Category: The Canterbury Tales

In the following essay I will look at Chaucer’s treatment of marriage within the Canterbury Tales, focusing in particular on the ‘Miller’s Tale’ and ‘The Wife of Bath’s prologue’ , by focusing on these tales, I will be able to look at the parallels and common themes of the tales. I will look at how the institute of marriage was portrayed in Chaucer’s day from representations of the ideal and conventional to values and attitudes toward topics such as; adultery, sex and divorce, which are exemplified in the tales I have chosen. This we will enable us to see Chaucer’s treatment of marriage.

Chaucer has a fascination with the opinions and interactions of a range of individuals, which includes their unique practices and social conventions, as demonstrated in the Canterbury Tales, where we see a broad and diverse range of people. One area of particular interest is that of marriage and the ideals and practices surrounding it, Chaucer shows us the good and bad, dealing with common themes of love, justice and relationships between men and women. Before looking at the individual tales, we need to look at Chaucer’s times and the social perceptions and norms of marriage, in order to establish a context to his work and see if there are underlying assumptions that may have influenced his treatment of the marriage. During Chaucer’s time, marriage would have, primarily been for financial and political gain, with women acting as peace weavers, to either secure their families political status or to create an advantage; by marrying well, women would ensure their long term financial security, whilst enabling the future political alliances, of her family. For men, marrying successfully would also provide suitable allies both financially and politically, it is important to remember that when a woman married, she would often relinquish all rights to her finances. Women of the peasantry would have enjoyed the benefits of marriage with more freedom, although the structure of betterment did still apply, Chaucer addresses the issues of his own patriarchal culture. In terms of marriage in the religious sphere, it was a sacred union, that saw the coming together of flesh and spirit, Christ and Church, the Churches views on marriage and women were highly influential. The Church believed that Eve was made from Adam’s rib, making women automatically more inferior, this meant that women of low birth, would generally suffer a life of drudgery, women of aristocratic birth, would be afforded an education within a nunnery or at home but were still viewed in terms of financial worth, Knuetze believed that; “The wife’s ideas about marriage are shown to coincide with ideas, which were developing in Chaucer’s society as a result of social and economic changes in fourteenth century England” , could this be why Chaucer chose to represent marriage through the eyes of a woman?.

‘The Wife of Bath’s prologue’ is a dramatic monologue, expressing ‘The wife of Bath’s’ views on men and marriage, it is one of the most detailed and enlightening accounts, illustrating her perceptions and presumptions, by giving her a voice, Chaucer changes the complexion of viewpoint; “The wife commands matrimony, she asserts the sovereignty of wife over husband. She gives several flings at the ill-natured remarks that the Clerks have made about women” . She represents the emergent group of women, who did not fit clearly into any one of the three estates, as although she is wealthy, she is not from an aristocratic background, her physical appearance creates some discord, as she wears red, which has connotations and associations to religious figures and aristocrats. The ‘Wife of Bath’s’ attitude toward marriage is complex, as despite her mockery and criticism of her many husbands, five in total, she does seem to be an advocator for marriage; “welcome to sixte” , she also proclaims herself an expert on marriage and being a wife; “Of which I am expert in al myn age” . ‘The Wife of Bath’s prologue’ is believed to have been inspired by the monologue- ‘La Vielle’ in the ‘Romande La Rose’ which details a young woman’s lectures on how to outwit men, the Wife of Bath shares the belief that a woman should have control of their husband; “An housbonde I wol have-I bwol nat lette-which shal be bothe my detour and my thral” , she goes on to discuss the woes of marriage, in a satirical manner that implies women are manipulative, which is highlighted in her communication with those that interrupt and challenge her; “you say that all we wives our vices hide. Till we are married” this ironic and traditional viewpoint forms part of the popular ‘Molestia Nuptarium’ or ‘Pains of marriage’, which initially at least portrays to the reader a multi-faceted relationship with marriage, a viewpoint Chaucer highlights in his dealing of the topic of marriage.

The prologue sees the beginning of the marriage group within the Canterbury Tales, where the relationship between man and woman and in particular man and wife is the chief concern and looks at the roles they play within the institute of marriage; “The Wife of Bath first sets forth her convictions in regard to matrimony and the experiences by which these convictions are fortified” . Chaucer explores, evaluates and implants the ideals of each of the speakers, which in turn illustrates their character and opinions, he satirizes the roles that women have in marriage, highlighting the little respect that they receive from their husbands, The Wife of Bath, openly opposes the concept of being controlled by a man, mockingly detailing the control she had over her older husbands; “A wys wyf, if that she kan hir good, shal beren hym on honed the cow is wood” . “The Wife is not sowing discord pilgrims, she is defending herself and her sex“ This suggests that’s the role of the Wife, is to offer an alternative perspective to the ideas of a submissive woman, for an evocative and alternative perspective, she vocalises her belief that chastity is not a requirement for a successful match and that marrying more than once is acceptable, these views can be seen in the following passage;

“Wher can ye seve in any manere age

That hve God defended marriage

By expres word? I praye yow, telleth me.

Or where comanded he virginitee?

I woot as wel as ye, it is no drede,

“Th’apostl whan he speketh of maydenhede,

He seyde that precept therof hadde he noon:

Men may conseille a woman to been oon,

But conseillyng is no comandement,

He putte it in oure owene juggement”

This shows how she rebels against the conventional attitudes, feeling she had been chastised for her beliefs, by dramatizing the affirmation of the established culture in the actions and attitudes of the Wife of Bath, Chaucer negates these attitudes, this creates a stark contrast to the misogynistic views of the other more conventional speakers, as can be found in the Franklin’s Tale. The Wife of Bath, wants control over her situation and ultimately an argument in defence of her multiple marriages, believing that the woes of marriage were inflicted on the men in the marriage not the women, although she herself was rendered deaf in one ear from the physical abuse of her last husband; “And yet was he to me the mooste shrewe; That feele I on my ribbes al by rew” Again Chaucer challenges preconceptions and ideals of marriage.

Her liberal rebellion against male domination is reflected in her relationship with her first three husbands; “what sholde I taken keep hem for to plese, But it were for my profit and myn ese?” she represents marriage in terms of a barter system, nonchalantly referring to her fulfilment of sexual desire, for her economic survival; “Now wherewith sholde he make his paiement, if he ne used his sely instrument?” does her lack of respect for marriage, come from this belief that women are objects and commodities to be brought? She talks of her own desire for sexual fulfilment and her own happiness- eluding to this in reference to her fifth husband; “in oure bed he was so fresh and gay” . There are very distinct differences drawn between the concept of wifely duties and joyful love making, mocking those that believe sexual organs; “were maked for purgacioun/of uryne”

In contrast ‘The Miller’s Tale’ sees the foundation of marriage questioned, written in the fabliau genre- “A fabliau is a brief comic tale in verse, usually scurrilous and often scatological or obscene. The style is simple, vigorous and straightforward…the fabliau presents a lively image of everyday life among the middle and lower classes” The genre of the Fabliau tends toward the low brow humour, which is in keeping with the character of the Miller, who himself, is a caricature of vulgarity, described as a ‘Churl’ in the prologue “The millere is a cherl, ye knowe wel this” The tale depicts romantic situations within the expectations of the genre and portraying marriage and adultery, mocking the conventional attitudes of marriage, a parody of the Knight’s tale, which was an idealised representation of love; “The Miller, is not simply keeping to the bargain of telling a tale, but is more specifically providing an answer to the Knight’s view of things” . This automatically creates a discord with the perceptions of romantic love, reinforcing Chaucer’s challenge to societal expectations.

The Miller who is not idealised and is described in terms of a domestic sphere, recasting the characters and themes of the knight’s courtly romance, into the comedic version we see in the Miller’s Tale. The narrator warns us that we might find the Miller’s Tale offensive, and that anyone who is sensitive may, wish to choose a different tale, there are a number of the pilgrims that too would be assumed to take offence, the Reeve voices his concerns; “…it is a synne and eek a greet folye, to apeyren any man, or hym defame, And eek to bryngen wyves in swich fame” . Although both have philosophical dimensions, the Knight’s Tale is more concerned with moralising, the Miller’s Tale parodies this by offering the listener a lighter and more humorous alternative.

