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!