This blog is designed specifically for Hanover High School students in Ms. Piro's early English literature course.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Question of the Week (10/16/09)
Give an example of Chaucer's use of satire in your favorite Canterbury tale. Don't forget to use supportive evidence from the text. Post your response by Sunday 10/18 and respond to a fellow classmate's response.
Chaucer's Canterbury Tales are filled with satire. Each story makes fun of some profession whether it be there own, or another. My personal favorite is the Wife of Bath's tale, because her character is truly over the top.
I believe that Chaucer was attempting to add some sort of feminism to the tales, just to give women some respect. But he satirizes this character by blowing her feminism way out of proportion. A feminist is expected to fight for the equality of women, but Chaucer goes as far as to make the Wife of Bath against men. The Wife of Bath makes the comment, "A man must yield his wife her debt" (262). The Wife of Bath spends much of her prologue telling how men are in debt to women. Also that women, instead of just having equality, should have control over their husbands. She "had them eating from [her] hand, and as they yielded their gold and land" (264). Obviously the Wife of Bath has taken the upper hand, which is a little extreme.
Another way Chaucer satirizes the Wife of Bath is through her inability to keep a husband. The wife of Bath makes it very clear that she is in favor of marriage. "Better it is to marry than to burn." (260) Even though she thinks that people should be married she cannot stay with a husband.
A third and final way Chaucer satirizes the Wife of Bath is through her tale. Her tale is mainly based on the idea that a man should love a woman for more than her looks, but for what is deep in her heart. The old hag in the tale says, "You have two choices; which one will you try?" (291) The knights two choices are to have the old hag stay that way and be loyal or to have her be young and pretty but not loyal. Of course the knight chooses the hag and is rewarded for it. But, the Wife of Bath does not seem to think that marriage (which is supposed to signify love) works this way. She believes that men or only good for sex and their "gold and land", which goes against the moral of her tale.
Ultimately, the Wife of Bath is an over the top feminist, whose original intent was to bring in a woman's point of view. Instead, the Wife of Bath mocks feminism.
My favorite tale in the Canterbury Tales is the pardoner's tale. Chaucer uses his finest type of satire in the tale because it is subtle. In some tales like the friar, summoner and miller's tales the tone is openly mocking of other professions. The irony in the pardoner's tale is obvious. He is a dishonest man who sells fake relics and prays on people's fears to swindle them, yet, he tells a meditative story on the evils of greed and the fallible nature of man.
The summoner is aware of his dishonesty and does not seem bothered by it like when he says in his prologue "I mean to have money, wool, and cheese and wheat though it were given to me by the poorest lad or the poorest village widow, though she had a string of starving children all agape." (p.244). However on the next page his character says " O cursed gluttony, our first distress Cause of our first confusion, first temptation, the very origin of our damnation." (p45)
The whole summoner's tale is riddled with contrasts between his unrepentant bragging in the prologue and the mournful nature of his tale.
In response to Megan: I don't really think that the Wife of Bath is an exaggeration or satire of feminism as much as a character who Chaucer created to express his ow views. In 1400, when Chaucer wrote, the Renaissance was just starting in Italy and though Chaucer might have come into contact with it through his travels, it had not yet arrived in England. In this climate between Middle Ages and Renaissance the censoring by the Church as well as the inconceivability of the the things the Wife is saying were not as strong as two hundred years prior but still deeply rooted in society. Chaucer is saying things he believes but cannot come out and say (as a respected member of the court, and a man) and so creates an over-the-top women to say his views for him. The Wife's tale is the only one where she is not openly mocked by the author or self contradicting. Her personality and values stay the same throughout the text and she seems self aware (a quality the others lack) when she says " but age has come...and taken all my beauty and my pith" (p.271)
It is definitely apparent that Chaucer loves using satire, and finds it very funny when he does. Many, if not most, of his tales are satirical in some way, whether it be making fun of a certain type of person or of a situation. Although there are so many great examples of satire in his tales, I think that my favorite has to be the friar's tale. There are many reasons for this, but first and foremost it is because the friar's tale is simply blatantly and wholeheartedly derisive of summoners. It would take a very slow person to realize that people during Chaucer's time were not huge fans of them. Chaucer also employs satire to make fun of the summoner throughout his tale, which seems to be a common theme throughout the tales. One example of satire in the Friar's tale is that the Summoner meets the devil, and decides that he likes him so much that they should become sworn brothers. This would be an incredible insult at the time, and a quite over the top example of satire. "Bowels of pity, conscience, I have none. Plague on these penance-fathers every one! We make a pair, by God and Saint James!" (p. 297). Chaucer clearly makes the point that the Summoner is drawn to and idolizes the devil. Another example of satire in the Friar's tale is the fact that the Summoner, a person who in theory is repenting people's sins, is actually running around with the devil and extorting everyone from the sick to very old women and not actually doing anything for them. For example, the Summoner attempts to take twelve pence from an old lady who has no money and has done nothing wrong; "My master gets the profit, and not me. Come off it, I'm in haste. It's got to be. Give me twelve pence. No time to wait, old fairy." (p. 301). This is clearly behavior that should not be emitted by a Summoner, and yet Chaucer just loves to satirize the characters in his tales! Also, in response to Nick and Megan's debate about whether or not Chaucer is satirizing women through the Wife of Bath, I can see both sides. For one, it appears as though the Wife of Bath is extremely over the top, and would certainly be considered a raving feminist. However, I can also see how Chaucer could be creating an "over-the-top women to say his views for him.". I think that this is a case where it really comes down to personal opinion about Chaucer's work. It would also be useful if we knew a little bit more about Chaucer himself, because then we could perhaps be a little bit more sure about which way he is taking the Wife of Bath.
