From the Archive: Chaucer (1999)

William Schraufnagel

English 125, Fayen

October 12, 1999

“If Any Thing Shal Wel Reported Be”

Early in Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales, the host proposes a contest: “That ech of yow, to shorte with oure weye, / In this viage shal telle tales tweye” (G.P. 791-2). On the road to Canterbury, each pilgrim must tell a tale for the company, with the host acting as moderator. After each tale has been told, the winner (selected by the host) will receive a free meal and as much wine as he can drink. The criteria to be met by the tales are simple, yet specific: the tales must convey solas and sentence. In modern terms, the stories must entertain while providing moral insight. The host does not clarify which factor is more important– indeed, each pilgrim blends solas and sentence in a unique proportion. To be successful, each pilgrim must gain the attention of the others, his audience: “Whereas a man may have noon audience, / Noght helpeth it to tellen his sentence” (NunPr Prol. 3598-99). Each pilgrim has a slightly different motive and approach to his tale, and these factors reveal much about the character of that particular pilgrim. On a second and more subtle level, the characters in the tales themselves behave in a parallel manner. Different characters use particular methods to “win over” their respective audiences. The effectiveness of these different approaches can be evaluated by examining other characters’ responses. As far as the pilgrims are concerned, Chaucer includes responses in various prologues between tales; the responses reflect his appraisal of each tale and the values represented in the tale. By studying these, the reader can infer Chaucer’s own values. This, in turn, leads to a broader understanding of the intellectual and moral environment in which he worked. The Canterbury Tales reflects a conflict within Chaucer (perhaps indicative of his time) between the desire for glory, wealth, and pleasure (self-centered, secular values) on one hand, and the Christian values of humility, pity, virtue, simplicity, and the purity of truth on the other.

Most pilgrims or characters within the tales have one of two primary motives as they approach their audiences. Some desire to glorify themselves or exploit others; some desire to teach or express a moral.

One example of the former case is the duo of Chauntecleer and Pertelote, the two principal “smale foweles” in the Nun’s Priest’s Tale. Chauntecleer is the brightly colored rooster that has the loudest and most clear voice among all the animals: “And lyk the burned gold was his colour.” (NunPrT. 3661). Pertelote, the hen with the brightest throat-feathers, is first in his heart. After Chauntecleer describes a harrowing dream to Pertelote, she ridicules him mercilessly. She begins a long tirade against the relevance of dreams, in which she flaunts her extensive knowledge of contemporary medicine: “I shal myself to herbes techen yow / That shul been for youre hele and for youre prow:” (NunPr T. 3746-7). Not to be outdone,  Chauntecleer immediately counters her, quoting his own authorities from history, literature and the Bible. No action arises from this argument, however. Pertelote does not provide a cure, and Chauntecleer does not heed his premonition. Clearly, the two protagonists are not communicating– each merely tries to impress the other with his or her education.

The Pardoner is another who approaches his audience selfishly. His prologue begins with an open admission that he is a charlatan: “I preche nothyng but for coveitise.” (PardPro. 433). The relics that he sells are false, he does not understand a word of Latin, and he lives luxuriously. Yet immediately following his tale, he opens up his bag of pigs’ bones and starts hawking his wares: “Com forth anon, and kneleth heere adoun, / And mekely receyveth my pardoun;” (PardT. 925-6). The pilgrims react violently to this apparent insult to their sensibility. The host is particularly enraged by the pardoner’s boldness: “I wolde I hadde thy coillons [testacles] in myn hond / In stide of relikes” (PardT. 953-4).

Chaucer seemingly prefers the characters and pilgrims who aim to teach their audience rather than gain from it. An example of this within the tales is the old woman in the Wife of Bath’s Tale. When the beleaguered knight first approaches her, she immediately asks him about his troubles, and offers the possibility of her aid: “Thise olde folk kan [know] muchel thyng” (WifBT. 1004). He seeks knowledge– specifically, that which every woman most desires. Again, the old woman is willing to teach him: “And I wol telle it yow er it be nyght.’” (WifBT. 1012). She does first secure a “trouthe” from him that he will do anything for her, but the overall gesture at this point in the story is one of pity and charity. The outcome of the story reveals that Chaucer values the old woman’s choice. She teaches the knight that women want sovereignty; the knight demonstrates growth by giving the old woman sovereignty to make his decision for him at the end of the tale. The outcome is the prototypical happy marriage. The message, however, is that one gains ultimately by teaching.

The parson illustrates this point even more vividly. When approached by the host to tell the last tale, and somehow bring every element together, the parson replies in an unexpected way: he will not tell a tale, because he does not believe in secular fiction: “Thou getest fable noon ytoold for me;” (ParsPro. 31). He seeks only to impart knowledge, wisdom, and morality upon his listeners, and he has no personal desires to fulfill: “To shewe yow the wey, in this viage, / Of thilke parfit glorious pilgrymage” (ParsPro 49-50). The pilgrims’ response to this proposal is reverent and eager:

Upon this word we han assented soone,

For, as it seemed, it was for to doone,

To enden in som vertuous sentence,

And for to yeve hym space and audience; (ParsPro. 61-64).

