Email this article 
Hide
Show all
A Comparative Study of Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales & Attar’s The Conference of the Birds
Abstract
Two major works of literature, Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales and Attar’s The Conference of the Birds, display a number of strikingly similarities, in addition to a number of prominent differences. This paper tries to shed light on similarities and differences between these two works; therefore, the story direction, narrative techniques, characterization techniques, and settings of both works are compared. The results shows that both authors used figurative pilgrimage or journey as the mean for self knowledge, both works are the collections of stories that all fit in a larger story and characters present their true personalities through their speeches and their clothes or appearances; Meanwhile The ideas which each author attempts to impart to his readers differ greatly from each other. Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales shows the Roman Catholic influences in England society, while Attar’s book is influenced by Islamic and Sufism values and principles of his period.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Abrams, M.H. (1999). A Glossary of Literary Terms/ Seventh Edition. Boston: Heiinle & Heinle Thomson Learning.
Abrams, M.H., Greenblatt, Stephen, David, Alfred and Lewalski, Barbara K. (1987). The Norton Anthology of English Literature. The Major Athuors (6 ed.). London: Norton & Company Ltd.
Alexander, M. (2000). A History of English Literature. London: MACMILLAN PRESS LTD.
Attar, F. (1984). The Conference of the Birds. (translated into English by A.D. Davis) London: Penguin.
Attar, F. (1388/2009). The Conference of The Birds. (Introduction, correction and suspension by Mohamad Reza Shafiei Kadkani), Tehran: Sokhan.
]عطار نیشابوری. (1388), منطق الطیر; مقدمه ، تصحیح وتعلیقات محمد رضا شفیعی کدکنی. تهران: سخن[
Attar, Farid ud-din. (1377/1998). The Conference of The Birds. (Introduction by Mohamad Javad Mashkoor), Tehran: Elham.
[عطار نیشابوری. (1377), منطق الطیر; مقدمه ، تصحیح دکتر محمد جواد مشکور. تهران: الهام[
Chaucer, G. (2000). The Canterbury Tales: In Modern English. Nevill Coghill, Pengiun Classics.
Fisher, J. H. (2003). “A Language Policy for Lancastrian England,” in Geoffrey Chaucer. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers.
Forozanfar, Badi-o-Zaman. (1374/1995). The Biography, Criticism and Analysis of Attar Neishabouri's Works. Association of Cultural Works and Scholars, Tehran, Iran.
]فروزانفر , بدیع الزمان. (1374) شرح احوال و نقد و تحلیل آثار عطار نیشابوری. تهران: انجمن آثار و مفاخر فرهنگی[
Hubbard-Brown, J. (2006). Chaucer Celebrated Poet and Author. Chelsea House Publishers.
J.E.Luebering (Ed.). (2010). The 100 Most Influential Writers of All Time. New York: Britannica Educational Publishing.
Robertson, D.W. (1962). Preface to Chaucer. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Scheub, H. (2000). A dictionary of African mythology: the mythmaker as storyteller. London: Oxford University Press.
Shamisa, S. (1386/2007). Dictionary of Allusions (Mythological, fictional, historical, religious references in Persian Literature), Tehran: Mitra.
]شمیسا, سیروس. (1386) فرهنگ تلمیحات (اشارات اساطیری ، داستانی، تاریخی، مذهبی ، در ادبیات فارسی) تهران : میترا[
Thorne, S. (2006). Mastering Poetry. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Witzel, M. E. (1987). On the origin of the literary device of the 'Frame Story' in Old Indian literature. Hinduismus und Buddhismus. (F. H.Falk, Ed.) Festschrift fuer U. Schneider.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7575/ijalel.v.2n.1p.90
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
2012-2023 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature
To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.