THE UNIVERSALITY OF THE PORTRAITS IN THE GENERAL PROLOGUE TO THE CANTERBURY TALES I Dr Mann mm her valuable book Chaucer and Medteval Estates Sature! con- cludes by examining the claim that the portraits in the General Prologue are at one and the same time individual and typical (pp 187-202) She observes (p 187) that whatever disagreement there may be among Chaucerians, at least there 1s a general consent on this point If there 1s such common agree- ment then we are sadly forced to conclude that it 1s agreement in error (or at least in confusion) It 1s an error that Dr Mann’s book itself in part helps to perpetuate, as 1s evident from the critical termmology that 1s used m it We are, for example, referred again and again to the notion of an estates stereotype Estates hterature depends on and exploits the frameworks known as ‘social stereotypes" — the traditional images that make us eager to observe inscrutability m a particular Chinese or astuteness in a particular Jew, because we believe that the Chinese are inscrutable and the Jews astute (p 8) A distinction 1s also drawn between two kinds of estate stereotype An estate can be typified m two ways Chaucer can evoke the qualities that should go with the profession, the ‘idealised version’, alternatively, he can evoke the malpractices and frauds which usually go with it m actuality, the ‘normal version’ (p 14) Now this critical language 1s seriously defective, and can only be the product of a failure to discern the true mtentions of a medieval poet What 1s needed here 1s a sound basis for discriminating between the type and the dividual This can only be done 1f we are prepared to pursue the distinction to its ultimate source in the philosophic discussion of umiversals Few critics have been alert to the necessary ontological implications of the claim for indi- viduality and typicality IL Since it 1s dangerous for any literary critic to proceed from large philo- sophical generalisations, let us at first examine the evidence of the text of the General Prologue itself We should not hesitate to begin by stating the obvious, for the obvious in this case 1s immensely sigmficant This 1s that the names of the pilgrims are evidently the names of types and not of individuals ‘A Knyght ther was, "(A 43), ‘A Marchant was ther’ (A 270), ‘With us ther was a Doctour of Phisik’ (A 411), etc 2 Such a simple piece of evidence is reinforced and not "J Mann, Chaucer and Medieval Estates Satire (Cambridge, 1973) * References are throughout to F N Robinson, The Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, 2nd ed (London, 1957) 481contradicted by the occasional use of a personal name, for the personal name is used always with a generalising force Thus the name Eglentyne (A 121) perfectly mirrors the courtly aspirations of the Prioress (see A 132, 139-40 and 152 ff) The knowledge that Hubert is the name of the kite in Le Roman de Renarf* is surely decisive in explamung the attribution of it to the Friar (A 269) In this way the poet focuses upon the Friar’s rapacity For thogh a wydwe hadde noght a sho, So plesaunt was his ‘Jn princrpto’, Yet wolde he have a ferthyng, er he wente (A 253-5) Even the name that 1s given to the Reeve’s horse has been chosen with a due sense of its appropriateness This Reve sat upon a ful good stot, That was al pomely grey and highte Scot (A 615-16) Professor Hodgson has explamed its significance to us in the notes to her edition of the General Prologue ‘Scot’ was a common name for the best horse in the farmyard The Old English word scot signified ‘tax’ or ‘rent’, cf the phrase scot-free The name was therefore bestowed on the horse in the yard that did most towards paving the rent ¢ None of us, I take it, 1s in any danger of mistaking the Reeve’s horse for an individual Before we leave the question of personal names it 1s worth briefly consider- ing why 1t 1s that the narrator tells us that he does not know the name of the Merchant But, sooth to sevn, I noot how men hym calle (A 284) For most modern critics this seems to be a sign of the supreme contempt with which the Merchant and his values are treated by the poet But it needs to be recognised that such an interpretation would assume the importance of a personal name as a mark of individuality Simce only the Proress and the Fnar are otherwise provided with personal names in the General Prologue we are bound to conclude not only that there 1s a specific reason for the narra- tor’s declaration of ignorance at this point, but also that such a reason has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of personal names The explanation 15 to be found in the Merchant's prudence, shrewdness and discretion in his business affairs This worthy man ful wel his wit bisette Ther wiste no wight that he was in dette, So estatly was he of his governaunce With his bargaynes and with his chevyssaunce (A 279-82) 3 See Robinson (1957), p 657 “P Hodgson, Chaucer General Prologue to The Canterbury Tales (London, 1969). p 131 482In this instance, therefore, the ignorance of a personal name has positive and general implications The expectations that are aroused by the evidence of the names are not disappointed when we turn to the construction of the portraits themselves The portraits are all of them (mdividually and as a whole) organised in terms of a general conception of social class defined by means of function This conception 1s, of course, that of the estate, and Dr Mann has added immeasurably to our understanding of the General Prologue by so fully and carefully documenting in her recent book the extensive material relating to the estates that 1s to be found in medieval lterature The controlling n- fluence that this conception of the estate exerts in the General Prologue can best be shown, I think, by an analysis of one or two of the portraits Those of the Kmght and the Monk can fairly be taken as representative, the one belonging to Dr Mann's ‘idealised’ category, the other to the ‘normal’ In the figure of the Kmght who Joved chivalric, Trouthe and honour, fredom and curteisie (A 45-6) Chaucer sets before us, 1t 1s not to be doubted, a full and coherent rey resen- tation of the knightly estate The terms that he uses to describe the kmght can certainly be paralleled from other literary sources, and scholars have not failed to document the fact This does not (or should not) mean that Chaucer as lacking in originality , rather 1t means that his terms have a semantic depth that can only fully be appreciated by those who are fambar with medieval literature and society These semantic implications can only very briefly be indicated here The first of the terms that 1s used focuses upon the specific act of the kmght, that of fighting, the OED 1s surely correct in glossing chwalne as ‘bravery or prowess in war’ (sv chivalry, 3b) The valour that a knight displays 1s not the same thing as rashness, hence it 1s that Chaucer can at the same time emphasise the wisdom of the kmght (A 68) The distmction between valour and rashness 1s brought out very clearly by Chrétien at the beginning of Erec et Entde Erec 1s obliged to accept for the moment the mortal insult that is handed out to him because he 1s unarmed Il sot bien que del nain ferir ne porroit 1] mie jour, car le chevaher vit armé, molt felon et desmesuré, et crient qu’asez tost !’ocirroit, se devant lu son nain ferort Fohe n’est pas \aselages, de ce fist molt Erec que sages rala s'an, que plus n’1 ot fet (225-33) 5 Reference 1s to M Roques, Erec et Entde, CFMA (Paris, 1970) On this point see, however, G Mathew, The Court of Richard I] (London, 1968), p 118 483