Gone Medieval - Canterbury Tales: Pilgrims' Professions

Episode Date: July 11, 2025

Do you know what a Squire did? Was a Merchant as fancy as he sounds?Gone Medieval continues our week of pilgrimage as Matt Lewis is joined by Professor Robert Mayer Lee to explore the diverse jobs and social status' of the pilgrims in Geoffrey Chaucer's Canterbury Tales.They discuss how Chaucer's work reflects the fluidity and complexities of social mobility in 14th century England and the motivations and messages behind these timeless stories.More:Geoffrey Chaucer, Father of English Literaturehttps://open.spotify.com/episode/3TMGrNTfPS5wwOqspKNfK3How to Dress in the Middle Ages https://open.spotify.com/episode/7JOjrPdijf3VD2eT9iCrgSGone Medieval is presented by Matt Lewis. It was edited by Amy Haddow, the producer is Rob Weinberg. The senior producer is Anne-Marie Luff.All music used is courtesy of Epidemic Sounds.Gone Medieval is a History Hit podcast.Sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week and ad-free podcasts. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe. You can take part in our listener survey here: https://insights.historyhit.com/history-hit-podcast-always-on Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From long-loss Viking ships and kings buried in unexpected places to tales of murder, power, faith, and the lives of ordinary people across medieval Europe and beyond. Join me, Matt Lewis, Dr. Eleanor Jarniger, and some of the world's leading historians as we bring history's most fascinating stories to life, only on history hit. With your subscription, you'll unlock hundreds of hours of exclusive documentaries

with a brand-new release every week exploring everything from the ancient world, to World War II. Just visit historyhit.com forward slash subscribe. Hello, I'm Matt Lewis. Welcome to Gone Medieval from History Hit, the podcast that delves into the greatest millennium in human history. We've got the most intriguing mysteries, the gobsmacking details and latest groundbreaking research from the Vikings to the printing press, from kings to popes to the crusades. We cross centuries and continents to delve into aliens, plots and murders to find the stories big and small that tell us how we got here. Find out who we really were with Gone Medieval.

Welcome to this episode of Gone Medieval. I'm Matt Lewis. If you enjoyed Eleanor's last episode all about the wife of Bath, then you're in for a treat as we stick with Chaucer and his pilgrims. People's jobs in the medieval period can sometimes feel obscure, hard to pin down, and it can be difficult to be clear exactly what they did and where that place. them socially. So we're going to take a look at a few more of Chaucer's pilgrims to help us understand who they were and what they bring to the story. And I'm delighted to be joined by Professor Robert Mayer Lee, whose books include literary value and social identity in the Canterbury

Tales. Bobby is going to get us better acquainted with four of Chaucer's pilgrims. Welcome to Goan Medieval, Bobby. It's great to have you with us. I'm so happy to be here. I'm so happy and honored. Thank you. It's great to have you on and learn a little bit more about Chaucer. So hopefully listeners have caught our last episode, which was all about the wife of Bath. But I wonder if you could just give us a little bit of a reminder, what are the Canterbury Tales? What are the Canterbury Tales? Yes. So the Canterbury Tales, to translate them into the modern idiom, are essentially a link collection of short stories. What's distinctive about them is that each of those stories are told by the perspective of a particular described

person, a separate person, a separate narrator, who is, in each of those narrators, or most of those narrators are described in what's called the general prologue to the Canterbury Tales. So you have these little capsule descriptions of each pilgrim, and then you then encounter a tale told by that pilgrim, and then there's the deep desire then to link that tale to that teller in some fashion into making the sum of the whole. much greater than its parts. It is work that Chaucer was working on in the last decade of his life or so. It's unfinished. He started at probably the late 1380s, and at some point he died in 1400, and it's not clear exactly when he stopped working on it, but it is not quite whole as we have it, although it has a very clear beginning and a very clear end. And I just wondered if you could give us a sense as well of why you think it's such an important,

piece of literature. You know, it's often considered this monument of early English literature. Yeah. Yeah, that's a wonderful question. And obviously what we consider to be important pieces of literature are what we've been taught are important pieces of literature and gets passed on that way. But beyond that, it's, it is that idea that he had of having a group of pilgrims on a journey to Canterbury tell tales and then interact between the tales, this pretty sort of, simple fictional structure has just enormous creative power where you're wondering about the relationship of this tale to that tale and this pilgrim to that pilgrim of the relationship of tale to pilgrim. And you're also wondering about the whole relation to the whole journey to Canterbury

and what that means in terms of a pilgrimage. And then Chaucer by choosing to tell each story, often in a very distinctive way, choosing a completely different genre from the one before, like a saint's life or a fablius sort of a lewd comedy, it creates all sorts of residence from one part of the work to another part of the work that it ends up being very lively to read as a reader, but also as a sort of a work of art just enormously complex, even though it's actually very simple to describe what it is. So it's that combination of sort of a simple, a kind of simple form that produces such enormous complexity that I think makes it endlessly fascinating as a literary composition.

