Ambiguity and Understanding of Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde

Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales are some of the most widely read and anthologized pieces of medieval poetry. These tales are generally celebrated and enjoyed because of the author’s use of wit and satire, as Chaucer often uses word play and characterization to deliver hard-hitting, yet entertaining truths about his time period. This is the case in “The Miller’s Tale,” which portrays the story of a carpenter with an adulterous wife and the shenanigans that take place during and after one of her affairs. After closely examining “Absalom’s Revenge,” the last section of this tale, it is clear to see that Chaucer uses language, puns, and other writing techniques to provide a commentary on the lewdness of some who lived during the Middle Ages.

Why do you think Chaucer included Justinus and Placebo? What does the latter’s debate contribute to the overall Tale? A number of factors come together to distance the reader from the characters in the tale, not least the complicated and ambiguous series of lenses through which they are viewed. They are all types or allegories to lesser or greater degrees.

I agree with what Condren’s view on Chaucer. Chaucer shows in the story Chaucer talks about how dynamic life is and how different the people are. Life is a crazy thing but Chaucer makes it really different. He makes everything “fascinating” with everything he talks about has to have a story behind it and the people have stories behind them. He makes the people “fascinating” he talks about how they have rashes and have nasty eyebrows and the way they dress. Nothing is boring with them.

Here the Middle and Modern words don’t look the same and the word meanings differ as well. Modern English pronunciation reflects the Great Vowel Shift. The shift involved a regular movement of the places of articulation. Front vowels each moved up a notch, except for /i/: which formed a dipthong. Likewise the back vowels moved up, except for /u/, which formed another dipthong (Benson).

In terms of literary quality, Chaucer went great lengths to give all elements a bit of attention. The work is primarily about a knight who is pardoned from a rape on the condition that he acquires the answer to one of life’s

In the prologue Chaucer talks about many of the characters. He often tells stories and describes how they act and how they are. From being members in the church to having a good and bad reputation in the town, all the characters are unique in their own way. Chaucer describes the summoner, pardoner, and the friar by using indirect characterization in each of their stories.

Women should be at one with their being and be able to speak on social and psychic truths. Chaucer is an author that goes against what would be considered normal for this time period. He attempts to write as a female to represent a female perspective and enter into debate about the role of a woman. Stated in the text, “We can argue straightforwardly that women were marginalized and subordinate, that women lived and suffered under patriarchy.”(Treacher133). Women were viewed as being inferior. Are we to believe and follow the views created by men and for men? Chaucer is a man who creates a story told by a woman for woman and men. He seeks to show that women can speak up and does not need approval by men, “But that the Queen and other ladies as well implored the King to exercise his grace, so ceaselessly, he gave the Queen the case and granted her his life, and she could choose whether to show him mercy or refuse.” (Chaucer157). In the example, the King and the Queen represents at a higher power how a male and female is to be equal. It is shown that the Queen’s opinion and a woman’s opinion in general are just as important and purposeful as the King’s opinion. Chaucer uses the scenario of two powerful authority figures, the King and Queen, as an example for others to follow. The idea of the queen being able to make decisions concerning the knight, and the husband passing his power to his wife shows an equal relationship. The king and queen was used as a symbol that

In the very first lines of The General Prologue, Chaucer is already demonstrating how his work can be read in two ways: nominalistically and realistically. The nominalist, Chaucer’s pilgrim narrator, sees the lines meant to interpret one way, while the realist, Chaucer the poet, interprets the lines another way.

There is no question that contradictory values make up a major component of The Canterbury Tales. Fate vs. Fortuna, knowledge vs. experience and love vs. hate all embody Chaucer's famous work. These contrasting themes are an integral part of the complexity and sophistication of the book, as they provide for an ironic dichotomy to the creative plot development and undermine the superficial assumptions that might be made. The combination of completely contradictory motifs leads to the unusual stories and outcomes that come to play out in the tales. And these outcomes draw focus on the larger universal issues that in many cases transcend the boundaries of vernacular periods to all of

The integration of Chaucer’s dual persona is important in showing her immediate appearance and how her character develops in her Prologue and Tale.

