The Monk’s Tale

The Monk's Tale Terry Jones St. Edmund Hall, Oxford I'M ONE OF THAT grnwing band of awkw,ud rnstomm who don't think that The Monk's Tale is a complete and utter disaster. I think it hits its target right on the nose. I simply do not buy the idea that Chaucer realized he'd made a mistake in embarking on this series of "tedious and repetitive tragedies" and so has the Knight cut them short.1 Authors don't do that sort of thing. If a writer thinks he's produced something that stinks, he doesn't get his other characters to criticize it-he simply doesn't publish it. The fact that many modern readers have been so ready to agree with the objections to The Monk:r Tale voiced by the Knight and the Host might be a good indicator that we are missing something-an essential perspective on the Tale and what Chaucer is doing in it. The Monk's Tale Is a Reply to The Knight's Tale At the end of The Knight's Tale_, Chaucer has the Host turn to the Monk and say: "Now telleth ye, sir Monk, if that ye konne, / Somewhat to quite with the Knyghtes tale" (MilP 3118-19). Either you have to be­ lieve that Chaucer wrote things for no reason or you have to agree that he has deliberately set up the Monk to somehow "quit" (that is "repay" or "match") The Knight's Tale. Of course the drunken Miller interrupts and quits The Knight's Tale in his own way, but when the Monk does finally get around to telling his tale, the Knight appears to get rather agitated by it, and cuts him shore. This in itself suggests that the Monk has indeed "quit" the Knight in some manner-and the Knight doesn't like it one bit! 1 R. M. Lumiansky, OfSandry Folk: The Dramatic Principle in the Canterbury Tales (Aus­ tin: University of Texas Press, 1955), p. 103. 387 STUDIES IN THE AGE OF CHAUCER The main problem, as I see it, is that most readers are convinced that the Knight is a "parfit gentil knight"-beyond criticism-and they therefore assume that his Tale is a noble and philosophical story that somehow probably also represents Chaucer's own point of view. This means that when the Knight breaks his own self-imposed promise-"I wol nat letten eek noon of this route; I Lat every felawe telle his tale aboute" (KnT 889-90)-and interrupts the Monk, most modern readers assume he does so because, like them, he finds The Monk'.r Tale boring. Of course, a lot of modern readers also find The Knight'.r Tale boring, so that's a bit of a problem in itself. Various critics have also pointed out from time to time that The Knight'.r Tale has serious shortcomings as a philosophical statement.2 But, for some reason, people seem to be more prepared to believe that such shortcomings are Chaucer's rather than to question their deeply held belief that the Knight is, indeed, a "parfit gentil knyght." The Knight and The Monk's Tale Since the Monk is quitting the Knight, we can't understand what The Monk'.r Tale is getting at unless we understand what The Knight's Tale is about-although actually it's easier to say what The Knight'.r Tale isn't about. In the first place it is not a work of deep philosophy. The Knight himselfadmits that he has no interest in the metaphysical. When Arcite dies, the Knight comments (KnT 2809-15): His spirit chaunged hous and wente ther, As I cam nevere, I kan nat tellen wher. Therfore I scynte; I nam no divinistre; Ofsoules fynde I nat in this registre, Ne me ne list thilke opinions to telle Ofhem, though that they writen wher they dwelle. Arcite is coold, ther Mars his soule gye! What's this the Knight is saying? "I am no 'theologian.' I don't find anything about souls written in my 'register' (presumably a military 2 See, for example, Dale Underwood, "The First of the Canterbury...