Jacquie Lynch
Honors 171
Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales:
Towards Realism & Naturalism in Literature
"In the first place, as he is the father of English Poetry, I hold him in the same degree of veneration as the Grecians held Homer, or the Romans Virgil.  He is a perpetual fountain of good sense; learned in all sciences, and, therefore, speaks properly on all subjects.  As he knew what to say, so he knows also to leave off, a continence [habit] which is practiced by few writers, and scarcely by any of the ancients, excepting Virgil and Horace."
--John Dryden, from The Norton Anthology of English Literature

Lynchnotes to The Pilgrims:
29 + Chaucer (counting only 1 nun's priest) + two met along the way


Additional Pilgrims (who join the group on the way to Canterbury):


Structural Devices for Developing Character:

A.  Framing Device, "The General Prologue"
B.  Linking Device, The Prologues to Each Pilgrim’s Tale
C.  Linking Device, The Tale Each Pilgrim Tells
D.  Relationships/Interactions between the Pilgrims
Focus Questions for the General Prologue:
  1. As you read the General Prologue, refer to the Lynchnotes above and note the details that foreshadow each pilgrim's character, class, degree of integrity, etc.  Look for ironic incongruities, such as when the pilgrim Chaucer seems to be admiring a character, but the details given paint a less than admirable picture.
  2. Look for subtle and overt critiques of members of the clergy.  All of these characters are participating in a Christian pilgrimmage, but do their characters reflect Christian principles?
  3. Look for the ways that social class--and tensions between members of different classes--are indicated through the representation of these diverse characters and the way some of them interact with each other (e.g., who respects whom?  who goes out of his or her way to convey disrespect for others?).
Focus Questions for The Wife of Bath's Prologue:
  1. What's the Wife of Bath's thesis for her prologue?
  2. Does her thesis change, and/or argue against itself--and if so, where?
  3. Are her views feminist, anti-feminist, or a problematic mix of both?