The Clerk Speaks to All

Before the Clerk spoke up the tension among the pilgrims was becoming palpable. The miller upset the reeve with a tale about a young clerk who was having an affair with a carpenter’s wife. Then, in response, the Reeve told a tale about a miller who gets outsmarted by two students who end up sleeping with his wife and young daughter out of spite. Next, the friar tells a story about a crooked summoner. This prompts the summoner’s story of a corrupt friar. The Clerk, a wise character, seems to have perfect timing as he spins a didactic tale that every participant of the Canterbury pilgrimage can take meaning from. The lines that hold the message read:

            This story is seid, nat for that wives sholde

            Folwen Grisilde as in humilitee

            For it were inportable, thogh they wolde;

            But for that every wight, in his degree,

            Sholde be constant in adversitee (1142-1145)

In “The Clerk’s Tale” the character of Grisilde, a young woman, who shows incredible restraint in the face of adversity, is a model for pilgrims and readers alike. Therefore, the pilgrims “Sholde be constant in adversitee” and not seeking revenge on one another, but rather handle the situation with the grace of Grisilde (1146). Second, women pilgrims and female readers alike are encouraged to show restraint, but are told to “Lat noon humilitee youre tonge naile!” (1184). Finally, the male pilgrims and male readers are forewarned to not do as Walter does, for Grisilde has died and with her the patience of a saint. So, “No wedded man so hardy be t’assaille / His wives pacience, in trust to finde / Grisildis, for he in certain he shal faille” (1180).

Divers, Lazarus, and The Friar

The Parable of Divers and Lazarus

Chaucer’s communique of the hypocrisy and rebellion among clergy is quite apparent in "The Summoner's Tale." This is accomplished by the low and "corrupt" character of the Friar.

As a member of clergy, he is familiar with Christian ideas and beliefs. He espouses those beliefs, but fails to abide by them. He is not Christ like. What makes the Friar such a base character is the fact that he is keenly aware of the responsibilities of his post, yet does not fulfill these. First, it seems sacrilegious that the Friar preaches “Nat al after the text of the holy write,” but rather from his “simple wit” or interpretation (1789).

Additionally, he is deceptive. When he accepts offering of food from the people he does so under the guise that he will pray for their needs. His fellow or partner, writes down the names of the people on a tablet and then “planed awey the names everychon / That biforn had written in his tables” (1758).

Finally, and perhaps worst of all, the Friar is a hypocrite. His hypocrisy becomes obvious when he uses the Lazar and Dives or Lazarus and Divers parable to illustrate a point about how his sacrifices, like those of Lazarus, lead to better favor with God, and, in turn, more prayers answered. The Friar claims:

            We live in poverte and in abstinence,

            And burel folk in richesse and dispence

            Of mete and drink, and in hir foul delit.

            We han this worldes lust al in despit.

            Lazar and Dives liveden diversly,

            And diverse guerdoun hadden they therby. (1873)

If you watch/listen to the video you will find that he is also aware of the penalty for desiring worldly things, as Divers did. Despite this, when the wife of Thomas asks him what he would like to eat for dinner, he gives a list that does not represent the vow of poverty he has taken.  

Though the Friar is well-versed in biblical truths, he is not a holy man. The character of the Friar is, however, an embodiment of the seven deadly sins- wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony- and would surely meet the fate of Divers.

Storytelling

My favorite class that we had so far was the day when we all went around and told stories. I loath public speaking. My eyes cross, my voice shakes, and I feel like at any moment I will just drop to the ground, however, I found that particular activity to be more freeing than terrifying.

I agree with Dr. Mitchell-Buck, where telling stories out loud is a rarity, and forced this behavior out of us as class. It was interesting to actually feel the stress in the room when we all walked in, but as people went on and the atmosphere physically felt looser, and we seemed to have a good time listening to one another.

It was interesting to see the approaches to story telling that people used as well from Diane’s story that she wrote out and brought visual aids, to Suzanna’s story from her childhood, to those of us who just freely spoke about an experience we had.  My personal favorite of the day, was Suzanna’s story because my family is from Peru, and my grandmother used to tell me a very similar story when I was little, so it was neat to connect and remember something like that.

But I thought it was a great classroom experience (especially with the size), and liked the different perspective we got as class in communicating with each other.

Rosanne's Hero

 For some reason when I picture the Wife of Bath, I picture Rosanne Connor from the old television show Rosanne. They both are these strong, dominant women. They are not dainty or fragile, but forces to watch for. They both seem unconventional through their outspoken styles that demand attention from those around them.

The Wife of Bath, is definitely unconventional for her time. She’s loud and very comfortable with her own sexuality, and desires control over her life. After her hit her, she does not lie on the floor or become submissive to him. She hits him back (810). Her behavior is clearly stepping outside the norms of society, considering she was technically her husband’s property to do with what she seemed fit. I’m curious then as to where her courage came from? Where did she feel that it was ok to hit her husband back? Don’t get me wrong, I am not on her husband side or think she crossed a line, I’m just curious of where that strength came from?

The strange unexpected thing for me that came out of the wife of bath prologue was that in actuality she did not seem to want control over her husband. She did not want to be his ruler, but rather his partner. When she said “God help me so, I was to him as kinde/ As any wif from Denmark unto Inde/ And also trewe, and so was he to me.” (823-825). I found this statement to be amazingly gentle in comparison to what I expected out of her. I though she was the type who would rejoice in being the boss of her own home, but she mainly just wanted to be seen.

In a way, I think the Wife of Bath is a sad character (although she would probably hate for anyone to feel that way about her). She almost needs to put on this persona of a loud boisterous woman, who is commanding and demanding. She wants to be noticed, she wants to be acknowledged. She wants to be recognized for being as learned as she is. She makes me wonder if more women were actually like her character? Was there a desire for women of the time to be educated, and considered in decision about their life, home, and family? Or would she have terrified the majority of women if she actually existed?

