Middle English Literature
Chaucer
THE CANTERBURY TALES
General: In this lesson, we will focus on the presentations of personalities and society in the General Prologue and on motifs which organize the tales of the Miller, the Pardoner, the Wife of Bath, and the Nun's Priest.
The General Prologue. In the presentation of characters (or character types) representative of medieval society, Chaucer uses telling details to give a sense of their lives and concerns. Note, for example, that the knight seems to have been in the representative campaigns and that his tunic is spattered by the rust from his coat of mail, that the knight's son has "His lokkes crullle as they were laid in presse" (His hair curly as if he had just had his hair done. The yeoman and the reeve (farm overseer), on the other hand, wore their hair close cropped.
Along with this presentation of detail, Chaucer also applies two related techniques of satire: juxtaposition and ironic narration. Juxtaposition refers to the placement of seemingly unlike things together to make some kind of point; ironic narration refers to Chaucer's (or the narrator's) attitude toward the information. Let's look at both of these techniques together in the portrait of the Prioress (118-161), and we will see how they achieve the comic effect of criticizing the woman while pretending to praise her. The Prioress intones the mass through her nose. Perhaps she simply has a nasal quality to her singing, or perhaps she sings the mass by rote. In any case, her name is Madame Eglantine, a name from medieval romances which means something like "wild, rambling rose." As you may know, when nuns entered the church—then as now—they were expected to take on a name of a saint; however, this Prioress has taken on the name of a heroine of courtly romance rather than a saint. She spoke good French, as it was taught as Stratford at the Bowe, which was a privileged school, but she did not know the French as spoken in Paris. From lines 125 to 135, the narrator launches into enthusiastic praise of her table manners and daintiness. While her daintiness may represent a definite asset, she is after all an officer of the church, and the courtly manner, however, admirable is implicitly contrasted with the unmentioned responsibilities of her office. The narrator similarly praises the Prioress for her tenderness to animals, including her little dogs. This tenderness may seem praiseworthy, but since the vows of nuns generally precluded owning property including pets, the presentation offers potential criticism of the Prioress if she is measured against her vows. The potential criticism reaches a high point in the final lines. She has a rosary and from the rosary hung a golden brooch. On the brooch is a large A for the word "amour" or "love." Although having a golden brooch perhaps could violate the nun's vow of poverty, the word "amour" is fine if it refers to the love of God, but, of course, if it is a love token from a courtly lover, it becomes a problem for a nun. While the narrator seems to lavish praise on the nun, he quietly juxtaposes her secular values with the responsibilities of her vows. The narrator does not resolve the possible problems, for he simply reports and moves on to the next character.
In some way, you will need to account for the irony in the presentation. You can account for it in at least two ways: One is to assume that the narrator really admires the characters he praises, and the other is to assume that the narrator is quietly laughing at the characters. Assume that the narrator really means what he says—that he likes the Prioress and other characters he praises and that he himself is not interested in moral judgments. After all, the narrator even says of himself, "My wit is short, ye may wel understonde" (748). In this case, Chaucer the author is using a friendly, observant, but innocent narrator as a vehicle to present the irony in dramatic form. On the other hand, if the narrator is being quietly satiric, he is using verbal irony--saying one thing and intending to convey another idea.
The combination of the irony and juxtaposition becomes even stronger in the portrayal of the Monk (160-204). The narrator juxtaposes the Monk's bridle jingling with the sound of a church bell. Church bells call people to pray, while the bridle bells display wealth and power. The seemingly dissimilar sounds and purposes remind us that the Monk has also departed from his religious office. In particular, the vows of the monk prohibited both the ownership of property and the practice of hunting but instead commanded prayer (St. Benedict) or work (St. Augustine). The Monk is quite forthright in dismissing the principles of these orders “as old and somdeel strait [out of date and too strict] (174). Ironically or not, the narrator tells the monk that his opinion was “good” and asks what good study accomplishes. As for performing labor, the narrator says,” Therefore he was a prikasour [hard rider] aright" ((188). The monk's hood was fastened with a golden pin, and he had a love knot at the tip.
