So
in class Dr. MB set out the idea that the combination of Thopas and Melibee is
to point out how stories turn out when they are either all form or all content.
I thought it was an interesting idea and it seems to make sense. However, thinking
back over the tales I am starting to see some points that don’t appear to fit.
For example, for being a tale that stresses form way too far, “Sir Thopas” is a
pretty ramshackle construction. The rhyme changes without reason. The stanzas
go on for so long with six lines and then at seemingly random places jump to
seven then back down again. Plus, as Dr. MB pointed out, the length of fits is
based on an untenable pattern. So if “Sir
Thopas” is supposed to be the tale with all shell and no insides why is the
shell so deformed?
Pondering
over this I looked back over the “Tale of Melibee.” When Melibee is first
gathering advice from the mob of people he invited over, he got some interesting
advice from the surgeons. They said “that right as maladies ben cured by hir
contraries, right so shal men warisshe were by vengeaunce” (1017). When I read
that I thought they were saying that the cure for war was vengeance because vengeance
is war’s opposite. I didn’t understand why they were opposites but I let it be
and moved on. Later on we learn that Melibee was also confused by their statement.
He said “right as they han doon me a contrarye, right so should I doon he
another… and thane I have cured oon contrararye by another” (1280-1282). After
this, Prudence tells him he is wrong, quotes Paul, and proves that what they
really meant was that “for good and wikkednesse ben two contraries, and pees
and werre…” (1289). She goes on that you have to heal things with their opposite;
so to heal war you use peace. Having recently heard a good presentation on medieval
medicine (again, good job with that), I can see that what she is saying and
that she is probably right. Still, I would have never have got so much from
what the surgeons actually said.
Ok,
I am going to answer questions before they are asked. Yes that is all outside
what we were supposed to read. Let me say that I was feeling adventurous, which
may have actually been a touch of stupidity, when I sat down to read this tale
and I went ahead and read the whole thing. I can say now that it doesn’t get
any better in the middle. Back to the tale…
Maybe
I am being nitpicky, but it seems that some of the arguments prudence makes are
of the kind I would be proud to pull off in a close reading paper. Some of the
things she works with (what the surgeons said is my best example) don’t seem as
clear and sturdy as she makes them out to be. It seems that the logic of this
story is not only tedious but shaky in places. I think that the “Tale of
Melibee” has the same sort of problems with its content that “Sir Thopas” has
with its form. Perhaps what Chaucer is getting at is that when your take once piece
of storytelling and not the other not only do you get bad tales, but also the
very element that you isolate breaks down. Form starts to break down when it
has nothing on the inside, and content becomes illogical with nothing to put it
in shape.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOK, you know if Andrew read all of Melibee, then I have to read all of it. And 1 giant glass of English Breakfast Tea, one 20oz. Diet Dr. Pepper, a nap, a giant cup of coffee in combo with a Words With Friends break--I'm happy to say I'm done. But if I didn't read it, how could I argue? And if I don't argue, pigs might start flying and that would just be bad for umbrellas.
ReplyDeleteANDREW'S THOUGHTS
Really good point about the ramshackle construction of Thopas. Maybe it was so bad so that you would think about what a good poem should look like?
Regarding the surgeons' advice--I have nothing. I personally think they said something stupid and Prudence tried to cover it up.
MEG STUFF--I'm focusing on Melibee
If Prof. MB gave me a test right now on the content (and I just finished reading), I'd fail.
I keep picturing this as a medieval noble feast drinking game. Everyone's sitting at the tables. Chaucer reads along. Starting at one end, each person has to identify the quote, and if they miss, they have to take a drink. Then the next person goes.
Chaucer translated this from a French translation related to a Latin story. AND HE MADE IT LONGER!.
One thing I noticed--The beginning says "Heere biginneth Chaucers Tale of Melibee."
The end says "Heere is ended Chaucers Tale of Melibee and of Dame Prudence."
How very educated was Prudence especially to do all this quoting!
Each time I read the opening, I've felt like Prudence and Melibee are operating in their opposite gender roles. Especially at 975-976ish when she's remembering Ovid's advice to let a mother cry. This mostly goes on till lines 1055-1056 1/2 ish where Melibee, without quoting anyone, says all women are wicked and a man who listens to a woman is a fool. Then shortly after he goes back to listening to her.
Speaking of lines that aren't quotes from somewhere else that I could actually find:
First, a look at Melibee's character--he leaves his wife and daughter home to go amuse himself to play in the fields (ask Andrew for the translation). Then he has 3 foes. Three obviously very pissed off foes based on what they do. What exactly did Melibee do to make them so mad? When Melibee calls everyone, some of the people come out of fear instead of love, "as it happen oft" (1006). This is actually NOT a quote from somewhere else or proverb etc. So why does it happen oft that some of Melibee's neighbors fear him? Most of the references I could catch to false friends were not from somewhere else.
OK, assuming this wasn't a drinking game story...
Personally, I think Chaucer was being a little arrogant, a little show-off-y. After all, this is the dude who said "Boccaccio did 100 tales? I can beat that."
But even if Thopas and Melibee were meant as jokes or snubs, Chaucer wanted to be successful too. It was a pain in the butt to make books then. In our book, Melibee takes 50 pages to tell. That's just too long for a story that would have bored the reader out of his or her mind. Let's face it, the clerk or scribe copying it would just have used ellipses or "forgot" to copy that part (OK, kidding). But the point is, I think that for a story that is 50 pages long in our book, it had to have more in it--it had to have things of interest in it for its contemporary audience that we don't catch.
We now return you to Andrew.