The Nun's Priest's Tale as a Mock Epic

This article critically analyses William Chaucer’s The Nun’s Priest’s Tale, his first and only Aesopian Fable, with specific reference to the author’s stylistic and rhetorical choices and how they contribute to the classification of this tale as an animal fable and mock heroic.

After Chauntecleer recounts the dream he had about seeing a dog-like animal in the yard, Pertelote tells him that his dream was merely a phantasma, a meaningless bad dream, and advises him to take laxatives to purge himself of his bad humours. Chauntecleer, who does not want to take laxatives, makes use of several long digressions in an attempt to explain that his dream was instead a vision that should be heeded to prevent something terrible from happening to him. After making his point, he woos Pertelote and they make love. Chauntecleer then roams the yard with his wives in search of seeds.

A mock heroic is classified as a satirical tale that closely follows the style of an epic /heroic tale but is used instead to tell a very unheroic story, just as Chaucer does in his tale of Chauntecleer, a rooster, and his favourite wife, Pertelote. He references other epics (such as Cicero’s Somnium Scipionis) throughout this story, which seem unrelated to the preposterous and seemingly trivial content. Chaucer even makes use of the heroic verse and this contributes to the mock-heroic effect. A line written in the Heroic Verse has five metrical feet, each consisting of (usually) one stressed and one unstressed syllable. This means that there are 10 syllables per line or, in Chaucer’s case, 11 with the addition of a ‘feminine ending’ which is an extra, unaccented syllable (Coghill, 1959). The Nun’s Priest’s Tale is written in rhyming or heroic couplets which only follow the metre of this verse when read in the original Middle English. Chaucer started making use of this verse after his return from Italy in 1373, where he was largely influenced by Dante and Boccaccio.

In line 321[1], Chauntecleer makes use of digressio, which means elaboration, to explain why his dream is of great importance. He makes use of other epics that involve important dreams to illustrate his point. He tells the story of Andromacha, the wife of Hector, who dreams of her husband’s death. “She warned him, but it mighte not availe [do any good]” (l. 326) and Hector goes to battle anyway and dies. This is an ironic example because just like Hector, Chauntecleer is not heeding his wife’s advice. Instead of listening to Pertelote, he ignores her completely. The use of this specific story of Andromacha and Hector is also important to the classification of this tale as a mock-heroic tale. The Nun’s Priest’s Tale mirrors a traditional epic with a completely unheroic tale. Chauntecleer uses the story of Hector losing his life on a battlefield to a rooster being eaten by a fox.

This is followed by an occupatio, which means to cut a tale short. Ironically, this is not done “shortly” (l. 331) but is drawn out with unnecessary words. His conclusion is not a conclusion at all, but perhaps just another way to draw Pertelote’s attention away from their argument. Despite this, Chauntecleer lets slip his true reason for defending his dream as something important – he does not want to take laxatives.

Chauntecleer tells “Madame Pertelote” (l. 338) that they must talk about more cheerful things. He then explains that she is his gift from God and flatters her. The use of God in this statement contributes to the mock-heroic characteristics of this tale. It shows that Chauntecleer believes that God himself sent Pertelote to be his wife. He also makes sure to mention that when they are together he is “so ful of joye and solas [delight]” (l. 350) He makes bold and sweeping statements about her beauty, which seems more fitting to a traditional epic description of grand and beautiful ladies than this story of a rooster describing a hen. Chauntecleer quotes the words “In principio, Mulier est hominis confusio” (l. 344) which means ‘woman is man’s downfall’ and explains to her that this means that “Womman is mannes joye and al his blis” (l.346). This is not the correct translation and seems very manipulative. He knows that she does not know or understand this quote and he can use that to his advantage. He seems condescending in his explanation and does not seem to view Pertelote as an intellectual equal. His patronizing manner is emphasised by his use of pet names and flattery. This condescending attitude could reflect Chaucer’s own apparent sexist ideals as illustrated in his portrayals of women in his other works (e.g. The Wife of Bath).

The dynamic between the two lovers, although they are animals, is not unlike that of a human couple. Chauntecleer is proud and arrogant and tries to prove that he is smarter than his wife. They also argue and reconcile like humans would. The use of animals to illustrate our own flaws (for example self-importance and condescension) makes a more lasting and unique impression. These specific lines show how the animal fable is a reflection of human nature. His passive aggressive way of holding his knowledge of various tales and teachings over Pertelote’s head is a very human act. It reflects our own inherent need to have the last say in an argument and our inability to abandon our pride.

After this, Chauntecleer flies down from the rafters and goes to explore the yard with his other wives. He is described in a very proud and brave manner, not unlike the image of a traditional hero. “He looketh as it were a grim leoun [lion]” (l. 359) and his wives flock to him when he finds a seed. He is described as a regal prince, but in reality, he is merely a rooster pecking around a yard looking for seeds. This mocks the traditional description of heroes by equating them to a rooster.

Lines 365 and 366 are delivered by the nun’s priest. He says that this is where he will end his story of Chauntecleer and “after wol [he] telle his aventure” (l. 366). It is important to remember that this tale is told by Chauntecleer, who in turn is merely a character in the story told by the nun’s priest to the company of pilgrims. This frame narrative contributes to the complexity of the tale by layering several stories that all have different plots. This sense of confusion further mocks the typical heroic style.

The Nun’s Priest’s Tale is a multi-layered story that, just as its text, must be interpreted to be understood. The richness and lasting effect of this tale are lost when one forgets about the importance of the mock-heroic style and the duality of some of the word/stylistic choices. The tale is more than just a story used by the priest to cheer up the company of pilgrims; it is a deeper, allegorical insight into the values and flaws of mankind, explained in a humorous, relatable manner.

Reference List

Coghill, N., 1959. The Nun's Priest's Tale. 1st ed. London: Harrap Limited.

Allison, A. W., Barrows, H., Blake, C. R., Carr, A. J., Eastman, A. M. & English, H. M. Jr. (eds). 1983. Norton Anthology of Poetry. Third edition. Scranton, PN: Norton.

[1] All further line references refer to: Allison, A. W., Barrows, H., Blake, C. R., Carr, A. J., Eastman, A. M. & English, H. M. Jr. (eds). 1983. Norton Anthology of Poetry. Third edition. Scranton, PN: Norton.