Questions on this topic? Just ask!

Characters in the General Prologue to "The Canterbury Tales"

Summary:   In Geoffrey Chaucer's "The Canterbury Tales," the General Prologue is intended to give the reader and compress and idealized view of the work's characters and then later in the work unravels their facades to show their human error.

The Canterbury Tales are essentially a Chaucerian satire; the author sets out to deliberately upset the social order present at the time and proceeds to mock the faults innate in the characters. Chaucer gives a compressed view of characters such as the Knight and the Monk; in their descriptions, a preview of the kind of stories we can expect from these people is given. Take for example the Miller; his physical description alleviates him as a thick brute with a filthy mouth that was 'moost of sin and harlotries', sufficed to say that his tale is one of adultery and sinful behaviour. However, Chaucer is not always as straightforward as this in presenting the pilgrims to us. His effective policy in unhinging the social hierarchy involves two fundamental characters: Chaucer the poet and Chaucer the pilgrim; the former needs no introduction whereas the latter is a device which the author uses to display an apparently indifferent account of the pilgrims. While he offers mostly positive feedback, the sarcasm of Chaucer himself is apparent, despite the mask he uses. So Chaucer's model characters in the General Prologue are not presented to us merely within this context, but rather they are shown to us more interestingly; in the progression of Chaucer's unravelling of their moral facades and noble status.

Chaucer is intentional in his positioning of the Knight; with the tales themselves, the Knight's tale is succeeded by the Miller's tale which interrupts and thus ridicules the designed order of the stories. He is presented as the glorious, valiant and truthful representation of what a knight should be. Described in terms of his commendable feats and his moderate dress and countenance, he is every inch the 'worthy' man he is deemed as, possessing all the moral virtues which can only be truly applicable to a knight 'chivalrie, trouthe and honour, fredom and curtesie'. This Knight could always be depended on to be at the fore of battle in his service to his lord, in fact he does this so exceptionally well that he appears to have the talent for travelling with an impressive speed! He dared never to utter a word of rudeness and behaved meekly whilst in the company of those not engaged with him on the battlefield. In keeping true to the tradition of his profession, his dress was 'nat gay', while his horse was considered good, however this is permitted, as it is essential to his success.

'And thereto hadde he ridden, no man ferre, as wel in cristendom as in hethenesse' once the audience reaches these lines, Chaucer's sarcasm is in such a wholesome state that only a fool could fail to detect it. The course of the Knight's expeditions may be believable in modern times, yet on horseback in the middle ages, you'll forgive me if I scoff at its credibility. The agenda of the Knight's conquests are put into questioning. 'Throughout the Prologue, one set of values is being opposed to another with the most deliberate though subtle, craft: - generosity and charity are set against greed and self indulgence....honesty against thievery and double-dealing' (Major, p.161). Claiming to be a crusader of Christendom, his general practice is exposed by Chaucer the poet. 'This ilke worthy knight hadde been also somtyme with the lord of Palatye agayn another hethen in Turkye'. Chaucer suggests that our worthy knight is nothing more than a money hungry mercenary. 'He hadde a soveryn prys....though that he were worthy he was wys'. There is a good pun used on 'soveryn prys', the knight had a fee and moreover he was prudent in his dealings with the Muslims. Chaucer uses the word 'worthy' five times in the Knight's prologue, each time it becomes more soured with sarcasm and ridicule. Chaucer's dismantling of the Knight's character sets the tone for the remainder of the Prologue, while he maintains an obvious contempt for characters such as the Miller or the Reeve, he is more cunning in his handling of the stereotypes such as this 'verray parfit gentil knyght'.

Our second character, the Prioress has clearly found it difficult to leave behind her former life as she remains, in her countenance and manners as though she is under scrutiny from the marriage market. She is a quaint, elegant woman with beautifully refined manners, described with great detail whilst she is at the dinner table 'Wel koude she carie a morsel....ful seemly after hir mete she raughte'. The Prioress is said to illustrate great compassion at the sight of a dead or bleeding mouse, although this is somewhat mocked by Chaucer, I don't believe it to be one of her worst faults, in fact this could be added to her credentials (minor as they are), and fall under the category of caring for all of God's creatures.

