Modernizing Chaucer and the New Lessons Learned

I realize this is very late, but here is the additional JK Rowling story from both Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and the Tales of Beetle the Bard, as told in the film by Hermione.

This is called The Three Brother’s Tale, and is apparently based upon the Pardoner’s tale. However, instead of there being three friends who go looking for death, as in the Pardoner’s tale, three brothers, who are also wizards, approach a dangerous creek and meet Death, who feels he was cheated out of their lives. Greed and pride are still integral parts of the story, but instead of the brothers killing each other for money, as the three friends plot to do, Rowling’s story involves more of the gain of power.

In Rowling’s story, Death pretends to be kind to the brothers, and offers each an object. The eldest, who lusts the most for power, demands the most powerful wand in existence. The second brother wants to humiliate Death, again lusting after power, and asks for the power to bring back the dead.  The youngest brother simply asks for something to hide him, from both Death and his enemies, but as an added benefit, allows him to observe the world without disturbing it.

We are then told that the eldest brother goes on a power bender, settling old quarrels with rivals, killing them. Because of his arrogance, a thief comes and kills him in the night, taking the wand for himself.  The second brother is driven mad because he returns to life his fiancé, whom he could not touch.  He kills himself because of the intense longing he dangled in front of himself, and thus, Death was able to claim two of the three brothers.

But the interesting part of the story, and where it differs the most from Chaucer’s original, is where the third brother offers us hope. In the Pardoner’s tale, all three friend-thieves decide to kill each other to take the gold, which they found in the forest, as each hungered for wealth and suffered from avarice.  The youngest brother, however, with his cloak of invisibility, simply wanted to hide from Death and any other enemies he might have.  He was not concerned with taunting and manipulating death, or with meting out punishment to any who had wronged him. Instead, he chose to simply side-step the problems he might face, until he was ready to pass into the next life, or, through observation, to gain a new perspective in a given situation.  He chose learning over power.

The hopeful message of the third brother’s story is one where self-actualization is found through knowledge—the knowledge of both self and one’s world.  It’s clear that his brothers were not content in themselves, and thus asked for external stimuli to support themselves. The third brother must be someone who was driven instead by internal motivation, and desired to maintain his happiness in his daily life to spend time with his family.  Thus, he passes on his cloak to his children, who passed a legacy of high self-esteem to the next generation as well, realizing the power to unobtrusively look at the world without disturbing it allows you to understand it that much better.

Thus the power of Rowling’s story is not the simply children’s story it is slated to be.  It offers a calm and quiet lesson to all—when given the opportunity to dominate or humiliate, it’s best to learn and walk, even unknowingly, in someone else’s shoes. By doing so, you gain true understanding and humility.

Here is a link to the tale:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bN1_h_eGitE

Enjoy!

The Humor of the Pardoner

In my research for my final paper, one topic which has come up is the discussion of the humors, and where certain characters fall.  In Elspeth Whitney’s article “What’s wrong with the Pardoner? Complexion Theory, the Phlegmatic Man, and Effeminancy” she discusses the different ways that the complexions (a way to incorporate the humors into a physical set of traits in humans) can indicate what character traits a person might have. These traits are based entirely on the looks of the person, something we’ve discussed throughout the semester in the descriptions of each of the travelers.  According to Whitney, “masculinity and a “hot” complexion were linked with moderation, self-control, and self-discipline, while “cold,” feminized complexions were thought to produce incontinence, excess, deceitfulness, cowardice, and negligence” (361). Therefore, because of some of our pilgrim’s appearance, we can tell that some are more “hot” than “cold,” which, to Whitney, means that there are assumptions concerning the personality we can make concerning each pilgrim based upon the superficial.

            Fire is the long-standing element of men, and therefore has the more masculine qualities.  Water is tied with the cold, and is therefore feminine.  So, for the humors, Sanguine and Choleric natures are more heated, whereas Phlegmatic and Melancholy run more coldly. To further this idea, Whitney feels that men with no beards are more on the cold side of things, and thus more feminine, which is part of her argument concerning the phlegmatic nature of the Pardoner.  Perhaps, then, the outspoken nature of the Wife of Bath might make her more “hot” and masculine, and able to not follow the typical “colder” and more acceptable roles of women of the time? What about the Reeve? Would he be considered Choleric?

            Additionally, Whitney explains that this complexion theory is also important in conjunction to the different vices which afflict men. “The cold complexions of melancholy and phlegm promoted the heaviness of envy in the first instance, gluttony and sloth in the second” (Whitney, 385). Therefore, for the Pardoner, she feels that there is slothfulness inherently in his person as his body is too lazy to even produce facial hair.  Granted, this is not exactly his fault, unless he is shaving, but the idea is an interesting one.  If you continue this concept with the possibility that slothfulness in the clergy of this time showed a lack of involvement in aiding the world in addition to a negligence to religious duties. This seems as if it encapsulates our Pardoner well! What do you think?

Pardoning the Pardoner

I wish Andrew was here. He's my go-to man for certain information.

OK, I have to admit that I have a soft spot for The Pardoner. There are two people narrator Chaucer just doesn't have anything good to say about in the GP, The Summoner and The Pardoner. I find myself disappointed in narrator Chaucer. And I think what he says about The Pardoner in the GP matters to The Pardoner's Prologue and Tale.

What does Chaucer say about The Pardoner in the GP? He hints that The Pardoner may be a eunuch or gay (GP 689- 691). He hints that The Summoner may have a thing for him and possibly implies that The Summoner would be the giver and The Pardoner the receiver in an assignation (GP 673) (which I think is usually a bigger insult prejudice-wise). He has thinning long blond hair that he thinks looks good. He sings well and loud, and tells good stories. He also sells fake relics. Assuming that prejudice against homosexuality was worse in the middle ages then now, Chaucer makes The Pardoner the least masculine he can, and that has to be a big insult.

