Page 15 - DENG502_PROSE

Unit 1: Development of Prose Writing through the Literary Ages

Chaucer did not neglect altogether the writing of prose, although by universal consent his prose Notes
writings are regarded as the least interesting of all his works. They are four in number, and all of
considerable length. The only one which can be dated certainly is the latest, the Treatise on the
Astrolabe, written in 1391. The others were written probably within the decade preceding this year,
and it is interesting to note, therefore, that Chaucer’s prose works were produced at about the
same time that Wiclif began to write in English. Of these four prose efforts of Chaucer, the most
important is his translation of the De Consolatione Philosophiae of Boethius, made probably in entire
ignorance of the fact that it had already been translated into English by King Alfred almost five
hundred years before. The De Consolatione is mentioned in the Romance of the Rose as “ Boece,” and
the original author of this section of the famous allegory, Jean de Meun, declares that he would
confer a great benefit on the unlearned folk who should translate this work for them. It is not
unlikely that Chaucer found in this statement of the much admired French poet the suggestion
which led him to undertake his translation into English.
The original work of Boethius is divided into five books, and each book is sub-divided into
alternating metrical and prose sections, commonly known as Metres and Proses, all of which,
however, Chaucer translated into prose. In general Chaucer’s translation attempted to give the
content of the original, but it is by no means a literal translation, such not being the custom of
Chaucer’s day. Neither is it altogether a true translation, for Chaucer’s scholarship was not always
sufficient to save him from blunders. An instructive comparison may be made between Chaucer’s
prose version of Boethius and those passages of the same work which he versified in Troilus and
Cressida and in The Former Age. Such a comparison will show that the metrical versions are decidedly
more idiomatic and natural than the prose—another proof, if any were needed, that Chaucer had
mastered more completely the discipline of verse than that of prose.
The main defects of the translation are crudity and awkwardness, even at times obscurity, of
expression, due to imperfect adaptation of the thought to the English idiom. Chaucer’s difficulties
arose from the embarrassment caused by the necessity of striking a balance between a Latin and
an English phrasing. In general the translations of the Proses are more idiomatic and less
complicated than the translations of the Metres, obviously due to the fact that the Metres are more
compact and involved in expression in the original. Chaucer wisely made little effort to introduce
specifically English ornaments of style. Riming passages occur occasionally, but they are not
frequent or long enough to disturb the prose intention. Alliteration is used, sometimes rather
markedly, as in the phrase “fortroden under the feet of felonous folk,” but is never carried through
long passages. The only notable mannerism of style is the omission of the definite article where
the English idiom requires it. This is an obvious Latinism, found not only in Chaucer but in Wiclif
and many other writers of this time who wrote English under the influence of Latin.
Two of Chaucer’s prose writings were distinguished by inclusion within the framework of the
Canterbury Tales. One of these is Chaucer’s own contribution to the entertainment of the pilgrims,
the Tale of Melibeus, narrated by Chaucer after he has been ‘stinted’ of his Tale of Sir Thopas by the
disgusted Host. The other is the Parson’s Tale, a long and weary treatise on the vices and virtues
which serves as the pious ending to the whole series of the Canterbury Tales. It is not certain that
Chaucer wrote either of these tales, granting them this title by courtesy, for the express purpose of
including them in the Canterbury group. Quite possibly they were early works written when he
was more deeply interested in the composition of pious prayers and other works of devotion than
he was later, which were thriftily turned to account in the elaboration of the plan of the Canterbury
Tales. The two prose tales have very little dramatic appropriateness. One does not expect a
conventional medieval sermon on the vices and virtues from the parson, the brother of the
ploughman, who is described in the Prolog in terms that suggest Wiclif’s poor priests. Here was
Chaucer’s opportunity to give that picture of actual popular movements in his day which we miss
so much in his writings and which, without question, he consciously avoided giving. And the

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 9