My favorite Canturbury tale is the Knight's Tale. This tale satirizes the genre of chivalric romances. These were tales of love and adventure, often involving knights and the code of chivalry. The Knight's Tale is an over-the-top chivalric romance, subtly making fun of chivalric ideals and the courtly lifestyle. For example, the whole concept of Palamon's love at first sight with Emily is ridiculous and quite silly. When Palamon first sees Emily, "he blenched and gave a cry as though he had been stabbed, and to the heart" (pg. 32). Later, after he escapes from prison, he and Arcite have a bloody duel (pg. 47) over who gets to have Emily, even though she has never expressed any romantic interests in either of them, and never gets a say in the matter. After Arcite falls from his horse and dies, Theseus decrees that Palamon will be Emily's husband, again without even asking her if this is ok (pg. 85). In fact, earlier in the tale, she expressed that she wanted to remain a virgin forever, so I bet she didn't want to be wed off to either of these lustful knights. This is a satire of the chivalric romances because by exaggeration, it pokes fun at these types of tales. Is it really realistic for someone to see someone of the opposite sex, and then be so overcome by their beauty that they feel physical pain? Or that two brothers fight to the death over the affection of a girl who might not even want either of them? By presenting these extremely idealized and ridiculous chivalric behaviors in the knight's tale, Chaucer is satirizing the courtly lifestyle in which women aren't even respected enough to factor there say into the decision of who they are to marry, and knights fight to bloody end over who gets to marry a women who might not want either of them.
I response to Nick: I agree with you in that Chaucer is not satirizing the Wife of Bath in her tale and prologue. I think he is expressing his own feminist views through it, and if he made the Wife of Bath over-the-top, it is due to the fact that the views of women are disrespected so much that the backlash has created monsters such as the Wife of Bath. Also, her tale does not satirize feminism, in fact, it is a chivalric romance with a feminist twist. The knight in the tale, simply for letting a women make her own decision, gets the best qualities of both options the women was forcing him to choose between. It is not satirizing feminism, but showing that if men and women work together, relationships will be much better.
Every tale in the Canterbury tales is full of satire, most of the satire is making fun of someone else's profession, like the Friar dissing the summoner,and the Reeve making fun of the Miller. My favorite satirical tale however has to be the Wife of Baath's tale. Her tale is so over the top and exagerated that it is almost unbearable. She so unbelievably over uses her disdain towards men as a tool to allow her to marry as many men as she wants. Also this idea of women being able to divorce and have another husband (or four) is a very contemporary idea. In the 1400's it was not appropriate or accepted for women to have more than one husband, and it certainly wansnt acceptable for them to be so brazen about sex. "Blessed be God that i have wedded five! welcome the sixth, whenever he appears"(259) I think that this passage backs up what I have been saying, that she is the opposite of the "ideal woman" especailly back in the 1400's. In conclusion the Wife of Bath is one of the most satarized characters in the whole book, and her tale is chock full of satire.
Many of the tales that Chaucer has written are very funny to read just because they are so blatantly mocking the various characters he demonstrates in his tale. The Knight's Tale, Wife's of Bath, and Miller's tale are all examples of this satire. My personal favorite tale is the Miller's tale just because it is so ridiculous. The Miller is very drunk when he tells his tale, so even that makes you think that Chaucer is satirizing millers for being oafs. Chaucer describes the miller in the general prologue as "a wrangler and a buffoon, he had a store of tavern stories, filthy in the main. He was a master of stealing grain (page 18)." Then the actual tale is full of farts and buffoonery. Chaucer is obviously making fun of how meticulous and proper churchgoers can be with the character of Absalon. Absalon tries very hard to win the love of Alison with poetry and music, but it fails. "From day to day this jolly Absalon, wooing away, became quite woe-begone; he lay awake all night, and all the day, combed his thick locks and tried to pass for gay (page 93)." Chaucer also makes fun of carpenters, for the character John in the story becomes convinced he needs to build raft like tubs in preparation for a big flood. By the end, all the characters have been mocked somehow. This is topped with Nicholas getting a hot poker up the behind. There are many ways one can analyize this story, but I think the most important factor is to note that Chaucer can always find a way to satirize all of his characters.
In response to the Wife of Bath debate: I agree with Scott that this issue can be taken either way. The wife of bath is an over the top feminist, and Chaucer clearly satirizes this with her behavior. If one looks at this tale more extensively, it shows Chaucer's own opinions. I think that it is important to realize that every single of Chaucer's tale reflect his viewpoints in someway. We can initially see this by looking at his general prologue. Some of the characters like the knight and the monk he seems to respect more. Others, like the miller he doesn't revere as much. While one can analyize this in great detail, I think it is fair to say Chaucer always inserts his viewpoint somewhere in each of his tales.
