Outward praise and inward condemnation:
Irony and Chaucer’s General Prologue
Charlotte Lebeau
2125924
Fontys Hogescholen Tilburg
Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales is undoubtedly one the most prolific late
medieval English texts. Written between 1380 and 1387 after Chaucer had served in
Richard II’s court, the manuscript discussed in this essay1 was written by a single
scribe during the first quarter of the fifteenth century (Chaucer died in 1400). It is the
Ellesmere Manuscript (San Marino, Huntington Library, El 27 C 9), which is generally
regarded as one of the earliest manuscripts (Treharne, 2010).
This essay concerns itself with irony. Irony as described by Peck and Coyle
(1993) is “a way of writing in which what is meant is contrary to what the words
appear to say.” For instance, an exaggerated appraisal of a character could signal to
the reader that the author does not genuinely feel this character deserves such
appraisal. This phenomenon is scattered all throughout the Canterbury Tales, and
even when, as in the case of this essay, only focusing on the Prologue, there are still
many great examples of irony to be found. This essay discusses several of them.
Peck and Coyle’s description is used as the fundament on which these examples will
be based. It is not the aim of this essay to quantify the irony that Chaucer uses, nor to
categorize his characters into those he seems to admire and those he seems to
ridicule. Instead, here is an exploration of how, and with which words, Chaucer
expresses his sentiments. By displaying a selection of the most obvious instances of
irony, this essay serves to demonstrate to the reader that medieval authors, too,
could be satirists, doling out biting criticism to figures of authority – even
ecclesiastical.
Not all of Chaucer’s characters are subject to his gentle ridicule – and gentle it
mostly remains, as Peck and Coyle also point out when stating that “Chaucer is a
1
As Treharne only provides translations to some words in the text, an interlinear translation of the
Harvard University website was used when necessary:
https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/teachslf/gp-par.htm
comic poet: he is amused by humanity’s folly, but not troubled by it”. The Knight, for
instance, plays no part in this essay because Chaucer depicted him as a particularly
ideal stereotype of his profession (Bowden, 1973, p. 44). He is a courageous military
man, very polite, and unconcerned with material matters such as dressing up smartly
for the pilgrimage. Of the remaining characters, a large part is described in manners
ranging from humourous hyperbole to bordering on contempt. The examples below
cover eight of them.
As mentioned, the description of irony used here is when the author expresses
a certain opinion (in these cases, positive opinions), but very subtly suggests that he
does not really mean it. So when Chaucer’s narrator2 says of the Prioress,
But, for to speken of hire conscience
She was so charitable and so pitous
(ll. 142-143)
and then continues by saying that she would cry if she saw a mouse trapped or a dog
abused, it is in all probability deliberate that there is no mention of any human beings
that she pities. Is she really that charitable a nun, if all her charity is directed at small
animals? Furthermore, the Prioress is supposedly very symple and coy (l. 119), but
her red lips, elegant cloak, coral beads and golden brooch suggest otherwise.
Then there is the Monk, who is a skilled hunter as well. This fact alone is
already dubious, as monks were expected to remain inside their monasteries, and
were forbidden to keep hunting dogs (Bowden, 1973, p. 111). Nonetheless,
Chaucer’s narrator deems him
A manly man, to been an abbot able.
(l. 167).
No doubt that the Monk is a manly man, considering his hobby. However, that the
narrator really thinks that he is qualified to be an abbot is not very plausible, when a
few lines down he says:
What sholde he studie and make hymselven wood
Upon a book in cloystre alwey to poure,
Or swynken with his hands, and laboure,
Wherever Chaucer’s actual comments on his characters are discussed, it is implied that these
comments are voiced by the narrator Chaucer as is present in the Prologue, as opposed to the person
Chaucer.
2
As Austyn bit? How shal the world be served?
Lat Austyn have his owene swynk to hym reserved.
(ll. 184-188).
In other words: what good will it do for the Monk to spend his time studying
laboriously, as Saint Augustine would have wanted? Let him do the work himself,
then! Thus, it is difficult to believe that the narrator genuinely thinks of the Monk as a
fair prelaat (l. 204).
Here we arrive at the Friar, arguably the most heavily derided character of the
bunch. Unto his ordre he was a noble post, and wel beloved and famulier was he (ll.
214-215), but he takes great effort to stay away from lepers and beggars. What good
are they, when there is more profit to be made from rich people?
For unto swich a worthy man as he
Acorded not, as by his facultee,
To have with sike lazars aqueyntaunce.
It is nat honest, it may not avaunce
For to deelen with no swich poraille,
But al with riche and sellers of vitaille.
(ll. 243-248)
When the Friar does get involved with the poor, he knows very well how to rid them
of the little money they have:
For thogh a wydwe hadde noght a sho,
So plesaunt was his In Principio,
Yet wolde he have a ferthyng er he wente;
(ll. 253-255)
The Friar is therefore dubbed the beste beggere in his house (l. 252), and very
virtuous indeed. Surely, the virtue of a mendicant order does not depend on its
profits; in fact, these orders were founded partly as a result of the dissatisfaction with
the materialism of the Catholic Church (Bowden, 1973, p. 121). Yet our Friar even
goes so far as to dress himself as the Vicarius Christi:
But he was lyk a maister or a pope:
Of double worsted was his semycope
(ll. 261-262).
