ESSAY: ANOTHER LOOK AT THE CANTERBURY TALES

 

I’M NOT SURE IF THIS SHORT ESSAY WAS WRITTEN for my Chaucer course from long ago in the Way Back. It may have been, but unfortunately my archives were broken into by a bunch of magpies and papers got scattered about and used for execrable purposes. It could have been better written on my part, and I have done some editing of it for this post. My prof took it to task and red penned sections of it. I include his/her comments for readers because we can all learn from my mistakes. And hey, it’s not thaat bad!

 

Cheers, Jake.

 

The Monk: Characterization in the Prologue to The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer

 

It is appropriate that Chaucer chooses to introduce the Monk immediately following the Prioress, where he is described as an “outridere” (l. 166), someone associated with a monastery but who operates at a distance from it. In the pilgrimage, the Monk is associated with the Prioress and her group, but he is not actually part of their company. For the Monk, this distance is a spiritual one as much as it is physical.

Chaucer’s narrator begins by characterizing the Monk as “fair” (l. 165), that is, he is a fine example of a monk. The irony of this description is shortly revealed by lines in which we see the Monk characterized first as someone who loves hunting, “venerye” (l. 166), and who is also “manly” (l. 167) or someone who is strongly masculine. Both these descriptions suggest the Monk is motivated more by the senses than by a sense of spirituality. [Nicely expressed.] Should not a Monk first love God? And the fact that “venerye” has sexual connotations (OED, 3603) makes us suspect that the Monk is less in possession of those qualities that make an “abbott able” (l. 167) than the poem's opening lines would suggest. The fact that the narrator feels the Monk is unworthy of his office seems clear to us at this point and the obvious irony of the first line is revealed. But it is the presentation of subtle ironies of self-deception that Chaucer’s characterizations excel. We learn quickly enough that the narrator observes and condemns the greed and corruption of the Summoner, Pardoner, and the Monk. But it is through observations of their clothing and possessions, their physical mannerisms and instances of revealed motivation and biography that their individual personalities, complete with their illusions, emerge from behind what would otherwise be merely descriptions of stereotypical social “types”. There is the sense throughout the Prologue that for most of the characters self-deception is a common human failing. That is perhaps why Chaucer’s narrator does not condemn them, as unworthy as some of the pilgrims seem to be. We are all on the same pilgrimage, he seems to be telling us. 

 

Returning to the Monk, we find that this lover of hunting rides his “daintee” (l. 168) horse through the countryside with harness bells loudly “Ginglen in the whistling wind” (l. 170). One wonders how much game such a hunter will win given how he announces his presence every time he goes out riding. The reader contrasts this obvious demonstration of pride and lack of common sense with that of the description of the Yeoman who dresses simply and wears a Saint Christopher’s medal, and who is notably well versed in “wodecraft” (line 110). The fact that the narrator characterizes the Monk’s bells as being as loud as the chapel bells of the cell the Monk oversees clearly indicates how important hunting is to the Monk, or rather how important it is for the Monk to give the impression to others he is a hunter. It should be noted that the Benedictine Order practices the vow of silence. [Did you research this point?] The monk’s prideful use of harness bells gives us a clear picture as to his view of this rule. It should also be noted that the narrator refers to the Monk as the ‘Kepere” (l. 172) of the cell, reminding us that the Monk is someone who uses the power of his office to act with impunity—in this case to pursue his “lust” (l. 192) for hunting.

In the next section, Chaucer’s narrator provides us with a description of the Monk’s motivations as they are revealed in his commentary concerning the value of church doctrine, specifically the precepts of the Benedictine Order of which he is a member. Amusingly, [Not clear why this is amusing—he could be a progressive reformer.] the narrator reveals the Monk did not believe in the teachings of St. Maurus or St. Benedict because the rules were too old and essentially not in keeping with modern times. The Monk neglects to mention that the rules of the order are also strict. In two concise lines, Chaucer contrasts the narrator’s more accurate perception of the Monk’s character with the Monk’s self-deceptions. The Monk does not see he chooses to follow his own rules because the rules of his monastery are too demanding for him. Instead, he lets old things “pace” (l. 175).

