Cooper 1
Caroline Cooper
I declare this work to be solely mine.
ENGL 325
Dr. Risden
12 May 2014
Interruptions in Chaucer
Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales is riddled with interruptions. These interruptions have
shaped the order of the tales based on the behaviors and actions of the pilgrims. This essay will
be based on the behavior of the pilgrims and it will defend Chaucer’s radical claim for the
fourteenth century that noble is as noble does. This is a radical statement because Chaucer is
breaking the rigid mold of class distinctions that the pilgrims of the Canterbury Tales are subject
to. Chaucer purposefully adds interruptions to show the reality of human nature which goes
along with the radical notion of noble is as noble does. This notion is again mentioned in the
Wife of Bath’s Tale where the wife in the story says, “But for ye speken of swich gentillesse/ As
is descended out of old richesse/ That therefore sholden ye be gentil men/ Swich arrogance is nat
worth an hen” (1109-1112). The fact that Chaucer incorporates this idea throughout his writings
indicates that he thought on this topic often which would have been very controversial in the
time he was alive.
In the Canterbury Tales, the Host of the pilgrimage to Canterbury tries to instill order
based on degree, but with real people plans do not always go as expected. A natural order
unfolds accompanied by just a little bit of chaos and no matter how hard the Host tries to get
back the order based on degree the order continues to fall apart. This demonstrates that degree is
not the natural order at last. No matter how events are planned things will always unfold as they
may. Chaucer, by using interruptions, intentionally has his characters fail at keeping a proper
Cooper 2
order based on degree. Instead, human nature takes over, unfolds, and takes its place. By doing
this Chaucer demonstrates that just because someone is born into a noble class does not mean he
or she acts in a noble way. As the pilgrims make their way to Canterbury each pilgrim is invited
to tell two tales on the way down and two tales on the way back in the order of nobility, but
because of Chaucer’s realistic characters this does not occur without interruptions and hurt
feelings.
In Michaela Paasche Grudin’s article, “Discourse and the Problem of Closure in the
Canterbury Tales”, she writes, “conventional closure implies that discourse can settle some vivid
issues of human experience-the result dreamed of in philosophy and politics generally”. Grudin
also claims that, “by refusing to supply such a closure, Chaucer focuses our interest instead on
the processes of communication, on the dynamics of discourse as social interaction itself”
(1157). Chaucer adds these interruptions into his tales as a red flag to the reader. This is how the
reader knows that something important between characters is taking place. Chaucer subtly
implies his thoughts about nobility and degree relating to a person’s actions. The interruptions in
the Canterbury Tales can be divided into four groups: people who are interrupting others in a
negative way, people who are interrupting others in a positive way, those responding in a
negative way to being interrupted, and those responding in a positive way to being interrupted.
These reactions directly relate to the amount of nobility each pilgrim deserves.
The first group is for pilgrims who are doing the interrupting and act less noble than his
or her status in life would otherwise indicate. These pilgrims make interruptions outside of his or
her class in a bad or negative way. For example, The Cook cannot tell a tale because he is very
drunk and is falling off his horse so the Manciple takes over by insulting him before he tells his
tale. The Host warns the Manciple against saying anything bad to the Cook because he is saying
Cooper 3
that he will get revenge on the Manciple later on. In recompense the Manciple offers the Cook
another drink and they make peace, but it is not a good move because he is already dangerously
drunk and it will just make him fall off of his horse again. The Manciple gives the Cook another
drink because he is acting in his best interest; by giving the Cook what he wants he is on better
terms with the Cook, but it is not the best or healthiest decision. He uses this logic in his business
as well which the reader learns from the General Prologue. The Manciple is not a bad guy, but
he is not a good guy either and he would not be considered particularly noble. He stays on good
terms with everyone even if it is not in the best interest of everyone involved.
