Classics and the Western Canon discussion

We had mentioned that the Tales were not a finished work, and here's our first proof. Or is it? At least one scholar argues that it is indeed a complete tale.

There's not that much meat to discuss, but there are a few potential issues. Do you see any progression from the Miller's to the Reeve's to the Cook's tale? If you think it is unfinished, what sort of tale do you think this was going to be? If you were Chaucer, how would you continue the story?

It does feel unfinished. I'd be interested to read the scholar's argument that thinks it was complete.

It feels similar to The Miller's Tale and The Reeve's Tale in that it presents a character with a flaw (in this case irresponsible gambling and theft) and begins to set up a situation in which the character could undergo some correcting action. The other similaritiy is the situation in which he is placed at the end - a domestic arrangement with one female (the prostitute with the shop) and two males.


One thing I noticed in this first

The Cook's Tale has always felt not quite finished to me too. And it, along with the Miller's and the Reeve's Tales, are rather earthy, bawdy tales, something that connects the three of them. They really contrast with the Knight's tale, a tale that seems so elevated and courtly.

The Peter Ackroyd "retelling" ends the Cook's tale this way:
...Now this companion had a wife. She pretended to own a shop, but in fact she was a prostitute.
"Oh," exclaimed the Prioress. "Please. No more."
"That's enough," Harry Bailey said. "I don't mind dirty stories. But I draw the line at whores. Whatever area thinking of, man? There are nuns among us."
Roger was a little abashed. "I didn't mean to offend--"
"Well, you have offended. Sit on your saddle and stay silent. Someone else will have to tell a story."
Heere endeth the Cookes Tale

If Ackroyd didn't absolutely invent this, I suspect it may have been added by some editor who felt the tale needed some better resolution. I very much doubt that Chaucer would have added this; he would have had no problem telling a tale about a prostitute, and he wouldn't have left a tale unfinished intentionally, would he? We know he intended 29x4 stories, so we know the work is unfinished; it would be no surprise that parts of it he also left unfinished.

A P.S.: I don't care for the Ackroyd retelling personally, partly because it is entirely in modern prose and partly because it deviates meaningfully from the original at many points, but I got it when it first came out to see what it was about, and have browsed in here because its large print is more accessible to me at the moment than most of my other editions. But I do recognize that it will be a much easier way for many modern readers not used to reading classics to get some sense of what the Tales are about and who the characters are, though it totally lacks the flavor of the original.

and he wouldn't have left a tale unfinished intentionally, would he?

We are accustomed nowadays to open-ended stories but formerly they always had a beginning, a middle and an end. Is it possible that Chaucer was experimenting with an open ended plot, just as he was experimenting with language?

As nobody in the Tales reacts to the Cook's telling, it seems likely to be unfinished, because I would expect some puzzlement from the onlookers as to why the Cook would leave off like that. I suppose it could be, as Madge said, an open-ended plot...

..in which case I imagine the point is to let the reader conclude where whimsy ends, though it seems the apprentice had a good enough situation at the tale's closing.

MadgeUK wrote: "and he wouldn't have left a tale unfinished intentionally, would he?

We are accustomed nowadays to open-ended stories but formerly they always had a beginning, a middle and an end. Is it possible..."

That would be annoyingly proto post-modern of him!

Supposedly, there is nothing new under the sun Sasha:D.

Over in the thread for The Reeve's Tale, in message 4 Thomas said: Now that I think about it, the depiction of women in the first group of stories shifts dramatically, from highly idealized in the Knight's Tale, to a more realistic (though immoral) portrayal in the Miller's Tale, to serving an almost purely sexual role in the Reeve's Tale. At least in the Miller's tale Alisoun is a willing participant in the shenanigans, whereas the miller's wife and daughter in the Reeve's tale are taken as "recompense." It isn't exactly consensual.

Here I think we see a pattern emerging for the women from the tales told in Group A. They seem to be going from the highest, worshipped characters down to the bottom.

First there is Emily, who while she does not have a say in matters, is highly sought after by two men for her beauty. But she is also a member of the upperclass and thus a respectable lady.

Then we have Allison (Alisoun). She is also beautiful and sought after, but she is more vulgar and while married, does not take her vows seriously and wants to have a little fun with Nicholas. We so two more men after her (not including her husband), and one is injured for her sake.

Another step down in The Reeve's Tale, there is the wife and daughter, and they are just there for the students use, basically. They seem to have little to no mind, and go along with what is happening to them. Granted, the wife does not know what is going on because she has been tricked, but the daughter certainly does.

And finally The Cook's Tale. It does seem unfinished to me, but here we have the lowest woman of the group, as she is a prostitute. We don't get to see any of her character aside from that job from which she earns her living.

Jennifer wrote: "Over in the thread for The Reeve's Tale, in message 4 Thomas said: Now that I think about it, the depiction of women in the first group of stories shifts dramatically, from highly idealized in the ..."

I think you've nailed it as far as you went. But then we come back up again, don't we? The wife in the Shipman's tale (do we ever learn her name?) is certainly a step up from the Miller and Reeve's women, then we step up to Constance, who is every bit as good as Emily, so after a dip down to the dregs of prostitution we're back up to the top again. It seems sort of a sine wave of feminine virtue, doesn't it?

An analogy perhaps marred, though, by the realization that we don't know in what order Chaucer intended the tales to appear, but at least in the order we're reading them, so far, that seems to be working out.

Everyman wrote: "Jennifer wrote: "Over in the thread for The Reeve's Tale, in message 4 Thomas said: Now that I think about it, the depiction of women in the first group of stories shifts dramatically, from highly ..."

Haven't gotten to the week five reading yet, as I'm still playing catchup, but I hope to be caught up by this weekend. :)

Playing catchup over here, but I am in agreement with those that say it was left unfinished, and not intentionally.

The Peter Ackroyd ending makes me chuckle, but after all the preceding bawdiness I also doubt Chaucer (or the pilgrims!) would have shied away from a mere prostitute. I bet the prioress is listening with guilty pleasure. ;-) Onward!

S. Rosemary wrote: "The Peter Ackroyd ending makes me chuckle, but after all the preceding bawdiness I also doubt Chaucer (or the pilgrims!) would have shied away from a mere prostitute."

I agree totally. I was going to type this openly, but realized it would be very un-PC, so will put it in spoiler mode. If you don't like un-PC posts, don't click on it!

(view spoiler)[ After all, who knows more about life than a prostitute? (hide spoiler)]

Everyman wrote: "After all, who knows more about life...."
I was immediately reminded, tongue firmly in cheek, of The Devil's Dictionary where it defines realism as the art of depicting nature as it is seem by toads. Perhaps defining knowledge of life according to the oldest profession exhibits this somewhat biased outlook.