'The choice of detail shows the sharp selectiveness of the satirist' (Woolf, p.15). While she displays exquisite manners, there is a conspicuous vacancy in the profile of the Prioress. She expresses no inclination towards spirituality or God. This is all too evident in her manners, her possessions and her dress. 'In curtesie was set ful muchel hir lest', her primary concern is with her appearance in the company of others. Whatever virtue may have been harboured for her evaporates in the mention of the hounds she owns, which she feeds most expensively and most extravagantly. Moreover, as a patron to the life of Christ, she is described as being decorated in an elegant cloak, with green beads and a shiny brooch. Upon this brooch lies the inscription 'love conquers all'; this can apply as an ecclesiastical proverb or as a memoir of the alternative life for a woman who missed the boat. My optimism would prefer to grant her the benefit of the doubt; I do believe that the belief in God's work is inherent in her somewhere as it is with all of us, nonetheless Chaucer is too clever to allow me to compose such a conclusion. Her duty to God is limited in the sentence ' Hir gretteste ooth was but by Seinte Loy'.

The conduct of the Prioress is mild in comparison to that of the Monk and the Friar. These two orders were of utmost importance in the representation and work of God. Their mission statement was contained within the triad of poverty, chastity and obedience. Of all the characters, they are expected to epitomize goodness and virtue.

Chaucer actually omits any valid material to even attempt a counter argument for the Monk's dishonest way of life. Despite the fact that he is institutionalised into a holy and strict order, the Monk's lifestyle contradicts this. 'Chaucer unobtrusively uses a pointed satirical method, by which the characters are shown to have erred so fare from the true moral order, that they are not ashamed to talk naturally and with self-satisfaction about their own inversion of a just and religiously ordered way of life' (Woolf, p.16). Instead of confining himself to his cloister as decreed by his faith 'of prikyng and of hunting for the hare was al his lust, for no cost wolde he spare'. Furthermore, he refutes the disapproval of his love for hunting and the idea that 'sholde he studie and make hymselven wood'. Chaucer the pilgrim congratulates him in this contempt while the ironic humour of the poet is hilarious. 'How shal the world be served? Lat Austyn have his swynk to him reserved'.

Chaucer's attack on the Friar is even more caustic. Of chastity he is certainly no follower as he is often in this business of arranging marriage for the unfortunate women he has seduced. Poverty is a foreign concept to him 'his purchas was wel better than his rente'. Ironically, it is his uniform which allows him to find extra finance, no doubt to fund his extra curricular activities...instead of tending to the poor of his flock, he carouses with the innkeepers and barmaids 'It is nat honest, it may nat avaunce, for to deelen with no swich poraille'. More shocking is his abuse of the confession, an important instrument of medieval times. 'Plesaunt was his absolucion' pleasant in filling his pockets with the money of those who come to see him. The Friar is in complete reprimand of his duty to God and his work. There is a meticulous disrespect in Chaucer's destruction of this institution.

Although the Tales are widely celebrated as a satire, Chaucer does include a genuinely creditable character. The Parson is absent of any abysmal faults or subject to jeering from the poet. He is a true disciple of the Lords word. The Parson is truly a martyr of his community, his call of duty is never questioned 'for reyn ne thonder, in sikeness ne in mischief to visite the ferreste in his parisshe, muche and lite'. His preaching extends to all sorts of people and it was 'discreet and benynge'. He is democratic in his absolution, unlike the Friar he does not demean himself to profit from his power 'of heigh or lough estat, hym wolde he snybben sharply'. His intentions are rigidly fixed in his work and he expects no material reward fro his loyal service. Though the account of the Parson is given by Chaucer the pilgrim, the sincerity of the poet is felt in establishing 'the true moral standard by which the topsy-turvyness of all the rest may be measured'(Woolf, p.154).

What is presented to us in the General Prologue is a brief description of a series of characters, of these I choose the one true idealized character and the remainder were chosen due to their idealized perceptions as envisaged by society. The Knight, the Prioress, the Monk and the Frair were all expected to behave by certain standards. Through his double identity, Chaucer balances this perceived demeanour with a biting irony in order to dismantle their romantic disguises. With the Parson, Chaucer avoids sarcasm, or even a strong use of his alter ego; he remains truthful in managing societies perceptions of this figure