Talk:The Canterbury Tales

Books C‑class

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Middle Ages C‑class High‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Poetry C‑class High‑importance

	Poetry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

The Prick of Conscience

The Text section implies that The Prick of Conscience has had several English manuscripts found, whereas the article for that work suggests just one English manuscript has been recovered from the middle ages for this. Which is correct? 86.142.148.21 (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one English manuscript of The Prick of Conscience, but there are many, many French manuscript copies. This article is careful to say that they are both popular "vernacular" medieval works. Wrad (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you are factually correct, but Wrad, your comment doesn't address the readability of the text. The number of French copies, or indeed the copies in any other vernacular is not relevant, since the reader of the Canterbury Tales page, rightly or probably wrongly, will infer that the pages author is making a claim about English "vernacular". Rereading the linked page on The Ayenbite/The Prick of Conscience, it says:

"The Ayenbite is a translation of the French Somme le Roi (also known as the Book of Vices and Virtues), a late 13th century treatise on Christian morality; the popularity of this latter text is demonstrated by the large number of surviving copies." my emphasis

I think what is meant by the Canterbury Tales page's author, is that the "latter text", that is, the English version known as "The Book of Vices and Virtues" has more vernacular English copies than the Canterbury Tales. However, the link though supporting the probability of this thesis, doesn't establish it as fact, because it doesn't list the number of extant copies. I'm not a Middle English scholar, so I can't add any facts to this claim. Unfortunately, the Book of Vices and Virtues, and indeed, the original French work, do not have Wikipedia pages, so the author of the Tales page, has had no choice but to link the claim on popularity to a related text, the Ayenbite, which was extremely unpopular, thus confusing we poor readers. Would it be acceptable to link to the Ayenbite page, but using "The Book of Vices and Virtues" as the linked text? This would still be confusing, but less so, and would lend weight to the claim, in the absence of a superior source which could prove it. --Rod mcinnes (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection?

Seeming as though this page has been vandalised so many times, does anyone else think the pages should be given semi-protection? --15lsoucy (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"lady" versus "wench"

The article seems to take the words "lady" and "wench" as synonymous, as relevant subjectively rather than objectively. Rather "lady" in Chaucer's day was the title of a "lord's" consort, and "ladies" outranked "gentlemen" as seen in the couplet "ladies and gentlemen," while the phrase "lords and ladies" still obtains. Only in recent centuries was the term "lady" watered down to equivalence with "woman" (formerly "wifman" --the "man" [gender neutral] who was "wife"). If the commoners don't mention "ladies" it's because they have no familiarity with them. If a knight has too much familiarity with a lady, he could land in trouble--he could more easily associate with dames or wenches. --AGF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.50.104.162 (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of Canterbury Tales

The Decameron has a page with summaries of the Tales, as well as a page on the book. Seeming as though there are'n't any summaries of the tales in the article (or I'm blind, which is quite possible), could this be done? --15lsoucy ^(salve) 23:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective?

"Towering achievement of Western culture" is debatable (although I personally agree with it). Qazsedcftgbhujmkol (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable Narrator

The claim in the introduction that "Chaucer created literature's first known unreliable narrator" is neither true nor supported by citation. Indeed just following the link to the wiki page Unreliable narrator shows claims of earlier texts (including Arabian Nights) featuring unreliable narrators, with citations to back them up.

Canterbury tales as a comic

I would like to add this link of a comic version based on the Canterbury tales:

"Comic based on the Canterbury Tales"

But I don't know if that would be seem as unauthorized commercial promotion. Can I add it?