Chaucer and the NPT:

The brilliant culmination of Middle English Literature was marked by Chaucer (1340-1400). He had the metrical craftmanship to handle
English with subtlety, a flexibility and a polish which made it at once the equal, as a literary language, of French or Italian. Having both the
European and the English consciousness enabled him to render in English the dominant themes and attitudes of European Literature as well
as to allow him to prepare the English scenes as it was never presented before.Chaucer was an active man of affairs, mixing freely in
government and courtly circles. Being a public servant, his official life is very well documented of which the first of his records appear in
1357 beginning as a page in the household of Elizabeth De Burgh, Duchess of Ulster and Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence, the second
surviving son of King Edward III, and the position brought the teenage Chaucer into a closed circle where he was to remain for the rest of
his life. He also worked as a courtier, a diplomat, and a civil servant, as well as working for the king from 1389-1391 as Clerk of King’s
works. His career and his works have proven that- “He has the relaxed, quizzical attitude that let him contemplate the varieties of human
nature combination of sympathy, irony, and amusement, together with the good fortune to have opportunities of knowing all men in the
ranks of society” as David Daiches puts it in his Volume I of A Critical History of English Literature (pg89). Trained in all the spheres of
life: the courtly, the diplomatic and the urban life of affairs: his visits to France and Italy on Government service gave him an opportunity of
coming into direct contact with French and Italian men of letters and enriching the knowledge of literature of those countries.

Between the period of 1359-60 Chaucer went to France to serving the Hundred years war with the English Army. As a part of military
expedition to France, he was ultimately taken as a prisoner near Reims and ransomed by King Edward III. He seems to have risen to the
service of the king undertaking a series of diplomatic missions for ten years which exposed him to the continental culture. Chaucer’s first
recorded time spent in Italy was a journey to Genoa in 1372 to 1373. His purpose for the trip was to negotiate with the doge and people of
Genoa, who wanted the use of an English port. He was accompanied by two Italian merchants both men of high rank in the service od
Edward III. Exposure to the works of Dante, Petrarch and Boccaccio, the Italian journey took him from the Middle Ages to Renaissance.
Chaucer was brought up on the Rose tradition and on later French developments of it before moving on to the deeper seriousness of Italian
poetry. The ritual dance of an idealized country life with its emphasis on gentleness and franchise, gives way to a larger concern with the
fundamentals of human character and behaviour and this, in turn, moves into contemplation (both delighted and ironical) of the foibles,
vanities, absurdities, pretentions, villainies, the color, vitality, and exuberance the everyday virtues and vices of men as he knew them. But it
would be a gross simplification of Chaucer’s literary career to trace it merely from an imitative formalism through a greater seriousness and
flexibility to subtle and realistic psychological observation, conventionally symbolized by reference of his:” French”,” Italian” and
“English” periods.

Shortly after going to Italy, Chaucer wrote The Book of Duchess, the earliest of his original poems in the dream allegory convention.
Written at the end of 1369 on the death of Blanche, Duchess of Lancaster, wife of John the Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster the fourth son of King
Edward III of England and father of King Henry IV. The poem celebrates the dead woman and consoles the bereaved Duke: in the dream the
poet sees “a man in blak in a wood”, who tells him of his courtship with his beloved lady and ends by revealing that his present mourning is
for her death. This ingenious adaptation of the “dream allegory” or the twin purpose of eulogy and elegy is already straining out of its
conventional framework. Despite of the obvious immaturity of the poem, Chaucer’s talent for “realism” is already evident. With The House
of Fame, we move out of the world of trance, though the framework is still the dream, as of his influence from the thirteenth century French
poet Guillaume de Loris’s “Roman de la Rose” and Italian poet and philosopher Dante’s “Divinia Commedia” is evidently showcased.

The versification has a sureness of flexibility that the former elegy lacked. “With The Parliament of fowls”, his next major poem Elements
from Dante and Boccaccio now enrich the content and the style still following the dream convention, it is evident of his influence from the
dream of Scipio (Latin: Somnium Scipionis written by Cicero) interpreted by Macrobius. It is a typical characteristic feature of Chaucer’s
combination of “gravity “with” Irony” -that he himself knows love not from experience but from books. In his own literary career, the
relation between literary sources and personal observation keeps shifting. It is not that he moves from the former to the latter – no writer
moves simply from literature to life, however much more simply derivative from his earlier work maybe than his later- but he finds more
original and richer ways of combining the two elements and allowing each to illuminate the other. The Parliament of fowls, too revels his
personality on conventional matters. The Parliament of Fowls is thus a poem in celebration of Saint Valentine’s Day, using the convention
of a dream allegory and the demande d amour. IT may also have been prompted by someone specific royal courtship, and scholars have split
much ink in debating which one, the closest possibility on the betrothal of Richard II to Anne Bohemia in 1381. Other allegories have been
suggested. But the poem’s appeal is independent of allegory. Any contemporary reference is irrelevant to the true significance of the poem
which is a deftly handled “occasional” piece showing his true mastery of his medium, his ability, to impose his own tone of conventional
material. While the lovers’ contest or the parliament of bird’s conventional, the social and political satire is the new element. In contrast to
the rival eagles the other classes of birds-worm-fowl, water fowl, seed fowl, - clearly represents the humbler ranks of human society, and
their discontent seems to allude to the peasant’s revolt while the high-born suitors expound idealised courtly love, some of the lower
representatives have little respect for it.

