THE NUN’S PRIEST’S TALE: HIDDEN SOCIAL COMPLEXITIES

The themes and tone of “The Nun’s Priest’s Tale” in Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury

Tales are open to a wide range of interpretation. Taking the genre of the beast fable, “The Nun’s

Priest’s Tale” characteristically uses the personification of animals to convey a moral lesson.

Scholars have written on its message against the evils of blinding flattery; however, many other

scholars feel that to take this tale too seriously equates the vanity of one’s aptitude for moral

perception with that of Chantecleer’s proud crowing. The undertone of this tale is mockery.

This fable is utilized as a political commentary satirizing England’s Richard I and his knights

during the Crusades, as well as a Christian allegory against pride. This includes satire of the

Monk’s elevated – yet perhaps empty – style of preaching and the superiority of the Prioress.

Despite difference in interpretation, the text of “The Nun’s Priest’s Tale” reveals that as the

Nun’s priest mocks the pride of others, his high language says more about himself than he may

realize.

“The Nun’s Priest’s Tale” is part of Fragment VIII and is the twenty-first tale of the

collection. This tale illustrates the story of Chantecleer, a proud and confident rooster with

charge over seven hens in the farmyard belonging to an old widow. Chantecleer’s song is said to

be unmatched in beauty and harmony. His song is also said to be more accurate at keeping time

than a clock. Chantecleer has a menacing dream about danger to come in the form of a looming

beast. He tells his love, Pertelote, of his worries; however, she declares that this dream is just a

bit of indigestion – there is no danger coming. Chantecleer is momentarily put at ease, but this is

a false security. Chantecleer’s dream turns out to be true – a threatening fox approaches him.

The fox knows of Chantecleer’s great pride and appeals to this vice:
   Chavey 2

For trewely, ye have as myrie a stevene

As any aungel hath that is in hevene.

Therwith ye han in musyk moor feelynge

Than hadde Boece, or any that kan synge.

My lord youre fader – God his soul blesse! –

And eek youre mooder, of hire gentillesse,

Han in myn house ybeen to my greet ese;

And certes, sire, ful fayn wolde I yow plese . . .

Lat se; konne ye youre fader countrefete? (Chaucer 3290-3296, 3321)

With this distraction, the fox is able to abduct Chantecleer. As Chantecleer clings to the

scurrying fox, he turns the fox’s own tricks against him. The fox knows that he is being pursued

by all of the farmyard inhabitants. Chantecleer also tries to appeal to pride, suggesting that he

boast to those chasing him. When he does open his mouth, Chantecleer is given the opportunity

to escape to safety. The fox tries to coax Chantecleer once more, but Chantecleer has learned his

lesson and will not be tempted by false flattery.

The genre of “The Nun’s Priest’s Tale” is beast fable. A beast fable can be classified as

“a medieval literary form consisting of a series of linked stories grouped around animal

characters and often presenting satirical comment on the church or court by means of human

qualities attributed to beast characters” (Harmon and Holman 55). The genre of the beast fable

often utilizes animal characters to make stories that comment on uncomfortable social vices

more palatable to readers. According to John Block Friedman’s “The ‘Nun’s Priest’s Tale”: The

Preacher and the Mermaid’s Song”:

   Chavey 3

The very fact that “The Nun’s Priest’s Tale” is a beast fable seems to invite

interpretations in which the animal characters stand for something other than

themselves. By and large, critics of this tale have sought that something in three

different places: outside the poem in Chaucer’s contemporary world, interpreting

Chantecleer’s adventure as a reflection of political or other controversy; within

the poem but outside the fable, relating the Nun’s Priest and other members of the

pilgrimage to the cock and the fox; and wholly within the fable, seeing the beat

characters as figures in Christian allegory. (Friedman 250-251)

Each of these interpretations sheds new light on Chaucer’s tale as a whole. Each is woven into

the others to create a complex web of morality and social commentary. Whether or not one

wants to take this specific tale as a serious narrative or as a humorous satire, this form softens the

harshness of the tale’s chastising message. In her critique, “The ‘Speculum Stultorum’ and the

‘Nun’s Priest’s Tale,’” Jill Mann discusses Chaucer’s employment of the beast fable genre and

the humor created by the unsuitability of the combination of the height of both the language and

the moral lesson and barnyard characters. “The ‘heigh style’ . . . is also beautifully inappropriate

in the context of a farmyard anecdote” (Mann 276). She argues that Chaucer himself leads the

reader to this incongruity. “Chaucer . . . prepares us for the inapplicability of the morals to his

‘Tale’ by stressing the animal side of his hero. The tale begins with the contrast between the

‘gentil cok’ and the ‘povre widwe’ who owns him” (Mann 276).1 She also presents the idea that

because of this elevated yet ridiculous situation, there is reason to believe that this tale is meant

to be one of comical mockery.

