INTRODUCTION:
In introducing the pilgrims of The Canterbury Tales in
the General Prologue, Chaucer draws upon the traditional themes of “estates satire”. The “estates satires”, common throughout the
medieval Europe, aimed at giving an analysis of society in terms of hierarchy,
social profession and morality. The Prologue differs from the
standard patterns of “estates satire” in a number of significant ways, but the
model remains none-the-less crucial. The most fundamental difference occurs in
Chaucer’s presentation of a naïve and gullible narrator, Chaucer the pilgrim.
This projection of a fictional narrator poses some problems of perspective
regarding the presence of absolute moral judgment in the poem. But at the same
time, it allows Chaucer to remain a member and an observer as well in the
pilgrimage so that he can exploit the gaps for irony and humor without
pronouncing absolute moral judgments. However, Chaucer is a secular writer whose
attitude to life is based on the principle of a broad breasted acceptance. A
large part of the narrator’s criteria for judging people then becomes their
success in social relationship at a personal level; they are judged on
pleasantness of appearance, charm of manner, social accomplishments. But this
should not mean at all that Chaucer is callous of the vices and abuses of the
times. He is conscious of all these and does pinpoint them in the poem, but in
a manner which is subtle and varied.
Satire Reveals Chaucer’s
Outlook
Chaucer was a man of catholic
(tolerant) spirit, so his natural bent of mind was towards humour, not towards
satire. If humour is genial and sympathetic, satire is pungent and bitter.
Chaucer’s satire is mainly
directed against religious corruption. The satirical tone is always present in
the characters of the Monk, the Friar, the Prioress, the Pardoner, and the
Summoner.
Chaucer’s contemporary William
Langland was a vehement satirist against the church as an institution. But
Chaucer’s primary aim is to provide entertainment to his readers and not to
correct the corruption of his age.
A satirist has always the
intention of teaching or ridiculing but Chaucer, though always ready to
criticize, has no such aims. As he takes things tolerantly, therefore his
criticism is both good-humoured and kind-hearted.
That Chaucer presents himself as the most unassuming and short witted of the pilgrims—gathers in itself humorous overtones:
“My art is
short, yet well understonde”
The pilgrim-narrator deliberately pretends to
be impressed by most of the pilgrims to the extent of endorsing their unworthy
opinions. As such that he apparently stands by the ideas of the Monk,
concerning the monastic rules.
“I seyde his opinion was good
What sholde he studie and make hymselven
wood?”
In reality, Chaucer knows the monk to be a wretched rascal. The same kind
of degradation from the exacting ideal can also be seen in the Prioress’s
portrait; she bears on her breast the inscription amor vincit omnia .
(Love conquers all). But in her case, this love turns to be much more fleshly
and worldly than spiritual or heavenly. The Manciple and the Pardoner are said
to be gentle, but at the same time they are dishonest rascals. The Miller and
the Reeve are excellent at their calling, but they are originally bold-faced
thieves.
About
the Friar Chaucer says:
“He knew the taverns well in all toun
And everich hostiler and
tappestere
Bet than a lazar or a
beggestere”
The ironic signal here is set in the contrast between what the
Friar does and what everyone knows his order is expected to do.
CHAUCER,S SOCIAL VIEWS:
Chaucer sets the pilgrims in accordance with their social rank and
position. In so doing, he subtly exploits different semantic values of
words—like, “worthy”, “gentle”, “fair” – by applying the same words to
different pilgrims of the poem. The epithet “worthy” is used as the keyword of
the knight’s portrait, where it has a profound and serious significance,
indicating not only the social status, but also the ethical qualities
appropriate to it. The same word is applied to the Friar’s portrait ironically.
The reference to social status seems to be the only criterion in the portrait
of the Merchant who “was a worthy man with alle”, but we are informed that “…he
was in dette”.
In the Franklin’s portrait the word is used as
signifying model or ideal—“was nowher such a worthy vavasour”—which proves an
irony in respect of the previous comment on him:
“To lyven in delit was evere his wone
For he was Epicurus owne sone”
Again the word “courteisie” in the Knight’s
portrait is associated with an absolute ideal, to which one may devote one’s
whole life. The Squire’s “courteisie”, on the other hand, is linked with other
characteristics, such as his devotion to love and his courtly accomplishment.
The “courteisie” in which the Prioress “set ful munchel her lert” should be
spiritual courtesy, but ironically it has become embarrassingly worldly.
Sometimes the pilgrim-narrator is quick in
passing witty humorous comments regarding the pilgrim’s professional behavior
and their social engagement. For instance, about the Sergeant of Law, he says,
“Nowher so bisy a man as
he ther was
And yet he semed bisier
than he was.”
In the same way he most delicately satirises
the wife of Bath’s practice of marrying and flouting the solemn bond of
marriage,
“Housbondes at chirche
dore she hadde fyve
Withouten oother
compaignye in youthe”.
But he also immediately informs that “Three
times she’d journeyed to Jerusalem”. It is obvious that Chaucer’s intention is
not solely ironical, but to a great extent humorous, always having sympathy for
the fallibility human nature. For this, while he describes the Miller’s
animal-like coarseness and dishonesty, he does add that, “A bagpipe he could
blow well.”
SOME MORE POINTS ABOUT
IRONY:
Firstly the whole conception of the Prioress
is based on irony. The description of her physical beauty and dress suggested
that she is the heroine of some romance, though she is a religious figure. The
irony is highlighted by the conflict between appearance and reality.
Secondly, the Monk, who had deserted his ecclesiastical duties,
has been ironically presented as a lover of horse-riding and hare-hunting.
Thirdly, Chaucer’s irony is crystal clear when he remarks that the
Lawyer was the busiest man in England. Chaucer’s remarks about the Doctor of
Physic are equally ironical.
The use of the world “Worthy” for the most unworthy
characters brings a tickling irony except for the “Worthy” Knight.
Chaucer ridiculed folly and hypocrisy but he was never fierce or bitter
in his attitude. Chaucer’s preference lay not in the use of satire but in the
handling of the delicate weapon of irony.
CONCLUSION:In
fine, the Prologue presents the world in terms of worldly
values, which are tragedy concerned with an assessment of facades, made in the
light of half-knowledge and on the basis of subjective criteria. Therefore, the
ethic we have in this poem is an ethic of the world. The adoption of this ethic
does not constitute a definite attitude but a piece of observation and the
comic irony ensures that the reader does not identify with this ethic. For
this, Mathew Arnold accuses Chaucer’s poetry of the lack of “high seriousness”.
This is true, but the “lack” deliberate on Chaucer’s part: he does not want to
pronounce absolute moral judgment, rather he lets the conclusions to be formed
by the reader or audience himself. And in this lies Chaucer’s modernity and
success even down to their age of ours.
No comments:
Post a Comment