Chaucer’s Ecclesiastical Figures in ‘Prologue’
Introduction:
Chaucer’s ecclesiastical characters in the The Canterbury Tales Prologue occupy a significant place in his vivid portrayal of fourteenth-century English society. As representatives of the Church, figures such as the Prioress, the Monk, the Friar, the Parson, the Summoner, and the Pardoner reveal the varied moral and spiritual conditions of the medieval clergy.
Through detailed descriptions, irony, and gentle satire, Chaucer exposes the contrast between religious ideals and actual clerical behavior. While some churchmen are shown as worldly, corrupt, and self-seeking, others embody genuine piety and devotion. These ecclesiastical characters not only enrich the social panorama of the Prologue but also reflect Chaucer’s keen observation of human nature and his critical attitude toward the religious institutions of his time. Thus, they serve as both realistic individuals and symbolic representatives of the strengths and weaknesses of the medieval Church.
Chaucer as a Representative Poet and Social Observer:
Chaucer is a representative poet. According to W.H. Clawson the general prologue presents a social group of thirty persons, larger and more diversified than the ten gentle folk of the ‘Dacemeron’, smaller and more manageable than Sercambl’s indefinitely large company. Chaucer’s group of pilgrims is not schematically representative of English society but covers well enough the main social elements. The nobility and lowest class labourers are excluded as unlikely to travel in the fashion of this group; but the knights, the learned professions, the landed gentry, mediaeval manor (through its Miller and Revee), and the free agricultural labourers are all represented. The rising middle classes are well exhibited by the London Merchant, preoccupied with foreign commerce, the five tradesmen with aldermanic ambitions, Harry Bailey, solid citizen and innkeeper of Southwark, and by the London Cook and Manciple. From the provinces come the expert cloth weaver, Alison of Bath and the daring sea captain of Dartmouth. The portraits of the clergy (nearly one third of the company) are significant for the tolerance with which Chaucer points out the foibles of the monastic orders in describing the Monk and Prioress; his greater severity in satirizing the worldliness of the Friar: and his open attack on the corrupt Summoner and the fraudulent Pardoner. His ideal portraits of Clerk of Oxford and the parish Priest, along with his equally favourable descriptions of the Knight and the Ploughman, perhaps reflect his own admiration at a time of changing standards of the basic ideals of earlier mediaeval society, as they had found expression in its fundamental classes- the man of prayer, the men of war and the men of labour. Chaucer accounts for the condition of church of his time. For the purpose he presents many characters related to church. He introduces imperfect as well as perfect church persons. He begins with the Nun Prioress, She is followed by the Monk, the Friar, the Summoner, the Pardoner and the only ideal churchman the Poor Parson.
The Nun Prioress: Worldliness Beneath Religious Appearance:
Chaucer admires the Nun’s table manners on the one hand and on the other exposes her worldly nature. In fact, a nun ought to concentrate her mind in religious matters. It is a matter of surprise that she cares so much for such worldly things. She showed stately manners to be respected in society. The poet tells about her inner nature. It was helping and kind enough to make her weep on seeing a dead or bleeding mouse. She had pet puppies whom she fed with roasted flesh and high-class bread with milk. If any one of them was dead she wept bitterly. She could not bear if anybody beat or frightened them. A nun ought to be merciful towards orphan children, the sick and the old. She ought to look after them and feed them by borrowing money and food from the well to do people of society. But such things were below her dignity. She had no time for them. She fed her dogs with milk and bread of high-quality wheat. It exposes her vanity.
The Monk: A Follower of the New World:
Chaucer passes satire on growing worldliness among monks of that time by pointing out that the Monk who was going with them to Canterbury had no faith in ancient discipline of religious people. He was head or keeper of a monastery. He did not follow the strict rules of discipline for monks made by St. Maurus and St. Benedict. He did not like anything outdated. He wanted to go with the new world.
This ilke Monk leet olde thynges pace,
And heeld after the newe world the space.
The Friar: Religion as a Means of Profit:
In an ironic tone the poet comments that the Friar was a worthy officer in his church. All the landlords and rich people loved him. He knew all the worthy i.e., corrupt women of the town. He had power to hear confession of sin and grant pardon to the sinner. He took interest in listening to the tale of sin. He claimed that he was more than a priest. He was a licence-holder. His way of pardoning the sinner after confession was easy. It is not the proper way of granting pardon but the Friar had made religion a source of corrupt earnings.
The Summoner: Corruption and Moral Depravity:
The Summoner was a kind rascal. It was difficult to find out a more wicked man. If a man could give him wine, he allowed him to enjoy himself with a mistress. If he lent his mistress to the summoner the man could enjoy himself with her for the whole year for the summoner was ready to excuse him. Privately he could cheat an ignorant person. He asked them to be bold against the fear of the arch deacon’s excommunication and taking no risk to his soul the person should suffer a loss of money. Besides, purse is hell i.e., a noble person should not love money and get rid of it. But in reality, he told a lie by saying it for he loved money. According to him, the soul would surely perish under a curse and might be saved by confession of sin and repentance. He warned all against imprisonment. Therefore, all guilty men were afraid of him. He knew secrets of all the young boys and girls of his area. He had become their advisor. There was a garland and on his head which was big like the sign of an ale house or wine shop.It served the purpose of a shield to him. Here he points out the popular mark of an ale house or wine shop.