We cannot read the CT as an honest criticism of 14th century English society without examining the entire picture - and this picture includes Chaucer's ideological contradiction. To better understand Chaucer's real message - criticizing the Three Estates system in order to encourage acceptance of his own Estate, the merchant or middle class - I will briefly discuss the Three Estates system and Chaucer's role in the system's shift to include a Fourth Estate (and how this shift influenced the CT). Then I will examine four stories from the CT (The Wife of Bath's Prologue, The Friar's Tale, The Summoner's Tale, and The Pardoner's Tale) in which Chaucer seems to denounce elements of the social paradigm. I will then examine four stories from the CT (The Knight's Tale, The Man of Law's Tale, The Second Nun's Tale, and The Parson's Tale) in which Chaucer contradicts his criticism of his society. Finally, I will discuss how the dominant social paradigm influenced Chaucer's view of the lower classes, and how the classist structure led to ideological contradictions within the CT. Before we discuss Chaucer's ideological contradictions, however, we must first examine the system he was attempting to change, the Three Estate system.

Chaucer does not only the tale to show off his writing abilities -- it is not simply a display of his incredible versatility as an author.  Chaucer uses this tale to contrast his anti-church sentiments within the Canterbury Tales; it shows his great respect for spiritual beliefs and benefits him in making his argument against the Church.  In essence, Chaucer is clearly defending his anti-secular position by showing his reverence and devotion to spirituality; his problems lie with the Church, not the faith. While very well known for his sardonic criticism of the Church, he is less often acknowledged for his appreciation and respect for the religion itself.

In Chaucer’s famous novel: The Canterbury Tales, he describes many characters in a satirical way, while others he describes with complete admiration. The narrator (a constructed version of Chaucer himself) is staying at the Tabard Inn in London, when a large group of about twenty-nine people enter the inn, preparing to go on a pilgrimage to Canterbury. After the narrator talks to them, he agrees to join them on their pilgrimage. Although, before the narrator progresses any further in the tale, he describes the circumstances and the social rank of each pilgrim. There are two characters in these tales of the same social class, but Chaucer’s opinion on them vary greatly. These two characters are the beloved Parson, and the loathed Pardoner.

So we may dismiss him without ceremony, and imagine ourselves face to face with Chaucer; his is the all-pervading geniality and sly elvish humour of this sparkling tale” (Pearsall 39). Personally, I find this position to be almost as far-fetched as that of Broes. We have seen, quite consistently, throughout the various tales that Chaucer plays an intricate, even slightly devilish, game of hide and seek with the reader. No single character can be said to represent Chaucer, just as Chaucer never completely enters the psyche of his creations. In fact, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. Of course, it is curious that we know so little about the Nun’s Priest. However, perhaps we might conjecture that this vagueness is a deliberate strategy. In other words, because we know so little about the Nun’s Priest, our ability to enter into the realm of the tale is unclouded by our preconceptions, or misconceptions, of this pilgrim. Too often, we have a tendency to judge the tale based on our liking or disliking of the particular pilgrim whose portrait remains indelibly printed on our impressionable minds. By withholding the portrait, Chaucer affords us a chance to really read the tale. Indeed, if we are to speculate at all, then we might be tempted to identify with this anonymous “Sir John” who is seemingly mocked, albeit gently, even by Chaucer: “And right anon his tale hath he attamed,/And thus he seyde unto us everichon,/This sweete preest, this goodly

This is a story about an author with an unfinished story that survived the passage of time. I will be discussing the life, the works, and the impact of Geoffrey Chaucer. Geoffrey Chaucer was born in 1340, London, England. He is the son of John and Agnes de Copton Chaucer. Chaucer's family were wine merchants. Chaucer’s first job was as a page for Elizabeth, the countess of Ulster. Elizabeth was the wife of Prince Lionel, the third son of Edward III.