In the Prologue, the Miller proudly states that “One shouldn’t be too inquisitive in life / Either about God’s secrets or one’s wife. /God’s plenty all you could desire / better not enquire” which sees and expression of the attitude that men shouldn’t care about their wives. In the ‘Miller’s Tale’, Nicholas and Absolon, vie for the affections of Alison, who ultimately commits adultery, Alison makes a conscious decision to betray her husband, she is sexualised and described in detail, using animal imagery; ‘skittish colt’ , by mocking the concept of ‘courtly love’ and illustrating the relationship in terms of sexualised desire. The Miller’s Tale is a story of adultery and demonstrates the consequences of the abuses of marriage, Lines 3290-5 of the Miller’s Tale show Alison’s blatant disrespect for her marriage to ‘Old John’ and her planned deceit:

“That she hir love hym graunted ate laste,

And swoor hir ooth, by seint Thomas of Kent,

That she wol been at his comandement,

Whan that she may hir leyser wel espie.

“Myn housbonde is so ful of jalousie

That but ye wayte wel and been privee…”

In contrast Alison’s husband demonstrates a dedication and love for his wife that supersedes his concern and awareness, at their age difference and her generally erratic disposition, the ‘Miller’s Tale’ draws a parallel to the ‘Wife of Bath’s Prologue’ as both illustrate the relationship of an older man with a younger woman and the associated pit falls that can come from such to ensure their ancestral line.

The character of the Miller and his subsequent tale is in keeping with expectations for his estate therefore each tale is told and is reflective in its values as its teller, by mirroring the language of the Knight he mocks his pretensions and belies his own base nature, which serves to highlight the disparity between their respective values, the Miller is a more complex character than described in the prologue, he embodies all the worst traits of the emergent mercantile class, does this representation through the eyes of a none idealised figure, tell us about Chaucer’s attitude and treatment of marriage? By sexualising the wives in the two tales, Chaucer addresses the sexual element of marriage, and to a degree feminism- Emelye in stark contrast is idealised and retains the virginal expectations of the time, there is no intention to marry Alisoun, it is not considered, it is more a question of achieving gratification, by winning her affection and ultimately the associated sexual gratification- means it is passion based rather than a question of love.

Absolon and Nicholas behaviour is the antithesis to the concept of the religious union, their base natures and desires, act as a stark contrast to that of her husband John, they mock and openly disregard the sanctity of marriage, is Chaucer showing us this, as a representation of marriage, or to warn those that may indulge in adultery of the potential pit falls? The situation that John finds himself in, within the Miller’s tale, has religious overtones, with strong reference to the floods in which Noah built the Ark- by aligning John with the religious figure is he elevating Johns position within the story? John’s belief in his marriage and religion are idealised views of both, which by association vilifies the behaviour of those involved in the affair and on a larger scale portrays them as the negative side of marriage.

Chaucer offers a broad range of views on marriage throughout the Canterbury Tales, his deals with marriage by creating multi-dimensional frameworks by which the reader can decide their own opinion, using a combination of idealised and vilified characters to offer up differing opinions, reflecting the complexities of the institute of marriage.

While analyzing a major literary work, it is important to uncover the key elements and purposes of the specific text. By revealing the author’s motivation for writing, readers can understand the true meaning and fully appreciate the language. In a narrative work such as The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer, the narrator has the purpose of conveying a message through a relatable voice. In this work, Chaucer used various speakers to touch on multiple subjects whilst painting a realistic picture of the period. According to “Some New Light on Chaucer” by John Manly, the “Method of… letting readers see the person and events of the writer’s vision is habitual with [Geoffrey] Chaucer (pg. 295).” This “method” essentially underscores Chaucer’s ability to tell the story through the lens personal experience. By employing the convention of the frame story, Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales lays bare the true nature of pilgrims from all social stratification- an effort requiring the consideration of varying perspectives through the cloak of his voice behind several layers of the narrative.

One of Chaucer’s skills as a Renaissance writer is his ability to present characters that have real-life qualities and convince readers to relate to each character. The Tales can be viewed as a literary renaissance for lower-class English representation, as it includes a variety of characters that realistically represent each estate during the Middle Ages. With the application of this narrative style, Chaucer allows each character to share the perspective of their societal position while humbly critiquing their physiognomy to present the flaws within their respective classes. According to Gail Asthon’s analysis of “Chaucer’s Styles and Narrative Skills”:

[The work] is a melting pot of themes and ideas expressed in a rich mix of styles and techniques, mingling the comic and serious, entertainment and instruction…. the individual poems within the Tales can be categorized by genre…[and] many examination questions focus on upon Chaucer’s style [can reveal that] characterization, and narration form part of an overall impression alongside themes and purpose. (pg. 7)

By placing the pilgrims as the narrators of their tales, Chaucer gave himself the freedom to speak upon the subjects that he wishes. For example, when Alyson (The Wife of Bath’s) narrates on the social problem of female mistreatment in society, Chaucer writes freely on the subject by using a woman to speak on women’s issues. In the tales, Allison states;

Women may go saufly up and doun.

In every bussh or under every tree

Ther is noon oother incubus but he,

And he ne wol doon hem but dishonour. (lines 884-887)

Clearly, the speaker addresses the societal malignancy that is sexual assault. Statistically, women are most commonly the victims of sexual abuse, Chaucer’s attempts to use Alison as a speaker effectively relate the message to the readers. In that women face this sexist societal oppression; women are often inclined to take an activist role on the issue.

While the Tales can be considered an aggregation of Chaucer’s thoughts and opinions, he genuinely believes it is significant for readers to view each topic with a variety of alternative perspectives. This use of perspective narratives grants Chaucer the ability to combine his opinions and the opinions of society in a merging form. Each character of the work carries a different voice, ranging from a peaceful activist to a violent fiend. According to David Hadbawnik’s analysis of “Links and Frame” in The Canterbury Tales:

Chaucer’s ‘framing narrative’—the links between tales, which consist of pilgrims’ prologues and in some cases epilogues—the pilgrims respond to what they have heard, bicker over who will speak next, and continue to mull and argue over some of the larger themes of the Tales (such as language, marriage, class issues, and gender, among others).

Each pilgrim in the Tales represents a different estate, thus, they share a spectrum of opinions. In this, they do not share a mutual understanding for each other’s perspective, the tension between the characters represent the clashing between social classes. He does this without placing one character superior to any other- creating an equal platform for each storyteller to express their reality as they perceive it. By doing this, Chaucer presents to readers both the positive and negative perspectives of the matter- leaving readers to interpret their personal views. In the “Wife of Bath’s Prologue”, the conflict between Alyson and the Pardoner can be viewed as an example. The Interlude states:

Up stirte the Pardoner, and that anon;

‘Now, dame,’ quod he, ‘by God and by Seint John!

Ye been a noble prechour in this cas.

I was aboute to wedde a wyf; allas!

What sholde I bye it on my flessh so deere?

Yet hadde I levere wedde no wyf to-yeere!’

‘Abyde!’ quod she, ‘my tale is nat bigonne.

Nay, thou shalt drynken of another tonne,

Er that I go, shal savoure wors than ale.

And whan that I have toold thee forth my tale

Of tribulacion in mariage,

Of which I am expert in al myn age —

This is to seyn, myself have been the whippe –

Than maystow chese wheither thou wolt sippe

Of thilke tonne that I shal abroche.

Be war of it, er thou to ny approche;

For I shal telle ensamples mo than ten.

`Whoso that nyl be war by othere men,

By hym shul othere men corrected be.’

The same wordes writeth Ptholomee;

Rede in his Almageste, and take it there.’ ‘Dame, I wolde praye yow, if youre wyl it were,’

Seyde this Pardoner, ‘as ye bigan,

Telle forth youre tale, spareth for no man,

And teche us yonge men of youre praktike.’ ‘Gladly,’ quod she, ‘sith it may yow like;

But yet I praye to al this compaignye,

If that I speke after my fantasye,

As taketh not agrief of that I seye,

For myn entente nys but for to pleye. (lines 169-195)

Due to Alyson’s exuding female dominance, the Pardoner was uneasy and quickly challenged her by abruptly inserting himself. She retaliates by accentuating his alcoholic behavior as a pardoner and proceeds to reasons her reasons for multiple marriages. The bickering between these characters is a representation of different perspectives on gender conflict of the period. As a whole, the dialogue consists of Chaucer’s reoccurring technique of exploring different perspectives on a specific matter and presenting his opinion.

