Chaucer, Langland, and the Medieval Estates System
(i) Pardoner’s Tale
The extract from “The Pardoner’s Tale” shows how Geoffrey Chaucer critiques the corruption in the medieval Church. The Pardoner is a character who represents greed and hypocrisy. He uses his sermon to trick people into giving him money by selling fake indulgences and relics.
The italicized words in line 12, “as clean and eke as clear,” are very important because they show how fake his promises are. These words make it seem like he is offering a very pure and holy solution to people’s sins. However, it is just a way to convince them to give him money. This highlights a big theme in the tale—the greed and dishonesty of religious figures who take advantage of people’s faith.
The Pardoner uses repetition in his speech to make his message stronger and more convincing. After a small interruption, he repeats his instructions to make sure everyone understands what he wants them to do. This repetition makes his speech seem more powerful and ensures that people don’t forget what he is asking for—material offerings. It also shows how skilled he is at manipulating people. By repeating himself, he keeps the audience’s attention and makes his demands seem more urgent.
The Pardoner’s actions can be seen in two different ways. On one hand, he is teaching a moral lesson about the dangers of greed. On the other hand, he is leading people into sin by making them believe that they can buy forgiveness. He does both things at the same time because he wants to teach about greed while also making money for himself. This makes him a complicated character. He knows he is being dishonest, but he doesn’t care as long as he gets what he wants. Chaucer uses this complexity to show how corruption can exist even in people who are supposed to be moral leaders.
(ii) Sonnets Comparison
The Middle Ages were not devoid of culture and intelligence, as is often mistakenly believed. By the time these sonnets were written, Europe had become a rival to the Far East in terms of culture and innovation. The poetic forms adapted by Italian poets like Petrarch were part of a broader flowering of creativity that emphasized the beauty of language and emotion. These cultural advancements laid the groundwork for the Renaissance, where poets like Wyatt experimented with blending these forms into English traditions.
The comparison between the English and Italian sonnets shows how different cultures adapt literary forms. The Italian poem combines two types of themes: pastoral and courtly love. The pastoral theme is about nature and can be seen in the description of “green grass,” “two streams,” and “a laurel’s shade.” This creates a peaceful and idealized natural setting. The courtly love theme is about the pursuit of an unattainable love, represented by the white hind (a female deer). This deer symbolizes a perfect and noble love that is out of reach. These two themes work together to create a beautiful and harmonious story.
In the English sonnet, the poet, Wyatt, removes the focus on nature and only keeps the theme of courtly love. His poem is more about personal feelings, such as frustration and hopelessness. The line “seeking to hold the wind” shows how impossible and exhausting it is to chase after something you can never have. This makes the English poem feel more realistic and less idealized compared to the Italian version. Wyatt’s poem focuses on human emotions instead of the beauty of nature.
Wyatt tries to use the structure of the Italian sonnet in his English version, but the result is not perfect. He uses the Italian rhyme scheme (abba abba cddc ee), but the rhythm and flow of the poem feel uneven. This is because English and Italian have different sounds and patterns, making it hard to adapt the Italian form smoothly. Even though Wyatt’s version has some flaws, it is still an important step in the development of English poetry, showing how writers experimented with new ideas.
Estates satire
During the medieval period, society was organized into three main Estates: the clergy (who guided people to God), the nobility (who protected the kingdom), and the peasants (who worked the land). This system began to break down by the 14th century due to events like the Black Death and the rise of the “Commons” (a new class of tradespeople and merchants).The “Commons” were people like carpenters, millers, and merchants who did not directly produce raw materials like peasants did, but instead worked with materials or provided specialized services. They often became wealthier than peasants and even rivaled the nobility and clergy in influence, causing tensions in society. Figures like John Wycliffe and the Lollards further challenged the Church’s authority, leading to social upheaval and revolts like the Peasants’ Revolt in 1381. These historical shifts influenced the themes of estates satire, as seen in Chaucer’s critique of corruption and Langland’s support for the peasantry.
