In the following essay, R. T. Lenaghan examines the “General Prologue” as a historical document, asserting that it offers “a richer sense of a civil servant’s values than the usual documents afford.” State whether you agree or disagree with Lenaghan's viewpoint and support your argument with evidence from the text. Don't forget to critically (and constructively) comment on another classmates' post. Enjoy your weekend.
The “General Prologue” is often called a picture of its age and, frequently in the next breath, a satire. In English Lit. this usually draws a stern lecture about confusing the distinction between literature and history, but in this essay, unobserved by my sophomores, I propose to talk about the “General Prologue” as a picture of its age and then, tentatively, about some uses such history might be put to by historians and literary students.
The “General Prologue” has an obvious historical interest as a series of discrete bits of information about dress, customs, etc.; but if it is to be considered as a more general historical formulation, there is a question of coherence. Is Chaucer’s fictional society sufficiently coherent to warrant taking it seriously as fourteenth-century sociology? The best reason for an affirmative answer is rather vague. It is simply the strong sense most readers have that Chaucer is sampling, that his pilgrims are representatives. There are certainly omissions from his roll, but he does give good coverage to the middle segment of society. The nature he is imitating is social in a sense that is worthy of a sociologist’s regard. To put it rather grandly, Chaucer’s imitation has the same general ontological status as the sociologist’s model; both are representative fictions. This analogy serves my purpose by temporarily converting the literary fiction into a series of hypothetical propositions which may be examined and defined before they are verified. What are the hypothetical patterns of social organization? Then, were they truly descriptive?
The “General Prologue” suggests at least three different ways of pinning down my general sense of coherence to a more specific pattern of social organization. One would be to invoke the widely familiar theory of the three estates. Chaucer’s Knight, Parson, and Plowman do seem to exist as governing ideals, but the effort to classify the pilgrims in one or another of the estates makes it clear that this pattern has the same trouble with the world of the “General Prologue” as it has with the real one. It doesn’t account for the complexities of commerce. The second way would be to follow up Chaucer’s expressed intention to discuss each pilgrim’s degree, but once again Chaucer’s society is too complex for clear hierarchical classifications, as he himself suggests. The third, and I think the best, way of establishing a pattern of organization is to infer it from Chaucer’s practice and say the obvious: he presents his pilgrims by occupational labels, he is concerned with what men do. In the “General Prologue,” as elsewhere, what men do falls largely into the category of economics. There is certainly a generous provision of economic information in the description of the pilgrims, and although there is a good deal of other information as well, the economic information is sufficiently cohesive to justify taking it as the basic matter of my argument. This focus certainly places the discussion within the historian’s purview, but it may seem rather less useful for literary study. However, the study of history can illuminate the norms that govern the irony of the “General Prologue,” and defining that irony is very much a literary question.
Taking the economic information as basic, then, I shall consider the sources of livelihood for the pilgrims and ask how they lived, according to the information Chaucer gives. These sources fall into three large classes: land, the Church, and trade (understood to include everything not in the other two, manufacture, commerce, and services). My intention is not to treat the pilgrims as representatives of classified occupations but rather to regard them collectively and to infer patterns of life from their descriptions. I am not concerned to place the Miller either in land or in trade or to justify placing the Physician with the others in trade. I want to infer from the various descriptions information about the kind of life provided by land, the Church, and trade. For example, the Man of Law lives by his professional services and so I would classify him in trade, but I am mainly interested in some information his description gives about life based on land.
The descriptions of the Plowman, the Reeve, and the Franklin should provide detailed information about the economics of land, but except for the description of the Reeve the yield is slight. There is much detail about the Franklin but it has very little to do with economics. It shows more about spending than getting, a difference I shall come back to. The Reeve’s description, however, tells a good deal more. The first point is obvious enough, his expertise is managerial. It is founded on practical agricultural knowledge in that he can calculate exactly the effect of the weather on yield, and it is founded on a practical knowledge of human nature in that he knows the tricks of all the bailiffs and herdsmen. The two kinds of practical knowledge add up to efficient operation of his lord’s establishment, but not necessarily to his lord’s profit. The tight control he maintains over his operations stops with him; no one above him checks up on him as he checks up on those below him. As a result, “ful riche was he astored prively.” This leads to a second and less obvious point, a role change. He uses his personal gains as a landholder’s agent to establish himself as a landholder in his own right. That, I take it, is the meaning context indicates for the word purchase: “His wonyng was ful faire upon an heeth; / With grene trees yshadwed was his place. / He koude bettre than his lord purchase.” What is interesting about this role change is the change in the Reeve’s activities that it brings about. From hard-nosed managing, which causes him to be feared, he switches to giving and lending, which his lord mistakenly, or at least uncomprehendingly, regards as generous. From sharp practice to the image of generosity, the calculating agent has become a comfortably situated landholder.
