Irony in Canterbury Tales
Incongruity is the overall name given to scholarly procedures that include amazing, fascinating, or interesting inconsistencies. 1 Two stories that fill in as amazing shows of incongruity are “The Pardoners Tale” and “The Nun’s Priest’s Tale,” both from Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales.
Of the accounts, “The Pardoners Tale” shows the most incongruity. As a matter of first importance, the whole recounting the story is unexpected, considering exactly who is the teller. The Pardoner utilizes this story to stand in opposition to numerous social issues, all of which he, at the end of the day, is blameworthy of. He lectures about intoxication, while he is tanked, disrespect, as he endeavors to sell counterfeit strict relics, and voracity, when he, when all is said and done, is incredibly avaricious. However there are additionally numerous amusing circumstances in the actual story. The incongruity begins when, in the start of the story, the three agitators make a settlement to “be siblings” and “each shield the others” and “to live and bite the dust for each other” in assurance from Death, (lines 37-43) and afterward in going out to satisfy their pledge, they wind up discovering cash, and killing each other over it.
Significantly more amusing, is the manner by which they wind up killing one another. Subsequent to discovering the cash, the men intend to remain with it until it becomes dim and they can securely remove it. To hold themselves over up to that point, they send the most youthful one out to get food and wine, and keeping in mind that he is away they intend to kill for a lot of the cash. Unexpectedly, the most youthful one is arranging exactly the same thing so he slips poison into the beverages of his sidekicks. At the point when he returns, he is assaulted and wounded to death by different men. Then, at that point, in likely the most amusing activity in the entire story, the killers, to compliment themselves, drink from the harmed cup and pass on.
“The Nun’s Priest’s Tale” is likewise loaded down with incongruity, the most clear of which is simply the characters. The story starts by recounting an elderly person who claims a few livestock, however while the lady is portrayed as “a helpless old widow,” who “drove a patient, straightforward life,” (1 &6) while the creatures are depicted as sovereignty. For instance, the creatures had magnificent names and titles, yet the lady had none by any means. The primary substantial illustration of incongruity, happens after Chanticleer has told Pertelote of his fantasy, and she ridicules him. Chanticleer says “Mulier est hominis confusio,” which he reveals to her signifies “Lady is man’s pleasure and all his euphoria,” yet truly implies that lady prompts the obliteration of man.
Yet, what is amusing is the way the fox winds up fruitless. When the fox has caught Chanticleer, he states “incident will go to the individuals who talk when they ought to hush up. ” However, absence of quiet from the fox prompts his misfortune. The fox had caught Chanticleer by complimenting him until the bombastic chicken accomplished something absurd, empowering the fox to take his action. Afterward, Chanticleer compliments the fox until he yields to the chicken’s benevolent words, empowering the chicken to get away. Both of their silly demonstrations included their vanity making them gloat and talk when they ought to have been quiet.
Likewise amusing about this entire circumstance, was the way that in the fox complimenting of Chanticleer, he derided his need shrewdness and reason and in guard, Chanticleer acts by showing both of these characteristics in his endeavor to get away. Both “The Pardoner’s Tale” and “The Nun’s Priest’s Tale” use the instrument of incongruity to show two comparable exercises. The lesson of “The Pardoner’s Tale” is “cash is the base of all shrewd”. Also, the lesson of the “Religious recluse’s Priest’s Tale” is that vanity will ultimately prompt obliteration. Chaucer makes unmistakably incongruity is a very successful strategy for showing something new.