Estates satire is a type of writing that criticizes the roles and behaviors of different social classes. Chaucer and Langland both use this genre, but they do it in different ways. In The Canterbury Tales, Chaucer uses humor and exaggeration to show the flaws of different social groups. For example, the Pardoner is greedy, and the Wife of Bath is overly confident. By making these characters funny and relatable, Chaucer helps readers think about the problems in society without feeling too serious or upset.
Langland’s Piers Plowman is more serious and moralistic. Instead of making fun of people, Langland focuses on the bigger issues, like corruption in the Church and the struggles of the poor. He uses allegory (a style where characters represent ideas) to make his points. For example, he creates characters like Truth and Falsehood to show the difference between good and evil. This makes Langland’s work more about teaching lessons than entertaining readers.
Langland’s style is also different from Gower’s Vox Clamantis. While Gower’s satire focuses on criticizing specific groups, Langland’s work is more spiritual and asks readers to think about their own moral choices. This makes Langland’s work stand out because it blends social critique with religious teachings.
(ii) Effects of the Black Death
The Black Death, a deadly plague that killed millions of people in the 14th century, had a huge impact on society. One major effect was that it weakened the Church’s authority. Many people lost trust in the Church because it couldn’t stop the plague or provide answers. This created space for new ideas, like those of John Wycliffe. Wycliffe believed that people should read the Bible themselves instead of relying on priests. His followers, the Lollards, spread these ideas, which later influenced the Protestant Reformation.
The Black Death also gave common people more opportunities. Because so many workers died, there was a shortage of labor. This allowed surviving workers to demand better wages and conditions. Some commoners even rose to powerful positions. For example, Geoffrey Chaucer, the son of a merchant, became a respected poet and court official. William Walworth, a fishmonger, became Lord Mayor of London and helped stop the Peasants’ Revolt. These examples show how the rigid class system started to break down after the plague.
The Black Death also caused a major shift in the feudal system. With so many people dying, labor became scarce, and surviving peasants could demand higher wages. This led to the rise of a new social class, the “Commons,” which included skilled workers and merchants.
The “Commons” challenged traditional social structures because they could not be easily categorized within the Estates system. They were wealthier than peasants but not part of the nobility, creating confusion and tensions in medieval society. These historical developments shaped the works of writers like Chaucer, who represented the Commons, and Langland, who advocated for the peasantry.At the same time, events like the Hundred Years’ War and the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 exposed the weaknesses in the feudal system and the growing resentment towards the ruling class.
Finally, the Black Death led to anger against the ruling class. Many nobles and politicians raised taxes to pay for wars, like the Hundred Years’ War, which made life harder for common people. This caused events like the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. During this revolt, angry peasants killed Simon of Sudbury, the Archbishop of Canterbury, because they blamed him for the unfair taxes. These events show how the Black Death changed society, leading to social unrest and the beginning of long-term changes in power and class structure.
Part (A) Textual Commentary: Analysis of the Pardoner’s Tale
In this passage from The Pardoner’s Tale in The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer, it shows how Geoffrey Chaucer critiques the corruption in the medieval Church. Here, the Pardoner, who represents greed and hypocrisy, is speaking to the pilgrims by delivering a sermon. He is trying to convince them that they can receive forgiveness for their sins by paying him for a pardon. He begins by saying that if they offer money or valuable items, they will be absolved of their sins and granted entry into heaven.
The italicized words in line 5, like “nobles” and “sterlings“, are monetary references. They are important because they show that the Pardoner is offering a deal—if people pay him money or give him valuable gold or silver coins, he will offer them a pardon. This is a key part of the medieval Church, where people believed that paying for pardons could lead to salvation. In other words, the Pardoner’s role is to convince the pilgrims that the purchase of relics and pardons will guarantee them eternal life, regardless of their moral behavior. The use of these words shows that the Pardoner’s job is to sell salvation for money, which makes the sermon sound more like a business deal than a religious sermon. This aligns with the genre of indulgence in the medieval Church, where financial contributions were seen as a means of securing spiritual benefits.
