GEOFFREY CHAUCER:
THE CANTERBURY TALES
THE REEVE'S TALE
THE PRIORESS'S TALE
THE HOUSE OF FAME
BOOK III
LIFE OF THE AUTHOR
Geoffrey Chaucer, one of the greatest of English writers, made
his living as a civil servant and composed poetry as an avocation. His
career, however, was such as to contribute to his literary growth. He
was born about 1343 of a prosperous family and reared in London.
His father, a wine-importer, was able to find him a position as a
page boy in the household of King Edward III’s daughter in law,
Elizabeth of Ulster; and from this period on, despite the political
uncertainties of the age, Chaucer enjoyed the uninterrupted favour of
the members of the court of, successively, Edward, Richard II and
Henry IV, both as a man of affairs and as a poet.
He served as a soldier in France in the campaigns of the
Hundred Year’s War in 1359-1360 and was sent abroad on at least
seven occasions between 1368 and 1387, either to France or Italy, on
diplomatic missions. He acquired the training necessary for business,
probably at the law school known as the Inner Temple.
He acted in London as a Controller of Customs from 1374 to
1385, he became a Justice of the Peace in Kent in 1385 and a
member of Parliament for the county in 1386, served in London again
from 1389 to 1391 as a Clerk of the Works, and he was thereafter
awarded a less active royal appointment as subforester.
He was married to Philippa Roet of Flanders, who was lady-in-
waiting to Queen Philippa and later to John of Gaunt’s second wife
Constance. Records suggest that he had two sons and a daughter and
that his wife died in 1387. He died in 1400 in a house which he had
rented in the grounds of Westminster Abbey, and he was buried in
that section of the Abbey later to become famous as the Poet’s
Corner.
The maturation of Chaucer’s genius can be illustrated by four
works. In the Book of the Duchess the poet dreams that he shares the
grief of a lonely young knight, who proves to be John of Gaunt
mourning his newly lost first wife. The conception is original and the
expression of sympathy is gracefully tender, but the framework of the
dream-vision and the knight’s description of his love are strongly
influenced by French models.
In the uncompleted House of Fame, another dream-vision, the
poet is carried off by an eagle to learn whether those who are in the
service of Love are happy or not.
In Troilus and Criseyde, Chaucer’s first major achievement, he
applies the classical romance giving depth to the sorrowful Troilus,
elusiveness to the timid Criseyde, robust comicality to the officious
Pandarus, immediacy to the setting, and a new significance to the
tragedy of the two lovers separated by the Trojan War.
In The Canterbury Tales a masterpiece even greater than
Troilus though uncompleted, Chaucer turned to the English scene, as
had his contemporaries Langland and Gower, and excelled all the
writers of his era in his delineation of the men, women, children, and
animals familiar to him in real life. A richly assorted group of pilgrims
entertain themselves by telling stories on the way from London to
Canterbury.
Through his descriptions in the General Prologue and
dramatisations in the links connecting the tales he portrays in detail
seven members, of the feudal order, thirteen people associated with
religious life, and fourteen townspeople – the chivalrous Knight, the
aristocratic Prioress, the fraudulent Pardoner, the impoverished
Canon’s Yeoman, the amorous Wife of Bath, the reticent civil servant
who is Chaucer himself, and the rest who have gained an
independent identity.
And the tales which Chaucer has supplied match the tellers in
their rich variety –the knight’s courtly romance, the Miller’s racy
fabliau, the Second Nun’s pious saint’s life, the Nun’s Priest mock-
heroic fable, the Pardoner’s hypocritical sermon, and the Parson’s
sincere one.
Like most medieval craftsmen, Chaucer whether as young
apprentice or as mature master, followed the pattern of established
models; and his success can therefore be partially explained by the
vast extent of his reading of “old, approvèd stories”. Sources or
analogues have been found for almost all of his works and even for
his style. His comic tone, for instance, often seems reminiscent of his
favourite Latin poet, Ovid; and his philosophical ideas are usually
those of Boethius. He appears to have culled materials in turn from
the French – from Machaut, Deschamps, Froissart- then from the
Italians- from Dante, Petrarch, and Boccaccio- and finally, perhaps,
from his fellow countryman Langland. But the ultimate achievements
of the medieval master craftsman were profoundly original. Chaucer’s
skill as a raconteur; his deftness of characterisation and description;
his perfection in metrical technique; his understanding of man'’
religious, moral, and philosophical instincts; his knowledge of life and
acceptance of its mingled tragedy and comedy; and his transcendent
sense of humour are, in combination, unique.
