Modern Approaches to the Canterbury Tales
In this section, we’ll go through a few arguments based on a looking at Chaucer’s language and linguistic style. We’ll also touch on some random tidbits and a few points that are more “fleshed-out” in other sections past the Linguistic Lens (e.g. under Historical Lens, Racial Lens).
We’ll look at Chaucer’s Man of Law through the lens of the Man of Law as High Class and through the lens of Linguistic Hierarchy—and what exactly that relationship does for the text. We’ll see that everybody exists in relation, such that taking them as totally-independent actors does not benefit our understanding of the text; e.g., the male, kingly figures do as they wish, but even they are subject to the Christian God. (We’ll also see that the Man of Law is a real try-hard, dropping allusions whenever he can to make his style as “heigh” as possible.) Each relationship, each piece mutually reinforces the other pieces.
We’ll also wonder about the morality of the story: are those Bible references random; why all the conversions to Christianity; why does the Shipman rebel against another moral story being told; and if there’s a moral, what is it?
You’ll see footnotes throughout, but there are a couple of texts that I think are worth pointing out right now that really helped frame my mindset—Goldenberg’s[1] thoughts on proto-racism and othering; Kiesling’s[2] analysis of language and its role in upholding modern-day hierarchical structures; and for most of my grammatical background, Burnley’s[3] guide to Chaucer’s language.
Here is a Prezi link which you can utilize to jump around my points and (hopefully!) understand Chaucer more than before. I highly recommend using it to get the main points and an outline of this page!
TLDR[4]
Don’t think of this as an extensive guide to all of Chaucer’s grammar, or as a guide to hierarchy and language, or morality stories in Chaucer. Think of this space as a place to inspire your own questions about Chaucer.
Chaucer was aware of his audience. They were used to sophisticated poetry, and they had certain understandings and customs, of which we must be aware in order to continue.
There were traditionally three types of writing styles. The first was stylus grandis “high style,” which devoted attention to displaying erudition, clear word choice and allusion; it’s function was to move and to impress.[5] The second was stylus humilis “low style,” which used everyday grammar, compressed sense into brief expressions and was made to be clear and understandable.[6] The third style stylus mediocris was a middle style with the purpose of delighting the audience.
For even the rookie reader, stylus grandis reveals itself pretty clearly. Sometimes, Chaucer would use the word “curteisly” to introduce a speaker who will speak in a high style.
He also seems to have abided by customary English at the time, even given its varying rules and dialects.[7] He used “ye” to illustrate respect; knew that words had both cognitive (i.e., essential) and connotational (i.e. peripheral/associative) meanings; and certainly understood the proprietas (individual characteristics) of the three styles.[8] Latinate words and inserted French also elevate the speaker, make him more respectable. Knowing this, we can determine he abided by customs. He used multiple negation to import vehemence and intensity[9]; understood context; and played with his matere.[10] Most held “the belief that the language reveals the man.”[11]
TLDR: Language reveals the man. The Tale’s audience knows it, Chaucer knows it, and the Man of Law will actively practice proper language, knowing that everybody knows.
When the ML speaks in French and with allusion, he’s being intentional. He’s trying to show off his erudition via “high style.” The second word he says is French-inspired: “‘Hooste,’ quod he, ‘depardieux, ich assente!”[12] And in the midst of his rant on the wretched existence of poverty (his words, not mine), he drops some more French-sounds, uttering “But with sis cink…”,[13] which is to mean the French six cinq (literally the number six and the number five). He does this to posit himself as an intellectual, as a high class man whose language reveals him.
During his tale-telling, ML alludes to biblical figures, creatures of myth, and gods of lore. For example, he broaches Custaunce’s suffering via allusion, saying
“I trowe at Troye, whan Pirrus brak the wal
Or Ilion brende, at Thebes the citee,
N’at Rome for the harm thurgh Hannival,
That Romains hath venquisshed times thre, for pitee,
As in the chambre was for hir departinge!”[14]
Here we have seven references (if each capitalized-word is taken separately) and about two different historical references (Troy, as in Homer’s The Iliad; and Rome, the greatest civilization in the West, in its fall). All this to compare Custaunce’s sadness.
