What is the goal of this course?
I hope that we will see why Chaucer and his Canterbury Tales are so important. More than that, our goal is to enjoy reading the Tales and further our enjoyment of all great literature. And, most of all, I want us to see the Catholic Vision presented in the Canterbury Tales.
Listen online [here]!
Recommended youtube videos --
Overview of the Canterbury Tales by "Course Hero" [here]!
Overview of Old English and Middle English [here]!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Canterbury
Tales
Adult
Faith Formation Series, 2023 & 2024
Session 1:
Introduction to Chaucer and the Canterbury Tales
Class Schedule, Tuesdays, from 7
to 8 pm
September 12th –
Introduction to Chaucer and his Canterbury Tales
September 19th – The
General Prologue
October 3rd – Tales of
Romance and True Love: The Knight’s Tale, the Miller’s Tale, the Reeve’s Tale
October 10th –
Happiness in Marriage, What Women Really Want: The Wife of Bath’s Tale and the Clerk’s Tale
October 17th –
Happiness in Marriage, Trust and Fidelity: The Merchant’s Tale and the
Franklin’s Tale
October 24th – Review
of the first have of the tales and preparations for the tales that remain
Several more classes will follow
in 2024
I. Why
should I read the Canterbury Tales?
A quote from GK Chesterton proves
an answer:
“There is at the back of all our
lives an abyss of light, more blinding and unfathomable than any abyss of
darkness; and it is the abyss of actuality, of existence, of the fact that
things truly are, and that we ourselves are incredibly and sometimes almost
incredulously real. It is the fundamental fact of being, as against not being;
it is unthinkable, yet we cannot unthink it, though we may sometimes be
unthinking about it; unthinking and especially unthanking. For he who has
realized this reality knows that it does outweigh, literally to infinity, all
lesser regrets or arguments for negation, and that under all our rumblings there
is a subconscious substance of gratitude. That light of the positive is the
business of the poets, because they see all things in the light of it more than
do other men.
Chaucer was a child of light and
not merely of twilight, the mere red twilight of one passing dawn of
revolution, or the grey twilight of one dying day of social decline. He was the
immediate heir of something like what Catholics call the Primitive Revelation;
that glimpse that was given of the world when God saw that it was good; and so
long as the artist gives us glimpses of that, it matters nothing that they are
fragmentary or even trivial; whether it be in the mere fact that a medieval
Court poet could appreciate a daisy, or that he could write, in a sort of flash
of blinding moonshine, of the lover who ‘slept no more than does the
nightingale’. These things belong to the same world of wonder as the primary
wonder at the very existence of the world; higher than any common pros and
cons, or likes and dislikes, however legitimate. Creation was the greatest of
all Revolutions. It was for that, as the ancient poet said, that the morning
stars sang together; and the most modern poets, like the medieval poets, may
descend very far from that height of realization and stray and stumble and seem
distraught; but we shall know them for the Sons of God, when they are still
shouting for joy. This is something much more mystical and absolute than any
modern thing that is called optimism; for it is only rarely that we realize,
like a vision of the heavens filled with a chorus of giants, the primeval duty
of Praise.”
1.
Chaucer is the father of modern English (he wrote in Middle English, and helped
save the language)
2.
Chaucer is also the father of the novel:
“Shakespear and Milton were the greatest sons of their country; but
Chaucer was the Father of his country … and apart from that, he made something
that has altered all Europe … the novel.”
GK Chesterton
3.
Canterbury Tales was the first literary work printed in English (with the
printing press)
4.
Canterbury Tales gives us a Catholic worldview and even hands on profound
Catholic theology in a fun and surprising way.
II. Who
was Geoffrey Chaucer? What were the
Middle Ages? What was Middle English?
A.
Geoffrey Chaucer: 1340 to 25 October
1400. Son of John Chaucer, the
vintner/winemaker. A page in the house
of Duke Clarence. A soldier, diplomat, tax collector, and a clerk for the King.
By marriage, connected to John of Gaunt who was one of the richest and most
influential men of that age (something of a king-maker) – the sister of
Chaucer’s wife was John of Gaunt’s mistress and later his wife.
Chaucer
is commonly called the “Father of English Literature” and the “Father of
English Poetry” and even the “Father of the English Language”. He is also the first poet to be buried in
what became “The Poet’s Corner” in Westminster Abbey.
