Retraction and Re-Collection: Chaucer’s Apocalyptic Self-Examination

Abstract

At the end of the Canterbury Tales stands Chaucer’s “Retraction,” wherein he seems, at first glance, to be taking back and apologizing for the book we have just read. However, this troubling appendage is not what it might seem; not only is Chaucer not “taking back” the Canterbury Tales, he is actually revealing something about the Tales not evident until this moment in the narrative. What we see in the Retraction is Chaucer reconsidering his works, evaluating his role as author, and anticipating future judgment (God’s judgment of Chaucer, and future readers’ judgment of Chaucer’s works). Chaucer is not seeking expiation, as the metaphor of pilgrimage would immediately suggest; instead, he is seeking—and has just attained—self-knowledge. The Tales represent the process of Chaucer-poet’s mapping the terrain of his own consciousness. Aranye Fradenburg states that “Of all medieval narrative poets, Chaucer is by far the most preoccupied with affective and cognitive states—with the state and nature of sentience as such.” Indeed, knowing (konnynge) proves to be the ultimate goal of the Tales as well as the culmination of Chaucer-poet’s journey of introspection. Even though the achievement of self-knowledge may not be the explicit focus of each individual tale, it is nonetheless the unifying trajectory that shapes and drives the Canterbury Tales as a whole. Chaucer-poet’s journey toward self-knowledge is a process that can be seen, retrospectively, as beginning with the Knight’s Tale, and having its climax between the Tale of Sir Thopas and the Tale of Melibee. The idea of Retraction must consequently be extended and applied not only to the section titled “Retraction,” but also to the Canterbury Tales as a whole. The entire collection is Chaucer’s re-handling and re-consideration of his literary legacy, even though we, as readers, do not know until we reach the end of the text that we have