Yeah, it's wonderfully put. It's really interesting. So you mentioned in the preface there, there is a whole list of these pilgrims, and Chaucer gives us kind of, you know, 20 or so different professions that his pilgrims have. So I wondered if we could pick out a few of those to talk about in a little bit of detail. And maybe we'll go first for the merchant. So who and what is a medieval merchant? Who is the merchant that we meet in the Canterbury Tales? The merchant class is what we would probably call international wholesalers. So we're not talking about a guy selling stuff on the street, but we're talking about an importer and exporter. And it was very often in Chaucer's Day, the merchants, especially the merchants in London, one of their prime exports was wool.

England was, of course, the big wool producing medieval nation and exported a lot of wool. And the royal government made a lot of money on taxing that wool. And Chaucer, one of Chaucer's jobs, was to account for that tax on the wool. Chaucer was the son of a wine merchant who also probably dabbled in the wool trade too, and so was very familiar with this class. So these merchants, it was a high-risk business. They shipped products overseas and tried to sell much more than their costs, and they often made a lot of money.

And they were, the amount of capital that they were able to gain in just a short period of time made them one of the crowns, one of the government, favorite people to go out and go and ask for money. The crowd would often finance themselves by borrowing money from merchants because they had the ready cash on hand. And this is obviously there's the days before there are other ways to raise money from the royal governments. So Chaucer's merchant was one of these people. And we don't learn a whole lot about them. We don't learn a whole lot about any of the pilgrims really, except maybe the wife of bath. We learn more about it. But what's wonderful about the portrait of the merchant is

how over and over again Chaucer emphasizes how reserved and how much he's hiding. And there's a line in there about nobody knew that he was in debt. And how much Chaucer would have known this class, how much even today when you're making a business deal, right? You have to. You have to put on the good front and look like you're someone you can trust and look like someone that you're someone's prosperous. In just a few lines, he suggests this phenomenon of what we could understand

is a kind of a class-based or social-based persona that is created. There's a certain set of values that go into putting on a good front and keeping everything only revealing what you want to reveal in order to make a good business deal. I was going to ask next kind of where merchants would sit socially because I think there's a sense that they almost represent an emerging middle class in a society where the middle class doesn't really exist yet. But they're sort of, they're not nobility, but they're not peasants. They can be. incredibly wealthy, but like you say, they can be in debt and hide it well. And there's almost that element of a middle class today of keeping up with the Joneses, that kind of looking like

you're doing really well, even if you're not. Right. So going back to your first point is that, yeah, the middle class hardly existing right there is the massive underclass that are mostly agricultural workers. There's a very small nobility in the clerical class. But merchants were unusual, given the sort of middle strata, they were unusually wealthy. as you just said, some of them, obviously not all of them, but some of them, especially some London merchants, had much more cash on hand than a lot of the nobility would have had. For many of them, they managed to get a lot of political power based on this, so that the mayors of London were typically from the merchant class.

I think this idea that for the merchant, unlike a member of the nobility, who has a title that marks their social status, a merchant's social status was entirely how prosperous they were. And so, as you suggest, that sort of looks forward to that middle class, do better than the Joneses. I've got to have a nice lawn. I have to have a nice car. That sense that my class status is in what I can purchase, in my presumed purchasing power, as opposed to a title that makes that status sort of concrete and that you could pass on to your children and that kind of thing. So it does create, you do see this sort of proto, sort of bourgeois anxiety creeping into the portrait of the merchant in that way.

And often the tale he's told is understood that way. But as though, I was like, I argue with my book, there's a lot of complications when we try to start thinking about the relationship of teller and tale. Yeah. So what does the merchant's tale involve? What does he tell us? Interestingly, the merchant's tale is not about a merchant. It's about a knight. It's about a knight who is an old man who decides late in life to get married.

And he chooses a young woman to be his wife. and the woman is not very satisfied in this relationship. It's a tale that sort of follows the machinations of her and the knight's squire as they find a way to get together in the garden, in the knight's own garden, which is what happens at the end of the tale. It's actually, it's one of the tales that was often excised from collections because it was deemed offensive, and especially its end day. I like to think of it as a kind of great, wonderfully creative junk heap of everything,

