Professor Mitchell-Buck posed an interesting issue at the close of class yesterday. Assuming the order of the tales is accurate, what does it mean that we get a couple of competing, rather shocking tales, followed by a longer, slower, more serious tale?
"The Miller's Tale" and "The Reeve's Tale" deal with trickery that results in a man who has lost something. John is cuckolded and deprived of his dignity while the miller of "The Reeve's Tale" is left with a defiled wife and daughter and is tricked out of the clerks' grain. There are, of course, implied morals with both of these tales, but they are hidden behind comedy and lewd subject matter.
"The Man of Law's Tale" deals with the same issues of trickery and deception in a more serious manner. The mothers-in-law are both guilty of conspiring and deceiving men for their own personal gain, characters are humiliated, and there is even a small degree of loss. However, the moral of the tale is more obvious and the biblical references are meant to evoke moral questions on the part of the reader.
"The Friar's Tale" is over-the-top and rather harsh in his critique of the summoner. It is short and entertaining like something one would share with friends over drinks on a Saturday night. It is the same with "The Summoner's Tale." The tale is meant to entertain and to educate, but the morals are, yet again, hidden behind the comedy and entertainment.
"The Clerk's Tale" is longer, more serious. Will the tale have some kind of connection to the previous two tales? Is Chaucer trying to show the reader the differences between telling tales that deal with issues such as trickery, adultery, etc as entertainment followed by a tale that is supposed to teach the moral lesson?
I discussed something similar in my small group yesterday. I found it interesting that Chaucer has deception in all his tales and always brings something biblical in all his tales. I plan to post a blog on this soon!
ReplyDeleteThis “reigning in” effect is interesting. I like the thread of trickery you point out in the Miller’s, Reeve’s, and Man of Law’s tales. They do seem to go together, and yet they belong to different fragments. The Man of Law’s tale has its own little fragment (I’m getting this all from the table of contents by the way. So that’s the extent of my expertise), and the Reeve and Miller are grouped with the Knight. So far the two of the three fragments we have read start with a more or less serious tale (im putting the Wife of Bath’s Tale in that category) to begin with and then move to a battle between two tellers. Perhaps that is why we get that pulling back effect is because Chaucer may be starting a new thought. Or could it be because the switch is sharp because we have lost some of the connective tissue? Maybe that is why we never hear from the Plowman. He spends all his time talking between the stories.
ReplyDeleteI see a connection between the wife of bath's tale and the clerk's tale. The knight in the wob's tale looks down on his new/old wife-- and he berates her for being old and low-born. Walter does something similar in the second half of the clerk's tale. She has acted nobly all her life-- she has been patient, loving, supportive- and obedient- but Walter (testing her, I know) refers to her low-born status before he boots her out. What is Chaucer saying?We have two cases of men acting miserably and scoffing at a women whose only crime is not being of a higher class (or *pretty* in the case of the crone). Then there is the shift-- the garment Griselde wears. This seems to be a very important symbol, seeing as she must strip naked to enter Walter's realm- and strip again when she returns home.
ReplyDeleteI just think it's interesting that the more serious tales tend to go hand-in-hand with the more comical or entertainment type tales as far as the moral lesson. However, the serious tales are based more in the biblical and usually state the moral lesson outright rather than hiding behind humor or shock value.
ReplyDeleteI just talked to Dr. MB on Tuesday about the order of tales. I know that there are fragments are often a few tales together, but that the fragments have some debate about what order they are in. I wonder if the theory of a comedic tale followed by a serious tale would still hold true if the fragments were in a different order.
ReplyDeleteI think in this case it is just as interesting to consider the order of the tales as it is to consider or imagine the potential pieces that we're missing. For me personally, I just cannot get the idea of what material we're potentially missing to leave my mind. As Andrew said, we've only got these tales in fragments so there is a unknown amount of "connective tissue" that we're simply blind to. I thought this was a great way to phrase this thought because it really points out the fact that we're not sure if we're missing out on any connections Chaucer intended. Did the plowman ever have a tale? I'd most certainly like to think yes.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading I always try to keep this thought in my mind: we don't know what we don't know when it comes to Chaucer. As I said, I'm of the mind that there was probably more to the Canterbury Tales that we're seeing today and due to this belief I always try to read with an open mind. We're potentially missing a piece of the story that could entirely change our perceptions of it (then again we may not be, who knows) and I always try to remember this when reading, just to keep my mind open.