Based on several Chaucer scholars' analyzes of the Knight's description in the General Prologue, it appears that not two distinct schools of thought on the controversial figure, but rather two "poles", with a significant number of scholars camped in the gray zone in between. Chaucer clearly intended for his knight to harbor a definitive personality beneath the “tarnished habergeon” – and not a word is lost in his detailed description. No doubt the master of ambiguity intended to give his character questionable characteristics; Unfortunately, 600 years of separation from the original context has made Chaucer's social commentary far more complex and controversial than he could have hoped. Today's researchers are lost in a sea of ​​historical accounts, opinions and controversies. For each "crusade" in which the Knight is said to have participated, there are multiple reports of the events that took place; the survivors' different attitudes created three unstable English classes in their country. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay. Not only do the knight's reported conquests contribute to his questionable character, but so does his manner of dressing. Chivalry, love, war, religion – in fact all courtly ideals – were undergoing significant reconstruction at this time. The description of the knight's sloppy outfit was far from disposable filler: given the medieval literary affinity for linking appearance to personality (the Pardoner, Prioress, and Wife of Bath come in particular to mind), Chaucer certainly intended his readers to take note of his hero's shabby clothing. The question then arises: how did contemporary readers interpret his description, and were there then the same bipolar schools of thought on the subject as today? With the growing bourgeoisie, the growing expenses of chivalry, the upheaval of unruly peasants, the mounting losses of the Hundred Years' War, and the economic costs of the Crusades, it was a time when it would have been almost difficult to decipher the mentality of the people. impossible even for a contemporary and worldly expert like Chaucer himself. Indeed, for such a changing period, it is extremely difficult, with hindsight, to say with certainty which beliefs expressed the “majority”. The two most extreme schools of thought on the identity of the Knight are led by Derek S. Brewer and Terry Jones. Both tend to focus on two main elements of the knight: where he traveled (and what exactly he was doing there) and what he wears on the pilgrimage. Brewer sides with the romantics of William Blake and Lord Byron: he views the knight in a very chimerical and idealized light, believing that Chaucer wanted him to be the chivalrous example of what all nobility should be. Brewer believes that the knight is a virtuous crusader, much like Peter of Cyprus described by Guillaume de Machaut in The Capture of Alexandria: “a true hero in a world of action” (Brewer 81). He attributes the knight's shabby dress to Chaucer's lack of sentimentality and nostalgia for the true battle-worn hero, and argues that Chaucer gives the same realistic treatment to other "idealized" characters such as the pastor, the plowman and the clerk (Brewer 81). ). It focuses primarily on the knight's travels and analyzes each of the battles listed by Chaucer, concluding that the knight fought in each of them as a true Christian crusader.Specifically, he argues that Chaucer's remarkably long "poetic list" of places is primarily intended to demonstrate the knight's bravery (Brewer 84). Unlike Jones, he does not claim that certain places were nothing more than bloodbaths of conquest; rather, he argues that the motivations of many knights were mixed and that it is not possible to generalize the events with precision (Brewer 87). He argues, however, that the Knight stayed out of the wars in France because they were not battles over Christian ideals; the knight's abstention therefore only adds to his idealistic nobility (Brewer 87). Thus, he theorizes that Chaucer wanted his knight to be an example that courtly ideals were possible even as late as the 1390s: "not a mercenary, but a versatile volunteer wherever help was needed" (Brewer 82). In fact, Brewer directly rejects Jones's arguments, claiming that Jones attempted to project his own modern Western beliefs onto a medieval writer—a claim, in my opinion, that is not entirely without merit (Brewer 82-84). In the same camp as Brewer, Thomas J. Hatton also believes that the knight is an idealized crusader whose greatest virtues - dignity and wisdom - are exemplified by his actions, and that "the case for irony in this portrait have never been impressive” (Hatton 77). ). His argument focuses largely on the concept of dignity: a concept that is, curiously, central to both sides of the debate. Hatton argues that the 14th century definition of "worthy" includes not only bravery, but