Chaucer's portrayal of the comman man in the light of mediaeval English tradition Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Miller, Emma Matilda, 1917- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 02/10/2021 15:47:29 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/553375 CHAUCERfS PORTRAYAL OP THE COMMON MAN IN THE LIGHT OP MEDIAEVAL ENGLISH TRADITION by Erama Matilda Miller A Thesis submitted to the faculty of the Department of English in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Graduate College University of Arizona 19 3 8 Approved; 3C Major Professor ' Date CLAtP. Z~ TABLE OP CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION.......... 1 CHAPTER I-— The Prominence of the Common Ean In The Canterbury Teles ........ 4 CHAPTER II— Chaucer1s Treatment of the Doctrine of True Gentility ............. 15 CHAPTER III-i: iuble Folk in the Middle Agee in England . 37 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................ 59 APPENDICES ........ 62 ^ tbi#51 IITHOIBCTI©! It la the purpose of this thesis to discuss Chaucer's manner of dealing with the common people in his Canterbury Tales in comparison with conditions of his times and with the treatment accorded the common man by other Middle English authors* ■ : - - That Chaucer In The Canterbury Tales reveals a sympathy for the lower classes and a more or less democratic at­ titude toward them has long been recognised• It is strange that in all the mass of material written on this most famous work of Chaucer's, no one has realized the possi­ bilities in his treatment of the common folk. So far as is known, published matter on the subject is restricted to Professor Howard R. Patch’s article ’’Chaucer and the Common Man.” In this article Professor Patch points out that Chaucer's attitude toward the common man was kindly and essentially optimistic and supports his view with instances from the Legend of Good Women, Lak of Stedfast- ^w**11*neose. w The VMMMSMtoMiMMwiWNMManatfiMwiaMMNNMwPar lament of Fowlea. #and The Former Age.,& as well as from The Canter bury. Tale a» He says that the common man figured prominently in The Canterbury Tales T e Journal of Engllsb and Germanic Philology, July. '20. pp. 3^8-384. ' • ' ' - . - - : : B and that la Gentileaso and a passage from The Wife of Bathes Tala Chaucer expresses the same sentiment which Burns later compressed Into "A man's a man for a* that". He makes much of the phrase 'comune profit,1 which oc- curs several times in the Parlament and The Clerk's Tale and which seems to have been a favorite phrase of the fourteenth century socialism, both in England and in Frmce*2 Patch then goes on to shot? that Chaucer, by the evidence presented, was concerned with the oppressed Masses, but Is careful to refute the idea that he was a socialistw3 "In the fourteenth eentury it is noteworthy that he (phauceiQ extends this kindly view to the lower classes, even while he is talking with kings, and his in­ fluence inevitably would tend to a broader social sym­ pathy."4 Yet in Mr. Patch's article not all the possibilities of the problem in The Canterbury Tales are developed. He writes provocatively and suggestively and draws conclusions on representative evidence, but ho has only implied, not realised fully the implications of Chaucer's treatment of eeeison folk In The Canterbury Tales. The main objective of this discussion are to acquaint ourselves with the manner in which Chaucer has presented the common people in The Canterbury Tales,and to estimate 2 . Patch, op. cit. 5. Ibid.. p. 583* 4. TH E . ' p. 384* correctly the place his treatment of the common man oc­ cupies in comparison with that of other Middle English Writers. In each of the following chapters will be found erideno® gathered along certain lines,, that in the ag­ gregate, wo may have a broad basis on which to build our estimate of Chaucer*a treatment of the common man. Chapter One shows that the common people are prominent In The Canterbury Tales and discusses Chaucer*a probable reasons for giving them such prominence* Chapter Two presents Chaucer*s doctrine of ♦gentilosse* as it is related to his treatment of the humble peoples Chapter Three shows the prominence of the common can in Middle English life and refutes the conception that Chaucer alone in his ago expressed a democratic and sympathetic attitude toward tho common man. I wish finally to acknowledge the invaluable sug­ gestions and helpful guidance of Dr. Marie P. Hamilton which have made this thesis possible. CHAPTER I THE PROM HENCE OF THE COMMOl! MAH H THE CAHTERBURY TALES. By combining charactero