Talk:The Canterbury Tales/Archive 1

Archive 1

First comments

The image appears to be overwriting the text - can someone please correct this pronto? Deb

Looks fine to me. (Mozilla 1.1b and IE 5.5 on Windows 2000; tried both large and small window sizes; using Standard skin.) --Brion

Looks fine here too (IE 6 on Windows XP SP2). 69.231.214.205 08:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

---

How about a list of the tales, with or without a summary of each? It's probably a bit over the top to have a subpage for each one though. Maybe a few quotes from the tales (eg. Whan that Aprille with his shoures soghte... (Gen. Pr. 1)) would be good too. --Magnus 09:52 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

Linguistics

Deleted the Reference to Germanic English; Chaucer's linguistic choice was to use the London or Southern dialect of Middle English, rather than Latin or French. I inserted ft nstead of using French or Latin, which were usually used for literary works

Added a brief list of the many genres used in CT DigitalMedievalist 21:13, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Is it really fair to say "Perhaps the greatest contribution that this work has made to English literature is in its use of vulgar (i.e. 'of the people') English, instead of using French or Latin, which were usually used for literary works."? Gower, Langland and the Gawain poet were all contemporaries of Chaucer who wrote major literary works in English. The Gawain poet may not have been very influential, but Langland and Gower certainly were.Harry R 11:03, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Chaucer's work was more popularized and more widely distributed. The sentence also does not preclude similar influences by his contemporaries. But by all means mention them in a new sentence and place that sentence just after the one you quoted. --mav 08:04, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

No, Chaucer's work was definitely more influential. We have more manuscripts of Chaucer than of Gower and Lydgate combined, suggesting that he was more poular than either (this is born out by contemporary third party records as well) Chaucer was printed earlier and more often that either Gower or Lydgate, and the orthographic and vocabulary used in books post Chaucer/Lydgate/Gower strongly reflects Chaucer's choices, rather than either Lydgate or Gower. The Gawain poet was probably read with great difficulty by those outside of the West Midlands, if he was read at all. DigitalMedievalist 02:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) Lydgate

More comments

Shouldnt this be at The Canterbury Tales?--Jiang 13:46, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to comment on Chaucer's importing of European influence, particularly the 'metre or iambic style, starting the trend to consign appalling anglian alliteration to dust. Shouldn't it? Icundell 11:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

is the list of tales in the correct order? I just read a article, George Lynam Kittredge's "Chaucer's Discussion of Marriage" from 1920, that implied that the three tales from the marriage group follow each other, the wife of bath >>> the squire >>> the franklin...

Unfortunatly I don't have time to check this out, any voulnenteers? 144.124.16.33 19:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

What happened to the Canterbury Tales template? -R. fiend 22:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Err I dunno what did happen it is till there that I can see. MeltBanana 22:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Moved from article

i believe that short stories from the 19th century are very important else we would never had our great stories nowadays - quoted by amanda bushell in the 19th century short stories were very popular. most of our stories nowadays come from the 19th century told from people from generation 2 generation yay! - quoted by emma lampitt User:217.33.74.20 moved from article Alf ^melmac 13:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

what has happened?

Someone has deleted virtually the whole site. can someone please put this back —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.188.88.248 (talk • contribs) .

It looks like some un-caught vandalism that happened a while ago. I've put back a more-complete version, but can't guarantee that I didn't lose some valid intermediate edits.

Atlant 16:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

vandalised?

The page has been vandalised again. Some text about the human penis which should be edited out - i dont know enough about wiki to do it myself :(

25 October 2006

Can someone fix the 21st century part, when I last checked (Oct-20-08) it said: "In modern days, The Canterbury Tales has recieved a mixed review in modern times but the general opinion seems to be that it sucks giant, sweaty, donkey balls." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.190.141.117 (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

fixed. Wrad (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone has Vandalised the page

Please fix it. It's people like these that stop wikipedia from being a credible source of information recognised by universities.