This division of activities is significant in the world of the “General Prologue.” It shows the social implication of the economic pattern for prosperity: the profits from efficient operation go into the purchase of land, that is, into capital expansion; profits are earned by “operators,” the landholder is economically passive. This division of activity also brings into focus some pilgrims like the Franklin who are associated with land by their occupational designations but whose descriptions contain very little practical economic information. Pilgrims deriving their livelihood from land fall into two Chaucerian sub-classes: agents, who see to the operation and expansion of agricultural enterprises; and principals, the landholders. The agents are described by the work they do, the principals by less clearly economic or non-economic activities, by their social activities, their life style.
In addition to the Reeve’s work there is another level of agency and another kind of agent’s work. This is the legal work of control and capital expansion. In the Manciple’s temple there are a dozen lawyers so expert that they are “Worthy to be stywardes of rente and lond. / Of any lord that is in Engelond.” The agent’s expertise is still managerial but now the basic knowledge is legal. Even on the Reeve’s level the emphasis can be shifted from words like bynne, yeldynge, and dayerye, to words like covenant, rekenynge, and arrerage in order to show the lawyer’s concern in stewardship of rent. Legal draughtsmanship is the crucial skill here. The Man of Law “koude endite, and make a thyng, / Ther koude no wight pynche at his writyng.” The Man of Law was also expert in the second category of stewardship, land: “So greet a purchasour was nowher noon / Al was fee symple to hym in effect; / His purchasyng myghte nat been infect.” Because of the contextual emphasis on legal skill I read purchasour as implying agency; the lawyer buys land for his client by removing the legal restrictions to make it as available as if it had been held in fee simple. Chaucer has given more information about farm management than about dirt farming, and as a consequence his agriculture seems rather bureaucratic. Different kinds of agents work at different levels of removal from the land, but socially the important point is that they all work.
The other class of pilgrims deriving their livelihood from land do not work, at least not directly for their own monetary gain. The Franklin’s description dwells on the quantity and quality of his table with mention of its sources of supply in his pond and mew. Less noticed, because Chaucer emphasizes them less, are his public offices, which indicate significant service and a somewhat higher social station than he is often credited with. We have a landholder, then, who is defined not by the operation of his holdings but by his hospitality and public offices. The Knight and the Squire divide these tendencies, the Knight being defined by his service and the Squire by his style. The Monk, though not indicated as a landholder, enjoys the position of one. Hunting is expensive sport and he is a great hunter, presumably because he can command some of his monastery’s wealth. The Prioress is a ladylike equivalent.
In the “General Prologue” landed wealth supports a variety of social activities. There are sports and entertainment, like the Monk’s hunting and the Franklin’s table. There are the Franklin’s political service and the Knight’s military service against the heathen. Somewhere between sport and service come the Squire’s activities, ostensibly directed to entertainment but carrying enough suggestion of probationary regimen to indicate a gentil imperative. These activities, taken all together, do much to define the life style of gentlemen and ladies. The supporting wealth comes obviously from agricultural operations and less obviously from capital expansion, and it is earned by the agents who work for the landholders. The two groups are defined by different activities; the agents get and the principals spend, the agents work and the principals amuse themselves and render public service. This is the central pattern of Chaucer’s social structure.
This distinction between principals and agents disappears in the loosely assembled activities of commerce, manufacturing, and service that I have grouped together in trade. There, despite the wide social range from the Cook to the Merchant, each of these pilgrims shares a common necessity to face the rigors of economic competition on his own. The Merchant buys and sells and dabbles in currency exchange. The Wife of Bath is a cloth maker. The Cook puts his culinary skill to hire. Yet somewhat surprisingly the yield of economic particulars is not great. Although we are not definitely told what the commerce of the merchant is, we are given an informal audit of his position, something none of his fellows could get. In other words, the thing that interests the narrator about the Merchant is his balance sheet. It is not perfectly clear whether or not the “dette” is ordinary commercial credit, “chevyssaunce.” It is clear, however, that the Merchant thinks his interest requires secrecy, implying an apprehension of vulnerability, insecurity. On a lower level, the Shipman’s pilferage, the Miller’s gold thumb and the Manciple’s percentage show more directly predatory activities and indicate the rule of precarious individual interest. A more indirect suggestion of such a pattern of life occurs in the description of the guildsmen where the narrator’s emphasis falls on their appearance, which is consonant with ceremonial dignity. Each of them was “a fair burgeys / To sitten in a yeldehall on a deys.” That status is a reward is not especially illuminating, but the intensity of the competition for it does suggest sharp need and insecurity.
