By Jeremy Whitman-Kinghorn (Fall 2022)
Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales is a work that offers an unrivaled glimpse into medieval life in 14th-century England. Written in Middle English in the 14th century, Chaucer wrote what was clearly from his perspective a quite accurate dissection of the social structure of the time. It is quite clearly largely informed by true life experience, and exhibits thousands of nuggets of detail that inform modern readers of things most other authors would have thought too mundane to include. The introduction is the most important aspect of this, as it lists off each of the 30 or so pilgrims who meet at an Inn before a journey to Canterbury Cathedral, and each of whom is challenged to tell two stories on the way to their destination and two back, with the teller of the best stories receiving a meal paid for by the remainder of the pilgrims. Despite some parts having been written in prose, the majority is in verse.
The introduction (General Prologue) begins by explaining the setting and the setup to the story, before launching into a detailed description of every character, usually either beginning with a description of their past or a partial description of appearance. Following that is generally a description of the pilgrim’s possessions, and usually mostly consisting of praise of the pilgrim’s character or deeds, often followed by a cutting counter-remark before a summary or final description of appearance or clothing.
Chaucer was not intending to write a political work, yet in his compliance with the status quo of the time, the work supports the feudal government. Such a feudal government oppressed the vast majority of its people, and The Canterbury Tales offers a glimpse into some of the rationalizations that someone who benefits from the system could use to justify that to themselves or others. It also shows us how Chaucer or someone in his position may have viewed people in certain positions of society. The church was certainly a major component in society and specifically in oppression, as most of the populace was illiterate, they had to rely on the clergy dictating and interpreting the bible to them. In a world where the existence of God and the supernatural was not questioned, if a priest tells a peasant that something is God’s will, they have little ability to argue.
Medieval England had three social classes; The Nobility was kings, lords, nobles, and knights, The Clergy was anything related to the church including Nuns, Friars, Monks, and priests, and The Laity was the remaining peasants and freemen. But each of these social classes had a heirarchy within them, and it was more akin to a system of checks and balances than a clear heirarchy. Conversely, modern society has a simple upper class, middle class, and lower class. There can be complexities such as in modern England where a traditionally upper-class family could not have much money to become lower class or the reverse, but in such a case their social class simply changes. In medieval society, class was much more dictated by occupation. That said, in a country so full of oppression, it’s valuable to view medieval England in terms of oppressors and oppressed. As such, the lens which shall be used is one of a modern interpretation of class, that is, wealth. While it’s certainly true in many countries that a person of noble birth has a higher status than a wealthy commoner, in England that was far less true, with wealthy commoners holding a surprising amount of influence that only grew in future centuries.
There are a number of the pilgrims in the introduction of The Canterbury Tales who are of what we would today classify as the upper class. First and foremost of whom is The Knight, the pinnacle of chivalry and honor. Chaucer’s original text says on The Knight that he, “loved chivalrie, Trouthe and honour, freedom and curteisie. Ful worthy was he… (Kökbugur 45)” Or in modern English as translated by Sinan Kökbugur in Librarius.com’s The Canterbury Tales (in Middle and Modern English), that The Knight, “loved chivalry, truth, honour, freedom and all courtesy. (Kökbugur 45)” The Knight is one of very few pilgrims about whom nothing negative is said. His description is written in verse, which exaggerates his better qualities. The Knight is surprisingly old, having served Christendom and his country perfectly for many years. The Knight has fought in many campaigns, razed areas, fought in fifteen battles and three duels. The fact that The Knight has burned and looted several locations is considered praiseworthy, as it was done so in the service of his nation. He is exemplary of the fact that the original wording and interpretation of the biblical commandment was not “thou shalt not kill,” which is of course the version repeated from the King James Bible which was written centuries later. Instead, the original text and meaning was “thou shalt not murder,” as killing certain people and in certain situations was condoned by the church. In a society with the death penalty, that murder being considered wrong would not make much sense. The Knight demonstrates the very real historical use of lethal force to subjugate both the lower classes and also other nations.
The Sergeant of the Law has a role that is poorly understood by many modern readers of the text. His role is more analogous to a modern lawyer, hence his role of dealing with land ownership and laws. He is the exemplar of such a lawyer’s role, knowing every law on the books. While his description has more sides to it than that of the Knight, it is still mostly praising his competence, and it is also written in verse. Our modern perception of lawyers often involves dishonesty, the vision of the “perfect lawyer,” is usually one without morals who is able to help a guilty person be declared innocent. While The Sergeant of the Law is implied to be similarly indifferent to morally deficient activity, this is not treated as so much of a bad thing as it perhaps would today. It’s treated in a very neutral tone, as if it’s simply a factor of life and that God’s plan will benefit those who are faithful, as of course religion was a major factor of everday life and to enforce the social hierarchy.
The Franklin ought to be an example of a middle-class person, yet he is actually very wealthy. This is indicated by him dipping his extensively described eating and drinking habits, his plentiful stores of food, his past occupations, his clothes, and him being described as a vavasor. The Franklin is an exemplar of the fact that not all oppression in the period was carried out by nobles. England prided itself on its history of a prominent middle class of freemen who influenced the nobles, who in turn influenced the king in a representative system. However this was a far cry from modern representative democracy. Because anyone could theoretically work their way from peasant to wealthy franklin, this was used to claim the society was egalitarian. The notion that medieval England was egalitarian is laughable, as it was extraordinarily difficult to climb the social ladder, and while it was theoretically possible, it was rare. Thus, The Franklin represents the illusion of upward mobility which was presented to the lower classes. The Franklin also represents a notion which is repeated continually today, which is that the wealthy are usually generous, as though that excludes any exploitation they may participate in.