Chaucer wanted to throw into one tail because it's got this comedic structure, but it also has all these philosophical discourses. It's got reflections on the marital bond. It's got an appearance of Jupiter Juno having a little squabble, just randomly thrown in this tale. It's got a moment in which January is the knight's name, and he has two advisors. He's deciding about whether to get married or not, and he has these two advisors, and one of the advisors refers to the wife of back. So he has this weird moment where the tale kind of goes outside of its own fictional frame and is talking about what seat is supposed to be real. So it's incredibly creative. It's a sort of tour to force of stitching together all sorts of disparate parts as a sort of Frankenstein's creature, but it all

works in the end. But it also has one of the things that one could say about it. It's hard to see what the moral worst of this tale would be. And it's often commented that. So that's one the thing is often related back to the merchant. Somehow he's telling this tale. It's also prefaced by this short little prologue. The tale was told right after the clerk's tale, which features a wife that is utterly obedient to her husband. In the short little prologue, the merchant complains about his wife

and how he wishes he hadn't got married. And it's only been like two months since he's been married. It's like already so awful. So the tale's often read as psychologically as his expression of, He sees himself as January as this night that is duped by this young wife. I myself think that's an incredibly simplistic way reading the tale, because the tale itself is much more complicated than a simple psychological reflection. And I also think that prologue is ironic, too.

But that's one of the, again, as I was talking about earlier, about how the little pieces of the Canterbury Cales all work together. They often have these little moments, these little prologues, these little prefaces where you hear from a pilgrim, or you hear an interaction of my pilgrims, and then you want to understand somehow that the tale in relationship to what's said before. And what do you think Chaucer is trying to tell us about merchants with the merchant's tail? Is the fact that it jumps and lurches all over the place and doesn't really have any thread to it?

Does that reflect what you were talking before about merchants? You know, they're often, it's all smoke and mirrors. They're hiding how much money they might owe or what they actually do or how rich they are. They're trying to run a show for the world. Is that part of what's going on here? I think so. I think I should back that up in a little bit and say, my personal theory is that Chaucer had written most, if not all of the merchant's tale before deciding it was the merchant who was going to tell that tale. And I've made this argument, but there's manuscript evidence that suggests that he generally was working in a very sort of opportunistic way.

And there's a suggestion that these particular sequence of tales in which the merchants appears was one of his last decisions. But even within that restriction, he still had this tail and he wanted to assign it to this portion. that he had written, having him think about what this tale was doing in terms of what it was hiding, in terms of its commodification of all value that happens in the course of the tale that he thought, yeah, that will go with the merchant. And I think part of the brilliance to me that the cabery tales is Chaucer can make the simple decisions and it just works so well. He's finding his own art, right? But he's putting together these pieces and he's, yeah, that goes together really well. Without necessarily have written every line with that in mind.

when he had it, but he was steep enough in this set of values that it's actually not hard to read many of the tales as commodifications of values. And I think this reflects Chaucer's own experience as both a son of a merchant and also working on the Woolworth as a kind of tax controller that he was, that he would have experienced that very strongly. The merchant's tail takes that idea of the commodification of value, and it applies it all sorts of different ways to spirituality, to marital ethics. And in so many more ways that exceeds, this narrow definition of what a merchant is, but it still works as a merchant's tail writ large in that sense.

Yeah. Yeah. It's an interesting idea that he found these stories or came up with these stories and then found a teller for them, rather than thinking, I need a story a merchant would tell. I don't think he had one method throughout the cabaret tales. I'm certainly with the wife of Bath, as you probably talked about there, is there was the sense that he had written one tale for her already and then said, oh, no, after he wrote the prologue, I need something else.

In that case, in the existing wife of Batts tale, that seems very clearly a tale that he decided to write for her with having her prolog in mind, maybe even whereas in other cases, it seems, especially with the merchant, with the Franklin, I think, with the squire, he was more opportunistic, right? He had tales. It's not clear exactly when he wrote what's called the general prolog, this whole set of portraits. It's not clear at what point in the process he wrote that. It seems, we know he wrote some of the carry tales before there were any category tales. at all. There were some poems that he had just lying around that he had written years before. And so he was drawing on work and he might have written like 10, 15 years before and was dropping it into this new context. As it's not clear, at some point, he thought, huh, I could write little portraits for all of these. And then it's all the pilgrims who put in there, he probably just added some pilgrims thinking he was someday going to write tales for them or have tales that

he had already written that he was going to attach to them. This is a guy that had a dayjots, right? And so he was not sitting around in his room just writing all day. I think he would have an hour here, half an hour there, a couple hours at night. He would look around what he had and he would be putting these pieces together, I think, again, in a sort of opportunistic creative process, one that he didn't end up finishing. A lot of people believe that his plans for how the tails were going to work and how they were going to organize, he kept revising them, too. There's some inconsistencies in what tellers say about that overall structure, too. He kept hitting on this idea, wow, this is really going to work, and he kept adding more pieces to it.

