canterbury tales

[WICKES]

I'm about to give The Canterbury Tales a go. Is it difficult? I know it will take a bit of time and effort- is it worth it?

I don't know much about Chaucer tbh. I mean, I know he is seen as the first great writer in the English language, but is he more than a mere stepping stone on the way to Shakespeare and the Elizabethan writers? Does his stuff possess intellectual depth and profundity, or is he just a bawdy comic writer?

[stlukesguild]

A mere stepping stone on the way to Shakespeare?! Is Mozart a mere stepping stone on the way to Beethoven? Chaucer surely occupies the same stratosphere shared by Shakespeare and Milton. I firmly share the belief that for the English reader he should be read in the original... or as Pound put it, "Anyone who is too lazy to master the comparatively small glossary necessary to understand Chaucer deserves to be shut out from the reading of good books forever.

Whan that Aprill with his shoures soote
The droughte of march hath pereced to the roote,
And bathed every veyne in swich licour
Of which virtu engendred is the flour;
Wham Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the ram his half cours yronne,
And smale fowles maken melodye,
That slepen al the nyght with open ye
(So priketh hem nature in hir corages);
Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages,
And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes,
To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;
And specially from every shires ende
Of Engelong to Caunterbury they wende,
The hooly blisful martir for to seke,
That hem hath holpen whan that they were seeke.

Reading Chaucer may start out difficult... constantly referring to the glossary... but soon one catches the archaic spelling and becomes enthralled by the actual sound of it (you should read it out loud). Any writer must almost be jealous of this older form of English before it was standardized... when spelling... among other elements... was far more fluid. Chaucer's English is certainly as original as Shakespeare's... his use of neologisms and foreign words... even invented words rivaling the Bard... Joyce... Burgess and Golding. He certainly does act as a touchstone... if not stepping stone... to Shakespeare in the breadth of his "voice"... his ability to shift from the most high style... even absurdly, comically bad high style... to a earthiness or even a vulgarity as needed to convey his characters. He is also surely an inventor of marvelous characters whose personalities are conveyed through their manner of speaking... their digressions... as much as, or more-so than their narratives. His frame-story structure is essentially rooted in that of Boccaccio's Decameron... a group drawn together telling tales to pass the time. But Chaucer takes the idea further... clearly differentiating each narrator as a character by the manner in which they speak. Of course the Wife of Bath may be the most well-drawn character... but there is also the Miller with his marvelously bawdy story... and the avaricious Pardoner. Certainly read Chaucer.

[PeterL]

Reading Chaucer is easier than some later writers. Although his language was peculiar, it makes sense. If you have read Shakespeare and some other earlier writers of English, then it will be fairly easy for the most part. Every so often there is a piece in The Canterbury Tales that looks completely foreign.

[wessexgirl]

[QUOTE=WICKES;606296]I'm about to give The Canterbury Tales a go. Is it difficult? I know it will take a bit of time and effort- is it worth it?

Yes, it certainly is worth it WICKES. I haven't read him for a few years, but I loved him when I did. My favourite was the Wife of Bath. He is bawdy, but he's so much more than that. A fascinating man. I believe he had a crush on John of Gaunt's wife, if I remember rightly. I think he worked for JOG, (I may be wrong), who was extremely powerful. He does such a fantastic job of portraying these diverse sections of society on a pilgrimage, and shows up their foibles and hypocrisy brilliantly. The language may look difficult at first, but if you have a good edition, with a good glossary and footnotes, you'll soon get used to it, and I'm sure you'll enjoy it. I love to hear Chaucer read out loud, like Shakespeare, and your ear will soon become attuned.

[WICKES]

Thanks guys. I liked the quote from Pound btw.

[QUOTE=wessexgirl;606377]

. I love to hear Chaucer read out loud, like Shakespeare, and your ear will soon become attuned.

Thanks Wessexgirl. I have also ordered a CD recording of The Canterbury Tales. In a weeks time I shall be alone in the house for 4 days and I'm going to have a language orgy, with Chaucer, Shakespeare and Joyce's Ulysses blaring out of my CD player at full volume!

I firmly share the belief that for the English reader he should be read in the original... .

I absolutely agree with you. This would make a good thread actually. Here in the UK Shakespeare is constantly being dumbed down and translated into youth/street speak to reach 'the kids' (in the name of democracy presumably or in the name of some kind of postmodern 'there is no such thing as high art, it's all relative' bull****). It is idiotic and pointless. Either be prepared to put in the time and effort to read Hamlet and King Lear in the original language, or stick with cliche ridden Hollywood trash, daytime TV and Harry Potter. That may sound arrogant and snobbish, but it isn't really. I quite agree that most (not all, but most) people can read and enjoy Shakespeare, but it isn't easy. The problem is we are used to getting what we like at the flick of a switch and if we can't then we move on to something easier.