Everich, for the wisdom that he kan,
Was shaply for to been an alderman.
For catel hadde they ynogh and rente,
And eek hir wyves wolde it wel assente;
And elles certeyn were they to blame.
It is ful fair to been ycleped “madame,”
And goon to vigilies al bifore,
And have a mantel roialliche ybore.
Likewise the Wife of Bath:
In al the parisshe wif ne was ther noon
That to the offrynge bifore hire sholde goon;
And if ther dide, certeyn so wrooth was she,
That she was out of alle charitee.
In various ways, then, the descriptions of the pilgrims in trade betray an apprehensiveness. Their positions may deteriorate, and even those of high degree seem vulnerable to a greater extent than more or less equivalently placed pilgrims in the other categories.
Granting the fact of predatory competition and the implicit insecurity, one might still pause before characterizing Dame Alice as a neurotic status seeker. She may be sensitive about the due formalities of the offertory, but it is also true that “In felaweshipe wel koude she laugh and carpe.” Her Rome and Jerusalem probably had quite a bit of Miami about them. Since the Miller is a “jangler and a goliardeys,” the social life of at least some of the pilgrims in trade seems vigorous and uninhibited. The best sense of this tavern gemütlichkeit is conveyed by the narrator’s description of the Friar’s social style.
His typet was ay farsed ful of knyves
And pynnes, for to yeven faire wyves.
And certeinly he hadde a murye note;
Wel koude he synge and pleyen on a rote;
Of yeddynges he baar outrely the pris.
His nekke whit was as the flour-de-lys;
Therto he strong was as a champioun.
He knew the tavernes wel in every toun
And everich hostiler and tappestere
Bet than a lazar or a beggestere;
The Host’s primary qualification is that he is “myrie.” The Merchant, the guildsmen, the Man of Law, and the Physician may be too far up the social ladder for this kind of fun; at any rate they are more sedate. Among the pilgrims who make their living in trade, at least for those on the lower social levels, the reward of their struggle is a free, sometimes boisterous conviviality.
Such blatantly materialistic self-interest would ideally set the churchmen on the pilgrimage apart from the rest, but it is perfectly clear from their descriptions that they are more of the world than they ought to be. The Parson, of course, is an ideal, and though he does move in the world, his sanctity sets him apart. However, even in the Parson’s description two of the negative particulars indicate something of the practical economic operations of less saintly parsons who readily cursed for their tithes and would leave their parishes with curates to become chantry-priests or chaplains in London. There are churchmen who want to make money. In the descriptions of the Friar, the Summoner, and the Pardoner this materialistic drive is given sharp focus because, with allowance for institutional differences, they are all selling a service—the remission of sins. The Pardoner also sells fake relics as a sideline. The Friar had to pay for his begging territory, which, presumably, would also have been his confessional territory. The Summoner is an agent, working for the archdeacon’s court. As a practical matter he took bribes, and so his remission of sins was simply escape from the archdeacon’s jurisdiction. The Pardoner sold papal pardons, a practical short circuit of the sacrament of penance. Such churchmen seem to live lives like those of the Shipman, the Miller, and the Manciple. That is to say, they live by their wits under economic pressure, and furthermore the descriptions of the Friar and the Summoner indicate that the tavern is the scene of their social pleasures.
The Monk and the Prioress are hardly in this class but neither are they as saintly as the Parson. We learn a great deal about the style of their lives but nothing of the economic bases for such lives. The Monk is a great hunter and the Prioress is a refined and delicate lady, so their style is unmistakably gentil. Though the narrator says nothing of their economic arrangements, both are associated with landed establishments and presumably base their style of life on that kind of wealth. The social pattern discernible among the pilgrims with a livelihood from land seems applicable among the churchmen also. Landed wealth exempts the beneficiaries from the economic struggle that governs the lives of the others, lesser, churchmen. The churchmen divide socially into those who live on the income from a landed establishment and those who earn their living directly. Of the latter group, the obvious generalization is that the remission of sins has become a commercial transaction. A less obvious but more interesting one follows: this commerce was highly competitive, the competitors representing different ecclesiastical institutions. It seems that Chaucer does not separate his churchmen into a special category. In other words, except for the saintly, ideal Parson, clerical occupations are social and economic indicators in the same way as lay occupations.