So, yeah, so when it comes to those pieces with the merchant and others that it does seem like he himself sat down and what does this teller and this tale have in common? And then what can I add in this little intervening interaction between pilgrims is going to bring that out? And so he would be almost in some ways in dialogue with his own creative process from before. Yeah, yeah. It's amazing to think of the Canterbury Tales as Chaucer's side hustle. And now here we are 600 years later still talking about it. Yeah, exactly, yeah. I wonder if we could talk next about the clerk. You kind of mentioned him a little bit earlier.

His tale comes just before the merchant. So what is a medieval clerk and what would his job description be? Yeah. So that word had a pretty broad range of meaning in Chaucer's Day. It met anything from somebody that was basically a priest to someone that was what we would think of as clerical work today. So I'm working in an office. It's sort of most important quality was someone that had some kind of official church sponsored training. whether that throws the university or some other sources. So Chaucer was actually later referred to as a clerk, even though he wasn't at all, as far as we know, he had no university degree, but he just seemed educated. And so used loosely as that person.

This particular clerk is a university student, is an Oxford student. And it's not clear whether he is what we'd now call postgraduate or where exactly he is in his studies. But academics love his portrait because it's a description, because it's like he's such a sort of live for the love of study, I think from a more, a different point of view, you would see something that would be like that graduate student that never can quite finish their degree. He also seems like someone that

isn't quite grown up in other words. The eternal student. Yes, the eternal student. There's a wonderful line in the portrait about he uses all the money that he gets from friends and family. He spends it all on books and books were really expensive and he has a whole bunch of them, this otherwise very poor student who's a very a tattered appearance. He seems a very, the classic likes, yeah, starving graduate student nonetheless has this really expensive array of books. Maybe you should be getting a job. In Chaucer's Day, most of the people that went to university did not actually graduate. Did not actually stay to get a degree because you could go for a couple of years and learn Latin and then get pretty good work in the sort of booming bureaucracy or working for a novel household or something

as a sort of intellectual laborer. Whereas getting all the way to getting the degree, then looking for a benefits, trying to be a parish priest or something. Those were actually scarce. Tossus Day. For various reasons, there was under the supply of people that one of them was much greater than this demand. This idea of being an eternal student had this more of this edge in that sense is that there really was. I mean, like I think that way back in the day, that university education wasn't as commodified as it is today, but it actually really was way back then as well. There was that sense of, aren't you supposed to be getting a job, then as now. This was before the nobility really started going to a university. That sort of happened

in the next centuries is where it's a more prestigious. stage thing to have a degree. It really was an opportunity for a sort of non-noble class, this middle strata, various tiers, to advance themselves in the world. Yeah, so are we talking about someone who would be socially sort of on a par with a merchant, or would have Clark considered themselves above or below a merchant? This is where it gets tricky socially, right? It was not unheard of for basically farmer's sons to go to university, right? In fact, it's quite often the case. And yet, once they get there, they have this sort of special status. That clerical class was, they were used polite terms to refer to them. And certainly if you advance and you become a priest, you are considered to be

a noteworthy important person, even if you are making quite a bit less amount of money. And even within the clerical class, there are such a huge range of, from the people at the top of the hierarchy, they could become very quite wealthy, to the sort of poor parish priests, some of whom were involved in the sort of rising of 1381. And so there was, within that class, there was a lot of stratification. So you can imagine that this group of Hilgirds at Chaucer, the merchant is this guy that's probably very wealthy, and this university student is probably not. And yet it's somehow they're not as far apart class-wise as that would, in terms of their actual social prestige and the status that they hold. Yeah, yeah. What is the Clark's tale? And do we have an idea what the message

behind it is, what is Chaucer trying to tell us with the Clark's tale? Yeah, the merchant's tale, as far as we know, it's a sort of conglomeration of different things that Chaucer's pulled together. What's striking about the clerk's tale is that it's, it's got a very definite source. Francis Petrarch's version of Baccio's version of this tale of Griselda. Baccio had this tale of Griselda, the incredibly obedient wife, that in the Cameron seems to be suggested that it's a kind of political allegory. This is like what happens when the people, when you have a tyrant, basically you have a tyrant, and you have the people that don't challenge the attira, the tyrant does these horrible things,

which the husband in the Clarksdale does these horrible things to Griselda. Petrarch then took Baccio's version, which was an Italian, and translated into Latin, and tried to turn it into a spiritual allegory. This is how basically reverses the message, we should all be obedient in this extreme way to God, this absolute ruler of the universe. Chaucer seems likely to at least have known of Bacaccio's versions. There's also a French version that intervened, and Chaucer had seemed to have all of these versions of this tale, which is, it's one of those tales that is intellectual puzzle or a interpretive puzzle. Like, how do we understand this husband is truly a monster, truly does

monstrous things to his wife that he chooses in the beginning? And the wife is completely obedient and allows all of this to happen, including allowing him to take her children away for her, as far as she knows, to kill them, to murder them, right? And which she isn't actually doing, but it does take them away for their whole childhood. And what are we supposed to make of this terrible story in some ways? What's the moral of it? I think what Chaucer saw, these competing versions, is that's really interesting. Is that question of a tale that seems to ask for a moral?

