Answers

Chaucer flourishes the fantastic colours of his words and paints different characters of
his age with minute observation. Indeed, he is a great painter who paints not with
colours but with words. Undoubtedly, he has The Seeing Eye, the retentive memory, the
judgment to select and the ability to expound. His keen analysis of the minutest detail of
his characters, their dresses, looks and manners enable him to present his characters
lifelike and not mere bloodless abstractions.
His Prologue is a real picture gallery in which thirty portraits are hanging on the wall
with all of their details and peculiarities. Rather it is a grand procession with all the life
and movement, the colour and sound. Indeed, his characters represent English society,
morally and socially, in the real and recognizable types and still more representative of
humanity in general. So, the characters in Chaucer's The Prologue are for all ages and
for all lands. Though the plan of the Canterburys Tales has been taken from Giovanni,
Italian poet, Chaucers technique of characterization is original and unique. As a result
his characters are not only of his age but universal in nature. They are not only types,
but individuals. The pilgrims are the epitome of mankind. It is such a veritable picture
gallery of the 14th century as the details of their physical appearance, their social status
and character are so artistically presented that the whole man or woman come alive
before our eyes. Tim Brink wrote:
We receive such an exact idea of the men he (Chaucer) is describing that
we can almost see them bodily before our eyes
Chaucer is the first great painter of character in English literature. The thirty portraits
traced by Chaucer give us an excellent idea of the society at that time. The different
pilgrims represent different professionals. For example, the doctor, the sergeant, the
Oxford Clerk and the Friar represent certain traits which characterize their respective
professionals. The war-like elements are represented by the Knight, the Squire and the
Yeoman. The ploughmen, the Miller, the Reeve and the Franklin typify agriculture. The
Sergeant of Law, the Doctor, the Oxford Clerk and the Poet himself represent the liberal
professions. The Wife of Bath, the Weaver, and the embody industry and trade;
similarly the Merchant and Shipman personate commerce. A Cook and the Host typify
provisional trades. The Poor Parson and the Summoner represent the secular clergy
while the monastic orders are represented by the Monk, the Prioress and the Pardoner.
Thus, the characters in the Canterbury Tales are types as well as individual, as each of
them represents a definite profession or class of society and portrays certain individual
characteristics with all their idiosyncrasies of dress and speech. A.C. Ward asserts:
Chaucers characters are not mere phantoms of the brain but real human
beings and types true to the likeness of whole classes of men and women
Chaucer description of each mans horse, furniture and array, reads like a page from a
memoir. He describes them in the most nature genial and humorous manner. Although,
Chaucers characters are typical, they also have other features which are not to be found
in other members of their profession. Thus, his characters can be distinguished from
their colleagues. Because he imparts individual traits to them. These features
distinguish them as individuals. For example, the Shipman has a beard; the Wife of Bath

is Som-del deef and gat-toothed; the Reeve has long and lean legs, the Miller has a
wart surmounted by a tuft of hair on his nose, the Summoners face is full of pimples
and Squire is as fresshe as is the monthe of May. Chaucers lawyer seems typical of
our own day when he says:
Nowhere so bisy a man as he ther was/ And yet he seemed bisier than
he was
In fact, there is a different method of almost every pilgrim. He varies his presentation
from the full length portrait to the thumb-nail sketch, but even in the sketches, Chaucer
conveys a strong sense of individuality and depth. Chaucer does not take a dramatic
approach, he uses descriptive and narrative approach which suits the theme of The
Canterbury Tales. Unlike Wycliffe and Langland, He has broad humanity and sympathy
for all the characters, the just and the unjust. We feel a sense of comradeship with
Chaucer. They are shown to possess those traits and humors and habits that
characterize the men and women of all ages in the world. Their traits are universal,
though some of them have changed their positions yet their nature is the same. Chaucer
uses the technique of contrast in drawing the portraits of the pilgrims. The good and the
bad rub shoulders together. We have the paragon of virtue in the Parson and the
Ploughman and monsters of vice in the Reeve, the Miller and the Summoner. Like
Shakespeare, Chaucers characters are three-dimensional i.e., having length, breadth
and depth. For example, the Wife of Bath and the Monk are complex figures. Chaucer
has been called an outstanding representative poet of his age because of the typical
element in his characterization. So, Dryden says:
All his pilgrims are severally distinguished from each other, and not only
in their inclinations but also in their physiognomies and persons
1. Humour
Humour is the sympathetic appreciation of the comic, the faculty which enables us
to love while we laugh. It is the humour which enables us to see the person's point of
view, to distinguish between crimes and misdemeanours. Above all, it is humour which
points out those enduring peculiarities, those little foibles and harmless weaknesses
which give a character a warm place in our affections.
There is no sting in humour, no consciousness superiority. On the contrary, it contains
an element of tenderness. Obviously humour is distinct from satire, but it can be
distinguished from farce and wit only insisting on the externals when speaking of them.
Humour is indeed the soul of all comedy. Satire, being destructive, not constructive, is
in a class apart, but even satire may become so softened by humour as it does in Chaucer
that it may lose the element of caricature and serve only to give a keener edge to wit.
Chaucer's whole point of view is that of the humorist. He is a comic poet who
saunters gaily through life pausing the notice every trifle as he passes. He views the
world as the unaccustomed traveller views a foreign country. He possesses the faculty of
amused observation in a pre-eminent degree. Again and again he contrives to invest
some perfectly trifling and commonplace incident with an air of whimsicality, and by so
doing to make it at once realistic and remote.

