Introduction
The Problem and the Possibility

It may appear at first glance a forced attempt to associate Chaucer with the notion of "intellectual." On one hand, such an association may easily fall victim to anachronism. Chaucer was a late medieval court poet, while "intellectual," with its noun-form dating effectively not until the early nineteenth century, is essentially a modern word; it designates a social entity, if not a class, which emerges from a certain historical context.^〔1〕 Additionally, relating Chaucer to the notion of "intellectual" might easily be refuted because of his lack of any systematic high education, which is commonly supposed to be essential for an intellectual. Although advanced education was available in Chaucer's time, we are left no official record of Chaucer as a student in a Grammar School, let alone a university.^〔2〕 Chaucer's jobs as a royal servant and later a civil servant also seem to diverge from the career path of the then "educated ones," having little to do with ecclesiastics.

On the other hand, objections might also be raised to this connection because of the complexity of the notion itself. The multiple implications the notion has acquired over the years and the heated debates on the intellectual of last century in particular have brought to the fore the intricate relationship between the intellectual and the power. Some scholars even hold that only those who take an oppositional stance toward the power, who daringly criticize the government, are qualified intellectuals.^〔3〕 In this sense, Chaucer the courtier is apparently far from being an intellectual.

Yet, this association is by no means impossible or invalid if the notion is redefined, or, to be exact, confined within a certain scope and viewed from certain perspectives. In fact, in his famous Intellectuals in the Middle Ages, Le Goff argues strongly for the justifiability of this association.

As in every pertinent comparatist perspective, if one does not separate the sociological approach, which sheds light on the coherence of types and structures, from the historical approach, which highlights conjunctures, changes, turning points, ruptures, differences, and the insertion of a historical phenomenon into the larger society of an epoch, then the use of the term "intellectual" is justified and useful (xiii).^〔4〕

Venturing the application of this modern notion for medieval study, Le Goff confines the intellectual to only one select group: "the milieu of school masters" (1) emerging with the development of cities, especially with that of universities.

However, Le Goff's narrowing of the scope of his study on the intellectual does not mean his exclusion of others from the general group of the intellectual. Rather, for him, the group includes those "whose profession it was to think and to share their thoughts," "other groups of thinkers, other spiritual masters" (1). Thus, "the intellectual" is a general and inclusive concept.^〔5〕 It is the certainqualities they share that determine their identity as intellectuals.

Therefore, to study Chaucer as an intellectual, we have to firstof all explore the shared qualities of intellectuals, what intellectuals in general are supposed to be, and in what sense Chaucer can beregarded as an intellectual. The basic meaning of the notion shallserve as a good start. Meanwhile, the study will be invalid if itignores the notion's developed meaning, its modern sense. Though modern intellectual studies lay emphasis on the social function of intellectuals, the concept of "intellectual" should not be nailed down to a simple political gesture or a social role one plays. The narrowing of the concept in fact manifests a kind of modern prejudice. But the implications of "intellectual" in modern sense do provide a new perspective to revisit Chaucer and his works. Thus, this book attempts to study Chaucer from the notion of "intellectual," and will discuss Chaucer's intellectuality regarding both the notion's basic meaning and its modern sense.

Chaucer as an Intellectual Man: A Review

Chaucer's intellectual character lies first of all in his intelligence, that is, Chaucer is an intellectual in the general sense. Regarding Chaucer as an intellectual man is dealing with the basic meaning of "intellectual." It concerns one's personal characteristics: being intelligent, having knowledge, knowing how to apply one's reason rather than emotion.^〔6〕 The core of it is intelligence. Thus, there is little risk in substituting "intelligent" for "intellectual" when it is used as an adjective. But when it is used as a noun, it indicates a group of people who have the capacity of using their intelligence. They are, generally and superficially, taken to be people with the knowledge or skills that they can employ in professional activities, and the intelligence that may potentially lead to the production of works of originality.^〔7〕

Chaucer has been well acknowledged as a man who has knowledge of diverse disciplines. His intelligence and creativity, as revealed in his literary works, have also been well recognized. It is in this sense that Le Goff regards Chaucer as an intellectual. He specifically expresses in his preface to the 1985 French edition of Intellectuals in the Middle Ages his regret at having excluded Chaucer from his study.

But I regret not having included the great "writers," those instilled with a university training and spirit, a portion of whose works is a product of theology or scientific knowledge. I am thinking above all of Dante, a truly unclassifiable genius, and of Chaucer, in whom scientific curiosity and creative imagination were equally balanced, even if it is to the latter that he owes his renown (xviii).