Still, for all his faults, Chaucer’s narrator ends this part of the Prologue by introducing
the Friar as Huberd, a worthy lymytour.
The Merchant is deemed equally worthy at the end of his introduction, which is
to say that in reality he is not, for the man is suspected not to be very good at his job:
Ther wiste no wight that he was in dette
(l. 280).
Chaucer’s Doctor could be considered an example of any selfish
pharmaceutical industry rep avant la lettre. The narrator calls him a verray, parfit
praktisour (l. 422), stating that he can recognize ailments and administer the right
cure instantly, as well as ‘predict the outcome of a patient’s illness based on the
ascendancy of the planets’ (Treharne, 2010). He maintains very good relations with
his apothecaries, who he has send him their drogges and letuaries so as to create a
win-win situation:
For ech of hem made oother for to wynne:
Hir friendship nas nat newe to bigynne.
(ll. 427-428).
Up until this point, the Doctor could still retain his morally sound reputation. However,
the aforementioned win-win situation seems a tad more important to him than the
well-being of his patients:
For gold in phisik is a cordial,
Therefore he lovede gold in special.
(ll. 443-444).
As we move on to the Wife of Bath, we shift our focus from those who fail to
uphold their virtues and values on a professional level, to someone who does so – at
least according to Chaucer’s narrator – on a more intimate level. As the only female
pilgrim, it is perhaps not surprising that her case is concerned with her sexual
behaviour. For the Wife of Bath has had no less than five husbands, and a range of
lovers in her youth as well:
Housbondes at chirche dore she hadde five
Withouten oother compagnye in youthe;
(ll. 460-461).
But, the narrator tells us, we need not concern ourselves with her love life, because
at least she is a dedicated pilgrim: Jerusalem, Santiago de Compostella, Cologne
and many more she has visited. Yet he is again tempted to reference her love life in
the end when he says:
Of remedies of love she knew perchaunce,
For she koude of that art the olde daunce.
(ll. 475-476).
From a modern perspective, juxtaposing the Wife’s marital experience with her
impressive record of pilgrimages might seem ironic. However, it has to be said that
having had five husbands was not necessarily an astonishing fact for Chaucer’s
readers. This was a time when divorce was unheard of, so her first four husbands
must have passed away. Alisoun, as the Wife is called, is not described as a woman
who would remain a widow her entire life. Remarrying in such a case was not
deemed problematic (Bowden, 1973, p. 218). Still, it did not take long for English
society to change drastically in their opinions on women who koude of the art of love
the olde daunce, and this part of the Prologue is therefore included in this essay.
Lastly, we will discuss the musical duo of the Pardoner and the Summoner,
who with their baritone voices put any trumpet to shame:
Ful loude he [the Pardoner] soong ‘Com hider, love, to me!’
This Somonour bar to hym a stif burdoun;
Was nevere trompe of half so greet a soun.
(ll. 672-674).
Chaucer’s narrator praises the Summoner’s generosity, saying
A bettre felawer sholde men noght fynde.
He wolde suffer for a quart of wyn
A good felawe to have his concubyn
(ll. 649-650).
Besides this generous quality, the Summoner is also often drunk, smells of garlic,
onions and leeks, and is covered in pustules. A more physically revolting character
Chaucer does not describe in his Prologue, and it is clear that his character is
created as a subject of ridicule.
His companion the Pardoner is portrayed in a slightly more subtle manner.
The joke here is due to the Pardoner thanking some of his success as a clergyman
from his impressive collection of relics that he carries around: the veil of the Virgin
Mary, a piece of the sail of Peter’s ship, and a container of pig’s bones – a false relic,
that is, which of course casts doubt on the authenticity of the first two. Yet the
narrator remains flattering, albeit with a minute reference to his greediness:
He was in chirche a noble ecclesiaste.
Wel koude he rede a lessoun or a storie,
But alderbest he song an offertorie;
For wel he wiste, whan that song was songe,
He most preche and wel affile his tonge
To wynne silver, as he ful wel koude;
Therefore he song the murierly and loude.
(ll. 708-714).
This essay has displayed some examples of instances where Chaucer – or at least
his narrator – praises his characters on the one hand, while at the same time
condemning them, either explicitly or implicitly. There is more, of course; it has
already been stated that few characters escape Chaucer’s satire. The characters
discussed here have posed as the more obvious, as well as the more inspired
examples.
References
Bowden, M. (1973). Commentary on the General Prologue of the Canterbury Tales.
London: Macmillan & Co Ltd.
Peck, J. & Coyle, M. (1993). Literary terms and criticism. London: The Macmillan
Press Ltd.
Treharne, E. (Ed.). (2010). Old and middle English c.890-c.1450: An anthology.
Chichester: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.