Theme: Geoffrey Chaucer’s "Canterbury Tales" as a panorama of English society Contents: Introduction

Theme: Geoffrey Chaucer’s “Canterbury Tales” as a panorama of English society

Contents:

Introduction
Chapter I. Literature review and methods of the Geoffrey Chaucer’s “Canterbury Tales” as a panorama of English society
1.1. Literature review of the Geoffrey Chaucer’s “Canterbury Tales” as a panorama of English society
1.2. Methods of the Geoffrey Chaucer’s “Canterbury Tales” as a panorama of English society
Chapter II. Results and analysis, discussion of the Geoffrey Chaucer’s “Canterbury Tales” as a panorama of English society
2.1. Results and analysis of the Geoffrey Chaucer’s “Canterbury Tales” as a panorama of English society
2.2. Discussion of the Geoffrey Chaucer’s “Canterbury Tales” as a panorama of English society
Conclusion
References


INTRODUCTION
The topicality of the theme. ¹In three of Chaucer’s texts, the Canterbury Tales’ “The Franklin’s Tale,” Troilus and Criseyde, and “Parliament of Fowls,” the concept of courtly love is portrayed outwardly as very romantic and idyllic, but proves more complex with further analysis. In the “Franklin’s Tale” and Troilus and Criseyde, the portrayals of the traditional lover and the courtly lover seem to switch roles: in “The Franklin’s Tale,” Arveragus is portrayed as a courtly lover, but is actually a man of tradition; on the other hand, Aurelius, the true courtly lover, is portrayed as the villain. In Troilus and Criseyde, the entire courtly love relationship between Criseyde and Troilus is orchestrated by the manipulative Pandarus, who defies almost every tenant in French scholar Andreas Capellanus’ late twelfth century text “A Treatise on Courtly Love,” a courtly love doctrine. This manufactured nature of courtly love is also present in “Parliament of Fowls,” where Chaucer juxtaposes nature/natural love and artificial/courtly love, especially in terms of the shallow higher class. Consequently, these accounts of courtly love by Chaucer border on satire and criticism, both praising the institution of marriage as the protagonist and the unorthodox courtly love dynamic as the villain (as seen in “The Franklin’s Tale) and highlighting the manufactured, tenuous nature of the dynamic (as seen in Troilus and Criseyde and “Parliament of Fowls”). In all, the three works considered together prompt an investigation of the tension between tradition and revolution (orthodox vs unorthodox), as Chaucer makes deliberate choices to frame the tales as courtly love or traditional romances with hidden criticism. This is especially evident through his development of characters, commenting on the nature of courtly love through carefully-veiled personified representations of tradition and the unconventional.