Sarah Fehrman ENG 471 Dr.

Kathy Carlson Due: 4/20/07 Chaucers Knight and the Shifting Role of Chivalry The fabric from which fantasy is woven is the little girl who dreams of being a princess, and the little boy who dreams of being her knight in shining armor: both offer examples of the idea of gallantry and knighthood that permeate our culture. It was no different in Chaucers day. Throughout The Canterbury Tales, Chaucer gives us glimpses into the lives of his pilgrims and the social spheres and cultural contexts in which they lived. Chaucer uses the knight, and by contrast, the Squire, to respond to the shifts in social expectations and the blurred lines of the disintegrating Estates General. Chaucer harnesses the turbulence of the Middle Ages and gives us a perspective on the changing definition of chivalry through the cultural and historical details in the portraits of the Knight and Squire. By the time that Chaucer was writing in the fourteenth Century, the medieval courtly culture was changing from one that exulted battle to one that held courtly love as the highest ideal. In his book Chivalry, Leon Gautier says that the Church still sent Knights out to fight against Infidels in foreign lands, but there was a tension that existed between the Christian Knight, and the Warrior Knight, leaving the Church in a precarious position. In the end, the Knight was outfitted as a Warrior of God, serving the Church, and spreading Gods Kingdom to the Infidels (1-23). The spiritual struggles were not all that plagued the would-be Knights of Chaucers era; there were more practical considerations as well. It was increasingly expensive to be outfitted as a knight. Laura Lambdin and Robert Lambdin write that many lords demanded a scutage or shield tax from their knights, as well as other fees. The technology surrounding warfare was also becoming more advanced, and with this, the price of armor and the necessary accoutrements. Armor was shifting

from chain mail to plate, and this was much more expensive to produce than the previous styles. In addition to the cost of armor, a knight had to provide a horse for himself, which could cost as much as 100 for a good steed. By the thirteenth century, the situation was dire. There were a great many poor knights throughout Europe, and some squires chose to forfeit their rights to knighthood because of the profligate expenditure associated with it (6-7). This was not a problem for the wealthy knights, but the poorer knights, even those with land, were frequently unable to afford to cease the management of their estates, even if they were able to provide themselves with the accessories of war, Terry Jones writes in Chaucers Knight: A Portrait of a Medieval Mercenary (7-9). Even for the knights who could afford to outfit themselves for battle, there was one further looming obstacle. The strictly defined class system of the General Estates was becoming more and more blurred. There was an emerging middle class, and an increasing number of people who didnt fit into social boxes. Paul Strohm asserts in Social Chaucer that by the end of the fourteenth century, there was a fourth stratum of the social sphere that was accepted. It fell somewhere in between the lords and the peasants, and was the beginning of the middle class. Bishop Thomas Brinton, in his fourteenth century sermons, characterized knights as societys right arm, merchants and faithful craftsmen as its left arm, and citizens and burgesses as its heart. In order for this shift to be achieved, it was necessary for knights to be demoted, and the class of merchants and tradesmen to climb the social scale (2-4). From this social and historical background, Chaucer gives us one of the most enigmatic characters in his Canterbury Tales. From the beginning of his portrait, the Knight seems to uphold every ideal of chivalry. The opening lines of his portrait inform us that A Knyght ther was, and that a worthy man, (I. 43). The description that Chaucer gives us paints this worthy man as a paradigm of chivalry in all of its glorious connotations. The knight loved chivalrie, / Trouthe and honour, fredom and curteisie. /

Ful worthy was he in his lordes werre, (I. 45-7). This glowing portrait continues, as we are told that he were worthy, he was wys, / And of his port as meeke as is a mayde / [. . .] He was a verray, parfit, gentil knyght (I. 67-73). Chaucer gives his readers a glimpse into the character of a man who is everything that is good, and admirable. The knight shows us that his good character is more than just a facade, and that he truly is a devout man. Very little is said of what he was wearing, except that his horse was goode, but he was nat gay (I. 74) and that Of fustian he wered a gypoun Al bismotered with his habergeoun, For he was late ycome from his viage, And wente for to doon his pilgrymage. (I. 75-8) Chaucers worthy knight was so anxious to go on a pilgrimage after his return from battle that he did not even stop to change his clothes. It is somewhat unsettling to find, juxtaposed in the middle of this charming vignette, a lengthy catalogue of the crusades in which the knight has participated. Chaucer mentions eleven campaigns that the knight was involved in during his years of warfare. This brutal reality rips a jagged hole in the gentile and chivalrous ideal of the knight. In Chaucers Pilgrims: An Historical Guide to the Pilgrims in The Canterbury Tales Laura Lambdin and Robert Lambdin argue that several of the campaigns that Chaucer mentions were horrific atrocities, most specifically the siege of Alexandria in 1365. Contemporary historians have compared that battle to the pillaging and plundering that went on in during the My Lai bloodbath of the Vietnam War. However, as we are reminded in Chaucers Pilgrims: An Historical Guide to the Pilgrims in the Canterbury Tales, We need not be afraid, in the twentieth century, to admit the paradoxes, ironies, and excesses that constitute that history. As long as we are ready to recognize the

