Allusions and Textual Authority in The Canterbury Tales Essay

The Canterbury Tales: An Analysis of the use of Allusions and Textual Authority

The reliance on textual authorities in Chaucers iconic story, the Canterbury Tales, reflects his characters inabilities to obtain any authority of their own. Although misguided and misconstrued, his characters contradictory stances against the Medieval Church and their own social status are both strengthened and hindered by these biblical and classical citations of textual authorities. Chaucer explicitly uses his characters voices and conflicting actions to portray the moral hypocrisies of medieval institutions of that time including those of marriage and the church. Chaucers key stereotypical characters, the Wife of Bath and the Pardoner, express the irony of an individuals ideals and actions against the backdrop of societal norms and morals.

Throughout Chaucers narration, both of these characters struggle with obtaining any real authority of their own because of the contradiction between their actions and their supposed self-morals. Both the Wife of Bath and the Pardoner constantly misinterpret and manipulate textual authority to gain relevance and support for their own actions.

In the opening lines of her prologue the Wife of Bath proclaims experience, though noon autocritee, were in this world, is right ynough for me (ln 1) establishing herself as an authority of marriage, and disregarding any need for textual authority. She reveals that she does not need any sort of autocritee to support her experiences of marriage, of tirbulacion in marriage, of which I am expert in al myn age (ln 179) yet goes on to cite various classical and biblical characters, all of whom are men, to compare herself to. This notion of comparing herself to men with authority illustrates the Wife of Baths struggle during the Middle Ages to gain her own autocritee due to the societal oppression of women. The Wife of Bath continues to cite biblical textual authority to support her morals of marriage contradicting her opening passage of her prologue. If in fact she had her own authority on the morals and actions of her marriages, she would not need the support of biblical comparisons. On King Solomon she exclaims I trowe, he had wives many oon, As wolde God it leveful were to me, To be refreshed half so ofte as he (ln 36). She relates her own wants and ideals of love and sexual pleasure to that of King Solomon and questions that if he should have such gifts from God, why not she. She declares that of Abraham and Jacob eech of them hadde wives mo than two, And many other holy man also (ln 62) again, trying to defend her numerous marriages. The Wife of Bath battles with wanting to live by societal norms, yet her own moral judgment and actions defy those traditions. Societal views of women were very strict during the Middle Ages. Women were to be seen, not heard and to serve the man of the household as a daughter or wife. The Wife of Bath explains But wel I woot, expres, withouten lie, God bad us for to wexe and multiplye (ln 27) using this citation to support her promiscuous ways yet she does not have or want children of her own. The Wife of Bath misinterprets this textual authority to further support her own actions. Chaucer inevitably uses this character, The Wife of Bath, as a parody of women during the Middle Ages. As much as she wants to live outside of the patriarchy, she instead living within it, using her body and sexual prowess to obtain everything she wants. These actions merely confirm the negative stereotypes of women at the time, ultimately damaging the view of all women as incapable of understanding the deeper meanings of text like the Bible. In one blatant example of misinterpretations the Wife of Bath writes Where can ye saye in any manere age, That hye God defended marriage, By expres word? I praye you, telleth me, Or where he commanded virginitee? (ln 65). Here she justifies her loose behaviors with the word of God ultimately making herself seem more foolish than educated.

In contrast to the Wife of Baths character, who is deeply enveloped in her own morals and memories, Chaucers Pardoner seems to have no depth as a character. The Pardoners narration lacks any reference to his dreams, wishes, feeling and regrets, all of which are a vital part of the Wife of Baths narration. Although the Pardoners narration may lack any sort of personal revelations, his prologue and tale are wrought with allusions, to which he uses to preach to congregation. The Pardoners prologue opens with his motto, Radix malorum est cupiditas or greed is the root of all evil. Being a part of the Medieval church, a pardoners most important duty was to offer indulgences, in return for money, to excuse parishioners of their sins, including those of gluttony, drunkenness, swearing, and gambling. Although the Pardoners main occupation was to offer pardoners as a part of the church, his narrations contradict his purpose. The Pardoner exclaims That it is joye to see my bisiness, Of avarice and of swich cursednesse, Is al my preching, for to make hem free, To yiven hir pens and namely unto me , For myn entente is nat but for to winne, And no thing for correccion of sinne (ln 111-116). The Pardoner thinks of his profession as a business from which he, himself, makes profit. Parishioners believe his pardon are holy and true, but the Pardoner reassures the other pilgrims that his intentions are to gain profit, not to correct any sins. The Pardoner continues on to say Thus can I preche again that same vice, Which that I use, and that is avarice. But though myself be gilty in that sinne, Yit can I make other folk to twinne from avarice, and sore to repente, but that is nat my principal entente. (ln 139-144). The Pardoner reveals that he himself is guilty of greed, yet again has no intent to right others sins nor live as a true pardoner in poverty like that of his parishioners. He adds That I wol live in poverte willfully? Nay, nay, I thought it nevere, trewely, For I wol preche and begge in sondry landes; I wol not do no labour with mine hands (ln 153-156). The Pardoner concludes his prologue with the lines Now have I dronke a draughte oif corny aleFor though myself be a ful vicious man, A moral tale yit I you telle can agreeing to the obvious fact that his morals, actions and narrations contradict his profession and his social status as a clergy member.

The Pardoners tale is told more so as a sermon than a story, using allusions from the bible to support his narrations. He first addresses the sin of drinking The Holy writ take I to my witnesse, That luxure is in win and dronkenesse. Lo, how that drunken Lot unkindely, Lay by his doughtres two unwittingly: So dronke he was he nist what he wroughte (ln 195-199). He uses the biblical story of Lot, Abrahams Nephew who in an inebriated state unknowingly slept with his daughters. He cites the story of the classical character Attilla, Looke Attilla, the grete conqueror, Deide in his sleep with shame and dishonour, Bleeding at his nose in dronkenesse: A capitain sholde live in sobrenesse (ln 291-294) adding support to his claims that drunkenness is a villainy. Although he preaches that drinking is wrong and evil, he ironically starts his tale with a glass of ale. On the issue of gluttony, the Pardoner cites the story of Adam and Eve. For whil that Adam fasted, as I rede, He was in Paradis; and whan that he, Eet of the fruit defended on a tree, Anoon he was out cast to wo and paine. O glotonye, on thee wel oughte us plaine! (ln 220-224). Because Eve had been a glutton and ate from the forbidden tree, she damned the human race out of Eden for all eternity. The Pardoner uses this allusion to gain textual support about the evils of gluttony, yet he exclaims that I wol have moneye, wolle, cheese, and whete. (ln 160).

In Chaucers Canterbury tale, his characters, the Wife of Bath and the Pardoner continuously cite biblical and classical textual authorities in order to support their own actions and morals. As the Wife of Bath used allusions to defend her actions and sexual behaviors, the Pardoner used allusions to assist his business and ultimately for his own personal gain. Chaucer used his characters voices and narrations to show the ironies of the medieval institutions of marriage, and church.