The Pardoner repeats his message about the power of his pardons when he says, “I have relics and pardon in my mail, / As fair as any man in England” (lines 16-17). This repetition is meant to remind the listeners that he holds the power to forgive sins, which could make them feel that they should believe in him and buy his pardons. This repetition shows how the Pardoner uses his religious authority for his own personal gain. First, it emphasizes the Pardoner’s authority as someone who possesses sacred items with spiritual power. Second, it reinforces the commercial nature of his profession, as he exploits the sanctity of religious artifacts for personal profit. The repetition of this message is a rhetorical strategy designed to reinforce the idea that the Pardoner holds the keys to salvation, further persuading the audience of his credibility.
The Pardoner also says, “And Jesus Christ, that is our souls’ leech” (line 14), which is like a moral paradox. Here, he is trying to connect his pardon with the power of Jesus. He pretends that he is helping people get closer to Christ, but in reality, he is only interested in getting their money. By saying this, he is playing on their faith, even though his own intentions are selfish.
The Pardoner’s motivations are confusing. He seems to be teaching the pilgrims that they can buy forgiveness, but at the same time, he is leading them into sin by showing that the Church can be used as a tool for making money. In a way, he is teaching that it’s okay to sin as long as you can pay for forgiveness, which is a dangerous and false teaching. At the same time, he is also exposing the corruption of the Church by showing how some Church members, like him, use religion to make money.
So, the Pardoner is doing both: he is leading people into sin by making them believe they can buy forgiveness, but at the same time, he is teaching the pilgrims about the false practices within the Church, making them aware of the corruption around them.
Conclusion
This passage reveals a lot about the Pardoner’s character. While he pretends to offer spiritual help, his true goal is to make money by exploiting people’s beliefs. Through his actions and words, Chaucer criticizes the Church and its corruption, showing that some of its leaders were more interested in wealth than in genuinely helping people. The Pardoner is a man of contradictions, pretending to be a holy figure but actually being driven by greed.
(i) Essential Differences Between Chaucerian and Langlandian Estates Satire
The way the tragedy of mankind and our necessity of order (which we cannot get by ourselves, according to the former mentality) was represented in society was through the three Estates. The King ruled the country, and had absolute power over the three classes. And to protect him, and to protect the country, were the nobles, represented by the archetypal/prototypical figure of the Knight. To guide him and the country to God, was the clergy, represented by the Monk. And to feed him and the country, and to work the land, were the peasants, who produced primary matter (material prima) and were depicted as the Ploughman (he who ploughs the earth). This feudal system prevailed for a whole millennium, although it had its ups and downs. When William the Conqueror arrived in 1066, he brought with himself the Norman French language, the Norman tradition and culture, and a more powerful and centralized feudalism.
During the medieval period, society was organized into three main Estates: the clergy (who guided people to God), the nobility (who protected the kingdom), and the peasants (who worked the land). This system began to break down by the 14th century due to events like the Black Death and the rise of the “Commons” (a new class of tradespeople and merchants).The “Commons” were people like carpenters, millers, and merchants who did not directly produce raw materials like peasants did, but instead worked with materials or provided specialized services. They often became wealthier than peasants and even rivaled the nobility and clergy in influence, causing tensions in society. Figures like John Wycliffe and the Lollards further challenged the Church’s authority, leading to social upheaval and revolts like the Peasants’ Revolt in 1381. These historical shifts influenced the themes of estates satire, as seen in Chaucer’s critique of corruption and Langland’s support for the peasantry.
In this time, John Gower, William Langland and Geoffrey Chaucer wrote. And each one of them was allied to a specific Estate. Gower criticized those that did not follow the Estates, not the Estates themselves, and he was fond of the clergy and the nobility, as shown in his “Vox Clamantis”. Langland was in favor of the peasantry, showing his support through his “Piers Plowman”, and attacking the Church and the Crown (with special emphasis on the former). Finally, Chaucer selected himself as the champion of the Commons, as he himself was a Commoner (he was the son of a merchant, even though he studied as a nobleman). He writes “The Canterbury Tales”, in which he shows this clearly.
