Knighthood Chivalry: Spenser and Chaucer - Book Report/Review Example

Knighthood Chivalry: Spenser and Chaucer YOUR FULL THE OF YOUR OR SCHOOL Knighthood Chivalry: Spenser and Chaucer From the dawn of civilization, men have sought out the virtuous qualities of humanity and sought to describe them for the purposes of modeling good and acceptable behavior. Whether philosophic, religious, or literary in both prose and poetry, those admirable traits found in people have been advanced by the spokesmen of culture. In the medieval period, the idea of virtue found a formal codification in the expression of a set of specific deeds known as chivalry. In the work of Professor H.W.C. Davis (as cited in Prestage, 1928), the definition of chivalry is "that peculiar and often fantastic code of etiquette and morals which was grafted upon feudalism in the eleventh and succeeding centuries" (Prestage, 1928, p. 2) Within this seemingly objective description, however, there are many subjective impressions brought by the various authors themselves. Particularly, in contrasting the idea of chivalry between Chaucer and Spenser, the very natures of the men cause the simple definition to take on a much more complex expression. Chaucer approached the code of virtuous conduct from a practical perspective where Spenser's view tended to be more obscure. To Chaucer, "chivalry was a religion, and, in matter of chivalrous sentiment, he is a pronounced moralist" (Schofiled, 1912, p. 37). It was within the rules of conduct prescribed for the nobility that Chaucer found his meaning, and his interpretation of knightly conduct was a function of behavior. Spenser, on the other hand, "did not agree with those who 'had rather have good discipline delivered by way of precepts or sermoned at large;' he believed that 'much more profitable and gracious is doctrine by ensample than by rule," which caused him to "portray the image of a brave knight in a work of art." (Schofield, 1912, p. 144) Hence, were Chaucer might express chivalry as a behavior, Spenser would see its best representation as an image. As discussed further in this paper, it is this disparity in perception that fuels the conflicting expressions of the authors regarding the same ideal. Chaucer's Chivalrous Knight In the Knight's Tale portion of his Canterbury Tales, Chaucer finds the opportunity to articulate his view of chivalry. He forms his description of the knight as a "worthy man, that "fro the tyme that he first bigan to riden out, he loved chivalrie, trouthe and honour, fredom and curteisie" (Chaucer, 1974, p. 3). From viewing these words alone, much less the greater body of his work, we can see the formulative standard Chaucer will apply. The knight loves chivalry, and beyond solely the image of the ideal, e.g., contrast Spenser, he explains to us what this means in terms of conduct; truth, honor, freedom, and courtesy. Further reading of the Knight's Tale confirms Chaucer's view of morality in general and chivalry in particular. He maintains a keen focus on behavior and the codes that define it. Gillian Rudd articulates this very well by observing that there are "[s]everal distinct codes which govern life [and] jostle each other...[including] courtly conduct...[which] allow the Tale to be read as an exploration of what governs our actions" (Rudd, 2001, p. 112). Chivalry is a worthy ideal, and should be explored as a moral concept. Its truth, however, is only fully realized within the context of actions. For Geoffrey Chaucer, it is not enough for the knight to be "a man of great physical courage and brilliant achievement in war," he must also be "the embodiment of very high spiritual excellence" (Schofield, 1912, p. 35). To a moralist, the ideal is important but the behavior is paramount. Under this analysis, Chaucer's pragmatism shines through clearly. Chivalry is an honorable and worthy thing because the application of its principles results in conduct that is proper. Its ability to govern-that chivalry's adherents behave themselves-is the important thing. For Spenser, the image or ideal of chivalry carries much more import than the codification of behavior. Spenser's Chivalrous Knight In The Faerie Queen, Spenser frames his hero in terms of chivalry, but his description is evocative of the more esoteric ideal than the definition of its parameters. Spenser does not deal here with specific behaviors to describe his hero; he addresses the chivalric principle in terms of the broader metaphors of life. His knight is introduced as "[r]ight faithfull true he was in deede and word" (Spenser, 1970, p. 4). Rather than describing distillate behavior of the code, Spenser uses the imagery of ideals to convey what both authors perceive as righteous conduct. In contrasting Spenser with Ariosto, Herbert Cory illustrates Spenser's view as a matter of poetic convention, and informs this discussion, when he states that "Ariosto...could do little more than yield to the mere intoxication of chivalry and romance, [where] Spenser did not forget that high seriousness which is the charge of the Muse of epic poetry" (Cory, 1917, p. 52) Cory is not the only scholar who points this out. In describing the relation of Spenser's work to the political situation of his day, Frushell and Vondersmith note that one important aspect of Faerie Queen is that it "embodies the destiny of an ideal Britain, the kingdom of love, of chivalry, of true devotion, culminating in that idealized version of queenliness..." (1975, p. 10) Here we have two examples of Spenser's view of chivalry. He looks to the muse of poetry as well as the ideals of love and devotion. His chivalry is idealistic, not descriptively behavioral. Faith, truth, love, and devotion are the embodiment of the ideal. Both authors revere chivalry, but come to the concept from diametrically-opposite perspectives. When compared to Chaucer's practicality, Spenser is almost whimsical. Chivalry Compared A side-by-side comparison of these works of Chaucer and Spenser brings their divergent perceptions into specific relief. In terms of relevant discussion, we can compare both the philosophical and literary approaches taken by the two. This will give us a perspective of each author's world view, as well as their literary style. As mentioned previously, both