I enjoy wikipedia immensely —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.168.230.168 (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Anti-Semitism

Though a potentially controversial topic, I think discussion of anti-Semitic themes is a valid part of placing the book in its significance to literature; but this section needs expansion and further reference, as well as more neutral phrasing, to support its premise.Jack Hare 01:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added another quote (Jeremy Cohen, Oxford U.P.) giving a wider context and removed that POV tag, because "needs expansion" is very different from POV. Please provide more notable scholarly views on the subject from reliable sources. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Good call; I pondered a long while over the templates and couldn't decide which of several was the most appropriate, but I thought it merited some sort of attention. I'm no scholar in the appropriate field, however. Jack Hare 07:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have difficulty with the presence of this section at all with reference to the Canterbury Tales. Given that, out of the several thousand lines of the work, there is really only direct example which could be considered anti-semitic, the weight given to Chaucer's contribution to English anti-semitism seems to me to be wholly disproportionate. Furthermore, the Cohen citation does nothing more than use Chaucer as a reference point, and it does not in any way justify the argument that Chaucer in some way contributed to a culture of violence towards the Jews. It is certainly true that a widespread culture of anti-semtism existed at the time of Chaucer's writing, but to tar Chaucer with this brush is to my mind rather sloppy. The Prioress' Tale does, I grant, portray the Jews in a thoroughly unpleasant light, but it must be remembered that her tale does not reflect Chaucer's own views. He mocks the Prioress, laughing at her ridiculous French accent over-delicate table manners. One could in fact argue that he challenges her claims to "conscience" by placing in her mouth such an intemperate and blood-thirsty tale.

Ultimately it seems to me that, in this section, Chaucer and his work is being adduced and subordinated to another cause, one which in which he took only passing interest, and that to give over almost a quarter of the space allocated to the general significance of the Canterbury Tales to the very minor point of Anti-Semitism is unnecessary. The solution is clear: mention the problem of anti-semitism in the Significance section, and provide a link to the Prioress' Tale; the Anti-Semitism section should be removed. Gingerburn 2 August 2007 1500 (UTC)

I agree that this shouldn't be its own separate section/sub-section. As written, the "Antisemitism" portion of the article refers to Blood libel against Jews as a "Main article"; The first line of that article, though, reads thus: "Blood libels are false accusations that Jews use human blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals." The term is used again the prose. There is, in fact, no hint of such ritual in "The Prioress's Tale," making this link and terminology confusing, if not spurious. The other link, to deicide, contains no material relevant to Chaucer nor to anti-Semitism. Since this section of the article is already under discussion, I'm not going to be as bold as I otherwise might, but I am contemplating a more accurate edit. —SkipperPilot (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Summary of tales in article.

Perhaps a summary of each tale should be written within the article in addition to/instead of the seperate articles for each tale; or alternatively use one article summarising all the Canterbury Tales (as was done with The Decameron? 88.110.173.15 19:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Revolver66

People missing

Um... what about the Plowman of flines 539-555 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.40.98 (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Unprofessional tone?

I noticed some shoddy punctuation and unprofessional style (including at least one use of an exclamation point within the context of the article). I don't think I personally have the time or the expertise to properly look through and revise the page, but I thought it should be marked for inappropriate tone. Gatotsu911 (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to get this article to GA and will fix this. Wrad (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The Three Classes

Don't the characters all belong to one of three classes? I know there were distinct class names, but I don't remember what they were. To put it simply, the three classes were the religious (I think the actual term was "The Pious"), the nobles, and the workers. I saw no mention of the three classes in the article and, if anybody knows what I'm talking about, I think it should be added in.  Aaron  ►  02:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The three estates are mentioned in the themes section, which needs to be expanded. Wrad (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh wait, I remembered. I learned these as "those who pray", "those who fight", and "those who work". Disregard. And I'll take a look at the article and see if I can expand that.  Aaron  ►  02:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

Seeming as though this page has been vandalised so many times, does anyone else think the pages should be given semi-protection? --15lsoucy (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"lady" versus "wench"