Chaucer's humour is essentially English. It is not the "wit" of the Frenchman. It is

born of a strong commonsense and a generous sympathy ; and there are the qualities of
the greatest English humorists like Shakespeare and Fielding. R.K. Root terms
Chaucer's humour as protean in its variety", ranging from broad farce and boisterous
horseplay in the tales of the Miller and the Summoner to the sly insinuations of Knight's
Tale and the infinitely graceful burlesbue of Sir Thopas. Every intermediate stage
between these extremes is represented, the most characteristic mean between the two
being found, perhaps, in the tales of the Nun's Priest.
Chaucer's humour, as has been acknowledged by almost every critic, in always
syampathetic. In the Prologue, except in his handling of the Monk and the Friar there is
no sting in it. As Legouis puts it Chaucer does not treat with disdain those whose
foolishness he has fathomed, nor does he turn away in disgust from the rascal whose
tricks he has detected. If humour can be defined as "the sympathetic appreciation of the
comic", i.e. the faculty which enbles us to laughbut to laugh affectionately and
sympathetically, then Chaucer was indeed a great humorist. In his description of the
Wife of Bath, he reminds us of Shakespeare's treatment of Sir Toby in Twelfth Night and
of Falstaff in Henry IV. In fact, Chaucer makes us appreciate a character even when
laughing at it. Moreover, Chaucer invariably makes more fun of the individual than of
the institution to which he belongs. "Mockery" says Legouis, "either discreet or
uproarious never withered in him the gift of poetry."
Cazamian observes that Chaucer's humour springs from the rich fields of character.
He derives pleasure from the "quaintness of individuality". By his keen observation and
insight he detects incongruities in men and women and presents before his readers in an
amusing manner. Some of the facts are quite trivial in themselves but become amusing
in the way Chaucer tells them e.g. the Squire's locks which look as if they were laid in
press, the hat of the Wife of Bath weighing 19 lbs., the Reeve's thin legs, the Franklin's
weakness for sharp sauce, etc.
According to Albert Chaucer's humour is his distinct quality. Hs says that in the
literature of his time, when so few poets seem to have any perception of the fun in life,
the humour of Chaucer is invigorating and delightful. Albert also admires Chaucer for
the great variety in his humour. It is kindly and patronising as in the case of the Clerk of
Oxford, broad and semi-farcical as in the Wife of Bath; pointedly satirical as in the
Pordoner and the Summoner; or coarse, as happens in the Tales of the Miller, the Reeve
and the Pordoner. Albert, however, disagrees that Chaucher's humour is pure fun. He
asserts: It is seldom that the satirical intent is wholly lacking, as it is in the case of the
Good Parson, but, except in rare cases, the satire is good-humoured and well-meant.
A discerning critic has pointed out that Chaucer's humour in the Prologue derives
from the fact that he is himself one of the pilgrims, one of the original twenty-nine. He is
both actor and spectator and both he and his audience enjoy the antics which this clever
arrangements enables him to preform. As pilgrim-narrator, he often discloses to his
readers something about a character which none of the other pilgrims could possibly
know, but which adds something important to our impression of the person concerned.
For example he reveals to the delight of the readers that the Merchant was in debt and
the Prioress sang the divine service intoning through the nose while she would not like
to do so outside her convent.