also "skill, ability, and experience in war", and that Chaucer's excessive use of the word is intended to emphasize these attributes, rather than appealing to humanity. the reader’s sense of irony (Hatton 78). He writes that the knight is dignified and courageous, possesses verifiable skills on the battlefield, and acts in a manner consistent with courteous and chivalrous ideals. Furthermore, Hatton believes that the phrase "Though he is worthy, he is also wise" has simply been over-analyzed and is only intended to mean that the Knight is courageous and prudent (Hatton 79) - not that the terms are normally mutually exclusive. According to Hatton, Chaucer's Knight is the model of the 1390s proposed by Philippe de Mzires and the Order of the Passion of Jesus Christ, serving his lord and fighting pagans in foreign lands (Hatton 87). Hatton notes that the Knight never fought other Christians; his service is therefore strictly of a noble and pious nature. Instead, he fought in three types of crusades: against the Moors in Spain, against the Saracens, and against the Pagans of Eastern Europe: all for Christian ideals and all in the name of Christianity sanctified by the Pope (Hatton 80-82). His “wisdom” lies in his ability to distinguish the causes of battles, again justifying his abstention from campaigns in France (Hatton 87). Jones' school of thought is much darker and at the other extreme. He closely examines the knight's uniform and travels and concludes that both support his view of the knight's identity. He believes that the knight is far from a courtly ideal, but rather a bloodthirsty fighter who took part in the most gruesome and anti-Christian battles across Europe, probably as a mercenary. Jones argues that the excessive use of the word "worthy" is meant to be ironic and to contrast with the true nature of his campaigns; the technique of "apparent praise before proceeding to reveal [the character's] true nature" is frequently used by Chaucer, and the portrait of theknight is no exception (Jones 31). “Worthy,” he asserts, is not used in the general prologue to indicate that the knight deserves to be honored. He is courageous and certainly demonstrates "skill, ability and experience in combat", but these are not necessarily attributes worth praising, and Jones thinks Chaucer is using the term in an ironic way ( Jones 32). Additionally, the term “worthy” is also defined as “of high social status,” which Jones says Chaucer knew could have been purchased with the spoils of an ignorant mercenary (Jones 32). He compares the knight to "Sir" John Hawkwood (there is no record of his knighthood), the leader of the feared White Company of Mercenaries, whom Chaucer would have known intimately and despised, as he was sent as an agent liaison to negotiate with Hawkwood. inMilan (Jones 30). Jones details each battle in painstaking detail - even those scholars who oppose his views do not categorically object to his historical accounts - and states that even when Chaucer was writing the Canterbury Tales, the English had very mixed feelings about the purpose of the crusades. In fact, many people were adamantly opposed to these bloody massacres. Thomas Aquinas firmly believed that the Crusades were only meant to be defensive, and Roger Bacon considered them a “cruel and unnecessary waste of time” (Jones 35). Many were increasingly disenchanted with the ongoing bloodshed because the Crusades had raged for so long. Others felt that more attention should be paid to the wars in France, as there was a distinct shortage of knights, due to the cost of maintaining horses and armor (Jones 4-29). Still others recognized the immediate negative economic impact of the overseas skirmishes, particularly after the violent and bloody capture of Alexandria which led the mercenaries to leave the city less than a week after the raid, and the prices of spices to rise due to ports being burned (Jones 42- 49). Jones also states that not only does the knight never serve his lord in England, where the calvary was absolutely necessary to fight the French, but he also fights the Christians, since Russia (Ruce) had been populated by Greek Orthodox for longer . more than four centuries (Jones 56). Russia is not a place frequently associated with the Crusades, but rather a place associated with mercenaries looking for a poorly defended country to easily pillage (Jones 58). The phrase "No man Cristen as often of his degree", according to this theory, is clearly ironic – indeed, no truly Christian knight would raze an already Christian nation, and in fact the knight could have fought on behalf of the Tartars Mongols. Although this notion may seem extremely far-fetched, it is in fact documented that this occurred with some English mercenaries (Jones 56-60). It is possible, however, that because the Russians were Greek Orthodox, some of Chaucer's contemporaries may have