In many cases, literature has had the great fortune of surviving for hundreds and
sometimes thousands of years for us to study in our contemporary world. Examination of any
historical document is an excellent method of learning more about the society from which it
comes but works of literature offer a unique view. Those who seek answers from literature must
take into account who the author was and how that person’s personal history and biases may
affect the message portrayed in their work. Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales is a frame
narrative or a collection of stories, a common practice in the fourteenth century1, and is an
excellent example of a literary work that can tell much about its time. The story begins in the
“General Prologue” as the narrator describes a group of pilgrims gathered together “in accidental
companionship”2 for a journey to the shrine at Canterbury. The host proposes a contest in which
every pilgrim would tell two stories on the way to Canterbury and two on the return home and he
would accompany the group as leader and judge. Each of Chaucer’s life experiences helped to
shape how he saw the characters in his story and through the eyes of each speaker his own
perspective of their place in society can be discovered. The characters are a delineation of a
variety of social classes, but none receive a more critical view than the lot of ecclesiastical
figures that he presents. As Chaucer presents each religious character to the audience, his views
of the church are presented; his indictment of nearly all of these characters becomes apparent
when inconsistencies are represented between their lifestyles and the holy codes they swore to
abide by when choosing to do God’s work, thus revealing a contemptuous view of the church.
This theme is repeated throughout the tales revealing a genuine issue that many in the fourteenth
century had with the direction that the once pious institution was taking.
1
Helen Cooper, Oxford Guides to Chaucer: The Canterbury Tales (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1989), 8.
2
Geoffrey Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales, trans. David Wright (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1985),1.
1
Geoffrey Chaucer was born sometime between 1340 and 1345 as the son of a John
Chaucer, a prosperous English wine merchant.3 Chaucer and his family were firmly staunched in
the middle class and he was believed to have gone to one of London’s “good” schools where he
most certainly was exposed to classic and Medieval Latin works and science4 giving him a solid
educational base that he would build upon as he began his writing career later in life. His
lifespan saw many historical events occur. He lived through the Black Death of 1349 as well as
subsequent plagues. The Hundred Years War began a few years before his birth and continued
for many years after his death with many of the great battles of this everlasting conflict occurring
during Chaucer’s life.5 He was personally affected by the war when he went to France with King
Edward III’s invading army and was captured only to be ransomed months later, a sign of his
favor with the King. The war loomed large over all during this time and had a role in the Great
Schism that marked a split in the Catholic Church between rival popes, one in Rome and another
in Avignon. In fact, Chaucer was sent to Milan in 1378 in a diplomatic role just forty-four days
after the death of Pope Gregory XI. He was to represent England in a time of turmoil due to
recent key losses in France, the ascendance of the young King Richard II to the throne, and
increasing corruption in the church that left tills empty at the hands of greedy clerics. 6 Chaucer’s
negative views of the religious institution can be seen more clearly through a realization of his
diplomatic requirements; that he analyze the corrupt situation through a sharp lens.
Chaucer’s original text has been preserved quite impressively with fifty-five remaining
manuscripts that, at one time, contained the complete work, although some are now damaged.7
Dictionary of the Middle Ages, s.v. “Chaucer, Geoffrey.”
Dictionary of the Middle Ages, s.v. “Chaucer, Geoffrey.”
5
David Wright, introduction to a verse translation of The Canterbury Tales, by Geoffrey Chaucer
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), xi.
6
E. P. Kuhl, “Why was Chaucer Sent to Milan in 1378?,” Modern Language Notes 62, no. 1
(January 1947): 43.
7
Cooper, Oxford Guides to Chaucer, 6.
3
4
2
The texts differ slightly from one another, mostly small details, but some major differences exist.
One problem that was common of the time was miscopying because all copies had to be done by
hand. Also, Chaucer may have still been making changes while copies were being transcribed,
adding to inconsistencies in later editions.8 The earliest extant manuscript is maintained at the
National Library of Wales, known as “Hengwrt.” It was copied around the time of Chaucer’s
death and is widely believed to contain the most accurate text. The most beautiful of the extant
manuscripts, the Ellsmere, is located at the Huntington Library in San Marino, California and
uses the most widely accepted order of the stories, which may or may not have been the order in
which Chaucer intended. It is such a complete and elegant work that most subsequent copies
follow this version of the manuscript.9 For proper analysis of this medieval document, a
translated version to modern English was required. The World’s Classics has a version which
made reading and evaluating Chaucer’s great work a much easier task. This particular verse
translation was translated with an introduction by David Wright and uses various remaining
manuscripts to form modern wording and order for a contemporary audience.
Chaucer began The Canterbury Tales in the last years of his life, approximately 1387, but
never actually finished the arduous project that he set out to complete by the time of his death in
140010. The contest called for each of pilgrim to tell two tales each on the way to and from
Canterbury for an intended total of 120 stories. Only twenty-four stories were ever finished,
however, with a retraction added to the end apologizing for anything he might have added to the
stories that some could find inappropriate. The last years of Chaucer’s life were dedicated to
writing; the majority of that time was spent on The Canterbury Tales. These years were marred
by a power struggle for the throne of England and many of his close friends were executed
8
Cooper, Oxford Guides to Chaucer, 6.
