We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
The Rime of Sir Thopas,“ wrote Tyrwhitt,”was clearly intended to ridicule the ‘palpable gross’ fictions of the common Rimers of that age, and still more, perhaps, the meanness of their language and versification.“ This view, which Skeat found ”judicious and correct,“ has until recent years met with little question. In 1922, however, Miss Lilian Winstanley, while admitting the piece to be a burlesque of the metrical romances, argued that it was also ”intended as a satire against Philip van Artevelde“; and Professor J. M. Manly later set forth at considerable length the view that ”the object of satire was the ridiculous pretentiousness“ of the Flemings, that ”Chaucer's primary object in writing was not so much to burlesque the minstrel romances as to produce a satire of the countrymen of Sir Thopas, and that his contemporaries enjoyed its subject matter even more than its form.“ This general line of argument has been accepted by Professor F. N. Robinson, who, in his admirable edition of Chaucer, observes that ”two recent studies of Sir Thopas have made it seem very probable that Chaucer had another purpose, perhaps his primary one, namely, to poke fun at the Flemish knighthood.“ Since this interpretation of Chaucer's gay little piece has thus received an authoritative blessing, in a standard edition, it may well be examined in some detail, in order to determine how far it is really valid.
1 For the quotation from Tyrwhitt, and Skeat's comments, see the latter's edition of the Works (Oxford, 1894), iii, 423. Miss Winstanley's views will be found in her edition of the Prioress's Tale and the Tale of Sir Thopas (Cambridge, Eng., 1922), pp. lxv ff; Professor Manly's in“Sir Thopas, a Satire,” in Essays and Studies by Members of the English Association (Oxford, 1928), xiii, 52–73, and in his edition of the Canterbury Tales (New York, 1928), pp. 628 ff. References to Manly below are to his essay, unless otherwise noted. The remarks quoted above will be found on p. 60 of the essay, and on p. 629 of the edition. Professor F. P. Magoun, Jr., PMLA, xlii (1927), 833, notes that in one of the Lowell lectures in 1924 Professor Manly had “adduced interesting evidence as to political satire latent in the poem.” For Professor Robinson's comments, see The Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer (Boston, etc., 1933), pp. 842 ff. Details of arguments by Miss Winstanley and by Manly are incorporated in his notes. Quotations from Chaucer below, except as otherwise noted, follow Robinson's text.
2 “L‘élection de Philippe d'Artevelde comme rewaert est de beaucoup postérieure à l‘époque indiquée par Froissart. Il est vrai qu'au mois de juin 1381, il reçut le commandement d'une des cinq armées qui sortirent de Gand, et au mois d'octobre il était le premier des commissionaires chargés d'administrer les biens des bannis mis en séquestre. Cependant il ne devint rewaert, d'après la plupart des chroniques flamandes, que le 24 janvier 1382.” Kervyn de Lettenhove, Œuvres de Froissart: Chroniques (Bruxelles, 1869), ix, 560.
3 Manly argues (p. 65) that there is “a very humorous twist” here, because the lord of Poperinghe was the Abbot of St. Bertin. But Chaucer was not referring to the lord of Poperinghe; he did not say “the lord of that citee”; contree clearly refers to Flaundres, three lines above.
4 Robinson, p. 842.
5 The translation of Thomas Johnes, which Manly uses for citation, is convenient for reference. I use the ed. New York, 1880. Philip's career is set forth in Chapters lxx to cxxv, pp. 281–322. Many of these chapters deal, of course, with other material. The French text will be found in vols. lx and x of Kervyn de Lettenhove's edition (see footnote above).
6 It has even been maintained that the chronicler was in sympathy with the Flemings; cf. the Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th Ed. (1929), article “Froissart,” ix, 863: “In Flanders Froissart met many knights who had fought at Rosebeque, and could tell him of the troubles which in a few years desolated that country, once so prosperous. He stayed at Ghent, among those ruined merchants and mechanics, for whom, as one of the same class, he felt a sympathy never extended to English or French, perhaps quite as unfortunate.”—I think that this is a mistake; the sympathies of Froissart seem to have been with the antagonists of the burghers. Notice especially his comment on the battle of Roosebeke, cited here below. The reason seems to have been his devotion to the aristocracy. Although not of noble birth, he was permeated with the ideals of chivalry, and delighted in gentle manners and in pageantry. But that it can be held that Froissart sympathized with the Flemings surely indicates that he was not ridiculing them or their leader.
