Based on several Chaucer scholars' analyzes of the Knight's description in the general prologue, it appears that there are not two distinct schools of thought on the controversial character, but rather two “poles”, with a significant number of scholars camped in the gray area in between. Chaucer clearly intended his Knight to hide a definitive personality beneath the "besieged habergeon" – and not a word is wasted in his detailed description. No doubt the master of ambiguity intended his character to have questionable characteristics; Unfortunately, however, 600 years of separation from the original context has made Chaucer's social commentary much more complex and controversial than he intended. Today's scholars are lost in a sea of ​​historical accounts, opinions, and controversies. For each "crusade" the Knight allegedly participated in, there are multiple accounts of the events that occurred; the differing attitudes of the survivors created three unstable English classes at home. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayNot only do the Knight's reported achievements contribute to his questionable character, but so does his style of dress. Chivalry, love, war, religion – indeed all courtly ideals – were undergoing major reconstructions in this period. The description of the Knight's shabby attire was anything but disposable filler: given the medieval literary affinity in linking appearance to personality (the Pardoner, the Prioress and the Wife of Bath in particular come to mind ), Chaucer certainly intended for his readers to take note of his hero's shabby dress. The question then arises: how did contemporary readers interpret his description, and did the same bipolar schools of thought exist on the subject then as exist today? With the growing bourgeoisie, the growing expenses of knighthood, the revolt of the rebellious peasants, the increasing casualties of the Hundred Years' War and the economic costs of the Crusades, this was a time when deciphering the mentality of the people would have been almost impossible even for a contemporary and worldly expert like Chaucer himself. Indeed, for such a volatile period, it is extremely difficult in hindsight to say with certainty what beliefs the "majority" expressed. The two most extreme schools of thought on the Knight's identity 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 during the pilgrimage. Brewer takes the side of the Romantics William Blake and Lord Byron: he sees the Knight in a very quixotic and idealized light, believing that Chaucer intended him to be the chivalric example of what all nobility should be. Brewer believes the Knight to be a virtuous crusader, much like Peter of Cyprus described by Guillaume de Machaut in The Taking 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 Parson, 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 these as a true Christian crusader. Specifically, he argues that Chaucer's extraordinarily long "poetic list" of places is primarily intended to demonstrate the Knight's courage(Brewer 84). Unlike Jones, he does not argue that certain places were nothing more than massacres of conquest; instead, he argues that the motivations of many knights were conflicting and it is not possible to accurately generalize events (Brewer 87). He, however, argues that the Knight stayed out of the wars in France because those were not battles for Christian ideals; the Knight's abstention, therefore, only increases his idealistic nobility (Brewer 87). Therefore, he theorizes that Chaucer intended his Knight to be an example that courtly ideals were possible even as late as the 1390s: “not a mercenary, but a wide-ranging volunteer wherever help was needed” (Brewer 82). Brewer, in fact, directly rejects Jones' arguments, arguing that Jones attempted to project his modern, Western beliefs onto a medieval writer - a claim, in my opinion, not entirely without merit (Brewer 82-84). Brewer's own camp, 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 motif of irony in this portrait has never been impressive ” (Hatton 77 ). His argument is largely centered on the concept of dignity: a concept that, interestingly, is the crux of both sides of the issue. Hatton argues that the 14th-century definition of "worthy" includes not only courage, but also "skill, skill, and experience in warfare" and that Chaucer's overuse of the word is intended to emphasize these attributes, rather than to appeal to the reader's sense of irony (Hatton 78). He writes that the Knight is worthy and courageous, has verifiable abilities on the battlefield, and acts in a manner consistent with courtly and chivalric ideals. Furthermore, Hatton believes that the phrase "Though he is worthy, he is also wise" has simply been overanalyzed and is only intended to convey that the Knight is brave and also 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 Philip 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 character. Instead he fought 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 discriminate between the causes of battle, once again justifying his abstention from the campaigns in France (Hatton 87). Jones' school of thought is much darker, and at the other extreme. He carefully examines both the uniform and the Knight's travels and concludes that both support his view of the Knight's identity. He believes that the Knight is far from the courtly ideal, but is rather a bloodthirsty fighter who took part in the most gruesome and un-Christian battles throughout Europe, most likely as a mercenary. Jones argues that the