The article seems to take the words "lady" and "wench" as synonymous, as relevant subjectively rather than objectively. Rather "lady" in Chaucer's day was the title of a "lord's" consort, and "ladies" outranked "gentlemen" as seen in the couplet "ladies and gentlemen," while the phrase "lords and ladies" still obtains. Only in recent centuries was the term "lady" watered down to equivalence with "woman" (formerly "wifman" --the "man" [gender neutral] who was "wife"). If the commoners don't mention "ladies" it's because they have no familiarity with them. If a knight has too much familiarity with a lady, he could land in trouble--he could more easily associate with dames or wenches. --AGF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.50.104.162 (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Prick of Conscience

The Text section implies that The Prick of Conscience has had several English manuscripts found, whereas the article for that work suggests just one English manuscript has been recovered from the middle ages for this. Which is correct? 86.142.148.21 (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There is only one English manuscript of The Prick of Conscience, but there are many, many French manuscript copies. This article is careful to say that they are both popular "vernacular" medieval works. Wrad (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Both of you are factually correct, but Wrad, your comment doesn't address the readability of the text. The number of French copies, or indeed the copies in any other vernacular is not relevant, since the reader of the Canterbury Tales page, rightly or probably wrongly, will infer that the pages author is making a claim about English "vernacular". Rereading the linked page on The Ayenbite/The Prick of Conscience, it says:

"The Ayenbite is a translation of the French Somme le Roi (also known as the Book of Vices and Virtues), a late 13th century treatise on Christian morality; the popularity of this latter text is demonstrated by the large number of surviving copies." my emphasis

I think what is meant by the Canterbury Tales page's author, is that the "latter text", that is, the English version known as "The Book of Vices and Virtues" has more vernacular English copies than the Canterbury Tales. However, the link though supporting the probability of this thesis, doesn't establish it as fact, because it doesn't list the number of extant copies. I'm not a Middle English scholar, so I can't add any facts to this claim. Unfortunately, the Book of Vices and Virtues, and indeed, the original French work, do not have Wikipedia pages, so the author of the Tales page, has had no choice but to link the claim on popularity to a related text, the Ayenbite, which was extremely unpopular, thus confusing we poor readers. Would it be acceptable to link to the Ayenbite page, but using "The Book of Vices and Virtues" as the linked text? This would still be confusing, but less so, and would lend weight to the claim, in the absence of a superior source which could prove it. --Rod mcinnes (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Summary of Canterbury Tales

The Decameron has a page with summaries of the Tales, as well as a page on the book. Seeming as though there are'n't any summaries of the tales in the article (or I'm blind, which is quite possible), could this be done? --15lsoucy ^(salve) 23:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Canterbury tales as a comic

I would like to add this link of a comic version based on the Canterbury tales:

• "Comic based on the Canterbury Tales"

But I don't know if that would be seem as unauthorized commercial promotion. Can I add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbeleet (talk • contribs) 11:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Canterbury Tales/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Drmies (talk · contribs) 04:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC) Congratulations for tackling something this big. The article looks good and clean, for the most part, but unfortunately this is not going to be an easy Pass. Allow me to make some preliminary comments; I'll be looking more closely in the next days.

1. The lead needs expansion (given the size of the article alone): it should mention that the frame (the contest and the pilgrimage both) is incomplete, pace the question of Chaucer's intent to finish. The tellers do not tell two tales each on the way to Canterbury and two more on the way back, and we never get to Canterbury, let alone back home. The lead should also comment on the role of the CT in English literature: Chaucer's fatherhood of English poetry depends on it, and mention of the continuations in the lead is a good idea if only to indicate that importance. The article has over 33,000 characters; appropriate according to WP:LEAD is three or four paragraphs.

   Done. Oakley77 (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

2. Missing from the article (see above) is a section on the CT's influence. That Caxton chose to print it is mentioned but not played up, for instance.

   Doesn't Reception cover it?

   No it doesn't. For starters, it says nothing at all about the status of the CT since the 15th century, its influence on Spenser, its canonical status in every sophomore literature class in English-speaking countries. Drmies (talk)

3. As far as I know, "continuations" is the going term for part of what is covered in "Literary additions and supplements". Here also a note on his importance can be made--many fifteenth-century English poets are little more than wanna-be Chaucers, to put it bluntly, and the "continuations" are evidence of it.