What Le Goff wants to emphasize is Chaucer's scientific knowledge rather than his universally acknowledged genius in literary creation. He is, however, not the first, nor the only one who recognizes Chaucer's extraordinary command of scientific knowledge. In fact, it had already been well appreciated even in the age of Chaucer. Thomas Hoccleve in his Regement of Princes (1412), for example, refers to Chaucer as "flour of eloquence" and "universel fadir in science" as well (Sanders 5). Views of Chaucer as a great learned poet and "rhetor" are sustained across the sixteenth century: Sir Brian Tuke, in the preface to William Thynne's 1532 edition, again refers to Chaucer's "excellent learning in all kinds of doctrines and sciences" and his "fruitfulness in words" (Saunders 5—6). Recent criticisms also show interest in Chaucer's scientific knowledge. Scholars have covered different aspects of Chaucer's "scientific curiosity," with a unanimous emphasis on his achievement in applying his knowledge of science to his literary creation. For example, his use of medieval science in creating characters is systematically explored in Walter Clyde Curry's Chaucer and the Mediaeval Sciences. In his Chaucer and the Country of the Stars, Chaucey Wood focuses on Chaucer's use of astrology. Chaucer's knowledge of science actually goes well beyond astrology and astronomy. His poetic use of medieval medicine, physiognomy, dream psychology, and alchemy has also been a popular topic in twentieth-century Chaucer study.^〔8〕

Besides his knowledge of science, Chaucer's great interest and command of the other realm of knowledge, the humanities which include philosophy, religion and art, is also beyond doubt. Writers, being humanistic intellectuals according to the common view, show more interest in human beings than in nature or the universe they live in. They are concerned more about the situation of human beings, about what people believe and think, and whatever life they are actually living. The inclination toward the abstract thinking of aesthetics and philosophy is, in fact, one of the innate features of an intellectual. Thus philosophy, religion and art are either possible subjects discussed explicitly by writers, or something whose impact upon the writers can be at least implicitly discerned in their writing.

Previous studies on Chaucer in this respect have mainly examined the philosophical and religious climate in Chaucer's time, and where and how Chaucer responds to them in his poetry. Geoffrey Shepherd, for example, provides a brief but comprehensive survey of the religious and philosophical polemics of the late fourteenth century, including a summary of the attitudes of the major thinkers and Chaucer's response.^〔9〕 Others have made attempts to figure out the relationship between Chaucer's exploration into these subjects in his works and his personal inclination. No matter how different their views are, they all acknowledge Chaucer's knowledge of religion and philosophy and its importance and influence upon his artistic endeavor.

If knowledge plays an important role in the making of a good writer, the knowledge of previous canons, especially that of literature, is naturally indispensable. It could in fact become the "anxiety of influence," to quote Bloom. Fortunately, Chaucer is well known for his familiarity with the classical and medieval Latin canons as well as the continental vernacular works. The Canterbury Tales is envisaged by Cooper to be a medieval summa or encyclopedia, "a bringing together of all knowledge" (Structure 72), including not only that of nature, but of life, of the state of human existence.^〔10〕 What Cooper sees in the work is a kind of literary compendium, which covers a full range of medieval genres: romance, fabliau, beast-fable, saint's life, moral treatise and sermon.

But Chaucer is far from being a mere follower of those ancient "greats," nor is his work just an exhibition or showcase of his familiarity with the canons. He professes his admiration for the greats, and makes use of the models and conventions, but he brings to them originality by experimenting in his own style. Meanwhile, he subverts some concepts such as chivalry or fin'amors. Despite the fact that much of Chaucer's writing is usually regarded as translation, and that he himself is regarded as an eminent translator, Chaucer is not a good one. His translation is distinguished by a lack of fidelity to the original sources. Yet it is just this infidelity that makes him a great poet rather than a mere translator. He adjusts the Latin sources through mistranslation or change of context to fit medieval conventions. By making use of French tradition and Italian works of his age, he nourishes his own skills in literary arts, and meanwhile succeeds in avoiding any possible censure for the demerits and errors in what he presents. As Pearsall says, "Chaucer was widely read, and used his reading intelligently" (Life 32). His creative rewriting of all the literary sources manifests not only his knowledge of them, but also, and maybe more importantly, his innovativeness, a quality that is essential to scientists and artists as well. Even in his own time, he was regarded as the inheritor of a great tradition as well as the inventor of a new one. In later years, his creativity gained even more attention. As Saunders points out, "In subsequent centuries, however, Chaucer came to be seen instead as the great innovator, the 'father of English literature'" (5). It is his innovative application of the knowledge he owns that elevates him to such an elevated status in the history of English literature.^〔11〕 The innovation in his literary writing presents Chaucer as a man of intelligence, which has been universally accepted.

His intelligence was given full play in his social life as well. To some, it is partly a factor leading to his favor in the court. "It may be thought he was unusually likeable, [. . .] because of his wide conversational interests and lively fund of unexpected knowledge," wrote Coghill (4). While there is no solid evidence to explain how Chaucer benefited from court life, his sensibility and adaptability to changing political situations allowed him to survive several reigns. This at least demonstrates him to be a man of intelligence, if not a man of shrewdness, which seemed particularly true in 1380s' London, where it was dominated by "conferracie, congregacion, & couryne" (Strohm, Politics and Poetics 83).^〔12〕

In addition, his intelligence in civil affairs was better brought forth in a time that demanded civil expertise, such as that of administrators, or financiers. In his age, a newly educated laity that held civil posts arose as a new class. They were advanced not because of their noble birth or devotion to the clergy, but for their capability in secular, practical affairs. It was fortunate for Chaucer to live in such an age when he himself was among this rising class. Although Chaucer's success through several reigns does not necessarily depend on his literary talents, or his efficiency in public affairs, one thing is certain: his intelligence both in receiving education through courtly training and in his later exercise of this knowledge contributes much to it.