THE AGE OF CHAUCER
The technological differences between our age and Chaucer’s
are obvious enough when we think of the weird astrological-medical
theories of the “Doctour of Phisik” (Prologue 411-44), or the fact that
it took Chaucer’s pilgrims three days of hard travel to traverse the
sixty miles between London and Canterbury. The differences in
society and its assumptions are important in understanding the
actions and attitudes of Chaucer’s pilgrims.
The social structure of England and all Europe in the fourteenth
century was feudal, that is to say power radiated from the king,
through his nobles, and through their subjects, with little kingly power
reaching the lower echelons of society. The king and his nobles
owned the land, which was divided into great agricultural estates, and
these provided the men, material and money, which supported the
crown and its wars.
Society was organised in a hierarchical form, one’s wealth and
power being a matter of what position one occupied on the
hierarchical ladder. This ladder extended from the king, through the
great noblemen-landlords, like Chaucer’s patron, John of Gaunt, Duke
of Lancaster, down through lesser landlords and their various
executive officers with, at the bottom, the serfs who worked the land
for their masters. It is perhaps important to note that while we may
regard this system as unjust and oppressive, the medieval people
could conceive of no other. Each level of society had its rights and
privileges, and each had its duties and obligations. Despite the
occasional abuse they regarded the system as right and proper.
The groups of Chaucer’s pilgrims may be isolated to suggest
how this system worked. The first represents agricultural feudalism
founded on land ownership and service. The Knight, who is highest on
the scale, is a landowner, and has therefore served in the wars for his
king, and his son, the Squire, will follow him in this. The Knight’s
Yeoman is a servant, whose only duty is to the knight. The Franklin
also holds land, perhaps “in fee” from some noble, but more probably
in his own right. His service is the direction of his farm, his obligation
to the noble or king being doubtless in the form of the yearly harvest,
and of men in time of need. The Miller does not himself own land but
has been given the right to mill all grain on an estate; the Reeve
manages an estate. They are both servants, but of an exalted kind,
and make shrewd and profitable use of their power, as we shall see.
The lowest in the hierarchy is the Plowman, who simply tills the land.
England was changing in the fourteenth century, and one of the
most important changes was the growth of a new, urban society
where the feudal structure was somewhat modified. Neither the
doctor nor the Sergeant of the Law owned land, although they were
both men of substance. The Doctor made money out of the plague,
and the Lawyer made money out of almost everything. They were the
beginning of a new class, today called professional men. The Manciple
and the Merchant and even the Wife of Bath also represent the
urbanisation process. They were not directly commanded by anyone,
and in time they became the mercantile middle class who overthrew
the monarchy and the last vestiges of feudalism in the civil war of the
seventeenth century. It is also significant that the Haberdasher, the
Carpenter, the Weaver, and the Dyer are presented together, in that
they are all members of one of the great parish guilds. It was through
these craft and parish guild associations that the new urban artisans
achieved the power that they lacked through not belonging to the
land-hierarchy.
There is yet a third group, constituting a kind of feudal system
of its own, and representing one of the most powerful elements of
medieval society, the Church.
Nine of Chaucer’s thirty pilgrims belong to the clergy, and it
would be difficult to overestimate the importance of the Roman
Catholic Church to the lives of the people of Western Europe in the
fourteenth century. They might disregard its teaching or complain of
its abuses but from baptism, through confirmation and marriage, to
the funeral rites, it was intimately connected with their lives. It was a
visibly potent force throughout England, from the great cathedrals
such as Canterbury and the religious houses, down to the humble
parish churches.