[Note on eunuchs from research I've been doing for Song of Ice and Fire. Eunuchs live longer (almost 20 years longer) than other men. They don't get male-pattern baldness. They do lose body hair and possibly some head hair. Their voices will get higher.]

Now, let's look at the qualities of some of the pilgrims:

• The Monk ("a manly man" GP 167) is doing something to be so rich, and absolutely not doing his monkly duties.
• The Friar gets lots of women pregnant then marries them off. He sells penance and absolution, which has to be putting people's souls at as much risk as what The Pardoner does. Keep in mind The Friar is preying on people who have knowingly sinned.
• The Franklin is a glutton. 
• The Shipman is a pirate. He drowns his enemies (GP 400). Soul wise, I guess it would depend on whether he lets them get absolution first.
• The Physician has a scam with an alchemist to send each other customers and make money. He cares little about the Bible. He also makes gold off the plague.
• The Miller cheats his customers by overcharging them.
• The Reeve steals from his master. He knows all the other workers' secrets and uses that info to control them.
• The Summoner knows the young people's secrets, and may use those secrets to molest the young people. He takes bribes to keep from summoning people. He also scares people with threats of summoning unless they pay.
• And now we're back to The Pardoner. Who sells fake relics, which I assume would then put the buyers' souls at risk. However, the buyers purchasing the relics are often doing questionable things.

AND FINALLY WE GET TO THE PROLOGUE AND TALE

Yes, The Pardoner makes it pretty hard to find anything socially redeeming about him. He's about as likable as the summoner in "The Friar's Tale" and I keep expecting a strange man from a forest to start hanging out with him.

First, a look at The Physician-Pardoner link:

Says the Host and Pardoner:
Host-Wow, those were rotten people and a bad death. But that's what happens when Nature makes you beautiful (it's her fault). Let's move on and God bless all your (The Physician's) stuff. My heart's pounding and I need some ale. Hey Pardoner, tell us something humorous (assuming that "The Pardoner's Tale" will be humorous). OK, says The Pardoner, but first I want some food and drink. Everyone says no, don't tell us something obscene (which makes it OK for The Host to drink and assumes The Pardoner will become obscene).

(P-P link 327-328, emphasis mine) "'I gruante, iwys,' wuod he, 'but I moot thinke / Upon som honest thing whil that I drinke.'"

Pardoner's prologue--GREED IS THE ROOT OF ALL HARM
I personally think the Pardoner was annoyed or offended by the host and pilgrims' words. So he's going to really give them what they asked for.

1. He's honest. He uses the WOB's method. He's so honest about himself that no one is going to be able to insult him. He's already said it.
2. While he's telling the group how he's conning the ignorant folk, in a way he's conning the pilgrims. He's conning them by making them feel smarter than those ignorant folk and therefore special or more important.
3. Lets look at the relics people want: a de-worming relic, OK. But drinking the water touched by the relic to get more animals, that is greed. As is a mitten that multiplies grain. A relic that lets a wife fool around without being caught...not a lot of good spin you can put on that.
4. Then he describes his "Emperor's new clothes" sales method.
5. Then The Pardoner makes it clear that he does everything because of his greed, but also that his primary preaching is about greed. My list above would be longer if I added all the greedy pilgrims to it.

The lead up to the actual tale about the three "brothers"--play the game, match the pilgrim to the listed form of greed.

My point about the above. I think that The Pardoner is mocking the pilgrims, treating them like any congregation, and they are falling for it. 

Finally, The Pardoner's actual tale--The pilgrims wanted something humorous, assumed that would be the kind of story he tells. I don't find this humorous. They fear The Pardoner will be obscene with drink in him. Well, he's had ale and is not a bit obscene. His tale is actually pretty decent with a good point.

The Pardoner vs. The Host

I think The Host is a pretty weird guy. But I haven't had the energy to look at everything he says to get an idea of who he really is. He likes to be in control, although he submits to The Knight. This is the first time anyone has gone after The Host. The Host is hardly the model of good behavior. He liked it better reffing the Miller-Reeve and Friar-Summoner fights.

Thus endeth my thoughts for now. Looking forward to yours.

Knocking on Death’s Door With a Stick

I am fascinated by the old man. On first read he seemed like a personified death (which did not seem to be too great a stretch considering death has already been personified by the tavern keeper and the three friends) come to toy with these three fools. Yet, on a second read I am not so sure. Apparently this man is extremely old and looks it. One of the riotoures asks him why he is so old, either the asker is super short sighted and dumb (well… I suppose he is) or the man looks like he has been walking from Flanders to India and back for a couple hundred years (I made that number up). It is probably a mixture of both. From his following speech, it seems like this man has trouble dyeing, though I have to say is situation is a little confusing. I am having a hard time telling how much is literal and how much is poking fun and the fool’s impertinent question.

The line that is throwing me off is 727, “Ne deeth, allas, ne wol nat han my lif!” I am pretty sure I know each individual word, but when combine with the triple negative and separated subject it gets tricky. Right now I am operating under the reading that he is saying death will not have his life, which is why he spends his time knocking on the ground saying “Leeve modor, leet me in!” (731). He wants to die but cannot for whatever reason. If this is the case then it presents an interesting moral for the story. The presence of this old is not so much about drinking and gluttony (as much as the pardoner pushes that), it seems like he is really there to show the value of a timely death. It is foolish to try and “sleen this false traitour Deeth” (699); for one thing it is impossible and second because it is a bad idea to begin with.

3 Peverell Brothers

The Peverell Brothers use the links below:

http://youtu.be/TgmEEDyeDv8

http://youtu.be/TgmEEDyeDv8

The actual story starts at 45 seconds.