Chaucer is, in brief, both learned and intelligent, which is the most essential feature of an intellectual in the general sense. In Wetherbee,

He was probably the most learned of medieval English poets, and though he offers nothing like Langland's intimacy with the habits and themes of contemporary scholasticism or the homiletic intricacies and discourses on political philosophy of Gower, he is also in many ways the most intellectual. (75)

Therefore Chaucer is an intellectual in the general sense, in regard to his knowledge of various disciplines and his intelligence in the application of them in his poetic art and public affairs.

Possibility of Chaucer as an Intellectual

Heated debates about "intellectual" in the last few decades of twentieth century have expanded the implications of the word beyond the general sense of having knowledge and intelligence. The modern sense of "intellectual" makes it possible to study Chaucer from a new perspective. Different from illustrating Chaucer's intellectuality in its general sense, to study Chaucer as an intellectual in its modern sense lays emphasis on Chaucer's social function instead of his personal characteristics.

The social function of an intellectual can be traced and related to the use of "intellectual" as a noun. "Intellectual," before it is used as a noun, remains a "neutral general use" (Williams 169). However, the notion becomes questionable, and begins to acquire negative senses, when it takes its noun form.^〔13〕 The connotation of the word has since then been expanded beyond personal characteristics to include social attributes.^〔14〕 Hence a shift of focus in intellectual study from one's personal traits to one's social functions. This shift is significant in studying Chaucer because it allows a new angle to revisit Chaucer the man and his work. But before exploring Chaucer's social function, a review of what the social role an intellectual is supposed to play in the field of modern intellectual study should not be redundant.

The social roles intellectuals are supposed to play are multiple. But modern intellectuals are a group of people who seem to share the same aura or trait of being oppositional and critical. This characteristic derives from a complex of negative implications of "intellectual."^〔15〕 The most significant and particularly relevant to the present subject is the use of it in France during the Dreyfus Affair. For the first time in history, the notion of "intellectual" was attributed a new sense—the critical feature. Those who signed on the protest of Zola's Manifeste des intellectuals during the Affair "produced themselves as a collective entity through their public identification with a critical, oppositional stance" (Copeland 25), an identification that crosses the bounds of established social and professional lines.^〔16〕 They were of many different professions, such as writers, scientists, lawyers, physicians, academics, industrialists. What counted more then and there was the common oppositional stance they courageously held rather than the differences between their professions and social status. They were intellectuals not only because they were people who had knowledge and intelligence, or to use Lipset's phrase, "who create(d), distribute(d), and apply(ied) culture" (311), though many of them actually fulfilled this role, but also and more importantly, because of their critical and oppositional public attitude toward the status quo. Since then "intellectual" has become a sociological label. It refers to a group of people "who never seem satisfied with things as they are," as Coser points out (xiii).^〔17〕

Coser's identification of intellectuals with opponents is not a solo voice but one in the chorus. It responds to a recurring theme in the symphony of intellectual studies and has been frequently echoed. Even before Coser, Julien Benda has stated that intellectuals are extraordinarily intelligent and are highly moral philosopher-kings. They constitute the conscience of human beings. The real intellectuals are similar to ancient clerics in that both are devoted to non-material profit. As he says, real intellectuals are "those whose activity is essentially not the pursuit of practical aims, all those who seek their joy in the practice of an art or a science or metaphysical speculation, in short in the possession of non-material advantages" (43). Highlighted are the intellectuals' moral responsibilities rather than their individual talents, their responsibility for the society, for the human beings as a whole.

Though it is generally agreed that intellectuals should hold the responsibility of helping to advance the world towards perfection, academic focuses are somewhat different when it comes to ways of practicing that responsibility. How to give full play to this sense of responsibility, as well as to their intelligence, is suggested by Russell Jacoby. Similar to Benda in insisting on intellectuals' social responsibility, Jacoby lays emphasis on their specialty in participating in public affairs. His idea is best expressed by his celebrated self-coined phrase "public intellectual" (207 ). He advocates in The Last Intellectuals that intellectuals can and should play their roles in politics, society and cultural activities in addition to their respective professional fields. Otherwise, they do not have, in Gramsci's phrase, "the function of intellectuals" (9).^〔18〕

The intellectual's social and public role is more explicitly put forward by Edward Said. His thesis is that "the public role of the intellectual" is as an "outsider, 'amateur,' and disturber of the status quo" (xiv). According to him, "the principal intellectual duty is the search for relative independence from such pressures" (xiv). And hence he characterizes intellectuals "as exile and marginal, as amateur, and as the author of a language that tries to speak the truth to power" (xiv). What grips him in the intellectual is "a spirit in opposition, rather than accommodation," though at the same time, he admits that "intellectuals are not required to be humorless complainers" (xv). In all, despite the variety and complexity of the definition, what has been receiving increasing attention is the notion that intellectuals, at least in the modern sense, share the quality of being critical and oppositional; much advocated are intellectuals' independence and disinterestedness.

This similarity can be elaborated further by looking into the classification of intellectuals. No less various than the definition, the classification provides another clue to examining the intellectuals' social roles. Gramsci's monumental classification of intellectuals into the "traditional" and the "organic" is based on their social function. ^〔19〕Foucault's division into "specific intellectual" and "universal intellectual" (Rabinow 68) and Kellner's division into "functional intellectual" and "critical intellectual" (41—42), though different in definition and dimension, both take into consideration the relationship between the intellectuals' specific knowledge or capability and their universal concern about human beings.^〔20〕 Their classifications are similar to Gramsci's in that they all concern the intellectuals' social function.

