I wrote this paper a couple of semesters ago. I wanted to post this for those of you who may be fans of the Canterbury Tales. Enjoy!
Canterbury Tales: Chaucer’s Re-envisioning of the Social Hierarchy
In the Canterbury Tales, author Geoffrey Chaucer tells a story centered around a pilgrimage to a religious shrine in Canterbury. At an Inn, the twenty-nine pilgrims, all from different social standings, are asked by the Host to go together to Canterbury. In doing so, everyone will tell a tale there and back to entertain each other. Whoever has the best tale will be rewarded with a free meal. However, this story is highly satirical and gives Chaucer, the author, the ability to make social critique by re-envisioning the social hierarchy of the time. Chaucer does so by having the characters described in the order of importance according to the period in the General Prologue and has that order changed to what he believes the order of importance should be in each pilgrim’s story. Chaucer has characters who are virtuous and characters who are supposed to be virtuous but are not. It is through the General Prologue, the Pardoner’s Prologue and Epilogue, and the Knight’s Tale that the social hierarchy is re-envisioned.
In the General Prologue, the social hierarchy of Chaucer’s time is set up, which will eventually be re-organized. Chaucer sets up the three estates here, which are the clergy, nobility, and peasantry. According to the scholarly essay The Three Estates Model: Represented and Satirised in Chaucer’s General Prologue to The Canterbury Tale, author Sadenur Doğan says, “This model is used by Chaucer in his masterpiece to put forward his arguments about the social characteristics and roles of the medieval people who are expected to talk, behave, wear and live in accordance with what their social group requires” (50). The hierarchy set up in the prologue is thus accurate to Chaucer’s time because it sets up the specific expectations of the high and the low. Chaucer organizes in the prologue the nobility first, then clergy, and lastly the peasantry. This does not mean there is not any satirical material in the General Prologue, but that Chaucer wishes to represent the common conception and organization of the social order before diving fully into his rebuttal of the social hierarchy.
Further, Chaucer hints at the potential vices or corruption of some of the characters in the General Prologue. The hints set up the restructuring of the hierarchy represented by the order of the stories told after the prologue. In doing so, Chaucer needed to have reference points in the form of characters to represent either virtue and vice. The three ideal pilgrim representatives for virtue are the Knight, the Parson, and the Plowman (51). Doğan includes, “they represent the perfect integration of the three estates, clergy, nobility, and peasantry for continuation of the social organisations” (51). Doğan comments that almost all other characters have individual or social traits atypical for their social position, which is the beginning of Chaucer’s satire. He believes the three characters, though there are more, that contrast the Knight, Parson, and Plowman is the Monk, Reeve, and the Wife of Bath. These three characters are described as being atypical to their social positions.
For example, the Monk is described as a hunter, which is uncharacteristic of his position. The prologue describes his views as:
But that doctrine held he not worth an oyster.
And I said his opinion was good:
Why should he study, and make himself a nut,
Upon a book in cloister always to pore,
Or work with his hands and labor,
As Augustine bid? How shall the world be served? (11)
The Monk shows he does not care for the duties of his position, rather he is concerned with what he deems is important and his wants. Most monks study extensively but this one is not interested. Therefore, he is a clerical contrast to the Parson. The Reeve is described as a deceiver of his master, and the prologue says, “They were afraid of him as of the Death” (33). This shows contrast by having a sinful character in the peasantry estate that differs from the virtue of the Plowman. Lastly, in the General Prologue, the Wife of Bath is described as a cheater and having multiple husbands. The Wife of Bath is a merchant who makes her wealth off of her business and her husbands. Therefore, she is a character that embodies vice in the nobility estate.
Additionally, the setting up of the estates with contrasting good and evil, embodied by three core characters — but not limited to — prepares the reader for the eventual re-evaluation of the hierarchy. Setting up character descriptions through how they act on an individual and social level gives the reader an understanding that something is not right with some character descriptions. Especially in comparison to virtuous characters like the knight. That way when the restructuring happens Chaucer can correct the social hierarchy to what he believes is the true values that should be embodied in society. As well as showing the core of human virtue through his examination of human truths, expressed by examples of vice, virtue, and other moral lessons. This examination of virtue is expressed through the characters themselves and the stories they will eventually tell.
