Much time and energy are spent deciding whether or not a given author's works
deserve inclusion in the canon of English Literature. Some works merit study
because of their historical significance. One of these is Chaucer's
Canterbury Tales. The Canterbury Tales also bears a relevance to modern life
with which it earns a place in college curricula. Through the use of
characterization and irony, Chaucer reveals the lessons that carry this
relevance. By comparing the narrator's descriptions of the parson and the
plowman with his descriptions of the summoner and the pardoner, the reader
can uncover truth that is as significant today as the day Chaucer wrote the
stories.
Chaucer's narrator speaks with no irony when he calls the two brothers, the
parson and the plowman, good men. The narrator tells the reader the parson
is a model pastor who teaches by example. Chaucer’s plowman is also a model
Christian in that "God loved he best with al his hoole herte . . . and
thanne his neighebor right as himselve." His narrator goes into greater
detail about the parson's virtues. From this description, the reader can see
the parson is kindly, diligent, fair, and humble. For instance, he never
uses the threat of excommunication to extort tithes from the congregation.
Rather than trying to increase his income unfairly, he shares his tithe with
the needy of the parish. A diligent and fair pastor, the Parson does not
allow the weather or distance to keep him from the members of his flock, "muche
and lite" alike. He treats those of high and low estate the same,
admonishing both when they need it. Despite his position, he always remains
unassuming; "He waited after no pomp or reverence." The reader knows how
Chaucer really sees the parson when the narrator interjects, "well ought a
priest to set a good example for his sheep." He contrasts the parson with
some other churchmen in the group when he says, "he was a shepherde and not
a mercenary." They are fine exemplars of the Christian ideal.
Chaucer's narrator speaks with great irony when he calls the summoner "a
gentle harlot and a kinde; / A bettre felawe should men nought finde. . ."
Unlike the parson, who is devoted to serving his congregation, the summoner
seems devoted to serving his lusts. The narrator tells the reader this when
he says, "Ful prively a finch eek coude he pulle." Again, unlike the honest
parson, the summoner is bribable. "He wolde suffer, for a quart of wine, / A
good felawe to keep his concubine. . . ." He and the pardoner make quite a
pair. Though the summoner is merely corrupt, the pardoner is an outright
fraud. When he declares, "Ne was there swich another pardoner," Chaucer’s
narrator is only partly ironic. Outwardly the pardoner appears to be a
Christian of powerful faith. He carries relics, reads the lesson well, and
sings a great offertory hymn. However, the relics he carries are really
pigs’ bones, and Mary's veil is really a pillow case. These "relics" and his
oratory are tools he uses to take in more money in a day than a poor parson
could raise in a month. Unlike the parson, who has the good of the
congregation at heart when he scolds, the pardoner sharpens his tongue to
win silver. The description reveals the summoner as a corrupt cynic who
"lied right in deed" by teaching people to have no dread of excommunication.
It reveals the pardoner as a fraud who "made the people and the parson his
apes." These two also can serve, albeit as bad examples.
Chaucer uses irony to make a point about human nature and values that is
as valid today as it was five hundred years ago. His descriptions paint very
different pictures of these four people. Despite this, the narrator seems
unable to distinguish good, hard-working people from con artists. Chaucer's
narrator is too broad-minded and nonjudgmental. He seems to express as much
admiration for two contemptible people as he does for two who are admirable.
This moral blindness is especially significant. If society fails to see the
falsehood of people like the pardoner or the corruption of people like the
summoner, the quality of life will decline for all. If indivi- duals fail to
distinguish an honest man from a fraud, the fraud will eventually make fools
of them. The reader must be more discerning and less tolerant than Chaucer's
narrator, or he will be fooled.