Carregue numa fotografia para ir para os Livros Google.
A carregar... Chaucer and the Mediaeval Sciencespor Walter Clyde Curry
Nenhum(a) A carregar...
Adira ao LibraryThing para descobrir se irá gostar deste livro. Ainda não há conversas na Discussão sobre este livro. sem críticas | adicionar uma crítica
Não foram encontradas descrições de bibliotecas. |
Current DiscussionsNenhum(a)
Google Books — A carregar... GénerosSistema Decimal de Melvil (DDC)821.1Literature English & Old English literatures English poetry 1066-1400 Early English period, medieval periodClassificação da Biblioteca do Congresso dos EUA (LCC)AvaliaçãoMédia:
É você?Torne-se num Autor LibraryThing. |
This ain't it.
This is, instead, a meticulously argued, thoroughly dull, profoundly absurd discussion of Chaucer and astrology.
Look, I know that people in the Middle Ages believed in astrology. Many people today still believe that evolution and climate change are hoaxes, and apparently all politicians, regardless of party, sign a contract to refuse to accept that the universe is governed by the laws of thermodynamics. But not everyone is fooled by this, and no matter what people believe, eppur si muove.
I simply cannot believe that the Canterbury Tales (which is all this book really covers, except for brief side glances at Troilus and Criseyde and Anelida and Arcite at the end) was constructed the way this book describes. Chaucer was creating characters, not animated horoscopes. If all it took to make a great piece of literature was an in-depth knowledge of astrology, there would be a lot more great literature in the world.
To be fair, author Walter Clyde Curry acknowledges Chaucer's use of Boethius as a philosopher. But I think he ignores Boethius as encyclopedist.
Obviously I am operating on an assumption here: I believe that astrology is garbage. I also believe that Chaucer was a great writer. Therefore I don't want the two to mix. But I simply don't believe Curry's detailed special pleading really does anything to prove the connection is as strong as the author claims. And, certainly, there is no science in this book. Not modern science -- and not medieval science, either. Curry -- who never covers the Treatise, the House of Fame, or the Canon's Yeoman's Tale -- evidently left those out because they were actually about science. ( )