possibility that Chaucer may, through the Knight, be celebrating battles and ideals he saw as glorious, however inglorious they may now seem to us, we can understand the character as being worthy (9-11). It is important, as a student of the Middle Ages, to read through the filter of a contemporary reader of Chaucer and free him from the strictures of a twenty-first century education and place the worthy knight firmly in the midst of a changing chivalric culture. Perhaps one of the best ways to grasp the paradox of the knight is to briefly examine the next generation of chivalrous individuals. Chaucer tells us, With [the knight] ther was his sone, a yong Squire (I. 79). Despite a shared bloodline, the Squire and the knight are as different as night and day. While the knight is described as loving truth and honor, and being an accomplished warrior, his son embraces the knightly tradition of courtly love. He is introduced to us as A lovyere and a lusty bacheler, / with lokkes crulle as they were leyd in presse (I. 80-1). These two lines divulge the tendencies the Squire has to be a bit foppish, as well as revealing his passionate nature. The portrayal that follows unveils a young man who is richly dressed in sleves longe and wyde (I. 93), and we are told that He koude songes make and wel endite, / Juste and eek daunce, and weel purtreye and write (I. 95-6). William George Dodd tells us that this description closely matches the requirements that are set forth in Roman de la Rose, a French poem about courting a beloved (233). There is no mention made of the battles the Squire has been at, or any accomplishments that are militaristic in nature. Instead, this young Squire embodies the medieval ideal of courtly love, embracing the second side of chivalry in the Middle Ages. This contrast serves to highlight one of the struggles of this era of history. The knight is wise, and hardened by battle, and very representative of the chivalric ideal. He has proven that Ful worthy was he in his lordes werre, (I. 47). This particular line is significant because of what is left out. The fact that each of the eleven crusades the knight fought at were all against Infidels,

and the lack of presence of any earthly lord in the knights portrait indicate that Chaucer considered the knight a warrior for God, a truly Cristen man (I. 55). None of those claims could be made about the Squire, who also represented a chivalric ideal in the Middle Ages. If the knight illustrates Christian chivalry by being a Warrior for God, as approved by the church, the Squire embodies the courtesy and gallantry of courtly love. Chaucer intimates that many of the accomplishments of the Squire are because he is In hope to stonden in his lady grace (I. 88). In his work A Reading of the Canterbury Tales, Bernard Huppe says that there is no mention of anything sacred in this portrait, and there can be little doubt that the lady referred to is not the Lady Mary of the Church (33). The knight and Squire are sharply contrasted with each other, but both are bound together by their similarities. They are both of noble blood, and both are in the highest strata of the Estates General. Rather than providing a framework that allows them to formulate their identities, this only serves as one more catalyst for uncertainty in their lives. As I mentioned earlier, the role of the Estates General was changing during Chaucers life. The middle class was beginning to rise to power, and it was creating disturbance for some members of the nobility. The editor of The Complete Poetry and Prose of Geoffrey Chaucer tells us that Chaucer would have been intimately familiar with this class, because it is supposed that his own father was a merchant (956). This awareness was not just felt in Chaucers life. He chose to acknowledge it in his literature. The exchange that takes place between the Knight and the Miller is most interesting when put in a cultural context. In the millers portrait, Chaucer tells us At wrastylynge he woulde have alwey the ram (I. 548). Gregory Semenza explores this idea by saying that this would have been significant to contemporary readers, because every knight and soldier would have been trained in wrestling. It is also important to note that culturally speaking, the word wrestling could refer to physical fighting, or a mental or verbal sparring, such as we see between

