Contradictions in Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales
There is no question that contradictory values make up a major component of The Canterbury Tales. Fate vs. Fortuna, knowledge vs. experience and love vs. hate all embody Chaucer's famous work. These contrasting themes are an integral part of the complexity and sophistication of the book, as they provide for an ironic dichotomy to the creative plot development and undermine the superficial assumptions that might be made. The combination of completely contradictory motifs leads to the unusual stories and outcomes that come to play out in the tales. And these outcomes draw focus on the larger universal issues that in many cases transcend the boundaries of vernacular periods to all of humanity. That is the essence and success of the tales; their themes are universal and their irony is still applicable today.
Madame Eglentine, Chaucer?s Prioress, demonstrates an excellent example of the clash between divergent values. In many ways, her description in the General Prologue personifies the model medieval woman: religious, elegant, innocent, loving and sentimental. Yet clearly there is a vast contrast between her description and the vicious, anti-Semitic account of the young boy mutilated in the Ghetto. It is this contrast which points out the ?binaries? or opposites which make up the Prioress?s character. Her tale involves a bigotry that is unmatched in all of The Canterbury Tales as shown in the following passage:
?And as the boy passed at his happy pace
This cursed Jew grabbed him and held him, slit
His little throat and cast him in a pit?I say, into a privy-drain (Chaucer 190).?
While most would agree that this tale represents a love vs. hate contrast, contemporary...
... middle of paper ...
...an: voice and power in Chaucer's Manciple's tale.? The Journal of English and Germanic Philology Jan 1996
H. Marshall Leicester Jr. ?Newer currents in psychoanalytic criticism, and the difference "it" makes: gender and desire in the 'Miller's Tale.'? ELH Fall 1994
Stewart Justman. ?'The Reeve's Tale' and the honor of men.? Studies in Short Fiction
William F. Woods. ?Society and nature in the 'Cook's Tale.'? Papers on Language & Literature Spring 1996
John A. Pitcher. ?"Word and werk" in Chaucer's Franklin's Tale.? literature and psychology Spring-Summer 2003
Olga Burakov. ?Chaucer's the Cook's Tale. (Critical Essay)? The Explicator Fall 2002
NORMAN KLASSEN. ?TWO CHAUCERS. (Critical Essay)? Medium Aevum Spring 1999
DANIEL T. KLINE. ?"Myne by right": Oath Making and Intent in The Friar's Tale. (Critical Essay)? Philological Quarterly Summer 1998
In Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, Chaucer the author and Chaucer the pilgrim are both quick to make distinctions between characters and point out shortcomings. Though Chaucer the pilgrim is meeting the group for the first time, his characterizations go beyond simple physical descriptions. Using just twenty-one lines in the General Prologue, the author presents the character of the Miller and offers descriptions that foreshadow the sardonic tone of his tale and the mischievous nature of his protagonist.
In “The Pardoner’s Tale,” Geoffrey Chaucer masterfully frames an informal homily. Through the use of verbal and situational irony, Chaucer is able to accentuate the moral characteristics of the Pardoner. The essence of the story is exemplified by the blatant discrepancy between the character of the storyteller and the message of his story. By analyzing this contrast, the reader can place himself in the mind of the Pardoner in order to account for his psychology.
Chaucer's Canterbury Tales are filled with many entertaining tales from a variety of characters of different social classes and background. The first two tales told, by the knight and the miller, articulate very different perspectives of medieval life. Primarily, The tales of both the knight and the miller bring strikingly different views on the idea of female agency, and as we will discover, Chaucer himself leaves hints that he supports the more involved, independent Alison, over the paper-thin character of Emily.
The dominance of men in the Middle Ages is unethical, irrational, and dangerous; women are given few rights and the opportunity to earn rights is non-existent. The dictates to the dominance is formed by the internal combination of man’s personal desire and religious interference. In Geoffrey Chaucer’s, The Canterbury Tales, the combined perspectives’ on a haughty Pardoner and non-subservient wife is the stronghold of separation in moral roles. The moral roles between men and women are exemplified in the rankings of religious hierarchy for men are at the top and women towards the bottom. Even prestigious women, ones with noble connections, are subservient to men, but contradictorily have religious affiliations. The “Wife of Bath’s Tale” is a perfect example of defying man’s dominance and the “Pardoner’s Tale”, a problematic reasoning of why selfishness connects moreover to the manipulation. The frailties of religious reasoning however, will cause The Pardoner and the Wife of Bath to be separated from society’s morals.
There is no doubting Chaucer’s mastery at paroemia; that his adaptations of his many and varied sources transcended their roots is attested by the fact that, unlike many of his contemporaries or authorities, his works have not “passen as dooth a shadwe upon the wal”[1]. Yet while his skill as a medieval author is undisputed, the extent of his subtlety is not always fully appreciated. In The Canterbury Tales, for instance, while some tales were rapid in drawing academic interest and scholarly interpretations, others were quickly dismissed as ribald tales, as simple fabliaux hardly worthy of more than a cursory examination.