But his audience is diverse, so surely some of these references must go over their heads. Maybe not Troy and Rome, but what about the countless others? Well, I kept track.
To prove he knows his geography (remember, the tale takes place between Rome and Syria), in recounting Custaunce’s abandoning-to-sea, he says:
“Yeres and dayes fleet this creature
Thrughout the See of Grece, unto the Straite
Of Marrok, as it was hir aventure.”[15]
In praising God’s power and comparing Custaunce’s faith to the famous underdog, he says:
“Who saved Daniel in the horrible cave,
Ther every wight save he, maister and knace,
Was with the leuon frete er he asterte?”[16]
In continuing this praise of God, he continues:
“Who kepte Jonas in the fisshes mawe,
Til he was spouted up at Ninivee?
Well may men knowe it was no wight but he
That kept people Ebraik from hir drenchinge”[17]
After this mentioning of Jonas and the saving of the Hebrew people, he continues with more biblical references, saying:
“Who fedde th’Egipcien Marie in the cave
Or in the desert? No wight but Crist, sanz faille.”[18]
In that one he even uses some French. He’s actively illustrating how erudite he is—or how erudite he wants to be perceived. He also does this thing called ancope (look in fun tidbits and other information section; it also happens to be a grammatical French-borrowing).
At the tale’s end, he continues his references:
“O Golias, unmesurable of lengthe,/
How mighte Davie make thee so maat…”[19]
“Who yaf Judith corage or hardinesse
To sleen him Olofernus in his tente…”[20]
Above, he makes a few more Bible references. One could certainly argue that these allusions do not illustrate ML as erudite. The Western World knew the Bible back then, and the population amongst the pilgrimage could inform anybody who did not know or had forgotten a referenced story.
There is one passage worth noting because of the rarity of language use, the emotional fervor at the outset and the use of allusion. In his narration, the Man of Law laments the current struggle of Custaunce, saying:
“O First Moeving, cruel firmament!
With thy diurnal sweigh that crowdest ay
And hurlest al from est til occident…
that cruel Mars hath slain this mariage.”[21]
He makes two allusions, first to “First Moeving” and then to “Mars,” albeit common allusions. But he also uses the exclamation mark, so he’s trying to move his audience with his passion; and that’s a clear sign of stylus grandis. Of particular note are the words “diurnal” and “occident” (of the Latin occidens, meaning the West) because “diurnal and occident are rare…and their Latinate form declares their association with an elevated and technical style.”[22]
He speaks with the same level of style throughout the text. This alone may not prove the intentio autoris (author’s intention in writing) of Chaucer, but it does show that Chaucer abides by “the duty of the poet [which] is to avoid inadvertent fluctuation from a social level and its appropriate language.”[23]
Other characters use faire speche throuhgout the MLT as well. The Sowdanesse speaks reverentially towards God, saying,
“But lordes, wol ye maken assuraunce
As I shal seyn, assenting to my loore,
And I shal make us sauf for everemoore?”[24]
Her respectful manere reinforces that a hierarchy exists. She intentionally places herself in a lower role using language; her only form of power is demeanor power. Her mood is pious—“lordes” and respectful pronoun “ye”—and she mitigates[25] her desires. She understands that she is lower than God, so she is reverential. She also knows that she holds no linguistic power, so she uses other methods to achieve her goals, like being reverential. It’s worth noting that she is royalty, and royalty is expected to speak a certain way.
So far, we’ve looked at two characters who exhibit (what Chaucer would call) faire speche. The Man of Law employs this style to elevate his own status and speech, and the Sowdanesse uses faire speche both because she is of high class and because she is being reverential to God.
Do you believe that there were social classes? Further, do you believe that different social classes expressed themselves differently, and that this difference was portrayed in poetry? If yes, then this argument may have been convincing. If it was convincing, please continue into other sections, like Linguistic Hierarchy in MLT or Moral Story? (plus Tidbits&Lingering Questions).
