"A Poet Ther Was": Chaucer's Voices in the General Prologue to the Canterbury Tales

Author(s): Barbara Nolan

Source: PMLA, Vol. 101, No. 2 (Mar., 1986), pp. 154-169
Published by: Modern Language Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/462401 .
Accessed: 22/03/2013 19:00
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Modern Language Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to PMLA.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.16.86.36 on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:00:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BARBARA NOLAN

"A PoetTherWas": Chaucer'sVoicesin theGeneral

Tales
Prologueto TheCanterbury

HAUCER GIVES us no explicitportrait I argue,by a seriesof impersonations.None of

headed "A Poet therwas" in the General

Prologueto The CanterburyTales. Yetthe
entirePrologue,like so manyvernacularinvitacenturyon, is
tionsto narrativefromthe twelfth
designedto introducethepoet, describehis task,
and gain the goodwill of the audience. Scholars
generallyagreethatthelatermedievalpracticeof
composingprologuesdependedon the grammar
school studyof rhetoricalhandbooksand classical poetry. By the fourteenthcenturya selfto handbookdefiprologueconforming
reflexive
nitionshad become more or less de rigueurfor
both secularand religious.'
narrative,
aristocratic
Chaucer's Prologue, though longer and more
complexthan most,is no exception.It raisesexpectationsin just the areas the handbooks propose, promisingto take up importantmattersof
naturaland social order,moralcharacter,and retheworkwill
ligionand outliningtheorganization
as the
follow.Aboveall, thepoetpresentshimself,
handbooks direct,to ingratiatehimselfwithhis
listenersor readersand renderthemreceptiveto
his argument.
Chaucer's Prologue, however,meets these
genericexpectationsin entirelyunexpectedways.
Most recentcriticshave recognizedthat it does
portraitof the
not providea neat,straightforward
remainselusive,exceedpoet. Chaucer'sauthority
of the humilitytopos. Furing the requirements
thermore,whateverpotentialtheremay be for
tendsto be uncoherencein his self-presentation
derminedby the severalabruptchangesof style
and subject.In fact,thepartsof theGeneralPrologue seemto functionas severalattackson a beginning,each of themprobingfroma different
angle a problemthat traditionallybelonged to
prologues,"How shall I beginand to what purpose?" At firstthevariousstylesand subjectsjuxtaposedin thePrologueappearto suggestno clear
answer.Moreover,theparts,or attemptsat beginning,are governednot by a single,cumulatively
enrichedand deepenedfigureof thepoet but,as

thesetakenalone revealsthepoet'spresencefully.
do theyrevealthepoet literNor,takentogether,
ary traditionmighthave led readersto expect.
The GeneralPrologue,I suggest,containsnot
one voice of thepoet but threemajor attemptsat
partof a comauthorialvoicing.Each constitutes
plex argumentabout the natureof the poet and
poetryin termsauthorizedby well-knownmedieval theoryand practice.The firstof thesevoices
declaimstheAprilopeningwiththelearnedassurance and scientificattentionof a clerkdeliberatformulason thecauses of
ingin venerableliterary
things.The last is a tavernkeeper's,urginggood
cheerand play formaterialprofit.In betweenwe
hear the modest,devout"I" of Chaucer the pilorderto his exgrim,intenton givingsystematic
perience.But the voices of the otherpilgrimsso
intrudeon his own that he is leftat last simply
withgenial apologies for failingto do what he
had promised.All thevoicesare finallyChaucer's,
of course, all of themimpersonations.And all
participatein the poet's complex,unexpectedargumentconcerninghis character(s)and purpose.2
For themostpart,onlythevoiceof thepilgrim
In
has been relatedto Chaucer'sself-presentation.
his well-known
and brilliantly
persuasiveessay,E.
Talbot Donaldson urgesa separationof the pilgrimfromthe poet. He arguesthat the pilgrim
personais a comic devicethatthe poet manipulatesas an ironicfoilforhis own incisivewit.The
poet,he says,"operatesin a realmwhichis above
and subsumesthose in whichChaucer the man
and Chaucer thepilgrimhavetheirbeing" (936).
Few criticshavequestionedtheisolationof the
pilgrimpersonaas Chaucer'sprincipalfoilin the
Prologue,thoughseveralhavechallengedDonaldson's wayof explainingthe relationshipbetween
the persona and the poet or the man. In an importantarticleand in his book, Donald Howard
relaargues fora more complexand mysterious
tionshipbetweenthe pilgrimand the poet than
Donaldson proposes. The pilgrim,he suggests,

154

This content downloaded from 200.16.86.36 on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:00:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BarbaraNolan

155

nounce the literarytheoryand designof the fictiveorderthat follows.

Poetryand poets occupyan uncertainposition
in medievaltheory.Some writers-amongthem
Man").3
Platonists,Dante, Petrarch,
the twelfth-century
MarshallLeicesterhas objected
More recently,
that separate the pilgrim and Boccaccio-contendthatthepoet can express
to all interpretations
thatthepoet'spresence truthunder the veil of "beautifullies." In this
fromthepoet,contending
well-knownargument,the readeris to take the
is to be discoverednot beyondtheworkbutin the
chaff
fruit,or sentence,and discardtherhetorical
voicingof the text.Positinga separation,he arof thepoet's fictivecovering.Another,less genergues, gives us the comfortable(and false) sense
ous position-put forwardby the Parson in The
that we can know who is speakingat any given
in "fables"at
Tales-refusesto traffic
Canterbury
momentand whatpositioneach speakerholds on
diversion,false
all. In thisview,poetryis frivolity,
the matterpresented.In his view,it is "just this
of falsehood.
consolation;poets,theperpetrators
senseof knowingwherewe are,withwhomwe are
dealing, that the General Prologue deliberately Chaucer's threevoices in the General Prologue
formdramaticimages of severaltheories,carryand calculatedlydeniesus" (219). Insteadof a pilgrimpersonajuxtaposedwithan unimpersonated ing us froma notionof poetryas philosophyto
merriment.
Harry'sviewof poetryas distracting
poet, Leicesterproposesthemodelof a "prologal
The argumentChaucer makes about the poet
voice" thatbelongsto an impersonator
preparing
and poetryis neithermechanicalnordetached.In
to take on the characterof each pilgrimin turn.
the Prologue and in the tales, he exploresthe
becauseit inThis thesisis provocative,
important
siststhatwe listento thetext'svoicingsof charac- whole rangeof medievalpositionsregardingpoterratherthan read frompreconceivedcharacter etry,not so much to establisha "true" position
as to emphasizehis sense of the ambiguitiesand
to text.
contradictionssurroundingfiction'svaluation,
But Leicesterassumes that such attentionto
to hisadvantage.
voicesshouldaim at discovering
the "personality" and also to turnthesedifficulties
The pilgrim-poet
deliberately
placeshimselfin the
of the poet and his pilgrims.This concern for
midstof the questionshe poses-and he has his
"personality,"as also for the presenceof the
pilgrimstake up the problemagain and again in
"man," missesthe essentiallyrhetorical,
ideologically oriented character of the poet's self- theirprologuesand tales. In his manyvoices,he
his quest fora
invitesreadersto shareintimately
presentation.
HeedingLeicester'swarningagainst
radicallynew, personal (and ultimatelycomic,
positingmore speakersthan necessaryand casting Howard's concern for the man in different provisional)poetic,one trueto his sense of the
ironies and limitationsinherentin his art of
terms,I argue that Chaucer as a single author
fiction.
projectsthreemajor "authorial"voicesin his Prologue to examineseveralpossibilitiesforpoetry,
all of themempoweredby well-knownmedieval
I. MultipleVoicingin Medieval
Theoryand Practice
theoryand all of themusefulforhis tales. The
threevoices lead us not to the poet's "personality"or to Chaucertheman in a generalsensebut
was esMultiplevoicingas a mode of argument
ratherto the problemof beinga poet in the late
sentialto latermedievalnarrative,
whetherin alfourteenth
privateconversation
legoricaldebateor exemplary
century.Instead of givingus a single
or interiormonologueframedby first-or thirdimage of the poet and a singledefinitionof the
poet's authority,Chaucer juxtaposes images of
personnarration.Indeed, romanceand allegory,
himselfas threepossible kindsof poet. The pilthe two dominantnarrativeformsof the later
grimis onlyone of these,thoughhe holds a priv- MiddleAges,positively
requiredmultiplevoicing.
ilegedpositionamongtherest.He is the "I" from These essentiallydialecticalformstypicallypose
whomtheotherstaketheirbeing,and he provides challengingsocial or moralor spiritualquestions
a moral centerfromwhich to judge the other
to be solved by means of the narrativeprocess.
of suchtexts-their
voices. But an impersonalvoice pronouncesthe
Nearlyalways,thesubjectivity
groundingin the poet's authority-is presented
opening third-personnarration, and Harry's
"boold" voice finallyreplacesthepilgrim'sto anthroughtwoor morevoices.Beatrice,Vergil,Rai-

givesa tantalizingly
partialsense of the man behindthe work;the limitationsinviteus to create
Chaucer finallyin our own image ("Chaucer the

This content downloaded from 200.16.86.36 on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:00:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

