Chaucer Estetiğindeki Değişim: Sir Thopas’ın Hikayesi’nden Melibee’nin Hikayesi’ne

Öz

Chaucer‟ın Sör Thopas’ın Hikayesi ve Melibee’nin Hikayesi, romansı gerçekdışı bir edebi anlatım biçimi olarak abartarak ve felsefi anlatımı daha gerçekçi bir edebi tür olarak sunarak, romans geleneğinden felsefi anlatıma geçişi sergiler. Hacı Chaucer ilk önce romans (Sör Thopas’ın Hikayesi) ile başlar ve sonrasında, Boethius‟un Felsefenin Tesellisi eserinden esinlenen felsefi bir hikaye (Melibee’nin Hikayesi) ile devam eder. Bu açıdan, hacı Chaucer‟ın rolü Chaucer‟ın edebi estetiğindeki değişimi yansıtmak için çok önemlidir. Dahası, temsili seyirciler olarak hacıların Sör Thopas’ın Hikayesi‟nin yarıda kesilmesini takiben olumsuz tepkilerini, Melibee’nin Hikayesi sonrası ise olumlu tepkilerini sunarak, Chaucer sadece şairin değil aynı zamanda dinleyicilerinin/okuyucularının edebi estetik anlayışlarının da bir yansıması olan, hikayelerin algılanış sürecini de sergilemektedir. Bu yüzden, daha gerçekçi olan bir felsefi anlatımın beğenisini sunarak, Chaucer‟ın sadece edebi estetikteki değişimi yansıttığı değil, aynı zamanda bu değişimi şekillendirdiği de söylenebilir. Bu sebeple, bu makalenin amacı edebi estetikteki romanstan felsefi anlatıma geçişi tartışmak ve edebi estetiğin bu temsilinin Chaucer‟ın edebi öz-biçimlendirmesini göstermekte önemli olduğunu iddia etmektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Chaucer
• Sör Thopas’ın Hikayesi
• Melibee’nin Hikayesi
• romans
• felsefi anlatım
• edebi estetik
• edebi öz-biçimlendirme

The Change in Chaucerian Aesthetics: From The Tale of Sir Thopas to The Tale of Melibee

Öz

Chaucer‟s The Tale of Sir Thopas and The Tale of Melibee exhibit the transformation from the romance tradition to philosophical narration, exaggerating romance as an unrealistic narration and presenting philosophical narration as a more realistic literary form. Chaucer the pilgrim firstly starts with romance (The Tale of Sir Thopas) and then continues with a philosophical tale (The Tale of Melibee), which is derived from Boethius‟s Consolation of Philosophy. In this respect, the role of Chaucer the pilgrim is very important to display the change in Chaucerian literary aesthetics. Furthermore, displaying the negative attitudes of the pilgrims, as a representative audience, towards The Tale of Sir Thopas, which starts with the interruption of the tale, and the positive remarks of the pilgrims towards The Tale of Melibee, Chaucer exhibits the reception process of his tales, which can be defined as the reflection of the literary aesthetics not only of the poet but also on the part of the audience/readers. Hence, it can be suggested that, presenting the approval of a more realistic philosophical narrative, Chaucer not only reflects the change in literary aesthetics, but also shapes this change in literary aesthetics. Thus, the aim of this article is to discuss the literary aesthetics of the change from romance to philosophical narration, and to claim that this representation of literary aesthetics is functional in displaying Chaucer‟s literary self- fashioning.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Chaucer
• The Tale of Sir Thopas
• The Tale of Melibee
• romance
• philosophical narration
• literary aesthetics
• literary self-fashioning

Kaynakça

1. Ashton G. (2010). Medieval English Romance in Context. London – New York 2010.
2. Barron W. R. J. (1987). English Medieval Romance. London – New York 1987.
3. Baugh A. C. (1967). A Literary History of England. Vol. I. London 1967.
4. Benson C. D. (1983). “Their Telling Difference: Chaucer the Pilgrim and His Two Contrasting Tales”. The Chaucer Review 18/1 (1983) 61-76.
5. Berry C. A. (1994). “Borrowed Armor/Free Grace: The Quest for Authority in The Faerie Queene and Chaucer‟s Tale of Sir Thopas”. Studies in Philology 91/2 (1994) 136-166.
6. Bloomfield, Morton W. (1986). “Chaucerian Realism”. Eds: Piero Boitani and Jill Mann The Cambridge Chaucer Companion (1986) 179-193. Cambridge.
7. Boitani P. (1982). English Medieval Narrative in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries. Trans. Joan Krakover Hall. Cambridge 1982.
8. Bornstein D. (1978). “Chaucer‟s Tale of Melibee as an Example of the Style Clergial”. The Chaucer Review 12/4 (1978) 236-254.

9. Brantley J. (2013). “Reading the Forms of Sir Thopas”. The Chaucer Review 47/4 (2013) 416-438.
10. Burrow J. A. (2003). “The Canterbury Tales I: Romance”. Eds. Piero Boitani and Jill Mann The Cambridge Companion to Chaucer (2003) 143-159. Cambridge.
11. Chaucer G. (2008). The Riverside Chaucer. Ed. Larry D. Benson. 3rd edition. Oxford 2008.
12. Collette C. P. (1995). “Heeding the Counsel of Prudence: A Context for the Melibee”. The Chaucer Review 29/4 (1995) 416-433.
13. Daileader, Celia R. (1994). “The Thopas-Melibee Sequence and the Defeat of Antifeminism”. The Chaucer Review 29/1 (1994) 26-39.
14. Donaldson E. T. (1970). Speaking of Chaucer. New York 1970.
15. Foster E. E. (2000). “Has Anyone Here Read Melibee?” The Chaucer Review 34/4 (2000) 398-409.
16. Foster M. (2008). “Echoes of Communal Response in the Tale of Melibee”. The Chaucer Review 42/4 (2008) 409-430.
17. Gaylord A.T. (1982). “The Moment of „Sir Thopas:‟ Towards a New Look at Chaucer‟s Language”. The Chaucer Review 16/4 (1982) 311-329.
18. Greenblatt S. (2005). Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare. Chicago 2005.
19. Hamel M. (1980). “And Now for Something Completely Different: The Relationship between the Prioress’s Tale and the Rime of Sir Thopas”. The Chaucer Review 14/3 (1980) 251-259.
20. Haskell A. S. (1975). “Sir Thopas: The Puppet‟s Puppet”. The Chaucer Review 9/3 (1975) 253-261.
21. Hill T. D. (2012). “Chaucer‟s Parabolic Narrative: The Prologue to the Tale of Melibee, Lines 953-58”. The Chaucer Review 46/3 (2012) 365-370.
22. Leitch M. G. (2012) “Locating Authorial Ethics: The Idea of the Male or Book-Bag in the Canterbury Tales and Other Middle English Poems”. The Chaucer Review 46/4 (2012) 403-418.
23. Linn I. (1936). “The Arming of Sir Thopas”. Modern Language Notes 51/5 (1936) 300-311.
24. Mehl D. (1986). “Chaucer‟s Narrator: Troilus and Criseyde and the Canterbury Tales”. Eds. Piero Boitani and Jill Mann The Cambridge Chaucer Companion (1986) 213-226.
25. Miller R. P. (1979). “Allegory in the Canterbury Tales”. Ed. Beryl Rowland Companion to Chaucer Studies (1979) 326-351. New York – Oxford 1979.