Feel free to participate, this is not required, but I know that more discussion could only serve to benefit our understanding of this strange, weird, and (dare I say) elvysshe story! I'll award one extra point (to journal #2) to anyone who contributes to this posting before the first short paper is due.
Here a link to an article involving Chaucer's characters/characterization, perhaps it will help contextualize what some critics have said about Chaucer's ability to create "understandable interior lives" (Ganim 254). The article is by John Ganim and is titled "Identity and subjecthood." It appears in a larger text, here is the bibliographic information: Chaucer: An Oxford Guide. Ed. Steve Ellis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Below you'll find some prompts. REMEMBER, THESE LINES OF DISCUSSION CAN EASILY BECOME PAPER TOPICS FOR THE FIRST SHORT PAPER THAT IS DUE 3/1/10!!!
How can we differentiate between the two different canons? That is, what about their characters' (their internal persona, their morals/ethical beliefs, their "true" selves) stands out to us as readers? How do we know these things? Where can we locate such details? For example, the Yeoman claims the purpose of his second tale is "to set right the evils that I mention" (bottom, 461) and he describes the canon as "a crook in deed and word" (mid, 469). But what does the canon do and say within the tale that proves his so-claimed treacherousness? Therefore, when discussing this topic/question further you can describe the canon's character in two ways, (1) by the numerous descriptions and name-calling via the Yeoman--think of and locate the numerous key words that the Yeoman uses, e.g., "false"--, and (2) the words the canon utters to his priest-victim and the actions he takes during his "alchemical spectacle" in the priest's chamber.
Another point of contention is the difference(s) between the Modern English translation of the Middle English. Where are their distinct differences? How do these change our reading of the text. A tip: look up the various words of importance in the OED (Oxford English Dictionary), as this dictionary will give you the etymological history of the target words; i.e., how the meaning of a particular word has changed over time.
What is the Yeoman calling for in the end? Where is the "knowledge" of alchemy contained? Where does this knowledge reside? How is it to be communicated, and to whom? What or who are the "true" philosophers? Why are alchemists called and/or considered "philosophers"? Is this change in tone at the end of the "Tale" Chaucer's voice? Could we consider that it is Chaucer speaking here rather than the Yeoman? Why, what tell us so? Or, is this final part just a continuation of the Yeoman's admonishment of the two canons, all who practice alchemy, and the art of alchemy itself?
How does the Damascene tale which I handed out in class today compare to the pars secunda?
The Yeoman describes the second canon as the "root of treacherie" and once as the "root of cursedness." The yeoman also stresses the extent of "falseness" and insists that he is another canon. The second canon is more evil who plays tricks on others to rob their money. He is a fraud, framing innocent people for their money, he steals and ruins lives. He tricks the priest into lending him money and gains the priest's trust and then carries out his trick. The second canon confused people and is described as a "thief, crook, root of fraud and guile, fiend, trim liar, wily fox, accursed crook, slippery, wretch, the damned disgrace." He beggs people to lend him money and draws people into alchemy.
ReplyDelete