The ironic juxtapositions disappear in the portrait of the Oxford Clerk [Student} (287-310), for the student is what he claims to be—a student, and he likes to study, "And gladely wolde he leanre and gladly teche" (310)). Another character true to his calling is the town Person (parson), he interested in serving his parishioners rather than in gathering money (479-530). The narrator notes that he did not rent his “benefice for hire" (509). The "benefice" refers to his appointment to a position in the church. While we have the concept of subletting an apartment, some medieval church people would essentially sublet their religious duties—that is hire someone to do their religious duties, so they could be free of the obligation.
The narrator praises the Lawyer, for being cunning and for his skill with titles and legal matters. He notes, however, that "he seemed bisier than he was" (324). The Guildsmen bring their own cook, and the narrator praises the great skill of this cook but notices in a seemingly casual manner of the cook that he had a mormal [an ulcer] on his leg (388).The narrator gives similar praise for the Doctour of Physik [a Physician], for the physician is well informed in all aspects of medicine. At the same time, he mentions the colors of the Physician's clothes: Persian blue, which would have been very expensive, and blood red, which would also be costly, as well as appropriate for his trade. He follows the reference to the Physician's fine clothes with acknowledgment of his thrift. "For gold in physik, is a cordial, / Therefore he had loved gold in special. (445-446).
The Wife of Bath is a woman as sometimes presented by anti-feminist: coarse, erotic, and loud, but she still somehow emerges as a lively figure in her own right. Although she is old and somewhat deaf, she wore bright stockings of tightly laced stocking of scarlet (458-459). The narrator assures that she had been “a worthy woman all her life and had had five husbands “Withoughten other compaigne in youthe—" (461-462) and had traveled widely. Again, the narrator calls her "a good fellow," and praises her for her ready tongue and her knowledge of remedies of love.(478).
The portrait of the Miller focuses on the size and strength of his body, the coarseness of his speech, and his cunning as a miller. These attributes prepare us for the coarseness and cunning of his tale. The Pardoner, who has a high pitched voice, is accompanied by the Summoner, who had a deep voice. The Summoner had the authority to summon offenders for action by the church court. Nevertheless, the narrator avers, "He was a gentil harlot” who, in exchange for payment did not deliver summons to court. (625-676). The Summoner's companion, the Pardoner, is a Preacher, a kind of traveling evangelist. He also has power to issue pardons from the Pope. One of the abuses of the medieval church is that sometimes pardons for religious infractions were sold, and sometimes were sold in advance. The narrator describes him as someone who did not have a beard and adds that he was probably “a gelding or a mare" (693). In other words, he seemed to be either a homosexual
or a eunuch. Nevertheless, the narrator says that even though he made the "person and the peple his apes,” he was "a noble ecclesiastic" (708-710).
At the conclusion of the General Prologue, the Canterbury pilgrims agree to tell stories on their way. They draw lots to see who will tell the first tale. Fortunately, the lot falls on the knight, who as the highest- ranking person would be the appropriate one to begin. After the knight tells his tale, they cast lots again, and it becomes the Monk's turn. The Miller, however, who is drunk, breaks in and insists on telling his story first.
The Tales: Two general methods usually help students interpret the tales. One method is to identify how the characters project their personalities and beliefs into the stories they tell; a related method is to follow the motif of the "tricker-tricked" as a structural element in the stories.
The Motif of the "Tricker-Tricked":
Chaucer uses humor involving details that may take place in the bedroom or the bathroom, but the humor depends on the working out of a pattern rather than on physical incidents. In its simplest form, someone plays a trick on another person, but the trick comes back on the one who played it. The following modern joke illustrates a simple version of this tricker-tricked motif:
A man walks alone into a bar near an airport and takes a seat at the counter. He sees that all of the people except him are in couples or small groups. A beautiful young woman walks in and takes a seat by herself at the other end of the bar. After a few moments, the man walks over to the woman and politely says that he does not want to be forward but that, since he is waiting for a flight and the two of them are the only ones alone in the bar, perhaps she would be willing to let him buy her a drink. Suddenly the woman responds loudly: "No sir, I won't go with you to your room." The man tries to clear up the misunderstanding, but she simply raises her voice again and says that she will not go to a motel with him either. Conscious that people are looking at him, the man retreats to his own end of the bar where he tries to recover from embarrassment. Soon afterward, the woman walks over to the man. "I'm sorry if I caused you any embarrassment," she said. I am a graduate student in psychology, and I'm doing research on how people react to unexpected difficulties. I was using the incident for my school project. If you are still willing, I would be very pleased to have a drink with you." The man replied in an even louder voice than she had used initially: "A hundred dollars! Definitely not!"