156

'A Poet TherWas":Chaucer'sVoicesin theGeneralPrologue

a grotesquemaidenmay
son, Gracedieu,a hermit,
servein the poet's place as a guide to wisdomat
variousmomentsin the narrative.By puttingon
a numberof voices,the poet can mask his positionand thusdrawtheaudienceintoan exacting,
unpredictableprocessof discovery.
When we listento Chaucer's severalvoices in
the GeneralPrologue(and in thetales),therefore,
we hear the masterof an art cultivatedby generations of Frenchand Italian writers.To be sure,
in Chaucer the art of playingvoice againstvoice
assumesa decisivenewdirectionpredictive
of the
novel'scomplexities.Yet his inventiondepended
absolutelyon the priordiscoveriesof those major poets who had mostinfluencedhim-among
them, Benoit de Sainte-Maure,Guillaume de
Lorris, Jean de Meung, Boccaccio, Dante, and
Machaut.
To findthe main theoreticalbases formultiple
voicingin the Middle Ages, we mustturnto the
rhetoricalhandbooks universallyused in the
grammarschools and to schoolroomexegesisof
the curriculumauthors. Handbook discussions
give primaryattentionto calculatedvoicingand
in theorator'sself-presentation
impersonation
and
in theactingout of theclient'sattitudes,feelings,
and experiencesin order to build a convincing
case.
When Quintilian describesthe orator's selfpresentationin the exordium,or prologue, he
recommends
an artfulmanagement
of voice,style,
and manner:
intheex[W]eshould. . . giveno hintofelaboration
ordium. .. Buttoavoidall display
ofartinitself
requiresconsummate
art. .. Thestyleoftheexordium
. . . should . . . seem simple and unpremeditated,

whileneither
ourwordsnorourlooksshouldpromise
toomuch.Fora method
ofpleading
whichconcealsits
art. . . willoftenbe bestadaptedtoinsinuate
itsway
intothemindsof ourhearers. (4.1.56-60;2: 36-39)
If artificeand adjustmentsof voiceare to be used
even in the defenseof honorablecases, theybecome all themoreimportantfordoubtfulor discreditableones.
In thisregard,therhetoricalhandbooksdistinguishbetweena directprologue(principium)for
good causes and a subtle approach (insinuatio)
fordoubtfulones. The Ad Herennium,forexample, a popular rhetoricattributedto Cicero, definesthe difference
as follows:

The directopeningshouldbe such thatby . . .

methods
makethe
straightforward
. . . weimmediately
hearerwell-disposed
or attentive
or receptive;
whereas
theSubtleApproachshouldbe suchthatweeffect
all
andso can
theseresults
covertly,
through
dissimulation,
in thetaskof speakarriveat thesamevantage-point
ing.
(1.7;20-21)
As theclassroomhandbookssuggest,theassumption of a personato mask intentionsand win favor in the exordiumhas to do with pragmatic
manipulationand strategicdissimulationquite
separatefromissues of truthand falsehood.
Therewas also, however,
another,largertheory
of multiplevoicing,propoundedin well-known
scripturaland literaryexegesis.This theorysupportstheindirectpursuitof trueunderstanding
in
and throughnarrative
discoursethatdramatically
represents
severalopinions,includingtheauthor's.
Commentatorson a varietyof textsdescribethe
ways in which a writercan use personae or
charactersto representvarious positions on a
givensubject.These discussionsare richwithsugChaucerand othervergestionforunderstanding
nacular poets. Servius,for example,explaining
Vergil'sfirsteclogue,writes:4
A certainshepherd
is introduced
lyingsafeand at leisureundera treeinorderto makea musicalcomposition; another,indeed,has been expelledfromhis
withhisflock,who,whenhe hasseenTityhomelands
rusreclining,
speaks.AndinthisplacewemustunderstandVergil
underthecharacter
[personalof Tityrus;
noteverywhere,
butwherever
theargument
dehowever,
mandsit.
(1: 4)
Here, accordingto Servius,the author presents
himselfthroughhis characters,not to revealhis
personality,but to serve his argument.Tityrus
does not alwaysrepresentVergil,but speaks for
him only whenthe argumentrequiresit. In this
dispensation
theauthoris presentnotas a distinctive personalitybut, rather,as a writerstrictly
speaking,arrangingcharactersand voicesin relation to the large argumentbeing made.
In termsstillmoresuggestiveformedievalpoetry,commentatorsregularlyidentifydialogical
self-dramatization
as a formalfeatureof some of
the most importantand influentialworksof the
period, including Augustine'sSoliloquies and
Boethius'sDe consolatione.Of thesetwotextsPeter Abelard says:

This content downloaded from 200.16.86.36 on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:00:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Barbara Nolan
withhimself,
setup his
[Itis] as ifsomeone,speaking
as iftwo[werespeaking],
argument
in
justas Boethius
orAugustine
hisbook,theConsolation
ofPhilosophy,
in hisBook of Soliloquies.
(760)5
And Conrad of Hirsau writesof the Consolatio:
Threecharacters
by
[personae]are broughtforward
Boethius:miserable
Boethiusseekingto be consoled;
Philosophiawho consoles;Boethiustheauthorwho
speaksaboutbothof them.
(Huygens108)6
Therecan be no doubtthatsuchdialogicalforms
as the Consolationand the Soliloquies, together
with the commentaries surrounding them,
providedpowerfulmodelsformultiplevoicingin
many kinds of texts throughoutthe medieval
period,but particularlyfromthetwelfthcentury
on.
Gregorythe Great'scommentson Ecclesiastes
offerus yetanotherfulland well-knowndiscussion of the writer'smanipulativeuse of personae
and voicesin philosophicalargument.
His description of Solomon's authorialstrategiesmightwell
have servedas a headnote formanya medieval
text,includingThe CanterburyTales.Emphasizing the orator's role in bringingtogetherand
reconcilingthe opinions of a contentiousaudience, Gregoryexplains how Solomon impersonatesthe charactersand viewsof manypeople
as if to pacifya cantankerouscrowd:

157

and achievements
of
themoralconduct,aspirations,
forthespeakerto
it is necessary
manyaredescribed,
to expressthe
assumethevoicesof manyspeakers,
so thathe has the
opinionsof manyin hisdiscourse,
ofmanyinhisownperthecharacters
powertopresent
son,whenhe whospeaksis nonetheless
onlyone.For
at theendofthebook,having
spokeninmany[voices],
thathe hasbeenmany[characters]
he himself
testifies
inhimself,
saying:
Letus all equallyheartheendofthe
speaking:"Fear God, and obeyhis commandments.
Thisis everyman."For thisis whyhe wantedto be
in hiswork,namely,
becausehis
called"Ecclesiastes"
is directed
herenotto a certain
discourse
personparticularly
butto thewholeChurch-that
is,theassemof people-and theargument
in this
blyor multitude
bookserves
at oncetoportray
theconduct
ofmanyand
to forman imageof it.
(115)9

Of course,Chaucer's art of voicingis far more

complexthanthekinddescribedbyGregoryand
Hugh. Among otherthingsit involvesa detailed
dramaticactionso compellingthatsome eminent
criticshave assumed that the drama itselfwas
Chaucer's principalconcern.
But medievaltheorizing
about multiplevoicing,
both the rhetoricians'and the exegetes',suggests
a different
emphasis,and one wellsuitedto theintricate play of Chaucer's Prologue and tales.
Whilethe exegeticalcommentsI have quoted do
not explainpreciselyhow multiplevoicingworks
in medievalpoetryor in Chaucer,theydo provide
a rationaleforits use and encourageus to examine Chaucer's complex managementof voicing
This book is called"The Orator"becauseSolomon
witha closer scrutinythan it has generallybeen
takesup therethethinking
of a crowdwhichis in disgiven.
As I havealreadysuggested,
criticspropose
undertheformof questionshe expresses
agreement:
a
false
when
to
determine
who
problem
they
try
whatthemanon thestreet
is tempted
to think.
All the
in
is
speaking
a
Chaucerian
passage-whether,
for
ideasthathe takesup inhisinquiry
correspond
to the
variouscharacters
he impersonates.(4.1;3: 26-27)7 example,we are to hearthepoet or thepilgrimor
the man at a particularmomentin the General
Accordingto Gregory,Solomon ends his multi- Prologue (see also Christianson).The real question is not autobiographicalbut rhetoricaland
voiced discourseby addressinghis listenersin his
dialectical.10For what rhetoricalpurpose does
own voice and drawingthemintounity.Afterhe
thepoetassumethepilgrim's
voice?How and why
has assumed the manycharactersand positions
is this voice juxtaposed withothersin the Proleading away fromsalvation,he argues for the
logue and in the tales?
necessityof fearingGod and understanding
the
In theGeneralPrologue,we mustlistenclosely
world'svanity.8
to all the voices-the impersonalvoice of the
Hugh of St. Victor'shomilyon EcclesiastesimtheHost's-as aspects
proveson Gregory'sdescriptionof impersonation openinglines,thepilgrim's,
of an argumentin whichthepoet himselfparticand sheds further
lighton Chaucer's art of mulipates throughhis juxtapositionof tonallyand
tiple voicing:
stylistically
different
voices. The poet's presence
and his self-definition
inherein hisacts of manipis signified,
and [onethat
disputation
[A] many-sided
has] eliciteddiverse
opinions.Forsince,in thisbook,
ulation and his multipleimpersonation.Seen in

This content downloaded from 200.16.86.36 on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:00:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