Before we discuss linguistic hierarchy, it is worth establishing that hierarchy existed (in some form) at the time. (The section under Racial Lens on Christian Universalism discusses the relationship Christianity had with dominance and as being portrayed as dominant.)
This is not surprising, especially in these Western texts. Logos spermatikos[26] refers to an “essence” that all humans already have within them. You’ve probably seen the word logos before (perhaps next to pathos and ethos in an AP Language class); and you wouldn’t be wrong in supposing that spermatikos looks like it might have something to do with sperm. Logos spermatikos is an idea that posits a “true form of humanness,” inside all people; for some it simply has to be awakened; it is relevant to the MLT because logos spermatikos is applied to Christianity and conversion. Buell calls conversion in this way compulsory mutability.
That’s to say, all people are of the same Christian, Abrahamic God; and upon converting, if not already Christian, those people actualize their dormant Christianity—that had been there all along. In MLT multiple individuals convert from Islam to Christianity. In the narration, the ML clearly identifies that superiority exists—namely, in the Christian religion and its followers.
Before there was a word for race or racism, color or colorism; before modernity and all of the terms that have been applied to societal interactions since its beginning, the ideas of race/racism existed. It existed in some prototypic form, where people have proto-racist inclinations and prejudices but no words for them. Regardless, consciously or subconsciously, the people at the time acted on them, and this comes across in the MLT.
The best definition for racism I found was from Geraldine Heng, who writes: “race is a structural relationship for the articulation and management of human differences, rather than a substantive content.”[27] The lack of “substantive content” means that “race” does not exist. What we see (both before and today) is the way that two people relate with one other, a social interaction. Racism is to “other” somebody—to acknowledge an individual as something/somebody else.[28] Those people who other have to manage their “human differences,” and that varies person-to-person, relationship to relationship. This understanding is often just a “mental structure” and, tragically, to the detriment of others.
Up to this point, I have articulated that two forms of superiority existed, mostly as a cause of othering. First, that Christianity was the most important and powerful; and that logos spermatikos was applied in favor of Christianity. Second, that individuals understood each other via a racialized/othered lens. (Other sections, as mentioned above) cover the ideas of race and racism more in-depth than this section.
We can use these very same principles to begin an exploration of the MLT, seeing how hierarchy is (mutually) understood and acted upon through language.
The first character with real power in the text is the Sultan, Custaunce’s first admirer. Before, we observed the ML portrayed as a character of respectable social rank. When he first spoke, he spoke in French. Let’s look at Chaucer’s word-choice in introducing the Sultan:
“Now fil is that thise marchauntz stode in grace
Of him that was the Sowdan of Surrye;…
He wolde, of his benigne curteisye,
Make hem good cheere…for to leere
The wondres that they mighte seen or heere.”[29]
The ML describes the Sultan, the “Sowdan of Surrye.” He is a man who emanates “grace.” He also has a “benigne curteisye.” Chaucer uses the descriptor-word curteisye/curteisly[30] to identify those of higher class (and/or to identify those speaking in a high style). Remember, this is the first time we are introduced to the Sultan, and ML elevates him and justifies his status via the words “grace” and “curteisye.” Even though the King is in power, he still uses tactics to get his way. He wants to learn and about the things they saw. We’ll see that what the King says—goes.
After hearing about Custaunce, the King yearns after her. Both the narrator and the Sultan clearly illustrate him as the man in charge. The narrator says:
“He hath to hem declared his entente,”[31]
And the Sultan, in declaring “his entente,” states:
“I moot been hires; I may noon oother chese.