Such classifications of modern intellectuals are also significant in respect of medieval intellectuals. Le Goff borrows Gramsci's schema and takes medieval intellectuals to be after all "organic", because they are under a double bureaucracy—secular and ecclesiastical, and thus faithful servants of the Church and the state. But he also finds that the gradual emergence of university academics, as the university acquired more "freedom," effectively cultivated a critical sense. Abelard, Thomas Aquinas, Siger of Brabant and Wycliff are in the list of such who are to some extent "critical intellectuals" (xvi).^〔21〕

All these studies on the intellectual share a few central interests. They all question what the same work intellectuals do, or should do, in common, despite their different professions; and what kind of relationship intellectuals have with the powers and the public. A study on Chaucer as an intellectual also seeks to answer these questions, with a review on Chaucer's personal characteristics and his social attributes.

As a medieval court poet, Chaucer's social role has something to do with another origin of the term "intellectual." In the medieval time, the referring of intellectuals was usually reserved for the clergy who knew Latin and worked in the Church. However, a group of men who were termed laicus, or layman, appeared. They were either unable to use Latin, regardless of their social status, or not connected to the Church, that is, they knew Latin, but they did not work for the Church.^〔22〕 Thus intellectuals became involved in both ecclesiastical and secular affairs. Gradually, the dichotomy and distinction between the two realms were blurred because of these intellectuals. They played the role of the clergy, such as teachers and writers, although writing works of literature was not yet considered a profession in itself.

These laymen or intellectuals carried out the tasks which were once considered exclusively appropriate for the clergy. When they worked in or out of the court, they became more and more influential, especially when they wrote in the vernacular and their audience became the entire society at large. Those who wrote works of literature were later referred to as "men of letters." They sold their skill in writing for a living. Chaucer was doubtlessly an intellectual in the sense of a "man of letters." He shared much with those great poets in Italy, such as Boccaccio and Petrarch. They all took literature as the means to fulfill their own personal ambitions. So Chaucer had the convenience of playing his social roles as a poet.

Other than his literacy-enabled cultural identity, where Chaucer was socially located and how he played a double role in both the literary and social worlds are as, if not more, central to his possible identity as an intellectual in the modern sense.

The relationship between Chaucer the poet and Chaucer the courtier is a good starting point. Chaucer's identity as a poet and translator, connected with his position as a court functionary, may find precedence in his French contemporary Eustache Deschamps.^〔23〕 Deschamps' having such a connection and his similarity with Chaucer in both holding a governmental position and achieving well in poetry writing suggest the social dimensions of poetry writing. The connection between poetic composition and public position, that is, how poets may possibly express explicitly or implicitly their social views in their artistic endeavor, becomes a key issue. Although there is no direct evidence that Chaucer enjoyed any special favoritism from patrons for his poetry, it will not be without foundation to predicate that his writing "served as evidence of capabilities that made him successful in court service and that in some cases could have constituted such service" (G. Olson 568).

Taken as a court poet, though, Chaucer wrote neither merely to please the royal audience, nor to seek patronage. He did sometimes seem to write for the sake of royal commission. The Book of the Duchess has been widely taken to be a piece written for John of Gaunt, who was grieving over the death of his wife Blanche in 1368.^〔24〕 But most of his other works have no direct linkage to any specific occasions of royal or magnate patronage. The final scene of the House of Fame, with the apparently unfulfilled promise by a "man of gret auctorite" (l.2158), is no longer read as any particular social announcement. Instead, it is taken to be a reflection on literary authority and reputation. Scholars, who tend to search for evidence of occasional events in Chaucer's works, have been tempted to connect the Parliament of Fowls with Richard Ⅱ's marriage negotiations. Yet, much ink on the formel's more arrogant attitude as to postponing her decision, and the diverse comments made by birds of the lower classes might be more offending than fawning to the monarch himself. The Legend of Good Women is taken as a response and apology to members in the court who were displeased by Chaucer's unfavorable treatment of women in Troilus and Criseyde. But this is also based more on speculation than on solid evidence. As G. Olson points out,

Most of his work seems not to have been the direct product of commission, or at least of royal commission. Rather, within the combination of household and administrative cultures in which he functioned, he seems to have been more interested in finding a sympathetic audience for his work than in securing royal approval of it, preferring "lateral allegiance" to this group over the hierarchical relationship entailed in patronage. (570)

In fact, no Chaucer manuscript survives as a presentation copy for a royal patron.

Despite the lack of direct connection between his literary writing and advancement in the world of affairs, Chaucer as a courtier, whose job was to serve and satisfy the kings and the royal connections, could hardly be expected to be an intellectual in the sense of being critical of and in opposition to the seat of power. At least, it is not sensible to expect him to be daring enough to offend the monarch publicly and directly by writing poems that would often be read aloud to the court audience. However, it is too hasty to decide that Chaucer is a court poet in the commonly accepted sense of a prince-pleaser. It might be true that his early writings, which were completed when he was a household servant, have the taint of catering to the royal tastes. But this is not the case with his later writings, especially with some tales in the Canterbury Tales, which were mainly written after he retreated from the public sphere. His separation from London and retreat to his library seems a result of his loss of office, a possible side-effect of Richard's loss of power. So by then, he seemed to have broken with the courtly tradition he followed closely in his early years, the tradition that dealt with love, toned to please the court audience. Now he commenced on writing social satire, such as some of the tales in the Canterbury Tales, and even turned his attention to some scientific writing, which might appear more objective and also safer from any censure. Therefore, to some extent, Chaucer's career experience at least helps to our understanding of his literary works even if it does not provide an explanation of them.

