Questions for Canterbury Tales Discussion, September 22d

Our questions this month concern the women's issues raised by the two tales under examination, "The Wife of Bath's Tale" and "The Clerk's Tale."

Interpretive Questions

1. What common, timeless themes reflecting life and reality appear in both the "Wife of Bath's Tale" and "The Clerk's Tale"?

2. Does Chaucer's portrayal of the Wife of Bath (in the "Wife of Bath's Prologue") reflect a perceptive view of women (cf. pp. 17, 23, 31)?

a. The Wife of Bath and Griselda, at least on the surface, seem to have very different ways of relating to men and the power structure. Which does Chaucer seem to favor (p.40, 80)?

3. What is Chaucer's attitude towards the clergy? Towards religion in general (p.65)?

4. Is Griselda's submission to the king a metaphor for the submission of God's creatures to God (p.62)?

Evaluative questions

1. Can it be said in general that Chaucer liked women? People in general?

2 Do you agree with the moral of the Wife of Bath's Tale, i.e., what women want most is "sovereignty"?

Johnny's Fireside Book

In the Wife of Bath’s Prologue, part of this month’s selection from Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, the Wife of Bath, “Alisoun,” relates the following about her fifth and latest husband, Johnny:

He had a book, he kept it on his shelf,
And day and night he read it to himself
And laughed aloud, although he was quite serious
He called it Theophrastus and Valerius. (Coghill, trans.)

Johnny’s book was a collection of stories from classical and biblical sources about “wicked wives” (which, by the way, contained the story of Agamemnon’s death at the hands of his wife Clytemnestra and her paramour, a story told in next month’s reading, Aeschylus’s drama "Agamemnon").

Johnny enjoyed the narrative of wicked wives, until his wife sets him straight.

And when I saw that he would never stop
Reading this cursed book, all night no doubt
I suddenly grabbed and tore three pages out
Where he was reading, at the very place
And fisted such a buffet [punch] in his face
That backwards down into the fire he fell

Johnny then hits his wife on the head and knocks her unconscious. When she comes to, he promises never to lay hands on her again. He gives her full authority over their house and land. Alisoun makes Johnny “burn that book upon the spot.”

Who published Johnny’s book? It was no doubt self-published in Chaucer’s imagination. Insofar as it confirmed Johnny’s preconceived notions about the “wickeness of women,” Chaucer tells us it provided fine fireside reading for Johnny. Then life (er, wife) intruded.

Professor Mark Edmundson writes in his book Why Read? that one function of education is “to use major works of art and intellect to influence one’s Final Narrative, one’s outermost circle of commitments.” Johnny enjoyed the narrative of his book. His wife didn’t. She revised Johnny’s narrative for him in a book discussion of unusual physicality.

Group to Discuss "The Canterbury Tales" on Monday, September 22d

Our next meeting will take place on Monday, September 22d, in the Village Library Meeting Room, at 7 p.m. We'll discuss several of the "Canterbury Tales," by Geoffrey Chaucer (ca. 1340-1400), the towering figure of English literature before Shakespeare. By turns pious, romantic, and bawdy, these tales reward readers with their humor and insight. Our selection this month includes the "Wife of Bath's Tale" (and its famous prologue in which she discourses on her five marriages) and the "Clerk's Tale."

Questions for "Principles of Government," by Montesquieu.

This book discussion will take place on Monday, August 25th at 7 p.m. at the Huntington Public Library, 338 Main Street, Huntington, New York.

Interpretive Questions

Montesquieu writes (p. 254) that laws "should be in relation to the climate of each country, to the quality of its soil, to its situation and extent, to the principal occupation of the natives, whether husbandmen, huntsmen, or shepherds ..." Does this mean that every nation needs to have different laws.?

What is the distinction M. draws (p.255) between the "nature" and the "principle" of government?

What does M. mean when he writes, in the section entitled "That Virtue is Not the Principle of a Monarchical Government" (p. 260), that "I am not ignorant that virtuous princes are so very rare; but I venture to affirm, that in a monarchy it is extremely difficult for people to be virtuous"?

Why does honor take the place of virtue in a monarchical government (p. 261)?

Why is honor not a principle of a despotic government (p. 262)? Indeed, why does M. state that if would be extremely dangerous (p. 263?)

What does M. mean when he writes (p. 264), "History informs us that the horrid cruelties of Domitian struck such a terror into the governors, that the people recovered themselves a little during his reign. Thus a torrent overflows one side of a country, and on the other leaves fields untouched, where the eye is refreshed by the prospect of fine meadows"?

M. writes (p. 266): Such are the principles of the three sorts of government [democratic, monarchical, despotic] : which does not imply that in a particular republic they actually are, but that they ought to be, virtuous; nor does it prove that in a particular monarchy they are actuated by honor, or in a particular despotic government by fear; but that they ought to be directed by these principles, otherwise the government is imperfect." Does this mean these governments are destined to be guided by these principles?