The structure Geoffrey Chaucer chose for his masterpiece, The Canterbury Tales, of utilizing a melange of narrative voices to tell separate tales allows him to explore and comment on subjects in a multitude of ways. Because of this structure of separate tales, the reader must regard as extremely significant when tales structurally overlap, for while the reader may find it difficult to render an accurate interpretation through one tale, comparing tales enables him to lessen the ambiguity of Chaucer’s meaning. The Clerk’s Tale and The Merchant’s Tale both take on the institution of marriage, but comment on it in entirely different manner, but both contain an indictment of patriarchal narcissism and conceit.
(2) Geoffrey Chaucer. The Canterbury Tales edited by M.H. Abrams. The Norton Anthology of English Literature. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2001). All future references will come from this text.
Chaucer’s book The Canterbury Tales presents a frame story written at the end of the 14th century. It narrates the story of a group of pilgrims who participate in a story-telling contest that they made up to entertain each other while they travel to the shrine of Saint Thomas Becket at Canterbury Cathedral. Because of this, some of the tales become particularly attractive for they are written within a frame of parody which, as a style that mocks genre, is usually achieved by the deliberate exaggeration of some aspects of it for comic effect. Chaucer uses parody to highlight some aspects of the medieval society that presented in an exaggerated manner, not only do they amuse the readers, but also makes them reflect on them. He uses the individual parody of each tale to create a satirical book in which the behaviours of its characters paint an ironic and critical portrait of the English society at that time. Thus, the tales turn satirical, ironic, earthy, bawdy, and comical. When analysing the Knight’s and the Miller’s tale, one can realise how Chaucer mocks the courtly love convention, and other social codes of behaviour typical of the medieval times.
Patterson, Lee. "The living witnesses of our redemption: Martyrdom and imitation in Chaucer's Prioress's Tale.” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies. Durham; Fall 2001. 507-560
One of the aspects of Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde that seemed most confusing at first was the apparent ambiguity or complete lack of motivation that the author provides for the main characters. Chaucer provides little explanation for why his major characters act the way that they do; when he does, his explanations are often ambiguous or contradictory. Pandarus is an excellent example of a character whose motives are ambiguous. The only motives clearly attributable to him based on the poem's text seem to be the friendship and affection he and Troilus have for each other, which is supported by the narrator's claim that "Pandarus ... [was] desirous to serve his fulle frend." (Chaucer 1.1058-9); a voyeuristic instinct (which could be supported by pointing out that Pandarus seems to arrange opportunities for Troilus and Criseyde to tryst, as much as possible, in his presence -- for instance, his presence for an unspecified length of time during the night Troilus and Criseyde spend in his guest room); and a wish to vicariously fulfill, through his friend Troilus, those romantic desires which have been thwarted throughout life. This last (and perhaps most supportable) explanation is suggested by the constant identifications that Pandarus makes with Troilus, by saying "myn avys anoon may helpen us" and in asking Troilus if "Fortune oure joie wold han overthrowe," and by his explanation that "I ... nevere felte in my servyse / A frendly cheere or lokyng of an eye." (1.620, 4.385, 4.397-8) All of these motives for Chaucer's Pandarus could be supported, but none seems clearly to be more plausible than any of the others. However, for these vaguely defined motives,...
...an see, when reading a work such as The Canterbury Tales, there are many advantages and disadvantages to the work being in both middle and modern English. Before reading such a work, one must realize his or her own purpose for reading the work and then decide on which version to read. It is the opinion of many that it is beneficial to read both versions in order to educate one self about both languages as well as to experience the evolution of the English language. The English language has changed greatly over the many centuries since the time this work was written. However, this work helps create a bridge between the languages of the middle and modern English worlds. This was a work that transcended any work previously written and one that will continue to have an important place in the history of English literature and the English language as a whole.
Mitchell, J. Allan. (2005). Chaucer's Clerk's Tale and the Question of Ethical Monstrosity. Studies in Philology. Chapel Hill: Winter 2005. Vol.102, Iss. 1; pg. 1, 26 pgs
The Canterbury Tales is a great contemplation of stories, that display humorous and ironic examples of medieval life, which imitate moral and ethical problems in history and even those presented today. Chaucer owed a great deal to the authors who produced these works before his time. Chaucer tweaked their materials, gave them new meanings and revealed unscathed truths, thus providing fresh ideas to his readers. Chaucer's main goal for these tales was to create settings in which people can relate, to portray lessons and the irony of human existence.
When it comes to The Canterbury Tales, nothing is safe from scrutiny. When the idea of doing a pedagogical project was introduced for this class, my mind immediately began buzzing with ideas of what I should do. One day I hope to have a class of my own, so being able to approach an assignment in a pedagogical way is something I’ve looked forward to for a while. Though we’ve read many great stories in this class, The Canterbury Tales is one that’s become quite a favorite of mine. Since this story covers many different themes and storylines, I decided to focus on Chaucer’s satirical outlook on the class system and his portrayal of the pilgrims’ portraits. The ideal class that I would be teaching this to would be a junior or senior level high
While there are a variety of modern translations which completely reorient The Canterbury Tales for today's readers, most fall short in expressing the impressive control that Chaucer had over his native language. Changes can be made to his text if we want to understand it, but the best of these modifications interferes little or not at all with the authentic reading; this way the rich sound of the original is maintained and upheld.