Boccaccio + Chaucer = Same Stories

One of my options for Short Paper 1 was based off this painting inspired by one of Boccaccio's stories in The Decameron. I really liked the painting, so I read the story that wasn't assigned in class. It was the fifth story on the tenth day, told by Emilia.

So then I sit down and read The Franklin's Tale in The Canterbury Tales...and low and behold...it was the same story! There were a few differences, but the basic plot of the story was the same: man loves married woman, married woman promises her body to the man if he achieves an "impossible" task, man achieves task through magician, everyone is gracious and generous in the end and everyone wins.

I was just struck by the coincidence that the one story I chose to write part of my Short Paper on was the same story we were assigned to read in Chaucer. crazy.

After I got over my initial shock, though, I started to wonder. Why was the task that Aurelius was given in The Canterbury Tales (making rocks disappear) different than in The Decameron (garden)?

• Did Boccaccio hear a different version of the tale than Chaucer, since many of their stories were part of popular culture at that time?
• Did one (or both) take creative license, and change the story for a certain reason?
• Or some other reason that I can't think of?
  

Also, I love Chaucer. I am so happy we get to read him again.

Some Questions from the Travels

While reading The Travels of Sir John Mandeville, I thought of a few questions, which I've listed below. This may be an indication of my struggle with the text, since my mind was obviously not analyzing and absorbing the information as it should have. Although meant in jest, I did have these reactions to Mandeville's interesting accounts of life abroad:

- Since there are people who have faces on their backs, wouldn't their backs technically be their fronts and their fronts be their backs? (p 137)

- If anyone on the isle of people with only one eye has bad vision, would they get "glass" or "contact" instead of "glasses" or "contacts"?

- Is there an equivalent to being beheaded or hanged on the isle of headless people?

- If the men of great crafts were "bound by a vow to his god that he could show the method to no man except his eldest son" that explains why these crafts no longer exist! Each one must have slowly died out with each man who had no sons, right?

- Do the people in the Great Khan's Empire not eat or breed pigs (157) because they are descendants of Ham (145)?

- Were the Great Khan's philosophers the first people to invent "Simon Says" (151 - be silent, put hand in front of mouth, put finger in ear, etc)

- After eating the fish from the Gravelly Sea, was the meat a little dry (169)? Or maybe if they reach the Gravelly Sea by the river full of precious stones, they tasted more rich?

- Did Prester John only lay with his wife four times a year because he couldn't keep up with her, like Messer Ricciardo in Dioneo's second story in The Decameron, or was he really that pious (170)?

- When Mandeville was describing the isle of Pentoxere and how Catolonabes drew young people into "Paradise" by doing special deeds for him, did anyone else think of pediphilia and maybe another infamous modern day example (171-2)?

- Given the one-footed men and the country covered in darkness (137, 163), I had to wonder if C.S. Lewis read this before writing The Voyage of the Dawn Treader in his Chronicles of Narnia series.

Again, many of these questions are just silly and I hope it was obvious that I am not posing these questions to spur an intellectual debate. I just thought I'd share my musings.

Translation - It's Everywhere!

Translating a book is much more than just converting the word "azul" in spanish to "blue" in english. I'm pretty sure we've established that fact. A translator needs to capture the author's tone and charisma, take into consideration the audience he/she is translating for, and maintain the literary credibility of the text.

But I was wondering....is the way each individual person interprets the text a translation? Are interpretations and translations two different things? A month ago, I would have said yes in a second - but now I'm not so sure. Maybe that's why Boccaccio was so vague and ambiguous in stating his purposes for writing The Decameron. He knew that everyone was going to interpret (or, should I say, translate?) his text differently no matter how specific he was in articulating his thoughts. In his mind, maybe that's part of the reason why the world is so unstable - given one event witnessed by 10 people, there could be 10 different explanations as to what happened.

COMPLETELY related to this topic - I found a blog talking ALL about the translation of Harry Potter! It actually talks a lot about the stuff we talked about in class (can translations be too literal, what the translator needs to achieve in translating, etc). It also suggests a few other websites, which are pretty cool. Check it out! HarryPotter

Wow, this is long. and kinda rambly. oops. that's what i get for trying to answer the unanswerable.

My patronus would definitely be a phoenix

horray for mythical creatures in popular literature

The Love that Never Fails Me

Here is my attempt at a Petrarchan sonnet - don't judge me too harshly please!

Happiness surrounds me when you are near,
Joy and light-heartedness you bring to me.
On the darkest of days I see beauty,
And to contentment are turned all my fears.
Every sorrow forgotten, no more tears,
When I'm with my pleasure that is guilty.
With this, most women eagerly agree.
You are a constant friend whom I hold dear.
Chocolate you come to me in many forms
Derived from the glorious cocoa bean:
As delectable and rich candy bars,
Or into Easter bunnies you conform,
Marshmallow and graham crackers in between
My comfort, my sweet, oh chocolate, you are!


Just for kicks, I thought I'd color code this. Different colors show the rhyme scheme. Yellow/pink show the octet, while blue/green/purple identifies the sestet.

Happiness surrounds me when you are near,
Joy and light-heartedness you bring to me.
On the darkest of days I see beauty,
And to contentment are turned all my fears.
Every sorrow forgotten, no more tears,
When I'm with my pleasure that is guilty.
With this, most women eagerly agree.
You are a constant friend that I hold dear.
Chocolate you come to me in many forms
Derived from the glorious cocoa bean:
As delectable and rich candy bars,
Or into Easter bunnies you conform,
Marshmallow and graham cracker in between.
My comfort, my sweet, oh chocolate you are!

Petrarch

Here's a little food for thought:
Do you think Petrarch's contemporaries thought he was as crazy as we do? I mean, Petrarch definitely has a unique relationship with Cicero, Augustine and Laura - all people that he had never even spoken to in his life. Did the people he saw and talked to on a regular basis, and even those who read his works and letters, think he was odd for mentioning these three people as those he has an intimate bond with them? Or did they just through it up to artistic genius? I know it was common in the Renaissance to idealize the human form and honor the ancient world, but I think Petrarch took it to the extreme.