As you will notice, the lady's trick reverberates on her. This pattern of the tricker becoming the victim of the trick is used in more complex ways in the tales.
Miller's Prologue and Tale:
Notice the Miller's language in his prologue. In the General Prologue, the narrator describes the Miller as coarse and bawdy. In his own Prologue, the Miller speaks directly in a bawdy style and even advances the "moral" that wives are likely to be unfaithful and that their husbands should not find infidelity surprising or objectionable: "A husband mustn't be curious, for his life, / About god's secrets or about his wife. / If she gives him plenty and he's in the clover, / No need to worry about what's left over" (53-56).
Although Chaucer's narrator describes the Miller as drunk, the Miller tells a highly organized tale that includes elaborate developments of the motif of the tricker-tricked based on two love triangles. The first triangle consists of the husband, a carpenter named John, his wife Alisoun, and the student Nicholas. At the outset of the story, the Miller offers his view that John had tricked himself because he was an old man who had married a younger woman: "For youthe and elde [age] is often at debat, / But sith he was fallen in the snare, / He moste endure, as others, his care" (122-124). Notice that from lines 125 to 162, the Miller describes Alisoun appreciatively with comparisons to natural things, including plants and animals. She was more beautiful to look at than the new blossoms of a pear tree and softer to touch than the wool of an old ram (140-141); she would skip and play like a calf or high-spirited colt; and her mouth was sweet as apples in hay...
The student Nicholas persuades Alisoun to be his lover and promises to trick her jealous husband into being absent. Nicholas works the trick by telling John that he had discovered through astrology that a quarter through the night there would be a flood as great as the flood that Noah had experienced in the Bible. Nicholas persuades John that the appropriate remedy is for Nicholas, John, and Alisoun to go sleep on the roof in a tub or kneading-trough and, when the waters come, to cut the ropes holding the kneading trough and float away in a barge. John agrees to this absurd arrangement, and he, Alisoun, and Nicholas go to the roof together. When John falls asleep, Alisoun and Nicholas go downstairs to bed.
This trick will return to discomfort Nicholas, but, before it does, another love triangle involving another trick presents itself. An officer of the church, the parish clerk Absolon, decides to court Alisoun. He goes to the window of her bedroom. He calls to her, professes his love, and pleads for a kiss. She is then in bed with Nicholas, and she asks Absolon to leave. Absolon agrees to leave if she will give him a kiss. Laughing, she puts her buttocks outside the window and takes Absolon's kiss. Absolon, determined to get revenge, gets a red hot poker. He returns and promises that he really will leave if he has just one more kiss. This time, Nicholas is the one who sticks his buttocks out the window. As Absolon approaches with the hot iron, Nicholas releases gas into Absolon's face. Absolon's hot iron, nonetheless, finds its target in Nicholas's rear end, and Nicholas cries out "Help! Water! Water!" Nicholas's cry of pain awakens the sleeping John on the roof, and John, thinking the flood waters have begun to rise, cuts the rope holding the tubs, and he falls down on the floor in a swoon.
The development of the tale depends on the interweaving of the love triangles: (1) John/Alisoun/Nicholas and (2) Nicholas/Alisoun/Absolon. In the first triangle, Nicholas tricks John into going on to the roof. In the second triangle, first Alisoun tricks Absolon into kissing her on the rear. This pattern of tricks becomes so absurd that it is easy to forget John sleeping on the roof; however, when Nicholas also attempts to trick Absolon into kissing his buttocks, Absolon's revenge awakens John and brings the first situation, with its triangle and pattern of trickery crashing down on top of the second triangle with its pattern of tricks.