Frequently in today’s society, opinions on societal matters are often masked by an anonymous online profile. Speakers can write and post their criticism without the fear of the possible repercussions faced when in public. Whilst writing this epic criticism of the Church, Chaucer carefully masked himself behind the voice of the saturated clergymen. In Roger Ellis’ work on Patterns of Religious Narrative in the Canterbury Tales, the author states that:

The voices we hear in [the work] …suggest the cooperation of author and fictional characters in the final product. Analysis, however, finds this task every bit as difficult as its earlier attempts to describe religion in terms of both ends and means, and [the work] as both form and matter. The circle simply will not square… [this can be represented by observing how] the author carefully created [such controversial] persona and the guarantee of such autonomous life as his characters enjoy. (pg. 26)

Even though The Canterbury Tales sheds light on the weakening Church during the period, its influence still had a great effect on numerous English works and Chaucer himself. By placing himself behind a fictional voice, Chaucer guaranteed himself a seemingly removed stance while still raising grating questions about the abuse of power of the Church.

In addition to placing the blame on the individual characters in the Tales for their sins, Chaucer included a retraction at the end of his works. Chaucer had planned to write 120 tales in total, but strategically proceeding wrote a retraction to be placed at the end; knowing what precedes it would be controversial and cause outrage throughout the Church. To save himself from the consequences and punishment, the “Retraction” states:

Now preye I to hem alle that herkne this litel tretys or rede, that if ther be any thyng in it that liketh hem, that thereof they thanken oure Lord Jhesu Crist, of whom procedeth al wit and al goodnesse. / And if ther be any thyng that displease hem, I preye hem also that they arrette it to the defaute of myn unkonnynge and nat to my wyl, that wolde ful fayn have seyd bettre if I hadde had conning. (pg. 287-288)

To let the Church takes what they please and disregard what they displease, Chaucer carefully rectifies himself through presenting his devotion to Christ. While it could be argued that the retraction was added by another author, the Retraction ends The Canterbury Tales with a final complexity; repentant or not, that slyly leaves the resolution to the readers. This completely ties in with the recurrent theme of subliminal critiques of the Church throughout the work.

By analyzing Chaucer’s use of frame narrative, readers can unlock the significance of the author’s motivation. The frame story of The Canterbury Tales gives readers access to the societal conflict between classes during the Middle Ages and highlights the significance of social themes. Within the work, the conflict between characters represents the different perspectives and opinions on such matters. Chaucer convinces readers to contemplate their social beliefs as well as their perception of reality. His presentation of the controversial social commentary was well masked using various narrators. With the addition of the Retraction, Chaucer creates a safe passage for his clever critique of the Church. To finalize, Chaucer is the modern-day keyboard warrior.

Works Cited

1. Ashton, Gail. Chaucer : The Canterbury Tales. St. Martin’s Press, 1998.
2. Chaucer, Geoffrey. “The Canterbury Tales.” The Norton Introduction to Literature, Portable 12th Edition, edited by Stephen Greenblatt, W. W. Norton, 2017, pp. 235-288.
3. Ellis, Roger. Patterns of Religious Narrative in The Canterbury Tales. Barnes & Noble Books, 1986.
4. Hadbawnik, David. “Links and Frame.” The Open Access Companion to the Canterbury Tales, Nov. 2017, https://opencanterburytales.dsl.lsu.edu/links1/.
5. Manly, John Matthews. Some New Light on Chaucer. H. Holt, 1926.

The classic from Jeffry Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales, is a collection of 24 stories written in the Middle Ages, where Chaucer appoints to all segments of the medieval social issues. Many people believe that, The Wife of Bath’s Tale and The Miller’s Tale are the best of all those 24 stories. However, The Miller’s Tale have certain details that make it stand out from the rest of Chaucer’s work. The Miller’s Tale is better, for it is easier to follow, it is funnier, and it has a different perspective about love and marriage than the rest of the people do.

Even Though, The Penguin Classics book, written between 1940’s and 1960’s, is a translated version of the The Canterbury Tales to the modern english, It is still sometimes hard to understand, except for the Miller’s tale for being a complex and shorter story. In the book we read the following, “The fellow was a carpenter by trade, his lodger a poor student who had made some studies in the arts, but all his fancy turned to astrology and geomancy”(105). Clearly, we can understand that the Miller isintroducing some of the main characters in the story_ the carpenter and the student. The Carpenter being a and old man, and the lodger being a poor students who likes astrology and geomancy. According to the Miller’s Tale this story is about a love triangle, “ That in the end she promised him she would, swearing she’d love him, with a solemn promise To be at his disposal, by St Thomas When she could spy an opportunity. ‘My husband is so full of jealousy, Unless you watch your step and hold your breath I know for certain it would be my death”(107) Due to the quote, we can understand that The Miller’s Tale is the story of a cunning clerk who wants to trick a not-so-bright carpenter in order to get the carpenter’s wife into bed.

The Miller’s Tale should be tragic, because a lot of horrible things happen to the characters, however; Chaucer decided to make it humorous by representing the Miller like he was drunk while telling the story. Nicholas, the guest, is really troubling and naughty character. However, the carpenter falls for Nicholas’s trick straight away, showing his foolishness, “This silly carpenter then went his way muttering to himself , ‘alas the day!’ and told his wife in strictest secrecy. She was aware, far more indeed than he, what this quaint stratagem might have in sight, but she pretended to be dead with fright”. (116) Basically, the Miller’s is trying to show us how Nicholas and Alison are making fun of the carpenter, it is kind of sad that the first though the carpenter had when Nicholas told him what was going to happen was, how to save his wife from the catastrophe, but it also funny because using common sense, the tubs would not help them survive if it would be real. This is really ironic because the reader knows it is a trick and people will think the carpenter is simple for believing so quickly, while at the same time he believes he is smart. Chaucer tries to punish each character according to his or her flaw, for example, here we have Nicholas after his plan worked perfectly, “ But his hot iron was ready; with a thump he smote him the middle of the rump. Where the hot coulter struck and burnt it out. Such was the pain, he thought he must dying and, mad with agony, he started crying, ‘ Help! Water! Water! Help! For heaven’s love’” (121) Although, he ended up with a burn on his butt, he accomplished his goal of having sex with Alison, likewise, he leaves the carpenter as completely fool. The Miller’s Tale is also illustrating the idea about marriage, and it points out the importance of equality and mutual respect between a husband and wife. The Miller used topics such as jealousy and infidelity to show the reader what happened when there is no respect and trust in a relationship, In the tale we meet two men, Nicholas and Absalon, both try to engage in adulterous relationship with Alison, the old man’s wife. Both of the men are guilty of trying to seduce Alison, which shows their disinterest towards laws of marriage. However; many people believe that The Wife of Bath is right about her opinion on marriage, since men are just slaves and their job is to provide women sex and money, “ I will have a husband yet Who shall be both my debtor and my slave”(280) It is true that, men should not treat women as an object, but it is also truth that women should respect men as equal. Therefore, The Miller’s thoughts about marriage are far superior from the Wife of Bath’s, for The Miller hold the stereotypical thought that a man should pursue and hopefully marry a younger woman, contrary to the Wife of Bath who had been married three times with old men just for their money.

Although some readers may object that The Wife of Bath Tale is the best one, I would answer that the Miller’s Tale is far superior for it shows the reader you need to be cunning to get what you want. In conclusion, in The Miller’s Tale, Chaucer invented comic events, that made this tale the funniest and the most interesting one. Unlike The Wife’s Tale, this tale is simpler in structure and it is told in a serious way.

The overall purpose of the Canterbury Tales is to show the story of the thirty pilgrims who travel to Canterbury, who are derived from different parts of society. They tell stories to one another to help pass time on the way. Although very famous, these tales were never finished nor revised. Originally written in Middle English during the Medieval times, the Canterbury Tales have been rewritten into the modern English language. The tales were one of the first major literature pieces and Chaucer began them in 1387 all the way until he passed in 1400. My pilgrim is the most respected character in the Canterbury tales which is the Knight. The Knight’s Tale is the first tale told and he is known as a person of high social standings. Throughout the tale, the Knight is significant and worth remembering.