Chaucer’s use of animals to show us the comic irrelevance of the abstractions –

moral, intellectual, aesthetic – on which men try to organise their lives. The beast
                                                                                                                       
1
The illustrative comparison of the widow and Chantecleer can be found from lines 2821-2881.
   Chavey 4

story in their hands does not ask us to consider men as animals in the moralising

sense which sees the ‘animal’ in men as their degradation, what is to be rejected;

what it stands for in [his] work is rather the basic intractability of human nature

and human experience, its resistance to organization in terms of intellectual and

moral analysis, and its awful tendency to suggest a common sense moral just as

often as a more elevated one. (Mann 277)

This excerpt comments on the pretentiousness of high (but perhaps empty) morals – something

that “The Nun’s Priest’s Tale” is preaching against. Mann maintains the common perception

that although this tale must not be taken too seriously, its message is a stern one. “It is a mistake

to separate the comedy from the serious aims; to assume that it acts as a mere vehicle, or as gilt

on the pill” (Mann 278). This tale can also be described as a mock epic – “Terms for a literary

form that burlesques the epic by treating a trivial subject in the ‘grand style’ or uses the epic

formulas to make a trivial subject ridiculous by ludicrously overstating it” (Harmon and Holman

329). According to previously mentioned characteristics of this tale, it is true that this genre

would be an appropriate fit as well.

Many scholars consider the tone of this story to be one of mockery. A common moral

lesson combined with an unrelated setting and cast of characters makes for a wild contrast. The

characters of “The Nun’s Priest’s Tale” represent human vices, so it would seem natural for these

characters to, in fact, be human. However, this is not the case in this circumstance. R. T.

Lenaghan’s “The Nun’s Priest’s Fable” describes the tale as “an ironic contrast of subject and

treatment” (Lenaghan 303). Lenaghan suggests, “The basic irony of ‘The Nun’s Priest’s Tale’

results from just such a contrast, that between the affairs of the hen-yard and the elaborate

rhetoric of their description” (Lenaghan 303). The absurdity of animals acting as humans makes
   Chavey 5

it difficult for a reader to take this tale completely seriously. This is fortunate for those who do

see the humor in this tale which on the surface is humorless. It is widely held that reading this

tale with too much seriousness proves one to be guilty of the same pride of the tale’s protagonist.

One’s self-righteousness and believed moral authority is comparable to the prideful singing of

Chantecleer.

Despite the comical tone of the story, there is a moral lesson taught through “The Nun’s

Priest’s Tale.” The narrator of this tale is warning his fellow pilgrims about the evils of flattery

and the consequences of naivety:

Allas, ye lords, many a fals flatour

Is in youre courtes, and many a losengeour,

That plesen yow wel moore, by my faith,

Than he that soothfastnesse unto yow seith.

Redeth Ecclesiaste of flaterye;

Beth war, ye Lourdes, of hir trecherye. (Chaucer 3325-3330)

“The Nun’s Priest’s Tale” is considered to be a Christian allegory. The cock and the fox have

both represented flattery and naivety at different stages in the story. Chantecleer and Pertelote

may represent the relationship between a married couple. Despite the presence of the

independent and strong-willed Wife of Bath, the Nun’s Priest was probably referencing common

views of a woman’s ability to lead a man to act foolishly – a view held since the Biblical story of

Adam and Eve. Although Pertelote does not directly lead him to sin, she does give Chantecleer

false security to calm him after his dream.

It is a common happening throughout the Canterbury Tales for a pilgrim’s tale to

comment on the misfortunes or moral stature of another pilgrim. For example, “The Friar’s
   Chavey 6

Tale” demonizes its main character who is a greedy and preying summoner. “The Nun’s Priest’s

Tale” is no exception to this idea. Many scholars postulate that this particular tale happens to be

mocking both the Monk and the Prioress. The Monk, who presents his remarks on a collection

of tragic historical figures, preaches with strict pretentiousness and lack of compassion against

sinners. He himself is not an example of Christian virtue; but overcome with his own self-

righteousness, he believes himself to be so. His portrait in the General Prologue depicts him as

over-indulgent in the things which a monk should not concern himself. He is a consumer – of

fine clothing and excessive amounts of food and drink. He does not commit himself to a

cloistered life. Samuel B. Hemingway proposes that the Nun’s Priest has the monk in mind

when he chooses his story to tell the company of pilgrims. “Dan Piers [our Monk] reminds Sir

John [the Nun’s Priest] irresistibly of a sleek and pompous, well-groomed rooster; and when the

Host calls upon him, the humble chaplain, for a tale, the old, old story, the familiar exemplum, of

the Cock and the Fox, comes to his mind” (Hemingway 480). This tale is a warning against

elevated – but empty – preaching. Hemingway writes of Samuel Sloan Duryee, a student of his

who had noticed that “it was significant that the last exemplum which the Monk is allowed to

narrate, the story of Croesus, is repeated by the cock near the end of his series of exempla”

(Hemingway 481). The discussed excerpt relates:

For ever the latter ende of joye is wo.

