The Canterbury Tales, written by Geoffrey Chaucer Sure is a collection of stories written by Geoffrey Chaucer in the late 14th century. It is considered a masterpiece of Middle English literature. The tales are framed as a story-telling contest among a diverse group of pilgrims traveling to the shrine of Saint Thomas Becket in Canterbury. Each pilgrim tells a tale, showcasing different aspects of medieval society, including love, chivalry, morality, and satire. The Canterbury Tales offers a vivid and entertaining depiction of life in medieval England, with Chaucer’s unique blend of humor, social commentary, and rich characterizations. It’s a fascinating glimpse into the culture and values of the time.
Compared to the language of the rest of the Prologue, the General Prologue’s opening invocation of spring is lengthy and formal. The story’s setting is established in the opening words, but the speaker does it in cosmic and cyclical terms, praising the life and bounty of spring. The opening lyrics have a dreamy, timeless, unfocused look as a result of this strategy, so it comes as a surprise when the narrator says he will be describing a pilgrimage he personally undertook rather than telling a love story.
A pilgrimage is a journey made for the purpose of atonement and grace. As far as pilgrimages went, it was not extremely difficult for an English person to get to Canterbury. Therefore, as the narrator notes, it was exceedingly well-liked in fourteenth-century England. The bones of Saint Thomas Becket, the archbishop of Canterbury who was assassinated in 1170 by knights of King Henry II, were visited by pilgrims. He quickly rose to prominence as England’s most beloved saint after his passing. The pilgrimage in The Canterbury Tales should not be viewed as a solemn occasion since it gave the travelers a chance to stop working and enjoy a vacation.
As he describes how he met the party of pilgrims while sleeping at the Tabard Inn in line 20, the narrator gives up his sweeping, all-knowing point of view and introduces the first person—”I”—for the first time. He underlines that this group, which he unintentionally came across, came into being entirely by coincidence (25-26). After that, he switches to the first-person plural and starts addressing the pilgrims as “we” in line 29, reiterating his membership in the group.
The prologue’s opening section is concluded by the narrator saying that he has “tyme and space” to tell his story. His remarks serve as a reminder that the author is writing some time after the story’s events and that he is portraying the characters from memory. These are the people he has spoken to and met, but he has waited a while before sitting down and detailing them. It is particularly significant that he intended to describe each pilgrim as he or she appeared to be doing so, as this underscores the fact that his descriptions are not only based on his memories but also on his personal impressions and beliefs about each pilgrim. He sees himself as the go-between for two groups. We, the audience, whom the narrator specifically refers to as “you” in lines 34 and 38, and the group of which he was a member.
On the other hand, the narrator’s promise that he will describe each pilgrim’s “condicioun,” “degree,” and “array” (clothing) hints that his portrayals will be based both on his own ideas and on verifiable facts. He spends a lot of time describing the group members in terms of their social standings. The pilgrims are a representative sample of English society in the fourteenth century. The military, the clergy, and the laity were categorized as the three “estates” in medieval social theory. (The nobility, which is not depicted in the General Prologue, is regarded as belonging to the military estate because it traditionally gets its title and privileges from military obligations and service.)
The Knight and Squire stand in for the military estate in the portraits that we shall see throughout the remainder of the General Prologue. The Prioress (together with her nun and three priests), the Monk, the Friar, and the Parson serve as the clergy’s representatives. The other characters, ranging from the affluent Franklin to the destitute Plowman, are laity. Landowners (the Franklin), professionals (the Clerk, the Man of Law, the Guildsmen, the Physician, and the Shipman), workers (the Cook and the Plowman), stewards (the Miller, the Manciple, and the Reeve), and church officers (the Summoner and the Pardoner) are additional categories that can be applied to these lay characters.
The characters in The Canterbury Tales are entirely individualized creations rather than just good or evil representatives of some ideal type, making the book more than just an estates satire. Many of them appear to be conscious of the societal function they play and appear to have made an attempt to define it on their own terms. As an illustration, the Squire is preparing to fill the same social position as his father, the Knight, but unlike his father, he defines this position in terms of courtly love rather than crusading.