Regardless of how the actual world would feel about her. She is necessary to the Canterbury Tales by giving a model of a strong capable among the travelers. All the travelers seem to be a little scandalous or tell stories that are, allowing the Wife of Bath to fit write in.

http://dunderbrain.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/dan-and-roseanne-conner’s-floor-plan/

Clerical Heroism

Earlier, I made a post asking everyone who they most identified with as a pilgrim. As we’ve read, I keep comparing certain characters to myself, and I keep coming to the same conclusion—I’m most like the Oxford Cleric. I’m really drawn to the idea of someone who would rather have books than eat, as I feel that my ever-increasing library will never cease and I continually keep adding to it. I appreciate someone who shares a story that utilizes his travel experiences, and is able to adapt the story to make more specific points about something in particular. I love, especially since I’m trying to find ways to teach this to my students, that he uses mythology in his story to explain what a wife should and shouldn’t do.

However, I’m somewhat disquieted at the idea that the Oxford Cleric is simply a student, as is stated in one educational handout I’ve found over the years. Many of the other professions get explanations and multiple reasons to elaborate on the vastness that is their job. I mean, the different elements of clergy—Friar, Monk, Nun, and Man of Law—are all seen and understood, somewhat easily, to be part of clerical orders. So when this character is introduced as someone who likes to be immersed in stories, I’m not only drawn to him, but am confused as to how he gets to study and learn all days, and doesn't seem to have anything else to accomplish.  And unlike many of these other jobs, the Cleric is given the description of simply “a student,” and while that is true, I find it hard to believe that all he would be doing is studying with no greater purpose in mind. Is he studying, in addition to learning for learning’s sake, to take a specific clerical position? Might he become some sort of priest or Man of Law himself? What does he plan to do with all the knowledge he is amassing?

So, what kind of story do we get from the Oxford Cleric?  To begin, he doesn’t share his tale in the typical rhyming couplet manner, but in a more challenging Rhyme Royale scheme.  Additionally, he tells a story which appears to have originated from his travels in Italy and overseas.  This also informs us that he must somehow have some connection to wealth, as he is not forced to work as a peasant, nor join a monastic order as many did to survive. Instead, he continues to read, absorb knowledge, and share this knowledge with anyone who asks (not that many do…).  Because it appears that he’s traveled to Italy (perhaps a likely nod to Chaucer’s own travels to Italy?) and this story more than likely originated on the continent, it shows the wide base of the Cleric’s knowledge and application.

Additionally, the story is adapted from other versions, and also takes an interesting stance on the role of women in the home as a wife.  How interesting that in the fourth to last stanza, he describes a woman that “holdeth no silence” the way of Ekko/Echo, to be more of an outspoken ideal—not a yes-person, as it appears that Walter wants, and, quite frankly, needs. Does he believe in the lesson which he shares with us and the Tabard Twenty-Nine, and thus wants a different message to be shared about marriage? I’m just not sure—but I believe he’s not “just a student,”

What are your thoughts on this character who is perhaps at a crossroads of intellect and adulthood? Is he finding his way in the world, is he taking this trip as his “gap” year experience, or about to find/be placed in a position which uses his intellect and ability to read? I just don’t know, but wish I could ask him myself!

This Means War

This Means War…..

My favorite characters have been the friar and the summoner, which might sound weird. I think that their interaction is pretty normal and relatable even today.

I can picture them so clearly….

All the pilgrims are sitting around a table at a pub telling stories that entered their heads. I can see the friar and the summoner sitting across the table, unable to conceal the loathing they have for each other (probably because of the differences in their roles in the church), and they just continue to glare at each other.

Then it becomes the Friar’s turn to speak. Unable to hide his hatred, he throws out this store about a summoner who is traveling down to Hell. When the devil says, “it is nat his entente, truste thow me wel” (1556). He is telling the summoner that a person’s intentions matter, and that the summoner should know that the devil can be trusted in determining intentions. The friar gives the devil a human characteristic to be understanding of others, which the summoner in the tale does not have. This is an insult that the friar delivers to the summoner by saying, “even the devil is more human than you”.

At the beginning of the story, I can imagine the Host, warning off the friar from continuing the story, but I can hear the summoner dismiss the host, and let the friar continue, in the back of his mind thinking, “once your story is done, it’s my turn”. In my mind he is getting angry at the story, but is searching for a way to out do the Friar’s tale, and the idea of the summoner’s path into Hell.

Once the Friar, finishes the story, the summoner has a chance to tell his own story about the friar. How does he respond to the friar’s tales about his descent to Hell? He has the friar farted on, and tells the story of how a fart can be equally divided.

I can see the friar in his chair seething with hatred towards the summoner, and over the ridiculous story he told. His story was more serious and eloquently expressed how the summoner was a bad person, while the summoner just made a mockery out of him.

I can picture the tension, but the question that was presented is who won their fight? Or the battle of the Tales?

In my own opinion, the summoner won. The friar told a story that the foundation was built on his hatred for the summoner, and became mean when the friar sent the summoner to Hell. His story seems to be rooted in the hate that he has for summoners. The summoner, on the other hand, seems to have a story that would come across to some as stupid, but really is the smarter of the two. He is making a mockery of the friar. His story is simple, and seems to be making fun of the friar, but not meanly. His tale is deceptively innocent and playful. He made a story, that doesn’t solely express his dislike for the friar, but he made a story where others will laugh at the friar as well. That seems more powerful tool to express dislike, and he comes across as the better of the two by not openly expressing hatred