The basic fact of life in the society of the “General Prologue” is economic struggle. The pilgrims’ occupational labels are obvious keys to their individual struggles or exemption from struggle and thus to their social position. But there is little value in learning that the Knight does not have to struggle like the Cook and that his degree is higher. The pilgrims’ descriptions, however, do more; they imply a sharper general pattern for life in the world of the “General Prologue.” This pattern is clearest among the pilgrims whose living comes from land. There the distinction between principals and agents marks a man as above the economic struggle or in the middle of it and consequently sets a gentil style of life apart from the others. Among the pilgrims making a living in trade the distinction does not appear because each one must struggle in his own interest. These pilgrims seem less secure and there is no gentilesse. Since the churchmen are not landholders, their case would seem to be similar; yet there is gentilesse among their number. The social implications of the distinction between principals and agents reappears, and once again access to landed wealth is determinative.
Pilgrims are what they do, and what most of them do primarily is work. They work competitively within the rules like the Man of Law or outside them like the Pardoner. This stress on hustle and competition creates a society quite different from that implicit in the pattern of the three estates with its stress on complementary self-subordination in a system of cooperation. To be sure, some of the pilgrims do transcend the common struggle. The exemplars of the three estates, the Knight, the Parson, and the Plowman, do so by a moral force unique to them; the Monk, the Prioress, and the Franklin do so because of economic advantage; their wealth is secure. If one can judge by the Merchant’s position on Chaucer’s roster of pilgrims, his degree is fairly high, but he does not transcend the struggle, perhaps because in the world of the “General Prologue” his wealth is not secure. At any rate his style of life is different from those who are above competition because he has to compete, as do most of his fellow pilgrims. This difference between landed wealth and other wealth can be clarified by another comparison. The Reeve’s peculation links him with the Manciple and the Friar, and so my threefold division does not seem helpful here. If we move upward within the several groups, however, things look different in that the Merchant’s description sets his position apart from that of the Knight or the Monk, who both have the use of landed wealth. The Reeve’s switch in economic role and social style would seem to be possible only in land, because when the Reeve becomes a landholder in his own right he is more secure than the Merchant. Chaucer seems to hold with Fitzgerald against Hemingway; the rich, at least the landed rich, are different from the rest.
Just how different they are can be seen in what we learn of their sexual habits. They transcend sexual as well as economic competition. Though there is much less about sex than money in the “General Prologue,” there is a pattern to the relatively little we are told. We know nothing about the sex lives of the Knight and the Franklin, and we have only the slightest and most ambiguous hints about the Monk and the Prioress. In contrast, we do know something of the sexual activities and outlook of the Wife of Bath, the Friar and the Summoner. The Squire is the crucial case; he is a lover and he draws his living from the land. But his love seems more a matter of regimen than of sex. There is only one reference to a girl, and the focus is much more on his chivalry than on any practical consequences of his lady’s favor. In the “General Prologue,” sex, like money, seems to be lower class.
So far I have been talking about fiction and hypotheses, Chaucer’s imitation or model. There are still questions of fact. Historian’s questions deserve historian’s answers, which I shall not try seriously to provide. But one does not have to be a serious historian to question the general proposition that the landed classes were economically and sexually inactive, that there was a categorical distinction between most men who struggled to live and a smaller group of landholders who were above the struggle. Division of society into hustlers and gentlemen sounds questionable, and the Paston letters, to cite the most convenient text, clearly indicate that gentlemen were often effective hustlers. In short, historians are more likely to hold with Hemingway on the subject of difference from the rich. Granting that the most general rule for life in the world of the “General Prologue” does not hold true outside it, and deferring the question of how a shrewd observer like Chaucer went wrong, the historian might still be interested in some of the less general rules for life. For example, was “agency” an avenue of social mobility? If it was, was it equally accessible at all points? Could the Reeve make the change from agent to landholder that he did? Could he move upward as easily at his level as the Man of Law at his? Could either one of them move upward as easily as the Pastons, smaller landholders serving as the agents of larger landholders? Another focus of interest might be the status distinctions in “public service.” Military and political offices went more or less naturally to the landed families, and in the cities a more limited range of offices also went naturally to the chief citizens, presumably because they represented important and separately identifiable interests. What were the status implications of public office? What were the status relations between men in public office because of an independent social and economic identification and those men who worked as career officials, the civil servants? Professor Thrupp has shown that at least some career civil servants were gentlemen ex officio. It does seem clear that the civil service was an avenue of social mobility and that it provided a range of acquaintance, but acquaintanceship with landed families might simply underscore differences in social and economic security and in the practical possibility of providing for the future of a family. These questions should give some idea of the historical uses of the “General Prologue.” It is a credible fourteenth-century model of the middle range of English society; it sets questions for historical verification.