158

'A Poet TherWas":Chaucer'sVoicesin theGeneralPrologue

thislight,ChauceremergesfromthePrologue,as
fromthe tales, a quick-changeartist,a shape
a prestidigitator,
a playerwithvoices.
shifter,
is morelikeSolomon's
Chaucer'splay,however,
than like HarryBailly's. It takesthe formof an
articulates
varexactingdialecticthatdramatically
ious positionson thehumancondition.If one attends only to the linear, temporal, narrative
process of the Prologue and tales, the play is a
sourceof richcomedy.But forthosewho assume
the poet's perspectiveas masterplayerand look
to the form,the manyvoices also offera wayto
philosophicalclarification.By experiencingthe
voicesas partsin a complexargument,
thereader,
likethe poet, mayavoid commitment
to the misplaced seriousness,the ego attachments,
and the
foolishnessthat governmost of the characters.
Chaucer'sdeftjuxtapositions
of one positionwith
anotherpointin a wise,deep wayto the absurdithe
ties,thepain, thepoignancy,thepretensions,
of thehumancondition.The
limitedperspectives
poet'sown fullyconsciousplay,expressedthrough
his multivoiced dialectic, allows him to acknowledgehis fictionmaking,and that of his
characters,forwhatit is. In thisway,he can vindicatethemusesof poetryas Boethiuscould not.
Chaucer's play with voices does not issue in a
resolutionas clearor univocalas Solomon'sin Ecclesiastes.YettheParson'sTale and theRetraction
offerimages of finalityand closure that may
bringtheCanterbury
fictionsto an end byan appeal to an orderof being beyondthe tales.
II. Chaucer's Voices in the GeneralPrologue
As I have suggested,threevoices and threeattitudestowardpoeticauthorityvie forcontrolin
thePrologue-the "clerk's,"thepilgrim's,
and the
Host's.11Whilethe firstand last are diametrically
opposed, the importantcentralvoice of the pilgrimmediatesbetweenthemand explainstheunavoidable "fall" fromthe firstto the last in the
deliberateabsence of a truth-telling
allegorical
guide. HarryBailly becomes the necessarymuse
forThe CanterburyTalesbecause no Philosophia
or Raison or Gracedieuor Holichurcheprovides
a gracefulalternative.
But Harry'sworldlytheory
of poetrydoes not prevailentirely.
The othertwo
majorprologalvoicesencouragethepossibility
of
higherpoeticaspirations."Authors"in searchof
philosophical or spiritual wisdom-like the
Knight,the OxfordClerk,the Second Nun, and

theParson-imitatetheclerklyor pilgrimvoicein
one way or another.In thisrespecttheycounter
the fictionsof others-like the Miller,the Reeve,
theMerchant,and thePardoner-whoin one way
or anotherfollowthe Host in his purelysecular
play.In addition,the highervoices remainavailable as alternativemodels of authorityand purpose for readerswho will "rewrite"the tales in
theirprivatequests fora savingdoctrine.
III. The Clerk's Voice
The firstof the Chaucerianvoices we hearthefirstimpersonation-gives
us thelearnedpoet
of the schools. Versedin the literary
topoi of the
Latin traditionand skilledin rhetoricalcomposiof sortswho knowspretion,he is also a scientist
cisely how plants grow and a philosopherwho
looks into the natureof things.
The rhetoricaldescriptionof springspokenin
Chaucer's clerklyvoice occurs over and over in
classical and medievalpoets, philosophers,and
alike. It belongs to no particular
encyclopedists
genreor poetic formbut appears in a wide variety of contexts-in Lucretius,in Vergil and
Boethius,in Carolingianand Goliardicpoetry,in
encyclopediaslikethe one by BartholomeusAnglicus, in scientificmanuals like the Secreta
in vernacularlyricand narrativeposecretorum,
Whetherphilosophicor lyrical,the spring
etry."2
topos usuallyservesas a synecdoche,pointingto
the whole order of creation. In medievallore,
spring,as thefirstof thefourseasons,signalsthe
of natureand impliesthe causal presregularity
ence of the Creator.In love poetrythe arrivalof
springmayexplainthe beginningsof eroticfeelingand thelover'sjoyfuldiscovery
of his beloved.
Or the regularity
of spring'sappearancemay be
shownto be at odds witha lover'sunseasonaldejection at the loss of his lady.
Like his predecessors,Chaucer in his clerkly
guiseuses thesynecdocheof springto implya hierarchyin theuniverse,one thatpointsinevitably
to God as the source of love and order.Within
thiscosmicschemeChauceremphasizestheerotic
movementof all creation,imperfect
and incomplete,inherently
synecdochic,towardcompletion
and the fulfillment
of longing.The "when . . .
then" constructionof the long opening monologue, full of "gretand high sentence,"underscoresthepoet'sphilosophicalurgeto explainthe
causes and laws of things(includinghuman be-

This content downloaded from 200.16.86.36 on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:00:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Barbara Nolan

159

havior). Withinthistightsyntacticconstruction it does not point beyonditself.By its natureit

does not lend itselfto allegoryand the wise exthe speaker'sfacile descentfrompilgrimagesin
generalto theCanterbury
pilgrimage-from
genus plicationof causes but,rather,supportsthemore
and conmodestclaimsof chronicle,storytelling,
to species-exemplifiesschoolroomhabitsof logfession.
ical thought.Furthermore,
the highlyliterary
beThe abrupt break in Chaucer's introductory
ginningexactlycoincides with its subject, the
initiatedbythewordbifiland domimonologue,
of
in
lower
cosmicbeginnings things,whether
nanated by a personal"I," constitutes
just the sort
tureor in humanlife.The outergarbof poetryin
the highstylesuitsits philosophicalsubjectper- of "semanticreversal"thatthe Czech criticJan
has singledout as a signof "dialogic
as ifthepoet could exploreand explainthe Mukarovsky
fectly,
4 We are unexpectedly
jolted fromthe
deep matterof natural and human and divine discourse."'
monologic structureof the clerklydiscourse,
causality.
sumsup a dominantme- largelyfreeof involvementin specifictime or
This sortof beginning
space, to the pilgrim'sdirectdialogic addressto
of
narrative
dieval tradition
authority.Justsuch
the otherpilgrimsand to the readers.Mukarova voice mightwellhaveinitiatedan allegoricalvisky's descriptionof this kind of discoursepresion of the kindwrittenby Raoul de Houdenc or
Dante or Deguileville.Or it mighthavegenerated ciselysuitsthe complexinterplayin the pilgrim's
himselfand theother
a rewriting
of theRoman de la rose,exploringthe speechas the"I" introduces
philosophicaldistinctions
betweensecularand re- pilgrims:"by a sleightof hand the listenerbecomesthespeaker,and the functionof thecarrier
ligious love. Allegorieslike thesepresupposethe
of the utteranceconstantlyjumps fromparticipoet's (and humanity's)powerto knowcauses,to
give cosmic explicationsof the kind the first pant to participant"(113).
Chaucerian"beginning"seemsto promise."3The
We observeimmediately
thatthecharacterinto
heightened,philosophizingvoice is the voice of
whichthepoet has "fallen"defineshimas essenauthoritativeliterarytradition.It articulatesa
tiallyimperfect,
incomplete,on theway: "I lay /
general longing-shared by poet and readers Redyto wendenon mypilgrymage
/ To Caunteralike-for a wise, fullvision of the human conburywithfuldevoutcorage" (1.20-22). Through
ditionand even forentranceinto the recessesof
his pilgrim"I" as the centralvoice in the Prodivineprivity.
YetChaucer'sclerklyarticulation
of
logue, Chaucer exploitsto the fullthe humility
thepoet's taskis abruptlytruncated.It remainsa
topos the rhetoricalhandbooks recommendfor
fragment,a possibilityunexploited.In the very theexordium.He geniallyclaimsincompetence
in
nextsectionof theProloguea secondvoicedefini- the art of making arguments,and he speaks
tivelydenies access to the highmysterious
realm directlyand personallyto his audience withthe
of causes-a realmthathad been confidently
exsame ingratiating
deferencehe had evidently
used
plored by medievalpoets of the greatestimpor- in insinuatinghimselfinto the fellowshipof piltance,includingBernardSilvestris,
Alain de Lille,
grims.As we followChaucer'sdevelopment
of the
and Dante.
pilgrim'scharacter,however,
we discoverthatthe
deviceis no meredevice.The pilgrimpersonais
IV. The Pilgrim'sVoice
notjust a maskbuta centralfactof thisand every
poet's existence.Chaucer's genius here,as elseThe poet's startling
shiftfroma clerk'svoiceto
where,lies in his abilityto transform
a familiar
a pilgrim'sturnson the importantwordbifil.It
topos into a precisemetaphor.
is a wordthat,togetherwithbifalle,falle, and fil
The image of the pilgrimis heavywithmeanin the same sense,occurs oftenin the course of
ing, thoughcriticshave had a tendencyto pass
The Canterbury
Tales.It typically
signifies
chance
lightlyoverit, settlingforits functionas a comihappenings,unexpectedeventsoccurringat rancally ironic front for the poet. In fact, this
dom. The orderof timegovernedby bifiland fil
assumptionleaves us withan incompleteunderis radicallydifferent
fromthe mythic,cyclictime
standingof Chaucer'spointin havinghis central
of the springtopos. It is, in fact,the "order" of
persona and voice develop as theydo. Chaucer
the fallen historical world, in which chance,
givesus nota poet assumingtheguiseof a pilgrim
change, unpredictability
hold sway.Nor is this
but a pilgrimattempting
thepoet's task. His "I"
timesynecdochic;unlikethe springtime
imagery, persona identifiesthe speakeras firsta pilgrim.

