The Canterbury Tales and the Arabic Frame Tradition

PMLA ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 98 (2) ◽  
pp. 237-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katharine Slater Gittes

The Canterbury Tales is the culmination of a frame tradition that originated and developed in Arabia, not in the West. The Arabic practice of enclosing tales within a frame may be explained by principles of organization peculiar to medieval Arabic literature, art, music, and mathematics: a preference for concreteness, a stress on autonomous elements, and a reliance on external organizing devices. Most Arabic literature emphasizes the individual unit; frames remain open-ended and inconclusive and rarely determine the subject or form of any included part. Although many Western characteristics are present in medieval European frame narratives like the Disciplina Clericalis, the Decameron, and the Confessio Amantis, those works, nonetheless, reveal themselves as continuations of the Arabic tradition. Even the Canterbury Tales, with all its subtle artistry, retains qualities typical of its Arabic ancestors, notably the controlling travelpilgrimage motif, the pointedly random order of tales, and the prominent authorial personality.

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Fruoco

Geoffrey Chaucer pose dans The Canterbury Tales un regard unique sur l’évolution de la poésie anglaise durant le Moyen Âge. L’alternance de genres et de styles poétiques différents lui permet de refléter tout le potentiel de la littérature par le biais d’un réagencement des images, symboles et conventions qui la définissent. Néanmoins, ce qui fait la force de Chaucer dans The Canterbury Tales, est sa capacité à développer un dialogue entre les différents récits constituant l’œuvre, ainsi que sa facilité à renverser nos attentes en extrayant son public d’un roman de chevalerie pour le propulser dans l’univers carnavalesque du fabliau, comme c’est le cas dans The Merchant’s Tale. En jouant avec l’imaginaire de l’arbre et du fruit, Chaucer nous prive dans ce conte de toute élévation et fait de son poirier un arbre inversé.


1977 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Andrew Barker

A long and important fragment of the Περὶ μοψσικῆς of Theophrastus is preserved in Porphyry's commentary on Ptolemy's Harmonics. Both Porphyry and Ptolemy were reedited earlier in this century by Düring, in works which have rightly been taken to supersede the texts of Wallis: and so far as the Theophrastus passage is concerned, we should expect to be able to abandon in Düring's favour the text published by Wimmer, who in effect reprints Wallis, though adopting a few variant readings and emendations from Schneider. But it seems to me that Düring's text is not in all respects an improvement, and that the comments made on it in a subsequent publication by Alexanderson have muddied the waters still further. It is not only a matter of the text: Alexanderson prints also a (partial) translation and an interpretative commentary, and both are open to serious objections. I intend in this paper to deal only with a portion of the fragment, but it is that portion whose argument is the most intricate, and one which ought to shed a good deal of light on central controversies among the musical theoreticians who follow Aristotle. I am not in a position to dispute any of Düring's findings in the manuscripts, but where emendation has in any event proved necessary or where the manuscripts differ among themselves, I hope to show through a study of the content of the argument that the case in favour of Düring is not always closed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document