The Pardoner: Fraud in the Name of Religion:
The Pardoner belonged to the convent of Rouncival. He had come straight from the court of Rome with his friend and companion. Just for amusement he was not wearing any hat. It was packed in his bag. He thought he was riding in the latest style. He was bare-headed except for his cap. He had a hare like staring eyes. He had a veronica handkerchief sewed on the cap. His bag was kept in his lap. It was full of blank certificates of pardon brought recently and directly from Rome. He had a voice as small as that of a goat. He was not interested in wearing a beard. His face was closely shaven. He had either a castrated horse or a mare. There was no other pardoner like him between Berwick and Ware. In his bag he had a pillow- cover which he claimed was the veil of our lady. He claimed that he had a piece of that sail which was used by Peter when he walked on water and felt frightened before Christ extended a helping hand to him. He had a cross of brass decorated with gems. In a glass he had a pig’s dry bones. By selling such false relics to poor people he used to earn more than what a man might earn by working hard at least in two months. Thus, he befooled innocent people by talking false sincerity and tricks. But it is true that he was a noble churchman. He was expert in reading passages from the Bible and singing an offertory. While preaching or singing he used to make his voice sharp to earn money by impressing people. Therefore, his songs were always merry and loud. In his character Chaucer presents those wicked people who earn by befooling people in the name of religion.
Upon a day he gat hym moore moneye
Than that the person gat in monthes tweye.
The Poor Parson: Chaucer’s Ideal Churchman:
True Churchmanship was so rare in this age that Chaucer introduces only one ideal priest in the ‘Prologue’. The poor Parson stands for Chaucer’s concept of an ideal parson. He tells that the poor Parson was rich in holy thoughts and work. He was a learned man. He truly preached Christ’s gospel i.e., teaching. He taught these gospels whole heartedly. He was kind and wonderfully laborious. He did not lose patience in misfortune. So often he had proved this quality. He never rebuked anybody for non-payment of the tithe i.e., donation to the church. For his poor parishioners he paid it by himself from his own pocket. He was satisfied in little.
Wyd was his parisshe, and houses fer asonder,
But he ne lefte nat for reyn ne thonder,
In siknesse nor in meschief, to visite
The ferreste in his parisshe, muche and lite,
Upon his feet, and in his hand a staf.
The Parson’s Dedication to His Parishioners:
His parish i.e., the area covered by his church was wide and houses were scattered. But he visited all without caring for rain or thunder if any of them was sick or in problem. He visited them without thinking if the man was rich or poor. He always walked on foot with a heavy stick in his hand. He presented this noble example before his followers that first he practised and then he taught. Out of Christ’s teaching he selected two words and expressed them in a figurative way. If gold gets rusted how we should save iron.
Out of the gospel he tho wordes caughte,
And this figure he added eek therto:
That if gold rust, what shal iren do?
The Parson as a Model of True Christian Leadership:
If a priest becomes corrupt there is no way to save the common people from being corrupted. We express faith in the priest and it is shameful if he takes bribe. It is surprising to see a dirty shepherd leading clean sheep. The priest should be ideal enough to present an example before others to show how his followers should live without being corrupted. He never ran after earning money leaving his followers sunk in corruption. He did not go to St. Paul’s in London to collect fees for singing mass or to join another guild for earnings. He lived in his town taking care of his parishioners so that corrupt people might not mislead them. In fact, he was a priest and not a businessman. Though he was holy and virtuous he was not merciless to sinners. He was never scornful or rude in his speech. He always taught quietly and kindly. His only ambition was to lead his followers to heaven by inspiring them to lead an honest life. But if anybody was obstinate he would rebuke him then and there without caring if he was rich or poor. It is not easy to find out a better priest in that period of worldliness in which even priest aspired to live like lords.
A bettre preest I trowe ther nowher noon ys.
He wayted after no pompe and reverence.
The Poor Parson as the Embodiment of Simple Living and High Thinking:
He didn’t expect any show or respect. Therefore, his conscience was clean. He always remembered Christ’s teachings and twelve preachings. He practised them before asking others to follow them. Thus, he was representative of the ideal: simple living, high thinking. Poor parson represents Chaucer’s concept of an ideal religious man like Jesus.
Conclusion: Chaucer’s Critical View of the Medieval Church:
Thus, Chaucer’s attitude towards church is critical. He exposes its imperfections. His mostly ecclesiastical characters are worldly and imperfect. The Poor Parson is the only perfect character who stands as a foil to other ecclesiastical characters. Being a realist, he exposes whatever he found whether fair or unfair in his society.