   Are you saying that the section title should be changed to Continuations, a subheader should be made, or nothing should be changed and you are merely pointing it out? Oakley77 (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

4. Those sections in "Analysis" are better done with headings--ease of reading, ease of editing.

   Done. Oakley77 (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

5. There is a large unverified section at the end, "Literary adaptations".

   Sorry mate, not so good at citations. Oakley77 (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

   Sorry, but it has to be done. besides, proper citations is only one part--finding the references is another. Drmies (talk)

6. While, indeed, not all of the CT's sources have to be explicated in this article, you could say a little bit more, and at least mention the two volumes of Sources and Analogues.

   Okay, TBD. Oakley77 (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

7. I find the bibliography to be a bit thin, and there is a lot of Cooper in there. She's fine, but she's not the greatest of all Chaucer scholars. D. W. Robertson, Jr. immediately comes to mind, for instance.

   Added a few Robertson, Jr. link, so Done. Oakley77 (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

   Wait--you added two improperly formatted external links to JSTOR articles? That's hardly the same as "expanding the bibliography", which remains thin. This is actually a reason to fail since your answer does not suggest you have the interest or the capability to make the bibliography up to snuff. Sorry. Drmies (talk)

8. In a related issue, the reference section isn't totally consistent. Benson, for instance, should be in the Works Cited ("References"); the book is cited in notes 10 and 11, and maybe elsewhere. Some notes need work period, such as notes 60 and 61. I found more books in the footnotes; consistent would be to have all notes to books in footnotes and the books themselves in "References" (see note 58, and note 59 is incorrect--it's an edited collection, so the individual essay should be cited here, with the book mentioned in "References").

   Like I said, not tip-top at citations or references. Oakley77 (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

9. I've changed the column setting in the references; consider moving long quotes (remove italics, do in quotation marks) to a separate set of footnotes; see Green children of Woolpit. This makes both sections more legible.

   Sorry mate, just am not able to do citations/refs. Oakley77 (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

That's all for now. I think you've done a great job summarizing, the basic structure and tone are fine, and I'm glad that you got to work on this article: it's too important to be mediocre. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment

As the nominator is unwilling to do anything about citations/ references this GAn should now be failed. See Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Proposal_to_bar_Oakley77_from_nominating_GA_articles for more information. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. I would love to, I just need to learn how to. Please, remember to place things in context. Thanks so much, Oakley77 (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

If you don't know how to, then you shouldn't be nominating GANs. --Rschen7754 19:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• As harsh as it sounds, it's correct. I see improvements in the article, but some of the writing isn't really great (for instance the conclusion of the lead, or the last sentence of the "Sources" section). Sources and Analogues is now cited but not included in the bibliography, and besides, this is the kind of authoritative book that should be mentioned and discussed on the text to support more informative statements on the variety of Chaucer's sources (esp. outside the canonical authors). Yes, "Continuations" is the proper term and the section title and text should point that out. All this besides the obvious citation issues, for which I recommend a healthy dose of WP:CITE and maybe some more experience in that line of work. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Old history

Some old page history that used to be at the title "The Canterbury Tales" can now be found at Talk:The Canterbury Tales/Old history. Graham87 14:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

language table revision?

The 3-column table in the Language section seems a little sub-optimal when it comes to alignment. I wonder if something like this would serve better?

'Wepyng and waylyng, care and oother sorwe	ˈweːpɪŋɡ and ˈwailɪŋɡ ‖ ˈkaːr‿and ˈoːðər ˈsɔrwə ‖	'Weeping and wailing, care and other sorrow
I knowe ynogh, on even and a-morwe,'	iː ˈknɔu əˈnoːx ‖ ɔn ˈɛːvən and aˈmɔrwə ‖	I know enough, in the evening and in the morning,'
Quod the Marchant, 'and so doon oother mo	ˈkwɔd ðə ˈmartʃant ‖ and ˈsɔː ˈdoːn ˈoːðər ˈmɔː ‖	said the Merchant, 'and so does many another
That wedded been.'	ðat ˈwɛddəd ˈbeːn ‖	who has been married.'