The foregoing analysis shows a complex relationship between Chaucer and the power. It is not sensible to draw a hasty conclusion that Chaucer is, or is not, an intellectual in the sense of being critical. Close to Richard Ⅱ, he is naturally thought to have played the role of a counselor in the court. But his status and influence are not comparable to the monarch's tutors like Sir Simon Burley, for example. His close relationship with Richard Ⅱ, which is partly proved by his being entrusted with several secret tasks abroad, will not, however, exclude any possible influence he exerts upon Richard Ⅱ, culturally and politically. So as far as his relation to power is concerned, a safer and more convincing conclusion might be drawn only after detailed examination of his role as a courtier, a poet and a counselor, which will be elaborated further in the chapters to follow.

Chaucer's relationship with the public is another important factor in determining the possibility of his being an intellectual. As Regis Debray points out in his study on the French intellectuals, it is the impact upon the masses rather than the education one receives that defines an intellectual. He describes this as moral action, mainly political, but not necessarily party political. It is an endeavor for the sake of the people, for their mind and thought (qtd. in Fruedi 33). Chaucer's impact upon the masses is best exercised in his vernacular imaginative writing rather than in any of his involvement with political and social affairs in reality.

Vernacular writings were international in the fourteenth century. Chaucer followed the example of the Italian "greats," such as Dante and Petrarch, and tried his hand writing in English, a language which was then still conceived as shameful and inferior both to Latin, the orthodox, and to French, the "noble" language in England. It is wrong to take Chaucer as the first who wrote in English at that time, though he was indeed the first who used it in literary writing in such a competent way as to bestow it the grace of French, and the solemnity of Latin. Significantly, it is his deliberate choice rather than an unconscious action following the emergence of the popularity of vernacular writing. On the one hand, his choice of writing in vernacular English apparently results from the literary influence upon him of other vernacular works that he probably acquired when traveling to those countries. On the other hand, it is arguable that Chaucer's complex social situation must have contributed to it too. The complexity of his social identity—merchant, court poet, and official—will inevitably contribute to his literary choices, including his choice of language, style, subject, and genre. The choice of both language and artistic devices would naturally be relevant to his awareness of the multiple audiences.

As a court poet, Chaucer was well aware of his audience, consisting of the royal members, the royal servants who were his equals or near equals, and also the possible existence of readers, instead of an audience, outside the court. Composing his poems, Chaucer would inevitably consider the factors that would determine the acceptance of them. In fact, Strohm has argued forcefully for the interaction between Chaucer the author and the audience of his poetry in his Social Chaucer. Yet,

Linked thus to a variety of communities—mercantile, courtly, administrative and humanistically bookish—and alert to the varied sensibilities of each, Chaucer maintained no complete identification with any single one. The resultant distinction between self and estate is reflected in a poetry that more than any other of its time gives prominence to individual subjectivity. (G. Olson 569)

This subjectivity, fully explored by Patterson in his Chaucer and the Subject of History as indicating reflection and self-questioning, is in fact one of the special features of an intellectual. Chaucer is a poet who has strong self-consciousness in not only his literary experiment and acceptance, but also in the wakening of self. In this sense, he was also an enlightener.

Chaucer's way of enlightening reminds us of Chomsky's agreement with Paulo Freire. Both Chomsky and Freire hold that writing "is an avenue to social and political empowerment of the disenfranchised," because it can lead to "critical consciousness" (Olson and Worsham 56). People who can participate in that have ways of enriching their own thought, of enlightening others, of entering into constructive discourse with others by which they shall all gain (Olson and Worsham 57). The "entering into constructive discourse with others which they all gain by" lays an adequate emphasis on both the role of a writer as an intellectual in using discourse to construct, and that of the audience, real or imagined, to whom he would transmit or share his ideas. The "enlightening of others" has special significance in understanding Chaucer as an intellectual.

Chaucer's writing in vernacular English, if not a deliberate choice, is at least a welcomed side effect, enlightening those who were lower in social status and had no access to Latin or French. In this sense, his vernacular writing played a similar role to Englishing the Bible at that time.

However, language is not the only factor that contributes to the enlightening role of his works. His artistic devices, such as questioning and leaving open the questions, also have significance on understanding Chaucer's role of an enlightener. In fact, Chaucer's works are, according to Belsey. mainly interrogative in the sense that they pose questions by enlisting the readers in contradiction (83—84). His aim of arraying questions without giving any answer is to arouse the audience's awareness of the problems and to urge them to think, judge and decide all by themselves. He is a prompter, an enlightener rather than a didactic instructor forcing people to accept certain doctrines. His way of teaching, as Chomsky puts it, "is not a matter of pouring water into a vessel but of helping a flower to grow in its own way" (Olson and Worsham 55). He "light(s) the world with sense and color," for he both lights the world with the rational sense of an extraordinary intelligence, and meanwhile actually challenges the authority of the privileged, of institutions, even of beliefs that have already been well received (Knapp 141). In this sense, he stood at the frontier of his age when hierarchical structure was still the mainstream, though some new classes or estates began to arise. Consequently his enlightening became a stability-shaking force in an age when the Church still exercised considerable power and authority and religion still permeated people's lives.