Chaucer and Spencer embrace the idea of chivalry. It is the difference in their approach to the subject that merits discussion. One of the significant differences in their expression is what they bring to the idea; their artistic view. For Chaucer, the pragmatist, chivalry certainly springs from eternal truths such as faith and love, but it is more important to concentrate upon how those principles are translated into behavior. His center of attention lies upon the result of these ideals rather than the ideals themselves. Spencer, the visionary, knows that proper behavior is a good thing and that it likewise comes from such truths. For him, however, it is more imperative to emphasize the nature of the ideals than it is to delineate their associated actions. Articulated a different way, we can say that both authors understand stimulus and response. They are aware that the stimulus for good conduct is an underlying set of moral principles. They know that the response to this stimulus is a specific set of behaviors. The distinction between their perceptions lies in which side of the equation merits the greatest scrutiny. For Chaucer, it is the response. For Spenser, it is the stimulus. One coin, two sides. The second characteristic of note for the comparison between them can be drawn from the literary approach taken by each writer. Both authors demonstrate their artistic view through the setting in which their story is framed; Chaucer's practicality is set over against Spenser's fancy. It is as simple as comparing the world we see everyday to one that we see only in our mind. The Knight's Tale takes place in the real world. There is a group of pilgrims on the way to Canterbury who are going to entertain one another with stories. Although the stories are not necessarily factual, the setting is present-day for Chaucer. The Faerie Queen, on the other hand, takes place in a fantasy world. Some of its characters are completely imaginary, without earthly counterpart. One critic of Spencer's literary approach to chivalry points this out by posing the question "[w]as he forgetful of England, forgetful of earth, lulled and lying in some bower of fantasy, or moving in a dream among imaginary champions of chivalry..." (Cory, 1917, p. 43) Spenser as a dreamer is a subject for another study, but the comment helps us to understand the fundamental difference at work. As Chaucer is grounded in reality, he will express his idea of chivalry in those terms. He will perceive the world and its values in a realistic manner. Spenser, who has a more fanciful bent, will express chivalry in the light of his world, as well. He will frame his discussion more liberally with the characters of his imagination, a practice which lends itself to broad strokes of ideal more easily than specific behaviors of individuals. Finally, the dissimilarity of the authors' basis for expression of chivalric concepts can be articulated in terms of pure humanity. Both writers are speaking to the expression of noble ideals in the lives of human beings. Outside of personal artistic perception and literary style, there lies the simple concept of externalism versus internalism. Chaucer, taken in sum, speaks to the outer man. He acknowledges the inner forces at work, but presents chivalry in terms of what people do. Spencer, in contrast, speaks to the inner man. He recognizes the outward expression, but frames his own concept of chivalry in terms of what lies inside the heart. Conclusion Geoffrey Chaucer is a practical, real-world person who admires chivalric conduct. Edmund Spencer is an esoteric, artistic person who reveres chivalric ideals. The scope of this paper has viewed portions of each author's work, as well as scholarship illuminating those positions. As for chivalry itself, it may be best understood by combining the strengths of both perspectives. To be chivalrous is to act honorably. To act admirably is to be chivalrous. In the combination of the key elements of both, we can view chivalry's internal drives as they express themselves in specific behavior. Within the context of a knightly caste, chivalry is particularly important. The medieval knight lives in two worlds; he must be attuned to the fine points of etiquette required by the royal court, but also just in his dealings with the serfdom. Perhaps in the duality of this world lies the balance between Chaucer and Spenser, validating them both. A particular knight; standing in the real world of managing peasants and estates, etiquette and politics, must allow his internal convictions to guide his external activities. Both sides of the coin must be pure, noble and true. Combining the words of the writers, true chivalry finds its purest expression in a faithful and loving heart acted upon in an honorable, free, and courteous way. A well-developed concept of chivalry can let us perceive the embodiment of both approaches. We can be moralists with Chaucer and dreamers with Spencer. In conclusion, while understanding and expressing chivalry in widely divergent ways, both men are saying the same thing: it is a good thing to hold the ideals of noble conduct, and to translate those ideas into specific actions. Chivalry is not confined to internal and external, to belief and behavior; it is both. References Cory, H.E. (1917). Edmund Spenser: A Critical Study. Eds. Gayley, C.M., Scheill, R., and Shilling, H.K.. Berkeley: University of California Press Chaucer, G. (1974) "The Knight's Tale." The Tales of Canterbury: Complete. Ed. Robert A. Pratt. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company Frushell, R.C. and Vondersmith, B.J. Contemporary Thought on Edmund Spenser. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press Prestage, E., (1928). Chivalry: A Series of Studies to Illustrate Its Historical Significance and Civilizing Influence. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner. Rudd, G., (2001) The Complete Critical Guide to Geoffrey Chaucer. New York: Routledge Schofield, W., (1912). Chivalry in English Literature: Chaucer, Malory, Spenser, and Shakespeare. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Spenser, E., (1970) "The First Booke of the Faerie Queene." Spenser Poetical Works. Eds. Smith, J.C. and de Selincourt, E. London: Oxford University Press Read More