Chaucer starts his Canterbury
tales with a depiction of every single character going on a pilgrimage. Many of whom are not named, but are defined
simply by the role they fulfill or their career. Each character, while an individual,
represents an archetype of their career, and Chaucer can play with who fulfills
curtains roles, and how those roles should be completed.
Each character then acts and responds accordingly to how
this archetype or stereotype is portrayed.
For instance, the Squire, who is shown as a happy fool (accurately
stereotyped by the Major Arcana's Fool, down to the sleeves themselves) and thus
is "perfect" in his role. While not a perfect squire, he does represent a
population of "lazy" squires who prefer to dream of saving princesses
and singing songs than the actually work of becoming a knight. While singing may be an unwanted pastime, the
Squire is a very good musician and has a good singing voice, adding to his role
of "perfection" within his archetype. And
each character, is more or less another form of "perfection" or
"imperfection" as their standing in society, and the title of their
job is seen.
Chaucer then is in control of who is "perfect" and
who is the opposite of perfect. The
pious being pure, or greedy. The Nobel
being chivalrous or cowardly.
Archetypes are described as the storytellers toolbox. Is Chaucer taking an easy rode by making each
character a simple recreation of a role?
Or is this a witty inclusion of politics into his tale?
I’m inclined to think that Chaucer went for the medium road, in-between what is easy to create and hard to master. Most of the characters introduced in the prologue have some strange anomaly to their stereotypical role. For instance, the Prioress is supposed to be a humble, homely type of woman who prays 24/7 for the people in medieval times. Instead, she is the classic lady who enjoys jewels, tiny dogs and to eat copious quantities of food. There is a distinct breach of character personality. I think it is a witty way to throw politics into the mix, disguising the reality of how certain people acted during those times. They may be classified by their job or social standing, but live a different lifestyle when not forced too. Chaucer was ingenious when you think about how he essentially mastered satirical writing and got away with it during that time.
ReplyDeleteI believe Chaucer wants the readers to think about how times are changing, think about people's roles, and even politics. For example, the Prioresse. One would think that she would be a woman with compassion for other people. But instead, she talks about murders and is compassionate for her dogs. She over eats and feeds her dogs really good food. Its ridiculous especially when people are starving. To me, Chaucer is leaving the reader decide whether or not we like a character. He is just telling us many facts.
ReplyDelete