Chaucer asks us to consider one basic question: To what degree
does the character conform to expectations? (Of social position,
of “job,” of the era, etc.)
To discern the answer, we have to look at what Chaucer
emphasizes/ details and the amount of emphasis given to (or
withheld from) that detail.
Take the Knight for example: What do we know about him?
o Long list of positive attributes: he is chivalrous, modest,
noble, generous, gentle (well educated and well behaved).
o Long list of places he has served in battle.
o Modest in dress (garment is worn and stained)
Is he a stereotype? (No, he is not typical) archetype? (No, he is
not just a character type) Chaucer seems to glorify him: he is
the epitome of knightly or chivalric behavior. He conforms very
well to the expectation of a knight.
So, is this satire? Is he making fun (even lightly) of his
behavior? We’ll discuss this further…
It is important to note that the Squire immediately follows his
father. Son follows father: Generational Study? If so, should we
look at the son in comparison or contrast?
On what does Chaucer focus in his description of the son?
Elaborate appearance (compare to his father’s stained tunic,
worn by use): son’s clothes are decorative and whimsical.
His activities: plays the flute, sings, dances, loves the ladies and
the nightlife.
He is not completely decadent. He has served in battle and does
honor his father, but the emphasis differs from the Knight’s
description.
Satire of younger generation? Lack the values of the older
generation? Is the older generation (Knight) clinging to the
past? The feudal system was coming to an end by the time
Chaucer wrote TCT. Is the Knight a dinosaur, soon to be extinct
and replaced by a newer, “cheaper” form of chivalry?
Yeoman – The yeoman would traditionally serve the knight
(monitor and maintain his lands) but by this time the yeoman
would own his own land. Chaucer focuses on ...his appearance,
which parallels his social job: green, brown, natural
descriptions, face like a nut, peacock feathers.
A proper forester, I guess. Chaucer (the narrator) has nothing to
judge him by except his appearance. Is that an accurate way to
judge?
Again, Chaucer asks us to consider one basic question: to what
degree does the character conform to expectations? (Of social
position, of “job,” of the era, etc.)
To appreciate his commentary about the members of the church,
you have to know their responsibilities and vows
Nun, Monk, Friar - Clergy - Vows
 Nun - Charity, Chastity, Poverty, Obedience – Lives in a
convent, in isolation from the rest of the world.



Monk - Charity, Chastity, Service, Obedience – Lives in a
monastery, “cloistered” or separated from the rest of the
world.
Friar – Same vows, but lived out in the world, among the
people. Mendicant – Lived as beggars, relying on the
charity of strangers for food and lodging. Duties – to hear
confession and either give penance (forgiveness) or
penalty.
None of these characters conform to the expectation of
their orders. The nun’s characteristics seem the least
offensive; the friars are possibly the worst. (But we still
have characters to go! And miles to go before I sleep..)
The Merchant – A businessman who has knowledge of and
opinions about commerce, trade, etc., but who ironically is in
deep…DEBT!
The Oxford Cleric…Still a student (why still?) – loves reading,
spends money on books; borrows money from friends to pay for
them. Everything about him is thin: his body, his clothes, even
his horse (thin, hollow, vacant, bare) because he spends his
money on books (very expensive at the time). Comment on
education, spending money… Chaucer seems to like this
character – tone of moral virtue when he speaks, formal,
respectful, gladly learn, gladly teach.
Sergeant at Law – Lawyer – A man of noted reverence, but
notice Chaucer’s language: he seems to be wise, seems to be
busy. Hmnnn: contrast between appearance and reality.
Franklin – Landowner; well-to-do, but not nobility. A model
among landed gentry: generous. Opens home to county –
Abundance of food and drink. Allusion to Epicurus – pleasure
is achieved through moderation and virtue, yet most think of
epicureans as pleasure-seekers. Is the Franklin moderate is his
tastes? No, but Chaucer seems to like him anyhow…
The Guildsmen – Skilled artisans (consumer culture), capable,
wealthy, wore signs of material wealth – references to silver.
Ambitious wives = real housewives of MA – fit to be treated
like a queen.
The Cook – Food is good, but….pus-filled sore (ulcer). Note the
contrast between the quality of his food and the graphic
description of his sore. Makes you think twice about the quality
of his food.
Skipper – Captain: well – traveled, but violent. Ignores rules of
conscience/rules of the sea. Takes no prisoners, but makes
captured sailors walk the plank. Dagger.
Doctor Wife of Bath – Detailed description of clothes: suggests wealth.
Handsome/attractive. 5 marriages, all church-condoned, and she
has “known” other men in her youth. Been on several
pilgrimages. Chaucer seems to like her, even with the details
about her behavior and knowledge. A strong female character.
Parson – (and Plowman!) – Positive connotation – speaks
highly, contrast to monk, friar, nun. Priest – Never a better
priest. Kind and giving, unlike others mentioned before actually
does his job. Gives to poor, lives a life of poverty. Holy,
virtuous – literally. No irony. Shepherd – tends his flock –
common people. Cares for people.
Plowman – (Parson’s brother) works in field. Manual labor.
Helps others. Manual laborer (at a plow). Happy to work for
others. Very religious. Description of his work and personal
ethic.
Reeve – Manages a lord’s estate. Old, choleric (bad-tempered.
Yellowed, jaded). Feared by the other workers on the estate. Is
Chaucer suggesting that he knows other people’s secrets or other
people’s tricks and dodges? No one can trick him, but he may
trick others. Never been found in arrears (debt or lack of order),
but he has managed to get rich --richer than the lord he serves.
(????How???)
Miller – Physically large, animal imagery: ram, sow, fox. Job –
to weigh the amount of grain bought at a mill. Falsifies the
amount of grain a person would buy by placing his “heavy
thumb/gold thumb” on the scale. Cheater! Uses his size and
position against common people. Miller was important to MA
life. Like being cheated at the grocery store!
Manciple – Buying agent/financial agent for law firms and
colleges. (knowledge). Practical knowledge (economical) and
more wisdom than those that he serves.
Pardoner – Rides with the Summoner. A pair, like the
parson/plowman. Sells pardons/indulgences from the church –
we know the problem of this practice historically. Pardoner
does it for personal profit: sells “hot” or fake relics. Whole list
of objects that are fake. Dishonest –reflected in his unattractive
appearance. Yellow, lank hair that fell like rats’ tails down his
back. Bulging rabbit eyes. Not sure whether he is a gelding or a
mare. Sexual identity? Creepy.
Summoner – Condemned by Chaucer. Unethical. Takes bribes.
Physically nasty. Boils on face, bad onion/garlic breath. Feared
by children. Rants in Latin when drunk. (Pretentious – knows
just enough Latin to “be dangerous.” Other probably don’t
realize how little he knows, but he uses Latin to impress others?
). Job – Track down sinners and then summon people to the
courts. church courts. Could be bribed into overlooking people’s
sins/summons for the right amount of money or wine. Uses
people’s sins against them.
Narrator – (p. 124) will explain rank, array, number, cause of
each in his assembly. Says he will be honest. Simple observer.
Going to tell the truth, but tells it from his memory: bias?
Host -