There's all sorts of competing ones. It's a problem of interpretation. And so what he does with it, this in some ways fits a clerk who's fond of these sort of logical puzzles or in these university exercises, these problems of interpretation that you would have with whatever a text or that becomes a kind of,

it's framed that way that we know it's, Chasbury's very upfront that this is the source because he has his unusually in the carry tales, he has the clerk say, oh, I got this tale from Petrart.

And so he actually inscribes that and then he talks about Petrarch, the great laureate poet, and is he going to tell this tale? But at the end, he provides Petrarch's moralization, but he also then provides other interpretations in this sort of interaction of pilgrims at the very end and leaves it very much

up in the air. The clerk just decides, you know what I'm going to do? I'm just going to take my guitar and I'm going to sing a song to the wife of bath. And he sings a song to the wife of bath about how women should not be like Griselda, but should be like she'd be really tough on their husbands, which is obviously meant to be ironic, but it's hard to know exactly where that irony ends. Yeah, and it's interesting to think of Chaucer writing this in the wake of something like the Peasants Revolt in 1381. You know, he's dealing with a group of people around him who have tried to stand up to authority or who have thought about it or who've done it for different reasons. And maybe he's just leaving those questions hanging in the air. You know, why did you do it?

Should you have done it? Was it the right thing to do? Was the outcome what you hoped for? Yeah. Oh, absolutely. I think those are very questions that, you know, again, it's hard to know exactly where Chaucer sympathies were in Lane. He had achieved enough of a class status and I think he would have been quite frightened by the peasants revolt in the one hand, especially because they came into the city quite literally underneath his apartment in Aldgate where he had a place in Aldgate and a government sponsored apartment basically for its job working on the Woolworths. But at the same time, he would have known, I think he would have known that the government wasn't good because he worked for them, right? He would have known their problems and the impressions that they involved and things like that.

So I think the Canterbury Tales shows them really interested in the question of political power. and political authority and how it can operate and what its limits and problems are. And he's reflecting on those questions in this indirect way. The Peasant Revolt only shows up in the camera tales in two very offensive sideways allusions to it and sort of comic moments. One of them is when the God saddered in the night's tales talking about his evil, malignant kind of influence over human affairs. And he says, mine is the hanging of the throat cut and all these other things. and also the Churl's revolting is one of the things that Saturday does, right? And it's in there. And another moment is in the beginning of the nun's priest's tale where the sort of chaos in the farmyard when the fox is chasing the rooster around is an allusion to the peasants revolt in that context too.

But I think more seriously he's thinking about these questions. In one instance, in that very transition between the knight's tail, the Miller's tail, right? Where you had that exactly those two classes coming into contact. And he has positioned this tale told by the knight in this very philosophical romance genre with Fablio, a comic tale told by a Miller coming right next to is a mockery of that preceding tale. So he's working out in terms of a generic sequence and a tale teller sequence that he's replaying that very conflict between the landowning class and the laboring class, which was that revolt. And so he transposes it to a different register in order to think about it. Yeah, and I think interesting that he's asking those questions without necessarily offering answers. You know, he's just leaving those hanging there for the reader to answer in their own way.

Take whatever from it they will. I wonder next if we could talk about the squire's tale. So again, could you tell us what a medieval squire is? Chaucer was a squire. So in Chaucer's Day, a squire was a relatively new innovation in terms of the class titles, class statuses. Of course, there had long been the role of the Knights Helper, and that's our traditional understanding. of the squire as the young man that then becomes a night later on. And that's what this squire seems to be in the Canterbury Tales. But it was also invented as a class status, as a place to

recognize a certain group of people that had separated themselves out through some means or whenever from the unmarch class, the untitled class. But you were not, for whatever reason, you did not make it into the nightly class, which costs, for one reason, is that cost money. You had to pay the crown to be that late class, and you may not want to pay that amount. In Chaucer's case, he was given the title because of his work for the government. It was like, okay, yeah, you now deserve to be called. And also people that were in the king's household often achieved that status of squire. And so it was an intermediate buffering layer between the sort of nobility and the rest of the commoners.