considered the Russians heretics, thus justifying a crusade. This view, however, would have been controversial even at the time, and Chaucer certainly would not have included country without being fully aware of its ambiguous implications, nor would he have simply used country because he rhymed cleverly with “Pruce” (Jones 59). Additionally, if the fighting in Russia wasn't implied enough, Jones argues that Chaucer blatantly explains that the knight fought for non-Christian causes, citing his battles in service of Palatia, a country populated by pagan Turks – although tolerant of Christians. : “yet another hethen in Turkye” (Jones 87). Jones then analyzes the ratty clothesof the knight, declaring that it would have been very despicable to keep his armor in such poor condition. Additionally, the fact that the knight's habergeon was stained by his petticoat indicates that he wore his chain mail directly over his padding, rather than over his plate armor, indicating that he rode as a light Calvary without coat of arms (Jones 131). -132). There is no mention of a helmet, coat of arms, metal plates, shield, belt, or spurs (Jones 126). In fact, in the knight's own account, all of the chivalric equipment he lacks is described as belonging to the noble Theseus, who rides on a golden chariot, trapped in steel, with white horses (Jones 127). This lack of armor, Jones writes, was characteristic of mercenaries because without a coat of arms they enjoyed complete anonymity on the battlefield, allowing them to fight for many different lords, leave the battle or even leave. change sides during combat (Jones 131). -133). He argues that the knight's description would have been instantly recognizable to any Englishman and would likely have aroused fear, as men like these were known to terrorize parts of the country, and such a lack of equipment was "the very mark of the new race. of professional soldier" (Jones 134). The majority of Chaucer scholars today do not fall into one extreme or the other. Whereas the ancient perspective on Chaucer was more Blakean – i.e. that the Knight was considered "perfect" – today, most (with the exception of GA Lester who supports Jones primarily on his sartorial arguments) tend to lean towards Brewer's theory. However, modern scholars do not. neither fully convinced of its idyllic nature, nor fully subscribe to the idea that the knight was the only truly pious pilgrim on the journey. Although Lester claims that there is strong evidence to suggest that the knight was indeed a mercenary, many still believe otherwise Lester cites the widely read medieval military manual "De Re Militari" by Flavius ​​Vegetius Renatus, a manual he claims Chaucer must have read, because it was considered "the bible of war throughout the Middle Ages – the soldier's equivalent of the Rule of Saint Benedict” (Lester 25-28). This Italian coin clearly shows that poor maintenance of armor by noble knights was absolutely not tolerated (Lester 25-29). On the other hand, John Pratt questions Jones's view of the concept of the noble. Pratt questions Chaucer's knowledge of the Crusades, claiming that some campaigns simply cannot be precisely dated, and that one cannot even be certain that Chaucer had a full understanding of what constituted a "crusade" ( Pratt 9). He argues that the datable campaigns in which the Knight participated were all legally crusades because in all cases the Church or Christians were threatened; however, the feelings of Chaucer's contemporaries were probably mixed (Pratt 16). Chaucer did not include these battles unintentionally, nor to make the Knight appear as a monster, but rather to portray the Knight as a complex character, and not as the flat, idealistic projection that modern romantics attempt to project onto him (Pratt 10-11). Pratt argues that while some of Jones' historical accounts are entirely accurate, others are open to debate; in particular, he argues that "Ruce" might actually be the name of a pagan city, rather than a reference to the Russian nation as a whole (Pratt 11, 13). Whatever Pratt's opinion of the Knight's campaigns, he agrees that the Knight was probably paidfor his services: all men in service received monetary compensation (Pratt 20). Overall, this creates a much more complex character in that the knight is clearly not idyllic, but nevertheless largely adheres to the chivalric code and is quite pious. Pratt's argument for the legality of these campaigns rests on his belief that the knight never fought against Christians and was therefore not a mercenary, although he received payment for his services ( Pratt 17). Furthermore, Pratt argues that Chaucer portrayed the Knight sympathetically and that by expecting criticism of him from his readers (as Jones believes), he created a complex character to whom other nobles and even the bourgeoisie could identify. Emerson Brown, Laura Hodges, and