Chaucer's humour in the Prologue is also due to his unconventional descriptive

style. He deliberately departs from the artificial, lifeless forms of traditional portraiture
and addresses himself to strikingly realistic or lifelike portrayals which by their very
realism of speech and idiom make the incident or the object delightful.
Chaucer's witty comments upon the pilgrims such as "This Manciple sette his aller
cappe" or his lavish praise upon some knave such as The Shipman or his pun on some
word such as Philosophere in the sense of true 'philosopher' and 'alchemist' are also
conducive to a good deal of humour. About the Oxford Clerk Chaucer says:
But al be that he was a philosophere,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre.
Not least among the manifestations of Chaucer's humour is the quality of
exaggeration. The merry Friar with his twinkling eyes is the best beggar in his friary ; the
Franklin has not his equal; in all the world there was none like the Doctor of Physic; the
Shipman had no peer from 'Hulle to Cartage'; and in cloth-making the Wife of Bath
excelled even the matchless weavers of Ypres and Ghent.
To conclude, Chaucer's humour is one of the greatest assets of his poetic art. As
Compton-Rickett says, indeed for all his considerable power, pathos, his happy fancy,
his lucid imagination, it is as a great humorist that he lingers longest in our memories,
with humour, rich, profound and sane, devoid of spite and cynicism, irradiated by a
genial kindliness and a consummate knowledge of human nature.
2. Satire
Satire differs from humour in that it has a definite moral purpose. "It is our purpose,
Crites, to correct/And punish with our laughter......" says Mercury in Cynthia's Revels.
The satirist deliberately alienates our sympathies from those whom he describes, and as
the true humorist is apt to pass from comedy to romance, and from romance to tragedy,
so the satirist not infrequently ends by finding rage and disgust overpower his sense of
the ridiculous. Ben Jonson passes from the comedy of Every Man in his Humour to the
bitterness of Volpone. Swift from the comparative lightness of Gulliver in Lilliput, to the
savage brutality of the Hounyhymns. But of such satirepure and simplefew examples
are to be found in Chaucer.
The fact is that satire is not Chaucer's natural bent. He is too quick-witted not to see
through sham and humbug, but his interest lies in portraiture rather than in exposure.
His object is to point life as he sees it, to hold up the mirror to nature, and, as has justly
been said, "a mirror has no tendency, "it reflects, but it does not, or should not, distort.
But if Chaucer is too tolerant and genial, too little of a preacher and enthusiast, for a
satirist, his wit has often a satiric turn.
Chaucer's kinship as a satirist is however not with Dryden or Pope or Swift but with
Fielding. They are alike in a certain air of rollicking good-fellowship, a certain virility, a
determination to paint men and women as they know them. Neither is particularly
squeamish, both enjoy a rough jest, and have little patience with over-refinement. Both
give the readers a sense of studies honesty and kindliness, and know how to combine
tenderness with strength. Both with all their tolerance, have a keen eye for hypocrisy or
affectation and a sharp tongue wherewith to chastise and expose it. Chaucer hates no
one, not even the Pardoner, as whole-heartedly as Fielding hates Master Blifil but the

Pardoner's Tale affords the best instance of the satiric bent of the poet's humour when
he is brought face to face with a scheming rogue.
In Chaucer we have no sustained satire of the Popean or the Swiftean type. His
genius is like that of Shakespeare, having a high degree of negative capability. Hence,
Chaucer gives us no impression of being a great satirist, although in his writings
especially in the portraits of the Prologue we have sharp little sallies of satire. It would
be rather more suitable to call Chaucer a comic satirist in relation to his General
Prologue to the Canterbury Tales. Brewer remarks : For all the veriety of attitude in this
extraordinarily rich Prologue, comic satire predominates. There are, therefore, certain
limitations of scope. The higher aristocracy are excluded, for the Knight is comparatively
low ranking, and is in any case an ideal figure. The painfulness and rough comedy of the
life of the great mass of the really poor find no place, and again their two representatives
are idealized portraits. The characters of highest and lowest ranks were not suitable for
comic treatment, while in any case Chaucer seems to have had relatively little intimate
knowledge of the poor, as we at once realize when we compare him with Langland. In
the Prologue we mainly see the middling people, and we see them through Chaucer's
eyes from a slightly superior moral and social station. We can afford to laugh at them.
We look through the eyes of a poet masculine, self-assured, delighted, who knows there
is "joy after woe, and after joy, sadness 'but is not at the moment concerned to point it
out. He sees abuses but is neither surprised nor stung by them after all what else
can we expect from the world? And is there not a providential order ? As several
characters in his stories say, God makes nothing in vain. Men are not angels, but neither
are they devils. Chaucer gives us a vision of men and women in the world, and most of
them have some relish of absurdity when looked at carefullyespecially when they
require neither our loyalty nor our fear.
Winny contends that Chaucer does not see his company of pilgrims simply as an
incongruous assortment of pantomime figures, to be enjoyed for their grotesquely comic
oddity. The pervasive element of social satire in the General Prologuemost prominent
in his account of the ecclesiastical figuressuggests Chaucer's serious concern at the
debasing of moral standards, and at the materialistic outlook which had taken hold of
society. There are moments, as when he records the Friar's sneering contempt for the
poor, which seem to show Chaucer's habitual good temper revolting against the cynical
opportunism which had become widespread in ecclesiastical life. Such moments are rare
and uncharaceristic of Chaucer. His usual attitude towards the moral weakness which he
discloses is one of mocking; not so much at men's often ludicrous shortcomings as at
their incompatability with the picture of himself which he presents to the world. The
Shipman is a thievish pirate, the Reeve a cunning embezzler, the Physician has a
dishonest private understanding with his druggist, and the Man of Law 'semed bisier
than he was'. The efforts of the Prioress to mimic courtly manners are detected and set
down with the same intuitive sense of false appearance as allows Chaucer to penetrate
the Merchant's imposing disguise. The mask of respectability is not roughly torn off, for
while he is describing his pilgrims Chaucer is maintaining an outward manner that is
awed and deferential; telling us that the Prioress was 'of greet desport', that the Monk
was a manly man, 'to been an abbot able', or that the murderous Shipman was an
incomparable navigator and pilot.