Ibid., 7.
10
Dictionary of the Middle Ages, s.v. “Chaucer, Geoffrey.”
9
3
because of their association with the young King Richard II. Chaucer held many different public
offices during this span of his life including Controller of Customs, Justice of the Peace, and
Parliamentary representative of the shire of Kent. After Richard II successfully reasserted
himself as king, he appointed Chaucer Clerk of the King’s Works, making him responsible for
the upkeep of various royal palaces.11 Chaucer spent these years writing The Canterbury Tales
between his lodging at Aldgate, moving to Kent, and most probably Greenwich for the majority
of the writing.12
It was Chaucer’s intention to make each story appropriate to the pilgrim who narrated
it.13 He assigned each narrator a tale accustomed to their social class with the highest classes
telling the most refined stories.14 Professional and moral cross-sections of society are
represented and Chaucer pays lip service to the hierarchal order of the time by having the
character of the Knight, an upper echelon member of society, lead off the story-telling contest.
Chaucer immediately puts an end to this masquerade by inserting the second tale as an
interruption by a member of the lower rung of society, the miller.15 At this point, it is important
to note the deviation from the accepted social order that Chaucer establishes because it reappears
later when normally exalted religious persons are presented in a less than desirable light. This
becomes a recurring theme throughout the pilgrims’ journey to Canterbury. Helen Cooper,
author of Oxford Guides to Chaucer: The Canterbury Tales, points out that poets of the era
supposedly existed to “urge and celebrate” the accepted social order, but Chaucer does not; a
case of “joyful rebellion against such conventional pieties and orthodox rules of behavior.”16
11
Wright, Introduction, xviii.
Dictionary of the Middle Ages, s.v. “Chaucer, Geoffrey.”
13
J. R. Hulbert, “‘The Canterbury Tales’ and Their Narrators,” Studies in Philology 45, no. 4
(October 1948): 365.
14
Hulbert, “Their Narrators,” 366.
15
Cooper, Oxford Guides to Chaucer, 16.
16
Ibid., 17.
12
4
This can easily be interpreted as Chaucer’s poetry as a medium to point out corrupt behavior in
the church. An exchange between two of the most reprehensible figures portrayed by Chaucer
(the friar and the summoner) colorfully illustrates this theme:
I’ll tell you a good story, to make game
Of Summoners; for as God’s my witness,
You know you only have to hear the name
Of summoner to hear no good of them…17
The Friar continues his tale, painting a grim portrait of the immoral behavior commonly
associated with summoners. He eventually touches a nerve with the summoner when he reveals
that he (the friar) did not need to worry about the summoner because friars are beyond their
jurisdiction. The summoner angrily interrupted, causing the host to step in to restore order
allowing the friar to continue his story.18 The Friar was far from pious in his own right,
however, making his attack on the summoner somewhat hypocritical. He is described by the
narrator in the “General Prologue”:
How sweetly he would hear confession!
How pleasant was his absolution!
He was an easy man in giving shrift,
When sure of getting a substantial gift:
For, as he used to say, generous giving
To a poor Order is a sign you’re shriven;19
According to the Franciscan way of living, to which the friar should have been dedicating his
life, he should not let worldly possessions sway him.20 Chaucer may not have been completely
unbiased in the case of his view on friars. According to Thomas Speght’s 1598 review of
Chaucer’s life, there were records that indicated that, “Geffrye Chaucer was fined two shillings
17
Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales, 251.
Ibid., 252.
19
Ibid., 6.
20
Alfred J. Andrea, The Medieval Record: Sources of Medieval History (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1997), 213.
18
5
for beatinge a Franciscan Fryar in fletestreate.”21 This incident is believable when you consider
the unkind treatment that the friar receives from Chaucer’s pen.
Another grotesque figure from a religious order is the pardoner. This man has no qualms
about revealing the scurrilous intent that he brings to his preaching, “I’ll tell you in a word what
I’m about: I preach for money and nothing else.”22 He preaches that money is the root of all evil
but openly admits to succumbing to temptation. In the prologue to the pardoner’s tale he
describes himself as follows:
I only preach of avarice and the like,
And in this way induce them to be free
In giving cash – especially to me.
Because my only interest is in gain;
I’ve none whatever in rebuking sin.
No, none! When they are pushing up the daisies.
Their souls, for all I care, can go to blazes.23
Chaucer again points out the hypocrisy of the medieval church through his presentation of the
pardoner who does not practice what he preaches.
In the fourteenth century, and the late Middle Ages in general, before the era of the
printing press, many authors of poetry designed their writing to be read aloud.24 One of
Chaucer’s earlier manuscripts, Troilus and Cressida, had an illustration of the author himself
delivering an oral presentation to a court audience.25 In addition to this evidence, it is common
knowledge that in that day only a small fraction of society was literate, usually only the clergy
who did the majority of transcriptions. His intended audience, therefore, were most probably
those gathered for a reading.
21
Wright, Introduction, xiii.
Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales, 396.