The Squire, the Knight’s son, is mostly described in terms of his physical attractiveness, in contrast to the Knight, who is described in terms of abstract ideals and wars. The Squire plans to take over his father’s position, but he has a different concept of what that position should entail. He adds the ideals of courtly love to his father’s commitment to military prowess and the Christian cause. He exhibits all the skills and traits expected of a courtly lover: he dresses and grooms himself impeccably, he plays and sings, he attempts to earn the favor of his “lady,” and he can’t sleep at night from his intense love.
The corruption and the degradation of the church is evident in the prologue itself. It is evident in the prologues of The Prioress, The Friar and The Monk. The Prioress looks after the pets than the poor paupers whereas the Friar is a wanton person filled with sexual desires as well as the Monk is somewhere hunting outside of his monastery. They appear to be a member of the church but they are corrupted in reality. The most corrupt and debased of all the pilgrims are the Summoner and Pardoner, who journey together. They are lay church officers rather than members of the holy orders. Both distort their roles for their own enrichment and the corruption of others; neither believes in what he does for the Church. The Summoner is a lecher, a drunk, and he is constantly seeking a bribe. His sickly appearance portends a sickly soul. The Pardoner is a more nuanced character. He has a gift for seducing his rather shocked congregation while singing brilliantly in church. The Pardoner has long hair and no beard, and his sexual orientation is unclear. The narrator says that he mistakenly believed the Pardoner to be a mare or a gelding, presumably implying that he is either a gay or a eunuch. His harmonizing with the Summoner’s “stif burdoun,” which denotes the bass line of a tune but also alluded to the male genitalia (673), further suggests his homosexuality.
The Prologue also explores the morning rays of humanism. It is evident in three different professions represented by the Merchant, the Clerk, and the Man of Law. The Merchant obviously strains the narrator’s capacity to praise everyone, despite his strenuous efforts to maintain the illusion. The fact that even the naive narrator is aware of The Merchant’s debt undermines his purported cunning at concealing it. The Merchant is in debt, which appears to be a recurrent occurrence. The Merchant hasn’t even given the corporation his name, despite the narrator’s desire to commend him.
Chaucer also depicted the characterisation of the characters who are materialistic and engaged to worldly pleasures. Along with the Merchant and the Man of Law, the Franklin and the five Guildsmen are devoted to material prosperity, and the narrator compliments them on their assets. The Franklin’s table is described in opulent poetic tribute to luxury and hospitality. The Tapestry-Weaver, Carpenter, Weaver, Dyer, and Haberdasher are not distinct individuals who have their own stories to tell. It is obvious that the narrator is satirizing them when they express their pride in outward displays of riches. The Cook, with his repulsive physical flaw, is a symbol of the Guildsmen’s wealth and material worth. It is also evident in the character of The Physician and The Shipman.
Readers have regarded Chaucer’s suggested attitude toward this courageous and outspoken lady, the Wife of Bath, as either a manifestation of his proto-feminism or of his misogyny, depending on whether they see it as admiration or satire. She undoubtedly exemplifies many of the characteristics that Chaucer’s time’s feminist writers attacked: she is conceited, bossy, and lusty. However, Chaucer also depicts the Wife of Bath in such realistic and empathetic detail that it is difficult to understand her as only a satire of a horrible person. The lengthy preface to her story goes into further detail about minor aspects of her description, such the space between her teeth and her deafness.
These two brothers stand out as exceptional examples of Christian beliefs in the wake of a long list of very worldly personalities. The Plowman lives out the gospel by tithing consistently to the Church, loving God and his neighbor, and working for the glory of Christ. Thus, their “worth” is entirely different from that given to the brave Knight or the accomplished and affluent individuals. Compared to the Plowman, the Parson plays a more complex role and is more aware of his significance.
In the sense that they are entrusted with other people’s property, the Miller, the Manciple, and the Reeve are all stewards.With his vicious and violent habits, his mouth that burns like a flame, the enraged red hairs that are growing out of his wart, and his black nostrils, The Miller appears more demonic than Christian. His “golden thumb” refers to his habit of defrauding his clients. Ironically, the narrator defends the Manciple as an example of a responsible steward. All of the Manciple’s employers are lawyers with training in helping people live within their means, yet he is even more astute than they are. The Reeve is shown as a very clever thief who is capable of deceiving his own auditors and who is knowledgeable about all the managers’, servants’, herdsmen’s, and millers’ tactics.
One Reply to “Critical Analysis of General Prologue to The Canterbury Tales”