Based on what I was able to read here, I am definitely interested in tackling the whole work when I find a suitable source.more Now I have to go in search of a complete compilation of the Tales that isn't ruined by "translation" or other editing and start again. At the same time, Chaucer's own irreligion (and the contemporary popularity of his works) is proof positive against an overbearing Church squashing the least bit of blasphemy the merry state of his character reveal a color, zest, and humor to the era that is frequently not represented in modern depictions. The hypocrisy, lewdness, and blasphemy of many of the characters refute the idealized notions Chesterton likes to promote about the Middle Ages and Christendom. Not only is Chaucer a medieval person writing in his own authentic style, but he represents (exaggerated, to be sure) archetypes of figures familiar to his readers. Those maintaining various myths about the Middle Ages, from the dark, dreary, drab picture painted by modern rationalists to the romantic picture painted by the likes of Chesterton, G.K. He is hilarious, insightful, and downright raunchy. His work I would give four, at least from this presentation. So I would give Norton one star but for Chaucer. Anyway, this sort of "anti-scholarship" on the part of Norton ranges between disappointing and astounding. Jerome's teaching as antithetical to modern feminism, one would have to characterize feminism as "anti-Jeromism" to avoid being anachronistic about it.
Jerome as an "anti-feminist" and his writing as "anti-feminism." As if Jerome were responding to a contemporary feminist movement. Worst of all, the notes explaining Chaucer give the reader background as to some of Chaucer's references and allusions, to include St. Norton even felt the need to explain the word "debate" in the margins (I'm sorry to say I'm not making that up). Some explanations were unnecessary or even misleading. Some explanations for certain words were in the margin, while others were in footnotes, with no apparent rhyme or reason for one or the other. The "scholarly" notes and explanations were terrible. Now I wonder as well if more than just spelling changes were made. It was claimed that spelling was changed to make Chaucer's Middle English more readable I went with this work over a "translation" to modern English I have on the shelf because Chaucer is a poet and changing the language undoes the poetry. The book didn't indicate that it was only a selection, leaving me wondering if anything was redacted from the four tales as it stands.
It had the Prologue, Retraction, and 4 1/2 of the 22 tales. How disappointing I guess I should have paid more attention to the table of contents. It was claimed that spelling was changed to make Chaucer's Middle English more readable I went with this work over a "translation" to modern English I have on the shelf because Chaucer is a po Chaucer: Canterbury Tales Chaucer: Canterbury Tales How disappointing I guess I should have paid more attention to the table of contents.
0 kommentar(er)