excessive use of the word "worthy" is intended to be ironic and at odds with the true nature of his campaigns; the technique of "apparent praise before proceeding to reveal [the character's] true nature" is one used frequently by Chaucer, and the portrait of the Knight is no exception (Jones 31). “Worthy,” he argues, is not used in the general prologue to indicate that the Knight deserves honor. He is brave and certainly demonstrates "skill, skill, and experience in battle", but these are not necessarily attributes worthy of praise, and Jones believes that Chaucer isusing the term ironically (Jones 32). Additionally, the term “worthy” is also defined as “of high social status,” something that Jones claims Chaucer knew could be bought with the spoils of being a knightless mercenary (Jones 32). He compares the knight to "Sir" John Hawkwood (there are no records of his knighthood), the leader of the feared White Company of Mercenaries, whom Chaucer would have known intimately and despised, having been sent as a liaison to negotiate with Hawkwood. InMilan (Jones 30). Jones describes each battle in great detail – even scholars who oppose his views do not outright object to his historical accounts – and states that even when Chaucer wrote the Canterbury Tales, the English had very mixed feelings about the purpose of the Crusades. Indeed, many people were openly against these bloody massacres. Thomas Aquinas firmly believed that the crusades were intended only to be defensive, and Roger Bacon deemed them a “cruel and useless waste of time” (Jones 35). Many were increasingly disenchanted with the ongoing bloodshed because the Crusades had been raging for so long. Others felt that more attention should be paid to the wars in France, as there was a total shortage of knights, due to the cost of maintaining horses and armor (Jones 4-29). Still others recognized the immediate negative economic impact of skirmishes abroad, particularly after the violent and bloody capture of Alexandria led to mercenaries leaving the city less than a week after the raid, and the price of spices rose due to ports burned (Jones 42-49). Jones further states that not only does the Knight never serve his lord in England, where Calvary was absolutely necessary to fight the French, but he also fights the Christians, as Russia (Ruce) had been populated by the Greek Orthodox for more than four centuries (Jones 56). Russia is not a place frequently associated with the Crusades, but rather a place associated with mercenaries seeking a poorly defended country to easily plunder (Jones 58). The phrase "No Cristen man so often of his rank", according to this theory, is clearly intended as ironic – in fact, no truly Christian knight razed an already Christian nation, and indeed, the Knight could have actually fought on behalf of the Mongol Tartars. While this idea may seem extremely far-fetched, this is actually documented to have happened with some English mercenaries (Jones 56-60). It is possible, however, that since the Russians were Greek Orthodox, some of Chaucer's contemporaries might have regarded the Russians as 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 it cleverly rhymed with "Pruce" (Jones 59). Furthermore, if the fighting in Russia wasn't implicit enough, Jones argues that Chaucer outright explains that the Knight fought for non-Christian causes, citing his battles in the service of Palatia, a country populated by pagan Turks, though tolerant of Christians. : "agayn another hethen in Turkye" (Jones 87). Jones then analyzes the Knight's shabby dress, stating that it would be very ignoble to keep one's armor in poor condition. Furthermore, the fact that the Knight's habergeon was stained from his tunic indicates that he was wearing his chain mail directly over his padding, rather than over his plate armour, indicating that he was riding as an unesigned light Calvary (Jones 131 -132). There is no mention of helmet, coat of arms, platemetal, shield, belt or spurs (Jones 126). Indeed, in the Knight's tale, all the knightly equipment he lacks is described as belonging to the noble Theseus, who rides in 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 had complete anonymity on the battlefield, so they could fight for many different lords, abandon battle, or even change sides during combat (Jones 131 -133). He argues that the description of the Horseman would have been instantly recognizable to any Englishman, and would probably have aroused fear, as men such as these were known to terrorize some parts of the country, and such lack of equipment was "the very mark of the new race". of professional soldier" (Jones 134). Most Chaucer scholars today do not find themselves on one extreme or the other. While the old perspective on Chaucer was rather Blakeian - that is, the Knight was thought to be "perfect" - today most scholars (with the exception of G. A. Lester who supports Jones mainly on his clothing arguments) tend to lean towards Brewer's theory. However, modern scholars are not entirely convinced of its idyllic nature, nor do they subscribe to it fully supports the idea that the Knight was the only truly pious pilgrim on the journey. Although Lester argues that there is strong evidence to suggest that the Knight was indeed a mercenary, many still believe the opposite "De Re Militari" by Flavius ​​Vegetius Renatus, a manual which he claims Chaucer must have read, for it was considered "the bible of warfare throughout the Middle Ages - the soldier's equivalent of the Rule of St. Benedict" (Lester 25 -28). This Italian piece