All
sorts of English words and phrases were first recorded by Chaucer: Time and
tide wait for no man. All good things must come to an end. First he wrought and
afterward he taught.
And
many words: Milky Way, Universe, absence, accident, add, bagpipe, box, chant,
cholera, cinnamon, dishonest, examination, femininity, flute, funeral, horizon,
laxative, notify, outrageous, princess, rumour, scissors, snort, vacation,
village, vulgar, and many more!
Also,
Chaucer introduced some Arabic words into English: Almanac, tartar, satin, checkmate …
Chaucer
wrote in iambic pentameter, the first to do so in English. Without Chaucer, we would not have
Shakespear. Iambic pentameter is a line
of poetry that alternates unstressed and stressed syllables, equaling 10 syllables
per line – often characterized as sounding like a heartbeat.
Various
rhyme schemes are used throughout the Tales:
AA BB CC (most common by far), AB AB ABB, AB ABB CC, AA BA AB. Some portions are written in prose rather
than poetry.
B. What
were the “Middle Ages”? The medieval period of European history between the
fall of the Roman Empire and the beginning of the Renaissance. Improperly called the “Dark Ages” – actually,
one of the most glorious and brilliant ages in the history of Western
Civilization! Roughly, AD 500 to 1500.
The
time immediately around Chaucer included both the Black Death (Bubonic Plague,
1347-1351) and the 100 Years War (1337-1453). The war cost the lives of around
2 to 3 million (not just soldiers, but many died because of the failure in
quality of life); while the Death cost Europe around 25 million, which is about
33% of the total population. The plague
especially hit the priests and nuns who cared for the sick – this created
something of a crisis in religious life. [some parallel to the time around WWI
and WWII, and the consequences after]
The
system of feudalism broke society into various classes: The King, with the clergy; the noble lords;
the knights; and the peasants. But, in
Chaucer’s day, the middle class was emerging (including merchants, doctors,
educated clerks, tradesmen, etc). This
middle class was causing stress in society, and Chaucer makes many of his
pilgrims to be of this group.
C. What
was “Middle English”? The Norman Conquest (William the Conqueror) in 1066 had
dramatic consequences for the English language. The Anglo-Saxons spoke Old
English, but the Normans spoke French and imposed this upon the country. Old English began to take on new words (not
only from French and Latin, but also from Norse) and also to have huge changes
in grammar (losing many inflectional endings, gaining a set word order, etc).
Old
English, from the Dream of the Rood:
Hwæt,
iċ swefna cyst secgan wylle,
hwæt mē ġemǣtte tō midre nihte
syðþan reordberend reste wunedon.
Þūhte mē þæt iċ ġesāwe syllicre trēow
5on
lyft lǣdan, lēohte
bewunden,
bēama beorhtost. Eall þæt bēacen wæs
begoten mid golde; ġimmas stōdon
fæġere æt foldan scēatum; swylċe þǣr fīfe wǣron
uppe on þām eaxleġespanne. Behēoldon þǣr enġel
Dryhtnes ealle
10fæġere
þurh forðġesceaft. Ne wæs ðǣr hūru
fracodes ġealga,
ac hine þǣr behēoldon hāliġe gāstas,
men ofer moldan, ond eall þēos mǣre
ġesceaft.
Middle
English, from the opening of Canterbury Tales:
Whan
that Aprille with his shoures soote,
The
droghte of March hath perced to the roote,
And
bathed every veyne in swich licóur
Of
which vertú engendred is the flour;
Whan
Zephirus eek with his swete breeth
Inspired
hath in every holt and heeth
The
tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in
the Ram his halfe cours y-ronne,
And
smale foweles maken melodye,
That
slepen al the nyght with open ye,
So
priketh hem Natúre 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
Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende,
The
hooly blisful martir for to seke,
That
hem hath holpen whan that they were seeke.
Modern
English, from Hamlet:
To be,
or not to be, that is the question:
Whether
'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The
slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to
take arms against a sea of troubles
And by
opposing end them. To die—to sleep,
No
more; and by a sleep to say we end
The
heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That
flesh is heir to: 'tis a consummation
Devoutly
to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To
sleep, perchance to dream—ay, there's the rub:
For in
that sleep of death what dreams may come,
When we
have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must
give us pause—there's the respect
That
makes calamity of so long life.
