The Believability of Chaucer's Stories

While reading The Man of Law's Tale this week a few thoughts kept occurring to me, all of which centered on believability. In noticing how much more I liked this tale as opposed to the previous ones we have read, and exploring the reasons as to why this was the case, I kept coming back to the act of story telling. Stories can have such depth and power but their ability to influence or inform individuals is entirely dependent upon how one chooses to interpret what is being said.

Taking this into consideration, I then pose these questions: How much of what Chaucer says do we believe? How fictional are his tales - do we believe some, all or none of what he says? Why may we tend believe some parts more than others? More importantly though, do we even need to believe him - or should we simply accept his tales with good faith? 

I ask these questions because as I was reading the story of Custance I was having trouble making sense of my surprising and genuine interest in the tale. I say surprising because when I read the previous tales – especially the Reeve’s - I had to constantly remind myself to keep on reading. I needed to forcefully place myself in the mindset of Chaucer and his companions for it wasn’t something that came naturally to me. In other words, I was too aware of the fact that I was a 21^st century college senior from Maryland while I was reading, and this inhibited me from truly immersing myself in the narrative or it’s meaning.

Overall, speaking specifically about the Reeve’s tale, I found that I was having trouble getting beyond my disbelief, and that that was what was keeping me from truly understanding or enjoying Chaucer’s story. The Reeve’s tale felt much too forced for me, and because of this I simply didn’t believe it. My disbelief is also what prevented me from enjoying the tale. As I began to think further, however, I came to the conclusion that maybe this was just what Chaucer had intended.

After thinking about how much I enjoyed the Man of Law’s tale, and comparing the reasons as to why with all of the reasons why I did not like the Reeve’s, I began to notice similarities between the two stories in terms of their message of spirituality. I began to wonder if Chaucer didn’t intentionally play with the level of believability in his two stories specifically to highlight the ways in which individuals should/should not act. I’m planning on exploring this idea further – so my thoughts are not entirely complete just yet - but as of now it seems as though Chaucer could have most definitely been relying on his reader’s believability in his tales (or the lack there of) to highlight the right/wrong choices one should make in their everyday lives.

To briefly explain, in the Reeve’s tale, as we discussed in class, no character really comes out on top. Each individual we meet is flawed in some way, and as readers there isn’t really one particular that person that we’re pulling for. After reading the Man of Law’s tale, I began to believe that this was an intentional choice. It could be that by making the Reeve’s tale so hard to enjoy and believe, that Chaucer was trying to show us something – to tell us that if we seek revenge, deceit and trickery only to advance our own selfish ambitions, then we’re never going to win in the end. 

If we compare this idea to the Man of Law’s tale, and examine the treacherous life of Custance, although it appears as if aligning herself with God’s will brings her only strife and tragedy, in the end Custance is rewarded with a (somewhat) happy conclusion to her tale. Furthermore, given her devout actions and unfailing faith, even if we interpret Custance as having been cheated by her husband’s early death, there is enough textual evidence to remind us that she has the promise of eternal life to look forward to, she will undoubtedly gain salvation – a great deal more than can be said for the characters in the Reeve’s tale.

Overall, I believe that there is most certainly a connection between the Reeve and the Man of Law’s tales, and that this connection is directly linked by how much believability Chaucer allowed his readers to have when experiencing his two stories. By making one tale easier to believe and relate to than the other, we as readers are being directed towards an underlying message of spiritual morality. The Man of Law’s tale was so enjoyable to read that I personally felt much more apt to take what was being told not so much as a literal story but rather as a tale with a greater spiritual message.

Because I believed the Man of Law’s tale, and took what was being said with a grain of salt, I not only enjoyed the story more than the previous tales we had read but I was also able to pick out its significance of and meaning a lot easier. I’m curious to know if anyone else had a similar experience, as, like I said, I'm planning on exploring this idea further and would love to hear other opinions! :)