The Canterbury Tales were written in 1386 by Geoffrey Chaucer.

In "The General Prologue," Chaucer introduces the $owe%er, in the on! as a rebellious "erson who does what he wants and does not follow the rules of the #onastery. iddle &ges, #on!s could not beha%e this way. They had iddle to follow the rules of the #onastery which were written by 't. (enedict. They too! %ows as "roof that they would follow these rules. In the &ges, #on!s had to follow rules and be di%ided. The rules for the #onasteries were written in )*+ by 't. (enedict. $e was the leader of a #onastery and wanted to write a set of rules "that were not so strict that #on!s would abandon their %ocations", Americana, ". )-*.. They were si#"le and allowed #on!s to e/ercise their #inds and li%e stress0free li%es. The rules said that #on!s had to "ray, "erfor# #anual labor, and study. The studying was beneficial to the #on!s since they were able to beco#e well educated. The !nowledge gained fro# studying led #any #on!s to write boo!s. &s "art of their #anual labor, they hand co"ied boo!s because /ero/ #achines were not in%ented yet. &ccording to the 1ncyclo"edia &#ericana, in the #iddle &ges, #on!s in #onasteries were di%ided into choir #on!s and lay brothers. This was a way of di%iding the wor! because choir #on!s had to recite the "rayer, the 2i%ine 3ffice, which was a re4uire#ent in the rules. The lay brothers did the #anual labor. $and co"ying boo!s "robably too! a long ti#e and they had a lot of other wor! to do, li!e studying and "raying. on!s in the iddle &ges had to follow the rules and be di%ided. It was

ad%antageous to be a #on! because all they did was de%ote their li%es to studying and "raying. 'ince they led stress free li%es, they were able to

concentrate on their studies. The di%ision of #on!s into lay brothers and choir #on!s see#ed li!e an ad5ust#ent to the rule because the wor! was di%ided whereas before, all the #on!s had to recite "rayers and do #anual labor. &lthough these acti%ities are different fro# the the #onastery while the on! rode horses and hunted hares. Geoffrey Chaucer The !nown details of Geoffrey Chaucer6s life are s!etchy at best. $e was born in 7ondon to %intner 8ohn Chaucer so#eti#e between 13-+013--. The ne/t we hear of young Geoffrey is in 13)9 as a "age in the household of Prince 7ionel. $e then ser%ed with the ar#y of 1dward III in :rance, and was ca"tured and ranso#ed. 'o#eti#e in the #id0136+s Chaucer #arried Phili""a ;oet, lady in waiting to <ueen Phili""a. $is first literary wor!s a""ear in this "eriod, notably the Book of the Duchess ,136=., an allegory la#enting the death of (lanche, wife of 8ohn of Gaunt. 'e%eral di"lo#atic 5ourneys to Italy e/"osed Chaucer to ;o#an classical literature, and he "roduced se%eral translations and his best wor!, Troilus and Criseyde, which has been called one of the finest lo%e "oe#s in the 1nglish language. In this wor! Chaucer "o"ulari>ed the se%en line stan>a !nown as the rhyme royal. Chaucer held a %ariety of "osts at ?ing 1dward6s court, cul#inating in his a""oint#ent as cler! of the !ing6s wor!s ,138=013=1.. on!6s acti%ities, e%eryone did what they lo%ed. The #on!s followed the rules of

&round 1389 Chaucer began his #aster wor!, The Canterbury Tales. This lengthy "oe#, which weighs in at an i#"ressi%e 19,+++ lines, was ne%er finished. It tells the tale of a grou" of "ilgri#s 5ourneying fro# 7ondon to the shrine of Tho#as @ (ec!et at Canterbury. To "ass the ti#e on their tri", they tell each other stories. The stories the#sel%es are not always as i#"ressi%e as is Chaucer6s ability to %i%idly "ortray a broad cross0section of 1nglish society, its foibles, fancies, and attitudes. The Canterbury Tales are by turns bawdy, hu#orous, and "reaching, and the characters co#e ali%e. Prior to Chaucer6s ti#e ,with the notable e/ce"tion of Aillia# 7angland6s Vision of Piers the Plowman ., literary wor!s were written in 7atin. Chaucer is rightly re#e#bered as the first #a5or author to "o"ulari>e the use of 1nglish in literature. Geoffrey Chaucer died on 3ctober *), 1-++, and was buried at Aest#inster &bbey. Chaucer's The Nun's Priest's Tale The Nun's Priest's Tale is 4uite different fro# all the rest of Geoffrey Chaucer6s The Canterbury Tales because it re"resents the 6official6 historical start "oint of the #oc!0heroic style and it is the uni4ue beast fable to be found in this great wor! of genius. Therefore, whereas all the other tales deal with dialogs and actions of hu#an characters, this tale is sur"risingly concerned with ani#al characters li%ing in a far#. 'uch ani#als Ba rooster, a hen and a fo/B s"ea! the hu#an language and