Maurice Keen also tend to lean more toward Brewer's theory. Maurice Keen's thesis is classic: he maintains that there were strong positive feelings in favor of continuing the crusades. Therefore, the Knight is a Chaucerian hero with chivalric characteristics. His argument is insufficient, however, because it fails to investigate the actual crusades in which the knight participated. Instead, he takes Chaucer's praise literally (Keen 45). He argues that many English knights participated in many of the recorded crusades, but none participated in all of them, like Chaucer's, making Chaucer's knight the clearest example of a "gentle knight varay parfit » (Keen 46-47). Keen compares the knight to the plowman and the shepherd, individuals who set an example of life that too few people follow (Keen 47). Brown and Hodges are less convinced of his chivalry. Brown also quotes Guillaume de Machaut, stating that the Alexandrian crusade was "the most shameful", and that the frequent use of the word "worthy" loses its positive meaning at the end of the prologue (Brown 184, 187-188). Chaucer instead wanted his reader to see the Knight as a rather noble and pious knight, but not an ideal one, as the estate satire is "quite simple-minded in its assumptions about ideals and its inability to live up to them" (Brown 192). Similarly, Hodges believes that the Knight was meant to be a positive character, but more realistic than a two-dimensional idea. His thesis focuses on the knight's armor, stating that this unkempt outfit would have been poorly maintained, but would also have been much more believable and expected of an old, fighting-worthy knight - one who lives a "life active” (Hodges 279). Indeed, only truly wealthy knights could have afforded shining armor, not real fighters (Hodges, 276). Even the mighty Templars were known for their dusty clothes and clothing. unkempt hair (Hodges 277). She argues that Chaucer wanted his readers to see the knight as noble, pious, and chivalrous, but also as worldly and realistic. The latter school of thought rests almost entirely – and deliberately – in the middle. Charles Mitchell appears to be fairly neutral on the identity of the Knight, arguing that Chaucer consciously chose battles that elicited mixed feelings from the English because he wanted them to see the Knight as such a complex man that they could identify with his strengths and weaknesses, rather than praising or condemning him for his unambiguous positive or negative attributes. Chaucer clearly omits the use of the word “virtuous” to describe the knight. Rather, he attributes this quality to the priest and the brother: the first truly and the second ironically (Mitchell 66). He argues that these men are clearly at odds with each other, and that Chaucer's language does notleaves no ambiguity about their respective natures, but instead chooses to describe the Knight using negative space; that is, he describes the knight in terms of attributes that he refuses to reveal to the reader. Instead of “virtuous,” Chaucer calls the Knight “courteous” and “worthy” (Mitchell 67). Romantics would say that "courtesy" simply means that the Knight adheres to the practices of true chivalry, while the Jones camp maintains that the Knight adheres to the practices of true chivalry. This term means that the knight adheres to the military code - in other words, he does not use racial slurs or foul language, as these were punishable by death (Mitchell 67; Jones 33-34 ). “Worthy,” as we have already seen, has multiple meanings, but Mitchell believes that it was not an accidental term used by Chaucer, and would have been just as vague in his time (Mitchell 67-68 ). The fact that The Knight sparked such debate is an indicator that Chaucer does not want the reader to pin him to one pole or another (Mitchell 66). According to him, this was Chaucer's intention: to create an extremely complex and realistic figure that readers could judge as they wished. Although Mitchell is often confused with Jones in his analysis of the Knight, his views seem unique in that he does not actually agree with one side or the other - he simply maintains that the Knight is too complex to be the ideal, or a simple insensitive warrior. From the aforementioned theses, it is clear that the knight is in fact a very complex character. The mere fact that his description sparks so much debate today is an indicator that Chaucer probably did not intend for his knight to be a two-dimensional man, whether an ideal or a mercenary. Personally, I tend to agree with Jones' assertion that the knight was in fact a professional soldier. I believe, however, that Jones attempted to project his own pacifist views onto Chaucer, which I believe is neither justified nor accurate. Most scholars, whether they agree with Jones's thesis or not, seem to agree that he did his homework and that his accounts of each