Despite the worldly aspects of life that so often appear in The
Canterbury Tales we should not forget that the people Chaucer
gathers together are pilgrims, and that the occasion for their
gathering is the spring pilgrimage to the shrine of “the holy blissful
martyr”, St. Thomas Becket, at Canterbury. We can gauge the
importance of the church in men’s lives by nothing how many
varieties of belief or simulated belief Chaucer presents. They run all
the way from the dedicated holiness of the Parson, through the
superficial observances of the Prioress, to the outright hypocrisy of
the Summoner and Pardoner. Chaucer, looking about him, sees fit to
define a large proportion of his characters by where they stand with
regard to the church.
It is sometimes suggested that the medieval world was a
happier, simpler, and less troubled time than our own. In some years
this is true yet the fourteenth century had its own troubles, and it is
an oversimplification to regard it as a time of innocent good humour.
In fact it is the overall good humour of Chaucer’s treatment that has
fostered this view, and while he is basically optimistic, he would be
unlikely to accept it.
The plague, or Black Death entered England in mid-century
dreadful consequences. It is said that half the population was wiped
out. and while this may be an exaggeration, it is no exaggeration to
say that medieval man lived in constant fear of its ravages. One of
the effects of the plague was to inflate prices and further depress the
already grim living conditions of those at the bottom of the economic
ladder. This in turn produced the insurrection known as the Peasants’
Revolt (1381), in which the infuriated mob murdered a good many of
those whom they regarded as their exploiters. Chaucer, as a justice of
the peace and a member of the parliament, might be expected to be
bitter about this unprecedent attack on the social order. It may be a
measure of this magnanimity that only a few years after the rebellion
his portrait of the Plowman in the Prologue is remarkable for its praise
of the peasant virtues.
The Hundred Years War continued, with the French threatening
to invade England; this is one of the reasons for the war-like nature of
Chaucer’s Shipman, whose merchant ship was obliged to be a fighting
vessel, and it also accounts for the Merchant’s anxiety about trade if
the shipping route between Middleburg in the Nederlands and Orwell
in England is broken.
The church itself was divided at the time, one faction having a
pope at Rome and the other at Avignon, with some of Europe,
including England, supporting the first and some, including Scotland,
the second. The confusion resulting from this situation was probably
in part because of the clerical abuses that produced so much
complaint during the period.
THE REEVE'S TALE
THE PORTRAIT
Although we do not get as extensive a physical description of
the Reeve as we did of the Miller, there is enough details about him.
The Reeve is a “sclendre colerik man”, which accords with the
belief that those who were thin were also of a choleric humour, easy
to anger. But thin people were also held to be sharp-witted, and with
excellent memories, and we can see how such qualities would go with
the kind of double dealing the Reeve engages in.
The long legs “Ylik a staf” were evidence of lustfulness, and
while this trait does not appear in the Prologue, it does emerge in the
tale he tells later in the work.
For us the character of the Reeve is sharp, doubtlessly able to
be unpleasant, and endlessly intent on the shrewd and gainful
exploitation of his job. It is suggested that he has held this position for
a long time, and that everything of his lord’s is “hoolly in this Reves
governyng”. He is efficient and it is suggested that he is dishonest in
his accounts, yet “ther was noon auditor koude on him wynne”, i.e.,
no one could catch him out. It is also significant that he knew and
remembered all the particular findings of those working beneath him
and let them know that he knew. They would never reveal any of his
misappropriations and were in fact “adrad of hym as of the deeth”.
The Reeve is daring in his dishonesties. He has the temerity to
lend the lord what is really the lord’s own property, for which he
receives “a thank, and yet a cote and hood”.
There is another point of interest about the Reeve, and that is
his connection with the Miiler. Both are memorably describes by
Chaucer. One leads the procession of the pilgrims, the other stays at
the end of it. They are sharply contrasted in appearance, one short
and thich, the other long and thin.
Later in the Canterbury Tales they have a violent falling-out.
The Miller’s Tale enrages the Reeve, since it seems to be an attack on
him, and he attacks the Miller in his own tale. It also becomes clear
that they had known one another before the meeting at the Tabard.