Chaucer’s and Langland’s approaches to Estates Satire diverge significantly in their treatment of the social classes and the structures that sustain them. Langland’s “Piers Plowman” and Chaucer’s “Canterbury Tales” offer distinct perspectives on the same social order, but Langland’s critique is direct and theological, while Chaucer’s is more nuanced and socially complex.
Langland’s Estates Satire focuses on a moral critique of all three estates (clergy, nobility, and peasants), with a particular emphasis on the corruption of the Church. In Piers Plowman, Langland offers a vision of a just society, one where the estates fulfill their moral duties. The clergy must be holy, the nobility must govern justly, and the peasants must work faithfully. However, Langland does not shy away from critiquing the moral decay within these roles, particularly the clergy’s greed and the nobility’s neglect of their duties.
In contrast, Chaucer’s approach is less overtly moralistic. His satirical portrayal of the estates is more complex, as he does not preach a single moral message but instead reveals the varied human behaviors within the estates. Through characters like the Pardoner, Merchant, and Knight, Chaucer irons out the contradictions within the system, showing that people of all estates can be both virtuous and corrupt. The Pardoner, for instance, embodies the corruption of the Church yet is a complex character who exposes the moral failings of those around him.
Langland’s moral absolutism contrasts with Chaucer’s realistic portrayal of society, where individuals transcend the rigid expectations of their estates. While Langland seeks reform, Chaucer emphasizes the human complexity within each class. Gower’s “Vox Clamantis”, on the other hand, maintains a more traditional approach to estates satire, critiquing the social order without challenging its fundamental structure, as seen in the more pessimistic tone of his work.
In summary, while Langland’s Estates Satire advocates for spiritual and social reform based on a moral framework, Chaucer’s satire is more ironic and socially aware, revealing the gray areas of human behavior within the estates.
The Long-Term Effects of the Black Death: Social, Religious, and Political Transformations
Delving into the Pre-Renaissant England of the 14th and 15th Centuries (1300-1400), we find that the society is shaking. This was, of course, a generalized issue throughout Europe. The idea was that each man and woman had to act accordingly to their social status. The idea, thus, was that the appearances are the truth, and that there is nothing behind it. Now, it is clear what happened next. Of course, people were not acting as they were supposed to do. The Black Death, which hit England in the mid-1300s, changed society in many ways. It caused the deaths of a large part of the population, which led to shortages of workers and a shift in the balance of power between the classes. With fewer workers, those who survived were able to demand higher wages and better working conditions, which gave rise to a new middle class or Commons.
First, we have what in England was called the “Commons”. There was an increasingly influential class re-appearing in society, gaining more money and power than it was expected and than it should be. They were carpenters, millers, merchants, architects…people that did not directly produce any material, contrary to the peasants, but rather used it in other ways, and gained far superior income. The peasants hated them because they had more money than they had and worked less. The clergy hated them because they too traded, and became even more specialized, achieving even greater reach (international traders over land and seas, as opposed to more localized church and monastery commerce). The nobility hated them because they were starting to get enough money to buy lands and privileges and education that was reserved to the nobles. Hell, the Commons even dethroned the nobility and the Crown in some locations around Europe, like in Italy. And what was worse was that nobody knew what to do with them, and where to put them. Were they peasants? Were they nobles? What were they, and how could they be categorized?
Then, there comes the Hundred Years’ War, from 1337 to 1453, which killed even more people. The king wanted troops to fight, so he conscripted many of them from the peasants (although many more were mercenaries or professional armies). He also wanted -and needed- money to fuel the war machine, so he increased taxes. This led to constant discontent among the masses, which truly began to surface when Richard II came to the throne, in 1377, at the age of 8. His uncle, John of Gaunt, fourth son of Edward III, was Lord Regent, while the boy was still too young to lead. But he was, still, part of the nobility. So a Knight was leading the King. Even worse, John of Gaunt wanted the War to keep going, in order to gain more power and land –which is why the taxes were raised. Even worse than that, he had this chancellor, the Archbishop of Canterbury, called Simon of Sudbury, who was, in fact, the one in charge, because he was the one guiding John of Gaunt, since Simon actually had quite a lot of power (he was Chancellor of Exchequer). So a Monk was leading the Knight by the nose, while the Knight ruled in the place of the King. The Estate structure was inverted, it was shaking from the foundations. This was tied to the rise of a Christian deviation in England, some “proto-protestants”, called the Lollards.