After reading The Canterbury Tales, it becomes quite obvious that the entire book is a satire. From tale to tale, Chaucer mocks the storyteller in ridiculous ways. My favorite example of satire is the Nun Prioress. I love the fact that Chaucer is mocking both the Prioress and the church itself in this tale. The Nun Prioress tells the story of a young christian boy who learns a song that commemorates the Virgin Mary. He sings this song throughout the Jewish Ghetto near his town, and because of the barbaric Jews, he is killed in an alley corner by an assassin. To understand the satire in this tale, you have to read the general prologue. In the general prologue, Chaucer describes the Prioress as neat, well mannered, and proper. He then goes on to describe how she speaks and what she wears. This is where the satire really comes out. He describes her as "And she spoke daintily in French, extremely, After the school of Stratford-atte-Bowe;" (p.6). By telling the reader that she speaks prep-school french, Chaucer is subtly showing us her pretentiousness. When he then says, "She wore a coral trinket on her arm, A set of beads, the gaudies tricked in green, whence hung a golden brooch of brightest sheen" (p.7) He is showing us that she has broken her vow of poverty and devotion to the church. These subtle hints help us see the satire in her tale as well. Her tale is full of anti-semitism and is a sermon itself. Knowing these things about her from the prologue completely undermines the importance of her tale. I really like this use of satire because it's not very obvious like it is in the other tales. Chaucer is using subtlety in making fun of this member of the church, which is probably how he got away with doing it at all. Instead of portraying this woman (who devoted her life to the church) in the light of a wonderful nun, he subtly makes her seem hypocritical and selfish. I love that about this tale.
I think that a tale that I found very satiric, but maybe the one that is most subtly satirical out of all the tales is the Knight's tale. In the first place, just the fact that the Knight's tale is the longest tale in the book is satirical. It is a knight's tale, so it is very romantic and drawn out, but Chaucer chose to draw it out more than realistically. In fact, when the knight finishes his tale, the host asks the miller to " pay the knight back a little" and the Miller says "By blood and bones and belly, I've got a noble story I can tell'ee, I'll pay the knight his wages". I found that there was a little bit of irony on his part when he said this, especially because the tale he would later tell was not noble in any way. Only now, after I have read all the rest of the tales which are much less chivalric and romantic than the knight's tale can I see just how satirical and ironic the Knight's tale is. The whole Knight's tale is surreal because it is all so perfect in its way, even when the events in the story are going in the wrong direction, somehow while I read it I knew it would turn out well, and hope was not to be lost, because, after all, it is a Knight's tale where being chivalric pays off. At the end, when it says "And thus with every bliss and melody Palomon was espoused to Emily..." and "He's tenderly beloved of Emily and serves he with a tender constancy, and never a jealous word between them is spoken or other sorrow in love unbroken". This is just the typical "happily ever after", which is so unrealistic, and not what would happen in real life, and definitely not how the other tales ended. Even in the Wife of Bath's tale where things ended happily, the young wife would soon grow old, and the husband would look lose interest, in other words it wasn't "true love" like the idealistic love in the Knight's tale.
In response to Keegan: I agree that the "love at first sight" in the knight's tale is unrealistic and exaggerated. His reaction was so exaggerated it was almost funny. But I disagree with the fact that it was satirical that the king didn't ask Emily her opinion when Thesus was going to marry her, back then I think that women were very rarely asked if they wanted to marry someone, it was more the man's decision that counted.
in response to the wife of bath debate: I would have to agree that I don't think the Wife of Bath is much of a satire. She is over the top, but I think that is more due to the fact that if a woman was to be a feminist during that time, she MUST have been over the top to even have been listened to. Back then, women's rights weren't even a joke because they weren't even considered. Yes, it is evident that Chaucer inserts his own beliefs into her tale, but I don't think that really makes it a satire. Chaucer is going to insert his own opinions into every tale because he is the author- he is the one that takes these tales from oral traditions to literature. It would be impossible to write these tales down without doing so.
My favorite tale was not the Shipman's tale, but it is one of the ones that has not been discussed yet, so I will talk about it here.
The Shipman tells the story of the Merchant with the beautiful wife and the Monk, who has an affair with the Merchant's wife. Monks are clearly satirized here, because holy men are not supposed to have relations with women in the first place, and much less are they supposed to have relations with married women. Chaucer also satirizes and insults the monk by having him be dishonest and a bad friend. At the beginning of the tale the Shipman states that the Merchant and the Monk were very good friends, and that both were glad of each others friendship. But later when the Monk is seducing the Merchant's wife, he throws out these claims, saying "Cousin indeed, he's no more cousin to me, than this leaf hanging on the tree, I call him so, but by the saints of France, I do so only for a better chance of seeing you!" Here the monk, who is supposed to be a pious man of good moral value, is shown to be a two timing low dow scammer. He would disown his best friend the Merchant just for a chance to sleep with the man's wife. As we see at the end of this tale, there is no retributory tale from an angry monk, and the Host applauds the Shipman's tale, saying, "Long life to you... A load of lousy luck upon that monk!" This shows us that Chaucer is not Satirizing the petty squables between two commoners by having a pointless back and forth argument occur, but rather he is aiming a personal shot at Monk's in general by having this tale go unopposed.
I would agree with Sasha about the Wife of Bath's tale. I feel like her story lines up very well with her character. She is a strong willed opinionated woman, who believes woman should be the equals of men, and her story is about how when men give woman more power, things always turn out for the best. In fact I would argue that the Wife of Bath's story contains the least satire of all the stories that we have read this year. She tells a story which challenges the ideas about differences between sexes, and she herself is a person who breaks the mold for women of the day. I think that this is a tale where Chaucer is simply expressing his own views, not writing for the sake of expressing a character.
