Canterbury Tales

It is clear that Geoffrey Chaucer was acutely aware of the strict classist system in which he lived; indeed the very subject matter of his Canterbury Tales (CT) is a commentary on this system: its shortcomings and its benefits regarding English society. In fact, Chaucer is particularly adept at portraying each of his pilgrims as an example of various strata within 14th century English society. And upon first reading the CT, one might mistake Chaucer's acute social awareness and insightful characterizations as accurate portrayals of British society in the late 1300s and early 1400s. Further, one might mistake his analysis, criticism, and his sardonic condemnation of many elements of British culture for genuine attempts to alter the oppressive system producing such malevolent characters as the Friar, the Summoner, the Pardoner, and the Prioress. If one believes, however, that Chaucer attempted to in any way alter the dominant social paradigm for the betterment of the lower class victims portrayed in the CT (the Old Widow from The Friar's Tale, or John from The Miller's Tale), one is grievously mistaken. While appearing to criticize the more obvious deficiencies of his society, Chaucer actually endorses the overall structure of the Estates system, merely suggesting a broader definition of the structure to include his own bourgeois class of merchants - thus reinforcing the classist society that gave rise to working class rebellions such as the Peasant's Revolt that paralyzed London in 1381.

If we accept the CT as a portrayal of Chaucer's society (regardless of its accuracy or intent), we must also recognize and explore the obvious and distinct ideological contradictions that pervade his text; for Chaucer's attack on the more conspicuous societal ills cannot be interpreted as sincere if there exists, at any level, an endorsement for ideologies that oppress the lower classes and destroy their ability to resist exploitation. We cannot read the CT as an honest criticism of 14th century English society without examining the entire picture - and this picture includes Chaucer's ideological contradiction. To better understand Chaucer's real message - criticizing the Three Estates system in order to encourage acceptance of his own Estate, the merchant or middle class - I will briefly discuss the Three Estates system and Chaucer's role in the system's shift to include a Fourth Estate (and how this shift influenced the CT). Then I will examine four stories from the CT (The Wife of Bath's Prologue, The Friar's Tale, The Summoner's Tale, and The Pardoner's Tale) in which Chaucer seems to denounce elements of the social paradigm. I will then examine four stories from the CT (The Knight's Tale, The Man of Law's Tale, The Second Nun's Tale, and The Parson's Tale) in which Chaucer contradicts his criticism of his society. Finally, I will discuss how the dominant social paradigm influenced Chaucer's view of the lower classes, and how the classist structure led to ideological contradictions within the CT. Before we discuss Chaucer's ideological contradictions, however, we must first examine the system he was attempting to change, the Three Estate system.

Although Chaucer's society was in the midst of dramatic transformation regarding traditional medieval hierarchy, the social paradigm in the late 1300s was still controlled by the Three Estate system. As David Aers states in his book, Chaucer, this system rigidly separated society into three levels: "those who worked to sustain the basic life processes of the community (the lowest estate), those who were said to defend (=police?) the community (the knightly estate), and those who prayed (the clerical estate, bringing the community and God together)" (14). Theoretically, the Three Estate system represented the natural order of society (not surprisingly, this societal structure mirrored the hierarchy espoused by the Catholic Church ) and was seen as absolute: "in it [the Three Estate system], all individuals should unquestioningly accept their inherited occupation and place" (Aers 14). Subjects were to view the Estates system as a communal safety net where, when working together, all elements of society benefited and prospered: "massive differences in power, access to resources, and status were allegedly in everyone's interest, the 'common profit'" (Aers 14). Regardless of the exploitative nature of the system, the lower classes were encouraged to see the Estates structure as a necessary strategy to avoid chaos and to ensure overall prosperity. However, Chaucer himself represents a paradox to this system. How does one categorize secular individuals who neither work "to sustain the basic life processes of the community (the lowest estate)," nor, "defend the community (the knightly estate)?" In the middle to late 1300s, a new social class was taking shape in Europe: the merchant class. And as the merchant class solidified, its power and influence grew. By the time Chaucer was writing his CT, the merchants (and other groups previously not included in the Three Estates system) were becoming an important and essential part of government and society. In Social Chaucer, Peter Strohm states that "it is not until the late 14th centuryЦthat we see the middle class or merchant class represented in a fourth estate: "prelates and ecclesiastics, kings and princes, merchants, and workers" (2). It was to this fourth estate that Chaucer belonged; and the CT can now be viewed as a treatise on his societyнs changing stratification. However, Chaucer is not attempting to change his society to benefit the lower classes so often exploited by the Three (or Four) Estates system; rather, Chaucer uses the CT to reflect on the need to change society so that a fourth estate (his middle class) may enter into the Estates system and become a recognized and working part of the paradigm. Strohm continues his argument, saying "G.K. Chesterton [found that]ЦнChaucer wasЦbourgeoisЦin the sense that he himself was born and bred of the burgesses.н This analysis must now be sharpened by the added recognition that Chaucerнs social grouping was not simply an uneasy amalgam of aristocratic and mercantile elements, but was itself a distinct segment of society with its own circumstances and commitments" (10). In fact, the rising middle class forced the whole of society to move from what Strohm describes as a "vertical" ordering to a "horizontal" ordering, where people dealt with one another on more equal terms rather than on the terms of tradition. So essentially, the middle class was pushing into the forefront of society (accomplishing more tasks and responsibilities in the government, but more importantly, making money) and society