God wot that worldly joye is sone ago:

And if a rethor coude fair endyte,

He in a cronique saufly mighte it wryte

As for a sovereyn notabilitee. (Chaucer 3205-3209)

   Chavey 7

Although Chantecleer’s wife is clearly Pertelote, he is in charge of seven hens. The Monk is also

described as a sexually potent figure. The Prioress is also mocked by this tale. While it is not

likely that Pertelote is meant to be a figure allegorically representing the Prioress, she is a

medium through which the Priest can give himself some dominance over her. In his “Chaucer’s

Disgruntled Cleric: The Nun’s Priest’s Tale,” Arthur T. Broes asserts:

It is likely that he fear the disapproval of the Prioress. Although the timid Priest

tells the Host that he is not disgruntled, he does reveal evidences of dissatisfaction

with his position in life as a servant to a group of women oh which he purges

himself through this not-so-thinly veiled criticism of his superior . . . The rooster

is nothing less than the thinly disguised animal counterpart of the Priest, a

persona or alter ego through which he can criticize women and enjoy a

dominance over them that he has been unable to achieve in his own life. (Broes

157-158)

Broes contrasts Hemingway with his stipulation that Chaucer intended Chantecleer to be a

medium for the Priest rather than the Priest’s depiction of the Mock. The Prioress does not

appear to give much consideration to the Priest. Even Chaucer gives her a lengthy introduction

in the General Prologue, while the Nun’s Priest receives no portrait at all – just recognition of his

existence. Even his given title denotes inferiority. He is not known as simply the “Priest” or

even the “Chaplain.” The name by which he is referred to shows possession by the Prioress. As

reported by Muriel Bowden, “‘It is the suffering of a mouse which calls forth her sympathy; she

is not greatly concerned over the suffering of her fellow-man’” (qtd. in Broes 157). Her

illustration in the General Prologue makes it clear to readers that she is from a wealthy family
   Chavey 8

(her title must have been bought for her) and is therefore likely socially superior to the Priest,

even outside of their religious life.

A. Paul Shallers of Temple University is one of the many scholars who recognizes that by

presenting a tale with such lowly subjects but lofty execution, the Nun’s Priest is associating

himself with the pompous crowing of Chantecleer. Chantecleer also delivers the exemplum of

the tale which seems to be very similar to a sermon. In “The Ironic Fruyt: Chantecleer as

Figura,” Judson Boyce Allen brings to his readers’ attention that while the character of the Nun’s

Priest intends this to show ridicule of the Monk’s presentation of his story, he is unaware that his

own story can be applied to him too.

The Nun’s Priest as the speaker of the tale not only pokes fun at the Prioress and Monk,

Chaucer as an author may have been mocking Richard I of England and one of the many

unsuccessful attempts by leaders of Western Europe during the Middle Ages to gain control of

the Holy Land, which was occupied by Saladin, a powerful Muslim leader. Richard I was and

still is known as Richard the Lionheart for his military accomplishments and skills as leader,

particularly in the Third Crusade. “The Nun’s Priest’s Tale,” contains political satire in addition

to its Christian allegory. In his Chaucer: The Life and Times of the First English Poet, Richard

West affirms this notion. He believes that Chaucer did not agree with the perception of Richard I

as an exemplary form of chivalry and a defender of the Christian faith and Catholic Church.

West points out a specific piece of work that glorifies Richard I and his endeavors. He offers an

excerpt of “The Nun’s Priest’s Tale” which contrasts this piece. He states:

A well-known example of the cult was Geoffrey de Vinsauf’s Poetria nova2, a

pompous Latin treatise on rhetoric which the author illustrated with flamboyant

examples of his own. One of these is a lament for Richard the Lionheart. In “The
                                                                                                                       
2
Circa 1210. A work meant to be an example of poetic composition.
   Chavey 9

Nun’s Priest’s Tale,” when Chantecleer the barnyard cock is carried away by a

fox on a Friday in spite of his warning dream, Chaucer pokes fun at Geoffrey [de

Vinsauf’s] elegy:

O Gaufred, deere maister soverayn,

That when the worthy King Richard was slayn

With shot, complainedst his death so sore,

Why ne headed I nought thy cunning and thy lore . . . ?