The major literary use of this model is to fill out or elaborate a connection between Chaucer the man and Chaucer the pilgrim-narrator. The poetic manifestation of a writer’s values is certainly an important literary question. Chaucer has been well served by Professor Donaldson, who has nicely described the narrative sympathies and ironies of the “General Prologue” in such a way as to clarify the fine combination of amiability and criticism that emanates from the narrator. The structure and descriptions of the “General Prologue” define the narrator’s position; he is diffident but central. They also define his values. His representatives of the three estates are moral and social exemplars; the Knight, the Parson, and the Plowman all strive but they do it selflessly rather than competitively. Less clearly, the two probationers, the Squire and the Clerk, are also selfless. The Monk, the Prioress, and the Franklin are hardly selfless but neither are they vigorously assertive of an economic or sexual interest. Although they fall short of true gentilesse, their manners and their life style are gentil in a lesser but still valuable sense because they show none of the antagonism inherent in competition. This pattern of approbation implies precepts of orthodox charity and social conservatism. But there is nothing rigid or insensitive about this espousal of establishment values because it is winningly mollified by the suffused amiability of the narration. The pilgrim’s tone is eminently charitable. No matter how antiseptic our critical practice is about separating narrator and author, the art work and life, we do look to an ultimate point of contact. Though Shakespeare’s sonnets do not tell us anything conclusive about his sex life, the proliferation of their metaphors does tell us about his mental and emotional life. The practical charity, orthodoxy, and social conservatism evident in Chaucer’s poetic narrative can likewise be referred to the poet.
The narrator-pilgrim’s amiability and clarity of criticism are the poet’s, but this connection is more interestingly elaborated by working in the opposite direction, from writer to narrator, to supply a deficiency in the scheme of the “General Prologue.” Chaucer the pilgrim failed to provide for himself what he gave for all the other pilgrims—an occupational designation. If we give the poet’s to the pilgrim and call him a civil servant, we have a supplementary and external definition of the narrator’s position.
This embellishment is attractive because it sets the values of the “General Prologue” in precise historical relief. It refers them to a historically identifiable perspective. I deferred the puzzling question of how a shrewd observer like Chaucer could have been so wrong about his basic distinction between landholders and the rest of society. Landholders were economically and, presumably, sexually competitive, as anyone with a career like Chaucer’s must have known. But to a civil servant their social position may well have looked far more secure than his own and their style far more negligent of practical economics than the evidence indicates. The civil servant’s perspective would certainly be affected by the mobility aspirations associated with that social role and by the limits on the possibilities for fulfillment of those aspirations. In short, both the distortion and the accuracy of Chaucer’s social description are plausible for a civil servant.
The details of Chaucer’s observation vivify his use of the commonplace scheme of the three estates by giving the charity of its exemplars a fuller and more realistic setting. In other words, he has asserted orthodox values, spliced them with mobility aspirations, and adjusted them to reality. The same social perspective can be fixed in the literary work and in the real world of the fourteenth century. Chaucer the pilgrim talks like a civil servant and Chaucer the poet is a civil servant. The historian gains a richer sense of a civil servant’s values than the usual documents afford, and the literary student gains a fuller sense of the social grounding of the norms that govern the irony of the “General Prologue.”
Source: R. T. Lenaghan, “Chaucer’s ‘General Prologue’ as History and Literature,” in Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 12, No. 1, January 1970, pp. 73–82.
http://www.privatehand.com/flash/elements.html (Check this out just for fun!)
I'm really struggling to understand the essay and even understanding the question. WHAT IS GOING ON?!
ReplyDelete*IN even understanding
ReplyDeleteIt's not unlikely that I misinterpreted Lenaghan's argument, but upon reading the essay, my first impression was that he was looking a little too deep into the meaning of the prologue; to each his own, though. I think his basic and primary premise, that Chaucher uses the economic status of his characters to help define them, is valid. After all, Chaucer does make specific references to the material possessions and wealth of many of the characters in the prologue. Yet, like I said, I think Mr. Lenaghan essentially blew the whole prologue out of proportion. I think Chaucer intended to have the prologue serve as a comprehensive introduction to the tales and to the pilgrims telling the tales, and nothing more. To me, he was craftily successful. Chaucer rightfully believed that a person's possessions and societal stature can have an influence on that person's attitude and profile, but what Lenaghan seemed unable (or maybe unwilling) to notice, was that they are by no means the only things that define a person.
ReplyDeleteGabe: I think I see what you mean, and I agree that Chaucer uses the prologue to introduce the characters and prepare us for they're tales. However I think that Chaucer could also easily have multiple purposes in the prologue. I also agree with Mr.Lenaghan idea that much of the extra information in the prologue, such as the order in which the pilgrims are mentioned, servers to gives us information, not only to support the tales.