Because he does not insist upon their moral failings or hypocritical nature, revealing
them with an ironic innocence of manner and leaving them to speak for themselves,
Chaucer's approach to his pilgrims suggests a psychologist rather than a moralist' He
presents vices and shortcomings within the context of human individuality, as a product
of the curious pressures which stamp a unique personality upon each of the pilgrims.
The Shipman's easy conscience is an integral part of the tough, self-reliant spirit of the
man, which has acquired the wilfulness and moral unconcern of the elements in which
he lives. His thefts and murders, the Franklin's epicurism, the Physician's avarice,
interest Chaucer not as evidence of a breakdown of moral values but for what they reveal
of individual character.
Thus Chaucer's satire is not directed against contemporary morals, but against the
comic self-ignorance which gives man two' identitiesthe creature he is, and the more
distinguished and inscrutable person he imagines himself to be.
Finally, it may be pointed out here that in several prologues to the tales told by the
pilgrims Chaucer acts as a medieval satirist whose method was to have a villain describe
his own tricks. Two of these Prologues are the Pardoner's and the Wife of Bath's. The
former, like lago, Richard III and Edmund the Bastard in Shakespeare, expresses
himself out and out telling the pilgrims about his sensuality, greed, hypocrisy and
deceitfulness. The theme of the Wife of Bath's prologue is tribulation in marriage
particularly the misery she has caused her five successive husbands.
It is now time that we should ask ourselves as to what extent Chaucer was
influenced by classical and medieval traditions of satire. There is no incontrovertible
evidence about his knowledge of classical satirists. Juvenal he quotes from and
mentions by name, but the quotations he could very easily have gained at second hand.
Horace he does not mention at all, but since, as other critics have pointed out, he does
not mention Boccaccio either, this negative evidence is worthless. Juvenal had attacked
with moral horror the widespread vices of his own time under the satiric disguise of
describing historical parsonages of a previous age. This device was not imitated by the
Fathers or the medieval satirists who were influenced by him. and the writers of the
Middle Ages, with their preoccupation with what was common to all men rather than
with what makes one man different from another, were not concerned to give any
appearance of particularity to their satire. The result was either the blackened
generalised picture of all men as totally corrupt, found in the De Contemptu Mundi, or
the combination of allegory with satire, ingeniously used, though not invented, by
Langland. The distinctive vices of people in various orders and occupations throughout
society he does not generalise but, like Juvenal, reduces the generalization to a
description of a particular characters. This, however, seems to be Chaucer's only
resemblance to Juvenal, since self-evidently there could be no greater difference of tone
than there is between Juvenal's savage vehemence and Chaucer's specious mildness.
The resemblances between Chaucer and Horace are more subtle and more specific.
The object of Horace's satire had been different from Juvenal's, in that Horace was
chiefly concerned with those who disrupted the social harmony of life, the fool, the bore,
the miser, and these he portrayed with a minute and particular observation of habit and
conversation, which gives the impression that description is of an individual, though by
definition not unique, personality.

