Geoffrey the Pilgrim

The character of the pilgrim, Geoffrey Chaucer, is a subject of limitless possibilities for discussion. The tales he tells are disappointing, because the reader expects Chaucer the pilgrim to reflect the talent of Chaucer the poet. Here I discuss why we have these standards and why they are unmet.
The most interesting analysis I found regarding Chaucer the narrator of the Tales traces the presence of the narrator throughout the poems, citing his first identification in the “General Prologue” (Kimpel 78). In “The Narrator of the Canterbury Tales”, Kimpel immediately argues that the prologue introduces Chaucer the pilgrim as congenial and approachable, for he must have spoken to these pilgrims in order to have gleaned such rich descriptions. He concludes from Chaucer the pilgrim’s interspersed comments on the other tales that he is a man who holds virtue over vice, simple and good-hearted (81-82). His humility is foreshadowed when he excuses himself, “My wit is short, ye wol understonde” (“General Prologue” ln.758). He is portrayed as a man who sees and then faithfully reports, for obvious reason (81). As narrator, too much opinion or even intelligence could change the dynamic of the story. By telling tales without the poet's trademark ironic rhetoric, etc. the pilgrim establishes a quality of omniscience, presence without opinion.
I am not the first to note the irony of Chaucer telling such dreary tales with excessive irrelevant detail. From the start the rhyme of “Sir Thopas” is flat and simple, a sharp contrast not only to the Prioress’ heartfelt faith just preceding but to the varied rich rhyme schemes throughout the Tales. “The Tale of Melibee” is literally difficult to read, for me mostly because as soon as it begins to pick up, you suddenly realize you have been reading the same thing for 200 lines. As with the Squire, the interruption is welcome. The Host’s involvement is, I think, much more pointed and interesting that the sniveling Franklin: “Namoore of this, for Goddes dignitee” (“Sir Thopas” ln. 2109). But unlike the young and pretty Squire, Geoffrey responds indignantly and yet with frank composure (in keeping with his character, as I discuss below), demanding his just turn like the other pilgrims. Then Geoffrey Chaucer exposes his intentions; the one section I highlighted when reading the conversation between Chaucer and the Host was his ominous declaration, “As thus, though that I telle somwhat moore/ Of proverbes than ye han herd bifoore/ Comprehended in this litel tretys heere,/ To enforce with th’ effect of my mateere” (lns. 955-958). I think he knows he can command the audience as others have before him with an exemplum, however deficient, and by exposing his intelligence through a kind of “auctoritee”; of course the use of proverbs as a representation of intelligence is ineffective, but characteristic, perhaps, of this man who repeats faithfully what he has heard without cogent judgment.
I will continue my discussion of the tales in a following post.

Kimpel, Ben. “The Narrator of the Canterbury Tales”. ELH 20:2 (Jun 1953). 77-86. The Johns Hopkins University Press. JSTOR. American University Library. 24 Mar 2009. < http://www.jstor.org.proxyau.wrlc.org/stable/2872071>.