The Canterbury Tales are a collection of Geoffrey Chaucer’s trademark challenges and reimaginings. Chaucer uses a genre to tell a story that is perfectly suited for it. He follows the conventions of each genre, but then makes a change. Is Chaucer playing with the expectations of his readers? Chaucer could be making a comment on a genre he’s only partially involved in. He may be commenting on writing or life in general. Chaucer didn’t write stories to entertain. He wrote them with the intention of bringing the reader to the attention of a certain theme or irony. Chaucer can be viewed through the prism of epistemology – the study or knowledge and how one “knows what one knows”. Chaucer uses genre alteration to undermine traditional genres. Chaucer’s method of genre alteration serves to deconstruct traditional genres by drawing attention to their typical features. Chaucer’s stories reflect his awareness that, contrary to what popular tales of the day claimed, knights are not always chivalrous. Chaucer asks how readers and writers of these texts can take things for granted when the world is changing so rapidly. The Prioress’s Tale (written from the viewpoint of an eccentric and fashionable nun) is Chaucer’s implicit example of using his critical method. The Prioress says in her prologue that she plans to tell an uplifting story about Christ and the Blessed Virgin. She tells a story about a young girl who became a martyr. In Asia, while singing the song he learned about Blessed Virgin Mary, a boy innocently murdered. A group Jews were so offended at the song that they cut it out. When his mother discovers the body of her son, however, he continues to sing. A miracle is achieved through faith. The Prioress tells her own story with such emotion that it is as if she had experienced the miracle herself. She does so with great humility by declaring she may not have enough knowledge to be able tell a tale of this magnitude. The story ends with her being overcome by emotion. There are a few subtle points that separate the story from a normal miracle tale. Chaucer is a master of telling stories. To remember the best elements of each tale, it’s important to keep in mind the storyteller. Also, Chaucer the alter-ego’s intention, as well as Chaucer the author’s, are all equally important. Alter-ego Chaucer has a tendency to appear as a thick-headed fellow, i.e. plain-speaking and naive. We can therefore assume that Chaucer uses his alter-ego’s bluntness to describe the characters he created and their storytelling style to make indirect remarks that Chaucer himself could not explain in plain terms (for fear of criticism). We can understand the Prioress’ lack of knowledge and her ironic position through his alter-ego’s description. The Prioress has a very stylish outfit. Her jewelry and bracelet are also described in the prologue. She has a lot of sentimentality about her lapdogs and is concerned with the plight of mice trapped in traps. The heightened sensitivity of her to animals in general is contrary to her social role. She is, after all, a religious nun who should be focused on more pressing issues such as poverty, disease, or other serious problems. As we have already mentioned, she’s not very knowledgeable.
Chaucer equates Madame Eglantyne with those who are lewd and do not speak Latin because she is able to read in images. Chaucer’s clerk criticizes the Prioress for her learning. Like the Nun’s priest, he also believes that her tale is “popular”. (Heffernan 3)
If Chaucer’s criticism of the Prioress is true, and he writes with mockery in mind but also a critique of those who are uneducated, the narration of the prioress can be seen from a different perspective. Chaucer questions the legitimacy of her story and, in a smaller way, of all miracles by pointing out how odd she was, how stylish she was, and what little wisdom she had. He makes the reader question the truthfulness of the story and any other tale that claims to be based on reality. Other stories could not have come from similar disreputable sources? Does a story’s “holy-ness” make it true? Chaucer’s subtle choice of words and phrases shows that he has a disdainful attitude towards the Church at the time. He does not directly challenge Christianity but does show a slight disdain toward the indulgence-selling practices of the church. It is interesting to note that the story was set in Asia, which may seem unusual for a story about miracles but served multiple purposes. First, it was to show Chaucer’s style. Asia was an area of interest for the world at the time of Chaucer. The nun’s decision to set the story in Asia is both timely and ridiculous. This choice has an even more important effect on the story’s Judaism. Chaucer wrote in a time when Jews had been banished from England for a long time. Even though few Englishmen had ever met a Jew before, they still blamed the Jews whenever something went wrong, particularly in the church. The Prioress would have never been able, in the end, to depict Judaism, as the evil force in her story, if she had not set her miracles in Asia, which was a more likely place to find Jews than England. The story is tainted by the Prioress’s decision. Chaucer’s criticism of the Church’s tendency is to place blame for the institution’s problems on distant and obscure causes? Chaucer’s choice of Asia for the Prioress is a statement that the nun chose to be overzealous and cast the Jews in a negative light without considering the reasons. Are people — the church, England — overzealous in making such decisions? Do we each choose our own villains? These questions are all a result from the setting in which the Prioress tells her story. The Prioress’s story also stands out for its unusually detailed description of the violence which preceded the miracle. The gratuitous nature of the violence and the graphic description by a pious sister is quite striking. Why would she do this? Why would the Prioress do such a thing? It’s not impossible, but rare. Chaucer is mocking abuse by writing as a woman who has no education. Does her hatred of the world and the Jews make her choose to use the most horrific violence to glorify the innocent boy-martyr, or is she just trying to show off? In the same way that the Prioress chose to depict violence as the villain in her tale, she also shows a lack of perspective and authority. Chaucer is attempting to make a comment on the Prioress for her slightly exaggerated “retelling” about the horrifying violence. The Prioress tells a story that is notable for the similarities between the young girl and the Prioress. The martyr is a simple boy who does not understand his words, except that they are about Blessed Virgin Mary, so it’s worth singing them constantly. He stops singing only when the abbot of the nearby monastery takes the grain from his child’s lips.
