Mail (will not be published) (required)
Notify me of new posts by email.
December 8, 2016 at 5:40 pm
But does the notion of saying it directly to a priest or God become complicated in that it–in most manuscripts (except I think Cambridge’s Ms.Gg.427) it comes after the Parson’s Tale? Here we point to this denial of priestly power, but here a man of God might be seen as inspiring this confession and rejection, no?
See in context
December 8, 2016 at 5:38 pm
Obviously knowing where you go with the end of the essay, this connection makes sense. But transitioning from the above ideas on sin and penitence, it feels slight unconnected. Can we hint to the below argument, or rather, might we reference some sense of what about C’s works would lead us to make the connection?
November 27, 2016 at 6:24 pm
This introduction provides an interesting avenue into the physical descriptions (and their variation) of the GP, but what aobut “physiognomy”? The deviation from a norm or perfect body would have been percieved as something other than just variability–which is a very postmodern/contemporary and thus non-judgmental way of introducing these bodies. Would Chaucer’s (admittedly varied) audience have been so neutral to such bodily marking?
That being said: as vicitms of disease and war (unlike most of us), they would have been used to “reading” bodies in ways we are not and even perhaps used to marked bodies that disrupts idealized images of normativity and perfection. Is there a way of introducing these ideas early, in order to disrupt the normative body and make its avatar of perfection the problem, without seeming to de-historicize physiognomy as such?
November 27, 2016 at 6:18 pm
Is the Prioress the “head” of a nunnery? I thought she was the second in command, behind the Abbess.
November 27, 2016 at 10:19 am
Why isn’t Miller’s tale and prologue included?
November 24, 2016 at 12:24 pm
The discussion here of the relationship between the Retraction and medieval penance is fascinating. But Handlyng Synne isn’t a penitential in a traditional sense, since its author states that he writes so “lewde men” “kun knowe þer ynne / Þat þey wene no synne be ynne” (43, 55-56).
November 17, 2016 at 2:57 pm
This is a very helpful image to consider the complexity and function of material and performative objectives.
November 17, 2016 at 2:32 pm
Does the “success” of the tale, then, depend on the audience (us, 14th century readers, the pilgrims) in believing that the monstrous-ness of the Jews might still haunt England? Even in the fragmentary forms of ruined buildings? Or the whispered past of hagiography?
November 17, 2016 at 2:21 pm
That shift in tone is so abrupt, and there seems to be the sense, as you indicate, that she will offer something more decorous–is that because of what the Host assumes about her? Or is it because of her appearance?
November 10, 2016 at 4:54 pm
How should students, themselves members of the audience, read the divide between the morality of the speaker/author and the content of the piece? This seems an interesting divide given Chaucer’s own ambiguous history when it comes to Cecilia Chaumpaigne.
Website content © The Open Access Companion to the Canterbury Tales 2017. All rights reserved.
Enter the destination URL
Or link to existing content