These lines can be taken to mean that Chaucer laughed at Richard the Lionheart

and the cult of chivalry. This interpretation conforms to the twentieth-century

view that Richard and his fellow crusaders went to the Holy Land for plunder or

to indulge their blood-lust, rather than from religious conviction. (West 16-17)

While it would not be socially acceptable to outright criticize royalty, especially such a

historically revered figure, Chaucer does attempt to mask (though not heavily) his objection to

the Third Crusade and the intentions and methods of Richard I.

Geoffrey Chaucer’s “The Nun’s Priest’s Tale” may be simple in plot, but has many

intentional and complex features. Its utilization of the beast fable genre, the tone of mockery,

political satire, and allegories configured to Christian faith and ethics creates commentary

beyond the surface plot of the cock and the fox. Chaucer fashions a remark on society that

remains relevant centuries later due to its truths of human nature.

   Chavey 10

Works Cited

Allen, Judson Boyce. “The Ironic Fruyt: Chauntecleer as Figura.” Studies in Philology. 66.1

(Jan. 1969): 22-35. JSTOR. The Pennsylvania State University Lib., University Park, PA.

Web. 7 Apr. 2010.

This article presents the idea that Chantecleer represents the Nun’s Priest. The reader of

the “Nun’s Priest’s Tale” is able to recognize Chaucer’s intentions to expose the Priest as

the kind of ridiculous preacher that he speaks against and assumes the Monk to be.

Broes, Arthur T. “Chaucer’s Disgruntled Cleric: The Nun’s Priest’s Tale.” PMLA. 78.3 (June

1963): 156-162. JSTOR. The Pennsylvania State University Lib., University Park, PA.

Web. 19 Mar. 2010.

Broes’ essay takes a look at the morality and character of various pilgrims in the

Canterbury Tales in relation to “The Nun’s Priest’s Tale.” This includes the Prioress, the

Monk, and the Nun’s Priest as a narrator.

Chaucer, Geoffrey. “The Nun’s Priest’s Tale.” The Riverside Chaucer. Ed. Larry D. Benson.

Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1987. 252-261. Print.

This is the literary work on which the paper is based.

Friedman, John Block. “The ‘Nun’s Priest’s Tale’: The Preacher and the Mermaid’s Song.” The

Chaucer Review. 7.4 (Spr. 1973): 250-266. JSTOR. The Pennsylvania State University

Lib., University Park, PA. Web. 19 Mar. 2010.

Friedman’s work suggests the meaning of “The Nun’s Priest’s Tale” as a Christian

allegory. He also discusses the Nun’s Priest’s satirizing of other select pilgrims.

Harmon, William and Hugh Holman. “Beast Epic.” A Handbook to Literature. 10th ed. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006. 55. Print.

   Chavey 11

This book offers a wealth of literary definitions, in particular that of “Beast Epic”

(redirected from the “Beast Fable”).

---. “Mock Epic.” A Handbook to Literature. 10th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice

Hall, 2006. 329. Print.

This source provides the definition of the term “Mock Epic.”

Hemingway, Samuel B. “Chaucer’s Monk and Nun’s Priest.” Modern Language Notes. 31.8

(Dec. 1916): 479-483. JSTOR. The Pennsylvania State University Lib., University Park,

PA. Web. 7 Apr. 2010.

This source suggests the Nun’s Priest intended the Monk to be a model for Chantecleer’s

vices.

Lenaghan, R. T. “The Nun’s Priest’s Fable.” PMLA. 78.4 (Sept. 1963): 300-307. JSTOR. The

Pennsylvania State University Lib., University Park, PA. Web. 19 Mar. 2010.

Lenaghan’s essay comments on the juxtaposition of morality and mockery in this play.

Lenaghan takes one extreme side of serious morality versus social mockery argument and

suggests that the poem is not to be taken as much more than a simple joke.

Shallers, A. Paul. “The ‘Nun’s Priest’s Tale’: An Ironic Exemplum.” ELH. 42.3 (Fall 1975):

319-337. JSTOR. The Pennsylvania State University Lib., University Park, PA. Web. 19

Mar. 2010.

This piece offers Shallers’ opinion and examples of mockery in the tale. Most

importantly, Shallers compares the “grandiloquence” of the narration to that of

Chantecleer’s crowing, among other points. The character of the Nun’s Priest is also

brought into perspective in terms of the tone of the poem.

   Chavey 12

West, Richard. Chaucer: The Life and Times of the First English Poet. New York City, NY:

Carroll & Graf, Inc., 2000. Print.

This book provides further insight into “The Nun’s Priest’s Tale” as a medieval political

commentary on Richard I of England and the Third Crusade.