7 Manly, who reviews Miss Winstanley's work briefly, makes this criticism (p. 63) of her parallels in regard to dress, arming, and equipment. In his essay he does not expressly reject her conclusion—“whether Philip van Artevelde was the specific object of the satire or not” (p. 65)—but in his edition (p. 629 f.) he says “this personal identification seems to me unlikely.”
8 C. J. Bennewitz, Chaucer's Sir Thopas, dissertation (Halle, 1879); E. Kölbing, Englische Studien, xi (1888), 495–511; F. P. Magoun Jr., PMLA, xlii (1927), 833–844; Caroline Strong, MLN, xxiii, 73 fi. and 102 ff.
9 Pp. 57–59.
10 Edition, p. 617.
11 Miss Dorothy M. Norris, “ Chaucer's Pardoner's Tale and Flanders,” PMLA, xlviii, 636–641, suggests that the poet meant to warn his king and his country against cupidity. As no one seems to have perceived this before, it is doubtful if Richard would have been greatly moved.
12 Pp. 59, 71.
13 Mod. Phil., viii (1910), 144.
14 “The Issue Roll of the Exchequer for 7 Richard II indicates that the men of Ghent remained in England from 6 August to 30 December 1383, and received payment from the Exchequer at the rate of a noble a day for the seven.” Manly. Essay, p. 62.
15 P. 73.
16 “Cette desconfiture fu très-honnerable et prouffitable pour toute crestienneté et pour toute noblèche et gentillèche; car, se li villain fussent là venu a leur entente, onques si grans cruaultés, ne oribletès n'avinrent au monde, que il fust avenu par les communautés qui se fuissent partout revelées et destruit gentillèce.” Kervyn de Lettenhove, x, 173; Johnes, p. 322, Chap. cxxv.
17 Howard R. Patch, “ Chaucer and the Common People,” JEGP, xxix (1930), 376–384.
18 Johnes, p. 326, Chap. cxxx.
19 Ibid., p. 310, Chap. cvi.
20 Ibid, p. 309; Chap. cv.
21 James Hutton, James and Philip van Arteveld (London, 1882), p. 271.
22 P. 638.
23 P. 73.
24 Loc. cit., p. 842.
25 I am not convinced by Dr. Thomas A. Knott's contention (see “A Bit of Chaucer Mythology,” Mod. Phil., viii, 135–139) that Chaucer's manner and appearance as described by the Host in his raillery in the Prologue to Sir Thopas were not habitual, but only the temporary effect of the pathetic story told by the Prioress. The Host says “I always see you looking at the ground”—“For evere upon the ground I se thee stare.” But “evere” does not mean “always” to Dr. Knott; it means “steadily, fixedly at this moment,” [italics mine]—the very opposite of the usual significance of the word. “He semeth elvyssh by his contenaunce,” continues Harry Bailly. Dr. Knott thinks that as a result of the sad tale of the little schoolboy, Chaucer began to look elvish, which he takes to mean “the look of ‘other-worldliness’ caused by the mingling of pity and sympathy and strong religious feeling.” Perhaps these emotions would make a man look like an elf, but it seems open to doubt. The company are sobered by the Prioress's narrative, but what the Host says of Chaucer seems to refer to his wonted habit, like the jest about his girth. This, at least, can hardly have been increased by his emotion. There really seems to be no difficulty about the passage. It is preposterous to suppose that the poet, a courtier and man of affairs, “was of a modest and retiring disposition which would not permit him to mingle with his companions on terms of good fellowship,” which Dr. Knott thinks an inference generally drawn from the lines, even if we were not told the contrary in the Prologue (31–32). Like the Clerk of Oxford and other reflective persons, Chaucer falls easily into an abstracted mood, contrasting with the merry badinage of the journey. It is from one of these fits of abstraction that Harry Bailly rouses him, just as he rouses the Clerk:
It is no tyme for to Studien heere.
Telle us som myrie tale, by youre fey!
26 See an article of mine in Mod. Phil., xi (1913), 247–258. Robinson reads “Goodelief” in B 3084.
27 Essay, p. 73.
28 Edition, p. 28.