The stimulating effect of Chaucer's poetry was later echoed by Virginia Woolf in her comment in The Common Reader:

Chaucer lets us go our ways doing the ordinary things with the ordinary people. His morality lies in the way men and women behave to each other. We see them eating, drinking, laughing, and making love, and come to feel without a word being said what their standards are and so are steeped through and through with their morality. There can be no more forcible preaching than this where all actions and passions are represented, and instead of being solemnly exhorted we are left to stray and stare and make out a meaning for ourselves. (18)

All in all, the notion of "intellectual" and its multiple layers offer some fresh perspectives to revisit Chaucer the man, and the man's works. The Chaucer-as-intellectual interrogation shall also enable us to partake in the discussion of "intellectual" as well. In a sense, this study may hopefully become a kaleidoscope of modern intellectual studies, and meanwhile the value and variety of Chaucer and his works will be more keenly recognized.

The Layout of the Book

Studies on Chaucer's intellectuality have been touched upon briefly. But no systematic discussion regarding Chaucer as an intellectual in both general and modern sense exists till now. Medievalists agree on Chaucer's intelligence in his social life and literary world, but they fail to see and argue plainly and systematically the interaction in between from this particular perspective. Even on Chaucer's role as a social commentator, there exist more disagreements than agreements due to the peculiar evasiveness in Chaucer's writing. No one has made detailed analysis on his ambiguous and evasive style by taking into serious account Chaucer's social position in his time. Nor has comparative study been made on the relationship between Chaucer and the traditional Chinese intellectual Shi. Their shared wisdom in living, writing and pursuing of spiritual freedom when they were bodily confined by the social circumstances has not yet been exposed. Therefore, the book attempts to study Chaucer's characteristics as an intellectual by examining the social roles he played as a medieval court poet, revealing his wisdom in both his worldly life and his literary career. In this way, the book hopes to paint a full portrayal of Chaucer as an intellectual, elaborating the interrelationship between his writing and his living, his text and his context.

After a retrospective study on the concept of "intellectual," and a review of those scholars who have touched on this issue, the introductory part primarily argues for the plausibility and significance of a systematic study on Chaucer as an intellectual. The definitions and classifications of the concept help to illuminate the bi-foci of the notion: one indicating the personal wisdom of the intellectual, the other concerning the intellectual's social function, a more contested point in modern intellectual study. Then Chaucer's intelligence and his social function as a court poet are examined in sequence and the three key aspects of the study on him as an intellectual is introduced: his role of a social commentator, of an enlightener, and his wisdom exhibited in both his private writing and his public world.

From both a historical and a modern view, Chapter One explores the social roles traditional intellectuals in the court played as prince-pleasers and/or counselors, and the modern intellectuals' function as social critics. It elaborates on the complex relationship of the roles Chaucer played as a court poet and a civil servant: his dilemma of pleasing the royal and aristocratic, or providing counseling advice and making criticism. Through a detailed analysis on the Melibee's Tale in the Canterbury Tales, especially its relationship with the genre of "Mirror for Prince," the chapter argues the interrelationship between Chaucer's literary choices and his social roles. It argues that by adopting the genre of "Mirror of Prince" for the Melibee's Tale, Chaucer not only inherited the literary tradition but also achieved his social criticism strategically. The choice of subject, genre, and style may all have social reasons and significance. It is argued thus the inheritance of literary tradition is not the only factor that influences Chaucer's writing. Literary choices are determined by the interaction between literary tradition and the social roles of the writer.

The second chapter continues studying the relationship between Chaucer's work and his social roles under the frame of the interaction between literary texts and their social context. Based on a general survey of the medieval social structure, this chapter starts with a discussion about Chaucer's position in and on the society. Agreeing with Barr on that writings are socioliterary practice, I explore Chaucer's attitude toward the 1381 rebels by comparing Chaucer's treatment of the event in the Nun's Priest's Tale with other contemporary writers' and chroniclers' description of it. The third and fourth sections of this chapter focus on Chaucer's depictions of women and clerics respectively. Sampling on Criseyde, "the false woman" in Troilus and Criseyde, and the Wife of Bath in the Canterbury Tales, the round and also most contested women characters in Chaucer, the third section argues for Chaucer's denial of making any simple moral judgment. The fourth focuses on Chaucer's attitude towards the clerics. Offering literary portraits of contemporary clerics, Chaucer betrayed his dissatisfaction with the corruptions of some of the clerics, though still calmly, without radical criticism upon them. Chaucer's concern with the social events, the fate of women, and the problems of the clerics exhibits his role of an intellectual as a social commentator.