crusade are well-researched and probably accurate; However, in all cases where there was conflicting views among Chaucer's contemporaries, Jones chose to err on the side of disagreement with the crusade in question. Some of these cases, I believe, are justified. For example, it seems clear to me that, in retrospect, many of Chaucer's contemporaries believed that the conquest of Alexandria had been brutal and unjustified, or, at the very least, that it had gone terribly wrong. Chaucer was involved in accounting, so you can bet he at least took note of the skyrocketing prices of spices; not to mention that the massive losses among Christian civilians, particularly women and children, left an uneasy feeling in the stomach of the English once the details of the campaign were revealed. Furthermore, in the weeks that followed, after a large number of mercenaries fled, they could no longer maintain control of the city. Guillaume de Machaut's account was known to many and respected by Chaucer (Jones 46), so this seems to me sufficient evidence that at least one campaign was not entirely - at least in Chaucer's opinion - in favor of the Christian cause. We do not, however, think that Jones's view of Russia is a fair projection onto Chaucer. I certainly don't subscribe to the conspiracy theory that the Knight fought on behalf of the Tartars. Although Chaucer may have known that some English knights were doing just that, I don't think Chaucer would havenot assumed that its entire audience would have the same knowledge. Historically, campaigns have taken place in Russia: under the generation of Henry III, Russia was declared a pagan country because it was Greek Orthodox and not Roman Catholic. There was, however, no major campaign against Russia in Chaucer's time. After Pope Innocent IV's missionaries to Russia were massacred by the Mongol Tartars, very few Englishmen wanted to set foot in that region, and the Bishop of Winchester even declared that the Tartars and Russians would destroy each other " like dogs” if the English were content to stay at a distance. Therefore, I believe that Chaucer chose Russia as the location of the Knight's campaign in order to illustrate the complexities of his character. In other words, Chaucer knew that Russia would be a point of contention among his readers. I believe that with regard to the Knights' battles in Türkiye, the expression "another pagan" was not accidental. I believe Chaucer wanted us to see that the Knight chose to fight for at least one cause solely because of the potential spoils, not because he was a noble Christian. In fact, it seems to me that Chaucer explicitly states that the Knight fought for both Christian and pagan causes: "As well in Christendom as in Hethenessia" (line 49). I tend to agree with Jones that Chaucer sets up the Knight much like other non-polar characters. Chaucer often feigns ignorance during many of his descriptions, pretending to take the various characters' attributes literally. He does this with the Prioress, for example, whom the narrator describes as delicate, courteous, caring for small animals and a lover of Love - even though Chaucer cleverly implies that her courtly and delicate manners are unbecoming of a nun, her his concern is misplaced and his love is misdirected. With the Knight, he employs similar mechanics, albeit in a much more subtle way. Chaucer's contemporaries would have considered the Prioress a fool and a maiden, and only the most superficial of nobles would have considered her behavior appropriate. The Knight, however, is more obscure. First of all, the concept of chivalry in the 14th century was simply falling apart. The cost of knighthood was such that many young men did not want to become one due to the financial burden of maintaining regulation armor and a horse, not to mention the fact that there was a war going on in France and crusade campaigns abroad, which invariably meant death for some. Second, many mercenaries were ravaging the countryside and fighting for and against the English, so public opinion about these soldiers could not be uniform. Third, modern readers have to wade through 600 years of history to understand what the Knight is, and unfortunately the Romantic period gave modern readers an unrealistic view of what this class actually was. Today we don't have a "romantic" view of nuns, so we can clearly see that the Prioress was an inappropriate example of her class. However, most readers do not have a clear historical view of the Crusades, and our collective view of knights is horribly distorted by Byronesque poems about shining armor and court favors. So when Chaucer first calls the knight "worthy", I believe he is tricking the reader into believing that this is a true and noble knight. From a poetic standpoint, his second use of the word in line 47 is simply too early to be melodic. If you read these 25 (1964): 66-75.