Rachel's Cat House

Disorganized Series of Fragments?

Disorganized Series of Fragments?

The structure of the Canterbury Tales has been debated for ages. Is there even a known or obvious structure, or was Chaucer just rambling on? Many scholars and critics feel these ways and try to organize the tales

A little Backround

It is also known that he did not complete the entire tales as he designed it. Chaucer structured the tales so that each pilgrim would tell four tales, leading to a total over one hundred tales. Unfortunately, Chaucer only completed twenty-four tales, not even completing one tale for each pilgrim.

Most people know all or most of the characters in the tales. Not many know that The Manciple’s Tale and The Canon’s Yeoman’s Tale were not originally added by Chaucer. A few authors of manuscripts, following Chaucer’s death, added them in.

The two most common versions used today come from two different Middle English manuscripts known as the Ellesmere and the Hengwrt manuscripts. The Ellesmere is more famous because it contains miniature pictures of the pilgrims based on Chaucer’s descriptions. The Hengwrt manuscript differs from the Ellesmere because it lacks the Canon’ Yeoman’s Prologue and tale, part of the Parson’s Tale, and several of the tales’ prologues.

The structure of the Tales is indebted to Boccaccio’s Decameron. (The Knight’s Tales was an English version of a tale by Boccaccio.) We know of six tales that have possible sources in the Decameron: the Miller’s, the Reeve’s, the Clerk’s, the Merchant’s, the Franklin’s, and the Shipman’s.

Some Suggestions of Order

There is a new proposed order for the Tales. It looks at the transformation of natural change in: human society (Knight’s to Cook’s), magic (Second Nun’s to Pardoner’s), moral transformation (Man of Law’s to Shipman’s), and spiritual change (Prioress’s to Parson’s).
Some believe the order should be geographical, as to wear the stories take place or where the story teller is from. Others believe it should be structured according to the nature and relationship of the six characters:

The Knight is first and tells an honorable tale. Next is the Miller, who tells a bawdy tale that is completely opposite and has no obvious connection to the Knight’s. The Miller makes is “disparaging” older men. After the Miller, we have the Reeve’s (the Reeve is an older man). He takes offensive and tells a tale of a dishonest Miller. These two tales have a visible connection. The Cook is to follow but is only 50 lines. Following this is the Man of Law’s which speaks of the glory of marriage. Following him is the Wife of Bath and she complains of marriage and contradicts the Man of Law’s tale. Next we have the Friar who exposes the Summoner as a fraud and in turn the Summoner tells about a Friar going to hell and that’s where all the Friars go. The Clerk’s and the Merchant contradict each other with the honesty of women. The tales go on.

Summing it up
An important early plea for caution when discussing the issues of order among the Canterbury Tales: the textual fragments may never be resolved into “organic unity.” Chaucer, at his death, left a group of fragments that better reflect the stages in a developing plan than a unified work.

Boccaccio's Decameron

Is a work in which ten nobles from Florence, to escape the plague, stay in a country villa and amuse each other by each telling tales.

Posted by Rachel Howard at January 28, 2004 11:06 AM