My favorite Canterbury tale was the Wife of Bath's tale, but (as has just been said) this tale is far to serious to be satirical. A better example of satire, in my opinion, is found in the Reeve's tale (which, as a disclaimer, is not my favorite tale). There are two types of satirical tales told in the Canterbury Tales. First are tales where the teller unknowingly satirizes his or her own profession. The Pardoner's tale is an example of such satire. Second are tales where the teller knowingly satirizes another pilgrim's profession. The Reeve's tale is an example of this conscious and purposeful satire.
The Reeve's tale takes place immediately after the Miller's tale. The Miller began his tale after rudely usurping the Monk, and with the Host's unhappy permission, "Well, blast you then, you may. You fool (87)!" Furthermore, the Miller's tale ridicules a carpenter. The Reeve, undoubtedly upset by this insult, as well as by the Miller's general conduct, takes offense and promptly "pays him back in his own filthy words (108)." The Reeve then begins to deprecate millers by describing his character as being "proud as any peacock" and then having him be tricked. The Reeve also establishes that his miller physically formidable and carries "a Sheffield dagger (108)," and yet is defeated in the end of the tale by two boys. Additionally, the miller is said to be "a thief as well of corn and meal (109)," and yet is eventually robbed himself. Finally, there are insulting physical features that the Reeve ascribes to his miller, such as having a "puggish" nose and being "baled as an ape," that probably allude to medieval stereotypes.
In the instances above, the Reeve describes the miller as perceiving himself to be a certain way (proud, strong, etc.) and then describes events to show that these perceptions are not in fact true. This demonstrates that millers are a) hypocrites as well as b) weak people capable of being tricked. The Reeve also draws on rude stereotypes to further mock the Miller.
I agree that the Pardoner's Tale is full of satire. I do wonder, though, if he was aware of how hypocritical his tale really was. It was my impression that all of the pilgrims take themselves too seriously to parody themselves. If this is true, the Pardoner must have thought either that his tale reflected the values of pardoning, or that pardoning was a nobel task in line with his tale.
In my opinion, the Nun Prioress's tale contained a lot of satire. In the prologue, she is described as a very well-mannered, respectable woman who is kind and peaceful, but her tale is one of the most violent of all the tales. Her tale also contradicts some of her beliefs as a Christian. In most religious stories, the people who pray the most and believe most in God are always the people who end up living, but in the Nun Prioress's tale, he died. The little boy, who went out of his way to learn a song that was far too difficult for him so that he could praise the Virgin Mary, was killed by a hired assassin for singing it. Though it was a more traditional religious story in that he's brought back to life, he still ends up dying very soon after. This also demonstrates that Chaucer has a very obvious dislike for Jewish people. Although she is a obviously a very religious woman, she still wears jewelry, though nuns usually dress very simply, and without any ornaments. While this tale is not my favorite, what I like about it is that the satire is not as glaring obvious as it is in most other tales.
In response to Gaia: I agree with you, looking back, the Knight's Tale is a very subtly satirical tale in that it's so perfect it can't possibly be real. Most of his other stories are pretty realistic, but in this one, it's very obvious that everything is going to work out for the best and there will be a "happily ever after" ending.
The use of satire is weaved throughout most of the Canterbury tales. I chose, in my opinion, the least exciting tale thus far; yet, even with its lack of excitement the shipman's tale shows a clear example of satire. The tale mocks the monk. He is noticably not celebate, sleeping with the merchants wife. The very fact that he's disrespecting the merchant, his supposed friend, in having sexual relations with his wife. In the prologue this ridicule of the monk can also be seen, where the excessive detail of the monk's livelihood is exposed; a livelihood which defies all that a true and devout monk would ever stand for. The prologue carries out the task of satire very well, disdaining or atleast exacerbating numerous qualities of the characters. The stance and perspective on these characters either reiterated in tales, like that of the monk (where the repuation is rewritten about in the Shipman's tale), or ironically contradicted as that of the nun (she is described as a pious, holy, and gentle woman in the prologue and tells of such a gruesome tale). In response to Aaron, I agree that the Reeve's tale shows a delibrate task of using satire. This is the cause of most of the irony and ridicule throughout the tales. The Summoner and the Friar compete with the creating satiracal tales mocking each other because of the strife between the two. You mentioned the rude stereotyping The Reeve uses to mock the miller. I agree with you and you backed up your case that this type of satire is seen in the tale; however, I think its interesting to recognize the various types of satire used. Some tales are more subtle about it as the Shipman's tale is, there isn't some background strife going on between the character telling it and the character being mocked. Conversely, in other tales there is a previous disagreement and the ridicule is personal and delibrate.
I'm not sure that love at first sight is a completely ridiculous idea. Just because it does not happen very often does not mean that it is ridiculous or over the top. Perhaps it could be viewed as a little ridiculous, but I think it was intended to show true love and not poke fun at it. If the knight's tale really is satire it is very subtle.
My personal favorite form of satire in the Canterbury Tales one that might not be as satirical as outrightly hostile. It's not even during one of the tales themselves, but instead during the prologue of one: The Summoner's prologue is all about how much the people who are in the Frair's profession believe that they are in God's favour, while in the Summoner's personal opinion they are all destined for the lowest, most dead place in hell (the devil's arse). I personally just love the imagery of little friar's rushing around hell and this frair (reportably a well-meaning man) just gasping at them in amazement.
As for the true love thing debate, I believe that while it IS pretty ridiculous, and really silly, love is seen as being that way in general, and that is something that hasn't changed throughout the years. Just look at any romantic movie today (particularly your American ones; most of them are some of the funniest things I have ever had the pleasure of seeing). But in this case I don't think Chaucer was really insulting the Knight's idea of love at all, since it was so prevalent at the time to show what 'true love' really meant.