This may, of course, be all Chaucer’s invention, and it is true that
millers and reeves were traditional antagonists, being rivals for power
on the estates.
Yet Chaucer is so specific about the Miller, and so informative
about the Reeve (giving his name, the town he comes from, and even
a description of his dwelling), that he may have had two historical
characters in mind, and the Miller-Reeve quarrel may have actually
occurred, making a topical reference the fourteenth century reader
would recognise at once.
REEVE’S TALE. SUMMARY
The reeve name is Oswald, at being offended by the miller's
tale, decides his tale will be a vicious come back. It is written in
everyday, low style Middle English. He is miserable being old and his
tale is very much a confessional prologue. He is old, hates himself,
and his lust is great. This tale is not as fresh and not as much vitality
as the miller's tale. He says, that even though he is past the age of
sexual performance, he can still tell obscene stories. So, it is similar to
the miller's tale in genre, but not in tone. This is very much to get
revenge on the miller, whereas the miller's was all in good fun.
As the miller's tale was a reversal of the knight's tale, the
reeve's tale is a reversal of the millers. So, that is why the order - in
Canterbury tales is, general prologue, knight's tale, miller's tale and
reeve's tale. Each one inverts the one before it. The reeve says he will
"quitye" basically quit/win/beat him the miller by his tale.
It is an attack on lower class, so because it is told by a lower
class character - reeve- its acceptable. It is written in oral/folk
tradition, and the proverb tradition.
There are vivid descriptions of the characters : the miller is
described as dishonest, violent, bald, with a proud wife and a less
attractive daughter.
The tale is located in Cambridge, England. Whereas the miller's
tale was located in Oxford, England, so, again, represents how the
two towns and universities are in competition, just as how the miller
and reeve are in competition.
The reeve’s tale concerns a proud, bullying miller named
Simkin, at Trumpington near Cambridge and his equally proud wife.
They have a daughter aged 20, of lusty attractiveness, and also a
baby six months old.
Millers were traditionally regarded as both prosperous and
thievish. They were important but not very popular members of the
community.
This miller has a contract to grind the corn for a college in
Cambridge called the king’s hall. The manciple, i.e.manager, of this
hall has fallen sick, and so two of the students decide that they will
take the grain to the miller and supervise its grinding in order to
prevent theft. They are bumptious, patronising young men and the
miller easily tricks them by releasing their horse, which runs off into
the fen and keeps them chasing it all day. The miller meanwhile
grinds their corn and steals some of it. The two young men catch the
horse in the end but find that it is too late to get back into college,
because of the curfew. They therefore ask the miller to put them up
for the night. The miller has only one bedroom with three beds in it.
He and his wife sleep in one bed with the baby’s cradle at the foot of
it, his daughter sleeps in another and the two young men are put in
the third.
They have a jolly supper at the student’s expense, and go to
bed. During the night one of the young men gets into bed with the
miller’s daughter. The other one lies awake feeling very sorry for
himself and thinking what a spineless fool he will appear when the
story is told. However, the miller’s wife has to up to answer the call of
nature and when she does so the young man moves the cradle from
the foot of her bed to the foot of his. When she returns he goes to her
own be but misses the cradle, and since everywhere is very dark,
thinks she has mistaken her way. So in all innocence she gets into the
student’s bed, where she receives a warm welcome. As the night
draws on the other student, who had been with the daughter, decides
to get back with his friend. He goes to his own bed, but finds the
cradle at the foot of it. He makes a mistake similar to that of the
wife’s, thinks he has gone to the wrong bed, and so gets into bed with
the miller. Thinking the miller is the other student, he wakes him up
and tells him what he has done. The miller is outraged and they fight
each other. The noise wakes the wife who thinks that the two
students are fighting. She gets up, finds a stick by the wall, and brings
it down with a fearful crack on the bald head of her own husband. The
students take advantage of this to beat him further, then dress, take
their horse and their ground meal and depart. To crown all, the
miller’s daughter gives them the product of the stolen wheat in the
form of a large baked loaf.
The ending blesses the company (those on the pilgrimage) and
there is a parting shot at the miller. The reeve says he's got him back
for his tale.
