In The Canterbury Tales, Chaucer constructs a rich portrayal of medieval society and social mores. Chaucer’s world is vibrant and populated with archetypes that seem to fit neatly in social and moral categories. The knight is of high moral stature and chivalry, the prioress is “gentle” and “piteous.” The characters paint as much an image of medieval English society, as they show attributes of the poet himself. Chaucer appears as a social conservative (Lenaghan 73), and a moralist (Mack 11).
The two facets of the poet are both significant. They reveal the poet’s attitude towards English society. The General Prologue is especially descriptive of Chaucer’s respect for the established social strata and the importance of one’s economic level (Lenaghan 73). The first described pilgrim is the knight. Chaucer portrays him as an ideal, brave, and illustrious member of the nobility. The length of the knight’s description emphasizes his position within the social hierarchy.
Chaucer’s social conservativeness is also evident in his treatment of the church. Arguably, the church representatives, the monk, a “manly man,” interested more in hunting than the Holy Writ, the friar, known “for gallantry” and “wooing” tongue, and the sinful pardoner, with “plastic” consciousness, who knew to “rake in cash” (Mack 1206) are explicitly ridiculed for their greed and moral lassitude. However, Chaucer does not specifically criticize the institution of the church. The Holy Bible is cited with reverence and appreciation. Moreover, Chaucer’s view on women, expressed through Miller’s words aligns with the view of the medieval intellectual orthodoxy (Rigby 1469): “the man who has no wife, he is no cuckold.” (as qtd in Mack 1190). It can be argued, that the nobility and God, a symbol of the church, are the few institutions that are not ridiculed in the Canterbury Tales.
Chaucer, the moralist, scrutinizes his characters with an ironic eye. He explicitly or subtly ridicules them for their follies. The jealous, gullible carpenter in Miller’s Tale becomes the laughing stock of the village for his folly of believing in the flood. Nicholas, the opportunistic and cynical student, is punished not for adultery, but his arrogance. Alison, the carpenter’s wife, is not socially disgraced for breaking the sanctity of the marriage vows. However, Chaucer does portray her, in particular, and cheating women, in general, in a negative light. Unlike the nun, who is described as “becoming,” full of “sympathy” and “loving” heart, Alison is described as “skittish” and “primrose/ For any lord to tumble in his bed/ or a good yeoman honestly to wed” (Martin 218).
In Miller’s tale, Chaucer deals with follies such as adultery, arrogance, foolishness, and naïveté. In The Pardoner’s Tale, Chaucer’s sins such as murder, robbery, licentiousness, drunkenness, greed, gambling, false swearing, and gluttony are the themes. Through Pardoner’s words Chaucer describes his attitude towards the excessive consumption of alcohol “O drunken man, disfigured is your face/ Sour is your breath, foul are you to embrace” (Mack 1208). The pardoner himself delivers his story while drunken, and Chaucer punishes his lack of inhibition by engaging him in a conflict with the host.
The three robbers in pardoner’s tale, who secretly plot to kill each other, ending all dead make a clear example of Chaucer’s orthodox view that retribution must be commensurable with sin. Chaucer also forgives. The drunken pardoner is brought in better graces with the host, with the help of the “worthy” knight.
Excessive adherence to rules constitutes as much a subject of ridicule as does impulsive foolishness. In the knight’s tale, which describes the conflict and duel of two knights, Chaucer seems to subtly ridicule attitudes of excessive chivalry.
However, critics argue that The Canterbury tales fall short of the requirements of poetic justice (Mack 1169). Chaucer, the comedian, and the moralist does not consistently reward the good in his characters, nor punish all the evil. Rather he punishes stupidity and rewards smartness. At the same time, the views expressed through the narrator’s words or the pilgrim’s tales stress the side of Chaucer that is a social conservative.
Works Cited
Lenaghan, Robert Tom. “Chaucer’s ‘General Prologue’ as History and Literature”. Comparative Studies in Society and History. 1970. 73-82. Literature Research Center, 2002. Your Town Library. Web.
Martin, Priscilla. “Sex, Discourse and Silence.” Chaucer’s Women: Nuns, Wives and Amazons. 1990. 218-230. Literature Research Center. 2002. Your town library. Web.
Mack, Maynard. ed. The Norton anthology of world masterpieces. 8th ed. New York: Norton, 1997. 1165-1217.
Rigby, Steven Henry. “Misogynist versus Feminist Chaucer.” Chaucer in Context: Society, Allegory and Gender. 1996. Literature Research Center. 2002. Your town library. Web.