LACK OF HIGH SERIOUSNESS

It has been observed that critics and readers have ever praised, liked and appreciated Chaucer’s grand and magnificent works throughout the ages. But some charges have also been levelled against him on the basis of lack of high seriousness in his poetic work ‘Prologue to the Canterbury Tales’. It was Mathew Arnold who was of the view that Chaucer should not be regarded as a great classic because his poetry lacks in observing high seriousness which is one of the salient features of great classics. However, Dante, Homer and Shakespeare were such classics who possessed high seriousness in their masterpieces.

Before proceeding the discussion, it seems to be in the fitness of things to extract an exact and accurate definition of the term ‘High Seriousness’. According to Mathew Arnold, high seriousness means;

“Artistic treatment in a very serious and solemn way”. 

Now, let us acquaint ourselves with three ingredients or components of high seriousness. Firstly, morality and high values are the most important and fundamental characteristics of high seriousness. The poet not only observes life and records his impression but also points out how to make it better. In some cases, the poet also introduces some lines of reform. Secondly, high seriousness connotes sublimity. In its broader sense, it means a sense of transport from living reality to the world of vision or ‘a journey from known to unknown’. The third constituent of high seriousness is the use of grand style in writing. Great classics adopt grand style in their works.

Now, let’s apply this yardstick and examine Chaucer’s work in the light of above-mentioned ingredients of high seriousness and thus, try to evaluate whether Chaucer’s work lacks in high seriousness or not.

As far as the first ingredient is concerned, Chaucer’s work is devoid of morality, says Mathew Arnold. He is of the view that Chaucer is not a reformer indeed. Nowhere in the book, he advises the evil doers or sinners to adopt the right path. He does not condemn ‘Wife of Bath’ is a corrupt lady Similarly, he is quite indifferent to the miseries and sufferings of the oppressed and needy people. As a realist writer, he just informs us about the outward appearances and inner intentions of his characters e.g., good or bad.

Talking about second component of high seriousness, Arnold goes to opine that Chaucer’s book is an art gallery of the pictures of his contemporary society. He is much attached to the 14^th century England and Europe. Hence, Chaucer fails to take his readers to a new and different world of marvels.

Similarly, Chaucer does not comply with the demands of the third ingredient of high seriousness. We can easily foresee that he does not fly to the heights. His style cannot be regarded as grand or lofty according to the true sense of term.

Therefore, Arnold seems to be quite justified in claiming that Chaucer is an ancient poet whose poetry is devoid of high seriousness which is the primary facet of classics.

However, despite all the above-mentioned allegations, a great, prominent and eminent critic has casted his vote in favour of Chaucer’s grand masterpiece which is being read and appreciated through and through. John Speirs proclaims that Chaucer’s poetry contains high seriousness though it is of different type. He argues that;

“Chaucer’s mature poetry of human comedy has weight and gravity behind it.”

He is of the view Chaucer is a humanist and not a reformer but, his comedy or humour has corrective motive behind it which is sufficient enough to enhance one’s morality. Secondly, Chaucer’s realism is not confined to his time only rather, it contains such essence of reality (Universal Realism) which is true for all ages. Chaucer aims to broaden the outlook of readers through his universal realism and thus tries to enforce them to imagine to a new life of high morals. Therefore, this charge should readily be removed from Chaucer’s flawless stature. Thirdly, Chaucer was a great poet who introduced the elements of novel and drama in his poetry even before the birth of both the genres. He did not succeed in introducing a grand theme as Spenser or Milton did. But he should not be charged with lack of high seriousness just on the basis of his lack in one of the three ingredients.

The whole discussion enables us to reach a conclusion that the arguments of Mathew Arnold seem to dominate those of John Speirs and thus, there will be no fear of contradiction if we claim that Chaucer’s ‘Prologue to the Canterbury Tales’ lacks in high seriousness.