In this case, this squire is the son of the knight in the Canterbury Tales. and seems to be that traditional model of what we think of as a squire, as the knight's help or the knight's son that later on becomes a knight, which this squire would seem to be destined to do. You know, what then becomes interesting from an interpretive perspective, then, is to recognize that Chaucer would have had this squire portrayed like that, while he himself was a very different kind of squire. It would have that in mind as he's creating this in some ways,

a very stereotypical character. The contrast, the knight's portrait is about a guy that goes around and fights battles, fights in wars. And it lists all the wars that he's fought in, and many of them seems to have fought as a sort of mercenary, and many of these sort of wars that have a crusading element to it. He has fought all over the world. He's coming back on pilgrimage,

and it's sort of very tattered, rusty, Hobark. And then, whereas the squire is talked about as the guy that is a courtly loved guy, where he just makes poetry, and he's very dandy. So there's this contrast between the nobility, as what they were, which was basically the king's army, or is the military arm, and the nobility as the sort of cultural, spectacular display of their splendor that's portrayed through their class status and through cultural achievements.

The squire is the only pilgrim that's described as a poet. He's also, he writes La Poetry to. So there's been a desire upon some critics to see Chasseh writing an imagination of a youthful version of himself in the squire, although I think, well, the caveat was, the caveat with that is that Chaucer did serve in households in noble households as a young man. He would have served alongside of, it was very common for the ability to place their children, their sons, into noble households as young men early on to send them out and say, you'd be a page here, you'd go work there.

So Chaucer was placed in a noble household and would have been working alongside of somebody that was destined for a much higher class status than he was. And so I think that is important, again, to keep in mind as he's looking at the, this upper class with kind of like a half a foot inside of it, but mostly outside of it at the same time. Yeah. It's interesting. The three that we've talked about so far seem quite concerned with a degree of social mobility. They're professions that you can come from almost any background and you can really make a name for yourself, some money for yourself, make a good career. In some ways, the sequence of tales, these four tales that follow the clerk, merchant,

squire, the Franklin, are all that had that in common. And this is a sequence of tales that was, again, as I have argued, and as now, actually, the new Oxford Chaucer is represented this way. Finally, the new Oxford Chaucer that just came out, you know, that traditionally these were called, these spore tales were broken up into two fragments, but that was just a mistake made of the 19th century and that they really are this tightly leaked sequence of four, but it was a very late decision of Chaucer to put them together in this way. And the New Oxford Chaucer does represent them that way. But it is, as you point out, each of their own way, the clerk, the merchant, and then the squire who is in that relationship to squire and more generally has this possibility for mobility.

And then you have the Franklin, which is this very mysterious, it's always mysterious class status that is, which is, are they gentle or are they not gentle? They're landowners, but they don't have a title. And Chaucis Franklin is portrayed as particularly wealthy, a particularly wealthy one, who actually has achieved certain positions like an MP and Knight of the Shire, that were almost unheard of for someone of that class status to have achieved, what's striking is that Chaucer himself had those positions too. And so there's often seen to be a relationship between that class status of Franklin and Chaucer's own sort of social ambiguity. We're going to come to the Franklin in a second. I think it's really interesting that we're talking about social mobility again. We can fit this to the world that Chaucer is living in,

the post-black death, kind of that questions of social mobility. It's interesting that he, is perhaps being influenced by all of those things around it. But we should probably just deal with what the Squire's Tale is. So the Squire's tale is, I think we would call it a great piece of fantasy fiction today, if we wanted. It's set in this faraway place with Genghis Khan in the court of Genghis Khan, which is this spectacular court from a post-colonial perspective. One of the things that's interesting about this kale is that this sort of what alien faraway place that is actually contemporary with Chaucer's world, right, is portrayed. in mostly positive terms, this like incredibly accomplished court, where this night comes to visit, this night has a magical horse, a magical mechanical horse, and these other, these gifts that he gives

to Gagascan are all these sort of special magical devices. And then it segues dramatically in the middle and talks about one of the daughters who wakes up and goes and has this magical ring where she can hear what birds are saying. And this female bird complains about being rejected by her male partner, and then it just suddenly stops. So it doesn't exactly stop me. Chaucer, at the very end, the Squares, after this, I'm going to tell about all of these things, and he lists all this really incredibly law, all these plot points that would take us on this incredible journey, and then it just stops.

And then the Franklin says, oh, that was a good tale, and we move on. One of the things that Chaucer was definitely doing with the Canterbury Tales is he was trying his hand at this genre and that genre. I can write one of these. I can write a saint's life. I could translate this Latin treatise on this. I can write this philosophical romance. He's trying all these different things and then putting them together.

And here, this is what has been called a composite romance with their very complicated plot that moves across very characters of the faraway place and time. And there has been various explanations for why it stopped suddenly. One longstanding argument is the whole thing is meant to be a parody. It's making show the squire as a bad tale teller and how immature he is. So then going back to that way of reading the tales as the purpose of the tale to characterize the teller. This one's taken. I'm not sure he would quite go to quite so like to write an entire parody just to say this is a bad tale teller. Especially because it's as famously known, Spencer, Edmund Spencer loved the squire's tail and completed it.