Chaucer's Canterbury Tales are filled with satire. Each story makes fun of some profession whether it be there own, or another. My personal favorite is the Wife of Bath's tale, because her character is truly over the top.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Chaucer was attempting to add some sort of feminism to the tales, just to give women some respect. But he satirizes this character by blowing her feminism way out of proportion. A feminist is expected to fight for the equality of women, but Chaucer goes as far as to make the Wife of Bath against men. The Wife of Bath makes the comment, "A man must yield his wife her debt" (262). The Wife of Bath spends much of her prologue telling how men are in debt to women. Also that women, instead of just having equality, should have control over their husbands. She "had them eating from [her] hand, and as they yielded their gold and land" (264). Obviously the Wife of Bath has taken the upper hand, which is a little extreme.
Another way Chaucer satirizes the Wife of Bath is through her inability to keep a husband. The wife of Bath makes it very clear that she is in favor of marriage. "Better it is to marry than to burn." (260) Even though she thinks that people should be married she cannot stay with a husband.
A third and final way Chaucer satirizes the Wife of Bath is through her tale. Her tale is mainly based on the idea that a man should love a woman for more than her looks, but for what is deep in her heart. The old hag in the tale says, "You have two choices; which one will you try?" (291) The knights two choices are to have the old hag stay that way and be loyal or to have her be young and pretty but not loyal. Of course the knight chooses the hag and is rewarded for it. But, the Wife of Bath does not seem to think that marriage (which is supposed to signify love) works this way. She believes that men or only good for sex and their "gold and land", which goes against the moral of her tale.
Ultimately, the Wife of Bath is an over the top feminist, whose original intent was to bring in a woman's point of view. Instead, the Wife of Bath mocks feminism.
My favorite tale in the Canterbury Tales is the pardoner's tale. Chaucer uses his finest type of satire in the tale because it is subtle. In some tales like the friar, summoner and miller's tales the tone is openly mocking of other professions. The irony in the pardoner's tale is obvious. He is a dishonest man who sells fake relics and prays on people's fears to swindle them, yet, he tells a meditative story on the evils of greed and the fallible nature of man.
ReplyDeleteThe summoner is aware of his dishonesty and does not seem bothered by it like when he says in his prologue "I mean to have money, wool, and cheese and wheat though it were given to me by the poorest lad or the poorest village widow, though she had a string of starving children all agape." (p.244). However on the next page his character says " O cursed gluttony, our first distress Cause of our first confusion, first temptation, the very origin of our damnation." (p45)
The whole summoner's tale is riddled with contrasts between his unrepentant bragging in the prologue and the mournful nature of his tale.
In response to Megan:
ReplyDeleteI don't really think that the Wife of Bath is an exaggeration or satire of feminism as much as a character who Chaucer created to express his ow views. In 1400, when Chaucer wrote, the Renaissance was just starting in Italy and though Chaucer might have come into contact with it through his travels, it had not yet arrived in England. In this climate between Middle Ages and Renaissance the censoring by the Church as well as the inconceivability of the the things the Wife is saying were not as strong as two hundred years prior but still deeply rooted in society. Chaucer is saying things he believes but cannot come out and say (as a respected member of the court, and a man) and so creates an over-the-top women to say his views for him. The Wife's tale is the only one where she is not openly mocked by the author or self contradicting. Her personality and values stay the same throughout the text and she seems self aware (a quality the others lack) when she says " but age has come...and taken all my beauty and my pith" (p.271)
It is definitely apparent that Chaucer loves using satire, and finds it very funny when he does. Many, if not most, of his tales are satirical in some way, whether it be making fun of a certain type of person or of a situation. Although there are so many great examples of satire in his tales, I think that my favorite has to be the friar's tale. There are many reasons for this, but first and foremost it is because the friar's tale is simply blatantly and wholeheartedly derisive of summoners. It would take a very slow person to realize that people during Chaucer's time were not huge fans of them. Chaucer also employs satire to make fun of the summoner throughout his tale, which seems to be a common theme throughout the tales.
ReplyDeleteOne example of satire in the Friar's tale is that the Summoner meets the devil, and decides that he likes him so much that they should become sworn brothers. This would be an incredible insult at the time, and a quite over the top example of satire. "Bowels of pity, conscience, I have none. Plague on these penance-fathers every one! We make a pair, by God and Saint James!" (p. 297). Chaucer clearly makes the point that the Summoner is drawn to and idolizes the devil. Another example of satire in the Friar's tale is the fact that the Summoner, a person who in theory is repenting people's sins, is actually running around with the devil and extorting everyone from the sick to very old women and not actually doing anything for them. For example, the Summoner attempts to take twelve pence from an old lady who has no money and has done nothing wrong; "My master gets the profit, and not me. Come off it, I'm in haste. It's got to be. Give me twelve pence. No time to wait, old fairy." (p. 301). This is clearly behavior that should not be emitted by a Summoner, and yet Chaucer just loves to satirize the characters in his tales!
Also, in response to Nick and Megan's debate about whether or not Chaucer is satirizing women through the Wife of Bath, I can see both sides. For one, it appears as though the Wife of Bath is extremely over the top, and would certainly be considered a raving feminist. However, I can also see how Chaucer could be creating an "over-the-top women to say his views for him.". I think that this is a case where it really comes down to personal opinion about Chaucer's work. It would also be useful if we knew a little bit more about Chaucer himself, because then we could perhaps be a little bit more sure about which way he is taking the Wife of Bath.