the knight and the miller during their tales (72-7). When placed in the historical context of the disintegrating social orders, the verbal wrestling that occurs between these two seemingly different men becomes more significant in light of The fact that the Miller and the Knight are engaged in what amounts ostensibly to a cross-class competition for a prize [that] serves paradoxically to efface the social differences between the two combatants by highlighting the single feature that they have in common: skill in one-on-one combat (Semenza 77). This unexpected comparison between the gentle knight, and the uncouth miller begins to make more sense once the mercenary culture of the Middle Ages is examined and it is understood why Chaucer would compare the Knight from the upper estate, and the Miller from the lower estate. One of the more interesting revelations concerning the knights portrait is the decided lack of information regarding his property. It has been clearly established how expensive it is to be a knight in the Middle Ages, and this does not seem to be a problem for Chaucers knight. He had access to money in large amounts, as indicated by his retinue during the pilgrimage to Canterbury as well as the quality of the clothing his son the Squire wore. Where did his money come from? In Chaucers Knight: A Portrait of a Medieval Mercenary, Terry Jones reveals that the shift of the class system within the Estates General caused a great many kings to hire mercenaries during the fourteenth century. This placed less burden on the knights, and allowed the army to become much stronger and larger. This went against the code of chivalry, that commanded a knight to be loyal to the country where he was born, which led to the Free Companies, a marauding band of mercenaries that plagued England during Chaucers time (13-15). With the overwhelming financial burden that came with being a knight, as well as the apparent lack of peace during the knights illustrious career, the arguments set forth by Jones seem to shed new light on the gentle knight.

(While Terry Jones is a somewhat controversial source, several other scholars seemed to concur with his findings) At first glance, the portrait of the knight seems to hold little opportunity for controversy. It reveals a man who is gentle, and wise, well respected, and a famed warrior. While stating what seems to be obvious, Chaucer shows his mastery over literature by creating tension with this seemingly straightforward portrait. There is tension between the knight who is a great warrior, and as meek as a maid. The contrast between father and son reveals the struggle to adjust to a changing idea of what chivalry is, while the question of how the knight was able to finance his career illuminates the friction within the social classes of Chaucers time. The knight of Chaucers prologue is the epitome of contradiction, an attempt to show the balancing act between the old generation, and the new, between the Christian and the warrior. The idea that Chaucer presents here was not limited to the Knight of The Canterbury Tales. It remained salient throughout literature. In his epic poem The Faerie Queene, Edmund Spenser grapples with many of the same questions. In book I, Prince Arthure is the allegorical representation of Christ, the ultimate expression of Christian belief, but he is also a knight who does battle. This juxtaposition of sacred and profane is beautifully illustrated when the Prince gives the knight, Redcrosse, a Bible, then engages in a brutal battle with Orgoglio and the great beast. Spenser admired the works of Chaucer, and in The Faerie Queen called him the well of English, vndefyled(IV.ii.32). To borrow Spensers aquatic imagery, it is imminently appropriate that what began with Chaucers portrait of the gentle knight trickled down through the process of defining what chivalry was in the midst of an age of turmoil.

Works Cited Chaucer, Fischer. "The Canterbury Tales." The Complete Poetry and Prose of Geoffrey Chaucer. Ed. John H Fisher. London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovish College Publishers, 1989. Dodd, William George. Courtly Love in Chaucer and Gower. 2nd. Gloucester, MA: Harvard

University Press, 1959. Gautier, Leon. Chivalry. 1st ed. New York: Crescent Books, 1989. Huppe, Bernard. A Reading of the Canterbury Tales. 2nd. New York: State University Press, 1967. Jones, Terry. Chaucers Knight: A Portrait of a Medieval Mercenary. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1980. Lambdin, Laura, and Robert Lambdin. Chaucer's Pilgrims: An Historical Guide to the Pilgrims in The Canterbury Tales. 1st ed. London: Greenwood Press, 1996. Semenza, Gregory M. Colon. "Historicizing "Wrastlynge" in the Miller's Tale." The Chaucer Review 38(2003): 66-82. Spenser, Edmund. "The Faerie Queen." Works of Edmund Spenser. ed. W. L. Renwick. Oxford: Shakespeare Head Press, 1930. Strohm, Paul. Social Chaucer. 1st ed. Cambrdidge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989.