The detaches and dramatic presentation of opposed values and points of view looks forward to the Canterbury Tales, the magnificent
unfinished opus in which he finally draws the various strands of his genius together. The invocation of spring with which the General
Prologue begins is lengthy and formal compared to the language of the rest of the Prologue. Composed in 1837, the first lines situate the
story in a particular time and place, but the speaker does this in cosmic analytical terms, celebrating the vitality and richness of spring.
Composed in 1387, Chaucer may, have himself taken part in a pilgrimage in April of that year because of the illness of his wife, Philippe,
who probably died soon after. Relating the cycle of seasons with human life itself provides spring season as a material occasion and spiritual
yearning. This biological awakening passes easily into a spiritual quest. An ironical echo of Chaucer “April is the cruellest month” is
prevalent in the opening lines of Eliot’s wasteland.

“In Southwerk at the Tabard as I Lay” -

The loquacious cast of the tales first meet at the Tabbard inn in Southwark. They have a journey in common a pilgrimage to Canterbury to
visit the shrine of Saint Thomas Becket, archbishop of Canterbury who was murdered in 1170 by the knights of King Henry II of which T.S
Eliot wrote a play, Murder in Cathedral, on this event. The narrator abandons his unfocused, all-knowing point of view, identifying himself
as an actual person for the first time by inserting the first person- “I” – as he relates how he met the group of pilgrims while staying at the
Tabbard Inn. He emphasizes that this group, which he encountered by accident, was itself formed by chance. his approach gives the opening
lines a dreamy, timeless, unfocused quality, and it is therefore surprising when the narrator reveals that he’s going to describe a pilgrimage
that he himself took rather than telling a love story. The narrator ends the introductory portion of his prologue by noting that he has “tyme
and space” to tell his narrative. His comments underscore a fact that he is writing sometime after his story and describing the characters
from his memory. His intention to describe each pilgrim as he or she seemed is important, for it emphasizes that his descriptions are not only
subject to his memory but are also shaped by his individual perceptions and opinions regarding each of the characters. He positions himself
as a mediator between two groups; the group of pilgrims; of which he was the member, and the reader, the audience, whom the narrator
explicitly addresses as- “you”.

The General prologue which establishes the characters and sets the scene, probably dates from the late 1380’s, describes them one by one,
takes up the details that would strike the eye of a fellow traveller. He then shifts into the first-person plural referring to the pilgrims as “we”,
asserting his status as the member of this group. There is a deliberately contrived disorder in the way in which the facts about each of the
character are brought to our attention. His idea of pilgrimage as a narrative framework enables him to bring together the wildest possible
cross section of medieval society. What binds the ‘saundry folk,’ this motely crowd is what gives unity to heterogeneous variety: the
pilgrimage easily relates the material with the spiritual, the mundane with the religious. It also gives the tales a dramatic power, especially in
the comments, exchanges and jibes that enact ongoing social relationships in a microcosm. Of course, the secular and clerical aristocracy is
left out as they would not have mingled with Chaucer’s company; similarly, the real poor are excluded as they would not be able to go on
such a pilgrimage. However, if not for the pilgrimage many of these figures would never have a chance to interact due to the thirteenth and
fourteenth century feudalistic era. Dividing the society into three conventional estates- the knight, the working man and the ecclesiastic. The
tales were perfect wedding of “auctoritee” and” experience”, of books and life, a collection of true-to life pilgrims drawn from every class of
contemporary Englishman who, to while away the hours of journeying, tell tales drawn from whatever literary or folk source seems most
appropriate to the individual character. The narrator’s declaration that he will tell us about the “condicioun,” “degree,” and “array” (dress) of
each of the pilgrims suggests that his portraits will be based on objective facts as well as his own opinions. He spends considerable time
characterizing the group members according to their social positions. The pilgrims represent a diverse cross section offourteenth-century
English society. Medieval social theory divided society into three broad classes, called “estates”: the military, the clergy, and the laity. (The
nobility, not represented in the General Prologue, traditionally derives its title and privileges from military duties and service, so it is
considered part of the military estate.) In the portraits see in the rest of the General Prologue, the Knight and Squire represent the military
estate. The clergy is represented by the Prioress (and her nun and three priests), the Monk, the Friar, and the Parson. The other characters,
from the wealthy Franklin to the poor Plowman, are the members of the laity. These lay characters can be further subdivided into
landowners (the Franklin), professionals (the Clerk, the Man of Law, the Guildsmen, the Physician, and the Shipman), laborers (the Cook
and the Plowman), stewards (the Miller, the Manciple, and the Reeve), and church officers (the Summoner and the Pardoner).