Moreover, the holy language was Latin (never mind that Jesus Christ spoke Aramaic and possibly Greek not Hebrew though-, and that His Apostles were likewise, and that the first writings were in Greek). Thus it was seen, in the Latin Vulgata, the Bible used by the whole of Roman Catholic Christendom from circa 405, when St. Jerome completed it, up to when they finally got to translate the Holy Scripture to vernacular languages, such as the King James Bible (remember, from Enlightenment). This meant that nobody could translate, under any circumstance, any passage of the Bible. Not to explain it, not to write it down, not to teach it to heathens, nothing. Therefore, every sermon and preaching had to be in Latin, even though the peasants did not understand it, and to some extent, not even all priests did. This is what actually led to the appearance of the Lollards.
By 1380, John Wycliffe, the leader of the Lollards, began translating the Bible into the vernacular tongue. This was, of course, heresy. You were not supposed to translate the Holy Bible from Latin into any other tongue. Therefore, Lollards were being persecuted by the law. Yet their message was kind to the peasants, because these monks, while still Christian in belief, spoke of the peasant as the rightful inheritor of God’s Graces, and of how the Church and the Crown are manipulating them. This led to a Peasant Revolt in 1981, led by Walt Tyler and John Boll (a Lollard). It managed to spread to the whole South of England, and to count with several thousands of people. Still, they were no bright minds. They wanted universal suffrage for men, true, but they didn’t really know how to get that. They marched on the capital, besieged the Tower of London (where Simon of Sudbury was entrenched), broke in and executed the Archbishop. Then, the King accepted their demands and they laid down their weapons. They thought that that was it, that they were saved, and that their lives were about to change. And change they did, though not as they expected. The king ordered his troops to assemble and to butcher every single one of the peasants, and to hang, draw and quarter them. Not one escaped. And, since they had lost so many people in the uprising, there were less people to work even, and the wages went up. Later on, in 1399, Richard II is deposed by Henry IV, son of John of Gaunt, and the year after, Richard is executed as well. You have to take into account that William Walworth (d. 1385), a commoner and fishmonger, rose to prominence as Lord Mayor of London. He is best known for his role in suppressing the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381, a direct response to the social and economic upheaval caused by the Black Death. The revolt was triggered by high taxes, particularly the Poll Tax, and growing frustration with feudal oppression.
During the rebellion, the peasants, led by Wat Tyler, marched on London, demanding the abolition of serfdom, lower taxes, and greater equality. Walworth played a pivotal role in quelling the uprising by killing Tyler during negotiations with the rebels. Though the revolt was crushed, it demonstrated the growing power of the Commons and the inability of the old feudal order to fully control them.
Sonnet question
The narrative genre finds itself founded, rather than on the old epics like Beowulf, on the new forms used by the Sicilian School. The Holy Roman Emperor, ruler also over Italy, in 1200 A.D. changes the official language of the School, from Provençal (the south of France) to Florentine Italian (from Florence). Before, the school used to write love poems in the vernacular French language. Afterwards, they started inventing many poetic forms, which translated to narrative.The most important ones were the octet and the sestet, which composed the Petrarchan Sonnet. This poetry, however, evolved also into the lyrical genre, and even more so.