Chaucer shares some characteristics with Horace. He has in common with him the
easy tone of a man talking to friends who share his assumptions and sympathies, though
usually with a deceptive twist. When Horace meets the characters in his satires, he
expects his audience to sympathise with his misery, whereas Chaucer pretends that the
situation was delightful and the characters to be admired. He shares with Horace, too,
the use of comic images, the quick observation of human affection, and the suggestion of
a recognizable personality. Chaucer, however, extends Horation ridicule to the kind of
objects satirized in the Juvenalian tradition, and modifies it by the tone of pretended
naivete, not found in Horace's style, but certainly learnt in part from Ovid whom
Chaucer imitated as if he were his master.
3. Irony
Irony is a method of humorous or sarcastic expression in which the intended
meaning of the words used is the direct opposite of their usual sense. It is also the
feigning of ignorance in argument. The voice of the satirist speaking out of a mask is
subtle irony. Behind the mask his face may be dark with fury or writhing with contempt,
but his voice is calm, sometimes soberly earnest, sometimes lightly amused. The lips of
the mask and its features are persuasive, almost real, perfectly controlled. Some of those
who hear the voice, and see the suave lips from which it issues, are persuaded that it is
the utterance of truth and that the speaker believes everything he say. In actuality,
however, the voice speaks a gross exaggeration or a falsehood, knowing it to be
exaggerated or false, but announcing it as serious truth. Listening to it, intelligent men
think, "That cannot be true. He cannot possibly mean that." They realise that he means
the reverse of what he says. For the truth is sometimes so contemptible, sometimes so
silly, sometimes so outrageous, and sometimes, unhappily, so familiar that people
disregard it. Only when the reverse of such a truth is displayed as though it were
veridical, can they be shocked into understanding it. Sometimes even then they are not
convinced. They attack the satirist as a provocator, a liar. That is the penalty of being a
satirist who uses irony. Aristotle, who knew men and liked neat definitions, said that
irony was the opposite of boasting : it was mock-modesty, dissimulation, selfdepreciation.
Gentle irony and wounding sarcastic irony can be used as weapons in all types of
satire. They are, however, most effective in monologue, where a skillful satirist can, now
and then, allow the real truth to flash through the mildly-coloured cloud of
dissimulation. The finest example of this in Chaucer is, as has been mentioned above, in
the Pardoner's prologue to his tale. Here, Chaucer lets the whole truth come out of the
mouth of the villain himself.
Brewer who believes that Chaucer is frequently ironical says that in many respects
for Chaucer irony is what metaphor is for later poets. Both irony and metaphor put into
the same set of words a double meaning ; whereas in metaphor they are linked by
comparison, in irony they are linked by contrast. The linkage is important. In each case
the two elements of the double meaning modify each other, though one may be
dominant. In the case of irony the superficial 'false' meaning is still part of the total
meaning. It modifies the "true" meaning, if only by asserting that even the underlying
meaning is not the only competitor for our assent; or by establishing a limited validity
even for simple mindedness. The obvious meaning is the contribution innocence makes
to experience. More generally the duality of irony contributes a certain kind of

uncertainy, and hence a need for toleration, not least for the poet himself, who uses
irony to evade responsibility. Admittedly, this is uncomfortable. We desire certainly
above all things, and we admire commitment. In his brilliant book Ricardian poetry
John Borrow finds the absence of such commitment, and of its accompanying
vulnerability and exaltation, a serious deficiency in the poetry of Chaucer and his
contemporaries. Its absence accounts for a certain 'middle-aged' quality, a lack of
passionindeed, Borrow seems to renew the old Arnoldian accusation of a lack of high
seriousness. We may wish to qualify the assessment but the perception is surely true.
One thing is not another thing. Chaucer is not Milton nor Wordsworth nor Shelley. The
peculiar mixture of participation with detachment, of sympathy with irony, of multiple
points of view, giving freedom yet a basis of certainty, is surely Chaucer's outstanding
characteristic. Nothing is sacred to him except the Sacred. He is the least idolatorous of
English poets.
The great risk of this kind of writing is fragmentation, or a serial dissipation of
effect, or self-contradictory, self-destructive inconsistencies. The attempt at variety, the
implication of several possible points of view, may shatter unity. Yet most of us rarely
feel that Chaucer is disintegrated, even when our rational processes, working with
inappropriate models, reproach him for his inconsistencies. It is not with Chaucer's
world, as it seems with ours, that 'the centre cannot hold'. In the form of the poems the
poet's speaking voice, for all the occasional multiplicity of what is implied, holds
together the poem and his audience in a complex of relationships.
While discussing Chaucer as a satirist we concluded that he is a comic satirist,
always gentle, seldom severe, and never savage. This is also true about his irony. He is to
all intents and purposes a comic ironist. His portraits in the Prologue to the Canterbury
Tales are excellent examples of comic irony. In fact, throughout the General Prologue
the reader has to be on his guard against Chaucer's seeming enthusiam towards each of
his pilgrims, realising that his irony operates obliquely through praise that is
characteristically lavish and unstinted, whether sincere or not. For example, the
remarks about the Knight that 'He was a verray, parfit gentil knight' are
straightforwardly respectful, but Chaucer's generous tribute to the Monk 'A manly man,
to been an abbot able' should leave us wondering whether he means that most abbots
were appointed for their worldliness and self-indulgence. When he rounds off the
description of the Merchant by remarking "For sothe he was a worthy man with alle"
Chaucer's irony is obvious, for he has just disclosed the pilgrim's dishonesty and
hypocritical manner. Similarly, that 'verray parfit praktisour' the Physician, although
described in terms which recall the Knight, observes a code which inverts the standards
of truth, honour and liberality which the Knight strives to uphold. Here Chaucer's
seeming praise is doubly ironic. The physician is not the genuine, perfect practitioner of
a noble ideal but shrewd, miserly and self-regarding. The nun in Madame Eglentine is a
charming imposture, imperfectly concealing a woman whose social ambitions lead her
into an absurd confusion of purposesa mimicking of courtly mannerisms that are
completely inappropriate to her calling. She is a specimen of fascinating disparity
between what she is and what she seems to be, and Chaucer exploits this comic
incongruity in a very subtle manner. The Wife of Bath is subjected to irony when
Chaucer while praising her charitable nature points out that she goes out of all charity if
some other woman in the parish takes precedence over her in making the offering. The