[Jozanny]

I'm about to give The Canterbury Tales a go. Is it difficult? I know it will take a bit of time and effort- is it worth it?

I don't know much about Chaucer tbh. I mean, I know he is seen as the first great writer in the English language, but is he more than a mere stepping stone on the way to Shakespeare and the Elizabethan writers? Does his stuff possess intellectual depth and profundity, or is he just a bawdy comic writer?

It has been a very long time since I've read The Canterbury Tales, and although I sympathize with your questions Wickes, I am not sure what the preoccupation is with an author's place. There are certain degrees of consensus, but from there I think we're on our own. My sense is Chaucer leans toward bathroom humor, even toward the slightly scatological, but what allows him to put English Literature on the map is the humanism of his characters, characters we can still identify with today.

What I wanted to touch upon though, is my wavering over luke's faithfulness to originalism here--for this reason. Medieval English wasn't standardized, so even editors who try to be faithful to Chaucer's spellings, face problems making the tales accessible to contemporary speakers. My medieval text is in fact different than what luke posted, so, even though it hurts, I have some sympathy for publishers who try to streamline Chaucer into some kind of uniformity--not modern English, no, but comprehensible to today's students.

I don't speak middle English, after all. As time goes on, and we get farther and farther from Shakespeare, the same problem occurs, and in fact, is solved by adapting Shakespeare for a modern audience. Most of the great tragedies or histories are adapted with a modern political slant. Richard 3 as Nazi England, for instance.

[Scheherazade]

Even though it has been about 15 years since I read Chaucer, I remember enjoying it very much in the way I enjoy reading The Decameron by Boccaccio.

[stlukesguild]

Jozy is right that there are multiple versions of the Canterbury Tales. The work was never completed by Chaucer and there are numerous fragmentary manuscripts, none of which are in Chaucer's hand, based upon his original manuscripts, nor involved him. They are largely attempts to organize the various copies of portions into a logical whole. The version I have is the Everyman Edition edited by A.C. Cawley in 1958 from the best 15th century manuscripts. It is an edition commonly used by scholars and universities... but certainly there are alternative editions. I have never liked editions of older literature which used standardized spellings (a notorious flaw of Penguin books, I feel) for Chaucer, Spencer, Wyatt, Blake, etc... as I feel they lose something of the "color" of the original. But I have absolutely no use for modern "translations" because I find them unneccessary and bad at that.

[mortalterror]

I don't speak middle English, after all. As time goes on, and we get farther and farther from Shakespeare, the same problem occurs, and in fact, is solved by adapting Shakespeare for a modern audience. Most of the great tragedies or histories are adapted with a modern political slant. Richard 3 as Nazi England, for instance.

I feel for you with Chaucer and all, but I hate most of the ways Shakespeare gets adapted to modern politics. While I own the version of Richard III you are talking about, having read and studied it in detail, I can't say that they are the same. About half of the original play had to be left on the cutting room floor in order to get that interpretation. This is only forgivable when you consider the liberties Shakespeare took with history when writing the play.

Like Sheherazad, I enjoyed The Canterbury Tales a great deal, but I was more impressed by The Decameron.

I hear that some writers went in and finished his story for him, and it was only in modern times that scholars have been able to weed out the imitators from the original. I'd like to read a copy with those imitators left intact. The misattributed works of Seneca and the Bible aren't any worse for not being by who they say they are and it wouldn't be the first time a second artist finished the work of a dead predecessor.

[ballb]

Agree with respondents who urge you to read Chaucer in the original Middle English. It is difficult to begin with but is far from learning another language. Be assured that the ear gets attuned. Having heard a cassette of one of the Tales translated by Cogshill into modern idiom, I think much is lost in translation. Board the time machine and travel back to the 14 century to meet one of England`s greatest poets and story tellers. you won`t regret it.

[Phangirl7]

We had to read an excerpt from this in school earlier this year and I kind of liked it. Not something I'd particularly want to read again.
P.G.7

[fb0252]

"lordings", quod he, "in chirches whan I preche,
I peyne me to han an hauteyn speche,
And ring it out as round as gooth a belle,
For I can al by rote that I telle.
My theme is alwey oon, and ever was
Radix malorum est Cupiditas."
(avarice--love of money--is the root of all evil)

something to avoid, but Harry Potter and Disney. Cute.

[Lokasenna]

Read it - its well worth it. The Merchant's Tale had me crying with laughter the first time I read it.

If I may suggest (and assuming you haven't got an edition already), go and look up The Riverside Chaucer. It contains his complete works, and a helpful glossary on every page. It's one of the most used books in my collection!

[Danik 2016]

Reviving this thread.

Found this link with the Cantembury Tales.

http://english.fsu.edu/canterbury/

Who wants to read and discuss the poems?

I´m going to start with The Merchant´s Tale.

[YesNo]

Sound's like a good idea. I'll try reading that this evening.