Chapter Three elaborates on Chaucer's enlightening role as an intellectual. Clearing up the mystery of "authority" in medieval time, the focus is laid on Chaucer's negotiating with the authority(ies), which is manifested in both his literary creation and his reflection on male superiority. This chapter exposes Chaucer's ingenuity in taking advantages of the authorities—the sources taken as canon, and his paradoxical relationship with them, in the sense that he established his own authority in literature by exploiting the authorities. In terms of gender authority, the tension between the male and the female in Chaucer's work is expanded to a conflict between the authority embodied in men and the experience embodied in women. Being a constant issue in Chaucer's work, the opposition between authority and experience is manifestative in the Wife of Bath's Prologue and Tale. It is argued that Chaucer's Wife of Bath mirrors Chaucer the poet himself: both apply the authorities against the authority.

Chapter Four returns to the discussion of Chaucer's personal wisdom. Nevertheless, the apparent shift of focus doesn't deny the interactive relationship between Chaucer's personal attributes and his public position. It is argued that Chaucer's artistic devices or textual strategies are not a pure matter of literary art, but a way of fulfilling his role of a social commentator. Compared with Shi, the traditional Chinese intellectuals, Chaucer's wisdom in both his private writing and his public life is illuminated. Both Chaucer and Shi shared the same wisdom, knowing how to survive in an age of turmoil without giving up their spiritual pursuit.

On the basis of a close reading of Chaucer's works, and with the reference to Chaucer's critical heritage and the related documents concerning the history and the culture of his time, the dissertation tries to read the interaction between Chaucer's text and the historical, social and cultural context of his time. Thanks to its double threads: the general sense and the modern sense, the notion of "intellectual" lends itself to an advantageous perspective of doing so. It allows a new angle to see the interaction between Chaucer's literary works and his social roles. Chaucer's intellectuality can be perceived, not only in his knowledge and intelligence, but also, more importantly, in his ambivalent and dual roles of both a counselor and a critic, in the skeptical challenge and enlightening effects in his poetry, and in his wisdom exhibited in both his literary and social life.

The attempt to examine Chaucer's poems both on their literary attributes and their social and cultural context is both textually and contextually meaningful. The interaction between the text and the context helps us see not only the social and cultural significance of Chaucer's textual strategies, furthering a better understanding of the excellence of the writing itself, but also Chaucer's importance and influence as an intellectual upon the society and the culture.

注释

〔1〕　Many people in the English-speaking countries take "intellectual" as the synonym of "intelligentsia," which refers to a group of Russians emerging from about 1840s. They are social elites who have good manners, are well educated, but hold an oppositional posture to the status quo. Gradually, the word is used normally to emphasize the antagonist meaning.

〔2〕　As for Chaucer's education, despite all the speculations by historians and biographers, Tout's opinion is more acceptable: "I am convinced that the excellent education which Geoffrey undoubtedly received was the education which the household of a king, or one of the greater magnates, could give to its junior members." (Pearsall, 1992: 34)

〔3〕　See Said, xiv.

〔4〕　See Le Goff, Trans. Teresa Lavender Fagan. 1993, p.xiii. The words are italicized by the author because they denote the approaches adopted in the present book.

〔5〕　According to Le Goff, high-ranking and important theologians and scholastics, teachers and students with a high level of scientific and intellectual achievement and prestige, compilers and encyclopedists, writers instilled with university training and spirit, whose product is theology and scientific knowledge, all of them are categorized in one general group—the intellectual. He also regards as intellectuals professionals, such as men of the church, instructors of grammar and rhetoric, lawyers, judges and notaries, all closely related and playing important roles in the development of towns.

〔6〕　The word "intellectual" functions both as an adjective and a noun. When it is used as an adjective, "intellectual" has generally the following connotations: 1. of or relating to the intellect, especially to a high degree, or use of, especially creative use of, intellect; 2. rational rather than emotional, involving coping with difficult situations, using the power of reasoning, grasping abstract concepts. "It had been an ordinary adjective, from C14, for intelligence in its most general sense," and "retained a neutral general use," in Williams' words (169).

〔7〕　Firstly and basically, the noun form "intellectual" indicates the faculties or processes of intelligence. See The Oxford English Dictionary, Clarendon Press, 1989: 1068. Later it means an intellectual person, that is, a person with high intelligence. It was not until the early nineteenth century that it began to indicate a particular kind of person, or a person doing a particular kind of work, though there were some isolated earlier uses of this sense as well. It is when the word is used in its plural form, which indicates a category of persons, that it begins to be referred to unfavorably. In the entry of "intellectual," Raymond Williams in his Keywords, rightly points out the main reasons for the negative senses round intellectual: "The reasons are complicated but almost certainly include opposition to social and political arguments based on theory or on rational principle. This often connects, curiously, with the distinguishing use of the more or the most intelligent as a governing class, and with opposition, as in Romanticism, to a 'separation' of 'head' and 'heart,' or 'reason' and 'emotion.' Nor can we overlook a crucial kind of opposition to groups engaged in intellectual work, who in the course of social development had acquired some independence from established institutions, in the church and in politics, and who were certainly seeking and asserting such independence through lC18, C19 and C20... From eC20 the new group term 'intelligentsia' was borrowed from Russian... Until mC20 unfavorable uses of intellectuals, intellectualism and intelligentsia were dominant in English, and it is clear that such uses persist. But 'intellectual,' at least, is now often used neutrally, and even at times favourably, to describe people who do certain kinds of intellectual work and especially the most general kinds. Within universities the distinction is sometimes made between specialists or professionals, with limited interests, and intellectuals, with wider interests. More generally, there is often an emphasis on 'direct producers in the sphere of ideology and culture', as distinct from those whose work 'requiring mental effort' is nevertheless primarily administration, distribution, organization or (as in certain forms of teaching) repetition (cf. Debray). " (169)

〔8〕　For other bibliography of Chaucer Studies on science, see Allen and Fisher, The Essential Chaucer, entries 215—224, 69—71.