Another example from the Canterbury Tales where a pilgrim is interrupting another in a
negative or ignoble way is shown when the Host addresses the Pardoner. The Host addresses the
Prioress with great respect because even though she is in the religious life and is supposed to live
simply she holds on to her old life as a woman of noble birth. On the other hand, the Host is
extremely mean and disrespectful to the Pardoner. So mean that the Knight has to step in, once
again demonstrating his real nobility and degree. This shows that the Host respects nobility and
he does not believe that the Pardoner is noble by any means.
It may be that the Pardoner is making a cry for help through his tale and needs a
religious figure on the pilgrimage to confront him and tell him that his sins can also be forgiven.
However, the Prioress, the Nun’s Priest, nor the Parson give him the relief he so desperately
desires. The Pardoner needs one of them to give him sympathy and tell him to give up your sins
because, as the Pardoner says, “And Jesu Crist, that is our soules leche” (915) meaning that
Christ’s forgiveness is best. He needs to be told that he also can be pardoned. He does not get
this, all he gets are the cruel jokes from the Host providing a sad and pathetic ending to the
Pardoner’s tale. In this way, the Host nor the religious persons on the pilgrimage are being noble
Cooper 4
because they do not help the Pardoner when he is in need and they do not defend him while the
Host is speaking harshly to him.
The second group demonstrates people who are doing the interrupting and act nobler than
their status in life would otherwise indicate. This group also includes people who make
interruptions outside of his or her class in a good or positive way. The Host interrupting the
Merchant is a good representation of this group. The Host interrupts the Merchant’s prologue
because he is spending too much time bashing his wife and he wants him to get on with his tale.
This is a positive interruption because the Host is stopping the Merchant from being
dishonorable toward his wife. In Roger A. Ladd essay, “The Mercantile (Mis) Reader in ‘The
Canterbury Tales’, he explains how, “Chaucer portrays merchants outside The General Prologue
as consistently failing to receive or produce the truth value of reliable discourse” (18). This
demonstrates that in this tale the Merchant is not the noblest person because Chaucer has a
tendency to portray merchants in a negative way.
Another interruption that belongs in group two is between the Franklin and the Squire.
The Franklin interrupts the Squire to help him with a tale that is too big for him to tell. The
Squire tells the tale right before the Franklin’s tale and it isn’t going very well. The Squire is the
son of the Knight and he is telling a romance like his father but he is not doing a very good job, it
is too complex for him to finish so the Franklin kindly interrupts him. It is not the Franklin’s
place but it is acceptable because he shows deference and he praises the Squire because he
respects his class status even though the Franklin is much older and much wiser. The Franklin
likes to please people. He even tells the Squire that he wishes he had a son just like him. He takes
great care in talking to the Squire and he also tries to please the audience with a good story. The
Franklin’s interruption was noble because his intentions were to help the Squire out of a difficult
Cooper 5
situation with his story and he does so with the utmost respect which demonstrates his nobility
even though he is not of the noble class.
The third group includes people who are interrupted and choose to react or respond
negatively showing whether or not his or her reactions are within his or her class. The way the
Reeve responds to the Miller’s tale belongs in group three. The Reeve jumps right in after the
Miller tells his tale because the Reeve used to be a carpenter like one of the Miller’s characters
and now he is offended. Since he is offended and retaliates by telling a nasty tale about a miller
the Reeve is not acting nobly. He should have let it go because the Miller was not intentionally
trying to insult him. Although, he is moving up in the class system with the rising Merchant
class. He is meticulous at his work and is looking to be respected. This is may be a reason why
he jumps on the Miller. The Reeve feels disrespected and wants to rise up. He might be jealous
of the noble class and he buys into the notion that nobility is all status based and not based on
behavior and actions. After the Reeve’s tale the Cook tells a tale continuing to disrupt the proper
order based on class with the pilgrims.