My favorite Canturbury tale is the Knight's Tale. This tale satirizes the genre of chivalric romances. These were tales of love and adventure, often involving knights and the code of chivalry. The Knight's Tale is an over-the-top chivalric romance, subtly making fun of chivalric ideals and the courtly lifestyle.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the whole concept of Palamon's love at first sight with Emily is ridiculous and quite silly. When Palamon first sees Emily, "he blenched and gave a cry as though he had been stabbed, and to the heart" (pg. 32). Later, after he escapes from prison, he and Arcite have a bloody duel (pg. 47) over who gets to have Emily, even though she has never expressed any romantic interests in either of them, and never gets a say in the matter. After Arcite falls from his horse and dies, Theseus decrees that Palamon will be Emily's husband, again without even asking her if this is ok (pg. 85). In fact, earlier in the tale, she expressed that she wanted to remain a virgin forever, so I bet she didn't want to be wed off to either of these lustful knights.
This is a satire of the chivalric romances because by exaggeration, it pokes fun at these types of tales. Is it really realistic for someone to see someone of the opposite sex, and then be so overcome by their beauty that they feel physical pain? Or that two brothers fight to the death over the affection of a girl who might not even want either of them? By presenting these extremely idealized and ridiculous chivalric behaviors in the knight's tale, Chaucer is satirizing the courtly lifestyle in which women aren't even respected enough to factor there say into the decision of who they are to marry, and knights fight to bloody end over who gets to marry a women who might not want either of them.
I response to Nick:
I agree with you in that Chaucer is not satirizing the Wife of Bath in her tale and prologue. I think he is expressing his own feminist views through it, and if he made the Wife of Bath over-the-top, it is due to the fact that the views of women are disrespected so much that the backlash has created monsters such as the Wife of Bath. Also, her tale does not satirize feminism, in fact, it is a chivalric romance with a feminist twist. The knight in the tale, simply for letting a women make her own decision, gets the best qualities of both options the women was forcing him to choose between. It is not satirizing feminism, but showing that if men and women work together, relationships will be much better.
Every tale in the Canterbury tales is full of satire, most of the satire is making fun of someone else's profession, like the Friar dissing the summoner,and the Reeve making fun of the Miller. My favorite satirical tale however has to be the Wife of Baath's tale. Her tale is so over the top and exagerated that it is almost unbearable. She so unbelievably over uses her disdain towards men as a tool to allow her to marry as many men as she wants. Also this idea of women being able to divorce and have another husband (or four) is a very contemporary idea. In the 1400's it was not appropriate or accepted for women to have more than one husband, and it certainly wansnt acceptable for them to be so brazen about sex. "Blessed be God that i have wedded five! welcome the sixth, whenever he appears"(259) I think that this passage backs up what I have been saying, that she is the opposite of the "ideal woman" especailly back in the 1400's. In conclusion the Wife of Bath is one of the most satarized characters in the whole book, and her tale is chock full of satire.
ReplyDeleteMany of the tales that Chaucer has written are very funny to read just because they are so blatantly mocking the various characters he demonstrates in his tale. The Knight's Tale, Wife's of Bath, and Miller's tale are all examples of this satire. My personal favorite tale is the Miller's tale just because it is so ridiculous. The Miller is very drunk when he tells his tale, so even that makes you think that Chaucer is satirizing millers for being oafs. Chaucer describes the miller in the general prologue as "a wrangler and a buffoon, he had a store of tavern stories, filthy in the main. He was a master of stealing grain (page 18)." Then the actual tale is full of farts and buffoonery. Chaucer is obviously making fun of how meticulous and proper churchgoers can be with the character of Absalon. Absalon tries very hard to win the love of Alison with poetry and music, but it fails. "From day to day this jolly Absalon, wooing away, became quite woe-begone; he lay awake all night, and all the day, combed his thick locks and tried to pass for gay (page 93)." Chaucer also makes fun of carpenters, for the character John in the story becomes convinced he needs to build raft like tubs in preparation for a big flood. By the end, all the characters have been mocked somehow. This is topped with Nicholas getting a hot poker up the behind. There are many ways one can analyize this story, but I think the most important factor is to note that Chaucer can always find a way to satirize all of his characters.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the Wife of Bath debate:
I agree with Scott that this issue can be taken either way. The wife of bath is an over the top feminist, and Chaucer clearly satirizes this with her behavior. If one looks at this tale more extensively, it shows Chaucer's own opinions. I think that it is important to realize that every single of Chaucer's tale reflect his viewpoints in someway. We can initially see this by looking at his general prologue. Some of the characters like the knight and the monk he seems to respect more. Others, like the miller he doesn't revere as much.
While one can analyize this in great detail, I think it is fair to say Chaucer always inserts his viewpoint somewhere in each of his tales.
