Roger of Ware, the Cook, claps the Reeve on the back “for joye”.
Delighted with the way Symkyn the miller had received his comeuppance in
the tale, the Cook then promises a tale of his own, despite
the fact that he is only a “povre man” (a poor man). The Host answers,
granting Roger the next tale. But he adds “looke that it be good”, and
comments on Roger’s tendency to draw the gravy out of unsold pies, and
resell pies that have already been reheated twice in his shop, full of
flies."">The Host’s conclusion incites Roger the Cook to tell a story
“in game” (in jest, in fun).. Roger agrees, and, reminding Harry Bailly
(the Host) not to be angry, particularly because his tale is about a
“hostileer” (pub-owner, like the Host himself), he begins his tale.The
Cook’s TaleOnce an apprentice lived in “our city” (perhaps “Ware” in
Hertfordshire – the town the Cook is from) and his craft was selling
food.
He was a short man, with a dark complexion and black hair – and he
was an excellent dancer: so good, that people called him “Perkin
Reveller” (to “revel” is to dance and have a good time).He loved the
tavern better than his shop, and, whenever there was a procession in
Cheapside, he would run out of the shop to enjoy himself and dance,
forgetting about work. He often stole from his master, with whom he
lived until he had finished his apprenticeship. However, one day, his
master sent for him, and quoting the proverb “It is better to take the
rotten apple out of the bag than to have it rot all the other apples”,
decided to get rid of him.Now this jolly apprentice had his leave, and
could riot all night if he so pleased – and eventually, he found board
with a companion of his own sort: who loved dice, and reveling, and
pleasure. This companion had a wife who, for the sake of appearances
only, kept a shop – and had sex for a living. Thus – abruptly – ends the
Cook’s Tale.AnalysisThus ends the first fragment of the Canterbury
Tales with a tale that breaks off before it has really gets anywhere -
and the real question is whether the tale is deliberately left
unfinished by Chaucer, whether he intended to return to it, or whether
we have just lost some of the manuscript. There are no definite answers,
unfortunately, and critics have argued for all three positions.That
said, there are a few interesting things about the tale as we have it.
Firstly, Roger of Ware seems to have been a real person who lived at the
same time as Chaucer.
This lends a whole new aspect to the Canterbury
Tales, if we consider that Chaucer might have populated his pilgrimage
with real people, whom his audience might have recognized. The whole
question, raised already in other tales, of reality verses fiction,
takes on a deeper level when we consider that Chaucer is not the only
pilgrim to have a dual existence - in the real world and within the
fictional one. Might this tale be in some way a parody or a joke at the
real Roger’s expense? It’s very possible, but impossible to prove.Seth
Lerer has persuasively argued that – like many other of Chaucer’s works,
including “The House of Fame”, and “The Legend of Good Women” – there
is a very real possibility that the Cook’s Tale might have been left
deliberately unfinished. It is, Professor Lerer argues, a tale which
breaks off just at the point where we understand what sort of tale it is
to be – a grim, gritty tale about a prostitute and a drunken,
good-for-nothing apprentice. The trajectory from the formal,
fictionalized, stylish romance of the Knight’s Tale, down through the
fabliaux of the Miller and Reeve hits rock-bottom with a realistic tale
about a real Cook and animal copulation in exchange for money. We don’t
hear the Cook’s Tale told: but we know all too well what sort of thing
is to come next - and so language disintegrates completely at the end of
the First Fragment. Formal language was replaced by bodily noises in
the Miller’s Tale, language was replaced by action in the Reeve’s Tale,
and now language stops altogether. The whole project of the Tales comes
to a dead standstill.
No comments:
Post a Comment