The Knight is considered part of the high society. He is a part of the nobility estate, and he’s characterized by being a man of honor, nobility, and loyalty. He is very polite and calm, and Chaucer also said that he was a man of honor. Chaucer supports this by saying that he had an outstanding reputation. He explains how the knight was at all the wars, including fifteen mortal battles, while fighting for faith. This shows the knight’s bravery and worthiness. He was described as the perfect king.

The Knight wore a tunic that was stained by rust. He wore dark clothes and he didn’t necessarily have a bright appearance, although his horses were good. His hair was curly and described as looking like it had been curled with a curler. He was a twenty year old who wasn’t tall but wasn’t short. He was fast and strong. Craucer also describes him as “fresh as is the month of May”, where his tunic was short but had long sleeves. The description of Knight reflects his personality. By making it clear that his horses were “dressed” and covered better than he was, it shows that he put others first. It presents how he cares for others. It’s also ironic how he dresses dark because he is known as a bright person. His stained tunic contradicts his personality in a way because he is shown as strong and of high class, while his clothes prove weak and less fortunate.

The description of the Knight makes it seem as if he is calm and gentle. He was a passionate lover, courteous, and willing to serve. He knew how to dance, draw, and write, and that refers back to being joyful and lighthearted. These descriptions of his ethics and respectfulness represent how high his moral standards were. He stood for chivalry and always did the respectful things. This followed him and helped him become respected among the other pilgrims. In a way, his elegance and nobility brought out his morals. He represents the perfect knight of that time.

The Knight travels on fine horses. From the description of his horses, we can assume that he is ranked highly in society. In the prologue, it says that “His horses were good, but he was not gaily dressed.” It seems as if they were taken more care of than he was. They were made sure to be in good condition with having the needs necessary. It was also said that the Knight handsomely rides his horses. You can infer that this implies that his horses are good quality and worth showing off. The Knight is clearly proud of horses and it is apparent that they are taken well care of.

Chaucer thinks very highly of the knight in the prologue. He characterizes him as someone who is truthful and courteous. He also makes him to represent the traits that a good knight should portray. Chaucer makes him seem like a perfect individual. Although there is a gentle satire, he says that the knight “loved chivalry”. Very subtly, he mocks the chivalry aspect that the Knight has because everyone has imperfections, but he also explains how he is worthy with a good reputation. He approves of the Knight and looked at him with high standards.

A modern day counterpart to the Knight would be a soldier. They share many characteristics and similarities. They are both highly respected in society and have good moral standards. They both fight in wars to keep their people safe, and they are both honorable. Another thing is, is that they are both gentle in a sense. Although they are powerful and have the ability to kill, they don’t harm unless it is necessary. While the knight returns from an expedition, this can be compared to soldiers returning to their families from war. The Knight’s overall job is to fight in war for his country, and that is the exact job for modern soldiers today. Overall, it can be agreed that both soldiers and the Knight is loved and doing good for the people with the great things that they do.

The Knight’s Tale is mainly about the story of Palaman and Arcite. The king of Thebes, Theseus, imprisons them in a tower that only has one window. One day while looking out of the window, they spot the queen little sister, Emilye in the garden. They both become head over heels for her and argue about who should get her love in return, but later they stop fighting because they come to terms that being trapped in the tower is holding either one of them back from having a chance. Eventually, a friend of Arcite helps him escape from the tower. He comes into contact with Emilye but doesn’t admit his love for her. Once Palamon escapes many years later, they meet up and arrange a fight. They gave each other a year to create their teams and the winners of the fight will be able to have Emilye. On the day of the fight, Emilye prays for Diana, the Roman goddess of chastity to keep her single but she admits that she will be fine with any outcome. Arcite ends up winning, but due to harsh injuries, he dies. On his deathbed, he grants Palamon to marry Emilye.

The utilization of a journey as the encircling gadget empowered Chaucer to unite individuals from numerous different backgrounds: knight, prioress, priest; vendor, man of law, franklin, insightful agent; mill operator, reeve, pardoner; spouse of Bath and numerous others. The assortment of social sorts, just as the gadget of the narrating challenge itself, permitted introduction of an exceptionally differed gathering of artistic kinds: religious legend, dignified sentiment, scandalous fabliau, holy person’s life, figurative story, mammoth tale, medieval lesson, catalytic record, and, now and again, blends of these classes. The tales and connections together offer complex portrayals of the travelers, while, in the meantime, the stories present astounding instances of short accounts in stanza, in addition to two articles in writing. The journey, which in medieval practice consolidated an in a general sense religious reason with the mainstream advantage of a spring get-away, made conceivable broadened thought of the connection between the joys and indecencies of this world and the otherworldly goals for the following.

In her article Charles A. Owen, Jr. Mention that:

“The Canterbury Tales presents no problem more stimulating than its development as a work of art. In the disjoined fragments that have come down to us we find considerable evidence of change in plan, but to fit the details of change to a chronology of growth, to follow the imagination of the poet and to recapture the dynamics of creation, has been a task too cautiously and too seldom attempted. The challenge remains, obtrudes itself to even the most casual reader and every student of Chaucer. To meet it with complete success requires an im possible omniscience. But some of the specific problems can be solved and a consistent outline for development of the whole work suggested”(449).

Mandel Jerome says that:

“ Surely no other period of English literature is as concerned with love and lovers as the medieval. Almost all of the Canterbury tales discuss love in its various medieval manifestations, almost all have lovers of one stripe or another. As Arthur W. Hoffman indicated, the very opening lines of the General Prologue point to love earthly and love celestial as defining the limits of love in terms of which both the story-telling pilgrims and their tales may be judged. But in addition to amor and amor dei, the Canterbury Tales offers other kinds of love in sufficient variety and quantity to have attracted scholars and critics for the past century and more. Norman Eliason has dis tinguished four kinds of love which scholars continue to debate in the Canterbury Tales: Christian love, philosophical love, allegorical love, and courtly love. Eliason identified a fifth kind, ‘ordinary love,’ which means precisely what you think it means. If, as Eliason claimed, ‘what Chaucer says about any of these conventionalized kinds of love is essentially nothing more than what others had said before,’ then what distinguishes Chaucer from the other medieval poets who have dealt with love before him is his aesthetic treatment, the use to which he puts those various kinds of love”(278).

“ This is not to say that Chaucer despised courtly love. On the contrary, Chaucer had treated courtly love with profound serious ness in the past. In Troilus and Criseyde the courtly love ethos is central to any understanding of the events and language of the poem and the behavior of the characters. Chaucer takes us carefully through the process of love and pain, fear and expectation, that characterizes the experience of courtly love both for Troilus and for Criseyde. At no point are the lovers denigrated for adhering to a code of conduct that had long since passed its usefulness. Rather, they are held up as models of right conduct who are betrayed by a political decision to trade Criseyde for Antenor, and they are ultimately destroyed by a fundamental aspect of Criseyde’s character, the fact that she is ‘slydynge of corage’ (Troilus, V, 825). Whether or not Chaucer is pointing out the insufficiencies of courtly love when it comes up against the hard rocks of political expediency or the soft spots in human character, in Troilus and Criseyde Chaucer treats courtly love with a seriousness that is absent from the Canterbury Tales. In point of fact, there is no courtly love in the Canterbury Tales. There are only a few lovers exhibiting oddments of courtly behavior, and all but two or three of them are the moral equivalent of scullery maids and bottle boys, unable to excite even in their own kind the ennobling passion characteristic of the courtly love to which they aspire. At no point is courtly love central. At no point are we asked to consider courtly love seriously. At no point are we enjoined to look upon the behavior of lovers who invoke courtly love as anything other than dangerous and ineffective posturing (as in the case of the more noble lovers) or sham and pretense (in the case of the clerks and other commoners). Only rarely are we to understand that the language of courtly love springs from honest feeling. Though Chaucer ranks among the great poets of love in the English language, by the time he came to write the Canterbury Tales he no longer looked upon the language, tenets, or characteristics of courtly love as a viable way of expressing what occurs in the human heart”(Jerome 287-288).