ReplyDeleteI think that Lenaghan's essay reads far too much in to Chaucer's prologue and that he was inventing ways in which he could give the prologue meaning. I disagree with Gabe and Lenaghan though in that economic status is used to define who a person is. I believe econmic status is used to describe the pilgrims, for Chaucer describes in detail what everyone is carrying and what they look like and where they are financially in society without stating whether one persons status is better or worse. There are pilgrims in debt, people who waste their money and people who don't have any money to waste, but none is better than another based solely on that. For me, my opinions of the characters in the prologue weren't derived based on their economic status, so if it was Chaucer's main purpose to define his characters through wealth as Lenaghan's essay suggests, it failed miserably.
ReplyDeleteI personally view this essay as long winded and delving too deep into Chaucer's prologue. I agree with both Graham and Gabe that it is obvious Lenaghan felt that Chaucer used wealth to determine the status of the pilgrims, but I also feel (as the others do), that the amount of money one has does not illustrate who you are as a person, your morals, and your ideals in life. I also somewhat disagree with Lenaghan, who states that the excess information in the General Prologue supports each individual's tale, but rather solely provides the reader more of a solid background on the pilgrim, as I see the tales being more of an extension of the pilgrim's ideas rather than who they are and how they live their life.
ReplyDeleteLenaghan is not conveying his own personal beliefs, but rather he is analyzing the patterns within Chaucer's prologue; he is not even insinuating that he believes that personal possessions and "societal stature" define a person. As far as constructive criticism for my peers who have posted before me, I would recommend that they all critically read the essay in its entirety, because I believe that they have drastically misinterpreted Lenaghan's viewpoint, and their comments have no relevance to the essay.
ReplyDeleteLenaghan is saying that the Chaucerian model of society is governed by economic struggle (e.g. the motivation behind the agents' actions is largely economic competition, unless they are principals who have landed wealth, in which case they pursue a more gentil style of life of amusement and public service); in the Chaucerian model, land ownership (or landed wealth, such as monastery funds in the case of the Monk and the Prioress) sets one apart from the common economic and sexual competition typical of the lower classes.
As Mr. Bill in math modelling says, "All models are wrong, but some are useful." Lenaghan is saying that the Chaucerian model has dual value: it has value from a literary perspective as a connection between the values of Chaucer the author and Chaucer the pilgrim (and perhaps applying the newfound literary skills you gain from this EEL class to deduce that Chaucer was socially conservative and advocated orthodox charity), and it has historical value as a rich and personal perspective of fourteenth century society which present interesting questions regarding fourteenth-century sociology. Lenaghan believes that Chaucer is incorrect in portraying those who possess landed wealth as above economic and sexual struggle (he cites the Paston letters, which indicated that gentlemen were usually just hustlers, and he makes the logical conclusion that the landed wealthy aren't actually above the sexual struggle), however he believes that Chaucer's model is useful in the questions it poses: for instance, could those who managed and worked the lands really move through the classes with the same ease as did the Reeve? If so, if you move up the pyramid, does the same rule of social mobility hold for the upper echelons as well? Remember, in Civitas we learned that medieval society largely lacked any social mobility at all; you were the class that you were born into. Chaucer's model illustrates the transition between the locked classes of the dark ages into the highly mobile classes of the later eras, where the newly rich (e.g. the guildsmen or the merchant) could begin building a middle class, and where the Reeves could move from the working class to the landowners. It is up to historians to verify whether Chaucer's model is accurate in this respect, and I think that here it is most definitely accurate. Another interesting facet of Chaucer's model is the way it portrays public office: what are the status implications of public office?
