In The Legend of Good Women, the narrator appears anxious to complete his story rapidly. He writes, for instance, that to “describe the wedding and the festival would take too long” (7). He also writes that he “could follow Virgil word for word,” but that “it would take entirely too long” (10). Similarly, he writes: “But because I am already oversupplied with writing about men false in love, and so that I may also hasten myself in my legend (may God grant me grace to finish it), therefore I pass on quickly this way” (22). And on page 23, he writes: “But I cannot write all her letter, point by point, for it would be a burden to me; her letter was very long and broad.” In addition, he repeatedly claims that he will keep his story brief and touch only on the crucial points. Why does the narrator stress his desire to reach the end of the story as quickly as possible? Is it really the case that he wishes to highlight only the most important aspects? Or is his impatience related to the fact that he is writing about an assigned topic? Alceste says: “But just as you shall direct, so shall [the narrator] write of women ever faithful in love, maidens or wives, whatsoever you wish” (5). Does his impatience suggest that he resents the task imposed upon him by Alceste?
I was just having that very discussion. There are so many instances when the narrator shows his impatience with the story. I noted all of your quotes and also "What need is there to describe the feast to you?"(1082) I don't have the previous texts in front of me, but I seem to recall similar declarations in the book of duchess. Is this, as you suggest resentment of the task of writing this, or merely Chaucerian? Does he mean to imply that the details that he is leaving out are salacious and distracting from his intended purpose? Along the lines of the salacious theory, Chaucer as we know was writing for a courtly audience, did these noblemen view these lewd details as base and unfit for court?
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree that the narrator's seeming impatience may "suggest that he resents the task imposed upon him by Alceste" as Ane put it. And perhaps there is further evidence towards this in examining the actual legends he tells: are these women truly good, or is the narrator simply retelling some stories he has at the top of his head in order to pay lip service to Alceste? As I noted in my response "Hypsipyle and Medea," the characters of both these women are questionable, as both of them wish ill upon others (and not just Jason, which would be quite justified).
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, the narrator adds brief but subversive remarks to the Legend of Dido, part III. He implies that her attraction to Aeneas is simply because "he was a straunger... / as, God do bote [God help us], / To som folk ofte newe thing is swote [sweet]" (1075-7). He also calls her "lusty" [lines 1191, 1193), and even mentions the "sorwe [sorrow]" (line 1248) of king Yarbas, who "had hir [Dido] loved ever his lyf, / And wowed hir to have hir to his wyf" (line 124607). When he hears about Dido and Aeneas, the narrator remarks that Yarbas's grief was pitiful and heart-rending to see (lines 1248-9). What does the narrator hope to achieve by adding this anecdote about King Yarbas? Perhaps it, like so many other small details that are easy to gloss over in the long poem, is actually meant to reveal the narrator's resentment towards his task, and perhaps the narrator does not believe in the goodness of women at all.
I agree that the narrator's impatience is probably partly a sign of his irritation at the task; I think Chaucer included this both to satirically pierce any sense of "the epic" before it could begin and thwart audience expectations, and also to once again deprecate the Chaucer character (with the implication that he has no appreciation for the finer things in life/the classics).
ReplyDeleteChaucer is playing a game in which neither "author"-- the immediate author of the retelling (in this case, Chaucer) or the 'original' author, faulty though that term is (in this case, Ovid)-- can be entirely trusted. If his narrators are fools and the seminal authors prattle away with exaggerations and unnecessary details (as the narrator's attitude here seems to suggest), where is the definitive edition? Or is that Chaucer's very point- that there is none, and perhaps shouldn't even be, and that the record of a personality is far more enduring?
I concur that Chaucer seems to be toying with the very idea of authenticity and originality. However, I believe his rushing serves an additional two-fold purpose. As touched on above, by stating he is omitting particular details and moving through the stories briskly Chaucer seems to be narrowing the legend to the relevant historical facts. He states this outright in The Legend of Cleopatra, saying, "To describe the wedding and the festival would take too long for me...lest I should neglect things of greater weight and importance." In this way Chaucer dons his historian hat above his storyteller one. He emphasizes this role stating that his tale is "truth of history, it is no fable." Surprisingly, he includes a decent amount of historical fact. Cleopatra played a central role in the Roman civil war between Anthony and Octavian. However, as part of his propaganda Octavian portrayed her as an evil temptress bent on attaining power. It should be noted she was romantically linked to his adopted father Julius Caesar as well. Further more the war was decided in the naval battle of Actium, and Cleopatra did die supposedly of suicide in Egypt. This however, may have been to avoid capture and an unpleasant end at the hands of Octavian's troops. This divergence from history illustrates the second aspect I perceive in Chaucer rushing in his story telling. In rushing Chaucer is imparting an urgency to his story which conveys a specific moral. In the case of Cleopatra it was of devotion and faithfulness. It is this moral which Chaucer is in fact interested in conveying. The historical framework which he uses imbues it with added validity but he bends historical facts to conform to the said moral.
ReplyDelete