Comparing The Parson's Tale And The Canterbury Tales

As Lee Patterson points out, The Parson’s Tale at first glance appears to be a drab, unfulfilling conclusion to The Canterbury Tales. Described by Jill Mann as a treatise on pertinence, the structure of The Parson’s Tale clearly deviates from the tales told by the other pilgrims, such as the courtly romance told by the Knight and the beast fable told by the Nun’s Priest. Furthermore, the work contains little of the vivid humor and playful sarcasm that Chaucer displays in many of his other tales. Instead, The Parson’s Tale appears to play the genre straight and gives a real speech about the nature of sin. Based on these differences, some scholars doubt the work’s authorship, believing that The Parson’s Tale is merely a translation by Chaucer.

The phrase “quiting,” glossed by Mann as “to requite” is first used by the Host following The Knight’s Tale, when he asks the Monk to respond to the Knight.. Before he starts, the Miller interjects to tell a tale to “quit” the Knight. In theme and structure, The Miller’s Tale rejects The Knight’s Tale. Both tales are love stories, where two men fight over a beautiful woman, but the point of view is completely different. While the Knight tells a courtly romance of a princess in a castle, the Miller tells a vulgar fabliau with a raunchy adulteress. This form of call and response continues throughout the rest of The Canterbury Tales. After the Miller quits the Knight, the Reeve becomes insulted and takes his revenge by quiting the Miller. Then the Cook then quits the Reeve, the WoB quits the Man of Law, the Clerk quits the WoB, and so on it goes. As the tales proceed, the character flaws of the pilgrims begin to come to light, as the reader sees a greedy Pardoner, a lustful Prioress, and an angry Reeve, among others. Given the pervasiveness of quiting throughout The Canterbury Tales, it is reasonable to read The Parson’s Tale, the final tale given as a treatise on penitence, as a piece meant to quit the other