Mandel Jerome tells:

“Rather, the voice I am concerned with is heard during those moments when Chaucer reveals an attitude not his own in words that are not his own and without the signals which indicate either direct or indirect discourse. Although we must understand that Chaucer, as poet-performer-pilgrim-narrator, says these words, as he says every-, thing in the Canterbury Tales, we must also understand that the narrator is actually imitating or mimicking or evoking the voice of someone else. He is reporting direct discourse in the third person, as though it were indirect discourse, but he presents it without the signal that identifies it as indirect discourse. These are, in fact, the words of the pilgrims themselves, but Chaucer has changed the pronouns from first to third person. In grammatical terms, the phenomenon may be described as perfectly imitative indirect dis course or as indirect quotation. It occurs only in the portraits of the Monk, the Friar, and the Parson. Chaucer reveals a summary judgment when he says of the Monk that he let the old things go and held after the new World(341).

On the aim of pilgrims Edmund Reiss says that:

“Whatever else the Canterbury Tales may be, it is clearly the account of a pilgrimage. This kind of journey is, in fact, the major device used by Chaucer to structure his narrative, but it is a device neglected by commenta tors. It has most often been viewed in connection with the frame story, as a means of creating an envelope for the tales to follow; and, notwithstanding such work as that by A. W. Hoffman and Ralph Baldwin about the function of pilgrimage in the General Prologue,’ scholarly discussion has tended to go away from the pilgrimage itself and focus on the device of the frame and on analogous frame stories. It is not customary for Chaucerians to consider the many narratives using the pilgrimage, narratives that are even closer than frame stories to being the inspiration for the structure and themes found in Chaucer’s greatest work. Along with acting as a framing device, the pilgrimage brings to the Canterbury Tales everything associated in the late Middle Ages with the religious concept of the pilgrimage and the literary expres sion of this idea. Chaucer could certainly have used other frame devices, but we cannot escape from the fact that he chose a pil grimage. And this choice resulted in a certain tone and atmosphere that probably would not have been present had the work been, say, the account of a group of people on their way to a festival, a king’s coronation, or a hanging. It is hardly sufficient to say, as F. N. Robin son does, that ‘ The reason for Chaucer’s choice of a pilgrimage as a setting for his stories is unknown.’ This may be true, but if we accept the fact of the pilgrimage’s existence, we may then begin to understand its function in and effect on this work”(296).

In that age narrating was crucial as we see in Ben Kimpel article:

“These are the only contributions to the portrait of the narrator during the description, and at most they show that he was a man interested in his fellow men, whose heart was in the right place and who preferred virtue to vice. We would have been likely to learn as much about any man who described a large number of his contemporaries, whether or not he appeared as a character in his own story. It is true that the narrator comments directly on his characters, but these one-line comments tell us very little about the narrator; they are little expressions of approval or praise, sincere or ironic. The middle ages did not have the same feeling about such comments as do the followers of Henry James, and it is unlikely that Chaucer was conscious of whether such brief remarks were his own comments or the narrator’s. Whatever he may have been conscious of when portraying his narrator directly, as in the ‘ Sir Thopas ‘ links, it is not necessary to assume that in throwing in these remarks Chaucer was aware of any such distinction(81).

A different point by Carol Hoff:

“In the class conversation about the why and wherefore of pilgrimages and Chaucer’s presentation of the English life of his time by means of the various types of his pilgrims, comparison’with the present day natu rally occurred. Trips to the battlefields of France, to Washington, and to the state fair were among the modern parallels suggested, but one boy who had visited Carlsbad Cavern argued so vehemently that the men and women meeting in the cameraderie of the tourist camps there were as representative of American life as were Chaucer’s pilgrims at Tabard Inn that the class was convinced. Imagine my secret elation when at this point one of the girls voiced my carefully concealed plan, that the class write a prologue to a Carlsbad Cavern pilgrimage. Her suggestion meeting with general favor, we discussed the types to be represented and studied Chaucer’s descriptions in an endeavor to discover how he made his people not only types but also individuals. Then each member of the class chose one type to picture for the class booklet, and one member wrote clever introductory and concluding links about vacation pilgrimages. Some of the especially vivid descriptions were those of the business man with his pathetic bewilderment in the face of the grandeur of nature and the futile leisure to enjoy it, his culture-seeking wife and daughters, the bootlegger combining business with pleasure, the showman viewing the cavern as one of the Master Showman’s spectacular headline attractions, and the teacher in search of experiences for the vicarious enjoyment of her pupils. The result of the study was that the class as a whole enjoyed and appreciated Chaucer’s tolerant knowledge and excellent craftsmanship and acquired, as well, a little deeper understanding of modern life(226).”

Tales should give meaningful message to people as we see in Michaela’s article:

“Always a means of concentrating on discourse as a generative transaction between speaker and listener, the frame narrative is most fully realized in the Canterbury Tales. Here, in a context that seeks to approximate living speech, the frame amply accommodates Chaucer’s sense of dis course as a reciprocal process that evolves rather than one that reaches a conclusion. The fictive frame provides Chaucer with a whole gamut of narrative voices and audience responses and with the psychological and social mechanisms that bring those responses into play. His pilgrims sup ply the interruptions and competitions, the exposures and self-exposures, the sympathies and enmities that underlie communication and miscommunication. In short, they everywhere ex emplify the social dynamics that militate against simple resolution. As treated in the Canterbury Tales, discourse requires a listener as well as a speaker. It cannot be closed without that listener’s active participation. The degree to which Chaucer varies the sense of closure, and thus the manner and placement of audience reception, may con tribute to masking a theme of substantial im portance. Indeed, on the evidence of a text variously and persuasively attentive to the en gagement between speaker and audience, the Canterbury Tales seems not so much a drama, or a ‘drama of style’ (Benson), as a drama of the reception of discourse. In the Canterbury Tales Chaucer creates much more than a group of listeners with whom the audience can identify; he presents a copia of the human motives-social, psychological, and po litical-that generate communication and mis understanding. His treatment of closure is only one feature of a poetic that is at bottom dialogic and social. The denial of structural closure that occurs again and again in the Canterbury Tales characterizes Chaucer’s attitude toward discourse and, by extension, toward inquiry and knowl edge. In his epistemology nothing is ever complete. His world is marked, instead, by in teraction, dialectical relations, and open process. This view is suggested not so much by direct statement as by the geography of Chaucer’s dis course, which denies stabilizing conclusions and seeks open interactions(1165).”

“All these traditions-dramatic, celestial journey, and Gothic-are Greek or Western in origin. The frame narrative, however, of which the Canterbury Tales is the culmination, incor porates a tradition that originated and developed in Arabia. To put the idea most simply, the structure of the Canterbury Tales can be most appropriately compared not with the cathedral but with the mosque. In this essay, I trace the development of the frame narrative, showing its Arabic roots and character, and suggest that the organizing principles and many of the features of the Canterbury Tales derive from this tradition(237).”

Texting is an important technis in that time. We see how crucial it is by 3 writers article:

“The textuality of a medieval literary work, in particular one ‘written to be read, but read as if it were spoken,’ ‘a literary imitation of oral performance’ (p. 221), merits the attention Leicester brings to it; but he underestimates the significance of his own concession for an age not entirely out of touch with oral culture. Our typographical imagi nations can scarcely grasp the relationship between text and oral performance for a time in which the latter was still the norm and the former precariously indeterminate. Much of the ‘textuality’ we perceive in the Canterbury Tales is an illusion of modern editions, though some of it, for example, the rubrication, is the work of medieval scribes. The stylistic and metrical features Leicester cites as evi dence for textuality would obtain equally for the printed copy of a Shakespearean play. Though the theatrical analogy is not an exact fit, the sense of performance permeates the ‘textuality’ of the Tales. To say that the only Chaucer we know is the one impersonated in the ‘voices’ of his text is all that we can usefully say about Shakespeare and perhaps even Milton and Wordsworth. In fact, that asser tion looks suspiciously like the New Critical dictum that ‘ultimately all we have is the text.’ Thus I find it possible to accept many of Leices ter’s strictures against the bad habits of Chaucerians without having to embrace his theory of absence. We need assume no more of a presence than is commonly implied by the rhetorical definition of irony, namely, a locus for ‘what is meant’ that is different from ‘what is said.’ And perhaps the Chaucerian persona might be thought of as a reflex of extended irony, much as allegory is conventionally defined as extended metaphor. No doubt we will not always agree about the exact bounds of irony and we need to beware of reifying either the ‘pilgrim’ or the ‘poet,’ but we cannot entirely dispense with a presence unless we remove the ‘im’ from ‘impersonation”(881).