〔9〕　See Geoffrey Shepherd, "Religion and Philosophy in Chaucer", in Brewer, Geoffrey Chaucer, Writers and Their Background. London: G. Bell & Sons, 1974. Reprinted. Athens: Ohio University Press, 1976, pp.262—289. For other bibliography on this subject, see Allen and Fisher, The Essential Chaucer, entries 205—214, 66—69.

〔10〕　See "An Encyclopedia of Kinds" in Cooper's The Structure of the "Canterbury Tales 1983. Reprinted in Corinne Saunders, Chaucer, 2001, 218—239.

〔11〕　For this part, I was inspired by Wang Zengjing's discussion of the "three 'I'" factors in defining "intellectual." According to Wang, intellectuals are those who are highly intelligent, have persistent and intense interest in nature or social issues, and meanwhile have produced something innovative. This definition, though to some extent repetition of the previous studies, such as intelligence, concern of one's social role, and the creativity, is significant because of the qualification of these features. The quality of being "highly," and of being "persistent and intense," distinguishes a minor group from the masses who are also intelligent and sometimes may also be interested in nature myth and social problems. Only those with the special "three 'I'" features, who have made great contribution to human life, are qualified for the title, and hence a study on them worthwhile.

〔12〕　See Strohm, Literary Practice and Social Change, in Patterson, 1990, 83.

〔13〕　As Raymond Williams rightly and also depressingly states, "Until mC20 unfavourable uses of intellectuals, intellectualism and intelligentsia were dominant in English, and it is clear that such uses persist" (170). The reasons for its negative senses are complicated, but among them one that is relevant to the present study is "the opposition to groups engaged in intellectual work, who in the course of social development had acquired some independence from established institutions, in the church and in politics, and who were certainly seeking and asserting such independence through lC18, C19 and C20" (Williams, 170). Wang Zengjing analyzes the origin of the word in Russian and in French. In Russian, the word has the implications of people who are 1. social elites; 2. morally concerned and advocates of social progress; 3. well-educated. In French, the word means 1. people who are well-educated; 2. who are the guardians of social justice. But in English, especially the modern use of it, it is rather a synonym of opponent, or dissenter, neglecting the original basic meaning of an intelligent person.

〔14〕　This has been well echoed in Eyerman's categorization. He conveniently divides various attempts to define the noun-form intellectual into two broad categories: those attributing personal characteristics and those that look to social structure and function (1). Though apparently simple, this division is inspirational. It introduces two key factors in the discussion of "intellectual": one's personal characteristics and one's social role, with the latter being most contested in modern society.

〔15〕　See Williams' Keywords for detailed history of the positive and negative implication of intellectuals as a group, 169—171.

〔16〕　See Copeland, 25. As for the case of Dreyfus Affair, see the same page and also Eyerman, 23.

〔17〕　To Coser, scholastic researchers and professionals are not necessarily intellectuals. Those who confine themselves within their professional fields are not qualified intellectuals. Only those who are attempting to explore the ultimate meaning and values, and those who are not satisfied with the status quo and conventions, deserve this title.

〔18〕　See Gramsci, 5—23.

〔19〕　In the first place there are the "traditional" professional intellectuals, literary, scientific and so on, whose position in the interstices of society has a certain inter-class aura about it but derives ultimately from past and present class relations and conceals an attachment to various historical class formations. Secondly, there are the "organic" intellectuals, the thinking and organizing element of a particular fundamental social class. These organic intellectuals are distinguished less by their profession, which may be any job characteristic of their class, than by their function in directing the ideas and aspirations of the class to which they organically belong. For Gramsci, organic intellectuals are a product of modern society. They are more closely attached to and more dependent upon a certain class, usually the dominant one. They are, to say the least, blasphemers if not betrayers, to borrow Benda's words, of the sacred ideal that intellectuals should regard their duty or calling as the pursuit of universal truth or goodness.

〔20〕　See Douglas Keller, "Intellectuals, the New Public Spheres, and Techno-Politics" in New Political Science, No 41—42 Winter 1997. Refer to http://www.brooklynsoc.org/toulouse/cyberpol/kellner.html.

〔21〕　Critical intellectuals were traditionally those who utilized their skills of speaking and writing to denounce injustices and abuses of power, and to fight for truth, justice, progress, and other positive values.

〔22〕　Although some of these intellectuals might join the church, mainly for economic and social reasons, they maintained a strong interest in secular culture (e. g. Boccaccio).

〔23〕　In the first line of the envoy of Deschamps' ballade, which appeared in a letter to Chaucer, he addressed Chaucer as "poete hault, loenge d' escuirie" [exalted poet, pride of squiredom] (G. Olson 567).

〔24〕　See Strohm, Literary Practice and Social Change, in Patterson, 1990, 83.