and literature of the three great classes of society, in one work with the. common man in a prominent place, Chaucer presented the literature of England with a comprehensive conception of fourteenth cen­ tury life from a democratic viewpoint. His democratic views centered in the conception of *gentHesse* which he expressed and illustrated frequently* That none of the literary men following him took ad­ vantage of the new conceptions and opportunities thus opened to the* by (amtieer until Burns in the eighteenth century, does not lessen the importance of his work* As a matter of fact, among the five or six major English poets only Chaucer and Wordsworth give sympathetic prc»toen@® to the common man* Shakespeare/o plays, to bo ' ' . ' . ' - * ■ . - sure, present numerous humble characters, but almost in­ variably their rcH.es are ludicrous minor ones. Chaucer is the forerunner of both Shakespeare and Wordsworth in that he portrays lowly folk sometimes realistically and humorously] as Shakespeare does, and sometimes idealised as Wordsworth does, Elizabeth A* Cronin points out in her unpublished thesis that Chaucer, like Wordsworth, “treats certain humble folk in a spirit of idealism, as symbolic, almost, ' 4 of the boat in human nature."! The humble Ploisman and hio brether the parson are painted by Chaucer as men who, in spite of their lowly origin, have proved by their actions that they appreciate the meaning of true nobility to a s&irit-lilco degree. Griselda of The Clerk* a Tale is also an idealized humble person. Her extraordinary patience and gentility raise her to a high position among the characters of the tales. The humorous incidents center­ ing in the Cook, the Miller, and the Sumaoner are strongly suggestive of Shakespeare*s treatment of the servant class. Thus, because Chaucer in his attitude toward the lowly has the sanity and breadth of vision to bo at once a realist and an idealist, he has given the most varied, the most composite, and hence the truest picture of the common man in all English poetry. In The Canterbury Tales the lower classes are very well represented and are astonishingly prominent In the action on the pilgrimage. That the common people do hold a prominent place in The Canterbury Tales can bo easily shown. W the seven hundred fourteen lines of the General prologue devoted to describing the pilgrims, two hundred thirty describe the Miller, the Reeve, the Friar, the Parson, the Plowman,: the Cook, the Summoner, and the Shipman. Of the twenty-two descriptions of any length r Wordsworth, A Student of the Middle Ages.University , — oi’ Arizona, 1835, p. 4. : In this Prologue, those low follows are the subjects of eight* It is evident that Chaucer intended them to play a large part in the pilgrimage, for he sets forth their characters carefully and at acme length. Of the twenty narrative interludes connecting the tales, oight are domi­ nated by one or more of the humble pilgrims. That Chaucer should center so much attention in eight of a certain class of tho twenty-eight pilgrims is rather singular. It is altogether probable that in the finished Canterbury Tales, they would be relegated to their proper proportion of space, l.e. to about a third, as they are in the General Prologue. But it is significant that they were important enough to the dramatic action and the order of tho tales that Chaucer accorded the® almost half of the interludes he did finish* Of course it must be taken into account that only the lower class pilgrims could quip and crack at one another without offending anyone in the higher classes who would be likely to hear or read Chaucer’s work. For that matter, genial Chaucer would hardly put people of his own class or better in a light that would reveal them as coarse and ludicrous. We may disagree with the Wife of Bath’s theory of marriage and smile at her ration­ alisations, but we do not despise her. The Pardoner and January are disgusting creatures, but it is the drunken, bold Miller and the physically disgusting Summoner and Cook for whom we reserve our feelings of revulsion and ©onfceapfc* This ia aa it should bo. In the fourteenth century it was fitting that the lower classes, not the upper ee wlSdle eiass, should b® considered loathsome* After establishing tM s e rude fellows in their proper places, we are prone to excuse their churlish behavior# After all, what else could be expected from such a Miller* but that he would not know his place and would, while in him sups, attempt to precede his betters* As for the ras­ cally Cook— getting so drunk he oould not keep on his horse Is but to be expected.