I'm not a tables expert, so perhaps someone else can come up with something better? Phil wink (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

capitalization and italicization

I notice that the article is inconsistently capitalized and italicized. Is the proper title "The Canterbury Tales" (in which case I guess "The" should be capitalized and italicized) or just "Canterbury Tales" (perhaps like the Odyssey)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.70.31.142 (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. The Canterbury Tales task force has just recently been formed. We're still in an early organizational phase, but one (I hope) of the first things we'll be doing in the coming weeks is developing a "mini style sheet" for topics like this, and then beginning to bring articles up to speed. Anyone is welcome to join, comment, or just gawk.

...and for the record, my unofficial opinion is: The Canterbury Tales; but with the option of removing the "The" for grammatical purposes, as in: Geoffrey Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. Phil wink (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"Order" is too academic.

To be frank, I find it more than a little annoying that while there are sections and articles about the "order" of the tales included, nowhere can one find an actual listing of the stories with their actual titles. The best one can do is click on each abbreviation one at a time, which is ridiculously inconvenient. I honestly feel that this is an example of "academic snobbery"; it seems to have been clearly written by an "Academic," writing for other Academics *only,* and that defeats the purpose of Wikipedia. Think about it.

68.199.204.112 (talk) 10:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Subjective?

"Towering achievement of Western culture" is debatable (although I personally agree with it). Qazsedcftgbhujmkol (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

//////////////////

I agree; I think it should be clear to the Editors that that's an opinion which needs to be referenced for support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.204.112 (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in Decameron comparison

The article asserts that the Decameron "features a number of narrators who tell stories along a journey they have undertaken (to flee from the Black Plague)." This is a little inaccurate. When the Decameron stories are told, the narrators are already at their destination (the villa outside Florence).

Dave Andrew (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Content

I just read most of the article, and I couldn't find a single line describing, what is the content of the tales. I know there's the article for each tale itself, but shouldn't it be mentioned in this article at least on a high level, what the Canterbury Tales are telling about? --Trickstar (talk) 10:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

original manuscripts

"Even the earliest surviving manuscripts are not Chaucer's originals": Do we even know if there were any "originals"? Chaucer was an oral performer and may have never written them down. His recitals may have differed from one to another, explaining why the written versions differ so much. Additionally, many or all (save apparent copies) may have been written by an audience member from memory rather than a scribe as it was being spoken. This could also explain the "fragments" as he likely did not tell all the tales at a single performance. Are there "original" manuscripts for his other works?

Obviously I am not an expert ;-) but I hope this entry is helpful and if appropriate an expert could amend the text to be more clear. Ealtram (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealtram (talk • contribs)

I've never heard that Chaucer was an oral performer and didn't write things down. Where do you get this from? — Eru·tuon 19:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Quickly skimming through Derek Pearsall's The Life if Geoffrey Chaucer (pp 185-90), he holds that Chaucer's early work (pre-CT) was likely primarily intended for oral publication, but still secondarily for manuscript publication. Even so, the clear implication is of Chaucer reading his works aloud (i.e. they were not composed mentally and memorized, nor extemporized); thus even these earlier works, intended primarily for oral publication, would have authorial manuscripts of some sort. Of The Canturbury Tales, Pearsall says: "...it is, on the face of it, the most oral of all Chaucer's poems... But this fiction is entirely enclosed within a frame-narrative which is explicitly addressed to the private reader..." (190). And later: "Chaucer had no copy of The Canterbury Tales made, and did not prepare the work for publication. Parts of it circulated in written copies, but it was not until after his death that the work began to be copied as a whole." (190)

So, Chaucer was likely an oral performer, but we can still assume that the CT (as well as his other works) did have written authorial originals. Hope that helps. Phil wink (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Info box link to Wikisource does not work

The Wikisource link led me to an error message from Wikisource. I do not know how to find the title that works. I marked dead link, which looks pretty messy in the info box when it becomes finished text. I hope another editor can set this link to rights. —Prairieplant (talk) 08:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC) Prairieplant (talk) 08:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)