Chaucer begins his narrative, after the prologue, with the Knight’s Tale, which shows immediately that the Knight’s virtues are held by Chaucer as the highest importance compared to the other characters. The tale is about two knights, cousins, who are from the same household and are described identically. Both of them are captured after a battle where their army lost. While in prison they both fall in love with their capturer’s daughter, Emeyle. The ideas of chivalry and courtly love are apparent when one knight, Palamon, stays true to the code of knighthood and brotherhood, while the other, Arcite, eventually breaks his oath to Palamon for his pursuit of Emeyle. This hints at Chaucer’s beliefs on honor, loyalty, and love. He initially makes them identical so he could contrast them with virtue and vice, just as he does in the prologue. When confronted about his oath-breaking, Arcite turns the argument around and tries to deceive his cousin. In the essay Forsworn and Fordone: Arcite As Oath-Breaker in the Knight’s Tale, author Catherine Rock says, “Arcite’s second argument, that of love being above the law, deserves some attention. This argument turns on the point of natural law versus positive—that is, “formally agreed to, imposed, legislated, made known, written down”—law” (418). So, Arcite claims that it was because of his love that he broke his oath. This point, too, is satirical. Showing that there is a higher law than the written law, which is similar to the clergy excusing their sinful deeds because their higher law is superior to written law.
Furthermore, Arcite commits several other offenses such as doing labor for an enemy and praying falsely to Mars for victory in the battle against Palamon. Rock says, “Arcite the warrior had originally been very much in the service of Mars, god of war. When he falls in love with Emelye, however, he abruptly turns his back on the marital life and on Mars himself in order to serve Emelye and Venus, goddess of love” (426). Arcite breaks another oath, which, if not already, completely propels him into the category of being unvirtuous and sinful. In the end, Arcite and Palamon fight for the love of Emeyle in an arena, hosted by her father. Arcite defeats Palamon and wins her; however, Arcite is unexpectedly thrown off of his horse and is fatally wounded. Arcite asks for forgiveness and Palamon and Emeyle get married. Arcite dies, and Palamon and Emelye get married. It is argued by some that this restores Arcite’s honor and by others, it only partially restores his honor (428). Arcite is given a glorious funeral after his death so it is realistic to believe that his honor was restored.
This story is a natural fit for the beginning of Chaucer’s narrative and the restructuring of the social hierarchy prevalent in the rest of the story. Through the Knight’s Tale, Chaucer achieves several outcomes. First, he continues the contrasting of virtuous characters and unvirtuous characters. The reader is immediately familiar with this since the tale follows the prologue. Second, Chaucer continues preparing the reader and the narrative for the hierarchical realignment. He prepares through the outcome of Arcite’s oath-breaking, showing that these vices, especially in the nobility — since Arcite is a part of the nobility — will lead to a character’s downfall. Arcite’s death, even though his honor might be restored, shows that Chaucer believes these vices to be unworthy of the nobility. Arcite being flung off of the horse is symbolic of the unvirtuous knight falling off of the top of the social hierarchy to the bottom, which leads to a symbolic death.
It is the Pardoner’s Prologue and Epilogue that reverses the social hierarchy. These two sections have the Pardoner’s Tale centered between them. They both describe the Pardoner’s character and his relics. One reason for having an almost repetitive prologue and epilogue is to further develop the three estates. Having a prologue shows a beginning or low point of a story, which in this case symbolizes the peasantry. The Pardoner’s Tale symbolizes the rising action of a story, or the Pardoner’s rising towards higher social status. In the prologue, the Pardoner is the last character described but tells his tale in the middle of the narrative. So, the tale being centered is symbolic of him being the center of the re-organized hierarchy. Lastly, the epilogue is the falling action after the climax of a story and represents the nobility.
Similarly, having the Pardoner’s Prologue, Tale and Epilogue centered in the narrative achieves the same thing as having the tale at the center of the prologue and epilogue. The Knight’s Tale is at the beginning i.e, the peak of the power and height of virtue. Chaucer, as a character, is the last pilgrim to speak and is as badly told as his tale. Chaucer’s Retraction is symbolic of the peasantry estate and sin. The Pardoner’s Tale, centered, represents the clergy and having both sin and virtue. The narrative structure is then reversed compared to the structure of the Pardoner’s Tale. There is no rising in action or power like the prologue leading to the epilogue, rather the narrative starts at the peak and descends. This centering of the tale and the tale in the narrative continues the redesigning of the social hierarchy.