In many
ways, Chaucer saved English – since his works preserved our language, when
everyone else (and also Chaucer himself, sometimes) was writing in French. Also, his version of Middle English (spoken
around London) happens to be very close to Modern English – additionally,
Chaucer does preserve some of the diversity of Middle English (for example, in
the Reeve’s tale, he has two characters speak in a northern dialect).
III.
What is the goal of this course?
I hope
that we will see why Chaucer and his Canterbury Tales are so important. More
than that, our goal is to enjoy reading the Tales and further our enjoyment of
all great literature. And, most of all,
I want us to see the Catholic Vision presented in the Canterbury Tales.
From
the Knight’s Tale (lines 2843-2852):
"Right as ther dyed nevere man," quod he,
"That he ne lyvede in erthe in some degree,
Right so ther lyvede never man," he seyde,
"In al this world, that som tyme he ne deyde.
This world nys but a thurghfare ful of wo,
And we been pilgrymes, passynge to and fro.
Deeth is an ende of every worldly soore."
And over al this yet seyde he muchel moore
To this effect, ful wisely to enhorte
The peple that they sholde hem reconforte.
Perhaps this “pilgrimage” is the story of our lives, and indeed
the story of the Church. In the Church
are the good (the knight, the parson, the plowman) and the bad (the miller, the
prioress); but we are all in this together and we all interact with one
another.
IV. How long would it have taken to make this pilgrimage? (taken from the internet)
Probably four days, with seven to eight days for whole round
trip to Canterbury and back. Chaucer’s pilgrims are depicted as leaving London
from Southwark - the Tabard Inn was a common spot from which London pilgrims
began the journey, though others started at Westminster Abbey, across the
Thames and on the other side of the medieval city of London. The distance from
London to Canterbury on the Pilgrim’s Way was about 68 miles. Working from
medieval accounts of how fast travelers on horseback could move, a slow retinue
with lots of wagons and baggage could only do about 30 miles a day, though
pilgrims would be less encumbered and could probably do close to 40 miles a day
fairly easily. This means the pilgrimage could be done on horse fairly
comfortably in two to three days.
But medieval pilgrims seem to have been in no hurry, and the
evidence suggests that four fairly leisurely days would be more likely. A
pilgrimage made in 1357 by the French dowager Queen Isabella certainly took
four days, as did a royal procession by the French King Jean in 1360.
References to various such journeys and other records indicate that there were
lodging houses at three main points along the route: Dartford, Rochester and
Ospringe. So a very likely itinerary for a four day journey would be:
Day 1: Southwark to Dartford – 15 miles. Day 2: Dartford to
Rochester – 13 miles. Day 3: Rochester to Ospringe – 17 miles. Day 4: Ospringe
to Canterbury – 8 miles.
This would mean three evenly-spaced days of easy travelling with
a shorter fourth day, leaving plenty of time for devotions at the shrine of St
Thomas, or sight seeing or just drinking. Or all of the above.
There are only a few references to places in the framing
narratives between the tales and because the Canterbury Tales is a fragmentary
and unfinished work, it’s actually impossible to fit the tales neatly into
specific parts of the itinerary above. But the geographic references we have
fit the itinerary itself fairly well. The “Reeve’s Prologue” (ll. 3907–7) has
the host, Harry Bailey, hurrying the Reeve up, noting that they are passing
Greenwich and Deptford and saying that it is already “half way prime” or about
7:30 am. So they would have left the south bank of the Thames in the early
morning and would now be well on their way down the road, following the south
bank of the river.
The next landmark reference we get is in the “Monk’s Prologue,”
where the host notes “Lo, Rochester stands here close by.” Since he is asking
the Monk to hurry up and tell his tale, this fits with the idea the group
intended to stop at Rochester for their second night.
Then we get a slightly more oblique reference which indicates
their third night was spent at Ospringe. The “Canon Yeoman’s Prologue”
describes the pilgrims being caught up with on the road by the Canon and his
Yeoman and says this was: “Before we had ridden a full five miles, at Boughton
under the Blean Forest.” A few lines
later the Yeoman tells them or “Sirs, just this morning I saw you ride out of
your hostelry.” Boughton is a parish just out of Faversham and five miles back
up the Pilgrim’s Way would bring you to Ospringe, where we know there were
pilgrim hostelries at the time, so this makes it most likely their third night
was spent there.
