Foreword
The study of the intellectual was a heated academic area in the 20th century. Its focus was mainly laid on the intellectual's relation to the power, implicating that the intellectual was a special group courageous to say no to the authority. Therefore, to associate Chaucer, a medieval court poet, with "intellectual," a relatively recent notion, seems to be a forced or far-fetched attempt. The association could be the victim of anachronism. However, to privilege being a social critic the only feature commonly shared by the intellectuals is after all modern-prejudiced, or is at least a one-sided, narrow understanding of its meaning. "Intellectual," as a notion, basically has other implications than this particular one. This book therefore intends, from the perspective of the notion of "intellectual," its general sense and its modern sense, to revisit Chaucer the man and his works. It attempts to explore the interaction between his writing practice and his social engagement, and to argue that Chaucer transcends his age and can then be considered to be a modern writer not only for his literary creation but also his philosophical ideas.
After a retrospective study on the concept of "intellectual," and a review of those scholars who have touched on this issue, the introductory part primarily argues for the plausibility and significance of a systematic study on Chaucer as an intellectual. The definitions and classifications of the concept help to illuminate the bi-foci of the notion: one indicating the personal wisdom of an intellectual, the other concerning an intellectual's social function, a more contested point in modern intellectual study. Then Chaucer's intelligence and his social function as a court poet are discussed, and the three key aspects of the present study on Chaucer as an intellectual are introduced: his role of a social commentator, of an enlightener, and his wisdom exhibited in both his private writing and his public world.
From both a historical and a modern view, Chapter One explores the social roles traditional intellectuals in the court played as prince-pleasers and/or counselors, and the modern intellectuals' function as social critics. It elaborates the complex relationship of the roles Chaucer played as a court poet and a civil servant: his dilemma of pleasing the royal and aristocratic, or providing counseling advice and making criticism. Making a detailed analysis on the Melibee's Tale in the Canterbury Tales, especially its relationship with the genre of "Mirror for Prince," the chapter argues about the interrelationship between Chaucer's literary choices and the social roles he played. It argues that by adopting the genre of "Mirror for Prince" for the Melibee's Tale, Chaucer not only inherited the literary tradition but also achieved his social criticism strategically. The choice of subject, genre, and style may all have social reasons and significance. It is argued thus the inheritance of literary tradition is not the only factor that influences Chaucer's writing. Literary choices are determined by the interaction between literary tradition and the social roles the writer played.
The second chapter continues studying the relationship between Chaucer's work and his social roles under the frame of the interaction between literary texts and their social context. Based on a general survey of the medieval social structure, this chapter starts with a discussion about Chaucer's position in and on the society. In the second section, Chaucer's attitude toward the 1381 rebels is explored through a comparative study between Chaucer's treatment of the event in the Nun's Priest's Tale and the descriptions of it by other contemporary writers and chroniclers. The third and fourth sections of this chapter focus on Chaucer's depictions of women and clerics respectively. Sampling on two of the most contested women characters in Chaucer: Criseyde, "the false woman" in Troilus and Criseyde, and the Wife of Bath in the Canterbury Tales, the third section argues for Chaucer's denial of making any simple moral judgment. It argues that by so doing, Chaucer was in fact shaking the traditional idea of patriarchy. He was, therefore, in some sense playing the role of a "disturber" as a modern intellectual. The fourth section elaborates on Chaucer's attitude towards the clerics. Offering literary portraits of contemporary clerics, Chaucer betrayed his dissatisfaction with the corruptions of some of the clerics, though still in a cool and calm manner, without any radical attacks upon them. In all, Chaucer's concern with the social events, the fate of women, and the problems of the clerics in fact exhibits his role of an intellectual as a social commentator.
Chapter Three elaborates on Chaucer's role of an intellectual as an enlightener. After the mystery of "authority" in medieval time is cleared up, the chapter focuses on Chaucer's negotiating with the authority(ies), which is manifested in both his literary creation and his reflection on male superiority. It exposes Chaucer's ingenuity in taking advantages of the authorities and his paradoxical relationship with them, in the sense that he established his own authority in literature by exploiting these authorities, that is, the sources taken as canon. In terms of gender authority, the tension between the male and the female in his works is expanded to the conflict between the authority, which is usually embodied in men, and the experience, which is usually embodied in women. Being a constant issue in Chaucer's works, the opposition between authority and experience is illuminated in the Wife of Bath's Prologue and Tale. It is also argued that Chaucer's Wife of Bath mirrors Chaucer the poet himself: both apply the authorities against the authority.
Chapter Four turns to the discussion of Chaucer's personal wisdom. Nevertheless, the apparent shift of focus doesn't deny the interactive relationship between Chaucer's personal attributes and his public position. It is argued that Chaucer's artistic devices or textual strategies are not a pure matter of literary art, but a way of fulfilling his role of a social commentator. Compared with Shi, the group of traditional Chinese intellectuals, Chaucer's wisdom in both his private writing and his public life is manifested. Chaucer and Shi shared the same wisdom, knowing how to survive in an age of turmoil without giving up pursuing their spiritual ideal.
On the basis of a close reading of Chaucer's works, and with the reference to Chaucer's critical heritage and the related documents concerning the history and the culture of his time, the book tries to read the interaction between Chaucer's texts and the historical, social and cultural context of his time. Thanks to its double threads: the general sense and the modern sense, the notion of "intellectual" lends itself to an advantageous perspective of doing so. It allows a new angle to see the interaction between Chaucer's literary works and his social roles. Chaucer's intellectuality can be perceived, not only in his knowledge and intelligence, but also, more importantly, in his ambivalent and dual roles of both a counselor and a critic, in the skeptical challenge and enlightening effects in his poetry, and in his wisdom exhibited in both his literary and social life.
The attempt to examine Chaucer's poems both on their literary attributes and their social and cultural context is textually as well as contextually meaningful. The interaction between the text and the context helps us see not only the social and cultural significance of Chaucer's textual strategies, furthering a better understanding of the excellence of the writing itself, but also Chaucer's importance to and influence upon the advancement of society and culture as an intellectual.
鄂公網(wǎng)安備 42010302001612號(hào)