This content downloaded from 200.16.86.36 on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:00:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

160

'A Poet TherWas":Chaucer'sVoicesin theGeneralPrologue

thusdefinedis an importantone beThe priority

cause it establishesan ontological perspective
fromwhich to measure all the rhetoricalplay
recordedin the portraits.
thisvoice,thisimage,
How are we to interpret
as
a
if we takeit seriously
necessaryreplacement
fortheclerklyvoice?As pilgrim,thepoet participatesin "corrumpable"nature,acknowledging
by
his pilgrimagethathis naturetakesits beginning
froma being greaterthan himselfand findsits
end beyondhimselfin a "thyngthatparfitis and
stable" (1.3009).The pilgrim,likeEveryman,proceeds at least to some extent"dronke. . . as is
a mous" who "noot which the rightewey is
thider" (1.1261, 1263). Of course the pilgrim
Chauceris not thelovesickArciteor thedrunken
Milleror any of the other"sondryfolk" in and
out of the tales. But he claims fellowshipwith
them. His identityand his voice are intimately
bound up withtheirs,and he discovershis own
theirs.'5
powersand limitsby investigating
The pilgriminsists that his investigationbe
made not fromthe superiorvantage point assumed by the clerklyvoice but fromwithin:"I
was of hirfelaweshipe
anon, / And made forward
erlyforto ryse,/ To take oure weytheras I yow
devyse" (1.32-34). Chaucer the pilgrimsubmits
to thedemandsand limitsof the
himselfexplicitly
occasion "in that seson on a day" (19). And he
makes an immediate accord with the motley
crowdof travelers
who havecome togetherat the
Tabard"by aventure"(25). Acceptingtheirchance
fellowshipas a matterof course,he assumesthe
of tellingus about themand their
responsibility
plans. Insteadof castingabout in old books and
authoritiesformaterial,as his clerklyand courtly
predecessorshad typicallydone, Chaucer simply
"finds" the matterthat has fallenin his waythe fleshand blood (and words)of his fellowsat
theTabard. Insteadof remainingapart fromthis
matterto infuseit withwise meaning,thepilgrim
joins thegroup,becomes a partof the matterhe
proposes to investigateand investwithform.
Now fromthepointof viewof literaryhistory
such involvementis not unprecedented.Dante
had, afterall, admittedhis own participationin
thesinsof hispurgatorial
ascent-particularly
lust
and pride.Yethe had also styledhimselfa visionof his
ary,blessed with a higherunderstanding
matter,able to transcendhis mortalblindnessby
intellectand grace.Chaucer the pilgrim,by conof theallegoristand
trast,eschewstheperspective

the comfortsof enlightenment.

The relationship
and their
he establisheswithhis pilgrimcharacters
stories is rather the historian's than the visionary's.
artof portraiture
in
Indeed,in his self-defining
and
in
the
imitation
he
theGeneralPrologue
proposes to undertake,the pilgrimas auctorprobably owes his greatestdebtto the literaryexample
chroniclerof
of Dares, the self-styled
eyewitness
theTrojanWar.Dares,perhapschieflythroughhis
had profoundly
medieval"translators,"
influenced
Chaucer in writingthe Troilus.In the General
Prologue,theinfluenceof Dares and his progeny
appearsonce again,thistimeas partof thepoet's
complexdefenseof his art. Chaucer the pilgrim,
likeDares, claimsdirect,personalobservationas
thebasis forhis "true" writing."6But in the Prologue, the historian'svoice is absorbed into the
and linkedto a game
characterof thepilgrim-poet
of storytelling.
The connectionChaucer makesin linkingthe
pilgrimpersona,historiographic
mimesis,and the
Canterburyfictionsis deep and important,forit
one of themostpainfullessonsof mecrystallizes
dieval Christianity:that human beings in their
conditionof exile mustdepend fortheirknowledge on limitedpowersof observation,an imperfect understandingof events,and a language
essentiallydifferent
from,and inadequateto, the
truthsit seeks to express.
The pilgrim-poet
acknowledgeshis metaphysical condition most directlyat the end of his
"historiographic"portraitgallery in the wellknowndeclaration"My witis short,-yemaywel
understonde"(1.746). This disclaimeris mostoften interpreted
as a tongue-in-cheek
gesture,the
calculated stanceof a brilliantbourgeoisbefore
his social betters.And it probablyis an opportune
rhetorical strategy.But, as is often true in
Chaucer,the surfacesignificancemay be shown
to belie a deeper,or even opposite,sense. If we
considerthe apology not only a ploy but also a
nonironicstatement
straightforward,
of fact-and
thelanguage,as wellas medievaltheology,allows
us to do so-then Chaucer's self-definition
as
poet assumesa newdirectionin thiscentralvoice.
The pilgrimseeksto authorizehimselfnot byhis
brillianceor learningor moralperspicuity
but by
his commonhumanity.If we read witin its centralmedievalacceptationas "power of knowing
and understanding"ratherthan as "ingenuity"
only, the clause "My wit is short" assumes a

This content downloaded from 200.16.86.36 on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:00:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Barbara Nolan

161

And theportraits
wouldlack just thetensionthat
givesthemtheirlastingpowerand point.In fact,
the amoralityof the historian'srhetoricalstance
of a nonrheis pervasively
counteredbyreminders
torical, suprahistoricalmode of existence.Not
onlythe "ful devoutcorage" of thepilgrimhimselfbut also the figureof the Parson providesa
V. The Pilgrim'sPortraitGallery
forthisalternativemode. The
pointof reference
Parson's"pose"-or, moreproperly,
"role"-as a
In every aspect of his self-presentation, shepherdconscientiously
caringforhis flockapChaucer's pilgrimpersona practicesa comically proximateshis centralidentity.
He imitatesChrist
incompletepowerof "devysyng,"
one thatreveals the Good Shepherdin everydetailof his lifeand
thehumanafragilitasin thehistorian'sstance.He
therebyidentifieshimselfexclusivelyas a son of
beginshis portraitserieswiththe confidentfor- God. Indeed, our only image of the Parson's
mula "A Knyghttherwas" (1.43),as if he intends physicalpresenceis thatof a Christianshepherd
to uncoverthe natureof each social typeby giv- of souls withstaffin hand. What Chaucer eming a full,precise,orderedexample.The formula phasizesin theParson'sportrait
is thecoincidence
proposesrhetorical
and philosophicalplenitudeby
of wordand deed,of Christianteachingand high
wayof synecdoche;yetthetextfailsto deliverfull- moralconduct.Thereis in the Parson'slifelittle
ness or completeness.Individualcharacterssys- matterfor"troping,"littlerhetoricaldistancebetematicallyescape fromor evade the expected tweenhis soul's selfand his outwardpresentation.
formulas,leavingus witha sensenot onlyof the
From the perspectiveof Christianpilgrimage,
social "obsolescence" Donald Howard has sugthe social or religiousrolesof most of the other
gestedbut also of an essentialpartialityand eccharactersappear to be added onto them,like
centricity
(Idea 94-106).
theircostumes,oftenaccompaniedby distorting
Throughhis voiceas pilgrim-historian,
Chaucer
or falsifying
elaborations.The Knight'sremarkstructures
theportraits
so as to denyus a clear,toable achievementsin battle, the Pardoner's
tal representationof the individuals as types fashionablecape, theFriar'sgirlfriends,
the Wife
relatedto transcendent
ideals.The portraits
failto
of Bath's old and younghusbands-all distract
arrangethemselvesin a recognizablehierarchical thepilgrimsmoreor less fromtheirsingleproper
order,an orderthat would call our attentionto
concern,the destinyof theirsouls. In rhetorical
the expected,or "proper,"orderof society.Nor,
terms,thelivesand speechof mostof thepilgrims
forthemostpart,do theeccentriccharacters
who
are "troped,"turnedin one wayor anotheraway
claim nominalparticipationin thevariousestates fromtranscendent
truthin thedirectionof Harry
fullyclarifytheirpreordainedroles,eithernegaBailly's kind of worldlyfictionmaking.
tivelyor positively.The ideal knight,the ideal
Both the Parson's life and the poet's brilliant
monkand friar,theideal wife(or theirsystemat- juxtapositionsof detail call attentionto the aricallydevelopedopposites)remainnotionspartly tificesthe pilgrimspractice.The obvious conbeyondthe horizon of the text.
tradictions
betweenpretension
and factencourage
Whatis important
in thefictionsof theportrait us to recognizethe fictionsforwhattheyare. Yet
galleryis thatthepilgrimparticipates
in them,alwe do not hear in thepilgrim'sportraits
thevoice
lowing his "exemplary"figuresto overtakehis
of the strictmoralistanatomizinghuman folly
own voice dialogicallythroughindirectdiscourse. withclericalrigor.In his rendering,
thefictionsof
As rhetorand historian,Chaucer delightsin his
dailylifein thetemporalworldof "bifil"coincide
pilgrimsas dramatispersonae.He observes,often withthefictionsof art,and thepoetexploits,even
with admiration, the details of their self- as he delightsin, the coincidence.
dramatization-thefictionstheyprojectto fool
For an anagogically "true" reading of the
themselves
or to impress,cajole, or exploitothers. poem's matterwe mustwait forthe Parson. It is
Yet,if the pilgrim-poet
werehomo rhetoricus he who will insiston a definitiveseparationof
and secular historianonly, therewould be no
factand truthfromfiction:
moral centeragainstwhichto measurethe wan19
deringsand eccentricities
of thosehe describes.
Thou getestfablenoonytooldforme;
philosophicalsense.17Absolute shortnessof wit
suppliesa principleof organizationwherebythe
orderin fapoet maybypasshighculturalliterary
vor of a larger,ironicinquiryinto the sorrybut
also comic plight of the human spiritin this
world'sexile.18

This content downloaded from 200.16.86.36 on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:00:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

'A Poet Ther Was": Chaucer's Voicesin the GeneralPrologue

162

For Paul, that writethunto Thymothee,

Reprevethhem that weyvensoothfastnesse,
And tellenfablesand swichwrecchednesse.
(10.31-34)

Chaucer mighthave giventhe Parson's voice to

himselfas "I" fromthe beginning.Had he done
so, however,he would have had to rejectall the
"pley," all the voices, of The CanterburyTales.
Boethius's Lady Philosophy,it will be remembered,had rejectedthe muses of falsifying,
consolatorypoetryat thestartof his Consolation.In
pointed (and I think calculated) contrast,
comes onlyat theend of his
Chaucer'sRetraction
work.The veryexistenceof the tales dependson
his deliberatelynot beginningas Boethius had,
not rejectingthe sweetvenomof fictionuntilits
havebeen fullyexplored
pleasuresand possibilities
as well as exposed.
VI. The PilgrimVoice and theQuestionof Truth
The pilgrimbroachesthequestionof truth,and
in theGeneralPrologue.Yet
broachesit explicitly,
whenhe invokesa Platonictheoryto supporthis
he misappliesthetheoryand thereby
tale-telling,
brilliantlydefersthe question of a transcendent
truthbeyondthe truthof historicalreportage:
Whoso shal telle a tale aftera man,
He moot reherceas ny as everehe kan
Evericha word,if it be in his charge,
Al speke he neverso rudelicheand large,
Or ellis he moot telle his tale untrewe,
Or feynethyng,or fyndewordesnewe.
.