Next, The prologue and epilogue are important because they show the reader why the Pardoner is an unvirtuous character compared to the Parson. This is achieved through his relics and description. The Pardoner is contrasting to the Parson because Pardoners were not associated with carrying relics and are sinful. This goes against the common associations typical of pardoners. Again, showing the perversion of class expectations noted by Doğan. In the essay The Pardoner’s Relic (And Why They Matter the Most), author Robyn Malo states, “But it is equally difficult to understand the Pardoner’s character without taking into account his relics and how he handles them. By making Canterbury the destination of the pilgrimage, Chaucer identifies relics and relic shrines as the ostensible reason for his characters getting together in the first place… the Pardoner is the most explicitly associated with relics; in fact, he manipulates relics (physically and rhetorically) in order to make a living” (83-4). The relics, since he manipulates them to make money, show his sinful nature. The relics should be viewed not only in the lens of the Pardoner but as well as the narrative. Like the Pardoner and his relics, Chaucer manipulates the hierarchy and has his characters go on a pilgrimage to a relic.
First, the relics should be contextualized with the period. According to Malo, relics were powerful and should be understood as both political and spiritual. This is because the control of the relics served as a gateway to God, or institutional power (84). So, the Pardoner’s control of the relics is symbolic of his gateway to God, i.e his ability to rise to a decent social standing, in the middle of the narrative, due to Chaucer’s re-evaluation of the hierarchy. Malo goes on to distinguish the difference between notable and non-notable relics in Chaucer’s time. Relics were hard to identify and hard to keep track of during this period. The bigger the relic and the less damaged it was, constituted it as notable.
Although, when discussing non-notable relics, Malo clarifies, “What is more, these relics were treated differently because they were not regarded by the clergy or laity as being as powerful as the often less accessible, carefully enshrined notable relics” (85). Therefore, the Pardoner is not as powerful in the social hierarchy, which is why he is centered, as the nobility and virtuous characters. The Pardoner himself is symbolic of a “non-notable relic” for many reasons. First, Chaucer makes a statement about the indulgence system of the church, which the Pardoner is a part of, as being corrupted or fake. The Pardoner is also fake, considering the lies and tries to convince that the relics are real. Secondly, the Pardoner is not as powerful as his clergy counterparts due to his position in the hierarchy and his immoral characteristics. This further outlines the hierarchy and what Chaucer deems important in his restructuring of it.
Furthermore, the relics of the Pardoner are not taken seriously. The relics not being taken seriously symbolizes the Pardoner not being taken seriously by the Host in the Pardoner’s Epilogue and by other clergy members; since he is not at the top of the power hierarchy, morally and positionally. Malo distinguishes that the notable relics were kept enclosed by churches, which caused people to often be incapable of seeing or touching them (86). The pilgrims are heading to a shrine, or relic, at Canterbury where most, not all, will not be able to see the shrine due to it being hidden; nor will they be able to touch, because they are sinners. The exceptions may be for members of the high nobility, like the Knight, who has power. Therefore, the hierarchy is further emphasized by this. The Pardoner, even though he is a part of the clergy, cannot obtain a connection to the relic, or a higher power symbolized by the notable relic. He will not reach the higher power at Canterbury due to his position or “sight” of the relic and his lack of virtue. The incapability to gain a new position to see a relic, i.e a new social position of power is true for other pilgrims.
Moreover, the relic or shrine being often locked away shows that positions of power are typically locked away. Malo argues that language can also be a means of making a relic holy, which he calls relic discourse (89). This discourse can make a relic more popular, which the Pardoner attempts to do since his relics are not popular. If the Pardoner is viewed as a non-notable relic, this shows, just as the epilogue does, that the Pardoner is not popular. The Pardoner tries to talk his way into getting others to like him, which is unsuccessful. However, through relic discourse virtuous pilgrims, like the Knight, Plowman, and the Parson, can be rewarded. Next, Malo distinguishes the multiple meanings for the ambiguous word male, which is used to describe the place the Pardoner keeps his relics. Malo states, “it could refer to any of the three things: a saddlebag, his memory, or relics/reliquary” (93). These three meanings can be viewed as the Pardoner hiding his relics in a bag, which is symbolic of him hiding his vice or virtue. The word could mean memory, which is symbolic of his worth and not being important since the relics, or himself, are non-notable. These are two reasons for his social standing according to Chaucer.