In his 1906 article on the subject, John Tatlock argued for a
three day itinerary, though this seems to be based on the idea that pilgrims in
Chaucer’s day would travel faster than the royal processions of King Jean or
Queen Isabella and on his interpretation of the likely order of the tales. This
is possible, but the four day journey seems more likely for people who wanted
to spend some time at the shrine before going back to London. So it’s most
likely they took four days there and three to four days back; making the whole
thing a quite pleasant springtime holiday.
At the very end of the journey, just as they come to the edge of
Canterbury, the Parson tells his “tale” which is really a sermon on virtue and
repentance – emphasizing that no one is beyond the hope of salvation, if only
people are contrite and sincere. There
is a significant hint in the prologue as the Parson is about to give his
sermon: “And therefore, if you wish -- I
will not deceive you -- I will yow tell a merry tale in prose to conclude all
this festivity and make an end. And Jesus, for his grace, send me wit to show
you the way, in this journey, of that same perfect glorious pilgrimage that is
called Jerusalem celestial.” This
pilgrimage in which we join is symbolic of our pilgrimage through this life,
our journey toward heaven.
V. A few additional thoughts on why we should read the
Canterbury Tales (taken from the internet)
I would recommend it for many, many reasons. Be warned, this is
a long post—as I have strong opinions on this matter!
First, there is a great pleasure in mastering difficult things
like an older form of English. As you learn to read it, you find yourself
recognizing analogues and thinking, “Aha! That’s where our modern term comes
from!” That is enormously satisfying, but it’s only an argument for learning
Middle English, not necessarily reading Chaucer.
Second, The Canterbury Tales has something in it to appeal to
every reader because it is a collection of short stories, and Chaucer has a
very wide range of interests. You will find everything from philosophy to fart
jokes, from sex to spirituality. So, if you grow bored by the length of the
Knight’s Tale and would prefer the bed-swap humor of the Reeve’s Tale, you can
skip one and pick the other. “Turn the leef and chese another tale. Blameth nat
me if ye chese awry,” as Chaucer would phrase it.
Third, Chaucer can be hilarious in a self-deprecating way. Even
when it’s his narrator Geoffrey’s turn to tell his first tale, the characters
Chaucer has created rebel against the author! They interrupt the story of Sir
Thopas and demand he start over with something new!
The thing many readers fail to see is that the narrator’s voice,
“Geoffrey the Pilgrim,” isn’t really the author Geoffrey Chaucer. Instead, the
voice talking in the poem is a medieval Forest Gump, who describes exactly what
he sees, but he always fails to connect the dots. If anybody asks Geoffrey
something, he’s going to misinterpret what he perceives in some humorous way.
There are some exceptions to that unreliable narrator—the
Plowman, the Parson, for instance—are exactly as Geoffrey describes
them—straightforward good guys. However, in many other cases, the reader who
“gets the joke” sees that Geoffrey is misinterpreting the world around him.
He’s an unreliable narrator in the best sense.
That’s why it’s hilarious to read how Geoffrey praises some
figures who are villains and expresses doubts about others who are pretty much
archetypes of goodness. See, for instance, the description of that “good
fellow” the Shipman (who’s actually a pirate from Dartmouth and Penzance, a
hive of scum and villainy), or how impressed Geoffrey is with the Squire (who’s
really a girl-chasing playboy in contrast with his gruff and experienced
father!) Or the way Geoffrey the narrator criticizes the Oxford Clerk for his
lack of financial success, (“ther was little gold in his coffre”). However,
Chaucer the author wants his audience to see the Clerk’s an idealistic college
kid in love with learning for its own sake, with us seeing through Geoffrey’s
faulty narration.
Fourth, Chaucer is the master of intentional ambiguity. Part of
the fun of closely reading his works is discovering his characters are not who
they appear to be, and the pilgrims sometimes reveal new depths we would not
expect from their description in the General Prologue. As they tell stories,
they reveal more and more about themselves, and those revelations are often
paradoxical or surprising.
The mercantile, bullying, and dominating Wife of Bath who’s
slept her way through five former husbands and seized their assets? In her
tale, she reveals that in spite of her independence, stubbornness, and
strength—she’s really still a hopeless romantic. She’s still looking for the
love of her life in her late forties in spite of one husband who cheated on her
and another who beat her.