The Wife of Bath's Prologue and Tale:
One view of the Wife of Bath, as seen in the General Prologue, is that she is a parody of arguments against women for being coarse, oversexed, and domineering. In the Wife's prologue to her own tale, she directly faces these accusations by frankly acknowledging her enjoyment of sexual activity and arguing that men should submit to the domination of women. She bases argument both on refutations of some anti-female interpretations of the Bible and on her own experience in five marriages.
Her first three husbands had been old and wealthy, but they were "good" in that they submitted to her wishes in exchange for her favor, an exchange which the wife said was beneficial for the husbands. Her next two husbands were young and were "bad," but she brought them under her control. The fourth husband was passionate but had a mistress. The wife explained even though she did not commit adultery herself, she punished him grievously by making him so jealous that he became miserable. In recalling this time of passion, she says she is glad, “I had my world, as in my time. / But age, alas, al wil envenime [poison] / Hath me beraft my beautee and my pith—/ Let it go.”(479-482). Her next husband, Janekyn, was passionate, was convinced that women were bad, and was physically abusive. Even so, the Wife said that she eventually won the upper hand with him and that she loved him the best. The source of her dispute with this husband was that he read aloud from a book which criticized women as the source of sin. This book blamed women for the fall of Adam from Eden, the loss of Samson's hair, and numerous other misfortunes from history and legend that had occurred to men. When Jankyn kept reading, the Wife angrily tore out three pages and hit him in the face. He then hit her so hard that he thought that he had killed her. In fact, she did become deaf in one ear. Deeply sorry, Jankyn surrendered control of everything to her. Naturally, she made him burn his book on the spot. With control over the relationship, the Wife found that she was able to keep her husband happy and that she was always a good wife to him. Through her battle with Jankyn over an antifeminist book and its expression in physical violence, the Wife's narrative of her own life becomes an argument in favor of women. The argument is that men attempt to dominate women and to justify their domination; however, they should surrender control to their wives. The ironic twist is that men are better off when they submit to female control.
The Wife's tale continues this argument. She relates that in the time of King Arthur, a Knight raped a maiden. King Arthur would have sentenced the Knight to death, but the queen and ladies of the court asked that he be given mercy. Arthur gave the Knight to the queen to determine what to do with him. The queen suspended the sentence of death for a year and a day, with the provision that the Knight return with an accurate report of what women desire most.
The Knight sets out on this quest. As he proceeds, he finds such various answers as wealth, honor, fine clothes, and rich sexual experiences. The Knight's quest obviously points to the Wife's theme of female control, but to drive home her points, she interrupts the narrative to make her own comments; for example, when the Knight comes to flattery as a possible answer, the Wife interrupts her narrative to point out that, while flattery is not woman's ultimate desire, it is very close to it. When the Knight encounters the answer that women most desire a reputation for stability and trustworthiness, the Wife again interrupts her narrative to reiterate points she had developed in her prologue, particularly that women do not want to have this reputation at all.
Naturally, the correct answer to the Knight's question is that the ultimate desire of women is for mastery over men. This answer is given to the Knight by an old hag. The cunning hag, however, persuades the Knight to marry her in exchange for the information. The Knight makes the agreement, gives his answer at court, and is given full pardon for his rape. Despite the Knight's pleas that he be released from the obligation to marry the old hag, he is forced to marry her. After the marriage, he resists her in bed, and she gives him a choice. She explains that she has the magical power to make herself young and beautiful for him, but if she does she is likely to be unkind and untrue; however, she explains that she will be a good and true wife if she remains an old hag. She asks the Knight to choose what he wants her to be for him. He replies that she probably knows best, so he leaves the choice to her. The hag then transforms herself into a young and beautiful woman, but because the Knight submitted mastery to her, she also promises to be a true and good wife to him. The Knight's wise choice to submit to his wife, like the wise choice of the Wife of Bath's husbands, illustrate the Wife's argument that men are better off when they give control to women, for that control is what women want most.