The story is told with wonderfully realistic, vivid detail of many
kinds. The details about the students who come from king’s hall are
fully authentic. It sounds a genuine anecdote of Cambridge student
life.
THE PRIORESS’S TALE
THE PORTRAIT.
Ful semyly hir wympul pynched was,
Hir nose tretys, hir eyen greye as glas,
Hir mouth ful smal, and therto softe and reed.
But sikerly she hadde a fair forheed;
Ful fetys was hir cloke, as I was war.
Of smal coral aboute hire arm she bar
A peire of bedes, gauded al with grene
In the presentation of the Prioress we see a kind of poetic
technique, that recurs frequently in the Prologue and the Tales. This is
irony, which is a way of making apparently simple statements imply
more than they actually say. This suggestive implication is a subtle
way of both describing a character and commenting on him at the
same time. For example, Chaucer says that the Prioress is “charitable
and pitous”, that is she has the virtues of charity and mercy, to be
expected of someone dedicated to a religious life. The illustrations he
then gives of her charity and pity concern not other people, but her
pets. The “smale houndes” get the roasted meat, milk, and finest
bread that were regarded as delicacies in a society in which a good
many people never had enough to eat. It seems a misdirected kind of
charity and pity. Although Chaucer never tells us directly, the ironic
implication throughout his portrait of the Prioress –her pretentions to
aristocratic French, her fashionable manners, her dress- is that
despite her holy calling she is more concerned with worldly things
than with the spirit. These ironies are fairly amiable, suggesting that
Chaucer likes the Prioress despite her little foibles.
Chaucer emphasises the Prioress’ basic feminity, rather than
her spiritual qualities. These have to do with the heroines of the
popular medieval romances, all of whom were described in a series of
conventional phrases. Chaucer uses some of them here, such as “ful
symple and coy”, and he catalogues the Prioress’ face (fine nose,
small mouth, soft and red, fair forehead, eyes “grey as glas”) in the
manner of the conventional romances. There were, furthermore,
several fourteenth-century romances in which the heroine’s name
was Eglentyne. The effect, again, is an ironic association of the
religious and the worldly, with the suggestion that the Prioress’ real
nature is closer to the second than to the first.
This gives an ambiguous quality to the brooch she wears;
supposedly the “love” of the inscription refers to the love of God but,
with this particular Prioress, we suspect that it might more truly be
said to refer to the love of the secular, material world.
Madame Eglentyne, as a nun, probably came from the upper
levels of fourteenth-century society. This class characteristic is
underlined by Chaucer in several details. Her French is not real French
(“of Parys”) but that of Stratford-atte-Bowe”. Since French was, or had
been, the language of the court it is likely that French was preserved,
there was a mark of social refinement. Chaucer is careful to let us
know that among the pilgrims the Prioress airs her French from time
to time.
The prioress's fashionable rosary, which she wears around her
arm like a bracelet, is made of coral beads with large green beads
separating the decades and is embellished with a gold brooch
containing the inscription "Amor Vincit Omnia" ("Love Conquers All").
Like this commercially available rosary today, rosaries in the
fourteenth century were sometimes expensive objects of luxury.
The Prioress would have been the head nun of a priory or
assistant head over an abbey. As the Prioress, she would have had
the responsibilities of managing the internal affairs of her Abbey as
well as of contacts with the outside. She would have also had the
responsibilities of discipline and organisation within her convent. She
would no doubt have come from a prosperous family, perhaps an
aristocratic family with several daughters that would have made it
unlikely for her to marry. Or perhaps she came from a wealthy
merchant family with aristocratic pretensions.
The Prioress is accompanied by a small group, another nun and
a priest at least, since it would be unfitting for her to travel alone.
Because of the importance of her role to her monastery, and because
nuns were forbidden from going on pilgrimages, we might ask
ourselves why she absented herself on this occasion.
Of course, as a Prioress, she was not subject to the same
restrictions as a simple nun. Moreover, the pilgrimage from London to
Canterbury was brief, and could have been accomplished in not more
than four days. The Prioress may have been travelling for devotional
purposes, and it is not excluded that she was travelling as a form of
penance.