After reading The Canterbury Tales, it becomes quite obvious that the entire book is a satire. From tale to tale, Chaucer mocks the storyteller in ridiculous ways. My favorite example of satire is the Nun Prioress. I love the fact that Chaucer is mocking both the Prioress and the church itself in this tale. The Nun Prioress tells the story of a young christian boy who learns a song that commemorates the Virgin Mary. He sings this song throughout the Jewish Ghetto near his town, and because of the barbaric Jews, he is killed in an alley corner by an assassin. To understand the satire in this tale, you have to read the general prologue. In the general prologue, Chaucer describes the Prioress as neat, well mannered, and proper. He then goes on to describe how she speaks and what she wears. This is where the satire really comes out. He describes her as "And she spoke daintily in French, extremely, After the school of Stratford-atte-Bowe;" (p.6). By telling the reader that she speaks prep-school french, Chaucer is subtly showing us her pretentiousness. When he then says, "She wore a coral trinket on her arm, A set of beads, the gaudies tricked in green, whence hung a golden brooch of brightest sheen" (p.7) He is showing us that she has broken her vow of poverty and devotion to the church. These subtle hints help us see the satire in her tale as well. Her tale is full of anti-semitism and is a sermon itself. Knowing these things about her from the prologue completely undermines the importance of her tale. I really like this use of satire because it's not very obvious like it is in the other tales. Chaucer is using subtlety in making fun of this member of the church, which is probably how he got away with doing it at all. Instead of portraying this woman (who devoted her life to the church) in the light of a wonderful nun, he subtly makes her seem hypocritical and selfish. I love that about this tale.
ReplyDeleteI think that a tale that I found very satiric, but maybe the one that is most subtly satirical out of all the tales is the Knight's tale. In the first place, just the fact that the Knight's tale is the longest tale in the book is satirical. It is a knight's tale, so it is very romantic and drawn out, but Chaucer chose to draw it out more than realistically. In fact, when the knight finishes his tale, the host asks the miller to " pay the knight back a little" and the Miller says "By blood and bones and belly, I've got a noble story I can tell'ee, I'll pay the knight his wages". I found that there was a little bit of irony on his part when he said this, especially because the tale he would later tell was not noble in any way. Only now, after I have read all the rest of the tales which are much less chivalric and romantic than the knight's tale can I see just how satirical and ironic the Knight's tale is. The whole Knight's tale is surreal because it is all so perfect in its way, even when the events in the story are going in the wrong direction, somehow while I read it I knew it would turn out well, and hope was not to be lost, because, after all, it is a Knight's tale where being chivalric pays off. At the end, when it says "And thus with every bliss and melody Palomon was espoused to Emily..." and "He's tenderly beloved of Emily and serves he with a tender constancy, and never a jealous word between them is spoken or other sorrow in love unbroken". This is just the typical "happily ever after", which is so unrealistic, and not what would happen in real life, and definitely not how the other tales ended. Even in the Wife of Bath's tale where things ended happily, the young wife would soon grow old, and the husband would look lose interest, in other words it wasn't "true love" like the idealistic love in the Knight's tale.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Keegan:
I agree that the "love at first sight" in the knight's tale is unrealistic and exaggerated. His reaction was so exaggerated it was almost funny. But I disagree with the fact that it was satirical that the king didn't ask Emily her opinion when Thesus was going to marry her, back then I think that women were very rarely asked if they wanted to marry someone, it was more the man's decision that counted.
in response to the wife of bath debate:
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree that I don't think the Wife of Bath is much of a satire. She is over the top, but I think that is more due to the fact that if a woman was to be a feminist during that time, she MUST have been over the top to even have been listened to. Back then, women's rights weren't even a joke because they weren't even considered. Yes, it is evident that Chaucer inserts his own beliefs into her tale, but I don't think that really makes it a satire. Chaucer is going to insert his own opinions into every tale because he is the author- he is the one that takes these tales from oral traditions to literature. It would be impossible to write these tales down without doing so.
My favorite tale was not the Shipman's tale, but it is one of the ones that has not been discussed yet, so I will talk about it here.
ReplyDeleteThe Shipman tells the story of the Merchant with the beautiful wife and the Monk, who has an affair with the Merchant's wife. Monks are clearly satirized here, because holy men are not supposed to have relations with women in the first place, and much less are they supposed to have relations with married women. Chaucer also satirizes and insults the monk by having him be dishonest and a bad friend. At the beginning of the tale the Shipman states that the Merchant and the Monk were very good friends, and that both were glad of each others friendship. But later when the Monk is seducing the Merchant's wife, he throws out these claims, saying "Cousin indeed, he's no more cousin to me, than this leaf hanging on the tree, I call him so, but by the saints of France, I do so only for a better chance of seeing you!" Here the monk, who is supposed to be a pious man of good moral value, is shown to be a two timing low dow scammer. He would disown his best friend the Merchant just for a chance to sleep with the man's wife. As we see at the end of this tale, there is no retributory tale from an angry monk, and the Host applauds the Shipman's tale, saying, "Long life to you... A load of lousy luck upon that monk!" This shows us that Chaucer is not Satirizing the petty squables between two commoners by having a pointless back and forth argument occur, but rather he is aiming a personal shot at Monk's in general by having this tale go unopposed.
I would agree with Sasha about the Wife of Bath's tale. I feel like her story lines up very well with her character. She is a strong willed opinionated woman, who believes woman should be the equals of men, and her story is about how when men give woman more power, things always turn out for the best. In fact I would argue that the Wife of Bath's story contains the least satire of all the stories that we have read this year. She tells a story which challenges the ideas about differences between sexes, and she herself is a person who breaks the mold for women of the day. I think that this is a tale where Chaucer is simply expressing his own views, not writing for the sake of expressing a character.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite Canterbury tale was the Wife of Bath's tale, but (as has just been said) this tale is far to serious to be satirical. A better example of satire, in my opinion, is found in the Reeve's tale (which, as a disclaimer, is not my favorite tale). There are two types of satirical tales told in the Canterbury Tales. First are tales where the teller unknowingly satirizes his or her own profession. The Pardoner's tale is an example of such satire. Second are tales where the teller knowingly satirizes another pilgrim's profession. The Reeve's tale is an example of this conscious and purposeful satire.