I pray yow, hold youre argumentz in pees;
Saveth my lif, and beth noght rechelees
To geten hire that hath my lif in cure,
For in this wo I may nat longe endure.”[32]
Identify a few key parts. First, he has the power to declare his intentions and have them happen. Word choice matters. Chaucer did not write “said” or “stated” or “asked,” but “declared.” Note the use of “I” for emphasis[34]; in this fourteenth century, Chaucer could have alternatively used “ich” instead. The most important person here is the Sultan, who uses the imperative mood to illustrate his sway in the group. He tells them to hold-up, stop talking (“hold youre argumentz in pees”), then states his desire, imploring that they “saveth” his life. Only a person in power can speak to groups of people like this. In Kiesling’s article, he analyzes the hierarchy of fraternity members in private discussion to show this: the fraternity president speaks in the imperative, implores others to do things for him and says “I” for emphasis. Who would say no to the fraternity president? Who would say no to the Sultan?
Chaucer reiterates the Sultan’s power, showing even his mother acts with his “entente” in mind.
“The moder of the Sowdan, welle of vices,
Espied hath hir sones plein entente”[35]
In reading the tale, you’ll see that she doesn’t exactly have the same perspective on what’s best for the Sultan. Relevantly, she acts to satisfy his “entente.” She is below the Sultan in the MLT hierarchy.
So far, we have this hierarchy: Sultan; then, Sultan’s Mother (Sowdanesse) and the Merchants. Let’s look at how even lower-ranking members respect this hierarchy.
In the second act of treachery against Custaunce, the queen connives by using a messenger. Criticizing the messenger and bemoaning the connivery, the ML narrates,
“This messager drank sadly ale and wyn,
And stolen were his lettres pryvely,
Out of his box, whil he sleep as a swyn”[36]
The word “this,” directly in reference to an individual was diminutive and (especially towards someone with some status) was understood as disparaging.[37] We can justify this interpretation by looking at the other narrative aspects. Note that he drinks “sadly,” and the messenger is given the blame twice: because of his drunkenness (because of his “ale and wyn”), the letters are stolen out of “his” box. The reiteration of the box and the letters being his places the responsibility on his shoulders. Notice also that he is directly referred to as a “swyn” (swine, pig), so the narrator clearly has a low opinion of him. And people in power directly express true sentiments.[38] Throughout the text, notice that the messenger speaks in a reverential way towards the Sowdanesse[39] and this supports that he acknowledges the mutual acceptance of the social hierarchy.
My final point concerning linguistic hierarchy concerns the Christian God. Throughout the text, Custaunce gives herself up to her God and survives, without God ever saying anything. Her prayers are met by her always-dominant God. So, this may show that the linguistic hierarchy exists outside of the corporeal world. This may further show that the man at the top of the hierarchy is always God—even though he never says a word. Let’s look at one instance of this. After a Knight falsely testifies against Custaunce,
“This false knyght was slayn for his untrouthe
By juggement of Alla hastifly;
And yet Custaunce hadde of his deeth greet routhe.
And after this Jhesus, of his mercy,
Made Alla wedden ful solempnely
This hooly mayden, that is so bright and sheene;
And thus hath Crist ymaad Custaunce a queene.”[40]
For some context, the manner in which the “knyght” was “slayn,” graphically, his eyes bursting out of his face.[41] The “juggement of [King]Alla” deems the death requisite. This is the first instance (in this passage) of power. The king has power; i.e., his actions modify actions[42] [e.g. he says “kill the liar,” (and the people standing around doing nothing do as he says,) and the liar is killed]. Then, the ML narrates, “Jhesus” makes it so that Custaunce and Alla get married. But no words were said. It simply happens. Without a word, the Christian manifestation of God (in-the-Son) modifies the course of events.
To use the cliché, a picture is worth a thousand words. Poems tell stories and create images along the way. This image of Jesus making Alla and Custaunce marry—“solempnely” (solemnly), in a formal, dignified, sincere way—shows that there is somebody hierarchically above the King.
Normally, both a Sultan and a King would have immense power, and here the King has to abide to the will of another. This does not occur with any other characters in the text. Yes, the mothers of both of them manipulate them, but behind their backs. Custaunce makes them fall head over heels, but they still have will. No corporeal being directly controls the King or the Sultan. This makes sense. They are at the top of the hierarchy; their speech patterns reinforces their status; others speech patterns towards them reinforces their status, as well.