implication is that charity should be evidenced by humility, not by pride, by gentleness,

not by anger.
Leaving aside such idealisation as the Knight, the Parson and the Plowman, it may
be undeniably asserted that Chaucer takes men as he finds them, obtaining that kind of
amusement in the ironic yet sympathetic observation of his fellows which yields itself
only to the artist's vision. Although he has a loving relish for human behaviour and
human weakness, it is wrong, as some critics tend to do, to play down his irony. A high
proportion of his pilgrims are rascals, and Chaucer knows that they are. Nor can we
ignore his clear attack on corruption in the Church, though here again the attack is done
obliquely through the presentation of individual characters. The Monk and the Friar and
the Summoner are amusing enough characters as Chaucer describes them, but the
behaviour of the latter two, brilliantly presented and magnificently comic though it is, is
the behaviour of petty blackguards. The Pardoner, perhaps Chaucer's greatest
masterpiece of character drawing, implies a whole world of moral hypocrisy.
Chaucer's point of view is no doubt secular throughout the Prologue, and he is
intrigued rather than shocked by the weaknesses of human nature. But irony always has
moral implications, and Chaucer in the General Prologue as well as the Canterbury
Tales was not an ironist for nothing.

Chaucer's Treatment of Ecclesiastical Characters in 'The Prologue'

SHUAIB ASGHAR
GOVT. RAZVIA ISLAMIA COLLEGE
HAROONABAD

Though in Chaucers age, religion had a control over the minds and soul of the
people, yet regrettably, its influence was corrupt. The monasteries were promoting
corruption, exploiting the innocent folk and were earning money under the disguise of
religion. Moralities and ethics were fading. The ecclesiastics had become notorious for their
avarice, corruption and dishonesty. They had forgotten their sacred duties and had become
degenerated.
In The Prologue, Chaucer has drawn some portraits of the clergies of the 14th
century England, free from any personal prejudice. These are not exaggerated sketches and
they realistically refer to the corruption, and religious and moral degradation that had crept
into the ecclesiastical order of the day.
His ironic portraits reveal that Chaucer had some idea of a code of conduct for
clergies to follow but he is impartial and realistic and paints both the sides of picture.
Through the portraits of pleasure-loving Monk, the wanton Friar, the corrupt Pardoner, he
exposes the humour of the typical Church dignitaries.
He also gives the portrait of a good Parson. Chaucer admires him because the
persons like him were becoming rare in his age.
A brief description of the ecclesiastical characters of The Prologue throws much light
on Chaucers attitude towards religion.

1.

The Prioress

The Prioress is the first ecclesiastical figure in The Prologue. She smiles amiably and
sings in her nasal tone. Chaucer says ironically that she is aware of the manners of the
society and knows how to carry morsel to her mouth. He says:
Wel koude she carie a morsel, and wel kepe
That no drope ne fille upon hir brest.

She wears fashionable dress with a golden broach, engraved with the words: Amor

Vincit Omnia i.e. Love conquers everything.

She truly signifies high-class religious-minded ladies of the 14th century. She is not
an ideal Nun and typifies the traits of the contemporary prioress.

2.

The Monk
The Monk is a pleasure-loving fellow. An outridere, that lovede venerie, He is fat like
a lord, for he leads a relaxed life and passes his time in eating, drinking and merry-making.
He is entirely misfit to his profession. He is fond of fine dresses. He wears fur-lined sleeves,
gold pins and love-knot.
A love knot in the gretter end there was

He does not like to study the strict rules and discipline of the cloister. He likes
hunting and has fine horses and hounds in his stable.

3.

The Friar
The Friar is a wanton, greedy and corrupt fellow who neglects his duties and does
not bother about religion. He is fond of singing, merry-making, drinking and visiting inns
and public places. He builds relations with the rich Franklin and worthy women. He is a
rogue, seducer of women and scoundrel. He encourages sins by setting an easy solution of
apology, misuses his authority and exploits others in terms of their sin. He was also very
expert in the art of begging.
For thogh a wydwe hadde noght a sho,
So plesaunt was his In principio
Yet wolde he have a ferthyng, er he wente;

4.

The Summoner
The Summoner is a nasty figure. Children are afraid of him.

Of his visage children were aferd.

He loves garlic, red wine and onion. He is a hypocrite who allows people to carry on
their sins and forgives them for a small donation to him. He knows the secret of young
women and men and exploits them to his own interest.
The yonge girles of the diocise,
And knew hir conseil, and was al hir reed.

5.

The Pardoner
The Pardoner is a thorough cheat. His bag is full of relics which he sells to
housewives and earns a lot.
He hadde a croys of latoun, ful of stones,
And in a glas he hadde pigges bones.

He deceives the simple folk. He sings merrily, sweetly and attracts the people in this
way. Chaucer has a poor opinion of him and ironically calls him a noble ecclesiastical.

6.

