I have to make a confession, I never watched The Office, though occasionally I have resorted to watching clips on YouTube so I can understand the memes everyone keeps sharing. I watched the Cupid's sparrow one and chuckled. It should be called the Homeschool Effect or something, I can read three volume Victorian novels but I simply cannot concentrate on multiseries TV shows (miniseries are different).
The once a week schedule I can understand. We didn't have TV, but our grandparents did and there was a multiseries family show that played on the weekday when we typically visited our grandparents. But that anticipation of 'What will happen next week!' just isn't there with the streaming services, and that really seems to make the multiseries shows much less intriguing. Also so many of the multiseries shows got abruptly cancelled, or an interesting character gets killed off/leaves, that it doesn't seem worthwhile to get invested in that many hours with no proper end to anticipate.
I’m so glad you wrote this because I had not appreciated those two beautiful passages on the school run and they are very beautiful indeed . In fact , I have to confess that when I reached the part where the knight describes all the different wood used in the funeral pyre both my son and I got the giggles . Your commentary explains how this tale felt so familiar, prisoner in tower falls in love with lady in garden in May is also in medieval Scottish literature in the ballad of ‘fair Margery’
I warmed to the knight and how much he wants to share all his classical education with his fellow pilgrims but if I was riding to Canterbury I would try and keep my horse alongside the wife of Bath as she would make a more entertaining travelling companion
Oh, my goodness--I love the idea of you and your son listening to CT in the car together, and especially the giggling part!
And I love your generous description of the Knight--how he wants to share his classical education with this fellow pilgrims. But I also agree with your choice of a traveling companion! :)
The point about the difference between pre-modern tales and the modern novel (and I guess we could add movies etc) has really got me thinking. Given that the Bible is also pre-modern (probably pre-pre-modern... if that means anything), is there a danger that, as modern readers whose standard fare is the interiority of individual characters etc, we read the Bible if not wrongly then at least badly, approaching it in a way that is governed and tutored by our modern way of reading?
So, for example, I'd love to be able to delve into, say, Joshua's character - his feelings on the cusp of entering the Promised Land, or his reflections on being up the mountain as Moses' companion and so on - but, of course, nothing of that kind is present in the narrative. The temptation then, for all readers and most definitely for preachers (mea culpa), might be to extrapolate from the minimal details that we do have, wanting to make something significant of them, when in fact that might be completely at odds with what has been recorded for us.
(As a preacher I really resonate with the Knight's prolixity! Whoops!! I just hope that, somehow, the congregation is also able to say it is "so delightful and in character" ... but I won't be holding my breath!)
I'm glad that point was helpful, Richard! And, yes, great comparison to the style of the biblical narrative, which in modern terms would be described as minimalist. I read a great blog post a while back comparing OT narrative to Hemingway. It was excellent. I will see if I can find it.
Even Aristotle says in Poetics that action (plot) is the center of a tragedy. Until the rise of the modern individual post-Enlightenment, characters were more types--as we see in Chaucer. Though he certainly does flesh them out delightfully, which is one way in which he breaks the mold.
Such a good point, Richard, as people tend to impose meaning that isn't there because of our desire to know all the juicy details.
I also was thinking about how people and eras tend to swing that pendulum too far one way or another...an unhealthy (from a psychological point of view) tendency, which does not allow for nuance or the perspective of another. The idea that Karen mentions of the richness of God's blessings in contrast to a scarcity mentality is so helpful; we often limit our imaginations to an us vs. them way of being. I wonder if pre-modern focus on the generalities based on the "ideal" contrasted with a modern focus on the particulars of the individual experience are both extremes that could be informed by embracing a both/and approach which allows for layered perspectives and appreciation for interior life along with the universal truths that apply to us all?
The scarcity mentality thing came from a dear friend recently admonishing me not to fall into it myself. I'm so grateful for people who can speak into our lives in such ways.
Really attracted to that idea of layered perspectives, Carmon, seems to me to be very much what we ought to be aiming for. How to do so in a conscious and deliberate way is something I need to think more about. Karen's point about God's abundant blessing that you highlight is so warming and liberating, thank you for emphasising it.
I read this tale, as I have read all of them, making use of the online Havard interlinear edition, and when the knight said he was coming to his point, in his leadup to the battle, I looked at the scroll indicator on the side of my screen, which was only about two thirds down, and thought, No you aren't.
The beautiful quote that made me stop is Theseus' closing preface:
'"The Firste Moevere of the cause above
Whan he firste made the faire cheyne of love,
Greet was th'effect, heigh was his entente.
Well wiste he why, and what thereof he mente,
For with that faire cheyne of love he bond
The fyr, the eyr, the water, and the kind
In certain boundes, that they may nat flee."'