ReplyDeleteThe Reeve's tale takes place immediately after the Miller's tale. The Miller began his tale after rudely usurping the Monk, and with the Host's unhappy permission, "Well, blast you then, you may. You fool (87)!" Furthermore, the Miller's tale ridicules a carpenter. The Reeve, undoubtedly upset by this insult, as well as by the Miller's general conduct, takes offense and promptly "pays him back in his own filthy words (108)." The Reeve then begins to deprecate millers by describing his character as being "proud as any peacock" and then having him be tricked. The Reeve also establishes that his miller physically formidable and carries "a Sheffield dagger (108)," and yet is defeated in the end of the tale by two boys. Additionally, the miller is said to be "a thief as well of corn and meal (109)," and yet is eventually robbed himself. Finally, there are insulting physical features that the Reeve ascribes to his miller, such as having a "puggish" nose and being "baled as an ape," that probably allude to medieval stereotypes.
In the instances above, the Reeve describes the miller as perceiving himself to be a certain way (proud, strong, etc.) and then describes events to show that these perceptions are not in fact true. This demonstrates that millers are a) hypocrites as well as b) weak people capable of being tricked. The Reeve also draws on rude stereotypes to further mock the Miller.
In response to Nick,
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Pardoner's Tale is full of satire. I do wonder, though, if he was aware of how hypocritical his tale really was. It was my impression that all of the pilgrims take themselves too seriously to parody themselves. If this is true, the Pardoner must have thought either that his tale reflected the values of pardoning, or that pardoning was a nobel task in line with his tale.
In my opinion, the Nun Prioress's tale contained a lot of satire. In the prologue, she is described as a very well-mannered, respectable woman who is kind and peaceful, but her tale is one of the most violent of all the tales. Her tale also contradicts some of her beliefs as a Christian. In most religious stories, the people who pray the most and believe most in God are always the people who end up living, but in the Nun Prioress's tale, he died. The little boy, who went out of his way to learn a song that was far too difficult for him so that he could praise the Virgin Mary, was killed by a hired assassin for singing it. Though it was a more traditional religious story in that he's brought back to life, he still ends up dying very soon after. This also demonstrates that Chaucer has a very obvious dislike for Jewish people. Although she is a obviously a very religious woman, she still wears jewelry, though nuns usually dress very simply, and without any ornaments. While this tale is not my favorite, what I like about it is that the satire is not as glaring obvious as it is in most other tales.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Gaia:
I agree with you, looking back, the Knight's Tale is a very subtly satirical tale in that it's so perfect it can't possibly be real. Most of his other stories are pretty realistic, but in this one, it's very obvious that everything is going to work out for the best and there will be a "happily ever after" ending.
The use of satire is weaved throughout most of the Canterbury tales. I chose, in my opinion, the least exciting tale thus far; yet, even with its lack of excitement the shipman's tale shows a clear example of satire. The tale mocks the monk. He is noticably not celebate, sleeping with the merchants wife. The very fact that he's disrespecting the merchant, his supposed friend, in having sexual relations with his wife. In the prologue this ridicule of the monk can also be seen, where the excessive detail of the monk's livelihood is exposed; a livelihood which defies all that a true and devout monk would ever stand for. The prologue carries out the task of satire very well, disdaining or atleast exacerbating numerous qualities of the characters. The stance and perspective on these characters either reiterated in tales, like that of the monk (where the repuation is rewritten about in the Shipman's tale), or ironically contradicted as that of the nun (she is described as a pious, holy, and gentle woman in the prologue and tells of such a gruesome tale).
ReplyDeleteIn response to Aaron, I agree that the Reeve's tale shows a delibrate task of using satire. This is the cause of most of the irony and ridicule throughout the tales. The Summoner and the Friar compete with the creating satiracal tales mocking each other because of the strife between the two. You mentioned the rude stereotyping The Reeve uses to mock the miller. I agree with you and you backed up your case that this type of satire is seen in the tale; however, I think its interesting to recognize the various types of satire used. Some tales are more subtle about it as the Shipman's tale is, there isn't some background strife going on between the character telling it and the character being mocked. Conversely, in other tales there is a previous disagreement and the ridicule is personal and delibrate.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Keegan:
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that love at first sight is a completely ridiculous idea. Just because it does not happen very often does not mean that it is ridiculous or over the top. Perhaps it could be viewed as a little ridiculous, but I think it was intended to show true love and not poke fun at it. If the knight's tale really is satire it is very subtle.
My personal favorite form of satire in the Canterbury Tales one that might not be as satirical as outrightly hostile. It's not even during one of the tales themselves, but instead during the prologue of one: The Summoner's prologue is all about how much the people who are in the Frair's profession believe that they are in God's favour, while in the Summoner's personal opinion they are all destined for the lowest, most dead place in hell (the devil's arse). I personally just love the imagery of little friar's rushing around hell and this frair (reportably a well-meaning man) just gasping at them in amazement.
ReplyDeleteAs for the true love thing debate, I believe that while it IS pretty ridiculous, and really silly, love is seen as being that way in general, and that is something that hasn't changed throughout the years. Just look at any romantic movie today (particularly your American ones; most of them are some of the funniest things I have ever had the pleasure of seeing). But in this case I don't think Chaucer was really insulting the Knight's idea of love at all, since it was so prevalent at the time to show what 'true love' really meant.