Eek Plato seith,whoso that kan hymrede,

The wordesmoote be cosynto the dede.
(1.731-36;741-42)

Here,in a flagrantmisreading,the pilgrimcomically conflateshis own "historiographic"

notion
of truthas the imitationof passing life with
Plato's theoryrelatingwordsto the transcendent
truthof things.We maypass lightlyovertheconflationand assumethatthepoet is simplypleading for a new kind of artisticfreedom.But
Chaucerseemsto intendsomethingdeeperbydeliberatelyjuxtaposing the pilgrim'sand Plato's
ideas of imitation.In placinghis theorycheekby
jowl withPlato's, he aims, I think,to providea

mortalcorrection
forwhathe considersan impossible dream.
The pilgrim'sdescriptionof his language is
straightforwardly
antiallegoricalin an age that
generallyreveredallegoricalpoetry:his wordswill
not, at least easilyor directly,
pointto things(or
truthor doctrine)as wordsweresaid to do in allegoricalpoems likethe Roman de la rose. They
willsimplyimitatethewordsand "chiere"of the
other pilgrims, which are neither Platonic
"things" nor stable ideas, but transient
phenomena.The textas a collectionof unstable,
ambiguoussignswill markthe beginningrather
thanthecompletionof speculationabout thenatureof things.The poet in his pilgrimvoice will
not be a philosopheror a repository
of highwisdom, at leastnotin a traditionalsense.Insteadhe
will simplybe an earthlymakerand historian,
puttingidiosyncratic
wordsand actionstogether
accordingto his limitedpowersof observation
and inventionand the unpredictabledemandsof
the matter.20
Chaucer the pilgrim,like Dares the
historian,thusturnsthetextoverto theaudience,
who will have to interpret
or translatethe signs
into meaning,discerningthe "true" innerstructure informing the ensemble of outward
manifestations.While this managementof the
poet's and the audience'srolesmayappear modern,or evenpostmodern,it is in factthoroughly
explicable as a logical (though also brilliantly
original) developmentfromdominantmedieval
theoriesconcerningfictionand the limitsof human knowledge.
The PlatonictheoryChaucer's pilgriminvokes
originatedin the Timaeus(29B), and versionsof
it appear in many a medieval text, including
Boethius's Consolation (3, pr. 12) and Jean de
Meung's Roman de la rose (Guillaume, lines
6943-78 and 15159-94).Underlyingall the argumentsfromPlato to Jean is a confidencethat
words describe objective, knowable, nameable
reality,whetherthatrealityis the motionsof the
will (Plato) or ideas in the mind (Chalcidius) or
God (Boethius)or testicles(Jeande Meung). For
writersof fictions,the theoryprovidedsome assurancethatpoeticnarratives"beautifullies" accordingto thedominantlearnedtradition-could
legitimately
explorethecauses of thingsand teach
truth.In Boethius and Jean, voices of authority-Philosophia, Raison, the Poet-speak the
theory.Theirauthorityis in a certainsenseabsolute.Theygrantthepoet and therefore
thereader

This content downloaded from 200.16.86.36 on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:00:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Barbara Nolan
powerto cut throughthe artificesof allegorical
fabricationto touch the secretsof philosophy.
What distinguishes
Chaucer fromearlierpoets
is thathe refusesto givethe Platonic doctrineto
an authority
figure.Insteadof speakingit through
Philosophia or Raison or Gracedieu,he presents
it through his pilgrim voice. The pilgrim as
historianproposesto use wordsnot to represent
thingsor truthor doctrineor ideas, as a clerk
would have done, but to mimic the transient
wordsand gesturesof others.These acts belong
to thesundryfolkof thefallenworld,who are not
likely, by and large, to speak or behave
philosophically.
Some of themare counterfeiters.
Some are professional(lying)rhetoricians.
Others
are professional
cheatersor tricksters
or swindlers.
Of course all of themare finallygivenvoice by
Chaucer. All are part of his grandmasquerade,
and all representaspects of his self-presentation
as pilgrim-poet.
Paradoxically,
thepilgrim'sveryact of mimicry
bespeaks an oblique recognitionof the truth
about his poetry.On one side of his equation are
the storieshe and his subjectsoffer-thefictions
theyconstructabout themselvesas well as those
theyconstructforthe game's sake. On the other
is his own humanafragilitas,yearningfor,needingtranscendent
truth,theexplanationof causes,
but bound bythenecessities
of limitedwit,imperfect observation,ambiguous language, and inevitablemortality.The pilgrim-poetcan do no
morethanendeavorto recordand illustrate
these
limitations,
usingtropeand omissionat everyturn
to acknowledge his distance from truth and
wholeness. As a sort of magician, an illusion
maker,he-like theOrleansclerkof theFranklin's
Tale, or the Fiend of the Friar's Tale-can only
make freewithnecessities.His tellers,in presenting themselvesas "characters"and tellingtheir
tales,will proposecausal explanationsforthemselvesand tryto elucidatetheeventsof theirstories.But theexplanationswillbe limitedfinallyby
theirfictiveness.
OnlytheParson'sTale willprobe
the truecauses of thingsdirectly,
but his "tale"
is not a fiction.The language of the tales is
and designedlythelanguageof error,
deliberately
as judged by an unrealized,extratextual
language
of transcendent
truth.
In the pilgrim'sargument,fiction,likehistory,
is a necessityimposedby the Fall. Chaucer's pilgrimvoice as it mingleswiththe voices of the
otherCanterburypilgrimsproclaimsthedelights

163

of tale-telling.The poet willingly,

evenwillfully,
engagesthe fallenworld'sillusions,opinions,and
beliefs,questioningby his play theirrelationsto
truth.
Is there,then,any "truth"to be foundin the
pilgrim'sreportof the Canterburyadventure?
And, if so, whereand how? As the orchestrator
of all the artifices,all the falsifications,
all the
voices of the Tales, the pilgrimChaucer unashamedly encourageshis fictivesurrogatesin
theirmendaciousenterprises.
A shapeshifter
and
a trickster,
he himselfthriveson lying.Yetbecause
he styleshimselfa pilgrim,his lying,likethatof
theFiend of theFriar'sTale, maybe read as part
of God's service.The Fiend, as he tellsthe summoner,lies partlybecause human "wit is al to
bare" to understand
thetruth(3.1480).Evenwhen
he tells the summonerthe transcendenttruth
about himself-recessedwithinthe fictionof his
bailiffdisguiseand voice-the summonerfailsto
graspit. In a parallelway,Chaucergiveshistellers
mattersof truthin theirstories,but the truth
more oftenthan not remainsunobservedby the
tellers and their characterswithin the fictive
frames.
Of course,as the Fiend says,some withstand
"oure temptacioun"-seethroughthe disguisesand this act is "cause of [their] savacioun"
(3.1497-98). Multiple(and wrong)interpretation
must be the rule in readingthe "diversart and
. . diverse figures" of the Fiend and the
pilgrim-poet
alike (3.1486). Yet Chaucer,likethe
Fiend, holds out the possibilityof "right" interpretation.
Such interpretation,
willdehowever,
pend moreon the reader'sintentionthan on the
fictionitself-the individual'spersonal concern
fortruthand salvation.
Chaucer providesthissavingextraliterary
definitionof fictionand interpretation
not through
his pilgrimbut throughhis finalvoice and final
imagein The CanterburyTales.In his Retraction
aftertheParson'sTale,he says," 'Al thatis writen
is writenforoure doctrine,'and thatis mynentente"(10.1083).The poet in thislast voice also
begspardonforanyof histalesthat"sowneninto
synne" and apologizes for his "endityngesof
worldlyvanitees"(10.1085,1084). Yet,while he,
liketheFiend,warnsof thedangersof fiction,he
knowsthathis audience maynot heed the warning. In fact,he himselfhas succumbedto temptationin allowinghis manyfictivevoicesto enjoy
the delightsof Harry'sgame.