About Chaucer style H.S.V Josh mentions:

“In pre-Chaucerian literature, then, we have well defined the type which Chaucer splendidly realized in the General Prologue. More over, we find there anticipations of his narrative adaptation of that type. The Roman de carite, which Professor Kittredge has shown that Chaucer knew, is, like the Canterbury Tales, a book of travel, with the differences that the poet visits the estates of the world instead of traveling in their company, and that his destination is not Canter bury or any other place on the map but the uncertain abode of Charity. She can be found neither among the lawyers at Bologna nor among the doctors at Salerno; the monks know nothing of her. And so after seeking Charity in vain among the men who fight and the men who pray, the poet turns to the ‘peuple menu.’ With this story one naturally associates not only such books as the Speculum stultorum and the Architrenius, but the Pilerinage of Deguilleville, with whose work Chaucer was acquainted. That in these uses of the travel or pilgrimage motif, adjusted more or less closely to the Etats du monde, we are concerned chiefly with allegory should not disturb us; because allegory and social satire go hand in hand and because mediaeval allegory is nearer akin to Chaucer’s realism than is direct satire. When we seek prototypes for the vividly described Canterbury pilgrims we turn to the Romance of the Rose or Piers Plowman; the figures on the wall of the garden of love, Fals-Semblaunt, the Duenna, have much to teach the student of the Prologue. In the Middle Ages the literature of realism grows easily in the soil of symbolism. ‘Every devout or undevout frequenter of the church in that time,’ writes Professor Saintsbury, ‘knew Accidia and Avarice, Anger and Pride as bodily rather than ghostly enemies, furnished with a regu lar uniform, appearing in recognized circumstances and companies, acting like human beings.’ Moreover, the vividly seen, graphically represented Sins are closely associated with the several estates(47).”

Bibliography

1. Jr, Charles A. Owen. “ The Development of the ‘Canterbury Tales’.” The Journal of English and Germanic Philology. 57.3(1958): 449-476. JSTOR. 11 May 2019. Web.
2. Mandel, Jerome. “Courtly Love in the Canterbury Tales.” The Chaucer Review. 19.4(1985): 277-289. JSTOR. 11 May 2019. Web.
3. Mandel, Jerome. “Other Voices in the ‘Canterbury Tales’.” Criticism. 19.4(1977): 338-349. JSTOR. 11 May 2019. Web
4. Reiss, Edmund. “The Pilgrimage Narrative and the ‘Canterbury Tales’.” Studies in Philology. 67.3(1970): 295-305. JSTOR. 11 May 2019. Web
5. Kimpel, Ben. “The Narrator of the Canterbury Tales.” ELH. 20.2(1953): 77-86. JSTOR. 11 May 2019. Web
6. Hoff, Carol. “’The Canterbury Tales’ Again.” The English Journal. 22.3(1933): 226-227.
7. JSTOR. 11 May 2019. Web
8. Grudin, Michaela Paasche. “Discourse and the Problem of Closure in the Canterbury Tales.” PMLA. 107.5(1992): 1157-1167. JSTOR. 11 May 2019. Web
9. Gittes, Katharine Slater. “The Canterbury Tales and the Arabic Frame Tradition.” PMLA. 98.2(1983): 237-251. JSTOR. 11 May 2019. Web
10. Burlin, Robert B. , Leicester, H. Marshall and Jr. “’Voice’ in the Canterbury Tales.” PMLA. 95.5(1980): 880-882. JSTOR. 11 May 2019. Web
11. Jones, H. S. V. “The Plan of the ‘Canterbury Tales’.” Modern Philology. 13.1(1915): 45-48. JSTOR. 11 May 2019.Web

‘The General Prologue’, more than anything else, offers the modern reader a window into medieval society. Discuss, from your reading of the prologue, what problems appear to affect English society in the late fourteenth century, using evidence from the text.

Through the writings of Geoffrey Chaucer in The General Prologue we peer into the lives of the many figures of late fourteenth century England in this estate satire. Because of this, we also come to see the problems of the society in which these figures abode. One of which is how the violent lifestyles present in this time can change a person. In this case it tends to be for the worst. Religious figures who should be on their path of religious divinity are instead problematic, living in excess when their lives should be lived in poverty. With this we also see the ignorance of people during this time, respecting and dismissing characters actions who are not deserving of such. If anything is evident from this time it is that respectability and honour tower over one’s actions.

Fourteenth Century England was a violent time. While this was not a problem in of itself as it was the norm, it gave way to such problems. Nowhere is this more apparent than comparing the Knight and Squire, father and son. Chaucer describes the many places the Knight has fought and won such as Alexandria, Granada and Belmarye, sitting at the seats of honour at feasts. However, Chaucer then begins to describe him as quiet as a maid and like no other man in such a way (263). From this we get the impression of a damaged man, scarred from battle. After all the bloodshed he has seen how can a man remain in such a demeanour? This looks to be even more haunting when we read of his son. The Squire is a young knight and full of life, described as fresh as the month of May (Chaucer 263). With this we see what the Squire will become as he ages, turning into the quiet and damaged man his father is, giving up the life and energy of his youth for that of honour and nobility. It is evident that the lifestyle of Knighthood during this time strips the humanity of a person in favour of societal notions such as honour and sovereignty.

While the military estate is affected by what are noble intentions, it is the religious estate which is painted as a walking contradiction. They act as figures who are looked up to but are quite a far cry from that in reality. Take the Prioress. Chaucer takes his sweet time to describe her as a proper woman who is sincere, elegant and would cry at the sight of a dead mouse. Yet despite this she would feed her hounds rotting flesh with ease (264-65). It is evident that she puts on this facade of what a Prioress ought to be, proper, sensitive and lady-like over what she acts as to herself, which is in fact the opposite. We can see a similar depiction in the Monk’s portrait. Here Chaucer depicts a man’s man. He is a hunter with fine horses, again, a far cry from what a religious figure should be. Chaucer describes him as a fish that is waterless (265). This is distant from any other traditional monk at the time. While the Knight and Squire are looked up to as men of action, the Prioress and Monk are looked up for what they don’t do, which is follow their religious lives. They ought to act a certain way, but they do not and follow no repercussions.

The one character which may be overlooked is the Narrator or Chaucer himself. It is through his lens we see the characters and his lens only. With this we see Chaucer’s appreciation of status over one’s actions. This is prevalent in the Pardoner’s portrait. We can see Chaucer’s admiration almost immediately as he calls him gentle coming straight from the Court of Rome (277). He goes on further admiring his appearance with his dishevelled hair and clean-shaven face (Chaucer 278). It is not until Chaucer speaks of the Pardoner’s misdeeds do, we see his ignorance. He speaks of how the Pardoner sells, along with the pardons, old relics of saints, a clear scam. Not only this but it is said the Pardoner took two months wages of a man from his trickery. How does Chaucer respond to these horrid acts of the Pardoner? With praise of his singing in church and how noble he is (Chaucer 278). Instead of viewing a person for their faults, Chaucer perceives the Pardoner as noble despite his actions. This highlights the problem of religious figures had during late fourteenth century. No matter the cunning actions of a religious figure, people such as Chaucer will still perceive them as noble and respectable, glossing over their wrong doings.

Fourteenth-century England has its problems as any society at any time would have. While violence exists today it does in a much more criminalised state. Therefore, looking at the military estate with the Knight and Squire we can see mind and manner of such violent figures. With it one can see how society at the time changed these energetic figures seen in the Squire to essentially murderers with the Knight. This goes on to show a double standard with how the military and religious estate were constructed. Knights being praised for their actions while Monks and Prioresses being praised for being just that, and not looked down upon for their deviation of traditional religious ways. This narrow perception is evident in the Narrator himself, seeing the Pardoner for just a religious and holy figure but not the scammer and deceiver he is. If there is one overlying problem found of society in The General Prologue, it is how Chaucer views status over the characters. A high status meaning to dismiss one of questionable actions while low status means to not.