makes it clear that poor maintenance of armor by noble knights was absolutely not tolerated (Lester 25-29). On the other hand, John Pratt questions Jones' interpretation of the concept of nobleman altogether. Pratt questions Chaucer's knowledge of the Crusades, stating that some campaigns simply cannot be dated accurately, 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 took part were all legally crusades because in all cases the Church or Christians were threatened; however, there were likely mixed feelings among Chaucer's contemporaries (Pratt 16). Chaucer did not include these battles unintentionally, nor did he include them to make the Knight seem like a monster, but rather to portray the Knight as a complex character, not the flat, idealistic projection that modern Romantics try to project onto him (Pratt 10- 11). Pratt argues that while some historical accounts of Jones are quite accurate, others are subject to debate; in particular, he argues that "Ruce" may in fact be the name of a pagan city, rather than a reference to the entire Russian nation (Pratt 11, 13). Regardless of Pratt's view of the Knight's campaigns, he agrees that the Knight probably was paid for his services: all men in service received monetary compensation (Pratt 20). Overall, this creates a much more complex character as the Knight is clearly not idyllic, but still largely adheres to the code of chivalry and is quite pious. Pratt's argument about the legality of these campaigns is based on his belief that the Knight never fought against the Christians, and therefore was not a mercenary, despite receiving remunerationfor his services (Pratt 17). Furthermore, Pratt argues that the Knight was portrayed sympathetically by Chaucer and that, by expecting criticism of the Knight from his readers (as Jones believes), he created a complex character with whom other nobles and even the bourgeoisie could identify . Emerson Brown, Laura Hodges and Maurice Keen also tend to lean more heavily on Brewer's theory. Maurice Keen's thesis is classic: he claims that there were strong positive feelings that supported the continuation of the Crusades. Accordingly, the Knight is a Chaucerian hero with chivalric characteristics. His argument, however, is not sufficient because he fails to investigate the actual crusades in which the knight took part. Instead, he takes Chaucer's praise at face value (Keen 45). He argues that many English knights participated in many of the crusades listed, but none had participated in all of them, as Chaucer did, making Chaucer's Knight the clearest example of a "varay parfit gentle knight" (Keen 46-47). Keen compares the Knight to the Farmer and the Parish Priest, individuals who set an example of life that too few follow (Keen 47). Brown and Hodges are less convinced of his chivalry. Brown also quotes Guillaume de Machaut, stating that the crusade to Alexandria was "the most shameful", and that the frequent use of the word "worthy" loses its positive meaning by the end of the prologue (Brown 184, 187-188). Chaucer instead intended his reader to see the Knight as quite noble and pious, but by no means ideal, as estate satire is "quite naïve in its assumptions about ideals and failure to live up to them" (Brown 192). Likewise, 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, indicating that this poorly maintained attire would be frowned upon, but that it would also be. much more believable and expected from an old and battle-worthy knight, one who lives the “active life” (Hodges 279). In fact, shining armor would only be offered by truly wealthy knights, not true fighters (Hodges, 276). Even the powerful Templars were known for their dusty clothing and unkempt hair (Hodges 277). She argues that Chaucer wanted his readers to see the Knight as noble, pious, and chivalrous, but also worldly and realistic. The latter school of thought lies almost entirely – and deliberately – in the middle. Charles Mitchell appears to be rather neutral regarding the Knight's identity, arguing that Chaucer consciously chose battles that provoked 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 with its strengths and weaknesses. rather than praising or condemning it for its unequivocal positive or negative attributes. Chaucer distinctly omits the use of the word "virtuous" to describe the Knight. Instead, he attributes this quality to the Parson and the Friar: the former sincerely, the latter ironically (Mitchell 66). He argues that these men are clearly at odds with each other, and Chaucer's language leaves 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 the attributes he refuses to reveal to the reader. Instead of “virtuous,” Chaucer calls the Knight “courteous” and “worthy” (Mitchell 67). Romantics would argue that "courtesy" simply means that the Knight adheres to the practices of true chivalry, while the Jones camp argues that the term Knighthood means that the Knight adheres to the military code - inother 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 this was not an accidental term used by Chaucer, and would have been equally vague in his day (Mitchell 67-68). The fact that the Knight has sparked such a debate is an indicator that Chaucer does not want the reader to pin him to one pole or the other (Mitchell 66). This, he believed, was Chaucer's intent: to create an extremely complex and realistic figure that readers could judge as they pleased. Although Mitchell is often confused with Jones in his analysis of the Horseman, his opinions appear to be unique in that he doesn't actually agree with