The only way to praise your precious Parfourned would be by dignitaries, but thy bounty Parfourned can only be praised by children. (VII 455-58)
Could it be that the Prioress is wishing for something? Is this a subconscious or conscious identification? Is she a Prioress who believes, but doesn’t understand? The Prioress would be exaggerating the questionable piety of herself, putting her in a negative light. Chaucer aims are more important. Is Chaucer attempting to make the child faithful a metaphor for society during that period — or perhaps Chaucer readers? The boy’s martyr is faithful, yet he is ignorant. Does Chaucer see society in this way? Chaucer had a much broader world view than his peers. As a writer and traveler as well as an official in the government, he saw a great deal more. He may have objected to how the trusting man was treated. He might not have viewed faith and religion as harmful but simply wished for an encompassing view, one which combined wisdom with trust. He also allows a character who is overly simple to praise another character that is overly complex. Chaucer makes his readers doubt all character descriptions by using this device. If Prioress is not an authority in any way, should this martyred kid be considered a saint while all Jews are evil? No. We should be skeptical of everything she says. After all, she’s a mere storyteller. The Friar’s Tale challenges Chaucer’s authority in The Canterbury Tales, just as “The prioress’s Tale ” questioned the Church’s ability to tell such a simple tale. The Friar’s Tale is simpler in some ways than the Prioress but it challenges genre conventions. This story, which is supposed to be a “moral” story — a story about a bad guy who gets his due — is different in two ways. Chaucer adds a unique contribution to the otherwise dark and vengeful wish-fulfillment tale. He spends a long time discussing the responsibilities of public office. Bryant notes that such an extended dialogue seems out of place for a story which should be about a villain who is punished on Earth (2). The story is not rushed to the end, but begins by describing the role of the protagonist in the court of the archdeacon. The story continues with a conversation between a summoner and a daemon that shows the pressures they face in their offices. Scholars believe that Chaucer’s tale, in which he examines the work of church and government officials, is an “original addition” to his treatment. This likely owes to Chaucer himself and to his awareness of how officials are accused or excused during political discussions. Chaucer reveals the true concerns and feelings of the working man in his summoner’s and daemon’s words.
I will not take anything, God forbid, but if the price is too high or too low, then it’s okay. There is no way I would be able to take it. Stomak ne conscience ne knowe I noon. (III 1435-41)
This very sad excerpt shows how the characters “explicitly refer to the difficulty in explaining their actions due to their official position” (Bryant, 8). The story encourages us to reflect on the lack or agency of both the summoner and demonic bailiff in addition to their role as agents of collection of money and administration of justice. Chaucer asks his readers not to pity either the corrupt summoner nor his daemon, but instead to reflect on the system that produced them. It is an unusual theme for any moral story. Chaucer’s narrator and viewpoint, who is called the Friar, are the second unique quality he brings to this moral story. The Canterbury Tales begins with the desire of the Friar to anger his long-time adversary, the Summoner. This hatred has resulted in the demeaning but quiet tale he tells. He talks about a summoner, who goes to hell with the daemon he has just met. This character engages this daemon in a friendly manner. When the friar first sees the summoner, he makes up a lie about the summoner’s profession. And when the demon admits to him committing underhanded acts in order to survive, then the summoner does too. When the daemon’s origin is revealed, the Friar refuses to flee. He doesn’t even blink an eye. He’s fascinated by his daemon and insists on hearing how he does it. The summoner, who is a demon himself, appears in this way. He may be one of only a few people to have not fled from the evil spirit that was his traveling companion. Chaucer uses this technique to bring his readers back to the point that we might have a distorted view of this corrupt official. As we would not believe the Prioress because she was more interested in style and personal projects than piety, neither can we accept the Friars story. He clearly has a vendetta. The Friar claims that the summoner in his story is a daemon. Geoffrey Chaucer’s writing is full of surprises and challenges. Each Canterbury Tales is a twist to the usual genres. Chaucer questions the validity of his stories and challenges them by embedding criticism. How can we tell if a miracle story is based on reality? It is because it invokes Mary and was told by a Nun? There must be something more. How can we tell if a moral story has a true lesson? It’s because it has a villain who ends up in a bad situation? There’s got to be more. What if he was doing his work? What if the storyteller despises their own protagonist and constructed that ending? Chaucer reminds his audience that they cannot accept a story on its face, without first examining the source. This idea can be applied in many areas of life. Chaucer takes care at the outset to introduce characters that will tell stories. In humorous detail, he introduces them, revealing his goal: to reveal not only the true natures, but also the stories of those who tell them. Chaucer is a storyteller, as he shows in his tales. He is interested in how we come to know what we do and what can be trusted about literature. Chaucer is one the few writers that truly understands storytelling as a tool rather than a toy, and that each story contains more than one tale. Work Cited Bryant, Brantley. “‘By extortions I lie’: Chaucer’s friar’s tale and corrupt officials.” The Chaucer Review (42.2 (2007):180-195. E-Journals. EBSCO. Web. 3 Dec. 2009. Chaucer , Geoffrey, et al. The poetry of Geoffrey Chaucer, as edited by the Riverside Publishing Company. Houghton Mifflin Company published a book in 1986 in New York. Heffernan, Carol Falvo. The Chaucer Review 39.1 (2003): 103-116. E-Journals. EBSCO. Web. 3 Dec. 2009. The Chaucer Review 36, no. 1 (2001): 48-72. E-Journals. EBSCO. Web. 3 Dec. 2009.