The Canterbury Tales and Biblical Interpretation


Abstract:
Modern people often seem to think that they are the first ones in the history of civilization to think critically about religion. But one of the reasons I enjoy reading the Canterbury Tales is to see how people in Western culture have always been critical of the church, of the Bible, and of the theology of their day.

Body:
The Wife of Bath has a particularly interesting feminist interpretation of scripture. She goes back to the Genesis story and, with some creative imagination, makes it her own. The way Chaucer portrays other clergy (like the Pardoner) shows that he was skeptical of church leadership. But the ultimately sympathetic telling of the Priest's tale implies that he had a feeling about what real Christianity should be. Either that, or he simply felt guilty for the bawdy tales he had told.

All this stuff was written more than 500 years ago. To me, Chaucer invalidates the popular notion that people in the middle ages were all religious zombies or that the church was some sort of hegemony. Those images and characters that Chaucer uses had to be in circulation before he wrote about them - people could read and laugh about them. They could laugh about religious hypocrisy because everyone knew it existed.

I wonder, if something like the Canterbury Tales were written today, what would it look like? The racy humor hasn't changed much. I wonder in what context the stories would be told - something like a pilgrimage? People riding on a bus, maybe? I can see the motley collection of people - a goth chick, a middle-aged businessman, a religious zealot, a mechanic, a professor, a skate punk - a regular Gilligan's Island cast of characters, passing the time by telling stories and arguing.

Posted: Sun - February 20, 2005 at 09:19 AM           |

©