Bibliography:

1. Chaucer, Geoffrey. ‘The Canterbury Tales; The General Prologue.’ The Norton Anthology of English Literature Tenth Edition. Ed. Julia Reidhead and Marian Johnson et al. New York: Norton, 2018. 261-81.

The General Prologue includes twenty-four portraits, each varying in description, lengths, and details. It is through the conversations of Chaucer-pilgrim with the various sojourners that we, the audience, make acquaintance with them. We are thus presented with the first act of reading in The Canterbury Tales. On that account, we need to recognize the act of reading beyond its sense of “[understanding] the meaning of written words” (“Read [v.]”). In the etymological sense of the term, “to read” is also associated with the implication “of [making] out the character of (a person)” (“Read [v.]”). Accordingly, we need to understand the nature of the pilgrims’ portraits as being closely related to Chaucer-pilgrim’s reading of his fellow pilgrims.

Yet, Chaucer-pilgrim adopts a somewhat problematic position in his portrayals. Most relevantly, Chaucer-pilgrim uses the same expression to describe various pilgrims. First, the Knight is described as a “worthy man” (I.43) for his chivalry, his loyalty, his honour and more (I.45-50); “he was a “verray, parfit, gentil knight” (I. 72). Second, the Friar is portrayed as a “worthy man” (I. 243) for he was “(…) the beste beggere in his hous” (I.252). Next, the Merchant, again a “worthy man” (I.279, 283), who made a name for himself in the business trade thanks to his “wit” (I.278-279). Finally, Chaucer-pilgrim describes the Wife of Bath as a “worthy woman al hir lyve” (I.259). Each and every one of these pilgrims differ in social and economic class, virtues, behaviours, etc. Yet, Chaucer-pilgrim claims that all of them are “worthy.”

The encompassing view of Chaucer-pilgrim’s portraits of the pilgrims has long been “explained as part of Chaucer’s genial enthusiastic appreciation of all kinds of people” (George 55). Although this may be true, without criticism, the non-judgmental tone denies any sort of guidance as to how to read the pilgrims. How is one supposed to read the text? The answer is “participatory reading.” By refusing to impose his authorial interpretation, Chaucer calls attention to the necessity of the audience’s involvement with the text and their interpretation to create meaning. Similarly, Chaucer positions himself as a reporter. He claims that the Tales are the result of accurate reporting; he is merely writing out what he has heard the pilgrims say (I. 725–738). As a result, Chaucer the author presents himself as an audience to the pilgrims. However, the following lines complicate this reading of Chaucer as a passive observer: Crist spak himself ful brode in Holy Writ, And wel ye woot, no vileynye is it. Eek Plato seith, whoso can him rede, The wordes moote be cosin to the dede. (I.739-42)

Here, Chaucer the poet appeals to authoritative figures to relinquish his own authority (Sharma). He expresses his submissive role as a reader through a dominating discourse as an author. This ambiguous assertion reveals the changing power dynamics between writer and reader in late-medieval England. At that period of time, authors are increasingly aware of their “changing status as writers” as a result of the rise of vernacular in late-medieval England (Blatt 2, 9–10, 195). Accordingly, Chaucer aligns himself with eminent authors , Christ and Plato, to assert his lack of authority, highlighting how medieval authors no longer possess the authorial control of their predecessors. Authority thus lands into the hands of an audience. By undermining his own authority, as an author, Chaucer raises awareness to the growing power of an audience to undercut his as well as other writers’ authority. Moreover, by establishing himself as both writer and reader, Chaucer stands as a representative for this collaborative relationship late-medieval writers sought to encourage, inviting, once again, his own audience to recognize the value of their engagement with the text and its author. Likewise, the Clerk in his prologue asserts himself as a reader to his source Petrarch (I.31-40), echoing Chaucer in the General Prologue. Once again, the audience is asked to acknowledge the power of interpretation and creation of reading.

Before sharing with the pilgrims the tale he has been told, the Clerk reveals finding the introduction to Petrarch’s The Story of Griselda “impertinent” (IV.54), irrelevant. He immediately departs from his source by excluding its proem (IV.43). From the beginning, the Clerk alerts his audience of the fact that he is not simply reciting from Petrarch’s text but he is actually offering a reading of it. He is a participant in his own right in the creation of meaning through interpretation of the tale. In addition, the Clerk actively engages with his own tale as a reader through repeated interjections. In the following passage, the Clerk criticizes the cruelty of men and their desire to test wives: He hadde assayed hire ynogh bifore, And foond hire evere good; what neded it Hire for to tempte, and alwey moore and moore, Though some men preise it for a subtil wit? But as for me, I seye that yvele it sit To assay a wyf whan that it is no nede, And putten hire in angwyssh and in drede. (IV.456–462) Here, the Clerk departs from the allegorical reading of Petrarch’s version. He disapproves of Walter’s treatment of Griselda, and thus diverges from the Petrarchan reading of Walter as a God-figure and Griselda as a Christian soul. Judith Bronfman notes in her book, Chaucer’s Clerk’s Tale: The Griselda Story Received, Rewritten, Illustrated, how for the Clerk, “Walter is no God at all … God does not tempt mankind” (Bronfman 28; IV.1152–1155).

Even if Petrarch is the only named source of The Clerk’s Tale, another source is attributed by critics: Le Ménagier de Paris. This French translation proposes a reading of the story in terms of marital relations. The Norton Critical Guides note that this version was written “for the instruction of his young wife” (Le Ménagier de Paris ). Although the Clerk revokes the Petrarchan allegorical reading of the tale with his comments, his tale does not fully adhere to the French’s translation either. The Clerk invites his female audience to respond to Walter’s cruel treatment of Griselda: But now of wommen wolde I axen fayn, If thise assayes mighte nat suffyse? What coude a sturdy housbond more devyse To preve hir wyfhod and hir stedfastnesse, And he continuinge evere in sturdinesse? (IV.696–700) Here, the Clerk invites his female audience to not only question domestic issues but also to question the implications of such a reading of the tale. Above all, his direct address creates a similar dialogue to Chaucer’s address to his audience in the General Prologue. Both Chaucer and the Clerk invite their audiences to participate in the creation of meaning of the text. Here, they are asked to participate in a game of interpretation by questioning their own reading of the text, as an allegory, a marital affair, or perhaps something else.

The Clerk invites multiple potential readings to his Tale asking the readers to participate with him in the creation of meaning of the story of Griselda. The structure of The Clerk’s Tale acts, within the greater framework of The Canterbury Tales, as an additional invitation to the audience to participate with the text. The Clerk’s Tale is divided into six parts which allows the audience to take “moments to break from reading and reflect, which undoubtedly would lead to the formation of thoughts and opinions” (Arguelles 2). On top of its structure, multiple readings are built into The Clerk’s Tale from its teller’s interjections to the contradictory morals espoused by the narrative. On the one hand, the story ends with the Clerk upholding Petrarch’s spiritual moral which he repeatedly seemed to reject in his comments. He claims that wives should not follow Griselda’s example (IV.1142–1143), setting forth the interpretation of Griselda as a human soul, living “in vertuous suffraunce” (IV.1162). On the other hand, the Clerk addresses the Wife of Bath before the Envoy (IV.1170), connecting his reading of the story to marital affairs. In the first stanza of the Envoy, the Clerk warns husbands to not test their wives (IV.1177–1182).