suffer fro# hu#an frailties so that they ser%e as hu#orous characters designed to #a!e us laugh at real "eo"le6s %anity and %ices. The Nun's Priests Tale is in essence a #erry tale which in its surface see#s to only con%ey the #isfortunes that endures a coc! Bcalled ChaunticleerB when he chooses to ignore the threatening #eaning of a drea# in order to "lease his lo%ely wife Ba beautiful and colourful hen na#ed Pertelote. This tale is originally based in both a :rench story, Le oman de enart! as well as in one of Aeso"'s #ables$ Conetheless, Chaucer6s tale greatly differs fro# the old style of beast fables because it introduces significant changes to the original story that ser%e Chaucer to use language in such a inno%ati%e #anner that actually gi%es birth to a new literary genreD the #oc!0heroic. 3ne of the #a5or differences fro# the original fable, that actually ser%es Chaucer to create the #oc!0heroic style, is the fact that Chaucer gi%es a great i#"ortance to the drea# of Chaunticleer. ost of the tale actually deals with the coc!6s drea#, as well as with its discussion and inter"retations. The Chaunticleer6s drea# is 4uite long and finely detailed and fran!ly stands as the central "oint of interest in the fable. &s a result, while in Le oman de enart the drea# is #erely atte#"ted to su""ly a warn against %anity, in Chaucer6s %ersion we beco#e #ore interested in !nowing the result of such of an a#ount of s"eculation on the rele%ance of drea#s and beco#e increasingly interested in !nowing if Pertelote ,who does not belie%e at all in the rele%ance of drea#s. or Chaunticleer ,who considers drea#s ha%e a real "re#onitory signification. will ulti#ately be "ro%en right. 'uch s"eculations and confrontations between

a 6gallant6 coc! and his 6fa%ourite6 hen are "recisely the basis for the #oc!0 heroic style since they finally result in an incongruous Bor at least, une/"ectedB fusion of s"eeches and characters that necessarily arouse an e/hilarating co#ic effect. The hu#our in Chaucer6s #oc!0heroic style then basically dwells in such "re"osterous incongruity of con%eying the life of a coc!, a fo/ and a hen in a #anner assu#edly consider being #ore a""ro"riate for an e"ic or for a courtly lo%e story. The hu#our of the story also de"ends u"on the confrontation between the coo!6s 6learned6 4uotations of the authority of the &ncients and the hen6s a""eal to si#"le e/"erience. Ahile Chaunticleer is ca"able of 4uoting a wide Band i#"ressi%eB range of authorities to sustain his o"inion about drea#s, Pertelote can scarcely 4uote two e/a#"les of authorities whose e/"erience with drea#s indicate that drea#s are irrele%ant. Chaunticleer6s learned argu#ent is hu#orous, first, because he is 6only6 a coc!, but also because we reali>e that all the cases of significant and "ro"hetic drea#s that he cites are only cited to so"histically i#"ly that his own drea# Bthe drea# of an insignificant coc!B is also a "ortent. In fact, Chaucer achie%es a co#ic hu#ani>ation of Chaunticleer "recisely by gi%en hi# a refined education and s"eechD Chaunticleer #ay be an insignificant coc!, but is a coc! that can #asterfully deal with abstractions, 4uote the words of re"uted scholars, and bring into his argu#ent the !nowledge and "hiloso"hical concerns of his own ti#e. In addition, to co#"le#ent the hu#orous scene, Chaunticleer and Pertelote flirt, argue, 4uarrel and feel lo%e as any hu#an cou"le does. The fo/, by the way, is li!ewise gi%en hu#an0li!e s"eech