This content downloaded from 200.16.86.36 on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:00:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

164

Chaucer'sVoicesin theGeneralPrologue
'A Poet TherWas":VII. The Host's Voice

HarryBailly'svoice,whichdominatesthe final
movement of the General Prologue, follows
directlyfromthepilgrim'sdeclaration"My witis
short."Fromthatpointon, another"I," another
character,empoweredby the pilgrimvoice, assumes controlover the designof the tales. Like
mostChauceriantransitions,
thejuxtapositionof
theapologeticvoice withHarry'sportraitand his
"boold" speechrequiresmorethancursoryattention. It is as if Harrywereborn of the pilgrimpoet's essentiallimitation.
Yet,as a childof insufficiency,
Harrylacks the
self-critical
awarenessof his parent.Like the pilgrim,he espouses a theoryof fiction.But while
his notion of "making"-the thirdin Chaucer's
seriesin theGeneralPrologue-coincideswiththe
pilgrim'sin fundamentalways,it lacks the pilgrim'sacknowledgment
of partiality,
limitation,
and absence.Despite Harry'spious bow to "sentence" in the GeneralPrologue,his fictionis essentiallyfictionforthesake of playand mirthand
also for financialprofit.As such, it is a fiction
unmooredin ideas about truthor the quest for
truth.2'

Harry,the fourteenth-century
bourgeoisinnkeeper,has oftenbeen regardedas an "original,"
havingno clear literaryantecedents.Manly even
identifieshimwitha historicalHenryBailly,thus
his credentialsas a "realistic"characestablishing
ter (78-79). Like so many other Chaucerian
characters,
however,
Harryoweshis originality
not
onlyto his apparently
idiosyncratic,
realistic"condicioun"and "chiere"but also to thepoet'scomplexmanipulationof well-established
literary
and
theoretical
formulations.
Understoodas thelatterday spokesmanforan ancienttradition,
Harryassumes a climacticplace in Chaucer's dialectical
argumentconcerningthe characterof the poet
and the functionsof poetry.
We firstmeetHarryBaillyin the diningroom
of his inn afterhe has servedsupperto his guests
and collectedtheirbills.For thisthirdmajorvoice
in Chaucer'scomplexintroductory
defenseof his
fiction,the contexthas narrowedsignificantly.
The vastpanoramaof theexternal,
seasonalworld
servedas locus fortheclerklyvoice.An entireinn
treatedas an inn-a place on the way-framed
the pilgrim.By contrast,a single public room
designedfordrinkingand eatingenclosesHarry's
authorityand poetic theory.And Harry is at

home in theTabard.As thescenenarrows,so too

forpoetryas an artof wiseindo thepossibilities
In thediningroomof a tavernwe listerpretation.
ten to the host's limitedand limitingnotions
about the poet and poetry.
As the innkeeper "reads" poetry,it fully
deservesthenotoriety
assignedto it bythestricter
antique and medievaltheorists,fromPaul, Augustine,and Boethiusto Chaucer'sParson.Harry
sponsors fictionfor reasons verylike those of
Boethius's muses-the "scaenicas meretriculas"
'theatricalwhores'-at thebeginningof the Consolation. The Muses that Lady PhilosophydismissesfromBoethius'schamberare those Plato
and Cicero had also condemned,those who inspire laments over bad fortuneand celebrate
pleasureas the propergoal of poetry(and life).
Some medieval commentatorswidened Philosophia's condemnationto includeall secularpoetry.As one exegeteputsit,Boethius's"theatrical
whores" are the "Musas quas inuocant illi qui
saeculariterscribuntHoratiusVirgiliuset alii qui
nouem Musas nouem deas finguntet inuocant"
'The Muses whom those invokewho writein a
wordlyway: Horace, Vergil,and otherswho depictthenineMuses as ninegoddessesand invoke
them' (Silk 7).22 In the environment
of philosophy,so the medievalcommentator'sargument
goes, all worldlypoetryis to be recognizedas falsifying fiction. Later theorists-among them
Petrarchand Boccaccio-fully awareof such religiouslybased oppositionto secularpoetry,took
pains to redressthe criticisms.23
They insisted
withhumanistzeal on the correctness
of ancient
definitions
thatallowpoetrybothits fictive
covering and itstruth.Chaucer,by contrast,turnsover
thedirectionof hispoetrymakingto HarryBailly
and therebygivesa hearingto a notionof poetic
fictiondivorcedfromthephilosophicalsearchfor
truth.
Despite his brief,perfunctory
bow to Horatian
"sentence,"Harrypreferspoetryas mirthful
distractionfromthe hard realitiesand pain of the
humancondition.His interest
in tale-telling
coincides withhis pleasurein drinkingand, covertly,
his desireformoney.This last use of fictionfor
profit aligns him particularlywith Boethius's
theatricalstrumpets.
As NicholasTrivetputsit in
his commentary
on the Consolation,"the poetic
musesare calledtheatricalwhores-[because]just
as a whorecopulateswiththose [lovers]forlove
not of procreationbut of lucre,so poets were

This content downloaded from 200.16.86.36 on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:00:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Barbara Nolan
writingabout those [things]-forthe love not of
wisdombut of praise,that is to say,of money"
the
(fol. 6v).24Harry'sultimategoal in generating
fictionsof theCanterbury
journeyis to collectthe
priceof twenty-nine
suppers,minushis own small
contributionto the winner'smeal at the end of
the trip.
As a masterof mirth,Harryis also kin to the
all-importantfigureof Deduit in Guillaume de
Lorris's Roman de la rose.25 This character,
whomChaucercalled "Sir Mirth"in his translationof theRoman,is thecourtlyproprietor
of the
gardenintowhichthepoet entersas a younglover
(about to be trappedbyeroticdesire).In thisgarden Deduit acts as choragusfora troop of jongleurs,jugglers,musicians,singers,and dancers.
In a parallelway,Harryin his diningroom proposes himselfas the leader of a band of fiction
makers.As Deduit'sfollowers
are distracted
bythe
garden's "siren" birds and the music of his
players,Harry'spilgrimssuccumbwithoutdemur
to the innkeeper'sstrongwine and promisesof
mirththroughstorytelling.
Above all, both Deduit and Harry trafficin
In Chaucer'stranslationof the
"divertissement."
Roman, Sir Mirthin the garden"walkethto solace . . . forsweeterplace / to pleyenynnehe
maynot find"(lines621-23).Like Guillaume'sallegorical figure,Harry,who seeks play for the
sake of solace, is essentiallymirthful.
The words
mirth,myrie,pley, disport,and comfortappear
twelvetimesin twenty-six
lines as Chaucer gives
us Harry'sportraitand has himexplainhis game.
The veryname Deduit suits both charactersexactly,containingas it does the two senses "having a good time" and "turningaway from a
[right]course" (Dahlberg 361, line 590n). To be
leavetheTabardand
sure,Harryand his followers
walk out intothe worldengagedto play a diversionarygame,whereasDeduit remainsat homein
his symbolicgarden.YetHarrysees to it thathis
pilgrimsubjectsneverforgetthattheyhave contractedto remainwithinthe bounds of his play
and his notionsof solace. The fictionsthemselves,
togetherwith Harry'sframingcommentary,
become thepilgrims'"pleasuregarden"fortheduration of the Canterburyjourney.At the same
time, however,the inescapable fact of the pilgrimageservesas an ever-present
critiqueof the
us thatthereis another,"right"
game,reminding
course.
While Harry,in framinghis game, sharesD&

165

duit'sconcernformirthand solace, his image of

artis richerand morephilosophically
diversionary
complex than his French counterpart's.In his
avowedantipathyforsilenceand his intendeduse
of fiction for financial profit, he sums up
Boethius'swhole argumentconcerningthe conflictbetweendistractingfictionsand the search
forphilosophicaltruth.Harry'skindof fictionexplicitlyopposes thesilenceof spiritualintrospection properto the lifeof truepilgrimage.Poetry
is, forhim,a pleasantnoise thatkeepsthe mind
distractedfromanypilgrimsenseof
conveniently
the need fortruthor meditationon the lacrimae
rerum."And wel I woot," he says,
as yegoonbytheweye,
Ye shapenyowto talenand to pleye;
is noon
confort
ne myrthe
Fortrewely,
To ridebytheweyedoumbas a stoon;
Andtherfore
wolI makenyowdisport,
As I seydeerst,and doonyowsomconfort.
(1.771-76)
Harry'sinterestin distractioncoincideswithhis
pervasiveurgeto rushfromone tale to another.
Gaps in diversionary
discourse,liketheabsenceof
mirth,mayallow introspection
to enter,and this
Harrycannot bear.26
Why,we mustask, does Chaucerturnoverthe
importantlast place in his prologalargumentto
so disreputablea voice and position?He does so
at leastin part,I believe,to givea full,unabridged
accountof all aspectsof the fictionhe proposes
to write.Like Dante in theCommedia,he intends
to include-and evenpraise-the impure,infernal
elementin his poetryas well as its potentialfor
philosophicalvision.Indeed,poetryas rhetorical
bedazzlementmayhave seemedto him the most
evident,accessible,attractive
aspectof his art,the
one most likelyto charmhis audience into paying attention.By wayof Harry'svoice,Chaucer,
unlikemanyof his critics,defends(thoughwith
the substantialreservations
imposedbythe other
prologalvoices)thedelightsof puzzlement,
diversion, and absorptionin the illusionswroughtby
rhetoricalcoloring.
ThroughHarry,Chauceralso calls attentionto
the common tendency,in which the tavern
to
keeper'snotionof fictionmakingparticipates,
miss or set aside contemplationof the providential designof the universeand humanity'splace
withinit. Storytelling,
at leastat one level,affords

This content downloaded from 200.16.86.36 on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:00:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