In the following stanzas, he advises wives to not follow Griselda’s example and to stand firm against their husbands (IV.1183–1212). Critics such as Kittredge read “the envoy as simple irony, meaning the opposite of what it says” (Cherniss 242). In this sense, the Envoy stands as an ironic comment against the Wife of Bath (Cherniss 243–245), calling attention to Griselda’s status as a wife. In “Chaucer’s ‘Clerk’s Tale’ and the Question of Ethical Monstrosity,” J. Allan Mitchell asks how one is supposed to read Griselda: “The dilemma is whether to take Griselda at all as an example of character or conduct” (Mitchell 16). In her book, Bronfman claims that “[t] here is no correct answer [on how to read the story]” (Bronfman 128; Mitchell 2). The Clerk’s Tale’s inconsistencies and contradictions function in favour of engaging readers’ participation. The Clerk opens a discussion by offering various interpretations of the story and thus inviting the audience to question his as well as their own reading of the tale. Readers’ participation is central to the creation of meaning. Chaucer deploys in The Canterbury Tales a series of strategies to invite the audience to be aware of the necessity of their involvement with the text. First, the pilgrimage and the tale-telling contest serve as a structure for participatory readings within the text. By creating a framework which encourages interactions between the pilgrims, Chaucer invites the audience to be aware of the value of participation in the text. Second, Chaucer connects the acts of reading, his and the Clerk’s, to those of his audience to make them aware of the power of interpretation.

Finally, the Clerk’s own repeated attempts to read the story of Griselda invite the audience to participate with the text in a similar manner. Through these invitations to engage with the text, the readers become active participants in the creation of meaning and fulfill their role to late-medieval authors and their texts.

The Canterbury Tales may be a fictional tale of a pilgrimage to Canterbury, but it also discusses the corruption of the institution of the Catholic Church that was prevalent during the 14th century. He also uses the book to show greed in its many forms, whether seen in the agents of the Church or in a woman who knows it is the only way to get ahead. Many of the pilgrims resort to manipulation to get what they want, which shows the dark side of the people, as well as the Church. Chaucer uses satire in the descriptions of the pilgrims in the ‘General Prologue’ of The Canterbury Tales to reveal corruption in the Church that was prevalent in society. Many members of the clergy used their positions for personal gain. This can be seen in his cast of characters. Of all the pilgrims associated with the Church, the Parson is the only one who is honorable.

Each of Joe’s roles represents a different, sometimes very different perception of reality, the creation of tests, an empathy, an atmosphere of relativism. (Podgorski, Daniel, December 29, 2015) Helen Cooper says: Prudent or orthodox morality, romanticism is blessed with human emotions. Human moral guides have always attracted the author’s interest. The Middle Ages was a time of neglecting unethical behavior, corrupt religious officials, and marriage vows. Geoffrey Chaucer uses The Canterbury Tales to explore his personal view of this dark age. In particular, he produced the ‘Wife of Bath’s Tale’, ‘Summoner’s Tale’ and ‘The Pardoner’s Tale’ to describe the polluted society and use all women to express his views.

The Parson was a poor but humble person who gave his small amount of possession to others in his town. He was also a priest that teaches the Gospel and devoted his time to his parishoners and serves them faithfully. He followed the Bible in life and he believed that a priest was supposed to be trustworthy. He was the prime example of how a Catholic person should behave. He was a good man and had many virtues such as honesty, generosity, charity etc. unlike many of the other clergyman that went on the pilgrimage.

In the ‘The Pardoner’s Tale,’ the pardoner’s greed and ability to get away with lying are good examples of irony. Situational irony occurs when someone does the opposite of what he is expected to do. In this instance, the pardoner claims to be a man of God but completely goes against God’ teachings. The pardoner is an incredibly hypocritical man. He says that greediness evil while also being a really greedy man that takes people’s money. He sells pardons to people so that they can get into Heaven but keeps the money for himself instead of giving it to the church. One of the pardons he sells is even explicitly to absolve the sin of having too many belongings while others have almost none.

The Wife of Bath and the ‘Wife of Bath’s Tale’ provide another view of romance and marriage in the Middle Ages: that of a woman. In the prologue to her tale, the Wife of Bath deems herself an ‘expert’ in marriage and discusses her five marriages, emphasizing the roles men and women play in marriage. She tells the pilgrims that three of her husbands were good, and two were bad. The three good husbands were rich and old. They loved the Wife of Bath, and, in return, she exerted control over them. The fourth husband had a mistress, or paramour. Out of anger and jealousy, the Wife of Bath was in turn unfaithful.

In my opinion, out of the two of them, The Wife of Bath and the Pardoner, I would have to say that the Pardoner is the worst compared to the Parson. His ability to manipulate people into giving him money while actually keeping it is really bad. It disheartens me to know that people like him existed and still exist in this world. The reason I say that he’s worse then The Wife of Bath is because while she also took advantage of men to get what she wanted, she herself didn’t seem to be a hypocrite, but instead trying to tell other women how to act when she herself didn’t act right.

The pardoner was the farthest away from the Parson to me in terms of attitude and following the teachings of God. Everyone should take note of the Parson, because to God that’s the best way to live and a ticket into heaven.

The Wife of Bath’s prologue and tale are passages taken out of the Satire book The Canterbury Tales, written by Geoffrey Chaucer. The comical burlesque is a collection of twenty-four stories, written in Middle English between 1387 and 1400, where a competition is being held for who has the best story.

The Wife of Baths is about her love life as we are told she’s quite flamboyant and has been married five times and presents herself as the world’s expert in matters of marriage and the relations between men and women. Given this, her views on marriage are somewhat fraudulent, she’s shown to take biblical scripture and manipulate the interpretation to make others believe her marriages are allowed rather than being against God’s wishes. She does this by constructing a very persuasive argument as seen in the extract given, “Poul Dorset nat commanded, atte least, thyng of which his maister yaf noon heist” “Al nys but counsel to virginity.” here Chaucer uses biblical allusions to give the wife’s argument more weight allowing for the others listening to her tale and the readers or listeners at the time as religion was one of the most important things to everyone in medieval times and all would know of its teachings. In this quote the wife claims that Paul only advises women to be virgins rather than commands them to be, giving an excuse for her many marriages. She goes on to use rhetorical questions “Virginity, then whereof should it grow?” saying that if God had intended for women to remain virgins, he would’ve outlawed marriage but then humanity would cease to exist. The wife ends her argument in this extract by stating virginity is a goal that not all will achieve Because the wife of Bath presents herself as an imperfect and common person, she considers it acceptable that she has not claimed the prize of virginity justifying her sexuality. In the extract given and throughout the prologue the wife often repeats her main ideas and defense of marriage, the Wife of Bath’s Prologue may be a compendium of anti-feminist books, especially St Jerome’s Adversus Jovinianum, but the Wife skilfully adapts, distorts, or challenges such sources at every turn. Her notion of discussion is a sort of rough sporting contest, with lots of verbal shouldering and jostling, and woe to the vanquished: “Cacche whoso may, who rennet best let’s see”. She delights in emphasis, often plain repetition, using it in the spirit in which a roller repeatedly traverses the same patch of ground.

In the later lines (149-162) the wife talks of her views on men and a further defense of marriage she further pushes her views saying “In wifehood, I will use my instrument as freely as my Makere hath it sent.” where the wife says she will use her sexuality as god has sent it Chaucer does this to emphasis to the reader how deluded the wife is taking her interpretation of the text to be the furthest from the truth only to satisfy her want to be right. The Wife of Bath tends to look down on men viewing them as objects to pleasure her or acquire wealth from, she believes that men are only good in marriage if they let her have all the control (reflecting her views on her first three husbands) Most controversially for her culture, the Wife of Bath believes the best marriages are the ones in which the wife is in control. The Wife of Bath kept most of her husbands under her thumb through money, guilt-tripping, and sex. She would withhold sex or accuse her spouse of the time of cheating to manipulate him, and this usually worked. “A housebound I wol have — I wol nat lette I Which shal be bothe my detour and my thral,” in these lines the wife shows her want for sex and disregard for men even going so far as to call them “thrals” which would translate to a slave.

Chaucer most likely does this to allow us to have a more negative view of the wife and to add more shock to her story. “Upon his flesh, while that I am his wife. I have the power during all my life Upon his proper body, and night he.” here the Wife repeats her previous ideas of men saying she has power over the men she marries. Despite how the wives were portrayed in the satire women at the time could still be seen on equal terms to men. The Testament of Love, by Chaucer’s contemporary Thomas Usk, describes it as a process in which two people who originally were somewhat ‘discordant, higher that one and lower that other’ achieve the same level, this shows the wife’s view of marriage to be unorthodox to the norm at the time and given the book is a comical satire we know her views are exaggerated to the point of it being found funny to those reading. So as a result, we know her views on marriage to be fraudulent and purely for women’s gain and sexual pleasure, comical to a contemporary reader.