Lenaghan certainly convinced me of his viewpoints on Chaucer's model and of its usefulness. As far as his breakdown of Chaucer's model: we have already established in class that the Parson, the Plowman, and the Knights are the Chaucerian moral ideals, who manage to live lives above what we have condemned as the selfish and materialistic (and highly competitive) pursuits of people like the Pardoner (selling relics and using his silver tongue to get money from the crowds), the Physician (collaborating with the apothecaries by prescribing medicine which the patients woudl need from the apothecaries, and splitting the resulting fees between them), the Friar (purchasing begging grounds and essentially milks the confessing sinners for money), the Summoner (who takes bribes), the Miller (who does hard labor at a mill, and uses his "gold thumb" to weigh the scales to make the product look heavier than it actually is); the list goes on. We have also established that the Squire and the Clerk are less prominent ideals, who also live above the selfish competition of the aforementioned. We've established that the Prioress (who we have established is worldly and puts on courtly airs), the Franklin (of whom their is very little economic mention, but their is much focus on his food), and the Monk (who loves hunting) aren't very selfless, but at least they don't assert competitive interests as much as the aforementioned people do; they don't display the antagonistic competitiveness of the aforementioned in their actions. What I think you have failed to see is that Lenaghan has simply logically extended what we've already established in class, saying that the pattern in Chaucer's model is that those who have landed wealth or who have the moral strength to do so stay above the survival-of-the-fittest economic struggle of the others AND the sexual struggles of the lower class (remember the Miller's tale fraught with sexuality and the lack of sexuality in the Knight's tale; it suggests that sex is lower class); in fact, this economic struggle has transcended the boundaries even between the church and the working class, as is evidenced by the similar competitive behaviors between, for instance, the Miller and the Pardoner. All in all, Lenaghan's well-written and well-supported essay leaves me strongly convinced of his viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with Lenaghan that the General Prologue shows a richer sense of a civil servant's values than the usual documents afford. The main section of the General Prologue talks about the middle class (who were mainly civil servants), and those of the rising middle class, which was a new sector of society. Chaucer himself was most likely part of this same class, and therefore knew a lot about it. Many other documents from that time period were most likely written by someone of a higher class, who's viewpoints on the the rising middle class would be markedly different.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Lenghan that the inactivity of the Knight, the Squire, and those of higher class (both sexually and economically) is a reflection on Chaucer's views of the higher class. In contrast, he writes about a wealth of lower class characters concerned with money, such as the Merchant, who was an "expert at dabbling in exchanges" (10), or the Doctor (and Apothecary) who "each made money from the other's guile." (14)
These people are just a few, but Chaucer includes references to money in almost all of the middle class pilgrims information. Lenghan puts it very well, stating "the basic fact of life in the society of the “General Prologue” is economic struggle."
Judging by the facts that Chaucer includes about each character, this is the truth. Therefore, I overall agree with Lenaghan's viewpoints, especially those that talk about the middle class's "obsession" with money compared to the inactivity of the higher class.
Meg said "that the amount of money one has does not illustrate who you are as a person, your morals, and your ideals in life."
I definitely agree with parts of this. Just as Meg says, money does not define who you are. However, I disagree with her in that I think it CAN illustrate something of the pilgrims. The way that someone treats money gives clues to their character, although perhaps not their morals, like Meg says. Basically, I think this can help reveal something of a character's ideals, but does not solely define them.
I completely agree with Lenaghan about the fact that the wealth of a given character in the "General Prologue" directly corresponds to the character's persona. For example, the Knight and the Squire: their economic status is barely mentioned which means that they aren't concerned about their finances, meaning they are rather wealth. As the prologue goes on money continues to be mentioned more and more when finally the Pardoner's is almost entirely based on greed and gold. I also agree with Lenaghan that money almost always symbolizes greed.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don't agree with Lenaghan that the General Prologue works as a model for the 13th century middle class. For example, the Knight is largely portrayed as chivalrous, courageous and just. However, many, many knights in the 13th century were corrupt; pillaging and raiding the villages of serfs'. Same goes for the Monk; sure there were Monks who were corrupt and enjoyed lavish pleasures such as hunting, the majority, however, lived in isolated, self-supporting monasteries.
I also agree with Christian; economic status certainly played a role in me forming opinions about the various characters in The General Prologue, but I think their occupations, corruption, irony and personal traits give a lot more information about the character than financial status.
I agree with Lenaghan's essay, because in Ms. Piro's words about the "general prologue", "I'ts a microcosm of the social status of the 14th century". Though I agree with Gabe and all others who believe that Lenaghan is reading too deeply into the "general prologue". I believe that Chaucer was a shrewd observer of his world, and all the positions and peoples of the rising middle class are represented in the beginning of the story. yet because of Chaucer's innocent telling of the prologue, the subtle twist of irony gives the reader the impression that the whole book is not to be taken seriously. Therefore I believe that Chaucer's telling of the "general prologue" reflects Chaucer's stereotypes of the different types of people of the Middle Class in the 14th century, but not the actual representation of the different people and their status (I must commend Lenaghan though for the excellent well supported essay)
ReplyDeleteI agree with Michaela that the prologue does display the social status of the 14th century. Lenghan's views were very enlightening, I had not looked at the prologue in that way before. I found it very interesting how he classified each character and discussed how social and economic status effected other aspects of the pilgrims lives and personalities, and how that was reflected in the story. The Reeve, a character we did not spend much time discussing in class was a good reflection of the middle class from that time period. He showed the economic struggles of laborers, and he displays the move towards individual land ownership. This essay was helpful in seeing a different viewpoint about the general prologue and in having another in-depth analysis of the characters.