 

The Monk has stated that the laws of the monastic order consider hunters to be “nought holy men” (l. 178) and therefore are not worth obeying. In fact, this rationalization by the Monk for not honouring his vows has little to do with the actual activity of hunting itself. Instead, it has more to do with the context in which hunting, and all other human activities, must be placed: namely within a Christian community. [Your expression is too cryptic here and you do not say what you mean] This is something the Monk does not accept; such a text, he says, is not worth an “oystre” (l. 182). (His example of an oyster is ironic as it is a creature leading an isolated, solitary existence, much like the Monk himself.

Chaucer uses the image of a fish out of water (the fish, a symbol of Christianity) to underscore the absurdity of the Monk’s position. He is, in fact, ‘outside’ the community of Christians. Chaucer’s use of the phrase “This is to sayn” (l. 181), which connects the two images of a fish out of water and a monk out of his cloister, ironically reinforces this view of the Monk.

In the next section, the narrator describes the Monk as a “prikasour” (l. 189). Since he is a monk in name [Not what you mean—he IS a monk] only, the narrator turns to an examination of the identity that the Monk professes to be his true one: that of a hard rider and hunter. His hunting dogs are described as being as “swift as fowl in flight.” (l. 190). We note that while the Monk sees little worth in domesticated chicken, as earlier he insisted the teachings of the Saints were of no more value than a “pulled hen” (l. 177), presumably, wild fowl are of greater value to him, reflecting perhaps his lack of reverence for life.* [There doesn’t seem to be much basis in the text for these conclusions] We also note, in the closing line of the Monk’s introduction, that his favourite food is swan, not wild boar or bear, or even hare that we presume a hunter would normally acquire but a domesticated and easily obtainable game fowl. Again, we note the obvious contrast between the Monk professes himself to be, a hunter, and what he actually is, namely, “a lord ful fat” (l. 200). With greyhounds swift as birds doing the work of running the hares to ground, there would be little else for him to do except to ride up, harness bells jingling, and collect his prey. The fact that his only passion is in hunting hares shows us how absurdly self-deceived he is. A true hunter hunts what is necessary and available to hunt, not what he chooses to hunt. The darkly humorous image of the Monk sparing no expense in his hunting endeavours suggests the contemporary image of the self-styled “hunter” spending thousands of dollars to kill an animal on a game farm. Of course, the fact that he wears only the finest fur clothing further elaborates for us how self-deceived he is. A true hunter would wear what fur is available and gotten from the labour of his own hands. 

 

The next description continues the examination of the Monk’s clothing. He wears a gold pin on his cloak containing the design of a stylized “love knot” (l. 197). The pin of gold is luxurious and markedly un-monk-like, and the love knot design is not a true love knot. Love knots were generally made of cloth and exchanged between lovers as a token of affection. (O.E.D., 1670) As he wears a representation of a love knot, this reinforces our view of him as “representing” himself, first as a Monk, then a hunter (and finally as a lover). The fact that the design is at the “grettere” (l. 197) end of the pin suggests the importance representation and false images play in his life. His cloak’s hood hides a bald head, that “shoon as any glas,” (l.198), suggesting his vanity, and is in contrast to the quiet green clothing and “brown visage” (l. 109) of the Yeoman. The Monk’s appearance also contrasts with the dignity and quiet grace of the Parson.

 

Next, Chaucer puns on the word “anoint” (l. 199) with its connotations of baptism and the sacramental inclusion into the Christian community. Here, the Monk’s face is ‘anointed’, but with the sweat and grease of his favourite food: “A fat swan” (l. 201). The narrator provides us with images of the Monk’s obesity and gluttony, saying he is “full fat” (l. 200), for example. We are told his eyes are like pots—cooking pot—glowing in a furnace; they bulge with gluttonous desire in an un-monk-like manner.