166

'A Poet TherWas":Chaucer'sVoicesin theGeneralPrologue

a pleasure not unlikethe Wife'sputativejoy in

wealthyand virilehusbands,theFriar'senjoyment
of rich patrons and comfortabletaverns,the
Monk's pleasurein hunting,January'sdelightin
his love garden,and the myriadotherdiversions
characterslive.Chaucer
by whichthe Canterbury
himselfor his writing
does
not
exempt
the poet
funcsubversive
fromthispleasurable,spiritually
in
tion of fiction.But he admitshis involvement
as a good
so disreputablea cause onlyindirectly,
oratorshould,usingHarry'svoice and character
to mask his own. In his last voice,Chaucer slyly
celebratespoetryin just the termsthatthe strictest theoristshad used to condemnit.
In doing so, however,Chaucer is not giving
Harry'sideas about poetryprecedenceoverother,
of
highernotions.Like theopeningformulations
the clerklyvoice, the Host's game provides a
framingcontrastforthe central,dynamicnotion
of the poetic enterprise in the General
Prologue-the one articulatedby the pilgrim's
voice. The voices of the clerkand the innkeeper
offerrelatively
fixed,staticimagesof poetry:one
and order,
is concernedwithcausality,hierarchy,
the otherwiththe disorders,sexual exploits,and
trivialities
of quotidianlife.Bothpositionsare curiouslyabstracted,thoughin oppositeways,from
the complexcentralsubjectof poetryas the pilgrimvoice proposesit-human consciousnessof
a universethatemanatesfromGod but also pardisintegration.
ticipatesin entropy,mortality,
Neitherthe firstnor the last notionof poetry
in theGeneralPrologueallowsforthe
entertained

dialogicexplorationof that
rich,active,tentative,
difficultsubject as the pilgrimvoice engagesit.
The pilgrimChaucer may reach upwardtoward
the clerk'sphilosophicalformulationsor downwardto Harry'sbourgeoislaughter.He is bound
by neither,thoughhe may play withboth. His
deeplyhumanengagementwithhis flawed,morof
tal subjectand art precludesdirectstatements
transcendent
truthin his fiction.By thesame towillriseabovethecategoryof
ken,his storytelling
fictionsmade simplyfor the sake of rhetorical
frivolity.
What remains-the
play and distracting
But it is
certainly.
poetryat thecenter-is fictive,
as richlyvarious and morallydense and stubbornlyinconclusiveas its total subject. Its selfconscious fictionalitywill press well-disposed
readerstowarda new awarenessof the natureof
whetherin literature
illusionand self-deception,
or in life.The truthsthetales uncoverhaveto do
mainlywith human ways of knowing(and not
knowing)the self and the mortalworld.
To findthe truthsof Christiandoctrine,however,one must set the tales aside. Transcendent
truthremainslargelyabsentfromtheChaucerian
narratives,and it must. In Chaucer's argument,
thisis just the kindof truththatmakesall secular fictionuntenable.Nonetheless,Chaucer the
marks
poet in his severalvoicespointsdirections,
boundaries,poses questionsand puzzlesthatbear
heavilyon the truthsbeyondhis fictions.
University
of Virginia
Charlottesville

Notes
I

Hunt providesa usefulhistoryof thismedievalgenre,inSee also Arbusow

cluding an outline of its characteristics.
97-103; Curtius83-89; Porqueras Mayo; Cunningham;and
Baldwin 32-35.
2 For a valuable discussionof Chaucer's creativeengagementwithclassical notionsof the orator,see Payne.
3 Otherhelpfulstudieson thisissue includeMalone; Duncan; Hoffman; Woolf; Bronson; Major; Nevo; Jordan,
"Chaucer's Sense" and Chaucer 111-31.
4 All translations
are my
fromworksnot citedin translation
own.
5"Quasi ergo aliquis secum loquens se et rationemsuam
quasi duo constituit. . ., sicutBoetiusin libro'De consolationePhilosophiae'vel Augustinusin libro'Soliloquorum.' "
6 "Tresautema Boetio inducuntur
personae,Boetiusmiser
querensut consoletur,Philosophia quae consolatur,Boetius
auctor qui de utrisqueloquitur."

I "Hic igiturliberidcircoconcionatordicitur,
quia Salomon
in eo quasi tumultuantis
turbaesuscepitsensum,ut ea per inquisitionemdicat, quae fortasseper temptationem
imperita
mens sentiat.Nam quot sententiasquasi per inquisitionem
mouit,quasi tot in se personasdiuersorumsuscepit."
8 Gregory'sdescription
of Ecclesiasteswas well-known
and
popular in the laterMiddle Ages. It appears,forexample,in
a truncatedform in Wyclif'sEnglish commentaryon Ecclesiastes.I am indebtedto Eric Eliason forthisreference
to
Wyclif.
9 "Multiplexdisputatiosignatur,
et ad diversasdeductasententias.Quia enimin hoc libromultorum
mores,studia,et opera describuntur:
proptereanecesseest loquentemmultorum
vocesassumere,multorum
opinionesin suo sermoneexprimere,
ut valeatmultorum
personas(cum ipse tamennonnisiunussit,
qui loquitur)in sua personapresentare.
Nam circafinemlibri
multislocutumse, et in se multosfuissetestatur,
dicens:Finem

This content downloaded from 200.16.86.36 on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:00:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Barbara Nolan
loquendiomnespariteraudiamus.Deum time,et mandataejus
observahoc est omnishomo.Hoc estetiamcurse in hoc opere
Ecclesiastennominarivoluit;quia videlicetsermoejus hic non
ad unum aliquem specialiter,sed ad totamEcclesiam,id est
et multorum
concionem,sive multitudinem
populi dirigitur,
moribusexprimendissimul,et informandisejus in hoc libro
oratio famulatur."
10For usefuldiscussionsof themedievalrhetorical"I," see
Spitzer; Bethurum;Kellogg; Bevington;and Kane. See also
of thepublicvoice(and
Anne Middleton'sexcellent
description
public"I") developedbycertainEnglishpoets,includingLangland and Gower,duringRichardu's reign.DerekBreweroffers
importantobservationsabout Chaucer's dramatizedtellers.
11These threevoicescoincideinterestingly
withT. S. Eliot's
descriptionof the poet's threevoices. Chaucer's articulation
of the theory,however,growsout of rhetoricaltraditionand
servesa philosophicalargument,whileEliot is describinghis
own writingexperience(4).
12 Numerousstudiestracethe historyof the springtopos.
Among the mostimportantforChaucer are Cook; Hankins;
Tuve,Seasons and "Spring";and Baldwin19-28.See also Curtius 185-202and Ross. For a discussionof theSecretasecretorum and Chaucer's springopening,see esp. Tuve, Seasons
52-58.
13 For a suggestivediscussionof the relationsbetweenalof causality,and thelanguageof truth,see
legory,explorations
Quilligan,esp. 156-223. See also Brewer222-23.
14 See ch. 3, "Two Studies of Dialogue" (81-115). I am
gratefulto Ralph Cohen fordirectingme to Mukarovskyand
othermoderntheoristswho deal withthequestionof voicing
in fiction.
15 For discussionsof Chaucer's involvement
with his pilgrims,see Malone 40-45; Green; and Mandel.
16 R. M. Lumianskyand JillMann have rightly
observeda
connectionbetweenthe portraitgalleryin Benoit de SainteMaure'sRoman de Troie,based on Dares, and Chaucer'sportraits in the General Prologue. Even more importantis
Chaucer's borrowingof the authorialperspectiveof the eyewitnesshistorianthat supportsthe portraitsin Dares and
Benoit. See Lumiansky,"Benoit's"; Mann 179-81.
17 In Middle Englishthe word withas severalmoreor less
relatedmeanings:"mind," "facultyor powerof thinkingand
reasoning," "bodily and spiritualpowers of perception,"
"sanity,""genius,talent,or cleverness."
Whenthepilgrimsays,
"My witis short,"he is usuallythoughtto be referring
to his
or powerof invention.In theimmediatecontext,he
ingenuity

167

is speakingabout his inabilityto set the restof the pilgrims

in theirproperorder.Because thistask is, technicallyspeakthereading"myingenuity
ing,an act of rhetoricalinvention,
Then we haveonlythesimpleirony
is short"is notimprobable.
thedeepermeanof thebrilliantpoet's"humility."
If,however,
ing, "my powerto know is limited,"is the centralone, then
the metaphysicalironyof absolute huChaucer is affirming
his necessaryparticipation
man limitationand acknowledging
in thiscondition.
18 Twocenturies
laterCervanteswouldchoose a similarploy
to exploresimilarquestions.His Don Quixote,he tellsus, emanated froma shriveledbrain.From thiscomic vantagepoint
he can reveal high literaryromancesas elegant (falsifying)
fabrications
designed,consciouslyor unconsciously,
to obscure
the sad, sordid realityof quotidian life.For Cervantesand
Chaucer alike a self-critical
posturecoincideswithan ironic
critiqueof all linguistic
efforts-particularly
efforts
bycourtly
poets-to expresstruthor to describerealityaccurately.
19For a thought-provoking
discussionof homo rhetoricus
in Westerntradition,see Lanham, esp. ch. 1, "The Rhetorical Ideal of Life" (1-35).
20 See Olson fora usefuldiscussionof the poet as maker.
21 Alan Gaylordoffersone of the fullest,mosthelpfuldisin thetheoryof storycussionsof HarryBailly'sinvolvement
telling.He rightlyobservesthatHarry'sprincipalconcernin
the tales properis solace and not the "sentence"he piously
invokesin the General Prologue. For other discussionsof
Harry'stheoreticalcommitments
and significance,
see Lumiansky, Of Sondry Folk 85-95; Ruggiers6; David 75-76;
Richardson;Scheps; and Bloomfield49.
22 For the attributionof this commentary,
see Courcelle
304.
23 See Petrarch's
coronationspeechin Godi; also, his Invectivecontramedicumin Petrarch648-93.
24 "Scenicas meretriculas
musepoeticedicuntur.
meretricule
sic enim meretrixconmisceturcuibus non amore prolis sed
lucri,sic poete scribebantde quobus non amoresapientiesed
laudis videlicetlucri."
25 Alan Gaylord points out the connections between
Harry'sinterestin mirthand itsimportancein theRoman de
la rose (230), but he does not observethe directrelationbetweenDeduit and Chaucer's innkeeper.
26 Harry'snotionsof tale-telling
as a sourceof mirthalign
his poetrywiththe sphereof "curiositas" "a fastidious,excessive,morallydiverting
interest
in thingsand people" (Zacher
20). Zacher'sdiscussionof "curiositas"is fulland illuminating.