Is M. correct in stating that extreme equality is as great a threat to the principle of democracy as lack of equality (p. 266)?

M. states (p. 269): "The natural place of virtue is near to liberty, but it is not nearer to excessive liberty than to servitude." Agree or disagree?

Is one of the three forms of government more susceptible to corruption than another (p. 266 ff)?

M.'s final words in this selection (p. 274) are "There are very few laws which are not good, while the state retains its principles." Though the title of his book is The Spirit of the Laws, does he imply here that good government depends not on good laws, but on good people?

Evaluative Questions

M. writes (p. 256), "There is no great share of probity necessary to support a monarchical or despotic government. The force of laws in one, and the prince's arm in the other, are sufficient to maintain and direct the whole. But in a popular state, one spring more is necessary, namely, virtue." Do you agree or disagree that virtue is more important in a democracy than in a monarchy or a tyranny?

Do you agree with Hobbes or Montesquieu that "man is naturally in a state of war (p. 252)"?

Can you summarize M.'s political philosophy by the statement: "No government or country can be great unless those in charge have the will to make it great"?

Could it be said of the United States today that we are closer to Greece at its height or Greece at its steepest decline? (p. 257-58; 269) If we are headed for a decline, to what could it be attributed? Too much material success, too much freedom, lack of personal discipline (cf. p. 269).

Engaging with Great Books Redounds to Your Benefit

I think of The Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu’s magnum opus from which this month’s selection, “Principles of Government,” is taken, as a work of political philosophy. Montesquieu’s arguments, however, are often based on examples from history. In his chapter “Of the Principle of Democracy,” he cites examples from classical antiquity and seventeenth-century England.

Montesquieu writes of ancient Rome: “When Sylla thought of restoring Rome to her liberty, this unhappy city was incapable of receiving that blessing. She had only the feeble remains of virtue, which were continually diminishing. Instead of being roused from her lethargy by Caesar, Tiberius, Caius Claudius, Nero, and Domitian, she riveted every day her chains; if she struck some blows, her aim was at the tyrant, not at the tyranny.” (Nugent, trans.)

This paragraph had me running to Plutarch’s Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans to fill in gaps in my knowledge about Rome. Reading one great book often leads you to other great books.

Robert Maynard Hutchins, former president of the University of Chicago and a leading light of the post-World War II movement for continuing adult liberal education that led to the establishment of the Great Books Foundation, wrote in his book The Great Conversation that great books “enlarge our fund of ideas.” In my reading of Montesquieu as a philosophical book supported by historical examples, I’ve also picked up some useful history on the way.

"Principles of Government," by Montesquieu

Our next discussion takes place Monday, August 28th, at 7 p.m. in the Village Library Meeting Room. The reading is an excerpt from the Spirit of the Laws by the great Charles-Louis de Secondat de Montesquieu (1689-1755). Here Montesquieu compares and contrasts republican, aristocratic, monarchical, and despotic governments. With the presidential campaign heating up, why not take pause to ponder and discuss what this French philosopher had to say about good and bad governments?

"The Iliad," by Homer

Our next meeting on Homer's "The Iliad" will be held on Monday, July 28th at 7 p.m. in the Village Meeting Room. Here are some of the questions we'll discuss (page citations are from the Great Books Reading and Discussion Program, Third Series, Vol. 2.):

Interpretive questions

After giving up Chryseis to placate Chryses, Apollo’s priest, why does Agamemnon humiliate Akhilleus by making him give up his woman Briseis (Book 1) ?

What does Paris's statement (p. 112), "My own gifts are from pale-gold Aphrodítê -- do not taunt me for them. Glorious things the gods bestow are not to be despised," say about his attitude about the war?

Is Helen the victim of a male-dominated culture or is she truly the woman whose vanity "launched a thousand ships." Does she have moments when she becomes less a "sex symbol" and more a human being capable of introspection and even guilt? (pp. 116-117, 124-126, 143-144, 246)?

Why does the duel between Hektor and Aías in Book 7 not end with the death of one of the combatants but rather with an exchange of gifts (p. 160)?

Why (p.186, Book 11), does Zeus command "Strife to the beachhead" and resolve "to crowd great warriors into the undergloom."?

How and why does Hektor's attitude upon killing Patróklos (Book 16) differ from that of Akhilleus upon killing Hektor (Book 22)?

Evaluative questions

It seems obvious that the rationale for the war becomes something other than restoring Helen to Meneláos (pp. 118-24, 164), but what would that be?

What outcome do the lesser gods desire for the war? What about Zeus? Do they achieve their ends? What side does Homer favor?

Is "The Iliad" pro-war, anti-war, or neither?

What are the core values "The Iliad" espouses for humankind (or does it only espouse them for the warrior class?)