In the section Moral Story? (plus Tidbits&Lingering Questions), we will discuss the “so-what?” of God’s hierarchical reign. (And mention some other fun tidbits and ponder other lingering questions.)
Working with the understanding of the previous two sections (please go back and ready them if you haven’t) under Linguistic Lens, we’ve come to understand the ML as high class. Through his lens, he tells a story that follows the rules of linguistic hierarchy. Those rules, as posited in Linguistic Hierarchy, only apply to corporeal beings.
Throughout the text, Custaunce asks for deliverance from her Christian God, and every time she is saved by the grace of God. Even if she’s out at sea for five years, she’s still saved. When she’s certain she’s been abandoned and that she’ll never see her family again, she somehow is reunited with her King-husband and sees her father, after years apart.
Also, as shown in the section The Man of Law (ML) and His Faire Speche, we see that many allusions by the ML are to characters in the Bible who are hopeless without the help of God. David kills Goliath—the mean Philistine who can crush any man—with a slingshot. (Rather gruesomely, actually: the stone goes straight through the man’s head, then David cuts off Goliath’s head with a sword.) The story of Daniel in the lion’s den is literally just about being faithful to God; the result being that no harm will come to thee.
So if there’s a moral, what is it? I argue, the moral is: if you follow His word, you experience “joye that lasteth everemo.”[43]
On multiple occasions, Chaucer mentions “the wil of Crist.”[44] Here’s the excerpt:
“She dryveth forth into oure occian
Thurghout oure wilde see, til atte laste…
Far in Northumberlond the wawe hire caste
And in the sond hir ship stiked so faste
That thennes wolde it noght of al a tyde;
The wyl of Crist was that she sholde abyde.”[45]
She was clearly in a crisis. She’s in the middle of the ocean with only her faith in God. And in abiding (“abyde”) to the the will of her God she makes it to land.
In her prayers to him, she’s very reverential, using respectful pronouns and double negation to amplify her seriousness/reverence.[46]
By Custaunce’s faith in God, her colleague actually saves a blind man.[47]
People convert all the time.[48]
When Custaunce is sent away, the narration explains that her banishing as a cause of the “wyl of Crist.”
“But natheless she taketh in good entente
The wil of Crist, and kneling on the stronde,
She seide, ‘Lord, ay welcome be thy sonde!’”[49]
Then, we she prays to God, and it’s clear that she’s giving herself up to him and his will.[50] Further, Custaunce’s repetition of I[51] during a prayer to her God brings emphasis to this word.
Then, at the end of the story, there’s a rant by the Shipman[52] against more moral stories. So was this a moral story? That’s up to you to decide. Since you’re already here, check out some tidbits!
Mauricius?[53] That’s oddly specific. Potential explanation:
Latinate names were for upper-class individuals. So, when nearing the end of the MLT we’re told that Custaunce’s child is named Mauricius, we know that Custaunce—as a member of the high-ranking social class (she’s married to the King)—illustrates social standards by naming her child Mauricius.
Did you ever think to yourself: Why is Chaucer spelling this word like this and then like this in another place?…they’re the same word! And then proceeded to become infuriated at the seemingly endless strangenesses of Middle English? Here’s a potential explanation:
Chaucer knew he had an audience that expected sophisticated poetry, which was stringent in its rules.
So he always used the right speech, and when words were like pas/gras or pace/grace, then he would stick to the same spelling to ensure that the rhyme was understood
This is confusing! Why?
Why the poverty rant?
The ML Prologue rant on poverty gives us the idea of the other, and what is socially proper and improper.
Ancope (i.e. fused syllables with apostrophe clitic)
This is a French-inspired grammatical habit when there are two vowels that are in immediate succession and you can see instances of it in lines 248, 255 & 290.
Barbre Nation?[54]
And did you know that fnorteth = snoring
It sounds like an onomatopoeia of snoring. I imagine Stoic from How To Train Your Dragon (or any viking in popular culture) snores, onomatopoetically—“fnorting.”
