inability to be redeemed and possibly the sinners in hell know this and that is the reason for their constant justification.

I commented on Skyler's post

A Whole New World!

Chaucer is an entirely new style of literature to read for us!  It's really exciting because we just came from the doom and gloom of Dante's Inferno, so Chaucer's satire is probably much more appreciated than normal.  It will be very interesting to connect the dots between the two works since the general themes differ; however, I have a hunch that some conclusions can be drawn from today's exploration.

I have noticed a very interesting comparison between Dante and Chaucer, which is something that I never would have imagined.  It seems really ironic that both works seem to revolve around human error.  Chaucer exaggerates the faults of humans with vivid imagery and a plethora of comparisons that leads the reader to assume that his characters are very "screwed up."  He is careful to elaborate on every  major fault in a humorous way that seems to mock the imperfections of humans.  Dante's approach was much more serious and blatantly honest, but he still described the faults of the souls that inhabited the levels of Hell.  While Dante did not include much humor in his descriptions, he did explore the deepest, darkest depths of each person until he had reduced their faults to the most basic form.  I seem to think that if you could somehow combine these two literary techniques into one, you might be able to formulate a unique perspective of human faults.  This perspective would be able to identify hidden faults (through exaggeration) and define the underlying problem with each (Dante's different levels of Hell.)

P.S. I commented on Skylar's "Divination and Schisms"

Pretty Enjoyable

The last reading we had was from the Canterbury Tales. I have never read this before, but I actually like it. I found the prologue to be very interesting. Chaucer described each individual using exaggeration and humor, as we discussed in class. Some were fat and some were ugly. There was a thief and a greedy person. The list goes on and on. I love the satire that he uses. It makes reading more enjoyable. The detail that he gives about each person also helps me visualize the character. Let’s be honest, I normally don’t catch on to the readings that we are assigned because I get lost and confused, but this one is actually cool to me.  I really enjoyed this reading and the group activity that we did in class. I hope that we do more stuff like this. Woo!

I commented on Emily L.’s

Be a true "fill in the blank"

What I learned today from honors is that people will know if your actions do not line up with your words. But what does it mean to be true to your role? I want to be a composer, author, a good sister, daughter, and mother, but how can I be true to all these roles? What is my primary role? This is a great question to ask yourself. Also, another one of my roles is that of a student. To be true to your role, you have to try your best at all that you do but I think there's something more to it. You have to let God help you be who you need to be. Now, I'll definitely be even more conscious of my actions lining up with my words and desires. Thank you Chaucer. (P.S. I commented on Skylar's)

Divination and Schims

Of all the different punishments and the people we saw in Dante's Hell there were two that really struck out to me. The first one that struck me is found in Canto XX and I found it slightly comedic. This is the fourth pouch of the eighth circle of hell and is full of diviners who are trudging along in tears full of grief while "their chins and chests were twisted." For a diviner I could not imagine a more perfect hell. They are eternally forced to see behind them and contorted to where they can't speak, thus they have no ability to look into the future. Why I found this comedic I'm not sure, but I also saw it as a kind of warning.  This is because I often find myself trying to plan the future, but just because I can look forward does not give me the right to know how every situation in life will turn out.

The second one I thought was interesting, since we just finished learning about Muhammad and the spread of Islam, was in Canto XXVIII where Muhammad is in the ninth pouch of the eight circle of hell. His punishment is to  walk in a circle being hacked and cut in half only to be healed and then hacked and cut in half again. The people that join him in this pouch all "sowed scandal and schism while they lived..." Now they basically become a schism of themselves. Just like Dr. Mitchell said their punishment literally became the crime.  To me this would be the perfect punishment for people like Mohammed who caused schism in the Christian religion. Just thinking of all the people that are in hell because of one person spreading a false religion makes me terrified. This punishment just like all the other punishments in Dante's hell would provide great vengeance for God.

p.s. commented on Jamie Kilpatrick's Nothing Ever Changes