Not only do these lines affirm the parson’s effectiveness as a speaker, but they strengthen the idea of sentence as moral and religious values. Furthermore, the rhyme of “sentence” and “audience” suggests that an audience can best be won through sentence.

The manner in which the pilgrims and characters attempt to persuade their audience is just as revealing as their individual motives. In the majority of tales, the most effective means to get what one wants is by appealing to another’s sense of pity. The few characters who do not use this method are portrayed negatively and serve to strengthen the power of humility.

One such character is the clerk Nicholas from the Miller’s Tale. As a boarder with John the Carpenter, Nicholas establishes the pretense of being an expert astrologer. He keeps all the proper instruments and seems able to foretell the future. This gives him a great deal of power, especially over those who are devout and naive, such as John himself. Nicholas abuses this power to steal the carpenter’s wife and home: “Axe nat why, for though thou aske me, / I wol nat tellen Goddes pryvetee.” (MillrT. 3557-8). Nicholas exploits his access to arcane knowledge in order to get his will. Although he does not suffer, Chaucer portrays him as devious, secretive, and lecherous.

The majority of Chaucer’s characters and pilgrims behave in exactly the opposite manner. The most popular way to get what one wants in The Canterbury Tales is to weep, beg, and plead for mercy. At the beginning of the knight’s tale, the displaced women of Thebes appeal to Theseus’s sense of pity: “Have mercy on oure wo and oure distresse! / Som drope of pitee, thurgh thy gentilesse,” (KnT. 920). Later, the king’s wife and sister-in-law use the same tactic in order to save Arcite and Palamon from death. Chaucer gives a clear endorsement of pity in that section of the tale: “For pitee renneth soone in gentil herte.” (KnT. 1761). Chaucer’s work is full of characters who win through pity: Averagus gains Dorigen’s hand in marriage; Dorigen avoids breaking her wedding vow; Aurelius is spared his thousand crown debt; Palamon wins Emelye from Venus; Arcite gains victory in battle from Mars. In each case, the protagonist begins in a position of weakness and appeals to a higher authority for mercy.

In addition, many of the pilgrims preface their tales with a modesty topos– that is, a humble warning of inadequacy. The franklin uses this technique: “Colours of rethoryk been to me queynte; / My spirit feeleth noght of swich meteere.” (FrankPro. 726-7). The parson, in a similar gesture, delivers his tale in prose, an even further simplification. The miller warns that some readers may want to skip his tale because of its rude contents. Chaucer himself in the general prologue grants himself a disclaimer, saying that he is not responsible for what will follow. He explains that he simply desires to truly record the pilgrims’ words. The reoccurring pattern of apology before telling tales enforces Chaucer’s belief in humility.

After examining the purpose and method by which pilgrims and characters in the tales win over an audience, Chaucer’s value system should seem quite clear. Apparently, he values humility, simplicity, pity, and selflessness. One could further deduce that Chaucer values sentence (morality and truth) over solas (pleasure and fiction), especially after reading the parson’s tale and considering its relative length to the rest of the tales. Following these conclusions, one must ask the question of why he wrote the tales at all. If he values purity, truth, and humility, why did he become a poet instead of a priest? To further complicate the issue, Chaucer actually concludes The Canterbury Tales by apologizing for ever having written them. He rejects all of the worldly writing or translations that he has ever done, including The Canterbury Tales.

It is evident, then, that Chaucer felt some conflict between religious and secular pulls. The Canterbury Tales contains very secular components; the wife of Bath spends a long portion of her prologue criticizing chastity, and the Miller’s Tale is quite lewd. Yet the culmination of his work is a lengthy Christian sermon (delivered by the parson) and Chaucer ends by rejecting the secular for the religious. Chaucer’s conflict may reflect a social conflict of his times between personal, private urges for wealth and pleasure and the fear or deference to the church and Christian ideals. A modern reading of The Canterbury Tales might interpret Chaucer as feeling the desire to break away from Christianity, but lacking the will to do it publicly. The same reading might view the pardoner as the strongest character in the tales– his Darwinian means of survival may be seen as admirable. On the other hand, Chaucer may have presented the secular material as an example of what to fight against.

Whatever one’s interpretation may be, Chaucer weaves a beautifully complex mixture of tales told by a wildly diverse group of people and from assorted genres. Among these variances, the tales emphasize and support Christian motives and means of living– they praise teaching, benevolence, humility, pity, and simplicity– when characters and pilgrims are evaluated in terms of their ability to communicate with (or perform for) others. Therefore, despite its secular nature, The Canterbury Tales is a triumph of Christian values.