PRIORESS'S TALE. SUMMARY.
In far-off Asia a little child walks through the ghetto on his way
to school, singing Alma redemptoris as he goes. The Jews, outraged,
hire a homicide that seizes the child, cuts his throat, and throws the
body in a privy. The child's distraught mother searches for him
throughout the ghetto. Wondrously the child begins to sing; the
provost comes, puts the Jews to death, and has the child carried to
the church. There the child explains that the Virgin Mary laid a grain
upon his tongue and he will sing until it is removed. When the grain is
removed the child gives up the ghost. He is buried as a martyr.
The Prioress' Tale is a "miracle of the Virgin," a popular genre of
devotional literature. The stories are short, often like children's fairy
tales, with the figure of the Jew playing the part of the "boogie man,"
from whom the Virgin, like a fairy godmother, protects the heroes and
heroines.
The particular story that Chaucer uses was quite popular, and it
survives in a number of versions.
THE HOUSE OF FAME
SUMMARY OF THE BOOK III
The house stands on a rock of ice; some of the names inscribed
on it have almost melted in the sun with others, on the shady side,
have been preserved. The dwelling is elaborately gothic in design and
inhabited by a bewildering crowd of musicians, magicians and story-
tellers, so that the poet is unable to describe all the marvels inside.
At first Fame seems a tiny creature, but spreads out to span
both earth and heaven. On the pillars of her house stand those great
writers who have handed on the records of past ages and great men.
Nine companies of petitioners then approach Fame in turn; she
rewards them capriciously, without any concern for the justice of their
request, and Aeolus, god of the winds, trumpets their reputances to
all quarters of the earth. In this Fame comes close to the medieval
view of the instability and deceitfulness of Fortune, who, we learn a
few lines later, is her sister. The Dreamer is now asked why he is
there and he replies that he is in search of Tydynges . . . of love, or
suche thynges glade, but that, so far, he hasn't seen what he is
looking for.
He has always known about Fame, although not where she
lives. So he is takes to the House of Twigs which continually whirls
about. It has entrances on all sides and is full of people whispering
tydynges to each other. The Eagle reappears briefly and takes the
Dreamer inside, as Jove has commanded.
These tydynges do not appear to be quite those which the Eagle
had originally promised. They fly back to Fame who decides what is to
happen to them. Chaucer is here saying that Rumour is subordinated
to Fame and that reputation is based largely on rumour, so it would
be an acceptable conclusion which would fit well with the earlier
symbolism of the fragile glass of the temple of Venus, the House of
Fame built on ice and the House of Rumour constructed of twigs. The
only trouble is that the meaning is not made explicit. The Dreamer
makes his way to a corner of the building where men are talking of
love-tydynges. He sees a man of 'great authority'whom he cannot
name, and the poem breaks off, unfinished.
ANALYSIS
After the careful reading of the proposed texts that are The
Reeve's Tale and The Prioress's Tale from The Canterbury Tales and
the Book III from The House of Fame written by Geoffrey Chaucer,
there are various features to analyse in order to explain some of the
differences and similitudes that we can find in the texts.
LITERARY CONVENTION
What we first meet when we start the reading is that in the
beginning of the texts there is always present the name of a deity
(God, the Virgin or another god).
In the case of the Reeve, it is the more impious case. He asks
for the help of God in order to make his revenge against the Miller
who told a tale before him about a carpenter and because it has been
the profession of the Reeve, he gets offended for his telling.
He says:
"I pray to God his nekke mote to breke";
Very different is the case of the Prioress who begins:
"O Lord, oure Lord, thy name how marveillous" and then she
encommends to the grace of the Virgin in order to receive help to tell
her story:
"O mother Mayde! O mayde Mother free " (…)
"Help me to telle it in thy reverence!"
That difference is closely related to what we find the narration is
about if we continue reading and is a sutile way of giving us the clue
about the person who tells, the content of the story and the general
conduct and way of performing of the story teller.