The Parson
In contrast to these corrupt religious characters, Chaucer gives a pleasant picture of
the poor Parson, a shepherd, who protects his flock from the wolf.
A good man was ther of religioun,
And was a povre persoun of a toun;

He preaches sincerely, correctly and tries to practice what he preaches. He leads a

simple, virtuous life of devotion and service.
A bettre preest I trowe that nowher noon ys;

7.

The Clerk
The Clerk is not an ecclesiastical character but he is studying at church. The Clerk is
one of the idealized characters. He is well-versed in logic.
A clerk ther was of Oxenford also,
That unto logyk hadde longe ygo.

He does not run after showiness and worldly grandeur. He is a miser and poor. He is
quick and meaningful in his talk. He is glad to learn and glad to teach. He is the picture of
the poets learning.
We can conclude that Chaucer has given a very true and realistic picture of the
ecclesiastical characters of his age. He satirizes the corrupt and worldly minded clergies and
on the other hand he appreciates the good characters and presents a model picture of him.

The English Language was in infancy and required the hands of a craftsman and the
mind of a genius to reach its maturity. This task was left to no other than Chaucer
because other notable writers of the age namely Wycliffe, William Langland and Gower
wrote little in English. Even Shakespeare felt doubtful about the future of English in
sixteenth century when much had already been accomplished, but it was Chaucer who
adopted a distinct style in writing in English. Literature and language were in the
process of formation, which were established on firm foundations by Chaucer. That is
why Dryden hails Chaucer as Father of English literature.
English is linguistically divided into three periods: Old English dating from 5th to 14th
century, Middle English from 14 to 18 century and the Modern English from 18 century
to present day. Chaucer was born in what is called the Age of Middle English. His style
and contribution to the English Language are remarkable. That is why David Daiches
avers, with Chaucer English language matured. The remark is true as earlier writers
like King Alfred used English as it was and made no significant changes.
The Prologue is Chaucers most celebrated and established work in which he uses a
narrative style to express his viewpoint. He uses several poetic devices to liven up his
style. Chaucer followed the rhetorical principles laid down by Gaufred de Vinsauf in his
Nova Poetria. These principles are description and narration. His descriptive and
narrative technique is nowhere so visible as in the Canterbury Tales. In the prologue, he
uses mainly the descriptive style and in the Tales, he employs the narrative style. The
most remarkable thing is that he consummates the his style as averred by Robert P.
Miller, Chaucer subtly adapted language and perspectives to his individual tellers and
thus established a model for Shakespeare and the Elizabethan dramatists Why Robert
Miller or David Daiches credit Chaucer can be best understood by examining the salient
characteristics of his style.
Firstly, Chaucers style is marked by lucidity of expression, joyous originality and
easiness free of ambiguities and direct philosophical maxims. In describing nearly all his
characters, he uses colloquial language easy to understand for a common man. For
example, Chaucer says, Knight was as meeke as maide or Prioress leete no morsel falle
from his lippes. His similes and metaphors are befittingly employed throughout the
Prologue. Secondly, his style is not bookish or crammed. His style is rather cultivated
and tailored as much to the intellectuals as to the laymen. This is the reason The
Prologue has been popular with men of all levels of understanding. Thirdly, style is
humorous and ironical. His style is not pointed like that of Juvenal or Swift, he does
criticize society, in fact his Prologue is a criticism of life in the words of Matthew Arnold
as literature should be, but he passes from character to character with a smile and uses
irony as his weapon to attack the follies of society rather than satire. His ironical
remarks about Monk are worth quoting, What sholde he studie and make hymselven
wood and further Chaucer remarks Lat Austyn have his swynk to hym reserved. Chaucer
ironically remarks about Monk, I seyde his opinioun was good. His light ironical style
places his with Horace. Fourthly, Chaucer takes up the description of his characters
from the positive traits and jumps to the negative ones to startle the reader. Squire,
Prioress and Wife of Bath are good characters in the first few lines, it is just after a few