A sonnet is a kind of poem, made by fourteen lines and are usually written by using the iambic pentameter. The kind of sonnets depend on rhyme and structure. The Petrarchan sonnets are made of fourteen lines: one octave (ABBA ABBA) and one sextet (CDE CDE). Between the octave and the sextet we find the volta. The Shakespearian sonnets have three quatrains and a couplet. The structure would be ABAB CDCD-EFEF-GG. Of course, the final couple inserts the turn (volta). Usually, the content is organized differently. The Petrarchan sonnets present a problem in the octet, whereas its resolutions are presented in the sextet. The Shakespearian sonnet is formed by following the problem-resolution structure but is presented differently. The quatrains present and introduction, thesis and antithesis; and the couplet presents the resolutions. There are more twists in this type of sonnets. The volta introduces the resolution, and usually stats with a marker (but, still, yet…). Petrarch, who was first introduced in England by translating his masterpieces, is the father of humanism and the Renaissance. He is famous for a collection of texts, most of which are sonnets. Petrarch has a deep love for Laura (woman who saw in church). They were never together. Indeed, we know by the sonnets that Laura dies, and Petrarch kept writing about her. It is believed that Laura never really existed and that he invented his own fantasy.
The comparison between the English and Italian sonnets shows how different cultures adapt literary forms. The Italian poem combines two types of themes: pastoral and courtly love. The pastoral theme is about nature and can be seen in the description of “green grass,” “two streams,” and “a laurel’s shade.” This creates a peaceful and idealized natural setting. The courtly love theme is about the pursuit of an unattainable love, represented by the white hind (a female deer). This deer symbolizes a perfect and noble love that is out of reach. These two themes work together to create a beautiful and harmonious story.
Introduction The comparison between English and Italian sonnet traditions, shown in Sir Thomas Wyatt’s “Whoso List to Hunt” and Petrarch’s “Una candida cerva,” shows how poetry changed to fit different cultures and languages. Both poems explore the idea of unattainable love, but they handle this theme in unique ways. Petrarch mixes allegory and natural imagery to create a rich and symbolic poem, while Wyatt adjusts the sonnet to suit English tastes, focusing more on personal emotions and political issues. This essay will explore the genres Petrarch blends, how Wyatt moves away from one of these genres, and the difficulties Wyatt faced when adapting the Italian sonnet form to English.
The Blending of Genres in Petrarch’s “Una candida cerva” Petrarch’s sonnet combines allegory and nature imagery, creating a multi-layered poem. The white deer with golden horns appears in a peaceful, natural setting, representing the beauty and idealism of pastoral poetry. At the same time, the inscription around the deer’s neck (“Nessun mi tocchi” or “Touch me not”) and its link to Caesar give it an allegorical meaning, symbolizing purity, chastity, and the impossibility of achieving certain desires. These elements add a spiritual and moral depth to the poem, where personal longing is connected to higher ideals.
Wyatt’s Omission of Allegory When Wyatt rewrites Petrarch’s sonnet, he leaves out much of the allegory, choosing instead to focus on more personal and political themes. The deer in Wyatt’s version is still unattainable, but its inscription, “Noli me tangere, for Caesar’s I am,” shifts the meaning toward power and control in a royal court. This change makes the poem reflect the struggles and limitations of courtly life in Wyatt’s time, moving away from the spiritual and moral focus of Petrarch’s original.
Wyatt’s Challenges in Adapting the Sonnet Form Adapting the Italian sonnet to English posed challenges for Wyatt. The Italian sonnet is carefully balanced between the first eight lines (octave) and the last six lines (sestet), with a clear shift in theme, or volta, between them. Wyatt’s “Whoso List to Hunt” uses a similar rhyme scheme (“abba abba cddc ee”), but the final rhyming couplet, a feature common in English sonnets, disrupts the unity of the original structure. This shows Wyatt’s attempt to combine Italian elegance with English poetic traditions, though it sometimes feels less smooth than Petrarch’s version.
Conclusion The comparison of Petrarch’s and Wyatt’s sonnets reveals how poetic styles adapted to different contexts. Petrarch’s “Una candida cerva” blends allegory and pastoral imagery to create a complex and symbolic poem. Wyatt’s “Whoso List to Hunt” removes much of the allegory, focusing instead on personal and political concerns that reflect English tastes. Despite the structural challenges Wyatt faced, his adaptation played an important role in bringing the sonnet form into English literature and connecting Renaissance ideas with the developing English poetic tradition.