ReplyDeleteI think this essay is way to in-depth of Chaucer's prologue, my first impression was that Lenaghan blew the prologue out of proportion, but he made some good points, I agree that Chaucer defines his characters by their social and economic status. Chaucer reverences his characters possessions, appearance, and wealth very pointedly. I agree with what Christian said about Chaucer not directly saying who is better than who, but I think that the details Chaucer provides and the attitude he takes towards each character shows what he thinks of them and what he wants to readers to think.
ReplyDeleteThis essay spends a long time trying to categorize the characters in the general prologue into groups. "In the “General Prologue,” as elsewhere, what men do falls largely into the category of economics." While it is important to notice that Chaucer is listing the characters in order of social status, I feel that it is unnecessary to spend as much time as the author did trying to categorize the characters into groups. In fact, I think it goes against Chaucer's initial intention to make each character have a unique personality and profession. Chaucer did not make this group of pilgrims homogenous in order to be able to express his views on a variety of subjects such as feminism and the Church. Grouping characters would therefore be doing the opposite of individualizing each character. It seems that many people thought he over analyzed the prologue (Gabe, Christian, Emma). However, diving deep into a topic is not a bad thing, but undoing Chaucer's work by categorizing characters into fewer groups is more problematic.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gabe, and the many others who have stated that this essay is overly analytical. However, I do agree with Lenghan's points, which helped my comprehension of the general prologue. I agree that Chaucer defines his character's by their social and economic status, and the general prologue acts as a commentary for society in 14th century England. I also acknowledge the ability for the Prologue to be examined as a historical document of sorts. It presents a "microcosm of the social status of of the 14th century, and uses the specifics of characters to represent the stereotypical medieval idea of the behavior of the people in their class, be it upper, middle, or the very lowest.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Lenaghan’s viewpoint that the prologue to the Canterbury Tales offers a “richer sense of a civil servant’s values than the usual documents afford.” Although reading the prologue is a unique fabrication of how individual people from the time might have felt and what values they nay have had, it is not an accurate representation of most people at the time. Lenaghan is right that the Prologue is a commentary of the middle class, but it depicts all the pilgrims in an ironic, contradictory sense. Although the ironies make for an appealing story, it does not mean that it is an accurate representation of the middle class at the time and it should not be viewed as a historical document.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I agree with Christian that certain aspects of the prologue such as the financial and social status of the pilgrims does represent people's status's from the time. The characters in the Prologue are introduced in order of social rank, and the rank would be very similar during the middle ages.
I agree with Bei in that this essay tried to group the characters together too much. I think that the characters were meant to be different from one another to show the many different aspects of the social structure back then. I do believe that the author of this essay made valid points, however, even if they did seem a little blown out of proportion and overanalyzed – I think that Chaucer meant to put a certain amount of hidden meaning in the prologue.
ReplyDeleteAs many have pointed out Lenaghans essay is trying group characters while most would think of the general prologue as a way to differentiate and characterize each of the characters. Lenaghans tries to go too deep into what chaucer may have been thinking and draws conclusions that don't go along with the prologue. He over analyzes the characters because he tries to find out what Chaucer was thinking and overall makes the prologue seem like its more than what it actually is. As shepard pointed out there may be hidden meaning within the prologue but it is very hard to interpret this because Chaucer is dead. Lenaghan tries to interpret these hidden meaning however he does put the prologue out of porportion
ReplyDeleteI hate to stress yet the same point, but its the same thing. You really can't group the charaters withen the prologe. When you consider that the whole idea of the story is to have many different charaters, with many different points of veiw, and different tales from their life, its not a great idea to try to see how they are the same. The only similerity between them is in the fact that they are from Chacuers point of veiw, but when we consider that chaucer was trying to write many different charaters, it may be a bad idea to think of even that. As such I agree with Torm, Bei and Shep.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what many people are saying that this essay does overanalyze the general prologue. I also agree with Bei, Fritz, Shepard, and Tornike that this essay tries to group together characters when really, I believe, the prologue serves as a contrast between the characters. However, Leaghan does have several valid points. Especially his point about wealth directly correlating with the characters persona. Chaucer shows this in the order he introduces the characters in the "general prologue". By establishing wealth, one also establishes (generally ofcourse) the way that a person lives, the society they belong to, etc. This essay was very helpful in seeing other views/ opinions on the "general prologue", as it is very easy to form ones own opinion and not hear or see other aspects one might have missed. Certainly this essay has a lot of information and discusses many different points, which made me have a much broader understanding of the "general prologue".
ReplyDelete