one side or the other - he simply argues that the Horseman is too complex to be the ideal, or a simple insensitive warrior. From the theses cited above 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 his Knight to be a two-dimensional man, whether he was an ideal or a mercenary. Personally I tend to agree with Jones' statement that the Knight was in fact a professional soldier. I believe, however, that Jones attempted to project his pacifist views onto Chaucer, which I believe is neither justified nor accurate. Most scholars, whether they agree or disagree with Jones' thesis, seem to agree that he did his homework and that his accounts of each crusade are well-researched and probably accurate; however, in every case where there isDespite the conflicting opinions of 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, gone terribly wrong. Chaucer was involved in accounting, so you can bet he took note of the skyrocketing prices of spices at the very least; not to mention the fact that the massive losses among Christian civilians, especially women and children, left a bad feeling in the stomach of the British once the details of the campaign were revealed. Furthermore, in the following weeks, after the escape of a large percentage of the mercenaries, they were no longer able to maintain control of the city. Guillaume de Machaut's tale was known by many and respected by Chaucer (Jones 46), so it seems to me sufficient proof that at least one campaign was not entirely - in Chaucer's opinion, at least - in support of the Christian cause. I do not believe, however, that Jones's view of Russia is a fair projection of Chaucer's. I certainly don't subscribe to the conspiracy theory that the Knight fought on behalf of the Tartars. While Chaucer may well have been aware that some English knights did just this, I believe Chaucer would not have assumed that his entire audience had the same knowledge. Historically, there have been campaigns that took place in Russia: in the generation of Henry III, Russia was declared a pagan country because it was Greek Orthodox, not Roman Catholic. There were, however, no major campaigns against Russia in Chaucer's time. After Pope Innocent IV's missionaries in 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 Englishthey had just stayed at bay. As a result, I believe Chaucer chose Russia as the location for the Knight's campaign 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 regarding the Knight's fighting in Türkiye, the phrase "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 Christian noble. Indeed, it seems to me that Chaucer explicitly states that the Knight fought for both Christian and pagan causes: "As wel in cristendom as in hethenesse" (line 49). I tend to agree with Jones that Chaucer presents the Knight much like other non-polar characters. Chaucer often feigns ignorance during many of his descriptions, pretending to take the attributes of different characters at face value. He does this with the Prioress, for example, whom the narrator describes as delicate, courteous, concerned with small animals and in love with Love - even though Chaucer is cleverly implying that her courteous and delicate ways are not appropriate for a nun, the his concern is misplaced and his love is misdirected. With the Knight it uses similar mechanisms, although in a much more subtle way. Chaucer's contemporaries would have seen the Prioress as foolish and girlish, and only the most superficial nobles would have considered her behavior appropriate. The Knight, however, is darker. First of all, the concept of knighthood in the 14th century was simply falling apart. The cost of knighthood was such that many young men did not want to be knighted due to the financial burden of maintaining regulation armor and a horse, not to mention the fact that there was a war in France and Crusader campaigns abroad, which invariably meant some death. Secondly, there were many mercenaries ravaging the countryside, as well as fighting for and against the English, so public opinion about these soldiers could not have been uniform. Third, modern readers have to look back through 600 years of history to make sense of the Knight, and unfortunately, the Romantic period has given modern readers an unrealistic view of what that class actually was. Today we do not have a "romantic" view of nuns, so we can clearly see that the Prioress was an inappropriate example of her class. Most readers, however, have no clear historical view of the Crusades, and our collective view of knights is horribly distorted by Byronic poems about shining armor and courtly favors. Therefore, when Chaucer calls the knight "worthy" for the first time, I believe he is leading the reader to believe that he is a genuine and noble knight. From a poetic point of view, his second use of the word in line 47 is simply a repetition too early to seem melodic. If you read those lines aloud, the second and third instances of "worthy" jump out, and I believe this was done to call the reader's attention to the fact that this word actually has multiple meanings, not all of them good. I think this view is justified since Chaucer follows this third example of "worthy" in line 50 by mentioning the Alexandria campaign. In other words, when we get to line 51, Chaucer the narrator still sees the Knight as the romantic, courtly ideal, but Chaucer the author sees the Knight as a mercenary. I think Mitchell is right that Chaucer says a lot by what he intentionally doesn't say. Courtesy and dignity are invariably terms 25 (1964): 66-75.