A further example of group three is when the Friar interrupts the Wife of Bath
commenting on how long her prologue was and then the Summoner interrupts the Friar
essentially telling him to shut up. The Friar and the Summoner do not get along and after their
outbursts the Host quiets everyone down again. After the Wife of Bath’s long prologue she
begins to tell her actual tale, but the Friar bursts into laughter commenting on her lengthy
prologue. The Summoner then gets mad at him and tells him to shut up and they begin arguing
until the Host calms everyone down once more. Another example between the Friar and the
Summoner is when the Friar is making nasty faces at the Summoner all throughout the Wife of
Bath’s tale and then proceeds to tell the group that summoners are no good. The Host interrupts
Cooper 6
him in saying that a Friar should not tell that type of tale, but then the Summoner interrupts the
Host and says let the Friar be because I will get him later. Both the Friar and the Summoner are
acting childish and neither one of them act with a higher sense of degree. They clearly do not
care about the status of their nobility with how disrespectful they are towards each other and thus
how disrespectful they are being towards the other pilgrims.
The fourth group is set aside for people who are interrupted and choose to react positively
whether or not his or her reaction is within his or her class. An example of the fourth group is
when the Miller interrupts the Knight and the Knight chooses not to be offended. The Miller
interrupts the Knight because of the hypocrisy in the Knight’s tale. It is a parody because most
people live out courtly love. Derek Pearsall explains that, “Chaucer’s comic tales exist no more
to celebrate life than to criticize immorality: ‘realism’ is not in question, and the narrative
assumptions we are asked to make are no more realistic than those we are asked to make in
romance” (163). By choosing not to be offended the Knight is proving his status in the noble
class. The Knight’s tale is a romance about two men who are like brothers who fall in love with
the same woman. The Miller’s tale is satirizing and making fun of the Knight’s tale because of
his use of the courtly love motif. The Miller satirizes the Knight’s classical courtly love story.
Arcite and Palamoun are both in love with Emelye, but they fight for her hand honorably. The
very basic plot of the Miller’s tale is similar to the Knight’s tale except with his story there are
two men chasing one woman in a very inappropriate way. The Miller tells a fabliaux which is
very much reflected of his low status. However, in Derek Pearsall’s essay, “The Canterbury
Tales II: Comedy”, he comments that,
“It was long believed, that the fabliaux could only have been enjoyed by the lower
classes, or the bourgeoisie at best, but this belief has been shown to be infounded, and it
Cooper 7
seems on the face of it unlikely, given that the humour of the stories often relies on quite
a subtle understanding of the courtly behaviour that is travestied” (163).
This helps explain why most of the pilgrims enjoy the Miller’s tale. Even though the Miller is of
a much lesser degree than the Knight he does not care about order and he does not feel bad for
interrupting the Knight and disrupting the order. It is interesting that the Knight does not want to
stay within degree. He knows actions and behaviors are more important than degree. Knowing
that noble is as noble does and trying his hardest to be a noble person makes the Knight noble, it
is not because he was born into nobility.
As previously stated, Chaucer believes that nobility should not be based on status or
birthright, but nobility should be based on actions and behaviors toward others. The pilgrim’s
reactions show more about personal nobility than the actual order of the tales would suggest. The
different reactions of each insulted pilgrim and each interrupted pilgrim show what classes are
really like and that everyone is dealing with human issues which cause certain pilgrims not to fit
into his or her designated classes. If a person is noble or of the noble class he or she must act a
certain way, but many of the members of the noble class do not act nobly as seen in the previous
examples. Based on these reactions, Chaucer reimagines the class system based on human issues
or tendencies and this is evidently shown throughout all of the Canterbury Tales.
Cooper 8
Works Cited
Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Canterbury Tales. Fifteen Tales and the General Prologue. Ed. V.A.
Kolve and Glending Olson. New York: Norton, 2005. Print.
Grudin, Michaela Paasche. “Discourse and the Problem of Closure in the Canterbury Tales.”
Modern Language Association. PMLA, Vol. 107 (1992): 1157-1167. Web. 27 April 2014.
Ladd, Roger A. “The Mercantile (Mis) Reader in ‘The Canterbury Tales’.” University of North
Carolina Press Studies in Philology, Vol. 99, No. 1 (Winter, 2002): 17-32. Web. 2 May
2014.
Pearsall, Derek. “The Canterbury Tales II: Comedy.” The Cambridge Companion to Chaucer.
Ed. Boitani and Mann. 160-176.