Chaucer’s descriptions of these various characters and their social roles reveal the influence of the medieval genre of estates satire.
Nobody knows exactly in what order Chaucer intended to present the tales, or even if he had a specific order in mind for all of them. Eighty-
two early manuscripts of the tales survive, and many of them vary considerably in the order in which they present the tales. However,
certain sets of tales do seem to belong together in a particular order. For instance, the General Prologue is obviously the beginning, then the
narrator explicitly says that the Knight tells the first tale who represents the ideal of a medieval Christian man at arms and that the Miller
stout and brawny with a big mouth both literally and figuratively interrupts and tells the second tale. The introductions, prologues, and
epilogues to various tales sometimes include the pilgrims ‘comments on the tale just finished, and an indication of who tells the next tale.
These sections between the tales are called links and they are the best evidence for grouping the tales together into ten fragments. But The
Canterbury tales does not include a complete set of links, so the order of the ten fragments is open to questions. The tales have come down
to us in a series of fragments in manuscripts of which the Ellesmere manuscript is the basis for modern editions. The first portrait of the
Knight is an idealised one, a type of chivalry, gentle in speech and manner, gallant in battles and tournaments, dignified and simple in his
soiled rough tunic and coat of mail. There is perhaps a very light touch of irony in his maiden-like shy manner and his lack of gaiety or
liveliness. Perhaps these last two details individualise him: he seems a bit out of place in the age of declining chivalry. His military
campaigns are all actual crusades although he could have fought also in the Hundred Years' War. In the Mediterranean and north Africa he
fought against the Moors and Saracens. He heads the table of honour of the Teutonic knights because of his campaigns against heathen
tribes in Prussia, Lithuania and Russia.

In contrast to his Christian motives, his son, the squire, seems to have joined the company for pleasure. He is a young courtly lover, an
aspirant to Knighthood, whose chivalric prowess has already brought him much honour. Apart from his handsome physique, many more
details of his costume and appearance are given. His locks were curled and his gown embroidered like a spring meadow. His fashionable yet
denounced attire and fresh and youthful energy is further brought out in his sleepless love, and his ability to sing, dance, draw, write, jost
and compose songs anticipates the type of the Renaissance courtier. The Knight's Yeoman ranked in service just above the groom. His green
dress, his horn and the talisman image of St. Christopher (patron saint of foresters and travellers) show that he was a game-keeper by
profession. Individual details that includes his - close cropped head and sunburnt face as well as the panache with which he carried his
weapons. The bow and arrows, arm guard (of archery), sword, shield and dagger suggest that he may have been among the yeomen-archers
and knifemen who routed French chivalry at Crecy.

 The Prioress although subtly drawn by Chaucer due to her social rank is in bejewelled rosary seems more like a love token than something
expressing her devotion to Christ, and her dainty mannerisms echo the advice given by Guillaume de Loris in the French romance Roman de
la Rose, about how women could make themselves attractive to men. Chaucer's gentle irony at her elegant manners is extended to her skill
in the nasal intonation traditionally used in the recitative portions of the church service. Her French is also gently satirised since it betrays
her aspiration to courtliness: her French could not be that of Paris but was rather what she could pick up in an English nunnery. But Chaucer
does bring out some laxities in her conduct. Not only did she keep pet dogs against the rules but fed them roasted meat, milk and white-
bread (an expensive white bread)-food that would not be available to most people in England. This moral apathy is deepened by the false
delicacy of her sentimental charity: she was so tender of conscience that she would weep to see her pets beaten or dead. She would also
weep to see mice trapped, but mice were after all dangerous pests (perhaps even carriers of the Plague). The tongue-in-cheek manner
continues till the end. Modelled on the heroine of courtly romance, Madame Eglentyne wears a brooch whose motto love conquers all-could
mean carnal or divine love.

