按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
superstitions； and ecclesiastical abuses of the times。 In these we
see the need of the reformation of which Wyclif was the morning
light。 In these we see the hypocrisies and sensualities of both
monks and friars； relieved somewhat by the virtues of the simple
parish priest or poor parson； in contrast with the wealth and
luxury of the regular clergy； as monks were called； in their
princely monasteries； where the lordly abbot vied with both baron
and bishop in the magnificence of his ordinary life。 We see before
us the Mediaeval clergy in all their privileges； and yet in all
their ignorance and superstition； shielded from the punishment of
crime and the operation of all ordinary laws （a sturdy defiance of
the temporal powers）； the agents and ministers of a foreign power；
armed with the terrors of hell and the grave。 Besides the prioress
and the nuns' priest； we see in living light the habits and
pretensions of the lazy monk； the venal friar and pardoner； and the
noisy summoner for ecclesiastical offences： hunters and gluttons
are they； with greyhounds and furs；； greasy and fat； and full of
dalliances； at home in taverns； unprincipled but agreeable
vagabonds； who cheat and rob the people； and make a mockery of what
is most sacred on the earth。 These privileged mendicants； with
their relics and indulgences； their arts and their lies； and the
scandals they create； are treated by Chaucer with blended humor and
severity； showing a mind as enlightened as that of the great
scholar at Oxford； who heads the movement against Rome and the
abuses at which she connived if she did not encourage。 And there
is something intensely English in his disgust and scorn；brave for
his day； yet shielded by the great duke who was at once his
protector and friend； as he was of Wyclif himself；in his severer
denunciation； and advocacy of doctrines which neither Chaucer nor
Duke of Lancaster understood； and which； if they had； they would
not have sympathized with nor encouraged。 In these attacks on
ecclesiastics and ecclesiastical abuses； Chaucer should be studied
with Wyclif and the early reformers； although he would not have
gone so far as they； and led； unlike them； a worldly life。 Thus by
these poems he has rendered a service to his country； outside his
literary legacy； which has always been held in value。 The father
of English poetry belonged to the school of progress and of
inquiry； like his great contemporaries on the Continent。 But while
he paints the manners； customs； and characters of the fourteenth
century； he does not throw light on the great ideas which agitated
or enslaved the age。 He is too real and practical for that。 he
describes the outward； not the inner life。 He was not serious
enoughI doubt if he was learned enoughto enter into the
disquisitions of schoolmen； or the mazes of the scholastic
philosophy； or the meditations of almost inspired sages。 It is not
the joys of heaven or the terrors of hell on which he discourses；
but of men and women as they lived around him； in their daily
habits and occupations。 We must go to Wyclif if we would know the
theological or philosophical doctrines which interested the
learned。 Chaucer only tells how monks and friars lived； not how
they speculated or preached。 We see enough； however； to feel that
he was emancipated from the ideas of the Middle Ages； and had cast
off their gloom； their superstition； and their despair。 The only
things he liked of those dreary times were their courts of love and
their chivalric glories。
I do not propose to analyze the poetry of Chaucer； or enter upon a
critical inquiry as to his relative merits in comparison with the
other great poets。 It is sufficient for me to know that critics
place him very high as an original poet； although it is admitted
that he drew much of his material from French and Italian authors。
He was； for his day； a great linguist。 He had travelled
extensively； and could speak Latin； French； and Italian with
fluency。 He knew Petrarch and other eminent Italians。 One is
amazed that in such an age he could have written so well； for he
had no great models to help him in his own language。 If
occasionally indecent； he is not corrupting。 He never deliberately
disseminates moral poison； and when he speaks of love； he treats
almost solely of the simple and genuine emotions of the heart。
The best criticism that I have read of Chaucer's poetry is that of
Adolphus William Ward； although as a biography it is not so full or
so interesting as that of Godwin or even Morley。 In no life that I
have read are the mental characteristics of our poet so ably
drawn；〃his practical good sense；〃 his love of books； his still
deeper love of nature； his naivete； the readiness of his
description； the brightness of his imagery； the easy flow of his
diction； the vividness with which he describes character； his
inventiveness； his readiness of illustration； his musical rhythm；
his gaiety and cheerfulness； his vivacity and joyousness； his
pathos and tenderness； his keen sense of the ridiculous and power
of satire； without being bitter； so that his wit and fun are
harmless； and perpetually pleasing。
He doubtless had great dramatic talent； but he did not live in a
dramatic age。 His especial excellence； never surpassed； was his
power of observing and drawing character； united with boundless
humor and cheerful fun。 And his descriptions of nature are as true
and unstinted as his descriptions of men and women； so that he is
as fresh as the month of May。 In his poetry is life； and hence his
immortal fame。 He is not so great as Spenser or Shakspeare or
Milton； but he has the same vitality as they； and is as wonderful
as they considering his age and opportunities；a poet who
constantly improved as he advanced in life； and whose greatest work
was written in his old age。
Unfortunately； we know but little of Chaucer's habits and
experiences； his trials and disappointments； his friendships or his
hatreds。 What we do know of him raises our esteem。 Though
convivial； he was temperate； though genial； he was a silent
observer； quiet in his manners； modest in his intercourse with the
world； walking with downcast eye； but letting nothing escape his
notice。 He believed in friendship； and kept his friends to the
end； and was stained neither by envy nor by pride；as frank as he
was affectionate； as gentle as he was witty。 Living with princes
and nobles； he never descended to gross adulation； and never wrote
a line of approval of the usurpation of Henry IV。； although his
bread depended on Henry's favor； and he was also the son of the
king's earliest and best friend。 He was not a religious man； nor
was he an immoral man； judged by the standard of his age。 He
probably was worldly； as he lived in courts。 We do not see in him
the stern virtues of Dante or Milton； nothing of that moral
earnestness which marked the only other great man with whom he was
c