and he e%en e#"loys a learned language of "olite flattery and "ersuasi%eness to cheat Chaunticleer. (ut in any case, it is e4ually i#"ortant to notice that Chaucer ne%er allows the reader to o%erloo! the co#ic incongruity of the situation since he #a!es the narrator ,the nun6s "riest. to continually re#e#ber to the reader that these 6ele%ated6 s"eeches are said by ani#als and are said into a s#all far#yard. 'o, the cheerful o""osition between setting, situation and characters always re#ains "resent throughout the tale. The whole tale is e%idently characteri>ed by its rhetorical usage of e/e#"la, and by references to science and "hiloso"hy that do not res"ond to the basic con%entions of beast0fables and its ani#al characters. &nd 5ust as the tale reaches its cli#a/, the narrati%e digressions of the nun6s "riest beco#e #ore fre4uent and the final "#oral" of the tale is ne%er una#biguously #anifested. :inally, Chaunticleer and Pertelote6s dis"utation about the truthful #eaning of drea#s also ser%es Chaucer to hu#orously deal with a rather old dis"ute about the "ossibility of finding any truth and useful #eaning in tales that are essentially fictional, and therefore, al#ost always seen as #ere 6#a!e0belie%e6. Throughout The Nun's Priest's Tale we also beco#e collaterally and hu#orously ac4uainted with dense "hiloso"hical the#es of Chaucer6s ti#e such as :ortune, :ate, :reedo# and Pro%idence. 'ince Chaunticleer is not ready to face the announced disaster when it arri%es and since he see#s to ha%e totally forgotten the 6celestial warnings6, #orality de#ands that he "ay the "rice of his negligence. Co#ically enough, Chaunticleer esca"es fro# the fo/ because he uses his 4uic!

thin!ing rather than because he has really learned anything for# his own thoughtful considerations about the i#"ortance of drea#s and its warnings. $owe%er, it is worth0re#e#bering that the #ost significant co#ic feature of the tale is the use of stylistic "arody. &t se%eral "oints of the tale, the #ain characters, a coc! and a hen, Chaunticleer and Pertelote, are described in ter#s better suited to the high0born characters of courtly ro#ance. &t the cli#a/, the narrati%e funnily e#"loys a %ariety of e/cla#ations and literary references that would be better suited to a heroic story of high significance. Commentary I really en5oy this boo! fro# the beginning to the end, each story was so different and the characters were uni4ue. I en5oy the hu#or that Chaucer "rints to each story and The Nun's Priest's Tale was #y fa%ourite of the all boo!. I li!e how the nun relates the storyE you really belie%e that all the ani#als can tal!E you can feel their e#otions and all the concerns. I ha%e to ad#it that for a #o#ent I identify #yself with Chaunticleer, because so#eti#es you didnFt listen that little %oice in your head that tries to warn you and instead of that you listen to otherFs "eo"le o"inion and at the end you regret yourself for doing that. This tale is not far away fro# the reality because we ha%e to struggle each day with these concerns, with this lac! of faith in oursel%es and #ost of the ti#es we let other "eo"le decided for usE we tend to trust in the wrong "eo"le and when we reali>e it, itFs 5ust too late. This tale let us a great #essage or as far I can understand it tells us to belie%e in oursel%es, trust in our beliefs and ne%er let others to ta!e the decision for us.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Geoffrey Chaucer. The Canterbury Tales. Penguin, U.S.A., 1969. O en, A. Char!e". Discussions of The Canterbury Tales. Hea#h $ Co%&any, Bo"#on, 1961. Sher%an, Roger. A mirror of Chaucer's World. Prince#on Uni'er"i#y Pre"", Prince#on, (.). 196*. Bre er, +.S. Chaucer in His Time. ,ho%a" (e!"on, Lon-on, 196.. /agen0ne#ch, 1- ar- 2e-3. Chaucer: Modern Essays in Criticism. O4for- Uni'er"i#y Pre"", (. Y, 19*9.