Another female character in the tale The wife of Bath - is easily one of the most arresting figures among the pilgrims. As is often the case,
Chaucer mingles literary model with social reality: she is only partly an imitation of the description of La Vieille in the Roman de la Rose.
Many of her characteristics could be traced back to the fact that she was born when Taurus was in the ascendant and Mars and Venus in
conjunction in that sign of the zodiac. This accounts for her sexual appetite and refusal to be dominated by men in marriage. She may thus
be a successor to an earlier type of the heroic woman, the Amazons located now in a middle-class milieu where martial qualities were
expressed in the domestic world of gender relations. Among her personal traits, which have prompted critics to identify her, are her love of
travel, her rather unfashionable dress and equipment, and the fact that she was deaf and her teeth were set wide apart.

The Friar and the Summoner. The Monk, Prioress, and Friar were all members of the clerical estate. Both are characterized as figures who
seem to prefer the aristocratic to the devotional life. The Monk enjoys hunting, a pastime of the nobility, while he disdains study and
confinement. The Frair – a roaming priest with no ties to a monastery, who made their living by traveling around and begging, and accepting
money to hear confession. The Summoner's portrait is also a sinister when as seen in his anipulation of the private lives of people around
him. He would happily excuse a man for keeping a concubine (a practice common ainong the celibate priests) for a year, if he was paid only
a quart of wine. The Summoner and the Friar are at each other throats so frequently in The Canterbury tales because they were in fierce
competition in Chaucer’s time— summoners, too, extorted money from people and is a lecherous man whose face is sacred by leprosy. He
gets drunk frequently, is irritable, not particularly qualified for his position. He spouts the few words of Latin he knows in an attempt to
sound educated. The pardoner too is a highly untrustworthy character and excels in fraud carrying a bag full of false relics including a brass
cross filled with stones to make it seem as heavy as gold and a glass jar full of pig’s bones which he passes off as saints’ relics. Overall, the
narrator seems to harbor much more hostility for the ecclesiastical officials (the Summoner and the Pardoner) than he does for the clerics.
For example, the Monk and the Pardoner possess several traits in common, but the narrator presents them in very different ways. The
narrator remembers the shiny baldness of the Monk’s head, which suggests that the Monk may have ridden without a hood, but the narrator
uses the fact that the Pardoner rides without a hood as proof of his shallow character. The Monk and the Pardoner both give their own
opinions of themselves to the narrator — the narrator affirms the Monk’s words by repeating them, and his own response, but the narrator
mocks the Pardoner for his opinion of himself. Chaucer's monk, Daun Piers, is identified with the new world of wealth, luxury and pleasure.
He contemptuously dismisses the Augustinian ideal of asceticism, renunciation of the world and cloistered learning. Chaucer's attitude is
once again ambiguous: he neither entirely approves nor condemns. Certainly the Monk's vitality and healthy appetite for life suggest an
opening up of the medieval world, a major social and ideological change. His love of hunting is not untypical, although physical details,
foppish clothes and the bells in his horse's bridle serve to individualise him. In a sense all his defiant and amoral energy is concentrated in
his eyes indicating a psychological and social tendency.

The prologue of the Nun Priest’s tale links it with the preceding Monk’s tale. The Knight (who has the pride of place among the pilgrims)
interrupts the monk. The monk, in his tale, has recounted universal tragedies human and superhuman. Lucifer, Adam, Samson, Hercules,
Nero, Alexander and Julius Cesar are some of the great tragic figures presented by the monk. The Knight therefore pleads no tragedy but a
tale opposite to tragedy to be told- one that narrates the extreme good in someone previously brought low. From a tragic tale to a comic is a
transition designed by the poet whose art envision are centrally serio- comic.

As a mature poet, Chaucer was able to combine courtly and bourgeois conventions of literature. Like Parliament of fowls, his Nuns’ Priest
Tale represent animals in secular allegories human beings or social classes. Here we have character, not sketched in the General Prologue,
being brought out vividly through the tale itself. The Nonne priest contrasts the two human worlds of the poor old widow and the life of rich
and the great as represented by the cock Chauntecleer. The greater implication lies here in living the humbler Christian life is easier for the
working classes than for the novelty who have like Chauntecleer many obligations and great responsibilities. The Nun’s Priest tale of
Chauntecleer and Pertelote is perhaps the best enough of all Chaucer’s works and justly so for it represents at Chaucer at absolutely the top
of its form. The quiet realistic opening describing the poor widow and her way of life, the account of the cock and the hen with its superb
satire on human marital relationships, the use of learning and the discussion of the causes and the meaning of dreams with the deftly drawn
differences of approach between Chauntecleer and Pertelote, the ironic effect achieved by the application of human psychology to the
behaviour of the birds – all this has been discussed and praised often enough.