His boots are, of course, supple. He does not use them save for show. His horse was a “palfrey” (l. 107), an ordinary riding horse, often described as a “ladies” horse (O.E.D., 2058), and therefore unsuitable both for hunting and for a monk (especially a fat one).

Finally, the narrator describes the Monk as “nat pale as a forpined gost” (l. 205). This is interesting because the word ghost (“gost”) also describes the seat of spiritually in a person, the soul (O.E.D., 1138). But Chaucer uses this image to describe the Monk’s physical characteristics. He is by no means “ghost-like”. In fact, he is a fat, fleshy, red-faced lord. This also describes the Monk’s spiritual condition, for he is a “manly man” (l. 167) and not of the spirit.

 

In his characterization of the monk, Chaucer provides us with a description of a person in full flight from the reality [use" values" here instead to better qualify this] of his life. We see that he is neither a Monk nor is he a hunter, as he imagines himself to be. His actions in the world lack integrity because they lack context. [Not clear] Chaucer would say that his actions must be placed [unclear] within a Christian framework. To understand this, we must answer the question the narrator earlier posed: “How shal the world be served?” (l. 187). The Monk is right to say the world will not be served studying books and labouring with his hands. For him, these actions are divorced from their context. Instead, it is not the world that must be served, but God. The Monk has failed to grasp this basic message. Finally, the greatest irony for the Monk lies in his rejection of the teachings of “Austin” (l. 187), that is Saint Augustine, who was a Benedictine monk and the founder of the Christian church in Britain (Britannica, 700). He was also the first Archbishop of Canterbury, [ new arguments, facts, evidence should NOT be introduced during your summation] toward which the monk now “wolden ride[s]” (l. 27).

_______________________________________________________

 

 

* I agree with my prof's criticism here. My conclusion about the Monk here seems trite and superficial, and tossed-off without enought thought. His favouring "wild" fowl is probably more about his view of himself as a 'hunter'. (I might have been pushing it a bit.)

 

 

Works Cited

 

Chaucer, Geoffery. The Canterbury Tales. in The Norton Anthology of English Literature. Vol.1. Fifth ed. Ed. M.H. Abrams. N.Y: Norton, 1986.

 

Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. 2 vols. N.Y: Oxford University Press, 1971.

 

Goetz, Philip, W., ed. The New Encyclopedia Britannica. Vol. 1 Chicago: U of C Press, 1981. 

 

PROF COMMENTS: -5% failure to document properly. you make several good points, and the essay is lucidly written but ALL of your quotations from Chaucer are improperly documented. Don--you have written an essay that is in many places very fine, searching and often scholarly. You recognize, with some degree of subtly, the careful employment of irony to reveal character. Almost all of your paragraphs are very well constructed. At the core of each is solid and convincing evidence that supports your generalizations. I had no trouble detecting your themes and your argument is well-structured, interesting, and persuasive. This is an A- paper judged on content. the paper suffers however, from problems of expression—in fact one major problem ought to be overcome (your overuse of dashes and parenthesis—subordinate clauses--the pitfalls of which I have tried to illustrate here). [unclear] gave [unclear] 5% for [unclear] errors, but I do count 3% in penalties. Still, I am amending your grade to B+

 

[In response to my prof’s comments, I am not sure of the correct quotation documentation that should have been used. And I am not sure whether I’ve previously corrected it when I transcribed my Uni essays onto a Word document from my original hardcopy (old school) notes, some years ago. I think I have corrected most of my “subordinate clause” errors (Bad habit of mine.) And use of parenthesis. (Almost!) 

My summary is a bit unpolished and somewhat disjointed; it seems rushed. If I was closer to the material, I would have tried to do more rewriting, but it's been a while since I've read any Chaucer. So I deserved what I got, grade-wise, but I’m glad my prof found the paper generally well-written, though. Live and learn.]