Further, when he brings out his relics he tells the pilgrims that they are real. This deception is to hide the fact that his power is not real and that he is non virtuous. The reason he takes consideration and control of the order that he brings the objects out is his way of having some form of power that he feels is missing. Malo notes that in the way he brings out the relics, takes care of them, and presents them is impressive considering the nature of the Pardoner (95). This shows the Pardoner’s potential for power if he was virtuous like the Parson.
Continuing, the author notes that the Pardoner is an intermediary between the relics and the pilgrims. Just as his tale is the intermediary in the narrative and he is the intermediary of Chaucer’s restructured hierarchy. The Pardoner says they cannot touch the relics until they are absolved, which is when he sells them indulgences to make his money. This is ironic because he is a sinful character himself and is handling the relics. Chaucer’s satire adds up and shows the corruption of the indulgence system. If the pilgrims are absolved they will touch the relics, a connection to God or power, by being virtuous. This is Chaucer saying that they will pass the Pardoner on the hierarchy, simply, if they are more virtuous than the Pardoner. If they are not absolved of their sins, then they will not have that connection to power and be below the Pardoner socially. This is how the narrative hierarchy is set up. The virtuous nobility and other characters deemed virtuous are in a heaven-like position of power above the Pardoner. The Pardoner and those whose tales are immediately before and after him are in an earthly or purgatorial type power position where sin and virtue are both prevalent. In this purgatory, there are those not good enough to make it to heaven, the nobility, and not bad enough to go to hell, the peasantry. These characters are trying to absolve what sins they made in life. Lastly, those who stay in sin are below in a hell type position of power.
Analogous to the idea of the narrative being different from the typical story structure, the narrative starts at the peak and descends. The pilgrimage could be symbolic of hell, or at least ends in hell. Chaucer’s strange narrative structure could be an allusion to Dante’s Inferno, where Dante descends, literally and narratively, through hell until he reaches the worst level, or rock bottom, of hell. The narrative of this story does the same thing by starting at the most interesting stories and descending to the bottom where the least interesting, or hellish, stories are told.
Lastly, the Pardoner’s Epilogue ends with the Host getting upset at the Pardoner. The Pardoner tells the Host that he is a great sinner amongst the pilgrims and should be the first to ask to be absolved and see his relics. The Host replies that he will make a relic out of the Pardoner’s genitals. Before a scuffle could ensue, the Knight breaks up the two and everyone ends up laughing it off. The three estates are shown here once more. The Pardoner as the middle, the Knight as the top, and the host as the bottom. The hierarchical restructuring of Chaucer is clearly outlined by the Pardoner.
The narrative and Chaucer’s hierarchy of importance is ended by a retraction as poor as Chaucer’s Tale, by the character and narrator Chaucer. The beginning of virtue and power is shown through the Knight’s Tale. Then, a more clearly outlined structure and analysis of said structure are shown with the Pardoner’s Prologue, Tale, and Epilogue. Additionally, those who are unvirtuous, whether they are typically viewed as powerful, are shown to be stuck in misery in Chaucer’s Retraction where the idea of hell is played with by having Chaucer state that the narrative itself is rooted in sin and that he holds no power. Chaucer pokes fun at his power as a literary figure, writer of this narrative, pilgrim, and narrator who, in reality, holds the true power by creating a new social hierarchy. It is through the General Prologue, the Pardoner’s Prologue and Epilogue, and the Knight’s Tale that the social hierarchy is re-envisioned.
Works Cited
Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Canterbury Tales. New York City, Barnes & Noble Books, 2007.
Doğan, Sadenur. “The Three Estates Model: Represented and Satirised in Chaucer’s General Prologue to The Canterbury Tales.” Tarih Kültür ve Sanat Araştırmaları Dergisi/Journal of History, Culture & Art Research, vol. 2, no. 2, 2013, pp. 49–56. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=mzh&AN=2016973595&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Malo, Robyn. “The Pardoner’s Relics (And Why They Matter the Most).” The Chaucer Review, vol. 43, no. 1, 2008, pp. 82–102. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25094420. Rock, Catherine A. “Forsworn and Fordone: Arcite as Oath-Breaker in the Knight’s Tale.” Chaucer Review: A Journal of Medieval Studies and Literary Criticism, vol. 40, no. 4, 2006, pp. 416–432. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=mzh&AN=2006872526&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Jung's Court 