Also, at any point in the text, when you find yourself coming to a certain conclusion or asking what a word means or might mean, ask yourself:
What Would Chaucer Say? #WWCS
TLDR: #WhatWouldChaucerSay?
1 David Goldenberg, “Racism color symbolism, and color prejudice,” in The Origins of Racism in the West, ed. Miriam Eliab-Feldon, Benjamin Isaac and Joseph Ziegler (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 88-108.
2 Scott Fabius Kiesling, “Power and the Language of Men,” in Language and Masculinity, ed. Sally Johnson and Ulrike Hanna Meihof (New York: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 1997), 65-85.
3 David Burnley in A Guide to Chaucer’s Language (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1983).
4 If you’ve ever been on any online forum, after lengthy posts you may run into this abbreviation. It means “Too Long, Didn’t Read,” and it tries to give the gist (for the more time-constrained reader). Find more TLDR sections within the Prezi!
5 David Burnley in A Guide to Chaucer’s Language (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1983), 184.
6 Burnley, 185.
7 See dialect map on the Prezi. Chaucer spoke pretty-normal London English and its popularized dialect.
8 Burnley, 185-6.
9 Burnley, 68.
10 i.e. a form derived through French, from Latin materia, meaning subject matter: Burnley, 221.
11 Burnley, 185.
12 “The Man of Law’s Prologue,” II 39
13 “The Man of Law’s Prologue,” II 125
14 “The Man of Law’s Tale,” II 288-93.
15 “The Man of Law’s Tale,” II 464-5.
16 “The Man of Law’s Tale,” II 473-5.
17 “The Man of Law’s Tale,” II 486-7.
18 “The Man of Law’s Tale,” II 500-1.
19 “The Man of Law’s Tale,” II 934-5.
20 “The Man of Law’s Tale,” II 939-40.
21 “The Man of Law’s Tale,” II 295-301.
22 Burnley, 154.
23 Burnley, 185-6.
24 “The Man of Law’s Tale,” II 341-3.
25 Scott Fabius Kiesling, “Power and the Language of Men,” in Language and Masculinity, ed. Sally Johnson and Ulrike Hanna Meihof (New York: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 1997), 75.
26 Buell, Denise Kimber, “Early Christian universalism and modern racism,” in The Origins of Racism in the West, ed. Miriam Eliav-Feldon, Benjamin Isaac and Joseph Ziegler, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 115.
27 Heng, Geraldine, “Inventions/Reinventions, Race Studies, Modernity, and the Middle Ages,” in The Invention of Race in the European Middle Ages, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 19.
28 If that was not clear, please watch this video where Toni Morrison explains that “there is no such thing as race.”
29 “The Man of Law’s Tale,” II 176-82.
30 Burnley, 183.
31 “The Man of Law’s Tale,” II 206
32 “The Man of Law’s Tale,” II 227-231
33 Burnley, 15.
34 Kiesling, 73-5.
35 “The Man of Law’s Tale,” II 323-4.
36 “The Man of Law’s Tale,” II 743-5.
37 Burnley, 21.
38 Kiesling, 77.
39 “The Man of Law’s Tale,” II 729-42.
40 “The Man of Law’s Tale,” II 687-93.
41 “The Man of Law’s Tale,” II 669-72.
42 Kiesling, 67-8.
43 “The Man of Law’s Tale,” II 1076.
44 “The Man of Law’s Tale,” II 511.
45 “The Man of Law’s Tale,” II 506-11.
46 “The Man of Law’s Tale,” II 156, 169.
47 “The Man of Law’s Tale,” II 566-7.
48 e.g. “The Man of Law’s Tale,” II 686.
49 “The Man of Law’s Tale,” II 824-6.
50 “The Man of Law’s Tale,” 838-40.
52 “The Man of Law’s Tale,” II 827-33.
53 “The Man of Law’s Tale,” II 1174-81.
54 “The Man of Law’s Tale,” II 723.
54 “The Man of Law’s Tale,” II 281.
