The Order of Tales

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?