I have to start off this post by admitting I'm using a different edition of the text then the majority of the class. I'll be discussing the illustrations that appear in my version of the text, and as such can not speak to any illustrations that may or may not appear in the other versions and for that, I apologize.
My edition of The Canterbury Tales contains wood-engraved illustrations by Edward Coley Burne-Jones (man of too many names) whose artwork originally appeared in The Works of Geoffery Chaucer, published in 1896. These illustrations are eye catching and beautiful, but ultimately a little distracting, especially as they appear in my edition at random. Illustrations of Emelye at the Temple of Diana appear pages after the action occurs in the narrative. I can only hope that the images were more appropriately used in the edition in which they first appeared.
Burne-Jones said The Works of Geoffery Chaucer, the book containing his illustrations and Chaucer's work without preface or any biographical introduction to to the man himself, would "be a little like a pocket cathedral." Upon second glance at the wood carvings, one can perhaps see how they would resemble a stained glass window, especially when paired with the ornate lettering of the prose. You can see an example of the Burne-Jones wood cuttings here. While it's obvious the respect Burne-Jones had for Chaucer's work, there's something a little heeby about how freely he goes about reposessing it, in a way, and repackaging it in a way he likes better. I doubt anything malicious was intended, and truthfully, I may be reading a bit too much into Burne-Jones's actions, here.
Personally, I feel conflicted about illustrating works of literature. On the one hand, pretty pretty pictures. On the other hand, I have a brain and an imagination, I can create my own mental pretty pretty pictures. There's something frustrating about being denied the intimacy of imaging the visuals of the story for yourself. It's part of what infuriates so many people, I think, when literature is made into film.
According to a website constructed by the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, "Early printed editions of Chaucer borrowed heavily from the elaborate illustrations found in manuscript copies. This tradition has continued throughout the history of Chaucer editions, until the twentieth century when production costs and larger press runs made illustrations prohibitively expensive." However conflicted I may feel about the illustrations, they were evidently present in the early manuscripts and reproduced in early editions until it was no longer cost effective to do so. Whether it was ever Chaucer's intention to add illustrations, I can't say, but early readers and producers of the manuscripts evidently wanted them. The UWM website on the early editions of Chaucer is worth glancing over, if you're interested at all in the changes that were made over the years and many different editions of The Canterbury Tales.
The UWM site has many examples of those early illustrated editions, but if you're looking for more, ArtStor is a great resource. I plugged in The Canterbury Tales and got back a ton of results of scanned original illustrated manuscripts from the 1400s. I put up a few examples of the results I got from ArtStor on flickr, here, but you should check it out yourself on ArtStor if you want a closer look.
So: to illustrate, or not to illustrate? The originals are interesting, from a historical perspective, but I'm not sure what is gained by copying them for modern editions. Not sure anything is lost, either, they're just sort of there. Likewise, it's interesting how the illustrations were removed from later editions, then added back in, and removed again from edition to edition. You can take them or leave them, perhaps? I'd be interested in hearing what everyone else thinks. I find the art compelling, but don't feel as if I necessarily need it sitting side by side with the prose in order to enjoy the story.
As an end note, I apologize if this initial blog entry is clunky, language or topic wise, I promise my next nine won't be as torturous.
But never mind my self deprecating tendencies, Chaucer and illustrations, what do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi, Toni! I want to follow Dr. Wenthe's example in offering mad props for your temerity. And what you bring up is very interesting! Especially considering our class's conversation on Tuesday regarding the characterization through language of Emelye and Alisoun. Would illustrations of these two characters, depicted according to the fashions of the time for female romantic leads, get in the way of what Chaucer would have wanted to underscore in their characters? I think probably yes.
ReplyDeleteThat said, this sure is a cool picture.
I think the opposite is true! Granted, I'm doing an independent study on illustration so I'm undoubtedly biased. I do in part agree that illustrations can take away from the readers imaginative experience (even I'll admit I would rather not have them in an engaging book), and as Erin said, they are incapable of conveying all of Chaucer's characterization. But her valid point against illustration is similar to my point in favor of it. Illustrations remove the burden on less skilled readers to create visuals that may be more difficult to imagine so that such a reader could absorb more easily the things which are more difficult or impossible to convey through imagery, such as relationships, speech patterns, personality traits, puns, etc. But illustrations have their time and place. I believe they should be used as a supplemental aid to the reading. At their best they could stand alone as a work of art, help the reader understand the story, and perhaps even increase their sense of connection to the characters. At their worst they can obfuscate, distract, and just plain misinform. But such a powerful tool should not be discarded lightly! Especially when so many of us are so inexperienced at reading and absorbing Chaucer. I know I could benefit from some pictures.
ReplyDeleteI think what we have to be careful of in regards to illustrations, whether they be wood-carvings, pictures or stain-glass, because they are the vision of whoever is doing the actual artistic work as opposed to what piece of literary work they are related to. It is wonderful that Burne-Jones did such beautiful wood-carvings, but they are his own interpretation of Chaucer's writing and not Chaucer's directly. Chaucer already gives us such wonderfully witty descriptions of his characters and their tales that I rather enjoy formulating my own scene as opposed to looking at someone else's idea. Don't get me wrong sometimes illustrations are invaluable but as Katie stated above sometimes they can "obfuscate, distract and just plain misinform."
ReplyDeleteTo answer Toni's question "To illustrate or not to illustrate?" Personally I would not illustrate, even if the illustration helps in the understanding of the language, because if we already had everything explained clearly what would be the point of studying literature in the first place?