A Church Critic's Cry and an Ancient Epic

 

By: Ken Dobluis

 

Canterbury tales by Jeffrey Chaucer and the epic of Beowulf by an unknown author are two completely different literature in terms of their overall aspects. First, their origins. Canterbury Tales by Jeffrey Chaucer date back around the 13^th to 14^th centuries, all written in Middle English vernacular (The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica, 2024). As much as the origins of the Canterbury Tales are well preserved, the epic of Beowulf is quite the opposite. The epic of Beowulf has little to no tracks about its origins. Mostly, assumptions. Some say it was written in the 7^th century, while others suggest that it might have been written long before that time period. I, myself, was curious on the actual origins of the epic of Beowulf, but all I can do is make an assumption. I believe the epic of Beowulf was written just shy younger than the epic of Gilgamesh. My reason being that the epic of Gilgamesh and the epic of Beowulf have some notable similarities despite being written in completely different languages. I’m not going to list all of the similarities, just a few to make a point. Beowulf is a strong warrior with godlike strength, just like Gilgamesh. Beowulf is a leader, just like Gilgamesh. Beowulf has a companion that died during their battles; you’re not going to believe this, just like Gilgamesh. I mean, you can that argue that epics have the same narrative, and these two are just products of those interchangeable, unending, cliché epic patterns. Again, this is just an assumption of mine. My analogy is that all literature today is just a reflection of literature in the past. That’s why I believe “epic of Gilgamesh” had some sort of influence on how the “epic of Beowulf” came to be. The main difference between the two epics is how each warrior utilizes their powers. Gilgamesh is a tyrant leader, the opposite of Beowulf, who is more compassionate and a chivalrous warrior. But who cares about my takes? again, I was just noting the big difference on their origins.

Now, let’s move over to the technicalities. Though both literatures are product of fiction, Canterbury tales by Jeffrey Chaucer and the Epic of Beowulf have completely different writing styles. First is the point of view. Canterbury tales is written in two separate perspectives; third person and first person. Especially the prologue, it feels like Jeffrey Chaucer himself is telling me a story. Like a gossip or some sort. Like a drunk dad retelling his college days. Personally, I find it humorous when Chaucer addresses his readers by giving a short disclaimer as if he’s like, what we call in Filipino: “hugas kamay”. Chaucer makes it sound as if the narrator is being cautious when in fact, its actually just him avoiding stones.

“But first I beg of you, in courtesy, not to condemn me as unmannerly If I speak plainly and with no concealing and give account of all their words and dealings, using their very phrases as they fell.” (Nevill Coghill, 1951, p.22, 745- 750).

 The prologue of the tale itself is very self-aware. It is as if the book itself is aware of the readers reading it. now as we get into the individual tales of each of the characters, the narration shifts from third person to first person. The narrative jumps from one character to another telling their tales while maintaining the first-person narrative format. Beowulf on the contrary, is more straight forward. The whole narrative remains at third person from starts to finish. Though both literatures have short commentary about what’s happening in the story just for the readers not to miss any important details.

[Wait a second, this essay was actually meant to be a character analysis, highlighting the similarities and differences between the characters in the literature, not a technical breakdown. I must have misread something. Anyway, I don't want to waste what I've written so far, so I’ll continue from here, and we’ll get to the characters later on… if I don't forget, of course.]

whenever I read a literature, especially fiction, I always make sure to search the author right after I finish reading one. By doing that, I get to understand the inspirations, the influences, and the purpose of the author. Honesty speaking, I have hard time understanding the point of the narrative of the Canterbury tales by Geffrey Chaucer. It’s a tough read I would say. Hence after reading it, I then proceed to search Geffrey Chaucer. I have found many things about Chaucer that gives me clues on how to better understand his works, but one thing caught my attention the most. Geffrey Chaucer is a church critic! After finding out I then realized that the canterbury tales is actually a humorous narrative, hiding his critical statements against the church with puns and hilarious stories. The reason to how I come up with this conclusion about the canterbury tales is that, during our class-read-out session, I was bewildered to why some of the characters have very questionable traits and characteristics. A contrary to their affiliation to the church. For example, the nun. The nun’s description alone is quite…off putting. Weirdly sexualized I would say. I mean, this wouldn’t be an issue if she’s a prostitute, a commoner or something. The nun’s description in the prologue is very suggesting.

“French in the Paris style she did not know. At meat her manners were well taught withal; No morsel from her lips did she let fall, nor dipped her fingers in the sauce too deep; But she could carry a morsel up and keep the smallest drop from falling on her breast. For courtliness she had a special zest, and she would wipe her upper lip so clean That not a trace of grease was to be seen Upon the cup when she had drunk; to eat, she reached a hand sedately for the meat.” (Nevill Coghill, 1951, p.7, 130- 140).

But hey, I’m just a kid with an overly imaginative, rotted brain. I’m not going to make statements or assumptions about what Chaucer might have intended with those lines. (She’s definitely a hooker! Given her broken accent, which suggests she’s been moving around for work, her bodyguards, and her apparent wealth, as well as the suggestive way she eats meat, it’s hard to believe she’s a nun. Why describe her like that, Chaucer?) There are many questionable characters in the tale who are associated with the church but seem corrupt. Besides the nun, there’s also the friar, who begs for donations in exchange for spiritual help, and the pardoner, who sells absolution for sins in exchange for money.

Clearly, Chaucer is projecting his opposition to the church into his works. We can clearly see that on the way he curates his characters. Showing how corrupt, unjust, and hypocrite the church was back in his time.

On the other hand, the epic of Beowulf is much more straight forward in terms of its narrative. Unlike the Canterbury tales, the story of Beowulf focuses more on societal issues rather than the church. Basically, church V.S. the state. Focusing on themes such as: good and evil, justice, heroism, leadership, and comradery. 

Unlike the difference of the characters of each literature, which is quite notable, their similarities are quite limited. The only characters that I have been able to compare to one another is the knight and Beowulf himself. Though the description of the knight is limited, we can assume that he is a valiant warrior. Beowulf and the knight are product of war, chaos, and countless battles. The only thing separating the two is their scope. Beowulf’s bravery and heroic deeds had lasting impacts to his community, while the knight focuses on his adherence to chivalrousness. More like a personal matter to him, rather than to other people.

That’s about it really. the knight is the only character I can compare Beowulf with. Maybe due to each literature having different genres. Not sure really. I might have missed some and needed to reread both of these literatures.

“Yet there is no scurrility in it, And Plato says, for those with power to read, “The word should be as cousin to the deed.” Further I beg you to forgive it me If I neglect the order and degree and what is due to rank in what I’ve planned. I’m short of wit as you will understand” (Nevill Coghill, 1951, p.23, 760- 765). (Pun intended).

 

 

References:

Ø  * The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2024, September 9). The Canterbury Tales | Summary, Characters, & Facts. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Canterbury-Tales

Ø  * Chaucer, G. (n.d.). [The Age of Chaucer] (N. Coghill, Trans.) [Book]. https://www.dvusd.org/cms/lib/AZ01901092/Centricity/Domain/2891/Canterbury%20Tales%20prologue.pdf

 

I apologize if there are any grammatical errors in this essay. I chose not to use copyediting software or grammar checkers to avoid any potential alterations by AI that might affect my thought process.