remarks, that we come to understand their real nature. Fifthly, his style is not
ostentatious. He doesnt exhibit his art through his style. We simply see the picture of
society and not the technique through which it was drawn. So Chaucer believes in the
words of Swift that real art lies in the concealment of art.
His style is narrative, descriptive and reflective and has all qualities of speech. His
sentences are short and simple in their structure. His stylistic qualities and poetic genius
contributed to English what no other did before his time as ascertained by David
Daiches with Chaucer, the English language and literature grew at a bound to full
maturity. No other Middle English writer has his skill, his range, his complexity and his
large humane outlook. His light humor and ironical pieces have rendered such services
to English, which can only be compared to those of Emperor Augustus in Ancient Rome
who found Rome as brick and left it as marble. An apt remark from Lowell will finely
conclude the topic that Chaucer found English in dialect and left it a language. (Words:
816)
J.M. Manly avers in the Cambridge History of English Literature, Fourteenth century
was a dark epoch in the history of English. This statement is both historically and
linguistically correct when applied to the medieval period. The English Language was in
infancy and required the hands of a craftsman and the mind of a genius to reach its
maturity. This task was left to no other than Chaucer because other notable writers of
the age namely Wycliffe, William Langland and Gower wrote little in English. Even
Shakespeare felt doubtful about the future of English in sixteenth century when much
had already been accomplished, but it was Chaucer who adopted a distinct style in
writing in English. Literature and language were in the process of formation, which were
established on firm foundations by Chaucer. That is why Dryden hails Chaucer as
Father of English literature.
English is linguistically divided into three periods: Old English dating from 5th to 14th
century, Middle English from 14 to 18 century and the Modern English from 18 century
to present day. Chaucer was born in what is called the Age of Middle English. His style
and contribution to the English Language are remarkable. That is why David Daiches
avers, with Chaucer English language matured. The remark is true as earlier writers
like King Alfred used English as it was and made no significant changes.
The Prologue is Chaucers most celebrated and established work in which he uses a
narrative style to express his viewpoint. He uses several poetic devices to liven up his
style. Chaucer followed the rhetorical principles laid down by Gaufred de Vinsauf in his
Nova Poetria. These principles are description and narration. His descriptive and
narrative technique is nowhere so visible as in the Canterbury Tales. In the prologue, he
uses mainly the descriptive style and in the Tales, he employs the narrative style. The
most remarkable thing is that he consummates the his style as averred by Robert P.
Miller, Chaucer subtly adapted language and perspectives to his individual tellers and
thus established a model for Shakespeare and the Elizabethan dramatists Why Robert
Miller or David Daiches credit Chaucer can be best understood by examining the salient
characteristics of his style.

Firstly, Chaucers style is marked by lucidity of expression, joyous originality and

easiness free of ambiguities and direct philosophical maxims. In describing nearly all his
characters, he uses colloquial language easy to understand for a common man. For
example, Chaucer says, Knight was as meeke as maide or Prioress leete no morsel falle
from his lippes. His similes and metaphors are befittingly employed throughout the
Prologue. Secondly, his style is not bookish or crammed. His style is rather cultivated
and tailored as much to the intellectuals as to the laymen. This is the reason The
Prologue has been popular with men of all levels of understanding. Thirdly, style is
humorous and ironical. His style is not pointed like that of Juvenal or Swift, he does
criticize society, in fact his Prologue is a criticism of life in the words of Matthew Arnold
as literature should be, but he passes from character to character with a smile and uses
irony as his weapon to attack the follies of society rather than satire. His ironical
remarks about Monk are worth quoting, What sholde he studie and make hymselven
wood and further Chaucer remarks Lat Austyn have his swynk to hym reserved. Chaucer
ironically remarks about Monk, I seyde his opinioun was good. His light ironical style
places his with Horace. Fourthly, Chaucer takes up the description of his characters
from the positive traits and jumps to the negative ones to startle the reader. Squire,
Prioress and Wife of Bath are good characters in the first few lines, it is just after a few
remarks, that we come to understand their real nature. Fifthly, his style is not
ostentatious. He doesnt exhibit his art through his style. We simply see the picture of
society and not the technique through which it was drawn. So Chaucer believes in the
words of Swift that real art lies in the concealment of art.
His style is narrative, descriptive and reflective and has all qualities of speech. His
sentences are short and simple in their structure. His stylistic qualities and poetic genius
contributed to English what no other did before his time as ascertained by David
Daiches with Chaucer, the English language and literature grew at a bound to full
maturity. No other Middle English writer has his skill, his range, his complexity and his
large humane outlook. His light humor and ironical pieces have rendered such services
to English, which can only be compared to those of Emperor Augustus in Ancient Rome
who found Rome as brick and left it as marble. An apt remark from Lowell will finely
conclude the topic that Chaucer found English in dialect and left it a language. (Words:
816)
The "Prologue" of Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales gives readers a distinct picture of
the characters (or pilgrims) on their way to visit the shrine of Thomas Becket. Challenged by the
owner of the inn, the pilgrims must tell a tale of morality. Ironically, each tale told highlights the
teller's own vices and fallacies.
As for The Canterbury Tales acting as a picture gallery, the "Prologue" introduces each of the
pilgrims describing them using both physical and internal traits.
For example, the "picture" of the Monk details a man with big, sparkly eyeballs. He is both bald
and fat. Unlike what would be expected of a monk, the Monk wears fine fur-trimmed clothing
and expensive riding boots. His face is both tanned and greasy.

His head was bald and shone like any glass

And smooth as one anointed was his face.(35)
Fat was this lord, he stood in goodly case.
His bulging eyes he rolled about, and hot
They gleamed, and red, like fire beneath a pot.
Each character in Chaucer's tale is depicted in the same fashion. While some are described using
more detail, all of the characters are described using such detail that one could create a mental
picture book of each.