WorksCited
Abelard,Peter.Expositio in hexameron.Migne 178: 731-84.
Arbusow,Leonid. Colores rhetorici.1948. Geneva: Slatkin,
1974.
Baldwin,Ralph. The Unityof The CanterburyTales. Copenhagen: Rosenkilde,1955.
Benoitde Sainte-Maure.Roman de Troie.Ed. L. Constans.6
vols. Paris: Firmin-Didot,1904-12.
Bethurum,Dorothy."Chaucer's Pointof View as Narratorin
the Love Poems." PMLA 74 (1959): 511-20.
Bevington,D. M. "The Obtuse Narratorin Chaucer's House
of Fame." Speculum 36 (1961): 288-98.

Bloomfield,Morton W. "The CanterburyTales as Framed

Narratives."Leeds Studiesin Englishns 14 (1983): 44-56.
Boccaccio, Giovanni.Genealogiedeorumgentiliumlibri.Ed.
V. Romano. Bari: Laterza, 1951.
Boethius,Anicius Manlius Severinus.Philosophiae consolationisin libriquinque. Leipzig, 1871.
Brewer,DerekS. "Towardsa ChaucerianPoetic."Proceedings
of the BritishAcademy60 (1974): 219-52.
Bronson,B. H. In Searchof Chaucer.Toronto:U of Toronto
P, 1960.
Chaucer,Geoffrey.Works.Ed. F. N. Robinson.2nd ed. Bos-

This content downloaded from 200.16.86.36 on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:00:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

168

'A Poet TherWas":Chaucer'sVoicesin theGeneralPrologue

ton: Houghton, 1957.

Christianson,Paul. "Chaucer's Literacy."ChaucerReview11
(1976): 112-27.
[Cicero].Ad C. Herennium.De rationedicendi.Ed. and trans.
Harry Caplan. Cambridge: Harvard UP; London:
Heinemann,1964.
Cicero.De oratore.Ed. and trans.E. W. Suttonand H. Rackham. Cambridge:CambridgeUP; London: Heinemann,
1967.
Cook, A. S. "ChaucerianPapers:I." Transactions
of theConnecticutAcademyof Arts and Sciences 23 (1919): 5-10.
Courcelle,P. La consolationde philosophiedans la tradition
litteraire.Paris: Studies Augustiniennes,
1967.
J.V. "The Literary
Formof thePrologueto The
Cunningham,
Canterbury Tales." Modern Philology 49 (1951-52):
172-81.
Curtius,E. R. EuropeanLiterature
and theLatinMiddleAges.
Trans.R. W. Trask. New York: Pantheon,1953.
Dahlberg,Charles,ed. and trans.Le romande la rose.By Guillaume de Lorrisand Jeande Meun. Princeton:Princeton
UP, 1971.
Dares Phrygius.De excidio Troiaehistoria.Ed. F. 0. Meister.
Leipzig, 1873.
David, Alfred.TheStrumpet
Muse. Bloomington:
IndianaUP,
1976.
Donaldson, E. Talbot. "Chaucer the Pilgrim." PMLA 69
(1954): 928-36.
Duncan, E. H. "The Narrator'sPointof View in thePortraitSketches,Prologueto The CanterburyTales." Essays in
Honor of WalterClyde Curry.Nashville:VanderbiltUP,
1954. 77-101.
Eliot,T. S. The ThreeVoicesofPoetry.Cambridge:Cambridge
UP, 1953.
Gaylord,Alan. "Sentenceand Solaas in FragmentVII of The
CanterburyTales: Harry Bailly as Horseback Editor."
PMLA 82 (1967): 226-33.
Godi, Carlo. "La 'Collatio laureationis'del Petrarca."Italia
mediovalee umanistica13 (1970): 1-27.
Green,Eugene."The Voicesof thePilgrimsin theGeneralPrologue to The CanterburyTales." Style9 (1975): 55-81.
Gregorythe Great. Dialogues. Ed. A. de Vogue. Trans.into
FrenchP. Antin. 3 vols. Paris: Cerf, 1980.
Guillaumede Lorrisand Jeande Meun. Le romande la rose.
Ed. ErnestLanglois.5 vols. Paris:Firmin-Didot,
1914-24.
Hankins,JohnE. "Chaucer and the Per Virgiliumveneris."
Modern Language Notes 44 (1934): 80-83.
Hoffman,A. "Chaucer's Prologue to Pilgrimage:The Two
Voices." ELH 21 (1954): 1-16.
Howard, Donald. "Chaucer the Man." PMLA 80 (1965):
337-43.
. The Idea of the CanterburyTales. Berkeley:U of
CaliforniaP, 1976.
Hugh of St. Victor. "Homilia prima." In Salomonis Ecclesiasten.Homiliae XIX. Migne 175: 115-33.
Hunt, Tony."The RhetoricalBackgroundto the Arthurian
Prologue:Traditionand the Old FrenchVernacularPrologues." Forumfor Modern Language Studies 6 (1970):
1-23.
Huygens, R. B. C., ed. Accessus ad auctores. Bernard
d'Utrecht.Conrad d' Hirsau. Leiden: Brill, 1970.
Jordan,R. M. Chaucerand theShape of Creation.Cambridge:
Harvard UP, 1967.

. "Chaucer'sSense of Illusion:RoadsideDrama Reconsidered."Journalof Englishand GermanicPhilology29

(1962): 19-33.
Kane, George. The AutobiographicalFallacy in Chaucerand
Langland Studies. London: Lewis, 1965.
and Dante's."Medium
Kellogg,A. L. "Chaucer'sSelf-Portrait
aevum 29 (1960): 119-20.
Lanham, Richard. The Motives of Eloquence. New Haven:
Yale UP, 1976.
Leicester,Marshall. "A GeneralPrologueto the Canterbury
Tales." PMLA 95 (1980): 213-24.
Lumiansky,R. M. "Benoit's Portraitsand Chaucer'sGeneral
Prologue." Journalof Englishand GermanicPhilology
55 (1956): 431-38.
. Of SondryFolk. Austin:U of Texas P, 1955.
Major, John. "The Personalityof Chaucer the Pilgrim."
PMLA 75 (1960): 160-62.
Malone, Kemp. "Style and Structurein the Prologue to the
CanterburyTales." ELH 13 (1946): 38-45.
Mandel,Jerome."OtherVoicesin theCanterbury
Tales."Criticism 19 (1977): 338-49.
Manly,John.Some New Lighton Chaucer.New York:Holt,
1926.
Mann, Jill.Chaucerand MedievalEstatesSatire.Cambridge:
CambridgeUP, 1973.
Middleton,Anne. "The Idea of Public Poetryin the Reignof
RichardII." Speculum 53 (1978): 94-114.
Migne,J. P., ed. PatrologiaLatina. 221 vols. Paris, 1844-64.
Mukarovsky,
Jan. The Wordand VerbalArt. New Haven: Yale
UP, 1977.
Nevo,Ruth. "Chaucer: Motiveand Mask in theGeneralPrologue." Modern Language Review58 (1963): 1-9.
Olson,Glending."Makingand Poetryin theAge of Chaucer."
ComparativeLiterature31 (1979): 714-23.
Payne,R. 0. "Chaucer's Realizationof Himselfas Rhetor."
Medieval Eloquence. Ed. J. J. Murphy.Berkeley:U of
CaliforniaP, 1978. 270-87.
Petrarch.Prose. Ed. G. Martellottiet al. Milano: Ricciardi,
1955.
Plato. The Timaeus. Trans. F. M. Cornford.Indianapolis:
Bobbs, 1959.
PorquerasMayo,A. El prologocomo generoliterario.Madrid:
Consejo Superiorde InvestigacionesCientificas,1957.
Quilligan,Maureen. The Language of Allegory.Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1979.
Quintilian.Institutiooratoria.Ed. and trans.H. E. Butler.4
vols. London: Heinemann;New York:Putnam, 1921.
Richardson,Cynthia."The Functionof theHost in theCanterburyTales." TexasStudiesin Literature
and Language
12 (1970): 325-44.
Ross, Werner."Uber den SogennantenNatureingangder
Trobadors."RomanischeForschungen65 (1953): 49-68.
Ruggiers,Paul. The Art of theCanterbury
Tales. Madison: U
of WisconsinP, 1965.
Scheps,Walter." 'Up Roos Oure Hoost, and Was Oure Aller
Cok': HarryBailly'sTale-Telling
Competition."Chaucer
Review 10 (1975-76): 113-28.
Servius.In Vergilii
carminacommentarii.
Ed. G. Thilo and H.
Hagen. 3 vols. Leipzig, 1897.
Silk, Edmund T., ed. Saeculi noni auctoris in Boetii Consolationemphilosophiaecommentarius.
Rome:American
Acad. in Rome, 1935.

This content downloaded from 200.16.86.36 on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:00:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Barbara Nolan
Spitzer,Leo. "A Note on the Poetic and the Empirical'I' in
Medieval Authors."Traditio4 (1946): 414-22.
Trivet,Nicholas. Commentaryon Boethius'sConsolation of
Philosophy.Latin ms. 18424. BibliothequeNationale.
Tuve,Rosamond.Seasons and Months.Paris:LibrairieUniversitaire,1933.
. "Springin Chaucer and beforeHim." Modern Language Notes 52 (1937): 9-16.

169

Virgil.The Eclogues and Georgics.Ed. RobertD. Williams.

New York: St. Martin's,1979.
Woolf,Rosemary."Chaucer as a Satiristin the GeneralPrologue to the CanterburyTales." Critical Quarterly1
(1959): 150-57.
Zacher,Christian.Curiosityand Pilgrimage.Baltimore:Johns
Hopkins UP, 1976.

This content downloaded from 200.16.86.36 on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:00:36 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions