As an undergraduate my Chaucer lecturer began his lectures on 'The Knight's Tale' with a ringing (and unconvincing) denunciation of Terry Jones' thesis. If his intention was to discourage us from believing Jones, he failed. Several of us raced to the library to get our hands on Jones' book and I remember reading it eagerly and finding it entirely convincing.Years later, with a great deal more experience in litrary analysis and a far greater knowledge of Chaucer under my belt, I re-read Jones and was surprised to find his thesis rathe more threadbare. It is still a provocative and entertaining book, and one which shook up the usually somnolent field of Chaucer studies, but his central thesis simply doesn't stand up to detailed scrutiny. His work has some serious and ultimately fatal flaws.
Firstly, Jones argues we should not just look at where the Knight fought, but where he didn't fight. Why no mention of him fighting in France like a good English knight? He must, argues Jones, be a mercenary. But it's hard to see how Chaucer could be indicating this with a list of *Crusading* campaigns. The heartlands of mercenary activity in the 14th Century were in the endless wars in Italy, so why doesn't Chaucer have his mercenary knight fighting there? Jones himself constantly refers to examples of mercenaries in Italy to illustrate many of his points, but never explains why this supposedly archetypal mercenary didn't campaign there.
Secondly, Jones goes to great lengths to argue that the crusades the Knight took part in were not noble, chivalric and virtuous ventures, but actually grubby, savage and often futile affairs. This may be true from a modern person's perspective, but what Jones (who has an admitted anti-Church bias) thinks about these campaigns is irrelevant - it's how they were seen in Chaucer's time that is important. And, unfortunately for Jones' thesis, in Chaucer's time they simply *were* seen as noble, chivalric and virtuous ventures.
Thirdly, Jones devotes a great deal of attention to the Knight's appearance, saying this is an obvious clue to his mercenary status. "One might expect a glorious figure in shining armour, with banners flying, a dragon on his shield and a crested helm glinting in the sun.' he argues. Instead, we have a figure in a fustian gypon stained with rust. Again, this argument is weak. A chivalric paragon may have worn armour and carried banners on campaign, but the Knight was on a pilgrimage. He goes on to argue that the Knight's fustian 'gypon' is a sign that the Knight is poor and that it is stained by his mail 'habergeon' because, unlike a real knight, he doesn't wear a coat of plates or breastplate and fauld over his mail and under his gypon or surcoat. He goes on to present evidence that Italian mercenaries went into battle more lightly armed in this manner, but that some form of plate over the mail shirt was ubiquitous for knights in this period. But Jones is simply wrong on that last point, however, and the Alliterative Morte Arthur depicts an arming scene where no less a chivalric paragon than King Arthur himself wears a gypon directly over his mail.
Fourthly, Jones completely ignores the Squire, who is the Knight's son and whose description follows that of the Knight in the 'General Prologue'. In stark contrast to his father, the Squire is presented as fashionably and brightly dressed in the latest style, with great emphasis on his up to-date hairstyle and courtly manners. Unlike his father, the younger man has fought not for the sake of Christendom, but 'in hope to stonden in his lady grace.' (GP l. 88). His campaign was 'in Flaundres, in Artoys and Pycardie' (GP l. 86) - most probably a reference to the 'Pseudo-crusade' of Bishop Henry Despencer in 1383. Unlike his father's crusading campaigns, the Squire took part in one that was widely condemned at the time and regarded as a debasement of the crusading ideal. Jones argues that Chaucer tends to be wry and satirical in his characterisation, but forgets that three of his characters - the Knight, the Parson and the Ploughman - seem to be paragons representing the Three Estates, while it is the *other* characters who stand in satirical relation to them.
Jones' book is provocative and highly readable, but in many places it seems he is straining to find something - anything - to support his ideas while skating over alternative interpretations. For this reason (and not academic snobbery) his thesis has been largely rejected, though his book has been welcomed. This book is recommended, but it should be read with due caution.
Terry Jones reveals Chaucer's Knight to be a Thug-for-Hire. He cogently explains the historical background, the concept of "chivalrie" in the 14th century, and in his own words, explains a 600 year old joke. The book is written with both style and wit. It is on solid ground for the most part, but does omit some data about the Knight's contemporaries, some of which behaved just as disgracefully but were members of the leading nobility rather than ignoble mercenaries.A summary:
English teachers universally take the description "Parfit Gentle Knight" at face value. Chaucer's contemporaries would have had quite a different view.
A good analagy: what would someone in 2600 make of the following description of a "Good 20th Century Soldier".
*Being "Highly decorated", with both the Silver Star and Order of Lenin.
*Having more kills than any other sniper in Sarajevo or Beirut.
*With being there when Kuwait City was won, and having brought back much loot to Baghdad than anyone else.
*Wearing an unidentifiable uniform with no rank or army insignia, and carrying a Chinese-made AK-47 loaded with dum-dum bullets and no serial number.
*Being an expert Boxer, who's killed every opponent who faced him in the ring.
*And he's served in more places than any other soldier, in Colombia, Chechnya, the Golden Triangle and the Ivory Coast.
A must-read for anyone studying Chaucer.