The Nun's Priest's Tale
The main action of the "Nun's Priest Tale" turns on the acts of flattery in which a fox captures a rooster by flattering him, and the rooster gets free by flattering the fox. The events of the capture and escape, however, are preceded by a comic debate between the rooster, Chanticleer, and his favorite hen, Dame Pertelote, on the subject of dreams. The debate takes place after Chanticleer awakens with a groan and tells Pertelote of a dream in which a beast "like a hound" had threatened his life. Dame Pertelote tells him quickly, "Now you have lost my heart and all my love! / I cannot love a coward, as I'm blest!" (90-91) Chanticleer and Pertelote then proceed to debate the validity of dreams. Their debate is a parody of medieval theological arguments, which were often based on appeals to authority. The term "parody" refers to a literary text that adopts the style and characteristics of another text in order to ridicule it. Dame Pertelote cites the Roman authority Cato who said "Put no stock in dreams" (120) and tells Chanticleer to take a laxative. Chanticleer, on the other hand, cites numerous authorities including the biblical story of Joseph to prove that dreams can forewarn of troubles. Even though Chaunteceleer authorities are sound, he surrenders to Dame Pertelote and decides not to worry about his dream. The narrator of the tale reflects in mock serious tone on the dangers of a man following his wife's advice, dangers that have continued since Adam and Eve, but then the narrator assures that "I only spoke in sport." (432-445).
When Chanticleer goes in the yard, he encounters the fox. The fox claims to have been a friend of Chaunteceleer father and says that he has come to hear Chaunteceleer beautiful singing. The fox recalls Chaunteceleer father having stood on tiptoe and stretched his neck so that the notes resonated beautifully. When Chanticleer adopts this pose, the fox grabs him by the neck and runs away with him. Dogs and men pursue the fox and his prey, but the fox as a good lead on them. Chanticleer persuades the fox that his lead is sufficient to give him time to tell his pursuers that they are wasting their time and might as well return home. When the fox opens his mouth to do this, Chanticleer of course leaps free and flies out of reach. The fox promises to explain everything more clearly if Chanticleer comes back down. Chanticleer, however, says to the fox that the two of them are both fools but that he will not allow himself to be tricked again by flattery.
The Pardoner's Prologue and Tale:
"The Pardoner's Tale" is part of a sermon on the evils of greed. In the Prologue to his tale, the Pardoner says "My text is ever the same, and ever was: Radix malorum est cupiditas"-- the root of evil is greed. He says that he is very effective on preaching against greed because he is greedy himself, and he uses his skill in preaching, sale of pardons, and access to false relics to take in a lot of money. He announces proudly that part of his routine is to warn his audience that anyone guilt of a secret sin should not approach his holy relics. Wives who have been unfaithful should especially avoid the relics. Members of the audience do come forward and, in exchange for their donation, are allowed to kiss the fake relics.
The tale is part of the sermon against greed. Three young roisterers decide that Death has taken too many people and that they themselves will find Death and slay him. They threaten an old man and demand that he tell them where they can find Death. The old man points to a grove and promises them that they can find Death there under a tree. Instead of Death, the roisterers find gold under the tree. Excited at the discovery, he forgot their original purpose and planned to wait until nighttime, so they can carry the gold home without being detected. During the wait, the youngest one of them goes to town for food and wine. The other two decide that, when their friend returns, they will pretend to wrestle him playfully but will actually kill him with their daggers. They follow this plan and then eat and drink the food and wine. Their young friend, however, hoping to have all the gold himself had poisoned the wine, so all three roisters do find Death in their greed for wealth. This greed motivates them to trick each other. The Pardoner then draws the moral that greed is evil and that by giving money to him, people can overcome their sin. He forgets, however, that he has already confided that his relics are false and that he himself is greedy, so when he calls the host to come forward and donate money in exchange for kissing the relics, the host insults the Pardoner, particularly the masculinity of the Pardoner (664-667. The Pardoner thus tries to trick his audience but ends up tricking himself because he forgot that he had boasted about his effectiveness as a swindler, and the tale he tells is one in which greedy people swindle each other.
STUDY QUESTIONS
MAURY MARYANOW
Troy University, Montgomery Campus