Chaucer's Knight is well established as a noble figure:
"A knyght ther was and that a worthy man,
that fro the tyme that he first bigan
To riden out he loved chivalrie,
Trouthe and honour, fredom and curteisie," ls43-46
A noble sounding man indeed, Chaucer goes on to describe numerous battles in which the Knight has fought, over 13 campaigns are listed, a literally impossible feat for one man. Chaucer describes his attire as functional, but not gaudy or showy:
"his hors weren goode, but he was nat gay [gaudy].
Of fustian [a rough cloth] he wered [wore] a gypon [tunic],"
The Knight is choosing humble attire over gaudy, more fashionable and expensive items, which he could easily afford. He is set out as the perfect example of a medieval knight, a lover of chivalry, with a grand reputation everywhere he went, he is described as both "worthy [brave]," and, "wys [prudent, or wise]," the one line that would sum the Knight up perfectly is given to us by Chaucer on line 73:
"He was a verray [true], parfit [perfect], gentil [noble] Knyght,"
So what was the point of the Knight as a character, he is far too perfect to be realistic, fighting in more campaigns than would have been humanly possible, and apparently having the characteristics of the perfect idea of a noble Knight. This hardly seems to match Chaucer's usual flawed view of humanity.
Context of Chaucer's Poem
Chaucer would have been reading this to the Royal Court of the time, filled with leading nobles and religious figures from across the country. He would have the ear of the most powerful men in Britain, and one wrong move, ingratiating the wrong person, could spell his demise. The whole set up of the poem is one which allows him to openly criticise society without too many repercussions, implying in the General Prologue that these are not his words, only those which he heard, and he should not be held accountable for them. Chaucer felt free to mock the religious aspects of the country, with characters such as the Friar and the Pardoner being gross examples of religious corruption.
The most heartfelt, if not the most obvious, criticisms however, came through the character of the Parson, who again appears as a most perfect character, beloved by his people, and apparently uncorruptable by the financial gains possible in the religious world. Chaucer uses this character, however, to point out exactly what many members of the clergy did, by listing what the Parson did not. This including hiring out benefices, taking money for singing chantries, etc.
The Knight seems to be the secular version of the Parson, perfect in every way. This could in turn, therefore, be a very subtle attack on the nobility of the court. Chaucer is making implications that the benchmark of chivalrous Knight (i.e. the character the Knight) was not being met by the nobility of the kingdom, by applying superhuman feats to him.
 |