That is also what we find when we go over the Book III in the
House of Fame. As we can see, the first words are dedicated to a god,
in this case to Appollo:
"O God of science and of lyght,
Appollo, thrugh thy grete myght,
This lytel laste book thou gye!
So it is obvious that Chaucer is following the same pattern
making use of the literary convention.
That point shows the relevance of religion or religiosity of the
age that normally goes in concordance with the narration. That is, the
more or less polite reference to religion determines or advise us that
the content of the following narration will continue in the same tone.
THE DESCRIPTIONS
Chaucer demonstrates his mastery in the wondrful descriptions
he does in his writings.
Following the structure of the narrations, that is what we meet,
the descriptions of the characters, places or situations that call the
attention of the reader and invite him to continue on the lecture.
In the three cases the description starts with the location of the
narration what situates the reader and provides him with a mental
frame in which he has to plce.
In the Reeve's Tale, the story is placed at Trumpington, near
Cambridge and then, the description of the Miller, regarding his
physical appearance, his family and his procedures in business. That
way of describing gives a complete idea of the character we are
dealing with.
In the Prioress's Tale we are moved to a city placed in Asia
where there is a jewish ghetto that is where happens the facts
narrated. Then we find the description of a christian seven years old
child that is the protagonist of the tale.
In this case, the descriptions basically concerns the religious
frame that involves that child who is attacked by a jewe just because
he was singing a christian song while he was walking down the street
in that ghetto.
In The House of Fame, Chaucer begins the narration with the
description of that house, which in that case situates the narration in
Spain. He says that the house is in the highest mountain, what
impressed him and then he follows with the materials with which it is
built.
We do not find here a description of the character since he is
the narrator and he does not describe himsel so he goes on
describing the people that was there, what he sees and what they are
doing.
Now we can say that Chaucer is following the same structural
pattern in the analysed texts.
THE NARRATOR OR STORY TELLER
At this point we can appreciate that there is a difference in the
way that the narration is offered to the reader.
In the case of the Reeve and Prioress's Tales, the author does not tell
the tale himself but the tale is narrated through a second character, a
pilgrim, that at the same time is exposing a story protagonised by a
third character.
That way, the real author, stablishes a game between the teller
and the reader and it provides the author with the necessary freedom
to make coherent such heterogeneous stories as they are.
In The House of Fame we find a variation of that game. The
author starts telling his own story, where he goes, what he sees … but
then he changes to tell what happens to other people in a way that
carries on the reader through the story without thinking about who
the teller is but who is he telling about. The narrating character is
subordinated unconsciously by the reader to a second dimension,
although it seems to be made consciously by the author.
THE PILGRIMAGE: TO CANTERBURY.
TO THE HOUSE OF FAME
Another common factor is the pilgrimage.
The Canterbury Tales are supported by different pilgrims that
goes to Canterbury to visit the church and the saint situated in that
place. They go there as a synbol of devotion but also to give thanks or
ask for somethng to the saint.
While pilgrims are in route to Canterbury, they told that tales.
Then, in The House of Fame, there is also a kind of
peregrination from the part of the people who integrate the nine
companies that goes to be received by the godess Fame in order to
achieve good or bad fame. In some cases they are conceded what
they ask for but not in other cases.
Here we find a common characteristic but with the difference
that in The Cantervury Tales, the pilgrimage is the medium of the
story telling and in The House of Fame it is the purpòse of the story
telling.
THE IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL STATUS
Through the text we see the important implication of social
status.
We are presented different characters that goes from the lower
to the upper classes, but the important point is now is not what they
have, their possessions, if they are land owner, professional men,
clergy men or servants but the fact is that whatever condition they
have, they all have a final purpose in common which is to get what
they have being working for, it can be in terms of material
possessions or not, it can be true or false.
They all give importance to what the others think about them.
The Reeve does not want them to think he is a mocky person, the
Prioress tries to enlight her religious condition through her tale and
the persons of the companies in The House of Fame wants to be
known and remembered for his good or bad fame.
What we find in contrast is that social class does not necessarily
corresponds with fame. Chaucer makes a review about it, but that
whatever the class you belongs to you want to be considered for the
posteriry.