Chaucer’s discussion of the middle class is much more complicated, as a binary, perhaps Marxist view of class doesn’t fit well in a nation with a strong middle class. The notion of a wealthy upper class versus an oppressed working class is much more visible in Russia or other countries where serfdom or similar practices were employed. England has a long proud history of a strong middle class, of free men. While the modern house of commons would not exist officially until The Acts of Union in the early 18th century, the earliest ancestor would have existed for some time. Soon the roots of modern representative democracy certainly formed from the regional nobles and lords who advised the king, as they gained a more legitimate role and the freemen who advised the nobles in turn gained a commensurately more legitimate role. Despite this, English celebration of their free folk is perhaps somewhat retrospective and forgets a most important fact of life; Just because anyone can find move upwards doesn’t mean everyone can move upwards. Even if it’s possible for one peasant to earn their way out of the system, become a merchant, and earn their way to wealth, the impossibility of such a fate for the vast majority of those oppressed reminds us of what an unjust system it was that Chaucer describes. Thus, the majority of the so-called middle-class freemen were actually simply very wealthy men who were not of noble birth.
Five examples of a more modern interpretation of the middle-class can be found in the Haberdasher, Carpenter, Weaver, Dyer, and Arras-maker. Each is a master of their chosen craft and who is a member of their craft’s guild. As exemplary middle-class folk, they have just enough wealth to earn their place above the impoverished, but not so much that they challenge the place of the valued nobility. It’s also mentioned that they are pious, as pious folk are to follow the teachings of the church. They know their place which is yet again enforcing the oppressive status quo.
Describing the lower classes, Chaucer perhaps demonstrates his compliance with the society he lived in best, with his generally very unfavorable description of those most oppressed by feudal England. The lower classes in feudal England lived in conditions we can scarcely imagine, save for descriptions of slavery. The expectation for peasants was that they would work constantly for little pay and the primary thanks they would get for this work was from Christ in the afterlife.
The Shipman is perhaps the poorest pilgrim mentioned in the text. It was very common for sailors of the period to die of disease, to the point where so many were expected to do so that payment for all of them was rarely allotted. Even if a sailor did survive, they were often cheated out of their pay, and for those who were paid, their miserable circumstances usually led them to spend it all while ashore when locals would gauge prices, knowing the sailors wouldn’t care, not having anything to spend the money on while back at sea anyway. He’s described as fighting often and as a thief. While it’s likely that such a sailor would be quick to anger, no thought is given to why that should be, he is implicitly blamed for his circumstances.
Another noteworthy character is The Plowman, who is described as a true worker, who worked for Christ, who sometimes worked even without payment, and who paid his taxes despite his surely terrible conditions. Chaucer here reinforces that a good peasant simply does what they are told and ought to have little time for arguing for improved conditions. Such an action would be for personal gain, not for Christ, his community, or England.
The Summoner is notable for being described as particularly disgousting. Librarius.com’s modern translation describes his face as “All pimpled it was… With black and scabby brows and scanty beard; he had a face that little children feared. There was no mercury, sulphur, or litharge, no borax, ceruse, tartar, could discharge, nor ointment that could cleanse enough, or bite, to free him of his boils and pimples white. (Kökbugur 627)” Summoners were very poor, and this represents Chaucer’s implicit view of a wretch of society, one who literally cannot be cleaned, literally and metaphorically. Many of the privileged in England viewed many of the poor as responsible for their own fate and held the opinion that nothing could cure them of their ill qualities.
Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales is a work that is very much a product of its time. Chaucer’s implicit biases are on full display in his descriptions of each and every character. The wealthy are generally described as competent, generous, and noble despite their constant participation and perpetuation of one of the most notoriously unjust social structures in human history. The freemen of England were generally very wealthy and perpetuated the inequality of the time, such as the large fortunes they made from trade, despite that only being possible due to the constant toil of sailors whose conditions were almost unimaginable. If a freeman was not wealthy, then they were likely very poor. Fair pay was not very commonly understood for those below the middle-class status of guildsmen. The notion that the unfortunate were so because it was God’s will was very common, one perpetuated by the church, so little was usually done to meaningfully help the poor.
By no means did Chaucer mean to write a work which would be controversial, or exposing society’s problems. The problems that plagued 14th-century England had been common for thousands of years, and the notion that a solution was possible was not widely considered. However the work indicates what sorts of ideas were normalized at the time which is fascinating coming from a modern perspective where such ideas are generally not normal by any means. That said, this aspect of the text is important to read nowadays so as to get as accurate an impression of the period as possible. By learning about a period, we are able to save ourselves from repeating its mistakes. Recently in our own history, Kanye West has garnered a concerning amount of support for defending Nazis. While it’s perhaps an extreme example, understanding historical texts and authentic representations of the period in peering through bias allows us to combat any other regressive ideologies which may once again attempt to rear their ugly heads. And that aspect of historiography and literature is equally true for the second world war as it is for 14th-century England. Thus, by understanding the complex implications of Chaucer’s representation of class specifically through a modern lens, we are able to truly understand the unspoken horror of feudal society and save ourselves collectively as a society from ever repeating such injustice, especially on such a scale.
Works Cited
Kökbugur, Sinan, ed. The Canterbury Tales (in Middle and Modern English). Librarius.com, 1997, is copyright protected but reproduction expressly allowed for non-profit, educational use.
Binoya, F., & Moser, A. (2019, January 22). “Canterbury Tales: General prologue.” An Open Companion to Early British Literature. Retrieved December 10, 2022, from https://pressbooks.pub/earlybritishlit/chapter/canterbury-tales-general-prologue/.
This work is licensed under Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