And John Milton loved the squire's tail. There's a certain imaginative scope to it that is very attractive to it. But it does seem that for whatever reason, Chaucer's like, eh, I'm not going to write the rest of this, and decided dramatically to have this kind of, very, again, abrupt segue into the Franklin. But again, I think he signed it very late to the squire and had maybe written the whole thing ahead of just trying his hand at this kind of tale. And then decided, let's make sense the side of the squire. In the very least, it characterizes the squire as sort of class status as someone that would tell this kind of tale, this tale of a romance as a sort of reflection

of the cultural capital of the noble class, where that genre, honor of tale was what a squire should be able to tell, of what they should be expert, and it was a way for them performing their class status, which coming in the wake of the merchant's tale, where you have a sort of morally and ethically corrosive tale, you had this sort of springtime burst of, here's a happy sort of romance that is, it seems to put aside all of this sort of very complicated and learned, a very corrosive tale. The merchant just told, followed by this sort of happy springtime fantasy romance, but it's the same way. It could be the Squire saying, yeah, you're a merchant and I'm Squire, and I can do this because I had this class status and I can perform a tail like this as a part of my class status and not have to hide things, the kinds of things you're doing, even though he's also ultimately, it's still a kind of commodification of values, but just done in a dipper key. We need to get on to the last one of these four, which is the Franklin, which if the other professions have sounded pretty familiar to people, Franklin might be a word that is a little bit alien. What on earth is a Franklin? What is it? And that question still remains to be answered. Historians have been asking that question for a long time.

From the research that I've done and looking to the historians work on this, it wasn't used consistently in Chaucer's own day. But it seems to be the label given to somebody that was a landowner, a free landowner, but did not have a title. And it was the question, what's debated is whether they were considered in the gentle class or not and to what degree would they have been perceived as being belonging to that class? And I think probably the best answer to that was a dependent. That if you lived in a little village and there was a Franklin and everybody else was working the fields,

then they seemed to be part of the noble class. But if you lived in a town of any size and there were merchants and there were people with titles, then they probably didn't. They probably seemed like commenters. I think it was probably relative to their circumstances. So Chaucas Franklin is very interesting because he seems to perform his place in the gentle class extravagantly. He holds huge dinners.

He has such a great host. He's a very generous man. And he tells a story that is a story in some ways about what constitutes generosity. Following the squire's tale, there's this moment where he is very paternal to the squire. Oh, you did so well, Squire. And the host, who is an innkeeper, who is a. He's also in this middle strata. He's certainly not, he's lower on the sort of totem pole of the middle strata. He has no patience for this at all. He's shut up, Franklin, basically. Just stop talking. He seems to understand the Franklin as has positioning himself in the same class as the squire, and he is irritated by that. Because the Franklin actually talks about gentilesa, this quality of the quality of the gentle class in relationship to the squire and the host. This is like straw for your gentleness.

Just shut up, but you don't even talk about that. Again, it's seeming like he wants to draw the line between the squire. He's very deferential to the squire. He's very deferential to the knight. He wants to draw the line. He doesn't want to include the Franklin in that class. And then the Franklin did again. He goes on to tell this tale about a knight, about a squire, about a clerk.

He includes all these class statuses and the sort of chain of generosity among them. At the center of this tale is the knight's wife, Dorrigan, who is, abused female objects throughout this sort of chain of generosity that happens among men, which many people have pointed out about this tale. The tale ends with a sort of harmonious picture of these different people in different classes relating across the thing, but again, it depends upon the subjection of the female object in that tale. Who actually has the center stage through most of the tale.

Yeah. Yeah. There are really interesting fore to think about the way that society is changing during Chaucer's time, you know, the questions are there of how you achieve social status. Can it change? Who can move where? Who sits where it's really unclear? It's a bit muddy. And, you know, someone like the innkeeper is looking in and saying, I'm putting the line here, but maybe not everybody would. Chaucer is kind of asking those questions of how society is changing all around him, I guess, at the end of the 14th century. Yeah, I think Chaucer himself, as a son of a merchant, and then

found his way into the sort of bottom layer of the gentle class through his work for the government, but he was still working, is that he was well positioned to see this middle strata and the kind of pressures around it and its fluidity within it, even though it was going back to what you were talking about the black death. Before the black death, there was this, the society was less mobile. It was locked into this sort of system of oppression. But the black death opened that up simply through the labor shortage, the immense labor shortage, that suddenly enabled that most oppressed layer to give them basically some economic power and economic agency that then was tried to stamp out through various means, like the statute of laborers that followed.