23
Ibid., 396.
24
Wright, Introduction, xvii.
25
Ibid., xvii.
22
6
Chaucer primarily employed a linear structure when compiling The Canterbury Tales,
one story flowing directly into the next.26 The multitude of interactions between the pilgrims
suggests a more complex structure than this, however. The pilgrimage itself is a linear event, but
Chaucer is reluctant to enlighten his audience with names of places or landmarks along the way,
instead letting the pilgrims’ stories carry the frame narrative.27
The choice of a religious pilgrimage as the background of his story-telling contest places
an even greater emphasis on the members of the cloth among the pilgrims as opposed to secular
travelers. We have already examined the reprehensible behavior of three religious figures in
Chaucer’s collection with the summoner and the pardoner being the worst of all. A closer look
at two more religious figures, the prioress and the monk, reveals that these two pilgrims share
some characteristics in common. The prioress, a nun, as described by Chaucer in the “General
Prologue,” was an incredibly proper woman. Even her name, Madame Eglantine, suggests
romanticness not ordinarily associated with a nun.28 Chaucer presents the prioress in terms of
“how she tries to present herself in society.”29 The monk is portrayed similarly to the prioress.
That is, he does not conform fully to the Rule of Saint Benedict, yet his grievances, like his
counterpart, are not as terrible as the first three religious members of the pilgrimage outlined
above. The monk craves the life of a man’s man. He dismisses the rules of St. Benedict and St.
Augustine – the two main governing bodies of monastic life – as “old-fashioned” so therefore
justifying himself.30 Both of them, the prioress and the monk, display a similar distance between
themselves and the offices they hold.
26
Cooper, Oxford Guides to Chaucer, 15.
Ibid., 16.
28
Ibid., 38.
29
Ibid., 38.
30
Ibid., 39.
27
7
The parson is final pilgrim to speak, but he refuses to tell a story. He is the polar
opposite of the worst religious figures such as the summoner, the pardoner, and even the friar.
He is urged to “spin a yarn”31 by the host so that his competition could be completed. To this,
the parson responded “tartly,”
You won’t get any stories out of me.
For St. Paul, when he wrote to Timothy,
Reproves all those who turn away from the truth
And tell romances, fables and like trash.
Why should my hand sow chaff, when if I wish
I can sow wheat? So I say, if you care
For moral and more edifying matter,
And if you’re willing to give me audience,
Then I will gladly, for Christ’s reverence,
Give you such lawful pleasure as I can.32
Then the parson, instead of telling a tale, delivers a long sermon on the topic of penitence. He
emphasizes the importance of being sorry, making a formal confession to a priest, and finally
making amends.33 Chaucer undoubtedly penned his final tale at an advanced age and most likely
had come to the conclusion at that time that he would not be able to finish his vast project. The
parson’s sermon is easily interpreted as a way to put closure on The Canterbury Tales, finally
revealing that some righteousness still existed in the church after all.
The Canterbury Tales is an extensive piece of historical literature with many themes,
topics, and subtopics existing among the twenty-four tales and various descriptions of the
pilgrims by the host, narrator, and other pilgrims. This examination of the document focuses
primarily on the various ecclesiastical figures presented by the author and what their portrayals
reveal about the state of the fourteenth-century church. It is clear that Chaucer had serious issues
with the growing corruption that had become increasingly visible through his descriptions of the
31
Chaucer, 461.
Ibid., 462.
33
Cooper, 402.
32
8
pardoner, the summoner, and the friar. Though he was less critical of the prioress and the monk,
he clearly points out that they are not living their lives in the manner in which they had
supposedly dedicated it. His final rendering of the parson salvages a belief that Chaucer was not
completely disillusioned at what the church had become and shows he has some faith that there
are some truly virtuous members of the church still left and that the church had not fully
succumbed to corruption. Chaucer, through his close relationship with the courts, his
relationship with multiple kings, and his travels from war and diplomacy, can be considered an
authority in the subjects that he wrote about in his frame narrative. His worldly view lends a
sense of reliability to the descriptions of the people and the times of the fourteenth-century. In
many ways, it is unfortunate that this great author was unable to complete the tall task he set out
upon. It is difficult to imagine, however, how he could have given more insight than he already
achieved from his final “unfinished” work.
9
Works Cited:
Andrea, Alfred J. The Medieval Record: Sources of Medieval History. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1997.
Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Canterbury Tales. Translated by David Wright. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1985.
Cooper, Helen. Oxford Guides to Chaucer: The Canterbury Tales. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1989.
Gittes, Katherine Slater. “The Canterbury Tales and the Arabic Frame Tradition.” PMLA 98,
no. 2 (March 1983): 237 – 251.
Hulbert, J. R. “‘The Canterbury Tales’ and Their Narrators.” Studies in Philology 45, no. 4
(October 1948): 565 – 577.
Kuhl, E. P. “Why was Chaucer Sent to Milan in 1378?” Modern Language Notes 62, no. 1
(January 1947): 42 – 44.
Wright, David. Introduction to a verse translation of The Canterbury Tales, by Geoffrey
Chaucer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.
10