The Prioress? Geoffrey the pilgrim praises her French but drops
the detail that she doesn’t speak Parisian French, just French as spoken at
Stratford-at-Bowe. To put that joke in modern context, “She speaks French just
the way they do in Dallas! With a Texas accent!” Geoffrey the pilgrim lauds her
dining habits and her gold bling and her kindness to animals, while Chaucer the
author wants the reader to see through the unreliable narration that she’s
gluttonous, she violates the rules of her order, she’s more concerned with
courtly imitation than ecclesiastical propriety, and she has abandoned her vows
of poverty (and possibly chastity).
The Pardoner, who is depicted initially as a eunuch, sexual
deviant, or homosexual, is called a “gelding or a mare.” He is characterized as
a con-man and a crook selling fake relics. However, when it is his turn to tell
a tale, he embraces the role other pilgrims have assumed about him. He
challenges the reader, “a vicious man can yet tell a virtuous tale.” Then, he
launches into a brilliant sermon on the theme radix malorum est cupiditas,
about how the love of money is a spiritual cancer that can corrupt anyone who
clings to it rather than God.
Another reason The Canterbury Tales are worth reading is the
very clever interconnections between stories. You can pick and read individual
tales with isolated pleasure, but Chaucer designed them to link to each other.
Different stories respond to each other and build upon each other, echo or
challenge each other. Five of them in the “Marriage Group” are actually a
debate about what makes a happy marriage, with the Wife of Bath arguing female
control is best, the Clerk presenting a worst-case scenario for a submissive
wife, the Merchant arguing that all marriage is generally awful and filled with
deception no matter what you do, and the Franklin (on the surface) arguing for
equality through generosity, but (below the surface) changing the debate to be
about what constitutes nobility, and why parvenu generosity like his own makes
him an equal to hereditary aristocracy.
Other groupings appear throughout the larger collection as well,
and that ever-growing interconnection culminates in the Nun’s Priest’s Tale,
which systematically explores the themes of all the earlier tales—questions of
destiny vs. free will; social order and nobility; what women really want in
marriage and what makes a relationship work, and so forth. However, the Nun’s
Priest puts the entire debate in the mouths (beaks?) of farmyard fowl,
deflating the pretensions of the whole endeavor, even as his characters quote
bits from earlier tales, or in the case of the Wife of Bath, elevate her to
equality with Aristotle. There’s something supremely silly about a rooster’s
pretensions in citing classical philosophers with his wife, Lady Pertalote.
The Canterbury Tales, if you are paying attention, is a massive,
interconnected circuit of allusions to each other in delightful and surprising
ways.
Last of all, the reason The Canterbury Tales are worth reading
is that they are about the pilgrimage of life: la pelinerage humain. Saint
Augustine and some later medieval French poets used the same symbolism, but
Chaucer does it with panache. It’s not just a story about a bunch of tourists
who start out in a bar and then make their way to Canterbury to see a stuffy
old shrine. It’s a story about the brief journey of existence we have with our
fellow humans—how we begin our lives in one place, but wander, get lost,
quarrel, and slowly and surely end up in another place in spite of ourselves.
The Canterbury Tales are about how we start the day fresh in the
first morning, walking along, and learning to get along with each other as we
quarrel and argue and tell dirty jokes and insult each other and debate deep
spiritual matters and work through “that auld, auld dance” of human
relationships. Sometimes, we kiss and make up (like the Pardoner and Harry
Bailey). Sometimes, we are greeted by new fellow wayfarers (like the Canon and
the Canon’s Yeoman).
However, as the road goes on, we know that our journey will end
by the last sunlight of the third day as our shadows stretch out twelve feet
behind us and we dimly see the gates of Canterbury-that’s-really-Heaven, life’s
ultimate pilgrimage destination. Then, the Parson pauses, and he says he will
“knit up all this feast with a merrie tale,” the tale of how we can save our
souls through faith.
The Parson’s sermon is so to the point that the fictional voice
of the poet himself stops the sequence of narrative, ends the storytelling
contest, and retracts his previous works, and begs his audience that—if
anything he said had any value to the reader, that they light a candle for him
and say a prayer for Chaucer’s soul.
Chaucer is probably the author who has most impacted my thinking
and my love of literature. Every October 25th, even though I’m not Catholic, I
go to a Catholic church to light a candle for him.