But Sucha would have then had a way of seeing the local for him, which was this sort of his own sort of middle strata experience and mapping that onto his society as a whole and seeing its moving parts, seeing how London merchants actually had more wealth than this regional barren somewhere else, or even at Chaucer's day, it was very, is very common for members of the ability to start getting into the wool trade, because that's where all the money was. And whereas some of the merchant class were basically buying titles. This big interchange, this interrelationship between and the blurring of the lines that had existed for so long. And it's interesting, I think, that that's Chaucer at the very beginning of this process that will obsess, particularly

people in Britain for centuries to follow. It hasn't necessarily ended now, but you think about 19th century society, it's still utterly obsessed with where you are precisely, which notch of that ladder are you on? Are you just above this person or just below them? Can you creep above them? Those are still things that are current today, I guess. Yeah, yeah. And I think this is one of the, going back here, almost the beginning of our conversation, this is one of the things that makes the Kennedy retail still interesting, is that Chaucer found this topic of basically social mobility, he was struck by it, and he found that something he wanted, he incorporated that into the formal structure of the kindergarten tales itself in a way that then makes it, he's not

just sitting on a podium and saying, he's talking about class test, but he's built into the relations among the pilgrims of the tales they tell and their interactions and the genres they choose to tell their tales in and all these indirect ways that it shows up at a purely literary level. It's almost a literary allegory for the class mobility that's actually happening. And it was lucky in some ways that what he stumbled upon was he had seen these collections of short narratives were produced by Bacaccio and other than Bacchacchus de Cameron. But all the tellers of Bacchatius de Cameron are all of the same class, they're all upper class Italian gentility. And then he'd see this other genre of state satire, which goes down through the various social identities and mocks each one and tells them how each identity from Emperor through Pope and all the way to the bottom are corrupted some way. And his friend, John Goward, written a couple of these.

He was familiar with both of these. What he did is he put them together and broke both of them at the same time and invented something new through this idea, what if I take estate satire? And I basically, I take out the part where you judge each estate. And I'm just interested in describing them. I put that together. And I have them tell stories that reflect interactions among these estates. And rather than just the static, this is what a Miller will say. and this was right, that would reflect more directly, simply their class status.

I think, as we were saying, that it's that his positioning and his sense that social mobility was an interesting topic is what he intuitively then put into this, sort of the driving thing behind this really innovation of taking these two existing kind of literary forms and running them together in this way. Yeah, yeah. I mean, there is a real danger that I could do this all day with you, Bobby. This is absolutely fascinating, but I'm just conscious. we're probably up against the clock a little bit now. I just want before we go then, two quick questions. Who's your favorite pilgrim? Oh, my favorite pilgrim?

Oh, that's a good question. I don't know. I really like the partner. I have to say, the partner. The partner is the most self-admittedly corrupt. He's both a sort of brilliant ironist and he's a tragedy. And he knows he's a tragedy. And I find him to be, yeah, just enormously,

interesting in terms of that what we just been talking about, that relationship between one's position in society and everything. But also just in his way that, yeah, the different, the way that he manipulates irony. Least favorite pilgrim. Yeah, yeah. My least favorite pilgrim, oh, I have to say the Mancipal. The Mancipal is just mean. He just is a mean guy. And he tells a sort of mean story. Actually, the Reeve is actually even worse. I love it. And the Mancable and Reaver both up there. The Reve is also just tells a terrible story about rape. It's just in the Mancable story. But the Mancable, a cook towards the end of the caliber tails, the cook is so drunk that he falls off his horse. And the Mancable just makes pot of him out of him. Have another

drink. Give him more. It's like the, you imagine like the worst thing you do with someone that's obviously an alcoholic is give them more, right? And this is what the Mansible and makes a joke out of it. The Mancable and the Reef are both the probably the most profoundly awful human beings. Which makes you wonder what Chaucer thought of Mancables and Reeves, I guess, but yeah. This has been absolutely fascinating, Bobby. Like I say, I feel like I could have done this all day, but thank you so much for joining us and getting us a bit more under the skin of the Canterbury Tales. It's been really, really interesting. I hope you enjoyed this episode. Bobby's book, Literary Value and Social Identity in the Canterbury Tales is out now if you'd like an even deeper dive.

You can catch Eleanor's last episode on The Wife of Bath if you missed that too. and there's another episode in our back catalogue on Chaucer as the father of English literature with Marion Turner. There are new instalments of Gone Medieval every Tuesday and Friday, so please come back and join Eleanor and I for more from the greatest millennium in human history. Don't forget to also subscribe or follow us on Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts and tell all of your friends and family that you've gone medieval. You can sign up to History Hit to access hundreds of hours of original documentaries with a new release every week and all of History Hits.

podcasts ad-free. Head to historyhit.com forward slash subscribe right now. Anyway, I'd better let you go. I've been Matt Lewis and we've just gone medieval with history hit.