Theseus is saying this to admonish Palamoun and Emelye to not make their grief over Arcite's tragic, and seemingly needless, death a cause for lifelong sorrow. A modern novelist, and even a few medieval writers, would have Emelye and Palamoun end their lives apart, fragmented forever and scarred beyond healing by the realization their own desires brought about this tragedy. But Theseus invokes not the Greek panoply of gods, but the Unknown God - the One Paul would invoke to the Athenians on Mars' Hill - to speak of grace, the unmerited favour that brings life and hope.
In this passage, both Chaucer's literary genius and his scholarship shine. The phrase the First Mover of the First Cause is one that the medieval scholar Thomas Aquinas, who wedded ancient Greek philosophy to medieval theology, used. So Chaucer was aware of Aquinas. But he also was aware of Scripture, as the line about binding the elements in bounds echoes Psalm 104:9 and Proverbs 8:29. When Chaucer speaks of the First Mover's chain of love in setting these bounds, it is a reference to the love and grace of God's promise to Noah, that never again would He flood the land with the seas and that summer and winter, planting time and harvest would not cease. Theseus is saying the Creator's covenant of mercy in always bringing an end to the chaos of suffering should give Palamoun and Emelye the confidence to go forward into marriage.
This is such an important insight. Thank you for adding it. And, of course, the idea of the First Mover goes all the way back to Aristotle (at least?) so Aquinas (as usual) comes by his application honestly as a scholastic. This is such a great example of how the ancient Greeks, the New Testament, and the greatest Christian thinkers share ideas and even, at times, common language.
Yes, the Greeks certainly shaped the early church imagination, for better and worse - we could have done without Aristotle's view of women as irrational. A while back, I got curious about which Greek poet Paul was quoting at Mars' Hill when he quoted the line "For we also are his offspring" (Acts 17:28). It's a quote by Aratus of Soli, from his astrological poetry volume 'Phaenomena', in a line from his opening hymn to Zeus (https://www.theoi.com/Text/AratusPhaenomena.html).
I thought the Knight's digressions and then promise to get back on track were hilarious. It seemed to me that his rabbit trails illustrated Fate's interruptions (man proposes, God disposes) and his promise to be brief or to return to the narrative were his attempts to wrest control back, exercising a kind of agency, though not very successfully as the story would go where it would go.
Does no one else think Michael Scott and Cupid's sparrow is hilarious????
I have to make a confession, I never watched The Office, though occasionally I have resorted to watching clips on YouTube so I can understand the memes everyone keeps sharing. I watched the Cupid's sparrow one and chuckled. It should be called the Homeschool Effect or something, I can read three volume Victorian novels but I simply cannot concentrate on multiseries TV shows (miniseries are different).
I totally get that (about the multiseries). But, dear, I watched The Office more than 20 years ago before I had streaming. Once a week, on schedule! 😂
The once a week schedule I can understand. We didn't have TV, but our grandparents did and there was a multiseries family show that played on the weekday when we typically visited our grandparents. But that anticipation of 'What will happen next week!' just isn't there with the streaming services, and that really seems to make the multiseries shows much less intriguing. Also so many of the multiseries shows got abruptly cancelled, or an interesting character gets killed off/leaves, that it doesn't seem worthwhile to get invested in that many hours with no proper end to anticipate.
I guess one could say, there is no chain of love to brind the bounds of multiseries shows :)
:)
I have a hard time getting into multi-season series on Netflix now, so I really do get it.
I’m so glad you wrote this because I had not appreciated those two beautiful passages on the school run and they are very beautiful indeed . In fact , I have to confess that when I reached the part where the knight describes all the different wood used in the funeral pyre both my son and I got the giggles . Your commentary explains how this tale felt so familiar, prisoner in tower falls in love with lady in garden in May is also in medieval Scottish literature in the ballad of ‘fair Margery’
I warmed to the knight and how much he wants to share all his classical education with his fellow pilgrims but if I was riding to Canterbury I would try and keep my horse alongside the wife of Bath as she would make a more entertaining travelling companion
Oh, my goodness--I love the idea of you and your son listening to CT in the car together, and especially the giggling part!
And I love your generous description of the Knight--how he wants to share his classical education with this fellow pilgrims. But I also agree with your choice of a traveling companion! :)
The point about the difference between pre-modern tales and the modern novel (and I guess we could add movies etc) has really got me thinking. Given that the Bible is also pre-modern (probably pre-pre-modern... if that means anything), is there a danger that, as modern readers whose standard fare is the interiority of individual characters etc, we read the Bible if not wrongly then at least badly, approaching it in a way that is governed and tutored by our modern way of reading?
So, for example, I'd love to be able to delve into, say, Joshua's character - his feelings on the cusp of entering the Promised Land, or his reflections on being up the mountain as Moses' companion and so on - but, of course, nothing of that kind is present in the narrative. The temptation then, for all readers and most definitely for preachers (mea culpa), might be to extrapolate from the minimal details that we do have, wanting to make something significant of them, when in fact that might be completely at odds with what has been recorded for us.
(As a preacher I really resonate with the Knight's prolixity! Whoops!! I just hope that, somehow, the congregation is also able to say it is "so delightful and in character" ... but I won't be holding my breath!)
Here is the essay comparing Hemingway’s and the Bible’s narrative style:
https://cameronsmith.substack.com/p/hemingway-wrote-biblically
Fantastic, thanks!
I'm glad that point was helpful, Richard! And, yes, great comparison to the style of the biblical narrative, which in modern terms would be described as minimalist. I read a great blog post a while back comparing OT narrative to Hemingway. It was excellent. I will see if I can find it.
Even Aristotle says in Poetics that action (plot) is the center of a tragedy. Until the rise of the modern individual post-Enlightenment, characters were more types--as we see in Chaucer. Though he certainly does flesh them out delightfully, which is one way in which he breaks the mold.
Such a good point, Richard, as people tend to impose meaning that isn't there because of our desire to know all the juicy details.
I also was thinking about how people and eras tend to swing that pendulum too far one way or another...an unhealthy (from a psychological point of view) tendency, which does not allow for nuance or the perspective of another. The idea that Karen mentions of the richness of God's blessings in contrast to a scarcity mentality is so helpful; we often limit our imaginations to an us vs. them way of being. I wonder if pre-modern focus on the generalities based on the "ideal" contrasted with a modern focus on the particulars of the individual experience are both extremes that could be informed by embracing a both/and approach which allows for layered perspectives and appreciation for interior life along with the universal truths that apply to us all?
The scarcity mentality thing came from a dear friend recently admonishing me not to fall into it myself. I'm so grateful for people who can speak into our lives in such ways.
Really attracted to that idea of layered perspectives, Carmon, seems to me to be very much what we ought to be aiming for. How to do so in a conscious and deliberate way is something I need to think more about. Karen's point about God's abundant blessing that you highlight is so warming and liberating, thank you for emphasising it.
I read this tale, as I have read all of them, making use of the online Havard interlinear edition, and when the knight said he was coming to his point, in his leadup to the battle, I looked at the scroll indicator on the side of my screen, which was only about two thirds down, and thought, No you aren't.
The beautiful quote that made me stop is Theseus' closing preface:
'"The Firste Moevere of the cause above
Whan he firste made the faire cheyne of love,
Greet was th'effect, heigh was his entente.
Well wiste he why, and what thereof he mente,
For with that faire cheyne of love he bond
The fyr, the eyr, the water, and the kind
In certain boundes, that they may nat flee."'
Theseus is saying this to admonish Palamoun and Emelye to not make their grief over Arcite's tragic, and seemingly needless, death a cause for lifelong sorrow. A modern novelist, and even a few medieval writers, would have Emelye and Palamoun end their lives apart, fragmented forever and scarred beyond healing by the realization their own desires brought about this tragedy. But Theseus invokes not the Greek panoply of gods, but the Unknown God - the One Paul would invoke to the Athenians on Mars' Hill - to speak of grace, the unmerited favour that brings life and hope.
In this passage, both Chaucer's literary genius and his scholarship shine. The phrase the First Mover of the First Cause is one that the medieval scholar Thomas Aquinas, who wedded ancient Greek philosophy to medieval theology, used. So Chaucer was aware of Aquinas. But he also was aware of Scripture, as the line about binding the elements in bounds echoes Psalm 104:9 and Proverbs 8:29. When Chaucer speaks of the First Mover's chain of love in setting these bounds, it is a reference to the love and grace of God's promise to Noah, that never again would He flood the land with the seas and that summer and winter, planting time and harvest would not cease. Theseus is saying the Creator's covenant of mercy in always bringing an end to the chaos of suffering should give Palamoun and Emelye the confidence to go forward into marriage.
Ah, autocorrect hates Middle English, as the penultimate line of the quote should read: "The fyr, the eyr, the water, and the lond"
This is such an important insight. Thank you for adding it. And, of course, the idea of the First Mover goes all the way back to Aristotle (at least?) so Aquinas (as usual) comes by his application honestly as a scholastic. This is such a great example of how the ancient Greeks, the New Testament, and the greatest Christian thinkers share ideas and even, at times, common language.
Yes, the Greeks certainly shaped the early church imagination, for better and worse - we could have done without Aristotle's view of women as irrational. A while back, I got curious about which Greek poet Paul was quoting at Mars' Hill when he quoted the line "For we also are his offspring" (Acts 17:28). It's a quote by Aratus of Soli, from his astrological poetry volume 'Phaenomena', in a line from his opening hymn to Zeus (https://www.theoi.com/Text/AratusPhaenomena.html).
My footnotes in my annotated Bibles always identify Aratus, but never much more than that. Thanks for this and the link!
I thought the Knight's digressions and then promise to get back on track were hilarious. It seemed to me that his rabbit trails illustrated Fate's interruptions (man proposes, God disposes) and his promise to be brief or to return to the narrative were his attempts to wrest control back, exercising a kind of agency, though not very successfully as the story would go where it would go.
Oh, I love that insight!